Category Archives: General

Christmas is coming, and so is Saint Nick

Our current image of Father Christmas as a fat old man with red cheeks and long white beard was cemented into popular culture by Coca-Cola in the early 1930s, as part of a marketing campaign to get people to drink cold drinks during winter. The red-coated figure of Santa was created by a commercial illustrator, Haddon Sundblom, based on illustrations that had appeared in the New York Times in 1906, 1908 and 1925 (see below):

Santa Claus NYT 1906   Santa Claus NYT 1908   Santa Claus NYT 1925

But Santa Claus has been around for a long, long time in various cultures and traditions around the world. It is generally accepted that the earliest incarnations are based on the real life figure of St. Nicholas, who lived in Asia Minor in the 3rd century AD. He seems to have been a wealthy man, who gave most of his wealth away to help others. Famously, he would go at night in mid winter and throw bags of money into poor people’s houses. He used his entire inheritance to help the poor, sick, and children in need. He gave in secret, expecting nothing in return. He attended the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Greatly loved for his faith, compassion and care, he is venerated in both East and West.

Continue reading Christmas is coming, and so is Saint Nick

Focus on the Family gets it spectacularly wrong

Exactly four years ago today, on 22 October 2008, with just a few days to go in the US presidential election race between John McCain and Barack Obama, Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group in the USA, released what they called a “letter from 2012”. This was a letter written from the perspective of the future, intending to highlight what might happen if Barack Obama became president.

The letter listed 34 specific things that would change in America, as well as hinting at about 10 more. You can read it for yourself here (PDF file). It’s now 22 October 2012, the date that the letter was “written”. I wonder how they fared with their predictions?

Remember that this is a Christian organisation, representing Christians and claiming to represent God Himself (as an aside, isn’t it interesting that every single candidate for the US presidency that said God told them to run for high office has failed in the attempt this year? Is that God’s fault, I wonder?). The reason I say this is that if they have done a very bad job of predicting the future, then this will show up Christians – and God – in a bad light. It sets us all up for ridicule, and gives an unbelieving world just one more reason to dismiss us.

Let’s see how they did.

Continue reading Focus on the Family gets it spectacularly wrong

Do Evangelicals Really Love Jesus?

Here’s something you won’t hear at church this week: You hate Jesus (if you’re a conservative evangelical).

Phil Zuckerman is Professor of Sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, CA, USA. He recently wrote a very insightful critique of American Evangelicals, and I think he hits the nail entirely on the head. His conclusion is powerful: Evangelicals love what Jesus can do for them, but don’t really love what Jesus asked them to do in response. In this sense, they don’t actually love Jesus. His article puts it even more strongly. Read the original Huffington Post article, or an extended extract below:

Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus

Huffington Post, Religion Blog, 6 September 2012
by Phil Zuckerman and Dan Cady

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

What’s the deal?

Continue reading Do Evangelicals Really Love Jesus?

Bible Teaching or Biblical Teaching?

Today, the preacher at our church used Matthew 13 as a base text to talk about the importance of Bible teaching. This is the chapter of the Bible that tells one of the versions of the Parable of the Sower.

His main point was that Bible teaching is still an effective technique for the church. I don’t disagree with that, but I do wonder if it might be helpful to distinguish between Bible teaching and Biblical teaching.

Bible teaching is the type of teaching that sticks entirely to the words of the Bible, often insisting on taking them literally and believing that nothing needs to be added to these words for modern listeners. As an evangelical, at first glance, there doesn’t seem to be a problem with this.

But I think there is.

Biblical teaching, on the other hand, attempts to discern the intent of a Bible text and follows the patterns and approaches laid out and practiced in the Bible while modernising and applying them to current contexts.

Continue reading Bible Teaching or Biblical Teaching?

For God so loved the world… that He let it evolve?

I am doing some work on a sermon I will be preaching in a few weeks time, and at the same time reading Peter Ennis’ excellent book, “The Evolution of Adam“. A half-thought has jumped into my mind, and I want to capture it, give it air, and hear your views on it.

One of the reasons that God created human beings was to have beings that would love him. To ensure that this was genuine love, God had to give us freedom of choice – or freedom to choose to not love him. Anything less than this would have meant that our feelings were prescribed and scripted, and not true love. It is this free choice that allows us to choose our spiritual path. So far so good.

But what if this is a pattern for the whole of creation? What if God needed the entire natural world to develop “on its own”, freely choosing its own path of development and growth?

Just as God provides a framework in which, given all the variables of our lives, we will have opportunity to choose to follow Him, so too God set in motion a natural framework, complete with energy potential and physical laws that had every opportunity of giving rise to sentient life. Maybe there are many such places that God has “experimented” in this way. This allows creation to be truly “free” to choose to either love or reject God, just as it is truly “free” to even develop life capable of such love in the first place.

Just as God creating human beings with free will makes Him a bigger God, not a smaller one, so a God who exists as the ultimate cause of an evolved universe makes Him bigger and not smaller.

Your thoughts?

How to understand the book of Acts

My friend, Brian McLaren is a wonderful teacher of the Bible, and his vision of how some well known books should be understand within the broader framework of what God is doing in history has been personally very helpful to me.

He recently put an outline of the book of Acts on his blog – read it here, or a copy of it below:

… From childhood, I was taught to read Acts as a manual for ecclesiology … to prove that our denomination was the only true and biblical one, of course (a common theme in Protestant Bible reading). But now I read Acts as a missional account of how Jesus continued his work – his Spirit alive in the bodies of growing numbers of his followers who constitute – quite literally – his body on earth.

And the message is the same – the message of the kingdom (or reign, or commonwealth, or sacred ecosystem, or new love economy, or regeneration network, or creative community, or …) of God. You could think of it like this …

Continue reading How to understand the book of Acts

When the ‘plain reading’ is not the ‘best reading’ of the Bible

You might not hear this at your church, but you should: Don’t just ‘read’ the Bible (study it).

It might seem like the best way to think about reading Scripture, but it’s not. There is an argument that the “plain reading” of Scripture is the best reading thereof. Of course, this entirely depends on what “plain” means. In most cases, the people arguing for this are looking for a literal and simple reading. And in most cases, this does not take into the intricacies of language, culture, history and context.

Let me give you a few simple examples.

Let’s say that I told you that someone I know had kicked the bucket, what would you respond? If you’re an English first language speaker, you will probably say, “I am sorry to hear that” or “Shame”. It is a figure of speech that means that someone has died. Figures of speech are one key reason that we cannot read the “clearest reading” of Scripture – you have to be sure that you understand (and even spot) the figures of speech. Here’s a particularly racy Biblical example: it really does appear that “uncovering his feet” is a euphemism for oral sex in ancient Middle East culture. This certainly changes the story of Ruth and Boaz (but does explain why Boaz was so enthusiastic about Ruth). Seriously, I’m not making this up. The Bible is full of sex, without embarrassment.

And this leads to a second example. Our cultural lenses shape how we read things. So, for example, you probably have a picture of Jesus being born in a stable with lots of straw and animals all around. This is not true. In Bethlehem, like other Middle Eastern towns at the time, private homes had two levels – the lower level was the general living area, with an open hearth for a fire. At night, the family would sleep on the upper level, and bring their animals into their home to sleep on the lower level. Even a tiny knowledge of Middle Eastern culture will tell you that no woman in that area would EVER be sent to a barn or stable to give birth all on her own. Mary would have been taken into someone’s home, and given birth in the general living area, and Jesus placed in a manger that would have been handy.

Continue reading When the ‘plain reading’ is not the ‘best reading’ of the Bible

When science and the Bible disagree…

“When science and the Bible disagree, just wait around a few decades and science will eventually catch up”. It was a funny line, and it got the expected laugh from the youth group. I was a teenager then, and part of that group – and the line stuck. But then I studied science through high school, earning a distinction for it and being infused with a passion for it by one of the best science teachers of all time, Graeme Crawford. He eventually went on to found an entire group of schools that now bear his name in South Africa – but he was just my science teacher, and he was brilliant.

I am no scientist, but I know enough science to know that if science and the Bible disagree, it’s now very unlikely that this is science’s fault.

Here’s something your church should say more often: listen to the scientists.

The issue is not that the Bible is wrong either. It’s our understanding of the Bible that needs correcting. And quite a lot of that correcting seems to be focusing now on how to interpret Genesis 1-11, and how literally we take these chapters. This is being challenged by issues as diverse as the age of the earth, our understanding of the Higgs Boson, the definition of marriage and our understanding of what forms of homosexuality are acceptable to God. All of these issues – and more besides – ultimately come back to Adam and Eve and what was going on in the Garden.

I’ll be posting on this over the next few weeks, but as a starter, you might enjoy this infographic from the clever people at Biologos forum on how we know that the world is billions of years old:
Continue reading When science and the Bible disagree…

ReKnew – a new blog for those on the kingdom journey

I have known about Greg Boyd for some time, and am thrilled to have found his latest project. It’s a ministry and blog called ReKnew. Greg is a great thinker and advocate for a new kind of missional Christianity.

The welcome note on the blog is inspiring:

When most people think of “Christianity,” they think of the religion of “Christendom” that began in the fourth century when an Emperor named Constantine allegedly converted to the faith and then granted Christians a lot of political power. This religion has been the dominant face of Christianity for the last fifteen hundred years. The foundation of this religion is a picture of a Caesar-looking god who rules the world by brute power, and a corresponding concept of his kingdom as “the Church triumphant” – a conquering army that aspires to rule the world by acquiring political power.

This once mighty religion is in the process of dying. In fact, it’s been decomposing in Europe — where it once reigned supreme — for almost a hundred years. And while the “Christendom” mindset continues to have loud and passionate advocates in its last holdout, America, it has turned the corner in this land as well. All the clamoring of those who are today fighting to “take America back for God” (“back” to when?), and who continue to espouse a Caesar-looking, all-controlling God, represent that last roar of a dying lion.

While many grieve the demise of the Christendom religion, we at ReKnew celebrate it! For it’s our conviction that this religion has often had little to do with the true movement that Jesus came to unleash into the world—the movement he referred to as “the kingdom (or reign) of God.” In fact, we believe this civil religion has often been one of the greatest obstacles to the advance of the true kingdom. Because of how dominant Christendom has been throughout history, many have been unable to see through the dark cloud of this religion’s controlling God and conquering kingdom and behold the loving God and servant kingdom Jesus revealed.

The Good News is that this dark cloud is fading and we are beginning to see the light of a new day! And as the darkness fades, we are seeing people around the globe catching this vision of a God who looks like Jesus, and of a kingdom that looks like Jesus—humbly serving the poor and the lost, and sacrificing himself out of love for the forgiveness of his enemies.

Out of the rubble of this crumbling religion we are seeing a new kind of disciple rising up, fearlessly calling into question previous certainties; boldly rethinking what it means to believe in God and the Bible; bravely reimagining what it means to “do church” and advance the kingdom. More and more, we are seeing people abandon the security of their civil religion to become part of a beautiful revolution.

This has been my own personal journey, and I’m sure it has been for many of you as well. And this is why we’re here.

ReKnew is here to stand at the forefront of this exciting new thing that God is doing in the world. Will you join us? We want to do all we can do to help mobilize and spread this rising movement of kingdom people who are rethinking what it means to be a “Christian,” what it means to have “faith,” and what it means to be a follower of Jesus. We want to join others in imaginatively exploring the shape that post-Christendom discipleship and the post-Christendom Church might take. And we want to join others in boldly rethinking everything Christians have always assumed they already knew.

To recover the self-sacrificial revelation of God in Christ, and to advance the servant kingdom he inaugurated, it is time for us all to take a fresh look at everything.

It’s time to ReKnew our hearts and minds before God.

Indeed.

19 July update: The ReKnew Manifesto has just been uploaded. It’s a great read.

A picture of women: from the Bible? or from 1950s American suburbs?

Earlier this year, Rachel Held Evans hosted a series of posts on her blog that looked at a variety of issues related to the role of women in the church. You can see links to the full series here. So there’s no confusion about my position, I believe that women and men are equal before God, and that all the gifts are available to everyone to use for God. Everyone is under some authority, and ultimately under God’s but gender is no issue in this.

The post I enjoyed the most in this series was one that looked at whether a conservative position on women is Biblical or cultural, and whether the roles of women laid out by those who do not allow women to lead or teach in church are from the Bible or from 1950s Western culture.

You can read the full post here, or an extract below.

There is one more myth regarding “biblical womanhood” that we really need to address as part of our series—and that is the myth that a true woman of God is defined by her roles as a wife, mother, and homemaker. I spend quite a bit of time exploring this in my book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood, but it’s so important to the conversation surrounding gender equality in the Church, it’s worth discussing in an abbreviated format here. 

Continue reading A picture of women: from the Bible? or from 1950s American suburbs?