Comments on: alternative alternatives

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:07:33 +0000

mick, Ikon do it best – if you’ve seen Pete Rollins’ book ‘How not to speak of God’, there’s a collection of liturgies at the back of that which make sense of the concept.

i think the sacred spaces we’ve done at different times in this project – particularly the easter saturday ‘Dead Man Waiting’ and ‘Break of Day’ spaces are also examples – search under easter in the categories for descriptions. there’s nothing in either of them that would be familiar to most people, but the spaces find a resonance with a lot of people who haven’t had a church background.

Blair – i like incarnate!

By: Blair

Blair — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:08:39 +0000

What about ‘incarnate’ as a way to describe the ‘indigenous’ type?

By: Mick Mc

Mick Mc — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:19:08 +0000

Do you have any anecdotes that demonstrate the “no Handles” space? I remember reading about M Scott Pecks community building weekends that just started with “coming together” & he worked with what evolved from that. It seems to me that structure whether minimalist or extreme is a natural progression that can’t be avoided. For e.g. My wife & I lived in a small Christian community for 15 years. We started having these “non-denominational” nights but try as we might just to come together, structure, albeit small, always came to the fore. I think even Scott Pecks weekend ended up with structure around them.
As an aside, during our 15 years in community, we ran 100’s of retreats for 1,000’s of people. Virtuallky every small group I ever facilitated saw participants (teenagers) sit in exactly the same seat at every gathering. A curious observation of the human condition wouldn’t you say?

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:28:15 +0000

mike, i like that too – and i don’t think the other approaches rule that out either.

i think i need to work on my language a little more!

mick – i think what i’m realising is that there are many people who like structure with handles to grip… and there are quite a few who don’t, and we’ve not given them spaces before… they tend to leave the church and do their own thing.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:45:06 +0000

Agreed about the environment not feeling at all organic, but I still like the idea of life flourishing in a concrete, constructed place…

By: Mick Mc

Mick Mc — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:04:04 +0000

I was in a lecture once where the lecturer expounded that “Theology” was the written record of the lived experience of the people. If there is any truth in this, then the theology should change as we learn & grow.
At the moment I’m heavily involved in contemporary worship expressions, but personally I would rather sit in my room with my guitar & the good book & meditate on what I read.
As someone who has planned more than my fair share of church services, the question I have always tried to ask has been “who is this for, what is going to allow the to people gathered to connect with each other & the divine. But the line I think I walk on is the one that responds to the culture & the one that sets the culture.
I guess that this is the organic vs constructed line. I think that people are looking for something that has enough structure that there are handles for people to grip. But it is organic enough to challenge the status quo

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:50:05 +0000

i like organic – it’s when i come to the practical examples of it that i trip up with that label.. i think it’s worship out of a constructed environment that’s anything but organic – worship in the middle of belfast, for example, or in port philip prison – calling it organic just feels kind of wrong.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:08:56 +0000

I still kind-of like the language of “organic” in a similar sense to “indigenous”. However, it does sound a bit like something you see on a cereal packet…