Risky business?

Been talking this Evening (daren't tell you where though!) with Mark Ireland (see below) about our pilgrimage and the risky ideas it has spawned (e.g. hosting a Mind*Body*Spirit fair)... you know I'm struggling with some of this... but talking with Lou after Mark had gone I was suddenly reminded of a parable/story that Jesus told...

"It's also like a man going off on an extended trip. He called his servants together and delegated responsibilities. To one he gave five thousand dollars, to another two thousand, to a third one thousand, depending on their abilities. Then he left. Right off, the first servant went to work and doubled his master's investment. The second did the same. But the man with the single thousand dug a hole and carefully buried his master's money.  After a long absence, the master of those three servants came back and settled up with them. The one given five thousand dollars showed him how he had doubled his investment. His master commended him: 'Good work! You did your job well. From now on be my partner.'  The servant with the two thousand showed how he also had doubled his master's investment. His master commended him: 'Good work! You did your job well. From now on be my partner.'  "The servant given one thousand said, 'Master, I know you have high standards and hate careless ways, that you demand the best and make no allowances for error. I was afraid I might disappoint you, so I found a good hiding place and secured your money. Here it is, safe and sound down to the last cent.'  "The master was furious. 'That's a terrible way to live! It's criminal to live cautiously like that! If you knew I was after the best, why did you do less than the least? The least you could have done would have been to invest the sum with the bankers, where at least I would have gotten a little interest.  'Take the thousand and give it to the one who risked the most. And get rid of this "play-it-safe" who won't go out on a limb. Throw him out into utter darkness.'

...just how far out are we prepared to go?  Anne Morisy says...

Journeying out requires the capacity to rise above the anxiety associated with encountering and embracing a potentially overwhelming, outside world.


...maybe this is one of those 'faithful betrayal' moments when we have to be prepared to lay down personal fear/concern for the sake of the world... on the other hand... I understand that it might seem irresponsible to take risks with the spiritually vulnerable... but... is it equally (if not more) irresponsible to play-it-safe with the spiritually supreme?  With God?

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church: Mission: Spirituality

Comments

[LauraHD]

Oi!

[Mark Berry]

:-D LOL

[Phil Rankin]

Absolutely love this question..."I understand that it might seem irresponsible to take risks with the spiritually vulnerable... but... is it equally (if not more) irresponsible to play-it-safe with the spiritually supreme?"

Really got me thinking but also wondering, who are you thinking of as 'spiritually vulnerable'?

[Mark Berry]

I mean the people who are looking for answers/healing/comfort/reassurance. Perhaps those who would want an 'easy' answer to the pain, loss etc. they may be experiencing... who might just want to hear that there is something more, that their loved ones are still extant etc.

[Phil Rankin]

Thanks. While reflecting on your question I kept wondering if the ‘spiritually vulnerable’ aren’t those who will come seeking, hurting etc., but actually those who will remain on the outside being critical?
People will go to a fair and have opportunity to experience many things. They are largely in control of what they open themselves to and experience. They can pull away, decline to participate etc. as they see fit. Is the fair not simply providing people a space to engage with ‘spirituality’? For me, by providing this space God can interact as he wants because people might actually be open to it.
As I say, it seemed to me that perhaps the ‘spiritually vulnerable’ are actually those who will not be open but will be openly critical – and generally from the outside. Those who might not allow the God to operate in the relatively open space of a M.B.S. and to ‘prove’ to others what God is through experience?

[Mark Berry]

Phil, really interesting perspective... so are you talking about some sense of denial and/or fear? I'm not sure how those in denial/on the outside are actually being vulnerable... I guess their seperation may be as a result of their vulnerability? Obviously this isn't what I meant in this context... I just meant that the 'risk' of "promoting" alternative spiritualities (as seen by the Church, I mean) is that some who are looking for easy answers/to salve their pain, grief etc. might be more attracted for example to the simply and undemanding e.g. Clairvoyants etc.

[Phil Rankin]

I suppose I understood the difficult issue you were working through somewhat differently. My experience (especially from the interactions in my research) is that people will search, seek and be open as much as they are able, so I suppose I didn’t really consider that as being vulnerable. I do accept what you are saying though. I wonder if the people attending don’t have some sort of a critical mind on these things anyway, and thus are less vulnerable than we might assume? There was a programme on BBC Northern Ireland last week about people using fortune tellers, tarot card readers etc. In one particular piece 7 or 8 women, all friends, used a card reader one after another. They were all willing to say whether he was ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and to disagree on this. I’m maybe assuming that people attending a fair will already think that there will be some things that are useful and some not, but I think that is largely true. If that is so, then will they actually think that any organiser is promoting any particular thing or just that the organiser is creating an opportunity to experience things, some of which are useful and some of which aren’t? In that context I think a space can be created where people can meet God and in so doing see it as ‘useful’ and want to seek more. While it may not be an easy answer to those “who are looking for easy answers/to salve their pain, grief etc. [and] might be more attracted for example to the simply and undemanding e.g. Clairvoyants etc.” it is definitely something that they should have the opportunity to experience. Maybe I really am too idealistic but for me this is creating space for the spiritually supreme to do his bit!

The spiritually vulnerable that I was thinking of is focussed more on an unwillingness/inability to consider God acting outside of our control. To try and explain…in my view Christians have long been afraid of the difficulties/’contradictions’ of theology. From that stems all sorts of absolutisms and apparently uncontradictory beliefs because it can create safety. Much Christian methodology has been based on proclaiming loudly’ ‘My God is the best, come here to me and see!’ This must be done from inside the ‘safe’ Church because to step outside means that God will be tarnished with the evil things in the world. Thinking this way also creates a very high degree of closure and exclusion. To do other than staying inside is very difficult for some to accept because their theology is black and white, and therefore must be critical of ideas like yours because you would apparently ‘promote alternative spiritualities’.

Rather than realising that you are taking God into the world to create the opportunity for people to experience the spiritually supreme, they will assume you are promoting all sorts of things that you are not (I am of course making an assumption here so please correct me if I am wrong). As I tried to understand that ‘it might seem irresponsible to take risks with the spiritually vulnerable’ I wondered whether managing a fair might be too big a step for many Christians rather than for those who are looking for easy answers/to salve their pain, grief etc. because they will be only to happy to experience something of your God?

[Mark Berry]

I could't agree more Phil with your observations of the Christian community... we have experienced concern from certain parts of the wider Church who considered it too big a step... some for 'spiritual' reasons, some for 'image' reasons... I had no issues with the image reasons... to me it could only make a positive statement about a confident yet servant church... and spiritually I agree with Ann Morisy when she wrote "Journeying out requires the capacity to rise above the anxiety associated with encountering and embracing a potentially overwhelming, outside world." My wrestle was that I believe there are folk who go to M*B*S fairs without a critical mind, we witnessed a number of people who would come for prayer, then get their runes read, then have a Reiki massage etc. etc. Whilst I would hope that everyone would be as discerning as you suggest, my fear is that there are many people who try whatever is nearest/easiest etc. speak to any Vicar and they will be able to tell you of the perrenially needy people who go from Church to Church and these days from 'truth' to 'truth' I guess you may also talk about those that Steve Taylor calls the 'Spiritual Tourists'... so I guess my wrestles were not with the Churches insecurities but that in 'hosting' a fair we might have been instrumental in a needy person finding another path other than Gods... I'm not putting this well, and to be honest it was a wrestle that we had moved beyond... part of the process of moving beyond it was the Parable of the Talents... better to take risks than be cautious! But as it is we have had our 'Abraham and Isaac' moment... saying that if the need arose again, I think we would grab it with both hands, TBH we are all a bit dissapointed that we don't need to!

[Phil Rankin]

My thoughts on many of these things are that people are doing it anyway and its best if we can be a part of that 'anyway' so that God can at least be a path. If people choose another path I will be disappointed but the best that I can offer is to push the 'God door' open a little and let them look in. The rest is up to God and the person concerned.

Thank you for your openness and honesty on this. Its refreshing!

[Mark Berry]

Thanks Phil... my thoughts exactly

[Mike Horsnall]

There is a whole lot written on this topic. I once read an excellent book called 'The view from the pinnacle-Faith or presumption?' ..trouble is I can't remember the author!! Taking risks with spiritually vulnerable people essentially means allowing them to believe and act upon fantasies-christian or otherwise.

In my experience the housechurch movement has been littered with such casualties-individuals and families who were encouraged to believe hypotheticals in terms of doctrine or the lived experiences of others.

This is an important issue for the 'fresh expressions movement' which risks forgetting that its 'fresh expression' is actually rather old hat as far as much of the wider Christian world is concerned. There have been many lessons-some sweet and some bitter learned by the Charismatic movement since the 1970's about the reality-internal and external of Christian life. I have come to think that one needs to carefully define the term 'risk' when discussing it in theological/praxis discourse because the terrm is highly loaded.

Fundamentally if your risk taking has the same quality of a sunday swimmer taking on the English channel then you are probably being presumtous and risk the consequence in real life events-this may well be very painful. If on the other hand you have decided its time you learned to dive on your sunday trip to the pool-and are to be found surreptitiously leafing through diving magazines-then it may be a risk worth taking!

For those involved in walking alongside others the issue of 'risk taking before God' is very very important to get as right as one can!!

[Mike Horsnall]

Postscript:
Just by way of it -There is another excellent book by Paul Tournier called The Strong and the Weak. Tournier is a Christian psychiatrist. He makes the point that 'weakness' is one form of reaction to fear while'Strength' is another-he also notes that the categories of 'weak' and 'strong' are basically constitutional types. Over 20 years as an Osteopath and three as a Samaritan I have come to agree with Tournier-That which we call'Weakness/Vulnerability' often comes wrapped up in a constitutional type-different constitutions suffer different illnesses e.g the strong have heart attacks the weak have gut problems and anxiety..etc.
The point is that it is quite dangerous to classify people in terms of their 'symptom pattern' this is because the superficial picture says nothing about the person per sec and begins a chain of thought which ends up saying that only the heros fit the bill!!