Fuzzy Wuzzy

I picked up one of Katie’s books – one I’d not read yet. I read it to Katie and it touched me, which is a measure of just how much hormones affect Dad’s too. It’s called “Guess how much I love you” by Sam McBratney and illustrated by Anita Jeram. Here it is…

Little Nutbrown Hare, who was going to bed, held on tight to Big Nutbrown Hare’s very long ears. He wanted to be sure that Big Nutbrown Hare was listening. “Guess how much I love you,” he said.

“Oh, I don’t think I could guess that,” said Big Nutbrown Hare.

“This much,” said Little Nutbrown Hare, stretching out his arms as wide as they could go.

Big Nutbrown Hare had even longer arms. “But I love you this much,” he said.

Hmm, that is a lot, thought Little Nutbrown Hare.

“I love you as high as I can reach,” said Little Nutbrown Hare.

“I love you as high as I can reach,” said Big Nutbrown Hare.

That is quite high, thought Little Nutbrown Hare. I wish I had arms like that.

Then Little Nutbrown Hare had a good idea. He tumbled upside down and reached up the tree trunk with his feet. “I love you all the way up to my toes!” he said.

“And I love you all the way up to your toes,” said Big Nutbrown Hare, swinging him up over his head.

“I love you as high as I can hop!” laughed Little Nutbrown Hare, bouncing up and down.

“But I love you as high as I can hop,” smiled Big Nutbrown Hare – and he hopped so high his ears touched the branches above.

That’s good hopping, thought Little Nutbrown Hare. I wish I could hop like that.

“I love you all the way down the lane as far as the river,” cried Little Nutbrown Hare.

“I love you across the river and over the hills,” said Big Nutbrown Hare.

That’s very far, thought Little Nutbrown Hare. He was almost too sleepy to think any more. Then he looked up beyond the thorn bushes, out into the big dark night. Nothing could be further than the sky.

“I love you right up to the moon,” he said, and closed his eyes.

“Oh, that’s far,” said Big Nutbrown Hare. “That is very, very far.”

Big Nutbrown Hare settled Little Nutbrown Hare into his bed of leaves. He leaned over and kissed him good night. Then he lay down close by and whispered with a smile, “I love you right up to the moon – and back!”

President Katie unfazed by recent Senate upset

Make a meal of it

Mom sent me this link which I enjoyed very much. Don't worry, the pasta is wheat free.

Nuf Sed

A dangerous man who faded away has finally died. I hope he is enjoying a nice cup of rooibos tea with Steve Biko. Too early as yet methinks, but at least Steve is enjoying it.

My abiding memory of PW Botha was an interview conducted by journalists outside his Wilderness residence during the Truth and Reconciliation Campaign. He was saying his usual stuff about how the TRC was maligning his name and his people and that he would have nothing to do with it, blah, blah, blah…

Behind him in the background was the driveway to his house, “Die Anker”, which is Afrikaans for “The Anchor”. There is a sign at the bottom of the driveway with this name on it. There is a graphic on the sign of an anchor lying on its side with the words arranged around it. The end hooks of the anchor which form a “W” shape lie next to the word “Anker” so that the net result is a sign which says:

Die Wanker

As PW wagged his finger at the world, his own home silently and unwittingly condemned him. What I found funny then, I find sadly prophetic now. I expect that there will be many deaths in the years to come which will be just as sad because one more chance at reconciliation will die with each recalcitrant, narcissistic and unrepentant soul.

In this context it is good to remember Vlok’s recent penitence at the feet of Frank Chikane (and a few others that didn’t make the media spotlight, mind you). While it doesn’t go far enough, it was immeasurably better than nothing.

History is the quintessential reality-defined-by-perception. PW has condemned himself to an eternity of bad jokes and piercing satire. Vlok has created a paradoxically hopeful as well as confounding position – one that will be debated but never pitied.

Sermon - living faith

Following Bill Loader’s lead this week, I imagine here a conversation between Jesus and a less sympathetic Scribe than the one who confronts Jesus in Mark 12: 28-34. First, read Mark’s version.

Scribe: “So Jesus, which commandment is the first of all?”

Jesus: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.”

Scribe: “Mmmm…”

Jesus: “And the second is this: love your neighbour as yourself. There isn’t a commandment greater than these.”

Scribe: “Oh really?”

Jesus: “Yes, these are greater than any law, more important than whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Scribe: “Well, I don’t know about that. Surely if one loves God, one will obey all God’s commands? These include sacrifices and burnt offerings, not to mention much besides.”

Jesus: “Absolutely, but they are all subordinate to devotion.”

Scribe: “Perhaps, but on what basis is ‘love of neighbour’ second? Surely all of God’s commands are second? The ‘love of neighbour’ is but one of many.”

Jesus: “God’s command to love is one, just as God is one. ‘Hear Oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’ All commands - all law - are subordinate to the nature of God, subordinate to love.”

Scribe: “Are you suggesting we should stop making sacrifices?”

Jesus: “There is no need for sacrifice for love fulfils the law. Law was created to regulate human relations and love perfects those relations.”

A conversation between modern Christians reminiscent of this conversation between Jesus and the Scribe, might go like this:

“How can you accept homosexuality? Don’t you follow the Bible?”

“No, I don’t. I follow Jesus. I read the Bible”

Today is called “All Saints Day” in the liturgical calendar. It is a day we recall the people who have died in the past year as well as the saints of old who have rooted us in the faith. One of these saints is John Wesley.

Whereas Jesus gave to us the principle of interpreting scripture through the eyes of love, Wesley gave us a method to do this.

For Methodists the Bible is but one of four sources for theology and ethics. The Bible is to be read in tension with Reason, Tradition and Experience. This amounts to a wrestling for truth, but never a pronouncement of truth. Our decisions are always contingent upon new information. And this is why we speak of faith for certainty has no place in this struggle. This is why we speak of our religion as ‘living’ and that Jesus is alive – for we follow a man who still walks in surprising directions, shifting the goal posts, wily and unpredictable.

After Jacob deceived his brother and left his family he slept one night, no doubt troubled by his past and searching for direction. During that night God came to him and they wrestled with each other. In the morning, Jacob was more resolute, but still bore the mark of having wrestled with God. Our faith is like that. We wrestle with God and each other to discern a truth that propels us to action.

"What big ears you have, Grandma!"

Little Red Riding Hood meets the Big Bad Wolf dressed in her grandma’s nightgown and lying in her bed. She says to Wolf-dressed-as-Grandma, “My, what big ears you have, Grandma!”

“All the better for hearing you, my dear” replies Wolf, “All the better for hearing you.”

Will big ears improve my hearing?

When I was 25 I wore a size 7 comfortably. Now at 35 I prefer a size 8. At this rate I will be resorting to stokies in my 80’s - if I last that long. From foetus to grave our extremities continue growing. This is why the older one gets, the bigger one’s feet become or the more out of proportion one’s ears and nose to the rest of one’s face. There may be some advantages for men in the continual growth of extremities, but to my knowledge this hasn’t been studied…

Long before I cuddle my tired dogs in towelling slippers, I will, in all likelihood, be felled by some age related disorder caused by my genes.

Overgrowing bits is one of those taken for granted realities that actually make a good case for evolution as opposed to creationism.

For the creationist there is cause for praising God for the apparently miraculous “fit” of species to their environmental niches. But this natural “fit” is far from perfect. What is the design point of super sized extremities? It makes no design sense to waste energy on peripherals while one’s core structure is deteriorating, not to mention the increased wastage of time pruning nose hair.

From an evolutionist perspective the superfluous growth of my big toe is an indication of the unconscious process of natural selection, which “designs” by accident. Many creaturely attributes could be improved upon by careful, conscious design, like the skew face of a sole. Just as there is no environmental or competitive pressure for the sole to “improve” the design of its face (yet), so there is no pressure for humans to evolve more efficient ear lobes.

The same clutter and inefficiency is visible in the preponderance of genetic disorders among the elderly. At first glance one may wonder why so many people are afflicted with genetic disorders if the principle of natural selection is working well: weeding out such maladaptive traits in the population.

Most disorders manifest later in life because they affect people who have passed their normal reproductive life. As far as natural selection is concerned I am insignificant when I cease to have children – I am already dead. Any disorder that crops up then has already been passed on to the next generation. As long as the disorder remains invisible while I’m “fruitful and multiplying”, no one is going to be choosy about having sex with me because I haven’t yet grown that third eye. Any disorder that does manifest while I am in my reproductive years is not going to swim long in the gene pool (in evolutionary terms that is).

Genetic disorders that manifest later in life are the detritus of evolution by natural selection - as are big ears. We regard such anomalies as normal when in fact they are litter in the otherwise pristine theological framework of creation.

It is therefore fascinating to me that the Jesus theology celebrates a “new creation” as opposed to glorifying creation as is. Jesus celebrates those who will “do even greater things than me” in the future. Much of Jesus’ ministry was about healing people and today we have within our power the ability to heal people of profound illnesses, even those of a genetic source. Medical science has the potential of cleaning up the litter of careless evolution.

With the hope of realising God’s dream of a new creation it seems blasphemous that we are more preoccupied with plastic surgery than we are with healing the world of rampant disease. Medical science has veered toward lucrative cosmetic gerontological study rather than attacking the roots of genetic disorder and endemic disease. The values of those who fund medical research, and those who benefit from it, have become superficial in the extreme. We are inventing ways to prevent wrinkles while we have the power to eradicate epidemics. We are more worried about our big hairy ears than dying from internal decay. Commercial interests mean that medical research is increasingly directed toward drugs that are lucrative rather than significant. Our society is creating an industry driven by sexual interests rather than the miracle of a “new creation”.

“Slice my shnoz, but please, no digital exam!”

Sermon - blind faith

Mark 10:46-52

This story forms the end bracket to a body of material that begins in Mark 8:28, in which Mark tells the story of Jesus’ journey from the north of Palestine to the south on his way to Jerusalem. It is the way to the cross. Three times Jesus predicts his suffering and three times the disciples don’t understand. Just as the story of Bartimaeus forms the end bracket so the story of the blind man of Bethsaida forms the beginning bracket. The journey of the suffering servant is bracketed by two stories of the healing of blindness.

Blindness for Mark is a symbol for failing to understand Jesus’ purpose. This is reinforced in the contrast between Jesus’ disciples and this blind beggar. The name that Bartimaeus uses to call Jesus is a testimony to the truth the disciples fail to see: “Son of David” which in Jesus’ day was a freedom chant like ‘Amandla’ was during our own freedom struggle. Bartimaeus is putting himself at risk of arrest by shouting this while Jesus disciples tell him to be quiet. Bartimaeus’ name is also symbolic. It means “son of worthiness”. The disciples at the centre of attention get it wrong, while the beggar at the periphery gets it right. The disciples have followed Jesus through Palestine without realising what is about to happen. They will desert him. But here, a blind man who has met Jesus this once, is prepared to follow to the impending cross.

Do we in the church, with our millennial tradition of theology perhaps pretend to know more about God than we do? The church has been through many a reformation in its history and each generation makes a hero of the reformer of the previous generation, while ignoring the radical in their midst.

Today we are at risk of clinging to our treasured history of homophobia while the secular state, which does not even know Jesus, leads the way to justice for gay and lesbian people. The disciples fail to understand, while the blind man on the street sees.

The disciples pretend to own Jesus, giving him advice on how to behave and protecting him from bothersome children or annoying commoners. But Bartimaeus has no time for scruples. He shouts the odds and makes a scene. He raises his allegiance in public defiance of oppressive authority and the witness of the secret police.

The proper place of a beggar was on the periphery of the crowd at the city gate begging. To lead the crowd in praise - especially such politically dangerous praise - was an affront to decency. I remember the debates of yesteryear when prophets of the church opposed Apartheid and were criticised for mixing politics and religion.

Today, our codes of decency threaten our discipleship as they have for every generation. Our disgust at swearwords renders us deaf to the discontent and anxiety in our young people’s music. Our opulence renders us blind to the increasing gap between shiny rich and smelly poor. Our comfortable habits render us immune to the shock of Jesus’ living presence. Our theology has become so consuming; we cannot see the people we disagree with.

Helen Keller once remarked, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

On Tuesday, I participated in a debate about the Methodist Church’s stance toward same-sex unions. I was tempted to use Keller’s phrase to label Ray and Dave as blind because of their sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin. Now I see that perhaps it equally can apply to me. Jesus calls us to love people, not theologies, positions, types, labels.

The story of Bartimaeus is the end bracket. The story that is the beginning bracket is the healing of a man at Bethsaida. It is the only story where Jesus’ healing powers seem incomplete.

Jesus rubs mud made from his spit into the man’s eyes and then asks, “Can you see anything?”

“I can see people, but they look like trees walking,” replies the man.

Like Bartimaeus let us call upon God’s mercy that we may see people as people, not as trees; that we may see people not by their labels, theologies or politics, but simply as the people God loves regardless.

Internet Sources:

William Loader
Mary W. Anderson
www.esermons.com

Certainly uncertain

This article comments on Richard Dawkin’s new book – the only book of his I am likely not to read.

http://shipoffools.com/Features/2006/dawkins.html

A recent TV docie by a prominent Jewish scientist examined the fraught relationship between science and faith. The presenter made an interesting point that science and religion when practiced appropriately are both founded on the same principle: uncertainty. Fundamentalism of both science and religion is based on false certainties.

I must say, I still find myself more accepting of scientific fundamentalism than religious fundamentalism. I wonder why?

Dassie finds hawks may be doves

Two weeks ago I mentioned briefly the ongoing saga of the church’s debate on dame-sex unions. My nervousness about hawks has been allayed.

Tuesday 24 October Alan Storey and I were invited to present papers to DEWCOM, the Doctrine Ethics and Worship Commission of the MCSA. This body is a think-tank that advises our church on matters of theology, ethics and church practice.

After the 2001 Conference of the MCSA, DEWCOM were tasked with publishing a discussion document for all churches on the matter of same-sex unions. DEWCOM presented a paper, which was accepted at the next Conference (2004?). DEWCOM was criticised by many for presenting a “one-sided” discussion paper. They had advocated an inclusive position based on a historical critical reading of scripture, a review of the latest scientific evidence as well as pastoral experience.

The meeting of DEWCOM on the 24th was an attempt to hear two points of view on the matter and see if a way forward could be discerned.

Ray Alistoun and Dave Morgan presented a view in opposition to the blessing of same-sex unions. I was especially surprised by Ray’s eloquence and the logic of his argument, even though I disagree fundamentally with his approach to scripture.

Alan’s “paper” was brilliant – the more so because he spoke from sketch notes on several bits of paper! Dion’s comment afterwards was succinct: “Broer, if you’d had an altar call, I would have been on my knees!”

I spoke from experience and showed how my experience had coloured my approach to scripture. I reiterated Alan’s challenge that the outcome of this meeting needed to be a commitment to remain in fellowship with one another despite our differences of opinion.

Ray and Dave responded positively to this call and I believe the way forward, while painful, will be hopeful. There was a general acknowledgement that we need to respect that each “side” approaches the Bible with integrity and sincerity. We also agreed that our being together in the church is more important than our opinions about sexuality.

This is a massive step forward as it holds out the hope that we can as a church express a single conviction that our members may have differing opinions.

I hope that this will mean in future that the church may even accommodate a divergence in practice as well as opinion so that some of us can conduct same-sex marriages. I believe that this may in fact be what DEWCOM recommend to Conference. This would be consistent with Methodist theology and the MCSA’s current stance on homosexuality.

Methodist theology holds many different forms of Christianity under one denomination. We are often accused of being un-systematic and mixed up, but it is the beauty of this denomination that so many different Christian expressions find a home here and have to work out how to live with each other. The current MCSA stance on homosexuality is that we have none (simplification) and are engaging in a conversation to establish a way forward. My argument is that until we have an opinion as the whole church we must either place a moratorium on all marriages or allow clergy to conduct marriages for anyone they choose according to conscience.

One step closer to an inclusive church…

Sermon - the price of change

Read: Mark 10:17-31

Sarah says there is a comedian called Eddie Izard who says it’s easy to get a camel through the eye of needle – all you need is a heavy duty blender and lot of patience…

Sarah also points out the ways that preachers try to side-step this one, including the “ecclesiastical urban legend” of the “eye of the needle gate”. So I am conscious that I have a big responsibility to speak of good news as well as carry over Jesus’ hard words without compromise.

Yup – this is one of those texts that is real hard to preach… I keep hearing Jesus saying, “Sell the bike; sell the bike.” Eina. Jesus said it – deal with it…

“Who is rich?” is the first question that springs to mind. An income of just over R1000 a month puts you in the top 18% of the world population. I am in the top 9% which is embarrassing and it hurts to think I am like the young man in the passage today.

But wealth is more than income, it is access. Some people, who earn R1000 a month, must share that with a large family. Others can keep it for themselves. Some must spend almost all their income on rent and transport alone, get a second job to pay for survival. I think access is a more appropriate measure of wealth – access to health care, access to human rights, access to democracy, access to security, and especially access to leisure.

Yesterday, I spent the whole day with friends and family having fun. That is a privilege very few people have in the world. I admit it, I am rich…

Why do the disciples then say, “Then who can be saved?” They came from relatively poor families and had effectively sold themselves into poverty for Jesus’ cause. And anyway, the obvious answer is that their question is that the poor are saved. But perhaps the disciples recognize that it isn’t about money in the pocket as much as money in the head. Everyone wants to be wealthy. From the poorest of the poor to the wealthiest person, everyone wants more. A radical redistribution of the world’s wealth will not leave everyone equal; it will simply reboot the system. It will not be long before poverty sets in again. The disciples recognize that Jesus is targeting the desire for wealth.

The problem with wealth, as Sarah has so rightly put it, is that it orders our relationships in ways that are unhealthy, not to mention sinful. These unhealthy relationships connect us to a web which is part of the global system that creates poverty.

Take charity for instance: out of the ten people who knock on my door asking for money or food, at least one is genuine. What do I do? Normally I give something. It costs me nothing and assuages my guilt to some extent. But it changes nothing. The person is still poor, and no matter how grateful for the gift, their situation confronts my apathy. The power imbalance is still there – I have the power to give life and death. Charity is not part of God’s Kingdom.

Should I give away all that I have – sell that motorbike? Yes, but carefully. As much as giving at the door does not change the system, so will giving all my wealth to a worthy cause not change anything. It is the system that must change. Part of that is the idea that I as an individual can change the system single handedly…

Jesus and his disciples lived in community, sharing everything with each other, largely supported by wealthy, independent women.

Notice that there is a journey of faith played out subtly in the characters of today’s story.

The young man has already worked hard at being good, only to be told that even Jesus is not good. That sucks. You slave away your whole life and realize the oke you’re trying to copy has been a bad boy. And Jesus was bad – healing on the Sabbath, chasing people out of church, getting people drunk at parties, fraternizing with prostitutes…

So, the young man has a revelation – it is not about being good. That is not to say, that you should be bad – unless you are going to be Jesus-bad. But being good doesn’t cure this young man of his deep spiritual longing for … for what?

Jesus looks at him and loves him. Wow. Before the man has answered, before he jumps through any more hoops – he is loved. This is enough for some people. Be good and know that God loves you. But if you long for more, then Jesus says sell all you have and follow him.

The young man can’t do this, but Peter is worried and says, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” You can almost hear him wondering about that secret stash of cash back home in the pantry. Peter is wondering whether he has made the cut.

And Jesus’ answer to Peter begins the same – love. “Look, Peter, you have given up much and you have in turn received so much. See your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers and children gained in this community because of your sacrificial service.” Jesus loves Peter and points to the gains he has. But there is more, “You will also receive persecution because of this choice of yours. You will suffer.” It is by no means easy.

I can imagine Peter saying, “Yes I get that – I’ll see about the persecution thing – but I get the new family thing. But have I made the cut?”

And then Jesus says something strange, “The first will be last and the last shall be first.” This is something you’d think he’d say to the rich young man, not to Peter. Unless it is Jesus being Buddhist again, constantly shifting the goal posts.

At the end of the day, there is nothing one can do to gain access to the Kingdom. Access describes wealth in the world, but access to the Kingdom cannot be attained by any amount of noble intention or action. The Kingdom constantly slips through our fingers like a bar of soap. Just when we think we have it – like the young man, or like Peter – it evades our definition, our ownership.

Eventually, when we give up trying to be good people, when we give up trying to be right people, when we cease in our desperate striving, we realize the Kingdom has been hear all along. When we fail, when we give up, we arrive. We are surrounded by brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, children and lands. We belong already.

“For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible” says Jesus.

So, if you want to be good and know that you are loved then come to church, do the right thing – Jesus loves you. If that doesn’t satisfy, know that there is even more, salvation is secure. Peter, you belong. Your place is assured. God has forgiven you.

You can do all this and still not be satisfied. You can sell all your goods and realize that even that does not bring peace. None of this has anything to do with knowing Jesus. If you want to know Jesus; if you are interested in following him then take the next step. It will hurt, you will suffer, but it will never be boring. Bind yourself to Jesus’ friends, using your combined resources to change the world by living out in your relationships with each other the kind of Kingdom stuff Jesus talks about.

Start small:

Maybe I won’t sell my motorbike, or maybe I will, but I will definitely use it to help others enjoy the leisure I get from it.

And the woman who helps clean my house for a little more than a R1000 a month. Maybe I can help her get the education which could see her owning her own business one day.

And the next time someone who needs my help comes to the door, I’ll offer to go home with them and see where they live. In all likelihood the offer will be refused. But one day it will be accepted and I will need the grace to accept hospitality from someone I once saw as poor. Who knows where that will take us…

You never know, maybe we’ll change the world.

Dassie checking for hawks

Monday I put in a last minute submission to the Portfolio Committee on the Civil Union Bill. Only Die Burger was present to hear it so they ran a story on the submission. If you can read Afrikaans, you can read it here. Yesterday Raport, another Afrikaans newspaper, picked up on the story and conducted an interview. I'll post a link in due course. I'm a little nervous about this given missive from on high recently about Methodist Clergy not misrepresenting the MCSA. I have been at pains to point out to people that I speak in my personal capacity. I wonder if Tutu has this problem?

Sermon - marriage

Add in paper for motorbike:

For sale: 2006 Suzuki 1000. This bike is perfect! It has 1000 miles and has had its 500-mile dealer service. (Expensive) It's been adult ridden, all wheels have always been on the ground. I use it as a cruiser/ commuter. I'm selling it because it was purchased without proper consent of a loving wife. Apparently "Do whatever the HELL you want" Doesn't mean what I thought.

Read Mark 10:2-9
Once more the lectionary provides a fitting reflection for God’s people as we debate with each other the proposed Civil Union Bill. Tomorrow Parliamentary representatives will be visiting Woodstock Town Hall to garner community responses to the Civil Union Bill. The debate so far, both in the political and ecclesiastical spheres, has centred on the definition of “marriage” so it is fitting that we reflect on Jesus’ theology of marriage.

As always, when considering how Jesus speaks to us in the present we need to understand the original context of his teaching lest we do him the disservice of mistranslating his words into our context, so different from his own.

I found Sarah’s reflection on the background succinct. You may want to visit and see the points that she draws out from Jesus’ words.

We can see how different those times are from our own from even a cursory reading of the text. The Pharisees ask Jesus if it is permissible for a man to issue a certificate of divorce. They do not ask if a woman can do so.

There were two, not entirely mutually exclusive, theologies on marriage at the time of Jesus. The first saw marriage as a contractual arrangement between father and husband, whereby the daughter is transferred from father to husband by mutual agreement. The wife is absent from this agreement. A woman did not issue a certificate of divorce. Her father might do so, but not her, even in the case of infidelity on the husband’s part. Should a woman find herself divorced she could appeal to her father for ongoing support but she was not guaranteed this support. She forfeited her rights as a daughter once she got married. She forfeited her rights (such as they were) as a wife once she got divorced. A divorced woman without the support of her father often had to resort to prostitution as the sole means of making ends meet since the likelihood of re-marriage were poor to nil – divorced women were “used goods”. It is for this reason particularly that we see Jesus taking up the cause of prostitutes. They were above all else, the victims of a terribly brutal system.

A second view of marriage placed marriage as cornerstone of national identity. For a small nation with curious customs and beset by oppression and prejudice, the preservation of national identity was paramount. Securing and growing the next generation was considered a command of God: “go and multiply” says the Priestly story of Creation in Genesis 1, written during Israel’s exile in Babylon where they suffered a particularly harsh regime. If a marriage did not produce children, it was a worthless union – the woman carrying the blame for its infertility. Such a marriage was as good as dead by society’s standards and so the husband was obliged to seek another wife.

The Pharisees ask their question because they know that the Mosaic command was a compromise. The issuing of a divorce certificate was a practice that evolved as a result of the imperative to procreate. Everyone knew that the original design of God was something lifelong. Jesus takes to idealistic position and criticises his brother Pharisees for their compromise with expediency.

Jesus returns to the creation stories and quotes from both versions to justify a hard line on marriage. It is as important to note what Jesus leaves out as it is to see what he incorporates as his foundational texts for a theology on marriage.

He quotes Genesis 1:27 firstly. Both male and female are created in the image of God. The implications are obvious – women should enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to men in marriage. Anything less, is an affront to the image of God. Furthermore, the image of God is two unique individuals, created as equal but separate entities. It is not “marriage” that is the image of God, but the individuals who make a marriage – or who are not married for that matter. Marriage is not the cornerstone of society. A fully alive human person is – male and female. Jesus confronts his society’s obsession with marriage and calls his followers to regard all people as equally valuable whether married or single, divorced or widowed, male or female.

Then Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24. But he leaves out Genesis 1:28, which more traditionally would have been quoted in any theology of marriage. In so doing Jesus chooses to use the second creation story as the basis of his theology and specifically rejects the first.

The first story has God create the humanity as the pinnacle of creation. Humanity is created at the end but is given the same command as all the other creatures: “Be fruitful and multiply.” The first story pictures humans as special but still very much animals – multiplying like the rest of creation.

The second story focuses far more on humanity with Adam being created as God’s companion. For some reason (perhaps because God makes poor espresso) Adam wants a companion too (perhaps God is too busy making the universe). So God creates Eve as a companion for Adam.

Jesus chooses the idea of companionship as the foundational idea of marriage. He specifically rejects the idea of procreation as the basis for marriage. He also speaks against the notion that the man is the most important part of a marriage.

Then Jesus goes on to say, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Such companionship is lifelong and not to be treated lightly.

Jesus speaks against the prejudicial notions of marriage in his own time, but also against the obsession with romance that characterises our own time. Lifelong mutual companionship cannot be based on fleeting, fickle romance; otherwise the next pretty face may cause one’s commitment to waver. While the romance may help in the beginning it is no long term foundation.

I think of comments I hear from young people these days, which remind me of the problems Jesus addresses.

“My parents think John is not intellectually my equal, that he is not up to our standard.” This smacks of marriage seen as a contractual arrangement to secure the status quo – to preserve status and economic class. Not unlike the contracts of Jesus time.

“Isn’t sad that they haven’t had children yet.”
Sometimes couples choose not to have children. Sometimes they do. One wonders if greater attention needs to be paid to the issue before marriage – questions of fertility and children resolved before making a lifelong commitment.

“She would be a lot happier if she could just find a husband.”
No doubt this is true in some cases, but singleness is not a curse and some people choose it deliberately, preferring to not make lifelong commitments.

“But Mom, I love her!”
Are we teaching our children what love really is? It seems to me most young people’s (and adults for that matter) idea of love is formed by romantic comedies. A better comparison for love in marriage would be the convent or monastery – that is the commitment not the total celibacy!

And then there is the question of gender. If Jesus’ theology of marriage is based principly on the idea of lifelong companionship, why does such companionship have to be gendered? Is not possible that such a covenantal union could be exercised by same sex couples?

Jesus challenged the definition of marriage in his day, and I believe he challenges our definitions today.

Hell 4

Damnation! Scolded again… er… scalded that is. Slabbie sent me veritable proof that Hell exists…

It’s in Michigan, USA.

Hell was first settled in 1838 by George Reeves and his family. George had a wife and 7 daughters – no reason to call it Hell yet… George built a mill and a general store on the banks of a river that is now known as Hell Creek. The mill would grind the local farmers grain into flour; George also ran a whiskey still, so a lot of times the first 7-10 bushels of grain became moonshine.

In turn, horses would come home without riders, wagons without drivers….someone would say to the wife, where is your husband? She'd shrug her shoulders, throw up her arms and exclaim, 'Ahh, he's gone to Hell!'

In 1841 when the State of Michigan came by, and asked George what he wanted to name his town, he replied, 'Call it Hell for all I care, everyone else does.' So the official date of becoming Hell was October 13, 1841.

Word Cancer

Recently some of my buddies in the kerk have been playing with word verification meanings with hilarious results. I want to start a catalogue of funny spell check Freudian slips like this one:

My word: Parastatal
Spell check suggestion: prostate

A friend quipped: makes sense… when they reach a certain age, cancer is more likely.

Send your entry to gregandrews@shade.org.za

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