After he was raised from the dead, Jesus took a similar approach with his disciples:

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.  (Luke 24.25-27 ESV)

But, what do the (Old Testament) Scriptures say concerning Jesus?  Is it only the bits where we can see a clearly fulfilled prophecy, say verses in Isaiah that the Gospel writers quote?  Or, is there more to what Jesus said than merely pulling a few texts out and saying: “see, prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus”? John’s Gospel helps us here.  At the start of John’s Gospel we here words that are both familiar and strange: “In the beginning was the Word ...” John is taking us back to the beginning, he is reminding us what happened, but he is saying something new, something that we know from Genesis, but something that was not clear until Jesus spoke.  Jesus is the Word of God; not just the mouthpiece, not a mere messenger, or a public address system sounding out the words of God: no, Jesus is the ‘Word of God’.  When Jesus speaks, it is God speaking.  When God speaks, it is his Word at work.  The Son of God, Jesus, is the Word of God.

So, when we go back to the beginning and read the opening words of Genesis we see that when God speaks all things into existence, the Son (Word) of God and Spirit of God were active in creating all things.  This is what John’s Gospel tells us (John 1.3), and it is also what we hear elsewhere in the New Testament: e.g. Colossians 1.15-17, Hebrews 1.1-4.  Starting at the beginning should remind us that God acts together, Father, Son and Spirit.  Just as we see this in the creation of everything, we should also see that same close living and working relationship as God sustains all things, and as God redeems His people; God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit in a close living and working relationship.

What I see as a real problem is the infant God syndrome. It is the way, when Jesus is mentioned at Christmas; he is constantly presented as a ‘babe in a manger’.  It is as if he never grew up! It is as if he is just a cute religious motif for the season. Please don’t get me wrong, it is not that I don’t believe that Jesus was born to the unwed Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, announced by angels, visited by shepherds.  Those facts are part of the historical record about Jesus[1].  Of course I believe it all happened.  The problem is this: while we focus our attention on the vulnerable infant in the manger, we miss the incredible significance of his birth.  The celebration of ‘Christmas’ becomes a homely festival, instead of the anniversary of a world changing event when the Creator stepped into His Creation to become its Redeemer. Could you imagine taming the anniversary of 9/11 and turning it into a sentimental commercial and gastronomic celebration?

When Jesus was born God set in action his plan to redeem and restore the world and the people he had made from scratch.  Now, God didn’t do what he could have done: He didn’t arrive with troops to round up the guilty parties, to administer justice and clean up the mess humankind had made[2]. Instead, he showed his true character: humble, loving and generous beyond compare.  Instead, He chose to take the consequences of humanity’s rebellion on Himself, in the person of Jesus.  By doing that, he saved people, wherever possible, from the certain, and indescribable horror of coming face to face with the unique and pure power of God, an encounter we could not survive. Jesus, both man and God, became the human shield for us – at one time both suffering for us, protecting us. Jesus was certainly born: he was only briefly the infant God, but he grew up more than we can grasp – he was born to die in our place, redeeming us and our world.

[2] Jesus made it clear that he could have taken this course of action, but choice not to do that was consistent with God’s word.

If only evolution were taught as science. If it were admitted that it is only a theory that appears, to some, to fit the facts better than other theories. If only the variations of the theory were taught and the development of the theory were admitted. If only the short comings of those variants were discussed when the theory is taught.

Then we might be able to say, yes, over here is the theory of evolution and over there is the theory of intelligent design. And, perhaps there are other theories yet to emerge that we have not yet dreamed of.

But, please don't teach one theory as if it were fact, and deny the opportunity to examine other theories - where is the science in that? It sounds like blind faith to me - and blind faith is ignorance that never did anyone any good.