Just how arrogant IS the Religion of Consumerism?

My wife and I have been agonising over the whole issue Halloween. That was until I watched an expert on Halloween (is that a real job?) being interviewed about it and was asked about "where did Halloween come from?" his answer included some fruitloop ideas about reaching the netherworld, but then my ears pricked up when he mentioned historically it came from a Christian celebration of "All Saints" (not the TV show - all the people who had died for the faith. This would make sense since today is also "Reformation Day".

So here is the question: if Halloween is really about celebrating those who died in the faith or even the pagan celebration of reaching the nether world, where did "trick or treat" come from???

I have a suspicion that it is the same place that brought Santa into centre stage at Christmas, the Easter bunny and his chocolates for Easter and now pictures of ghosts and witches and lollies for Halloween: Consumerism.

Since reading Brian Rosner's work on greed, I am more and more convinced that consumerism is a religion in its own right: with it is temples (shopping centres), priests (marketers), and religious celebrations (sales). But I have just realized how syncrenistic it is. It does not seek to oppose Christianity, just subsume it: Let's not get rid of the Christian days of celebration, let's just change to focus to something that well....people have to buy!!

Brothers and sisters, we must be careful. I fear it is only a matter of time before we start going to church that is sponsered by big Corporations!

On the other hand there are places this could work. We could have Virgin youth groups, Communion brought to you by Jamie Oliver, Ikea pulpits (though it would take the preacher 20 min to assemble before he could preach), The doctrine of Adam's sin: brought to you by Apple.

I am sure there are others...anyone have ideas?

Why Jesus is NOT a good teacher

I come across a lot of people who will describe Jesus as a 'good teacher' meaning he is merely so and nothing else. I have started to ask these people 'how well do you know his teaching?' to which they give very vague answers. I would like to ask them 'if he is such a good teacher, why don't you follow his teaching or at least know it?'. If you look at Jesus' teaching you will see that he is not a good teacher at all. Here are three reasons why:

Firstly, Jesus spent a lot of his time preaching in parables. The reason for this is not to make things clear to people, but rather the opposite, to make things unclear to people.

“When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
so that, “ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’’”” (Mark 4:10-12 NIV)

One really needs to ask what sort of teacher makes things unclear to the general public, but selects a few people to give his 'secret teaching'. The answer is a biased teacher who has favorites! If Jesus is merely a teacher there are some moral questions he needs to answer and the good in the 'good teacher' should be questioned.

Secondly, we see that within this select group we see a complete failure of the students to understand what is going on:

• Peter is referred to as Satan for not understanding Jesus' mission of going to the cross (e.g. Mark 8:33). And the rest of the disciples are not much better (e.g. Luke 18:34)
  
• Despite the fact that Jesus repeated mentioned that he had to rise from the dead, the disciples are completely surprised when he does (e.g. John 20:9).
  
• They do not understand the significance of what Jesus is doing in his miracles and what they say about him (e.g. Matt 16:9)
• When he spends an extended amount of time with them the night before he is about die, they still don't get what is going on (e.g. John 16:18)

After spending several years with uni students I know that it is not always the teacher's fault if the students do not understand what is going on. But when all the students do not get it, there are some questions that need to be asked. If Jesus is a good teacher then he should be able to communicate what is going on to his students in a way they can understand.

Finally, there the interaction with the man who actually calls Jesus a 'good teacher'.

“As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.” (Mark 10:17-18 NIV)

Here is the logic of the 'good teacher':

1. No-one is good by God alone.
2. If I am a good teacher, I therefore must also be God incarnate
3. If I am not God incarnate, I therefore must be a bad or at least incompetent teacher, so why are you bothering me?

Hence if you follow the teaching of the 'good teacher' then you have a ego manic (not a good teacher) or at least a guy who thinks he is God and if he is wrong is delusional (also not a good teacher in case you missed that one).

The point I am making is simple. You can only think that Jesus is merely a good teacher if you have not actually read his teaching and probably have no idea what he is on about. If you have read his teaching you are confronted by a man who claims he is God and is focused on his work on the cross. I happen to think he is a very good teacher, which means I also think he is God who has saved me from my sin.

Guilt: Not being so guilty about hell

"I hate it when Christians talk about hell. They shouldn't make people feel guilty"

I have heard Christians and non-Christians make this statement and there is something about it that I resonate with. But as a Bible teaching seeking to focus on Jesus, it is very hard not to talk about hell. He had a lot to say about it!

But then I realised the other day while watching TV that I am not the only one who will utilize guilt. While watching TV over a 24 period (I wasn't watching it for 24 hours!!) here is what I was made to feel:

• I am a bad father for not having the safest car on the market, which apparently is a Mercedes S Class.
• I am a bad husband for not arranging life insurance to pay for my funeral.
• I am a bad person for not supporting the starving in Africa.
• I am a bad father again for drinking beer in front of my kids and not making a Bridgestone tyre swing for them.

I am glad I am not a smoker or I would be hammered!!!

I am not against the advertising world for using guilt for these products. I think it is entirely appropriate. They are the kinds of things that I should at least aspire to get right. Indeed one only needs to think of the AIDS ads with the grim reaper going bowling to see how effective they can be.

As a side note, can you imagine pitching that one: "Well there is a grim reaper and he is bowling but the pins are people, we were going to go with playing darts...but well....it was pretty messy."

But back to my issue: the point is when we talk about hell - something that is more important and has bigger implications (forever is a pretty long time) then we need to talk about what's at stake and not feel guilty about it.

Why does everyone else get to do it and we don't??