life affirmed

There's something terribly life-affirming about this news from the BBC:

Down's births rise despite tests

More Down's syndrome babies are being born than before pre-natal screening became widespread, figures show. The UK saw 749 Down's births in 2006, up from 717 in 1989 when tests came in.

I'm not a parent. I don't have close friends or family who have the joys and pains of children with disabilities or learning difficulties. So in many ways I'm not qualified to pass comment on others' decisions.

But there is something there which lifts the soul, and gives you confidence that actually our shared sense of morality as a society is not completely unravelling. The article is woeful because it doesn't count the number of abortions, or miscarriages, or whatever, and the "rise" is probably not statistically significant. Affirming human life is good; learning to care for the weak and the needy, and the just plain different, is a way we show the spark of God's image in us.

when is a church not a church?

A recent post by Dan Kimball set me thinking. He talks about an increasing trend for multi-site churches, whether linked by video sermons, or connected in some other way.

I remarked upon this pattern at Mars Hill in Seattle, back in July, with further reflections on using video, later. I had no idea it was so widespread. It seems most curious. If you have a bunch of people who meet at separate locations, and interact with each other firstly on the basis of where they meet, and you put together a group of those, you don't have a church, you have a denomination. "Bishop Mark" sounds altogether more grand than "Pastor Mark", don't you think?

Why would you do this? Well, if you're planting churches, they will tend to retain ties to the mother church for a little while. But surely the whole point of the mother-daughter picture is that you aim for maturity and eventual independence in the latter.

I'm fearful that the biggest reason for such arrangements - especially where video is involved - is the cult of the lead preacher. On the one hand, it makes eminent sense that those who are particularly gifted in teaching should do more of it, and share their gift using whatever modern technology is available. On the other hand, the notion of a "teaching pastor" - somewhat cut off from day-to-day interactions with the flock, and devoted only to preaching - seems alarming and very much a mistake. All the more so when that teaching is promulgated largely through high definition video, or to a huge auditorium where the preacher cannot see the whites of the eyes of the flock.

Having quite so many people beholden to one man (it always seems to be a man) seems calculated to end in tears. Even if he is the most sainted, prophetic individual alive, what will happen when his ministry comes to an end? Will he be replaced by another, in an office-bearing kind of way? Or will the whole personality cult disintegrate? "It is not good for man to be alone" applies very much to those who would teach, as well as its original reference.

Perhaps I'm just sensitized to the dangers of one-man-ministry, the unnecessary weight of denominations, and the need for plurality in leadership because I've just finished Frank Viola's book. But then, I have to confess that I have come to doubt his methodology: the New Testament gives us a pattern for what church ought to be like, most probably - a church in the first century Mediterranean culture. Precisely how much that tells us about how church ought to be in our culture is, I think, debatable. But it seems most, most unwise to eschew denominations on the one hand, and almost accidentally to create new ones on the other.

review: Reimagining Church

Reimagining church
Frank Viola


I never bothered to read Viola's earlier book, Pagan Christianity, which was the talk of the bologosphere about a year ago. From the reviews I saw, I expected that I would know much of what he had to say, already. I looked forward to this book, though, as a much more positive offering. The previous book, if you like, set out what had gone wrong with the church; here, Reimagining church: pursing the dream of organic Chtistianity would surely reset the balance by suggesting what to do about it.

Well, it does. Sort of. The trouble is, I had an overwhelming sense of déja vu. For in chapter after chapter, as if he is describing something new, Viola describes to near perfection the tradition I grew up with. That's generally known as the "Christian Brethren", a decidedly vague name, on account of how that group (if it can be called a group) has never sought a name, or an identity, or any kind of denominational structure. In a sense, it's no surprise that Viola should rediscover Bretheren ecclesiology: after all, in the early chapters he warmly quotes F. F. Bruce, who was for most of his life a leading member of a Brethren assembly.

So, the book takes us through the reasons for Christians meeting together, the centrality of the Lord's supper, the open participation of all believers [ok, so for the Brethren, "all" has tended to mean "all men". Things have moved on], pluarality of leadership, elders as emerging gifted indivduals, not office-holders, consensus as a means of assembly decision-making, and so on. If you picked up any text on Brethren distinctives, you would find exactly the same stuff - even to the repeated phrase of "being gathered to Christ alone".

One point of divergence, perhaps, is that Viola stresses the value of meeting in homes rather than set-aside sancturaies: togetherness, rather than pews facing a pulpit (or altar, if you're of a higher church persusaion): Brethren have often - and in recent years, particularly - tended to own premises for the assembly to meet in, but frequently will meet "in the round" rather than in traditional church format.

So what shall I make of Viola's suggestion that this is how church should be? Well, the Brethren movement, if we shall call it that, has lasted some 170 years, but is becoming close to defunct: those that kept their distinctives have mostly whithered away; those who have embraced other ideas are often indistinguishable from other free churches (with notable exceptions). Part of me is thrilled to see these ideas rehearsed afresh, because I have held many of them very dear for a long time; part of me is disarmed, to say the least, that they should be presented as if discovered for the first time. (If, dear reader, you want to see a sometimes tenuous argument that these ideas have been present throughout church history, you might try to lay your hands on the truly ponderous The Pilgrim Church, by E. H. Broadbent. You should buy a case of Red Bull at the same time.)

As regards content and presentation, the book is fairly easy to read, though frequent long quotes from other authors put me off, rather. The rhetoric is over-blown at times, giving rise to some questionable bits of theology: even though I tend to find the conclusions sound, the argument is sometimes rather dodgy.

This is stuff that I feel as if I know a great deal about, in theory and in practice (what works, and what does not). I'm going to have to look for other reivews of this book, I can see...

and where does it lead?

A footnote to my post of yesterday: one of Sweden's parties proposes that as part of its new gay marriage law, pastors should be compelled to officiate at gay weddings, or at no weddings at all.

That might seem an unwelcome interference with church matters, were it not for the blindingly obvious question of why the church is in a position to be dictated to by parliament anyway. Surely the problem, if there is one, is with the relationship of the church with the state, or even with the notion of pastors anyway. [I've been reading Frank Viola's Reimagining Church lately, which takes a particularly hard line on such topics.]

There are some other complexities to the argument, of course - such as which kind of discrimination trumps which other kind. But that wasn't the point I wanted to raise.

nothing to see here; move along

Reading blogs and visiting America several times this year has impressed upon me quite how concerned much of the American church seems to be about what they are calling "gay marriage". This seems to have overtaken some people as the biggest moral concern of the age (ahead of worrying, for example, whether people a few blocks away have food, or access to basic healthcare), and seems to be a yard-stick by which you judge someone's theological orthodoxy.

I'm glad that in the UK, we've largely avoided the depth of this discussion. We've had "civil partnerships" for a few years now, which are gay marriages in all but name. Indeed, colloquially they are known as marriages, with accompanying weddings, husbands, and divorces. And they carry almost identical privileges and responsibilities to marriages. And, surprise, surprise, the moral structure of society hasn't collapsed as a result. The Anglican church has rather tied itself in knots over what to do with its members - and clergy - who elect to enter into such partnerships. But the Anglican church has rather specialized in knots lately.

Now, I confess that I was rather opposed to the whole idea. Not so much on the grounds of trying to limit what consenting adults do in private, but because giving those people the accompanying tax breaks seemed unreasonable to me (a single person). But the fact is that take-up hasn't been enormous and the tax breaks aren't that substantial anyhow. It's a matter of basic humanity to let people nominate those whom they regard as next of kin; it's a matter of simple expediency that if people want to set up home together, they should be able to manage their affairs to reflect their joint ownership of property, and so on. I don't know if it's had any effect at all on promiscuity - its impact on public health can only be positive, though.

I realise that I'm being rather ambivalent about the romantic long-term commitment aspect here, but others are better-placed than I to comment on that. Long-term stable households seem good for society, in general.

In short, this law makes a few people happy and impacts almost not at all on everyone else. It's really not a big deal for those not participating.

Review: Jesus wants to save Christians

Jesus wants to save Christians
Rob Bell and Don Golden


I read enthusiastically Rob Bell's first book Velvet Elvis, and have lent it out and given away several copies as presents. The second book Sex God maybe requires more caution -- someone at church suggest I should pass it around in a brown paper bag -- but I enjoyed that, too. So I was excited to see the publication of his latest book.

In Jesus wants to save Christians, Bell has aqcuired a co-author, Don Golden, formerly another pastor at Mars Hill Church. Stylistically, it doesn't show: the book is still full of Bell's trademark pithy prose. Rather frequently it breaks down

into those short, connected phrases

which are separated by blank lines

and run for up to a page

to make a dramatic point.

And I fear there are too many of them, so the dramatic point is sometimes lost. The presentation is, however, once again, beautiful.

Enough of the externalities. What is the book about? Well, I'd have to say that it has much in common with McLaren's Everything must change, except that where McLaren is verbose in the extreme, Bell and Golden are, well, golden. The readers are left to join the dots for themselves. The book tracks what you might call the redemptive purpose of God across the ages, through the scripture. Along the way we get to reflect on power and weakness, on being exiles and relating to the empire. As with Walsh and Keesmet's Colossians Remixed we have to concern ourselves about whether the church is too associated with the empire and not enough with the exile.

And of course, the climax of the redemption narrative is the cross. The "blood on the doorposts of the universe" as Chapter Six has it. The cross matters deeply in all this -- not only for all that Christ does there, but because he established a eucharistic community. The chapter dwells on this idea of the church as embodying and sharing the eucharist --- the "good gift".

"The church is a living Eucharist, because followers of Christ are living Eucharists. A Christian is a living Eucharist, allowing her body to be broken and her blood to be poured out for the healing of the world."

They talk about how this is accomplished in weakness, in peace, in reconciliation, in a new humanity. They remind us of our calling to give to those who cannot give in return.

And in doing so, they raise a telling question: "if our church was taken away - from our city, our neighbourhood, our region - who would protest?" If only those who belong and attend, then too many are surely missing out on the blessing.

If you don't get to join the dots by yourself, an epiologue to the book spells out some things Jesus wants to save us from. It is good, thought-provoking stuff. I'd rather like to see a companion volume - a study and action guide. Somehow it's easy to let this stuff challenge me, then put it on one side and forget it again. The book is undoubtedly a call to action; a manifesto for a transformed church. Read it.

Too odd

I know that journalists are great at obfuscation. And I know that bookmakers are renowned for taking anyone's money as a bet on anything. But really, news that Paddy Power is offering odds of 4-1 that God exists, really takes the biscuit.

They say that they'll only pay out if there is independently-verified scientific evidence. What kind of evidence can that be? [hint: it's not the `God particle' Higgs Boson being sought at CERN]. It's axiomatic that there will never be scientific evidence for God's existence. There cannot be. To borrow a phrase from Alistair Campbell, science doesn't do God. It cannot. Maybe in some postmodern reconstructed notion of what science might be, it might. But then the notion of "evidence" would be changed. The whole thing, trust me, is a logical absurdity.

They say that the House always wins. Paddy Power is onto a good thing: given their definition of "exitsts", they'll never have to pay out.