Mystery

Hi there! Just a quick thought today, but one I believe to be most interesting! Been thinking about the idea of praying 'in the spirit'. We often view prayer as one of two things - listening to God or speaking to him. However, something fascinating is that some people (myself included) do not simply experience God's presence when they pray, but feel that the spirit influences the prayers themselves. One of the most extreme example of this is speaking in tounges: a person will often speak to God like this, even though only God knows what they're saying! It's almost as if God were praying to himself. This suggests to me another way of thinking about prayer: as taking part in the relationship between the Spirit and the Father. Following from this is the idea that we do not experience God only when we are silent, but also in speaking.

I'm not sure this makes perfect sense, or is entirely orthodox, but I think it worth pondering on.
Tim

Christian culture

 I recently listened to a seminar given by John Smith at greenbelt 07, in which he talked about making the gospel relevant to culture. One of the subjects he covered was how we need to take the form of culture - the means of expression, and adapt the gospel to it, to work within it. This got me thinking, though: if you can take the form of a culture, and express something new within it (like the Celtic Christians did with their culture), then what are the implications of this for a Church that seems to have its own culture?

 I love the culture I've experienced in the Church - the ways of talking, in-jokes, etc. However, there is a way in which this tendency gives me cause for concern. One way (which has been spoken about plenty before), is it can lead the church away from the world (it was called to be 'in the world', if you recall), and so 'Church culture' can end up making christians less relevant, and so be a stubling block to faith.

 The second is more worrying. If you can take a culture and express the gospel within it, with the culture still looking Celtic, or Nepali, or English, then who's to say you can't take the Christian culture, and hide something in that, with it still looking, outwardly, Christian? John Smith gives an example of this. One of the early heretics, who advocated monism rather than trinitarianism (seems abstract I know), had many people believe him because he wrote good praise music. That is to say, people didn't realise he was a heretic, because his message was encapsulated in something that looked Christian, on the outside.

 So, what does this mean to the Church today? For one, I think we need to think carefully, when we hear Christians preaching, or churches acting, about whether their message is in line with the Gospel. I don't presume to have the authority to do this for you, but here's a couple of examples.

 One of these is from Britian, at the time of the British empire - it feels to me that plenty of people (but not everyone) used Christian language, while justifying the most horrible acts: the conquest and oppression of other countries, and the slave trade, being among these. The film 'Joyeux Noel' captures this most powerfully for me, where a bishop is portrayed encouraging a group of soldiers to fight. Although he starts by reading scripture, uses Christian language, and all the form of a mass, what he says is completely off the page (you can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQir3WYIAAw)

 Another example is how some churches in the US, while using Christian language, don't seem to preach the whole of the gospel:

'Patriotic pastors insist that America is a Christian nation without questioning the places in distant and recent history where America has not looked like Christ. Rather than placing our hope in a transnational church that embodies God's kingdom, we assume America is God's hope for the world, even when it doesn't look like Christ. Dozens of soldiers who have contacted us confess a paralyzing identity crisis as they feel the collision of their allegiances. At the same time, many Christians are questioning whether God is blessing these wars and whether it's enough for our money to say "In God We Trust" while the daily reality of the global economy seems out of sync with God's concern for the poor'- Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw (Jesus for President)

 It's not always easy to distinguish between authentic Christianity, and false teaching, but I hope that I've been able to make things a little clearer. Often, 'false teaching' is propagated simply by people who don't know any better, and don't realise what they're doing. Anyway, may the spirit guide you to what is right and true, and the powers of this world have no hold upon your life,

Tim

Am I a Christian?

Hi - for my first post here, I thought I'd post a mini-essay I wrote a while back, on what I think (or thought?) it means to be a Christian. Of course, I don't claim to have condensed the fullness of the Christian message into a few paragraphs, but I do think it helps summarise where I am quite well.

Am I a Christian?

Someone asked me this recently, and I feel I didn't answer very well! So, this is me trying to figure out what the question means, and my answer to it. In the world today, and even in our Churches, I feel this question has become too easy to answer, as christianity has become more about what one thinks than what one wants and does. I don't feel this is right. First, being a Christian means to follow Christ, which must mean more than just believing the same things he did. In the bible, Jesus is very critical of people who 'believe', but don't act in the way God would want. Being a Christian MUST, for me, be more about how we do live than how we think we should live, and what we think exists. Second, having a set of beliefs that define precisely what's true and what isn't also makes me uncomfortable. One reason for this is that us humans are limited - we make mistakes when we reason and attempt to describe things. Another, more important one, is that God is so much bigger than us. Isn't it arrogant to think we can describe God, her creation, and what she wants us to do, with a set of rigid beliefs written out by human thinkers in human language? [Note – when I wrote this, I was also attempting to question the idea of God as masculine. I’m not sure, now, whether I was correct in this, but I’ll leave it the same anyway.]

For me, there are two ways we need to rethink what we mean by 'christian'. First, we need to go back to thinking of a Christian as being a 'little Christ' - so you are only a Christian in so much as your life looks like that of Jesus. Second, instead of our faith in God being about affirming a selection of truths, we need to think of it in terms of a relationship. Knowing God is much more like a child being caught up in the arms of its mother, than an intellectual decision. So, basically, to be a Christian is to allow ourselves to be caught up in the embrace of God, and to respond to that embrace.

So, in this sense, am I am Christian? I've definitely sensed God, and 'known his presence'. I've also felt the call to be Jesus' disciple, to radically transform the way I live my life, and myself. There's just one problem: I'm hopelessly inadequate. I've given some things to the poor, but barely ever enough that it actually changes how I can live. I have, in small ways, pulled myself out of a consumer society that tells us to value ourselves by how much we can buy. But not nearly enough. In short, I've dabbled in Jesus' way, but in no way is my life as radical, free or beautiful as his.

I'm afraid YOU are going to have to decide for yourselves if I'm a Christian, as it isn’t really something I have the authority to answer. Am I, in some small way, like Jesus? Or am I just another hypocrite with a lot of words but no courage to actually do anything? Like I said, you decide.