TimothyGillespie

Listening and writing

I've got an advanced copy of the new Chris Picco EP--Revival Hymns and Choruses. This was produced by Aaron Roche. I only have one word. Amazing. Stay posted for the release, august 15.

here is a tidbit from a paper I'm working on right now. It may feel like you are coming into a conversation halfway through, and you are. This paper is about the transition from a APC(Attractional, Propositional, Colonial) to an MRI (Missional, Relational, Incarnational) approach to church. Of course, this is for Leonard Sweet for my D.Min course:

"There is probably one elemental belief above all others that is the motivation for a Christian; that elemental belief/experience is LOVE. However, the question becomes simply this; how does one define the greatest love towards another?  In an APC model, the greatest love would be interpreted as the proclamation of the Gospel, a change in behavior, and an acceptance into the community. (Believe, Behave, Belong) The most loving thing to do would be the presentation and proclamation of the proposition. Furthermore, the presentation of the gospel is seen as the end of a command given as the “Great Commission.”
    The APC church sees the worship service as an opportunity to attract those outside of the community with an event. Today’s wisdom seems to say that this is an antiquated method of transference of values, and that an this model has never and will never be effective when it comes to fulfilling the great commission. It cannot truly support what Jesus said when he told his disciples to “Love your neighbor as yourself”. The worship service is centered around a propositional approach to doctrine, with an end result of making those who don’t believe like those who do. This model seeks homogeneity not taking into account the effect that a shift in perceived authority plays in the worldview of the postmodern, spiritually-minded, person.
    A missional response is seen as an answer to this problem. Creating a worldview in people that speaks to the biblical understanding of the Missio Dei.  This response is made known in people by relationships, and seeking to become the continued resurrection of Jesus through his incarnation in us. The first question asked is not; “where can we bring God,” but rather; “what is God already doing, and how can I be a part of it?”
    In this way, the MRI church seeks to LOVE through its interaction with the world, through its relationships, and through its desire to see Christ in us. This is a different approach to LOVE in that the idea of that which is most loving has changed from a knowledge (APC) of Gospel to an experience with the incarnated Gospel living, alive and well, in the MRI church. This is seen as a “saved to be sent” model rather than a “come and be saved” model of church.
Some have used the metaphors of “church-as-fortress” and “church-as-forest” to see the differences between the two models of community and church. In one, you are separate and distant from the world, in the other, you are in the midst of the world . In the former you bring the world into the fortress to use as assets, in the latter you see Christ in the midst of the trees and rather than uproot them and slowly watch them die, you are part of the feeding process that has already begun, so that all may thrive in a more robust and abundant way.
A such, these questions remain; “What is the greatest love?” And which of these models delivers most on the promise of the kingdom of God? While the APC model seems to attract many on the front end, is it concerned with retention and how does it deal with the trickiness of relationships if they are not core? Furthermore, is the APC model concerned with the incarnation of Christ in the present day Christian? The APC model, at its most elemental, is propositional in nature, and seeks to create a culture of Christianity that is somehow separate from the world. “Right Belief” often trumps “Right Relationships” as it is the knowledge of God that saves in this model of church. It is, perhaps, a much more Gnostic view of God. It is a building built on “right belief” but not on “believing in the right way.”  Duin states, in her book Quitting Church; “. . . I began to wonder if the evangelical monolith is simply the emperor before losing his clothes.  The form is there, but the substance—the strength and the people—has long departed.”
The MRI model seeks to answer this question of “what is the greatest love?” with a relational answer. It promotes relationships to a higher level than the APC model, and seeks to transfer truth not propositionally, but relationally.  What does this do to truth? It changes it in some respects. Moving from propositional to relational truth means that we stop saying; “this is how it (truth) should work in your life, and move on to; “this is how it (truth) is working in my life.” This transition also calls each Christian into accountability to see if the truth they say they believe in really does transform their lives.  Therefore, truth is transferred through relationships.
And this assent to relationships changes everything. It changes the very core of what it is that we are as Christians. This changes our concepts of worship, preaching, fellowship, programs, evangelism, and even the idea of the centrality of doctrinal study. It by no means disassociates itself with doctrine.  Rather, it puts doctrine into its rightful place. As Jurgen Moltmann says: “And for me that meant, whatever can stand before the face of the crucified Christ is true Christian theology. What cannot stand there must disappear.”  Moltmann continues: “Thus if Christian theology is relational, it can find a meaningful way between absolutist theocracy and unproductive tolerance, and replace the previously assumed unity of a society.”
Moltmann, like many others, recognized that when the gospel discontinues its connection to people, the resulting community is rigid like dry bread. It becomes an end unto itself in that it can no longer breathe with a living gospel, but dies the slow death of asphyxiation through doctrinal purity. In other words, believing the right things in the wrong way is slowly drowning in our own knowledge. The answer to this is found in John 9:25--“He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"  (emphasis added)
    In this way, the MRI model seeks to regain relational truth that has been lost for so long amongst the grind of Guttenburg living.  By living truth in relationships, there is not only a practical outcome of a greater and more loving community, but there is a new purpose in life. That purpose is the Missio Dei, the mission of God. As we connect with God’s purpose, our lives take on new meaning, and there can only be change from the idea of service to the idea of mission. Where the APC model sees opportunity to proselytize and teach, the MRI model sees an opportunity to build relationship, share story, and partner with God in his purpose for and healing of the world. In an MRI model you simply cannot be a “cultural Christian,” it must be something that is living, breathing, and growing.

By example, let me use the metaphor of a meal. Growing up, my family believed in efficiency when it came to eating. We ate together, but it always seemed like a race to the finish line. There was not a great deal of talking, but there was a great deal of chewing and swallowing. We tended to devour our food, our conversation, and our relationships. However, when we would travel as a family (every summer we spent 12 weeks in Israel or somewhere in Europe) everything slowed down. My parents no longer had the grind of their everyday lives, and so we would sit at a café in Rome for 3 hours, drinking sparkling water and enjoying each other’s company. This is where I got to know my family. This is where I began to understand our familial traditions and values. This is where I became a Gillespie.
    The truth that was discovered through these times was not a truth about my family, but a truth discovered in my family. This is relational truth at its best. This is what it means to discover someone within a relationship. This is different than reading about them, or listening to someone say a good word them. This is experiential; it is relative and absolute at both the same time. It is also a truth that is so personal that it is impossible to deny. It is truth incarnate.
    This, coupled with a desire to heal the hurting, seems as if it would be so compelling that world would have to take notice. The trajectory of the Post-Christian worldview would be dislodged from its rampant upshot and Christ’s presence would once again be seen at the forefront of culture."

will post the paper when I'm done.
grace and peace.

Christo-Centric or Christo-Present?

I think there is a danger of Jesus becoming the given of the Christian experience.

 We are all here in church, so it would seem that we have all assented to the fact that Jesus is the center of all of what we do. However, without the continued connection to the person of Jesus, not just the idea of Jesus, all of this is for naught.

Perhaps it is not enough for Jesus to be at the center of what we do. Perhaps the idea of a Christo-Centric community is the wrong model to use. I suggest that we use new language. I suggest that rather than having a Christo-Centric idea of community and church that we have a Christo-Present understanding of the our lives as Christian.

What is the difference? Let's use a couple of different metaphors. The first being a football huddle. In a huddle all the players are looking in to the quarterback to give them instructions. At the end of the huddle they "break" and go to do their respective jobs. The anchoring point is the knowledge that they have of what they were told. While not a bad way to live, I think there is another metaphor that speaks to Christo-Presence in a bit more powerful way. I like the metaphor of the mist in the forest. To have a Christo-Present community is to live in the midst (or mist, if you will) of the presence of Christ that permeates everything. We see the world thru the mist (Presence) of Christ. All of our relationships, our purposes, and our decisions are affected by this presence. All of our efforts are subject to the worldview that Christ gives us as we look through and into His presence to one another, the world around us, and to the Kingdom of God.

Therefore, the anchoring point, as it were, is really the filter through which we see everything, feel everything, evaluate everything, and love everyone. It is is not a fixed point on the horizon, either looking forward or looking back. Rather, it is the relative truth through which we experience Christ in all things.  This should color our experience of faith as well. Because from now on, all is measured by the Crucified Christ. Jurgen Moltmann says: "And for me that meant, whatever can stand before the face of the crucified Christ is true Christian theology" (The Crucified God). Our knowing, then, is held up to light of the Cross and Jesus upon it.

There is always a fear of letting go of what we know, and I am not suggesting that. I am simply suggesting that what we know be subordinated to the Crucified Christ and his presence in our lives. Too often, we know the right things and it has little impact upon us. The only thing that is transformational is a knowledge of Christ, not a knowledge about Christ. I can tell you of the "mist", but if you cannot see it, the world still looks the same for you.

Post-critical thought would say that we have to submit before we understand the truth of something. And perhaps it is on to something. Is our knowledge of Christ subject to Christ? Or is Christ subject to our knowledge of Him? Perhaps that is just playing with words. But I think there is something true that needs to be explored.

Do we know Christ or of Him? Are we transformed by our submission to him in our lives? Do we interpret all we see, feel, read, and experience through the "Mist" of Christ that is present in our lives?


Just my .02.

By the way; I'm listening to the new tracks from the upcoming Chris Picco ep. A re-imagining of some of your favorite hymns. This is coming out on August 15, 2009. We will be having a concert to launch, as a vespers service at LLUC. You can catch it on LLUC's website, on LLBN, or DVD about a month later. Be checking www.reliverecords.org for more information.

Thinking and writing about Postmodernity and worship

Okay, I think I hate the word postmodern, but I am writing a paper for my Dmin program, and thought I would share a bit of it with you. I'd love to hear comments, or questions, even push-backs are welcome (done in a a graceful fashion! I'm a bit sensitive. . .)

I know this does not treat the whole idea of worship in a postmodern setting with enough time or care, however, it is a start.

Please note, I did not include the footnotes; so if you have a question about a quote please ask and I can get it for you. The first is from Tozer. . .

“I long to see the imagination released from its prison and given its proper place among the sons of the new creation.  What I am trying to describe here is the sacred gift of seeing, the ability to peer beyond the veil and gaze with astonished wonder upon the beauties and mysteries of things holy and eternal.”
    Worship begins with the ability to recognize the gift given from God and formulate a response of gratitude for it. That response takes many different shapes and forms. According to Romans 12:1 , our whole lives are the act of worship God’s gift to us warrants. And thus begins the relationship between how we view the gift of God and how we respond to it.
    The differences found between the modern and postmodern expression of worship     is not simply a matter of style. Often, this is the understanding, even for the postmodern organizer of worship. However, worship as life (ala Romans 12:1) assumes that worship is not a place and time, but a continual conversation with God. Postmodern worship gatherings are as vast and varied as there are churches, to be sure. And not all contemporary or progressive worship services have a postmodern ethos.
    So what is the postmodern ethos of worship? In a nutshell, if it is possible to do that, this author would look to a few different words: Authenticity, Beauty, Creativity and Context. 

Authenticity
    Authenticity is a word that has been used to be point of becoming fearfully close to no longer retaining it’s meaning. However, within the context of worship it remains a watchword for the postmodern worldview. In keeping with the postmodern value of self-awareness, they approach God in humility and reality. This, at times, smacks of the casual, as opposed to the more formal approach taken by and large by the modern worship experience.  

Beauty
    If authenticity is the watchword of postmodern worship, then beauty is it’s brass ring. This is something that is sought not only in music, but also in environment (as seen from casual, couch and candlelight expressions) to larger more technologically advanced expressions of worship. Graphic design has begun to play a larger and larger role the life of the church’s worship expression. (although some might see this as a marketing tool, it is an extension of authentic expression and the search for beauty)
    Len Sweet has made the case for an EPIC  experience that catches the elemental value system of the postmodern search for God. Beauty in worship connects with particularly the Image-Driven mode of experience. But there is more, there is an understanding that the aesthetics of the worship environment matter. In 2005 it was stated, “Churches are looking more like office buildings and malls are looking more like churches, complete with vaulted ceilings, icons (paintings) on their walls and towers, and many with carillon bells.”  This is, perhaps, a hold over from a modern ethic of reason over experience.  The postmodern is rediscovering the use of image (icons, if you will) within the worship service. The power of image is not lost on those who have grown up with an abundance of images to reflect on in the secular world, but with a vast desert of authentic expression of beauty within the their spiritual context.  

Creativity
    Use of creativity is not something that has been completely lost in our churches, but for the postmodern, the use of creativity is not limited to approved norms that might have been acceptable within the modern context (Hymnody, Special Music, Corporate Readings, and sometimes, just sometimes, Drama). For the postmodern, the sky is the limit, as they say. From video mash-ups, to new takes and arrangements of traditional hymns, to original dramatic presentations, to original music; the postmodern worship expression is bursting at the seams with creative expression and experimentation.
    This is uncomfortable within the more modern context in that it is hard to control. “Art always fights the status quo.”  And within a church setting, this is seen all too often as unacceptable. The postmodern expression of worship seems to always be less liturgy based (unless a particular community wishes for that expression), and more creatively associated. This means that the postmodern expression of worship changes from here to there, and from month to month in some places. There is very little that cannot be changed, and congregations demand that same-said change.  While this is often seen as intimidating, it should be viewed as an opportunity for dynamism within the community’s relationship with God. However, this means we cannot “doctrinalize” every aspect of the worship service. We must hold loosely to that which is sacred, at least in the bovine quality of its sacredness. 

Contextualization
    Worship needs to make sense to those in the pews or couches, or chairs. If it does not, then you will lose the imagination of those seeking to worship together in any given situation. This is why a contextualization of the worship experience becomes important. To know your audience, their values, their elemental expectations from a worship experience, and even the place corporate worship has in the community is important to maintain a voice with those who choose your particular place of worship.
    This is also the culmination of the first three sub-categories.  For instance; why do we all sing, for the most part, the same songs? Walk into any progressive worship experience and by and large you will be singing songs written by just a few very popular worship artists. However, would it make more sense to create the music within the community if you had those who were gifted in such things? Or perhaps there is a greater connection to the art on the screens or on the walls if it was cultivated from those who have chosen this particular community to call home. Even video illustrations and dramatic readings can be made from a local context. This also plays into the postmodern value on the local as opposed to the global experience. While this plays out in their lives by a rediscovering of local markets, growers, musicians and artists, the same should be said within their worship experience.
    This often brings a fear of the loss of excellence within the worship service. But this is often seen from the pastor, who may well be stuck within a modern construct of church. What is authentic is excellent, because it is a true expression of gratitude and love. 

The economics of Poverty. Washington Post article

Interesting read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html

would love to hear your comments.

A growing Concern

I hate creating a title for a blog entry before I enter my text. I'm not one of those guys who works things out beforehand, I'm kind of an in-process guy that works it out as it comes out. This is why titles are so perplexing. I use them to head me in a direction, but I also use them to summarize. Maybe I should title it, then change it, but that somehow seems a bit inauthentic. So right now you are going to get titles that might make sense or not. I don't care too much either way. Only 2 people out there read this anyway!

Here is a growing concern: That my current ministry situation "Re:Live" at the university church in loma linda, is somehow slipping from the larger church body. While I don't believe this to be the case, many do. Some of the concern stems from a physical location change that is currently happening. We have moved back and forth between Chan Auditorium on the academy campus and Wong Kerlee on the University Campus. This is not without it's pitfalls, and we don't like being so far away. However, that is the case right now.

So we go down to Chan this upcoming week and immediately there are people asking me if we are getting ready to move away from the University church. The answer to this is a resounding "NO". We have no desire to create something different than what the University Church is. However, we understand the way things look. The words that have been thrown out there are "two congregations" within one church.

The sad part is, those are very divisive words when it comes to church. I suppose you could make an argument that there are two congregations, but that doesn't mean we are heading in separate directions. Rather, it means two groups heading in the same directions based on the shared principles and values of the church body. That is very much where we seek to be.

All this stuff happens to be what I am doing my doctoral work in. The integration models of postmodern communities within larger, more modern church communities. We have an opportunities to create a model that makes sense for all of us who are involved. As we grow, so does the church. There will inevitably be push and pull between these community, or better language would be: within THIS community. We are the University church, and the University church is us. There is no dichotomy.

Sometimes worship expression is seen as the dividing factor, and this does create a divergence in style, but only style, not substance. I love having our other pastors come and speak at Re:Live because there is so much wisdom. As well, I love speaking in the main sanctuary in order to help bring the congregation there up to speed on language and ideas that change our lives as young people in the church.

The problem comes when there is a sense of fear or intimadation or control. That will be something we have to deal with as both groups grow larger. The key will be to keep the umbrella we are both growing under open as wide as possible.

just my .02 today. have a great day

Oh, and congrats to Dustin and Lindsay. We are all so happy for you guys!
tjg

Saturday Night, A little Bob Marley, and to watch or read

I'm thinking of either watching Frost/Nixon or just reading and spending some time on my paper. For some reason, I have Bob Marley in my head. It's not as if I've been listening to him lately. Maybe just because we are moving into a series on the Exodus that his tunes keep coming into my head.

The wife is out with a friend having dinner and dessert, the kids are in bed. I can faintly hear the house show burt, my neighbor is having at his house tonight for the Re:Live community. Our weird cat is chasing down felt dinosaurs that somehow made it into our church bag (which seems somehow parodoxical to me).

If I were to reflect on the day, I would say that speaking on grace, as I did at LLUC for their Sanctuary Sabbath School was a huge blessing for me. It reminds me of the hurricane that is grace in our lives. We tame it to an inconvenient santa ana wind, but in reality, it is a "katrina" sort of storm. Grace is bad news for those who are too comforted in their own position, to those who have chosen that theirs is the most important piece of the salvation puzzle. Grace as bad news. . . haven't heard that too much.

have a great saturday night. get home safe!

Some Things

Interesting presentation on the practicing church:
http://thepracticingchurch.com/about/

Len Sweet on apples and oranges:
http://thepracticingchurch.com/

A few more books. . . and Dashboard Confessional

Fore some reason I started listening to Dashboard Confessional again today. Kinda missed it.
here are the books I'm working through or have read in the past few months. This is taken from my reading summary for class. don't mind the reviews.

Oberbrunner, Kary. 2008. The Fine Line. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 229 pages.

Kary, who calls himself a “Recovering Pharisee”, discusses what it means to walk the fine line between becoming too much like the culture, yet still being relevant to culture. He creates a dichotomy between Separatists, Conformists, and Transformists.

Crouch, Andy. 2008. Cutlure making: Recovering our creative calling. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 281 pages.

Andy Crouch reminds us that the church is called to be cultivators of culture and that we should be creating local culture that perhaps can ascend the economies of scale for a larger impact on the world.

Hipps, Shane. 2005. The hidden power of electronic culture: How media shapes faith, the gospel, and church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 176 pages.

Hipps gives us a historical view of how media has shaped not only the way we interact with products, but how we have come to deal with faith, the gospel and with our church communities. He acknowledges the difference between knowledge as a building and knowledge as a web, this being seen as the modern/postmodern dichotomy of interaction with knowledge.

Rollins, Peter. 2006. How (not) to speak of god. Brewster, Mass: Paraclete Pr. 152 pages.

In how not to speak of God Rollins give us, in the first half of the book, a deconstructive model of how to speak of God. He takes on theology, and especially the idea of “right thinking” versus “thinking the right way.” The first section was great, I lost a bit of interest in his “Orthopraxy” section. He gave many examples of putting his philosophy/theology to work.

Dark, David. 2002. Everyday apocalypse : The sacred revealed in radiohead, the simpsons, and other pop culture icons. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press. 160 pages.

With his definition of “Revelation”  firmly in place,  Dark walks us through many pop culture icons. From the Simpson to Flannery O’Conner, he shows how we can find truth in many great works. I was especially taken with his discussion of the Gargoyle and the Steeple. While not his idea, it was Malcolm Muggeridge’s, I deeply resonated with it.

Sine, Tom. 2008. The new conspirators: Creating the future one mustard seed at a time. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Pr. 304 pages.

Sine, in his journalistic fashion, takes a look at what is happening in the emerging, missional, mosaic, and monastic movements in the church today. He also spends time “taking seriously” the times in which we live and what these “new conspirators” are undertaking.

Books I'm into right now

Tribes: Seth Godin
The next 100 years-Friedlander
Heretics-G.K. Chesterton
The sacredness of questioning everything--David Dark

just a few I'm into at the moment. Oh yes, and the book of galatians.

read on people. Read on.

Following the Challenge

I can hardly do it. Let's face it, this is not an easy assignment for the month. The benefits are clear; a better sense of focus on Christ throughout the day, a stronger connection with God, even a bit more peace in my life. But at what cost? I miss a solid hour of sleep. I'm bored sometimes. As I've challenged myself for an hour each day to contemplate this thing we call faith and God and Jesus, I"m not sure I have figured anything out. However, I'm not sure that is the point. Is contemplation a means to an end, or is it the end? Is the connection that comes from stopping oneself in the middle of our lives the important aspect here?

I'm beginning to think that it is the end itself. A greater connection to the thing you contemplate. So then, there is the rub; what are you choosing to spend your time? What is the object of your contemplation. I started it out with being MY interaction with God. However, I'm beginning to think it might be GOD'S interaction with me that is more important.

I know, how incredibly narcissistic of me, right? To think of myself. But I think that this is one of the reasons that we are not incredibly contemplative. We have an inability to see the reality outside of ourselves. We are foolishly running around this world thinking that we are the center of it. This creates in us a dichotomy of wanting to care for others, but having them fall far short of wanting to care for ourselves. A nasty little trick.

Just a word on Creating space:

This is something that can be misconstrued. When I think of living a more contemplative life, I am not seeking to create "Alpha Wave Patterns," nor am I looking to introduce some sort of eastern spirituality into our faith tradition. Rather, I am hoping that there is a desire to create space for God to work. A time when we are not necessarily seeking for what we want in life, but a place to begin to see where God is working in your heart.

Often, the idea of contemplative prayer (and this means many different things depending on context) are seen as an encroaching of spiritualism into our faith. That is certainly a concern. However, the precedent that Jesus set (Luke 5:15 and 16 other references) for a time of reflection, prayer and connection with the Father is important, and we need to make sure we are not ignoring the space that we need to create a strong connection with Jesus Christ. 

Just a point of clarification.

tjg