Living with an imperfect Church

In many ways my relationship with my Church has been very different to that of an average congregant, largely because of my involvement in financial matters at all levels, leadership positions held over the years, and now my current role as one training to become a full-time minister. And I have to confess that this relationship has sometimes resembled something out of the Danny de Vito film "The War Of The Roses", as related on this blog from time to time.

Yet somehow I want to stick around - partly because of the many good people, both lay and clergy, who serve the Church with integrity out of a deep desire to know and serve Jesus, and partly because of an innate stubbornness to take whatever punches it can throw at me, and remain standing.

Someone once said to me that if I were ever to leave the MCSA in search of a "perfect Church", I would taint it the moment I walked through the door. I have to admit that this is true, for while an institution consists of ordinary fallible human beings, it's always going to have a few warts. And in the same way that there are people within our Church who irritate the living daylights out of me, there are undoubtedly those who feel the same way about me!

However, this piece entitled "Ode To The Church", originally written by the Italian spiritual writer Carlo Caretto, which I have "borrowed" from John van de Laar's blog, really speaks to me about how a perfect Christ can be encountered in His imperfect Church.

How much I must criticize you, my church, and yet how much I love you! You have made me suffer more than anyone and yet I owe more to you than to anyone. I should like to see you destroyed and yet I need your presence. You have given me much scandal and yet you alone have made me understand holiness. Never in this world have I seen anything more compromised, more false, yet never have I touched anything more pure, more generous or more beautiful. Countless times I have felt like slamming the door of my soul in your face - and yet, every night, I have prayed that I might die in your sure arms! No, I cannot be free of you, for I am one with you, even if not completely you. Then too - where would I go? To build another church? But I could not build one without the same defects, for they are my defects. And again, if I were to build another church, it would be my church, not Christ's church. No, I am old enough, I know better.

Prayer of confession for ministers

This prayer reminds me of what I have been called by God to do, and how I often fall short in fulfilling that call...

You asked for my hands
that you might use them for your purpose.
I gave them for a moment, then withdrew them
for the work was hard.

You asked for my mouth
to speak out against injustice.
I gave you a whisper that I might not be accused.

You asked for my eyes
to see the pain of poverty.
I closed them for I did not want to see.

You asked for my life
that you might work through me.
I gave a small part that I might not get too involved.

Lord forgive my calculated efforts to serve you
only when it is convenient for me to do so,
only in those places where it is safe to do so,
and only with those who make it easy to do so.

Lord, forgive me,
renew me,
send me out
as a usable instrument
that I might take seriously
the meaning of your cross.

- Jo Seremane, South Africa. From A Forgiving Heart, Lyn Klug, ed. p. 142

Laduuuuuma!

This is a slightly late update, but this proud dad received the news last week that James scored his first goal since he started playing football at his school. Given that his side won 1-0, it was the winning goal as well!

Well done, James - you make me SO proud!

CHRISTIAN RANTERS!!!

How many of you reading this post have come across what I like to term "Christian Ranters"? You know - the "turn or burn" brigade. I've been reflecting on this because of a piece that someone in our homecell gave me, concerning the "evils" around Christmas.

Now the purpose of this post is not to discuss the merits (or otherwise) of the particular article, save to say that there are many Christian festivals and practices (including baptism) have non-Christian (pre-Christian?) origins. One needs to be careful not to read too much into things, and to understand the context in which things are said, written, or developed, as well as the language and figures of speech used. For instance, if one is not careful, one could even conclude that Jesus' referral to Himself as the "Bread of Life" in John 6: 48 is advocating cannibalism!

I've deliberately entered the title of this post in capital letters, complete with three exclamation marks, because it seems that people who write pieces in which they are absolutely determined to convince you that their point of view is right, tend to use lots of capital letters, bold print, italics, and let's not forget the exclamation marks designed to hammer the point home. It's the written equivalent of someone standing six inches from you, pointing their finger virtually up your nose, and quoting the entire Bible without even taking a breath.

Heaven forbid that you should actually get a word in edgeways!

I'm often astounded at the so-called "logic" that many people use in their arguments. At school we learned about "chaotic logic", an example of which is that if a table has four legs, everything that has four legs must therefore be a table. A form of this chaotic logic was when I was in youth some years back, where someone cottoned onto the idea that, since Leviticus 26: 1 says that we should not make idols or images of anything for ourselves, and soft toys represent an image of something (a rabbit, Teddy bear, dog, or some other cute animal), we should get rid of these as they are idols. Well, quite frankly, ANYTHING that is worshipped ahead of God can be regarded as an idol, but to equate the giving of a soft toy as an expression of endearment to someone you love, with idolatory, is surely stretching matters a bit?

I also remember an otherwise sincere Christian teling me that charm bracelets are evil because the word "charm" has connotations of casting spells ("magic charm"), which is associated with witchcraft and is therefore evil. I responded by trying to turn on my charm ...

One that I heard recently in a home cell meeting was when we were about to start worship and someone said "let us be upstanding" (meaning, in this particular context, "stand up"), only to have one of the others jump up and say, "Don't use that saying, because it is associated with Freemasonry!" Not knowing whether or not this is the case, I can't verify if this statement is true, but I had to bite my tongue to keep me from responding that, based on this line of argument, I should stop wearing clothes because Satanists also wear clothes!

And I can't see how the fact that just because some baker who lived a gazillion years ago made a particular type of confectionary to celebrate the pagan festival of Ishtar, I will end up causing God to fall off His throne and condemn myself to eternal damnation just because I eat a hot cross bun.

I also remember some poor girl at varsity, who had the sweetest nature and was probably one of the most sincere Christians I've ever met, being violently poked in the chest by some zealot shouting "Do you believe in a dead Christ" because she happened to be wearing a gold cross with the image of Jesus thereon. In tears, she told me afterwards that she wears this particular piece of jewellery as a reminder of the sacrifice that Jesus made for her on the cross. Now what can possibly be wrong with that?

I guess my concern is that, as Christians, we often blurt out statements that are (a) very agressive and "in your face", (b) come across as extremely "holier than thou", (c) attach meanings and connotations to something that the other person never imagined or intended in their wildest dreams, and (d) in many cases have been gleaned from some website somewhere, the factual content thereof being quite dubious at times. And we end up causing deep hurt to others in the process.

(PS: I've decided to stop using tags on my posts - they don't really help me to find stuff, and they make uploading posts SO slow!)

Feedback on "Milk"

In a previous post I spoke about the feeling of unease about a third session at College dealing with same-sex relationships, this time in the form of being taken to see the film "Milk".

However, despite my misgivings, although still with lingering questions as to what kind of "agenda" the facilitator may be trying to advance, the film itself was actually worthwhile seeing. It covers the story of Harvey Milk, a gay man who unwittingly became an activist for gay rights in the United States as a result of discrimination and harassment that he and other gay people had experienced. Sean Penn gave a masterful performance in the title role.

What struck me was the naked bigotry that many people showed, including those from the Church, and regardless of what one's feelings may be concerning the whole same-sex issue, surely any Christian can see that such bigotry and hatred cannot be in harmony with Christian principles.

There were one or two scenes that made me uncomfortable - the sight of two men locked in passionate embrace, for instance, tends to make me feel a little queasy. Thankfully the film didn't go overboard in portraying actual sex scenes. Then again, there are expressions of intimacy that that heterosexual couples share - my wife and I included - that I wouldn't particularly want to watch as a third party, either!

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record - the journey continues...

Funny how things "close to home" change one's focus

I must ashamedly confess that I had never really given much though to the "persecuted Church" in certain other countries. One can so easily take religious freedom for granted! But this news article concerning the banning of the Methodist Church Conference in Fiji caught my attention, because we tend (at times) to regard Methodist Conferences and Synods as a "necessary evil" rather than as an opportunity to meet as the wider Church.

Let us remember those who do not enjoy religios freedoms, and those who are persecuted for their faith, in our prayers.

How far is too far?

One of the courses that we are doing for our BTh is called “Journeying in Faith”, which explores different disciplines and expressions of spirituality. As Phase Ones our studies are supported by various lecturers providing tutorial assistance, and many of the lectures are quite enlightening.

About five or six weeks ago we started discussing the connection between our sexuality and our spirituality, and in the first session our tutor invited Johan Strydom to address us. For those who are not familiar with this name, Johan is the man who took the Moreleta Park Dutch Reformed Church to court in a much-publicised unfair dismissal case arising from the disclosure of his sexual orientation. His talk basically dealt with creating a climate of non-discrimination towards those who are of same-sex orientation, and he emphasised that, based on his own experience, being homosexual is not a “choice” that one makes but rather part of one’s makeup.

As is the case with any group, when it comes to the issue of same-sex relationships, our group of Phase Ones comprises people who have different views on this matter. In my own case, and that of one or two others, the “official” position of the MCSA is more or less being followed, i.e. that those of same-sex orientation need to be provided with pastoral care, a climate of acceptance as people created in God’s own image, and access to the means of grace (such as Communion), but that marriage remains a union between a man and a woman.

In our case, we would embrace an opportunity to engage this issue in a balanced manner, particularly with someone on the “other side” of the debate. Don’t get me wrong – I have no time for the “turn or burn” brigade, and simply hammering off a series of proof texts is not what I consider to be debate. As someone who is really wrestling with this issue, I really need a balanced approach to enable me to settle this matter in my own mind and conviction.

However, when the second session took place, such debate was not to be. Instead, we watched a DVD dealing with the experiences of homosexuals within the Church, which reiterated the call for full affirmation and acceptance (although the question of marriage was not specifically discussed). The session ended with me thinking, “okay, you’ve made your point – now allow us time for this to sink in, process our thoughts, and give us an opportunity to wrestle with this issue for ourselves”.

It was not to be. As I am writing this, our group is going to see the movie “Milk” this morning. I don’t know anything about it other than that it is a film about gay rights. And I must confess that I’m feeling extremely uncomfortable about the direction which these sessions are taking – almost as though there’s a specific agenda to ram a strong “pro” message down our throats.

I’ll go and see the movie, for no other reason that I have a strong conviction that you cannot criticise something that you have not encountered. An example would be the brigade that seeks to have certain “undesirable” books banned without having actually read such books. I remember being asked my opinion when “The Da Vinci Code” came out, and responding that since I have neither read the book nor seen the film, I do not have an opinion and will not comment based on hearsay.

I accept that the situation whereby those of same-sex orientation have suffered unbelievable discrimination and even persecution, even (and often particularly) at the hands of the Church, is deplorable. I’m also fully in support of the idea that one should view a person as Jesus views them – the whole person, not just their sexual orientation. I also count a number of beautiful, sincere, God-fearing Christians who are of same-sex orientation – one of whom is a minister – among my friends. And I also accept that much of my own thinking is influenced by an inbuilt prejudice that arises from me simply being heterosexual.

On the other hand, my primary duty as a minister is to be true to the Word of God. Now I’ll be the first to admit a number of uncertainties. Issues that I’m wrestling with at the moment include:
• How one objectively and honestly determines which Biblical texts are contextual and which are of universal application.
• Whether the prohibitions on homosexual activity contained in certain Biblical texts are dealing with homosexual activity by those who are naturally of heterosexual orientation; a particular form of pagan activity (such as temple prostitution); or a blanket prohibition.
• Which forms of sexual expression, whether homosexual or heterosexual, are considered to be Biblically legitimate. (Right now my position on this is that the only legitimate outlet for physical sexual expression is within a life-long marriage between a man and a woman.)

Clearly the lectures are biased towards a fully affirming and embracing position, and I’ll grant that we need to hear and understand the issues that those of homosexual orientation have (and are still) facing. But there’s a fine line between providing tutorial support and attempting to indoctrinate, and I’m beginning to feel that we are crossing that line.