One for the road...

Love the sinner...love the sinner: sexuality, sin and christian leadership

I still am thinking about christianity and sexual ethics - but this strand of thought is how far we allow sexually sinful people into the church - how much do they have to believe before they can belong and more than that, what level of moral perfection is needed to be achieved before they can start to lead...

My musings are inspired this time:

first by Jamie Arpin-Ricci's powerfully honest and beautiful post about his own struggles with feeling attracted to people of the same sex, which if you haven't read it then please check it out Jamie's personal reflection here and his follow up here; and

second this really thought provoking post by Shannon on is black still black and white still white.  I have lots of thoughts on Shannon's post but i think to write them there would be churlish, i don't want to litter his blog with my half formed thinking - and when you're a guest it is not polite to leave wet towels all over the bathroom!  I understand where Shannon is  coming from, it is the script that i have spent most of my life reading off of but am now starting to wonder how much is just my evangelicalism speaking and how much of it really is Jesus...

The question is that classic one of whether to allow gay people to become leaders  - Shannon suggests the position that i am most familiar with of gays being able to come to church but not allowed to lead- just as say a church wouldn't allow  a [serial] adulterer to be a leader etc...

But i am left wondering at what level do we allow sinners into leadership - after all i am guessing that such restrictions on leadership are not placed on people who think lustful thoughts, who find it hard to forgive, who feel pride, gluttony, addictions to work etc etc?  We seem to send out the message that leaders should be morally pure, upstanding examples of the sinless Jesus...

Or maybe i've just the point somewhere along the line?

i'm presuming leadership is not someone walking through the door and being promoted to snr pastor on the spot - but one that has a whole lot of variable roles - and therefore if i am gay i can't lead in any of them, even though God might have given me the gift because being gay is a sin, but if i gossip then that's ok cos that's more acceptable - or is it?

If i was gay and came to such a church i think i'd hear that most loved refrain of heh we love you we just hate your sin - which to the speaker is mighty comforting to tick that loving box but to the listener it sounds like heh i'd like to love you but you're a sinner - we don't love your kind round here...

If i was gay and came to such a church i don't think i would tell anyone that i was, i'd say heh as soon as i do i won't get to use my leader gifts and they are as much a part of me as my sinful nature - but it that is gonna hold me back from serving God then why do i need to reveal that - or bisexual in the sad case of someone who did that and rose right to the top of his denominational tree before stumbling once too often...

In fact i am not sure me with all my struggles with my own sexuality would not have got far in such a church - which was why i never told anyone for yrs and struggled so much - and yes i was in leadership.  in fact when i started sharing my struggles i was asked to stay in leadership which surprised me but allowed me to model honesty, confession, grace and love and to see people come out a little from behind their own masks...

I know from my evangelical back ground that faith is a private matter and that the sins we get most het up about are those obvious private ones - and seemingly minority ones - like sexuality when it is revealed in public, not when it starts off with a lustful look...

I wonder though when we will also scrutinise our own institutions and ask ourselves how much our 'right' actions prolong and promote sin?  How do are black and white rules that ride coach and horses through grace?  Does the system we operate whilst looking righteous actually encourage sin?  Do we ask people to live to the laws that we say are important and define what they are and how they apply and therefore deny them the grace that they were promised when they decided to orientate their lives around Jesus in the first place?

I say we cos i think i am as much a part of the problem here as anyone else in the evangelical church - we do our pharisee bit in the most complimentary way, we are zealous for God, we are passionate about his word, we espouse high moral life and then maybe we wonder why our churches are such shiny happy places for shiny happy well scrubbed people who play the game, manage our sin and say thank goodness we have rules in the bible and we get to enforce them...

But our we missing out on something - if what we focus on determines what we miss then by focusing on sexuality we let a whole lot of other sins slip by... by focusing on law we let a whole lot of grace slip by...

I'm not saying that snr church leaders should not show maturity of character, a commitment to follow Christ etc but wouldn't it be great if we also had leaders who were able to grow by being honest, by confessing, by sharing their struggles and fears with the fear of being disbarred, banned, or sacked?  What would that do to us to learn about mercy and grace, to experience them and to have leaders who have grown up in their faith immersed in them? 

Maybe we need to check that script again and possibly start to think of getting a new one, as for me the same old lines just aren't working...

Thoughts on christian sexual ethics: or what to do or not to do unto thine brother (or sister)...

Sexual Orientation Regulations - a christian reaction?

Following on from my post asking the Q who is healthy/who is sick exploring some issues of christianity and sexualityI was going to write a post about what I think my reaction as a christian should be to the to the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORS) being uheld by the House of Lords that attracted a recent christian led protest outside the Houses of Parliament. 

However, Rupert has done so an excellent job on exploring/clarifying/reducing the hysteria that I can't help but recomend his two posts on gay rights(SORS): part 1 and part 2. In particular I would encourage you to read this Faithworks response, that Rupert links to in his post, on why the christian response to the SORS borders on sounding homophobic (for instance by allowing a hetrosexual unmarrried couple to sleep in a BB but not a same sex couple).

Before I go on to consider how this issue has impacted my thoughts on the christian reaction to homosexuality and wider than sex and sexuality in general I personally felt my response shaped by these words of Jesus - about opening up my life, my home  and living in a generous way rather than one where I seek to shut out what I do not agree with/am afraid of...

"Here's another way to put it: You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We're going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don't think I'm going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I'm putting you on a light stand. Now that I've put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand—shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you'll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven."

Reflections on christian sexual ethics - or why we might be in different boats but we're all still sailing on the same sea?

One of the excellent comments left on Rupert's blog raised the whole issue of sexual ethics, what is right but at the wrong time and what is wrong and there never is a right time... how should we react as christians?  How can we get beyond our fears (in this case homophobic ones) and live a life where we can be both generous and gracious and faithful to the calling of God to live differently in terms of our ethics/lifestyle.

Christian ethics:  living not just thinking

Awhile back I wrote this post on christian ethics  where my point is that our ethics come with both action and a cost - it is not so much what we tell others but what we do ourselves, or in short we have to point out that not only do none of us make the bar (which is why I need Jesus in the first place) we are also prepareed to do something about that gap in terms of loving empowered action - to be part of God's solution to be a blessing to the world even if it costs us our rights, time and all the other things we might treasure.

As someone who has had a very tangled sexuality i have found that the christian ethic which says you must have a perfect and pure sexuality was not helpful to me in that I could not talk about my situation, it was who i was and the tug was always there to be me - it was a truth [as it was who i was] on the other hand it was not the truth of who i was in that was not my fully formed identity - confused, might be easier to read about it here...

It was only when i started to be open, to find the courage to talk about where I was and whether that was who i was that God helped me with a loving community to reveal more and more of what was false with my picture of me and what was right about it...

In this context i think we need to acknowledge the honest fact that living out traditional sexual christian ethics practices are a struggle for a lot of people: whether you're single and want to have sex, married and want to have sex with someone else [or not want to have sex with your spouse etc] or gay and want to have sex with someone of the same sex...

Thought 1: What/who am I committed too - or why would God care about our sexual behaviour?

I think part of the answer to this Q is about commitment - i think we would do wise to move away from marriage [which is a society construct, just a take a look at the history of it] and instread see it as a formal commitment. In other words God is saying we find the best in ourselves and others where we commit to one person, where we have to learn to face our selfishness and learn about a love that is based on giving not getting, laying down our rights etc. It is then not a Q of sex but a Q of commitment. Outside of commitment i could have sex with whoever i wanted but what that ends up as is me fulfilling my needs and using other people to do so, it encourages me to move on when things are difficult, to live a me centred, me first existence. And of course all the pain, heartache, selfish, cheap, desperate, short term living that comes with it...

Or as St Paul puts it in part of his letter to the Galatian community:

"It is obvious what kind of life develops out of trying to get your own way all the time: repetitive, loveless, cheap sex; a stinking accumulation of mental and emotional garbage; frenzied and joyless grabs for happiness; trinket gods; magic-show religion; paranoid loneliness; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; uncontrolled and uncontrollable addictions; ugly parodies of community. I could go on. "

God is then setting guidance in place cos he loves us ands knows if we go against the moral grain of the universe we will pick up splinters - we will be hurt, we will hurt others, we will become users and abusers and consume each other, doing whatever we want to satisfy our own hungers which i've found from experience tend to not really be satisfied [hence the eroticised culture in which we live where sex sells and we evaluate ourselves by how many orgasms we have, or the quality of them, or the beauty of the person we go out with etc...]

A thought that I heard Jason Clark say recently was how it was interesting how the TV series Friends had to end on a happy note - and what was that note?  Well here were 6 people who we followed over the yrs living the single dream of various searches for love/sex/relationship/careers/coffee  and by the end of the last series they all pretty much found happiness in commitment - it ended them with being married etc... that was the big happy ending for Friends and that is maybe the big happy ending God has for us, not commiting our lives to chasing our wants but to giving away our lives in loving committed relationships where we need God to empower us, so that our love can be about giving not getting...

Thought 2: a whole/healthy sexuality?

We could maybe extend this loving God to not just sex but to sexuality - we could say that commitment is part of the equation but God also wants us to have a fully realised healthy sexuality which is something i wonder how many of us have - whether gay or straight do we live with a sexual script which sees us addicted to porn, or shaped by the past so we our sexuality is disconnected/distant or is overwhelming, we seek to medicate the pain, to deal with how we have been shaped often by seeking in our sexuality to capture something lost and in turn are captured ourselves by the own chains of our life.

I can only use myself as a case study but in hanging out with people who for instance wanted to dominated, if they were female they usually had an issue with their father, more often then not he was absent and they missed having that male presence in their early teens and sort to have an authority figure now. Or they had experienced dominating parents and had learnt to associate that with love and therefore had sexualised it.

For me I experienced a passive father figure and a dominating mother, i also saw how force could give you power and therefore determined to be dominating myself and use force if necesary - which influenced my sexuality so that I needed to be dominant and found the sense of power erotic.

Following Jesus is about a journey towards healing/wholeness/fulmes of life?

Now I am not saying that everyone can blame their parents, or that everyone's sexuality has been shifted in the way that mine was - only that i can see that my sexuality was not very healthy now but at the time it was how i felt. If we all carry some degree of damaged sexuality the Q becomes not what is damaged about you but what is damaged about me, do i use my sexuality to manipulate? am i sexually shut down because i don't know how to talk about it as my family never did? am i afraid of having children? am i unable to cope with the expectations of my partner? etc etc

If we talk about our sexual brokeness and practice healing of that through God in our faith communities, will we then have a story to tell that might start well i was attracted to men but it was because my uncle abused me when i was little and never really faced it just thought it was the way it should be...

Or i needed to have sex with as many women as possible as i never felt attractive growing up and i just want to feel atrractive/loved...

Or whatever...

But then can we tell a story of a more fullfilled, health, less selfish, more open life as a result maybe we are saying something more than just this is the ideal. maybe we are saying yes let's be honest, whether i am ready to face it or not it is likely that i will have issues around commitment and issues around my sexuality - God is not about condeming us but about helping us live life to the full, caring not just about what makes me happy now but about my characture... in order to start facing deeper truths I need to be part of a community where I can be loved, accpted, be honest in and do the same for other people.

A God empowered journey in a community of  new creations...?

I need to be less judgemental about other people's sexuality and focus on my own - i might be married but am i committed to my job more than my wife? I might be hetrosexual but i am addicted to porn [which I have been] as it feeds a need in me/creates a buzz to help me feel good about myself...

I need to be aware that I cannot do this by myself - that Jesus is about helping me find a life that is healthier, whole, fulfilled and that there are people in my community who share this story of their own journey... that we are empowered to help people who are ready to face the truth and that includes ourselves...

Does it then become a Q of saying in my community we teach this as I think it is helpful in helping live out this more fulfilled way but it is unlikely that you will feel like living like that - that you need to belong first and believe...

Do I believe that the holy spirit takes us on a journey of revealing truth to us and each other but that truth is a loving one that inspires us to change as much as giving healing, life, new perspective so we can change... or as St Paul says in the same section of the letter to the Galatians:

"But what happens when we live God's way? He brings gifts into our lives, much the same way that fruit appears in an orchard—things like affection for others, exuberance about life, serenity. We develop a willingness to stick with things, a sense of compassion in the heart, and a conviction that a basic holiness permeates things and people. We find ourselves involved in loyal commitments, not needing to force our way in life, able to marshal and direct our energies wisely."

Is that more costly but ultimately healthier than saying you must do this or that when all of us know that we can not keep every aspect of the law anyway? What price tag does grace come with? Or are we gonna be like the older brother in the story of the prodigal son who throw a jealous fit because we lived as hetrosexuals [denying our own commitment/sexuality wounds]and here is the Father celebrating all these gay people [who maybe are starting to recognise their own]???

And what am I going to do as a result... how am i going to be generous and gracious?

Help please:

This is the beginning of my thinking, i'd love to hear your thoughts, stories, experiences...

Start with what I have, start with who I know, start from where I am...and give away more than I need to those who need it...

I have been reflecting on the last few days on the question I asked on my last post - about wheree to start in taking the NOW of the Kingdom of God seriously... and have been inspired having watched this clip reminding me of God's heart for the poor, the oppressed, the lost and the least, something you also may wish to do:

HT to Jamie

More than ever I think that the following words of Jesus sound the simpliest and yet seem the hardest to put into practice but maybe that has just been an excuse.  This year I said I would like to live more graciously and generously than last yr so I will try and take these words as being for NOW and not just for some other better time and ask Jesus and fellow followers like me to  help us all to live this sort of revolutionary life giving/revealing light...

"To you who are ready for the truth, I say this: Love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer for that person. If someone slaps you in the face, stand there and take it. If someone grabs your shirt, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. If someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

Here is a simple rule of thumb for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you; then grab the initiative and do it for them! If you only love the lovable, do you expect a pat on the back? Run-of-the-mill sinners do that. If you only help those who help you, do you expect a medal? Garden-variety sinners do that. If you only give for what you hope to get out of it, do you think that's charity? The stingiest of pawnbrokers does that.

I tell you, love your enemies. Help and give without expecting a return. You'll never—I promise—regret it. Live out this God-created identity the way our Father lives toward us, generously and graciously, even when we're at our worst. Our Father is kind; you be kind."

And then they all lived happily ever after... sometimes it does happen to christians too

I posted a few thoughts on PROTESTants and welcoming healthy critique of Christians from within and without, which in both cases referred to Mark Driscoll and the planned protest against him and his church (Mars Hill).  I am really delighted Mark and some of his outspoken crtics met and seemed to have had a very healthy dialogue resulting in the protest being called off.  If you'd like to read the positive accounts of the meeting from the people who were there then Helen has done an excellent job pulling together the relevant links here.

What I appreciated most about this conversation was:

1. the welcome of the critique and a recognition where people on all sides had used stronger than necessary language;
2. the apologies that flowed out of it;
3. that meeting together as fellow humans and listening to each other rather than blogging was so productive;
4. that people could disagree on theology and still treat each other with respect, dignity and recognise that others had valid points/feelings; and
5. as a christian community it is not about conformity but rather expressing diversity amongst a common tradition.

It reminded me again about the responsibility I have as a blogger and sent me back to read my recent post on healthy blog conversation.  It's something that I think I need to refer to more and more as the temptation is always there to apply a judgement to others that I am not willing to subject myself too and as a Christian the hardest thing to do is to show love and the easiest thing is to feel right!  So dear reader, if you see me getting all arrogant and puffy, let me know and help me come back to earth with a bump, please!

In the meantime, with advent beginning I am so glad that peace has broken out in this small corner of our world...

Hat tip to my critics: why as Christians I think we need to welcome/offer critique

I said in my post yesterday on the march on mars hill that I would look at the whole topic of critique/criticism further, so here are my musings...

Why the emerging church needs critique and so do I

Jason Clark posted a powerful critique of the emergent church, which as thinker and leader of emergent UK carries a lot of weight as well as common sense to it.  I think one of his strongest points for me was the need for us as Christians (of whatever stripe) but here in the context of emergent to both be open and respond to critique from within and without.  To me the most constructive form of critique is a conversation and the most destructive a rant of generalisations from a position of assumed superiority.

I’d like to reflect on a couple of recent examples of critique from with Christian circles (voices from within) and from outside (voices from without) and consider some possible responses in the face of these critiques.

Voices from within…critiquing christians and being critiqued by them

One of the recent storms in a tea cup that continues to rumble on in some parts is that of Mark Driscoll’s comments in the wake of the Ted Haggard affair and indeed some of his critics would say comments that he has been making for awhile now that seem critical of those who not share his complimentarian reading of the bible (to put his words into context it was a conversation that was primarily aimed at those who share his position rather which anyone is welcome to read if they so choose).

For a range of his critics you may wish to read the following posts/discussions in the comments: Andrew's commentary; Rose's open letter; coveration on the edge's critique on Mark and women and Blog against fundamentalism (who have chosen Mark as their first 'fundamentalist to march on...'

I find Mark’s response to his critics, entitled ‘thank you critics’ to a very encouraging one.  In his concluding paragraph he writes:

“Lastly, I want to thank my critics, especially the most vocal. They have helped me to understand that more than just pastors are following what I am saying. Subsequently, they are helping me to learn how to more clearly articulate what I am trying to communicate. In that way, they have been of great assistance to me as I seek to pastor most effectively for Jesus. I have waited some time to post this clarification because in times past I have gotten angry and responded with a tone that was defensive, prideful, and not helpful. I am learning that critics in some ways are also friends because there is often some truth in what they are pointing out. Subsequently, God is using my critics to teach me and is asking me to be willing to listen.”

I think Mark articulates a powerful sentiment that critics can be friends but that often are reaction is to feel got at rather than to listen.  I also find it interesting what the response of the critics are, some that I have read see Mark’s words as unacceptable as he did not apologise and want to continue to push for this outcome whereas others I think welcome the door opening on constructive dialogue and would rather be invited in then risk hammering on it in case it slams shut. 

I think this also highlights something about us as critics – are we being critical or are we instead asking someone to simply agree with our view instead?  As those who receive criticism are we teachable and able to appreciate the feedback loop from what people hear/perceive?  I think as critics we need to realise that our main role is to offer helpful encouragement and suggestions for change, tone, content that are offered up in the spirit of mutuality and love. 

In its most constructive sense that offers up the possibility of conversation where we do not agree but at least we engage rather than a conflict where no one is prepared to accept they might be wrong.  To give you an example from my own life, when Debs offers me some constructive criticism my first response is to say ‘well you do it too’ or ‘well you do this’ and turn it around – I am not prepared to change unless she changes/acknowledges the need for change.  Constructive criticism then I think should be a mutually vulnerable, humbling experience – if it is not and is just something to appease our hurt, to claim another notch on the think my way bedpost, to feel big correcting someone else’s faulty thinking whilst keeping our own protected – is conquest not criticism.

Constructiveor destructive voices?

Can we find a shared common ground? can we look and see how much we agree on rather than how much we differ?  Can we allow diverse voices even when we don’t agree with them?  Can we offer up encouragement and engagement?  Can we model our alternative views and celebrate them together?  Can we focus on ideas rather than personalities?  Can we look at our own faults and think I am likely to be wrong rather than I am likely to be right?  Ultimately as people who are meant to be marked by love can we love someone who we don’t agree with – can we include them rather than seek to exclude, draw them within rather than choose to push them without?  Can we model a generous orthodoxy of many colours, flavours or do we need to have one mono-coloured one?  As I think Nouwen suggested ‘a people who gather together and agree on everything is not a community – it is a clique.’

Voices from without - critique by the world

Jason has been doing a series of critiques under the title ‘is Christianity irredeemably…’ so far he has opened up with sexist and speciest and I hope he will also include homophobic and militaristic (any more suggestions??).  I’ve included the latter topics as I think that Jason has covered in his posts two of the biggest movements of the world in recent years – feminism and animal rights/environmentalism and the other 2 are the anti-war (Iraq and CND before that) movement and gay rights.  I think all four of these movements provide a welcome critique that Christians need to consider, particularly aspects of justice. 

God’s Spirit can speak to us from without but I also I think the Christians as a community of faith filled with the spirit from within and as people of the book can critique the culture of world  e.g. consumerism (e.g. here and here).

The points that I made about constructive criticism in the voices within section apply here – even more so with I think we as Christians needing to demonstrate that we have applied our own critique to ourselves and that we actively welcome the critique of the world – it’s not world bad/Christian good but spirit of God good and speaking to us from the world in ways that are consistent with the Word of God (Jesus) and the words of God that we have in the bible.

A case study – the critique by new atheism

As a recent example of one way of engaging in constructive criticism with the world I would like to highlight the critique being provided by ‘new atheism.’  As John explains in his post on new flavours of fundamentalism…

"Article author Gary Wolf says, "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking."

The most prominent evangelist of New Atheism is Richard Dawkins. In the article he says, "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism." He continues elsewhere, "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."

Here are some Qs and my thoughts on my resposne...

Do I/we as Christians (and other faiths) reject this critique out of hand…?

Ok, this is just me but I'd like to hold my hand up and say that there have been a lot of evil done in the name of God by the people who claim to represent him - I don't think we can whitewash that out of our history so I for one hold up my hand and apologise - heck I've been a fundamentalist and bashed people around and taken bashings myself so i might not have done massive evil but I have certainly done a lot of things that were evil in miniature and also provoked reactions which could be considered evil.

I might well have missed the point back then, love was the velvet glove that I wrapped the iron bar of truth in to give people a good verbal bashing to - love my enemies oh yes in a kapow! sense...

Thanking, thinking and being challenged by the critics…?

I welcome this critique, instead of reacting against Mr Dawkins I should be thanking him. He rightly says is religion making the world a better place - ok what evidence have I got to contradict him? How is me following Christ allaying his concerns and not encouraging them? If anything his words make me start back at home base and make me look at all the blessing I want for myself and the very little blessing I want to give to anyone else - seriously i love the idea of it but do I actually deliver?

Finding common ground/perspective with my critics…?

I actually view Mr Dawkins as someone who actually I have a lot of common with - we are both people who have a position of faith - I can't prove ultimately there is a God; I need to make a step of faith, altho not a blind one I like to think. Likewise, Mr Dawkins cannot prove that there is no God and therefore chooses to make a step of faith albeit not a blind one (unless it’s a watchmaker) he likes to think.

So here we are both people of faith, both asking do our respective beliefs make the world a better place? In my case I admit I should be doing a lot more than just asking the question...

Questing after God…a response to critique

I think it is vital that criticism sends us not into a defensive reactionary spin or denial but on a quest to seek after God – as Jason has done in his irredeemable series to go back to the bible and the traditions of the church and seek to critique ourselves.  To open ourselves up to the possibility that we have got it wrong and to seek after God to inform and transform us, ultimately if we are to transform the world we need to be in the process of being transformed ourselves and one of the key shaping is our understanding and application of the teachings/interactions of the God of the bible and the work of his Spirit in our lives.   I think that our questing should therefore involve:

• confession – Scott McKnight posts here on a call for a confessional church and  I think it is a call that applies in response to critique – we need to listen to the voice of the Spirit from within and without, be honest rather than right, to admit where we have sinned in thought/word/action, to seek God and how his Kingdom is being shaped by this critique, rethink and if necessary move to where Jesus is rather than staying where we have been entrenched…
• authenticity: Jason has a recent great post here on this - to be authentic I think is not just transmitting/admitting our faults but also about telling the ongoing and enfolding story of our transforming as part of the community of God and the community of his people.  I think being authentic involves actions – its not enough to just having right ethics/morals but to actually embody/live those ethics/morals.  If I am honest that is not something I can do alone but in the community of God and his people I do not have to – I am a growing person who is being transformed – it is the story of my life and my experience and the more open I am, the more critique I have the more I can see where I need help to grow…

• growth: I think this is an organic not linear process, a lumpy process, a dirty/messy process, it involves achy knees, sore backs, long hours, mystery, prayer, hope, listening to advice and a dependence both within and without for the help I need – it is not just a solo experience, if it was I would still be trying to invent the wheel let alone the wheelbarrow…

Well that's me done... in the spirit of constructive criticism and conversation, what do you think?

To march or not to march or why PROTESTants like to protest...

People against fundamentalism are still planning their march against Seattle church leader Mark Driscoll, following what they consider his outspoken views on the role of women.  Whether you agree with Mark's complementarian theology, or like me you don't and hold an egalitarian postition, I think is a moot point at this moment.

I think there is a need for critique both from within and without and a vital need for the church to provide an outward critique of culture - something I'll post on tomorrrow (I'll use Mark as a good recent example and cover his response and a spectrum of his critics).

A hope for grace...

What I think is more important is the lack of grace that gets stirred up in me and the blog world, where critique is no longer constructive conversation but destructive criticism - of each other as much as Mark... I think it's a shame that whilst we focus on his flaws we ignore some of the profound grace that he demonstrates himself to women, for instance this post on a female porn star Jenna Jameson.  Here is one comment I posted on the people against fundamentalism site:

"Can someone please show me in this whole converation/protest the love, forgiveness, generousity and mercy that seem to be hallmarks of Christ (and of which I wished I had more of as a follower of him)…?

All I feel here is a hardening of my heart rather than a softening, a destructive solution, rather than a constructive one. We seem to be taking ourselves too seriously and God far less so.

We can shout complimentarian or equalitarian theology at each other, posture, claim we are right, that the other side is wrong, so may I make a practical solution in helping us respond?

May I suggest those of us who feel we are right, go and reflect on whether we need to lay down that right to be right, in this instant?

That those of us who still feel we are right, go and wonder whether we have ever been wrong and whether we are still wrong about anything, afterall if St Paul who we like to quote in these matters only saw it in a dark cloudy mirror do we feel that we now have the full clear right HD handle on the subject…

Those of us still left I suggest we consider Jesus words about judging others and decided whether we would like the same measure of judgement applied to our life? And when we’ve done reflecting on that consider whether we have ever said anything dumb or held a belief we look back now and shake our heads over? Ever flame anyone for that belief? Ever not do something you should have done because of that belief? Ever not apologised in either case? Anyone left with no sin can feel free to hurl the first stone, or lift the first placard or take the first step on the march…

What would happen if we as christians could learn to talk to each other I wonder? What would happen if we found a way past our pride and our hurt and our anger and to something more humble, more mutually submissive, more honest about what we don’t know rather than being so clear and vocal about the little we do?

There is a thing called karma which basically means for everything we do we get paid back, every action has a reaction - this protest is like a karma for Mark, he’s said things that have hurt some people, offended others, boy has he got this coming to him… funnily enough I think Jesus hits us with something new, something called grace, something called forgiveness, something he modelled as he was being executed in excruciating pain on the cross, with the words ‘Father forgive them, they know not what they do.’ Something that he taught us all who follow him to pray using these words (not as individuals but as a believing community who doesn’t always agree), maybe you if you are the praying kind you might want to join me…

“Our Father who is in heaven
hallowed be your name.
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread
and forgive us our sin
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from evil.
For yours is the Kingdom
the power
and the glory
For ever and ever.
Amen..."

Lol, ok see I can not stop protesting either ;).  What about you?

Who is healthy and who is sick? Christianity and the 'gay cure'...

David, who is challenging his dear wife for the title 'blogger of the universe', has posted this great Q:

Do you think that because (Ted) Haggard was with a male prostitute he is seen as someone who needs a cure?

Would he be seen in the same light, if he was with a female prostitute?
I can only speculate, but I believe that if Haggard was with a woman, he'd be seen more as a horny middle aged man who wanted some excitement in life, whereas now he is seen as someone who, like an alcoholic, needs to be checked into rehab.

Should the responses be different because of the gender of his companion?

Here are my thoughts to the Q...

It's all too easy to say gay=sin therefore take the 'gay cure' and you'll be happy and hetrosexual - rather than conflicted and gay, or bisexual in the particular case that prompted David's thinking.

I have to say I have never really turned my thoughts to this area to do much in the way of study/reflection - theologically then I am at a weak point to say how this should inform our response as a church to homosexuality other than to treat people who are gay as Jesus would have done, which is to love them.

That in itself is a significant challenges as it asks the Q how do I love and the temptation to wrap the iron bar of 'truth' in a velvet glove of love and go out to do some bashing...

As I have posted here I have struggled with my sexual identity for yrs but then again I have been a christian for yrs so I at least knew something of the dynamic of the bible/church teaching vs my own sexuality. If I am in an environment where I did not have that then the natural thing would be to do what I was trying to do which is 'be me.'  I also know how personal my issues were, could I have taken a BDSM cure?  Would a one size fits all package work?  Or was it the divine intervention of revelation and healing in the face of my own honesty and brokeness shared  with, prayed for and encouraged onwards by loving christians?

Society is pretty clear about the need for people to be true to themselves, express the inner me, it's ok to be whatever you want etc and that of course is a powerful stuff to be exposed to. I think the church is seen as the opposite of that, don't be that, don't do that, don't have what you want etc and that is one reason why there is a disconnect.

I think personally the church needs to try and talk about liberation, of being our true selves, of finding out who we really are, which is more than a slogan on a t-shirt, or what the latest tv series portrays as the ideal life.

Not just talk about it but tell stories, encourage honest expression and move beyond we have the cure for your pediliction to we are a place where together we can explore who we are and what we have been created to be. If people feel they are gay then it to come for a cure for who they are is a big turn off - but what if they can share this, explore why they are gay and indeed reach out to the gay community as somone trying to follow christ who is gay? What about people who have followed christ for yrs who are gay - hearing their stories, were they cured, do they struggle with who they are, have they found something beyond their sexuality, how have they changed and not changed?

And what about the rest of the church, why focus in on this one sin, apart from it impacts on a minority group and it is easy to point a finger at a particular obviously identifiable group, it's much easier to spot 2 gals holding hands than it is to spot greed, pride, self-rightousness, selfishness etc

What if we instead focus on the sins of the majority, honest about our own failings and struggles, a process that is not all/nothing but a lifetime journey of transformation? What if this issue of homosexuality is not so much one of what the right anser is but how can we show love, mercy, grace, compassion, social, economic, environmental justice? To act on what we say and not just say... We also need to look ourselves in the eye and ask ourselves how much are we to blame for what happened with Ted Haggard, something I have reflected on here.

I recently read Jane Czyzselska's gay about town column in The London Paper, who begins her article thus...

"It’s funny that a lot of my hate mail is from Christians. That puts many of them in a bad light. My mum’s a Christian and she’s a trooper. What’s more I know that there are hundreds of happy lesbian Christians..."

My first thought is what are Christians doing writing anyone hate mail?  My second thought is what a generous response from someone who has received hate mail.  My third repsonse was how good is it that Jane has experience of Christians who do not hate her and infact love and care for her.  My fourth response was to send Jane an email apologising for the hate mail she has received from us Christians and asking her whether she has anything that she would like to say to us?

So my question/challenge for us who claim to follow Christ is this - what if we grow in those greater areas of love, mercy, grace first and point to ourselves first as examples of brokeness, selfishness, injustice, hate etc? 

It is something that Brian McLaren reflects on far more eloquently than me in this article although not everyone agrees with him which is healthy as it promotes conversation as in McLaren's response.

Maybe when we as christians live the cure, reflect the cure, embrace the cure until we are transformed and changed by Christ in such a way that we reflect/embody/act out his love and grace we will be in a position to suggest we have the cure for anyone else?

Ethically Christian cleansing vs. a life/love down off my soapbox?

Some posts of late have made me just stop and and reflect on the christian response to issues of ethics, HT to John for posting on ethics and  stem cell research; Marc for reflecting on abortion and Alan for making my brain ache raising human 2.0. 

Me on my soap box...

I know what my natural inclination of a response is - an emotive outburst which would label, judge and belittle people for their shallow ethics and questionable morals.  I would I am sure reflect on the arrogant of scientists playing at God and remember that quote from the film Jurassic Park:

"scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

In fact I would be more than happy to stand on the soap box for a long time, I would be a very hard man to shift, but I think in reading all these posts something has been nagging away at me, am I any less ethical than the people I am condemming? So I'd like in the rest of this post to first challenge my own shoddy ethics and then wonder with you if there is not a much more excellent way?

Beggars on a beach of gold...

In my post on consumerism there was this challenging comment made:

"Marc said " I know Jesus has provided me with what I need but not what I want. I don't really ask for much from God, forgiveness, Health & communication."

I am not knocking you Marc, but when I read this I thought hmmmm, what if it wasn’t replaced though? What if God doesn’t give you health & communication….. maybe we focus on consumerism too much as things outside of daily needs….. maybe wanting a happy healthy family is just as consumeristic?"

I am not knocking Marc either, what he wrote seemed perfectly reasonable to me and reminded me again about something that I had written in that post that I am as much in touch my consumerism as an alcoholic is with their drinking problem.  Really how much is enough, what do I expect as a normal level of life?  Well food to eat of course, an education that allows me to write this blog and earn a living, money to meet my bills and have a little left over, a house to call my own, access to health care when I need it, the ability to feel safe, to be under the rule of law & order, justice and good government.  It is not much is it?  Is it?  Well consider below some of the stats of  how my normal cosumer life compares with the rest of the world, let me compare how i eat,  where i live, the prospects of education for my children and my access to health care and my corresponding life expectancy.

And as you read those words consider these lyrics to the Mike & the Mechanics song, Beggar on a beach of gold...

"I didn't know when I was lucky
Discontented feeling bad
Filled with envy
For possessions other people had

I found my pride had always hurt me
Fought the world to gain control
Not realising
I was sitting on a beach of gold

Oh lord I'm a poor man
With all the riches I can hold
I'm a beggar
And I'm sitting on a beach of gold.."

Philosophy of poverty...

Words are a powerful thing... [Caution explicit lyrics]

Poverty of Philosophy

Immortal Technique

"Most of my Latino and black people who are struggling to get food, clothes and shelter in the hood are so concerned with that, that philosophising about freedom and socialist democracy is usually unfortunately beyond their rationale. They don't realize that America can't exist without separating them from their identity, because if we had some sense of who we really are, there's no way in hell we'd allow this country to push it's genocidal consensus on our homelands. This ignorance exists, but it can be destroyed

Nigga talk about change and working within the system to achieve that. The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; it's the system that will eventually change you. There is usually nothing wrong with compromise in a situation, but compromising yourself in a situation is another story completely, and I have seen this happen long enough in the few years that I've been alive to know that it's a serious problem. Latino America is a huge colony of countries whose presidents are cowards in the face of economic imperialism. You see, third world countries are rich places, abundant in resources, and many of these countries have the capacity to feed their starving people and the children we always see digging for food in trash on commercials. But plutocracies, in other words a government run by the rich such as this one and traditionally oppressive European states, force the third world into buying overpriced, unnecessary goods while exporting huge portions of their natural resources.

I'm quite sure that people will look upon my attitude and sentiments and look for hypocrisy and hatred in my words. My revolution is born out of love for my people, not hatred for others...