Everyday dialogue

At St German's again this morning to celebrate Mass. Afterwords a young mum arrived with a year old toddler to arrange the christening of all three of her children. We installed ourselves in one of the gated side chapels with a nice carpet, so that the little one could crawl around and explore safely, while mum filled in the forms. I learned that her partner was a non-practicing muslim, and that for several years he had been opposed to her desire to christen the children. She'd not given up however, and returned to the matter time and time again, saying that for her it was important, a matter of family identity. Finally, it seems he saw some TV programme about Christianity that led to a softening of his attitude. He agreed to let her go ahead, but so far, neither he nor his family has committed to attending. Mum agreed that it was vital to invite them, even if they refused to come. "It's what we do isn't it? Invite people."

This young woman may not regard herself as a serious churchgoer, but she'd grown up, knowing that she belonged. This sense of identity was something she wanted to pass on to her offspring. I admire her courage and persistence. Her faith may not be well articulated, and it might take decades to flourish fully, as so much of what the church is and does is quite foreign to her life. But somehow she understands something she has to do  to affirm her sense of belonging to God's people. The challenge for the church is how to respond to this in a positive way and nurture its development. For her, the context is a dialogue about belief and culture with her partner at the heart of an everyday pattern of life that leaves her little time and space for reflection, let alone church attendance. Faith as big and fecund as a grain of mustard seed - that's what it's all about.

Just as I arrived home, the Jehovah's witnesses were working the street, and I couldn't escape fifteen minutes of doorstep discussion, with a bright young man who had the demeanour and confidence of a keen salesman about him. Wearing a black shirt and a cross it was immediately obvious to him that I was some kind of religious guy, so I had to come clean and say that I'd just come from leading worship. He wanted to get me into discussion about the authority of scripture. He started to quote the book of Daniel to me. I said that I wouldn't ever start there, everything I rely on is centred around and evaluated on the basis of the Gospel of Jesus, and the God he revealed as Father of all creation. 

I enjoyed prosecuting my non-fundamentalist liberal approach to reading, understanding and applying scripture to real life. This elicited the standard question: "Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?" "I don't start with the book" I said. "The Word of God is for me alive and speaks from every atom of the universe. The same Word speaks to me from the Bible, even though my approach is critical and I don't regard every part of it as having equal value as inspired text." I also insisted that has to be read in relation to our ever changing understanding of life, if God is to reach us through it. It didn't quite stop him in his tracks, but I'm not sure he'd been on the receiving end of non-hostile enthusiasm about scripture from a viewpoint so utterly different to his own before.

Somehow we got on to 'hypocrisy'. I claimed that the best New Testament interpretation of this was 'play acting' - hiding behind masks, he said. Not necessarily hiding said I, rather stuck in our roles playing the same old unproductive games. Like you and me - I said. Conservative and liberal believers arguing the toss when there was real work to be done elsewhere making the world a better place by our deeds, together if it was ever possible to agree on practical priorities. Beliefs can be quite a problem if they fail to enable agreement to be reached on what matters most that must be done.