Christmas Carols
I was originally intending to write a little light-hearted ‘review’ of some Christmas Carol lyrics here, but somewhat ran out of steam. Instead, I just wanted to post one or two thoughts about the Christmas Carols which many people (in this country at least) sing year on year. We’ve been to a carol service this evening at Christ Church, Cockfosters which was absolutely packed out – I think this goes to show that the popularity of the carol service is enduring and isn’t going to go away any time soon!
I was struck as we sang ‘Once in Royal David’s City’ – not a carol I’m a massive fan of (it goes on a bit…) – but one of the verses is:
Not in that poor lowly stable,
with the oxen standing round,
we shall see him; but in heaven,
set at God’s right hand on high;
when like stars his children crowned,
all in white shall wait around.
What struck me anew1 was the last line, the clear allusion to Revelation 7: “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands … These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
As Richard James (vicar of Christ Church) said in his talk this evening, the Cross hangs over the stable: you can’t have one without the other. It just struck me in a new way that Christ’s incarnation is the most wondrous thing that’s ever happened – the fact that he came down, incarnate as ‘flesh’ – as a man – but that in dying and rising again he defeated death, and in the words of Te Deum ’opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers’.
I think, particularly in evangelical circles, we’re too keen to brush over the sheer wonder of it all. At Christmas we rightly sing and praise God for the fact that he came as an ordinary human baby, and yet – in the words of ‘Hark the Herald Ages Sing’ ‘Veiled in flesh the Godhead see’: Christ Jesus – the image of the invisible God, by whom and for whom all things were created – there as a baby, helpless in his mother’s arms. I think perhaps in theological circles it’s easy to say those words without ever stepping back and thinking … “wow. this is absolutely mind-blowing.” And yet, this man died on a cross for us and for our salvation.
This Christmas I’ve been struck by Emmanuel ‘God With Us’ – this is something I’m going to be reflecting on over the next few days and weeks. How amazing it is that God was incarnate among us. How incredible it is that he died for us, and how awesome that one day those who trust in him will be with him, washed in the blood of the lamb, singing ‘Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb’. Soli deo gloria.
1 I think the reason it struck me anew was that the verse is different in Mission Praise, looks like it’s been altered from the original.
Creation / Evolution 4 – Genesis 1
This is the fourth instalment of my mini-series “Creation, Evolution, and Evangelicalism”. Note that the series is still technically on hold, I just wanted to expand on a couple of things I mentioned in previous posts, namely to do with Genesis chapter 1. All clear? Good! 
But first, a clarification: I mentioned in a previous post that I had problems with ‘creationism’. I probably should have been clearer in this post but the particular version of creationism which I have a problem with is ‘young earth creationism’ (which for brevity I shall refer to as YEC from now on): obviously, all Christians are “Creationists” in the sense that we believe God created the world and “the fulness thereof” (a phrase which Mike Ovey is particularly fond of, from the King James version of Psalm 24:1). However, what I am arguing for is that being a ‘creationist’ does not conflict with being an ‘evolutionist’, in the sense that one can believe both in the creative acts of God and the biological process of evolution.
The second thing I’d like to clarify is that I’m not necessarily arguing for evolution in the sense that “I’m a scientist and I believe this to be true”. I think my point is more general, that I believe science and Christianity should never be in conflict: that we can accept what science to be saying, provided that it doesn’t come loaded with any metaphysical connotations (i.e. I don’t believe evolutionism is required by science, despite what people like Dawkins would have you believe. Evolution is a scientific model / biological process, it has no concerns with God.) In other words, if scientists come up with a better theory than evolution (or a more refined version) in the future, I’d be happy to go with that.
That turned out to be a slightly longer clarification than I intended, sorry! – but anyway, what I’d like to talk about in this post is something which is contested by the aforementioned Creationists. I touched on this in my previous post on creationism but I’d like to expand on it now: how are Christians to read Genesis 1?
Coding and Lyric Display
Well, it’s that time of year again. I’ve started a little coding project, this time to do with Lyric Display. In Java. *sigh* Why do I do this to myself?!
To be fair, I started it last year – I’ve just picked it up again and refactored it a fair bit. I checked my Google Code repository, and according to the Subversion logs I first started on the project in October 2010. The interesting thing is, I’ve started a new project every single October for about the past four years (since I’ve had my Google Code repository):
- 2008: A short-lived project using ExtJS to basically create a Javascript / PHP version of an Outlook-style email client;
- 2009: jMonopoly – a short-lived Java version of a Monopoly game.
- 2010: This short-lived lyric display project…
Spot a bit of a pattern going on there? I tend to work on them for a few weeks and then give up. (Probably getting into the Christmas rush at that time, also losing interest…)
Interspersed with all these things is a Java desktop app I wrote to upload sermons to the Fordham website (a script I blogged about when it was merely a Python script) – although to be fair I only imported that to Subversion in the summer so I don’t know exactly when that was started.
I don’t know what it is about this time of year which drives me to the keyboard… I wonder whether (in the past) it’s been to do with the post-summer slump at work, or something like that. I think this year it was more because the chapel computer at Oak Hill broke down and we currently have no lyric projection software, which made me think of what I’d done last year. If it gets anywhere I might release it as Open Source, because there aren’t enough open source lyric projection packages knocking around already… (to be fair, I don’t think there are any in Java).
Anyway, I thought this might give you an insight into my mind. Or not. Either way, I’m not sure I like it, and I’m not sure I really want to post it on my blog… *clicks ‘Publish’*
Nearly Christmas…
… and already we’re two weeks into the new term at Oak Hill. (Don’t ask about the term dates… it’s apparently all the fault of the Church of England, or something.)
Anyway, in the past couple of weeks we’ve also had a couple of trips back to Colchester, once two weeks ago to see Anne-Marie and Sarah, and then yesterday to go to Tom and Clif’s Christmas party. Have to say I feel slightly the worse for wear today, mainly because I think staying up late last night wasn’t great for fighting off the cold I’ve been battling the past week or so. I’m definitely not feeling 100% today.
Anyway, we have one more week of term (which is a reading week), and then we’re into the Christmas break. I’m not entirely sure whether it’s a good thing to have a reading week so soon into the new term, I don’t really know what I should be reading just yet! – but it will be a good opportunity to consolidate a little, I feel.
Either way, just wanted to post up to let you all know that I’m still alive, just in case you were wondering!
Jehovah’s Witnesses and ‘Sola Scriptura’
Sola Scriptura was a term that the reformers – such as Martin Luther – used to determine what they believed about scripture: it means ‘by Scripture alone’ – the doctrine that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation, in contrast with the Roman Catholic understanding of tradition. Essentially, as I understand it, Roman Catholics understand Scripture and Tradition as two independent strands which contain the same truth. Anyway, how does this all relate to the Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Well, recently Mrs Phil and myself have had a few conversations with them. One of the things which they have said in response to our appealing to church history is, “Why do you appeal to church history when you have the Bible?” In other words, they believe that their understanding of the Bible is correct, and there’s no need to look back as to how it’s been understood historically by the church. (In fact, they believe that the church fell into apostasy after the time of the apostles, so they can’t trust what the early church said.)
The reason I’m mentioning all this is because it’s a topic we looked at in our Doctrine lecture yesterday. Why is it that we can’t just say that we have the Bible and forget about traditional understandings of scripture?
The reason is partly because by putting faith in the Bible, you are putting faith in the people who compiled it. Now, I’m not saying here that the Bible was compiled in the sense that a bunch of people sat down in a room one time over a cup of tea and decided which books to put in the Bible out of hundreds of options. I don’t want to go into that discussion now! But the early church did seek to authenticate the books which we now have as part of the New Testament.
Anyone who sees the Bible as authoritative – as the Jehovah’s Witnesses are claiming to do – are implicitly putting faith in the early church for the purposes of the New Testament canon. It becomes a very difficult thing, therefore, for them to claim that the early church were apostate – BUT they were right on with the Biblical canon.
I’d never thought of this before, but it struck me yesterday. I put it up here as an awkward question to ask if you are ever involved in dialogue with the Jehovah’s Witnesses 
Creation / Evolution series on hold
Just wanted to write a quick post to say that my series on Creation and Evolution is on hold at the moment – just started a new course today on the Old Testament, which – amongst other things – looks at the issues around Genesis. There is also a reading list around the subject which I’d quite like to get into before blogging again on the subject, particularly given that I think most people’s objections to evolution and the like would be theological.
So, I probably won’t be finishing my mini-series until early next year. Just a heads up in case you were holding your breath for it!
Reflections after one term
I’ve now been at Oak Hill College for a whole term. I had my one and only exam for this term this morning (New Testament Greek). I thought I’d do a quick post up with my reflections on being here after having completed the initial courses.
My attitudes have changed slightly since my previous post on the subject, now that the courses have finished here’s a quick summary of what I now think:
- Creation & The Doctrine of Humanity – I think this is probably the course which has had the most personal impact in terms of my understanding of God. We often talk about God as redeemer and saviour – but not often as creator. This module really got me thinking about that, and in general I think our understanding of creation could probably do with being taught more in churches – it’s so important!
- Biblical Theology – This was fascinating stuff, particularly when we got to Solomon and typology. That said, I wasn’t sure about how far you could take typology (if you don’t know what that means, don’t worry.) This is a topic I’d like to blog about a little bit more in the future so I’ll continue thinking along those lines.
- Greek – the exam this morning was pretty hard! But overall I’m finding it really good to learn to read the New Testament in the original language… it’s fascinating to be able to pick apart some modern translations and see which decisions they’ve had to make.
In general I think it’s a great college and community, very supportive. The teaching we’ve had has been excellent as well. And this term has been a fairly well-pitched introduction – it hasn’t been too stressful in terms of assignments and deadlines, the workload has been about right for someone who wasn’t in the academic world before coming here.
Creation / Evolution 3: Why evolution?
This is the third instalment of my mini-series, “Creation, Evolution and Evangelicalism”. In this post, I intend to explain some of the evidence for us believing in evolution.
Now, this will probably be the second most contentious post in the series (the most contentious one being the theological post I intend to follow up with): I appreciate that many Creationists see the evidence I will present differently. After I posted up the first part of this series, someone on Twitter sent me a link to a book called “Should Christians Embrace Evolution?”, which is a response to the Denis Alexander book I mentioned I was reading. If you want a Creationist response to the arguments I have presented thus far, and here, I suggest reading that book. (Note that I haven’t read it as yet, I am planning to, but from the reviews I’ve read it seems that is a fair assessment.)
Part of the problem with scientific data is that I don’t have the expertise needed to evaluate it fairly. If on the one hand many scientists are saying “evolution is true because…” and on the other hand Creationists are saying “evolution is not true because…”, arguing over the science, because I don’t have the knowledge of biology I can’t determine which are necessarily true. All I can do is present some of the arguments, as explained by Denis Alexander, and claim this is the current ‘scientific consensus’.
Why look at the evidence?
Now I’m sure some people may be wondering why do we need to even look at the evidence for evolution? Surely the most important thing is the Bible: if the Bible says that we were created in six literal days, several thousand years ago, surely that’s enough for us! Why would we even need to look at the evidence?
Well, I believe it’s right to look at the evidence for evolution for a number of reasons:
Creation / Evolution 2: The problems with Creationism
This is the second part of my series “Creation, Evolution, and Evangelicalism“. To be honest, it’s not the most snappy title I’ve ever come up with, but it will do for now.
In this post I will be exploring the reasons I believe that Creationism is wrong. Creationism is the belief that Genesis 1-2 describe literal events, i.e. that the world was created in six literal 24-hour periods. You can find out more information about it than you’d probably ever want to know on the Answers in Genesis website. Now, I should point out before we start that the Answers in Genesis beliefs were my own up until relatively recently (well, 2003, which I will admit is not all that recent.) In my teenage years I used to get magazines which set out the standard Creationist arguments about flood geology and the like. I probably still have some of the magazines at my parents’ house, I should look them out at Christmas!
Anyway, my contention is that there are problems with Creationism which aren’t just to do with believing in evolution per se. Let me try and explain a few objections which I have. Note that I’m not arguing here for evolution, I’m just arguing against a literal 6-day Creationism.
What is a ‘Plain Understanding’ of the text?
If you read through the Answers in Genesis section on the Bible, you will often find that they appeal to a straight or plain reading of the text. In general, if you believe that the ‘day’ of Genesis 1 is not a 24-hour, literal day then you are being influenced by external factors and not accepting the text as it is speaking to you.
Now I think this is a wrong way of looking at it for several reasons:
Creation / Evolution 1: Why it matters
This is the first part on my mini-series Creation, Evolution and Evangelicalism.
I thought I’d start off by answering the question, “Why does it matter?” Why should we bother discussing issues of evolution – is there any difference in whether you believe in a literal 6-day creation or evolution? Well, in some ways I think the answer is “no”, in that – I don’t think it’s a salvation issue. On the other hand, I do believe it is a huge apologetic issue.
If people’s perception of Christianity is that it is at odds with science – that’s going to work as a huge barrier to many people from entering into the faith. My science / faith view is that the book of God’s word and the book of God’s works are never in conflict: God created or wrote both the Bible and nature. This is how science originally started – the early ‘natural philosophers’ believed that by doing experiments and finding out how the world worked, they were finding out about the mind of God, so to speak: a Christian worldview underpins the modern scientific endeavour.
So, I believe primarily the issue with creation and evolution is one of evangelism: it is not our job to make the gospel more offensive. If the Bible is not in conflict with science, we shouldn’t teach that it is. I could be overstating the case here, but it is my belief that people only hear “science has disproved religion” in the media so often because the creationist movement has set it up that way.
Of course, it’s not just a matter of apologetics, it’s a matter of truth. Perhaps I should have put this first, but still! 6-day creationism and evolution cannot both be true. If we’re getting the teaching of the Bible’s creation narratives a bit wrong, then it’s actually our duty as Christians to fix that and get it right.
So I hope this lays out why I believe it’s an important debate to have, and why it matters what we believe. In my next post (a teaser? On this blog? Surely not!) I will examine the reasons why I believe 6-day creationism to be false. Stay tuned. (Or, subscribe to this blog. Or, check back soon. Staying ‘tuned’ to a blog probably isn’t really a good metaphor.)
