Introduction

So I have finally got around to my first "real" post in this blog space. There are so many things that I want to talk about in some depth, and time has been at a bit of a premium recently. I have become convinced that the subject I'm going to tackle in this post is the the right topic to start with, because everything else I say needs to be understood through the lens of this: my Christian faith.

My faith is a fundamental part of my makeup, my world view, my moral code, the way I respond to things both in snap reactions and more considered actions. Of course I cannot sum up everything that I believe and that my faith means to me in a limited time frame, but I can explain, hopefully clearly, the core ideas.

This post is for anyone who wants to read it, from those who would identify as Christian, including those who more specifically identify as bible-believing, "born-again" and/or "saved" Christian, through agnostics and "don't know" people to atheists and those of a different faith.

I am not going to attempt to convince you that this is true, or convert you, nor do I plan to examine in depth why I believe these things, or even to give extended defence of these beliefs. I just want to explain the central core of my faith, hopefully clearly and (for me) succinctly.

Using the word "Christian"

There are currently more people in the world who identify as Christian than as any other religious title, and inevitably with such a large and diverse group of people, there is a somewhat diverse interpretation of what this means. I guess in the widest possible interpretation, a Christian is anyone who calls them-self a Christian, but this inevitably leads to a definition which has nothing more to it than a label, and is the same sort of nonsense as accepting that anyone who identifies as "black" can be black if they like.

I think it is clear from looking at the range of people who identify as Christian, and their religious beliefs, that a widest possible sensible definition of the Christian faith involves some adherence to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth - the "Christ" that the word "Christian" derives from. There are people of other religions and world view that respect the reported teachings of Jesus, but amongst those that are Christian,the following things seem to be central:

1. There is a single, creator God
2. That the Bible holds some significance and/or authority
3. That Jesus was "The Son of God" (although interpretations of what that means can vary)
4. The Jesus was executed by crucifixion. 

While there are people (not usually Christians) who deny the last of these, there is good historical evidence that there was a religious teacher called Jesus who was crucified, making this the least contested of these central ideas.

As I have said, there is a large variation of beliefs that go along with these general common themes, ranging from particular traditions and orthodoxies, to incorporating these beliefs alongside beliefs from other religions or world views, or esoteric ideas, to the more vague "being Christian" that is a cultural and/or family inheritance, which may have some effect on an individual's world view, but is more likely to take the form of using particular rites and rituals (for example marriages and funerals).
In Britain particularly there seem to be people who identify strongly as Christian, and may even hold office in a church, whose belief in a "real" god seems somewhat watered-down, and may reject parts of the bible, regard Jesus as less than divine, and deny all or most miracles, often including the resurrection.

This variation has been around for a long time, of course. There are, however, a large number of people within this "Christian" umbrella who identify a core, central, set of beliefs that is fairly universally called "the gospel". This term has been used as a short-cut term for this nugget of beliefs for a long time, and is a handy short-cut term. Christians who believe the gospel identify this inner set of Christians in various ways, in the west the term "born again" is often used to identify people who not only believe this core set of beliefs, but have taken a specific religious step (often called "conversion"). 

The fact that the term "Christian" is used in a wider context has led to some gospel-based Christians to use the term "Real Christian", implying of course that the others are in some way "Fake Christians". This is possibly unhelpful, but it does illustrate a certain binary-ness to the gospel beliefs which is not necessarily shared by the non-gospel-centric Christians, and in a wider sense in a society that generally likes to say "you can believe what you like but please don't assume you are right, or be dismissive of other beliefs." 

Anyhow, this wasn't intended to be an extended look at the competing standpoints within the umbrella of the term "Christian", and I might not have bothered with any of this section if it wasn't for the fact that I didn't want to say "this is what Christians believe" - because I know that I am not speaking for all of them.

Not a Moral Code

Viewed from the outside, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that Christianity was all about a moral code, and the specifics of "right" and "wrong". It is true that Biblical Christianity has much to say on the topic of "how best to live", but it is important, I think, at this point, to emphasise that these teachings are not considered to be the "core" of what being a Christian means. Contrary to some populist-perpetuated stereotypes, it is not about "behave yourself and you might go to heaven". Nor is it a balancing act between your good deeds and your bad deeds, like some kind of cosmic scales of justice. The Bible does have a lot to say about morality, including the teaching of Jesus, but this is not the central message. Please read on.

The Gospel

I'm going to spend the rest of this post attempting to explain what Gospel-Believing Christians believe. Again, there will be variation in this, but it is remarkably consistent in this sub-set of Christians, seems consistent around the world, and also seems to have been consistent through the history of the Church. Conceptually, it is deeply rooted in the teachings in the Bible, especially throughout the New Testament, but this is backed up by the Old Testament too, especially through some of the "prophets" like Isaiah.

The Gospel is traditionally explained as a series of steps in thought. Common to many gospel-believers is that "preaching the gospel" (spreading and proselytising these beliefs) is not only desired, but imperative. In most of the situations that this preaching is done, most of the audience already believes, but there are brave entrepreneurs of faith that bring this message to a wider audience. Anyway, because of this imperative, the formula of explanation is pretty well established, but I propose to embellish this with some beliefs and ideas that I think are also fundamental to the chain of thought, and in particular in understanding this gospel, and how it impacts my own thinking as a believer.

1. All of this is real.

Central to the gospel is the belief that all of it concerns facts. That there really is, in fact, a real God, who is not a figment of the imagination, an aspect of our personalities, an aspiration or a symbolic construct. Also, that logic can be applied to faith and that we shouldn't believe contradictory things. Along with this is a conviction that there is such a thing as objective reality and absolute truth.

2. There is a God, but only one.

Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, believes in one, powerful, creator God. While there is a belief that humans are "made in the image of God", in other words that there are similarities between God and humans, humans are not God, nor divine, and cannot become God. In turn, God cannot become not-God. Oh, and God (who has many names, but the most universally used is "God") in some way caused the existence of the universe, and in some way is responsible for keeping it running.

3. God is powerful.

There are many adjectives to describe God. Gospel Christians believe He is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and usually invisible. 

This, incidentally brings us to to the use of male pronouns to refer to God. It is generally assumed that God does not have sexual reproduction organs, if this is ever even thought about, certainly that He is not in a form that is perpetuated by sexual reproduction, and so the concept of gender in that sense doesn't really apply. The use of male pronouns is habitual and deeply ingrained, possibly as a result of male-centric societies, and not helped by the fact that in English at least, use of traditional non-gender pronouns ("it") don't apply well. Some Christians find it difficult or even abhorrent to refer to God as "She", while some find it comforting, particularly if their own experience with father-figures has been difficult. 

4. God is Holy.

The word "holy" means "set apart", but this doesn't mean that God is distant, rather that He is in some way pure, untainted, and that he finds the rebellion against Him and harmful acts and attitudes that the Bible calls "sin" abhorrent. It is tempting here to get involved in a long discussion about morality and moral compasses, but I'm hoping to do that in a later post.

5. The Bible is "God's Word"

Despite the fact that the collection of writings that comprise the books of the Bible have been written by a diverse cast of characters over a long period of time, the belief is that God has controlled its
creation to such an extent that it is a reliable expression of historical reporting and religious writing that accurately expresses things that God wants to communicate to the readers. In some ways, although this is number 5 in my list, it is the most fundamental of these beliefs, because these whole set of beliefs that comprise the "gospel" are clearly expressed through the Bible taken as a whole. In other ways, the rest of these ideas don't rely on the authority of the Bible to be true, but their acceptance as true has generally come through a belief in the authority of the Bible.

6. Sin has separated God and Humans

Humans were made and designed to be in a personal, close and experiential relationship with God, both corporately and individually. This relationship has been severed by the disparity between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of humans. This is often tied in to a concept of "original sin" - that sinfulness is an inherited attribute, or that in some way the whole of humanity is tainted by sin.

7.  God is just and must punish sin.

For a long time I found this a difficult concept, particularly, I guess, as it applied to me. Punishment feels like quite a negative concept, I think especially when you are young, as you tend to mostly experience it first hand, or maybe that was just me and my behaviour.  Eventually I realised that justice as a fundamentally good concept, and that most of us have a strong concept of injustice and unfairness.

So far this doesn't seem very much like "good news" and if this was the end of the story then that would be true - this is not a happy picture. Read on.

8. Jesus was God's son.

The idea that Jesus was not a normal human, but somehow God incarnate ("made man") was reportedly claimed by Jesus himself, and was also embedded in the old testament prophecies (and therefore in the understanding of the Jewish leaders at the time). According to the gospel accounts, he was condemned to die for blasphemy for claiming to be "the Son of God". It is a good thing that culturally it is likely that you, the reader, are familiar with this concept (whether you believe it or not) because it is a difficult concept to understand otherwise - that the supreme being can create a human body and inhabit it, and somehow still be separate and still part of Himself. Gospel-believing Christians sometimes use the phrase "fully God and fully man" to describe Jesus. This separate-yet-together-ness of God the Father and God the Son has been combined with the further concept of God the Holy Spirit to produce the doctrine of "The Trinity", which has been central to the Christian faith since the 4th century. While the full concept of the trinity is somewhat weakly supported by biblical scripture, it does not seem to be opposed by it. For us, though, and for the sake of this explanation of the Gospel concepts, it is not a core concept. The idea that Jesus was "The Son of God" and created by direct intervention from God as part of himself, is very strongly rooted in the new testament, and would be exceedingly hard to argue against for anyone who believes in the validity of the Bible as "God's Word".

At this point I am expecting that some Gospel-believing Christians will be at least thinking, if not saying out loud "'is', not 'was'!" My use of the past tense is deliberate. I don't wish to argue that at any point Jesus has ceased to be God's Son, but I wish to be clear that during his human life and death he was God's Son.

9. Jesus was sinless.

Unlike every other person to walk the earth since whenever and however the relationship between God and mankind was soured by sin (I don't intend to get into Adam and Eve at this point, as it is another point of contention which is not necessary to convey the core gospel concepts), Jesus was not tainted with sin. This is a logical extension of the idea that Jesus was God's Son.

10. Jesus was executed by crucifixion. 

Of all of the ideas in this explanation, this one is the most supported by non-Christian contemporary accounts.

11. That the death of Jesus was a deliberate sacrifice made by God the Father to satisfy His need for justice for the sins of mankind.

Again, I suspect that anyone reading this has encountered this concept before, but it is worth dwelling a little while on this as it is the pivotal point in the logic of the gospel. The concept of atonement for sin by a substituted sacrifice is strongly embedded in the old testament teachings. In order to restore a relationship between God and an individual, an offering is made. There are many other kinds of offering outlined in the the old testament, for other reasons (thanksgiving in particular) but for an atonement of sin, the death of an animal is "needed".

Many phrases have been used to explain this concept - "He died for the sins of mankind", "He paid the debt to set us free", "His blood washes whiter than snow". They all point to the same idea - Jesus' death is a mechanism whereby justice is served for sin.

12. That after his death, Jesus was resurrected.

Actually, for the logic of the gospel, the resurrection is not necessary. However, in terms of establishing Jesus' credentials as The Son of God, it's a pretty strong convincer.  I do not intend to start exploring the arguments and evidence for the resurrection, there are several books available that do a much more thorough job than I could. I would say to anybody who would like to examine for them-self the potential truth of the gospel, that examining the potential truth of the resurrection is a good place to start.

13. That a personal step of acceptance of Jesus's substitution for sin is necessary to be in a restored relationship with God.

It would be tempting to stop with "Jesus takes away the sin of the world" in our chain of tenets, and indeed some do, arguing that the effect of Jesus' death in cancelling sin is automatically applied to everyone. Unfortunately, new testament biblical teaching is very clear on this - it is not automatic, there has to be acceptance and repentance from the recipient for the debt cancelling to be applied. This step is usually accepted to be a one-time needed step, and that while subsequent acts of repentance may be useful for a Christian in their ongoing "walk with God", it is this initial step that invokes salvation.

In some ways the idea that a single act of acceptance lasts a lifetime is contrary to the doctrine that several church denominations have taught over many years, which is the need for continuous or repeated confession and repentance in order to be in a "state of grace". Sometimes the idea that you need to "top up" your salvation is linked to the concept of penance, which then can lead to the idea that people pay for their own salvation with their penance.

However, reading the new testament, the concept of a single act of repentance and acceptance is clear. Some of these teachings emphasise that a surrendering of autonomy to Jesus as Lord is also an essential part of this process. Some emphasise the evidence that a person is "truly saved" comes from their behaviour after the event - this is not to be confused with earning salvation by good works.

Many Gospel-believing Christians can recount very specifically when they took this step of "conversion" or of "being saved". For some, while believing in all of the above ideas, they would say their process was more gradual. Most Gospel-believing Christians accept (sometimes grudgingly) that that it is possible for this to be a gradual process.

For myself, it was pretty much a two-stage process. At the age of six or seven I "accepted Jesus into my heart", and at the age of seventeen I re-affirmed this, or completed the process, by accepting the Lordship of Jesus. As many Christians have said before "I am not perfect, but I am saved."

Conclusion

Well I guess "brief" was a bit aspirational, I hope I did better on "clear". As I said before, there are many variations in doctrine in the Christian Church, and much of it is about things that most would recognise as more peripheral, such as the precise forms of ritual, the baptising of infants, the role of women and whether Christians should be poor. There are a large number of people who would self-identify as "Christian" who either disbelieve some of this Gospel, or have not thought things through enough for themselves to be able to state strongly either way whether they believe all of this are not.

However, there are a large and significant number of Christians for whom this is the central pillar of their faith. Martin Luthur was one, John Wesley was one, Billy Graham is one, and I am one. I have met hundreds of Christians who believe in this Gospel.

I hope this has been of help, or at least of interest to you, in understanding the faith of myself, or maybe of others like me.

Next time - whenever I get around to it, something different.

Banquets in a World of Nibbles

We live in a world of "sound-bites" where technology, social media, news media and our very lifestyles encourage us to express ourselves in short snippets.  This is fine when what we want to say is "I'm feeling a bit grumpy today" or "look at what I'm about to eat, aren't you jealous?". Even with these expressions we are encouraged to be as terse as possible: "grumpy" and a photo with no comment.  This is great when it comes to having a feeling of connectedness in a busy life. It can help us feel less isolated, and give us a quick snack of sociability

This brevity has extended to how we express our opinions and beliefs. Twitter, memes, and placards all lend themselves to easily-digested, punchy punchlines.

So my intention with this blog is to provide stimulating food for thought that is more in the style of a banquet than a nibbled peanut. The posts are likely to be long, very long.

I'm doing this because I find I have a habit of hijacking somebody's facebook comment and creating lengthy replies, but still feel that I am only scratching the surface of an issue. Sometimes something in the news, or in the topics I hear mentioned around me, arouses me to have a rant on my own facebook page. Generally these posts have been well-received, and I've been encouraged by the responses, including those that disagree with me, which have often been equally lengthy, and very thoughtful. I feel a desire to encourage deeper, more nuanced thinking, and impassioned debate. I believe wholeheartedly in debate and dialogue. Moving some of this to a blog platform allows me to think longer, plan better what I would like to say, and do so with technology better suited to the verbose.

One of the consequences of the increase in connected technology, ironically, seems to be that, faced with an overwhelming choice of media to consume, and the ability to be only a few clicks away from anywhere and anyone on the planet, we tend to retreat into smaller, manageable bubbles. This is nowhere more evident than artistic media, where the concept of "mainstream" is rapidly dying. Music is being pigeonholed as smaller and smaller genres, encouraged by proliferation of specialist radio stations. TV has never has so much choice, and more and more of us are watching less and less live broadcast. Films have established clear and easily delineated genres, and the rise of Amazon means we no longer have to limit our novel reading to what is available in a local bookshop. Several commentators have, well commented, that we are tending to isolate ourselves in ideological bubbles, where we hear, and reinforce the same messages over and over. Through a self-re-enforcing feedback loop we whip ourselves into greater and greater frenzy, but our debate becomes limited to demonising or ridiculing "the opposition". In Britain, satirical humour is our great defence against things we don't like, including ideas. A well-placed insightful satirical observation can open our minds to new ideas, but we maybe sometimes operate with an assumption that witty=right.

According to Myers-Briggs personality testing I am an ENFP, or at least I was when I took the test (I think personality is much more fluid and variable than a test will show, for example when I am tired or unwell I become more introverted). Apparently, one of the features of ENFP is that we will occupy the middle ground between two conflicting opinions and advocate each side to the other, all the while bemoaning that they "Just don't understand". I you have read any of my rants, this might sound like an accurate description.

Anyway, this blog is a place for me to wax verbose on a variety of subjects. Some will have a Christian perspective, and may be of most interest to fellow Christians but I doubt all will be.

Whatever I cover, I look forwards to your disagreements. We should listen to the people we disagree with, we all can learn how to live and love and think better.