Author: Dave

Jonah : The Bible is clear in Matthew 18:15-17. Jesus said, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” This is a straightforward guideline from Jesus Himself, and we should follow it as it is.

Carl: Indeed, the words of Jesus in Matthew 18 provide a foundational approach to conflict resolution. However, we must also look at the broader context of Jesus’ teachings. For instance, in Matthew 22:37-40, Jesus mentions the two greatest commandments: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” In light of this, while we consider the guidelines in Matthew 18, we should also approach conflict resolution with deep love and understanding.

Jonah: Absolutely, love is paramount. But love also means adhering to the truth. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, it is written, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If we deviate from the clear teachings and processes that Jesus laid out, aren’t we moving away from the truth?

Carl: I’m not suggesting we ignore Jesus’ teachings. Instead, I believe in understanding the essence of His message. For instance, when Jesus speaks of treating someone “as a Gentile and a tax collector,” it’s vital to remember how Jesus Himself treated tax collectors, like Matthew. He invited them into fellowship (Matthew 9:9-13). So, even in moments of separation, there’s an implicit invitation to reconciliation.

Jonah: That’s a fair point. However, there’s a difference between the general compassion Jesus showed and the specific guidelines He set for His followers. While He did eat with sinners and tax collectors, He also upheld the truth, calling people to repentance.

Carl: True, Jesus did call for repentance. But isn’t the essence of His teachings more about the heart’s posture? Like in Luke 6:41-42, where Jesus speaks about the speck and the plank: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … First, take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Shouldn’t our approach to conflict resolution be marked by humility and self-examination?

Jonah: I agree that self-examination is critical. Still, once we have addressed our shortcomings, there’s a need to uphold the structure and processes given by Jesus for the sake of order and righteousness within the community.

Carl: I just believe that while we uphold these guidelines, it’s essential to balance them with grace, ensuring we don’t compromise the broader message of love and reconciliation that Jesus consistently championed.

Jonah: Transitioning our discussion to the present day, I firmly believe that Matthew 18’s guidelines apply as they stand, even today. Irrespective of how society has changed, God’s word remains unchanged. Just as in Hebrews 13:8 it is written, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” We must, then, approach conflict resolution as instructed, even in our modern context.

Carl: I respect the consistency of your belief in the unchanging nature of Christ. Yet, as society evolves, so do our relationships and modes of communication. This isn’t to dilute the Word but to adapt its application. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 said, “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” Paul adjusted his approach based on his audience without compromising the message. Perhaps, in the same spirit, we can adapt the guidelines in Matthew 18 to our contemporary settings.

Jonah: True, Paul did adapt his approach. But isn’t there a risk that by “adjusting” the guidelines Jesus provided, we could inadvertently water down or stray from the intended path of righteousness and clarity?

Carl: It’s a valid concern. But consider online interactions today. If someone wrongs you on social media or through an email, the process of confronting them might look different than if they were physically present. Furthermore, in our diverse society, many are not Christians. Using Matthew 18 might not resonate with them. Instead, the spirit of the guidance – seeking understanding, reconciliation, and healing – should be our focus.

Jonah: I see where you’re coming from, especially with digital interactions. However, even online, the steps can be mirrored: address the person privately, then with a few witnesses, and escalate if necessary. And as for non-Christians, isn’t it an opportunity for them to see Christ’s wisdom and perhaps be drawn to Him?

Carl: That might be true for some. Yet, there’s a risk of appearing exclusionary or ritualistic to others. Just like the Pharisees in the New Testament were criticised for holding too strictly to the law and missing the heart of God’s message, we must be cautious that our approach to conflict resolution showcases God’s love first and foremost.

Jonah: When Jesus said in verses 15-17, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone…“, and eventually, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church“, it’s clear that the church has an undeniable role in resolving disputes.

Carl: I don’t disagree. The church indeed plays a pivotal role. But, I believe the emphasis is more on the spirit of reconciliation than a strict step-by-step approach. The church’s role, as I see it, is to guide, heal, and restore relationships rather than being the final adjudicator.

Jonah: Matthew 18:17 ends with, “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” This suggests a clear process that culminates with the church’s decision, which should be final and binding.

Carl: But remember how Jesus treated the Gentiles and tax collectors? With love, mercy, and grace. In Matthew 9:11, the Pharisees asked the disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” So, while the church has a role in the process, it should be an embodiment of Christ’s love and grace, focusing on restoration.

Jonah: I’m not refuting the need for love and grace. But there has to be a process, Carl. It’s not just about feeling and intuition. It’s about following Christ’s words. The church, being the body of believers, serves as the ultimate earthly authority in matters of disputes among members.

Carl: Consider this, Jonah. The early church in Acts operated much differently from today. Acts 15 shows the council in Jerusalem deliberating over the Gentile question. There was debate, disagreement, and finally a letter sent out for clarity. Yet, it was done with mutual respect, understanding, and a willingness to find a middle ground.

Jonah: True, but that doesn’t negate the authority of the church. It just demonstrates that the church can and should engage in discussion. We must adhere to scripture while doing so.

Carl: And I believe we can do both. Remember 1 Corinthians 6:1-7, where Paul discourages Christians from taking disputes before secular courts? He underscores the wisdom that can be found within the church, yet he also emphasizes resolving disputes amicably.

Jonah: I acknowledge that, but we must not forget that these guidelines are there to ensure order, clarity, and righteousness within the church body. We can’t be too flexible, or we risk diluting the word. Delving deeper into Matthew 18, it starts with, “If your brother sins against you…“. This brings me to another topic: the very nature of sin. To address conflicts as instructed, we must first have a clear understanding of what constitutes sin.

Carl: I agree, but sin’s nature can be complex. While there are clear directives in scripture about specific actions being sinful, many modern dilemmas aren’t directly addressed in the Bible. How do we navigate those?

Jonah: We should rely on the unchanging word of God. 1 John 3:4 states, “Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” If something goes against God’s law, as revealed in scripture, it’s sin. The Ten Commandments provide a foundation, but scripture as a whole informs us of God’s standards.

Carl: I believe Jesus expanded our understanding of sin beyond just actions. In Matthew 5, during the Sermon on the Mount, He equates anger with murder and lustful looks with adultery. He goes to the root – our hearts and motives. It’s not just about actions; it’s the spirit behind them.

Jonah: Absolutely, and I don’t contest that. But there are clear boundaries set in scripture. If we start being subjective about what sin is, we risk diluting God’s word and His standards. We can’t just say something isn’t a sin because society’s views have changed.

Carl: I’m not advocating for a full redefinition. I’m suggesting that, in our modern context, we must approach sin with both scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. James 4:17 reminds us, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” Sometimes, it’s the absence of doing good, not just committing overtly sinful acts.

Jonah: And while I appreciate that perspective, my concern is: where do we draw the line? If we become too liberal in our understanding of sin, we might fail to correct our brothers and sisters when they stray, as Matthew 18 instructs.

Carl: I think our guiding principle should be love and the two greatest commandments Jesus mentioned in Matthew 22:37-40 – loving God and loving our neighbor. If an action or inaction goes against these core principles, then it’s leading us away from Christ’s teachings.

Jonah: True love, Carl, also involves correction. Proverbs 27:5 says, “Better is open rebuke than hidden love.” We should love our brothers and sisters enough to point out when they stray, based on the clear standards of scripture.

Carl: Agreed, Jonah. But correction must be done with humility, grace, and the realisation that we all fall short. Romans 3:23 reminds us, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Our approach must always be restorative, not condemnatory. Moving forward, there’s another aspect of Matthew 18 that’s been on my mind. When addressing a sin or conflict, how do we balance the directive with the need for privacy and confidentiality?

Jonah: I believe that when Jesus said, “go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone,” in Matthew 18:15, He was emphasising the importance of privacy. The initial step is very personal, very private.

Carl: True, but if the matter isn’t resolved, it escalates. The scripture mentions involving one or two more, and if that fails, then telling it to the church. That’s hardly private.

Jonah: I see it as a process, Jonah. Before it reaches the wider community, there are several checks in place, emphasising resolution at the most private level first. But yes, it can ultimately become a public matter within the church. We must remember that the purpose isn’t to shame or embarrass anyone but to restore them. Galatians 6:1 says, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” But with that said, if the individual remains unrepentant, then broader accountability within the church becomes necessary.

Carl: I agree with the goal of restoration. But my concern is that in our interconnected world, where news travels fast, especially on social media, how do we prevent harm and unnecessary exposure? The damage done to someone’s reputation could be irreversible, even if they later repent.

Jonah: That’s where wisdom comes in. Proverbs 12:18 mentions, “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” We should be wise in our approach, ensuring that matters are handled discreetly. But, we can’t sacrifice the scriptural process out of fear of public perception.

Carl: And that’s a challenge. There’s also the issue of confidentiality. When someone confides in a church leader about a personal struggle, there’s an expectation of trust. Breaching that, even with good intentions, can lead to more harm than good.

Jonah: That’s true, and confidentiality is sacred. James 5:16 says, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” The emphasis is on mutual confession and healing. There’s an inherent trust in that process. We mustn’t betray it. But again, if someone’s actions pose a threat or if they remain unrepentant, the wider body must be involved.

Jonah: Based on our earlier discussions, there’s an inevitable tension between reconciliation and excommunication in Matthew 18. The chapter begins with the importance of reconciling with our brother but ends with the prospect of treating the unrepentant as “a Gentile and a tax collector.” How do you see this?

Carl: I think the essence of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 18 is a journey toward reconciliation. The steps outlined, from private confrontation to telling the church, are all aimed at winning the brother over. The treatment as a “Gentile and a tax collector” isn’t necessarily excommunication in the way many view it today.

Jonah: Yet, historically, the church has practiced excommunication as a form of discipline. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5:5, even mentions delivering someone to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, hoping for the person’s ultimate salvation. So, there’s biblical precedent for the need for separation when a person remains unrepentant.

Carl: There is, Jonah, but remember how Jesus treated the Gentiles and tax collectors. He dined with them, ministered to them, and showed them love. So, if we’re to treat someone as a “tax collector,” perhaps it’s an invitation to reach out with even more compassion and understanding, not less.

Jonah: That’s an interesting perspective, but one might argue that by the time the matter is brought before the entire church, all avenues for reconciliation have been exhausted. The act of public acknowledgment serves as a final call for repentance.

Carl: Yes, but let’s not forget the prodigal son in Luke 15. The father never closed the door on his wayward son, even when he was lost in his sins. When the son returned, the father welcomed him with open arms. The essence of the Gospel is about redemption and reconciliation.

Jonah: I agree with the heart of reconciliation, but for the sake of the body of believers, there comes a point where a line has to be drawn. In Revelation 2:20, Jesus rebukes the church in Thyatira for tolerating the woman Jezebel and her misleading teachings. The church has a responsibility to guard against false teachings and influences.

Carl: Absolutely, Jonah. And that’s where discernment comes in. We have to differentiate between someone struggling with sin and seeking help and someone causing division or leading others astray. Romans 16:17 says, “Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” There’s wisdom in knowing when to engage in reconciliation and when to step back.

Jonah: On a related note, how do you view the idea of seeking outside mediation, especially when internal attempts at reconciliation have failed? Does it align with the principles laid out in Matthew 18?

Carl: While Matthew 18 doesn’t explicitly mention outside mediation, we do live in a society where professional mediation is available and can be beneficial. Paul did advise in 1 Corinthians 6:1-3 against believers taking each other to secular courts. But he also suggested that disputes should be settled within the church community.

Jonah: Right, but one might argue that the essence of Paul’s teaching is about not airing our disputes before unbelievers. Involving an external mediator could risk undermining the witness of the church, making it appear divided and unable to handle its internal issues.

Carl: I see where you’re coming from, but I think there’s a difference between taking a fellow believer to court and seeking mediation. Mediation is a process of facilitated dialogue, and it can be invaluable, especially if it’s led by someone who understands Christian principles. The goal remains reconciliation.

Jonah: True, but wouldn’t this then dilute the role of the church? Matthew 18 outlines a process that should ideally lead to resolution within the community of believers. If we start outsourcing this responsibility, are we not failing in our mandate?

Carl: I wouldn’t view it as outsourcing. Instead, it’s seeking additional tools to aid in the process. Sometimes an outside perspective can provide clarity, especially when emotions and longstanding relationships cloud judgment. Remember, in Matthew 18:20, Jesus said, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” If the goal of mediation is godly reconciliation, then Christ is present, whether it’s within the church walls or outside.

Jonah: I appreciate that perspective, but my concern remains about the message it sends. The church should be a beacon of unity and reconciliation. If we consistently turn to external avenues, it might seem we lack the spiritual maturity to handle conflicts ourselves.

Carl: But it’s not about replacing the church’s role but complementing it. If both parties are open to mediation and it aligns with biblical principles, then why not use every available resource? Proverbs 11:14 says, “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counsellors there is safety.” Sometimes, that counsellor could be an external mediator.

Jonah: It’s a compelling argument. I suppose my reservation stems from ensuring that any external mediator understands and respects our biblical principles and doesn’t steer the process in a secular direction.

Carl: And that’s a valid concern. The onus is on us to ensure that the mediator aligns with our values. And always, the end goal is healing and reconciliation, grounded in Christ.

Jonah: We live in complex times, Carl, and while I hold my reservations, I recognise the potential value in your perspective. May we always be guided by the Holy Spirit in such decisions, ensuring Christ remains at the centre.

Carl: I’ve seen instances where people use the process outlined in Matthew 18 not so much out of genuine concern or a desire for reconciliation, but rather as a way to shift the blame or put the onus on the other person. In essence, they weaponise the scripture. What are your thoughts on this?

Jonah: That’s a grave concern. The intention of Matthew 18 is not for blame-shifting but for restoring a broken relationship. If someone is misusing it to evade responsibility or to control the narrative, it’s contrary to the very spirit of the passage.

Carl: Precisely. I’ve seen situations where an individual, instead of examining their own behavior, insists that someone offended should approach them based on Matthew 18. It’s almost as if they’re hiding behind the scripture, waiting for the other person to make the first move, even when they know they’re in the wrong.

Jonah: It’s a distortion of the text. While Matthew 18:15 does mention that “if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault,” this doesn’t absolve individuals from self-reflection or confession. James 5:16 urges us to “confess your sins to one another,” suggesting an active role in admitting our wrongs.

Carl: It becomes especially problematic when it’s used to silence victims or the marginalized. By insisting they adhere to the “Matthew 18 model,” it can sometimes prevent them from seeking the support or intervention they need.

Jonah: That’s a poignant point, Carl. The Bible calls us to protect the vulnerable and give voice to the voiceless. If Matthew 18 is misused in a way that hinders justice or supports oppression, it’s a gross misrepresentation. Micah 6:8 reminds us “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God.“

Carl: We must also consider the importance of self-awareness and humility. If we’re constantly waiting for someone else to point out our faults or transgressions, we’re missing the mark. The onus is on each of us to regularly examine our hearts and actions, as 2 Corinthians 13:5 suggests: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.“

Jonah: Well said, Carl. We should always strive for a posture of humility, seeking reconciliation proactively, not just when confronted. Proverbs 28:13 states, “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.“

Carl: The scripture is meant to be a tool for healing, unity, and restoration. We must guard against any misuse that shifts it into a tool of control or manipulation.

Jonah: Absolutely. Our responsibility is to ensure that God’s Word is applied with wisdom, compassion, and integrity. Misusing it not only harms individuals but also tarnishes the testimony of the church.

Carl: And as believers, we must be vigilant, holding ourselves and each other accountable, ensuring that the spirit and letter of the Word align in our practices.

Jonah: Amen, Carl. We’re called to be stewards of the Word, and that’s a responsibility we must never take lightly.

Our faith calls us to continuously seek wisdom and understanding. It’s vital for us, as Christians, to engage in these dialogues, always aiming to reflect God’s love and wisdom in our lives and the lives of those around us.

Jonah: I’ve been thinking about how we, as Christians, should approach the celebration of Christmas. I genuinely believe it’s wrong to celebrate it because nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate Jesus’ birth. It’s His death and resurrection that are of importance. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.”

Carl: I understand where you’re coming from, but I see it differently. While the Bible doesn’t explicitly command us to celebrate Jesus’ birth, it does highlight its significance. Take Luke 2:10-11 for example, “But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.'” Celebrating Christmas can be a way for us to remember and express joy for this divine intervention.

Jonah: The Bible, in Jeremiah 10:2-4, warns against customs of the pagans, like cutting trees and decorating them. ” This is what the Lord says: Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the heavens, though the nations are terrified by them. For the practices of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.” Isn’t the Christmas tree a direct violation of this?

Carl: Context is crucial. Jeremiah was speaking against the idolatry of the people who were literally carving and creating idols from wood, then decorating them. The Christmas tree, in most Christian homes, is not an object of worship but a decoration. It’s essential to distinguish between using something decoratively and worshiping it.

Jonah: I get your point about the heart’s intention, Carl. But consider this: when people look at how Christians celebrate Christmas today, they often see a mirrored reflection of how the rest of the world celebrates it – with gifts, parties, and trees. Shouldn’t we, as believers, be distinct from the world? As stated in 2 Corinthians 6:17: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.”

Carl: I understand that perspective, Jonah. And I absolutely agree that we should be distinct. However, being distinct doesn’t necessarily mean avoiding cultural celebrations. It can also mean infusing them with genuine Christian values. When we gather for Christmas, we can use it as an opportunity to share the Gospel, to show love to our neighbours, and to help those in need. It’s an excellent time for outreach and reflection on Christ’s humility in coming to earth.

Jonah: I see what you’re saying. But look at Santa Claus – a dominant figure during Christmas. He’s a diversion from the true meaning of Christmas, leading children and even adults to focus on materialism rather than Christ’s birth.

Carl: Santa Claus is indeed a tricky subject. While the modern portrayal has commercial undertones, the origin of Santa Claus or St. Nicholas is rooted in Christian charity. He was a bishop known for his generosity, especially towards the poor. Parents can use this story to teach children about the virtues of giving, kindness, and the love of Christ. But I agree, the overemphasis on Santa and presents can overshadow the true meaning. It’s up to individual families to decide how to approach it, ensuring Christ remains at the centre.

Jonah: Even the name “Christmas” has been replaced with terms like “Xmas” or “Happy Holidays.” It’s as if the world is trying to erase Christ from His own birthday.

Carl: While I share your sentiment about wanting to keep Christ in Christmas, it’s worth noting that “Xmas” isn’t necessarily a secular conspiracy. The “X” stands for the Greek letter “Chi,” which is the first letter of “Christ” in Greek. Historically, it’s been used as a shorthand for “Christ.” As for “Happy Holidays,” it’s often used to be inclusive since many other faiths have holidays around the same time. As Christians, our focus should be on spreading love and understanding. We can still share the message of Christ while respecting the diverse world we live in.

Jonah: But a lot of Christmas celebrations have pagan origins! It’s widely acknowledged that many Christmas traditions overlap with pagan festivals, most notably the Winter Solstice. Celebrated by various ancient cultures, the Winter Solstice was a festival that marked the longest night and shortest day of the year. The Romans, for instance, celebrated Saturnalia around this time, which involved gift-giving, feasting, and even a reversal of social roles. By integrating these pagan traditions, aren’t we diluting the purity of our Christian faith?Why should we, as Christians, partake in a celebration that has roots in paganism?

Carl: It’s true that some aspects of Christmas celebrations have been influenced by pagan traditions. However, Paul gives us insight in Romans 14:5-6, “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.” So, even if December 25th has pagan origins, if we’re celebrating it to honour Jesus’ birth and are doing so sincerely to the Lord, it becomes a matter of personal conviction. Early Christians didn’t have a set date for celebrating Jesus’ birth. When they began to do so in Rome, it coincided with existing pagan festivals. Now, some historians argue that this was a strategic move to make Christianity more palatable to pagans. However, others believe that it was to offer a Christian alternative to these festivals. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 said, “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” Could it not be that early Christians, in their wisdom, adapted this approach to spread the message of Christ?

Jonah: Even if that was the intention, it’s hard to ignore the similarities. The Yule log from the Norse traditions, the greenery and lights, which are symbols of life amidst the death of winter – these all predate Christianity. The Druids, for instance, revered mistletoe and saw it as a symbol of life. Today, it’s a standard Christmas decoration. When we adopt these symbols, aren’t we implicitly giving credence to their pagan origins?

Carl: Throughout history, symbols and their meanings evolve. When Christians adopt a particular symbol, it doesn’t mean they’re endorsing its original meaning. Instead, they’re infusing it with a new, Christian meaning. For example, the evergreen tree, which symbolised eternal life in various pagan traditions, can be seen in Christianity as a symbol of eternal life through Christ. We’ve taken these symbols and given them a context that points to Jesus.

Jonah: But does the average Christian know this? If they’re setting up a Christmas tree or hanging mistletoe without understanding its Christian reinterpretation, aren’t they, in essence, perpetuating pagan practices unknowingly?

Carl: You bring up an important issue of education and awareness within the Christian community. It’s crucial for churches and families to teach the significance of these symbols from a Christian perspective. As 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” It’s our duty to understand and explain the traditions we uphold.

Jonah: We can’t deny that there’s been a merging of pagan and Christian elements in Christmas celebrations. While it may have started as a way to evangelise, today, it’s become a confusing amalgamation that detracts from the core message of Christ’s birth.

Carl: While some traditions have blended elements, the core message of Christmas for Christians remains the same: celebrating the birth of our Saviour. How we choose to do that, whether by embracing certain symbols or discarding them, should be a personal decision guided by prayer and understanding. The key is ensuring that Christ remains at the heart of our celebrations.

Jonah: There’s another major issue I’d like to address – the commercialisation of Christmas. It seems that every year, the Christmas season starts earlier, with stores displaying Christmas items right after Halloween or even before. The emphasis on buying the best gifts, catching the best sales, and the overall consumerism associated with the holiday greatly overshadows its religious significance. This isn’t what Christmas should be about. Matthew 6:21 says, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” When the primary focus becomes about gifts and shopping, aren’t we misplacing our ‘treasure’?

Carl: I share your concern about the excessive commercialisation of Christmas. It’s undeniable that in many parts of the world, the holiday has become a significant commercial event. However, we must remember that as individuals and families, we have the power to choose how we celebrate. Just because society emphasises shopping doesn’t mean we need to make it the centre of our celebrations. We can emphasise charity, love, fellowship, and reflection on the birth of Jesus.

Jonah: It’s not just about individual choices. The commercialisation affects the broader societal understanding of the holiday. Children grow up with a skewed vision of Christmas. For many, Santa Claus, gifts, and decorations become the central themes, with Jesus’ birth relegated to the background, if mentioned at all. How can we counteract such a dominant cultural narrative?

Carl: The societal shift is significant. But as believers, we can counteract this by being examples in our communities. By prioritising church events, nativity plays, carol singing, and other faith-centric activities, we can offer a counter-narrative. Furthermore, we can actively engage in charitable acts during this season, emphasising giving over receiving, as Acts 20:35 says, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Jonah: I appreciate those suggestions, but I can’t help but think that we’re fighting an uphill battle. The media, advertisements, and even schools are pushing the commercial narrative so strongly. It’s becoming less of a religious holiday and more of a cultural and commercial event.

Carl: It’s indeed a challenge. But throughout history, Christianity has faced and overcome numerous challenges. While commercialism is a powerful force, the true message of Christmas is even more potent. We, as believers, have the Holy Spirit to guide us and our communities. We can leverage this season as an opportunity to share the genuine Gospel message, using the curiosity and goodwill that the holiday naturally brings about.

Jonah: It’s just disheartening to see a sacred event being overshadowed by materialism. I believe churches need to be more proactive, perhaps even radically so, in shifting the focus back to Christ.

Carl: And while it might feel overwhelming, every journey begins with a single step. If every Christian family took steps to emphasise the religious aspects of Christmas, the collective impact could be significant. The responsibility doesn’t just lie with the church institutions but with each one of us. Remember, light shines brightest in darkness. Even amidst commercialisation, the light of Christ can shine through our actions and traditions.

Our faith calls us to continuously seek wisdom and understanding. It’s vital for us, as Christians, to engage in these dialogues, always aiming to reflect God’s love and wisdom in our lives and the lives of those around us.

Jonah: I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, everything written in it is true and accurate. If the Bible mentions a scientific fact, we can trust it as completely true. For instance, consider Isaiah 40:22, which says “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.” This was written hundreds of years before scientists discovered the Earth was round.

Carl: I also hold deep respect for the Bible and see it as inspired. However, I don’t think it’s primarily a scientific textbook. Its purpose is to convey spiritual truths and the relationship between God and humans. The reference you mentioned from Isaiah is metaphorical and not necessarily a scientific statement. Similarly, when Jesus said in Matthew 13:31-32 that the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that grows into the largest of garden plants, He was using a parable to convey a spiritual message, not a botanical fact.

Jonah: True, but the Bible does have instances that align with science. Look at Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.” This verse clearly indicates that the Earth hangs in space, a fact that was only confirmed thousands of years later.

Carl: I agree that there are verses which, in retrospect, seem to align with what we know scientifically. However, it’s essential to understand the primary audience and the intention of the writers. When Job was written, the main goal wasn’t to teach astronomy. It was to communicate God’s sovereignty and the mystery of His creation. I think we can appreciate the spiritual depth of these texts without necessarily expecting them to be scientific explanations.

Jonah: But Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Nature and the universe are a testament to God’s creation, and science is just a way for us to understand this creation. So, when the Bible talks about nature or the universe, it’s reflecting God’s truths, and hence it’s scientific.

Carl: I see where you’re coming from. Psalm 19:1 indeed speaks of nature revealing God’s glory. Yet, science is a method of understanding the natural world, while the Bible communicates why it was created and who created it. They’re two sides of the same coin, but with different purposes. The Bible wasn’t written to be a comprehensive guide to the natural world in the way our modern science textbooks are.

Jonah: Still, if the Bible mentions a fact, we can trust it to be true because it’s God’s Word.

Carl: I believe the Bible is true in what it intends to teach. But we should approach it understanding its context and purpose. For instance, the six-day creation in Genesis can be seen as a poetic structure rather than a literal six-day period. It conveys the idea of God as the Creator, with an order and purpose to creation. Not necessarily a step-by-step scientific explanation.

Jonah: So, you’re saying we should not take the Bible literally?

Carl: Not in every instance. We should consider the genre, context, and original intention. Some parts are poetic, some are historical, some are prophetic. The main purpose of the Bible is to guide us in our spiritual journey and relationship with God, not necessarily to give detailed scientific accounts. By doing so, we can truly appreciate its depth and beauty without conflating its message.

Jonah: In Exodus 20:11, it clearly says, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” This is a clear affirmation of the literal six-day creation. How can we pick and choose what to interpret literally and what not to?

Carl: The verse you cited from Exodus is indeed a reflection of the Genesis creation narrative. However, it’s important to remember that in ancient times, numbers often held symbolic significance. The number seven, for example, frequently symbolised completeness or perfection in the biblical world. So, when we read about a six-day creation followed by a day of rest, it may be conveying the idea of a complete and ordered work of creation rather than a literal week-long period.

onah: But doesn’t that open the door to subjectivity? If we start interpreting foundational narratives as non-literal, where does it stop? Doesn’t this undermine the authority of Scripture?

Carl: Not necessarily. Interpretation has always been part of our interaction with Scripture. For instance, when Jesus says in John 6:54, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,” most Christians interpret this metaphorically, understanding it in the context of the Last Supper and the symbolic meaning of communion, rather than believing we should literally consume Christ’s flesh. Recognising the Bible’s varied literary styles doesn’t undermine its authority but shows our deep engagement and respect for the text.

Jonah: Yet, the six-day creation isn’t just a singular narrative. It’s foundational to the biblical worldview, indicating that God is the ultimate Creator and Sustainer. If we start viewing it as just symbolic, doesn’t it weaken the essence of the message?

Carl: I believe understanding the six-day creation as symbolic doesn’t diminish its significance. Instead, it amplifies it. Rather than being a scientific account, it becomes a profound theological statement about the nature of God, His relationship with creation, and the inherent order and purpose in the universe. This perspective allows for compatibility between the biblical account and our scientific understanding of the universe’s age and evolution.

Jonah: So, are you suggesting that belief in evolution and the Bible can coexist?

Carl: Many Christians see no contradiction between evolutionary science and the message of the Bible. We believe that science explains the “how” of creation, while the Bible explains the “why.” They’re complementary narratives, each providing a different layer of understanding.

Jonah: I have concerns about reconciling evolution with the Bible. For instance, in Genesis 1:27 it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This seems to clearly indicate a direct act of creation by God, rather than an evolutionary process. How can you reconcile this with the idea of humans evolving from simpler forms of life?

Carl: The verse you pointed out is indeed a foundational declaration of humanity’s special relationship with God. However, I believe the emphasis in that passage is on our spiritual and moral nature — our ability to reason, to love, to discern good from evil — rather than the specifics of our biological origins. The idea is that, however our bodies came to be, it is our souls that reflect the image of God.

Jonah: But if we accept evolution, it implies death and suffering existed before the Fall. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” This suggests death came as a result of sin, which seems contradictory to evolutionary theory.

Carl: That’s a challenging point. One way to view it is to differentiate between spiritual death and physical death. Perhaps the death mentioned in Romans pertains to spiritual separation from God due to sin, rather than the natural cycle of life and death in the animal kingdom. Evolution could be the process through which God brought about biological diversity, but the spiritual implications of sin and death are distinct from that.

Jonah: Still, if we view Adam and Eve as symbolic or part of an allegorical narrative, it challenges the foundational understanding of original sin. Doesn’t that then have implications on the need for Jesus’ sacrifice?

Carl: It’s a deep and important theological question. Many Christians who accept evolution believe in a historical Adam and Eve, perhaps seeing them as representative individuals or a specific group from whom all humans descended. They played a unique role in God’s relationship with humanity. The core truth remains: humanity, at some point, chose self and sin over God, necessitating redemption. This doesn’t diminish the importance of Jesus’ sacrifice but frames it within a broader understanding of God’s interaction with His creation.

Jonah: By integrating evolutionary theory, we’re allowing secular thinking to influence and dilute the purity of biblical teaching.

Carl: I’d argue that it’s not about dilution, but about deepening our understanding. Throughout history, Christians have integrated new knowledge with their faith, from the works of Aristotle in the Middle Ages to the discoveries of Galileo. The key is to ensure our interpretations align with the core tenets of our faith. For me, and many others, evolution is a testament to the grandeur of God’s creation, showing His ability to set in motion processes that lead to incredible diversity and complexity.

Jonah: If we accept evolution, particularly the idea that humans share common ancestry with other creatures, doesn’t that undermine the uniqueness and special status of humans in God’s creation? Psalm 8:4-5 says, “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honour.”

Carl: Accepting evolution doesn’t necessarily diminish our unique status. It’s possible to see evolution as the tool God used to create the biological framework of humanity, but our souls — our capacity for morality, love, creativity, and relationship with God — set us apart. Even if our bodies are the product of a lengthy evolutionary process, our spiritual essence is what makes us unique and is in line with the sentiments expressed in Psalm 8.

Jonah: Yet, in 1 Corinthians 15:39, it’s mentioned: “Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.” This distinction seems to go against the evolutionary principle of common descent.

Carl: The context of 1 Corinthians 15 is Paul’s discussion about the resurrection, emphasising the difference between our earthly bodies and the transformed, spiritual bodies believers will receive. The differentiation in verse 39 could be seen as highlighting the various types of bodies God created, acknowledging the diversity in creation, rather than making a statement against common ancestry.

Jonah: But many evolutionary biologists and scientists argue from a purely naturalistic perspective, often sidelining or even denying the role of a Creator. How can we, as believers, reconcile our faith with a theory that many proponents use to argue against the very existence of God?

Carl: It’s true that some use evolution as an argument against a divine Creator, but the theory itself is neutral. It’s a framework for understanding the diversity and interconnectedness of life. As believers, we can see evolution as a reflection of the creative process, viewing God as the initiator and sustainer of this process. The natural mechanisms and patterns we observe can be seen as the fingerprints of God’s handiwork. The key is to differentiate between the scientific theory of evolution and the philosophical or atheistic interpretations some people derive from it.

Jonah: It feels like a slippery slope. If we start interpreting foundational biblical accounts as metaphorical or allegorical, doesn’t it jeopardise the integrity of our faith?

Carl: Throughout Christian history, scholars and theologians have always grappled with the tension between literal and allegorical interpretations. Think about the book of Revelation, parables of Jesus, or even some of the prophetic writings. The goal is to discern the intended message and truth of the scripture. For many, seeing Genesis in a non-literal way doesn’t diminish its theological truths but provides a framework to harmonise faith with our expanding scientific understanding.

Jonah: If we start questioning the literal nature of foundational narratives like the six-day creation, where does that lead us? How can we be certain about other historical events, such as the Exodus or even the Resurrection?

Carl: Again, we should remember that the Bible is a collection of diverse texts with varying literary styles, genres, and purposes. Some books, like Psalms, are poetic; others, like Chronicles or Kings, aim to record history. Recognising the poetic structure of Genesis doesn’t necessarily cast doubt on the historicity of, say, the Gospels or Acts.

Jonah: But what about the stories of Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, or Jonah and the whale? Are these merely allegorical tales, or did they genuinely happen? It seems to me that casting doubt on one part of the Bible can have a domino effect on the rest.

Carl: Each story and book should be considered in its context. For instance, the story of Jonah might be viewed by some scholars as a parable about repentance and God’s mercy, whereas others believe it to be a historical event. Similarly, the account of Noah might be understood as a regional flood story that conveys deeper theological truths about human sinfulness and God’s grace. The key is not to read everything with the same lens but to understand the context, culture, and intended purpose of each text.

Jonah: But the Gospels are central to our faith. If we allow for a flexible interpretation of earlier scriptures, doesn’t it compromise the historical truth of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection?

Carl: I’d argue the opposite. Recognising and understanding the different genres within the Bible allows us to give even more weight to the historical reliability of the Gospels. The Gospel writers intended to record the life and teachings of Jesus for posterity, and external historical sources also affirm many aspects of the New Testament narratives. We shouldn’t see this as an all-or-nothing issue. Respecting the diversity of the biblical texts doesn’t diminish the historical truth claims where they’re made.

Jonah: Still, the Bible asserts in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” If we start parsing out what’s historical and what’s metaphorical, aren’t we risking cherry-picking and undermining the Bible’s authority?

Carl: 2 Timothy 3:16 is a foundational verse about the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Yet, even as all Scripture is God-breathed, it doesn’t mean every part should be read in the same way. Just as Jesus used parables to teach truths about the Kingdom of God, other biblical writers employed various genres to convey God’s truths. Recognising those distinctions enhances, rather than undermines, our understanding and application of Scripture.

Our faith calls us to continuously seek wisdom and understanding. It’s vital for us, as Christians, to engage in these dialogues, always aiming to reflect God’s love and wisdom in our lives and the lives of those around us.