seethrough

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!!!

not really, but i thought I’d get the attention of some of my nerd-theologian friends… (or used-to-be-friends…)

a few days ago I wrote about my understanding of theology (here). Wessel offered some helpful responses! one of the things i said in passing was that “Systematic Theology” may have adopted that adjective (systematic) at a very rationalistic period in history. in that sense we may need to critique the theological endeavour done in such an overly rationalistic context. But I’m sure that the word “systematic” doesn’t properly refer so much to the rational form of the Theology as it does to it’s overall coherence and consistency.

I was lying on the bed this afternoon, resting after a morning of preaching. I was thinking about my sermon of this morning, and wondering whether people realise that this morning’s sermon is for me just a piece of a larger puzzle. I work hard to ensure that the things I said this morning are consistent and compatible with the things I said last week and last year. I see myself slowly building a comprehensive picture of Life as God (in Jesus) calls me into it. I’m not saying you won’t be able to pick holes in my consistency. In fact, the most clear problem with this desire for consistency is when I realise I was wrong and have had to change my perspective or understanding… that means that things I said today may indeed be inconsistent with things I said last year - i would put that down to learning and growth…

But i wonder if some people go to church each week and expect a piece of something (pie?). one week they hear sermon on gratitude, the next on forgiveness. each sermon may be like a puzzle piece, but does it seem like the pieces are part of different puzzles or is it clear that each sermon is a part of a greater message that makes up a consistent and coherent whole?

what’s my concern? one example… a colleague serving a (racially) uniting congregation in the United States of America recently wrote about a question of theological consistency that he encountered in that context. he asks: why is it that the very same people who oppose abortion - using the argument that the Bible teaches all life is sacred - are the very same people who support and even advocate FOR the death penalty?

in this sense, seeking out a systematic theology - a theology (talk about God) that hangs together and has a general consistency and coherence - is certainly something I would support. Actually, more than support - every sermon, week after week, is my piece-by-piece contribution to a “systematic theology”. I really do think that my sermons will best be grasped in that light!

p.s. 2 obvious consequences of that then:

1. to really “get” my sermons, one would need to listen regularly, in order to see the bigger picture that all the puzzle pieces are part of… (and obviously that picture is not my own, but very hopefully the gospel picture!) The point is that my sermons are not primarily “single episodes” teaching moral lessons - get one when you need a boost kind of devotional messages. rather, they are a slow journey toward a new way of seeing, feeling, touching, being…
2. this kind of approach to listening and participating in “God-talk” means that it is primarily done in the context of regular worship - and a regular worshipping community. going to church is not so much about pleasing God but rather an active participation in a learning, growing, expanding, seeing community! (which i’m sure pleases God!)

I am a friend of Gay and Lesbian people. If their choices make them sinners (and I’m not saying that they do), then I’m a Friend of Sinners. Crucify me!

The tough thing for them is that they have to deal with being friendly toward a big sinner themselves…

(tonight I will be interviewing a Gay man as a part of a series of conversations inviting the church to listen with compassion to “voices from the outside”. If you pray, pray that we will learn to listen with compassion to the voices that are marginalised in our culture and society… I pray that the church will offer leadership on how to handle the vast challenges of diversity and conflict in this shrinking global village…)

can theology be ethical? should ethics be theological? what does ethical theology look like and how does theological ethics sound?

ag man, academia can sometimes get itself really tied up in knots. I remember being asked by some clever dick in a UNISA exam what the difference between Pastoral Counselling and Pastoral Care is… Academics reading this probably agree with that UNISA professor that I’m an ignorant ass. but I reckon (after 12 years in Pastoral Work) if the answer isn’t as simple as “Pastoral Counselling is a part of Pastoral Care” then you’ve got yourself so tied up in defining terms that you’ve forgotten why you asked the question in the first place. I’d LOVE to hear from a person actually DOING Pastoral Care in a local community of faith to shed some light on the importance of making some clever-dick distinction between these two activities!!! (ok, enough on the sermon, and on to the real purpose of this post…)

I’ve been reading The Hauerwas Reader (a fairly comprehensive collection of his essays) and enjoying his overview of the history of Ethics. It’s quite focussed on developments on the American scene, especially over the past century, but one of his insights has encouraged me. He acknowledges that it is only relatively recently, in the history of Christian Theology, that Ethics (roughly understood as reflection on how Christians live out their lives) was seen as a separate activity to Theology (roughly understood as reflection on what Christians believe and sometimes known Dogmatics or Systematic Theology - which introduces a hugely problematic adjective that suddenly appears in one of the most rationalistic periods in history…surprise?)

So we have separated how Christians live out their lives from what Christians believe… and then we wonder why people say (and represent) one thing on Sundays and another at work on Monday… Our artificial - academic/philosophical - differentiation has done much harm to the simplicity of The Way that Jesus calls us to walk in. Jesus does not ask us to leave our minds behind. In fact he suggests that we are required to Love God… with all our minds… I’m not proposing anti-intellectualism here. I’m just busy clarifying some of the core values that determine how and why the activity of Theology should be practised.

I believe that Theology is a simple activity. It is “Talk about God”. Theo (from Theos meaning God) and logy (from logos meaning words or the study of). Theology is a reflection on what people of faith believe - but only if the word believe is clearly understood as a verb. To believe in a faith sense is not just to give mental ascent to some philosophical idea. Philosophy may have merit, but Theology has to do with believing that involves a whole person. To say I believe in Jesus - does not mean that I accept that he exists. As John Wesley points out in one of his sermons - even the demons believe in Jesus in that sense! To say I believe in Jesus is to say something more - it means I will give my allegiance, my attention, my body and soul for this Jesus…

In this sense, the Community of Faith is the context of Theology. Academia may have a contribution to make, but in the end all important theology must be done by ordinary people who live their lives in the contexts of ordinary life. Profs in Ivory towers (some of whom no longer participate in a local worshipping community) have given up their vital connection to the important Theological conversation that continues in the local community of faith every sunday, and during the week…

I remember attending a lecture by some grand visiting professor in Old Testament studies. He spoke way over my head, but I did muster the courage to ask a sincere question… I asked whether he had shared his views on the Old Testament with ordinary readers of the bible - regular sunday church goers - and how they had responded. My fellow students all gasped, thinking this a very rude question to ask, but the visiting lecturer was happy to reflect that he worshipped in a local church back home and that this was a vital part of his work. I really don’t mean to offend, but I don’t apologise for asking about this important “credential” - the work of Theology is done in the context of Faithful Worshipping Community.

It is also the special privilege of Ordinary People!!! I had a little debate with a colleague recently about Theology that is done in such a sophisticated (philosophical) way that it gives the impression that Theology can only be done in that way - at the same time excluding people who are not familiar with the meaning of these concepts. I will never forget the Tributes paid to Rev Viv Harris at his funeral. A women remembered that although he was one of the most intelligent people she had ever known, he always used language that an ordinary person would be able to understand, especially in his preaching. For me there is no question that ordinary people, faithful worshipping together week by week, provide the primary context for the work of Christian Theology! You can use whatever words you like, but when you’re talking about love, joy, peace… no sophisticated words are really necessary. (In fact, maybe our ventures into sophistication are an elaborate avoidance of the simple challenges of the teaching of Jesus!)

This then leads me to my final important point - that there can be no meaningful distinction between Theology and Ethics. All Theology must be Ethics and Ethics, if it is to be Christian, must be Theology. Reflections on what we believe is always a reflection on how we will think (which is an activity that can be ethical or not, how we will speak and how we will live our lives. In the same way, our lives will reflect what we believe. There is no need to debate fancy philosophical definitions (although some may feel the desire to do it - whatever blows your hair back!) for how we live will clearly reflect our real convictions. As Jesus liked to remind learners who were listening: we will be known by the fruit that our lives produce (Matt 7:16-20)

many people have said that the Church, and particularly the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, has not taken a position on the issue of gay and lesbian members of our church. Today our Conference, the highest decision-making body of our church, adopted the following position:

This Conference of 2007, in considering the ongoing same-sex discussion, declares its determination not to permit different viewpoints among us to further divide our church. In the face of our differences we recall and reaffirm the 1958 Conference resolution declaring that “it is the will of God for the Methodist Church that it should be one and undivided.”

In the light of that declaration, and informed by the 2001 Conference commitment to being “a community of love rather than rejection,” and the 2005 Conference resolution inviting Methodists embracing “many different and even opposing views on the issue” to “journey together,” this Conference seeks a way forward that both respects and holds in tension differing views among our ministers and people.

Conference therefore resolves:

1. That the grace, affirmation of diversity, and commitment to the unity of the church central to the same-sex resolutions of the 2001 and 2005 Conferences be re-affirmed;
2. That our ministers and people continue to engage this issue in Christian conversation and respectful listening, so that all of us may more fully understand and articulate the variety of viewpoints held within our church;
3. That we will seek to be a Christ-honouring community:

• Celebrating the rich diversity of those called to follow Jesus, honouring the sacred worth of all people and practicing our Wesleyan heritage of warmth, welcome and hospitality;
• Recognising the authority of Scripture, and noting that in our quest for understanding, there is no one, monolithic and incontrovertible interpretation of it;
• Acknowledging that there are therefore some issues upon which there may never be total unanimity within the church and upon which we must “agree to differ” without reducing our respect for, and trust of, one another.

Conference approves the publication of Bible Study material which will assist members of the Church to reflect on the issue of Christians and homosexuality and same-sex relationships;

Conference directs that a meeting be convened to consider the wide spectrum of viewpoints on the civil unions of same-sec souples in order to listen to each other, identify points of agreement and differences and seek a way forward that will enhance the unity of the church. DEWCOM is mandated to convene this engagement;

Conference recognizes that any decision and subsequent action on the issue of civil unions between same-sex partners must await the outcome of the ongoing process of engagement as specified by Conference 2005 (Yearbook 2006, 8.3, p.75) and, in the interim, expects Methodist ministers to continue to offer pastoral care to homosexual individuals as to all others.

I think that this is a strong position calling on the Community of Faith to enter into a serious process of engagement, acknowledging and recognising that there are many different positions within the wider church.

I celebrate the opportunity to be a part of a church that has the maturity to hold the tension that exists in this debate. I also celebrate being part of a community that will continue to embrace Gay and Lesbian people as members and seek to offer pastoral care to them.

I would have like the Church to have given myself, and others, the opportunity to apply to Home Affairs to be registered under the Civil Unions Act as an officer, but the Conference did not agree that the Church is ready to give that permission.

Still, I am encouraged that the majority of people in the Conference were able to support a growing shift toward an inclusive and embracing pastoral stance.

(see Dion’s blog for a more comprehensive record of what happened…)

Sometimes people just say things SO MUCH BETTER than you could…

(Some pastor freinds of mine have been taking strain from congregation members who don’t like their theological view regarding same-sex relationships. The paragraph below was written by a senior minister colleague in response to those who are struggling. It reflects on sacred violence - a sneaky way for religious types to justify the very behaviour that it would condemn in “the world” as unacceptable and immoral…)

Our people get angry when we threaten their outlets for sacred violence. Its complicated but really means they now have to find someone else to blame/measure themselves against. They now have to find another ‘lesser human’ to scapegoat. That’s where ministers come in!!!! It all gets back to the fact that we have missed the understanding of atonement - which is not Jesus dying to keep God wrath free, but Jesus dying to keep us wrath free. Jesus dies for the sins of those who sin against me. So if I retaliate, I am 2000 years too late. Healthy atonement blames Jesus. If the one to whom I sacrifice is in fact the sacrifice, to whom then is the sacrifice being made?

what happens when a minister/pastor (or any other representative figure in our lives) becomes the “scapegoat” outlet for our pent-up frustrations and aggressions?

a group of colleagues recently sent out a letter which begins like this:

in these days of moral and spiritual uncertainty the Church must give clear direction to her people, not least in the area of sexual morality.

while i commend them for their sincere concern for the witness of our church, i find their assumptions difficult to accept.

one of the total misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of an “inclusive” position with regard to same-sex relationships and the church, is the “so you’re saying anything goes” argument. besides being a logical fallacy (see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html), it also underestimates (or is disrespectful of ) the strong biblical and ethical basis for the position that supports full acceptance of people in same-sex relationship within the life of the Christian community.

on what basis do I support people in same-sex relationships and desire that they be fully embraced by the Christian Community?

1. the story of God relating with people (what biblical scholars call “salvation history”) which is recorded in scripture is an unfolding story of grace and mercy.
the whole of scripture moves from limited experiences and expressions of grace to more and more wide and embracing expressions and experiences of grace…

(more…)

i was recently asked to preach on a passage from Galatians - chapter 2:11-21. Here we find a record of an early conflict between Paul and Peter. They were wrestling with how important obeying the Jewish Laws were for a new Christian - especially when the people concerned were not Jewish, but Gentile…

I wondered how relevant this conflict is to the contemporary conflict about same-sex relationships in the church… so I reworked the passage replacing “jew” and “gentile” with “straight” and “gay/lesbian”…

see what you think: Galatians 2 (reworked)

I asked for comments from my ministerial colleagues and recieved the following reply: (an extract)

…The reworking is not bad from a literary point of view. But biblically and theologically it is disastrous. It fuses the temporary ceremonial laws, which were done away with by the cross of Christ, and the ever enduring moral law, and then proceeds to throw the melded product out of the window. Note that what Peter withdrew from was eating with Gentiles (vs.12), which was a purely ceremonial and ritual prohibition for Jews. Clearly, then, it was intimidated Peters’ succumbing to the ceremonial Law which drew forth Paul’s angry protest. His later declaration in the same letter that “It does’nt matter if you are circumcised or not” (6:15), is in concert with that protest, and makes it doubly plain to us - should that be necessary - which ‘Law’ it is that is at an end as a means of making and keeping people right with God.
Paul, then, if he was not given to crazy contradictions, must have had a Law other than the ritual and ceremonial in mind when he rhetorically asked his Roman readers, “Do we destroy the Law by our faith?“, and then answered with an emphatic negative, “Not at all! We make it even more powerful” (Rom 3:31, and cf. Rom. 7:12 etc., etc.). Of course he had another Law in mind - the moral law. That same Law that our Lord had in mind when he equally emphatically said, “Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them but to give them their full meaning. Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a full stop or comma will ever disappear from the Law” (Matt. 5:17-18).
So, as a matter of fact, “Galatians 2 reworked” does not compare apples with apples. It is a confused piece of work. It jumbles up the moral and the ceremonial . It leads astray.

i found this response fascinating, but it raised many questions for me:

is the Law to which Paul refers well described by the term “moral”?in fact, what is the difference between a “moral” and a “ceremonial” law?
in some cultures (i associate culture largely with ceremonial law) it is moral to marry more than one person. the difficulty with outright condemnation of this behaviour arises when investigation reveals (surprisingly for me…) a very responsible, loving and caring environment for marriage and family life. polygamy is not my preference, but it is difficult just to write it off as “immoral” in all cases.
is God’s Law a law that expresses preferences on these kinds of cultural practices? (and if so, how can we be sure that it is not our own cultural bias that is determining our understanding of “God’s Law”?)
to what extent then is homophobia a culturally defined evil, as opposed to a God-condemned orientation?
I prefer to describe the Law that Paul is describing as the “Perfect Law of Love.”
(to read Paul as referring to some “moral” law offers no helpful distinction for me between ceremony and morality that actually helps me to distunguish in my daily ethical dilemmas.)
i am not inclined to outright condemn people who live in polygamous marriages, where the practice is culturally acceptable and is practiced in a loving and caring manner (i.e. if I am satisfied that people are not abused through the practice). I’m sure there are more dangerous evils in the world!!! In the same way, I am inclined to argue that homosexual orientation is one of those culturally defined moral issues, that will undergo a cultural shift in our life-time (just like racism and sexism, and slavery in a previous century) When it is no longer culturally/morally perceived to be bad, the “moral” and “ceremonial” laws will be changed (and they are already are being changed…)
I rejoice that the Law (the one that Paul refers to) will remain! (in fact, what could we do to ever threaten that perfect Law?) This Law does not condemn people but will gently continue to invite all people to live within the Values of the Kin’dom… love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

does anyone dispute that a gay or lesbian person (living in a faithful loving partnership with another) can evidence any, or all, of the above “Law” of the Spirit (what I have called the Law of Love)
I suggest that a preferable translation for “Law” in Paul’s writing (when he’s referring to God’s Law) might be Way…

my son ruben had to have grommets inserted into his ears this morning. it’s a relatively small operation taking a few minutes and requiring that he only go to a day clinic at the hospital. our day began at 7.30am with registration, then 4 hours of waiting till his turn on the “list”… 4 hours with a 2 year-old who hasn’t eaten or drunk anything since last night…

anyway, 4 hours of waiting got me looking around and observing…

1. 1 out of 10 beds in the day-clinic (on this particular day) served a black patient. the rest were all white children.
2. 6 out of 10 children were accompanied by their mothers (or other female care-giver). Only 4 out of the 10 had their fathers (or male care-giver) present to help with the difficult job of pacifying a child in strange and scary circumstances… not one child was accompanied by their father (or male care-giver) alone!

what (if anything) do these token statistics reflect?

i think they are telling!

One, Private Health-care is still a privilege of the affluent in our country. And the affluent are still predominantly white families. No-one cries “discimination!” because the hospital is not disciminating - it will admit anyone who can pay. The issue is a much more subtle “discrimination” of economic forces that restrict access to vital resources like education and health-care. If our rainbow nation was whole, I would expect that the patients in the day-clinic would (to some extent) reflect proportionately, the people in the community in which I live.

Two, 4 out of 10 fathers present at the day-clinic during work hours, reflects a change. When I had my grommets in 30 years ago, my mother took me to the clinic alone. I’m not sure how many fathers would have been in attendance back then, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t many! So, 4/10 can be interpreted as a slow transition toward greater acceptance on the part of fathers for their share of the responsibility of parenting. But 4/10 also refelcts that there are still a majority of children whose primary care comes from a faithful woman (mother) - and that there is still a far way to go before men accept their part as co-partners in the work of raising children!

0/10 men on their own at the day-clinic can mean just one thing! they wouldn’t cope… (sorry guys, am I letting the side down?)