seethrough

a friend emailed me today asking me about my thoughts on being a person of faith and relating to other religions.

her question went like this…

“…I have always thought that there is a lot of insight and a lot to be learned from people of other religions - and that our practices and ways of worshipping God may well not be the only way. However, if we truly believe that salvation is for everyone and that Jesus will one day return to judge the living and the dead - do we not then have an obligation to try and introduce people of other religions to our Jesus? Or is it really true the idea that there are many angles from which to look at a mountain - but ultimately it is the same mountain?…”  (i think the questions is expertly stated - by the way)

i thought i’d post my response to her here:  (comments are welcome.) - don’t you think it’s interesting to listen in on a conversation…

Regarding your question about other religions…

you seem to give 2 options: 1. Jesus is the only way. 2. all religions are different ways that lead up the same mountain.

what if there are other options? i.e. other ways of thinking about this difficult debate.

Let me first take note of what (i think) you are saying:

1. you are a kind and generous person who wants to respect other people and their sincere convictions. That is not a bad thing. in fact, i would say it is the sign that you are a true Jesus follower - that even in the face of quite harsh criticism, you want to “come up for” people of other faiths - arguing that they also have goodness in them. and they do!. so that’s important. we need to be asking, is our position true to our christian faith? a faith that encourages acceptance, compassion and a non-judgemental attitude to people - esp those who are different or rejected.

2. You are also saying that if Jesus is “the only way” it would be unkind and wrong to not want to share that knowledge with those people who are not Christians. good. i think that the motivation behind this position is also compassion. you aren’t judging them. just wanting to share something valuable.

the problem is that usually these two things seem to contradict. being accepting, tolerant and evanglising people to follow Jesus are seen as mutually exclusive. like you can’t be true to Jesus AND live in a tolerant way of people who differ.

So, the problem with position 1 (Jesus is the only way) is that on it’s own it quickly becomes a judgmental position that makes people act in ways and say things that don’t actually sound very christian! BUT the problem with option 2 is that it doesn’t really properly honour the vast differences in the different religions.

I don’t think you can say that Islam and Christianity and Buddhism are just different paths up the same mountain… with the same end point. I think that is too simplistic. Buddhism doesn’t believe in a personal deity. islam and Xty do. Xty stresses grace and forgiveness. Islam is very strong on discipline and obedience. These aren’t just minor differences. they are huge differences that mean that if we begin to talk to each other, our concepts of God are not all just going to merge into one view of God. I think there are irreconcilable differences.

BUT there are lots of common points of agreement. There is a lot we CAN talk about. We see that murder is on the rise… and crime. Interesting that Islam, Xty and Buddhism all support a non-violent way of life and believe in the sanctity of life. Thou shalt not kill… So we can get together and work towards a safer society.

Same with violence against women and abuse of children. Religions are together in their rejection of these actions.

SO, to reject another religion based on the idea that “everything that is not Christian is evil” is not helpful. it’s just plain judgemental. and arrogant. There is a lot that we (as human beings, all made “in the image of God”) can do together to honour our creator and work towards a society that in some way reflects the values we believe in.

I propose option 3: which is basically the “respect” option. it basically takes a form as outlined below…

• all religions (incl. Xty) reflect the human search for God and truth.
• as a Christ follower, i believe that Jesus is the only way to know God (in the unique way that Jesus shows us)  - [afterthought - could “only” be replaced by  best?  or  most complete?]
• i am called by Jesus to a life of respect, compassion and the ministry of care and listening.
• i therefore treat people as people (not as potential converts) and try to love people as God has loved me - no matter what their position or religion is. (that means i can work with them, eat with them, socialise, children can go to school together etc. it’s a repectful tolerance)
• i also live out my faith and values in such a way (without fear or being ashamed - Rom 1:16) that anyone and everyone will see that I am a person of faith and if they every inquire, i will be proud (and able) to speak about my faith, and by doing so, (by implication) invite them into that faith.
• in the mean-time, there is a lot that we can talk about, and agree on, and work together on… care of creation, repsect of human life, safer society, education. etc etc etc…

at the core of every person is an energy center called the heart.  just like the physical heart pumps blood, so the spiritual heart wants.  that’s just what it does.

I think we don’t make decisions rationally (i.e. with our minds)  I think we follow our hearts.  And our minds rationalise the longing…

we do exactly as we like!

(which is to say, everything we do is in response to a hearts desire.)

you may argue that you do “unselfish” things which go against your heart’s desires.  (like washing the dishes).  But I would still ask what made you do the unselfish thing…  did you want to be seen to be helpful? kind? generous?  what desire motivated you to do something you don’t enjoy?

i don’t think it’s helpful to regard the heart in terms of right and wrong.

E.g. A little boy who sees a porcelain vase and wants to touch it…  the longing to touch it is neither right or wrong.  it just is.  the desire to touch may lead to a broken vase.  But the desire itself is not wrong.  Why does the little boy want to touch the vase? Now, that’s an interesting question that may never be explored if we simply condemn the heart’s desire.

Why does the happily married man of 28 years want to leave home for a passionate relationship with his secretary?  Condemn the longing, and you’ll probably never get any insight into that potentially painful set of circumstances…

To change a person’s behaviour requires a change of heart!

The work of heart-change is really the key to all meaningful reflection on transformation.  “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also…”

would you serve a God you didn’t like or respect?

* a thought experiment *

ok, so this “God” does things, or runs the universe, according to principles and values which you don’t embrace.  I don’t mean selfish differences like you would like fancy stuff and God is teaching you simplicity.  I mean, this “God” has set his heart on a special group of people - choosing to bless and affirm them above others.  You prefer the value of inclusivity which would involve a “God” who is not swayed by worldly labels and distinctions - a God who sees beyond nationalistic superiority to the bigger picture (rather than actually encouraging it!)

hmmm… so the options are:

1. recognise that God is GOD - and who are you pimply little nobody to question “his” ways?????  (well, that certainly settles the matter for me then.  I can turn over and go back to sleep…)

2. consider that God is always “God” to us - a humanly constructed concept that doesn’t even begin to fathom the complexities of God’s values and ways… (which unfortunately leads to 2 alternative sub-conclusions…)

• a) because God is so almightily superior and beyond comprehension… who are you pimply little nobody to be questioning “his” ways???? (getting back to familiar territory…  *yawn*)
• b) because God is so almightily superior and beyond comprehension, God would never stoop to silly tribal contests, taking sides in wars or rugby matches.  God transcends these human ego contests…

3. discover that “God” is (unfortunately) as tribal as he is reflected in (some parts of) the Bible  (i remember some pastor oke telling me that (his) God would have no problem wiping out whole nations - no tension there for him at all!!!).  Which leads to the interesting position of someone actually consciously choosing “hell” over “heaven” with that “awe-ful” God…

* end of thought experiment *

my point is… heaven is only heaven (with God for eternity) if you LOVE the God OF eternity.  Obedience is ok.  But obeying a God you don’t Love, and doing things he commands that you don’t believe in, is not recipe for eternal joy.

Yahweh, the God of the Bible, apart from a whole lot of “stuff” which I struggle with, seems to be a God who wants partnership, friendship, relationship.  It’s almost as if, he wants us to “Love his Law” - not just obey it.

The Kin’dom Vision of Jesus where

• all are welcome, and
• outsiders are valued, and
• righteousness is never free to become self-righteousness, and
• God IS the message, and integrity is practiced, and
• community is born, and
• women are empowered, and
• racial segregation is challenged, and
• silly old-wives tales are put to bed - like physical disability being a result of “the sins of the fathers”, and
• lepers (read HIV-Aids sufferers) are touched, and
• humility and servant leadership is modeled…

this vision…  I love.  obedience is a small word to offer in response to it.

this vision inspires passion and participation, it invites me, calls me, reminds me…  it’s just not hard to Love a God like this!

does it matter who’s saying it?

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 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.

a gentle invitation

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

love

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

hope

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

faith

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

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

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

What question would you ask a person like Dawkins?

I want to know if he ever kneels.

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…)

What do you ask of me? What do you require?

Do you want my money?

Do you want my time?

Do you want my attention?

Do you want my hands?

Do you want my heart and my mind?

How have I filled my life with things, so that my hands were not free to grasp the thing you offered?

How have I filled my life with noise, and missed hearing your voice?

How have I filled my life with business, and didn’t accept your gentle gracious invitation?

What do want from me, Lord? What do you require?