The 10 Marks of Missionary Orders

(according to Alastair Redfern, Bishop of Derby)

I always enjoy Bishop Alastair's teaching, as his grasp of history and its connection to our present is fantastic. Today was no exception. As an introduction to a morning on Mission Action Plans (MAPs - used in many parishes and diocese to encourage mission and community engagement), he offered us a overview of the role of Missionary Orders in the 12th and 13th centuries.

As a member of a modern Missionary Order (TOM - The Order of Mission), I was enormously encouraged by his reflections and post them here for your consideration.

Context:

The 12-13th centuries were periods of change and insecurity. The growth of towns moved people away from their settled rural lifestyles and the parish system struggled to respond to these changes. It's essentially attractional model (we are static, you come to us) seemed out of step with a population that was starting to become mobile.

The drivers for mission in this period where the missionary orders, founded by Frances and Dominic. The both led mission and produced (through inspiration and conflict) renewal within the traditional parish system.

The marks of these religious orders included:

1) Raising people up to radical commitment to Christ outside the parish system. A system of motherhouses and missiionary enterprises provided the framework for this commitment to be expressed. The kinds of people (knights and noblemen) who would never consider traditional, parish ministry were inspired to a radical conversion and lifestyle of faith.

2) Reform of the existing models of ministry. Itinerant preachers (friars) existed alongside settled ministers, sometimes complementing them, sometimes conflcting with them. But certainly producing change.

3) A discipline of prayer and Bible study. Members of religious orders took vows to pray and study together. Both in the motherhouses and outside, these vows were taken seriously and provided the context of the radical discipleship that was lacking in much of the rest of the Church.

4) A fresh missionary strategy. The message of the religious orders was the love of God (particularly Francis) and its members expressed this through living it out in sacrificial service.

5) In a world obsessed with power, the friars preached the justice. This is particularly interesting today, where many people view God as a power-monger, rather than one who seeks justice on the earth.

6) 'The truce of God'. In a violent age, churches and minsters became places of sanctuary, to which people could flee for refuge from violence. The Sabbath was observed carefully, as the day of rest, re-creation and sanctuary from the busyness of life.

7) Chivalry mattered. Many of these ex-knights and noblemen was considered almost romantic heroes, demonstrating their love for God and his world through sacrifical acts of service for others. 'The chivalry of God' was expressed through the heroic sacrifice of his Son, Jesus, for our behalf on the cross.

8) The idea of 'Respectus' (according to Abelard of Bath): that every person, regardless of rank or circunstance, is precious before God.

9) A mix of international identity and local expression. The orders were international and held clearly defined values right across the order, but worked in localities, living out the values of the order in widely varying settings.

10) A commitment to 'Scolasticism'. Perhaps less popular today, the Orders required knowledge of a wide range of intellectual subjects, including the sciences and arts as well as theology. Members were expected to have a intellectual grasp of the breadth of the Gospel as joined-up thinking on all sorts of subjects.

Finally, Bishop Alastair, in response to a question, reflected on the new language the religious orders brought to the Church and world at large. The first language, he suggested, was the language of 'acting out love'. For members of religious orders, the Gospel was not something that gathered them into a parish church every Sunday, but something that called them to act out the love of God in whole-hearted devotion and commitment for the rest of their lives.

The second language was an internal, intellectual language that fed and sustained the members of the religious orders through the motherhouses and their missionary endeavours.

Well, I don't know if you found that interesting. I certainly did. When the Church finds internal renewal difficult and loses its missionary zeal, it seems that God raises up missionary orders on the fringes of the church to help bring that renewal and to lead God's people into 'acting out love' in the world around them. While there will often be conflict with the embedded institution, it seems that such orders can accomplish real change in their generation. Let's hope something similar happens in ours.

The Twelve Truths of Christmas
Here are twelve brief thoughts on what the Christmas stories mean.
1. God will ruin your life
For Mary and Joseph, the Christmas story must have ruined the plans they had for a happy married life. These two were no ‘smug marrieds’. When God gets involved, it is inconvenient and disruptive.
2. ‘Hope deferred makes the heart sick’
For Zechariah, the long years of marriage without children had made him heart-sick. His response to Gabriel – ‘How can this be?’ – was the same as Mary’s, yet Gabriel’s rebuke tells us that Zechariah had given into hopelessness and despair.
3. Mary did not win the X Factor
Why did God choose Mary? This year’s BBC Nativity series gives us some insight into her love for and devotion to God. After all, as God reminded Samuel when choosing David, Jesus’ forefather, ‘people look at the outside, but God looks at the heart.’ Mary’s prophetic song to Elizabeth shows us what was in her heart, because ‘out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.’
4. Mary had to be a virgin
The virgin birth is a much-derided doctrine in secular circles. However, it has to be true for a number of reasons. Firstly, to fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy (not a particularly good reason). Secondly, to make sense of the Incarnation. Jesus was born from a young woman who’d never slept with a man. Only this way can he both fully God and fully man.
5. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God’
Back to the BBC again. The star over Bethlehem, as dramatically portrayed in the Nativity series, was, it seems, a number of planets lining up in conjunction. While creation follows the laws established for it, still it displays the glory of God.
6. God loves smelly places
Jesus was born in a smelly, dirty stable. Immortalised in countless Christmas cards, the stable has become sanitised and beautified. Of course it wasn’t like that. Yet God was content for Jesus to be born there, because he values this beautiful, smelly, messed-up ball of a planet and the people on it beyond comprehension.
7. Everything God does starts small
(This is for Christmas Day 2010). We often want God to be big and dramatic. But Jesus said it never starts like that. We have to learn to see the seed of the Kingdom so we can nurture it into the tree it becomes. ‘Who despises the day of small beginnings?’ wrote Zechariah. Doesn’t get much smaller than a baby.
8. Both High and Low shall worship
The shepherds and the magi bring the heights of educated society together with the uneducated working class. One group came through their education and learning; the other because of a sign and a wonder. How we need both today.
9. God can take care of the sheep
Like the parable, the shepherds left their sheep on the mountains to search for the one. In this case, it was the King not the lost sheep. Yet, in both cases, we are remained that we sometimes have to leave the things we feel responsible for in God’s hands so we can follow him.
10. We have to journey into the unknown
The magi made a journey to find Jesus. They left the lives they knew (for a while) to seek out the King and bring back news of his birth. In the Song of Songs, the lover invites his beloved to find him ‘beyond the towns’, out in the wilderness. Too often, the comfortable and familiar keep us too busy and comfortable to take the journey to find Jesus.
11. Heaven could not help itself
On the mountainside, with only shepherds and sheep in attendance, heaven could not help itself. It had to celebrate. That’s what heaven’s like: any excuse for a party. Doesn’t matter who can come. Heaven’s own joy is reason enough to celebrate.
12. You find God in strange places
These days, we think we have to go to church to find God. The truth is, you find God in strange places. Not just religious places nor royal ones, but you find God in poverty and need, in sickness and in brokenness. These are no stranger than stable.

Review of 2010/Preview of 2011

So, from an entirely subjective viewpoint, what were some of the main themes of 2010 and where might they take us in 2011?

2010 was the year when...

Austerity became the new black

The boom years couldn't last. In fact, they didn't. We thought we were surfing an economic wave that would last indefinitely, instead we've ended up smashing into the beach of economic reality. 2010 has been a tough year, but 2011 will be even tougher. Make no mistake, as the public sector lay-offs begin, certain parts of the country (South Yorkshire, the North-East) are going to face real trials ahead.

The last time this happened was the 1980's. I don't even remember it, being at boarding school for most of it. One thing I know, however, is that the Church was ill-prepared for what was happening in society around it. Unrenewed, with little missional zeal, food parcels were the best most congregations could offer. Perhaps, this time around, we'll do a little better.

Atheism overplayed its hand

I've just watched another atheist on 4thought.tv, this time lambasting Jesus' teaching on turn the other cheek. The atheism/faith debate remains a fascinating one, even if tends to be dominated by the extremists. However, my feeling is that the incredibly negative language of some atheistic contributors is starting to have a negative effect. (I'm particularly thinking of Richard Dawkins around the time of the Pope's visit). I may be wrong but it seems that the British public don't like having either faith or atheism shoved down their throats...

In 2011, we will have to get better at (kindly and politely) addressing the many questions thrown up by this debate. It will help if we stop being afraid of science.

However, words are not the only answer. Atheism does not offer a worldview by which most people can live. Lives lived well in grace and love will be as effective as well-rehearsed rebuttals.

Lady Gaga became the new black

2010 has seen Lady Gaga's star rise and rise. Lady Gaga has achieved the unlikely combination of adoring attention from both critics and public. We seem to love the fact that she is both profound and completely insane. The remarkable feats of presentation are combined with effortlessly fun pop tunes in the context of (what seems) a complete disregard for the bounds of convention and taste.

As someone with two young daughters, however, it's all a bit problematic. My eldest asked the other day whether Lady Gaga is 'good' or 'bad'. Normally a simple question, but in Lady Gaga's case, it provoked much thought and a fairly complicated answer.

Facebook won

RIP Myspace, Bibo, et al. 2010 was the year when Facebook won. You may like other social networking sites, but, face facts, Hollywood is not going to make a movie about the founders of Twitter. Facebook now has over 500 million users and has left the competition in the dust. This was illustrated to me during a BBC radio discussion about cyber-bullying. Having discussed Facebook (where it is an issue) and Twitter (where it's not), the host asked the BBC's technology correspondant about other social networking sites only to hear that they are no longer relevant because, basically, everyone's on Facebook.

In a communications team meeting recently, I amazed myself by musing how, compared to Facebook, our church's website seems so static. A few years ago, websites were considered the height of interactivity. Now, close your website and start a Facebook group. It's much easier and will do the job better.

So, roll on 2011!

Why I believe in God (Part 1)
Evidence and Proof

This is an occasional series with my thoughts on the current dialogue within our culture and media between faith, doubt and unbelief.

I wanted to begin with some thoughts on the difference between evidence and proof. Most people of faith will tell you that you can’t ‘prove’ the existence of God. Unfortunately, in popular culture this sometimes transmutes into ‘there is no evidence for the existence of God’. This, in turn, leads to the idea that faith is irrational, or even anti-rational, because it is based on no evidence.
Yet, evidence and proof are not the same thing. Proof is undeniable; evidence may be open to more than one interpretation without either interpretation being ridiculous. Within a law court, evidence is presented and may be disputed, discounted or accepted. Evidence may provide proof or it may contribute to the wider case. The case as a whole may build on a number of pieces of evidence which together provide something which, if not absolute proof, is close enough to gain rational acceptance.
(In the current debate within our society, we seem to have replaced the law court with the laboratory – an issue I will pick up in a later post.)
I would like to suggest that you can’t prove the existence of God. Yet, I would also like to suggest that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God.
What might this evidence be? We will consider some of these issues in more detail in future posts, but, in brief: why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe seem to work so well? Where does our sense of good and evil come from? Why do so many people believe in God?
There are, of course, different answers to each of these questions. The answers we provide offer evidence – data, if you like – in the dialogue between faith and unbelief.
For instance, if there were a loving God who desired to share that love more widely, then it is rational to believe he might create a universe within which people could develop who could know that love. This universe would need to be conducive to life, which ours, happily, is.
We might expect people who were designed to know God to have some prior connection to their Maker – perhaps to have some sense of what is right or wrong within the universe. It would be reasonable to expect a longing to know their Maker to exist within those people as well, a longing that might be expressed in myriad different cultural forms yet could be considered to be universal to all cultures, if not to all people within those cultures.
For me, all of this is evidence. Not proof, but evidence. While each piece is open to different interpretations, I don’t believe the evidence is fundamentally inconsistent with the existence of God.
Of course, the fact that we can’t prove the existence of God may even be evidence for the existence of God.
What if there were a loving God who wanted people to know him yet would not override their free will because love not given freely is not love at all? A God like that might litter the world with evidence in such a way that humanity might be drawn towards God without being forced to concede the existence of God.
Even Jesus said to his disciples, ‘They will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead’ (Luke 17.31). The piece of evidence that, for many, constitutes absolute proof of the existence of God is still, according to Jesus himself, something that people will assign many different interpretations to.
So, to my mind, any debate over whether we can ‘prove’ the existence of God misunderstands what it means to believe in God and fails to grasp the difference between evidence and proof. It is easy for both atheists and people of faith to fall into arguments over proof when a more helpful conversation might be achieved if we listen carefully to the evidence each other feels supports their point of view.
Next time: God is Not Material

Pocket Futures

Culturally, we live in interesting times. Our society is becoming a mish-mash of cultural influences which, in my opinion, will be increasingly hard to define in the years ahead. I was reminded of this listening to Amanda Hancox from the BBC at our recent diocesan Clergy Conference. When talking about the BBC's strategy for connecting with as wide an audience as possible, she commented on how listeners in the North-East of the UK (for example) required a difference approach to listeners in London and the South-East.

Having lived in a large city for many years and now in a small, northern town, I am convined that our cultural present (and future) has become utterly fragmented. This is going to make it difficult to talk about overarching cultural trends (such as the shift from modernism to post-modernism) in the future as people's experiences and values vary from place to place and group to group.

My phrase for this is 'pocket culture'. I think in the future we are going to be unable to describe cultural trends in over-arching terms, but are going to have to face the reality that pocket cultures exist all over the UK, which are intimately connected to each other but have important distinctions as well. I think this may fly in the face of much contemporary thinking which has focussed on the shift from modernism to post-modernism or solid to liquid modernity (after Zygmunt Bauman and Pete Ward).

The reason for this is that we live in a time of transition. The certainties of modernism have proved themselves to be false, yet post-modernism is not up to the job of replacing those certainties with something equally concrete. Some enjoy the flux but most flounder. We need certainties by which to live, even if we say we don't. I'm increasingly feeling that post-modernism is a spent force, delighting in deconstruction which leaves us with nothing to hold on to. Its promises of greater freedom and personal autonomy have proved false as we have re-discovered that community is as critical to identity, meaning and purpose as is individuality.

This idea of 'pocket cultures' touches on why it is impossible currently to legislate nationally on issues such as Anti-Social Behaviour. Young people are gathering themselves into 'pocket cultures' which require people to enter each pocket of culture and find innovative ways to bring about change. Change is possible, of course, but each case is particular.

It also explains why, in churches, we might experience a move of God but, unlike in times past, our neighbours may not even notice (apart from more parking problems). Our 'cultural pocket' is not theirs. The revival we long for, then, is going to look very different from any we have seen before.

Yet, as a church leader, I am energised by this cultural shift. It has the potential to reinvigorate our sense of local mission as ideas imported from other 'pockets' may not work without serious adaptation. In our town, which is largely white and prosperous, there are various identifiable 'cultural pockets' who require different missionary strategies and possibilities. As a church, we are connecting with some of these but not others. Yet, the challenges, while challenging, are fascinating. In our larger cities, the issue is only amplified.

So, the questions is: what characterises the various 'pocket cultures' in your setting? What values do they hold? What hopes and dreams? And what missionary practices might be necessary for Christians to incarnate the Gospel within that particular pocket culture?

Fallen Ministers
I keep telling myself that one day I'll get this blog business right...
The Charismatic/Pentecostal end of the Church is currently coming to terms with problems in the ministries of two significant people. One is Todd Bentley (pictured), about whom you may have read. After several months of non-stop revival meetings in Florida, the strain on Todd's marriage has been too much, he and his wife Shonnah have separated and he has to step down from ministry to attend more closely to building his marriage and family. You can read the official statements from his ministry, Fresh Fire, here.
The second comes out of Australia and is to do with Michael Guglielmucci, a well-known church leader with the Edge Church International and Planetshakers youth church. For two years, Michael has been faking a cancer diagnosis and even appeared on the DVD of Hillsong's latest album This is Our God singing his (amazing) song 'Healer' while attached to his oxygen mask...
While we've not heard of Michael over here, he's hugely popular in Australia and the problems he's just confessed to are going to hurt a lot of vulnerable Christians over there. The story is in the national Australian press (here) and here's one pastor's blog which is really good, gives a lot of detail and shows how much it's hurting them (here).
There's a lot to be said about both these issues. But when such things happen we have to ask ourselves whether these are a) individual problems or b) symptoms of structures and systems within the modern church. Of course, it's probably both. But it's important at this time to ask ourselves why we need Todd to wreck himself and possibly his marriage and why Michael lived for so many years of being unable to reconcile his public and private lives. What do we demand of our ministers? What do I, as a minister, believe is being asked of me by myself, those I lead and God? Are my expectations about ministry, leadership and revival so out of whack that they lead me to conduct my life and ministry without accountability and without rest? Both Todd and Michael are flawed characters, but we need to ask ourselves whether our models of church and revival and eating up the people we expect to maintain them.

Sin - yum.
At college the prevailing view of sin is drawn from Romans and has to do with being a law-breaker. One is a sinner because one has broken God's law and offended his holiness, thereby incurring God's wrath, which Jesus satisfied on the cross... and so on. This is the view of sin that naturally develops from a penal substitionary view of the cross. It's to do with legalities, justice, satisfaction and so on.
Now, I don't have a problem with any of this. Except that the NT gives us a number of pictures of sin, and it doesn't quite sit with me that the view outlined above trumps all the others. Let me suggest some.
We have the legal/penal view I have mentioned. This is somewhat connected to hamarteia (excuse my Greek), which is 'falling short'. But the risk with these is that they focus on externals ('sins' rather than 'sin'). So, as we probe deeper, we ask the killer question: who holds your life? You or God? Whose hands is your life in? Yours of God's? Ultimately a sinner is someone who holds their life in their own hands, thereby refusing God. This does away with the 'but I'm a good person' thing. Whether you're a good person or not is irrelevant - whose hands is your life in?
Finally, there are two other, related views. Firstly, sin as sickness, which can be healed by the Great Physician. Secondly, and finally, sin as spiritual power, defeated by Jesus on the cross and ultimately thrown into the lake of fire (somewhere in Revelation).
These last views ask deep questions of life, too: are you well, or are their parts of your life where you are sick, imprisoned? You may be a good person, but does sin have its claws in you? Or, do you suffer from sin-sickness? If you will give yourself to the care of the Great Physician, he will help cure you, though you will have to admit your own part in the problem.
This is all a bit theological (well, I am at theological college), but has real implications for our witness. I'm not sure telling people who've never heard the law that they're law-breakers is going to help all that much. But asking the deeper questions - in my opinion - may reveal Jesus to them more effectively. And that, after all, is the point. Getting someone to accept that they're a sinner is not the point; getting them to accept they need a Saviour is.