No. 50, 19 February 2007
by Denton Lotz
Jesus said, “Whoever receives one in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:5-6
Jesus said, “Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belong the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:14
Baptists have always affirmed children. It was the Baptist deacon, William Fox, who began the Sunday School Society in 1785 to remedy the horrors of the industrial revolution which had children as young as ten years of age working underground in mines 12 hours a day for six days a week.
Today, it seems the situation of children worldwide has become worse. In October of 2006, the Untied Nations released the first ‘UN Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children.’ After reading this document, Christians and men and women of good will should become angry and energized to work to stop child abuse.
Here are some of the tragic statistics from the United Nations Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence Against Children:
1. Almost 53,000 children died worldwide in 2002 as a result of homicide.
2. Up to 80% to 98% of children suffer physical punishment in their homes, with a third or more experiencing severe physical punishment resulting from the use of implements.
3. 150 million girls and 73 million boys under 18 experienced forced sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual violence during 2002.
4. Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world have undergone some form of female genital mutilation. In sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt, and the Sudan, three million girls and women are subjected to genital mutilation every year.
5. In 2004, 218 million children were involved in child labor, 126 million of whom were in hazardous work.
6. Estimates from 2000 suggest that 1.8 million children were forced into prostitution and pornography, and 1.2 million were victims of trafficking.
Christians cannot remain silent in the face of these horrendous and evil acts against children whom Jesus loves! What should Christians do? Here are some suggestions:
1. Be informed. Check the United Nations website: “The United Nations Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children.” (www.violencestudy.org)
2. At church meetings and Sunday School teachers’ workshops, make parents aware of signs of child abuse.
3. Check with local authorities and police about laws protecting children from child abuse. Report instances of child abuse to responsible authorities.
4. Make the church a safe haven for abused children. We should be aware that because of their abusive treatment, such children often become abusers themselves.
5. Work with other churches, schools and local government authorities to educate the public and your church congregation about these evils.
Warning: Child abuse is a secret sin. Few people know what happens in homes. The fact that one in four women is abused at home before she is 18 years of age is an indication of the extent of the problem!
Child abusers in churches need to be confronted and helped by counseling and discipleship groups to prevent future abusive behavior. Do not allow untrained and inexperienced counselors to hold leadership positions.
False accusations can poison relationships and fellowship. Public accusations without proper follow-through with authorities can cause even further abuse of children at home.
The call of Christ is a call to conversion, repentance and healing. The abused and the abuser need to know and experience God’s love in Christ. They need to know of regeneration that is offered to those who truly repent. At the same time, we need to be aware that there are sick and dysfunctional people that need to be institutionalized and kept out of reach of innocent children!
Finally, a renewed movement of Bible Study and Sunday School among children and youth will give greater opportunity to bring security, redemption and healing to a world of sexual aberration flamed by the evil institution of pornography and sexual slave traders.
The church must not remain silent. The future of our children depends upon the church’s prophetic ministry of confronting and preventing child abuse in Jesus’ name!
Denton Lotz is General Secretary of the Baptist World Alliance. This article first appeared in BWA News, February 2007.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
What’s so disturbing about grace?
No. 49, 14 February 2007
by Peter Hobson
As a Uniting Church minister, conversations about homosexuality and biblical hermeneutics are beginning to seem a bit tired. Our denomination has wrestled with issues of wholeness (and holiness), biblical faithfulness, Christian witness, authentic discipleship, costly grace and prophetic leadership over the last ten years or so – but in particular, how these issues relate to sexuality (and in a more focused way – homosexuality). It is interesting to see how people from other denominations and faith traditions approach the topic.
I am currently completing a doctorate in theology, examining hermeneutics, discipleship and narrative theology. I am an evangelical, charismatic Christian who is passionate about following the way of Jesus Christ. I am also white, heterosexual, middle-class, married and male (which means that lying beneath the surface I battle with a formative narrative that is racist, homophobic, privileged and sexist). Understanding context is so important when dealing with hermeneutics.
In the end, the Biblical witness is nowhere near as clear-cut as we would like it to be. Anyone who has read their scriptures is aware that they can get the biblical text to support just about any argument on any topic they so wish (see, for example, “The story of Mel White”).
In this way, the Bible has been used and abused over the centuries to support slavery, oppression, violence, prejudice, greed and war. Texts from Romans, 1 Corinthians, Leviticus or Deuteronomy may seem to be pretty clear cut on the issue of homosexuality – but they are not. In fact, they have nothing to say about homosexuality at all.
Homosexuality, as we understand it – a sexual orientation, is a relatively new concept. The word itself was first coined in the late 19th century. At the time of Paul’s writings, Greek society viewed genital intercourse between two males to be of the highest order, but had no understanding of what we would call ‘sexual orientation’. Intercourse with women was tolerated because of child-birth – but sex between males was considered to be far superior in every aspect.
It is within this context that Paul condemns certain sexual acts – probably because of their dehumanising consequences. A sexual partner was seen as an object of gratification rather than a person who is loved and valued. Two people of the same sex who have committed their lives to one another, and as part of that commitment engage in acts of mutual affection and sexual love, are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible (notwithstanding critical, if somewhat creative, examinations of the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan etc).
If, as a church, we feel we have something to say to the world regarding sexuality, violence, greed or prejudice – we had better do our homework. To say ‘the Bible says it, I believe it’ – just isn’t good enough. The Bible also gives me permission to sell my daughter into slavery (Ex 21:7) but I am sure that no-one participating in this debate would endorse this sort of behaviour.
If the church wants to recover its prophetic witness to the world with respect to its understanding of biblical fidelity and a desire for holiness – then let us recover the voice of Christ that calls us to the way of dangerous love. Love for the lost, love for the broken, love for the oppressed – love even for the oppressor!
To say we ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’ has become such a cliché I am not sure we have taken note of what it is we are saying. If we began to actually understand the magnitude of this statement, then I truly think debates about sexuality would not seem anywhere near as pertinent as they appear.
Perhaps we should concentrate more on the meaning and consequence of the biblical understanding of love. My suspicion is that if we engage with this practice with a little more enthusiasm we won’t have as much time to devote to the categorising of sins.
The Way of Jesus Christ necessarily offends us because it is the Way of Grace. Jesus said nothing about same-sex intercourse, or same-sex love recorded in the Biblical witness. He said a lot about how we spend our money, and how we treat one another. He spent the majority of his time with the marginalised and the outcast and advocated justice for those that the rest of society had either forgotten or despised.
In today’s world, same-sex couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples (whether they are married or not) and perhaps if we are to begin a conversation about homosexuality within our contemporary context, it should begin by advocating for justice.
I have a deep passion for the study of biblical hermeneutics. I believe the church needs to engage with its sacred texts with integrity, fidelity and compassion, and it also needs to bring to the table its best scholarship in relation to the study of context, language and epistemology (both ancient and contemporary).
We must also realise that the Bible is not God. Rather, we dare to claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to us and through us as we read our scriptures. Perhaps we all need to take a deep breath and listen rather than speak – lest we miss what the Spirit is saying to the church.
As an evangelical Christian, I would like to say to gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gendered and sexually confused people, that God loves you. I would like to repent on behalf of my fellow sisters and brothers in the faith for our ignorance, prejudice and insensitivity. And I would like to invite you to join us on an adventure of discipleship.
By following the Way of Jesus Christ, and surrendering to the grace of God, there is a life of love, forgiveness and wholeness just waiting for all who would dare to respond.
Rev Peter Hobson is the minister at Maroubra Junction Uniting Church and the Uniting Church Chaplain at the University of New South Wales. No more responses to Brian McLaren’s article will be published.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Peter Hobson
As a Uniting Church minister, conversations about homosexuality and biblical hermeneutics are beginning to seem a bit tired. Our denomination has wrestled with issues of wholeness (and holiness), biblical faithfulness, Christian witness, authentic discipleship, costly grace and prophetic leadership over the last ten years or so – but in particular, how these issues relate to sexuality (and in a more focused way – homosexuality). It is interesting to see how people from other denominations and faith traditions approach the topic.
I am currently completing a doctorate in theology, examining hermeneutics, discipleship and narrative theology. I am an evangelical, charismatic Christian who is passionate about following the way of Jesus Christ. I am also white, heterosexual, middle-class, married and male (which means that lying beneath the surface I battle with a formative narrative that is racist, homophobic, privileged and sexist). Understanding context is so important when dealing with hermeneutics.
In the end, the Biblical witness is nowhere near as clear-cut as we would like it to be. Anyone who has read their scriptures is aware that they can get the biblical text to support just about any argument on any topic they so wish (see, for example, “The story of Mel White”).
In this way, the Bible has been used and abused over the centuries to support slavery, oppression, violence, prejudice, greed and war. Texts from Romans, 1 Corinthians, Leviticus or Deuteronomy may seem to be pretty clear cut on the issue of homosexuality – but they are not. In fact, they have nothing to say about homosexuality at all.
Homosexuality, as we understand it – a sexual orientation, is a relatively new concept. The word itself was first coined in the late 19th century. At the time of Paul’s writings, Greek society viewed genital intercourse between two males to be of the highest order, but had no understanding of what we would call ‘sexual orientation’. Intercourse with women was tolerated because of child-birth – but sex between males was considered to be far superior in every aspect.
It is within this context that Paul condemns certain sexual acts – probably because of their dehumanising consequences. A sexual partner was seen as an object of gratification rather than a person who is loved and valued. Two people of the same sex who have committed their lives to one another, and as part of that commitment engage in acts of mutual affection and sexual love, are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible (notwithstanding critical, if somewhat creative, examinations of the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan etc).
If, as a church, we feel we have something to say to the world regarding sexuality, violence, greed or prejudice – we had better do our homework. To say ‘the Bible says it, I believe it’ – just isn’t good enough. The Bible also gives me permission to sell my daughter into slavery (Ex 21:7) but I am sure that no-one participating in this debate would endorse this sort of behaviour.
If the church wants to recover its prophetic witness to the world with respect to its understanding of biblical fidelity and a desire for holiness – then let us recover the voice of Christ that calls us to the way of dangerous love. Love for the lost, love for the broken, love for the oppressed – love even for the oppressor!
To say we ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’ has become such a cliché I am not sure we have taken note of what it is we are saying. If we began to actually understand the magnitude of this statement, then I truly think debates about sexuality would not seem anywhere near as pertinent as they appear.
Perhaps we should concentrate more on the meaning and consequence of the biblical understanding of love. My suspicion is that if we engage with this practice with a little more enthusiasm we won’t have as much time to devote to the categorising of sins.
The Way of Jesus Christ necessarily offends us because it is the Way of Grace. Jesus said nothing about same-sex intercourse, or same-sex love recorded in the Biblical witness. He said a lot about how we spend our money, and how we treat one another. He spent the majority of his time with the marginalised and the outcast and advocated justice for those that the rest of society had either forgotten or despised.
In today’s world, same-sex couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples (whether they are married or not) and perhaps if we are to begin a conversation about homosexuality within our contemporary context, it should begin by advocating for justice.
I have a deep passion for the study of biblical hermeneutics. I believe the church needs to engage with its sacred texts with integrity, fidelity and compassion, and it also needs to bring to the table its best scholarship in relation to the study of context, language and epistemology (both ancient and contemporary).
We must also realise that the Bible is not God. Rather, we dare to claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to us and through us as we read our scriptures. Perhaps we all need to take a deep breath and listen rather than speak – lest we miss what the Spirit is saying to the church.
As an evangelical Christian, I would like to say to gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gendered and sexually confused people, that God loves you. I would like to repent on behalf of my fellow sisters and brothers in the faith for our ignorance, prejudice and insensitivity. And I would like to invite you to join us on an adventure of discipleship.
By following the Way of Jesus Christ, and surrendering to the grace of God, there is a life of love, forgiveness and wholeness just waiting for all who would dare to respond.
Rev Peter Hobson is the minister at Maroubra Junction Uniting Church and the Uniting Church Chaplain at the University of New South Wales. No more responses to Brian McLaren’s article will be published.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Has anyone seen my anchor?
No. 48, 12 February 2007
by Steve Turnbull
I once saw a documentary on espionage during World War 2 where a former agent and expert in the field said that the best deceptions are those that contain an extremely high percentage of truth. If the content contains too much deception and too little truth, then the intended receivers will be able to spot the flaws and immediately dismiss it as a ruse. If it contains too much truth, then you give away too much information to your adversary and do your own cause too much harm.
The art of espionage is to give away enough truth for your enemy to become convinced of the authenticity of the message and so take the whole as truth, therefore swallowing the small but critical piece of disinformation (a euphemism for a lie!) that will do extraordinary amounts of damage.
As I read Brian McLaren’s article “A pastoral response to ‘the homosexual question’” (Soundings 46, 5 Feb 2007), I could not help but remember that documentary. There is a great deal of truth in parts of article, but there are also serious items of disinformation that, if swallowed with the whole, allow our adversary the devil to do untold amounts of damage to the Kingdom of God.
Brian writes that when someone asks an honest question, we should not only consider the immediate and correct answer to that question, but we should also pause to consider the context in which the question originates. He says:
We pastors want to frame our answer around that need; we want to fit in with the Holy Spirit’s work in that person’s life at that particular moment. To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are “seasoned with salt” and appropriate to “the need of the moment” (Col. 4; Eph. 4) … Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ’s name, not cultural enemies we’re trying to vanquish.
I could not agree more. At that point, I was ready to rally around the banner and pass the word along. However, the next paragraph floored me:
Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.
I would expect that first sentence from someone who had little exposure to the entirety of God’s Word. As an admission from one in a position of spiritual leadership, however, it is a frightening and truly disturbing statement. The final sentence does little more than attempt to discredit any arguments against the statement without offering any substance by way of defence.
It got worse:
Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful … If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered …
If? I do not claim to be a theologian. I am a young pastor who knows well the limitations of his study and education. Yet I find it incredulous that a pastor, particularly a pastor of Brian’s experience and stature within church life internationally, could make such a statement.
Perhaps I am in need of some further teaching. Perhaps I have misunderstood Romans 1:24-27, although I do not think that it is a particularly difficult passage to get to the heart of. Perhaps I have misunderstood 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, although I find it hard to believe that Paul’s words are in any way ambiguous. I often wonder if ‘nuance’ is a term that people employ to avoid the struggle that comes with applying the truth.
My heart warms at Brian’s desire to care for those who ask the questions, just as it rejoices at the call for dialogue with and reliance on the Holy Spirit for wisdom and understanding within each pastoral context that we minister. But my heart breaks with Brian’s assertion that, at least on this issue, the truth of Scripture on this subject is somehow ambiguous and that we are awaiting clarification by the Holy Spirit as to what God really meant when he said that homosexual behaviour was sinful.
Perhaps I approach these things too simplistically, but I believe that sin is sin. That means that I also believe that no sin is more sinful than any other sin. All sin is sin. All disobedience is disobedience. Homosexuality is no more or less a sin than adultery and both are clearly against God’s Word.
I love the sinner, I hate the sin – but I refuse to re-label disobedience as obedience. I will give my all to help each one (including me) deal with the ramifications and legacies of our disobedience, but I cannot see how that is possible if we refuse to acknowledge the disobedience in the first place.
Lifesavers used to make rescues while tethered to the beach. It made great sense to be anchored as you launched into dangerous waters to rescue a drowning person. That way, if you both got into trouble, the safe anchorage would increase the likelihood that you both made it safely back to shore.
It seems to me that Brian, along with those who subscribe to his ‘frankly’ statement, have launched themselves on a rescue mission without tethering themselves to anything. Not only is that dangerous for their own spiritual health, but it offers false hope for those who are drowning and looking to them for rescue.
I seem to remember Jesus saying something relevant to that in Luke 6:39.
Steve Turnbull is the pastor of Emu Plains Community Baptist Church at the foot of the Blue Mountains in Sydney’s West.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Steve Turnbull
I once saw a documentary on espionage during World War 2 where a former agent and expert in the field said that the best deceptions are those that contain an extremely high percentage of truth. If the content contains too much deception and too little truth, then the intended receivers will be able to spot the flaws and immediately dismiss it as a ruse. If it contains too much truth, then you give away too much information to your adversary and do your own cause too much harm.
The art of espionage is to give away enough truth for your enemy to become convinced of the authenticity of the message and so take the whole as truth, therefore swallowing the small but critical piece of disinformation (a euphemism for a lie!) that will do extraordinary amounts of damage.
As I read Brian McLaren’s article “A pastoral response to ‘the homosexual question’” (Soundings 46, 5 Feb 2007), I could not help but remember that documentary. There is a great deal of truth in parts of article, but there are also serious items of disinformation that, if swallowed with the whole, allow our adversary the devil to do untold amounts of damage to the Kingdom of God.
Brian writes that when someone asks an honest question, we should not only consider the immediate and correct answer to that question, but we should also pause to consider the context in which the question originates. He says:
We pastors want to frame our answer around that need; we want to fit in with the Holy Spirit’s work in that person’s life at that particular moment. To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are “seasoned with salt” and appropriate to “the need of the moment” (Col. 4; Eph. 4) … Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ’s name, not cultural enemies we’re trying to vanquish.
I could not agree more. At that point, I was ready to rally around the banner and pass the word along. However, the next paragraph floored me:
Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.
I would expect that first sentence from someone who had little exposure to the entirety of God’s Word. As an admission from one in a position of spiritual leadership, however, it is a frightening and truly disturbing statement. The final sentence does little more than attempt to discredit any arguments against the statement without offering any substance by way of defence.
It got worse:
Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful … If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered …
If? I do not claim to be a theologian. I am a young pastor who knows well the limitations of his study and education. Yet I find it incredulous that a pastor, particularly a pastor of Brian’s experience and stature within church life internationally, could make such a statement.
Perhaps I am in need of some further teaching. Perhaps I have misunderstood Romans 1:24-27, although I do not think that it is a particularly difficult passage to get to the heart of. Perhaps I have misunderstood 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, although I find it hard to believe that Paul’s words are in any way ambiguous. I often wonder if ‘nuance’ is a term that people employ to avoid the struggle that comes with applying the truth.
My heart warms at Brian’s desire to care for those who ask the questions, just as it rejoices at the call for dialogue with and reliance on the Holy Spirit for wisdom and understanding within each pastoral context that we minister. But my heart breaks with Brian’s assertion that, at least on this issue, the truth of Scripture on this subject is somehow ambiguous and that we are awaiting clarification by the Holy Spirit as to what God really meant when he said that homosexual behaviour was sinful.
Perhaps I approach these things too simplistically, but I believe that sin is sin. That means that I also believe that no sin is more sinful than any other sin. All sin is sin. All disobedience is disobedience. Homosexuality is no more or less a sin than adultery and both are clearly against God’s Word.
I love the sinner, I hate the sin – but I refuse to re-label disobedience as obedience. I will give my all to help each one (including me) deal with the ramifications and legacies of our disobedience, but I cannot see how that is possible if we refuse to acknowledge the disobedience in the first place.
Lifesavers used to make rescues while tethered to the beach. It made great sense to be anchored as you launched into dangerous waters to rescue a drowning person. That way, if you both got into trouble, the safe anchorage would increase the likelihood that you both made it safely back to shore.
It seems to me that Brian, along with those who subscribe to his ‘frankly’ statement, have launched themselves on a rescue mission without tethering themselves to anything. Not only is that dangerous for their own spiritual health, but it offers false hope for those who are drowning and looking to them for rescue.
I seem to remember Jesus saying something relevant to that in Luke 6:39.
Steve Turnbull is the pastor of Emu Plains Community Baptist Church at the foot of the Blue Mountains in Sydney’s West.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Does Jesus love evangelical poster art?
No. 47, 7 February 2007
by Kristine Morrison
As signs proclaiming that Jesus loves Osama adorned mainstream protestant churches this week, the deluge of media interest appeared to require some explanation. Baptist spokesperson and Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Rod Benson, fleshed out some or the detail in Soundings no. 45 (1 February), assuring enquirers that Jesus did in fact love Osama bin Laden and many other evildoers of our planet and our time.
It appears that it wasn’t such a serious question after all. The answer was so simple. There is a seamless and uncontroversial Christian approach that claims that any human being, no matter how reprobate, has claims upon the love of God.
What then was the point of the question? I’m a sufficiently conversant participant in evangelical culture to be very clear on the point of the question. The point was to assure non-believers – the unchurched, those who are “not-yet-Christian” – that in their reflective moments they ought to banish any thoughts that they are beyond the reach of God’s love because, if God can love Osama, then God can love them.
Did the poster succeed in conveying that message of unconditional love? Well, yes, the poster was technically correct but it fell well short of answering some important human questions.
I’m glad for several reasons that the infamous poster was not displayed on the front wall of the local church I attend. First, because the question betrays an ignorance of the kinds of questions that non-believers ask themselves. Current evangelical practice relies on persuading people that they are sinners.
It is true that many modern people possess an inner anxiety. The anxiety, however, is not so much about the magnitude of evil they have committed. Society could not function if it were populated with multiple Osamas. People’s consciences are much more likely to be troubled by the way they do things rather than what they do. They wake in the night not because they didn’t pay their bus fare but because they were impatient or dismissive of the bus driver. They didn’t necessarily do anything bad; rather, they could have done better.
Most people do not consider themselves anywhere near as bad as Osama bin Laden. This is not to say that they cannot appreciate the fact that they fall short of ideal human behaviour. The common everyday experience of human failure lies more in the realm of character than actions. The Osama question does not arise for most people, and it is therefore not an effective evangelistic approach.
The second reason I am glad this poster did not appear on our church wall is that it pays far too much attention to the perpetrator of evil and fails to appreciate the hurt of the victim. It is a pastoral faux pas on an all too public scale. When people who have been victims of abuse witness the church proclaiming happy days for the perpetrators of evil it is as though they are wounded again.
The question most likely to be occupying the minds of passers-by is, “Does Jesus love the victims of Osama?” Human suffering, whether personal or that which we see in others, is a profound stumbling block to the acceptance of Christianity. Christianity offers serious answers to the problem of human suffering but there were no pointers to these answers in this poster. The poster raised the problem of human suffering but provided no answer and gave the impression of being more interested in reconciling with the perpetrators of injustice than supporting the victims.
Third, perhaps the answer to the question of God’s love for Osama is more ambiguous than it seems. We may agree that all humans are loved by God but is it possible to engage in such widespread and systematic practices of evil that a person can disqualify him or herself from being human?
Can we degrade ourselves so completely that we are no longer recognisable as humans? If a person is no longer human then is that person outside the orbit of God’s love? In ordinary conversation behaviour that is good, generous and kind is described as humane, while practices that are deliberately and systematically cruel are described as beastly, animalistic or inhuman.
A modern rendition of the animalistic human is the human as machine. We describe people as machines when they appear to have lost any human feeling and they have become totally functionary beings. The idea that human beings can lose their humanity is not a totally foreign one and therefore makes the issue of God’s love for bin Laden less of an open and shut case than has perhaps been demonstrated.
Poster Christianity is perilous witness. Simple truths, simply stated can be less than helpful to those with whom we desire to communicate, notwithstanding the goodwill of those who develop these posters. We can be encouraged, within our churches, that people do read our advertising signs. But we can also be challenged to consider the pastoral implication and the wisdom of using some of our available promotional material.
Not all publicity is good publicity.
Kristine Morrison is a midwife at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and a member of the Social Issues Committee of the Baptist Churches of NSW and ACT.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Kristine Morrison
As signs proclaiming that Jesus loves Osama adorned mainstream protestant churches this week, the deluge of media interest appeared to require some explanation. Baptist spokesperson and Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Rod Benson, fleshed out some or the detail in Soundings no. 45 (1 February), assuring enquirers that Jesus did in fact love Osama bin Laden and many other evildoers of our planet and our time.
It appears that it wasn’t such a serious question after all. The answer was so simple. There is a seamless and uncontroversial Christian approach that claims that any human being, no matter how reprobate, has claims upon the love of God.
What then was the point of the question? I’m a sufficiently conversant participant in evangelical culture to be very clear on the point of the question. The point was to assure non-believers – the unchurched, those who are “not-yet-Christian” – that in their reflective moments they ought to banish any thoughts that they are beyond the reach of God’s love because, if God can love Osama, then God can love them.
Did the poster succeed in conveying that message of unconditional love? Well, yes, the poster was technically correct but it fell well short of answering some important human questions.
I’m glad for several reasons that the infamous poster was not displayed on the front wall of the local church I attend. First, because the question betrays an ignorance of the kinds of questions that non-believers ask themselves. Current evangelical practice relies on persuading people that they are sinners.
It is true that many modern people possess an inner anxiety. The anxiety, however, is not so much about the magnitude of evil they have committed. Society could not function if it were populated with multiple Osamas. People’s consciences are much more likely to be troubled by the way they do things rather than what they do. They wake in the night not because they didn’t pay their bus fare but because they were impatient or dismissive of the bus driver. They didn’t necessarily do anything bad; rather, they could have done better.
Most people do not consider themselves anywhere near as bad as Osama bin Laden. This is not to say that they cannot appreciate the fact that they fall short of ideal human behaviour. The common everyday experience of human failure lies more in the realm of character than actions. The Osama question does not arise for most people, and it is therefore not an effective evangelistic approach.
The second reason I am glad this poster did not appear on our church wall is that it pays far too much attention to the perpetrator of evil and fails to appreciate the hurt of the victim. It is a pastoral faux pas on an all too public scale. When people who have been victims of abuse witness the church proclaiming happy days for the perpetrators of evil it is as though they are wounded again.
The question most likely to be occupying the minds of passers-by is, “Does Jesus love the victims of Osama?” Human suffering, whether personal or that which we see in others, is a profound stumbling block to the acceptance of Christianity. Christianity offers serious answers to the problem of human suffering but there were no pointers to these answers in this poster. The poster raised the problem of human suffering but provided no answer and gave the impression of being more interested in reconciling with the perpetrators of injustice than supporting the victims.
Third, perhaps the answer to the question of God’s love for Osama is more ambiguous than it seems. We may agree that all humans are loved by God but is it possible to engage in such widespread and systematic practices of evil that a person can disqualify him or herself from being human?
Can we degrade ourselves so completely that we are no longer recognisable as humans? If a person is no longer human then is that person outside the orbit of God’s love? In ordinary conversation behaviour that is good, generous and kind is described as humane, while practices that are deliberately and systematically cruel are described as beastly, animalistic or inhuman.
A modern rendition of the animalistic human is the human as machine. We describe people as machines when they appear to have lost any human feeling and they have become totally functionary beings. The idea that human beings can lose their humanity is not a totally foreign one and therefore makes the issue of God’s love for bin Laden less of an open and shut case than has perhaps been demonstrated.
Poster Christianity is perilous witness. Simple truths, simply stated can be less than helpful to those with whom we desire to communicate, notwithstanding the goodwill of those who develop these posters. We can be encouraged, within our churches, that people do read our advertising signs. But we can also be challenged to consider the pastoral implication and the wisdom of using some of our available promotional material.
Not all publicity is good publicity.
Kristine Morrison is a midwife at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and a member of the Social Issues Committee of the Baptist Churches of NSW and ACT.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
A pastoral response to ‘the homosexual question’
No. 46, 5 February 2007
by Brian McLaren
The couple approached me immediately after the service. This was their first time visiting, and they really enjoyed the service, they said, but they had one question. You can guess what the question was about: not transubstantiation, not speaking in tongues, not inerrancy or eschatology, but where our church stood on homosexuality.
That “still, small voice” told me not to answer. Instead I asked, “Can you tell me why that question is important to you?”
“It’s a long story,” he said with a laugh.
Usually when I’m asked about this subject, it’s by conservative Christians wanting to be sure that we conform to what I call “radio-orthodoxy,” i.e. the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters. Sometimes it’s asked by ex-gays who want to be sure they’ll be supported in their ongoing re-orientation process, or parents whose children have recently “come out.”
But the young woman explained, “This is the first time my fiancée and I have ever actually attended a Christian service, since we were both raised agnostic.” So I supposed they were like most unchurched young adults I meet, who wouldn’t want to be part of an anti-homosexual organization any more than they’d want to be part of a racist or terrorist organization.
I hesitate in answering “the homosexual question” not because I’m a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I am a pastor, and pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest: we must also be … pastoral. That means understanding the question beneath the question, the need or fear or hope or assumption that motivates the question.
We pastors want to frame our answer around that need; we want to fit in with the Holy Spirit’s work in that person’s life at that particular moment. To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are “seasoned with salt” and appropriate to “the need of the moment” (Col. 4; Eph. 4).
Most of the emerging leaders I know share my agony over this question. We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated far more than we realize by political parties seeking to shave percentage points off their opponent’s constituency. We see whatever we say get sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric—and we’re pastors, evangelists, church-planters, and disciple-makers, not political culture warriors.
Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ’s name, not cultural enemies we’re trying to vanquish.
Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.
Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do.
If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.
After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.
Later that week I got together with the new couple to hear their story. “It’s kind of weird how we met,” they explained. “You see, we met last year through our fathers who became … partners. When we get married, we want to be sure they will be welcome at our wedding. That’s why we asked you that question on Sunday.”
Welcome to our world. Being “right” isn’t enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient. Perhaps nothing short of that should “seem good to the Holy Spirit and us.”
Brian McLaren is a leading writer and speaker in the “emerging church” movement in North America. This article appeared in Leadership Journal, Jan 2006. Copyright © 2006 by the author or Christianity Today International/Leadership Journal. Used by permission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Brian McLaren
The couple approached me immediately after the service. This was their first time visiting, and they really enjoyed the service, they said, but they had one question. You can guess what the question was about: not transubstantiation, not speaking in tongues, not inerrancy or eschatology, but where our church stood on homosexuality.
That “still, small voice” told me not to answer. Instead I asked, “Can you tell me why that question is important to you?”
“It’s a long story,” he said with a laugh.
Usually when I’m asked about this subject, it’s by conservative Christians wanting to be sure that we conform to what I call “radio-orthodoxy,” i.e. the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters. Sometimes it’s asked by ex-gays who want to be sure they’ll be supported in their ongoing re-orientation process, or parents whose children have recently “come out.”
But the young woman explained, “This is the first time my fiancée and I have ever actually attended a Christian service, since we were both raised agnostic.” So I supposed they were like most unchurched young adults I meet, who wouldn’t want to be part of an anti-homosexual organization any more than they’d want to be part of a racist or terrorist organization.
I hesitate in answering “the homosexual question” not because I’m a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I am a pastor, and pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest: we must also be … pastoral. That means understanding the question beneath the question, the need or fear or hope or assumption that motivates the question.
We pastors want to frame our answer around that need; we want to fit in with the Holy Spirit’s work in that person’s life at that particular moment. To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are “seasoned with salt” and appropriate to “the need of the moment” (Col. 4; Eph. 4).
Most of the emerging leaders I know share my agony over this question. We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated far more than we realize by political parties seeking to shave percentage points off their opponent’s constituency. We see whatever we say get sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric—and we’re pastors, evangelists, church-planters, and disciple-makers, not political culture warriors.
Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ’s name, not cultural enemies we’re trying to vanquish.
Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.
Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do.
If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.
After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.
Later that week I got together with the new couple to hear their story. “It’s kind of weird how we met,” they explained. “You see, we met last year through our fathers who became … partners. When we get married, we want to be sure they will be welcome at our wedding. That’s why we asked you that question on Sunday.”
Welcome to our world. Being “right” isn’t enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient. Perhaps nothing short of that should “seem good to the Holy Spirit and us.”
Brian McLaren is a leading writer and speaker in the “emerging church” movement in North America. This article appeared in Leadership Journal, Jan 2006. Copyright © 2006 by the author or Christianity Today International/Leadership Journal. Used by permission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Does Jesus love Osama?
No. 45, 1 February 2007
by Rod Benson
Scores of churches around Australia this week are displaying large posters with the words, “Jesus loves Osama.” The poster is part of a series of advertisements designed by Outreach Media to promote what it sees as “the heart of the gospel.”
But the notion that the Son of God would demonstrate affection for the world’s most wanted man, and that Christian churches might want to point out this gospel truth to commuters and pedestrians, is news to Australia’s news media.
Sydney tabloid journalist Luke McIlveen broke the story in today’s Daily Telegraph, and various news media have followed his lead. To my knowledge, McIlveen has not spoken to a spokesperson of the Baptist Union of NSW, and incorrectly assumed from a conversation he apparently had with an administrative support person that the Baptist Union of NSW distances itself from the signage. In fact it does not; to do so would be an implicit denial of the validity and significance of the teaching and example of Jesus.
Fellow journalist Andrew Bolt’s blog features a photograph of the sign on the wall outside Sydney’s Central Baptist Church, along with the comment that the church has “chosen from among all the people to remember in its prayers the one who’d most want them dead.” Bolt also makes a connection between the sign and Michael Leunig’s distasteful image, from Christmas 2006, of a blood-spattered Prime Minister and Foreign Minister above the caption, “Celebrating another successful year in Iraq.”
Apart from the fact that there is no credible evidence of a link between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist activities and Saddam Hussein’s regime, the sign outside Australian churches this week has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the activities of al-Qaeda. Nor has it anything to do with the moral character or evil actions of Osama. The sign has everything to do with what God is like, how wide God’s love is, and what is distinctive about the Christian gospel.
Through propositions and narratives, the Bible teaches that God is love, and that God loves all people without reserve (e.g. 1 John 4:8; John 3:16; Luke 15). Jesus Christ perfectly reflects the loving nature and actions of God. So it is true to say that Jesus loved Judas Iscariot, Pilate and Nero as well as Peter, James and John. It is equally true to say that Jesus loves Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet and Pol Pot just as he loves you and me. Yes, Jesus even loves George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.
I am not suggesting that we are irresponsible or unaccountable for unjust and selfish actions we may choose to take. The point is that the love of God is as boundless as the justice of God is universal.
Assertions like this may be offensive to some, particularly those who have personally suffered, or whose loved ones have suffered or died, under the regimes of monstrous tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. It may well seem impossible for family members of the innocent victims of 9/11 to love and forgive those who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the terrorist attacks in 2001.
But that sentiment, while understandable, does not change the Bible’s teaching, or the nature of God, or the mission of God in the world. We do well to reflect on those profound and radical words of Jesus:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:43-45a).
It was this extract from the Sermon on the Mount that led many churches this week to post the sign that “Jesus loves Osama.” Of course he does! And so should those who follow Jesus. As Alan Soden, Secretary of the Baptist Union of NSW, observed in a recorded interview on ABC radio today:
It’s not about Osama and what he has done or may have done. We are all sinners and [God] loves us all no matter who we are or what we have done. Hopefully it might cause some people to think about Jesus’ teachings. The idea that we should pray for someone and even love them when we disagree with them or may even be opposed to them and their actions is radical. But many of Jesus’ ideas were radical.
Yes, Jesus loves Osama bin Laden. Jesus may hate what Osama has done (whatever that is), but he loves the person who did those things. In fact, I can say on biblical authority that Jesus died for Osama, and desires that he and others like him (even worse than him) should share the pleasures and joys of heaven forever. Now that’s something to shout about, both inside and outside our churches.
John Laws, speaking this morning on Sydney’s 2UE, took a different line. He wondered aloud what all the publicity will do to “dwindling numbers at Baptist churches.” Presumably he was referring to the latest church posters, but their purpose is, of course, to generate publicity and encourage conversation and reflection. I attend many NSW Baptist churches in the course of my work, and I can assure John that numbers are not dwindling. In fact, according to national figures released last year, Baptists and Pentecostals are virtually the only Christian denominations in Australia experiencing sustained numerical growth.
John Laws raised another important issue. If Jesus loves Osama, where does that leave all those who hate Osama? The answer is obvious: they are unlike God in nature and character, attitudes and actions. But God understands the reasons for this and continues to offer them unconditional love and free forgiveness. That’s what Christians mean when they talk about the grace of God. That’s what the gospel is all about.
I think a more interesting question is: “Does Osama love Jesus and, if not, why?” That would surely get the phones ringing. It might also get the Christians thinking.
Which reminds me that Outreach Media’s next poster, so I’m told, will simply say, “Forgiveness: One size fits all.”
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Market-able Christians
No. 44, 14 December 2006
by Martien Kelderman
Jesus told us we were to be the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13-16). We all know the blessings and the curses of salt. Too little and you notice it, too much and again you notice it. Both too little and too much bring out negative reactions. Salt is at its best when it brings out the best flavour. Salt is at its best when it brings out that which God intended for the earth.
A Christian brother who prefers not to be named (I will call him Bob) asked me to join him for coffee recently to discuss an issue of recruitment. Bob works in IT and has his own small group of about six IT engineers. The business was growing and Bob was keen to add to the team. There are not many spare IT engineers around in the market at the moment and Bob had met a young man in the industry (lets call him Joe), a Christian who worked for another small IT company owned by Andrew, also a Christian.
Joe was young, hard working, very clever and really just the sort of person Bob needed. Bob had made ‘I am interested in employing you’ noises and have received in reply appropriate ‘I am interested in coming over’ responses.
Bob asked. “What is the right way to recruit Joe? I can offer him an attractive salary package, but I am concerned how I should deal with Andrew who, after all, is a brother in the Lord. I don’t want to do wrong.
A good question, perhaps not one we should limit to ‘brothers in the Lord’. But hey! The family is a good place to practice.
I asked what normal market practice was as he understood it. “Oh that’s easy, you just find a moment where you can catch the young man on his own, make him an attractive offer and encourage him to come as quickly as possible.” And no, in the market there is no worry about the consequences to the other persons business. That’s just life.
You might insist on (or agree to) the young man giving proper notice on the basis that you would like him to do the same to you if the situation were reversed.
Bob and I agreed that, in the Kingdom of God, there had to be a better way – one richer in flavour. Christ does call for us to consider the other person. Bob’s gain did not have to include an unnecessary penalty for Andrew.
We explored options and agreed that God would be pleased if there was an honorable communication to Andrew of Bob’s intended offer. This would allow Andrew, if he wished, to make a counter offer to Joe to keep him. It would allow the three of them to negotiate a transition so that Joe could finish projects for Andrew and not embarrass him to his clients. It would allow Andrew time to go to market and seek a replacement. It would allow a healthy respect to be established between Bob and Andrew as Christian brothers who were also competitors in the market.
The coffee over, it was time for action.
Bob advised Joe what he was intending to do. Joe, to his credit, sought permission to speak with Andrew first and communicate all the options from Bob. Joe did this, and was released by Andrew to transit across with some finishing time for some projects. Bob would get more and more of Joe’s time as those projects were completed. Joe now works for Bob.
At a later meeting between Andrew and Bob, they could look each other in the eye. Andrew indicated he had learned something that day of a different way to do business and confessed quietly that some months before he had made an approach to one of Bob’s team. That person had declined to come, and Andrew suspected he now knew why.
What if we extended this approach to non-believers?
The market has existed since earliest times when two goods were exchanged for mutual benefit. Sin has brought profound distortions, but Christ in us can begin to redeem the marketplace to that which God intended.
Martien Kelderman is Director of the School of Contemporary Christian Studies at the Bible College of New Zealand, Auckland. This is an edited version of an article appearing in OnWatch bulletin 12, 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Martien Kelderman
Jesus told us we were to be the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13-16). We all know the blessings and the curses of salt. Too little and you notice it, too much and again you notice it. Both too little and too much bring out negative reactions. Salt is at its best when it brings out the best flavour. Salt is at its best when it brings out that which God intended for the earth.
A Christian brother who prefers not to be named (I will call him Bob) asked me to join him for coffee recently to discuss an issue of recruitment. Bob works in IT and has his own small group of about six IT engineers. The business was growing and Bob was keen to add to the team. There are not many spare IT engineers around in the market at the moment and Bob had met a young man in the industry (lets call him Joe), a Christian who worked for another small IT company owned by Andrew, also a Christian.
Joe was young, hard working, very clever and really just the sort of person Bob needed. Bob had made ‘I am interested in employing you’ noises and have received in reply appropriate ‘I am interested in coming over’ responses.
Bob asked. “What is the right way to recruit Joe? I can offer him an attractive salary package, but I am concerned how I should deal with Andrew who, after all, is a brother in the Lord. I don’t want to do wrong.
A good question, perhaps not one we should limit to ‘brothers in the Lord’. But hey! The family is a good place to practice.
I asked what normal market practice was as he understood it. “Oh that’s easy, you just find a moment where you can catch the young man on his own, make him an attractive offer and encourage him to come as quickly as possible.” And no, in the market there is no worry about the consequences to the other persons business. That’s just life.
You might insist on (or agree to) the young man giving proper notice on the basis that you would like him to do the same to you if the situation were reversed.
Bob and I agreed that, in the Kingdom of God, there had to be a better way – one richer in flavour. Christ does call for us to consider the other person. Bob’s gain did not have to include an unnecessary penalty for Andrew.
We explored options and agreed that God would be pleased if there was an honorable communication to Andrew of Bob’s intended offer. This would allow Andrew, if he wished, to make a counter offer to Joe to keep him. It would allow the three of them to negotiate a transition so that Joe could finish projects for Andrew and not embarrass him to his clients. It would allow Andrew time to go to market and seek a replacement. It would allow a healthy respect to be established between Bob and Andrew as Christian brothers who were also competitors in the market.
The coffee over, it was time for action.
Bob advised Joe what he was intending to do. Joe, to his credit, sought permission to speak with Andrew first and communicate all the options from Bob. Joe did this, and was released by Andrew to transit across with some finishing time for some projects. Bob would get more and more of Joe’s time as those projects were completed. Joe now works for Bob.
At a later meeting between Andrew and Bob, they could look each other in the eye. Andrew indicated he had learned something that day of a different way to do business and confessed quietly that some months before he had made an approach to one of Bob’s team. That person had declined to come, and Andrew suspected he now knew why.
What if we extended this approach to non-believers?
The market has existed since earliest times when two goods were exchanged for mutual benefit. Sin has brought profound distortions, but Christ in us can begin to redeem the marketplace to that which God intended.
Martien Kelderman is Director of the School of Contemporary Christian Studies at the Bible College of New Zealand, Auckland. This is an edited version of an article appearing in OnWatch bulletin 12, 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Ted Haggard, Augustine and the problem of sin
No. 43, 6 December 2006
by Jon Pahl
Now that some of the dust has settled from the unfortunate fall of evangelical leader Ted Haggard – who has confessed to being a “sinner” to his congregation – we can achieve some longer-range perspective on what it all means.
I agree with Martin Marty’s comment in the November 6 issue of Sightings that Rev. Haggard, along with his family and all those involved in this scandal, deserves compassion, and one wishes him peace. But Haggard’s letter to his church reveals a truncated understanding of sin and a failure to recognize how the movement he led as President of the National Association of Evangelicals is in part responsible for his plight.
Like most evangelicals, Haggard is the theological heir of Saint Augustine, finding sin in pride and lust. Unlike Augustine, however, Haggard sees pride and lust as personal attributes. “I alone am responsible,” he asserts in his letter. “I created this entire situation,” he reiterates. And yet a third time he says, “It was created 100 percent by me.”
Augustine has a more sophisticated understanding of the origins of sinful desire. In his Confessions, he reveals how sin arises from within a social nexus. In the famous account in Book 2, he describes stealing a bunch of pears with a gang of his friends. He did this not because he was hungry, but because it was transgressive. He and his friends constructed a foul desire and then he acted on it.
A similar dynamic can be observed among many conservative evangelicals with regard to homosexuality. By targeting gay sex as “sin,” the religious right has mobilized “values voters.” But by scapegoating homosexuality, they draw attention to it as “temptation.”
As Haggard puts it: “There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I’ve been warring against it all of my adult life.” It is as if the religious right’s culture war has played out in Ted Haggard’s soul. As an individual willing to carry the blame as a “sinner,” he acted out the scapegoating that has in part organized power for the movement he led.
In its mild form, this scapegoating of homosexuals has been expressed in “Defense of Marriage” laws, one of which passed in the recent elections in Colorado. Haggard was a vocal supporter of these laws. Such tension between his public person and his private behavior must have been excruciating.
A more extreme form of this logic has led to movements like that of the Rev. Fred Phelps’s “God Hates Fags” campaign. Passion for “purity” against homosexual desire has been used to rally evangelical righteousness, and to round up voters.
Consequently, those who feel homosexual desire and who are also persuaded by the logic of a Phelps will likely bear a degree of self-hatred that leads to isolation and repression. Haggard would appear to be in such a position. “For extended periods of time,” Haggard writes, “I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.”
But what Haggard does not seem to recognize, as Augustine did, is how his desires were in part the result of what he believed and taught. Augustine demonstrates that a dirty desire is desirable precisely because it is dirty. Similarly, Haggard, I believe, was actually possessed by the social constructions of the very movement he led. He suggests as much when he reveals that “when I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me.”
But a problem can only dominate one in this way when it is constructed as a problem. If, say, gay sex were considered good within a committed, loving, and publicly recognized relationship, it would not pose a moral threat.
According to Augustine, an individual either participates in God, who is gracious and life-fulfilling love, or one falls into lust, which is prideful assertion of one’s desires to dominate. The religious right has had plentyof experience with domination lately. It is more than a little disturbing, then, that Haggard, in his letter, imagines that he will be “healed” when his “sins” are “dealt with harshly,” and when, with the “oversight” of leading anti-gay pastors Dr. James Dobson, Jack Hayford, and Tommy Barnett, he is “disciplined.” (Dobson has since withdrawn from the counseling team.)
It is unlikely that those in this group will actually confess their collective responsibility for Haggard’s sins. To do so, they would have to acknowledge the systemic violence they have accepted and promoted by scapegoating homosexuals.
Policies produce practices, and when a taboo is constructed, it invariably becomes a temptation. Prior to his fall, Haggard had been an admirably clear voice for broadening evangelical activism to include support for environmental causes and attention to poverty as a religious issue.
One might now hope that evangelicals and others continue to learn through his example – by recognizing with Augustine how desire is rooted in a social nexus.
References
The full text of Ted Haggard’s letter is available at the Colorado Springs Gazette: http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1326184&secid=1.
Jon Pahl is Professor of the History of Christianity in North America at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, and a Fellow in the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University. This article first appeared in Sightings, a publication of the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Jon Pahl
Now that some of the dust has settled from the unfortunate fall of evangelical leader Ted Haggard – who has confessed to being a “sinner” to his congregation – we can achieve some longer-range perspective on what it all means.
I agree with Martin Marty’s comment in the November 6 issue of Sightings that Rev. Haggard, along with his family and all those involved in this scandal, deserves compassion, and one wishes him peace. But Haggard’s letter to his church reveals a truncated understanding of sin and a failure to recognize how the movement he led as President of the National Association of Evangelicals is in part responsible for his plight.
Like most evangelicals, Haggard is the theological heir of Saint Augustine, finding sin in pride and lust. Unlike Augustine, however, Haggard sees pride and lust as personal attributes. “I alone am responsible,” he asserts in his letter. “I created this entire situation,” he reiterates. And yet a third time he says, “It was created 100 percent by me.”
Augustine has a more sophisticated understanding of the origins of sinful desire. In his Confessions, he reveals how sin arises from within a social nexus. In the famous account in Book 2, he describes stealing a bunch of pears with a gang of his friends. He did this not because he was hungry, but because it was transgressive. He and his friends constructed a foul desire and then he acted on it.
A similar dynamic can be observed among many conservative evangelicals with regard to homosexuality. By targeting gay sex as “sin,” the religious right has mobilized “values voters.” But by scapegoating homosexuality, they draw attention to it as “temptation.”
As Haggard puts it: “There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I’ve been warring against it all of my adult life.” It is as if the religious right’s culture war has played out in Ted Haggard’s soul. As an individual willing to carry the blame as a “sinner,” he acted out the scapegoating that has in part organized power for the movement he led.
In its mild form, this scapegoating of homosexuals has been expressed in “Defense of Marriage” laws, one of which passed in the recent elections in Colorado. Haggard was a vocal supporter of these laws. Such tension between his public person and his private behavior must have been excruciating.
A more extreme form of this logic has led to movements like that of the Rev. Fred Phelps’s “God Hates Fags” campaign. Passion for “purity” against homosexual desire has been used to rally evangelical righteousness, and to round up voters.
Consequently, those who feel homosexual desire and who are also persuaded by the logic of a Phelps will likely bear a degree of self-hatred that leads to isolation and repression. Haggard would appear to be in such a position. “For extended periods of time,” Haggard writes, “I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.”
But what Haggard does not seem to recognize, as Augustine did, is how his desires were in part the result of what he believed and taught. Augustine demonstrates that a dirty desire is desirable precisely because it is dirty. Similarly, Haggard, I believe, was actually possessed by the social constructions of the very movement he led. He suggests as much when he reveals that “when I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me.”
But a problem can only dominate one in this way when it is constructed as a problem. If, say, gay sex were considered good within a committed, loving, and publicly recognized relationship, it would not pose a moral threat.
According to Augustine, an individual either participates in God, who is gracious and life-fulfilling love, or one falls into lust, which is prideful assertion of one’s desires to dominate. The religious right has had plentyof experience with domination lately. It is more than a little disturbing, then, that Haggard, in his letter, imagines that he will be “healed” when his “sins” are “dealt with harshly,” and when, with the “oversight” of leading anti-gay pastors Dr. James Dobson, Jack Hayford, and Tommy Barnett, he is “disciplined.” (Dobson has since withdrawn from the counseling team.)
It is unlikely that those in this group will actually confess their collective responsibility for Haggard’s sins. To do so, they would have to acknowledge the systemic violence they have accepted and promoted by scapegoating homosexuals.
Policies produce practices, and when a taboo is constructed, it invariably becomes a temptation. Prior to his fall, Haggard had been an admirably clear voice for broadening evangelical activism to include support for environmental causes and attention to poverty as a religious issue.
One might now hope that evangelicals and others continue to learn through his example – by recognizing with Augustine how desire is rooted in a social nexus.
References
The full text of Ted Haggard’s letter is available at the Colorado Springs Gazette: http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1326184&secid=1.
Jon Pahl is Professor of the History of Christianity in North America at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, and a Fellow in the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University. This article first appeared in Sightings, a publication of the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Combating the stigma of HIV/AIDS
No. 42, 1 December 2006
by David Coffey
Today is World AIDS Day. Around the world there have been special seminars and public gatherings to call attention to the fact that forty million individuals have HIV. Among those infected are members of our own Baptist community. Yet HIV/AIDS is not just a one time a year issue. It is a global issue that demands our attention throughout the year.
Baptists around the world have made strides in 2006 to focus on the devastating reality of the disease. This past summer, a resolution was passed at our General Council meeting in Mexico City that stated the Baptist World Alliance’s commitment to fighting the pandemic 365 days a year.
We are putting together a database of Baptist organizations and individuals that are working to both prevent and combat the disease. The hope is that this can be used for networking purposes as a way of sharing ideas and encouragement. Additionally, Baptist World Aid has made both the approval and funding of projects addressing HIV/AIDS a priority.
Personally, I have made a pledge to profile HIV/AIDS during my five-year presidency. Tangibly this has translated to visiting different ministries around the world and meeting with those living with HIV.
The strength of being a Baptist is knowing you are not alone. We are a global community and fighting HIV/AIDS is something that we can, and should, do together. Thinking and caring for those living with AIDS takes commitment.
I suggest we make the time for this. Make it a priority. Meeting people living with HIV, their families and Baptists working on AIDS issues should be a priority. Simply listening to their stories and praying with them is a powerful encouragement and a blessing to your own life. I have done this in my own ministry and invite you to join me in making it a priority commitment.
AIDS is a global problem and the stigma and discrimination are worldwide. I meet people living with HIV on my travels; I embrace them and eat with them. I visit churches where their declared policy is to openly welcome all HIV-positive individuals and their family members. In these churches all are welcome to come for prayer, discipleship, and most of all, encouragement.
I welcome the initiative launched today by Baptists living with HIV to set up a network for support and encouragement. I thank those of you who are Baptists living with HIV and have had the courage to declare your status to your family and congregation; you are an example to all.
I encourage church leaders and church members to reach out to one another in Christian fellowship and love. Jesus gave us a new commandment to love one another as he had loved us. He said when we fulfill this commandment of love, then the world will know we are his true followers (John 13:34-35).
Let’s make a fresh commitment to the new commandment of Jesus and end ignorance, stigma and isolation.
Rev David Coffey is President of the Baptist World Alliance. He was General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain from 1991 to 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by David Coffey
Today is World AIDS Day. Around the world there have been special seminars and public gatherings to call attention to the fact that forty million individuals have HIV. Among those infected are members of our own Baptist community. Yet HIV/AIDS is not just a one time a year issue. It is a global issue that demands our attention throughout the year.
Baptists around the world have made strides in 2006 to focus on the devastating reality of the disease. This past summer, a resolution was passed at our General Council meeting in Mexico City that stated the Baptist World Alliance’s commitment to fighting the pandemic 365 days a year.
We are putting together a database of Baptist organizations and individuals that are working to both prevent and combat the disease. The hope is that this can be used for networking purposes as a way of sharing ideas and encouragement. Additionally, Baptist World Aid has made both the approval and funding of projects addressing HIV/AIDS a priority.
Personally, I have made a pledge to profile HIV/AIDS during my five-year presidency. Tangibly this has translated to visiting different ministries around the world and meeting with those living with HIV.
The strength of being a Baptist is knowing you are not alone. We are a global community and fighting HIV/AIDS is something that we can, and should, do together. Thinking and caring for those living with AIDS takes commitment.
I suggest we make the time for this. Make it a priority. Meeting people living with HIV, their families and Baptists working on AIDS issues should be a priority. Simply listening to their stories and praying with them is a powerful encouragement and a blessing to your own life. I have done this in my own ministry and invite you to join me in making it a priority commitment.
AIDS is a global problem and the stigma and discrimination are worldwide. I meet people living with HIV on my travels; I embrace them and eat with them. I visit churches where their declared policy is to openly welcome all HIV-positive individuals and their family members. In these churches all are welcome to come for prayer, discipleship, and most of all, encouragement.
I welcome the initiative launched today by Baptists living with HIV to set up a network for support and encouragement. I thank those of you who are Baptists living with HIV and have had the courage to declare your status to your family and congregation; you are an example to all.
I encourage church leaders and church members to reach out to one another in Christian fellowship and love. Jesus gave us a new commandment to love one another as he had loved us. He said when we fulfill this commandment of love, then the world will know we are his true followers (John 13:34-35).
Let’s make a fresh commitment to the new commandment of Jesus and end ignorance, stigma and isolation.
Rev David Coffey is President of the Baptist World Alliance. He was General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain from 1991 to 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
The church and delivery of public services – Part 2 of 2
No. 41, 25 July 2006
by Wilma Gallet
Should churches walk away from delivering programs funded by government? Not necessarily. But the church needs to exercise caution. Some of the ways that the church might be different is in having chaplains who provide pastoral care, counselling or advice; organising church services for clients; and having a set of values posted on the wall.
But while these may set church agencies apart they are simply ‘add-ons’. There is a need to be different at the core. This means to be intentional in ministry and for the staff and those who represent the church to understand what mission is and what underpins it. There are four key elements to ensuring that church welfare stays focused on mission and avoids ‘mission drift’.
1. Clarity of mission and purpose
It is vital for a church or agency to clearly articulate the values by which it operates. Values need to be more than a statement of motivating or rousing words that hang on the wall or preface the annual report. The gospel values of justice, compassion, mercy, hope, respect for human dignity, unconditional love and acceptance, stewardship, humility and servant-hood need to be incorporated into everything the organisation does. They need to underpin the decision making processes, be included in position descriptions, staff appraisals, staff meetings, discussions, documents, brochures, staff training material and tenders.
It is also essential to develop a theology of mission to focus on the scriptural reasons for being involved in certain programs and establish the time to pull out of a particular service delivery. The theology of mission should clearly establish the non-negotiables, and when the theology of mission is breached then the guiding principles should state quite clearly that this is the time to get out.
A theology of mission will also help in the explanation of mission to non-Christian staff. It will demonstrate to them that the raison d’etre of the agency goes beyond a humanistic response to social service provision.
2. Language
It is now commonplace in the corporate sector to hear talk about mission, pastoral care and stewardship. This should be enough to demonstrate to us that the church has something to offer the world of corporate giants. But, in return, does the church compromise too much by taking on the language of business when speaking of a welfare Industry or market? It is important to re-invent the language of scripture and use this not only within the sphere of evangelism but in all aspects of our mission.
Church agencies need to be mindful of the impact of language on behaviour and weave more scriptural principles into its internal and external conversations, using the language of ‘ministry’, ‘servant-hood’, ‘justice’, ‘hope’ and ‘being salt and light’ etc.
3. People
It goes without saying that all agencies should employ people who are professionally competent, but they should also be looking for more than professional competence if they are to make a difference and to be different. The need is to recruit people who feel the mission and who are able to intentionally focus on it.
This means finding people who are prepared to go the extra mile, who will not just develop empathy but who will recognise the image of God that is in every human person. Agencies need staff who will understand the mission of the church in transforming lives and transforming society.
4. Linking to a church community
Another unintended outcome of professional social welfare arms being associated with various denominations is that the members of the church can abrogate their Christian responsibility to care for poor or less fortunate people. Some, in fact, even feel powerless or excluded from opportunities to care or give back within their communities. Churches need to look at a way of linking social service provision - particularly that provided by the larger ‘professional services’ - into local congregations and church communities.
Conclusion
Achieving this means not becoming reliant on the funding dollar; not getting locked in forever; focusing on alleviating social needs through advocacy and service; never compromising the mission of the church; not taking on the government’s ideology; and not buying into partisan politics or specific ideologies. As Jim Wallis says, “God’s politics is never partisan or ideological. But it challenges everything about our politics. God’s politics reminds us of the people our politics always neglects – the poor, the vulnerable, the left behind.” [1]
Finally, we must be intentional about mission and living out the words of Jesus. Tony Campolo recently spoke about evangelical Christians who are concerned about what is happening to poor people in the US. ‘Red-Letter Christians’ (a new name which stems from the fact that the words of Jesus in many versions of the New Testament are printed in red) are affirming that they are committed to living out the words of Jesus, particularly his ‘Humanifesto’ found in Matthew 5 -7.
“In those red letters,” says Campolo, “he calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary American consciousness. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for his followers. Figuring out just how to relate those radical red letters in the Bible to the complex issues in the modern world will be difficult, but that’s what we’ll try to do.” [2]
Wilma Gallet was founding CEO of The Salvation Army Employment Plus and is completing a Masters in Social Policy. She has a passion to see the church actively and positively involved as a prophetic voice in public debate. This is an edited version of an article published in BriefCace, July 2006. Part 1 appeared in Soundings No. 40. Used by permission.
References
[1] Jim Wallis, God’s Politics (New York: Harper Collins, 2005) p. xxi.
[2] See Tony Campolo, “What’s a Red-Letter Christian?” http://beliefnet.com/story/185/story_18562_2.html, accessed 1 June 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Wilma Gallet
Should churches walk away from delivering programs funded by government? Not necessarily. But the church needs to exercise caution. Some of the ways that the church might be different is in having chaplains who provide pastoral care, counselling or advice; organising church services for clients; and having a set of values posted on the wall.
But while these may set church agencies apart they are simply ‘add-ons’. There is a need to be different at the core. This means to be intentional in ministry and for the staff and those who represent the church to understand what mission is and what underpins it. There are four key elements to ensuring that church welfare stays focused on mission and avoids ‘mission drift’.
1. Clarity of mission and purpose
It is vital for a church or agency to clearly articulate the values by which it operates. Values need to be more than a statement of motivating or rousing words that hang on the wall or preface the annual report. The gospel values of justice, compassion, mercy, hope, respect for human dignity, unconditional love and acceptance, stewardship, humility and servant-hood need to be incorporated into everything the organisation does. They need to underpin the decision making processes, be included in position descriptions, staff appraisals, staff meetings, discussions, documents, brochures, staff training material and tenders.
It is also essential to develop a theology of mission to focus on the scriptural reasons for being involved in certain programs and establish the time to pull out of a particular service delivery. The theology of mission should clearly establish the non-negotiables, and when the theology of mission is breached then the guiding principles should state quite clearly that this is the time to get out.
A theology of mission will also help in the explanation of mission to non-Christian staff. It will demonstrate to them that the raison d’etre of the agency goes beyond a humanistic response to social service provision.
2. Language
It is now commonplace in the corporate sector to hear talk about mission, pastoral care and stewardship. This should be enough to demonstrate to us that the church has something to offer the world of corporate giants. But, in return, does the church compromise too much by taking on the language of business when speaking of a welfare Industry or market? It is important to re-invent the language of scripture and use this not only within the sphere of evangelism but in all aspects of our mission.
Church agencies need to be mindful of the impact of language on behaviour and weave more scriptural principles into its internal and external conversations, using the language of ‘ministry’, ‘servant-hood’, ‘justice’, ‘hope’ and ‘being salt and light’ etc.
3. People
It goes without saying that all agencies should employ people who are professionally competent, but they should also be looking for more than professional competence if they are to make a difference and to be different. The need is to recruit people who feel the mission and who are able to intentionally focus on it.
This means finding people who are prepared to go the extra mile, who will not just develop empathy but who will recognise the image of God that is in every human person. Agencies need staff who will understand the mission of the church in transforming lives and transforming society.
4. Linking to a church community
Another unintended outcome of professional social welfare arms being associated with various denominations is that the members of the church can abrogate their Christian responsibility to care for poor or less fortunate people. Some, in fact, even feel powerless or excluded from opportunities to care or give back within their communities. Churches need to look at a way of linking social service provision - particularly that provided by the larger ‘professional services’ - into local congregations and church communities.
Conclusion
Achieving this means not becoming reliant on the funding dollar; not getting locked in forever; focusing on alleviating social needs through advocacy and service; never compromising the mission of the church; not taking on the government’s ideology; and not buying into partisan politics or specific ideologies. As Jim Wallis says, “God’s politics is never partisan or ideological. But it challenges everything about our politics. God’s politics reminds us of the people our politics always neglects – the poor, the vulnerable, the left behind.” [1]
Finally, we must be intentional about mission and living out the words of Jesus. Tony Campolo recently spoke about evangelical Christians who are concerned about what is happening to poor people in the US. ‘Red-Letter Christians’ (a new name which stems from the fact that the words of Jesus in many versions of the New Testament are printed in red) are affirming that they are committed to living out the words of Jesus, particularly his ‘Humanifesto’ found in Matthew 5 -7.
“In those red letters,” says Campolo, “he calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary American consciousness. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for his followers. Figuring out just how to relate those radical red letters in the Bible to the complex issues in the modern world will be difficult, but that’s what we’ll try to do.” [2]
Wilma Gallet was founding CEO of The Salvation Army Employment Plus and is completing a Masters in Social Policy. She has a passion to see the church actively and positively involved as a prophetic voice in public debate. This is an edited version of an article published in BriefCace, July 2006. Part 1 appeared in Soundings No. 40. Used by permission.
References
[1] Jim Wallis, God’s Politics (New York: Harper Collins, 2005) p. xxi.
[2] See Tony Campolo, “What’s a Red-Letter Christian?” http://beliefnet.com/story/185/story_18562_2.html, accessed 1 June 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
The church and delivery of public services – Part 1 of 2
No. 40, 24 July 2006
by Wilma Gallet
The past 10-15 years has seen the emergence of competitive tendering and the development of a market model in the provision of a range of human services including aged care, employment services, child care, drug and alcohol services, health care and family services. In all of these areas the government contracts with the community, church and for-profit sectors to deliver services. Consequently, private companies are now providing return on investment through the provision of government funded welfare services.
By adapting to the new rules, church agencies can win contracts and even gain ‘market share’, but will this be at the cost of losing their distinctive mission goals? And how does the church demonstrate the difference between the church’s provision of services and that of a private company?
Specifically, how does a child in a church run child-care centre or a resident in an aged care hostel experience being in a facility run by the church? How does an unemployed person experience the difference between a church-run service for unemployed people and a private provider? How do the employees of such organisations know that they are working for a Christian service? And if there is no difference, then why should the church continue to provide such services?
The church’s role in delivering community services
The role of the church in delivery of social services is to provide a compassionate, primary response, in the spirit of the Good Samaritan. Less obvious to outsiders, but just as critical, is the church’s role in reforming society. The role of advocacy is emphasised in Proverbs where believers are implored to “speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute” (Proverbs 31:8).
Many within the sector believe there is a risk that the advocacy role is affected by privatisation and the use of contracts in a market environment that can compromise the agency’s independence. [1] Laura Tingle reported in May 2005 that church agencies were “usually frightened to say anything about what they are doing let alone anything critical of the government at the risk of losing their contracts, particularly the church agencies reliant on Job Network income to prop up their charity work.” [2]
The market model has introduced new concepts: competition, compliance, corporatisation and commercialism. The question is whether they lead to compromise.
From competition to collaboration
Prior to competitive tendering many agencies worked closely together, developed alliances and shared ideas and strategies. Much of this has now disappeared and this has had a deleterious impact on our social fabric: we’ve seen a loss of social infrastructure, social networks and community leadership skills. This is particularly true in regional Australia where effective community relationships between agencies are critical to the support structures for poor and disadvantaged families. The question is, “Does the church have to compete? Or can the church establish a new paradigm focused on collaboration?”
The Job Futures Group did this in the large DEWR (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations) Job Network tender. If a church agency believes it needs to submit its own tender bid, another option is to form a collaborative relation with other church agencies after the contract is given and services are established.
Collaborative services will provide better outcomes for people, certainly at a reduced cost and will create a sense of greater cohesion within communities. Developing alliances and partnering arrangements will also provide an opportunity to deliver more holistic and integrated services that create pathways for people to move through various life events.
From corporatisation to a community of faith
Another change since privatisation is the focus on corporatisation and ‘the business’ of welfare with the creation of systems, structure and processes aimed at achieving the standards set out in the government contracts. Churches and their agencies often feel they need to develop larger infrastructures, Corporate Offices, large IT networks, Marketing Departments, Finance Departments, Commercial Services Departments etc.
Associated with this is a form of managerialism, which involves out-sourcing the responsibility for specific issues away from the centre of government without giving away the control. Church agencies should be careful that the image projected is not only professional but also in keeping with expectations of what the church and the agency represent. The agencies also need to ensure they don’t slip into an enjoyment of the “trappings of office.”
One way in which the church can stay grounded is to ensure that services, staffing and structure are based on the principles of a community of faith, with a strong focus on people and their gifts. Our faith should be evident in the way we work.
From commercialism to commitment
Another key element of privatisation is the whole focus on the commercial or financial aspects of welfare. The danger for the church, of course, is in the potential for a clash of ethos and values. The Church needs to be careful that “profit-making” does not take precedence over “care for people.” Sadly this can happen. The focus should be on a commitment to making a difference, not on a commercial venture, but on a service which impacts positively on the individuals who are the recipients of the service, the staff who work within the service and the external stakeholders.
By demonstrating a commitment to living out the words of Jesus in caring for people, seeking justice, bringing hope and being merciful and gracious it is possible to counteract the negative elements of commercialism and individualism.
From compliance to capacity building
In some contractual arrangements, governments are very specific about how and when services should be delivered, and who should be supported and for how long etc. Often there is no scope for agencies to develop their own unique service approach, because the contract is so specific. There is a risk in this outsourced world that the church simply becomes the government service.
Compliance can also mean that that service recipients have to meet specific requirements in order to participate in particular government programs. In this regard the ‘Welfare to Work’ program is of particular concern. Under the new rules there is a real risk that some vulnerable people may fall through the cracks simply because the requirements are so specific.
There are organisational contradictions that come with the notion of compliance. The loss of organisational identity and a focus on the client is combined with an intensified focus on contract management and administrative requirements. The counter to compliance is capacity building: that is, building organisational and community capacity and helping individuals to build their own capacity through demonstrating a belief in the individual and seeing the inherent worth in each human person.
Wilma Gallet was founding CEO of The Salvation Army Employment Plus and is completing a Masters in Social Policy. She has a passion to see the church actively and positively involved as a prophetic voice in public debate. This is an edited version of an article published in BriefCace, July 2006. Used by permission.
Reference
[1] Brian Howe, Paul Oslington, Ray Cleary & Marilyn Webster, The Church and the Free Market (Melbourne: Australian Theological Forum/Victorian Council of Churches, 2002) p. 9.
[2] The Financial Review, 6 May 2005.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Wilma Gallet
The past 10-15 years has seen the emergence of competitive tendering and the development of a market model in the provision of a range of human services including aged care, employment services, child care, drug and alcohol services, health care and family services. In all of these areas the government contracts with the community, church and for-profit sectors to deliver services. Consequently, private companies are now providing return on investment through the provision of government funded welfare services.
By adapting to the new rules, church agencies can win contracts and even gain ‘market share’, but will this be at the cost of losing their distinctive mission goals? And how does the church demonstrate the difference between the church’s provision of services and that of a private company?
Specifically, how does a child in a church run child-care centre or a resident in an aged care hostel experience being in a facility run by the church? How does an unemployed person experience the difference between a church-run service for unemployed people and a private provider? How do the employees of such organisations know that they are working for a Christian service? And if there is no difference, then why should the church continue to provide such services?
The church’s role in delivering community services
The role of the church in delivery of social services is to provide a compassionate, primary response, in the spirit of the Good Samaritan. Less obvious to outsiders, but just as critical, is the church’s role in reforming society. The role of advocacy is emphasised in Proverbs where believers are implored to “speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute” (Proverbs 31:8).
Many within the sector believe there is a risk that the advocacy role is affected by privatisation and the use of contracts in a market environment that can compromise the agency’s independence. [1] Laura Tingle reported in May 2005 that church agencies were “usually frightened to say anything about what they are doing let alone anything critical of the government at the risk of losing their contracts, particularly the church agencies reliant on Job Network income to prop up their charity work.” [2]
The market model has introduced new concepts: competition, compliance, corporatisation and commercialism. The question is whether they lead to compromise.
From competition to collaboration
Prior to competitive tendering many agencies worked closely together, developed alliances and shared ideas and strategies. Much of this has now disappeared and this has had a deleterious impact on our social fabric: we’ve seen a loss of social infrastructure, social networks and community leadership skills. This is particularly true in regional Australia where effective community relationships between agencies are critical to the support structures for poor and disadvantaged families. The question is, “Does the church have to compete? Or can the church establish a new paradigm focused on collaboration?”
The Job Futures Group did this in the large DEWR (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations) Job Network tender. If a church agency believes it needs to submit its own tender bid, another option is to form a collaborative relation with other church agencies after the contract is given and services are established.
Collaborative services will provide better outcomes for people, certainly at a reduced cost and will create a sense of greater cohesion within communities. Developing alliances and partnering arrangements will also provide an opportunity to deliver more holistic and integrated services that create pathways for people to move through various life events.
From corporatisation to a community of faith
Another change since privatisation is the focus on corporatisation and ‘the business’ of welfare with the creation of systems, structure and processes aimed at achieving the standards set out in the government contracts. Churches and their agencies often feel they need to develop larger infrastructures, Corporate Offices, large IT networks, Marketing Departments, Finance Departments, Commercial Services Departments etc.
Associated with this is a form of managerialism, which involves out-sourcing the responsibility for specific issues away from the centre of government without giving away the control. Church agencies should be careful that the image projected is not only professional but also in keeping with expectations of what the church and the agency represent. The agencies also need to ensure they don’t slip into an enjoyment of the “trappings of office.”
One way in which the church can stay grounded is to ensure that services, staffing and structure are based on the principles of a community of faith, with a strong focus on people and their gifts. Our faith should be evident in the way we work.
From commercialism to commitment
Another key element of privatisation is the whole focus on the commercial or financial aspects of welfare. The danger for the church, of course, is in the potential for a clash of ethos and values. The Church needs to be careful that “profit-making” does not take precedence over “care for people.” Sadly this can happen. The focus should be on a commitment to making a difference, not on a commercial venture, but on a service which impacts positively on the individuals who are the recipients of the service, the staff who work within the service and the external stakeholders.
By demonstrating a commitment to living out the words of Jesus in caring for people, seeking justice, bringing hope and being merciful and gracious it is possible to counteract the negative elements of commercialism and individualism.
From compliance to capacity building
In some contractual arrangements, governments are very specific about how and when services should be delivered, and who should be supported and for how long etc. Often there is no scope for agencies to develop their own unique service approach, because the contract is so specific. There is a risk in this outsourced world that the church simply becomes the government service.
Compliance can also mean that that service recipients have to meet specific requirements in order to participate in particular government programs. In this regard the ‘Welfare to Work’ program is of particular concern. Under the new rules there is a real risk that some vulnerable people may fall through the cracks simply because the requirements are so specific.
There are organisational contradictions that come with the notion of compliance. The loss of organisational identity and a focus on the client is combined with an intensified focus on contract management and administrative requirements. The counter to compliance is capacity building: that is, building organisational and community capacity and helping individuals to build their own capacity through demonstrating a belief in the individual and seeing the inherent worth in each human person.
Wilma Gallet was founding CEO of The Salvation Army Employment Plus and is completing a Masters in Social Policy. She has a passion to see the church actively and positively involved as a prophetic voice in public debate. This is an edited version of an article published in BriefCace, July 2006. Used by permission.
Reference
[1] Brian Howe, Paul Oslington, Ray Cleary & Marilyn Webster, The Church and the Free Market (Melbourne: Australian Theological Forum/Victorian Council of Churches, 2002) p. 9.
[2] The Financial Review, 6 May 2005.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
On Dissident Discipleship
No. 39, 14 July 2006
by Mark Hurst
David Augsburger, Dissident Discipleship: A Spirituality of Self-Surrender, Love of God, and Love of Neighbor (Brazos Press, 2006).
In the June 2005 issue of On the Road, we published an article by Palmer Becker titled “What is an Anabaptist Christian?” This new book by Mennonite author David Augsburger is in many ways a book-length expansion of Becker’s three points – Jesus is the centre of our faith, community is the centre of our life, and reconciliation is the centre of our work. Augsburger is a professor of pastoral care and counselling at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the author of over twenty books. His writing style is very readable, full of clear points and well-illustrated with stories from real life – including his own.
What he does in this book is take on the popular topic of “spirituality” and embody it in Anabaptist discipleship. William Willimon is quoted on the back cover saying, “If you thought ‘spirituality’ was mostly fluff and feathers, get this book. Building upon his cruciform Anabaptist tradition, David Augsburger gives us a substantial, faithful look at lives formed by Christ.”
The book opens with an examination of ‘spirituality.’ Augsburger talks about monopolar, bipolar and tripolar spirituality. Monopolar “is the inner, subjective encounter with one’s own inner universal self” (p. 11). Bipolar is “both an inner, subjective experience of coming to know one’s true self and an objective experience of existence before God” (p. 12). Tripolar “possesses three dimensions: it is inwardly directed, upwardly compliant, and outwardly committed” (p. 13).
Tripolar spirituality is based on “love of God and the neighbour as ourselves” (Matthew 22:37-39). “It is a radical alternative to both monopolar and bipolar spirituality. When love for God and neighbour are interdependent and inseparable, a pivotal redirection results, and an acute deviation from social norms ensues” (p. 17). This authentic spirituality is fully three dimensional. It “is self transforming, God encountering, and other embracing. It accepts no substitute for actual participation” (pp. 26-27). It “is a spirituality of the road. We know him [Jesus] by following as we make the road by walking it, discover the way in obedient imitation, and participation in his life with us” (p. 21).
The Anabaptist form of tripolar spirituality is “a communal spirituality of disciples (followers) following a cluster of practices, practices that are lived out in the relationship of community, where believers share in the rewarding struggles of faithful dialogue, discernment, and mutual discovery” (p. 20). This communal spirituality is one where “transformation is not just a word; it is the essential element. The anastatic (walking in the way of the resurrection) is the final goal. “The ‘anastatic experience’ is an embracing of a holiness, a sanctification that joins in an indictment of evil in all its forms – personal, social, communal, political, and results in a living out of the new covenant in community (p. 68). Augsburger explores the following seven practices in the rest of the book: radical attachment, stubborn loyalty, tenacious serenity, habitual humility, resolute nonviolence, concrete service, and authentic witness.
The book draws on sixteenth-century sources as well as modern authors like John Howard Yoder, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Walter Brueggemann, Jürgen Moltmann, and others. Augsburger always finds great stories for his books to illustrate his points. He comes up with some good quotes too, such as this Quaker proverb: “True community exists when the person you dislike most dies or moves away and someone worse takes that place” (p. 57).
In good Anabaptist style, Augsburger is not only concerned with the individual life of the believer, the goal of much current Christian spirituality, but with the life of the church. He quotes Mennonite theologian Harry Huebner in describing the church as a community of people with a shared identity and common virtues woven into a coherent story.
Augsburger also makes a distinction between “values” and “virtues.” Community is where one learns virtues, not where one chooses values. He describes virtues as “practices formed by community, modelled in community, and taught by community, that express what is good, right and worthy. Virtues are habits, and what we do habitually, naturally, without pretence reveals our character” (p. 73).
“To call the church a community of virtues is to identify the habits of the church. The church is that body which out of habit tells the truth; which out of habit loves enemies, feeds the hungry, forgives sinners; which out of habit praises God for what we have received, …prays and worships” (p. 74). He quotes Yoder in saying “nothing is real until it is embodied. The community of faith must be a community of deeds” (p. 75).
And from John Milbank he gets this: “For one to belong to the church means one has become part of those practices of perfection that make us capable of becoming friends with one another, friends with ourselves, and friends with God” (p. 76).
The book closes with helpful appendices and a good bibliography. This is a book for group study, discussion, and practice. If we take tripolar spirituality seriously, “will we not inevitably be heard giving voice to subversive protest against the status quo, be seen in stubborn service that is not motivated by personal gain, be known for dissident discipleship that constantly points to another reign, that of our Lord?” (p. 210).
I’m all for that!
Mark Hurst is a Mennonite missionary based in Sydney. This review was published in On the Road No. 31, June 2006, the quarterly newsletter of the Anabaptist Association of Australia and New Zealand. Used by permission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Mark Hurst
David Augsburger, Dissident Discipleship: A Spirituality of Self-Surrender, Love of God, and Love of Neighbor (Brazos Press, 2006).
In the June 2005 issue of On the Road, we published an article by Palmer Becker titled “What is an Anabaptist Christian?” This new book by Mennonite author David Augsburger is in many ways a book-length expansion of Becker’s three points – Jesus is the centre of our faith, community is the centre of our life, and reconciliation is the centre of our work. Augsburger is a professor of pastoral care and counselling at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the author of over twenty books. His writing style is very readable, full of clear points and well-illustrated with stories from real life – including his own.
What he does in this book is take on the popular topic of “spirituality” and embody it in Anabaptist discipleship. William Willimon is quoted on the back cover saying, “If you thought ‘spirituality’ was mostly fluff and feathers, get this book. Building upon his cruciform Anabaptist tradition, David Augsburger gives us a substantial, faithful look at lives formed by Christ.”
The book opens with an examination of ‘spirituality.’ Augsburger talks about monopolar, bipolar and tripolar spirituality. Monopolar “is the inner, subjective encounter with one’s own inner universal self” (p. 11). Bipolar is “both an inner, subjective experience of coming to know one’s true self and an objective experience of existence before God” (p. 12). Tripolar “possesses three dimensions: it is inwardly directed, upwardly compliant, and outwardly committed” (p. 13).
Tripolar spirituality is based on “love of God and the neighbour as ourselves” (Matthew 22:37-39). “It is a radical alternative to both monopolar and bipolar spirituality. When love for God and neighbour are interdependent and inseparable, a pivotal redirection results, and an acute deviation from social norms ensues” (p. 17). This authentic spirituality is fully three dimensional. It “is self transforming, God encountering, and other embracing. It accepts no substitute for actual participation” (pp. 26-27). It “is a spirituality of the road. We know him [Jesus] by following as we make the road by walking it, discover the way in obedient imitation, and participation in his life with us” (p. 21).
The Anabaptist form of tripolar spirituality is “a communal spirituality of disciples (followers) following a cluster of practices, practices that are lived out in the relationship of community, where believers share in the rewarding struggles of faithful dialogue, discernment, and mutual discovery” (p. 20). This communal spirituality is one where “transformation is not just a word; it is the essential element. The anastatic (walking in the way of the resurrection) is the final goal. “The ‘anastatic experience’ is an embracing of a holiness, a sanctification that joins in an indictment of evil in all its forms – personal, social, communal, political, and results in a living out of the new covenant in community (p. 68). Augsburger explores the following seven practices in the rest of the book: radical attachment, stubborn loyalty, tenacious serenity, habitual humility, resolute nonviolence, concrete service, and authentic witness.
The book draws on sixteenth-century sources as well as modern authors like John Howard Yoder, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Walter Brueggemann, Jürgen Moltmann, and others. Augsburger always finds great stories for his books to illustrate his points. He comes up with some good quotes too, such as this Quaker proverb: “True community exists when the person you dislike most dies or moves away and someone worse takes that place” (p. 57).
In good Anabaptist style, Augsburger is not only concerned with the individual life of the believer, the goal of much current Christian spirituality, but with the life of the church. He quotes Mennonite theologian Harry Huebner in describing the church as a community of people with a shared identity and common virtues woven into a coherent story.
Augsburger also makes a distinction between “values” and “virtues.” Community is where one learns virtues, not where one chooses values. He describes virtues as “practices formed by community, modelled in community, and taught by community, that express what is good, right and worthy. Virtues are habits, and what we do habitually, naturally, without pretence reveals our character” (p. 73).
“To call the church a community of virtues is to identify the habits of the church. The church is that body which out of habit tells the truth; which out of habit loves enemies, feeds the hungry, forgives sinners; which out of habit praises God for what we have received, …prays and worships” (p. 74). He quotes Yoder in saying “nothing is real until it is embodied. The community of faith must be a community of deeds” (p. 75).
And from John Milbank he gets this: “For one to belong to the church means one has become part of those practices of perfection that make us capable of becoming friends with one another, friends with ourselves, and friends with God” (p. 76).
The book closes with helpful appendices and a good bibliography. This is a book for group study, discussion, and practice. If we take tripolar spirituality seriously, “will we not inevitably be heard giving voice to subversive protest against the status quo, be seen in stubborn service that is not motivated by personal gain, be known for dissident discipleship that constantly points to another reign, that of our Lord?” (p. 210).
I’m all for that!
Mark Hurst is a Mennonite missionary based in Sydney. This review was published in On the Road No. 31, June 2006, the quarterly newsletter of the Anabaptist Association of Australia and New Zealand. Used by permission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Half-hearted efforts to halve global poverty
No. 38, 3 July 2006
by Robert Parham
Political advocacy for the goal of the Micah Challenge to halve global poverty by 2015 finds little action among worldwide Baptists, save those in Australia.
Baptist World Aid-Australia is “the lead agency for the Micah Challenge, being among the largest funding bodies and providing office space for the MC national office,” said Rod Benson, director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, an Australian Baptist school. “All state Baptist unions, to my knowledge, have adopted a Micah declaration, and a reasonably large number of churches support MC through their church ministries,” Benson said in an email interview with EthicsDaily.com.
The Micah Challenge is an ambitious initiative that presses governments to keep their pledges to support the United Nation’s millennial development goals, one of which is to halve global poverty in the next nine years.
Other goals include universal primary education, gender equality and empowerment for women, fair trade and debt forgiveness, reducing child mortality and ensuring environmental sustainability.
Baptist World Alliance’s General Council adopted a resolution in 2004 supporting the Micah Challenge. The resolution said, “Christians everywhere must be agents of hope for and with the poor, and to work with others to hold our national and global leaders accountable in securing a more just and merciful world.”
The resolution called on nations “to take seriously the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations in the desire to halve current levels of world poverty by 2015 and upon the richest nations to take urgent action to ensure that at least 0.7 percent of the national GNP is used to this end.”
The BWA council agreed to cooperation with 270 evangelical Christian relief, development and social justice ministries around the world and commended the leadership involvement of Baptist World Aid “to make a biblically shaped response to the needs of the poor and oppressed.”
When global Baptists gather next week in Mexico City for BWA’s General Council meeting, one topic of discussion will be the Micah Challenge, which receives little attention from Baptists outside of Australia.
Alistair Brown, general secretary of BMS World Mission, said, “UK Baptists have not really engaged with MC in any serious way.” In an email interview with EthicsDaily.com, he cited the lack of promotion in churches for the reason the lack of support.
“If we are serious about the Micah Challenge we need to get the attention and support of the local gatekeepers to the churches—the pastors. That has not yet happened,” said Alan Stanford, pastor of Clarendon Baptist Church in Arlington, Va., and general secretary for the North American Baptist Fellowship, one of the BWA’s regional bodies.
John Baker, pastor of First Baptist Church of Columbia, Mo., said he wished “more Baptists, and more Christians, would take the physical-world agenda of the Micah Challenge more seriously.”
Despite the lack of church action in many countries, Baptist leaders understand the divine imperative to pursue justice for the poor.
“The cry of the oppressed cannot be ignored for much longer. God will call into account those with opportunity to alleviate suffering and injustice and yet choose to ignore his call to act responsibly,” said Brown. “God’s call on people to speak out against the injustice of poverty and to take action to aid and defend the poor, are clear themes throughout the Bible,” he said.
“If any nation needs to regain the moral high ground, it is the U.S.,” said Brown, leader of the oldest Baptist mission-sending organization. “The church in the U.S. cannot ignore its contribution to global injustice and its power to change the status quo.”
Benson said, “Without the active support of the U.S.A. the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals] will not be achieved. The U.S. needs to move beyond rhetoric on poverty to reality. Contrary to their impression that they are a generous people, the U.S. is among the bottom three developed country donors in the world when aid is considered as a proportion of GDP, and contrary to their advocacy of free trade, agricultural subsidies they pay to their farmers are devastating to poor country farmers.”
Benson, who writes a regular column for EthicsDaily.com, challenged American churches, Baptists in particular, to press their government to change practices that harm billions of poor people around the world.
“The American church desperately needs a wakeup call that will see them move beyond harmful patriotic myths to affirm their divine calling to be Christians first and Americans second,” he said. “Baptists in America have a great opportunity to lead their nation in this demonstration of Christian discipleship.”
Stanford said, “For rank and file North American Baptists to get serious about the Micah Challenge would require a radical shift in our real priorities which would mean that we would need to challenge our people from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday with the radical teachings of Jesus Christ and the implications of those for our lives.”
Another American pastor, John Baker, said that Baptists are a large, powerful and wealthy group who, if they could be mobilized, would “work wonders to advance the Millennium Goals. It’s disheartening, however, that a large portion of Baptist mission work has focused solely on spiritual evangelism in recent years.”
Vasconcelos, who also directs the BWA’s study and research division, regretted the split between evangelism and ethics. Citing a Brazilian saying, Vasconcelos said, “Sometimes the best John 3:16 you can give a person is a slice of bread.”
Robert Parham is is Executive Director of the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville, Tennessee. This article was published by EthicsDaily on 30 June 2006. Rod Benson wishes to acknowledge the valuable advice of Rev Scott Higgins, Advocacy Officer for Baptist World Aid Australia, on the Australian situation as represented in this article.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Robert Parham
Political advocacy for the goal of the Micah Challenge to halve global poverty by 2015 finds little action among worldwide Baptists, save those in Australia.
Baptist World Aid-Australia is “the lead agency for the Micah Challenge, being among the largest funding bodies and providing office space for the MC national office,” said Rod Benson, director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, an Australian Baptist school. “All state Baptist unions, to my knowledge, have adopted a Micah declaration, and a reasonably large number of churches support MC through their church ministries,” Benson said in an email interview with EthicsDaily.com.
The Micah Challenge is an ambitious initiative that presses governments to keep their pledges to support the United Nation’s millennial development goals, one of which is to halve global poverty in the next nine years.
Other goals include universal primary education, gender equality and empowerment for women, fair trade and debt forgiveness, reducing child mortality and ensuring environmental sustainability.
Baptist World Alliance’s General Council adopted a resolution in 2004 supporting the Micah Challenge. The resolution said, “Christians everywhere must be agents of hope for and with the poor, and to work with others to hold our national and global leaders accountable in securing a more just and merciful world.”
The resolution called on nations “to take seriously the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations in the desire to halve current levels of world poverty by 2015 and upon the richest nations to take urgent action to ensure that at least 0.7 percent of the national GNP is used to this end.”
The BWA council agreed to cooperation with 270 evangelical Christian relief, development and social justice ministries around the world and commended the leadership involvement of Baptist World Aid “to make a biblically shaped response to the needs of the poor and oppressed.”
When global Baptists gather next week in Mexico City for BWA’s General Council meeting, one topic of discussion will be the Micah Challenge, which receives little attention from Baptists outside of Australia.
Alistair Brown, general secretary of BMS World Mission, said, “UK Baptists have not really engaged with MC in any serious way.” In an email interview with EthicsDaily.com, he cited the lack of promotion in churches for the reason the lack of support.
“If we are serious about the Micah Challenge we need to get the attention and support of the local gatekeepers to the churches—the pastors. That has not yet happened,” said Alan Stanford, pastor of Clarendon Baptist Church in Arlington, Va., and general secretary for the North American Baptist Fellowship, one of the BWA’s regional bodies.
John Baker, pastor of First Baptist Church of Columbia, Mo., said he wished “more Baptists, and more Christians, would take the physical-world agenda of the Micah Challenge more seriously.”
Despite the lack of church action in many countries, Baptist leaders understand the divine imperative to pursue justice for the poor.
“The cry of the oppressed cannot be ignored for much longer. God will call into account those with opportunity to alleviate suffering and injustice and yet choose to ignore his call to act responsibly,” said Brown. “God’s call on people to speak out against the injustice of poverty and to take action to aid and defend the poor, are clear themes throughout the Bible,” he said.
“If any nation needs to regain the moral high ground, it is the U.S.,” said Brown, leader of the oldest Baptist mission-sending organization. “The church in the U.S. cannot ignore its contribution to global injustice and its power to change the status quo.”
Benson said, “Without the active support of the U.S.A. the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals] will not be achieved. The U.S. needs to move beyond rhetoric on poverty to reality. Contrary to their impression that they are a generous people, the U.S. is among the bottom three developed country donors in the world when aid is considered as a proportion of GDP, and contrary to their advocacy of free trade, agricultural subsidies they pay to their farmers are devastating to poor country farmers.”
Benson, who writes a regular column for EthicsDaily.com, challenged American churches, Baptists in particular, to press their government to change practices that harm billions of poor people around the world.
“The American church desperately needs a wakeup call that will see them move beyond harmful patriotic myths to affirm their divine calling to be Christians first and Americans second,” he said. “Baptists in America have a great opportunity to lead their nation in this demonstration of Christian discipleship.”
Stanford said, “For rank and file North American Baptists to get serious about the Micah Challenge would require a radical shift in our real priorities which would mean that we would need to challenge our people from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday with the radical teachings of Jesus Christ and the implications of those for our lives.”
Another American pastor, John Baker, said that Baptists are a large, powerful and wealthy group who, if they could be mobilized, would “work wonders to advance the Millennium Goals. It’s disheartening, however, that a large portion of Baptist mission work has focused solely on spiritual evangelism in recent years.”
Vasconcelos, who also directs the BWA’s study and research division, regretted the split between evangelism and ethics. Citing a Brazilian saying, Vasconcelos said, “Sometimes the best John 3:16 you can give a person is a slice of bread.”
Robert Parham is is Executive Director of the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville, Tennessee. This article was published by EthicsDaily on 30 June 2006. Rod Benson wishes to acknowledge the valuable advice of Rev Scott Higgins, Advocacy Officer for Baptist World Aid Australia, on the Australian situation as represented in this article.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
The ethics of the cervical cancer vaccine
No. 37, 18 June 2006
by Simeon Payne
On 8 June, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made medical history by unanimously approving the vaccine Gardasil. The vaccine should prevent the cancerous development of two strains of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV 16 &18), which is responsible for 70 per cent of all cervical cancer deaths.
Worldwide, 250,000 women die from cervical cancer each year, which after breast cancer is the second most deadly cancer afflicting woman. Of the 16 per 100,000 women who will be diagnosed with it this year, 9 will die.
Approval for Gardasil was given after its final Stage III medical trial which involved over 25,000 participants. This trial was a resounding success for Gardasil. No-one administered it developed cervicalintraepithelial neoplasia, the precursor to cervical cancer; whereas 12 of those in the placebo control group developed symptoms. The side effects were considered small.
Not only does Gardasil impress with what it can potentially achieve; it uses non-infectious virus like particles – a technology developed here in Australia by Dr Ian Frazer and his team at the University of Queensland. Frazer is now working on a vaccine for those who have already contracted cervical cancer. Other teams are working on vaccines to deal with the other cancer causing strains of HPV, and strains 6 & 11, which are responsible for non-carcinogenic genital warts.
Why be concerned about this scientific breakthrough? Shouldn’t all Christians rejoice at victory over such a terrible cancer? Prominent and vocal American Christians have expressed deep concern, and have actively campaigned against the therapeutic approval of this vaccine. Some Christians in Australia share their concerns.
There are two themes to their opposition. First, they are concerned that the vaccine will increase sexual promiscuity. They argue that vaccinated women, no longer fearful about receiving cervical cancer because of multiple sexual partners, would increase sexually promiscuous behaviour.
Second, they share an opposition to this and all vaccinations, based on an ideology that resists compulsory vaccinations. They often also promote a fear of vaccinations based on supposed negative side-effects of existing vaccines.
I do not share their concerns. I argue that, since all humanity bears the image of God, every person is intrinsically worthy of the highest medical care. As a cornerstone principle of a biblically based ethic, I argue that no human can or should ever be denied the best medical care, even if this is to reverse or protect against disease which is the result of sin. It is the biblical responsibility of all Christians to support any societal initiatives that reverse suffering. Further, on the basis of a neo-Kantian understanding of duty, I argue that it is the obligation of society (through government and medical servants) to avail any known or available medical technology upon its citizens that can be used for their good.
I am also concerned with the logic of those who resist this vaccine. It is true that the risk of getting the HPV infection is elevated in those who commence sexual activity at a young age and have multiple partners. But it needs to be stressed that there are documented examples of virgins and monogamous women who have received the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer. The virus can be contracted through child-birth, and indeed through any situation or procedure where viral and virginal contact occurs. A monogamous woman might also receive the virus as a result of her husband’s promiscuity. The argument that the virus would actually encourage women to become sexually promiscuous is demeaning and derogatory toward women.
Even if sexual promiscuity were the only factor of someone receiving the virus, I would still argue that we have a duty to avail the vaccine. I do not think people would rationally claim that, because they have been vaccinated, they will increase their sexual misbehaviour. At the moment babies receive the Hepatitis B vaccine to inhibit another cancerigenic virus. This virus is primarily transmitted by intravenous drug users. I have never heard anyone say that because they have been vaccinated for Hepatitis B, they will become a drug addict.
With compassion and a sense of duty we rightly treat those with heart problems, even when caused by gluttony. We do not allow those who have been in a drunken brawl to bleed to death from their injuries. The fact that a disease may be the result of an immoral act does not alter the fact that there is a moral duty to treat and prevent it.
Finally, I am concerned by those Christians who accept alarmist views of vaccination without critical discernment. All medical procedures entail elements of risk, but what must be considered is the balance of risk between doing and not doing. There may be some unforeseen adverse reaction, either directly or indirectly, but this risk must always be balanced with the risk of inactivity. In this case we are talking about the second biggest cancer killer of women, and our ability to reduce this by 70 per cent in the next generation.
We must also track the longitudinal health of those who have and will be vaccinated. On the balance of available information and reviews, I am satisfied that this vaccine should immediately be availed for use. I argue it is a parental ethical duty avail to their children all available vaccines. This is not an academic question for me as my nine-year-old daughter may be one of the first to receive this vaccine.
But a cost of US$400 it is unlikely to be made available to those who have the highest need for it: women in the third world. Perhaps we could campaign that our Federal Government not only subsidise our own daughters’ vaccinations, but those of our third world neighbours.
It goes back to the concept of duty: it is the duty of those with much to help those with little.
Simeon Payne is the Baptist Chaplain at the University of Western Sydney, a member of its Human Research Ethics Committee and guest lecturer in Scientific Ethics. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of UWS.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Simeon Payne
On 8 June, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made medical history by unanimously approving the vaccine Gardasil. The vaccine should prevent the cancerous development of two strains of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV 16 &18), which is responsible for 70 per cent of all cervical cancer deaths.
Worldwide, 250,000 women die from cervical cancer each year, which after breast cancer is the second most deadly cancer afflicting woman. Of the 16 per 100,000 women who will be diagnosed with it this year, 9 will die.
Approval for Gardasil was given after its final Stage III medical trial which involved over 25,000 participants. This trial was a resounding success for Gardasil. No-one administered it developed cervicalintraepithelial neoplasia, the precursor to cervical cancer; whereas 12 of those in the placebo control group developed symptoms. The side effects were considered small.
Not only does Gardasil impress with what it can potentially achieve; it uses non-infectious virus like particles – a technology developed here in Australia by Dr Ian Frazer and his team at the University of Queensland. Frazer is now working on a vaccine for those who have already contracted cervical cancer. Other teams are working on vaccines to deal with the other cancer causing strains of HPV, and strains 6 & 11, which are responsible for non-carcinogenic genital warts.
Why be concerned about this scientific breakthrough? Shouldn’t all Christians rejoice at victory over such a terrible cancer? Prominent and vocal American Christians have expressed deep concern, and have actively campaigned against the therapeutic approval of this vaccine. Some Christians in Australia share their concerns.
There are two themes to their opposition. First, they are concerned that the vaccine will increase sexual promiscuity. They argue that vaccinated women, no longer fearful about receiving cervical cancer because of multiple sexual partners, would increase sexually promiscuous behaviour.
Second, they share an opposition to this and all vaccinations, based on an ideology that resists compulsory vaccinations. They often also promote a fear of vaccinations based on supposed negative side-effects of existing vaccines.
I do not share their concerns. I argue that, since all humanity bears the image of God, every person is intrinsically worthy of the highest medical care. As a cornerstone principle of a biblically based ethic, I argue that no human can or should ever be denied the best medical care, even if this is to reverse or protect against disease which is the result of sin. It is the biblical responsibility of all Christians to support any societal initiatives that reverse suffering. Further, on the basis of a neo-Kantian understanding of duty, I argue that it is the obligation of society (through government and medical servants) to avail any known or available medical technology upon its citizens that can be used for their good.
I am also concerned with the logic of those who resist this vaccine. It is true that the risk of getting the HPV infection is elevated in those who commence sexual activity at a young age and have multiple partners. But it needs to be stressed that there are documented examples of virgins and monogamous women who have received the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer. The virus can be contracted through child-birth, and indeed through any situation or procedure where viral and virginal contact occurs. A monogamous woman might also receive the virus as a result of her husband’s promiscuity. The argument that the virus would actually encourage women to become sexually promiscuous is demeaning and derogatory toward women.
Even if sexual promiscuity were the only factor of someone receiving the virus, I would still argue that we have a duty to avail the vaccine. I do not think people would rationally claim that, because they have been vaccinated, they will increase their sexual misbehaviour. At the moment babies receive the Hepatitis B vaccine to inhibit another cancerigenic virus. This virus is primarily transmitted by intravenous drug users. I have never heard anyone say that because they have been vaccinated for Hepatitis B, they will become a drug addict.
With compassion and a sense of duty we rightly treat those with heart problems, even when caused by gluttony. We do not allow those who have been in a drunken brawl to bleed to death from their injuries. The fact that a disease may be the result of an immoral act does not alter the fact that there is a moral duty to treat and prevent it.
Finally, I am concerned by those Christians who accept alarmist views of vaccination without critical discernment. All medical procedures entail elements of risk, but what must be considered is the balance of risk between doing and not doing. There may be some unforeseen adverse reaction, either directly or indirectly, but this risk must always be balanced with the risk of inactivity. In this case we are talking about the second biggest cancer killer of women, and our ability to reduce this by 70 per cent in the next generation.
We must also track the longitudinal health of those who have and will be vaccinated. On the balance of available information and reviews, I am satisfied that this vaccine should immediately be availed for use. I argue it is a parental ethical duty avail to their children all available vaccines. This is not an academic question for me as my nine-year-old daughter may be one of the first to receive this vaccine.
But a cost of US$400 it is unlikely to be made available to those who have the highest need for it: women in the third world. Perhaps we could campaign that our Federal Government not only subsidise our own daughters’ vaccinations, but those of our third world neighbours.
It goes back to the concept of duty: it is the duty of those with much to help those with little.
Simeon Payne is the Baptist Chaplain at the University of Western Sydney, a member of its Human Research Ethics Committee and guest lecturer in Scientific Ethics. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of UWS.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Miroslav Volf on church, mission and culture
No. 36, 13 June 2006
by Graham Hill
A central theme running through much of Miroslav Volf’s writing is the relationship between gospel, church, mission and contemporary western culture, and this has some significant implications for the church in Australia it seeks to develop a missional understanding of what it means to be church (i.e., a missional ecclesiology).
For Volf, the question of how the church and the gospel relate to culture naturally emerges from the church’s growing awareness of the profound influence cultures have on shaping who human beings are, the diversity of cultures colliding and communicating across a shrinking globe, and the rapid evolution of cultures. Cultures are the substance from within which churches emerge and are immersed, and these cultures have characteristics and expressions that may be adopted, adapted, transformed from the inside, discarded, and replaced.
In It is Like Yeast, Volf writes, ‘There is no single correct way to relate to a given culture as a whole, or even to its dominant thrust. There are only numerous ways of accepting, transforming, rejecting, or replacing various aspects of a given culture from within. This is what it means for Christian difference to be internal to a given culture.’
The implications of this are that the churches, and individual Christians, make a difference from within a given culture that they and others naturally inhabit, our transformations are piecemeal this side of the new creation, and accommodation to culture should be replaced by an emphasis on difference.
Not only so, but disruption from cultural identity is normal at conversion, yet it remains internal to a given culture, and inculturation is best done by Christians themselves as they wrestle with appropriate expressions of faith in their own cultural context. ‘The key issue is how to maintain the Christian difference from the culture of which we are a part and how to make that difference a leaven in the culture’, since difference is essential to authentic and transforming faith and ecclesiology, and without it the church is left with nothing.
Discernment is needed in order to identify the appropriate points of difference and non-difference within a given culture, while keeping ourselves open to God’s reign without extracting ourselves from our culture.
The mission of the church is innate to its essence and identity, for ‘if the church is the image of the Trinity, then the church’s very being is a form of mission.’ The church, in Volf’s ecclesiology, is intrinsically missionary and is called to the following:
• Continue the mission of Jesus, through the proclamation of the truths of the new creation, forgiveness, transformation, trinitarian embrace, and rebirth;
• Place reconciliation, grace and the pursuit of justice at the heart of its social mission, allowing healing to spring forth, even in the context of remembrance;
• Care for human beings in their entirety – their bodies, spirituality, and larger social and ecological environments – and in this endeavour discover the presence and inbreaking of the Spirit of God going before them;
• Demonstrate both hiddenness and openness by rejecting the lure to become one more social institution among many, while continuing to offer an alternative vision shaped by the future and present reign of God, and to ‘subvert, challenge, and transform’ the culture around it and in which it is immersed. In doing so, the church pursues ‘the very mission at the core of the church’s identity’;
• Practice ‘unaggressive evangelism’, by recognising that it is God’s task to change a person’s heart and religious or spiritual allegiances;
• Focus on the cross of Christ, through the celebration of the Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper), in such a way that injustice, deceitfulness and violence in our world are resisted, and public engagement is inspired by remembrance of the Lord’s death ‘until he comes’;
• Practice radical worship that is both adoration of God, and vigorous action in the world;
• Provide a ‘robust alternative to the pervasive culture of late capitalism’ in anticipation of the new creation - by being aliens and sojourners who engage in a ‘soft missionary difference’ of both difference to and acculturation in contemporary culture (that is, both commensurability and incommensurability), and by being both a prophetic community and a sign of hope in the context of modernity and postmodernity.
Volf’s insights into the relationship between church, mission and culture certainly leave much to ponder and practice.
Rev Graham Hill is Director of the Burleigh Centre for Leadership Studies, Adelaide. This article appeared in the Centre’s newsletter, Missio Dei, June 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Graham Hill
A central theme running through much of Miroslav Volf’s writing is the relationship between gospel, church, mission and contemporary western culture, and this has some significant implications for the church in Australia it seeks to develop a missional understanding of what it means to be church (i.e., a missional ecclesiology).
For Volf, the question of how the church and the gospel relate to culture naturally emerges from the church’s growing awareness of the profound influence cultures have on shaping who human beings are, the diversity of cultures colliding and communicating across a shrinking globe, and the rapid evolution of cultures. Cultures are the substance from within which churches emerge and are immersed, and these cultures have characteristics and expressions that may be adopted, adapted, transformed from the inside, discarded, and replaced.
In It is Like Yeast, Volf writes, ‘There is no single correct way to relate to a given culture as a whole, or even to its dominant thrust. There are only numerous ways of accepting, transforming, rejecting, or replacing various aspects of a given culture from within. This is what it means for Christian difference to be internal to a given culture.’
The implications of this are that the churches, and individual Christians, make a difference from within a given culture that they and others naturally inhabit, our transformations are piecemeal this side of the new creation, and accommodation to culture should be replaced by an emphasis on difference.
Not only so, but disruption from cultural identity is normal at conversion, yet it remains internal to a given culture, and inculturation is best done by Christians themselves as they wrestle with appropriate expressions of faith in their own cultural context. ‘The key issue is how to maintain the Christian difference from the culture of which we are a part and how to make that difference a leaven in the culture’, since difference is essential to authentic and transforming faith and ecclesiology, and without it the church is left with nothing.
Discernment is needed in order to identify the appropriate points of difference and non-difference within a given culture, while keeping ourselves open to God’s reign without extracting ourselves from our culture.
The mission of the church is innate to its essence and identity, for ‘if the church is the image of the Trinity, then the church’s very being is a form of mission.’ The church, in Volf’s ecclesiology, is intrinsically missionary and is called to the following:
• Continue the mission of Jesus, through the proclamation of the truths of the new creation, forgiveness, transformation, trinitarian embrace, and rebirth;
• Place reconciliation, grace and the pursuit of justice at the heart of its social mission, allowing healing to spring forth, even in the context of remembrance;
• Care for human beings in their entirety – their bodies, spirituality, and larger social and ecological environments – and in this endeavour discover the presence and inbreaking of the Spirit of God going before them;
• Demonstrate both hiddenness and openness by rejecting the lure to become one more social institution among many, while continuing to offer an alternative vision shaped by the future and present reign of God, and to ‘subvert, challenge, and transform’ the culture around it and in which it is immersed. In doing so, the church pursues ‘the very mission at the core of the church’s identity’;
• Practice ‘unaggressive evangelism’, by recognising that it is God’s task to change a person’s heart and religious or spiritual allegiances;
• Focus on the cross of Christ, through the celebration of the Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper), in such a way that injustice, deceitfulness and violence in our world are resisted, and public engagement is inspired by remembrance of the Lord’s death ‘until he comes’;
• Practice radical worship that is both adoration of God, and vigorous action in the world;
• Provide a ‘robust alternative to the pervasive culture of late capitalism’ in anticipation of the new creation - by being aliens and sojourners who engage in a ‘soft missionary difference’ of both difference to and acculturation in contemporary culture (that is, both commensurability and incommensurability), and by being both a prophetic community and a sign of hope in the context of modernity and postmodernity.
Volf’s insights into the relationship between church, mission and culture certainly leave much to ponder and practice.
Rev Graham Hill is Director of the Burleigh Centre for Leadership Studies, Adelaide. This article appeared in the Centre’s newsletter, Missio Dei, June 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Should Christians march to the call of ‘Left’ or ‘Right’?
No. 35, 29 May 2006
by Eric Lockett
In all my years of political activism I have never had much time for the labels ‘Left’ and ‘Right’. They seem to me to be a cop out that allows lazy commentators to avoid the trouble of finding out and explaining what those they so label really stand for. Their positions are almost invariably much more complex than such simplistic devices would have us believe.
These labels are also often used by those who lean in one political direction to derogate anyone with a different political inclination, often without realising that this derogatory meaning is shared only by those with similar biases (prejudices even?). It is both mischievous and misleading to base an attack on what other Christians are doing on the linking of ‘Religious’ with ‘Right’, as Alan Matheson has done in his recent trenchant criticism of the National Day of Thanksgiving (see Soundings No 33).
More importantly though, his attack ignores the real question of whether the concept of Christians across our nation devoting a particular day to giving thanks for all God’s blessings, and especially expressing our appreciation to those who devote their lives to safeguarding and serving the needy and afflicted in our communities, is a worthy one for Christians to take up. He may think differently but, on my reading of scripture, the answer to that question is a resounding ‘yes’. Hence, I can’t see how anyone could possibly believe that the denigration of such an initiative would be pleasing to God, helpful to our community or conducive of a strong Christian witness.
God in his wisdom has given each of us different backgrounds and experiences which inevitably shape our thinking and allow us to bring different perspectives to issues we must consider. This is as true of politics as any other field. Hence it is appropriate for Christians to adopt various political stances, with each shedding something of God’s light on debate amongst the various groups or parties we support. Perhaps Alan Matheson’s rather jaundiced view of the so-called Religious Right owes more to his connections with the ACTU than to his Christian convictions, but no side of politics has a mortgage on truth or virtue.
For myself, as a representative of the Baptist Churches of Tasmania, I have always been careful to maintain a politically non-aligned stance, recognising the diversity of political loyalties within our congregations. This leaves us free to judge issues on their merits and commend or criticise all sides of politics, as is warranted, without the church being seen as beholden to any. The important distinction is not between Right and Left, but between right and wrong.
How justified are Alan Matheson’s criticisms?
Let’s now take a look at the grounds for Alan Matheson’s specific criticisms of the NDOT. First, he claims that it is ethically a con. This claim seems to be based on what is simply some slackness in the NDOT’s failure to update the statements publicised, its supposedly narrow support base and its failure to provide financial details of the supporting organisations. Out of date (though still relevant) material may be grounds for rebuke but not for such an attack. And if the support base is narrow but the cause a worthy one, then doesn’t that warrant a call for other churches to become more involved rather than criticism. As some of the NDOT publicity material says, “The Day has been deliberately designed to be given away and not held by the initiators”.
Furthermore, if full financial details are not given for all the organisations involved how does that make it any different from countless other events promoted by different organisations? Is Mr Matheson actually suggesting that these particular bodies are corrupt? If so, he is duty bound to provide some evidence.
Given that the NDOT clearly has the support of the leaders on both sides of federal politics, his claim that it is politically a con is mystifying. He, along with many others, myself included, may take issue with one person’s statement that “…Christians must take over the world through its governments … and that Australia is on the brink of becoming a theocracy ruled by God”, but surely that is no reason to condemn the NDOT.
Perhaps his claim that ecclesiastically it is a con is the most perverse of all. If he disagrees with some of the organisations concerned, surely he should be calling for more of the mainstream churches to pick up such a worthy idea, rather than trying to scuttle it.
His claim that historically it is a con seems to be little more than pedantic nit-picking. So what if de Quiros didn’t have the advantage of our more detailed geographic knowledge, and what if the subsequent reality has fallen short of his noble declaration? Is that any reason why it shouldn’t be used to inspire Christians here and now?
Finally, his claim that the NDOT is theologically a con seems to be based not on what it does but what it doesn’t do. That is, it doesn’t focus on the things that are of specific concern to him. Is he really saying that while ever this world remains an imperfect place we should refuse, as a nation, to give thanks to God for all his blessings? I hope not.
It is sad to see such a worthy idea as the National Day of Prayer used as a target for sniping by other Christians when we surely should be working together to become a more effective witness to the world, not attacking each other – there are plenty of non-Christians who will do that.
I’m now a little more alert and a little more alarmed that such sniping can occur within God’s family.
Eric Lockett chairs the Public Questions Taskforce of the Baptist Churches of Tasmania. He was elected as a non-aligned delegate to the 1998 Constitutional Convention, and has contested state and national elections as an independent candidate. He is a member of the Leadership Team of his local Baptist Church.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Eric Lockett
In all my years of political activism I have never had much time for the labels ‘Left’ and ‘Right’. They seem to me to be a cop out that allows lazy commentators to avoid the trouble of finding out and explaining what those they so label really stand for. Their positions are almost invariably much more complex than such simplistic devices would have us believe.
These labels are also often used by those who lean in one political direction to derogate anyone with a different political inclination, often without realising that this derogatory meaning is shared only by those with similar biases (prejudices even?). It is both mischievous and misleading to base an attack on what other Christians are doing on the linking of ‘Religious’ with ‘Right’, as Alan Matheson has done in his recent trenchant criticism of the National Day of Thanksgiving (see Soundings No 33).
More importantly though, his attack ignores the real question of whether the concept of Christians across our nation devoting a particular day to giving thanks for all God’s blessings, and especially expressing our appreciation to those who devote their lives to safeguarding and serving the needy and afflicted in our communities, is a worthy one for Christians to take up. He may think differently but, on my reading of scripture, the answer to that question is a resounding ‘yes’. Hence, I can’t see how anyone could possibly believe that the denigration of such an initiative would be pleasing to God, helpful to our community or conducive of a strong Christian witness.
God in his wisdom has given each of us different backgrounds and experiences which inevitably shape our thinking and allow us to bring different perspectives to issues we must consider. This is as true of politics as any other field. Hence it is appropriate for Christians to adopt various political stances, with each shedding something of God’s light on debate amongst the various groups or parties we support. Perhaps Alan Matheson’s rather jaundiced view of the so-called Religious Right owes more to his connections with the ACTU than to his Christian convictions, but no side of politics has a mortgage on truth or virtue.
For myself, as a representative of the Baptist Churches of Tasmania, I have always been careful to maintain a politically non-aligned stance, recognising the diversity of political loyalties within our congregations. This leaves us free to judge issues on their merits and commend or criticise all sides of politics, as is warranted, without the church being seen as beholden to any. The important distinction is not between Right and Left, but between right and wrong.
How justified are Alan Matheson’s criticisms?
Let’s now take a look at the grounds for Alan Matheson’s specific criticisms of the NDOT. First, he claims that it is ethically a con. This claim seems to be based on what is simply some slackness in the NDOT’s failure to update the statements publicised, its supposedly narrow support base and its failure to provide financial details of the supporting organisations. Out of date (though still relevant) material may be grounds for rebuke but not for such an attack. And if the support base is narrow but the cause a worthy one, then doesn’t that warrant a call for other churches to become more involved rather than criticism. As some of the NDOT publicity material says, “The Day has been deliberately designed to be given away and not held by the initiators”.
Furthermore, if full financial details are not given for all the organisations involved how does that make it any different from countless other events promoted by different organisations? Is Mr Matheson actually suggesting that these particular bodies are corrupt? If so, he is duty bound to provide some evidence.
Given that the NDOT clearly has the support of the leaders on both sides of federal politics, his claim that it is politically a con is mystifying. He, along with many others, myself included, may take issue with one person’s statement that “…Christians must take over the world through its governments … and that Australia is on the brink of becoming a theocracy ruled by God”, but surely that is no reason to condemn the NDOT.
Perhaps his claim that ecclesiastically it is a con is the most perverse of all. If he disagrees with some of the organisations concerned, surely he should be calling for more of the mainstream churches to pick up such a worthy idea, rather than trying to scuttle it.
His claim that historically it is a con seems to be little more than pedantic nit-picking. So what if de Quiros didn’t have the advantage of our more detailed geographic knowledge, and what if the subsequent reality has fallen short of his noble declaration? Is that any reason why it shouldn’t be used to inspire Christians here and now?
Finally, his claim that the NDOT is theologically a con seems to be based not on what it does but what it doesn’t do. That is, it doesn’t focus on the things that are of specific concern to him. Is he really saying that while ever this world remains an imperfect place we should refuse, as a nation, to give thanks to God for all his blessings? I hope not.
It is sad to see such a worthy idea as the National Day of Prayer used as a target for sniping by other Christians when we surely should be working together to become a more effective witness to the world, not attacking each other – there are plenty of non-Christians who will do that.
I’m now a little more alert and a little more alarmed that such sniping can occur within God’s family.
Eric Lockett chairs the Public Questions Taskforce of the Baptist Churches of Tasmania. He was elected as a non-aligned delegate to the 1998 Constitutional Convention, and has contested state and national elections as an independent candidate. He is a member of the Leadership Team of his local Baptist Church.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
