James Henley

Food and belonging

A couple of times over the last week or so different people have made comments to me about how eating together helps to grow community. Even just thinking about it, it seems bizarre that the simple act of sitting down and eating can do so much to bring people together. In The Search to Belong, Joe Myers talks alot about creating healthy environments in which people can begin to belong - and maybe this is where we can learn from the model of eating together.

(I don't normally like numbers and points and things but it's probably the best way to make this nearly readable)

1. Resources are shared or created by or for the community
In order to eat, someone has to bring and share, or the community has to collectively make food to eat. There's a sense of investment in the group, and of ownership - this is our group, we belong together.

2. You can choose when to commit to sharing yourself with others
The outside focus on eating means that you can feel comfortable either to chat or to sit in silence - people can participate at the level where they are at. You can choose to just sit and listen if that's what you are comfortable with.

3. The environment is reasonably non-threatening
There is no initiation you need to go through, no needing to know when to stand up and when to sit down, no strange rituals to remember.

4. The community is most efficient when we serve each other
In order to be most efficient we need to serve each, sharing out food, clearing up. We learn quickly that interdependance enables us to be stronger together.

I'm sure there's more you can draw out of this. I wonder whether Jesus was thinking about the role of eating together when he commanded his disciples to share a meal in rememberance of him, or if it was on the minds of the apostles when they began to be church by sharing food in the temple courts?

The relational missional event

Thinking a lot at the moment about our Lab event, Explosion, and what direction we should take it this year. Think that the format of the event should change, and hopefully the name too as we launch something fresh. Working with an established family church, Bethel, will a large student group so there's also an element of finding something that works for both of us. Trying to stay positive and flexible, and not be too stubborn with what I want (which is difficult as it seems to be a family trait on both sides of my family ;-).

Anyway, so it got me thinking about how an "evangelistic" or missional event fits in and works with my extremely relational approach to church. How can we create an event which invites people to join in community, to interact, to belong - rather than one which just "sells" the gospel?

This means we need to go right back and look at our whole approach and philosophy towards mission and evangelism...

• If we want to give out tickets into heaven - then we plan an event which is punchy and flashy. We plan a sales pitch.

• If we want people to come to a place of believing what we believe - then we plan out a concise way of presenting our beliefs. We present our proofs, our reasoning for those beliefs.

• If we want people to change their opinions of the church and Christianity, if we want them to think Christianity is cool - then we come up with an event with dumbs down the elements of church which are perceived as "uncool" and plays up the good stuff. We market our Christianity to a consumer generation - but we run the risk of producing consumer Christians.

On the other hand...

• If our longing is to build relationships, if the loving the person is more important than what they believe - then our events will be based around conversation and interaction. They will be opportunities for relationships to grow.

• If we long to enable people to belong, then we create events which are inclusive, rather than elite ("are you a Christian yet?") and where the conversation is in two directions. Why should we force people to listen to what we believe, if we have no interest in what they actually think and believe themselves?

• If our aim is to enable people in their own spiritual growth, rather than to educate them in our way of thinking - then the events we run will be build around helpful interaction and discussion. They will be about asking the right questions to provoke people to think - rather than presenting what we think are the right answers without allowing an opportunity for discussion.

Phew, that felt a little like a mind-dump - me trying to clear up my own thoughts a little, but hopefully it's useful.

Church: Networks and Hubs

Was browsing my del.icio.us, and was reminded of this slide show on Urban Church by Steve Collins.

I guess this is really the way I see the Lab working - more than a service or a slightly edgy way of worshipping, but as a network of relationships. And I long for those relationships to just stretch out across the town centre - into different friendship groups - students, young adults - and into even the most unexpected places like the Newport covered market.

And so I guess we would then at the moment have these three "hubs" which are focus points and bases of operations - St Pauls, the Pen & Wig, and the university campus.

So next year with our community house project hopefully there will be another Hub - not so much a "place of worship" in the conventional sense, but more a place for relationships to grow, for connections to be made, and for the network to expand and multiply.

I love this idea of Hub-based church - I just have this dream of a church building which isn't a huge theatre or empty hall - but like a Cafe with sofas and comfy chairs and stuff, and is open all day just for people to hang out... awesome... gives me a fuzzy feeling inside... :-)

Abolishing the Blasphemy Laws

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002847.html

When was the last time the blasphemy laws were even used anyway?

The Art of Language

This came up on my RSS reader - made me think of a discussion we had in our Lab team meeting last night about language.

Last night, we were talking specifically about financial giving, but this idea of language is something that I've been talking about for a while to the couple of people who'd listen. I encountered the concept first in one of Dan Kimball's books about the Emerging Church.

Kimball talked about how our language of church will go on to define our attitudes towards church, and so as church leaders the way we speak about church will go a long way to determine how our congregation views it. So, if we consistantly talk about church as a thing that happens, if we talk about services which people come to enjoy and consume - then this attitude will spill over into the attitudes of our church members. On the other hand, if we talk about church as a community, as something we are all a part of and contribute to, as a network of relationships rather than in terms of service provision, then that positive attitude to church should spill over into our congregations (or I should really say church communities).

Perhaps this explains a little about the place Willow Creek now find themselves in - church as a programme of activities rather than a community.

In terms of the Lab, I think that our change in language has been at least part of the reason for our increased sense of belonging and community. I won't get all philosophical and psychological, but language is really the "verbal filter" or "verbal lens" through which we experience the world - surely the language we surround ourselves with must affect our worldview and our perceptions.

So our challenge with the Lab is now to let our "community language" settle and to consolidate it, and now to really think about bringing giving into our vocabulary - especially in the language of our worship. We need to bring giving out from the locked filing cabinet where we keep all the utility bills and other things we don't especially like and reconnect it with our worship vocabulary.

So if you hear us talking about giving a lot at the Lab this term then you know the reasoning behind it ;-) We need to bring it back from just a way of paying the bills to its rightful place in the context of our worship as a community and as a church. Hope that made sense.

The Revolution of God 2: Wholeness

In the last post, I reflected on brokenness as a defining characteristic of humanity, and so therefore also of this revolutionary way of living that Jesus presented/presents to us when he talks about the Kingdom of God. I know that there are lots of questions I left unanswered in my extremely realist description of humanity - like what's the point of even living our livers at all if we aren't to aim for perfection? And so in discussing the other side of the coin - Wholeness - I'd like to try and kind of marry up the two and try and explore how this Godly Revolution can be characterised by both brokenness - broken people, sin, that "something's missing" feeling - and by wholeness - being whole, fulfilled, complete in Jesus.

Like a kind of strange post-modern paradox.

I think that in exploring wholeness, and where that wholeness comes from for us as Jesus followers, we need to talk about hope. For me, this sense of being whole, being complete, is about the future - abouty being fulfilled in Christ in a day and a time yet to come - but also something we can be assured of and certain of. On that day, God will reconcile all things to himself.

And so, it is this hope and the faith that sustains it which form the connection between us, here in the present - our broken, imperfect selves - and this wholeness which we are assured of. Somehow, through faith and hope, this wholeness becomes not only true for the future - but also part of our present. Hey, that sounds quite cool ;-)

In my recent first meeting with my big boss (well, under Yahweh I guess), Bishop Dominic of Monmouth he talked about hope as the "unique selling point" of the church in marketing terms. Plenty of different crazy things in this day and age can offer you purpose, can offer you acceptance, can offer you love - and plenty of them can even do a pretty good job of being genuine about it, and can give you a relatively good return on your investment. But if C.S. Lewis is right and Christianity is of infinite importance, then only following Jesus can give you real, authentic hope.

Think I went off-track a little there... So anyway, hope seems to be this strange "thing" which forms a bridge between our present brokeness and future wholeness - we can realise that wholeness now, but only by faith through hope.

So perhaps it shouldn't be wholeness that is a characteristic of the God revolution - but actually the pursuit of wholeness. We need to be striving for Christ, who is our hope of future glory, future wholeness.

Hopefully that made some sense - took me a couple of days to get round to finishing after my family arrived back from visiting relatives again and with packing and travelling back to Newport. Just arrived back this afternoon ready for a busy day tomorrow. :-)

The Revolution of God 1: Brokenness

  Been thinking about doing a blog series for a while - so with a few days to spare before I get back to Newport and the Lab again for the New Year I thought I'd give it a little try and see what happens. Having said that, bear with me - I discovered our old Super Nintendo again today after about 10 years so I've got a bit of a Mario hangover... feeling a little spaced out ;-)

In the A New Kind of Christian series of books, through the character Neo the author, Brian McLaren suggests that perhaps a better expression for today than the "Kingdom of God" which Jesus talked about, would be to use the imagery of a "Revolution of God". A new, revolutionary way of life, a subversion of the destructive systems in society today. A Revolution of followers – disciples – who will give anything and everything to pursue “life in all its fullness”.

Using that revolution imagery, the question I want to set myself for this series is what that revolution would look like – what values would it be characterised by? And what values are there that it’s possible we could miss at a first glance? So this isn’t an attempt to make some kind of exhaustive list, but instead to try and challenge with something a bit different. Having said that, I think that none of the five values I’ve chosen (at least to start with) are new to the church – but perhaps they haven’t quite been put in this context before – I don’t know.

So, first, I thought of brokenness.

It isn’t hard to show that brokenness is a big part of the world. Just look out the window, or take your earphones out next time you’re walking the street – brokenness, broken people – that something wrong, something missing feeling – is everywhere. But how does this imperfectness, this wrong, missing feeling figure in with the perfect Jesus revolution?

Well, I guess, first and foremost, its part of us. Brokenness, sin, whatever you want to call it – that thing that stops us from having full lives – is the overwhelming, uniform, uniting characteristic which the whole of humanity – and the whole church – has in common. The church is a testament to how great our God is purely in that it somehow holds a group of broken, hurting, jealous, vengeful people together. So let’s not ignore it or strive fruitlessly to get rid of it – let’s accept it.

A time will come when the kingdom of God will come in all its fullness – when the revolution will reach its height and cease to be a revolution altogether – it will just be the way we live. But until then, we need to learn to live with our brokenness and allow God to work through it – and also in it.

Once we’ve accepted and learned to live with the broken state we are in – and we need to accept it, both as people, but also as the church we need to accept that whatever our mission was, whatever it is, we’ve already failed at it on our own.... Anyway, once we’ve accepted it we need to be working with it, through it and in it. We need to be actively working to put the pieces back together – to help with God’s work in helping to be the sticky tape which holds people together. And I don’t just mean putting people back together spiritually – both emotionally and, possibly most important, physically – as suggested by psychology. But more on that kind of thing later on I think.

We also need to recognise that the people we are working with – our partners in the revolution – are also broken people. And, most importantly, that we ourselves are and that this affects the way in which the revolution will flow. So let’s not unrealistically expect each other to be perfect and sinless – and let’s not have exaggerated views of ourselves and our own abilities. Instead let’s learn to live with each other – love each other as Christ taught us – in spite of, and including our broken parts. Because this is a true and trustworthy saying – Jesus Christ came to save sinners – broken people of whom I am the worst.

Imagine a group of soldiers, limping, injured, desperate – a platoon who realistically should have already failed, but who, by supporting each other, carrying each other, propping each other up, are somehow still moving – somehow still fighting. That’s what this revolution looks like – an army of walking wounded. And Jesus would have it no other way – this way we know that every small victory we take, every extra distance covered – it’s all down to Him. Thank God.

Okay, I think I’m done for today – thank you so much if you had the patience to read through all that – and as always I’m sure it’s not a perfect argument. Next the other side of the coin: Wholeness.

Archbishop makes Zimbabwe protest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7135087.stm

That's my kind of Archbishop. Christianity at its best – empowering, subversive and provocative.

Authenticity

At the Lab, our Spring series up 'til Easter is going to be Authentic Community – idea being to explore what an open, real, genuine community of Jesus followers looks like. I've been thinking about authenticity though, and what makes something authentic. It seems to be a really trendy, attractive word in a culture where so much rubbish advertising and junk is thrown at us everyday – the average Newport student seems to pass so many flyers and posters and spam everyday (and unfortunately all our radio show posters seem to be adding to it :-( ).

When we're talking about objects it seems easy to make the distinction between real and fake – something either is or isn't – but when we talk about belief and community and church, what is it that sets them apart from anything else?

Maybe authentic community is about depth? So much in this world is shallow and materialistic and based on self – maybe authenticity is about something greater than ourselves? About being free from the confines of what affects me, what is in my interests?

In which case, authenticity is a real challenge.

It's easy to talk about it, but in practice what would a church, a community, look like that focused purely on others, purely on the outside? Our friendship circles, the people we get on with, the way we live our lives, is permeated by this sense of "where am I most comfortable?" and "who do I get on with the most?". Ouch.

Also, maybe authenticity is about longevity? About outlasting the competition? But then just because something has been around a long time does that make it true? Surely then, the way we've done church for centuries – the Orthodox faith – would be the most authentic? Unless maybe relationships matter more than practices and doctrine?

Spent a lot of time this week planning ahead for the next year and thinking about new events, schemes, projects – so it's good to stop and think for a moment: will they be authentic? Or just a craze that passes with the change of seasons.

I think the future of the Lab, like the state of the UK church, sits on a knife-edge. But do I feel comfortable here on the edge – at least each passing day we know who it is who's responsible for keeping us going one more day.

Or maybe I'm just being habitually overdramatic.

Light-blue t-shirts, soul survivor on tour and angry whoppers

(But not necessarily in that order)

Just got back from the Soul Survivor roadshow in Cardiff – and from seeing my little brother, who'd driven down with a minibus full of guys from my home church – St Mike's. He came straight from school so he was even still in his school uniform – my old school uniform. Interesting he went for the light blue tee though, rather than my preferred white.

As for the roadshow itself, it was alright. I think Soul Survivor's lost most of its magic for me now though – the simple worship-talk-worship format seems a little bit old and tired, and I don't quite adore Mike Pilavachi as much as I used to (sorry Mike!). And with no time for ministry or anything afterwards tonight, it felt a little bit like it was all over too soon.

On the plus side, Andy Hawthorne from the Message spoke pretty well and Mike and Andy did a good job of enthusing everyone about Hope 2008 – which I'd seen around but wasn't actually 100% sure what it's about. I'm still not sure really what's happening about it – but I now know that that's because Hope is about us serving our communities in ways that help them, and so it's up to us to decide. It's definitely something to discuss over our first couple of Lab Team meetings (Yay!)

As always the issue is in getting the organisation sorted – but hopefully we'll be able to partner up and do some stuff – especially given it's the kind of stuff that we're looking to be doing as the Lab anyway.

Got to go for a burger with everyone afterwards and have a good chat with David (my lil bro).  Tried out the infamous Angry Whopper (seen the advert?), which was pretty sweet with jalapenos and onions and stuff. Was really sad to say goodbye, but the whole family's coming down next weekend so I'll get to spend some more time with them all then.

Right, was going to watch Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, but it's kinda late so I guess I should get some sleep. I know it's supposed to be pretty disappointing but it caught my eye on the discount shelf in WHSmith so I thought I'd see for myself.