PASTORS-IN-TRANSITION

Hi friends,


Here's a summary of my thinking about pastors-in-transition, written mainly from an Australian (Victorian) perspective. It's too long and yet too brief, and off the top of my head. There are many other angles on all this.


~~~


# A Baptist ex-pastor in another state thought his credentials were current, and happened to come across a Baptist Union Yearbook - to discover his name was not there! No contact from anyone, no phone call, no pastoral care...


# An Australian Pentecostal pastor's ministry was terminated by a church meeting and a phone call on Sunday, and on Monday an elder called to his home to arrange for him to hand over the manse keys. No farewell, no thanks, no holiday pay, nothing.


# Reverend Joe served two rural churches, but both pastorates ended badly. He asked to be put on the Baptist Union's 'list' for another pastorate. The meetings of the Union's 'settlement committee' came and went and Joe's name would come up each time. But there wasn't a 'suitable' church. (One of the members of that committee said to me, 'We have to be efficient, because there's always a lot of business each month. But these names... they're people! This is their vocation, their job, we're talking about. We don't pray for them except generally when we 'bless the meeting' in a pious way, or even meet some of them. They're mostly just names. I feel very uneasy about the whole process.'). I'd met Joe when I preached at the Baptist church he attended. We made a time to talk - at the local McDonald's. He got there early and was waiting for me, with a cup of coffee. (I learned later he found a used styrofoam cup, and asked for a 'refill', as he couldn't admit to me that he was penniless). His wife was supporting them both with some 'agency nursing', but her health was not good, and she could only do about two shifts a week. After mortgage payments, and other bills, they had about $50 a week for food. He couldn't find a job - and his old trade wasn't a possibility any more. (More of this story - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2039.htm )


In some of our older church buildings there's an honour roll dedicated to the memory of those who've fallen in battle. But if you're wounded in the pastorate, you're often left to die, sometimes all alone. Occasionally not even your comrades-in-ministry will call you. (About half of all Baptist ex-pastors tell me they had no significant contact from their peers when they left pastoral ministry...). The majority of those who are no longer in parish/pastoral ministry, whether by choice, or because their ministry was prematurely terminated, walk a lonely road...


Pastoral ministry, commenced with high ideals and expectations, had become a source of stress, had caused a lowering of self-confidence, and a sense of powerlessness for over half of the 243 ex-parish pastors who responded to our John Mark Ministries questionnaire. And yet many would identify with the person who said, 'but my "sense of call" remained; [I] felt guilty that I could not fulfil my calling.'


About 20% of ex-pastors in parish settlements left to move into another career (either within their denomination, a para-church organisation or a secular position). One-quarter of these have done so without hurt, conflict, loss of health, or plain boredom, being their underlying motivation. The few can say, 'I had enjoyed a total of 15 years of parish ministry and I felt ready for a new challenge in ministry', or saw the move into another vocation as the natural next step because of the gifts and the expertise that they possessed. Many more would say something like, 'I was "burnt-out". God gave me a way out - I was tired of fighting unproductive battles...'


PASTORS AND CONFLICT


The most significant reason for leaving (for about half of the sample) is conflict. This conflict may be with local lay leaders, colleagues in the parish, members of the congregation, or denominational leaders. Conflict with local church leaders (lay and other pastors) is mentioned as one of the most significant factors in the actual decision to leave by one quarter of all respondents, and difficult relationships with denominational leaders by approx. 20%. When this is combined with the fact that half of the ex-pastors surveyed have felt a lack of support/encouragement in the pastorate, this raises serious questions about the quality of community in many of our churches. The ex-pastor is often left with intense feelings of failure, anger, a sense of betrayal (not only by others, but also by God), resentment, guilt and shame. These can take many years for the pastor, the pastor's spouse and teenage or adult children to work through to a point of healing - if it ever happens.


SPOUSE/FAMILY ISSUES


Spouse/family issues are often significant in the decision to leave the pastorate. Problems in the marriage relationship are mentioned specifically by 13.5% of respondents, 10% of spouses have had problems accepting the lifestyle, and 16% mention family problems. Factor analysis of the various factors operating when pastors leave parish ministry has shown a definite clustering around the questions relating to spouse, family, housing, finance and mobility. When these factors are considered together, the significance of the pastor's personal relationships would appear to be important for about a third of those who decide to leave the pastorate. A regular response in the questonnaires is the felt need 'to spend more time with my wife and family'. Adultery on the part of the pastor is the sole reason for leaving for some of our respondents. Sadly, this often occurs when the pastoral ministry has been progressing effectively. One perceptive ex-pastor for whom adultery and the subsequent break-down of his marriage had been the key issue said: 'The inability of the church to deal with my situation, the closing off from expression/acknowledgement of issues relating to sexuality and lack of opportunity for support/examination or reflection to help me was significant.'


'SELF' AND HEALTH

Only 4% of the respondents returned to the pastorate.

These two issues recur as very significant reasons in the decision to leave the parish. 'Self', including a loss of self-confidence, inability to continue to cope, and awareness of weaknesses, is the most often given reason for leaving. Health factors (often associated with stress/burnout) is the third reason given (after self and conflict with local church leaders). It would be very wrong to assume that the third of pastors who acknowledge self as a factor in their decision were unsuited to the pastoral ministry. (There are a few for whom this is so.) Many ex-pastors (about 40%) have good self-knowledge, and have learnt through their experience. One ex-pastor said: 'Some of my inter-personal skills needed attention', and many have sought counseling help to look at themselves.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

In an ideal world, the 'marriage' of church and pastor ought to be 'for better and for worse, for richer and for poorer'. But we do not live in an ideal world. Sometimes divorce is the only option when this important relationship breaks down. Today, it's both easier and harder to be a pastor - and indeed any sort of church leader. It is easier for pastors because there are so many resources available to help him/her do a professional job. (See for example, 'The Professional Pastor' in Paul Beasley-Murray's A Call to Excellence, Hodder & Stoughton, 1995). But it's harder for both pastors and church leaders primarily because churches are becoming more specific in their performance-expectations of their pastor, and more likely to initiate a termination if the pastor doesn't meet those expectations. In a world of 'performance standards' or even 'downsizing', executives these days are disposable.

No one wins when a church feels forced to terminate the services of a pastoral leader. In many (most?) instances, not all church members favor the action or the process and tempers flare and often times a church split results. If forced terminations become the "norm" for a church, there is negative witness in the community, and sometimes that church gets a 'name' for crucifying its pastors.

My counseling of 'pastors in transition' has led me to believe that a major component of their conflict has to do with unresolved childhood issues. Some bristle at this suggestion, but I can only report what I have learned from the stories of hundreds of these people. When the media asks 'Why are there so many ex-pastors?', I now respond: 'There are 41 discrete answers they give to the question "Why did you leave?" A list of those responses can be found at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2001.htm . Second, the _occasion_ of leaving was often conflict of some kind - usually with powerful people in the local church. But I think we then have to ask: "What causes those conflicts?" And the broad answer to that question might suggest reasons associated with a mismatch of expectations and reality, but beneath all that is the inability to get along with others because of unfinished business in various people's lives - the pastors' and/or the leaders'...

A significant number of ex-pastors don't 'attend church' for short or long periods - or ever. And many who do attend as 'laypeople' do so for the sake of their children. And they generally can't express their hurt and anger: anger is a most misunderstood emotion, and poorly handled in the vast majority of Christian contexts... (more on that below).

Many cannot easily find another vocation: the one they left to enter pastoral ministry might not exist any more.

There are financial problems - particularly if they do not own their own home. The families suffer from geographical dislocation. The spouses and children often become angry with the church - and this causes issues of loss-of-faith for many.

OUTSIDERS

So what can be done? First, let's note the biblical precedent of Barnabas relating to Saul of Tarsus and to John Mark - two 'outsiders' who had very different reactions to their life-situations. Can you hear good Christian folks saying to Barnabas: 'Saul? Don't touch him. He's trouble!' 'John Mark? He's a loser: the mission is more important than one individual...'

The Barnabas option is time-consuming, and emotionally demanding. So the church-as-institution often follows the easy road. When ex-pastors say to me 'The denominational leaders didn't help, I was viewed as a capital-p Problem', my response is sometimes: 'And didn't you have to deal with problem people in your pastorates, and what was your strategy with these?'. This situation is complicated by role-conflicts: the denominational leaders are by default both counsellors-of-pastors and gatekeepers to other possible appointments. So they wisely refer pastors-in-transition to outside counsellors. But then there's the inevitable response: 'They had no time for me; I was shoved off to someone else to get sorted out; and I've not heard from my denomination's leaders again.'

How are pastors-in-transition helped? Depends on their personality, pastoral experiences, unfinished family-of-origin business and a host of other variables.

In all cases there's a need for confidential, caring, listening by a trusted 'other'.

Here we have to note two pastoral dynamics (there are others):

1. Intimacy. Gordon Macdonald writes: 'A preponderant percentage of those of us drawn to pastoral leadership have a higher-than-normal urge to engage with other people. We love to get below the surface of people's exterior lives: to understand their dreams and their burdens, to urge them on to higher possibilities, to sympathize with their feelings and fears, to show them grace and mercy when they fail' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17246.htm ).

And so we might have a higher-than-average expectation others will do that for us if/when we fail.

2. Power. Most ex-pastors, if they're honest, say they miss preaching more than anything else. The pulpit is about the last place in our society where someone can speak to a crowd without being interrupted - or often even questioned, at least directly. We humans love our little occasions of power, and when deprived of them don't know sometimes how to handle the concomitant powerlessness.

~~~

Should some of them, in their pain, 'act out' their rage? In my view, and in a minority of cases, and in a safe and appropriate context, yes. There's the role-play model, where they 'let fly' at an imaginary person sitting in a chair. Occasionally I've taken people driving along a freeway at night to shout/scream/swear (the only context I know in the city/ suburbs where they can safely do that without someone calling the police!).

Some people have been taught that they shouldn't externalize their strong emotions. I'm wary of that advice, but, yes, I know that 'self-control' is a 'Fruit of the Spirit'! (I was talking to someone recently who said 'I'm from a Greek family. And we say what we think, and we're often "in your face" with each other. Then we get over it. But I'm married to an English spouse, who doesn't understand the Greek way of solving conflicts!')

I reckon also we have to be frank about the strengths and weaknesses of institutions. Walter Wink is helpful here. Where two or three join together to do something there's institutional power at work. When someone inhibits the process of 'getting the institutional thing done' they're usually ostracized. 'Good guys' conform to the institution's aims and norms of behavior. Troublemakers are 'bad guys' and are excluded from the institution's benefits. Some 'troublemakers' then rage at the institution, occasionally sabotaging any good/reform which might result, and suffer the consequences. (Today's news: Melbourne Storm fined $15,000 by the NRL for claiming they are victims of a conspiracy by the northern states to destabilise their club). Biting the hand that feeds you is not generally a constructive strategy!

Oh, that'll do... there's much much more, but some might like to respond to some of this... Like asking:

1. How do we as pastors encourage discipline and maturity in these matters while acknowledging genuine pain and rage in someone?

2. How can we exercise constructive loyalty to our group/denomination without suffering from 'institutional preciousness'?

3. How is someone (like most ex-pastors I talk to every week) encouraged to 'own their own stuff' while debriefing on conflictual situations?

4. Where does the (enlightened) notion of 'restorative justice' fit into all this?

5. How can 'outsiders' become 'insiders' without compromising their convictions or becoming less 'prophetic'?

6. An issue of the GRID leadership letter - 'Do Yourself a Favour: Encourage your Pastor' provoked a record 600 responses to World Vision (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2019.htm). Why?

7. We pastors are supposed to go after lost sheep, but are not good at helping 'lost shepherds'. True? Why?

~~~

Resources

'How many ex-pastors in Australia? Somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000' (More -http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16971.htm )

'Moral failure: Let's require that every man and woman in Christian leadership belong to a peer-oriented group that creates covenants of behavior such as no casual dining with a member of the opposite sex, no travel of any kind with a colleagues of the opposite sex, no team relationships unless three or more people are involved' (More - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17246.htm )

'Churchie behaviour: to be accepted on a Sunday you have to behave a certain way. I am simply not that person that I am supposed to pretend I am whilst in church' (More -http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17126.htm )

Motivation? 'I used to pray for everyone individually, phone them up to ask how they were, show an interest in their kids and budgie and labrador... but what was my motive? To be nice and win 'em for my flock. Why don't I do that now that I'm not in a pastorate?' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16899.htm )

'I found that I was sick of running a small business. More and more of my time seemed to involve administration. I have been involved in such diverse admin duties as: developing an environmental impact study for a new development, creating a registered training authority, running a community development and training programme, developing a men's refuge from the ground up. All quite worthwhile but miles from where I was trained and from my real interests and love. And the number of meetings really began to take their toll.' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15764.htm )

'In 2002, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America found that its clergy were far more likely than non-clergy to suffer from clinical depression and financial difficulties. They also experienced higher levels of work-related stress and had an increased likelihood of substance abuse and obesity' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14446.htm )

'Despite what some people say, quitting is not just for losers. It can be the best thing you'll ever do.' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14291.htm )

'People love labels and pat explanations so they won't have to think too hard. But if you have just walked away from bible religion, you are rediscovering the joy of thinking freely.' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14236.htm )

'What are some of the core reasons a pastor doesn't get a call? (much of this material is taken form a previous Baptist Union of Victoria paper "When the call to leadership is not confirmed") 1. The pastor may not have the gifts appropriate to the needs of a given church. This is more so today than ever when there are so many different kinds of churches with different styles and approaches to ministry'. (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14003.htm )

'I think my greatest pain though was the fact that, when I shared the problem with my minister friends, they started keeping their distance. None of them had any sympathy. It's like they couldn't believe that such a bizarre thing could happen, so they just shake their heads and say, "Ummm..." ' (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12013.htm )

'In one recent year 72,000 pastors/clergy were fired across America. For reasons that were partially their fault, for reasons that were not their fault, some for reasons no one knows but God Himself. Nevertheless, they and their families were fired, force terminated, pushed out into the streets' (http://www.thecents.org/ )

And many more stories/ideas like these - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/catalog/section/xp1.htm

Footnote: This writer has experienced both highs and lows in pastoral ministry. For a story of my 'lowest low' see a recently-posted article on 'The Vancouver "Adventure"' on our website (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17347.htm )

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/
http://victoriaconcordiacrescit.blogspot.com/ 

THEOLOGICAL LIBERALISM

(Note: I'm not an expert in Orthodox or Catholic theological spectrums, so will limit this discussion to the Protestant scene).

Non-Catholic/Orthodox 'Christians' can roughly be put into about ten theological categories. They are (from left to right): 'radical liberal' (eg. Cupitt), 'liberal' (Tillich, Robinson, Kung, Spong), 'neo-orthodox' (Barth), 'liberal evangelical' (Fosdick), 'radical evangelical' (Wallis), progressive/ Lausanne evangelical' (Stott), 'conservative evangelical' (Packer), 'fundamentalist' (Bob Jones III), 'sectarian' (the JW's), and 'cultish' (Koresh). 

Now it's common to call everyone to the _left_ of one's theological position 'liberal'. But I'm ahead of myself. Let's define our terms.

Political liberalism (Latin liberalis, 'of a free person') is about liberty, equality, tolerance. Philosophers like John Stuart Mill believed that democracy, individualism, and the rule of law could be reconciled. Today political liberals argue about how a liberal society should accommodate illiberals - like fundamentalist Moslems, for example. (See e.g., John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1994).

Theological liberalism is, broadly, the attempt to adapt religious ideas to modern culture and ways of thinking. These 'Modernists' say Christianity has always adapted itself to various cultural situations. (It is possible, by the way, for a person to be politically liberal but theologically conservative, and vice versa).

From this it's a short step to rejecting religious beliefs which are based on authorities other than reason. Liberals say that because the Bible was authored by people limited by their ignorance it can't be our sole authority for faith and conduct.

The scientific ignorance of the ancients, for example, caused them to believe in miracles: today we have other explanations for many of these events. (For example a distinguishing feature of most liberals is their doubt about the physical resurrection of Jesus). Higher criticism has questioned many assumptions about the Bible - like the authorship and dating of many of its books, the 'accuracy' of the biographical details of Jesus' life etc.

Liberals also tend to be somewhat humanistic and optimistic (though two world wars put a dent in that!). They accommodate easily to scientific 'advances' (like Darwinian evolution).

Christian liberalism varies from place to place and time to time. In the U.S. the Unitarians have been the most liberal major denomination. Recently it's the United Church of Christ (whose recent hymnbook de-genders Jesus!). Some Southern Baptists prefer to call themselves 'progressives' or moderates'.

Theologically, twentieth century liberalism has tended to believe that corrupt society corrupts people (rather than the other way around) so the Church ought to major on saving society rather than saving 'souls' (Rauschenbusch). 'Sin' is a product of apathy and/or ignorance. And the radical liberals believe that the traditional God is dead in this secular age (Paul van Buren, Harvey Cox. Bishop Robinson's Honest to God edged the New English Bible into second place among religious best-sellers in 1963). Today's 'Christian atheists', like Don Cupitt, do not deem it necessary to believe in the objective existence of God to account for the phenomena of Christianity.

As the conservative IVP Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology points out, liberalism has been a healthy corrective in some areas. Yes, humans are 'made in the image of God'. Yes, the church ought to be 'an ethical - and not a solely spiritual - community' [1995: 553]. And I would add that it's also a corrective to a naive biblical literalism and fundamentalist privatism. Jesus was truly human. We must emphasise again the prophetic notion of social justice. And we ought to take the idea of 'natural (or general) revelation' more seriously.

But there are grave dangers in theological liberalism. The New Zealand Presbyterian Professor Lloyd Geering confessed back in the 1960s that 'many of the things I have said and believe are at variance with the Westminster Confession.' 'We can no longer draw a clear line between what is orthodox and what is not.' Today Bishop Spong is similarly contemptuous of the term 'orthodox'.

Liberals are more at home asking questions than providing answers. But authentic Christianity is about truth, not just opinions. Sin is more than alienation from oneself and others: it's rebellion against God. In ethics our aim is not simply to do what is good but what is right. And although I would encourage scholars to study the Bible 'critically' we must never forget that (a) our stance is primarily to be 'under' rather than 'over' the Word, and (b) we do not have a mandate to destroy the faith of the less theologically-literate.

Liberal preachers have tended to use Biblical texts as ornaments - attached to already arrived-at conclusions and convictions; a 'resource' rather than a 'source'. As an atheist put it: 'You hear what the psychologist says, what the historian says, what the New York Times editorial writer says, and then the sermon concludes with, "And perhaps Jesus said it best..."' [Martin Copenhaver, 'The Making of a Postliberal', Christian Century, Oct. 14, 1998, 937].

Liberals have little idea what Jesus and Paul meant by humanity's lostness. Evangelism and conversion are alien to their thinking: they did not tend to get excited about Billy Graham. But people need good news rather than simply good advice. And liberals can't seem to understand why Elijah would mock the priests of Baal, Isaiah deride Bel, Paul argue with the pagans of Lystra, or what 'it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God' (Hebrews 10:31) might mean.

The story of salvation is not simply an extension of human wisdom or an expression of common sense.

This all came home to me when I met a 50-ish man who'd been to a mainline Protestant church all his life, but had always been uneasy talking about his faith. Then he got 'converted', and attended an evangelical church. They sent him with some others on an evangelistic tour to Indonesia. There he had to give his 'testimony'. 'It changed my life. Now Jesus is a reality to me rather than an ancient nice man. I now want to share my faith. The Bible is alive for me. God speaks to me every day...'

Today liberalism has lost its appeal to laypeople - I don't know any liberal preacher today who gets the crowds Fosdick used to draw - but it's still alive in mainline seminaries (note, eg. the work of the Jesus Seminar). Folks today want the preacher to be certain about core Christian beliefs and values. Liberalism is just too sophisticated, too nice, essentially a university brand of Christianity. It is humanism in religious garb.

'Christ has set us free,' writes Paul to the Galatians (5:1). 'Stand firm therefore...' Followers of Jesus are called to be 'both liberal and conservative at the same time,'  the Reformed Churches radio preacher Dr. Peter Eldersveld used to say. 'We are instructed to conserve our liberty... You might say that the whole Protestant Reformation was truly liberal, in the true meaning of that term. But in order to be liberal it had to be truly conservative - that is, it [called us] back to the historic [Christian] faith. In fact its "liberalism" [was in] its commitment to the gospel of liberty in Christ.' ['Liberal and Conservative', Back to God Hour, date unknown].

The last word is from an excellent article in the British Expository Times: 'The tragedy of liberal theology [is that] it has become all too skilled at telling us what is _not_ the case, what it is that we can no longer believe; but it shows little sign of being able to replace these negatives with convincing and intelligible positives. "Conservative" Christianity, at its best, combines a faithfulness to the founding traditions of the Christian faith, a proper graciousness, humility and teachability, an awareness of and an engagement with the intellectual and scientific issues of the day, and a confident message which people... can understand and rejoice in. In a word, while it may yet be far from perfect, it is the closest approximation on the market to the phenomenon of which we read in the New Testament - a phenomenon which changed the world.' [Colin Sedgwick, 'Where Liberal Theology Falls Short', Expository Times, October 1992, p.3].

Rowland Croucher 

June 1999

WHAT'S YOUR CHURCH'S LEGALISM/S?

Every church institution develops its somewhat unique legalisms. Here's the Baptist version...


OPEN MEMBERSHIP IN AUSTRALIAN BAPTIST CHURCHES


(Paper presented to the School of Ministry, Whitley College Melbourne, July, 1992, and then to all the Baptist clergy conferences throughout Australia. Updated 2010).


'Now abides faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is
baptism.'


The relationship of a person's faith-to-baptism-to-church membership
is one of the most complex issues in contemporary Baptist faith and
practice. Most Australian Baptists have resolved the closed/open
communion issue (in favour of open communion), but only a minority of
our churches have moved to an open membership position. So we approach
this divisive issue with teachable humility, recognizing that if, after
four hundred years of to-ing and fro-ing on the subject we have still
not reached a common mind, that prospect is not going to be realized
easily or soon for us either.


The early Christians baptized 'believers' by immersion into the
membership of their churches. Repentance-faith-receiving the Holy
Spirit-baptism-church membership were seen to be linked, theologically,
experientially and chronologically. Baptism was the doorway into the
church local and universal (these two aspects of the church were
inseparable for them). Immersion was the normal mode (though effusion
was allowed, says the [second century AD] Didache, where the water
supply was inadequate). Adults were the usual candidates (though
households of believers were also baptized. You don't often hear of
whole households baptized these days do you?). These apostolic churches
had no formal constitutions or regulations; their koinonia had not yet
become institutionalized. The uniting factor: 'one Lord, one faith, one
baptism'.


Augustine later linked the necessity of baptism with the doctrine of
original sin. First the Syrian church, then others, began the practice
of baptizing babies during the first eight days. Aquinas affirmed that
baptism 'leaves an indelible mark upon the soul.' Calvin linked baptism
in the new covenant with circumcision in the old; Luther prescribed the
involvement of an adult sponsor; Zwingli said baptism was a sign or
symbol only, of a deeper faith-reality.


Baptists first baptized by effusion, but soon switched to immersion.
Their commitment to a 'believers' church' prescribed baptism only of
those who could personally request it. John Bunyan was the most famous
proponent of open membership, for which he was vilified by other
Baptists. In three treatises on the subject, he said the reality of an
inward faith was more - much more - important than an outward sign like
baptism.


The key question: 'Why is it possible to be accepted into the family
of God but not into the family of a Baptist church?' Baptists have given
many answers, which can roughly be summarized into six broad categories:


[1] HARD CLOSED: Here members are only those baptized by someone
with authority in one's own Baptist denomination. Many U.S. Southern
Baptists, for example, will re-baptize other Baptists.


[2] SOFT CLOSED: These churches will not re-baptize someone already
immersed as a believer, unless the baptism took place in a sectarian
group.


[3] MODIFIED CLOSED: This - with the 'soft closed' position - is the
stance of most Australian Baptist churches. Here a believer who is
unbaptized, or was baptized as an infant, is given 'associate' status,
and may vote on secondary matters in church meetings, and generally will
not be eligible for the office of deacon or elder.


[4] MODIFIED OPEN: In these churches only those who are baptized can
be members, provided the individual regards their baptism - of whatever
kind - as valid for them. This is the position of about 70-80 of our
Australian churches.


[5] PLURALIST OPEN: These churches (eg. in parts of the UK and in
North India) go one step further and allow options for either infant or
adult baptism, choosing sprinkling, effusion or immersion.


[6] WIDER OPEN: This position allows the individual, in
consultation and prayer within the community of faith, to reach a
conclusion about baptism that is valid for them, but may be a full
member of the church during this process.


In the view of this writer legalism decreases, and a commitment to
ecumenism increases, as we move from [1] to [6]. Further, older Baptist
pastors in Australia would tend towards [2] and [3], younger pastors [4]
to [6]. South Australians have the greatest heterogeneity across this
spectrum, Queensland and WA Baptists the narrowest. In the last decade
at least a dozen Baptist churches in Victoria have joined the existing
half-dozen committed to some form of Open Membership. At a recent
conference of 100 NSW Baptist pastors, the overwhelming feeling I got
was (1) sympathy with an Open Membership position; (2) pessimism about
their leading laypeople and 'the Union' agreeing with them.


The two theological questions here are (1) Is baptism the esse of the church? and (2) Should believers only be baptized? [1] [2] and [3] would answer 'Yes, yes'; [4] and [5] 'Yes, no' or 'No, yes'; [6] 'No, no.' Mother Teresa or the Pope could be a member of [4] and [5]
churches, but (Salvation Army General) Eva Burrows couldn't!


Let us organize the issues into ten clusters:


1. PASTORAL. Every sensitive Baptist has had to wrestle with the
problem of someone from another church feeling they shouldn't have to be
re-baptized to join the church of their choice. Their earlier baptism
was confirmed when they knew what it was all about, and, anyway, can't
baptism - in any mode - happen before, at, or after conversion? 'I would
be a hypocrite if I got baptized just to please you lot!' These people
believe their earlier baptism was something God did, rather than what
they did or was done to them; and that the most important things you can
say about baptism of any kind are that it is unrepeatable, and that if
it was in the Triune name, that's what matters most. And then there is
the inevitable feeling of being second-class, even if some form of
'Christians in fellowship' or associate membership is practised.
On this point our constitutions say one thing, but our pastoral
hearts and theological heads say another. Bunyan wrote: 'The Church of
Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their communion Christians that
walk according to their light with God.'


2. HISTORICAL. Over time, Western Christendom has moved beyond the
bigotry of the Middle Ages and Reformation eras. Indeed, Baptists, as we
shall see, were involved as much as any in their commitment to religious
liberty and tolerance. When we read of dissidents in Iran being
executed, we are thankful we have moved beyond the militant
fundamentalism that has blotted Christian history as well. Baptists
should be at the forefront of encouraging all peoples to move from
bigotry to tolerance, from overstanding to understanding. (By the way,
the earliest Baptists in Australia practised open membership).


3. CULTURAL. We live in a multicultural society. Pluralism is the
order of the day - even in the worldwide church, which now has over
40,000 separate denominations, each of which believes it is more right
than all the others! The secular media are having a field day with our
intolerances and failings. We don't need to give them any more
ammunition, while at the same time affirming our commitment to the
unchanging Word of God, rather than the whims of a pagan culture.
Moreover, the 'tribal' role od denominations is decreasing: well over
60% of Christians now say they do not have a strong denominational
allegiance.


4. INSTITUTIONAL. All institutions, said sociologist Robert Merton,
are inherently degenerative. Institutions tend, over time, to increase
in complexity and exclusiveness, multiplying laws, regulations, and
constitutions. Tradition is a good servant, but an oppressive master.


5. MORAL. Let us state the issue in stark terms. Most Baptist
22-year-olds in our churches are not virgins (ask any experienced pastor
or youth counselor!). Those who are members, however, may, despite
their private morals, vote on all matters financial and theological. So
may the adults who are factional, greedy or backbiters. However, if a
godly Salvationist or Anglican were to request membership, they would be
refused in most of our churches. Their spiritual life may be exemplary,
but this matters less, apparently, than the quantity of H20 used in
their baptism, and the chronology of that event. Any system which
produces this kind of legalistic and unchristian anomaly has got to have
something wrong with it!


6. THEOLOGICAL. There are two questions here:


6-1. Can infant baptism be a valid baptism? If your view is that
baptism is primarily something God does, the answer is 'yes.' The
extreme form of this position, however is a quasi-magical
sacramentalism: baptism is a 'work of grace' which is instrumental in
bringing salvation to the candidate. Conversely, if you believe baptism
is primarily something we do, it can degenerate into a empty 'mere
symbol' stance. British Baptist theologians Wheeler Robinson and George
Beasley-Murray, among others, have helped us see baptism rather as a
Divine/human encounter. Baptism is linked in the NT with baptism in the
Holy Spirit. It is a means of grace. There is no gift or power which the
apostolic documents do not ascribe to baptism. All the chief Christian
doctrines are somehow linked with baptism. So sacrament and symbol need
to be held together.


Swedish Baptist theologian T. Bergsten says there are two kinds of
infant baptism: indiscriminate baptism which has produced 'millions of
baptized pagans', and that in which parents and later the confirmed
teenager/adult have had a more responsible role. Any judgment about
validity has to be made very carefully, or we will find ourselves
'unchurching' other committed Christians.


The issue of re-baptism is complex. Individuals can give all sorts
of reasons why they believe their earlier baptism was invalid:
theologically, it was not according to biblical precedent;
experientially, they were 'not a Christian' at that point;
methodologically it wasn't done properly (insufficient water etc.). Some
feel they were baptized for the wrong reasons - peer pressure, pleasing
a spouse, obeying the rules merely to conform etc. If baptism is only
something God does, re-baptism for any reason would be invalid; if
baptism is only something we do, re-baptisms can occur ad infinitum.
Surely the better way is to affirm the Divine/human encounter in the
event, and only re-baptize in the rarest of circumstances, if an
individual is utterly convinced their earlier baptism was invalid.


6-2. Can we add anything to grace? We now come to the crux of the
matter, an issue unfortunately not often tackled sufficiently in the
scholarly literature. The essence of the Christian gospel is that God
accepts us unconditionally. His grace is all we need. Further, in the
Christian community, grace means that all the old racial, social,
sexist, and theological barriers that divided us are shattered forever.
Some groups add 'tongues' to grace; others 'sabbath-keeping'. Baptists
add baptism to grace. Any proviso expressed as 'Sorry, unless you... - in
addition to being accepted by God - you are not fully acceptable around
here' is essentially pharisaical. The pharisees had a theology of
'grace-plus'. That's why Jesus got offside with them. With the pharisees
repentance preceded acceptance ('you change, agree with us, and you'll
be acceptable around here'); with Jesus it was the other way around ('I
accept you; let's work on a process of change together'). Pharisees are
territorial (only our kind are welcome); Christians ought to be
hospitable (you are most welcome here).


7. BIBLICAL. Advocates of an open membership position take seriously
the prophets' and Jesus' unjunction: 'It is kindness I want, not
ordinances' (Matthew 9:13). These sacrifices were divine-ordained, but,
said Jesus, kindness and mercy to others, accepting others, is more
important. Paul agreed: 'Accept one another, then, for the glory of God,
as Christ has accepted you' (Romans 15:7). How are we accepted? Purely
on the basis of grace. We then must accept others the same way. Nothing
can be added to grace.


8. ECUMENICAL. This is a 'dirty word' for many Baptists, and I am
aware of the reasons for that. We have been given certain insights into
the nature of the church which we do not want to modify. Whilst we
affirm the integrity of other churches' search for truth, our own
affirmations and distinctives are dear to us.


However, our generally exclusive attitude to paedobaptists is
abhorrent to them. Are we the only true church? Have we nothing to learn
from others? With Christendom so divided, how should we work to answer
our Lord's prayer for his church, that they may be one? By refusing
membership to those belonging to other Christian churches is to say
something else is more important than our Christianness.


Our unity is not on the basis of a particular view of baptism, but
in the common confession to which baptism points - the redemption of God
God in Christ by the Holy Spirit.


'In all things essential, unity; in all things doubtful, liberty;
and in all things, charity.' What are the 'essential' things? Only four,
I believe: * The unity of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; *
The saving work of Jesus Christ, who was fully human and fully divine; *
The full authority of the Scriptures in all matters of faith and
conduct; and * justice and love as the key kingdom values for Jesus and
for us (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42).


God probably isn't a Baptist!


9. DENOMINATIONAL. Baptist distinctives may be expressed this way:
Jesus Christ is Lord of the church, which essentially comprises only the
regenerate; the Bible is the ultimate authority for all we believe and
do in the church and in the world; believers' baptism (preferably by
immersion) is the ordinance by which we enter the membership of a
church; the autonomy of the local church - which means that no outside
body can dictate what a particular community of faith believes and
practices; individuals are at liberty to be guided by the Holy Spirit
operating within the community of faith in their understanding of the
Scriptures; the state has no mandate to interfere in the beliefs and
practices of the people of God, except to uphold good laws and maintain
order.


Now Baptists have vitiated their own history by insisting that
'freedom' is OK on every issue except baptism, a theory of biblical
inerrancy or the parousia, or whatever. What Baptists have insisted
others grant to them, they have not been willing to grant to others.


10. PRACTICAL. The devil has a particular strategy to destroy the
faith and life of every denomination, every local church, and every
Christian. A useful spiritual exercise would be to figure out what that
strategy is for Baptists!


A criticism leveled at open membership churches is that they tend
towards nominalism. This is not necessarily true. Many Southern Baptist
churches which insist on baptism by immersion of children or others have
a far greater nominalism than, say, the 50% of Baptist churches in South
Australia which practice open membership. The antidote for nominalism is
not pharisaism, but a more rigorous cachetical program, whereby those
applying for membership examine the reality of their confession, and the
essential truths of the biblical gospel. I would urge a more serious and
extended study of baptism and other doctrines, so that the ordinance
does not become a mere rite or formality. Another good practice is a
membership re-affirmation or covenant service each year.


Open membership churches feel that their 'closed' counterparts are
legalistic, putting adherance to a particular doctrinal interpretation
ahead of accepting others whom God has accepted. This criticism surely
has validity. Closed membership is a denial not only of our Baptist
principle of the liberty of individuals to be guided by the Holy Spirit,
perhaps into another point of view, but is, above all, a denial of the
Christian good news about God's grace.


For someone to have one's name in the Lamb's Book of Life but not to
qualify for our membership books is aweful! Baptists have always said
the Reformers did not take the Protestant Reformation far enough.
Perhaps we, too, have to take the great Reformation principle of grace
to its logical and biblical conclusion.


Further reading: T. Bergsten, 'Baptism and the Church', The Baptist
Quarterly, Vol 18 nos. 3 & 4 (1959), pp. 125-131, 159-171.


D. Bridge and D. Phypers, The Water that Divides, IVP, 1977.
A. Gilmore, Baptism and Christian Unity, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1966, pp. 58-74.


Thorwald Lorenzen, 'Baptism and Church Membership: Some Baptist
Positions and their Ecumenical Implications', J. Ecumenical Studies, 18:4, Fall 1981, pp. 561 ff.


(Rev. Dr.) Rowland Croucher

IS GANDHI IN HEAVEN? (Christianity and Other Religions)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through
him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come
into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all
people. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.


You shall have no other gods before me. You shall
not make cast idols. You shall not bow down to their gods, or
worship them, or follow their practices. Take care that you are
not snared into imitating them, after they have been destroyed
before you: do not inquire concerning their gods, saying, 'How
did these nations worship their gods? I also want to do the same.'
And when you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon,
and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and
bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God
has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven.

For the customs of the peoples are false: a tree
from the forest is cut down, and worked with an axe by the hands
of an artisan...


If you turn aside from following me, you or your
children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that
I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship
them, Then they will say, 'Because they have forsaken the LORD
their God, who brought their ancestors out of the land of Egypt,
and embraced other gods, worshiping them and serving them; therefore
the LORD has brought this disaster upon them.'


The Lord said: Because these people draw near with
their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts
are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment
learned by rote;
For all the peoples walk, each in the name of its
god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever
and ever.


Do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow,
or shed innocent blood... do not go after other gods to your own
hurt. They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals
or reptiles... they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and
worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who
is blessed forever!


'And you know the way to the place where I am going.'
Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we do not know where you are going.
How can we know the way?' Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and
the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
me.'


Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid
the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called
knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards
the faith. I am saying this so that no one may deceive you with
plausible arguments. Holding to the outward form of godliness
but denying its power. Avoid them!


If anyone says to you, 'Look! Here is the Messiah!'
or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false messiahs and false
prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead
astray, if possible, even the elect.' He opposes and exalts himself
above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes
his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.


Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them,
'Rulers of the people and elders... Let it be known to all of
you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing
before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead... There is
salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven
given among mortals by which we must be saved.


John 1:1, 3, 14; Exodus 20:3; Exodus 34: 17; Exodus
23:24; Deuteronomy 12:30; Deuteronomy 4:19; Jeremiah 10:3; 1 Kings
9:6,9; Isaiah 29:13; Micah 4:5; Jeremiah 7:6; Romans 1:23,25;
John 14:4-7; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; Colossians 2:4; 2 Timothy 3:5;
Matthew 24:23,24; 1 Thess- alonians 2:4; Acts 4:8,10,12.


.....


'God is dead, Marx is dead, and I don't feel too
good myself!' 


In a pluralistic culture we are more aware of others'
beliefs.


A missionary in Nigeria visited a young man in back
street of Lagos. On his bedside table were the Bible, the Book
of Common Prayer, the Koran, three copies of Watchtower (magazine
of the Jehovah's Witnesses), a biography of Karl Marx, a book
of Yoga exercises, and How to Stop Worrying and Start Living by
Dale Carnegie.


These days we travel more, TV shows documentaries
of foreign cultures, students study abroad, multicultur- alism
in the West is here to stay...
Intolerance is increasing too. Militant Hindus have
a motto 'Save India from Christian imperialism!' Many Moslem countries
make it a punishable offense to proselytize. Then there's Lebanon,
and Northern Ireland... Religion and politics can be volatile
subjects, particular- ly when they mix.


Something else has happened that has never happened
before. People (to paraphrase T.S.Eliot) have left God not for
other gods, they say, but for no gods; and this has never happened
before. It is possible both to deny gods and worship gods - gods
like rationality, money, power, sport etc. And it will all lead
to an age advancing progressively backwards...
Of all the world's religions, Christianity has the
greatest number of followers (33%), followed by Islam (18%), Hinduism
(13%), and Buddhism (6%).


What is religion? Definitions are legion: 'what we
do with our solitariness'; 'how we relate to others'; 'our answer
to fear'; 'an ultimate attempt to enlarge and complete one's personality
by finding the supreme context in which we rightly belong'. Everyone
is religious, in some sense.


Although Freud termed religion 'mass neurosis' --
religious believers were infantile, unable to break outgrown ties
with their parents -- Carl Jung said of his patients over thirty-five,
'all have been people whose problem in the last resort was that
of finding a religious outlook on life.'


There is an increasing hunger for religious reality.
'Baby-boomers' under 45 are not in church as often as their elders,
but they claim to be as religious. They read Shirley Maclaine
and play around with the New Age movement. In a noisy world people
searching for 'God who is Sound and Silence' as the Maitri Upanishad
puts it are going in larger numbers to Buddhist monasteries and
Hindu ashrams -- places of quiet serenity, simple life-style,
meditation, brief talks and questions. More young people are reading
the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, the Chinese I Ching, or do Yoga, transcendental
meditation or Zen courses.


Let's ask the hard questions in order: 


Was Ghandi a Christian? No, as we saw in the movie, Ghandi, although he admired
Jesus, he lived and died a Hindu. But E. Stanley Jones said of
him: 'He taught me more of the spirit of Christ than anyone in
East or West.'


A harder question: Is Ghandi in heaven? Christians
offer three broad answers: (1) Conservative Christians have their
doubts. The principle of Karma (cause and effect - paying off
your own guilt) is poles apart from grace (God's free forgiveness,
which you don't deserve). Augustine's theology inspired western
Christians to believe that those outside the church are dammed.
A more refined view might be Karl Barth's 'Religion is unbelief',
or Hendrik Kraemer's conviction that non-Christian religions were
not means of salvation in any sense.


However, others would argue, what kind of God would
organize for most of his human creatures to burn in hell forever
- many of them because, by accident of birth, or the disobedience
of the Christian minority to evangelize, they had never heard
the gospel? Is he not the Father of Jesus, who prayed for those
who crucified him? Does he not want all to be saved and come to
know the truth (1 Timothy 2:3,4)?


(2) More liberal Christians would answer: 'Be tolerant.
There's value in all religions. They all lead ultimately to God.
Of course Ghandi is with him!' The problem with this view is its
failure to take seriously the question of truth. If the original
Christians were 'liberal' there would have been no mission, no
univeral Church.


(3) Is there a way between these two extremes? Yes,
the more cautious say 'Only God knows: our eternal destiny is
in his hands alone'. With evangelicals like Howard Guinness (The
Seekers) or JND Anderson (Christianity and Comparative Religion)
they ask: Does God 'accept' only people within the 'covenant community'
- whether Jewish (in the OT) or Christian (in the NT)? No: what
about Melchisedek, Rahab, and Cornelius? Certainly Jesus Christ
is unique, and Divine: he alone was God in human form. We are
not to take everyone's views, mix them up, and get an identikit
picture of God. Jesus is the only way to God. But that may not
mean that only Christians are saved (see Romans 2:11-16).
Roman Catholics, at the Second Vatican Council, moved
from extra ecclesiam nulla alus (outside the Church, no salvation)
to 'The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy
in other religions.' Devotees of non-Christian religions may be
'implicit believers' or, in Karl Rahner's phrase, 'anonymous Christians'.
Hans Kung says these religions may provide ordinary, whereas the
Christian Gospel provides extraordinary means of salvation.


Don Richardson (Eternity in Their Hearts), says God
has revealed himself to more people than we might imagine. The
one invisible God is resident in many folk religions. Christianity
doesn't replace this revelation, he says, but completes it. Pachacuti,
King of the Incas, led a religious reform in the 1400s encouraging
his people to worship Viracocha, the Creator, rather than Inti,
the sungod. His hymns to Viracocha sound like the Hebrew Psalms.
When missionaries came to the Santals in India in the 1800s, they
found a tradition about Thakur Jiu, 'the Genuine God'. Many became
Christians. The Chinese had Shang Ti, the Lord of heaven. The
Karens of Burma believed in Y'wa, the true God.


Non-Christian religions are a testimony to people's
search for God. They may be far from the God of Jesus, but God
is not far from any one of them. God cares for all his human creatures
with a love we who are biassed in favour of those who are like
us can't imagine. His rain falls on the just and the unjust...


All religions have good and evil elements. As novelist
Mary McCarthy observed: religion makes good people good and bad
people bad. Christians have burnt heretics, Jews robbed Palestinians
of lands and homes, some Hindus still burn widows (sati), tribal
witchdoctors put curses on people, Moslems wage religious wars.
(An eminent Egyptian scholar said privately to Hendrik Kraemer:
'I no longer believe in Islam but, if anyone were to attack the
prophet publicly, I would kill him!'). Never forget that Jesus
was rejected and sent to his death by people who belonged to a
highly moral and spiritual religion. But, you say, well, Christianity
has sanctioned evil, but in essence it is good. True: people from
other religions say the same of their faiths too.


Christianity, said Karl Barth, stands as much under
the judgment of the Gospel as other religions. Roman Catholicism
will be judged for the Inquisition; and the Protestant John Calvin
for standing by as Geneva burned the 'heretic' Servetus...
Will everyone be saved? George Macdonald says all
answers to such a question are deceptive. Two things are certain:
all who are saved are saved through Jesus Christ. And a merciful
God can handle the judgment of his loved creatures without our
help! Jesus said everyone's going to be surprised at the last
judgment. We should aim to be secure in our own faith, and be
open-minded about matters that are God's prerogative.


So why evangelize? To get them into heaven? Yes,
but there are better motives: the glory of God, obedience to Christ,
and sincere love for others. Although Christ is not known everywhere,
he is everywhere. We are called to make him known, not to make
him present.


Some don'ts and do's in evangelism: Don't major on
the faults in other religions: the faults in your own are bad
enough. Don't argue: you may win the argument but lose the person:
today the world is a conference table not a lecture hall, so learn
to listen as well as you talk. Above all, be compassionate: Jesus
preached judgment on Jerusalem when it rejected him, but he also
wept for the city. Share your faith, as a beggar sharing bread
with another beggar. Ask 'what are my friend's felt needs?', and
start there. (An African proverb says 'Hungry people have no ears!').
Invite overseas students home: perhaps your family could 'adopt'
one. (Most in the Book of Acts were converted while away from
home). Teach English to some one. Encourage your church to translate
the service into another language, or host an ethnic church.


And, beyond all that, remember Jesus' approach to
Nicodemas. This cultured man wanted to talk about the contrasts
between Jesus' teaching and that of Judaism. The conversation
started courteously enough, but very soon Jesus said to him 'You
must be born again!'


That is still the essence of the good news - even
for the very religious.


.....


Good teaching is found everywhere. In every religion
there is something good, but good teaching alone cannot give life.
Life is only to be had throught he giver of life, not through
the pages of books.


Sadhu Sundar Singh, Alys Goodwin, Sadhu Sundar Singh
in Switzerland, Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1989, p. 49


Where is the truth in other faiths? There are three
bad ways to solve this problem. One is to lump all religions together
and dismiss them all. As G.K. Chesterton once observed, to stop
believing in God does not mean that people will believe in nothing.
They may substitute a nationalistic for a religious faith, and
be more fanatical than before. Another is to affirm that each
religion is part of a whole. 'There is only one religion, though
there are a hundred versions of it.' (George Bernard Shaw). The
third is to be absolutist: only people like me have the truth!
Amos (9:7-9) thundered against the exclusivism that believed God
only cares for people 'like us'. 'People of Israel, I think as
much of the people of Sudan as I do of you...'


Rowland Croucher, from an unpublished sermon, 'Do
Other Religions Also Lead to God?'


God comes to us in Jesus who is the way. We are like
people who have fallen into a pit and in that fall have been injured.
Our legs and our arms are broken. For anyone to lower a ladder
into the pit and say, 'This is the only way out, climb it,' only
adds to our desperation. But if the ladder is lowered not for
us to climb out, but for one to climb down and lift our broken
body into his arms, carrying us upwards and to safety -- that
is good news indeed!


Henk Booy, quoted by A.M. Watts, 'Christian Claims
in a Pluralist Society'


The neutral observer... looks at the plurality of
religions from the outside: for him or her the existence of more
than one true religion is self-evident... The committed believer
looks... from the inside...: what is the true religion for me?
...I confess openly that my standpoint is that of a Christian.
I am convinced that Christianity is the true religion. I cannot
prove it -- faith can never be demon- trated -- but I can offer
good reasons, which convince me... We come to a third and ultimate
perspective...: there is a vertical dimension, that of the Absolute.
As Christians we do not believe in Christianity but in God. Christianity,
as a complex of dogmatic teachings, liturgical rites and codes
of behaviour, does not escape the ambivalence of our human, historical
condition. As Karl Barth used to say, religion is always a shaky
and relative thing: not religion as such, but the absolute Being
to which it is directed is the true absolute. This is the primordial
and ultimate reality which we call God, which the Arabs call Allah,
which Jews and Indians decline to name, but worship none the less.
In relation to this ultimate and absolute reality of God, even
the true religion is relative... Even Christianity is in via:
ours is a Church on pilgrimage, on the way, which has not yet
arrived at the goal of seeing God face to face. To admit this
is neither liberalism nor relativism nor syncretism; it is faith,
pure and simple.


Hans Kung, 'Ecumenism and truth:the wider dialogue'


In the past we have sometimes been guilty of adopting
towards adherents of other faiths attitudes of ignorance, arrogance,
disrespect and even hostility. We repent of this. We never-theless
are determined to bear a positive and uncompromising witness to
the uniqueness of our Lord, in his life, death and resurrection,
in all aspects of our evangelistic work including interfaith dialogue.


The Manila Manifesto


Krister Stendahl is fond of saying that no interfaith
conversation is genuinely ecumenical unless the quality of mutual
sharing and receptivity is such that each party makes him- or
herself vulnerable to conversion to the other's truth.


Leonard Swidler, 'Interreligious and Interideological
Dialogue'


The other religions are not to be understood and
measured by their proximity to or remoteness from Christianity.
They are not beginnings which are completed in the Gospel... To
fit them into this model is to lose any possibility of understanding
them. Moreover, what do the concepts of 'near' and 'far' mean
in relation to the crucified and risen Jesus? Is the devout Pharisee
nearer or further than the semi-pagan prostitute? Is the passionate
Marxist nearer or further than the Hindu mystic? ...Is the Gospel
the culmination of religion or is it the end of religion?


Lesslie Newbigin, The Finality of Christ


It has become customary to classify views on the
relation of Christianity to the world religions as either pluralist,
exclusivist, or inclusivist... [My] position is exclusivist in
the sense that it affirms the unique truth of the revelation in
Jesus Christ, but it is not exclusivist in the sense of denying
the possibility of the salvation of the non-Christian. It is inclusivist
in the sense that it refuses to limit the saving grace of God
to the members of the Christian church, but it rejects the inclusivism
which regards the non-Christian religions as vehicles of salvation.
It is pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work
of God in the lives of all human beings, but it rejects a pluralism
which denies the uniqueness and decisiveness of what God has done
in Jesus Christ.


Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society


People are saved by faith even though the informational
level varies... Paul had a great deal more insight into the way
of salvation than Abraham did... but Abraham was not less saved
than Paul was... This does not make the pagan who responds to
God, as Jethro did, a Christian. We should not call him even an
'anonymous' Christian. It would be reasonable to consider him
a pre-Christian perhaps. The main thing is that such a person,
though for the moment lacking Christ through no fault of his own,
and thus I suppose 'lost', is not going to be damned, because
he cried out to the merciful God in the only way he could and
was heard.


Clark Pinnock, 'Can the Unevangelized be saved?'


A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things
Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either
be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached
egg - or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your
choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a
madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you
can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his
feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising
nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left
that open to us. He did not intend to.


C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity


A world of nice people, content in their own niceness,
looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately
in need of salvation as a miserable world - and might even be
more difficult to save.


C S Lewis, in Charles Colson, Against the Night,
London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1990, pp.139.


.....


Lord God, Creator of the universe, who has revealed
your loving nature and purposes for our lives in Jesus, help us
to love you, to obey you, to honour you, to adore you. We have
not loved you as we ought, and we are sorry. We have not obeyed
Jesus' command to take the good news to everyone, and we are sorry.
We have not honoured you by honouring others; rather we have felt
superior to them, and we are sorry. We have not adored you, but
rather our mental caricature of who you are - a god created in
our image - and we are sorry.


Help us to abandon any religion that is immature,
destructive or unloving. Help us to see you as the Father of all,
to whom all are dear, and whose patience and long-suffering are
everlasting. May we regard the truth we have received in Jesus
as a precious resource to be given away, not hoarded. Remind us
constantly that there is much, much more that we do not yet know,
and to be very humble when in dialogue with others whose lives
have followed the beat of a different drummer.


In the name of Christ, your Son, Amen.


.....


A Benediction:


And now may the Spirit of Jesus, the One who hugged the demoniac, touched the leper, accepted the worship of a prostitute, and who honoured Samaritans, infect our thoughts and attitudes, so that the God who is not far from any one of us, will touch the lives of others we meet this day, for the honour of his name. Amen.


.....


Henk Booy, quoted by A.M. Watts, 'Christian Claims
in a Pluralist Society', Christian Century, March 1, 1989, p.223.
Rowland Croucher, 'Do Other Religions Also Lead to
God?', a sermon preached in various churches and campuses.
Hans Kung, 'Ecumenism and truth: the wider dialogue',
The Tablet, 28 January 1989, pp. 92-93.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan,
1960/1978, p. 56.
The Manila Manifesto, Lausanne II Conference of Evangelicals
in Manila, 1989.
Lesslie Newbigin, The Finality of Christ, London,
1969, p.43f.
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society,
Grand Rapids Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1989, p.182-3.
Clark Pinnock, 'Can the Unevangelized be saved?',
The Canadian Baptist, November 1981, p.9.
Leonard Swidler, 'Interreligious and Interideological
Dialogue', in Swidler, L. (ed.), Towards a Universal Theology
of Religion, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988, p.38.


.....


Further reading: Ajith Fernando, The Christian's
Attitude toward World Religions, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale, 1987;
Ian Gillman, Many Faiths One Nation: A Guide to the Major Faiths
and Denominations in Australia, Sydney: Collins, 1988; David Johnson,
A Reasoned Look at Asian Religions, Minneapolis: Bethany House
Publishers, 1985; Josh McDowell & Don Stewart, Concise Guide
to Today's Religions, Amersham-on-the-Hill, Bucks: Scripture Press,
1983; Vinay Samuel & Chris Sugden (eds), Sharing Jesus in
the Two Thirds World, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983.


Rowland Croucher

LIFE IS HARD BUT GOD IS GOOD

Adele Gonzales, Life is Hard but God is Good (Orbis, 2011)

Here’s a brilliant, ‘progressive Catholic’ attempt to ‘present the best theodicy possible.’ Adele Gonzales knows about suffering – via losing her beloved father unexpectedly when she was 14; soon afterwards she was shipped to Florida from Cuba without any English language skills; and she’s suffered emotionally, spiritually, physically (rheumatoid arthritis) - and ecclesiastically in a conservative Catholic church -  in many ways…

Her vocation includes leading seminars and doing personal spiritual direction with other sufferers. Early in her career, when confronted in a meeting at which she was speaking on all this with a question about God, evil and suffering, her instinctive response was ‘Shit happens!’. Fortunately a wise bishop who was present mollified the shock-and-awe in the place by agreeing with her!

Back to losing her father: because he was a Mason she was told he went to hell: fortunately a wise and caring priest convinced her otherwise, via the story of the Prodigal’s father…

Why 9/11? Well, don’t forget ‘we Americans experienced on our own soil the terror, despair, and powerlessness other nations live with every day’. And Hurricane Katrina? ‘The entire world saw firsthand the poverty and misery of the black community… [and witnessed] city leaders blaming state leaders who in turn blamed the federal government’.  How does one make sense of the Haitian earthquake? God’s vindictiveness over their voodoo superstitions? No. Haitians – 80% of whom are Catholic – believe God is good, even though life is hard: La vie est dure, mais Dieu est bon.

Who is this God?

I am in the air you breathe;

I am in the wind you ride;

I am in the song you sing;

I am in the tears you cry.

I am living water;

I am dance and song;

I am pain and sorrow;

I am fire and love.

I am the one living God:

I am the fountain of life;

I have come to bring you peace;

You are unique and you are mine…

How does God best do that? By becoming incarnate in Jesus and suffering with us and for us. (Versus the traditional nonsense about God being ‘impassible’ – not able to experience suffering).

But yes, evil is always the greatest obstacle to believing and trusting in God. As theologian Hans Kung wrote: suffering or evil is the ‘acid test’ for every religion.

Christians have tried to theologize it all via the Augustinian notion of original sin. But Sister Gonzales would prefer to say that though evil and suffering are real, as Anne Frank writes in her diary while hiding from the Nazis in Amsterdam: ‘Everyone has inside of them a piece of good news. The good news is that you don’t know how great you can be! How much you can love!’

·       Structures and institutions? ‘Sometimes I sense darkness in the room, and have to leave immediately…’ Their crimes against the common good go beyond the accumulation of the sins of their members… (Example: those who manage the institutions of the church and its finances are mostly removed from the Church’s pastoral life).

·       Hell? It’s not so much about fire and heat as about the absence of God.

·       A great contemporary evil? ‘Noise’: ‘I don’t blame Apple, or Sony, or any other corporation for the noise, but I think the evil of greed lurking in the background has a lot to do with it.’

·       War? As Pope John Paul II said: ‘War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity’. But we didn’t listen, and invaded Iraq anyway…

·       Unforgiveness (to an angry divorced woman):  ‘This jerk made your life miserable for ten years and now you’re giving him fifteen more free of charge so that he can continue to ruin your life?’ Result: an instant ‘aha’ experience and the woman decided to get counseling. Forgiveness takes place in 5 different contexts – Accepting God’s forgiveness, forgiving ourselves, asking to be forgiven, forgiving God, forgiving others (people, communities, institutions)…

Gonzales’ conclusions:

·       ‘It may sound crazy, but I believe that without the energies of love, pain, anger, and many others, creation would be less than it was meant to be. Growth and development involve change, and change is always painful and frustrating. [So let us] put our energies… into positive actions that could lead to healing, rather than in wasting them in hatred, anger, and revenge.’

·       ‘I know I am a better person because of… evil. My father’s sudden death, our exile from our country of birth, my mother’s blindness, my little cousin’s leukemia, the struggles to finish graduate school, my many illnesses since I was young… are experiences which have made me the person I am today. I believe that the greatest good that has come out of these “evils” is the ability to empathize with someone else’s pain and to walk in their shoes, to be a woman of hope, to enjoy and share a great sense of humor, and to believe without any doubt in the goodness of God and of the universe…’

·       Yes there’s mystery here: and by definition a mystery is unknowable. But as an eastern spiritual master put it, wisely: ‘Pain is part of living, but suffering is optional’. Francis of Assisi endured a lot of physical, emotional and spiritual pain, but he was joyful. William O’Malley: ‘The sufferings of Christ did not cease when Jesus died. Christ still suffers when we suffer, and – we trust – our suffering is redemptive just as his sufferings were redemptive’

·       Finally, Richard Rohr: ‘If you do not transform your pain, you will surely transmit it to those around you and even to the next generation’.

Rowland Croucher
September 2011
jmm.aaa.net.au