it's clearly richard sudworth day (at least on my blog)...

having linked to richard's series in the last post i have since looked at his blog again and noticed a very poignant critique of the over against rhetoric of kester brewin and pete rollins. i think it's a brilliant piece and hope it blows open a conversation needing to happen. i often get asked what i think of pete's work and usually respond by saying that i love having his voice in the conversation but it's not the only voice i want to hear. i loved the book how not to speak of god. but this conversation reminds me a little bit of the book nation of rebels: why counter culture became consumer culture which makes a powerful critique that the over against rhetoric of liberals who talk a good game round the dinner table about the evils of the system and overcoming it are not the people who effect real change in society. it's the people who have engaged in the public square, engaged in civil rights marches and so on - often long slow painful processes - who have done more. on reading that book i was challenged to think that actually being alternative is a poor strategy for change which i remember saying as part of a blah in manchester in 2005.

i'd probably want to nuance that now and say what i have said many times that actually change or newness is most likely to come from having people work at both the centre and the edge. artists, tricksters, prophets and now pirates (?!) - characters i tend to love and warm to - their ruses and plays are inevitably going to dwell on the edges and so they should to do their work and share their gifts in those spaces. but the loyal radicals who work at the centre, in institutional spaces and located in traditions are those who may equally herald the future... for what its worth i try and play in both arenas.

Comments

[Andy Dodwell]

as someone who was dragged into this whole 'institutional space' while trying to maintain my own alternative heart i hear and affirm where you are coming from...
now that i've been ordained its sometimes easier for me to do 'alternative' things- i can get away with it and maybe even give things a certain amount of reputability by my position, while at the same time challenging the assumptions that ministers in the church are only concerned about numbers in the building on sunday morning and doing things 'just so'...

you need to hold a certain radical perspective to see the needs for change in a system (is that the prophetic role?) but in order to effect that change or to bring the conversation into the places of institutional power it might be necessary to become part of the system...is that betraying your roots or engaging in the process?

[becky]

Jonny - I've always felt this should be a yes/and situation. Thanks for bringing up some Qs that need to be asked.

[Duhsciple]

For me, faith is about the embodiment of Christ in real people, real life.

There is no way to dispense with the institutional or embodied church.

There is no such thing as "solo" Christianity. You must have at least 2 or 3.

And... we need pirates, rebels, whatever you call them to challenge the 2 or 3 or however many on how they are putting flesh to the words "God" or "love" or "grace" or "church".

So I second Becky's motion on the "yes/and"

[Nic]

It's not a critique— it's a sermon! More heresy please— loads more!

[matybigfro]

History teaches us that the institutions will not go away, be outdone, overcome or overhauled they tend to be big enough to either absorb challenges or expel them. But I think history also teaches us that institutions demand the advances of fools, pirates, heretics and rebels both faithful and not so.