problems with objectivity

one of my close friends is in a same-sex relationship. she and her partner intend to marry later this year. their home church (which I was previously a part of) is struggling with the question of whether to host the marriage service. There are a complex set of reasons, but let me mention two main reasons. One is that the denomination in question has threatened to discipline ministers who perform or bless same-sex unions. Another is that the local church leadership are divided over the issue. (see my previous blog post for the full story- feel the pain)

One interesting development is that some senior leadership of this church have resigned. They are disillusioned with the pastors of the church who are sympathetic to this same-sex couple and would like to support their decision to marry. One of the complaints is that the pastors lack objectivity because they are friends with the same-sex couple in question.

This creates a very interesting situation: a pastor is criticised for lacking objectivity in handling an ethical question on the basis that he/she is friendly with the person concerned. Fair enough. It can easily be established that my theological/ethical stance on same-sex relationships has been affected and shaped by my friendship with same-sex couples (and this couple in particular!). It would be pointless for me to deny this. So, the argument goes - "because you are friends with A. and B., you are not able/willing to counsel/guide/reprimand them properly, according to the teachings and principles of the bible/church".

But I don't like where this argument leads us... As a pastor, I am effectively discouraged from forming friendships with the people in my congregation for fear of losing my objectivity!

I think that objectivity is hugely over-rated.

Trusting "objectivity" suggests that the preferable way to help/love/guide people is to offer advice/guidance from a distant, impersonal, objective stance. Sure, that may mean that I will be able to avoid getting compassionately (detractors would probably use the word "emotionally") involved with people. I could dispassionately explain to them the position of the church and the bible without consideration for the painful circumstances of their particular situation.

But I prefer the value of friendship - without qualification. I prefer the way of living that encourages compassionate involvement in people's lives. And yes, that means that because I am friends with a same-sex couple, my thoughts, feelings, theological views, ethical standards, pastoral practise have been affected, even completely changed.

And all because a couple of young christian women fell in love and want to ask God to bless their decision to live faithfully and honourably together. Thank God that they are willing to be my friends, in spite of the way my church is treating them! Thank God their friendship has softened my heart and forced me to reconsider my previously rock-solid opinion on the issue.

One thing is certain... no argument could have brought about this change of heart. Only personal encounters (through friendship) have been able to reveal and challenge my ignorance and prejudice. I therefore think there is no use in arguing with those who seek to maintain the "objective" principled stance which refuses same-sex couples access to the church for weddings. Only friendship could soften their hardened hearts. But they won't surrender their objectivity... so theirs is a fairly impenetrable position, unlikely to change.

I just read what I have written to the person I am married to – she raised a very interesting question: are they afraid that friends won’t be honest with each other?

Does honesty require objectivity? Are honesty and objectivity the same thing?

I would contend that while good friendship surrenders so-called “objectivity”, it does not have to surrender honesty. In fact, honesty may be strengthened by the foundation of friendship. Good friends will be honest with each other, while remaining faithful to the relationship of trust (subjectively faithful to the person despite their failings or weaknesses).

If I truly believed that my friend was being hurt in this relationship, there is no doubt that I would speak with her (honestly) about my concerns. But I do not subscribe to the argument that to really help and guide her, I need to adopt an objective position.

feel the pain

Today I experienced that sad sinking feeling in my stomach. But to explain, I need to fill you in on quite a long story…

One of my best friends fell in love a few years ago. She (let’s call her Sam) is a person of faith and she fell in love with another woman, who is also a very sincere person of faith. At the start, the relationship was a total surprise to them. They never set out to break any rules or make a statement – they were fully expecting to live “normal” lives as straight women, marrying, having children. But their love for each other – as only love can – prevailed to keep them exploring. They searched their own souls and consulted friends. They prayed and asked God for guidance. They experienced some angry condemnation and even tried to separate for the sake of fitting in with the widespread church teaching condemning same-sex relationships.

Two years down the line they have built a solid and loving relationship. They are both compassionate people who take their work in government medicine seriously. They participate in a local church congregation and Sam was even elected to serve as a society steward (senior leader). They love the church and are committed to it’s life and witness in a variety of ways. Sam gives a lot of time and energy to her responsibilities as a leader.

What has been helpful for me is to see the nature of their relationship. In so many ways I can only describe it as “normal”. The fact that I even say that reflects my own prejudice and ignorance – that I thought their relationship wouldn’t be normal. They have gone through all the same relational stages as Elaine and I. This has been a huge challenge to my inherent prejudices, which expected that it would be all different and weird for them. They are a good example of “opposites attract”. They are complimentary personalities and fit well into the Imago (Relationship Therapy) model of partners who connect with someone who offers healing and wholeness. My sense is that Sam and her partner are a good match in that sense – again, a helpful reminder that their relationship is normal and can be treated, in every way, as a “normal” romantic and committed partnership.

Recently they got engaged. They want to formalise their relationship – for all the same reasons I wanted to. I should probably ask them to give their reasons – but I surmise that among other reasons for wanting to marry, they would like to feel that their faithfulness and commitment to each other (which is a very spiritual thing for them) is recognised by their friends and community as something they take very seriously and also as something they are committed to before their God. I’m sure that there are also some practical and legal reasons for wanting to be married. One thing that seems clear to me is that they want to be married for VERY SIMILAR reasons to why I wanted to be married.

In a faith community that believes that sex is reserved for marriage, one practical reason why I wanted to marry Elaine was so that I could share a home with her with the community’s blessing! While getting the community’s blessing may not be top of the list in Sam’s life, I’m sure it does rank somewhere there on the list. Just like for young (straight) couples who “live in sin”, there’s a sense in which getting married would bring Sam and her partner’s relationship out of the shadows into the light, where it could be acknowledged and spoken about rather than politely ignored.

Sam has been open with the community about her relationship. For some time there was not strong reaction which she interpreted as a surprising affirmation. But more recently, the reaction to the news of an approaching wedding has prompted some people to respond in hurtful ways.

It’s complicated. At one level, the wider denominational church is struggling with the issue and so has issued an ultimatum that threatens any minister who participates in the blessing of a same-sex union. This puts my friend’s pastors (who are very supportive friends to Sam) in a painfully difficult situation. They are caught between being responsible to the community of faith, which could be torn apart by this issue, and being responsible to the individual (in this case Sam and her partner), for whom this feels like a justice issue. Suffice to say, the wider church is not able to offer a prophetic lead in supporting them in their desire to be married. They probably will not be able to hold their wedding ceremony at their home church because the church has formally forbade ministers to allow such ceremonies.

I remember saying to Elaine that the one non-negotiable of our wedding day for me was that we should say our vows at the bottom of the steps in that church, which was, at that time, our home church. It seemed important to me to make such an important step in the same sanctuary that I worship Sunday after Sunday. Sam and her partner will not be able to have the same privilege. Even though she is a committed member, regular worshipper, of sound moral character and displays the fruit of the spirit in her life, she will not be free to consecrate her marriage vows in the sanctuary that she calls “home”.

At another level, the local church is breaking. There are some who are absolutely unequivocally, passionately opposed to any form of compromise. To the extent that they will withdraw from the conversation, resigning in protest. There are others, a few quieter voices, who are very supportive. Probably the majority are people for whom the issue is not entirely clear… but they seem to be able to stay in relationship with Sam and her partner, not rejecting them, even though they may have reservations about the ok-ness of same-sex unions. I certainly respect them for their willingness to hold the tension! There are those who will accuse them (us?) of lacking a clear position – of being wishy-washy – but I commend their spirit of openness and tolerance. I commend them for not trying to take a splinter out of Sam’s eye. I commend them for following Jesus’ clear directive not to judge or condemn (Luke 6:37). I commend them for holding the tension between compassion and principle/doctrine… for taking seriously Jesus’ assurance that God “desires mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13).

Finally, what emerges for me is just how hurtfully we can act and how much pain we can cause when we think we are right! I want to write more about this, but being right is seriously over-rated! It’s over-rated as a way to please God. I was taught that having the right thoughts (doctrines) in our heads will translate into the right kind of lives and actions. But too often, the opposite proves to be true. It’s often the people who have little or no theological or ethical training who are able to practice compassion and mercy, without any prompting or complication. “Pharisees” – teachers of right thinking – come along and cause pain through their conviction that “knowledge always improves lives”. But knowledge and wisdom are not the same. An increase in knowledge does not automatically lead to an increase in wisdom. What we need is wisdom, not knowledge, which comes across as “know-it-all”. Know-it-all people have decided that this is right and this is wrong. The faith community has been tied up by self-righteous know-it-alls who sincerely believe they are helping people live better. Except their behaviour exhibits exactly the same kind of qualities that Jesus challenged the Pharisees over.

The Pharisees weren’t insincere. They weren’t lacking in knowledge – they were the most learned people in the community. They weren’t irreligious. So what did they lack? Jesus suggested that all their “correctness” had squeezed out their ability to cope with the messiness of life (that is, grace and compassion). Their quest for Perfection – an unreal state - rather than the kingdom of God – a very real thing – rendered them harsh and insensitive and haughty and proud and far from God. Jesus infuriated them by suggesting that children (unlearned, ignorant), women (not fully able), sinners (failures, sinful) and the infirm (punished with suffering) were closer to the kingdom that they…

What the Pharisees lacked was not knowledge of religion, but knowledge of God. It's really hard to leave our self-righteous egos behind and progress without judgement, when we haven't experienced an encounter with God that involved an embarrassing (public) acknowledgement of our own failure (sinfulness) Without a huge sense of our own need for God, we continue to walk in the pride of our lives as exemplary rather than Christ's as the only example.

As I spoke to Sam this evening I sensed the huge disappointment in her as it dawns on her that her “home” community of faith is not going to get the Supportive Thing right. While there may be individuals who support, the majority are going to fumble the ball for fear of dropping it! I sense that argument is not going to change people’s opinion – especially the hard-liners. What may offer some hope is simply sharing her story and her pain. Without allowing herself to become their victim, sharing her story of love and life and hope AND her sense of disappointment that she is not able to be fully embraced by the community she loves… I think people need to hear that story!

I need to hear that story!!!

living peace

I'm preparing my sermon for sunday. Jesus comes to his friends after the resurrection and his firsts words are "Peace be with you". After some reflection it has occurred to me that most often Peace is seen to be a symptom of other things. IF we stop fighting THEN there will be peace in our homes. If we spend time in silence then we will enjoy inner-peace. If world leaders find agreement and cease fire, then there will be peace - and end to war.

But what if Peace is not a symptom, but rather a Causal kind of thing?

What if it works the other way around? If World leaders were keen for peace, then the result (symptom) of that would be a cease-fire and an end to the war. If we longed for and chose peace as a primary value of our home life, then we would stop shouting and screaming at each other. If we really wanted inner-peace, we'd find ourselves much more comfortable with silence and rest.

We have assumed that we don't experience Peace because the circumstances aren't right - and when we rectify the circumstances, then we will be in a position to experience Peace. This leads to one of two reactions: Hopelessness, because the changes required to bring about the right circumstances for Peace to reign are just to great to achieve, OR a frenetic buzz of activity aimed at bringing the necessary changes to circumstances to achieve the desired result - i.e. Peace. Peace (supposedly) becomes a product of our frenetic activity. It seems we give up Peace in order to try and achieve it...

But Jesus says - "Peace be with you". It's as if he gives it - as a gift. He encourages us to start there - start living peacefully, being peaceful, making peace central to our way of living. If we receive the gift, we may be surprised to find that our peaceful way begins to influence and affect the circumstances of our lives. Bringing Peace into a home may affect the way we speak and relate to each other. Wanting Peace, more than power, may lead to responsible and wise political leadership - and an end to war. Peace is then, not a product of our achievement, but a gift and catalyst.

There is much talk about the quest for inner peace, but I wonder if inner peace can actually be distinguished from other kinds of peace in any meaningful way. Is it really possible to distinguish inner peace from "outer" peace? Perhaps what we are realising is that "inner" peace and "outer" peace are the same thing. When we live peaceably, without busy-ness and speak with kindness we will find inner peace - evidenced by silence and the freedom to rest. And when we rest and take time to be silent, we may find it possible to speak more kindly and to live with less frenetic activity.

Peace is then better understood as a catalyst, than as a product or a symptom. The measure of peace in our lives will not be only relative to the circumstances we find ourselves in, but more likely related to the level of longing and desire we have to live in the Peace - that is a gift of the Spirit...

words

I like to speak about Values rather than Beliefs or Doctrines. I sense that our lives are shaped by the Values that we embrace. We may say we believe something, but ultimately our actions and attitudes may not be deeply influenced by that mental "belief". By Values, I am referring to the core fundamentals that actually do shape our lives...

A Value is a lot like an assumption - a Taken-for-Granted - that has been evaluated and considered OK to keep...

One assumption (or belief) which is fairly influential in my thinking is the way in which I understand words, language and interaction: I no longer understand Words as describers of reality. (I used to.) I have come to believe that Words create reality. "Words create Worlds." So, when I write, speak - even better, participate in conversation - Reality is being created, co-created. The God who said "Light" (and there was light) has made us "in his own image". Being made in the image of God is, in my understanding, having this extraordinary ability to speak, and in so doing to create. When we speak we create reality.

The ethical question is of course, what kind of reality am I creating? What kind of world is my language and conversation shaping?

This is an especially challenging (and exciting) question for a poet...

I'm not a poet, but I am a preacher - and I find it humbling and inspiring to think about preaching in this way. Rather than thinking of preaching as prescribing to people how to think or how to live, I choose to see preaching as the act of humbly (hopefully!) using words to create new reality. For example: in a time of despair a preacher's (or a poet's) words could bring about the reality of Hope. For those living in fear and anxiety, words could be used to create space (the real possibility of) for trust and peace.

getting started

i've had a Task in my Outlook Task-list for some time now. it has no Due Date for completion. it's just one word: "Write"

so i've decided, after some months, to get started...

there are a few values that have begun to shape my life. i find myself increasingly committed to them. lately i've been feeling that i'd like to write about them. For me, thinking comes after speaking - I speak before I think! somehow it's in the speaking (esp if it's a conversation) that ideas are born and values are clarified.

Some of the things i'd like to write about and explore are:

living sustainably - seeing the journey through, i'm interested in sticking around for the long-run. so many really good people have burned themselves out - not because they had the wrong ideas or intentions - but because they allowed the demands of activity to drain them of more than is possible for one person to give.
living transparently - risking living a see-through life and exposing the hidden and speaking the unspoken. I am curious to explore what happens when the personal and the public are allowed to mingle and wander into each other "territory".
integrity - the integration of "opposites" that are the result of centuries of dualistic thinking...

• integration of my body life and sexuality into my life as a whole
  
• integration of spirituality into my life as a whole
  
• integrating values that I hold in principle into my life in practise - bringing theory and practice together.
  

so, I expect that i will want to write personal things and explore (even interrogate) myself. I will want to interrogate assumptions - my own, those of the environment in which i live - to see whether they stand up to scrutiny. I want to ask if our "taken-for-granted's" deserve their taken-for-granted status. And I will look forward to participation from others who may offer words that help support and encourage these values.