Slightly More Solid Church
24 Jan 2007
I am going to blog my Ph.D research from inception to hopeful completion. I start my supervision this week, and hope to complete in summer of 2013. I wonder what twists and turns it will take
as I read, reflect, write, and (I hope) have your ongoing input and thoughts?
So putting them out here crudely like a new born baby that I hope you don’t think is too ugly, here are some thoughts in my journal this morning as I sketch out my initial focus.
1. Ecclesiological: I think my focus is leaning towards trying to articulate what ecclesiologies are appropriate for our post-modern/post-colonial/post-structural contexts in UK. I think I want to find a theological critique of culture and church with its implications for ecclesiological constructions. At it’s crudest a paraphrase might be I am trying to find something counter to many of the ‘liquid/fluid/post- church’ thesis.
2. Deep Church: I think there is something in the deep church agenda/conversation which is positive and constructive and would help me avoid a pathological reaction/construction to many current ecclesiological suggestions. The deep ecclesiology, generous orthodoxy as background to my work is going to be helpful, and facilitate something constructive I hope. Deep church is not about articulating the correct form of church but the valuing of church in is deepest and broadest sense, from the most established to the most nascent. I know I want to avoid a post-church response.
3. Culture as religious system: I think at the heart of this I am trying to establish that or culture acts as a religious system, and that we need a critique of that culture, and a form of church much more solid, than many are suggesting to allow mission and conversion to take place. Almost the recovery of the congregation not as accommodation to modernity, but as a life rhythm to mission and an alternative to the religious formations and practices of consumer media culture (and I do not mean that as apologetic for a sunday service!).
The church has been dispersed historically under persecution, yet now is encouraged to de-gather under consumer choice. Our culture is unconsciously able to consume our new forms of church co-opting them as pastiche aesthetical experiences, whilst avoiding conversion Christianity as a way of life. Indeed many new forms of church are in danger of facilitating the ongoing process of de-conversion. If the critique was that church was a dispenser of religious goods and services, is it continuing that trajectory even further with many forms of church? What would an alternative look like? I’ve been trying to get a general overview of post-modern philosophy, hermeneutics, and historical theology as preparation, and my brain hurts.
So how’s that baby looking?
Tagged: Ecclesiology, Emerging-Church, Ph.D, research, Theology
28 comments
Trackback
Comment by Paul
8.27 am on 24 Jan 2007
Heh it’s looking good – great to see your thoughts shaping…
I like your idea of deconversion from media saturated culture and reconversion to christianity – i wonder in that sense if the defining image of our culture is self then would the defining practice of a cultural converting/subverting church be service – the giving away of self – and the encouragement of long term commitment?
I also wonder at some of the tensions – particularly between a more solid church model and the desire to be shaped by a deep church model that appreciates, supports and learns from the church in all its expressions over the last couple thousand yrs…
Maybe one way is too look at traditions of the church and reflect on not only what are the marks of a deep church but the commitment to practices that will shape these deep churches into subverting culture?
Comment by Jason
8.44 am on 24 Jan 2007
Paul (1): I think you can be my research assistant, or maybe it should be the other way around! I think church needs to be solid and fluid, it’s not an all or nothing, either/or. We need a different metaphor.
Like those liquids that are fluid, but when you push them hard they turn solid (shear thickening fluids)ie.
1. Cornstarch: http://tinyurl.com/34n4c2
2. More high tech Nano particle shear thickening liquids: http://tinyurl.com/37q8em
Comment by fernando
8.57 am on 24 Jan 2007
Man, I wish I had blogged my way though the the PhD research like this! I had friends blogging back in ‘99, but many people in London thought I was a nutter for trying it in ‘01! That said, I am chuffed that one or two at King’s still look over my blog every now and then.
As for your “baby,” it looks really good! I think you are aiming at three very good targets. LiquidChurch is bogus, but if you want something more substantial, take a look (if you haven’t already) at Bauman’s Liquid Modernity and Liquid Life. There is stuff there that will connect with your point three.
As far as the hermeneutics side goes, sadly there is no shortcut to reading Sources of the Self or Truth and Method….
Comment by Jason
9.52 am on 24 Jan 2007
Fernando (3): Amazing how the world has changed so quickly :-) Thanks for the encouragement. I have been looking at Bauman, and have a different take on him than many at present, I do need to dig deeper into his stuff. Any critiques of him you have come across?
With hermeneutics I feel like a neophyte lost in the woods of a some arcane land! I hope to escape it as quickly as possible.
Comment by gareth
12.03 pm on 24 Jan 2007
looking good jason – sounds like we will be explorin similar things – although mine will be focusing on a recontextualistation of franscican spirituality/friarys as an appropriate faithful form of contemporary christian community.
hermeneutics is a complex subject once you delve in – my MA was in it and man alive some of the stuff was difficult to work through – books that I found very helpful were:-
thiselton new horizons in hermeneutics (as well as his older one two horizons), and the two books by goldingay – models for the interpretation of scripture and models for scripture.
although goldingay is obviously aiming at new lenses for looking at scripture so might not be what you are into, whereas Thiselton is engaging with postmodern theologians…
have fun :-)
Comment by Paul
12.35 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Jase (2) if it pays better than blog guest services manager than I’m in ;). Oh what the heck forget the pay just don’t make me wear that leather suit again and i’m in, lol.
Good to see via media hitting the church model – i agree liquid church great for coffee/beer/wine but you can’t live off those – hmmm milk and meat or maybe something like flowing church – sort of like larva or ice flows – solid but still liquid but also not static. It’s no doubt old hat but there is a lot of inflows/outflow dynamics, not least the appreciation within a deep church ideal of the good but old still good as well as the new…
one idea i just thought of is what would happen if churches co-ordinated their cell groups to work on community projects at a mirco parish level – both deep church in terms of the churches of an area working together, spiritually forming in terms of service and impacting in a practical ways on the community to bless/benefit them? You could still have the solid definitions of the individual churches but at a practical level the liquid/flowing of christians combining to serve the particular community as christians rather than as representatives of a particular brand of christianity?
of course deep church could do with a tidy up, the deep part is all good but how can that be practically achieved and what is the ‘church’ part – are there some deep church practices to tease out which steer us on the via media and not on my way/take better?
Comment by Helen
1.04 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Jason, I want to see if I understand. Is this what you are saying:
Critiquing how we do church is appropriate. Let’s not give up on church because of what we find. Or make church so unchurchy that there’s no calling-out of people from our current culture. Let’s use our critique to form something better and something distinctive that does issue a challenge to people. This something is ’solid church’.
Am I anywhere close? :)
Comment by Jason
1.09 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Gareth (5): Your a smarter man than I! I have Thisleton’s ‘New Horizons’ and am enjoying it and sighing in frustration at trying to get my head around it.
All the best with you research. Who is supervising you?
Comment by Jason
1.11 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Paul (6): See I think I’ll get you to ghost my research :-)
Helen (7): That’s it, thanks for translating so ably into English for everyone :-)
Comment by Paul
1.28 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Jase (9) as long as I don’t have to wear white sheets ;)
Comment by gareth
1.29 pm on 24 Jan 2007
am seeing Pete Ward tomorrow – I imagine it will be him or Andrew Walker in conjunction with Oliver Davies from the traditional theological faculty.
Just need the C of E to hurry up and process my postgard application to get the ball fully rolling :-)
Comment by fernando
1.30 pm on 24 Jan 2007
As I recall, the best critical interactions with Bauman were in Journals, and I don’t have that material to hand anymore. There were two introductory books that came out in 2000 (or so), but they were inanely lightweight. Bauman’s stuff is easy to read though, so it makes more sense to just dive into the primary source material.
For hermeneutics, you could dive into Thisleton’s Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self, which I found far more engaging that his major works on hermeneutics, especially with regard to the postmodern thing.
After that, just gird your loins and tackle Stanley Fish’s Is There a Text in this Class? Do that and you have a amssive edge over all the people who want to comment on postmodern hermeutics, but have taken shortcuts on the road there ;-)
Comment by gareth
1.31 pm on 24 Jan 2007
don’t worry about the difficulty of reading thiselton… our whole class found him to be impenetrable at times…
I think the best time I had reading him is when he gets to the parables, he has some stonkingly good re-readings…
Comment by Helen
3.16 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Thanks Jason :) – I’m glad I wasn’t off on some completely wrong track!
I can comment now I have been reassured I understood you correctly. It sounds like it’s going to address important issues for the emerging church – which is great.
Comment by Jason
6.41 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Gareth (11 & 13): Looking forward to bumping into you at some seminars at Kings :-)
Fernando (12): Thanks for the tips. Have you read Kevin Vanhoozer’s ‘Is There a Meaning in this Text?’ I love his trinitarian approach, and am finding hermeneutical realism very enabling. Still glad my Ph.D won’t be in hermeneutics ;-)
Comment by Jason
6.42 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Helen (14): Thanks Helen :-)
Comment by Tom Allen
8.23 pm on 24 Jan 2007
The idea of blogging a Phd is really creative – not only will it open you to new sources and ideas, but will earth the research in practical experiences which is really needed at the moment when if people are not to academically analyse new forms of church into a state of paralysis. Steve Taylor is writing about the links between the academic and practice at http://www.emergentkiwi.org.nz/
Comment by Jason
9.24 pm on 24 Jan 2007
Tom Allen (17): Thanks Tom, I hope that is the case. I met Steve once several years ago in Auckland whilst he was doing his Ph.D.
Comment by fernando
4.35 am on 25 Jan 2007
I found, ‘Is There a Meaning in this Text? good, but not interesting. I also like grounding Biblical hermeneutics in a trinitarian approach. However, I’m not a fan of theological and semi-theological texts that rip off a big name book, then don’t really cover the same ground. At worst, it is intellectuall dishonest, at best (in Vanhoozer’s case) it comes across as narrow.
Fish’s book is not just about texts, but about how knowledge and meaning functions in groups. This is where hermeneutics really takes us away from just text-reader relationships and into something much broader, more political, more ethical and in my view, more complexly theological.
Look at the way texts function in a bible study group – not the way they *should,* the way they do. Who has a better description of the way things actually happen – Fish or Vanhoozer?
Comment by Jason
8.25 am on 25 Jan 2007
Fernando (19): I haven’t read Fish yet, so have that experience to evaluate. I know far less than you about hermeneutics, but I thought for an evangelical seeking to address issues on hermeneutics theologically and biblically, Van Hoozer is very original and helpful.
Comment by Matt
5.44 pm on 25 Jan 2007
Jason, maybe your point #3 could be also framed as ‘religion as culture’ rather than only culture functioning as a religious system. These aren’t the same questions. If you want help with resources to consider the argument from this angle, I’m your guy. I’m doing a PhD in sociology of religion (technically, it’s religion and society).
Let me know if you want some sociological resources. Bauman was hinted at but there are plenty more. Liquid Modernity is helpful but doesn’t deal explicitly with religion.
Comment by Jason
11.05 am on 26 Jan 2007
Matt (21): Thanks Matt very helpful. I’ve love some pointers to sources in that direction.
Comment by brodie
12.14 pm on 26 Jan 2007
Inspired by the comments on this post I went out and bought Bauman’s “Globalization” and “Liquid Modernity”, now to find the time to read them!
Comment by Jason
8.11 pm on 26 Jan 2007
Brodie (23) Great :-)
Comment by John Ruffle
9.29 pm on 27 Jan 2007
I wish you well on your PhD. You appear to be wresstling with may of the same questions I also have. Structure is becoming more important, not less, in th eminds and hearts of many, provided it is reasoned, has a goal, a workable means to achieve that goal. I might suggest that a worthy goal is “community in Christ” – meaning a praxis of the Gospel outworked together – “encouraging one another daily”; “provoking one another to love and good works.”
I beleive we have left behind the Brisih “evangelical small-mindedness” that only could see thgrough one paradigm. For me, it has been an exciting journey doing a taught MA at a Roman Catholic college – me as a ex-Jesus Freak, pentecostal Anglican. The sacraments are possiblyt more important than many of us realsied because they point to incarnatinal faith – whicvh is very nitty-gritty, on your own block type of working faith. Sacraments never stop; they lead the people of Goid out to be faithful in witness, and practical life sharing. Theological knowledge – of course we need it, Biblical knowledge – but that does not automatically outwork to action. IT is not the Word’s fault, of course, it is the wekaness in our flesh.
I am weak. I confess it. I am not ashamed of being weak. I am ashamed of those times when I fail to acknoweldge my weakenss, and th ecorresponding strength of Jesus Chrsit in me, the hope of Glory. In me, and in the Church. Keep me posted, I’m a newcomer here – blessings to all! – John
Comment by Jason
4.49 pm on 28 Jan 2007
John (25): thanks for sharing some of your journey/story. I like what you say about structure becoming more not less important. Being anti structure is the fallacy, it’s about the structure that facilitate things the best.
Comment by Jason Reid
10.09 am on 29 Jan 2007
Jason
Your work sounds very interesting, I was struck by the term ‘post-modern/post-colonial/post-structural contexts’, should you (we) be considering the ‘pre’ context? Shouldn’t we consider where the cultural landscape will go next and shape the church ready for that, rather than as we always do respond reactively and be dictated to, rather than proactively be prepared for the next challenge?
All God’s blessings…
Comment by Jason
5.19 pm on 29 Jan 2007
Jason Reid (27): we should indeed, by looking at how we got to where we are now.
Comments are now closed.