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!”

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…)

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…

I was recently asked to participate in a meeting where senior leaders of the various major faiths, along with a secular humanist, spoke about spirituality from their perspective.

The Mufti, Siraj Desai spoke about Muslim spirituality - the quest to reconstruct the link with God. He said that Islam is “not a religion, but a way of life.”

Chuck Volpe spoke about the value of acknowledging human achievement throughout history. Although he claimed no faith, I thought he showed tremendous faith in the human potential, as well as a strong faith in the essential goodness of reason as a “tool” for humanity to use.

I then presented a short paper which I hoped would express the basics of christian spirituality, as well as some personal convictions, in a fresh and interesting way.

Read my presentation here: Christian Spirituality.doc
(go here for a pdf version)

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.

Today I experienced that sad sinking feeling in my stomach. But to explain, I need to fill you in on quite a long story…

One of my best friends fell in love a few years ago. She (let’s call her Sam) is a person of faith and she fell in love with another woman, who is also a very sincere person of faith. At the start, the relationship was a total surprise to them. They never set out to break any rules or make a statement – they were fully expecting to live “normal” lives as straight women, marrying, having children. But their love for each other – as only love can – prevailed to keep them exploring. They searched their own souls and consulted friends. They prayed and asked God for guidance. They experienced some angry condemnation and even tried to separate for the sake of fitting in with the widespread church teaching condemning same-sex relationships.

Two years down the line they have built a solid and loving relationship. They are both compassionate people who take their work in government medicine seriously. They participate in a local church congregation and Sam was even elected to serve as a society steward (senior leader). They love the church and are committed to it’s life and witness in a variety of ways. Sam gives a lot of time and energy to her responsibilities as a leader.

What has been helpful for me is to see the nature of their relationship. In so many ways I can only describe it as “normal”. The fact that I even say that reflects my own prejudice and ignorance – that I thought their relationship wouldn’t be normal. They have gone through all the same relational stages as Elaine and I. This has been a huge challenge to my inherent prejudices, which expected that it would be all different and weird for them. They are a good example of “opposites attract”. They are complimentary personalities and fit well into the Imago (Relationship Therapy) model of partners who connect with someone who offers healing and wholeness. My sense is that Sam and her partner are a good match in that sense – again, a helpful reminder that their relationship is normal and can be treated, in every way, as a “normal” romantic and committed partnership.

Recently they got engaged. They want to formalise their relationship – for all the same reasons I wanted to. I should probably ask them to give their reasons – but I surmise that among other reasons for wanting to marry, they would like to feel that their faithfulness and commitment to each other (which is a very spiritual thing for them) is recognised by their friends and community as something they take very seriously and also as something they are committed to before their God. I’m sure that there are also some practical and legal reasons for wanting to be married. One thing that seems clear to me is that they want to be married for VERY SIMILAR reasons to why I wanted to be married.

In a faith community that believes that sex is reserved for marriage, one practical reason why I wanted to marry Elaine was so that I could share a home with her with the community’s blessing! While getting the community’s blessing may not be top of the list in Sam’s life, I’m sure it does rank somewhere there on the list. Just like for young (straight) couples who “live in sin”, there’s a sense in which getting married would bring Sam and her partner’s relationship out of the shadows into the light, where it could be acknowledged and spoken about rather than politely ignored.

Sam has been open with the community about her relationship. For some time there was not strong reaction which she interpreted as a surprising affirmation. But more recently, the reaction to the news of an approaching wedding has prompted some people to respond in hurtful ways.

It’s complicated. At one level, the wider denominational church is struggling with the issue and so has issued an ultimatum that threatens any minister who participates in the blessing of a same-sex union. This puts my friend’s pastors (who are very supportive friends to Sam) in a painfully difficult situation. They are caught between being responsible to the community of faith, which could be torn apart by this issue, and being responsible to the individual (in this case Sam and her partner), for whom this feels like a justice issue. Suffice to say, the wider church is not able to offer a prophetic lead in supporting them in their desire to be married. They probably will not be able to hold their wedding ceremony at their home church because the church has formally forbade ministers to allow such ceremonies.

I remember saying to Elaine that the one non-negotiable of our wedding day for me was that we should say our vows at the bottom of the steps in that church, which was, at that time, our home church. It seemed important to me to make such an important step in the same sanctuary that I worship Sunday after Sunday. Sam and her partner will not be able to have the same privilege. Even though she is a committed member, regular worshipper, of sound moral character and displays the fruit of the spirit in her life, she will not be free to consecrate her marriage vows in the sanctuary that she calls “home”.

At another level, the local church is breaking. There are some who are absolutely unequivocally, passionately opposed to any form of compromise. To the extent that they will withdraw from the conversation, resigning in protest. There are others, a few quieter voices, who are very supportive. Probably the majority are people for whom the issue is not entirely clear… but they seem to be able to stay in relationship with Sam and her partner, not rejecting them, even though they may have reservations about the ok-ness of same-sex unions. I certainly respect them for their willingness to hold the tension! There are those who will accuse them (us?) of lacking a clear position – of being wishy-washy – but I commend their spirit of openness and tolerance. I commend them for not trying to take a splinter out of Sam’s eye. I commend them for following Jesus’ clear directive not to judge or condemn (Luke 6:37). I commend them for holding the tension between compassion and principle/doctrine… for taking seriously Jesus’ assurance that God “desires mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13).

Finally, what emerges for me is just how hurtfully we can act and how much pain we can cause when we think we are right! I want to write more about this, but being right is seriously over-rated! It’s over-rated as a way to please God. I was taught that having the right thoughts (doctrines) in our heads will translate into the right kind of lives and actions. But too often, the opposite proves to be true. It’s often the people who have little or no theological or ethical training who are able to practice compassion and mercy, without any prompting or complication. “Pharisees” – teachers of right thinking – come along and cause pain through their conviction that “knowledge always improves lives”. But knowledge and wisdom are not the same. An increase in knowledge does not automatically lead to an increase in wisdom. What we need is wisdom, not knowledge, which comes across as “know-it-all”. Know-it-all people have decided that this is right and this is wrong. The faith community has been tied up by self-righteous know-it-alls who sincerely believe they are helping people live better. Except their behaviour exhibits exactly the same kind of qualities that Jesus challenged the Pharisees over.

The Pharisees weren’t insincere. They weren’t lacking in knowledge – they were the most learned people in the community. They weren’t irreligious. So what did they lack? Jesus suggested that all their “correctness” had squeezed out their ability to cope with the messiness of life (that is, grace and compassion). Their quest for Perfection – an unreal state - rather than the kingdom of God – a very real thing – rendered them harsh and insensitive and haughty and proud and far from God. Jesus infuriated them by suggesting that children (unlearned, ignorant), women (not fully able), sinners (failures, sinful) and the infirm (punished with suffering) were closer to the kingdom that they…

What the Pharisees lacked was not knowledge of religion, but knowledge of God. It’s really hard to leave our self-righteous egos behind and progress without judgement, when we haven’t experienced an encounter with God that involved an embarrassing (public) acknowledgement of our own failure (sinfulness) Without a huge sense of our own need for God, we continue to walk in the pride of our lives as exemplary rather than Christ’s as the only example.

As I spoke to Sam this evening I sensed the huge disappointment in her as it dawns on her that her “home” community of faith is not going to get the Supportive Thing right. While there may be individuals who support, the majority are going to fumble the ball for fear of dropping it! I sense that argument is not going to change people’s opinion – especially the hard-liners. What may offer some hope is simply sharing her story and her pain. Without allowing herself to become their victim, sharing her story of love and life and hope AND her sense of disappointment that she is not able to be fully embraced by the community she loves… I think people need to hear that story!

I need to hear that story!!!