In 2016, the Oxford Dictionary selected post-truth as its word of the year, as it does every year.
It selects a word that sort of captures Western civilisation's vibe at that time.
So post-truth was 2016.
And it defines post-truth as an adjective relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal beliefs.
It's a word that dates back to 1992, but its usage exploded by 2000% in 2016.
Sorry, 2016.
In 2016.
Why?
The US presidential election, which saw Donald Trump elected as president.
An election campaign marked by so many competing and false claims, allegations of fraud and proven mistruths.
Voices across the political spectrum were quick to condemn the opposition with little or no facts and quick to defend their stance regardless of facts.
Fake news allowed agendas to advance regardless of and often contrary to the actual facts, the truth.
It's hard to think of a better word suited to the spirit of our age than that of post-truth.
Post-truth has now blossomed into a culture of confusion.
In a post-truth world, answers to life's big questions no longer need to correspond to reality at all.
They only need to cater to whatever we personally desire.
The question is, as a society, are we better off?
You see, confusion only gives birth to more questions.
That's the nature of confusion.
And more questions only builds anxiety and uncertainty.
So we need answers, not just questions.
And so the title of this series that we're currently in, Your Word, is Truth.
Now, I understand that we exist in a culture that many people would think that the Bible fits in that category of fake news.
It was written thousands of years ago over a long period of time.
And it makes some incredible, in fact, startling claims.
It claims that there is a God who made the universe.
It claims that this God sent his son into the world to die on a cross for humanity.
It claims that Jesus, the son of God, performed miracles, that he was raised from the dead,
and he is now present with his followers by the Holy Spirit through his word right now.
It claims that he will come back to this earth one day as the universal judge and king,
wind up history, right every wrong that has ever happened,
and with his people exist forever in eternal bliss.
They're extraordinary claims.
Extraordinary claims.
And we need some pretty serious evidence to believe them.
And yet, on the other hand, billions of people over time have believed these claims,
including some of the smartest people in our world to this day.
And, in fact, smartest people throughout history.
They have believed the claims, and from all different cultures,
have believed the claims of the Bible are true,
and that they are authoritative over their lives.
And so today, if you've got the St. Paul's app in front of you,
I encourage you to open it up, open up your Bibles.
We've got really three points here to kind of,
each point's got, well, the first two have got three sub-points,
but to build on last week's assertion that the Bible is true,
and it is reliable for everything in life and faith.
And the three points are, it's historically reliable, culturally reliable,
and it's personally reliable.
So, first of all, historically reliable.
One of the common accusations today is that the Bible,
and particularly the New Testament accounts about Jesus,
are written by, if you like, the winners in history.
And therefore, because it's written by the winners in history,
no one can really know the original Jesus, what he was really like.
In fact, the claim is that the claims about his miracles
and the fact that he was divine and that he rose again
were all written much later in history by church leaders
in order to try and get Christianity to spread.
In other words, it's an attempt for them to build their power base.
There are, in fact, multiple reasons
why those particular modern accusations are simply not right
and, in fact, unfair.
But I want to just give you three, very briefly,
three reasons why you can trust the Bible historically
about what it says about Jesus.
Firstly, the New Testament accounts about Jesus
are written way too early for them to be legends.
Take the beginning of Luke that Anne just read out for us.
Luke has written a biography about Jesus
and he points out to his readers in verses 2 and 3,
many have undertaken to draw up an account
of the things that have been fulfilled among us
just as they were handed down to us
by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.
I myself have carefully investigated everything
from the beginning.
I too decided to write an orderly account for you.
Now, Luke is writing 30 to 40 years after Jesus
and he makes the point
that lots of people
who were eyewitnesses of Jesus
post his resurrection
are still alive
and you can check the facts with them.
Now, writing even closer
than Luke,
closer to the events of Jesus' life
was the Apostle Paul.
He wrote letters only 15 to 20 years
after the events of Jesus' life
and he says this
in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 6
about the resurrection of Jesus.
He appeared to more than 500
of the brothers and sisters
at the same time,
most of whom are still
living.
Paul could not have possibly written
a public document
promoting Christianity
and make a statement like that
unless it was, in fact,
provable by other eyewitnesses
apart from himself.
Or in Philippians chapter 2,
Paul quotes a hymn
of Jesus' divinity
and if Philippians is written
so close,
in fact,
potentially his very first letter
that he wrote,
so close to the events
of Jesus' life
and Paul is quoting
in Philippians
something that Christians
have been declaring
from outside of Philippians,
right from the very early days
as the gathering
of the early church,
Christians have been worshipping Jesus
as God himself
from the very beginning.
Not hundreds of years later,
from the very beginning,
they saw him as divine.
The documents of the New Testament
are way too early
for people just simply to say
that they just said
whatever they wanted about Jesus
while thousands of people
witnessed him in person
were still alive.
You just simply cannot do that
historically.
Secondly,
the documents of the New Testament
are too counterproductive
to be legends.
Remember that the accusation here
is the Bible
is what the early church leaders
wanted people to believe
in order to build their own power base
and spread Christianity.
So imagine you're one of those church leaders
living, you know,
70, 80, 100, 300 years afterwards
and you make up stories about Jesus
so that people will believe
your stories about Jesus.
Would you put in those stories
when you're trying to convince people
that Jesus is divine son of God,
saviour of the whole world,
a person of perfection,
would you put in there
stories of Jesus,
for instance,
in the Garden of Gethsemane,
asking his father
if there's any other way,
take,
I don't want this plan,
come up with another plan.
Sweating tears of blood.
Would you put in there
Jesus on the cross
crying out to God,
why have you forsaken me?
Those accounts make look,
Jesus make look like he's,
he wants a different way.
He wants something,
some other option.
Makes him look weak.
Would you include
in your first century stories
that all of the first eyewitnesses
to the resurrection were women?
You know,
I know this is Mother's Day,
so bear with me on this one.
This was a time
when women's evidence
was not admissible in court
because of their low social status.
And so on today,
we want to give thanks
to the New Testament documents
and early Christianity
that changed that.
Does not oppress women at all.
all the gospel accounts
say that the original eyewitnesses
were women?
And not only that,
but when you get into
the New Testament,
you see that the apostles themselves
are far from glowing figures.
They're cowardly,
they're slow to believe,
they're self-interest.
Why would you include
any of that
if you're making it up?
These stories
are totally
counterproductive
for consolidating power
for the early leaders
of the Christian movement.
Thirdly,
they're also too detailed
to be legends.
Ancient myths and novels
were never written like this.
Never written like this.
That is the current form
that we have with novels today,
I think, for instance,
the Da Vinci Code,
where it mixes
a little bit of history,
historical facts,
with a completely
a bunch of legends in there
to make people think
that it's written as history.
That is a very modern phenomenon
in terms of a writing style.
Ancient legends
were never written in that way.
The New Testament doctrines
of Jesus
don't have the forms
of legend.
They are written
too early to be legends
and they are too
counterproductive
to be legends.
You need to be able
to trust them.
You go,
hang on a bit, Steve,
you haven't seen anything
about the Old Testament.
I haven't got time
to go into that detail.
There are plenty of books
written about that as well
in terms of the reliability
of the Old Testament.
But briefly,
let me just say,
if you can trust
what the New Testament
says about Jesus,
you can trust
what Jesus says
about the Old Testament.
And Jesus saw
the Old Testament
as authoritative.
And it was true.
He quoted virtually
every book
of the Old Testament
and called them
the Scriptures,
God's Word.
Secondly,
my second point
is that we can trust
the Bible culturally.
Now, I think it's true
to say that modern people
care less about
historical reliability
of the Bible
because they're more
troubled by the cultural
aspects of the Bible.
That's more of a problem
for the modern person.
They consider the Bible
offensive,
primitive,
backward,
in its views.
The Bible offends
Sydney-siders
in multiple ways.
Multiple ways.
And it's a long list
of ways
that's constantly
moving
and changing.
So here's
three considerations
of any bit
of the Bible
that might offend you.
Three considerations.
Firstly,
consider the possibility
that it isn't teaching
what you think
it's teaching.
when you read it.
For instance,
I could never understand
why some of the
great spiritual heroes
of the Old Testament
had so many wives.
When I first read it,
and I see in the New Testament,
you know,
the leaders of God's church
must have been
a husband
of one wife.
And it's like,
polygamy didn't seem
to be a New Testament thing,
but was in the Old Testament thing.
And I could never understand
why
that was the case.
Until I realized
that the Bible
was not in any way
endorsing it.
It was actually,
when you read the accounts
in the Old Testament,
the Bible
is actually
subverting it.
In every case
where polygamy
is practiced,
it goes bad.
And the Bible
records it
going bad.
There's never a case
of polygamy
in the Old Testament
where it,
and they lived
happily ever after,
husband with 700 wives.
Never
do you see that
in the Old Testament.
Families break down,
lives are ruined,
physically,
spiritually,
emotionally,
relationally.
The Bible shows us
consistently how bad it is,
even as it records it.
That is,
the Bible
wasn't endorsing
something that I
thought it was endorsing.
It wasn't teaching
something that I
thought it was teaching.
Secondly,
please consider the
possibility that you
are misunderstanding
what the Bible
teaches because of
your own cultural
blind spots
and personal
preferences.
Luke 24,
verses 20 and 21.
Anne just read that
out to us on the
road to Emmaus.
Sorry,
it's the account
of the road to Emmaus.
Anne wasn't there.
We see these early
disciples
had misunderstood
the prophecies
about the Messiah,
the Old Testament
Messiah.
As Jews,
their blind spots
were they were
only thinking
about the redemption
of Israel,
not the whole world.
They had a cultural
blind spot
that meant
that they in fact
misread
scripture
and couldn't
therefore
understand
Jesus.
And the modern
person does the
same thing
on so many ways.
So many ways.
That long list
of offensive
to Sidneysiders.
Let me just
raise one.
Slavery.
One accusation
is that the Bible
condones slavery
when we clearly
know as modern
people that it's
wrong.
And therefore,
if it's wrong
on this issue,
then how can we
trust the Bible
on any
moral and
ethic issue?
It just needs
to update itself.
So the question
is,
does the Bible
actually condone
slavery?
Now there are
parts of the New
Testament
when Paul tells
slaves to obey
their masters
and we go,
ah,
there we go,
there it is,
right there.
In the New
Testament letter
of Philemon,
Paul is
addressing a
relationship between
a master and
his servant.
And as Paul
unpacks this
relationship,
it is clear
that it's not
the same kind
of relationship
that we would
call slavery.
slavery.
When we read
the word
slave in our
cultural context,
we automatically
turn our minds
back to the
17th,
18th and
19th century
and modern
slavery.
Race-based,
ethnic minority
slavery.
And we
import our
cultural blind
spot into
every time we
read the word
slavery.
When we read
the Bible with
those cultural
blinders on,
we are
misunderstanding
what the
Bible is
teaching.
In the
Greco-Roman
world,
slaves were
not
distinguishable
from everyone
else by race
or by the
way that they
spoke or by
the clothing
that they
wore.
They looked
and lived
like everyone
else and
were not
segregated off
as part of
society.
Slaves were
often quite
educated and
even more
highly educated
than their
masters and
therefore they
held high
positions.
Therefore you
see that in
Luke 16.
High
managerial
positions.
Slaves also
made the same
wages as
free labourers
and therefore
over time
they were able
to save
themselves,
save the
money up and
to buy
themselves out
of slavery.
The average
slave worked
for a master
in the first
century for
less than 10
years.
It was not a
lifelong oppressive
relationship.
It was the
purpose of
paying back
debts.
So as soon
as we get
our modern
mindset of
slavery and
impose it on
the Bible,
we have
completely
misunderstood
scripture and
what it's
actually teaching
in that
moment.
So and I
want to add
those who
historically have
to use the
Bible to
defend the
practice of
kidnapping and
enslaving people
such as in the
slave trade of
the modern era,
they have read
the Bible through
their own cultural
blind spots as
well and they
are wrong.
In the same
way we are
wrong if we
read the Bible
through our own
cultural blind
spots now.
Thirdly,
consider the
possibility that
you are being
offended by the
Bible because of
an assumption
that your cultural
moment is in fact
superior to all
others.
This is
offence
because I
am superior.
Often that
assumption has
never been tested
and it's actually
never been
personally
acknowledged.
The reason we
are offended by
some biblical
passages is
because it is
culturally offensive
in my own
cultural moment.
But
in other
cultures in
this moment
and in other
cultures from
the past,
they have no
problem with
the exact same
text.
On the other
hand, the
passage we think
is fine today,
we're happy
with,
they have a
problem in
their culture
right now with
those texts
and in the
past.
You see, in
our progressive
individualistic
Western society,
what the Bible
says about
sex is like
such a
problem.
But what it
says about
forgiveness,
that's pretty
good.
Love each
other.
Go to the
Middle East
today and
what the Bible
says about
sex is pretty
good, probably
not strict enough
but pretty
good.
What it
says about
forgiveness,
that's a
problem.
That's a
problem in
a shame and
honour culture
and particularly
a shame
culture.
That's a
problem.
If we are
offended by
something in
the Bible,
I'd want to
ask, why
should your
cultural
sensibilities
trump everyone
else's?
it's a
little bit
arrogant?
Could even
say it's a
little bit
racist.
Why get
rid of the
Bible because
it offends my
culture at
certain points?
After all,
for the
liberal
progressives
amongst us,
the young
ones who
sit over
the authority
of the
Bible,
the old
ones who
sit over
the authority
of the
Bible in
this moment,
just a
little bit
of a tip.
Your
grandchildren
and great
grandchildren
are going
to find a
lot of
what you
think today
is very
embarrassing.
They're going
to think
exactly the
same of
you.
Your
cultural
progressiveness
is going
to be seen
as conservative
and traditional.
in about
50 years.
Of course,
you don't
know which
bits,
but it
will be
true.
Don't
miss out
on all
the Bible
and the
Christian
faith has
to offer
just because
you won't
let go
of some
cultural
truth
that in
50 years
will be
considered
a joke.
If the
Bible really
is God
revealing
himself to
creation
and it's
not the
product of
any specific
culture as
I have said
multiple times
over the last
five to ten
years,
wouldn't it
therefore
contradict
every culture
at some
point
and even
have to
offend
every culture
at some
point?
So if
you read
it and
find some
things
beautiful
and other
things
offensive,
then it's
probably
true
and from
God.
Lastly,
it's
personally
reliable.
A
completely
authoritative
Bible is
the prerequisite
for a
warm
personal
relationship
with God.
It is
not the
enemy
of a
warm
personal
relationship
with God.
As I
said last
week,
in fact,
you cannot
have a
relationship
with God
without
his
word.
It's
like for
you who
are Christian
and you
are not
regularly in
your word,
it's like a
wedding day
where you
make promises
and don't
communicate
with your
spouse from
then on
in.
have a
look at
Luke 24
32
where the
disciples
reflect back
on their
journey along
the road to
Emmaus.
Were not
our hearts
burning within
us while
he talked
with us on
the road and
opened the
scriptures to
us?
In the
Bible,
the heart
is the
centre of
the whole
person.
It's not
just the
seat of
the emotions.
Hearts
burning here
in Luke
24 means
a full
life-changing
personal
encounter with
God.
And they
experienced
something here
in this
moment that
they have
never
experienced
before.
And when
did they
experience
it?
When he
opened the
scriptures to
us.
when the
Bible,
its meaning
was properly
open to
them,
when they
understood
what it
meant,
that is
the way
into this
deep
relationship.
And notice
how it
happens.
Verses
20-21,
they say
Jesus died,
but we had
hoped that
he would be
the one who
would save
us.
And Jesus
calls them
out for
being foolish
and slow
to believe
the Bible.
way to
win friends
and influence
people.
Why did
they
misunderstand?
Verse 27,
beginning with
Moses and
all the
prophets,
in other
words,
Old
Testament,
he explained
to them
what was
said in
all the
scriptures
concerning
himself.
He is
saying that
every single
thing in the
Bible is
about him.
Too many
people have
walked away
from the
Christian
faith and
the Bible
because they
have misunderstood
that central
point in
verse 27.
It's all
about Jesus.
If we think
the Bible is
somehow about
us and
what we
must do
and how
we must
live,
then we
don't need
it as a
saviour who
will die
for us.
all we
need is
simple rules
and a
code of
conduct
and therefore
in the
modern times
it is
regressive.
There are
only two
ways to
read the
Bible.
Read it
as if it
was all
about us
and what
we must
do or
we can
read every
part of
it as
if it
is about
him.
It is
about
Jesus
and what
he has
done.
And if
you're in
a community
group right
now,
you're
working
through that
process of
understanding
how the
whole Bible
is connected
to Jesus.
If you're
not in a
community
group,
jump into
that space
and have
your eyes
opened.
The whole
Bible points
to Jesus
and explains
Jesus and
everything is
achieved for
us in
dying in
our place
for our
sin.
The
exodus from
slavery in
Egypt,
where Jesus
started with
these guys
on the road
to Emmaus,
the sacrificial
lamb and
the passing
over of
God's
judgment is
all about
Jesus.
When the
Bible is
all about
Jesus and
what he's
achieved for
us out of
his love
for us,
that's when
the Bible
gets personal.
That's when
it becomes
an encounter
with him,
a deep
relationship
with him.
And so
my conviction
from both
experience and
the teaching
of the
Bible itself
is that the
most effective
means for
bolstering
confidence in
the Bible is
not so much
what I'm doing
right now and
did last week,
building arguments
about the
authority and
the truthfulness
of the Bible,
but in fact
to spend time
in the Bible,
reading the
Bible with
Jesus at
the centre.
Put it like
this,
I could tell
you right
now that
honey is a
substance made
from several
bee species.
Bees produce
honey by
gathering and
then refining
the sugary
secretments of
plants or
secretments of
other insects.
this refinement
takes place
within the
individual bees
through regurgitation
and enzymic
activity.
And honey
is sweet
because of
its high
concentrations
of simple
sugars like
fructose and
glucose.
In fact,
it has the
same relative
sweetness as
white sugar.
One standard
teaspoon of
honey provides
over 190
kilojoules of
food energy.
It is a
remarkable,
remarkable
sweet bit
of food.
And I
could tell you
that.
It's all
true,
but the best
thing I could
do for you is
not tell you
about the
sweetness of
honey,
but to
get some
and to
put it
on a
spoon
and taste
it.
And of
course,
then do
something with
your insulin
pump.
I'll do
that in a
moment.
Make some
adjustments for
that.
In other
words,
if you
don't get
it then,
I could sit
here and do
a lecture
about the
sweetness of
honey,
and you
can walk
away with a
bunch of
facts.
Reliable
facts.
But what
you need to
do to
really get
the facts,
you need to
stick it on
a spoon,
you need to
taste it.
Taste that
it is,
in fact,
good.
And if at
that point,
that is,
you don't get
it until you
taste it,
and if you
don't get it
once you've
tasted it,
there's
nothing more
I can do
for you.
there's
nothing more
I can do
for you.
And so,
as King
David invited
others to
join him
in Psalm
34,
verse 8,
so I
invite you
to taste
and see
that the
Lord is
good.
God
promises to
bless the
reading and
teaching of
his word.
The word
of God
itself is
more than
enough to
accomplish the
work of
God in
the people
of God.
God
and there
is no
better way
to understand
and come
to embrace
the truth
and the
authority
and the
goodness
and the
rightness
of scripture
than in
fact to
open it
up
and let
it out
in your
life.
And as
you do,
as you
do,
pray,
Lord,
help me
to taste
and see
that you
are good.
Amen.