To be furious at local church carol service

Beautiful 😍

I’m really sorry it felt so upsetting — that’s not something to dismiss lightly. But can I gently ask: what exactly was said that felt misogynistic or hell-focused? Tone and emphasis matter a great deal, and it can help to distinguish between the message itself and how it was delivered.

Biblically speaking, Christianity doesn’t deny love, kindness or beauty — those flow from the gospel, not in spite of it. But the Christian message also begins with honesty about sin, because without that, love and hope lose their meaning. The Bible’s claim is not “you are terrible”, but “something has gone wrong with all of us — and God has come to rescue us”.

Genesis 3:16, for example, is not God endorsing patriarchy or misogyny. It is describing the damage sin does to human relationships after the Fall. That damage is precisely what Jesus comes to undo. From the Gospels onwards, Christ repeatedly restores dignity to women, confronts abuse of power, and exposes religious hypocrisy (John 4; Luke 7; Matthew 23).

When churches speak about sin or judgement, at their best it isn’t hellfire for its own sake. Jesus himself spoke about judgement because he loved people and wanted them to turn and live (Luke 13:3; John 3:17). The message of Christmas is that God does not stand at a distance condemning the world — he enters it, takes on flesh, and offers forgiveness, healing and new life.

So the real question isn’t whether love or sin should be preached, but whether Christ was clearly preached. The Christian hope is not moral improvement or fear, but grace: “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

If that centre was missing, then the service failed in an important way. But if Christ, repentance and grace were present — even if clumsily or painfully communicated — that may be closer to historic Christianity than a message that avoids sin altogether.

Thank you for raising it. These are important conversations, and Christians should be willing to examine whether we are truly reflecting the heart of Christ.

But we are sinners? 'Sin' is just Christianese for wrong-doing. I do and say and think plenty of things which are wrong - I know I can be selfish, short-tempered etc etc. Are you really different? I doubt it. We all know the world is a mess. One of the things I like about Christianity is that it challenges each of us to challenge ourselves and take responsibility, instead of blaming the mess on immigrants / the right / the left / Elon Musk / people on benefits / Muslims / every white male who has ever drawn breath (take your pick depending on ideological preference).

You too ❤️

I couldn’t sleep at all last night for some reason and found this discussion turned out very interesting (and highly appropriate given the day!), so thank you to all.

It’s good to be able to question committed Christians, Christian scholars, wavering Christians, atheists, and agnostic people on the outside looking in (like me) without angry argument. There should be more of this.

Have a good Christmas!

Yes I do know that the first reading is from the Old Testament. I am giving you my sense as a lifelong Catholic. I didn’t mean to sound dismissive.

There seem to be endless variations on what can be 'properly applied', according to who's interpreting the text. I understand that Jesus said he came not to change 'a jot or tittle' of what was in the OT. And you are certainly cherry-picking to find examples of the Bible not being misogynistic. The two (just two!) examples you give hardly balance out the rest of it.

Not in the New Testament, it doesn’t.

Jesus declared all foods clean.

Those rules are in the Old Testament, apart from the fish on Fridays which doesn’t exist at all. Superseded (for Christians) by the New Testament but included in most Christian bibles for reference purposes.

It forbids eating pork as well…

The traditional readings miss out 16 (they don't stop at 15, they go on to 17).
Could it have just been an inexperienced reader who ploughed straight on?

I too believe that the Bible is inspired by God but he didn't write it. Flawed humans wrote it - and I imagine they were looking for an explanation of why childbirth is so hard, but they didn't know much about evolution/relative brain sizes and maturity at birth/the female human skeleton.

Well, precisely! Clear evidence of how silly these arbitrary rules are and they are not fit for purpose as a prescription on how people should live.

I am not sure either. I understand atheists taking Genesis at face value and seeing it as God wishing labour pains on women for no good reason except misogyny.

Professing Christians, and, at a stretch, casual church goers, should have a basic understanding of the theology of Christianity that goes beyond being nice to people.

Those who are shocked that the Old Testment outlines the rebellious nature of man and woeful separation between humanity and God, don't seem to understand that this is why the hymn writers sang about joy, Jesus being the light of the world, our saviour, etc. Jesus came to be the bridge between God and mankind

I don't understand why such people don't just reject Christianity as a whole. Christmas is not about a baby who was destined to be a Really Nice Guy.

Ahhh I see, apologies. I agree, it seems very inconsistent!

This thread has given me the laugh I much needed today. The mental gymnastics involved in coming up with your own version of a millennia old religion, and glossing over the awkward bits, is quite something to behold.

Jesus is the hope. That's the whole point. We ARE sinners destined for Hell but Jesus stepped in and saved us. As a Christian, this morning I felt so much happiness that Jesus came into the world to save me, and I am particularly grateful BECAUSE I'm a sinner and don't deserve it. If you aren't a Christian then this won't make sense but if you are a Christian, this is the foundational point upon which the entire doctrine is based. You cannot give credit to the problem solver without contextualising the situation with the problem.

Yep. 'Depart from me for I never knew you' isnt fluffy for sure.

Also: The Book of Revelation. As unfluffy as its gets. Jesus threatening to spit the Laodacians out of his mouth never gives me the fuzzies.

Gen 3:16 is part of a curse as a consequence to the original fall, which Jesus later redeems. And all broken relationships can be redeemed and restored through him. Gen 3.15 hints at this.

It's a beautiful faith that requires meditation and study with others, not face value simplistic assumptions.

Not sure what the issue is?

The traditional Anglican service of 9 lessons and carols has a fixed list of readings:

1. Genesis 3:8-15, 17-19: The Fall of Man in Eden.
2. Genesis 22:15-18: God's Promise to Abraham.
3. Isaiah 9:2, 6-7: Prophecy of the Messiah's Kingdom.
4. Micah 5:2-4: Prophecy of Christ's Birth in Bethlehem (or Isaiah 11 for peace).
5. Matthew 1:18-23: The Annunciation to Joseph (or Luke 1:26-38 for Gabriel's message).
6. Luke 2:1-7: The Birth of Jesus.
7. Luke 2:8-20: The Shepherds' Visit.
8. Matthew 2:1-12: The Visit of the Magi (Wise Men).
9. John 1:1-14: The Prologue (The Incarnation).

I'm an atheist, and had no idea what Genesis 3.16 says - so I just looked it up - bollocks to that, I'd probably walk out 😀

I'm sorry to hear it OP, I was disappointed by local carol service ahere we simply had to be reminded we're all sinners too with a couple of other questionable points. Such a wasted opportunity to share some hope rather than guilt trip in self interest.

Yeah, check out the NT. Nothing fluffy about the way Jesus talks about sin, hell and judgment.

I am a Muslim. Some of the stuff in the Koran is terrifying. The things that will happen to non-believers and the punishments that await. I don’t think the Koran has had ‘re-writes’. Whilst it is pretty brutal, I would not expect to be shielded from the writings as an adult.

That's probably why the new testament was written to be all fluffy and loving.
Peeps were ignoring the original stuff. Honey to catch wasps and all that.

I could debate some of your claims - Lucifer is often used as an alternate title for Satan for a variety of reasons, including the passage in Isaiah potentially being allegorical and referring to his fall from heaven, and around the fact that in Christianity, Satan is repeatedly referred to as an actual, individual being who stands in opposition to God - most likely a fallen angel.

But regardless of those quibbles, my point stands - the only non-human behaving badly in the Bible is God himself!