Way Forward

Faith. Rebuilt

☰

A time for perseverance & faithfulness

November 11th, 2024 in Behaviour. Tags: , , , ,
Devastated

This post is written for those who, like me, were devastated by Donald Trump’s election victory last week. (It is a very personal post, and I’m sorry if it’s a little preachy – I am preaching to myself too!)

Friends in the US carry the greatest pain, but those of us outside the country will also be affected.

It hurts us to think that:

  • Reducing the disastrous impacts of climate change will be set back by a President who says it is a hoax. The generations we and he leave behind will suffer in the decades ahead.
  • As Jim Wallis wrote: “a leader who exemplifies and ran on the worst of us: fear, anger, bigotry, lies, and immorality (actually amorality) won decisively.”
  • Immigrant people have been vilified and now feel terribly threatened. (Yet everyone except Native Americans are immigants, ultimately.)
  • Great numbers of people who identify as Christians have supported non-Chrstian policies based on dishonesty, hate, violence and disregard for the poor and weak.
  • Pseudo-Christian nationalism and white supremacy have been embraced by many.

Authoritarian, nationalistic, racist and oppressive regimes have too often been the norm in history, and seem to be on the rise again after a century of increasing equality (in first world countries at least). Many Christians fear that this election will only add impetus to these dark forces.

And so, many Christians (including personal friends in the US) are angry and fearful, some for themselves, but also for those in minority groups who are more likely to be targeted.

A Christian response?

Most people’s initial response is probably confusion, despair, fear. Lydia Wylie-Kellermann: “Beloveds, there are no words. Shock. Rage. Grief.”

But what next?

I’ve seen some organisations already asking for donations and support, as they look for ways to protect the vulnerable and resist oppression.

For example, Avaaz asked for donations, saying: “We have less than 60 days until he becomes president — we must act now to prepare.”

But mostly I’ve seen people saying we shouldn’t react too quickly. We should grieve, rest, reflect, lament and pray.

  • Matthias Roberts: “I just hope people will allow themselves to feel all the grief and anger and despair they have within themselves. Connecting to our bodies, to our humanness, feels more important than ever right now.”
  • Lydia Wylie-Kellermann: “Today, let our bodies melt into the earth. Let us weep and welcome silence. Let us wrap our arms around our children and sleep when we can”.
  • Jim Wallis: “Allow yourselves to grieve ….. Grief is better and deeper than despair…. Rest. Take the time to sleep and be quiet. Go for a walk, or do some exercise…. Reach out to people that you love and who love you…. Tell your loved ones that you love them–and need their love right now.”

Whatever we decide ….

…. I believe those of us who want to live according to Jesus’ teachings (as much as we can) must prepare ourselves to endure difficult times.

It won’t be the first time. Christianity started and thrived in the midst of the oppressive Roman Empire. The rich and powerful who generally dominate are not often Christian in belief and behaviour, and Christians in the past have learnt to live in this reality.

We must be prepared to follow Jesus in what may be an increasingly oppressive and divided world.

And perhaps we will find ourselves in a compromised and divided church.

Living in the opposite spirit

Jesus has given us some clear instruction for how his disciples must try to live:

  • If we see the world, the government or even the church showing hatred, we must show love (Luke 10:27, 1 Corinthians 13).
  • If people around us are vengeful, we must be forgiving (Matthew 6:14-15).
  • If the President or anyone else is untruthful, we must strive even harder to be truthful (Ephesians 4:15).
  • If people treat us as enemies, we must pray for them (Matthew 5:44), not treat them as enemies too.
  • If others mock those who they disagree with, or those wqho they think are inferior, we should treat people with respect (1 Timothy 3:15).

We can sum it up in the words of the famous prayer of St Francis:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy.

O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.

Continuing to be faithful

Living according to Jesus’ teachings doesn’t mean we give in and don’t resist evil. But it does give us guidance in how to do it.

We have been given a mission to love our neighbour (Matthew 22:39). And Jesus makes it clear that this includes the hungry, strangers, the destitute, the sick and prisoners (Matthew 25:31-6). When governments oppose these teachings, we have little choice but to continue to do what we can.

But we will resist in a loving and non-violent way, recognising that we cannot hate and must avoid being enemies. Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King and many others have shown us the way this can be done.

Christian solidarity

Let’s draw together. Those of us who believe in Jesus’ way of living can support each other tenderly during these difficult days and years.

Let’s continue to reach out to each other, support each other, pray for each other.

Main photo by Pixabay. Other photos (in order) by David Garrison and cottonbro studio.

Related Posts

No place for spiritual misfits?

October 31st, 2024 in Deconstruction. Tags: , , , , ,
Lonely

Are you a spiritual misfit?

Have you started to feel like church is a foreign country where you don’t speak the language? Christian teachings that you once accepted now seem beyond belief? Can’t relate any more to some of the things other Christians do?

Do you feel alone?

Then you’ll be glad to hear you’re not alone. Not at all.

Finding out you don’t fit in

It can start out quite innocently. You’re serious about your faith. You want to know God better and serve him more faithfully.

And then something turns things upside down.

  • Maybe a friend comes out as queer and is rejected by their church.
  • Maybe an atheist online mocks what you believe and you don’t really know whether you have any reasons to believe.
  • Maybe you read something in the Bible that doesn’t seem right, like God ordering genocide (Deuteronomy 7:1-3).
  • Or your pastor preaches on people being punished in hell forever, and that doesn’t sound like a God of love to you.
  • Or maybe a church leader makes an unwelcome sexual approach to you and you don’t know what to do, because you think no-one will believe you.

Whatever it was, you can’t feel confident about what you once believed nor the church you once attended.

But I believe there are four things that should give you encouragement.

1. You are not alone

It may seem like everyone around you in church is confident of their belief, but it turns out more than half the Christians in the US report having experienced doubts about their faith in the last few years.

And about 40% of adults, and more than a third of Christians in the US have reconstructed the faith of their youth. Which suggests to me that while many people reconstruct their beliefs, only some of them abandon faith entirely.

These statistics are backed up by the number of articles and comments about faith deconstruction. People who I think are reliable say that “so many young people“, “many evangelicals“, “many people“ are deconstructing their faith – deconstruction has “gone viral“ and is “more common in Christianity than many have realized“.

I can add my own experience. I have been a Christian for more than 60 years and I have been slowly deconstructing and reconstructing for most of that time. I remain just as committed to Jesus now as I did back then, but the content of my belief has changed significantly. I am older and (I believe) wiser because of it. Read more about my story here.

So you’re not alone in experiencing doubts, asking questions that aren’t being answered or finding it difficult to go on as a Christian.

2. There is help and support if you need it

If you have suffered trauma through your association with a church or an abusive leader, there are counsellors that can help you.

If you need to explore questions about Christian belief and living, there are many books and websites that can give you helpful ideas. This website has pages on various aspects of faith deconstruction and reconstruction, plus a detailed look at some Biblical difficulties, hard questions and reasons to believe. I also have another website (Is there as God?) devoted to reasons to believe.

And if it’s encouragement, ideas and new friends you want, then why not try the Spiritual Misfits podcast, Facebook page and videos?

And of course, an internet search will open up all sorts of opportunities for you.

3. You have choices

Sometimes we can feel that we have no choice but to give up our church or even give up our faith. But really, having doubts and feeling like a spiritual misfit can lead us down one of many different paths. For example:

  • Perhaps your doubts are not about something fundamental, but about something like sexuality or some non-core doctrine. In which case you may feel right to just keep on believing in Jesus but change your understanding of that particualr issue.
  • Some people just bury the questions and doubts and try to keep on believing what they’ve always believed. If you’re honest, you may not be able to do that, but you may think it is the best way forward.
  • A better option seems to be to face the doubts and do some research. Read some books or listen to some podcasts. Check out alternative ways to approach the question. Pray and ask God to show you truth. You may find that your doubts are a gateway to a new and better understanding of God and the Bible.
  • You may do all this and still not find an answer that satisfies. But this is OK, if this isn’t a fundamental question. We don’t have to know everything. We may find we can keep trusting Jesus even while we wait for answers.
  • And of course, we are always free to decide it all isn’t really true. I think that is a mistaken conclusion, for I think the evidence for Jesus is stronger than my doubts about him. But if you have made an honest and thorough investigation, that option is open to you.

It is good to give ourselves time. Time to really consider. Sometimes things can look different when we have given matters time to gel in our minds.

4. There are answers and ways forward

If you find it hard to believe some Bible stories and some doctrines you have been told, know that there are alternative answers for most questions. For example:

  • You don’t have to believe that God commanded genocide or that the Israelites committed genocide. There are other ways to understand this part of the Bible.
  • Likewise a study of the obnoxious teachings about hell show that it is a misunderstanding of what Jesus actually said.
  • Queer Christians and their friends can be comforted to know that there are good reasons for the church to be more accepting and affirming.
  • Many of the conventional Christian views which deconstructing Christians find problematic are based on a view of the Bible which is inconsistent and arguable.
  • There are good (and I believe true) answers to the arguments of atheists that Christian faith is unreasonable.

Go well

If you are a spiritual misfit, my prayer is that you will take the journey of reconstruction with faith and peace, and that you will find God’s answers to your questions and doubts.

Please feel free to email me or make a comment (below) if that would help you in this worthwhile journey.

Note: 8 catalysts to faith deconstruction

This process of questioning one’s faith is sometimes termed faith deconstruction. Christine Parker, a religious trauma counsellor, outlines 8 different catalysts of deconstruction:

  • Doctrinal inconsistencies: encountering inconsistencies or contradictions in one’s religious teachings,.
  • Intellectual curiosity:  studying theology, philosophy, or other belief systems.  
  • Personal experiences:  trauma, loss, or suffering, and questions of gender and sexual identity.
  • Exposure to diverse worldviews:  interactions with people of different faiths or beliefs systems. 
  • Ethical and moral dilemmas:  when religious teachings clash with an individual’s sense of what is right and just.
  • Access to Information:  books, the internet or discussions on religious and philosophical topics.
  • Spiritual Abuse or Religious Trauma: negative experiences within a religious community, such as spiritual abuse or religious trauma.
  • Life Stages:  major life transitions can lead to re-evaluation.

Photo by Keenan Constance.

Read more

The problem with cheap clothing

October 8th, 2024 in Changing the world. Tags: , , , , , ,

We all like a bargain, but some bargains cost more than you’d think.

That’s why some people are turning their back on clothes bargains.

No new clothes in 2023

Kate Hulett is an artist, photographer and small business owner – she has a shop selling homewares, fashion accessories, books and stationery.

She loves clothes, but when she saw images of discarded clothes from first world countries ending up dumped in poorer countries, she found she couldn’t ignore the matter.

So she began to investigate. She found that:

  • enormous amounts of clothes go to waste each year, with only a small fraction being recycled;
  • the fashion industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and to water and land pollution; and
  • “most of the people that make our clothes are women and children and they’re paid an absolute pittance in order to make a $20 T-shirt.”

So last year she decided she needed to act. She made a New Year resolution not to buy any clothes for the entire year. She put retail therapy behind her, instead she altered clothes she already had, and was able to get much more wear out of them.

Slow fashion

Jenna Flood is a slow fashion stylist and a fast fashion educator. In 2022 she spent about $10,000 buying more than a hundred items of clothing.

Although she often purchased clothing secondhand, repaired older clothes and purchased ethically, she found she still sometimes sold clothing after just a few wears.

She felt she was succumbing too much to “fast fashion”.

Fast fashion is a trend where people buy items that are fashionable and often cheaper, only to find they only wear the items a few times because the fashion changes. Fast fashion is made worse by fashion influencers on social media promoting “micro trends”.

So, like Kate, Jenna committed to a “wardrobe freeze” in 2023. She’s allowing herself to buy clothing again this year, but she is much more thoughtful about what she buys.

If you want to avoid fast fashion, Jenna suggests:

  • do a one month freeze while you re-evaluate;
  • keep a track of which items you wear most often, perhaps by taking a photo of your outfit each day; and
  • use this information to make more considered choices of clothing that you will wear much more.

Fashion researcher

Wendy Ward is a fashion designer, PhD researcher and author.

Concerned about fast fashion, Wendy keeps a record of every time she wears each item of clothing. She now has a greater appreciation of some of her most worn clothing.

She is an advocate for ethical clothing, and runs workshops helping people learn to love the clothes they already own, and teaching how to make their own clothes using sustainable materials and reducing waste.

Find your own style

Bethany Mynott describes herself as “fashion designer, seamstress, dress maker, and wardrobe fairy godmother!”

She believes we can be more sustainable in our fashion if we develop our own style and not be at the mercy of fashion trends which may not actually suit us.

“I like to tell people that we don’t need a small amount of people doing sustainability perfectly, we need everyone doing it imperfectly,” she says.

Our existing wardrobe is a great place to start, she says, especially the “skinny pile” – clothes that await us losing weight before they can be comfortably worn.

She runs workshops helping people learn how to sew and re-purpose their clothing, saving money, saving the planet and feeling good about the way they look all at the same time.

Slow fashion for men and women

The examples I’ve chosen here are all women, but men can be victims of fast fashion too (I just couldn’t readily find any stories to write about). But the same principles apply:

  • Buy less, wear longer
  • Quality over quantity
  • Timeless style
  • Sustainable materials
  • Ethical manufacturing
  • Maintenance and repair

Christians & fast fashion

Jesus told us to love our neighbours. This includes forced labourers working in unsafe and unhealthy sweat shops.

God has given us stewardship of the world. This requires avoiding wasting resources and polluting the environment.

We can make a stand by following the principles of “slow fashion”.

If you want more facts about the impacts of fast fashion on the planet and the lives of those working in the clothing supply chain, I’ve prepared an outline at Our clothing, justice & creation care.

References

Read more on this site

Clothes on hangers

Our clothing, justice & creation care
Clothing is big business globally, worth about $US 1.7 trillion and creating about 170 billion items each year. But the industry creates problems for the world and some of our poorest fellow humans. Here’s the facts.

Troops rescue flood victims

Climate change
Five pages outlining the facts established by meteorological science.

Main photo by Timur Weber. Other photos: ABC (Kate Hulett, Wendy Ward), Iconic Minimalist (Jenna Flood), Bethany Alice (Bethany Mynott).

A short, short history of a long, long confrontation

July 29th, 2024 in Changing the world. Tags: , ,
Damage in Gaza Strip, Oct 2023

I suppose all of us are appalled at the destruction, loss of life and human misery in the current Hamas-Israel fighting.

I have refrained from commenting until now, because I really didn’t know what to say and how to have a just perspective.

But a few recent events, including the publicised deaths of entire families and the dire situation that seems to go on and on beyond any sense and reason, have led me to think harder about the roots of this merciless conflict.

In the following I have tried to present true facts from neutral sources before I offer any opinions. I have learned a lot from my research, and I hope you do too.

A little geography

The map shows the location of The Gaza Strip and Israel. Gaza is about 41 km long and 6-12 km wide. About 2 million people live there, mostly Palestinians, making it one of the most densely populated parts of the world.

Gaza and the West Bank (population 3.4 million) are known as the Palestinian Terrritories or the Occupied Territories. They were originally supposed to be Palestinian areas, but have been controlled by Israel since 1967.

Ownership of the part of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel (population 50 thousand) is disputed, with most countries seeing them as Syrian land occupied by Israel, while Israel and USA say they are part of Israel.

The population of Israel is about 9.6 million.

Horror upon horror

The gradual destruction of Gaza by the Israeli army over the past 9 months has directly led to the death of about 39,000 Palestinians with many more injured, the displacement of almost all residents and the collapse of most infrastructure and services. More than half of all Gaza’s buildings have been destroyed, and it is estimated that re-building will cost something like $50 billion.

The Israel blockade has limited the amount of water, food, medical supplies and temporary shelter entering Gaza. People have nowhere to go. Hospitals cannot cope, disease is a threat and starvation is close for many. Some experts say the indirect loss of life caused not by the fighting but due to disease, hunger, etc, may be several times the direct toll.

The United Nations (“This terrible war must end”) and many countries have condemned Israel’s actions and imposed sanctions.

But before we rush to judgment, let’s consider what led to the war.

More horror

Hamas (an acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, or “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is a Palestinian Islamist political and military movement established in 1987. In 2006 it won control of the government in Gaza. Throughout its history, Hamas has attacked Israel via suicide bombers and rocket attacks.

In October 2023 a Hamas attack into Israel brutally killed more than 1100 people, about two thirds civilians, with another 250 taken as hostages. The attack is consistent with some Hamas rhetoric over decades that its aim is the end of the Jewish state. (To be fair, sometimes Hamas has said it would accept a less severe outcome.)

Israel justified its subsequent fierce attack, saying: “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” It’s avowed aim is to destroy Hamas. But with fighters and civilians living in close proximity, such an aim, even if possible, must inevitably lead to significant civilian casualties.

But before we rush to judgment, let’s consider what led Hamas to its attack.

75 years of unequal struggle

Since the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948, it has gradually enlarged its borders and imposed its authority on the Palestinian people.

The original plan proposed by the UN was for a Jewish and an Arab state of more or less equal size to be established, as shown in the map.

However the Arab state was never established, and in the 75 years since, Israel has enlarged its borders and taken authority over the remaining Palestinian areas in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the Golan Heights.

In that time, approximately 10 thousand Israelis and 50 thousand Palestinians have been killed and a significant proportion of Palestinians displaced on 3 main occasions (1948, 1967 & 2023/24).

On top of that, since the 1967 war when Israel occupied the West Bank (a Palestinian Territory) and the Golan Heights (part of Syria), Israel has been establishing settlements in these areas, often displacing Palestinians, and supporting the settlements militarily. The international community, including the International Court of Justice, considers these settlements to be illegal and should be removed, but Israel argues they are legal.

But before we rush to judgment, let’s consider what led to Israel’s actions.

Arab reactions to Israel

Arab leaders didn’t agree with the original UN proposal. Arab armies attacked Israel in 3 major conflicts, in 1948/49 (immediately after Israel was established as a state), 1967 (the Six Day War) and 1973 (the Yom Kippur War). Israel was victorious in each one, and in 1949 and 1967 these victories led to Israel enlarging its borders.

Israel has maintained that it must exercise control of the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, otherwise it will be vulnerable to attack and guerilla activity.

Before we rush to judgment, let’s consider what led to the Arab response.

The establishment of Israel in 1948

At the beginning of the 20th century, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, based around modern day Türkiye. But the Empire was in decline, and after World War I, in which the Empire sided with Germany, the Empire was divided up by the victorious allies.

Britain was given control of Palestine, which was simply an area of land, and not a nation, with the task of providing a home for both Jews and Arabs. But neither of these two groups was fully happy with the arrangement. Palestinian Arab nationalism was growing, as was Zionism, leading European Jews to start to move to Palestine in greater numbers, especially after the rise of Nazism in Germany.

Tensions increased between the two communities leading to growing confrontation and violence and the establishment of terrorist and paramilitary organisations. So Britain and the UN developed the planned solution of an Arab state and a Jewish state, but this proposal was rejected by the Arabs, who believed it was favourable to the Jews. They had a reasonable case.

Palestinian population, 1918-1945.

As shown in the graph, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918, Jews made up less than 10% of the population of Palestine. By 1945, large-scale Zionist immigration had increased that to more than 30%. Yet the UN partition proposal gave the Jews 56% of the land (though this included the less productive Negev region) and expected a third of the Arabs to live in the Jewish state.

The Jews publicly accepted the proposal, but made plans to enlarge their territory as soon as the British left. After the war with surrounding Arab nations, Israel ended up with 67% of the land, while 700,000 Palerinian Arabs had become displaced refugees. The UN tried to bring order and justice to this situation, but their mediator was assassinated by a Jewish terrorist group. I don’t know how much this dishonesty and violence was supported by mainstream Jews, but the whole nation benefitted.

The messy and unequal situation has remained to this day.

Ancient history?

The Jewish claim to Palestine goes back more than 2 millennia. According to the Bible, God promised the Israelites the land of Canaan, and Joshua conquered the land in a bloody campaign against a bunch of Canaanite cities and tribes somewhere in the period of the 15th to the 13th century BCE.

Archaeology and history throw considerable doubt on the extent of that “conquest” – it seems more likely that the nation of Israel grew out of a small group emigrating from Egypt assimilating with the local Canaanite peoples and fighting with some of them until a new nation was born – but in any case this is Israel’s foundation story that Jewish claims to the land are based on.

Despite being conquered, exiled and occupied by successive neighbouring nations, there was still a visible Jewish nation in the time of Jesus, albeit occupied and divided up by the Romans. But when Jewish nationalists rebelled against Rome in 67-70 CE and 135 CE, the temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered. The Jews were now a minority in what they saw as their own land.

For the next 1800 years, Jewish people were spread over Eastern and Western Europe and various parts of the Middle East, often discriminated against. By the late 1800s there were 5 million Jews in the Russian Empire, experiencing discrimination and poverty, and many of them fled to USA and Europe. The Zionist movement sought to end the persecution and return Jews to their traditional homeland. Hitler’s genocide in the Holocaust strengthened this movement.

The UN chose to recognise the Jewish aspirations with the establishment of a Jewish nation.

An intractable problem?

Note: here I shift from facts to personal opinions.

It is easy to see how the Jews felt after this history. It is also easy to see how the Palestinian Arabs felt about being pushed aside. Both groups have legitimate rights and expectations that are in direct competition.

But we can see so many wrongs as well. The Zionist Jews seem to have never been willing to share the land with the Palestinian Arabs, and willing to go to any lengths to achieve their goal. The Arabs were likewise unwilling to share the land. The United Nations and the western European “great powers” seemed to favour the Jews and be unwilling to enforce UN decisions.

As a result, fighting over 75 years has led to uneven loss of life – five times as many Palestinians as Jews. That disdain for human life on both sides can be seen in the recent events.

Christians in the west have tended to support Israel, in the belief that this is a fulfilment of God’s promises to the Israelites. I am sceptical about that, but let’s run with it for a moment. The Old Testament prophets warned again and again that Israel had lost its independence and would lose its land if it was unfaithful. It is hard to see that modern Israel, in the main a secular state, is faithful to God in that sense, so it is hard to see how modern day Israel can be seen as prophetic fulfilment.

Could it ever be different?

It is said that the Middle East has an “honour-shame” culture, where preserving honour and avoiding shame are strong behavioural motivations that often lead to revenge and a spiral of violence. We can see this in the Palestinian-Israel situation.

Hamas knows that any attack on Israel will lead to reprisals, likely resulting in many times more Palestinian deaths than they inflict on Israel, and these attacks are ineffective in changing the situation, yet honour requires them to act anyway.

Israel knows that while its reprisals can more than avenge Hamas attacks – which is contrary to their own scriptures which require “an eye for an eye” and no more (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20) – the reprisals will only lead to further attacks. Israel may win the body count, but Israeli citizens still lose their lives.

Israel seems implacably insistent on taking over the West Bank Palestinian territories, disregarding Palestinian rights and squeezing them into small areas like Gaza which are unviable in the long term. These repressive actions are said to be justified as responses to Palestinian threats, and Hamas plays into their hands. The ordinary Palestinian people are pawns in their games.

Hundreds of thousands of people who haven’t lifted a finger against Israel are unimaginably suffering.

There is another way

Israel should know better. Two millennia ago, one of their own prophets, Jesus of Nazareth, urged his fellow Jews to replace an honour-shame culture with an ethic built on grace (Matthew 5:43-44), forgiveness instead of revenge (Matthew 6:14-15), and non-violence (Matthew 5:38-39).

If only the Zionists had recognised that it was a grace, not a right, that they could return to their traditional homeland.

(Where else has such a return to ancestral lands been allowed? Not in colonised countries like the Americas, Australia and South Africa. Not in Britain where the Celts haven’t been given the land taken off them by waves of Romans, Vikings, Anglo Saxons, and Normans. Not in Tibet.)

Had they taken a different view, things might have turned out differently. Yet even today, Israeli responses to criticisms of their disregard for civilian life reflect their claim that the land is theirs by right.

And if Palestinian miltants could recognise that sharing the land would in the long run be better for the long-suffering Palestinian people, they might achieve more than senseless loss of life.

I’m not holding my breath

But practically (and sadly), I don’t suppose it’s going to happen any time soon. Both Israel and Hamas seem to be locked into to a cycle that prevents toning down rhetoric and actions. Neither seems willing, or even able, to give the slightest ground, but until they both do, the same senseless confrontation will continue.

And so no-one comes out of this well. Not the ‘great powers” that make decisions on behalf of others. Not Israel that seems so focused on its own agendas that it can ignore the suffering it inflicts. Not Hamas, that pursues ineffective and destructive strategies. And not western Christians who blindly support Israel despite everything, and seem oblivious to justice.

One clear truth

The Palestinian people deserve better (= just) treatment by Israel, Hamas and the world. Lord, have mercy!

Top photo by Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa) in contract with APAimages, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikipedia.
Bottom photo: Families forced to flee Khan Younis following evacuation orders from the Israeli Authorities, 22 July 2024, southern Gaza Strip. (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in then near east).

Related Posts

The coming of the light

July 1st, 2024 in About.

Indigenous peoples all over the world have suffered from colonialism, as European nations invaded, occupied and overran the original inhabitants. Many indigenous people remember their history since those times with sadness, anger and loss.

But the Torres Strait islanders in northern Australia have a more positive history and memory.

Torres Strait islands

Torrres Strait (Zenadh Kes) separates the northern tip of Australia from Papua New Guinea. It is named after Spanish navigator Luís Vaz de Torres, who sailed through the strait in 1606.

But obviously the waters of the Strait were known long before that. 38 of the 134 islands within Torres Strait are home to the Torres Strait Islanders, Melanesian people closely related to the people of New Guinea. They have inhabited these islands for several thousand years, and likely much longer.

As you’d expect, theirs is a strongly maritime culture. There is evidence of significant interaction in the past, and trading with Papuans to the north and Australian Aborigines to the south.

The islands and their communities are now part of the Australian nation.

The Coming of the Light

On July 1, 1871, missionaries from the London Missionary Society landed on one of the remote islands, Erub (also known as Darnley Island), accompanied by evangelists from the Loyalty Islands in present day New Caledonia. They were met by a local elder who welcomed them and introduced them to the island’s inhabitants. From there Christianity was received and warmly embraced by the Islanders.

This event is remembered fondly as “the Coming of the Light” because the Christian faith united the various island communities and brought a time of greater peace between them.

Every year on July 1, the inhabitants of the islands and the expatriate community on the Australian mainland celebrate the Coming of the Light with food, song and prayer.

“God was on both sides of the beach”

While the islanders, and Christians generally see the coming of Christianity to these islands as a blessing, there are some who question whether the Islanders already had light, for they, like Australian Aboriginal peoples, already had an awareness of, and a relationship with, a Creator Spirit.

So, some say, “God was on both sides of the beach” when the missionaries arrived. God had been active in their community, just as he had in many other communities around the world.

But the missionaries brought the gospel, the story of Jesus who is the light (John 8:12), who at the very least added to the Islanders understanding of God and how to live in peace, and for that they are thankful.

Sensitivity to indigenous peoples

I belong to a colonising people. I live in Australia because my ancestors and their government in Britain colonised Australia with little regard for the First Nations people. That process cannot be undone, but I recognise the pain, suffering and loss that it has caused. There has of course been benefits as well, but the loss weighs deeply on my First Nations friends.

The Torres Strait Islanders haven’t suffered in the same way, but their lives have still been impacted by white colonisation.

One way Christians and churches can walk with our indigenous sisters and brothers is to recognise their spirituality and their special days and times, and celebrate with them, including giving them time and space in our churches.

Yesterday we did just that in the church I attend. A Torres Strait Islander elder told us the story of the Coming of the Light, including his memories of his grandfather telling the story to him, then led us in song and prayer.

I am so glad to be in a church that is multicultural, recognises and supports First Nations peoples, and seeks to be reconciled with our colonial past.

Photo of Coming of the Light celebrations is taken from the video Celebrating ‘Coming of the Light’ in the Torres Strait.

Further reading

Related Posts

Thinking about the Bible: the conversation continues

June 20th, 2024 in About.

After talking about difficulties in understanding the Old Testament and how to interpret it consistently, Amy and Chris agreed they’d each spend some time researching what other people, especially Bible scholars, say.

So now, a few weeks later, they’re back sharing what they’ve found.

“How did you go thinking about the Old Testament?”

“I read quite a lot and learnt some useful stuff. So that was good…. well until last night that is.”

“Why, what happened?”

“It was my Bible strudy group again. We got talking again about God commanding the Israelites to kill entire tribes. I asked them whether God could command the same things today.”

“What did they say?”

“They said of course he wouldn’t. So I asked does that mean God has changed his mind since then. That didn’t go down so well!”

“I can imagine!

So what have you been reading?”

“Well one thing I read was that there are teachings that change as you go through the Bible. That was interesting.”

“What teachings?”

“Lots of things. I was a bit surprised. Like in one place God says that in the Passover celebration, the Israelites should roast the lamb and not boil it. Yet later it says the lamb should be boiled. But the second time the the same Hebrew word is translated as “cooked” instead of “boiled” so it doesn’t look like a contradiction. It’s not a big deal, except if you think the Bible is perfect.”

“What else?”

“Well in the Law, God says he will punish or bless children according to what their parents did. But the prophet Ezekiel says God doesn’t do that, it’s only the person who actually sins who will be punished.

Another probably more important thing is the laws about sacrifices. The early books of the Bible say they’re really important, but later the prophets say that God’s not so much interested in sacrifices as in obedience and ethical behaviour. It seems like a good development in their religion, but it really is a major change.”

“What do you make of that?”

“I got this stuff from a book by a Professor, a guy named Pete Enns, and he says the Jews liked to explore and discuss issues, so their scriptures often reflect more than one view, until they worked out which was right. So they were OK about updating older laws when it seemed good, or when God revealed new teachings.”

“Why would the old laws need to be updated?”

“Well he says the Israelites were learning more about the true God all the time. Some of the ways they previously portrayed God, like the genocide commands and God’s fierce anger sometimes, don’t sound very loving. So as they came to understand God’s love and mercy a little more, they put those new understandings into their scriptures, which weren’t written once and set in concrete, but were re-written and re-told before they reached the form we have today.”

“Are there other places where we can we see that sort of thing happening?”

“Well another example is when the prophet Elisha tells Israel’s army commander, Jehu, that he should kill the current king Jehoram and all his family, because of their sins, and he anoints Jehu as the new king. So Jehu does it, killing more than 70 people. But later the prophet Hosea says that God will punish Jehu for these murders.

Did God change his mind? Did Elisha get it wrong? Or did Hosea? I don’t really know, but it’s hard to think that God really did command the murder of 70 people!”

“Yeah, I can’t think the God of Jesus would do that …. or command genocide.

I was reading about the archaeology for the time when Joshua and two million Israelites conquered Canaan and those genocidal commands were supposed to be given. “

“So what does the archaeology say?”

“It turns out it’s pretty clear. Most of the cities that the book of Joshua says the Isrealites captured and destroyed weren’t in fact destroyed, or at least not at that time. And if you read til the end of Joshua and into the next books, they confirm that many of the cities weren’t captured. Joshua tells two different stories, and it’s the second one that fits the archaeology.”

“I didn’t know that!

That really changes things doesn’t it?”

“That’s not all. The archaeology shows that there were nowhere near two million people in Canaan at that time. More like a hundred thousand. So the numbers must have been exaggerated too.”

“So what do you think that all tells us?”

“I think there’s more than history going on here. The writers of the Jewish scriptures were interpreting history, sometimes exaggerating it, to explain what was happening to their nation. And, I guess, to explore their growing understanding of God”

“That make sense.

But do you think that way of looking at things destroys the Bible? I mean, how can it be God’s word if it has exaggeration and wrong ideas in it?”

“I’ve been thinking about that. I don’t know anywhere the Bible actually says it’s “God’s Word”. So while it claims to contain God’s words in various places, I don’t see we have to believe it was all literally the words of God. Especially when it looks more like people learning and growing as God led them along.”

“So doesn’t that mean it isn’t special at all?”

“Well Jesus treated it as special.”

“Well doesn’t that mean it really was God’s word?”

“I don’t think so. One thing I’ve noticed is that when Jesus or Paul quote their scriptures, which were our Old Testament, they don’t always treat it as fixed and sacred. Sometimes they leave bits out, change the meaning or reinterpret it. They seemed to think it was flexible like that.”

“Can you send me some examples of that so I can look them up?”

“Sure.”

“What you’re telling me here seems to show that the process of God gradually revealing truth to the Jewish people continued on into the New Testament.”

“Yes, I think that’s so.”

“Does that mean we can’t really trust the New Testament to tell accurate history either? Like, does that mean the stories about Jesus are also exaggerated?”

“I don’t think so. From what I’ve read, the historians say that the Old Testament wasn’t written as history like we would write it. There was much more interpetation going on. But they also say the gospels were historical biographies, written to tell and explain the true and admirable things about their subject – in this case Jesus.”

“Yeah, the New Testament does say that Jesus is God’s ultimate revelation, so there’d be no need to change anything about that. What he did and said stand.

But do you think then there’s no mistakes at all in the New Testament?”

“I haven’t really figured that out yet. There seem to be a few places where the gospels contradict each other, but I don’t this affects anything important.”

“Pete Enns reckons God has left us with a Bible that is ancient, ambiguous and diverse, which means we have to apply what we read to our situation, and not assume it is fixed for all time. So maybe there are things even in the New Testament which were right for then, but not for now.”

“What sorts of things do you mean?”

“I was think of things like slavery, which Paul didn’t seem to like, but didn’t try to stop. And of course, what is really important for me, is the patriarchal way women are treated, which should be totally unacceptable today. At least I hope so!”

“I can agree with that!

So how are you going to read the Bible now? What difference does all this make?”

“I need to think about that a bit more! My brain has been in overload thinking about all this!”

“Let’s give ourselves a break and take some time to think how all this works out.”

“Yeah let’s compare notes in a couple of weeks.”

To be continued.

  • The commands about not boiling and boiling the Passover lamb are in Exodus 12:8-9 and Deuteronomy 16:7.
  • The teachings about God punishing children for their parents’ sins, or not, are in Exodus 20:4-6 and Ezekiel 18:3-4.
  • The story of Jehu is in 1 Kings 9 and Hosea 1:4.
  • Examples of places where Jesus or the apostles change the meaning of Old Testament passages include:
    • In John 10:35, Jesus quotes Psalm 86 to make a very different point to what the Psalmist was making.
    • When Paul quotes Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8, he changes the wording to mean the opposite of the original.
    • Matthew 27:9-10 quotes Zechariah 11:12 but changes the story into a prophecy of Judas’ betrayal.
    • In Luke 4:18-19 Jesus omits one section of an Isaiah passage, which is about vengeance;
    • Three times in Romans (Romans 15:9-10, 12:19-21 and 3:10-18) Paul omits or changes Old Testament quotes to remove references to God’s vengeance

Books referred to here are How the Bible Actually Works by Pete Enns and Beyond the Texts by William Dever.

Photos by Andrea Piacquadio and Italo Melo.

Related Posts

Should we update the creeds?

May 27th, 2024 in Doctrine. Tags: , , ,
Inside old sandstone church

I attended a church yesterday that has a semi-liturgical service, which included saying the Nicene Creed. I didn’t say all the words – read on for my reasons.

And it made me wonder. Do the Creeds still outline what the church believes? Do they adequately outline what modern Biblical studies have shown us?

Do they properly outline what I believe?

Creeds? What creeds?

In the first few centuries after Jesus, the Christian church had to work out what it believed and didn’t believe.

Jesus and the apostles had provided a bunch of teachings and example, but so many issues need to be resolved. Jewish Christians had to work out how Jesus could be divine and yet there was only one God. Formerly pagan Christians had to come to terms with ethical monotheism.

There were fights, disagreements and different church movements. Who could decide between the different views?

Councils and Creeds

Churches in different parts of the Roman Empire developed and inherited different traditions. New converts seeking baptism needed to be instructed in the faith, and so various question and answer statements of faith were developed.

But as the church spread, leaders felt the need to have broad agreement on various doctrinal matters across the whole church, and so, in a little more than two centuries (325-553), 5 church councils attempted to come to an agreement of the true and orthodox faith. Out of these councils came statements of faith, sometimes summarised into short creeds which could be repeated in gatherings and even learnt by heart.

The two most universal creeds, still in wide use today, were the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. There are many other creeds, doctrinal statements and confessions, often developed within particular denominations and so not in wide use.

The Apostles Creed appeared in its present form in the fifth century, but was developed from earlier baptismal creeds written as early as the late second century. It is simple, short and easily understood.

The Nicene Creed was adopted at the first church council, at Nicaea in 325, and amended for the First Council of Constantinople in 381. It is a much longer creed, with many statements aimed at combatting various teachings considered heretical.

What’s wrong with the creeds?

The Apostles and Nicene Creeds were written more than a millennium and a half ago, into a different culture, language and church situation than we experience today. In particular, they were written largely to define orthodox doctrine and dismiss unorthodox views on questions relevant to their day, especially teachings around the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

So they contain many details that are still part of our faith today, but miss some important aspects and/or define doctrines that seem less relevant today.

Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

I believe all that is in the Apostles Creed (understanding that “catholic” means “universal”, and covers the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches).

But it has always seemed deficient to me in three ways.

Life of Jesus

The creed doesn’t mention Jesus’ life, teachings and miracles, and jumps straight from his birth to his death. Surely his teaching and miracles are fundamental to understanding his divinity and purpose!? So I’d like to add a few statements along these lines after “born of the virgin Mary”:

“In his life, teachings and miracles, he demonstrated the dawning reign of God on earth
and the way his followers should live in God’s kingdom,
loving God and loving neighbour.”

The Holy Spirit

I also feel the mention of the Holy Spirit is too brief, and doesn’t reflect the Spirit’s place in the Trinity and importance in our lives. So after “I believe in the Holy Spirit” add something like:

“who empowers, guides, teaches and challenges us,
and equips us with gifts and spiritual fruit so we can follow Jesus.”

Our response

Surely a key part of a confession of faith is our response? Knowing correct doctrine is meaningless if we don’t respond to God in an appropriate way. The following is the minimum I would like to see finishing off the Apostles Creed.

“My response is to commit to following Jesus as a modern day disciple,
to love God whole-heartedly and love my neighbour in practical ways as I am able,
and to ask for forgivess when I fall short.”

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is,
seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I have more difficulties with the Nicene Creed, for as well as making no mention of Jesus’ life, it defines aspects of the divinity of Jesus in words (shown in red) that mean little to most people today. They address perceived heresies by saying things that I don’t believe anyone can really know for sure. (We are foolish if we think we can understand these things about God, especially since the scriptural evidence is meagre.) And so it achieves what was wanted at the time (doctrinal clarity) but at the cost of length, comprehensibility and usefulness.

The second red phrase (“who proceeds from the Father and the Son“) addresses what seems to me to be a totally unimportant doctrine that (can you believe it?) became the catalyst or excuse for the “great schism” between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church in the 11th century. It is hard to see how anyone can really know about this obscure matter, or think that it is important. Continuing to repeat this phrase only emphasises foolish disunity, and it is better omitted.

The Creed does add some more about the Holy Spirit, which I believe is helpful, though I think today we would give it a different emphasis.

So I would prefer to use my modified Apostles Creed, but if I wanted to use the NIcene Creed, I would omit or heavily modify the words in red, and add the words I have added to the Apostles Creed. (And change the gender specific language of “For us men and for our salvation”.)

Realistically ….

….. it’s not going to happen. If the global range of denominations met together in a council, they’d discuss interminably. Some would want to retain the old creeds, some would want to scrap them completely, andthere wou;ld be so many different recommendations. Most of the gathered divines wouldn’t see a result in their lifetimes.

But if I was leading a church thatused a creed in the liturgy, I’d at least alternate between the traditional version of the Apostles Creed and an updated version.

Related Posts

The curse of Ham?

May 6th, 2024 in Culture. Tags: , , , , , ,
Family of slaves

Christian justification of slavery in the southern states of the US, and elsewhere, has often included the statement that Noah cursed his black son, Ham, and condemned him to be a “drawer of water and hewer of wood”, i.e. a slave.

I knew about that claim, but never really looked into it.

But recently an Aboriginal friend told me of an incident many years ago now when he was present when a white preacher told an Aboriginal congregation that they would always be servants because of the curse of Ham.

I was incensed, and grieved on his behalf. And I decided to improve my understanding of the curse of Ham.

The curse of Ham??

The Biblical justification for the inferiority of black people that justifies their enslavement supposedly comes from two Biblical passages.

Genesis 9

Ham saw his father Noah naked, which was apparently shameful in that culture. (There are some suggestions in later Jewish writings that something more sexual happened, but there is nothing of that in the text.) And so Noah cursed Canaan, Ham’s son, and said he would be a slave to his brothers.

The name Ham is similar to a Hebrew word meaning “dark”, and thus it was argued in both England and USA that black people were inferior to white people and were created to be slaves. For example:

  • Scottish clergyman John Wemyss: “This curse to be a servant was laid, first upon a disobedient sonne Cham [Ham], and wee see to this day, that the Moores, Chams posteritie, are sold like slaves yet.”
  • William Smith, a state senator from South Carolina: “this very African race are the descendants of Canaan…and are still expiating in bondage the curse upon themselves and their progenitors”.

But ….

There are many things wrong with the argument here, even if we accept the literal understanding of the Noah story.

  1. There is nothing that suggests that Ham was black. The word “Ham” (Hebrew: cham) is similar to hum, meaning “dark,” or “brown” but they have different etymologies. (This is sometimes disputed, but it seems the best authorities say this).
  2. Likewise there is nothing to indicate that his son Canaan was black – and Canaanites are not black.
  3. The curse is pronounced by Noah, not by God.
  4. Black Africans are not descended from Canaanites.
  5. There is no suggestion that other black people, perhaps said to be descended from Ham but not Canaan (e.g. via Cush), should be slaves.

Stepping back from a literal understanding, there are further problems with the white supremicist interpretation. If we examine the story on its merits, we can reasonably conclude that the whole story of Noah, including a worldwide flood, is legendary.

The three sons of Noah are said to be the ancestors of local nations, not all nations globally – e.g. the Semitic peoples including Israel (Shem); the Canaanites, Babylonians and Jebusites (Ham); and peoples in Asia Minor (Japheth). But this doesn’t accord with modern ethnology, as there is no scientific basis for such demarcations of race, nor is there anything to suggest that black Africans are included in the descendents of Ham..

Most interpreters believe the story of the curse was written to support the Israelites’ claim they were superior to the Canaanites, and thus entitled to the land of Canaan/Israel.

Joshua 9

There is another reference to the subjugation of the Canaanites in the story of Joshua. The first 12 chapters of Joshua tell of a brutal invasion of Canaan by the Israelites after their 40 year exodus from Egypt. It is said that the kings of 31 cities were conquered (and their inhabitants apparently wiped out) and their lands given to the tribes of Israel (Joshua 12). (The second half of Joshua tells a different story, but that isn’t important for this discussion.)

One city (Gibeon) withstood the Israelite attack, by tricking Joshua into agreeing to a treaty. Joshua is reported to have honoured the treaty, but “he made the Gibeonites woodcutters and water carriers for the assembly, to provide for the needs of the altar of the Lord” (Joshua 9:27).

Since the Gibeonites were Canaanites, it was said that this reinforced the curse of Ham. The phrase “drawers of water and hewers of wood” was thus sometimes used to describe the role of African American slaves.

But ….

Again, there are many things wrong with this argument.

  1. Joshua’s curse was directed at the Gibeonites, not any other Canaanites who remained, and certainly not to all descendents of Ham.
  2. There is no suggestion the Gibeonites were black, or that the black Africans enslaved in the USA were their descendents.
  3. The Gibeonites were made workers for “the altar of the Lord”, which hasn’t existed since the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in 70 CE. This has nothing to do with slavery on southern US cotton farms!
  4. The curse was pronounced by Joshua not by God.
  5. Because of the marked difference between the narratives in the two halves of the book of Joshua, there is considerable doubt about the historicity of this part of the Joshua account, a doubt reinforced by the archaeology.

Slavery is abhorrent

Enslaving another human being is abhorrent to most people. The mistreatment of black slaves in the US south was beyond awful.

The justification of slavery in the US was based on quite obviously biassed and unjustified readings of passages that come from a far-off culture and are of doubtful historicity. (Even the relatively conservative Gospel Coalition agrees.)

If such passages could legitimately be used in this way, US slave-owners would be subject to God’s command in Acts 17:26 (“From one man he [God] made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”) If God marked out their boundaries, white slave-owners shouldn’t even be in America but should have remained on their own lands in Europe. Likewise, they shouldn’t be removing Africans from the lands God appointed for them. Of course, I don’t believe that passage should be used to prevent emigration, but if over-literal interpretations are being used, it should apply.

While the slave-owners in the southern states of the USA identified as Christians, Christians were also at the forefront of anti-slavery law-making in both England and the USA.

A clear conclusion

These parts of the Bible were used cynically and unjustifiably to serve the profit-making ends of slave-owners.

I knew that already of course, but it was worth checking the matter out.

Sadly, some white supremicists still use this argument, and some Christians still ignore clear Biblical teachings in favour of this sophistry. It seems to be part of a pattern of denigrating those you wish to take advantage of – as in the ironic 1840 cartoon below.

References

Top photo: Family of enslaved black Americans in a field in Georgia, circa 1850 (Wikipedia).
Cartoon asking who is taking care of whom: Wikipedia.

Related Posts

Thinking about the Bible: a conversation between friends

April 29th, 2024 in Bible. Tags: , , ,

Amy and Chris are new Christians doing the same uni course. Most weeks they meet up for coffee at least once. They often talk about things that puzzle them in their new faith, and what they’re learning.

We join their conversation halfway through.

“So, did you go to your Bible study last night?”

“Yes I did, but I almost wish I hadn’t.”

“That doesn’t sound too good! Why was that?”

“Well, you know we’ve been doing a study for the last few weeks on an overview of the Old Testament. This week we got to Joshua, and God commanding them to kill everyone who got in their way. I said I didn’t think God would do that, and Ben said it was right there in the Bible so it must be true.”

“So I said maybe the Bible was wrong here, and they all piled on me and said I had to believe it. I didn’t really know what to say, so I decided I need to think about it more.

What do you think?”

“It’s a hard one, isn’t it? I’m only new to all this so I don’t want think I’ve got it all figured out. But it doesn’t sound right that God would order genocide.”

“It kind of feels like saying God isn’t good at all. I mean if a person ordered that killing today they’d be charged with war crimes or something.”

“Yeah, it seems like they’re demeaning God to protect their view of the Bible. That”s surely the wrong way round.”

“That’s what I thought. But they said the Bible must be totally true, otherwise it’s not God’s word and we can’t have any confidence in it.”

“Well I don’t know about that! I don’t suppose anything we read is totally true, but that doesn’t mean we can’t get true information from it. Like the textbooks we use at Uni – if we couldn’t learn from them, then why read them?”

“It’s funny, isn’t it? The rest of my group all believe the Bible is totally true, but they still argue about other stuff like predestination. So believing the Bible is totally true doesn’t actually mean they all hold to the same truth!”

“I can’t help feeling we’re all starting at the wrong place. Instead of deciding the Bible must be true and then trying to find answers to difficulties, why not look at what the Bible actually is?”

“What do you mean?”

“Well …. do you reckon everyone in your group believes absolutely everything in the Bible? I mean, I don’t suppose they think the world was created in six days, or that there really was a worldwide flood!”

“We have talked about that. Most of them don’t believe those things are true, but they don’t seem to be sure what they do believe about Adam and Eve and Noah.”

“So that’s something in the Bible they don’t believe is literally true! That tells us something about it doesn’t it?”

“Yes, but that hardly counts, does it? I mean, a worldwide flood with koalas and platypus on the Ark isn’t really sensible or believable. So I don’t suppose that tells us much about the rest of it.”

“Fair enough. But what about this? It says in Leviticus that people who blaspheme, or curse their parents or who have sex with same sex partners or animals, are to be put to death. Do they believe in the death penalty for those things?”

“I hope not! Really, I can’t imagine they do.”

“So that’s something else they don’t believe!? Surely this shows they don’t really believe the whole Bible is literally true?”

“Sure! But it is the Old Testament. There’s lots of stuff in there that no-one believes and does any more. I mean, have you sacrificed any bulls at your church lately?”

“True. Then I wonder how they figure out which bits they should believe and which bits they don’t have to?”

“I really don’t know.

“I think I need to think about this a bit more.”

“Let’s both do some research – read up what other people are saying and see if we can find a way to understand the Bible and feel that God is loving rather than a tyrant.”

“I’m good with that! We can see what each other found out next week.”

“Excellent! See you then!”

The conversation continues here.

The commands to kill entire tribes or nations are found in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and 20:16-17. The commands to execute those found guilty of sexual sin, blasphemy and cursing parents are found in Leviticus 20:9-16 and 24:14.

Photos by Andrea Piacquadio and Italo Melo.

Related Posts

Enjoy chocolate with a clear conscience

April 8th, 2024 in Changing the world. Tags: , , , , ,
Workers on chocolate plantations

If you enjoy chocolate as much as I do and if you have a sense of justice, then like me, you face a dilemma.

It is common knowledge that the chocolate supply chain hasn’t always been very ethical. Eating choclate can amount to tacitly supporting slave labour, poor working conditions, or environmental harm.

But fortunately there is a way to enjoy chocolate with a clear conscience. Read on to find out more, or jump straight to information on ethical manufacturers.

Issues in the chocolate supply chain

You probably know this, but let’s just refresh.

  • Historically, workers on cocoa plantations, primarily in West Africa, haven’t always been paid a living wage. Child labour has been common, denying those children opportunities for healthy growth and education.
  • Pesticide use is high and often harmful to both environment and workers.
  • Deforestation and climate impacts are still occurring.

Slow to act

Chocolate companies are big business, collectiovely worth more than $100 billion worldwide (estimates vary from $40 bn to $200 bn). The larger companies have been slow to admit the problems, and slow to act to make positive change. They can afford to make the necessary changes.

Progress has been made in the last decade or two. Many of the larger companies have set up schemes that claim to redress the problems by paying higher wages, providing education for children of workers and developing more sustainable environmental practices.

But much still needs to be done. And some of what is claimed isn’t clear to neutral observers because company processes aren’t transparent.

Consumers can make a difference!

You and I can be part of making a difference and helping poor families receive a living wage and allow their children to have a childhood and an education.

We can support more ethical practices when we buy our chocolate, even if this raises the price slightly. The trick is knowing which companies we can trust.

Independent certification

One way is to only choose chocolate manufactured by companies that have been independently certified by organisations like Fair Trade and Rainforest Alliance. (A third scheme, UTZ, has been incorporated into Rainforest Alliance and is being phased out.)

This is an excellent way for us consumers to know our purchase is supporting an ethical company. Unfortunately, many major manufacturers have declined to obtain certification because, they say, they have to use various sources and it is difficult to obtain and comply with certification all the time from all sources.

Chocolate scorecards

Another option is to check out a chocolate scorecard where independent bodies have assessed a wide range of manufacturers and distributors for a range of relevant factors and summarised their findings in an easy reference.

One such chocolate scorecard is produced by Aussie organisation Be Slavery Free.

Be Slavery Free is a coalition of civil society organisations committed to sustainable development and the eradication of slavery. It partners with a large number of Australian and overseas organisations with an interest in ethical business practices (this includes Universities, consultants and civil society groups) to work with companies, educate consumers and support change through innovation.

The latest Scorecard assessments have recently been published. The assessments are based on six factors:

  • Traceability and transparency
  • Living income
  • Child labour
  • Deforestation and climate
  • Agroforestry
  • Pesticides

The scorecard assesses 38 medium and large companies, 9 small companmies and 16 retailers.

So who is ethical?

Go to the scorecard to see all the ratings. Here are a few take home messages.

The most ethical chocolate (just falling short of maximum points) is Tony’s Chocolonely. Only two other of the medium large brands (Ritter Sport and HALBA) were rated in the top category. Five out of nine smaller brands were top-rated.

The second highest category included Mars Wrigley (makers of Mars, M&Ms, Snickers, Maltesers, etc) which is the world’s largest chocolate manufacturer, and Whittaker’s, a New Zealand brand available in my local supermarket in Australia. Whittaker’s has now become my brand of choice.

Among the world’s other top chocolate companies:

  • Nestlé, Hershey’s and Ferrero also rate in the second category, but are significantly below the above brands. (I was a little surprised that Nestlé rated so highly as they have been much criticised in the past.)
  • Lindt & Sprüngli has a poor rating (third category = “needs improvement”). Mondelez (makers of Cadbury) and Meiji score even lower in the “needs improvement” category.

Among smaller brands, Alter Eco rates in the second category.

I don’t know how retailers are assessed, but the major ones I know of in Australia (Coles, Woolworths, K-Mart, David Jones) rate very poorly. Aldi rates a little higher.

Let’s eat ethically (as much as possible)

It should be possible for all of us to find readily available brands in the top two categories. It seems that purchasing somewhere else other than the large retailers may be best.

Check out the Scorecards.

Main graphic: Be Slavery Free.

Related Posts