Theology as Fixer, Breaks the Church

Shelly Rambo writes the following in her book Spirit and Trauma: A Theology of Remaining and Resurrecting Wounds: Living in the Afterlife of Trauma:

The experience of trauma dismantles notions of theology as a fixer, a provider of solutions. A move to “fix” things may interfere rather than assist in the process of healing. Theologians who have learned from trauma theology emphasis the importance of accompaniment, truth telling and wound tending. Acts of witness and testimony acknowledge the reality of traumatic experiences that can never be fully brought to the surface of consciousness. This posture is not focused confidently on conveying theological or moral certainty. Instead, its confidence is in the healing power of giving witness to suffering.

I find this to be a helpful description of the tension within the in the UMC right now. The tension is not over one person or issue. The tension is rooted out of a collective trauma that the denomination has had and has inflicted. The different plans moving us forward, the different caucus groups and advocates, if they are anything, are different approaches to trauma.

Some believe that we can get past this trauma with a proper doctrine. Some believe if we remove certain teaching. Some give the subtle impression, that their plan or their position can “fix” the trouble we are in. In all these efforts to “fix” the problem we often discover, as Rambo says, that we interfere rather than aid healing. There is a feeling that if we could just “get past this current hurt” that we would come out on the other side with blue skies and smooth waters. That this one matter is albatross around our denominational neck and when freed from it we could “make disciples”.

So we try to fix it with theology, plans and positions. We send delegates to vote in the hopes that there will be a solution found in Minneapolis this May.

There was theology that was generated to “fix” the problem of slavery. Others created to "fix” the problem of female ordination. Still other theology to “fix” how we treat Native Americans, our international sisters and brothers, and even the ecological crisis. The truth is that the longer we approach “theology as a fixer” the longer we delay in healing these traumatic wounds.

I wonder if the UMC will discover in Minneapolis not a theology to “fix” us but a theology that take seriously wound tending, presence, truth telling, forgiveness and mercy? Frankly, these are not “fixes” but, again echoing Rambo, postures. These are not the ways we will solve our antagonisms, but rather are vessels to hold them.

Theology that “fixes” (Ironically) breaks the Church. Theology that tends to wounds, heals.

Preach from scars not wounds

So far in 2015 there have been 353 mass shootings in the United States (see Mass Shooting Tracker). That about 1.05 mass shootings per day. 

This Sunday, many preachers are going to feel compelled to address the shootings this past week in California and Georgia. Many directly addressed the shootings in Paris a few weeks ago. And, assuming this mass shooting thing is not going away, many more preachers may feel compelled to address future tragedies.

If there is one thing that I have learned as a preacher and communicator of the Gospel it is the value and necessity to preach from our scars and not wounds. 

Wounds are open and still healing. They are fresh and raw. They may still be bleeding and often put a person in a situation where they may be in shock or irrational. It is not the time to preach the message of Christ because you, as the preacher, are not in a good place to receive the Holy Spirit. The pain of the wound can be so overpowering that the preacher's own voice becomes the dominate voice in the sermon rather than the voice of the Holy Spirit. If you are a preacher and you are preaching from your wounds, you may be doing more harm than Good. 

But more than that, feeling like we need to preach from the raw wounds also may be an expression of a lack of faith. Lack of faith that there will be more or better time to address these hurts. When Jesus was on the cross and wounded, he did not at that time talk about the resurrection or the power of the work of God. He cried out. He bled. He died. He did not teach or proclaim. He trusted that there would be a more and a better time to address the injustices of the moment. 

Which is why, in part, when Christ appeared to the disciples he showed them his scars. He was able then to address the problems and the pain of the world, but only after the bleeding stopped. This was the more and better time to teach the disciples about how to live in light of death and resurrection. 

Preaching from our scars and not our wounds is not limited to preachers but all interpersonal relationships. When you find yourself wounded it is very difficult to help usher in reconciliation. Tend to the wounds and when there is a scar that protects the wound, then speak to the hurt.