People who stopped attending church gatherings were removed from the roll while in others those not paying the monthly contribution were regarded as not being in good standing.
The understanding that God resides in a building has been manipulated and commercialised by some leaders to sustain their selfish needs. People are told that the God of the church is preached through and interpreted by the pastor, and gives answers to all their problems in those Sunday gatherings. The signs, symbols and biblical images inside those buildings tells us that those are not just ordinary structures. Some claim to perform miracles and have divine messages for individuals in those buildings and all these ideas were created to emphasise that God resides in the church buildings. Hence we have names like the house of God and the temple of God.
Through closing church buildings under national lockdown, the legitimate question to ask is whether the house of God and the temple of God is closed?
“How can you close God while looking for answers from the same closed God?” Questions of this nature are asked by the people who were taught God resides in a building. Arguments such as “the coronavirus will not stop as long as you disregard and close the house of God” abound.
One reverend claimed “the mission of the government is to abolish churches and close God, and that must be fought by church communities”. These are manifestations of the teachings that the church is the visible body of Christ and can only operate in gatherings where preaching occurs and sacraments are served.
The church has had to redefine itself in the context of the coronavirus. Its mission is to relocate God.
In fact, the real body of Christ is in the body of human beings. God resides where people, believers are; not and never in the buildings. People are in a position to worship God fully outside those gatherings. God is in the temple, and the temple is in the heart of all those who believe in God. So God can be worshipped at homes.
The battle is now between the old and new definition of the church and the location of God.
These matters may confuse the ordinary worshipper, people who believe that God is fixed and cannot be shaken, what S/He says stands and shouldn’t be transformed and amended. Those who want to create the new normal are seen as tampering with God and the principles of the temple of God.
Verses are quoted from the Bible to support and defend the old normal against the new. In advocating for the new normal, Professor Zolile Rashe, in an Umhlobo Wenene FM interview on Sunday, May 31, said: “Jesus was never a churchgoer and those who advocate for the reopening of the church are people who have the old and dangerous definition of the church and the location of God.”
The main battle between religious communities is not focused on the closing and opening of the churches, but on where God resides and where the best place to worship God is. This battle goes back to what religion does best — to box individuals and communities — those who subscribe to the new norm are blamed by the old norm subscribers of selling out their principles and being less faithful to God. The new normal advocates claim to be contextual, arguing God operates in context, and sending people to churches at this time is unreasoning blind faith and extremely dangerous.
The next questions is what if SA wins the war against the coronavirus? Is God going to be taken back to His/Her place of worship? What would be the message of those who said God can be worshipped at home and God is everywhere?
If the virus strikes those who reopen the churches, could that mean God can’t protect the people in those buildings? Could it mean that S/He has moved to homes? We have seen and read that serious infections have occurred in church buildings, so why is God in those buildings not protecting people?
The reopening of the church is the battle between these views, and that is causing serious tension between the more fundamental worshippers and those with more liberated views..
The faith community should understand that the old church has also changed and will never be the same. In those buildings singing is not going to be the same, people must be sanitised at the door, the sacrament is risky and social distancing must be observed. The collection of money will have to be done by those who with gloves and the money will have to be sanitised. The fellowship, eating together, and socialising in the church is no longer possible. So what is the difference between worshipping at home or in the church building if the church building's warmth has been transformed by this virus?
It is time the Church teaches a clear theological lesson to worshippers, and agrees on what is close to the truth. Theology according to Professor Mazamisa is “God-walk and God-talk”. So does it matter where S/heis talking from? Instead, the Church has found opportunity to do what it does best, to divide people of God, as Prof Vuyani Vellem would argue.
Everything happens in context hence we need to understand the concept of contextual theology. It is the response of the mind, sourced from a particular environment. Theology is God-walk and God-talk, it is not possible that it can change. However, the context that informs theology and God-walk and talk changes every minute. God is fixed, but also contextual.
On the basis of how Karl Barth explains contextual theology, it is true that God-talk should talk coronavirus in our time, and God-walk should walk with those infected by the coronavirus,, and it is the sole duty of theologians to define what that talk and walk is. Both the old and the new norms are informed by contextual theology. Who can speak, talk, write outside his or her contexts? Even the Bible is contextual according to its time and must be contextualised for today to speak to our present situation The question is whose context must be followed in interpreting the Bible in the time of coronavirus, the new or the old norm?
Those battling to find biblical solutions to whether the church must be reopened or not should also consider the words of Jürgen Moltmann; that theology does not make absolute statements of theological truth based on the Bible alone. It is therefore important to consider the effect of coronavirus on poor communities and the fact that some churches could be ready to reopen but some are not.
The traditional definition by the Church that theology and biblical interpretation are only in scriptures is inadequate. Moltmann in the Crucified Godwrites that theology must have in its thoughts, and be informed by, the suffering of the present time. Contextual theology knows today’s sufferings and must be willing to provide immediate answers to alleviate suffering. This is the kind of theology we expect to lead our communities during the time of coronavirus.
Reverend Mzukisi Faleni is a theologian. He presents the Imvuselelo show on Umhlobo Wenene FM and writes in his personal capacity
OPINION | God is with people, not in a building
Image: SUPPLIED
Image: REUTERS/DAN KOECK
As SA moved from level 4 to 3 of lockdown, the government announced that places of worship would reopen. Those who want to congregate can now do so subject to a number of regulations. The pronouncement sparked a huge debate across the country, including among the Christian communities.
The debate around the closing and reopening of the Church emanates from two elements that were confused after the outbreak of the coronavirus: Where is the location of God and where does God reside?
Before the coronavirus the mission of the Church was to get people to churches and make them full members. Roll books and membership tickets were created so that people could pay their tithes and be encouraged to attend every Sunday without fail. Those not in attendance were regarded as non-worshippers and ungodly.
This created an impression that God resides in church buildings and outside of them God cannot be found. The word of God was made out to be available only in those buildings and by and through the “men and women of God, only”. The congregation wants to be in the church building because they believe that the God who heals and touches souls is in those buildings.
'Unwise' to open churches just yet, says SA Catholic Bishops Conference
People who stopped attending church gatherings were removed from the roll while in others those not paying the monthly contribution were regarded as not being in good standing.
The understanding that God resides in a building has been manipulated and commercialised by some leaders to sustain their selfish needs. People are told that the God of the church is preached through and interpreted by the pastor, and gives answers to all their problems in those Sunday gatherings. The signs, symbols and biblical images inside those buildings tells us that those are not just ordinary structures. Some claim to perform miracles and have divine messages for individuals in those buildings and all these ideas were created to emphasise that God resides in the church buildings. Hence we have names like the house of God and the temple of God.
Through closing church buildings under national lockdown, the legitimate question to ask is whether the house of God and the temple of God is closed?
“How can you close God while looking for answers from the same closed God?” Questions of this nature are asked by the people who were taught God resides in a building. Arguments such as “the coronavirus will not stop as long as you disregard and close the house of God” abound.
One reverend claimed “the mission of the government is to abolish churches and close God, and that must be fought by church communities”. These are manifestations of the teachings that the church is the visible body of Christ and can only operate in gatherings where preaching occurs and sacraments are served.
The church has had to redefine itself in the context of the coronavirus. Its mission is to relocate God.
In fact, the real body of Christ is in the body of human beings. God resides where people, believers are; not and never in the buildings. People are in a position to worship God fully outside those gatherings. God is in the temple, and the temple is in the heart of all those who believe in God. So God can be worshipped at homes.
The battle is now between the old and new definition of the church and the location of God.
These matters may confuse the ordinary worshipper, people who believe that God is fixed and cannot be shaken, what S/He says stands and shouldn’t be transformed and amended. Those who want to create the new normal are seen as tampering with God and the principles of the temple of God.
Verses are quoted from the Bible to support and defend the old normal against the new. In advocating for the new normal, Professor Zolile Rashe, in an Umhlobo Wenene FM interview on Sunday, May 31, said: “Jesus was never a churchgoer and those who advocate for the reopening of the church are people who have the old and dangerous definition of the church and the location of God.”
The main battle between religious communities is not focused on the closing and opening of the churches, but on where God resides and where the best place to worship God is. This battle goes back to what religion does best — to box individuals and communities — those who subscribe to the new norm are blamed by the old norm subscribers of selling out their principles and being less faithful to God. The new normal advocates claim to be contextual, arguing God operates in context, and sending people to churches at this time is unreasoning blind faith and extremely dangerous.
The next questions is what if SA wins the war against the coronavirus? Is God going to be taken back to His/Her place of worship? What would be the message of those who said God can be worshipped at home and God is everywhere?
If the virus strikes those who reopen the churches, could that mean God can’t protect the people in those buildings? Could it mean that S/He has moved to homes? We have seen and read that serious infections have occurred in church buildings, so why is God in those buildings not protecting people?
The reopening of the church is the battle between these views, and that is causing serious tension between the more fundamental worshippers and those with more liberated views..
The faith community should understand that the old church has also changed and will never be the same. In those buildings singing is not going to be the same, people must be sanitised at the door, the sacrament is risky and social distancing must be observed. The collection of money will have to be done by those who with gloves and the money will have to be sanitised. The fellowship, eating together, and socialising in the church is no longer possible. So what is the difference between worshipping at home or in the church building if the church building's warmth has been transformed by this virus?
It is time the Church teaches a clear theological lesson to worshippers, and agrees on what is close to the truth. Theology according to Professor Mazamisa is “God-walk and God-talk”. So does it matter where S/heis talking from? Instead, the Church has found opportunity to do what it does best, to divide people of God, as Prof Vuyani Vellem would argue.
Everything happens in context hence we need to understand the concept of contextual theology. It is the response of the mind, sourced from a particular environment. Theology is God-walk and God-talk, it is not possible that it can change. However, the context that informs theology and God-walk and talk changes every minute. God is fixed, but also contextual.
On the basis of how Karl Barth explains contextual theology, it is true that God-talk should talk coronavirus in our time, and God-walk should walk with those infected by the coronavirus,, and it is the sole duty of theologians to define what that talk and walk is. Both the old and the new norms are informed by contextual theology. Who can speak, talk, write outside his or her contexts? Even the Bible is contextual according to its time and must be contextualised for today to speak to our present situation The question is whose context must be followed in interpreting the Bible in the time of coronavirus, the new or the old norm?
Those battling to find biblical solutions to whether the church must be reopened or not should also consider the words of Jürgen Moltmann; that theology does not make absolute statements of theological truth based on the Bible alone. It is therefore important to consider the effect of coronavirus on poor communities and the fact that some churches could be ready to reopen but some are not.
The traditional definition by the Church that theology and biblical interpretation are only in scriptures is inadequate. Moltmann in the Crucified Godwrites that theology must have in its thoughts, and be informed by, the suffering of the present time. Contextual theology knows today’s sufferings and must be willing to provide immediate answers to alleviate suffering. This is the kind of theology we expect to lead our communities during the time of coronavirus.
Reverend Mzukisi Faleni is a theologian. He presents the Imvuselelo show on Umhlobo Wenene FM and writes in his personal capacity
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos