installations and icons

Art (installations) are a good way of communicating with people of different stages of faith. The images here are from the Stations of the Cross in Hamilton: an art installation that is created anew every evening of Holy Week in the Hamilton Gardens and again taken down every night after midnight.


It is a whole body experience for everyone. For the artists in keeping it running while getting more and more tired every evening and for the visitors who walk through the gardens with torches, encountering images, installations, film, and a hot chocolate at the end. Nothing is prescribed and everyone is free to react and interact differently to/with the installation. Everyone can take their time and engage as much as they feel safe. It offers active participation with open ended interpretation; room to move physically and cognitively. Creating the artwork is worship and communication as well.

I feel, however, that art installations and mystic experiences work particularly well for the early stages of faith (0 to 2) and again at the later stages (5+6). At stage 3 and 4, the looming loss of conformity may make it too scary to venture out into the unknown. Then, imagery such as icons may be perceived as safer because they are sanctioned by tradition.

-----
*Some of my points here have been addressed in much more detail in “The Prodigal Project” by Mike Riddell, Mark Pierson and Cathy Kirkpatrick (SPCK), all three of them from New Zealand (including the big West Island)!

** Icon is “The Holy Family” by Janet McKenzie, copyright 2007. www.janetmckenzie.com, Collection of Loyola School, New York, NY

safe space in a sermon

Looking at things I would not want to experience in a sermon, these would be: not being laughed about, shamed, made fun of, or left alone. For me it boils down to: not being first invited and then rejected.

For example, to be invited to think about something and then (just when one starts thinking) to be told how and what to think are forms of rejection of one’s contribution. Being invited to respond, but not leaving time (by continuing to talk or by providing an answer) is a rejection and a dishonouring.

It is important to leave room for people to move into and to honour that space as precious. A sermon does not stand on its own. Safe space is an attitude not a technique.

The honouring of people and the space a sermon may open for them has to go beyond the sermon. The conduct of the whole person counts: parishioners need to know that their contributions count and are held dear.

One can never know what rooms get opened for listeners. After a sermon, in treating the people with dignity we have to tread softly, because we may tread on their dreams, hopes or fears.

church but not as you know it (dialog in preaching)

Dialogue in preaching means starting a conversation. One form of encouraging people to actively engage in a dialogue is a group discussion. Part of the priest’s sermon has to give way to people’s contributions. That is, the `sermon’ may set the stage, pose questions or offer unusual ways to think about an issue by playing with expectations. The priest does not offer definitive answers but invites people into the shared space and triggers their responses.

At our church, we do this in a small informal service that gathers people in the sanctuary. There is, of course, some anxiety as one cannot script where this is going to take us. We have to sit though periods of silence while we listen to our inner voices responding to the questions that arise. Then, hopefully, some of these voices will be externalized and shared. Many voices are heard that normally may go unnoticed (or even unvoiced). The informal setting invites exploration and unusual ideas. Laughter often frees from constraints and worries of conformity.

The discussions are often continued in the local café. Church mingles with life. `Café churches’ are an interesting way to engage people and to invite them as a whole person.

I heard it through the grapevine…

How we see the role of grapevines in churches depends on whether we understand the church as a hierarchical structure controlled by priests, or a community of people.

Open grapevines work for fast communication in emergencies without formalities. They sometimes go wrong (see Julie's post). In community-oriented churches, priests do not need to know everything. However, they may want to ensure that people know when to check with them before running off with a good idea.

Secretive grapevines hide information. They indicate failing official communication within the church and highlight trust issues. I have seen priests in hierarchical churches trying to control by shaming and prohibiting talk. Secretive or controlling behaviour by a priest fertilises secretive grapevines.

Congregations have something to offer but may need guidance. To influence a grapevine, priests need to acknowledge its existence. Ignoring this communication and its validity, they may end up being disconnected from their parish. To dismiss the grapevine merely as "gossiping" may dismiss people's anxieties, hopes and needs.

A priest can open secretive grapevines and build trust by participating in low-key communication, such as sharing personal stories in small groups. Even for a priest it will take courage to let go of control.

(Because) we've got a great webdesigner, our website is terrific

I am a "critical friend" and didn't even know it!  My church had a website designed by a professional.  Then the priest changed. Then the administrator changed.  Suddenly news and pew-sheets were at least six months old.  The web designer WAS good – but he could not make up for outdated content.  

Now that the content has been updated, two main questions remain: what do we want to achieve with the site? How much ongoing effort are we willing to put into it? A web designer is like a hired driver: the client determines the destination.

To maintain an excellent website, the question of desire vs commitment needs careful thought and honest communication. Wishful thinking will not do.  One possible answer may be that less (with consistent quality) is more. Do not forget that a church is mainly run by volunteers. Enthusiasm runs high for new projects, but long-term maintenance is often less exciting.

And finally: Does a slick website truly represent the community? Should there be room for people to be involved even if that means a less-than-perfect image? I don't believe this decision should be left to the web designer!

I hope my church remembers I am a friend.

Hello everyone!

I am Annika, studying at Otago for a BTheol majoring in Christian Thought and History. This is my first paper in Pastoral Studies. I grew up in the German Democratic Republic and have been living in Hamilton, New Zealand, for seven years. I did not have a church background. However, several years down the track I find myself at St Peter's Cathedral in Hamilton helping out as a liturgist, reader, server... I hope to learn in this paper how to approach people with different beliefs and histories and how to find a common language to communicate despite different cultural backgrounds and expectations.