18 December, the sad concurrency of Avatar and the Copenhagen accord

18 December was the day Avatar was released in South Africa. 18 December was also the day of the Copenhagen accord.

Today I finally came around to reading the reports of Copenhagen. And I finally came around to watching Avatar. A sad concurrency of events.

Yes, Avatar is good. It might be one of those movies which will take me quite some time to work through. It presents a weird and magically wonderful world with effects which few, if anyone, have ever been able do. In combining this with the total over-romanticization of primal cultures, it reminds me of the 1999 Hallmark mini-series of Journey to the Center of the Earth (which I haven’t seen in 8 years or so, but I remember finding really brilliant at the time).

Avatar portrays this beautifully wonderful world of perfect pantheism (although they mess up this theological concept a bit with typical popular western theological ideas, but that will have to be left for another post), where everything is connected, and everything is in balance. It’s an Eden environment, where humanoids feel nature, care for nature, name the animals.

The movie is a blatant critique of colonialism, of the disconnect with nature brought about by our technocratic society, of the destruction of the earth by humans, of the disregard of everything sacred. And dare I say that the general reaction to this critique is positive. For many, the fantastic fantasy world of Pandora point to what we know, on a deep level, to be right, and true. Peace. Harmony. With all of creation. Living a simple lifestyle. Caring for the environment. Yes, all this and more, the beautiful world of Pandora is what we want. But we want to keep it fantasy.

Almost as if we need the fantasy of the possible life in harmony with nature, to keep our technocratic militaristic consumerist world alive. As if we know that as soon as the hope of peace and harmony disappear, we’ll die. So we keep the fantasy alive, so that we can continue our destruction. Because as soon as we walk out of Avatar, we continue our Christmas shopping, buying more than we need, and more than the earth can sustain. We go back to our lives in security villages and kept safe by large armies that keep the possibility of a society where the masses are living in absolute poverty alive. And not only do we shrug at a climate deal which screams against everything that Avatar has been fighting for, we kind of know that we are not willing to change our own lifestyles to be in harmony with our mother earth.

As the days after Copenhagen pass, the reaction of sadness, and sometimes madness, is heard over and over again. Yes, the thoughtful recognize the difficulties that the conversations faces, the thoughtful know that a first step in the right direction has been made. But the reality is that we are making decisions to safe our own asses. We have heard that gaia (to use Lovelock’s language) is going to make it difficult for humans, and we are willing to keep to the limits which was set so that our own comforts aren’t threatened. But harmony with the earth isn’t even on the table. Actually going above and beyond what the economy and human survival require isn’t even considered. A world where the human species is connected with everything around it is kept for the fantasy world of Pandora.

yes, some still call it an emerging conversation (synchroblog)

Nic Paton invited a number of us for a day of conversation about the emerging church in South Africa. In spite of everyone who’s been slowly but surely shying away from the term “emerging”, this group of people embrace it, but are giving a South African swing to the conversation.

I was introduced to the term “emerging” by Tony Jones more than three years ago. And started my first blog within a few days from that point, called emergingsa. Two days after I started the blog, on 23 August 2006, I wrote the following post, which I quote again today. I think I can summarize much of the weekends conversation by saying that we are starting to move into a direction where I can say that I am part of a journey that is taking up the challenges that I thought was crucial way back when i first joined:

Emerging Rainbow Church???

I have been thinking about this a lot in the last few years – The multi-racial South Africa.

The Dining Hall has been an area of quite interesting conversations in the past 4 years. And the last 2 hours got me thinking again. One of my friends started talking about some of his experiences in black communities, and especially with regard to faith issues. While listening to the stories he told me, I just realisedagain, there are other stories completely different from ours.

What is the conversation in South Africa really about? The emerging western church? Can we talk about an emerging church in South Africa along the same lines Europe and America are talking about the Emerging Church? I’m not sure that I can envision an emerging South African church that is not multi-racial? But will we be willing to have a dream of a multi-racial church in South Africa that doesn’t stick to Western ideas only?

Maybe part of postmodernism in South Africa will be to also listen to the worldviews of the rainbow of different cultures in our country. And this while I’m struggling just to understand other Afrikaans South Africans sometimes.

When Roger Saner started Emerging Africa he made the sub-title: “a safe place to talk about theology“. We talked about a safe place a lot. Although our conversations might not fit the typical academic theological setting, or church setting, the conversation is thoroughly theological. And a certain historical, critical and postmodern blend of theological. The names that surfaced constantly was among others: Brian McLaren, Karen Armstong, John Caputo, Peter Rollins. All of these is recognized as more radical theological voices, not all emerging. Those of us in the conversation need a safe place to talk about theology, to experience theology, to experiment with theology, to create theology, and to figure out how this can impact the world.

Yes, we still use emerging. But the conversations we have is being held under many different banners. Everywhere I go I hear more and more voices asking similar questions. This is a paradigm shift. We still talk about emerging, when we say this word, we know that we share certain values, although it might still be very vague. But more than that, we share a friendship, we share times of drumming, of eating together. We share a passion to see a society, a country, changed for the better. And we share the fact that we need a safe space, and are willing to create a safe space where anyone who want to ask questions and search for answers, are welcome.

Synchroblog:

This is part of a Synchroblog on reactions to the conversations we had. Others who took part:

Nic Paton wrote a summary of the weekend, and especially Saterday’s, conversation.

taking a pilgrimage into South Africa

I remember riding on the train in Cape Town at the age of nine. We were on holiday, visiting my grandparents, and used public transport to travel to wherever we wanted to go. It was years later, when at university, that I got the call one spring day from a few friends, who said they were taking the train to Jo’burg for the day. I guess that must have been what got some of us planning a holiday trip to Cape Town last December, using only public transport!

We got onto the train at Hatfield station, this train somewhat different from the one I remember from my childhood days. The Pretoria train doesn’t have enough place for everyone to stand even. At Pretoria station we boarded the train to Cape Town, which was, luckily enough, quote empty. I think it was 32 hours later when we arrived in Cape Town, had to take the taxi to the backpackers lodge we were staying in. For the next 10 days we got to know the taxi’s and trains around certain areas in Cape Town. Got comfortable with it.

When I went down to Cape Town a few weeks ago for a conversation in reading Acts today, I decided to stay a day longer, and meet up with some Amahoro friends. Our conversation was at the university of Stellenbosch, and I decided to continue the habit of using public transport in Cape Town on this trip. I had a meeting at a certain time with the René August from the Warehouse on this day, but I missed my train in Stellenbosch. And suddenly… I was on African time. I hate being late, and would usually do anything possible to rush to a meeting when I notice that I might be late. But standing at that station, I knew that nothing could be done. So I just found the closest place where I could read, got something to drink, and waited.

Over the past two days I again committed to using public transport in Cape Town, even though the people who got me down to do some training offered a car. This is becoming a spiritual discipline for me. Getting into contact with the local people. I heard the conversations about the soccer going on the Cape Town streets, as I was walking around waiting for some trains. Sometimes I just had to sit and wait.

This is becoming a sort of pilgrimage into South Africa. Intentionally taking myself out of my comfort-zone, and traveling the way that the majority of South Africans travel. Slowly, if compared to my driving along the N1 highway to work. Dependent on the system, on others. Without the privacy of a car.

Few white and rich South Africans will make the journey of living like the majority of South Africans live. But maybe more of us should sometimes take on the pilgrimage of public transport. So that we can more and more come home with the people of South Africa.

Does the Dutch Reformed Family of churches know more about unity than Jim Belcher?

I was born in 1984. The year Hans Küng visited South Africa, and delivered his groundbreaking lecture on paradigm shifts in theology at UNISA, which became the foundation of Transforming Mission.

I was two years old at the 1986 General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church when the theological support of Apartheid was ended, and the gays were condemned.

I was 5/6 years old when Nelson Mandela en FW de Klerk was discussing the unity of a new South Africa.

I was 6 or 7 years old when white South Africans voted to end Apartheid, knowing that this will be the end of white government in South Africa.

I was 10 years old when we had the historic 1994 election, that went more smooth than anyone could expect. And I’ve lived through the birth pains of our young democracy, and I’ve seen how people could come together even though they absolutely disagree (think about the amazing story of Pieter Mulder and Jacob Zuma for example).

I was trained theologically while the unity conversations between the Dutch Reformed Church and the Uniting Reformed Church was very tense. And even though we still struggle with it, stories of hope did start to develop.

I was a senior theological student when we approached the gay issue again in 2007. I remember saying boldly that I can see no way in which the church can remain united, since we differ so strongly on this issue. But then Malan Nel made a suggestion at that amazing synod meeting, and the moderators found a way of putting unity above doctrinal and interpretation issues.

When Jim Belcher writes about unity he says:

UNITY

Is there a way forward? How do we get to the point where both sides can talk about their differences and learn from each other without being accused of heresy? By first agreeing about what binds Christians together. It is that simple. We have to arrive at what John Stott calls the “unity of the gospel.” All unity has a doctrinal aspect. No unity is possible without boundaries of thought and belief around something. There is always a limit to what any group can tolerate without being torn apart.

Deep Church

For Belcher it’s really simple. Agree with the three confessional statements in the pager following the above quote, and you will be allowed to be part of the “new ecumenism”, and not be called a “heretic”. An if you challenge this? Well, he don’t see a way in which unity is possible without these kinds of limits. Even though he has the examples of Jones and Pagitt earlier in the book.

If we were to use Belcher’s definition, we wouldn’t be one denomination any more. But we are.

If my conservative friends in the church used Belcher’s definition, they would have used the word “heresy” much more, but they don’t (at least not my conservative friends, there are some who do like this word).

And we know that Belcher’s “simple” isn’t so simple. Because real church unity, between people who really differ, on issues of race, gender and background. Between people who have a history of one group oppressing the other. Between people who are really divided on economic grounds, require much more than shared confession. It’s not that simple.

Maybe we found a way of putting a braai first, and listening. Knowing that we really disagree, also on “first-tier” stuff (to use Belcher’s language). But to be open to the possibility that we might be wrong (as David Bosch also taught us). Maybe we should listen to our own voices, Nelson Mandela, Desmund Tutu, David Bosch, Piet Meiring, Coenie Burger and others, when it comes to unity. If I listen to this top-seller, then maybe we have some stories of unity to share with the world that they need to hear, even though we are really struggling with unity.