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...
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
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').
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').
Monday, September 27, 2004
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,
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
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?
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,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.
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)
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?
Monday, September 20, 2004
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!
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!
Friday, September 17, 2004
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:
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 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?Where indeed...
"And where on earth will it end?"
Thursday, September 09, 2004
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:
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).
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).
Friday, September 03, 2004
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)