Old words, new meaning

I am grateful to Thomas Whelan (writing in the BIAMS journal) for correcting a misunderstanding I have had for at least 30 years! Like a lot of other people, I suspect, I have always thought that the catch phrase from the Student Volunteer Movement of 1886, "the ezangelisation of the world in this generation" meant that the world would be converted to Christian faith within the current generation - an aspiration which has been behind many mission movements, not least the pre-millennium movements like AD2000. (Of course it didn't happen, so what do you make of that?) Apparently it never meant that in the first place - it meant "the proclamation of the gospel by each generation throughout the entire world". I like that. Why? Because its far more Biblical for a start. It reflects the call on each Christian to 'live like Christ', 'to bear witness', 'to proclaim good news' .... to be faithful in these things and leave the converting to God (if that's what He wants!)

Thank you Thomas, its always great to have fresh light on a well known phrase - especially when it fits in so well with what I already thought must be right. There always was too much in scripture about leaven, mustard seeds, remnants and suffering for me to really grasp the 'everyone on board in the next sixty years' vision. Now I can get on with the witness and proclaiming and leave the converting to God - that's challenge enough for me!

Is Baptism necessary?

A couple of night ago I had to choose between a night at home with the TV (and a Kenyan house guest), listening to Kenneth Cragg (he of innumerable books on Islam and a real hero of mine), and a lecture by a professor of religions and Sanskrit from Nagaland, north India. I chose the third option but took my computer along so I could catch up on emails during the lecture! (Before you judge me - don't tell me you have never done that?). Well, the emails didn't get answered and instead I came away with two pages of grey-cell stretching notes. Thank you Dr. Atola Longkumar (pictured).

Speaking against the background of recent religious violence in India, Atola raised the whole question of whether conversion is a useful term, or even a useful concept, and if it is then what it involves. The force of her arguement was that Christian faith is about discipleship, a direction of living orientated towards God as seen in Jesus Christ, not church membership or even joining a specifically 'Christian' community. In India the real point of tention is over baptism as it is such a public event which appears to mark a leaving as well as a joining of communities. Atola suggested that baptism might not be essential for Christians. For some of the audience, brought up on Jesus' Great Commission to, "Go into all the world ... and baptise them in the name of ...", this was a step too far. But when baptism costs lives (as it does in India) is this an opportunity to rejoice in martydom or just an unnecessary antagonism of Hindu (Indian?) sensibilities? [Interesting programme, by the way, on Radio 4 today on how certain Hindu groups try to define Indian identity as, by definition, Hindu.] Part of me wants to say that breaking ties, changing direction, being faithful (to God) is always costly (a cost sometimes paid in blood), but before I voice that from the comfort of my Oxford home I want to know much more deeply what it really means to be an Indian follower of Jesus - not a church member, perhaps not a Christian (in the cultural sense) - but a Christ-one, a faithful follower of Jesus. More work for the grey-cells!