After such great comments through the past week on my last post on John's Gospel, I can scarcely not continue to think out loud about John's Gospel.
After Trump's election, I can scarcely not comment on it.
Might the two topics come together?
Definitely if we consider Johannine Literature, i.e. move more widely from John's Gospel to John's Revelation (yes, I know likely two different Johns are involved) and Trump. Next week's post has just about written itself in my mind and the key word is "madness." Perhaps a second key word is "false" and its synonyms.
How about John's Gospel and Trump.
First, a few thoughts about John's Gospel, working from some of the comments made below to last week's post.
It is a stretch to see John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels as equally "histories" of Jesus of Nazareth. Sure, if the Synoptics have access to historical facts about Jesus then John's Gospel likely also had access, and potentially to historical narratives of Jesus based in Jerusalem and surrounds compared to the heavy emphasis in the Synoptics on Galileee-based narratives. But the resulting histories of Jesus read quite differently - despite some important common ground re matters as diverse as the centrality of Simon Peter among the twelve disciples, miracles such as the feeding of the 5000 and healing of a blind man, and importance of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. John's Jesus talks differently to the Synoptics' Jesus - so differently that he comes across in the former more as sophisticated Jewish theologian with mystical interests, occasionaly performing dramatic miracles compared to the latter where he comes across more as a wise Jewish teacher frequently communicating through parables and performing numerous miracles, including exorcisms. By contrast no exorcisms appear in John's Gospel. Notwithstanding the robust comments made through the past week, I still think John's Gospel is well explained (if not best explained) by presupposing that John knows the Synoptics and uses their stories of Jesus, along with some of his own, to compose a theological history of Jesus which has more theology than history in it.
I agree that the history of Jesus is important: The word became flesh in a specific individual, Jesus of Nazareth. His words and deeds are God speaking and God acting in a manner which is different in important ways from whatever God spoke through (say) Moses and did through (say) David or Elijah. Not least we say this because the death of Jesus matters for our salvation in a way in which no other death of a human being makes one iota of difference, salvifically, to you or to me.
Each gospel is, of course, an interpretation of the significance of the death of Jesus because the death of Jesus by itself is just a bare fact of human history: Jesus was crucified by Roman authority, as so many thousands were in the era in which Jesus lived. Paradoxically, the death of Jesus is important for salvation not because the death of Jesus itself conveyed any message about its significance but because God revealed its importance to us, partially through Jesus' own words (e.g. Mark 10:45) and more fully through other human beings (notably through Saul of Tarsus, but also through John the Evangelist).
John's Gospel is, ultimately, a revelation of the truth about Jesus which no mere history of Jesus could give - though words of Jesus give us many clues as to that truth. Even Jesus himself does not disclose that he is the word made flesh (John 1:14).
What then can we say about Trump from a Johannine perspective?
Here is a thought: he is a kind of incarnation - an embodiment of words (to be very clear NOT an embodiment of THE WORD!!). That is, and not the first politician to be such an embodiment, he is seen to embody an extraordinary collection of policies and proposals ...
- someone who will galvanise business in the USA (and make America great again = MAGA), despite wishing to impose tariffs etc which potentially will contribute to inflation, and despite proposing tax cuts which will make the rich richer while the poor will pay the tariffs;
- someone who will uphold free speech, undoing perceived censorship controls from left-wing do gooders (and MAGA), despite also threatening to "go after" various critics of himself;
- someone who will save (conservative) Christianity in the USA (and MAGA), despite being a man of very low morals, convicted as a felon, openly not a churchgoer and, in all likelihood, an intentional manipulator of voting Christians (e.g. note how he changed his tune on abortion going into this election);
- someone who will save Americans from their (deep state, inimical, ordinary people hating) government by becoming President (and MAGA) and essentially maintaining the apparatus of government.
Themes of "Saviour" and "Messiah" emerge from the list above!
But Trump is not the Saviour, not the Messiah, and not the Incarnate Logos. He is a very naughty boy ... If anything he is the antitype of Saviour, Messiah, Logos.
And that takes us to the Book of Revelation ... more next week.
37 comments:
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,
that together, with the bond of Love overflowing,
they called our world into unimaginable life,
and soaked every thing with their "immortal spirit" (Wisdom 12:1);
So that every thing that crawls and creeps, flies and stones,
males and females, lives and dies,
has the life and light of the Christ inside it,
above it, beneath it,
calling the whole scattered oneness forward and together.
There arose in the west a great light.
He wasn't the one true light, though for many he was.
He hoarded many lights to himself -
so that his light could shine in the darkness,
could dazzle and bewilder.
And they called him the Messiah
and pledged to him their light
And he called them his sons and daughters
While the one true light calls us friend.
Peter, you need to reckon also with the fact that the Fourth Gospel details multiple visits to Jerusalem, usually in connection with the Jewish feasts, in contrast with the Synoptics which mention only one visit to the city (but imply others); also that the FG recounts long speeches and prayers, and where speech ends and commentary begins (e.g. in ch. 3) is hard to determine.
The FG is also more consciously an artistically wrought work, with seven 'signs' and seven 'I am' sayings. Bauckham's book is a good source of information on these rhetorical patterns.
I look forward to your theological reflection on Justin Welby, if he's still in a job next week.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
In the main, John is viewed as this almost irrefutable treatise on the divinity of Jesus. However, I find it fascinating that Jesus defines the nature of God in John 4 as "spirit." His point being that it does not matter the physical location of where to worship God since "God is a spirit...they that worship him...." Jesus defined God as being non-physical. Thus the incarnation obsession is misguided, is it not? As God in a physical form is a contradiction.
Also, it is clear from John 17:3-4 that Jesus calls his father "The ONLY true God." Seems pretty clear to me that Jesus was a monotheist and did NOT consider himself as God.
Regards Thomas
Once, years ago, I was moved in meditating on a verse in Scripture, to focus on the word ‘and’.
As I rested on that word, what came into my mind was, ‘What God has joined let no-one put asunder’!
In John 17:3-4, Jesus says. ‘This is eternal life, that they may know him, the One True God AND Jesus Christ whom he has sent’ They are indissolubly one.
Thomas,
'Before Abraham came to be, I am.' (John 8.58)
On other matters, it has been reported that Justin Welby has cleared his diary. Watch this space.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Yes Welby has resigned (schadenfreude isn't a good basis for ecumenism, just saying). A very decent, honest man, who has courageously held a deeply divided church together...who has been relentlessly honest about his task, as well as issues such as mental health (including his own - may you have a decent rest now, Justin), the plight of asylum seekers in the UK, and, of course, the challenge of sexual diversity to the church's pre-modern doctrine in this area.
Enormously well informed about international politics. Deeply committed to personal honesty and the health of the global communion. Who built a close and warm relationship with both Pope Benedict and Francis.
This is just what I've seen from afar.
Yes, it seems like he didn't follow up more vigorously on a report into the worst serial abuser in the Church of England in recent times. That probably necessitates his resignation. But I feel very sad about it nevertheless.
Thank you Justin. Politics is a brutal arena. May you and your family have acres of well deserved rest and time together.
That's such an intriguing line in the dialogue with the Samaritan woman at the well: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24).
Not really that controversial though, from a Jewish perspective. You can't localize the God who created the world and whose "immortal spirit is in all things" (Wisdom 12:1). Who is Being itself ("I am whom I am") rather than one of the particular beings.
As a Jew who never departed from his faith, Jesus operates from this worldview throughout his lifetime. Though I believe in his divinity (as the Christ, as embodying the fullness of the Light which is 'incarnate' in all of us), he doesn't go around simply claiming to be God. In the Synoptics, he usually refers to himself as the Son of Man, the Human One, at the very end as the Messiah. No Jew would understand any of these as to be claming equality with God.
John of course portrays a different Jesus, one who emphasizes his oneness with God throughout (as indeed many mystics have and do; c/f. the Sufi mystic al-Hallaj, who was executed for saying "I am the Truth"; most Hindu mystics seem to reach a realization of "I am That" without being murdered! ). And yet Jesus is always deferring to the Father, to doing the Father's will. He doesn't go around demanding to be worshipped as God! But maybe a truly divine being wouldn't behave in such a way.
The amazing thing about John, perhaps, is not that Jesus claims oneness with God, but that he makes it to the cross - people are always picking up stones in John's Gospel to throw at him, to execute him for blasphemy, yet he seems to always escape! In Mark he is much more secretive.
But as well as emphasizing that God is Spirit, and not overtly claiming to be worshipped as God, Jesus also points to deep Jewish wisdom that speaks of our oneness with God, our hidden divinity, and uses this to ground and develop his identity as the Christ.
John 10...
30 The Father and I are one.’
31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?’ 33 The Jews answered, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.’ 34 Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods”? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.’ 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.
Sorry Mark, he was not an honest man when it mattered most and will be forever remembered for this disgraceful behaviour. Just pitiful and weak. Doing nothing is enabling, a common theme in Churches in NZ. We hear this news a day after the Abuse in Care apology here in Aotearoa, it just goes on and on and on.Who amongst all of these perpetrators is guided by the so called spirit, I would like a serious answer to this question??
Regards Thomas
The report is clear that I personally failed to ensure that after disclosure in 2013 the awful tragedy was energetically investigated,” Justin Welby said. After the full extent of Smythe’s crimes was documented by Channel 4 in 2017 Welby promised to meet with victims. But failed to make himself available to them until 2020, a full seven years after he had been officially told what had been going on. “This was wrong,” Welby has admitted.
Who among us can NOT say, ‘I have left undone those things that I ought to have done’?
In little if not in big, not to excuse but to understand that we are all ‘pitiful and weak’ in some areas and the public life is a brutal area…
Safeguarding in CofE under Welby/Nye was appalling. It's not just this one devastating long-standing shameful episode. It's systemic, and far more needs to happen than just the resignation of the ABC. It's a colossal failure, I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg.
No, I don't think that's right, Thomas - though I'm sure they'll be a lot of this to come. He has admitted his mistake, apologized, and resigned.
I don't think it's right that you condemn/judge his character for one example and working in such a high stress job. He has been scorchingly honest on all sorts of things - the conflict in the church over sexuality, its record on slavery and treatment of women, his not having all the answers on the same sex issue, his alcoholic parents, his own proneness to depression, numerous etc.
I have worked with survivors of trauma and abuse for over 15 years so I'm far from unsympathetic or partisan.
Because he's Archbishop, or has been, Justin Welby will bear the brunt of an avalanche of feelings over the John Smyth affair - as well as other grievances and frustrations (however justified) that will be projected onto him (however unjustified).
Some of you perhaps don't understand how immensely serious this case is, or how deeply embedded in the CofE is a culture of covering for abuse - I've read a fair bit about it. I implore you to read this BBC article which includes reference to the Bishop of Newcastle Helen-Ann Hartley who I think became a bishop in NZ. She speaks so appreciatively of NZ at her twitter a/c which I used to follow, but apart from this liking I *also* very much trust her judgement and she is a straight-talker.
Bishop calls on Welby to resign over Church abuse scandal
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yx90q0v31o
Mark, NO, it is right that I judge his character. He remained silent (for the sake of the church and himself) and couldn’t be bothered meeting with victims or families for years later and he got caught out by an investigation, it’s that simple. Thats a poor excuse saying it is a tough job, I won’t have it, and forget your projection statement, that’s absolute rubbish and tantamount to victim blaming. Making excuses for him takes away from those people that have had their lives destroyed, the Archbishop is now complicit. Simple. Regards, Thomas
Hi Liz
I don't think anyone is taking this lightly. It is hard to assess a person's integrity from this far away - Justin Welby's, Helen-Ann Hartley's etc. There is always so much more going on than we can see. It is hard to balance justice with a sort of frenzy to judge. I note how aggressively Ian Paul has got involved calling for Justin Welby to resign on this - the same Ian Paul who would see gay and lesbian Christians treated as cattle class by the Anglican Church (and who claims, because of this issue, he is no longer in communion with Justin Welby).
Thanks for the link.
Again, you are very wrong Mark. A report had been commissioned and reported on with damning findings specific to integrity. Stop making excuses for what is clearly awful behaviour: Please remove the scales from your biased eyes.Thomas
Hello
Thank you for comments above.
Do we know all the facts that explain everything ++Welby has said he got wrong about the Smyth case?
My question concerns whether the CofE, as a whole, across all its leadership (archbishops downwards, across its parishes), understands the importance of a survivor-centred focus when responding to complaints.
As one who belongs to a church which itself has only relatively recently learned this importance, I am reluctant to rush to judgment against another church which may not yet have got to where we have only just gotten too ourselves.
I certainly hope that ++Welby's resignation is not in vain, that it is a big step on the way to where the CofE needs to be, not least because it is a wake up call to all its leaders ... and a reminder to those of us faraway that we not only need to get things right but to maintain that position.
I was disappointed when I saw the news this morning.
Like others no doubt the information I know comes from the report and/or commentary on the report. From this my understanding was/is +Justin became aware of the allegations of abuse shortly after being appointed Archbishop, he was told the police had been informed and that allegations were being handled by the Diocesan leader to whom the information had been given alongside the safeguarding section of the COE.
In my estimation this does not qualify as ignoring abuse or covering it over. The oversight was lack of due diligence in following up or making sure this was actually happening and/or taking others people at their word that it had been. It also seems he took the advice of police and the safeguarding team to not meet with victims.
So I ask myself have I ever assumed a person responsible for undertaking a job would do it with out follow up? Likely
Have I ever taken advice from experts in their field and regretted it later realising their advice had been wrong? Yes
So in all honestly it leads me to the biblical verse of, ‘those who have not sinned cast the first stone.’
Accountability is healthy, however, scapegoating is not. It is like in many people’s minds people are equating +Justin with someone who has personally know of abuse that occurred and purposefully kept it hidden (aka Mark’s mention of projection)
… it seems there were many players thirty years ago who knew an awful lot and did little to bring the abusers acts to light and yet did little to nothing, are these the ones people are really mad at?
Like Mark I have respected + Justin from afar, starting when he worked in international reconciliation as a negotiator of peace agreements between armed groups, and risked his life on mission trips, alongside his testimony and initial involvement with Holy Trinity Brompton and entering into the priesthood. Hence his ending his current role on this note saddens me because it seems to de-value him as a person alongside what he has contributed to the church global.
I am also disappointed in Ian Paul’s post which he allowed on his site and many of the comments which tend to infer +Justin resignation is a welcome thing because of how he has handled gender debates/decisions within the church so ie: for a completely different reason that what is actually the current one. Disappointment in him because I appreciate Ian Paul’s commentary on scripture and align myself with a lot of it. It is one thing though to disagree on theology - it is quite another to harness that in a disguised personal attack on another’s credibility.
Thomas,
1. You've described Justin Welby as "clearly awful", "not an honest man", "disgraceful", "pitiful", and "weak". To the best of my knowledge, the Makin report says his personal error was to leave the matter with the police rather than to do that *and* actively pursue and follow up on the complaint. Welby says he received advice that the proper thing was not to interfere further with what was now a police matter. He now regrets following that advice.
2. Beyond Welby, it is clear that there are significant systematic issues throughout the Church of England in responding to abuse complaints in a survivor-centred way. It is also unclear why the police didn't follow up the Smyth complaint more vigorously once the complaint had been handed to them. There are also many questions regarding Winchester College's role in not bringing this abuse to light more swiftly.
3. Justin Welby's resignation is a statement of taking responsibility for those collective failures as they pertain to the Church of England's role.
4. In these circumstances, +Peter's above statement sounds very wise to me.
Liz,
I'm not so sure. Your concerns are wider than Smyth. I'll wait and see Justin's response. Is it not fair to acknowledge the good work he's done in other areas? Helen-Ann Hartley broke the first rule of safeguarding by making a private letter very public without the permission of its authors. It's a hot mess.
I have read the letters from the Archbishops that you have cited here, Liz, and to be honest I just feel angry and disturbed. Not about the great coercion of these men and their failure to "safeguard", whatever that word really means, which maybe absolutely true, but firstly that you and I on the other side of the world, and everybody else in between, are reading such private, sensitive correspondence *without adequate context and understanding of the issues*, let alone *full permission and knowledge of the author's and subjects of the letters* and hanging people as a result. It feels as creepy and disturbing and wrong to me as when I read the letter Helen-Anne Hartley shared with all and sundry.
Who am I to know and judge? Who am I to read such private correspondence and end peoples careers and lives as a result?
Psychotherapy 101 for trauma is *containment* (not suppression) and the building of *trust". That at the very minimum requires *confidentiality* is upheld and maintained - on both sides!
How has this church been reduced to conducting its conflict in this way? Then again, am I so naive to think the church could be immune from this present age - not only with its grave abuses of power, but also it's pursuit of justice and truth in such frenzied, aggressive, uncontained, projective, humiliating, voyeuristic, crucifying ways?
There's a sort of sado-masochism throughout all of this - from Smythe to this present hot mess. Will need to reflect more on that personally, as well as what it evokes in me - the powerful invitation to judge, fight, and dismember.
Think I need a long reflective break!
Mark, as the ABC it's to be expected ++JW will have done good work and that's not being taken away from him; but it doesn't negate his responsibility for/to church abuse survivors and to use his considerable power on their behalf in pursuit of justice.
I'm appalled the archbishops pressured +Helen-Ann to modify her stance, obviously against her convictions, on the matter concerned. Surely as bishop of her diocese her decision on the PTO matter ought to be paramount.. I've no doubt she was doing her best to preserve the safety and harmony of her diocese. She punched up, not down, and it seems to me she'd been backed into a corner by these men (all of whom have been criticised re safeguarding). She made a courageous decision.
Though I am pretty much tapped out on this, I do invite anyone, Anglican or otherwise, that is interested in forming a view over Justin Welby and this current abuse scandal to watch this *long* challenging interview with him:
https://youtu.be/hz2XYmr0gos?si=VbjTHzJK3LUotdfU
Liz, he's resigned! He's very clear on what he and the church has done wrong (see the long interview below). He's also very clear on the specifics of his responsibility - that he failed to pursue the matter when in hands of police more vigorously - and what he's not done (not covered up, not failed to pursue independence in safeguarding etc, not taken this matter like gently, not begin developing effective safeguarding policy etc).
What more do you want?
Please watch the long interview below before characterizing him further as someone who covers up abuse or does not follow due process or doesn't take safeguarding seriously or is misogynistic etc.
(The difference between his views stated in the interview and now is he has decided to resign as a statement of the church treating extremely seriously their culpability in this matter. What other leader of such a large Christian communion has done this?).
https://youtu.be/hz2XYmr0gos?si=VbjTHzJK3LUotdfU
"When you just work as a pack and go silent, that silence is deafening, particularly for survivors."
(former member of the Archbishop's Council)
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cew2j0n7q9ro
For balance:
A strong critique of Welby and the English episcopacy, a searching analysis of what abuse is and how it operated in the case of Smythe, and reflections on the way forward for the C of E....
https://youtu.be/ztUyC40JqzM?si=BsHdu0bRN0w1uMuq
Anyway, Peter, getting back to John's Gospel and its relation to the Synoptics, Bauckham in 'Gospel of Glory' has an interesting chapter on 'the first week' of Jesus' ministry in John 1-2, which describes the initial meetings of Simon, Andrew and Philip with Jesus, *before they became disciples. Following Schnackenberg (1968! - see how older books, like older people, can be overlooked?), Bauckham notes how this meshes nicely with the very sudden and otherwise unexplained call of Simon and Andrew in Mark 1.16. I remember a teacher in school saying, 'He disn't just say "Follow me", they must have had a conversation for some time before they decided to follow him.' He didn't mention John 1.39-42 but that gives us precisely a plausible context.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
"covers up abuse or does not follow due process or doesn't take safeguarding seriously or is misogynistic etc"
That doesn't truly reflect where I was coming from, and misogyny was nowhere in my thinking *at all* (I was only thinking about power imbalance).
Thanks for the 'critique' video link Mark... super. It includes people and issues I've read about, and extra context too. I'll re-share the link:
https://youtu.be/ztUyC40JqzM?si=BsHdu0bRN0w1uMuq
This is a remarkable, actually an astounding statement that you have made Bishop Peter….around “survivor centred focus”, You have only just learnt that when someone tells you that you have hurt them that you should focus on their needs and not you own? Surely this message is central to Christianity? Actually, it begs many questions! Regards Thomas
"That doesn't truly reflect where I was coming from, and misogyny was nowhere in my thinking *at all* (I was only thinking about power imbalance)."
Then my mistake - apologies - my 'attribution error' (sound like a robot).
If +Helen-Ann felt (a) disturbed by the lack of survivor-focus in the ABs letter, and (2) that the letters were "coercive" to her, could she express this to the Webly and Cotterell in a way that was more confidential and respectful to them, rather than being so explosive, political, and dare I say narcissistic? It just feels like a power play to put more pressure on Welby to resign - and indeed I think she has said she released the letter because it pertains to the matter of his competence regarding scandals.
Breaking confidentiality is huge. In itself, it is abuse of power and certainly undermines a culture of "safeguarding" that Hartley says she wants. In certain contexts it is illegal. Aren't you disturbed by this aspect, too?
Hi Mark, I'm struggling with all the complexities of the saga - I knew nothing of this situation until William's heads-up, so it's a lot to take on board and I feel stricken that the situation initially arose out of conservative evangelicalism, it's deeply troubling for me. The CofE top hierarchy seem to be out-of-touch with how to communicate with ordinary people or even the lower-level CofE clergy. And I've read multiple times that *silence* is a big issue for survivors i.e. silence from the church upper hierarchy. And the recurring excuse I read in quotes from senior bishops is that they did "everything they could within their authority" (this usually seems to mean they've actually done the minimum - and definitely nothing remotely courageous). So +Helen-Ann's action is extraordinary and her decision wasn't taken lightly. I believe she was the only bishop to publicly call on ++JW to resign and this must also, surely, be extraordinary. All I know is that some of the Smyth survivors are speaking very well of her and view her as understanding and compassionate, and willing to advocate for change. In normal circumstances I'd be very disturbed by her action but I daresay in normal circumstances she wouldn't take such drastic action. In the end I trust her heart which compels her to take action, in this strange CofE world where so many senior clergy won't on any account rock the boat and seem to take great care to stay in their lane. This weakness is no doubt a boon to abusers but +Helen-Ann is willing to be a strong voice and take bold action, and as far as I can tell she does it from a basis of relationship where she listens to folk who are hurting. In the end I've decided to trust her - at least in the sense that her intention is to support the powerless - who struggle with being pushed to the margins and sidelined.
Yes I think it was that Religion and Media Centre discussion in which one of the victims of Smyth talked about conservative evangelicalism's antipathy towards psychology, towards self-reflective, psychologically informed awareness, that, among many other things, helped create and peepetuate Smyth.
Liz, for many years I worked at the Arahura Centre in Christchurch. It was founded over thirty years ago by a group of health professionals who were committed Christians - all from broadly evangelical backgrounds - and quickly attracted a core group of counsellors and psychotherapists for whom Christian faith was central. The vision was integrative: to bring (evangelical, though not necessarily conservative) Christian faith together with contemporary relationally-focussed psychology (especially attachment theory) in order to help people improve their relationships (with themselves, each other, their families, and God) and to recover from trauma, including trauma received at the hands of other Christians. Arahura got a lot of stick from two sides: (1) from the Christian community, for being too 'secular', not relying enough in the power of prayer to heal, for raising questions about how church and Christian family cultures operate etc., and (2) from the secular counselling and psychotherapy community, for just being Christian when Christian and religious was largely synonymous with repression.
I really enjoyed my time at Arahura. The place is still going....
https://www.thearahuracentre.co.nz/
... It works with a broad range of people but was always, and still is, a safe place for Christians who want their faith respected, and yet need to work through unhealthy, damaging, and traumatic aspects of their life history including the Christian dimension of that.
The basic vision of Arahura is now, I would say, quite accepted and taken on by most mainline churches, including/especially mainline evangelical churches. *At least in theory*, evangelical churches now readily and even enthusiastically accept the idea of emotionally healthy Christianity, including a critique of power and control and the importance of self-awareness, healthy emotional life and expression, the importance of healthy boundary setting etc. However, in practice, it takes many years and much *positive emotionally corrective real relational experience* for these ideas to become embedded. For 'on paper' to become embodied.
Arahura was founded about ten years after John Smyth began abusing boys. If it was founded ten years earlier, about the time I was born, it would have got even more stick from the (evangelical) Christian community - probably would have been rejected outright.
Ideas are changing. Christian and church culture is changing re trauma and abuse. It wasn't that long ago that things were really dark. It takes a very long time for deeply ingrained patterns - often formed in early childhood and turbo-reinforced with the sanction of religious experts and God Himself - to become transformed.
Is evangelical Anglicanism more emotionally unhealthy than, say, Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism? An a non-evangelical I would say that hasn't been my experience!
Is liberal Christianity more emotionally healthy than conservative Christianity? Yes, generally, I think so - if nothing else because it's more open to reviewing itself, to considering new contemporary ideas about life and the universe. Reality is much less tidy, however.
Thanks so much, Mark.. I really loved reading this. The evangelicalism I came out of was deeply suspicious of *anything* to do with mental health. In fact, one youth pastor, a family man, had a mental health crisis and he just disappeared and absolutely vanished as far as we were concerned - stuff like that was hushed up. I assume because in our church culture such things weren't supposed to happen and were probably (my guess) viewed as a failure and 'not a good witness'. Sad.
I visited the Arahura Centre website and instantly I love the concept! This sealed the deal:
"At the front of the building we have a Contemplative Garden complete with bench seats and private nooks. The garden is open to anyone who wants to sit for a while and just be – clients, staff, and the general public too."
If we ever get to visit Christchurch again (surely some day this will happen), I'll be sure to visit this garden, no doubt with my husband, and enjoy its contemplative ambience.
Thank you, Mark! God's peace ~Liz
As a ‘good conservative evangelical Christian’, but with a severe mental illness, I went to see a counsellor at Arahura in 1989, and her insight and support were life-changing. I have continued the counselling journey, in different places, backed with love and prayer by family and friends, and the healing is happening.
Several of my family also had time with counsellors at Arahura at that time, including my mother, then 80 years old! A family member who was a pastor in an evangelical church more recently, has been leading a number of groups on the course by Pete Scazzaro on ‘Emotionally Healthy Spirituality’, which includes a contemplative stance.
Our new vicar has also mentioned it… There are some blessed movements in different areas of the wider church. Hallelujah!
I remember digging that garden in with other staff and the local rotary club! It worked well initially but then Barrington Rd became very busy and now it functions more as a noise barrier to the Centre.
Peace and love...
Post a Comment