If you were with us on Saturday night, you heard me talk about my sometimes hesitation to employ the term "Christian." It would be a perfectly acceptable term except that we can have, after so many centuries, no good idea what it means. And when we add to that the projection onto the term the many ideas of those who would never call themselves Christians, we find ourselves in a real linguistic bog.
So, as clunky as the word may be, I wonder if we shouldn't take to calling ourselves something slightly different: Christ-ins. Certainly it would be a literal description of those of us who say we are "in Christ"--that Christ is in us. This is something from which we can draw great joy, for we read in Galatians that Christ in us is the hope of glory. (And you wonder how it is that people can still be wondering how it is they get to heaven!)
When we recognize and confirm that Christ dwells in us, it makes two other matters of Scripture much clearer, too: (1) that we are temples of the living God, and (2) that the kingdom of heaven is among us. This means our search for God has ended. Once we give our lives to Him, He occupies us. We don't have to keep hunting Him down. We can look for the work that He is doing in us and through us, and we will be delighted to see Him. For of course, just because we have found something doesn't mean that we stop looking at it--especially when that something is our Treasure!
QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT COMMENT
- How have you found assuring evidence that Christ is in you? Is this tangible evidence, or a very real "feeling" (yes, just because something is intangible doesn't make it unreal!)?
- How does this way of thinking live in tension with the Experiencing God idea that we should be finding out where God is moving and aligning ourselves with Him there? Is this a tension we can rectify?
- Do you think those outside the faith would be able to make better sense of what we are about if we actually adopted more literal/fresher terms?
God Keeps Leading
12 years ago
5 comments:
Christ in me...yes there is evidence of that...but there is always room for more.
No tension on where God is moving. He is sovereign and may pour out His Spirit and glory wherever He chooses, but He does seem to have a pattern of doing this where it is desired and welcomed. Sometimes He attempts to do this but because we have a preconceived idea on what this should "look like" we shut it down because we are not comfortable with it.
I don't think terminology is going to alter the fruit non christians see...I liked the way Jesus did it. He met their need with miracles,signs,and wonders, and then when He had their attention, He taught them about love. They are going to know we are christians by our love...but they have to come through the doors to see this love.
The assuring evidence I have found of being in Christ is: I can't get away. I am simply convinced. No amount of arguing will dissuade me from a core belief in the deity of Christ and the saving power of his life, death, and resurrection. I don't know how else to say it. I have a durable sense of security in the truth of God as revealed through Christ.
Do we need to find where God is moving? YES! Fortunately, I know where that is. God is moving in and among believers. It's called The Church. The Body of Christ. God is, and God moves, wherever the church is. I'm not being pithy. The Bible is very plain on this matter. We don't go looking in exotic places for God, that is what the mystery cults of the Roman Empire were about--ecstatic displays and oracles--but the church is about relationships, not fantastic spectacles.
I don't know about fresher terms, per se, but the church has always been most effective when appropriate to local cultural settings. Bible translators know this well. All kinds of language are a factor here: verbal and non-verbal.
It is a unique mandate of the church to be in the world, while not of it, AND to go into all the world preaching the Gospel. In order to do so, the church must speak the language of God (as Jeff once put it). We must be understood within our unique cultural setting.
What does being "in-but-not-of" mean at TFH?
I forgot something:
1) I like the term Christian as it applies to kingdoms. That is, subjects of Christ the King are rightly called Christians. But I don't know that imperialism is an edifying or winning image in our cultural setting. Just a thought.
2) How about Christ-amongs? I know, too clumsy, but part of what is reviving in our cultural context is the need for community. People are so isolated and lonely. We long for, out of our very nature as the image of God, relationships and community with others. This is a hunger that is expressed by the postmoderns and reflects a genuine human need. Like it or not, the postmodern mind is our ever increasing audience.
Colossians 1:27 "To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
The Greek word here translated "in", can also be translated "among" or "with".
Also, the word for "you" can point to a particular person or a group of people while simultaneously indicating particularity of individuals in the group. In other words, as a group of people who relate to one another as individuals.
In the context of Colossians 1, the whole church at Colosse is being addressed. It is the you-the-group that is most fitting. No individual has been singled out for address.
So, while I do not challenge that Christ, by the Holy Spirit, indwells individuals, it could also be said that Christ dwells among or with a group of persons who are in particular relationship one to another (i.e., the church). It is a both-and situation.
There is an aspect of Christ's indwelling presence that is realized "between" believers as they relate to one another: The Body of Christ.
Christ's presence is with us when we are together. He doesn't show up. We do.
I really believe that if we don't have a solid understanding of the presence of God, we will always be floundering; searching for a mysterious force or manifestation that keeps us dissatisfied with what God has so graciously given us (i.e., us).
Hmm...
How about "Immanuelites"? Since Immanuel is also a name for Christ, meaning "God with us", it's all in the name. We belong to the one who brought God to dwell among us.
Ooh! Very interesting, Kim. I like it. Of course, it makes us sound like some kind of cult, but you know, that's not totally a bad thing.
I mean: Sure, the cookie-cutter weirdness and freaky doctrine is not what I'm talking about. I just think that the church forgets that it wasn't until Constantine's Christian Roman Empire that the church in the West enjoyed the comfort of mainstream acceptance. And, many would agree that his "success" in christianizing his subjects was far from good, neither for people, nor the Church.
The early church was definitely a weirdo freaky group of religious misfits. The Kingdom of God is an upside-down, grass-roots, subversive group of folks.
I don't know how to reconcile the inherent oddity of Christianity with 1) the need to remain in communication with not-yet-believers; and 2) the comfort enjoyed (taken for granted) by the church in North America.
Post a Comment