Deep Ecclesiology and Learning

TSK has been writing on the term Deep ecclesiology which was the first time I had come across the phrase.
The term has been picked up and used by bloggers in a number of ways one definition TSK offers is –

We practice “deep ecclesiologyâ€?– rather than favoring some forms of the church and critiquing or rejecting others, we see that every form of the church has both weaknesses and strengths, both liabilities and potential.”

For me his definition links into the Generous Orthodoxy of Brian Maclaren. I like both terms Deep ecclesiology and Generous Orthodoxy and the sentiment, acceptance and openness that they express. I have recently been doing some work on Learning and the concept of Deep Learning both for lecturing and for my own thinking about process ecclesiology (which builds on tacking). Deep Learning includes a scale that moves from “performative understanding” through “direct application to indirect application” to finally a “holistic integration”

I am left wondering if the definition TSK offers is more apt to Generous Orthodoxy and whether “deep ecclesiology” has a notion of process involved because it is evolving from the growing emerging church movement. As we move to a deeper and greater understanding of church through the praxis of the emerging church movement are we moving to towards a deep ecclesiology that is more integrated, more holistic, and whilst hopefully maintaining the openness that TSK’s definition offers is also more actualised. By actualised I don’t mean that it is a theology of church that thinks it has arrived but one that has a greater sense of holistic integration and knows itself better so it can get on with task of being the type of church that serves the world well.

3 thoughts on “Deep Ecclesiology and Learning

  1. well now I’ve read it a couple of times.. and I think I’m starting to get it.. it seems that you keep coming from with a different perspective – which obviously is challenging, and something I support in theory, but the practical implication is that I have to think.. so it seems like a good idea – to move beyond nice ideas into praxis

  2. for me I think the practical implcations are quite broad. It is about seeing mission and church as an integrated whole and letting this inform what you do. It is also links to a phrase that TSK used about deep eccelesiology “being round the next corner” and I wonder if we spend too much time thinking about how we do church and not enough time on what is church. The practice is about liberating and valuing much of what is already happening and it gives a language to describe what we were doing in our front room with young people from the estate 10 years ago, when we would have been in trouble if we had tried to call it church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.