Abandonment and same-sex marriage

Julia Gillard has today announced she will not be giving the keynote speech at the Australian Christian Lobby next month after ACL Managing Director, Jim Wallace, compared same-sex marriage to smoking.

After Julia Gillard's withdrawal from the conference, Wallace said that he thought this would be seen as an abandonment of the Christian constituency.

I'm a Christian. And I do feel abandoned. Not by Julia Gillard, though, but by Jim Wallace. But then, I've felt abandoned by Jim Wallace and the ACL for quite some time.

When a group has a name like the Australian Christian Lobby, I would think it should reflect the values of all Christians. Instead, it often seems to be very narrowly focused on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage - issues that not all Christians are even agreed upon. It also fails to seriously deal with issues that many people do believe are extremely important because of their Christian values - such as social justice, the environment, asylum seekers.

Not only does the ACL fail to reflect the issues that a lot of Christians care about, but its strong media profile gives the wider society the impression that most Christians care about the things the ACL cares about. When the ACL spends more time talking about same-sex marriage and abortion, rather than social justice, poverty and ecology, then it should not surprise us if many people believe all Christians care more about the former than the latter. And that's simply not the case.

I don't only feel abandoned by Jim Wallace and the ACL, but I feel they are misrepresenting me as a Christian.

If Jim Wallace wants to speak against same-sex marriage, that's fine. And I can understand why his Christian values would lead him to believe that same-sex marriage is not okay. And I also do believe that he has a right to state his views about same-sex marriage, which are informed by his Christian beliefs. 

But Mr Wallace needs to remember that he is acting as a spokesperson for the Christian community (even if not a truly representative one). When he compares smoking to same-sex marriage and suggests that homosexuality is bad for someone's health, his words reflect badly on all Christians. And what he says also has consequences.

I would have liked to hear what Julia Gillard had to say to the ACL. It would have been interesting to hear how her policies address the issues that Christians care about - and I suspect she would have a much broader idea of the issues Christians care about than Jim Wallace.

But I also understand why she pulled out. And quite honestly, I think she made the right choice. Jim Wallace's comments were offensive. And I really don't think she had a choice.

But now we have lost that opportunity to hear the Prime Minister speak to Christians. Mr Wallace has also probably made it more difficult for Christian voices to be heard on any political issue.

I believe Christians should be allowed to speak for or against same-sex marriage. And I think we need to hear voices on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, these latest comments by Wallace have not contributed to that debate. They were so offensive that rather than promoting dialogue, they've shut down communication.

While I don't agree with Christians who are against same-sex marriage, I also don't want Christian views to be completely sidelined. Our ideas about marriage are informed by our religious and/or ideological views. We all get our ideas about marriage (and a number of other political and societal issues) from somewhere. Everybody has beliefs. And they always influence how we see things. We therefore can't say that opinions aren't valid simply because someone has religious beliefs. And I want those religious beliefs (and other beliefs) to be part of the conversation.

But in order to be part of the conversation, we have to treat others with respect. This involves respecting not just other beliefs, or other interpretations of Christian beliefs, but the people behind those beliefs. We must always treat people with love and compassion, whether they agree with us or not.

We also need to recognise that Christianity is not the authoritative or only important voice in the discussion. It is just one voice. Not everybody is going to agree with it. And not all Christians are going to speak with the one voice either. We no longer get to say, 'The bible says this' and think that means everybody should agree with it.

If we want people to listen to the Christian voice, then we have to listen to what people with different views have to say and we have to respect different ways of seeing things. And we also need to realise when we offend people, they're not going to be that interested in talking to us anymore. What we need in the same-sex debate is not preaching, but dialogue. It's a multi-way conversation. And that always relies on mutual respect. We need to respect others and their points of view if we want them to respect our point of view.

And if it is a conversation, then the LGBT community need to be at the centre of that conversation. They are the ones who are most affected by this. For many of us, it's a moral or ethical issue. For them, it's about their loves and their lives. They need to be listened to.

As I started with abandonment, let me finish with it. God said he would never leave us nor forsake us. I believe that should be the motto of the Church. The Church should never abandon anyone. Yet unfortunately, I think quite often the Church has abandoned the LGBT community. We've pushed them to the side and pointed fingers at them rather than embracing them as part of the Church. We've quite often acted as though we don't care about them. They've become a political issue, not a group of people who deserve our love and compassion. And Jim Wallace's latest comments probably only serve to increase those feelings of abandonment.

Whatever our feelings about same-sex marriage, we must never leave nor forsake homosexual people. But in order to do that, we need to talk to them, we need to listen to their concerns, we need to understand their hopes and dreams and we need to treat them with respect. Everybody deserves that. And everybody deserves to be embraced and welcomed. And that's how the conversation starts.

If you are interested in more details on what Jim Wallace said:

In a debate with Christine Milne over same-sex marriage, Jim Wallace said:

"I think we're going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community's own statistics for its health - which it presents when it wants more money for health - are that is has higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years."

"The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn't smoke.

"But what I'm saying is we need to be aware that the homosexual lifestyle carries these problems and ... normalising the lifestyle by the attribution of marriage, for instance, has to be considered in what it does encouraging people into it." (from: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-cancels-speech-at-australian-christian-lobby-conference-over-smoking-healthier-than-gay-marriage-slur/story-fncynkc6-1226466356492)

Today, Jim Wallace issued a media release, where he said he was not comparing homosexuality to smoking, but again repeated his belief that homosexuality carries health risks.

His media release stated that:

“If we warn against smoking because it carries health dangers, we should also be warning young people in particular about activity which clearly carries health risks.”

And:

 “As I said yesterday, I am deeply saddened by the human suffering that is behind the poor health data of the gay community.

“This can only be addressed by looking at the real issues that cause it, not by changing the definition of marriage and certainly not by vilifying those with a different view to the activists." (from: http://www.acl.org.au/2012/09/mr-gay-activists-deliberately-misleading-to-shut-down-debate/)

Extroverted church?

Is the evangelical church filled with extroverted people? Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking (Cain, 2012) suggests that it is. At the very least, evangelical churches are places where extroverted people are likely to be more comfortable than introverted people. They are also places where extroversion is seen as akin to righteousness.

Cain talks about her visit to Saddleback Church, a place where the church service seems very similar to Tony Robbins' "Unleash the Power Within" seminars - another event that stresses extroverted behaviour. In a conversation with Adam McHugh (author of Introverts in the Church: Finding our place in an extroverted culture), McHugh says that everything in the service involves some form of communication, including greeting people, the sermon and the singing, with no space for contemplation. Cain says "If you don't love Jesus out loud, then it must not be real love. It's not enough to forge your spiritual connection to the divine; it must be displayed publicly."

I was always a little uncomfortable in the Pentecostal church, for a variety of reasons - not all of which can be explained by the extroverted/introverted divide. But when I read about Saddleback Church and its emphasis on extroverted behaviour I had a bit of an a-ha moment.

When I first started attending a Pentecostal church, one of the things I found extremely difficult was raising my hands during worship. I remember talking about this to someone, who genuinely seemed confused that I would find it hard at all. And I wondered whether there was something wrong with my relationship with God that a simple thing like raising my hands (an action that most other people in the church seemed to do without thinking about) could be so difficult for me.

I also found other things either scary or terrifying. The thought of speaking in tongues in church made me very uneasy. (I actually ran out of a room crying once when I was asked to speak in tongues "on demand".) And there were many times when I didn't go up for prayer because I was afraid I would get "slain in the spirit".

After a while, these things became less of a problem for me. I learnt to raise my hands during worship. I went up for prayer - because I quickly found out that I wasn't about to get slain in the spirit if I didn't want to. (For those who don't know, being slain in the spirit basically means falling down after being prayed for.) But I never became as "demonstrative" in my faith as many people were. And sometimes that made me feel like "less of a Christian".

And now I wonder. Was I really any less of a Christian just because speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit and raising my hands in worship made me uncomfortable? There are other reasons I've come to question these practices - and so my answer would most emphatically be no. But something that I didn't recognise until I read Quiet was these are all extroverted practices. For someone that's an introvert, of course they're going to feel uncomfortable.

For a while, I went to the Catholic Church. And it felt like a completely different experience. Unlike the extroverted raising of hands and speaking in tongues, there was place for contemplation and reflection - actions that come quite naturally to introverts.

A lot of my friends would not be as comfortable with the contemplation and meditation. But that doesn't mean that raising hands and speaking in tongues is somehow more godly than contemplation and meditation. It just means that people are wired differently. Introverts are going to prefer contemplation. Extroverts are going to prefer outward expressions. And yet I'm afraid that often we treat one or the other like the better (or more godly) choice.

I'm now at the Uniting Church and I don't sense it leaning either towards extroversion or introversion. But I wonder whether churches that do lean towards extroversion are more likely to attract extroverted behaviour and therefore miss out on all the good things that introverts bring.

Another interesting thing I found out from Quiet were that sensitive people (which most introverts are) will often be highly empathic. Cain says, "It's as if they have thinner boundaries separating them from other people's emotions and from the tragedies and cruelties of the world. They tend to have unusually strong consciences." They also tend to be more philosophical or spiritual rather than materialistic or hedonistic.

These are generally traits that people would like to see in a church. I have always thought of God as a God of compassion and justice. People who feel high degrees of empathy for others and are concerned with the 'tragedies and cruelties of the world' would seem to be doing a good job of following that God of compassion and justice.

I'm certainly not saying that extroverts are not compassionate and not concerned about justice. They are. And extroverts can be sensitive too. But if a church focuses on extroverted behaviour, are we missing out on some of that empathy and concern for justice that introverts have? Are we focusing too much on the materialistic side of life and not enough on the spiritual side? Does the focus on a God who blesses us now reflect a church full of extroverted people?

The more I think about my time in the Pentecostal church, and the more I reflect on what I discovered in Quiet, the more it seems that a lot of my uneasiness in that church related in some way to my introversion. I was never comfortable with outwards expressions of devotion to God. My compassion for gays often put me at odds with the people there. My dislike of the 'God wants to bless you message' made me look like I didn't have enough faith.

And introverted traits are sometimes frowned upon anyway. I've had at least one conversation with someone who thought introversion was a bit like a disease that should be cured. No matter how many times I tried to tell him that introverted is actually good, I don't think he believed me.

And what does it do to people who come to church and then find that instead of being valued and appreciated for who they are, they're meant to conform to this 'extroverted ideal'? If we equate extroversion to godliness, what happens to the people who aren't extroverted? Do they keep trying to be someone they're not, rather than appreciating who they are? Do they spend their lives thinking they're a bad Christian or just give up on church (or God) altogether?

I've been to many different churches and I know that the Pentecostal church is not the only way church is done. But not everybody knows this. For some, the first church they go to is church. That's it. They don't realise there are other options, other ways of doing things that may fit in better with their personality.

I'm not saying that introverts are better than extroverts. I have met some lovely, beautiful people in the Pentecostal Church (some - but not all - of whom are extroverted). And extroverts do bring qualities that introverts aren't good at. I liked the way that everybody said hello when I entered the Pentecostal Church. Extroverts are pretty good at doing that. I liked the way they pushed me to do things like pray in groups. Sometimes introverted people need to be pushed a bit outside their comfort zone. I like the way the extroverts I know will often arrange social activities and initiate friendships, because introverts needs friends too but they're often not that good at initiating it themselves.

So I definitely don't think we should get rid of the extroverts. We need them. But if we're holding up extroverted behaviour as the only good behaviour, then something's wrong. Both introverts and extroverts are valuable - and they both have good qualities. We need to ensure that all people (whether introverted or extroverted) can be appreciated for who they are. Because it's only then that they're truly be able to fulfil the unique ways they can help the church.

And nobody should be made to feel that they need to change their entire personality to be acceptable to God. God created both introverted and extroverted people. There's probably a reason for that - he needs both of them. They are both valuable in his eyes.

If you haven't read Quiet, I really recommend it, particularly if you're introverted and you feel you should be extroverted. It will show you your strengths - and I think that's something that's important to all of us.

Birth, Death and In Between

I am going to a funeral tomorrow. I am going to a baby shower on Saturday. And on Sunday, I have been invited to a wedding. I’m not going to the wedding. But still, having a funeral, a baby shower and a wedding all in the same week makes you think about life, death and in between.

When I was researching an essay on the sacraments last year, I came across something that said that in the Catholic Church, the sacraments (of which there are seven) cover all the important life milestones. There is baptism for birth. Anointing of the Sick (or Last Rites or Extreme Unction) for Death. And marriage itself in a sacrament.

I couldn’t explore this idea in my essay, because it would have been off-topic, but I remember being quite struck by this idea that the Church was there at the beginning of life and at the end of it, and at the important moments in between.

On one level it was reassuring. There was this continuity, a thread between birth and death, linking those important moments. Not just our own birth, death and marriage. But the birth and marriage of your children and grandchildren. During all those times, the Church was there.

It was also reassuring because there was at least one constant. So many things happen in a life, so many things change. People you thought would be there forever suddenly aren’t there. The ones who were there at your birth will often have died before you die. Some faces will be gone. And new ones will be in their place. And yet the Church is still there. It’s the one face that hasn’t changed.

Yet the Church doesn’t simply show its face when it administers the sacraments. In a way, it is the face of God to the world. I don’t want to get into too much discussion about the sacraments. Not least, because I’m likely to say something wrong. But it is worth noting that the sacraments are a visible means of conveying visible grace. When the sacraments are administered, we see a visible sign of God’s presence in the world. God is there at the beginning. And God is there at the end, whether we receive the sacraments or not. But the sacraments remind us of God’s presence. Though of course, they do so much more than that. Because they actually confer the grace which they signify. And that is reassuring. To know that God’s grace is there at the beginning and there at the end, and there for many occasions in between.

But I think what most struck me is not that the Church was there at the beginning of life and at the end of life, but it was there before the beginning of life and after the end of life. One lifetime is really only a tiny blip in the history of the Church. And the Church is not just a thread, connecting the start of one’s life to the end of it, it is a thread that connects the baptism of the first Christians to the Last Rites of the last Christians. That’s quite mind-blowing, when you think about it.

In the end, this post has seemed to be more about the longevity of the church than about life and death. But maybe that’s what life and death boils down to, in the end. It is so short, compared to everything else. My friend who just died had a fairly long life. I’m not sure exactly how old she was, but she had her 80th one or two years ago. But there were many lifetimes lived before she was born and many lifetimes to be lived afterwards.

And now there’s a new little life, just getting ready to be born. Who knows what things he or she will see and do? Who knows how the world will have changed by the time he or she dies? But the Church will be there at the beginning and the Church will be there at the end. Maybe not in the form of the sacraments to this particular person. It’s impossible to know for sure what will happen there. But the Church will at least exist and be available to administer the sacraments. And God will be there. He’s there now, forming this baby in the womb. He will be there at its birth. He will be there at its death. And He will be there after death as well.

Authority for Determining Christian Belief and Practice

Authority is not a word we like very much anymore. Unless it comes to questioning someone’s authority. The modern western world is very good at doing that. But when it comes to respecting the authority of others, or recognising someone’s authority to tell us what to do, forget it. Instead of respecting authority, we’re more likely to criticise or ridicule it. Instead of obeying authority, we tell them exactly where we they’ve got it wrong.

When it comes to Christianity, we need authority. Christians are called to believe the right things and do the right things. And although God may be in the world, he isn’t sending out media releases or doing interviews on The 7.30 Report. So how do we decide our right belief and right practice (orthodoxy and orthopraxy)? We need to recognise of the authority of other sources to speak on God’s behalf.

Not everybody would agree with this. In fact, one of the stumbling blocks for people coming to religion is that they do not want to recognise the authority of anything or anyone else, other than themselves. They want to make their own choices about what to do. They want to work it all out without any kind of guidance from anybody.

Related to this is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some people prefer to rely either solely or partially on what the Holy Spirit is saying to them. They recognise God’s authority, but not necessarily the authority of other sources. The problem with this approach is that what God is saying to me may be different from what God is saying to you. How do we decide who is right?

I heard a pastor once say that if everybody is being led by the Holy Spirit, then there will be no disagreements in church meetings. And if anyone does disagree, then they’re not truly being led by the Holy Spirit. (As a person who tended to disagree, I got a little annoyed at this.)

But even though I believe his attitude was wrong, I think he had a point. If the Holy Spirit is guiding all Christians, then why do they disagree? Now if I believe God is telling me one thing, but it seems to be telling everyone else another thing, what do I do? Do I decide that God says different things to different people? Do I take the view that what God is telling me is more important than what it is telling everyone else? And what if the Holy Spirit seems to be guiding me differently than the way it has guided millions of believers through the centuries? What if it’s different to what the bible says? Am I the only one who has it right?

So unless we want billions of Christians, all with very different ideas about what it means to be Christian, and all convinced that their idea is the right one, we need some other authority to appeal to.

The bible is easily the most widely accepted source of authority for Christian belief and practice. God did not just create us and leave us alone. He interacted with us. And the bible is a record of what He has said and what He has done in the past. It is God’s word and divinely inspired. For some, this means it should be the only authority. Yet as history – and the many Christian denominations that now exist – shows us, people may read the bible and get some very different ideas.

Another source of authority is tradition. We do not just read the bible for ourselves and make our own decisions. We consider how Christians through the ages have interpreted the bible. We look at the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the past to help us decide on what we should believe and how we should act in the present.

I believe another source of authority should be the Church. Even with the bible and with tradition, there will still be many disagreements. The Church helps resolve those disagreements. And although I believe that the churches of different denominations can help guide the individuals within that denomination, I also believe that the Catholic Church is the only church that has the authority to speak to the body of believers as a whole. As with individuals, different denominations have different ideas about what it means to be Christian. The Catholic Church was the one church instituted by Jesus Christ and so would seem to be the church with the highest authority when it comes to determining matters of faith.

Authority is related to revelation. As we seek to determine what or who has the authority to speak for God today, we must look at how God has revealed himself in the past. The perfect revelation of God comes in Jesus Christ. Authority relates to power being invested in someone or something by another source. Jesus Christ was asked under what authority he performed his miracles. He did not answer, but we know that his authority came directly from God. In the context of Christianity, this investment of power should come from God or Jesus. Authoritative sources must not simply be made up out of thin air. We should consider where God or Jesus Christ have given authority to others.

Again, what immediately springs to mind is the bible. The bible is a written record of how God has revealed himself in the past. It is also a written record of Jesus Christ, what he said and did, what his purpose was and who He was. As most Christians agree that the bible is an authoritative source, I won’t spend too much time discussing this one. And yet the bible also helps us determine what else has authority.

It is worth noting that bible does not stop with the Gospel of John. It goes on. In the Acts of the Apostles, we see how the early church community developed and grew. And some of this involved working some things out. They could not simply turn to Jesus all the time and say well Jesus said this and so the way forward is plain. They needed to discuss things and come to certain decisions. And as we move past the Acts of the Apostles, we find many epistles, written to Christian communities. These epistles explain things and give advice. They talk about right beliefs and right practices. Those early churches often didn’t quite get it right. They needed to be pointed in the right direction.

When we use the letters in the New Testament as a guide for what to believe and how to act, we are essentially giving authority to the very beginning of Christian tradition. We recognise that people of the past have something valuable to say to people in the present. We learn from the theology of those that went before us. Now there is a difference between the epistles included in the bible and theology that was done afterwards. And I can see why some people would respect the first, but not the second. And yet it does seem to suggest that theology is an ongoing process.

This does not mean that theology needs to recreated for each new generation. Nor does it mean that we return solely to the bible to discover a theology for a new age. Instead, our theology must be built on the theology of others. Making decisions about right belief and right practice did not end after Jesus’ resurrection. Nor did it end after the last word Revelation was written. In fact, if it had, then we wouldn’t even have a bible to use an authoritative source. We also wouldn’t have the Church we have today. The first 500 years included a lot of differences and problems that needed to be worked through. And one of reasons why Christians believe the things they do today is because the people around then spent a lot of time resolving those issues.

I cannot finish this post on authority, without discussing where Jesus specifically gave authority to others. In Luke 9:1, Jesus called together the 12 apostles and gave them power and authority. It is very important that we think of this in deciding what or who has authority to act on God’s behalf today. Some people believe that the authority given here relates to all believers. Yet it seems important to me that he only gave authority to his apostles, not all his followers.

Before I go any further, I want to point out that I do not have a good understanding of this verse. And I tried looking for some kind of commentary on it, to get a better idea of what it actually meant. However, I couldn’t really find anything that was too helpful. But I am guessing that this relates to the authority given to the Church. Well in my opinion, it seems to. Maybe I might try and find out a bit more about that and do another one of my ‘I have no idea what I’m talking about posts’ a bit later.

But my ignorance here actually brings us to an interesting point. Because I have a verse in the bible and I’m not quite sure what it means. So what do I do now? Wait for the Holy Spirit to explain it to me? Search the rest of the bible in the hopes that I might find something that will shed light on it? Talk to people at my church – with the realisation that what the Catholic Church says about this verse is very different to what the Pentecostals would say about it? Check commentaries of other theologians to see what they have to say?

I can speak to other Christians, but in doing that, I may face differing opinions. What if one person says it means something, but another person says it means something else? How do I decide who is correct? I must then ask myself what basis they are using for their interpretation. If one person’s interpretation comes directly from the Holy Spirit, but another person’s interpretation comes from years of studying theology, do I treat both interpretations as equally valid?

So it seems that, although God speaks to us through the bible, we do need some form of further explanation to help us reach conclusions about what the bible is actually saying. And because there are many different explanations out there, we need to decide which explanations are correct. This can’t be simply a matter of choosing the one we like the best – tempting as this is to do. It must take into account the authority behind the explanations we receive? Do they link back to an authoritative source? Or are they simply one person’s opinions?


(Image details: Calling of the Apostles by Ghirlandaio Domenico (1481). Image is in the public domain.)

iChurch 2.0

Australians have decided they’re not happy with the name of Vegemite’s new product. There were complaints when Vegemite was taken over by an American company. There were murmurs when they put out a new product. But it’s nothing compared to the uproar that iSnack 2.0 has caused.

So what does all this have to do with Christianity? Well, not much. But there are some lessons to be learnt here.

Some people have suggested that Vegemite deliberately picked a bad name, in order to generate a lot of publicity. But publicity doesn’t always translate into sales – let alone brand loyalty. I’m sure there’s some people who will try iSnack 2.0 just because it’s in the news. But the real question is will they keep eating it? I tried it, back when it was simply called Name Me. But I refuse to eat a product with such a dumb name.

Another marketing campaign that has generated a bit of publicity is the Jesus, All About Life campaign, run by Australian Christian Churches. But again, just because people are talking about it doesn’t mean they’re going to start following Jesus. In fact, a bad marketing campaign can actually keep people away from the churches. The saying, ‘Any publicity is good publicity,’ is not a saying that should apply to Christians. And dare I suggest that the best advertisement for Christianity is to fill the world with Christians who do their best to act like Christ.

Another problem with iSnack 2.0 is that its attempt to be relevant to the younger generation has just made them look ridiculous. Back when I was in school, sitting in the playground, eating Vegemite sandwiches, we called people try-hards. Try-hards were people who tried too hard to be cool. So instead of looking cool, they just looked stupid. iSnack 2.0 is a try-hard name.

And sometimes the church can also fall into try-hard mode. We try to be ‘relevant’ and ‘trendy’, and end up failing miserably. And people aren’t actually that stupid. They’re not going to suddenly become interested in something just because it has an ‘i’ in front of its name or something else that shows they understand today’s world. And they can see when someone is trying too hard to be trendy. Most of the time, they’re not impressed. And often, sometimes we’d be better off not trying to be trendy at all.

One reason why I think iSnack 2.0 received such a bad reception is because it’s an Australian icon. It’s like the Sydney Opera House, only edible – although this may be debated by people who aren’t Australians. But if you are an Aussie, you’re used to Vegemite. You grew up eating the stuff. And that’s one of the reasons why it is an Australian icon. It never changes. The product we eat now looks the same, tastes the same and has the same logo as the product from our youth. For a long time, we even had the same jingle and the same rosy cheeks. It was a constant in an ever-changing world. And we liked that.

We make a mistake when we think that everything needs to change to be any good. Sure, there are some products where we always want the newest and the best. Most of us would be horrified to go back to our first phone or first computer. We want to know that these products are continually improving and giving us their latest versions. But just because we feel this way about technology doesn’t mean we feel this way about everything. There are some things we want to stay the same.

There are those that always want the latest and newest version of church. They’re continually looking for improvements that can be made and fixing up any problems. And sometimes this can be a good thing. However, not everybody feels this way. Some people want a church that doesn’t change. Some people prefer a church that is constant, rather than one that is tossed here and there by cultural waves. And this can also apply to people who aren’t even in the church. I feel sorry for anyone who makes a decision to return to the church of their youth, only to find it has been replaced by a newer, unrecognisable version.

Some Christians do the same with Jesus, too. They’re not content to follow the first version of Jesus. They want a new and improved version. And they tell everybody else that they must update Jesus 1.0 to iJesus 8.7.3 as well. This newer version gets rid of all the problems of the past. They’ve removed suffering, guilt and sacrifice and replaced them with blessings, fun and electric guitars. Why would anyone stick with Jesus 1.0 when iJesus 8.7.3 is so much more user friendly?

The newest is not always the best. And quite often, it’s the original version that is the only authentic version. iSnack 2.0 is not Vegemite. It will never become an Australian icon. It’s a passing fad that will soon pass when people get sick of twittering how awful the new name is. And iJesus 8.7.3 is also a passing fad, along with iChurch 2.0. And Jesus and the Church should never be passing fads. They should be like the original Vegemite – a constant in an ever-changing world.

A Comfortable Christian

I recently started going to the Catholic Church. And although it’s quite embarrassing to admit this, one of the things I find difficult is the kneeling. It’s just so uncomfortable. And I’m a fairly fit 35 year old who doesn’t have arthritis or anything else that causes me pain.

It seems today that we’re pretty used to comfort. We like our air-conditioning and our lounges and our cushioned seats and our comfy beds. I know I get annoyed if I don’t have my own three pillows to sleep with. I just can’t get comfortable. And it is so annoying being uncomfortable.

But this idea that we need to be comfortable is pretty new. Not that long ago, people were cold in the winter, hot in the summer, slept on hard beds and just generally put up with a lot more discomfort than we do.

And not only do we just want to be comfortable. We act like it’s a God-given right sometimes. And there’s millions of products that are designed with the aim of keeping us comfortable. The beds, the lounges, the air-conditioning systems. Have you ever gotten into a car with someone who doesn’t have air-conditioning? Generally, they mention the fact in a very apologetic way. They don’t quite say it like this, but there’s the idea that they are very sorry that we may have to put up with some discomfort for the entire 15 minute car trip. How on earth will we cope?

But being comfortable is not a God-given right. In fact, I’m pretty sure that our desire for comfort does not come from God at all. And I really don’t think that Jesus’ main aim for the church is for it to be comfortable.

The reason why I find kneeling weird is that the Protestant churches that I’ve been to don’t do it. And I wonder why? Is it because it is too uncomfortable? And discomfort has no place in a 21st century church? We stand and we sit and that’s it. Hardly any new churches have wooden seats or pews. Some have cushioned chairs and air-conditioning.

But our desire for comfort goes behind physical comfort. We also create churches in which life is comfortable. In fact, some churches seem to promote the view that becoming a Christian will make you comfortable. God will start answering your prayers and blessing you. And all you really have to do is turn up to church and worship God in our air-conditioning building. You don’t even need to dress up, if you don’t want to. Jeans and sneakers are fine.

Not only that, but we worship a God we are comfortable with. We have our own idea of Christianity, and we get very annoyed when someone challenges that view. Why? Could it be because it makes us uncomfortable? Could it be that our view of Christianity seems to justify our own comfort? Who wouldn’t want to believe in a God who wants us to be rich and shower blessings on us and answer our prayers. Don’t anyone mention suffering, please. It could make people uncomfortable.

It’s funny because when I look at the prophets in the bible, none of them seem too concerned about making people comfortable. Neither for that matter did Jesus. Instead, they seemed to want to shock people out of their comfortable mindset. And the Christians of the past didn’t seem too worried about creating a comfortable life for themselves. Instead of driving in air-conditioning buses, they were heading for the lions. Instead of wearing jeans and sneakers, they were wearing hair-shirts. This idea that kneeling was uncomfortable would not have even crossed their minds.

(Image details: Den helige Franciskus i bon (1635-1639), Francisco de Zurbarán. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Image is in the public domain.)