Another post inspired by WordLive coming up (if you've not looked at this site, I think you should. And not just because I'm part of the organisation which runs it!)
The article suggests that "For some people, the main question concerning the Christian message isn’t ‘Is your God real?’ but ‘Is your God strong?’" Can he help them, what can he do for them to make him worth following? Can you see what he's doing, what effect does he have? In other words, the question is not "is it true?" but "does it work?" Truth, in our postmodern age, doesn't seem to count for much- it's often implied that it's not possible to know what is true.
As Christians we believe that God is the truth, and I don't want to detract from that. But if truth isn't what people are searching for then perhaps we need to look at other ways of explaining God's greatness. Perhaps we need to be showing that God does 'work,' that he is strong.
I'm not sure exactly what. Perhaps it's up to us as Christians to show how God is real to us, how he is at work in our lives, what he's doing for us. That's where our personal stories, our testimonies, can be very helpful. They may not be as spectacular or impressive as the former gangsters or drug dealers who have found new hope through Christ and had their whole lives changed. But simple, everyday stories- an answered prayer, perhaps a healing, perhaps just explaining that the reason you're doing something is that you feel it's what God wants- are in some ways more likely to connect with ordinary people. These stories show that God is interested in our lives and cares about us- a way in for people to realise that God loves them.
But there's a snag...God doesn't always do what we want. To quote C.S. Lewis: "he's not a tame Lion." It doesn't always seem that he's answered our prayers, sometimes it's hard to see how he might be working in the situation we're in. So how can we say to people that he is strong, that he can help them? And how do we make sure we're presenting the whole gospel- including the less pleasant bits we perhaps wish weren't true, about the consequences of rejecting God's love?
I think we have to be honest. We need to show people that God loves them- that rather than judgement being a negative thing, he has rescued them from that if they choose to trust him. I think it can be hard for people to grasp the idea that God- not some remote Being but a God who cares about individuals- loves them. I find it hard sometimes. But once we trust that he loves us, and has our best interestes at heart, we can trust that even if things are tough or it seems that he's not answering our prayers, sooner or later things will be worked out in the best way possible- best perhaps not from our point of view but from God's. Once we are sure of God's love for us, then we can trust him with anything- with everything. It's not always easy- I know that- but we can.
Friday, 5 June 2009
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Would Jesus vote?
So, the BNP think the church should stay out of politics. They don't say why, although it would appear to be because the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have encouraged people not to vote for them.
On Sunday at church our vicar read out a letter from the archbishop which encouraged people to vote, and despite any reservations they might have over the current Westminster expenses scandal, to think carefully before voting for a party encouraging division rather than community unity and tolerance. The BNP wasn't named, although it was obvious what- or rather who- they were talking about.
According to the article quoted above, the BNP say that "The archbishops were trying to make themselves relevant." They say this as if it were a criticism! I've always thought that this was a good thing. The stance of the person quoted appears to be that the church is, and should stay irrelevant, that the church has nothing to say that still has a point in the twenty-first century world, that can still make a difference here and now.
If that were true, that the church was irrelevant, what would be the point of it continuing? In fact, if is irrelevant, why are the BNP scared of the archbishops' letter? Like it or not, you've got to admit that some people at least don't see the church as irrelevant.
And yet, at the same time, apparently, the "BNP has used an image of Jesus suggesting that he would vote for the party." Not very consistent, it seems.
I don't like the idea of the church telling people which party to vote for, and I think the archbishops went as far towards telling people not to vote BNP as they could before crossing this line. But I think they're within their rights to suggest to people that they consider what their faith, their beliefs say about political matters before voting, rather than just expressing their anger. Much of the stuff we've heard about 'Expensesgate' is morally unjustifiable. Yet compared to many other countries' politicians- Mugabe in Zimbabwe for example- we really have very little to complain about.
Some of the things the BNP talk about I find very hard to reconcile with a proper Christian attitude which emphasises loving one another, caring for the outcast and the stranger, helping those weaker than yourself. So I think it was right for the archbishops, as the leaders of the church of England- which is, whatever you think about it (and that's another debate), the established church- to draw this to the attention of voters, as well as encouraging them to vote.
So whichever other party you want to vote for, please get out on Thursday and vote!
On Sunday at church our vicar read out a letter from the archbishop which encouraged people to vote, and despite any reservations they might have over the current Westminster expenses scandal, to think carefully before voting for a party encouraging division rather than community unity and tolerance. The BNP wasn't named, although it was obvious what- or rather who- they were talking about.
According to the article quoted above, the BNP say that "The archbishops were trying to make themselves relevant." They say this as if it were a criticism! I've always thought that this was a good thing. The stance of the person quoted appears to be that the church is, and should stay irrelevant, that the church has nothing to say that still has a point in the twenty-first century world, that can still make a difference here and now.
If that were true, that the church was irrelevant, what would be the point of it continuing? In fact, if is irrelevant, why are the BNP scared of the archbishops' letter? Like it or not, you've got to admit that some people at least don't see the church as irrelevant.
And yet, at the same time, apparently, the "BNP has used an image of Jesus suggesting that he would vote for the party." Not very consistent, it seems.
I don't like the idea of the church telling people which party to vote for, and I think the archbishops went as far towards telling people not to vote BNP as they could before crossing this line. But I think they're within their rights to suggest to people that they consider what their faith, their beliefs say about political matters before voting, rather than just expressing their anger. Much of the stuff we've heard about 'Expensesgate' is morally unjustifiable. Yet compared to many other countries' politicians- Mugabe in Zimbabwe for example- we really have very little to complain about.
Some of the things the BNP talk about I find very hard to reconcile with a proper Christian attitude which emphasises loving one another, caring for the outcast and the stranger, helping those weaker than yourself. So I think it was right for the archbishops, as the leaders of the church of England- which is, whatever you think about it (and that's another debate), the established church- to draw this to the attention of voters, as well as encouraging them to vote.
So whichever other party you want to vote for, please get out on Thursday and vote!
Monday, 1 June 2009
Pentecost
Yesterday was Pentecost, the least well known of the three major Christian festivals. It's the birthday of the church, the day we celebrate the gift of the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus to be a "Counsellor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." (John 14 vs 16-17).
The Holy Spirit is something- or someone- with whom a lot of people struggle with, both inside the church and out. God the Father- creator, lawgiver, even judge- fairly straightforward. God the Son- a bit more complicated, being both God and human, but still, a personality we can begin to understand. God the Spirit- rather more difficult. Something intangible, invisible, described in metaphor and simile: "like the blowing of a violent wind," "what seemed to be tongues of fire." Something which gets inside us, fills us, is God living in us, guiding, healing, revealing, power-giving. It's through the Holy Spirit within every Christian that we are enabled to live in God's way.
And yet the Spirit has been the subject of intense debate and division over the church's history, and even today differences of belief and practice of the gifts of the Spirit set apart churches and denominations. Some believe that the more 'supernatural*' gifts (for example speaking in foreign or heavenly tongues or miraculous healings) are no longer present in the church, while others see and use them as a regular part of modern worship.
As someone who grew up in a church where I don't remember these questions even being discussed- I don't remember much teaching on the Spirit at all- it was quite a shock to arrive, at 18, into a congregation where the practice of spiritual gifts was the norm, where services regularly included speaking or singing in tongues, messages people had felt God giving them and prayer for healing! It took a while to get used to, a while to accept too that I wasn't an inferior Christian because I hadn't done these rather odd things. A while to accept that God gives people different gifts, that some are given the power to heal, or to prophesy, while others have gifts of communicating well (teaching) or the gift of administration (yes, it's real, 1 Corinthians 12 vs 28.)
If that's how strange I found the gifts of the Spirit as someone who was already a Christian, as someone who accepts the existence of the supernatural and that it still affects the world around us, think what it must be like for someone who doesn't believe that (or isn't sure) suddenly coming into contact with the Spirit at work! No wonder the disciples were accused of being drunk on the first Pentecost!(Acts 2 vs 13. And when Peter said in verse 15 that they couldn't possibly be drunk because it was only 9am, he'd obviously never met the G&S society after a Crash!). I know that some of my friends who aren't Christians have said they find the idea of speaking in tongues weird, even cultish. And I can understand that. It's not an easy thing to explain. Either it's a bunch of deluded people making fools of themselves and doing really strange things, which is weird; or it's the 'supernatural'- God- breaking through into the 'natural,' which is scary.**
I'm someone who was rather sceptical about the whole thing and didn't particularly want to be able to speak in tongues until God decided I needed to and I was going to whether I wanted to or not! I thought it was both weird and scary, was worried about various things, (how do I know that it is a gift and not just me making up random words?) and would frankly rather have just ignored the whole thing. But I couldn't. I found the whole thing a lot more comfortable when someone said to me that God knows us and knows exactly what we're comfortable with, and although he may challenge and encourage us to move forward he won't give us any gift we're not ready for. It's still something I'm a little shy about doing in public, not least because I don't want to freak people out! It's the sort of thing that's fine to practice with other Christians, but perhaps ought to be avoided- or at least controlled- when there are non-Christians around. The church has enough of a reputation for being weird already!
But perhaps it's not as freaky as it sounds. These gifts may sound weird, but when you've actually experienced their use then actually they're generally not.
But the idea that the Holy Spirit is God breaking through into our world- that is scary. Scary but wonderful! Scary because it's a demonstration of the power of God, of his lordship over our world and ability and willingness to be involved in our lives. If you've seen that at work you can't avoid it affecting your life in some way.
So perhaps that's why those outside (and even maybe some inside) the church find it so hard to understand the Holy Spirit. As the passage quoted above says: "The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." Perhaps you can't just 'know about' the Spirit, in the same way you can know about Jesus or God the father. Perhaps the Spirit has to be experienced to be known. That doesn't necessarily involve scary or weird things like speaking in tongues, but it involves being open to the possibility of the reality of God and that he is at work in his people today, speaking to us, teaching, healing, leading, empowering, emboldening, helping us to live his way.
*For want of a better word, I mean the things that are the direct work of God without a earthly or human cause. Spectacular, obvious, if you get my drift. Outside the 'laws of nature,' the observed situation.
**I'm not sure you can separate 'natural' and 'supernatural' like that, but I think you get my point. The 'possible' and the 'impossible' maybe?
The Holy Spirit is something- or someone- with whom a lot of people struggle with, both inside the church and out. God the Father- creator, lawgiver, even judge- fairly straightforward. God the Son- a bit more complicated, being both God and human, but still, a personality we can begin to understand. God the Spirit- rather more difficult. Something intangible, invisible, described in metaphor and simile: "like the blowing of a violent wind," "what seemed to be tongues of fire." Something which gets inside us, fills us, is God living in us, guiding, healing, revealing, power-giving. It's through the Holy Spirit within every Christian that we are enabled to live in God's way.
And yet the Spirit has been the subject of intense debate and division over the church's history, and even today differences of belief and practice of the gifts of the Spirit set apart churches and denominations. Some believe that the more 'supernatural*' gifts (for example speaking in foreign or heavenly tongues or miraculous healings) are no longer present in the church, while others see and use them as a regular part of modern worship.
As someone who grew up in a church where I don't remember these questions even being discussed- I don't remember much teaching on the Spirit at all- it was quite a shock to arrive, at 18, into a congregation where the practice of spiritual gifts was the norm, where services regularly included speaking or singing in tongues, messages people had felt God giving them and prayer for healing! It took a while to get used to, a while to accept too that I wasn't an inferior Christian because I hadn't done these rather odd things. A while to accept that God gives people different gifts, that some are given the power to heal, or to prophesy, while others have gifts of communicating well (teaching) or the gift of administration (yes, it's real, 1 Corinthians 12 vs 28.)
If that's how strange I found the gifts of the Spirit as someone who was already a Christian, as someone who accepts the existence of the supernatural and that it still affects the world around us, think what it must be like for someone who doesn't believe that (or isn't sure) suddenly coming into contact with the Spirit at work! No wonder the disciples were accused of being drunk on the first Pentecost!(Acts 2 vs 13. And when Peter said in verse 15 that they couldn't possibly be drunk because it was only 9am, he'd obviously never met the G&S society after a Crash!). I know that some of my friends who aren't Christians have said they find the idea of speaking in tongues weird, even cultish. And I can understand that. It's not an easy thing to explain. Either it's a bunch of deluded people making fools of themselves and doing really strange things, which is weird; or it's the 'supernatural'- God- breaking through into the 'natural,' which is scary.**
I'm someone who was rather sceptical about the whole thing and didn't particularly want to be able to speak in tongues until God decided I needed to and I was going to whether I wanted to or not! I thought it was both weird and scary, was worried about various things, (how do I know that it is a gift and not just me making up random words?) and would frankly rather have just ignored the whole thing. But I couldn't. I found the whole thing a lot more comfortable when someone said to me that God knows us and knows exactly what we're comfortable with, and although he may challenge and encourage us to move forward he won't give us any gift we're not ready for. It's still something I'm a little shy about doing in public, not least because I don't want to freak people out! It's the sort of thing that's fine to practice with other Christians, but perhaps ought to be avoided- or at least controlled- when there are non-Christians around. The church has enough of a reputation for being weird already!
But perhaps it's not as freaky as it sounds. These gifts may sound weird, but when you've actually experienced their use then actually they're generally not.
But the idea that the Holy Spirit is God breaking through into our world- that is scary. Scary but wonderful! Scary because it's a demonstration of the power of God, of his lordship over our world and ability and willingness to be involved in our lives. If you've seen that at work you can't avoid it affecting your life in some way.
So perhaps that's why those outside (and even maybe some inside) the church find it so hard to understand the Holy Spirit. As the passage quoted above says: "The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." Perhaps you can't just 'know about' the Spirit, in the same way you can know about Jesus or God the father. Perhaps the Spirit has to be experienced to be known. That doesn't necessarily involve scary or weird things like speaking in tongues, but it involves being open to the possibility of the reality of God and that he is at work in his people today, speaking to us, teaching, healing, leading, empowering, emboldening, helping us to live his way.
*For want of a better word, I mean the things that are the direct work of God without a earthly or human cause. Spectacular, obvious, if you get my drift. Outside the 'laws of nature,' the observed situation.
**I'm not sure you can separate 'natural' and 'supernatural' like that, but I think you get my point. The 'possible' and the 'impossible' maybe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)