Comments on: Church for People Who Aren’t So Sure About Religion

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:52:02 +0000

Hi Philip,
Back on June 18 in the “Do No Share Convictions Remain” you wrote you were going to do a post addressing my question about what would be the children’s version of the new theology, or the one that would win new converts. Apparently in this post you’ve announced you’ve given up on that approach, maybe because what you were coming up with was what the mainline protestants have already done, so no use in re-inventing a flat tire – the alternative re-invent how church is done. Have you’ve looked at what the Quakers did in the 1600′s when they restructured church and had a huge impact for nearly 200 years out of proportion to their share of the population? It happened before, perhaps something like it is happening again. I’m happy attending a conservative Anglican Church and see how how that liturgy actually has quite a bit of flex and could be a skeleton for a lovely flexible, free church worship and body life if artfully and creatively used. But at the heart of any true church is the worship and service of the True God. Paul warned about a different gospel, a different Jesus, a different spirit. In his time I’m sure some regarded Paul as a restrictive Ken Silva, others regarded Paul as the overly liberal Philip Clayton countenancing compromise and looseness with the Old Testament. Frankly I veer towards Mr. Silva’s concerns in what’s going on in the emergent church.

By: Ian Carmichael

Ian Carmichael — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:02:57 +0000

Well, how about Deep Creativity? – covering aesthetics, invention, and ecological wisdom, perhaps more. Then there is the possibility of some solid trinitarian mapping (Holy Spirit and community, Son and discipleship, Father and creativity). Perhaps it’s too cute, but I think it has some ontological and theological power.

By: John Grant

John Grant — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:32:24 +0000

I’ve enjoyed following the dialogue on this topic here. I like the ideas of “Deep”… As far as a third “deep” I was thinking of something in terms of mission. Discipleship and Community seem to be about those inside (though, of course not exclusively). But rather than just using something like “Mission” or “evangelism” becuase both can have a one way connotation, I kind of like the idea of of “dialogue” or “conversation.”

By: John L

John L — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:01:40 +0000

Years ago, Andrew Jones suggested the term “deep ecclesiology” – which I like a lot. And I would suggest that deep virtuality is becoming the primary driver of this deepening ecclesiology. Kevin Kelly wrote in 1998, “the only ‘inside’ now is whether you are on the network or off.” McLuhan noted 50 years ago that “the electric age may appear to some to turn the globe itself into a single computer.”

This is precisely what’s happening. “Locality” is being redefined as anywhere the Internet is available. A growing reliance upon connective technology seems to be giving rise to a spirituality of radical inclusion rather than religious out-grouping. Virtuality is creating what David Morgan calls an “extended community of interpretation.”

By: Philip Clayton

Philip Clayton — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:06:49 +0000

Ian, I like it a lot. Now we need a third “Deep” term, to go along Deep Discipleship and Deep Community. What is it?

– Philip

By: Ian Carmichael

Ian Carmichael — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:46:58 +0000

A great idea. Even the name provides an immediately corrective view. ‘Deep community’ might be another term to help address our superficiality of connection as well. I may be off beam here but I think this connects with ideas of ‘strong emergence’ as you’ve written about elsewhere, Philip – the claims and call of Christ are foundational for the development of communities which are not just another sociologically identifiable ‘club’/'tribe’, the bonds within the Christian communities should be stronger than other communities, and the boundaries should be more permeable, so that the welcome of strangers is both genuine, and deep (not stand-offish and forced). And when I use the word welcome, I want it to be wide – my welcome might be simple friendship, it may be action for healing, justice, advocacy, or the extending of refuge to others.
I look forward to your upcoming post!

By: BIll Cook

BIll Cook — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:16:29 +0000

Thank you for taking the time to respond so quickly. “Deep Discipleship” does sound like a solid approach that focuses on what I think is needed. It also raises the question of what it looks like, what it asks of us, and how we embrace it in a way that remains open (I like the “center set” vs. boudary focused identity). I will be look for “Transforming Christian Theology.” I look forward to reading your thoughts on Deep Discipleship. – Bill

By: Philip Clayton

Philip Clayton — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:45:02 +0000

Dear Bill,

I don’t normally jump in after a single post. But your entry speaks so strongly to the burning question, and so clearly identifies the problems, that I must respond. It’s one thing when a young couple leaves, looking for “something more.” But it’s even more poignant when the *pastor” responds, “The truth is that I frequently feel that way.”

Over the last 50 years we’ve tried all the obvious responses: new theologies, youth services, more social ministries, more discussion groups within the congregation. Gradually it’s dawning on us that we’re facing a crisis of the traditional ecclesial structures themselves. (That’s why I wrote *Transforming Christian Theology*.)

You ask: how do we be the ekklesia in this new context? Bold, sometimes risky experiments are going on. In, outside, and around the traditional structures, ordained and unordained people are trying out new answers. Join with us, talk about what you see, help guide us!

I’ll post a blog shortly about the name I would give to what many of us are seeking. I call it Deep Discipleship — the sort that gives rise to deep community.

– Philip

By: Bill Cook

Bill Cook — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:06:55 +0000

I am so glad that I came upon this blog, and this post. I am an Elder in the United Methodist Church, and these are the issues with which I am struggling. I appreciate Clayton’s observation that at issue may not be the broad scope of theology, but the more narrow band of ecclesiology. I might refine the task even more and name it ecclisio-praxis. How do we be the church?

A few years ago a wonderful young couple joined the church I was serving. Their sincerity was remarkable. They jumped into the program life of the church (youth ministry, mission work, teaching Sunday school, adult study groups, pot-lucks, and tithing). After two years of very involved membership they left the church. They met with me first and explained that they appreciated my work as pastor, my preaching etc., but that they had done everything that the church offered, and were looking for something more. They were yearning for something, some deep connection with Christ, that the program and worship life of the congregation did not touch. They could not name it or describe it, but it was painfully real for them. So they left.

The truth is that I frequently feel that way. I spend too much of my time serving an organization constituted by programs, practices, and structures that often do not touch the deepest resonances of my spirit. Sometimes it touches me deeply. Other times it feels irrelevant. I often feel as if we are providing answers to questions that most people are not asking, and that I am serving an organization desperately trying to prove that it is relevant. .

And yet I am convinced that our essential mission: making disciples of Jesus Christ who bring and embody Christ’s love in the world, is the most relevant and meaningful thing I would do with my life. I still believe that my vocation is to do that in and through the church. The question remains: how? What form does the community take? How do we be the ekklesia in this new context?

By: Ian Carmichael

Ian Carmichael — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:36:38 +0000

And the same is true for me – a chance to think in a different setting, with different and dynamic conversations (although a forumised platform lends itself better to dynamic conversation, and particularly cross -conversations than the comment-stacking system of blogs. I digress!)
I can be refined, reformed, refocussed rebuked, reconnected – and that carries out into my other communities for enrichment there, and return here.
The least useful thing I can do is join a ‘yes’ forum where we all follow in one another’s footsteps!