Boundless Salvation

A few thoughts about the marriage debate

2011-11-13T15:06:00.005+11:00

One could be forgiven for thinking that the current debate about gay marriage was between conservative Christians and everyone else. I know Christians who feel under fire in this debate because they are sticking to their principles despite what they feel is a significant amount of pressure to do the opposite - and this applies to people on both sides of the argument. NSW politician and ex-Premier Kristina Kenneally recently pointed out the irony that she, a married Catholic, was for gay marriage and our unmarried, athiest Prime Minister was against it. It seems you can't always assume a person's stance on one subject because of their opinion on others.

As someone with a reasonable interest in both society and politics, my prediction is that same-sex marriages will eventually become legal in this country, as they are in many others. It's only a matter of whether that will be sooner or later that is in question and then, no doubt, history will judge how we stand today. Perhaps God will as well.

What disappoints me in the meantime is the level of real debate that's going on. It's not just a matter of picking sides, but the arguments that you use to substantiate your position matter as well. If you're going to take a position for gay marriage, it's not enough to demonise the conservatives, to call them prejudiced and characterise them all as ignorant fundamentalists. On the other hand, those who are against gay marriage need better arguments than they're currently sprouting about the potential impact on families - there's a lot of stone throwing in some rather thin glass houses going on there. The frequent proclamations about a biblical standard for marriage could also be a little more humble and frankly, better informed by a reading of the Bible.

There are also very real questions about whether this is a religious issue at all. Legally, marriage is a secular institution that takes a wide range of cultural forms - you can be wed under a variety of religious banners or increasingly, choose to avoid a religious wedding at all.

Most importantly though, I think we need to pause and recognise the power dynamics inherent in this debate. We're talking about a decision that will be made by the majority that will affect a minority group. This minority group are frequently the victims of bullying, violence and discrimination. People who are same-sex attracted, particularly young people, also commit suicide in tragic numbers. This, at least, should give us pause before we weigh in and ensure that we've made a genuine effort to understand those who will be most affected. Whichever side you land on, try and voice your opinion carefully, thoughtfully and respectfully. We all deserve that.

Moving beyond dualism towards genuinely holistic mission

2011-10-30T16:05:00.011+11:00

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and we’ve been stuck with that divide ever since. When we stop to think about it, we know that heaven isn’t really a place that’s ‘up there’. We’ve been sending planes, rockets and satellites that way for quite a while now with no sign yet of angels sitting around on clouds playing harps. The imagery remains powerful even though we know that it’s not meant to be literal.

Christians also affirm that God is present amongst us. We don’t believe in a deity that’s removed from creation but rather one that’s very much in the midst of ongoing, creative, loving, healing and reconciling activity every day. Yet, despite this we subconsciously reinforce the separation between what we imagine to be two separate worlds – the material one that we inhabit on a daily basis and the spiritual one, in which God is fully present, and for which we yearn.

We are keenly aware that the material world, including our physical bodies, lets us down all the time. So perhaps it’s only natural for us to pin our hopes on something else, something more enduring, something that we can only glimpse occasionally but which inspires us like nothing else can. So we withdraw into our inner world, into prayer and meditation. We disown the earthly desires of our bodies and lift up those who commit their lives to the disciplines of silence, fasting and chastity. We have a view of reality that looks something like this:

Our world is divided into two parts, the material being where most of our daily existence, including sin, dwells and the spiritual being where God and holiness is most clearly present. For the most part this isn’t a problem, in fact we’re not even aware we’re doing it, despite the fact that it’s continually reinforced in our language, our liturgies, our prayers, our songs, pretty much every aspect of our worship – private and public.

However, problems emerge when we first become aware of a resource limitation – time, talent, finance – and subsequently have to make choices about where we place what we have left. In The Salvation Army, our dual mission, which holds together evangelism and social action, presents a particular challenge to this worldview. In a situation where resources are finite, you have to prioritise and this dualistic understanding of reality can only be resolved in favour of those activities that fall under the spiritual category. How could one justify subjugating the spiritual in favour of the material? Furthermore, because the spiritual world has an eternal aspect and the material world is transient, any commitment of resources must be prioritised towards the longer term outcomes. In practical terms, it might be suggested that whilst housing or feeding someone are good and practical things to do, they should never come at the cost of a lost opportunity to win their souls for heaven. Of course, doing both might be the ideal but if one really has to choose – is there really a choice?

I’ve been puzzling over this situation for over 20 years now, since I first started working in Salvation Army social services and studying theology. For a while there, I was convinced that we just needed to get a better balance between the material and spiritual worlds and the activities that were associated with each. It wasn’t just that this way of seeing things inherently denigrated our social work – though in some ways it does. But I also had a nagging feeling that it didn’t quite sit with my experience. Sometimes at the end of a gruelling day, when I’d broken up a fight, listened to someone crying over their relationship breakdown and cleaned up someone else’s blood or vomit, I felt a sense of meaning and deep connection to life’s purpose that wasn’t always apparent sitting in my pristine uniform in church.

The spaces where the material and spiritual worlds meet are called ‘thin places’ in Celtic Christianity. In all forms of Christianity, including Salvationism, they are sacramental spaces. In fact, this is the purpose of all sacraments – they connect us between a physical reality in this world and the spiritual reality that sits behind it. It’s not magic, it’s mostly a presence of mind, a willingness to see the meaning and reality in a symbol beyond it’s present physical dimensions. Not just to see it, but to enter into it, to participate in it, if that’s at all possible – and our experience suggest that it is.

I went to a funeral in Zambia a few years ago where there were hundreds of people sitting on a hillside, singing, mourning and celebrating together. God’s presence seemed undeniable in that moment, so tangible that it would have been hard to believe that anyone there could have experienced it otherwise. Yet I’ve also experienced times when God seemed so far away that any such connection appeared either a distant memory or a hopeless fantasy.

Our fourth doctrine reminds us that Jesus was ‘truly and properly’ God and human. I suspect that one of the reasons that early church struggled with this so much was because of the same dualistic framework that continues to besiege us today. How can the divine be mixed with humanity? We still affirm the boundaries between the sacred and the secular, the holy and the profane much more convincingly than we are able to proclaim the oneness between them that is found in the incarnation. Is it possible that what we are saying about Jesus is more true about all of reality than I had previously understood? Is this the key to understanding the simultaneous transcendence and immanence of God? The more I dig into these questions, the more I have begun to see similar revelations breaking through right throughout the history of Christianity.

The beginning of this journey is starting to reject simplistic dualities. For instance, that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who always think in black and white, and those who can live with the large amounts of grey that inhabit our existence. Whilst there is some truth in this, like all generalisations it suffers when examined too closely. Sometimes dualisms are tempting because they pander to our tribalistic tendencies. We frequently fall into ‘us’ and ‘them’ ways of thinking. However, it’s possible to acknowledge the truth that underlies most dualisms without accepting that they capture the whole truth or that theirs is even the best (or only) illustration of the way things are.

Here’s another common way of thinking about our existence that might seem at first to be a bit more sophisticated than simple dualism but still reinforces the same paradigm.
This is a common way of thinking about holistic mission. We think about the various dimensions of a person’s existence (of course there are a multitude of ways of naming these and breaking them up, this is just an example) and look to find ways to address a person’s wellbeing in each of the areas. Truly holistic mission will ensure that a person is doing well in every area of their life’s pie chart. Sometimes this way of working can mean that someone coming for assistance might have five different people helping them with different aspect of their life! In our social programs, whatever we decide the spiritual segment means is what we assume the chaplain is doing (though I suspect very few chaplains actually see their work this way). The problem with ‘pentalism’ or any other ‘polyism’ is that it continues to reaffirm the separation of the spiritual from every other aspect of a person’s existence. Of course, when we look deeper we can also acknowledge that this isn’t just a false division for our spiritual dimension. Our emotional wellbeing affects and is affected by our social world, our physical health affects and is affected by our psychological wellbeing, etc.

Whilst the differences are important, the inter-connections are as well. This makes it harder to represent diagrammatically but I think something like this is getting closer to how I’m beginning to understand it and is a more helpful way to approach the development of holistic mission:

Again, the categories are debatable but they’re not really the point. In this case, by Mind I mean everything that we perceive as going on inside our heads – our personality, our thoughts, our emotions, our dreams, our fears, our sense of ‘self’, perhaps this is what some have thought of as their ‘soul’. By Creation, I mean the physical world outside our head including our own bodies. We invite an interaction between mind and creation every time we eat a piece of cheese or drink something sweet, when we exercise our bodies or when we enjoy the scenery on a bushwalk. Finally, the Social dimension encompasses all of our interactions between each other. It’s vital to the bigger picture and important, I think, to distinguish from the rest of creation because I suspect most people interact differently with other humans than they do with trees. All of this and the interactions between them make up who we are and have the potential to capture our life’s experiences. The space where each dimension bleeds into the next is highly permeable, like three pools of water running into each other – once the connections begin it is no longer easy to determine where one starts and another ends.

Now where does spirituality fit in, I hear you ask? Well, I contend that it’s right there, you just need to know where to look. It’s there in Mind when we think about God, when we immerse ourselves in private prayer, when we wonder about the meaning of life, when we are feeling most desolate and alone, when we decide that we need to live differently, to live more fully, to building a better world. It’s there in Creation when we become aware of the beauty of all that surrounds us, when we stand in awe of the micro-organisms that help us to live and the incredible vastness of the universe that surrounds us, when we are thankful for the health of our body and for when we curse it’s limitations. We can begin to understand the social dimension as having deeply spiritual moments, each time we respond compassionately to a person in need, when we fall in love and refuse to rationalise those moments as merely the consequence of bodily chemicals, when we are moved to create a more just world because we don’t want anything to happen to others that we wouldn’t want for ourselves.

Of course, not all of life feels like a particularly spiritual moment. Some parts of life we experience as extraordinarily mundane – though even this can be subjective. For one person, there is nothing more dull than doing the dishes, while for another this is the supreme moment of relaxation. This is what it means for Salvationists to be ‘pan-sacramental’. It means that all of life is potentially sacramental in character. If God is really omnipresent, then all moments, all places, are capable of revealing something sacred. However, I’d be the first to admit that this doesn’t seem to be an even scale – some things seem to be more ready to open up those thin places that others.

So if you believe that God is compassionate, then a life full of compassion will be more likely to reveal God. If you believe that God is concerned about justice, equity and everyone getting a fair go, then invest yourself in these things. If you believe that God is love, then show love without reserve. Most of all, don’t be bound by dualisms that set us apart from other people, whatever they are. For if nothing else, God is a God of surprises and loves more faithfully, more indiscriminately and more fully than we can ever imagine.

Religion in the 21st Century: Thoughts on 9/11

2011-09-11T06:00:00.000+10:00

In the 20th century, Christian theology was indelibly shaped by the impact of two World Wars. Many of the great theologians of this era were German, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was killed by the Nazis for his part in the resistance movement. It's difficult to fathom that any Christian could reflect seriously upon the Holocaust and not have to re-imagine Christian-Jewish relationships to protect our future from history's mistakes.

At the start of the 21st century, 9/11 and the subsequent 'war against terror' should have done the same thing for Christian-Muslim relationships. If anyone is expected to take religion seriously in the future then we have to be unequivocal about disowning those who use God to justify acts of violence.

It's also time we realised that rather than wait for the next time, we should be actively pursuing new interfaith understanding amongst all religions. Any belief structures, including Christianity, that claim an exclusive right to salvation will challenge this dialogue but they can't be an excuse for apathy, resignation or worse still, arrogance. Christianity is under threat and in some cases rightly so. We are being judged by our worst failures rather than our best successes. All the more reason to come humbly to the table of discussion with our brothers and sisters from different traditions all around the world.

I've written a number of times on this blog about Christianity and non-violence. At this time of reflection, the need for a broad recommitment to non-violence by religious people is clearer than ever. Christians have no excuse in this arena - reread the gospels if you're unsure about Jesus stance on violence and what happened to him. We should abhor violence with every part of our being. I don't buy the arguments that say that we sometimes need to use violence to stop violence. That's Caesar's way, not Christ's way.

It's time to step away from violence and warfare and to reaffirm all that is good about religion. The Charter for Compassion is a great start to this task. As we reflect today about what's happened over the past 10 years, let's commit to putting aside every form of tribalism and find new ways to come together for humanity's future.

The Problem of Expertise

2011-09-10T08:26:00.002+10:00

I've been thinking recently about the place and value of specialist knowledge in The Salvation Army. It seems to me that sometimes it's difficult to find the right place for expertise in our structures. How can we better demonstrate the value of expertise and experience in particular subject areas? I think there are two areas of challenge to consider in relation to this question:

Firstly, our hierarchical organisation places inherent value upon officers and more specifically on officers with good generalist skills and the ability to adapt to new circumstances. Because officers move from place to place on a reasonably regular basis, and because each appointment has (sometimes dramatically) different expectations and demands, the 'best' officers are those that can do a bit of everything. It's much more useful to have wide rather than deep experience as an officer. The higher up you go, the more diverse responsibilities you have, the more your generalist, 'jack of all trades' experience assists you to fulfill your role. Officers who 'pigeon-hole' themselves into particular areas of interest or skill can end up restricting their scope of ministry (though sometimes this is their intention!). Yet, it seems to me that we often don't know what to do with the expertise that these officers have developed. Their knowledge and understanding is always filtered through the lens of the generalists, sometimes at multiple levels. What we do with the expertise of our employees, soldiers and volunteers presents an even greater challenge.

Secondly, it seems to me that we can be suprisingly democratic when it comes to the value of knowledge and education. I realise that I'm potentially putting myself under fire here as some kind of academic snob but I'm becoming increasingly aware of the times when all opinions on a matter are valued equally despite the fact that one may be based on a gut feeling, ignorance or prejudice and another may be based on years of study, experience and research. To be fully honest, depending on where these various opinions fit into our hierarchical structures they may not even be valued equally. I want to be clear about this - I don't think that education is the only way to understanding, nor does it necessarily always lead to the right answers. There are lots of smart people with little education and lots of highly educated people that seem to say and do plenty of dumb things (myself included at times). However, I can't help but wonder if we hold all opinions equally why anyone would bother pursuing any education at all? Surely there are benefits to delving deeply into subject matter for both the individual, their ministry and our movement as a whole?

How can we better use and value our subject matter experts?

Why fight the Church on homosexuality?

2011-05-17T19:15:00.003+10:00

Today is the International Day Against Homophobia. It might be a good day to reflect on how much simpler my life could be if I would only stay quiet about the 'issue' of homosexuality and the church. Yet, I don't think silence is the vocation that I've been called into.

I'm sure people wonder why a heterosexual man would spend the time and energy that I have done campaigning for greater understanding and acceptance of gay and lesbian people within the church and more specifically within The Salvation Army. The answer is pretty simple really - I keep witnessing people being hurt by ignorance and prejudice and I refuse to allow this situation to continue unchallenged.

I've lost count of the number of people that have told me how they used to be a part of the church but when they awakened to a differing sexuality, they were excluded - some quickly and cruelly and others slowly frozen out. My heart breaks when I hear of the violence inflicted on gay and lesbian people because they are different. I wonder why followers of Jesus, instead of welcoming these marginalised folk, seem to be the chief proponents of highlighting their difference, legitimising prejudice and 'othering'. I am deeply saddened when I hear of occurrences of self-hatred, self-harm and suicide amongst LGBT people, many of whose misconceptions of their own self-worth have been driven home by 'well-meaning' Christians.

So, while LGBT people continue to be the victims of intimidation, bullying and violence, I'll fight.
While Christians hide their prejudice behind a handful of out-of-context scriptures, I'll fight.
While the church remains closed to my gay and lesbian friends, I'll fight.
While love comes second to man-made rules, I'll fight to the very end.

The Evolution of Humanity

2011-05-07T14:00:00.001+10:00

Maybe my head is stuck in a Star Trek inspired, science fiction utopia but I'd like to think that humanity has the potential to evolve. I don't just mean that we finally do away with our appendixes (appendices?) and tonsils but that our relationships evolve beyond what they are now. Of course, I don't just mean interpersonal relationships but global relationships; the way we treat each other (actively and passively) all around the world.

Anyone with an eye on any form of media this week has been inundated with news and opinions about the death of Osama bin Laden. I understand why people might want to celebrate this but I'm also saddened by the idea that human beings might celebrate another person's death as well. I feel like we should be better than this. How can it be that by murdering a murderer we make ourselves any better than they are? Is it just about numbers? Does the killing of thousands justify the killing of one (not counting for the moment the others killed in last weeks raid and all those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq)? Surely if humanity is to survive, we need to grow beyond violence.

I know this has theological implications and these are worth thinking about. I actually think that all forms of religion need to embrace non-violence as an essential characteristic of their existence. Unless they do, religion has no place in the future of humanity.

Making Disciples - Rethinking the Bigger Picture

2011-03-13T21:15:00.002+11:00

The heart of the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20) is the call to make disciples of all nations. This imperative is one of the most recognisable hallmarks of evangelicalism and also one of the stated mission intentions of our Territory.

When I first became a Christian, I was ‘discipled’ by mentors who spent much time helping me to interpret the Bible, explaining doctrine to me and guiding me towards good, Christian behaviour. Without doubt, they had their work cut out for them and any judgement about my subsequent failure in any of these respects is no reflection of their effort, competence or character. For a long time after this, I assumed that ‘making disciples’ really just meant ‘making Christians’ and perhaps implicitly that ultimately came to mean ‘making people more like me’. With a little more age and life experience behind me, I can now see how wrong I was.

I now understand making disciples more clearly as being about getting people to follow in Jesus’ footsteps – to live like Jesus lived, to do the kinds of things He did. Though the gospels suggest that Jesus spent more time with some of His followers than others, He never restricted His ministry only to an ‘in’ group. Apart from the twelve, it appears that His wider group of disciples included all sorts of people: men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free people. Jesus was radically inclusive in both His table fellowship and His mission. When He is warned that others are taking over His group’s mission, He responds “whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50).

For me, discipleship begins with caring for people. There can be no doubt that Jesus did plenty of this. He feeds the hungry, heals the sick and embraces social outcasts. His compassionate care towards people is experienced as so radical that it transforms lives. People are not the same after an encounter with Jesus. Many of them want to join Him in this life changing mission, even though such discipleship may come at great cost to themselves.

However, Jesus wasn’t just a ‘do gooder’. He spent much of His time preaching as well. The subject of His preaching was usually the Kingdom of God. Jesus wanted people to think about what the world would be like if God ruled it, instead of Caesar. Jesus’ religious tradition taught Him about a loving, compassionate God who was concerned with distributive justice. Under Caesar, the rich and the powerful were well cared for but under God’s rule, all would share in the abundant resources of creation so that no one missed out.

The poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger from foreign lands were all people of special concern in God’s kingdom. Jesus didn’t just comfort those who were suffering with a promise that things would be better when they died, He demonstrated that things could be better now. Those that followed Him became part of a radically inclusive movement for social change where distinctions between rich and poor, clean and unclean, holy and profane were swept away by generosity, love and compassion. His intention was to reform society, not just to condemn it, withdraw from it or give up on it.

Making disciples is much more than just making people believe the right things. Discipleship requires more than we can ever give on Sunday alone. It’s a life changing orientation that calls us into a world changing vocation.

Death to Dualism

2010-12-30T11:46:00.002+11:00

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the biggest theological challenge for The Salvation Army is to overcome dualistic thinking. In many ways, we should be well prepared for this challenge - our mission explicitly encompasses both spiritual and temporal aspects. However, I can't help but wonder if this very articulation of a dual mission is itself contributing towards an unhelpful theological framework.

Part of the difficulty lies in some thinking that we've inherited from our founder "no one ever got saved while they had a toothache". This simple statement reflects a continuum of assistance that begins with helping people's physical needs and concludes with the guarantee of eternal life. It's a way of thinking that is bolstered by an interpretation of Maslow's heirarchy of needs, which has a foundation of material necessity and builds towards a pinnacle of spiritual fulfillment. So what's wrong with this?

It suggests that assisting people with material problems is only (or at least 'more') valid if we're moving them towards the spiritual goal of conversion. This places us in an ethically inferior position to people of secular persuasion who just offer help because it's the right thing to do.
It invariably prioritises 'spiritual' work over social work.
It fails to fully recognise God's presence in the world, redeeming suffering and calling us to partnership in this task. Instead, it implies a removed God, waiting in Heaven for us to send our converts skyward.

There's a lot of talk about holistic mission but I think this worthy goal is fundamentally flawed whilst we continue to separate the material and the spiritual. Somehow we need to move beyond thinking that physically helping people is a means to spiritual outcomes and even beyond dividing our work to include both social and spiritual tasks. We need to rediscover the spiritual reality that is implicit in a compassionate response to someone in need. For the person with an unbearable toothache, in that moment, 'salvation' is relief from pain.

I've suggested previously that this is what the idea of 'sacrament' is all about - seeing beyond what appears to be physically present in the moment. Good sacramental theology understands that such thinking doesn't denigrate the physical but in fact infuses the material with spiritual significance. It's a 'panentheistic' way of thinking for those of you who like the big words.

I'm fully aware that this prompts more questions than it answers but I'm happy to do that. I'm also quite prepared to acknowledge that I don't have all of the answers. However, I do think that it is exactly these kind of questions that we must be asking because most of the time we're not even aware of our dualistic presuppositions.

I'm not sure William Booth finally resolved this question but I think there's a hint of the right direction here:

Someone asked Booth “what about the Salvation Army proper? Has
it suffered from the competition of the Social Work?” “I know what you mean,”
Booth responded; “but in my estimation it is all the Salvation Army proper. We
want to abolish these distinctions, and make it as religious to sell a guernsey
or feed a hungry man as it is to take up a collection in the barracks. It is all
part of our business, which is to save the world – body and soul, for time and
for eternity” (The War Cry, 1889, quoted in Fairbank, Booth’s Boots, 1983, page
15).

Losing Touch

2010-09-19T21:09:00.003+10:00

Have you heard it said of someone that they were 'too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good'? Lately I've been wondering how religious people become so disconnected from the rest of the world that they seem like visitors from another place and time rather than neighbours inhabiting the same small part of the universe.

Part of the answer is cultural. Lots of churches have their own powerful sub-cultures that create a sense of belonging and safety for those who are part of them. The longer you are part of these churches, the less you notice the weirdness - the uniforms, the clapping, the music, the teaching - all form a kind of dischord with the rest of society.

Then there's a practical element - the do's and don'ts that come with each particular brand of religion. In most cases there's far more emphasis on the don'ts, though hypocrisy is frequently waiting at the door. Experience seems to show that church people fail in their marriages, steal from their employers, gossip and get abusive around sports just like 'regular' people do.

Finally, there's the ideological dimension - or theology if you prefer. The prepackaging of dogma and a tendency to favour answers before questions marginalises genuine thinkers. It also make authentic accompaniment alongside someone who is on a different journey rather troublesome indeed.

It would be easy to give up, if not for one thing. I actually find the life of Jesus incredibly compelling. The Jesus who sits down to eat with prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners doesn't seem to have separated himself from the world. They don't find him weird, in fact they seem to find him good company - perhaps because he's far less judgemental than many of the other religious people they've come across before. And Jesus' theology is remarkably down to earth. He talks about crops, housework, farming and practical things like being in debt.

Jesus does have a vision about a different kind of society. He calls it the Kingdom of God. This new society isn't formed by withdrawing from the old one. Neither is it a place we wait to be transported to after we die. The signs of this Kingdom appear wherever people lead lives of love, compassion, generosity and inclusiveness. Such lives invariably inspire and at their best they call others into the same patterns.

Unfortunately, such radical living is also perceived to be threatening to some. It breaks the rules of polite society. It upsets those who have worked hard to be self righteous. It makes meaningless those religious clubs that expend all their energies on self-preservation.

Jesus wasn't a 'pie in the sky' kind of guy. He knew where people were hurting and showed them a salvation that met their most pressing need. It seems to me that this is the kind of relevance that never loses touch.

Can we make disciples without proselytising?

2010-06-10T21:16:00.004+10:00

It might surprise you to know that evangelism is a subject that I feel strongly about. I can relate to many of the cliches about God filling a gap in my life, about wanting to share the joy and passion that inspires me, about wanting to call people out of brokenness and into healing and grace. I think there are at least three dimensions in which this evangelical intent can and should be played out in the mission of The Salvation Army:

If our social programs are going to respond holistically to human need, then they must have some capacity to address the spiritual dimension in people's lives. Good chaplains are able to engage people deeply yet sensitively in meaningful moments in their lives.
Our corps should embody the Biblical notion of hospitality without discrimination. In this setting, evangelism is experienced as gracious invitation into the community of faith. Corps also have a holistic responsibility to our neighbours, so this means much more than just asking people to come to church.
I feel compelled to personally share the faith that is within me. I know my experience isn't the same as everyone elses and I don't expect everyone that I share my faith with to become like me (hallelujah!). I find that I grow spiritually when I try to communicate what I believe and why I live the way that I do, and also when I listen to the experience and beliefs of others.

Unfortunately, I have to acknowledge that there are some forms of evangelism that are dehumanising, that objectify people, seeing them as notches in someone's soul belt. It's vital that we understand our own motivation and how that translates into action. Here are a few questions that might help:

Is my approach respectful (or disrespectful) of the other person as a human being?
Am I bringing God to another person or could God already be present in their lives?
Am I seeing and responding to the whole person, their history, social context, relationships - or just their soul?
Do I want the other person to be more like me? Why?
Is my message an invitation or a compulsion?
Am I ready to learn from my encounter with another human being made in God's image?
Or am I just wanting to teach them what I know because that's what they need to know?
Do my actions diminish another person or reveal opportunities for growth (towards what they want to be, not what I want them to become)?

Brian McLaren has pointed out that we are called to make disciples, not to make Christians. Obviously those things don't have to be opposites but the distinction is a challenging one. What does it mean to be a disciple, a follower of Jesus? I think it means that I engage in the compassionate, healing, loving mission that Jesus lived - caring for the poor and the marginalised, and working for a more just and equitable world. Want to join me?

Making Sense of Good Friday: Sin, Sacrifice and Suffering

2010-04-02T09:30:00.002+11:00

There's nothing like having to teach on a particular subject that will make you put that extra bit of effort into learning about it. The first time that I had to preach on Good Friday uncovered a whole range of anxieties, doubts and discomforts that I had been suppressing for some time. However it also became clear that I would no longer be able to hide from these but would have to face them in some way, to make sense of these most central parts of the Christian story for myself, if I was ever going to be able to communicate them in a meaningful way to others.

My thoughts have been expanded significantly since then, particularly with regard to the significance of non-violence in the Gospel. However, the essential framework of sin, sacrifice and suffering continue to help me to draw meaning out of Easter. Here's a brief summary:

Sin

The predominant contemporary understandings of sin tend to be almost exclusively moralistic and individualistic. Most people see sin as a personal moral transgression, either against one's neighbour or against God. Certainly we all have a responsibility to act justly in our relationships, but a closer reading of the Bible shows a wider conception of the meaning of sin.

Jesus revealed sin as a structural device which divided his society. It was deeply embedded in the honour/shame dichotomy of the culture, just as it was (and continues to be) in all forms of racial and religious discrimination, gender-based oppression, socio-economic class distinction and a multitude of ways in which people are defined as 'them' and 'us'.

Jesus is portrayed in the gospels as consistently destroying these dividing structures in both word and deed. When he says “Your sins are forgiven” he breaks those barriers and challenges people's understanding of sin, the Law and God. By eating with sinners, he reinforces this. In Matthew's gospel, the defining symbol of this boundary breaking way of life is the tearing of the temple curtain.

When we understand sin as separation, we are called to live more inclusively

Sacrifice

What does it mean to say that Jesus is a sacrifice for our sins? Sacrifice as a concept is as unfamiliar to us today as it was common knowledge in the ancient world. In fact we recoil (quite rightly) at the violence inflicted upon animals (and people) in the name of sacrifice. The gap in culture and time causes us to hesitate and to question the motives of a God who would require such sacrifices.

The problem here is compounded when all of the Jesus story is compressed into a particular sacrificial framework that effectively discounts the rest of his life. Some Christians view Jesus life as meaningless without his death, however I see his death as meaningless without his life.

Jesus life has much in common with the Hebrew prophets before him. He called people into a renewed relationship with God and he demonstrated what this would look like. Why should his death be seen differently? In the first chapter of Isaiah, we hear “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? … Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”

When we understand Jesus sacrifice as being more about the life he lead

than the death he died, it compels us to give our lives sacrificially as well.

Suffering

We live in a society that is desperate to avoid suffering. We rush to dull pain with medication, alcohol, almost anything that we think might help. We are just as uncomfortable with the pain of others, fumbling for the words that will make everything better.

When we read the Passion story, we might well ask 'Why do the women stay at the cross?'. We have here a different picture to our own natural inclinations. Two things stand out:

1. They understand that running away from suffering is not an option.
2. They are committed to what the cross means.

The uncomfortable reality is that death is painful and so naturally we spend most of our lives avoiding it. Yet some things are unavoidable. A truth common to both Christianity and Buddhism is that suffering is inevitable. We can only get through it by looking beyond it – something that the Christian gospel offers in the Resurrection.

When we understand that life is not about avoiding suffering,
but redeeming suffering, we begin to experience the possibilities of resurrection
in our own lives and the lives of those around us.

“Those who have a radical hope for the victims of this word, who are not convinced that resignation is the last word…can include in their experience a hope analogous to that with which Jesus’ resurrection was first grasped and can direct their lives to taking the victims down from the cross. Furthermore, those who, in the midst of this history of crucifixion, celebrate what there is of fullness and have the freedom to give their own lives will, perhaps, not see history as nonsensical… but as the promise of a ‘more’ that touches us and draws us despite ourselves.”
Jon Sobrino (Christ the Liberator)

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 8)

2010-04-02T09:28:00.000+11:00

The following material is the final installment of an article originally published in 'The Furrow', a theological journal from Ireland, earlier this month. As the full article is reasonably long, I've taken the liberty of separating it into smaller segments. The author is Owen O'Sullivan and the original title was "On Including Gays".

Are homosexuals showing church and society a way forward?
There is a long history in the Christian community of the stone which the builders rejected becoming the corner stone, the ‘sinners’ being preferred - as in the Gospel - to the holy huddle of the mutually approving who follow the official line.

Forty years ago, in Ireland as in other countries, homosexuality was a subject that ‘decent people’ didn’t talk about. But homosexuals found the honesty and courage to come out, to declare themselves, and to share their thoughts and feelings, often in the face of derision, hatred, violence or the threat of hell. They began to organize, to challenge the system, and to go political. They have brought about a 180 degree turn in public attitudes, exemplified by the Civil Partnerships Bill now going through the Oireachtas (legislature), something unimaginable forty years ago. Would that the church had so re-invented itself in the same forty years! Maybe the missing ingredients were the same: honesty, courage, openness, dialogue, challenging the status quo.

One finds a similar process at work among the ‘Anonymouses’ – alcoholics, gamblers, narcotics- and sex-addicts. They are at the bottom of the heap. By coming out, facing the truth, revealing their feelings, supporting and challenging each other, they have built communities which reflect what the church is meant to be – but often isn’t. Leadership is from the bottom up, the despised and rejected at the bottom of the hierarchical pyramid showing the way to the wise and learned at the top.

And recently we have seen how it was the suffering of the most helpless in society – children – which eventually led to the exposure of much of what was rotten in the church.

Will homosexuals help us to re-discover new/old ways of doing theology and developing pastoral practice, where human experience is the starting point? That has happened already with other teachings that didn’t tally with human experience or meet human needs. Will they help us to read scripture with one eye on the page and the other on life? They are equally parts of one process. Perhaps they will show us that human experience is as valuable as scripture, as Saint Ignatius Loyola, for one, affirmed. ‘The word became flesh…’ (John 1.14) - God still speaks.

Perhaps, too, homosexuals are showing men a way forward out of self-imposed isolation, out of individualism built on machismo, and a way of dealing with personal issues such as men’s identity, men’s spirituality, addictions, domestic violence against men, male suicide, how abortion affects men, bereavement, paternity and parenting, access to and custody of children in a separation, and care of one’s health. The issues are different, but the qualities needed to face them are those that homosexuals developed in recent times.

Some of what the Scriptures say.

A few quotations: -

‘God saw all that he had made and indeed it was very good.’ (Genesis 1.31)

‘God does not see as people see; people look at appearances but the Lord looks at the heart.’ (1 Samuel 16.7)

‘Anyone who is not against us is for us’. (Mark 9.38-40; Luke 9.49-50)

‘Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?’ (Luke 12.57)

‘Whoever comes to me, I shall not turn away’. (John 6.37)

‘God has no favourites.’ (Romans 2.11)

‘We belong to each other.’ (Romans 12.5)

‘Each must be left free to hold his own opinion.’ (Romans 14.5)

‘You should never pass judgment on another or treat them with contempt.’ (Romans 14.10)

‘Do not let what is good to you be spoken of as evil.’ (Romans 14.16)

‘Your bodies are members making up the body of Christ.’ (1 Corinthians 6.15)

‘By the grace of God, I am what I am.’ (1 Corinthians 15.10. See also 12.18-21, 26)

‘Your body, you know, is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you since you received him from God.’ (2 Corinthians 6.19)

‘You are, all of you, children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourselves in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3.26-28)

‘We are what God made us’. (Ephesians 2.10)

‘Everything God has created is good.’ (1 Timothy 4.4)

The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of ‘the whole church in which everyone is a “first-born” and a citizen of heaven.’ (12.23)

Or read 1 John 4.7-21.

Conclusion

For those who don’t like the above, the great consolation is that it’s all God’s fault. Why? For creating in diversity instead of uniformity, as we see all around us in - guess where? - nature, for making some people different from others. Or did God make a mistake?

Owen O’Sullivan may be contacted at owen_osullivan@yahoo.com

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 7)

2010-04-01T20:05:00.001+11:00

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 6)

2010-03-31T20:03:00.001+11:00

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 5)

2010-03-30T20:02:00.001+11:00

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 4)

2010-03-29T19:59:00.001+11:00

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 3)

2010-03-28T19:56:00.001+11:00

‘It’s not wrong to be gay, but it is wrong to act gay.’
Is a homosexual, by reason of that fact, called by God to lifelong celibacy? The church says yes.

Imagine someone saying to a group of Irish people, ‘There’s nothing in itself wrong with being Irish. I’m not saying there is. But that doesn’t mean you may act on it. So, no more Guinness, going to Croke Park, singing rebel songs into the early hours of the morning, waving tricolours, no more craic. Close the pubs as occasions of sin, and, while you’re at it, would you please do something about your accent: it’s suggestive - of Irishness. I’m not asking you to deny your Irishness, far from it, just not to act on it.’ Would you consider the speaker to be nuanced, respectful and compassionate, or pedantic, patronising and arrogant?

Being homosexual and trying to be faithful to church teaching - is it a cruel joke? Would God tie a starving person in a chair, put a plate of food in front of them, and say, ‘Your self-denial… will constitute for you a source of self-giving which will save you’? (See CDF Letter, n.12.)

The church requires abstinence of the homosexual. To abstain from the physical expression of sexuality means, for the homosexual, abstinence from the truth, from reality, from identity, from recognition, perhaps also from family, and surely from love. Sexuality is not an optional extra to our humanity; it’s an integral part of it. An alcoholic is invited to abstain from alcohol - yes. But alcohol is not an integral part of anyone’s humanity; it’s an optional extra.

Official teaching invites a homosexual to a strange limbo-like existence where being and doing are required to be separated. It says there’s nothing in itself wrong with being a homosexual - as long as you don’t act like one. There’s nothing in itself wrong with being a bird, as long as you don’t fly. How can that be an honest or a healthy way of living?

The distinction between being homosexual and doing homosexual acts is phoney. It’s like saying, ‘Your sexuality is part of you; but you must not be part of your sexuality.’ Have we forgotten that the Incarnation brings matter and spirit, body and soul into one in the human-divine body of Jesus? The Incarnation is God’s answer to dualism.

Being and doing are not as separable in life as they might seem in a lecture hall. But, even in a lecture hall, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, ‘Agere sequitur esse in actu.’ (Summa contra Gentiles, 3.53, 69.) If my Latin is not too rusty that means, ‘Doing follows being in action.’

Homosexuals who try to be faithful to church teaching are in danger of distorting themselves, like left-handed people forcing themselves to use only their right hands; they are in danger of developing a Jekyll-and-Hyde mentality, suppressing what is true about themselves. The statement of the CDF that, ‘Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral’ applies here. (Letter, n.15)

The pastoral rhetoric about respecting homosexuals is meaningless at best when the associated moral rhetoric undercuts a homosexual’s personhood. It means that homosexuals are neither in nor out, neither persons nor non-persons, but tolerated somewhere on the border.

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 2)

2010-03-27T19:52:00.001+11:00

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 1)

2010-03-26T19:42:00.003+11:00

The following material was originally published in 'The Furrow', a theological journal from Ireland, earlier this month. As the full article is reasonably long, I've taken the liberty of separating it into smaller segments. The author is Owen O'Sullivan and the original title was "On Including Gays".

‘Homosexuality is unnatural.’
‘Nature’ is a loose peg on which to hang a theology of human relationships. The word has multiple meanings: the Concise Oxford Dictionary lists nine for nature and fourteen for natural. In Victorian times, Europeans spoke of Africans as ‘children of nature’, meaning they were brutal, primitive, and savage, in need of the wise, firm and civilizing hand of the colonial master; this was to justify European exploitation of Africa. For centuries, slavery was regarded as natural; it had a long and virtually universal tradition behind it, as had the subjection of women to men. It was natural, too, for gentlemen of quality to rule the lower orders. The word has been pressed into the service of several racial, political, social and cultural agenda. Today, people like food to be natural, meaning free from artificial chemicals. But mildew, ants, aphids, cockroaches and rats are natural, and will happily occupy food. Is it natural to have them on it?

Some argue that the natural purpose of sexuality is procreation, and that, since homosexual relationships are not procreative of life, they are therefore unnatural. The argument draws on teleology (ends) or finality as seen from one viewpoint, and seems to imply that since procreation is the principal purpose, then it’s the only legitimate purpose of a sexual relationship. Where does that leave non-procreative heterosexual love, or sexuality simply as play? Does it not also mean that the non-use of genital sexuality, as in celibacy, is likewise unnatural?

Is anatomical structure the determinant of what is normative in human behaviour? If the natural purpose of nipples is to give milk, why do men have them? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) states, ‘The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation.’ (Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1 October 1986; CTS, London, n.16.) A teleological argument from biological nature is no less reductionist. Homosexuals find it natural to engage the body as it is in sexual relationships, and consider it suited for the purpose.

Throughout history, and across the globe, as art, history and literature testify, same-sex attraction and acts have been a consistent feature of human life. In that sense, they cannot be called unnatural or abnormal. Same-sex attraction is simply a facet of the human condition.

As is often the case, our use of language is not helpful. The word ‘straight’ implies that someone who does not fit that category is crooked, deformed, or queer. It’s a by-product of a culture of contempt and repression towards homosexuals on a par with calling black people niggers, and it helps perpetuate prejudice. In this article, I use the word homosexual to describe same-sex attraction, whether between women (lesbians) or men (gays). And homosexuality is not just about what goes on between the sheets, or in clubs or the ‘gay scene.’ The latter is often as far removed from a committed, loving relationship as the activities of a brothel are from a committed, loving marriage. Homosexuality is about the way human beings relate to each other in their totality.

Does homosexuality exist objectively - clear, cut-and-dried - like Plato’s forms, regardless of relationships? According to the president of the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association, between eighty and ninety percent of Northern Ireland’s wider gay community are married with families. In Latin America, the “active” (top) male partner in sex between men is not regarded as gay, only the “passive” (bottom) partner. Gays estimate that between one-third and two-thirds of men who frequent gay clubs or bars live in a heterosexual relationship. And it is not uncommon to find lesbians who have had a child. There is some of the straight in every gay, and some of the gay in every straight. (If all the gay people in society came out, it would banish homophobia overnight.) Some of what is included in the ideas of homo- and hetero- are cultural constructs, such as our ideas of beauty, for instance. It might be nearer the truth to think of homosexuality more in terms of what one does, or how one relates, than of what one is.

The hope some people have is that a homosexual gene will be found; it would let them off the peg on which they’ve hung themselves. Homosexuality could then be considered natural. (How do you persuade people who think they have to be right in order to be credible that their credibility would be enhanced by an admission that they could be wrong?)

Is there a ‘homosexual gene’? I don’t think anyone knows. I hope not; it might lead to homosexuals being treated ‘compassionately’ as freaks. But surely the question is irrelevant. Whether a homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, inborn or acquired, from nature or nurture, it’s there, and that’s what counts. Most homosexuals experience it as a given, no more a choice than the colour of their eyes.

A more important question is, ‘What sort of human being is this?’ ‘What sort of relationships does s/he engage in?’ And the great challenge is for people to be true to themselves. Shakespeare wrote: -

‘This, above all,
to thine own self be true,
and it must follow,
as the night the day,
thou canst not then be false to any man.’
(Shakespeare,
Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3, lines 78-80.)

Is homosexuality unnatural? Yes, it is - if you’re heterosexual.

Stages of Faith

2010-03-17T07:52:00.003+11:00

I was thinking this morning about the idea of a tattoo as a metaphor for Christian understanding. The train of thought began with the much-heard bemoaning that 'young people today don't understand (or demonstrate) commitment'. I think part of that complaint comes from observations about an apparent decrease in those signing up for soldiership and/or wearing Salvation Army uniform (with some notable recent exceptions - Alexis and Sabina!). However, when I consider the commensurate increase in tattoos of faith symbols, then I can see some very long term commitments being demonstrated. But that's not really my point...

I think that for some people, their Christian understanding is something that gets 'tattooed' on them at a relatively early stage of faith development. Though their skin may become wrinkled, they will hold fast to the concepts and frames of that time. I've written before on the subject of Stages of Faith but I want to offer a slightly different metaphor today.

Just a few years after I became a Christian, I also found out that I needed to wear glasses - particularly to see well at night and at longer distances. Since then, I've had several changes of both frames and lenses. I guess I could have stayed with my first pair of glasses but not only would they now be very daggy, but they would no longer fully meet their original purpose as my eyes have changed over the years. In a similar way, our Christian understanding may need to be adapted as our life circumstances and experience shift. The goal is still to try and 'see' Jesus clearly but as our context changes sometimes the old lenses will no longer allow us to do that.

A brief thought on prayer

2010-03-09T22:57:00.003+11:00

Of the many subjects that I've raved on about over the past few years, prayer doesn't get much time. I must admit, I'm wary of certain 'types' of prayer, or more specifically the way prayer sometimes gets used, and also the way the results of prayer (or lack of) can be interpreted. I'm particularly concerned about the attribution of credit or blame where prayer is involved. However, something simple but interesting occurred to me the other week.

On the subject of intercessory prayer, Matthew 7:7 is often quoted "Ask and it shall be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you". It's just occurred to me how different these three activities are and how we normally combine them into one. Instead of 'ask, seek, knock' what we usually hear is 'ask, ask, ask'. Now that's another parable altogether!

Furthermore, I have to wonder if the addition of the 'seek' and 'knock' might be an intentional message for those who are inclined just to 'ask'. Maybe it's a subtle reminder that after praying, we need to get up off our knees and do something about it?

Stating the Obvious (Part 173): Slavery is not part of God's plan

2010-01-10T08:06:00.005+11:00

Are you sometimes amazed about how long it takes for the obvious to dawn upon you? I've been guilty of rather uncharitably laughing at church growth guru and pastor Rick Warren, who's come to the late realisation that there are over 2000 references in the Bible to the poor and justice and can't believe he never noticed before. However, it seems that all of us can be prone to missing the obvious sometimes.

Recently, while listening to a podcast of Dave Batstone talking about the anti-trafficking movement, I realised for the first time that the Bible is not universally in support of slavery. Like many others, I have previously had to acknowledge that the Bible condones slavery. It's pretty difficult not to do so and it is, to some degree, entirely understandable. Slavery appears to have been an accepted, cultural norm of the ancient civilisations out of which our Scriptures have emerged.

However, like many other matters, there isn't just a single voice on slavery in the Bible. I think we miss it because we've spiritualised so much of the Gospel. Usually when we talk about how 'Jesus sets us free', what we really mean is that Jesus frees us from some kind of spiritual bondage, perhaps to sin or maybe if we're really progressive we might be freed from bondage to materialism or commercialism. If the freedom offered by the Gospel had some kind of tangible, historical meaning for people oppressed by concrete social conditions such as slavery, surely there would have been some other clues in the Bible?

Is it possible that by spiritualising the good news, we have missed something critical in that pivotal event of the Hebrew Scriptures - the Exodus? Could the story of God freeing the Israelite slaves from Egypt possibly be a counter message to the cultural expectation that slavery is ok? What about those who were exiled to Babylon and were finally released to return to their own land? And then there's the rather obvious reference in Jesus' inaugural mission statement (Luke 4:16-21) where (quoting Isaiah) he claims to have been sent to proclaim 'release to the captives'. I have to wonder whether perhaps the situation isn't quite as straightforward as I'd been told.

Some people have difficulty with the thought that there are contradictions in the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the record of a series of human attempts, in different times and cultural contexts, to capture the meaning of life in the light of the sacred. Sometimes the writers get it so right that their words continue to speak to and inspire us thousands of years later. Sometimes, like the rest of us, they don't. Sometimes they are clearly inspired by God to stand against injustice and those natural human leanings that we sometimes call sin - violence, oppression, apathy, hatred, tribalism. Sometimes those things break through and we are disappointed (though if we are honest about our own failings, we should also be understanding).

So, there are references in the Bible that seem to condone or at least expect slavery to be the norm of society, as well as those that passionately advocate for freedom for those in captivity. This doesn't mean that we are unable to take a stand on any issue, destined forever to be soldiers in the trenches of prooftexting wars. Surely there are some key questions that can help us begin to sort through apparent contradications. At the risk of being accused of 'picking and choosing from the Bible', I'm beginning with something like "Which speaks to you more of a God whose nature is love and compassion?"

Power Pitfalls for The Salvation Army

2009-12-20T21:50:00.005+11:00

Christmas is a good time to think about the dynamics of power and the potential for abuse of power. On a simple level you can consider the vulnerability of the baby Jesus or, perhaps in a slightly deeper way, the way his story is framed by violent abuses of power - from Herod's massacre of infants to Jesus' crucifixion by the Romans. The well known story of Jesus' threefold temptations are also warnings against the misuse of power. It's not that power is inherently evil but the use of power does contain significant moral dimensions.

It's worth taking some time to think about the potential power pitfalls (I'm going to regret that trinity) that are particularly applicable within The Salvation Army. Here are my top ten (in no particular order):

Military - our structures inherently set up relationships with power dynamics, between officer appointments, ranks, officers and soldiery. How do we ensure that we don't use the power of these structures in ways that compromise human dignity?
Heirarchy - probably a subset of the first point but with particular dangers. Relationships between IHQ, THQ, DHQ, Corps and Social Centres fit into a heirarchy that contains all sorts of power. How can we continually rediscover ways to serve those below us in the heirarchy?
Employer/Employee - as an employer of thousands of people in Australia, how can we demonstrate the value of all our employees? How are our attitudes to power reflected in recruitment, the ways we show that staff are valued, performance management and professional development, unionism?
Service provision - as a major provider of social services in this country, we are faced with moral questions of power in every engagement with people. How can we ensure that we don't use the resources at our disposal as power over people in need? How can we empower those accessing our services so that they are able to move beyond the role of recipients of welfare?
Public power - the public approval rating of The Salvation Army in Australia is something like 96%. How do we ensure that we use such power judiciously?
Political power - a byproduct of items 4 and 5 is that we have the potential for a very strong political voice. Many Salvationists think we don't use this voice enough. How do we weigh up the moral issues of using this power without being politically partisan?
Gender - anyone who doesn't think this is a power issue in The Salvation Army is kidding themselves. No need to say any more.
Age - how are people's ages reflected in our internal power structures? How many people under 50 are in positions of power?
Race - this might seem like a strange one but the reality is that in this country we are largely a very white movement. Are there power dynamics in play here? How does a person's race play a part in The Salvation Army on an international scale?
Spiritual - I'm not specifically talking about miraculous power here but more about how we use spiritual and theological concepts and their impact on people's lives - Heaven/Hell, calling, stewardship, salvation, sin, mission. All of these have moral implications for the person who is teaching, preaching, mentoring or advising spiritually, not just for the 'other'.

Why Christians Should Rethink Hell...

2009-12-18T22:15:00.003+11:00

If you had to explain to someone what being a Christian meant to you, would you include the concept of Hell? Clearly for some people, this is an important reason for being a Christian - perhaps even the most important reason? However, I think that there are two key difficulties that become quickly apparent when talking about Hell today.

The first is that most people simply don't believe in Hell. I suspect that this includes most Christians if you really push them on the subject. Certainly they don't believe in Hell as the literal place of eternal fire that is pictured in classical literature and art. There's all sorts of reasons for this - a better scientific understanding of the world we live in and the historical context of the Bible among them - but this isn't even the main problem as I see it.

Believing in Hell says something very important about what you believe about God. What kind of God creates Hell and condemns people to eternal suffering in it?

For me, the central components of Christianity are the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. The Cross says something equally important about the nature of God to me: it says that God is non-violent. When the non-violent Incarnation of God comes into conflict with humanity bent on power and control, the Cross is the inevitable result. The Resurrection is a proclamation that ultimately violence cannot win.

Hell, however you conceive of it, is a violent concept. Therefore, to threaten people with Hell is to inflict spiritual violence upon them. Such wrongly conceived evangelism is, as I understand it, a deeply unChristian act. Can we really expect to have it both ways? Either God is wholly violent and condemns His own creation to damnation or God is holy, unviolent, the source of love, mercy and compassion.

Try a little kindness

2009-12-02T20:47:00.004+11:00

Just a quick thought. In the last few days I have managed to do a couple of things that surprised people. I'm ashamed to say that I hesitated before doing both of them, but in both cases doing nothing was my first instinct. Let me explain:

On the first occasion, I had been sent out in my role as provider for the family to gather dinner. As my hunting and gathering skills are extraordinarily weak, I chose to visit the fish and chip shop. After a brief exchange with the shopkeeper, I was retreating to the waiting wall when I noticed that the change I had been given didn't seem right. I counted and recounted but every time I ended up with $10 more than I should have had. Counting change is a longterm habit and where it comes out wrong I am usually the worse off - and most of the time I am too meek to go back and sort it out. After those brief tempting justifications floated through my mind 'this is karma, to make up for all those other times', '$10 will make a bigger difference to you than to this busy shop', I decided to return the extra change. I had to wait until the next person was finished ordering and then took my chance to explain what had happened and handed the money back. The look of shock on the shopkeepers face was something I had seen before. He honestly didn't know what to say. He paused for a moment, accepted the money and then thanked me. And then thanked me again.

Tonight, I headed out for an evening walk and less than 2 minutes into it came across a young woman sitting by the side of the road crying. I was striding quickly, music playing in earphones, all set to avoid human contact of any kind. 'Maybe I had been mistaken in what I saw', 'What business is it of mine anyway?'. I pulled out the earphones and walked back the 10 or so metres it had taken me to make the decision. I don't know what she must have thought at first when this man came up to her off the street, but after a few kind words I seemed to have put her at ease and had been assured that she was safe and could get home alright. I don't doubt that quite a few people had walked past her already and that she was quite shocked that someone would bother to stop. Again, her thanks was genuine.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no angel. I have missed many more occasions to do good than I have caught. But I hope that I'm learning something. Not that I am looking for gratitude or the self-satisfaction of being a do-gooder. I believe that these brief interactions really do make a difference to people. I know that when they've happened to me that I have remembered them. They are significant because we are all familiar with the impulse to ignore hurt - and sometimes the fear that we will get hurt ourselves. It's way easier to let our own busyness carry us along and to be caught up in our own lives, to the detriment of others.

I'm sure this is a lesson that I've learned before. Hopefully I'm learning it quicker this time :-)

The Cab Horse Charter: Making Moral Choices

2009-11-14T12:12:00.002+11:00

William Booth’s Cab Horse Charter was both a vivid rebuke and challenge to the society of his time and unfortunately this remains equally valid today. Drawing a sharp comparison between the way working animals are treated and the plight of the poorest humans, Booth made two salient points:

When the horse is down, he is helped up, and
while he lives he has food, shelter and work.

These simple illustrations continue to function as important prompts to the nature of social work in The Salvation Army. However, I particularly want to focus here on the Cab Horse Charter as a framework for examining the moral nature of choices that people make.

Let’s begin with the subject of food. There are numerous ways in which the food that we choose to eat represents certain ethical choices. Is this chocolate or coffee a Fair Trade product? Are my eggs ‘free range’? Is the tuna ‘dolphin friendly’? Renowned philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer makes a compelling moral argument for vegetarianism. These are the kinds of choices that most of us have the opportunity to contemplate on a regular basis.

Many people in the West will cringe at the idea of eating dog or cat meat, but this is an important reminder that our choices are frequently shaped by culture and often by socio-economic conditions. I heard recently of some research that showed that in poorer suburbs, fresh fruit and vegetables were frequently more expensive than fast food. Another piece of research was claiming that inadequate nutrition in pregnancy and childhood so constricted the potential for human development that it further entrenched people in multi-generational poverty. Opportunities for education and greater financial capacity clearly open up a wider range of choices and therefore a greater moral responsibility.

It has also recently been established that we produce enough food globally to feed everyone. So why are nearly a billion of us suffering malnutrition and hunger? Because we haven’t yet learned to share. Those of us at the top pay the price through obesity, body image issues and ‘affluenza’ but the price is much higher for those at the bottom end of the scale. We can be quick to judge the moral consequences of the spread of AIDS in places like Africa, but we don’t often pause to wonder how poverty and hunger might constrain the kinds of choices available to people.

What about shelter? Have you faced the choice about whether to buy or rent your home? Have you had some choice about the suburb that you live in? We have acknowledged that for there to be more than 100,000 homeless people in Australia is a national obscenity, that no one should be homeless in a country as affluent as ours. However, this number pales by comparison to the millions that live in inadequate slums in the poorest countries of the world.

I’ve also heard it said that some people choose to be homeless. This is partly true. Some people may choose to live on the streets because the alternatives available to them are unthinkable. This also should cause us to pause and consider what kind of society we are living in when sleeping in a park is evaluated as the safer, better choice available to someone? Once more, when we really understand those factors that limit the options available to a person, their choices become clearer.

Finally, let’s think about work. I can count myself amongst those many privileged people who’ve chosen more than once to leave a job for something better paid, with superior benefits and working conditions. Yet I know many people who’ve never had the opportunity to make such a choice. I know people who’ve never had a job and probably never will.

I also know people who have raised their primary income through prostitution. How do we begin to consider the moral dimensions of such a choice? I think it’s fair to say that there are some people who would claim that even if there were other opportunities available to them, that they would choose to be involved in ‘sex work’. However I think it’s also fair to say that is not the vast majority of those who find themselves in this work. Rather it’s the result of being constrained to choose between a few bad options.

Having looked at these three dimensions of poverty and moral choice, I need to say that I don’t think that our moral responsibility is always negated by systemic powers beyond our control. I think that everyone, regardless of the range of choices available to us, is responsible for how we make those choices. But I do think that before judging others, we need to take the time to genuinely put ourselves in their shoes and understand better why they make the choices they do. And regardless of what we think of others’ choices, like the Cab Horse charter says ‘when a horse is down, he is helped up’. We don’t let people fall behind because we don’t like why they stumbled.

Spirit of Life

2009-11-10T23:08:00.003+11:00

For those who are not regular viewers of Channel 31's 'Spirit of Life', you may have missed a couple of interviews that I did earlier this year. Here are the links:

Spirit of Life - Part 1
Spirit of Life - Part 2

And yes, I did let slip a couple of factual errors but it was all done in one take with no prior notice on the questions!

Resurrection and Hope

2009-10-26T13:12:00.005+11:00

The road to despair is wide and runs downhill for many of those who find themselves on the doorstep of The Salvation Army. The ‘Our Homeless Children’ report included this short quote that is unfortunately indicative of the thoughts of too many people: “What do I most hope for? That I die pretty quick”.

One might rightly wonder why anyone would want to work against such dire circumstances on a daily basis? For me, the answer is that, despite so many contrary indications, not only is there real hope, but to be a bearer of hope is a deeply meaningful role. There is something almost counter-cultural about spreading hope today. In a review of the Oasis movie, Captain Paul Moulds was described as a ‘delusional optimist’ – the kind of description I would proudly share. Hope may be unexpected, but it is a crucial component of Salvation Army social ministries. Liberation theologian, Jon Sobrino, says this:

Those who have a radical hope for the victims of this word, who are not convinced that resignation is the last word…can include in their experience a hope analogous to that with which Jesus’ resurrection was first grasped and can direct their lives to taking the victims down from the cross. Furthermore, those who, in the midst of this history of crucifixion, celebrate what there is of fullness and have the freedom to give their own lives will, perhaps, not see history as nonsensical… but as the promise of a ‘more’ that touches us and draws us despite ourselves.

If, as the apostle Paul claimed, resurrection is the central affirmation of Christianity, then this deep symbol of hope should still be a vital, life-giving metaphor for us today. In a similar vein, Jewish people celebrate the story of the Exodus, the liberation of an entire people from slavery and the beginnings of new life, new opportunities in the Promised Land. Both are powerful stories of hope grounded in the historical memory of people of faith. Yet to leave them entrapped in history is to rob them of much their power to continue to inspire us today.

If our message is to transcend the barriers of the faith community, we may need to learn to find ways of talking about resurrection beyond the category of history – for this indeed has become a stumbling block to many of our current generations. In Alice in Wonderland, when Alice tells the Queen that one can’t believe impossible things she gets the reply: "I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!" This has become the all-too-common picture of a Christian, someone who is able to twist their brain into a doctrine-conforming pretzel – and who can no longer speak sensibly to a post-modern world.

It is important, then, for us to remember that resurrection is firstly a theological proclamation. It says something about the nature of God. God is on the side of life! God cannot be defeated by death. When we experience suffering and death, this God is not absent but is actively sowing the seeds of new life.

The real challenge of resurrection is not about belief, but about experience. It challenges us to place deeds before creeds, to live resurrection before we can begin to preach resurrection. Here the message of Leonardo Boff resonates powerfully with the mission of The Salvation Army:

Wherever people seek good, justice, humanitarian love, solidarity, communion and understanding between people, wherever they dedicate themselves to overcoming their own egoism, making this world more human and fraternal and opening themselves to the normative Transcendent for their lives, there we can say, with all certainty, that the resurrected one is present, because the cause for which he lived, suffered, was tried and executed is being carried forward.

There is only one appropriate response to the reality of resurrection experience:to seek out and work towards creating resurrection experiences and opportunities for new life in the lives of others. The Salvation Army is continually finding ways to impart hope into people’s lives. Surely this is something we want to multiply, so that every corps, every social centre can function as a community of resurrection possibility.

May the source of our hope never fail. May we always impart hope with generosity. May we know the experience of resurrection, of new life, of new hope, in our own lives and in the lives of those whom we serve.

Pure Religion

2009-10-02T09:36:00.003+10:00

I sometimes hear people exhorting our return to a version of Christianity less tainted by modern culture and influences, as if there were a moment when the undefiled faith was easily discernible as directly revealed by God. An understanding of history (or even a broad reading of the Bible) will quickly unravel the supposition that this might ever be possible. The history of both Christianity and Judaism repeatedly demonstrates how religions are influenced by and adapt to surrounding cultures - sometimes in acquiescence to those cultures, sometimes in rebellion against them.

There is no single moment in time, to which we might long to return, when Christianity has been perfect. The Christian faith is continuing to evolve, as it must, along with the times and places in which Christians exist. Christianity today varies significantly, not only from denomination to denomination, but from country to country. The questions that inevitably arise from this situation become 'is there a core that must not change?', 'what is that core?', 'how do we discern it?'. This is where disagreements often arise as people mistake doctrines that are only a couple of centuries old for ones that originated with Jesus. Any search for the authentic core of Christianity must take into account the history of the church across cultures, the quest for the historical Jesus and the development of Judaism.

In most cases, the result will be something simple like love God and love your neighbour.

Be Doers and Not Just Hearers

2009-09-01T21:36:00.003+10:00

James 1:19-27
James tells us that we should be 'doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves'. This may be a great comfort for those who find sitting in church increasingly unbearable. Perhaps its also good fodder for those who want to take out the easy targets. Of course it's quite possible for someone to hear without listening, just as it is to choose not to integrate what we hear into our daily lives.

Such transitions do not happen automatically. There is often a time lag between when our ideas change and when our behaviour changes. We test our new knowledge against our experience to see if it fits. Frequently (and particularly under pressure or stress) we can find ourselves acting in ways that are not consistent with what we now know, because our behaviour is still based on assumptions which we have in our minds long since given up. Consider the subject of global warming for example. I believe that this is a reality that we all need to take seriously. But I'm also pretty sure that changing the light globes in my house is little more than a token. I've been painfully slow to transition my practice so that it matches my beliefs.

James is also pretty clear about the kinds of things we should be doing. 'Religion that is pure and undefiled' involves caring for people in distress, particularly those most vulnerable. What matters in one's lifestyle is 'right living', 'right action' (orthopraxy) in relation to the rest of the community - to live as an agent of God's compassion to the world. True holiness is not so much absence of bad things, as presence of compassion, especially for the most needy in society

Finally, 'keeping oneself unstained from the world' is not about avoiding engagement where we get our hands dirty. It is about refusing to surrender to the dominant values of society. For James, the world’s values represent greed and covetousness. Those who choose to follow Jesus will demonstrate radically different values - sacrifice, compassion, generosity, hospitality. But significantly, they will live this radical alternative in the world, not apart from it. Ironically, keeping ourselves 'unstained' will often mean getting our uniforms dirty.

Leaning towards life

2009-08-10T12:01:00.003+10:00

I've had this idea floating around for a while and though its not yet fully developed, I thought I'd throw it out there for comment. I want to explore the idea that the universe as we experience it bends towards life.

Firstly, let me make some necessary qualifications. I write this fully aware of the second law of thermodynamics and the numerous statistical improbabilities which have been overcome to sustain life on this planet. I am also deeply aware that my personal experience is indelibly coloured by being a tertiary-educated white man in a comparatively wealthy nation.

However, I don't see that any of these hesitations necessarily disqualifies the validity of this basic idea. The Earth is a life-giving planet. It has created and continues to sustain uncounted multitudes of life. I realise that this is also balanced by the massive number of life forms that are no longer with us, but I still find it absolutely amazing. Imagine for a moment, if you will, that the source of this life is what we call God. This is the essence of much indigenous spirituality: an essential connection to the land, to all of creation, and to each other. Its also consistent with what we think we know about quantum physics - there are all sorts of interconnections between particles and relationships that are astounding.

If God is indeed the source of this life, then what does it mean for us to try and connect with God? Surely it means that we also must be on the side of life. It means that we must be part of the life-giving that happens in this world. It means that we need to be keenly aware of how we effect the balance of the environment and of human relationships. Where our actions result in the lives of others being diminished, we are working against life. Where we contribute to the expansion of life, love and justice, we enhance life and participate in God's ongoing creative activity.

We can't accept this view of life and allow people to starve in other countries. We have the resources to feed everyone on the planet, but we choose not to because our priorities are different. We can't accept this view of life and continue to destroy the environment we live in. Humans have repeatedly demonstrated that is possible to overcome this natural inclination towards life-giving in the interests of money, greed and power.

This idea is inherently both hopeful and a strong call towards justice. If indeed we experience the universe as bending towards life, then there is meaning in our existence as we seek to join in all that is life-giving and life-affirming. We can invest ourselves in redeeming suffering rather than avoiding or denying suffering.

Any thoughts?

Speaking Truth to Power

2009-07-28T20:48:00.004+10:00

2 Samuel 11:26-12:15
Just a couple of thoughts from this week's readings but both, I think, very important. The first is that the confrontation between Nathan and David clearly demonstrates the role of the prophet in Israel. Once more, to read this as only relating to personal morality would be to dismiss much of the significance of this story. The prophet is commissioned to speak truth to power. What David has done isn't just about overstepping an ethical boundary, furthermore it can't be understood simply within the framework of property regulations (which included women in ancient patriarchal societies), even the murder of Uriah doesn't fully round out the picture of David's transgression. David has systemically abused the power granted to him as king - the very same power that Nathan stands under as he rebukes David. When prophets speak out on behalf of the vulnerable and the oppressed they may well be putting their own lives in danger, however this is often what they are called to do. There is a vital lesson here about civic duty and the kind of justice that stands up repeatedly for those who cannot always stand up for themselves.

Secondly, we have an image of God here that I personally find untenable. The vengeful God who contrives to publically humiliate David by abusing his wives and children is not a God that I can worship with any integrity. It's not sufficient to chalk this up to the 'mystery' of God or dismiss it because it's a story from the Old Testament. I think sometimes the authors of the Bible reveal their humanity and frankly, they sometimes get it wrong. Let's be brave enough to admit that there are some passages in our Scriptures that are abhorrent and that paint a picture of God that is unworthy of our worship. We can learn something about ourselves here though: how tempting it is to justify our own feelings of jealousy, hatred, prejudice and parochialism and to project them onto the divine image.

David and Bathsheba

2009-07-22T18:44:00.004+10:00

2Sam11:1-15
David may be Israel's favourite king, but the reality of his life is rather a mixed bag. In fact, it's rather refreshing that the all too common human temptation to idealise heroes is frequently resisted in the books of Samuel. (On the other hand, when the story of Israel's kings is retold in Chronicles, this story is notably absent.)

David is clearly not perfect. He was a person of mixed motives, great faith, courage, love, greed, hungry for power, who killed those in opposition to his desires, he was sometimes cruel and had fits of anger. The key difference between David and most of us is that in his position of power, his choices (for good or for bad) are heightened and the outcomes greater. For example, his choice to cover up his liaison with Bathsheba results not only in the death of Uriah, but also probably of those around Uriah in the battle.

To read this only as a story about sexual temptation and immorality however would be to miss many salient points. This is not primarily a story about sex. The description of the liaison between David and Bathsheba is brief and to the point. David saw, he wanted and he took. We hear nothing of Bathsheba's viewpoint but considering the power differential this is not surprising.

At the time of this story, David has already had children to 6 different women. It seems that many of these could be interpreted as political acts, as the women involved often allied him to surrounding rulers or people of influence. Whilst it might be unfair for us to judge David by today's standards, it would be remiss to let this story pass and not absolutely refute the objectification of women by men for their own purposes. An honest reflection must acknowledge that the Bible records numerous examples of women seen as the 'spoils' of war.

The story of Bathsheba and Uriah reminds us that an atmosphere of legitimated violence, reflective of military cultures and the mindset of battle, does not limit the violence to the enemy, but ultimately swallows up all who are placed in the way of power.

However, there is some good news here and it is not merely about repentance (though sometimes this is necessary and David illustrates this later). The good news is that there are other paths; there are other models. In this story, it is Uriah who demonstrates the possibility of living differently. His humility, obedience and genuine compassion for his fellow soldiers stands in sharp contrast to David's abuse of power for his own purpose.

Jesus Picnic

2009-07-13T08:37:00.003+10:00

Mark 6:30-44
Mark's gospel could almost be described as the 'Gospel of Eating'. In only 16 chapters, the Greek work for bread artos is mentioned 18 times and the word for eating esqiw 25 times - food is a major theme in this gospel! In this week's lectionary reading, in a scene reminiscent of the exiles sharing manna in the desert, Jesus takes his followers away to a deserted place.

When Jesus saw the crowd there, it is said that “he had compassion for them”. The word used here is esplagcnisqh which literally means his guts or his entrails were twisted! If Jesus is indeed the decisive revelation of God's character, then this example of compassion tells us something important about God and what it means for us to be followers of Jesus. A little too often our attitude is more reminiscent of the disciples who want to send the people away to fend for themselves.

In some of the earliest Christian art found in the Roman catacombs, bread and fish are symbols of the Eucharist, a ritual reflected when Jesus ‘looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves’. The catch is that when we ritualise the sacrament, we risk missing the point because ritual ultimately breeds boredom, apathy and potentially even contempt. The sacrament isn't defined by the ingredients, it's about the attitude. In a society sharply divided by who you ate with – Jesus picnics with everyone! He simultaneously breaks down the religious and socio-economic barriers by sharing indiscriminately with all who were there.

These stats are from a couple of years ago, but they still serve to illustrate the challenge that this reading brings to us on a global scale:

852 million people across the world are hungry, up from 842 million a year ago
Every day, more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds.
Malnutrition: Most poor people who battle hunger deal with chronic undernourishment and vitamin or mineral deficiencies, which result in stunted growth, weakness and heightened susceptibility to illness.

The point here isn't to make us who are living in relative wealth just feel bad about ourselves – but it isn't about being complacent and thinking there's nothing we can do either! Rather, Jesus' example should inspire us to be actively involved in the mission of God in the world. The God who is defined by compassion doesn't want anyone going hungry while others can do something about it. At Jesus’ picnic, people found salvation – not just because they were fed, and certainly not because they secured some heavenly real estate – but because they were challenged to see the world and their place in it differently … and all were satisfied.

Thanks to the Baptists

2009-07-11T10:45:00.003+10:00

I just spent the morning at St Kilda Baptist church sharing breakfast and listening to Dave Batstone talking about human traffiking. I went as the result of an invitation that went out to those associated with Whitley College and the House of the Gentle Bunyip. As well as Dave's thoughts, we also heard a bit about the new release of Athol Gill's book "Life on the Road". Athol was my first lecturer at Whitley and his son Jonathon was my first tutor.

It occurred to me sitting there amongst some of my past teachers, as well as some fellow students, how much my journey as a Salvationist has been enriched by my studies with the Baptists at Whitley College. I've previously considered it ironic, perhaps even tragic, that I had to move across to Baptist theological education to learn about social justice, liberation theology and mission alongside the poor and oppressed of the world. Surely these themes should have been the 'bread and butter' of Salvationist thinking? Unfortunately, it has not always been so. This situation has changed a bit now in The Salvation Army but I think we still have a long way to go.

Anyway, my thanks go out to all my Baptist friends who have challenged me and enlightened my journey. Your input has shaped my life as a Christian and (perhaps surprisingly to you) as a Salvationist. Grace and peace to you all.

Understanding the demonic in the NT

2009-07-10T19:26:00.004+10:00

Read a great passage today explaining the essential meaning of the demonic in the worldview of the gospels. It's from Brendan Byrne's book "A Costly Freedom - A Theological Reading of Mark's Gospel":

In essence the demonic has to do with control. People in the ancient world generally and the biblical world in particular spoke of demonic possession when they felt themselves held captive from within by forces and compulsions over which they had no control - transpersonal forces that robbed them of freedom of choice, stunted their human growth, and alienated them from God, from life in community, and from their own individual humanity. This sense that the world, including Israel, has fallen under demonic control is pervasive in the horizon of discourse presupposed in Mark's gospel. Its prominence invites interpreters of Mark to relate the liberating activity of Jesus to all the various 'captivities' - personal, social, economic - under which people of our time labour and which they seem powerless to control or escape. The multiple forms of addiction that burden us as individuals and as societies - huge transpersonal forces that control us and make us slaves - can be seen as manifestations of the demonic.

Fundamentalism and Violence

2009-07-08T18:33:00.004+10:00

I mentioned some time ago that I was working on an essay discussing the link between fundamentalism and violence. The full topic was "Religious belief is not a threat to reason, nor is faith to truth, the essential problem derives from fundamentalism and the violence associated with the closing of the mind."

For those who are interested, you can download a copy of the final version here.

The Presence of God

2009-07-06T08:47:00.003+10:00

2 Samuel 6:1-19
The lectionary reading for this week actually leaves out the verses which describe God striking down Uzzah for touching the ark. I don't think this is accidental. It's pretty tempting to want to skip over the parts of scripture that are offensive to us. Who would want to believe in a God who would behave like this? After all, Uzzah was trying to do the right thing to save the ark from falling off the cart. Even David expresses his anger at God for behaving in this way. It's a fascinating passage when you consider it.

One way of handling this would be to simply bow to the text, suggest that God's ways are beyond our understanding and ultimately God's holiness and justice are beyond the grasp of humans. Perhaps Uzzah should have showed more faith, perhaps he should have known better than to touch the ark even with the best of intentions?

Another path would be to suggest that Uzzah realised his mistake and his own subsequent anxiety caused him to have a heart attack. There really was no divine intervention here and the story itself is illustrative of ancient people's lack of understanding of scientific and medical knowledge, which are routinely credited to the gods.

The thing that strikes me as most authentic in this story is David's anger at God. This is something that I can recognise from my own experience. I've seen it many times in people who are grieving a tragic loss and who are looking for something or someone to blame. It's only fair when we attribute the giving of life and the power of healing to God, for us also to let God take the blame when these things fail.

I can't claim to know for sure whether any actual historical event was the inspiration for this story. I do however, completely reject the image of a God that would murder someone for touching a wooden box.

The ark is a symbol of the presence of God amongst the people. It's a valid representation of an important reality but nothing more than that. For Christians, the equivalent symbol is the incarnation - God in human form, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Now we tend to think of this more as the Spirit, though understandings of what God's spirit is and how it works vary dramatically. Nevertheless, it appears we continually need to be reminded that God is 'down here', not just 'up there'.

The images of sacrifice here don't appeal to me at all, but the picture of a great banquet in which all people share is one that I do find deeply inspiring. The inclusiveness involved is incredible and continues to be a challenge to us. Somehow all societies end up drawing lines between people, whether based on race, culture, gender, or other apparently random criteria. Religious expression that manages to share generously across these lines instead of accentuating them is the kind of worship I can happily be a part of.

A Thorn in the Flesh

2009-06-29T18:31:00.003+10:00

2 Corinthians 12:2-10
Unlike the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, for whom heavenly visions are ‘proof’ of their prophetic call to mission, Paul begins this passage referring to himself in the 3rd person as a sign of humility. His honesty is also refreshing - he doesn't really know if this experience happened or if he imagined it.

In imagery typical of apocalyptic literature, he describes being caught up to the 3rd level of heaven (3 and 7 levels of heaven are common in ancient literature representing proximity to God) and hearing the secrets of the divine court. This is an important way of demonstrating his credentials as a prophet. To some degree this is required because Paul has been battling the 'super apostles'. He is facing real opposition but at the same time he doesn't want to be put on a pedestal. He wants to be accepted for who he is. He does not want to claim a false superiority or play games for the purpose of status – though he has proven the capacity to do this when necessary.

Paul is intentionally obscure in referring to his 'thorn in the flesh'. Was it a physical affliction (suggestions have included migraines, epilepsy, poor eyesight, malaria, a speech impediment, arthritis, even leprosy)? Whatever it was, it doesn’t appear to have significantly hindered his ministry. Augustine and Luther both suggested that it was a temptation of some kind. Based on Paul's other writings, it's possible that it represents something of a social problem - something that his enemies fed upon, perhaps persecution itself.

The city of Corinth symbolised the human desire for power and grandure. Its magnificent temples and giant statues were designed to bring awe to visitors. The city's elite were significant economic power brokers and political strategists. At the same time contests of physical athleticism and intellectual prowess abounded.

At this point, we may well ask how different we are in the church today? How do we understand the role of power in The Salvation Army? Sometimes we see Holiness as the exercise of a kind of personal power. The holy person has more personal discipline – they pray more, they read their bibles diligently, they consistently resist temptation - their lives appear to be perfect. The problem with this way of seeing holiness is that it misses the very heart of what holiness is all about in the first place. One cannot pretend to be holy: it requires, first of all, authenticity on our behalf.

The 'thorn' keeps Paul in touch with his fallibility as a human being. It keeps him from building his own personal Tower of Babel to achieve and sustain his worth. We know from experience that such facades don't hold. Instead, Paul accepts his personal frailty in the face of God’s grace. Paradoxically, the acceptance of his own weakness produces strength, freedom, liberation. It sustains him in his vulnerability and means he doesn't have to pretend to himself or others about his worth. He is able to be himself before God and others and this further enables him for mission. This is true holiness – experiencing who we really are before God and allowing that confidence to impel us again into God’s mission in the world.

Passing the Love of Women

2009-06-20T21:38:00.003+10:00

2 Samuel 1:1-27
This week's passage recalls David's reaction to hearing about the deaths of Saul and Jonathon. Despite the fact that Saul had previously sought David's life, his memory is recorded respectfully as might be expected of Israel's first king. However it is the relationship between David and Jonathon that normally draws people's attention here, particularly the phrase "my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women".

The bond between David and Jonathon was apparently very strong. Before we discuss it further, let's just look back at some other descriptions of these two:

1 Samuel 18:1 When he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 Saul took David that day, and would not let him return to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.

1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground. He bowed three times; and they (David and Jonathan) kissed each other, and wept with each other, until David recovered himself.

Before we get carried away, let's remember that we are dealing with an ancient culture that is strongly patriarchal and has rigid moral structures. David was married several times, possibly in an attempt to fortify relationships with regional patriarchs by taking their daughters into his household. He is famously remembered for committing both adultery and later murder on account of Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

Given this history, we might well have cause to question David's assessment of the 'love of women'. To be drawn into a debate about sexual morality here however would distract from what seems to be a genuinely deep and mutual affection between two people that breaks expected convention. At the very least, Jonathon is betraying his father through his friendship with David.

We might also have cause here to pause briefly in order to reflect upon the cost of war. Lives lost are not merely numbers, but people in relationship with mothers, siblings, children, friends and lovers. I wrote this recently in an essay on fundamentalism: "The other vital component for contemporary religion will be a clear mandate for non-violence. Religions that either explicitly or implicitly encourage, condone or allow violence no longer have any integrity. People are rightly tired of religious wars and crusades. This is a point on which all religions must ultimately agree – that no more blood should be shed on account of any God."

Lessons from David and Goliath

2009-06-14T20:45:00.004+10:00

1 Samuel 17:1-49
Here's one of those stories that's been heard so often it's a challenge to breathe new life into it. But let's have one more look...

Perhaps the most basic lesson contained in this story is that size doesn't matter (no sniggering from you immature people at the back of the bus). When Moses sent spies into the land of Canaan he asked them to "see what the land is like, and whether the people who live in it are strong or weak, whether they are few or many, and whether the land they live in is good or bad, and whether the towns that they live in are unwalled or fortified, and whether the land is rich or poor, and whether there are trees in it or not." (Numbers 13:17-20) Of course what he was hoping for was good, rich land with a few, tiny, weak people that could easily be overcome. He got half that - the land was great, but it's people were strong, the towns were fortified and very large. In fact they said that the people of the land were of such a great size that the spies seemed like grasshoppers compared to them!

If this story was a distant memory, more recently the story of David's anointing also sheds light on this theme. David is chosen, against the cultural expectations of the day, over his 7 elder brothers. Samuel is told "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature ... for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart." If you need more to see a pattern here, consider Ishmael and Isaac; Esau and Jacob; Joseph and the brothers who sold him into slavery - every time it is the younger brother that surprisingly gains prominence. This has even wider meaning. Israel may never have been the great conquering nation that they appear to be after the Exodus. The more common story that we hear, and one that has far greater archeological and historical veracity, is that Israel got successively trampled by every major empire to travel through their land. The story of David conquering Goliath is the story of Israel's hopes in miniature.

A minor sidenote: Why does David pick up five stones? The first seems to do the job, but perhaps David’s experience taught him to be prepared to try again if it doesn’t work out the first time. If he was a character in the gospels he would most likely be told off for not having enough faith. But perhaps faith is not as straightforward as it seems – perhaps it is more like a cautious hope than the brave pretense of the overconfident. Still, if your first shot at a giant doesn’t work, take a second…..

Give to Caesar...

2009-06-08T20:59:00.005+10:00

Matt 22:15-22

Firstly, let's be clear about what this story is not saying. It's not saying 'don’t give your money to the church', though I've never heard anyone give that interpretation. It's also not saying that the church should not be involved in politics. There was no such thing as the separation of church and state in the 1st century (actually such a concept has not existed for most of history!) Christian faith can never be just personal – it is always political.

This is one of four stories in Matthew's gospel that reflect Jesus in conflict with Jewish leaders: Pharisees (lay fundamentalists), Herodians (monarchists), and Sadducees (priestly aristocracy). Refusal to pay the imperial tribute tax to Rome was an act of defiance against the ruling government (a crime attributed to the Zealots). The question raised is 'Will Jesus side with the people or the authorities?' The Jewish people of Jesus' time knew something about the perils of living under imperial rule. Their ancestors had experienced life under the empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia and Macedonia. Roman rule was no more merciful when it came to challenging their authority. Of course, Jesus is in trouble either way but most of us know that he ends up crucified which suggests where Jesus' alliances stand.

The picture above is of a Roman silver denarius bearing the image of Tiberius. The Latin inscription reads "Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus". Son of God, Lord and Saviour were all titles applied to the emperor – what does it mean to apply them to Jesus? Quite simply it's a radical and revolutionary claim that Jesus is Lord, not Caesar.

Remember the presence of the money changers in the temple? No one was supposed to carry a coin into the temple that claimed that Caesar was God. Out of respect for Jewish law, coins minted by Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas did not have images of Caesar and these could be exchanged to avoid offence. Yet Jesus’ accusers are able to produce one of the blasphemous coins at his request – not only does Jesus avoid their trap, but entraps them symbolically in return.

The story also reminds us that the Hebrew scriptures tell us that we are made in God’s image. Therefore in this context, giving God’s things to God is about giving ourselves. This is why we uphold Human Dignity in The Salvation Army. This is why we respond with Compassion to people in need. Anything which stops us from being whole, loving and complete human beings mars God’s image in us. It renders us less able to give back to God that which belongs to God.
What is the inscription upon us? What is the story that you are telling with your life? Proverbs and Jeremiah remind us that not only the laws and commands of God, but love also should be written “on the tablet of our heart”.

Baking a Jesus Cake

2009-06-07T13:58:00.003+10:00

I was reminded again this week of a sermon I once preached on baking a Jesus Cake. Those who know me will quickly realise how unusual this type of sermon is for me and therefore perhaps why I will never live it down. It starts like this...

Talking about God is notoriously difficult. Dr Val Webb describes it as trying to catch water in a net. Most of us can relate to the challenge of trying to communicate something that doesn't easily fit into words. You hear a great new song on the radio - how do you tell someone about it in a way that completely captures the rhythms, the harmonies, the melodic movements? You have a fantastic meal in a restaurant - but you just can't recreate it at home from taste alone. Jack Spong talks about the Biblical record capturing a movement from Experience to Exclamation and then to Explanation. Each stage inevitably dilutes the fulness of the previous one. Jesus spoke in Aramaic in the first decades of the first century. His story was recorded in Greek in the last decades of that century and we read about him in English two thousand years later on the other side of the world. It would be ridiculous to assume that something hasn't been lost in translation. The explanations will always differ but perhaps there is a core experience that is shared nonetheless.

We can never really duplicate our own experiences in order to communicate them, because they are always filtered through the personal background and cultural understandings of other people. Sometimes we might well wonder why we even bother at all? However, just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying. For those of us that have found the experience of the sacred to be transformative, who continue to find deep meaning in the ancient words of the scriptures, who sense the presence of God’s spirit to be at work in the world today – we often feel that to keep this to ourselves would be wrong, that the best response to these things is to share them with others.

When I first came to faith, I thought that there was only one way to be a Christian. I now realise that it's more like baking a cake – some like to do it from the box, others have a favourite recipe, some like to make it up as they go. When we make the decision to be a Christian, we enter into a wonderful tradition of cake makers! We're talking about 2000 years of tried and tested recipes that are still evolving. Jesus cake isn't a single flavour and it isn't always topped or filled the same way or with the same ingredients. Of course sometimes we mess it up and it tastes awful, not at all like what we were intending.

The recipe for Jesus cake is based on an even older recipe which we see in the Hebrew scriptures. When we search that tradition, we find a number of explanations about God and humanity, some of which we would now instantly reject and others which we continue to find meaningful. Sometimes we need to adapt rather than simply adopt and it's possible to do this while still being true to the tradition.

Being part of a faith community is about sharing our recipes and learning to bake together. Consider today what we might be able to learn from one another in our own journeys as we travel together with the history of Christianity behind us and the future in front. Ask yourself how your cooking is going? Are you still learning? Has your cake lost its flavour?

A Man of Unclean Lips

2009-05-31T16:22:00.003+10:00

Isaiah 6:1-8
Here's another passage with dramatic imagery, Isaiah's vision of the heavenly throneroom. Sure, it's easy for us to get distracted by the six winged seraphs (more like flying snakes than angels) but these are far less shocking for Isaiah's ancient audience. The seraphs are prepared for divine audience: they can cover their faces (for no one is meant to see God); they can cover their feet (possibly a euphemism for genitals, either way it's a symbol of purity); and they still have a set of wings to get their jobs done. But not all tasks can be assigned to heavenly servants - some require the human touch.

Still, Isaiah doesn't feel fit to be in the presence of God, let alone respond to God's call. The reluctant prophet is a stereotype in the Hebrew tradition. Though he doesn't ask for it, he is cleansed by the seraph according to the temple rites of forgiveness. Why don't we hear about burnt and blistered lips? Perhaps God's magic coals come with miraculous healing powers or maybe the story just isn't meant to be locked into such a literal framework.

Isaiah's call reminds us that a human response is often necessary to shape the world towards God's intent. Do we need to be perfect to be a part of this? No, we are made ready before we even ask. All it takes is the will to action.

Stand up and fight!

2009-05-31T16:06:00.003+10:00

A short diversion once more inspired by The West Wing. Are we sometimes too nice to stand up for ourselves and what we believe to be right? Are we playing by polite rules that no one else cares about?

We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said "liberal" means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, 'Leave it to Beaver' trip back to the fifties," we cowered in the corner and said "Please, don't hurt me." No more.

Pentecost

2009-05-26T16:27:00.003+10:00

Welcome to the first of a new (hopefully weekly) series of short commentaries on lectionary readings. This is a great story that is rich with symbolism and imagery - it also features some excellent examples of why it's not necessary to understand the text literally for it to be meaningful.

Acts 2:1-21
The word 'pentecost' (from the Greek Penthkosth) refers to the 50th day after Jesus' resurrection. In the tradition of Luke/Acts, this is the symbolic timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Of course in John's gospel, Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit into the disciples on Easter Sunday. The timing is not the issue - this is about theology (or maybe pneumatology) not chronology. If the number 7 symbolises perfection in the ancient Hebrew world, then something that could follow 7x7 would have to be very special indeed. Luke has already referenced the notion of the Jubilee, a 50 year symbol of liberation, in Jesus' first sermon (Luke 4:16-21). Now he is going to take that same symbol and apply it through the disciples to the rest of us.

In the Jewish tradition, 50 days after Passover is the festival called (hag sabuôt) the ‘Feast of Weeks’ which after the Exile developed an association with the covenant of Moses and a legend involving 70 'tongues of fire' - again a symbolic number representing every nation of the world. Reading this story through the lens of Hebrew history is critical to understanding what's going on here. This isn't about a new, secret, divine language - it's about reversing the curse invoked in Genesis 11. Where the sin of hubris separates humans and confounds communication, the Spirit of Jesus brings people together in a radical new community of compassion.

A final thought: The quotation from Joel emphasises the universality of God's new reign – it's not just men and women, not just old and young, but even slaves are included! In fact, scholars have suggested that early Christianity was disproportionately represented amongst the slave class. Why? Because they understood that the gospel message was essentially about liberation.

Till next time...

Time for a Change

2009-05-21T22:11:00.003+10:00

After much thought and not much blogging, I've decided that it's time to try something new. So, from next week I'm intending to do a weekly blog based around lectionary readings. I see this as having the following aims:

Hopefully it will give significant enough change in focus to diminish the amount of repetition that I sense comes through in much of my writing to date. (Perhaps you don't feel it, but I do).
I think there may be the potential to challenge some biblical illiteracy that underlies many of the views that I have opposed so far.
I know a number of people are struggling to find new ways to read the Bible having discarded a solely literalist interpretation. Is there anything left? I think there is.

Don't worry, there'll be plenty of justice raves and holy heresy still to come ;-) Stay tuned...

The Bible As History

2009-05-08T22:41:00.004+10:00

When I first became a Christian, I was told that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, a reliable historical source that would tell me how things were, how they are and how they will be. My first lessons were in prooftexting - taking selected verses out of their context and applying them literally into my own. However I was soon keen to start reading the Bible for myself and this inevitably challenged such understandings again and again.

One doesn't have to go very far - take these three texts from the first book of the Bible as an example: Gen 12:10-20; 20:1-18; 26:1-13. This is clearly the same story repeated three times with minor changes in character and setting. If the stories are historical they demonstrate either unbelievable co-incidence or bizarre manipulation on the part of the protagonists and/or God (if God is thought to be the shaper of history).

Taken individually, the stories are quaint and even vaguely amusing at times. However together they cannot fail to challenge a historical literalist view of the Bible. Is it more likely that God twists historical circumstances towards deja vu experiences or that ancient storytellers reframed their tales with new characters and settings to re-iterate moral points?

Parliament of the World's Religions

2009-04-24T19:14:00.003+10:00

Whilst stuck on a long drive today, I was lucky to come across an interview with Rev Dirk Ficca, Executive Director of the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions. The Parliament is meeting here in Melbourne in December this year and I'm looking forward to being a part of it.

Dirk spoke intelligently and articulately about purpose of the Parliament, making two important points about what they are trying to achieve:

Firstly, they are aiming for harmony rather than unity. The point is not to pretend that all religions are the same or to blend them into a universal, homogenous belief system. Rather, acknowledging and accepting our differences, we learn to live together peacefully and in harmony with one another.

Secondly, trust is more important than agreement. There are people that agree with me on many things that I still may not trust, just as there are those with whom I might have significant disagreement but feel that I could trust with my life.

You can find out more about the Parliament at http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/

Taking the Bible Seriously

2009-04-19T09:53:00.004+10:00

I've written on this subject before, but this time I'll let someone else speak for me. Enjoy...

The Importance of the Prophet

2009-04-06T22:36:00.003+10:00

I heard something this evening that started me thinking about the important role of the prophet in Christianity. Before I explore this a bit, let me clarify that I'm not talking about the Nostradamus kind of prophet whose main role is to try and predict future events. I'm talking about the kind of prophets that are known in the Hebrew Scriptures, who have at least 2 distinct roles:

Firstly, they call the people to repentance. The prophets are the self-critical flank of religion. They refuse to get so caught up in authority, tradition and dogma that they lose any perspective on what we might have done wrong or where we may be going astray. Repentance is important to both individuals and communities. All too often we can be reluctant to admit or acknowledge our mistakes and we must do so if we are to be serious about living in a better world.

Secondly, prophets speak truth to power. The prophet is the voice of justice that is unafraid of negative repercussions. Of course, this often ends badly for the prophets (including Jesus) but it is not a fate that they pursue unwittingly. Prophets are not self-righteous, but rather are carried forward by a cause much larger than themselves.

It seems to me that there's also something important about the actions of a prophet. Prophets don't have to lead perfect lives (many of them have had obvious human flaws) but they do need to reflect something more than strong words.

A Matter of Perspective?

2009-03-28T21:37:00.004+11:00

I've been wondering today how much of life is simply a matter of perspective. I'm naturally inclined to be a 'glass half full' person. Sometimes this optimism plays out just as I've hoped it might and other times I'm left disappointed. Nevertheless, it seems that next time I'm just as likely to hope for the best regardless of previous failures.

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of times when I can be as cynical and skeptical as the next person. However, on the whole, I seem to lean on the side of hope. It's not that I don't learn from my mistakes either. I know that the glass which is half full is also half empty but it's not merely a matter of judgement, it's often a matter of choice.

When faced with two equally likely possibilities, which pathway should we take? Do we play it safe and expect to lose out or do we take a chance and risk disappointment? I suspect that there is often something self-fulfilling about these choices. I'm not talking about the Universe (or God for that matter) rewarding us for our confidence, but simply that embarking upon life's journey with a sense of faith and hope will more likely result in serendipitous circumstance than the alternative.

Unfair to the Fundies?

2009-03-15T15:14:00.003+11:00

I paused today to consider whether I have been unreasonably critical of fundamentalists. In a previous post, I noted the traditional definition of Christian fundamentalist beliefs as including:

1. Inerrancy of Scripture
2. The virgin birth
3. Substitutionary atonement
4. Bodily resurrection of Christ
5. Supernatural nature of miracles

On the basis of this list alone, I'm not sure that I can sustain the argument that fundamentalism always results in violence. However, there are some related ideas that can create the kinds of problems of which we are all too well aware.

I think that one of the difficulties is an exclusive claim to truth. Whether the 'inerrancy of scripture' is cause or effect of this claim is unclear but there are inherent dangers (not to mention great arrogance) in thinking that God has been revealed only to our special group and that all other expressions of religion are misguided. This isn't just about the nature of truth as absolute or relative - it's about avoiding an extreme point of view that categorically dismisses any external challenge or dissident opinion. If God's will has indeed been communicated especially to us (or me), then who has the right to question what I do in God's name?

A related area is the claim to foreknowledge of people's eternal destinies. Whether or not you believe in a literal heaven or hell, does any human being really have the right to assign you to either? Based on a particular interpretation of scripture, some people firmly believe that they can predict the eternal destiny of others because of their beliefs or actions. I find such power a frightening concept, yet many are willing to wield it as reward or punishment to ensure that others 'toe the line'.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned about people's actions than their beliefs. However there is a dynamic relationship between these two things that cannot be ignored. I'd still prefer a fundamentalist that genuinely loves their neighbour than a liberal that was apathetic to human need.

Is fundamentalism inherently violent?

2009-03-14T09:52:00.001+11:00

My studies this semester are leading me to a closer examination of the nature of religious fundamentalism. I have a reading list that includes some of the best known athiests of this time such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. There are two questions that have been prompted for me this week:

Firstly, does fundamentalism always result in violence? I mean this to include spiritual and psychological forms of violence such as condemning people to Hell. Secondly, do religious moderates unwittingly align themselves with such violence by tolerating these views?

I have few doubts about the first question. I think there are clear links between fundamentalism, fear and insecurity. Its not a big step to see a variety of forms of religious violence being the outcome of this combination.

The second question is more challenging but unavoidable if we resolve the first in the affirmative. I suspect you'll see many more posts on this subject...

Doing Public Theology

2009-02-28T13:05:00.003+11:00

Public theology is a challenge for the church. Theology is essentially 'God-talk' and there are a number of difficulties that become obvious when engaging in 'God-talk' in the public domain. Firstly, not everyone believes in God and those that do may not believe in the same God that you do. Even within the Christian church this cannot be taken for granted. When we do public theology badly, we reinforce an image of a church that is outdated and irrelevant, only interested in making moral pronouncements on the rest of society (and too frequently ignoring the 'log' in our own eyes).

Very occasionally, healthy, intellectually engaging, genuine theological discussion emerges in the public arena. One of the reasons that I'm a big fan of the TV show, The West Wing, is the way that religous topics are handled. The episode "Take This Sabbath Day" explores some of the political and religious dimensions of the death penalty. The show's creator, Aaron Sorkin, consulted with a priest, a rabbi, a Quaker and a Baptist minister while working on the episode. Here's a snapshot from one scene:

Toby: The Torah doesn’t prohibit capital punishment.
Rabbi: No.
Toby: It says, ‘An eye for an eye’.
Rabbi: You know what it also says? It says a rebellious child can be brought to the city gates and stoned to death. It says homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death. It says men can be polygamous and slavery is acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time, but it’s just plain wrong by any modern standard. Society has a right to protect itself, but it doesn’t have a right to be vengeful. It has a right to punish, but it doesn’t have a right to kill.

That's the kind of honest, public theology that I think we could have more of.

Are we all evil?

2009-02-21T12:23:00.003+11:00

Increasingly, thinking Christians are beginning to wonder whether the concept of 'original sin' has had its day. I'm certainly confident that as an evangelistic strategy, the message that 'you are entrenched in evil from birth' is not going to be a successful starting point for conversations with most people today.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that there isn't an important element of truth in this doctrine. Most honest (or sane) people will acknowledge that their best efforts are often marred by imperfection. Too often are we haunted by temptations to do something that we probably think we ought not do. The weight of self-consciousness and the burden of human moral choice can indeed be equated with the idea that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'.

However, it is perhaps long past time to wonder whether this should be the singular lens through which Christians view the human condition. I would argue that not only does it decrease our capacity to dialogue with sensible 21st century people, but it doesn't even do justice to a wider reading of the Biblical record. Given that most Christians would say that the idea of original sin is based on the story of Adam and Eve, would it surprise you to know that Jewish people do not share this concept? How is it that Christians came to think that we had a better understanding of Genesis than Jews? How have we lost sight of the blessing of creation and the judgement that it was good? (For more on this, read Matthew Fox's book 'Original Blessing').

We cannot continue to ignore the psychology behind our beliefs and the potential for overzealous interpretations to unwittingly harm the vulnerable. The reality of human sin is clear, but do we in fact do ourselves a disservice if we only allow the gospel to be heard in this single context?

Where is God?

2009-02-10T20:59:00.004+11:00

It's the end of my third day at the Whittlesea relief centre and though tired, I continue to be amazed at the outpouring of public support for victims of the Victorian bushfires. Christians, Buddhists and Scientologists were visibly present today amongst the people offering practical assistance and emotional support as required. Of course many of those helping have no visible faith representation and may not subscribe to any religious belief at all. Yet presently all are united in the task of helping people to cope with tragic loss and face the question of 'what next?'.

I have heard people publicly questioning the existence of God in the aftermath of these events. Some are able to maintain that despite their loss, they continue to have a sense of God's presence with them. An article by Joseph May in the Officer magazine some years ago entitled "Where is God in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attack?" captures a similar feeling to my own of late.

When I was at the Pentagon serving the men and women trying to rescue and recover the victims of the plane crash, I saw God. I saw God in the firemen who were trying to rescue hurt people… I saw God in the men and women, Salvation Army volunteers, who were providing meals to recovery workers, offering them a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name.

It's significant that this definition doesn't only apply to God's presence in Christians. God is present in the helping encounter. There are no prerequisites or tests of faith for this. It is simply a reflection of the character of God, who is recorded in the Scriptures as caring particularly for the poor, the widow, the orphan, the vulnerable.

Who wants the poor?

2009-02-02T19:09:00.004+11:00

Today I was a representative of The Salvation Army at an ecumenical service for the opening of the legal year in Melbourne. The service was attended by judges, magistrates, lawyers and others associated with the legal profession, as well as the leaders of a number of Christian denominations.

So it was before the service that a group of clergy were discussing who would be responsible to read out segments of a prayer in the service. After delegating prayers for the Queen, for peace, and the environment, we discovered that the person nominated to pray for the poor and neglected was missing. After a number of glances around the room, I finally could not resist and announced "The Salvation Army will take care of the poor and neglected". And so it was...

Can a Christian be an Atheist?

2009-01-31T17:02:00.003+11:00

Is it possible to be a Christian and not be a Theist? This is one of the critical questions facing Christianity in the 21st century. Of course it's roots are deep within the last century and trace back to at least the Enlightenment.

Paul Van Buren's 1963 book "The Secular Meaning of the Gospel" is a good example of one of the first forays into this kind of thinking. Probably the best known contemporary proponent would be Don Cupitt, whose books include "Taking Leave of God". New Zealander Lloyd Geering also makes a stand in this vein in "Christianity Without God". At first the idea seems non-sensical, but it arises from some of the best theological minds of recent times including Paul Tillich who described God beyond personal terms as the ground of all being. Bishop John A.T. Robinson popularised some of this thinking and in doing so divided the church of the 1960's.

There are actually 2 distinct streams of thought. The first group find the concept of God now to be irredeemable, though they may retain respect for the teachings of Jesus. Those in this category typically see Christianity on its last legs, perhaps offering some general moral direction to the community but on the whole we are left with a rather pale imitation of religious faith.

The second group affirm a real God experience but are discarding the projection of human attributes onto the character of God (anthropomorphism). In simple terms, God exists but should not be understood as the big, white bearded guy in the sky. This kind of thinking challenges some biblical images, such as the angry or jealous God, which may be welcomed. However, it also calls into question the incarnation of Jesus as the decisive manifestation of God. If we can't project our humanity onto God, can we really project God's divinity onto a human being?

Can we have a personal God without making God into a person? Doesn't this ultimately go against the commandment against making divine images? None of these questions have easy answers but they are worthy of some honest thought, discussion and perhaps even debate.

Lost in Translation

2009-01-23T22:03:00.004+11:00

I've just been thinking about some of the challenges inherent in communicating the gospel. I guess they start with identifying what the 'gospel' is, what is the good news of Jesus Christ? Already some of the more eager among you are raising your hands, "I know this one - Jesus died for our sins, right?"

Well, I'm not going to say that you're wrong but here's a few things to consider:

1. The message that Jesus died for our sins is only useful if people believe that they are sinful. This isn't the starting point for a lot of people today and I'm not sure the right response for us is to try and get them there by telling them how bad they are or trying to scare them with Hell.

2. A significant number of biblical scholars now suggest that a better translation is that Jesus died because of our sins. That is, a God-infused presence like Jesus of Nazareth who challenges the powerful and stands up for the disenfranchised will always end up dead. The aspect of sin emphasised here is the corporate seduction of power and influence that reacts violently to any threat.

3. Even in the New Testament, there are a number of opinions about what the most important thing is for Christians to remember. The gospels tell us that Jesus identified loving God and your neighbour as the essence of his religion.

4. It seems that Jesus was critical of the sacrificial system of his day. Isn't it strange then, that Christians created a sacrificial understanding of Jesus to replace the sacrificial understanding of the temple?

Now I realise that this is a highly divisive issue and that some of you have already lost my point about communication because you think that I'm questioning the idea of Jesus' sacrifice. Actually I don't have a problem with Jesus' death being understood as a sacrifice but that's a topic for another day. What I'm trying to illustrate is that even the most simple, apparently central aspects of Christianity are open to a number of valid interpretations and should be able to withstand rigorous questioning. If you lost that point, then you just proved it because it demonstrates the difficulty of communication. Of course, it's possible that communication is much easier than I think and that I'm just not very good at it. I'm open to that possibility as well.

New Songs for Worship

2009-01-18T18:14:00.005+11:00

Perhaps I didn't know where to look, but I used to find it so difficult to find songs for worship that I really liked that eventually I resorted to trying to write my own. I wanted something modern enough to use 'you' instead of 'thee' but with more depth than the 'awesome', 'Jesus is my boyfriend' type choruses. I've managed to do this at the startling pace of less than one per year and before now, never really had any real record of them outside my own head. So, for what it's worth, here are some of my efforts:

Called To Be God's Hands

Celebrate Life

Grace In My Life

Great Is The Lord

Losing My Religion

2009-01-16T21:39:00.004+11:00

I ran an elective workshop today called Losing My Religion at Insane. The session was aimed at 18-25 year olds who often have a high drop out rate from church life. There's a lot of reasons for this, but the area I was most keen to focus on (and probably the only one I am really competent to lead) was based around stages of faith.

For a long time, the major work on this subject has been James Fowler's 1981 book which suggests 6 distinct stages. Fowler acknowleges that the stages represent snapshots and therefore the reality of people's lives is that they move between them more fluidly than a simple linear progression. He also emphasises that the stages are not sotierological - that is, you don't get closer to salvation the more stages you conquer. Over the years, my regard for Fowler's model has waned a bit though his basic ideas still have much merit.

My preference is for a three stage model of faith. Stage 1 is the stage we all begin with in childhood. It emphasises creative imagination over critical analysis. In Stage 1 we are open to all sorts of fantasy, tale and myth without concern for historical veracity. Santa is great because we get gifts at Christmas and we really don't need to know any more than that. Noah can get all the animals into the ark because we don't know more than 20 different species.

We usually enter Stage 2 before we realise it. We don't get to make a choice about it, it just happens. An older sibling lets loose about the Easter Bunny. We learn about dinosaurs at school and start to wonder where they fit into the biblical account. Reading the Bible makes us question what others once told us about it. In Stage 2, our beliefs are challenged by critical thinking. Stage 2 is uncomfortable for many, if not most, but is a critical time and cannot be ignored. It also provides a number of pathways that can determine how a person's faith will be affected in the future.

The first possibility is that someone will stay in stage 2 for a prolonged period - for some people, this could be all of their lives. A second possibility is that they react against the doubt and uncertainty that characterise this stage and return to some form of stage 1. This is the path sometimes taken by people who find fundamentalism attractive with its black and white perspective and reaffirming certainty. The third pathway is the way out of religion. For those who cannot go back, who can't remain perpetually living in doubt and who also are unable to find another way forward, the only solution appears to be to leave. I believe that there is a fourth pathway and it leads to what I see as a third stage of faith.

In stage 3, people begin to come to terms with reliquishing certainty. Those in this stage no longer feel the need to fight against science or protect their religion against reason. They don't give up because their experience validates the meaning that they are finding in faith. They search for new ways to articulate faith and experience that make sense in the modern world. They have a renewed appreciation for the power of myth and the meaning in metaphor that doesn't rely on one particular interpretation of history.

This isn't a 'stairway to heaven'. I move regularly between stages 2 and 3, though I spend more time in the latter. I gave the analogy today of stage 2 being like the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years. Stage 3 isn't the promised land but it is perhaps a greater level of contentment about being on the journey. Those in the wilderness may thirst and sometimes suffer from the heat, but we cope best when we accompany one another along the way.

The Audacity of Hope

2009-01-13T06:58:00.003+11:00

My holiday reading has been a book called The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama. I confess that I continue to be impressed by Obama the more that I learn about him and hear from him. Whilst I might not be in total agreement with him on issues such as US foreign policy, there are many areas in which I find strong correlation with his views. His background as a community organiser in a poor neighbourhood, civil rights lawyer and college lecturer also draw some of my sympathies.

When I was in the US a couple of years ago, I did an interview for the Roundtable on Religion and Social Policy (you can read the full transcript here) where I made an off the cuff comment about the Australian people's general lack of enthusiasm about our own politicians. As a general rule, we tend not to love or hate our prime ministers with any great measure of passion - certainly not in comparison to the idolatry (or sometimes demonisation) that can happen in other countries. When Kevin Rudd was elected, there was an unusual surge of hope from people in the social service sector. Whether that hope was justified or can be maintained is only just beginning to be played out.

Anyway, here's some words from Obama on the subject of faith:

For one thing, I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. Out of necessity, the black church had to minister to the whole person. Out of necessity, the black church rarely had the luxury of separating individual salvation from collective salvation. It had to serve as the center of the community's political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life; it understood in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world. In the day-to-day work of the men and women I met in church each day, in their ability to 'make a way out of no way' and maintain hope and dignity in the direst of circumstances, I could see the Word made manifest.

Some holiday listening to get you thinking...

2009-01-02T15:35:00.003+11:00

Happy New Year! I'm on holidays for a couple of weeks, so won't be posting for a while. However, to keep you busy in the meantime I'm leaving a couple of MP3 files from sessions that I've run at the Aggressive Christianity Conference over the past couple of years.

» ACC 2007: Exploring a Christian ethical response to homosexuality (mp3 8.8 Mb)
» ACC 2008: Understanding the meaning of salvation in the Officer's covenant (mp3 7.8 Mb).

Enjoy!

Proof of God?

2008-12-30T09:06:00.003+11:00

At the risk of sounding like all that I do is watch television, I will confess that this blog has been prompted by watching "The Story of God", a 3 part series presented by Lord Robert Winston. Those who have seen the well known documentary series, The Human Body, will recognise Winston who this time explores the relationship between science and religion. Winston, who is both a professor of science and practicing Jew concludes that certainty should not be a part of either science or religion.

For my own part, I have ceased to be interested in the subject of apologetics - I do not believe that I can prove through logic, science or scripture that God exists. I have played on both sides of this game before (trying to prove that God does or does not exist) and both are ultimately fruitless. The best alternative that I can offer is what religious people simply call testimony. I can talk about how I have experienced what I understand as a God presence in the world. For instance, I attended a funeral in Zambia earlier this year where several hundred people gathered on top of a large hill to celebrate the life and mourn the death of a man whose life was ended too early. I count this as one of the moments where I felt a tangible God presence in the world, yet I know that this is an act of interpretation and faith more than empirical evidence - and I'm happy for it to be so.

The significant questions for me then are not about whether God exists (for this is beyond my capacity to prove in either direction) but if, based on my experience, God does exist - then what is God like and how should we respond to God's presence in the world? This is where I believe theology and the quest for justice meet.

Romero

2008-12-27T22:19:00.004+11:00

Have just finished watching one of my favourite films, "Romero". I've been looking for a DVD of this for a while and only just recently found one in the Paulist bookshop just before Christmas. The movie tells the story of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador. It draws out the themes of power, poverty, non-violent resistance and sacrifice in a way that I'm sure doesn't accidentally reflect the gospel story of Jesus.

You can see a little more about the film here. If you can find it, I highly recommend it. If it is true that we understand new concepts primarily through analogy from our own experience, then I have to say that the Jesus story was made clearer to me through seeing something of Archbishop Romero's life.

Two weeks before he was murdered, Romero made these comments in an interview:

"I have frequently been threatened by death. I ought to say that, as a Christian I do not believe in death without resurrection. If they kill me I will rise again in the people of El Salvador. I am not boasting. I say it with the greatest humility. I am bound, as a pastor, by a divine command to give my life for those whom I love, and that is all Salvadoreans, even those who are going to kill me.

Martyrdom is a grace from God which I do not believe I deserve. But if God accepts the sacrifice of my life, then may my blood be the seed of liberty, and a sign that hope will soon become a reality.

May my death, if it is accepted by God, be for the liberation of my people, and as a witness of hope in what is to come. ... But I wish that [those who want to kill me] could realize that they are wasting their time. A bishop may die, but the Church of God, which is the people, will never die."

Rethinking Christmas

2008-12-23T21:04:00.003+11:00

I used to enjoy debunking the Christmas myths. You can start with the nativity scene and begin removing the pieces that don't even appear in the gospels (like the animals and the stable for instance). We tend to add the wise men from Matthew's account to the shepherds from Luke's, though the former gospel suggests that the (more than one, but not necessarily three) wise men came some time after Jesus birth and visited Joseph and Mary in their house. It's all too easy if you just read the scriptures and are able to temporarily suspend what you think you know in the story.

However, this is perhaps the perfect time to recognise a third path between a constrictive, literal interpretation that is increasingly difficult for modern people to sustain and dismissing the Christmas story altogether. John Dominic Crossan, who is perhaps the pre-eminent historical Jesus scholar in the world today, says of the Emmaus road tale in Luke 24 "Emmaus never happened and Emmaus always happens". Crossan rightly asserts that truth can be found outside the realm of historical veracity. The same is true of Christmas.

Very few people believe that Jesus was really born on December 25. Most scholars don't even think we got the year right - between 4 and 6 BCE is more likely. However, the danger of getting bogged down in debates about whether particular elements of Christmas were 'true' or not is that we miss the primary point - God was found in Jesus. Now that takes some explaining and although we might do it differently now to the way they did it in the first century, we are seeking to capture that same experience. So enjoy the donkey and the star for a moment for what they are: pointers to an incarnational presence that changed the world.

The worst congregation?

2008-12-20T17:11:00.003+11:00

Tomorrow is my last Sunday at Brunswick - at least for a while. I was talking to someone this week about why I don't think it's the church's job to try and control people's behaviours and on reflection I wondered if our congregation at Brunswick is perhaps one of the worst behaved church groups around?

They don't come to church well dressed, some have not even showered, very few sing in tune, they frequently interrupt the meeting by calling out from the pews or even the occasional loud burp, they bring coffee into the church and drink it there, they get up and leave whenever they feel like a smoke. I've even had to ask some people not to drink alcohol or sniff paint during the meeting.

It's possible, even likely, that the acceptance of these kinds of behaviours has encouraged people to come back again and again, perpetuating a very 'unchurchy' culture. Yet, it's the kind of place that I think Jesus would be able to walk into and recognise his friends. There's not too many places, even in The Salvation Army, that our people would feel as welcome as they do at Brunswick. I'm proud to have made it my spiritual home for the past 5 years.

A Non-Violent God

2008-12-13T19:46:00.004+11:00

You may have noticed that I've blogged a number of times this year on the theme of non-violence. I've had a growing realisation about the significance of non-violence and it's integral relationship to Christianity. Of course, such a statement explicitly critiques centuries of Christian warfare but I can live with that. I hope I might be able to continue growing in my understanding of this theme and I intend to do some further reading on the subject next year. However, I have just today realised a potential difficulty...

If Jesus, as the decisive manifestation of God, is non-violent ('turn the other cheek', 'love your enemies', etc.), how can we, at the same time, understand his execution as appeasing God's sense of justice? Either God works through violence or God doesn't. Personally I prefer the second option, but in this context it does stand as a challenge to the predominant understanding of atonement. Now of course, there are a number of biblical interpretations of the meaning of Jesus' death and not all of them fit the concept of 'substitutional atonement' developed by Anselm 1,000 years after Jesus. Mel Gibson has a lot to answer for. :-)

Music for All

2008-12-12T19:03:00.003+11:00

Today the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services, the Hon Bill Shorten, launched our report 'Who Says I Can't Sing? Musical Justice for People with Disabilities'. The launch included playing a CD track recorded by the music therapy group and a live interactive performance typical of our Music Access Program. The full report will soon be available to download, but there's a short summary on the university's site here.

There's a lot of talk about social inclusion at the moment, but not a lot of it I actually see happening. Music can be a great vehicle for creating community connections but it won't happen by accident and there is still much work to do.

Why I Can't Be A Fundamentalist

2008-12-06T09:05:00.004+11:00

It's been a while since I've blogged but something has been running through my mind for the past week and I wanted to be able to give it some thoughtful consideration. I'm aware that I may prompt a number of questions here, I'll answer as many as possible through comments and may choose to answer others through future blogs so look out for both...

I've been working through some discomfort about a certain type of evangelism that is rooted in a fundamentalist mentality and that explicitly disdains other forms of Christianity (let alone what it says about people of other faiths or of no faith).

Firstly, let me say that I see myself as an Evangelical but not necessarily an evangelist. There's a technical distinction there that I won't bother with for the moment, but it is fair to say that I am interested in sharing my Christian experience with people and I want to invite people to be a part of Christian community and to actively participate together in the transformation of this world towards the image of the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed and inaugurated (more about that another time).

I also need to put on the table my very clear interest in something that becomes a 'side issue' if evangelism becomes the one thing that all Christians must focus on: I have a deep passion and interest in the social services of The Salvation Army. My initial conversion to Christianity was rooted in a desire to see a better world and I believed (and still do) that Christianity provided a valid framework from which to see and work towards this objective. I began working in social services in The Salvation Army nearly 20 years ago and it has changed me more deeply than anything else - personally, philosophically, politically and theologically.

The problem I see is both simple and complex. At its foundation is a desire to simplify everything to a binary decision - black or white, good or bad, heaven or hell. It becomes complicated when you add some theological overlays - the nature and authority of the Bible, the meaning of God, the purpose of Jesus life and death, the relationship between the human soul and the idea of eternity.

Many people find the simplicity of black and white choices highly attractive. To illustrate how easy it is, I myself have begun to wonder whether there is a psychological tendency for humans to fall into two categories: those who see everything as binary options and those who don't. I think there's a joke in there somewhere.

I find the reality of life to be a whole lot more grey than black or white. I am pretty sure this is largely because of my involvement in social service delivery, perhaps I have been sucked into the post-modern mindset, or maybe I just have deep trauma from a lifetime as a Collingwood supporter. I think this is why I can't be a fundamentalist. I tried to be for a while, but it didn't take - real life got in the way. I couldn't believe the things I was supposed to believe about the Bible after I'd read it (several times, the whole way through, eventually much of it in Greek and Hebrew). For a while I thought that my apparent dissent would marginalise and isolate me, maybe even make it impossible for me to stay a Christian. However, I soon found (and continue to find) many people who feel as I do. I also have come to understand through an appreciation of Christian history that the noisiest voices are not always the ones in the centre - though they might like you to think that they are.

I believe that many of us are losing, or have lost, the capacity to appreciate the value of metaphor and story as vehicles for communicating truth. We might even say things like 'that person's life must be Hell' without taking seriously how right we might be. Why do we have to be forced into choices between Hell on earth or Hell as the burning fires of eternity; salvation as rescue from an existential predicament or salvation as eternal insurance for the soul; Jesus as a human being or Jesus as the definitive manifestation of the Hebrew God? The denial of these choices is rooted in a recognition of the concrete experiences and expressions of salvation throughout the Bible: the Exodus from Egypt, the return from exile, Jesus' feeding, healing and reconciling people to themselves, their communities and their God.

I refuse to believe that because I can't be a fundamentalist therefore I can't be a Christian and I refuse to be forced into making false choices that don't reflect my experience of life. I'm also not very good at being quiet when something upsets me... but at least I'm learning to take my time in responding.

Paul and Non-Violence

2008-11-17T21:56:00.004+11:00

It's just occurred to me tonight that part of Paul's radical transformation as a Christian is the turn towards a non-violent perspective. Paul is introduced in the book of Acts as a persecutor of Christians and his own writings confirm this. Christians were subject to beatings and even stoning if their preaching was determined to be blasphemous. It's in this context that Paul's transition from persecutor to persecuted becomes even more radical. Something to think about...

Message in the Miracles

2008-11-16T17:25:00.001+11:00

Had a thought the other day about the kinds of miracles that Jesus is recorded as performing. Jesus isn't simply a magician that is trying to show off the flashiest tricks that he can. He doesn't make an elephant disappear, levitate people or do anything with fire! The work of Jesus is in healing, feeding, forgiving and reconnecting people.

Even if we put aside the miraculous nature of these interactions, we still have a pattern of interpersonal relationships that shows us how to change the world one person at a time. The point of the miracles is to remind us that Jesus shows us what God is like. We learn therefore that God is concerned about healing, feeding, forgiving and restoring relationships. To follow Jesus is to engage in this kind of work amongst the poor, the marginalised, the vulnerable and the forgotten.

Called to be God's Hands

2008-11-15T17:50:00.003+11:00

And to finish the musical theme, a song that I wrote this afternoon:

CALLED TO BE GOD’S HANDS

When the homeless have no place to sleep
And there’s no justice in the land
While children starve and women weep
It’s then that we are called to be God’s hands

May your Love grow
Let it know no bounds
And Compassion flow
Till Justice is found

When violence floods the city streets
And there’s no peace within the land
While rivers dry up in the heat
It’s then that we are called to be God’s hands

May your Love grow
Let it know no bounds
And Compassion flow
Till Justice is found

When hearts are set to win or die
And there’s no mercy in the land
While the cost of freedom is set too high
It’s then that we are called to be God’s hands

May your Love grow
Let it know no bounds
And Compassion flow
Till Justice is found

Creative Music Making

2008-11-14T21:51:00.003+11:00

Now here's an example of some great creative music making. I'm off to pick up the guitar and dust off that sampling pedal. Phil Keaggy and 'Salvation Army Band':

Music as a Community Connector

2008-11-13T19:01:00.004+11:00

For the past year I've been involved in a research project in conjunction with Melbourne University and Able Music Therapy looking at the therapeutic benefits of a music program that we run with people who have an intellectual disability. It has been a fascinating process and the final report will be launched in about a month but even greater possibilities are now beginning to emerge.

One of the recommendations coming out of the report will be to explore how music groups can be used to connect people into the community. Obviously this fits well into our Federal Government's social inclusion agenda, but significantly it is also perfectly suited to The Salvation Army. We've almost exclusively used our own musical resources for evangelical efforts, but what if music was something that could helpfully connect our corps and social services?

I'm not just talking about getting our social service clients playing in brass bands (though I'm prepared to be surprised about how successful this might be) but with some creative thinking there are a multitude of ways that the rich musical heritage of The Salvation Army could contribute to the life of social services. One of the things that I think ought to characterise all of our services is a commitment to a holistic framework for helping people. This means that we are not satisfied with housing people if they are left hungry, or feeding people if they always have to eat alone, or caring for people's health when their lives are void of art, music, spiritual connection, love and fun! Our hope for ourselves and for others is 'fullness of life' and we should not settle for less.

Changed my mind

2008-11-12T19:39:00.003+11:00

I can't recommend the Living the Questions material enough. It's a fantastic resource that features some of the best biblical and theological thinkers in the world today. Check out the website (http://www.livingthequestions.com/) - the Australian distributor is FaithFutures.

The reason I mention this is that I was revisiting some of the material today and hearing about two divergent understandings of Jesus. How can Jesus be both a non-violent social revolutionary who brought healing and wholeness indiscriminately and also the coming messenger of God's judgement who will destroy the faithless and condemn the bulk of the world to Hell? It was in the midst of realising how totally impossible it is for me to reconcile these two that I remembered that Jesus' closest followers were recorded as misunderstanding his mission. The reason that we have four Gospels is that at least two (if not three) of the authors thought that the other(s) needed some improvement. This makes me wonder how arrogant we would have to be to think that we finally have the one correct and authoritative understanding of Christology. How can we be so sure that we have it right if those closest to Jesus got it wrong?

I don't mean to suggest that the task is hopeless - only that we should approach it with the right level of humility. Perhaps reconsidering the red text in your Bibles might be a start.

Sitting back and watching

2008-11-12T09:07:00.003+11:00

At the risk of appearing lazy, I am not posting today but just want to acknowledge some great blogversations that are going on at the moment. One is between KY and Anon who are travelling through the comments sections here. Another is a meaty discussion about beliefs at the Rubicon coming out of an article by Grant Sandercock-Brown which you can find here. Enjoy!

Don't worry I'll have plenty more to say soon enough...

After the Rainbow

2008-11-10T07:04:00.003+11:00

I spoke yesterday about a little known postscript to the 'Noah and the Ark' story in Genesis 9. Many people know the story of Noah's heroic efforts in the face of the great flood but a less often told story is what happened after they had settled on the land.

Noah, possibly still struggling to deal with the trauma of multiple genocides, gets himself so drunk that he ends up naked and unconscious. Not quite the hero we had come to know. His son, Ham, accidentally finds him in this state and after getting his brothers to help cover up the offense, also finds himself taking the blame.

The story is used aetiologically to explain (or perhaps justify) the existence of the slavery of one nation in the service of another. I guess there's a good reason why we might like to forget it but I think it's an even better reminder for us to read the whole text of the Bible. We need to accept the existence of these passages and the way they have been used over many centuries whenever we talk about the inspiration, authority and use of our Scriptures.

Death Penalty

2008-11-09T19:16:00.003+11:00

Today's news has been saturated with the deaths of the 'Bali Bombers'. I was struck by how united most of the media seem to be over this event. For days we've seen interviews of Australians in Bali eager to see these men 'get their due'. For a country that does not have the death penalty, many of us appear to be quite content to watch Indonesia enact theirs in this instance. I wonder if they had been Australians whether we would have been so unanimous in our bloodlust?

Don't get me wrong. I'd be the first to admit that if it were me or my family that had been directly affected by the bombings, my feelings might not be so clear. But isn't that the point? Don't we sometimes need to take a step back and examine things with a little more objectivity for our best to come out? Is the taking of human life as punishment for the taking of human life really the best we can do? I'm proud to be a citizen of a country which has found its way past capital punishment. Let's not forget why we did that.

Banned from the Training College

2008-11-07T19:15:00.002+11:00

I found out this week that after 5 years of guest lecturing and tutoring at our Training College I am no longer to take part in any teaching activity. I must say that I find this personally disappointing because, despite the additional time commitments involved on top of my normal appointment, I have generally found these contributions to be highly rewarding.

Before becoming an officer, I spent 10 years working in adult training so I'm comfortable in the classroom environment and enjoy the interaction with students. Teaching across 3 different subjects has helped me to get to know the cadets and it has been good to see their progress between first and second years. I hope that in this time I have been able to challenge and occasionally stretch people's theological imaginations. I have also been pleased to bring some reasonable social service experience and reflection into the College environment, which can tend to be heavily weighted towards Corps Officership. Finally, my experience of teaching has helped to sharpen my own thinking, which was particularly useful during my post-graduate studies in theology.

I can't help but feel that my own experience and qualifications have moulded a perspective which, while not unique, is perhaps rarely articulated and the chance to share that perspective has been beneficial to me - and I hope to others as well.

Madness reigns

2008-11-02T19:15:00.003+11:00

Madness reigned at The Salvation Army Brunswick today - and God was deeply present. I've never known anywhere else to be quite such a collection of 'the fish John West reject', society's discarded people. I actually sat on the edge of my seat on the platform during the sermon wondering whether I could leap over the holiness table if I needed to suddenly restrain a young man who was off his rocker today. Fortunately Michelle came up with a more subtle solution and went and sat next to the man, her presence seemed to keep his behaviour in check for a while.

Given the sometimes volatile mix of people who are affected by mental illness, drugs, alcohol (or some combination of all three), it is often a good idea to be proactive and defuse situations early on. This can mean that your awareness is often divided between several things going on in the room at any time. It's a challenge but a worthwhile one in my opinion.

I drove a woman home today who is slowly dying before our eyes. She has a chronic addiction to inhaling paint, is now unable to keep any food down in her digestive system and is losing weight at dangerous levels. She is often disruptive to our church services, rude to the staff and other members of the community and almost needs a dedicated cleaner to follow her around. Yet, despite these difficulties she knows that she is cared for by those at The Salvation Army Brunswick. On her best days she will admit to this and express her gratitude. We do the best we can on the other days.

I believe that God is deeply concerned for people like this. I believe that those who want to worship God are challenged to enter into an uncomfortable discipleship that means making friends with those who are otherwise friendless. This is why I believe God's presence was tangible today - because I saw it in action again and again.

Malula

2008-11-01T13:46:00.003+11:00

Just caught a segment on Foreign Correspondent on the small town of Malula in the Syrian mountains. The population is about half Christian and half Muslim and they are some of the last remaining people in the world to continue to speak Aramaic - the language of Jesus. Watching townspeople and shepherds talking this ancient language reminded me again how far our Western images of Jesus are from the historical reality. Jesus would have looked and sounded far more like most Arabic speaking Muslims today than the bulk of Christians who frequent his churches. The only disappointment in the show was the enthusiasm shown by Christians in Malula for Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. I can only imagine this is because it's the only movie they've ever seen in their native language, because from my point of view it's the worst Jesus movie ever made!

Running out of things to say

2008-10-27T22:34:00.003+11:00

Yes, I believe the time is fast approaching when this blog either closes for good or at least shifts to a less regular time frame. I began writing as a self-discipline practice to encourage my own critical reflection on a daily basis. For the most part this has been very helpful but after more than 250 posts, I'm sensing a natural kind of repetitiveness that is rapidly diminishing the value of the discipline - plus it must be getting boring for those who bother to read it!

I would have liked to make it to the end of the year, but I don't want to do it by dropping whatever low standards I may have developed even further than they already have. Discipline is one thing, but blogging for bloggings sake is a waste of everybody's time. Thanks for joining me on the journey. I'll be back when I actually have something to say!

The immanence/imminence of God

2008-10-26T17:03:00.003+11:00

I've often hesitated when describing the immanence of God because I knew that with the change of one letter in that word, I could be saying something quite different and I hadn't quite figured out what that was. Both are relevant.

Immanence is often used in comparison with the transcendence of God. God is both far beyond all that we can imagine and experience (transcendent) but also intimately present in every part of creation (immanent). There is something about our experience of the divine that results in us oscillating between the immanent and transcendent - sometimes we feel close to God but all too often God seems very distant. Paradoxically there is truth in both.

Where immanence has a spatial and theological aspect, imminence conveys a more temporal meaning. Something that is imminent is about to happen. We could talk about the Kingdom of God as being both immanent and imminent - we experience it's foreshadowing in the present and long for it's culmination in the near future.

Glad I finally have that sorted out!

Spiritual Capital

2008-10-25T23:59:00.001+11:00

The Christian Research Association has recently published a paper entitled 'Spiritual Capital: An Important Asset of Workplace and Community?'. This is an important question for The Salvation Army and really for any church interested in engaging in public theological dialogue on social issues. How do we understand and talk about the spiritual dimension of our workplace and community contexts? I still think we have a lot of work to do in this area, but at least some clear starting points are beginning to emerge.

Guest Speaker

2008-10-24T17:34:00.003+11:00

I was the guest speaker today in a year 10 Civics class on the topic of homelessness. I've been in enough dull lectures to have learnt something about trying to engage an audience, so I came equipped with short videos and some plans to engage the class interactively. Was I successful? I'm not sure, though I hope the teacher was just being self-effacing when she said it was their best class this year!

The question that made me think a bit was 'why did you get into this line of work in the beginning?'. Given that it was almost 20 years ago that I first started working for The Salvation Army and that I left to do quite a different line of work for a while, this presented some challenges for me. In the end, the answer isn't too different from the 'what makes you get out of bed every morning?' question.

If we concede that the world in which we live isn't all that it should be, that some suffer unnecessarily and that people should intercede on their behalf, then someone has to step up and be the kind of person who will make such a difference. I don't think I can just expect that person always to be someone else.

Young People Finding Voice

2008-10-23T21:08:00.003+11:00

Tonight was the launch of two art programs from Salvation Army networks dealing with homeless and at-risk youth (Brunswick and Westcare). I went to the Brunswick one and in addition to viewing dozens of paintings, I got to see a video documentary with young people telling their own stories and hear some original music played live.

Creative expression is an incredibly valuable tool. Not only does it allow us to express emotions that are difficult to articulate otherwise but it opens up the possibility to channel energy into positive outlets rather than negative ones. It can also be a deeply spiritual activity. If God is the great creator of all existence, then our own creative activity can be seen as divine imitation.

More than multilingual

2008-10-22T20:01:00.003+11:00

I've written before on the idea that Salvationists need to be 'bilingual' - we need to be able to speak the language of the social service sector as well as that of Christian theology. I guess it could be argued that too few of us are fluent in either language, let alone capable of skillfully crossing both. However there is an additional challenge.

All language is rooted in implicit connections between words and related concepts, sometimes called frames. When we try talking to secular people about the Christian motivations for our social work, we not only have to overcome a language barrier but more critically a shift in frames. We may feel that we have theological answers, but these are only relevant if someone is asking theological questions - they have to be in the same frame to begin with.

Before this sounds too hopeless, let me suggest that I think we share a common frame around helping people in need. This is a critical starting point and initially our actions will speak much louder than words. As we learn each others language and begin to navigate unfamiliar frames, a common commitment to the vulnerable and marginalised can serve as a solid basis for further dialogue.

Expanding our understanding of sin

2008-10-21T20:48:00.003+11:00

I've talked (and written) quite a bit on the topic of salvation previously. However, a concept of salvation is really no use unless you have something that you need to be saved from. One of the reasons that our understanding of salvation has become so narrow is that our concept of sin has shrunk to become almost exclusively individual and moralistic. A redefinition of sin doesn't necessarily mean discarding personal responsibility but does allow an expansion of the concept that I believe more accurately reflects Scripture.

If you begin (as we should) with the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament), you will find a much greater recognition of corporate and structural sin. The community can be seen to have sinned in the way that we treat our most vulnerable - orphans, widows, refugees, the poor. Whilst there can still be a personal aspect to this, there is also a social responsibility that is shared by all the people. Not just those who create, but those who accept, structures that perpetuate injustice are guilty of this kind of sin.

Homelessness, a binge drinking culture, racism and gender inequality are all examples of corporate sin that exist today. None of these things reflect God's intention for the world and all are in need of redemption.

Alcohol Awareness Week

2008-10-20T20:33:00.003+11:00

Today I attended the launch of Alcohol Awareness Week at our Bridge Program in St Kilda. The results of recent research reveal that something like 8.4 million people in Australia think that alcohol advertising should be reduced and another 3.6 million people want alcohol advertising banned altogether. The launch also highlighted the personal impact of alcohol abuse claiming that the number of people that would openly say that alcohol has had a negative impact on them or their family is around 4.3 million.

For the full press release, click here.

Why do we suffer?

2008-10-19T15:46:00.003+11:00

There's a story in John's gospel where Jesus comes across a man who was born blind and he is asked whether this happened because of the man's own sin or the sin of his parents. Whilst it's true that sometimes terrible things happen to us because of our own bad choices and sometimes because of the bad choices of others, sometimes they just happen (I'm sure you know the saying).

The first great truth of Buddhism is that 'life is suffering'. However, it doesn't end there. Christians and Buddhists would join together to proclaim the importance of moving past this stage - not that we deny or even try to avoid all possible suffering, but that we accept the existence of pain and suffering in the world. Our acceptance doesn't mean that we ignore it, rather we are given the opportunity to redeem suffering by placing it in a meaningful context. If you are going to suffer, you may as well be trying to do the right thing, living a good life.

Jesus isn't drawn into the trap of blaming anyone for the man's blindness - even God. Instead he moves to heal the man. If only all our problems were so easily solved. The point is valid, however. Let's not spend our time simply bemoaning the world and our troubles, let's be a part of making it a better place for everyone.

On Earth as in Heaven

2008-10-18T14:51:00.008+11:00

Our prayers often reveal underlying theological understandings. Jesus' most famous prayer, the Lord's Prayer, is no exception. Consider for a moment these words...

Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth
as it is in heaven

Jesus prayed for real change to occur in this world and he modelled a lifestyle that demonstrated this commitment in practical ways, bringing healing to people relationally, physically, psychologically and spiritually. The Lord's Prayer isn't about preparing us for the rapture, but it is about inspiring us to live today in ways that will change the world for the better.

I realise now that I've too often fallen into the trap of reading this prayer passively as if it were just a plea to make us more holy until God comes and fixes everything up. I now see this as a radical call to discipleship and Kingdom building activity that continues Jesus work to bring healing and wholeness into brokenness and despair. How can we pray for God to give us our daily bread if we're not prepared to share it with our neighbours? This is exactly the reciprocity made explicit in the lines about forgiveness. Jesus knows that heaven doesn't need our prayers, but there is still some work to be done on earth before it aligns with God's love, compassion and justice.

The Meaning of Jesus

2008-10-17T13:38:00.003+11:00

I have a book called The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. It's co-authored by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. The front cover has a line at the bottom that says "The leading liberal and conservative Jesus scholars present the heart of the Historical Jesus debate". The thing I really like about this book is that it never deteriorates into cheap point scoring. Both authors present their views on a number of topics, including the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, in a mature, clearly articulated manner that brings to light the key similarities and differences in the broadest categories of Christian theology today. Here's a short excerpt from the Introduction that will give you an idea of why I like this approach:

Neither of us is content to let things rest with a cheap and easy suggestion that, since we are both practicing Christians, our two positions are equally valid - whatever that might mean. It might be that both our positions are equivalent and fairly adequate expressions, from different points of view, of the same underlying reality. Neither of us quite thinks that. It might be that we are both wrong, and that some quite different position is truer. Neither of us thinks that, either. It might be that one of us is closer to the truth in some areas, and the other in others, and that by our dialogue we may see more clearly things that the other has grasped more accurately. We are both prepared for this actuality.

Where we do agree, however, is on the following point. Debate about Jesus has recently become acrimonious, with a good deal of name-calling and angry polemic in both public and private discourse. We hope in this book to demonstrate that this is not the only way of doing things... But we hope, and indeed pray, that in this book we will be able to model a way of conducting public Christian disagreement over serious and central issues that will inspire others to try the same sort of thing.

The Burden of Choice

2008-10-16T18:59:00.003+11:00

I sometimes feel frustrated when I see people making what I think are bad choices for their lives. I know that I sound like a total control freak - and there may be some truth in that - but it really can be difficult to work closely with people, to achieve some success together and then watch them take themselves backwards. If I remove myself from the situation for a moment, I realise that I am unconsciously associating their progress with my own. This is an unfair imposition to place on someone else's life and an impossible one for me to manage. I may try to justify this by reminding myself that part of the reason for my involvement is that I truly care about those I work with. The cost of this care is that I can offer advice but I can't make other people's choices for them. Sometimes I might even be humble enough to remember that not all my choices have been the best.

An Inclusive Church: engaging in interfaith dialogue

2008-10-15T23:59:00.002+11:00

A truly inclusive church can't afford to be so self-centred that it ignores or summarily dismisses other people's belief systems. There's a big difference in knowing what you believe, having a strong sense of corporate identity and treating other people's religious beliefs as inferior. Given the nature of faith, it can easily come off as arrogant to act as if we alone possess the truth about God and everyone else has got it wrong.

A truly inclusive church understands the importance of partnerships within a local community context and isn't afraid to talk and work with people of other denominations and other religious expressions. Too much blood has been spilt in religious wars for centuries and the natural consequence is for people to treat all religions that preach peace and wage war with suspicion. Let's see if we can find a different pathway forward.

An Inclusive Church - the final chapter?

2008-10-14T18:02:00.004+11:00

Is the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people into the life of the church the most challenging task of all? How did we get to the point where a person's sexual orientation became the greatest barrier to their involvement in church life?

I am of the firm conviction that the vast majority of people with a homosexual orientation are naturally inclined that way. It's not a choice they make because they want their lives to be more difficult or something that can be simply cured by enough prayer - it's just how they are. If I'm correct about this (and I know there are many who disagree) then I don't see that anyone has the right to forbid gay and lesbian people from entering into lifelong, loving relationships with each other.

In every other area of life, gay and lesbian people have proven their capacity including in leadership roles. Our social service delivery is greatly enhanced by their contributions. We all lose by making our churches unfriendly and unaccepting places simply because someone has a different sexual orientation.

An Inclusive Church - without gender bias

2008-10-13T19:15:00.003+11:00

Just a quick one today as this topic has received more than enough attention. Unfortunately there is still plenty more work to do. How will we recognise a church that has moved beyond gender bias? Here's some suggestions:

Roughly equal number of male and female leaders - at every level
Similar opportunities for married and unmarried men and women
No more need for unwritten rules that create gender specific bias
The 'Corps Officer' can be either husband or wife in married scenarios
A radical redefinition of the place of women's ministries and who is responsible for them

I'm sure you can think of more but this should serve to illustrate that we're not there yet.

An Inclusive Church - for people of all abilities

2008-10-12T08:56:00.002+11:00

Nearly all public buildings, including churches, have had to make adjustments to increase accessibility for people with disabilities. I hope this doesn't stop with a wheelchair ramp.

People with all kinds of disabilities still struggle to find an equal and accepted place throughout our society. I must admit, I think this is one of the areas that we do fairly well at Brunswick. We have a number of social programs that run throughout the week that cater for people with disabilities including a couple that are specifically targeted at this client group - a music program and a supported employment program. On any given Sunday our congregation is likely to include a fair number of people with physical and intellectual disabilities as well as those with mental health problems.

Of course this creates a number of challenges: there are quite a few who can't read the song words; any rhetorical question will usually be answered out loud; many people have great difficulty sitting through the entire meeting; we have compulsive attention-seekers that can be disruptive; and of course it's always problematic to pitch the sermon so that it fits the whole group. However, after a few years of having done this now, I wouldn't have it any other way.

An Inclusive Church - without racial bias

2008-10-11T18:56:00.002+11:00

I've lived all of my life in Melbourne, which as long as I can remember has always been described as a multicultural city. I'm still fascinated by how certain suburbs have different cultural 'flavours' that are sometimes indicated by the visibility of certain types of shops or by the cultural mix noticable in the local schools. Sydney Road, Brunswick near where I live is well known for its variety of restaurants bringing food from many different parts of the world.

Not all of our churches reflect this rich mix of different cultures though. Of course, to a certain degree this can be explained by a strong historic connection with other denominations or religions. However, despite a few notable exceptions, The Salvation Army is pretty monocultural in expression here. Why is this? Is it to do with language? Is it the colonial roots of the movement? Is it the military metaphor or some other internal TSA cultural shaping that doesn't translate well? The Salvation Army seems to work ok in other countries, so why is it not so attractive when people from those countries come here? I have noticed that we often send white officers from Western countries to be leaders in developing countries, but I can't think of any examples where we've done the opposite. To be honest I really don't know the answers to these questions. I think they are questions we need to explore though because we have much that we can learn from other cultures.