Testimony.

My earliest memories are of growing up in a hardworking, Working Class home in 1960's Bradford. My family were very moral upright RCs of Irish extraction who regularly attended Mass. My father was 46 years old, and considered 'old', when I was born. I think he aspired to be Middle Class and he was proud that my brother and sister went to university. There was a large age gap between me and my siblings, and my brother's aspiration was to be a true proletarian by becoming a Marxist and a drop-out while at university. So my homelife was a confusion of Catholicism and (revolutionary) politics.

Never a strong Catholic I made a conscious decision to be a 'raving atheist' in my early teens. I was a firm believer in scientific progress (scientism really; although I did not know it as such at the time). I confused the idea of science explaining something with science explaining something away. I was very influenced by the naive optimism of the Sci-Fi I read, (I veered towards 'cosmism', again another term I was then unaware of), as I drank in the undeclared assumptions of my age.

When I was 17 I heard a garbled Gospel message of sorts which went something like; "God has a perfect plan for your life", "he'd be grateful to have you on his team", "why not give him a chance?" I suppose the message appealed to my ego-centric view of the universe - I was a teenager afterall and shared the conceits of my age that life owed me something! It seemed all too plausible that I had a destiny to fulfil.

Of course this "Gospel" message was woefully inadequate but it was the start of something; which only goes to prove that by sheer grace alone God can use any means to turn someone to him. At the time I would not have considered myself to be in any 'need' of God at all; I would have seen myself as a perfectly moral, upright sort of person - just the sort of person God would want on his side! I did not see myself as needing God's forgiveness - at least not much when I compared myself to others.

It was only over time that the truth began to dawn on me; being morally upright did not make me right with God. I had to unlearn the assumptions I had grown up with and I had to junk a lot of the triumphalist stuff I had initially been taught by well-meaning but misguided Christians who claimed the Bible as their authority. Perhaps at this stage I could have thrown the whole thing over and claim to have become disillusioned by the false promises I had been made. But by then I was drawn to the person of Jesus; whatever falsehoods I had been fed, by both unbeliever and believer alike, I realised that Jesus was special and what he said rang true! When he said "come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" that resonated with me.

The words that rang true sprang from the same Bible that was derided by the atheist and thoughtlessly handled by the Christian. There was a depth in this Word that lay unrecognised and unheeded by the ignorant.

Jesus reserved some of his harshest criticisms for the morally upright and the religiously punctilious... and he drew his theology from the Bible! His Gospel is deeply unattractive to all the self satisfied because it calls on us to put our trust in God rather than our own selves and our ability to be good people. It wasn't what I expected to hear and I wouldn't have known these things unless Jesus had revealed them. It had taken several years but I could see myself in the mirror that Jesus held up to my face! I realised that I was not the person I had once supposed myself to be. I could identify with the apostle Peter when he said to Jesus "who else can we turn to? You have the words of eternal life" when Jesus was being deserted by the fickle crowds. By a tortuous route I had come to trust in Jesus and develop an appetite for the Bible.

When Jesus died on the Cross it was my old self that died there too and the life I now live is his gift of resurrection life to me. The question I had had to ask myself was this; was I going to trust in myself or was I going to trust in him?

If you think I am still not much like Jesus you'd be right - but think what sort of person I might now be without him! I am a work in progress you know!!!

ORIGINAL SIN & THE "BIBLE'S BURIED SECRETS". In the final episode of Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou's TV series she seeks to locate The Garden of Eden. Her conclusion is that the Adam & Eve story and the account of their subsequent Fall can be traced back to the Temple, Judah's king and the Fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonian Empire in 586bc. I consider myself fairly clued up on Biblical literature and have some familiarity with opposing positions, but I cannot say I have ever heard of this hypothesis before. Of course that doesn't mean it is wrong, just that it is almost certainly wrong. It is very important to say that the drive in academic circles is always to innovate; if you want to make a reputation for yourself in academia you have to find a novel angle. That impetus is not always conducive to conserving what is good. If you want to make a name for yourself some public exposure, controversy and novelty are the name of the game. She said the concept of original sin has had a "devastating" effect on human affairs because it implicated everyone but if the real story relates to one particular king's hubris then humanity can say, as she did, "we are off the hook!" Humanity is innocent of evil. The link between the Garden of Eden and Solomon's Temple seems tenuous - it is just as likely that the garden decoration in the Temple is symbolic of something earlier. But even if one concluded that the Bible we have was largely constructed during the Babylonian exile that does not negate the message. If it is strikingly different from the original source all the more reason to ask 'why?' What are the writers of the Bible getting at? It strikes me that the questions raised by the TV programme always stop short; in so far as the Bible has buried secrets why not dig deeper? I can't help but conclude that the series has an agenda, it isn't difficult to perceive what it is. Smear words like "devastating" when attached to concepts like 'original sin' imply that she has a humanist outlook. Her 'straw man' argument about Eve as the cause of evil imply she has a Feminist agenda. But the real feature of this TV series is Post-Modernism; from Dr Stavrakopoulou's point of view it does not matter what the evidence actually is, it is sufficient that this is true for her. A Post-Modernist does not believe in objective reality and that is dangerous for a historian (as for a scientist!) because then the focus shifts from the external realities to the internal and subjective encounter of how 'I' see it and what it means for 'me' as if somehow our present day self-serving worldview is what this history is primarily about. Given this; it is no wonder that the presenter inserts present day priorities into her historical interpretation. Clearly Dr Stavrakopolou is hostile to the concept of 'original sin' and that informs her historical reconstruction. It is not unreasonable to ask if the Bible has got it so wrong regarding evil what is the correct view? She does not answer that. If evil is something which does not touch us all then who does it touch? It is very easy to 'otherise' human evil by identifying a convenient outgroup who can be demonised while we claim to be totally innocent ourselves. Humanists, Atheists, Feminists and Post-Moderns all have their favoured outgroups - in fact that sort of moral fingerpointing is a major feature of human nature... and 'original sin'! The Christian position, drawn from the Eden story, is unique in that it recognises our own culpability. In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn from 'The Gulag Archipelago' "If only there were evil people some where insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."

Bible's Buried Secrets. Thinking of Francesca Stavrakopoulou's TV series I am reminded of historian Hugh Trevor-Roper's scathing analysis of 'scientific history', "we exist in and for our own time: why should we judge our predecessors as if they were less self-sufficient: as if they existed for us and should be judged by us? Every age has its own social context, its own intellectual climate, and takes it for granted, it is not explicitly expressed in the documents of the time: it has to be deduced and reconstructed. It also deserves respect... To discern the intellectual climate of the past is one of the most difficult tasks of the historian, but it is also one of the most necessary. To neglect it - to use terms like 'rational', 'superstitious', 'progressive', 'reactionary', as if only that was rational which obeyed our rules of reason, only that progressive which pointed to us - is worse than wrong: it is vulgar". It is pretty obvious that the presenter is imposing on the evidence a narrative which suits her agenda. For example in episode one she makes a big deal about the Bible not appreciating how significant Omri was. Firstly, I already knew about Omri - not from this TV series as if this is some startling new evidence cunningly hidden by people motivated by a malevolent faith - but years ago in a sermon at church! As important as Omri's stature may be to an academic the fact is, theologically speaking, he is a minnow. To understand the documents and artefacts from another culture require a sensitivity to that culture which is not aided by thrusting on it a demand to fit in with current priorities. The evidence she presents can be interpreted several ways not just the one way she is promoting. Dr Stavrakopoulou often litters her commentary with 'peacock' words which suggest she is being daringly original when actually this is pretty well known stuff and is not as devastating to believers as she constantly asserts. Episode two starts with a false assertion, that the Bible teaches that Israel was a monotheistic culture and that her "careful reading" suggests an alternative which shatters the foundation of Christianity. This is a 'straw man'. Apart from being smug it is self evident nonsense; the Bible is very clear that ancient Israel was not faithful to its calling and did indeed worship Baal, Asherah and the whole Canaanite pantheon. And that Yahweh worship was syncretistically blended with Canaanite religion is well known. That does not require "careful reading", that is a major theme of the Bible story. Her assertion that 'El' is the personal name for one of the Canaanite gods rather than a generic word for 'god' and that it is this god the Bible describes is torturing the evidence to fit her narrative. The juxtaposition of images of scientists extracting evidence from the ground against those of people prostrating themselves before religious images while incense swings in the air is pretty crass editing but at least it indicates the agenda. Just as the presenter uses 'peacock' words to big-up her own status she uses 'smear' words to put down opinions she disapproves of and wishes the viewer to disapprove of too. It is not very clever stuff, in fact as propaganda it is very superficial. But then the purpose of the TV series is not to change the minds of those who have some background Bible knowledge, it is clearly aimed to confirm those who are ignorant of the Bible in their ignorance. POST SCRIPT: 12 April 2011. For further reading I will recommend 'On The Reliability Of The Old Testament' by K.A. Kitchen.