There isn’t any fundamental, clean sheet of paper reflection on “Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?”, in a context where the way we relate to one another – and to life in general – during the rest of the week comes into it too.

There seems to be some presumption that the answer to Casper’s question is “Yes, obviously …” But why is that so obvious? Certainly not based on the usual success criteria (e.g. popularity, growth).

We all need to work together, ordinary Christians and theologians, to achieve both.

My own theological studies were directed towards equipping me to explain the Christian ’story’ in ways that are understandable, contextualised and (hence) attractive to as many as possible. All the choices I made (modules, dissertation, etc.) were with that in mind.

I fear that in recent years, as Christians, we’ve done a pretty good job of making the story everything but understandable, contextualised and attractive, both within and without the church.

That’s now my great passion, not just to communicate this to the unchurched but to Christians too, many of whom have massive unfilled gaps, and doubts, that popular Christianity so frequently fails to deal with (unless the Christians ‘get it’, the unchurched never will). The subject matters I blog about here are indicative of trying to address some of the issues, especially at the Christian level. The main website http://www.faithandstuff.org tries to explain why.

I wish my own “[living] the gospel in a conspicuous way so as to demonstrate its truth” was of a higher order, Jason, because I totally agree that the first empowers the second, in the apologetic tasks.

Steve Burnhope

(PS – other Steve (SJB) shares not only my first-name but my three initials too … very confusing)

Thanks again for the comments!

I suppose people need structure and formality. Formality avoids embarrassment because people know what to expect: they do not need the self assurance required to take things as they come. It’s all very British.

This morning, I reflected on the kind of life I would like to lead: sharing with other people the joy of living fully. But what is “living fully”? It is everything we do.

Unfortunately, everything we do includes witnessing and experiencing suffering, but surely life includes more than just doing our best to cope with the world as it is? A fully-realised Kingdom would have no suffering yet this world is “good”: what then would “full life” look like in a world without suffering? How should we begin to construct it in a world filled with strife?

I think what Jesus told us to do was get on with living, but living His way. Quite what that means for Sunday service, I am not sure except perhaps that it may not be all that relevant provided we are doing something else right the rest of the week…

What a good conversation – very glad to have it!

I don’t think you are wrong in your final point: if embracing a gospel life requires embracing suffering, so be it.

My thinking begins with the idea that Jesus brings love, new life and freedom. We then discover that new life, love and freedom are not universally welcome in this world and may bring suffering upon us. Therefore, though I embrace any suffering that may arise from following Christ, I would not seek it out while trying to develop the Kingdom in the world as it is. I expect it, but I don’t seek it.

Does this seem an appropriate approach?

Steve

I assure you (both) no offense was taken. I definitely understood the perspective from which sjb was writing and very much appreciate it. I’m so glad to have the interaction and see it as very important to the formation of our community at Ikon. So, thank you both.

faithan3, you nailed my perspective when you wrote:

“The context in which you are working is [...] One in which the demands of discipleship have been as good as eliminated entirely from much popular presentation of the gospel and the Kingdom.”

Quite right! I meant to say as much, but felt I was already hogging too much space.

sjb, you said:

“I suppose the deeper question is whether those of us who have decided to follow Jesus care whether others are attracted to follow too.”

Very true, and well said! Paul would certainly agree. For what it’s worth I tend to think there are two apologetic tasks: first, to live the gospel in a conspicuous way so as to demonstrate it’s truth, and second, to proclaim the gospel in a way that is understandable, contextualized, and, yes, even attractive. However, I hold the first task to be of a much higher order (for it empowers the second), and one that we in the West have largely neglected lately. I believe that if we embody the gospel faithfully, both we and the gospel will be inevitably attractive to some (Matt 5), perhaps even to many, but never to all.

Here’s the rub: I don’t see how one can embrace the life of the gospel without also embracing the suffering of the gospel; they go inevitably hand-in-hand. To reject the suffering of the gospel is to reject Christ, and to reject Christ is to reject God.

Maybe I’m wrong…?

(FWIW, she would not say she follows Jesus, just that she is in relationship with God, getting on with her life, trying to be good to others.)

I suppose the deeper question is whether those of us who have decided to follow Jesus care whether others are attracted to follow too.

Because I care very much whether people join us on this journey, I might avoid images of surrender and death in favour of something like this:

“I/we recognise that freedom has boundaries and that those boundaries are better enforced from within each individual. If we love God and one another, the boundaries to our freedom are more naturally apparent: we can enjoy a new life of individuality in community with God and our fellows. Our challenge is to figure out together what it means to love one another today.”