Freshly fished from the Amazon is this book by David Robertson. I’d heard really good things about it here and sampled a few bits here.

What will follow is a self indulgent series of posts that essentially summarise the content of each of his chapters. The reason I’m doing this is to hold myself to account. I need to get through the book quickly and understand its contents. What better way than to presume to tell the world [for that read ‘visitors of this blog - family and close friends then…’] what it’s about!

Robertson’s book is essentially a collection of letters written to Professor Dawkins in response to each of the chapters of his book, The God Delusion.

The God Delusion is the latest offering from Britain’s most famous and vociferous atheist. The God Delusion continues to attract far too much attention on both sides of the atlantic. Wonderfully, it’s stirred up some of the finest Christian thinkers to respond at an academic level. However, few layman will have the access or the inclination to interact with this fine and necessary material. If that situation goes unaddressed the false impressions and myths presented and propagated will continue to gain acceptance.

And so, Robertson’s aim is straightforward. He writes,

‘My aim is to rpesent one person’s response to Dawkins and to do so from a wide and personal perspective. My aim is not to convert, nor to insult, nor even to defend. Rather it is to challenge some of the basic myths that Dawkins uses and encourages in his book, in order that you may think and consider these things for yourself’.

Robertson is clear about his own Christian presuppositions, his non-scientific background and his desire to want to interact at a popular and personal level. But he’s also clear that he thinks that Dawkins’ approach is parasitical. He writes,

‘I believe that he [Dawkins] is appealing not to people’s intelligence and knowledge but rather to their ignorance. This series of letters is presenetd to the reader in order to challenge some of the atheistic myths that Dawkins taps into and feeds … I call them atheistic myths because they are beliefs that are widely held or assumed without necessarily having been thought through or evidenced’.

The appetite should be whetted. You could do a lot worse than buy it and read it yourself! Try here.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that we’ve done nothing else this Christmas holidays but watch DVDs. You’d be wrong. We also went to the cinema. 

But before you call social services to make allegations of child abuse let me put your mind at rest. There’s been no over exposure to televisual stimulation. We’ve carefully rationed their intake of C-Beebies to compensate. In the light of recent health scares we’ve also been very aware of the dangers of under exposure to a vital source of vitamin D. We’ve actually managed a trip to the Princess Diana Memorial Playground in Kensington Gardens and a visit to the London Transport Museum. But around tea and crumpet time with scratchy kids and weary parents there are few better options than a 90 minute offering from Disney, Pixar or Dreamworks. Their ministry is a blessed thing!

Our film of choice this afternoon was about an animated collection of fairytale characters. This meant that the usual question from number one son, ‘Daddy, is this real’, was deemed unnecessary.

Essentially ‘Shrek the Third’ is a story about an ogre who refuses to accept responsibility. Shrek won’t accept responsibility for ruling and he won’t accept the responsibility of fatherhood. To be fair, his track record does little to instil confidence. He hasn’t derived much self belief from the time he’s stepped in for his bed ridden father in law. He’s shown little aptitude for taking charge of the kingdom and so why should he fair any better with his children? Understandably Shrek is therefore reluctant to take on a role for which he feels ill suited. And so, he’d far rather head back to the swamp with the fragrant Fiona to enjoy the quiet life. We can all identify with that! Well, sort of. Apart from the swamp, taking the throne and being married to an ogre, obviously. But it’s not only his past poor performance that’s convinced him that he’s not cut out for responsibility. It’s the lack of a credible role model. The one person who should have shown him how to be a father tried to consume him. There’s not much to learn from a man who tries to eat his offspring.

Shrek is brought face to face with his insecurities throughout the film. His vivid dream about children and the fireside encounter with Merlin do little to calm his anxieties. But it’s perhaps in his interaction with Artie, the alternative heir to the throne, that he’s exposed most fully to his fears. Artie is hardly kingly material. In the high school food chain he’s rock bottom. He’s the kid even the nerds persecute. Artie lacks confidence. He’s also reluctant to sit on the throne. It’s as though Shrek were looking into a mirror and seeing the questions about his limitation, his inadequacies as a leader, or his refusal to grow up reflected back at him.

Dreamworks’ answer to Shrek’s parenting insecurities is ‘the thing that matters most is what you think of yourself’. I tried to tease out what this meant with the kids and asked them whether they thought this was true. There’s no such thing as entertainment without education in our family! Well there’s not such thing as entertainment without indoctrination in Disney’s so it’s fair game. I don’t want my kids to take onboard a world view unawares, like I have. So we talk about what we’ve watched. I may be raising a generation of ‘Barry Normans’.

‘The thing that matters most is what you think of yourself’. There’s just enough truth in that statement to make it believable. We all know that crippling self doubt and low self esteem are a massive hindrance to reaching maturity, exercising authority and taking responsibility. But let’s not overstate it. It needs to be more nuanced than that. It may be that within the narrative, it is. By the end of the film Shrek has taken on responsibility as a father and he seems to be enjoying it. But he’s left the task of ruling the kingdom to Artie. Perhaps Shrek does know himself and therefore know his limitations. And so ‘knowing ourselves’ as long as it means ‘knowing our capabilities and limitations’ is a prudent strategy. Having a healthy self regard to our strengths and weaknesses is a sensible approach. But that’s not how people are going to hear Dreamworks’ soundbite. People really will think that what matters most is what I think of myself. They’ll believe Artie’s words that ‘the only thing that can get in your way is you’. We need to be clear where this can take us. The early rounds of the X-Factor.

So what does matter most?

It can’t be that the thing that matters most is what I think of myself. I may have an overly inflated view of myself. But that doesn’t mean it’s accurate. It just means I’m delusional. Our Saturday night television is full of well meaning deluded young adults. They’ve been fed this diet of ‘just believe in yourself’ empowerment nonsense with their mother’s milk and their Disney DVDs. And we’re reaping what we’ve sown. We’re raising a generation of kids who clearly can’t sing, dance or act. But what they have in spades is unwavering self belief. It’s painful. And we’ve allowed them to do this to themselves. It’s embarassing. And we’re responsible. In part. They desperately need to come to terms with their capabilities and limitations and not over reach.

What matters most is not even what my peers think of me. Sure they’ll all be very affirming because they’ve recognised that’s a value that Disney also esteems. But sometimes we need accurate feedback and not just the affirming kind. That’s real love. As long as it’s done sensitively. I’m not suggesting that Simon Cowell is our role model here!

Of course, what matters most is what God thinks. At the end of the day it’s His opinion that will count more than my vaunted self esteem. I don’t want our kids growing up massaging their own egos with comforting thoughts about their own self assessment. I want them to grow up fearing the Lord and wondering what he thinks. Not in a dreadful terrified sort of way. But in a respectful mildly apprehensive sort of a way. God is not to be taken lightly. And they need to know that His assessment of what we’ve done with the life He’s giving us far outweighs what we think of ourselves and what our peers think of us.

For your own enjoyment and education you can find reviews here, here and here! It was Abigail Coleman’s review on Damaris that got me thinking most.

As part of the Perkins Christmas routine we settled down on Boxing Day afternoon to watch a family film. Our little girl is mad keen on Charlotte’s Web and as luck would have it or, providentially, depending on whether you have a sound theology, Blockbuster had it on special.

There’s lots we could say about this film. Others have said it here, here, here and here. The Damaris review is thought provoking and you’ll find Tony Watkins’ article Transforming Humility here.

But in my view Charlotte’s web is essentially a tale about saving Wilbur’s bacon. Wilbur is a pig. He’s a runt. And he gets saved. First by a girl and then by a spider. So what we’re dealing with is essentially a film about the salvation of a pig. This film has lots, perhaps inadvertently, to say about salvation. I’m not claiming this was E.B. White’s intent. I know nothing about his Christian views. Nor am I suggesting that this was the film’s production team’s aim. But there’s something worth exploring in this salvation theme, I’m sure. Cut through the schmaltz at the end and I wonder whether there’s something really useful to talk to the kids about.

Let me run a few ideas up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes them!

Salvation comes to the undeserving. Wilbur ought to have been killed at the start of the film because he’s the one pig in the litter who won’t survive. He’s surplus to requirements. But he’s saved. He ought to have been Christmas lunch because he’ll make a lovely smoked ham. But he’s saved. And it’s not really because there’s anything inherently wonderful about him. Charlotte weaves her magic and tries to encapsulate his essence in a few well chosen words. But in all honesty with the exception of the last one, they’re a bit of a stretch. But isn’t that the point. He is humble. That’s the one description that’s accurate. And it’s the humble who’ll be lifted up.

Salvation comes in fulfilment of covenant promises. Perhaps I’m overstating it a little but it is interesting that both Fern and Charlotte make promises to Wilbur which they have every intention of keeping. In a scene in the kitchen Fern makes it clear to her father that she made a promise not to him but to the pig. He can’t release her from her promise. And in a scene in the barn Charlotte reassures Wilbur that he’ll see the spring because she’s promised it. The salvation of this pig depends therefore on the ability of the promise keepers to fulfil their vows. As the film progresses Fern’s involvement with Wilbur becomes less significant. Her role is fulfilled by Charlotte.

Salvation comes from above. Normally I’d have thought I was imagining it. But the tagline to the movie poster actually states, ‘This Christmas. Help is coming from above’. Perhaps they spoke wiser than they knew. They wouldn’t be the first. But is this a deliberate allusion to Christian notions of redemption? From above is, in the first instance, a reference to Charlotte’s habitat. But for those of is with a monergistic view of salvation this is manna from heaven! The pig depends entirely on the actions of others to save him. There is nothing that he can do to secure his future. But help was on its way.

Salvation comes from an unlikely source. That salvation should come from a spider is unusual. No one was expecting that. The real hero of the story is not the cute pig. It’s the ugly spider. She has nothing in her appearance that would attract us to her. She’s despised and rejected by her farmyard companions. Yet she selflessly gives of herself to secure the salvation of another. And increasingly they are persuaded to value her as Wilbur does.

This may all be coming out of left field. But it proved to be a very productive line of enquiry with the kids even if it wasn’t entirely consistent with authorial intent!

I think this got panned by the critics. Do you see what I’ve done there? I’ll make it more obvious. Apparently people who watch films and comment on them for a living thought this was toilet. I thought it was great. But what do I know. It was enjoyable. It was entertaining. It was edifying.

Late afternoon on Christmas Day we settled down to watch the DVD. Two Grandparents and three young children were in attendance. My mother always said my humour came straight out of the sewer. This time she wasn’t wrong! I’ve got a fairly high tolerance of ‘toilet’ humour and so I was prepared for some of the grosser gags. I especially enjoyed the ‘floater’  in the sewer that turned out to be a lion bar. That’s about as bad as it gets. There aren’t really any issues of inappropriateness to have to contend with. There’s some racial and social stereotyping but no one’s spared the satirical mockery. You’d have to be pretty sensitive to feel offended.

You can check out lots of comments on the film here, here and here. I especially enjoyed David Master’s threefold summary of the film when in a concluding sentence he argues that the film communicates that

1. character is more important than class [because he learns that even working class sewer rats with no surnames who speak with estuary accents do the right things for the right reasons]
2. relationships are more important than wealth [because he realises how miserable his life was without friends]
3. selfless action is more important than pleasure [because he decides to save the underground world from drowning rather than settling back into his flat]

For my money the second of those is most obvious and easiest to chat to the kids about.

The film’s central character is a pampered pet rat called Roddy St James. Roddy lives as a wealthy self-absorbed bachelor in Kensington. His life goes ‘down the pan’ when he’s ‘flushed away’ by a working class sewer rat called Sid whose appearance has thrown his life into turmoil. The rest of the film concerns Roddy’s attempts to get home. In the course of the film he discovers that home isn’t all he’s made it out to be.

The film begins by depicting the life of luxury from which Roddy is taken. He has everything he would wish for but no one to share it with. By the end of the film he’s realised that it’s better to have good friends than to have great wealth. Home is not where you store your possessions but where you share your life with your friends. And so his lostness has more to do with being isolated from relationships than being unable to get home. By the end he’s happier to be just a first mate on Rita’s boat, ‘the Jammy Dodger’ than to be living alone surrounded by everything that money can buy. If our kids get their heads round that they’ll be one up on many of us.

In Christianity Today, Peter Chattaway comments that the film’s essential message is ‘Community is better than isolation; and being involved in the lives of others, however messy they or their environment might be, is better than living in a world of self serving pleasures’.

If you wanted to strike up a chat with small children these questions might start something useful

• Do you think that Roddy was better of in his posh house with all his things or on the Jammy Dodger with Rita?
• Why do you think Roddy chose to be with Rita?
• Why did Roddy try to stop the Toad?

The history of this children’s kids’ slot is not something that I’ve been able to establish with any degree of certainty. I got it, in broad outline, from Roo Standring who claims to have got it from Mike Cain who probably got it from the Revd Jonathan Fletcher, Incumbent of Emmanuel Wimbledon. Presumably it’d make a great Christmas Carol talk for adults. But you’ll need to beef it up a little. Next year perhaps!

On the night that Jesus was born there were some shepherds on the hills outside Jerusalem. They were looking after their sheep. It was very dark. It was very quiet. And then all of a sudden God surprised the shepherds. A bright light shone in the night sky and an angel made a big announcement to the shepherds. Let’s read Luke 2:11.

In the announcement the angel told the shepherds three things about the baby Jesus.

1. it’s just what we were hoping for

The first thing he told them was that the baby was just what they were hoping for.

I’ve got three of my presents that I thought I’d let you help me open. I put them in a stocking but I can’t seem to find it. [Cue: ‘It’s behind you gags!’]

Let’s open my first present. That’s just what I was hoping for. I’ve really wanted a Colin Christmas DVD for a long time. Christian told me how good it was and so I was hoping that someone would buy it for me. What are you hoping to get for Christmas?

When the angels told the shepherds that Jesus was the Christ the shepherds realised that Jesus was just what everyone was hoping for. Everyone had been looking forward to a time when God would send his special king. That’s what the name Christ means. Jesus is the king that God had promised to run everything. And that’s just what we’ve been hoping for.

It’s great when we get a present that’s just what we were hoping for. And Jesus is just that.

2. it’s more than we were expecting

The second thing that the angel told the shepherds was that the baby was more than they were expecting.

Let’s open my second present. It’s a card. It’s just a card. It’s from Great Aunt Betty. Let me read to you, ‘Dear Richard, Happy Christmas. Hope that you have a terrific day with your lovely family. Lot’s of love Great Aunt Betty’. But there’s something else in the envelope. What is it? It’s a twenty pound note. I wasn’t expecting that. I haven’t spoken to Great Aunt Betty for ages. She’s given me 20 quid, isn’t that fantastic! That’s so much more than I thought I’d get.

When the angels told the shepherds that Jesus was the Lord the shepherds realised that Jesus was more than everyone was expecting. Everyone knew that God would one day send a special king but they hadn’t realised that he was going to be God’s Son. Jesus isn’t just a king he’s God. And that’s more than we were expecting.

It’s great when we get a present that’s just what we’re hoping for and it’s more than we’re expecting. And Jesus is just that.  

3. it’s just what we need

The third thing that the angel told the shepherds was that the baby was just what they needed.

Let’s open my third present. It’s a woolly hat. That’s just what I need. I get really cold on winter days and so a hat is ideal.

When the angels told the shepherds that Jesus was the Saviour the shepherds realised that Jesus was just what everyone needed. Everyone knew that we need someone to save us so that we can be friends with God. We can’t save ourselves. We need someone to do it for us. Jesus is the saviour that God has sent us. And that’s just what we need.

It’s great when we get a present that’s just what we’re hoping for and it’s more than we’re expecting and it’s just what we need. And Jesus is just that.  

Conclusion

We’re going to get some great presents today, I’m sure. But God has already given us the best present we could ever get because he gave us His Son, the baby Jesus. He grew up to be

• the Christ, the special king who came to rule us and take care of everything
• the Lord, who’s not just a person like me but he’s God as well
• the Saviour, the one who came to save us so that we could be friends with God

Let’s pray.

Kids’ slot for Christmas. You need a small crakcer, a pack of crackers and a giant cracker with the usual three things inside.

Who can tell me what this is?

Who can tell me what I’ll find inside?

Who wants to pull it with me?

What do we find in there?

• We’ve got a joke
• We’ve got a present
• We’ve got a crown

I’ve got a much bigger cracker here. Who wants to pull it with me? Let’s pull out the things that we find. This week I realized that crackers are a brilliant thing to have at Christmas because they remind us all about Jesus.

1. the joke reminds us that Jesus brings us great joy

Crackers always have jokes in them. Let’s read one of the jokes from the cracker.

• Knock Knock
• Who’s there?
• Wayne
• Wayne who
• Wayne in a manger!

I’ve also got one for the grown ups.

• Q: Why is Christmas just like any other day in the office?
• A: Because you do all the hard work and the fat guy in the suit gets all the credit!

Jokes are brilliant because they make us laugh and they bring us great joy. The joke reminds us that God sent Jesus to bring us great joy. Jesus is the only person who can make us really joyful. Following and trusting in Jesus is the most fantastic thing that we can do.

2. the present reminds us that Jesus is God’s gift

Crackers always have a gift in them. This is the gift I put in the cracker. It’s a rubber chicken. It’s such a great gift to have because you never know when you’ll need a rubber chicken! The present reminds us that God sent Jesus as a gift. Jesus is very valuable and very precious. Jesus is the best present that God could give us. I’m sure that there are lots of things that we’d like to have at Christmas but there’s no better gift to have than Jesus.

3. the crown reminds us that Jesus is a king

Crackers always have a hat or a crown in them. This is a crown that Flora made. The crown reminds us that God sent Jesus as a king. Jesus is in charge of everything. Even though we can’t see him he is looking after everything to make sure that we’re ok.

If you’d like to have a cracker to take home come and see me at the end of the meeting and I’ll give you one. But before you go off to Christ Church Kids let’s pray.

The term ‘inerrant’ simply means ‘without errors’. It means that whatever scripture says, it says truthfully. It’s never false.

I hope we can see that this matters hugely. We need to know that the Bible we read is a reliable source of information for the things that we believe. Otherwise we may as well read the horoscopes or the self help paperbacks and believe them as gospel!

The inerrancy of the scriptures means that the Bible as originally written, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, does not affirm anything that’s contrary to fact. But there are some important caveats to that assertion that prevent us from having too stringent a view of what we’re claiming.

a. The Bible can be without error and yet descriptions can be imprecise

The Bible writers were human and so they used human language to communicate. Human language employs figures of speech, poetry, similes and metaphor. Don’t press me to define the differences! But  expressions like ‘the sun sets’ though not strictly accurate from a scientific perspective are nevertheless true from a human perspective. Only a pedant would set a standard so high to exclude the use of these figures of speech from the Bible.

b. The Bible can be without error and yet the numbers can be approximations

In communication we’re never far away from using an approximation to make a point. If someone asked how many people were at Revive we might say ‘500’. Everyone knows that’s a ball park figure. We know that if there were exactly 480 people or 520 people we’ve not been misled. If there were 700 then our statement would be false. The limits of truthfulness are dependent on the degree of precision implied by the speaker and expected by the original hearers. This means that the biblical authors can make imprecise statements and they’re still true. If I say that it’s a little under a mile from my study to church it’s vague and imprecise but it’s also inerrant. There is nothing untrue about it. It doesn’t affirm anything contrary to fact.

c. The Bible can be without error and yet the statements can be representative

The convention of quoting the words of someone else varies depending on the context we’re in. If we’re writing a scholarly academic price we’re expected to quote someone’s words verbatim. But in everyday speech and writing, as long as we represent the substance of what someone said, no one bats an eyelid. At the time of the New Testament an accurate citation of another person needed only to include correct representation of the content of what the other person said. So long as the content wasn’t false the statement was accepted to be free from error.

d. The Bible can be without error and yet the construction can be ungrammatical

When has education and familiarity with the rules of grammar ever been an indicator of the truthfulness of what’s written? Some of the biggest lies will have been written in the finest English! There are parts of the Bible where the Greek is shocking but a statement can still ignore the grammatical rules and still be true. Otherwise we need to say that no one in the West Country ever says anything true!

Almost predictably there are objections raised against what I’ve suggested here.

Some say that inerrancy applies only to doctrine and ethics because that’s what the Bible is primarily about. That’s a true summary of the main purpose of the Bible but it’s not the total purpose of the Bible. The Bible has other purposes than instructing us about faith and practice. It’s better to say that the whole purpose of the Bible is to say everything it says on whatever subject it addresses. And so whatever the Bible asserts it asserts truthfully.

Some say that inerrancy is inaccurate because it’s too precise a term and raises expectations of absolute scientific exactness. But the term has been used for years in theological discussion with the understanding of the conventions of human speech. There’s no need to ditch it as long as we explain what we mean by it.

Some say that inerrancy is misleading because we have no inerrant manuscripts. It is true that we do not have any of the original manuscripts, known as autographs, since these have either been lost or perished. We only have copies of copies of what was originally written by the biblical authors. We can be 99% certain of what the originals said and in the very few instances where we’re not, which are indicated in the footnotes of our Bibles, no point of Christian doctrine is affected.

Some say that inerrancy underplays human involvement because for a piece of writing to be truly human must necessarily involve error. But though the Bible is fully human it is also fully divine. The human writers were sinners but this didn’t prevent them from being mouthpieces for God. They were uniquely superintended by the action of God through His Spirit in all factors influencing their message. But we’re talking about people in whom God was at work by His Spirit. This doesn’t mean that we need to be committed to a dictation view of inspiration as though God bypassed human personality.

The implication of all this is that we can trust what we find in God’s word. He has not misled us. He does not lie. Bet your life on what you read in the book bound by a publisher and fished out of the amazon.

Are the gospels historically reliable?

To answer that question let me say three things in response.

1. the gospels are authentic versions of what was originally written

In other words these ancient documents have not been altered.

None of the original gospel records remain. All we have is copies of copies. That sounds troubling but it shouldn’t alarm us. This is not an issue unique to the gospels but to every ancient historical document.

• The earliest complete New Testament is Codex Siniaticus produced in 300s AD and currently kept in the British Museum.
• The earliest complete gospel was copied in the early 200s AD and is called the Chester Beatty Papyri.
• The earliest fragment is part of John’s gospel dated in the early 100s AD and that’s in the John Rylands Library in Manchester.

This raises an important issue. Do what we call gospels bear any resemblance to what was originally written? After all, 1900 years have passed since they were written and they could have been tampered with. So how trustworthy is the transmission of the original down the years?

Comparison of Ancient Texts

• Caeser’s Gallic Wars was written in the 1st Century BC, the earliest Copy we have is 900 AD and there are a total of 10 manuscripts.
• Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome were written in the 1st Century AD, the earliest copy we have dates from 1100 AD and there are a total of 20 manuscripts.
• Thucydides wrote in the 5th Century BC, the earliest copy is 900 AD and there are 8 manuscripts.
• Homer’s Iliad was written in the 9th Century BC, the date of the earliest copy is unknown but there are 643 manuscripts which provide an accuracy figure of 95%.
• New Testament was completed by the close of the 1st Century AD. The earliest copy dates from the 2nd Century AD. Over 5000 manuscripts have been preserved which provide an accuracy figure of  99%.  

a. The number of documents

Over 5000 early manuscript copies of the originals remain [complete New Testaments written before 350AD] and this allows comparison between them to see how similar they are. This causes F.F. Bruce, former Professor at University of Manchester to write, ‘There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament’.

b. The geographical distribution of documents

The wider the geographical distribution of manuscripts the less likely that they all come from one giant publishing house. If the same gospel can be compared from different continents and there is a high degree of agreement we can be surer of what the original document was. The need for translations in new languages was required by the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Mediterranean region. This led to a proliferation and preservation of the scriptures. Copies are available in Coptic, Latin, Syrian, Armenian and Georgian.

c. The age of the documents

There are copies of the New Testament written within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals. This is significantly nearer the original than any other form of ancient literature. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum writes, ‘in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the NT’.  

As you would expect there are discrepancies between the different manuscript copies because the gospels were copied before the days of the photocopier. These copying mistakes came about because scribes whose job it was to copy by hand were human. However, they didn’t make many mistakes. This was their full time job and the few that exist are indicated in our Bibles in a footnote. However, this shouldn’t alarm us because no matter of substantial Christian history or doctrine is affected by suspected uncertainties. This led Bishop Stephen Neill to write,

‘Anyone who reads the New Testament in any one of half a dozen recent Greek editions, or in any modern translation, can feel confident that, though there may be uncertainties in detail, in almost everything of importance he is close indeed to the text of the New Testament books as they were originally written’. Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961

In conclusion, we can be sure that we have what was originally written.

2. The gospels are attested by non Christian writers of the period

In other words, though the gospel writers wrote from a particular standpoint they were accurate in what they recorded.

In order to deal with the objection that the Christian writers of the gospel were biased and invented stories about Jesus after he died we need to check out the non-Christian writings of the time. Inevitably as with our secular newspapers today you wouldn’t expect to find a whole load about Jesus Christ because it just wasn’t an issue for them. The religious affairs correspondent wasn’t a highly prized career move even then. But we find that the references in the gospels to key historical figures like Caiphas, Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist are all confirmed by contemporary secular historians. In addition they also confirm the rough outline of Jesus’ life as recorded by the gospels.

Roman sources: Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius

‘Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their crimes. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only in Judea where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also’. Annals 15.44, Tacitus

Jewish sources: Josephus

‘About that time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the (so called) Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of Christians so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared’. Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquities, Josephus

• From these and without the New Testament we would know
• Jesus was a Jewish teacher who claimed to be God and that he would depart and return (Eliezer)
• Many people believed that he performed healing and exorcisms
• Some people believed he was the Messiah or Christ and his followers were called Christians
• He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
• He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius in Judea
• Despite his shameful death, his followers who believed he was still alive spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by AD64
• All kinds of people from the cities and the countryside, men and women, slave and free worshipped him as God

This leads Dr Paul Barnett in his book, ‘Is the New Testament History?’ to write,

‘While the evidence is not extensive, it is noteworthy that it does not in any way conflict with, but rather confirms, the historical information in the New Testament’.

In conclusion, we can be sure that what they wrote wasn’t inaccurate

3. The gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts of what occurred

In other words the gospel writers didn’t record myths but facts.

New Testament scholars are convinced that all four gospels were written before the close of the 1st century. Many are convinced that they were available within 30 years of Jesus’ death. To modern ears that time span may appear to be a very long time. But we need to remember that

• They were regularly retold in a culture where oral transmission was the norm
• They were so memorable; they’re not the kind of stories you’d forget that easily
• They could be disputed; at the time that they were written there were people who would have remembered Jesus and could have discredited anything untrue

None of this requires us to become a Christian but it does mean that what we read is historically reliable.

Should we celebrate Christmas? ‘Is he serious?’ ‘What is he planning now?’ ‘Please tell me he hasn’t gone to press on this?’ I can only imagine the panicked responses in the minds of the CCB faithful as they read the opening question. Our instinctive reaction is probably something like, ‘Of course, why wouldn’t we? After all everyone else does?’ That’s a post all on its own. Something along the lines of Christian accommodation to a secularist lifestyle. But I’ll save that for the New Yeat. The nagging doubt in some of our minds is probably, ‘is he seriously about to suggest that we shouldn’t’.

Relax. I may have iconoclastic inclinations but an increasing appreciation for the festivities of the season has kept them in check! Personal preference appears to have trumped principled action. To which my free church brethren would respond, ‘but he is an Anglican after all’!

Now I’m not the first person to raise the appropriateness of Christians celebrating Christmas. Some of the European Reformers of the 16th Century and the English Puritans of the 17th Century refused to do so. They were right on most things. So, at the very least, we ought to approach this subject with an open mind and a willingness to change our opinion. 

There are two main reasons given for not celebrating Christmas

1. Christmas Day is not Jesus’ birthday

Good point. In his gospel, Luke tells us that Jesus’ birth took place at a time when the Judean shepherds kept their flocks in the fields. Winters in Israel can be very severe and so it’s unlikely that these events took place at the end of December. In addition Luke also tells us that those fastidious administrators, the Romans, organised a census for the entire population. It’s unlikely that they’d decree this during a time when it was difficult to travel. Therefore it’s very unlikely that Jesus’ birth took place in winter. It probably occurred after harvest and before the bad weather set in. So autumn seems our best guess. Although it gives us these clues, the Bible gives us no date for Christ’s birth. The early church doesn’t offer us any clues either since the earliest Christians don’t appear to have celebrated the event. The first evidence for the celebration of Jesus’ birth is found in a Roman document dated AD336. The inauguration of Christmas day appears to have been an attempt to christianise a pagan festival. Under Pope Julius 1st the Roman Church decided to replace the traditional pagan midwinter festival in honour of the Sun with what we celebrate as the birth of God’s son.

2. Christmas customs do not have Christian origins

Another good point. For example

Father Christmas is not related to God the Father. The original Father Christmas was St Nicholas, a 4th Century Asian Bishop. He was a generous and anonymous supporter of the needy. Clearly not that anonymous! One day he climbed the roof of a house and dropped a purse of money down the chimney of a family of needy girls. The purse landed in the stockings that the girls had hung up by the fire to dry. In his memory it became customary to give gifts on the eve of St Nicholas’ day. In our culture this tradition was transferred to Christmas day.

Christmas trees originate with an 8th century English missionary called St Boniface who went to Germany. He apparently went encountered a group of people standing beneath a large oak tree ready to sacrifice a child to please their god. Boniface rescued the child and chopped the oak tree down. At its foot was a small fir tree and he gave it to the people as a symbol of life. In the 16th century Martin Luther, the German reformer, cut down a fir tree and took it home in the December of 1940. In the middle of the 19th century, Queen Victoria’s husband the German born Prince Albert introduced the Christmas tree into England. Woolworths have been doing the same ever since.

Christmas cards originate in the middle of the 19th century when the first one was made by Sir Henry Cole, the founder of the Victoria and Albert museum.

Turkeys were introduced into Europe in the 18th century by an officer called Sebastian Cabot. He had been part of an expedition to the New World. This native South American bird was called a turkey because it was popularised by merchants from that country.

Most of our Christmas customs do not have Christian origins.

But does this mean that we shouldn’t celebrate Christmas? Not in my opinion, for the following three reasons.

1. Christmas is part of our culture

Most people are completely unaware of the origins of Christmas. That’s not why people observe it. Therefore what it represents today has little to do with where it comes from. If we were being cynical we’d suggest that Christmas has to do with materialism. But that’s just an inherent danger and not the reason we celebrate it. I think that in most people’s minds Christmas is about with families, generosity and rest. Christians are all for those things and so we can be positive about Christmas. And there seems to be an increasing appreciation that Christmas is a Christian festival even if they stop short of acknowledging that it’s all about Jesus Christ. I thought it was striking that our school Christmas play this year was the Nativity and not something about Santa’s elves. Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights has been a vocal critic of our failure to acknowledge the significance of Christmas for fear of offending the religious sensitivities of those of other faiths. But as the article here points out those of other faiths are bemused by our culture’s reticence on this issue.

2. Christmas is an opportunity for the gospel

Many of us, and our unbelieving friends, are adept at pushing spiritual issues to the periphery of life. But, bombarded and intoxicated by the festive spirit at Christmas we’re especially susceptible to the invitation to church! Friends seem to be willing to come at this time of year. There’s something unthreatening and perhaps familiar about a carol service. Far from being an opportunity to abuse people’s vulnerability, it’s an opportunity for unbelievers to consider the big issues of life. Christmas can bring us face to face with the spiritual. In thinking about the birth of a baby we’re thinking about the birth of our saviour. And so we’re asked to consider why we need saving, what we need saving from, what are we saved for, how are we saved and so on. It’s hard not be enthusiastic about a seasonal celebration that gets people to hear that. 

3. Christmas is especially significant for Christians

Christians get the best of both worlds. Like everyone else we can enjoy the emphases of families, generosity and rest. But we also get to remember the birth of our saviour. This makes it all the more meaningful. It’s a great opportunity to take some time out with the family, repair some bridges and invest some time in those for whom we have responsibility. It’s a great opportunity to encourage ourselves and our children not only to think about what they’ll get but what they’ll give. And it’s a great opportunity to catch up on some sleep, recover from the last term’s activities and recharge the batteries ready for the rigours of the spring! But it’s also a time to be lost in wonnder at the profound mystery of the incarnation. It is an incredible thing that God became man to live, die and be raised as our eternal saviour.

May this, and not the vicar’s proposed forthcoming campaign to ban Christmas, be our ever increasing preoccupation this Christimas. Merry Christmas.

I’ve not got a lot of experience of Christian Unions. It would be inaccurate to say that I belonged to one when I attended the University of Warwick. At best it might be described as a loose affiliation. So fed up with the CU were a few of us that we established a parallel organisation. We tried to evangelise the sports community of which we were a part and disciple our Christian friends without reference to the CU. We were too small to be a threat to the CU and that was never our aim. We just wanted to do something whilst we were there. We may have been idealistic, zealous and angry young men but I’d like to think there was something more principled about what we were trying to do. We’d grown accustomed to a female led, charismatic flavour to praise and meetings. But we’d grown disillusioned with a lack of Bible teaching, a lack of evangelistic fervour and a lack of emphasis on equipping the saints for the work of ministry. In my final year however, Krish Kandiah http://krishk.wordpress.com/ rose to prominence within the CU and effected something of a reformation. But it was too late for us. We were about to head off into the ‘real’ world of work, mortgages and churches.

Since training for and being ‘employed’ in full time gospel ministry the student scene has never really been a part of life. That’s why my sermons lack song lyrics and display an intimate knowledge of film! That, and the fact that these days I’m completely immersed in ‘Dad’ culture! In the early days of Dundonald the links with Roehampton and the Wimbledon school of Art were weak. Wonderfully that’s no longer the case. Back then we had a student group but it was really a small Bible study of highly committed, united and theologically similar individuals. Since coming back to south London and planting CCB we’ve had a ‘trickle’ of students from St George’s Hospital but we’ve never had quite enough to describe it as a ’stream’! Don’t get me wrong, we love students. The more the merrier! But other local churches have a more prominent work amongst students. 

It was therefore with some trepidation and anxiety that I approached a CU weekend Houseparty a few weeks ago. It was terrific and I was well taken care of. I have no complaints on that front. There were over 140 individuals on the weekend. That’s more than the combined congregations of CCB. In many respects they were a committed, able and impressive group of people.

In the time that’s followed I’ve reflected on one or two things. They’re offered not as criticism if by that word we mean negativity. But they’re offered as evaluative observations from which we might learn!

1. There’s confusion about the gospel and evangelism

There seems to be a ‘conversation’ going on amongst students and perhaps the churches they attend on the content of the gospel and the nature of evangelism. What might be loosely described as a ’social gospel’ seems to be gaining ground. I don’t want to be misunderstood on this point. I’m all for acts of kindness. But they’re not the gospel. No one was ever converted by being on the receiving end of social action. Social action may present an opportunity for the gospel and though we may not wish to separate them we need to distinguish them. It used to be acccepted that evangelism was speaking about the gospel [the evangel]. But the definition of evangelism seems to have broadened. The language may sound similar but when we begin to define the terms it becomes clear that we’re talking about different things. At the weekend people would talk about ’proclaiming the kingdom’ but I don’t think that we were talking about the same thing. They seemed to mean expressing the love of Christ through performaing self sacrificial acts of kindness. Jesus seems to have understood the phrase ‘proclaiming the kingdom’. as a asynonym for speaking about the gospel. The new definition of building the kingdom seems to be different from the way that Jesus understood it. When Jesus spoke of the kingdom he wasn’t talking about something completely separate from the gospel. The gospel Jesus taught was the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 24:14). When Mark records Jesus walking onto centre stage with the words ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel’, he was announcing the gospel. He was declaring that he is the King of God’s kingdom. He had come to open the doors of this kingdom by his death on the cross. So the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ is not a different message to the gospel of Christ crucified. Paul makes this clear in Acts 28 where we read that he was

‘testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the Prophets’ (28:23)

and that he was

‘proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance’ (28:31).

They were the same thing.

I think that social action is easier to engage in than evangelism. Paul warns that when we engage in evangelism we are to some the fragrance of life but to others we’re the stench of death (2 Corinthians 2:14-17). You don’t get the same response with social action. Few people have a bad word to say against charitable acts of kindness. That’s perhaps why churches like them so much. We’re fed up with, exhausted by and scared of being villified, opposed and persecuted for the gospel. But the trouble is that though social action may commend us and our churches to the unbeliever so that they think well of us I’m not sure that they commend Christ to the unbeliever so that they think well of him. In their recent book ‘Total Church’, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis write this,

There is a tendency in some quarters today to promote a kind of evangelism without proclamation. Acts of service are done or people are invited to experience Christian worship. But without words of explanation these are like signposts pointing nowhere, or, worse still, signposts pointing to our good works’ p52.

No one could accuse them of disregarding social action as part of the churches responsibility but I think they nail the issue. We must not confuse social action with the gospel and at the very least we must proclaim the goapel. St Francis of Assisi may have said, ‘preach the gospel always; if necessary use words’. But he was wrong. Wordless preaching is silence! And no one gets converted by stillness. Evangelism is a declaration of the gospel to men and women.

2. Student leadership is a double edged sword

Student leadership is a blessing and a curse. There’s little doubt that students provide initiative, drive and enthusiasm. They have levels of imagination and enterprise that those with increased years of maturity often don’t possess. Consequently they can use those resources for the gospel in very exciting and engaging ways. But there’s a flip side. It’s a hard ask to expect a young man [and occasionally a young woman] President to lead a disparate group of students and unite them in a gospel message. There are men who’ve been in ministry for years who’d struggle to bring unity out of some of the situations that they have to deal with. The support of the UCCF Regional Staff worker [RSW] is invaluable but they’re often spread quite thin, having to look after more than one CU. It’s a tough ask for them as well. No doubt, UCCF would provide more RSWs if they had the resources to afford them. But even if there was a ratio of one RSW per University they’d have to be extraordinary people to maintain unity in gospel partnership. Of course, they could pretend there was unity but to do that they’d have to avoid defining what we mean by ‘evangelism’ and ‘gospel’. That way we all think we’re talking about the same thing when in reality we’re not. What results looks like unity but plan an evangelistic event and it’ll soon become clear that we’re talking at cross purposes.

3. Student meetings can kill Bible teaching

I’d mentally prepared for this but it was still a killer. The way a meeting is put together shows what’s valued. Students may unthinkingly put together the meeting without realising that they are in effect killing off Bible teaching! Being asked to explain the Bible and explore its implications after an hour plus of singing, praying and adverts is a tough gig! It seems to me that there’s no better way to ensure that Bible teaching continues to be regarded as something to be endured rather than something to be enjoyed than to ask the speaker to stand up when everyone’s dog tired! I love my wife with a passion and I love listening to her but even I struggle when I’m shattered. Sure, some of us who speak could do with being a little more engaging. And we’d all benefit from a bit of energy in our presentation. But a warm room, with tired people and an hour of praise is like asking someone to raise the dead!

4. Without training people won’t know what to do

Most churches would give their right arm for the sort of crowd that gathers for a CU Meeting. God has given Universities an extraordinary resource in the quality and quantity of able young men and women. But they need instruction because they don’t yet know what to do. They need help in understanding the gospel, in engaging with culture, in challenging presuppositions, in handling the Bible and so on. Just as we wouldn’t ask an undergraduate medical student to diagnose and operate on a patient neither should we ask our students to do things for which they’ve not yet been trained. It’s not fair on them and it’s not fair on those on the receiving end of the zealous but uninformed efforts at ministry. The question is, who does it? The RSWs are busy people. As long as they’re not having to firefight they’d be ideal. Local churches with a discipleship training package or a student programme are also well placed to help. But there’s some suspicion that churches can threaten student leadership of the CUs. It doesn’t have to be the case. There are lots of places where a strong local church ministry helps the student witness on campus. And long may it remain so.

Conclusion

I’m sure that most of these issues have been identified and addressed by those for whom they are pressing realities. It was just interesting for me to walk into that world for a while and find myself immersed in a student Christian culture. I felt old. Because I am. But I loved it.