Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: Moonshine

(view original article here)

Fulfilled prophecy can be a powerful part of apologetics.

The Old Testament offers many predictions. These include the fall of Israel and Judah, the rise of King Cyrus along with the Greek and Roman Empires. Of great importance for Christian apologetics is the vast number of predictions surrounding the events of Jesus’s life. Jesus himself predicted the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and Revelation gives an indication of what would lie ahead for the age in which we live.

Lured into looking stupid

Fascinated by end-time prophecies, many Christians have been lured into making bold claims about future events. John Napier (1550-1617), mathematician and inventor of logarithms, predicted that the end would come sometime between 1688 and 1700. John Wesley (1703-1791) predicted that the end would come by 1836 at the latest. In more recent times, Edgar Whisenant published 88 Reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988 (now out of print!). They were all wrong.

At time of going to print, claims by John Hagee have been in wide circulation among Christians. Hagee is the senior pastor of 20,000 member Cornerstone Church, San Antonio, and founded Christians United for Israel which numbers over a million members. He has recently published Four Blood Moons: Something is About to Change and sparked significant media interest.

Four eclipses

Hagee has drawn attention to an unusual astronomical event, occurring during the next year, called a ‘tetrad’. This is a series of four lunar eclipses. If you were standing on the moon you would witness an eclipse. From our vantage point on the earth, the moon often turns to a deep red colour.

John Hagee claims that this should interest us because the Bible points to ‘signs’ in the sky and lunar events are often associated with prophecy (Joel 2.31; Matthew 24.29; Acts 2.19-20; Revelation 6.12). The unusual combination of four consecutive lunar eclipses occurred around Passover at the time of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and again at the time of the Six Day War in 1967 when Israel extended her boundaries.

End of the age?

So what will the forthcoming tetrad herald? They will be occur around the time of Passover during 2014 and 2015. Hagee implies it may point to a forthcoming rapture and end of this age. It could well be a sign accompanying significant events for the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

Generally, those who make prophetic claims shroud their words in ambiguity. They are hard to falsify. Speaking to Christian Broadcasting Network news, Hagee said: ‘I believe that in these next two years we are going to see something dramatic happen in the Middle East involving Israel’. It would be hard to imagine any two-year period when such a prediction had not been proved true!

The Christian defence of the faith relies upon the authority of the Word of God. If we also place authority in celebrity speakers then we risk undermining confidence in the Bible.

Supernatural signs

Consider the four moons claim again. The Bible speaks of supernatural signs in the sky, but lunar eclipses are natural events. Such ‘blood moons’ are not that uncommon. Mike Moore, writing for the Christian Witness to Israel website, points out that they did not occur exactly at the time of the formation of the State of Israel but in 1949-1950. Furthermore, Hagee fails to mention that four of the seven ‘tetrads’ in the past two thousand years have no apparent relationship to Jewish history. Even more problematic, not all the eclipses of 2014-2015 will even be visible from Israel.

Jesus warned his contemporary sign-seekers. He said: ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of …Jonah’ (Matthew 12.39). Popular culture loves astrological predictions and omens. It also loves to ridicule failed predictions and gullible Christians. Jesus refused to pander to popular curiosity. Instead, he gave one clear sign. The sign of Jonah is the sign of one who died, was buried three days, and rose again to new life. Our Jonah is Jesus Christ, the one who conquered death. His resurrection from the dead is rock-solid proof that Christianity is true, Christ is the Saviour and the Bible a reliable source of truth.

Chris is lecturer at Moorlands College and pastor of Alderholt Chapel. His books include Confident Christianity and Time Travel to the Old Testament published by IVP.

This article was first published in the May 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, visit us online or subscribe to EN for monthly updates.

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: BBC turns fact to fiction

(view original article here)

The BBC’s latest religious documentary is a two-part series, The Bible Hunters.

Jeff Rose, an American archaeologist, takes us on a tour of Egypt following a quest for early Bible manuscripts. Riding his motorbike through barren desert scenery, there were times when it felt closer to an episode of Top Gear. Why did he not just save the fuel and ride with the camera team in their car? But more pertinent questions are raised by the programme’s narrative. The selected scholars who are interviewed for their sound-bite opinions are all carefully chosen, or their words edited, to contribute to the general impression that the biblical text is unreliable.

Fascinating stories

The filmmakers should be complimented for accurately retelling some fascinating and historically accurate stories of discovery. Egypt has the right dry, desert, environment to preserve ancient manuscripts. Many have turned up there. The first episode included the story of the Smith sisters and their discovery of an early Syriac edition of the four Gospels. The second episode gave another platform for the usual quasi Da Vinci Code conspiracy nonsense about the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi, in Egypt.

Earliest complete NT manuscript

The documentaries helpfully cover the discovery by Tischendorf in 1859 of the Codex Sinaiticus at St Catherine’s monastery. This includes the earliest complete Greek New Testament, dating to c.350 AD. It was an astonishing discovery. It helps us to compare the New Testament manuscripts used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible with those written 1000 years before. I have only ever heard Christians give a positive appraisal of this discovery. But in the hands of this BBC documentary the manuscript is spun as ‘a discovery to shake the core of Christianity.’ A great aid to apologetics is apparently ammunition for the critics!

Rose informs us that ‘Christians believe that the Bible is the unchanged and unchangeable Word of God.’ Therefore, these manuscripts pose a problem. There are many scribal notes of minor changes throughout the text. Our host conspiratori-ally tells us that the longer ending of Mark, found in the King James Version, is missing from both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Syriac Gospels. Of course, his charge is weak. Christians believe that the Bible, as originally given, is the Word of God. No Christian scholar ignores the need to root out errors that may have crept in during the process of transmission or translation. Even the translators of the King James Version knew of manuscript variants. Rose defeats nothing more than a straw man.

Simply untrue

The general claim of the documentaries is simply untrue. The discoveries of early manuscripts did not ‘shock the faithful’. The opposite happened. Prior to their discovery, the critical tradition had already emerged, giving us theoretical reasons for not trusting the transmission of the Bible. The documentaries cover only a handful of the ensuing discoveries. There is no mention of the Codex Vaticanus, the Chester Beatty Papyri, the Bodmer Papyri and the countless much earlier fragments such as the John Rylands fragment held in Manchester. Even Oxyrhynchus only gets a mention because we are told the Gospel of Thomas turned up there. The documentary fails to mention the large number of New Testament fragments found at Oxyrhynchus!

In the light of these many discoveries, scholars became confident that we could reconstruct the New Testament to within a whisker of what was originally written. All modern translations reflect the best of this scholarship. Many of the sceptical theories of a couple of hundred years ago have found not a scrap of material support for their claims.

Reactions to the documentaries have been mixed. Guardian reviewer Lucy Mangan enthused, ‘it was wonderful’. The Daily Express review described it as ‘a brilliant story … to thrill and delight.’ But I prefer the observation of Larry Hurtado, one of the scholars interviewed in the programme. Of the finished product, he wryly commented: ‘Seems that TV people find fiction more watchable than facts’.

Chris is lecturer at Moorlands College and pastor of Alderholt Chapel. His books include Confident Christianity and Time Travel to the Old Testament published by IVP.

This article was first published in the April 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, visit us online or subscribe to EN for monthly updates.

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: Hollywood apologetics

These days it is quite common to be shown a film clip as part of a sermon or Bible study.

It may be a famous scene from a classic movie, or a YouTube download of an advert that has gone viral. For many Bible teachers it is second nature to integrate technology and multimedia with their message.

However, using film as illustration stops short of a more important task facing the church. The reality is that many people are digesting the messages and being led by the morality of the movies they watch.

Movie messages

Films do more than entertain. In contemporary society, powerful messages are being conveyed by what is watched on television, cinema, and the Internet. Some of these messages are good, and some are biblical and healthy. But plenty of ‘hollow and deceptive philosophies’ are promoted in this form.

Rather than simply using film as a form of illustration for the gospel, the church must engage with the message of the movies. What worldviews lie behind the stories they tell? What lifestyle is encouraged or promoted?

When Peter challenges us to defend our faith against the critics, he tells us to give an answer to ‘everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have’ (1 Peter 3.15). A key point in this verse is sometimes missed. We are supposed to be answering the questions people are actually asking, not questions we wish they would ask!

Discovery through media

We can discover the questions people are asking through media. In what way is Christianity, or the supernatural, being portrayed in movies? What questions are films asking and what misleading answers might they be giving?

Some films offer a bleak and nihilistic worldview (Crimes and Misdemeanours) while others delight in the ambiguity of our postmodern age (Life of Pi). There are films that pose alternative accounts of creation (Prometheus) or life after death (What Dreams May Come). Some films clearly aim to take a swipe at Christianity (The Invention of Lying) but others can be allies in apologetics. The search for forgiveness (Atonement) or the problem of evil (Tree of Life) all have powerful celluloid treatments. We can only wait with intrigue the forthcoming Noah with Russell Crowe. Will it promote a biblical worldview? Will it promote a neo-pagan environmental ethic? Either way, it will generate questions – and we need to be prepared to ‘give an answer’!

Observing their customs

Some preachers are well equipped to engage the questions of a previous generation. Some still live in the era of the Puritans. Apologetics demands that we are equipped to engage the questions of today. There are many helpful resources for this task. I would highly recommend Ted Turnau’s Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective and Brian Godawa’s excellent Hollywood Worldviews. Tony Watkins offers a discerning look at film in Focus: The Art and Soul of Cinema and the website Damaris.org provides a wealth of detailed material on specific films.

When Paul prepared to preach the gospel in Athens, he took time to observe their customs, culture and ideas. I have no doubt that Paul would have watched movies in the contemporary world. He would have taken time to engage with their underlying messages, values and questions in order to reach the world in which they play such an influential role.

 

Chris is lecturer at Moorlands College and pastor of Alderholt Chapel. His books include Confident Christianity and Time Travel to the Old Testament published by IVP.

This article was first published in the March 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, subscribe to EN or contact us for more information.

http://www.e-n.org.uk 0845 225 0057

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: Missing towns of Jesus

Bethlehem and Nazareth are the places most associated with the life of Jesus prior to his public ministry.

Therefore, what better way to dismiss the Christian faith than claim that these towns never existed at the time of Jesus? They are the product of later, fanciful legends and promoted as a way of making a fast shekel out of religious tourism. James Randi, a popular American magician and atheist, boldly declares: ‘There simply is no demonstrable evidence from the Nazareth site that dates to the time of Jesus Christ’.

No donkey

A similar claim is made regarding Bethlehem. Though occupied in earlier times, some say it was abandoned during the time of Jesus. Israeli archaeologist Aviram Oshri has identified a different Bethlehem, nearer Nazareth, as thriving at the time of Jesus. Oshri comments: ‘It makes much more sense that Mary rode on a donkey, while she was at the end of the pregnancy, from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Galilee which is only seven kilometres than the other Bethlehem which is 150 kilometres’ (NPR News). The fact that the Gospels nowhere mention a donkey does not instill confidence in Oshri’s research. But what about the facts? Were Bethlehem and Nazareth inhabited during the early years of Jesus?

Bethlehem is sometimes dismissed because the Church of the Nativity that tourists visit only dates from 327 AD, long after the time of Jesus. But the question to ask is why was a church to venerate the nativity built here? The history of association with the nativity is much older. Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD), who only lived 40 miles away from Bethlehem, identified a cave in the town as the site of Christ’s birth. Origen (c.185-254 AD) describes visiting the cave himself. Over 200 years of tradition, before the church was built, identify the site and give it authenticity. Furthermore, Bethlehem has revealed evidence of first century occupation, including pottery from that time.

The hamlet of Nazareth

What about Nazareth? In some ways, the first-century evidence is quite similar to that of Bethlehem. There is no evidence of a large city, monumental buildings or wealthy citizens at the time of Jesus. But there is evidence of an agricultural community. Pottery, a winepress and burial caves have borne witness to this period of habitation. In 2009 archaeologists revealed the remains of a stone -built house dating to the time of Jesus. It is estimated that Nazareth was a hamlet of about 50 houses during the first century.

First-century Nazareth and Bethlehem were the kind of locations that leave little evidence in the archaeological record. Little wealth means no monumental buildings and few coins or durable goods. However, new material continues to come to light. A discovery of an ancient bathhouse in 1993 may yet prove that Nazareth was more significant at the time of Jesus than previously thought.

What scale?

Critics dismiss the Gospels because there is no evidence for the ‘cities’ of Nazareth or Bethlehem at the time of Jesus. This objection arises from a misunderstanding of the Greek word polis, often translated ‘town’ or even ‘city’ (Matthew 2.23; Luke 2.4). But what is the difference between a hamlet, village, town or city? A textbook on town planning would need a precision over words like village or town that need not apply elsewhere. Matthew and Luke are not using this term in some technical sense. Their concerns are not with town planning but with recording history.

Historical Saviour

There is no reason to doubt the existence of Bethlehem and Nazareth, but there is reason to think again if we imagine them as large, wealthy cities. The reason to think again is because of what the Bible itself says. Of Nazareth, Philip asked: ‘Can anything good come out of there?’ (John 1.46). Of Bethlehem, prophecy already indicated its obscurity at the time of Christ’s birth. As the New Living Translation puts it: ‘But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village among the people of Judah’ (Micah 5.2). Jesus did not hail from a great city like London, New York or even Jerusalem, but from obscurity. Which leaves us the question, why do we still know so much more about this one man than his home towns? We don’t worship sacred sites, but we do worship an historical Saviour.

Chris is lecturer at Moorlands College and pastor of Alderholt Chapel. His books include Confident Christianity and Time Travel to the Old Testament published by IVP.

This article was first published in the February 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, subscribe to EN or contact us for more information.

http://www.e-n.org.uk 0845 225 0057

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: An immoral Bible?

Did you watch the epic TV mini-series The Bible during December?

If you did you will have been reminded of just how much violence the Old Testament records. For the average non-Christian viewer it may reinforce their suspicion that the God of the Old Testament is a God of anger and malevolence, unsuited to our modern morals.

What can we say in response?

It is important to maintain that God is a judge who has the right to dispense judgement. He is the creator, and we are the creation. His judgements are fair and wise by definition. Whether the flood at the time of Noah or the day of judgement when Christ returns, history displays the justice and sovereignty of God.

But many of the so-called ‘terror texts’ still need some explanation. Why did God command the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite towns? Do the laws of the Old Testament seem harsh in our modern world?

We do not read the Bible without giving proper attention to context and genre. Many of the most violent passages in Scripture are descriptive rather than prescriptive — they describe what went on rather than prescribe how we should behave. The book of Judges is particularly representative of this. It is hard to find a good moral example in its pages. But the book itself tells us that: ‘In those days Israel had no king and everyone did as he saw fit’ (Judges 21.25).

In the book of Joshua we read of God’s judgement on the entire Canaanite population through the Israelites. This can be harder to interpret. It is a divine decree. It reflects God’s judgement on a wicked people when their sin had reached ‘full measure’ (Genesis 15.16). However, we may still be perplexed at the judgement falling upon children and animals.

Creating a space

It helps to pause and read these stories a little more closely. The description of total destruction is normal ancient near-eastern warfare language. In practice, Israel did not totally destroy the Canaanites. Many lived on in the land and Jerusalem would remain in the hands of the Jebusites until the time of King David. Also, the destruction brought about by the Israelites fell upon the cities, essentially fortress strongholds. Many people would have lived and worked on the land and fled long before. A city like Jericho would have been more like a castle standing against the Israelites. It was a military target.

But we still question why God brought about destruction of all its inhabitants. The theological answer is that God cared about the purity of his people in their new land. As they settled in the land they were tempted by the local religious practices, like child sacrifice and prostitution. In order to create a space for any hope of a dedicated people of Israel, God had to destroy what was there. This is not ethnic cleansing. Some of these ethnic groups joined the Israelites (like Rahab and her family). The Israelites also formed alliances with other ethnic groups. It is a religious cleansing. Some things matter so much that they cannot be contaminated by false ideas.

World War II

Before modern critics dismiss this period of ancient Israel’s history, let us remember events in the modern age. In 1945 the decision was taken to drop atomic weapons on Japan. 200,000 people died as a direct result – men, women and children along with all the animals. This destruction dwarfs anything that happened in ancient Israel. Was this justified? Christians will disagree but certainly those who have argued in its favour were moral people. The leaders and soldiers are not considered wicked as they weighed up the reasons for carrying out these bombings. Even if we disagree with those decisions, we recognise that they were moral people with a justification for their actions.

How much more should we assume that God, the source of moral goodness, had reason for the more limited devastation of the Joshua conquests? And, as we look to the future, we know that God will yet bring the whole world into judgement. Not only is God able to take such decisions but he knows the thoughts of every heart and acts accordingly. Far from being an immoral book, the Old Testament provides a moral framework that enables us to know what is right and wrong, to condemn ethnic cleansing and to trust in God’s final judgement (1 Corinthians 4.5).

Chris is lecturer at Moorlands College and pastor of Alderholt Chapel. His books include Confident Christianity and Time Travel to the Old Testament published by IVP.

This article was first published in the January 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, subscribe to EN or contact us for more information.

http://www.e-n.org.uk 0845 225 0057

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: Defending Daniel

Some Bible books have a harder time being accepted as historically reliable than others.

Among the Old Testament books, Daniel often takes a beating. The critical reaction frequently reflects a skeptical attitude to miracles (did Daniel really spend a night in a den of lions?) or to predictive prophecy (was Daniel really able to predict the rise and fall of later empires?). As a consequence, many critics date these books late and suggest they are Jewish legends with prophecies of events that had already taken place included to make them sound authentic.

We may be tempted to sidestep these criticisms. But that evasion is short-sighted. If we reject something as spurious because it contains miracles or accurate predictive prophecy then eventually that attitude will undermine the gospel. What is left of the ministry of Jesus if we reject miracles? What is left of the gospel if we reject prophecy of future events?

It is ironic that all the accumulating archaeological and material evidence supports the reliability of Daniel, while nothing has been found to undermine it. S.R. Driver (1846-1914), professor of Hebrew at Oxford, wrote one of the most influential commentaries on Daniel and dated its final form to what is called the Maccabean period (c. 165 BC). This was long after the Babylonian exile (c. 609-536 BC), in which the book claims to be set.

One reason Driver gave is the book’s use of Aramaic which we know would come into fashion closer to the time of the New Testament. However, another reason must surely be the presence of predictive prophecy. Daniel predicts a succession of kingdoms following the Babylonians. If he wrote these around 580 BC then his vision of the future proved remarkably accurate. If they were written in 165 BC then there is no miraculous element!

As a matter of fact, Driver’s redating of Daniel still fails to deny its predictive content. Daniel predicts four empires of which the fourth is clearly a description of Rome. Even placing Daniel in the time of the Maccabees still puts it a century prior to the rise of Rome in the region. To get around this, critics had to include an extra empire between Persia and Greece. The bizarre result is that they denied Daniel the ability to accurately predict the future but attributed to him a very clumsy recording of the past.

However, what do we know since the work of Driver that has helped us to date Daniel? Quite a lot — and nothing that would support Driver’s theory.

Dead Sea Scrolls

Most importantly, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls from 1947 onwards, has provided a vast number of ancient biblical texts that enable us to have much greater confidence in the reliability of the copying of the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls include eight copies of Daniel, along with several related writings that use material from the book. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the earliest complete text of Daniel in Hebrew dated to the tenth century AD. The earliest Dead Sea texts of Daniel are dated to 125 BC. As these are copies of copies they point to a much earlier date for the original.

Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls have turned the presence of Aramaic in the book from the supposed late dating into additional evidence for the early date of the book.

Aramaic scripts and vocabulary of the Dead Sea copies demonstrate a much earlier form than those of other second century BC examples. In other words, far from indicating a late date, the Aramaic used in Daniel now suggests a much earlier date than critics like Driver could have known. In fact, scholars now suggest that the Aramaic used in Daniel is of a form originating in Babylon rather than Judea. The origins of the book lie in a period much earlier than Driver guessed and a location far from Jerusalem.

Recommendations

The evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls bolsters our continuing confidence in Daniel and consigns more recent commentaries to the dustbins of history! Of course, this brief article only scratches the surface of the value of the Dead Sea Scrolls for apologetics. For much more detail I would recommend Randall Price’s Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls(Harvest House, 1996) or, at a more scholarly level, Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by John J. Collins and Craig A. Evans (Baker Books, 2006).

It is also worth noting that there is a wealth of nonsense written on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Much of this was a result of the air of conspiracy that surrounded the slow publication of scroll translations. Since all the manuscripts are now publically accessible in translation, books making outlandish claims about the Dead Sea Scrolls are gradually disappearing. However, the desert region around the Dead Sea remains a favourable location to preserve ancient manuscripts and so there is a good chance that more will be discovered in the years to come!

 

Chris Sinkinson is pastor of Alderholt Chapel and lectures at Moorlands College

This article was first published in the September 2013 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, subscribe to EN or contact us for more information.

http://www.e-n.org.uk 0845 225 0057

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: Hoaxes and hogwash!

Every now and then there is a buzz of excitement.

When teaching Old Testament a student will ask me if I have heard that Pharaoh’s chariot wheels from the exodus have been located in the depths of the Red Sea. It is thrilling stuff, and often based on grainy photographs passed about on the internet and on Christian DVDs. Sadly, however, it is a hoax, which has undermined the credibility of evangelical engagement with archaeology and other disciplines.

Shaky evidence

The problems with the evidence are manifold. We ought to be unsettled by the fact that no academic, objective scrutiny of the claims has ever been made. The central evidence itself is based on the personal testimony of the late Ron Wyatt who took some photographs of what look like coral encrusted ship debris and made lavish claims for their significance without any rigorous testing. On investigation, every element of his evidence looks decidedly shaky! Perhaps we should not be too harsh on Wyatt. He was a busy man. Travelling in his vacations, he also claimed to have discovered Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and a number of other important biblical relics. I have no hesitation in turning students away from this kind of sensational but unsubstantiated hokum.

Undermining credibility

However, underlying these claims is a more important issue. Our evangelical churches can become an undiscerning haven for fraudulent ideas and untested rumours. Such threadbare evidence is woven into sermons and youth talks. Unlikely proofs become a church equivalent of an urban legend, sounding more plausible for frequent retelling. Does it matter? Yes, because we undermine our credibility and our integrity. If friends discover that we have slipped one hoax into our evangelism then how will they know they can trust any other piece of historical or archaeological information? If photographs of chariot wheels are demonstrably spurious then does that undermine the exodus itself? What about the reliability of the Old Testament? Can we trust the Bible at all?

Solid scholarship

We must double-check our facts in evangelism. A Google search is not enough! There should be a healthy distrust of the first thing we read and a careful weighing up of what evidence we use with our friends. Eternal matters are at stake. With this in mind I have just published an introduction to the Old Testament that draws on some of the latest discoveries as well as more well known finds. My intention in Time Travel to the Old Testament (IVP, 2013) is to affirm the historical reliability of the Bible and show how background information can help bring further light to the meaning of the text. These things really happened, and we can be confident in our faith. While writing it, I have had to tread a careful path to avoid bogus claims and wild speculation. There is plenty of it about! But we do not need the hogwash. There is a wealth of solid scholarship that supports the essential historical credentials of the Bible. It is this kind of scholarship that we should be circulating in our evangelical circles.

Chris Sinkinson is pastor of Alderholt Chapel and lectures at Moorlands College

This article was first published in the August 2013 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, subscribe to EN or contact us for more information.

http://www.e-n.org.uk 0845 225 0057

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: Playing the percentages

Opinion polls make very interesting, if unreliable, reading.

This is demonstrated in the WIN-Gallup Religion and Atheism survey. Based on responses from 51,927 participants in 57 countries during 2012 it seems to indicate a decline in religion since 2005. The global average indicates a rise of 3% in those claiming to be atheists and a decline of 9% in those describing themselves as religious. Stand-out figures include the results from Ireland, which indicate a 22% drop in those claiming to be religious since 2005, coming second to Vietnam which experienced a 23% drop. Of interest to Western evangelicalism is the drop of 13% in those claiming to be religious in the United States, from 73% to 60%. How will that translate into America’s cultural exports of films, books, sit-coms and pop music? More detailed figures from the UK 2011 census fit the pattern and indicate that 25% of our country does not consider themselves religious.

Misleading statistics?

So how do we interpret this information? One claim might be that atheism is winning the culture wars, and Christianity is fading away. But statistics can be misleading. After all, Richard Dawkins presumably would not claim credit for the decline of religiosity in Vietnam. In fact, while Vietnam showed the greatest decline in those considering themselves religious, it also showed a 0% rise in those claiming to be atheist. What does a survey participant mean when they say that they do not consider themselves religious? I am a Christian. I teach theology. I pastor a church. Am I religious? It’s not a term I like to use!

Less nominal faith?

The decline in numbers of those considering themselves religious is not directly translated into an increase in atheism or in the popularity of some of the new atheists’ diatribes about Christianity. The fact is that the decline in religiosity may be a good thing. It may represent a questioning of nominal faith and traditionalism, which, in the long run, could sharpen real, biblical Christianity. The figures from Ireland are instructive here. The dramatic decline in religiosity in Ireland are probably directly related to the scandals that have rocked her institutional church. Who needs Richard Dawkins when we have churches that behave like this?

No increase in atheism

Theo Hobson, writing in the Spectator (April 2013) under the title ‘After the new atheism’, comments: ‘Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure, shaking his fist at sky fairies’. As the dust settles, it is far from clear that the new atheists ever generated more light than they did heat. Hobson comments: ‘Atheism is still with us. But the movement that threatened to form has petered out’. The decline in religion has not been matched by a rise in atheism.

What do we have to offer?

There is an interesting anomaly in the American figures. In a Gallup poll in May it was revealed that 77% of Americans believe that religion has lost influence in culture. But the figures also showed that a staggering 75% of Americans believe that this decline is a bad thing and believe that America would be better off if more people were religious. These figures show that, while people are rapidly losing personal confidence in churches, they remain positive about Christianity as a force for good. Our culture stands at a crossroads. The polls show that institutional religion is not in favour. Being counted religious seems old fashioned or antiquated. But atheism has not taken the helm. The decline of religiosity is a decline in formal religious influence. Now is the time not to offer our nation religion; it is tired of that. But this is the time to offer true, personal, living faith grounded in the real historical reliability of the Bible. Now why is it that whenever these polls are conducted no one ever asks me my opinion?

Chris Sinkinson is pastor of Alderholt Chapel, lecturer at Moorlands College and has written a new book released with IVP : The Time Traveller’s Guide to the Old Testament.

This article was first published in the July 2013 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, subscribe to EN or contact us for more information.

http://www.e-n.org.uk 0845 225 0057

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: Bananas singing?

Apologetics is the discipline of answering objections and providing reasons to believe.

As many people note, it is not the most helpful word in our Christian dictionary. It implies being apologetic or sorry for what we believe. Far from apologising, we are confidently defending our faith. For this reason, apologetics really helps inform the way we preach, debate and evangelise. But what about when we come together to sing songs of praise and worship? Is apologetics relevant to our worship songs?

Teaching in songs

The simple answer is that it must be. Paul tells us that when we come together and sing we are ‘teaching’ one another through those songs (Colossians 3.16). Our songs help us understand God better, shape the attitudes of heart and mind, and teach others about what we believe. We think carefully about the case we make when preaching. Should we not also think carefully about the case we make in our praise?

I don’t want to spend time identifying lyrics I don’t like! Nick Page, in his insightful book,And Now Let’s Move Into a Time of Nonsense (Authentic, 2004), helpfully surveys the pitfalls of Christian song writing. He expresses the frustration of many: ‘Why, when the tunes are often so good, are the lyrics frequently so bad? Why are we content to stand there in church and sing stuff that really doesn’t make any sense?’ (p.2). Here is a simple question to ask of any song we sing: is the content of what I am singing true?

‘Cheesiness’ is subjective

I think this question moves beyond simply dismissing some songs as ‘cheesy’ or just romantic love songs with the name of Jesus thrown in. Those dismissals may be true but ‘cheesiness’ is a very subjective judgment (this coming from someone who still loves listening to the Carpenters) and, while many songs alarmingly make Jesus sound like a boyfriend, there is at least biblical precedent for using romantic imagery to describe our love for God. But do take a look at the top songs you sing on a Sunday and ask what reasons they give you to praise.

Appearing foolish?

Some songs even revel in the idea that what we are doing is bananas; ‘I feel like dancing / it’s foolishness I know’ — is that really going to persuade a skeptical member of our congregation to believe in Christ? When we read the story of David’s dancing before the Lord, we also hear him give a good reason for his desire to dance (2 Samuel 6.21-22). There is a world of difference between appearing foolish and being foolish. David may have appeared foolish to Michal, just as we will appear foolish to some skeptics, but we do have reasons for what we believe and do.

Of course, nothing in this article implies that our music should be old-fashioned, set to dull tunes or lack devotional warmth. We need music that can carry the emotions and engage our hearts. But it is a false dichotomy to suggest that we have to choose between making a rational case for our faith and being in touch with our feelings. We do not make that split when presenting a sermon, so there is no reason why we should have to when singing a song.

Chris Sinkinson is pastor of Alderholt Chapel. He also lectures in Apologetics at Moorlands College, Christchurch, Dorset.

This article was first published in the May 2013 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, subscribe to EN or contact us for more information.

http://www.e-n.org.uk 0845 225 0057

Unapologetic Christianity from Chris Sinkinson: A day at the museum

For our UK readers or those passing through the capital, London offers a priceless resource for studying the background to the Bible.

The British Museum first opened in 1759 and since that time has been acquiring a wide range of artefacts from the ancient world. Many originate from the lands connected with the Bible — Egypt, Canaan, Greece, Assyria and Babylon — often as a result of Britain’s formidable influence during the Victorian era. This collection includes many exhibits that are of great value in the study of apologetics.

There are now a number of useful books to guide anyone making a passing visit. Brian Edwards’s and Clive Anderson’s Through the British Museum with the Bible (Day One) is particularly useful, and the British Museum publish their own guide to the Bible by T.C. Mitchell.

Planning a trip

It is worth planning a trip to the museum by identifying a few exhibits that you really want to see and then allowing extra time to make a few unexpected discoveries of your own. For anyone interested in apologetics I can suggest a few essentials.

Firstly, the black obelisk of Shalmaneser III is displayed on the ground floor in the Ancient Near East section. It is a victory monument from ancient Assyria recording the tributes brought by surrounding nations. Among them is King Jehu and the Israelites bringing various treasures as tribute. Dating to 841 BC, the detailed images provide the earliest clear pictures of what the Israelites looked like and what they wore.

Missing information

Secondly, in a nearby gallery is the stunning display of the siege of Lachish. The Assyrian King Sennacherib captured this town in Judah in 701 BC (2 Kings 18-19) before marching on Jerusalem. This event is recorded in astonishing detail. The weapons of the Assyrians, the siege ramp, the fruit on the trees, captured Israelites and plight of women and children are all recorded. From here, Sennacherib moved on to besiege Jerusalem, though he failed to take the city. The nearby Taylor Prism includes a cuneiform reference to King Hezekiah trapped in the city and recounts the Assyrian withdrawal from Jerusalem. No reason is given for the failure of the Assyrians to repeat the successful conquest so proudly recorded from Lachish. For that missing piece of information one must turn to the Bible (2 Kings 19).

Upstairs in the museum are a number of displays from the region we call Canaan. Among them an apologist should take note of the Jericho tomb burial, the Amarna letters and some of the small but significant jar handles and pottery shards bearing Israelite inscriptions. These objects bring to life the stories, people and places of the Bible and endorse its historical value. Beyond this gallery one comes to the priceless, ancient artefacts recovered from the region of Ur, Abraham’s hometown. These help to confirm the sophisticated civilisation from which Abram came as God called him to settle in the more primitive landscape of Canaan.

Great resource

To see such important finds from modern day Iraq, Israel, Turkey and also from Egypt, Greece and Iran might have required a wealth of air miles and a lifetime of travel. Instead, a few hours spent in our nation’s capital can provide a solid boost to our understanding of the historicity of the Bible. And, did I mention entry is free? Of course, I don’t recommend being locked in overnight. But the British Museum is a resource every Christian should have some interest in!

Chris Sinkinson is pastor of Alderholt Chapel and lectures at Moorlands College. His book on apologetics, Confident Christianity, has recently been released by IVP.

This article was first published in the July 2012 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, subscribe to EN or contact us for more information.

http://www.e-n.org.uk 0845 225 0057