Bakery Run #15 – Bread Garden

Pie Buddy: Oliver Tweeddale

Topic: Evangelism

The topic of evangelism had come up in one or two of my previous discussions, so I figured it was something worth chatting about. I decided that Oli was the man, given that it was a topic quite close to his heart. The venue of choice was Bread Garden, a Korean bakery on North-East Road at Glynde. Bread Garden definitely has a very authentic Asian feel to it, with the furniture, plants, music and choice of food. All of these things are very different to what you would expect in a typical Australian bakery. “This’d be a good place to come for a date I reckon,” Oli said.

 Instead of pies, this place has Japanese chicken korokes. They look vaguely similar to pies, but taste quite different. I don’t really know how you’d explain what it is – imagine a bread roll sliced in half, with a chicken curry paste smeared in the middle, and then the whole thing is deep fried. It tasted pretty good, although very different (much less meaty) to a regular pie. I also smashed down a big green tea flavoured cake, which turned out to be delicious as well. All in all a very different meal to what I was expecting, but a good feed nonetheless. And all for just $6 – definitely value for money at this joint! I’d definitely recommend Bread Garden to anyone looking for a unique bakery experience, although if you’re just hankering for a meat pie and a custard tart then this definitely isn’t the place.

With our food on the table, Oli and I got down to business. I knew that evangelism was on Oli’s mind, so I didn’t waste any time with small talk. “What is it that’s spurred you on? Why is it such a big thing for you?”

Oli thought for a second. “I grew up in a Christian household, so I knew what the Bible was about and what a good Christian looked like, because I had good Christian parents,” he replied. “But until last year, when I really took on faith, I never really thought about evangelism. I knew God loved everyone and he wanted everyone to be Christian, but I didn’t really understand how becoming Christian affects the way you act around other people.”

He then reflected on one of the big difficulties he had faced since choosing to follow Jesus. “When I became a Christian, I found it hard working out why God has chosen me, why he called me to become a Christian, and why other people weren’t called by God.” He reflected on Paul’s letter to the Romans, where Paul is filled with sorrow for non believers:

I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit – I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption of sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)

“When I became a Christian,” he continued, “there was a really sad time when I was coming to terms with not everyone knowing Jesus.” He discussed this concern with pastors at his church and listened to sermons on the topic, concluding that Christians should indeed feel anguish for those who don’t know Jesus. “I’ve got a better balance now between thankfulness and anguish for people who don’t know Jesus. I do really feel compassion for those people, and that drives me to want to tell them.” Recognising his calling from God is something that drives Oli every day.

“So how did that play out in your life?” I asked. “How did you respond once you started to think those things?”

“Basically all my friends are non Christian. I was just really excited to tell people that I’d changed. Something had happened in my life. I thought it was the best thing ever, and I still do. So I guess I just started telling people around me that I’d become a Christian. I told my parents, and they had been praying for me for ages, so they were really excited. I got some different reactions from other people. So it started with my friends who weren’t Christian.”

I knew he had started getting involved in doing walk-up evangelism (that is, approaching random people and talking to them about Christianity). “And then it got on to walk-up stuff? How did that come about?”

“After a while I thought to myself ‘you’ve only got so many friends’,” Oli replied. “I certainly wouldn’t say I’ve evangelised fully to any of my friends, because I think that takes place throughout a relationship. But there were only so many people I could talk to. I read a bit about old evangelists and what they did.” Oli then referred to a group he had read about, known as the Cambridge Seven, who dedicated their lives to evangelism – this included doing public sermons at university that attracted thousands, and establishing prayer groups. They ended up serving as overseas missionaries. “Evangelism seems to be mostly relational in Australia, and I think that’s really good. But I’d never really heard about this formal way, walking up to people and telling them straight up.” The pastor who gave Oli the book had talked about how he did walk-up evangelism during his time at uni, just walking up to people and chatting to them about Jesus. It made an impression on Oli.

“I thought to myself ‘I really want to do that’. The idea was really nerve-wracking, but the more I read the New Testament, I couldn’t see a reason not to try it.”

“How’s it all going so far?” I asked.

“It’s been good,” Oli replied. “Me and another guy at uni started a group where we do an hour of walk-up evangelism a week, and it’s been really good. It’s hard to get people to come along though. I think people are a bit scared, which I can totally understand, I was scared too. It’s a scary thing.”

“Does that disappoint you a bit, that more people don’t get involved?” I asked.

“Yeah, it’s a bit disappointing. But I do know it is really nerve-wracking. And I know God doesn’t require me to create an army of evangelists. He works in many ways, some of which I see in front of me, some of which I can’t. So I don’t want to let that disappointment change my opinion of why I’m doing this.”

Oli then considered the pluses and minuses of walk-up evangelism. “A lot of people say walk-up evangelism isn’t good, for a variety of reasons. They say you can’t build up a good relationship with someone, so how can you tell someone about Jesus if you don’t know them, which I can totally understand. Also, there are a lot of people that do front-up evangelism with the wrong point of view from Scripture, so I guess in a way that’s tainted the early evangelists like the apostles. It’s pretty sad, because they were the ones who did this thing, which we have in Scripture. But then people have taken the Bible and misinterpreted it. The Bible does give evidence about why this is a good thing to do.”

Oli continued, focusing on how walk-up evangelism could have a positive impact on relational evangelism. “To me it’s been really good just to work out how to explain Jesus to someone. There will be a time in your life when you meet someone and they ask you why you go to church, or who Jesus is, or what Christianity is. And you may only have five minutes to explain it. Walk-up evangelism is a really good tool to be able to explain your faith concisely and effectively. It’s really good just for relational evangelism. It helps you to back up what you’re saying, using memorised verses for example, to be able to create an argument. The confidence that you get from that, you might be able to go back to the people that you’ve known for ages and work out a way with some of the objections they have to come at it from another angle.”

“And I guess it works both ways,” I said. “The more you talk to your friends about it, the more that will equip you for walk-up stuff. The more you’re talking about it and engaging with people, the more you’ll improve at the walk-up and relational sides of it.”

“Yeah, definitely.”

I was interested to hear the impact that this was having. “How’s it been going so far?”

“It’s been really good,” Oli replied. “I reckon we’ve had about four weeks of doing it, and each time I’ve talked to maybe two or three people. There’s no real limit or quota that you need to reach, there’s no pressure. I’m currently reading the Bible with two guys that I met, which is awesome, seeing the fruits of the labour. I can tell them about Jesus using my own words, but what I’d much prefer is to tell them about Jesus using the gospel. So that’s been really good being able to read the Bible with these guys that I randomly met at uni. And I know other people have had similar stories. I’ve heard people say that people just don’t relate to that sort of thing anymore. I don’t reckon that’s true at all. When I’ve talked to people, heaps of people have been willing to chat and willing to listen to me explain the gospel to them. And also, some people are even willing to meet up and talk about it further.”

“I suppose the fear of rejection is a big thing for people thinking about doing this,” I suggested. “No one’s scared of getting physically hurt or anything, it’s more just the fear of looking bad, getting ostracised a bit. I know I’ve had times where I’ve been thrown into walk-up evangelism, and it’s difficult. It’s something that intimidates people. Listening to you though, you seem to get it. You get what it means to know Jesus and what it means to not know Jesus. There’s no sense of embarrassment, no shame of the gospel. You realise it’s not you they’d be rejecting, it’s Jesus.”

“Yeah, that’s so true,” said Oli. “And I’d say before I became a Christian, I cared heaps about what other people thought about me. I really wanted to be successful with sport, uni and that sort of thing. God’s been really gracious to me to call me and to show me that it only matters what he thinks. He’ll be with me in any conversation or situation. I don’t need to be eloquent or have some amazing comeback to their questions, so long as I have the heart to want to tell them about Jesus, that’s all he requires.”

“I think everyone, myself included, struggles with wanting success on their own terms,” I said. “We want to be in control, we want people to think well of us, that sort of thing. And that’s a big barrier to evangelism, people not wanting to stand out from the crowd. There’s the whole excuse of ‘it would do more damage than good going up and talking to someone’ but I think that our worldly mindset is probably the underlying cause of that excuse. If we’re being completely honest, there’s probably more good than harm in going up and talking to someone. Unless you really  misrepresent the Bible, what’s the harm in doing it? If someone told me to start following netball, it’s not going to make me any less likely to follow netball. It won’t necessarily make me follow it any more, but it puts the idea in someone’s head and gets them thinking about it. Not everyone will be interested and you can’t push it too far, but it’s worth giving them the chance to respond.”

“It’s really good for your prayer life too,” said Oli. “We always pray before we go out, and there’s always three or four people that I’m trying to pray for regularly. You can’t think to yourself ‘what do I pray for, life’s pretty cruisy’. Maybe there is nothing drastic going on in your life that you need prayer for, but it’s awesome to be praying for non Christians.”

“I think it would be great for your Bible reading too,” I said, “because you’d definitely read the Bible with more evangelistic intent. You’d read passages and think ‘how would I explain this to a non Christian?’, ‘how does this apply to them?’, it would make you engage more with the Bible.”

“Yeah definitely,” Oli agreed. “And one thing I have done is try to write down the hard questions I get, because there have definitely been questions I get that I really struggle with. So I try to remember those questions and follow them up, to have an answer next time I get asked that question.”

“Yeah, constantly equipping yourself day after day, trying to make sure there’s nothing you don’t have an answer for,” I said. “I mean, there’ll always be something you don’t have an answer for, but trying to make sure there’s less and less. Making sure you understand the rationality of faith, understanding that Christianity is rational, it’s not a crazy thing to believe in. That’s a big part of it, getting your head around all the questions and answers that you get.”

“Yeah definitely,” Oli replied, “and that’s why it’s been so good for me. I guess I’ve been thrown in the deep end – I haven’t really studied the Bible that long, so I wouldn’t say my overall Bible knowledge is particularly large, but I know the gospel. That’s all I really need to know. Questions related to creation and stuff like that are really good learning tools, learning how to explain stuff like that to a non believer.”

“How important a role do church and Christian friends play in all of this?” I asked.

“At church there are people who are also keen on this, and they’re always keen to hear stories, and other people are also keen to get it going at uni and at church. I reckon it’s one of the best conversations you can have with other Christians, telling them that someone you knew has become a Christian, but also telling them that you’ve explained the gospel to someone. That should be our bread and butter, it’s what we want to see happening. I’ve found that people have been encouraging for me, and I think it’s been encouraging for them too to hear these stories.”

Oli then brought up two Bible passages that had shaped his thinking on evangelism. The first one was from 2 Timothy, talking about how we are called to do the work of an evangelist, and how many will reject that message:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

The second passage was from 1 Corinthians 2, where Paul tells how the Spirit – not Paul’s persuasive speaking – is powerfully at work:

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

Oli discussed the humility shown by past evangelists and missionaries, who reflect on how little they’ve done in their lives for God. “I think it just shows how much they understand why they’re doing it,” he said. “They’re not doing it to get praise, and they’re not doing it by their own power. They’re doing it for God.” Oli gave particular mention to William Carey, a well-known English missionary, known as ‘the father of modern missions’, who requested his epitaph to read ‘A wretched poor and helpless worm, on thy kind arms I fall’.

“He understands that it wasn’t him doing the work, it was God,” Oli said. “It gives me peace knowing that God will be with me the whole time.”

I don’t have anything to add to this. I think Oli’s words say it all. Praise God that this guy, who up until less than a year ago had turned his back on Jesus, is now fired up for an evangelism in a way that is rarely seen. This was hands down the most encouraging bakery chat I’ve had so far. And probably the most challenging too – what’s stopping me from unleashing the gospel message on the world with the same enthusiasm that Oli is? I hope you found it as helpful as I did.

Bakery Run #14 – Taste on Rundle

Pie Buddy: Cam Philips

Topic: Literal Biblical Creation

I immediately sensed that something was wrong when I arrived. This bakery has no pies. Not even one. Not even party pies. I settled for a pork and beef sausage roll, a massive chocolate biscuit and a cappuccino and took a seat in the little outdoor area out the back of this artisan, semi-hipster bakery in Rundle Street. Cam opts for a baguette and a short black. The place has a good feel to it, really more like a coffee shop than a bakery. My Collins English dictionary defines ‘artisan’ as ‘craftsman, skilled mechanic, manual worker’ – which I take to mean that the pies (or alternative baked goods, as it were) are skilfully crafted. And to be fair, the sausage roll is amazingly good, probably up there with the best I’ve had. The oversized biscuit certainly doesn’t under-deliver on taste, and the coffee hits the spot nicely. To make things even better, it’s all served up on a snazzy wooden platter. If you’re ever on Rundle Street and feel like eating something other than average, overpriced Italian food, I’d definitely recommend this place. I can’t rank it too highly due to its pielessness, but don’t let that put you off too much. The food, coffee, service and ambience all get the thumbs up.

And now it was time to get chatting. Is the creation account as given in the Bible intended to be taken literally, or is it merely symbolic?

“It’s been an issue that I’d never engaged with, but I’ve been grappling with it over the last few months,” Cam began. He had spent some time investigating the claims of Creation Ministries International which tries to demonstrate that the modern scientific evidence can be interpreted to fit pretty well into a young-earth model, and had become convinced of it himself. “The science does not support molecules-to-man evolution. Not at all. But I want to try to talk about some of the considerations, instead of just pushing that position.” He then turned the spotlight on me. “What do you think about it?”

To be honest it was something I hadn’t formed an opinion on. I had done some reading on both viewpoints, but I certainly hadn’t reached the point where I felt I knew enough to be certain one way or the other. If anything, I leaned towards the six days of creation being symbolic rather than six 24 hour days. Science seemed to indicate that evolution of some sort is constantly occurring. “Mind you, I don’t believe that the animals we see today would have evolved from single cell organisms.”

“What evolutionists claim is that it’s possible for animals not to just have evolved from a single cell organism, but for that single cell organism to have evolved from chemicals. So life was sparked somehow, then it became what we now have,” said Cam.

“Yeah, that I can’t believe.”

“Never mind belief,” Cam replied. “There’s not a skerrick of evidence in all the literature to support this notion. What they’re proposing is that over millions and billions of years, DNA was manifested and then grew in sophistication and complexity. Information has been added to it in an ordered way over a very long time contrary to our understanding of the behaviour of ordered systems. And yet people like Dawkins will tell you this is what happened.” Cam believed that people like Dawkins were not presenting information in a fair and balanced way.

“But there’s another model for creation,” he said. “It's been fascinating to realise how the science and hard facts that we have can be made to fit the biblical creation model.”

“So you think young earth, six literal days?” I asked.

“Yeah, that’s the thing,” Cam replied. “The extent to which you take the Genesis account literally, what you do and what you don’t, is a separate discussion to whether evolution is true. Because that’s the foundation of the alternative paradigm.”

“So evolution is the first tree you have to cut down?”

“Whether or not you believe in the creation story, there’s no basis whatsoever for molecules to man,” said Cam. “So why does everyone think that it’s fact?”

Life from nothing had never struck me as being feasible without the work of a Creator. I had read about experiments done to show that life could originate from chance chemical reactions. But the results seemed unconvincing, and the experiment conditions highly improbable. And the original ingredients must have come from somewhere.

We discussed the significance of this issue. “In my mind, it’s not an issue of salvation,” said Cam. “I’ve heard people say that this has divided their church, and that’s really sad. But I don’t think the response to a divisive issue should be to not engage with it. I think it’s something people should come to a firm decision on and be able to support their decision.”

“What would be the implications of not doing so?” I asked.

Cam pointed out how big an issue this was in academic communities. If Christians are to engage with the scientific world, we need to have thought this issue through. “I’m not saying you need to form a view on this to be a strong Christian,” Cam said, “but it’s potentially a barrier to a lot of scientifically minded people, and we as Christians have a lot of involvement with these people and may have to deal with these questions, so it is useful to be well versed in this issue regardless of our position on it.”

“So from a personal faith point of view it’s not a big issue, but from an evangelism point of view it is?” I asked.

“Yeah there’s that aspect.” Cam considered Paul’s writings. “If they were making arguments based on allegory, is that a strong argument? Or can we go down the slippery slope of saying divorce in the church is ok, because Jesus’ argument against it was only based on symbolic events anyway? I feel like it’s a slippery slope to liberal theology. It’s not a salvation issue, and it’s not something that everyone needs to drop everything to grapple with. But I don’t agree with the mainstream view of evolution as being a fact, and then Christians shoe-horning Scripture into it from there, without critically engaging. I think that’s a weak position.” He admitted that he used to be that person. “But it’s been interesting to see how you can take the same body of evidence that does exist and work it into a different model and see that it fits really well.”

Cam considered the implications of the New Testament references to the creation account. “If we can’t trust Genesis as an accurate historical account, then it seems to me we are removing a firm foundation from later theology that we do not consider up for debate?” Cam asked “What else is allegory? Jesus and Paul use Genesis to back up arguments about marriage and divorce. There is no indication that they don't believe the events actually happened.”

“It depends where the allegory finishes I guess,” I responded. The Genesis passages that are quoted in the New Testament in regard to marriage and divorce occur after the main creation account, at which point the text may well have switched from symbolic to literal. In any case, the focus is on the principle of the verses, not any historical event occurring in it. I couldn’t think of a New Testament passage that hinged on whether creation occurred literally over six days.

Cam made another interesting point. “If you believe that the universe is billions of years old and that we were created by evolution, at what point did we become the image of God?” He acknowledged that a sovereign God could have breathed a soul into us at some point to make us in his image. “But why believe that when we have no convincing body of evidence to believe that, or to discount the account in the bible? Why do the mental gymnastics to explain this process when there’s no need to?”

“It all comes down to how you believe the text should be interpreted,” I said. “You can’t read the Psalms the same way you’d read Matthew. Genesis is tough because it’s not totally clear how we’re meant to read it.”

 “People have said to me Genesis 1-11 isn’t written to be taken literally,” Cam added. “I don’t understand why.”

It surprised me that people thought that. “Including the flood? All the way up to Abraham?”

“Yeah, so we’re explaining away the flood, saying it didn’t happen,” said Cam. He then discussed how the fossil record is seen as being evidence of millions of years of evolution.”Was that mud and sediment laid down slowly over millions of years, or laid down really fast in a cataclysmic event?” he questioned.

“Like a flood?”

“Possibly. If we can take science and explain it in a way that fits Genesis, why should I not believe in the creation story literally?”

Cam didn’t believe there was any evidence of an earth millions of years old.

“What about dating?” I asked.

“Why do we believe dating is a sound mechanism? One of it's major assumptions is that the radioactive decay rate is always the same. It’s been demonstrated in labs that the radioactive decay rate can be changed; it’s not set in stone. The geological dating methods are often based on assumptions that aren't warranted, or that rely on circular reasoning.”

If Genesis was to be taken symbolically, the choice of wording seems perhaps a bit misleading. “I don’t see why God would have written Genesis that way, in a way that could have been so confused, given he would have known that this would come up. Why would he refer to seven days?”

“The word used for day is also used to describe periods of time,” I replied.

“Most usages of that word in the Bible are for a single earth day,” Cam replied. “If it's just symbolic anyway, it seems odd to deliberately choose language that he knew would cause such confusion?”

I guess only God really knows the answer to that question. On the topic of days, I brought up another point that had contributed to me leaning towards a symbolic interpretation. “How do the days start before the sun comes along?”

“God knew he was about to create the sun,” Cam replied. “And he knew the earth would go around the sun. And then Genesis was written after these events took place, so maybe what the language conveys at the time of writing didn't need to hinge on the chronology of the events?”

“So what about dinosaurs?” I asked. A 6000 year old earth seems to contradict where the evidence from dinosaurs points.

“The young earth creationists’ position is that there’s no reason they couldn’t have existed since the ark,” Cam replied. “The reason people think they existed 10 million or whatever years ago is because of the fossil record - and as we’ve discussed, there’s flaws to how it’s dated. So then the next question is how did they all fit on the ark?” Cam points out that the Bible uses the terms 'sorts' or 'kinds', not species – it is wrong for us to equate these. The young-earth creationist position is not against the sort of adaptation that could explain modern biodiversity as there is actually evidence for it. Dinosaurs could have existed after the flood. He mentions Cambodian ruins, approximately 1000 years old, with carvings of stegosauruses. The only seeming possibility is that a previous generation has passed down the likeness of the animal. Or the Chinese zodiac, which has eleven real animals… and a dragon. Why one mythical creature? Could the dragon have represented real, but extinct animals? Like the 'kind' or 'sort' of dinosaurs. These are just a couple of interesting points of which there are many more, though of course they are hardly scientific.

“It’s interesting when you come from the creationist perspective where you’re assuming literal creation and try to fit in observations of the world around us,” Cam said. “Evidence doesn’t interpret itself, it doesn't point to evolution, and there are alternative  explanations that are as coherent as the evolutionary model. I’m not talking about proof, just equally plausible alternatives.”

Cam pointed out that Luke, a historian who strived to write an accurate account of Jesus’ life, includes a genealogy from Adam.”I don’t get the feeling that the New Testament writers believed that Genesis was symbolic or allegory. They write and teach as if it’s literal.”

Cam also sees instances of evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, rather than just having an alternative explanation. For example, finding carbon-14 in diamonds claimed to be millions of years old, when it's half-life is around 6000 years – this is impossible according to the evolutionary model.

As a final note, Cam reiterates that he doesn’t see this as being a salvation issue. It shouldn’t be divisive. Christians shouldn’t be in conflict over this. We must keep Jesus and grace at the centre of this, not just strive to win an argument.

It was certainly an interesting chat. Whatever you think of Cam’s view, I think he makes a good point on the importance of thinking this issue through, for the purposes of engaging with the rest of the world. In 1 Peter 3:15, we are called to always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have. With that in mind, we should be prepared for challenges from all directions, including this one. I also found it interesting seeing how the same body of evidence could be looked at with a different base level assumption (that is, literal biblical creation, as opposed to creation over a longer period), and be seen to point in a different direction. And Cam made some fascinating observations in his argument.

From my personal point of view, it appears likely that Genesis 1 is symbolically written, up until the creation of man and woman. The preceding verses are there to describe God as Creator, not to describe exactly how the creation occurred. I don’t believe that God created humans or animals through evolution. After the creation of humans, I believe a literal interpretation can be taken. Given the ambiguity of the language, I believe it is appropriate to consider where the scientific evidence points (while, of course, also considering the limitations of this scientific evidence). But as Cam said, I don’t see this as being a core issue in Christian faith, and my understanding of the message of the cross does not hinge on my interpretation of the creation account.

Bakery Run #13 – Perrymans, North Adelaide

Pie Buddy: Rosalie Dow

Topic: Marriage Equality

 This was definitely the most nervous I had ever felt before a bakery chat. I was talking to someone I’d never met, about a sensitive and divisive topic that I knew we would disagree on. But on the positive side, there was pie involved. And the pie turned out to be excellent – good size, good flavour, lots of meat, not too expensive. The range of flavours wasn’t huge (no steak and pepper unfortunately), but I certainly couldn’t complain about my beef mince pie. The caramel slice was also right on the money. The bakery isn’t huge, but it’s got all the bare essentials covered, and the outdoor seating area is a peaceful place to sit and eat while enjoying the peaceful surrounds of Tynte Street. I’d definitely come back! Rosalie, who works at the bakery (which her girlfriend runs) opted for a vegetarian pastie, and we got down to business.

I started off by recognising that we were coming from two very different perspectives, and that anything offensive that I said was completely unintentional. The goal of this chat was to have a productive conversation, not win an argument. We talked about how Rosalie came to support gay marriage from a Christian perspective. She had grown up in the Uniting Church, with parents who opposed gay marriage strongly. She was around 11 years old when gay ministers were officially allowed to be ordained in the Uniting Church. A lot of people left the church at this time. Rosalie recalled it as being an awful period, in which a lot of people were hurt.

“Did you have much of a view on that at the time?” I asked.

“Yeah,” Rosalie replied, “I remember thinking gay people were wrong, gay ministers shouldn’t be a thing. But then when I grew up I came to the understanding that a separation of church and state was the right thing – why would the church have any say over why people got married in a secular community? I felt that pretty strongly. And I knew a few gay people and got pretty upset when my church was awful to them. And then I realised I was gay and went through a bit of a roller coaster ride, thinking it was terrible, then thinking maybe it was okay, that I could just keep it under wraps and not act on it. I believe you can be a Christian and an active homosexual, which is a phrase that I dislike a lot, but I just thought it would never work for me, so I just said to God ‘I give it all up. Serving you is more important than doing this.’”

“What do you mean by active homosexual?” I asked. “Just the orientation?”

“Sometimes the church talks about how it’s ok to be gay and celibate, not acting on it,” said Rosalie. “Whereas an active homosexual is someone who is gay and looks to one day have a partner. Not necessarily sexually active. That’s how I understand it. I’ve been asked many times if I’m an active homosexual, so I hope I’ve been giving people the right answer!”

She continued. “I was pretty depressed. It’s pretty awful to give up on a family or any chance of a relationship and stuff like that. And then God showed me really clearly that I didn’t have to do that, that serving him and loving him wasn’t dependent on what I did with my sexuality.”

“How did he show you that?” I asked.

“Part of it was through other people, part of it was I just felt so strongly that it was ok for everyone else except me, and I was really struggling with the job I was at, and then they had some budget changes and couldn’t afford a youth pastor, and so they fired me. It was awful, but at the same time it just really strongly felt like an answer to prayer. I had been asking God to show me whether I should stay there, and I guess that was part of his answer.”

“Were you open about your sexuality at the time?”

“No, I was in the closet. I had told the minister, and I had told him that I wasn’t going to act on it, but it hadn’t gone down well. He still kept me on, but he stopped mentoring me pretty deliberately. It was made pretty clear to me after I was fired that I wasn’t welcome in youth ministry in that church.” Rosalie also commented on how she had been harassed for being too gay-friendly in her ministry, with people believing she was promoting homosexuality. All in all, it was a difficult environment to work in.

“I’ve got a clear bias,” Rosalie admitted. “I don’t know if I would have come to this opinion had I not been gay, I hope I would have, because I think it’s the right opinion.”

I was interested to see how God’s word had shaped her thinking. “In terms of thinking it through theologically, how did you go about that? Did you change your mind suddenly or was it gradual?”

“It was really gradual. I researched it a lot as a teenager, when I was thinking I might be gay. Lots of websites talked about how God hates gay people, but I just so strongly believe that God loves everybody, that I knew that was wrong.”

So much damage has been done over the years by people who have completely misunderstood God’s word, and the ‘God hates gays’ attitude is a prime example of this. Rosalie also recounted an incident where a group of street preachers had told her that ‘your parents must have abused you’. “What gives you the right to ask someone that?” she rightly reflected.

I thought it would be helpful to get a picture of each others’ theology before we got too in-depth. “What’s your view on scripture?” I asked.

“I don’t believe the NIV, ESV or whatever is the literal words of God, because the English translations are all different, and the Bible wasn’t originally written in English anyway. I believe that there are differences in translation, which need to be taken into account. I think any so-called biblical proof that involves taking one or two verses and using them out of context has the potential to be misused.”

“Does that play a role in how you look at some passages that relate to this?”

“Yeah, that and how things have been translated over the years.” Rosalie then explained that only eight passages in the New Testament mention homosexuality, and some of these use Greek words that we don’t know how to translate. Her research led her to believe that these homosexual references often referred to different things like paedophilia.

“So you’d say the Bible we have isn’t God’s word?” I asked.

“I’d say it pretty much is, overall it is, but each individual verse might not be. I don’t see it as being infallible. God has given us intelligence, and we’re called to use that intelligence to read these things.”

“Would you say the original Scripture is infallible?”

“Even that I’m not sure of. I find it problematic to believe that God can literally force someone’s hand to write specific words, because then why isn’t God making it rain manna in Africa right now?”

“You could say that for any sort of suffering,” I replied. “Personally I’d say the Bible is God’s word and it is infallible.” I then decided to see what she thought about Jesus. Like me, she agreed that he was the Son of God, divine, and that he was resurrected. “Do you believe there is no way to God but through him?” I asked.

“I don’t believe a person necessarily has to know Jesus to experience salvation. I’d say I have more of a universalist view. What about babies? What about people who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible? How could God sit there and judge whether someone should be excused because they had been abused, for example? There can’t be a weighing up, based on whether they had believed the right things. That would make God a bit sadistic. I believe Jesus provided salvation, and his death was the only thing that could bring about salvation, but I don’t think a personal belief in Jesus is required for salvation.”

Certainly while we agreed on many points, there were certainly some key differences in our views. Rosalie certainly had a much more liberal theology than I did. It was helpful to establish our differing perspectives early on.

Rosalie grew up in an evangelical family, and recognised her sexuality as being a factor in becoming more liberal in her views. “But I think I would have anyway though. My dad always told me to read with my brain on, so I’ve never accepted anything at face value. I research everything. And I don’t hold on to any belief but that Jesus loves me.” The book Love Wins by Rob Bell also had a big impact in shaping Rosalie’s views.

I put forward my view on marriage equality. “The way I look at it, God made man and woman right from the start, he established that partnership right from the beginning, and you see him follow it through and show how the husband and wife is a foreshadowing of Christ and the Church. There aren’t a lot of references to homosexuality throughout the Bible, but the few that are there seem to condemn it. There only seems to be a prescription for male and female relationships. That’s always the view I’ve held. What would you see there that you’d disagree with? It’s a very simplistic overview I realise.”

“It’s interesting how you talk about the husband and wife foreshadowing Christ and the church,” Rosalie replied. “That’s my dad’s view, and I’d never heard it before he’d said it, and now you’re the second person I’ve heard mention it. I don’t know why the male-female element is important in that. The church is an entity -  it isn’t male or female. To me, a same-sex couple could be just as much a foreshadowing. I haven’t put a lot of thought into that particular view. It’s very different to the moralistic arguments I normally hear, like ‘the Bible says not to do it, so don’t’. It’s probably one of the only arguments I’ve heard recently that does make me think a bit about it.”

“Ok, that would be my main view,” I replied. I also brought up Jesus’ reference to God bringing together men and women, as well as Paul talking about roles of the husband and wife, and how they represent Christ and the church. “I’d see marriage as being a sacred covenant representing the ultimate marriage that is to come.”

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

“Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. (Ephesians 5:21-25)

“Yeah, although I would hope that in any marriage there’d be love and respect,” Rosalie replied. She then raised the point about people who don’t identify as male or female. Certainly not everything is black and white when it comes to human sexuality. We also agreed that there are plenty of loving homosexual relationships, and lots of terrible heterosexual marriages.

“When it comes down to it,” said Rosalie, “I don’t find a lot of objection to it in the Bible.” Once again she discussed how the original Greek text refers to vague sexual immorality or some specific social wrong, like paedophilia. “So morally I don’t see the Bible saying it’s wrong.”

“So you feel that someone who read the Scriptures in their original language wouldn’t come to the conclusion that gay marriage was against God’s will?” I asked.

“Yeah, but I don’t know if they’d come out concluding that it was for God’s will either,” she replied. “When the Bible was written, they didn’t have healthy homosexual relationships to think about. It wouldn’t have crossed Paul’s mind. He was a product of his culture as much as he was a great man of God. Maybe if Paul was around now it just wouldn’t be an issue.” However, we both agreed that it was impossible to read exactly into what Paul would think if he were alive today.

“I’d look at it as redefining something that God’s created,” I said. “I’m not qualified to talk about all the scientific reasons that get thrown around for why gay marriage is wrong. Those would be secondary arguments for me. I wouldn’t rest my argument on those. I think what’s in the Bible that should some first.”

Rosalie recommended the book Being Gay, being Christian, You can be both, by Dr Stewart Edser, who is gay. “It talks a lot about the science of being gay, both biologically and psychologically, then goes into the theology of it, he looks at all the passages that deal with homosexuality. And a lot of the relationships in the Bible aren’t just one man and one woman.”

“I don’t necessarily think any of those are prescriptive though,” I replied, considering that when Solomon, David and Jacob took multiple wives, bad things seemed to come of it.

“There is an overarching male and female theme, but there’s also a theme of breaking norms,” Rosalie pointed out, using the example of Paul’s letters, which allowed rights for women that were unheard of in the culture of the time.

I wanted to see if the argument could be supported, rather than just defended. “Would you say there are passages that endorse your argument, rather than just not not supporting it?”

“No,” Rosalie replied, “but I also haven’t found a verse in the bible that supports my use of a mobile phone. With the verse about unnatural relations, I think that’s very clear. If I was to marry a man, that would be unnatural for me, and people would be hurt.”

“The Romans 1 passage?” I asked. “That was talking about women giving up their natural relations and going for other women.” Personally I believe, in light of the following verse (verse 27), that the ‘natural relations’ referred to in verse 26 of that passage is the pre-fall man/woman relations that God established, not a particular individual’s sexuality.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)

Rosalie felt that the poor treatment of homosexual people by the church was also a serious issue. “In terms of how queer people have been treated by the church, I think the Bible does say a lot about that. Even coming from the perspective that it’s sinful to be gay, people guilty of sins that the Bible says a lot more about aren’t mistreated in the same way. It’s clearly not biblical.”

“It hurts to see the church hurt people both inside and outside,” I replied. We agreed that such mistreatment was not how the church was meant to be. Discipline and exhortation are required, but not at the expense of being loving. Rosalie brought up some mental health statistics, showing that suicide attempts are much higher in gay teenagers, and the rate increases even higher for those involved with church. We agreed that there is a need to lovingly look at what God is saying when approaching a sensitive issue like this. Hatred of the gay community by Christians is unbiblical.

Two passages that Rosalie brings up are the woman caught in adultery (John 8:2-11), and the instruction to take the log out of your own eye before removing the speck in your neighbour’s (Matthew 7:3-5). We’re called to focus on our own sins before we rebuke others for theirs. She also points out that there are both explicit forms of homophobia (e.g. hateful banners) and more subtle forms (e.g. people refusing to acknowledge a gay couple as ‘girlfriends’, instead referring to them constantly as ‘friends’). She believes the subtle forms are the more damaging.

In my personal view, homosexual orientation isn’t sinful of itself. Like being easily angered, it presents a temptation to be sinful. It’s only when that temptation is acted on that the person is acting in an ungodly way. From a Christian perspective, it’s important to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour.

Ultimately, Rosalie believes that gay people often feel unwelcome in churches. “Gay people don’t all want to be going to liberal churches. There are things that need to be addressed if we want to see gay people in evangelical churches. We’d love to be accepted as part of the wider church. It’s scary visiting a church.” She recalls the heartbreaking experience of having been kicked out of three Christian organisations. “I’m stubborn. Lots of people just leave the church.”

This is a sensitive, personal issue, which I believe should always be handled carefully. But no Christian topic should be discussed without a willingness to be faithful to God’s word. And my personal reading of God’s word leaves me convinced that gay marriage is against God’s will. That may seem unloving - and it is certainly becoming a less popular view in secular society – but I think that the acceptability of gay marriage in God’s sight is something that has to be read into the Bible – it can’t be read out of the Bible. As Christians, we have a responsibility to love others and handle God’s word correctly, and this should shape the way we look at this issue. It’s not enough just to say “The Bible says gay marriage isn’t allowed”. We need to examine God’s word, and actually be able to give a reason for why we believe that. And we need to be loving in how we explain this to others. 

Rosalie also made an important point about the treatment of homosexuals by the church. As God’s chosen people, Christians are called to love God and love their neighbour. Twisting God’s word to justify behaviour that he does not appear to approve of does neither of those things. Being welcoming to people who need Jesus as much as we do – that is love. It would be great if gay people were made to feel welcome in church without compromising God’s will for us.

Bakery Run #12 – Red Door Bakery, Hyde Park

Pie Buddy: Ryan

Topic: Why I’m not a Christian (Part 1, A humanist/naturalist’s perspective)

I’ve had a few people recommend Red Door Bakery to me, so I decided it was time to give it a crack. Might I just say, this place has an element of class to it that not many bakeries achieve. If the Queen came to Adelaide and wanted to eat a sausage roll (not that either of those things ever happen), I reckon this is where she’d send her servants to get one from. The menu range is a class above the rest – no pepper steak pies on offer, so I had to make do with an Angus beef organic, free range pie (there was another fancy word in there that I’ve forgotten). My fellow pie crusader Ryan went with a beef and mushroom pie. With meat that fancy, I guess you can’t afford to use too much, and so the pie seemed to mostly consist of pastry. Amazingly good pastry though, probably the flakiest pastry I’ve ever eaten. The meat filling was nice as well, but it certainly wasn’t the meatiest pie I’ve ever had. And instead of simple tomato sauce, I was given the choice between onion chilli jam and spicy tomato relish. They’ve certainly taken the humble meat pie and redesigned it for a class of people much more sophisticated than it’s working class pioneers (pie-oneers if you will). And charged $6 for it, which seemed a bit steep. I also opted for a chocolate and macadamia brownie, which hit the spot nicely. The place was busy the whole time we were there, so people obviously recognise that this place is a good spot. Personally though, it’s a little too upmarket for me. I still enjoyed my meal though.

Ryan and I got chatting. We started by briefly discussing our personal beliefs, and how we came to those views, so that we each understood where the other was coming from. I explained how I’d grown up in a family that believed in God, but that it wasn’t until I went to a church that provided solid biblical teaching that I came to understand what it meant to be a Christian. I began to see Christianity not as a set of rules followed out of fear, but as a response of joyful obedience.

Ryan grew up with a believing mum and an unbelieving dad. He attended Sunday School as a child, but didn’t keep going to church later in life. “ I still identified as a Christian until I was around 21.” he said, “I thought it provided a good explanation for a lot of things in life, like the complexity of life. You can’t just throw paint at a piece of paper and have it turn into a nice painting. You’ve got to work hard to make it that special. So Christianity seemed like a likely explanation for the origin of life of humans. So I stuck with that, as I thought it was the best answer for the big questions.”

He then explained how he got into programming, and found that a computer program called Conway’s Game of Life was able to randomly generate images of things similar to what we see in the natural world. This made him realise that simple rules can create complexity, and that perhaps the world, like a computer program, could run on its own once the wheels were in motion.

“So are you saying you believe in a creator?” I asked.

“There could be a creator, but only to set the rules,” Ryan replied. “After that, it doesn’t need any intervention to be shaped into complex things.”

I suggested that this was essentially the philosophy of deism – that God creates, then lets things run their natural course without intervening.

“Yeah,” said Ryan, “and possibly it was set up by something, and if that’s true, then that thing must have been set up by something else, and you end up with a chain that you can’t really follow back, because you can’t follow anything back before the big bang. So I saw the world as just needing a starting point and a set of rules.”  

“So you still think there’s a creator?”

“There’s a possibility of a creator,” Ryan acknowledged.

I decided to keep going with the computer program analogy. “The computer program’s all very well, but someone’s built the computer, someone’s put the program in, and someone’s making sure there’s an electricity supply to keep it running.”

“Exactly, I agree,” said Ryan. “So the rules must have been made. But they don’t necessarily need to be set up by a person fine-tuning it. There could just be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of settings, and the one that supports life is the one we’re living in today. And this could have happened over an infinite number of years.”

This is commonly known as the multiverse philosophy. “Is that something you believe, or are you just flagging it as a possibility?” I asked.

“It’s a possibility, just like the idea of a creator. The idea of an interventionist creator is quite difficult to believe.”

“What do you mean by interventionist?” I asked.

“A person on the planet, like Jesus, who shapes the future of the world, who punishes someone for sinning and then changes the future of the world,” said Ryan. “It seems possible, but I just think that would have shown up somewhere evidently. Even a miracle is only proof because it’s witnessed, but then once it’s written down, people won’t actually call it evidence, because it’s eyewitness evidence. If people at a crime scene report different things, that’s not reliable evidence, you need more tangible, repeatable evidence. I’d expect to see more indisputable evidence that convinces everyone to follow that God, rather than other Gods, but that evidence hasn’t arisen. I don’t see how eyewitness evidence is solid evidence.”

“How is that any different to believing that Julius Caesar was alive?” I asked.

“That’s also eyewitness evidence, and I believe Jesus was alive as much as I believe Caesar was alive, but you have to understand how much is fact and how much is fiction,” Ryan replied.

“So you think Jesus’ life has been over-elaborated a bit?”

“Yeah, a bit of artistic license.” Ryan gave the example of the movie Braveheart, which was a huge exaggeration of the life of William Wallace (about which little is actually known)

“So you came to see the Bible as something that was true, but exaggerated?”

“I think with the Bible, if it entertains, then it’s more likely to be passed from person to person,” said Ryan. “So if it’s not a compelling book, the religion will die. The Bible is compelling, but as to how much truth is in it, that’s up to each person to decide.”

“What about all the lists and genealogies?” I asked. “If JK Rowling wrote stuff like that, she would’ve sold a lot less books.”

“It’s not exactly a page-tuner,” said Ryan, “but I think the Bible has enough principles to make people want to change their lives, which then draws other people along too, and it grows. There are lots of great principles in the Bible that can make someone a better person. If you look at any religious text, there’s always a moral fibre to them, there’s guidance on what to do in life.”

“Do you think Jesus was real?” I asked.

“Yeah, there are so many accounts of Jesus. The evidence that he is real is a lot better than the evidence that he wasn’t. I think he was a special, talented person, who was able to guide people toward making good decisions.”

“Where do you draw the line with what’s said about him in the Bible? At what point do you think ‘nah, that’s rubbish’?”

“2000 years ago we’re dealing with a society that believes in magic,” said Ryan. “A lot of the things in the Bible that were thought of as miracles, like raising the dead and healing the sick, already happen in today’s society. We have chiropractors and doctors, and defibrillators if someone’s heart stops beating. And anyway,

“In a couple of cases though, the person was dead for around four days. And what are the odds of one guy doing it three times to different people?”

“He was clearly a very skilled person, very much in sync with nature, including how people’s bodies work, and he understands how to treat them.”

We discussed the healing of blind and paralysed people. Ryan questioned the extent of the disabilities in these healings, given that eyewitnesses don’t know the full stories of people they interact with, and so can easily conclude that a healing is miraculous when it isn’t. I pointed out the account of Jesus healing a blind man, whose parents testified that he was born blind (John 9).

Ryan was cautious of reading too much into a book that was obviously written from a Christian perspective. It was a fair point. You would expect a book on a particular topic or worldview to be biased in favour of that worldview. He reasoned that it was important to look at both sides of an argument to find the truth in the middle.

“Is that always the case though?” I asked. “If you’ve got an argument, will the truth always be in the middle?”

“No, it’s a case-by-case basis,” said Ryan. “But you can’t just consider one side and disregard the other just because your natural instincts tell you it’s true. You need rationality.”

“And it comes down to whether you think it’s important or not,” I said. “If you’ve never thought about Christianity, you’ll see no need for it. But once you think through the implications of what you believe in, you realise there is a need to look at the facts and make a decision. I always find it sad seeing people who don’t look at the facts and think things through carefully.”

“I agree with that. Many wrong decisions are the easy decisions to make,” said Ryan.

We then had a look at the topic from a philosophical point of view. “Achieving goals in life will bring me joy, not happiness,” said Ryan. “If you want to be happy, to feel like you’re doing something worthwhile, I think doing humanitarian work is the way to go.”

“Making the world a better place?”

“Yeah, not just looking after your own interests, but the interests of others. If you work really hard, sure you can get a nice house, but I think looking out for other people will bring more happiness. And religion does provide a great moral structure. A lot of things in the Bible regarding morality are absolutely true, like treating poor people with respect and treating your enemies as you treat your friends.”

“When you say true, what’s that based on?” I asked.

 “Not just my worldview, because everyone has their subjective thoughts“ said Ryan. “I look into books, conversations with people, find out what their concerns are, and see if that reconciles with my concerns.”

“So would you say that the moral laws of the Bible are reflective of general human moral laws?”

“A lot of them definitely are,” Ryan replied. “But I think at some point you have to go beyond the Bible, because it can’t teach you how to treat homosexuals in a respectful way. It’s hard to align yourself with a book that’s disrespectful towards homosexuals. And there’s a passage about how a woman cannot exercise authority over a man, or teach, but must remain silent. You read that and it’s quite extreme! I’d rather align my views with something that I believe is right from beginning to end. That’s what I struggle with, with Christianity. If I just picked out the good bits, I’d be completely happy with it.”

I briefly outlined my thoughts on the issues of how the Bible treats women and homosexuals. I’m sure I’ll delve deeper into these in another blog post. As I see it, men are not superior to women, but both sexes have complementary, God-given roles. The husband really has the harder role of the two – he is called to love his wife as Christ loved the church (which was by sacrificing his own life). Read in the context of the time, the Bible is actually counter-culturally supportive of women in society. As for homosexuality, I see no biblical basis for homosexual orientation being sinful. I think this is a common and extremely dangerous misconception.

I continued with the philosophical side of the discussion. “Can I ask you this – are you choosing your worldview based on what is true, or what is convenient for you?”

“The philosopher’s idea of truth is that you reconcile what you believe with what you experience, and then you come to what you believe is true,” replied Ryan. “Reconciling what’s in the Bible to what’s in the world is sometimes very difficult, because you don’t see these miracles or interventions, and the last time you could have seen those was a long time ago. You can definitely benefit from the Bible and have a great life, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything’s true, it just means that the principles work.”

“So if we’re looking at what your barriers to Christianity are, one would be that there’s not enough concrete evidence?”

 “Yeah, when I recognise that eye witness accounts aren’t always reliable, then I really struggle to see that as evidence,” Ryan replied.

Examining the evidence for Christianity is a fascinating exercise. And this is also where faith comes into play.

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

Although I personally believe that there is sufficient evidence to see Christianity as being a rational belief, it clearly lacks the rock-hard, unavoidable, entirely conclusive evidence that some people will demand. We can’t all meet with the resurrected Jesus like Thomas did. We are required to live by faith. Faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8), and it enables us to be fully persuaded that God will do the things that he has promised (Romans 4:21). So while Christians may (and should) use rational arguments to defend their beliefs, a God-given faith is ultimately underlying our worldview. No one can become a Christian without God’s help.

“At what point in the Christian story, would you butt in and say ‘nah, that didn’t happen’? Like if we look at Old Testament, New Testament, the early church history, the growth of the church to where it is today.” I find that this is an interesting question to ask people. Personally, as I look over the origin and history of Christianity, I can’t see a clear point where it becomes clear that the gospel message has been fabricated.

“When it conflicts with my idea of reality, my understanding of what happens in the world, what happens personally and reading what other people think and coming to a conclusion of what my foundation of morals is – when I come across the treatment of women, the limitations on women, that’s where I struggle. A woman should be able to decide her limits, I don’t think rules should do that.”

I was trying to get to the bottom of Ryan’s objections. “So you’d probably say you have more a philosophical objection to Christianity rather than an evidence-based objection? If you could come to embrace the philosophical implications of Christianity, would that at least make you willing to explore it?”

“Yeah, I’m certainly not going to go through and say I can disprove this, this and this, it would be like claiming you knew the true life of Julius Caesar. That would just be speculation, and quite arrogant. It’s not something I feel I need to explore. I’d be happy to live my life and not explore it, on the basis that I’ve explored other things that are just as compelling or powerful.” Ryan then proceeded to point out the number of possible worldviews that could be explored. It would be impossible to invest in all of them. “The principle is, I don’t think being a Christian or not is important, I would say that making good moral decisions that improve the world are important. If I could do that, I’d be happy with my life.”

“I’d see it as an eternal thing,” I replied. “If what Christians claim is true, then it’s not just about a good moral life, there are eternal implications.”

“There are eternal consequences outside of the Christian worldview, depending on what you believe,” Ryan responded. We then discussed the eternal consequences of Buddhism, as well as  the nihilistic and universalist philosophies that abound in the world. “I don’t think I could ever have the understanding to determine which one is right,” he concluded.

I explained my sense of urgency in evangelism (that is, telling people about Christianity with the hope that they will become Christian) using football as a comparison. I support the Adelaide Crows, but it doesn’t hugely bother me who my friends support, as it’s a fairly insignificant thing. However, I don’t see a person’s religious belief as being insignificant, because I believe that people who reject Jesus will go to hell. Hence it would be extremely unloving to keep my faith to myself. As Jesus himself said,

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

This is a huge claim that Christianity makes. If Christianity is right, everything else is wrong, and everybody who doesn’t follow Jesus stands condemned. It’s an offensive, divisive message. But if I believe it to be true, how could I possibly keep silent?

Ryan countered that by pointing out that there is often a similar sense of urgency among Buddhists to share their faith. Ryan also pointed out his concern for animal welfare, and highlighted that Buddhism has more to say on this issue than Christianity. From that point of view, Buddhism speaks to him a lot clearer than Christianity does.

“So you’d look at different religions through your lens?” I asked. “You’ve got your values, they’re the parameters, and you need to see something that satisfies that?”

“Yeah, I want to be a better person in terms of what I see a better person as being. Not everyone will care about animals like I do. If I come across something in the Bible that doesn’t support my beliefs, it’s hard to keep expanding my view by reading the Bible until it begins to make sense.”

I could see where Ryan was coming from. Humanism and naturalism fit well with his thinking, so it would be difficult for him to stray too far from those philosophies. Essentially, Ryan’s objection to Christianity was from a philosophical point of view. Although he thought it likely that parts of the Bible were exaggerated, it wasn’t a lack of belief in the physical claims of the Bible that prevented him from accepting Christianity. It was an inability to reconcile every aspect of Christian teaching with what he saw as being sensible and ethical philosophy. It would be impossible to believe in a perfect God when you thought he was wrong on some issues. And I see this as being a big stumbling block to Christianity. There are times when our imperfect, sinful, human minds don’t desire the things that God desires. When you approach this problem with a belief in God, the natural response is to strive to align our desires with God’s (often a very difficult task!). But when you approach this problem without a belief in God, the natural response is to object to what would seem like oppressive rules. I would encourage anyone who finds themselves objecting to Christianity on a philosophical basis to do two things. Firstly, look into the physical evidence for Christianity. I doubt you will be converted on the spot, but hopefully the realisation that Christianity is actually quite a rational, well-founded belief will give you a fresh perspective on the matter. Secondly, find a Christian person and discuss your objections with them. You may find that someone who has wrestled themselves with many of these tough questions will be helpful in explaining to you how they reconcile God’s desires with our tendency to desire different things. 

Bakery Run #11 – Grass Roots Café, Adelaide Uni

Pie Buddy: Adam

Topic: Christian teaching in High School – A Non-Christian’s perspective

Ok, let me just say first off, I realise this place isn’t exactly a bakery. But it was a fairly impromptu affair, and this was the only place I could find in the university campus that sells pies. I did the best I could. If that’s not good enough for you, I won’t force you to keep reading. Go on, stop reading now, I dare you. Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Well, as a bakery, this place isn’t the greatest. I doubt the pies were made on site. Most of them were just sitting unheated on display and got put in the oven when someone wants one. I took my pepper steak pie out of its bag (probably thirty seconds after it was given to me), and it felt like it had just come out of the fridge. As far as a pie review goes, you can’t give a high mark to a cold pie. That’s a deal-breaker. The pie had mince filling, no chunks of meat. It had a decent hit of spiciness, and tasted quite good, but unlike revenge, meat pie is not a dish best served cold. The caramel slice was really delicious, albeit quite small for $4. There was a good selection of (cold) pies and buns, most of which looked pretty good. I think the taste of cold pie will prevent me from venturing back there too soon though. That’ll teach me to go to a pretend bakery!

Adam and I got chatting. After talking to Anton about his experience at a nominal Christian school, I now heard Adam’s perspective of being at a school where religion was forced quite hard on him. As Adam isn’t a Christian, we realised that we would disagree on quite a few things throughout this conversation. And we were right. The phrase ‘agree to disagree’ was used more times than I could count! It’s worth pointing out that Adam was educated and churched in a Christadelphian environment, which I personally would consider to be false teaching, but that’s a topic for another time. The point of today’s chat was the method, not the theology, of the religious education.

“My view on Christian teaching is that it shouldn’t be the sole teaching in a school,” Adam began. “I think that all religions should have equal footing in terms of teaching, because what I worry about is students not being able to make up their minds because they don’t have all the facts. It’s basically brainwashing if you’re not told the whole story, in my opinion.”

“What impact did your religious education have on you?” I asked.

“It wasn’t all negative. It was a positive experience in that it gave me good morals in the sense of what the western world thinks, and I enjoyed myself at school, don’t get me wrong. But looking back in hindsight later in life, I don’t think Christianity should ever be the sole teaching in school. I think kids deserve to know the full picture to make an informed decision later on.”

I briefly discussed my own religious education experience, which focused on worldly morals rather than biblical teaching. “There was never a time when we opened the Bible as part of our Christian Ed,” I finished.

“Can I ask you a question though – do you think that was the right way to teach in a Christian school environment?” Adam queried.

“No.”

“Why?”

“Because it’s a school that’s selling itself on Christian values and identifying itself as a Christian school, and yet it is not giving any sort of Christian teaching at all. So whether you think Christian teaching is right or not, they’re selling themselves as a product that they’re not delivering on.”

“But don’t you think that students have the right to have a balanced view on what religion is in a way that gives them exposure to all types of religions?” Adam asked.

“Absolutely. I don’t think a Christian Ed class could be expected to have an equal focus on all religions, but I think it should be able to explain what other religions are out there.” From my point of view, knowing about other religions is useful in terms of giving people an understanding of why Christianity is the truth. And it would make the kids think. I wonder how many nominal Christians there are in the world who have never grown in their faith because they’ve never put much thought into it.

I decided to turn the focus on to the parents. “Essentially, as a parent, if you don’t want your children taught Christianity, why would you send them to a Christian school?”

“Exactly right, I agree,” Adam replied. “In that case you probably shouldn’t send them to a Christian school. You shouldn’t expect them to teach something else just because you want to have a better school. I understand that, but there’s another aspect to that argument – has anyone asked the kids what they want?”

I knew this was where the conversation was heading. “That’s the big issue. The parents choose the school, but the kids have no say whatsoever.”

“And that’s what my story comes down to. I went to a Christadelphian school, which was quite separated from everything else. I can only speak from my experience,” said Adam.

“I think if a Christian school is trying to brainwash kids, then that’s the wrong way,” I said. “Like if the science text books have certain pages ripped out or whatever. From my experience though, our classes were no different from being in a public school.”

“And in my opinion, it should be taught like that,” said Adam. He then recounted his schooling experience, which ignored evolution, related everything back to God, and gave students no chance to question what was taught. The school was run exclusively for children of Christadelphian families.

I wasn’t a fan of that sort of exclusivity. “I think as far as Christian community goes, whether that’s church, school or whatever, there should be interaction with the outside world.”

“But then what about the idea of being in the world but not of the world?” Adam asked.

“It means you’re called to be in the world, to be a part of the world around you, but not behaving as people of the world do,” I replied.

“And that’s the way I see it too, but Christadelphians see it differently.”

“What do they say about it?”

“That we should be completely separate from the world and limit our interaction with the world.”

Clearly the ethos of Adam’s school differed greatly from my personal views. I tried to get things back on topic. “The way I would see it is that if a school claims to be a Christian school, not only is it appropriate to teach the Christian message, but the onus is on them to do so. If a school claimed to be great at teaching maths and they didn’t teach maths well, then why would you send your kids there? But I think it should be done lovingly, and not in such a way that they’re trying to convince the kids that there are no other worldviews out there.”

Adam agreed with me in principle, but suggested that any religious education should cover other religions too. “It’s not a bad thing learning about religion,” he said. “It shapes everyone.”

“I think it would be helpful for kids to know what other religions are out there,” I replied. “I reckon it would help them to think a bit more.” This came back to what we had been saying earlier.

Adam then discussed some of his fundamental issues with religion as a whole. “Religion is taking someone’s life, taking advantage of their doubt and giving them a reward/punishment system that is based around human belief,” he said. “It seeks to take control of people. That’s my opinion, and I feel really strongly about that.”

“Christianity is offensive,” I replied. “It’s saying we’re sinners, we’re not good enough, we can’t make it on our own. We needed Jesus to die on a cross to save us. And if Christianity takes control of people, what are those taking control looking to gain?”

“Power, money, influence, anything they can get from it.” Adam brought up the example of the wealth and influence that the Catholic Church holds in the world.

“Do you think that’s the reason for religion?” I asked.

“No, I think humans needed an answer to bridge the gap between knowledge and belief. Humans need to believe in something, whether that’s through science or religion. There was just a period in history when we believed in religion, which has carried on to today. And it can be manipulated by people in power.”

“I would agree religion being manipulated, but I wouldn’t for a second say that’s a reason to disregard it,” I responded. His point was a good one though, Christianity (like all other religions) has definitely been abused over the years. That was a discussion for another time though.

I decided to launch my conclusion. “So in terms of school teaching, I think that Christian schools have the responsibility to teach children through the Bible, what it means to be a Christian, and to give them a chance to respond. To present God’s word faithfully, truthfully and lovingly to them without forcing them to do any sort of action that’s against their beliefs.”

“I think they should be taught how to think,” said Adam.

“Absolutely, and that’s the big one for me,” I replied. “It’s a stage of people’s lives where they get shaped a lot, and I think they should be challenged. They should be encouraged to ask hard questions. Challenge the teachers. And the teacher should have the right to respond to that.”

Whenever the thinking through of one’s faith is discussed, the passage that always comes to my mind is in Acts, where Paul talks about how thorough the Bereans were in thinking through their beliefs based on what they had read and been taught.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)

This is a great example for us today. We should be testing and examining everything we hear and read. We should be well thought through in our views.

“And as far as chapel services go,” I continued, “I think it’s perfectly fine to have, say, three services in a week where there’s a Bible reading and then a talk explaining that passage.”

“What do you think about non-Christian schools?” Adam asked.

“They have absolutely no obligation to do any sort of religious study,” I replied.

“I think that as religion plays a big part in human history and present events, they should be taught some religion,” Adam responded. “I think it’s wrong to not understand what some people think.”

“To be honest I haven’t really thought about that too much. I think if it could be structured in a way that represents religions in an accurate way, that’d be fine. You’d probably get parents complaining though. I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it’s up to the school really.”

“When it comes down to it, it’s up to each person to make their own decision,” said Adam.

“Absolutely. That child will grow up and form their own views, become their own man or woman.” I’ve met countless people who have had religious education of some sort and decided that they don’t believe it.

Adam wasn’t quite finished. “One last point – I think there are people in church who shouldn’t be there. They’re only there because of their parents. For me, my whole world growing up was church, so from my perspective, it’s not a good thing to cut yourself off from the rest of the world, it’s a recipe for disaster.”

“I could not agree more.”

It seemed to me that the big issue Adam had was not so much with Christian education itself, but that the views of his school were forced upon him, with no chance to question these views, and with no acknowledgement of alternative worldviews. The exclusive, isolated nature of the school was also unhealthy in that it prevented him from being able to have a range of perspectives from which to develop his own worldview. In my personal opinion, a Christian school should present God’s word clearly and truthfully to its students, and give them the opportunity to think about these things and ask questions. Students should be taught not just to listen, but to think.