seethrough

a bruised reed he will not break
and a dimly burning wick he will not quench

i often expend much energy and care looking after something when it’s new and blemish-free.  somehow i think if i really try hard i will be able to protect my new cell phone from it’s first scratch.

and then there’s the awful feeling when it slips from my hands for the first time and surrenders to it’s first scrape across the tar…

somehow i never feel quite the same about it again.  more recently i have got better.  i actually relax a lot more once the first scratch has been sustained.

it’s similar with something that is broken or nearing it’s end.  the peacock feather is valued till it get’s a crease  - and somehow then, it’s not longer worth holding.  it’s blemished.  and the insect that has suffered a blow, writhing on it’s back on the stoep.  so easy to just put it out of it’s misery.

it takes a special kind of spirit to see the bruised, bent, nearly broken reed and not just swing one’s arm down to chop it off at the point of weakness.  it’s a precarious patient process - tipping the candle with a short wick so as to drain the wax without snuffing the flame.

this is a value i must claim

i’m tired of bored people looking for a fix.  this quest for “miracles” that takes us looking for unexplained things, as if unexplained phenomenon prove the existence of God…

I was struck this morning as i shared Communion with the people of my church what a miracle it is to get 200 people from different backgrounds, political affiliations, languages and cultures all kneeling together in peace around a simple table and a simple meal.

In fact all the great miracles are the one’s that are easy to explain, but difficult to do:  e.g. political leaders choosing peaceful settlement rather than war - not inexplicable and yet a miracle if it happens.  or witnessing a person who has been deeply hurt coming to a place of forgiveness - not an alien sighting, and yet somehow so much more profound and miraculous when it happens.

this christmas, i’m looking out for the “ordinary” miracles - when the prince of peace comes i think he’ll get us busy on the stuff of miracles…  peace, goodwill toward people, hungry people fed, oppressed people freed…  nothing spectacular, but truly miraculous when it happens!

my early mentor and role-model in the ministry wrote this in a Christmas letter…

Response to Jacob Zuma’s election – at last the voice of the poor is being heard in South Africa! I think there’s little to fear in what’s happened - in fact it’s a chance to start again, in a country with huge riches, to share what we have (e.g. our GINI coefficient is still amongst the worst in the world.) And the story’s not about one man (unlike the Mbeki style). And even if Zuma is convicted, the new Deputy, Kgalema Motlante, has long experience in governance.

besides always being interested in what he has to say about things like this, i’m also always interested to hear an alternative voice. I personally think that most objections to Zuma have tended toward the moralistic (read judgemental) and reflect the affluent preference for a “Mbeki” who will not rock the economic boat too much. i think it is helpful to interpret Zuma’s election in terms of the poor needing to be heard!

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Christians always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in South Africa

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the information era, or longer life spans.

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!!!

I am a delegate to my church’s Conference in Cape Town this week. This morning we discussed various resolutions regarding same-sex relationships. While we were able to strongly affirm and encourage ongoing support and minsitry to gay and lesbian people (see a position), the church does not seem able to recognise the relationships of gay and lesbian people, even if they are committed and faithful relationships between two people. This obviously includes an unwillingness to allow any minister of our church to become an officer under the new Civil Unions legislation of our country. We asked that even just one symbolic person in each region be given permission to register, but this was rejected.

a few of us gathered after lunch to reflect on the discussion. i stood next to an older colleague who’s daughter is lesbian. across the group stood a contemporary who’s brother is gay. i thought of another older colleague who told me of his recent trip to London where he was able to celebrate the marriage of his daughter to her partner, a woman. i was filled with sadness for those whose family members and close friends are so deeply affected by the church’s inability to embrace them as fully human and capable of whole and healthy relationship in line with their sexual orientation.

and as we paused to pray, i began to weep…

a group of colleagues recently sent out a letter which begins like this:

in these days of moral and spiritual uncertainty the Church must give clear direction to her people, not least in the area of sexual morality.

while i commend them for their sincere concern for the witness of our church, i find their assumptions difficult to accept.

one of the total misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of an “inclusive” position with regard to same-sex relationships and the church, is the “so you’re saying anything goes” argument. besides being a logical fallacy (see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html), it also underestimates (or is disrespectful of ) the strong biblical and ethical basis for the position that supports full acceptance of people in same-sex relationship within the life of the Christian community.

on what basis do I support people in same-sex relationships and desire that they be fully embraced by the Christian Community?

1. the story of God relating with people (what biblical scholars call “salvation history”) which is recorded in scripture is an unfolding story of grace and mercy.
the whole of scripture moves from limited experiences and expressions of grace to more and more wide and embracing expressions and experiences of grace…

(more…)

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.