Too much too soon?

Thanks Tony for recommendation to go to Permission to Speak... it can be accessed more easily at permissiontospeak.org.uk

John Churcher

An intense Holy Spirit weekend on the Alpha course may be great for those who are ready for it but it could turn others off Christianity for life. Shouldn’t there be some counselling about who is ready for the weekend rather than just supposing that everyone be given exactly the same material because it has worked for some?

As I have said earlier on this thread, I am no longer a supporter of Alpha for this very reason. Whilst the HS content may be suitable for some, it can be very off-putting for others. That's why we adapted it to a more Methodist perspective, and it seemed to be much more relevant to newish Christians than the official Alpha line.

It's for the same reason that we are soon to run with "Christianity Explored", which seems to be more focussed on bringing people into a knowledge of Jesus as Saviour and friend rather than speaking in tongues.

So far as Paul is concerned, he was doing what any sensible preacher will do. He starts where people are, and this is what most churches seek to do, at least to some degree. Parent and Toddler groups, Ladies Fellowships, Cafe Church and similar are all attempts to meet people in a neutral environment. The success rate is mixed at best, but there are other ways of doing this.

We hold several open air services each year, we deliver a local newsletter around the area, we offer free transport to the local hospital, a drop-in for Alzheimers and carers, and numerous other stuff, too many to mention. Does it work? I think so, since lives are changed and touched by all that we do in compassion. Does it build the Kingdom? I believe so. Does it bring people to Christ? I don't know, but it certainly brings Christ to people.

But ultimately, it's all about Jesus, and how we respond to him. To go back to Paul again, whilst he began his teaching in many different places and styles, tailoring his message according to his audience, he ALWAYS finished at the cross.

Not a bad example really.

Sparty

Max/Jack,

Actually, it's not really about curry. It's about Jesus.

So I am wondering...

Is it the church you dislike?

Would that be the church in general or Methodism in particular?

Or is it the way the church operates?

Or is it in fact the gospel we preach?

Or even the fact that we believe that Jesus is God?

You see, you are giving so many mixed messages, all of them critical of the church, and I really don't know what your chief gripe is. I really want to help you, but you keep shifting the goalposts.

Yours,

S

I think you are rather missing the point. Hope you enjoy your chow mein.

It is too easy to use the Parable of the Sower to explain away a poor crop by blaming soil which is too hard, too shallow, or too full of thistles for the good grain to flourish and to claim that we’ve done our bit by casting the good seed. Yet the alpine flower blooming in a mountainside crevice shows that an apparently hostile environment can be home to a beautiful plant, if we use the right seed. Many gardeners have had the experience of seeing a plant provide a magnificent display in a friend’s garden but an identical plant bought for their own plot has given disappointing results. As they are fond of saying on Gardeners’ Question Time, “the answer lies in the soil.” We need to find out what kind of soil we are dealing with, choose a plant that suits the location and then prepare the ground well, so that the seed has the best chance to take root.

So what do we sow? The answer may seem obvious, but it is not enough to say “the gospel message”. We have to select an appropriate form of it. You don’t sow winter wheat in the spring, if you want a harvest. You don’t plant potatoes in a paddy field.

In the current situation of declining numbers in many churches, we hear of panaceas for instant success in reversing the trend. An international evangelist has had a remarkable impact elsewhere, so all we need to do is let everyone hear him preach; a particular outreach course is enjoying marked success, so if we can persuade everybody to go on that course, all will be well; the Spirit is clearly moving in a certain form of church, so we should all copy that approach. If only it were so easy! Each of these will only be successful in the “right kind of soil” - with certain types of people.

We also have to take account of the climate. I find the bougainvillaea very attractive in its Mediterranean setting but I have no hope of growing it in my northern garden, except in a hothouse environment. Similarly, some of the approaches that have contributed to the recent growth of Christianity in parts of Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe will not transfer readily to post-modern Western Europe. The largely unchurched Britain of today is very different from the time of flourishing Sunday Schools in the 1950s. In a period of climatic change, we have to adapt our planting strategies.

One of the reasons St Paul was so successful was that he matched his message to his audience. He took time in Athens to acquaint himself with the local culture and then took a very different approach from when he was addressing Jews who were steeped in the tradition of sacrifice for atonement. Although he had been brought up to see circumcision as the sign of a covenant with God, an integral part of being a chosen people, he was flexible enough to drop it as a requirement once he realized that it was a major stumbling block in his mission to the Gentiles.

How much effort are we prepared to put into “getting to know our soil”, into preparing ground that has lain fallow for years or indeed not ever been cleared of rocks and brambles and in choosing the right seed?

An intense Holy Spirit weekend on the Alpha course may be great for those who are ready for it but it could turn others off Christianity for life. Shouldn’t there be some counselling about who is ready for the weekend rather than just supposing that everyone be given exactly the same material because it has worked for some?

Jack visited all various curry houses in the town and asked them to provide food for the thousands of people starving in the refugee camp a few miles outside town. “We have offered them free curry if they will only come to the restaurants,” was the continual reply. “On one occasion we even took a mobile curry kitchen to the site so that they could sample our cuisine. But very few from the camp come to the restaurants and of those that do only a handful come back. They are rejecting what we offer.” “But curry is rather too strong for people who have been starving,” Jack entreated. “Couldn’t you offer them at first some simple rice dish that was more digestible?”

“We are curry houses. We offer authentic curry from recipes hundreds of years old. Just look how the people in the restaurant are enjoying our food. If the refugees reject what we offer and then starve to death, it is hardly our fault. But you must come in and join us. Surely your first priority must be to ensure that you yourself are well fed.”

Jack was tempted by the warmth and comfort of the curry club but realised that, with the knowledge of all those starving people on his mind, the food would just stick in his throat. He shook his head sadly. “Long may you enjoy eating your curry, but my place is out there.” As he closed the door behind him, he heard the sardonic laughter of some of the diners but that simply confirmed him in his choice.

He was not afraid of the dark and he had long since learnt that he need never feel alone. Once he had put some distance between himself and the bright lights of the curry clubs, he saw that the night was far from completely dark but lit by a myriad of stars, all different, all full of potential and all part of an expanding and developing universe. Jack reflected that this somehow mirrored the diversity of humanity. It made him feel like an insignificant speck. But then he realised that he was a tiny part of something so much greater than himself. He sensed that he was loved and he was filled with hope.

As Jack walked through the night, he puzzled about what he could possibly do. Having been brought up in a poor family in post-war austerity Britain, he knew that nourishment could be found in unlikely places and that what the more affluent dismissed contemptuously as offal could be very nutritious. But what could he do with the paucity of his provisions when faced with so many starving people. What he could give was a drop in the ocean compared with what was needed.

As he fretted about crowds of hungry people, an old story came into his mind about a small boy’s picnic. He suddenly understood that he didn’t have to find a solution. All he had to do was to offer all of the little that he had, to contribute his one drop. The first flush of dawn appeared on the horizon and Jack hurried towards it.

Excellent example, Tony.

In years gone by, they were deep fried in beer batter and served in old newspaper. Nowadays, the method of cooking is rather different, and it's presented in those horrible polystyrene boxes.

But the essential ingredients are just the same (more or less). By all means review and improve the presentation and the packaging, but some things should never change!

He is speaking about the structures, the direction and shape of the church, and he is quite right. These things need to be constantly changed and adjusted.

No-one in this thread is suggesting otherwise.

Sparty

At the end of his year as president of Conference, Martyn Atkins offered his parting thoughts which included some observations that appear apposite to the way this thread has gone:

"Consequently, when our chapels and circuits are not sufficiently engaged in this Gospel business we experience dis-ease. I call it "there-has-got-to-be-more-to-following-Jesus-than-this-ness". Then, when a local Methodist church or circuit decides to become ever more mission-shaped, a second dis-ease is common, as "those who like it as it is" and those who "can't live with it as it is" try to seek a way forward.

"I have encountered these "dis-eases" in many places and various forms this year and welcome them. The first dis-ease, that gut-level dissatisfaction with our life as Church together, seems to me to be a move of the Spirit, who is not only comforter but disturber; not only anchor but tent-peg puller-upper! Such dis-ease, then, IS a sure sign that God is not finished with us, that the Spirit continues to desire our company as she goes about the things of the kingdom of God.

"The second dis-ease, arising from differences of opinion about our life and future, is usually painful but necessary, and is, I believe, also good news. The Spirit of God does not simply bring order out of chaos, but also broods in the chaos before an ordered way is discerned. The Spirit is as powerfully present in messiness and positive striving as in tamed order perhaps even more so."

What's wrong with good old fish and chips!

Actually, I have eaten at the "Restaurant of Latter-Day Chapatis" now and then in the past. Although it's true that Chicken Tikka Masala is not on the menu, they do offer their own version, Chicken Moroni, which is fairly tasty, although I always felt that some important ingredients were missing. Some of the after effects were quite unsettling too! Apparently, the owner of the restaurant was given the secret recipe years ago from some chap he met whilst walking in the woods.

I can however recommend Methi Chicken, available on most High Streets. Quite nutritious, although usually served in surroundings which are rather musty and old-fashioned, with wooden benches instead of proper seats. It really needs a pint of Kingfisher as accompaniment, but they refused to serve me.

:(

Your man was quite right.

Chicken Tikka Masala is a recent invention, and does not appear in any of the earliest Indian cookbooks. It's only on the menu today because so many people were eating it that the restaurants could no longer ignore it.

Apparently, there was a meeting of the World Council of Indian Chefs long ago who sat down to discuss this matter, and it was only after a big debate, a close vote, and the intervention of the Emperor of India himself, that it was agreed that Chicken Tikka Masala could be accepted as being part of the official Indian cuisine.

Even now, although it's widely available in most restaurants, there are some establishments who refuse to offer it simply on the grounds that it's not authentic. The "Unitarian Tandoori" is a classic example of this, along with their partner restaurants, the "Jalfrezi Witnesses" and the "Restaurant of Latter-Day Chapatis".

;)

The story is told of a man who arrived in a city for the very first time. He hadn't eaten for some days, so he went into the first restaurant he encountered, which happened to be the "Moghul Tandoori". As he sat down, he surveyed the menu and told the waiter that he wanted Chicken Chow Mein. The waiter explained that this was an Indian restaurant, and that consequently, Chicken Chow Mein was not available. The man was offered a huge variety of alternatives - curry, biryani, dansak, vindaloo - but no, the visitor insisted that only Chicken Chow Mein would suffice. So he stormed out of the Moghul Tandoori, and went down the road to the "Bengal Brasserie". Once again, he demanded Chicken Chow Mein, only to be told that the restaurant could only provide Indian cuisine. Again, he left, and continued through the town, trying the various restaurants. the Star of India, the Rawalpindi, Curries R'Us, and even the delights of the Taj Mahal. Each time, when he was told that chicken chow mein was not available, he just got angrier and angrier, and hungrier and hungrier. "What sort of restaurant do you think this is?", he cried. "Do you really think that everyone likes this sort of stuff. There are millions of people out there who can't stand Indian food, but that's all you people offer! Don't you realise that this is the 21st. century, and you need to be inclusive and progressive. How dare you only offer the same exclusive fare". So he wandered on, still complaining of hunger, and still meeting with disappointment as he visited in turn the Kashmir, the Jewel of Calcutta, and the Ruby Murray.

Eventually, he demanded to see the Chair of the local Indian Restaurant Association, and explained that they should be more accommodating to the public, especially those who enjoyed Chicken Chow Mein, and for whom Indian spices always gave them indigestion. The Indian Chair courteously explained the intricasies of Indian cookery to the man, pointing out the quality of the ingredients, and even how this is an acquired taste for many people. But our man was unmoved. "I want chicken chow mein, and it's disgraceful that none of your restaurants serve it!"

So it continued. He even attended a special "Gourmet Night" at the Bombay Carvery, but ended up arguing with the chef over the fact that Chicken Tikka Masala wasn't really an authentic Indian dish, and anyway, where is the chicken chow mein? From there, he joined an internet site devoted to Indian Cookery, and then complained that no-one was offering Chicken Chow Mein. "The trouble with all you Indian Curry enthusiasts is that you don't cater for me and all the people like me. You are only interested in your own cuisine, and you offer nothing for the likes of us". When others tried to point out the delights of Indian food, and the variety of dishes available within that particular style of cooking, he was still unimpressed. "All you want to talk about is curry. What about me, and my chow mein needs? Don't you realise that I am hungry?""

With that, he left, determined to continue his campaign against the curry houses who offered nothing but curry.

I provided sound doctrine, Lord, week after week but most people weren’t interested in what I was preaching.

Is there any point in this thread if you continue to ignore what people are saying?

No-one, but NO-ONE, is suggesting that "sound doctrine" alone is sufficient. It has an important place, but it is only part of the ministry of the church.

You are trying to invent some sort of weird church which relies only on doctrinal purity so that you can have a target for your gripes. I would hazard a guess that there is no such church in Methodism, so why are you having a go at us?

Your stories are lovely, but your argument is based on a deliberate and mischievous misrepresentation of the church. It just won't do, sorry.

Eric

Max's problem (or rather, the problem which Max represents) is that he doesn't want the food that is on offer, presumably because it disagrees with him. It's not WHERE it's served, but WHAT is served which he doesn't like.

Regardless of presentation method - sermon, over a meal, on a discussion board, or even an Alpha Course - the food is simply not to his fancy. And that's fair enough.

I doubt that the church can do anything about this. Jesus himself encountered many "sheep" who refused to be fed.

To take your parable a bit further, Max, the problem in too many places isn't the quality of the food, but the fact that it is always served in the canteen where the the patients never go.

Isn’t it time the church stopped priding itself on the soundness of its doctrine, realised that 90% in Britain have little or no contact with church, and started to think what spiritual food it can provide that will bring the unchurched or the disaffected a little closer to God?

Sorry, I don't recognise the church that you are bashing.

In our church, we have a wide variety of opportunities to get to know God better, a network of house groups for everyone, no matter where they are on their journey, a thriving Sunday School, a vibrant and growing work among teenagers (between fifty and eighty every week at our Internet Cafe), and a day care centre, Monday to Friday, for the elderly and lonely. We have recently added an additional Sunday service aimed at non-Christians, and this Sunday, the church will once again be full.

No great secret - just a clear message about Jesus, and a sincere attempt to demonstrate the love of God in practical ways. As has been said, the one is useless without the other.

All the research shows that the churches in the UK which are growing and changing lives all hold to "soundness" of doctrine. It's not a co-incidence, nor is it something which should be lambasted as you seem intent on doing. If you don't agree with some of the teaching, that's your call, Max. But please don't make out that because we don't teach what you want to hear, that somehow we are not feeding the sheep.

Sparty

Thank you for your recommendation, Tony.

A chef who was very proud of his cordon bleu cuisine and his Michelin stars took the post of catering manager at a hospital so that he could show how high quality food could be produced in that environment. One patient had been seriously ill and had been fed intravenously for some time. Today was to be his first meal for weeks, so the ward sister sent down for a very simple meal that was to be little more than pap. The chef was insulted, ignored the request, and sent up one of his gourmet meals. The patient took one look at the rich food and his stomach churned. He couldn’t face it and ate none of it. The chef, in focusing on the quality of the meal he was providing rather than on the patient, failed to provide the nourishment that was so badly needed.

Isn’t it time the church stopped priding itself on the soundness of its doctrine, realised that 90% in Britain have little or no contact with church, and started to think what spiritual food it can provide that will bring the unchurched or the disaffected a little closer to God? You have to motivate someone to make the first step, long before you worry about what road they are on. Yes, they have turned away their ears, so how are you going to get them to start listening again? Just deriding those who suggest alternative approaches doesn't help at all. Because if people aren’t listening, it doesn’t matter a jot to them how sound your doctrine is; it only matters to you!

“Did you feed my sheep as you committed yourself to do?” “I provided sound doctrine, Lord, week after week but most people weren’t interested in what I was preaching. I offered them the right food; but they just didn’t have any appetite for it, even though they claimed to be spiritually hungry.” “How can it have been the right food, if they came hungry and went away still hungry?”

Christlike living and good theology are both essential for anyone who wants to be an effective Christian. I do find it difficult to believe that any Methodist minister would state that belief in penal substitutionary theory is essential for salvation or that anyone would say that someone is certainly not a Christian if they have questions about the uniqueness of Christ. In Methodist terms, I am about as conservative/evangelical as it gets, and I would never dream of using such phrases. Nor have I ever heard any minister suggest such a thing, even privately. Not for the first time on this site, Max, you seem to be very unlucky in your ministerial encounters!

Having said all that, I firmly believe that Jesus died in our place on the cross, and I would expect any Methodist minister to teach and preach this as fact. How we understand that statement is always going to be open to interpretation, but the truth stands.

But even believing that to be true is not enough. Salvation involves much more than right theology.

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."
1 Timothy 4:16

Both how we live and what we believe are critical if we are to be effective followers of Christ.

Jon

"I challenged his assertion that the only way to God is through belief in the penal substitution and/or sacrificial atonement of Jesus. He told the group that there is only one kind of Christian – a born-again Evangelical – and that anyone else who thinks he has had any experience of God is just deluding himself."

I would agree with him that the only way to God is through the death of Christ. Whether penal substitution is the only explanation of Jesus' death is another issue. I would agree with him that the only kind of Christian is someone who is born again - because that's what it means, it is in danger of becoming a circular definition. I might even agree with him that only Evangelicals are Christians, because again, it's becoming circuiar: 'evangelical' mean 'pertaining to the Gospel' and any believer in Christ, Catholic, liberal, Syrian Monophysite, or whatever is by definition evangelical. If however he wishes to argue that only a particular brand of Evangelical is thereby saved, I think he is going beyond the evidence - and in the process, writing off the largest part of the vast number of believers who have existed through the centuries. He may be in for quite a surprise when he gets to heaven and finds out who's there.

CS Lewis wrote somewhere that having a good theology without a living faith is like having the map of a country you've never visited. Having a faith without a good theology is like being out at sea with no map. Ideally, you should have both. But the bit that is 'saving faith' is that trust in Christ which comes from the heart, not the doctrinal affirmation that comes from the head.

I don't think you failed Alpha, Max. I think it failed you. Can I recommend "Permission to Speak" - http://www.mrsite.co.uk/usersitesv6/permissiontospeak.org.uk/wwwroot/ind...
- you might find it a more fruitful fellowship in exploring your map.

In 20th century Europe the traditional doctrines that have been safe Christian territory for centuries are no longer sufficient to feed the spiritual hunger that is very evident outside the church.

I entirely agree with you. I think we are now in that time which we were told would come about, when "people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

Don't like the doctrines of the church? That's fine - just design your own.

Does the image of Jesus giving his life in atonement for sin make you uncomfortable? No problem - just reject it and replace it with something more comfortable.

Does the idea of Jesus being the only way to God upset you? That's OK - after all, any road will do!

S

Well, for someone who is apparently on some sort of faith discovery journey, you certainly write as if you have all the answers. Your evident scorn for anyone who takes a more traditional view of Christian belief is rather sad, coming as it does from someone who tells us that "we have to be more accepting of the diversity of people's experience of God".

Such acceptance of diversity only seems to work one way, which is a great shame.

Your doctrine, or at least the doctrine which makes you feel most comfortable, is certainly attractive and I can understand why "restless, questioning souls" such as yourself might find solace in such undemanding beliefs. "Any road will do" does sound very inclusive and welcoming, but I think you would be very hard pressed to substantiate such an idea from the gospels. The peculiar thing is that it is the traditional teachings of the church which are the very ones which challenge you, which make you feel uncomfortable and which you refuse to accept.

You can't deal with them, so you are out the door, a bit like the rich young ruler. Who is the one who doesn't like being challenged, Max??

Eric

To answer your point, Eric, and to bring the discussion back to the initial thread, I am quite willing to acknowledge that I am on the very periphery of the church – indeed, more than half-way out of the door – and so my faith experiences are of no account, as far as the church is concerned. But I was writing to someone who self-described as “lost” and who, from his comments, doesn’t seem to be able to find what he needs within the continual restatement of church doctrines. Surely, even an outsider is allowed to render what assistance he can to someone who has fallen by the wayside and whom official church views seem unable to help. (There is biblical precedent for this.)

Telling someone, “All you have to do is to get to the road where I am” is only helpful under certain circumstances. We all have to take the first / next step towards God from where we are, not from where someone else would like us to be. By the way, even if many “are on the wrong road, heading for destruction”, do you really think that God is incapable of finding them there? Much is made of the “narrow gate” and John 14:6, but are not “seek and you will find”, “knock and the door will be opened” equally valid?

I describe myself as an “outsider”, because I failed the Alpha course. At least, I was told by the Methodist minister running the course that I was “very definitely not a Christian”. Why? - Because I challenged his assertion that the only way to God is through belief in the penal substitution and/or sacrificial atonement of Jesus. He told the group that there is only one kind of Christian – a born-again Evangelical – and that anyone else who thinks he has had any experience of God is just deluding himself. (I wonder if he has ever realised that he is doing half of Richard Dawkins’ work for him, by telling other people of faith that their experiences of God are a delusion, unless they share his particular beliefs.) I hardly think that is “just the same” as saying, as I did, that - “We have to be much more accepting of the diversity of people’s experience of God.”

On old maps unexplored areas were sometimes designated “Here be dragons!” It was only because explorers were prepared to venture into these wild areas that the habitable area of the world expanded. Christianity only developed because Paul was prepared to take it beyond the confines of traditional Jewish thinking and out into the Gentile world, with all the initial difficulties and despite the expressions of horror from the apostles in Jerusalem. In 20th century Europe the traditional doctrines that have been safe Christian territory for centuries are no longer sufficient to feed the spiritual hunger that is very evident outside the church. So perhaps some of us restless, questioning souls, whom the church finds it so very difficult to accommodate anyway, need to leave the safety of the church with its secure traditions and venture onto your spiritually “dangerous ground”. Our journey with God isn’t meant to be safe but challenging. It'll make the church more homogeneous for those who are left.

Thanks for your posts, Max.

They do make some important points, although I shouldn't be so hard on "religious people", with all their beliefs and doctrines. After all, you are just the same, having set out your beliefs and teachings in such a fulsome way. One hopes that you would have the grace to add "All in my humble opinion" afterwards.

I think the sensible advice Spartacus has set out should not be ignored though. As Jesus says, there are many people who are on the wrong road, heading for destruction.

To suggest otherwise is dangerous ground indeed.

IMHO

Eric

As I said before, I love your sentiments.

;)

The difference between religion and faith is the difference between a road and a journey. It matters far less than is usually made out by religious people whether we are on the Damascus road or the Emmaus road or the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. What counts is what happens to us on that road, whom we meet and how we respond and who travels on with us. Cleopas was confused, struggling with disbelief and with the pain of bereavement, unable to recognise the one he needed most and walking away from the other disciples, but he was found where he was. Paul was actively working against the fledgling church when he was stopped in his tracks by the presence of God. Jacob was on the run after cheating his brother; he’d had to leave home and family, and he found himself at night in the desert, alone and frightened, when he realised that, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I wasn’t even aware of it!” In the 20th century Albert Schweitzer discovered God in a leper colony, Mother Teresa saw him in the gutters of Calcutta and Elie Wiesel recognised him hanging on a gallows in Auschwitz.

God will find us where and when we need him most. That may well not be on any of the roads that the church has traditionally put forward. God is not restricted by church doctrine and if we’re prepared to meet God in unexpected places and hear him speaking to us in unexpected ways, we are more likely to find ourselves surprised by joy.

We have to be much more accepting of the diversity of people’s experience of God. We should worry far less about understanding God’s grand strategy for salvation and imputing motives to him and focus far more on experiencing God’s love and passing it on to others. Remember that Jesus said that the whole of the law and the prophets could be summed up in the two love commandments and, as Paul pointed out, we might believe all the right things and understand all the doctrines but if we don’t express that through love, it is all meaningless. Our task isn’t to define God or to decipher the Trinity as an idea but to respond to the God revealed to us as individuals. We aren’t expected to know all about God intellectually but to know God intuitively and intimately through personal experience.

Religion is about beliefs and doctrines, rituals and traditions. Faith is a personal journey of discovery, a transforming relationship of love and trust, a series of experiences, an active response to a vision of God’s kingdom, and a commitment to discipleship. It is to faith and discipleship that we are called.

We don’t have to be among the few who find "the right path" to God and who hold the "right beliefs which are the key to the gate of life". Nor do we have to struggle our way up a mountainside of doubt and uncertainties. We don’t have to get ourselves to God at all. It doesn’t matter what road we are on...

I love your sentiments, Max, but you do need to be careful with what you say.

Jesus tells us that it matters a great deal what road we are on.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

A practice nurse who works in a GP’s surgery tells of one morning when a man in his 80s came to the reception desk to ask to see the doctor. He asked how long he would have to wait because he had another appointment. As he sat in the waiting room, she saw him keep looking at his watch, clearly anxious about his next appointment. She checked why he was there and saw that he only needed some stitches removed and his wound checked, so she called him into the nurses’ room. As she was removing his stitches, she asked him whether he was perhaps due at the dentist’s or the optician’s. “No,” he said, “I am going to have breakfast with my wife.” He explained that his wife was in a nursing home and he went to see her every morning. As they talked further, it came out that his wife had Alzheimer’s and no longer knew who he was. As the nurse finished with his wound, she said gently, “Why is it so important that you go, if she does not even know who you are?” He said simply, “But I know who she is.”

The man, of course, was not just seeing his wife as she was now but also as his young bride, the mother of his children, his soulmate with whom he had shared so many good times – all those ideas were rolled together in the love he showed.

God is no less loving than this man. When God looks at us, he does not just see the flawed human being who generally ignores his existence, who is self-centred, whose feelings are easily hurt, who finds it hard to forgive and who is afraid of what tomorrow will bring. He sees the butterfly within the caterpillar. He sees the potential for a life full of love and commitment that lies within each of us. He loves us even if we are confused about who he is or don't recognise him.

Faith isn’t about believing a list of doctrines; it is a way of living in relationship with God and with others and of being at peace with oneself. It is a way of being and a way of loving. The relationship with God that we call faith takes as many forms as there are people.

We don’t have to be among the few who find "the right path" to God and who hold the "right beliefs which are the key to the gate of life". Nor do we have to struggle our way up a mountainside of doubt and uncertainties. We don’t have to get ourselves to God at all. It doesn’t matter what road we are on, even if we are in a cul-de-sac, up a blind alley or on a route leading away from God, God finds us. He’s actually with us all the time though we may not be aware of his presence until we turn to him or ask for his help.

We don’t have to jump through hoops of beliefs to reach him; all we have to do is to acknowledge our need of him. It may be that we are too confused or unsure or hurt to know what we believe. But if all we can do is to reach out blindly towards God and acknowledge that we need his help to change our lives. that is all we need to do. It is a huge first step and God will respond. You do not need to take on a whole parcel of beliefs and church teaching before you can begin. Once we turn to God, he will then journey with us. And travelling with God is quite an adventure!

I'm amazed and quite staggered at the pompous comments made here. Almost a feeling of pity for those that want to be with God. If He has a plan then He will let you find Him. There is no map as I dont imagine God is lost, only those trying to find Him. Including me.

So the people on the Alpha course may not all have been Christians, but as they usualy came from discussions or Questions events they were people who were asking questions about the faith with friends at the church rather than 'people off the street' if that makes sense.

Thanks for that.

I am sure in your case, the HS weekend was not a case of "too much, too soon", as the people on the course sound like Christians who need to be introduced to deeper things.

In my experience, Alpha does work rather better with people who are already "semi-committed" or at least curious. I think I still prefer "Christianity Explored" though, but I'll have a better idea once we have run the course a few times.

Kind regards.

"...they will tell you that there is no such person as the Holy Spirit. All they say is that their god is at work in creation, and they describe this as "holy spirit", his active force."

Which is pretty much what I said - and the difference between "the Holy Spirit" and "holy spirit" is the sort of playing around with the definite article which they like to do in their translation. It still adds up to precisely what I said - they do not deny the existence of (the) spirit, they do deny the Trinity, so explain the spirit in similar terms to OT references to "the Spirit of the Lord" (except they'd say "the spirit of Jehovah"), his active force rather than a separate Person.

"So far as their bible is concerned, it was translated (so to speak) from the original Greek and Hebrew about seventy years ago."

The current JW translation was done about 1950, and is based on the Westcott Hort Greek text of the 1880s. There are numerous issues with the translation, especially in key texts such as Jn.1:1, where they are driven by their pre-existing Christology, and then find a complicated grammatical argument to justify it. A specious argument, as I remember, but that conversation was a very long time ago, and I prefer not to waste time going to look for it again. My usual riposte when doorstepped by them is that I will listen to their case when they get the Name right. The word "Jehovah" does not exist in Hebrew. Why should I give any credence to an organisation which was started by a sceptic who left the Congregational Church and decided to read the Bible for himself to find out what it "really means" and did it by using the KJV and with absolutely no knowledge of the original languages?

"Regardless of all that, they are most definitely NOT a Christian church."

I agree. However, to come back to your own distinction, I make that comment without thereby making any judgement on the personal faith of any individual JW. I do not rule out the possibility of someone finding God insoite of the dodgy theology they're fed. After all, it happens in other churches, doesn't it? ;)

Hi Spartacus,

There was a mixture of people on the course.
I was already a Christian before I did the course. I'd been one about two or three months and did the course before my baptism. My friend who did it with me had been raised Christian.

Others on the course were newer to the Christian faith. I don't think anyone was completely 'off the street' as everyone there had come through the church or through a friend at the church who presumbably had discussed their faith with them.

The same church that ran Alpha also ran a Questions event one evening a month. These were were themed around a very general topic, such as "Money" or "Being content" with a meal. The talk would be a lot more general and would include God but was not a sermon. It was more designed to start a converstaion than to preach. The idea was that people could come who wouldn't think of coming to a service and you could invite anyone you knew. If people wanted to take things further they could come to an Alpha course and/or a Sunday service.

So the people on the Alpha course may not all have been Christians, but as they usualy came from discussions or Questions events they were people who were asking questions about the faith with friends at the church rather than 'people off the street' if that makes sense.

Perhaps the problem that was reported with the Alpha course in the programme was because it was treated in the same way as the Questions event?

they do not deny the existence of the Holy Spirit

Of course they do.

If you ask them, they will tell you that there is no such person as the Holy Spirit. All they say is that their god is at work in creation, and they describe this as "holy spirit", his active force.

So far as their bible is concerned, it was translated (so to speak) from the original Greek and Hebrew about seventy years ago.

Regardless of all that, they are most definitely NOT a Christian church.

S

“But please don't make out that your "low Christology" is Christian, because it ain't, sorry!”

“Please note - I am NOT defining who is a Christian. Never have done, never will.”

Isn’t there something of a contradiction between these two statements?

If a theology denies that Jesus is Divine, and refutes the idea of God revealed as Trinity, then it is incorrect to describe it as "Christian". It is, at best, sub-christian or quasi-christian, but it is certainly not, by any definition, Christian.

I am making no comment on anyone's personal relationship with God, nor their status. Clear enough?

S

"They carry a bible (their own version), they have very un-Christian beliefs and attitudes, they refuse to worship Jesus Christ and they deny the existence of the Holy Spirit."

To be precise, they worship the Father of Jesus (as he instructed), they do not deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, they just don't accept it as a Person of the Trinity - it (he/she?) is "God's active force." JWs are pretty much Arians, Christologically. The text on which they base their Bible is one which was widely-used in the 19th C; the problems are more to do with specific points of translation, which tend to be chosen for sectarian presuppositions rather than linguistic accuracy.

As to definitions and the like, well, I do feel uncomfortable about them defined as "set in stone by people much wiser than ourselves" - my reading of events at Nicea makes me deeply suspicious; there were all kinds of agendas running, not least Constantine's pressure to make everyone conform, the moves to get everyone on the same side against Arius, and the problem for the Greeks in contradicting the Anointed King (ie Constantine). In effect, one amateur theologian dominated a whole bunch of diverse professionals, and many of the resulting decisions were taken for reasons which were anything but theological. If I thought I had to sign up to that lot, I think I'd rather take my chances with the JWs... (that's a JOKE!)

The underlying question is really about recognising that there is a spectrum of belief, between very orthodox and very unorthodox; there's a fuzzy bit in the middle where it is very difficult to define clearly. Fortunately for us, most of these sects don't see themselves as part of Churches Together, because they're the only True Believers, aren't they? To further complicate matters, there are a goodly number of world churches, part of the WCC, which would have difficulty in recognising Methodists as true Christians, because of those self-same definitions set in stone by wise folk so long ago. When did you last have fellowship or communion with Ethiopian Orthodox...?

Many JW would describe themselves as Christian though, and who are we to judge?

I know they do. They all do, in fact. It's a major feature of their sales talk, as their preferred targets are lapsed Christians from the mainstream denominations who don't really know what they believe.

The Mormons do the same, as do the Moonies and the Christadelphians and Unitarians, as did the Branch Davidians and the Gnostics.

But it's not about judging, it's about definitions. And we don't make these definitions, they were pretty much set in stone centuries ago by people much wiser than us.

If I choose to describe myself as French, does that make me French?

Mange tout, mange tout...

Pere Jon

Nope, I don't. Don't worry!!!

I actually teach it as part of a module on "God", alongside Hinduism and its many avatars, alongside Judaism and its single God, alongside Buddhism with no God at all.

The kids get it quicker than half the adults!!

Cham.

Hmmm...

Many JW would describe themselves as Christian though, and who are we to judge?

To be honest, it wouldn't matter what flavour (as my students put it) the person was, telling someone they are going to hell is clearly not the action of someone who understands the concept of a loving God.

I have been told I am going to hell for being gay on this forum, by members of mainstream Churches. Not quite in those terms, but certainly in terms of "you cannot be saved if you are a practicing homosexual" or "how can you be gay and a Christian?"

Our faith, our belief and our eventual salvation is between each individual and God.

Thank you,

most of us aren't intolerant!!!

Cham

As it happens, the person in question was a Jehovah's Witness.

In your original post, you described this person as a "Christian".

Now we find that he is a Jehovah's Witness.

Which is precisely the case in point.

They carry a bible (their own version), they have very un-Christian beliefs and attitudes, they refuse to worship Jesus Christ and they deny the existence of the Holy Spirit.

So how can you possibly describe them as Christians??

The Jehovah's Witnesses may be nice people (or in this case, not) but they are certainly NOT Christians.

Jon

"My point is that one can have faith in Christ and believe in salvation without necessarily believing in the traditional view of the Trinity. Believing that God incarnate came to earth as Christ is not the same as believing that God still exists as separate parts of the Trinity."

As I have tried to make clear, "one" can have faith in whatever "one" wishes, but the Trinity is a KEY belief of any denomination who wish to be considered Christian. I am not dealing with personal beliefs, journeys of faith, salvation or anything like that. I am referring to the classic defining creeds of Christendom.

By the way, for the sake of theological integrity, it is wrong to describe the Trinity as having "separate parts". I hope you don't use phrases like that when you are teaching your class. It's confusing enough already!

Jon

I'm sorry, but I find that a little bit offensive.

Actually, I have never read anything from you that could be described as intolerant. I was actually referring to the long anonymous post attacking Spartacus for things he hadn't said.

So I'll rephrase my comment...

I never cease to wonder at the blind intolerance of some inclusivists.

Jon

As it happens, the person in question was a Jehovah's Witness. I answered the front door at my Mum's wearing a "Some people are gay, get over it" T Shirt. He looked me up and down, told me there was no point in talking to me because I am going to hell anyway, turned and walked away.

Like I said, it doesn't upset me any more. What's the point? If that is his belief then so be it. I imagine most other Jehovah's Witnesses would not have behaved in this way.

"This discussion, so far as I can see, is about orthodoxy, not salvation."

My point is that there are those for whom the two are so closely linked that it appears impossible to be saved without orthodox beliefs - as in the attitude of the (presumably very orthodox) person who refused to talk to Chameleon on the grounds that she is going to hell. I take your point about the difference between the individual and a denomination. The corollary also applies: that a denomination can have a very orthodox Trinitarian theology, and be very unChristlike in practice. I'm thinking of some very exclusive groups with whom I've had encounters.

Like Spartacus, I wouldn't dream of making a judgement about their salvation, but I have found their behaviour and arrogance very off-putting - what affect they have on those who lump us all together (whether or not we are eleigible for Churches Together) can only be imagined.

I'm sorry, but I find that a little bit offensive.

I am an inclusivist, and I am actively involved in a militantly inclusive Church. I hope I am never intolerant, I pray that I am never blind.

This forum is designed to discuss our differences and explain our faith. We will not always agree, but disagreement is not intolerance.

I actually said that I teach the Trinity as a key Christian belief, but let's not start splitting hairs.

Christianity is faith in Christ. Scriptural Christianity most definitely does not require a belief in the Trinity. Most Christian Churches, and I guess most Christians do believe in God as revealed in the Trinity. They also believe in one God. That is also a key belief. Three in one and one in three. It is not something which we find easy to understand.

My point is that one can have faith in Christ and believe in salvation without necessarily believing in the traditional view of the Trinity. Believing that God incarnate came to earth as Christ is not the same as believing that God still exists as separate parts of the Trinity.

There is nothing in the Bible that says we must believe this to belong or that to belong. Even if there were such rules, then we would have to accept those who are on the journey towards belief. Very few individuals have the kind of conversion experience where they instantly believe without question. Most of us are on a journey of faith with fluctuating belief and inevitable questions. I'm cool with that.

I agree with you, Tony.

This discussion, so far as I can see, is about orthodoxy, not salvation.

We are not discussing individual belief, but rather the essential dogma of the church, which is often very different.

I can fully accept that someone can be a deeply committed Christian whilst having doubts about various aspects of theology, but I don't think a Church/denomination can officially deny the Trinity and still claim to be Christian. As you say, there have to be limits, and I believe that the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ, are non-negotiables for Christian orthodoxy. Otherwise, we would have the Jehovah's Witnesses joining our "Churches Together".

Jon

“But please don't make out that your "low Christology" is Christian, because it ain't, sorry!”

“Please note - I am NOT defining who is a Christian. Never have done, never will.”

Isn’t there something of a contradiction between these two statements?

"What I can't understand is how Chameleon can on the one hand tell us that Trinity is a key belief of Christianity and on the other hand say that those who reject it, such as the Unitarians, are somehow part of the Christian church."

For me, it comes to down to what is necessary for salvation, as opposed to what is necessary for orthodoxy. I wrestled with the Trinity when I was in college, until I worked out what I meant by it - which as I said earlier, is orthodox, just translated from a historic language which is not mine. I have met plenty of folks with similar problems, including one very active and enthusiastic believer who would not accept Methodist membership because it meant saying the Nicene Creed and affirming the Trinity: she couldn't affirm those doctrinal statements, but she was in all respects a deeply committed Christian.

I do not believe we are saved by orthodox doctrine, nor that we are somehow excluded because of unorthodox doctrine. Clearly, there must be a limit somewhere beyond which whatever faith is affirmed is not Christian, but I don't want to be too dogmatic about that - what is in the heart is God's business, and mine is simply to point people to him. I will do my best to explain the faith clearly, and to help folk to understand it, but I don't set any exams!