The Eastern Orthodox Church records Isidora Barankis of Egypt (d. 369) among the first Holy Fools. However, the term was not popularized until the coming of Symeon of Emesa, who is considered to be a patron saint of holy fools[1][5]. In Greek, the term for Holy Fool is salos.
The yurodivy (Russian: юродивый, jurodivyj) is the Russian version of Foolishness in Christ (Russian: юродство, yurodstvo or jurodstvo), a peculiar form of Eastern Orthodox asceticism. The yurodivy is a Holy Fool, one who acts intentionally foolish in the eyes of men. He or she often goes around half-naked, is homeless, speaks in riddles, is believed to be clairvoyant and a prophet, and may occasionally be disruptive and challenging to the point of seeming immoral (though always to make a point).
The practice was recognised in the hagiography of fifth-century Byzantium, and it was extensively adopted in Muscovite Russia, probably in the 14th century.
The madness of the yurodivy was ambiguous, and could be real or simulated. He (or she) was believed to have been divinely inspired, and was therefore able to say truths which others could not, normally in the form of indirect allusions or parables. He had a particular status in regard to the Tsars, as a figure not subject to earthly control or judgement.
The first reported fool-for-Christ in Russia was St. Procopius (Prokopiy), who came from the lands of the Holy Roman Empire to Novgorod, then moved to Ustyug, pretending to be a fool and leading an ascetic way of life (slept naked on church-porches, prayed throughout the whole night, received food only from poor people). He was abused and beaten, but finally won respect and became venerated after his death.[6]
One of the best-known modern examples in the Russian Church is perhaps St Xenia of Saint Petersburg.
The Russian Orthodox Church numbers 36 yurodivye among its saints, most prominently Basil Fool for Christ, who gives his name to Saint Basil's Cathedral in Moscow. Fools for Christ are often given the title of Blessed (блаженного), which among the Orthodox does not necessarily mean that the individual is less than a saint (as in the Roman Catholic Church), but rather points to the blessings from God that they are believed to have acquired.
Implications for missional people?
-- taken from Wikipedia
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Entering, Attending, Dwelling and Listening . . .
Try this interaction: - entering, attending, dwelling and listening . . .
to and with your spouse, with a good friend;
to and with your Church or small group fellowship;
to and with the Scriptures - Old and New;
to and with your children;
to and with your parents;
to and with your colleagues, school-mates;
to and with your neigbour
to and with what God is already up to in the neighborhood.
to and with your spouse, with a good friend;
to and with your Church or small group fellowship;
to and with the Scriptures - Old and New;
to and with your children;
to and with your parents;
to and with your colleagues, school-mates;
to and with your neigbour
to and with what God is already up to in the neighborhood.
Al Roxburgh's Thoughts
Alan Roxburgh re the 'Missional Church'
Roxburgh believes:
* We don’t need to hear any more bad news about declining numbers. We know we’re in trouble. We just need to work out how we can live in the world we’re in.
* The maps of the 20th century, still used in training of clergy, are no longer as helpful in helping us grow.”
* We can’t continue to rely on the models of church growth used in the 20th century. Producing babies to replace ourselves, is no longer cutting it.
* The 40/40 rule, in which graduates could count on 40 years of secure work at 40 hours a week, is the foundation of our expectation of volunteer commitment. But the rule is no longer in use in the workplace.
* We’ve relied on loyalty in the past, hoping that people will sign up based on their existing sense of commitment to the denominational or local brand. For many denominations, the way to deal with the new scene is to transfer all hope into church planting. But we’re discovering that the dynamics have changed even in new environments. We’re in a time of transition from a previous environment of stability and control into a new future that is unpredictable and beyond our control.
* We should avoid the ’saviour mentality’ found in many models in which congregations buy in a CEO/dynamic visionary senior minister who can identify, articulate and roll out vision, goals and outcomes. The model imposes many of the categories of modernity which have led the church to where it is now.
* Despite many books giving advice on how we configure the church, we still have the challenge of working through culture change, changing the cultural imagination of a group of people in a particular setting.
* We’re used to the model of defining the problem, defining the solution and rolling out a strategic plan. We need to avoid presenting a ‘plan’ which has the potential to drive or disillusion people in a way that is ’straight out of hell’.
* Leaders need the skills to cultivate an environment, create spaces for the ‘in between’ where the Spirit is given the opportunity to work. Much of our work is ‘fast track’, moving quickly from strange to familiar, the other to the close. Many of our plans take the ‘other’ and make them objects for our own ends. Much of our efforts at project management are about the baggage of ministers.
* We need to begin where people are, not where we want them to be. For example, much of the ‘emerging church’ conversation assumes that Pentecost was just for young people. The reality was that the visitors to Jerusalem were likely to be in retirement age, making Pentecost a ‘geriatric event’.
* People need to be invited into conversations that seek to help them make sense of their lives, and that give them language for the world in which they live. We need the means to listen to the narratives beneath the narratives. Too often, congregations are not a place where people are invited into free speech. People are told what they should believe and say.
* We can start by cultivating awareness of the world around us. We can help people find words for the reality around them. We can invite people into ongoing dialogue about their growing awareness, recognizing that we’re usually aware of 10 percent at most of our world (like an iceberg). Free speech includes sticking with the dialogue long enough to hear what is really going on in the community. It means resisting the tendency to look for the ‘real agenda’.
* When we have developed the skills of patient listening and dialogue then we can ask “What does this mean for us as a congregation?”
* This is about dialogue. It is not about organizational change. Organizational change is a waste of time if you are trying to change culture. It’s only useful after the fact of change. Not changing anything provides space for listening and dialogue.
* We should stop focusing on the church. Look at what is happening in the world.
* We must go out into the villages, enter our neighbourhood(s), enter into the homes of the other. Enter their narratives.
Roxburgh believes:
* We don’t need to hear any more bad news about declining numbers. We know we’re in trouble. We just need to work out how we can live in the world we’re in.
* The maps of the 20th century, still used in training of clergy, are no longer as helpful in helping us grow.”
* We can’t continue to rely on the models of church growth used in the 20th century. Producing babies to replace ourselves, is no longer cutting it.
* The 40/40 rule, in which graduates could count on 40 years of secure work at 40 hours a week, is the foundation of our expectation of volunteer commitment. But the rule is no longer in use in the workplace.
* We’ve relied on loyalty in the past, hoping that people will sign up based on their existing sense of commitment to the denominational or local brand. For many denominations, the way to deal with the new scene is to transfer all hope into church planting. But we’re discovering that the dynamics have changed even in new environments. We’re in a time of transition from a previous environment of stability and control into a new future that is unpredictable and beyond our control.
* We should avoid the ’saviour mentality’ found in many models in which congregations buy in a CEO/dynamic visionary senior minister who can identify, articulate and roll out vision, goals and outcomes. The model imposes many of the categories of modernity which have led the church to where it is now.
* Despite many books giving advice on how we configure the church, we still have the challenge of working through culture change, changing the cultural imagination of a group of people in a particular setting.
* We’re used to the model of defining the problem, defining the solution and rolling out a strategic plan. We need to avoid presenting a ‘plan’ which has the potential to drive or disillusion people in a way that is ’straight out of hell’.
* Leaders need the skills to cultivate an environment, create spaces for the ‘in between’ where the Spirit is given the opportunity to work. Much of our work is ‘fast track’, moving quickly from strange to familiar, the other to the close. Many of our plans take the ‘other’ and make them objects for our own ends. Much of our efforts at project management are about the baggage of ministers.
* We need to begin where people are, not where we want them to be. For example, much of the ‘emerging church’ conversation assumes that Pentecost was just for young people. The reality was that the visitors to Jerusalem were likely to be in retirement age, making Pentecost a ‘geriatric event’.
* People need to be invited into conversations that seek to help them make sense of their lives, and that give them language for the world in which they live. We need the means to listen to the narratives beneath the narratives. Too often, congregations are not a place where people are invited into free speech. People are told what they should believe and say.
* We can start by cultivating awareness of the world around us. We can help people find words for the reality around them. We can invite people into ongoing dialogue about their growing awareness, recognizing that we’re usually aware of 10 percent at most of our world (like an iceberg). Free speech includes sticking with the dialogue long enough to hear what is really going on in the community. It means resisting the tendency to look for the ‘real agenda’.
* When we have developed the skills of patient listening and dialogue then we can ask “What does this mean for us as a congregation?”
* This is about dialogue. It is not about organizational change. Organizational change is a waste of time if you are trying to change culture. It’s only useful after the fact of change. Not changing anything provides space for listening and dialogue.
* We should stop focusing on the church. Look at what is happening in the world.
* We must go out into the villages, enter our neighbourhood(s), enter into the homes of the other. Enter their narratives.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
So Send I You . . .
So, perhaps really just trying to break the ice, I said: "Well, I see that your church sanctuary could seat about 300 people - but somehow you have managed to 'grow' it down to 30. But - not to despair: Jesus only had 12 or so to start with!"
Pressing on, I asked: "What would it take . . . what kind of church would prepare and send out 30 missioners this week, rather than those 30, or their leaders at least, ruing the fact that 'golly, we only have 30 people around here anymore to 'run the church?'"
Could this church be perhaps one - perhaps the only church in this community, that is preparing it's people to go, or at least 'as they go' - to be missioners - as opposed to paying some pastoral leader(s) to do religious things (trying to get congregants to help - though mostly ducking when the nominating committee draws night) - paying some or committing ourselves to doling out religious goods and services on our turf (ie. the local church building), when and if the 30 manage to bring a friend, attracting them somehow to the programs, and to the building, of the local church - attracting them to our building and programs and necessarily extracting them from where they usually live and move and have their being (i.e. the neighbourhood, work, where they work-out, etc.)
Pressing on, I asked: "What would it take . . . what kind of church would prepare and send out 30 missioners this week, rather than those 30, or their leaders at least, ruing the fact that 'golly, we only have 30 people around here anymore to 'run the church?'"
Could this church be perhaps one - perhaps the only church in this community, that is preparing it's people to go, or at least 'as they go' - to be missioners - as opposed to paying some pastoral leader(s) to do religious things (trying to get congregants to help - though mostly ducking when the nominating committee draws night) - paying some or committing ourselves to doling out religious goods and services on our turf (ie. the local church building), when and if the 30 manage to bring a friend, attracting them somehow to the programs, and to the building, of the local church - attracting them to our building and programs and necessarily extracting them from where they usually live and move and have their being (i.e. the neighbourhood, work, where they work-out, etc.)
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Znaimer's Manifesto re Television
Znaimer's Manifesto re Television - implications for Mission ?. . .
1: Television is the triumph of the image over the printed word.
2: The live nature of television is flow, not show; process, not conclusion.
3: A global television expands the demand for local programming increases.
4: The best TV tells me what happened to me, today.
5: TV is as much about the people bringing you the story as the story itself.
6: In the past, TV's chief operating skill was political. In the future, it will have to be mastery of the craft itself.
7: Print created illiteracy, TV is democratic. Everybody gets it.
8: TV creates immediate consensus, subject to immediate change.
9: There never was a mass audience, except by compulsion.
10: Television is not a problem to be managed; but an instrument to be played.
1: Television is the triumph of the image over the printed word.
2: The live nature of television is flow, not show; process, not conclusion.
3: A global television expands the demand for local programming increases.
4: The best TV tells me what happened to me, today.
5: TV is as much about the people bringing you the story as the story itself.
6: In the past, TV's chief operating skill was political. In the future, it will have to be mastery of the craft itself.
7: Print created illiteracy, TV is democratic. Everybody gets it.
8: TV creates immediate consensus, subject to immediate change.
9: There never was a mass audience, except by compulsion.
10: Television is not a problem to be managed; but an instrument to be played.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)