the christmas challenge

i've been doing my best to ignore christmas this year, but it's creeping up with ominous inevitability. of course, i've been to a few christmas parties and get-togethers already, but they've been remarkably un-christmas-y, with just the obligatory "merry christmas and happy new year" on parting, if that. last night was the first christmas family gathering (janette's side, for her brother and sister-in-law who will be away on christmas day), but even then there was almost no mention of the 'c'-word, which suited me fine.

i'm certainly not alone in being disenchanted with the whole christmas thing. to me, it has become about as far removed from the 'real meaning' of christmas as you can imagine. i'm not even sure if i agree with the idea of having a holiday to celebrate the birth of jesus - apart from the dubious origin of christmas as the 'christianisation' of a pagan solstice festival, i have a strong feeling the apostles and early believers would have found the idea ludicrous if not blasphemous. the celebration of the gift of jesus is for every day, not to be relegated, as it were, to one day a year (two days including easter). of course, that's exactly how it turned out - jesus is conveniently ignored by most people apart from christmas and easter (and increasingly even on those days), just as he is ignored by many church-goers during the week. on the other hand, you could argue that those people would ignore jesus the whole 365 days of the year, so having two days to bring attention to him is better than none. but i think that's confusing things, because christmas and easter are not primarily 'evangelistic' days (ie. with the purpose of 'spreading the gospel') but days of remembrance for believers. and if that is the case, i can't see any justification in having a set-apart day for christmas, either for believers or as a public holiday (assuming, as is the case, that we live in a secular society).

be all that as it may, there's no ignoring the fact that christmas is a big thing in our society, especially for kids and the retail business. and it's not inherently a bad thing to have a day of giving gifts to the important people in your life. what is bad, in my opinion, is that it has become a time of consumer feeding-frenzy, in which the only consolation to the pressure and stress of getting gifts for everyone else is the loot you'll get yourself (though that's usually disappointing, one of the reasons, i'm sure, for the family 'unrest' that often occurs on christmas day).

it takes a huge amount of imagination, ingenuity and effort to come up with gifts that don't buy into the consumeristic mindset, but that all takes time which most people in our rat-race society don't have. the challenge i would like to set, then (for myself as well), is to match dollar for dollar (at least) the money spent in retail outlets for christmas with donations or gifts to the the most needy in the world. one of the ways to do this is to shop at tear australia's (arguably) the world's most useful gift catalog. apart from that, a couple of excellent organisations to support are data (debt aids trade africa) and oxfam.

hope your christmas is filled with love and the joy of giving.

long-time love

since i don't seem to have too many of my own words this week, i'll go with what looks like becoming a tradition on fridays - something from bruce cockburn...

A Long-Time Love Song

Can't trace this conversation --
Words fragment and fall
Into blue shadows by a white-baked wall.
Through shimmering spaces a single thrush calls --
A song when it's over is no song at all

And you know I long to feel that sail
Leaping in the wind
And i long to see what lies beyond that rim
Oh, ever-new lover and friend
Sing me that love song again.

Time measured in summersaults
And flickering kids' play --
Cross-world and southward it's a fine summer day
Translucent life-span evaporates away
To bead on the cool grass in a cyclic ballet

bruce said about this song:

"There was an old people's home near where I used to live in Toronto - sometimes walking the dog late at night I'd come upon them loading a body in a long black hearse. Only at night. In the light of afternoon, you could see them enjoying the large garden. One wizened gray couple was always holding hands and looking at each other so romantically that it had to be a song."

(from "All The Diamonds" songbook, edited by Arthur McGregor, OFC Publications 1986)

this is a song i want played at my funeral. it connects with my heart-song in a way that no other song does. i love the counterpoint between the images of the transient and cyclical nature of life in the verses and the yearning for something more permanent, "ever-new", in the chorus. it is a beautiful expression of a yearning to be free of the confines of this present life.

there's something in me that really identifies with this longing to "feel that sail leaping in the wind", to know the wildness and freedom of life "beyond that rim" (images here of reepicheep at the end of the voyage of the dawn treader from c.s. lewis' narnia series).

i can't imagine a better articulation of 'what it's all about' than the final lines of the chorus: "ever-new lover and friend, sing me that love song again". this is the purpose and goal of all god's dealings with his creation, the expression of his perfect and undying love, for ever renewing and being renewed.

prized peace

there's been a fair bit of controversy surrounding the recipient of this year's Sydney Peace Prize, indian author arundhati roy, though not quite as much as last year's, palestinian hanan ashrawi. personally, i think both were excellent choices, and both women very deserving of the prize. this edited extract from roy's peace prize lecture, given at the seymour centre in sydney last night, is well worth a read.

"It is mendacious to make moral distinction between the unspeakable brutality of terrorism and the indiscriminate carnage of war and occupation. Both kinds of violence are unacceptable. We cannot support one and condemn the other."

children's stories

i suppose it's relatively early days yet, but i've started thinking about what janette and i can do so that freya grows up feeling free to think about and choose what she will believe in, but is also attracted to the faith of her parents.

it seems to me that a lot of what goes on in christian circles in regards to 'teaching' children about christianity/jesus/god is not too far removed from indoctrination or brainwashing. we tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think for themselves. the agenda is often clearly more to do with getting kids to behave in order to make their parents' feel good about themselves or to make life easier for them and other adults.

almost every 'children's talk' i've seen in churches follows the basic pattern "blah blah blah be good (for jesus)" or "blah blah blah god says honour your parents so be good". when i hear this (which is quite often now that i 'attend church' fairly regularly again), i want to shout out "give them a break! they get the whole be good thing everywhere else, so can't we lay off the guilt tripping in this one place at least where grace not performance is supposed to be the principle." as believers, we really should know better, and it's a sad indictment on the general environment and teaching in churches that this kind of thing is the norm, if not explicitly encouraged. if we truly believe that how good we are is NOT the basis of god's acceptance of us, how come we're teaching our kids that very thing?

i think adults in general seriously disrespect children. in many ways kids are treated as less than human, without minds of their own and not able to think through things and come to appropriate conclusions. we too often try to mold them in our image, forgetting that first and foremost they are children of god and he alone knows what is best for them.

one of the ways i think we disrespect children is by attaching morals to the stories we tell them. this especially applies to stories from the bible or others that illustrate a christian principle. we aren't content to just tell the story, we seem to think we have to spell out the lesson as if our young listeners can't think for themselves. in addition, the 'lesson' is often something we've forced on the story, and reflects an agenda of trying to instill behaviour conformity instead of revealing the infinite love and grace of god.

jesus told many stories, but explained 'the moral' of few of them, and even then only to a select few. i think one of the reasons for this was that he knew most of his hearers weren't ready to receive the message, and spelling it out for them would do more harm than good because they would turn them into principles and rules and thereby fence in the spirit. however, even if few people really understood what he was getting at, i think the stories/parables still had a positive effect by challenging the assumptions and worldview of those listening, confronting them with a different way of seeing things than the prevailing dogma. to use an analogy, the stories were helping to break up the ground so that the seed could eventually sink in and take root.

without denying or downplaying the very real relationship children can have with god, i think most of the task of parents and other adults is at this level of preparing the ground for children to develop their own unique and mature faith in god's good time. to my mind, this means is not being prescriptive about matters of faith, but instead providing an imaginative framework in the form of stories which demonstrate the love and grace of god. these stories can be narratives, fiction or otherwise, from the bible and elsewhere, but the main component is our lives as their parents. it's no secret that kids learn far more from what they see their parents doing than from what they are told. too often kids in 'christian' families grow up getting double messages and basically learn that hypocrisy is the normal mode of being. the 'trick' as parents is for our faith to be natural and consistent, while being upfront about our failures, which, not surprisingly, is what the whole thing is about anyway!

intervention

last night's australian story - "friends in deed" - was excellent. it told the story of three men who played significant roles in the 10 nation Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) led by australia. the three men were ben mcdevitt, the afp assistant commissioner responsible for the police side of the mission, diplomat nick warner and john frewin from the military. mcdevitt arguably had the toughest jobs of ridding the solomon islands police force of corruption, basically rebuilding it from scratch, and bringing about the arrest of rebel militia leader harold keke, which was almost miraculously accomplished without a shot being fired. due largely to the efforts of mcdevitt, warner and frewin, the solomons has returned to peace and the rule of law. it's a wonderful success story accomplished by level-headedness, determination, bravery and ingenuity. a very big hats off to these great ambassadors of our country.

while watching the program last night, my mind snagged on the term 'failed state', which was used to describe the solomon islands before the intervention. for whatever reason, my word association processor immediately came up with 'failed marriage', and it got me thinking about separation/divorce from the perspective of what i was watching. while there's not a lot of similarity between a state and a marriage, i think there are some interesting parallels in the larger context of failure and intervention.

to a certain extent we have the attitude that internal conflicts in other countries need to be sorted out by themselves, but there is an acknowledgement that what is happening, especially in near or neighbouring countries, impacts on the region and our own national interest. however, we don't seem to have this same acknowledgement that relationship difficulties between a couple significantly impact others (more than just the immediate family), but usually view it as just something the couple need to sort out (or not). sadly, it's often worse in a christian context, because marriage difficulty is usually treated as anathema, something to be left at home and not mentioned at church where you are expected to wear the facade that everything is happy and rosy and you're living the 'victorious life'.

so is 'outside intervention' a good idea in the context of relationships? i think it can be, but definitely not if it is pre-emptive intervention. in the case of the solomon islands, the government knew they were in dire straits and asked for assistance. i think its a tragic indictment on our lack of real involvement with each other that this kind of request for help is rarely made by couples, and when it is, the assistance is almost always sought from a counsellor or therapist who doesn't know the couple outside of the therapy room. while professional input of this kind is often helpful (though just as often not), doesn't it make more sense for people who know the couple well and have a significant degree of 'personal interest' in the relationship to be the ones helping out? why does it seem more difficult for a couple to go to the people close to them for help? this is a community issue because it's not just a case of the couple not wanting to talk about what's going on, but often also a clear, though usually unspoken, message from others that, for whatever reason, they don't want to know about it, so the ones going through the difficulties feel isolated and left to sort it out themselves.

another aspect of the solomon islands intervention was that it was a 10-nation assistance mission. i think this is another helpful example for 'relationship intervention', because if more people are involved there are more ideas and perspectives brought to the table, and the impact of any individual self-serving agendas is also reduced. while in this context you can't really talk about others solving any of the problems (and even in a country context it is the people themselves who must have the will to change for the peace to last), a mix of friends and family, most productively, i think, together (ie. in a kind of 'intervention meeting'), can offer a combination of advice and feedback to the couple which is greater than if each was to do so individually. of course, there is a (pretty small) limit to the number of people for which this would be helpful, as it would just become chaotic and do more harm than good.

one other example from the solomon islands case i think is pertinent is the gun amnesty. apart from the surrender of harold keke, probably the most significant turning point for the solomons was the rebels handing in their weapons. these were then melted down and the remains buried, with a plaque erected at the site as a reminder of the chaos and violence that widespread proliferation of guns can lead to. anyone who is or has been in a long term relationship knows about the weapons partners use against each other, proliferating and growing in strength as time goes by if not 'disarmed'. for a relationship in crisis (and even for those not on the rocks), i think a kind of weapons amnesty might be a good idea. this could be something like an informal ceremony with others present in which the partners would 'give up' their weapons, stating the things they use to try to wound the other and promising not to use them again. i think it's important that it's not done the other way around, each partner accusing the other of using this or that, and also that there is no rejoinder to each 'confession'. the aim is not to continue the battle, but to lay the weapons on the table and by doing so remove their potency.

maggie's words on words and the word

you may have noticed the link to maggie dawn's blog (among others) on the right of the screen. maggie has a heap of wisdom and insight, and i think you'll find it very worthwhile to check her out.

over the last number of weeks maggie has written an excellent series of posts called words and the word, which started as excerpts from her talk on the authority of the bible at greenbelt this year. she gives a very informative and scholarly, though easy to read, analysis of the issue of the inspiration of scripture, including discussions about translation, compilation of the canon, the true Word of God, 2 timothy 3:16, and much more. there are 7 parts to the series, the last just posted (the link above is to the first, and each has a link to the next at the bottom).

highly recommended.

post-mortem

literally, almost. maybe it's not quite that bad, but alan ramsey expresses my sentiments exactly (Nothing will save us from gullibility and greedy self-interest).

this was a triumph of negative campaigning and fear-mongering, a victory for short-sightedness, selfishness and greed, as clive hamilton, executive director of The Australia Institute, also writes in today's smh (Self-absorption wins the day). we've made the dollar god, and we're blindly prostrating ourselves before the altar. may god (the real one) help us, because the dollar is a mean and fickle mistress, with a history of enslaving her lovers and crippling their souls. what we reap we certainly shall sow.

one thing i can't understand is how so many of my fellow australians bought the interest rates lie. forget the fact that house affordability is at an all-time low, or that job security is so low - or maybe these were part of the tactic: deliver property prices that mean the mortgage takes up at least 50% of the average household's disposable income, then deliver job insecurity, and it's a sure bet that the "higher interest rates" scare tactic will hit home.

it only gets worse. there's a very good chance that the coalition will also have a majority in the senate (39 seats - they'll definitely have at least 38), so legislation will pass through unhindered and un-amended. that really is the most frightening result of this election.

the only silver lining i can think of is that the last time any leader has controlled both chambers was malcolm fraser between 1976 and 1981, which directly preceded the hawke/keating dynasty, and that is a hopeful precedent. i think it's more than likely that the 'mandate' (aka power) will go to the government's head and they'll screw us over (sale of remaining 51% of telstra, even-more-business-friendly-employee-exploiting industrial relations laws, removal of cross-media ownership rules) to such an extent that we'll finally see the light and get rid of them for a good long while. but Labor still has to play it right, and rowen atkinson's gratuitous advice is right on the money.

it seems that the trend in australia (similarly to the u.s.) is towards the conservative. this may be linked (in australia at least) with a resurgence in church-going, or it could just be a reflection of an increase in the upper-middle income demographic, which is where churches draw most of their members from. it really angers me, though, that there is such a strong perception that 'conservative' is more 'christian'. you'd be hard-pressed to find conservative or so-called family values in the gospels. on the contrary, you'd almost think jesus was anti-family by some of the things he said, and he made it pretty clear that the kingdom of god is a higher priority than the family. in fact, jesus was saying is that the kingdom, not the traditional, nuclear conception, is the real family, that it is to be open and organic, not closed, rigidly defined and self-protecting.

moreover, the conservative agenda tends towards increasing inequality in society, rewarding the 'haves' and leaving the 'have-nots' further behind (with the arrogant, superior, admonition that "if you just tried harder you could become a 'have' too"). many christians would implicitly, if not explicitly, agree with this attitude of 'god helps those who help themselves', not least those who hold to the 'blessing' or 'prosperity' doctrine so common in charismatic and pentecostal churches. but this is completely contrary to the kingdom values of equality for all, of giving a voice and place of honour to the exploited, the marginalised and disenfranchised, of the last being first and the first last.

ultimately, no matter what the government, believers are called to live according to the radical, society-transforming agenda of the kingdom. there is a grave danger, though, that christians in this country will become complacent in a political environment which they are told is in line with their values, or even worse, think that the government's agenda is basically 'christian' so nothing else needs to be done. is it foolish to hope that the opposite can happen, that a soul-less, materialistic society will drive believers back to their true values of compassion and justice?

christians and politics

been struck down by the 'flu this week and only now managing to get my head back above water (more or less). it's definitely not a pleasant place to be, but the bright side is that it forced me to catch up on some sleep, though even that would have been much better if 'the little one' (freya - 18 mths old tomorrow) hadn't had her own health/sleep issues. she's had a runny nose for several weeks, which obviously affects her sleep because of breathing problems. over the weekend it got so bad, though, that the mucous was seeping through to her eyes and crusting them up. not really an issue when she was sleeping, and apparently not painful, but a bit distressing when her eyes were so 'crusted up' that she couldn't open them when she woke up, and she wasn't too impressed when mum & dad tried to clean them up either. then yesterday afternoon she got really listless and had a high temperature so it seems she's caught the flu from me, the poor thing. thankfully we have an excellent doctor (who’s also a homeopath), and he's given us some good remedies, and freya was already noticeably improved by the evening, and slept quite well (relatively speaking) last night.

speaking of family (how's that for a segue), one of the hot topics around aussie blogs in relation to the election is the Family First party (a handful of posts, which include links to articles and other blogs on the subject, from the saint here, here, here, here and here; also this from backyardmissionary, which has a comment with a link to this blog by a member of the hawkesbury aog church). at the church we've started attending (though still spasmodically), a couple of people, including the service leader (not the pastor, who wasn't present), made statements on sunday in support of Family First. i actually found it quite offensive – not the content of what they said, but the fact that they endorsed a particular political party from the front, with the inherent authority that carries, in effect telling the people present how they should vote.

i suppose the assumption is that a voting christian should vote for a christian party. the irony with Family First is of course that they vehemently deny the 'christian party' tag (as much, one wonders, as an atheistic party would?), though they have very strong ties to the australian Assemblies of God evangelical/pentecostal denomination. obviously the first question is, regardless of whether or not the party is christian/religious, if the individuals themselves are christian, what kind of image is it sending to be dishonest and dissembling in the face of media questions on the aog links. this is what you would (sadly) expect from politicians, but hopefully not from christians, or does the former take precedence in this case, the ends (seats in parliament) justifying the means?

for me this illustrates the more fundamental question, which is whether a christian can or should be a politician at all, because of the self-promotion, dissembling, dishonesty and power-seeking which seem requisite with that job. is it possible to be a successful politician and be a follower of jesus, with the attributes of complete honesty and integrity, seeking to be the last instead of the first, the servant instead of the lord, taking the lowest seat instead of the place of honour, always promoting others instead of ourselves. call me naive or ignorant, but it would seem to me that these things are completely at odds with a life in politics in a modern day democracy.

it is a human desire to want to influence the way one's country is run, wanting the 'values' (getting really sick of that word) one believes in to be universally upheld. the first question must be, even if one legislates one's values, does that mean they will be accepted by the people? of course not, but does it matter? isn't it good enough that it is the law, so those who disagree must abide by it anyway? but isn't the point of christianity the changing of mind and heart? isn't this what we want for all the people? would not legislating our 'values' be counter-productive to this endeavour, creating resistance in those who do not appreciate being bludgeoned into acquiesence? do we really believe changing behaviour will lead to changing of the heart and mind? the great tragedy is that, at least from what you see and hear in most churches, this is exactly what christians believe...

my basic philosophy in relation to democratic politics is that the way to change what politicians do and decide is to change the people. politicians are obviously part of the population, and by and large reflect and pander to the will of the people, basically because that's the only way to get elected. though i don't believe democracy is inherently christian, this tenet of changing the people instead of seeking political power would seem to me to be congruent with christian principles.

though god at times (at least in the old testament) used nations to carry out his justice on other nations (which is nothing to be proud of), i think he's mostly indifferent about who has political power. what he's more interested in is how his people live, and living as a community according to his commands, pursuing justice and relief for the oppressed, cannot help but be a political act, highlighting and critiquing the nation's laws where they are unjust and oppressive. this is the way that i believe christians are called to change their world.

girard and ventura

thanks to whoever it was who came across this blog via this search (in italian), because it also came up with this excellent recent article on rene girard by michael kirwan. the article gives a brief background to girard's theories on religion and violence, as well as a basic description of those theories and their implications in regards to the recent hostage killings in iraq.

this paragraph in particular caught my eye:

"Of the many perspectives that this insight opens up, it is worth mentioning at least one. Girard asserts at one point that he is interested in 'conflict as a subtle destroyer of the differential meaning it seems to inflate'. What this means in plain language is none other than the paradox that violence makes antagonists identical to one another, even when their mutual hatred stresses only the differences (racial, religious) between them."

i think this is an extremely important observation, one that needs to be highlighted again and again in a political climate that gains so much mileage out of preaching a polarised, 'us good them evil', view of the world. of all the lies and deceptions which have been told us by our leaders since september 11 2001, this is, in my view, the most odious and destructive.

while on the subject, i highly recommend michael ventura's brilliant essay the lessons of guernica on the evidence that conflict makes antagonists resemble each other (though it's not clear if he owes the insight to girard). as ventura writes:

"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods, your enemy has won. The rest is suffering and historical opera."

the aussie dream

there was an interesting essay in monday's sydney morning herald about how renters have been left out of the 'great australian dream'. the author cites statistics that show that while the price of homes has soared, the distribution of wealth has become more and more in favour of those who already own their homes. one obvious contributing factor is the decreasing availability of space to build new homes in the major cities (where most of the jobs are), while immigration (both from overseas and from rural areas) incessantly drives up demand for housing. another factor is australia's negative-gearing laws which favour property investment, so that once you have 'liquidity' in a home it is not difficult to "make money from money." it's an equation that favours the 'haves' and makes it increasingly difficult for the have-nots to get a foot in the door. personally speaking, i think it’s immoral, but it seems hell with freeze over before either of the major political parties does anything about it. as the article says, nothing has been mentioned during this election campaign about assisting renters or making houses more affordable. it's either in the too-hard basket or that constituency is not considered important enough to pander to – after all, in australia, the rate of home ownership is a whopping 80%, compared to, say, 43% in germany, which has laws that give greater protection of renters' rights. i'm surprised that Labor, at least, hasn’t pointed out how disastrously counter-productive the Liberal government's first home-buyers grant has been, by pushing more buyers into an already over-crowded market, driving up prices even more, not to mention the fools-gold promise of ownership for the many who wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise, and who, after being handed their slice of the dream, found that they couldn't keep up the payments and ended up in a worse position than before.

deep breath. rant over. the real reason i brought this up was to explore the subject of renting vs. home ownership from a 'christian' point of view, because i believe this is an issue in which believers can, and maybe even should, stand out from the crowd.

it's not new to say that ownership in general, and property ownership in particular, is an illusion. nobody on this earth ever owns anything that is external to themselves. the most that can be said is that we take care of something for a while, until it either passes into the care of someone else or decays (or we send it to a place where we hope it decays, though it might take many hundreds of years, as in the case of most plastics).

not surprisingly, jesus wasn't big on ownership. in fact, he seemed to do all he can to discourage it, telling people to do strange things like sell all they had and give the money to the poor. i suspect that a lot of the time this was rhetorical (though not always, as in the story of the rich young ruler in luke 18), a way of highlighting the contrast between the attitude of the world and the attitude that a disciple should have, of not holding onto things and not trusting in money or possessions to give a sense of security, but to trust in god instead, the giver of all good and perfect gifts who clothes the lilies of the field in such beauty.

but, i hear you say, jesus also taught us to be good stewards, so he must have thought that owning stuff was ok. that's true, but jesus was a realist and he knew that, until his kingdom is fully established, there will always be a need to own things because, human nature being what it is, without some ownership the strong would too easily exploit the weak. but he still taught his disciples time and time again that living in the kingdom, which was and is a present reality for those who believe in him, means not holding onto anything, trusting instead in god for everything.

i should make it clear at this point that i don't believe owning a home is inherently sinful, and in fact my wife and i have a mortgage (though it sits uneasily with me, not just for the obvious nose-to-the-grindstone reasons, and we've started to reconsider). but i do believe that it is a relic, necessary or financially prudent though it may be, of the world that is passing away and that it will have no place in the kingdom. but then again, neither will renting...

as i said before, i think this issue is a perfect opportunity for christians to display to those who aren't believers that their values are different, informed by the kingdom not by the world. but while it's often easy to see the problem, the solution is rarely as clear. i'm also convinced that getting prescriptive is an error, no matter how attractive, because it's just replacing the old law for a new one. imagination and creative thinking are called for, as in all aspects of living in a kingdom that is here but not yet fully realised.

the principle, though, is that we as believers don't subscribe to 'the dream' and don't live as if we do. the dream isn't just about owning a home, though. it has more to do with having a place that we can turn into our own little kingdom, where we have control over what happens, where we can basically do what we like (as long as we can hide it from the authorities if it's illegal), where we decide who comes and goes. it's the old feudal lord syndrome (aka FDS, or maybe it's FDE – feudal lord envy) in modern dress. no peasants or any other riff-raff allowed, thank you very much. how different this is to the kingdom values of openness, other-centredness and hospitality to all without condition or favour? how can living by these values become evident in our day to day lives?

another obvious issue is the hold that possessions have on their owners, the greater the value the greater the hold. would it be possible to be indifferent if your home was suddenly destroyed by a freak event, to see such an event as basically irrelevant to your well-being and quality of life? would it be easier if the home was in mt druitt or double bay? as in the case of wealth (and who in australia, especially among us non-aboriginals, is not wealthy by world standards), the having is not evil, but the temptations to greed, materialism and idolatry it lets in the door are enough for all but the extremely foolhardy to want to be free of it.

i don't have any easy answers, but its seems clear to me that on the issue of home ownership, we as believers have the opportunity and responsibility to show that we don't blindly follow the values and dreams of those around us. we need to work out, as individuals and groups in our particular situations and circumstances, what it means to challenge and subvert this rarely-questioned ideal of our society, to make it glaringly obvious, like a city on a hill, that we live by a different set of values, because we have a deeper and more real citizenship, that of the kingdom of jesus.

many apologies if this all sounded too much like a sermon...

the ultimate

i used to be a regular (some might say fanatical) ultimate frisbee player, but i haven't played much in the last few years since we moved out of the city.

ultimate frisbee is like a cross between american football and netball - it's a team sport (7 a side) played with a flying disc (frisbee is actually a brand name, and ultimate is usually played with a 175g. ultrastar disc, not a frisbee). the american football bit is that it is played on a field with endzones, and you have to throw into the endzone to one of your teammates to score (not through a goal). the netball bit is that you can't run with the disc when you have it (but there aren't any of the zone restrictions that netball has). it's a fast-paced non-contact (well, in theory at least) sport that requires a lot of fitness and skill (catching and throwing for starters).

the best aspect of the game, though, is that there are no referees or umpires - the players make their own calls, including for fouls and other infringements like in/out of bounds and 'travelling' (similar rule to basketball). there are accomodations in the rules for disputed calls, though naturally these can get a bit heated. the over-arching principle and primary ethos of the sport, however, is the spirit of the game. players and teams that play with good 'spirit' are highly esteemed, and similarly those that have bad spirit are shunned or ostracised. you might think this would mean that it's a bit of a 'sissy' sport that lacks passion, but that couldn't be further from the truth. ultimate players love their sport passionately, and play (and party) hard (one of my cherished frisbee t-shirts - of which i have many - carries the slogan "work hard, play harder").

ultimate is a fast-growing sport, here in australia and around the world. it is very likely that it will become an olympic sport in the next 20 years, and is already included in the world games. it has held it's own world championships for the last 20 years or so, as well as world club championships. at the 'worlds' held in finland earlier this year, australia came THIRD in the open (men's) division, which is by far the best we've ever done (previous best was 6th i think). in this tournament we beat both finland and sweden for the first time ever, with the latter no fluke because we did it twice, including the 'bronze medal' playoff game. historically speaking this is an incredible feat, as sweden has been one of the dominant countries, winning worlds in 1996 when the u.s. was beaten for the first time. in the 'gold medal' game this year, canada beat the u.s. to become world champions for the second time (the first was in 1998). there are a heap of great pictures from this year's worlds here.

the australian flying disc association has an excellent website, which has a heap of news, articles and other information. australia is actually hosting the world club championships in perth in 2006, so any sandgropers reading this keep an eye out. i definitely plan to be part of it, but obviously in the masters division (a nice way of saying 'the old buggers').

being human

yesterday afternoon/evening was the last cafe grace. there were going to be a two more in the next couple of months, but mark will be too busy with travel and preparations for taking up his new job at the bible college of new zealand and training others to take over his business here in sydney.

so i'm glad i went yesterday, despite the tiring (but good) weekend, which included a trip to canberra and back (two hours each way) with my mum & dad on saturday to see floriade, then packing and driving up to parramatta (over an hour) lunchtime sunday before heading out to the the strom's house west of richmond (another hour). a lot of driving but all very worth it.

as i said, it wasn't planned to be the last cafe grace, but it ended fittingly as mark basically gave an overview or summary of all he'd talked about over the last couple of years. the reason for this was that it was being video-taped, basically to get it down on some sort of hard-copy for mark to use as he sees fit, including turning it into a book (which i think would be excellent). i don't know if he'll ever make the video widely available (i doubt he'd sell it but could do a mail-order thing with it if he ever gets the time), but it would be an great introduction to the what he's been thinking and studying and teaching over the last few years, stuff which is, in my most humble opinion, quite revolutionary for the church, though it is completely biblically based. on the other hand, its quite possible that many christians wouldn't be ready or receptive to it, because they want to keep doing christianity and church they way they're comfortable with. but i think there is a growing number of believers (including myself) who are just not satisfied with the status quo anymore, and it is to these that mark's exposition of the scriptures is, i think, like rain to a drought-striken land.

one of the major themes of what mark had to say yesterday was the dignity and glory that we have as god's children. so often we have the attitude that we're basically good-for-nothing worms that are not worth anybody's time or attention, let alone god's! but this is not how the bible portrays us. god made us in his image, which gives us enormous dignity and worth - as psalm 8 says,

"What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor."
(vs 4 & 5, NIV)

we find it easy to relate to the first part, but it is the second part that is the truth, the answer to the "what is man?" question.

one of the illustrations of this that mark talked about yesterday was something he heard recently from a guy named rick watts (i think), to do with the way moses wrote the book of genesis. in ancient near east religions, when people had finished building a temple, the last thing they did was to place the image of their god in it. this is paralleled in the opening chapter of genesis, where god creates the world, which is his temple, then finishes the job by placing human beings, bearing his image, in the temple.

of course this image was corrupted by sin, but the rest of the story of the bible, culminating in jesus, is about the god putting the whole thing back together again, restorating us to that place of dignity and glory which god always intended for us, and through us the rest of creation. in romans 8:18-21, paul says

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." (NIV)

again, we are so used to hearing the 'creation is groaning' bit (vs. 22), but we miss that what creation is waiting for is not to burn but to be liberated, and that liberation is going to come through us, by "the glorious freedom of the children of god."

another aspect of the ancient near east religious custom was to 'animate' the image of the god in the temple, by rituals which highlighted the mouth, eyes and ears of the image, as well as its hands and feet. again, there is a wonderful parallel in the bible, with the bulk of jesus' miracles dealing with those things, the eyes, ears, speech, hands and feet. so we can see these miracles, not just as a display of the divinity of jesus, but as reflecting the heart of god to bring restoration to our physical bodies.

finally, in the resurrection of jesus into a human body, instead of some 'heavenly' or 'alien' form, we see the ultimate reaffirmation and vindication of our human-ness. and it is in and because of the resurrection that we are (and will be) ultimately and finally restored, in jesus, to who we were meant to be.

this is truth. are you ready to live it?

growth by imagination

leighton tebay at the heresy asked this question of church in one of his recent blog entries (First church plant meeting): "Do we rely on God to change people or do we convince them by challenging them rationally or stimulating them emotionally?"

i've been thinking a bit about this issue myself recently. the problems of the rational and emotional are well-documented, the former being either too abstract and cut off from reality or too prescriptive and legalistic, the latter being too fickle and short-lived, while both are in danger of promoting a hypocritical life, dividing the mind and emotions, suppressing the one at the expense of the other. i think, though, that the best and most productive way to encourage change in others is neither of these, but a third option, which is by stimulating the imagination.

i read something to this effect a while back in one of george macdonald's 'unspoken sermons' and didn't really get it at the time, but i noticed recently when listening to a sermon that where it really grabbed me was when a point or comment or phrase sparked my imagination, sending my mind off on a 'wander' about how the point connected with my life. its a bit ironic (but no less funny ;^) that the one thing most preachers dread (their 'audience' daydreaming) might in fact be the most productive thing that happens during the sermon!

it is at the level of imagination, i think, that we know and relate to god - we can't see him or pin him down rationally, so we imagine him as best we can. this is not a bad thing, and is definitely not saying that god doesn't really exist or that our relationship to him is not absolute fact, its just a fact of our limited lives on this earth. it is also in our imagination that we connect what we read and hear with our lives - when reading a good book, for example, we imagine ourselves in the story, or when we're listening to someone, we're almost always thinking about how the same thing happened to us.

i think the gospel becomes real to us in a similar way, firstly by imagining ourselves into the kingdom story (which is not an exercise in fiction because we really are part of the story - see my post living the story), and secondly by imagining the truth into our lives. by this latter i mean something like i mentioned above about what happened to me while listening to a sermon recently: we hear a point of truth and it makes a connection in our minds with our own lives and we imagine what it would mean to put it into practice. of course, this doesn't always end up as changed behaviour (is that really the point anyway?), but i think it results in more authentic change because each person is applying the truth creatively in their own situations, giving them a sense of involvement and ownership in the process which is impossible to achieve by only appealing to the rational or emotional.

naturally, it is far easier to impart truth in this way when it is contained in a story, so it's not surprising that jesus often taught in parables, which were simple stories to which his listeners could connect their lives, containing enough familiar to pull them in, then imparting the truth by an unexpected twist which subverted their expectations and challenged their understanding of god and his dealings with them. it's a pretty tall ask, though, to expect pastors and bible teachers to come up with modern parables which function in the same way for their congregations, but that's not necessary because in each gathering of believers there is a veritable treasure trove of stories from the lives of those present waiting to be told. by hearing each other's different stories, we discover the many ways in which the truth of the gospel can take form in daily life, and our imaginations are stimulated to consider how to apply it in our own unique situations.

i've said this before, but i think 'church' would feel much more interesting and relevant if it was based around conversations, each one learning from the others, not to mention the respect and dignity it would impart to each one instead of all the focus being on one person. maybe its a bit harder to see, but i believe such a model would also be far more effective (though maybe less manageable) in bringing about true christian growth and maturity in people's lives.

imagine that!

contemplation in a world of violence

i've been wanting to write something about james alison's paper Contemplation in a World of Violence, which i've read and re-read over the past week. i’m staggered by the profundity of what he says – words that my heart attests are true because they don’t so much teach me what i didn’t know but give voice and form to a knowing which was always there.

the paper, originally presented in november 2001, addresses the events of september 11 2001 and their 'meaning', so i think it holds particular resonance at the moment, with the recent 3rd anniversary of "9/11" just gone, preceded closely by the tragic events in beslan and last week's bomb attack on the australian embassy in jakarta.

the starting point of what alison says in this paper is a recognition that the terrible acts of violence such as those of september 11 2001, and indeed to some extent any acts of violence, suck us in to seeing the world through the eyes of the violent, summoning us, as he says, "to participate in something satanic." it is not the events themselves which are satanic, but the meaning we give them and hence the meaning they give to us of belonging "to something bigger, more important, with hints of nobility and solidarity." alison calls this satanic for the precise reason that it is a "lie from the one who was a murderer and liar from the beginning, the same lie behind all human sacrifices, all attempts to create social order and meaning out of a sacred space of victimization."

one indication that this feeling of unanimity and solidarity is a lie and illusion is that it is not a true universal oneness but an attitude of us and them, of the good and innocent against the 'evildoers'. such a framing of things breaks down further because it requires classifying everyone into 'with us' or 'against us', a task which brings more and more division as it becomes increasingly clear that there are some amongst us who are not fully on our side. the outworkings of this mindset are clear to see in the united states (and, to a lesser extent, australia and britain) over the last 3 years.

the contrast with the workings of god in jesus could not be more stark. on this point its worth quoting alison at length:

"Jesus not only taught us to look away, not to allow ourselves to be seduced by the satanic. He also acted out what the undoing of the satanic meant: he was so powerful that he was able to lose to its need to sacrifice so as to show that it was entirely unnecessary. We are so used to describing Jesus cross and resurrection as a victory - a description taken from the military hardware store of satanic meaning - that we easily forget that what that victory looked like was a failure. So great is the power behind Jesus teaching and self-giving that he was able to fail, thus showing once and for all that 'having to win', the grasping on to meaning, success, reputation, life and so on is of no consequence at all. Death could not hold him in, because he was held in being by one for whom death does not exist, is not even the sort of rival who might be challenged to a duel which someone might win. But if death can only get meaning by having victory, if the order of sacred violence can only have meaning if it matters to us to survive, to be, to feel good, at the expense of someone, then someone for whom it doesn't matter to lose is someone who is playing its game on totally different terms, and its potential for giving meaning collapses."

here we see the true revelation and revolution of jesus, "a human heart and eyes so utterly held by the Creator that they speak the Creator's heart about this world . . . not just in word, but by a creative acting out and living so-as-to-lose to the sacrificial game in order to undo it, thus enabling creation to be unsnarled from our truncation of it into a violent perversion and trap."

this is truly gospel, good news which has the power to change lives. jesus showed us "what living from utterly non-rivalistic creative power for which death is not, looks like," and then died to set us free from "the world of our meaning and our death." death has no real meaning or power because god is beyond and above death, and it is in his arms that we are held.

alison's questing mind takes him further into the heart of the matter by asking why god would want to do such a thing for us: "Why not leave us to get on with it, stuck in our charades, thinking the world of our meaning and our death?" what is behind this "desire for us not to be trapped in death?" the answer he comes up with his simple but profound:

"The staggering thing that this means, for me, is that the most extraordinary fruit of contemplation in the shadow of the violence which we are experiencing is this: God likes us. All of us. God likes me and I like being liked. It has nothing to do with whether we are bad or good, indeed, he takes it for granted that we are all more or less strongly tied up in the sacred lie. In teaching after teaching he makes the same point: all are invited, bad and good. Those are our categories, part of the problem not part of the solution, not God's category. God's 'category' for us is 'created' and 'created' means 'liked spaciously, delighted in, wanted to give extension, fulfilment, fruition to, to share in just being'. We are missing out on something huge and powerful and serene and enjoyable and safe and meaningful by being caught up in something less than that, an ersatz perversion of each of those things. And because God likes us he wants us to get out of our addiction to the ersatz so as to become free and happy."

i think this conclusion has incredible implications, especially for those of us who call ourselves followers of jesus. it completely removes all basis for division or exclusion, for thinking and acting in terms of in and out, us and them. it shows up our rivalries and struggles for control as folly, nothing but clutching after illusions. and because we are secure in the gentle, strong liking of god we are able to live truly without fear or favour. alison concludes his essay with by revealing the subversive potential of such a life, lived safe in the "powerful, infinitely restful" hands of god:

"Personally, the strongest feeling I have had over the last few weeks is the quite unexpected discovery that I am no longer frightened of Muslims, and that I like them, and that this is only the beginning of discovering what it will mean to rejoice in them and see them as part of an 'us'. Is this not the deepest act of treachery against the satanic order which was turned on in a part of all our minds and hearts by the events of September 11th?

"And where on earth will it end?"

Where indeed...

new discoveries

i've been reading through some of the back-catalog on paul fromont's blog, and just came across one from about a month ago on james alison (see also james alison - essays of interest). as paul describes, james alison "is a theology professor, journalist, author, and openly gay Roman Catholic priest." he is also the author of Knowing Jesus, Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay and On Being Liked, among other books.

i suppose the reason this caught my eye is the link between a couple of my recent posts - the fact that alison is gay, as well as his thinking regarding the atonement (you can read my poor and fumbling thoughts on this subject here). this latter link is comes from the book description of his latest book:

On Being Liked is the transforming and joyful sequel to Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay, which established the Catholic priest and writer James Alison as one of the most striking, original, and intellectually irresistible voices in the church. Alison invites us to let go of a commonly held account of salvation that is nonsensical, scandalous and damaging. He takes us step-by-step through a bold adventure of re-imagining the central axis of the Christian story, not as ‘How does God deal with sin?’ but as ‘How do we take up God’s invitation to share in the act of creation?’ All the while, to our growing astonishment and wonder, we discover ourselves as liked – not only loved - in the eyes of God.

this sounds like a book that is definitely worth checking out.

alison recently gave a lecture titled "Who Sacrifices Whom to Whom? Rethinking Atonement" at trinity college, university of melbourne (on september 2nd). i did a google search to see if anything has been written up about it but came up empty. i did, however, find this link to a study of the theory and theology of rene girard in regards to sin and redemption (alison's book is listed in the bibliography). girard is another thinker i hadn't heard about until today, but who i will also be exploring more deeply (starting by reading the above study).

clean

i can't remember what the context of my thoughts were at the time, but it occurred to me yesterday that gays/homosexuals are to contemporary evangelical christians as lepers were to first-century jews. by this i mean they are basically considered sinners and diseased, and are treated as outcasts, unwelcome in the community (until they are 'healed', which requires verification by the 'priest', and even then are looked upon with distrust and suspicion because its not really believed that such a 'disease' can be healed).

though i haven't done an in-depth study into it, i'm aware of the bible passages which condemn homosexual behaviour. i wonder, though, if these verses really do speak to our contemporary situation, because back when they were written they the 'category' of gay or homosexual didn't exist as we know it. from my observation, most gay people these days see themselves as exclusively homosexual, that it is not so much a behavioural decision as a reality which has been forced upon them. of course i can't be certain about this, but i don't think anyone in the ancient world who participated in homosexual acts would have thought of themselves in that way. it is more likely that these acts were done out of perversion or abuse of power, in which case it is right to condemn them. it hardly needs saying, but abuse of sexuality for reasons of perversion or abuse of power is by no means restricted to homosexual relations, and it could even be said that these kinds of abuses committed in heterosexual relations are far worse, because they usually come under the disguise of 'normality' and respectability, husbands towards wives, fathers towards daughters, bosses to vulnerable employees. if christians condemned these things anywhere near as vehemently and persistently as they condemn gays, this world would be a far far better place.

there's a beautiful moment near the beginning of the american tv miniseries angels in america in which one of the characters, who has just found out that her husband is gay, is speaking in a kind of dream sequence with another (gay) character who has just been told that he has aids. she says to him, "deep inside you, there is a part of you - your innermost part - that is entirely free of disease."

as told in matthew 8:2-3, a man with leprosy came to jesus and said, "lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean. jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "i am willing," he said. "be clean." the man was healed from the leprosy but jesus was doing something much deeper than that, pronouncing the man clean independent of his physical condition.

i think it is time for the church, as the representative of jesus in the world, to reach out our hands to the homosexual community, touch them and say, "you are clean because of what jesus has done. come and dine with us. it is not our place to keep you out."

living the story

i never really came through on my promise to write about the "[Almost the Whole] Bible in a Day" seminar given by mark strom a couple of months ago, but one of the things it gave me was a renewed appreciation for the unity of the bible (which was basically the aim of the seminar). the bible is not a manual for how to live, but an unfolding story which spans the history of humanity and is centred around jesus the messiah of israel. there is a progression and flow of ideas and events, carried by god's promises (eg. to noah, abraham, david, the israelites at sinai, etc.), moving from creation to fall to redemption as recreation. it is a history that moves from humanity to one nation to one man to humanity, everything leading up to and pointing towards the life, death and resurrection of jesus. this is not Plan B – it was all there from the beginning, god's plan to redeem humanity through his messiah.

one of the revolutionary things for me about this understanding of the scriptures is that it means that we, here and now in the 21st century, are part of the story. one of the major problems with the contemporary church is, i think, that we've lost any real connection with the story of redemption – it all happened so long ago and seems so remote that we don't feel a part of it in any way, though we know we benefit from what jesus did for us. this is exacerbated by the prominence given by evangelicals to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the scriptures, because it's hard to avoid the implication that everything important happened way back then, and nothing that has occurred or been written since then is as significant, including (and probably especially) our own lives. instead, we generally believe that we're in a 'waiting period' until the real story resumes when jesus returns. similarly, our lives as believers are lived as if between the two important events of our 'conversion' and our 'glorification' when we die and go to heaven, and nothing in between has any real importance (except maybe to tell others that they too can go to heaven when they die).

what happened to life now? what happened to the church as the living, incarnate body of christ in this world?

during the "[Almost the Whole] Bible in a Day" seminar, mark shared something he heard from n. t. wright (i think), an image of a drama with 5 acts, in which the first 3 acts and beginning of the 4th have been written, as well as an outline of the 5th. this is basically what we have as believers, but the point is that god has given us the task of writing the rest of the 4th act. what an idea! i think most christians would balk at such a suggestion. many would consider the thought of us being involved in writing what is in effect a continuation of the scriptures to be tantamount to blasphemy. others would find it very difficult to imagine themselves in such a significant role (as if there is any such thing as an insignificant person!). but I believe that this is exactly the situation that we are in and the task that we have before us, an enormous responsibility but also an incredible privilege. we're not members of a dead or dried-up religion, but active partakers in a living story, the story of god's redemption of humankind: the ending is sure, but we have a major part in determining how (or even if) we move towards that end in our lifetime. forgive my enthusiasm, but is that exciting or what!

i think this also gives a whole different slant on church. instead of being somewhere we go to hear and/or discuss abstract doctrine, it is where we join up all our individual stories to make up the collective story of the kingdom of god, real and living in this time and place. to tell our stories to each other is to continue the narrative of kingdom, grounding our faith in day to day life, weaving together a rich and beautiful tapestry (though we seldom catch a glimpse of its beauty we usually only see the reverse side with its confusion of colours and threads). what a difference that would be from the intellectual, irrelevant, guilt-provoking experience that most people have of church...

truth incarnate

i'm really late to the party here, but i've just read paul fromont's blog on emerging truth and orthodoxy. this is some of what he wrote:

Where is truth located? For me, I’m increasingly relocating “truth” and “orthodoxy” from the solely rational sphere to the embodied and incarnational, e.g. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life – so what does that look like, feel like, taste like, smell like, and sound like in embodied realities such as church, community, and world? Truth is not abstract and solely propositional, truth in embodied in flesh and blood. The truth of what is said is seen and experienced. Don’t talk to me about “love” – show the truth of love by the reality of its being experienced by me in a very multi-sensual way. Truth then is not a matter of opinion, truth is incarnation and embodiment, truth is a particular story lived into and especially lived out of. Tell me your truth and I’ll look, taste, touch, smell, and listen. Does it make a difference?

this makes a whole lot of sense to me, at the same time as scaring me half to death. i like to keep my 'truth' cerebral and propositional, it feels safer and somehow less demanding that way. i fool myself that i can 'figure it all out' before putting it into action, but that's just empty vanity and doesn't help myself or anyone else. knowledge is useless if its not lived. truth is meaningless if its not incarnate, radiating out of one's life like a strong aroma.

i need to be reminded of this often, and i need to do something about it. i'm very aware at the moment that my rubber hasn't been hitting the road, that my life has been pretty much tasteless and lukewarm for a long time. i want to have a positive affect on those around me, but that's not going to happen by just talking the talk.

stay tuned, this journey has only just begun.

conversations

a few weeks ago i was listening to a friend of mine give a sermon. as always, my mind drifted and i started thinking about why it seems so hard for believers to talk about their faith with each other. we sit 'in church', participate more or less (usually a lot less than more), most often sing about god and jesus and salvation, listen for a while to somebody talk about same, then when its all over (usually to everyone's relief, most of all the pastor/leader) we stand around drinking our cup of tea or coffee and talk about everything but god and jesus and salvation.

why is this? what makes it so hard? why does it feel so unnatural?

i've continued to think about this on and off since then, trying to come up with an answer (as is my want). i think part of the reason is the 'personalisation' of faith - we've had it drummed into us, by our surrounding culture as well as church culture, that faith is a personal thing, so we keep it inside and respect other people's similar desire to not talk about it. added to this is the elitism which seems almost an integral part of evangelical christianity - most of us haven't been trained theologically, so we don't feel competent or comfortable to talk about 'the faith'. this is perpetuated, among other things, by the focus of our gatherings being 'up the front', usually on a raised stage or dais if not a towering pulpit, where the chosen ones do their stuff, usually using language and other subtle (or not so subtle) hints which accentuate their superiour knowledge and distances them from the 'common people' in the audience. the pervasive academicism also gives the impression that talking about our faith means discoursing on theological ideas, not speaking of how jesus is real to us in our everyday lives. this highlights a further issue, probably the most pertinent (and tragic) of all: most of us don't feel that jesus or our faith really connects to our everyday lives.

mark strom has this to say in his book reframing paul: conversations in grace & community:

Evangelicals like to distance themselves from the ritual traditions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. To be sure, we are a long way from the more overt religiosity of the Graeco-Roman cults and clubs. Yet when we consider the entirely nonreligious character of Paul's ekklesiai and his struggle to keep them free from the religious mindset, we may well ask how much of that same mindset we have perpetuated. Church services are religious occasions structured around formal proceedings conducted by authorised leaders – a far cry from the spontaneity of the ekklesia and the central place it gave to conversation between all participants. Even more informal and relaxed modes of meeting, such as seeker services and 'sharing times,' remain more in the domain of entertainment or of a token nod in the direction of egalitarianism. Rarely do they accord the dignity and freedom that Paul attributed to the conversations within his ekklesiai.

How far have we drifted from the spirit of Paul? We need only consider our loss of the capacity for sustained conversation about Christ and the affairs of our everyday lives. It is no wonder so many struggle to imagine a world of rich conversation integrating faith and everyday life, a world of sustained conversation unfettered by irrelevant sermons and theological disputes, a world of sustained conversation freed from the confining agendas of the professional elites of clergy and theologians. (p. 141)

mark and his wife sue have put this into practice with cafe grace, which is the most refreshing experience of 'church' i've had in a long time, if not ever. while undoubtably mark's theological training adds significantly to the 'meat' of the discussions at cafe grace, the hallmark of the gatherings is the relevance and immediacy of the subject matter to our everyday lives. i think a large part of this is because more than anything else it is a conversation in which all are free to participate, with the topic moving fluidly as people share their perspectives and how it relates to their lives. in addition, the teaching that mark gives isn't delivered in an abstract or remote manner which highlights his academic credentials and distances his listeners, but his enthusiasm and 'realness' invite and engage those present, imparting a sense of excitement about the life of faith in jesus and its relevance to our whole lives. there's also a strong awareness throughout these gatherings of the significance of every believer and of what each one contributes to the whole.

ok, i didn't intend this to be a mark strom admiration post, but i do really respect the guy and what he does. sadly, we're going to lose him again soon, as he takes up the post of principal of the bible college of new zealand in auckland in the new year. but the cafe grace gatherings have given me an experience of what i believe church should be like, and inspiration for getting something similar started in our own area. to bring this back to the original topic, i believe that it is by moving away from the existing church structures and patterns to a conversational model which relates the gospel to everyday life and work and imparts a sense of the true equality and significance of all believers by involving everyone in the conversation that we will be able to re-integrate our lives and our faith and thereby bring the good news back to our lips as we speak to each other, in a way that is spontaneous and natural. imagine that!

atonement

many thanks again to the organic church blog for the link to this great essay on the atonement.

the essay begins with a critique of the satisfaction model of atonement, which was first propounded by anselm, bishop of canterbury, in the 11th century, then further developed by luther, calvin and others until today it is the most popular understanding of the atonement in western theology. here are a few paragraphs:

Denny Weaver [in The Nonviolent Atonement, p.203] argues that "satisfaction atonement in any form depends on divinely sanctioned violence that follows from the assumption that doing justice means to punish." This not only paints a picture of God as a violent and vengeful deity, but it also shows God acting in ways that contradict the non-violent Christ of the gospel.

Moreover, it is pastorally irresponsible as it discourages resistance to violent oppression. This has been a major complaint of black theologians and feminists. Anselm’s model makes a positive virtue out of innocent suffering and passive submission to an abusive authority. It is historically true that such an approach has been used to stifle the complaints of slaves and to silence the cries of abused spouses. It has sanctioned ill-treatment of the marginalized and placed incontestable power in the hands of ungodly oppressors.

Additionally, the satisfaction model is ahistorical and consequently devoid of ethical content. It conceives of atonement as something that takes place outside of actual history. It depends on some “spiritual” (read, ‘abstract’) transaction between God the Father and the Son that removes human guilt and restores God's honour but fails to address the actual structures of oppression.

Satisfaction atonement also takes place outside the particular history of Jesus' earthly ministry. His life and teachings are somehow divorced from his death. In fact, it reduces the meaning of Jesus' life to some elongated preface – a demonstration that the lamb was spotless and apt to die in our place. It might even be said that the best thing about Jesus' life is that it came to an end!

personally, i've been dissatisfied (boom boom) with the 'satisfaction model' for a number of years. apart from the issues quoted above (and others in the essay), i think it promotes, because of it's abstractness and a-historicity, a wrong view of christian life in which, once someone 'becomes a christian', what they do for the rest of their life is basically irrelevant (except to try and persuade others to become christians as well). in other words, just as the act of atonement is basically divorced from the rest of jesus' life and ministry according to the satisfaction model, partaking in the benefits of atonement is, for all intents and purposes, divorced from the day to day life of a believer, other than providing the hope of eternal life after we die. whether or not this is stated explicitly in evangelical circles, i think the truth of it can be seen in the lives of christians, which for the most part are indistinguishable from generally moral, clean-living non-christians. of course christians aren’t supposed to be criminals, but the radical, subversive, counter-cultural kingdom lifestyle that jesus taught and demonstrated is almost impossible to find, because christians generally believe that getting to heaven is the important thing, not how we live now. if we think that when we die we'll be perfected instantly anyway, there's not a huge amount of incentive to put any effort into real personal change other than to gain some sense of personal satisfaction (there's that word again). a further outcome is that christians often develop an arrogant and superior attitude, believing they are somehow better because they’ve been ‘saved’ and expect to spend eternity in heaven, instead of being one of the condemned who will suffer for eternity.

jesus did not die to satisfy god’s requirement for blood or payment for crimes committed. any victim knows that justice is not served by punishment. punishment is the poor alternative we resort to because we cannot achieve true justice, but god is just and he is able to accomplish justice without resorting to punishment. we live with the consequences of our sins constantly, in the pain we experience, in our broken relationships, and ultimately in our death. god doesn't require any more punishment for us than this punishment we inflict on ourselves. there is no way that condemning a sinner to eternal torment satisfies any true notion of justice, or could conceivably make recompense for the wrongs that were committed. it runs completely counter to all notions of god as loving, righteous and just.

jesus was sinless and so did not have to endure pain or death, but he chose to live amongst us and experience the pain caused by the sins of others against him, and ultimately to die because of those sins. it was literally our sin that put him to death, and if you or i had been there we would have done the same. the only reason he died is because we killed him. if sin had not entered the world through adam, jesus would still have come, but it would have been a joyous, triumphant coming capped off with the crowning of the King of Kings and a reign that never ends. this is going to happen, but it’s going to be the second time round because the first time we were still lost in our sins and hell-bent on destruction.

jesus had to die because he chose to be born into the line of adam, who was condemned along with his descendents by the promise of god that if you eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil you will surely die. but god raised jesus, vindicating him as righteous, and so he became the new adam, the firstborn of the new creation. it is to this renewed, resurrected, line of humanity that we can be joined by the grace of god, who through his sheer mercy justifies us and remembers our sin no more, cancelling our identity in adam and replacing it with a new identity in christ. this is a present reality, not just a future hope, though we still live in a world ruled by sin. by living according to our new identity we actively bring the kingom of god into being here and now, bringing blessing to everyone around us, so how we live as christians is incredibly important. and we have the assurance that one day we will be resurrected into the finally and perfectly realised kingdom of jesus that will last forever.

this really is good news!

the power and the glory

this is a bit of a long one, which i've been working on for a while...

i’m currently reading mark strom’s brilliant book reframing paul: conversations in grace & community. one of the many things it’s given me to think about is the subject of suffering.

a lack of suffering is, i believe, one the symptoms of the general malaise that i see afflicting the western church at the moment. this might sound strange in light of the fact that one of the most popular christian movements at the moment holds to what has been called a prosperity doctrine, a philosophy which seems to preclude any notion that suffering is to be expected for believers, but holds that it is instead quite the opposite – a sign of sin or, at best, a lack of faith (which is often seen as more or less the same thing). to my mind, this is a remarkable return to an old testament way of thinking, so it is maybe not surprising that the scripture verses used to support this doctrine are almost entirely from the old testament. while it may have been the pattern of the old covenant for the signs and proofs of god’s blessing to be the health and material prosperity of the people of god here and now, we are now living in the era of the new covenant, which is radically different – to the point of being diametrically opposite. the new covenant is a covenant of spirit, not of flesh. it is a new way of being in which we participate in the new creation in our hearts and minds (and occasionally among other believers), while living in a world still ruled by sin. the riches we now have in christ are spiritual, not material, while we wait for the new physical creation to break forth.

i’m not suggesting that the church or individual believers should go out looking to suffer (and many who do suffer, needlessly bring it on themselves by intentionally and unhelpfully provoking others), but that suffering would be a clear sign that we are following and obeying jesus, and so its apparent lack indicates to me that we aren’t. instead, christians are generally not differentiated from the rest of the population in terms of lifestyle, material wealth, privilege or opportunities. in fact, evangelical christians on average are better off than others – in sydney, for instance, the bible belt is on the north shore, which is one of the most affluent parts of the city.

its just as true for me personally. while my life isn’t a complete bed of roses (though in many ways i’m incredibly privileged, especially from a world average perspective), none of the mostly trivial hardships i go through have anything to do with the fact that i’m a believer. i’m not a cultural sheep by any means – in fact i dislike and disagree with many aspects of australian culture and way of life – but from the point of view of a casual observer, I wouldn’t be seen as substantially different from any other slightly counter-cultural-yuppie type, many of whom would have vastly different belief systems to my own. so what sets me apart?

the apostle paul believed that suffering was a natural result of having his identity in jesus, saying in 2 Cor 4:10, “We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.” mark strom takes up this theme in reframing paul:

“[The] dying and rising of Christ had become the pattern and the motivation for Paul’s continuing life. Imitating Christ meant deliberately conforming to his humiliation and exaltation. Paul extended the theme beyond himself to the new community and their mutual sharing in the sufferings and comforts of Christ” (p.96).

and again:

“The dying and rising of Christ led Paul to step down in the world in terms of personal and social prestige (Phil 3:1-11). It led him to be ridiculed, opposed and rejected” (p.97).

then further on:

“Having spoken of his relation to Christ, instead of proceeding to the customary delineation of personal honors, Paul speaks of his humiliations, disgrace and hardship, culminating in his confession of personal weakness (2 Cor 11:29). This weakness was primarily social, not psychological – the helplessness of one who had chosen little power or status, and his humiliation in the eyes of those who were honoured. These trials were the test of his work” (p.112, italics mine).

as I said, the fact that believers generally live comfortably and anonymously (unless we actively identify ourselves) alongside the rest of the population indicates to me that we are not living as jesus taught. the lives of believers should always stand out in stark contrast to the lives of those around, because we have a different identity and hold to vastly different values. as jesus said, we are to be salt and light, standing out like a city on a hill and giving flavour to the blandness of a society that lives for itself (as someone has quipped, given the choice, almost everyone will follow the crowd). living according to the identity and value system of jesus cannot fail to be a critique on the lives and values of others – as paul says, “a stench to those that are dying.” to say “i will not live by your values” will be received as criticism by those who hold to those values, provoking a reaction of defensiveness and probably counter-attack. this is how their contemporaries responded to jesus and paul, who both powerfully challenged the status quo, and if we do likewise by living according to the commands and teachings of jesus, it will without a doubt be how people today will respond to us.

the really ironic thing is that the society around us is in a mess: stress, anxiety, depression, drug use (not just of the illegal kind), high rates of suicide, domestic and social violence, environmental degradation – and that’s not an exhaustive list. everybody knows it, too – there are news reports every day about one or more of these issues, with someone spouting an opinion about society’s ills and what should be done to fix them. so to live according to the values of this society seems incredibly foolish – especially for a believer who knows has access to a far, far better way, as revealed in the bible and by god’s spirit living within.

i’d really hate for this to be taken as another guilt trip because that couldn’t be further from what i’m trying to say. the life that jesus has called us to is about freedom, love and joy, but we miss out on these things when we live according to the rules and aspirations of our society. its time to rediscover "the way, the truth and the life" that is only in jesus, and to make it a reality in our personal lives and church communities.

i’ll leave the final word to peter marshall, as quoted on p. 97 of reframing paul:

“Death has a positive power. God uses death for good, ie. uses it transformatively. God has commandeered the power of the old age for his own use and death acts upon the apostle with the contradictory effect of giving and promoting life. Dying as suffering is purposefully related to participation in life for oneself and for life in others. It retains this positive sense through the apostle’s continuous participation in dying and rising with Christ as suffering as a power which keeps him from returning to his former trust in himself. Weakness as a dying with Christ is the necessary means by which power is brought to perfection. Power and weakness or suffering are no longer polar antitheses, but are now brought together in a new relationship as a means by which Paul understands the experiences in his own life and his relationship with others and his world.” Peter Marshall, The Enigmatic Apostle – Paul and Social Change: Did Paul Seek to Change Graeco-Roman Society? (Melbourne: ITIM, 1993), pp. 22-23.

winter finally arrives

another weekend gone. finally got some 'real' winter weather with a strong icy southerly and storm on saturday night. we didn't get any snow at our place but i'm sure they did 5 minutes up the road at Hilltop, though we didn't go up there and have a look ourselves. we heard they had 4 inches at Bowral, which is just 20 minutes away.
 
my personal 'event' of the weekend was putting the corner of a hatchet blade through the heel of my hand. it was late saturday afternoon, trying to get as much wood chopped as i could before cold and dark forced me inside. i was holding a pretty small piece with my left hand, intending to chop the layer of bark off with the hatchet (the bark isn't very friendly with our wood-burning stove), but got momentarily distracted and hit my hand instead. i was remarkably fortunate, really - the blade went in (and out again) the heel of my thumb parallel to my palm, managing to tread the fine line between slicing off a nice chunk of flesh on the 'shallow' side and hitting any tendons on the 'deep' side. the entrance cut was about an inch long and the exit cut about half that, with an inch or so between the two. another remarkable thing is that i didn't suffer any shock, something i've been prone to in the past. so i bound my hand up, had a bit to eat and took myself up to the hospital where i got properly bandaged up (no stitches thankfully), along with a tetanus jab. as i said, i was extremely fortunate.
 
on sunday morning we went to church (no, it didn't have anything to do with the previous evening's incident). it's the second time we've visited this particular group, in a town about 10 minutes drive from home. the main reason we've gone is because a couple who are good friends of ours are considering/applying for the soon-to-be-vacated pastor's job. there's a very good chance they'll get the position, and if they do we'll definitely commit ourselves to the place as well, but that might happen even if they aren't accepted.
 
this is a scary thought. we haven't been regular 'church' attenders for almost five years since moving to the area. frankly, i haven't missed it much, despite occasional guilt and 'encouragement' from others worried about the state of our faith. i have a host of intellectual/theological/doctrinal issues with the 'traditional' church scene (organisation & heirarchy, church building, sunday morning 'services' with the standard structure, etc, etc, etc.), and had pretty much convinced myself that it was no longer for me, that i'd find (or start) an alternative which was closer to what i believe 'church' should be.
 
so why the change of heart? obviously, our friends being there makes a lot of difference, as we'll start with one solid relationship already 'built-in'. the fact that it is one of the closest 'established' churches to our house is also important, as i believe very strongly that 'church' community and 'world' community (for want of a better term) should be as physically coincident as possible. i'm also aware that there are many advantages in tapping into an existing group (the old 'change the system from the inside' strategy) rather than trying to get something going ourselves - and of course the former doesn't necessarily preclude the latter anyway, and can even provide support and resources that wouldn't otherwise be available.
 
the clincher, though, for me at least, is the way we felt with this particular group of people. it's hard to put a finger on what it is - it's not just that they're friendly or welcoming, though they definitely are, without it feeling creepy or forced. in some ways it was quite a bizarre experience because we felt so 'at ease' yesterday, on only our second visit. they had a luncheon thing going after the meeting and we were having soup and talking to people while running around after freya, trying to feed her something and keep her out of trouble. but there was no stress involved, it just felt very relaxed and comfortable, like we'd been part of the group for a while. it was almost surreal, and had both of us doing repeated mental double-takes, thinking "is this for real?" needless to say, we were quite impressed.
 
so, despite misgivings, i'm pretty happy with the prospect, which is saying something in itself. of course, you won't hear me commit to anything, but at this point it looks like we'll be moving in that direction...  ;^)

do unto the children

i'm sickened by this story from sydney of a nine-year-old girl set alight by two teenage girls. i know that far worse things happen to kids every day, but can someone please tell me what the f**k is this world coming to?
 
since becoming a dad, i've been ultra-sensitive to harm done to children. about six months ago my little girl freya spilled a cup of hot tea on herself that we had carelessly left in her reach. the burns didn't end up being very bad and haven't left any scars, thanks mainly to my wife janette's 0.1 sec dash with baby to the bathroom followed by the administration of copious amounts of cold water, but the hardest thing for us was hearing her screams of agony and incomprehension (what's happening to me? why is it happening? what have i done to deserve this?) and knowing that we couldn't do anything to make the pain stop right now.
 
children are helpless and innocent, and they don't understand why anyone would want to harm them. in my opinion, harming a child is the worst crime on the face of the earth, and anyone who deliberately injures a child should be shot on sight, no questions asked. there can never be any excuse or justification for such an act.

this includes smoking. it should be illegal to smoke in the presence of a child or of a pregnant woman, especially in a confined space such as a house, and any pregnant woman who smokes should be locked up. i know it sounds harsh, but we know that cigarette smoke harms children, especially the unborn, so how can we continue to tolerate it and just advise people against it. its obvious that people aren't heeding the advice, so the government needs to step in to protect these helpless victims.
 
another thing i'm thinking about here is war. the unceasing reports of death and injury to children and their parents in iraq make me sick, especially when they're a result of coalition force action. i know its not a simple issue, but these things are the direct and foreseeable consequence of the invasion, and so its our fault as the invaders, not saddam hussein's. of course, there's a time and place for protecting the helpless and innocent from tyrants, but the invasion of iraq was never about that (except in history-rewriting hindsight). may god have mercy on george w bush, tony blair and john howard for the innocent blood on their hands, and the rest of us citizens of the 'coalition of the willing' for not doing more to stop the madness.
 
the world is not black and white, and no child will ever grow up free from harm of some sort, but as their elders and protectors, its our responsibility to do all we can to minimise this harm, to the best of our knowledge and ability.

the big issue

after my post quoting a couple of bruce cockburn songs and briefly mentioning economic justice issues in iraq, this morning i read this excellent post on the organic church blog, which contains a lengthy excerpt from an interview with n.t. wright by the u.s. national catholic reporter.

tom wright is one of the humans i most respect in the world today, and i think what he says in this interview is spot on. so much of what we worry about in the west are first world, top of the mudheap issues, happily ignoring (or willfully ignorant of) the serious economic injustice that underpins our lifestyle, that keeps 'us' on the top and 'them' on the bottom.

i seriously believe that this is a life and death issue for the 'western church', something that must be addressed if it is to survive. its not good enough to lie back and accept the economic status quo as 'just the way things are'. god's concern for economic justice is overwhelmingly obvious throughout the bible, and jesus repeatedly said "go and sell what you own and give to the poor?" if the church, the body incarnate of jesus in this world, fails to live out this concern, it is at best just a jesus fan club, a bunch of people who admire the guy (and sing songs ad nauseum about it) but who aren't too interested in taking what he said seriously.

i often think that its too late, especially for the institutional church in 'the west', but there is always grace. if we don't treat the situation as critical, though, we'll soon choke to death on our affluence. of course, we might go on looking alive for years to come, but only because we humans are so adept at perpetuating our own man-made structures (and all structure is man-made), but no quantity of programs or pretty buildings or exciting meetings will be able to cover the stench of the corpse for long.

a bit of bruce for a friday afternoon

so much of what i hear in the news these days brings to mind the songs of bruce cockburn from his 'angry' period in the 80s. he could be a prophet. that would be the most comforting explanation, in a way, because the other, more disquieting, explanation for the immediacy and applicability of his songs from 20 years ago is that history is repeating, that what he was documenting and describing then is just happening again.

take the song People See Through You. it could easily have been written about the current u.s. administration (but was actually about the government of the recently departed ronnie reagan). we can only hope that its true that 'people see through you', because it looks more and more like people just aren't watching anymore, and that would be the most frightening thing of all...

You've got covert action
Prejudice to extremes
You've got primitive cunning
And high tech means
You've got eyes everywhere
But people see through you

You've got good manipulators
Got your store of dupes
You've got the idiot clamour
Of your lobby groups
You like to play on fears
But people see through you

You've got instant communication
Instant data tabulation
You got the forces of occupation
But you don't get capitulation
Cause people see through you

You've got the sounding brass
You've got the triumph of the will
You do what you want to
And we pay the bills
You hype the need for sacrifice
But people see through you

You've got anti-matter language
Contrived to conceal
You've been lying so long
You don't know what's real
You're a figment of your own imagination
And people see through you

You've got lip service tributaries
You've got death fetish mercenaries
You hold the tickets to the cemetaries
You're big and bad and scary
But people see through you

(Copyright Bruce Cockburn 1985)

something we don't see or hear about often is the money its going to take to get iraq back on its feet. of course there is a fair bit of foreign aid flowing in at the moment, but don't think for a moment that the imf and world bank aren't sinking in their dirty claws as deep as they can go. that massive oil reserve is going to be very good for loan interest payments for years and years to come, thank you very much. but we all knew this is what 'democratising' is all about, didn't we: letting foreign banks and corporations have free rein (or is that reign?), and if they bleed the country dry, well that's just market forces.

did i say "get iraq back on its feet?" more like keep it on its knees...

Call it Democracy

Padded with power here they come
International loan sharks backed by the guns
Of market hungry military profiteers
Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared
With the blood of the poor

Who rob life of its quality
Who render rage a necessity
By turning countries into labour camps
Modern slavers in drag as champions of freedom

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament --
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called "developed" nations'
Idolatry of ideology

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy

See the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you're going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

And they call it democracy

(Copyright Bruce Cockburn 1985)