“Just Following the Bible”

BibleI wrote a few days ago about the “Best of Stuff Fundies Like” for 2013. My personal favourite was a very short piece that satirised the way that many conservative Christians approach the Bible. When an issue gets too complicated or too controversial, they will quickly retreat to a position of “well, I just try and read the plain meaning of the Bible without all that fancy interpretation stuff”. If they are a little more trained in Bible interpretation, they may revert to “well, the plain meaning is always the best – your attempts to show alternative interpretations are just playing with words”.

While I hardly ever encounter the staunch KJV-only type Christians this post also satirises, I do encounter people who still cling to young earth creationism on the basis of their “plain reading” of Genesis 1-11, and to people who still restrict women from leadership roles based on their “plain reading” of Paul’s instructions, and, of course, the homosexuality issue is pretty much all about this kind of interaction about what Scripture really means. Whatever you might believe about homosexuality, surely you do have to start the conversation with some humility based on the long history of the church realising that maybe Scripture didn’t mean precisely what Scripture appeared to be saying (I think of everything from flat earths to the Sun at the centre of our galaxy, from slavery to women’s rights to vote, and more recently the causes of HIV/AIDS and apartheid).

Anyway, you can read the original here (and I’d highly recommend taking the time to follow the conversations in the comments), or below. These are things your church should be talking about, but I am sure they’re not:

I just follow the Bible. I just follow the obvious meanings of a 400 year old translation of a document written originally in languages I don’t speak, influenced heavily by cultures I don’t begin to understand, and by people who I assume looked, acted, thought and dressed just like I do.

I just follow the Bible. It’s not only a road map for life and God’s love letter to everybody who isn’t an Amalekite but it also apparently contains an uncanny number of direct statements about how much beat is acceptable in music and how one should pledge to the country’s flag — even though countries didn’t have flags when it was written.

I just follow the Bible. And the Holy Spirit. And my pastor who God sent to tell me what the Holy Spirit says the Bible means. Just last Sunday I learned that Job 31:10 is a seven-thousand year old sermon against twerking.

I just follow the Bible. And my cultural predispositions. And my inherent biases. And my economic expedients. And my filters of time, place, biology, psychology, technology, and personal experience.

I just follow the Bible. You’d better follow me too.

Source: Stuff Fundies Like

The best of 2013: Stuff Fundies Like

This past year a good friend introduced me to the website, Stuff Fundies Like (Fundies, as in American Christian Fundamentalists). The site gives an almost daily insight into the lives, habits and foibles of this group of Christians. It’s a great resource for people like me who were brought up inside of that bubble – I recognise many of the things that are highlighted.

It borders on something dangerous for me, as it could easily lead me to feelings of superiority as I laugh at how fundamentalist Christians go about trying to prop up their faith. But mainly it invokes a combination of sadness, relief (that I am no longer blinded by worldview of ‘certainty seeking faith’) and resolve (to find ways to help these people see how liberating and freeing true Christianity actually is).

Anyway, their final post of the year was a round up of their best posts from the past twelve months. Make yourself a coffee, clear an hour or so in your diary, and check this out.

Above the Law? Mark Driscoll and plagiarism

Updated on 1 July 2014

It’s no secret that I am not a fan of Mark Driscoll. I think his version of Christianity is one of the most dangerous around at the moment. His view of women in Scripture is horrid, and the way he has taught his accolytes around the world to take many, many steps backwards on this issue is more than just a problem: I find it abhorrent. I think the way he has manipulated Scripture on issues of sex are highly problematic.

So, I need to be careful. I take no delight in the fall of a Christian leader, even one I think is dangerous and wrong.

But Driscoll has been caught in a plagiarism scandal. (Again, by the way.) In the most recent issue, both a book he has written and a series of study guides his church put together, he appears to have clearly wholesale copied from another author’s books and from a Bible commentary, with insufficient attributions being made. Having been found out, he and his publishers have issued a half baked non-apology, and invited the original author to come and speak at his church. I am guessing there is a financial consideration somewhere in there for the author.

All well and good. Except it’s not.

The tone of his “apology” and the way in which this has been handled smacks of someone who feels he is above the law. I don’t like it. But then I don’t like Driscoll and what he stands for.

Driscoll has also been very vocal on this specific issue in the past. His own website cautions people against using his intellectual property, and in his book, ‘Vintage Church’, he argued that pastors who plagiarize should resign from their jobs. I wonder if he will? No, in fact, I don’t wonder at all. He won’t.

Actually, as often happens when you go up against someone who is above the law, the radio host who made the original allegations has in the past week removed all the allegations from her website saying she should have approached the publisher first. And her producer has resigned. I wonder if that was all voluntarily done?

I’ll say no more – you make up your own mind – here’s a good enough summary of the issue and the text of the “apology”. And here’s another blog on the issue, with details of the copied texts.

I just want to go on record saying that the cracks are showing. I hope the accolytes can see them.

Update: In June 2014, Tyndale announced that it had removed all Driscoll’s future books from its catalogue, and would not be reprinting any of his old books.

Further information has also come to light since I wrote the original post. For example, Driscoll paid a company to buy 11,000 of his “best selling” book from a variety of sources in the first week of its publication. He initially claimed this was just part of marketing the book, but later apologised for the activity. Any author will tell you that having a few thousand books sold in the first week instantly raises the status of your book, and also creates a platform for better contracts in the future. It appears that it was on this false basis that Tyndale offered contracts in the first place.

The cracks are indeed showing. The empire is crumbling. One of the most dangerous men in evangelical Christianity is showing his true colours.

Read more on this here.

The Pope is TIME magazine’s Person of the Year: a great choice

Here’s something you’re unlikely to hear at your church this Sunday: I really do like the current Pope. He seems to be a wonderful representative of Christ on earth – as we all should be. And he certainly has done much to raise the profile of the church. Catholic or not, all Christians should see the value in that.

TIME magazine’s profile and the reasoning behind their choice is well worth reading. Do so online here – with all the graphics and videos, or a text extract below:

Pope Francis, The People’s Pope

He took the name of a humble saint and then called for a church of healing. The first non-European pope in 1,200 years is poised to transform a place that measures change by the century

On the edge of Buenos Aires is a nothing little street called Pasaje C, a shot of dried mud leading into a slum from what passes for a main road, the garbage-strewn Mariano Acosta. There is a church, the Immaculate Virgin, toward the end of the ­pasaje—Spanish for passage—where, on one occasion, the local priest and a number of frightened residents took refuge deep in the sanctuary when rival drug gangs opened fire. Beyond the church, Pasaje C branches into the rest of the parish: more rutted mud and cracked concrete form Pasajes A to K. Brick chips from the hasty construction of squatter housing coagulate along what ought to be sidewalks. The word asesino—­murderer—is scrawled in spray-paint on the sooty wall of a burned-out house, which was torched just days before in retaliation for yet another shooting. Packs of dogs sprawl beneath wrecked cars. Children wander heedless of traffic, because nothing can gather speed on these jagged roads. But even Pasaje C can lead to Rome.

Continue reading The Pope is TIME magazine’s Person of the Year: a great choice

Letter to a Woman Called to Church Leadership

I used to think that women should not lead in the church. My (faulty) understanding of Scripture was to take Paul’s restrictions literally, without understanding cultural context, interpretation or the adaptations of our theological positions that the Holy Spirit leads us to over time. We should make these adaptations slowly and with due consultation and attention. The danger is that we can stray from God’s will, and that would be a tragedy.

But over the past century, more and more people have come to understand the Bible in different ways from our historical interpretations about the role of women. I now completely and fully support the role of women in church, across all levels of leadership and involvement, with no restrictions (at least, none related to their gender).

It breaks my heart to watch women who are called by God to lead and serve, having to spend most of their energy fighting for their right/privilege to do this, rather than just doing their ministry calling.

Earlier this month, I came across this letter, clearly written out of this space of concern and pain. It was written by Esther Emery, a freelance blogger. It is beautifully written, heartfelt, and rings of truth. Please pass it onto all women you know who are feeling called by God to ministry.

Letter to a Woman Called to Leadership

by Esther Emery, 14 Nov 2013

I don’t know exactly who you are. Maybe a young woman, just now stepping out into your life. Maybe a mother or a crone, entering a new phase of your authority. Maybe just my beautiful dominant four-year-old, who is ready right now to start setting the world to rights.

But I know something. I know this. You are called.

You are called to stand up, speak up, use your voice. You are called to the front of the room. You are named. And you are called.

Rise up.

The darkness does not want you to use your voice. You are so full of light. The darkness will tell you that you are too much.

Too loud.
Too greedy.
Too masculine.
Too angry.
Too emotional.

Sometimes you will believe this. Sometimes you will try to make yourself small, and quiet. Sometimes you will hurt yourself trying to be small and quiet.

Do this with me. Walk outside and look up to the sky. Reach your hands up to the wide, expansive sky, far above the crowdedness and the jostling. There is room for you up there. There is room for every bit of you up there.

That place is yours.

Continue reading Letter to a Woman Called to Church Leadership

N.T. Wright on Paul, Romans and Election

I am a huge fan of N.T. Wright, and especially of his work on showing the sweep of God’s redemptive history in Paul’s books. I also particularly like his interpretation of the book of Romans (I have written on this blog before how Romans is a very misunderstood book if you think it is simply a summary of theology by Paul. It is not: it has a very specific and deliberate purpose, aside from which the book does not make sense as a coherent whole).

In his upcoming book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Wright takes a deep look at the doctrine of election. Some extracts are being made available, and I was intrigued by these two passages from the book. They make a lot of sense to me, and the idea that God’s covenant with Abraham (which was repeatedly shown to be a one sided covenant anyway) – that the whole world will be blessed – is fulfilled in Christ is magnificent:

Now at last we see where his sharp-edged, and often controversial, ‘doctrine of election’ in Romans 9 was going. This was never an abstract ‘doctrine of predestination’, attempting to plumb the mysteries of why some people (in general, without reference to Israel) hear and believe the gospel and others do not. Paul never encourages speculation of that sort. Rather, it was a way of saying, very specifically, that the fact of Israel’s election (starting with the choice and call of Abraham) had always been there to deal with the sin of the world; that Israel’s election had always involved Israel being narrowed down, not just to Isaac and then to Jacob, but to a hypoleimma, a ‘remnant’, a ‘seed’; and that this ‘remnant’ itself would be narrowed down to a single point, to the Messiah himself, who would himself be ‘cast away’ so that the world might be redeemed. The point of ‘election’ was not to choose or call a people who would somehow mysteriously escape either the grim entail of Adam’s sin or the results it brought in its train. It was not – as in some low-grade proposals! – about God simply choosing a people to be his close friends. The point was to choose and call a people through whom the sin of humankind, and its results for the whole creation, might be brought to the point where they could at last be defeated, condemned, overcome. Hence the line that runs, in Romans, from 3.24–26 to 8.3–4 and on to 10.3–4, backed up by the summaries in 5.6–11 and 5.12–21. Here is the faithfulness of the Messiah, which discloses, unveils, apocalypticizes, the righteousness of God, God’s covenant faithfulness.

And on Romans 9-11:

As becomes apparent in Romans 9—11, this single divine plan has been hugely paradoxical, because the way in which Israel’s story has been God’s instrument in the salvation of the world has been precisely through Israel’s ‘casting away’. This is the point of the (to us) strange passage about negative predestination in 9.14–29: Israel is simultaneously ‘the Messiah’s people’ and ‘the Messiah’s people according to the flesh’, as we might have deduced from the opening summary statement in 9.4–5. Israel’s story, that is, was always designed (as many second-Temple Jews would have insisted) to come to its climax in the arrival and accomplishment of the Messiah; but that accomplishment, as Paul had come to see, involved the Messiah himself in being ‘cast away for the sake of the world’. Thus Israel, as the Messiah’s people, is seen to have exercised its vocational instrumentality in God’s rescue operation for the world precisely by acting out that newly-discovered and deeply shocking ‘messianic’ vocation: Israel is indeed the means of bringing God’s rescue to the world, but it will be through Israel’s acting out of the Messiah-shaped vocation, of being ‘cast away’ for the sake of the world. Paul finally says it out loud (at a point where most interpreters have long since lost the thread and so fail to make the connection) in 11.12, 15; this is where we see why Paul did not deny the ‘boast’ of 2.19–20, but went on affirming it paradoxically, even though it raised the questions of 3.1–8 to which he has at last returned and which he has at last answered. Salvation has come to the Gentiles – through Israel’s parapt?ma, the ‘stumble’ in which Israel recapitulates the sin of Adam, as in 5.20. ‘The reconciliation of the world’ has come about – through Israel’s apobol?, ‘casting away’, the ‘rejection’ in which Israel recapitulates the death of the Messiah, as in 5.10–11. At the heart of one of Paul’s strangest and most challenging chapters we find exactly this theme: that the creator God, having entered into a covenant with Abraham’s family that he would bless the world through that family, has been faithful to his promise, even though it has been in the upside-down and inside-out way now unveiled in the Messiah.

A deep, but important, reflection this Sunday evening.

Bad sermons: Blue is for boys and pink is for girls

One of my favourite websites is “Stuff Fundies Like” (Fundies, as in Fundamentalist Christians). This blog is an eclectic collection of videos, blog posts, pictures and posters that come from genuine fundamentalist churches (mainly in the US of A – no surprises, I suppose). My favourite category is the “bad sermons” where extracts from sermons preached by raving fundamentalists expose narrow mindedness, bigotry, misogyny, racism and almost always some serious abuses of the Bible.

Last week, they posted a short video from YouTube, “Pastor Tony Hutson preaching against sodomy!“. See the original post on SFL here.

Now, whatever you believe about homosexuality, this is not the way to make your point if you are trying to make your point from the Bible. Watch the clip for yourself – because I bet you won’t this at your church on Sunday:

Blue is for boys and pink is for girls. Only sissy boys wear pink. And he wouldn’t want to marry a woman who would wear boots and a hard hat (no female engineers, then, dears – stick to nursing, teaching or typing where you won’t get hurt, my darlings).

My point in this blog is not what he believes about homosexuality, but rather how he is using a pulpit and pretending to use the Bible to make a cultural point. And to make a cultural point that is in fact wrong.

Pink has only recently become a girls’ colour (within the last century). Throughout history, blue was the colour of purity, femininity and girls. Think of what colour Mary wears in almost all historical paintings. In fact, until about a century ago the preferred colour for boys was a light shade of red (i.e. pink). Red was the manly colour of strength (favoured by the British army in particular), and the light shade of pink was the boyish version of this.

If you want to read a very documented history of the colours used for children through history, click here.

This is one of the major weaknesses of fundamentalism: it believes itself to be sticking to the purity of the Bible but most often is doing nothing more than imposing a set of man-made, culturally-connected, un-Biblical rules.

It gets even worse when they venture into the realm of sex (which they do very, very often). As one of the comments on the SFL website put it: “I think these fundamentalist preachers spend more time thinking about gay sex than most gay men. However, I still think Mark Driscoll thinks about straight ‘back door’ sex more than they think about gay sex, for what [little] it’s worth.” I couldn’t agree more.

It’s funny that the Pope has recently said the church needs to move away from this fixation.

I am not saying that you shouldn’t have informed, rational, Biblical views about sexual issues. We must. But they must be precisely that: informed, rational and Biblical. Not like this nonsense from Tony Hutson.

Sermon on The Parable of the Lost Son (and the Extravangant Love of the Father)

A few weeks ago, I preached at my home church, Gracepoint. The sermon was entitled “Extravagant Love” and was about the parable of the ‘prodigal son’. In fact, the parable is about the older brother, and how he refuses to accept the return of his younger brother. Jesus told the parable in response to the interactions he had with the religious leaders of the day who were wondering why he was fraternising with sinners and unclean people.

The point for us today is that we should actively welcome into our churches those who could potentially bring disgrace on our family name, those we consider disgusting and sinful, and those who have been far away from us. This is a tough message for us, but one Jesus was clear on: he was a ‘friend of sinners’. Are we?

When we look at the story through Middle Eastern eyes, we see a story of extravagant love and a strong call to change how we think about church today. Is this the type of love they preach about at your church (or does your church more resemble the older brother)?

You can download the sermon now from Gracepoint’s website.

Women in the church: the vital importance of understanding household codes

I spent the first 25 years of my life at a church where women were not allowed to be pastors, elders or leaders in any way. I spent nearly a decade of that time passionately defending this position, and even left the church of my childhood in protest when they changed their constitution to remove all gender references in leadership appointments. I felt strongly about it. I acted on my beliefs and convictions.

But I was wrong.

During the course of nearly nine years of formal theological training, including a degree and two post graduate qualifications, I came to realise that my interpretation and application of Scripture did not stack up. I changed my position completely.

I therefore have deep connection to both sides of this issue, and have spent many years considering it. One of the people who has most recently made an impact is someone I quote quite a bit on this blog (only because I think she’s (1) right, (2) smart and (3) articulate) is Rachel Held Evans. Rachel spent a year living “Biblically” as a woman as part of a grand experiment to see if the Bible’s instructions to and about women can be taken literally (as many insist they should be). Her wonderful book, “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” traces her monthly focus areas, and both humorous and poignant attempts to understand the Bible. It’s well worth a read.

Women in churchRachel’s blog continually returns to this topic, as it remains a key area of division and confusion in many churches today. In the past few weeks she has focused her attention (again) on the so-called “household codes” as a key to interpreting what the New Testament has to say about women and their role in spiritual communities. I think she is spot on about this – once you see the context in which Paul and others were writing, and understand how their instructions match up against what was being said in society at the time, I think there is only one answer, and that is to let women lead – as equals with men. Of course, this also has implications for how Christian homes are structured and the relationship between husband and wife as man and woman.

But why don’t you read what she’s written and make up your own mind:

If you have the time, check out the additional resources she has suggested this past week – see her list here.

And then also look at the archives on her blog on the issue of mutuality.

These are amazing resources and deserve serious attention.

A ‘gag reflex’ to ‘gay lifestyles’ is not any way to judge morality

Recently, Thabiti Anyabwile (Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman and a Council member with The Gospel Coalition) wrote an article which the Gospel Coalition posted on their website: “The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and ‘Gay Marriage’“. I have heard this argument before: that the disgust many conservative Christians feel towards homosexuality is a sign of the Holy Spirit working in their consciences and a clear indication that it is wrong.

Whatever your belief about homosexuality and gay marriage, this is an entirely spurious supposition.

Here’s something you won’t hear at your church this Sunday: your conscience isn’t working!

I travel all over the world for my work, and have very often had a gag reflex in response to some of the food I have been offered. Is that my conscience telling me that the food is morally bad for me? Or is it possibly more likely to be some deep seated cultural conditioning telling me not to eat this food which is unknown or unappetising to me? I have learnt not to trust my gag reflex in many situations.

But I have also experienced the ‘gag reflex’ Pastor Anyabwile speaks of in a church context. The first time (and a few more, sad to say) that I heard a female worship leader (sorry, Darlene Zschech) and a woman preacher I had literal bad physical reactions. I had been brought up to believe with all my heart that women should not be leaders or teachers. I don’t believe that anymore. But the gag reflex had nothing to do with it – either way. I also had a ‘gag reflex’ the first time I saw a black man and a white woman kissing. I grew up in Apartheid era South Africa where this was illegal, and also considered immoral on the basis of the Bible. Although I remember my church being vaguely opposed to apartheid, we never had any black kids in our Sunday School or youth programmes (it was technically illegal to do so, but some churches didn’t bother obeying that particular law, while mine did). And there were certainly no cross cultural couples around. I had a deep cultural conditioning against such things. I don’t anymore (my family has even adopted a Zulu daughter). But a few years ago, on an international youth pastor’s forum, I asked participants to list their top three biggest youth group issues. Many pastors from the southern states of the USA listed cross cultural dating as their number one issue (and they were opposed to it!).

So, I don’t trust my gag reflex to be my moral guide. I really honestly don’t. And I find it horrific that a person in the position that Pastor Anyabwile is can publicly put forward the level of homophobic attitudes he does in his article.

As I was wondering how to respond, I was delighted to see that one of my favourite Christian bloggers, Rachel Held Evans, had also picked up the story and provided a thoughtful and useful response. You can read it on her blog, or an extended extract below.

God forgive us for these attitudes, and rescue us from the pit from which they come.

Continue reading A ‘gag reflex’ to ‘gay lifestyles’ is not any way to judge morality

Graeme Codrington's musings on a new kind of Christianity