seethrough

a friend of mine recently read a book by Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion - which has unsettled her. i think (she can correct me if i’m presenting her wrongly) it’s a good unsettledness but nevertheless, an unsettledness which is usually challenging.Dawkins is “anti-theist” - he’s not just a non-believer - he’s opposed to religion. I haven’t read the book but from various reviews and articles I gather that he includes an Appendix for those “needing support in escaping religion”. I think it’s enough to say he has an agenda. just as the Bible and other “authoritative” texts will be scrutinised for signs of personal and societal prejudices presented as “from God”, so Dawkins work - if it is to offer itself as a help to those “imprisoned in religion” - will surely be treated with the same scrutiny.

But I think the source of the unsettledness for my friend is that Dawkins makes such a strong and convincing argument for the Theory of Evolution . Christians have taken the question of “the Source of things” so for granted that this presentation of how things came to be seriously challenges old paradigms and begs the question - is there a place for faith in God in a Reality shaped by Evolutionary Progress.

so is there? it’s a challenging question! I hope to speak with my friend again and will report how she’s living with the question. but one thing that is becoming clear to me is that faith in God shouldn’t require a rejection of scientific knowledge. If we have placed our faith in something that is believed (by reasonably tested and commonly accepted scientific opinion) to be false - then we should consider the real possibility that we placed our faith in something that was not reliable (sure?) enough to be termed “God”… the faithful person (i would like to suggest the biblically faithful person) can pursue the questions of science (observation and rational inquiry) without fear of ultimately losing Faith. but - i suspect - we must expect some deep challenges to old taken-for-granted “knowledges” that prove to be no longer helpful.

i recently was challenged by a comment made by Rob Bell in a talk i have on cd - he said (something like) “if someone is searching for truth don’t stop them - even if they are searching in weird places. If they keep digging, at some point they are going to reach bed-rock, and then they’ll know they truth”. and as scripture says - the truth will set you free. He is also quoted as saying that “I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any world-view. If it’s true, it belongs to God.” [ref]

if it’s true - it belongs to God. yeah!

yesterday elaine’s dad was caught by a veld fire and badly burned. at present he is “stable” in a hospital in Bethlehem. he may be moved to Joburg this morning. the outlook is very bleak. he has sustained 60% burns and quite severe internal injury. it will be a miracle if he survives this ordeal.

elaine and cate have just boarded a plane to joburg and will be with him by mid-morning.

henry was alone on the farm in Van Reenen when he was caught by the fire, but we have no clarity as yet about what happened. fortunately someone found him and a neighbour took him to the hospital.

my father-in-law is an extraordinary man. he is a strong and determined man who has had to work extremely hard from humble beginnings in his life. He is a courageous man and i pray today that his courage and tenacity will pull him through the perilous next few days…

(Aiden remarked, when reading another story that he “looked forward to turning the page”… so, with his encouragement, here is page 2…)

did you know that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures use the phrases “do not fear” and “do not be afraid” 113 times!!! (those same scriptures use the phrase “love God” only 5 times…) So let’s make a humble assumption - spirituality that takes the Bible (meaning the Hebrew and Christian scriptures) seriously will be a spirituality that is Peace-producing. Essentially, I’m assuming that Biblical Spirituality will echo this sentiment - do not fear, do not be afraid, do not worry, etc.

the Christian scriptures tell us that Jesus is the “prince of peace” (i’m assuming that means that if anyone is going to bring peace it will be him..) it also tells us that “perfect love casts out all fear” (1 John 4:18) and goes on to make a clear observation: “for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.”

the thing that I struggle with is that the “good news” that many Christians offer is highly fearful. The common story goes something like this: God created you. Things were good until you messed up. You sinned and God was angry. You had broken his Law. Justice was required so someone had to die. It would have been you (and it might still be if you don’t…) but Jesus died in your place to “absorb the wrath of God” (John Piper). To return to right relationship with God, you must repent and believe (presumably that Jesus died for you) so that eternal punishment can be avoided. If you do, God’s anger is avoided and heaven awaits. If you don’t, the just punishment for your sins will be your reward - that’s hell. (If “God is Love” he certainly has a big investment in fear and punishment in the universe…)

so here’s a question: what motivates your faith in God? why are you a Christian? is it to avoid the fires of hell - an eternal punishment? as I’ve indicated here i am an unapologetic follower of Jesus. I am willing to associate myself with him in every way. but I am simply not happy to associate myself with this common version of the Christian Story any longer. I think that there is another story which is desperately needing to be told - needing to be heard.

(some quick reasons why the new story needs to be heard:
1. i don’t think that the common version is doing our Great God of Grace justice!
2. many good, thinking, moral, faithful, did i mention good, people are simply not able to fathom a God who is so petty and, instead of looking deeper into the faith tradition, are choosing to live as moral atheists rather than associate with such a paper-thin version of a Creator God.
3. it is Fear Producing - which is exactly the opposite of what Biblical faith is supposed to do. Where is the peace? Where is the confidence?)

Here’s to another story! (I don’t call it a new story because I would like to argue that this other story has been around longer than the common one!!! it’s the old story, needing rediscovery)

my understanding of Jesus was that he chose to live and teach in the tradition of the Hebrew prophetic tradition - most significantly, the prophetic vision of Isaiah. His first public teaching in a synagogue involved a reading from Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:16) - a moving, inspiring vision about the “Year of the Lord’s favour”. (the interesting thing is that the phrase “and a day of vengeance for our God” - Is 61:2 - is omitted in Luke) This prophetic tradition includes moving passages about the coming of the Messiah who will bring peace - when the Lion will lie down with the Lamb (Isaiah 11)… perhaps the most moving passage for me is found in Isaiah chapter 2:

Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.’
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall arbitrate for many peoples;
they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

These are the passages that I believe inform the ministry of Jesus. When he speaks about the “Kingdom of Heaven”, I believe he is talking about this kind of Kin’dom… where Peace is found to be stronger than force, where love is eternal and cannot die…

In the light of these (biblical) observations, I want to encourage those who are dissatisfied with the common story to begin to consider Alternatives. I believe there are many other stories on offer in the Christian Scriptures. Paul’s writings do contain much that supports the common version, but he also transcends those thoughts in some of his writings, focusing more on the theme of Reconciliation. See 2 Corinthians 5:16-21. (I realise that it is possible to use this passage to underscore the common version of Christianity.) I believe it is possible to interpret this passage in a way that appeals to Loving Relationship as a motivation for Faith… (perhaps the topic of Page 3…) The Gospels are the best place to look though, because the parables and the ministry of Jesus are still being processed by the authors. The Gospel writers certainly include their own interpretations in the re-telling of the stories (which explains some of the differences in the four gospels) but the interpretation can be said to be “in process”. This gives us a glimpse into the early Christian community of people who were not called “Christians” - they were simply people of faith who had decided to follow the teachings of Jesus. They were best described as “those belonging to the Way” (acts 9:2)

What are some of the attributes that I think Another Story might include?
1. i think it must choose to be faithful to the teaching and example of Jesus. this might involve a revisiting of the gospels and a decision to take Jesus at his word. or as Albert Nolan says to “take Jesus seriously”.
2. surely it must work out a new motivation for Faith. If we aren’t following Jesus to “avoid hell and earn our ticket into heaven”, what will be our primary reason for following? it might return to a much more wholistic understanding of the word “believe” which embraces the whole self, heart, will, mind, body, in place of a modern understanding of the word which reduces believing to mental (intellectual?) agreement. To say “I believe in Jesus” would be more akin to saying “I commit my whole self to Jesus”.
3. it must strive to be all-embracing, not sectarian but able to embrace variety so that it can become a story of Peace and Unity. surely if God’s Kin’dom is going to be eternal we’re going to have to live side-by-side then… why not start finding a way to live together now…?
4. it might formulate a different understanding of authority. for instance, it may choose to view the Spirit of scripture as a higher authority than the historical written text. This might include the recognition that not everything that is biblical is consistent with the teaching of Jesus i.e. Christian
5. Another Story might re-emphasize the importance of being good - what Jesus meant when he spoke about the fruit that a tree bears. the Common Story has used the Fear of God (of hell) to motivate people into believing, and has unwittingly encouraged people to “believe” at all costs, but has paid too little attention on the thing that Jesus asked us to do: “go and make disciples” (Matthew 28) disciples are learners, and presumably that means learners of The Way. Evidencing the Fruit of the Spirit - the signs of a transforming life - will become the essence of Another Story.

What do you think might be some of the attributes of Another Story? OR, what would you LIKE to see being addressed by a different kind of Spirituality? (that you feel has been neglected by the Common Version of Christianity in your experience?)

guess how many times the phrases “do not fear” and “do not be afraid” appear in the Bible…

When my dad first broke the news about the need for surgery last year, he managed to tell me without once mentioning the “C” word. 

Fortunately the radical surgery went well and he has resumed a very active life, returning to his cycling, busy work schedule and daily life.  It seems you can live quite well without a prostate!  It seems…

Cancer has reared it’s ugly head in my family for the second time in less than a year.  This week my mother went for a mammogram and then for further tests.  She will be admitted on Monday morning for radical surgery to remove a tumour in one of her breasts.  She will spend this week-end deciding whether to go for the full mastectomy or to opt for less radical surgery.  Tough one, but the doctors will surely help her in her decision.

It’s difficult to know how to respond.  On the one hand, the medical profession has proactive responses to almost every condition, giving one great confidence that “this is not a big deal” – we’ll get through this fine.  My dad’s progress certainly bears witness to the fact that there is life after Cancer.  On the other hand, this is Cancer, and it’s my mom, and it’s a bit too close for comfort.  I know women in my congregation who have died after protracted battles with the bloody thing.  Every year St John’s holds a service for people who are struggling, or who have struggled with Breast Cancer.

I suspect this isn’t the last word regarding C…

Someone asked for a copy of my Good Friday sermon. You can find it here: Good Friday Sermon 2007

one of my close friends is in a same-sex relationship. she and her partner intend to marry later this year. their home church (which I was previously a part of) is struggling with the question of whether to host the marriage service. There are a complex set of reasons, but let me mention two main reasons. One is that the denomination in question has threatened to discipline ministers who perform or bless same-sex unions. Another is that the local church leadership are divided over the issue. (see my previous blog post for the full story- feel the pain)

One interesting development is that some senior leadership of this church have resigned. They are disillusioned with the pastors of the church who are sympathetic to this same-sex couple and would like to support their decision to marry. One of the complaints is that the pastors lack objectivity because they are friends with the same-sex couple in question.

This creates a very interesting situation: a pastor is criticised for lacking objectivity in handling an ethical question on the basis that he/she is friendly with the person concerned. Fair enough. It can easily be established that my theological/ethical stance on same-sex relationships has been affected and shaped by my friendship with same-sex couples (and this couple in particular!). It would be pointless for me to deny this. So, the argument goes - “because you are friends with A. and B., you are not able/willing to counsel/guide/reprimand them properly, according to the teachings and principles of the bible/church”.

But I don’t like where this argument leads us… As a pastor, I am effectively discouraged from forming friendships with the people in my congregation for fear of losing my objectivity!

I think that objectivity is hugely over-rated.

Trusting “objectivity” suggests that the preferable way to help/love/guide people is to offer advice/guidance from a distant, impersonal, objective stance. Sure, that may mean that I will be able to avoid getting compassionately (detractors would probably use the word “emotionally”) involved with people. I could dispassionately explain to them the position of the church and the bible without consideration for the painful circumstances of their particular situation.

But I prefer the value of friendship - without qualification. I prefer the way of living that encourages compassionate involvement in people’s lives. And yes, that means that because I am friends with a same-sex couple, my thoughts, feelings, theological views, ethical standards, pastoral practise have been affected, even completely changed.

And all because a couple of young christian women fell in love and want to ask God to bless their decision to live faithfully and honourably together. Thank God that they are willing to be my friends, in spite of the way my church is treating them! Thank God their friendship has softened my heart and forced me to reconsider my previously rock-solid opinion on the issue.

One thing is certain… no argument could have brought about this change of heart. Only personal encounters (through friendship) have been able to reveal and challenge my ignorance and prejudice. I therefore think there is no use in arguing with those who seek to maintain the “objective” principled stance which refuses same-sex couples access to the church for weddings. Only friendship could soften their hardened hearts. But they won’t surrender their objectivity… so theirs is a fairly impenetrable position, unlikely to change.

I just read what I have written to the person I am married to – she raised a very interesting question: are they afraid that friends won’t be honest with each other?

Does honesty require objectivity? Are honesty and objectivity the same thing?

I would contend that while good friendship surrenders so-called “objectivity”, it does not have to surrender honesty. In fact, honesty may be strengthened by the foundation of friendship. Good friends will be honest with each other, while remaining faithful to the relationship of trust (subjectively faithful to the person despite their failings or weaknesses).

If I truly believed that my friend was being hurt in this relationship, there is no doubt that I would speak with her (honestly) about my concerns. But I do not subscribe to the argument that to really help and guide her, I need to adopt an objective position.

I’m preparing my sermon for sunday. Jesus comes to his friends after the resurrection and his firsts words are “Peace be with you”. After some reflection it has occurred to me that most often Peace is seen to be a symptom of other things. IF we stop fighting THEN there will be peace in our homes. If we spend time in silence then we will enjoy inner-peace. If world leaders find agreement and cease fire, then there will be peace - and end to war.

But what if Peace is not a symptom, but rather a Causal kind of thing?

What if it works the other way around? If World leaders were keen for peace, then the result (symptom) of that would be a cease-fire and an end to the war. If we longed for and chose peace as a primary value of our home life, then we would stop shouting and screaming at each other. If we really wanted inner-peace, we’d find ourselves much more comfortable with silence and rest.

We have assumed that we don’t experience Peace because the circumstances aren’t right - and when we rectify the circumstances, then we will be in a position to experience Peace. This leads to one of two reactions: Hopelessness, because the changes required to bring about the right circumstances for Peace to reign are just to great to achieve, OR a frenetic buzz of activity aimed at bringing the necessary changes to circumstances to achieve the desired result - i.e. Peace. Peace (supposedly) becomes a product of our frenetic activity. It seems we give up Peace in order to try and achieve it…

But Jesus says - “Peace be with you”. It’s as if he gives it - as a gift. He encourages us to start there - start living peacefully, being peaceful, making peace central to our way of living. If we receive the gift, we may be surprised to find that our peaceful way begins to influence and affect the circumstances of our lives. Bringing Peace into a home may affect the way we speak and relate to each other. Wanting Peace, more than power, may lead to responsible and wise political leadership - and an end to war. Peace is then, not a product of our achievement, but a gift and catalyst.

There is much talk about the quest for inner peace, but I wonder if inner peace can actually be distinguished from other kinds of peace in any meaningful way. Is it really possible to distinguish inner peace from “outer” peace? Perhaps what we are realising is that “inner” peace and “outer” peace are the same thing. When we live peaceably, without busy-ness and speak with kindness we will find inner peace - evidenced by silence and the freedom to rest. And when we rest and take time to be silent, we may find it possible to speak more kindly and to live with less frenetic activity.

Peace is then better understood as a catalyst, than as a product or a symptom. The measure of peace in our lives will not be only relative to the circumstances we find ourselves in, but more likely related to the level of longing and desire we have to live in the Peace - that is a gift of the Spirit…