Good Morning God,
When did we stop being human and start being body parts? 3706 organ transplants were performed by the NHS this year, but apparently this is still not enough, people are still dying for lack of suitable organs. To borrow the phrase of the TV campaign designed to shame us into signing the donor register - It's not fair!
No, it's not fair.
It's not fair on the whole human race that one gene pool, sick and diseased though it is, can come to dominate the species gene pool through the direct application of medical science simply because it can afford to do so..
Here in the West, our bodies have become the essential but uncomfortably fragile vehicles that we travel around in through this journey of life. It's not fair that our life-style and social evolution results in our bodies becoming diseased or broken, but we can generally find some way of patching them up - for a price. Life and health are commodities, the must have accessories to 'being' who we really are. They are a costly luxury for the sick and the poor, but the sick can harvest what they need from the poor - if they can pay.
Money is effectively halting the genetic and spiritual evolution of humanity - and we will all pay the cost later. Leave aside for one moment the sick irony of the growing market in organs which results in some of the poorest people world-wide selling their body parts to donor banks in order to survive. What is really happening here is the ultimate in the commodification of life. People get the life that they can pay for.
YES - of course, I would want to see those I love live longer lives - but only because I am selfish, not because I believe it is right for them - or for me - or for society. Grief is the bitter-sweet side of love that we do not want to taste. But we can't have everything we want - no matter how badly we want it, usually for good reasons!
So, even though I know that good people, even young people and new born babies, friends and family members might otherwise die, I still struggle with the idea of organ donation:
Firstly there is the inequality of it all - the cost of one liver transplant could pay for millions of newborn tetanus vaccines... whose life is more important - why is it the one who can pay? Where is the justice in this? Where in the gospel does it say that only those who can pay can have life?
Secondly there is the subtle but insidious signal that it sends to humanity that 'death' is the devil which must be defeated at all cost, that sickness and dying are not 'normal', and that it is imperative that we do everything we can to 'keep people alive' - as though dying is not a normal part of living. Dying is so normal that even you did it God, to show us it is not the end of us. We need have no fear of dying.
Thirdly there is the presumption that all that is necessary for us to live are bodies that work. We start treating bodies as something separate and distinct, which fail us or let us down. We stop thinking of ourselves as whole human beings with a physicality and spirituality which are intended to combine to create a reality which transcends both.
Fourthly - and perhaps most importantly, we start behaving like gods - making decisions over who lives and who dies according to the organs that we have. We start convincing ourselves that we have life sussed, we don't need your help. We can now create life in a test-tube, clone it when we need to, educate it, milk it for its worth to society, mate it and when we deem it necessary or expedient to do so, heal it or fix it when it breaks and kill it humanely if we must. But what we create and manipulate is but a shadow of life in all its fullness.
Lastly, keeping people 'alive' in this way stops humanity evolving, growing, changing, developing. It keeps the diseased genes in the gene-pool, whilst we kid ourselves that it doesn't matter - we will find a medical fix for that too!
I am aware that what I have written is not confined to organ transplants, but transplants epitomize the problem underlying the demand for 'right to life' medical care. They are at the pointy end of a very sharp and pressing pair of questions which will in the end define us all...
What is the price of a human life?
And what is the real cost to humanity?
Personally, I think these questions were answered over 2000 years ago, by someone who paid the ultimate price so that we could learn how to obtain real healing, and gain life in all its fullness.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Disowning the Church
Good morning God,
I've been thinking about the vogue to publicly disown things, Children disown parents who have abused them, parents disown children who have shamed or humiliated them, politicians disown parties when they are no longer happy with their policies and, of course, people disown churches - often for the strangest of reasons..
I confess there have been many times this week when I have seriously contemplated disowning the Church. I have wanted to distance myself from the very valid accusations of what Christians have done in the past - and what many still do today, to Jews, to Muslims, to non-believers.. and worse - to one another. The blogosphere has been an uncomfortable place recently to try and be a means of grace in.
In some ways this is nothing new. As you know I have struggled often with what it means to belong to this family of faith with its irrational hatreds and violent dogmas. I hate the caricatures of the Christian and the religious in the media and in novels like Pullman's 'The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ' because I know they are all too accurate.. Why, I wonder, would anyone want to belong to something that has such a negative image, that is so ridiculed and scorned, most often with just cause? What is it that holds people to this historically corrupt and self-serving body called Church?
Belonging. The defining issue of this age. The freedom to disown, disavow, disconnect and divorce is enshrined in law in most western countries - it is a human 'right'. You can no longer be forced to 'belong' to that which you do not choose to belong to. Don't like your country and nationality - emigrate, don't like your family - divorce or disown them, don't like your politics - change parties, dont like your religion - change it or drop it altogether. This is the libertine age when we are all free to cast off the chains that once defined us. We are able to decide for ourselves who and what we are - aren't we?
It was once normal to think that blood was thicker than water - that we should always put the family first - that charity begins at home. Family was something people were taught to value - and if necessary defend - even if they didn't really feel that they 'belonged' - they were 'part of the family' regardless of what they had done or how they behaved - and the onus was on everyone else to make people believe that they were really welcome, and not outsiders. Which is what made the parable of the prodigal so powerful, the opening words of John's gospel so redolent with meaning.. and Paul's insistence on Christian adoption so important. Above all, it is what has given the Trinity, the core of Christianity, its theological rationale. The mutual self-giving Parent - Child relationship modeled for us by the Trinity sets the standard for our own belonging.
Salvation, are were taught, is all about being a part of your family God - Today salvation has come to this house, for he too is a son of Abraham' says Jesus of Zacchaeus. And from the Acts of the apostles onwards, the Church has worked to foster this doctrine of belonging and preach the idea of of one human family overseen by you as our divine parent, a family of natural and adopted children living in peace and growing in grace and holiness. But the Church has also tried to insist that it alone knows who is, and who is not - a part of your family, And historically only the Church could sign the 'necessary' adoption papers of baptism or write of excommunication which would decide if someone belonged or not.
Now of course, we are part of a generation which does not care about 'the Church'. They are happy to not be associated with it, they even pity those of us who do belong to it. As do I. If I am honest then I would have to acknowledge that there is little that can be said about the Church worldwide that is redemptive, or even uplifting. As a whole, the Church takes more from the poor in terms of moral and intellectual growth than it ever provides in terms of bread in mouths. It slaughters millions for the sake of its 'doctrines' concerning contraception and abortion and knowingly whips up hatred, fear and prejudice of anyone who is 'different' from the Church's idea of the 'norm'. It subjugates and humiliates women and children alike and does all this in your name.
Why would anyone want to belong to something so sick and abusive, so anti-intellectual and repressive?
Because as broken and disturbing as it is - the Church is still the only vessel charged with carrying the real gospel of belonging - of being a new thing - in you. Of belonging to something so much bigger than all of our petty human tribes and parties, something worthy of complete loyalty, dedication, commitment and sacrifice. Of belonging to YOU, not the Church or the nation.
That Gospel is the only hope humanity has to evolve past its current self-obsession.
Though I often loathe what it currently is, and sometimes the part that I play in that, where else can I go Lord - for you have the words to eternal life?
I've been thinking about the vogue to publicly disown things, Children disown parents who have abused them, parents disown children who have shamed or humiliated them, politicians disown parties when they are no longer happy with their policies and, of course, people disown churches - often for the strangest of reasons..
I confess there have been many times this week when I have seriously contemplated disowning the Church. I have wanted to distance myself from the very valid accusations of what Christians have done in the past - and what many still do today, to Jews, to Muslims, to non-believers.. and worse - to one another. The blogosphere has been an uncomfortable place recently to try and be a means of grace in.
In some ways this is nothing new. As you know I have struggled often with what it means to belong to this family of faith with its irrational hatreds and violent dogmas. I hate the caricatures of the Christian and the religious in the media and in novels like Pullman's 'The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ' because I know they are all too accurate.. Why, I wonder, would anyone want to belong to something that has such a negative image, that is so ridiculed and scorned, most often with just cause? What is it that holds people to this historically corrupt and self-serving body called Church?
Belonging. The defining issue of this age. The freedom to disown, disavow, disconnect and divorce is enshrined in law in most western countries - it is a human 'right'. You can no longer be forced to 'belong' to that which you do not choose to belong to. Don't like your country and nationality - emigrate, don't like your family - divorce or disown them, don't like your politics - change parties, dont like your religion - change it or drop it altogether. This is the libertine age when we are all free to cast off the chains that once defined us. We are able to decide for ourselves who and what we are - aren't we?
It was once normal to think that blood was thicker than water - that we should always put the family first - that charity begins at home. Family was something people were taught to value - and if necessary defend - even if they didn't really feel that they 'belonged' - they were 'part of the family' regardless of what they had done or how they behaved - and the onus was on everyone else to make people believe that they were really welcome, and not outsiders. Which is what made the parable of the prodigal so powerful, the opening words of John's gospel so redolent with meaning.. and Paul's insistence on Christian adoption so important. Above all, it is what has given the Trinity, the core of Christianity, its theological rationale. The mutual self-giving Parent - Child relationship modeled for us by the Trinity sets the standard for our own belonging.
Salvation, are were taught, is all about being a part of your family God - Today salvation has come to this house, for he too is a son of Abraham' says Jesus of Zacchaeus. And from the Acts of the apostles onwards, the Church has worked to foster this doctrine of belonging and preach the idea of of one human family overseen by you as our divine parent, a family of natural and adopted children living in peace and growing in grace and holiness. But the Church has also tried to insist that it alone knows who is, and who is not - a part of your family, And historically only the Church could sign the 'necessary' adoption papers of baptism or write of excommunication which would decide if someone belonged or not.
Now of course, we are part of a generation which does not care about 'the Church'. They are happy to not be associated with it, they even pity those of us who do belong to it. As do I. If I am honest then I would have to acknowledge that there is little that can be said about the Church worldwide that is redemptive, or even uplifting. As a whole, the Church takes more from the poor in terms of moral and intellectual growth than it ever provides in terms of bread in mouths. It slaughters millions for the sake of its 'doctrines' concerning contraception and abortion and knowingly whips up hatred, fear and prejudice of anyone who is 'different' from the Church's idea of the 'norm'. It subjugates and humiliates women and children alike and does all this in your name.
Why would anyone want to belong to something so sick and abusive, so anti-intellectual and repressive?
Because as broken and disturbing as it is - the Church is still the only vessel charged with carrying the real gospel of belonging - of being a new thing - in you. Of belonging to something so much bigger than all of our petty human tribes and parties, something worthy of complete loyalty, dedication, commitment and sacrifice. Of belonging to YOU, not the Church or the nation.
That Gospel is the only hope humanity has to evolve past its current self-obsession.
Though I often loathe what it currently is, and sometimes the part that I play in that, where else can I go Lord - for you have the words to eternal life?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Antisemitism redefined
Good morning God,
A very distressing and disturbed night. I have been following and participating in a blogged debate on the Church's report on Justice for Israel Palestine and the bizarre threat of one Methodist to take the Church to court over its contents.
There can be no doubt that the report has raised some emotive issues, but that is no excuse for the appalling lack of grace in some of the posts.When Christians slander one another, evil flourishes.
The charge being made against the Church and certain individuals is of Antisemitism.. a charge designed to raise the spectre of the Holocaust and shame us all into silence - regardless of what atrocities are currently being perpetrated. In a nutshell the argument is - Gentiles committed the holocaust therefore the Gentiles have forever forfeited the right to censor a Jew. Any and all criticism of Jews or of Israel by Gentiles is antisemitic.
This is, however, a shallow and dishonest definition of antisemitism. It mocks and makes a lie of the past by reducing it to a vacuous insistence that it is never politically, spiritually or socially 'correct' to criticize or question anything Jewish or Israeli.
I have spoken out against some of the abuses of power in Zimbabwe - but I am not anti-african
I have protested the Catholic Church's policy on the use of condoms - but I am not anti-catholic
It is time to put the fear of being called antisemitic into perspective:
It is not antisemitic to seek to be informed about the current plight of the ordinary Palestinian
It is not antisemitic to be offended by the wall
It is not antisemitic to question why human rights are being denied to Palestinians in Israel.
It is not antisemitic to ask what can we do to which might help Palestinians.
It IS antisemitic to not question or challenge any of these things, to hate the Jew so much that we would be prepared to stand by and watch whilst they perhaps commit crimes against You and against humanity which we know from our own bitter experience will only result in long-lasting spiritual, social and political damage.
It IS antisemitic to allow religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Jewish or Islamic to narrowly define what it is to be Jewish based on some literal interpretation of a few verses of the Hebrew Scriptures (texts which many Jews enjoy endlessly debating!)
But more to the point - you have taught us repeatedly God that it is not right define and limit a human being by the happenstance of where they were born or to whom. It was incredibly costly to teach us that in YOU there is neither Gentile nor Jew. Our human divisions and habit of 'taking sides' is an anathema to you. It is not antisemitic to love the Palestinian, it is not an either-or situation. Not all Jews are in support of the wall, not all Palestinians are members of Hammas, but all Jews and all Palestinians are your children God.
Methodists believe that Christian conferring is a means of grace - we extend that and say all Godly dialogue is a means of grace, ie a way to grow closer to you God and to one another. Such dialogue cannot begin with accusations, but by invitations. The report 'Justice for Israel/Palestine' was produced in response to a request by Methodists for information for Methodists about the plight of the Palestinians - it therefore naturally has more to say about the Palestinian than about the Jew. If people feel that this creates an imbalance, the solution is simple, I invite those Methodists who think that we are antisemitic to use our Church procedures to request a report on the state of Israel and the evils of antisemitism. No doubt that will not only enlighten and inform Methodists but also lead to further controversy as the Church struggles with its past, for the sake of its future. What I am confident of, however, is that such a report would be well written and would receive a warm welcome.
What isn't welcomed are the current ungracious comments, accusations and slander.
A very distressing and disturbed night. I have been following and participating in a blogged debate on the Church's report on Justice for Israel Palestine and the bizarre threat of one Methodist to take the Church to court over its contents.
There can be no doubt that the report has raised some emotive issues, but that is no excuse for the appalling lack of grace in some of the posts.When Christians slander one another, evil flourishes.
The charge being made against the Church and certain individuals is of Antisemitism.. a charge designed to raise the spectre of the Holocaust and shame us all into silence - regardless of what atrocities are currently being perpetrated. In a nutshell the argument is - Gentiles committed the holocaust therefore the Gentiles have forever forfeited the right to censor a Jew. Any and all criticism of Jews or of Israel by Gentiles is antisemitic.
This is, however, a shallow and dishonest definition of antisemitism. It mocks and makes a lie of the past by reducing it to a vacuous insistence that it is never politically, spiritually or socially 'correct' to criticize or question anything Jewish or Israeli.
I have spoken out against some of the abuses of power in Zimbabwe - but I am not anti-african
I have protested the Catholic Church's policy on the use of condoms - but I am not anti-catholic
It is time to put the fear of being called antisemitic into perspective:
It is not antisemitic to seek to be informed about the current plight of the ordinary Palestinian
It is not antisemitic to be offended by the wall
It is not antisemitic to question why human rights are being denied to Palestinians in Israel.
It is not antisemitic to ask what can we do to which might help Palestinians.
It IS antisemitic to not question or challenge any of these things, to hate the Jew so much that we would be prepared to stand by and watch whilst they perhaps commit crimes against You and against humanity which we know from our own bitter experience will only result in long-lasting spiritual, social and political damage.
It IS antisemitic to allow religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Jewish or Islamic to narrowly define what it is to be Jewish based on some literal interpretation of a few verses of the Hebrew Scriptures (texts which many Jews enjoy endlessly debating!)
But more to the point - you have taught us repeatedly God that it is not right define and limit a human being by the happenstance of where they were born or to whom. It was incredibly costly to teach us that in YOU there is neither Gentile nor Jew. Our human divisions and habit of 'taking sides' is an anathema to you. It is not antisemitic to love the Palestinian, it is not an either-or situation. Not all Jews are in support of the wall, not all Palestinians are members of Hammas, but all Jews and all Palestinians are your children God.
Methodists believe that Christian conferring is a means of grace - we extend that and say all Godly dialogue is a means of grace, ie a way to grow closer to you God and to one another. Such dialogue cannot begin with accusations, but by invitations. The report 'Justice for Israel/Palestine' was produced in response to a request by Methodists for information for Methodists about the plight of the Palestinians - it therefore naturally has more to say about the Palestinian than about the Jew. If people feel that this creates an imbalance, the solution is simple, I invite those Methodists who think that we are antisemitic to use our Church procedures to request a report on the state of Israel and the evils of antisemitism. No doubt that will not only enlighten and inform Methodists but also lead to further controversy as the Church struggles with its past, for the sake of its future. What I am confident of, however, is that such a report would be well written and would receive a warm welcome.
What isn't welcomed are the current ungracious comments, accusations and slander.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Theology first.
Good morning God,
Today promises to be a good day. A day filled with deliberation and celebration over how the Church communicates and shares its theology. Such days are rare!
I know that our Ministerial students are still required to study theology - it's there on the curriculum somewhere, along with Church History, Liturgy, Hermeneutics, Evangelism, Missiology, World Church, Old Testament, New Testament, Greek, Hebrew, Science and Religion, Philosophy of Religion, Sociology of Religion, Inter-faith studies. Pastoral Theology, Ethics,Pedagogy, Adrogogy, Christian Anthropology, Black Theology, Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, Queer Theology, and of course Methodist Theology..
Sorry God, lost myself in a wish list there...
The sad truth is of course that some sections of the British Methodist Church have long since lost Wesley's love of theology and have managed (with Conference's consent) to reduce most of the Church's theological output to a compulsory second section in some Conference reports (and now for the theology...) oh yes.. and to a dreaded subject at seminary. (If the looks of some of our students when they come to their first theology lesson is anything to go by, theology is about as popular in our Church as a pickled onion is in an apple pie.)
I suspect that the root of the problem lies in our having lost the 'groundwork' of theology - the pew theology that fed and nurtured the love of theology, of searching the Scriptures and studying God's world in some of our members and local preachers. From Wesley's time on, the Methodist people were fed theologically by the works of popular theologians and - in particular - by the published books and reports of the Church. Wesley even rewrote and abridged a few works in order to make them more accessible. The Agenda's of earlier conferences up to the 1990's are an amazing collection of theological works. Embedded in the reports from each division of the Church is clear evidence of the Church as church, wrestling with scripture and faith, not just its necessary order.
It would be hard to say the same today. Although there are some good reports being produced, on the whole, the paucity of religious language in any of our Church's official paperwork is now well past scary.
Current council papers, for example, are now prefaced with neat little tick boxes and columns which summarize the report's expected impact on :-
It's all very business like and official - and I guess it's important for us to be able to see at a glance what the impact of any piece of the Church's work will be on these areas.
And it's good to see that we have our priorities right - there's faith and order - way up there - next to rules and regulations! But this faith and order tick box isn't quite the same as asking whether or not something is theologically sound or in keeping with our faith and order. It can't be - otherwise surely there would be some input from faith and order required on - say the report MC1089 Selection Criteria for Candidates for presbyteral and diaconal ministry After all, I can't imagine Wesley thinking that selection criteria for ministers would have no impact on the faith and order of the Church!
Bottom line - it ALL impacts on our faith and order!
This is an old drum of mine - but it still beats to the same tune.
As a Church we should start with the theology - not with the business. Good business practice does not always mean good theology or good ministry. Church reports and papers are a part of our public proclamation as well as our internal business. I really believe we are drowning out our proclamation of God's grace with official, business management language instead of God language. We have good news to share which is lost amidst the jargon of impact and risk assessment!
It's TIME TO TALK OF GOD
Luckily - for people like me - theology is actually compulsory for a Church - no matter how business like and professional it wants to be (or thinks it has to be!). It can't be tidied up or pigeon holed or reduced to a column or section because You delight in turning us upside down and inside out - you want to know we are talking with to and about you, not just ordering your affairs!
The simple fact is that it's just not possible to be either a good and effective minister, or even a good Christian Disciple without doing theology. The hard part is discovering how we as a Church, learn how to do it so that it is profitable for the whole people of God.. not just so that we get another report adopted by Conference. Wesley insisted that Searching the Scriptures is a means of Grace, as is Christian Conferring (which doesn't just mean conferring with Christians but conferring as Christians).
Conferring and searching can be done in community - in a seminary or college or church or house group, or in private - with a book, or as part of a distance learning course. (See in particular the European Methodist eAcademy's brilliant courses on Methodist Theology)
And that's where the joy of today comes in for me.
Today I will be exploring with others in the Connexional team and in Circuit ministry how the Church can help to make the means of grace available, through the books that we publish. And then - I will travel to Durham to celebrate the Church's continuing investment in theological education as I attend the welcome service for the new Director of the Wesley Study Centre in Durham.
A good day to beat a drum for theology first..
Today promises to be a good day. A day filled with deliberation and celebration over how the Church communicates and shares its theology. Such days are rare!
I know that our Ministerial students are still required to study theology - it's there on the curriculum somewhere, along with Church History, Liturgy, Hermeneutics, Evangelism, Missiology, World Church, Old Testament, New Testament, Greek, Hebrew, Science and Religion, Philosophy of Religion, Sociology of Religion, Inter-faith studies. Pastoral Theology, Ethics,Pedagogy, Adrogogy, Christian Anthropology, Black Theology, Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, Queer Theology, and of course Methodist Theology..
Sorry God, lost myself in a wish list there...
The sad truth is of course that some sections of the British Methodist Church have long since lost Wesley's love of theology and have managed (with Conference's consent) to reduce most of the Church's theological output to a compulsory second section in some Conference reports (and now for the theology...) oh yes.. and to a dreaded subject at seminary. (If the looks of some of our students when they come to their first theology lesson is anything to go by, theology is about as popular in our Church as a pickled onion is in an apple pie.)
I suspect that the root of the problem lies in our having lost the 'groundwork' of theology - the pew theology that fed and nurtured the love of theology, of searching the Scriptures and studying God's world in some of our members and local preachers. From Wesley's time on, the Methodist people were fed theologically by the works of popular theologians and - in particular - by the published books and reports of the Church. Wesley even rewrote and abridged a few works in order to make them more accessible. The Agenda's of earlier conferences up to the 1990's are an amazing collection of theological works. Embedded in the reports from each division of the Church is clear evidence of the Church as church, wrestling with scripture and faith, not just its necessary order.
It would be hard to say the same today. Although there are some good reports being produced, on the whole, the paucity of religious language in any of our Church's official paperwork is now well past scary.
Current council papers, for example, are now prefaced with neat little tick boxes and columns which summarize the report's expected impact on :-
- Standing Orders
- Faith and Order
- Financial
- Personnel
- Legal
- Wider Connexional
- External (e.g.ecumenical)
- Risk
It's all very business like and official - and I guess it's important for us to be able to see at a glance what the impact of any piece of the Church's work will be on these areas.
And it's good to see that we have our priorities right - there's faith and order - way up there - next to rules and regulations! But this faith and order tick box isn't quite the same as asking whether or not something is theologically sound or in keeping with our faith and order. It can't be - otherwise surely there would be some input from faith and order required on - say the report MC1089 Selection Criteria for Candidates for presbyteral and diaconal ministry After all, I can't imagine Wesley thinking that selection criteria for ministers would have no impact on the faith and order of the Church!
Bottom line - it ALL impacts on our faith and order!
This is an old drum of mine - but it still beats to the same tune.
As a Church we should start with the theology - not with the business. Good business practice does not always mean good theology or good ministry. Church reports and papers are a part of our public proclamation as well as our internal business. I really believe we are drowning out our proclamation of God's grace with official, business management language instead of God language. We have good news to share which is lost amidst the jargon of impact and risk assessment!
It's TIME TO TALK OF GOD
Luckily - for people like me - theology is actually compulsory for a Church - no matter how business like and professional it wants to be (or thinks it has to be!). It can't be tidied up or pigeon holed or reduced to a column or section because You delight in turning us upside down and inside out - you want to know we are talking with to and about you, not just ordering your affairs!
The simple fact is that it's just not possible to be either a good and effective minister, or even a good Christian Disciple without doing theology. The hard part is discovering how we as a Church, learn how to do it so that it is profitable for the whole people of God.. not just so that we get another report adopted by Conference. Wesley insisted that Searching the Scriptures is a means of Grace, as is Christian Conferring (which doesn't just mean conferring with Christians but conferring as Christians).
Conferring and searching can be done in community - in a seminary or college or church or house group, or in private - with a book, or as part of a distance learning course. (See in particular the European Methodist eAcademy's brilliant courses on Methodist Theology)
And that's where the joy of today comes in for me.
Today I will be exploring with others in the Connexional team and in Circuit ministry how the Church can help to make the means of grace available, through the books that we publish. And then - I will travel to Durham to celebrate the Church's continuing investment in theological education as I attend the welcome service for the new Director of the Wesley Study Centre in Durham.
A good day to beat a drum for theology first..
Monday, October 18, 2010
un-Natural Selection?
Good morning God,
I've just been learning about the charity Project Prevention and their plan to offer money to drug addicts and alcoholics if they will agree to sterilisation (referred to as long term birth control).
I appreciate the concern for the children.
No... that's an understatement.
I am appalled at the damage that can be done to children born to parents suffering from alcohol or drug addiction. I know from first hand experience how life-shattering and soul destroying it can be for the child AND the parent.
BUT
To knowingly offer one more binge or fix in return for a life-time of sterility?
How sick and manipulative is that?
It's called Eugenics.. the deliberate attempt to manipulate the gene pool of society - human intervention in the whole process of natural selection. We've done it before, in America in some states there were programs to sterilize those with mental illness, Indirah Gandhi tried mass sterilization in India, In Czechoslovakia Roma women were forcibly sterilized..
Forced Sterilization is recognised as a crime against humanity - but coerced sterilization?
Can you coerce someone who lacks the emotional and mental capacity to fully understand what they are signing up to - or is that just abuse?
If Project Prevention was really concerned for what happens to the Children of addicts, it would spend its money on providing care for them - not making sure that they dont exist!
I think this is just a very nasty way of dealing with what we dont want to face. It allows us to ignore the plight of the addicts because we wont have to worry that their children will be a drain on our emotions or finances or the social services of the state. It is easier to make sure that children aren't born, than care for them when they are, after all, what sort of life will they have? A life worth living?
Who knows - except you God. and of course, the children of alcoholic and drug addicts
I wonder how many of them seriously wish they had never been born..
The problem is NOT the child - but the parent and the society that fails to address the problems of addiction. The best way of resolving the 'problem' of these children is to fix society, not manipulate the gene pool. We need to invest in putting an end to the sort of suffering, social deprivation and injustices which almost inevitably leads to addiction in the first place.
It highlights the real difference between a secular and a Christian society. YOU cared enough to come as one of the least of us - a back-street bastard not a middle-class do-gooder. You cared enough to find a way to work with natural selection, to change behaviour, to transform society, to save the lost, not to destroy us or 'prevent' us from even being born. You take the risk with free will, and, even though you do know better, you believe in our future, in the possibility of our redemption, enough to work with us...
Its important that we see this 'project' for what it is - Project prevention is just a nasty ungodly way of stopping the problem of OUR pain, distress and discomfort at the lives that are damaged by abuse..
It does nothing for the addict to rehabilitate them, for society to make it better, and even less for the Children who might have been.
Its certainly not Christian
Its a cop out.
I've just been learning about the charity Project Prevention and their plan to offer money to drug addicts and alcoholics if they will agree to sterilisation (referred to as long term birth control).
I appreciate the concern for the children.
No... that's an understatement.
I am appalled at the damage that can be done to children born to parents suffering from alcohol or drug addiction. I know from first hand experience how life-shattering and soul destroying it can be for the child AND the parent.
BUT
To knowingly offer one more binge or fix in return for a life-time of sterility?
How sick and manipulative is that?
It's called Eugenics.. the deliberate attempt to manipulate the gene pool of society - human intervention in the whole process of natural selection. We've done it before, in America in some states there were programs to sterilize those with mental illness, Indirah Gandhi tried mass sterilization in India, In Czechoslovakia Roma women were forcibly sterilized..
Forced Sterilization is recognised as a crime against humanity - but coerced sterilization?
Can you coerce someone who lacks the emotional and mental capacity to fully understand what they are signing up to - or is that just abuse?
If Project Prevention was really concerned for what happens to the Children of addicts, it would spend its money on providing care for them - not making sure that they dont exist!
I think this is just a very nasty way of dealing with what we dont want to face. It allows us to ignore the plight of the addicts because we wont have to worry that their children will be a drain on our emotions or finances or the social services of the state. It is easier to make sure that children aren't born, than care for them when they are, after all, what sort of life will they have? A life worth living?
Who knows - except you God. and of course, the children of alcoholic and drug addicts
I wonder how many of them seriously wish they had never been born..
The problem is NOT the child - but the parent and the society that fails to address the problems of addiction. The best way of resolving the 'problem' of these children is to fix society, not manipulate the gene pool. We need to invest in putting an end to the sort of suffering, social deprivation and injustices which almost inevitably leads to addiction in the first place.
It highlights the real difference between a secular and a Christian society. YOU cared enough to come as one of the least of us - a back-street bastard not a middle-class do-gooder. You cared enough to find a way to work with natural selection, to change behaviour, to transform society, to save the lost, not to destroy us or 'prevent' us from even being born. You take the risk with free will, and, even though you do know better, you believe in our future, in the possibility of our redemption, enough to work with us...
Its important that we see this 'project' for what it is - Project prevention is just a nasty ungodly way of stopping the problem of OUR pain, distress and discomfort at the lives that are damaged by abuse..
It does nothing for the addict to rehabilitate them, for society to make it better, and even less for the Children who might have been.
Its certainly not Christian
Its a cop out.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Pastoral Possession
Good morning God,
There are a significant number of stories in Scripture about possession which are hard to explain or relate to in a world that doesn't believe in either demons or possession. But that doesn't mean that such demons don't exist, or that possession isn't real.
Possession is very real - we try and possess people all the time, at one time we even made it legal! We speak unthinkingly of MY Husband, MY Wife, MY Children... But, if you really want to see a demon at work, you need look no further than at the sort of possession that ministers sometimes fall victim to... MY ministry, MY church, MY people. The harm that this can do is truly demonic ie divisive. ( The etymology of the Greek word for demon is from the verb daiesthai "to divide, distribute.")
I was asked this week if I was really able to take my sabbatical, to leave the Church in the care of others. Thankfully I believe that the answer is yes.. We have such well blessed Churches here that I genuinely have no fear or worries. The worship will be wonderful, the pastoral care second to none and the Churches will continue to grow in grace and holiness through this opportunity to explore ministry without me being there to tell people what to do.
I have seen the other side to this coin however.. I have seen a church divided and hurt by ministers who were so possessive that they simply could not let Your people go.
Ministerial possession really can divide and harm a Church. Whether through love, grace, guilt, insecurity or fear, ministers are the world's best at trying to 'own' the people that they are sent to share in the pastoral oversight of. They can get upset at the very idea that a member might prefer to be cared for by another minister, another Church, another preacher.. As though it is a competition, as though popularity is a valid measure of ministry... As though a minister has somehow failed if someone doesn't want the individual ministry being offered them.
Pastoral possession is ugly - and like all forms of possession it robs us of grace, love and reason.
Worse.. it works its mischief on the very people ministers are called to minister to. That same love, grace, guilt, insecurity or fear and sense of failure, begins to overshadow the pastoral relationship with the person needing care. Instead of being able to respond in grace to the pastoral need which provoked the possession, the minister takes on the role of the aggrieved one, the hurt and inconsolable one, in need of your love and support.. It's not that pastoral needs are neglected, but they often lack the fullest extent of the grace and love which would mark it as Christian.
This is in spite of the fact that time and time again, scripture teaches that your ministers are seldom popular - or loved when they are with your people. Look at Paul, or Timothy, Paul in particular wrestled with pastoral possession! But if ministers are true to their calling to follow you, then they will be ignored and slighted as well as loved and appreciated for their ministry. Ministry is both the best, and the worst calling that there is. Ministry is not about the ownership of souls but the cure of souls - an old odd expression, which means the nurture and care of souls through admonishment as well as teaching and sacrament. So Ministers are called to be offensive and challenging as well as supportive and comforting.
All of which means...
some of our members will like us and appreciate what we are trying to do
some never will.
Some of our members will always prefer the last minister they had.. even after we have left!
Of course this hurts because ministers care for the people they share in pastoral care for. One of the most amazing gifts of your grace has always been the bond that you establish between a people and those you send to minister to them in your name. But I have always found it a worthy hurt to offer back to you God, a token of my love.
Thankfully in Methodism we are encouraged to remember that no matter how many Churches are in a section, we never have sole pastoral responsibility, rather each minister is 'charged' to share in the pastoral care of your people with all of God's people. At local level we share with the pastoral committee and the stewards. At Circuit level we share with the circuit staff and Circuit officers, ditto for District level, and so on to Connexional level. The Connexion is an ecclesial expression of practical pastoral care. For Methodists, Pastoral care belongs to the priesthood of ALL believers, it is never one persons sole responsibility. Ministers might forget it sometimes, in their desire to serve your people well, but Church members seldom do.
They cure us of possession by reminding us - You call all of us to care - in your name.
And that's the glorious truth isn't it, the truth that sets us free to enjoy sabbaticals, to move stations, to minister to more than one congregation:
You didn't say to Peter 'Tend YOUR sheep, or feed YOUR lambs.. you made it perfectly clear - the sheep are not ours..
Tend my flock.. feed my sheep..
Your people are ours to love, feed and tend, not own.
Your people remain YOURS forever. (even when I'm on sabbatical!)
There are a significant number of stories in Scripture about possession which are hard to explain or relate to in a world that doesn't believe in either demons or possession. But that doesn't mean that such demons don't exist, or that possession isn't real.
Possession is very real - we try and possess people all the time, at one time we even made it legal! We speak unthinkingly of MY Husband, MY Wife, MY Children... But, if you really want to see a demon at work, you need look no further than at the sort of possession that ministers sometimes fall victim to... MY ministry, MY church, MY people. The harm that this can do is truly demonic ie divisive. ( The etymology of the Greek word for demon is from the verb daiesthai "to divide, distribute.")
I was asked this week if I was really able to take my sabbatical, to leave the Church in the care of others. Thankfully I believe that the answer is yes.. We have such well blessed Churches here that I genuinely have no fear or worries. The worship will be wonderful, the pastoral care second to none and the Churches will continue to grow in grace and holiness through this opportunity to explore ministry without me being there to tell people what to do.
I have seen the other side to this coin however.. I have seen a church divided and hurt by ministers who were so possessive that they simply could not let Your people go.
Ministerial possession really can divide and harm a Church. Whether through love, grace, guilt, insecurity or fear, ministers are the world's best at trying to 'own' the people that they are sent to share in the pastoral oversight of. They can get upset at the very idea that a member might prefer to be cared for by another minister, another Church, another preacher.. As though it is a competition, as though popularity is a valid measure of ministry... As though a minister has somehow failed if someone doesn't want the individual ministry being offered them.
Pastoral possession is ugly - and like all forms of possession it robs us of grace, love and reason.
Worse.. it works its mischief on the very people ministers are called to minister to. That same love, grace, guilt, insecurity or fear and sense of failure, begins to overshadow the pastoral relationship with the person needing care. Instead of being able to respond in grace to the pastoral need which provoked the possession, the minister takes on the role of the aggrieved one, the hurt and inconsolable one, in need of your love and support.. It's not that pastoral needs are neglected, but they often lack the fullest extent of the grace and love which would mark it as Christian.
This is in spite of the fact that time and time again, scripture teaches that your ministers are seldom popular - or loved when they are with your people. Look at Paul, or Timothy, Paul in particular wrestled with pastoral possession! But if ministers are true to their calling to follow you, then they will be ignored and slighted as well as loved and appreciated for their ministry. Ministry is both the best, and the worst calling that there is. Ministry is not about the ownership of souls but the cure of souls - an old odd expression, which means the nurture and care of souls through admonishment as well as teaching and sacrament. So Ministers are called to be offensive and challenging as well as supportive and comforting.
All of which means...
some of our members will like us and appreciate what we are trying to do
some never will.
Some of our members will always prefer the last minister they had.. even after we have left!
Of course this hurts because ministers care for the people they share in pastoral care for. One of the most amazing gifts of your grace has always been the bond that you establish between a people and those you send to minister to them in your name. But I have always found it a worthy hurt to offer back to you God, a token of my love.
Thankfully in Methodism we are encouraged to remember that no matter how many Churches are in a section, we never have sole pastoral responsibility, rather each minister is 'charged' to share in the pastoral care of your people with all of God's people. At local level we share with the pastoral committee and the stewards. At Circuit level we share with the circuit staff and Circuit officers, ditto for District level, and so on to Connexional level. The Connexion is an ecclesial expression of practical pastoral care. For Methodists, Pastoral care belongs to the priesthood of ALL believers, it is never one persons sole responsibility. Ministers might forget it sometimes, in their desire to serve your people well, but Church members seldom do.
They cure us of possession by reminding us - You call all of us to care - in your name.
And that's the glorious truth isn't it, the truth that sets us free to enjoy sabbaticals, to move stations, to minister to more than one congregation:
You didn't say to Peter 'Tend YOUR sheep, or feed YOUR lambs.. you made it perfectly clear - the sheep are not ours..
Tend my flock.. feed my sheep..
Your people are ours to love, feed and tend, not own.
Your people remain YOURS forever. (even when I'm on sabbatical!)
My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.
No one can take them out of my hand.
John 10: 27 & 28
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Collared!
Should ordained ministers wear clerical collars?
At one time of course, the question wouldn't even be asked - after all - what sort of ordained minister doesn't wear a clerical collar? Are they ashamed of the gospel, of their calling, of the Church?
Nowadays it is said that the collar 'gets in the way' of ordinary conversation - that it inhibits evangelism because people wont talk to ministers in collars.
Apparently it's not 'fresh' or "cool' or even sensible to wear a clerical collar at a family service or youth service, school assembly, cafe church, messy church etc etc...
Collars have come to be associated with all things stuffy, high-brow, liturgical, and - well - clerical!
It's starting to boarder on the predictable, isn't it.
Could the fact that the minister has started to wear light chinos and a polo shirt with a sweatshirt tied loosely around the neck or waist, be the first hint that congregation has that a fresh expression of Church may be in the offing?
Is the ministers preference for jeans to be understood as a preference for youth ministry?
Does it automatically follow that a cassock and collar means bells and smells in the service?
Isn't this all rather a shallow view of ordained ministry?
I made a deliberate choice to wear a clerical collar as a reminder to both myself and those that I meet that You are not absent from this world, and that my life cannot be lived without You God.
I choose to be marked out as different by what I wear because I own that by your grace and the Church's acceptance of your calling, I AM different - I am ordained.
It wasn't getting ordained that made me different, ordination is, in that respect, just the confirmation of difference. You called me to dare to be different, to be set-apart to proclaim your gospel in word and deed with all that I am. Your calling was not just to minister to the saved, or to those it was safe to minister to, but to be a light on a hill, a public unashamed, in-your-face statement that YOU are here for whoever needs you.
I cannot tell how many conversations have not happened because I was wearing a clerical collar - but I can testify to the number of amazing conversations I have had. Conversations in hospital waiting rooms, airport lounges, on trains and on buses, in the hairdressers and cinema! I haven't had to do anything but be accessible. The collar has provided the prompt, given the permission, begged the question, created the link..acted as a means of your prevenient grace.
From my experience, I think I would want to say to those who insist that the collar 'puts people off' that perhaps what is off-putting' may have more to do with the person than with the collar!
As our Western world grows increasingly more secular, surely it becomes ever more important for the Gospel to be seen as a life-choice not just a private Sunday habit? Whatever else can be said about it, the fact remains that when it is worn in the pub or the car park, the supermarket or the cinema, the train or the restaurant, the clerical collar does serve as a reminder that there are some who believe, who commit their whole life to that belief, and who choose not to hide that fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)