Faith in Your Damnation

I don't have faith in your damnation. You whose Christianity doesn't meet some standard of "good enough". Or you who are a Jew, a Muslim, a Bahai'i, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Pagan, or maybe "spiritual but not religious", I don't have faith in your damnation.

Don't get me wrong. You and I might both very well be damned. But, thanks be to God, it's not my job to decide who, if anyone, is damned. That job belongs to God.

However, you might very well have got the impression from many of my fellow Christians that the main meaning we Christians derive from our faith is that you are damned and we are not. And I don't blame you if you've got that impression because I think that's the main message that Christians have communicated.

After all, some would argue, why be a Christian if everyone else is going to get into heaven too?

We've made the "good news" into the message "Good news! God will love you if you are just like us and believe exactly what we tell you to believe." But the flip side of that belief is "Bad news! God doesn't love you for who you are."

The only people who can't seem to see through this message is us.

That's a funny kind of faith - a faith that mainly focuses on the question of who is outside the Holy Fence. To talk to a lot of Christians, it's as if there isn't actually any meaning, reconciliation with God or salvation to be found inside Christianity, so we need to find our meaning in the idea of "Thank God I am not like that sinner." (Oops, didn't Jesus have a parable about that?)

Do we Christians really believe that there is good news at the heart of Christianity? Can we stand before God, just me and God, and find forgiveness, reconciliation, transformation of life? Or can we only feel "saved" if we have the comforting knowledge that there are some people who God just doesn't like - not now, not ever?

Naming the Name

I had the privilege of hearing the President of Methodist Conference, Stephen Poxon, speaking to individuals from our District the other day. You can find some of the points that he made in this post.

One of the points that captured my imagination was the idea of 'Naming the Name'. Stephen didn't elaborate a lot on what he meant by that - although it was clear that he meant 'not being afraid to speak the name of Jesus' - so the following reflections are my own views and not his. (In other words, if you don't like what this post is saying, blame me and not him!)

As I understood Stephen, he was saying two things: 1) That Christians (and Methodists) have become shy about speaking the name of Jesus in their everyday conversations and that we have to regain the confidence to be able to do this; 2) That this doesn't mean that we engage in what he called 'bible-bashing' or constantly trying to cajole unwilling listeners to become Christian converts.

How can we confidently speak the 'name of Jesus' in an authentic way without either being shy or overbearing? I think that probably we first need to start learning how to talk to other Christians about these things. I know that the more I learned to talk to other Christians about my faith and God's working in my life, the easier it became to talk to non-Christians. And there really is only one solution for it: practice. I'm not sure it can just be done in Sunday services, either. I expect it requires more small-group involvement that encourages everyone to share what God is doing in their lives.

The other aspect, though, is that I think we also really have to get rid of the idea that The Church makes converts rather than the Holy Spirit makes converts. If I'm brutally honest with myself, I know that I'm guilty of sometimes hoping this or that person who I've been speaking to will come to church.  And I think that whenever we have this 'side' when we Name the Name, we won't be sharing good news as much as we will be trying to 'market' Christianity.

Maybe the big question is:  do we really think we have good news?

Fit for Purpose

At our ministerial synod today, we were privileged to hear Martyn Atkins speak. Martyn is the new General Secretary of The Methodist Church in Great Britain. He is also a former President of Conference and former Principal of Cliff College. Apparently, this was the first time Martyn has given a presentation to a group since his Presidential year ended in July of this year.

Martyn asked the question whether the Methodist Church is currently 'fit for purpose' and he believes that we are. One of our main purposes is the purpose for which the Methodist Church was born: mission and evangelism.

During his Presidential year, Martyn asked Methodists all over the country what they think characterises the Methodist Church. They answered:
* Warm-hearted
* Inclusive and inviting
* Connected and committed
* Engaged and involved
* Often with the marginalized

Martyn asked the question: 'Do any of these things suggest a group of people who cannot cope with today's culture?' He thinks that all of the above values are ones that are in tune with society today.

But one of the things that Martyn wants to change is Methodism's 'narrative'. We've been telling ourselves for the last 30 years that we are a dying denomination and Martyn would like this to stop and he would like to change our narrative to a more visionary one. However, he also believes that we will need some radical change.

For me, there was one interesting point that came out in our question-and-answer session. Martyn asked the question 'Why do I meet in my travels many people ministering in movements like New Frontiers, in 'fresh expressions of church' and even in the Baptist Union who came to faith in the Methodist Church but who didn't want to remain in Methodism?'

His answer was an interesting one: that most of our services are 'lead from the front' but that, generally speaking, people under 40 don't have a sense of belonging unless they are active participants in worship. He reckons that movements like New Frontiers, etc., are structured so as to use the talents of the people who join. Martyn also observed that many people over 50 will normally expect to be passive participants in church and that many of them will not want to participate in worship, unlike the under 40s.

He reckons that we can't try to force people who want non-participative worship into a participative model and that we need to have a 'multiplex' mode of operation if we are going to attract young people. He suggested that the circuit system could be used to accommodate different communities with divergent narratives. Lots of food for thought and a thoroughly exciting ministerial synod!

===

Edited on 14 November:  I feel that I may not have communicated very well about 'participative worship'.  I don't think Martyn meant 'OK, everyone, now at this point in the service, we are all going to....'.  I got the impression that he meant that, as new people join the church, they offer their own gifts for the use of the church and that these are gladly taken up and used.  Rather than, 'Well, we really don't need someone who plays the diggery-do' we say 'Thank you for offering to play the diggery-do to the glory of God, let's find a way to use it in our service.'

Witnessing as Human 'SPAM'

Here is a fantastic article entitled How to Actually Talk to Atheists (If You're a Christian).

(Hat tip to Sam Norton at Elizaphanian)

The article makes one really important observation, I think. I've never thought about traditional techniques of witnessing as 'human SPAM', but I think that's exactly what they are and why I object to them so much.  Joe, the author of the article, uses the more technical term of 'interruption marketing'.

He writes:

Again, try to put yourself outside of your own perspective and into the shoes of your intended audience. You're interrupting their time and space to bring them a message you feel is important. And sure, you have the right to choose your faith and the right to free speech, but as GK Chesteron said, to have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. And ultimately, "You need to hear this because I need to say it" is the ultimate in self-serving causes... And if you're serving yourself, you certainly aren't serving God.

Well worth a read.  And, by the way, Joe's suggestion to Christians for how to witness to him is 'Be the Prototype'.  

Church and Evangelism

I might be being foolish by publishing another post on this subject, but a short exchange with my friend Sally in the comments section of my post Minister as Evangelist? got me thinking.

I think I might be on to something here and I throw the question open to you:

I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a difference between: 1) Telling someone the Good News of the gospel and 2) Getting them to come to church.

I actually do wonder whether the bigger 'conversation experience' in today's culture is the church-going bit.

I suspect that, in the past - even in my own lifetime - people attended group activities outside the home for recreation and entertainment. Nowadays, recreation and entertainment are much more 'private' - me and my friends or me and my family. This is what's foreign: belonging to civic and cultural organisations. And the 'foreignness' of group activity is why people find church so uncomfortable.

I do genuinely find it easy to talk to people about God, about Christ and about the Christian Gospel and about my personal faith. I'm not, however, convinced of my ability to 'get people into church' who don't want to be there.

Over to you.

The Minister as Evangelist?

The idea of 'the minister as evangelist' seems to have been floating around cyberspace for awhile. Specifically, the idea that a church (a congregation, a fellowship) is 'successful' when it is winning new converts and 'unsuccessful' when it is not and that the minister's main task - what we employ her/him for - is evangelism.

I have some thoughts on this but I want first to stress that I'm not responding to a real life situation; I'm not being told that I'm a good or bad minister on the basis of my conversion statistics, so no need to email me and give me pastoral care.

First of all, making converts isn't the job of the minister, it's the job of the congregation. Theologies about 'the priesthood of all believers' aside, research shows that people join churches primarily because the congregation strikes them as a place where they can make friends.

When I first started going back to church in my early 30s, this was the big hurdle I had to overcome. How did I overcome it? By the grace of God, I told myself 'Well Pam, you'll probably have to go to church for about two years before people treat you in a friendly way and stop shutting you out.' And that was pretty much my experience. For the first two years, people were wary of getting too close or being too friendly.

I wonder how many people new to church - or coming back to church - would stick it out for two years feeling that people in the congregation didn't particularly care if they were there or not? Not many people, I reckon. Maybe this was a particularly bad experience and maybe I only stuck it out because I expected to do so. But I think it's something to learn.

Also, research shows that one of the biggest reasons people leave congregations is feeling shut out by cliques. That's basically the opposite of staying because they make friends.

Additionally, I do believe that there is a huge cultural barrier to church with many young people not even wanting to go into a church building these days. Try herding the baptismal party into church; I've learnt to start 10 minutes before the service because people unused to church really don't want to enter the building. I don't think most church people appreciate this phobia.

The purveyors of what I call 'The Spiritual Prosperity Gospel' repeat the mantra 'If you preach the Real Gospel (tm), people will flock to your church. ' It doesn't work like that. If the church is short of ministers and it wants more people to serve as ministers, making a realistic job description is a good way forward. Don't expect every minister to be Billy Graham and Mother Teresa rolled into one. Don't expect them to single-handedly defy cultural trends. And don't expect them to singlehandedly 'do' discipleship for the entire congregation.

Consumer Church?

Kathy has written a post - from a US perspective - that raises a lot of questions for me: How the Church is Training Consumers instead of Disciples. This is very interesting in light of my previous post: Reasons for Giving Up Church-Going.

I've just ordered the book that I referred to in the previous post but I haven't read it. However, the suggestion that churches 'multi-plex' strikes me as incredibly consumerist. The review suggested to me that the conclusion of the study were something like: 'I'm only attending church if I get the style of worship / liturgical tradition / kind of teaching that I'm interested in. Otherwise, I'm outta here.'

If people in our society are used to being able to get 'what they want, when they want', how does the church 'compete' with other Sunday activities? Should it compete? I think the dilemma here is: What's the difference between being 'In the world but not of the world' and 'Being in the world as well as of the world'? Many people seem to use the criteria of 'bums on pews' as being a successful indicator of a church that is a good witness for Christ and is making disciples.

It seems to me that the activities that Church is competing with - on Sundays or on other days - aren't activities that are going to help people find the meaning of life or love their neighbour. The activities are largely short-term and pleasure-inducing: sleep, sport, shopping, eating out, country walks; with apologies to those who have to work on Sundays or until 9:00 or 10:00 on weekdays! For church to compete head-to-head with these consumerist or consumerist-led activities, it has to become even more entertaining and gratifying. How does that square with learning to love God and love our neighbour?

I expect that some will see this post as an excuse not to change anything. In fact, I think it's vital that the church change and I agree that discipleship has to have a measure of fun and joy; but I do worry very much about the issues Kathy raises and whether we'll still 'be church' if we pander to all consumer whims.

A Free Sample of the Gospel

First, I should acknowledge that I've not blogged about the sad death of evangelist Rob Frost, Methodist minister and founder of Share Jesus International.

I don't normally blog about 'news items' and I find it hard to craft a suitable post in this instance. Rob's death at the age of 57 is obviously tragic. He was a visionary, a called and gifted evangelist and I know that his ministry touched the lives of thousands of people. I'm sure that all Christians who knew of his work were sad to hear of his untimely death. How can one not mourn such a loss?

The Share Jesus International website gives some information about Rob's last days as does President of Methodist Conference, Martyn Atkin, in this post on the blog he shares with Ruby Beech, the Vice President of Conference.

I was really struck, however, by Martyn's tribute to Rob Frost in this week's edition of The Methodist Recorder. Martyn said that:

...(Rob) was an effective evangelist - a "free sample" of the Gospel rather than a salesperson.

I can't think of a more wonderful tribute to any Christian life.

I pray for the grace to be a 'free sample' of the Gospel. I pray that all my readers will have the grace to be a 'free sample' of the Gospel.

May Rob Frost rest in peace and rise in glory and may his family and all those who mourn him be comforted in the knowledge of the Resurrection.

Reaching 20-somethings

Here is a post from a 'twenty-something ministering to twenty-somethings': Newsflash! The Key to the 20-Somethings is Not Musical Style.

Fellow Boomers, if you want pop music praise songs in church, great. But admit that it's for you and don't pretend that it's the only thing that will get your kids into church.

To me, the post presents the biggest problem of all for elderly congregations that want to attract younger people. People want to stick to their own age groups. It takes young people to attract young people. You need a core group of active 20-somethings to attract 20-somethings.

God is Love - I'm Confused

I've often joked that I grew up believing that the message of the Christian Gospel was something like: 'Jesus died on the cross to pay the price of your sins, so the Father has to let you into heaven but he's really pissed off about it because he hates you.'

I didn't grow up in the UK and I didn't grow up a Methodist, so I frequently get told that my experience is due to having grown up in a strict denomination in the United States and that this experience is pretty much unique to me.

Then, as I reread Steve Chalke's The Lost Message of Jesus, he writes (in 2004, so not in The Dark Ages):

...in the popular mind, this is exactly who the God of the Bible is: a sadistic monster, a powerful and spiteful punisher of people who are having a tough enough time on earth as it is...Most people today, if they believe in God at all, think that he is power and that power is all about the domination of others. (p. 47)

So what, exactly is the deal? Does 'everyone' believe that God loves them? Are Chalke and I (and Gerard Hughes, for that matter - thinking of his 'Uncle George') all wet? My conversion came when I began to believe that God loves me; is it really the case that few people need to hear this message?

How to be a Christian?

The issues raised in this post along with a few other remarks I've seen in the media this week have got me thinking.

In the Anita Roddick interview, she talked about being surprised at a Greenbelt festival to find out that this Christian festival is'big...organised....joyful...free'. She said I have fallen for the zeitgeist that says anybody who has a religious inclination has no sense of rationale or intellectual understanding and therefore should be dismissed. She talked of her surprise in finding that Christians were involved in trade justice.

Separately, I was struck by a comment on this post on the New Statesman blog (HT to Methodist Preacher) that: Many people find that a pre-scientific, Biblical world-view is incompatible with an acceptance of a scientific account of human origins and the history of planet Earth.. This suggested to me a wholesale writing-off of Christianity on the basis that it demands the acceptance of an ancient cosmology.

Maybe in this culture, the first Good News we have to proclaim as Christians is that we are passionate supporters of trade and ecnomic justice and that Christian faith is compatible with modern science? Just thinking out loud.