[Both And] – Non-dualistic Thinking and the Church’s Mission

Last June I spoke at a conference called [both and].  This conference was the brainchild of Pastor Anne Anderson who is one of the pastors at Trinity Lutheran Church in scenic New Hamburg, Ontario.  The subtitle of the conference was: Reimagining Church in a Lutheran Context.  As I prepared for this conference I had a lot of dots connect between things I have been thinking about and books I have been reading lately.  Even more connections were made in conversation at the conference – in this post I would like to try to share some of these connections with you.

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 21^st 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.