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.
I can’t remember ever being asked to leave a church. Mostly I was the good kid earning the prize for 100 attendances… so it was quite a surprise to be bumped off a blog.
Ok, maybe I wasn’t exactly bumped! I didn’t get banned, but the discussion thread I was commenting (participating/arguing) on was cancelled by the blog-owner…
Recently I have been enjoying a fairly engaging conversation with Nate on Adam’s blog. Adam posted a reflection on developments in a ministry called “Exodus” in the UK. Nate and I (and Meghan for a while) got into an interesting conversation about different ways to approach ethical questions - most notably, whether people of faith are called to be “boundary-watchers” (Nate’s term).
Perhaps reading what someone has written makes a their tone sound more aggressive than it’s meant to be, but I thought the tone of the conversation was assertive but respectful. More interesting to me is that although Nate and I disagreed about some stuff that I feel strongly about, after visiting his own blog, I reckon we probably have more in common than we disagree on. My sense is that our differences are worth talking through - we were on the road to finding each other… (I thought!)
(more…)
i was recently asked to preach on a passage from Galatians - chapter 2:11-21. Here we find a record of an early conflict between Paul and Peter. They were wrestling with how important obeying the Jewish Laws were for a new Christian - especially when the people concerned were not Jewish, but Gentile…
I wondered how relevant this conflict is to the contemporary conflict about same-sex relationships in the church… so I reworked the passage replacing “jew” and “gentile” with “straight” and “gay/lesbian”…
see what you think: Galatians 2 (reworked)
I asked for comments from my ministerial colleagues and recieved the following reply: (an extract)
…The reworking is not bad from a literary point of view. But biblically and theologically it is disastrous. It fuses the temporary ceremonial laws, which were done away with by the cross of Christ, and the ever enduring moral law, and then proceeds to throw the melded product out of the window. Note that what Peter withdrew from was eating with Gentiles (vs.12), which was a purely ceremonial and ritual prohibition for Jews. Clearly, then, it was intimidated Peters’ succumbing to the ceremonial Law which drew forth Paul’s angry protest. His later declaration in the same letter that “It does’nt matter if you are circumcised or not” (6:15), is in concert with that protest, and makes it doubly plain to us - should that be necessary - which ‘Law’ it is that is at an end as a means of making and keeping people right with God.
Paul, then, if he was not given to crazy contradictions, must have had a Law other than the ritual and ceremonial in mind when he rhetorically asked his Roman readers, “Do we destroy the Law by our faith?“, and then answered with an emphatic negative, “Not at all! We make it even more powerful” (Rom 3:31, and cf. Rom. 7:12 etc., etc.). Of course he had another Law in mind - the moral law. That same Law that our Lord had in mind when he equally emphatically said, “Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them but to give them their full meaning. Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a full stop or comma will ever disappear from the Law” (Matt. 5:17-18).
So, as a matter of fact, “Galatians 2 reworked” does not compare apples with apples. It is a confused piece of work. It jumbles up the moral and the ceremonial . It leads astray.
i found this response fascinating, but it raised many questions for me:
is the Law to which Paul refers well described by the term “moral”?in fact, what is the difference between a “moral” and a “ceremonial” law?
in some cultures (i associate culture largely with ceremonial law) it is moral to marry more than one person. the difficulty with outright condemnation of this behaviour arises when investigation reveals (surprisingly for me…) a very responsible, loving and caring environment for marriage and family life. polygamy is not my preference, but it is difficult just to write it off as “immoral” in all cases.
is God’s Law a law that expresses preferences on these kinds of cultural practices? (and if so, how can we be sure that it is not our own cultural bias that is determining our understanding of “God’s Law”?)
to what extent then is homophobia a culturally defined evil, as opposed to a God-condemned orientation?
I prefer to describe the Law that Paul is describing as the “Perfect Law of Love.”
(to read Paul as referring to some “moral” law offers no helpful distinction for me between ceremony and morality that actually helps me to distunguish in my daily ethical dilemmas.)
i am not inclined to outright condemn people who live in polygamous marriages, where the practice is culturally acceptable and is practiced in a loving and caring manner (i.e. if I am satisfied that people are not abused through the practice). I’m sure there are more dangerous evils in the world!!! In the same way, I am inclined to argue that homosexual orientation is one of those culturally defined moral issues, that will undergo a cultural shift in our life-time (just like racism and sexism, and slavery in a previous century) When it is no longer culturally/morally perceived to be bad, the “moral” and “ceremonial” laws will be changed (and they are already are being changed…)
I rejoice that the Law (the one that Paul refers to) will remain! (in fact, what could we do to ever threaten that perfect Law?) This Law does not condemn people but will gently continue to invite all people to live within the Values of the Kin’dom… love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
does anyone dispute that a gay or lesbian person (living in a faithful loving partnership with another) can evidence any, or all, of the above “Law” of the Spirit (what I have called the Law of Love)
I suggest that a preferable translation for “Law” in Paul’s writing (when he’s referring to God’s Law) might be Way…
my son ruben had to have grommets inserted into his ears this morning. it’s a relatively small operation taking a few minutes and requiring that he only go to a day clinic at the hospital. our day began at 7.30am with registration, then 4 hours of waiting till his turn on the “list”… 4 hours with a 2 year-old who hasn’t eaten or drunk anything since last night…
anyway, 4 hours of waiting got me looking around and observing…
- 1 out of 10 beds in the day-clinic (on this particular day) served a black patient. the rest were all white children.
- 6 out of 10 children were accompanied by their mothers (or other female care-giver). Only 4 out of the 10 had their fathers (or male care-giver) present to help with the difficult job of pacifying a child in strange and scary circumstances… not one child was accompanied by their father (or male care-giver) alone!
what (if anything) do these token statistics reflect?
i think they are telling!
One, Private Health-care is still a privilege of the affluent in our country. And the affluent are still predominantly white families. No-one cries “discimination!” because the hospital is not disciminating - it will admit anyone who can pay. The issue is a much more subtle “discrimination” of economic forces that restrict access to vital resources like education and health-care. If our rainbow nation was whole, I would expect that the patients in the day-clinic would (to some extent) reflect proportionately, the people in the community in which I live.
Two, 4 out of 10 fathers present at the day-clinic during work hours, reflects a change. When I had my grommets in 30 years ago, my mother took me to the clinic alone. I’m not sure how many fathers would have been in attendance back then, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t many! So, 4/10 can be interpreted as a slow transition toward greater acceptance on the part of fathers for their share of the responsibility of parenting. But 4/10 also refelcts that there are still a majority of children whose primary care comes from a faithful woman (mother) - and that there is still a far way to go before men accept their part as co-partners in the work of raising children!
0/10 men on their own at the day-clinic can mean just one thing! they wouldn’t cope… (sorry guys, am I letting the side down?)
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!!!
