I begin with the concept of non-dualistic thinking. Dualistic thinking is how we most often make
sense of our world - we compare and contrast, separate and differentiate, we
order our understanding of reality using this way of thinking. Without even thinking about it we label
things with dualistic thinking – something is fast or slow, easy or difficult,
old or new, and the ultimate duality, right or wrong. Dualistic thinking in and of itself is not a
problem, however there are circumstances when it can lead to judgmentalism and
exclusivity. It is at this point that our Christian faith gives us another way
of thinking – a non-dualistic approach – in other words [both and]. Non-dualistic thinking is being able to move beyond ‘either or’ thinking to something that is comfortable with paradox, with mystery, with inclusivity rather than exclusivity.
Jesus was someone who often functioned in a [both and]
manner, often to the surprise of his disciples.
Jesus did not get locked into an ‘either or’ dualistic mode, this he
demonstrated by his actions, and taught with his words. For example, Jesus faithfully worshipped in
the traditional Jewish manner, participating in synagogue regularly – however
he also reinterpreted religious traditions in radical ways, for example the
Sabbath law of which he said “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not
humankind for the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27 NRSV) This did not sit well with the religiously
traditional Jews – it did not seem ‘right’.
More clearly we see Jesus’ non-dualistic approach when he is
willing to move beyond traditional divisions of people - he ate with both
Pharisees and Tax Collectors, he conversed both with Jewish men and
Samaritan women, he healed both descendants of Abraham and Sarah and
non-Jewish people like the servant of a Roman centurion. He taught his followers to pray for both
their own needs (“give us this day our daily bread” Matt. 6:11) and
for their enemies (“pray for those who persecute you” Matt. 5:44).
Richard Rohr suggests that
Jesus was the first non-dual teacher in the West, and he quotes Jesus in the
next verse in Matthew as evidence: “for [God] makes his sun rise on the evil
and on the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and on the unrighteous.” (Matt. 5:45)
In a culture that understood blessing being given to ‘good’ people, and
suffering to the ‘evil’ people, this statement must have been difficult to
hear.
There are many ways in which to consider the place of
non-dualistic thinking in the mission of the church, but let me explain a
few. For too long churches have thought
of the way they function as the ‘right’ way, and that other churches were doing
things ‘wrong’. This is the primary
reason the Christian faith has fractured into 30,000 denominations. Church bodies split because one group
identified another group that understood things, or practiced things
differently to be ‘wrong’ (rather than simply being different). In a dualistic way of thinking one can only
be right or wrong, other possibilities are not considered and all too easily we
slip into judgmentalism, condemning others who think or act differently from
us. This is one way we feel good about
ourselves, we convince ourselves that we are ‘right’ which makes others who are
different ‘wrong’. This was exactly the
problem with the Pharisees in Jesus’ day – they allowed dualistic thinking to
function fully in their thinking, thus resulting in judgmental attitudes so
often criticized by Jesus. If people
weren’t thinking and following the laws as the Pharisees understood to be the right
way then they were sinners and unrighteous and not to be considered as
belonging to the ‘good’ people.
As we seek to participate in God’s mission in the 21st
Century we need to begin by recognizing the truth of Jesus’ statement “Whoever
is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:40)
Rather than criticize and ignore other churches and Christian groups who
do things differently, or understand things differently than we do, we need to
see them as belonging to the same mission. God’s mission is [both and],
not either or. Regardless of what anyone thinks, one denomination does
not have a claim on exclusive relationship with God, nor does one group or
another within a denomination. Out in
the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC there are many congregations that worship in a
more liturgically rigid and traditional manner.
Some of these churches, and the pastors who lead them, would say “This
is the right way to worship” and would simply ignore or criticize others who
worship differently. That dualistic and
judgmental thinking has no place in the future of God’s missional church. We need to be able to develop fresh expressions
of church community and worship, while maintaining tradition for those who find
such meaningful. This is what I was
asked to speak on at the conference in New Hamburg.
Leaders in the Church of England are using the term mixed economy to describe the need for both traditional churches and fresh
expressions of church. This mixed
economy of churches is a way of being [both and]. The congregation I serve already practices a
mixed economy of ministries – we have our regular worship on Sunday mornings (which
leans towards the traditional), but we also have Sunday Night Light, Country
Gospel Service, and Mysterium. Mysterium
is a worship gathering modelled on the emerging
worship groups, and fresh
expressions of church found in North America and the United Kingdom. My congregation is so used to living [both
and] we don’t realize how many churches have nothing like this experience
(either because they lack resources, or more significantly they lack the
willingness to be [both and].) My task
at the [both and] conference in Ontario was to give encouragement for
churches to consider the need to be [both and], to be creative in their
thinking about the mission of God in their context, and to try new and
different things – not to the exclusion of the tradition and heritage that we
are grounded in, but for the expansion of the means of ministry in our current
context. I believe this [both and]
approach is what is needed in the church for the foreseeable future.
