on religion this week

"...one of the fundamental fantasies of religion--is the fantasy of power." John Caputo.
    Well, it's been quite a week for the Christian church in America. In both Sunday editions of the New York and Los Angeles Times two articles related to faith were featured side by side. Both of them were controversial in their own right. One was about the installation of the first presiding female Bishop of the Episcopal church. Apparently this has upset a number of Episcopal churches so much so that they have requested that the Archbishop of Canterbury assign another (male) bishop to oversee their various parishes. For her part, the newly installed bishop has offered some conciliatory language about the need to lay aside some issues in order to preserve a greater unity, but its doubtful that will be enough for those who seem to think that a women is precluded from such roles.
    My own opinion on the matter is "about bloody time." I happen to think that Jesus basically addresses the issue of women leaders, particularly in Mark's gospel, when he tackles the whole "greatness versus servant of all" stuff in chapter 10--Mark's use of "servant" is directly linked to women in his telling of the tale of Jesus and for me, the call to 'servant leadership' (words that make me want to puke actually) could be paraphrased as " lead like a women." I might be tempted to pray quite seriously for the new bishop on the basis of this idea alone.
    The other event was equally controversial, much more sensational, and

even more saddening. Ted Haggard, leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, mega-church pastor, developer of some pretty strange and I think quite silly prayer mapping ideas, had to resign/step down over reports of trysts with a gay male escort. What I found quite striking was that after the initial denial of any involvement, came an admission that he had received a massage, bought some crystal meth,(which he apparently didn't inhale!--bad stewardship if you ask me!!!), but definitely did not have sex. You could see what was coming if you have spent any time around the church. But my point is more that somehow  in his mind, buying drugs was much less of a problem than having gay sex--a living example of the ongoing hierarchy of sins, in p[site of our protestations to the contrary, there are always things we deem to be 'worse' than others, and I guess for an evangelical minister committed to anti-gay marriage politics and anti-homosexual theology, a little 'meth-admission' was easier to cope with than the other stuff.
  I feel bad for the guy and for his family, but I also think that it goes way beyond him as an individual. In all likelihood the general attitude and response will focus on him as an individual-- yet another "fallen leader, blah, blah blah..." But what really needs to happen is a serious reflection and meditation on the prevailing Christian attitude towards sex, sexuality, gender, eroticism, etc. that  is way overdue.
    I for one feel that the church should get out of the sex business, or at least out of the bedroom. What I mean is that I am increasingly finding myself agreeing with Gianni Vattimo's theory of "ethics without transcendence," the idea that if love is truly the law for Christians, then everything else is unimportant. That is an incredibly narrow and all too brief  encapsulation of his thinking. If interested you might want to check out Vattimo's book, Nihilism and Emancipation. (Vattimo returned to God because of Nietzsche,which should tell you an important little something about him if you haven't come across him yet)
  Consider how different things might be if the Catholic church, for instance, didn't feel obligated to crusade against birth control and the like in order to protect its very outmoded views on the intentions and purposes of human sexuality, and thereby perhaps, even unwittingly, thrusting its followers into volatile and vulnerable situations in this age of deadly sexually communicable diseases.
    I don't want to be misunderstood as seeming to say that I would advocate licentious behaviour or condoning all actions sexual or otherwise, I am simply saying that rather than constantly seeking to lay down laws, we should lay down the law, love, and advocate that everyone (or at least all who claim some association with the life and message of Jesus) live by the love of love and mutuality. It seems to me that love is probably the only constant that can navigate the treacherous waters of a constantly shifting and changing humanity. Our attitudes towards, our understanding and knowledge about, virtually everything is ever-growing. In the last century the existence of DNA would probably have seemed as outrageous as the idea of bacteria or the existence germs once did. Perhaps if love were truly the law there would be a different outcome to sad tales like this one--maybe not, but I bet things would be different.
    Hopefully this latest issue with Mr. Haggard will prod a deeper look at what is going on in the world of religion--too much reliance on will power and self-denial perhaps, and definitely not enough help to openly struggle with, and hopefully through, the issues that haunt us all.
    Power, is at the heart of a lot of this I think. Our fascination, our obsession even, with the power of God lies at the root. God cannot love if God cannot be vulnerable declares Moltmann, too much attention on power has blinded us to the reality that in order for God to truly be love, God must ultimately be about weakness and vulnerability, not power and might. And we, in turn, who follow after this God of power, don't know how to mediate and negotiate our weakness and vulnerability, except to overcome it with power. I'm waffling, so I'll stop.

Comments

[seeward]

Great thoughts Barry and spot on from where I sit! I ma reminded of Moses' prayer in Exodus after the Israelites built and worshiped a golden calf. He prays that God strike him out of the book of life instead of the people. That is a kind of servant leadership that doesn't make me want to puke!

[Geoff Broughton]

"Power, is at the heart of a lot of this I think. Our fascination, our obsession even, with the power of God lies at the root. God cannot love if God cannot be vulnerable declares Moltmann, too much attention on power has blinded us to the reality that in order for God to truly be love, God must ultimately be about weakness and vulnerability, not power and might. And we, in turn, who follow after this God of power, don't know how to mediate and negotiate our weakness and vulnerability, except to overcome it with power. I'm waffling, so I'll stop."

... hardly any waffle here, but on the edge of something quite profound. The struggle for power in Christian leaders, churches and history, should be enough to help us reflect more deeply on our theological ideas about power. But it doesn't. And it ties in with your blog on crowdsourcing... which instinctively asks us to go beyond the old "power to the people" as important as this might be as first step.

Once again it it is those with so little (the genuinely powerless people of the the two-thirds world) who are able to show us with so much, how to engage with a more vulnerable God. I have just procurred Caputo and Vattimo, who I'm sure will flesh out the philosophical dimensions of this for me. But it is living and working among those without power that I begin to see Phil 2:4 and the like come to life.

As a white, western male with some institutional leadership and education, I need to be reminded that I am like those numbered among those Jesus identified as following AFTER the sex-workers and tax collectors into the Kingdom. I hard pill to swallow.

Thinking about the weakest and more vulnerable moments of my life I see the most shitty-and-God-infused events, relationships and times... not in a God-helped-me-thru-my-troubles-and-gave-me-the-victory kinda way. But almost like God is attracted to my weaknees and vulnerability. I like to think of God saying to Haggard... okay, now we can really get down to business... get to know Me as I am, without all this hype and bullshit. Thats the kind of God I'm attracted to, anyway. Everyone likes to quote Bohnoeffer's "community of sinners before a community of saints" but for most churches its pure rhetoric.

Now im waffling.

[rose]

well...it's pretty basic really...
as I see it the difference between
those who are religious and those
who are spiritual is this..

religious people justify their actions and spiritual people take
personal responsibility for whatever they have done....

My people have been spiritual
of tens of thousands of years....