The Nun and the Prostitutes of St Kilda

Our guest presenter this particular evening was a Catholic nun. I was enrolled in a Graduate Diploma in Health Education.

Our guest told how she had felt called to work among the prostitutes of St Kilda. Her initial response was along the lines ‘I’ll go anywhere you call me God - Africa, India, outback Australia, but please, not St Kilda.’ But it seems God was not going to relent, so eventually our nun ended up among the prostitutes of St Kilda.

She told how all those she worked with had been abused as children. Like many, if not all such victims, they felt shame and self-loathing. It is common for abuse victims to feel that the abuse was their fault, it was their punishment for being bad. So they turned to drugs in an effort to kill the pain, and then prostitution to pay for their addiction.

That is all I remember of what our guest said that night, so let me reflect on what it might mean. Here we have these victims who already feel lower than a piece of dog manure. What messages do they pick up from respectable folk? Those glances, comments, quickening steps to pass them by. After all, they’re only druggos and prostitutes, not the sort of people you would want moving into your street. If only the council would do something to clean up the neighbourhood by putting out the garbage.

Now along comes Johnny Christian. Johnny sees them a little differently. After all, didn’t Jesus count such as these among His companions. So Johnny decides he will go and witness to these prostitutes and invite them to follow Jesus. Now the solution is easy in our budding evangelist’s mind. Tell them to turn to Jesus and He will forgive their sins - that is their prostitution and drug addiction. All they have to do is confess, repent and lead a new life.

So how do they respond. Well I imagine some will say, perhaps not as politely as this, ‘Go away Johnny. I already loathe myself without you coming here and reminding me how evil I am.’ Others, perhaps, may feel ‘That’s alright for you Johnny Christian. Of course Jesus can love you. But me? I’m nothing more than a piece of dog dung’.

Then again, Johnny might end up with a star or two in his crown. One or two of them might get this ‘Jesus’ thing. Jesus will love me if I stop sinning and keep the commandments. After all, this Jesus bloke can deal with the guilt and once I’m forgiven I can have a new life.

There is an expression I picked up years ago that no doubt has its origin in the medical profession. Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice. Is Johnny guilty of malpractice?

Remember, these prostitutes and drug addicts were initially victims of sin, not perpetrators. Their core problem is not guilt, but shame. Yet Johnny has done nothing to address their shame because shame is something altogether different. Shame is what we are, how we believe others see us. While a violation of one of our core values may cause guilt and this in turn feed into our shame, simply addressing guilt does not necessarily do anything for our shame.

Shame is something we all live with. From the day of our birth we receive feedback from those around us, including parents, siblings, teachers, friends and other community members. We learn we are not smart enough, attractive, talented, athletic or whatever it takes to feel a valued part of our world. We hear those labels - bad, stupid, clumsy, failure and more. Our own failures and rejections only reinforce the picture we have picked up from others. So we try cover our shame with things like humility, passiveness, aggression, controlling behaviours, submission, power, the display of wealth and more.

In the Bible story of beginnings, Adam and Eve were naked, but knew no shame. After they ate the forbidden fruit they covered their nakedness with fig leaves.In the culture of the Bible nakedness is shameful, so a proper understanding of the story is that disobedience to God brought shame, not guilt. And when the Bible talks of being robed with Christ’s righteousness it represents the removal of shame, not guilt.

So back to our now saved prostitute. Now he has been saved the fruits of her salvation will be seen in her obedience to God - read, keeping the commandments. But there is still that matter of shame that has not been dealt with. He still needs to cover his ‘nakedness’, and so she pulls on the cover of her law keeping, just like the Pharisee in this story from Luke 18:10-14:

10 “Two men went to the Temple to pray. One was a Pharisee, and the other was a despised tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed this prayer: ‘I thank you, God, that I am not like other people—cheaters, sinners, adulterers. I’m certainly not like that tax collector! 12 I fast twice a week, and I give you a tenth of my income.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance and dared not even lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. Instead, he beat his chest in sorrow, saying, ‘O God, be merciful to me, for I am a sinner.’ 14 I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home justified before God. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

This story comes from a culture where honour was everything, and those who did not live up to the expectations of the good, respectable people, were shamed, just like the prostitutes in the Nun’s story. The Pharisee, like many of us today, tried to cover his shame by pointing to his good deeds and comparing himself to that low-life over there. The tax collector, on the other hand, was without honour, burdened down with the anguish of his shame. He knew that so far as the good people like the Pharisee was concerned he was nothing more than dog manure, something you just did not want to get on the bottom of your sandal. It was from this place of shame that he cried out to God. And he was the one justified before God, not because he recognised his guilt, but because he recognised his nakedness, his shame.

The trouble with the Law is we can never keep it. So if being good enough, if being acceptable in the company of ‘good’ people, and, more importantly, God, requires us to keep the Law we will continually fail. So, if we are already trash, then every failure can only help reinforce our shame. So eventually we may just give up.

Or perhaps our failure will only motivate us to try harder, or to let others know how ‘good’ we are by putting them down, by pointing out their sins. Which may explain why we struggle in our churches with legalism, judgemental behaviour, and declining congregations.

Jesus lived with shame. He was born out of wedlock and so born into shame. He mingled with the shamed. The Cross was an instrument of public shaming, and so He died a death of shame. In all His recorded words there is no judgement of the shamed, no pointing out of their sins, no shaming. Instead He mingled, He communed, He encouraged, and He touched the untouchables. For He came to remove their shame, to cover it with the pure robes of His Righteousness.

Perhaps all the Johnny Christians of the world - you and I - are guilty of prescribing without diagnosing, of Christian malpractice. For until we recognise that shame is more ingrained than guilt, that more than anything else shame defines who we are as people, we will continue to prescribe the wrong fix.

Bible quote from: The New Living Translation

When Two Halves Don't Make a Whole

For some years I have been challenged on the matter of homosexuality, gay marriage and the full range of LGBTI issues. How should I as a Christian and the Church more broadly respond to this community? From all that I have seen I would suggest we have done so rather badly. It seems that we prefer to wrap ourselves up  in our own insecurity blankets rather than reach out with friendship and support.

Does that mean we should change our position on what it means to be married within a Christian context? I believe not for the reasons I give below.

Before you read this however I have one request. Please do not judge me just on what I say below. At the end of this piece I have provided links to previous essays I have written on this subject in chronological order. They continue to represent my view and I hope they can be accepted in the spirit in which they are written - as an honest seeking after a Jesus focused response. Please feel free to respond in a way that encourages greater understanding.

My Parents

When asked if a man should “be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason” Jesus took His questioners back to Genesis 1 and 2. “Haven’t you read” He asked “that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.” He then said “This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” (See Mat 19:3-4).

Any discussion of a Christian perspective on marriage should, I believe, start at “the beginning”, that is Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1:27 records that men and women were created in the image of God. Today we accept that differences between the sexes are both physical and psychological. Neither male nor female alone were created as the reflection of the Divine.

In Genesis 2 Adam is said to have been created first. Yet, as he surveyed all that was before him, the various animal species he was given to name, he realised he was on his own. He was incomplete. All other life was capable of reproducing, of fulfilling the Divine command to multiply and fill the earth. Adam could not. So Eve was created, taken from Adam’s side to stand by him, to support him, and to be “united into one” with him.

Now the Divine command to multiply and fill could be obeyed. Now, in the union of male and female, the image of God in humanity was complete as together they ruled over the Creation as the Creator’s representatives, or co-regents.

What do we make of God’s statement in Genesis 2:18 “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him”? Should we conclude from this that the ideal is marriage for every adult?

In context, Adam is the only human of whom it can be said was truly alone. He was the only one of his kind in the Garden. With the creation of Eve together they were able to create community, to fill the earth with beings like themselves. Within this ideal no man or woman would ever be alone.

God does not mandate marriage for all. Paul, for example, recognised that there are circumstances in which it is better to remain single (1 Cor 7). Whether married or single however, the Church as God intends it to be is the community in which we all find comfort, support and companionship.

Remember the command Jesus gave His disciples after He washed their feet, thus demonstrating that true service to God is seen in the service of others John 13).

34 So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.35 Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”

Just a short time later Jesus would pray for the unity of all believers throughout the ages to come (John 17).

20 “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. 21 I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.

22 “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. 23 I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me.

This is the restoration of the image or likeness of God in humanity. This is what God intended in the beginning - that people live together in loving unity. It is this community ideal that Jesus said would show the world what it meant to be His followers (John 13:34 - see above). Sadly, when the world today looks at the Church not too many see evidence supportive of the claim of Christianity.

But what of marriage within the traditional Christian understanding of one man, one woman, as long as both shall live?

Perhaps if the Pharisees in Mat. 19:3-4 (above) had understood Malachi 2:13-16 they would not have asked Jesus about the legality of divorce. These verses, I believe, affirm the traditional one man, one woman understanding.

13 Here is another thing you do. You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, weeping and groaning because he pays no attention to your offerings and doesn’t accept them with pleasure. 14 You cry out, “Why doesn’t the Lord accept my worship?” I’ll tell you why! Because the Lord witnessed the vows you and your wife made when you were young. But you have been unfaithful to her, though she remained your faithful partner, the wife of your marriage vows.

15 Didn’t the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. 16 “For I hate divorce!” says the Lord, the God of Israel. “To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. “So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife.”

It was, and I suggest, remains, God’s will that from the union of man and wife He would see “Godly children” - and please don’t misconstrue what I am trying to say to mean all couples should produce children. Our first teachers are normally our parents and that which they model to us goes a long way in shaping our futures. And this is where two halves do not necessarily make a whole.

Throughout history children have been raised in far less than ideal circumstances. So called ‘straight’ couples can be extremely destructive parents. Children have been raised by single parents, uncles or aunts that may themselves be single or share the caring role with another sibling, or older siblings. These less than ideal circumstances can and do produce better outcomes than do some biological parental couples. But there is one thing lacking.

The ‘Godly’ couple, that is the parental union which reflects the image or likeness of God, remains the ideal. In this relationship the children can see modelled what it means to be both a father and a mother and what it means for parents to help one another, to succour, support and serve one another. If Dad lives out what it means to be a ‘Godly’ man, his sons will learn what it means to be a man and his daughters will see the qualities they should expect in a man. Likewise, if a ‘Godly’ woman lives out what it means to be a woman, her daughters will learn what it means to be a woman and how to relate to the men in their lives. For modelling is the greatest teacher.

For all their best intentions, same sex couples can essentially only model what it means to be a man or a woman, for the union of two men or two women does not present the full image or likeness of the Creator. While no two people in this fallen world can ever claim to be the perfect image, it nonetheless remains that the image or likeness of God is seen in the union of male and female as one flesh.

Quotes from the New Living Translation.

Links to Previous Essays

Gay Marriage - A Victimless Sin?

Marriage, the Church and the Ballot Box

A Gay-Friendly Church

The Adultress, the Patriarch and the Homosexuality

The Point of No Return?

Simon and Garfunkel sang ‘I am a rock, I am an island’, a great song, but we all know life doesn’t work that way. We are all interconnected, to each other, the complex web of life on this planet, inorganic matter and, in fact, the Universe. We are simply one part of a much larger system. As such, any change to one part of the system has the potential to impact on us, positively or negatively.

Today, more than any other time in history, we are seeing the impact of human activity on the planet. We chop down trees, pump chemicals into waterways, turn natural material into waste and more in the name of development and the improvement of living standards. At the same time we see increasing desertification, millions living in poverty, starvation and displacement as climate patterns change, and rapidly increasing species loss. Systems theory predicts this has the potential to impact us one way or the other.

What does this mean for us?

Let’s assume the system has some inbuilt resilience. That is, it has some capacity to self-repair, to compensate for negative events, such as the loss of species, climate change and the like. Medical science for example recognises that our immune system can fight off bacteria and the like so long as it remains healthy and is not overloaded. In the workplace exposure values are published for a range of chemical, biological and physical hazards. The idea is that while our exposure to any of these is below the established threshold value we are unlikely to be harmed.

Does this apply to the planet as a whole? Perhaps the ecological system can adapt to some loss of species, a certain amount of toxic pollution, area of deforestation, or population growth. If we have not yet exceeded any inbuilt resilience we may still have hope. Or have we gone past the point of no return, that point at which the system is irreparably broken and life as we know it has no future?

Then there is the second law of thermodynamics. In essence, this says everything decays, or breaks down. The process cannot be reversed without external intervention, that is, from outside the system.

Theoretically something could happen in some other part of the universe that could have a positive impact on this planet, perhaps install a ‘patch’ or do a reset to repair the system. But is this realistic? As far as we know the Universe is a closed system and is therefore also subject to the same law of decay.

The laws of thermodynamics are fundamental to our existence. There are four altogether although for the purpose of this piece I will only mention three. You can Google them if you like.

The first tells us energy can neither be created or destroyed. It simply changes from one form to another.

The third in essence says that over time the amount of energy available for use in a system will break down until there is no more capacity for work. For example, without a means of recharging a battery will go flat. This third law says that over time the Universe will cool to absolute zero.

Because we are still here the Third Law tells us there must have been a beginning, that the Universe has not existed for eternity. But this fact is enigmatic. For if energy cannot be created, how did the Big Bang happen? Any proposal can at the best be speculative, but ultimately it seems there are only two options. If it cannot be explained naturally then possibly the supernatural is the better alternative.

The Bible assumes God. It does not try to prove His existence, nor does it attempt in any way to address the question of how He came to be. If He does exist that existence is outside of time and space.

Given that, the statement ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ is a viable option. It affirms a beginning, and affirms the creation of energy as a supernatural event. It also gives hope. For if God is outside the system that is the Universe, God is in a position to repair and maintain the universe, just as we are in some way able to maintain and repair those things we are external to, such as cars, computers and our houses.

This is what the Bible says. Our planet is breaking down just as the second law of thermodynamics says it will. Left to ourselves this cannot be reversed. According to the Bible God has intervened in the process through Jesus Christ and that this intervention will lead ultimately to Earth’s restoration along with the restoration of all who want to be part of it.

Until then we are called to worship the Creator, and that call includes a call to environmental stewardship.