21st Century Cleverer Christians

I hear with no great surprise that ABC, Rowan Williams, condemned 'bullies' who seek to convert people of other faiths to Christianity. I totally agree that anyone who bullies another person into doing anything is wrong - this has been demonstrated by the way in which some, seeking to rewrite the Bible and two thousand years of Christian teaching regarding say, homosexuality, an area which Rowan has obviously made a firm and definite stance to oppose!

Regardless of the reality that some bullying appears less acceptable than others I must say that I have always disagreed with the provision of aid as a means of inducement to become Christian. Regarding Rowan's concern with 'insensitive approaches', this is a little harder to discern and define. After all, if I was a member of [insert faith or philosophical group here] having anyone point out to me that I might be far from God or was following the wrong path might well be regarded as infringement into an area of 'sensitivity' (might just be my own hang up?).

Perhaps RW has merely read my blog and decided that as everyone is now 'in' and so there's no need to evangelise anyway! We can dispense with telling people of other faiths that they need to become 'Christians' - after all, we all is anyway under my scheme and so pluralism is really one faith anyway.

Rowan, being much more cleverer than me, might know that being a Christian and being in possession of the written word, saved by the living Word and filled with the Holy Spirit definitely does not mean we have all the answers. Something I might add that I agree with, after all, we do have lots of answers to which no one appears to have questions! Mind you, we have all the fundamentally important answers as I understand it and therefore, following Matt 28 (if we still consider that 'old' stuff valid) we do have a command to evangelise and and ability (perhaps Paul's letter to Tim about Scripture might assist here) to feel secure that we do have a good many of the answers.

There must be a happy medium (not of the seance type, although I met a priest some time back who went for readings!!!) and I would stand with Rowan against the fascist Christians at one extreme against which he appears to rail. I would also stand against the revisionists and liberals at the other extreme (against whom he appears not to rail!) as well!

As RW rightly said, "Christianity is a means by which people find their peace," (RW appears to omit the important 'with God' bit, probably an accident or merely saving ink). Rowan's also right when he says that people's dignities are also honoured (people used to say, "God will never embarrass you!") for this is true - but their misplaced faith or continuing immorality of course would not be so honoured now, would it?

I think people do need to give RW a bit of a break because I think he's merely repeating what I have always said, "We need to respect other people's religion for if we fail to do this then we fail to show respect to the person and if we fail to show respect we will never enter into a relationship whereby we can show them the path to true relationship with God through the Cross of Christ."

BUT

If, as claimed, Rowan is pointing out that there are difficulties with suggesting that Christianity is the only path to salvation and that the difficulty in accepting the 'classical interpretation' of this, and other, positions is increasing then it seems that the words have remained constant and the interpretation is changing (at least for some). Is it me or is there a pattern here whereby all that 'old' teaching just doesn't seem to fit anymore? We seem to be rewriting what it means to be a Christian - didn't Hosea struggle against this and didn't it come to a head about 722BC? Perhaps we're learning new stuff and forgetting the old  - wasn't there something about not learning from history means we live it out again in the present?

Rowan asks that great question, "What about those who never heard?" Obviously he's never heard of (and therefore read) that little book of the same title for if he had he would be able to answer his own question.

Another great question, "Can we believe in a just God, who in effect punishes people, for not being in the right place at the right time?" This was a great discussion topic when I was a baby believer and moving onto  colonialism, there are a number of good books (like by the nice Mr. Stanley) which give quite adequate explanation.

Obviously on a roll, "What could we possibly mean by saying that a truth expressed in the Middle East 2,000 years ago was truth applicable to everybody, everywhere," is a super question. I can only suggest he contact another RW (a baptist in Essex who could put him straight).

Can't cope with much more of this as it's late, the  funerals for tomorrow are all put to bed and the dregs of my tea are vanishing fast. One last thought regarding the fact that we also appear to have problems with John 14 and the, "No one comes to the Father, except through me," bit. I do understand what he's saying but the whole bundle will do nothing to settle the BOPs (Bums on Pews).

If this wasn't being brought up by people higher up the tree and much, much, much cleverer than most of us I'd be thinking that perhaps we were looking as someone who was seeking rather than leading. Mind you, he managed to quote the Koran, something that will please many out there, although sadly I guess there might not be too many Christians among them.

I have reflected the views as spoken to me by 'ordinary' BLPs (Bums who may soon be Leaving Pews for denominations which are not led by people as clever as the ABC as they see erosion after erosion of what used to be firmly held belief dashed to the ground). Where does all this reported cleverness leave them I wonder and how do we shepherds settle and guide the sheep when they begin to stampede and believe me, some are thinking about it.

Wa alaikum al Salam Dudes!             Mungu akabarike sana ;)