What should we call ourselves?

When I was growing up, people who followed Christ were considered 'religious' and the word 'Christian' was something we called ourselves. Some like to add the phrase 'born-again' to the word Christian. When people asked me 'Are you religious?' I used to say 'No, not at all, I hate religion, but I am a Christian'. And it's true that I don't like the formal structure of religion. I don't like religious services and normally fall asleep in a sermon.

But I was quite honoured to think of myself as a Christian. It was a word that created a warm fuzzy feeling. Recently people who call themselves Christians have done things that I totally disapprove of, like invading a foreign country and killing people. I believe the way of Christ was the way of peace, not the way of the sword. In the Middle East to be a Christian means to be a follower of Bush and Blair, not a follower of Christ.

A friend of mine to the question 'Are you a Christian?' worked out this as his answer: 'My parents were Christians and I honoured them in what they believed. I grew up as a Christian, but now I would call myself a follower of Jesus'. He wanted to express in a Middle Eastern context honouring what his parents believed but separating himself from what people believed to be a 'Christian' culture. Even if they were totally wrong in their perceptions of what a Christian culture is or should be.

So, reading in Scripture that the early disciples called themselves 'followers of the Way' I really liked that phrase. I like the pun, since Jesus called himself the Way, the Truth and the Life. So I started to call myself a follower of the Way.

My son, a theology student, hated it. He had two reasons - firstly all the people he knew who called themselves 'followers of the Way' were fundamentalists Christians who were antagonistic towards other Christians, let alone non-believers. They were separatists. Secondly he found it precocious, implying we were like the early disciples and that other Christians were somehow 'off the rails', that people who called themselves 'followers of the Way' thought of themselves as somehow better and those who merely called themselves 'Christians'.

My other son and I had been chatting online and had coined the phrase 'relational Christians' which we found helpful in expressing our belief in the emphasis on relating to God rather than following a set of rules. But that has the same problem 'born-again Christian' does, separating other normal 'Christians' as not being part of the programme and also not overcoming the basic problem than many of those who don't follow the Lord believe a Christian to be a follower of Bush and Blair!

So what is the answer? Do we need a word or phrase to identify ourselves? In Arabic I can express it as 'Mourideen' or 'Mureed Isa al Massih' or roughly translated as 'a disciple that is totally committed to following Jesus who is the Messiah'. That expresses relationally what I want to say. You can see the relationship between a disciple and his master expressed in Mureed-Sheik in this blog article. It expresses the honesty/truth in the relationship between master/disciple and the interest the master has in the disciple and the disciple in following the master. In English it cannot be correctly expressed.

Personality and perfection

I got a bit irritated today. I hate getting irritated, I want to agree with everyone, but sometimes I feel they are wrong. When I feel that I get irritated with myself... why can't I just let it be? So what was all this about?

Well, it may seem trivial but it was about whether Jesus, since he was perfect, could have given in to temptation. The person I was talking with was asserting that since Jesus was God he could not have given in to the temptation and sinned. He is one of the elders of a local structural church and he was saying he would have to correct one of the other elders of this church who had been 'preaching' this morning and had asserted that Jesus did have choice and could have given in to temptation.

Now this is something that comes to the heart of being on a relational journey. The heart of a relationship is two or more personalities relating to each other. To be a being with a personality you must have choice. It's to communicate face-to-face. It's why God gave us choice so we could relate to each other and to Him. Without giving us choice we would have been like puppets or automata unable to truly relate to Him.

Satan was created perfect, had choice, decided to reject God and fell into sin. Adam and Eve were created perfect, had choice, decided to reject God and fell into sin. To be perfect doesn't imply the impossibility of doing something wrong. To have personality implies choice.

That choice is something God has too, otherwise He would not have a personality and be able to relate to us. Abraham talked with God and changed God's mind. God enjoys us talking with him. That's what it's all about, a two way relationship between God and man. Something enjoyable. Something that pleases our Father's heart. God loves this relationship. It's the most important thing to Him.

So, if God has the ability to chose then Jesus also has the ability to chose. To imply that since He is perfect He had no choice demeans God to being less than He is. He could have chosen to give into those temptations but he chose not to. He has a personality. Since he is perfect, the probability of Him choosing to give in to temptation was so unlikely as to be almost impossible, but we know from the record of the time before and during Gethsemane that he was troubled and wished for the cup to be removed. The scriptures talk of perspiration like blood on His body since He was so troubled. Yet He chose to go forward in His father's will.

To suggest that He could not have given in to temptation because He is perfect reduces God to an automata without personality and choice. It makes Him part of a mechanistic system. Religion. And that's what I believe to be the antithesis to being on a relational journey with our Father. The example this elder gave was like the Forth Bridge which they apparently load tested with way more than would ever be expected to prove it would stand not to test whether it would.

And that's why I got irritated. I don't like it when God's changed from a relational being to a systematized force. He cannot be compared to a structure like a bridge. He has personality and choice. It misleads people back into religion to imply that since we are created in His image, our choice doesn't reflect His choice, our personality doesn't reflect his personality. We are now fallen beings, but created in the image of a perfect God. We are not God or gods, we are created beings with personality and choice. Just as Jesus, our Father and the Spirit are eternal beings with personality and choice.

Another question - accountability relationships

This question came when I was talking to a colleague in another country: 'If you don't go to church aren't you in danger of missing out on accountability relationships?'

There are two parts to my answer to this one: Firstly, being a relational follower of Jesus enhances and strengthens mutual accountability and secondly I am not sure that what 'Evangelicals' call accountability relationships are either Biblically sound or healthy.

Let me unpack those a little. What I see the early followers of Jesus doing through Scripture and a healthy model to follow is sharing their lives with each other. That sharing 'held them accountable' if you like, but in a mutual transparency relationship not a hierarchical accountability relationship.

When I discussed accountability with people who believe in it we always get down to where the rubber hits the road... and that is when the person in an accountability relationship to someone over him/her believes the Lord is leading in a different way to the one their accountability leader believes. Those people who believe in this sort of structure tell me that the person should always do what their leader believes.

I have two problems with this - firstly it is abdicating responsibility ('I'm only doing what I was told to do') and secondly we observe in real life that just doesn't happen. How many people have we known who have left their wives, knowing it is wrong, because 'the Lord told me to' or some such statement? So basically accountability relationships don't work and if they did work they would be wrong.

But back to the core of living life as a relational journey. In that context, we aim to walk alongside Jesus and others on the journey sharing our lives in transparency with Him and with them. This is a much more healthy walk than attending a number of meetings every week. I have a colleague who says that one of the main problems with 'church' is that it focuses on 'sin management'. A relational journey focuses on the Lord.

Why I Don't Go To Church Anymore: Living as a Relational follower of Jesus

For a few years now I have been getting increasingly bothered about 'church'. I started another blog to help me think through the issues. I felt that some of what I was writing there was somewhat negative and just recently came to the conclusion that for a while at least and maybe the rest of my life I will not 'go to church'. This was a positive decision bringing peace to what had been a troubled soul. But I have been getting tired of questions from well meaning believers who don't really understand. Having said that I am finding an increasing number of people who would call themselves 'followers of Jesus' in a similar position.

One person who has walked this path longer than many is Wayne Jacobsen and it was reading his explanation that made me decide two things:

• I would like to try to answer the same questions that he answered but for myself
• I needed to start a new blog that was positive about my walk with the Lord rather than questioning or maybe negative
  

So here goes... answering the same questions...

Where do you go to church?
I have been increasingly convinced that church should be seen as a verb rather than a noun. It's not a place, group or event but something we do together as followers of the Messiah. The Lord said 'Wherever there are two or three gathered together, I am there in their midst.' So whenever we meet as disciples or followers of Jesus we are churching together.

Hence I could answer the question 'Where do you go to church?' with the answer at the office, in a coffee shop, when I am out sailing, at my or someone else's home... and occasionally on a Sunday morning or evening at a building we call a church.

Are you just trying to avoid the question?
There are two parts to my answer to this:

There is an issue with language. Words change over time and are modified by people to mean different things. So the word 'church' would have had an idea behind it to the very first followers of Jesus, which might be very different to the idea that we have today. Because of that I understand that the question 'Where do you go to church?' has come to mean 'Where do you go on a Sunday morning and what do you believe?' It's almost a test question to see if I agree with your theology.

So by answering the question using the word church as a verb not a noun I am avoiding the meaning behind the question. But I chose to be one of a group of people worldwide who are seeing a new meaning to churching together emerging.

The second part of my answer relates to the original meaning of the word church as a noun that I believe we have in many ways lost. When Jesus used the phrase 'I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it' He obviously did not mean a red brick building seen in many English towns and cities. His meaning was related to a gathering of his disciples. What is notable about Jesus use of the word church is that he doesn't define it. We have taken that upon ourselves.

I think that Jesus would probably have answered the question 'Where do you go to church?' in a similar way to the way he answered those accusing the woman caught in the act of adultery. He would have continued drawing in the dirt and come up a clever comment that would have helped us see that church is not about a Sunday club or a structured fellowship event, but about our relationship with Him and with each other.

He might well have added 'Let him who has the perfect church invite you'.

But don't we need regular fellowship?
Absolutely, and in some ways that is the reason that I have ceased going to church. I need fellowship. I do not need to stand in rows singing songs and listen on someone talk about their interpretation of a book.

Fellowship is an essential part of walking the path of a disciple of Jesus. We can only do it in community.

There is also a second part to my answer to this question. If we meet three times a year for fellowship that is regular but infrequent. What I believe we need is not regular fellowship, but frequent fellowship.

Shouldn't we be committed to a local fellowship?
My problem with this question is the word 'a' local fellowship. I believe this causes division between those who follow Jesus. We end up boxing people in the way they answer the question 'Where do you go to church?' rather than seeking to fellowship with them in the locality.

So I strongly believe we should be committed to fellowship, both local and worldwide. My issue is with the institution of the 'church' as a structure being the core of how we fellowship together.

But don't our institutions keep us from error?
I wish that were true but it's not. They can keep us from error or they can lead us into error. Most of the major heresies through the ages have come out of an institution. In the end we are accountable to God, not to man. Man's structures often lead us astray.

So are traditional congregations wrong?
Don't get me wrong, there are many excellent groups of people who are linked together through some sort of structural church and who do share fellowship through that structure. I am linked with some in the UK. But that we must be committed to a single local structure that observably tends to be divisive in places I believe to be an error not seen in Scripture.

So should I stop going to church, too?
No, you are still missing how I see things. 'Going to church' or 'not going to church' is not the issue. The issue is how we relate to others who follow Jesus.

Then meeting in homes is the answer?
This question still looks at the structure rather than the relationship. I meet in homes, coffee shops, offices and many other places to church with people. The location is not the key, the relationship is the key.

Aren't you just reacting out of hurt?
Well, it is true that I have been hurt by structural churches, but I have also been blessed by them. It may be that I am reacting from hurt, but in this walk with Jesus I have, in recent times, changed and hence the change of blog. I am now looking at this as a positive step in my walk with the Messiah rather than a negative reaction.

Are you looking for the perfect church?
No, I am not looking for a structural church at all. I am looking for fellowship and relationships with people that help me to grow in my walk with the Lord. When I looked at my learning styles I did find that they did not match with almost any structural church, and I know there are others like me.

But don't our children need church activities?
The Sunday club we call church can provide excellent activities for children. They also tend to be almost parallels with school - we call them 'Sunday Schools'. I do not believe that school is good for all children.

We home-educated our children and for many families I believe this is better than school. Home-educated children tend to relate better to other children and adults. In the same way church activities for children can be a help or hindrance to our children. The key is that they do not need to know about God, they need to know God and introducing them to Him is better than teaching them about Him. He is, after all, our Father.

What dynamics of body life do you look for?
The question is one that is almost impossible to answer. I am looking to follow Jesus as He called us to. I am looking for authentic relationships with others who are on the journey, what form that will take can be as varied as those on the path.

Years ago I was told by some well meaning people that Heaven was like an eternal church service. It was almost enough to put me off following Jesus for good. Some people find God through them, others are not helped. I am looking for something that I can feel and react positively about.

Aren't you giving people an excuse to sit home and do nothing?
My experience with people who call themselves relational followers of Jesus is that they are more involved with others and with their community than less. Many who are tied into structural church are very involved with the activities of the church rather than with other people.

The aim is not to get people to events or meetings, but to introduce them into a living relationship with God the Father. That can only be done through relationship not sitting at home nor church activities.

Isn't this view of church divisive?
No, I think and see this to be less divisive than structural church. It allows us to relate to people without boxing them according to which place they go to on a Sunday morning!

Where can I find that kind of fellowship?
This question too suggests that the kind of fellowship is geographically located. I find it as I talk and walk with Jesus.