The other day, a friend Dylan introduced me to Indexed, a blog of insightful but funny graphs like this:

I’m now absolutely hooked, so wanted to point you towards it and share some of my favourites with you:

Go take a look at Indexed.

[Artwork: Jessica Hagy]

Related posts:

• Back in Newport / Missional church thoughts
• Making mix tapes
• The Struggle for Satisfaction
• Journeys in cyberspace – 21/09/08

A couple of years ago, when Mike Frost was in the UK, there was a big trend towards using community practices amongst those who were part of or leading missional communities. A few different communities, including The Lab, tried out a routine of simple weekly practices that were designed to encourage an everyday, intentional mission lifestyle.

I was wondering what your experience with community practices has been? Do you think they are a good idea? And how much is an overload of different things to do in a week?

With the Lab, I think mostly because of the student/young adult lifestyle, our attempt at integrating community practices into our community rhythm didn’t really work. Our intention was to slide them in over a period of time, building up one by one – but we never made it pass the first practice (to intentionally do something to bless someone else each week).

It did though – for the short period we gave them a go – give us an awareness of a lot of the stuff we were doing already to bless others and each other, and to challenge us to intentionally do things to bless others. For a busy young adult community, though, I think the rigidity of the practices was just too much and too restricting.

The planned nature of the practices didn’t really fit in with the spontaneous way most young adults live.

Or maybe we should have tried harder?

Here are some different examples of practices from other communities that I know have attempted them:

Mike Frost / Small Boat Big Sea

BELLS:

• Seeking to BLESS 3 people each week. One from the community one from beyond and one from either. This might take the form of an encouraging note or email, a phone call, a gift, an act of kindness, …
• Seeking to EAT with 3 people each week we don’t live with. One from the community one from beyond and one from either. This might be a full meal, meeting for a coffee, …
• Seeking to LISTEN to God. Developing a practice of listening so that we take time, at least once each week, to listen to God’s voice. This might take the form of a prayer walk along a beach, mediation, …
• Seeking to LEARN Jesus each week. Developing a discipline of studying the Scriptures or reading other literature to gain insights into the nature of God. A priority being given to the Gospel stories and to learning Jesus.
• Seeing their life vocation as being SENT by God. Looking for ways in which daily routines are expressions of God’s calling on our lives and recognising the ways in which we have been SENT to do his work.

A couple of years ago these were the practices that Mike Frost’s Small Boat Big Sea community used, and that are covered in his book Exiles. Since then, though, their practices have become a rhythm – more fluid and less specific:

We encourage one another to live by a simple rhythm – Look, Listen, Learn, Live. So we regularly think:

• Look – How can I be attentive to God and to others this week? What have I seen or heard of God’s work in my world?
• Listen – To whom can I make myself vulnerable this week & in what ways have I opened myself others?
• Learn – What have I learned from God’s Word this week & in what ways am I seeking to embody that learning?
• Live – How can I make myself available to God for his purposes this week?

It’s interesting that they’ve made this move to something much more fluid and less prescriptive – perhaps something more like this is more useful?

Tim Chester and Mark Berry also have examples of rhythms they use in their communities.

What do you think?

• Do you find a community rhythm or practices useful? prescriptive?
• What practices do you / would you use?

Related posts:

• Discipleship in a Low Commitment culture (or “why I hate the Facebook Maybe”)
• Life, Lab and Stuff
• Mike Frost in Oxford
• Looking backwards and forwards at The Lab

In what ways is transformation a metaphor for mission, and how does this affect our understanding of mission and the way we approach it?

Transformation is a key element of mission – and it’s also one of the big indicators that our missional work is having an effect.

But what if rather than looking at transformation as a result of mission, we looked at transformation as a metaphor for mission itself?

Transformation is when everything changes

Transformation is about change, whether that change is slow and longterm or rapid and sudden. But change needs to happen before that change becomes transformation? We can all talk about biblical figures or communities which were transformed by an encounter with God, but what does that mean?

Perhaps it’s useful to understand transformation like this:

Transformation is when a system/society’s “formational” principle  shifts (trans-) from one central narrative or principle to another.

So, using this working definition, transformation can be a cultural shift where the very centre of a culture or society – the values and story which has formed and shaped it – is replaced with a different, hopefully better, understanding.

The same definition could apply to the individual – where the story or narrative and the values at the very centre of their worldview shift to something different.

Sounds a lot like mission.

Mission as Transformation

So, using transformation as an image, we can understand the Mission of God as an individual or cultural shift, replacing another central story with God’s story as the story their identity and life is built on.

We can also understand this as a paradigm shift.

Radical change or gradual change?

So, the result of transformation is clearly a person or community that looks radically different than before, based on an entirely different set of values. But does that change need to be sudden, or can it happen gradually?

One argument would say that a paradigm is like a planet with its own gravitational pull – so unless there is enough thrust to break out of the gravitational pull of the old paradigm, we can never make it far enough to reach the new before being pulled back to the old one again.

So, therefore the changing force needs to be strong enough to break free entirely of the old paradigm. However, on breaking free of the old paradigm – the attractional pull of the new should be enough to draw us in even if there is no force left from the initial pull.

The force is in the reaction

So, therefore, the intial force for transformation isn’t necessarily in the attractional force of a new better paradigm, but in the reactional force away from the old. It isn’t in the reconstruction of something new, but instead in the deconstruction of the old – which must be forceful enough to break free of the old.

Then, once adrift of the old, we are free for the attractional force of the new to slowly draw us towards a new way of living and being.

Your thoughts?

What do you think about this radical understanding of transformation as a viewpoint into the Mission of God?

• Is it too reactional?
• Is it too radical – forcefully de-constructing the old paradigm?
• What could its practical application be?
• Have you seen or attempted yourself a form of mission which is this radical?

Catch up with the rest of the Missional Viewpoints series.
[Photo Credit: Ans De Blauwe]

Related posts:

• Missional Viewpoints 3: Mission and Healing
• “Missional Viewpoints” – A summer blog series
• Missional Viewpoints 2: Mission as Salvation
• Missional engagement and reflective learning

Mission and Learning – Part 2

Church programs or individual lives?

Is engaging in mission the job of communities of people together – or is it primarily about individuals living intentional lives of mission?

Part of the discussion following my last post on Mission and Learning was about whether missional engagement and learning should be understood as a group process or as an individual process. Is it that we each have an individual call of join God’s mission or is mission something which must be worked through in community?

Mission as the outworking of community

If mission is about building the Kingdom of God through authentic, loving relationships and supporting others, then it must be an outworking of community.

It can’t just be something we each do on an individual level.

In fact, we could define mission itself as the art of making and growing community.

And there must, at its very core, be a corporate dimension to the learning that takes place from engaging in mission. Stories need to be shared with one another, dreams dreamt out loud with others who feel similarly, and there needs to be a place for individual reflection to be challenged and drawn out through group reflection and dialogue.

There also needs to be a collaborative nature to the way we engage in mission. Lessons need to be learnt together by transferring and teaching skills, and learning together through trial and error. Working together allows us to invest resources that we otherwise wouldn’t have had, and to grow projects and ideas in a way that an individual alone wouldn’t be able to.

The problem with programs

The trouble, though, with this communal understanding of mission is that often it allows individuals to abdicate responsibility. A sense of personal responsibility is lost, and instead individuals begin to engage in and understand mission purely through a church’s programs and services provided for the local community.

Once missional engagement becomes incorporated into a system where participants no longer need to think at a higher level, suddenly programs become a barrier to learning.

Mission engagement in a way which is concrete rather than intuitive is a barrier to experiential learning.

There is no point playing at moving the furniture around if its all already been nailed to the floor.

Recovering an understanding of Personhood

Perhaps a solution to this problem of communities vs. individuals is to recover an understanding of what personhood really means. This understanding of personhood draws from the very nature of God as the trinity.

The Latin word used to describe the three “persons” that make up the trinity, is the word Persona. This was the word used to describe the masks that Greek and Roman actors would wear to portray a particular role – the outward sign of the way a particular character was related to the audience and related with the other characters in the play.

So, to be a person, rather than just an individual, we must be in relationship with other persons/people. Our person is defined by the way others relate to us and what of ourselves we relate to others. The trinity are one, but at the same time are three personas, relating to themselves in three distinct ways.

So, to become a whole human person in a philosophical/theological sense, is the integration of an inner identity with an outer persona. The mask becomes transparent so that others see our real identity.

Engaging in mission as people

Perhaps to understand the individual and community dimensions to engaging in mission, we need to build our understanding around this trinitarian understanding of personhood.

We are created to do mission in community – but as separate personas/persons/people.

We need to be one, collaboratively engaging in mission and corporately learning together from our collective experience. However, we also need to understand ourselves as separate distinct people, each with an individual calling to join God’s mission.

Engaging in mission as people enables our learning, reflection and discernment to have a corporate, community dimension, but also provides space for individual learning.

Taking personhood seriously means:

• Organising programs and projects in such a way that they enable individual people to shine through and develop whilst:
• Ensuring their individual learning and reflection can be drawn into a wider, corporate learning process.

And:

• Creating space and empowering individual people to live intentional, missional lives whilst:
• Ensuring that the corporate discernment and learning of the community is drawn into and out from the learning and reflection of the people.

What are your thoughts?

• Is this a helpful framework for you?
• Does it stand up to your critique?
• What is the practical application for you of engaging in God’s mission as a person?

Please feel free to comment and add to the discussion!

Catch up with the rest of the Mission & Learning series.
[Photo Credit: Choconancy]

Related posts:

• The Reflective Cycle [Mission & Learning 1]
• Missional Viewpoints 3: Mission and Healing
• Top Blog Posts of 2009 and Plans for 2010
• 5 Top Blog Posts for January

So, over the last month I’ve been attempting to organise my blogging a lot more, focusing on investing time in the topics I want to research and learn more of and trying to be more methodical and more consistent with my writing.

I’d like to invite you to read over some of the popular posts you missed, and feel free to comment or discuss anything you find interesting. Here are some of the posts over the last month which have proved most popular with you guys:

5. Faith & Consumerism amongst Young Adults

This month I announced the subject of my dissertation which is an exploration of how living in a consumerist culture affects how young adults perceive faith and church:

One of the key elements to my dissertation will be to explore possible responses to consumerism – whether the church should accept and learn to function well in a consumerist culture (Contextualisation) or create and encourage an alternative culture (a kind of counter-cultural response). Or whether a mixture of the two approaches is needed, or better yet: another, third way…

You can read through the whole post here – and feel free to comment!

4. Mission and Learning

My brief exploration of the connection between engaging in mission and learning last year was an interesting and popular topic, so this year I’ve begun to explore that connection further. This first post was an attempt to apply the experiential learning cycle to communities and individuals engaging in mission:

This simple cycle is a really simple, interesting way to understand the whole of human consciousness as we encounter new things, reflect and reach a new understanding, and then act differently based on that new understanding.

It was whilst was looking at different models for understanding mission, that I began to see the similarity between steps in the mission models and steps in the reflective cycle…

This led me to suggest that missional engagement could be sketched out as a variation of the reflective cycle…

Read on here.

3. Haiti: The Church’s Finest Hour

Obviously the earthquake in Haiti was a major piece of news this month, and more than that was an event which called for both a real emotive and practical response from the Church around the world. From amidst the ruins and brokenness, however, already stories of hope have begun to emerge as the people of Haiti begin to support each other:

Haiti’s local churches are rising to the challenge in their quake-ravaged communities – feeding and providing shelter for thousands of the most vulnerable survivors.

By the weekend, four local churches partnering with World Relief will be feeding 9,500 people hot meals – rice and beans for lunch and porridge for dinner – every day…

Check out the whole story.

Please continue to support the people of Haiti in prayer, and by contributing to aid agencies working there.

2. Building the Igloo

At the beginning of the month, we made an igloo in the snow, and I posted some photos and thoughts on our engagement with local young people during the igloo-construction process. In particular making some observations on responding to challenging behaviour and creativity:

In our igloo mission we found something crazy enough that it caught the attention of a fair group of young people. At first it was mainly to ask why we were bothering to make something so huge. But then once they really began to see the igloo take shape, a large group began to get involved really constructively in helping us build it, rolling snow balls and helping to smooth down the walls.

They also really began to take ownership of it, and all packed in to the igloo to enjoy it once it was finished…

Catch the full post here.

1. Does everyone get to go to heaven?

I discussed some of my thoughts on Scot McKnight’s exploration of the book The Evangelical Universalist and on Universalism in general from a theological perspective:

The US religious landscape survey in 2008 announced that 57% of evangelical Christians believe that “many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life.” and whilst those figures have been contested by evangelical groups, it shows a startling number of people who hold a view very different from the mainstream “policy” of the Evangelical movement as a whole…

If that gets your interest, then have a read of the full post.

Related posts:

• Top Blog Posts of 2009 and Plans for 2010
• The Reflective Cycle [Mission & Learning 1]
• IGLOO! – Photos and Reflections on a Snow Day
• Missional engagement and reflective learning

Avatar is now officially the top grossing film of all-time worldwide, making (so far) $1,849,317,325 at the box office – that’s 1.85 billion dollars. I saw it a couple of weeks ago and was captivated simply by the sheer epic proportions of the film, let alone the wealth of meaning and metaphor behind it.

Since Avatar’s release bloggers, journalists and critics have attempted to analyse and reflect on the meaning behind the film. Here are four very different perspectives I’ve read recently, which all bring a different insight into the film’s setting and storyline:

The White Messiah Complex

David Brooks of the New York Times writes that Avatar utilises a plot concept which is in common usage in film, but which is actually highly offensive. The “White Messiah formula”, as he calls it, is the idea that “natives” can never be the heroes of their own storyline but always need their own “white messiah” to lead them and show them the way to their own liberation:

…would it be totally annoying to point out that the whole White Messiah fable, especially as Cameron applies it, is kind of offensive?

It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace. It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration.

“I See You”

Musician, Steve Bell, reflects on one particular aspect of the movie where, within the culture of the alien Na’vi the standard greeting between people, and in particular the two lovers, is “I see you”. He reflects on some stories and memories drawing from this idea of openness and understanding of each other:

A moment in Avatar that struck me was after the obligatory love-interest couple overcame a conflict that threatened to sever their covenant. Once reconciled, the words they speak to each other are, “I see you.”  And it is understood that both seeing and disclosure are sacred gifts.  I have a lovely memory that was triggered by this line, I see you.

The Holocaust We Will Not See

For activist/journalist, George Monbiot, Avatar is a clear metaphor for the story of the Native American people – except that the historical ending wasn’t quite as Hollywood or as happy as in the movie. He is disappointed that others who have been quick to praise the film and its plot-line haven’t been quite as aware of the film’s application as they could have been:

This is why the right hates Avatar. In the neocon Weekly Standard, John Podhoretz complains that the film resembles a “revisionist western” in which “the Indians became the good guys and the Americans the bad guys.” He says it asks the audience “to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency.” Insurgency is an interesting word for an attempt to resist invasion: insurgent, like savage, is what you call someone who has something you want…

But at least the right knows what it is attacking. In the New York Times the liberal critic Adam Cohen praises Avatar for championing the need to see clearly. It reveals, he says, “a well-known principle of totalitarianism and genocide – that it is easiest to oppress those we cannot see”. But in a marvellous unconscious irony, he bypasses the crashingly obvious metaphor and talks instead about the light it casts on Nazi and Soviet atrocities. We have all become skilled in the art of not seeing.

A Metaphor for Evangelism

Blogger, Florin Paladie, sees Avatar as a metaphor for a model of evangelism, where, in contrast to the inflexible and crude methods of the rest of the humans, the main character Jake approaches the alien culture in a way which is sensitive and organic.

He argues that this stands as a valid model for cross-cultural mission as opposed to the, perhaps too eager, missionary methods of the 19th and 20th centuries:

This is where the Avatar movie is a great metaphor for what evangelism could and should become. Although Jake Sully entered Na’vi world initially with an agenda in mind, he got to appreciate their way of life, its beauty so much so that he wanted to become part of it. Eventually his presence there really helped to save them. But it was something organic.

Evangelism should really be a two way street. We enter the other’s world because we really believe we are enriched by the interaction and our horizons will be enlarged.

What did you think?

Was Avatar a great story, a model worth applying or a flawed social commentary?

Feel free to comment below with your thoughts.

Related posts:

• Indy returns…
• Tropic Thunder
• My Top 10 Films of 2009
• Looking backwards and forwards at The Lab

We need to understand participation in God’s Mission as part of our very identity as followers of Jesus. Tim Chester got it spot on, writing on his blog yesterday:

For many people mission has become an event. We have guest services. Evangelistic courses. Street preaching. Youth programmes. There’s nothing wrong with these things. But mission is more than a slot into our schedules. It is an identity and a lifestyle. Mission is about living all of life, ordinary life, with gospel intentionality.

For too long, mission has been something we do – or even worse reduced simply to mean the same as evangelism – instead it’s time for the Church to begin to understand its very nature, and part of our core Christian DNA, as missionary.

I really recommend checking out the rest of Tim’s post.

Related posts:

• Mission isn’t for Communities or Individuals, but for People
• Missional Viewpoints 4: Mission as Transformation
• The Reflective Cycle [Mission & Learning 1]
• Missional Viewpoints 2: Mission as Salvation

Or both?

Part of my dissertation reading has been Zygmunt Bauman’s book, Consuming Life, which describes and explores some of the implications of living in a consumerist society.

Bauman very quickly makes the connection from a society oriented around consuming products to a society which also finds itself consuming each other:

[All] people… are enticed, nudged, or forced to promote an attractive and desirable commodity, and so to try as hard as they can, and using the best means at their disposal, to enhance the market value of the goods they sell. And the commodity they are prompted to put on the market, promote and sell is themselves.

They are, simultaneously, promoters of commodities and the commodities they promote.

(Bauman, p6)

The ultimate result of a cultural trend towards consuming products, rather than creating and producing them, is a society transformed into the image of the market. A web of “relational” transactions between “products”, each evaluated based on the principles of cost, supply and demand.

In such a society, the only option is to enter into the marketplace, and thus be forced to promote your own brand, or be forced into isolation.

(Do you know any well-connected, socially active human beings under 50 who aren’t on Facebook?)

Bauman argues that for years humanity has understood itself to exist as the “object” outside of the consumer market – impartial observers able to look in and see the market for what it is. However, we are now able to understand that absolute objectivity is impossible. In order to participate in a consumerist culture, we are unable to remain the “object”, but must resign ourselves to being “subjects” – part of the consumer system itself.

But unfortunately, as Bauman observes, “In the society of consumers no one can become a subject without first turning into a commodity.” (p12)

Do you ever feel like a commodity to be consumed?

• Is life basically just a series of transactions made between people – or is there something deeper happening?
• What ways can you see out of the consumer trap?
• Where’s God in this understanding of how society works?

Please contribute your thoughts by adding a comment, and help critique this understanding of society and culture.

In the next couple of weeks, I’ll be exploring more of the implications of a consumerist culture and begin to trace some possible ways out, drawing links between the sociology and the theology.

Related posts:

• Faith & Consumerism amongst Young Adults
• Missional Viewpoints 1: Mission as Liberation
• From the garden to the city
• First day back at college: Assorted Thoughts on Culture

World Relief has been empowering local churches to respond to the disaster in Haiti. From their news update:

Haiti’s local churches are rising to the challenge in their quake-ravaged communities – feeding and providing shelter for thousands of the most vulnerable survivors.

By the weekend, four local churches partnering with World Relief will be feeding 9,500 people hot meals – rice and beans for lunch and porridge for dinner – every day.

A local church in the Carrefour area has opened its doors to those who lost their homes, providing refuge for nearly 6,000 people in the community.  Stepping out in faith, Pastor Jean Bathard Anthony began feeding the people with what few supplies he had.  Now World Relief has come alongside Pastor Jean, assisting with food and water.

Meanwhile, stories of hope continue to emerge.

Expecting a child at any moment, Thamar was trapped under the rubble after a building collapsed on her, crushing her legs.  Miraculously, she survived and managed to get to a hospital.  Just hours after the quake, she gave birth to a baby boy whom she named Jesula – meaning “Jesus is here.”

You can read more and support World Relief on their website.

Related posts:

• 5 Top Blog Posts for January
• Haiti Emergency Appeal
• Sacrificing everything, sacrificing nothing
• An open letter to Fresh Expressions

Some of you may have noticed that I’ve added banners for Tearfund’s Haiti Appeal to the blog over the last few days.

Please consider either giving through Tearfund, an agency I trust wholeheartedly, or by following their link to the Disasters Emergency Committee website – and pray.

For more news and prayer points on the situation in Haiti click here.

Related posts:

• Haiti: The Church’s Finest Hour
• Why Collaboration is better than Compromise
• creativeprayer.com
• The Evangelical Universalist: Does everyone get to go to heaven?

Last week I had a great conversation about conflict resolution with some friends, in particular on the differences between collaboration and compromise. We talked about the differences between the two and how collaboration is the most desirable solution to conflict, although not necessarily always possible. Dave has blogged through our thoughts from his point of view.

Here are some  of my own opinions on compromise and collaboration:

Compromise…

• is quickly achievable.
• is desirable in the short term.
• does not require individuals to share goals, values or beliefs.
• identifies a “balanced” solution that meets in the middle.
• is static – lacks a sense of moving forward.
• requires both parties to be content with less than 50% satisfaction.
• is hindered by diversity.

Collaboration…

• takes longer than compromising.
• is desirable for long term growth/development.
• requires everyone involved to be included and listened to – and to not give up.
• provides creative and highly contextual solutions.
• is dynamic – requires movement, goals and purpose.
• allows everyone to be 100% satisfied.
• utilizes and thrives on diversity of skills and viewpoints.

The biggest challenge presented by collaboration is that it strongly relies on individuals listening to each other. Individual goals and values must be worked through in pursuit of a set of shared goals or values with which to move forwards. But sometimes collaboration is the best resolution we can hope for because of time restraints or an inability to listen honestly or find a shared vision.

In the long term, though, individuals are only ever willing to compromise for a limited period of time. Eventually, if collaboration is unachievable then usually the compromise will break down and people will walk out of the process altogether.

How do we achieve collaboration?

What obstacles stand in the way of compromise?

What skills can a good team leader / facilitator utilise to find the route towards collaboration and away from compromise?

Related posts:

• Mission isn’t for Communities or Individuals, but for People
• Facilitators and leaders
• Chillin’ with Bishop Dominic
• USA Budget Hero

Some of you may know that I’m in the process of writing my undergraduate dissertation. I’ve been working my way through research, reading material and planning since September. Now I have my research approach fully sorted, it means I can begin to share a bit more of what it’s about. I’d also like to begin to blog through some of the reading material I’ve been looking at and some of the key issues and concepts I’ve been working through.

My dissertation is about how consumerism affects the way young adults understand and live out their Christian faith.

One of the key elements to my dissertation will be to explore possible responses to consumerism – whether the church should accept and learn to function well in a consumerist culture (Contextualisation) or create and encourage an alternative culture (a kind of counter-cultural response). Or whether a mixture of the two approaches is needed, or better yet: another, third way.

Last month on his blog, Ben Edson made a really interesting observation about consumerism and contextualisation as he re-counted a Q&A with Cid Latty, founder of the Cafe Church Network:

Basically my question was this:  Costa/Starbucks/Nero’s are not contextual, they have a brand and they apply that brand which they apply irrespective of context.  They do not listen to their context.  Is this what Cafe Church is also doing?  Developing a brand identity and then applying that irrespective of context.  I was fascinated by his response and am still reflecting on it.

His response was essentially, “Yes this is what we are doing.” ” But by doing this we are taking the culture of consumerism seriously.  We are not dismissing it for a distance but are engaging with it by creating a brand of church that works in the context of consumerism.” Now, the purist in me hates this response, as it says that Church must never be driven by the culture of consumerism, however the missional part of my nature is fascinated by what he is saying.  He is saying that to engage with this context we need to be contextual to consumerism.

What do you think?

• To what extent should the church embrace and adapt to the consumer culture around us?
• And when should the church stand up and challenge the culture around us?
• Should we challenge the mainstream, or go off and create our own, different culture?

I have found writing to be a brilliant way to work through and clarify my own thoughts. So over the next few months, I’ll be continuing to post my thoughts, reflections and analysis in hope that this will aid the process of my dissertation coming together.

Related posts:

• 5 Top Blog Posts for January
• Q: Ideas that create a better world
• Subverting the Empire
• Top Blog Posts of 2009 and Plans for 2010

I’ve been following with interest Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog, where he’s recently begun working through the rather contentious book: The Evangelical Universalist. Since it’s such a controversial theological issue, but also one which often sparks huge interest, I thought I’d draw your attention to Scot’s discussion of the book’s main arguments.

So, as I write in Newport waiting for the colossal snow fall that has been forecast (my pastoral care lectures tomorrow have been cancelled and college has shut up to weather the storm), for those who aren’t in the know here’s some helpful definitions:

Evangelicalism is the stream of Christianity that believes strongly that the bible is authoritative and inspired by God, to the extent that it has no errors.

Universalism, within Christianity, is the belief that all people will eventually be saved and reconciled to God. It generally accepts the idea of a real Heaven, but denies the existence of an eternal Hell.

The US religious landscape survey in 2008 announced that 57% of evangelical Christians believe that “many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life.” and whilst those figures have been contested by evangelical groups, it shows a startling number of people who hold a view very different from the mainstream “policy” of the Evangelical movement as a whole.

I find this really interesting, as my belief is this: that no good follower of Jesus should be “happy” or like to believe in hell, or that there are people who will go there. However, my belief is that in the absence of something better to believe there is no real other option. However, the book, The Evangelical Universalist, is an attempt to form some sort of alternative whilst still remaining true to scripture – this makes it a very interesting book, and one that needs a careful exploration and discussion.

Here’s how McKnight defines the “Christian Universalism” described in the book:

Christian universalism believes in all the classic evangelical and orthodox doctrines (Trinity, creation, sin, atonement, return of Christ, salvation through Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone) and also in hell. But, and here’s the big but, one’s eternal destiny is not fixed at death so that those in hell can repent and trust in Christ, and in the end all will make this decision without coercion.

This is Scot’s first post in the series: Let’s get “Universalism” Straight, and here’s the archive of the posts so far.

Related posts:

• Wealth, grace and justice
• The Sacrificial God – Guest blog on Sunday Papers
• The relational missional event
• 5 Top Blog Posts for January

I really enjoyed reading Julie Clawson’s reflections on the Missional Church and Worship, posted on her blog last week.

I think she’s spot on that there has to be something deeper to our worship than just the “cultural habits” of whatever style of worship music happens to be cool or whatever methods of prayer or devotion are currently in fashion.

I love it in Romans 12:1, when Paul urges us to make our live worshipful by giving ourselves as “living sacrifices”. The Greek (“latreia“) for the word Paul uses for worship was the same word used in Greek to decide the temple worship or priestly service. So Paul perhaps means something like this: “Get beyond worship services and private moments of devotion – and make your life into an incredible, never-ending worship service!”

Here’s some of what Julie writes about worship:

Worship cannot be confined to a box – be that the box of evangelical devotions or praise music or reformed liturgy or Catholic Mass.  And following the biblical mandate to worship God through seeking justice isn’t in opposition to, but is instead part of personal piety and devotion to God. We are loving God, celebrating God’s greatness, and reflecting God’s glory by participating in the acts of service we are instructed to do.   It isn’t that I seek justice some days and worship on others – it is all worship.   How I meditate on God’s word and how I seek justice for the oppressed will of course look different than how others do it – but we are all still worshiping.

Worship is much bigger than ourselves, and I think to truly be a missional church we need to get over ourselves and our allegiances to cultural habits and start integrating what God said he wants from our worship into what we do.

Check out her reflections here.

Related posts:

• Sacrificing everything, sacrificing nothing
• The transforming Word as process
• Where is the modern-day church?
• Worship-shaped Christians = Worship-shaped churches

Thought it was time for a quick recap and to begin a new look at the link between engaging in mission and experiential learning.

A while ago, I wrote a post on mission and learning, which explored the link between engaging in mission (or perhaps with culture) and Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle. This is a version of Kolb’s cycle (also known as the reflective cycle):

Kolb asserts the people learn through experience in a way shown in his cycle. They begin by trying something (with a concrete experience [1]), then begin to learning through observing and reflecting on what they tried [2]. Using their analysis/reflection they then come up with a rule or reach a new understanding of reality based on their experience [3], and then try something new based on what they’ve learned [4].

And so the cycle begins again.

This simple cycle is a really simple, interesting way to understand the whole of human consciousness as we encounter new things, reflect and reach a new understanding, and then act differently based on that new understanding.

It was whilst was looking at different models for understanding mission, that I began to see the similarity between steps in the mission models and steps in the reflective cycle. For instance, in Roxburgh and Romanuk’s model steps like “Creating Awareness”, “Creating Understanding” and “Experimentation/Action”.

This led me to suggest that missional engagement could be sketched out as a variation of the reflective cycle. And here is my first attempt at adapting a “Cycle of Missional/Cultural Engagement”:

The idea here is that, whilst reflective learning begins with an experience, engaging in mission begins with the personal/spiritual experience of “hearing” God’s call to mission [1].

This call, which could be a sense of God calling us into engagement with a particular area, a particular group of people, or a particular need, then causes us to reflect and evaluate both our understanding of God and of our own purpose/identity [2].

From this we either adapt or create a new understanding of God or plan for engaging in his mission [3].

And then, finally are propelled into action or experimentation and actually “doing mission” [4].

What do you think?

So, please feel free to critique, analyse and make observations about my first attempt at sketching this out. Comment!

[Cartoon by Dave Walker]

Related posts:

• Top Blog Posts of 2009 and Plans for 2010
• 5 Top Blog Posts for January
• Missional engagement and reflective learning
• Mission isn’t for Communities or Individuals, but for People