­

What Would You Like to Know

Bible exposition

Book Review: Christianity Explored 2026

Written by: Wayne Schuller

ChristianityExploredChristianity Explored 2026
New Edition
Reviewed by Wayne Schuller

The long-awaited revised edition of Christianity Explored was launched in the UK last Easter. The video material has been completely re-recorded, with Rico Tice joined by two other presenters: Emma Scrivener and Efrem Buckle. I invited my Bible study group of about a dozen people to form the core group of our course. We printed up the advertising postcards and regularly promoted over 6 weeks including over the Easter weekend. We also gave away copies of Mark’s gospel over Easter as a part of our promotion. I find that when you put out a sign up sheet in the church entrance many weeks in advance, everyone reads it and excitement builds as people add their names. I ran one training night with my Bible study members, then we began the course in the second week of the school term. In hindsight I was underprepared and we were not ready for the large number of people that signed up, but we prayed and adapted to our God doing more than we ask or imagine.

Those familiar with the old edition of CE will recognise some familiar themes throughout the course. It remains a model of expository evangelism, working through Mark’s Gospel and drawing out the triple themes of identity (“Who is Jesus?”), mission (“What did Jesus come to do?”), and discipleship (“What does Jesus call us to do?”).

However, the structure and questions of the course have been modified in a way that is more accessible and welcoming for the unchurched. The final session, “Life With Jesus,” is an inspiring wrap-up featuring a diverse range of video testimonies from Christians. The beauty and glory of Jesus abounds in this course!

The video content includes delightful animations presenting a parable or section of Mark, as well as engaging discussions on Mark’s Gospel between the presenters. The Christianity Explored website has made the course content and participant’s handbook available as PDFs, which we printed each week. This will be easier once published handbooks are available in Australia. There is also a dedicated Windows and Mac app for streaming the videos, or they can be played directly from the leader’s portal on the Christianity Explored website. Each week contains two separate videos, allowing for two distinct discussions.

One new innovation is the Christianity Explored smartphone app. This allows participants to read through Mark’s Gospel during the week, rewatch the course videos, and access extra content. The notifications in the app are carefully paced and genuinely helpful, and many of our participants used the app during the week.

We have just completed the course at Berwick Anglican Church, with 40 to 50 people involved across five groups. We had lively discussions, and two people prayed the salvation prayer at the end of the course, while many others prayed it as a recommitment of their dependence on Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Visitors found the discussion questions engaging and interesting.

Last year our parish had already run the three week Hope Explored course, which was a great way to build confidence for the longer seven week Christianity Explored. For committed believers, the course doubles as excellent evangelism training, modelling the simple but powerful practice of reading Mark’s Gospel with another person. I also found it a valuable training ground for newer believers learning how to do inductive Bible study. Running this course was a highlight for our parish in 2026. Highly recommended!

Rev Wayne Schuller is Associate Minister, Berwick Anglican Church and former Director of Hope 25.

Bible Study - Entrust the Gospel. 2 TIm 1:1-18

Written by: Russ Smidt

Entrust the Gospel: Paul, Timothy, and the Relational Shape of Ministry Training

2 TIMOTHY 1:1-18

When we hear ‘entrust the gospel,’ we often turn to 2 Timothy 2:2: ‘the things you have heard me say … entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.’ But that charge grows out of the foundation laid in 2 Timothy 1. This opening chapter is not first a ministry strategy, recruitment plan, or training manual. It is a window into a relationship. Paul writes as apostle, father in the faith, fellow sufferer, praying pastor, and gospel herald. In this relationship we glimpse how a pastor-trainer relates to a ministry apprentice.

Paul addresses Timothy as ‘my dear son’ (v2). Timothy is more than student, ministry assistant, protégé, or successor. He is beloved family. This does not dial-down Paul’s authority or turn the relationship sentimental. Paul’s affection for Timothy is not embarrassing, manipulative, or optional. This love belongs to faithful ministry. Formative training relationships are personal and prayerful expressions of Christlike love.

Ministry training can slide into task management and supervision. In reality, an apprentice does fill gaps, lead programs, write talks, run rosters, and help keep the ministry balls in the air. But Paul’s first word to Timothy is not ‘worker,’ ‘delegate,’ or ‘resource.’ It is ‘son.’ A pastor-trainer sees the person before the productivity. Training is more than ministry output. It is the formation of a person for a lifetime of service in Christ’s kingdom.

Paul’s affectionate posture takes shape in prayer: ‘I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day’ (v3). This relationship is not maintained simply by meetings, plans, supervision, job descriptions, or shared ministry history. Paul trains Timothy by speaking to him, and by speaking to God about him. We can plan, teach, coach, correct, model, and encourage; but we cannot manufacture what only God can form. We entrust people to God even as we entrust the gospel to people.

Paul remembers Timothy’s tears and longs to see him, ‘so that I may be filled with joy’ (v4). Here is a pastor-trainer with heart. Paul is not detached, clinical, or merely strategic. His joy is tied to Timothy’s heart and their gospel partnership. We ought be wary of a professional distance in ministry training that looks safe but is actually too narrow for biblical ministry.

Paul recognises that he is not the first pastor-trainer in Timothy’s ministry journey. He recalls Timothy’s ‘sincere faith,’ first alive in his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice (v5). God was already at work in Timothy before Paul took him along in ministry. A wise pastor-trainer pays attention to the story God is already writing. We are not simply replacing ourselves, filling roles, or increasing activity. We are participating in God’s ongoing work as the gospel is entrusted, embodied, guarded, and passed on through people and across generations.

So Paul says, ‘fan into flame the gift of God’ (v6). He recognises what God has set alight in Timothy and wants it aerated, strengthened, and brought to flame. Trainers nurture beginning competencies, strengthen developing conviction, and call ministry apprentices forward in character growth.

This encouragement is not naïve to the reality of ministry formation. Paul immediately speaks of self-discipline, shame, and suffering (vv7-8). ‘Join with me in suffering for the gospel,’ he writes. The pastor-trainer does not protect the ministry apprentice from the ordinary cost of gospel ministry, nor throw them into hardship alone. Paul says, in effect, ‘Come with me.’ Training is modelling before directing. Paul embodies the courage he commends.

This gives shape to a healthy training relationship: Christlike love sustaining the high demands of ministry. Paul’s affection does not reduce his expectations; his expectations do not cancel his affection. He calls Timothy to courage because God ‘has saved us and called us to a holy life’ (v9). Ministry endurance rests not in personality, gifting, institutional loyalty, or sheer need, but in the grace of God revealed in Christ Jesus, who ‘destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel’ (v10).

Paul then says something surprising: ‘I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day’ (v12). We often think of Paul urging Timothy to guard the gospel, and he does this in verses 13-14. But first Paul entrusts himself, his suffering, his ministry, and this gospel mission to God. The gospel is not ultimately safe because we are impressive guardians. It is safe because God guards what is his.

Only then does Paul charge Timothy: ‘What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us’ (vv13-14). This is Paul’s ministry manual in concentrated form: sound teaching, faith, love, guarding, and the Spirit’s help. The trainer is important, but the trainer is not the ultimate Helper-Advocate. The Spirit enables faithful guarding and courageous ministry.

The chapter closes with contrast. Some desert Paul, including Phygelus and Hermogenes (v15). Onesiphorus refreshes him, is not ashamed of his chains, searches hard for him, and helps him (vv16-18). Gospel partnership is more than a carefully worded contract. It is refreshing, searching, unashamed, and practically helpful. Timothy is being shown not only what to believe, but what kind of people gospel ministry forms.

So what does 2 Timothy 1 show us about pastor-trainers and ministry apprentices? Entrusting the gospel is relational before it is programmatic. Ministry training is an extension of God’s prior work in a person’s life. Healthy formation involves affection, prayer, shared life, courage, and costly example. The aim is not merely a competent ministry doer, but a faithful gospel person who will pass on the training they have received to others. All of this rests on God’s own guarding grace.

Before Timothy becomes a gospel-entruster, he is shaped by a grandmother, nurtured by a mother, loved by a fatherly pastor-trainer, strengthened by the Spirit, and entrusted with the gospel of Christ. Ministry multiplication does not begin with a curriculum, though good curriculum can serve it. It begins with faithful relationships under God. May we orient our prayers and affection toward pastor-trainers who are committed to ministry apprentices. And may pastors, trainers, mentors, and ministry leaders recover this long horizon: not merely filling today’s gaps, but entrusting the gospel with love, courage, and hope, so others may guard it, live it, teach it, and entrust it again.

Rev Russ Smidt works with the Ministry Training Strategy (MTS) which seeks to win the world for Christ by multiplying gospel workers through ministry apprenticeships. As Head of Training & Partnerships, Russ leads the raising up, training and resourcing of healthy gospel ministry trainers. To get help with becoming a trainer or establishing apprenticeships in your ministry: mts.com.au

Bible Study Gen 1

Written by: Bill Dumbrell

BillDumbrellThe order of Genesis 1 justifies the assertion of Isa 45:18 that the purpose of creating the world was so that it might be inhabited. Only in v. 26 does God begin to speak in the first person. Clearly the purpose of creation had been reached. In so doing he uses the word ‘us’ or ‘our’ three times and ‘let us make’, ‘as our image’, ‘in our likeness’. Like the other stages, the creation takes place in communication with other members of the Trinity (cf. 1:2, John 1:1-3). Human beings do not have the image of God since God has no image but are as the image of God. Thus, the text does not say anything about God’s likeness to the human being but only something about the human being who is in a relation of likeness to God. However, this analogy does not offer to us any concrete information about God.

In v.26 the quite distinctive ‘let us make man in our image' (Gen. 1:26), suggests the uniqueness of humankind as a species. The plural address ‘let us’ has been variously interpreted within the OT complex as a piece of fossilised myth - an address to the heavenly council, a royal plural, or an indication (cf. the Spirit in 1:2) of plurality in the Godhead. Christian expositors have tended to see it as an address to the Trinity. Such address does not fit the general Old Testament evidence but does the canon as a whole. In any case the singular unity of the divine being is reasserted by the singular of Gen 1:27.

The addition of the phrase ‘in our likeness’ in Gen 1: 26 seems designed to exclude any notion of an exact copy contained in ‘image’ while seeking to convey the idea of some resemblance either in nature or more likely, in function. The connotation of the term ‘image’ is thus weakened by the addition of ‘likeness’ probably in the interests of avoiding the potentially idolatrous idea of an unqualified ‘in our image’.

The Hebrew term tselem ‘image’, always in the Old Testament, as well as beyond it, conveys the note of visibility. Basically the Akkadian cognate tsalmu refers to a statue in the round and to a representation rather than to a model or a copy. However, even though the emphasis in the term ‘image’ is on externality, we need to remember that humanity in the Old Testament is always a psychic unity. Thus the word refers to the whole of humankind viewed in terms of a representative function in the world.

Man as a species, humanity, is on view. While ‘image’, therefore cannot be narrowly understood as rationality, intuitiveness, personal awareness etc., but if the term refers to the whole human being it must include such things. We should preserve the translation ‘in our image’ but note the implications of the ‘in’. If the ‘let us make man’ of v. 26 is a heavenly self-address by the Trinitarian God then the ‘our image’ which, in some sense humankind is to reflect and in which he is made, is in heaven and possessed by the Godhead alone. As made ‘in’ the image, mankind will thus be simply an image of the heavenly image, a representative of what is divine. Since Col 1:15-20 speaks of the eternal sonship of Christ as being the pre-existent image of God, some hint is thereby given as to the real character of the image on view here. Given the nature of man as described in the Old Testament, ‘image’ in 1:26 refers to the whole person, but with the major emphasis falling upon relational function. In both Egypt and Mesopotamia in the ancient world the notion of mankind as the image of the deity was well known. In Egypt, the Pharaoh of the day was regarded as the image of the creator god Re, and as the incarnation of Re. In Mesopotamia the term image was commonly used to refer to the statue of a god or king, but when used in priestly or royal designations, the human representative on view was presented as the possessor of the power and authority of the god.

The exact phrase ‘in the image of God’, occurs only again in the OT at Gen. 9:6 in an important account which indicates God will continue with his intention of Genesis 1 and 2 so that post-flood humanity will commence again in the new beginning of the relationship with God but with a different future possible than that of Gen 6:1-17 before them. The similar phrase at Gen. 5:3 indicates that being in the image of God is a representative function of a paternal relationship transmitted by procreation.

Original sin will thus be the continuance (by spiritual connection) of the transmitted ability for humanity to refuse, as Adam had done, obedience to the divine will made clear in successive covenants, all drawing upon the basic premises of Genesis 1-2.

As made ‘in’ the image, humankind individually (5:1-3; 9:5-6) will be simply an image of the heavenly image, a representative of what is divine. Additionally, Gen. 1:26c is to be translated as a purpose clause ‘in order that they may have dominion’. Gen. 1:27a,b recapitulates Gen. 1:26 but Gen. 1:27c with the return to the plural and the addition of biological terms for male and female anticipates and signifies the ‘male and female he created them’. On this view, gender distinctions would form no part of the image. The sexual distinctions referred to in 1:27c are not a component of what is meant by creation in the image, while unlike the animal species humanity is not instructed to reproduce after ‘its kind’. Verse 27b may be more than simply a repetition of verse 27a and may anticipate the blessing conferred in verse 28. ‘Image’ thus appears to confer kingly distinction on humanity as a whole with humanity in a special relationship to God then being differentiated by the gender terms. Mesopotamian analogies to which we could appeal indicate that the king as an image of the deity was conceived of as a servant of the gods, and the phrase referred to his royal function as having a mandate from the gods to rule and thus as one possessing divine power. In Psalm 8:5 with clear reference to Genesis 1, humankind is depicted in kingship terms (cf. Pss 29:1 4; 90:16; 104:1; 111:3; 145:5; Job 40:10). The allusion in Psalm 8:6 to all things being put under the feet of created man is to an ancient Near Eastern symbol of submission to authority (cf. Josh 10:24; 1 Kings 5:3; Ps 110:1). Finally, ‘have dominion’ in Gen 1:28 has reference elsewhere in the Old Testament to the exercise of kingly functions (cf. 1 Kings 4:24; Ps. 72:8; 110:2; Isa.14:6; Ezek. 34:4). The notion of image as referring to royal authority is attested in both Mesopotamia and Egypt.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 thus climaxes in his presentation as vice-regent set over creation. The account stresses the essential dignity of the image, and authority, which is not lost as a result of the fall (9:6). As an expression of their difference man is created to be rulers in their domain and, in view of their role in the garden in chapter 2, to be priests, kings and priests. The human rule over creation, will include that over all living creatures, fish, birds and land animals, with no reference however to wild animals, is thus clear from the later meditation of Psalm 8 as well as from the language of Genesis 1:26-28 (‘have dominion’ and ‘subdue’). If the Fall robbed human beings of this function, we would expect the biblical doctrine of redemption partially to restore it. The presentation of Jesus in the New Testament both as the image of God and as true man points to what individuals in Christ will become.

With ‘image’ human beings have something in their nature like God and then the question arises as to what is this something, a physical correspondence or a spiritual likeness? Some suggest that the likeness is functional, that human beings rule. However, it seems to be incorrect to separate essence from function for what becomes is humanity as a whole, a relational being. The human being both is and becomes the image. But passages such as Gen 5:3 and Exod 25:40 show that image is the work of God of creation. Man is so made that he resembles the divine image. Thus image refers not to visible likeness but to the mental and spiritual qualities man shares with his creator. It is hard to pin down what these are; reason, personality, free will, self-consciousness or intelligence? There are too few references to image in OT to make final judgements.

However it seems image is not a double or a derivative and is different in kind from the original. Humankind created as the image is understood to have a mandate from God to rule and hence possesses divine power but is not itself divine. Humanity is yet the creature and yet has rule over other creatures. Verse 27b by its description of male and female man finds a location among the creatures, which prepares for the blessing of v. 28. This statement, though it is one which is assumed for all other creatures, must be inserted because of the image theology which has preceded and thus, though exalted over creation, it needs to be understood that humankind are still creatures. While also unlike God but like the other creatures humankind is characterised by sexual differentiation.

Dr. Wiliam Dumbrell (excerpt from an unpublished manuscript in the Editor’s possession)

Bill Dumbrell (1926-2016) was on the faculty of Moore College from 1963-1984, including serving as Vice-Principal for 10 years. He also taught at Regent College Vancouver and Trinity College Singapore.

Bible Study:No Marriage in Heaven: Luke 20:27-38

Written by: Stephen Hale

At present we’re all incredibly conscious of the importance of upholding the Bible’s teaching on marriage as between a man and a woman. In the midst of this on-going struggle, I was struck recently when reading again Jesus’ teaching in Luke 20:34 and 35 that ‘there is no marriage in heaven’.

The context is the Sadducees coming to Jesus with a loaded question. ‘Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.’ (27) The Sadducees know exactly what they’re doing. They are simply attempting to bait Jesus with a classic “what if” question!

So, Jesus - Moses wrote for us about how to handle a situation if a married man dies without producing children. The wife is to remarry one of her brothers-in-law in order to have a child. But, what if this happened, and a woman remarried brothers and never had any children with them, who would she be married to in the resurrection? (28-33)

The Sadducees refer to an old Mosaic law that had hardly ever been enacted. It’s a trick question because they didn’t believe in the resurrection. There is also a pastoral dimension to it. Who will carry on the family name?

Jesus, as was his wont, didn’t engage with the question. He goes straight to the heart of the matter. And, what a surprising response it is.

Jesus replied,‘the people of this age marry and are given in marriage.But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection’. (34-36)

As Jesus puts it, people in this age are involved in marriage. As we know it is still one of the great moments of most peoples’ lives.

But, and it is a big but, in the age to come there will be ‘neither marriage nor being given in marriage!’ What is going on here? Isn’t the life to come a sort of never-ending extended family get together?

He goes on to say, ‘and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.’

Jesus here is giving us a unique insight into the life to come. As Christians we do indeed believe in life after life. If we are God’s children, then we are children of the resurrection. Just as Jesus died and rose again, we believe we will die physically and after death we will be raised again physically. Life after life starts today with Christ and continues on into eternity. Our physical death is but a stepping-stone into a whole new future. To reinforce this point he refers to the patriarch Moses.

But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”.He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.’ (37-38)

What can we learn from this fascinating dialogue?

We see that Jesus believed in and taught of a forthcoming physical resurrection. We see that he believed that in the life to come there will be continuity with this life. We will be recognisably ourselves. Yet there will be discontinuity. At present we live by faith and not by sight.

In the life to come we will be with Jesus face to face.

At present we pray and read the Scriptures and in this way we believe we commune with him – we talk with him and he speaks to us.

In the life to come he will speak directly and we will respond in praise and wonder.

More specifically we can see from Jesus’ teaching here that marriage is a gift from God given for human flourishing. It is given for mutual companionship but also for human reproduction. It is for the good ordering of human community.

Yet we also see that it will be unnecessary in the life to come. In that future and eternal life we will experience human community as a part of God’s renewed people dwelling on God’s renewed planet. All of the things that currently divide us will be overcome - racial tension, hatred, hostility, war, rage and malice. We won’t be defined by our sexuality, and we will enjoy true intimacy one with book reviews another. Young and old, men and women and those who are uncertain. The rich and poor and the seemingly significant and seemingly insignificant. The rage and anger that is so much a characteristic of our age will be no more. The tension within the church over issues related to marriage and sexuality will also be no more!

Does this somehow dishonour and diminish marriage in our current lives? I think not. As it says in the Prayer Book, marriage between a man and a woman is to be honoured by all and no one should enter into it lightly or selfishly, but responsibly and joyfully, with mutual respect and the promise to be faithful. At the same time, it also means that we don’t build our entire world around our marriages. We commit to and invest in it, but we also need to keep it in perspective. Friendship with others is vital for a healthy marriage. Christian worship and service should be key features of family life. Christian community should be an important commitment. Churches should model the life to come by being places where people of any background are welcome. Single people shouldn’t ever be viewed as second-class citizens but should find rich friendship and love in the context of Christian community. None of this can be assumed and requires generous hearts.

This is an amazing vision of true human community. So how can we ensure we are a part of it – both today and in the future?

Jesus put it this way – ‘those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead’ (v.35)

How can we be considered worthy?

Surely, none of us are worthy. Especially, of the age to come, of the resurrection from the dead. Every time we share in Holy Communion we acknowledge our unworthiness. We reach out hands to receive bread and wine. In this way we remind ourselves, personally and collectively, that it is only through trusting Jesus that we can enjoy new life today and the hope of a glorious future in his eternal kingdom. Jesus himself deems us worthy of taking part in the age to come, worthy of the resurrection from the dead!

Our ongoing challenge is to help as many people as possible to discover how to be worthy.

Bishop Stephen Hale is Acting General Secretary of EFAC Global.

How to not be anxious, in an anxious age?

Written by: Stephen Hale

StephenHaleHow to not be anxious, in an anxious age?

STEPHEN HALE

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. Philippians 4:6

We’re all familiar with St Paul’s wonderful words in Philippians 4. Yet we all know the challenge of them becoming a reality for us. There is so much to be anxious about. In fact, the statistics on the rise of mental health challenges in a place like Australia are striking. As I understand it these are consistent with the numbers in other western nations.

The Australian Bureau Statistics reports that in 2024 • 1 in 5 adults will experience mental health problems throughout a year

Adventus for the Rest of Us

Written by: Christopher Porte

 I must admit that I am somewhat of a fall tragic. Note I said fall, not autumn. That’s right I mean the northern hemisphere idea of autumn leaves falling as the days get shorter and shorter, and as gaudy Christmas lights get hoisted up street lamps, and in America at least pumpkin spice seems to be everywhere. Living in Australia each year we end up with a strange sort of dissonance, as so many of the cultural practices—and most of the cultural kitsch—that we have are derived from the Northern Hemisphere environment.

Perhaps it’s some sort of a tragic sentimentalism for something that I didn’t grow up with and yet somehow culturally is such a part of what we do at Christmas. Because a lot of the time it can be hard to differentiate the things that we do at Christmas which I found in the gospel in the Bible in our Christmas narratives from those which happen in and around Christmas. Indeed there are a whole bunch of secular Memes that come out at this time of year claiming regularly that all of the Christmas traditions are just adaptations of Saturnalia or some other form of Roman or pagan festival. So I thought perhaps as we consider that first Noel maybe it’s time for us to do a bit of myth busting.

In and amongst our Christmas celebrations it isn’t hard to find elements of the Advent narrative which have been adopted into our broader societal celebrations. Our practice of decorating houses with gaudy Christmas lights—and increasingly audio-visual extravaganzas—can remind us of the light coming into our world (John 1:9), and also the heavenly choir announcing this good news to shepherds outside Bethlehem (Luke 2:8-15). Similarly, each year we pop bon-bons to extract paper hats—of only the finest (read: thinnest) tissue paper—and wear them while telling terrible jokes and sharing in cheap toys or puzzles. Recently I was reminded that this tradition is apparently uniquely English, as an American friend struggled to understand its relationship to Christmas. However, even here we can see some vague resemblances to the biblical narrative: especially with intertextual engagement with kings bringing gifts, shepherds sharing in joy, and Mary treasuring these things in her heart (Luke 2:19).

Some things are a bit more head scratching, such as the oddities in our hymnody around this time. As the father of children I can guarantee that the idea of having a small child “Pah-rum-pah-rum-pum!”-ing to a newborn is not high on my list of ways to settle a baby. In a similar vein Away in a Manger pictures Jesus as a peaceful baby, without any crying at all. Indeed, a picture which would seem to remove much of Jesus’ humanity from the picture. If our picture of a baby Jesus never cries then one must wonder how much humanity that Jesus really shares (c.f. Heb2:14).

However, while some of these Christmas elements are more of head scratchers, some of them—as with Away in a Manger—can cause us to stop and ponder the reality of the Christmas story; and similarly some in a pernicious vein. If Away in a Manger questions the full humanity of Jesus, then we should consider other carols such as Mary Did You Know? Which—infamously—asks if Mary knew that “your baby boy is Lord of all creation” who would “one day rule the nations” as “heaven’s perfect Lamb”? Of course the answer to each of which is “Yes. Mary did know” for she was told by Gabriel and subsequently sang her own song about it (Luke 1). Although, even more subtly pernicious here is the perpetuation of ignoring the testimony of women.

Or perhaps the swathe of nativity scenes and children’s bibles which depict the holy family alone in a barn alongside a menagerie of farmyard animals, often including pigs. Apart from the implausibility of porcine presence within a Jewish community—fostering a continued separation of Jesus from his Jewishness—the notion of the holy family being ostracised to a barn is highly improbable. As Kenneth Bailey and Stephen Carlson have demonstrated, the birth most likely took place in the main room of a family house, as Luke records the guest room (kataluma; 2:7) did not have enough space for the birth to take place. While there is an understandable desire to harmonise Luke’s birth narrative account with the theology of the Johannine prologue (John 1:11), the reality of Jesus’ birth actually serves to underscore the sheer degree to which he was brought into our human existence and reality.

What then do we do with these Christmas cultural artefacts? Should they be simply ignored, left to pile up by the wayside, or rejected as further proof of cultural depravity—as some seem to view the presence of red cups at Starbucks constituting a “War on Christmas.” Certainly for some of these interpretations I think an argument could, and perhaps should, be made for their discarding. However, at a broader level our cultural environment gives us a plethora of opportunities to return to the gospel narrative, of which I want to briefly highlight three—in good sermonic tradition.

 

First, these sort of engagements often display our cultural misunderstanding of the Christmas story. As we have seen, through the dissonance we feel when we see the odd co-option of Jesus’ birth, or elements of our culture which oddly parallel the biblical narrative, we can see the ways that our faith stands at odds with society. In addition, by highlighting aspects of the Christmas story separate to Jesus it actually gives us a great opportunity to reintroduce the biblical narrative to our cultural appropriations. As with my friend struggling to see the relevance of Christmas bon-bons and tissue paper hats, we are given the chance to demonstrate how these seemingly common items reflect the great gift given to us in the kingly Christ. True, some of these misappropriations or misunderstandings—such as the farmyard birth narrative—should probably be consigned to the dustbin. But even there these give us an opportunity to elaborate on the hope we have in Christ, and His coming as a full embodiment of our humanity. In short the dissonance between the biblical narrative and our cultural appropriations can be an opportunity to engage our broader world with the gospel.

Second, this engagement should drive us back to the actual Christmas narrative. One of the great blessings at this time of year is to be able to read the advent and nativity narratives within a context of our culture celebrating the themes—if not the content—of that narrative. In response to Mary Did You Know, we can read the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and hear Mary’s own words about the extended mercies of God and the fulfilling of his promises. When we see an inflatable nativity scene at the local hardware store we can read of the announcement to the shepherds on that hillside outside Bethlehem, and the great company of angels praising God and singing “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rests.” (Luke 2:14). The Christmas narratives found in our gospels should be our resonant sounding board throughout this season. Where instead of fearing the Whammageddon! of Last Christmas, we should gleefully remember the inauguration of the First Nowell.

Finally, however, reading and declaring the biblical narratives in counterpoint to our cultural narratives should also leave us with a sense of unease, for what is inaugurated has not yet been completed. As we read of God’s mercies to his servant Israel (Luke 1:54), and the guiding of feet in the way of peace (1:79), or the declaration of the Year of the Lord in Isaiah 61, we should have a constant reminder that all is not yet completed. While the inauguration of the end has begun, the final fulfilment often still feels a way off. Indeed, this is even more stark given the glitz and glam of this time of year. Even as our culture ratchets up the “joy” factor, deep down we often know that something is not quite right. Just as the wise men were warned of impending doom that first Epiphany, so too our own senses should indicate that all is not complete yet. This should lift our eyes and hearts towards the day when all will finally be put to rights, where the songs of Elizabeth, Mary, and Zechariah all come to their full fruition.

Christopher Porter is the Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at Trinity College Theological School (UD) and a priest in the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne. Apart from being a sentimental Advent tragic, he has been involved in church planting, passionate about training people for ministry and is interested in the intersection of culture, fictional worlds, and theology.

Page 1 of 11

­
Joomla! Templates by RSJoomla!