I wrote recently about my concept of Regressive Christianity as my most recent attempt to find a description that fits with my beliefs.

It’s not easy. The good ones are taken.

But I keep finding myself pondering the term “Progressive Christianity”.

The more I dwell on it, the more I find myself coming back to Paul’s letters. I love the way the Amplified Bible puts Romans 12:2: “Do not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and its new attitude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].”

“Conformed to this world” is an interesting thought.

Much of what we consider to be normal today was considered exceptional in the 1st Century. Wealth as we know it – such as affording three meals a day and only working a five-day week – was reserved for the incredibly wealthy. Slaves and their owners worked seven days a week. The “weekend” as we know it is a contrived concept of the last hundred years. A six day week was normal for decades before that because of the “sabbath” concept of Sunday being a “holy” day. Before that beyond Israel there was no weekend. People just worked every day and didn’t think about it.

Greed fills our society and pervades others. Communism fell because – amongst other things – it couldn’t compete with the materialistic affluence of the West. I acknowledge that it wasn’t the only reason, and anyone suggesting it was would clearly be nuts, but it was a contributing factor as the wealth was perceived as freedom.

Pornography is more accessible than at any time in history now. On my computer I have had many problems doing research for my blog and a book concept I’m working on when I search for simple terms and the first page that opens has boobs and other assorted body-parts wiggling in my face before I know what’s happened. (I have consequently stopped using the “I Feel Lucky” button on Google and the incidence has dropped drastically). My wife and I are preparing to move, and I am preparing to embark on a new career. Having become a little jaded by the cutthroat mentality of business I am intending to retrain as a primary school teacher. Doing a search for “Classroom discipline and punishment” some weeks ago scared the life out of me. If my female teachers at school had looked and behaved like that I’d probably have struggled academically more than I did due to inability to concentrate – and a large percentage of my classmates would probably have actively tried to fail!

Immorality has flooded our homes and ethical behaviour – Character – has been replaced with the concept of “situational ethics”. I believe ethics are how you behave when nobody’s looking. Right and wrong used to be absolutes, now they’re conditional.

And yet we condemn some behaviours that were applauded a hundred years ago and applaud others that were condemned. We have conformed to the pattern of the world.

The Bible is a book of absolutes. Jesus said “I am the Way”, not “I could be the way if you feel like it”. God is described “Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is [always] the same, yesterday, today, [yes] and forever (to the ages).” (Hebrews 13:8 Amplified). He said “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”” His role was to fulfil the Law, not abolish it. He chose to take our place and accept Death on our behalf to restore relationship in the long term.

Yet the group describing themselves as “Progressive Christians” actually state in their own doctrinal views that “the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey”. (progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points). That’s a direct opposite position from the one Paul took while writing the Letters that form the bulk of the New Testament. It’s the opposite of what Jesus is recorded as teaching in the Gospels.

So I’ve ruled out “Progressive” as a description of my beliefs.

The problem mainly is that much of the energy expended in recent years by the church has been directed at specific behaviours and the groups associated with it. Most recently these sincere, devout and highly intolerant people have targeted homosexuality. Now I’m not of the persuasion that will declare homosexuality to not be a sin. There’s too much in both Old and New Testaments declaring sexual immorality of any nature to be sinful for that. But if a secular government wants to endorse same-gender unions and afford them the same civil liberties as heterosexual marriages within that secular environment, they should be allowed to.

After all, idolatry in the form of the fanatical pursuit of famous individuals fits the general description of worshipping an image, profane use of Jesus’ name, not keeping the sabbath/Sunday clear to rest, disregarding and disrespecting of parents, adultery and coveting are all standard parts of a secular society. The richest in the land taxing the food the poorest buy and putting the money in their own pockets by huge pay increases and bonuses is theft from the poorest, but has been so entrenched in our minds that we usually fail to recognise it. Western society has worshipped itself instead of God for decades. That just leaves murder and bearing false witness as staples in the secular courts that are considered “crimes”. Of course, a smaller-scale theft is prosecuted, and so the society is appeased.

Hmm… Did I step on some toes there?

I hope so.

As Christians we need to break some eggs for this omlette we call Faith to have any meaning. We calmly sit back as people who are meant to be guiding us towards God slowly turn us away from Him. Judaism and Christianity have for over 2000 years (thanks to Judaism) resisted the nature of the “secular” constructs of this world. Paul stood against the Roman and Greek gods. Elijah took on the prophets of false gods. Every major revival of the last two millenia has been led by men and women not afraid to be uncompromising in their adherence to the Gospel.

Call a sin a sin. Practicing greed, idolatry, homosexuality, covetousness or anything else referred to as abhorrent to God in scripture is sin.

Progression isn’t just movement. It’s movement forwards.

It’s movement towards the final goal as defined before the journey begins.

If we change the target after we’ve set off by moving the goal to something more “socially acceptable” then we are, by definition, placing current society’s thinking ahead of God’s revealed Will.

The result?

We regress. We regress as far as Sodom adn Gomorrah. The cities weren’t destroyed for homosexuality. They were destroyed for not acknowledging God. Abraham asked God to spare the cities for the sake of any Righteous inhabitants. On looking, God found only Lot and his family. He told them to leave, and the rest is history.

This “Progressive” movement is not forward moving. It does not advance the Kingdom. It fails to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the only way to God.

This progression is regression.

I’m stuck, as I’ve said before, to describe my standing as a Christian.

I used to define myself as “conservative”, but that got hijacked by intolerant and (frankly) heretical teachings spouted by people who have nothing better to do than assault other people who disagree with them.

Then I felt “fundamentalist” would be a good fit. Unfortunately the “fundamentals” of Christ’s message have been overlooked in some areas and criticised in minute detail in others. So I can’t use that term any more.

“Progressive” has a nice ring to it, but the more I explore the concept, the more it speaks of universalism – the concept that all religions ultimately lead to the same place – and effectively gnosticism, specifically blasted by St Paul everywhere he went. It also has a disturbing habit of “de-classifying” sinful behaviour because of alleged scientific “proof” pertaining to sme behaviours. The big one currently is homosexuality, but the wheel will turn and something else will repace it eventually in the cross-hairs.

“Traditional” has never been an option for me, and the same for “Basic” and “Literal”. They miss the point. I don’t believe the earth is only 4000 years old, so “literal” as a part of the young earth movement makes no sense.

So I find myself pondering “Regressive” Christianity.

I’ve not found any references to this concept as an official way of thinking/behaving, so maybe I’m starting something here.

Regressive Christianity

• Emphasises the only way to Salvation is through Jesus Christ
• accepts the teaching of Jesus as sacrosanct.
•  It accepts that Scripture knows better than society when it comes to societal “norms”. 
• Sin is Sin. No matter whator who is commiting it – and how many concur within society
• The Ultimate place to confirm right and wrong behaviour is God’s Word, not the DSM4 or 5
• All religions are not equal
• Does not condemn an individual for their behaviour, irrespective of that behaviour
• Acknowledges the Bible is not God in itself, but is the only recording of His utterances and the canon is closed
• Nobody who accepts Jesus as their personal Saviour at the rejection of all other false gods will fail to be accepted as a Brother or Sister in Him  

I mentioned in a previous post that I was following a facebook page called Kissing Fish. The author uses the term Progressive Christianity to explain his position on various topics. Whilst I’d largely agreed with much of the subject I found myself in a pickle over the last few days.

The page posted a picture of a well with the bucket dropping down into the water below. Nothing wrong with that in itself. Jesus described Himself as the Living Water after all.

What made my head spin round 3 times and explode was the comment by the poster – a trained “christian” minister. The implication he makes is that all religions draw ultimately from the same source, just from different points.

Huh?

I thought I’d mis-read the post, so I read it again.

I sounded out the words in case I’d lost the ability to read.

Nope. All from one source.

So here’s what I said, and the author’s response:

Me: Roger, that sounds a lot like universalism rather than Christianity. Jesus decalred nobody could come to God except through Him. Surely that excludes all other religions as NOT leading to the same source?

Reply: FYI, I am a Christian and I do not identify as a Universalist. Progressive Christianity, unlike fundamentalism, does not contend that Christianity has a monopoly on God, God’s love, or God’s Truth. It’s non-exclusivistic. It also avoids the idolatry of saying that God can only work in one way. It refuses to put God in a box.

There’s a concept we need to grasp as Christians. Equality.

Now Equality in the Biblical sense is not what we get depicted in the 21st Century media. We have a concept today that’s the exact opposite of what the writers of the various books of Sctipture envisioned equality to be.

Equality is a tricky concept these days. If we stick to the concept as used in scripture, we are accused of chauvinism and sexual discrimination. If we don’t then we turn the understanding of God’s order on its head.

I wrote a while back on the importance of being Biblicaly correct rather than Politically Correct. I have old friends from my childhood who are on active duty with the armed forces. They have ben deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are not all men. Whether they are people I played rugby against or attended as a fellow dancer in ballet class, they are members of HM Armed Forces in the UK, and I respect their choices for themselves. But I have a fundamental problem with putting women into battle.

In CS Lewis’s Narnia stories, Father Christmas gives the gifts to the children, and as he gives the weapons to the girls he advises “Battles are ugly when women fight”. In the movies I was disappointed when this was watered down to the PC “Battles are ugly affairs”. It missed the point Lewis was making.

War is the domain of Men. We are more designed for it.

In the US Marine Corps right now – an organisation I have immense respect for having had over the years several friends who served with honour in the Corps (Semper Fi, Guys) – they are considering re-evaluating of the fitness requirements. Minimum 3 chin-ups for women. Minimum.

This is being criticised as unfair because many of the female recruits are not capable of this.

My response? It’s obvious – they shouldn’t be in that post. If you can’t make the basic requirement (which I’ll acknowledge I probably couldn’t these days) then you shouldn’t be in that position. The requirements are there for a reason, not to discriminate, but to ensure ability.

I’ve met women who I wouldn’t want to have to take on physically. I’ve met women who are better shots than me – and I was good in my day. I used to fence – foil, sabre and epee – and I got beaten all ends up on a week-long course by a girl my age at bothe foil and epee, although I took her in sabre. Her reflexes and ability with the thrusting blades was greater than mine. With the more “slashing” aspect of sabre my reach and arm gave me a distinct advantage. It doesn’t mean if we were out together and sword play were required that I would defer to her to protect me. It’s not her role to be the protector.

It’s not my role to cower away if my wife and I are attacked. When I first moved to Cape Town and we opened our first business, my wife begged me not to come out of my office if I heard a robbery in the front. I told her I couldn’t do that. It went against everything I am.

I’ve fought muggers – plural – and come out on top. I was assaulted in a church once and they were the ones who ran. I don’t know how to not hold my ground. I walked towards a man armed with a broadsword trying to attack a car-park attendant in Cape Town a few years ago. I’m not fearless – far from it, in fact I was scared witless, but the intended victim was unarmed and clearly paralysed by the fear he felt.

I’m not trying to blow myself up here, just make a point. My brother-in-law has also walked away from equally dangerous situations, as have many of my Christian male friends. It’s hard-wired into us. It becomes even more so when we become Christians.

How is this feminism?

My embracing masculinity, we release women to be feminine. There’s a gentleness in women that men lack. The softness men can express just isn’t a mother’s touch, just like the strength a man expresses is different to that displayed by women.

It takes immense courage to be strong, to push against the flow of “natural” lunacy that passes for feminist behaviour now.

I studied the Suffragette movement as a student for some time. I don’t believe the women then would have supported women in combat. They could see equality was not the same as sameness.

We lost sight of that in the last century. Like many Christian principles it’s been swept away under the lies psychology and the “equality” movement has spawned.

Men and women are equal in God’s eyes. He created us in His image, but not to do the same thing. I’m taller than my wife. My arms are longer and my grip in my hands – also larger than hers – is significantly greater. Intellectually, she is my superior. I may have a slightly higher IQ on paper, but I can’t express it the way she does – and she is brilliant. A medical doctor, and she was the most successful student in the country when she completed her high school education – no mean feat. My exams were not in that league at all. She taught herself physics whilst studying medicine so she would qualify to learn medicine. My head would have exploded just at the thought!

Now I was recently told I suffer from ADD, which could explain my academic shortcomings based on my measured IQ, but not completely. I’m 41, and I’ve been passionate and focussed on developing my relationship with Christ since my early teens. I’ve never placed much importance in my life on academics. That could be more of a reason, but whatever the cause, the reality is I am less quaified and demonstrably less focussed than my wife academically.

But I long to be the breadwinner in our household. It’s hard in South Africa. I’m a Business Degree graduate, but I’m white, middle-aged, foreign and only speak English proficiently enough to use it for business. So it’s hard to find a job that will pay the bills. It doesn;t stop me looking, but recently (and after a lot of prayer) we’ve decided to move back to England so I can begin to move in the right direction to be the provider.

I want to release my wife to be the woman God created her to be. If that means a doctor, then I want it to be she works as a doctor because she has a passion to, not so we can pay the bills.

I wrote about what seems right being wrong recently as well. The business I still believe could have been from God if I’d had the courage to push through sooner we have – prayerfully – decided to keep closed. It’s been heartwrenching to do. Both of us want to stay in Cape Town. Our families are here. The support structure that has helped us for the last 4 years, perhaps the most traumatic of my life, are all here. But we are moving. And to be honest I’m terrified.

For the first time in my married life our financial security, although provided by God ultimately, will be resting on my shoulders. My wife has no solid foundation to base trust on because although I have been effective as the business manager in our business, the actual work that has provided the income has been performed by her.

I had a time before we met when I was actually incapable of work because of what was – we now realise incorrectly – a diagnosis of severe depression. What is should have been is perhaps the realisation that I was in a job I was unsuited for, and the added stress I suffered when my father died of cancer broke me for a time. But the time should not have been as long as it was. Yes depression came over me, but they continued to diagnose depression when what I was experiencing was actually frustration.

How is this related to feminism?

I was emasculated by the system. My ability to find a job was compromised by doctors opinions of me. The only way to escape was to stop seeing the doctors. They don’t like you doing that in England – or they didn’t 15 years ago, anyway. I was threatened with involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital more than once. Eventually I just ignored them. I met my wife, and she helped me stop taking antidepressants – the best medical thing I’ve ever done – and clear my head again. Was I right again straight away? No. And I’m not ashamed to say it.

I began to study business management for a degree after moving to Cape Town. I studied part time and worked a full time job managing the business we were building. I completed the qualification, but feel I was duped a bit when I was given the only job with a company I have had here. My understanding was that it would be a short induction type position before I would be moved to the area I was qualified, experienced and trained for. 2 years on I resigned as it becam more clear that my age and gender would prevent me from advancing where I needed to go. Nothing was ever formally said to that effect, but watching who was promoted to the posts I applied for, and ther reasons and suggested solutions made it obvious. My favourite “solution” offered was to listen in on some Afrikaans calls to the centre to better understand the needs of the Afrikaans-speaking callers and visitors, despite it being common knowledge my ability to speak or comprehend the language at that level would make it a total waste of time!

So my ability to provide for my wife is compromised. I am unable here to be what I believe God calls me to be. It frustrates me. Annoys me even.

But it doesn’t deter me.

I will do what He calls me to do to return to a Biblical definition of the role I must play. I will do everything I can to love my wife a Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her. There’s a greater measure of submission in that role than there could ever be understood by non-believers.

Bibical masculinity releases the feminine in women by protecting her. Paul’s writings speak of men protecting and encouraging women not to oppress them, but to release them to what God called them to.

When Barak Obama encourages women to be placed on the front-line of military action, he undermines that which God placed as the Order of nature. Men are designed for War. Maybe the interpretation “Battles are ugly affairs” in the movie version of “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” is accurate – now even more than in the 1940s, but surely any sane man would therefore want to avoid warfare where women are taking the men’s place?

Another Barak insisted women go into the battle. In Judges 4, Barak insists Deborah go into battle with him, against her command as Prophetess and Judge of Israel. She advises him the Glory will not be his if she does, but he insists. As she predicted, the leader of their enemy is then slain, not by Barak himself, but by a woman. Barak misses out on what should have been his victory because he chose to arm a woman to fight in his stead.

Women do not belong in warfare, just as men have roles to play, women also have roles to play. There is no disgrace to stay home and care for families and those unable to go to war, but there is disgrace for a man to send a woman to protect him if he is capable of going himself.

I am now too old to be called up for service even if I could meet the physical requirements. It doesn’t mean I would want women to go in my place. I would rather go into battle as an old man than send my wife or daughter to fight.

I cannot give what a woman can give on the home front. As a man I am incapable of it. A woman can be a strong leader. She can be a formidable foe. But she should not be in battle in place of able men.

Lois and Eunice, Timothy’s mother and grandmother, were shrewd business women, and clearly women of some substance for whom Paul had a great deal of respect and admiration. Jesus counted women among His closest group, and the very first person to deliver the Good News of the resurrection was a woman. Women are designed for many roles, including leadership. There are roles designed for men as well.

The sooner we realise that, and understand the writing in the New Testament the way it was meant to be and in the context it was intended, the sooner we can release true feminism and masculinity back into the Church and release both men and women into the roles they were designed for.

Men need not fear women in authority. Women should not fear men either.

We are equal in God’s sight, but very, very different.

There are so many topics I have on my heart to write about at the moment that it has been hard to select one to begin with, but since I seem to be  encountering the current trend to bash fundamentalist beliefs at the moment I feel I need to address this one first.

I consider myself to be a fundamentalist.

Black and White – no shades of grey are in the Bible. Just a little sin makes one as guilty as genocide. There’s no such thing as a “white” lie. Lying is lying – parables and anecdotes are different, and I’ll come to that in a moment.

Moral absolutes are being eroded slowly but surely. This is part of the line in the sand we need to stand firm against that I mentioned in an earlier post. We need to understand what is meant by “fundamental” Christianity before we can operate in it.

I’m not taking about “gay bashing” or the right to marry or pro and anti abortion specifically or any of the other things that the media shows as “fundamental” Christianity. These things get blown out of proportion and misused by the enemy deliberately with the sole purpose of driving away people from Jesus as He is in the Scripture.

Do I believe Jesus would be opposed to abortion? Simply put, yes. He did, after all, knit us together in the womb. John the Baptist is said to have “leapt” before his birth when Elizabeth met Mary because he was already filled with the Holy Spirit. For me, that is enough – but I’m not about to exact retribution for a doctor performing an abortion on the victim of rape or child abuse who isn’t a Christian themselves. What I will advocate is education that abortion should never be used as a form of birth-control. If you don’t want a baby, either abstain or use contraceptives. For a Christian, this should be a simple matter. In the World, not so much.

Similarly, would Jesus endorse homosexuality? Again, a resounding “no” has to be the answer. The New Testament says Peter was told in a vision to kill and eat what under the Old Law was deemed unclean (including, presumably, shellfish such as shrimp – thankfully as I love lobster & other crustaceans). Nowhere does it say any of the believers were told to bend over and have at it.

What it says specifically is that we are not to judge the people. None of us is without sin in our lives, no matter how hard we try. And our personal actions will never be enough to eliminate the stain of Sin in us. But the Bible also makes it clear that the one Sin which is unforgivable by God is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. My understanding of this is that it refers specifically to rejecting Jesus and His sacrifice.

So I’m a fundamentalist, but not like these self-righteous and hate-filled people who condemn and judge others, measuring them by their own standards.

I don’t believe homosexuality and pornography are of God. Both destroy God’s definition of marriage. Both are inherently sinful, replacing Love in God’s definition filio and agape from the Greek with eros or erotic lusts. I know several non-celebrity people in long term relationships with members of the same gender, male and female, who have in a worldly sens more “stable” relationships than a lot of Christian couples. It doesn’t mean it’s right. It probably means the Christian couple has unresolved issues between the husband and wife.

I don’t believe HIV and AIDS are God’s “Judgement” on any particular group – another popular “fundamentalist” (as in the media description) belief. If God were to pour out Judgement accouding to the Bible, we’d all be incinerated – read Revelation, it’s quite explicit that the earth will be destroyed by fire when Jesus returns. Rather it’s something that has become apparent in the last 30 years or so in humans. Maybe it made a species jump. Cats get FIV (feline immuno virus) and it’s as deadly to them as HIV to a human. Could it have made the jump? I don’t know. Maybe. Ask a virologist. Could it be a weaponised virus created in a lab that got out of hand? Perhaps. Ask the Pentagon. In truth, we’ll not know in this world where it began -and it doesn’t matter. We could say the same of cancer, diabetes, hyper-lipidaemia and all the other chronic conditions that untreated will kill the human body.

But they aren’t judgement – simply put they are a result of modern lifestyle, chemicals in food, smoking, promiscuity and all the other “freedoms” that the West in particular, but the World in general has been steadily embracing and encouraging for almost 60 years.

Escalating violence, particulary for some bizarre reason in America, is also not judgement. It can be shown that since the Bible was taken out of schools in the USA and the “free-market” economy began to boom that shootings by youth in the States has increased. Per head of population there are probably fewer guns available now than 150 years ago, but violence increases each year. Maybe, just maybe, it’s because by the time a teenager is around 16 – which seems to be the age they start going out on killing sprees – they have seen over 200,000 acts of graphic violence without consequences, over 40,000 of these being murder, on television. Even more once you factor in movies. I have an extensive collection of films ranging from 1930’s musicals to modern “classics”. The most alarming trend is the increasing level of violence and the graphic nature of it. More than just this is the way things are classified. “Malone”, a movie I enjoyed immensely starring Burt Reynolds received a classification by the BBFC of 18 – suiable only for audiences over that age. The original “Terminator” movie in 1985 received the same certificate. “T2” received a 15 certificate, but the violence was more graphic that the prequel. It was just made later and opinion had devolved. So now younger audiences were exposed in the theatres and on videotape. Some of what os classified as PG12 now would have been 18 just a few years ago. The level of violence in “The Dark Knight”, whilst essential to the story in it’s setting, only merited a 15 certificate, but was by far the most gruesome I’ve seen in a long time with that certificate.

Now I do enjoy the movies I’ve mentioned here, but I’m (yikes) over 40 now and currently don’t have children around. Even so, I keep the violent films in my collection in a locked cabinet as my friends and family do have kids who watch movies when they come over sometimes. I have a large selection of what are more age-appropriate films for them on an open shelf. They can pick what they want from there.

How does this relate to fundamentalism?

Paul singles out sexual sin as more repugnant (but not less forgivable) than other sins because it includes joining Christ’s Spirit in us to the act. The act itself is not the issue, however. If the account of Sodom and Gomorrah is correctly understood, the reason God destroyed the cities was not homosexuality. It was the “reclassification” of homosexuality and paedophilia as “normal” behaviour. To protect the Angels Lot believed were men from the citizens of the city, Lot offered his own children who were too young to have been married off – probably therefore under 12 years old – to the townsfolk. Not because he didn’t care about his daughters, but because he refused to allow strangers under his care to be assaulted. I’m certain had the citizens accepted he would have been devastated, but it was a lesser evil to him.

Greed is no less of a sin than homosexuality or murder. It’s idolatry when you look at it in terms of God’s perspective. Coveting possessions over God. Making our own Golden Calf in the form of a bigger house, a new car, a better job or whatever the idol in our heart is. We worship Mammon daily, doing things that destroy our relationship with Him in the name of duty and honour, but missing the point entirely. We get up and go to work to earn money to pay off our credit cards so we can buy more things we don’t need but boost our standing with society and honestly believe we are “good” christians because we drop $10 in a collection plate each Sunday. We miss the point completely. Our “tithe” demostrates the average income to be around $400 per month. Unlikely unless we’re living in a third-world country (where it would put us in the top 10% of earners). Rather we live forgotten lives and pass judgement on people who don’t go to a specific congregation and almost die of boredom on a weekly basis for being less “christian”.

I don’t attend a weekly local church. By choice. But I regularly have Fellowship with other believers. Felloship is what Paul refers to when he says not to forsake the gathering of believers in his letters. Not synagogue – which he attended until they threw him out – but Fellowship. Iron sharpens iron, and meaningful intercourse (conversation in this context people) between believers keeps us sharp. Sitting in a pew on a Sunday for 2 hours no more makes us a Christian than sitting in a garage makes us a Ferrari.

The latest term is “Progressive Christianity”. It’s socially acceptable for now. There’s an interesting page on Facebook called Kissing Fish that I was introduced to by a friend a few weeks ago. While I don’t agree with everything it says, it’s closer to my understanding of true Fundamental Christianity than the media-branded “fundamentalists” outside abortion clinics, South Africa’s “Sexpo” events and the right-wing homophobic idiots spouting hatred with every breath. There’s no love at all in that. Judgement and condemnation by people with rocks in their hands unwilling to admit they can’t aim straight because of the planks in their eyes. They judge and hate and condemn and go home to their 3 bedroom houses where they live alone with 3 televisions and a six-figure income (seven in some cases) and condem the poor for being poor, the sick for being sick and everyone (probably including me) for not agreeing with them.

I dislike the term “progressive” as it imples moving beyond the black and white view of Sin in scripture. It’s more accurate to say “regressive” as it actually is seeking to put the context back to where Jesus had it. I don’t, as I said, believe esus would advocate homosexuality and the current “marriage”, but I don’t think He would condemn it the way people claiming to be His spokesmen do either. He hung out with tax-collector and sinners – probably homosexuals among them – and they welcomed Him. He didn’t condemn sinners for sinning – He encouraged them to stop. He was scathing and hard-line to the Pharisees who passed judgement freely, and He drove the dishonest scales out of the Temple twice in Righteous Anger – but in so doing He took the time to gently release the doves rather than smash their cages. He called the children to Him. These days I’m sure He would be subect to background checks, legal investigation and need certificates of suitability before He would be allowed to. And since he travelled and shared single-room lodgings with 12 other men He would probably have been deemed unsuitable.

So I’m a Fundamentalist. But don’t misrepresent me. I believe in a seven era creation – in which we currently live in the seventh stage – I have read that there is evidence to support all human life can be traced back genetically to a single female (and presumably a single male as well), so I have no problem with Adam and Eve. (Note: Eve, not Steve) I don’t believe homosexual behaviour is purely genetic. I’m descended from many red-heads, although there’s only a few flecks in my (thinning) hair, and I had a temper to match. My “genetic” predisposition to violent temper has been superceded by my choice not to act on it.

If we didn’t have a choice, God in the Old Testament would have been unjust when He Judged Israel for their Sin. Jesus would have been unnecessary because our behaviour would have been inescapable. Nature vs Nurture has been a debate for over 100 years. There are elemnts of both, but we always have a choice. And God was explicit when we were promised we would never be tested beyong our limits to bear.

So fundamentalism need to be redefined to what it used to be. The fundamentals of Christianity are the Divinity of Jesus, the need for His sacrifice. We cannot do it alone. Love our neighbour as ourselves, but first Love God – we can’t Love our neighbour until we do. Don’t put anything in our lives before Him. It’s hard. I love my wife, but I strive to Love God more than I do her, because Loving Him gives me what I need to Love her the way Jesus Loves the Church and gave Himself for her.

THAT’s Fundamentalism. We can assess fruit, and feel free to disagree with me. My wife and I believe much of the same things, but she refuses to label herself as a fundamentalist because of the way the term has been abused.

Please, let me know what you think. Just this once I won’t delete comments unless they are abusive to other commentators personally.

I’ve written a lot the last few weeks about battles and warfare. This is partly because of what I’m going through personally, and partly because of what I’ve been reading (Beautiful Outlaw, Wild at Heart, Six Hours One Friday)

Something hit me as I was thumbing through the Gospels recently though. I was looking at Luke, and his account of the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.

“For (during) forty days in the wilderness (desert), where He was tempted (<sup class="footnote" value="[a]”>tried, tested exceedingly) by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they were completed, He was hungry.” (Luke 4:2 Amplified)

Jesus was tempted. We read it and it often just runs off our conscious mind. Tempted.

Jesus was tempted.

I’ve been meditating on that thought for a while before I wrote this. I learned how to hearwhat God wanted me to say when I first left home. I had an old camping gas stove with an oven that had 2 temperatures: on and off. Full power or nothing. It made cooking experimental, but I learned that if I was cooking in the oven I had to just go and check to see if it was ready yet. I heard another minister, Andrew Wommack, use a similar analogy some years ago to my great relief. Sometimes we need to just sit with the concept God puts in our heart until it matures and is “ready” to be shared.

Tempted.

We read the passage almost flippantly. Jesus fasts for forty days, then He’s hungry.

Hang on a moment – hungry?

Satan challenges Him to turn stones to bread if He is who He claims to be. Temptation. A few years ago I did my longest fast – 10 days. On the 11th day I ate. And ate. Thankfully for the horses in Buckfastleigh, none of them ventured into my home.

Jesus went 40 days without food, and was hungry.

Tempted. When we read the passage it’s easy to only see the God in Jesus. We don’t see His physical pain of hunger. We don’t see the struggle He experienced. We don’t see the decision process. All we see is the outcome. He counters with the Word.

Satan shows Him the kingdoms of the world and offers them to Him in exchange for worship. Jesus had come to claim the kingdoms of the world. Here they are offered to Him. No crucifixion. No torture. No death. All He has to do to avoid it is bow to Satan. He knows the torment He will endure. He knows the suffering He will go through. He’s offered a short-cut that would avoid it.

He declines.

Again, Jesus was tempted.

I’m no good with temptation. One more mince pie. Just another chocolate. Once it was even marijuana.

I caved. Gave in to the peer pressure and temptation.

Regretted it instantly. Struggled with it for ages, and repented. I had that option. I had the choice because of Jesus. Because Jesus resisted His temptation, my repentance is accepted.

But…

Jesus is the true Hero.

The modern movies all show the hero as some kind of indestructible and unstoppable force. Nothing can break him down or prevent him from reaching his goal. But the ones based on the good books of the past, Lord of the Rings, the Narnia movies. Going back a few years, most of John Wayne’s cowboy roles in his later movies had the same element: The hero could fail. It was a real possibility.

The hero was human. He struggles with temptation and you don’t know if he’ll succeed. Clint Eastwood captured it in “Unforgiven” as William Munney struggles to not revert to the murderous man with not conscience he had been in his youth, ultimately losing the struggle when his friend is killed.

What if Jesus had responded that way when He was told about John’s execution? What if when the thief’s taunting to prove He was who He claimed had been accepted and Jesus had come down from the Cross? Beaten, tortured, His flesh torn from His back. The temptation to come down must have been real. In Gethsemane the stress caused his sweat to fall like blood. I wrote earlier this month that Jesus was so tormented by the thought of what was to come that it would be easy to see the temptation of suicide in His cry of His soul being troubled unto death in His cry to His Father. I’ve been to the point of suicide, and He was what brought me back. His ability to overcome the temptation gave me the strength to recover – the fourth time when I actually let Him.

Jesus the Man is my Hero. God in Him completely, but as human – more human than we are. Human as Adam was before the Fall. Adam succombed to temptation. Jesus redeemed us by resisting.

The Hero of the Battle.

I had an interesting on line conversation with an atheist recently. He was spouting all the typical “scientific” answers to the miracles and creation and how through history science has been steadily disproving the Bible.

Utter nonsense, of course.

Much of what science is “discovering” today can actually be seen in scripture. Take the Ark of the Covenant. A large box, covered in gold – a highly effective conductor and storer of static electricity – which had to be carried on two long wooden poles and not touched. When it began to fall, one of the Israelites reached out to steady it and was struck down and died. Science can say it was a static discharge. Either way, the man died because the instruction to carry the ark on wooden poles was not used, and it was transported on an ox cart (1 Chronicles 9)

But the best thing I’ve found is this:

I’ve looked up all the scriptures quoted in this image. If you consider the “scientific” terms of the day they were written, every one is accurate according to “modern” and “scientific” proof. The same proof that also gave us the centre column until science caught up with scripture.

As Christians we tend towards turning the other cheek because Jesus said it. We lean towards meekness because Jesus said it. But our understanding has changed, and we also need to catch up.

The same One who said “Turn the other cheek” sat down, braided a whip and started a stampede in the Temple when the money-changers were defiling the house of God. Being meek and humble has nothing to do with being pathetic and submissive.

Meekness and Humility are God’s way of saying “Be who I made you to be – nothing more and nothing less” The phrase isn’t explicitly in scripture that way, but in the Pentateuch Moses is described as the most humble man in the world. FYI, Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Humility is accepting who God says you are. It’s demonstrated in the lives of Joseph, David, Josiah, all the prophets. In modern times you see it in men of God like Billy Graham who seek to only point to God, not to gather glory to themselves. The evidence is what is seen in their lives. The more men give Glory to God, the more God tends to Bless them. And many who are raised to high positions by God and receive material possessions are criticised by men who don’t know the full story. I met a man some years ago who ran a ministry to help the underprivileged in his city. He was personally a multi-millionaire, but his income was only 10% of what he received. He put the other 90% into the work God called him to.

How different would our lives look if we did the same? I was touched and honoured by talking to this man as his humility was truly awe-inspiring. He worked tirelessly and personally giving out the food and arranging shelter for the homeless. He preferred to be on the front-line of the battle and employed managers to oversee the financial affairs of the work to enable him to do what God called him to.

His reasoning was simple: David sinned with Bathsheba because he became so successful he employed other men to do what he was called to – lead in battle. David was at home in his palace when it was the season for kings to go out to war. The story is in 2 Samuel 11. He stayed home, saw Bathsheba bathing, got her pregnant, recalled her husband from the battle then sent him back and had him killed so he could marry Bathsheba and cover his adultery. This minister didn’t want to be tempted to destroywhat God called him to by sitting home counting the books.

I’ve seen promising ministries fall and men of God walk away not just from their Ordained Vision, but from God as well because they got so focussed on the job they lost sight of the reason. They stopped having Fellowship with believers because they didn’t have time: they had to finish the project they were doing. Magazines, recording studios, writers (including myself for many years) who quit their Love for the work, and as a result the work and the Love went sour. Mercifully, God seems to love to give us another chance, and I’ve seen nearly as many ministries restored as fail, and I hope I can keep going this time myself.

I’m a man who is easily distracted. The “experts” label it ADD – Attention Deficit Disorder – and recommend therapy for me to “overcome” the “disability”.

I prefer to think of myself not as disabled (I’m not), but as susceptible to temptation. If a doctor wants to call it ADD, let him. Man’s labels rarely affect how I see myself. What I do recognise is when I’m not around my Fellowship – and there’s a BIG difference between a true Fellowship and a local church (not that they can’t be the same – don’t misunderstand this) – I am more easily distracted than when I am accountable and encouraged by God’s people round me.

We all have Spiritual ADD to some extent. Satan attacks us. We get distracted and go off on a tangent. I imagine some readers think I’m off on one now!

But this Spiritual ADD has been around since before King David. What do you think was the spirit behind David staying in Jerusalem? Just because science has given it a 21st century label doesn’t make it a “new” problem.

Moses saw it with the former slaves. He climbs a mountain for a few days to talk to God and when he comes down the people have started worshipping a cow made of gold! Spiritual ADD! We need to keep our eyes on Jesus as the author and perfecter of our faith. Or we end up like Peter – sinking fast.

So let the world do it’s thing. They’ll catch up eventually with where God is. Remind ourselves that the Renaissance “scientists” who discovered what much of today’s theories are based on were doing it to find out more about God and how His creation worked. Remember they were concerned (mostly) that they may be being misled by Satan and so they balanced their science with intense study of the scripture as well as the sculpture. Had he not known and understood the Bible, could Michelangelo have painted the Sistine Chapel or carved the stature of David? Could Da Vinci have depicted the subtleties of the Last Supper? It’s doubtful that a work simply “commissioned” would have captured such details. Michelangelo’s fresco of the day of judgement even includes an image of the artist himself being tested.

So science, and atheists will catch up eventually.

Until they do, we just need to remind ourselves that we were given the answers millenia ago.

And let them play catchup at their own pace.

I recently mentioned Jesus was dropped into a world at war.

But there’s something I left out in that post, and I left it out deliberately.

I don’t know the original artist, but the song “From a Distance” I find beautiful. I know Cliff Richard’s version. The phrase that sticks is “from a distance you look like my friend even though we are at war”

When I visited the War museums in the Somme and Ypres as a young teenager and I saw the graves of boys the same age I was, just 13 and 14 years old, who had been killed in the battles. It was a sobering experience.

In with the photos was a section around Christmas 1914.

The men came out of the trenches – against orders – and walked into no man’s land between the trenches. Armed only with cigarettes, family photos and a soccer ball they spent the day talking, swapping stories and playing together in an unofficial ceasefire.

At the end of the day they swapped cigarettes, helmets, addresses and memories and returned to their trenches. The following day they began killing one another again.

For one day they turned their backs on the petty politics of the aristocracy that had caused the conflict and resumed their lives as men. Before the orders were resumed, humanity reigned for just one day.

In his time on Robben Island, Nelson Mandela grew a few plants to give himself a measure of control and remind himself that nothing stays the same. Viktor Frankl made choices internally whilst in a Nazi concentration camp that gave him a truer freedom than the guards who held them.

Jesus held to His vision, us, and endured the Cross. The Cross is the point of the Battles for Christmas. It’s message through the ages prompting extraordinary actions by the ones courageous enough to follow through. He will guide us in our walk, but we may need to break man’s rules to do so. Sometimes it will mean taking a soccer ball into a war zone and remembering your opposing combatants are men, just like we are. Sometimes it will mean nurturing a single flower in an otherwise barren and hostile environment. Sometimes it will mean reaching far beyond these subtlties and, like Jesus, being prepared to lay down our very lives in His Name.

So our warfare is not only at Christmas, but this time of year we get a chance to remind ourselves what it’s really about.

It’s not a tree. Or turkey. Or mistletoe.

It’s about remembering.

That’s our biggest battle.

We need to remember the “Why” of the manger. We must remember the message of the Angels.

And most of all, we must remember we did nothing that made us worthy of saving.

It was all His idea.

And THAT is the biggest battle in our minds.

Christmas is a battlefield.

Actually, it’s a rememberance of a battlefield. It’s a celebration of God Himself parachuting behind enemy lines and waging a war from the second of His conception to the crucifixion and beyond to the Glory of the Resurrection.

We lose sight of it so easily. We have a sanitised picture thanks to the renaissance artists of an unsoiled saviour in a clean hay bed gurgling contentedly and reassuringly to the nervous adults surrounding him.

Anyone who has read any of my writing will realise I’m deliberately not using capitals to refer to the infant Jesus in this description. I’m doing it for a reason. The Saviour I worship and have given my life to was a real human  baby. I’ve been around cows and stables a few times in my life. Even the clean hay isn’t clean the way it is in the paintings. “The cattle are lowing”. Lowing is noisy, rude and deafening. Bellowing would be a good description. Lowing cows are not sanitised.

The stable was not cleansed and sanitised. In South Africa there are kraals for cattle in the villages. They are not clean or quiet. Stables are smelly. Even after they’ve been mucked out the smell of animals and manure lingers for a long time.

And Jesus landed there.

Then there’s the other things to consider. Kings, sages, wise men or whatever you want to refer to them as came to visit Jesus. They first go to Herod, expecting a King to be in a palace. They eventually find the young child possibly as much as 2 years after His birth. They worship Him and offer their gifts. If they were sorcerors from the day then maybe that sheds a little more light on their gifts. Gold, Frankinsense and Myrrh were traditional ingredients in spells. Maybe they were doing more than giving Jesus a gift. Maybe they recognised something here worth surrendering their lives to.

Worship was followed by genocide though. Jealousy tore into Herod and he had all male children under two years old slaughtered. Think of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” or the sight Oskar Schindler witnesses in “Schindler’s List” as he sees the bodies of hundreds of innocents dropped into mass graves or burned in the furnaces of Auschwitz. Pharoah’s assault actually had nothing on Herod’s. Pharoah was evil, yes. But he wasn’t trying to eliminate one specific child. To murder an entire generation to try to eliminate just one baby boy takes a special kind of evil.

The battlefield is an ugly place.

As a teenager I visited the battlefields of the Somme Valley in France from a century ago. In the museums there are photographs of men wounded in the battles. Limbs ripped off, bodies disfigured and mangled in death. But the most disturbing images that made the deepest impact on me were the ones of the men who survived the initial injury but who knew they would die of their wounds. Men with their lower jaw missing, unable to eat or drink, the wounds cauterised by the blast so blood-loss was minimal. They died of thirst or hunger, and they knew it would happen.

The difference between them and us is they knew they were dying. There was no doubt for them. The battlefield was littered with their friends and adversaries, and they knew they would not live much longer.

We have no idea how badly we are inured much of the time. And more than that, we don’t even acknowledge the fight. Like some spiritual incarnation of the black knight from Monty Python’s “Holy Grail” movie we blunder on, seemingly oblivious to the damage done to us by the enemy.

And so the Battle for Christmas rages on. The enemy has done immense damage to the concept in the last hundred years, and it was so insidious that most of us didn’t even notice. The rosy-cheeked image of “Father Christmas” and the excesses of food, wine and gluttony along with self-serving outbursts associated with the season are more in line with Bacchus than Jesus, and the intolerance we demonstrate in shopping malls is the antithesis of Christ’s message. Yet if a Christian dares to say something we are derided and called kill-joys or worse. If we point out that the point of the Manger is the Cross people look at us like we’re crazy.

But we need to return to the heart of Christmas. Since “Xmas” was initially using the Greek letter at the start of the Greek for Christ, and later an actual cross used for the sake of the illiterate masses I have no problem with shortening the word. Holiday is a condensed version of “Holy-Day”, and again I see nothing wrong with it’s use, but the commercialisation is ludicrous.

Two years ago I wrote to the largest supermarket chain in South Africa with a complaint. They had begun putting their Christmas decorations up and playing Christmas misuc in their stores in mid October. After some backwards and forwards emails I had to finally resort to pointing out they would never dare to do the same for Ramadan, Eid, Yom Kippur or any other religions holiday from another belief system, and why should this be any different. Only then was I given an apology and the music and decorations removed for another six weeks. A minor battle, perhaps, but one I feel was essential.

The onslaught continues against Christian messages. We have “Season’s Greetings” to avoid offense, but posters celebrating every other religion.

The Church needs to rise up and take back the ground. It’s not too late.

And it’s something we desperately need to do to remind ourselves through the mire of consumerism the Jesus came into a war, to fight for us, and to give us the power to fight back.