I recommend you read the full post for yourselves. It covers a lot of ground, from Fischer’s description of the Conflict Transformation module to her thoughts on the hell debate sparked by Rob Bell’s Love Wins.

The Conflict Transformation module features an intensive week at Corrymeela, where Little and Verwoerd guide the students through the process they use with various groups from opposing ‘sides’ in the conflict in and about Northern Ireland (and from other conflicts from around the world).

Fischer sees conflict as an inevitable part of life and she urges those in the emergent conversation to face up to – rather than hide from – it:

I bring this up here, because I see the danger of continuing a bad ‘family’ trait even into this new emergent generation.  I grew up in a non-christian home and a Christian extended family, both of which pretended that if we didn’t talk about conflict, it meant that we didn’t have any;  I studied theology at an inter-denominational college where conflict as a theme in and of itself was never addressed theologically; and I spent years in churches, seminars, conferences, retreats and missions (Evangelical, Charismatic, and Lutheran; in America, Sweden, Australia, PNG and Germany), where, besides an occasional reference to Matthew 18:15-17, and the ever-present lapel to forgive, there was no strategy and no underlying concept for helping their communities deal with conflict constructively.  The cardinal assumption being that good Christians don’t do conflict!

But rather than fostering fraternities exuding peace and justice in the world, this refusal to take conflict head on theologically, exacerbates the friction inevitable in any human plural, and conditions cultures to fester and fracture over matters both profound and piddling.  Of greater consequence even than the personal stories of disillusionment with Christian fellowships that abound, as grim as that is, however, is the general disconnect that many faith communities and institutions have toward complex societal ills, the prolific number of armed conflicts around the world, and trans-global injustices.  With the exception of my brief time in Church of the Savior, DC, of which Sojourners Magazine is a part, nary a mention of these realities in the Christian sub-cultures I’ve experienced in over twenty years!

She sees some of the present debate about hell, whether you agree with Rob Bell or not, as distracting from more important questions in the here and now such as dealing with conflict, and one of its roots, poverty.

As a lecturer, I’m of course pleased to see Fischer making links between one of our modules and debates in the emerging church. The emerging church is one of my current research areas and I’m always looking for connections between what I know from the fields of conflict resolution and reconciliation, and my work on the emerging church.

I’m also intrigued by her observation that Christians have refused to take conflict on theologically, other than issuing some rather glib urgings for victims to ‘forgive’.

This is not a million miles from the argument put forward in the new book about the churches in the Northern Ireland peace process by John Brewer, Gareth Higgins and Francis Teeney: that the churches as institutions didn’t adequately analyse the conflict sociologically or theologically – meaning that they struggled to help transform it.

I look forward to the emerging conversation moving forward on these themes.

Helpfully, Peter Rollins commented on that post. His comment saved me from further speculation about why he decided to include ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’ in his re-working of Galatians 3:28. For those of you who may not have caught the comment, Rollins wrote, in part:

Very quickly I thought I would try and answer why I use “Christian and non-Christian” in this reflection on Galatians. Basically I am putting it to work in our present context. I am saying that Paul referred to the six basic tribal groups of his day (2 political, 2 religious, 2 biological). These defined who you could talk to, when you could talk to them, what work you did, how you saw the world etc. etc.

The point I am making is that Christianity, for Paul, was not a tribal identify but rather that which cut through tribal identities (remember his famous definition of Christians as trash – i.e. as that which is placed outside). But Christianity is now simply another tribal identity in the actually existing church (with its own worldview etc.).

As a tribal identity Christianity itself now becomes a stumbling block to the non-identity of Christ (the Crucifixion being the loss of identity – political, religious and cultural)

I don’t know if Monty – or others – would agree with Rollins’ concept of the ‘non-identity of Christ,’ as a loss of all identities. But I’m glad that the post prompted Rollins to make a fuller explanation. Thanks Pete!

Now, I turn to the next concern Monty identified in his original comment. For me, this concern revolves around:

Being ‘In Christ’

… [Rollins’] concern for anti-conversionism or doing away with the ‘us and them’ will have great difficulty coming to terms with the numerous “exclusivist passages” in the NT, not least those uttered by Christ himself. To me the NT’s position is best described as a totally inclusive-exclusivism. That is: there is universal access- regardless of all the “walls/definitions/categories” we erect or define people by – to the exclusivist position of being “in Christ”.

In a curious way I think this part of Monty’s comment comes close to sounding like Rollins. For example, when Monty says ‘there is universal access- regardless of all the “walls/definitions/categories” we erect or define people by’ it sounds similar to Rollins’ comment when he defined what sort of ‘universalist’ he considers himself to be:

Rather I am a universalist in the sense that I think Paul is saying that a universal characteristic of human being is that we transcend our identities. That we exist outside them while participating in them (a gentile while not being a gentile etc.). This creates a new inside and outside and I am all for that! What separates the people written about by Paul and others is that the former let go of their identity (holding it lightly) while others do not.

It could be debated how close Rollins’ description of people ‘letting go of their identity’ is to Monty’s point about ‘universal access.’ If I am reading Monty correctly, I think he’s saying that it doesn’t matter how human beings label, define, or identify each other – identity in Christ transcends all that. Rollins might say that ‘non-identity in Christ transcends all that,’ but now maybe I am the one playing with words!

I think the crux of the matter comes down to what it means to be ‘in Christ.’ That’s the final, and crucial, part of Monty’s sentence: to the exclusivist position of being “in Christ”.

Going back to my discussion of Galatians 3:26-27 in the previous post, and given that Rollins invoked that Scripture as the context of his rewriting of Galatians 3:28, it is plausible that being ‘in Christ’ would include the following:

‘You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.’

Faith, Baptism and Clothing yourselves with Christ … how do we understand those three things?

I obviously can’t say how either Monty or Rollins would define being ‘in Christ.’ But I can offer some brief thoughts on those three matters, including my interpretation of how people in the emerging church movement are thinking around those three areas – and thus where there may be points of friction with historic expressions of Christianity.

Faith:

The people who have built our historic Christian institutions have, of course, done some heavy lifting in the last 2000 years to identify the content of Christian faith. Christians don’t always agree on how to define their faith, hence the various creeds, confessions, catechisms and so forth, based on their readings of Scripture, and in some cases their interpretations of Tradition.

In this passage of Galatians, the ‘faith in Christ Jesus’ could also be read as something less cerebral and codified – the faith that John Wesley had when he felt his heart ‘strangely warmed.’

People associated with the emerging church, have challenged some of the historical definitions of faith. They have argued that creeds and the constant striving to achieve ‘right belief’ have somehow stunted Christian development in other areas.

I think it’s worth asking ourselves if that is a fair critique?

Baptism:

People in our historic Christian institutions have spent 2000 years baptising people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Christians don’t always agree on who should be baptized (Infants? Adults?) or how (Sprinkling? Immersion?).

For me baptism has always symbolised the change from ‘old’ to ‘new’ that is implied in becoming a Christian – an enactment of being ‘born again’, really, and therefore committing to living in a new and better way.

I don’t think emerging Christians have had much to say about baptism (unless I’ve missed it?). But they have plenty to say about living in a new and better way (see next section below).

Clothing Yourselves with Christ:

This is an interesting phrase, and I’m a social scientist – not a biblical scholar – so my reading of it is very much as a lay Christian. To me, it is a phrase about how to live, and it urges us to follow Christ’s example (whatever that means in 21^st century Ireland!).

Much of the emerging church’s critique of the historical Christian denominations is that they have lost the vision of how to live like Christ, focusing instead on narrow political agendas (identifying the cause of Christ with the cause of their particular tribe or nation), withdrawing to a comfortable pietism, and ignoring the poor, the marginalised and the excluded – and the social and political structures that keep people poor, marginalised and excluded.

Again, I think that’s worth asking – is that a fair critique?

Christians who identify with the historic denominations and emerging Christians share a lot of common ground and can have a lot of fruitful conversations around those three areas, but that still doesn’t answer the questions that I suspect are behind Monty’s concern. Those questions are:

• Does Rollins’ inclusion of Christian/Non-Christian in his rewriting of Galatians 3:28 mean that Non-Christians are just as capable as Christians (the card-carrying, creed-reciting, baptized members of our institutions) of ‘clothing’ themselves with Christ?
• And if that’s the case, do we really need the churches anymore?

I realise that this post has raised more questions and provided few answers. My apologies to anyone who may have been looking for answers!

And there is still more food for thought in Monty’s comment, which I hope to explore further soon …

That’s a question posed this week by Jon Hatch in the Church of Ireland Gazette (16 December), which features his front-page story on the ‘Occupy’ movement’s priorities.

Hatch’s article is based on a talk he delivered recently for The Churches in Ireland’s Church in Society Forum.

Hatch is a doctoral candidate where I work, the Irish School of Ecumenics. He has also been a resource developer for groups like Corrymeela and the Irish Peace Centres.

When the Occupy movement’s London protest settled down at St Paul’s, I couldn’t help but think it was the perfect location for the protesters to tap into Jesus’ radical message about challenging the rich who unjustly oppress the poor.

Apart from the Pharisees (the self-righteous religious virtuosos of their day), Jesus was most critical of the rich who rigged the rules of the economic game so that the poor stayed poor and the rich and powerful got ever more rich and more powerful.

I’ve been disappointed by the difficulties that the Church of England has had in accommodating the protesters, especially when I see so many resonances between their message and Jesus’ intensely political messages about economic injustice.

I recommend you get your hands on a copy of the Gazette to read the full story (or subscribe online for just £20 per year).

Hatch’s article offers a short explanation of the Occupy movement’s claims, followed by some theological reflection on what ‘a rigorous, public theology might look like in the midst of the Occupy movement.’

Hatch says Occupy’s four claims are:

• Democracy is eroding
• The ‘rules’ don’t apply equally to everyone
• Global markets exert too much power over people’s lives
• The situation is getting worse, not better

To conclude, I’ll quote quite liberally from Hatch’s theological reflection, which I think provides some valuable insights:

First … God identifies himself as deeply concerned with justice, peace and equitable economies (Proverbs 11:1; Hosea 12:7; Amos 8:5).

In a world where some lives seem more valuable than others, the people of faith can unequivocally declare the absolute, basic, intrinsic value of every human in the eyes of God. We can say this in a very unique way and we need to be saying it as publicly as possible, at every opportunity. It literally underpins everything else we believe.

Second … the people of faith begin from a place that affirms that all ‘space’ is God’s; there is no place that he does not already occupy (Psalm 24:1; Psalm 139: 7-12) and we are his stewards …

Third … neither the State nor the markets have any rights over life and death. Neither has the right to devastate livelihood and ruin economies. We must not bow or make the sacrifices they demand. This was the witness of the earliest martyrs of our faith.

Lastly, there is hope. We must always and everywhere, as Christ did, proclaim as publicly and as openly as possible the good news of the Kingdom of God: life, equity, peace, justice, freedom and generosity.’

The Report is another important IPC contribution to conversations around LGBT participation in the churches. In September, IPC published ‘LGBT Communities’ Experiences of Faith and Church in Northern Ireland,’ a research report by Dr Claire Mitchell and Dr Claire McConnell.

I was present during one day of the two-day conference at Corrymeela, where Mitchell and McConnell presented the then-unpublished results of their work. At the time, what most impressed me from the report was the pain around the way LGBT people had been treated in the churches. This is something which came through in a BBC Radio Ulster discussion after the launch of Mitchell and O’Connell’s report in September.

Holding the Tension Wisely was written by IPC’s Faith and Peace fieldworker, Pádraig Ó Tuama. Using a framework of ‘tension’ and ‘wisdom,’ he reports on the conversations that took place over those two days in Corrymeela.

The ‘tension’ aspect of the framework allows us to see where people disagree, while the ‘wisdom’ aspect identifies particular insights vital for taking this conversation forward.

The Report summarises Tension and Wisdom under eight headings:

• Intentions
• Names
• From ‘speaking about’ to ‘engaging with’
• Fear
• Belonging
• Human Stories
• Beliefs and Believing
• Progressing the Conversation

I think that this Report, as well as the prior Report by Mitchell and McConnell, should be read widely and carefully.

Public conversations about LBGT people and the churches have often been harsh, and what encourages me most about these Reports is the attempt to soften that language.

Just take the example of how our public conversations are often framed in terms of the ‘gay issue’ or the ‘homosexuality debate.’ In the introduction to the Report, Ó Tuama urges us to go beyond that language, reminding us that people should not be reduced to ‘issues’ or ‘debates.’ He writes (p. 3):

‘What is sometimes called “the issue”, other times called “a debate” or “the gay question” is referred to in this paper as LGBT lives and stories. As a first principle, the conference held the dignity of first-person narrative. If we are to disagree, let us at least disagree well, without reverting to tired predictabilities, and unrepresentative stereotypes.’

If we can learn one thing from this Report – particularly religious leaders who speak often in the public sphere – I hope that it is that we can and should be more careful about our language.

The ability to speak more respectfully with and about each other is rooted in trust, which Ó Tuama acknowledges in the Report by relating that (p. 4):

The June conference started with a short reflection on the Irish phrase for “I trust you” from the Dingle Peninsula: mo sheasamh ort, lá na choise tinne – ‘you are the place of my standing, on the day when my feet are sore’.

He adds that (p. 4):

It is my sincere hope that this paper can contribute to the further building of this kind of trust across painful and divisive tensions.

I think the tension/wisdom framework provides a good place for starting to build this kind of trust. There are too many tension/wisdom insights to share in this post, so I urge you to read the Report in full. To encourage you, here is a sample of my favourites:

From ‘Names’, two points of wisdom (p. 7):

Firstly, we must find out a group’s name for themselves, and use this with all the respect we would expect for our own name for ourselves.

Secondly, a person or group must be defined for who they are, not for who they are not.

From ‘From Speaking About’ to ‘Engaging With’ (p. 8):

It is wise to reflect on privilege. For people who feel that tangible demands are being made to their relationships or lives, it is important for them to hear that those whose opinions do not affect their daily reality of their lives can acknowledge the privilege of holding an opinion which does not demand change. To acknowledge these privileges does not necessarily mean that this privilege needs to be undone, but it is a wise thing to acknowledge it.

From ‘Beliefs and Belonging’ (p. 12):

It is wise to present our understanding in ways that are not ambiguous. Stating that ‘I am on the fence’ can often be a mask for stating that you are uncomfortable with the consequences of your deeply-held belief. This is not being on the fence, rather, it is being uncomfortable with the lived reality of your belief.

The Report also includes two rich appendices written by Ó Tuama, including his thoughts on his own experience as a gay man with theological training. The second appendix is a reproduction of a powerful piece, published this month in the Presbyterian Herald, in which Ó Tuama quotes from the Mitchell and McConnell report and shares from his own experiences.

The Irish Peace Centres wish to assist groups, congregations and organisations who want to develop this conversation. To avail of this service, contact Ó Tuama at faith@cooperationireland.org

(Image from the IPC website)

Other Resources:

Alan in Belfast’s Report of the Launch of LBGT Communities’ Experiences of Faith and Church in Ireland

My post on the Launch of LBGT Communities’ Experiences of Faith and Church in Ireland

My review of Jay Bakker’s Fall to Grace

Further discussion is encouraged on the Living Church Facebook page. Each day this week, one of the five themes is to be discussed. Yesterday took up the theme of lay participation, while today the topic is open, welcoming, community.

This is my final post on the book, intended as a general review of the book. It’s my hope that the review will prompt others to revisit – or to consider for the first time – some of Hurley’s ideas. I’d encourage people to try and get their hands on a copy of the book and read it for themselves.

I work at the Irish School of Ecumenics, and I am often greeted with a blank stare when I tell people where I work. I know that it can’t be taken for granted that people actually know what Ecumenics is. So, it’s helpful that significant chapters in the book are taken up with definitions, which I have explored in earlier posts on this blog:

Fr Michael Hurley on Ecumenical Tithing

Fr Michael Hurley on Ecumenical Theology and Ecumenics

Fr Michael Hurley on Ecumenism

Although published more than a decade ago, the concern that motivated Hurley to write the book is strikingly contemporary – the sense that the ecumenical movement is in the doldrums.

The words Hurley writes in the introduction (p. 1) could have been written today:

‘But despite some remarkable success … ecumenical efforts have not only failed to achieve their goal but the whole movement has, it would seem, failed to maintain its momentum. It has lost its drive, its nerve, its sense of direction. It is now like a ship becalmed needing the mighty wind of the Spirit to get under way again.’

Indeed, last year I reflected on a 2008 article in Doctrine and Life by my Irish School of Ecumenics colleague Andrew Pierce, in which he argued that ecumenism in Ireland remained uninspired and uninspiring.

There are also several chapters that bemoan the shortcomings in the Irish churches’ contributions to peace on this island, and aspects of these read as if they could be written today.

A chapter called ‘The Church of Ireland: Challenges for the Future’ considers the difficulties posed by its relationship with the Orange Order, difficulties that have not yet gone away. Other chapters deal with the challenges of churches caught up in Ireland’s sectarian system can meaningfully promote. forgiveness and reconciliation.

Given this diagnosis, much of the rest of the book could be understood as Hurley’s plea to get people excited about ecumenism and, in the Irish context, reconciliation. This is done through an eclectic mix of chapters, organised into three sections:

Ecumenical Vision

Ecumenical Issues

Ecumenical Initiatives

The section on ecumenical initiatives offers fascinating insights into the history of the churches in Ireland. Chapter topics ranged from the Milltown Park Public Lecture Series 1960-1969, the publication of the book Irish Anglicanism 1869-1969, and the formation of the Irish School of Ecumenics and the now-defunct Columbanus Community of Reconciliation (which was housed in the building now occupied by the Belfast campus of the Irish School of Ecumenics).

Reading the chapters on the Milltown Park Lectures and Irish Anglicanism was like stepping back in time. The socio-religious world Hurley described seems alien in contrast to the Ireland of today.

Can you imagine a church service to celebrate the launch of a book on Anglicanism being broadcast live during prime time on RTE today? Or can you imagine 700 people turning up at Milltown Park on a winter’s evening to hear talks on ‘drugs, brainwashing and the self’ and ‘psychiatry, the moralist and sin’, both delivered by Catholic priests (p. 243)?

Hurley also writes that Eamon DeValera attended several of the Milltown Park lectures, which made me wonder to what extent this founding father of the Irish state realised that the Ireland that he ‘dreamed of’ was fading away?

The historical chapters also provided some perspective on the challenges faced by ecumenists of that generation. While the challenges for Christians committed to Christian unity today might be different, the qualities of patience and perseverance needed then are also surely needed now.

In the other sections, Hurley considers themes of both general ecumenical interest, and others specific to the Irish context. He offers suggestions on how to make baptism and Eucharist more ecumenically meaningful. But again, today, it seems that the practice of both remain as divided as ever in our churches.

Other chapters are Hurley’s own reflections on how the wider church can honour the contributions of Christians of other traditions. So as a Catholic, he praises the insights of Presbyterian John Calvin (in a chapter called ‘Catholicity: The Witness of Calvin’s Institutes’), Methodist John Wesley (in a chapter called ‘Wesley Today and Evangelisation Today’), and Anglican George Otto Simms (in a chapter called ‘George Otto Simms: Ecumenical Examplar 1910-1991’).

I think these reflections can be understood as part of Hurley’s own process of ecumenical formation – really delving into the thought and the spiritual life of Christians of other traditions, and finding there real insight and common ground.

The talk, titled ‘Effective Non Violence in the 21^st Century,’ was co-hosted by the Irish School of Ecumenics and INNATE (Irish Network for Nonviolent Action Training & Education). You can listen to the talk here.

Given the non violent example of Jesus in the Gospels, non violence is a theme which I could fruitfully reflect on more often on this blog.

As regular readers will know, the theme of my blog is ‘building a church without walls’ – and that’s something that can’t be accomplished either through physical or psychological force.

Garate’s concerns weren’t specifically Christian or even religious, although he was keen to stress that WRI’s approach is a matter of principle, not simply of tactics.

WRI doesn’t choose non violence just because they think it works, they choose non violence because they think it’s the right thing to do.

Garate said the group’s two main guiding principles are:

• Refusing all wars
• Maintaining a strong commitment to non-violent resistance

The first principle of course means that WRI would not make room for Christian interpretations of ‘just war’ theory. The second means that apathy in the face of the violence and oppression of others should not be an option.

Like most of you, I don’t often get asked my opinion if a conflict is ‘just’ before the protagonists wade in, guns, bombs and drone missiles blazing. But I often choose the apathy option (out of apathy more than anything else!) when it comes to questioning, challenging or resisting the current array of wars, conflicts, etc in the world around me.

While of course welcoming pragmatic reasons for choosing non violence rather than violence, Garate said that it was his experience that many authors and activists who focus solely on tactics, at the expense of principle, tend to overlook ‘structural violence.’

Structural violence is a term associated with Johan Galtung, a giant in the field of Peace Studies. Structural violence is produced through social processes in which social, cultural and political structures (including inter-state, state and civil society institutions and laws, etc) keep some people mired in positions of poverty and disadvantage. I would add that the churches can sometimes contribute to the maintenance of structural violence.

So victims of structural violence may or may not face direct, physical violence – but they are exploited and marginalised – and this can often breed direct violence in the form of class conflict, riots, and so on.For Garate, then, structural as well as direct violence should be a target for non violent resistance.

I think that this resonates with liberation theology’s preferential option for the poor – as well as Jesus’ preference for the poor as portrayed in the Gospels.

Garate also provided descriptions of a few examples of WRI’s work, including support for the Right to Refuse to Kill programme for conscientious objectors, a Campaign of Military Counter Recruitment in Europe, work on War Profiteering, and recent research on the impact of drone missiles.

He claimed that the keys to effective non violent campaigns are unity, planning and non-violent discipline – as well as a spark of creativity.

Being creative can mean catching your adversary off guard through mass demonstrations, humour, or targeted networking campaigns. As an example of creativity he cited the ‘War Starts Here’ campaign, in which activists camped out and used pink paint to try and cover a major NATO military base in Sweden.

Garate added that in the past year three significant movements have employed non violent tactics to effective ends, although it remains to be seen how much these movements will accomplish.

The movements are: a student’s movement in Chile which self-organised a nation-wide referendum on free education; a movement for direct democracy in Spain; and the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Garate also provided a useful list of sources for people interested in learning more, ranging from the work of Gene Sharp (whose From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation was famously used by activists in the ‘Arab Spring’ movements) to recent academic scholarship by authors such as Maria Stephan and Diana Francis.

(Image: Protesters from the War Starts Here campaign, after using pink paint to decorate part of the NEAT military base in Sweden. Photo by Natverket Ofog, sourced on flickr)

Sources:

International Centre on Non Violent Conflict

Documentary and video game: A Force More Powerful

Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (2011) Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan

From Pacification to Peacebuilding: A Call to Global Transformation (2010) Diana Francis

Civilian Jihad: Nonviolent Struggle, Democratization and Governance in the Middle East (2010) Maria Stephan

Handbook for Non Violent Campaigns (2009), War Resisters International

People power and protest since 1945: a bibliography of nonviolent action (2006) compiled by April Carter, Howard Clark and Michael Randle.

From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation (1993, 2012) Gene Sharp

Gandhi as a Political Strategist (1979) Gene Sharp

The Politics of Non Violent Action (1973) Gene Sharp

Concerned citizens of Belfast and beyond can choose from the following:

A Screening of ‘Unheard Voices’

This event will start at 7 pm in Belfast City Hall. It’s organised by the WAVE Trauma Centre and Belfast City Council’s Good Relations Unit. The publicity for the event describes it this way:

Working in collaboration with victims and survivors from the WAVE Trauma Centre and the Centre for Media Research at the University of Ulster, this film records the stories of six individuals affected in different ways by our recent conflict.  This short film has recorded powerful collections of the move out of violence, as the themes of loss, recovery, strength and remembering are reflected through trauma, grief and hope.  The screening will be followed by a Q&A with some of the films contributors, chaired by Peter McBride, advisory member of the Commission for Victim and Survivors Pilot Forum and director of Niamh; the Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health. 

People are asked to RSVP their attendance, including any mobility requirements you may have on Telephone: (028) 7126 6655 or E-mail:admin@wavederry.co.uk

An Evening with the Benedictine Monks of Holy Cross Monastery at the Church of the Good Shepherd in Monkstown

The Monkstown community has organised a week-long programme of ecumenical events celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible. Thursday at 7 pm the Benedictine Monks from Holy Cross Monastery in Rostrevor, Co. Down, will visit for a ‘Celtic Praise Evening with supper.’ It will include a time of chanting and contemplative silence, as well as Irish dancers and a harpist.

In Joyful Hope – A New Venture in Eucharistic Fellowship in Gilnahirk

The next celebration in the ‘In Joyful Hope’ initiative, which is designed to promote Eucharistic fellowship among various Christian denominations, will be on Thursday at 8 pm in St. Dorothea’s Church of Ireland, Gilnahirk. Previous celebrations have been in Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and Church of Ireland churches in and around Belfast.

A private reading of PHILIP ORR’S PLAY “1912-100 years on”

This event starts at 7.30 at the Centre for Contemporary Christianity, Third Floor, 21Ormeau Avenue, Belfast. It’s described as a ‘private reading’ of a new play written by Philip Orr and Alan McGuckian, which the Centre will be offering to different venues across Northern Ireland in Spring 2012.

When “1912-One Hundred years on” goes on tour it will be part of an evening with the play and then a facilitated discussion after a short interval with refreshments.

I received an invitation to this event, which I don’t think has been publicized too widely because the play will be touring in the coming months. But any readers particularly interested in this topic could try emailing info@contemporarychristianity.net if they would like to attend or learn more about the work of the Centre.

So what am I going to?

None of the above! I’m a member of the Board of Athletics Northern Ireland, and on Thursday we’re hosting Charles Van Commenee, Head Coach of UK Athletics and the British Olympic squad – which is also free and open to the public. That’s where I’ll be.

But I do wish I could be in five places at once!

Brewin wrote that:

One of the things I’ve been wondering is if the theological direction that a few of us have been taking is entering into a period of more acute opposition. I had a long conversation with two people – one a good friend and the other someone I’ve known for some time – and I found both were, a couple of beers down, becoming quite aggressive in their opposition to, in particular, Pete Rollins’ work and the parallel stuff I’ve been writing too.

I think Brewin is on to something here. A gathering ‘opposition’ was perhaps becoming more obvious in the reaction to Rob Bell’s book Love Wins.

Love Wins spawned a hot debate about whether Bell is a universalist or not. I thought this debate prevented people from engaging with the more important messages and ideas in the book. (Although I admit that people who genuinely believe Bell’s book could lead people to hell would disagree with me!)

I think that what’s happening now is that the difference between what someone like Rollins is saying and what many emerging churches in the United States are saying is just becoming more obvious, especially in the US. Having moved to the US several years ago, Rollins is gaining a higher profile there and there is considerable buzz about his new book Insurrection, due to be released next week. This week Insurrection’s introduction and opening chapter has garnered two reviews on the Sojourners blog, for instance.

But back in 2008, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, associated with the neo-Calvinist movement in the US, were particularly alarmed about Rollins’ work, as seen in their discussion of his 2006 book How (Not) to Speak of God in their book, Why We’re Not Emergent. DeYoung wrote (p. 122-23):

… I was impressed and deeply disturbed. I was impressed because Rollins’s book is more than souped-up blog entries. It is an intelligent attempt – part theory and part liturgical examples from the Ikon community – to understand God from a mystical-emergent-deconstructionist perspective. I was disturbed because what Rollins (does not) say(s) about God from his mystical-emergent-deconstructionist perspective turns out to be profoundly unbiblical, unevangelical, and even – I’m not sure what other word to use – un-Christian. I can only hope that Rollins’s book is not indicative of the direction of the emergent church.

DeYoung goes on to say that he wished that this book would be ‘relocated to the extreme fringe of the movement’ (p. 127).

I disagree with DeYoung’s assertions that How (Not) to Speak of God is unbiblical and un-Christian, though I can agree with the unevangelical assessment.

Brewin predicts that this growing (or, perhaps now just more obvious) opposition will lead to a ‘retreat’ back to a more conservative position among many emergent/emerging Christians. Brewin sees this as a sort of taking of refuge in the church ‘institutions’ that some may have thought they had left behind.

Intriguingly, in a talk in Belfast earlier this month, Rollins said that he was an ‘institutionalist.’ There was not enough time in the question and answer session for him to explain fully what he meant by this. It’s a subject I hope he returns to in his future writing and speaking. I took it to mean that he’s not ready to throw out our church institutions altogether, though they endure a heavy critique in Insurrection.

But as I reflected yesterday in my blog post about my visit to the International Museum of the Reformation:

… the Christian story has rarely been one of absolute convergence around all Christian practices and beliefs.

I hope that if this is indeed to become a ‘year of opposition,’ that it’s an opposition characterised by civility and openness to the truths that are carried by those we (think) we disagree with.

(Image from Kester Brewin’s blog)