‘Fellowship’ or ‘relationship’ with God

For some time I’ve had concerns about the evangelical use of the phrases ‘personal relationship’ or ‘fellowship’ with Jesus or God. Not that I disagree that this is a good thing to aspire to, it’s just – What does it mean? Day to day – how do I do it? It is a phrase trotted out to describe something a intangible and as a consequence is quite hard to define.

Often Christians speak of God using the same terminology that they would of a personal friend or neighbour. But God is clearly not like our neighbour. In many ways He is harder to see, and in many ways He is more present. Can we use the word ‘relationship’ in the same manner with God as we can with other people? What sort of activity can be classed as knowing God?

I guess, in many ways the way to continue in our relationship with God is to do all the things that you would with a good human relationship: talk together, spend time listening, make time for, try to understand, aim to please each other, forgive, love etc. This helps – but it is the wrong way round. Good human relationships should echo the relationship that God has with us. He is our model for relationships, not us, his.

Father Stephen has just posted an excellent article on the subject. He focusses on the words fellowship and communion, rather than relationship, as these are two ways of translating the greek word koinonia. His point is clear. I’d recommend reading the whole article, but here is just a taste.

The entire concept of Church as a fellowship of believers, meaning a free association of like-minded Christians, is simply not a Scriptural notion, unless your Bible happens to be one of the many that has bowdlerized the clear Orthodox meaning of Scripture. We are saved by union with Christ, by participation in His life. We are Baptized into his death and raised in His resurrection. We eat His Body and drink His Blood. We have participation in the life of one another such that we cannot say to one another, “I have no need of you.” Such examples can be multiplied from every page of the New Testament and not one of them will support the weak image of an associational fellowship. This sad translation of a powerful word has helped support a notion of the individual believer with a relationship with Christ (what sort of a relationship is fellowship?) and his Bible. This is not the language or imagery of Scripture nor the doctrine of the Church.

Is fellowship with God possible? I’m not certain how to answer the question. I’d rather have communion.

A puzzling bit of the Bible – Exodus 4

I’m following a Bible reading plan that helps you get through the Bible in a year – never done it before and I’m already a bit behind, bt I suppose the important thing is getting through it rather than the pace!

Anyway, I was reading Exodus a few days ago and came across the part of Exodus I’ve never really noticed before – God has just appeared to Moses in the burning bush – very dramatic – and commissioned him to go back to Egypt, to be God’s mouthpiece and to lead the Hebrews out of slavery. Moses is just on his way, when we get to 4:24-26.

“At a lodging place on the way, God met Moses and was about to kill him”. (Ex 4:24)

I guess God is holding Moses to the same standards that he was about to judge Pharaoh with, requiring him to dedicate his whole family to God through circumcision. Circumcision was the covenant sign, a symbol of putting away all that is pleasing to God. That said, the incident confuses me still… it certainly is another puzzling bit…

Bible-believing Christians – Velvet Elvis 2

Martin Luther, Wycliffe, Cranmer and other church reformers of the fifteenth and the sixteenth century were some of the first to suggest that the Bible should be available in the languages of the people – English for the English, German for the Germans etc. Previous to that, people generally didn’t own their own Bibles, the church would own one in Latin which the priest would read and interpret for them.

Everyone having access to the Bible was a wonderful thing. But it didn’t half cause problems. Almost as soon as the reformation caused a split in the church between Protestants and Catholics, the church split again into smaller denominations – lutherans, calvinists, anglicans, anabaptists, puritans and so on. They all read the same Bible, but came to different conclusions on what certain parts of it mean (not, I might add, on anything fundamental like the deity of Jesus, the Cross etc, but mostly on issues of practice.)

It is fantastic that now everyone can read the Bible for themselves. But doesn’t that lead to the possibility of everyone understanding it differently?

I am a Bible-believing Christian, but what does that mean?

It means I take the Bible seriously and I work to understand it and apply it to my life. I consider it inspired by God. There are no parts of the Bible that I can simply ignore, but I work to understand what it meant when it was written and what it might mean for us now. I don’t pretend to understand it all.

Having said that, there are many other people who also ‘believe the Bible’ who come to different conclusions from certain passages than I do. Rob Bell, in his book, Velvet Elvis, mentions a lady he met who said something like this “I just believe the Bible”. But at the same time, she describes her faith as ‘a personal relationship with Jesus’. The phrase ‘personal relationship’ is not found anywhere in the Bible. It’s not a bad phrase, it can describe what being a Christian is like so long as you define what it means, but the point was that someone had interpreted what it means to know got and summed it up in the phrase ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ So, Rob points out, that she obviously believes a lot more that just what is found in the Bible – she believes in the interpretation of the person who told her that phrase too. So, everything is interpreted.

Rob bell says:

“The idea that everybody else approaches the Bible with baggage and agendas and lenses and I don’t is the ultimate in arrogance. To think that I can just read the Bible without reading any of my own culture or background or issues into is and come out with a ‘pure’ or ‘exact’ meaning is not only untrue, bit it leads to a very destructive reading of the Bible that robs it of its life and energy”

How can we be sure we have the right interpretation?

This is his point. The Bible is inspired, and it’s words are ‘living and active’ because they came from a God who is ‘living and active’. This is why we shouldn’t just read the Bible alone, we should read it in the context of prayer, and of a community who prays, thinks, and supports each other. Point of the Bible is to point us to God, and the joy of reading the Bible comes from a desire to seek God and wrestle with the texts as we apply them.

Rob Bell again:

“The writers of the Bible are communicating in language their world will understand. They are using the symbols and pictures and images of the culture they are speaking to That’s why the Bible has authority – God has authority and is present in real space and time. The Bible is a collection of stories that teach us about what it looks like when God is at work through actual people. The Bible has the authority it does only because it contains stories about people interacting with the God who has all authority”

It has authority because God has authority, not because it fell from the sky as a holy book.

Questions, questions, questions, Jump – Velvet Elvis 1

I’ve just started reading Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. So far, I’m loving it. He basically says that people can see Christianity in two ways. He uses the analogy of a trampoline to descibe Christianity. Being a Christian is getting on and jumping, the doctrines of the faith are the springs in the trampoline  – the framework, the things that allow you to jump. They stretch and flex. If one is being questioned, the others still support it.

 The second way is to think of each doctrine as a brick. Put the bricks together and they make a wall. Bricks don’t flex. Walls keep people in and keep them out. The bricks might seem like a firm foundation, but bricks all hold each other up. Take one out and the whole wall may fall down.

For example, some Christians believe that the world was made in six literal 24-hour days. (I don’t, but fair enough if you do). If we use the brick model, this doctrine might me one brick. OK. But what happens when that one brick starts to become questioned? What happens when arguments concerning intelligent design or some sort of evolution start to become compelling? Well, the whole wall may fall down. In the book Rob Bell quotes a preacher who actually said that if you didn’t believe the world was made in six 24-hour days, you are effectively denying that Jesus ever died on the cross. This is what Rob Bell means when he talks about a ‘brick’ – the whole wall falls down.

Instead, faith is like the trampoline. It is about getting on and joining in. You don’t have to have every single doctrine worked out, the springs still help ou to jump. In fact, Bell says that Christianity is about the jumping – discovering the mystery of God by asking the questions, testing the springs, and doing it with God.

And that is how it works really isn’t it. We never discover it all. We never get full answers to our questions – but we tend to get more questions.  Acknowledging the questions is freeing and humbling. When Moses got to go up the mountain to talk to God (Exodus 3:14), he effectively asks – Who are you? What is your name? The response in confusing. God says “I AM WHO I AM” (or “I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE”). It is an answer. It’s enough to say, I am here, was here, I will always be, but it opens up a whole load more questions. How is he here? Did he always exist? How do we relate to him? What does this mean for me? and so on. The act of finding the answers to the questions, is the act of coming towards God. Get on the trampoline – come and join the questioning about the Almighty God, and enjoy the experience of living life with him.

I find this incredibly freeing – we don’t have to have it all worked out, but we can come to God and begin to ask the questions. The truth is the mystery of God, and we can all jump on and live the mystery with him, and delight in the jumping.

I’m looking forward to reading more of what Rob Bell has to say. He gives a different spin on it, focusing on the ‘living with God’ rather than the ‘beleiving the right things’.

Martin Luther on Religion and Politics

How far are Christians to obey the law of the land? How much should religion and politics meet? Paul mentions in Romans how Christians should obey the earthly authorities and governments placed over them.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. (Rom 13:1-6)

Is this always the case. What about when governments interfere with civil liberties and so on? How much should a Christian be involved informing/changing/overthrowing that government?

In February 1522, the ruler of Albertine Saxony, Duke George, banned the sale of Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible (I think this was the first one which had been translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew, avoiding the Latin Vulgate). This led him to write a treatise on earthly law: ‘Temporal Authority: To what Extent should it be Obeyed?’ In it, he proposed that there were two ways in which God rules the world: the Kingdom of Christ made up of those who follow Christ – these people (theoretically) obey the civil law gladly from the heart; and the kingdom of the world, consisting of everyone else. These people need compulsion to obey the law of the land, hence the threat of punishment.

The gospel (kingdom of Christ)  advises Christians to turn the other cheek, forgive repeatedly, to be self-givingly generous and so on. As this is an impossible way of running a worldly government, the Christian operates in both spheres. In public roles, when acting on behalf of others, they are bound by the laws of the land (giving out punishment where necessary etc.) , but in private interactions, offences must be met with values in keeping with God’s kingdom, and not those in keeping with the law of the land.

So Luther seemed to see some sort of dualism in the way Christians act in public life – a clear separation of matters of national governance and matters of faith. Luther’s application was that as the Duke George had interfered in a matter of faith by banning the sale of the German Bible, therefore Christians were free to disobey the ban.

I agree with this to a certain extent – there are definitely two kingdoms. Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world” – therefore it seems logical that kingdoms of this world (such s governments) can never be entirely ‘Christian’. However, I’m not sure if I’m comfortable with such a separation in the way Christians interact with politics (i.e. the kingdom of this world). Our lives are a continual flow of interactions, decisions, and networks which in the public and private sphere. Faith is to be lived out publicly as well as privately nurtured. It is important to say that Luther’s context sheds a lot of light on what he was saying. He was reacting to the ban of the german Bible as well as writing in the midst of the Peasants Revolt in Germany in 1525-6 – when (some) priests were rallying people to get involved in violent uprisings against the rulers of the day. He was exhorting people that they could disobey the laws of the land on some things, but shouldn’t on others, whilst also saying that the church should not be in the business of gaining wealth, governing countries, going to war etc.

“Luther wanted to insist that it was the task of rulers to rule and clergy to preach. Both are agents of God’s rule, both are demonstrations on God’s care for his world – but the two must not get confused” (Graham Tomlin in Luther and his World).

However, In 1930s-40s Germany, many churchgoers were using exactly this belief in this separation, but taking it out of the context of Luther’s situation. On the whole, churches completely failed to stand up to Hitler because of their belief that they shouldn’t get involved in secular government. On the whole, this separation is unhealthy.

So what should we make of Christians in politics? That’s fine so long as the church is not doing the governing, making the policies, or owning the parties, as inevitably this will require compromise from the values of God’s kingdom. Creating heaven on earth is not possible until Jesus comes back. However, Christians are called to ake political stands, such as Martin Luther King on segregation – done peacefully and effectively. It seems clear that just voting for the *right* candidate isn’t enough – unjust policies need to be opposed. But I think Luther is right is saying the church as a whole are not there to govern.

However, I’m not sure if I’ve entirely understood his position.

A new(?) interpretation of the sheep and the goats?

I’m in Matthew in my daily Bible reading. Today I got the part where Jesus told the parable of the sheep and the goats (matt 25:31-46), where all the nations are gathered around him, and he separates them into ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’. He says to the sheep:

“I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

They respond with surprise – ‘When did I do this?’. and Jesus replies:

‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

This has traditionally been interpreted to mean that Christians should do good work and look after the poor and sick etc. However, in the study notes I am reading, Don Carson, in ‘For the Love of God’ proposes an alternate interpretation (He doesn’t deny that Christians should look after the poor and sick – as this is well attested in other parts of the Bible – he just questions whether that is what this passage is saying).

Carson states that Jesus is identifying with ‘these brothers of mine’ – Jesus’ followers who were suffering, and argues that the sheep were commended not for helping those who were suffering, but for helping Christians were suffering. The goats were scolded likewise. He uses Saul/Paul’s conversion experience in Acts 9 to support it. Saul had been persecuting Christians, and Jesus appeared to him and said “Why do you persecute me” – implying that attacking or supporting Christians is the same as attacking or supporting Jesus himself.

In Carson’s own words:

“Real followers of Jesus will go out of their way to help other followers of Jesus, not least the weakest and most despised of them; others will have no special inclination along these lines. That is what separates sheep and goats”

This would certainly help explain the apparent surprise of the ‘sheep’ and the ‘goats’ in this passage. If Jesus was referring simply to general compassion it is hard to see why they’d be surprised. It also helps explain Paul’s very harsh words against anyone who persecutes Christians elsewhere and hinders the gospel from being spread. (see 1 Thess 2:14-16).

I’m not entirely sure what I think of this interpretation yet…

Thomas a Kempis on holiness

The whole point of Thomas a Kempis’ book The Imitation of Christ is about growing in discipleship; that is, becoming more holy and acting more like Christ. This should be the goal of any Christian who professes to follow Christ. (Thomas a Kempis was a monk who lived between 1380 and 1471). Chapter 18 is entitled ‘on the examples of the Holy Fathers’, where a Kempis recalls the life of the early Christians, particularly those known as the ‘Desert Fathers‘, and he urges a return to their way of life, and example of fasting and praying.

A Kempis goes on to say:

“Their examples still witness that they were indeed holy and perfect men, who fought valiantly, and trampled the world under their feet… Oh, the carelessness and coldness of the present time! Sloth and lukewarmness make life wearisome for us, and we soon lose our early fervour! May the longing to grow in grace not remain dormant in you, who have been privileged to witness so many examples of the holy life” (from chapter 18)

This is all very well, and reflects a (good) desire to grow in Christian maturity towards God. However, I can’t help thinking that a Kempis to a certain degree reflects his own time. In the same chapter he could be seen as laying some of the ground work that led to the reformer, Martin Luther’s dissatisfaction with himself as a monk, and his subsequent rediscovery of the power of God’s grace.

Earlier in the same chapter, a Kempis says, (talking again of the example of early Christians): “Grounded in true humility, they lived in simple obedience, they walked in charity and patience; and thus daily increased in the Spirit, and received great grace from God”

Is there here, a hint of the idea that God’s grace is some wort of reward for living in simple obedience. This is what Luther rallied against. He could never be good enough to merit God’s grace, no matter how hard he tried. There would always be aspects of himself that were undeserving. Surely it is the other way around. It is as a response to God’s grace that we attempt to grow in discipleship (that is, grow in the imitation of Christ).

Martin Luther put it a lot better than I can:

“As it is written: ‘The just person lives by faith’. I began to understand that in this verse the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous man lives by the gift of God, in other words by faith…. This immediately made me feel as if I had been born again and entered through open gates into paradise itself.” (Martin Luther, from his ‘Autobiographical fragment’ of 1545)

This makes the heart keener to live for God, and takes the pressure off.

Vanhoozer on Worship

A good but long article on the nature of worship and its relationship to theology by Kevin Vahoozer can be found here. If you’ve got the time, it’s worth a read.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_200204/ai_n9065166 

Sign of Jonah

I’ve been thinking about how God communicates with us, and in particular, why he doesn’t show himself too often using obvious signs. This passage came up this morning in my Bible study:

Matt 12:38-42 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

The people were asking Jesus for a sign – they were Pharisees and people who wanted to trap Jesus. Jesus responds by saying that no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah. What was that? Here follow some half formed thoughts.

1. Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish. Jesus will spend three days in “the belly of the earth”. Jesus’ death (and resurrection) should be all the signs we need to accept him as God’s promised king – this is the one true sign to us and is well enough documented that we can believe it.

2. Those who repent (presumably) have all the signs they need, and judgement is on those who don’t. Ninevah repented when Jonah went to them (much to his dismay). The Queen of the South (Sheba) came to listen t the wisdom of Solomon (1 Kings somewhere). They both heard and saw who God is and believed. However, both Nineveh and Sheba – people groups outside of “God’s chosen people” at the time – will rise up in judgement against “this wicked generation” who don’t recognise his wisdom.

3. In the context of Matthew, this is another progression in the redefintion of Israel as a nation – “God’s people” is no longer limited to those born into a certain race, but is being redefined as all those who identitfy with Jesus. (see the parables in Matt 21 and the teaching in Matt 23 for more on this). Jesus is the perfect Israelite and all who associate with him can now be in God’s people, including Nineveh and Sheba. Just as Jonah was upset at their repentance, there will be many who ask “how did they get in”

Why doesn’t God usually guide/who himself in signs – from this passage we can say that the ultimate sign has been shown and people who you might not expect recognise. I feel this is not the whole story though.