This is how the question came in.

If the bible is the word of God delivered through man why did God need to go into such detail in the following extract from the bible?

“Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours whose members were like those of donkeys and whose emissions was like that of stallions.”
[Ezekiel 23:20]

This could be a tough question, but it is also a great one, and certainly ranks on the list of “absolute gifts”. This is a question that is not asked often enough, and should certainly be asked by Christians pretty much every time they open their bible.  Unfortunately, such passages are sometimes ignored, on grounds that they really can’t be that wholesome or edifying.

At root, this is a problem that Christianity has had from the beginning and was identified by Jesus himself: ‘John came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say “He has a demon” The son of man comes eating and drinking and you say “look, a glutton and a drunkard”’ (Lk 7:33-34). In the same way, when looking at the bible, people often complain that God is “gentle, meek and mild”, and write Christianity off because it does not connect to the gritty reality of today. But when you point out where the bible really rolls up its sleeves and shows some passion, they blush and wish it was censored. The point is that Jesus was right: both He and John showed aspects of the Kingdom of God, and to appreciate that Kingdom’s fullness, both He and John had to be considered. Equally, far from shying away from the explicit passages of the bible, these show an important aspect of God’s character, that should be considered as much as passages such as “let the little children come to me” (Lk 18:16).

So given that the bible is the word of God, why did He go into so much detail? This is the question that is not asked often enough, for at root this question asks “What is God like?”

First, look at who God is talking about (and, indeed, to). He is addressing Israel. And in Ezk 23 God lays out in plain language what His grievance is: “In you one man commits a detestable offense with his neighbour’s wife, another shamefully defiles his daughter-in-law, and another violates his sister, his own father’s daughter. In you, men accept bribes to shed blood; you take excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbours by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD.” (In fact, it continues for 30 verses, but you get the idea.) God simply lays out that there are certain things he will not accept: just because the neighbouring tribes sacrifice their children, it does not mean Israel should; just because neighbouring tribes kill and rape and plunder and screw each other over, it does not mean that Israel should. This is the visceral, base, balls-to-bone context into which God speaks.

Now throughout the bible, there is the picture of God as a husband, and Israel (and later the church) as a wife. And at this point in Israel’s history, Israel is not the best of wives. In the allegory of Ezk 24, God portrays Himself as the husband who loved his wives, and gave them the very best. Israel (and Samaria) by contrast threw it back in his face. “Samaria engaged in prostitution while she was still mine; and she lusted after her lovers, the Assyrians-warriors.” (v5) “Israel saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister.” (v11). This is the introduction to the quote in question. So let us suggest a bible passage God might inspire:

“It has been brought to my attention that my ‘wives’ have not fully complied with my wishes, which I clearly outlined through earlier prophets (but which, for the sake of decency I shall not enumerate here). I should be much obliged if you would desist from such practices.”

Now come on! If my spouse caught me playing away and did anything less than hit the roof, I would start to wonder if I was really that important to her. A God that leaves a politely worded note is clearly a God who is not that interested anyway. If God was an old man sitting on a cloud with a long beard, and he sometimes looked at what humans did, then he would write a nice polite note. And atheists often think that this is what God is like; maybe because they never see the less-politely worded parts of the bible.

But thank God, God is a god who loves us! One who is not distant, but rather intimate; who wants to be our Lover. Who cares deeply for our well-being, and who is upset deeply when we screw ourselves over. This is a God who sees our actions and screams with all the might in his lungs “But I LOVE you! I gave you it all! And you went after him just because he has a big chariot and an even bigger DICK!?” There are times when reserve is not appropriate, and when God addressed Israel here, this was one such time.  To sanitise the base quality of God’s metaphor is to lose an important aspect of the depth of feeling behind God’s message.

So finally, if God is portrayed in Ch 23 as the spurned lover, the question “why did he say this?” cannot be fully answered without reading the rest of the book. We have seen he was upset, but why, and to what end?

The opening vision in Ezekiel (Ch 4-32) God addresses the people’s rebellion against Himself. It was big and bold and explicit: it was personal, and aimed to shock and to shame. But it was not an end in itself. In chapter 36 God apparently performs an abrupt turn, and His tone changes once again to the lover who encourages and restores. “I will make a covenant of peace with them. I will establish them… I will dwell with them; indeed, I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (37:26-27). The earlier judgement then serves as the necessary foundation on which God builds His blessing.

God loved Israel, and wanted to restore them. As long as Israel held the image of a cute cuddly God, who didn’t really mind when they ignored and insulted Him, there was nothing he could do to help them. The details of Ezk 23:20 are deliberately blunt, to make Israel realise that God is not uninterested in them, but rather cares passionately for them. Moreover, he knows their failings thoroughly, and still He loves them. Only once He has got this through to them can He bring them out of the mess that they have got themselves into, and restore them to the fullness of relationship with him.

This is what God is like, and this is why He goes into detail.

Response by Michael Brownnutt

Can you be a Christian?

Before tackling the whole question, the first thing that needs to be asked here is: “Can you be a Christian?” or maybe more specifically: “What makes you a Christian?”

An instructive example is that of the first ever Christian. The thief on the cross (Lk 23) had not attended Bible School. He had never had a “warm fuzzy feeling” about his religion. He never gave money to the poor. Indeed, he managed none of the things that generally seem to be required of “real Christians.” And yet he was the first ever Christian into heaven. What made him a Christian? He simply believed that Jesus’ death sentence – “This is the King of the Jews” – really was true. Critical to this thief was not what he knew, but whom he knew. This is not a one-off event, but a general biblical truth, for this is why Paul writes: “I know whom [not what] I have believed.” (2 Tim 1:12). Jesus himself explicitly states: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (Jn 17:3).

This may come as a surprise, (there is a comments box below if you think it’s heresy) but “knowing stuff” is really not that foundational to Christianity. It most probably never crossed Paul’s mind that he should write: “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, him crucified, and the correct interpretation of variability within the genome.” (Not 1 Cor 2:2). Christianity is very different from understanding and being able to agree with – or disagree with – a certain scientific theory. This truth flows simply from what it means to be a Christian.

Now let us think through this, because this is huge. I have friends who firmly believe that God created the world in exactly 6 days, and on the sixth day, he created a man called Adam, and then a woman called Eve from his rib. I have other friends who firmly hold that a really powerful God would never need 6 days if he could make the universe in 10^-43 seconds, and then that man turned up about 14 billion years later. Now at least one of these friends is factually in error. The question is: can they both be Christians?

Well, by the definition given above, Yes, they can.

Life when you are wrong

But if one friend is in error, should I then spend my life correcting one or the other for his factual inaccuracy? I suggest (maybe quite boldly) that in the modern West, Paul’s instruction to “accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (Rom 14:1) applies to exactly such a topic. (If you have a moment, read through Rom 14, and think on it in such a context.) To clarify, I am not recommending that we can adopt an “anything goes” type of Christianity (for Paul also adds the closing caution that “Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” (Rom 14:22)). Rather, I am saying that we should not get so uptight in defending our own pet theory, which we hold so dearly – be it creationism, 6-day evolution, or eating meat and cheese – that we forget that we “must not look down on him who does not, for God has accepted him” (Rom 14:3). My brother’s salvation does not lie in his correct understanding of certain facts. And if he is wrong in certain disputable matters, it is “to his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Rom 14:4).

Principle and practice

So far I have suggested that it is in principle possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution; there is no a priori theological reason why people cannot hold a certain view on the mechanisms of creation, and none the less “receive Him, believe in His name, and have the right to become children of God” (Jn 1:12). Moreover, I say that you do not have to agree with his view of the creative mechanism; you can both be Christians and love one another.

It may be helpful, now, to go one step further and point out that it is not only possible in principle, but that in practice there are many eminent biologists who are Christians, and who accept evolution. Francis Collins, for example, is the scientist who headed up the Human Genome Project. He recently wrote a book entitled “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” in which he clearly outlines the interplay between his day job and his Christianity. For further examples, scientists with a wide range of Christian views – many of whom actively address the issues raised by their research into evolutionary biology and their faith – can be contacted through networks such as Christians in Science (cis.org.uk).

God’s shoes

A final point that should be raised is to look at an ambiguity in the related and often-asked question: “How could God create the universe in 6 days?”

The first question that needs to be asked here is: “Does the person asking believe in God?” If not, then the second half of the question could be anything: “How could God really love me?”, “How could God perform miracles”, “How could God tie his shoelaces?” If I answer this question by talking about shoelaces, I have missed the point: A God that does not exist cannot tie His shoelaces, because a God that does not exist cannot do anything. Before I can talk about shoelaces, I must therefore talk about God. Only once the existence of God is accepted does the second half of the question become interesting. There are times – a very few times – when concerns over the minutiae of creation theory are a genuine stumbling block to people. But often it can be more instructive to know “Do you know whom you have believed?” Lift your eyes from the creation to the creator, who is worthy to receive glory and honour and power. Only then, once you know the only true God, is it interesting to discuss disputable matters.

 Written by Michael Brownnutt

 There’s a fundamental difference between church attendance and faith in Jesus Christ.  One is an activity: the other is a faith, a relationship, a world-view.  I think anyone would agree that “what we do” comes from “who we are” and not the other way around.  A fish is not a fish BECAUSE it’s in the water, it’s in the water because it IS a fish. 

So what then is the church?  And why is there a perception that a person MUST go to church in order to be called a Christian? 

There is no support for that mandate in the Bible.  The Bible clearly states that Christianity is realized by faith in Jesus Christ as Redeemer and Lord.  No activity or behaviour – including regular attendance at church – marks a person as a Christian.  We have to turn to the Handbook of Christianity (the Bible) to find the role of the church. 

First, the Church is the People of God.  The building and the organizational structure of the local church are not the essence of the church….the people are.  Many times in the New Testament, the leaders of the movement that sprung up after the resurrection of Jesus referred to the people who followed the teaching of Christ in a particular city or region as the “Church of Ephesus” or the “Church at Rome”.  They simply meant the believers in that city. In fact, a few references tell us that we (individually and corporately) ARE the temple in which God, by his Spirit, lives. Whilst they continued to meet together for encouragement and teaching in a physical location, they themselves were the church. 

Secondly, the Church is the Family of God.  A family is based on relationship, not attendance at breakfast or the performance of chores.  There’s a bond, even when all physical ties are broken. 

Third, the Church is referred to symbolically as both the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ.  In the first instance, Jesus is called the groom awaiting the day he and his beautiful bride can be together forever.  In the same way, there’s a joining to our Lord in the picture of believers as the body, with Jesus as the Head. 

With these “pictures” in mind, it is easy to see why Christians throughout history have continued to meet together for fellowship, for encouragement, and for learning the ways of God and the word of God.  It is the idea of a like-minded group unanimously contributing their time, talents and resources to the benefit of each other and the enrichment of their local community.  You may not see this in action, but that is the Biblical model for Church.  There are no forced attendance rules or behavioural stipulations.  We do what we do out of relationship to our God and to our “family”. 

One of the main academic commentators on communitarianism (and author of The Political Philosophy of New Labour, published Dec. 2005) is a Christian by the name of Dr Matt Beech.  He affirms the Bible’s teaching that humans are individuals, created for community by God, who made us for relationships. So we have responsibilities for one another because everything is God’s – including one another.

The final mandate Jesus himself left to his disciples was to “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel, making disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that I have taught you.”  If you want to know what Christianity focuses on in terms of behaviour, you need to study the teachings of Jesus.  Further, the followers of Jesus wrote letters of encouragement to believers throughout the region with guidelines for governing bodies of believers in particular localities.  Across the board, what is said is integral to Jesus’ own teachings, and is primarily relational, with a few practical tips: “Don’t overlook the poor and widows.” 

This Sunday, you will find multitudes in a church.  Some are Christians; others are not.  Being in church is not what makes a person a Christian. 

Let’s say at once that just about every mainstream historian and theologan shoots holes in this argument.

There are many claims that Christianity echoes older faith stories.That it is, in fact, based on myth. If you are interested you can read up on these claims. But let’s have a go at a simple answer.

1. No Roman or Greek myth spoke of the literal incarnation of a monotheistic God into human form, by way of a virgin birth, followed by his death and physical resurrection. The Greeks believed in reinacarnation into a different body. Christians beleive in something quite different. we believe that Christ was resurrected into the same body made immortal. The Greeks never believed in one God.
2. C.S. Lewis points out the incredible reality of The Bible. It doesn’t read like a myth and is populated with real people and real events.
3. The New Testament is packed with eyewittnesses to the events.

Some commentators would have us believe that our faith is a private matter and doesn’t belong in the political or real world. But surely this doesn’t hold water. Why should people without faith have a monopoly on discussing and implementing their motivations?

No, Christians care about the unfairness in the world. Indeed the Bible frequently describes how God is heartbroken and outraged by injustice. We are called to be in the world and impact this world for the better – we are bringers of salt and light.

But this perhaps only answers half of this complex question. How do we have the most impact on an unjust world where poverty and unfairness seem to predominate. I suppose we could say this isn’t really an either/or matter. It isn’t that we have to choose between spiritual and political means. Christians are in politics they care about the world and so they can have a major political influence.

But what does the most lasting good? Is it politics or the spiritual? We might say that all political dynasties and ideologies have come and gone. None have stood the real test of time – even democracy and capitalism. We trust that God is at work in the world – that he cares passionately about it and that our prayers will be, and are, answered.

I would argue that you cannot change the injustice of the world through politics (or charity) alone. Unfortunately politcs gets tainted by people, as does charity. But with our spiritual renewal we become changed from the inside out and perhaps it is only when huuman hearts and minds are changed that we will really see an end to injustice.

Let’s not pretent that this will be anything other than a long term project – but God’s plan is to renew the world and to renew us.

Why is it so many of us feel we have a destiny of some kind? Some psychologists would argue that we feel this becuase our parents give us too much of a sense of being special and infect us with an unhelpful sense of our own destiny. I don’t buy this at all. Perhaps we have a sense of destiny because we do have a destiny.

Christians have a very particular understanding of this question.

We believe that God has plans for each of us. he knows us and wants the best for us. However we do have free will. We are always free to reject God and go our own way or accept God. In this sense we do control our own fate. We choose. C.S. Lewis said that in the end there are only two types of people those who say to God “thy will be done” and those who say to Him “my will be done.”

We have a radical view of our freedom. God is no tyrant.  But we also beleive that god knew us before we were born and has a plan available for us.

This question is based on certain assumptions. It assumes that religion, or we might say faith in God and the promises of God, is based on nothin that can proved. It assumes that faith is something like believing in a fairy tale. Religion is what we might want to be true, but has no basis in fact. Indeed it alleges that religion comes in a different category of truth (and a lower one) than Science. Science, the questioner argues, is the only way to really understand the world.

But, as ever, we need to gently ask is this true?

The question is actually based on a misunderstanding of the Christian understanding of the word “faith”. Christians understand the word faith not to mean just an unquestioning belief in a set of assertions or statements. Faith in God has three parts. We believe God is real. We believe God has made promises to us. And we have faith becuase we have experienced those promises being met and have experienced the presence of God. For us faith is much more than jut agreeing to a set of propositions.

 Second, is it true that we have blind faith – a very insulting way of putting it – and is it true that Science has all the answers – something Richard Dawkins claims? We can make a strong case that you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. In this case faith in God can never be truly blind.

I’d also say that while Science is amgnificent branch of knowledge, it cannot explain everything. Science is bad at answering some very basic questions – why are we here? what is love and beauty? Scientific knowledge is never “the truth”. It is always the best available truth based on what we know at the moment. It is always provisonal truth.  So to somehow claim that Science has a monopoly on truth seems at least a little rash. Science is a way we understand things – but it is far less blacka and white than many laypeople think.

We beleieve that our faith is the light that lights our path – it isn’t jumping into the dark. We are called to worhip God with our hearts and our minds and many brilliant scholars have come to the conclusion that Jesus is the way.

We can all visualise this scenario:  a band of pre-adolescent boys, smirking from their treehouse platform at a dejected, pony-tailed girl, pointing at their homemade sign – “No Girls Allowed”.   What’s a girl to do?  Her problem is not that she can’t run, climb, or throw pebbles with the best of them….she just IS wrong for the elite club.  She’s not a boy. 

Christianity, like all major religions, offers hope of eternal life in a place called heaven.  Other offers require us to become “human-DOings” – subscribing to a complex system of rules and regulations – in order to access the heaven of that religion.  Christianity is the only religion that extends the invitation to remain a human-BEing.  But its occupants have to BE Christian.  In order to understand the heaven of Christianity, you must rightly understand the unique process of becoming a Christian. 

God, who created the world and heaven, also constructed a legal requirement by which admission into heaven is granted.  That is, simply, perfection; or to use a more spiritual/religious word: holiness.  When someone states that they have lived a “good” life or that they are a “good” person, they usually don’t mean to say they are “perfect” or “holy”. 

So what was holy God to do?  There’s a world full of people, created with the freewill to choose to do good or evil, who have never measured up to that standard. It’s not just that we DO bad, it’s that we can’t BE 100% perfect.  He owns the treehouse and we are all on the outside.  But rather than exclude humanity, he chose to reconcile – bring back into relationship – mankind to himself and make available again the eternity he wants to share with us.  The act of sending his son, Jesus, to live a perfect life and take the penalty for our sin was the only way to re-create us to BE acceptable as citizens of heaven.  In effect, we have been taken out of our genetic family of sinful mankind and given a new gene pool that comes from God.  The Bible clearly states that we are added to God’s family ONLY by the undeserved favour of God, through faith in Jesus Christ and his payment of the penalty for our imperfection. 

Whilst other religions, and indeed the world system we experience on a day-to-day basis, offer performance-based acceptance, Christianity says you perform out of a new position of acceptance.  Of course Christianity outlines a way of living that is moral, ethical, and honouring to God.  Out of love and worship, Christians act accordingly – though still not perfectly.  But behaviour does not transform a person.  Even the most altruistic, charitable, kind-hearted person can only reform, perform or conform on their own.  It requires the miracle of transformation to access heaven. 

Our merciful, loving God looks on the heart of each man (woman, child) and knows in his wisdom if a person has undergone that transformation.  “Man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart.”

“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy ^[a]them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.”

This does come as something of a shock to modern readers doesn’t it.

However we do need to see the picture in the round and understand the historical time in which this was written. The Old Testament records the struggles and history of the Jewish people, The surrounding groups and tribes were a genuine threat to Jewish identity and nationhood. This in itself doesn’t justify war, but it explains at least something of the warlike times.

We need to move beyond this and understand something of the nature of God. God abhors evil and wickedness. The Bible is clear that part of the message is the punishment of evil. God found the evil civilizations intolerable and had them wiped off the face of the earth because evil is like a cancer that spreads. Evil had spread into every area of life – the sacrificing of children, male and female prostitution in the Temple and the worhip of idols. God acted becuase of the danger of this evil infecting his people.

But there is another huge piece of the story – God’s extrordinary grace and forgiveness as shown through the resue mission of Jesus Christ. God does not blink at sin and walk away. He is determined to deal with it and so he burst into the human situation with a huge promise of hope, forgiveness and reconciliation.

It is the same God throughout the Bible, and although we may find the idea of justice hard to accept, accept it we must. Jesus took on all the sins and wickedness of the world so we need not be punished. We call this grace and it must be seen as part of the same loving God that shines throughout the Bible.

This is a question with quite a history. The basic accusation is that God is for people who cannot cope with the toughness of life. 

It was the line very much taken by both Freud and Marx. Freud felt that we created God because we needed a father figure. Marx memorably called religion the opiate of the people. Others have taken up this batton. Modern thinkers have tended to paint the world as a remorseless and hopeless place – we are alone and we’d better get used to it.

Interesting this same accusation – that religion is good if you need it to make you feel better, but actually it’s untrue – came up on a TV programme on BBC 2 (Am I Normal?).

But is God really just for people who can’t face the truth of life? Is it true? There a few ways of looking at this?

We could argue that atheism can sometimes act as the great opiate – the great crutch for people who can’t face the glory and personal consequences of there being a God. If we take the position that there is no God, no judgement, no right and wrong, then we are free to do as we please. This can be a convenient crutch for those who want to evade responsibility. I would contend that atheism is the real crutch.

This isn’t to say that athesists are incapable of good acts and living a peaceful and considerate life. It is just that atheism can be a way of evading being held to account. I would also contend that athesim can have a problem with really being clear about right and wrong. Where do we get our sense of right and wrong? Who decides? Is right just what is right for the greatest number? It is at least worth considering that the source of our moral knowledge is God. It is very hard to operate under a consistent sense of right and wrong without a trustworthy and moral, moral law-giver.

Second if we were going to create a divine being to prop us up would we create the Christian God. C.S. Lewis characterised God as a lion. Lions bite. Lions create a sense of awe. We are a little bit afraid of lions. The Christian God is passionate and demanding.  He is bigger and more beautiful than we can imagine. He is love. He holds us to account. He knows what we are thinking and doing. He calls us to pick up our cross and follow Him.

Is this the domesticated deity we would create to smooth us through life? I think not. Interestingly, Freud seemed to have some kind of apprehension of this. It is reported that, once, at a dinner party the name of Jesus was mentioned and freud had a huge panic attack. perhaps he realised too that our God is not a simple tranquiliser to get us through a messy life.

Then there is the question of whether Christians are weak? No they are no. Christians are dispensing love and aid in warzones. Throughout history Christians have been inthe tough places dispensing the medicine of God’s love.

But there is another way altogether of answering this question. Do we need God becuase we are weak? I would answer yes. We are weak. Everyone is. Perhaps we need to understand our weakness and let go of the pride that says we can do everything on our own.

We can also tackle the issue of wish-fulfillment head on. Just becuase we wish for something does it mean that it can’t be true? We wish for sustinence and there is food. We wish for companionship and there are friends/other people. In fact all our major wishes are catered for. So why not a wish for a loving God and a heavenly home to return?