Category: Beth Keith

Beth Keith explores a recycled communion.

At Greenbelt I was invited onto a panel discussion about the sacraments, the role of the priest and the emerging church with Pete Rollins, Kester Brewin, Paula Gooder and Father Simon Rundell. In our discussions, one element that developed was the tension held within the sacraments of Eucharist and baptism to consecrate or desecrate. Do we remember Christ honestly if these sacraments are beautified or sanitised, or does a more honest remembrance necessitate an embrace of horror, dirt and abandonment? In recent years, we have heard of Ikon and Vaux's critique of communion, employing vivid imagery of the horror of Christ's death and how a beautified ritual removes us from the horror of the passion narrative. Does this go too far, or have they helped us to connect with the realness of those events?

I've had a few days to process the discussion and wonder if when we get talking about whole/broken or clean/dirty, we become opposing sides of the same axis. In the act of baptism or Eucharist, Christ calls us something new, so portrayals of these sacraments as consecration or desecration point to Christ only to the extent to which they embody a reimagination of what is broken/whole or clean/dirty.

A few months ago I was part of a communion event which drew on the recycling mantra: Reuse, Reduce, Recycle. In looking at Reuse, the group questioned what is waste, what do we consider waste which can be reused, and made connections between our judgements of 'who is acceptable' and 'who is waste' against Jesus' acceptance of all. In looking at Reduce, we looked at how our consumption affects others and used this as part of our confession. And then at the breaking of bread looked at how Christ's body was Recycled.

Perhaps engaging with the dirtiness of the sacraments helps us to connect to the deeper gospel message, but if we stop there do we miss the opportunity to reimagine dirt and waste? Recycling has transformed the notion of waste in our society; perhaps this imagery can help to understand Christ's actions.

Beth Keith discusses losing her church shoes.

When I think about what I think about church

My head automatically jumps to what I already know

What I have already experienced

What church has meant for me

With all its practises and churchologies

I am not a missionary heading off into the unknowable

I have baggage, church baggage, church shoes

During the last four years I have been involved with ReSource, developing training with pioneers starting churches in emerging culture. One of the themes we have revisited is: What makes something church? What is essential and what is negotiable? When given the chance to step back and think about what we do as church and what we believe about church, time and again people show genuine surprise at the amount of church practice which is habitual but not essential to what it means to be church.

Rowan Williams recently suggested that the church should be prepared to risk everything except 'those things that hold us to the truth of his presence – Word and sacrament'. But it's not just that it's risky to leave behind what you're comfortable with; isn't it also tricky to imagine what something could be like that is beyond what you've experienced?

Any discussion on essential elements of church prompts quite a bit of debate. As we've talked there has been recognition of the church as one, holy, catholic and apostolic (or words to that effect), but even with these as defining marks there is still enormous scope for diversity of both expression and understanding.  And the question remains: How do we move beyond all the extra stuff we do which isn't essential and give more time to the things we may value most about being church?

In last week's blog on Share, Richard Sudworth talked about the need for real listening in mission, listening which is active, transforming and relational: 'let the draught go both ways'. I suppose it would be fair to say that we have found that alongside this missiological conversation there is also a dynamic ecclesiological conversation to be had between our experience in mission and the historic, present and future church. It is a conversation that involves letting go of our church experience and stepping out of our church shoes. Only then can we come to the conversation open to the creative and imaginative Spirit. Only when we embrace the messy and improvised dialogue between mission and church do we find the essence of what being church is about.