Outside the church window this evening I could see through the rain a hydro pole illuminated among the trees by the street light. It looked like a cross overgrown with other trees, branches obscuring but not completely obliterating the familiar shape.
I feel the same: for myself, my church, and my community. The cross hasn't left us, but it's hard to see with so much surrounding it, hiding it, taking its stark form and making it uncertain.
It's actually more beautiful this way. More artistic and appealing; especially in this light. It's a much more organic image.
I suppose it could be a hopeful image. New life emerging from the raw reality of what it takes to make all things right and restore hope. But tonight it looks like something else to me. It looks like reality is being lost. I can't see what I know is most important. I wish I could away the obstructions and see clearly...
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
I Object
Recently I heard some friends complaining that church is just another business, run by the same principles and practices as any for profit company and with the same (lack of) regard for people. I generally don't agree with them for the most part, but they've had some experiences that have really hurt them and helped them reach that (tragic) understanding.
I don't agree, but I do understand. It is often true that important decisions in churches are made with a strong eye to the financial bottom line and the strategic plan. Of course, churches do need to be financially responsible and there's no reason to assume that God is any less present in the development of a strategic plan than He may be in a moment of passionate worship. Where I have an issue is when decisions are being made with a sense of objectivity.
It happens sometimes at tough meetings that someone will suggest that we need to look at something without our personal bias and be more reasonable. There are times when that is helpful, but it feeds a false and dangerous delusion that we can and should be objective in our spiritual leadership.
The postmodern scholars have shown us that there is really no such thing as raw objectivity. All of us have overt and subtle influences that prevent us from acting in a totally distanced and unbiassed way. And that is a part of what it is to be made in the image of God.
The Christian story is of a God who refuses to remain objective, ever.
God chooses to create, to have relationship with his creation, to temper his justice and anger, to forgive, to abandon his glory and enter our reality, to suffer the indignities and the atrocity of death, and to promise to return to rectify all that has gone wrong from the beginning. Nothing could be less objective.
Our appeals to objectivity are usually just a way of saying that we think our biasses are better than someone else's. We think we're being reasonable because we can see the other person's subjective priorities; but we ignore or miss our own.
I would love to see a church leadership take the time to be open about their preferences and prejudices and then have a real conversation about an issue with the understanding that the lack of objectivity is part of their calling. (I've seen a couple glimpses of it and I will always admire the people who had that much courage).
Please, never treat me objectively, I am not merely an object, God's church is not an object, theology is not an object, and we are not meant to treat people as anything that diminishes them as beloved recipients of God's truth and grace.
I don't agree, but I do understand. It is often true that important decisions in churches are made with a strong eye to the financial bottom line and the strategic plan. Of course, churches do need to be financially responsible and there's no reason to assume that God is any less present in the development of a strategic plan than He may be in a moment of passionate worship. Where I have an issue is when decisions are being made with a sense of objectivity.
It happens sometimes at tough meetings that someone will suggest that we need to look at something without our personal bias and be more reasonable. There are times when that is helpful, but it feeds a false and dangerous delusion that we can and should be objective in our spiritual leadership.
The postmodern scholars have shown us that there is really no such thing as raw objectivity. All of us have overt and subtle influences that prevent us from acting in a totally distanced and unbiassed way. And that is a part of what it is to be made in the image of God.
The Christian story is of a God who refuses to remain objective, ever.
God chooses to create, to have relationship with his creation, to temper his justice and anger, to forgive, to abandon his glory and enter our reality, to suffer the indignities and the atrocity of death, and to promise to return to rectify all that has gone wrong from the beginning. Nothing could be less objective.
Our appeals to objectivity are usually just a way of saying that we think our biasses are better than someone else's. We think we're being reasonable because we can see the other person's subjective priorities; but we ignore or miss our own.
I would love to see a church leadership take the time to be open about their preferences and prejudices and then have a real conversation about an issue with the understanding that the lack of objectivity is part of their calling. (I've seen a couple glimpses of it and I will always admire the people who had that much courage).
Please, never treat me objectively, I am not merely an object, God's church is not an object, theology is not an object, and we are not meant to treat people as anything that diminishes them as beloved recipients of God's truth and grace.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Who's in charge here?
Pastors and theologians sometimes get fired up talking about theories of Biblical authority. The short version of what they write books and books about could go something like this:
The conservative (or "traditional") argument is that the Bible is entirely true, reliable, and free from error. Taken literally, it is the only appropriate guide for life and faith. It's commands are absolute and need to be obeyed everywhere and at all times.
The liberal ("or postmodern") argument is that the Bible was written by human authors who may have made mistakes and certainly reflected the biases and misconceptions of their culture. It can't be taken as any kind of compulsory source of obligation, but only as a questionable historical record that may or may not have anything important to tell us today.
The thing is, even though those may be caricatures of the views; most people who aren't pastors or theologians really don't understand or care about the whole issue. It doesn't touch our lives in ways we notice as life goes by.
Some people bemoan the loss of the Bible being seen as the authority for life. Usually they are the same people who worry about the loss of other kinds of traditional authority based on credentials, titles, experience, or whatever objective standard they were once able to rely on. They critique the way people "these days" don't trust anyone except their friends.
An honest consideration would reveal that authority has always been based more on relationship than on any objective value. It is only the modernist claim to objectivity that presumes that there is one absolute interpretation of the Bible and that these printed pages can or should control behaviour for us.
Take a few minutes to see the more than a dozen times in John 4-9 where Jesus appeals to his relationship with God the Father as grounds for his work and ministry. It was the relationship, not anything else that made him worthy of respect. He then went out of his way to prove himself repeatedly to his friends and followers.
So its true that there is less and less trust of anyone who makes claims to objective truth or authority "these days". But what if that isn't really any different than it always has been? What if supposed objective authority was really based on trusting certain views and systems because they had worked for people we found reliable?
I may be a heretic but it seems to me that we've always based our confidence on relationships; so its a good thing that we can have a relationship with God to help sort out all these authority issues among all the different interpretations competing for our obedience.
The conservative (or "traditional") argument is that the Bible is entirely true, reliable, and free from error. Taken literally, it is the only appropriate guide for life and faith. It's commands are absolute and need to be obeyed everywhere and at all times.
The liberal ("or postmodern") argument is that the Bible was written by human authors who may have made mistakes and certainly reflected the biases and misconceptions of their culture. It can't be taken as any kind of compulsory source of obligation, but only as a questionable historical record that may or may not have anything important to tell us today.
The thing is, even though those may be caricatures of the views; most people who aren't pastors or theologians really don't understand or care about the whole issue. It doesn't touch our lives in ways we notice as life goes by.
Some people bemoan the loss of the Bible being seen as the authority for life. Usually they are the same people who worry about the loss of other kinds of traditional authority based on credentials, titles, experience, or whatever objective standard they were once able to rely on. They critique the way people "these days" don't trust anyone except their friends.
An honest consideration would reveal that authority has always been based more on relationship than on any objective value. It is only the modernist claim to objectivity that presumes that there is one absolute interpretation of the Bible and that these printed pages can or should control behaviour for us.
Take a few minutes to see the more than a dozen times in John 4-9 where Jesus appeals to his relationship with God the Father as grounds for his work and ministry. It was the relationship, not anything else that made him worthy of respect. He then went out of his way to prove himself repeatedly to his friends and followers.
So its true that there is less and less trust of anyone who makes claims to objective truth or authority "these days". But what if that isn't really any different than it always has been? What if supposed objective authority was really based on trusting certain views and systems because they had worked for people we found reliable?
I may be a heretic but it seems to me that we've always based our confidence on relationships; so its a good thing that we can have a relationship with God to help sort out all these authority issues among all the different interpretations competing for our obedience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
