Is the family history?

I recently read an article that made me quite sad about the explicit untruths and inaccuracies that are allowed to be published in reputable publications. It was an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Guardian columnist George Monbiot, in which he claimed that those who advocate heterosexual marriage have fabricated a history of the family as a heterosexual institution.

Rather than go on for ages about all the things that bothered me about the article, I’ll just focus on one, the following paragraph:

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel to behold. Its promoters are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that ''if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple''. He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

There are some truths in this passage that mask the untruths and inaccuracies of his interpretation of the Bible. I think it’s true that the modern 'nuclear family’ (mother, father and biological children living together) is not itself a Biblically mandated institution. Rather, it is a cultural manifestation of the Biblical principles of lifelong monogamy (Gen 2:23-24, Ex 19:14, Mt 5:31-32), multiplication (Gen 1:26-28), and passing on the knowledge of God and His promises and commands to the next generation (Gen 12:1-3, 17:7, Deut 6:1-9). We must be careful to separate out what is merely cultural from what is necessarily Christian. Sometimes they work together, but often they do not. In the case of the nuclear family, it’s a cultural phenomenon that seems compatible with the Biblical principles. Living in community with other families or generations of an extended family could also work, and in fact the descriptions of the early church in Acts suggest this kind of arrangement (e.g. Acts 2:42-47).

The Bible passage Monbiot refers to here is Luke 14:25-26. In the passage immediately before this (Luke 14:15-24), Jesus had been talking to people at a dinner party at the home of the ruler of the Pharisees, telling a parable of a rich man who gave a great banquet and invited all his friends but when the time for the banquet came, they all sent their apologies because they had work to do, or economic concerns to act on, or family to attend to. So the man had to find other guests among the poor and homeless - those whom respectable people wouldn’t normally invite to a banquet - to fill the house for the banquet. There should be nothing to distract them, and even if there was, they would recognise the value of the offer and accept it.

In the passage in question (Luke 14:25-26), the scene changes to Jesus speaking to the enormous crowds that were accompanying him. But I think Luke wants us to make the connection with the previous passage, as the point is the same. Jesus extends an invitation to everyone, including those who have all kinds of potential distractions, and we must count the cost of accepting his generous and valuable offer.

As Jesus says elsewhere (Mt 6:24), you cannot serve two masters - we either serve Jesus as King, or our family, or our job, or whatever. The same underlying principle was inherent in the command given to God’s people at the revelation of his commandments at Mount Sinai (Deut 6:4-5) - "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength". We are to be undivided. But we are also to love our neighbours (including our family as well as complete strangers) as ourselves, and so Jesus’ challenge to ‘hate’ our own parents and siblings does not absolve us of family responsibility. Our family responsibility rather becomes part of the way we love and serve God and obey his commands.

While it’s true that Jesus did not issue any direct injunction against homosexuality, it’s grossly misleading to say that Jesus perceived 'heterosexual love’ as a ‘threat’. In the passage Monbiot quotes, Jesus was merely warning his would-be disciples that following him would mean they could not let their family get in the way of their allegiance to Jesus and obedience to God. On the contrary, Jesus explicitly condoned faithful heterosexual marriage, as on several occasions he spoke strongly against adultery and sexual immorality. He had hard words to say to the Samaritan woman he met at a well (John 4:1-30), who had been married five times and was now sleeping with someone other than her husband. To the woman caught in adultery in John 8, Jesus said ‘from now on sin no more’. He wanted (and still wants) people to live God’s way, the way they were created for, walking in the light rather than in darkness (John 8:12).

Christianity is not incompatible with multiculturalism

Last July, I blogged in response to the shocking news about Norwegian Anders Breivik, who killed around 70 of this countrymen and was unhelpfully labelled 'Christian' although his actions demonstrate otherwise and his motivations seemed rather more racial, political and fearful than religious.

This week Breivik has been facing trial in Norway for his actions (see reports from BBC, The Guardian, ABC). At one stage he was allowed to make a 30-min statement, which became 70 min! I find that rather disturbing, but I suppose if that is a right of anyone standing trial then he is entitled to it.

Apparently one of his arguments was that 'Multiculturalism is a self-destructing ideology'. He seems to think that the 'Christian minority' he is supposedly trying to defend cannot be compatible with multiculturalism. I have already argued that the labeling of Breivik as 'Christian' was unhelpful, and here we see further evidence. There is no incompatibility between Christianity and multiculturalism.

Recently I have been reading the book of Revelation, and one of the most exciting parts for me is where the writer, the apostle John, tells that he "looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with plan branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"' (Rev 7:9-10).

This is not the only place in the Bible that speaks of people from all nations coming to salvation through Jesus (the Lamb who was slain), either. Both the Old Testament (the Jewish sacred book included in the Christian Bible) and the New Testament have many references to this idea. The Old Testament tells us that when Solomon built the first temple, he prayed to God: "when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name's sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you" (1 Kings 8:41-43).

In the New Testament, we see Jesus commissioning his disciples after his resurrection. He says "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20).

There are many other places besides. I get the impression from Revelation that the final state will not be a homogeneous people all of one colour and language, but a multicultural group united in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain for every one for them no matter what their language or ethnicity. Awesome!

Christmas legends

I haven't been officially 'working' since semester finished towards the end of October, and I've found that the relative loss of structure in the week has made me much less efficient. The regularity of my blog posts has certainly suffered! But here I am, 3 days before Christmas, determined to make at least one more post before the year is out (actually I have a few more ideas up my sleeve so I might just get another one out before the end of the year!).

I've been doing a lot of carol-singing in the lead-up to Christmas this year, which is rather fun. Last night I sang in the foyer of a local RSL club with the choir I've been singing with for years. After we sang the song 'Little Donkey', I heard one of the tenors objecting that there was no mention of a donkey in Luke's gospel (which is true) but "they were all legends anyway so it doesn't matter". My hackles rose, and at that point I was struck by the combination of songs that we hear around us at Christmas, in every shopping centre and public place. There is such a mingling of truth and fiction that it's no wonder people are confused between legend and history.

From the songs we sang last night, 'Frosty the Snowman', Santa Claus' (at least the concept originating from a Coca Cola campaign of the 30s), 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' - all these are fictitious characters. And yet there are attempts in the lyrics of the songs to lend historical validity to them. 'Rudolph' is sung about in past tense as if the story is being told by an eyewitness: 'Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer had a very shiny nose, and if you ever saw it, you would even say it glows. All of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names...'. In 'Frosty the Snowman', an attempt is made to downplay they mythical sense of the story, and to invoke children as the true 'knowers': 'Frosty the snowman was a fairytale, they say. He was made of snow, but the children know how he came to life one day'. In 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town'.

Interestingly, all these songs were written in the twentieth century driven by a commercial imperative. The Wikipedia entry for Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer has this telling sentence: 'Although the story and song are not public domain, Rudolph has become a figure of Christmas folklore.' The story is 'owned' by a company, 'The Rudolph Company'! 'Frosty the Snowman' was written in 1950 and recorded by the same person who released the first recording of 'Rudolph', who, according to Wikipedia, was "in search of another seasonal hit". Frosty even has a MySpace page, which lists friends such as 'Santa' and 'SNOW', 'where children of all ages from all over the world can write to their favorite snowman' (Wikipedia)! 'Santa Claus is coming to town', after being released in November 1934, "became an instant hit with orders for 100,000 copies of sheet music the next day and more than 400,000 copies sold by Christmas".

Whatever the motivation, these and other Christmas songs (like this incredibly cheesy one I heard a while ago - Here Comes Suzy Snowflake!) have certainly captured the imagination of children in many English-speaking countries. But I worry that as the public imagination is engaged by these clearly fictional songs, the Christmas songs, both old and new, that relate the true story of Jesus (e.g. Hark the Herald Angels Sing, The First Nowell, Silent Night, Holy Lamb of God) are increasingly lumped in with the fictional 'Christmas folklore'.

There may be few historical records beyond the gospel of Luke that record and give evidence of the circumstances of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. But there are plenty of historical records to substantiate the gospel claims of Jesus' earthly works, his death, and his resurrection (see e.g. historical surveys in Morison's 'Who Moved the Stone?', Dickson's 'The Christ Files'). And by these and the Spirit of God in me, I am convinced that Jesus is the Son of God. I am therefore inclined to believe that what Luke's gospel says about Jesus' birth is more than just legend. A God who can raise someone from the dead can surely make a virgin birth happen. And A God who can do all that and who gave His Son as a gift to all people, none of whom had been 'good', is much more worthy of my attention than a snowman who dissolves when the temperature goes up, a reindeer with a glowing red nose, or an old chubby guy with a beard who gives gifts once a year to children who have been good.

Soundbites and cliches (part 2)

Last week I wrote some thoughts about the unhelpful effect of media ‘soundbites’ or uses of labels in un-thought-through ways. Referring to the perpetrator of the Norwegian bombing and shootings as a ‘Christian’ in early reports added to the public misunderstanding of what Christianity is actually all about (and see this article for a comparison with the effect of 9/11 on the public perception of Muslims). It also left its legacy of giving religion sceptics a foothold to say ‘well, see? It’s not just Islam that makes people violent – it’s all religions!’ In fact, you can take religion out of the equation and it turns out that people are often just inclined to be violent and treat one another badly (compare obvious examples such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao). But I digress...

I recently rewatched some episodes of ‘The Vicar of Dibley’, which I remember enjoying watching with my family when I was younger. Now I find it rather cringe-worthy, not just in terms of the humour that often descends into the slapstick, but in terms of the way the Dibley church (including church services, the Vicar’s conduct, relationships between parishioners, and lack of knowledge of the Bible) is presented. Obviously it’s a fictional church, and the characters and storylines are designed to be humorous, but it makes me wonder why that would be considered legitimately humorous material. Fiction or not, it’s no laughing matter when people who are supposed to be followers of Jesus behave like that.

But what I think is most unhelpful, in terms of the public understanding of Christianity, is that the mismatch of the characters and storylines with biblical Christianity is not being pointed out as something funny or strange in itself. I think viewers (particularly British viewers) are supposed to feel like that community is perhaps not far from their experience at all, and so the humour comes from the caricature of people you might almost have met before or could imagine in small village life. That is, there is supposed to be a degree of closeness to reality in it to make the humour work. And because the viewers are supposed to feel like that is what village church life is like (with some exaggeration), it plants untrue and unhelpful ideas about what the life in the church of Christ is like. A much more helpful picture of church can be discovered in the pages of the Bible (especially Acts 2:42-47, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy 3-4), but few seem willing to discover it for themselves.

Currently, Australian comedian Judith Lucy is appearing in a series called ‘Judith Lucy’s Spiritual Journey’ which I haven’t seen yet (and it’s on the wrong night for me to be able to watch it) but I don’t anticipate that her treatment of Christianity will be any more helpful to those who might seriously want to know. I don’t doubt Lucy’s personal sincerity in wanting to discover the answers to her questions “Why are we here? What happens when we die? How do you find a reason to get out of bed in the morning”, but given that her spiritual journey has been produced as a television program, I can’t help but be cynical about how the religions will be presented and how much value that will have for public understanding. Entertainment, yes, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with entertainment. But entertainment based on religious exploration by those who are not in a position to properly understand or accurately present the crucial features requires critical viewing, which I fear is lacking to a large extent.

Learning from the source

This week I have been lecturing on using evidence in academic writing – using sources, referencing, quoting, paraphrasing, etc – and how it's not good enough just to quote someone second hand. You actually need to go back to the original source and see that the middle man has conveyed the meaning of the source text accurately. Otherwise it's like Chinese whispers and you never know what convoluted rubbish you could end up with!

I was reminded of Paul's exhortation to Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) to entrust the gospel of Christ to reliable men who would be able to continue to faithfully teach others – passing the baton on, but ensuring it's always the same baton and doesn't get switched for something else in the middle of the race. We need to keep going back to the source – the Word of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ – so that we never just assume we know what it's about and then pass on a twisted or faulty message.

Around the same time I heard that message from 2 Timothy (preached by the faithful Richard Chin at St Michaels Wollongong), I read Amos 2:4-5, where God pronounces judgement on Judah because they have forgotten God's law and have been led astray by their lies, which presumably have resulted from just that same problem – the Word of God was no longer being taught faithfully, people weren't going back to the source but were hearing distortions and allowing them to continue.

So Paul exhorted Timothy to 'preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (2 Tim 4:2). And we need to always go back to the source to test what we hear or read against the original source.

Truth in the media

My research has been on the reporting of armistice in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1902-2003, which covers 7 major wars Australia has been involved in. Reading the news is a good way of finding out about what's going on in the world around us - it has been for more than 500 years, since the first newspapers were put together for the purpose of informing European merchants of the goings on that might affect the progress of their trade shipments. But the news can never claim to have been 'the whole truth' because what we find out about the world around us in the news is brought to us from human perspectives. Human perspective, the Bible tells us, is not only limited (e.g. Job 42: 2-6), but also inherently flawed (e.g. Romans 3:23).
I think we need to be careful about expecting too much in the way of 'journalistic truth'. This is not to say that we should not expect journalists to do the best job they can in reporting the events that go on in the world around us. Rather, we need to be clear on where 'truth' can be found, and what is a reasonable expectation of our fellow human beings.
Human journalists, who are made in the image of God just like everyone else, can bring us just a fraction of what can be known about the world around us. No one person can know - or bring together - everything that is relevant to a topic or event. Only God - who is all-seeing and all-knowing (omniscient) - can do that.
The Bible tells of Daniel, an Isaraelite scholar who was exiled to Babylon, who undertook to interpret a strange dream for the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, a dream that was beyond the powers of interpretation of the Babylonian wise men. Daniel prayed for wisdom to understand the dream (otherwise he and all the other wise men would have been destroyed because of the king's rage!), and when the mystery was revealed to him, he praised God for his wisdom and knowledge of all things, saying (Dan 2:20-22):
²⁰ "Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
wisdom and power are his.

²¹ He changes times and seasons;
he sets up kings and deposes them.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the discerning.

²² He reveals deep and hidden things;
he knows what lies in darkness,
and light dwells with him.

I do not wish to criticise journalists in particular for what they do, but to encourage all consumers of news in all its forms to recognise that they will not find "the truth" in the news - only perhaps a small fragment of it. Humanly speaking, there is not, and never has been, a 'right' way of reporting an event. We all notice different things about the world, and attribute significance to events in different ways. Why should we expect that journalists in particular will notice and bring out all the things that we think are significant or worthwhile?
The truth we need to know about our world and our place in it comes from God. The Psalmist praises God, saying (Ps 119:160):

All your words are true;
all your righteous laws are eternal.

And in Isaiah, the prophet tells us (Isa 45:11-12 and 18-19):
¹¹ "This is what the LORD says—
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?

¹² It is I who made the earth
and created mankind upon it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.

...

¹⁸ For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other.

¹⁹ I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob's descendants,
'Seek me in vain.'
I, the LORD, speak the truth;
I declare what is right.