Wednesday 26 May 2010

So what is 'Christian'all about?

I probably shouldn't admit that I struggle with this question at times, but to be honest I do! After all, Christians are called to follow in the footsteps of Christ and 'The Way' as the body of Christ, that physically existing (and thereby bringing the essential incarnacy to the equation) and spiritually (which in my book also means practically) active reality that we should be.

Christian means not condemning others regarding their sin or bringing into being those religious standards of 'in' and 'out' (or perhaps 'up' and 'down' might be a better association here) and all the other baggage that is 'religion'. Not on your nelly! Christian means to be (engaged) in this world that God has created by living in it the way that He (God) intended. There is more than just 'getting it right', there is also 'being right'.

What Tom had to say rang a bell and reminded me of a story I'd witnessed.

Many years ago I recall a nice little Oxfordshire village, you know the sort - retired Colonels, village fetes (complete with cake baking and the like) and nothing but blue posters in every window come election time. This was the refuge of the twee, middle-class, money no object sort of people. They read their newspapers, tutted at the young black people and their hooded compatriots and longed for the day when the punishment would fit the crime (and birching would return, along with national Service).

A strange and shocking thing happened to this place in that an academic and his family moved into this cloistered and comfortable existence, for they were black! Slowly they got to know the family and almost a year after they'd arrived, one of the children, having missed the bus decided to thumb a lift. He was almost sixteen and thought that he was old enough to sort his own affairs and also knew better than letting Mum know he'd left his mates late!) and so, thumbing wasn't a problem, after he'd done it before when he'd spent the money on other things.

He managed to get himself a lift to the junction on the main road and was just entering the lane that took him to his home when a police car went by. Noticing a young black man turning off the main road they decided they'd investigate, after all, this wasn't the sort of area that had many fitting that bill. It just wasn't an area where you'd expect to find 'blacks'!

They soon caught the young man up and after asking him for identification, of which there was none, they decided that they'd take him to the local nick and verify his story there. About an hour and a half after he should have been home the family, a little worried, contacted the police and after a few minutes conversation found their son was in an interview room! It was not long before they were at the police station and collecting their son, his lateness and bus-missing escapades now lost in the mists of anger and indignation. This was the response of the locals, the same people who wanted flogging and National Service a few years before went on the rampage and issued 'concerned of . . . . " and 'Angry of . . . . " letters to the press and the Chief Constable demanding an apology over this outrage against one of 'theirs'.

They might have had their fears about young black men and were fearful for their safety at the hands of such people, but once they'd got to know one and made him their own, their attitudes changed and they became protective of the very same people they'd once stood against. Their ignorance had been dealt with by relationship and their antagonism had changed into something supportive.

I think this is what Tom was aiming for with his description of 'obviously loving and responsible people'. The problem that is ignorance and the attitudes that ignorance fosters always need to be dealt with. In the same way though, so to does disobedience need to be dealt with and whilst there is no need to seek an excuse for having a different coloured skin (but there is for having attitudes against it) there is also no excuse for living other than the way that God would have us live.

And so we seek to 'gently' restore those who are sinning and we must refrain from condemning others to hell whilst standing against those who promote doing that which denies God or acts against His desires for us. We're not the judges, after all we have enough to be judged in ourselves, but neither are we the world, a group of people who are (sometimes) swayed by encounter or personalising a people group. (wasn't this how they got Gene in his position - they had people meet him and though opposed to homosexuality didn't want to stand against the person?)

I hope this helps the debate,

Pax

2 comments:

UKViewer said...

Vic,

Thanks for a thoughtful post, which illustrates perhaps that no story is straight forward and that prejudice can blind us and lead to ill-informed judgments about people.

Our principles based on our belief in God and his word are intrinsic to us. Living up to them is difficult enough for many, including me. But living up to them does not give us an excuse for exclusion and ignorance.

We are called to love one another as Jesus loved his disciples, faults and all. That is the really hard part. To love is unqualified. Acceptance is perhaps the difficult part.

I do not have the answer, I just cannot find it in my heart to discriminate on the basis of gender or sexuality.

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

Recently I had a man come to the church, he asked whether he and his partner (another man) would be welcomed in our fellowship. My response was that they would indeed be welcome, after all we've had other homosexuals in our fellowship - although I'm not sure everyone knew this!

He asked about my views regarding homosexuality and I responded that I didn't see an actively sexual relationship as fitting what I saw in Scripture but that this issue was something we needed to dialogue with in relationship. It was yet another impediment and was merely another sin.

I also pointed out that there were some fellowships in the area who had different views and were 'more liberal' than us. We parted with a hug (as brothers do) and he left. I noticed recently that the place he was seeking to buy is now occupied by a young couple so I guess he didn't manage to move into the area.

Sadly, I don't think the locals would have been as welcoming as the church.

We should not discriminate against anyone but then again neither should we compromise on our faith.

Thanks for the post,

Pax