seethrough

do you have to believe to benefit?

for instance:

• do you have to believe that Jesus is God in human form (incarnate) to benefit from Jesus being God’s human form? or,
• is Jesus’ death on the cross only beneficial for those who believe that he died for them (or that his death has some significance for them)?

and if believing isn’t the big issue… (as we’ve been led to believe)

… then what IS the big issue?

can the acts of God be effective and beneficial to us no matter how we view them?  John Wesley pointed out that the Devil of Hell believes Jesus is the Son of God but that doesn’t necessarily help him…

i’m tired of bored people looking for a fix.  this quest for “miracles” that takes us looking for unexplained things, as if unexplained phenomenon prove the existence of God…

I was struck this morning as i shared Communion with the people of my church what a miracle it is to get 200 people from different backgrounds, political affiliations, languages and cultures all kneeling together in peace around a simple table and a simple meal.

In fact all the great miracles are the one’s that are easy to explain, but difficult to do:  e.g. political leaders choosing peaceful settlement rather than war - not inexplicable and yet a miracle if it happens.  or witnessing a person who has been deeply hurt coming to a place of forgiveness - not an alien sighting, and yet somehow so much more profound and miraculous when it happens.

this christmas, i’m looking out for the “ordinary” miracles - when the prince of peace comes i think he’ll get us busy on the stuff of miracles…  peace, goodwill toward people, hungry people fed, oppressed people freed…  nothing spectacular, but truly miraculous when it happens!

as a minister i participate with and serve a congregation that meets in a church building that is over 110 years old. it’s acutally stunning gothic architecture. but because I really believe that God’s church is built of living stones (1 Peter 2:5) i had to find another word to refer to the church building… so “church” refers to the body of people who make up “St John’s Methodist Church” and “sanctuary” has been the word that i most often use to refer to the beautiful old church building where we worship.

this morning we baptised Thomas. he was delightful. crawled around the carpet in the front of the church and played with hsi brother during the service. It struck me that the word “sanctuary” could be a part of the reason why some people don’t like children to make noise and interupt worship. If sanctuary means a place of safety from noise - then obviously there will be many who are excluded (e.g. young Thomas who is not even 2 yet, a young woman who is autistic and who somtimes gets quite verbal, a person who really loves rock music played as it should be played - LOUD etc…)

But there could be another way of thinking about the word: sanctuary could refer to a place of safety from condmenation. I would like to think that the Sanctuary of St John’s is a place of safety where everyone is welcome and safe from any kind of condemnation or exclusion…

and as regard noise in the Sanctuary i prefer Jesus take on that one: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (matt 19:14)

i think the term seeker-sensitive is sick. it misses the point. firstly it’s not consistent with the teaching of Jesus to have a (single) seeker-sensitive service - aimed at reaching seekers. we are all seekers. some of us may have found some help and healing in traditional church organisations, but that doesn’t mean we’re not seeking any longer. also, if “seeker” refers to a person who is not affiliated to a church but who might benefit from association (i.e. they just need some kindness and a welcoming invitation) then EVERY service should be a “seeker-sensitive” service. in fact, everything we do (if we take the words of Jesus seriously - mt 28:18f) should be oriented toward expressing God’s kindness toward the “lost sheep”, the “lost coin”, the “lost lamb”…secondly, i think it’s a sick (read not healthy) church that resorts to seeker-sensitive events. we further reinforce the perception that we are trying to catch people off-guard, wangling them into a religious affiliation or spiritual committment that they weren’t planning to make. i think we are reaping the (rightful) rewards off too many American church-growth books. jesus never asked us to grow churches. he asked us to make disciples. and to do it in the Way that he had - with great patience and compassion. i think the reason we fail to convince seekers to join us is because of the poverty of our spirituality. we don’t take the radical teaching of Jesus seriously.

When John’s (the baptist) followers approach Jesus on his behalf to ask `Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?’ (luke 7:20) Jesus didn’t point to how many church’s he’d planted or how many copies of the scriptures he’d distributed. He referred to Isaiah’s inspiring vision: “The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.” (22)

ok - lot’s of opinion (opinionated opinion) here… what am i suggesting?

• let’s see opportunities to connect with “seekers” as opportunities to learn (and listen) rather than convert them. nine times out of ten they have pretty good reasons why they are shy of religious organisations. let’s listen and learn and pray we don’t inflict the same wounds that were inflicted on them before…
• let’s proceed (as the religious organisation) with much more humility about our importance in God’s overall plan. The Spirit may use us or not use us. we are not indispensable. i do think God doesn’t want to act without partners - so we may be able to play a significant role. but God also has an uncanny way of using dodgy (read non-church-going) partners to get the work done…
• let’s stop trying to convert people and get them to say some “sinner’s prayer” - as if God really cares about short-term quick fixes (I mean do we really ever follow-up and care for those people who “put their hands up”?). Let’s adopt a long-term strategy where people and their lives will be our ongoing concern. whether they come to believe in Jesus or not will be secondary to us actually trying to treat them in a way that would honour Jesus…

work out your salvation with fear and trembling - phil 2:12

today salvation has come to this house - luke 19:9

am i too harsh on us religious organisationalists?

my early mentor and role-model in the ministry wrote this in a Christmas letter…

Response to Jacob Zuma’s election – at last the voice of the poor is being heard in South Africa! I think there’s little to fear in what’s happened - in fact it’s a chance to start again, in a country with huge riches, to share what we have (e.g. our GINI coefficient is still amongst the worst in the world.) And the story’s not about one man (unlike the Mbeki style). And even if Zuma is convicted, the new Deputy, Kgalema Motlante, has long experience in governance.

besides always being interested in what he has to say about things like this, i’m also always interested to hear an alternative voice. I personally think that most objections to Zuma have tended toward the moralistic (read judgemental) and reflect the affluent preference for a “Mbeki” who will not rock the economic boat too much. i think it is helpful to interpret Zuma’s election in terms of the poor needing to be heard!

i’m beginning to wonder what actually happens in “counselling”. a large percentage of the people I meet with for “counselling” conversation come with the already formed view that they have a significant problem which needs to be fixed. The assumption seems to be that if the problem is fixed, their lives will be happier, easier, whatever…

for instnace, two recent conversations…

i was talking to someone the other day who came to see me because “their life is out of control”. this person feels very overwhelmed at the moment and came to speak to me because it felt like they were out of control. the conversation went in the usual direction for about 30 minutes. the person outlined all the many things that are going wrong and the many things that have added to the woes of life in the past year…

i felt suddenly prompted to ask a very direct and leading question: “what would you say if I said to you: you’re doing really well? (considering all that you’ve been through)” (now i realise that this question could have negative consequences. it might give the person the idea that their problems are insignificant and that i am not that empathetic of their struggle. but i hoped it would have the opposite effect. firstly that it would acknowledge that it’s been a tough year. and secondly, that it would affirm the person for coping - admirably - under the harsh circumstance they have been facing.)

this person seemed relieved at my suggestion. obviously assumptions and viewpoints aren’t abandoned easily or immediately, but as the conversation progressed i got the sense that she might not need to come and speak to me again - that she was growing in confidence in her own coping abilities.

Coming away from the conversation i wondered about my own tendency to want to fix problems - perceiving my body and my life as a machine that must work efficiently (and it it’s not, must be repaired so that it can) - rather than live a life - seeing my life as a journey that musy inevitably encounter rough roads and difficult patches. the Fixing problems approach to life means that times of difficulty are seen as things to avoid, eliminate - and are usually perceived as some kind of failure of the self. the live your life approach to living acknowledges my humanness - the fact that my body and my heart are vulnerable to pain, getting tired etc. problems are seen as a part of the journey and my body is not expected to operate at 100% efficiency all the time… in fact, the live your life approach might even begin to embrace times of vulnerability as a part of the journey, even when those times are not particularly pleasant. most important, this approach encourages my to be kind to myself through tough times, rather than driving myself to keep on operating…

another conversation. with a young person who has been through immense trauma. everyone around this young person is wanting him to be OK. but a few months after immense trauma makes me think that it’s going to be a while before he is back to his “same old self”. one of the things a parent said was “he has changed”. my thought (unspoken) was: “of course he’s changed - what do you expect after an experience like that!!!!”

talking with the young man (he’s already seen many counsellors and other ministers) the constant message he’s been fed is that there are serious problems that need to be fixed. in fact, some ministers even spoke with certainty that he is affected by “evil forces” - read demon possession. i found him to be intelligent, able to think independently, sensitive, sensible, and my sense was that he has had to grow up quickly over the past few months since the trauma…
i felt huge anger toward the many “conusellors” who have fed and nourished this young person’s sense that he is NOT OK. (I am not down-playing the trauma - just trying to acknowledge that under the circumstances, he is doing well…) at the end of our conversation i summed up and suggested that I thought he was doing well… and his response was “i think so too”

wow, it’s satisfying and humbling when something you say find resonance with someone else - did he finally find someone who reflected what he is feeling?

i remember once reading an article entitled “the problem with talking about the problem” - i think there are some “counsellors” out there who need to reflect on the long-term consequences of their way of working.

are there still people who don’t use soap on their face?

well, i use Lux!

are there still people who get uptight about people spelling Christmas with an X?

well, in Greek, the language that most of the Christian Scriptures was originally written in, the word for Christ begins with an “X” - Xristos…  (the “X” resembles a “Ch”)

the more concerning thing for me (more than the irritation value of people sending around emails whining about the deplorable disrespect of the society in whih we live) is the fact that we might actually think our efforts are “for Jesus” - do we really think Jesus is most concerned about his “name” or his reputation…  when he arrives in a stable in Bethlehem - that’s like being born in a shack in Germiston!!!

on this blog i think i write more than i probably should on the topic of the so-called spiritual life. which raises a huge dilemma for me: if we assume that integrity and wholeness flow from a rejection of unhelpful dualism (drawing a disctinction between the physical and the spiritual) and that a helpful “spirituality” will be one that takes seriously questions of body, mind AND spirit (Dallas Willard would add to that list, community or relationships and group all four categories of human life under the heading “SOUL”) then what shall we call that journey? to refer to is as a spiritual life or a spiritual journey fails to acknowledge the new focus on body and spirit, physical and spiritual, together (along with other things categories that might need to be included in a wholistic model of healthy living)

what do you suggest?

at first i just dropped the adjective “spiritual” and spoke about the journey or about life. but that doesn’t do proper justive to the sense of intentionality expressed by the phrase “spiritual life”. usually when that phrase is used, it refers to a more intentional approach to spirituality. so how do we speak about an intentional journey that embraces growing wholeness in all of these important aspects of being human.

If the word soul can be distinguished from the word spirit then perhaps “the soul journey” could describe this important integrating journey seeking wholeness through greated wholeness…

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Christians always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in South Africa

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the information era, or longer life spans.

a friend emailed the following message through this morning:

Hi all,
A great theologian, Tom Torrance passed away last week Sunday. We thank God for his tremendous gifts.

which raised the question in my mind… what is a “great theologian”.
some of the questions I would ask of a theologian who wants to be remembered as “great” are

• did you participate in a local community of faith? (and how did that participation contribute to your work as “theologian”?)
• how did ordinary people - ordinary readers of scripture - respond to your communication of things theological? how accessible would you say your writings (or communications) are to the ordinary reader/listener?
• who gets most excited when your theology is presented? (and who most benefits from the theological position or perspective you have chosen to adopt or hold?)

I am not familiar with the work of Tom Torrance, so my questions are no reflection on his greatness. what is becoming increasingly clear for me is that the work of theology is most clearly the work of the faith community in vital conversation with other knowledges, and not the other way around. (i.e. theology being done in the academy with occasional reference to the faith community…)

so often i read ideas in books that really excite me. i feel such a sense of ordinariness when compared to these amazing men and women who write books and are often quoted and regarded as “authorities” in their fields. and yet, so often they never pastored a local church - and that makes me wonder about how viable their theory is - how authorative their teaching is when it’s never been tested.

theologians who are able to integrate theory into a living community of faith (the church), are the ones who really get my admiration…