seethrough

the bible has some great advice for people who want to communicate more effectively.   today i took three phrases from the bible - 2 from Ephesians and 1 from James - and used them to guide our reflection on good communication.

James says that we should be “quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger”.  But what makes a person quick to listen?  I think it’s a spirit of curiosity.  Certainty is quick to speak.  It is sure of itself and in an argument is slow to consider that there may be more to the conflict or argument than is is able to grasp.  But Curiosity sense that there is more to discover.  I think it would be a fascinating exercise - to ask ourselves in the middle of an argument “what am I missing here?”  I think there’d be more questions and less categorical statements…

In Ephesians we read “putting away falsehood, let us all speak the truth”.  In this verse we are not just told not to lie.  It’s stronger and broader than that!  We are putting falsehood aside!  How much falsehood can exist between people without a word being spoken?  We don’t have to lie to allow deceit to exist between us.  BEING NICE is the curse of many religious people.  In the noble insterests of not hurting a person feelings, we may entertain falsehood by not speaking honestly when there is a need to do so.  I don’t think we are being given permission to speak honestly without care.  But we are being encouraged to live honestly.  It’s harder to live honestly than to be nice….

Finally, I reflected on another phrase from Ephesians: “let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up”.  The real test of whether we should speak - once we have taken time to listen, and reflected on whether we are living honesty with ourselves and others - is held in this question:  will it build the person up?  Perhaps the best communication advice the Bible gives us is the challenge to speak constructively.  Imagine setting out to speak words that build people up in your daily life.  Suddenly every moment, every encounter, every conversation would be touched by your spirituality.  “Religion” would get out of a building and seep into our everyday interactions and relationships.  People would benefit as their confidence grows.  And we would benefit because our communication would be effective and enduring.

three questions for reflection:

• am i quick to speak or quick to listen?
• do i want to be nice and popular or do I want to live honestly?
• are my words constructive?  do they build people up?

the cliched advice to people who talk alot is: “think before you speak”  ok, so that’s common sense advice.  but i find it fascinating how much talking (speaking) helps me to think.  It’s almost as if for me (and I assume many other people) it’s better (necessary?) to speak before you think.  Somehow the process of language (or of conversation) provides new possibilities.

I get excited when I hear myself saying something that just sounds like it’s going somewhere…

Like tonight… a friend and I were talking about spirituality and religion.  her initial question related to the fact that many different people pray to different Gods - All?h, Yahweh, Vishnu, Jesus, etc. - and they all find a measure of help in doing so.  how do we make sense of all these different experiences of the divine?

- one common response is to simply reject and condemn any expression of faith other than your own.  This response works well for some, but for people who work with or live with (or are married to) people who believe differently, this no-compromise approach could lead to hurt in homes, families, friendships and communities.

- another response is the “many roads up the mountain” view of religion.  this view is all-embracing - suggesting that the different names for God, and religious expression, are all ultimately leading a person to the same destination along a different path.  This view works well for those who don’t want to condemn people who are different to them.  But it doesn’t really honour the vast differences and distinctiveness of the different world religions.

As I was talking with my friend I suggested some ideas that seem to be an alternative to both the above positions.  I don’t think it is a middle-road, but rather quite a different way of thinking about the spiritual journey.

We humans have notoriously “made God in our own image” (I think Frederich Schleiermacher first suggested that idea).  There is a lot of Talk about God.  But we need to distinguish between Talk about God and God’self.  Surely we must all agree that all conversation about God is limited by our human understanding.  Language cannot fully or finally contain mystery.  Our words only point to the mystery.

By saying this, I am not suggesting that God is not Real.  The reality (or existence) of God is not in question.  Faith takes the Creator, the Source, as a foundation of all conversation.  We kind of take it for granted.  Asking “Does God exists?” is not even a consideration.  Without the Source, there wouldn’t be anything to ask a question.  So the question (and the questioner) assume there is a Source.

But what is in question is how helpful our Talk about God is.  There is a lot of talk.  And there is a lot of difference and disagreement.  Some people say God is like this… others are sure God is like that…  and no-one is willing to give an inch.  Some people even say “there is no God” - which seems like a different category of statement at first, but ironically it turns out to be a part of the same Talk about God.  And the surprising thing to discover is that the so-called “Atheists” have valid things to say about religion, faith and God!  They are some of the most ethically and morally convicted people in society…  and some highly regarded spiritual teacher once suggested we should “judge a tree by the fruit it bears”…

Athiests have recognised, along with many contemplatives and mystics, that Talk about God can easily degenrate into a powerful idolatry.  We worship our idea of God.  Our God loves Jews (or Americans or Christians or straight people or “born again” people or whatever WE decide…) and hates others.  Our religion becomes a prejudice of our own making.  There’s very little about it that is connected with the Source.

So contemplatives and mystics suggest that a good way to God is the apophatic way.  this refers to the way of negation.  the apophatic way senses that God is being - to be experienced, not an idea to be described or understood.  Along with talking about God goes pictures, symbols and complex rituals and practices.  Instead the apophatic way embraces simplicity and silence.  In the silence (and the negation of thoughts, ideas - our mental activity and agility) mystics seek encounter with the very being of God.  Be still and know (read experience or encounter) that I Am God.  I Am.

The cataphatic way - the way of affirmation - celebrates what can be known, spoken, proclaimed about God.  This is the way that celebrates scripture as revelation.  Lots of words.  And also Jesus as the Word of God.  It’s no surprise that the cataphatic way loves preaching.  There is conviction and certainty.  These are the evangelists.  They have a truth to proclaim - because it can be heard, considered, accepted (or not), believed and therefore received.  Jesus is the Truth - and that truth feels a lot like a set of ideas (teaching) about life and God that ideally must be believed, accepted as true.

I think both ways have insights to offer, and both have grave dangers.

The apophatic way is in huge danger of a withdrawal from the everyday experiences of ordinary people.  (This might, in part, explain why so many ordinary people embrace the certainty and mindlessness of certain expressions of the cataphatic tradition.)  The cataphatic way must answer for many expressions of faith that lack compassion and actually encourage judgement, condemnation and self righteous religion.

I believe we need to distinguish between God and our Talk about God.  Keeping that distinction allows us to embrace both traditions.

The distinction is made from the apophatic insights that all descriptions about God are deficient - they can never contain the whole truth.  But, the distinction also honours the cataphatic tradition - in that it allows us to continue our Talk about God.  We need a language.  We need symbols, and songs and words and conversations and doctrines etc…  We aren’t mystical saints living in some higher plane.  We are ordinary people with the need to share together in community a common life of worship and service.  So we embrace Talk about God with one proviso - we never equate our Talk about God (and the conclusions we draw) with God.  We always remember that our conversation is limited.  It is connected with Reality - but it isn’t the whole reality.  It is vitally in touch with the Source - but it never contains or totally grasps the Source.

If it needs a description,  perhaps this “way” could be called honouring mystery in the midst of the ordinary.  A bit cumbersome…  perhaps someone can suggest a word to describe this “way”…

one last thought:  colossians 1:19 says that “in him (Jesus) the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”.  could it be that the bible presents us with a “way” in Jesus, that honours both traditions - the immanence and tangibility of Jesus, Emmanuel, God incarnate…  affirming the cataphatic way.  but also, the recognition that Jesus is in many ways limited in ways God is not (e.g. God is omnipresent while Jesus squeezes the fullness of God into time and space.)  So Jesus represents this apophatic insight - that there is mystery and wonder beyond the Jesus we can see. (and hear and follow…)  The Word is more than enough - everything we need to know about God.  But it doesn’t delimit God - God remains the Creator God, ground of our being, Source, that is mystery, beyond our full and final comprehension.

let’s talk! (about God)

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.

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…

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…)

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…)

have you noticed how powerful Silence can be. I’m still not sure if he/she is a friend or foe! Silence creates space and makes room for rest and re-creation. but Silence is also a sneaky accomplice to heinous crimes of the worst kind…

my life if full of words - and speaking. sometimes i think i’m paid to speak. and sometimes i think I’m jsut plain full of myself “and love the sound of my own voice”. either way, Silence is the best medicine. She allows me to retreat to a place of solitude where I am able to rest and be restored in the Values that I have confidence in. She is gracious and gentle - imagine, not having to say anything! What a relief when so much of my life is judged by what I say and how convincing I sound and how entertaining i am… etc…

but Silence has a dark side. I know of many people who are in unsafe relationships but feel trapped - fearful of the consequences of breaking the silence and speaking about what is happening.

(more…)

i enjoyed reading Matt’s comments on prayer: Prayer: What’s the point and also some of the comments he received. While I find engagement with so-called “Atheists” energising and fascinating (they have usually thought abour their position far more thoroughly than most Theists have…) I am always curious about the experience of defining oneself by a negation - A-Theist… i.e. NOT-Theist. As a Christ-follower I define myself by what I am for. I am for the values that are embodied in the life and teaching of Jesus. An Atheist, presumably believes in something. I’m curious to know what an “A-Theist” has faith in (it’s not God, of course…)

here are my thoughts, posted on Matt’s blog:

you guys certainly spend a lot of time (and much passion) arguing against something that you regard as pointless.i think it’s pointless to argue against something that is pointless.

i’m wondering what you are FOR. how would you define your position if it weren’t for religion? i.e. what is an “atheist” without theism?

have you factored into your reasoning the role of experience? for some, REALITY is not primarily constituted by physical existence alone. when i speak to you i have FAITH that there is something out there that i am interacting with. I have no proof of that. it could all be part of my own dream. but what I can’t deny is the EXPERIENCE of interaction, conversation, relationship. i would argue that my conversation with you and Prayer require exactly the same kind of “faith” - neither of them are more real or provable than the other.

the more significant thing for me is: what do i experience through the act of communication… (whether it is with you or with “God”)

i am enjoying writing this comment. it helps me to clarify my own position and it holds the possibility of surprising conversation (a response that makes me reconsider…) i.e. it’s a good experience.

I enjoy praying. for a variety of reasons. your saying “it’s pointless” a) won’t diminish the significance of the experience for me and b) simply stands in constrast to my assertion that it definitely has a “point” for me.

in fact, to claim that something is “pointless” suggests that the entity doing the claiming knows what IS NOT POINTLESS.

so, please let me know. what IS NOT POINTLESS? (so that I can reflect on how appealing the rational world you live in really is…)

thanks! for a cool post