One of the things about moving cities is that you have to learn about how to do things again. You need to find a new doctor, dentist, car mechanic, a favourite cafe, a faith community, and of course a place to get your hair cut.

I am still trying to find the best place to get my haircut. At one place I tried I was asked, “have you washed your hair with shampoo?” as if it was a sort of prerequisite for being allowed to get a hair cut.

Now last year for Lent I gave up shampoo and conditioner. Since then I haven’t once washed my hair with anything except water. Without any negative side-effects.

I answered, “I have washed my hair”. I presume they must have assumed that my answer was “yes” to their question. At least my conscience is clear that I didn’t lie, I just did what any politician would do. I didn’t actually answer the question. Either way, I got my hair cut and they charged me a ridiculous amount of money for frankly a pretty poor cut.

Anyway, since that Lent washing my hair without any product has become normal. A habit if you will. It started off being a practice for Lent, and became a part of my normal everyday. It has become a part of me. I have changed. To be sure, it isn’t a significant change. But, it is a change none the less.

Now, what of Lent 2010? What should I do to help me practice the faith and to reflect on the way of Christ on the journey to Easter? What should I do to bring change to myself for the betterment of my relationship with God and the world?

Andrew Prior is not really doing anything specific for Lent because he has found that in his context and story it doesn’t seem to matter. Lent simply wasn’t a part of his childhood tradition, and it doesn’t ground him in his context now.

So why would I celebrate Lent?  In the popular inherited story in my city, Lent is where you feel sorry for being bad, and causing so much trouble to land on Jesus’ head. It’s an impoverished understanding of Lent, to be sure, but when a tradition is weak in its appeal, the inherited story is how we know it.

{snip}

Symbol, devotion, and ritual ground us in our tradition.  They ground our life, making it more real, by connecting it to a tradition which we share with others. Perhaps that is why I miss a Lenten discipline, even though, at another level, the rituals are off putting. Just like any Sunday when I sit ill at ease as we rehearse our worship tradition, I want to connect more with God. How may I ritualize and ground my life, and my sense of God?

- Andrew Prior, http://scotschurch.org

As I approached Lent, I have struggled to think of something that wouldn’t be superficial – that would be useful for me to do.

I think my problem right now is that I have yet to find my feet in Canberra. I am probably being harsh on myself, as it has been only six weeks since we moved. And, it may seem ironic, given that I grew up in Canberra. But, both Canberra and I are different.

And, Canberra is different from Sydney. The way of life is different here. The issues of life are different. The conversations, the pressures, the whole environment is different.

About two weeks ago it finally dawned on me that this means that the way I practice my faith needs to be different. I haven’t yet grounded myself in this place to allow me to know how to be here. I am not at ease with living my faith here. I need to re-contextualise myself faith in this place.

So I think my Lenten exercise will be to try and [re]discover the symbols and rituals that may ground me into the traditions of this place. This may help me find to a rhythm of living here with my family.

So where to look?

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Apostles’ Creed is generally used by a wide number of denominations of the western Christian church for liturgical and catechetical purposes. The Uniting Church (as a union of the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational traditions) also uses the creed during things such as baptisms.

“The Uniting Church enters into unity with the Church throughout the ages by its use of the confessions known as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Uniting Church receives these as authoritative statements of the Catholic Faith, framed in the language of their day and used by Christians in many days, to declare and to guard the right understanding of that faith. The Uniting Church commits its ministers and instructors to careful study of these creeds and to the discipline of interpreting their teaching in a later age. It commends to ministers and congregations their use for instruction in the faith, and their use in worship as acts of allegiance to the Holy Trinity.”

- Uniting Church, Basis of Union (1992 edition)

I reckon that too often people just read it off the page at worship gatherings without really knowing what it is trying to say, or what the context of the situation it was trying to address. It isn’t people are not being faithful, or that their hearts are in the wrong place. It is just that too often, in order to belong and feel safe, people seem to have the idea that conformity is what is required for unity. And, generally inside the church community the party line is never publically or openly questioned.

The Apostles’ Creed is something that many people (including myself) who consider themselves part of the church, followers of Jesus, struggle with. I am not saying that what the early church was trying to say through the creed is not true or mean that the early church leaders were stupid or wrong. The problem is that the language that is used in the versions in use within the church doesn’t make sense given what we know about the world.

It is an important piece of our Christian heritage, but I think too many people have “received this creed” as an “authoritative statement” of faith without having considered them in “careful study” to understand and interpret the teaching in the present age.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Newcastle to attend the baptism of a nephew. A friend is the minister at the church and she had re-written/contextualised the standard Uniting Church liturgy for baptism. Within the liturgy was also a version of the Apostles’ Creed that finally I felt I could read and speak freely without compromising my integrity.

The Apostles’ Creed

We believe in God beyond us,
Maker and keeper of all life,
Of night and day
Of water and earth
Of male and female.

We believe in God beside us,
Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh,
Born of a woman, servant of the poor.
He was tortured and nailed to a cross and died.
He went from earth to the place of death.
On the third day he rose from the tomb.
He went from earth to the place of life,
and his kingdom will come on earth.

We believe in God within us,
Life giving breath of the church
Spirit of healing and forgiveness
The power for new life everlasting.

Amen.

Note: the original source of inspiration for this  version of the Apostles’ Creed has been lost in its redactional history.

So what do you think? How would you re-interpret the words of the Apostles’?

In a post on his excellent blog Matt Stone asked “What’s your understanding of the difference between churchianity and Christianity?”.  His question was in response to reading Sally’s post about being fed up with churchianity.

My initial response is that churchianity happens when the church culture is not focussed on Jesus and living his way. Of course what this looks like is very much dependant on who you say Jesus is, and how you understand his mission and teachings. That being said, I don’t think any of us are not guilty of having missed the point of Jesus’ mission and teachings. After all we are all, as Scot McKnight reminds us, cracked eikons.

Even Peter missed the point that Jesus was trying to get the disciples to understand about his mission (see Mark 8:31-38). Peter had some built up expectations (that most of the Jewish community probably shared) of what the Messiah was meant to be. It was clear from Jesus’ response that Peter didn’t really get it. Too often we find ourselves making the same mistake Peter made.

Get behind me Churchianity! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.

Ironically, it is the people who do not name themselves as followers of Jesus Christ  that can often awaken us to our churchianity. I often find myself cringing inside when they speak about their expectations of what the church is and should be doing.

And it a sad reflection on the Church that their perception of what Christians believe to be important is often reduced down to issues personal morality or a set of thou shalt not rules. Of course, this is not helped by the media which contributes by focussing a light on the failure and hypocrisy of the church and its members.

Too often the people on the ‘outside’ seem to know that we have missed the point. While, the media generally doesn’t get religion, let alone Jesus we cannot really blame them for their contribution. For the most part it is the Church’s fault.

They have noticed that we have entered into some very strange and sometimes poorly considered choices and practices.  Such as providing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Or worse still, invent a whole theological construct in order to explain why they need Jesus.

The Church has continued to use marketing tools and slogans to sell the Gospel forgetting that simply loving others is what actually works. Too many leaders in the church get sucked in by the bright lights and shiny gimmicks. Using technology because it is cool, rather than meeting a real need when and where it is appropriate.

There is no shortage in the numbers of ways that the Church has missed the point. A few of them are described in the book titled Adventures in Missing the Point co-authored by Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo a couple of years ago.

Everyone has a certain capacity for tolerating some of the stuff that goes on in the name of the God and/or the church. But, an increasing number of people (like Sally) are really over it.

The sad reality is that Churchianity ultimately results in practices that undermine the very Gospel of reconciliation that we are called preach.

Matt noted in his blog post:

The thing is, while I value conversations about church and the new forms that are emerging, I think we’ve lost our way if church dominates our conversations. What’s far more essential, what’s far more important to be talking about, is Christ.

Conversations about emerging church are only going to appeal to the already churched. If we’re authentically interested in the unchurched then we need to have more open ears to their interests and how Jesus relates to them.

- Matt Stone

Basically I agree with Matt. I too like thinking and talking about new ways of practicing the faith – as church. But, too often, we see the conversations and the practices end up looking more like putting lipstick on a pig.

The Church must always be centred on Jesus and the way of the Christ. It does this because it is called to be a living sign of the body of Christ.

Jesus Christ named what we ought to be doing – loving God, and loving our neighbour as ourselves. When we love – the church reflects the nature and presence of God who is love. When the new commandment is practiced by the church as a community of love the presence of Jesus Christ is seen in the world.

Our love is the most authentic communication of the good news.

Afterwards I tagged along as they went to the ABC studios to be interviewed by ABC’s John Cleary for the Sunday Nights radio program. I managed to get a photo of them after the interview.

Ian Mobsby (B1) and Pete Pillinger (B2)

Listen: We Like Wearing Pyjamas

I think it is a subject that is likely to be kicked around for some time to come. (Shane Hipps sparked a recent debate which was followed by Scot McKnight, with a couple of replies with Anne Jackson joining in just before she gave it up for Lent.)

For some reason it is a little bit of a sensitive subject. This may possibly be because the dominant paradigm view of being church that puts the gathering of the [local] church on Sunday at [a] church [building] at the centre of the notion of community.

I happen the think that the way this dominant view is maintained is through the way we use language.

Yeah, sure, we use language that identifies the church with the mystery of being a part of the ‘communion of saints’ as we share the meal together. We speak of the church gathered and un-gathered. But, for the most part, our language (from the pulpit, in the pews, in our publications, and even in the media) still places the institutionally organised worship service in the building as the way of being church.

It isn’t wrong to think of "ekklesia" as those gathered together in faith, discipleship, witness, and service — around Jesus Christ. But, is it really appropriate to limit our understanding of "ekklesia" to a framework of space that was within the first century CE cosmology of the apostle Paul?

No, I am not saying that it is a bad thing for use to gather together for mutual edification and nurture. And, I am not saying that a virtual community is the same or can do the same things as a physical community. Nor is it a substitute for physical community.

The trouble with the debate perhaps is a matter of language. The debate seems to get bogged down into the notion of what community is. I wonder if the problem is that the debate shouldn’t really be about the nature of community – but the debate would be best dealt with by going beyond the definition of community.

I don’t think it is helpful to us language that describes a website or the internet per se as being the community. My developing understanding is that the Internet (websites, blogs, Twitter, and Facebook) would be better understood as space(s) that act as a plane of existence in which community may be found.

The likes of Pete Rollins and John Caputo are much better equipped to help us with the philosophical nature of the nature of metaphysics and existence or lack thereof. But, unfortunately I do need to dabble with my limited grasp of the subject to work with the idea of space.

The almost forgotten word cyberspace was coined to describe this notion of a virtual place that we know as the Internet.

I understand a website is merely a node in cyberspace, and your being(identity) is separate from that node. Within one or more nodes you may find a hint of the event of your being(identity) can be found as a form of existence in the form of blog posts, twitters, photos, or the like.

The debate of ‘virtual community’ seems to assume a dualistic cosmology separating the physical from the virtual. A number of authors I have read have likened this separation as not being unlike the physical/spiritual dualism that is clearly held in our church culture and language.

However, what cyberspace shows us is that your being(identity) in its existence, the event of your person can be in many spaces at the same time.

Could it be that regardless of the space we exist we can find that we participate in one or more communities (gathered and ungathered) simultaneously across the space (and time) continuum? Yes, we move our attention and in and out of the spaces. But, just because we are in the proximity of one community, doesn’t mean the event of our presence has ceased to exist in the other space. Perhaps this is another example of us being made in the ‘image of God’.

I think we need to get beyond this limitation. And, working within the notion of virtual existence is a pretty good place to help move along the whole conversation. Because in reality it isn’t really about the technology or virtual reality. In actually fact we are trying to come to terms with the reality that our view of things has to shift.

At the moment my thinking is that being Church isn’t about proximity but it does help the community of faith do Church. But, people who have never met can participate share common objectives and work together towards making the world a better place. This can happen both in the physical and virtual spaces.

The irony of the debate is that virtual depends on the physical. The Internet exists because of the physical network communications infrastructure in place.

We are both in the virtual and physical at the same time. Translating this into Rob Bell speak – everything is spiritual. We don’t really move in and out of these states of existence they just are. My internet presence doesn’t stop just because I am not looking at the screen.

Orthodox theology has the language to help us open up ourselves to understand that we actual live in a state of concurrent existence.

If Paul had been around these days we may have got a letter addressed to the dear friends of the church at Scot McKnight’s blog.

Last week a Wall Street Journal reporter had an interesting contemporary twist on that theme: parents trying to abstain from Facebook. (via getReligion.org)

Of course people do get addicted:

No I am not giving up Facebook or any other technology related things for Lent.

I have given up shampoo and conditioner for Lent. Last year on our local ABC radio drive time presenter Richard Glover had a No Shampoo Challenge.  It all began when Richard discovered that London Times columnist, former Tory MP and political sketch writer Matthew Parris had not washed his hair for 15 years. He rinses his hair vigorously with water, but just doesn’t use shampoo.

Matthew Parris was a little bemused by the whole thing.

The results of Richard’s challenge have been published here.

As a side note Matthew Parris also wrote an interesting article in the Times last December where he noted that as an atheist he truly believes that Africa needs God.

You are invited to join in a conversation about engaging in mission and leadership with the UK Fresh Expressions core team Pete Pillinger and Ian Mobsby at the next Converse event on 12 March 2009. More information can be found on the Spirited website.

There have been plenty of book reviews both positive and negative. This is probably one of the most helpful reviews on the negative side of the fence (via Brant Hansen) is shown in this screenshot from Amazon.com…

Despite the review it isn’t a bad a book. But it isn’t necessarily the book that many people may think it is when they pick it up to read it. The book clearly has a market proven by the number of sales. This book is definitely in the ‘viral book’ category as it has spread quickly, being sold mostly because of personal word of mouth recommendations.

It is a book that is highly acclaimed by some people yet has also attracted a lot of criticism and vitriol from some sectors who have condemned the author for heresy. There are even stories of leadership in some faith communities banning members from reading the book. You would think it that Harry Potter had made a guest appearance in the pages.

William P. Young has been interviewed by Drew Marshall (a really cool dude with a radio show worth listening to) who has managed to get some really good insights to the person behind the story. If you listen to the interviews you will probably want buy the book. The interviews, and my interest as to why the book was so popular, were the primary reasons as to why I decided to buy it.

Although there is a lot to cringe about in this book, I found The Shack to be an easy but predictable read. I don’t think it is as profound or significant as perhaps some other people appear to believe it to be. The book clearly has deeply touched a number of people. For me the read was a little like what the character, played by Sean Connery, in Finding Forrester describes as having dessert.

Of course everything we do (not) speak about God is heretical. But, for what it is worth, my opinion is that it isn’t really that heretical. Of course, even if it was heretical, if someone tells you not to read a book, it becomes a must read.

I found The Shack provided a reasonably distinctive and creative, yet still traditionally orthodox, take on the nature of the Trinity. I appreciated how Young personified each of the persons of the Trinity, especially the person of the Holy Spirit.

Someone asked me if I would be willing to give a copy of book to someone. Yes. But, I would never give it to a person who was not already part of the church community. Especially if they were Australian.

Definitely one of the best things about the popular book is that it is non-utilitarian and has nothing about people having a purpose. Not that the book isn’t trying to sell you something – it clearly has a story it wants you to make your own. Culturally speaking, it is quite a ‘preachy’ book so would probably get up the nose of the average punter in Australia. I think it is clearly a book for people who have (at least sometime in their life) been a part of the church.

A quick comparison of sales between the USA and Australia are a pretty good and interesting indicator of the status of religion and religious culture in each country. The Shack is a bestseller pretty much everywhere in the USA. However, only really makes a significant presence in the Christian bookstores in Australia.

For a better review of the book you might want to read what Al Hsu (author of a a really good book, The Suburban Christian) had to say.

Buy this Book

Buy this Book

According to the article, “the average combined cost of a wedding and honeymoon has risen by 25 per cent – or $10,000 – in the past two years”. Apparently the “average wedding now costs $49,202, which is 76 per cent more than it did eight years ago”. 

I generally take anything that a tabloid such as the Daily Telegraph prints with a generous dose of salt – if I read it at all. However, what the article reports is not inconsistent with my anecdotal knowledge of what is happening in the community. The numbers given in the article did not surprise me but they do provide me with some concern.

Does a $6000 wedding dress really contribute any value to the day. If anything such expenses are not really likely to put the marriage on a easy path. In 1998 a report by Relationships Australia stated that financial stress is one of the primary factors in contributing to divorce. I am not convinced that it is healthy for a marriage to have a situation where people take on second jobs to cover the cost of the wedding day. It is hard enough as it is for young couples to add this to the load.

I know for many people (and cultures) the wedding day is a really important and big thing. Jesus used the metaphor of the wedding to talk about the Kingdom of God and he clearly enjoyed a party and making a contribution to the celebration. Weddings really are a good thing and worth celebrating. It is fine to spend money on a good party.

We have a monster in our culture – the wedding industry. To a great extent the contemporary wedding has become a rite that is practiced at the altar of consumerism. To make matters worse, despite the declining role of the church in weddings, it too is complicit in this industry.

I believe that the church really needs to address the whole concept of weddings and marriage. This is an area where the culture of the wider community (and state) has influenced the practices and culture of the church community significantly. And, this is not just about the issue of same-gender marriage – it goes well beyond that.

So, what should the church be doing to practically address this situation?

Steve also gets to the heart of the issue when it comes to apologetics…

Regardless of my own beliefs/faith/whatever, I’ve always been baffled by posters stating ‘facts’ about God, or with bible verses on them. It always smacked of some kind of talismanic evangelical witch-craft; ‘if we use bits of the Bible, it has special powers and people will be saved‘… Surely actually talking about this stuff is more useful.

Steve Lawson