Today is my second day at New Word Alive. I am here with Toybox and have been working shifts on our stand, trying to spread the word about our work with street children. Outside the exhibition times, we have had the chance to get some rest and attend some sessions, which has been a welcome change.
This morning, I went to a session on Mark 14 which focused on Peter's denial of Christ. There were lots of things I struggled with about the talk - whether it was reactionary or genuinely theological, I'm not sure - but the main thing that stood out to me was this question:
What would it mean for you to renounce Christ?
One of the things I struggled with about the talk was that I felt the speaker presented things in an oversimplistic way. In the gospels, Peter famously denies Christ three times. He is asked whether he knows Jesus and he lies.
But what does that look like in our lives? In our culture, where we have religious freedom and can profess to be Christians without being imprisoned or killed, we are highly unlikely to be presented with this kind of dramatic choice. We aren't often asked whether we know Jesus in the same direct way that Peter was, with the threat of persecution atnour heels. Our denials of Jesus are not as straightforward as that.
This is where I get confused. Because what actually counts as denying Christ as a Christian in the Western world?
What counts as a compromise of faith? What should we be defending? Aside from our faith in Jesus - which is generally left alone and accepted as a valid worldview in our society - what beliefs would, if rejected, count as a denial of Christ?
This is where I feel like it all comes down to interpretation. Whether it's marriage, sexuality, the church, the Bible, creation - people from all sorts of standpoints and movements will insist that denying their point of view is denying Jesus.
So how can we know what beliefs we need to defend in order to say we are not denying Christ?
The gospel is so complicated, and faith is not simple. In our culture of comfortable Christianity, I struggle to get a handle on what extreme concepts like renouncing Jesus mean. How can we be sure we aren't denying him? What do we hold onto if we follow him? How do we know what to fight for when we are bombarded with people from all sides telling us what faithful Christians should believe?
It is clear that if faced with the question of whether or not I follow Christ, to say that I do not is a denial of Christ. But if such an explicit question doesn't come (a common occurence in our society) - what does renouncing Christ actually mean?
On what the central beliefs of Christianity are, there is more dissent than agreement. That's why I don't think oversimplistic presentations are helpful. There bring up so many more questions.
Most committed Christians want to be faithful to the God that they serve. They don't want to follow in Peter's footsteps. But sometimes, it isn't clear what choices lead to this path. It just isn't always as black and white as some people suggest.
Hi Mel
ReplyDeleteAs one who seeks to preach and teach, I was interested by your comments here.
(I was also intrigued by your comment about dissent over the central beliefs of Christianity but that's probably for another time!)
The question I was left with is whether it is reasonable to expect someone who is speaking to a large group of people to answer questions like this in a specific way. Because what it would mean for me to renounce Christ may be very different from what it would mean for you - or the hundred or so other people who might be present.
And as soon as the person speaking moves into specific details then it suddenly just becomes relevant to a few.
(And I accept this raises some questions about the "lecture-style" approach to preaching!)
How much is it the responsibility of the preacher / teacher to answer all the questions raised versus how much is it their responsibility to raise questions which the hearers are then compelled to struggle with?
I'm not suggesting it is an "either/or" and preachers have a real responsibility to think through the implications and applications of what they are saying and how they are saying it but it is interesting to see where these two things meet.
Hi Graham,
DeleteThank you so much for your comment. Your insights are so useful.
I think you raise a really important point - you're right that it is kind of unreasonable to expect the preacher to be able to answer all the questions when they have a limited amount of time and big audience.
But I do think that's it's a big weakness of lecture-style preaching and talks at big events and conferences like this. There isn't the same opportunity to follow up in the way that there might be in local churches.
I also think that there are ways that preachers can show they are aware their talk is not extensive. They can put disclaimers in their talk, showing that they are aware what they are saying is incomplete and not the be all and end all of the issue. That the issue is complex. I didn't get a sense of this yesterday. The presentation was quite black and white.
I found your insights about what the preachers' responsibility is really interesting. I haven't really thought about it. I guess it is good for preaching to inspire and engage people, to make them question, too. But I guess I didnt feel like the slightly dogmatic presentation was hugely encouraging a questioning spirit.
I think it is important for preachers not to assume their audience agree with them as well. I felt like I probably disagreed with this preacher on lots of things that he would have seen as a denial of Christ.
And when I mentioned dissent over central beliefs of Christianity- I mean that people disagree with what they are. With what beliefs you need to hold to count as a "real Christian" - eg. On gay marriage. With what beliefs are primary, that you have to believe to call yourself a Christian.
Thank you for your thoughts!