I recently watched the documentary Jesus Camp. The film focused on the impact of fundamentalist/evangelical Christians on politics in the United States, especially with respect to cultural war issues (mainly abortion, but also homosexuality, separation of church and state, evolution, and global warming). I have a difficult time understanding why global warming is as much of an issue as it is among a certain segment of Christianity. What I observe is not an opposition to certain legislative efforts or a desire to debate over human causality but an emotional, gut-level denial of the existence of global warming. (This is not to deny that there are equally emotional and illogical responses on the other side.) I do not understand why they are so passionate about this issue. When we have an especially cold day in winter, they will be quick to point out how silly people are to believe in global warming. Why do they care so much?

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.

“In 1914, when the outbreak of war left the whole world breathless, I felt obliged to let this war rage on in all my sermons until finally a woman came up to me and begged me for once to talk about something else and not constantly about this terrible conflict. She was right! I had disgracefully forgotten the importance of submission to the text. It may come to the point that a member of the congregation has to call the pastor to order and counsel reconsideration. All honor to relevance, but pastors should be good marksmen who aim their guns beyond the hill of relevance.”

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.

As I mentioned in the previous entry, the church has always had a complex task in the evaluation and integration of the creations of culture within its mission. The church must play a redeeming role with the surrounding culture while not valuing that which is antithetical to its purpose. The use of music in its worship is an excellent illustration of the inherent tensions in this task. The decision of the early church with regard to music was a unique one in ecclesiastical history and bears looking at.

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:

Church and culture. It has been an uneasy and complex relationship. The church must contextualize the gospel to communicate it to the culture without distorting its message. The culture influences the forms of worship and the discourse of the church. In many ways this second interaction has caused the larger disagreements of the two within the church. It has touched everything from styles of music to language to feasts and festivals. It began with the creation of the church and continues today.

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.

Why call something biblical? It is not hard to see that we (Christians) do this as an appeal to authority. It is, of course, the highest authority for most, if not all, evangelical Christians. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but the term 'biblical' tends to be overused and abused. Instead of restricting it to the larger themes and lessons of Scripture, we end up with with ideas, techniques, and products being called biblical that seem to have nothing to do with the Bible in any substantive way. In some cases, the things that are called biblical are so trite that they cause nothing more than a disapproving shake of the head or a slight snicker. In others, this easy appeal to ultimate authority prevents any serious discourse from occurring about issues that need thoughtful discussion within the Christian community. I am interested in the intellectual or interpretative milieu of the current American evangelical or fundamentalist church that leads to some of these strangely called biblical things (like health bars).

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.

I've previously written about some of the odd things that Christians call biblical here and here. I came across another one recently: The Bible Bar! It's a health bar made up of ingredients mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:8. The makers of the Bible Bar claim that these seven ingredients have unique nutritional qualities that God knew about and especially blessed. This health bar not only can serve as a full, balanced meal, but it also regulates your appetite according to its creator. (Maybe even spiritual benefits!)

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.

I just came across a great (horrible?) example of what I was talking about last month. My main premise in that post was that we need to be careful about what we call biblical due to the weight of that statement. We also need to be judicious in our use of Scripture to support a theory or idea. For example, teaching that the biblical way to find a wife is by going to the local drinking hole using Rebekah as the basis is not a good use of Scripture.

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?).

Usually when you hear the term ‘small groups’ you probably think of the church growth movement and megachurches. You might be surprised to learn that they existed in some form during the Reformation in Strasbourg. They were called ‘Christlichen Gemeinschaften’ (literally, Christian communities). Modern small groups often seek to provide a sense of community inside of a much larger institution especially since community cannot be found in the mobile, individualistic American society. In comparison, the motivation behind the ‘Gemeinschaften’ was holiness. They consisted of people inside the church who would model the disciplined life of the Christian faith to the rest of the church. This is quite different from the ecclesiology of the other reformation churches and did not last more than a few years in Strasbourg.

I noticed something as I was looking through the historic creeds and confessions of Protestant Christianity. Somewhere along the line God lost his place as the first article and was replaced by the Bible. (Compare the Belgic Confession with the current Baptist Faith and Message for an example.) I think there is some significance to this, but I am not exactly sure what it is.

I wish I had written down all the odd or funny things I have heard described by the adjective 'biblical'. I'm sure that I would have a long list by now. I was reminded of this the other day when I saw an add for "a Biblical way to deal with the health care crisis" in a magazine. It was paid for by a pseudo-insurance company. These types of organizations distribute the health care cost risk over those enrolled like a insurance company but are not regulated and do not keep money on reserve to pay claims. Instead, the monthly fee of the enrollees is paid out to those who have health needs. I went to this particular organization's web site to see why this was a biblical approach to health care. The best that I found was a single verse (Galatians 6:2) used out of context to say that Christians should help take care of each other's needs. When I dug a little deeper I even found policies that seemed to directly contradict their supporting verse.

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.

Q. So what is Christmas all about?
A. The best way of answering this is by asking which Christmas. There are really two different holidays. There is the secular Christmas with its focus on family gatherings, gifts, and food. Then there is the religious holiday that involves a church service (often on Christmas Eve), nativity scenes, and religious Christmas carols. There is some overlap between the two, but the secular one is the dominant one in the United States. The number of churches that closed their doors on Christmas Sunday this past year is fairly conclusive evidence of this.

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.

Q. We need to put 'Christ' back in CHRISTmas!
A. That is not a question. How about putting 'mass' back in while you are at it? In Old English it was Cristes Maesse. In Middle English it was Christemasse and that eventually got shortened to Christmas. So literally, the name comes from Christ's Mass.

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.

Q. Was Jesus born on December 25?
A. No. Well, I suppose there is a 1 in 365 chance.

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.

There are two main competing theories on why December 25 was selected as Christmas Day by the Western church. The dominant theory is that as Christianity extended its religious supremacy it co-opted existing pagan festivals and customs to ease the transition. The other hypothesis is that the Church calculated the date using some traditional assumptions. Neither theory provides a definitive explanation for the date selected.

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.).

Defining the marks of a true church was an interest of the Reformers for obvious reasons. The objective of this exercise was to find a set of criteria that can be used to distinguish true churches from false churches (or dead churches in our day). Martin Bucer contributed to this discussion through his commentary on Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. His five marks of the true church were

• 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

Unity was a common theme in the work of Martin Bucer. He wrote about the unity of all believers who are being gathered together under Christ from every nation and tongue. This included the people of Israel who looked forward to the coming of Christ. He was also very interested in the internal unity of the Church. He invoked the metaphor of the Church as the body of Christ (Ephesians 4). He thought that this unity could only be maintained if believers lived for others rather than for themselves. This concern for others over yourself was vital to Bucer's understanding of the Church and of community.

Reference: “Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians” by Peter Stevens.

“the Church exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time.”

In the past year I have been trying to do more reading in the area of church history - both original documents and history books. I believe understanding the formation of doctrine and practices in the church helps me to understand its current state. Modern "advances" can often be best understood through the lens of history. One brief, early church document that I have read is called the Didache. It is also referred to as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. It is believed to date to the late first or early second century based on its content and references in other writings.

The Didache is a collection of rules that were followed by first century churches (if you believe it is what it claims to be). The section on baptism caught my attention. According to it, the preferred way to perform a baptism is in a river. If a river is not available, a lake is the next best option - but make sure the water is cold. No cold water, then you can use warm and if all else fails, dump water on the person's head. Another interesting tidbit is that the person was instructed to fast for a day or two beforehand.

Christian History magazine has a fascinating article on what led to most English-speaking evangelicals using grape juice for communion. Who knew that Welch's got its start due to this?