Author Archives: nlunn

Theatre Church (part XI)

I’m sat in Sanctuary 21 after another introductory meeting for my placement. Two people came tonight but instead of being disappointed I am overjoyed. Why?
I have come to realise that this small ‘drip-drip’ approach to the start of this group is more in keeping with the ‘organic’ nature I felt was needed. The big flashy, explosion onto the scene was never going to work. As I approached tonight I was struck by how Jesus started his ministry; by gathering one or two and focussing on getting to know them and building them up and the rest followed suit. I was particularly drawn to John’s account where the first two went and invited others to come.

I’ve been thinking about the way in which people begin to belong. I’ve returned to my months of deep listening that I’ve done since a year ago. It’s important for me to note the changing understanding of what this group may look like. My vision is not perfect and to look back over the common themes and points of interest is important to see clearly what is developing. Throughout my journal I have written a need to model community, natural, raw and organic. One of my notes has the quote from ‘Organic Community’,

We need to bear in mind that the most accurate word to describe the process of forcing intimate connection is rape.

This may sound harsh and ‘over the top’ but to force people to be community is never pastoral and is not godly. This connects with one of the things I noticed about the DST. I want to clarify, before I note the things that I have become important in the last week, what I really think and feel about DST as an organisation with the people involved. I love the DST. I love the work they’re producing. It is full of talented, passionate and intelligent people who are very successful, both here in Durham and across the country. I want to lift them up as a great example of student theatre and the potential is really exciting. What follows are three things that I felt was lacking in the DST and ‘gaps in the market’ where I feel the new group developing here at Sanctuary 21 will fill.

The first thing I noticed and have re-read in my journal, marking my deep listening, is a sense of how many auditions there are each week.
Most of the people I have come to know, and admire, will go from audition to audition, some successful and some not. This cannot be healthy for a person’s sense of self. I have seen this in professional theatre as well. An individual will just travel round and put themselves on the line so often that sooner or later they will forget who ‘themself’ is. As a defense mechanism an actor will quickly begin to perform and say what they think a director wants to hear or see. I experienced many people come to auditions for my theatre company and they will be performing the whole time. I wanted to know who people were, what they were about but all I got was a walking CV with what they have done or what they can do (juggling, acrobatics, accents,etc.). Auditions force artists to say and do things that may not fully describe what they are about and soon they will lose sight of what they have to truly offer.

I must remember that auditions must never play a part in this group. I want to truly discover what each individual has to offer and to honour their unique creative voice. I want to encourage everyone to know they are a part of the group not because of their aptitude to perform but because they are uniquely made. Any conversation where I am welcoming someone into the group must be clearly a welcome to the community rather than a test/interview/audition. I have begun to tell the people who are now becoming this group to voice this in any conversation; “We don’t audition, you are welcome if you want to join.”

The second thing I have noticed in my journal is my interest in the speed at which shows are produced. The usual rehearsal period is three weeks, at times its two. This has its benefits; it means people get lots of experience of a wide range of plays and meeting lots of people. I will not deny that it does get people mixing and it means people get a packed CV for future careers. Again I see an unhealthy aspect to this approach. If you were an actor and you were digging into your emotional memory to perform a character and then the show just finished and you moved straight onto the next thing without giving that emotional journey closure and you repeated this again and again then what does this create in you. There’s a pastoral issue here of managing your emotions. Relationships are never given enough time to grow deep and so, although your meeting lots of people, you’re not investing fully into them as you know you’ll be finishing the show in two or three weeks. Due to funding cuts the professional theatre has adapted this model of work where an individual actor may move from one company to another without developing long term relationships.

This has been a big drive to the creation of this group. At this time we have no need for funding and so we can be extravagant and explore what happens when a real ‘company’ is created and those relationships are as much a part of the creative process as the individual. The group, therefore, must be committed long-term with each other. Any ‘product’ does not mark the end of the relationship but a shared experience from which we can grow together.

The final thing that I have been reminded of this week is what I’ve witnessed in terms leadership. In individual companies there’s a sense of hierarchical power play. There is a producer and a director who drive the rehearsals and the actors who follow that vision. Due to the shortness of the rehearsal period an actor just turns up and does what the director wants and the choice of story/script is down to the director. Obviously an actor will choose if they want to be a part of that play but, from my observations, most people don’t actually care about the play they just want to do anything. This puts a lot of pressure on directors and also builds for them a pedestal on which some love and others hate. Directors and producers become the ‘gods’ of this community. People talk to them because they have something to offer (a part) and this makes it a lonely existence. I’m not saying that it’s this extreme but I’m painting a picture.

This image mirrors what is happening in churches and something that I don’t want to model… but that’s another issue!

This group must have, in its DNA, a flat leadership or rotational leadership. The group is the responsibility of each member not just me who suggested its inception. The existence is based around each giving themselves and steering it. This allows the potential for sustainability and flexibility in future.

I want to finish by stating one final thing. I’m still fairly open to see where God will fit into this. I know He will be present but I don’t want to cut out His role, I’d prefer He just took His place. Does this require all of them to be Christian? No. Would God exist even if all His creation denied Him? That’s a big question to leave you with!

Theatre Church (part X)

I sat in Sanctuary 21 tonight waiting for the time set for the big introduction to this ‘thing’ that has been playing through my mind since Christmas to arrive. As the time ticked by and it got closer to the start, the big cloud of doubt floated into the space and hovered over me. “What if no one comes?” “What am I doing?” Throughout this all I remained optimistic “People said they’d come.” “This is clearly a need in this theatre community.” “People are excited about it.” The event was scheduled to begin at 6.45pm. Fifteen minutes after this time one person walked through the door.

Ministry training does not prepare you for this. One person! There are two responses to this fact; one, be positive or two, be disappointed. If you’re positive there’s plenty of Scripture that talks about persecution, the hard walk of faithful discipleship but then again, there’s of equal balance Scripture telling of God’s blessing to those who are faithful. I have spoken in the past about how to face disappointment and justifying reality til the metaphorical cows come home. This is not a time, while it is still raw and fresh, to justify what God is doing (or not doing). But I think it’s important to talk about failure.

In our church we hear success stories all the time, it’s not good for publicity or authority if we fail. Despite our deep understanding that for every good idea there are an average of 8 not so good ones. We push, as leaders and visionaries, our connection with God’s vision and God’s plans. In order to have the authority to lead a community one needs to have the discernment of God’s will and dream dreams and see visions. The truth is, we are not immune from spiritual confusion. But if I am to model authenticity then I need to tell the stories of failures or misguided vision as well as success and ‘wins’.

To be a pioneer is to take risks; to see an opportunity and to resolutely pursue it. I have taken a risk and it hasn’t worked so what is the response?

Return to the original, basic call.

What was it that God put on my heart that drove me to pursue this opportunity? My passion to connect with those involved in the theatre community, to offer them an opportunity to explore who they are and discover their creative voice; to give them a place where they can truly express who they are based on a knowledge of themselves.

Has that call changed? Is that not what is being asked of me now? No. That call is still there. What, therefore, is the next step? To continue and persevere with this idea or to change tact? Two interesting reflections; one, if I think back to my time in Byker (see ‘Death and Resurrection’ post) I am reminded of the power of continued presence in the face of so much temporary incarnations (quangos, consultants,etc) The second reflection is one that I want to explore in more detail and extends my reflections on the Cathedral Event that I’m apart of (see ‘Theatre Church (part VIII b)’ post).

In both the church and the theatre world the majority of thinkers and commentators would agree that to be product focussed stunts the exploration and deep reflection on culture and social movements. Both parties would bemoan the emphasis on being activity driven rather than the existence as good in and of itself. In the theatre, as the funding is cut, companies don’t have the luxury to explore, to research and develop ideas. There is no space, time or finances to allow the artists to explore, discover new things. Peter Brook suggests this replication, churning out products that are safe and driven by success, is ‘deadly’ and most people would agree. In the church, as we discover that creating a weekly event/service is sucking all our time and resources and distracts us from being community together, we speak about the ideal of being process, relationship based. The truth is, however, that processes, relationships, explorations cannot be measured. It is part of our capitalists’ mindset that if it has no profit, measurable success then it is worthless.

Success is measured on product shown, assets, ‘what have you got to show for this?’ The worth of something must be measured. Fresh Expressions are trying to counter this thinking but we can’t fight free from it. My latest experience would be measured as failure. If someone had invested in it then I would have failed and now would be the time to lessen the losses and salvage something from it. I want to shout from the rooftops “This is worth it! I have risked something, stuck my neck out and now I know what would happen!” To butcher a quote from Ernest Hemingway,

‘Only those who are prepared to go too far can possibly know how far they can go.’

I want to stay true to my call to process. To resolutely pursue this call to process, relationship and swim against the current of the capitalism that is a part of both church and theatre. I want to own my disappointment, yes, but to continue to explore the call put upon me. But how do you incarnate the importance of process in a world of product?

Well, like the Cathedral event, work with the current in order to subvert it. Sell a product in order to achieve a process and get people to explore and discover the benefits of the process. It’s a paradox that we exiles need to live in. In order to be counter cultural we need to be in the culture. To show the alternative we need to shine a light on the weakness of the option. Daniel, when in Babylon, lived the good Babylonian life and it was within this that he showed of the alternative way of life or the Pauline model, to become a Jew for the Jews, a
Gentile for the Gentiles all in order to show them the way of Jesus.

Connected with this is some thoughts on Fresh Expressions which were sparked by a fascinating conversation with Paul Burbridge from Riding Lights Theatre Company I had last weekend. He suggested the reason a theatre company cannot be church is down to the need for it to be inclusive of all people. If you limit the membership to those that understand theatre then it cannot be broad and inclusive. This is a very fair point. What makes a ‘theatre church’ church? Inclusion of those from all walks of life. Fresh Expressions need to embrace this inclusivity and not be limited to ‘skater church’, ‘curry church’, etc. Community must be defined by that which unites people in a group. These ‘expressions’ (skater, theatre, curry, etc.) gather people round something that makes them distinct but in order for them to mature into full expressions of church there needs to be deconstruction of that which excludes others.

It’s a paradox that one must define and sell the product in order to show that it’s not about the product; to show people that it’s the process of belonging that is more important than the product that you belong to.

Theatre Church (part IX)

I had sat in my tutors office with some fellow ‘ordained pioneer ministers’ students (OPMs) discussing how to establish a ministry ‘from scratch’. It was an interesting question in light of my tutors preparation on a sermon, preached last night, on Matthew 10. In this passage Jesus commands His disciples to go out in pairs to do the work of the Kingdom. My fellow OPMs, for their placement, were heading out as a pair to do ‘deep listening’ in an area near Durham. They were discussing the task ahead and how they, as a pair, were going to minister and be effective listeners and prophets. I sat in the room listening to their disucssions, how they were going to support each other, the importance of one playing the speaking role and one the listener, the model of Moses and Aaron and I had to ask; who was my fellow worker?

My wife is, of course, supporting me in my work but her own work means she cannot be actively present in the growth and foundational work of my placement. She will be a listening ear of my take on events but she cannot, by her absence, be as effective in listening to how God is moving. Who will be with me as I minister? Who will be the prayful partner or the active energy to balance my activity? Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs and it’s a good model but we must remember that most of the disciples will have been married, potentially with children. I am married but I don’t have a partner in ministry.

This has a knock on effect in terms of the changing shape that this community is taking.

The ideal leadership model for this placement, I believe, is a rotational leadership. Both Peter Brook, who I will be teaching tonight, and Jerzy Grotowski, who I explored on Monday, suggested a director should be a member of the ensemble and should not hold onto the power and direction of a groups discovery. This model of leadership is freeing for the whole ensemble, community or church but requires a great deal of trust and discernment. Both Brook and Grotowski, although proclaiming a collective leadership of the whole company understood the individual role and strengths of the seperate contributors. This rotational leadership doesn’t suggest that everyone, despite their lack of gifting or talent in leadership, should be forced into a position of power, but rather when someone has something to offer and a sense of leading the group into an area of exploration they will go ahead, blessed, of course, by the followers, the rest of the group.

As an individual ‘founder’ of this group I will, inevitably hold a great deal of power at the beginning. The members will look to me for direction, purpose, identity. My Christian walk, however, demands that I hand over that power quickly before, like Gollem in Lord of the Rings, it consumes me. My role as the ‘designated leader’ is not to hold power but to move the power round the group, discerning when its appropriate to weild it and when to pass it on and to whom.

Discernment is the role of the director. One person must be the discerner and watchman of the group. Jesus uses the image of the shepherd, who allows sheep to wander where the wish but to gently watch over them and go and find those that get lost. As a director who integrates themself into the ensemble, your role is to discern what is worthwhile to explore and what is not, when to step in and remind people of the direction and when to let that go. This is a balancing act and its not easy. As a leader of any group there is a call for one person to take on this task but it is important that that person handles power well. Which leads onto the necessity of a partner, an accountable persence to test the responses of this discerner. The group as a whole needs to play this role but too often people in the discerning role allow the power to speak lies and say “They don’t know all that you know. They are all walking off track and you know best.” To have someone marked out to be another discerner and to listen when one cannot and to speak when one cannot protects, in some way, the misuse of power.

Already I am struggling with the absense of another perspective on what’s being shaped and I need the eyes and ears of someone else to aid my reflections. Already I fell isolated both in my reflections and in the relationship building workshops. I’m meeting some fantastic people and all of whom are contributing to the shape of this community by their needs and interests and I don’t feel I have someone who can help me to remain faithful in the work set before me.

I could discuss the nature of accountability here and argue for the term ‘editability’ (see ‘Organic Community’ by Joseph Myers) but I don’t want to confuse the issue.

This past week I have been confirmed in the call to an apostilic mission of planting but the need for the support, not only of prayful communites and supporters but, of a partner in mission is important in all ministry. My next task is to discern who in the community gathering on Mondays will be my co-worker. I’m sure it will happen organicaly and until then I will remain patient.

Theatre Church (part VIII b)

Last time I discussed the first question I’m still wrestling with. If you have not read it I’d recommend it before you embark upon this one (see ‘Theatre Church (part VIII a)‘ post)

Today I turn my attention to the second question: How does a community organically grow if it has begun by a forced introduction?

I was involved, before the summer break, in an event at the Cathedral. The idea was my tutor’s and he borrowed some thinking from his time in Gloucester Cathedral. As we prepare for the next meeting we met and reflected on the shape this ‘thing’ should take. We got on to discussing which should come first ‘event’ or ‘community’. In Gloucester, my tutor had an established community and took them into the Cathedral for an event; this then led to many other people being invited but at the centre was a community. In Durham, we discovered that we were presuming a community that didn’t exist. We had invited disparate individuals, forced them to be community and then did an event, this approached put an emphasis on sustaining community rather than invitation to an event.

I wonder, are my Monday night workshops ‘event’ first or ‘community’? In the beginning it will be an event. This is not an ideal. An event presumes no commitment apart from those organising and running the event. An event must be thought of as a one off; it can be repeated but the people who come to the second may not be the people who come to the first. An event is for people to taste or see something with no commitment necessary. This is great for some concepts and ideas and it’s manageable as long as the people running it know that each time there’s a certain amount of re-beginning. An event can turn into a community; I have seen it happen. People repeatedly come to an event and soon its an excepted routine, intentionally meeting to experience something together.

How does an event become a community?

Everyone hopes that an event will capture the imaginations and enjoyment of the spectator or participants. Some events are so popular that they have to be repeated and people come and bring friends to share. This is how events grow into a popular routine occurrence rather than a one off event. I don’t, however, want the amount of participations to grow necessarily. If 20 people turn up for the first event, then I want to deter some from coming back to the next one. This is completely counter cultural in the theatre world. I am limiting the number of people this will impact to be sure that some, long-term impact is made. My aim is clear; I want to be part of a gathered, intentional, committed community.

There’s going to have to be a certain element of ‘event’ in that first meeting but I am beginning to see the importance of personal invitation, of being true to what this ‘thing’ is trying to be and of not trying to be the biggest and most successful thing to hit Durham Theatre scene! As I run my four introductory workshops to practitioners the two weeks before the launch night, I need to be watching and seeing who would bring something to this community, who would commit, who would be passionately and honestly engaged with it. I need to be bold in my conversations and listening to hear confirmation that they would be interested and invite them to participate. This requires a Calvinistic predestination approach. Are only some people welcome? Am I to judge who’s in and who’s out? I need to rethink!

What is a community?

A community, for me, is a group of people committed to the support and development of the other members, a place of sharing and, ideally a place to call ‘home’. We have discussed commitment already but it needs to be more than just turning up. There needs to be an element of giving and sharing to the group; participation on a sacrificial level. I hope to explore the concept of ensemble work and encourage this to be lived out in the meetings. To introduce, early on, the idea of each week people bringing something to offer to the community. I would like, also, to break the individual leader focus and to create a flat or rotational leadership where I (as founder) don’t become the leader of the community but to place myself as a member of the community, not above or better but equal, to model true Christian discipleship whether they know it or not and to encourage them to do likewise.

I guess the only option left is to narrow the invitation and be bold in my explanation of what I imagine will happen. To state, from the outset, “this is going to be tough, deep. It requires commitment and a passion for exploration. It’s through this hard process that you will find great discoveries and participate in something memorable for you.” One would hope that with prior warning the invitation will attract only those serious and interested and then, hopefully, the initial event will quickly become a group of committed, engaged people. With this core of people, attracted by the same call, one can start to feed and sustain a community.

Theatre Church (part VIII a)

So the start of term is well under way up here in Durham; Freshers fill our streets wearing togas, academic gowns and other varieties of fancy dress, songs identifying them with their college ring in the air and the traditional rivalries are back! In our quiet, more ‘mature’ part of the university system our college, not the typical undergraduate college, has begun lectures and we returning students begin to build a new community from the shattered remains of the previous year. This process is fun, exciting, full of potential but exhausting for an introvert like me. Meeting so many new people and always judging ‘how much do I commit to this relationship?’As I watch from a relative distance this new community forming, with its intricate dynamics and power plays (some of them involve me I have to admit) I wonder what makes a community.

As I step ever closer to the first utterance in public of the seed of an idea that is my placement, I have begun to feel ‘pre-launch jitters’. The two questions I have for myself are: ‘How do I invite people to something I don’t know?’ and ‘how does this community organically grow if I have created a forced introduction?’

Let’s start with the first question. Communicating the vision is an important part of the establishing of any community but how clear is any vision if you don’t know the people who will form your community? We can have hypothetical people with hypothetical needs and create something for them in our imaginations thus constructing a vision for the trajectory but it’s based on hypotheticals. I’m left with the same question that I have played through in my mind for some months. I sought the advice of two friends and advisors. One of them suggested that the invitation should be honest and intriguing “Come along on Monday nights to explore, play and see what happens!” … interesting concept. Creative people will love the space for creativity and it’s certainly different from the usual “I’m doing such and such a play and I need you to take on the role of so and so with these lines.” It also doesn’t limit the possibilities. It also helps me to remain honest about where I’m coming from; I’m a trainee vicar whose only aim is to meet some people passionate about drama and to see what happens. My other friend/advisor suggested a slightly more prescriptive approach but one that equally has benefits. “I have a process of theatre theory that I believe in and would like to share it with whoever wants to hear it.” Another interesting approach. What I like about this approach is it narrows the criteria but not too much that it will be alienating.

This first question forces me to face an issue that needs to be addressed; what is my aim? The original vision was deliberately vague to take into consideration the complete unknown. Now, however, I’m at the stage where I have processed a lot of information, I’ve reflected on where I feel passionately called to and what I feel God wants to do. I have arrived at a place where the things around me are coming into focus, instead of looking far off into the horizon I’m seeing things close up. I have been able to arrive at this place by way of negation. I don’t want my Monday night workshops to be busy, I want the group to be small so I can form relationships with people. I don’t want Monday nights to be director led, I want there to be an ensemble feel which I am a part of. I don’t want Monday nights to be planned, structured and full of material, I want to be led by the spirit responding to the needs of the group. What I have concluded is I’d like to gather a group of people who are committed to exploring the nature of theatre and how they as an individual can, through this exploration, discover what it means to be human.

This sounds like a good mission statement. There are some issues in it which need to be worked out, i.e. what does commitment look like and how realistic is this within an artistic, student community. The interesting thing, however, is that there’s no mention or prescription of spirituality and or religion allowing people the freedom to engage in whatever they want. This leads me to Acts 17 where Paul goes to Athens and preaches to the philosophers there about ‘the unknown God’. This passage as served as a basis of most of my theological reflection on my placement and it struck me that Paul never mentions Christ and yet people come to believe in Him. The powerful thing about this is that I don’t have to force Christ into the room because he is there already. As we discover what it means to be human we discover more about Christ…discuss!

As the new community in college is being shaped I am conscious of the people who I welcomed last year as they looked around the college discerning whether to come here or not. I remember talking about ‘this community’ but now that they have entered into ‘this community’ it has changed, people have left and new, unknown people have arrived. I was inviting people into a community that no longer exists and I couldn’t guarantee what ‘that community’ would look like. At the time, however, I had an idea of what a community in this place with these aims would look like. It turns out to be different but I hope the central idea and concept still remains. To invite someone to something that you don’t know is impossible because the truth is if you’re inviting them to it its because you have a vague understanding of what it could be and that must be worth an invitation!

So I guess I do know what this placement looks like, in theory. I must press forward with this but be alert to the fact that it may not, indeed it probably won’t, look anything like that! Should the invitation be open to all or should I be specific? I guess that leads me into my second question…

Join me tomorrow as I reflect on ‘how does a community organically grow if it has begun by a forced introduction?’

London Calling (part VIII)

As I got home from my long placement in London I was relieved and surprised. Most of my reflections from my placement, on a personal level, revolved around the concept of home and what it means and the impact it has on ministry (see ‘London Calling (part V)‘ post). Having said all that about ‘home’ being a relationship or a state of mind where you feel safe to be vulnerable where you are known and allowed ‘to be’, I found myself associating home with a geographical location; I found myself saying “I just need to get home.” (meaning I need to go to a building in a place.) When I got there I was surprised that a) my home didn’t feel right or relaxing but b) I felt at home. My wife had been with me for five days and still I felt at sea but the moment I saw Durham Cathedral towering into the sky I was restful. My home was different but I still was restful.

As an introvert I put an emphasis on my place, my quiet time, my study! When I got there it had been taken over by my wife, who had been living in our house without me for 25 days. I didn’t feel bitter or shocked by the fact that she needed to go into this room and use the computer and the printer or that she needed to use it as space to put things out of the way. (I did feel upset that this space, this sanctuary had been defiled by alien and idolatorous objects like Body Shop products!) (That’s a joke!) I was remarkably calm about it because I felt close to people who had seen and been a part of a massive shift in my vocational journey and I was now surrounded, even though I hadn’t seen or spoken to them, by people who knew me, as I am now not how I was. I didn’t need to be in a space, talking with them, but I knew they were close and it reminded me of what I was doing.

Then it struck me. My big issue and conflict with my placement was not that what this community were doing was bad or wrong, necessarily, but that I had moved on and I hadn’t realised it. It had been like looking in a mirror after fifty years and not recognising yourself.

All my difficulties, my thoughts and reflections clashing with the people around me, my concept and passions being questioned, My ideas not fitting in with the ministry of the church, all it came down to was this church was what I had known and worked in but I had been formed and shaped for different things.

During my time down in London I had visited my ‘sending’ church, a place where I had served for a year, full-time. When I got there I found myself frustrated and restricted, ‘home’ had changed, or rather I had changed. The person I was is no longer and I had been shaped into something else. When did this change happen? I do not know but all I know is that it has happened.

C.S. Lewis tells the parable of two men travelling over the border from France to Belgium. One is awake at the crossing and could tell people the exact time of the change from France to Belgium, how he felt and how it happened. The other man is asleep and so doesn’t know those details, the only thing he is certain about is that he is now in Belgium. This parable describes the act of conversion but is useful for this scenerio as well… I am now in Belgium! (this analogy must stop here because I’ve been to Belgium and it’s not the same feeling being in Belgium as being in this new mindset!)

So what has changed?

The churches I had been a part of in the past were in a model of Church that was still set in a Christendom mindset. “What is Christendom?” I hear you ask. Well I had a vague understanding of this concept but I felt I needed to go and do some reading to help me process the frustration, difficulties of the placement in London and was recommended a book by Stuart Murray, ‘Post-Christendom’.

Before I go any further I’d like to give a brief review of the book and talk about the concepts it raises. If you’re anything like my wife and think that philosophical and theological debate is a little dull and you read these blogs for the story and personal touches then you may want to skip this bit!

‘Post Christendom’ is really insightful, well researched and has, on the whole, a balanced and fair assessment of the history of the Established Church, finding positives as well as negatives of the growth and changes of the Church in Europe (mainly) over the centuries. One problem I think I have with it is its Anabaptist bias. Anabaptists are a denomination of church that grew out of the Reformation and were, apparently, modelling post-Christendom structures and principles of church. This is the weakness of the book but I’m unsure how great this Anabaptist model of church was without further research.

The basic idea of Christendom, being put forward by Murray, is it is a geopolitical structure established, in part, by Constantine in the 4th century and was built around the Roman Empire and was translated for the Latin culture across Europe into the medieval period. Christendom was the development of a Jewish sect into, what we now know as, the established church of Christ. Christendom is the developed hybrid of state politics and institutional religion. There is a whole biblical interpretation that has grown up as ‘orthodox’ in this system along with an established way of doing church and mission. Murray goes through these and charts the development of ideas such as infant baptism becoming the normal practise, compared with the Early Churches favoured lengthy induction programme for those choosing faith.

Many theologians are now looking at the shift in Europe and the UK from Christendom to an unknown era, currently called ‘post Christendom’. Post Christendom is uncharted territory but needs careful consideration and thought as to how we structure church, engage in mission and interpret scripture. There are many thoughts on how this could be done but the main direction this thinking is taking is towards smaller communities that has a voluntary membership and induction, that prefers dialectic preaching which focuses on exploration of faith. When it comes to mission, so Murray suggests, this ‘post Christendom’ model of church will have a greater emphasis on priesthood of all believers to the extent that it is natural for all members to engage in mission because there will be little distinction between clergy and laity. leaders will be chosen from within the community based on spiritual maturity rather than academic and intellectual prowess.

Those of you who skipped that last bit you can start reading again!

I want to stress that the Christendom model of church (one that is leader led, clergy focussed, monologue based sermons, front led services, etc.) has its strengths. Christendom models of church emphasise a great call for networking, sharing resources and knowledge. The size and stretch of the ‘established/inherited’ church means that a faster impact can be made on our culture and those congregations that struggle financially are supported by others. Christendom is great at attracting those in the world who appreciate the heritage of England and the UK; the truth is Christendom is in this countries DNA whether we like it or not and so it’s important to acknowledge that and to maintain the strengths and positives of that heritage.

My personal issues with my placement church are that I don’t get excited nor do I see myself serving in this model of church. Up front leaders speaking monologue style at their congregation is too much like performance in a theatre. It gets complicated when trying to say that preachers aren’t ‘performing’ a sermon but sharing ideas and reflections on the world and the Word. From my experience leaders in this model of church sometimes pile a lot of pressure on themselves to drive the mission and vision of the church where I see a greater call for the community to drive things and the leader to be like the divine director (see ‘Divine Director (part I and II)‘ posts)

In the final days of my placement I was drawn to look at my journal which i have had since the start of my exploration of vocational ministry. I was struck by two things;

1) Words and pictures given to me years ago before I came to college clearly see me being ‘a part of a new movement’, a call to plant and grow communities and a sense of freshness to my ministry.

and 2) Ezekiel 3 (which has been a passage that has always struck me as important for my personal ministry) has a call to prophetic struggles from a prophet on the inside. It marks out the role of the prophet to call back to the margins those who are secure in the centre.

There’s a lot more reflections needed on my ministry but this new avenue of exploration has released me from a confusion that has clouded my thoughts throughout the placement and afterwards. As I head towards the beginning of my term time placement, I spend less time concerned with what this community will look like but whether I am a humble, sacrificial leader who is able to focus on Jesus as the perfecter of my faith. My discipleship is essential to my leadership.

London Calling (part VII)

As I see the end of my time in London taking large strides towards me like a long awaited loved one, their arms wide open to embrace me, I am struck by the loud crashes behind me forcing me to look back. I am stuck now between turning and embracing the rest and peace after a long a difficult journey and the need to see the explosion behind me to ask “Was that me?” On my journey I have, like all journeys, made decisions to take certain paths and they have all been made with honesty of the situation and with integrity. My decisions have effected people and situations and not all of them were positive.

In my last days of this journey I have found myself asking an important question, which, by me writing this, answers in part.

To blog or not to blog, that is the question?

I have been created as an honest, undivided person who’s principles in ministry is a desire for holistic, raw and real experience of people. If I, as a leader of a community that wants people not just to profess a faith but to live it, allow it to seep into every crevice of life then I need to embody that. If I want people to tell me what’s on their heart, to ask deep and important questions of themselves, of me and of the world around them, then I too need to do so. If I want to preach that Christ ministers to those who can face up to themselves as fallen and broken people then I want to encourage people to see me facing up to myself as fallen and broken.

Journalling,as a spiritual discipline, is important to people like me for whom this is the way that we process experiences. No-one is in doubt of the strength and purpose of this spiritual discipline. How is blogging different from journalling? Blogging is making that which is private public. Blogging is like writing your journal and allowing others to see it. This leads, obviously, to some difficulties in terms of relationship with others. We all have disagreements with those around us. We all struggle to see eye to eye with those who, on the face of it, we are meant to be united with and when someone journals, it is natural to vent, rant and explore those feelings. No one is in doubt of the strength and purpose of this. To blog, however, is to make public that which was private.

As a future, Christian leader, there’s a strange struggle between what I make public and that which I keep private. There are, as usual, many different options of handling this struggle; to keep everything private, to make everything public or various shades in between. As a person who desires, unmasked, raw, real relationship I will naturally side with the not with-holding of information; not to put on a mask. I am fully aware, however, of the need of privacy for others and agree that it is an individual choice whether to make something of individual importance public or not. To put someone in a situation where they are forcibly unmasked in public is pastorally insensitive (I have fallen short here before and for which I am truly sorry!)

So why do I feel the need to make public that which is private?

In lots of instances I choose not to for reasons such as the privacy of others, the safety of others and my understanding that people need to control which masks are worn when.

Why do I feel the need to publish my inner thoughts?

Partly, it’s a pride issue. I own that, acknowledge it and this is a thorn in my flesh; that desperate need for people to look at me and pay me attention. I’m sorry for that but I am human and I need God’s grace afresh. But when it comes to my masks, I want to embody what I believe and get rid of them. I talk a lot about asking questions, of heading into an understanding of faith that does not have one answer but one that is relational and explorative. I want people to know that I am genuine in my search and for people to be encouraged to engage with me in questions and and discoveries.

I don’t have the answers. I am human. I am fallen and broken and I struggle with life. Why do make this public? Because I want to boast in my weakness. I don’t want to be a different person at home than I am in a church community. If this means it’s complicated and difficult then that’s what it’s going to have to be. If this is scary then that’s what it has to be. Jesus’ struggles are public, Jesus’ crucifixion if public, Jesus’ identity is questioned by Himself in public (My God my God, why have you forsaken me?) My personal leadership style, and it is my personal style so I don’t want people to think it’s the only way, is to be the same person behind closed doors as I am in open ones. I want people to see me broken, in pain and struggling in order that they can appreciate my God who makes me strong. I want people to truly know, through my example, that they, broken, lost, confused can experience God and be loved by Him. I want, more than anything else, for people to know that God wants us for who we are not what we’re told to be.

Faith is not a set of doctrinal beliefs but how you live your life. I can agree that money doesn’t make me happy but does it stop me seeking after financial gain? I can agree that God is my refuge and my strength but I can’t say it if I struggle when I’m not at home or with my wife. So do I continue to profess these things when I know I don’t live them out? Sometimes. Should I? No.

My struggle with life and ministry continues. How I work as a leader with both a public life and a private one is a continual struggle. How I earn the right to meet with people and share my faith is ongoing. To blog or not to blog… I want to make public my private struggles because I hope they are an encouragement. I hope they prompt questions in your mind. I hope that by witnessing struggles of faith you will know that you are not alone and that those people you put on pedestals are actually disciples of Christ. I hope that my blogs allow you to turn, face up to your own questions and say

‘To doubt is Divine.’

A lot of the thoughts and reflections I am having in this wrestle come from an interview with Peter Rollins when he visited Mars Hill Church. The recording is below and is 45 mins long. It’s well worth a listen and will piece together, I hope, many disjointed and rambling approach to articulate my current train of thought.

Power of Story

Next time I will try to tie together my reflections and feelings of my wonderful, powerful, difficult and life giving placement in London!

London Calling (part VI)

I am currently sat in the Art Cafe at St Luke’s Church, Redcliffe Gardens. Ambient music plays in the background as quotes from Bob Dylan, Charlie Chaplin and other artists inspire conversation from the screen. Every thirty minutes a short film (see ‘London Calling (A Little Interruption)’ post) punctuates the relaxed atmosphere with thumping beats of Moby and fast paced images aimed to evoke conversation. My remit for this afternoon, like yesterday, is to sit looking arty and relaxed to encourage any guests to do the same (maybe not look arty!)
It has been an interesting journey to this point (see ‘London Calling (part IV)’ post) and one that has made me consider where I am in terms of outreach and evangelism.

I have become increasingly aware that I speak from a very post modern mindset; one that sits within a place of questions, of suspicion to authoritarian proclamations and one who enjoys the process rather than the result. Outreach has become more and more about a relationship, and my passion lies in people experiencing faith rather than having it explained. Too often we revert to a mode of evangelism that explains how people can get faith rather than encouraging people to experience what we have experienced.

The Art Cafe, for me, should always have been a space to experience the peace of God, His fingerprints in the expression of His children and His love calling them in a time of quiet. It was not a place where we welcome people in to ‘explain’ our faith and tell people what we think. Charlie Chaplin, on the screen in front of me says;

‘We think too much and feel too little.’

It so true at this time. This culture is tired of hearing what people think, of what someone, who doesn’t know what we’re going through, what we’ve felt, tell us how it is. We shut our ears to the reason of others because it has been destructive in the past. We yearn to feel.

This is, of course, a very post modern view point and I am aware that many around me don’t believe the same but as I have struggled with the original vision of this Art Cafe, those who engage with art don’t want to be told what to think; the one right interpretation of a piece, they would rather discover for themselves the emotions being drawn from them. They enjoy seeing something for them, connecting with an expression of the human condition. What makes a masterpiece, a timeless classic? The multi-facetted nature, the expression of something that defies time and place and becomes something everyone can engage with again and again.

As ‘Charlie’s’ face, cheekily smiles down at me I think about his films and how every time i see them I capture a better understanding of humanity and myself and there’s a profound exchange taking place. I think of my process of preparation for a sermon/talk and how I long to express my passion or pain or emotional response to a passage or truth in the hope that God would make it accessible for all people who have known what it is to live. For me, it’s not about making cultural reference to explain a meaning in a passage it is more about me putting people in a place where they can experience the truth of the story to place their story into God’s story.

I’m going to make this short as I need to go and open the doors to the public and welcome people to come enjoy this space, explore their own creativity and engage in conversation with themselves and the art around them. May God bless everyone who visits here with space to ‘be’ and speak to them in their silence through the art.

London Calling (part V)

Two weeks into my placement and I’ve had very little time for personal reflection but the time I have had has, looking back, a very similar thread: ‘home’. I have tried, as much as possible, since starting this blog, to keep my personal life and personal spiritual journey separate from my ministerial reflections. At times this is very difficult but at this time the two reflections have collided and so I’ll be sharing some personal feelings and how it relates to the theatre community and the call of the Church.

Growing up I was always a ‘nester’. When going on holiday I liked to take all my clothes out of the suitcase and put them in the drawers and cupboards. I’d take out the book I was reading at the time and put it on my bedside table and I’d try and take with me as much of ‘home’ as possible. I didn’t cope well being away from home for long periods of time. Being an introvert I treasured my cave to retreat to, the place where I could be myself and say and think all the things I wanted to.

As I grew up this became less important and I adapted to be more relaxed about home and, as a teenager, it wasn’t cool to be so attached to home. While my brother, sister and friends dreamt of leaving home, I was there forcing myself to want to leave the familiar. In the end I did leave home and set out on my own and it was painful as I tried to make completely new things, familiar and to find a place where I was given permission to be myself. I put on personas that allowed me to be accepted and lived a life that meant I survived in the outside world.

After a period of time I was alone, confused and desperately ‘homesick’. ‘Home’ had become not a stationary place but an ideal a state of mind. It was now a memory of that feeling where I knew who I was what I thought and felt and the knowledge that, in the end, I was safe and… complete? Yes complete. In Hebrew thought there’s the understanding of ‘shalom’ which is not just peace but it’s wholeness, rest in completeness. Home was ‘shalom’.

In my desperation I returned to the house I grew up in, to the town of my youth in search of ‘home’ but it wasn’t ‘home’ anymore, life had moved on and I was left, homeless.

When I discovered God, in Riding Lights Summer Theatre School, I found a home; a place in the immaterial. At the same time I found relationships that were ‘home’, where I could kick off my immaterial shoes and relax in safety.

‘Home’, this ‘shalom’, these relationships where I can take off the masks and pretense and be real and honest are very important to me and, I think, to all human beings. As I spend time, separated from my wife, away from the familiar smells and routines of my house, parted from the community that has begun to sustain me in Durham, I find no rest; I’m exhausted but I can’t sleep.

I walked around Earls Court on Saturday and was reminded of my initial feelings about this part of London; there’s no sense of ‘home’. This community, along with large parts of the capital, is made up of people for whom other places are home, be it another country or another part of this one, or where they have yet to find a ‘home’. The word used to describe the people living in this area was ‘transient’. You look at the buildings and they are not cared for they are sleeping pods for people working or spend long times away. The scripture that came to mind as I looked at the people and the buildings and their relationship with each other was.

‘My soul find rest in God alone.’ (Ps 62:1)

In most of my conversations with vicars, members of communities and friends what they want in a church is ‘home’. This is particularly important for members of the theatre community (see ‘Theatre Church (part VII)‘ post). As the church here in Earls Court steps out in mission, to some extent, this creation of ‘home’ is something that has been sidelined slightly.

I visited ‘grace’ on Saturday night. ‘grace’ is a community in Ealing who are striving to be a real, honest community. Jonny Baker, whose blog can be found in my blogreel, has been a part of the team at ;grace’ for some time and his reflections on it would be worth reading. On Saturday night I stepped into a foreign space with strangers all around me and I was amazed how much of a welcome I felt just being in the space. There was no specific ‘welcome team’, there was no big pointing at the newcomer and asking everyone to make them feel welcome it was an acceptance of a fellow traveler allowing me to be me in the space for the time I am there and them engaging in conversation as much as I wanted to engage.

The whole experience of ‘grace’ reminded me of needing sanctuary, rest, ‘home’. For me this is the central, most important part of a community, acceptance of the individual and allowing them to be real with themselves, with each other and with God. Unwrap your bandages and and show your wounds. It is interesting that it is Jesus’ wounds that make him recognizable to his disciples.

Part of the evening at ‘grace’ was spent traveling around three stations; cave, refectory and road. The idea, admitted by Jonny, was stolen from Ian Adams’ book named after these three principles. In the book it looks at the monastic tradition of needing a cave, a refectory and a road. The cave is a place of sanctuary, where you rest, where you are alone and refreshed. The refectory is a place where you can share stories with others and the road is a place of work, of journeying and of striving towards a goal with others.

I made two commitments on Saturday; one was to commit to working from a place of ‘home, rest, ‘shalom’. I have found being away in London, separated from my wife, without the familiar smells and routines of my house, distanced from the community in Durham which have sustained me, difficult because these are things that make ‘home’. ‘Home’ is being in relationship, in a place, where I am known and loved. I’m exhausted because I have no home here. The second commitment was a commitment to the new community that will be forming in Durham. I committed to creating a ‘home’ with and for them. A place which can be both a cave for some and a refectory for others so all can face the road together. I love the fact that we will be meeting in a place called ‘Sanctuary 21’. I hope and pray that we will remain a place of sanctuary and a ‘home’.

Theatre Church (part VII) (London Calling)

Yesterday was a real milestone on my placement. It was a day which started early with prayers, worship and a walk around the area then straight back to the office to work on preparations for the Art Cafe and my sermon on Sunday. Real break-throughs on both of these and lots to reflect on but the real major event was a meeting with Rob Gillion who I spoke about before (see ‘London Calling (part III)’ post) and the Bishop of Kensington, the bishop overseeing and sponsoring my training. Both conversations led me to reflect on my personal ministry and on ‘theatre church’.

As I met Rob, rushing back from a hospice visit, I was struck by how much respect I had for him despite only having met him once before. I have been impressed by his humility and honesty of weaknesses and ‘failures’ of his past ministry as well as the strengths and ‘successes’. It helps, of course, that our hearts have been set to beat for similar things and there was, as we walked side by side towards a Knightsbridge brasserie, a real sense of a partnership forming, two men passionate about God’s involvement in the theatre and a call to go into those places and be representatives to those communities.

The conversation buzzed with questions, discoveries, sharing ideas and concerns and there were moments of silence where I felt God sitting smiling at the two of us. I felt like we were two actors discovering truth in the script we’re working with and asking important questions, all the time the director sitting quietly observing and posed to step in at the right moment.

The work of InterMission has the same principles, from what I can gather, as the community I want to establish in Durham and I use the word ‘principle’ intentionally. Rob (and I agree) strongly believes that the Kingdom of God will not be built by master plan or blueprints but by organic principles. Throughout our conversation I was thinking how much Rob would love to read ‘Organic Community’ which has led me into a journey of discovery. The principles that InterMission are based upon are hospitality, exploration and rest.

What struck me about InterMission was there was a real sense of creating a home for people. Church should be a place where you are yourself where work stops and where rest begins. This challenged some aspects on ‘Theatre Church’. Do actors need to engage in faith through what they ‘do’ for work? InterMission is looking at how we make a ‘home’ for artists. Thiis really resonates with the cultural situation in the theatre at the moment.

With the funding cuts and the real shift away from traditional ways of ‘doing’ theatre, companies which have a core membership of artists are shrinking and actors are needing to ‘float’ around various companies; for one season they’ll be with one then they’ll move on. This means that they are settling in a pattern of life that requires little commitment because no company ask commitment of them, and they are without a solid home. Friends of mine struggle to settle down roots because the work calls them away to different places all the time.

Rob has struggled with these issues. Church demands commitment. Commitment is needed in order for growth in discipleship to occur but with people who can’t commit due, not only to some personality types, but mainly because their work demands that they don’t commit. Church should also be a home, a resting place, a place where they take off masks and become themselves. Actors find this difficult. Theatre is a holistic vocation; it becomes your social life, work life and, sometimes, your spiritual life. How could ‘Theatre Church’ effectively speak into this? Rob is attempting to create a home where actors can rest but he has struggled.

My challenge is whether doing church in a rehearsal structure is too much like work? Am I creating difficulties by attempting this format? From the experiences of intermission I am aware that this type of work is useful but it needs to be balanced with a real sense of the calling to be ‘home’ and to challenge the actors to embrace themselves and allow themselves to discover who they are.

The final thing that I took away from my chat with Rob is not just encouragement that this work is worthwhile but that this work is difficult. The type of ministry that this is shaping into is not ‘successful’ is not immediately fruitful and is counter-cultural for both the Church and the theatre and so where is the support? Who will ‘get this’? This work is experiential not quantifiable; you see the worth by experiencing it rather than weighing up the pros and cons. This work is a risk and, I believe, a risk worth taking. Sound familiar? Jesus’ call to disciples is not quantifiable but experiential…