Yesterday was a definite day of contrast:
I realise that worship, as they would say at OASIS is "all of life and not just the singing", and that in everything we do we can worship God, but yesterday was very interesting reflection on worship. I spent most of the day on a retreat day, with other local youthworkers seeking God's face and will on a joined up project we are working on, and planning some of the work. The thing that really struck me was the use of silence as a way to worship, being that I was there with two Anglicans; we had a long period of silence to worship God. It was a communal, but yet very solitary space and time of worship, to be honest I felt that it focused more on me and God than it did the group seeking God's face about the project. We were four individuals worshiping God rather than a community standing together, worshipping him.
Then last night I went with a group from church to YFriday's Universal Tour gig in Maidenhead. It was billed as a gig, yet taking a step back and although performance focused, those attending still seemed to be worshipping God (you can worship God in everything and therefore even when others are performing - or so I came to realise). However the thing that struck me most, was that although they were standing together, singing together, their worship still seemed to be an isolated individual thing. People had their eyes closed, hands in the air, and shouting loudly, but yet it again had that 'me and God' feel.
so i was thinking; how can we enable true community in worship whether loud or quite? How when standing with others do we stop interacting with God on a one to one level and start interacting as one worshipping body?
Saturday, 2 December 2006
Thursday, 30 November 2006
Just woken up after having about 17 hours sleep in the last 24! I got home from the RSC yesterday, and was totally exhausted, it was a really intense process about 8 hours of interviews in the two days, and the rest of the time (free time) was spent socialising with the selectors so it was all rather intense. It was a really interesting experience though and even if I don't get through, it was great from a networking point of view. Jon and I spent some time getting to know one another dreaming dreams for the young people in the Central Baptist Association, which is all rather cool. His thoughts about the RSC and a explanation of what it is (for those who don't know) can be found here.
Anyway one of the interviews at the RSC got me thinking, is it possible to learn in more than one way? And do Church Leaders have to be academic? The interview in question concentrated on candidates theological knowledge and our ability to learn. I will happily put my hands up and say that I struggle with reading, I find it hard, and have to discipline myself to do so, but does this mean that I have a lower ability to learn, or do I just learn in a different way?
Of the three books we had to read for the RSC I only managed two, and had to work quite hard to get through them, two books was quite an achievement for me. The one I didn't manage was "Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places" by Eugene H. Peterson, a tough acedmeic, theological text. I relise that as a leaders we need to be constantly stretching ourselves and growing in our own learning and our own faith, but is reading the only way to stretch yourself and grow in your faith as a leader? A few years ago, in college we did the Honey and Mumford learning styles questionnaire and I came out as an activist - and theorist was my lowest, therefore does this mean on these grounds I'm not a academic enough to be a leader?
Interestingly enough the three books that they had asked us to read where looking at God and theology through quite post-modern eyes, however I found this interview to be from a very modern perspective, and not engaging with new ways to learn and stretch yourself, for instance the Internet was rejected as a source to engage with. It's funny isn't it, how on the one hand the church can appear to be culturally relevant and engaging with new ways of thinking and yet on the other hand can still be as stuck in its ways as ever?
Anyway one of the interviews at the RSC got me thinking, is it possible to learn in more than one way? And do Church Leaders have to be academic? The interview in question concentrated on candidates theological knowledge and our ability to learn. I will happily put my hands up and say that I struggle with reading, I find it hard, and have to discipline myself to do so, but does this mean that I have a lower ability to learn, or do I just learn in a different way?
Of the three books we had to read for the RSC I only managed two, and had to work quite hard to get through them, two books was quite an achievement for me. The one I didn't manage was "Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places" by Eugene H. Peterson, a tough acedmeic, theological text. I relise that as a leaders we need to be constantly stretching ourselves and growing in our own learning and our own faith, but is reading the only way to stretch yourself and grow in your faith as a leader? A few years ago, in college we did the Honey and Mumford learning styles questionnaire and I came out as an activist - and theorist was my lowest, therefore does this mean on these grounds I'm not a academic enough to be a leader?
Interestingly enough the three books that they had asked us to read where looking at God and theology through quite post-modern eyes, however I found this interview to be from a very modern perspective, and not engaging with new ways to learn and stretch yourself, for instance the Internet was rejected as a source to engage with. It's funny isn't it, how on the one hand the church can appear to be culturally relevant and engaging with new ways of thinking and yet on the other hand can still be as stuck in its ways as ever?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
