What I think strikes me is the exploratory nature of this, the possibilities of the risks.
Jazz improvisation as ‘conversation’ then involves soloing = which means one taking the lead; trusted by others to improvise, while comping is the others supporting. Even improvisers need others and must themselves in due time play such comping role. This seems to involve collaboration and teamwork to a degree even where words are not required, a look, nod or eye are enough to deliver/pass the message. Listening and responding then are of the essence and sensitivity. These form part of the opening of the space for ideas, for response and the taking on board others ideas. Such leadership requirements seem to me to suggest that we must learn to live less out of ur competencies and trsut the work of the Holy Spirit in us and among us, to work through us. It is a far more demanding and risky business to allow the Spirit to 'improvise' through us because we don't see too far ahead. It demands faith of a sort rooted and being built up in Christ - a faithful obedience. I think this is the sort of scripted life Brueggemann directs us to. I also think it is what will lift us in our leadership beyond the endless sense of despair as we see the edifaces crumble, number decrease, etc., etc., and further it will save us from 'false' platitudes of hope.
Organisationally/structurally, the implications for how churches wrestling to find a form that maintains the missionary participation today may revolve around the improvisory nature of life in the Spirit. How much structure is needed in this Post-bop genre will be an interesting one of course, and no-one can see ahead on that! Some studies have shown how the second/third generation of a movement sees all the initial intensities wane and growth rate slows. ( Noted by Donald E. Miller : Reinventing American Protestantism). I’ve also been reading Prayer and the Priesthood of Christ in the Reformed Tradition by Graham Redding (T&T Clark 2003) It covers several paradigm shifts in theology from early Fathers through to reformers and Scottish reformers. It takes a good look at worship and prayer and how our notions theologically about Christ’s priesthood have been affected. Anyway, it strikes me that looking at it from a Jazz improvisation perspective, we can see that in each historical period the emphasis, debates, creed forming, the liturgy, confessional standards were in part developed in relation to the focus of the times. That was why in looking back some aspects of their theology were not as developed. Some was spontaneous, some built on years of understanding, practice (pastorally) and ‘thousands of experiments’ which was exactly what Calvin’s Geneva was in a way and what Thomas Chalmers undertook in the poor house areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh and seeking Godly Commonwealth too. From a historical/doctrinal perspective there is much we can learn that would make us think, reflect and hopefully better understand where we are , but also with a sense of improvisus. This is not to say that we are more Jazz/swing or bebop about handling the past, for present and future, I do actually see in Acts 10 Peter go against the bounds of tradition and go 'outside' in conversation(postbop). Jazz improvisers are interested in creating new material, surprising themselves and others in spontaneous ways with the music. Jazz equally has no prescription of what is to be played.
“Spontaneity… is but the outcome of years of training and practice and thousands of experiments”. (Hauerwas, Against the Nations 1985: 52)
Keep improvising! Keep experimenting and risking!
