And before that, around lunch time, I met Bad Ben. That adds three to the number of people I have met in person, that have read my blog, on occasion at least. I love real life meetings. Actually, Ben and I had met before, back in 2003. He’s a really nice guy, and he’s keen for constructive input. In addition, he is apparently a big fan of Brian McLaren. Yay! He is looking for neutral, unbiased feedback about Shofar. I’m hoping we can build a good relationship, built largely on what we agree on, even if we have big differences elsewhere.

It seems Fred May has actually seen my blog. He has read at least one post. Sias le Roux and Morné Bosch recognise my face, and are highly likely able to put my name to it. I have very good reasons to believe Sias already recognises me as someone that “thinks too much”. He may remember me from the creationism seminar last year. All in all, I’m sure at least some members of Shofar’s leadership are wondering what on earth I’m up to, what my views are, etc. So let me try to give a little more context.

We all know that many people in Stellenbosch have gripes with Shofar. Shofar is highly controversial. But yes, most people do mud flinging, because they feel there’s not much else they can do. And mud flinging is pointless, it gets us nowhere. So… here I am, I’m attending Shofar again every now and then, when I have the opportunity. I’m keen on constructive and open dialogue, and very keen on cooperation.

There are a number of points on which I disagree with Shofar. Let’s get the empirical one out of the way: I love science. We cannot live without it. Or at least, without it, the majority of humanity will die or suffer greatly. We have already over-populated the world many times over, if we were to live science-less. But apart from adverse consequences, I love inquisitiveness, I love exploration, I love looking at this mysterious universe, all of creation, and marvelling at its intricate complexity. In Meh terms, I love it’s beauty. And science is the tool with which we read this great big book of the universe. If you swing that way, the great big book that is (more directly?) written by the creator’s hand. (Or, in poetic Genesis terms, the great big poet in the sky spoke this great piece of poetry into existence.) You will have to forgive me if I have some serious gripes with “anti-science” sentiments. I’m afraid that, right now, young-earth beliefs classify as “anti-science” in my books. I’d like this blog to discuss science eventually, but that would require research time I don’t have right now.

Hand-in-hand with science goes critical thinking. I believe it is an important skill in this day and age, and I’m concerned about any kind of suppression of that skill. I don’t know how much that happens in Shofar itself, I just know that I didn’t see much critical thinking at the creationism seminar last year. I will soon continue my analysis of the seminar, in an attempt to demonstrate what I mean by “informed critical thinking”.

Furthermore, the rumours I hear with regards to the behaviour of Shofarians in science lectures has me appalled. I’d prefer not to hear or see any irrefutable evidence, I prefer to have the opportunity to believe these are only rumours… In fact, please tell me they are only rumours? Self-deception is a wonderful self-preservation mechanism.

Enough with science et al, and onto theology. I naturally also disagree on a significant number of doctrinal positions. Clearly I’m not a “literalist”. In propaganda terms, Shofar would say I’m not a “Bible believer”. Meh. I love the Bible. This blog will hopefully be taking a deeper look at it later. I also disagree with the idea that “Jesus came to raise the bar”. I believe Jesus challenged oppressive regimes and rejected oppressively-legalistic purity codes in favour of a value-driven way of life, based on compassion and love. And more. We will eventually get around to having some discussions around that.

Shofar’s afterlife-centred doctrines also have me worried. I believe this misses Jesus’ message. Sometimes people live in such fear of hell-after-life, that they end up living a hell-in-life. I care much more about the hell and heaven that exists right here, right now, on this earth. I believe Jesus’ primary message was “the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. The Kingdom of Heaven is a place on earth. A place within each of us. I would love to see more emphasis on “Kingdom-centric” living. Maybe if I continue looking, I will see it.

I would love more cooperation across the board. The other churches are getting together and building relationships. From what I hear, it sounds as though Fred May is not interested? Are these just rumours? More cooperation with everyone. This means no more “othering”. My dream has religious people and secular humanists working together to bring God’s Kingdom to Earth (as it is in Heaven, Meh).

Lastly, I do also disagree with Shofar’s stance on homosexuality, that is no secret. I doubt discussion on this topic will bear much fruit though, and there are bigger fish to fry, as long as Shofar doesn’t ruin people’s lives by loading them with guilt towards their own nature. I’ve heard rumours of support groups for homosexuals in other churches. I’d encourage Christian homosexuals to join these support groups. (Rumours. I don’t know how many, maybe only one for all I know. I hope there’s more.) Alternatively, there’s also Lesbigay, with their closet support program “Close-Up” (I think), which incidentally has helped some ex-Shofarians.

So, that’s about that.

Oh, and people like Ben (Bad/Sad Ben) demonstrate to me that there is hope. Honest, inquisitive, eager to learn, eager to improve, eager to follow Jesus, humble… Given the right soil, a mustard seed can move mountains. I pray we can walk a path together. Ben, or whoever, please keep an eye on me, and inform me when I stray onto a path of destruction. I believe in a God of creation, not destruction, as hard as that God’s commands may be to follow. May the soil of my mind be fertile ground for fruit-bearing trees.

Amen.

I was hoping to come across a Jewish and/or Muslim society as well, but no such luck. Unless it is hidden behind some non-obvious acronym, I could also not find such groups on the list of societies on the University website. I suspect the Jewish and Muslim communities are strong enough to function independently and not require society-status?

The Dutch-Reformed church was only represented via the outreach programs falling under the “Crux-aksie” umbrella, Dutch-Reformed membership is typically a family thing. Stellenbosch Gemeente was also not represented, I think most of SG’s marketing is word-of-mouth.

Below follows more from discussions with various groups.

On Evolution

A number of groups are quite strongly against evolution. The “big two” in Stellenbosch is generally Shofar and EveryNation. I’m careful of making sweeping statements about other churches, as I cannot usually be sure whether it is just personal opinion or general church policy.

The rep I talked to at the NewGen (New Generation) church stall said evolution is out of the question, and believed in a literal six-days creation less than 10,000 years ago. I assume this goes for the whole church.

The Stellenbosch Baptist Students stall was manned by one of their pastors, in charge of Students & Youth. He has a conservative approach, and reads Genesis literally. He received his education at a Bible college whose name I’m afraid I forgot. (Bad journalist, me.)

TBT describes it’s theology as “evangelical, reformed, conservative”. By conservative, they mean the Bible is without error. I’m not sure what they mean by that actually, there are different ideas of what constitutes “error” and what doesn’t. The individuals I talked to were relatively apathetic about the “creationism-evolution debate”. One had some “evolutionist” friends (attending TBT, I assume. My memory is weak, my notes are weaker. Bad, bad journalist.)

The rep at the Vineyard Christian Fellowship stall gave me the name of the person I should talk to. (The rep’s personal perspectives involved little exposure to evolution theory and a dislike of the idea that humans and present-day apes share a common ancestor.)

The Anglican society is associated with, well, the Anglican church. Their theology is similar to Episcopalian theology. There is some diversity in the international organisation, with one extreme found in Nigeria, and the other in New Hampshire (USA). Backed by “serious theology”, their views should be compatible with secular social sciences. I expect most of the leaders in the organisation would accept theistic evolution.

My preference definitely remains with congregations that have leaders with serious theological study in their background, for example from the University’s faculty of theology. In Stellenbosch, this would include (but not limited to) the Dutch Reformed church and Stellenbosch Gemeente. I hear they share a common vision, the minor doctrinal differences are not of much concern. The greatest majority of “well-educated” leaders will be accepting of science. Expecting them to publicly stand by evolution acceptance might be too much to expect though, each congregation has a diversity of members with diverse perspectives. Also, the cooperation between churches is more important than their promotion of science: the most significant science promotion will have to be done by the scientists and the scientifically minded.

And then there’s of course the Freethinking Maties society, seeking to promote scientific understanding, science education (including evolution), promoting freedom of religion, including the right to unbelief.

On Homosexuality

I’m not going to be able to give a detailed breakdown, as I am unable to represent all groups to equal depth. In particular, I didn’t ask the more liberal-leaning groups about this matter. My typical question was whether homosexuals would feel welcome in their congregation. From there I usually received a response reflecting the “love the sinner, hate the sin” idea, often with elements of “but we are very accepting and open” mixed in — homosexuals are typically welcome just like other sinners (adulterers, fornicators?) are welcome… Whether they really feel welcome or not, is of course another question altogether. I don’t know if there are any churches in Stellenbosch that would actually be prepared to “host” a homosexual marriage. Actually, I strongly doubt it. This town’s general community is probably too conservative, making such an event too controversial?

On “Primary Emphasis” and Social Action

This was rather hard to determine. Some groups place most emphasis on the evangelical side, caring mostly about “winning souls”, on the theory that once they have Jesus in their lives, everything else should improve…

Other groups place pleasing amounts of emphasis on sharing love/compassion and making a difference in the community, trying to help break the cycle of poverty. For example, one of the outreach programs under the “Crux-aksies” umbrella is “Funda Fundisa” (Xhosa for “Teach and Learn”, not to be confused with fundamentalism). This is an outreach program providing tutoring in Maths, Science, English, Biology and Accounting at Kayamandi High school. (Kayamandi is Stellenbosch’s informal settlement, or “shanty town”.) With regards to cooperation, I know Stellenbosch Gemeente is forming partnerships with Vineyard Christian Fellowship and the Dutch Reformed church (and/or vice-versa). I’m sure there are more alliances that I am not yet aware of.

As mentioned in the previous post, there are also non-religious organisations such as Habitat for Humanity which works to help build houses for families from a low-income background, and UNA-SA, which is committed to the millennium development goals.

Ok, enough of that, I’ve gotta go to bed. I hope this is good enough, I’m hitting Publish without another re-read.

I’m not sure what these limitations are exactly, but maybe someone can share more details in the comments. Are homosexuals welcome in the congregation? (They may feel inclined to hide in the closet?) Can they get married in the church? (Probably not.) I believe they are not allowed in leadership, right? What about celibate homosexuals?…

Here is another dangerous combination: a religion or church with celibate clergy, operating in the context of a homophobic culture. That scenario encourages homosexuals to become members of the clergy. No one will then wonder why they are single. All the wrong reasons for choosing a path through life, in my opinion.

I often wonder if the same thing does not happen at Shofar, which has a relatively significant number of “supposedly ex-gay” members in the congregation. In homophobic culture, Shofar would be a nice place to play-pretend that you are straight, as couples are discouraged from kissing, or being physical, until wedding day. That is when the icky brown stuff meets the spinning thingy, and I start calling “foul!”, or “evil!” even. But I digress… let us get back to the Dutch-Reformed church and its future.

In a previous post, I provided some of the South African context with regards to apartheid and the Dutch-Reformed church. Being wedded to the state (mixed marriage…), the church condoned apartheid for quite some time. And the congregation loved their church and its supposed “purity”. However, at some point, the church started standing up against the wrongs of the regime, and the congregation started complaining. (Sure, not everyone, but I’m generalising here, bear with me.) Ironically, they wanted their church to stay out of politics… Nevertheless, the church persevered, continued playing its part to help overthrow the evil, and apartheid was overthrown. Now hit the fast forward button, and return to the present. Go listen to that very same congregation bitch and moan about the evil the Dutch-Reformed church committed, by supporting apartheid in the first place… (generalising again, apologies.)

Some currents in the church leadership believes it is only a matter of time until the church sheds its homophobia, while other currents insist that the moment the church does this, it might as well self-destruct. The church should stay pure, they say, and keep them moffies out. The church should apparently not fold under the “pressures of the time”. And so they bitch and moan about moral decay.

Now this is all good and well, as opinions will always differ. What I’m more interested in, is the future. Let us imagine a future where humanity as a whole decided to embrace compassion as the ultimate ground truth. Homosexuality is accepted in all corners of life, on the grounds that it is completely natural (genetic and/or environmental in the pre-birth sense). The Dutch-Reformed church has also turned around and embraced the homosexual community, on the grounds that Paul taught us to not go against our own nature. (Just humour me, whether you like the idea or not.) The big question is, how do the formerly homophobic members of the congregation behave? Those same ones that spent all their time bitching and moaning about how the church should not allow homosexuals to do whatever… God save their souls if they turn into the post-apartheid members bitching and moaning about how the church was so evil to condone homophobia in the first place…

The Dutch-Reformed church and the majority of its members are all too aware of the skeleton in the closet. This does make them fearful for the future, and prefer to not push the boundaries of their comfort zone. Either way, I believe the church and its congregation will eventually have to stop its own homosexual affair with itself, step out of their closet of safety, and start focusing on making a positive contribution in the rest of the world again.

Fear not change, for the more things change, the more they stay the same…

Today I heard a story of a family that was torn apart. Kids still in school, the father left the mother for another man. Apparently the one child heard at school that her “daddy now has a boyfriend”.

Now your “conservatives” will moan about the evils of homosexuality and complain that the father was “sinful” in being unable to exercise “self-discipline” to stick to the marriage. As much as I agree with them on how sad it is when families are torn apart, I have a slightly different take on the matter. In fact, the key element here is this:

Homosexuality is not a choice.

There are enough studies on the matter, I have enough friends that can confirm that fact. I can’t believe there is still any argument about this. How about this then: Former leaders of ex-gay ministry in U.S. apologize for “bringing harm”. Some more information on that can be found at BeyondExGay.com. I could even be politically incorrect and point out that sexual orientation apparently ‘affects map reading skills’ (I must skeptically wonder if this study was published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal).

So back to the point: I agree broken families is bad. But what is the cause of this brokenness? In my opinion, the greatest evil is society expecting of individuals to live against their own nature. (And I can quote Paul on this, you must realise.) The thing that split this family apart, in my opinion, was most likely the social pressure that forced a gay person into a straight marriage, forced him to live a lie. Yes, leaving your marriage is an ugly thing to do, especially when you have young children that needs a secure environment to grow up healthy, but I want to know, why was he in that marriage in the first place? All those people pointing the finger and saying “gay! evil!”, I blame those people.

With regards to Christian doctrine, I can lend you books by Christian theologians that disagree strongly with the anti-gay perspective, and argue their case from serious study of scripture. If that blows your hair back. I could argue from values such as compassion, which is what Jesus taught. I could point you at Another Look at Homosexuality and Christianity, on de-conversion.com, a site for people driven to apostasy by the wrongs committed and silliness claimed in the name of Christianity. Or I can sit back, throw my hands in the air and just call you hypocrites. What would be the most effective course of action? (And yes, I’m also a hypocrite. Please point out my hypocrisy to me, as you might be able to see it more easily than I.)

Furthermore, I could point you at a study performed on fruit flies, where they were able to turn homosexuality on and off at will, through use of a drug. (This was a study in Nature Neuroscience. Here is a summary.) This opens a can of worms: if you could choose your orientation through use of drugs or something like “gene therapy” or genetic engineering, would you or should you? Meddling with your own nature, um, “as ordained by God”, some would say? Of course, there is a huge difference between fruit flies and humans (with creationists even claiming they don’t share a common ancestor, grmph), and similar scientific advances on humans might be a very, very far way off, but it is thought provoking and potentially worthwhile to ponder. Has any Sci-Fi investigated this idea yet?

Let’s end off on a more humorous note (or it would be humorous if it wasn’t so sad): 12 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society.