I've just spent four days at the Greenbelt Festival and once again I had a fascinating time. Allow me to list some of the activities I went to and took part in - for the record and for comment:
On Friday, I focussed on my main area of responbility - Last Orders. It's a late night chat/comedy/music show which starts at 11.15pm and rumbles on until about 1am. Among our guests that night were Brian McClaren - as in THE Brian McClaren. I met him earlier that day and he was a thoroughly pleasant and unassuming man. We teased him on the show for being in the list of Time Magazine's 25 most influential evangelicals. On the performance he gave - and what I've read - I don't question the influence. It's the evangelical part that seems up for grabs. On the show, we also had Victor Thiessen Nation, a film critic and organiser of film-club evenings;
On Saturday, I heard a talk by Frank Shaeffer, the son of Francis Shaeffer. He was giving a talk based on his book, Crazy for God - in which he gives a brutal account of family life, growing up in L'Abri, taking on his father's business/ministry and dropping out of it completely. He now attends a Greek Orthodox Church. I then took part in an event called 'Liquid Lunch' in which we talked about what we were looking forward to at the festival and what we'd already seen and done. It's meant to be fairly comic in tone.
That evening, I attended a panel discussion hosted by Dave Tomlinson called 'The Bible Tells me So'. Panellists included Pete Rollins, one of the founders of Ikon and a slightly rock'n'roll theologian from Northern Ireland. Also on the panel were Joel Edwards of the Evangelical Alliance, Richard Burridge from King's College London, Tina Beattie and AN other who's name I've forgotten, I'm afraid. It was a bizarrely good-natured discussion and they all attempted to say roughly the same thing. I was rather impressed with Pete Rollins and the way he would fling himself at the text. And he was insightful and fascinating at times. Later, I was assured that I wouldn't like this book - or his theology in general - but it was interesting nonetheless.
Later that night, it was Last Orders again, and we produced a fairly 'workmanlike'. Last Orders, with guests including Stu Hallam, a chaplain for the Royal Marines who had just served seven months in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. (What are the marines doing there? It's a land-locked country).
On Sunday morning, I attended a talk by a delightful and witty man called Andy Tate about Resurrection in Modern English literature. I chatted to him late and we compared notes about Kevin Pietersen's England Captaincy - and then we talked books and I resolved to read some Tim Winton. I then witnessed an interview with Philip Yancey conducted by Cole Moreton. It was short but interesting - and Cole asked Yancey how much money he made and what he did with it all. Good question and Yancey had a good answer.
That afternoon, I decline to attend the 'communion service'. The Sunday service is always a problem for me. In the past, I haven't attended because no-one gives a decent talk from the Bible which I stand any chance of agreeing with. (If they give a talk at all) This year, the thing that bugged me was the mis-use of communion. People like to think that communion is a sign of Christian unity. That's only part of what the Lord's Supper is, and shouldn't be used in indiscrimate way. Since no-one is 'guarding the table', a communion for 10,000 people from extraordinarily different backgrounds is, at best, a waste of time. At worst, it's an abomination. I haven't decided which it is.
Last Orders on Sunday night was our best show of the festival. Our guests were Frank Shaeffer and Joel Edwards, with some comedy from Jude Simpson and the Rev Gerald Ambulance, alter-ego of Steve Tomkins.
On Monday, I gave a talk on Comedy and the Bible, which was pleasingly full and seemed to go okay. Details are on the blog-post below. At 7pm, I saw a full show of the Rev Gerald Ambulance at which I laughed a lot. As I was listening, I was wondering how such an act would go down at Spring Harvest. Very badly, I thought. I thought it was hilarious and very close the bone at times, in a good way. Then at 9pm, I ate fish and chips listening to Miriam Jones in the Performance Cafe. Miriam Jones is thoroughly fab and I've been humming her tunes for the last 24 hours. Her myspace page is here.
Then at 11.15, Last Orders was a fairly loose affair, but a good one for it, I think. Our only guest was John Davies - who is a vicar who likes to walk places and think about them (psychogeography. seriouly. He's walked the route of the M62). We also had comedy from the ever-wonderful Paul Kerensa.
Overall, the festival frustrated me as I feel that Greenbelt is too at ease with itself. Greenbelt is normally awkward and challenging, but it felt that it had reached some sort of muddy consensus. But, given my opting out of communion and rubbing shoulders with great people who have a very different understanding of the Christian faith from me, it made me wonder what Christian unity looks like. It isn't in pretending to agree with each other, or not discussing the differences, or, perish the thought, sharing the Lord's Supper. So what is it?
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi James. So glad you enjoyed our set at the Cafe. We sure did. Such a good time. Thanks for the li'l plug.
Just reading your comments on communion. Me and Jez arrived just as it was starting, although if we'd been there all weekend I know I wouldn't have gone anyway - not really a 'crowd' person.
It was my first year at Greenbelt, but already I'm well up to speed on it's controversial and 'open' nature. It would be interesting to hear your further thoughts on the 'muddy consensus'.
Without disagreeing that communion with 10,000 people is a waste of time and maybe an abomination, your comment that Christian unity isn't in the Lord's Supper gave me a bit of a start. If you mean that it's difficult to understand/experience Christian unity in the context of thousands who don't know each other and as you say have different backgrounds, I would agree. Because God-with-us is always personal and particular, is always 'where we are', it's no wonder it's difficult to experience unity with so many people with whom we do not live life on a day to day basis; the Last Supper was eaten in the context of Jesus' closest companions. BUT, if you are saying (are you?) that the Lord's Supper is not the central reality of Christian unity in terms of what taking part in it 'says', then I emphatically disagree. When we take communion we declare our full dependence on Christ, which is the only thing that can save us from pride, from looking down on people who may disagree with us in whatever areas of the Christian faith, and thinking we've got it figured out. That Christ is the One in charge of everything in the world, is the one who forgives us and completes the ongoing salvation of ourselves, our communities and the earth, is surely where the unity of all Christians lies. By taking communion with other people who think differently than us, whom we maybe dislike, we submit ourselves and our brothers and sisters (who so clearly need to be straightened out, or so we think) to Christ. It seems to me that communion is THE THING that expresses our 'in-the-same-boat'ness, so that no matter what varying opinions we encounter, at Greenbelt or otherwise, on what following Jesus looks like, how to read scripture, whatever, we can be reminded that Christ is at the head of the table, and that can only teach us humility with one another.
So? What do you think?
Hi Miriam,
In principle, you are right - and I may well have overstated my case. I don't deny the body of Christ is our unity - and the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I also agree that theological differences don't have to be crippling and divisive all the time. And we all change our views on things and God's grace covers a multitude of error and stubborness!
What I'm questioning is the use of communion outside of a church family context. I'm really not sure it's appropriate. Here's the thing. If a member of your church congregation is openly committing adultery - and is unrepentant - do you give him communion on a Sunday? No. When he repents, seeks forgiveness and cheerfully return, normal service is resumed. By his unrepentent heart, he has put himself beyond the Lord's Table. He has rejected God's grace. What if he seeks to take communion elsewhere? He is free to do that, but he invokes God's judgment. And it is an unkind thing to give that man communion.
Here's 1 Corinthians 11:
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
Interesting. What I'm questioning - regardless of the godly desire for unity (which for a Church family does indeed centre around the Lord's Table) - is whether a communion service in that context is appropriate. As we seek unity, we long to share bread and wine together, but that may not be possible. If the Archibishop of Canterbury were there, he would be administering the communion. I could not, in all conscience, share the Lord's table with him - because we do not and currently cannot enjoy that unity that the Lord's Table brings.
So for now, my heart tells me it's not something I can partake in. And I'll cheerfully take communion with my own church family. And my infant daughter... (fresh can of worms anyones?)
All of that makes good sense, Jam, certainly. I think that's right.
Being an ecumenical sort of chap (I am always amused by the way the denomination system in the Church ignores 1Cor1) I love the Greenbelt communion service. It gives us a chance to break out of our comfortable religious traditions and get back to the core message by looking at the whole thing sideways. Mind you, that is a common theme at Greenbelt.
As your quote from 1Cor11 states, it is the responsibility of the individual to approach communion in an appropriate manner. If we have to start judging whether someone else is eligible then a)no one has a chance, and b)aren't we told not to go judging people?
Post a Comment