Thursday, May 24, 2012

The Pastor as Jukebox

I’m often asked, “Where do you get your ideas for your services?” 

I’m often also asked “Say, Rob, can you do a service on X (X being whatever the interlocutor’s favourite topic is)”?
It may look like a stained-galss window, but that's where the similarity ends.


I can answer both of these questions together.  A Pastor/Minister/Preacher that respects his/her role and congregation does not belabour them with his/her favourite theological hobby-horses, pet obsessions, or the latest book he/she's been reading.  To do so is to play hit-and-miss with the unexpressed needs people bring to worship.  What members need may be very different to what they want.


To discern true need, and therefore plan a preaching program of topics, requires a pastoral relationship with the congregation, a relationship based upon a careful balance of openness and differentiation.  A minister needs to have open ears, open mind, and open heart, in order to catch the subtexts, nuances, and deeper longings at work in the collective. However, a minister must also differentiate him/her self in order that they don't get caught up in the collective's 'stuff'’, and thereby provide the 'outsider' perspective that brings an enlarged view and the prospect of healing through consolation or inspiration or both  Thus explained, that balancing act between connectedness and differentiation sounds easy.  But friends, easy is the last thing it is.


Because we all want to be 'part of the gang', it is easy for a minister to want to please, and give the public whatever it wants.  If, however, we all knew what was in our best interests all the time, we would not need spiritual leadership.  I too have a spiritual director that helps keep my feet on the path and my eyes on the prize, and his work has been more crucial to mine (and therefore to my congregation) than you'd think.  Likewise, a differentiated minister can easily become cut off and isolated, and mistake his/her own needs for those of the collective.


So to answer the first question, I get my ideas from being in a pastoral relationship with the congregation, in which I listen to them and try to discern those unexpressed needs.  It's not a science, more an art, and certainly requires both reason and intuition. And no minister is a blank slate.  Each is on his own spiritual journey too, one that can, at best, run in tandem with the spiritual journey of the congregation.  But they can never be identical, nor can one dominate the other.  It is more covenant than contract.
Yes, you want it. But do you NEED it?

So to answer the second question, the pastoral relationship does not mean the minister is a juke box or a vending machine that churns writing out 'to spec'.  'Offering services' is what we do, but so do plumbers, and so in a world of consumer relations, it is easy to regard the minister as a skilled worker in a service industry.  A consumer relationship is characterised by expectation, demand, and complaint, which is simply not what beloved community is about.  Nor is it a way to keep a pastoral relationship between minister and congregation mutually nourishing, and it needs to be. 
               
This is why ministers don't do service 'requests', and why we shouldn't.  If we did, it would underpin a spiritual materialism that would impoverish us all.  In a world of supply-and-demand exchanges, the very idea of a church is counter-cultural. 


That's one of the reasons why it can be mind-blowing, soul-expanding, and ever-renewing.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

"What I did on my summer vacation"

When was still a school-boy, returning to the classroom in autumn almost always meant that we'd be asked to write about what we got up to while we were away from school. The topic was thought by teachers to be highly motivating, even to kids who did not especially like to write. It was a crafty way to ease us back into a work routine and give the teachers a glimpse of how our minds had developed over the break.

The assumption was that our summers were always going to be eventful, exciting, and that the time out of school would give our brains the space to construct epiphanies out of all the previous year's schooling.


And this much is true: our heads do need breaks in routine for the new neural pathways to settle and gel, just as our bodies cannot do without sleep for very long. Psychologist Rollo May in his book "The Courage to Create" points out that just such a balance between hard, focussed work and mental 'drift' is essential for creativity.

How often I have seen this scenario work: you are working with intense mental concentration on a particular task. You take a break, and do something mindless, repetitive and physical (like sweeping the path or doing the dishes), and presto! an insight or new idea comes to you, and what you were working on comes together like a dovetail join. What May says is that part of your mind, to which you do not have conscious access, is still working away, making connections, synthesizing, and solving, without the conscious mind's hall-of-mirrors and ego-drive. You get the rewards of the work only by letting go of them for a while.

Most ministers will tell you that ministry is hard NOT to think about all the time, and I have certainly found it so too. It's more like a lens that you can't remove-- everything is seen in spiritual, religious, ethical, pastoral terms. The danger is, of course, that this is actually a loss of perspective, for the world is far bigger than the framework of your role.

So, in the interests of better pastoring, I drifted as much as I could manage: I did DIY that needed doing. I read novels and short stories for pleasure rather than research. I went to every baseball game at Norwood Oval I could. I cooked and entertained. I got into a gym routine. And for complete distraction, we got a whippet pup. His name's Louis.


Exciting and eventful? Not really. But that's what I did on my summer vacation. And how much refreshment and renewal it has wrought, I will soon discover. The multi-tasking nature of ministry can pull you in all sorts of directions, but sitting here now, typing this, with Louis at my feet, on a warm morning, I feel pretty 'together' and ready for whatever the new year holds.


Bob Marley said it best: I'll let him take us out.




Wednesday, December 21, 2011

"Wise men still seek him": notes toward an address for a children's Christmas eve service

(This informal chat to the kids follows their nativity play: 'Amahl and the Night Visitors')

An example of cultural hybridization
You know what I first knew was different about Christmas in this country when I moved here? (Take responses: "It's hot" "No snow", etc.)

Yeah, and suddenly all the Christmas stories and songs and pictures I grew up with, you know, about snow and ice and snowmen and freezing weather seemed out of place. And Sleigh Rides like in Jingle Bells? Not even people in Alaska ride sleighs anymore? Who is this Fanny Brice and what does 'upsot' mean anyway?

It's not a sleigh-ride, but it's not hypothermia either.

So I began to notice and question why people celebrate the way they do. You know the one thing I love about Christmas in Australia? (Take responses--warm weather, swimming, BBQ's)

Think of them as little festive nuggets of joy.

Barbecue on Xmas day! No roast turkey for us, it's too hot! Instead is cooking outside and lots of fresh fruit and Pavlova, and salads, eh?

Fruitcake antipodian style.
But you guys do BBQs in a special way, like no where else in the world--you know what that is? Here in Aus. when you go to a BBQ, everybody brings meat along for the grill. This is UNHEARD OF in the US and the UK. If you're invited to someone's house for a BBQ over there, you're their GUEST, so you don't bring food. It's up to the host to feed YOU, not the other way around.

Think about what that means about being an Australian. It means everybody has to pitch in if there's going to be a good time. I think it means Australians are basically generous--did you know we give more to charity, for example, than the US, which is heaps bigger? True.

So you could say Australians have Christmas in their heart all year round, because we're a giving, sharing nation. Why DO we give gifts at Christmas anyway? (Take responses--wise men, birthday of Jesus, etc.)

Just like in the play you've just done, gifts are given in honour of a special child. But really there was nothing special about the BABY Jesus, no more special than any of you special Unitarian kiddos. What was special about Jesus is what he did with his grown-up life, which was also marked by giving to others, doing good to others, and especially to those who needed it most--the poor, the homeless, the sick.

See, there's that spirit of giving again...

Affluenza?
You're all gonna be getting a lot of nice stuff tomorrow morning, yeah? And that's great, it makes the day seem like no other day in the year, when other people think of us, of our likes and wants, and needs, and treat us SUPER-special.

But unless we also treat others the same way, the real meaning of the day, Jesus' special life's work, is lost. So that's why I want you to help us out now.

I've asked everyone today to bring some special christmas treats, but they're not for us. Instead, we're going to collect them up and take them to the Hutt St. homeless shelter, where people will look on things like fruitcakes, and chocolates, and shortbread as the rare and wonderful things they are.


So, while the music plays, could the Three Kings, and Amahl, and all the other characters, go about the church and collect all these treats up, and pile them on this them cloth here?

(A large swaddling cloth is set on the floor, two bedsheets or tablecloths overlapped in the shape of a star.)

(Music: Rob and Susan on flute and guitar, play "We Three Kings")

(Once the the offertory is complete, the corners of the cloths are tied together, the  bundle is swaddled and is laid in a large basket, during which is read the nativity  Luke 2:7-12:

"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them at the inn...."

All rise and sing "Silent Night".

_______________

The very best of the holiday season to you and yours,

Rob

Monday, November 14, 2011

Sticking my neck out: some notes toward a personal theology

What do you stand for?

“Unitarians don’t stand; we move.” This means all of the following is a flow, an evolving process.

On Ultimate Reality: I think the human race is happily evolving past the notion of a personal, supernatural God up in heaven, who can be button-holed, addressed, persuaded to intervene, and is able to suspend the laws of nature. In fact, the word “God” is so loaded with antiquated and patently false baggage, that many Unitarians find it unhelpful. This does NOT mean, however, that there is no higher level of being that we can experience and draw nourishment from. I prefer the term ‘numinous’ to describe that which lies beyond that which can perceive and readily talk about. I may not be able to apprehend it, wrestle it to the ground, and pin it down in scientific language, but I’m reasonably sure it has something to do with truth, beauty, and love. Having a sense of the numinous is the chief aim of worship, and indispensable for living a fully human life. And it is natural, not supernatural.


On church community: Officially, we call ourselves a church, and we meet in a ‘meeting house’. This is neither an error nor a contradiction. A ‘church’ is not bricks-and-mortar; a church is an inclusive spiritual community of the self-selected, who share a common spiritual orientation to, and mission in, the wider world. The notion of ‘church’ comes to us through the Christian tradition, and is modelled on the way in which a certain Galilean prophet drew people together in common purpose—excluding no-one who came seeking wholeness through such fellowship. It differed radically at the time from the notion of ‘temple’, with its ethno-centricity and high barriers to membership. Our ‘meeting house’ is just that, a democratized, de-mystified space largely free of the iconography usually found in temples and churches, where our community can be together.

On the Unitarian ethos of freedom, reason, and tolerance: We are the only denomination whose name bespeaks a theological orientation, yet we have no set theology. The chief defining impulse of our movement is freedom—we would be free of coercive creeds, free of any authority outside our own best, considered judgement. That considered judgement weighs both the dictates of reason and moral conscience; we are a thinking, reflective person’s church, rightly sceptical of dogma. Tolerance is a necessary concomitant to freedom: as we would be free, we would defend the right of others to be free, even (and especially) if we don’t happen to agree with them. It is a necessary concomitant, because we recognize the need for the nourishment of a loving community. By and large, this effort is successful, since our fellowship includes both theist and atheist, liberal Christian and Buddhist, Jew and new-age eco-spiritualists. We draw on the teachings the other major world faiths, as well as science, the humanities, and the arts. We are a non-creedal church that embraces diversity.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

The Dyer's Hand

"My nature is subdued
To what it works in, like the Dyer's hand..."

--Shakespeare, Sonnett 111


Thirty-odd years ago, I once worked for about a year, off-and-on, as a proofreader for a printing house. I mean print as in moveable, lead type.

What else do you do with a BA in English?

On a daily basis, I focussed my attention on fonts, leadings, justifications, type sizes, and getting all these exactly to the spec the client wanted. As the weeks rolled past, I noticed I was noticing the world in a different way, as through a filter. The filter I saw the world through  highlighted all the qualities of all print that came into my field of vision. I noticed that the type on my cereal box was in Garamond, probably 11 point, with a 10 point leading.  That the city fathers of Baltimore had in their wisdom chosen Helvetica as the most easily recognizable typeface for street signs (it isn't). And I began to fall hopelessly in love with Book Antiqua Italic.

Isn't she beautiful?
 A little of that filter has stayed with me all these years.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that you'd better watch what you do with your attention.

The more attentively your mind engages in a cognitive practice, over and over, the more the neural pathways change, and you physcially become what you do, like the dyer's hand becoming the colour of its trade. Dip your mind routinely into an action, and presto, it's blue (or something)!

Add caption


Regular readers of this blog will have noted that it's been almost a month since my last blog, ('and these are my sins')....I have been giving my attention to a new kind of work. Regular readers will note that the subtitle has changed to include a new, contractually correct job title. I am not yet a 'Minister' so it would be incorrect to call me "The Rev. Rob". I am not yet a Minister because no organisation--denominational or congregational-- has ordained me as one. 'Reverend' is not a title you can give yourself, obviously, as you must be revered by somebody else. (Healthy minds do, of course, have a measure of reverence for themselves, but that's in another sense of the word.)

The management committee of my congregation, after much deliberation and consultation, decided that the title 'Pastor' would be more politic, and I have to say I rather prefer it, with its bucolic overtones of shepherding flocks. It's especially apt as I do have a bit of experience raising sheep.

But that's pretty much where the aptness ends. Unitarians are many things, but they ain't sheep, and can't be herded into a homogenous mass like a mob of docile Merinos. No, though I am not A minister, what I DO is minister--that is, serve the needs of the congregation by writing and leading worship, providing spiritual direction, and providing pastoral care and concern. I'm not a minister, but that is what I do.

Anyone confused yet?

The nomenclature of job titles is as robustly defended, stratified, and contested in church organisations (actually, organisms) every bit as much as in the military. Unitarian congregational polity, however, is something of a modern-day wonder. It makes each church a kind of anarcho-syndicalist collective, subject only to its own rules and processes. This means my congregation could decide to call me the "Grand Imperial Fifth 'Dan' Muckety Muck and Poobah" had they so desired (thankfully they're far too sensible a lot for that). In the end, the work--that which I give my attention to on a daily basis--would be identical.


And the thing is, the title is something I wear to work in, but I can actually feel the work changing me a little already, three weeks into the year's contract. I don't quite have the words to describe it yet, but stay tuned...

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

How can you mend a broken heart?

What made it especially hard was that my parents really, really loved her.

She was their type: working class, down-to-earth, out-going, happy and uncomplicated. In fact, I felt at the time that my stocks as a good son rose because I was with her, and that they would in fact rather have had her as a daughter than me as a son.

At the time, I was wayward, had no clear path or purpose. And I must have seemed to my folks a kind of broody would-be intellectual, without any real outlet, of course. Pretentious too: I used to carry around a paperback edition of whatever poet or philosopher or playwright I was reading at the time, stuck ostentatiously into the side pocket of jacket in winter, or the hip pocket of my jeans in summer.

After years of being inseparable, still wayward, I felt my way was diverging from hers. I was young, and it was my life, dammit, and I wasn't going to be held back from what I was sure were far horizons. So I left one fine day.

It was the first serious relationship for both of us, and spanned most of our university years. In leaving this lovely young woman, who had done nothing injurious to me, not ever, I created a wound in the very core of her being that I know for a fact has never really healed. And that was 30 years ago.

There can be no sundering unless there was first a union.

Fate is not without a sense of ironic justice. In fact, I often think it is intent on mocking our attempts at directing our lives. For as badly as I did to her, the same was done to me 10 years later. But with a twist: I was left with a small, innocent, girl-child to raise. And so those far horizons I was chasing narrowed to the necessary confines of her needs.

"I'll see your broken heart, raise you a heart to love and shape," says Fate. Any gambler will tell you: the house always wins.

I remember being out in the garden one night as a late summer evening closed in, my little girl sleeping peacefully in her room above, and I suddenly got it. "Okay, " I said. "O-kay." It was more than poetic justice. Life had offered me an opportunity to heal through loving a tender, fragile little girl, and thus to undo the sort of heartlessness in me that so wounded someone else's tender little girl a decade before.

Her heart would stay broken, of course. As with a vase, even if you put it back together so it holds water and flowers, it's still broken, and always will be broken on some level.

My heart has stayed broken too, even though the little girl is now about to be 25 and is far more well-adjusted than I have any right to expect. Raising her taught me, long after I should already have known, what love actually was.

That's still going to leave a mark....

There is a way to mend a broken heart yourself, even if you don't have a child to show you how. I've thought a lot about this over the years, and I can see no practical alternative to forgiveness. What else do you do, seethe and cry forever? Is it really better to keep the anger and hatred locked away and take them out and polish them in the wee hours, savouring the bitterness? Do you really want that flinching reflex every time anything--a street, a song, a particular tree-- reminds you of the one who hurt you? Do you really never want to trust anyone ever again?

Folk wisdom has it that these held resentments become tumours. I don't know. But it is magical thinking to hope that all the scented baths, incense, chanting, yoga classes and elaborate distraction in the world is going chase it completely out of your being, as in an exorcism. And in the end, the only person who can suffer from holding onto the hurt is you.

One of the most fragile bones in the body, but less fragile than the organ below and to the left.

People talk about 'healing', but my experience is that one never actually erases the big jolts. Hearts can be mended, stitched, re-assembled, patched and painted. They can knit back together like bone tissue, but an x-ray will always shown the old breaks, clear as day. Broken bones can be left to nature, with only a slight intervention to set them properly. But you wouldn't want to leave the mending of broken hearts to human nature, though, with its 2-million-year-old fight-or-flight reflex, as well as the clever, neocortical facility for denial. Broken hearts require the hard, daily manual labour of forgiveness. This is not given to us, but has to be acquired and can only be learned through practice.

What can you do to begin to piece your heart back together, into some sort of working order? What are the mechanics of forgiveness?

1. Work to comprehend the motives of the person who hurt you. This involves acknowledging that few people are actually intentionally malicious, who actually undertake to injure others, but instead behave (as we all do) from complex motives and compulsions. Jung had it that in seeking to adjust to the world, we develop a 'persona'--the shiny shop-window we put forth to be socially accepted. But forming this necessary social mask, we also 'enshadow'  those compulsions and needs which are less socially acceptable. This 'shadow' side can be so obscured as to be invisible, even to the owner. And even those who are aware of their own shadow are not necessarily able to govern the sway of its heavy inertia.

2. See your own role in your heart-break. Two are required for this dark tango, one of whom is you. Were you naive? Too unguarded? Careless? In what ways did you set yourself up for this? Were there warning signs you ignored? This is not, I stress, to commit the age-old churlishness of blaming the victim, but merely to discern why we have become a victim. Unless you were a child at the time of the injury, you must bear the responsibility of protecting yourself, yet still remaining open to others. Forgiving yourself for your part in it, you may be more able to move toward genuine forgiveness toward the other.

3. Pray for the heart-breaker. Whether or not you believe there is a God who hears, needs to be told, and can be persuaded by human intercession, you can still undertake a deliberate practice of wishing the heartbreaker well. This may be the hardest part, the bending of your own emotional reflexes toward understanding and compassion, based on the above two steps. It's much more than cheek-turning passivity, it's more like seeing that the blow came from, must have come from, a place in the other that knows no other way to express itself, under the circumstances. What may help in this effort, is a serious personal moral inventory of all the times you yourself have injured the heart of another. If you would have others understand your motives (and who wouldn't), it follows that you must do likewise .

4. If it's appropriate (and only if), undertake to do acts of kindness toward the heart-breaker. Again, this is not to change them, but to change you. Their responses are irrelevant. There is a kind of wonderful bio-feedback in us that ensures that we can become what we do, that outward actions create appropriate inner states of feeling.

5. Let go of the desire to see the heart-breaker acknowledge guilt, responsibility, or even awareness of the hurt they caused. With the best will and all the compassion in the world, you will probably never be able to engineer this. How often we fantasize about a scene in which the one who hurt you wakes up to themselves, gasps in a remorse of conscience, and abjectly begs your forgiveness. Understand: this will probably never happen, satisfying though it might be to imagine.

6. Be patient and steadfast. Forgiveness is not easy, and so the only effective process of mending the heart is not for sissies. It may require years and never feel complete. It's taken me decades and still doesn't. Nevertheless...


I probably don't need to cite all the biblical references on the subject of forgiveness; they are many and legion. I only point out that the pesky Galilean also didn't say it was easy, just completely necessary if we're to evolve our natures and live in a world worth living in, not awash with vengeful, wounded souls. When asked how much we should forgive, he said, extrapolating Jewish law, "Not seven times, but seventy times seven."

By which, I think he meant: a whole lot.

In my most hopeful moments, I imagine a world where all of the people who loved us and that we have loved in our lives are able to come together in warmth and fellowship, shriven, forgiven, and forgiving, and remain a part of each other lives--lives we were at one time so deeply inter-pentrated with, and whose absence feels like a missing limb.

This is a dream of heaven, I know. And pity it is that the two women I spoke of at the beginning of this entry will almost certainly never read it, such is the alienating bitterness that comes from heartbreak and heartbreaking.

But if they did, I'd say this: "I forgive you. Please forgive me."

And to take us out....the bonus track. The Leisure Society's poignant "Our Hearts Burn Like Damp Matches".  Lyrics below the clip.


Take a walk through scattered trees

To the place where no one dreams
Serve my sentence and be done
All human life here is scarred
Posture slipped and ill-attired
We should all be redesigned
Hollow words sit silent in my mouth
Reasoned voices idle on the ground


Our hearts burn like damp matches
Turn then attack us, burst and then break
Embers plucked from the ashes
Glow to attract us, lure us away


Every day arrives too late
Every morning seems the same
Stale regrets and dull routine
Know at last your weathered soul
Know your tethers clung with soil
And the reasons for it all


Trust in me and I will trust in you
Hold me close and I will hold you too

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Familiar, if not trite, but do yourself a favour and read it again...

IF

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

--Rudyard Kipling

---------------------

As a bonus, here's Harvey Keitel reading it:


Until that closing line, this could be from the mouth of Marcus Aurelius or Francis Bacon (the writer not the painter). This oft quoted piece by a bully old Victorian repays re-reading time and again, but not without a few difficulties.

It makes the entry requirements for mere manhood seem staggeringly high. I mean, find me a guy with all these qualities, and I'll marry him, and I'm not normally that way inclined. It calls for courage, perseverance, rock-ribbed robustness, and an ability to discern a perfectly balanced approach to the world, one's fellow man, and oneself. Good luck with that.

Plus, what kind of man is it that gambles all he has on one game of chance?

"He who risks nothing, is nothing," the French saying goes. And, be honest guys, who has not known the thrill of the "awful daring of a moment's surrender, which an age of prudence can never retract" as Eliot put it? We've all taken risks--partners, jobs, investments--without a crystal ball to foretell the outcome. How much we venture on faith! And that requires a certain daring.

But these are quibbles.

What this is is a piece to read after you've survived a difficult time, seen it through with your values and character more ore less intact, and afforded yourself the luxury of a faint smile, knowing you comported yourself well in the face of the tempest. It says, "Stay steady, old boy, stay cool, stay true to yourself, and this too shall pass." If you lose yourself, you lose the lot.

This doesn't mean that life, and our fellow lost souls, won't grind you down, little by little, over time. This is the fate of us all. But let the grindstone of this tough and perplexing world we neither made nor willed, grind us like an old knife, sharper, keener, more scalpel-like, the better to finely pare away reality from illusion, good from ill, truth from falsehood. Pare it all down until what remains comprises something resembling the furnishings of a just and dignified life.

What passes for the outward signs of manhood--wealth, children, achievements, sexual conquest--is often counterfeit. Wealth may be ignobly obtained, achievements equivocal, sexual conquest a fool's paradise, and as for children....anyone can make a child. It takes a man to raise a child to responsible, compassionate adulthoood.

It impossible to read this poem without seeing the soul of your own father rising like vapour through the words. I often think of mine and what he would make of me, of the work I'm undertaking, of the man I have or haven't become. Now there was a guy as solid and steady as the earth underfoot.  His son, rather less so.

But reading this Kipling poem stiffens my resolve to reach down and find what of him is in me. It does that to me every single time.


For more on this poem, visit http://www.allthingsif.org/