The Complex Christ

Communal/Distributed Knowledge?

During a Skype with Jon:

Would you be able to write something on the ‘communal knowing idea’ that knowing is not simply contained within individuals, but has an important interpersonal dimension and also on the different natures of knowing “muscial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily, kinesthetic, naturalist, interpersonal”

I think it needs expanding. And articulating, but I don’t think I could do it straight out without a bit of research.
It also relates to some of your last posts I feel. And that article I sent you might have some vague connections via quantum physics.

OK Jon. But seems illogical for one person to spout a post on communal knowing.
So how about it? What do people think?

Personally I think knowledge is shared more than we think. And, reflecting more on the comment I made in the last post, I think it's part of the battle for participation against domination that we a) admit it, and b) work towards it by sharing knowledge on a level playing field. For me that's a work of the Spirit. Anti-domination. Anti-centralization. Anti-gnostic. If there's such a thing.

Here's a link to download the article on Quantum Physics and the Rebirth of the Soul.
It's a scanned PDF, so about 2.5 Mb.

Technorati Tags: Complexity, Emerging Church

The Homeopathic Church?

According to Wired, homeopathy works on the 'law of infinitesimals': the more diluted a dose gets, the more potent it becomes.

A drug is diluted. Shaken. Diluted again. And again. And again. Until their is less than one molecule of the original in the dose. And this then put into a sugar pellet; makes it easier to swallow I guess. Scientists argue that this conflicts with the accepted laws of chemistry that state a substance becomes untraceable if diluted beyond Avogadro's number.... and I'd tend to agree, but homeopaths counter with research that the actual structure of water is altered in the dilution process. Somehow the drug has disappeared into the water, and infected it...

Mysterious. A disappearing. And a renewed potency.

Homeopathic Church anyone?

Small Is Beautiful | Cellular Simplicity

An article in this month's Prospect carries a review by Oliver Morton of Nick Lane's 'magnificent' new book Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life. His thesis is an

"antidote to the gene-centred view of life... Cells convert the energy they take in from the environment into a form that can be used to drive chemical reactions by a fundamental mechanism, which, Lane shows us, has a central relevance to questions that range from the astrobiological - how common is complex life in the universe - to the fundamental - how did life begin - to the world historical - how realistically can we imagine lengthening human life-expectancy by a century or two?"

One particular aspect of this hit me as I read the review:

"The amount of energy a creature needs in order to reproduce is roughly proportional to its volume, since it is the volume that has to be doubled in reproduction. But the amount of energy a membrane system can produce is proportional to its surface area. When things get bigger, their volume increases quicker than their surface area, so bigger bacteria will take longer to produce enough energy to reproduce themselves than smaller ones will."

When I read this I couldn't help think of the mega/micro church debate. As you will know if you've read the book, I'm a fan of the viral, self-organizing model of being. And what I think this argument affirms is that such a model of small, simple, local incarnations is more 'energy efficient.' Moreover, they have a better ratio of "surface area to volume"... In other words, they are more exposed to the environment they exist in.

Large mega-churches appear to have 'economies of scale', and this will be true in many economic contexts. But in this biological parallel they have poor surface area to volume ratios: fewer people in them are actually 'on the boundary' interfacing with the environment that hosts them. And they require a huge amount of energy to replicate.

Either way, the stark truth of biology is, whether you take a gene or energy-centred view, is that life goes on, even when individual cells and bodies die. To try to artificially extend life-expectancy can create monsters. Life is good. Death is a necessary part of that cycle.

Emerging Church and the Holy Spirit [4]

The language of the Spirit has been hijacked by the charismatic/pentecostal movement, which is probably why people in Emerging circles have been shy of using it. What some of them appear to have seen from their side of the fence is that this shyness amounts to a rejection of the Spirit, and what they interpret that to mean is a lack of 'power manifestations.' What I have been arguing in these posts is that:

1. We need to reclaim the language of the Spirit and not be afraid to use it and
2. We need to think much more widely about what spiritual gifts are.

On the second point, using some of Lewis Hyde's work on gift, I've argued that gift-exchange is actually the very fuel that runs the church, the inter-connect that is the fabric of our relationships. We don't relate on a market-exchange plane, where the scales are balanced, but on a gift-exchange plane, where things are left unbalanced, and the relational potential is heightened in every transaction.

Furthermore, true gifts always operate in a circle of 3 or more, meaning that the relational cycle is never bi-polar but involves 'the other'. In such a system I don't necessarily receive from the person I gave to, leading to multiplex relational networks that operate on multiple levels. The circle of 3 of course hints at the trinity, which is the ultimate model of generous exchange and relationship.

So how does this work out in some practical ways?

Emerging Church and the Holy Spirit [3]

In the last post on this I tried to argue that we need to re-imagine our language of spiritual gifts, and used some of Lewis Hyde's thinking on gift to consider how, in fact, any transaction that occurs in the 'gift economy' is actually rooted in God's breathing into us.

When you let someone into traffic. When you hold a door open. When you pay for a stranger's bus ticket. That feeling that somehow this is how life should be: generous, amicable, inclusive? It's God. That's the gift of the Spirit: taking us above the apes into humanity, into the realm of the gift. It's not a 'power manifestation.' But we only need to read article's such as this - thanks to Sanctus for the link - to see how powerful the gift is.

I want to come back to this idea of generous action later. But before I do that, I want to examine why Hyde is keen to point out that there is a further level of complexity in true gift exchange. According to him, a true gift must go 'out of sight' before it is received and passed on.

Emerging Church and the Holy Spirit [2]

I ended the last post - which was a critique of Chris Simmons' article in Christianity accusing the Emerging Church of lacking power manifestations, and thus lacking the Spirit - by arguing that we needed a fresh understanding of the concept of 'gift'. It is only by doing this that we can prevent the hijack of the language of 'spiritual gifts' by those who want to tie this to power manifestations, healings, tongues etc.

Indeed, in the book I try to argue, using Lewis Hyde's fabulous work on art, that the Church needs to re-evaluate not just the language of gift in relation to the Holy Spirit, but also in relation to its entire existence. My conclusion is that in a world drowning in the market economy of needs, desires, advertising, cash for questions and touch-the-screen salvations, the Emergent church will be a place where the gift economy rules. Churches ought to be places of gift-exchange; they are often places where gift and market confusions abound, creating a jarring experience for those exploring...

Is the Emerging Church Lacking the Spirit? [1]

Any visit to my parents' house requires the customary penance to be done: reading all the Christian press that they subscribe to. October's Christianity carried an article which questioned whether the Emerging Church was lacking the Spirit. Their much-used stock graphic of an arid desert pretty much summarized the tone that Chris Simmons - a Vineyard pastor from Brighton - took. It's a depressing read.

Jason Clark has helpfully posted a PDF of the article, written a reply to Christianity, and looks like he is also hosting a conference around the issues this Saturday. All of which has catalyzed me to get some thoughts down about this vital issue over the course of a few posts....

Chris' article worries me on a number of levels. Firstly, he writes that "it was frightening and horrifying to see that Jesus was much bigger and more powerful that I had thought" and goes on to criticize the other speakers at the event he was at who "spoke eloquently but then just left the platform". He then describes how he sees power manifestations - healings, exorcisms etc. as not only central to his 'conversion', but a required part of normal Christian life.

His argument appears to run like this: power manifestations are evidence of the Spirit; without the manifestations the Spirit is not there.

I find this not only deeply troubling as an argument, but deeply insulting too. In what power and in whose name does Chris think Christians in the Emerging Church are working? If he really thinks it is being done outside of the Spirit this is a very serious indictment indeed... One that would appear, in what I am assuming to be the fairly standard Vineyard theology, to condemn us to a very unfortunate fate.

Confusingly, he ends his piece by saying:

"In the UK church let's keep loving the church in all its diversity... Let's pray that we can identify with our converts in the UK as the apostle Paul did with his 2000 years ago with the words, 'Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?'"

I totally agree with the diversity angle - but don't really see it reflected in his argument, which appears to present a very one-dimensional view of the Spirit. Not a wrong dimension necessarily. But only affirming one.

Secondly, Chris seems to be equating observation of the law with "mental ascent, a journey of faith with more questions than answers" - in other words, doubt, questioning and uncertainty. We should simply 'believe what we hear', a conclusion that deeply troubles me when connected back to his opening statements about how he as a pastor is constantly being hassled "by people with some new idea, usually to do with something called emergent." A precis of the piece thus seems to read:

Power manifestations are the true test of whether something is 'of the Spirit.' If you are going to doubt this, you are falling into 'observing the law.' The right thing to do? Just believe what you hear from me.

I have to feel sorry for those in his church who have come up to him with these new ideas. I hope they have not really been re-buffed in this way, and don't doubt that he would have been pastorally sensitive. What worries me is the underlying message that the leader is right and there is no other way.

So what should we do? If we are not experiencing power manifestations is the journey we are exploring not 'of God'? Ought we simply 'believe what we've heard'?

I want to propose that we need to radically re-imagine our language of the Spirit. It is unfortunate that the charismatic wing of the Church have hijacked the concept of the Spirit and taken it hostage to the power-evangelism agenda... It seems that one cannot talk about the gifts of the Spirit without it being taken as meaning healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy etc.

This, I believe is a real shame, for the concept of gift, as I've explored in the book, is an incredible rich one. And it's this I want to explore in the next post.