Hell 3

I have been duly chastised. Hell is a real place. Click here - if you dare - to visit.

Sermon: loskop

Read Mark 9:42-50

Whenever I read this text I imagine a congregation of torsos and heads lolling around on the pews. It is a ridiculous exaggeration - typical of Jesus style - to suggest that we lop off body parts that cause us to sin. Gives new meaning to the word "loskop" in Afrikaans.

We do well to remember that Jesus is using exaggeration, much as he does in his parables and other teachings. Obviously, sin does not reside in my hands and feet or eyes, but in my mind.

Jesus refers to the “little ones” and Sarah reminds us that this meant more than just children. It referred to anyone vulnerable, whether because of poverty, injustice or some other circumstance.

It is interesting, though, that Jesus warns about causing the little ones to stumble in the context of feet, hands and eyes. These three words are often used in ancient Hebrew as euphemisms for sex. For instance, Ruth slept at Boaz’s feet on the threshing floor…

It may be that Jesus is dealing here with sexual abuse, exhorting in the strongest possible language that his followers deal with abuse unequivocally in their midst. Read William Loader’s comments on this.

We do well then to remember again that Jesus is exaggerating! I think of the numerous calls that have been made to have rapists and child abusers castrated. Such mutilation does not work. Rape is not about sex; it is about power and domination. Similarly, sexual abuse is not about sex; it is about inappropriate intimacy. Taking Jesus literally would be reading too much into Jesus’ hyperbole and pragmatically useless.

But there is a theological reason why Jesus words should be taken as figurative not literal. Look at who is speaking them. This is the man who at the end of the story is mutilated for the world’s sin. The man who never sinned is mutilated because of other people’s sinfulness. Jesus is doing more than exaggerating: he is being ironic.

At the moment of his crucifixion we hear Jesus grant forgiveness to those who killed him. We believe that forgiveness is available for everyone because we are all involved in Jesus’ death by virtue of belonging to a society that creates the dynamics that killed him.

Can we say that forgiveness is offered to the perpetrators of abuse? Surely we are bound to say so. How can we not? The abuser was once abused. Will God give the punishment the abuser deserves or the compassion the abused abuser needs?

My mom-in-law, Jeanne, tells of an incident that happened early in her career as a social worker. She was sitting with a child who had been abused by her father. None of Jeanne’s therapeutic skills could get this child to talk about her trauma and begin the journey to healing. They were sitting in a room - shortly after the girl had been brought in by police - with a view of the rest of the police station. Her father was brought in for questioning. One of the policemen involved who had heard the little girl’s story, saw the father being brought in and the little girl’s expression of fear. The officer got up and walked over to the father and decked him with a full blow to the face. To Jeanne’s surprise the little girl immediately responded to the policeman and began to tell him her story.

That little girl needed justice; needed an adult to stand up for her against the evil that she had suffered. I can’t say that what the cop did was right but, somehow, I can’t say it was wrong…

Children in South Africa suffer the triple abuse of the abuse itself, society’s silence about abuse and justice delayed which is justice denied. Without justice, how are children to trust society? Without talking about these things, how are children to journey to wholeness? It is no wonder that so many abused children become abusers.

I recently met a man who introduced himself as a child abuser. I had a hard time regaining the conversation after that. Where do you go from there? I wanted to excuse myself. He was abused as a child and grew into an adult who abused. He was arrested and pled guilty. He was imprisoned but this never helped. He still needs sex with children. He hates himself and has tried to commit suicide several times. Therapy has helped a little but the only thing that stops him abusing again is his introducing himself to everyone as an abuser. Some people shun him; a few accept him with caution. I was afraid of him.

This man needs compassion but who will give it?

Jesus asks us to do two contradictory things at the same time. He asks us to seek justice for those who are wronged, to confront evil wherever we encounter it. Jesus also asks us to extend compassion to those who perpetrate evil. Often the one who must suffer justice and needs compassion is one and the same person.

We cannot hope that our society will be able to offer justice to children as well as therapeutic compassion to perpetrators of abuse unless we completely revise out language. Our language does not enable us to embrace and confront at the same time. Our justice system is based on the premise that the individual bares the full responsibility for their actions, even when the roots of evil are more complicated and extend beyond the individual.

I have found Nonviolent Communication to be the best example of a language that might offer us the opportunity to do that. I recommend it to your conscience for your sake, but more importantly, for our society’s sake.

I think Jesus' last line in this reading is interesting: "Be salty people and be at peace with one another." I have always thought of salt as abrasive. I think of salt on open wounds. Jesus makes the clear link between salty people and peace. Interesting...

The future of evolution

Since my posts recently have toyed with the skirts of evolution, here is something a lot much beterer and funierer on the subject of "Breeding".

"President Katie caught napping"

Statement from the Honourable President Katherine Jeanne Andrews:

Rumours that I have been reneging on my responsibilities are to be seen as spurious by those loyal constituents who would like to remain bodily intact. The photo published in certain unscrupulous publications was taken out of context. The Minister of Sport and Recreation arranged a day’s outing in the mountains and I can be seen here enjoying the fresh air. Any further comment on this issue will be entertained by the Minister of Security and National Director of the Secret Police.

Creed: the earth is a globe...

Barry asked a good question: “Do you ever get a little threatened by the ideas of science and psychology that threaten to reduce our long-held Christian beliefs into fragments of a quaint historical period?”

I guess that’s where I started. It is the crux of my struggle – to reconcile apparently alienated ways of thinking. But this crux is a creation of a debate between alienated positions, which are neither representative of their respective fields not appropriate for me to inherit in my thinking.

Science has its fundamentalists. Richard Dawkins being one of the more vocal examples from Evolutionary Biology. A debate between fundamentalists in science and fundamentalists in Christianity is never going to be a helpful debate. While I respect Dawkins immensely, I think he is just plain wrong when it comes to his opinions about religion (although not all his opinions…). Similarly, I think most Christian fundamentalists have misrepresented the faith I hold dear. Between these two extremes is a host of view points that actually have a great deal in common, or at least reason to cooperate.

The supposed pitched battle between science and religion is a false idea based on false conceptions about both science and religion. I consider myself religious, but there are many religious people who would call me an atheist. The science most people have in mind is the science of high school, which is all about hard facts and a categorical world-view. Science in fact is quite tentative and every year new revisions are making once accepted world-views relative.

It is worth bearing in mind that science and faith in the western world have grown up together. Seldom have they behaved as separately as they have in the last century and the consequences of that separation are moot: nuclear bombs and Pat Robertson. Prior to this unfortunate separation some of the most important scientific discoveries were made by church people. And still today, some of the most important religious movements have been bolstered and led by scientists.

I no longer fear science. I have found science makes me wonder like nothing else. It was an atheist scientist who introduced me to the idea of wonder (the “numinous” – Carl Sagan) – an idea I think is integral to worship.

I think the idea that religion can be localised in a part of the brain should give us cause to rejoice that we are about to figure out what makes for good religious experience. The church should be supporting studies that are helping scientists understand how religion works – good and bad. These studies do not erode religious claims unless those claims are inappropriate.

When Kopernik (Copernicus) proposed his solar system model of the universe, he did not lose his faith. When Galileo used this idea to challenge the church he did not lose his faith. And many faithful people found these ideas refreshing, even if the hierarchy were threatened. And today we accept this view of the universe without a moments hesitation.

Science may cause us to revise our language, but it can never undermine faith. This conversation was reported by Carl Sagan after he met with the Dalai Lama.

SAGAN: What would you do if we came up with convincing proof that Buddhism was wrong?
DL: If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism.
SAGAN: Suppose it was something basic? Suppose, for instance, it was reincarnation?
DL: If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation. (with a twinkle in his eye) But it's going to be very hard to disprove reincarnation.

Jesus Instinct?

William James wrote a seminal work on psychology, Principles of Psychology, a generation after Darwin’s legendary Origin of the Species. James attempted to explain human nature as a product of our evolutionary history.

Some commentators see humans as unique amongst the animals because we appear to be ruled by our reason, not instinct. James disagreed. For James the distinctiveness of humans was to be ascribed to having more instincts not less. An instinct is a “software programme” that has been developed by natural selection in a species to cope with a particular reality. Humans have the finest and most complex system of instincts, which makes our decisions more subtle and dextrous.

Evolutionary Psychologists refer to this problem as “instinct blindness”. Our instincts work so well for us, so effortlessly, that it is difficult to imagine that things could work any other way.

Several studies are drawing attention to the fact that much of religious experience is located quite precisely in certain parts of the brain and organised around certain chemical reactions. It is also becoming clear that certain types of people are prone to religious experience – have an aptitude for it. We have a religious instinct – some more than others.

This is also true of social change, which has its origin in the individual revolutionary’s psychology. Just as religion is a corporate, outward expression of an internal psychology, so social change begins with some psychological process. Feedback and “cross-pollination” enhances or dampens the experience, changing it and developing it.

Religion and social change are my bread and butter. The question I am living with at the moment is how an evolutionary psychological point of view affects me as an instructor of religion. Fascinating!

Trading on the Brand

My church, Methodist Church of Southern Africa, is debating whether or not to accept same-sex unions. Currently the MCSA has no position except a rather vague bit about discouraging homosexual people from “practicing”. A group of us recently put together a submission to Parliament calling for a revision of the Marriage Act so that same-sex unions can enjoy the same rights as married couples. We were reprimanded for “misrepresenting the MCSA brand”, this despite the fact that we specifically said that we do not represent the MCSA. We do feel that we are Methodist and this needs to be recognised in the context of the overwhelmingly bigoted Christian response to same-sex unions that has so far been hogging the limelight. Anyway, this is Gus’ response to the reprimand…

Maybe we should change the document to read "Christian Clergy, Theologians and Christians" instead of "Methodist...” I'm not sure if I want to be too closely associated with "the MCSA brand."

Sometimes I am ashamed to tell my gay friends that I am a Christian (not that I have many, I guess its 'cos I'm a Christian). I kinda hoped that when I said I was a Methodist I/they would feel a bit better. I hoped I would be able to, as they say: "Trade on the MCSA brand." But I don't think I will.

Minister: "I'm a gay friendly Methodist!"
Gay Person: "What!? You mean some are not?"
M: "Ja man, sorry, we're still trying to figure out whether you're our target market. It's about branding you see - we're mostly aimed at LSM 1-4, we do 5 and up, but that’s just to get some cash in the coffers. (We're not so bad at getting money out of 1-4 though, but don't let them know that, liberation is also our brand... some might say the ANC at prayer.) But we have to work with our market, and 1 to 4 is mostly conservative - they don't really like gays."
G: "OK, I understand, let us know when we make the brand... we'll just hang about here at the door in case you let us in one day."

Yeah right!

If we are actually so into branding then surely it would be a good thing to expand our target market a bit? Maybe we need to keep an eye on the prophets? Profits? Prophets? Profits?

"Do you think Gogo is a good brand? She's dependable, loving, caring, wise - she's nice... she's our brand - LSM 1-4 I guess, Radio Ads will bring her in. But I don't think we can really sell her - we need beautiful, sexy, sassy, wealthy!!! Get ReBorn! You can be young hot and healthy Gogo - Oprah's coming to give you a makeover. See how those jeans make your bum look small - like a nice white girl."

Trading on the brand - my ass.

No Gogos were harmed during the writing of this nonsense.

Dassie

Some people have asked what's a dassie (pronounced "dussee"). This is a family of dassies in Nambia - thanks to Jenny for the photo. Those of you who know me, may be able to see the resemblance.

Here is a good wiki article on them. I have always liked them cos they seem like fierce yet fun loving animals; reclusive yet social. Their habitat is rocky - mountain or seaside - my favourite places.

Yes, they may be the closest living relative of the elephant. Ancient fossils indicate that these diminutive modern versions are much smaller than their giant ancestors. That's another reason I like em - great family connections.

Who do you say I am?

Mark 8:27-38

A Sarah-inspired sermon.

There is an ad on TV at the moment in which some pretentious git comes hurrying up to the check-in counter at the airport demanding immediate service. The staff are a little slow as there seems to be some problem with the ticket so he get’s huffy, “Do you know who I am?” The woman who is helping him takes a moment to calm herself. She says to him, “Oh, I didn’t realise!” and picks up the public address intercom, to the satisfaction of her blustery client. She calls the airport to attention and then informs everyone, “There is a man here who does not know who he is. If there is someone who can help him, please report to the information desk.”

I have heard on many occasions someone in Sunday School referring to Jesus’ parents as Mary and Joseph Christ. It is not such a surprising mistake. I learned this week that there was a Roman historian who confused the Greek word Christos (which means Christ) for the common slave name Chrestos. He spoke of the troublesome “tribe” of chrestianoi led by the slave Chrestos.

It is interesting that today we are so certain of what Christ means and assume that this word was easily understood even in Jesus’ day. In the NRSV that I read from today we read it translated as “Messiah”. The KJV translates the word “Christ”. Some versions try to stick to the original meaning of the word and translate it as “anointed one”. This is in fact what “messiah” means: anointed one.

I learnt this week Peter’s saying this to Jesus, was not as categorical as it sounds. In fact, it is very difficult to know what Peter actually meant when he said it. Anointed doesn’t really mean much except that someone has been chosen for something by virtue of the ceremony of soaking their head in oil or water. It could refer to just about anyone. What one needs to know is: anointed by whom? Peter does not say - perhaps Peter does not know.

There were many people in Jesus’ time who looked forward to the arrival of a messiah. But, it is apparently misleading to think that the Jewish people of Jesus’ day longed for some God-sent, spiritual superman who would fulfil their dreams and start a new creation. In fact, most were waiting for someone who would reinstate the monarchic line of David. Others hoped for a reformer in the Temple hierarchy. Then there were prophets who were also seen as anointed and some people longed for a prophet just as our text today suggests.

We tend to think that Jesus asked, “Who do you say I am?” because he was testing his disciples. To us “Christ” is the right answer. So why would Jesus then tell his friends to shut up about it? His response is puzzling. We are not the only generation of Christians who find it puzzling. Even Matthew, written a short time after Mark, adds a little to Jesus response so that it sounds as if Jesus is saying, “Quite right, well done, but this is going to be our little secret?”

But Mark is the plain speaker of our gospels and there is no mistaking Jesus’ abrupt tone here. It is almost a reprimand. It almost seems to throw Jesus into a bad mood for a little while later he calls Peter “Satan”!

Bruce Malina in his book The New Testament World explains why Jesus asks this question. He points out that people’s identity in the cultures of the Mediterranean was not based on an individualised, internal and personal construction like we have in the Western world today. Rather people’s identity was what anthropologists call “dyadic personality”. This means that a person’s identity was built from what other people said about them – something akin to the African idea of a “person is a person through other people.” So when Jesus asks, “Who am I?” he is not testing his friends, but is collecting information about himself so he can know who he is.

Now we know that people confused Jesus with a militant revolutionary or even a temple reformer. It is one of the reasons people deserted him in the end when it was clear he wasn’t going to usher in a new Kingdom. And we also know that this was despite Jesus’ best efforts to teach people about what he is. We read over and over again his frustration with people’s confusion about who he is. So when Peter calls Jesus “The Christ”, it may be that Jesus’ reply is actually telling Peter he is just plain wrong.

All through Mark, we hear Jesus telling people to be quiet about what he has done for them, especially the miracles he performed which would have fed the idea that he was some kind of prophet or spiritual superman. Jesus is not trying to protect his secret long enough to postpone a confrontation with the authorities so that he can make an entrance in Jerusalem. He is trying to control perceptions about himself, trying to steer people away from the misleading idea that he is a revolutionary, a temple reformer, a reincarnated prophet or even God’s special strongman.

Jesus goes on to speak of carrying the cross. Of suffering for the cause he has taken on. It is a distasteful idea: the anointed crucified. Remember crucifixion was meted out on slaves and traitors. It was a demeaning as well as agonising death.

Jesus’ whole cause is nothing less than the inversion of every human institution. He does not want to be seen as a revolutionary, because it is both establishment and revolution that he seeks to subvert. He does not want to be seen as a reformer of the temple, because the entire temple idea must be undercut. He does not want to be seen as a prophet, because he is undermining the very notion of specially spirited authority. Jesus is unique and incomparable. He upsets every stereotype and surprises anyone who thinks they have him pigeon-holed.

Every identity, every institution, every assumption, every prejudice, every edifice is in danger from this man. He is a truly disturbing presence.

The revolution of one age becomes the establishment of the next. The reformer of one generation is the oligarch of the next. Jesus is not interested in recycling. He wants a genuine revisioning of humanity. Jesus wants to get to the bottom of things and there he finds in every temple basement, in every government cellar, in every heart’s secret the truth that we are desperately afraid to be known and loved. Our civilisation is our protection from actually dealing with one another; knowing and loving one another. Our levels of sophistication reflect only the lengths to which we will go to avoid having to connect. “For what will it profit you to gain the whole world and forfeit your life?” Jesus asks.

The eccentric or maverick that stands apart from traditional institutions is regarded with pity or outrage, yet such people are often the most precious. Jesus was such a person. He stands clear of human institutions while still being eminently human. So special is he, he seems almost to transcend history itself. Yet Jesus is the quintessential lover. And this strange man asks us to divest ourselves of our pretensions, to live more honest lives, unafraid of being our genuine, strange selves.

No wonder he rebels against any label that puts on him the expectations of others. He owns his own identity and yet that identity he freely shares with anyone who would open themselves up to the power of compassion.

“Who do you say I am?”

God is a good idea

Murray asked a good question after my post on Resurrection. Actually a few good questions.

Murray: “Were the stories of Jesus re-appearance to the disciples then just stories?”

I would say they are legends but not "just stories".

I can imagine that the stories developed from initial comments made by the first disciples: “I was sweating it out upstairs, wondering when the knock on the door would herald my own crucifixion, when I had this epiphany: Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you’ and I felt the Spirit move me to courage!” Through retelling and embellishment these comments became the stories we have now.

Alternatively, the writers of the gospels may have deliberately embellished what they knew and used stylistic idiom to indicate that the story fits into the legend genre. We may not be able to appreciate this style from our modern perspective and so take the stories as historical fact.

But I don’t think they were “just stories”. They are powerful, regardless of their historical content. I wouldn’t say that Dead Poet’s Society was “just a story”. It affected me deeply and challenged me. Similarly, I am sure that Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is a far cry from the original story in the Bible - let alone whether the original can be called history - but both remain a single powerful story for me.

Murray: “Were they further parables to show ideas and values that Jesus taught, before He died? And if the answer is 'yes', then does that change how we understand the concept of the Trinity?”

I think legend is a specific genre distinct from parable, but I do think that part of the reason for presenting the story as legend would be to highlight Jesus’ teaching. It was also to make Jesus’ character larger than mortal life. One of the clear aims of the legend genre is to put a personality on a pedestal. In the case of Jesus this makes thematic literary sense because of the Incarnational message of Jesus: God becomes human so that people can become God.

Viewing the stories of Jesus’ resurrection appearances as legend does change one’s conception of the Trinity. In fact, it actually worked the other way around for me. I changed my ideas about God and that helped me make sense of the questions I had about the stories of the Resurrection.

And I guess that is were the rub comes. I now cross my Rubicon (drum roll please, warm up the heretic stake…):

I believe God is a Myth. It is very, very important that people read that statement within the context of what follows…

When I use the word “Myth” I do not mean “invalid” or “untrue”. I am saying that it is an idea that has power in my life, but is not objectively verifiable. Let me explain

I have long struggled to reconcile two ways of understanding the world that are both incredibly important to me and, while these worldviews are often pitched against each other, they were born in the same impulse: the desire to understand our world and our place in it.

I value both a theological and a scientific view of the world and think both are powerful means by which humanity can make sense - and a future - out of the mess we are in now. I also believe that one without the other is asking for trouble. But it has been a long and painful journey trying to work out in my head how I live with both consistently. Most of the time I have been resigned to a kind of schizophrenic ping-pong, picking and choosing between the two – but that makes me feel like a selective fundamentalist.

The crux of the matter is that science will never be able to prove that God exists or doesn’t exist. It is simply beyond the ability of the scientific method. But science weighs in heavily on the side of “does not”. Religious experience can be shown as a function of chemistry in a particular part of the brain. Theological insight (revelation) can be seen as cultural constructs common to a range of groups both near and far from each other. The universe demonstrates no evidence of design; in fact what one sees is very messy and clumsy. So the tentative, if sometimes forceful, opinion of science is that God, for all practical purposes, does not exist.

I agree: God is not objectively verifiable. There is no evidence that God exists.

However, I still think believing in God has merit. Whatever the existence of God actually means, God is a good idea (Crusades and Jihad not-with-standing).

I see science and theology as two ways of knowing, one based on objectively verifiable information we receive through rigorous testing and re-testing of our world. This is science. It helps us make sure that what we see, actually exists in such a way that we can accurately predict what will happen tomorrow. The other is theology: a way of knowing that tries to grasp at reasons and meaning that science cannot explain; indeed, to extract from apparent chaos, some semblance of sensibility.

Within the scientific framework it is not a useful question to ask, “Does God exist?” It would be like asking “Does love exist?” I can identify the hormones, observe the behaviour and write it off as just so much chemical interaction and social instinct. But no scientist worth their salt would propose such a thing for a scientist is still human and capable of love. There is a magic – a mystery – beyond the data that is more than the sum of its parts. In fact, most good science would add to the wonder of love, by demonstrating its intricate complexities at the chemical and social level. It is theology’s task (with the other “art” disciplines) to help humanity become more than the sum or its parts.

I find a “eureka” experience when turning to a more appropriate question of the God-stuff: “How do humans experience God?” Science, in all its disciplines comes up with some marvellous gems when asking that question.

I can imagine that some will say that “God is a good idea” is not the same as saying “I believe in God” Semantically, I agree, but essentially, what’s the difference?

The person who says “I believe in God” has a concept in mind, one that every good theologian will admit is a dim shadow of God. God is in the end unknowable because finite human minds cannot grasp an infinite God. The concept in the believer’s mind is an idea. It is a powerful idea because it demands the allegiance of the believer. But it is not an unchangeable idea. Of course, how that image, or concept, of God plays out in the person’s behaviour will help determine whether that particular idea of God is “good” or not, but let us assume that it is good. Essentially the believer has an idea in their head about God, which is good; i.e. “God is a good idea.”

Someone can reply: “But I believe that God is objectively verifiable.” Apart from the fact that this is an impossible task, it is still a statement born of an idea. Just saying it, doesn’t make it so.

An ultra-Darwinist might interject: “But believing in God is patently childish!” To which I would reply, “Tell that to the people whose faith kept them strong in the face of death as they fought for freedom.”

I believe in God, because God is a good idea.

Murray: “I wholly agree with the idea, I just can't seem to fit it together with the Doctrine that is held as truth.”

By now, you are probably keenly aware that I may well be playing outside Doctrine – whatever that may be. I don’t mean to be flippant - I value the Christian tradition. That tradition has given rise to both science and modern theology. Both have delivered scarcely believable advances in our understanding of ourselves and our world. Both have enlarged our awe of God, but both have caused us to question God’s nature and even existence. So, I may be seen as a heretic, but I prefer to think of all this as honest wrestling. You be the judge…

Who is the enemy? by Omar Al-Rikabi

The following piece came to me via sojomail. It's worth subscribing to if you haven't already done so.

I have been on the road a lot in the last three months, taking different road-trips to New Orleans, New York City, Nashville, and Dallas. Constantly in the shadow of the endless line of 18-wheelers, I noticed that one particular trucking company had this sign posted on most of their trucks:

Support our troops whenever we go!No aid or comfort to the enemy!
No way!

So who is the enemy?

Last summer my older cousin Ali was able to come in from Ohio to be at our wedding. I think it was really good for my dad to have someone from back home who was able to be there, and he filled in as my grandmother's escort, sitting with her on the front row.

Ali was forced to serve in the Iraqi Army in the first Gulf War. Other cousins were also conscripted, stationed on the front lines and in Kuwait City. Some of them were rounded up in the mass-surrenders after the ground war began, and they all made it home. But Ali had a different story. He was a field surgeon on the front lines with the Republican Guard. Sadaam thought that if he placed the medical units close enough to the rest of the soldiers then the Americans wouldn't bomb and shell them. He was wrong.

Somehow the Iraqis knew when the American ground troops would be coming over the dunes, and so they were given a five-day pass to go home to Baghdad and say their goodbyes. Ali knew it would be a meat-grinder, and he knew that under Sadaam desertion meant death and trouble for your family. So while he was in Baghdad he had another surgeon friend take out his perfectly good appendix. While he was in the hospital, his entire unit was annihilated.

Around that same time a Marine friend of mine named Nelson had been part of an artillery outfit that was shelling Iraqi positions inside Kuwait. Suddenly an Iraqi artillery shell slammed into the hood of the truck Nelson was standing next to, but it was a dud and didn't go off. He lived to come home and tell me that story.

Also at our wedding, only four rows back from Ali, was my friend Joe, who is an Army Ranger veteran. On the other side of the isle from Ali was one of my two mothers-in-law, whose stepbrother was part of the Army forces that moved through the same area of Kuwait where Ali had been. On another pew was my friend Johanna, whose husband has served in Afghanistan and is now training for Special Forces duty in the Middle East.
I could go on, but you get the idea. The best phrase came from a taxi driver in Cairo, right after the invasion of Iraq three years ago, who upon finding out that my brother was half Iraqi and half American said, "Ahhh ... is funny. Your country is attacking your country."
I have often become frustrated when I have heard people in my church make statements like, "Remember who we're fighting here," before they lead prayers for our military victory. A professor here at Asbury once said that the only two choices we have is to either "convert them or keep them from hurting us."
Well ... first of all you can't fight and win a "war on terror." Terrorism is a method, not a country or ideology. I once heard it said that fighting a war on terror is like having the flu and declaring a war on sneezing: you're only attacking the symptoms. As long as there have been people, there has been terrorism.

But what frightens me is the mindset in this country, and in the church, that seems to think terrorism was born and raised in the Middle East, and if we can take out the Muslim Arabs then the world will be a safer place. Put this idea up against the idea in large segments of the Arab world that America has, in a sense, created terror herself with her policies toward the Middle East. So the cycle continues, and we have "become a monster to defeat a monster."

So who is the enemy? I believe that on this side of the cross, according to the scriptures, that "we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12)

If you track through the whole story of scripture, you see that while God may have fought battles on Israel's behalf in the Old Testament, the trajectory was always towards to the cross, which redeemed God's intention for creation. Jesus set for us an example of living and witnessing that intention through loving, serving, and forgiving our enemies. The way of Christ was not to kill and destroy those who had abused and killed him.

Imagine what would have happened if the entire mass community of Christians who prayed so fervently for our troops to "defeat the enemy" would have instead prayed against the real Enemy and for peace between humanity.

So who is the enemy? We must first remember that the enemies of America are not the enemies of God. I have Iraqi Army veteran family and U.S. Army veteran friends. I have been raised by Southern Methodists and Shiite Muslims. I cannot abdicate the gospel message of Christ to a bomb, but can only bear the cross: the ultimate battlefield victory over the Enemy.

Omar Al-Rikabi is the son of a Southern Methodist mother from Texas and a Shiite Muslim father from Iraq. He is in his final year of earning a Masters of Divinity degree from Asbury Theological Seminary, and a declared candidate for ordination in the United Methodist Church.

More 9-11

Jim Harnish is a preacher I respect and am challenged by. He has posted some of the sermons he preached before and after the fall of the Twin Towers. It is uncanny how well he hits the mark. A few days before the attack he preached on "Why do people suffer?" using the test where Jesus speaks of the collapse of the tower Siloam. I encourge you to

Resurrection - tall order or rising high?

I ended my last piece on “hell 2” with the question that that piece begs: “What about resurrection?” I also said a while back that I would have appreciated someone in my life to give me straight answers. One of the reasons people may have hesitated is that a straight answer often begets more questions. But here goes…

I believe in resurrection, but I don’t believe in life-after-death in the conventional sense of my sense-of-self continuing after I die.

Resurrection is the idea that death cannot contain a person who has truly lived to the full. There is more to the idea than just that, but at the very least, everyone understands it thus far and I think almost anyone can agree to that. People whose lives have been touched by someone who has died continue to hold that person in their memory. The more fully that life was lived, the greater the reverence for their memory both in quantity of people (fame) and quality (authority?).

Going further requires a belief system that I have long since come to doubt. This is not to say I have dismissed it entirely…

The Christian idea of Resurrection is that one day all believers will be bodily and spiritually reassembled to live together for eternity. I have already expressed my doubts about an eternal life-after-death so I won’t go into that here.

Just as science has helped us to see that St. Paul and co had the wrong idea about how the universe is arranged, I believe science is unravelling the substance of physical resurrection. St Paul assumed a three-tiered arrangement of the universe: an underworld of spirits or hell; the earth (flat); and heaven above. He was wrong about that. St Paul also believed in a resurrection of all souls who believed in Jesus, something he thought would happen very soon – even in his lifetime. He was wrong about the timing and I think he was wrong about the bodily resurrection.

But I won’t go into the historical debate here. I think this quote says it all:

"The truth of the Resurrection shouldn't be the real battleground. I think what we want to do is try and rise above that and ask, 'What is the metaphoric truth of Easter?' The real power of Easter is the transformation that, as Christians, we believe continues to happen in people's lives....If Easter is about proving the veracity of some historical event that happened 2,000 years ago, that misses the point." Rev. Steve Huber of St. Columba's Episcopal Church

That about sums it up for me. (You can read more at Religious Tolerance.)

St Paul may have been wrong about the three-tiered universe – a forgivable shortsightedness given that he didn’t have a telescope. But that doesn’t stop us looking heavenward when we pray. Why? Because it is a helpful idea to imagine God and heaven as larger than us – above us – beyond us: God draws us toward an ideal. The metaphor has survived scientific scepticism. I have the same orientation toward the Resurrection. The story of Jesus’ rising from the dead is a powerful metaphor of his new Body in the form of those who choose to follow him and continue his memory in their own lives and commitments. If I doubt the historical validity of the Resurrection that does not impinge on that metaphor and therefore my belief is the more powerful.

I also think that believing in a metaphorical resurrection is more consistent with the idea of Incarnation: God becoming human. When I say, “Jesus lives!” I am declaring that Jesus’ teachings, values and power are real, present and available right in front of me by virtue of the activities of those who follow him.

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria

Resurrection draws us toward the divine ideal of a fully alive human being who transcends death by virtue of the power of their ideas, commitments, actions, values, teachings and so on.

I am more than merely a “skin-encapsulated ego”. Resurrection is something that begins even before death as my values, ideas, memories, loves infect the people around me. Resurrection is most apparent at funerals where people avoid the bad stuff, preferring to highlight the good. This is not always a bad thing, or at least we should acknowledge that to reconcile ourselves to a person’s mistakes begins the work of resurrecting their life and honouring their memory.

He said it...

In light of earlier posts on heaven and hell as well as today being the anniversary of Gandhi's naughtiness, I want to point to a foreword writen by his grandson Arun Gandhi. He expressed better than I could hope to what I believe. What's more, he says it in so few lines.

9-11

I am reminded by Tobias Winright of Sojourners that today is the 100th anniversary of Gandhi's first act of civil disobedience in Johannesburg. The Gandhi Institute has some useful information about present day attempts to make non-violence a useful part of social change even when dealing with terrorism.

Some people believe that non-violence and civil disobedience are useful strategies when it comes to individuals and groups trying to exercise social change from grass roots but that it has limited applicability to international relations.

It is worth remembering that things like the the Land Mine treaty are ventures that involve nation states. The fight for a World Court (that has teeth) is similarly an attempt to deal with violence at the level of macro politics.

The point of non-violent direct action is that it requires creativity to be exercised as a first resort so that one's dependence on the conventional means of resolving conflict are slowly displaced by more life-giving methods that emerge from one's context. No one method is universal because all situations are unique. Violence is universally failing yet we return to it so often!

Hopefully the UN can use diplomacy (or even sacntions) to prevent war in Iran where the US and UK were quick to rush to war with Iraq.

While you are at it, check out Ze Frank. Oh, and this one too.

Hell 2

Flop this is long!

I started wondering about heaven and hell once. More specifically: who made hell? If God made everything, then surely God created hell, which means God must take some credit or blame for it, depending on your point of view. This is true even if hell is something somebody else created because, presumably, God created somebody. The nature of hell has a marked effect on to what extent God’s creation of hell is palatable. Is hell a place of eternal pain – a consequence of a lifetime of sin? Is hell another chance to change one’s ways? Is hell something we create for ourselves while we are alive? Is hell something we are living in now?

These are all ideas I have entertained and still use to some extent in the sense of Myth. Each one deserves a paragraph or two.

The first idea doesn’t make sense to me. How can “3 score years and 10” of life determine an eternity of pleasure or punishment? The maths seems unjust. Surely those enjoying eternal bliss have a troubled conscience? “Hey Dudes, wanna go watch the Aurora Hades tonight? I hear the conditions are just right for a spectacular display. There’s been a new unseasonably large influx of the damned what with population explosions and contextual theology and all.” Let’s not even begin to talk of the people I love who qualify for hell and how I’m going to feel if I’m on the other side of the fence.

OK, so maybe it’s like a supplementary exam. You failed the first time. You got enough points to get a rewrite, which means you spend your holiday studying but, hey, at least you get a second chance. Problem is, it’s a no-brainer. Someone sits me down and says: “You screwed up and this is your last chance or we put the cement shoes on and dump you overboard. No more Love Boat.” I know what I’m going to do. Which begs the question: how come all the confusing life-stuff in the first place? Why not just get to point and say that? It’d save an awful lot of pain and angst… and paper.

The answer could be that life is a test of one’s character. This begs the question as to what the correct answers are. It still seems jolly unfair cos some people’s circumstances make passing all the more possible according to their own criteria. Furthermore, nowhere is it made clear what the requirements are. Most people just end up following the path of least resistance. And even those who seem to break the mould – well, what is the mould? And who says the mould should be broken. It all boils down to not knowing what the pass mark is…

Somewhere in the equation, life and eternal consequence have to match up in a sensible way. Maybe, my actions in life create the conditions of life-after-death. Nothing much changes, it’s just that I get to see it all in glowing heavenly colours – no more denial. Imagining the worst hell for someone like Hitler best captures this idea. Such a hell would be to spend eternity with the 6-million+ people whose death he engineered, especially if they were kind and forgiving. Which opens the opportunity for Hitler to actually accept that forgiveness and we’re back with the “why not just get to the point,” question again.

Mmm… I hear someone saying “freewill”. That’s important. Life is about exercising choice and life-after-death is the consequence of those choices. I also hear some heckler shouting “grace”. Spoiler. I was on a roll.

I still think that exercising choice and then accepting the eternal consequences doesn’t make sense. I can’t imagine why I would want to stop using freewill after I die. There may come a moment when I get fed up with the 70 virgins and the all-you-can-eat-no-way-it’s-fattening buffet and decide to rebel – just for the hell of it J. What then? Is there another tier to this arrangement, a hidden level in the matrix? Or maybe I just get booted across the divide to spend some time with homosexuals and Hindus. Hopefully I’ll find that sufficiently intolerable that I will see the error of my ways. Can I bounce across again?

Ah, grace. Ja, that’s a good one. We only get into heaven by virtue of God’s grace. There is nothing we can do – we are damned anyway. But forgiveness is ours if we choose to take it. So when do I get to choose: only now in life? Why not after death? Is there a free will off-switch in the coffin? That makes no sense at all. Heaven would be a pretty boring place filled with automatons going, “I told you so.”

Which brings us to the “empty hell” idea. That’s just a nice way of saying hell doesn’t exist. We die and we all hang out together for eternity and we gotta sort out the mess then too, just like we’re trying to do now. Only God’s a little more REAL, so we’re all REALLY motivated! So, again, why not just get to the point! What’s up with the cloak and dagger stuff – now you see God, now you don’t. Ho hum, in circles we go…

Either God has a bizarre sense of humour or there is no life-after-death.

Either: God sets up this world so that we live our lives constantly wondering whether God exists, wondering what the rules are - or not; hoping like crazy we’re getting life squared up – or not; sometimes realising it’s a lost cause and we may as well just give in and love – or not. Then one day we’re taken up to meet the Dude and it’s “Where is your ‘accepted forgiveness’ visa?”

Or: Hell and Heaven are a fiendishly clever idea to make us think about these things so much that we’ll realise the urgency of fixing this planet up quick cos THIS IS IT.

I believe… There is no heaven and hell. Death is final in the sense that my self-awareness will one day cease. If there is a heaven and hell, then - to the extent that one can speak of such things in geographical terms - I believe it will be a single place something like Hitler making friends with 6 million Jews. I just can’t see two places working very well.

I still believe that heaven and hell are useful Myths for describing earthly realities. Our choices do have consequences, but the ultimate value of these choices isn’t felt in eternity; these choices affect the here and now. We are creating heaven and hell all around us, all the time. “Who’s in and who’s out?” is not a helpful question anymore. It’s more about “What do you want and what are you prepared to do to help get it?”

Resurrection? One thing at a time…

Out

When I started this blog, I had a hidden agenda. A long time ago, I started wondering if I really believed this Christian stuff. It has been a long struggle to figure out what I believe. I tell people almost daily that they must take responsibility for what they believe, but those words sound hollow, when I have seldom done so myself. I decided a while back that I needed to do so for the sake of my integrity, but also because ideas do not develop and mature without challenge.

So far I have expressed opinions on this blog that tend toward the fringe of what is considered Christian, but it remains within those boundaries. Most people who read this blog have been supportive, occasionally offering questions and even resonance. But I have yet to venture – publicly, at any rate – into the more… err… disturbing (?) ideas that I now consider my own. That is not to say that they are original, but rather that I own them, take responsibility for them and accept the consequences.

This is another reason I named this blog “Dassies Bounce” – I want to see if my ideas can stand the test of debate – can they bounce – “does he bounce?” I have no doubt that I will change my ideas as people respond to what I write – that is part of growing. But will the fundamentals change? That is what I want to see…

I started asking questions very soon after I became a Christian in 1986. I found it irritating when people evaded giving straight answers. Sometimes people would do this because they were covering up ignorance, other times because they hoped the mystery would keep me searching, I guess. I really would have liked some straight answers, especially when I asked, “What do you believe?” but even more when I asked, “But how then can you reconcile…(add conundrum of choice)?” So, stop me if I start to sound like I’m beating around the bush.

I look forward to your interaction. Keep watching to see if something tickles or itches.

"Blessed are you..."

To truly change the world, we have to make ourselves vulnerable. That is part of the essence of the Jesus idea. That vulnerability, while offering hope to the world, can lead to our own demise.

Gunmen recently attacked Yabonga, the organisation Yvette works for. They made off with computers, cell-phones and money. Fortunately, no one was hurt. As a result of this trauma, the staff at Yabonga are considering closing down their VCT project. They correctly recognise that the attack is a direct result of their increased vulnerability as a result of this project.

VCT stands for voluntary counselling and testing. The service is free to the public and anyone can come and be tested confidentially for HIV and receive counselling before and after. The attackers made an appointment earlier on the day of their attack and so were let in without suspicion.

In South Africa, this service is more important than any other single service currently offered in the sector of HIV. Behavioural change most often happens when people are engaged in relationship that is non-judgemental, but informed. If South Africa hopes to overcome this disease, it will be through the implementation of more sites like this.

I believe that there are ways that Yabonga can increase their security without diminishing the accepting nature of the VCT service or doing away with it. But right now the most important thing is for the staff to know that what they are doing is important, even if it is frustrating and bruising.

Perhaps you would consider writing to them – just a sentence or two – to give them courage.

Fresh

My favourite time of the day is the morning. My favourite pasttime has always been running, although biking is catching up. My favourite daughter is Katie. Jurgen, my running partner and Althea, his wife, joined me for an early morning up to Rhodes Memorial. The photos are lekker.

Dhilbert... Dilbhert

Again, thanks Marc for keeping me sane:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/08/silent_h.html

Hell 1

This was from Marc who shares with me an interest in alternative explanations of hell. Marc thinks he might believe in an "empty hell" which is an idea some Christians have borrowed from Universalism. Check the wiki article for more on that. I'll tell you a little of what I believe about hell soon... But first:

Bonus Question on Chemistry Exam (apparently:-):

“Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?”

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

We can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially with birth and death rates as they are. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, and then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... leaving only heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

No safety in number 1

A friend, Clare Davidson, has written an interesting article on the insurance consequences of Katrina. What interests me is the important connections between people that our society refuses to acknowledge. "My wealth is mine, I earned it" - yet there are, in fact, real ways in which individual wealth springs from the unconscious benevolence of others if not the deliberate exploitation of others. Read it at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5273974.stm

I got this from Mom and thought it was an opportune connection:

A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package. "What food might this contain?" The mouse wondered. He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap. Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."

The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!" The pig sympathized, but said, "I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse,
but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers."

The mouse turned to the cow and said, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!" The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose."

So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap... alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house - like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital and she returned home with a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. The farmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral, the farmer
had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.

The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.

Ha Ha Ha

Restless Rock just hocked a huge luugy: http://peterwoods.blogspot.com/2006/08/leeeeb-meeeb-alohnnd.html and check the snotty comments.

Mixing Taale

My mom-in-law, Jeanne, works in the Overberg and brought back two stories from a fishing village school. You won't get this if you don't understand Afrikaans.

The teacher asked her class to name as many fish as they could. So they listed Galjoen, Hake, Snoek and so on. The list was long but the teacher pushed them a bit saying, "Surely you know more than that coming from fishing families?"

One little boy eventually piped up, "I know one more! Break-vis."

During a geography lesson she asked the class to think of places that began with letters in the alphabet, but the class struggled with "f" until some bright spark volunteered "f-lone."

Sermon: wives and husbands

I found Sarah’s comments on the lectionary helpful. Please take moment to read her piece.

Ephesians 5:21-33 has been used to justify the hierarchical arrangement of family life, with the husband as head and the wife as second-in-command. It has been used to justify the deliberate oppression of women in other spheres of life too. Sarah reminds us that this is based on a mistranslation of the original text.

Take, for instance, the New American Standard Version, which places verse 21 (“Submit to each other out of reverence for Christ”) as the concluding line of the previous section which deals generally with how the community should behave with each other. It then inserts a heading and proceeds with the first line of this new section being “Wives submit to your husbands.”

Here are the two ways of rendering the translation of Ephesians 5:20-22:
New American Standard

“…always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
Heading: Marriage Like Christ and the Church
Wives, be subject to your own husband, as to the Lord.”

New Revised Standard Version

“…giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heading: The Christian Household
Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.”

The effect in the NRSV is to make verse 21 the introduction of the section dealing with wives and husbands, so that the idea Paul is talking about here is about being mutually subject to one another in marriage. He then goes on to explain this in detail for wives and then husbands. We are talking about nothing less than a feminist agenda nearly 2000 years before the Suffragettes contemplated it.

It is interesting that Paul uses more space to explain this idea to husbands than to wives. As Sarah reminds us, boys grow up into power, assuming leadership and decision making with relative ease because they are groomed for it. Similarly girls are taught from an early age to be servile. Girls do not easily take on the yoke of power, and wear it uncomfortably when they do. Similarly, boys struggle with humility and serving others. Paul knew this and so spent a little more time explaining this radical idea of mutual service to men who need a little remedial work where humility is concerned. He didn’t spend much time explaining it to wives, as he assumed they were already accomplished. Paul compares the submission of husbands to that of Christ, who, though Divine, humbles himself and becomes a servant of his own creation, even being prepared to die for his beloved.

The other lectionary reading for this week is John 6:60-69, where Jesus challenges those who find his teaching difficult. It is no wonder that at this point in Jesus ministry people are disappearing back home, no longer able to sustain the hard choices he exacts of his disciples. No wonder! Jesus asks of the 12 if they too will leave and Peter responds, “To whom else can we turn?” An interesting response…

Sarah recalls the story of one of Peter’s first encounters with Jesus. He was fishing that day but had had no luck; his nets always empty. Jesus came near on the beach and shouted to the men in the boat to cast their net on the other side. This would have involved rearranging the configuration of men and nets, a tedious process which would go against the grain as these men would have developed an habitual tendency to use one side of the boat. But eventually realising they had nothing to lose they did so. Suddenly, they cannot find enough hands to bring up the net now heavily laden with fish.

Peter caught a glimpse of what Jesus was offering.

“In other words, in one moment the big question on Peter's mind changed from ‘Will I catch enough fish today to survive?’ to ‘Can I gather enough people to take in all of this abundance?’ That's what made Peter a fisher of people.” (Breuer).

Peter went from the anxiety of his poverty to seeing how this poverty might be reversed. It was this that made him follow Jesus. He wanted a society in which he and people like him, no longer had to look forward to a lifetime of drudgery. This was the reason so many women followed Jesus, because he offered them the “good news” that the oppression they had suffered for so long could be reversed. It is why, even today, the church is still one of the few places where women are over-represented – because here they can exercise power in ways (almost / sometimes / should be) equal to men.

To follow Jesus is always to engage with the possibility of making a world that is more just. But it is always premised on the change beginning personally. If I want to see change in the world, I must be ready to change my own heart.

Peter and his men had to overcome their habits to cast the net on the other side. Then he had to give up his livelihood and spend long months away from his family. Several times he had to completely re-evaluate his world-view. Even after he became the Rock on which Jesus built the church we find Peter caught in a radical realignment of his prejudices as Paul and others force him to grapple with the Gentile question. Eventually, even Peter, the conservative Jew, dispenses with the requirements Jewish law and Gentiles become equal citizens in God’s Kin-dom.

Becoming a Christian is not about arriving. It is about starting a journey in which every day challenges one’s perceptions, habits and prejudices. One can never become comfortable. But the energy for this process of constant revision is afforded by the hope that the world these changes are making is a world worth living in.

Frentik

I've been swamped and finding it difficult to reflect on life, let alone write.

For those who read this blog, I want to ask your thoughts and prayers for SHADE as it approaches Jamboree V. It is a stressful time and as always, we are short of money.

Also, please remember the Methodist Church. The debate about same-sex unions has become intense with Parliament discussing a Civil Union's Bill. Our Executive have ruled against any minsiter conducting a marriage ceremony for gay or lesbian couples. We intend to protest, and if necessary to defy this ban.

Gun Free SA has been working hard at making sure the Firearms Controll Amendment Bill does not weaken the Act. So far we've been relatively successful, but it strains the organisation's resources at a time we need to be focussing on community work. GFSA also needs to raise a wopping R600 000 to finish the year.

Mmmm, where'd I leave that Lotto ticket...

Cowboys don't cry

This sad story comes from Yvette:

Recently she was driving through to one of the service centres of Yabonga with a colleague when they happened upon a man running toward Jooste Hospital pushing a wheelbarrow. In the wheelbarrow, they could see someone covered by a blanket. They stopped to offer assistance but by the time they had turned around and met up with the man again, staff from the hospital - who must have been alerted by someone else - had already arrived and were helping out.

Yvette’s colleague found this incident sad and wept openly.

He then confessed that he used to work for an undertaker where he was also a driver, ferrying coffins between churches and graveyards. It was a well-paid job, which he was sad to lose. Apparently he was asked to leave because he would cry at the funerals. He found them terribly sad, even though he did not know the person being buried.

I guess that wouldn’t work… the undertaker crying…

Hot water!

Check out Magali's comment for June 06. She sent me a pic of her geyser. Anyone prepared to venture the depreciation on Magali's house as a result of this terrible happenstance?

Check out Wikipedia's excellent article on synchronicity.

One of the most important aspects of my job, is creating significance from seemingly meaningless events, so I take a perverse interest in how human minds recognise patterns - even when patterns aren't actually there.

For instance, people need comfort when grieving and the natural temptation is to resort to the stories of my tradition, like heaven and "God's will". Thus we impose a pattern on a person's life which makes sense of their death. The problem is that the patterns can be more disturbing than comforting: God's will becomes God's punishment.

I prefer to think of life as chaotic and unpredicatable. Coincidences, like Magali's geyser, serve only to illustrate for me how chaotic the world is and how absurd our pattern recognition system can be if we look for patterns without consistency.

The essential thing about being human is choice. Our freedom means we can overcome the chaos of life. But this means being consistent in our choices. By such consistency, I impose upon the world an order. It is a tiny - no, puny - order; a logic which is completely overwhelmed by the magnitude of the universal stream of chaos.

And yet, it is significant. How? The scientific endeavour is a clear example of how the cumulative weight of thousands of tiny, logical efforts has been able to offer humanity the chance at controlling the chaos. Democratic (more than just the ballot) process also demonstrates a remarkable power to "change" history.

If there is a mysterious power at work in the universe, we don't need to alarmed. It is not in bar-codes and 6 coloured rainbows. No, this power is human and the results are far more surprising! What do these numbers mean to you? To me they represent the ingenuity and resilience of the human animal:

1994 Year of South Africa's freedom
1919 Year of the creation of the formula for the chlorination of drinking water
2003 Year of the newest democracy on earth: East Timor
299,792,458 Speed of light in metres per second
3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510 Pi

Fear

I thought Ze's missive on the recent Heathrow scare a timely wet blanket on the hype. All the inconvenience aside, let's be realistic about what we need to be afraid of. Who are you more afraid of, the fundamentalists in Iran who might be starting a nuclear arms programme or the US Senate, many of whom believe that Israel's recent war on Lebanon is a precursor to the Second Coming and who have their collective finger hovering over a button that controls the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world?

In My Name

We’re using the Heartlines series on SABC as a discussion focus for the confirmation class. This week’s episode is about Faith who comes from rural Natal to Jo’burg after her mother’s death. She comes hoping to earn enough to pay for her sister’s tuition at school. She prays fervently for success but ends up being raped and losing her job cos she was away from work recovering. She ends up being taken in by a Chinese man who helps her recover her hope and she in turn helps him. Because of her ordeal she finds leaving the little shop, where she lives and works with Mr. Lin, impossibly frightening. She becomes trapped in the shop because of her fear.

The scene that seems to me the centre of the story is powerfully symbolic, though I’m not sure if the writers intended it this way. She is cleaning the shop when a pigeon flies in. It is trapped and panics, fluttering across the delicate china on the shelves. Eventually Faith manages to catch the pigeon and slowly walks out with the bird in her hands. When she releases it with a smile on her face, she only then realises that she has walked quite some distance beyond the safe confines of her prison. Though she flees, panic-stricken back into the shop, the healing has begun.

It seems to me that this is metaphor for prayer and an answer to the theodicy question (“Why does God allow suffering?”). In order for God to love, God must be vulnerable, for love by its definition, requires vulnerability. One cannot love someone who is impregnable. One can only love that which one is capable of hurting. So, by creating humans who can love, God creates the possibility of God’s own destruction. God is trapped. God is like the pigeon in the china shop and the only person who can set God free is the one who is trapped there too.

As Faith walks out the shop to her freedom – and the pigeon’s freedom – it is difficult to distinguish whose freedom is being won and who is doing the liberation. In fact, it seems more appropriate to say that Faith and the pigeon need each other.

And so it is with God and humanity.

Jesus says, “Whatever you ask in my name, God will grant you.” We ignore the phrase “in my name” too easily or we make it a rubber stamp on the prayers we send to heaven as if the right postage stamp will guarantee the success of our supplication.

Jesus is asking us to do something very specific. For the ancients a name was the sum of a person’s character. Jesus’ name in Hebrew (Yeshua) means Saviour / Salvation / Redemption / Freedom. When Jesus asks us to pray in his name, he is asking us to pray in that character - the way he lived his life. Prayer is not what we do before a meal or before bedtime, or a superstition to garner God’s favour, or a shopping list of our fears and dreams. I

Prayer is a life lived for freedom – ours and God’s.

Guerrilla Eucharist

Read John 6:24-35

There is an old piece of Jewish humour that tells of a man who had dinner at a restaurant where he ordered the soup of the day. It came with two slices of bread. After his meal the owner of the restaurant came and enquired about his meal. “Lovely,” said the man, “But I would have preferred more bread.”

The next day, the man came back to the restaurant and the owner, recognising this strange patron, made sure that when the man ordered the soup of the day, he had four slices of bread next to his soup. When he checked in with the man at the end of his meal, the man replied, “Lovely as always but, again, not enough bread.”

The owner was perplexed but determined to satisfy his customer, so when the man returned the following day he was prepared. He had asked the bakery to bake two special loaves of bread and when the man ordered the soup of the day, it was placed before him with these two fresh loaves on either side of the bowl. He demolished the lot. The owner approached, confident he had finally done his patron proud. He asked after the man’s meal.

“Lovely,” came the reply, “But I see you have gone back to giving me two pieces of bread.”

---

I like the “I am” sayings in John’s story of Jesus for their rich symbolic depth. But I like the John 6 saying most of all because it is Jesus at his most Buddhist. His conversation with the weary seekers who have followed him all over Galilee reminds me of a Buddhist master at his most oblique. Jesus offers smoke and mirrors for their concrete questions.

In Buddhism there is a concept called Tanha, which translated literally means thirst. Its technical usage in Buddhism can mean desire, craving, wanting, longing, yearning, hunger, appetite and so on. The second of the Four Noble Truths describes Tanha as the origin of all suffering. As we seek to fulfil our desires we realise that all satisfaction is impermanent and therefore cannot really satisfy. We may become addicted to transient satisfiers or cynical and jaded, even frustrated, angry and resentful - maybe even murderous.

The third Noble Truth describes the path out of suffering which is to seek that which is permanent. This comes through meditation by which we are enabled to see the permanent things in life.

Jesus says: “Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.” Very Buddhist…

In the play A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams, we are introduced to the power of Tanha to destroy. The main character, Blanche DuBois, has a nervous breakdown as a result of her infatuation with her sister’s husband. Blanche travels on a streetcar (tram) called “Desire” in order to get to Stella’s house and this streetcar becomes a symbol of the force that leads to her destruction. Just as her streetcar journey is ultimately doomed, so is her own desire.

It is worth dwelling on that symbol. Desire gives us life and movement. It propels us into new places, friendships, adventures and commitments. All life has desire. Without it, we cease to be alive. And yet, if not held in check, it becomes as destructive as a run-away vehicle, taking us over the edge into our destruction. How closely these three go together: Desire, Life and Death.

Be this as it may, it still seems strange that Jesus replies in the way he does to the faithful who travel so far to be with him. These are poor people, whose last hope is this strange man who listens to their problems and often grants real reversal to their pain and oppression. No doubt they are hungry after chasing all over the countryside for him, hence their question (almost accusation).

So how is it that Jesus be so fuzzy now? (Remember the previous story was the feeding of the 5000) More to the point, how can Jesus be so callous as to suggest that he is the bread these people need in the face of their poverty, when they beg him to use his power to reverse their plight?

But then we should also ask, how can we, who follow Jesus down the generations, hold aloft a morsel of bread in the face of global hunger and proclaim it as this world’s salvation?

“I am the Bread of Life.” Indeed! What arrogance!

---

Satisfaction is not guaranteed. In fact the reverse is guaranteed. Even if all the hunger in the world were satisfied, it would not be enough, we would want more…

This is not to say we shouldn’t fight poverty, but we will not succeed if we think we can solve global poverty by only feeding hungry people. We need to address the cause of hunger - the cause of poverty - and that is greed: the insatiable desire for more…

And so in the face of global hunger a morsel is the answer. You will be satisfied when you control your desires, rather than they control you. It is by disciplining our cravings that we approach the mystery of God and consequently, the possibility of righting the world’s injustice. The ultimate answer to world hunger is not in providing food, but in curtailing greed.

So the church should be teaching the rich to fast, and teaching the poor to speak up about the fast they are forced to endure. The poor who are the majority in almost every country of the world need to be shown the power of that morsel. Imagine the poor churches of our country celebrating communion with those tiny wafers in front of the opulence of Parliament, or shopping centres where the wealthy wallow in a glut of consumerism. Imagine them wearing filthy rags and parcelling out those tiny sips of wine, while all around them in the busy intersection luxury vehicles pass by brimming with suits. How about a communion service on pension day at the welfare office, where the bread is replaced by the slip of paper each pensioner signs to receive his or her measly allowance? What about a communion service at a fine restaurant where the celebrants ask for the waiters to bring them wafers instead of the main course? Maybe you have an idea. Rise up and spread the Word…

The Adventure is Now

Read Mark 6:30-56

The disciples return from what must have been a fascinating and arduous trip around Israel, performing the tasks that Jesus had set for them. Jesus’ sending of the disciples was last week’s reading and it has been on my mind, especially the bit where he tells the disciples that if they are not welcomed into a town, they should wipe the dust from their feet and go on. I’ve spent the past week in Namibia – a very dusty place. I received the most fabulous welcome from the men in Oshakati where I attended a workshop on masculinity. Our adventure in Namibia was wonderful and I have yet to wipe the dust off my boots, which remain scuffed and soiled under my Sunday best!

As with other adventures of this sort, I find I need time to assimilate and make sense of what has happened – I feel the need to retreat and dwell upon its significance. Perhaps the disciples felt the same way on their return, but they are instead plunged into a bizarre situation of having to feed more then five thousand people. My life is a little like that – I seldom have (or take) the time to reflect upon my experience.

Socrates said that the “unexamined life is not worth living.” How true. When our busyness prevents us from living in the present, we are not really living at all.

I found, even on our adventure, I was constantly focused on the future. “When we get there…” I wondered how the workshop would go. At the workshop I was looking forward to the adventure in the desert. In the desert I looked forward to being at home. And now I wonder what happened. Because I wasn’t really there. William, my fellow traveler, had an expression he used a few times on the trip: “The adventure begins now.” I want to live like that – in the now.

I have lived my life with a refrain at the heart of my being: “What is real?” It is has energized all my pursuits. It comes out in some of the stuff I have blogged here about Myth. In a story like the one in our text today, the same question may be asked: Jesus divides a handful of bread and fish into a feast for more than five thousand, he walks on water and heals people. What is real?

Our experience in Namibia taught me a little more about what is real. We got stuck for nearly three days in a river called the Guandegab (which is now a swearword in my dictionary). When they say that 4x4s are a good idea in Namibia, this is a very true saying. A motorbike fairs rather poorly in loose sand. We had to wait through the long hot day for the cool night when the sand is slightly firmer and the bikes could get traction. There was nothing to do, but wait. I couldn’t plan, I couldn’t act. Eventually day-dreaming also ends and one… is. I noticed the lizard nearby dancing his strange press-ups on diagonally opposing feet, so that the feet in the air can cool off. I noticed how still the leaf lies, infrequently gently stirred by a breeze out of nowhere, going nowhere. I was me. I was real. Just a few precious moments, I was present. I was alive.

The disciple’s didn’t get their opportunity to reflect, to rest. They were plunged back into the demanding tasks of compassion. When I returned from Namibia, there has been little opportunity to reflect, to rest. The daily tasks of life pursue me. I remember thinking in the desert, how nice it would be to hold Katie again. I remember how before I went to Namibia, I had been thinking, how nice it will be to have a break from Katie. Constantly living in the future, I had stopped living and am in danger of addiction to a future that never arrives.

The question of reality took a surprising twist when I got home and read Peter Wood’s blog about Velveteen Rabbit - a true story :-) – a favourite of Peter’s and mine. It was a fortuitous stumble. It reminded me that reality is more than just me.

That precious moment of drying out in the desert was not the only me. Me was also back home in Katie and Yvette’s heart. Me was also in the hearts of all my friends and family. Me is also in the heart of my enemy. I am not merely a “skin encapsulated ego” (Alan Watts) but also the being that is part of others, what they know of me, and what we share.

Real is when we stop the hurry of our fast-food life and listen to our souls. But real is also when we stop and love.

So I won’t clean my boots for a while, I like them real…

Sermon Ordinary Time July

Read: Mark 6:1-13

When I was exploring becoming a minister, I signed up to become a Local Preacher. Part of the process is that the Local Preacher’s Quarterly Meeting interviews prospective candidates. In those days, the deliberations about each candidate were held in camera, the candidates awaiting their fate outside the meeting. At the time that I applied, my parents had just gone through a divorce and our conservative congregation was rife with the hot gossip that Mom had left because of being a lesbian. Inside the meeting someone asked, “How can Greg be a preacher when he comes from a family like that?”

Fortunately for me, Rev. John Borman, who was chairing the meeting, flinches at nothing. I am told that he responded: “If you’ve been around as long as I have, you will know that the most beautiful lilies grown on the foulest dung heaps.”

I was accepted as preacher and started the long journey that brings me here. I wonder what would have happened, had I heard that question myself, instead of second hand some years later. I wonder what would have happened, if John had not stood up for me.

I wonder how many great people have been imprisoned by prejudice, stunted by their parents, their village or their friends. In this country particularly, what greatness lies buried behind mounds and mounds of destructive judgements.

Understanding Jesus’ situation a little better can help make the greatness possible…

Jesus is labelled the “son of Mary”. Not, on the face of it, a slight, but remember we are talking about 1st century Palestine where one was more usually referred to as a son of one’s father. Jesus’ father is in question. No doubt, if Mary had shared her story, that Jesus had been conceived by God, she would have been seen as a nutter. In all likelihood, Jesus’ father was simply not known. What was known, was that it wasn’t Joseph. And so every time a villager met Jesus they were reminded that he was a bastard.

The villagers also ask, “Where did this man get all this?” I am reminded by Sarah Breuer of the nature of this question in her reflection on the lectionary this week.

The culture of Jesus’ day, more so than Western culture today, was influenced by what anthropologists call “limited good”. The idea is simply that resources are limited and in order for their to be an abundance in one place, there has to be a scarcity elsewhere. But this applies equally to ideas, skills, values and so on, not just physical resources.

So the question from the villagers is actually, “How did Jesus come to have so much?” Their jealous question implies some illicit activity by which Jesus comes to his power. Perhaps he has stolen these ideas, perhaps the power he has comes from a nefarious source.

Not only is Jesus a bastard, he is also a thief. Can anything good come from this man? How can he be a teacher?

But Jesus is not held back by such ideas, on the contrary, we see him continue all the way to Jerusalem. What enabled him to rise above these conceptions? I don’t think this was the first time he had encountered such prejudice. Growing up in Nazareth it is easy to see how he may have been conditioned to believe these ideas about himself. On the other hand he may rebelled, in the way that we often do, a reactionary and futile attempt to stand up against the labels; labels we have secretly absorbed too deeply.

Jesus was able to rise above this because he was given - or knew - a different perspective. He believed in the generosity of God. He was not inviting people to help him divide up a limited pie, he was inviting people to a banquet so large that it might spoil for want of more people to enjoy it.

So Jesus invited prisoners, the sick, the poor and hungry to be part of the feast. He commits the double felony of claiming authority and power and then giving it to misfits. As everyone knows, prisoners deserve to be punished for their crimes, God punishes the sick for the sins of the fathers and those who are hungry and poor should get a job.

I have witnessed through the work of SHADE how women who have been told their place –and kept there with violence - from the day they were born have risen above this dominating oppression. They have not given in, nor have they merely rebelled, they have risen above it. And it is amazing how much they have accomplished with seemingly few resources. Liberation has a way of multiplying resources and making new things possible.

What have you come to believe about yourself as a result of the lifelong training you have received in the world? What picture of yourself is Jesus inviting you to appreciate?

Prison Break

To truly be alive, requires risk; the risk to relate, to be vulnerable, to journey, to believe. But to risk requires volition and we are not always free to exercise our will. Trapped by circumstance, fear, oppression, our past or a myriad of other prisons, we cannot make the decisive move. Freedom is a grace won at great cost. I think of the freedom of 1994 and what it cost. A woman sacrifices security and status to ditch an abusive husband. A man gives up his job to follow his heart. A child grieves a broken past and becomes an adult. But once freedom has been won, we have the energy to risk. And so we live.

Risk is dangerous and freedom is expensive. Prison is death.

Katie, Phoebe and I run past a house every day that has a big rottweiler and two small terriers in the yard. Every day, the big roti barks like crazy (and Phoebe goads him). The little dogs follow suit. As we run past, the roti gets more and more agitated and frustrated because he can’t get past the fence. Eventually he takes out either one the terriers closest at the time. When the roti turns back to the fence the little terrier is even more angry and crazy, having been beaten up, but aims all that animosity at Phoebe.

They said it

In the side bar you'll see a link to uMunthu Psychology. You may want to visit it occasionally as Chiwoza is starting to write... At the moment, Chiwoza's field of interest is why people in Malawi engage in risk bahviour even when they know it is dangerous. Obviously this has important implications for Afrrica's struggle against HIV. So keep your eye on that space...

Restless Rock has produced a flood of refelections on death. Sounds grim, but check it out. It left me feeling hopeful.

And if you need some light relief with satircal overtones and a dash of cynicism, don't forget Ze Frank...

Points Political to Ponder from Pres. Katie

I have been told that the world is producing too many girl children because apparently our environment is flooded with oestrogen. Wouldn't that be great. Obviously the scientists who concluded this never studied my family. This is a photo of my latest cousin Jonah Don born yesterday. I am now hopelessly outnumbered but this raises a very important political point. The ubiquitous presence of maleness should present no problem to the ambitious female. When surrounded, simply climb higher… It is particularly important when doing so that one is not held back by the fear of others. Here you can see how, despite my subject's obvious discomfort, I have not shied away from my desire to avoid the stairs. This takes courage and conviction, but the rewards are many, as the triumphant will always take the glory. So, welcome Jonah, your brother Llew will show you where to stand in the pecking order...

Skin Hunger

Whenever Jesus healed he touched. Given the society he lived in the most extraordinary part of these healings is that he touched. He touched women – something a Rabbi was not supposed to do. He touched women who were haemorrhaging – making himself ritually unclean. He touched people with skin diseases – who had been kicked out of their families and villages, forced to live in the wilderness.

Ever wondered why we shake hands? I like the explanation offered by some evolutionary biologists. Our ape ancestors needed to mark their territory but marking one’s territory is a problem when you live in a tree. So instead of using faeces and urine, like so many other mammals, apes use secretions on their hands and feet which automatically mark the trees they are climbing in. This is why your hands often sweat when the rest of you doesn’t or why our feet smell. Shaking hands is throw back to a time we marked our territory with our hands and bonded with family members by sharing our smell.

Shaking hands is like saying: “You and I belong together.”

The movie Fisher King is a modern retelling of the fable in which a prince discovers the importance of touch. The prince goes into the wilderness to test his courage and had a vivid dream in which he sees the Holy Grail surrounded by flame. When he reaches out to grab it, the flames burn him. When he wakes, the wound is real but the Grail is gone. He becomes King but is consumed by his wound and one day in desperation returns to the wilderness to try resolve his pain. Lying in the wilderness, delirious and dying of thirst, he is met by the Court Jester who asks him, “Tell me what I can do for you.” The King replies: “I am thirsty.” So the Jester pulls a chipped wooden cup from his bag and offers it to the King filled with water. As the King reaches for the cup he sees that it is the Holy Grail. He realises that it is not the jewel-encrusted treasure of his previous vision that he needs, but rather the battered old cup offered in the hands of compassion.

Not all touch is good. People who are fighting are touching. Sexual and physical abuse uses touch to injure deeply. Sometimes we refer to people with mental illness as “touched”. But appropriate touch is very important to humans. To loose touch is to cease being human. Touch is literally and matter of life and death.

In old age homes I have hear the term “skin hunger” to describe the peculiar loneliness of people in homes like these. Skin Hunger… We need to be touched.

Rene Spitz in 1945 studied infants in a South American orphanage that were starved of physical contact. Because the staff were under resourced they simply did not have the time to cuddle the babies. Despite having enough nourishment and medical care, a third of the children he studied died for want of a hug. The survivors remained permanently psychologically damaged.

Think of the people who need your touch. Remember the people who touch you. Which people are you afraid to touch, or are you not allowed to touch? Who do you long to be touched by?

When I baptised my first child I remember the sheer terror I felt having to hold this fragile being. I saw myself as incapable of holding something so precious. Deep down I didn’t think I was good enough. That child and the trust of his parents healed me. Nobody knew it, but that touch healed me.