Theologically Speaking

Here in Lichfield, I go to a local parish church called St. Michael's. It has a great vicar who takes the piss out of everyone, and a stained glass window that I love which has Mary Magdalene in it and the jewels in her hair make her look like she's got pixie ears. (I'll try to remember to take a picture to put here soon.) St. Michael's runs a monthly theological discussion group that I've been part of since we moved here called "Theologically Speaking." The speed with which the group normally moves to issues of doubt and unknowing is always exhilarating - totally blowing away any preconceptions I had held about what this little group of Anglicans would be like. St. Michael's has a few characters that revel in referring to themselves as faithful heretics and it has been fantastic to chat to these guys.

Anyway, Theologically Speaking asked me to do a session on my research. It was titled "A/theism and the Future of the Church," and you can download a copy of the handout I did here.

I started by framing my project in terms of my research questions: How is truth conceptualized in the emerging church milieu? and What are the philosophical, theological and ethical implications of such notions of truth? I (incredibly briefly and necessarily unsatisfactorily) introduced the emerging church milieu as a global network of individuals and communities, connected by the Internet, concerned to live Christ-like lives today.

I began by showing how philosophy has begun to level the playing field for religious belief in the public sphere and introduced notions like post-foundationalism and post-secularism. Here are some of the quotations from participants that I used to give them a flavour of how these notions are held by those involved in the emerging church milieu:

"Everyone has a faith commitment... I'm not saying [everyone's] got a religious commitment, but [they've] got certain assumptis which are not based on reason."

"We're all fundamentalists of one sense or another."

"[Faith] is a foundation of sorts, but it's a post-foundational foundationalism, it's a foundation in the sky, because as soon as you try to analyse it, it disappears."

Here, I've written up the notes I was talking from:

While exposing the myth of the secular levels the playing field for religion to reassert itself in the public sphere (for example, Radical Orthodoxy's unapologetical declaring of secular models of structuring society to be heretical parodies of Christian models), we can go further than this: towards a/theism.

The limitations of human knowledge lead many participants towards an affinity with Derridean deconstruction and Capution deconstructive theology. For example,

"we don't know the number of hairs on God's head, God knows the number of hairs on our head... [The nature of human knowledge] actually creates doubt not just about who or what God is, it creates doubt about if God is. But in the same way that we can celebrate we're not sure exactly who God is, I think we can actually celebrate going, 'and sometimes I don't know even if God is'."

"God changed me, but I'm not sure he exists."

Because we can't know whether we are theists or atheists (in the final analysis) or whether God exists or not, many participants believe that we have to learn to live on the slash of uncertainty between these states. This uncertainty leads to conceiving God differently, other than a being or entity, and instead as an event:

"God spoke to me, repeating four simple words, 'I do not exist.' 'I do not exist'? What could this possibly mean? One thing for sure was that this was not a simply atheism, for it was God who was claiming God's non-existence. In that wasteland I was confronted with something different, I was confronted with the erasure of God by none other than God. I was confronted with the idea that, while God may not be something, that did not imply that God was nothing... And so I began to wonder if it was possible to think of God otherwise than being and nothing, to think of God as speaking, as happening, as an event, as life but not as an object." ('I do not exist,' The God Delusion, ikon, Belfast)

But this uncertainty about whether or not God exists (as an entity) does not lead to a lack of meaning, a lack of ethical principles and apolitical paralysis (as so many criticisms of postmodern thought have contested). Instead, "God" names something (we don't know what) that calls to us, promises a different reality "to come," transforms us and inspires us to make that reality happen. Therefore, it is closely linked to political and social action, particularly notions of justice, hospitality, forgiveness and love.

To explain a bit further, Derrida distingshes between the "messianic" (the inexplicable hope of something "to come" built into us all) and "messianisms" (the concrete systems built around a particular Messiah, e.g. Christianity). What is "to come" is a future we cannot prepare for, because no horizon of expectation (e.g. "kingdom of God") will dull the shocking impact of its arrival. Its coming might even destablise our notions of "kingdom of God." For Derrida, the "messianic structure" (the hope of something "to come") is more important than the particular "messianisms." In fact, "messianisms" need to be kept open to the in-coming of the event, the call, in order to prevent them from being closed over to the work of responding to that call (this is where deconstruction "comes in"!).

"Tearing apart what I love is evidence that I love it" ("Unravelling," The God Delusion, ikon, Belfast)

Jack Caputo talks of both "historical association" (within particular determinate traditions) and "messianic disassociation" (acts of Christians and of Christianity itself which keep them/it open to the incoming of the other, and able - hopefully, because we can't know! - to responding to the other). The Christian tradition is auto-deconstructive. There are fissures and cracks that keep it open to its true calling, that stop it from closing over and shutting down to its vocation to respond to the call (of God? of justice? of love? of peace? Again, we don't know; but we can believe).

There is an element of uncertainty built into creation such that the call can go unheeded, the promise unfulfilled. But we can also be transformed by the call, turned around (metanoia), reversed, convrted, changed. As Caputo has written, we have to "make good" on God's "good" in the Creation narrative, which means acting to bring about what we believe is "to come," even though our idea of it (e.g. kingdom of God, love, justice, peace) might be radically revised in the event of its coming, which might never be.

So even though we don't know the end of the story (does God exist? will the kingdom come? are theists or atheists ultimately right?) we have to step out in faith and respond to what has called us (even though we don't know what it is, even though we name it differently, and disagree about what it is and even that it is).

To recap, the origin of the call is ultimately unknown and unknowable. We all name it differently (God, love, justice, the good, peace...). But we are called by it to help bring it about, not to squabble over what to call it, whether it exists, or who is/isn't included in its call. Caputo writes, “It is not what we call God that is at issue, but what God calls. Then again, it is not what God calls that is at issue, but the response.” (John D. Caputo, The Weakness of God, p.97).

In my thesis, however, I'm particularly interested in how we get from this a/theology to something with practical viability for communities. More quotations from participants signals how they are trying to create communal spaces in which divisions between types of belief are being resisted and blurred.

"dividing people between sheep and goats, that's not what we're about. We're not trying to divide people, we're trying to bring people together."

"Can we hold both views? Can we create a space where both views can be held?"

I'm using the notion of A/theistic Orthodoxy to look at how such spaces might be created. Important here is a different notion of orthodoxy:

"Instead of following the Greek-influenced idea of orthodoxy as right belief,... the emerging community is helping us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as one who believes in the right way - that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christ-like manner... Thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis)understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world" (Pete Rollins, How (Not) To Speak of God, pp.2-3).

Here, "church" or community is a space in which divergent beliefs can be held, e.g. whether or not the virgin birth was a historical event, whether Jesus is the Son of God, whether or not God exists as an entity external to us. Many participants talk about beliefs being held "lightly" so that they remain open to the incoming of an event that may radically revise them. Instead of rigid dogmatism, beliefs are held in a "loving, sacrificial, Christ-like manner."

"I think we need to hold our beliefs lightly."

"I tend to draw the line if somebody wants to hold their religion to the point of brow beating or condemning others because they don't do it their way."

"I don't particularly have a problem with people who sort of feel certain, you know. As long as their certainty doesn't then exclude others."

I ended with some questions for discussion:

• What do you think the implications of a/theism might be for the future?
• Do you think that suspending final conclusions about the origin(s) of this call and the name(s) which we give it will facilitate a collaborative response to it?
• Do you think that the notion of "a/theistic orthodoxy" will enable collaboration between denominations, across religons, and with people of "no religoin" for a better future?

It was a really useful exercise to try and introduce some of these ideas to people unfamiliar with either the emerging church conversation or deconstructive theology, and helped me to solidify my thinking in some of these areas. It was great to see everyone interested and engaging with these ideas, and fantastic to see some people so energized about it. The discussion questions ellicited the view that dogmatism will remain a barrier but that collaboration between "progressive" elements (within denominations, across religions and with "atheists") has been possible and will continue to be. The group found the notion of a/theistic orthodoxy to be an exciting way of articulating these developments towards collaboration regardless of differences.

I was asked to do a follow-up session focusing more on a/theism and Derrida's confession that 'I quite rightly pass for an atheist,' which I'll blog about some time next month.

Annual Review Panel Today

Each year the lucky research students of the Religious Studies department undergo a 'review by panel,' to make sure that our thesis actually is a thesis, to keep us on track with writing up, and to act as some kind of a practice for the viva. Mine's today at 3pm. Bit nerve-y.

I usually spend the Easter holidays madly writing stuff to hand in for it. In addition to a self-assessment form, a list of training modules we've taken, a detailed thesis plan, and a timetable for completion, we have to submit a writing sample of at least 5,000 words. I've kind of been going about it the wrong way round; in my first year I handed in about 30,000 (four papers - one on Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition, on one Critical Realism and Radical Orthodoxy, one on the postmodernism of the Emerging Church, and a methodological one on the Emerging Church and Critical Realism), in my second year about 20,000 (a paper I gave at a conference on Theo(b)logy and the construction of identity, theology and society, and a chapter on the postmodern turn of Christianity which contextualises my research questions), and in this, my third and (hopefully) finally year, I'm handing in, at most, 7,000 words:

• The "Truth and A/theistic Orthodoxy" paper from Boston (3,000 words), and


• A hashing out of ideas concerning a persistent problem with my thesis (about 4,000 words): "Truth, Representationalism, and Research."

This latter piece of writing I hope will stimulate some useful discussion in my panel review, regarding what I see as a BIG HOLE in my project that relates to the underlying philosophical assumptions of the sociology of religion.

My research explores a social phenomenon (the emerging church milieu) through a philosophical question (how is truth conceptualised?). But this always brings me back to this problem:

• Can my research be said to present “the truth,” i.e. the external reality, about how the emerging church milieu conceive of the notion of truth, if many of them (and I) are sceptical about


• a) the extent to which reality can be represented in language (representationalism) and


• b) the extent to which truth is a correspondence between language and reality (correspondence theory of truth)?

See my persistent problem?

So I'm trying to think through the ways in which I can acknowledge this problem and address the difficulties in combining sociology of religion with post-strucutralist philosophies concerning truth, representation, and research. And I'm circling around several literary devices which might help me in this endeavour. I could...

• "Translate" the rather dry, concise, representationalist, and (of course, given it's history) scientific sociological discourse into Derridean vocabulary and syntax - a both daunting and exciting proposition; OR

• Write the different chapters (sociological, philosophical, etc.) in the language of their respective disciplines and allow the resultant jolt when reading from chapter to chapter to occur as an event in the reading experience which might highlight that the different disciplines are operating within different language games; OR

• Attempt to produce different introductions for readers with different understandings of truth (a little like Brian McLaren writes introductory paragraphs for different readers of his Generous Orthodoxy) - for example, readers who hold a correspondence theory of truth, which can be said to be the majority of conservative emerging church critics, might assume that my writings relate fully to the reality that is the emerging church milieu. If such readers do not like what they read, they can either question my academic credentials and research abilities (i.e. the methods I used to discover reality), or they can use my research for further evidence of the dangers of post-modernism. Either way, for them, there is a “truth” of the emerging church out there, waiting to (certainly) be discovered by (perhaps) more astute or discerning (or “biblical”) researchers than me.

What I've decided to do is to write a sociological chapter enumerating what I see as six ideological commitments open to those involved in the emerging church milieu - a classical sociological approach to a social fact.

But, simultaneously, I am going to problematise a number of the assumptions just made in such an approach to the emerging church milieu. There are, however, still a number of ways in which to present this "undercut."

• I could include what could be called an Interlude between this sociological chapter and the rest of the thesis chapters - considering the other alternatives, this option is a bit tame (!) and Derrida's work suggests a further two possibilities.

• In Derrida's (1986) Glas, the pages are divided into two columns, each column taking a different subject matter, so that the reader has to decide whether or not to read all of one first and then return to the beginning of the book and read all of the other.

• Writing alongside (or, rather, below!) Geoffrey Bennington's "Derridabase," intended to systematize Derrida's work, Derrida has constructed another piece of writing, "Circumfession," intended to slip out of such an endeavour. "Derridabase" occupies the top of the pages, whilst "Circumfession" is positioned on the bottom of each.

• Taking into consideration the format of the doctoral thesis, however, a fourth possibility presents itself:

Doctoral theses are printed only on one side of the page, on the right, with a blank page (the back of the preceding page) opposite it on the left. Pagination ignores these blank pages, with readers only paying attention to the pages with words on them as they turn and read. I have decided, therefore, to write a piece which delivers a post-structuralist blow to the sociology of religion and to print it on the pages opposite to the sociological Chapter One, Emergence. The reader will, first (foremost?), be shocked to find print on this side of the bound thesis, and will then have to decide which way to read it: sociology, then critique?; or critique first?

Roger Oakland's Critique of the Emerging Church

I’ve finally gotten around to reading Roger Oakland’s (2007) Faith Undone: The Emerging Church… A New Reformation or an End-Time Deception (I’ve noted the ominous absence of a question mark previously!)

I have a core set of books which form a critique of what they usually refer to as “the emerging church movement:” D.A. Carson (2005) Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a MOvement an Its Implications, R. Scott Smith (2005) Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church, and Thomas Hohstadt (2007) Beyond the Emerging Church: The End and the Beginning of a Movement, as well as various articles (online and mainstream media) from people like Chuck Colson and Phil Johnson, and more general evangelical denouncements of postmodernism like Douglas Groothuis (2000) Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism, and Art Lindsley (2004) True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World. I also just found Whatever Happened to Truth? (2005). Any others out there?

But after only a few chapters, I was pleasantly surprised by Roger Oakland’s approach in his critique. I disagree with his conclusion that “behind this new kind of church is a well designed strategy and maneuver by the prince of this world, the enemy of our souls, to literally take apart the faith of millions” (20). That said, however, I’m glad of his approach.

Oakland notes the reductionism of other critics (19), who limit their “analysis” of the emerging church milieu to a few books published by some (more and less) influential authors. For example, D.A. Carson (2005) focuses upon Brian McLaren’s (2004) A Generous Orthodoxy and Steve Chalke’s (2003) The Lost Message of Jesus, written with Alan Mann. Fellow critic R. Scott Smith (2005) extends his literature review from the work of Brian McLaren and Tony Jones to postmodern theorists, theologians, and ethicists such as Stanley Hauerwas, Brad J. Kallenberg, Stanley Grenz & John Franke, and Nancey Murphy.

However, a limited, literature-based approach inevitably fails to grasp the complexities of this milieu, and privileges certain voices within it above others. Most research is conducted among a select number of leaders of emerging Christian communities, whether through interviews with them or through reviews of their published works, instead of undertaking fieldwork amongst ordinary community members. But this reductionism not only occurs amongst a group that might be called “anti-emerging church outsiders”; it is also important to note that, particularly in a UK setting, several popular empirical studies are undertaken by these same select leaders themselves. For example, Jonny Baker’s MA dissertation on the labyrinth, Ben Edson’s doctoral work on emerging church missiology, and Ian Mobsby’s MA dissertation on emerging church and fresh expressions’ ecclesiology and Anglicanism. Emerging church researcher Bryan Murley has blogged about the need for “outsider” research here.

I was both genuinely surprised and genuinely glad that Roger Oakland has identified this tendency within the criticism of emerging churches, and that he seeks to avoid such a reductionist methodology in his book. “Faith Undone examines not just the obvious leaders of this movement but will examine the much more encompassing emerging spirituality. Through this book, I hope to expose a belief system, rather than just a group of particular leaders” (19 his emphasis).

This approach is similar to Gordon Lynch’s methodology in his (2007) The New Spirituality, which I’ve blogged about before. Oakland, albeit through a literature review and ostensibly not through empirical research, seeks to identify “the spirituality behind the teachings” (19) in a similar fashion to Lynch’s identification of a progressive milieu and the progressive spirituality which emerges from such an environment. I aware that Lynch is engaged in the academic study of the sociology of religion and spirituality, whilst Oakland is engaged in the polemical defence of one theological position and the concerted attack of another. However, Oakland's objective of attempting to “unveil a belief system” (19) which underpins numerous individuals, communities and organisations, rather than to assess (or indeed “attack” 19) individual authors or leaders, significantly increases the analytical value of this work, in comparison with other critics’ reductionism. I disagree with his conclusions and he still makes some inaccurate generalisations, but I appreciate Oakland’s more inclusive approach to data collection in his denouncement of the emerging church.

Oakland's history of the emerging church is also interesting: in parts thought provoking, in others highly entertaining. I’ll post about that shortly!

Seminar Paper Invitation

Somewhat closer to finalising this term’s Religious Studies seminar series (co-ordinating with Prof. Paul Heelas – he’s the one at the back - I'm not pictured!), I'm filling a gap by giving a trial run of ideas I hope to present at the Society for Continental Philosophy and Theology conference in April. The conference now has it's own website here.

The paper has to be written and submitted by 15 Feb, and will be presented to philosophers and theologians. I'm used to sociologists of religion, so I'm going to give this more philosophical paper it's first outing in the friendly atmosphere of our Departmental Seminar Series '08. It'll be entitled "Truth, Weak Theology, and the Emerging Church Milieu," to cover enough ground for an hour's talking and half an hour's questions - which can then be distilled into the 3,000 word paper I need to submit to the SCPT.

I'm going to try to solidify my thoughts about a new approach to the emerging church phenomenon, trying to define the (porous) boundaries of a milieu, rather than attempting to contain the diversity exhibited by emerging churches in one all-inclusive definition of an 'emerging church.' So I'll be playing with this idea of a milieu, and how I might present this milieu to others unfamiliar with the subject. It'll be a more sociological introduction to get everyone into the topic, before moving onto some more philosophical and theological aspects.

Still in the process of transcribing, I'm trying to talk in broad brush strokes about the fieldwork, but by the time it comes to presenting the paper I hope to have done enough transcribing to speckle it through with quotations from participants. I'll talk broadly about the themes around truth that are emerging from the fieldwork (can't help using that word sometimes!), before concentrating on deconstruction and weak theology.

I'll post a bit more about this paper once I know where it's going, but if anyone is in the Lancaster area on Monday Feburary 4th (4.30 - 6.00pm) you'd be more than welcome to come along! It's held in a place called the Institute for Advanced Studies (which makes every other department in the University feel like it isn't advanced enough!).

I'll also doing a mini-presentation around "Critical Terms for Religious Studies" the week after (Feb 11th). Paul is going to present the difficulties surrounding the term 'belief,' and I'll be exploring 'culture.' Increasing attention is being paid to the manifestations of religion and spirituality in what is commonly referred to as 'popular culture' or 'contemporary culture.' Entities such as 'Western culture' and 'indigenous culture' are also frequent sites of study for researchers. New expanding areas incorporate this language, such as the study of 'occulture' (Chris Partridge). But what do researchers mean when they talk of 'culture'? What is this thing called 'culture'? What is 'popular culture'? Or 'indigenous culture'? How have researchers defined 'culture'? Why is 'culture' critical in the study of religion? All this and more... Feb 11th.

UPDATE: Check out the schedule for our Lent Term seminar series here.

Progressive Spirituality and the Emerging Church Milieu

Over Christmas I read Gordon Lynch’s (2007) The New Spirituality: An Introduction to Progressive Belief in the Twenty-first Century. Despite some minor quibbles (for example, his confusion of the 2nd and 3rd waves of feminism, and his inclusion of Willow Creek and the Alpha Course alongside “other forms of experimentation with the ‘emergent church’,” - two disappointing misunderstandings, both on p.25), Lynch’s study of what he refers to as “the progressive milieu” is impressive, absorbing, and stimulating.

Through an extensive review of print and online media, Lynch argues that far from being amorphous and/or insignificant entities, both this milieu and what he terms a “progressive spirituality” are organised around and arise out of identifiable sets of values, beliefs, and practices.

Firstly, then, the progressive milieu is constituted “by individuals, groups and networks who tend to be either liberal or radical in theological terms or green and left-of-centre in political terms” (20). Those involved are sympathetic to liberal democracy’s core values (for example, tolerance, autonomy, diversity), hold green or left-wing political attitudes (for example, concerned with environmentalism, social justice, civil rights), and/or are theologically liberal or radical. Lynch includes in this latter characteristic a willingness “to revise religious tradition in the light of contemporary knowledge,” a sympathetic relationship to feminist critiques of institutionalised religion, and beliefs that “there is a truth inherent in all religious traditions” (98).

Lynch portrays progressive spirituality (which is not the only spirituality possible within this milieu – a point to which I shall return at the end of this post) as arising out of four imperatives within the progressive milieu:

• “the desire to find new ways of religious thinking and new resources for spiritual growth and well-being that truly connect with people’s beliefs, values and experience in modern, liberal societies” (23-25);
  
• the development of “a spirituality that is not bound up with patriarchal beliefs and structures, and which can be relevant and liberating resource for women” (25-29);
  
• “attempts to reconcile religion with contemporary scientific knowledge,” particularly grounding spirituality in contemporary scientific cosmologies (29-25);
  
• and “moves to develop a spirituality which reflects a healthy understanding of the relationship of humanity to the wider natural order and which motivates constructive action to prevent ecological catastrophe” (35-38).
  
  

After tracing the development of progressive spirituality from these four imperatives, Lynch sets about clearly defining the ideology of progressive spirituality. This ideology is “a cluster of related ideas and values that recur with striking regularity” in the various media produced by the milieu (41). However, this ideology should not be understood as a spiritual worldview that is espoused universally by all those sympathetic to the wider progressive milieu. As mentioned above, Lynch’s methodology leans heavily towards a multi-media literature review (albeit supported by an amount of interview and ethnographic data), and he uses Antonio Gramsci to characterise the producers of these various media (books, magazines, articles, pamphlets, websites, etc.) as “‘organic intellectuals’ whose life and work is embedded within the social structures and relationships of the progressive milieu, and who represent its leading intellectual edge” (41). The resources thereby produced are used in a myriad of different ways for a multitude of different purposes, the exploration of which is beyond the scope of Lynch’s current publication (72).

Lynch presents the four key elements which characterise the religious ideology of progressive spirituality thus (43-65):

• “a belief in the immanent divine unity which nurtures and sustains the unfolding cosmos;
  
• “the sacralisation of nature;
  
• “the sacralisation of the self;
  
• “and a belief that these spiritual truths can be discerned within and beyond different religious traditions” (98).
  

This latter point revolves around an understanding of religion as historically and culturally contingent attempts to “approach the mystery of the divine presence – a mystery which ultimately defies definition” (60). However, while “no single tradition can claim to be the final, authoritative revelation of the divine” and are to be “treated as metaphorical ways of conceiving the divine [rather] than direct representations of the truth” (60), Lynch’s characterisation of progressive spirituality implies that it understands truth as correspondence and as accessible (albeit only in part), through a variety of religious practices. Lynch writes, “Progressive spirituality does resemble postmodernism in its celebration of different religious styles and traditions, rather than the pursuit of a unitary style that characterized some form of modernism, but in reality, progressive spirituality is much closer to modernism. Underlying the range of religious traditions that it welcomes, progressive spirituality sees a common essence of truth… It may be less optimistic about social and cultural progress than some earlier forms of modernism – but progress it seeks, nevertheless, towards a more spiritually grounded, sustainable and just society” (68). Hence the name, perhaps?

In relation to my PhD research, Lynch’s work touches on several interesting areas, as well as sparking thoughts about how I can present the ‘emerging church’ phenomenon to readers of my thesis. I’ll detail three particular areas of commonality between spiritual progressives and those involved in emerging Christian communities, before reflecting on the methods Lynch uses to introduce The New Spirituality of his title.

Firstly, Lynch recognises the central role which opposition plays in the development of collective identity among nascent movements. Progressive spirituality “distinguishes itself very clearly from certain other forms of religion and cultural ideology,” for example authoritarian religions and secularism, and “defining these opposing religious and ideological viewpoints plays an important role in giving shape and content to the identity of religious and spiritual progressives” (63). Constructions of ‘others’ by progressives (which is, as Lynch observes, “not to say that it has no external validity”) are vital in the process of community formation on ideological and practical levels. This construction of oppositional others is clear also among emerging Christian communities. Lynch’s description of religious progressives is helping me to think about how constructions of fundamentalist and modernist evangelicalism function for the ‘emerging church.’

Second, progressives’ views about social boundaries are also akin to positions taken by emerging Christian communities, particularly as these positions are articulated by the “organic intellectuals” of the ‘emerging church.’ Lynch writes, “By and large, progressive religious groups and networks are not interested in boundary issues of who does and does not properly belong to these groups or who does or does not fall within acceptable boundaries of ‘orthodoxy’ in progressive faith. Indeed the strong emphasis on tolerance and valuing of diversity amongst progressive groups, means that concerns with tightly maintained boundaries and group orthodoxy tend to be seen as the regressive and unhealthy obsessions of more traditional forms of religion” (42). The ideology which Lynch identifies with progressive spirituality is not, therefore, a ‘statement of faith’ which must be subscribed to by all progressives. Rather, the ideology is understood as a “potential basis for mutual identification, communication, and collaboration” (42). In much the same way, subscribing to more bullet points of ‘emerging church-ness’ does not make one more emerging, but rather enables broader and deeper levels of respect, dialogue, and support.

A third interesting point of comparison concerns another aspect of progressive identity. Lynch acknowledges that “collective identity within such movements is socially constructed, focused around overlapping and sometimes contradictory accounts of both the movement’s goals and methods, and the social and cultural environment in which it operates. This process of ongoing negotiation occurs not simply through explicit conversations about the movement’s identity, activities and context, but also takes place through the movements’ developing practices and rituals, and the way in which it produces and uses cultural artefacts. It is also a process that is embedded in a range of social relationships” (89-90). Crucially, then, identity formation is conducted within a range of contexts which produce both underlying cohesions and localised divergences. Lynch’s approach is thus able to take note of both these instrumental aspects of identity, and I am interested in what the “field of beliefs and aspirations” (90) might be within which individuals and groups negotiate what it means to be ‘emerging.’

A final point to be made about Lynch’s study of progressive belief relates to the method through which he introduces his readers to his subject. This “new spirituality” is first grounded within a particular religious milieu, the “progressive milieu,” and Lynch identifies the criteria through which individuals and communities can be confidently placed within this milieu. While allowing that this milieu might enable other types of religious ideology, progressive spirituality is then presented as the most prevalent spirituality within the progressive milieu, and its key characteristics are explored. The roles and practices of religious organisations and networks situated in the milieu are then likewise examined.

My attempts to accurately describe the ‘emerging church’ phenomenon to lay and academic readers, both familiar and unfamiliar to it, led me away from the language of ‘emerging church’ towards the more inclusive and plural phrase ‘emerging Christian communities.’ The realities of my fieldwork methodology then led me further to describe participants as ‘members and friends of emerging Christian communities.’ However, even this phrase is not entirely suitable. Firstly, the use of the word ‘members’ suggests an (over-)emphasis on boundaries which is not always present, and a differentiation between types of relationship (members and friends) could introduce social structures which may or may not be already apparent. Further, not all the individuals participating or communities represented understand themselves as ‘Christian.’ But over the last few days, Lynch’s approach to the progressive milieu and progressive spirituality has sparked further ideas about how to present my research subjects to readers.

Due to the similar nature of the two phenomena, Lynch’s approach can be mapped on to a study of emerging Christian communities without much modification. A relationship to the term ‘emerging church,’ however complicated, suggests that individuals and communities can be assigned to what I shall call the emerging church milieu. Inhabitancy of the emerging church milieu can accommodate a number of different understandings and usages of the phrase ‘emerging church,’ whilst simultaneously allowing me to dispense with speech marks!

I will then attempt to identify the defining features of the emerging church milieu, which will enable individuals, organisations, and networks to be placed within it without excluding the possibility of real differences amongst them. I will also examine the roots of the emerging church milieu, as well as the roles and practices of organisations, etc., within it. Through my exploration of the concept of truth among those involved in the emerging church milieu, I will then explore two potential (though not exhaustive) spiritualities within this milieu. Though I have yet to fix on names for them, you can guess from my thesis structure that I might call them Emergent Spirituality and A/theistic Spirituality.

This leads me to a criticism of Lynch’s approach, which lies solely with his choice of terminology. What Lynch describes in this book is one spiritual possibility for those in the progressive milieu, yet his assigning of the appellation ‘progressive’ to both the spirituality and the milieu implies a value judgement which is refused elsewhere in the book. It’s designation as a progressive spirituality suggests not only it’s prevalence in the milieu of the same name, but also it’s superiority and suitability over and above any other spiritual possibilities. The possible spiritualities which arise from the milieu should therefore be given different names from it, in order to avoid this confusion in an otherwise useful map for looking at contemporary spirituality.

Moving Forward

I had a good supervision session yesterday, my last one for a while as my supervisor is going on sabbatical next term [single tear rolls down cheek] I gave her an(other) overall structure for the thesis, which I feel comfortable working towards while she's away in Italy - although I imagine it will morph as I go along! It's already, like, the seventeenth structure I've had! My research questions (how do members and friends of emerging Christian communities understand the concept of truth, and what might the philosophical, theological and political implications of such concept(s) look like?) form the backbone of the thesis structure.

The Introduction contextualises my research questions by briefly framing them in the criticisms levelled at the "emerging church." I explain how the structure of the thesis relates to the main contentions I wish to make, and introduce themes which are peppered throughout.

Chapter One introduces the reader to emerging Christian communities through a thematic exploration of my (at the moment!) chosen terminology ("emerging Christian communities"). It consists of a sociological reflection on the position of these communities in the Christian landscape, an historical tracing of the emergence of these communities in the UK context, and a review of possible future trajectories. The last section of this chapter details the criticisms laid against the "emerging church" by evangelical detractors with particular emphasis on the ways in which these communities are imagined the undermine the truth claims of Christianity.

Chapter Two is a methodological chapter which details the multi-method through which I conducted this research. It introduces the reader to the participants and their communities, and reflects on theoretical, ethical and practice concerns generated by this project. I argue against the reductionist methodologies of other "emerging church" research which privileges the voices of certain individuals over others, thereby justifying my decision to conduct research on several levels in order to hear the voices of a spectrum of individuals. I also present my use of the Internet as both a research tool (e-questionnaires, Facebook) and as a research site (blogs, and other related spaces). I take the reader through the process of moving from an online context to an offline one, and back again, reflecting on the implications of these moves for research relationships.

Chapters Three and Four begin to unpick the philosophical implications of participants' understandings of truth. With regards to philosophy, there are two strands which emerge. An individual participant might stand firmly within one strand rather than the other, but several participants hold both strands in creative tension, and the communities from which participants come cannot be understood to fully exhibit one strand to the full exclusion of the other.

Chapter Three draws out the first strand. Here there is ontological realism and epistemological fallibility. Either there is or there isn't a God (the principle of bivalence) but human knowledge cannot fully grasp the nature of this reality. In this strand, deconstruction is understood as a phase which is a necessary response to modernist (evangelical) Christianity, but which must at some point give way to the process of reconstruction. Some elements within postmodern philosophy are understood to be relativistic or nihilistic, and Christianity cannot go the same way. This ontologically realist, epistemologically humble, and reconstructive strand has implication for evangelism, tending to emphasise cultural postmodernity, as well as a chastened (i.e. not nihilistic!) philosophical postmodernism, in order to contextualise mission in shifting paradigms.

Chapter Four details the second strand. Here there is a reluctance to answer (or even ask) questions of ontology. Rather than making judgements regarding the realist or non-realist nature of the Christian narrative, participants prefer to talk about hyperrealism. Also in contrast to the first strand, participants' epistemologies are not so much chastened as a/epistemologies, or epistemologies of active unknowing. Uncertainty and doubt is accompanied by the de-nomination of every naming of God. Deconstruction is understood as an inherent part of the Christian narrative, of Jesus' example, and of the Christian life. Christianity is understood as auto-deconstructive. Deconstruction, questioning, unravelling, are central to Christian faith, not as a necessary phase before the rebuilding, but as coexistent with faith. Truth is understood as an event which occurs to us and transforms us through a call, following the work of Jack Caputo. This understanding of truth as a call has implications for the type of community which develops around such a concept. A final section here explores the a/theism of participants and their understandings of orthodoxy as believing in the right way (i.e. lightly) rather than right belief.

A brief pause before I move on to explain the other chapters. I know what you are going to say, but it is not the case that Ikon can be neatly fitted into the second strand, with the other communities in the first! My differentiation between these strands doesn't work that way. There are participants within Ikon who, while holding to some of the tenets in strand two, identify more closely with strand one. And there are participants in other communities who have more affinity for the second strand than for the first. These two strands are not mutually exclusive, and can be (and often are) held in tension by participants.

Chapter Five meditates on the theological implications of participants' notions of truth and the philosophical strands drawn out in the preceding chapters. It examines Radical Orthodoxy in the light of participants' understandings of truth and argues that this theology is only useful for some of them. It also reformulates Radical Orthodoxy into what can be referred to as a "Generous Radical Orthodoxy." [titter, titter] I argue that Radical Orthodoxy's tone of certainty and preoccupation with being are the reasons that other participants can be said to exhibit a closer affinity with Weak Theology.

Chapter Six is the final chapter of the thesis (as it stands at the moment!) and explores the implications for politics of emerging understandings of truth. Here the two philosophical strands, which have continued to diverge theologically, re-converge politically. However truth is philosophically understood and in whichever theology these understandings feel at home, participants' responses to truth dovetail with each other. Here I explore notions of responding to the call and Caputo's kingdom without kingdom. I was tempted to also tackle a critique of Neo-Pragmatism from the perspective Generous Radical Orthodoxy and Weak Theology, though I think this was a little ambitious of me. Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see. Maybe a journal article, eh?

The conclusion will obviously do all standards things conclusion tend to do. I'll draw together all the threads of the thesis, breaking them down to show the various philosophical theories of truth at work among Christian communities. I reflect on the cultural contexts from which these understandings of truth emerge, and identify fruitful areas for further enquiry. Blah, blah, blah!

That's where my thinking is concerning my research questions and the structure of my thesis. I haven't yet finished transcribing the 30 interviews I conducted (in fact, I'm no way near), but I've been reflecting on the emerging themes [titter, God, I need a holiday!] and with this structure I feel more confident that I move forward with reading, etc., while I simultaneously try to finish the transcriptions. So... apologies to all participants who were looking forward to sitting down and having a good mull over their transcripts whilst sipping mulled wine - and I know that was, like, all of you!

As I transcribe, further themes are coming up which I will not be able to develop far in this thesis. For example, participants' views on Jesus, the historicity of the Bible, the nature of revelation, etc. I hope to be able to incorporate these themes into blog posts, however, so that everyone can continue those conversations even though they will not feature heavily in the thesis (whenever that gets done!).

As part of an open sourced approach to research, please let me know what you think of these preliminary thoughts.

Postmodernism, Truth and Religious Pluralism

Egged on by David, I thought I'd better post again! That push coincides with having just found this call for papers on 'the church and postmodern culture' blog here. A little slow of me, I know, but I've been trying to finish book chapters and articles left, right and centre - and still haven't quite done them!

The Fourth Biennial Conference of
The Society for Continental Philosophy & Theology.

Postmodernism, Truth, and Religious Pluralism.

April 11-12, 2008Gordon College (Wenham, MA).

Keynote Speakers:
Roger Haight (Union Theological Seminary)
and Richard Kearney (Boston College).

The blurb runs: With the so-called “return of religion,” it is almost impossible not to address the issue of religious pluralism, which acutely raises the question of truth. What kind of positive sense of religious truth is possible in a postmodern era? What is religious truth—is it representational, propositional, orthopractical, symbolic, aletheiological, or something else altogether? How does the notion of “truth” square with a multiplicity of religious traditions? Is the very term “religion” appropriate in a pluralistic society, since the term is distinctly western? How might the earnest faith of a Christian, say, be compatible with the equally earnest faith of other believers or even non-believers? With the varieties of religions (not to mention the varieties of expressions of religions), how can their respective differences be respected? Are there forms of religious expression that simply cannot find a place in the public square?

And: We encourage papers that draw on continental figures; philosophical traditions such as deconstruction, feminist philosophy, hermeneutics, and phenomenology; and religious traditions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

I can't very well NOT go, can I?!?

Emerging Christian Communities

To help myself think through that sticky aspect of the sociology of religion known as typologising the life out of your research subjects, I thought I'd post about the various communities from which participants come.

So far, interview participants have come from a range of communities. Here are the links to the web presences of some of them, along with their own self-descriptions:

fEAST, Hackney
"We seek to be a Christian community that provides the opportunity to learn, be inspired and nourished in an atmosphere of intimacy and vulnerability. We also seek to be a space for creative worship, where everyone can talk freely and a place where people receive support for their daily lives. We want to be encouraged to be active in our community and beyond, being committed to the principles of justice and peace. We don't want to forget the need to be made uncomfortable by the gospel of Jesus."

Vineyard, Sutton
"Our mission is to help people live life to the full. We seek to be a truly welcoming and dynamic Christian community where people can connect with God, with others, and with opportunities to make a difference in our world.You can think of Vineyard Church as a group of people "doing life together"."

The Garden, Brighton
"We think of ourselves as a project, an ermerging community based in Brighton, Sussex, who are seeking to work out how to live passionately in response to 'the other' in a way that embraces the artistic, the intellectual and the practical and which challenges us to take seriously matters of justice, compassion and the planet. At the moment most (not all) of us have some sort of Christian history but we aspire to create space, beyond propositional statements of belief, for those with any faith or none who feel this may work for them."

Industrial Mission Association, UK
"The Industrial Mission Association is an organisation for lay and ordained people who want to be involved in, or to deepen their understanding of, the relationship between the Christian faith and the economic order. Membership is open to all men and women who, on the basis of the Christian faith, are committed to instituting economic change and helping the Church to respond to the needs of urban industrial society."

Visions, York
"It's hard to describe Visions in one sentence! A church for people who don't like church. A place that feels like home where we can talk about and experience the love of Jesus Christ. A place where you can be yourself, with all your doubts, fears and messiness and people will accept you anyway. But we're also a bunch of Christians interested in deepening our faith journey through discovering and using our talents in the visual arts, dance music, and technology."

Dream Network, North West England
"DREAM is a network of groups who are on a spiritual journey towards Jesus. We welcome anyone who wants to travel with us."

Foundation, Bristol
"Foundation is a Bristol emerging church / alternative worship group. We are a registered Anglican “Fresh Expression”. Our goal is to bring the experience of Christian community into a healthy relationship with contemporary culture."

Search, Basinstoke
"Search is a place for those who want to encounter worship in a different way - a way that engages the senses and the mind. It is also a place where we will hopefully encounter God and build a sense of community with other searchers."

MayBe, Oxford
"a community following in the way of Jesus for a better world now. Grace, space, wonder, grit, resistance, laughter, presence. Community, exploration, creativity, simplicity, engagement, play, Christ."

Vaux, Vauxhall
"Vaux was a community of artists and city-lovers who sought to explore the Christian faith through the media that came naturally to their hands. Using collages of film, dance, sound, installation, liturgy and image, Vaux formatted monthly 'services' at 310 Kennington Lane, Vauxhall. After a break of about a year we're meeting again. Just to gather, re-juvinate and re-ignite, with no pressure or pre-conceptions. We'll see what happens..."

Ikon, Belfast
"iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging, failing. Inhabiting a space on the outer edges of religious life, we are a Belfast-based collective who offer anarchic experiments in transformance art. Challenging the distinction between theist and atheist, faith and no faith our main gathering employs a cocktail of live music, visual imagery, soundscapes, theatre, ritual and reflection in an attempt to open up the possibility of a theodramatic event."

BarNone, Cardiff
"For the last few years Bar None has been a safe space for people to explore what they believe and what the bible says, a place for people to test the validity of the Christian faith. Pubs are often the most relaxed environments – literally public space – around that we are starting to build a regular crowd of people interested in discussing faith and life. For us it’s just about doing the important stuff of church but in a pub. Some of us are Christians who struggle with doubts and the diversity of opinion within the church what’s ‘truth’. Some of us aren’t sure what we believe and are trying to work it out as we go along."

24/7 Prayer Movement, UK
"24-7 Prayer exists to transform the world through movements and communities of Christ-centred, Mission-minded Prayer."

Spirited Exchanges, UK
"Is your spiritual or faith journey leading you into uncharted territory? Spirited Exchanges is a network offering support and encouragement to people who are experiencing faith and its struggles at the edges of or beyond Church."

Sanctuary, Birmingham
"Sanctuary a safe place for British Asians or anyone interested in exploring eastern and western spiritualities in Christ. It is a place of space, peace, meditation, food, and friendship. Everyone is accepted as they are, just as God loves and accepts them, and Sanctuary is a place where they can experience that love and grace in community."

Journey MCC, Birmingham
"spirituality without religion. Journey is made up of many different people; our only common goal is to create a space where we are able to explore, discuss, experience, worship and listen. We recognise that we are all pilgrims on a search for meaning and need to find ways to share our thoughts and our experiences-if not always our agreement. We’re not interested in orthodoxy….. we’re interested in authenticity."

I originally contacted communities which I had identified as "emerging churches" through internet searches and empirical research by other researchers, but a call for participants was (very kindly) placed on Jason Clark's blog (along with a sexy picture!) and this generated a more diverse response from those involved in engaging with contemporary culture. The rich group of people who are now involved in this project is wonderful, but it's tough to start thinking about typologies for the communities from which they come. You can see, for example from Foundation's description of themselves as an 'emerging church / altnerative worship group' and 'Anglican fresh expression', that I've got some work to do - and that these distinctions don't seem to be problematic in practice! I've got several types to choose from / several boxes to force things into, including:

emerging church
fresh expression of church
alternative worship
neo-monasticism
inherited/traditional church
post-church
not-church

I need to work on how I'm defining these labels, in order to work out which communities to put where, and whether I can create a spectrum which reflects the diversity going on rather than reinforcing any existing binaries. Helen Cameron, for example, differentiates between emerging church and fresh expressions by classifying the former as mission to the de-churched and the later as mission to the un-churched. But Ian Mobsby classifies emerging church as a sub-group of fresh expressions, alongside inherited church fresh expressions. So, I'm working on my own thoughts about these different types of Christian community.

In the meantime... some thoughts on the recent direction that self-definition among the emerging church took. While definition and classification remain dirty words among emerging Christian communities, there have always been attempts to do just that. There was a flurry of definitions around 2005, produced by both those involved and those not - and I need only to point you to a few posts by TSK for you to find some others. However, over the summer this year a method of definition emerged through the textual and visual definition of buzz words in response to criticism from the Pyromaniacs team - see here, here, here, here, and here! The more I think about it, this deserves it's own post. I'll be back.

The Experiment Launches

Way, way back in April, I blogged about the possibility of open sourcing the research process. I have been privileged to so far interview and/or survey about 40 people around the UK, and will have the chance to reflect on those conversations and attempt a thesis. I would love this blog to be a space where those taking part in the research (and any other interested online others) can also discuss and explore these issues. This experiment may not work (technologically and/or methodologically) but I’m game to try it.

I’m aware of other PhD students working on “emerging church” research who keep their own blogs (Im a particular fan of Paul Teusner’s research on Australian “ec” blogs) but I’d like this to be more than a place where I post “updates” on what I’m doing for you guys to read and that’s it.

Hopefully this participatory methodology for the blogosphere will encourage everyone (myself included) to “outgrow” the research-based roles with which we entered our relationship together. Some of you may want the relationship to end when I send you a transcript of the interview, and that is fine too. Others may be interested in taking things further.

Whereas in the interviews some topics could not be developed as perhaps we might have wished (given that I have specific research questions to explore), those topics might be able to flourish here. This blog does not have a specific purpose, beyond being a place where we can converse further. I might have a particular point to make in a particular post, but I won’t push an agenda of answering research questions to the exclusion of the other places you might wish to take our conversation.

Of course, I’m not kidding myself that this is going to become the next hot spot of interactivity in the blogosphere, either. But maybe a little conversation will take place here, and that’d be great.

Participative Technology and the Ecclesial Revolution - PRESS RELEASE

A few months ago I blogged about the Wikiklesia Project, an online collaborative publication of short works from a range of contributors exploring the ways in which technology is transforming the church. The volume has developed over the last month, with a new title - Voices of the Virtual World: Participative Technology and the Ecclesial Revolution. The e-book will be released on July 23, and downloadable from Lulu.com for $15. Audio files will be available to download for a donation. ALL proceeds are going to the Not For Sale Campaign.

A current list of chapter titles can be found at the Wikiklesia Project's Wikidot site here. All the chapters sound fantastic, but from a research perspective I'm particularly looking forward to reading:

Kester Brewin, Text/Audio/Video: Probing the Dark Glass
Greg Glatz, The Perfect Mix? The Missio Dei in a Free Market Economy
Len Hjalmarson, Text, Sacrament, Leadership and Conversation: Blogging and Communal Formation
Brother Maynard, Hyperlinks Subvert Hierarchy: The Internet, Non-Hierarchical Organizations, and the Structure of the Church
Andrew Perriman, Open Source Theology
Joe Suh, Social Networking and the Long Tail Church
And Len's Afterword, The Myths of Technos and God's Kingdom.

My chapter is entitled Theo(b)logy: The Technological Transformation of Theology, and reflects on the impact of technology on understandings of what theology is, and who does theology. I trace the development from conventional notions of theology as the systematic study of Christian revelation by trained professionals, to Radical Orthodoxy's notion of 'the theological' as the confessional standpoints held by everyone and 'theology' as the critical reflection on these belief systems, regardless of their explicitly religious nature. I argue that technological innovation, particularly blogging and open source software, is facilitating the opening of the theological endeavour to any 'net user, effecting this radical shift towards "theo(b)logy," the Web2.0-assisted, Christianly theological, reflection on any number of subjects. Theology can be and is being done by anyone, and theology has as its subject matter not only the conventional source code of the Christian religion, but subjects as varied as football, beer, environment, Middle East, labyrinth, family, and shopping. I've also recorded an MP3 audio file for download, but I'm worried about it, as I think I've got a boring voice! Our brief said that we could employ a celebrity impersonator, but I don't know any.

The official Press Release is as follows:

Voices of the Virtual World:
Participative Technology and the Ecclesial Revolution

PRESS RELEASE (Download PDF HERE)
Publication Date: 23 July 2007
Distributed by: Lulu.com
Wikiklesia Press, 2007
ISBN: 978-0-9796856-0-6

Voices of the Virtual World explores the growing influence of technology on the global Christian church. In this premier volume, we hear from more than forty voices, including technologists and theologians, entrepreneurs and pastors… from a progressive Episcopalian techno-monk to a leading Mennonite professor… from a tech-savvy mobile missionary to a corporate anthropologist whom Worth Magazine calls "one of Wall Street's 25 Smartest Players." Voices is a far reaching exploration of spiritual journey contextualized within a culture of increasingly immersive technology.

ABOUT WIKIKLESIA: Conceived and established in May 2007, the Wikiklesia Project is an experiment in on-line collaborative publishing. The format is virtual, self-organizing, participatory - from purpose to publication in just a few weeks. All proceeds from the Wikiklesia Project will be contributed to the Not For Sale campaign.

Wikiklesia values sustainability with minimal structure. We long to see a church saturated with decentralized cooperation. The improbable notion of books that effectively publish themselves is one of many ways that can help move us closer to this global-ecclesial connectedness. Can a publishing organization thrive without centralized leadership? Is perpetual, self-organizing book publishing possible? Can literary quality be maintained in a distributed publishing paradigm? Wikiklesia was created to answer these kinds of questions.

Wikiklesia may be the world’s first self-perpetuating nomadic business model - raising money for charities - giving voice to emerging writers and artists - generating a continuous stream of new books covering all manner of relevant topics. Nobody remains in control. There is no board of directors. The franchise changes hands as quickly as new projects are created.

Media Enquiries: Len Hjalmarson, lenhjal@telus.net. John La Grou, jl@jps.net

The Blogging Emerging Church

I'm giving a paper tomorrow to the Religious Studies postgraduate community, presenting some thoughts on blogs as authoritative texts for emerging Christian communities. It's a prelude to a chapter I'm composing for a forthcoming collection called Reading Spiritualities edited by fellow Lancastrians Deborah F. Sawyer and Dawn Llewellyn.


I'm exploring notions of authorship in the blogosphere, in conjunction with some thoughts on authority. I'm using data from a Technorati search for "emerging church" blogs (dated June 18 2007) to problematise this way of defining and measuring blog 'authority.' At the moment, in the chapter, I also aim to investigate author (blogger) demographics and comment on whether or not a hierarchy of literature is present among emerging Christian bloggers. In the future, I might attempt to teach myself Social Network Analysis to map linking patterns through the emerging corner(s) of the blogosphere and to identify 'authorities' and 'hubs.' But that's beyond my thesis at the moment, I think!


I've found Cameron Marlow's work a great starting point for thinking about these issues, as well as several pieces by Lilia Efimova et al on defining blog communities. Studying the discursive constructions of what a 'blog' is, Mathieu O'Neil identified LiveJournal-bashing in the blogosophere, and Susan Herring et al found offline sexism and ageism was being unintentionally transfered online. These issues of authorship and authority in the blogosphere are tangential to my PhD, so I'm pretty much out of my depth yet trying to learn how to swim. I'll post more on these topics as I move from this working paper towards the chapter.

Call for Research Participants

I'm moving into the fieldwork stage of my project, exploring the beliefs of individuals involved with emerging Christian communities. I'm particularly interested in how contemporary Christians make sense of the world in which we live.

I would like to hear from you if you are interested in taking part in any stage of this research, but there are two fixed criteria:

• You must be resident in the United Kingdom
• You must be involved with an emerging church (however you define the term) and/or engaged in an emerging conversation between Christianity and contemporary culture

Please email me if you are interested in any or all of the following:

• Participation in a questionnaire via email. There are 8 questions regarding your beliefs about Christianity and contemporary culture
• Participation in a face-to-face interview, at a later date and place of your convenience

I will ensure confidentiality at all stages of the research by attributing your words to a pseudonym of your own choosing. Alternatively, if you wish to be identified, this can also be arranged.

Katharine Moody k.moody1@lancaster.ac.uk

Researching Theo(b)logy

Modifying a phrase from Tony Jones, I gave a paper entitled "Researching Theo(b)logy" at a Conference in Oxford last month about my research with emerging Christian communities, reflecting on methodological issues for research in the blogosphere.

I'm exploring the on- and offline theorisings of individuals and communities involved in a critical conversation between Christianity and culture. Radical Orthodoxy maintains that all Christian theorisings should be 'theological' (Milbank 2006) and 'confessional' (Smith 2004); i.e. they should be grounded in the Christian narrative of creation, fall, redemption and consummation. Therefore, following the insights of RO, but alluding to the medium in which many of contemporary Christians' theorisings are being explored, I refer to this subject matter as “theo(b)logy.”

I reflect on the methodological difficulties of conducting research in the blogosphere, including: locating blogs, measuring blog validity, and measuring blog influence. However, I also argue for a participatory research methodology for the blogosphere which uses the opportunities provided by the Internet to increase the levels of participation open to research participants themselves.

This is the paper in which I suggest that a research-specific blog (a la Bryan Murley) is beneficial for research projects on the blogosphere. The responses to this suggestion gave me the confidence to start this research blog of my own.

It was a great conference, with fascinating papers from Lynn Schofield-Clark on Fashion Bibles like Revolve, Tom Beaudoin on fandom, and Nick Couldry on media rituals. I want to be a lecturer in Christianity and culture.

Wikiklesia Project

John La Grou and Len Hjalmarson are facilitating a project called Wikiklesia: Voices of the Virtual World, which will be an e-publication with chapters written by anyone wanting to explore how technologies are shaping the contemporary church.

Chapter proposals can be emailed to John at microclesia@gmail.com and Len at next1@nextreformation.com

Confirmed contributers include Andrew Jones, Andrew Perriman, Cynthia Ware, Heidi Campbell, Kester Brewin, Mike Riddell, Peter Rollins, Scot McKnight, Stephen Shields, and Thomas Hohstadt. Oh, and me. I have no idea what I'm even doing on a list with these people!

Open Sourcing the Research Process

This blog is something of an experiment in the open sourcing of the academic research process, but I hope you enjoy participating in it.

Open Source Programming (OSP) is a mode of production and development that allows open access to the software product's source code. Code is made publicly available for modification and redistribution, so that progress is made by any number of individuals working on a technical problem in community. Linux and Mediawiki are good examples of such open source software products. Source code is published alongside the software, so that many more people have access to the knowledge, and therefore the power, to change and improve the product. This approach to software design evolved in contrast to closed access software, for example Microsoft, where problems are dealt with by a select number of individuals who have exclusive access to the source code. Many of you will have experienced the elitism and inefficiency which results from this closed access approach to software production and development.

A wellknown product of open source software MediaWiki is Wikipedia, the online interactive encyclopedia. Entries can be updated by users so that knowledge is built in a community from diverse educations and experiences. (An interesting development, however, is Conservapedia, a "rival" interactive encyclopedia which was set up by conservative Christians and politicians who felt that their contributions to Wikipedia were always deleted - This might suggest that Wikipedia itself is only open for development by those whose agendas match those of Wikipedia moderators and/or users - I'd like to look into this further at some point)

An emerging community in Belfast, Ikon, has used MediaWiki as a model for its community homepage, IkonWiki. Visitors to the site are free to edit the content, layout, and skin of the pages, as well as contribute resources and engage in discussion. While sites like IkonWiki use OSP as a software model, OSP can also be understood as an approach to a variety of subjects. For example, Douglas Rushkoff has written on Open Source Democracy, OpenCola is a recipe for a cola drink posted on the Internet in contrast to the closely guarded secrets of CocaCola and Pepsi, and blogging itself can be seen as an open sourcing of journalism, as well as an instrument of the open sourcing of culture more widely. But OSP is increasingly being understood as an approach to religion, Open Source Judaism being an early example. Open Source Programming could be a useful framework in which to understand what emerging Christian communities are attempting to do in their engagement with the Christian tradition in a new context that emphasises full participation, decentralisation, and organic evolution. Open Source Theology is an obvious example here.

But what might these communities consider to be the source code of Christianity? And are these communities engaging in a rediscovery, reinvention, and recreation of that source code in and for shifting contexts?

I have a number of interests that I hope to explore through my research with emerging Christian communities. But as a methodological issue, I've been thinking about creating a research-specific-blog (a la Bryan Murley) for a while now. I gave a paper yesterday at the British Sociological Association's Sociology of Religion Study Group and the UK Research Network for Theology, Religion, and Popular Culture (UKRNTRPC) Conference on Religion, Media and Culture in Oxford, and I now have the confidence to follow through with a research blog.

The self-reflexivity of feminist researchers has made me aware of the benefits of participation and transparency in research. I hope that this research blog will enable emerging Christians, among others, to interact with me about my research method as well as my research subjects, and allow those who participate in the research at later dates to come together to talk about their thoughts and experiences.

I also hope that this research blog will allow for what Liz Stanley calls 'accountable knowledge' '...in which the reader [or participant will] have access to details of the contextually-located reasoning processes which give rise to “the findings”, the outcomes” (in Cotterill and Letherby, 1993, "Weaving Stories: Personal Auto/biographies in Feminist Research," Sociology 27 (1) p.68). Just as I will have the privilege in this research to listen to other people and the freedom to use their insights to build a thesis, I hope that this blog will help participants and others to engage in the same kinds of activities.

In these ways, I hope my research project, and specifically this blog, will highlight the possibilities and benefits of such an open sourcing of the research process itself.