Happy Saturday

I felt that it was worth delaying the next post in my series about my own spiritual journey to comment on other issues! I will post the next on Monday. In the meantime, I hope you all have a good weekend.

The Focus of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

Taking up my comment about listening, the controversy and furore over Mark Driscoll has led me to follow up his blog about Katharine Jefferts Schori, the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America, and, in particular, the Time interview she gave earlier in July to which Mark links. The fluffy bunny and male testosterone stuff in his blog is all unnecessary, but I think it may obscure a far more important issue.

For the first question in the interview, the Bishop is asked:

‘What will be your focus as head of the U.S. church?’

to which she responds:

‘Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development. That ought to be the primary focus.’

I accept that you have to be careful with press interviews and with the way they can twist what people have said. But taken at face value, I personally find this a rather strange set of priorities. As most places in America have primary and secondary education, is she advocating more church schools? And why single out AIDS? What about cancer and heart disease, much bigger killers? The reason is, of course, that she is focusing not on the US, but on the developing world and a headline disease in it.

These are all serious concerns, but why should she as head of a US church focus on issues in other Provinces of the Anglican Communion? Shouldn’t she as head of the US church be focusing on US issues? It’s fair enough to argue that development concerns us all, but are there no specifically US issues that she thinks need focusing on? Isn’t this a religious form of US imperialism thinking it can sort out the rest of the world? Isn’t it arrogance masquerading as compassion?

But much more seriously, where is God? I don’t want to get all fundamentalist, but surely the head of a church, in a country such as the US, should want God at least to be part of her focus. And what about the teachings of Christ? Or reaching those outside the Church? And that’s leaving aside healing divisions within her church and the wider Anglican Communion, and between her church and other churches. Is that also not to be a part of the focus?

It may not ultimately matter for she may be the last presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America, because the way things are going there isn’t going to be an Episcopal Church for much longer.

Sadly, I have seen it all before in many churches in the UK. Once you make social issues the focus, why do you need to bring God into it? No wonder, then, that many churches who made social issues the focus in the 20th century simply no longer exist. And the void left by churches who failed to focus on God is being filled today by far more fundamentalist types of Christianity. By the sort that Mark represents, for example.

Of course, as Christians, we have to be socially aware and socially concerned. Of course, the Gospel is a call to love people who are politically and socially disadvantaged. But when a church or its leaders make their focus something other than God himself, then the reason for that church’s existence has gone. The world does not need the Church to become just another development agency. It needs it to tell the truth of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. So don’t blame people for going to Mars Hill to hear about God from Mark. Blame leaders of churches who can’t even list God as one of their priorities.

For me Katharine Jefferts Schori’s answer, as reported, to the question of what will be her focus is deeply troubling. Frankly, far more troubling than Mark’s admittedly silly remarks about fluffy bunnies.

Mark Driscoll Says Thank You

Mark hasn't apologized as such, but he has responded in a very gracious way to those like me who were disturbed by the tone of some of his comments. It is encouraging because it shows he is willing to listen. May we be willing to listen to him!

Read it here:

http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-16_thank_you_critics

Mark Driscoll Lights A Fire

Readers of this blog will have know that I have mentioned Mark Driscoll a few times. Mark is a pastor at a fast growing church in Seattle and an increasingly well-known preacher. He has a direct, even combative approach, and strong views. He also takes a 'traditional' approach to the relationships between the sexes. He obviously relishes controversy, but even he must be surprised at the fire he has lit with some of his latest comments. His blogs can be read here: http://www.theresurgence.com/

A couple of his recent blogs have lead to all hell breaking loose. Christians around the world have gone for him and some are even planning to stage a protest at his church early in December. The language being used is often extreme. And, of course, many, many outside the Church are loving it and jumping on the band-wagon. I have been thinking about it and what is the right way to react.

1. I can't begin to see what is to be gained by Christians protesting at a Church service. I seriously question the motives of those doing this. Imagine if fundamentalists were to protest at the service of a church that was liberal. You can imagine the adjectives! Even if people feel passionately that he is wrong, how can this be the right way to deal with it? What sort of a witness to those outside is this?

2. What Mark says is often harmless, it is the way he says it that gets people going. He has a great gift, but there is a dark-side to his gift when he gets it wrong. He has an ability to grab people's attention and make them think. He is an effective communicator. But he has had a lot of success while still young. Most of us in the ministry have to learn to cope with failure, and that is hard enough. Only a few have to learn to deal with success, and that is harder and with fewer around to help! I hope people will calm down and that mature Christians will offer him the help and training that he needs to use his gift as it should be used. Maybe with all the success he has had, Mark has not realized that he, like the rest of us, needs guidance and training. Maybe now he will.

3. For Mark, I pray that he will see how some of his comments affect people. How they hurt, wound, and offend. If he sees this, perhaps he will pause before he speaks or writes. I pray that he will want more to be humble than to be famous. But I also pray that those who are jealous of his success will stop seeking his downfall and humiliation.

4. For myself, I pray that I may learn from Mark and that I will seek to be less cautious in what I say. I realize that the reason why I do not offend people more, isn't because I am a nicer person than Mark, but because I don't have the courage to speak out on what is important in the way that he is prepared to do. Paul asked the Ephesians that God would enable him to speak the Gospel boldly as he ought to. Being diplomatic, being willing to listen, and wanting to enter into dialogue can just be an excuse for spiritual cowardice.

Those of us who argued for compassion and understanding towards Ted Haggard should not be slow to offer it to Mark. I hope he does not lose his edge, and I hope he does not do anything that will lead to his fall.

Personal Journey 2

I thought I would post the next blog about my spiritual journey today rather than tomorrow. I continued writing after I posted yesterday’s blog and have it ready! I hope to post the next one on Friday.

Personal Journey 2

One thing I have not related so far is an experience I had before I made a Christian commitment. Indeed, it was before I had any real idea of what Christianity was. I was in a car on Queen’s Drive in Liverpool talking about what I wanted to be when I grew up. At this point in my life, I did not have the first clue as to what Christianity was about. I was not a churchgoer or a Sunday School attender. I knew no preachers, pastors, Vicars, or priests. But, at this moment, I knew that I should enter the ministry. Whatever that involved. This was why the teacher coming into the room when I was eating lunch was so significant. It explained what it was I was being called to do. It also, I hope, explains why, despite being so young, I was so keen to preach. I wanted to get on with the job I believed I was being called to do.

Anyway, I was sitting in the library of my new school in Autumn, 1972. I was reading a Christian book. I knew no-one and was not very good at making friends. One of the other boys came up to me and asked, 'Are you a Christian?' I said I was. He told me of a Youth Fellowship that met at the house of a curate at the local Anglican Church, and asked whether I would like to come along. The church was St Andrew’s, Bebington. I did not know it at the time, but it was a well-known, well-established conservative, evangelical Anglican Church. The only problem church members at the time would have had with that description is the use of the word, Anglican. It was in the days when evangelicals did not admit to being Anglican. Days that, it seems, may be coming back, albeit for different reasons.

I was pleased that I had met another Christian and happily went. There then followed what I still think of as some of the most incredible years of my life. I cannot begin to describe it. The Fellowship itself was led by a very godly man, and this is one the few instances where you can you use that word without any irony. By his side was his wife, a wonderful, and deeply spiritual woman. Basically, the format of the evening was that we gathered sang some hymns and choruses, studied the Bible, either by listening to a tape or to someone who had prepared a passage, discussed it in depth, and then had a time of open prayer. The evening finished with coffee and biscuits.

The whole format was, to use a contemprary term, counter-cultural. Everyone else our age was listening to rock music, going to parties, and doing what they could to avoid church and anything to do with it, but the Fellowship exploded. It just grew and grew and grew. We met more regularly, prayer meetings were as important to us as anything else in our lives, we lived ate, drank, and slept the Bible. And this was the King James Version. As I write this blog, I still have the two copies that I used in those days before me on this desk.

I know if I were reading this, I would say it was all hysterical, youthful enthusiasm. A religious substitute for all the other things that tenagers would usually be doing. Well, it wasn’t all good, and it was youthful, immature, and, I dare say, at times frightening to outsiders, but for me it was as real as spiritual experience can get.

Quite what the rest of the church made of us I dread to think. They loved the fact that, against all the odds, they had a large, lively, spiritually committed Youth Fellowship. Something every church wanted at a time when young people were leaving the church in droves. But they were less than comfortable with our spirituality. We didn’t call it that back then, of course.

How to describe our spirituality? Absolutely Biblical. Extremely charismatic. Completely evangelistic. Totally prayer based. And fundamentally world denying. By world denying, I mean denying all those things that evangelicals denied in those days: sex, drink, parties, cinema, theatre, secular music, dancing – just add to the list. This was a completely dualistic theology: things spiritual, good; things of the world, bad. As things turned out, this was to be the achilles heal that led to me eventually becoming disillusioned with evangelicalism. But that was to be some time off.

As the Youth Fellowship became more and more important to me, it seemed more and more logical that I should join my friends at the Anglican Church for Sunday worship. This was not without cost. I had been treated wonderfully well by the Methodist Church, and had been given opportunities no-one my age would normally have been given. And I didn’t like just leaving. It also raised the issue of where I was going to end up ministering. I had thought it was to be the Methodist Church and that was why I was training as a lay preacher, but, if I left, that possibility would end with it.

In addition, I had very mixed feelings about going to an Anglican Church. The Anglican Church was the number one hate church of those in the House Church movement to which, in my heart, my loyalty lay. The Anglican Church was, after all, where many House Church members were being recruited from. One of the heroes of the House Church I was converted through was a Church of England curate who had left the Church of England and had joined the movement.

Anyway, inevitably, I left the Methodist Church and started attending St Andrew’s. I don’t think I can even begin to describe the shock of attending an Anglican Church service in those days. It was still when the Book of Common Prayer ruled. The services were everything that the Youth Fellowship was not. Frankly, someone should have been shot. Here were young people immature, young, and arrogant, admittedly, but so committed and so willing to learn. How could you submit them to what we were submitted Sunday after Sunday? But we stood by it because we believed the Bible told us we should be part of the body of Christ were we lived.

I have been an Anglican priest now for best part of 25 years and so can make a good guess as to what pain, heart-ache, controversy, and worry we must have caused the clergy, who were themselves trapped in a system that prevented them from being themselves and doing what they wanted. Their bravery and courage in supporting an out of control bunch of hotheaded charismatics whose theology they did not agree with is worthy of sainthood. This is especially true given where this theology started to lead us.

Personal Journey 1: At School in Liverpool

I come now at last to my own personal journey. It has proven surprisingly hard to write about. Firstly, because I am uncomfortable talking about myself. Secondly, because I am also aware of how easy it is for memory to play tricks as well as how easy it is to succumb to the temptation to re-write history. What follows is at least an attempt to be honest, and even if it’s not the whole truth, I, nevertheless, believe it to be true. 

I say all this because there have been so many twists and turns in my Christian life over the 40 years or so since I first made a Christian commitment. I apologize, then, if all this seems too much about me. But relating my own experience gives me the chance to comment on some of the issues my experience raises and the chance to relate and reflect on some of the lessons I have learned along the way. As always happens with these blogs, it is going to take longer than I originally intended. 

I am going to entitle them simply, Personal Journey, but they are part of the series on Finding God, which shall be resumed after my time of introspection. I hope you don’t find them too boring and self-centred.

Personal Journey 1 

It was while at school in Liverpool in the UK that I first took Christianity seriously. I still remember the moment when a teacher from a local House Church in Devonshire Road started talking about God to me and others while we were eating a packed lunch in a classroom. He had come to lead a meeting of the school Christian Union that was to be held there. Well I stayed for the meeting, and over the weeks that followed various speakers came to the CU meetings, mostly from the same House Church. 

This was a time when the House Church movement was still in its infancy, and was offering a radically different view of what the Church should be like. Not only were the speakers passionate about God, they were passionate in their opposition to traditional churches. They did not like what they saw as the unbiblical nature of the mainline denominations: the liberalism, formalism, traditionalism, nominalism, and much more besides. 

The traditional denominations were condemned for having been unfaithful to the Bible both in their theology and in the way they did church. Worship using set liturgy was regarded as empty and church buildings as a departure from the New Testament pattern of church. At 13 or so, it’s hard to understand the significance of a lot of this, but I obviously absorbed much of it because it remains with me to this day as a nagging doubt about all I do in my role as an Anglican priest. But more about that in the future.

The House Churches were offering an alternative vision of the Church, and they had a major impact outside of their own sphere. They grew, largely, it has to be said, because they attracted people from traditional churches disillusioned by what was on offer, or rather what was not on offer, in the churches they attended. Charismatic, evangelical, experiential, confident, and vibrant, they were everything that even the most successful evangelical churches were not. The House Churches themselves unashamedly challenged Christians in the denominations to 'come ye out from among them'. 

In time, many mainline churches were to respond with an ‘if you can’t beat them join them’ attitude and many traditional churches became charismatic. Even those that did not started house groups and began singing choruses or worship songs as we now have come to call them. (Can some-one explain to me what a hymn is if it’s not a worship song?) The House Churches themselves, surprised by their own success, in turn responded with an ‘anything you can do we can do better’ attitude and started acquiring buildings, big buildings, to accommodate the ever-increasing numbers of those joining the movement!

And so you had the paradox of House Churches meeting in buildings that were not houses, and traditional churches setting up house groups. In practice, what this meant was that the original vision and mission of the House Church movement was lost. What they were doing back in the 1970s was, in so many ways, what the emerging movement is wanting to do now. I wonder whether emerging will succeed where the House Church movement failed? 

Having decided to make a Christian commitment, I felt I needed to go to a church. For some reason I do not entirely understand, I did not go to the Devonshire Road Church, but to the local Methodist Church. I have no idea why I went to a Methodist Church, maybe it was because it was near where I lived. It was, however, everything that the Devonshire Road Church preached against. Nevertheless, they made me very welcome and encouraged me, even though I was very young to take on leadership roles within the church. 

Increasingly, however, I was being influenced by the theology of the House Church movement to which I was being exposed through the school CU and, inevitably, I was more and more uncomfortable with the social Gospel that was the standard fare in the Methodist Church I attended. 

It was to be a family move that led to the resolution of the tension. We moved from Liverpool itself to the posh side of the Mersey, to the Wirral! At first, I joined the local Methodist Church near our new home and was accepted as a trainee lay preacher. I was 15. After the move, I continued to attend school in Liverpool, but, as I was getting older and more independent, I was also visiting churches of Christian friends I had met. These were often Baptist and very conservative in outlook. While the Methodist Church was very tolerant of me, I was less and less tolerant of it, and my theology was becoming more and more fundamentalist and charismatic. For sixth form, I changed schools to one on the Wirral. It was to be a chance meeting in the school library that changed the direction of my life.

Sunday

I don't normally post on Sundays, but Winnie and I have been shopping. I know you are not supposed to do that on Sundays, but we all do, don't we? We had been out for lunch and we were near the shops, and I still like bookshops. I know some of you emerging types think bookshops really passe, but I am older than many of you and remember the old days. Anyway, I came across a book that many of you may have seen already, so forgive me if you have, but I have not seen it in Hong Kong before. It is, The Culture of the Europeans: 1800 to the Present, by Donald Sassoon. It looks fascinating. Winnie said that probably Father Christmas will bring it for me. If you haven't seen it, take a look and consider it for your Christmas reading.

I will give it a review here when I have finished it. Given its size that will be some time off!

The Weekend

It's Saturday morning, and I am enjoying a quiet moment and a cup of coffee before it all starts up again. It's been a really busy week, this week. A week of contrasts that illustrates life in the ministry. I am heavily involved in education and educational management here. This week a parent got very worked up because he felt a minor clause in the parent-teacher association constitution had been infringed. No-one else was especially bothered, but it took a lot of time to sort out. While this was going on, I got a call to say that a member of the church was in hospital and in intensive care.

Isn't this just like life? A mixture of the trivial and the serious. The temptation is to dismiss the trivial and not take any interest in it, but if the Gospel is about the whole of life that means taking all of it seriously, even boring matters like constitutional niceties.

Have a good weekend everyone! See you- with the next post in the present series - on Monday.

Emerging Again

Before I continue with my own experience, I would like to comment on Mark Driscoll's paper, which I think readers of this blog have found quite helpful. Mark identifies three types of models of Church. I think it easiest to quote him:

'Church 1.0 is traditional, institutional, and generally marked by the following traits:

· The cultural context is modern.

· The church holds a privileged place in the larger culture.

· Pastors are teachers who lead people by virtue of their spiritual authority.

· Church services are marked by choirs, robes, hymnals, and organs.

· Missions involves sending Americans and dollars overseas through denominations and mission agencies.

As the Church 1.0 model becomes less popular, the Church 2.0 model becomes more prominent. Church 2.0 is contemporary, with the following traits:

· The cultural context is in transition from modern to postmodern.

· A culture war is being fought to regain a lost position of privilege in culture.

· Pastors are CEOs running businesses that market spiritual goods and services to customers.

· Church services use 1980s and 1990s pop culture such as acoustic guitars and drama in an effort to attract non-Christian seekers.

· Missions is a church department organizing overseas trips and funding.

Today, the Church 2.0 model is the dominant American church form, but is being replaced by yet another incarnation of the Church.

The Church 3.0 model is emerging, missional, and bound together by the following traits:

· The cultural context is postmodern and pluralistic.

· The church accepts that it is marginalized in culture.

· Pastors are local missionaries.

· Church services blend ancient forms and current local styles.

· Missions is “glocal” (global and local).'

I am sure that Mark (who I do not know) would acknowledge that this is a deliberate oversimplification, having acknowledged that, it is, nevertheless, helpful in defining church styles - and not just in America. I will discuss my own background and ministry more later, but my present Church is still a Model 1.0 church. Many are and like it that way. Many in our churches love the traditional style of services and remember when the Church had a privileged place in society. This is just as true here, in a former British colony, as it is in the UK. For such Christians, the longing is to stay the same, or even to go back, to what is still a fondly remembered period in church history.

In this thinkers and writers about the Church are often out of sync with where many church members are at. The thinkers and writers are working for a very different church, when church members themselves are simply not ready for the change and, indeed, are resistant to it.

For church leaders, this can cause immense tension. We read the books and blogs, and go to the conferences. We hear about all we should and could be doing, and we are excited by it. But when it comes to reality, to ordinary every day church life, this is not what our congregations want to hear or are interested in.

This is an issue I want the emerging church leaders to address. It is not an issue in newly planted churches because they are beginning from scratch and can establish their own church culture. But for those of us in long-established churches, it is a massive issue. Unless we just abandon exisiting churches, it is hard to know what to do.

I would love somone of Andrew Jones' experience to address this in his excellent blog ( www.tallskinnykiwi.tyepead.com ).

It is something that I don't think emerging church leaders are willing to address at the moment. Their focus is on creating model 3.0 churches. Fair enough, but unless they are careful, they are going to go down the path the charismatic movement went down and attract many who are disgruntled in the churches they are in. In the case of the emerging church, those in model 1.0 and model 2.0 churches.

If you are wanting to be truly missional, this should not be what you want. What you should want is to attract the unchurched. Ironically, if the emerging movement attracts a significant number from the established churches, all it will do is to weaken those churches. The net result ironically may then even be a net drop in people attending any church as those 'left behind' in weakened churches drift away from the Church altogether.

Is this a silly argument? Well, look at Alpha. All the Alpha-ministers tell me that Alpha is growing their churches. But the plain fact of church membership in the UK, for example, is that overall attendance is dropping. Alpha grows some churches, but weakens others. Some may say they deserve to be weakened, and, in some cases, this may indeed be true, but it is hardly a cause for rejoicing.

Andrew quite rightly insists on the missional element of the emerging church. This will only ring true to some of us when emerging/emergent people work with those in the established churches to find a way to emerge together.

It is my earnest prayer that they will.

Emerging Again

Having been crtitical of Mark Driscoll yesterday over his comments in relationship to Ted Haggard, let me now be positive and, at the same time, return to the theme of the emerging church that I wrote about earlier this week. I have just come across this article by Mark on the emerging church and think it really helpful ( http://www.criswelljournal.com/ ) It is in the Criswell Theological Journal Volume 3 Issue 2 [2006].

Ted Haggard 2

I don't know how many of you have been following the Ted Haggard story, but it seems to be everywhere. I have been quite impressed with the senstivity and gentleness with which most in the Christian community have been handling the episode.

There are awlays exceptions, however, and I was particularly annoyed by the comments of Mark Driscoll who, while maybe not intending to, managed to post a blog that sounded really smug. Basically, his position seems to be: 'I am a wise, heterosexual male pastor whom this sort of thing could not happen to because I protect myself from sexually predatory females who always seem to want to go to bed with me.' (Read his comments and see if you agree with me: http://www.theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-03_evangelical_leader_quits )

In all this we need to say to ouselves, 'let him who thinks he stands, beware lest he falls'. On October 29, the Sunday before all this broke, Ted haggard preached a sermon on 1 Samuel 16 on God replacing leaders. He prayed that God would expose lies and deception. Quite sobering when you think about it.

6. Finding God Again: The Emerging Church

The interetsing thing about writing a series blogs is that you don't know where you are going to end up when you start writing them. This series grew out of some thoughts I had on different understandings of God. This, in turn, led to a series about the way our view of God has changed. This present series really is about thinking about God, but in the course of it I am trying to see how our understanding of God is profoundly affected by our own cultural situation. I had expected to get this to point ages ago. But that's the fun! Thanks for sticking with me so far. I will post again in the series later in the week. I will aim for Thusday, but you may hear the odd thing from me before then!

Have a good week!

Finding God Again: The Emerging Church

Many reading this blog may not have heard much about the emerging church. And describing it is not always easy, as even some who would align themselves with it would readily admit. It is strongest in the US, but is also to be encountered, increasingly in other parts of the world, although I haven’t much come across it here in Hong Kong. I hope, however, some of us are at least addressing the same issues.

I strongly agree with Scot McKnight, a NT scholar and Christian teacher who has aligned himself with the movement, that we should let the movement speak for itself. So as I write this blog, I will give some websites and blogs where more information can be found. I myself have found Scot’s speaking and writing especially helpful (see http://www.jesuscreed.org/). Scot has just presented a very interesting and helpful paper on the movement (for a copy see http://www.foolishsage.com/wp-content/uploads/McKnight%20-%20What%20is%20the%20Emerging%20Church.pdf ).

Although it is hard to define what is a very diverse movement, excellent is Andrew Jones (see http://www.tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/). Andrew’s blog is also a great resource and always provocative and interesting. He also has the distinction of now living in my old Diocese. Andrew has written several blogs attempting to give a definition of the movement. Andrew himself is at the very heart of it and gives links to many blogs by fellow travellers.

Those who are part of the emerging church are asking what we should be like as a Church in the cultural context that we now find ourselves in. They are asking what the implications are of contemporary culture for the way we understand the Gospel, for our presentation of the Gospel, and for the way we live out the Gospel. How do we do church in a way that is authentic and faithful to Jesus and his teaching?

Many in the emerging movement began life within very conservative churches. A leading figure such as Brian McLaren is an example of this. People like Brian, however, felt increasingly dissatisfied with the type Christianity that they found within the churches they belonged to. In this sense, the emerging church can be seen as a protest movement within evangelicalism.

It would be very wrong, however, to see it as only a protest. The emerging church is asking questions that I believe we all need to be asking at this stage in our cultural journey. More than that, within the emerging movement there is a very strong emphasis on mission. On not waiting around hoping that people come to us, but being prepared to go out and meet with them in an open and accepting way.

This means changing the way we do church. At one level, this has meant either reordering traditional churches or abandoning them altogether for more user friendly places. Many are now meeting in homes, or pubs, or coffee houses. But there is more to it than simply the physical geography of the church meeting place, important though this is. The emerging church is rethinking the meaning of the church. This has lead to a much greater emphasis on relationships than has traditionally been the case.

In the past, churches defined themselves by what they believed, by statements of faith and credal confessions: the 39 Articles for Anglicanism, the Westminster Confession of Faith for the reformed, the Catechism for the Roman Catholics, and so on. There were propositions that you had to believe if you wanted to be a member. Often these were overt, written, and required a signature. Other times, they were unspoken assumptions, but you soon knew if you stepped out of line. Emerging folk are very suspicious of this sort of approach. They are happier to live with doubt, stress that all truth is relative, and that each generation sees truth through its own cultural glasses. As one person within the movement has expressed it: ‘I grew up that we’ve figured out the Bible, that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel life is big again – like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in colour.’ Not all, by any means, would want to put it so bluntly, but this quote catches a spirit within the movement.

The emphasis on culture is especially important. For some it is about speaking in a culturally relevant way talking to people where they are now, rather than were they where or where we would like them to be. This can mean keeping a very conservative, evangelical message. I still can’t work out whether he sees himself as part the emerging church movement or not, but Mark Driscoll in Seattle would be a prominent example of this type of approach (see http://www.marshillchurch.org/). As Mark, or Pastor Mark as he is known, will tell you himself, he is one of the most influential pastors in America, based at one of the fastest growing churches, in one of the least churched cities. Love him or hate him, and people do feel very strongly about him, he is having an impact!

For others, however, a more radical approach is needed. Rather than speaking to culture, they are seeking to embrace it. Many believe that contemporary culture has something important even prophetic to say to the church. And that we in the church need to revaluate our message in the light of it. Those who identify with emergent village would take this approach (see www.emergentvillage.com).

This causes some confusion in terminology. Not all emerging church folk would identify with emergent. Those who are critical of the movement have a tendency to equate emerging with emergent to see emergent as typical and defining of the movement. The movement, however, is far more diverse than this and requires a more nuanced critique.

And there have been criticisms. One very notable critic of the movement is Don Carson, a leading evangelical scholar and speaker. Don does not blog, in principle, which is a shame, as it would be good to be able to react with him. He does, however, write! Recently he has written a book on the emerging church, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. I am not sure it is the best book for understanding the movement, it is, however, a very good book if you want to understand the movement’s critics and where they are coming from. Don’t begin with it, but include it in your research if you want to study the movement. You can also find lectures on the movement by Don on the web.

I have been trying to understand the movement for myself. I think it was my work on the Da Vinci Code that gave particular impetus to it as the DVC raises, I believe, precisely the sort of issues that the movement is addressing. I am deliberately calling it a movement and I have even used the word church. Many emerging people do not like this. They do not want to be seen as a potential denomination. They prefer to use the term ‘conversation’ to describe what they are doing.

I like the word conversation, and it is certainly appropriate given that much of the thinking is taking place on the web, using blogs especially. This allows comments and reactions in a very immediate way. The movement itself is still new, original, and exciting. The way that the conversation is taking place means that even if you live in Orkney or Hong Kong, you can still feel yourself to be at the centre of something vital! However, I have used the word ‘movement’ deliberately as I think what is going on has become more than a conversation and that, in my opinion, is no bad thing. I for one am happy to join the conversation and this blog is an attempt to do so.

But more about me next time!

Sad News

Many of you will have seen in the news that a well-known and prominent leader of a huge evangelical church in America has found himself in a 'gay sex scandal'. The pastor is Ted Haggard. I personally share the cynicism of those who question why this was made public now by the male prostitute who allegedly was involved with Ted Haggard. I suspect there is much more to this.

But I would like to join with those like Andrew Jones (on www.tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com) who, while not always agreeing with Ted Haggard, suggest that the only truly Christian response is to pray for him, for his wife, and for his children. This is the time to see the beam in our own eye and not the speck in our brother's.

Tomorrow, at my church, we celebrate All Saints. Perhaps we ought also to have a day in the Church's calendar when we celebrate All Sinners for all of us who believe in Christ are both.

Pray for our brother, Ted, a saint and sinner: as you are, as I am, and as All Saints are.

It's The Weekend

I am afraid that I have been a bit rushed this week, and so only just made the deadline I set myself for posting. I do want to post when I say I am going to though. If you are taking the trouble to read it, the least I can do is to get on and write it!

The weather here has cooled a little at long last. We even have had a typhoon warning, which is very unusual at this time of year, so there was a nice breeze!

I hope to post next on Monday, when I want to start to discuss the emerging church movement and the isuues it is raising. I am now going to get on with my sermon for Sunday on the Reformation. If you are a glutton for punishment you can listen to it, after it has been preached, on my church's website: www.christchurch.com.hk

Have a good weekend! See you next week.

5. Finding God Again: Truth?

I wrote last that changing times require us to change the way we present our message. This I said was almost to be stating the obvious. However, sometimes the obvious needs stating. Churches are inherently conservative institutions, and we need constantly reminding of the need to speak the language of those we seek to reach. But do we need go further than this, and change the message itself to take into account changed times?

An example of an attempt to move with the times without changing the message is Alpha. Alpha has been very successful in marketing itself with what has been described as a combination of ‘prayer and pasta’. Alpha, in other words, seeks to present a version of the Christian message in an appealing and attractive dress. The message of Alpha is a conservative evangelical understanding of the Gospel. This is in no way meant as a criticism. Many people have found Alpha very helpful, and have come to faith through it. I cite it simply as an example of how one section of the Church is trying to ‘dress up’ the Gospel, which they believe to be the same underneath as it always has been.

Others are arguing, however, that it is the message itself that must be rethought. At first sight, this may seem to be self-evidently wrong. If the Gospel is from God, as Christians believe it is, how can it change? Jesus Christ is after all ‘the same yesterday, today, and forever’.

The fact is, however, that while our Lord may not change, our understanding of him and his message does. Each generation and society sees him through its own cultural glasses. At the very least, this means that we emphasize certain parts of the Christian message rather than others. To give examples that are beyond dispute (as examples, that is!) previous generations of Christians have accepted slavery in a way most would not today. The role and place of women in the Church has changed, even amongst those do not support women having positions of authority in the Church, although most now do, whatever theological camp they may happen to be in. And we don’t argue the Divine Right of Kings any more, not even those of us Anglicans who still have the Queen as the head of the Church.

Those who want to hold to the unchanging nature of the message argue that all these examples are about the outworking of the Gospel and not about the Gospel itself. They argue that our understanding of how the Gospel works out in practice may change from age to age and culture to culture, but the Gospel itself remains the same.

There are, however, real problems with this view of the unchanging nature of the Gospel.

Whatever may be true in theory, certainly doesn’t seem to be true in practice. It’s no good believing in an unchanging Gospel, if we can never discover what it is There is a very real problem in the way different periods of the Church have had very different things to say about, for example, salvation. And issues don’t get much more fundamental than the issue of how we can be saved.

The Reformation, which we marked on October 31, argued that the Church had got it radically wrong for hundreds of years. The Reformers saw themselves as restoring the true Gospel in the light of Scripture after hundreds of years of darkness. But recently, some, from within the Reformed Tradition itself, have been arguing that the Reformers themselves did not understand the Scriptures. People such as Bishop Tom Wright have been arguing both for a ‘new perspective’ on Paul and that the Reformers misunderstood Paul’s teaching on justification by faith. This is especially serious as the Reformers themselves thought their understanding of Paul and justification was the very heart of the Gospel. A view many in the Church still hold today.

What those who follow the Reformers and those like Bishop Wright have in common is a belief that there is objective truth to be found and that this truth is ultimately to be located in the Bible. Our job is to study the Bible to find it. In my mind at least, this does raise the question of why it has taken 2,000 years to understand what Paul was really saying on an issue of quite some importance to our spiritual lives and destiny.

It is for this reason amongst others that some in the Church today are arguing that what postmodernism is teaching us is that there is no ultimate objective truth and that, even if there was, it would not be possible for us as finite, culturally conditioned creatures to see it. What we see will inevitably always be determined by our historical and cultural circumstances.

The argument that our understanding of truth is determined by our historical and cultural circumstances has been around for a while. The general reaction of Christians to the argument has tended to be to think of reasons why they reject it and why it is possible to have an objective view of truth. Recently, however some Christians have been arguing that instead of resisting the idea that culture shapes how we understand the truth, we should instead embrace it. And postmodernism with its suspicion of any one version of the truth, instead of being seen as an enemy to be fought should be greeted as a friend to be welcomed.

What would happen if we accepted that no one view of the truth is ever right? And what would be the consequences of discovering that all of us, whatever our theological background, could never be certain our understanding was right or anything remotely like right!

This at last brings me to the emerging church movement.

4. Finding God Again: Time For A Change of Clothes?

It is a public holiday here in Hong Kong. The temperature is 33 degrees C. So a special greeting to friends in colder places, especially in the UK, where the clocks went back on Saturday. Believe it or not, one of the things I most miss about Aberdeen, where I last ministered, is the climate.

I want today to pick up on the theme of change and begin to ask how we, as Christians, should be thinking about cultural change. Having made one very definite change, from Aberdeen to Hong Kong, it is a subject particularly on my mind.

The next blog in this series will probably be on Thursday.

4. Finding God Again: Time For A Change Of Clothes?

In my blog, Finding God Again: Changing Times, I discussed how society has changed and is changing. In the last blog, I gave what I believe to be a snapshot of how this change is working out in one context by looking at the popular series Friends. Friends, I think, captures the values and attitudes of where many people are at in our society. I also think Friends is interesting because, from what I hear, for a lot of Christians this is the sort of Christian community they would like to create: inclusive, supportive, relationship based, and accepting. Some are suggesting that we should meet in cafés and houses rather than traditional church buildings, which, of course, is where the friends all meet. But I am moving ahead of myself.

The reason I have described social change in this way is to attempt at a popular level to illustrate how much society has changed and to indicate the way it has changed. This is important because within Christian circles there is much discussion about the extent to which society has changed, what significance, if any, this has for the Christian message, and how we, as the Church are to relate to the society and culture, in which we live.

Too much of the discussion, in my opinion, takes place at a rather theoretical level and concerns definitions of words and terms. So the enlightenment, modernism, and postmodernism make frequent appearances! I have resisted discussing these terms, but given their prevalence in the discussion, I think I must at least mention them. It is now exceptionally common to hear people say that we are living in a postmodern society. I use the term myself!

Post, of course, means after. It suggests that something has happened that has meant that we have moved on to something new. It is common for social commentators to talk about 'pre-modern', 'modern', and now, 'postmodern'. People use these terms so very generally and loosely that it is very often hard to pin them down. Essentially, 'modern' refers to that attempt in the West to build a society based on scientific and rational enquiry. Certainly in the 19th and 20th centuries, there was a desire to leave behind what were considered the superstitions of previous ages and to build a society that was founded on the certainties of intellectual enquiry. This was an age of grand theories: of communism, darwinism, capitalism, colonialism and so on.

It was an age that felt itself superior to what went before; previous ages were always described using negative terms: the dark ages, superstition, magic and myth. Modernity was man come of age, discovering all truth without resorting to primitive views of reality. As I write this, it is nearly Halloween: a reminder of how people used to see the world. I find it quite funny to think that many will be celebrating Reformation Day on this day. This was the day in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his protest against indulgences to the cathedral door in Wittenberg, effectively the beginning of the reformation. The reformation and the move to modernity go hand in hand.

Now after two world wars, the collapse of colonialism, the prospect of nuclear annihilation, and the retreat of organized religion, there is not the same confidence in grand theories, whether religious or secular. Society has witnessed a break down in certainties: to such an extent that people have turned to very pre-modern sounding practices to give their lives direction and meaning. So it is ok to talk about spells, crystals, and horoscopes even at respectable dinner parties. This is intellectually acceptable. It is less intellectually acceptable to discuss Christianity, but that is part of the hypocrisy of our age.

This is all hopelessly simplistic, of course, and exactly what postmodernism is, and how significant it is, are all subjects for debate. We probably won’t know until long after I, for one, am dead! It is distance that gives perspective in these matters. Interesting though the discussion is, I feel the sort of academic debate that takes place when we come to discuss cultural change is often an unnecessary diversion. More important than how we categorize the change at a formal theological and sociological level, is the issue of how we address the culture in which we live, whatever label we use to define it.

Whatever you may feel about the various analyses, the fact is society has changed massively and the Church has not always been able to keep up with it. Many of our practices and answers are directed to where society was in the past and the questions it was asking then, and not to where it is in the present and the questions it is asking now. This is a common observation and I, personally, find it hard to argue with it. People have moved on and we have not moved with them. But should we have? Isn’t the Gospel about timeless truths?

Christians down the ages have always felt that we have to begin with people where they are. Hudson Taylor, a missionary to China, adopted Chinese dress and culture in order to reach people in this part of the world over 100 years ago. The idea of adapting how we express our message to our audience is, when you think about it, just plain commonsense.

Business people from one part of the world selling a product to people in another know they have to present their product in a way that can be understood by their prospective buyers. I have just received a catalogue of books for Christmas from a local bookshop. One is entitled: ‘Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands: How to Do Business in Sixty Countries’. The children of mammon are often much wiser at this sort of thing. I don’t know if you have seen the HSBC adverts on this theme, but they are very good and very funny.

One especially is my favourite. A group of businessmen go out for a meal: one is English and the rest are Chinese. The assumption is that they are in China. The Chinese host orders the meal with a big eel as the main dish. As the commentator points out, in British culture, it is considered rude to leave any food behind, whereas, in Chinese culture, eating it all implies that your host has not provided enough. So our dear Brit, to be polite, finishes the last morsel, even though he doesn’t especially like it, and the Chinese host, also wanting to be polite, keeps ordering more. Watch it at this link!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em23XbdbM58

Maybe it is because I am living in a very different culture to the one in which I grew up, but I just assume we have to speak in language that people can understand and that this involves us adapting to cultural norms. Most of us can see this when we think of going from one country to another, as I have from the UK to Hong Kong, for example. But it is just as true that we need to be aware of where our own society is and what makes it tick culturally. If western society, in general, really has changed as radically as many of us think it has, then we need to ask if our presentation of the Gospel is relevant to it. Do we need new cultural clothes? I think you can guess what my own answer would be.

But others have argued that we need to go much further and that it is not enough simply to dress in different clothes. When Toyota, for example, sell a car to the west, they use western language and culture to do it. They put on western clothes. But it is a Japanese car they are selling, substantially the same as the one I am driving out here. However, what some people are arguing with the Gospel is that it is not only the sales pitch that must be changed, but the product as well. We must change not only the clothes, but the body that is wearing them.

They argue that our understanding of the Gospel has itself been shaped and moulded by the values, beliefs, and philosophies of different ages. We need to rediscover the Gospel for ourselves in the light of where we are now in our own cultural development. This will mean revaluating our message and adapting or even changing it.

More next.

Have a good weekend

It always amazes me how quickly the weekend comes around! It is quite a busy one for me this week, but we have a public holiday here in Hong Kong on Monday so that's rather nice. I will probably post the next blog on Tuesday. Thank you for reading this week and for sending me your comments. Have a good weekend!

3. Finding God Again: I’ll Be There For You

On September 22, 1994 the first episode of Friends was aired. It was lucky to make it onto the screens. A test audience’s reaction to the Pilot was not very encouraging, concluding it was weak. It went on to become the most successful sit-com ever with the six actors concerned earning $1,000,000 an episode each by the time it finished, after 235 episodes, on May 6, 2004. Rumours continue to circulate that there will be a reunion special. Maybe not yet, however if eventually they need the money, which, admittedly, is unlikely, you can see the temptation. Meanwhile, the show continues to enjoy life after death through endless repeats and DVD sales.

What made it so successful? I would suggest that it was more than the humour, though I personally did, and still do, find it very funny. The basic idea is easily described: 'Six friends in their twenties pursue careers, love, and happiness in New York while relying on each other for support.' Some of the flavour can be got from the story-line of the Pilot. Five of the friends are in the coffee house, Central Perk. Central Perk is one of three places were the action in Friends largely takes place. A young woman enters, wet through, in a wedding dress. This turns out to be Rachel. She has just stood up her bridegroom who was waiting for her to get married. She decides to move in with Monica with whom she went to school. The group of six is complete:

• Joey, who wants to be an actor, but is a bit dumb.
  
• Chandler, who is an office worker and enjoys wisecracking. He shares a room with Joey. This is the second place where much of the action takes place.
  
• Ross who is a palaeontologist, but a bit of a nerd.
  
• Monica, Ross’ sister, is a chef and rather compulsive. Her apartment is the third place where the action takes place.
  
• Rachel, a spoilt little rich girl who likes shopping and fashion.
  
• Phoebe, who is a bit of a hippie, and has had a weird background and upbringing.

In the pilot, we are introduced to these six characters. The plot itself hinges around Ross, who has just been divorced because his wife discovered she was a lesbian, and Monica, who goes on a date with a man from the restaurant known as Paul the Wine Guy. Although only her first date, Monica has him back to her apartment and sleeps with him. She does this quite openly. The friends persuade Rachel to cut up the credit cards that her Daddy pays for. As Monica says: ‘Welcome to the real world, it sucks you’ll love it!’ Rachel gets a job as a waitress at Central Perk.

This gives us the four main characteristics of Friends and the lives of its characters.

1. Messy: The friends lives are all complicated. They have had issues, to put it mildly, in their upbringing, they all have their hang-ups, and their sexual relationships and love affairs are especially problematic. For the next 234 episodes the friends get into various difficult situations that provide the basis for each show. For example, Joey sleeps with any girl he meets. Monica falls in love with an older guy, but breaks up with him when he won’t have children with her. Rachel and Ross have an on off relationship throughout the whole 10 episodes including marrying by mistake, divorcing, and having a baby. Chandler isn’t good at relationships, but ends up marrying Monica after sleeping with her at Ross’ wedding (not the one to Rachel). Phoebe has problems with her twin sister, Ursula as well as her own share of sexual encounters. And this is not to mention problems at work and with parents, and many, many more relationship issues!

2. Support: In all this, however, they have each other to turn to for help and encouragement. It is this that keeps them going. So Phoebe, for example, can rely on them when she acts a surrogate mother for her brother’s children as can Chandler when he decides to change career and enter advertising. Whatever happens, they stick together and share it all.

3. Community: Following on from this, the six form a tightly knit group living either with each other or near each other. This can cause problems when they have boyfriends or girlfriends from outside the group. They enjoy just hanging-out with each other in the Coffee House or at each other’s apartments. While they have life apart from the group, but it is the group that is the focus of their lives. It is being together that keeps them going.

4. Acceptance: Although each has their own quirks and personalities, they totally accept one another. They may have annoying habits or character traits like Monica’s competitiveness and obsession with tidiness or Joey’s total stupidity, but there is no condemnation because of them. They may tease and banter with each other, but there is no question of judgement or rejection because of personality or behaviour.

So why was it so successful and why is still so popular? Well, it is extremely well-written and it is funny. But I believe the appeal of the show is that people can identify with it. People do live messy lives - not necessarily as messy as Friends, but messy nevertheless. The encouragement that they receive from one another is an ideal that we would all like. We feel disconnected and fragmented in our urban lifestyles. It is friends who keep us going and we, too, would like to have people who would support us in the way Joey, Chandler, Ross, Monica, Rachel and Phoebe support each other through thick and thin.

Friends is the sixties come of age.

The friends don’t worry about politics, religion, or ideology. These simply don’t concern or interest them. Ethically, there are no moral absolutes apart from their relationships with each other. There is no hierarchy within the group. They are all equal. They have their opinions, but they respect the fact that the others may not share them. Tolerance is taken for granted.

Why am I going on about this? Well I’ll tell you more in the next post. For now though, I would like just to ask this: if you were to create a God for Friends what would he be like? Wouldn’t he be like the Benevolent God I have described in previous posts? The ever-loving, ever-supportive, always accepting, never condemning God of much present Christianity?

And don’t you think our image of Jesus is that of someone who would be at home in Central Perk? I have no doubt at all that Jesus would be found drinking coffee at Central Perk, Starbucks, or wherever, but would he be any different to the rest of the clientele? Not if you listen to a lot of sermons, he wouldn’t. In fact, the Friends theme song could be his message as, indeed, it already is the message in many churches:

So no one told you life was gonna be this way
Your job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's D.O.A.
It's like you're always stuck in second gear
When it hasn't been your day, your week, your month, or even your year, but

I'll be there for you
(When the rain starts to fall)
I'll be there for you
(Like I've been there before)
I'll be there for you
('Cause you're there for me too)

2. Finding God Again: Changing Times

In the next few blogs, I want to describe how I see society as having changed in the time I have been a priest, examine a specific example from the popular media that illustrates these changes for me, look at how some are describing the change at a philosophical level, and then look at the ways some in the Church, myself included, have responded to this change in the way we do Church. This will bring us to the movement I mentioned on Friday!

In other words, having written about how our view of God has changed, I want to retrace my steps and look at how society has, and is, changing. The two are closely related. Thank you to everyone who has sent me comments. They do help focus my thoughts even if it doesn’t always seem like it! I am intrigued why I can’t persuade you to post your comments here as well though!!!

I aim to post again on Thursday.

I recently preached a sermon in which I asked the congregation how many of the following, in no particular order, were around when they were growing up:

ipods and mp3 players
PCs
mobile phones
DVDs and CDs
internet and websites
clubbing
email
playstations
cable or satellite TV
blogging
instant messenger
chat rooms
MTV
texting

As the children and teenagers in our Church were meeting separately, the answer was somewhat predictable. Almost none of the above were around when many of us were teenagers and only a few were around when some of us were. The PC was first released by IBM in the year I was ordained deacon, 1981. Technological change, which was already moving apace, has accelerated since then and with this technological change has gone a corresponding social change.

Admittedly, this applies mainly to the western world, in parts of Africa, for example, life has been very much the same as usual, that is, poverty and starvation. There are signs, however, that what has happened in the western world will eventually reach the rest of the world. I was in India last year and mobile phones seemed to be the must have thing there in the way they were when I visited my family in the UK. Young people today are growing up in a culture of ‘infotainment’, technology, and communication. This culture is not value free. It communicates values as well as information. There is a philosophy and ideology that goes with it.

This technological change has come on the back of a widespread rejection of Christian values. When I was ordained, it was common to talk of secularization, but the fact remained that people still had some understanding of the Christian faith, even if it had very little effect on their lives. There were shared values based on centuries of Christian influence. People knew the stories of Jesus and the rest of the Bible for that matter.

This simply is not true any more. Jesus, for many people, is a swear word and no more. Biblical illiteracy is not just common, it is the norm. Christian explanations of reality are just not accepted. The Church is appreciated by some for the good community work it does, but it is hardly a place where people go to get answers to life’s questions. Indeed, for an increasing number of people there are no questions that go beyond this life. This life is life, and it is within this life that we find meaning. There is no need to look for answers outside of it. There really is no hell below us and above us is only sky. And for many people, this is all there needs to be. It’s not a problem.

They are happy chatting endlessly on the mobile, texting, or emailing family and friends. It is family and friends who give them all the support and encouragement they need. People find all the meaning they need in their relationships. This doesn’t mean that things don’t go wrong, it’s just that they don’t need all this heavy talk about God to deal with it. Inasmuch as people do believe in God, it is the Benevolent God, who is simply another member of their social networks.

I am a beautiful person, life is not a dress rehearsal, I want to be happy now. Yes, things can be tough at times, but my family and friends are there for me. It’s nice to think that there may be a God who loves me too, that’s kind of comforting. It’s not for you to tell me how to live my life, and I won’t tell you how to live yours. Let’s just try to get on with one another as best we can. Life’s too short to worry. Why have regrets? Move on!

This all seems very obvious as a description of where people are. Not everyone, of course, but certainly a significant number. By inventing the Benevolent God, we have shown ourselves to be both part of the change as well as responding to it. But while some may be willing, inside the church and out, to include this God as part of their world view very few want to let him/her define their world view. And that’s a big problem for us in the Church.

I ask myself: how much has God figured in my life today? To what extent have my movements, choices, and decisions been affected by my belief in him? How conscious am I of his presence in my life? How much has he become the unconscious force that shapes all I think and do?

That I can ask these questions of myself is a start and that you have bothered to read them shows you care. But, I hope, you see my point.

5. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

I hope you all had a good weekend. It is supposed to be getting cooler here in Hong Kong, I can’t say I have noticed. Temperatures are still in the mid to high 20s. I find it hard to function above 20! I do apologize for not posting over the weekend. I needed more time to think than the weekend provided, but I will try not to let it happen too often – not posting, that is, hopefully I will at least go on trying to think!

Today I post the last in the series on God which was prompted by the survey into religious beliefs in America. Since I originally started this series, I have been trying to write more fully about how far I think many of us have wandered from a balanced understanding of God. I have begun to ask how we can find God again. I am sure the key does lie in seeing God as exclusively and explicitly revealed in Jesus Christ so I want to round off the original series with a few thoughts which I will write about more extensively in future posts.

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

We have been examining the four Gods that researchers identified as being believed in by Americans today: an authoritarian God who metes out punishment; a benevolent God who is less willing to condemn people; a critical God who does not interact with the world, but deals out punishment in the after-life; and a distant God who set the laws of nature in motion, but is no longer involved in events of the world. My assumption has been that it is not only Americans who have these four Gods.

I have argued that in fact there is truth in all four, but that each misses out on part of the truth or is in danger of distorting it. So, for example, while it is true, as those who believe in the Benevolent God assert, that God welcomes us and accepts us as we are, he doesn’t stop there, but has expectations of us. He accepts us as we are, but expects us to change and be changed into what we should be.

We need a bigger God than any of these different Gods. What we need is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For in the Bible, God is not defined in abstract terms as the researchers attempt to do with these views of God. This is not a criticism for the categories they use are helpful to understand contemporary religion and not just American religion. They help us to analyze our own view of God and see where it is inadequate and needs changing.

Christianity, however, is more than belief in a God, important though that is. It is first and foremost a relationship with God. This relationship is only possible through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in Jesus that we meet God and come to know him for ourselves. The God we meet is our Creator, who not only created the world, but upholds it and sustains it every second of every day. He is the Creator, who is utterly transcendent, but who has condescended to know us and love us. He is the One who has made us moral beings and who shows us how we should live. If we ignore his commands, there will inevitably be consequences, because what he has shown us is for the best because he is God and knows best.

Yet even though we go wrong and let down him, ourselves, and others, he never gives up on us, but keeps loving us and reaching out to us. Supremely, he has reached out to us in the death of his Son who by his death has made forgiveness possible for us no matter how bad we are or how bad what we have done has been. The life we live now matters and one day we will have to give an account of it. There will be a day of reckoning that none can escape. However, Christians believe that Christ is on their side and will see them through, but they accept this humbly as a gift and not as a right.

As long as we are here, we work for the good of all creation and all who are part of it. The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it. We are more than simply passing through, and we long for the day when God will recreate the heavens and earth and bring his work of creation to completion. In the meantime, we worship him as our God and trust him as our Father. We know there is more that we do not know than we do, and long for the day when we will no longer see through a glass darkly, but see face to face, when we will know even as we are fully known.

We will inevitably stumble and fall. We will make mistakes, take wrong turnings, misunderstand, get it wrong, and sin. But we believe in a God who is greater than all our failings, a God who is capable of helping us to stand and who will one day perfect his work in us.

The Christian view of God is of great God: a God whom we can never fully understand. There will always be more to know and more to discover about him. But we do believe that we can know something of Him and that what we do know is true. This truth we find in the One who said: I am the way, the truth and the life, no-one can come to the father but by me.