everyday play

I’ve joined the chorus of cars that stop outside playschools each morning to drop off kids. My son, Ruben attends a wonderful playschool near our home. His teacher welcomes him to school each morning by squealing his name from across the playground, and with a big hug. It’s a special kind of person.

The rules of the school are that children need to be potty-trained. Totally understandable. So when the beginning of the term arrived and Ruben wasn’t trained, Elaine went past the school to tell them that we wouldn’t be bringing him until he was trained. They reassured her that we could bring him and that it wasn’t a problem. Elaine (the person that I’m married to, and the mother of Ruben) does not like to take advantage of other people’s generosity, but reluctantly agreed to take him. The impression she got was that it wasn’t such a big issue to the staff.

We love the school and are glad to leave Ruben there in the mornings.

But last week, after almost a term has gone by, a note came from the school expressing frustration with us that we are not adhering to the “nappy rules” of the school and pleading with us to begin nappy training. Their note gives the impression that they were happy to give us 3 weeks grace, but after that, expected the issue of nappy training to be resolved.

Elaine and I were surprised by this sudden expression of frustration. Elaine wondered why they hadn't expressed their concerns earlier. Obviously we feel embarrassed that they have been thinking we are taking advantage of the school. Elaine is convinced that they never gave her any indication of a time limit. She doesn’t remember any mention of a “3 week” period. She has been waiting for the July holidays, when we would have Ruben at home all day, to begin nappy training.

So we wrote a letter explaining our perspective and understanding of the situation. We won’t take Ruben back to school after the holidays until he is trained. But Elaine was at pains to say that she wasn’t told about the 3 week expectation. Later when Elaine spoke with one of the staff members, she responded positively but added “But I did tell you”.

So, who is right? We won’t pursue the issue. But this little everyday misunderstanding has helped me to think about conflict and resolution… in a conflict situation basically good people come into the conflict believing that they are right. Elaine is sure that they didn’t mention any period (and I am inclined to believe her because they are so overwhelmingly accommodating kind of people). They are sure that they did tell us.

Saying “but i did tell you" or “but you didn’t tell me” is trying to resolve the conflict by asserting our own “rightness”. But this, by definition, makes the other person “wrong” and is not likely to invoke a response like “oh, yes, you’re right”.

I think that we will live with greater ease through conflict situations if we are able to move beyond the need to say “but I did…” (firming up our rightness). Beyond rightness is a place where we are able to consider that the other party might be acting in good faith and according to their own understanding (or misunderstanding as the case may be.)

I think that Elaine and I have to accept that whether the staff told us or not they are operating on the assumption that they did. And it would be helpful if the staff at the school were able to trust that we were acting according to what we understood to be the “agreement”.

I also think that Elaine is right – speak up earlier! Don’t let a misunderstanding escalate into frustration and resentment…

Fun, fun, fun... everyday!

reworked

i was recently asked to preach on a passage from Galatians - chapter 2:11-21. Here we find a record of an early conflict between Paul and Peter. They were wrestling with how important obeying the Jewish Laws were for a new Christian - especially when the people concerned were not Jewish, but Gentile...

I wondered how relevant this conflict is to the contemporary conflict about same-sex relationships in the church... so I reworked the passage replacing "jew" and "gentile" with "straight" and "gay/lesbian"...

see what you think: Galatians 2 (reworked)

I asked for comments from my ministerial colleagues and recieved the following reply: (an extract)

...The reworking is not bad from a literary point of view. But biblically and theologically it is disastrous. It fuses the temporary ceremonial laws, which were done away with by the cross of Christ, and the ever enduring moral law, and then proceeds to throw the melded product out of the window. Note that what Peter withdrew from was eating with Gentiles (vs.12), which was a purely ceremonial and ritual prohibition for Jews. Clearly, then, it was intimidated Peters' succumbing to the ceremonial Law which drew forth Paul's angry protest. His later declaration in the same letter that "It does'nt matter if you are circumcised or not" (6:15), is in concert with that protest, and makes it doubly plain to us - should that be necessary - which 'Law' it is that is at an end as a means of making and keeping people right with God.
Paul, then, if he was not given to crazy contradictions, must have had a Law other than the ritual and ceremonial in mind when he rhetorically asked his Roman readers, "Do we destroy the Law by our faith?", and then answered with an emphatic negative, "Not at all! We make it even more powerful" (Rom 3:31, and cf. Rom. 7:12 etc., etc.). Of course he had another Law in mind - the moral law. That same Law that our Lord had in mind when he equally emphatically said, "Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them but to give them their full meaning. Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a full stop or comma will ever disappear from the Law" (Matt. 5:17-18).
So, as a matter of fact, "Galatians 2 reworked" does not compare apples with apples. It is a confused piece of work. It jumbles up the moral and the ceremonial . It leads astray.

i found this response fascinating, but it raised many questions for me:

is the Law to which Paul refers well described by the term "moral"?in fact, what is the difference between a "moral" and a "ceremonial" law?
in some cultures (i associate culture largely with ceremonial law) it is moral to marry more than one person. the difficulty with outright condemnation of this behaviour arises when investigation reveals (surprisingly for me...) a very responsible, loving and caring environment for marriage and family life. polygamy is not my preference, but it is difficult just to write it off as "immoral" in all cases.
is God's Law a law that expresses preferences on these kinds of cultural practices? (and if so, how can we be sure that it is not our own cultural bias that is determining our understanding of "God's Law"?)
to what extent then is homophobia a culturally defined evil, as opposed to a God-condemned orientation?
I prefer to describe the Law that Paul is describing as the "Perfect Law of Love."
(to read Paul as referring to some "moral" law offers no helpful distinction for me between ceremony and morality that actually helps me to distunguish in my daily ethical dilemmas.)
i am not inclined to outright condemn people who live in polygamous marriages, where the practice is culturally acceptable and is practiced in a loving and caring manner (i.e. if I am satisfied that people are not abused through the practice). I'm sure there are more dangerous evils in the world!!! In the same way, I am inclined to argue that homosexual orientation is one of those culturally defined moral issues, that will undergo a cultural shift in our life-time (just like racism and sexism, and slavery in a previous century) When it is no longer culturally/morally perceived to be bad, the "moral" and "ceremonial" laws will be changed (and they are already are being changed...)
I rejoice that the Law (the one that Paul refers to) will remain! (in fact, what could we do to ever threaten that perfect Law?) This Law does not condemn people but will gently continue to invite all people to live within the Values of the Kin'dom... love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

does anyone dispute that a gay or lesbian person (living in a faithful loving partnership with another) can evidence any, or all, of the above "Law" of the Spirit (what I have called the Law of Love)
I suggest that a preferable translation for "Law" in Paul's writing (when he's referring to God's Law) might be Way...

do not fear...

guess how many times the phrases "do not fear" and "do not be afraid" appear in the Bible...

another story

i've been taking some strain lately for wanting to live and speak from the heart.

all minisers in the denomination that I belong to have been trained in theology and biblical studies. being able to do theology (which I define as talk about God) and interpret scripture are basic skills of a pastor and teacher. the approach to these skills is not legislated. there are a variety of different perspectives that emerge from our training programme. it isn't a sausage-machine producing exact replicas of the trainers...

But one thing I assume is that the process of education has encouraged us all to think and wrestle with theological and biblical issues. To some extent, I expect a colleague to be able to engage with the complex and sometimes difficult issues surrounding a pastoral concern that they might face. on the whole, I would say that my colleagues seems to reflect this. I feel safe to speak about my theological questions and struggles with most colleagues and i don't expect them to answer "oh, but that's an easy one - in mark 9v7 it says..."

why, oh why then do we as pastors and teachers not share these views of theology and scripture with our congregations? why do I find ordinary members of congregations SO soaked in a foreign legalistic theology and literlistic approach to scripture? It seems that the proponents of such views have been far more dedicated to communicating their views and also more effective in convincing people that they are the authority.

We now find ourselves in a situation where the spirituality of many ordinary members of churches is defined not primarily by their local pastor, but by the writings and on-screen persona of some "higher" authority. I don't expect to hear anyone on CTV or TBN proposing that we encourage faithful same-sex couples to enter the bonds of covenant relationship out of devotion to Christ. It seems that the conservative theological agenda perspective has spoken often and loudly and now dominates the church - even churches like my own that do not have a conservative theological or literalistic sciptural tradition!

This week I had breakfast with three people. I was encouraged by the conversation. I know them all as people who seek to love God and grow toward wholeness their lives. The conversation focussed on how the church can continue to offer nourishment to those who are looking for thoughtfulness and depth alongside passion and experience. I think that integrity was also a value that featured highly in the conversation. It was very encouraging for me to be a participant in the conversation and I found it strengthening my confidence that there is another story of faith that is quieter and more gentle, but no less devoted to God and no less serious about scripture - just perhaps a little more cautious about certainty and more devoted to wholeness and freedom from fear.

we'll make you pay!

My car was stolen recently. When I emailed my insurance company to have my replacement car insured I was advised that my premium would be higher than before, even though the value of my "new" car was lower than than the car that was stolen! I asked for an explanation and this is what I got:

The cancelled vehicle was insured for R71 200 and the premium was R438.12
The replacing vehicle will be insured for R66 700 and the premium will be R468.33
The increased premium is due to the loss ratio in view of the claims history in the account.

...is due to the loss ratio in view of the claims history in the account...

meaning??? I get to pay because my car was stolen!

And they call it "insurance"!!!

am i a Christian?

Yes and No

if by "Christian" you mean a person who has put their faith in Jesus Christ, then ok, yes, I am a Christian.

but there are so many problems with the term "Christian" that I'd rather use a different way to speak about my faith. I'm not very original on this one! Authors like Gordon MacDonald, Trevor Hudson, Dallas Willard and others have for some time preferred the term "Christ-follower". The truth is that the term "Christian" has become associated with so much that is definitely not what I have faith in, that it doesn't seem appropriate for me to use the term anymore.

a few reasons:

1. the term "Christian" is static. it sounds like a destination or an achievement. the early followers of Jesus (after he had left them) were most commonly referred to as "people of the Way" (e.g. Acts 9:2) This, along with other New Testament terms, like "believer", are far more active. Christ-follower is another term which expresses that this is a decision which will impact on every moment, every decision, every circumstance... It's the very opposite of static.
2. the term "Christian" has become associated with moral judgement. When you ask some very faithful Church people "Are you a Christian?" they actually hesitate before answering! The reason is fairly noble. Because "Christian" has so often been associated with moral judgement - it almost feels arrogant to proclaim proudly "I am a Christian!" - it's almost like saying "I am a very good person!"
   I don't want to have to hesitate when asked about my faith in Jesus.
   I also don't want to be misunderstood as arrogant. So, I prefer the question "have you decided to follow Jesus?" or "have you felt the need to follow Jesus?" The answer is simple and clear. There is no judgement. It's a matter of fact question about a person's faith allegience. I am a follower of Jesus - a Christ-follower. And proud to say so!
3. In a similar vein - the term "Christian" doesn't say what it means. Just like some people try to "Christen" their children, when coming for infant baptism (what does it mean to "Christen" someone????) in the same way Christian is somehow associated by some as a default option that has to do with cultural practices and family traditions. Now I have no objection to leading a funeral service of anyone! (even if they have no church connections) but assuming that because you are not Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist, you are therefore "Christian" makes the term something that has no attraction for me at all. Just as there are probably nominal Muslims and nominal Jews and nominal Buddhists, there are most certainly nominal Christians who regard the label as something that defines them along with which sports club they belong to and the charities that they support. No problem. They are welcome to the term then. I am not interested in nominal Christianity.

I experience Jesus as the most challenging teacher and formidable Leader. He is the Passionate Guide who opens the heavens and lets me glimpse the Dream of God for all creation. That Kin'dom vision - that powerful experience of Grace and Love has captured my soul. It's everything now. Others may experience it differently, but for me it's all or nothing. I can't think about that all-embracing Dream of God and then turn around and go back to things "as they were". Nothing will every be the same again... I'm a believer! I'm a sinner with a second chance. I'm a privileged partner with God (only because he invited me). I'm loved and accepted completely. And it's only just beginning to sink in. The all emracing arms of a Loving God, reaching out to all creation with gentleness and compassion - it keeps me awake at night!

(I wonder how this post sounds to the reader... I don't think of myself as a "jesus freak" kind of person, and yet reading this might make a skeptic take a few steps back... I just think that passionate faith in Jesus, his teaching, his example, his life, his death, his Way... doesn't have to equate to a Bible-punching, gay-bashing, bigoted, closed-minded life. I am passionate about Jesus, and it's a head AND a heart thing.)

So, I will answer to the term "Christ-follower". Unashamedly. He's touched my heart, and he's challenged my thinking... most importantly he's got me reconsidering what I want from this life. That's why I have decided to follow...

the C word

When my dad first broke the news about the need for surgery last year, he managed to tell me without once mentioning the “C” word. 

 

Fortunately the radical surgery went well and he has resumed a very active life, returning to his cycling, busy work schedule and daily life.  It seems you can live quite well without a prostate!  It seems…

 

Cancer has reared it’s ugly head in my family for the second time in less than a year.  This week my mother went for a mammogram and then for further tests.  She will be admitted on Monday morning for radical surgery to remove a tumour in one of her breasts.  She will spend this week-end deciding whether to go for the full mastectomy or to opt for less radical surgery.  Tough one, but the doctors will surely help her in her decision.

 

It’s difficult to know how to respond.  On the one hand, the medical profession has proactive responses to almost every condition, giving one great confidence that “this is not a big deal” – we’ll get through this fine.  My dad’s progress certainly bears witness to the fact that there is life after Cancer.  On the other hand, this is Cancer, and it’s my mom, and it’s a bit too close for comfort.  I know women in my congregation who have died after protracted battles with the bloody thing.  Every year St John’s holds a service for people who are struggling, or who have struggled with Breast Cancer.

 

I suspect this isn’t the last word regarding C…

who was there? (and who wasn't?)

my son ruben had to have grommets inserted into his ears this morning. it's a relatively small operation taking a few minutes and requiring that he only go to a day clinic at the hospital. our day began at 7.30am with registration, then 4 hours of waiting till his turn on the "list"... 4 hours with a 2 year-old who hasn't eaten or drunk anything since last night...

anyway, 4 hours of waiting got me looking around and observing...

1. 1 out of 10 beds in the day-clinic (on this particular day) served a black patient. the rest were all white children.
   
   
2. 6 out of 10 children were accompanied by their mothers (or other female care-giver). Only 4 out of the 10 had their fathers (or male care-giver) present to help with the difficult job of pacifying a child in strange and scary circumstances... not one child was accompanied by their father (or male care-giver) alone!
   

what (if anything) do these token statistics reflect?

i think they are telling!

One, Private Health-care is still a privilege of the affluent in our country. And the affluent are still predominantly white families. No-one cries "discimination!" because the hospital is not disciminating - it will admit anyone who can pay. The issue is a much more subtle "discrimination" of economic forces that restrict access to vital resources like education and health-care. If our rainbow nation was whole, I would expect that the patients in the day-clinic would (to some extent) reflect proportionately, the people in the community in which I live.

Two, 4 out of 10 fathers present at the day-clinic during work hours, reflects a change. When I had my grommets in 30 years ago, my mother took me to the clinic alone. I'm not sure how many fathers would have been in attendance back then, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't many! So, 4/10 can be interpreted as a slow transition toward greater acceptance on the part of fathers for their share of the responsibility of parenting. But 4/10 also refelcts that there are still a majority of children whose primary care comes from a faithful woman (mother) - and that there is still a far way to go before men accept their part as co-partners in the work of raising children!

0/10 men on their own at the day-clinic can mean just one thing! they wouldn't cope... (sorry guys, am I letting the side down?)

networking central

i have a few friends who's lives depend in varying measure on networking. they can set me straight (and I'm sure they will when they read this post) - but they are involved in various forms of networking that involves social interaction using the internet and other technological media.

check them out: mike, aiden, dez

mike's very livelihood depends on the growth of social interactive software (let him get you straight on the correct terminology)... aiden's business depends on his ability to connect with potential clients... his blog is one of his methods of networking, connecting, sharing and participating in conversation with people who might use his expertise. dez is an example of a gregarions kind of person who doesn't depend on internet interaction for his financial livelihood - but he might say he can't live without facebook :)

networking - interaction - relationship - watch-words of the new business paradigm?

today I was walking through Central (the small inner-city area of Port Elizabeth where I work) and smiled at a lady walking toward me. She greeted me warmly by name! I was surprised that she knew me and we stopped to talk. She is from the Anglican Church in Central and works in the area of community development. She is aware of certain projects that my church is involved in in Central and expressed the desire to get together so that we can talk about collaborative efforts...

Networking - Central style - no email, no internet, no phone. just a side-walk and a small community where you are known (or becoming known!).

Am I living in the Olde-Worlde? or is there still a place for social interaction, networking and relationship without technology?

absolute truth - part one

one of the big challenges for people of faith in a postmodern era is responding meaningfully to the relativistic claims that there is no "absolute truth". my experience is that people of faith become quite defensive about this aspect of postmodern thought.

one thing that I would like to add to this conversation is the following:

i'm not sure that postmoderns are actually claiming that there is not absolute truth.

(I think that this is one of those claims that are made to discredit the "other side" and write them off as uncredible. Rather than write anyone off, let's trust that anyone who is trying to engage us in a respectful manner actually may have something of worth to listen to and consider!)

I think that postmoderns are drawing attention to the fact that we cannot CLAIM to know any absolute truth. This is a slightly but significantly different claim altogether. There may of course be absolute truth (the favourite retort is to say "the claim that there is no absolute truth is an absolute claim, thus proving that there are absolutes...") but can we know such absolute truth. All knowledge of the world around us is subject to a number of interpretations which mean that even this paragraph may not be understood quite in the way that I intended it to be understood. That is the risk I take in writing it - the risk of all conversation and realtionship - that intentions are subject to the interpretation of the hearer/reader/observer.

postmoderns are responding to the difficulty that exists (and this is a simple observation) in the world due to significant differences of opinion on issues that affect people's lives. Wars have been fought between people who believe they are right and are bound to resist the evil efforts of the other side. closer to home, communities bear the pain of conflict and disagreement when people disagree on emotive and controversial issues like religion and homosexuality. The problem is not that either side has given up on "absolute truth". I would suggest that everyone in the debate believes they are right - else, why would they be arguing? The problem is that try as we might, we just can't get others to come round to our side and see that WE have the grasp on the absolute truth.

And the problem is not that intelligent and wise people haven't tried... this is not a new problem in the history of human relationships. Rather than continuing to appeal to some form of Authority and Absolute Truth - which has painfully and repeatedly failed to bring unity and peace in human conflict - let us consider other alternatives for a way forward.

postmoderns are pleading that we consider alternatives for finding a way of being human together in the face of diagreement and conflict. We ahve tried and failed to convince each other that WE are right... What other alternatives are there?

do we take Jesus seriously ?

Someone asked for a copy of my Good Friday sermon. You can find it here: Good Friday Sermon 2007