Should Christians think?
I am continuing to read through Thom Shultz' bookWhy Nobody Desire to become to Church building anymore, in which he identifies four key objections to church and proposes four responses, what he calls the Four Acts of Love. Having explored Radical Hospitality, the side by side chapter explores Fearless Conversation.
Interestingly, Shultz addresses this in two quite distinct contexts. The beginning is the context of conversation with those outside the church building and Christian faith, proposing that we should be ready to appoint positively with a wide variety of other views and listen carefully to them if nosotros are to offer a convincing account of Christian faith. His instance from Lifetree Café (an open version of church which seeks to appoint non-believers on neutral territory) is of a session entitled 'The Witch Side by side Door.' Later an introduction, and a video interview with a practicing witch, some pagans and a Wiccan who had become a Christian, at that place was an exploration of what Wiccans, Jews and Christians believed (considering those attending included people from all 3 sets of beliefs). This sort of dialogue would heighten eyebrows for many of u.s.a.—simply for Shultz it was rooted in a confidence that the truth nearly God will out, and that Christian faith can stand on its own ii feet in the marketplace of (religious) ideas.
This comes from two sets of observations in the NT. The beginning is that Jesus' style of advice often too the grade of questions, many of which were open-ended and invited his listeners to think for themselves or provoked them into rethinking their assumptions.
Jesus spoke all these things to the oversupply in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable (Matt 13.34).
And aslope this, Jesus appeared to have no qualms about engaging with people on the margins, mostly on their ain territory. There appeared to be no 'no-get areas'. Rob Bewley makes a like observation nearly Jesus' conversational manner in his Grove Biblical study of Marker's gospel, Transforming Conversation:
In brusk, Marker's gospel depends on what Jesus says while engaged in conversation with other people and on what they say to him in those same conversations, more than on what Jesus says when freed from the constraints of interaction. So it makes sense not only to study the words of Jesus, only as well to study the shape and nature of the encounters in which these words are uttered (p 4).
This suggests that listening belongs to the task of evangelism much more than than we have traditional thought, and perhaps particularly with those who appear to us to be a long style from Christian belief. Steve Hollinghurst explores this in his study ofNew Historic period, Paganism and Christian Mission:
Those attracted to the New Age will be interested to appoint with a Christianity that offers genuine spiritual encounter and a God who works in miraculous means, indeed without such they will prove piffling interest. Those who have set up stalls exploring Christianity at mind, body and spirit fairs have found people willing to engage on these bug, and I would commend this idea to others. Certainly we need to be taking our organized religion to them in their environment rather than expecting them to come to us.
Shultz besides notes the emphasis on respectful conversation in the epistles:
Let your conversation exist always total of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you lot may know how to answer everyone (Col 4.6)
My beloved brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, tedious to speak and slow to go angry (James 1.19)
The verse from James is most usually read in the context of conversation inside the body of believers—but why should it not use equally to conversation with enquirers and those of other or no religion?
This then leads to the question of the nature of teaching, learning and chatwithin the church. Here Shultz draws on a range of commentators who take written near learning in the church, and the widespread failure of monologue, lecture-style teaching to actually appoint with the questions Christians have or offer effective and memorable learning that changes lives. What is actually interesting here is the way this connects with aspects of first-century culture every bit we come across information technology in the NT. David Shepherd, a regular contributor to comments on this weblog, offers this insight:
'Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Attestation' contains a chapter written by Carl Mossier chosen Discussion and Prophecy in First Century Synagogues. He presents a convincing instance that demonstrates that the early church building inherited the kickoff-century Sabbath pedagogy format of scripture reading, initial education and then open up discussion. It was this period of open discussion that immune Paul and Barnabus to participate as strangers and share their 'discussion of exhortation'.
Mossier carefully explains that the early church building adopted this format and that Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church reflect this: 'Follow the way of dearest and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy…Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting downwards, the first speaker should finish. For you can all prophesy in turn so that anybody may exist instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is non a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord's people. (1 Corinthians 14.ane, 29-33)
The issue today is that there is little opportunity for current liturgy to permit open up discussion durimg which the prophetic reflections on the reading by non-clergy could exist heard and evaluated for comfort, edification and exhortation. Our mod liturgy is devised by those who can't help but promote the role of the clergy while marginalising the participation of the congregation in instructive, prophetic discussion.
Hasten the solar day when most churches might permit the decent, orderly and open prophetic discussion in their services that Paul encouraged in Corinth.
All this has serious implications for how nosotros call back virtually church, witness and engagement with those effectually us. It suggests that we take seriously the questions we have and others express if we are to be a customs of learning; later all, that is the primary significant of discipleship. This isn't about making faith intellectual, simply information technology is about making faith comprehendible, reasonable fifty-fifty. And this might well imply change for the style we 'do church building'.
First, information technology implies a pregnant change of culture for many churches. Are our congregations places where people can comfortably ask difficult questions, and where those questions volition be listened to carefully, taken seriously, and engaged with faithfully? This kind of civilization is often associated with a 'liberal' theology, where it tin can appear as though there are no definite answers, so there is no problem with having questions since that is all nosotros have. In fact, information technology seems to me that it is contexts where we practise 'have answers' that can create the safe space for asking questions.
That leads into the second implication: we need to accept confidence in at least two directions. The commencement is that we have confidence in the gospel, in the Christian organized religion, that it will stand up upward to scrutiny and survive cross-exam from other points of view. That in turn ways that our own faith volition be based on conviction that has survived our own hard questions, and not just on an impulsive 'leap of organized religion'. Simply it also requires us to have conviction that, inside the church and beyond it, we can trust the Spirit of God to direct our conversation and work through the interactions that we take with others.
Finally, this has implications for our style of communication and leadership. Questions cannot be asked where leadership is autocratic or defensive. And perhaps the greatest challenge for preachers is to accept the risk of preaching in the form of a dialogue, where control of the discourse is surrendered for the sake of authentic engagement. More than on that in a future postal service!
I work freelance. If yous have valued this post, would you considerdonating £i.xx a month to support the production of this blog?
If you lot enjoyed this, practise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this mail, you tin can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skillful comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek beginning to understand, then to exist understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/should-christians-think/
0 Response to "Should Christians think?"
Enregistrer un commentaire