Canticles of the Unhomed
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Go Forth into the Wilderness and There It Shall be Built
So we are on track to becoming a full fledged member of the Evangelical Free Church of Canada. Now that I am a DENOMINATIONAL pastor, does that mean that I have to have some kind of denominational loyalty; that I have to defend the denominational party line? Knowing the District Superintendent that I will be working under, definately not. However, I wonder what will become expected of me by the denomination, and the other pastors in the district. I can't believe that I am actually worrying about being accepted. Wow.
We finished our constitution last night. It was pretty easy, as things like this go. The church that I used to pastor, when we were doing our constitution, the process took six months: we would take one draft back to the congregation, have to make a bunch of changes, argue for a few hours over inconsequential wording, then go make the changes, and the process starts all over again. In the case of the House, we had it done in about three hours, and we emailed it out to the congregation today, and we should be able to ratify it on Sunday.
So after this, we need to register as a religious society, and so on. The short of it is that it will be much easier for us to buy our Building once we have our non profit status, so we are trying to expedite that process as much as possible. We plan to be accepted officially into the denomination at their fall conference, which I think is in October. I think we should have everything together to send off to the government within a couple of weeks. Of course, that is when the real struggle begins. Stinkin' government. What's all this drivel about the separation of church and state? Feh.
Haven't written in awhile. Need to get back to it. But before that can happen, I need to find some equilibrium in my life. I need to find some rhythm.
We finished our constitution last night. It was pretty easy, as things like this go. The church that I used to pastor, when we were doing our constitution, the process took six months: we would take one draft back to the congregation, have to make a bunch of changes, argue for a few hours over inconsequential wording, then go make the changes, and the process starts all over again. In the case of the House, we had it done in about three hours, and we emailed it out to the congregation today, and we should be able to ratify it on Sunday.
So after this, we need to register as a religious society, and so on. The short of it is that it will be much easier for us to buy our Building once we have our non profit status, so we are trying to expedite that process as much as possible. We plan to be accepted officially into the denomination at their fall conference, which I think is in October. I think we should have everything together to send off to the government within a couple of weeks. Of course, that is when the real struggle begins. Stinkin' government. What's all this drivel about the separation of church and state? Feh.
Haven't written in awhile. Need to get back to it. But before that can happen, I need to find some equilibrium in my life. I need to find some rhythm.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Yup... its the House Again
Life is never fair. Stayed up late last night talking, and came to the realization that there are things that I hate. Not the good type of hate, like for the bad things in life; but rather hate of a different kind. It humbles me and condemns me that there is this in my life. Was it just niave wishful thinking on my part to think that leaving Sol Cafe to build the House would have no effect on the relationships there? Was it just niave wishful thinking on my part to think that broken relationship didn't have to be the norm? Shit, I hate it. Maybe I should just bury myself in the House and maybe after 6-9 months revisit Sol Cafe. Maybe that is the way to go. I don't know anymore.
Been reading "Reimagining Spiritual Formation," by Doug Pagitt from Solomon's Porch. I know that book is pretty familiar to a bunch of you, but I am just comoing to it, and I am finding a real kindred spirit, philosophically-speaking. He says, "Because of the couches, the absence of a stage, and the fact that people wander around during the gathering, some people describe our setting as casual. Actually, I prefer the word normal. But what happens in this space is anything but normal. When we gather in our normal-looking living room-like space, it is so we can talk about the unusual things of God and the call to live a life in the Kingdom of God. We infuse abnormal practises into this normal space. We sing, pray, confess, profess, eat the body and drink the blood of our Savior, sit quiety, hear the story of God, hear each other's stories, and give money because these are the practises that we want to REPLICATE IN THE REST OF OUR LIVES. [emphasis mine] We are seeking to create a place where our normal lives intersect with the intentional structuring of life in the Christian practises. In this we hope to learn how to bring the two togther in other settings. Instead of having a special place, unlike any other, where we try to make the things of God seem normal, we have tried to create a normal place that gives us permission to discuss the unique things of God... Our Sunday gatherings combine regular elements with occasional surprises. While special inclusions are always welcome and add variety, it is in the routine practises that we find our rhythm for living."
This passage has been consuming and informing my thinking over the past few days. The more I think about it the more I am starting to see that church is incredibly artificial. While i understand that the subject matter of what happens at church is by definition unusual, I can't help but think that we should be trying harder to foster the "normal" interaction rather trying to generate a specific response.
Been reading "Reimagining Spiritual Formation," by Doug Pagitt from Solomon's Porch. I know that book is pretty familiar to a bunch of you, but I am just comoing to it, and I am finding a real kindred spirit, philosophically-speaking. He says, "Because of the couches, the absence of a stage, and the fact that people wander around during the gathering, some people describe our setting as casual. Actually, I prefer the word normal. But what happens in this space is anything but normal. When we gather in our normal-looking living room-like space, it is so we can talk about the unusual things of God and the call to live a life in the Kingdom of God. We infuse abnormal practises into this normal space. We sing, pray, confess, profess, eat the body and drink the blood of our Savior, sit quiety, hear the story of God, hear each other's stories, and give money because these are the practises that we want to REPLICATE IN THE REST OF OUR LIVES. [emphasis mine] We are seeking to create a place where our normal lives intersect with the intentional structuring of life in the Christian practises. In this we hope to learn how to bring the two togther in other settings. Instead of having a special place, unlike any other, where we try to make the things of God seem normal, we have tried to create a normal place that gives us permission to discuss the unique things of God... Our Sunday gatherings combine regular elements with occasional surprises. While special inclusions are always welcome and add variety, it is in the routine practises that we find our rhythm for living."
This passage has been consuming and informing my thinking over the past few days. The more I think about it the more I am starting to see that church is incredibly artificial. While i understand that the subject matter of what happens at church is by definition unusual, I can't help but think that we should be trying harder to foster the "normal" interaction rather trying to generate a specific response.
Monday, March 14, 2005
The Hizzle fo Shizzle
So we went and looked at another house in the Hardisty region of Edmonton. I must say that it was pretty near perfect. Chuck, Erica and I spent the evening with the owners of the house, and we got on very well, I thought. The house was extrememly spacious and modern. The main meeting area on the main floor was large enough for our purposes and there was a room near the front door to be used as a chapel/sanctuary/spiritual airlock. There was a number of large bedrooms, and the downstairs (basement) level was extremely large. I think it will service our needs very well. The neighborhood is great, and it has a huge backyard. The location is not what we were hoping for, but is not too bad. We are all very excited about this house and plan this week to get as many people out to look at it as possible, since we want this to be a decision that everyone is behind.
We had our second gathering as the House. There was a good number of people there, and it was a good gathering, though I think it was pretty heavy. We took sort of a relaxed pace through the service, and just prayed where we wanted to pray, talk where we wanted to talk and so on. It was not as polished or atmospheric as alot of Emergent churches probably are, but I liked it. One of our core beliefs is that we want the nature of our community, the personalities and natures of the people there to shape what we do, so I think it will take us a few weeks of trying different things and evaluating. This past Sunday we opened with about twenty minutes or so of conversation, did a written prayer for about fifteen minutes, shared about our weeks for about forty minutes or so, which included a couple of verbal prayer times, then we read the first seven chapters of Genesis out loud which took about thirty minutes, then had a bit of a converstaion about Genesis for about twenty minutes, then we studied 1 Corinthians 1 together for about an hour then we took some time to talk about joining the E Free denomination, and about the house we were looking at. We also took time to talk about the philosophy behind a number of things that we do. All in all, it was formitive, not exactly what we invisioned, and probably way too heavy for most people right off the bat. I think until we get into our own facility, and out of Chuck's tiny apartment living room that we are going to have to simplfy. Our original idea was that if during the service, you started to get stir crazy, or was losing focus, or whatever, you could get up, go to a different part of the house or room and switch activities; go paint, or sketch, pick up a guitar and start playing, go play some pool, or just sit in a corner and ignore us. However, in Chuck's admittedly small apartment that is not possible, so we have to adapt our practise to our facility. The idea is that we find our own rythyms, and not have to be creative in some spontaneous way every week. Variety is great, but there is something to be said for consistency and rythym. I am not trying to lets structure our gatherings to death so that the same things happen every week and there is no life or variety. Its like in jazz; there is a lead sheet that lists the chords for the song, and everytime you play that song you play those chords; however, because of the nature of jazz, the song may never sound the same twice, but you always know what song it is because those chords are the same; you may use different intonations, rythyms, and solos, which totally change the sound of the song, but because you always play the same chords from the lead sheet the song retains its familiarity and recongizability. (Thanks to Rach for the jazz analogy) However, I think there should a consistency to the components of our service that focuses people on the rythym of the gathering. I am using this word rythym alot, meaning literally, " movement or fluctuation marked by the regular recurrence or natural flow of related elements." I appreciate that definition, because it denotes the dynamic nature of our relationship with God, but at the same time helps us to appreciate the sameness inherent in God. I resist the idea that every week needs to be different just for the sake of being creative. I think there are more ways to be creative while respecting these rythyhms
So, our journey is not yet over; hell, it hasn't even really begun. One of the best things about this is that we are approaching this with almost NO previous church growth/planting baggage. All of us have baggage from other churches, but I am the only one that has been damaged by Hybels, Warren and the rest of them. Its great, because we are free to find our own path. Maybe it will look like Hybels or Warren (not if I have anything to say about it.) but at least if it does, it will because that is where we find our expression, not because it happens to be the "in" model. I know that everyone says that. I know, I know. But it is the journey that is important.
One thing we want to make sure we do is avoid as many of the post modern pitfalls as possible. We want to avoid deconstruction. We have no desire to define ourselves by what we are not. As well, deconstruction is, by definition, destructive - it begins with the assumption that the concept is flawed, and thus must be deconstructed to uncover the nature of those flaws. Overall, though, it just seems bleak. As well, we want to avoid relativism - we think there are absolute truths, and that bible does speak definitively on several issues, and we want to be definitive as well. I guess I just feel that the whole post modernist view seems angry, for the sake of being angry. Personally, I am tired of being angry. I want to create something new; thus, the House.
I'm beginning to think that frequent, smaller posts are better than long infrequent ones, right?
We had our second gathering as the House. There was a good number of people there, and it was a good gathering, though I think it was pretty heavy. We took sort of a relaxed pace through the service, and just prayed where we wanted to pray, talk where we wanted to talk and so on. It was not as polished or atmospheric as alot of Emergent churches probably are, but I liked it. One of our core beliefs is that we want the nature of our community, the personalities and natures of the people there to shape what we do, so I think it will take us a few weeks of trying different things and evaluating. This past Sunday we opened with about twenty minutes or so of conversation, did a written prayer for about fifteen minutes, shared about our weeks for about forty minutes or so, which included a couple of verbal prayer times, then we read the first seven chapters of Genesis out loud which took about thirty minutes, then had a bit of a converstaion about Genesis for about twenty minutes, then we studied 1 Corinthians 1 together for about an hour then we took some time to talk about joining the E Free denomination, and about the house we were looking at. We also took time to talk about the philosophy behind a number of things that we do. All in all, it was formitive, not exactly what we invisioned, and probably way too heavy for most people right off the bat. I think until we get into our own facility, and out of Chuck's tiny apartment living room that we are going to have to simplfy. Our original idea was that if during the service, you started to get stir crazy, or was losing focus, or whatever, you could get up, go to a different part of the house or room and switch activities; go paint, or sketch, pick up a guitar and start playing, go play some pool, or just sit in a corner and ignore us. However, in Chuck's admittedly small apartment that is not possible, so we have to adapt our practise to our facility. The idea is that we find our own rythyms, and not have to be creative in some spontaneous way every week. Variety is great, but there is something to be said for consistency and rythym. I am not trying to lets structure our gatherings to death so that the same things happen every week and there is no life or variety. Its like in jazz; there is a lead sheet that lists the chords for the song, and everytime you play that song you play those chords; however, because of the nature of jazz, the song may never sound the same twice, but you always know what song it is because those chords are the same; you may use different intonations, rythyms, and solos, which totally change the sound of the song, but because you always play the same chords from the lead sheet the song retains its familiarity and recongizability. (Thanks to Rach for the jazz analogy) However, I think there should a consistency to the components of our service that focuses people on the rythym of the gathering. I am using this word rythym alot, meaning literally, " movement or fluctuation marked by the regular recurrence or natural flow of related elements." I appreciate that definition, because it denotes the dynamic nature of our relationship with God, but at the same time helps us to appreciate the sameness inherent in God. I resist the idea that every week needs to be different just for the sake of being creative. I think there are more ways to be creative while respecting these rythyhms
So, our journey is not yet over; hell, it hasn't even really begun. One of the best things about this is that we are approaching this with almost NO previous church growth/planting baggage. All of us have baggage from other churches, but I am the only one that has been damaged by Hybels, Warren and the rest of them. Its great, because we are free to find our own path. Maybe it will look like Hybels or Warren (not if I have anything to say about it.) but at least if it does, it will because that is where we find our expression, not because it happens to be the "in" model. I know that everyone says that. I know, I know. But it is the journey that is important.
One thing we want to make sure we do is avoid as many of the post modern pitfalls as possible. We want to avoid deconstruction. We have no desire to define ourselves by what we are not. As well, deconstruction is, by definition, destructive - it begins with the assumption that the concept is flawed, and thus must be deconstructed to uncover the nature of those flaws. Overall, though, it just seems bleak. As well, we want to avoid relativism - we think there are absolute truths, and that bible does speak definitively on several issues, and we want to be definitive as well. I guess I just feel that the whole post modernist view seems angry, for the sake of being angry. Personally, I am tired of being angry. I want to create something new; thus, the House.
I'm beginning to think that frequent, smaller posts are better than long infrequent ones, right?
Thursday, March 10, 2005
The House
So I met with Bill Taylor, district superintendent of the Evangelical Free church. We talked about denominational affiliation for the House. This is important, I feel, since a denominational structure will provide us with much-needed accountability, oversight and credibility. At the same time we can add a new kind distinctiveness to their denomination. Previously, I would have been extremely worried about the theology of a denomination before I could ever be part of them, and that is still true to a certain extent, but I know Bill, I trust him, and I respect him, and after hearing about the House, he was excited, and he thought that we could really fit into the Free Church fold. A denomination having the correct theology just isn't as important to me as it once was, since I see that true community, and thus the heart of God, is much more INCLUSIVE rather than exclusive. This seems to be the focus of this denomination; inclusivity rather than getting people to sign off on complicated statements of beliefs or creeds. Don't get me wrong: Calvin was annointed of God, and... just kidding. :) Really, though theology is important, but only in as far as the essentials.
The Essentials:
1. Deity/Humanity of Christ
2. Inspiration of the Word of God (that is incredibly vague but I can't think of a better term for it)
3. The State of Humanity
4. The Atonement
Possible Non Essentials:
1. Trinity
2. Ecclesiology
3. Infallibility of Scripture
4. Eschatology
5. Orthodoxy
... I think. I don't think I can be totally definitive on much of that. Its good for discussion, anyway.
In any case, I would be totally comfortable in signing onto the Free Church denomination; for nothing else than their emphasis on community over education as a means of spiritual formation. This belief is actually quite progressive and not something that I would expect to see out of a denomination. In short, I was extrememly pleased and encouraged about my discussion with Bill, and expect to have several more in the future.
We are looking at another house tomorrow night for the House, and are having dinner with Paul and Debbie Seburn. (They are the owners of the house in question.) I am looking forward to this; they seem to be excited about the concept of the House, and think that their house will be ideal for our purposes... they might also be just saying that to sell their house... but I doubt it. In any case, I hope the house is good; I'm kind of getting tired of looking, and want to get on with things.
The Essentials:
1. Deity/Humanity of Christ
2. Inspiration of the Word of God (that is incredibly vague but I can't think of a better term for it)
3. The State of Humanity
4. The Atonement
Possible Non Essentials:
1. Trinity
2. Ecclesiology
3. Infallibility of Scripture
4. Eschatology
5. Orthodoxy
... I think. I don't think I can be totally definitive on much of that. Its good for discussion, anyway.
In any case, I would be totally comfortable in signing onto the Free Church denomination; for nothing else than their emphasis on community over education as a means of spiritual formation. This belief is actually quite progressive and not something that I would expect to see out of a denomination. In short, I was extrememly pleased and encouraged about my discussion with Bill, and expect to have several more in the future.
We are looking at another house tomorrow night for the House, and are having dinner with Paul and Debbie Seburn. (They are the owners of the house in question.) I am looking forward to this; they seem to be excited about the concept of the House, and think that their house will be ideal for our purposes... they might also be just saying that to sell their house... but I doubt it. In any case, I hope the house is good; I'm kind of getting tired of looking, and want to get on with things.
