Here are the possible reasons that I have come up with:

1. Confusion of Politics and Religion
   I can understand why many Republicans are against global warming legislation and treaties. They are naturally skeptical of this as just another excuse for the liberals to push for bigger government. I have also noticed there are some Christians who seem unable to distinguish conservative politics from conservative theology. I read in a SBC-orientated blog recently where the blogger was making the case that he was theologically conservative. The fact that he voted for George W. Bush was part of his evidence.
2. It's Those Nasty Scientists Again
   This fits well into the culture war perspective as does the previous one I suppose. It is Hollywood, liberals, and scientists in one corner and evangelical Christians who are trying to return this county to the values of its founders in the other. Those atheistic scientists are pushing evolution so they can't be trusted on global warming.
3. They Told Me To
   I don't doubt that there are people who have looked at the research and the predictions and are honestly skeptical of the claims. The question though is why your average Joe feels strongly about it. Perhaps the same leaders that provide anti-evolution or anti-gay marriage information also speak against the research behind global warming.

I understand that economics is an issue in this discussion, but money is rarely an issue when significant risks are perceived. Most of the same people support the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act because of the perceived risks. The question I am seeking the answer to is why they see virtually no risk associated with global warming.

Comments

Karl Barth wrote this in his book Homiletics. I saw this at the top of this site. Preaching is proclamation of the word of God. John Stott adds to this by making the point that it is not just exposition of the text, but the preacher must build a bridge between the Bible and its world to the modern world. If relevance becomes the singular focus of the preacher, he is building a bridge to nowhere without foundation.

Comments

The early church had a single response to instrumental music in the church: it did not belong. The style did not matter. The instrumentation did not matter. The lyrics did not matter. Instrumental music in the Graeco-Roman culture was a part of pagan religious celebrations and licentious entertainments and therefore had no place in the church. It was even debated whether singing should be allowed. The concern was that the emotional response from the melody may be greater than that of the words. Augustine went so far as to call it sin. In his Confessions, he writes about his struggles with music:

Comments

The church developed within the cultural context of the Graeco-Roman world even as its religious origins are Jewish in nature. The music, language, and philosophy of the time were inherently pagan given their roots. The church needed these, though, as it worked out its theology and worship. This created an obvious tension between the desire to use the intellectual and artistic fruits of the Classical Greeks and yet not be overly influenced by the ideals of that society. This tension can be illustrated through the rhetorical question of Tertullian in the early 3rd century: “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” The answer for Tertullian is that the church does not and should not depend on classical thought.

Comments

At the highest level, this use of 'biblical' is caused by a poorly developed interpretive process and a lack of the critical reflection needed to challenge the truth claims of these interpretations. The Bible does have much to say about the way we live our lives, and we ought to study it and apply what we learn from that study. There are significant challenges though in this process for we do not always agree on what the Bible says or how to apply it. I am interested in looking for patterns or tendencies in the interpretative process that often accompany these strangely called biblical notions. This is my first attempt at doing this.

Comments

My next entry will discuss where this kind of stuff might come from - the approaches to the Bible that could contribute to this use of the term biblical.

Comments

Well, Maker's Diet is a doozy. It comes with claims like

Biblically based and scientifically proven.

When you follow The Maker's Diet, you'll be adhering to God's original eating plan!

Our Creator specifically designed us to function best on The Maker's Diet.

On their website I saw grand, unsubstantiated claims, little knowledge of history, and a strange understanding of what it would mean to go back to our original diet (London Broil anyone?).

Comments

Comments

Comments

Saying that something is biblical is a very strong claim to conservative evangelicals. The train of logic goes something like this: God is perfect, the Bible is God's Word, the Bible should then be used as the ultimate judge of truth. This means there is no stronger appeal than to the Bible. Since truth is exclusive that also means any other position is incorrect if you can show that yours is biblical. Of course, the Bible is not as clear as "Do not murder" in most places. You have a lot of narratives and poetry. Interpretation can be tricky on those types of passages. Even with law or doctrine it is hard to go from general principles to specific applications.

This does not prevent people from claiming that something is biblical without much evidence. It's not rare to see this type of claim based on a wooden, literal interpretation or a narrative detail. Verses pulled out of context are also common. Sometimes an idea that just seems reasonable is called biblical. We had a case like that recently in our church. A decision was made to change the process for nominating potential deacons. Someone said the process should be made more biblical. Of course, the Bible never gives a framework for nominating deacons. Rather, it gives a list of qualifications. I think what he really should have said was that he intends to make the process more democratic but that would not sound very spiritual.

Comments

Q. What about making Macy's use "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays"?
A. Well, how much religious meaning can you really attach to those words given the source? I think the pressure behind this is a result of Christians (especially the Religious Right) not realizing that there are two different holidays that happen to share a name and a date - or at least they disagree with this idea. They probably assume Christmas has always been celebrated this way.

Q. Let's get back to the religious Christmas. Why three kings?
A. Matthew mentions magi (transliterated from the Greek). The magi could have been priests, astrologers or magicians. The Greek lexicon does not support the use of kings. Matthew does not mention how many magi showed up. The traditional number oscillated for several hundred years before settling at three. This is probably due to there being three gifts. It is also possible that Psalm 72:10 was applied to the magi - thus the usage of kings and perhaps the number three.

Q. Isn't it odd how little attention the birth of Jesus receives in the Bible?
A. Only Matthew and Luke mention it of the four gospels. Given the importance of his crucifixion and resurrection, it's not surprising that his birth did not receive as much coverage. This is just one good reason why Easter should be given much greater emphasis in the Church.

Q. Speaking of Easter, I heard..
A. Oh no, let's not pursue that right now.

Comments

Q. And isn't it terrible that people use that generic greeting, happy holidays?
A. Well, Christmas is a holy day so I suppose it's not incorrect to say that. The Old English is haligdæg. This is an example of why etymology cannot always be trusted for word definitions. Religious pluralism is difficult to handle if you are used to homogeneity.

Q. How come I never hear about Christmas in a Jane Austen novel or other books from that period?
A. That is a really good question. Maybe Michaelmas got all the attention back then?

Q. Has celebrating Jesus's birth always been important in Christianity?
A. No. Origen thought only wicked people celebrated birthdays. At least he cited that all the biblical examples aren't too great - just ask John the Baptist. I really wouldn't recommend Origen's hermeneutical approach here though. Anyway, there is no evidence of a commemoration until the fourth century. The Puritans even banned Christmas for awhile. In many cultures (especially in the Christian East), Christmas is a minor event compared to the Epiphany. In the United States, it is the number one event, overshadowing even Easter...but that is because retailers figured out in the 19th century that they could make a lot of money off Christmas.

Q. I like receiving gifts!
A. Doesn't everyone...the history of gift giving at Christmas time is a varied one. Different cultures give it differing priorities, exchange the gifts at different times or give them to different groups of people (children versus adults for example). Gift giving was not important in the early history of the United States, especially in New England given its Puritan background. From my reading, it does not appear like it was that important in England either (Christmas is for wassailing!). The different waves of immigration from various parts of Europe influenced the celebration of Christmas in the US. More than anything, though, it was the industrial revolution and the creation of a middle class. People now had money to spend on luxuries. They were reading (idealized) stories of how other people celebrated Christmas. The gift giving date moved away from the twelfth day of Christmas or New Year's Eve to Christmas Day. No longer were handmade gifts acceptable. The retailers figured out what they could do with Christmas and by the late 1800's and early 1900's you have a commercially driven holiday. If you want to read more, you could look here, here, or here.

Comments

Q. So why do we celebrate his birth on the 25th?
A. First, we need to define "we" since some, like Armenian Christians (January 6), celebrate on a different day. The most common theory is that this day was chosen to take the place of a pagan festival. The minority opinion is that the leaders of the church calculated the date based on some less than reliable information. Both groups use questionable evidence when building their cases and then conveniently forget that when they reach their definitive conclusion. For more information, you can read this.

Q. Are we worshipping a pagan god then?
A. Even if we assume the majority opinion is correct, modern Christians would still not be worshiping a pagan deity by celebrating Christmas. Borrowing a tradition (or in this case, a date) does not imply that any of the baggage comes along with it. Drinking tunes were used as hymn tunes. John borrowed some Greek philosophy when he used the term logos. Augustine has that great quote about plundering the Egyptians, too.

Q. Isn't it horrible how people abbreviate Christmas as Xmas?
A. Actually, no. Using the Greek letter chi to stand for Christ has a long history (chi is the first letter of Christ in Greek). In fact, in some New Testament texts abbreviations are used to set certain words apart as holy - sort of like the Israelites treating God's name differently. I suppose some people do mean it as a slight and that usage is unfortunate.

Comments

The pagan festival that occurred on December 25 in the Roman world was called dies natalis solis invicti or birthday of the invincible sun. The Julian calendar was in use at this point in time so December 25 was the winter solstice. While solar worship has a long history in many cultures, this particular feast did not become prominent until the emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-275 CE). The empire was struggling in the third century. There were both external threats and internal divisions (over thirty emperors over fifty years). Historians theorize that Aurelian sought to unify the empire under a single religion and chose this particular sun god - Sol Invictus. A temple was dedicated to this god by Aurelian on December 25, 274. This is considered to be the high point for worship of this god. Only fifty years later, Constantine was providing official support to Christianity.

The theory is that the Christian Church selected December 25 as the birth day of Christ to take advantage of the already established festival - or at least to serve as a distraction. This would be similar to the harvest festivals that many American evangelical churches sponsor in order to compete against Halloween. There is not any direct evidence for this theory, but it is plausible given the number of pagan customs accepted by the church for its festivals (Christmas trees, Easter eggs, etc.).

Comments

• heeding the shepherd's voice
• the ministry of teaching
• suitable ministers of the Word
• the lawful dispensation of the sacraments
• righteousness and holiness of life

This lists seems to reflect a reaction against the current state of the church that Bucer had just left. The priests often lived far from moral lives. Many could not read a word of Latin so not only were the people prevented from hearing teaching in the common language, but they were subjected to mumbled Latin. I also find it interesting that correct doctrine was not explicitly stated as a mark.

Reference: “Bucer’s Commentaries on Ephesians” by Peter Stephens

Comments