Are our attitudes to alcohol killing our kids?

The West Australian Newspaper published the results of a joint study between the paper and HBF (a health insurance organisation) in WA where more than 650 people between the ages of 15 and 30 were questioned on their attitudes toward alcohol, drugs and binge drinking.

76% of those polled admitted to regularly binge drinking*.

This afternoon (after reading the survey results in the paper) I was told a 16 year old boy died on the weekend after "sculling" (rapidly consuming) a bottle of whisky on Saturday night. This boy was a part of the extended network of young people we work with through Alternat[Or] and his death has hit hard. But not hard enough to change young peoples drinking habits.

Our attitude to alcohol is killing our kids.

This is something we need to take incredibly seriously.

Through my work professionally, and informally, in working with, mentoring and diverting young people involved in problem drug and alcohol use, I have found the number one most effective way of achieving positive change is via meaningful, genuine, ongoing relationship.

I have seen many young people completely change their attitudes and behaviour to drug and alcohol use through an ongoing process of engagement and mentoring/discipleship.

Unfortunately, there are not many of us willing to invite young people into our lives, and even fewer willing to critically assess their own liberty - their own social use of drugs - and they way it impinges on the development of the next generation of Australian adults.

What are you prepared to do? What are your answers and/or experiences in dealing with the cultural of heavy drinking that exists in our society?

*Just a quick disclaimer! I'm working from memory. If this isn't the exact figure, it's pretty bloody close. I can't find the results online and don't have a copy of the paper as I read it while having a cuppa in the cafe this morning.

Israel, the innocent victim?

Those with a Facebook account, check out this photo album from Michael Prysner.

Hamas are in the wrong. They should not be firing rockets into Israel or attempting to provoke war. But, Israel is so, so incredibly wrong in retaliating in the way they have. So much devastation, so many deaths. The cycle of violence and hatred is perpetuated.

I can not even begin to understand the blind, biased attitude of those who support Israel in this action. Look at these photographs and then tell me that Israel is doing God's will!

Not feeling guilty?

These videos will soon change that!



And



Thanks to Blind Beggar

The future of the "established" church

I haven't posted directly on this topic for quite a while. There have been a number of reasons for this. In one sense it has all been a little too close to home. I am employed by a local church with a traditional, denominational history, and I began to see that many of my posts on this subject where just a little too close to home. I also have been trying to sort through my own convictions and the motivation behind them.

But I was asked the question again today, "what do I see as the future of the church?" And so I thought I would think "out loud" and post some of my thoughts here.

In a nutshell, I think the established church is dying. Not dead yet, but well on its way.

The main indicators of church's demise, as I see them, come from the church's role in contemporary culture - Christianity is increasingly becoming marginalised and established, traditional-denominational expressions of church now exist on the fringe of the local (and increasingly secular) community.

Community action for most churches involves marketing of religious goods and services (handing out balloons with the church's website address on it in the local shopping centre for instance) to a shrinking sympathetic demographic, in forms borrowed from and perfected by MacDonald's and Coke et al. Social action comes with press releases and self aggrandisement.

Even though all these things point towards the death of the established church in its current incarnation, I don't necessarily think the local church has to die. I think there is a hope of rebirth. But it means change. It means converting from business-inspired marketing, to Jesus inspired living. It means reconsidering leadership models and practice, it means reconsidering the role of the church and what it means to be the church in and for our world. It means understanding that being missional has very little to do with going on an overseas mission trip, planning an "outreach" event in your suburb, or participating in the next you-beaut mass media evangelistic project.

Despite the whining of some local church pastors that EMC practitioners or commentators don't have a right to comment on the local church, I think it is important to point out that most of the criticisms being leveled at the established church are coming from people with extensive experience within established, traditional-denominational, settings. They aren't people standing on the outside, looking in and pointing fingers.

But change isn't easy, and in most places is almost impossible. If the leadership isn't in the picture it's unlikely the church will adapt - those members who want to see things change will eventually leave when it simply becomes to hard to keep working within a structure in which they don't fit. If the members don't see the need to do things differently, then leadership will find it very hard to make things move. So, I think we are probably about a generation away from the large-scale demise of the local church in its current form. Those that come to grips with the changing environment and adapt accordingly will make it (it's going to be tough!), those that just keep on doing what they've always done (or at least what Hillsong or Saddleback or whatever whoever is the flavour of the month this month did!) will go the way of the dinosaur.

This isn't a simple subject (you've seen the number of books on the topic!), but it's a subject worth getting real about. This involves established churches taking a serious look at themselves and being willing to take the pruners to the dead wood while putting "history and tradition" to one side for the sake of the future. It also involves proponents of the EMC being willing to build bridges into established churches wanting to make changes, recognising the role that does exist in the neighbourhood of the future for long-established (yet significantly modified) expressions of church.

If you're wondering if you're church is really missional - check out this post from Brackish Faith and this post from newly commissioned "Senior Pastor", Hamo, at Backyard Missionary.

Christmas Spider

I found this little beauty with a brood of youngsters (several hundred) in the shed this morning. The off-white bits of fluff around it are it's egg sacks. I should have photographed it with a coin to show the size, it was about the size of an Australian 5 cent bit.

For the uniformed (or the un-Australian) it is a redback spider, probably the most venomous spider we have in WA and one of the most venomous in the world.

In its nest I also found the mummified remains of a 7 or 8 cm long 4 toed skink - left overs of a rather hearty spider meal!

We seem to have a lot of spiders around here - wolf spiders and daddy long legs are the most common. After nearly 16 years together Alyssa is finally giving up on getting me to kill or remove these little lovelies. They are great natural insecticides and help keep the mossies under control in summer.

My general rule with the redback is, if they are not around where the kids play then they get to live. Otherwise they are just too dangerous - a small one can easily kill a child of Ashleigh's age with one bite. One this size could probably even make an adult critically ill. Unfortunately I had to dispatch this one and it's babies to spiders heaven. Not worth the risk to the kids or the dog.

Anyway, from the Rigg family (and their spiders), Merry Christmas!

Saving Christians

I finished reading Rob Bell and Don Golden's book "Jesus wants to save Christians" about a week ago. It takes, what the authors call, a new exodus perspective on the biblical story. In a nutshell this means the first exodus forms a basis for understanding the mission and ministry of Jesus - a mission that had firmly in its sights the alleviation of the suffering and the hardship of the least. Of those enslaved.

The New Exodus is one perspective, taken from the side of the weak and marginal and the God who cares about them. We're interested in the big story because that's what the Bible is—a story that unfolds across history. Who are the major characters, what's the plot, how do we take part in it? Perhaps this is why Jesus can be hard to understand. It’s hard to understand the later parts if you haven't been brought up to speed on where the story has been so far*.

I'm a fan of Rob's and read this book hot on the heels of his other new book, "Sex God", and found it drew together many of the themes concerning kingdom and gospel and the link between being the body of Christ and caring for the least in our world - in other words, social justice.

I recommend it as an easy, introductory read on what is really quite a deep subject.

Here's an interview with Rob from Relevent Magazine, in which he discusses the book. Out of Ur also posted a 2 part review of the book which you can read HERE (Pt 1.) and HERE (Pt 2).

*Bell - Online: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god_article.php?id=7569

Doh

I've been running my little "tent making" business (doing basic software fix-ups and troubleshooting computers with problems) for around 3 weeks now. Generally it's been going well.

On average I've been getting about 2 or 3 jobs a week, which is about the level I had hoped for.

Today, though, I met my first hiccup. I was checking out a laptop computer that had been malfunctioning. I disabled the usual dozen or so nuisance start-up processes - all the software that runs unnecessarily when you first boot up your computer, slowing everything down- and did a re-start. That's where the trouble started.

The computer proceeded to log on to Windows, showing the desktop wallpaper and then, automatically, log itself off. I tried booting into Safe Mode, booting from a Windows boot disk and everything else I could think of, all to no avail.

So I fessed up. I told the customer what had happened and that I was unable to go any further with fixing the problem. As the problem I was now experiencing was similar to that experienced by the customer in the first place (the machine sporadically shutting itself down) I thought it could be related.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I now have one, extremely dissatisfied customer (fair enough too!) who has opted to take their computer elsewhere. I've spent the last two hours researching the problem on the net and think I have found an answer. I've also spent the last two hours ruminating over the fact that I think, I caused the problem in the first place!

In the end I called the customer back and told them what I thought had happened. At least that way they can pass this on to the new guy and he can, hopefully, go straight to the root of this most recent problem and rectify it. I also offered to cover whatever it costs to rectify this issue, if indeed it was I who caused it in the first place.

Sometimes I think I should have concentrated more on finding work marrying and burying people - much easier in the long term.

Christians live no differently to non-Christians

Rick Meigs has posted another challenging gem.

His claim, based on the research of the Barna Institute, is that;

Simple observation confirmed by numerous studies have found that how American Christians live and their basic beliefs about life are no different than those of the non-Christians.

He says the majority of American Christians operate out of the credo - "live your life, share your faith", but contends the missional imperative is to "live your faith, share your life".

I think the Australian church is in pretty much the same place.

You can read the whole thing HERE.

TV and Happiness

Livescience.com have reported the findings of a recent study into happiness and have found that unhappy people watch more tv, on average, than happy people.

While happy people reported watching an average of 19 hours of television per week, unhappy people reported 25 hours a week. The results held even after taking into account education, income, age and marital status.

In addition, happy individuals were more socially active, attended more religious services, voted more and read a newspaper more often than their less-chipper counterparts.

The researchers aren't sure though which comes first, the unhappiness or the TV watching.

Justice and "Justice"

Over the last 20 years I've spent a lot of times in courthouses.

The first few times I went to court because of things I had done. More recently I have been there in support of others. In between I spent time at court as a journalist and a news cameraman. I was even once assaulted at court, resulting in a fractured knee cap.

I have a pretty good understanding of the mechanics of court. I know when to bow. I know not to leave my sunglasses on my head, and to turn my mobile phone off. I once saw a lawyer throw his pager across the court room when he forgot to turn it off and some one paged him. The judge had already cautioned him once about leaving it on. His response seemed a little extreme, but the judge saw the funny side of it.

I have been asked to advocate for clients before the court and even mediated a few disputes at the request of the court.

I have come to see that justice, real justice, the kind of justice that leaves you feeling like a wrong has been properly put right, is often missing from the justice system.

A parent looses access to their children because their former spouse is prepared to lie and they are not.

A homeless man is sent to prison because he spent a few nights in an unoccupied house, trying to get out of the cold and the rain.

A child abuser is set free because the person he abused is unable to face him in court and because his family, out of misplaced loyalty, are prepared to lie for him.

A 14 year old boy, charged with a minor stealing offence, is sent to prison because his family refuses to cover his bail and he ends up getting gang raped while inside.

Yesterday I attended court again with a dear friend who is trying to do something I too often take for granted; have a relationship with his children.

He can't afford a lawyer and so represents himself. His former partner has a lawyer who is prepared to sprout his clients lies as if they are facts. To denigrate a man who has spent the last 10 years just trying to be the best dad he can be.

As I listen, everything in me wants to scream out "this is not justice!". When I hear the lies - blatant lies that fly in the face of things that I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears - I want to grab the lawyer and shake him and ask him "what are you doing? Why do you so want to damage this man? What has he ever done to you?"

As we leave the courtroom, I wait by the door for the lawyer to exit. There are so many things I want to say to him.

Maybe it's not as clear cut as it seems right at this moment, maybe he's just doing his job.

As he emerges I call across the room to him, "My friend ..." He looks up at me with a smile, "You make a mockery of the notion of justice!" His smile rapidly vanishes and the colour drains from his face. He turns quickly on his heal and walks away from me.

He's just a man after all. I find myself feeling a little sorry for him. I think I scared him. I wonder what lurks in his past. What pain he has suffered, what kind of relationship he had with his father. Whether he has ever experienced true justice. Where a wrong has been made right.

I wonder if true justice can only ever come about through omnipotence. Maybe this is why God reminds us that, at the end of the day, vengeance is his domain while loving our enemies is ours.

Poverty in a sea of affluence

Considering my last post dealt with the collosial amount of money both Christian and humanist organisations are seemingly willing to throw away on advertising I thought this story may present a contrast for consideration.

While finishing off a good feed at our fortnightly Alternate[Or] BBQ at the Jetty Baths in Bunbury, smack bang in the middle of the towns most upmarket, water front suburb, we were confronted with a heartbreaking scene.

A man, in his mid 20s, dressed in unwashed clothes and barefooted, walked into the park and made his way among the well dressed families and couples lounging around, enjoying their bbq dinners and sipping their wine and boutique beer. He made his way from rubbish bin to rubbish bin, looking for left over food he could take with him. He didn't waste much time. He was methodical in his approach and disappeared into the bushes almost as quickly as he had appeared.

I was left thinking about the contrast this guy, and his life, presented as he made his way among the manicured garden beds in the shadow of million dollar mansions. I thought about the leftovers we had in our esky and started to chase after him with the goal of offering him our food but wasn't quick enough and thought better of making a scene and embaressing him.

I think in future we might try and do something (low key, don't want to embarress anyone) with the food we have left. One of the purposes of our fortnightly social is to provide a way for some of the young single (and homeless) guys we are involved with to get a decent feed. Even in doing this we often have a fair bit left over.

So my question to you is, and I'm looking for inspiration, how do you serve the least in your area? How do you go about reaching out to people like this guy, without strings or church centred expectations?

And, what do you think about a church culture that will raise 100's of thousands of dollars for high profile, event and media based "evangelistic" activities while not directly addressing the needs of the "least of these" living in their own backyards?

Leaving God on the bus

There was an interesting article in the West Australian this morning (you can read a similar one here) about moves by England's atheist brigade - the British Humanist Association - to run billboard advertisements on Londons buses claiming "God probably doesn't exist" and urging people to live their lives any way they want in response to this incredibly deep and profound claim.

The campaign has been funded by Britains leading evangelist for atheism, Richard Dawkins, who, according to the Age newspaper said; "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think — and thinking is anathema to religion."

Apparently the atheists were sick of seeing advertisements on buses promoting Jesus and threatening people with "eternal damnation" and so thought they would run a campaign of their own in response.

The cost of the campaign is more than $27,000 (Australian).

While obviously dealing with slightly different motivations, this campaign reminds me a little bit of the Jesus all About Life campaign happening over here in Oz. The irony is the atheist campaign is a little more financially efficient. While $27,000 is still a lot of money, it isn't anywhere near as much as the sweet half million the JAAL crew are trying to raise for their Western Australian media campaign.

At the end of the day, while the atheists are obviously trying to get God off the bus (I'm sure He is actually more in favour of environmentally friendly means of transport such as walking anyway), it's interesting that in the process they are leaving him in his seat!

Whether the money is coming from atheists or Christians, I think these kinds of moves present a moral and ethical delima in that they waste a colosal amount of money on what is pretty much a dead end action that serves only to line the pockets of advertising agencies and the companies that sell the space on billboards, in newspapers and television. The upside to the atheist's campaign is that it actually may serve to get people talking about God in a meaningful way allowing Dawkin's anathema - thinking followers of Jesus - an opportunity to engage in meaningful, relational dialogue with those whose interest is piqued by the bus billboards in a way I don't think the JAAL, church centred, campaign will.

Leadership - The Church's Biggest Failing

I attended a Forge intensive in Perth on the weekend. Hamo asked me to do a presentation on the stuff we've been doing in Bunbury with Alternate-Or Community, involving ourselves in the lives of marginalised people, and so was able to kill two birds with one stone and sit in on some of the presentations.

One that got me thinking was presented by Brad Flynn and focussed on co-dependency in leadership. In the context of Brad's presentation, co-dependency related to the way congregations draw their self-value from the pastor or leaders, and the way the leaders have to be "needed" by their congregations in order to find value in themselves.

This got me thinking about the "clergy/laity" divide again. It's something that for many years has made my stomach churn.

It is my opinion that any view of leadership that embraces, either purposefully or unconsciously, the idea of there being any place for an "anointed" priestly class within the church, is fundamentally flawed.

I would even go as far as saying it is one of the modern churches greatest failings and is the cause of many of the issues we face in our established congregations in terms of lack of commitment and involvement in the life of the church and the broader community. It creates a shallow, comfortable environment which actively abrogates the responsibility of all believers to live their lives as ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It also forces those who challenge this way of thinking to the margins of the local church or out of it all together, thus stripping it of valuable resources and allowing the flawed philosophical, ecclesial and theological premises at play to have free reign.

CEO leadership models in the church are sinful. Plain and simple. The sooner leaders put the gospel before job security, power and control, or even before the expectations of the institution itself, the better. Leaders, we need to empower our fellow disciples by being the first to take this stand. To be willing to put aside the power structures which create a comfortable secure environment for us, for the sake of the gospel and the future of our local incarnations of the church. Encouraging and facilitating a paradigm shift among those we serve.

Desalination - Part of the Problem

Just over 12 months ago the then Premier of Western Australia, Alan Carpenter, announced that his government was going to build the states second desalination plant in the tiny and politically insignificant town of Binningup, a couple of hours south of Perth.

Previously the government had looked at tapping into the Yaragadee Aquifer, an underground supply of fresh water underneath the states south west corner. This area (the Busselton area) is a pretty popular holiday spot and, compared to Binningup, more heavily populated. The decision to tap the aquifer was met with protest of the possible environmental impact of the decision and so, as a political hot potato, the plan was dropped.

Instead the Binningup desalination plant was announced.

There are a number of issues with the proposal.

Firstly, the location; the area slated for the plant is virgin coastal bushland. It is earmarked for future residential development but is currently untouched and is home to various endangered species of birds, reptiles, plants and marsupials.

Secondly, the process itself; desalination (or at least the process to be implimented in Binningup) is an energy-hungry process. It is also a polluting process in that it pumps tons of hypersalinated (i.e. super concentrated salty water) back into the ocean along with other nasty chemicals in concentrated form.

Thirdly, it's short sighted; Yes, we have a water shortage that is probably only going to get worse, yet rather than simply increasing the amount of water available, we should be looking at ways of changing our cultural dependance on water. The same water that is wasted by heavy industry and wasted on water-hungry private and public gardens. Adding a dirty, energy hungry solution into the mix is only going to provide a short term answer to the problem. In realising this, the government also plans to build a second stage of the Binningup plant at some later date, doubling production.

My internet connection is playing up and I can't access the pages I am thinking of, but if you Google "desalination" you'll find plenty of references on the net. You can also join the "Say No to Binningup Desal Plant" group on Facebook. Here's one link I could access - it'll take you to the local action groups website, there are news updates and other links there.

But, most importantly, if you see the kind of desalination plant proposed at Binningup as a problem now is a great time to let your local politicians know about it (particularly if you live in Western Australia). We have a new state government in place, and even though they have said they are going to follow through with the development of the Binningup site, now is a good time to lobby them and let them know you are opposed to it and why. The more people from outside the Binningup area that make a fuss, the more likely it is the government will listen.

If you're around Binningup on Saturday, the local action group is having a stall at the annual Binningup Spring Carnival. You could drop by and find out more.

This kind of thinking is the same kind of short sighted thinking that, if not nipped in the bud, adds to the greater global environmental problem one small step at a time. This may be one small plant, but you get enough of this small scale industry in politically insignificant areas and it all adds up to a much bigger problem, the results of which are difficult, if not impossible to reverse.

In the big smoke

Well my incredibly slow GPRS internet connection (courtesy of my mobile phone) has allowed me to connect to Blogger tonight so I can post! How did I ever use the net before high speed broadband!

I've been in Perth with the kids since Sunday arvo. We went and saw Wall-E at the cinema on Monday. It's a good show with a very current, "save the planet" message. It's a good way to get the kids thinking about God's world and looking after it, and what happens when we don't. It brings home some of the stuff going on in our own back yard in Binningup, such as the possible development of a nasty desalination plant less than a kilometer from our house.

Yesterday we went to the Perth Royal Show. This was an incredibly expensive exercise, but we did our bit and caught trains pretty much the whole way. The kids had a great time. Sam and Luke tried out the bumper-cars and then we all went on the chairlift. This scared Ashleigh silly for about 5 minutes and then she seemed to settle into it.

I bit the bullet and went on the "megadrop" and got my own mini-adrenaline rush.

Tomorrow it's back home to our Thursday night Alternate[Or] get-together followed by a Water Corporation Community Reference Group meeting in Binningup.

Emerging, Emergent, Emerged?

The Blind Beggar posted a link to this blog post from Brother Maynard, who takes a critical look at the use of the word "emerging" (and it's variants) to describe alternative and new forms and expressions of Christ centred faith and faith communities.

While I have never fully understood the difference between the "emerging church" and "emergent" (this might have something to do with the fact I'm an Aussie), BM reiterates comments made by TSK on the way the term "emergent" (or should that be "Emergent") has been franchised by Emergent Village and turned into something of a marketable brand name. To the point in fact that TSK is now going to stop using "emerging" to describe any aspect of his own involvement in the movement.

Raises the question, if we abandon "missional", as some have suggested we should, and we throw out "emerging" and its variations, how are we going to end up describing ourselves? Maybe we should just go back to calling ourselves "the church"?

We have met the enemy ... Them & us in the institutional church

I've been speaking on John 17 for the last few weeks. We're working our way through the whole chapter, which is actually an amazing, inspiring, information packed prayer of Jesus'.

Somewhere between the upper room and the last supper and the Garden of Gethsemane and his arrest, Jesus prayed this prayer in the presence of his disciples. In the precious last minutes of his life with his beloved friends Jesus poured out his heart to God.

A few years ago I was asked to speak at a church camp on the subject of evangelism. One thing that came out of the workshop's I ran over that weekend was the way so many of those gathered viewed those who were not fellow Christians. It was clear that, for the most part, non-Christians were seen as the enemy.

Yet when it comes to fellow, clean, middle class people with similar ethics and values, to those of the predominantly middle class, evangelical church it was easier to let the thoughts of "enemy" pass. But what about people of other religions, or other socio economic or racial groups (especially those with a different culture to our own)? Or people who are quick to point out the failings of Western Christianity? Or homosexuals or atheists? Or people who criticise the church? With these "kinds" of people many are quick to draw a line in the sand. They may even say, these people are wordly, and we are not. They are the enemy, they are not God's!

In John 17, as Jesus prays for his disciples, he makes a subtle, but interesting point. It's so subtle that it could easily be overlooked - I had to point it out during our discussion at yesterday's gethering.

Jesus says "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word."

Where did the disciples originate? Jesus says they came from "the world". Jesus also says, at this time, before they were "given" to him, they belonged to the Father. I think this says something about the people who are not yet aware of Jesus or are yet to join him as a disciple. It says that even though we like to draw lines and put people in boxes and find enemies to excuse our lack of action, God doesn't. Before these guys were taken from the world they were the Father's.

If we look at what Jesus is saying here about the disciples, and if we make the (reasonable) assumption that the disciples where no more or less special than you or I or anyone else then, I think, it becomes clear that there is no one on the planet who isn't already God's. There is no enemy among the people of planet Earth.

When we look at people through the framing story of God's love, even people who exist, day to day, without an understanding of God or his love, we see things differently. A world of action opportunities. Not opportunties to preach or coerce or manipulate, but opportunities to serve, and stand along side and love and support and befriend. Opportunities to share in the work of the "Word", which was passed to the first disciples by Jesus and which has been handed down through the generations and over the centuries to us, today. It is a work that goes something like this;

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

As Walt Kelly's comic strip character Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us"!

Busting Frames - Paradigm Shift in the Church

About a month ago I wrote about Brian McLaren's coverage of, what he calls, "framing stories" in his book Everything Must Change.

The concept of framing stories is not anything new. In the past they have been referred to as "world-views" and could also be called paradigms. Paradigms exist at many different levels in culture and society.

The interesting thing about a paradigm is it creates an interpretive lens through, if we think of it as a frame, everything within its boundaries is viewed. Evidence supporting the paradigm is kept and evidence refuting it is re-interpreted until it fits or, if this isn't possible, it's discarded. The problem with paradigms is they can be extremely difficult to refute, particularly where they become the common currency and voices of dissent are marginalised, no matter how convincing their evidence.

The tendencies with paradigms, however, is once the evidence against them becomes overwhelming a shift takes place. The old paradigm is toppled, like a dictator in a coup, and replaced with a new paradigm. The new paradigm takes over as the interpretive lens.

This process of paradigm shifts is very evident in the history of the church, no more so than now. The "old" paradigm, that of the Christendom church, is being challenged by a "new" paradigm and a shift is taking place. Originally (and even now in many places) the evidence against the old paradigm was refused, ignored, or assimilated. More recently a clear division began to appear - the old paradigm on one side and the new on the other.

For those of us involved in the process of transition within established churches the goal is essentially that of instigating a paradigm shift. But it is slow and it is painful, particularly where a lack of awareness exists of the manner in which the old paradigm affects (or dictates) the way the church is viewed and should operate. It's possible for two people to be discussing the same thing and to be at complete odds with one another simply because their paradigms are different. For example, what is "the gospel" in an institutionalised, Christendom setting may not be "the gospel" in an EMC setting.

If we don't fully appreciate this we are never going to be able to fully understand the process of transition. It will seem to those looking at the EMC through the interpretive lens of the old paradigm that there is something wrong, something missing. That the things being talked about and the actions being taken are somehow not right. That while there may be some merit in the approach being advocated to fully accept it is to "throw the baby out with the bath water". In the example I gave above, if "the gospel" seems to mean something other than (or more than) Jesus substitutionary death on the cross it's considered suspect, and often, no matter how hard we try to explain it and make it make sense it just won't. Simply because the other party is viewing it through a completely different lens. A lens that essentially has to be smashed if any significant move forward is to be made.

The great photo at the top of this post is from Rubenshito and is used with permission.

Creating Community from Scratch

One of the questions I am wrestling with at the moment is how to create community from scratch? Particularly with reluctant, or at least suspicious participants.

I've been toying with this question for most of this year, specially as it relates to the affordable housing project I currently working on with the Alternate[Or] crew in Bunbury. One of the key parts of the project is the community engagement aspect - this is where we introduce participants in the project to a supportive community, rather than simply book them in for an appointment with the program social worker.

It's been this theoretical aspect of the project that has gained the most interest from those we have presented it to. Most people (particularly those without a hard commitment to particular aspects of professional helping & social work theory), including a couple of politicians, recognise the benefits of engaging disengaged people within a supportive community, instead of just plugging them into the professional merry-go-round. Of course there is a place for professional services - all of the members of the organising team from Alternate[Or] are also involved in the community services sector in a professional capacity.

This is a real problem - particularly in a demographic that has been over-referred and knows the professional machinery, and how to manipulate it, all to well. People prefer what they know, and are going to be reluctant to step into something new - particularly if it is being suggested by people with a spiritual bent.

Obviously there are some important ethical considerations at play as well. We can't be manipulative, or deceptive about what we are trying to achieve, we can't demand participation and, some would say, we can't make engagement in the community aspect compulsory for participation in the project.

So how do we effectively navigate these new waters? How should we approach the dark, less travelled roads that exist between the real community - the one where everyday people live, work, struggle and die, and the world of professional helping?

I have an idea of my own, it comes from my African experiences, and I will post it here later on. In the meantime, if you have any experience with this I would love to hear what you have to say. Suggestions and ideas based on other peoples efforts in tackling this same problem are very much welcome.

Rose coloured formaldehyde

Over 20 or more years hanging around the edges of church and the last 10 or so years playing an active role as part of it, I've heard many stories of the "old saints". People who's lives exemplified Christian living. People who we should strive to be like.

The interesting thing about many of these stories of men (I can't think of any women among them) who rose at 4am every morning to read the Bible in the original Greek, and who prayed on their knees for 2 hours each day and who never swore, or complained, or farted (ok, I added that), is the way they imply perfection.

I have often wondered if the reality about these guys lives, paraded like protestant versions of All Saints Day icons, is really as impressive as the legends would have us believe. I have also often wondered if these stories have really served to spur on those who hear them to better things, or, as in my case, they simply served to further instil a sense of alienation in people who where already struggling with their own inadequacies, weaknesses and failings.

Personally, I think the only perfect example we need is that of Christ. That's not to say we shouldn't look to the examples set by godly men and women through the ages, but we should do so in the recognition that they are not the icons of perfections some in the past have made them out to be. Perhaps we need to throw out the rose coloured formaldehyde so widely used in the preservation of the lives of the "old saints" over the last 100 years or so and get back to being real about the struggles, joys and difficulties of life lived as a disciple of Jesus Christ - the one, true icon of perfection.