“From wild man to wise man” session 2

Male and Female God created them

We were encouraged to enter small group conversation with the heart and not the head, and reminded that groups very rarely went “deeper” than the ethos with which they began. The idea of “Cell Memory” – the body-wide repository of accumulated feelings, was introduced. Sergio spoke of mourning as a process of owning our own feelings instead of projecting then outwards or suppressing them. The central idea of the “Father Wound” which marks so much of our Western civilasation was futher opened up.

We began exploring the idea that the Genesis account demonstrates that the image of God was expressed in the creation of male and female aspects. We touched on Rohrs idea that “all healthy spirituality will always have a truly ’sexual’ character to it, a desire for re-union”. (Rohr p 13) Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (7)

“From wild man to wise man” session 1

Sergio Milandri and Richard Rohr

The Wild (Wo)Man

We introduced the idea of wildness, presenting it not a negative and destructive force, but as the path to wisdom. The scriptures and the prophets have been read through the eye of civilisation, but on deeper examination are “a wild bunch” (Rohr p 3).

It was established that the preferred way of masculine communication was control oriented, involving the rational and the egocentric approaches. It was more “feminine” to feel empathy and be compassionate, and this generated the surrender, trust and vulnerability which lead to aliveness. It is imperative we make authentic contact with our “unexplored wildness”, taking this risk in order to be ultimately free to love. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

Pattern-based Worship: Sacred and Profane Time

This is a series of posts in which I hope to unpack thoughts and provoke practices around pattern-based worship. In so doing I want to examine  notions such as patterns: natures way, western music’s journey of civilisation, and postmodern liturgy.  And as an introduction, introduce the idea of sacred time.

At all times people have recognised that while we very often spend our waking hours struggling to survive, there are times when we transcend this and discover a deeper connection with the Divine. This connection may be experienced as God, as a oneness with all things, or simply a oneness with another. Certainly being or falling “in love” takes us away from our struggles or at least makes them bearable.

We all experience such times as inspiring, hopeful, and joyful, very often changing us (at least temporarily) from individuals trapped on a treadmill of obligations, to empowered humans. Many have called these transcendent times Sacred, in contrast to “normal” time which may be called Profane.

In this time of a heightened awareness of the dualisms of our western culture, we may reject the construct of the sacred and the profane as perpetuating unhealthy dichotomies. This suspicion is nowhere more evident than in our religious lives, which for many do not serve us by uniting the parts of our lives but rather create ever more entrenched categories, for example, the church vs. the world, religious vs. secular, or saint vs. sinner. These are by no means limited to the religious “sphere” either; we also experience the everyday divides of work vs. play, or us vs. them for example.

The Celts (who existed at the edges of the Roman Empire) saw this not so much in terms of time but place, calling locations which were steeped in the numinous (the unseen, mysterious presence of the ground of our being) the “thin places”. So we might say there are thin times, when the fabric of mundanity permits us to glimpse our ineffable underlying realities, which many of us call God.

Engaging the duality (as opposed to the dualism) of sacred vs. profane time can be helpful, if we bear in mind our tendency to compartmentalise. In fact, as far as questions of worship are concerned, it is vital that we grasp the distinction. Our confusion as to where the boundary between sacred vs. profane might lie leads to distortions and misunderstandings concerning what worship is or can become.

I write not as one with answers, but rather as one on a quest to explore, and driven by an intuition that there is more to worship than what is currently on offer. It is driven by a call to create new forms which honour the Creator and involve honest deconstructing of what is not working, reconnection with what has always worked, and an imaginative rebuilding of what lies ahead as we engage the unfolding future from a sacred perspective.

Comments (11)

The Sout Project on YouTube

I have uploaded a Sout Project introductory video to YouTube:

Comments (3)

Muzi Cindi – A postmodern nigger in the woodpile

Talking About God Thinking About GodAs epiphanies go, Muzi Cindi’s stands way out. As a preacher and churchman of some 25 years standing, God appeared to him in 2007 during a Radox moment in the shower. So far, only slightly unusual. Then, God actually spoke to him. That deserves, I suppose, a hearing, even in this day of revelation overload. But the clincher is the message, and it was this: “God does not exist”.

But instead of creating a debilitating crisis of faith for Cindi, this subversive “a-theist” anticreed has become his catharsis, motivation, and passion. The evangelical zeal which was his all along merely adjusted to a new message and is as far as one can tell, as strong as it ever has been, and certainly no less radical. The outcome of his visitation is now available as a book, “Thinking about God, Talking about God”.

Well, maybe I should say that it’s not so much a conventional book, as a documented process, largely unedited, full of spelling errors and dubious assertions, brimming with contradiction, but ultimately held together in a burning vision. Lordy Lordy Hallelujah! this is surely a testimony for the postmodern age.

As a text, and because this is a review, let it be noted that the index of howlers is unusually high, the problems ranging from simple spelling, incorrect word usage, to un-researched shortcuts, and the appropriation of whole chapters from other sources. This I am sure is due to the fact that this is an entirely self funded enterprise, and therefore wholly sidesteps normal publishing channels; but this is part of the “Thinking about God” charm. To stop at such nitpicking would be to miss the point.  

Cindi’s essential point is this: the Christianity he was brought up in, is not only unsustainable and discredited, but already defunct. “The Christian world is disintegrating, because the story on which it is based is losing its power.” He supplies abundant (though somewhat chaotic) data to support his claims. But his offering is essentially a visionary one, involving wide theological, philosophical, and scientific thought. He seeks to address the seeming incompatibility of a deep love for his evangelical tradition – and his faith in Jesus – with his philosophical embrace of the new atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

And this embrace extends to just about everything that contributed to the end of the modern era, from Copernicus and Galileo’s pioneering cosmologies, Darwin’s evolutional insights, Einstein’s discovery of relativity, Paul Tillich’s theological atheism and Karen Armstrong’s religious demythologising.

DoNotBelieve“Don’t believe what I believe” is one of Muzi’s rallying cries, and I look forward to the T-Shirt. In case this gets interpreted as mere reactionary anarchy, he explains to us the apophatic (negative theology) traditions from where he draws his succour: Meister Eckhart, the 13th century mystic, Paul Tillich, and Don Cuppit. And he gives credit too to all reformers – Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, the evangelical fathers Wesley, Edwards, Moody, and the South Africans such as John G Lake and Nicholas Bhengu. And references are not just to Christianity: universal, ecumenical appeals to the wisdom of all the worlds’ faith traditions pepper the book.

One of the most curious questions I have about Cindi’s explosive energy its relatively sparse dealings with the question of African roots, and bringing in more post colonial thought to buttressing his extensive postmodernism. Where, for example, are the fathers of the African revolutions, where is his own South African literary tradition amongst the plethora of first world sources? I do not want to prescribe who he should be, but it is a little vexing that the vast majority of his thesis of a post-God God is found in European and American thinking. I’d be delighted to see him take on African traditions with the same zeal he has taken on his own Evangelical roots, and even further to see him unpack an authentic Ubuntu as part of the rebuilding of Christianity.

I find myself identifying with Cindi’s vision, including his passion for knowledge, his hermeneutic of suspicion, his honest confusion, and his pariah status. At the same time I share his love for the evangelical tradition, and the ancient way of Jesus. He affirms, “A redefined Jesus still stands at the centre of my God experience”. Furthermore, I broadly concur with his inclusivity and embrace of all wisdom traditions as a way forward in a post Christian age. “Thinking about God” is flawed and fabulous, a headily chaotic brew, diverse, divisive, and delicious.

Muzi Cindi is a self confessed heretic, and draws strength from making peace with heterodoxy. The book is prefaced with an unattributed quote, “For every orthodoxy was once a heresy, and every heresy is fated to be orthodoxy. All countries were founded by traitors. All our churches were founded by heretics. The patriotism of today glories in the treasons of yesterday.” But to accuse him of lack of accountability would be short-sighted indeed; in addition to his relational ties to his mentors, the book is remarkable for its sheer range of references.

MusiHis vision is no idiosyncratic delusion, but rather an extension of a variety of well acknowledged intellectual and spiritual traditions. And we need his energy and his attempt to reconcile the old and new views of God and the cosmos. Despite his rambling style, I do not believe that this is a “mish-mash” of thought, so much as an emerging, integral vision.

Overcoming the taboo associated with thinking outside of our boxes, especially our religious ones, is a foundational shift which requires great courage; as Seal sings, “We’re never gonna survive, unless we get a little crazy”. Cindi is not shy of being regarded as a holy fool, and having recovered from the fear of asking questions, the potential for “error” appears to have no limit. And yet, all progress, and all evolutionary shifts, require these chaotic conditions. With startling audacity, Cindi has created them.

His life’s work, I intuit, will be to ensure that this chaos does indeed lead to a sustainable spirituality. Perhaps chief amongst the questions will be the one “Where, now, is our authority?” which emergent thinkers like Phyllis Tickle have been addressing.

If the world is to remember Muzi Cindi the author, he will have to employ a good editor. And if it is to celebrate his personal legacy, he will have to help those still ensnared in modernistic thinking, to emerge. He will need to fully develop his empathy, creating sound bridges for others to cross. And he will have to gain the trust of those who not so long ago, would have gloried in his immolation at the heretic’s stake.

Muzi’s Website.

Comments (21)

The Sout Project : Process and Product

sout_cover_medWell its time to come out of the shadows and back to into the blog world. Fact is, I’ve been busy. Producing and launching a musical album can only be done with 100% concentration, and this has meant that my online correspondance has more or less gone dormant.

This has been a 3 year process, intensifying about a year back, when I realised I had the makings of an album in a growing number of songs, which started taking shape to form a vision.

That’s why I describe the Sout Project as “A Vision woven into song”.

I hope that this comes through to the listeners, either overtly or indirectly by osmosis. The way I am seeing it now, the project is a by-product of an ongoing process. But at the same time its a product that will need to get into the marketplace and make itsself heard.

Like any parent would, I want it to be given a chance. Thats why I have chosen to do it in a fairly rigorous way, albiet as an independant, standing apart from the recording industry and its requirements and methods. But I’ve saved, budgeted, and paid attention to detail.

Another part of the process I describe involved conversations with local entrepreneurs, around a vision for ideas that can earn their keep. In this, many of us have been feeling particulary enpowered. There is a thought that is abiding for me here, and while it might sound rather Marxist, is this:

“They who own the process own the product”.

Comments (11)

Fundamentalism’s fatal flaw

“The Earth is the Lords, and the flatness thereof.” [Ps 24, NFV]*

If it does not seem possible to dialog directly with fundamentalists, we can at least reflect on why this is so. While some refuse point blank to enter any debate regarding the/ir truth, other might see this fact as an opportunity to learn about compassion, difference, peacemaking and unity, and allow the potential “logs in their own eye” to be challenged as they identify the splinters in the eyes of their detractors.

Fundamentalism may have had a good purpose once, as a response to liberal modernism. But now, it is not just unnecessary, or outmoded. It is not only unpleasant and damaging. It does not just discredit the God of Compassion. No, its final flaw is more basic: from where I stand, fundamentalism is in fact impossible.

One of its chief features is its lateralization of language. To literalise is to flatten, removing all poetry or ambiguity – all Life – from ideas. A true fundamentalism outlaws all metaphor. But who does not use metaphor daily: “I’m just popping out” means I am leaving then returning, but true fundamentalist literalisation would be bound to ask “You mean your eye? Or are you leaving us via an explosion?” Yet they do not – they accept metaphor.

And did Jesus not abundantly describe his mission via simile – “The Kingdom is like a net…” Perhaps the fundamentalist requires a strict delineation between metaphor and simile, so that we are very explicit about abstract comparisons, by using the disclaimer “like”. If Jesus had said “The Kingdom is a net”, what would anti-metaphorical fundamentalists make of his words? “Not so Lord, it will never be a net”? No, Jesus assumes his message will be filtered via our imaginations, in order to fire them up and grow faith for the hearers.

And when Jesus says (rather curiously I have always thought) “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?” is he not implying that it is impossible for this earth not to be good, so long as those who trust him remain true? It is a chemical fact that salt – Soduim Chloride – is extremely stable, and can virtually not lose its salty properties.

As Kabir says, “I laugh when I hear that the fish is thirsty.” Meaning, it is impossible for the fish to be thirsty, and that it is impossible for the earth not to be good:  seasoned, purified, preserved and fertilized via the Grace of God and the Salt of Faith.

As I read the scriptures, and as I contemplate the world in which I live, I see abundant evidence of a Poetic God at play in his Universe of Marvels. My ultimate response to Life is one of awe. It is to perceive an endless mystery at every level of being.

If Life, God or the Cosmos are even in the slightest bit Poetic, then any attempt to do away with this poetry in the name of God, Life or the Cosmos, is impossible. It goes against the Truth, and this attempt at the impossible is therefore hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is sin.

From this reasoning, the sin of fundamentalism, and its fatal flaw, is the rejection of the Poetic God of Multifaceted Beauty and the embrace of the Reductionist Idol of Unifaceted Fact.

As we wrestle with truth, these are some of the questions we might ask:

  • Is this created Universe reducible, as the Newtonian approach would have it, to an objective series of mere facts?
  • Is this essentially Greek approach to truth “biblical” – does it line up with almost all other non-modern traditions, especially the Hebraic – of narrative truth as revealed through story?
  • Are the words of Jesus and the biblical authors reducible to a set of codified truth propositions – in effect, laws?
  • Is there a single meaning of the cross by which we determine a single, simple approach to Salvation?

To the extent you answered yes to these, you are a modern fundamentalist. Your worldview, whether you know it or not, is deeply influenced by the Enlightenment and Scientific rationalism. You probably see this as normal, and are unwilling to countenance another point of view. You partake in an “excess of confidence”.

If all of this remained merely a philosophical issue, then the sin of fundamentalism would not be that serious. It would fall into the category of abstract problems like any other “ism” might. But the fact is this: the actions and morality based on an impossible belief system, one at odds with Life and ultimately with God, is bound to be problematic. The fruits speak for themselves: a hypocritical belief framework leads inevitably to hypocritical deeds.

In my online skirmishes with fundamentalists I often find myself cast as the villain, the renegade and the rejecter of God. My attempts to effect reconciliation which as I see it are a foundational (fundamental in fact) part of the gospel of reconciliation, are met with scorn and worse. My desire to forge peace is mirrored back as an act of war. Any talk of truth is interpreted as deception on my part.

It is this same toxic thinking that makes people hate homosexuals, for instance. Or kill them. In the name of the Christian God.

We should not be surprised then at the vehemence with which certain people reject the emergent message. The postmodern tendencies of this message, which attempt to reclaim the mystery which rightfully belongs in the broad tradition of Christian spirituality, confound the Modern thought process. Any attempt to question or any hint of ambiguity in the written words of scripture is demonised and condemned as compromising truth by making it less clear and less one-dimensional.

To this, Peter Rollins can have the last word:

“… if we were to do the impossible and render the text into the ultimate fantasy of the fundamentalist (a text at one with itself) then the Word of God would not be clearer; rather, the Word of God would be systematically eradicated.” (The Fidelity of Betrayal, Peter Rollins, Paraclete 2008, p 57)

* The New Fundamentalist Version is not currently available (and will hopefully never become available).

Comments (34)

Waging Peace: Emergence vs. Fundamentalism

Peace, like war, needs to be waged.

It’s stating the obvious to say that emergents and fundamentalists see the world differently. In this age of blogs and the conversational web, spats around theological issues are a daily occurrence. Many emergent leaders have had to take a tremendous amount of criticism for their association with new thinking and their deviation from traditional approaches to understanding the gospel. And to be fair, some traditionalists have felt deeply betrayed by the emergent approach.

When we speak of fundamentalism, we should bear in mind that like emergence, it manifests in a wide variety of sectors. It is helpful to see the patterns at play – the overview across these – whether it be Islamic Militancy, Scientific Materialist Dogma, the Leninist party line, even a simple bureaucratic lack of imagination and insistence on fixed rules.

But here I want to address the issue of Christian (and predominantly Modern) Fundamentalism, for this is the shade which affects me most directly. Moreover I consider myself qualified to critique it as I have been a fundamentalist myself; I am still recovering.

I have in recent months encountered the ire of a pro-Modern backlash. Many judgments have been issued, much misunderstanding experienced, and many a personal slanging match has ensued. While I feel a kinship with Salman Rushdie, fortunately for me these “fundy fatwas” have all been online and virtual.

For example, I have been portrayed as an imbeciletaken as a hateful, divisive and provocative New Ager, and most recently, been roundly dismissed as a false teacher and wolf in sheeps clothing, allied with Satan. I’m not moaning, just stating what adventurous thought can led to when it is read by those who do not know how to read

Now many a balanced brother and sensible sister have questioned the value of face-offs with these detractors, especially where those concerned are suffering from what Brian McLaren has described as “excessive overconfidence”. While restraint or even silence seems to be one biblical response to slander, malice, and willful misunderstanding, there is a time to stand and fight, to give an answer for the hope that is within, and above all to demonstrate a better way to those intend on disagreement, whose modus operandi is to emphasize difference rather than encouraging similarity.

There are several things to consider when engaging in these faith wars. No war is ever won without a thorough understanding of the issues at stake, and how the opponent thinks. If we are to have any success in effecting transformation amongst a population of fellow believers who view us with deep suspicion, fear, and cast us in the role of “the other”, we have to identify our actual differences, rather than missing an opportunity by misdiagnosing the problem, or concentrating on surface dissimilarities.

In future posts I might address some of these issues. But as an introduction, I would like to consider this exploration a part of the great Restoration of All Things by God spoken of in Colossians 1:

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Our “enemies” are often our neighbors, and the starting point in waging this Peace, should be at and near home.

Comments (27)

Story : a hymn

This is a hymn in house style called “Story”. It takes the tune of “Be thou my vision”, whose origins are Irish from the 8th Century. It is from the upcoming album of postmodern sacred community songs “Sout by North West” by the Sout Project.

This rewrite is based on Brian McLarens new myths for “church” or “Kingdom” as suggested in his “The Secret Message of Jesus”. These include the dream, revolution, party, dance, and network, of God.

More on this soon…

Story

Yours is my story, O Lord of my heart
Yours is the journey of which I am part
Yours is my dream, by day and by night
Waking or sleeping your presence my light Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (9)

The European Post-Colonial

“When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.” [Desmond Tutu]

“I went to India to find the other half of my soul”. [Bede Griffiths]

amahoroI have just spent a magical week at the 3rd Amahoro Conference at the YFC Cyara Centre near Johannesburg, South Africa.

Above all things this was a conversation involving probably 300 people, from countries including South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Burundi, DRC, Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana, UK, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada and Dominican Republic.

In recent years I have become aware of what can be described as the “post modern condition”. This epiphany has been instrumental in my current spiritual awakening. To accept that I have moved beyond modernity has meant that I now find myself in a new “framing story” in which God’s word, revelation and mission, can be fundamentally freshly understood. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (4)

Older Posts »