What is the point of being a Christian?

What is the point of being a Christian? Silly question perhaps on the surface...but deeper down it’s a question we should all take time to ponder.

The obvious answer is to enter into a personal relationship with God and to accept Jesus as Saviour.

But what good news do we bring the world if that is the sole test of being a Christian?

I’ve had good reason to reflect on these issues this week, both as a result of my talkback show and an article in the Listener magazine.

Callers to the show...on a secular network...sometimes complain about the amount of Christian discussion. These are the same kind of people, by the way, who also complain about Hot Cross Buns being religious symbols and who call for Nativity Scenes to be banned from shopping malls and schools at Christmas.

Yet these same people don’t complain about the massive level of occult material in our popular culture...they don’t complain about sex and violence on television and they don’t complain when others ring up and suggest that all religions are myths made up by weak and stupid people.

In other words, to cut a long example short, they’re offended by Christianity because it jars their own liberal worldview.

And for a long time, people like this have held sway in this country. These people dominate our news media and our culture. They even dominate our political system – Prime Minister Helen Clark for example abolished Grace at state dinners because she thinks New Zealand should be a secular country.

So I repeat my question – what does it mean to be a Christian...what is the point of being a Christian?

Before I answer, let me give you a few more examples. One caller to my show this week said she could tell I was “religious”, and wanted to know what “religion” I was.

I told her I was a Christian.

“Yes, yes,” she said, “but that doesn’t really mean anything - what religion are you?”

When I informed her I’d been baptised an Anglican, she murmured approvingly. “Because there are some very fanatic religions out there.” Then she added, “do you think that sometimes you pay too much attention to Christianity...I mean, it’s easy to take these things too seriously. There are much more important things in the world to talk about.”

What I was dealing with, you see, was a churchgoer, not a Christian. A churchgoer is somebody whose backside occupies space on a pew on Sunday mornings... A churchgoer is someone who sings the hymns, makes the appropriate responses in the rituals, then goes home and forgets all about Christian issues until 10am the following Sunday.

For a churchgoer the ritual of the occasion is important...you are identified primarily by whether you are Anglican, Roman Catholic or Methodist...not by the fact that you are a Christian.

The fact that there are people just like my caller who sit alongside you in churches every week...who appear to have missed the point of Christianity...is testament to the problem that Christianity faces within its own ranks.

SO I gently explained to my caller that being a Christian is first and foremost about accepting Jesus as a personal saviour...and secondly about trying to live as a witness to the Gospel. I said to her...look, I understand that some people think there is sometimes too much discussion about Christian issues. But I’ll be frank: it is the most important thing anybody listening to this radio show will ever hear. It is because I am a Christian that I take seriously my right to speak up on Christian issues...just as much as someone else has the right to speak up on their own beliefs.

As Christians...we are all called to shine the light of the Gospel into our community’s dark corners. We are all called to understand our faith, to stand on the word and to live as Christian a life as we are able...to be an example to others.

Which brings me to the Listener article this week. Back at christmas, some of you may remember that the Listener published a big cover story proclaiming the death of God, and that Jesus was a myth...all courtesy of that icon of religious thinking...Lloyd Geering.

Some of you may also remember that I wrote a letter to the editor of the Listener pointing out that many things Lloyd Geering had got wrong...and thus I provoked even more debate.

Well..a couple of weeks ago the journalist responsible for the Geering article, Philip Matthews, rang and asked if the Listener could do an article on me and my Christian beliefs.

Heidi and I prayed hard...knowing that Philip is a huge fan of Geering and that volunteering to bare all in such circumstances was perhaps a modern equivalent to walking into the Lion’s den.

But we took that step of faith. We trusted that God would have a plan, even if we couldn’t see it, and that we should just step out and share a little Christianity with readers of the Listener.

The end result stunned us: a good, honest portrayal of Christian issues.

This, perhaps, is an illustration of what being a Christian is about – a willingness to share our faith with others, even with hostile and skeptical non-believers.

And sure...I get the chance to do it on the radio and in the Listener...but you get the chance to do it in your own lives every day..

And as Christians we don’t have to be pushy on a one to one basis: all we have to do is live our beliefs...when we’re asked an opinion on something...make sure our opinion doesn’t conflict with Christian teaching...when we’re asked to do something, make sure we do it in a way that brings honour to our faith. We don’t have to do it loud...we just have to do it well.

If we offer our opinions, advice and our help with humility but with the courage of our convictions, people will see the glory of Christ reflected in us...and people respond to that.

The Spirit of our Age deceives us into thinking that we’re not allowed to discuss Christianity any more. That’s not true. We can discuss what we like.

This coming week...let Jesus put a little edge in your own life...don’t be afraid of sticking up for what you believe...Christianity is not just a state of mind...it’s a state of living.

Comments

[Nadine]

Amen Ian, I didn't hear that interview on Rhema but now I remind and encourage others reading here Today. God bless you as you work to give glory to our Lord.

[david]

It is quite wrong to presume that ethical behaviour and standards are the sole preserve of christianity. It is too easy,even arrogant to be dismissive of those of genuine and contrary belief especially if only to bolster one`s own supposed comfort zone. Atheists and agnostics can be equally passionate about their beliefs for a better world here and now the only difference,unlike the addicted gambler,they do not hedge bets between two worlds thereby compromising the real one.At the same time remaining true to their intellectual honesty. You,in your chosen cocoon,would say what a price to pay.My answer would be what value should we put on honesty.Here we engage in paradoxical and philosophical questions. When considering your injunctions arriving on tablets of stone -consider the universalities beyond religious tenets- JUDAISM - What is hurtful to yourself do not to your fellow man.(Talmud) TAOISM - Regard your neighbour`s gain as your own gain and regard your neighbour`s loss as your own loss.(Tài Shang Kan Ying Pìen) HINDUISM- Do nought to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.(Mahabaharaka 5:15-17) BUDDHISM- Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.(Udanavarga 5;18) Here we have a simple beautiful rule from which all the corollaries flow --anymore is sophistry.We don`t have to be confused by diametrically opposed feelings suggested by a ruthless,jealous god as depicted in numerous passages in the Old Testament too numerous to quote here..Even the New Testament,despite it`s exquisite poetry ,at times,yields to vengeance a vice not countenance in Buddhism in it`s sheer maturity.eg. MATHEW 13,40-42 (Jesus speaking) The son of man shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend them into a furnace of fire -there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. LUKE 19:27 But those mine enemies ,which would that I should not reign over them,bring hither and slay before me.(follows parable of the talents-not often quoted by the church) This all reminds me of a beautiful homily---We sometimes meet an original gentleman ,who, if good manners had not existed he would have invented them , All rather simple isn`t it? ,And what a nice note/thought on which to conclude a subject that has literally tied the world up in knots since time immemorial with dreadful cost.

[Mike]

David, you misuse the luke 19:27 scripture I've put a commentary from www.blueletterbible.com for you to see. Mike

5. (27) Judgment day comes for the master's enemies

a. The servants all had to answer for their work in the master's absence; but at least none of them were guilty of treason

b. Here, the master deals with the rebellious citizens mentioned in verse 14, those who hated him and said We will not have this man to reign over us

i. They could try and deny the reign of the master as much as they pleased, but it would get them nowhere. He would rule over them one way or another

c. The application is clear: do you want Jesus to reign over you? He will, one way or another. And if you are already His servant, are you doing the business He told you to do?

i. Verse 27 seems so severe - we might even think that Jesus is compelling us to a life or death decision. And indeed He is.

[ian wishart]

David, perhaps...but you overlook one major point: only Christianity has the entire moral code in one place. Other religions have good points, but only Christ had them all. A religion that is 70% there is still 30% wrong, and if Christianity is right then even a one percent deviation from salvational faith is a killer, literally.

[David]

Thank you for your prompt reply. Just as Einstein`s vast range of thought and enquiry was condensed in his equation E =MC2 perhaps analogous to C.P Snow`s "The Search" when he wrote "I saw a medley of haphazard facts fall into line and order. "But it`s true, I said to myself, it`s very beautiful and it`s true ".So too", many know ultimate answers to special questions will be exquisitely simple in their explanation.

Almost in the same context that, the greatest power is the most modest in it`s expression and never without a touch of humility. The ultimate of paradoxes. So ,when considering the human condition in any scheme of things,if there be such a prospect,one has to first establish what or who we are.

While I do not readily go along with Sir Francis Crick`s proposition when he,in effect, said--You,your joys,sorrows,memories,-your ambitions and sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells. Yet we do know that our emotions are triggered by a smorgasbord of up to 60 neuropeptides (amino acids)circulating within the body seeking compatible receptors to suffuse the consciousness with that particular emotion, as opposed to any rival candidate emotion.

We also know that our mind, or sense of awareness, is resident not only in the brain but also is experienced in the flow of neurocommunications throughout the glands and immune system. The stomach is also a participant. Hence the expression "Gut feeling ".

One may well ask ."Why this pre-amble?" The answer is ,that before we examine any question of religion, we must first see our context as human becomings in that question. The ego self is a point of internal reference,a kind of nexus created in the mind by the mind to organise the input of experience and thereby preserve the subjective realm allowing the body to function in a useful way.

We can see what a fragile and evolving human construct is that sense of self.

We live each moment on the edge of eternity. That is the terrible price nature exacts of us for the privilege of consciousness.The human psyche is only too aware of this fact.Hence the evolution of the Negative Feed Back Loop ,a psychological equivalent of the engineering principle of the thermostat that works so effectively in crisis situations.

Religious pursuit is one result of that adjustment.Without that shield of religious "reassurance" the psyche of those more vulnerable, or susceptible to fears,anxieties and other forms of neuroses would be life inhibiting.

My conclusion--Religion forms an admirable role within society as a "glue "( from the Latin derivation "ligo" to hold together)to hold that society together.

It is at this point that Einstein would quietly intervene --as when he said "It is by a process of differentiation that we separate ourselves one from another.This is an artificial delusion of consciousness and creates a kind of prison for ourselves.We see this in religious differences(formation of sects and special interest groups)racial and pschological prejudice and class distinction".

As a result we see a world of lonely and divided people walking the streets. Religion,as defined by Einstein, is no innocent to this accusation.A perhaps facile but true statement so I will not elaborate. "But if everyone would see the light and recognise that our path is the one true way -then we would all be one ". I will not reply to this hypothetical request either.The testimony of the last two thousand years is overwhelming !

The line between psychosis and extreme religiosity is difficult to draw.Studying the mechanisms of religious belief could lead to a better understanding of what goes on in the minds of people with psychiatric delusion.Many religious beliefs were triggered by a bizarre or "unexplained"religious experience often produced by changes in the brain`s circuitry.eg.post trauma .

AlthoughI hold Buddhist monks in high regard (my son often returns to monastic monastery life despite his medical career) however it is believed that when such ascetics lapse into deep meditation whilst gaining a sense of being "at one with the world " they also experience decreased blood flow to that part of the brain responsible for the concept of the self. Regardless, their aim to disengage from the self resonates with all aspirations that" One man is all men ". Denial or sublimation of self is not a discipline I witness in any of the three major religions .Their adherents all seeming "hell-bent" on priority entry into their kind of "paradise".

[Ian Wishart]

Nice try, but not quite...

Richard Dawkins, like Crick, has tried to condense the spiritual down to the mere physical and neurobiological.

In reality, it cannot be done. Having discovered that humans are "hardwired for God" by having a portion of the brain dedicated entirely to religious experiences, scientists presumed that by stimulating that area of the brain they could prove that such experiences were natural, not God given.

In so doing, they missed the point: the fact that God has designed humans with a "doorbell" to hear from him doesn't prevent other layabouts from coming around and ringing the doorbell maliciously and causing all sorts of problems for the person concerned.

Having done so, the ultimate irony is that the layabouts arrogantly presume the doorbell is merely a fluke of nature, and because they themselves can't see or hear God, they presume that all God-experiences result from a malfunctioning doorbell.

It makes sense that as natural beings with a spiritual soul, there must be a nexus point somewhere within us to allow the physical to be influenced by the spiritual.

Although Crick and Dawkins try hard, other leading scientists in biology are more than ready to note that "science cannot explain human consciousness", regardless of numerous claims in the popular press.

God may ring our "doorbell" by way of internal biological circuitry. The fact the science can measure some activity along those circuits does not prove that such activity had a natural origin. By the same token, nor does scientific tinkering with those circuits to re-create "religious experiences" prove anything more than the fact that science has found a way to manipulate the wiring on the biological side (rather than spiritual side) of the doorbell.

Christian theology already allows for other supernatural entities to also have access to our doorbells, in the form of demonic entities who enter through trauma, fear, abuse or adherence to false doctrine. I guess our theology will just have to be widened to include atheistic scientists as potential abusers as well.

I'm surprised at your openness towards Buddhism, which has been spiritually, logically and scientifically falsified as a belief system in ways that Christianity never will be.

Nonetheless...hope this helps explain my position somewhat

[David]

Thank you for the tenor of your reply.I respect your stance/conviction.You express surprise at my openness to Buddhism.I hope I show respect for all people`s persuasions whatever they may be.In this particular case my interest is of a comparative nature only. One of my sons, a doctor ,because he has spent intermittent periods in residency in monasteries, has the greater interest in Buddhism,although he is not of established opinion. Personally I had a traditional Anglican School education.My academic interest in Buddhism was sparked by curiosity when reading a book The Quantum Theory of Life and Buddhism by Dr. Senaka Ranasinghe . I thought ,in my arrogance ,that the topic was perhaps avant garde for what I understood of their belief system. Further ,reading of the Dalai Lama`s own books has convinced me even more of the depth of that arrogance/ignorance.

[Ari Emanuel, Second Coming]

Please visit www.Ari-Jesus-Second-Coming.com Can you tell other Christians about this site!?! Also, please then enter Devin Madison on Myspace.com "Devin" is near the last entry and he lives in Hillsboro OR, he is 33. Thank You.

[I Need Money Desperately]

I had enough of these church goers. They seem to be really religious because the go to church everyday and know all the prayers and saints. But when the mass is over ,there they are outside the church talking about their fellow or their neighbor etc sharing gossips. Sigh.