Carrying Your Cross

A couple of weeks ago Amy Cleary came to share some stories with us about her time on Mercy Ships. She worked as a nurse during her time but found a lot of what she did was to give dignity back to people.

She was preceded by our very own Kate Butler sharing soemthing she felt God say to her and to our community.

Good times!

Peter Rope: Can Love Be Defined?

What is Love – billboards, popular magazines, television, films, books all reveal the various dynamics of romantic love – it's on display everywhere. These ideals are prised. There is certainly value in romantic love, and my question is whether I am the only one who is questioning whether this is what Love is? Is there more? Is love this narrow conception?

As a young Christian I'm also confronted with another type of Love rather than this narrow ideal. There is this dichotomy that I'm confronted with every day – What is Love? What is true Love?

As a philosophy, modern society expresses Love with 'feelings', the 'feelings of romanticism'. This involves a feeling of possessiveness and exclusivity. But even society acknowledges family Love which is different again - our children, closeness, bonds that bind, blood is thicker than water …. These are valid and worthy.

As a Christian, I am faced with a different kind of Love, this encourages me to go beyond ….. Loving God becomes a priority, as is loving our neighbour (means anyone else). Partiality is gone and within this context is a distinct lack of exclusivity – it's a bit of a shock to a new Christian what is involved with this commandment to Love.

One person's example of Love

The apostle James says true religion, that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1 verse 27).

Catholic Priest Henri Nouwen is an author whom I read with interest. His life inspires me, for after teaching at universities such as Yale and Harvard he dedicated his later life to care for people with disabilities.

Throughout his life he struggled with both depression and his sexuality but yet set an amazing example for others to follow of Christ like love and sacrifice. Does it make Nouwen any less loving, or less knowledgeable of love, that he was celibate? I would argue most certainly not.

In fact, I would say the love Nouwen had and gave to the poor and disabled was a kind of self sacrificial love that many people may never touch. It’s graceful in its unmerited favour in an age in which for some possessive and preferential love reigns supreme. To have compassion for the weak, the vulnerable, and the powerless, is in itself subversive and is a place where the light of Christ shines through.

In this matrix of love it is not the feeling that comes first. Nouwen didn’t care for the disabled because he fell in love with someone who was poor or disabled, no; love is the work of love. And the work of love is his life. The task is not to find a loveable object or person, but the task is to find the given object or person - loveable.

A theologian

A highly esteemed theologian Søren Kierkegaard had a great deal to say about Love.

“With respect to love we speak continually about perfection and the perfect person. With respect to love Christianity also speaks continually about perfection and the perfect person. Alas, but we men talk about finding the perfect person in order to love him. Christianity speaks about being the perfect person who limitlessly loves the person he sees.”

In my view, he seems to be saying that each of us should be working on ourselves instead of chasing the dream of the perfect object or person to love.

As none of us are perfect, there should be an inherent attempt to be a more loving person towards all – this is at least something we might be in a position to control and developed within ourselves.

The Scriptures certainly affirm that following Jesus Christ enables this endeavour to 'Love' which is aided by the Holy Spirit dwelling within each believer. For me therefore Love is of God, and pure love comes from God whether it is romantic love, family love, service to others Love or a more internal expression of Love in how we live our lives. 

Enemies of the Cross

One of the most open and frank personal stories I've ever had the privilege to hear!

And then one of the best spoken word pieces I've ever heard.

We've got some talented folk here at Windsor.

Enemies of the Cross, definitely worth the time to think about!

Ben Wilson: 21st Century Human Behaviour - Here at Mannequin St - Chapter IV (2176 AD Edition)

People of the 21st century have been the butt of many jokes for the past decade. We call them 'that other species'. How could they not be? Unsociable, indifferent and difficult to talk to. You'll still find these words in our dictionaries - though not much of anywhere else. As I said at the beginning, this book seeks to shed some light on what is now a legend in sociology. It's easy for us to demonise because life is different now. They hadn't experience the same social renaissance we have. We say we're a truth-seeking, accepting, understanding people.

So let's do just that.

Lets look at the early 21st century, since it's the most relevant. Some 170 years prior to now, people of that culture and time lived in close proximity - but still far away. One 'street' would consist of many 'houses' (you can see where our word comes from). These weren't the open and communal spaces we've grown to love. These were walled-constructs, austere and uninviting. Save for a few mirrors spaced throughout. They even built walls around their walls.

Of course there was privacy to think about. The walls were part of a wider, deeper issue however. It was common for people of the time not to know their neighbours, let alone talk to them. Perhaps they didn't want to disturb one another. Perhaps it was the daunting number of houses surrounding. Though one has to wonder about they're priorities.

I find it intriguing how they defined their communities individually, house by house. We define our communities by just that; communities. We celebrate the birthday of the young boy 100m away, we gather regularly to dine and dialogue daily about our lives. We openly seek and embrace the fellowship of those around. Such things weren't always case for the 'winter humans'. Different lives in a different culture under different circumstances.

Our culture is fascinated with conversation. Instead of falling further into individualism, we've successfully revived the lost art of communicating. It's a shame the price tag was so high.

Take a walk outside your house in 2005 and you'd notice the difference. People could walk by each other without barely a grimace. Studying the plethora of videos they left, I noticed some people would say 'how you doing?' as a greeting. It didn't seem like a genuine question, but a well-intended gesture that wasn't meant to be answered. They wanted to talk. They wanted to stop a moment and get to know someone. Maybe they didn't know how. At least that's how it seemed.

I imagine this isn't the legacy they wanted to leave. We remember them at their worst. How were they at their best? Comforting and compassionate? I choose to believe that.

They tried. They really did. I'm sure. I'm also sure I'm not seeing the whole picture. I don't think any of us are.

Must have been hard. Living under a culture that trusts you'll walk by and leave it alone 'cause it wants to be left to its own thoughts and problems. Must have been hard, when that's exactly what a lot of those people probably didn't want.

Even if it's true, and it was like that. Even if no one came to visit - to knock on your door when you were feelin' down. To ask how you were, to remind you that someone cared. That'd be okay:

There was always the mail-man.

Casey's Awkward Confessions: #8

 

I think break-ups are the reason swear-words were invented.

 

My worst ever break-up was when I was in my last year of high school. My boyfriend had gone away and thought about it for a week and decided I just didn’t make the cut. So he came to my house and bravely said ‘I’m sorry’ repeatedly and assumed I would get the message.

 

Despite wanting to punch him in the face, I walked him to his car which was parked on the street. He was about to get into his car when he looked up at me and said “can I hug you?”. Instead of telling him to piss right off, I nodded a pathetic ‘yes please.’ Mistake. Hugs during break-ups don't have happy endings (not that kind of happy ending. Gross).

 

Our break-up suddenly turned into a cheesy rom-com, most likely starring Meg Ryan. Even now I can’t believe how ridiculous the following sequence of events is. He came over and gave me a hug, then suddenly he kissed me and said “I just can’t leave you.” I know, right? So romantic. Beautiful. The stuff real fictional love stories are made of.

 

It didn’t end there. My emotional rollercoaster took another awkward turn when he jumped back with a horrified look on his face and said ‘I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have done that, that was a mistake.’ Cool. Thanks.

 

He was a reasonable guy and recognised that it was a bit rude of him to break up with me then kiss me. Slightly mixed signals, one could say. So Mr Maturity let me decide. He literally used the phrase ‘the ball is in your court’. Essentially his offer was “I don’t want to be with you, which is why I just dumped you. However, I accidentally kissed you which was a horrendous mistake given that I don’t like you at all, which is why I just dumped you. Because I kissed you it is only fair that you get to decide whether we stay together. Although I’d really rather we didn’t, which is why I just dumped you.”

 

Needless to say, I was swept off my feet.

 

Awkward confession #8 : I never want to go through a break-up ever again. I’m not sure my body could deal with eating the required amount of ice cream to get through it. The unfortunate implication of this is that my next boyfriend would also have to be my future husband. Talk about putting a relationship in a pressure cooker. I can practically hear all the single males on the North Shore running for their lives.

 

At this point, if I ever want to go on a date again I should probably mention the fact that I don’t actually like this mindset. I don’t think it is particularly helpful, however it sneaks into my head from time to time. It’s natural: survival instincts. No-one goes into a relationship hoping it will all go up in smoke. We want to avoid that pain as much as humanly possible and we don't want to hurt anyone. Plus there’s always the fear of investing in the wrong one. We want to find the person God wants for us and skip ahead to our happily ever after as soon as possible.

 

I suspect this mindset is part of the reason not many Christians are actually dating. The pressure is just too much. Potential relationships stall before they even begin because of the fear of expectation. But if you’re hanging out one-on-one for the first time chances are you don’t actually know them well enough to know whether you want to officially ‘date’, let alone whether you will want to spend your lives together.

 

In order to bypass this pressure, we engineer group hang-outs where we might see our crush-of-the-day. We subtly attempt to lure them into a one-on-one conversation without drawing attention to our hidden agenda. We hope that if we hide in the safety of the group-hang no-one has to know we have a crush, while ignoring the fact that if no-one knows our crush also won’t know, so nothing is going to happen. Unfortunately group hangs can be a bit luck-of-the-draw in terms of who you get to spend the most time with. Not the ideal environment for getting to know one individual on a deeper level.

 

Somewhere along the line the battle of the sexes has become the battle of the intentions. Guys too worried that if they ask a girl to coffee she will spend the entire time planning their wedding. Girls trying desperately not to over-analyse, while replaying the entire night in her head to assess whether or not she said anything stupid. The casual one-on-one hangout seems to automatically be given the dreaded ‘date’ label. The ‘date’ label now carries with it a promise that neither party can know if they will keep.

 

I think we need to manage our expectations. Maybe it doesn't need to be so stressful. Maybe it's time we all chill the flip out and embrace the ‘pre-date’. The casual, no-commitment-implied stage of getting to know each other BEFORE you decide whether you actually want to start dating. If you can’t spend some actual quality time together, how will you ever know? You will soon find out whether there’s something worth pursuing. Giggidy.

 

At the end of the day, all relationships are risky. No-one can read the future. There are no guarantees. But if you aren't prepared to take a risk every now and again, at some point you have to ask yourself how much you actually want that white picket fence you are supposedly holding out for. Your future spouse isn’t just going to walk through the back door one day and say “honey, I’m home.” You do actually have to do something.

 

So go forth and hang, young adults of the world. Discover a world of hotties and possibilities. Make some friends, flirt a little and have some fun. After all, it's only a matter of time before you find the right one... Right?



Grant Harris - Easter Message - Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?

Continuing with our discussion on suffering is Grant's Easter message, if you would rather have a listen than read. Enjoy!

some popular ideas about suffering

"God must have needed another angel to stand at his side, ‘cause it's the only reason I have to explain this." These of the words of a relative in the wake of a horrific crash in Helensville last week. It’s amazing how regularly people turn to their own theology of suffering for some sort of comfort. Have a think about what this idea would actually say about God though. This speaks of a God very removed from the experience of human beings and how they respond to tragedy. A selfish God. Perhaps shallow.

The problem with suffering is that all too often the only answers we have to give are in fact unhelpful. They can be shallow, or patronising or get communicated with a “suck it up” attitude. The answers have been sought out by many great thinkers throughout history who have worked hard to develop systems of thought to help us frame our painful experiences.

The questions remain: what does our suffering mean, and what does the suffering on the cross mean for us?

Perhaps the heaviest of these is from the prosperity camp. Read a Joyce Meyer book, hear a Joel Osteen sermon or watch T.D. Jakes and you will hear a message about triumph that actually results in pressure. According to the prosperity gospel, what Jesus achieved on the cross was triumph over all sin and all suffering once and for all. This means that being a Christian is about walking in the Word of God to overcome anything by faith. It also means that if you experience suffering, then it is probably because of your lack of faith, and by obtaining more faith, you’ll overcome it. Of course, this points the finger back on us if we experience pain or discomfort. We’re supposed to live in “total victory”. In a suit.

There’s a tragic story of a pastor in America who believed that if you got sick, it was because you didn’t have enough faith. And then his wife got cancer. This guy was faced with a choice: change his doctrine and rethink his views on suffering, or actually believe his wife somehow brought it on herself. Unfortunately he chose the latter and publicly rebuked his wife. This is not a good framework to work from.

On a different wave length, the Catholic church has traditionally believed that suffering itself is redemptive. That Christ’s actual pain and suffering on the cross is what brings redemption. Think back to the Passion of the Christ movie, a very catholic piece of film making. In one scene, Jesus is carrying his cross through the middle of Jerusalem and falls in exhaustion. Mary the mother of Jesus runs to his aid in amongst flashbacks of Jesus falling as a child. What the film is depicting is quite deliberate. Jesus speaks the words “Behold, I make all things new” (something taken by the script writers from the end of Revelation) and is in communion with those that share his suffering. Very clearly we see the mentality that the suffering itself is what is making things new, and those that suffer with him are counted as friends.

This has led many from within the Catholic faith at different points in history to develop practices of self-harm or at least hold a view that suffering in itself joins us with Christ and redeems. Suffering is a way to draw close to God in very simple terms.

Our Protestant Reformational tradition says that Jesus’s suffering was redemptive from a more transactional point of view, that sure, he endured physical pain, but the real suffering was about His separation from the Father. The cross was redemptive because of the transaction of sin and for what it teaches us about God. It says that suffering is the means that God uses for His good ends. It is often joined with views that God is sovereign and therefore in somehow behind all pain we endure in order to teach us something or to build character. Preachers like John Piper are strong advocates of this view and in their desire to emphasise the sovereignty of God, stress that in some way God is behind all suffering.

So who’s got it right? There is certainly some truth in every view. In order to hold a reliable system to go from we need to have a firm understanding of the nature of God and how it is that unchanging God can be affected and therefore changed by reality.

How can God suffer and still be God?