seethrough

when last did you use the phrase “reading between the lines”. it commonly refers certain unspoken assumptions or special knowledges that are not referred to explicitly in the text. reading between the lines is then the “art” of interpreting a text based not only on what has been said but also on what has not been said.

it seems to me that what has not been said can sometimes prove more significant than what has actually been said. one of the effects of not saying things is that it excludes certain listeners. for instance, if certain specialised knowledges are taken as read by a speaker or writer, then only those who are familiar with those knowledges will easily be able to access the message. this is one of the ways that knowledge and power work together - to the extent that philosopher Michel Foucault chose to refer to them as a single entity, referring to “knowledge/power” in some of his writings.

when “subtext” is used to consciously exclude people i believe that this is unethical use of knowledge/power. but it is probably much more common - in everyday communication - that subtext plays a role without any malicious or prejudicial intent. subtext refers to anything that is not said in a communication, that is still playing a part in that communication. even if that subtext be unconscious or unknown to the speaker or writer!

what will help us to speak (and to write) with greater clarity and simplicity?

but sub-text is not always bad. humour is often very reliant on the subtext of a conversation. the humour is reliant on not everything being said.

the other interesting thought in this regard is the perspective of postmodern philosophers who are inclined to return to the text. for instance, in the area of psychology, postmodern practitioners are critical of a previous tendency to privilege subtext over the actual words and perspective of the client. according to their critique, psychology became overly focused on the privileged and specialised ability to interpret the subtext of a person’s life. some recent writing encourages a return to the surface (as it were) - a renewed focus on the actual words that are spoken (and chosen) by the client in a therapeutic conversation. This perspective discourages delving into reflections on subtext.

interesting alternative views - perhaps we need to acknowledge the subtle role of subtext in communication while at the same time, being careful not to discount the importance of the actual words that people have chosen to use when seeking to communicate something…

a gentle invitation

so we’ve got this corner in the garden where nothing will grow… which turns out to be a great opportunity to build a Labyrinth in my backyard! I’ve been fascinated with Labyrinths ever since I heard Richard Rohr speaking about them in one of his lectures. He suggested a few interesting ways in which the Labyrinth expresses Christ-following spirituality. He referred to the way that Labyrinths were situated outside or even inside churches in Europe as a “way” to move from the calculative mode of work and study into the contemplative space of worship and prayer.

love

A Labyrinth is not a Maze. The difference is easy to spot. A labyrinth only has one path that, if followed, will always lead to the centre. A Maze is fun, but it’s purpose is to perplex and challenge the calculative mind - it’s a challenge to see if you can find “the way”. The Labyrinth invites one to simply walk the path. There are many turns along the way, but ultimately the invitation is to walk without thinking too deeply. One can just walk - and your faithfulness will be rewarded. This is how the Labyrinth reflects the Grace of God and the Grace of the Journey (that is often referred to as “spiritual”). The Theology of Grace suggests that human effort does not ultimately get measured and then rewarded, but rather that it is God’s “effort” - or Love - that makes a Way.

hope

Another wonderful metaphor is reflected in some (not all) Labyrinths. For instance, the Lab in Chartres Cathedral is an 11 ring labyrinth. On the way to the centre a person will make 28 U-turns. The word for “repentance” in scripture means literally to “turn around”. And each of these turns is made at an intersection with the cross - either at the horizontal or the vertical intersection. Rohr suggests that this is symbolic of our ongoing and constant “conversions” or moments of repentance. As we encounter “the cross” - through the teaching of Jesus or moments of loss or pain - we are invited to repent, to turn and continue. And these turns are not failures because while it may seem like we are winding without purpose, the Labyrinth reminds us that every turn is a “progress” on the path. This is hope.

faith

another symbol which i like is the way one progresses through the labyrinth. as with most journeys of growth, there is an initial passion and energy. Like when we are first “converted”. It feels almost like we are close to heaven. You will notice on the Chartres Lab and also on the one I am building that initially the path moves quickly toward the centre. It feels as if one will arrive very quickly. But the reality of most significant journeys in life is that one will have to let go of quick-fix solutions and easy fast-track routes, in favour of the longer, enduring path that winds (frustratingly) away from the goal for some time before it turns again toward the centre and some kind of “resolution” or comfort - a point from which there is some measure of understanding of the path that has been walked. in this sense, the Labyrinth is a symbol of the invitation - the divine invitation of faith: faithfulness. or in my backyard terms - just keep walking.

staff are leaving. significant staff. the organisation is grieving. it’s natural - but painful, of course. today was the last day at the office for two of my colleagues… i kind of played MC to their goodbye speeches. they spoke well and it was a good day all round.

but tiring and draining.

so i get home. starving. wonderful wife has not only minded two children all morning but she has also made lunch. i plonk down and begin eating. after grace, of course. elaine asks a question. when i don’t reply she asks again (i think, this is my best recollection). I actually misheard her which is why i didn’t respond in a way which made her think i heard.

but my non-response registered a very interesting comment from elaine. she said something like: “not too worry - it just means that you’re not home yet.”

i really did mishear what she said - but her comment wasn’t far from the mark. i get home buggered and in so many ways i’m at home… but I’m not home yet…

which raises all sorts of questions about being present.  physical presence is no guarantee of the kind of presence that most significant others are hoping and longing for.  to be present in this deeper sense requires attentiveness - giving our attention to the person or activity.  this kind of attentiveness requires concern and compassion - and that means it requires energy…

to be present will best be done then, when we are rested.

i suppose the pain of many relationships between partners and also between parents and children is that time given to these significant relationships is usually given after our energy has been sapped at work all day…  which makes it hard to really be present.

i’ve known Max for longer than i’ve known my wife. he was a faithful friend. he was a beautiful dog - mistaken by many for a Wolf or a Husky, he was a white German Shepherd. He was gentle and thought he was small enough to be a great lap dog. he loved attention and running free. the maxer slept in my room with me through the loneliest nights and always behaved like a gentleman. he never rushed to his food - always taking time to greet people before getting to the bowl. in fact, sometimes food just didn’t seem a priority at all. there were more important things for Max.

He’s been struggling with his hips for some time and so we had to seriously consider his quality of life over the past few weeks. But yesterday we found him very distressed and the Vet suggested that he was poisoned with Insecticide which is hugely distressing. He died this morning at 8am. When I saw him this morning he was lying peacefully in the garden of the Vetinary Clinc and sat with his lifeless body for a while and gave thanks for a quiet gentle gracious companion.

do not think me gentle
because I speak in praise
of gentleness, or elegant
because I honour the grace
that keeps this world. I am
a man crude as any,
gross of speech, intolerant,
stubborn, angry, full
of fits and furies. That I
may have spoken well
at times, is not natural.
A wonder is what it is.

(A warning to my readers by Wendell Berry)

a few weeks ago i showed a video clip of Richard Dawkins (of The God Delusion fame) and so introduced a radical “atheist” voice - presenting a reasonable call away from the dangers and harmfulness of religion…

I think many people feel that they have questions they would want to ask an Athiest - like what do you think happens when you die? etc.

What question would you ask a person like Dawkins?

I want to know if he ever kneels.

i just watched the movie as it is in heaven - a must see! among other things, it reflects the worst of the church, especially the moralistic nature of calvinistic protestantism. for those needing a reason not to participate in a church community, the movie could offer many reasons to avoid any kind of formal or institutional religious community. and they’d probably be making a fairly good, reasonable decision - and save themselves a lot of pain!

but why does the movie resonate so deeply with my soul. i am a church-man. ordained minister of an established and highly institutional christian denomination. and yet i identify with the ideals of compassion, freedom, inclusivity, belonging of the new community represented by the choir in the movie. I want to believe that the movie is not a call to abandon the church community in favour of other forms of community. every new movement seems to end up becoming institutionalised and loses it’s original freedom and focus. The movie stands as a gentle and yet powerful reminder of the primary reasons we are called to live in community. The impact of the little Choir-community in a rural swedish town represents what i believe a gospel community will always look like.

it’s hard to live with this tension: on the one hand, i love the church - i sense the incredible potential it holds. it has the vision and passion of jesus to guide it and inspire it. it has the compassionate and surrendered jesus to keep it kind and tender-hearted. on the other hand, i see all the signs of stubbornness - rejection of the freedom of jesus and a return to the legalism and fear of patriarchal religion.

when I ask questions about the church - and raise serious concerns about the church’s faithfulness to the teaching of Jesus, i am treated with a certain skepticism… the implication is that if I don’t believe in “the way things have always been done”, I don’t actually believe in anything at all…

it’s sad that asking honest questions gets you lumped with the label “faithless”. somehow i sense that it is in asking the difficult questions that faith is revived.

I believe in community - people sharing their lives with compassion and generosity. I believe we are always being called - by jesus - away from the habits of ME into the ways of WE…
away from the habits of FEAR (which always seems to lead to judgement) into the ways of PEACE (which is contentment)…
away from the habits of ATTACHMENT and HOARDING into the ways of CELEBRATION, JOY and FREEDOM!

p.s. i think a wonderful gift of the movie is that the choir leader is not set up as a messiah figure. although he has gifts to share, he is also wounded and fearful like the others. perhaps the closest person to a “messiah” in the movie is Lena, the young blonde girl who has a reputation for being a loose woman, but who knows how to love without holding on too tightly… “there is no death!”

what happens when you listen to the voice of the outsider?

well, many things actually. lately we have been listening to the “outside voice” at my church. rather than creating a “special” meeting to do this, i put pressure on to have the voices in our regular evening service of worship. my view is that if we can’t speak about stuff in a worship service, then there’s something wrong.

we asked some questions (in an interview style) of a gay man who is in a same-sex relationship and is engaged to be married. We also interviewed two people who are living with disability. we listened to (via video interview) the voice of a social activisit who doesn’t have an easy relationship with the church (Bono of the band U2). and finally, we watched a clip of Richard Dawkins speaking (of The God Delusion fame) and considered how we might respond to the voice of Science, and particularly the voice of those who are opposed to religion.

so, what happened . interesting! Some people struggled with the concept I think. I got emails asking me why we would ask an “atheist” to speak at our church. Some people boy-cotted the evening, meaning that they are not able to speak about the evening from personal experience of the conversation. Listening to the Gay man produced mised results. Some previously “homophobic” (in their own words) people came away from the interview with new openness. Others expressed a struggle with what the Bible says about the issue. I believe (”people are saying”) there are a group of people who are disconcerted about the topics we have convered, but have not spoken to me directly about that. I really appreciate those who spoke to me or emailed me their concerns.

What was emcouraging was that there were some incredible responses. One man who has really struggled with the church because he is a philosophical thinker and finds many of the ways that the church speaks very simplisitic (i think - i shouldt speak for him!) - anyway - he said that the evening on science and religion was one of the most amazing experiences of church he has ever had! Another person complimented the service in this way: “You manage to take a huge subject and not simplify it yet give understanding of it. Simultaneously you manage to encourage and challenge people to be open, to let go of fear and even trust a little more. You have amazing ability to get to the crux of the matter and you communicate with great clarity!”

to sum up:  what happens when a community of faith listens to outside voices… a lot happens!  There’s vigorous debate both in the earshot of the “pastor” and amongst ordinary members of the church… people get talking.  there’s conversation - lively interaction.  disagreement happens and people clarify and confirm what it is they believe - and more importantly - what is important and what is not so important.  the community is challenged to reflect on what they are “for” as well as what they are “against”…

i’d say, what happens is that a community of faith comes alive!  one thing i can assure you is that over the past month, if you checked the pulse of the St John’s community, you’d find that we’re alive!!!