Deep Thoughts with Aaron D. Taylor

Review of Alone with a Jihadist

2012-01-24T20:46:00.000-08:00

Below is a review of my book Alone with a Jihadist from Regina Manley:

Alone with a Jihadist is a riveting, must read for any Christian who has the courage to reexamine Jesus’ commands and example regarding violence. Raised in a Pentecostal and conservative Christian environment, Taylor’s journey began after 7 hours of dialog with a radical Muslim, Khalid Kelly. The following excerpts should wet your appetite:

“What our nation lacks at this crucial juncture in our history is creative thinking, and the reason why we lack creative thinking is because of our unwavering faith in the myth of redemptive violence, especially in the Church.” P172

The reason why both Jesus and Paul (Romans 12:14-21, I Thessalonians 5:15) forbade Christians to use the sword is because when Christians use the sword, we undermine our unique calling to be a prophetic people that embody the reality of the age to come (Hebrews 6:5). … People won’t be ruling over each other, but serving each other in self-sacrificial love—like Jesus did. When Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God is at hand, He was calling forth a people from the north, the south, the east, and the west to live in the reality of the age to come in the here and now. P189

Thank you Regina!

A Christmas greeting from a Saudi Arabian Muslim

2011-12-26T14:24:00.001-08:00

I received this in my inbox today.

Thought my might enjoy reading about what Jesus means to a Saudi Arabian/American Muslim.

Enjoy!

Friends,
Yesterday December 24, 2011 a friend and a brother sent me his wish for a Merry Christmas and said: “I hope today you have been able in some way to celebrate the life we have in Christ!”. This led me to think about what celebrating the birth of Jesus truly means to me. This early morning, I woke up as usual at 5.30 A.M. to perform my morning prayer and was sitting after prayers thinking and suddenly, I felt a surge of bless flowing through me and the meaning of celebrating Jesus birth became clear in my heart and in my mind. The urge to write to all of you sharing these wonderful feelings I have is out of love to all of you. In fact this whole thing is about love.

When I was sixteen of age, I observed that all we human beings do including love and friendship is originated in a basic instinct to preserve the species. Later, I observed that from there we moved into self glorification of our particular race. This certainly was not very flattering to our human race. But that is truly how I felt. Later, I learned that there must be a creator. My observation to His universe taught me that He deeply cares about me and I found myself surrendering myself to His care. This put me on one side of the fence and put those that did not surrender on the other side. Islam that I learned at that time had something missing. My teachers were mostly Islamocentrics. They taught me that Muslims are the only saved people. All others are doomed. They were self glorifying themselves and those like them. While this was not racial per say, still it added another dimension to my understanding i.e. people self glorify themselves based on many elements of race, tribe, party or even religion.

When I met Jesus I observed that for the first time someone is not motivated in his behavior by ego or egotistical motives. He is teaching that we are all children of God and He loves us all equally. He is teaching not only to love those that you call your people or those that belong to your religion but to love even your enemies. He teaches that if you want to lead you have to serve, if you want to be the first you have to be the last and if you want life you have to give up life. His own life completed what was missing in my own understanding. He is the bridge that connected me to the purpose God created me for. To love Him and to serve others. Jesus is a man that had an exceptional miraculous birth, an exceptional miraculous life and exceptional miraculous death and resurrection by the will of God.

I was sharing this with my daughter minutes after I felt it and she said but dad today might not be his real birthday. I said, If you follow his teachings, you will be celebrating his birth every day.
Blessings,
Safi

Why I don’t support The Call

2011-11-15T23:24:00.000-08:00

I was born and raised a Pentecostal/charismatic Christian. While I don’t attend a charismatic church right now, the Pentecostal/charismatic movement remains the backdrop through which I interpret the Christian faith. I believe in speaking in tongues, casting out demons, and healing the sick. I attended one of the flagship Pentecostal Bible schools in the country, and I spent years traveling the world propagating charismatic Christianity. To give you an idea of my immersion in Pentecostal-speak, one time, a friend of mine was explaining to me how an electric device works, and in order to speak my language, he used an analogy comparing how electricity flows through a cable to how the Holy Spirit flows through us as vessels. He knew I’d understand the Holy Spirit part.

Though I treasure my Pentecostal heritage, these days I feel like an outsider looking in, because though it started out as a pacifist movement in the early 20th century, today Pentecostalism (at least in America) is largely known as a religion that spawns extremist movements that trumpet militarism and bigotry.

Chief exhibit: The Call

Founded by Lou Engle, the Call is a movement that regularly holds massive prayer events in stadiums across the country. Engle is part of a network called the New Apostolic Reformation, which believes that God is raising up an end- times army of apostles and prophets to take over earthly governments before Jesus comes back. A few of its prominent leaders are Peter Wagner, Cindy Jacobs, Rick Joyner, and Mike Bickle. Though the end-times theology of these individuals may vary, the underlying principle that binds them together is the idea that Christians are called to dominate earthly governments and civil society, and that apostles and prophets are supposed to pave the way to make that happen.

While they fashion themselves as champions of racial reconciliation, the reality is the leaders of the Call have traded one form of bigotry for another. They lure African Americans, Latinos, and other racial minority Christians into their program by conducting ceremonies of repentance for past sins, but then they use their expanded platform to demonize Muslims and gay people, and promote an extreme Christian Zionist agenda. While I don’t mean to suggest that they’re being intentionally dishonest, the language, terminology and ideas promoted by leaders of the Call and the New Apostolic Reformation provide for some bizarre ironies.

Irony #1:

I believe the movement’s leaders are sincere when they symbolically repent for the historical sins of slavery and native American genocide, yet the same people teach that Jews and Arabs will always fight (until Jesus comes back) because Jews are sons of Isaac and Arabs are sons of Ishmael. That sounds a lot like the black-people-are-under-the-curse-of-Ham argument that white racists used to justify slavery.

Irony #2: A big part of the prayer agenda of this movement is to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem”, but the funny thing is that when they “pray for the peace of Jerusalem”, they’re not actually praying for peace. What they actually mean is “pray that Jerusalem will stay in the hands of Jews, and that if the Jewish majority is ever threatened in a political settlement, pray that the U.S. will side with Israel in a future war.” Peace = War. Doublespeak.

Irony #3. Leaders of the Call routinely cast themselves in the role of the persecuted minority, but they use their “persecuted minority" status to demonize—minorities .

For example, in a conference call leading up to the recent Call Detroit event, “ex-terrorist” Kamal Saleem made the absurd claim that Obama wants to impose Sharia law on America, implying that the listeners should be afraid of a group of people that represent a fraction of the U.S. population. Another example is even after the secular media raised concerns about the so-called “kill the gays” bill in Uganda, Lou Engle organized a rally in conjunction with key sponsors of the bill. And in the irony of all ironies, in another conference call leading up to the event, state senator Mark Jansen was invited to weigh-in, the same man that voted to attach a “religious freedom exception” to Michigan’s anti-bullying legislation, essentially saying that it’s okay to bully a gay kid—as long as it’s for religious reasons.

It takes a serious persecution complex to side with conspiracy theorists, kill-the-gays legislators, and high school bullies, but such is the nature of extremism. I’m sad that it has come to this. I pray that American Pentecostalism will find it’s way again…before it’s too late.

Andrew Sullivan on the New Atheists

2011-11-12T07:32:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan on the New Atheists:

Do you think he makes good points?

Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street?

2011-10-12T22:54:00.000-07:00

A common technique for opinion writers is to pose a question in the title of their articles, and then spoon-feed the answer to their readers. This isn’t one of those articles. I ask the question of whether Jesus would be on the streets with the Occupy Wall Street protestors because a.) I think it’s a question worth asking b.) I don’t know the answer and c.) I genuinely would like to hear what other people think on the matter.

First, a disclaimer: I realize the question What-Would-Jesus-Do is a controversial one. Not everybody accepts the premise that we can know with certainty what Jesus would do in hypothetical situations today. It’s also true that all of us are unique. The way that Jesus might life his life through one person might be different than how he might live his life through another. Still, as followers of Jesus, I think it helps from time to time to evaluate our actions based on the model of Jesus, and the best way to tackle the question of what would Jesus do is to ask what did Jesus do.

That’s where things get tricky.

An argument for why Jesus might be out on the streets today joining the protesters is that Jesus was an activist for the poor in his day. When Jesus cleansed the temple, he wasn’t merely performing a religious act. The cleansing of the temple was highly political. The temple was the seat of religious, economic, and political power for Jews in Jesus’ day. Jesus was mad as hell at the fleecing of the poor by the moneychangers and the exclusion of the Gentiles (read: economic injustice and institutionalized racism). Had newspapers been around back then, Jesus would have landed on the front page of the Jerusalem Times, and the editorialists would have lambasted him for disorderly conduct. Jesus literally threw people out of the temple, destroyed tables, and prevented people from carrying goods through the temple (Mark 11: 15-16). What would Fox News and CNN call that today? At the very least, they would label him an activist, or probably something worse.

Then there’s Zacchaeus.

First century Jews would have thought of Zacchaeus in much the same way as a lot of people today think of Wall Street executives and hedge fund managers. Zacchaeus was a chief among the tax collectors, and a very rich man. He obtained his wealth by collaborating with the imperialist Roman occupiers at the expense of his own people. He benefited from a system that lavished an exorbitant amount of wealth on a few at the expense of everyone else. And how did Jesus treat him? Jesus never camped outside his office in an effort to shame him. Instead he invites himself over for dinner. By extending his hand of friendship to Zacchaeus, Jesus did the opposite of what the crowd wanted him to do. The crowd couldn’t get over the fact that Jesus was going to eat in the home of “a sinner.” They were so focused on Zacchaeus’s sins; they forgot that they were sinners too.

As I read the blogs and watch the news about what’s happening in New York and around the country, I can’t help but wonder: If Jesus were walking the streets of New York today, would he be a rabble-rouser activist like he was at the temple, or would he walk up to the CEO of Goldman Sachs and give him a hug? I don’t see how a person can be an angry activist and a friend of aristocrats at the same time, but that’s just me. Regardless of where you land on this matter, here’s a sentiment I think we can all agree with:

Just when I think I have Jesus figured out, he throws another curveball.

In memory of Eliot O Brien

2011-09-05T16:30:00.000-07:00

Dear blogging buds,

I know it's been a while since I have written. For the record: I've not dropped off the planet. Just haven't felt very inspired to write. Call it a slump if you will. Sometimes words escape me, other times they flow off the fingers so easily I end up posting two or three blogs a week. It comes and goes.

Then other times, something very important happens in your life that you can't help but write about, because to not do so just wouldn't be right. Two weeks ago, one of those somethings happened. My father-in-law, Eliot O Brien died suddenly of a heart attack.

Anyone that knew Eliot would know that he was such a powerful, exuberant presence that now that he's no longer with us, it makes the hole that much bigger. Eliot was one of those people that every time he walked into a room, you knew he was in the room. At any given moment with Eliot in the room, you may hear him singing his favorite praise song (which took a lot of guts, because he couldn't sing and he knew it) or he may startle you with a sudden "Hallelujah!" or "Praise the Lord!"

Eliot and I loved to debate politics and world affairs. No matter how far apart on the spectrum we were, we always found something to agree on, or ended with a truce. Eliot was a very opinionated man, but he also knew how to disagree agreeably.

Not only was Eliot a good father to my wife Rhiannon and her brother Cody, he was also an excellent employer. Eliot used to own the Daily Times, which is the local paper here in Farmington, New Mexico. (I have to specify the "New Mexico" part for all of my Missouri friends). Since his passing, a good number of Eliot's former employees have spoken publicly and privately about what a great boss he was, and how he was always there to lend a helping hand in their hour of need. How many people out there can say, "My boss cares about me." From a Biblical perspective, how a person treats his or her employees says a lot about their relationship with God.

My son Isaac adored him, always called him "Papa." Eliot loved his grandchildren. I'm so glad that Eliot got to spend time with our two children, Isaac and Christian, before he passed. Maybe that's why God had us move to Farmington, so that we could finally get the family that we always wanted, and so that Eliot could see his grandchildren before passing. Rhiannon and I struggled for years to have children...until we moved to Farmington.

Now that Eliot has passed, another chapter in our lives is closing. Unless a compelling reason leads us to choose otherwise, next year Rhiannon and I are planning to move to Rio Rancho, a suburb of Albuquerque. I'll continue to travel, write books, teach and preach the gospel, work for peace, or whatever else I feel the Lord nudging me to do. Rhiannon will be close to her brother Cody and his wife Jasmin and their son Cole. They'll be a great help to her when I'm off somewhere doing who knows what. Our boys will look forward to the two to three times a year where we'll visit St. Louis so that they can see their cousins, their uncles, and their grandparents. We'll be a happy family. Just like Eliot would have wanted.

Do me a favor.

Take the time today or tomorrow to hug a loved one.

Let them know how much you appreciate them.

You don't know how much longer they'll be with you.

While there is still time,

Aaron

Why I didn't attend Governor Perry's prayer rally

2011-08-12T13:21:00.000-07:00

Below is an article I helped write for author Carl Medearis.

For the past 20 years, I've had the privilege of helping lead a delegation from the Middle East to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual event that gathers politicians and people of influence from around the world over several days. It's one of the few prayer events where you're as likely to see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as you are to see Sam Brownback or Sarah Palin. It's my favorite week of the year. It's hard to put into words how inspiring it is to see Democrats and Republicans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus -- and probably a few non-religious types thrown in the mix -- gathering together to pray and talk about faith. What's even more remarkable is the one person that every politician or religious leader agrees on: Jesus. From the opening prayer to the closing ceremony, and every workshop and roundtable discussion in between, the life and teachings of Jesus take center stage. As a follower of Jesus who believes in prayer, this is a prayer event I can sign on to.

Governor Perry's prayer rally last Saturday....

Not so much.

For the rest of the article: Click here!

Mr. Y speaks out

2011-07-19T20:44:00.000-07:00

It's funny the things that you remember. I can remember one time when I was a teenager watching an episode of the Montel Williams show. I don't remember the topic, or exactly how he said it, but I do remember Montel criticizing the U.S. government for spending too much money on military defense and not enough on domestic needs. I can remember thinking to myself, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard." In the world that I knew, the idea of slashing military spending was absolutely, totally, utterly UNTHINKABLE! I personally had never met anyone who thought that way, so I assumed that anyone who would suggest such a thing had to be either a:) naive b:) stupid c:) a tree-hugger or d:) unAmerican.

That was then.

I don't know if it's because I changed or because America has changed (or both), but for years it seemed like the only ones who suggested slashing military spending were groups that few Americans could identify with: people like hippies, pacifists, environmental and civil rights activists, and conspiracy theorists. Today, the idea that a significant portion of the nation's economic woes is due to wasteful Pentagon spending can be found both on the left and on the right ends of the political spectrum. It can also be found in the Pentagon.

Meet Mr. Y

A few months ago, Mr. Y wrote an article suggesting that America needs to rethink the way it views itself in relation to the world. Rather than trying to dominate and control the world through force, America needs to lead through economic strength and credible influence. Rather than seeing the world through the lens of threats, we should see the world through the lens of opportunity. As the nations of the world become more interdependent in their economies, competition should be viewed not as a zero-sum game, but as a means for nations to mutually advance their interests.

Mr. Y goes on to argue that the real source of America's national power is in its youth, its economy, and its infrastructure, and that sadly, America has underinvested in these priorities. Perhaps the most provocative suggestion by Mr. Y is that the Cold War policy of containment, which relied on massive military build-ups and quasi-imperialistic interventions, is outdated. Rather than thinking about "national security", we should be thinking about "national prosperity and security." Mr. Y suggests that America should place its priorities on development, diplomacy, and defense--in that order.

Mr. Y is a pseudonym for two people: Captain Wayne Porter of the U.S. Navy and Colonel Mark Mykelby of the U.S. Marines. Both men are top-ranking members of Admiral Mike Mullen's team, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Despite the fact that Capitol Hill is embroiled in a controversy over whether the U.S. should either pay its bills or plunge the world into an economic depression, on July 8th, the House passed a staggering $649 billion defense spending bill. Although news like this can be discouraging, it's good to know that in the highest echelons of the Pentagon, there are some people saying enough is enough.

Memo to Mideast Quartet: The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Train Derailed Ages Ago

2011-07-11T08:55:00.000-07:00

It's nice to see someone in the "lame stream media" finally getting it right on the Israel/Palestine issue.

Netanyahu has built his career around resisting the Oslo accords. It's Netanyahu, not the Palestinians, that refuses to negotiate.

Memo to Mideast Quartet: The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Train Derailed Ages Ago

Why I like Tamar

2011-06-23T07:43:00.001-07:00

I like Tamar.

Do you know her story?

Let me tell it to you briefly.

Judah was one of the 12 sons of Jacob. He marries a Canaanite woman who bears him two sons: Er and Onan. Judah decides to take a wife for his son,her name is Tamar. Tamar's husband Er was a worthless POS (not exactly how the Bible puts it, but you get the picture) so God kills him. Judah says to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and marry her, and raise up an heir for your brother." In ancient Israel, if a man died without male heirs, the wife had to sleep with his brothers to produce a male heir. Icky.

But Onan had another idea. Because Onan knew that the heir wouldn't be his, he decides to go "into" his brother's wife, but emits on the ground at the last minute. Talk about the ultimate SCREW YOU!

God didn't like that either, so He kills Onan.

Tamar is now in an awful situation. Judah sends Tamar back to her father (major disgrace by the way) and tells her to wait for his other son Shelah to grow up, and then he'll give her to him as his wife. So Tamar waited....and waited....and waited. Still no Shelah. Judah must have seen Tamar as a bad omen, since guys that sleep with her seem to get struck dead, so he balks on his promise. Now it looks like Tamar is going to be in a perpetual state of disgrace for the rest of her life. No husband. No heirs. No future.

This is where the story gets really good.

Tamar decides to take matters into her own hands.....by dressing up as a prostitute and seducing Judah to have sex with her. Judah decides to pay for Tamar's "services" with a young goat, though he doesn't have one with him, so Tamar asks for his signet, his cord, and the staff in his hand as pledge. Judah has no idea that it's Tamar, so when he finds out that his (ex) daughter-in-law is pregnant through harlotry, he wants to burn her at the stake.....until Tamar pulls out the signet, the cord, and the staff and says, "Hm....I wonder who these belong to?"

Judah realizes that the "harlot" was Tamar, and acknowledges that Tamar was more righteous than him, since he had not given Shelah to her as her husband.

Tamar conceives of twins. One of the twins, Perez, becomes the great, great, great, great....ect....grandfather of Jesus the Messiah.

There's a lot in this story, but I want to focus on the fact that Tamar started out with an awful husband. Er was, as the Bible puts it "wicked." Then one by one, every other man in her life "screws her" both literally and figuratively. Tamar finds herself disgraced and without a future...so she decides to take matters into her own hands. She could have chosen the path of revenge, but instead she decided to outsmart the man that had wronged her, and was vindicated in the end.

It's interesting that the Bible reflects (notice I said reflect, not prescribe. Big difference!) a patriarchal structure that favors men, yet is filled with stories of women outsmarting the men.

So all you ladies that have been used and abused, is there a way you can outsmart the men who have harmed you, without repaying them evil in return?

Tamar did it.

So can you.

And they say the Bible is irrelevant.....

Tamar's story is found in Genesis chapter 38. You can read the full story here.

The hidden message of Job

2011-06-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

Ever feel like your life is falling apart? I do sometimes, until I go to Starbucks and sip my troubles away with a Carmel Mocha Frappuccino lite. Did I just admit that?

Or I read the Book of Job.

Job's story is the ultimate one-upper. Ever been one-upped? You tell a sad story, and someone has a sadder story. Anyways, unless you've lost all of your children, all of your possessions, and boils all over your body, you've probably been one-upped by Job. Which I'm thinking is a good thing. If you feel like you are indeed a modern-day Job, as the expression goes, the good news is Job's story ends well. In the end, God gives him twice as much as he had before. So take heart.

But there is a hidden message in Job I'd like to explore. There are several passages that bring the point out, but here's one of my favorites:

"Oh earth, do not cover my blood, and let my cry have no resting place! Surely even now my witness is in heaven, and my evidence is on high. My friends scorn me, my eyes pour out tears to God. Oh that one might plead for a man with God, as a man pleads for his neighbor. For when a few years are finished, I shall go the way of no return" (italics emphasis mine).

Job had no one to plead for him with God. Little Job against big God. God wins. Throughout the Book of Job we hear him crying out for an advocate. Somebody to stand between him and the one who held his fate in his hands.

The good news is: Today we have such an advocate, his name is Jesus! (I John 2:1)

Imagine being tried for a crime with no one to represent you. That's how Job felt. We know in hindsight that God wasn't punishing Job for his sins, but Job didn't know that. All he "knew" was that God was mad at him, and the case against him was rigged.

The New Testament calls Jesus our mediator and our advocate.

The hidden message of the Book of Job is how miserable life can be feeling like you have no one to represent you before the judge of all the earth.

Thank God (and Jesus) we don't have to feel that way anymore!

Workers share of income, record low

2011-06-14T21:02:00.000-07:00

This caught my attention.

As if we needed another reminder: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Workers are getting screwed. Here's the proof.

Where are the prophets?

Miracle shoes?

2011-05-10T20:28:00.001-07:00

A funny thing happened on Easter Sunday. Our son Isaac has this annoying habit of taking his shoes off and throwing them while he's in the car. Usually the shoes end up on the floor in front of the car seat, but not always. On Easter Sunday my wife and I invited my father in law to come to our church. To give you an idea of the kind of faith my father in law has, often when my wife and I are driving a long distance, like to Albuquerque and back, he'll pray that the Spirit of God translates us directly to our location so that we won't have to drive that far....and he actually believes it'll happen. It never has, but he still prays it regularly. My father in law is the kind of person that wakes up every morning and asks the Holy Spirit what he should wear and where he should go out to eat for lunch that day. It's the "crazy" kind of faith that to the uninitiated looks a lot like lunacy.

Back to the story: Isaac threw his shoe. My wife and I looked all over the car for it. I mean all over. For 10-15 minutes. We finally took Isaac inside with only one shoe (sort of a punishment, but he didn't care). Then Eliot (my father in law) continued to look for the shoe for about another 20 minutes before he finally gave up and came inside. I mean a full twenty minutes!

Church is now over. My wife and I look for about another 10 minutes. Eliot continues to look. Eliot gets in his car. All of the sudden I notice that Isaac's shoe is sitting right next to the car seat. The same place that we had looked over and over and over...and it wasn't there. I said something to the effect of "Oh my! The shoe just appeared out of nowhere!" and Eliot says to me, "I prayed that if the shoe is in the car, that God would put it in plain sight, and if the shoe is not in the car, that God would put it in the car."

Strange, isn't it?

I'm fully aware that there's probably a natural explanation for this (though I can't think of a credible one off the bat). But still, if God exists (as I believe He does) then why would it be so unbelievable that He could make a shoe appear out of nowhere? And why should brainy intellectual types like me (okay...wannabe brainy intellectual...are you happy?) disregard what seems to be the "crazy" kind of faith that my father in law seems to display every day? If God exists (again, I believe He does) then where's the line between normal faith and crazy faith?

Why am I asking this question? Because the following week, the exact same thing happened. Same amount of time spent looking for the shoe. Same "crazy" prayer. Same shoe seemingly appearing out of nowhere and put right in front of our eyes.

Coincidence?

Maybe.

Even so, could God be teaching me something?

Am I listening?

A response to my Sojourners article

2011-05-04T13:23:00.000-07:00

I didn't expect anyone to actually try to answer the questions I raised in my article "I know that Jesus is the answer, but what does that mean?" .which also appeared on Sojourners...but someone did.

Heidi from Evangelicals for Social Action wrote an excellent response:

Read it here.

I know that Jesus is the answer, but what does that mean?

2011-04-25T21:27:00.000-07:00

Is the gospel about Jesus rescuing us from hell and transporting us to heaven… or is it about Jesus creating a community to work with him in the renewal of creation? Here in America, questions like this can determine whether you think of yourself as emergent (or not), whether you like Sojourners (or not) or whether you prefer Fox News or CNN. It’s a question that Christians can discuss with their friends over a cappuccino at Starbucks. We know that Jesus is the answer, but what does that actually mean? Let me tell you about a group of people where the answer to this question can spell the difference between hope and misery: Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

A couple of weeks ago I traveled to Lebanon and Jordan as part of a delegation of authors, professors, and businessmen. Originally we were supposed to meet with a major world leader, but that didn’t pan out, so we ended up spending our time meeting with political leaders, democracy activists, Christian workers, and Insider Muslims (which are Muslims that follow Jesus within the context of Islam—another story for another day). One day we spent a morning at a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut. It wasn’t at all like I expected.

Like many people, when the words “Palestinian refugee camp” came to mind, I pictured makeshift tents strewn on an open field somewhere, probably in the middle of a valley or a desert. The Palestinian camp in Beirut is more like a city within a city, a series of autonomous heavily guarded neighborhood blocks in which the Lebanese police are not allowed to enter. The partially bombed-out buildings betray evidence of previous wars and invasions, the streets are narrow and filthy, and walking on the narrow and filthy streets between the partially bombed-out buildings you can look up and see tangles of wires connecting here, there, and everywhere; evidence of people doing the best they can with what they have to work with.

Most Palestinians refugees in Lebanon live and die in the camps, and it’s been that way for over 60 years. Unlike Jordan, where the Palestinian refugees were granted citizenship and integrated into the fabric of society, Palestinians in Lebanon are permanent non-citizens; living in a land that’s not their own while longing to return to a land that most of them have never been. What this means in practical day to day reality is that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon face a number of prohibitions against working, owning land, or building homes outside the camps. The ones that are able to find work outside the camps often have to do so under the table. The U.N. agency tasked with overseeing the refugee population (UNRWA) fulfills a much- needed role, but can only employ a fraction of the refugee population. The situation is so grave that a group of British researchers tested the mental development of a group of children by lining them up and throwing soccer balls at them. To their shock and horror, instead of the children picking up the balls and throwing them back, they let the balls fall to the ground without picking them back up, showing not only a lack of mental development, but a perpetual state of hopelessness. To them, the camp is a prison which they have little hope of escaping.

Which brings me back to my original question: I know that Jesus is the answer, but what exactly does that mean?

The wannabee Anabaptist side of me says that the solution to all of the world’s problems lies not in politics but in the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God isn’t necessarily about solving the world’s problems, but creating an alternative community that eschews earthly power structures in preference for servant hood and simple living. Given the tendency of Jesus to lampoon the Herods and the Caesars of his day, coupled with his ability to transcend political ideologies by inviting tax collectors and zealots to serve on his apostolic team, and let’s not forget the Apostle Paul telling the slaves “If you can be free, great! But if you can’t, don’t worry too much about it” (my paraphrase of I Corinthians 7:21), I find a lot of justification for this position.

It’s surprisingly similar to what the Pentecostal side of me would say, “No matter how crappy life is on earth, hell is worse and heaven is better, so let’s focus on the issues that really matter….eternal issues, not temporary issues which are passing away.” Back in the days of slavery in America, the message of patiently submitting to suffering in hope of an eternal reward helped many African Americans get through their miserable days, knowing that there’s a sweet by and by in the sky gave them a peace and a hope that transcended their circumstances. All good and wonderful, except when you factor in the infamous Uncle Tom and Martin Luther King’s soul-stirring appeal in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, it kind of makes you wonder if Christianity’s critics, the ones who claim that Christianity is a ploy of the ruling classes to keep the lower classes in servitude and submission….may have a point after all.

Here’s the problem. How can I credibly say that “Jesus is the answer” if “Jesus is the answer” means that I no longer advocate for political solutions to problems that can only be solved….by a political solution? For the plight of Palestinian refugees to change for the better, one of three things has to happen. Either Lebanon grants them citizenship, the Palestinians get a state of their own, or Israel grants them the right of return. The sectarian system in Lebanese politics makes option one very difficult, and the prospect of Israel making peace with Palestinians seems like a pipe dream. Still, anything less than one of these three options and the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon remains miserable and hopeless no matter how much individual charity is directed their way.

So why am I asking this question? I may not come up with any definitive answers, but here’s what I’m hoping will happen. I hope that some will read this article and take the time to visit, make friends, pray for and advocate for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. If more people learn about the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and decide to do something about it, however big or small, then maybe the question is worth asking after all.

Do Muslims Who Follow Jesus Have to Stop Being Muslims?

2011-04-20T20:33:00.001-07:00

My friend Pastor Tim O'Brien sent this to me today. I think it's worth reading:

For a long while I have wrestled with the question of whether a Muslim can be a worshipper of Jesus and remain culturally a Muslim. The question is also being considered by Christian leaders and missionaries the world over. Let me explain why.

When a Muslim man in a predominantly Muslim society decides to serve Jesus as Lord, he is typically ostracized from his family and community. Often these converts are collected by missionaries into Christian communities made up of other converts from
Islam. The only problem is that they can no longer bear fruit within their original sphere of influence.

To be a follower of Jesus and remain culturally a Muslim seems to be a viable option. After all, Islam is not just a religion,
but a culture with many redeeming values. For instance, Muslims mostly abstain from alcohol and pornography, abhor abortion, and are family oriented.

One Muslim man from Thailand decided to follow Jesus. He renounced his Muslim roots and left his family. Later, however,
according to him, the Holy Spirit convicted him and he went back and apologized to his family.

Now he worships Jesus as a Muslim. While he ministers to his Muslim friends he shares that the prophet Mohammad encouraged the reading of the Gospels. This is his open door to conduct Bible studies with interested Muslims.

The continuing story of this man is that thousands of Muslims have accepted Jesus this way. This is a movement that we will possibly be hearing about in the news in the days to come. From this movement and other efforts across the world, I believe some clear answers for the Muslim world will come to light.

One of the issues, of course, is how does one reconcile some of the things the Qur’an has to say with worshipping Jesus as God. At some points the Qur’an is helpful, standing by the virgin birth and sinless life of Jesus, calling Jesus savior, Word, and Spirit. At other points it can confuse the issues and even be all out contradictory to the Bible.

Some of those contradictions, however, are not the kind that would impact the
salvation message. We have to discern what’s really important. For instance, when I share with Muslims, I don’t make it a point to tell them that I don’t believe Mohammed was a prophet. What’s the point?

Lastly, the title Christian is at issue. Is it OK to worship Jesus and not call yourself a Christian? For some this is a point of contention, but consider some things. The earliest disciples of Jesus did not call themselves Christians. They were called Christians by others. In fact, the word “Christian” only appears in the Bible 3 times. “Christian” was a derogatory term meaning “little messiahs” or “little
christs.”

Peter says, “If you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” In this context, a proper stance for
a Muslim believer might be, “I call myself a Muslim who worships Jesus, but if you call me a Christian, I will not be ashamed.” Some may disagree, but remember that we are not trying to get people to join our religion, we are inviting every
nation, tribe and tongue to make Jesus Lord.

By Tim O'Brien
Rock of Ages Church
Prepared for Daily Guide 19 May 06 edition

Why are Palestinian Christians leaving the West Bank?

2011-04-05T08:18:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine pointed this out on his Face Book page today.

45.9% of Americans blame Muslims for the Christian immigration out of the Holy Land, while only 7.4% of Americans cite Israeli restrictions as contributing to Arab Christian immigration. However, when Palestinian Christians from Bethlehem were asked about the primary cause for Christian immigration out of the area, 78% cited Israeli restrictions as their reason for leaving.

The statistic is from an article entitled Challenging the Evangelical Bias Against Palestinians.

Why is there such a disconnect between why Americans, and be extension American Christians, think that Palestinian Christians are leaving the West Bank and the actual reasons cited by the Palestinian Christians themselves?

Simple: The real reason why Palestinian Christians are leaving is Israeli restrictions (like home demolitions, land seizures, road blocks, checkpoints, walls that cut through private property and isolate people from their families.....) and any time the word "Israel" is mentioned as inflicting any kind of pain on Christians, it challenges a cherished belief system that goes something like this:

Jews and Christians = good, pure, innocent, God's people

Muslims = evil, unclean, guilty, persecutors of God's people

Because this narrative is so ingrained in us, the "us" vs. "them" mentality with "us" always being the embodiment of pure good and "them" always being the embodiment of pure evil, it's hard for us to see it any other way. Further complicating the problem is the fact that for many Christians in America, the only information they have about the Muslim world is what they read in the Voice of the Martyrs magazine. No wonder it's hard to see Muslims as anything else but the evil persecutor of Christians! You'll never read about Christian militias that have massacred Muslims in places like Nigeria, Lebanon, the Philippines, and Indonesia in a magazine dedicated to highlighting the suffering of persecuted Christians.

I'm not saying that a ministry like Voice of the Martyrs is wrong for highlighting the suffering of persecuted Christians. I've been doing that for years on my blog. What I am saying is that if all the average Christian knows about the Muslim world is what they read about in the magazine or newsletter of their favorite ministry highlighting the suffering of persecuted Christians, , it leads to a distorted, unbalanced picture. We forget that Christian fundamentalism, and, yes, Jewish fundamentalism can be just as oppressive as Islamic fundamentalism.

Jesus had it right when he said, "First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

We ignore his teachings at our peril.

Doing well...

2011-04-04T21:11:00.000-07:00

I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what to write. I'd like to post a little more often than I have been, but frankly, I'm too tired to come up with anything deep right now. My son Christian still wakes up about 2-4 times a night, and despite all the advice we get (mostly from people that have read the book Babywise) I'm convinced there's not a lot we can do about it. His doctor told us that if he's not sleeping through the night by now (around 15 months) he probably won't sleep through the night till he's 3 or 4. . So we've got about another year and a half to two years to go. Hurray! Christian also has food sensory issues, which makes eating really difficult for him. He's in therapy every week for that.

Isaac's also doing well. Still a hand full, but he's at that age where every new word or phrase he learns delights us. His favorite words are "Thank you" "You're welcome" "eat" and "yucky" Rhiannon and I also heard him say "he's sleeping" today when Christian was asleep in his car seat. Isaac's new favorite hobby is blowing spit in my face with his tongue...and laughing hysterically. It's really annoying, but also kind of cute. Been watching a video series called Circle of Security. It's about being attentive to your children. It's made me want to pay attention to my kids as much as possible. Probably not a bad idea.

Well, that's all for now.

Off to the Middle East this week....

Some time after I get back, I want to write a review of Miroslav Volf's Allah: A Christian Response and Mark Braverman's Fatal Embrace. Two very important books in the field of Muslim/Christian/Jewish relations, definitely worth your time and mine.

Blessings!

Aaron

Excellent article on Muslim-Christian relations in post-Mubarak Egypt

2011-03-30T14:06:00.000-07:00

I had been looking for some information on what's happening in the area of Muslim-Christian relations in post-Mubarak Egypt. Lo and behold I got this in my e-mail box today from Paul Gordon Chandler.

Read it here:

Quick takeaway:

The U.S. corporate-media-induced-fear of a radical Islamic takeover of Egypt is largely unfounded...though there are still challenges ahead.

Was the woman at the well promiscuous?

2011-03-24T08:51:00.000-07:00

Over the past several months, I've been working on a book that I've been "ghost-writing" for an up and coming Christian author. In one of the chapters, I wanted to make the point that Jesus was elusive about his identity with people, "unless of course, you were a promiscuous Samaritan woman." Point being that Jesus had a funny habit of preferring the sinful outcast over and against the rich, the powerful, and the pious. I think the point is still valid, but I'm wondering if I've overstated my case by calling the woman at the well a "promiscuous Samaritan woman." Do we really know that she was promiscuous? Most authors and preachers I know assume that she was, but I recently read an article entitled Misogyny, Moralism, and the Woman at the well that has challenged that assumption.

So what do you think?

Jesus said to the woman, "You've had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband."

What makes us think she was promiscuous?

Jesus said she's had five husbands, not five lovers.

And the fact that she was with a man that was not her husband? As the author of the article points out, she could have been in a Levirate marriage, which was an arrangement that if a woman's husband died without a male heir, she was obligated to "marry" her husband's brother to produce a male heir. So the husband's brother was sort of like a "husband", but not really.

The author's point is that too often we read the Bible through misogynistic glasses, and sometimes those misogynistic glasses lead us to read passages with moralistic assumptions that miss the point. His point could very well be true, but the point that I took away from the article was much more mundane: How often am I careless about my assumptions period? How often do I read something into the Scriptures that's simply not there?

So what do you think? Was the woman at the well promiscuous, as tradition says? Or could the point of the story be that Jesus gives dignity to people despite their low social status? What are the spiritual truths of the story that don't depend on the interpretation that the woman at the well was promiscuous? Might the story be more meaningful without that assumption?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

You can read the story of the woman at the well here:

Thank you for the help.

Mr. President, will you please count the cost?

2011-03-10T21:23:00.000-08:00

I'm glad I'm not the president right now. I can't imagine what it would be like to be the commander and chief of the most powerful military in the world and have to grapple with a question as serious as "Should I use my power to establish a No-Fly zone over Libya?" Answer no to the question and half the world accuses you of indifference. Answer yes to the question and the other half will eventually get around to calling you an imperialist. The question of if or when it's ever appropriate to use violence to rescue the innocent is a troubling one. It's the kind of moral dilemma that doesn't lend itself to easy answers. While I don't think that the Bible should be read as if it were a public policy manual, I do think it contains nuggets of wisdom that can guide us through our moral dilemmas, and sometimes those nuggets can be found in the most unlikely places: places like the Old Testament.

Rewind: Elisha is sick and ready to die. Joash is the king of Israel. The Syrian army is a growing threat to Israel's security. Elisha tells Joash to take a bow and some arrows, open a window, and shoot, the arrows representing Elisha's command to strike the Syrians at Aphek until he destroys them. Elisha then tells Joash to take the arrows and strike the ground. Joash strikes the ground three times...and Elisha is one ticked-off prophet. Why? Because according to Elisha, Joash should have struck five or six times; had he done that, then Joash would have been able to strike Syria until he destroyed it. From Elisha's perspective, if you're going to use force against an enemy, you should go all the way, not part of the way. The same holds true for Moses and Joshua, who at times annihilated their enemies, sparing not even the women and the children, and for Samuel who had a thing or two to say to Saul for sparing King Agag. All of these men operated under the principle that if you're going to use force against an enemy, you have to see it through; otherwise the enemy may come back to bite you.

Back to the present: President Obama and the American people have a decision to make. We can choose the path of violence and fly our fighter jets over Libyan soil, but if we do that, are we prepared to go all the way? What happens if our actions provoke an even more violent response from Gadaffi and he goes on an even greater killing spree than what he's currently doing? Are we prepared to take it to the next level and invade another Muslim nation? Can we afford to do that while we're gutting our social safety net at home to pay for our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Even Jesus, the famous rabbi that said "Love your enemies" said if a king decides to go to war against another king, he should consider whether or not he has the resources to win (Luke 14:31). In other words, he (or she) should count the cost.

Mr. President, I wish I had an easy answer for you. I know there are a lot of people pushing you for a more robust response to the situation in Libya. That has to weigh on you. The only thing I can come up with is if you're going to do it, then you have to commit to it...or don't do it at all. Remember that violence almost always has unintended consequences.

Will you please count the cost?

New Mexico's Latina Republican Governor

2011-02-21T12:24:00.000-08:00

I've been living in New Mexico for a little over two years now. When I lived in Missouri I never followed local politics very much. Here it's hard not to. The county where I currently live, San Juan County, is probably one of the most conservative counties in the entire nation, and my father in law, a staunch conservative himself, used to own the local newspaper. Needless to say, this makes for some very interesting table talk!

Full disclosure, I voted for Governor Martinez this last election (who, by the way, is the nation's first Latina Governor). The choice was between Susana Martinez, a Republican and Dianne Denish, a Democrat. I literally went online and read for hours everything I could about the two candidates to make my decision. They both seemed to be highly qualified, but in the end I was persuaded by the argument that Martinez would end the "pay to play" politics associated (right or wrong) with the previous administration. I fully realize that I and the people of New Mexico could have been duped by the newspapers, which is why if I do vote in elections (and that's a big if) I always take my vote with a grain of salt.

I don't believe that ministers of the gospel should endorse candidates, but that doesn't mean that we can't give "honor to whom honor is due" from time to time. So while I hope that I'm not violating my own principles here, let me give you a few reasons why I like our Republican Governor Susana Martinez.

1. Governor Martinez has recused herself from the state investment board, a crucial step in ending "pay to play" politics.

2. When Governor Martinez was criticized for ordering the state police to report undocumented workers arrested for violent crimes to the federal immigration authorities, Governor Martinez went on a P.R. campaign encouraging New Mexico's women to report domestic abuse, assuring them that they need not fear the immigration police. That tells me that, whether you agree with her decision or not, the governor is at least trying to do the right thing to protect New Mexico citizens.

3. While the Governor is indeed, a fiscal conservative, Martinez has made it clear that education and health care should not be on the chopping block in order to balance the state's budget. In a strange role reversal, she's actually fighting the democrats to include more funding for these priorities in her proposed 2012 budget.

I'll be honest, I've been pretty disgusted with the callousness of our national discourse, how so many politicians, including Democrats, seem all too eager to balance state and federal budgets on the backs of the poor. It seems to me that New Mexico's newest Republican Governor may represent a more compassionate conservativism. This doesn't meant that I agree with all of Governor Martinez's political positions. What it does mean is that sometimes I have to look inside my heart and ask the Lord to forgive me for a certain type of prejudice that, if I'm not careful, can be just as corrupting as any other type of prejudice.

Political prejudice.

Towards a healthy nationalism

2011-02-10T08:46:00.003-08:00

I watched Invictus for the second time last weekend. The movie depicts the newly-elected South African president Nelson Mandela and his struggle to rally the nation around the mostly white national Rugby team, which at the time was a symbol of Apartheid for many black South Africans. Very few of Mandela's friends and allies agreed with his decision to lend his moral support to the national Rugby team, but like all good leaders, Mandela stood firm. Because of Mandela's moral courage, a divided nation became united. In one of the greatest snapshots of grace this side of heaven, the film depicts blacks and white standing side by side to sing South Africa's national anthem at the World Cup.

If you've read my book Alone with a Jihadist, you'll know that I'm a pretty fierce critic of nationalism, especially when nationalism mixes with religion. When we wrap Jesus in an American flag and ask him to bless our bombs, we may be acting like good Americans, but we're not acting like very good Christians. For my Anabaptist, Sojourners- loving, progressive evangelical friends, I'm guessing that's pretty much old news. No nation embodies Kingdom values because the Kingdom of God is entirely other-wordly, as Jesus, our enemy-loving, foot-washing Savior teaches us. Now that we've established that, perhaps we should be asking new questions now, like can nationalism ever be a good thing?

One of the reasons why democracy hasn't worked out so well in many sub-Saharan African nations is because many people prefer tribalism over nationalism. An African president gets elected and he looks out mostly for the interests of his tribe, not the interests of the nation as a whole, at least that's the way the other tribes almost always see it. The same is true for religion. As Eliza Griswold points out in her book The Tenth Parallel, many nations on the 10th degree of what missiologists call the 10/40 Window are evenly divided between Muslims and Christians. When these nations elect their political leaders, the leader is almost always, rightly or wrongly, viewed as looking out for the interests of his or her religious group. The unfortunate consequence is that democracy is viewed as a way to enrich a select few from a dominant tribe or religion, while leaving the rest of the people to squabble over the remaining crumbs. Perhaps a healthy dose of nationalism could be the cure?

Take what's happening in Egypt as an example. As Reza Aslan has pointed out in a recent post, many Egyptian youth are countering the Muslim Brotherhood chant "Islam is the solution" with "Christians and Muslims, we are all Egyptians." When love of nation surpasses religious tribalism, that to me is a healthy nationalism.

Which brings me to my next question. If nationalism can sometimes be a good thing (especially when it overrides woes like tribalism and racism), what are some ways that followers of Jesus can direct nationalism towards positive ends? Could a healthy nationalism be what it takes to convince U.S. businesses sitting on 2 trillion dollars of cash to hire American workers rather than shipping those same jobs overseas? Or what if the movement to abolish nuclear weapons received a groundswell of support based on the idea that "We're Americans. We should be the moral leaders of the world." My mind is spinning here: torture, comprehensive immigration reform, racial inequities. Could nationalism done right affect the moral outcomes of these debates? If so. How?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Violence in Egypt forces Christians to pray in their homes

2011-02-03T08:30:00.000-08:00

Pastor George, a church pastor who partners with Open Doors in Egypt, had just returned home from a prayer meeting in the house of a believer shares, “We cannot go to the church. In every street is a mosque, where Muslims can go to, but there are few churches and most people feel unsafe.” As a result of the danger of going to churches, Christians are coming together in houses for praying for their country." We see that the uproar could lead to a better Egypt and that things could turn out for good, but we do not know yet. The people are afraid for the future, since this is an extremely critical time. But we trust in God, and we hope and pray for a new Egypt, with democracy and freedom for Christians.”

Pastor George adds, “The situation on the streets is difficult. We hear gunshots and people are killed on the streets. We also are having problems with the provision of our food. The infrastructure in the country is under pressure.” According to Pastor George the work of his church in Egypt, in partnership with Open Doors, has come to a standstill. “Our co-workers and other volunteers cannot go to their ministries or work anymore,” says George. “Road blocks, lack of public transportation and curfew are all hindering this. Banks have been already closed for a week and the ATMs are empty. Almost everything in Egypt runs by cash money, and that is finished for almost all Egyptians.”

The current crisis in Egypt is challenging for Christians and they are calling on the church in the West to unite in prayer with them for the future of their country. Dr. Carl Moeller, president/CEO of Open Doors USA says, “The events of recent days show that while the majority of Egyptians support the existence of the Coptic church, many more Muslim Egyptians, while not militant, are religiously opposed to those who convert from Islam to Christianity. Muslim Background Believers continue to face widespread hostility simply for wanting to exercise religious freedom and change their religion from Islam to Christianity.

“It is also causing many to consider the consequences of a potentially more radical Muslim government replacing the current regime. While the situation is still very unclear, the potential for any power vacuum to be filled with extremist political groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood is very real and could have grave consequences,” says Moeller. “This is a time for the entire body of Christ to pray for the church in Egypt and the entire region. It is also a time for all peoples of every religion to come together and work for true freedom, democracy and peace.”

Egypt is ranked No. 19 on the Open Doors 2011 World Watch List of the 50 worst persecutors of Christians. On New Year’s Day a suicide bomber killed 21 Christians and injured hundreds of others in front of the Two Saints Church in Alexandria. Last month an Open Doors team visited Egypt where a Coptic Christian brother shared this message.

The devil said to Jesus, “I killed 21 of your people” (Referring to the bombing of the Coptic church in Alexandria). Jesus replied, “You did not kill 21. You sent them to Me and you mobilized the church to pray.”

Father we unite today in prayer asking for a peaceful end to the demonstrations with no more casualties; protect your flock and shield them from injury and further bloodshed. Also we ask that You richly provide them with provisions of food and resources so that Your work can continue in Egypt unhindered. We know that some demonstrators want to cause harm to the country and Christians, and have hidden agendas. We pray that their schemes will be thwarted and that their intentions will be exposed. And, if there is a change of power in the government we ask that it ultimately results in complete freedom of religion for Christians and other minorities. Father You are sovereign and in control of all the details. We give thanks in advance for being “our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.” (Psalm 46:1) Amen.

If this story has touched you, please share your thoughts with us below:

Source: Open Doors

What Mohammed the boat captain thinks

2011-01-30T08:48:00.000-08:00

I love going to the gym in the mornings. It gives me a chance to watch the news. It also gives me a chance to compare the differences between the major networks and how they cover the events of the day. Last Friday as I was working out on the treadmill, I caught a glimpse of CNN's analysis of what's happening in Egypt. The CNN storyline emphasized the precarious situation that President Obama faces, and the difficulty of navigating through the thorny issue of demonstrating loyalty to a key ally on the one hand and protecting the image of the U.S. as a promoter of democracy and human rights on the other hand. Fox News--predictably--portrayed the protests as a Muslim Brotherhood-led coup, as if there's no possible alternative between a U.S. backed secular human rights abuser and Shariah. The pundits can say what they want, but the reality is it's not their opinions that matter, it's the opinion of the Arab street that matters. Which is why I recommend my good friend Carl Medearis's book Tea with Hezbollah.

A few years back, Carl Medearis and Ted Dekker took a journey to the Middle East for the sole purpose of interviewing people whom the average American views as "the enemy", people like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Bin Laden family, and leaders in Hamas and Hezbollah. Along the way, they also captured the opinions of ordinary Arab Muslims. While they were in Egypt, a man named Mohammed took them on a tour of the Nile. The following is a brief excerpt of an interview between Ted Dekker and Mohammed the boat captain.

Ted: What are the most important issues facing you and the world today?

Mohammed: Number one, to find work. Number two, to be able to eat. Number three, to build a house. Number four, to get married. Number five, to live in peace. I was in the '73 war, but war ruins everything. I just want to find a wife and live in peace.

Ted: What do most of your friends think about America?

Mohammed: America is controlling the world. They treat no one fairly, and if I told you anything else, I would be lying.

I saw on the news this morning that the tear gas canisters fired on the Egyptian protestors say "Made in the U.S.A." I wonder what Mohammed and his friends are thinking now?

The other Martin Luther King

2011-01-17T19:41:00.000-08:00

I think everyone should be entitled to at least one dumb moment per week. Mine was today. I forgot it was Martin Luther King day. I went to the post office to mail out some books. When I got to the foyer I saw that the lobby was closed. I thought, "Why would they take a break in the middle of the day without posting a sign? How rude!" A guy walked in and dropped some mail in the drop box. I asked the man, "Do you have any idea why the lobby is closed?" Just as he started to say, "Yeah, I do" I remembered.....Duh!!

For penance, I thought I'd post a reflection from Martin Luther King's book Strength to Love. Everyone seems to know and agree with Dr. King's famous words, "I have a dream that one day my four children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This is the Martin Luther King that everyone knows and loves, including talk radio pundits like Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh. Nowadays, it would be cultural/political suicide to dare to challenge King on these words, and rightly so. But how many people pay due attention to the "other" Martin Luther King?

The one that said these words:

“The universalism at the center of the Declaration of Independence have been shamefully negated by America’s appalling tendency to substitute ‘some’ for ‘all.’ Numerous people in the North and South still believe that the affirmation, ‘All men are created equal’ means ‘All white men are created equal.’ Our unswerving devotion to monopolistic capitalism makes us more concerned about the economic security of the captains of industry than for the laboring men whose sweat and skills keep industry functioning.

What are the devastating consequences of this narrow group-centered attitude? It means that one does not really mind what happens to the people outside his group. If an American is concerned only about his nation, he will not be concerned about the peoples of Asia, Africa, and South America. Is this not why nations engage in the madness of war without the slightest sense of penitence? Is this not why the murder of a citizen of your own nation is a crime, but the murder of the citizens of another nation in war is an act of heroic virtue? If manufacturers are concerned only in their personal interests, they will pass by on the other side while thousands of working people are stripped of their jobs and left displaced on some Jericho road as a result of automation, and they will judge every move toward a better distribution of wealth and a better life for the working man to be socialistic. If a white man is concerned only about his race, he will casually pass by the negro who has been robbed of his personhood, stripped of his sense of dignity, and left dying on some wayside road”

Same man.

If anybody, I mean anybody, would say something similar to this today, I wonder what Glenn Beck would call him?

Crazy Week

2011-01-10T20:53:00.000-08:00

It's been a crazy week. The snow that was on the ground when we got back home on January 2nd is still on the ground. It hasn't gotten above freezing. My wife and I arrived back in Farmington at 12:30 a.m. January 2nd. The drive from Cuba (Cuba, New Mexico that is )to Farmington was treacherous! At one point, our car said it was -24 degrees outside! The first thing I noticed when we got home was that we didn't have running water. That's because some pipes were frozen. A little insulation did the trick. We also had some broken pipes that were attached to our washer and to top it off, my battery was dead in the Honda.

In addition to home and car repairs, we had two different doctor's checkups, one for Isaac and one for Christian. They both got immunizations, but it was Christian that was sick the next day.

I haven't told very many people this yet, but I'm working on another book. This one, however, I'm actually getting paid to write. No more spending months of my life to write a book hoping that it will get published. I've teamed up with another author that has the best agent in the Christian publishing industry working for him. I'm the junior partner in the arrangement, but hey, it's a giant foot in the door! Anyways, I had gobs of revisions to do last week to the chapters and the proposal, but I think I did an okay job. I sent it out last night. Hoping the proposal will land a nice advance!

Tomorrow I'm off to Phoenix for a summit with Peace Catalyst. Peace Catalyst is a ministry founded by Rick Love, a former missionary to Indonesia and the former President of Frontiers. The goal of Peace Catalyst, among many things, is to build bridges of peace to the Muslim world. I feel honored that I was invited to participate in a strategy summit on how to build bridges of peace to the Muslim world without sacrificing the essentials of the Great Commission. Some of the attendees head up some pretty significant ministries. Others are major movers and shakers in their cities in the realm of building bridges between evangelical pastors and Muslim Imams. Since there's virtually no Muslims in Farmington, I can't really relate. And about the extent of my practicing peacemaking and non-violence these days is making the daily decision not to beat my kids. Sometimes I think that being an author affords me a status I don't really deserve. I don't feel like I'm "in the trenches" as much as the other participants. Then again, we all go through different seasons in life.

I'm taking Isaac with me.

It should be fun.

Pray for a safe journey on the road, and that God will accomplish through us what He wants to accomplish.

Be blessed!

Christ on the American Road

2010-12-29T11:50:00.000-08:00

Last year when I wrote the post Can Muslims Follow the Biblical Christ and still be Muslim?, about four people, all of them missionaries, wrote me and told me that I had to read Paul Gordon Chandler's Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road. I did. It's every bit as good as what I heard, though the book led me to raise a different set of questions than the ones that drove me to read it in the first place. Call it an unintended consequence, but after reading Chandler's soul-stirring account of Mazhar Mallouhi, the Syrian novelist who started his life as a Muslim, then converted to Christianity as a soldier in Gaza, and now calls himself a Sufi Muslim follower of Christ, I found myself caring less about what Christ looks like on the Muslim road and more about what Christ might look like on the American road.

Mazhar Mallouhi is a fascinating person indeed. After he renounced his Islamic culture and converted to Christianity, he found himself in the same position that many Muslim-background believers find themselves in--alone in both worlds. In order to fit in to the Arab Christian world, Mallouhi had to prove his "Christian" credentials by bashing Muhammad and despising all things Islam. Arab Christians expected him to change his name to a "Christian" name, use "Christian" greetings, and dress like a "Christian"--erasing all traces of Islam from his cultural heritage. To make the long story short, Mallouhi underwent a profound identity crisis that eventually led him to the realization that he doesn't have to abandon his Islamic culture, nor does he have to call himself a "Christian" to be an authentic follower of Christ. Mallouhi realized that he could present a Middle Eastern face to Christ through his life, his ministry, and his writings.

While his life over the past few decades reads like that of a modern day Apostle Paul, complete with persecutions, imprisonments, and deportations, it's Mallouhi's writings that have captured the heart of the Muslim world. In the Arab world, Mallouhi's novels have been compared to the likes of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. With grace and sensitivity, Mazhar Malloui has introduced millions of Arab Muslims to Christ--all through legal distribution channels. Lo and behold, who's the individual that inspired Mazhar Malloui to dedicate his life to Christ? Gandhi.

Forgive me for being a little too honest, but here's what I was thinking as I read Chandler's book. "Great! Now I have yet another reason to look to someone like Gandhi as a role model for how to follow Christ. Not only did Gandhi change India and inspire Martin Luther King, he also influenced a guy to reach millions for Christ by becoming an Arab Dostoevsky! Gandhi presented an Indian face of Christ to India. Mallouhi has presented an Arab face of Christ to the Middle East. Who's presenting an American face of Christ to America?"

Seriously. This is really bugging me. How can a guy like me, a guy who eats at Taco Bell, watches American Idol, and ocassionally yells at his kids, how can a guy like me truly follow Christ on the American Road like some of the world's greatest luminaries have followed Christ on their roads? When Gandhi threatened to fast until his death, Hindus and Muslims stopped killing each other. If I did that...well...I would die. If Jesus wanted to walk the American road through me, what would that look like? Would he want me to speak out against a grave injustice, or perhaps write a soul stirring novel? Would he have me visit a homeless shelter or comfort a person dying of Aids? I don't know, but now that a new year is approaching, I think now is the time to start asking these quetions.

Here's what's really going on in Palestine

2010-12-11T21:24:00.000-08:00

I found this link a gripping story of a leader in the Palestinian non-violence movement. Yes, there is such a thing as a non-violence movement among Palestinians.

Here is how they are treated.

Read and weep

What does God think of economic equality?

2010-12-02T16:58:00.001-08:00

In American evangelical circles, there's an idea that goes something like this: progressive taxation = socialism and socialism=satanic. Never mind the fact that both Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith (the founder of modern capitalism) favored progressive taxation, I'm wondering where we got the idea that political structures aiming for economic equality--or at least some semblance of economic equality--is a bad thing?

One of the reasons that many evangelicals believe the Apostles never attacked the institution of slavery directly is because they wanted slavery to lose its grip in the community of the church first so that society would eventually follow suit. Might the same principle also apply to economic equality? We know that early Christians in the Book of Acts practiced a form of voluntary socialism, but how much have we pondered what the Apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 8:13-14?

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality…” (italics emphasis mine)

I think it’s a devastating indictment on the way things are today that we don’t even aim for this in our churches…but I digress. Here’s my question. If God’s vision for the Body of Christ is economic equality, then what does that say about God’s vision for society at large?

Think about it.

"Not voting" as an act of prophetic resistance

2010-11-21T14:57:00.000-08:00

Last week someone gave me a CD of a sermon by Lou Engle, a well-known charismatic preacher who's also a leader in the "Apostolic and Prophetic" movement. The sermon was entitled "Voting as an act of divine governance." I was so impressed by the title that I thought I should make the title of my rebuttal sound equally spiritual. If voting can be an act of "divine governance", then certainly not voting can be an act of "prophetic resistance." If I ever get to interact with Engle or any other leader of the "Apostolic and Prophetic" crowd, I wonder if my not-so-subtle attempts to co-opt their language would make them more likely to hear me out?

Sarcasm aside, I was deeply troubled in my spirit as I listened to the sermon. While I appreciate the fact that Lou Engle mobilizes tens of thousands of young people every year to pray for spiritual awakening in America, I often wonder if the prayers are misdirected. The underlying assumption is that if God were to answer our prayers, then we would be the ones with all the political power. The "we" by the way is very specific. It means "pro-life, anti-gay marriage" Christians. And the "pro-life", as you probably know, does not mean pro-life after the womb. It only means pro-life before the womb. You'll never ever ever ever ever hear these guys speaking out against innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of U.S. foreign policy. They also actively promote the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Now I guarantee you that they would tell you otherwise (after all, who wants to say they support ethnic cleansing?), but the reality is that every time a U.S. president asks the Israeli government to halt the expansion of Jew-only settlements--settlements built on home demolitions and private property land confiscations--they scream bloody murder.

For my friends that think of themselves as progressive evangelicals, if you think I'm writing this to make us all feel smug in our supposedly enlightened views of a "consistent ethic of life." Think again. Lou Engle did say something that got me thinking, and thinking hard. He said that if you knowingly vote for someone that sanctions murder, then you're just as guilty as the person you voted for. In the context of the sermon, Engle was saying that Christians have a kingdom duty to vote for anti-abortion candidates. Not voting is simply not an option in Engle's worldview. But the more that I listened to what he was saying, the more I felt that Engle was actually making the case for not voting.

I'll admit. I think of myself as sorta kinda "progressive" in my political views. A lot of evangelicals that think like me were appalled at the lack of respect for human rights demonstrated during the Bush Administration. We saw the hell and destruction unleashed on the Iraqi people. We saw Abu Graib, Gitmo, waterboarding, the Patriot Act, extraordinary renditions, the supporting of totalitarian regimes, and we concluded that it would be hypocritical to call ourselves "pro-life" and then turn around and vote for someone who supported things like torture and pre-emptive war. We justified voting for Obama, even though he was "pro-choice", because we honestly believed that from a human rights perspective he was the lesser of two evils.

Now that we know that Obama has continued many of the Bush policies, and in some cases has increased them (as in the case of drone attacks killing civilians), can we really say that we support a "consistent ethic of life" and cast a vote for Barack Obama in 2012? Might we be guilty of the same hypocrisy we accuse the other side of? I realize that one key difference is that most of us that voted for Obama weren't deluding ourselves into thinking that our vote was an act of "divine governance." But still, even if we recognize that our vote has absolutely zero to do with expanding God's kingdom on earth (after all, the Kingdom of God as revealed in Jesus is a non-coercive kingdom) voting is never morally neutral. So, thank you Mr. Engle. I may not vote in this next election because of you. May God lead us all to follow the dictates of our conscience in 2012.

Matthew's Mad Men

2010-10-24T19:57:00.000-07:00

Dorothy is an excellent Bible teacher that I trust and respect. She taught me how to "dig for treasures" in the simple stories of the Bible. Here is an example of us digging together in our latest e-mail exchange:

Dorothy,

I've been thinking about a story found in Matthew 8:28-34.

In the story, Jesus heals two demon possessed men. The demons ask Jesus to permit them to go into the herd of swine. Jesus says "go" and the herd ran violently down the steep place and perished in the sea. Those who kept the swine fled, told everyone in the city what happened, including what happened to the two men, and the WHOLE CITY begged Jesus to depart from their region.

Here's what I've been thinking about. I want to know if you think that I'm reading too much into the story or if my observations are ACTUALLY IN the story?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that Jesus would allow an entire herd of swine to perish to heal just two men? I mean, didn't people's livelihood depend on those swine? It seems that Jesus was willing to sacrifice another person's livelihood, or at the very least, short term profit to heal two men that would have been at the very bottom of the rung in society.

Is there a message here that people are more important than profit?

If I'm on the right track with this story, then what does this story tell us about how SOCIETY treats the least of these? At the end of the story, the WHOLE CITY comes out to beg Jesus to depart from their region. The people in the city had a choice, but it seems that they put their economic well-being ahead of the two men at the bottom of the rung.

So what might this story say to business owners, or political leaders? Could this story actually be teaching us that Jesus puts a priority on the poor and the outcast over the economic well-being of the business class?

I'd love to hear your insights.

Aaron

Dorothy's Response:

Aaron,

I see and agree with your observations and your applications. There is a ton of treasure in this story

Ok. let's kick it up a notch and view just a few!

I think I just saw some things. To get there, it helps me to understand that aspect of the story to know that the city of Gadera was maybe 8 miles inland from the Sea of Galilee, on the East side Jordan and the inhabitants were not Jews, they were Greeks. (Put in the introduction as it is in the Bible, well the "Greek" info maybe not.)

So?

Yes Jesus took away their livelihood, so your obs-apps work, but also....

What were swine to Jews and where did that belief come from? (put in intro)

Wow! What had these keepers of the swine, these Gaderans, non-Jews just seen that day?
Do you see any part of what they had seen being deniable? What do you see there, as to what kinds of activity Jesus had been involved there?

Who all saw what Jesus did?
When they saw, what did they choose to do?
I am thinking, what other choices could they have made?

Also who did these amazing feats?
Do we know if anyone else been able to cure the two "crazy" men?
What had those crazy man been consigned to and were the locals affected in any way?
How do you see Jesus treat the crazy men?
Is it possible that Jesus' treat of the men can that show us anything about Jesus?

What other ways might Jesus have responded to the demons' request?
Is it possible that what Jesus did with the demons can show us anything?, maybe multiple anythings!

Could what Jesus did have sent any messages to the Gaderens?
I wonder? Could Jesus' actions indicate any positive interest in the Gadarenes?

Who all saw these activities and decisions that day. Impact on each?

Just thoughts

Dorothy

Has anything in this exchange pricked your thinking regarding this story?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Obama the most anti-Israel president in history?

2010-10-21T21:25:00.000-07:00

Okay, this is just looney. Here's the latest e-mail I received from my good friends at the ACLJ.

Dear Aaron,

President Obama has talked about ''unwavering'' support for Israel, but we're seeing something quite different. As Congressman Mike Pence correctly put it, ''This Administration has become the most anti-Israel Administration in American history.''

It is imperative that we - as a country and as individuals - never falter in our support of the State of Israel.

As you know, we are at the International Criminal Court this week to defend Israel's right to sovereignty and the right of every free nation to defend itself from terrorists. The impact of this case is global. And now, more than ever, it's clear that we have a distinct and special role in standing with the nation of Israel and its people.

I urge you to read Jordan's latest online Washington Post article, ''Why Christian Conservatives are Israel's Ambassadors.'' It explores this critical issue and explains why the American Center for Law and Justice is so focused on protecting Israel and its future.

Once you read the article, please post a comment about why you support Israel at the Washington Post website.

I am truly grateful for you and other committed ACLJ members who have stood, and continue to stand, alongside us in support of Israel and its people.

As one of America's greatest and most trusted allies, Israel represents what we in this nation cherish most - democracy, freedom, and sovereignty.

Seriously Mr. Sekulow? Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history? Would you like to back that up please? Because last time I checked, Obama has increased military aid to Israel, increased intelligence cooperation with Israel on Iran, and strengthened trade relations between our two countries.

Gullible people are going to believe you.

Why?

Because the president's name is Barack Hussein Obama.

For an excellent article on Obama's support for Israel, click here!

Thinking about the Kingdom

2010-10-09T09:44:00.000-07:00

Not getting much sleep these days. Wondering if I'll ever get to sleep through the night again. I've heard that having small children changes your life. Consider that confirmed. So what's been going on in my sleepless head? Been thinking about the Kingdom. You know, the one that Jesus talked about? The one that's not supposed to be of this world? What exactly is the Kingdom of God?

For many, the Kingdom of God is an inward spiritual condition, the joy and peace that transcends circumstances. There's some Biblical justification for this, as Paul says, "The Kingdom of God isn't eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17) But is an inward spiritual condition all that the kingdom represents? After all, I've met some pretty joyful and peaceful Buddhists over the years. While I'm certainly happy for people that find joy and peace through whatever faith tradition or philosophy that helps them get through life, Jesus seemed to think that He was the only one qualified to reveal the nature of the Kingdom to the world. While it may be fashionable to put Jesus on par with other philosophers and religious leaders, Jesus didn't leave a whole lot of wiggle-room for competitors when He said things like, "All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27).

For others, the Kingdom of God is a set of moral and ethical principles designed to help people get along and to restore what is broken in our world. In this view, the Kingdom of God is good news for everyone because it transcends religious distinctions. This also carries a grain of truth. If I as a follower of Jesus decide to make the Sermon on the Mount the moral foundation of my life, that's good news for my Muslim neighbor, Buddhist neighbor, Hindu neighbor, and non-religious neighbor as well. So when the Kingdom of God is in operation, it's good news not just for people that call themselves Christians, but for people of all faiths. And, of course, it's also true that when people of other faiths follow the teachings of Jesus, whether consciously or unconsciously, everyone benefits.

Still, Jesus walked around like He owned the Kingdom. He said My Kingdom is not of this world. So while I respect people that decide to live virtuous lives based on their philosophy or faith tradition, it makes sense that only that which is done in Jesus' name can rightly be called the Kingdom, at least in the Biblical sense of the word. So the real question is, when Jesus announced the Kingdom of God, what might that have meant to His Jewish listeners?

Now I think we're getting somewhere. I was reading the Book of Daniel the other day. Daniel prophesied to the King of Nebuchadnezzar that his empire would be the first of four great empires, and that at some point during the fourth empire, a new Kingdom made not with hands would arise that would crush all remaining Kingdoms (Daniel 2:44). The Jews would have certainly known that the Roman Empire was the fourth great empire that Daniel prophesied about, so they must have been looking for someone that fit the following description:

"I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14).

So when Jesus walked around calling Himself the Son of Man and talking about His Kingdom not being of this world, He was essentially telling His Jewish audience, "Remember the prophecies of old? They're talking about me! I'm the one you've read about that's going to take over the planet and crush the world's Kingdoms. Follow me."

Sometimes I think we forget that the Kingdom of God is about a real King with a real domain with real citizens. So my question is, how does understanding the Jewish context of the Kingdom of God help us understand the nature of Jesus and His mission? I'm sure it must have been a shock that the long-awaited King acted more like a slave than a King, which is probably why a lot of people rejected Jesus and His claims, so what do we make of the earth shattering Kingdom prophesied in Daniel? Perhaps more importantly, how should believers in Jesus relate to existing earthly Kingdoms in light of the fact that we serve a King that seems more interested in "crushing" and "consuming" earthly kingdoms (Daniel 2:44)--than fixing them?

Discuss!

Moderate Muslims speak out for freedom of speech

2010-10-08T12:23:00.000-07:00

So why don't moderate Muslims speak out? I get this question all the time. The answer is they are, but the problem is they don't get the same media attention that the suicide bombers, acid throwers, and church burners get.

Here's a statement from prominent Muslims that clearly renounces any and all violence against people exercising their rights to freedom of speech:

DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS
Posted Sep 21, 2010

A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS
We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.
We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.
As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.
The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to: * bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);  * restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);  * remain patient in adversity (3186);  * stand firmly for justice (4:135);  * not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);  * respect the sanctity of life (5:32);  * turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);  * hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);  * restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);  * pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and * repel evil with what is better (41:34).
Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate—not reward them with further attention—by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.

 SIGNATORIES:
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, PhD, Director, Minaret of Freedom Foundation Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, PhD, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University Prof. Parvez Ahmed, PhD, Fulbright Scholar & Assoc. Prof. University of North Florida  Wajahat Ali, playwright, journalist, and producer of “Domestic Crusaders” Sumbul Ali-Karamali, JD, LLM (Islamic Law), author of “The Muslim Next Door” Salam al-Marayati, Pres., Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) Shahed Amanullah, Editor-in-Chief, Altmuslim Hazami Barmada, Pres, American Muslim Interactive Network (AMIN) Farah Brelvi, Board of Directors, ACLU-NC M. Ali Chaudry, PhD, President, Center for Understanding Islam (CUII)  Robert D. Crane, JD Lamia El-Sadek, political and human rights activitist Mohamed Elsanousi, Director of Communications and Community Outreach for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Mona Eltahawy, journalist Prof. Mohammad Fadel, PhD Fatemeh Fakhraie, Editor-in-Chief, Muslimah Media Watch Hesham Hassaballa, M.D., author, journalist, blogger - “God, faith, and a pen” Arsalan Iftikhar, author, human rights lawyer, blogger - “The Muslim Guy” Jeffrey Imm, Director, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) Nakia Jackson, writer  Prof. Muqtedar Khan, PhD, author of several books, Blogger - “Globalog” M. Junaid Levesque-Alam, writer, blogger - “Crossing the Crescent”  David Liepert, M.D., blogger and author of “Muslim, Christian AND Jew”  Radwan A. Masmoudi, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID)  Melody Moezzi, JD, MPH, writer and attorney Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore, author of many books of poetry Ebrahim Moosa, Assoc. Professor of Islamic Studies, Dept. of Religion, Duke University Sheila Musaji, Editor, The American Muslim (TAM) Aziz H. Poonawalla, PhD, scientist and blogger - “City of Brass” on Beliefnet.com Hasan Zillur Rahim, PhD, journalist Prof. Hussein Rashid, PhD, blogger - “Religion Dispatches” Sarah Sayeed, President of One Blue  Robert Salaam, blogger - “The American Muslim” Raquel Evita Saraswati, activist, writer, blogger Prof. Laury Silvers, PhD Pamela Taylor, Co-founder Muslims for Progressive Values, Panelist for On Faith  Tayyibah Taylor, Editor, Azizah Magazine Tarik Trad, writer, humorist, photographer, artist and activist  Amina Wadud, PhD, consultant on Islam and gender, visiting scholar Starr King School for the Ministry G. Willow Wilson, author of “Butterfly Mosque” and “Air” graphic novel series

NOTE: If you would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to tameditor@aol.com — The list of signatories will be updated daily and the most recent list can be found HERE.

How should Christians engage the powers that be?

2010-09-30T20:09:00.000-07:00

Below is an ongoing conversation between me and my good friend Dan Sidey:

Question: One of the questions I'm wrestling with these days is how to be a Christian who is truly engaged in contemplative resistance. I realize that the US is not a peaceful country. I live in a small town that relies on the assets that come from our military. We have plenty of families that rely on the money made by troops and an airbase that nearly five times a day, with F-15s, tries to remind us that the US wants to own the skies of the world. The whole thing is disillusioning, yet so ingrained as deeply valuable in the mind of most folks here. I see the tragedy of this paradigm played out constantly in the violence in my own neighborhood. It is as grand as gang fights and as minute as unhappy parents neglecting their children to run from their own violent demons.

I'm beginning to believe negotiating with these powers for a share in their use is not our calling. We're meant to denounce their ability to help as Jesus did. He calls us to love the least of these. Instead of climbing the ladder of success in search for the scarce resources of power we turn around and find an abundance of opportunity to serve in love those the empire considers a liability. Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove believes that we will finally find abundant life only in community with others engaged in contemplative resistance like this.

I'm looking for this message of Jesus fleshes out. I'm curious how you'll wrestle with these ideas in your books. What does Carl believe about this message?

Thanks for dialoguing about this.

Answer:

Thank you Dan.

I think that's a lot to chew on. Of course, based on what you've written, I would say to you "Go for it!!" I think we have to keep in mind though that different people have different callings. Carl and I are primarily trying to speak to the evangelical world, telling them to reconsider their hate and prejudice towards 1.5 billion Muslims. That's a pretty tall order! Carl travels and speaks quite a bit, so he wouldn't fit nicely into the "beware of your carbon footprint" camp. I probably wouldn't either since travel is a large part of my calling. I've come to realize that I can't do everything and take up every cause, though that doesn't mean that I can't encourage others in their respective callings. As long as we're loving Jesus, loving people, practicing non-violence, and taking the admonitions of Jesus towards the poor seriously (whether that means living among them or advocating for them politically), I think it all counts.

Not sure if I'm making sense here.

I hope this helps.

Aaron

Dan's response:

It's true that many New Monastics are concerned with their carbon footprint, but thats not really one of the distinctives that I'm gleaning from them as paramount in my journey. It doesn't surprise me that both you and Carl don't either. Your interests seem to be more along the lines of mine, focused on a Christian response to Muslims and the practice of non-violence in the face of militarism, nationalism and radicalism.

So how do we engage the world as a political body? The political Body of Christ. Are we called to negotiate how the government uses force? Or are we called to have a prophetic witness that is not a stake holder in power, but a denouncer of force that points others to love? Maybe a little of both?

I recall in your book(at the very end) you said something about force being a possible asset in the face of extremes like genocide. Do you feel that way? Are we stakeholders in power?

Peace, Dan

Answer:

Dan, this is one of the best questions ever posed on this blog! I love the way you frame it: How should followers of Jesus engage the world as a political body? Should we negotiate the government's use of force or should we refuse to be stakeholders in power?

I love the way you frame this question, since it underscores a key point I make in my book "Alone with a Jihadist." If you remember the last chapter, Powerless Prophets I make the case that followers of Jesus would be a lot better off renouncing earthly power (and by that I mean most political power positions available and definitely military power) for the very reason that you stated. When we become "stakeholders" in power (thank you for the phrase--I'm going to use it!), we lose our objectivity and our credibility as prophetic witnesses. Almost like a conflict of interest if you will. So, to answer your question, I don't think it's an either/or. It's both/and. We renounce power not just so that we can withdraw in our caves and let the world self-destruct. No. We renounce power so that we can be a credible voice to the powers that be! At times this may take on the form of prescribing practical solutions for just peace making between warring parties, but we have to be careful here. Political solutions are almost always ambiguous. If a follower of Jesus isn't well informed on the issues at hand, he or she should keep their prophetic distance and work for peace and justice in non-political ways. God uses all kinds!

That's where I stand right now. If I end up moving my position, it'll be in the direction of non-engagement, where we don't even bother at all with telling the earthly kingdoms how to run their affairs. I'm not there yet because I still feel that if we refuse to participate in the violent structures earthly kingdoms use to advance their interests, the very least we can do is propose alternatives to mitigate the violence. I think John Howard Yoder has it right when he says, and I'm paraphrasing here, "We can't hold earthly governments to Kingdom ideals, but we can hold them accountable to their highest ideals."

I hope this helps!

How important is baptism?

2010-09-29T13:49:00.000-07:00

The following is a three part conversation that I'm having with my friend Carl. It began as an e-mail exchange when someone named Mike posed a question to Carl. Carl cc'd to me his response, and I gave him a little push back. Carl and I are good friends and we agree with each other on about 95% of things. You can check out his website here:

A little context first. We've been having an ongoing discussion about people following Jesus without the trappings of converting to the religion called Christianity.

Mike's Question:

Carl

I have a question. I was recently doing a study in Matthew 28:16-20, and was struck with Jesus' words to be baptized, and how baptism is an identification with the "Name" (Identity Marker) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It really appears to be an initial act of obedience to Jesus, and a clear identity marker of transference from the kingdom of man, to God's new kingdom with Jesus as the Lord/King.

How does that work with anyone claiming that they are "Following Jesus?" Especially if it doesn't include being baptized and identifying with Him as their Lord and not something/someone else?

What are your thoughts on this. I'd love to know. It would help me think through this issue in a deeper way!

God bless!

Carl's response:

Mike

Wow, good one. Don’t feel bad about asking this to the whole forum – nothing’s off limit.

My answer would be this....

I’m assuming we agree that baptism is not salvific. So then it’s somewhere in between a good idea of identifying publically with Jesus....and....a command.

My guess is you’re asking several questions here – only one of which is about being baptized. I think people ought to be baptized. It’s good at a lot of levels. And we have and do baptize Muslims – under the water, in the name of Father, Son and Spirit.

But what would you say about this? I think there are several commands in the scriptures (probably many, not just “several”) - that appear more frequently then “be baptized.” So while this is important – because Jesus said it and Paul affirms it – is it any more important then insisting that our new Muslim friends who are wanting to follow Jesus not gossip? Or to stay mentally, spiritually and physically pure?

What identifies someone as a follower of Jesus, is their fruit. The fruit of their lives. How they love. Serve? Or they sheep or goats? Do they “believe.” Do they love God and love their neighbor? All as important or maybe even more important than be baptized in water – mentioned once by Jesus, twice by Luke in Acts, and twice by Peter (if I remember rightly).

So while I think it’s important, I don’t think it’s as vital as several other things that are very clear in scripture. So let’s not ignore it, but we don’t want to harp on it (not that you are).

Identifying Jesus as Lord (master – is the better translation of the greek word Kirios), is a bigger one. And I’d just say that most of my friends would be on a continuum on this one. from “not at all” to “yes.” And again, to be sure we’re comparing apples to apples, while most evangelicals would give lip service to this because they know it’s the right answer (that Jesus is Lord) they would neither know what that really means or actually do much about it. I’d guess you’d agree with that. So....it doesn’t excuse anything on their lack of believing or doing it, but just puts it in perspective.

What do you think? Does that help at all?

I like how you’re thinking bro!

carl

Aaron's response to Carl:

Carl,

A little gentle push back here. Baptism is a notoriously confusing issue. Jesus commanded it, Paul affirms it, and yet Paul boasts that he only baptized a few of the Corinthian believers (I Corinthians 1:14) and he also said, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (Vs. 17) At the same time, I think Mike has a valid point. You seem to be saying that baptism is on the level of character issues that believers are supposed to deal with, as if baptism is on par with the fruits of the spirit, like love, joy, peace, ect.... I also don't think it's very helpful counting the number of times the word "baptism" is used as opposed to other commands. "Love your enemies" is only mentioned a couple of times in the gospels, yet you and I make a pretty big deal out of that one. If we look at the context of when baptism is mentioned in the New Testament, it's hard to come to any other conclusion that baptism is the "identity marker" of membership in the Body of Christ as Mike describes. Both in Acts and in Corinthians (For by One Spirit we were all baptized into one Body--1 Cor. 12:13) baptism seems to be the initiation into the life of the church, kingdom membership if you will.

So to me the two extreme positions are a:) baptism as one of several commands that believers may or may not get around to and b:) baptism saves. The truth has to be somewhere in between these two positions. I agree with you that it's the fruit that identifies true disciples and that ultimately it's not up to us to determine who's "in" and who's "out" in the final judgment (or even right now). If we want to be even more confused, the quid pro quo salvation scripture Romans 10:9, "that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved"--mentions nothing about baptism.

I sincerely wish sometimes that the New Testament wasn't so confusing!

Aaron

Now that you've read our two positions, what say you?

Global Faith Forum

2010-09-23T10:03:00.000-07:00

The Dove World Outreach Center in Florida and the Mosque at Ground Zero stories are accomplishing nothing but heating up the religious rhetoric in the media. You need to know about an event we're hosting in November - one that will bring Communist ambassadors, Saudi intelligence directors and Rabbis, and second generation American Muslims to my church to talk, I mean really lay it out for us, about how they see the world, how they see Christians and how we can respect one another while having different faiths. We're calling it the Global Faith Forum.

There is no doubt about it, the Evangelical Church is part of the reason for the tension between the Muslims and Christians in America. As an Evangelical, especially from Texas, we cannot sit by quietly and allow this tension to build. Years ago I began doing humanitarian work in Afghanistan and now Gaza – it has been nothing short of revolutionary in my relationships to Muslims and the Middle-East.
From Gaza to Doha where Al Jazeera brought me in May to over 200 middle-eastern leaders I was introduced as, "This is Bob Roberts. He's an Evangelical Christian Pastor but it's alright - he like Muslims." It makes me sad, most people from the middle-east and most Muslims don’t have a positive impression of us – we have to change that. Al Jazeera is supposed to be coming to the conference.

The Global Faith Forum is Nov 11-13, 2010.
I am writing wondering if you'd be willing to help us get word out about it (email blast, write a blog post, ad, spread the word, etc.) and the importance of engaging in conversation with other faiths in this day and age and how you see the Global Faith Forum playing into that conversation. We want your network to be aware of this event.
It is unique from many interfaith conferences, which can tend to say down deep we all really believe the same thing. In this multifaith gathering, we would be deemed conservative adherents of our faiths (Muslims, Evangelicals, and others). We are aware of core distinctions in our beliefs and dialogue about them openly while choosing to work together toward building respect and mutual engagement to make the world a better place. This sets the multifaith perspective apart.
Some people you may have heard of will be here. You may know Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah from the New America Foundation and Mara Vanderslice from the White House's Faith Based Initiatives Office. Others include Al Weiss, President of Worldwide Operations for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Prince Turki Al Faisal of the Saudi royal family, and Le Cong Phung who is the Vietnam Ambassador.
I am providing you a pdf and can get any other materials in your hands that could be beneficial for you to promote the Global Faith Forum.
Please let us know what tools you need to get the word out and we can send you whatever you need. Here is an article as to why we think it is vitally important.
I've attached our small press kit for the event. Please have one of your producers contact our Communications Director for more info - we'll get you guys whatever you need.

Yours,

Bob Roberts, Jr.

Flood waters diverted in Pakistan to save U.S. airbase

2010-09-22T08:16:00.001-07:00

It appears that flood waters have been diverted in Pakistan to save a U.S. air base. The Shahbaz air base is used by the U.S. military to launch drone attacks into Afghanistan and Pakistan, attacks that kill a disproportionate number of civilians by the way. When the flood waters threatened the base, the waters were intentionally diverted to the Jacobabad district, victimizing approximately 800,000 people according to numerous media reports coming out of Pakistan.

In other news, the U.N. has requested 2 Billion dollars for flood relief in Pakistan. Meanwhile the House has recently approved a 37 billion dollar supplemental war spending bill to finance the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, requested by President Obama.

So let me get this straight. While flood waters are causing one of the greatest, if not the greatest environmental disasters since the founding of the U.N., we, the people of the United States of America and the leaders we elected, seem to think that a better priority than saving lives and property, is to save a U.S. base used to carry out extra -judicial killing on scores of innocent women and children. We think it's a greater priority to spend 37 billion dollars on financing endless war than 2 billion dollars to win hearts and minds by caring for the sick, the hungry, and the dispossessed. Oh, and one more thing, at the time of this writing, the U.S. military is refusing to allow the use of the Shahbaz base for relief efforts.

God forgive us!

Jim Wallis praises Bush...and criticizes Obama

2010-09-21T11:36:00.001-07:00

Here's something you don't see every day. In a recent post on CNN's website, the Reverend Jim Wallis praised President George W. Bush for his leadership in combatting Aids in Africa...and criticizes President Obama for his failure to keep his campaign promises in this regard.

This is refreshing.

The majority of people with Aids live in Africa. The funny thing I've noticed in my travels throughout Africa is that the vast majority of times you ask an African who their favorite president is, they'll answer Bill Clinton. And yet, George W. Bush arguably did more to help Africa in terms of financial aid and addressing the AIDS issue than Clinton did. Bush doesn't really get the credit he deserves for helping Africa because...well...he's Bush.

Now it's time for Obama to finish what Bush started.

Watching and waiting

Still following Jesus...But not for the reasons you might think

2010-09-20T09:52:00.000-07:00

I got an interesting e-mail this morning. I left the person's name out in the interest of privacy. Notice my response. What do you think?

Question:

I came across your blog after watching the movie Jesus Camp and reading your interview with Pastor Tim O'brien. I was born Jewish, after my parents divorced, my mother remarried and my step-father, who basically introduced my to Christianity. After being in a Protestant Church for some time, my step-father felt the need to return to his Catholic roots, and we convert to Roman Catholic Church when I was in middle school. In high school i began to doubt my faith, and now that I'm in college I would consider myself an atheist. The arguments that led me to my current convictions could not be answered by my father or our local priest, and so I would like to see if you can take a stab at them...

1. The idea that the human race began from two individuals?
Answer from father and Church: The story is symbolic, the importance being that God created the first humans, and that we are separated from animals through the soul.
Further Questions arisen: How do we tell which stories are symbolic from the bible and which are not? Can we take any words from the bible literally? Other than obvious reasons of why this is scientifically false such as problems with cross breeding, ask the European royalty, I found this idea to be very troublesome as evolution and the progression of man from our monkey brothers becomes more and more viable with more and more evidence.

2. The idea that the bible is infallible, written through humans by God?
The earliest version of the bible that we have found was written around 350AD. Which means that the words that people take as the true words of Jesus Christ were passed down orally for over three hundred years. I know a belief of Christians is that humans are morally bad or corrupt, so I ask has it ever crossed your mind or any Churches minds that the words that are seen in todays bibles may be different from what Jesus said. But the bible is still quoted and accepted as the absolute truth and the words of God. From written evidence we found today, there is no way to know that some human along the way did not change any of the stories or words. If you have ever taken a history class, you would come to a conclusion that the new testament is a weak secondary document at most.

3. That god is outside of time...
One idea that frustrates me to the core is the idea that god has everything planned ahead of time. That he has a plan for everyone and that God planned the coming of christ since the beginning of time. Time, defined by the constant expansion of the universe is a nifty little thing that makes sure that not everything happens at the same time. For God to know what will happen in the future, he would then have to be outside of time, therefore knowing how every position and action would happen before it happens. To disprove this I will not turn to science, but to Christianities own infallible source: the bible. Anything that could disprove this theory would be any passage that says God changed his mind, for instance after flooding the world, won't even go into that one, God realized that killing every human other than Noah was a bad thing and promised to never do that again, oh wait did he change his mind?

Well I won't take up any more of your time, but I found your blog interesting and wanted to know if you could offer any answers to the questions I have.

Thanks

Answer:

Thank you for writing. You bring up a lot of issues. I appreciate your honesty. So let me be honest back. I'm a follower of Jesus not because I have everything figured out. Not because I can explain how time works and how God fits into that equation (though if you're interested in the subject, I'd check out Greg Boyd's website He's a Jesus follower with some unorthodox views on this matter) . I follow Jesus not because I have it figured out which passages in the Bible are more literal than others. Frankly, that's not so important to me anymore. I don't even follow Jesus because I can substantiate everything written in the New Testament, though there's a guy named Josh McDowell that's an expert on that sort of thing, perhaps you should look him up, but again, not the point. Point being, I follow Jesus for none of these reasons. Even if there was no heaven above or hell beneath, I'd still follow Jesus.

Why?

Because His life and teachings are so stinking compelling! Jesus was a man of the people, a champion for the oppressed, a critic of the establishment, a thorn in the side to the rich and the powerful, and above all, a friend of sinners. His kindness and compassion knew no limits. I love how He went out of His way to upset the religious establishment of His day by befriending harlots, Roman soldiers, tax collectors, and Samaritans. I don't know any teaching more compelling than "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you and pray for those who persecute you." I'm sickened that most of my Christian friends don't take His teachings more seriously in their attitudes towards war-- but don't get me started. Because just when I feel myself getting self-righteous, I'm reminded that Jesus said, "Judge not lest you be judged" and "Remove the plank in your own eye before considering the speck in your brothers eye." When Jesus was on the cross, He prayed for His torturers "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." If God is like Jesus, then that's good news for everybody.

This is why I follow Jesus.

Everything else is icing on the cake.

Peace,

Aaron

For the record: this is what I preached

2010-09-11T20:50:00.001-07:00

I've been getting into trouble lately. It all started when I asked myself the simple question, "What did the Apostles preach when they presented the gospel to non-believers?" When I started to read the Book of Acts with this question in mind, one of the first things I noticed was that the Apostles overwhelmingly put the focus on the resurrection of Jesus, the forgiveness of sins, and the hope of eternal life. This got me into trouble with my liberal Christian readers because I refused to reduce the Gospel of the Kingdom to "let's all work together to make the world a better place." A few commented that I was de-emphasizing the life and teachings of Jesus. Go figure.

The second thing I noticed was that there's no record in the Book of Acts of the Apostles insisting on a Jesus-is-God litmus test before they accepted people into the fold. In fact, more often than not, they emphasized the humanity of Jesus in their preaching and yet, we're explicitly told that those that heard and believed their message were saved. (Two striking examples of this are Acts 13:38,39,48 and 17:30-33) This led me to think that maybe we should be focusing on leading people to Jesus first and doctrine second. "Are we saved by doctrine or saved by Jesus?" I asked. This got me into trouble with my conservative Christian friends even though I insisted that I'm not denying the deity of Christ.

So to set the record straight, here's a summary of a short message I gave a couple of weeks ago to a mixed crowd of believers and non-believers:

I began with the simple Bible story of Jesus healing blind Bartimaeus. Bartimaeus was a blind beggar. He was a nobody. Even though the crowd was following Jesus, they tried to hinder blind Bartimaeus from coming to Jesus by telling him to "Be quiet!". This is what religious people still do today. Maybe in the past you've been interested in Jesus but you kept bumping into His followers pushing you aside and treating you like a nobody--so you decided to give up the pursuit of Jesus altogether. Bartimeaus could have done that, but instead he threw aside his garment, the symbol of all the things that were holding him back, and he came to Jesus.

Jesus healed Bartimeaus that day. He asked him a simple question, "What would you like me to do for you?" I ask you today, "What would you like Jesus to do for you?" Do you need healing, provision, or forgiveness? Jesus can do all of these things for you. There's a such thing as spiritual blindness and Jesus can take care of that too. We need more Jesus and less Christianity. Jesus always preferred to hang out with sinners than with religious people, so He'd probably prefer hanging out with you more than He would with me.

Jesus died on the cross for sinners. He rose again on the third day. The resurrection of Jesus gives me hope that one day God is going to make everything right in the world. Because Jesus is alive, He is able to grant you forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life. Come to Jesus today"

So there you have it. Aaron's gospel if you will. Are there things I left out or could have said better? Probably. Can God use imperfect people to accomplish His purposes? Definitely. Can God use imperfect theologies to draw people to a loving relationship with Jesus the Messiah? I think so. But then again...I could be wrong. I sincerely hope I'm not.

Jesus loves me...this I know

2010-09-04T14:00:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks, I've been a part of a forum with several influential evangelical leaders, as well as some Muslims that love Jesus but remain within the tradition of Islam. One of the questions that we've been asking is "What does it mean to follow Jesus?" One of the main points that has been made in response to this question is how Jesus meets people where they are, calling people to follow Him regardless of their background.

Jesus' approach (e.g. eating and drinking with sinners and heretics) seems to be the opposite of the approach that many evangelicals take today, which is to start the conversation with doctrinal litmus tests, as if following Jesus can be reduced to a seminary entrance exam.

Do you believe in the Deity of Christ?

Check.

Do you believe that you're justified by faith alone?

Check.

Oh, and by the way, do you agree that you're justified by faith alone but saving faith is not alone?

Huh???

I wonder if we're complicating things?

This verse came to mind today: "I've been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Galatians 2:20) (italics emphasis mine)

What if the crux of Paul's revelation is as simple as Jesus loves me? What if the cross, and all of our atonement theories that we use to explain the cross, isn't the main point, but a demonstration of the main point, which is God's inclusive love for all humanity? As Paul says in Romans 5:8, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

If Jesus was capable of loving Paul, then maybe He's capable of loving people today? If it's possible to enter into a loving, obedient, faith relationship with Jesus the Messiah today, then doesn't that cover the Jesus is more than a man part in our doctrinal litmus tests?

I'm wondering if the doctrine of the Deity of Christ is simply but a sign post to point us to a greater reality, which is that through a relationship with this mystical person called the Messiah, all of us have access to God in a way that wasn't fully available before Jesus showed up on the scene.

So maybe the old Sunday School song "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" is all we really need to know. What if that's the main point--and everything else is secondary?

I'm thinking out loud here.

Forgive my babble.

Scary dream--could this really happen?

2010-08-31T06:14:00.000-07:00

I just woke up from a dream. It was so frightening, I had to write it down.

I dreamt that I was watching President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton. They were surrounded by the secret service and all of the high up officials in the U.S. government. Probably a few cabinet members. I heard semi-automatic gun shots. I could see Bill Clinton and the others ducking for cover. It looked like Bill Clinton was a specific target. More gun shots. More ducking for cover. Then I saw President Obama attempt to give a press conference to reassure the nation that he and the officials with him were okay.

Boom!

A bomb goes off where the two presidents and the officials are standing. Both are unharmed but in the crowd of a hundred or so surrounding them, it was implied that some were killed.

By this time, I'm thinking that the nation is under a terrorist attack, probably perpetrated by Islamic extremists.

I look to the left and I see a massive crowd of people as far as the eye could see.

All white men.

All carrying Christian flags and bayonets.

All charging the White House.

I wake up.

I have no idea why I had this dream. I've never thought that the violent revolution strain in some of the tea party rhetoric is very realistic. Neither have I been concerned about radical reconstructionists (Christians that want to implement the law of Moses) taking over.

So why the dream?

Could it really happen?

Jean Pierre got married!

2010-08-30T09:15:00.000-07:00

My spiritual son in the faith has recently gotten married. I am so proud of him. I met Jean Pierre when I was working in Senegal. My wife and I led him to Christ and now he is an evangelist for Senegal. For years, Jean Pierre went about his ministry as a single man. He wanted a wife that could work with him in ministry--and he refused to settle for anything less! Jean Pierre now has a lovely wife from Brazil that is dedicated to sharing the gospel to the Senegalese people.

Congratulations Jean PIerre!

Are Christians the only children of God?

2010-08-22T20:43:00.000-07:00

In the film “Dead Man Walking”, shortly before Matthew Poncelet (played by Sean Penn) is executed, there’s a scene where Poncelet confesses his crime of rape and murder. Up until that time, Poncelet had showed little remorse to his spiritual advisor Sister Helen Prejean (played by Susan Surandon) even though earlier he declared confidently that he knew that Jesus would take care of him on judgment day. What did Helen Prejean—a Catholic nun—tell Poncelet in his final moments that caused a hardened criminal to face the truth about his sinful condition? She called him a child of God. Tears of contrition flow, as Poncelet responds, “Nobody ever called me a child of God before.”

As touching as the movie’s climax may be, a thorny question remains. Is it theologically sound to call someone who hasn’t confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior a child of God? If we take our cues from standard evangelical theology, the answer would be a resounding no! After all, according to standard evangelical theology, there are two types of people in the world: children of God and children of the devil. It takes a conversion experience to go from the latter to the former. After all, didn’t Jesus make it clear that disbelievers are “of their father, the devil” (John 8:44)?

While it may be comforting to divide the world between “us” versus “them”, the moral implications of this worldview is nothing short of monstrous when carried to its logical conclusion. If it takes becoming one of “us” to liberate a person from their status as “child of the devil” then what we’ve effectively done is demonize—literally—everyone except “us” the saved ones. To demonize is to dehumanize, and to dehumanize is to provide a mental justification for all kinds of atrocities against those perceived as the “other.”

Think about all the crimes perpetrated in the name of Christ throughout Church history, or even the suffering inflicted on others today when Christian faith is mixed with blind nationalism. When it comes to formulating an appropriate response to Islamic terrorism, too many Christians schooled in the classic us/them dichotomy of American evangelicalism have little choice but to resort to a theology that says convert them or kill them. Is this really the best way to read the Scriptures?

I don’t think so. At the same time, I admit that I don’t have all the answers when it comes to how to formulate a theology of evangelism that’s both morally defensible and Biblically credible. I think a good start would be for evangelicals to take a closer look at the passages of Scripture that emphasize God as the Father of humanity, not just the Father of Christians. Perhaps the best known passage is Acts 17:29 where the Apostle Paul affirms a pagan quote to show that the idol worshiping Athenians are indeed the “offspring of God.”

There’s also the story of the prodigal son that Jesus told in response to the Pharisees that accused Him of “eating with sinners.” In the story, sinful humanity is portrayed as a son that has gone astray, but a son nonetheless (See Luke 15:1-2, 11-32). Jesus also taught the masses to think of God as a “Father in Heaven”, even to pray to Him as “our Father.” Clearly out of all the masses that He taught, not everyone in His audience would have fit the bill as being in the “in” crowd, yet this didn’t seem to bother Jesus as much as it might bother today’s fundamentalists.

And by the way, that passage where Jesus supposedly calls disbelievers “of their father, the devil”, He was talking to the Pharisees, the people that set themselves up as religious leaders yet were spiritually clueless enough to call Jesus a “Samaritan” and a “demon” (John 8:48). Is this really a proof-text for us/them Christianity or is Jesus addressing a specific grievance aimed at the religious leaders of His day? The answer to this question could mean the difference between a theology of love and a theology of hate. Choose wisely.

Saved by doctrine or saved by Jesus?

2010-08-11T21:03:00.000-07:00

My article "Can Muslims follow the Biblical Christ and still be Muslim?" created a firestorm on God's Politics last week. In the article I suggest that we don’t see a very high Christology in Peter and Paul’s sermons in the Book of Acts, and yet we're explicitly told in Scripture that those who heard their message were genuinely saved. I suggested that just because Muslims can’t bring themselves to say, “Jesus is God”, we shouldn’t write them off so quickly as heretics. The thread of the comments has been pretty explosive, many suggesting that I’ve given up Biblical faith in the name of political correctness—even though I explicitly say in the article that I’m NOT denying the deity of Christ.

I think there’s a much, much deeper issue in play here, and since I’m on a journey here, understand that I may not be able to communicate my thoughts very well, so a little grace would be welcome. What’s starting to come into focus for me is the revelation that it’s not up to Aaron Taylor to decide who’s “in” and who’s “out.” What if following Jesus has very little to do with “in” verses “out” and “us” verses “them”? What if following Jesus means simply that? To follow Jesus? I’m not saying that doctrine isn’t important. I’m just wondering how we arrived at the place where we think that we’re saved through doctrine and not saved through Jesus?

What does it mean to follow Jesus? If we look in the New Testament there seems to be a wide range of what that means. For the thief on the cross, it meant a simple request for Jesus to “remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” For the woman at the well, Jesus seemed to be content with letting her know that He is the Messiah. For a group of curious onlookers it meant simply to “believe in the one whom He sent.” For the rich man it meant to “sell all of his possessions and give to the poor.” Some followed Jesus out of curiosity. Some followed him because they wanted social status—like James and John—Jesus’ closest disciples. And some doubted even after the resurrection as Jesus was giving them the Great Commission!

Combine all this with the curious habit of Jesus of constantly ticking off the religious people of His day by eating and drinking with those perceived to be outsiders. One of the primary points of the parable of the Good Samaritan was to challenge religious prejudice. By making the perceived heretic the hero of the story, Jesus was pointing to the central issue of what constitutes true religion. Love of God and loving your neighbor as yourself.

So in my Q&A sessions when people ask me what do I think about all the people in the world that follow other religions—whether they’re “in” or “out”—I answer honestly. I say something like this:

“Jesus said ‘I am the way the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me.’ At the same time He also told the parable of the Good Samaritan, a story where He made the perceived heretic the hero, challenging the religious prejudice of His day. I’m learning to live with the tension of these two truths.”

I’d love for everyone to believe that Jesus is God (though I’m quite aware that the statement needs a lot of explaining, especially in the light of Eastern and Western philosophical assumptions). At the same time it’s not my job description to determine who is “in” the kingdom and who is “out.” My job is to lift up Jesus and let Him run His Kingdom. If we start with Jesus, we can eventually arrive at correct doctrine, but if we start with doctrine, we may lose Jesus in the process.

Can Muslims follow the Biblical Christ--and still be Muslim?

2010-08-06T21:17:00.000-07:00

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot about the “Insider Movement” which is what missionary experts refer to as Muslims that love and follow Jesus while remaining within the cultural fold of Islam. I can remember before moving to Senegal as a missionary, a thought flashed through my mind, “I wonder if God might use me to initiate a movement of Muslims coming to Biblical faith in Christ as part of a Reformation movement within Islam?”

It turned out to be a fleeting thought. Instead I opted for the traditional apologetics approach, pointing out to Muslims why the New Testament is superior to the Koran and why they’re wrong about denying the divinity of Jesus and the atonement. I never seriously questioned this approach until I read Carl Medearis’s excellent book “Muslims, Christians, and Jesus.” In his book, Carl shares stories of his interactions with Muslims who deeply love Jesus and strive to follow His teachings—yet remain committed Muslims. I nearly wept thinking about how things could have been different if I had trusted my original instincts.

But now I have new questions, and they’re a bit unnerving because they strike at the heart of what it means to be a “Muslim” and what it means to be a “Christian.” I’ve heard that there are Muslim followers of Jesus that revere and strive to follow after the Jesus that they see revealed in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), but I’m wondering if these same Muslims can find a place in their theology to accept the rest of the New Testament as well? And if they can, I’m wondering if Christians can find a place in their theology to make room for Muhammad as a pre-messianic figure, pointing people to faith in Jesus the Messiah (a term the Koran affirms by the way) maybe not as authoritative as an Old Testament prophet, but perhaps on par with the status of local prophets in the New Testament?

Let’s break this down. Because most Muslims can’t bring themselves to say, “Jesus is God”, Christians write them off as heretics. The problem with this is that there’s nowhere in the New Testament that says, “Jesus is God”; so what we’re doing is insisting on non-Biblical language as a litmus test for Biblical faith. The doctrine may be true, and I believe it is, but should we really think of someone as outside the fold if they can’t bring themselves to say something that isn’t directly stated in the New Testament?

I wonder if a Muslim that respects the New Testament could find it in his or her theology to accept the statement, “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God….and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1-14). If a Muslim can accept this statement as the inspired Word of God, could we not call them brothers and sisters even if our understanding of what these verses mean may be slightly different?

Let’s talk about the cross. Mark Siljander has done an excellent job in his book “A Deadly Misunderstanding” showing that the case can be made in the Koran that Jesus died and rose again. If this is true, might it be possible for a Muslim to accept that the Messiah’s death has saving significance even if—to my knowledge—the Koran doesn’t explicitly say so? After all, the Koran does confirm the authenticity of the gospels and the case can be made from the gospels that the blood of Jesus was shed for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28).

If we look at the sermons of Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts, we see neither a very high Christology, nor do we see the doctrine of penal substitution—a doctrine highly offensive to Muslims—and yet we’re told explicitly that those who heard and believed their message received eternal life (Acts 13:48). The Apostles’ message in the Book of Acts was essentially “Jesus was crucified, but God raised Him from the dead and through this man is preached to you forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life” (see Acts 10:39-43, 13:37-49, 17:31-32). Notice the Apostles’ emphasis on the humanity of Jesus in His saving work. I daresay if an evangelist preached like that today, he or she would likely be labeled a heretic!

Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not denying the deity of Christ, and neither am I saying that the doctrine of penal substitution is wrong per se. I’m simply raising the issue that if a Muslim can believe and practice the bare essentials of what Biblical faith in Jesus requires and still be true to their own faith, then not only have we figured out a way to build a bridge of peace between the historic religions of Islam and Christianity, we’ve also figured out a way for Christians to be faithful to the command of Jesus to “Go and make disciples of all nations” without using our faith as a battering ram to demonize people of another faith.

Discuss!

Aaron on Grit Tv with Laura Flanders

2010-08-05T11:53:00.001-07:00

Sorry it's been a while since I've posted.

Here's an interview I did yesterday on Grit Tv with Laura Flanders.

Enjoy!

More GRITtv

A Jewish perspective on Jesus and the Middle East

2010-07-26T15:55:00.000-07:00

Here's another response in the e-mail exchange that started last week. I've posted this with permission:

Sorry to be so long in responding. I've been absorbed with blogging on my recent experience at the Presbyterian General Assembly. My reflections on the GA ( parts 1 and 2) start with Ephesians 2:14 and end with MLK's letter from the Birmingham jail. Would love to get your reactions. By the way, I've been to your site and watched you talk to me about the victim, the religious guy, and the Samaritan. Loved it. Brian's idea of a blogroll is very good and I encourage everyone to take Michael Ly up on his offer to compile the list.

For most of you on Carl's list, I'm the Jewish friend he refers to. I've got a few things to say in response, Carl, and I'll try to keep it brief.

1. I am very supportive of your work and that of Rick, Jeff, Samir, Miroslav and others in reaching out to the Muslim community. As a preface to my comments to follow, I think the issue that Christians now face in how to relate to the Jewish community is different. The Christian world undertook a huge bridge-building effort to the Jews after WWII, and it was a faithful and courageous thing to do. But now there is a whole new context for Christian-Jewish relations -- that's the Israel-Palestine conflict, of course. As a result we are looking at the need for a radical reframing in how we look at Christian-Jewish relations. It's the topic of my book, Fatal Embrace: Christians, Jews, and the Search for Peace in the Holy Land.

2. You are calling to the church. So am I -- and the similarities in what we are each up to are interesting: different pictures in the same frame. As a Christian you are calling on Christians to reconnect with the core of their faith in order to be open to the whole of humanity. As a Jew I am calling on Christians to reconnect with the core of their faith in order to be open to the call for justice in the Holy Land today -- calling on my people to tear down the walls of fear we build, walls that putting us at severe risk mentally and spiritually (as well as physically, for that matter). I am saying to Christians that if you really want to love the Jewish people, then you must call us to account for what our national homeland project has brought us to. It's very a contextually-based, call actually -- but the powerful thing about this is that the current context sends us right back to the context of first century Palestine. We need Jesus more than ever today. He speaks directly to me in his ministry to the Palestinians of his time (the Jews) in calling for nonviolent resistance to the evil of empire -- and our collusion with it.

3. You are calling out how theology is being driven by politics and I agree. It is certainly true that Christian Zionism -- not the John Hagee variety but the Zionism hiding in plain sight in the Christian mainstream -- is driven by politics: interfaith politics. Protestants, beginning with the penitential, self-purification impulse of the German confessing church during and in the aftermath of WWII and with the RCC in the reforming work of Vatican II -- have made atoning for anti-Semitism the value that now trumps action for justice in Palestine. As such Christians missed the boat -- the wake-up call of the Nazi Holocaust should have driven a deep self-exploration about what had happened to Christianity. Instead a "cheap penitence" took over in the form of a guilt offering to the Jewish people - the "gift" of the land. And what has that meant? (1) de-spiritualizing (and de-universalizing) the land -- what a non-Christian thing to do! The earth is the Lord's, not the Christians' to give! and (2) a slippery slope to a theological legitimization of political Zionism -- a political ideology that has hijacked Judaism and put the Jewish people, well really all of humanity, in peril. Christianity is in peril as well, for colluding with us in this idolatry. What you've got in both forms of Christian Zionism is a form of Judeo-Christian triumphalism. The Palestinians don't count in this. And not Muslims -- heck anybody who is not Jewish or Christian.

So yeah, we gotta get this right.

You talk about our spiritual battle and the way of the cross. For Christians to love the Jewish people well and truly (read the Palestine Kairos document) is not easy, it means picking up the cross. 65 years of building interfaith bridges threaten to blow up your faces, because of the fear-based bullying tactics of the American Jewish organizations that scream anti-Semitism at responsible criticism of Israel's policies. These organizations and leaders claim to, but don't speak for all Jews -- but that doesn't make it easy for Christian clergy, institutions, or laity. But that's the reality now -- for Christians to remain faithful, they must take up that cross and suffer the pain of losing Jewish friends and being called anti-Semitic (And from some of the responses to your email, seems like losing Christian friends is is a big issue for those of you working on Christian-Muslim relations.) We are living in prophetic times, so there are costs. It hurts, of course. But look at what the Presbyterians are doing -- it's inspiring. And puts us right into the interfaith politics http://markbraverman.org/2010/07/report-from-the-presbyterian-general-assembly-part-2-the-jewish-response/.

This is bigger than Palestine, of course. But when we get Palestine right we get the whole thing right.

You write: "Politicians aren't thinking that way, because the church is not thinking that way!" Your are dead on here. I am pushing on the Jewish-Christian interfaith issue because the church has the power to drive the politics on Israel-Palestine, and the current Christian-Jewish "interfaith" frame is a barrier to church faithfulness and effectiveness here. It's not an interfaith issue, it's a church issue, an issue of faithfulness. Actually, it's a faith issue, period, and so the fact of being Christian, Muslim or Jewish is not important. It's whether you are for ripping off the poor or for ending poverty, for destroying the planet or preserving it. The world is called to understand love (see again Kairos Palestine, a manifesto of "resistance framed in the logic of love"). Palestinians have been involved in nonviolence for almost going on a century now, and it's growing stronger and has at last become a global movement. We've looking at a stunning opportunity to change the political wind, and the church is the place for this to happen. And again -- it's not just Palestine. It is, as you put it , a spiritual battle, the Kingdom message. Humanity will destroy itself in pursuing the myth of redemptive violence and in greedily ripping off the planet, or it will be redeemed through nonviolent resistance in its many forms.

I talk about Jesus and people wonder if I'm a Christian, and really, I don't care what you call me - we need Jesus now, he speaks directly to our situation. If we can get beyond "interfaith dialogue," if we can get that it's not about the faiths "getting along," but about realizing our brotherhood and sisterhood and the urgency of our common calling and to a communion of humanity, then we achieve incredible momentum. Jesus stood before the Temple and said -- this is coming down. And the writer of John (2:21) explains -- just in case anyone is not clear on the theology -- "he was speaking of the Temple of his body." Body of Christ -- all of humanity united in spiritual communion, to undertake and continue the work of transforming this world into the Kingdom of God.

You ask, can Muslims follow Jesus and stay Muslim. I know Muslims (actually most of the Muslims that I know) who are clear that following Jesus is being true to Islam. The same for me as a Jew -- it's no stretch at all. Jesus was a Jew, fully in the line of the prophets, and he was taking Judaism where it was supposed to go, and, in that historical context, where it urgently needed to go to be true to itself. History got in the way and we ended up with a separate religion. So much for religions -- they divide rather than join. That's our challenge today -- to come together to bring the Kingdom, and for that not to be a "Christian" thing but a universal message. Heck, that was the Christian idea from the beginning, to take what was tribal and sectarian and make it universal.

I haven't done a good job making this brief, so I'll cut if off here. Thanks for getting this going, brother.

Mark
www.markbraverman.org

A Muslim makes the case for Christ--from the Koran!

2010-07-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

Over the past few days, I've been privy to a private e-mail exchange with some very influential people (including best selling authors and high level politicians) about how followers of Jesus should engage the Muslim world. For accountability purposes, the conversation thread was cc'd to a few influential Muslims. Here is a response from a devout Muslim on the question of whether a Muslim can follow Jesus and still be a Muslim. I'm not endorsing everything he says here, but I do think that Christians in the West, especially American Christians need to be better educated as to what the Koran actually says about Jesus. It's so easy to stereotype Muslims as anti-Jesus, as if every Muslim thinks about Jesus the way that Bin -Laden thinks about Jesus. That's never been true, and it's not true today. Christians and Muslims indeed have some theological differences, perhaps even irreconcilable differences, but the differences are far less than what we might think, especially when we allow the texts to speak for themselves.

I've posted his words with permission:

I agree that Evangelist Churches in America are subject these days to kind of panic and their bosses sometimes act without showing great sense of responsibility. By the way, we have often seen such extreme behaviors and Manichean philosophy (world I only between very good and very bad and nothing in the middle) in this over passionate environment.

However, the fact is that their fears and worries are not out of scope and in my view it would be a mistake to rush blaming them and even more dangerous, to confront them. They will simply never accept it.

But what about the other side? Muslims must make the effort and Christians and Jews must ask their Muslim friends, sometimes without indulgence, to produce this effort.

Take as an example your question 2 which in my view should be changed into: “Can a Muslim be a true Muslim if not a Follower of Jesus?” The answer is: “No” and to explain this, I’d like to propose from a strictly Koranic perspective, kind of an overview…. Again, strictly Koranic… Not New Testament, not Old Testament… only Koran… In advance I want to apologize for the length of my message.

On behalf of Allah, Muhammad recited once a verse:

“Yes, We have given Moses The Book and after him, we have followed with the Envoys and We have given The Credentials to Jesus and We endowed Him with the Holy Spirit”… (S2, V87)

Audience asked questions to Muhammad about these words in particular about the exact meaning of the obviously distinguished rank granted by Allah to Jesus among all Envoys and also about who these Envoys are and whether he too, Muhammad, was an Envoy (Messenger) of Allah. And later the answers came from Allah:

“Yes you too truly are one of the Messengers”… (S2, V252)

“These Envoys, We have favored some over the others and some had spoken to Allah and We have over-ranked some of them and We have given The Credentials to Jesus, Son of Mary and We have endowed him with the Holy Spirit”… (S2, V253)”…

Each of Allah’s Envoys belongs to a certain rank. An Envoy can be only Envoy or Envoy and Prophet (Nabi) or Envoy and Prophet and Nazir, or Envoy and Prophet and Nazir and Messenger (carrying a message, Rasul) but among all Allah’s Envoys there is only one who is altogether Envoy, Prophet, Nazir, Messenger and Christ (Messiah) and this one is Jesus, son of Mary and this is because He alone, was endowed with the Holy Spirit. In the entire Koran there is not even one single Envoy and of course not one single human whom Allah endowed with the Holy Spirit as He endowed Jesus.

Muhammad recited a verse about how Allah comforted Jesus who was feeling sad because people were disputing his Status:

“Allah said: “Jesus, I shall now put an end to your life in this world, and I shall elevate You to Me and keep You away from those who have not believed in You and until the Day of Resurrection, I shall rank your Followers above those who do not believe in You and I am the One Who Judge and among all of you I shall account those who disputed Him (Jesus) and as for those who have not believed Him, I shall punish them a harsh Punishment and for them there will be no help”… (S3, V55-56)

This clearly confirms that Jesus is above all the Envoys and that from the days of Jesus life in this world and until the Day of Resurrection, people shall be judged by Allah according to whether they were Followers of Jesus or were not. Again, this divine judgment does not only count for those who lived during the days of Jesus-Christ but for all human beings who lived since these days until the Day of Resurrection…

And why is it that all creatures shall be judged at Judgment Day according to whether they were Followers of Jesus or were not? This is because Allah’s Mercy is infinite and because of such infinite mercy all sins are eligible to Allah’s Pardon except one sin that shall never been pardoned: “the sin against the Holy Spirit” (as Christians must know this also was, according to the Gospels, the exact answer Jesus made to some who asked Him which sins shall never been pardoned).

And what does “sinning against the Holy Spirit” means according to Allah? Allah gives the answer:

“There is Jesus, son of Mary, Word of Justice (Logos) about Whom they argue”…(S19, 34)

Sinning against the Holy Spirit means disputing Jesus because Jesus alone was endowed with the Holy Spirit…

Now the Big Question came: why Jesus alone was endowed with the Holy Spirit? And here came Allah’s answers which altogether form the Center and the Perimeter (Alfa and Omega) of Mystery of Faith because they cover several mysteries: Mystery of Creation of all Creatures whether Human or not Human, Mystery of Resurrection Day, Mystery of Judgment Day, All Mysteries of which Jesus is the Center. Let us read what Muhammad recited as being Allah’s answers to these questions:

On behalf of Allah, Muhammad recited:

“It is for Allah about Jesus as it was about Adam who He created from soil and said to him:”Be” and there He was” (S3, V59)

This means that mankind that has started with Adam started again with Jesus Christ.Muhammad also recited (the first Koran verse Mohammad has recited. This was around January 17, 611CE in Makka, Western Arabia):

“Recite… Recite in the name of your Lord, Who created human from a spermatozoon” (S96, V1-2).

Few months later, Muhammad recited again:

“Human must consider from what he was created… He was created from an expelled liquid”…(S86, V6-7)

I shall not quote all verses restating the same evidence (it needs a book) and shall conclude by saying that Muhammad recited several verses in which Allah has indisputably drawn the following theological understanding about the Great Mystery of Faith:

1. All humans are creatures. A human creature is a combination of a Soul and a Body so as for the entire life of the creature in this world, the Soul lives in the Body. The Body is mortal and corruptible because it is resulting from a biological process that starts with a mate between a Female and a Male and which ends up after the Female has carried the creature to finally deliver it after a certain period of time (6 to 9 months). The Soul is immortal because it comes as a single unit part of a Universal Soul that is the source of Immortality.

2. This framework is valid for all human creatures including Envoys except Jesus-Christ because Jesus Christ is the only one whose Body hasn’t resulted from a mate between his mother and father. That is exactly what the Koran says because according to the Koran Jesus is born not from a human father but from the Holy Spirit. Now since the first verse of the Koran says that all humans are created from a spermatozoon and the same Koran also says that Jesus’ Body, though delivered to life by His mother, wasn’t created from a spermatozoon but as a Holy spirit, should we not conclude that according to the Koran, Jesus is not exactly a Human? And if He is not exactly a Human, so what is He? Especially that the same Koran adds that Jesus has the power to create life, overcome death, heal sicknesses and accomplish miracles which all are divine and not human attributes?

3. When the body dies, it get corrupted while the Soul goes back to the Universal Soul until the Resurrection Day. At Resurrection Day, Soul and Body are reunified again and the Creature, Soul + Body, present before Allah for the Judgment and Allah decides whether a Creature shall be pardoned and rewarded or punished and damned. And this divine decision depends on whether during the life on earth, the Creature has been a follower of Jesus-Christ because all sins can be pardoned except the sin of disputing about Jesus Status as a Holy Spirit. This body corruption occurs for all human beings including Allah’s Envoys except for Jesus and John The Baptist who resurrected alive from death (Koran S19, V15 for John and Koran S19, V33 for Jesus noticing that in the Koran Allah testifies for John while Jesus testifies for Himself). Jesus and John’s bodies were never corrupted because they resurrected ALIVE. According to the Koran (S3, V39), John was granted by Allah that extreme privilege because he was a prophet assigned to announce the uprising of the Logos of Allah. This is the confirmation of Jesus words: ”Among all men born from the flesh, John was the greatest”…

Carl all these words come from the Koran and they are Allah’s words and it is Muhammad who recited these words. Christians do not know that Koran says what is here and more dramatic, Muslims do not know, do not understand and many of them do not accept these words though they come from the Koran…

Is it not here that our focus must be put? Is it not more than time to tell the truth about Muhammad’s life and Islam, especially to Muslims? To overcome legends and fables that Muslim Scholars from the early caliphates times have invented about Muhammad and later transformed into sacred stories? Don’t we believe that peace between nations with different believes and more specifically between Muslims and non-Muslims is a global issue and that nothing serious could come out from a so-called “inter-faith dialogue” unless this dialogue is based on the truth which is that Jesus is at the center of the entire prophecy cycle and not only one step among others in this chain?

To simply tell the truth: A Muslim does not need to convert to Christianity provided he/(s) understands that not being a Follower of Jesus takes out from any chance of salvation?

Are we not sure that once this truth shall be accepted by Muslims, Evangelists will have no more issues with Muslims?

Muslims do not need to “convert” to Christianity… They need to understand that according to Koran as recited by Muhammad, Islam is impossible for those who are not Followers of Jesus and that Salvation is through Jesus-Christ and only through Jesus-Christ.

Again, pardon me for having been so long….

Your brother,
Riad

Sometimes I think that Christians need to be reminded that we don't own Jesus. Thank you Riad for reminding us that Jesus is bigger than the religion we know of as Christianity. May the Spirit of Jesus the Messiah, the Logos of God, continue to illuminate our hearts with His light and love.

Can Muslims follow Jesus and still call themselves Muslim?

2010-07-21T11:12:00.001-07:00

Can Muslims follow Jesus and still call themselves Muslims? My friend Carl Medearis has some insights on this that I think deserves a hearing.

Read it here!

Let me know what you think.

Another martyr for Christ in Pakistan

2010-07-19T07:34:00.000-07:00

I received this e-mail this morning from a contact in Pakistan. It dawned on me that I had been in correspondence with Rashid Emmanuel for the past two years. We even gave to his ministry a few times. Rashid will be greatly missed.

My Dear Brother Aaron,
We are sorry to inform you that:
Today July 19, 2010. Muslim extremists shot dead Rahid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people in district courts compound in Faisalabad today.

There were rumors and reports on July 18, 2010, that both of Christian brothers are free to go home from Civil Lines Police Station Faisalabad where they were detained on July 4, 2010, under blasphemy charges on complaint of one Muslim businessman of Railway Bazar because police told friends of Rashid and Sajjid that there is no proof found against them which may extend their detention.

Today, investigation officer Mohammad Hussian produced Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel before Judge in District Courts where he testified that police have investigated allegations leveled against them but found no proof that they may be charged under blasphemy.

Police investigating officer Mohammad Hussian told court that complainant Mohammad Khuram Shehzad lodged FIR alleging Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel producing a handwritten leaflet which he stressed is defiling Prophet Mohammad but police have report of Handwriting expert that pamphlet handwriting presented by Mohammad Khuram not match with handwriting of accused Christian brothers. Police further submitted that they have nothing to investigate against them and find no proof to remand them in custody.

The court ordered to send Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel to Judicial custody till next date to issue further orders.

As there were rumors that Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel are found innocent and will be released, the extremists Muslims reached in District Courts Faisalabad and were waiting for them to come out of court house.

As Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel were walking towards district courts custody cell with police, the unidentified gunmen opened fire and Rashid Emmanuel felt on ground.

Sajjid Emmanuel stepped to safe his brother but gunmen shot him down too. When police tried to fire back on gunmen, they also came under attack and Inspector Mohammad Hussain felt down on ground.

In minutes, masked gunmen fled from scene, till medical aid reach, Rashid Emmanuel died on spot while Sajjid Emmanuel and police officer were rushed to hospital, where they were pronounced dead till our posting this sad incident.

The leaders of Christian Lawyers Foundation, Rao Naveed Zafar Bhatti Advocate reported that adequate security was not in district court which made easy for killers to fled from scene.

Pastor Rashid Emmanuel was 32 years of age and running a Ministry while his brother Sajjid Emmanuel was helping him in Lords word.

.According to government reports, a blasphemy case was registered on 1st July, 2010, under section 295- C PPC, against Rashid Emanuel and Sajid Emanuel of 30 years of age who were residents of Street No.5 Daud Nagar, Faisalabad, Pakistan and arrested by police on July 4, 2010.

Muhammad Khuram Shezad merchant of Railway Bazar, Faisalabad, had complained that his servant told him that both Christian accused were distributing pamphlets in open bazar which is desecrating Prophet Mohammad and their numbers are under the writing of the Pamphlet. He went to PS and told fabricated story to police to charge 2 Christian young men under blasphemy.

The Muslims took out a procession on July 10, 2010, when they burnt tires and pelted stones on Catholic Church Warispura Faisalabad. The mob threatened that if these brothers are not executed according to Muslim law, the mob will exact revenge not only on them, but the entire Christian community.

Please remember our christians in your prayers.
God bless you all,

Update on Christian's eyes, and why I believe there's a God

2010-07-17T09:44:00.000-07:00

It's been a crazy week. On Wednesday my wife and I took our son Christian to Albuquerque to see an eye doctor for children. Our son is six months old now and we noticed a few weeks after he was born that he had a lazy eye. At first we didn't think too much of it, but then the other eye started to get lazy. Sometimes he would go cross eyed. Long story short, the doctor said that we can try glasses for six weeks but if the crossing of the eyes isn't corrected by then, he'll need surgery, otherwise he could lose his vision.

The office didn't take our insurance, so we ended up running all over the place to find a place that would take our insurance to pay for the lenses. The doctor's office was hardly any help. They should have been better prepared on that front.

Isaac's doing well. He's taking a nap right now. One of the ways that I know there's a God is because He created toddlers with a need for naps.

Coincidence or divine mercy?

I choose to believe the latter.

Is it about independence or explosions?

2010-07-07T07:16:00.000-07:00

I received this e-mail today from Iraq Veterans Against the War. While I enjoy celebrating the 4th of July with fireworks, it made me think about those who have experienced real violence, either as the invader or the invaded.

Thoughts and Analysis on July 4th at 1:16 AM

by Ryan Harvey, Civilian Soldier Alliance

I sat on the stone wall that lines Druid Lake tonight and watched Baltimore destroyed by bombs. I watched tracers light up the sky, followed by the deep pulse of distant explosions.

I watched huge clouds of smoke rise from downtown, escaping from the flaming buildings. I saw explosions as far as Dundalk, Curtis Bay, and Morgan State. I saw light emerging from deep in the West Side, illuminating the trees that line the park.

I saw the Belvedere Hotel hit by a series of missiles, a huge flame bursting out the East wall. I remembered when the bartender there took me and a friend on the roof to see the best 360 degree view I'd ever seen of the city. I wondered if he would survive the attack.

Then a huge bomb fell into the apartment building at Howard and 28th, sending a large cloud of smoke into the air. I could only imagine the horrors inside as elderly residents tried to escape the flames. I watched cars crossing the 29th St. bridge fired on by helicopters that then continued on their way into Remington. I watched mortar fire land in the houses of Reservoir Hill that face the park, and heard the sounds of gunfire from the streets behind them.

It was a total nightmare, something I never wanted to experience. Thankfully, it was mostly in my head. It was the Fourth of July, and celebratory explosions were popping off all over the city.

But I wasn't celebrating, I was mourning. The fireworks reminded me not of 1776 or 1812, but of 2003, when I watched an almost identical scene on the TV news. I thought not of British Redcoats, but of U.S. Soldiers and Marines. I was watching a re-run of Shock And Awe, the massive bombing campaign the U.S. unleashed on Baghdad on March 19th, 2003.

I texted a friend, a former National Guardsman who participated in the initial invasion of Iraq. I told him I was thinking of Baghdad, watching the city light up, and I asked how he was. He said he was "in hiding," not interested in being taken back to that place again, at least, not this year.

I thought how many friends of mine, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who have joined the ranks of the anti-war movement, were in hiding too, taking pills to calm their shattered nerves, reasoning with their shame and anger at the roles they played in occupying these countries.

I thought of my childhood friend Austin Koth, who deployed to Baghdad in 2006 with an Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit. I imagined which exploding firework might best match the sound of the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) that took his life two weeks before he would have come home. Then I heard it.

I thought about the millions of Iraqi and Afghan citizens whose lives have been turned upside down by the "Global War on Terror". I felt so sad and sorry to the Iraqi people for the actions of my government, a government that wouldn't budge no matter how unpopular the invasion was or how many people voiced opposition to it.

I wondered how I could explain that to those who lost limbs when our bombs came crashing into their neighborhoods because one of their neighbors may or may not have posed a threat to U.S. forces. I thought about the brave people who picked up weapons to defend their communities from the invasion of my government.

I thought "what if Baltimore was really being bombed right now?" I wondered what I would actually feel like, what it means to watch your home, the home of so many friends and family, crumble under the bombs of a foreign government. I wondered what I would do and what my friends would do. Would I go out into the chaos to look for survivors? Would I stay far away hoping to save my own life? Would I fight? Would I organize others to fight with me?

These thoughts paralyzed me for an hour as I sat and stared out into the city. I was among families having cookouts, all the while a simulation of a major bombing campaign lit up my city's skyline.

All I could think of was Baghdad.

It is amazing that we celebrate our Independence Day in such a way. A total glorification of war. A sensory overload of violence. After all, our fireworks are meant to imitate the "bombs bursting in air" which helped win the Independence War against Britain.

I wonder how many take time on this day to consider the Independence movement that led to the creation of the United States. I wonder if they think about other Independence movements, from India to Algeria to Mozambique, that fought similar struggles against colonialism.

I wonder if any note the parallels between British policy in colonial America and U.S. policy in Iraq. After all, it was the British who set the stage for our presence when they invaded and occupied Iraq in 1921.

And the Iraqi resistance that arose after U.S. Administrator of Iraq Paul Bremer set drastic and far-reaching economic decrees in 2004 isn't that different from events in our own history. American Patriots fought back after similar changes were initiated by the British in the 1760s and 70s. They rioted against the Stamp Act and dumped Tea in the Boston Harbor to protest British economic policies.

Then they picked up guns.

But political history aside, a deeper question remains; why the glorification of war? Is it to remind ourselves of the glory of victory, to remember those who suffered and died to free the United States from Britain? Is it to turn war into a celebration, to be enjoyed from afar, knowing we will probably never see it?

I tend to believe the latter, that the fireworks celebration is not about Independence, it's about explosions. It's about war. It's a yearly mass-experience that reminds us that we live in a culture of violence and that we are safe enough from war that we can celebrate it from a detached position. But it's not a conspiracy by some branch of government or some multinational fireworks company, it's a cultural practice, an unwritten consensus.

If we took time to consider the real impacts that war and mass violence have across the world, I don't think we would be able to stomach all the hot dogs. I think we would start to feel the weight of so many lives that were taken early by the crippling shards of shrapnel bursting out of bombs and missiles dropped by our military around the world.

And if we all considered what we would do if we were on the receiving end of such an assault, if we saw the bombing of Baltimore the way i did tonight, maybe we would feel the common humanity that binds us to those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and countless other countries that live the results of our government's aggressive foreign policy.

Perhaps then we could start celebrating Independence Day in a way that honors, educates about, or supports those fighting similar battles today, even if they are against our own government's policies.

A martyr's death puts things in perspective

2010-07-06T21:07:00.000-07:00

Fatu was 25 years old when her father and his two sons burned her to death. Her crime was converting to Christianity in a Muslim land. When Fatu's father first discovered that his daughter had become a Christian, in order to save face, he married Fatu off to a local Imam. The Imam believed that Fatu had been bewitched by Christian "sorcery" and that he could "heal" her. His way of "healing" her was to torture her for two weeks, force her to recite the Koran, while blaspheming Jesus to her face. Her testimony remained firm as she continued to say to her husband, "Jesus is my Savior. In Him only I believe. He is the way and the truth."

Fatu escaped from her "husband" only to be found later by her father and his two sons (in case you're wondering, the sons are from a different wife). They beat her, burned her veil on her, and though some tried to intervene, the father declared, "She's a dog. She's a Christian that has strayed from our religion." After Fatu's father and his sons left, her friend found her naked and the fire put out. He took her to the hospital where they did the best they could to save her, but to no avail. She died three weeks later. Because her father is a respected religious man, nobody has dared to accuse him of the murder. Even the central government is powerless to override local customs.

When I came across this story, it definitely put some things in perspective for me. For the past few years I've cautiously become more and more identified with the progressive faith community, often finding myself caught between the two worlds of "progressive" and "evangelical." The "progressive" side of me sees some serious flaws with the fundamentalist approach to Scripture, wants to promote peace and tolerance between Christians and Muslims, and is troubled by the militant nature of right wing Christianity, especially in America. The "evangelical" side of me clings ferociously to the truth that it's through Christ's crucifixion and resurrection that sinners are saved, and every believer is mandated to share this gospel through their life and witness.

If you'll humor me for a moment, I'll let you listen in on "evangelical" Aaron giving a lecture to "progressive" Aaron.

Progressive Aaron. I know that you don't want to perpetuate negative stereotypes against Muslims. I know how you've seen these stereotypes abused by right wing preachers that use stories like these to promote hatred and mindless war-mongering. But you out of all people should know that this isn't an isolated incident, rather it's the norm of what happens when Muslims go public with their faith in Christ.

I also know that you're struggling to formulate a more inclusive theology that doesn't divide the world between 'us' versus 'them' precisely because you've studied Church history and seen the nasty fruit of where that thinking leads. But please, please don't forget that there are people around the world that are suffering and dying for their faith, and the reason why they're willing to suffer is because they're seeking a homeland that's not of this world. While you may sit in your air-conditioned office and wonder if fundamentalists have misinterpreted 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me', people are dying in horrific ways with this testimony on their lips. If you abandon them, you've abandoned a part of yourself.

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Have mercy on me, a sinner!

The myth of the self- made man

2010-07-05T07:59:00.000-07:00

Have you heard this one? That rich guy over there, he's a self- made man. People sometimes say it of others, but usually people say it of themselves if they feel their lives are particularly boast-worthy. The implication is that the person is where he or she is solely as the result of their own efforts. Rags to riches stories become "look what I did all by myself" stories. "I didn't rely on anyone to get where I am today, especially not the GOVERNMENT!!"

Laying the government question aside (does anyone really think that the infrastructure that our taxes pay for have nothing to do with why they've been allowed to succeed in this country?), the idea of a self- made individual is nonsense. I've been a parent for about seven months now. My wife and I have a 6 month old infant and an 18 month old toddler that we just adopted from Ethiopia. I've been feeding Isaac (our Ethiopian son) and changing his diapers every day. A few days ago it dawned on me that if I wasn't there to stuff oatmeal in his mouth in the mornings, Isaac wouldn't survive. There's no way he could help himself. The fact that he's alive today is due solely because a few dedicated women at an orphanage in Ethiopia fed him constantly for six months after he was discovered as an abandoned newborn.

And then another revelation dawned on me: the fact that any of us are alive today is because somebody took the time to feed us, clothe us, and change our diapers when we couldn't do these things for ourselves. Somebody did that for me. In my case, it was my parents. For others, it may be an orphanage, an aunt or a cousin, or a foster parent. Even those raised in abusive situations, if they survived the toddler phase, it's because someone saw to it that they survived, perhaps even the abusive parent!

So before you make the claim that you're a self- made man (or woman), think about this. At one point in your life, in order for you to survive, somebody had to feed you, clothe you, change you, and wipe your butt. And that "self- made" man or woman that you admire so much? Somebody had to wipe their butt too. Humbling isn't it?

Adjusting to inter-racial adoption

2010-06-25T07:43:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I traveled to Ethiopia to pick up our adopted son Isaac. Isaac was abandoned as a newborn infant and spent the first year and a half of his life in an orphanage. Thankfully, the orphanage was staffed with loving Christian women that showered him with hugs and kisses. The flip side, however, is that there were--surprisingly--more workers than children, so Isaac had people at his beck and call 24/7, and since the goal of an orphanage in Ethiopia is to nourish the babies until their adoptive parents come for them, discipline was hardly emphasized. Whenever Isaac wanted something, all he had to do was to scream, hit, and throw his toys and he got exactly what he wanted--not easy habits to break.

So what's my new life like as an inter-racial parent? Well, for starters, my days of staying up until midnight and sleeping in are history. It's one thing to father an infant. It's quite another thing to father an infant and a toddler at the same time. The two boys are a year apart which makes it difficult for my wife who is still breastfeeding Christian, our six-month old son.

Since Isaac spent the first year and a half of his life with other people and is now suddenly thrust into a completely different setting, he has some separation anxiety. For the first two weeks, he wanted to be held every second of the day, and when I put him down, he would scream to the top of his lungs. I used to make fun of dads that seem to have no problem reducing themselves to the role of Pee-Wee Herman in order to entertain their toddlers. Now after spending 21 hours on an airplane with my own toddler, it's official. I get it.

Adjusting to an international/inter-racial adoption is difficult, but one of the things that I haven't had to deal with--at least not yet--is dirty looks and insensitive remarks. Everywhere my wife and I go, people are warm and friendly with us and our son. Black people, white people, Hispanics and Native Americans; the reactions are all the same. Some--especially white people-- will go out of their way to show their approval.

I'm under no illusion that things will stay this way. Nor do I think that our family is immune to the challenges that inter-racial families in the U.S. inevitably face. Following good advice, I've taken the time to study black history and black culture, familiarizing myself with the struggles that African American males face in the U.S. I know that individual and institutional racism remain an open wound to many black Americans. Still, I think it's comforting to know that most people--in our experience-- at least are trying to transcend their prejudices. That to me is progress.

The ACLU files lawsuit against President Obama over drone attacks

2010-06-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

Last night I googled the words "drone attacks Obama" to verify if President Obama has indeed increased unmanned aerial drone attacks in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. Sure enough, not only has the president significantly increased these extrajudicial killings that also happen to kill a lot of civilians; it turns out that the ACLU has recently filed a lawsuit against the president challenging his right to carry out the attacks.

Just for kicks, I'd like to take a look at President Bush's human rights policies and see which ones have been continued under President Obama.

Extraordinary renditions? Check.

Militarization of Latin America? Check.

Fumigating crops in Columbia to fight the drug war? Check.

Threat of military force against Iran? Check.

Drone attacks against civilians in Pakistan? Increased.

Military aid to Israel? Increased.

What is striking about the President is that despite his smooth-talking in Cairo, despite the Nobel Peace prize, despite the never ending efforts of neo-con pundits to turn Obama into a first class whimp, the difference between Obama and Bush is a mile wide when it comes to rhetoric but an inch deep when it comes to reality.

Granted, Obama’s willingness to work with—as opposed to arrogantly dismiss—the international community on issues like nuclear non-proliferation and global climate change, along with his more respectful tone towards the Muslim world, has gone a long way to reduce the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that was so prevalent during the Bush years. Still, I wonder if Christians in the historic peace-churches will be able to honestly vote for a second term in 2012 and still have the right to call themselves pacifists?

While it may be true that a McCain/Palin administration would have been more bellicose and hostile to the rest of the world, at what point does voting for the lesser of two evils become complicity in acts of violence against others? Perhaps it’s a little early to ask this question, but the question still bothers me nonetheless.

Interview with Bob Kellemen, author of "God's Healing for Life's Losses"

2010-06-14T10:39:00.000-07:00

God’s Healing for Life’s Losses: How to Find Hope When You’re Hurting
Author Interview Q/A

1. What’s the “big idea” behind God’s Healing for Life’s Losses? What would you like readers to take away from it?

In a biblical sentence: you can grieve with hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13). God’s Healing for Life’s Losses gives readers permission to grieve and offers a pathway toward hope. I want people to see their suffering from God’s perspective without denying the reality that suffering still hurts. What would I like readers to take away? The title and subtitle say it best. I’d like readers to walk away with God’s healing hope.

2. What motivated you to write God’s Healing for Life’s Losses? Why did you choose to write this book?

My ministry to real people with real hurts motivated me to write God’s Healing for Life’s Losses. People quickly grow weary of Christian books that pretend. They’re tired of Christian counselors and well-meaning friends who dispense far too much “happiness all the time, wonderful peace of mind.” They’re also gravely disappointed when the answers to their questions about suffering reflect more of the wisdom of the world than of the truth of God’s Word. The purpose of the book, as the title and sub-title suggest, is to assist people on their grief and growth journey to find God’s healing hope in their hurts and losses.

Life is filled with losses. God’s Word is filled with compassionate wisdom to help us to find God in the midst of life’s pain. That’s ultimately my purpose in writing the book: to help people to find God even when they can’t find relief. God’s Healing for Life’s Losses offers no pabulum, trite platitudes, false promises, pretending, or “easy steps.” It is real and raw as it enters into the abyss of suffering and empathizes with the gravity of grinding affliction. And, like the Apostle Paul, it deals simultaneously with grieving and hoping (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

3. With all that’s going on in the world, why this book now? What’s unique about God’s Healing for Life’s Losses?

Some grief books, even some authored by Christians, follow the world’s model of grieving—the typical denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance stage approach. They rarely seem to move beyond a “secular” way of looking at grief. Other Christian authors seem to minimize the grief and hurt, and attempt to race people quickly to healing hope. So we end up either with secular help or shallow help.

There has to be a better way. Christians long for an approach that faces suffering honestly and engages sufferers passionately—all in the context of presenting truth biblically and relevantly. We need to be able to face life’s losses in the context of God’s healing. Jesus did. “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

God’s Healing for Life’s Losses deals honestly with the full range of human emotions—from a biblical perspective. We explore and journey together through four parts of the grief process: from denial to candor (honesty with self), from anger to complaint/lament (honesty with God), from bargaining/works to crying out to God, and from depression to comfort (finding God even when we can’t find relief). God’s Healing for Life’s Losses then journeys with people through four aspects of the growth process: waiting (when God says, “Not yet”), wailing (pregnant with hope), weaving (spiritual mathematics), and worshipping (finding God).

4. How can people learn more about God’s Healing for Life’s Losses?

On my website at www.rpmministries.org people can find and download a free sample chapter of the book. Also at my website, people can order the book at 33% off. Additionally, I offer seminars around the country on God’s Healing for Life’s Losses. People can find my speaking schedule at the website. If a church or para-church group is interested in seeing if I could speak for their group, they can contact me at rpm.ministries@gmail.com.

5. God’s Healing for Life’s Losses is the first book ever officially endorsed by GriefShare. Tell us about your connection with this organization.

GriefShare produces a small group video series used in thousands of churches across the world. It is a ministry of the larger group, Church Initiative, founded by Steve Grissom. Several years ago they updated their video series and asked me to participate. I connected with Steve and with their VP, Sam Hodges. When God’s Healing for Life’s Losses was in the first draft stage, Sam and Steve read it and got very excited. They both appreciated the combination of compassionate care that did not minimize the pain of suffering with the focus on Christ-centered, biblically-based hope. Sam graciously wrote a recommendation, Steve graciously penned an endorsement, and my publisher, BMH Books, and GriefShare agreed to have this book become the first book ever officially endorsed by GriefShare. It’s our joint prayer that the GriefShare video and God’s Healing for Life’s Losses could be used together to assist 1000s of churches and para-church groups as they minister to hurting people.

6. Who should read God’s Healing for Life’s Losses?

Sometimes the second we hear words like loss and grief, our minds focus exclusively on death and dying. God’s Healing for Life’s Losses focuses on any type of loss—from the grand loss of death, to the daily casket experiences of the loss of a job, the loss of a dream, the loss of a relationship… So anyone struggling with any life loss would benefit from reading God’s Healing.

God’s Healing for Life’s Losses also equips spiritual friends, pastors, and counselors. When we’re helping hurting people, it can get messy and confusing. A few “handles,” a few “road markers” on the journey sure would help. That’s what God’s Healing for Life’s Losses offers. It provides a “map” without becoming a straight-jacket. It suggests eight “directional markers” that become something of a GPS—God’s Positioning System—for the grief and growth journey.

God’s Healing for Life’s Losses examines Scripture relationally and practically so that helpers grow in their ability to explore passages with hurting people—and do so in a natural, loving, caring, skillful way. Also, the two built-in discussion/application guides benefit small group leaders—providing an ideal forum and format for candid discussions about grief, emotions, hurt, hope, healing, God’s purposes, and much more.

Back from Ethiopia, what I'm working on now

2010-06-11T21:08:00.000-07:00

Dear friends,

Now that I have two small children, I'm finding very little time to write, so I'll make this brief. My wife and I have been back in New Mexico since last Wednesday. Before that we were in St. Louis for a couple of weeks so that my parents can have their special time with our newborn son Christian. After two weeks my dad and I went to Ethiopia to pick up Isaac, the new addition to our family.

Isaac is fun, playful, and affectionate--but also a hand full!! Since we got him when he was a year and a half, there's some real separation issues that he's dealing with. It's been a difficult adjustment for him and for us but I know that in his own time he'll settle down and realize that we're his forever family.

As far as ministry is concerned, the planning for the festival in Farmington for August 28th is going well. The churches involved have started an initiative called "United to Help." The premise is to unite the churches in the Four Corners region to help the community in practical ways while giving the Body of Christ a platform to share the gospel. The four pillars of "United to Help" are we give, we serve, we pray, we celebrate.

United to Help is taking on a life of its own now and, frankly, I'm blown away that the Lord is using me as a catalyst to get this started. The first all-church service project is on June 24th. The participating churches will be helping a charity called the Family Crisis Center, a shelter for battered women, move into their new facility. What's great about "United to Help" is that it's not a one time thing. It's a comprehensive vision that incorporates the elements of unity (like joint worship, joint prayer) with elements of service and evangelism (like joint food drives, joint service projects and an annual festival). The churches involved see United to Help as a long term vision that will take place year after year.

If you live in the Four Corners region and you'd like to know more about United to Help, shoot me an e-mail.

Okay, this is me thinking out loud, but I really think that "United to Help" can be a model for other towns and cities across the nation. Again, that could be just me getting ahead of God with my own agenda. Time will tell.

Thank you for your prayers and support.

While there is still time,

Aaron

If you'd like to make a donation to Great Commission Society, or check out my latest posts on my blog, go to:

http://www.aarondtaylor.com

Violent militants disarmed by prayer

2010-06-07T17:19:00.000-07:00

I just received this by e-mail today. It's an excellent example how the power of the gospel can disarm even the most violent militants.

From Avery Willis by way of Dave Fischer, Missions Pastor at Christ Memorial Church. This is news I expect you will never hear on the wire services. Our Father deserves a huge chorus of thanks and praise on this one (Ps 49:6):

Last year Loren Cunningham, founder of YWAM, invited me (Avery Willis) to go to Port Harcort, Nigeria to do a Call2All type emphasis with him in October. I was not able to go. Yesterday I heard his report and it was truly amazing. As they prepared to go into the country the militants in that area were planning a big terrorist attack. These 3000 militants were former university students who started out protesting corruption in government but after they took over large oil fields they became corrupt. They were able to get all kinds of munitions with the money from the oil and were a danger to the government.

Twenty-six Youth With A Mission Nigerians (18-24 years of age) in a prayer meeting for the militants heard God tell them to go serve the militants and share the gospel. The militants accepted them because they were willing to do anything--wash dishes, clean toilets, etc--to serve them. The youth said that they would work for 2 1/2 hours and then wanted to share with the militants who even listened to their proclamation of the Gospel. One day a militant who was possessed by a demon ran at the youth with a knife because he said he could only be free if he killed someone. Even the militants told the youth to run.

Alex, a 20 year old who had been a believer only a year, stood his ground and advanced on the man. Even the possessed man told him to run because he had to kill someone. Alex said, "Not today. Because Jesus is going to set you free!" At the last moment the man threw down knife and the demon left him. Three hundred of the militants came to faith when the youth proclaimed the gospel. The youth took the bombs and munitions to the police over very bumpy roads without incident.

Just as Loren was arriving the government said they would grant amnesty to the 300 if YWAM would "rehabilitate" the militants. As YWAM was scrambling how to disciple them, another 600 militants came to faith and in a few days all 3,000 laid down their arms to follow Christ. Their spokesman gave a testimony to the Call2All group, "I have not been rehabilitated; I have been transformed."

A whole guerilla movement was dismantled and disarmed by the power of God.

The government then asked YWAM (who has three bases in the whole country) to open three bases in each of the 36 states in Nigeria!

Clarifications on Ruth "the illegal immigrant"

2010-05-20T10:01:00.000-07:00

On March 10th, I wrote a piece on my blog praising the Biblical character Boaz for showing compassion to Ruth, whom I referred to in the article as an "illegal immigrant." Ruth, as you may know, was a descendant of Moab and according to the law at the time was supposed to be excluded from the congregation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3). God apparently was so angry with the Moabites that He even tells the children of Israel "not to seek their peace nor their prosperity all their days forever" (Deuteronomy 23:6) and yet when we read the Book of Ruth we all seem to know instinctively that Boaz is a hero in the story precisely because he showed compassion to Ruth despite what the law--even God's law--said.

Within days the article appeared on several high traffic sites. Almost immediately people began accusing me of twisting the Scriptures by calling Ruth an "illegal immigrant." After all, Ruth was married to an Israelite and the law said that Moabites were only supposed to be excluded from the assembly of the Lord, not from the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3). The response was so strong that I even began to second guess myself--until I read Nehemiah chapter 13 and it dawned on me that it was against the law for a child of Israel to marry a Moabite in the first place--which is exactly what Boaz did in the story of Ruth. No matter which way you look at it, Boaz did what even God's law forbade and He was commended for it--by God.

In the interests of clearing some things up, I'd like to make a few clarification points:

1. Many people have called me blasphemous because I wrote that Joseph discovered his wife was pregnant with an "illegitimate child." I thought it would be obvious to the average reader that after Joseph discovered his betrothed wife was pregnant and before his dream, it certainly would have appeared that Jesus was conceived in an illegitimate way. People have written me and said that Mary should not have been stoned according to the law because she was innocent. Of course! But did Joseph know that before the dream? No he didn't, and yet the Scriptures still refer to him as a just man precisely because He chose compassion over the letter of the law. (Compare Deuteronomy 22:20-21 with Matthew 1:19)

2. People have commented that my illustration of Jesus defending the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath was taken out of context. The argument goes that all Jesus was doing was proving that He's the Lord of the Sabbath, therefore He can do with it what He wants. I agree that Jesus was showing His lordship over the Sabbath, but that still doesn't negate the fact that Jesus used the word unlawful to describe what David did when he ate the showbread in the house of Abiathar the priest--and commends him for it (Mark 2:25-26)! I go back to my original question. If God commended people for breaking His laws because of compassion for their fellow human beings, what might He think of people today who challenge man-made laws for reasons of human compassion? I can understand why some would take issue with using the word break, but is the word unlawful any less offensive? The point is still the same. It appears that in Scripture, God commends people for choosing human compassion over the letter of the law.

3. I realize that calling Ruth an "illegal immigrant" isn't a direct correlation to the situation we have today, but that's not the point. It would have been very easy for Boaz to think of Ruth in terms of an illegal immigrant, and he could have used some great "the Bible tells me so" justifications to deny her compassion according to the consensus of the religious elite of his day.

That was before the new Arizona immigration law. I realize that the law is controversial and that there are legitimate issues of border security that need to be addressed, but who would have known that within a few weeks of my article appearing on the Free Republic, the state of Arizona would pass a law that, among many other things, criminalizes compassion to illegal immigrants? As Eugene Cho points out in his post, The law states that those who “knowingly transport or harbor” undocumented immigrants will be at risk of arrest. In other words, if an individual, or perhaps a church or faith institution, takes an illegal immigrant to a grocery store or provides food, clothing, and shelter for an illegal immigrant, they could be arrested.

How does that square with the direct command of Jesus to take in strangers (Matthew 25:35)? The answer is it doesn't. Showing compassion to another human being should never be illegal, and if it is, then Christians are obligated to "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). I'm not saying that I have this conundrum figured out as to how followers of Jesus should balance upholding the law with human compassion. So with that, my parting words on this issue will be a quote from the beloved Apostle Paul. "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

random thoughts on adoption, race, and diversity

2010-05-18T20:39:00.000-07:00

On Friday I'm leaving for Ethiopia with my dad to pick up my adopted son Isaac Biruk Taylor. We're arriving the day after the election. I hope and pray that there's no unrest in the country. If there is, I'd rather be there with my son than sitting back in the U.S. helpless. My wife and I have waited a long time for this. Adoption is a wonderful way to live out the Christian faith, since its an expression of what God does for us when He adopts us into His family in Christ. Our reasons for adopting weren't that spiritual though. We just wanted a son. After we started the adoption process my wife got pregnant. On January 5th 2010, my wife gave birth to our son Christian David Taylor. Now we'll have two boys. We're not planning on having any more children. I pray that God will give our family many great memories together.

I'm watching Anderson Cooper right now. He's doing a segment on how children perceive race. It's chilling. The researcher just took a young white child (maybe 5 or 6), showed him drawings of white children and black children side by side. When the researcher asked the child, show me the dumb child, the bad child, the mean child, the boy pointed to the darker skinned drawings. When asked why he picked the darker pictures, the boy replied "because they are dark." When the researcher asked who are the good and smart kids, the boy picked the white children and answered "because they are white."

The mother was in anguish. She had no idea that her child had already formed these assumptions. Various experts gave their explanations. One expert thought that America's racist culture emitted cultural cues so strong that even a child could pick up on them. Another expert, which I thought was more likely, suggested that children naturally assume that people that look like them share their same traits. One of the possible clues to the puzzle was that the mother said that her son does not live in a diverse community. All of the experts agreed that it's important for parents of young children to befriend people of all different racial backgrounds so that the children can learn diversity from the beginning. In other words, teaching children about accepting people of other colors is one thing. Living it is another.

God, help me to live a life of love and acceptance of others, not just talk about it.

A quiz for people who know everything

2010-05-17T20:48:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine just sent this to me:

Enjoy!

There are nine questions.

This is a quiz for people who know everything!

I found out in a hurry that I didn't.

These are not trick questions.

They are straight questions with straight answers.

1. Name the one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends.

2. What famous North American landmark is constantly moving backward?

3. Of all vegetables, only two can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons. All other vegetables must be replanted every year. What are the only two perennial vegetables?

4. What fruit has its seeds on the outside?

5. You can buy pear brandy, with a real pear inside the bottle. The pear is whole and ripe, and the bottle is genuine; it hasn't been cut in any way. How did the pear get inside the bottle?

6. Only three words in standard English begin with the letters ' dw' and they are all common words. Name two of them.

7. There are 14 punctuation marks in English grammar.

Can you name at least half of them?

8. Name the only vegetable or fruit that is never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form except fresh.

9. Name 6 or more things that you can wear on your feet beginning with the letter 'S.'

Answers To Quiz:

1... The one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends: Boxing.

2. North American landmark constantly moving backward: Niagara Falls ..
(The rim is worn down about two and a half feet each year because of the millions of gallons of water that rush over it every minute.)

3. Only two vegetables that can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons: Asparagus and rhubarb.

4. The fruit with its seeds on the outside: Strawberry.

5. How did the pear get inside the brandy bottle? It grew inside the bottle.
The bottles are placed over pear buds when they are small, and are wired in place on the tree. The bottle is left in place for the entire growing season. When the pears are ripe, they are snipped off at the stems.

6. Three English words beginning with dw: Dwarf, dwell and dwindle...

7. Fourteen punctuation marks in English grammar: Period, comma, colon, semicolon, dash, hyphen, apostrophe,question mark, exclamation point, quotation mark, brackets, parenthesis, braces, and ellip ses.

8. The only vegetable or fruit never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form but fresh: Lettuce.

9. Six or more things you can wear on your feet beginning with 'S': Shoes, socks, sandals, sneakers, slippers, skis, skates, snowshoes, stockings, stilts.

Just don't send it back to me. I've already flunked it once

1,200 young people dancing in the streets in Hungary--Awesome!

2010-05-12T06:55:00.000-07:00

This is one of the most uplifting videos I've seen in a while. My mom is always forwarding me things like this. I thought I'd share this one.

Enjoy!

Ignoramus racial moments

2010-05-04T21:28:00.000-07:00

Sometimes in life you learn best not from the times that you shine, but from the times that you act like a total ignoramus. It seems that racism and fear of outsiders are on the rise in the U.S.A. With this in mind, I’d like to share two different occasions in which my big mouth revealed my profound racial ignorance. I’m sure there are more, but these are the two that I remember the most.

Ignoramus moment number one: It was 12 years ago. I was working at Steak N Shake training an African American guy how to make the shakes and the desserts. From what I gathered from our conversation, I could tell that this was a man deeply interested in his African heritage. I also got the sense that he felt that the American dream wasn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. With pride the man told me that his ancestors were from Nigeria and that he wanted to reconnect with his roots. That was when I said the words that have haunted me ever since, “If you don’t want to be an American, why don’t you go back to Africa?”

Ignoramus moment number two: It was 9 years ago. I was working as a telemarketer. Lessie was an African American woman around my age that sat a couple of seats down from me. We often talked and laughed about many things to make the day go by faster. One day Lessie got on the subject about people that live in the ghetto. Without giving it much thought I blurted out “Why don’t those people just work harder? Then they could leave the ghetto.” Lessie went off on me. “You have no idea what you’re talking about! You don’t know how hard it is to grow up in the ghetto!” Lessie was right.

So why am I bringing this up years later? Because in two weeks I’m traveling to Ethiopia to pick up my adopted son. Before we were married my wife told me that she always wanted to adopt from Africa. At the time I didn’t think much of it, but after years of miscarriages and fertility specialists we finally decided to adopt. About a month after we started the adoption process, my wife got pregnant and now we have the world’s cutest baby, but in about three weeks I’m going to be the father of two boys, a black son and a white son.

Over the past several years I’ve worked hard to educate myself on racial issues the best that I can. For example: I know that white privilege and institutionalized racism are verifiable realities that exist today despite the claim by many that white people are now the victims. I no longer believe—thank God—that the reason why most black people in America vote Democrat is because all they want is a handout from the government. Basic knowledge of history and sociology can go a long way to clear up these misunderstandings, but the problem is that these are things that you get from a textbook.

The real question that I’m pondering is something that I’ll never be able to get from a textbook. How do I as a father teach my son to respect his culture (both as an Ethiopian and as a black American), to identify with the black American experience, which means recognizing the historical sins of the past and how they’ve contributed to the ongoing realities of white privilege and institutionalized racism; how do I do all that without stifling his individual drive to succeed? I want my son to grow up believing that through faith, hard work, and perseverance anything is possible in this great country of ours even though I know that our nation’s history of racism has made it more difficult for some racial groups to succeed than others. How do I balance concrete reality with faith, imagination, and a sound work ethic?

I’ve asked some of my white friends this question. The typical response I get is that while I should teach my son to respect his culture, I shouldn’t dwell on the sins of the past and on institutionalized racism today because that would stifle his individual creativity and work ethic. I can understand that perspective, but I think it would be wise to hear from black Americans on this issue. I have a feeling that my question is anything but new and unique to most African American households. I also have a feeling that there’s a broad range of opinion on this issue within the black community. If you’re a black American and you’d like to share your experience with me on how you’ve dealt with racism, both individual and institutional, and how you’ve overcome obstacles to create a life of meaning and purpose for you and your family, then I’d like to hear from you.

Aaron D. Taylor is an author and a speaker. To learn more about Aaron’s ministry, go to http://www.aarondtaylor.com Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com

The Demolition of Ali Salem Moussa’s House in Al’ Khader on the 14th of April 2010

2010-05-01T08:11:00.000-07:00

ImageThe stove is standing outside under the sky, next to it a washing machine and in the background a big white tent. We are sitting in what till yesterday used to be the living room of the Moussa family, around us nothing but the little remains of the outside walls.

The Background:

The Moussa family owned 4 houses on their property where different parts of the family lived. It is actually not really appropriate to speak of houses since the buildings mostly just include one room, a bathroom and a kitchen, all constructed with simple concrete blocks and a tin roof on top. In 2002 the first of them got demolished the when Israel’s Government started to build the Road 60 to connect the settlements like Efrat directly to Jerusalem and to each other. In this time the family lost a lot of their land to the wall which is supposed to protect the street now stretching through the valley underneath their land.

The Israeli Government came back on the 12th of February 2004 and demolished not only the rebuilt house but along with it two more. In this time it was snowing which made the whole situation even harder to suddenly stand on your land without having a roof above you to protect you from the outside conditions.

Since just one house remained on their property which was not demolished, the whole family had to live together with 17 people in one room. In 2006 Israel’s High Court decided to freeze demolitions on the Moussa family land.

ImageOn the 14th of April, 2010 at around 10:00 am the bulldozers rolled into the town of Al’ Khader and up the hill to the property of the Moussa family.When they arrived, the administrator was asked by Ali Moussa’s son to show the papers with the order for the demolition of this house but in the end he never saw them. At this time their lawyer was already on his way to Al’ Khader with the decision by Israel’s High Court, declaring that the demolition is not legal.

Everything went really fast, the family begged the soldiers to at least wait till the lawyer arrives but they already started their work. The lawyer arrived but not one of the present soldiers paid attention to the court decision and within 5 minutes the whole house was destroyed.

So for the third time all that is left are pieces of tin roof lying around, debris, and a family without shelter. The 8 year old son of the family came home from school just after the bulldozers had left again and he simply did not understand why his home suddenly was completely vanished. He was running around crying and asking his father and his brothers why but nobody could give him an understandable answer.

Ali says that he does not even care anymore, he got kind of used to this. The abnormal became normal here for him and it seems like the experience of having lost his home now three times broke the fear of this loss inside him. He stated clearly: “This is our land and we are going to build up our home again and again on our ground because we know that this is our right.”

On the other side of the valley our home rebuilding project for the Salah’s family is about to get finished and to watch that process while standing in the ruins of another just demolished home seems ridiculous but hopefully it will be possible to rebuilt this simple house within the next days with the support of Al’ Khader’s municipality.

Source: www.holylandtrust.org

Jesus was a mestizo

2010-04-27T06:51:00.000-07:00

I listened to an excellent sermon last night from Ray Bakke, chairman of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding. Bakke brought out the point that in the bloodline of Jesus there were four women of non-Jewish/Israeli heritage in Jesus' bloodline. Tamar (who slept with her father in law), Ruth (a Moabitess/descendent of an incestuous relationship), Rahab (a Canaanite whore), and Bathsheba (a Hittite that pleased David so much that he killed her husband to be with her).

None of us can choose our bloodline, but Jesus being the eternal Word, could choose his bloodline, and these are the people He decided to identify with.

Jesus was a mestizo.

And an undocumented international refugee in Egypt.

Would He be welcome at your church?

Would he be welcome in your state?

Who will protect Palestinians from growing settler extremism?

2010-04-24T08:58:00.000-07:00

By Lisa Goldman

Last week in Hawara, a town near Nablus, someone defaced a mosque with spray paint. The graffiti included Hebrew writing and a Star of David. Residents of a Jewish settlement nearby had vandalized Palestinian property in Hawara on previous occasions, so both the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinian villagers accused settlers of committing the latest crime. Israel's official position is that it is a deserving, ecumenically-minded custodian of religious sites of all faiths, so the IDF Spokesman was quick to issue a condemnation and promise an investigation.

The defacing of mosques in the West Bank is relatively rare - "only" four incidents were brought to the attention of Yesh Din, an Israeli NGO that monitors law enforcement in the West Bank, over the past five years. But destruction of Palestinian property and acts of violence against Palestinian civilians occur frequently, often several times per week. Over the past few months, they have become more frequent and more violent. Many of these incidents are known as "price tag" operations, whereby settlers destroy Palestinian property as a response to the IDF's having dismantled an illegal outpost. The settlers, say West Bank field workers for various NGOs, are becoming bolder.

The more egregious acts of settler violence are reported in the Israeli media, although rarely with prominence, but most incidents fail to attract the attention of the major news outlets at all - because they occur so frequently that they have become unremarkable, because most Israelis are numb to these stories, and because Palestinians are increasingly reluctant to file a police complaint. Why bother to enlist the help of the police when, as Yesh Din has documented, more than 90 percent of legal cases involving settler violence end with their being closed due to "lack of evidence"?
Advertisement
When Jews, Muslims and Christians deface one another's holy sites or places of worship, the story is reported widely by the Western media - especially when the culprits are members of the group backed by military and political might, as is the case of the Jewish settlers in the Palestinian-majority West Bank. And so the story of the defaced Hawara mosque was reported widely in major news outlets, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, with accompanying photos. But the chances of the perpetrators being arrested and put on trial are very slight. In the cases of the four mosques previously vandalized, allegedly by settlers, two investigations are officially ongoing, and two have been closed for lack of evidence.

Lior Yavne, Yesh Din's research director, says that investigations into complaints filed against settlers by Palestinians fail for a number of reasons. The civil police of Judea and Samaria are understaffed and underfunded. Jewish suspects are almost never included in police lineups. The police frequently fail to verify the alibis of Jews, or to make arrests.

Investigations fail to result in convictions even when eyewitnesses provide accurate descriptions of Jewish suspects seen at or fleeing the scene, holding incriminating evidence - as in a case reported earlier this month by the Jerusalem Post's Dan Izenberg. According to the April 6 article, a settler from Kedumim was caught by police last summer, fleeing a burning Palestinian orchard while holding a jerrican filled with flammable liquid, and with the smell of the liquid on his hands. The suspect refused to answer police questions during interrogation; and less than a year later, the courts dismissed the case for "lack of evidence." Michael Sfard, Yesh Din's legal advisor, described the court's decision as "scandalous."

Palestinian villages are increasingly unprotected by the IDF, which does provide extensive protection for Jewish settlements. At the same time, however, Palestinians are not allowed to possess weapons; the IDF arrests people caught with knives or guns in their possession. Settlers, on the other hand, are permitted by law to carry weapons.

Meanwhile, the IDF is acting according to increasingly draconian orders to suppress non-violent demonstrations against the occupation that are organized and led by grassroots Palestinian movements. Leaders of popular resistance organizations are dragged from their beds during night raids, arrested and jailed - often indefinitely. The villages in which demonstrations take place on Friday mornings have been declared closed military zones. Those who violate the army's orders and come out to demonstrate are regularly shot at with rubber bullets, doused with skunk gas, beaten and arrested.

For Palestinians in the West Bank, the sense of helplessness and frustration must be enormous. When they are attacked, they can almost never hope for justice within the framework of the legal system. Nor are they allowed to defend themselves. Nor can they expect the IDF to protect them. And even when they protest these injustices using nonviolent methods - marching, chanting and waving flags - they are punished with arrests and violence, with dehumanizing skunk gas and beatings. So what happens when there is no legal recourse or justice for the injured and no real civic structure, and when the moderates are systematically crushed? Surely these are the ideal psychological circumstances that make people vulnerable to the beckoning finger of extremism.

Lisa Goldman is a freelance journalist and blogger, and a social media consultant for Yesh Din.

Article source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164748.html

Arizona’s Immigration Bill is a Social and Racial Sin

2010-04-23T10:39:00.000-07:00

By Jim Wallis 04-21-2010

I got up at 4:30 a.m. on Tuesday to fly to Phoenix, Arizona, to speak at a press conference and rally at the State Capitol at the invitation of the state’s clergy and other leaders in the immigration reform movement. The harshest enforcement bill in the country against undocumented immigrants just passed the Arizona state House and Senate, and is only awaiting the signature of Governor Janet Brewer to become law.

Senate Bill 1070 would require law enforcement officials in the state of Arizona to investigate someone’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be undocumented. I wonder who that would be, and if anybody who doesn’t have brown skin will be investigated. Those without identification papers, even if they are legal, are subject to arrest; so don’t forget your wallet on your way to work if you are Hispanic in Arizona. You can also be arrested if you are stopped and are simply with people who are undocumented — even if they are your family. Parents or children of “mixed-status families” (made up of legal and undocumented, as many immigrant families are out here) could be arrested if they are found together. You can be arrested if you are “transporting or harboring” undocumented people. Some might consider driving immigrant families to and from church to be Christian ministry — but it will now be illegal in Arizona.

For the first time, all law enforcement officers in the state will be enlisted to hunt down undocumented people, which will clearly distract them from going after truly violent criminals, and will focus them on mostly harmless families whose work supports the economy and who contribute to their communities. And do you think undocumented parents will now go to the police if their daughter is raped or their family becomes a victim of violent crime? Maybe that’s why the state association of police chiefs is against SB 1070.

This proposed law is not only mean-spirited — it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe. This radical new measure, which crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. We all want to live in a nation of laws, and the immigration system in the U.S. is so broken that it is serving no one well. But enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable. And enforcement of this law would force us to violate our Christian conscience, which we simply will not do. It makes it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona.

Before the rally and press event, I visited some immigrant families who work at Neighborhood Ministries, an impressive community organization affiliated with Sojourners’ friends at the Christian Community Development Association. I met a group of women who were frightened by the raids that have been occurring, in which armed men invade their homes and neighborhoods with guns and helicopters. When the rumors of massive raids spread, many of these people flee both their homes and their workplaces, and head for The Church at The Neighborhood Center as the only place they feel safe and secure. But will police invade the churches if they are suspected of “harboring” undocumented people, because it is the law? Will the nurse practitioner I met at their medical clinic serving only uninsured people be arrested for being “with” the children of families who are here illegally as she treats them?

At the rally, I started with the words of Jesus (which drew cheers from the crowd gathered at the state Capitol), who instructed his disciples to “welcome the stranger,” and said that whatever we do to “the least of these, who are members of my family” we do to him. I think that means that to obey Jesus and his gospel will mean to disobey SB 1070 in Arizona. I looked at the governor’s Executive Tower and promised that many Christians in Arizona won’t comply with this law because the people they will target will be members of our “family” in the body of Christ. And any attack against them is an attack against us, and the One we follow.

Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles just called this Arizona measure “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless immigration law.” On CNN, I defended the Cardinal’s comments, which likened the requirement of people always carrying their “papers” to the most oppressive regimes of Nazism and Communism. I wonder whether the tea party movement that rails against government intrusion will rail against this law, or whether those who resist the forced government registration of their guns will resist the forced government requirement that immigrants must always carry their documentation. Will the true conservatives please stand up here? We are all waiting.

Arizona’s SB 1070 must be named as a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. This is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It’s time to stand up to this new strategy of “deportation by attrition,” which I heard for the first time today in Arizona. It is a policy of deliberate political cruelty, and it should be remembered that “attrition” is a term of war. Arizona is deciding whether to wage war on the body of Christ. We should say that if you come after one part of the body, you come after all of us.

It's all about perspective

2010-04-20T22:17:00.000-07:00

I'm exhausted. Been driving all day. When my wife and I got to our hotel, Christian wouldn't stop fussing. I called the doctor, ran to Walgreens and bought some Motrin, and now he seems to be doing fine--finally!!. Tonight has been pretty miserable, especially since I got little to no sleep at the flea bag hotel we stayed in last night, but I bet it would be more miserable if I were an African woman living in the deserts of Sudan and having to deal with a fussy baby in 100 degree heat. It's all about perspective.

A lot of people have asked my wife and I how we're holding up, knowing that our son was born with a heart defect and that we had to go to California for his surgery. My wife and I stayed at the Ronald McDonald House in Palo Alto. We were in and out in five days. We met one lady that had been there for 10 months with her daughter. Almost everyone there had been there more than once since their children's conditions required multiple surgeries, with tentative expectations. Our surgeon told us he thinks that the surgery last week will be the only one Christian will need. In and out in five days is practically a miracle at the Ronald McDonald House. We feel like we got off easy.

It's all about perspective.

An Open Letter of Reconciliation and Responsibility to the Iraqi People

2010-04-19T22:33:00.000-07:00

I received this today from a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War. They asked me to pass it on.

From Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military

Peace be with you.

To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video:

We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses.

We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions.

There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.

We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.

We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.

More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.

Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.

We have asked our fellow veterans and service-members, as well as civilians both in the United States and abroad, to sign in support of this letter, and to offer their names as a testimony to our common humanity, to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation's leaders, and to extend our hands to you.

With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.

Solemnly and Sincerely,
Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army

To sign, click here!

Heading back

2010-04-18T11:20:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting in my son's room at the Lucille Packard Children's Hospital in Palo Alto California. My son's surgery went well, thank God. He'll be released tomorrow and we'll head back to New Mexico. Not looking forward to the traffic in Pasadena. It was stand-still traffic through Pasadena on the way here. On second thought, maybe I'll get a chance to visit my friend Paul Alexander at Azusa Pacific University. Paul is the founder of Pentecostals and Charismatics for Peace and Justice, an organization seeking to restore the peace witness to today's 500 + million pentecostals and charismatics. No sweat. How fitting that Paul teaches at Azusa Pacific University, just around the corner from the famous Azusa street where the revival that launched world-wide pentecostalism began! I think I'm going to e-mail Paul right now and see if he'll be up for breakfast or lunch on Tuesday.

Other than that, I'm looking forward to getting back to New Mexico, and also visiting St. Louis in May. Speaking of May, the embassy date where I'll go and pick up Isaac in Ethiopia is May 24th. I'll be going by myself. It won't be easy, but it's the best option we have right now. Keep us in your prayers!

Sincerely,

Aaron

Evangelical Leaders Support Reducing Nukes

2010-04-09T20:01:00.000-07:00

Evangelicals Send Atomic Fireballs to Congress

For Immediate Release

April 12, 2010

Evangelical college presidents, denominational executives, pastors, veterans, professors, and missionaries are encouraging the Obama administration and Congress to engage in diplomacy with Iran and North Korea and to reduce US nuclear arsenals. Citing scripture, Jesus, and foreign policy experts such as George Shultz, they claim “overcoming the nuclear threat requires international cooperation” and “nuclear weapons are a moral threat” that must eventually be eliminated. For emphasis they provided Atomic Fireballs with their statement, saying “Atomic Fireballs are great candy, but terrible foreign policy.”

Their historic Matthew 5 Project statement, which “calls on our nation to be willing to talk with and listen to antagonists,” offers strong support for the “new START” treaty. The statement was sent to President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all 535 members of Congress. Arguing that “Jesus is the realist,” the evangelical statement recognizes that even though “[t]he United States has crucial disagreements with Iran, Jesus does not say talks should be refused until we approve of the conduct of the adversary.”

The statement also refers to the policy recommendations of George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and other conservative national security experts who are now recommending the elimination of nuclear weapons. “Nuclear weapons are a physical threat to the survival of human life on earth. Prominent national security experts have recently called for reducing and abolishing reliance on nuclear weapons, by verifiable international agreement, in order to enhance national security. This cannot be accomplished unilaterally; it requires international cooperation and verification.” The statement and broad scope of endorsements reveal the growing sentiment among American Evangelicals that the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is both theologically necessary and politically possible.

After laying out their biblical, theological, and political cases, the statement culminates in a call to action that encourages American churches to engage in interfaith and international dialogue and to “urge international cooperation in continued step-by-step reductions, working toward ways to verify abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide.”

ABOUT THE MATTHEW 5 PROJECT
The Matthew 5 Project is an Evangelical effort to promote international cooperation and reduce nuclear weapons through careful analysis of political realities and sound biblical and theological arguments (http://www.matthew5project.org/).

CONTACT
Glen Stassen, Ph.D.
Professor of Christian Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary
135 N. Oakland Avenue
Pasadena, California 91182
626-304-3733
gstassen@fuller.edu

Rev. Paul Alexander, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology and Ethics
Co-founder, Pentecostals & Charismatics for Peace & Justice
Azusa Pacific University
701 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, California 91702
626-815-5434
palexander@apu.edu

Great News for a Safe and Peaceful World

2010-04-07T09:51:00.000-07:00

Hey there,

I just heard some good news for everyone who's afraid of nuclear war (and that means all of us).

Last week, Russia and the USA signed an agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenals by a third. And next week, Obama is hosting leaders from 48 countries to talk about going even further in pursuit of a nuclear-free world.

It's the most concrete progress in decades to reduce the threat of nuclear war.

But public support is crucial if we're going to make Obama's first bold steps really stick. Which is why I just signed this petition backing up the work for a nuclear free world. If you do the same thing today, TrueMajority will make sure it gets delivered to Obama and world leaders when they convene at the White House next week:

Sign here!

So, Am I a Reductionist?

2010-04-06T14:59:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I wrote a post on my blog entitled Will the Real Gospel Please Stand Up? In the post I talked about how America, being a trendy nation, seems to have a gospel to fit just about every corresponding trend in society. For the materialist trend, we have the health and wealth gospel. For the postmodern trend, we have deconstruction and negative theology (I can kick myself for forgetting to add the patriotic gospel, but I’m happy to mention it now). Point being that with all the different gospels floating around—even granting that some of these gospels contain grains of truth—the gospel according to the Apostles often gets lost. After carefully studying the Book of Acts and the Epistles, I summarized the gospel that the Apostles preached this way:

"Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was buried and rose again on the third day. He ascended into heaven and now He sits at the right hand of the Father. On a day that God has appointed, Jesus Christ is coming back to judge the living and the dead. Anyone who repents and believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life."

The vast majority of my critics are people that comment anonymously (undoubtedly people that I know personally) that don’t like either my implied political views or my stance on non-violence. In this case, however, I received a couple of anonymous comments coming from a different direction.

Anonymous number one said, “It's too bad all those parables from Jesus got in the way of his gospel message...”

Anonymous number two was a bit more forthright in saying, “Yeah, you kind of left out everything Jesus announced, performed, and taught while he was in ministry. That is, the best part. Abstract religious thoughts about his death for sin, resurrection, and return have no context or meaning to a seeker without mention of the Kingdom Jesus announced and the history into which this took place. I love this blog overall, but this entry falls prey to reductionism. This is not the whole of the Good News.”

I especially agree with Anonymous number two that the announcement of the Kingdom of God often gets sidelined in standard gospel presentations. Having said that, I do find it odd that the Apostle Paul didn’t mention the Kingdom of God when he summarized the gospel “by which you are saved” in I Corinthians 15:1-4, but I digress.

Here was my response:

“If you're a regular reader of my blog (and you've read my book Alone with a Jihadist) then you'll know that I also have serious criticisms for those that neglect the teachings of Jesus, as if we can divorce Christ's death from His life and teachings. I've made that point in many ways, which is why most of the criticism I get comes from the other end of the theological spectrum than the perspective that you're articulating. So, I do agree with you.

Having said that, I think I made a valid point here that what constitutes as evangelistic preaching nowadays bears little resemblance to how the Apostles preached in the Book of Acts. Case in point, when was the last time you heard a Bible teacher or preacher say that Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead? And yet, this is precisely what Peter claims that Jesus told His Apostles to preach:

"And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be the judge of the living and the dead" (Acts 10:42)

In my own evangelistic sermons, I often emphasize the teachings of Jesus and the parables, but I want to be careful that I don't leave out the elements that the Apostles preached when they were calling people to repent and receive Christ.

Either way, I think this post could generate a good discussion. Thank you again for your feedback.”

So, am I a reductionist?

Or is it that the gospel is so huge and mind-bending awesome that all of us are reductionists regardless of the particular kind of Christianity—new and old—that we follow?

Discuss!

About Friends by Nedra O Brien (guest contributor)

2010-04-05T20:39:00.000-07:00

Below is a devotional by Nedra O Brien, my late mother-in-law. For years before she passed away, Nedra wrote devotionals for her church bulletin. Every once in a while I post them on my blog in honor of her memory.

I came across this quote recently… “The friends one chooses determine to a large extent one’s destiny and success in life.” I got to thinking about it and realized there’s a lot of truth there. I thought about various friends I’ve had over the years, some who are still friends and those who are no longer a part of my life. When I think about it, they really have had a big impact on my life in one way or another.

When I was a teenager, I had an older person tell me that I probably wouldn’t have more than two or three close friends as an adult. I thought that was absurd, since, like most teenagers, I was surrounded by friends! But his words turned out to be true and I now thank God for those few close friends I have! They’re what I call my “Proverbs 17:17 friends”. In fact, they are more than friends! Proverbs 17:17 says, “A friend loves at all time, and a brother is born for adversity,”

The footnote in my Bible says, “Friendship is at its best, not in prosperity, but in time of trouble.” As I see it, a lasting friendship has nothing to do with popularity, power or finances, and has no place for selfish motives or ambitions. It’s founded on common interests, goals and dreams and it’s grounded by mutual love and respect.

I once received an email from one of my Proverbs 17:17 friends, which just happened to be about friendship! It went like this: “A friend should be radical. They should love you when you’re unlovable, hug you when you’re unhuggable, and bear with you when you’re unbearable. A friend should be fanatical. They should cheer for you when the whole world boos. They should dance when you get good news, and cry when you cry, too. But most of all a friend should be mathematical. They should multiply the joy, divide the sorrow, subtract the past and add to tomorrow. They should also know how to calculate the need that is deep in your heart.”

Isn’t that wonderful? When you have a friend or two like that, it stands to reason they would have a huge impact on your destiny and success in life. When you have a decision to make or you come up against some difficulty, it’s good to have a friend who will cheer you on or cheer you up. And when you have something to rejoice about, it’s so uplifting to have someone you love rejoice with you.

And you know what? As believers, we all have that kind of friend in Jesus. His own words, found in John chapter 15 say, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing, but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.”

What I didn't get a chance to say on the Craig Roberts Show

2010-03-31T09:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I was interviewed on Lifeline with Craig Roberts , a Christian radio talk show in Northern California. In addition to talking about my book Alone with a Jihadist we also had a healthy debate on Pacifism Vs. Just War theory, with me advocating the former and Craig Roberts advocating the latter. All in all, it was a very good discussion, and I appreciated that Craig kept the dialogue civil, unlike experiences I've had in the past with Christian talk show hosts. Still, one thing I figured out is that when you're a guest on a program and you're arguing a different perspective than the host, the deck is always stacked in favor of the host, mainly because once you've made your point, the host can respond and then go to a commercial break. You never get the last word.

The interview was supposed to last 45 minutes, but Craig kept me on for an additional 15 minutes at the top of the hour. I had a hugely embarrassing moment when I thought that we were still in dialogue mode, and it turned out that Craig was making his closing remarks. I kept trying to cut in till the last moment before he ended the segment--something I hope I never do again! You live and you learn. All in all, I got most of my points in. Those of you that know me, or have had robust discussions with me personally on some of these issues, you know that my brain goes about 1,000 miles a minute. For every point made, I usually have about 5-10 counter points in my head. The problem is, when you have so much information, it's hard to reduce your arguments to sound bites and get every point in. So, in the interest of redeeming myself, here are some of the points I didn't get a chance to say.

1. Craig asked the question of what do we do with all of the warrior imagery in Scripture, in particular the Spiritual Warfare imagery that the Apostle Paul uses and the passages in Scripture portraying God as a warrior. What I said was that the warrior imagery that Paul used is meant to be taken spiritually, and nothing else. In fact, Paul explicitly says "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (I Corinthians 10:4). What I didn't get around to saying was that one of the reasons why Scripture consistently portrays God as a warrior is to illustrate the point that covenant people are supposed to trust in God, not the sword. In fact, the prophet Ezekiel specifically lists relying on the sword as one of the reasons why God sent the Jews to Babylon in judgment (Ezekiel 33:26). One of the constant themes in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is that God got ticked off at His people when they didn't trust Him to fight their battles for them, but instead trusted in their own military might. I find it odd that not once have I ever heard the theme of "repenting for our reliance on our military might" come up in a major prayer and repentance conference here in the U.S. We repent for a lot of other things, but never for trusting in the sword to save us. Interestingly, the period of the Pax Romana, a two hundred year period of relative peace and security of the Roman Empire, ended right around the time the first Christian soldier is recorded. Before then, Christians saw that their primary duty to the empire was to pray for the peace and well-being of their fellow Roman citizens.

2. I made a lot of points about why the Bible should be read through the lens of Jesus, and why Christians are under the Law of Christ, not the Law of the Old Covenant. For example, Hebrews 8:13 calls the Old Covenant obsolete. Jesus said, "You've heard that it was said an eye for an eye, but I say unto you...." still the counter-argument was that Jesus said "I've not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law" (Matthew 5:7-18) What I didn't get a chance to say is that when it comes to Biblical interpretation, when you have numerous verses that clearly say one thing and one verse that seems to contradict the numerous verses, you don't throw out the numerous verses in favor of the one, like many people do in this case. There are a myriad interpretations of this verse ( I like the one that says that if you obey Jesus, then you're fulfilling the Spirit of the Law, which is what Jesus never intended to abolish), the fact is still the same. Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15) (italics emphasis mine). The question of whether a Christian should participate in violence should be determined by Jesus, not by what God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament era.

3. Craig used the cleansing of the temple to show that Jesus was, in fact violent. I pointed out that Isaiah 53:9 specifically says that Jesus never did anyone violence. The example of Jesus cleansing the temple is more of a basis for an aggressive activism against injustice, like what was displayed in the civil rights movement. I wish I would have elaborated on that point of non-violent direct action as a way of addressing injustice in the world. Besides, isn't it a bit of grasping for straws to use a civil protest as a pretext for flying over skies and dropping bombs?

4. Craig made the point that the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount were meant to be limited to personal interactions. I never got a chance to rebut this, so here's my partial answer now. I think the distinction between personal enemies and national enemies is an artificial one, especially when you look at the political backdrop of the New Testament. One of the over-arching themes that we see in the New Testament is that Jesus and the Apostles did not want their followers participating in a rebellion against Rome. The Romans did some awful things, both in their brutal persecution of Christians and also in the way they put down rebellions--like slaughtering and crucifying civilians--yet still the answer that Jesus and the Apostles gave was Christians were not to participate in violence even against such monstrous evil as what the Roman Empire was doing to many of its citizens. In fact, the very context of the Romans 13 passage, which many just war theorists use as the ace in the hole argument, is don't rebel against Rome! Especially if you back up a few verses to the last few verses of chapter 12, you'll see that the entire context of Romans 12:14-13:7 is that Christians should be kind and gentle, and never exacting vengeance even on their worst political enemies!

There's a lot, lot, lot, more I could say on these points, but this post has been longer than normal as is. Thank you Craig for keeping the dialogue respectful.

To my readers, keep your eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our non-violent faith!

Code Pink attempts citizens arrest of Karl Rove

2010-03-30T07:36:00.001-07:00

I've been accused of only going after the extremism and violent rhetoric of one side. Here's my chance to say, for the record, I don't approve of this either.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/30/rove.protest/?hpt=T2

9 militia members charged in police-killing plot--should these "terrorists" be tortured?

2010-03-29T10:06:00.000-07:00

For my 6 out of 10 white evangelical friends that support torture, I have a few questions for you.

1. Are the people in this story terrorists?

2. If so, should they be tortured?

3. If they had a different color of skin and professed a different religion (read: Islam), would your answer be the same?

By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers – 51 mins ago
DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors said Monday.
The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government, according to newly unsealed court papers. U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said agents moved on the group because its members were planning a violent reconnaissance mission sometime in April.
Members of the group, including its leader, David Brian Stone, also known as "Captain Hutaree," were charged following FBI raids over the weekend on locations in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana.
The idea of attacking a police funeral was one of numerous scenarios discussed as ways to go after law enforcement officers, the indictment said. Other scenarios included a fake 911 call to lure an officer to his or her death, or an attack on the family of a police officer.
Once other officers gathered for a slain officer's funeral, the group planned to detonate homemade bombs at the funeral, killing more, according to the indictment.
After such attacks, the group allegedly planned to retreat to "rally points" protected by trip-wired improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, for what they expected would become a violent standoff with law enforcement personnel.
"It is believed by the Hutaree that this engagement would then serve as a catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the government," the indictment charges.
According to investigators, the Hutaree view local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel as a "brotherhood" and an enemy, and planned to attack them as part of an armed struggle against the U.S. government.
The indictment charges members of the group conspired "to levy war against the United States, (and) to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States."
Eight suspects have been arrested by the FBI, and one more is being sought. Of the eight captured, seven were arraigned Monday in Detroit and ordered held pending a bond hearing Wednesday.
The charges against the eight include seditious conspiracy, possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, teaching the use of explosives, and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction — homemade bombs. All seven defendants in court on Monday requested to be represented by the federal defender's office.
The case "is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society. The FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States," said Andrew Arena, head of the FBI's field office in Detroit.
Stone's ex-wife, Donna Stone, told The Associated Press before the arraignments that her former husband was to blame for pulling her son into the Hutaree movement. She said David Brian Stone legally adopted her son, David Brian Stone Jr., who is among those indicted. She said the marriage lasted about 10 years.
"It started out as a Christian thing," said Donna Stone, 44. "You go to church. You pray. You take care of your family. I think David started to take it a little too far. He dragged a lot of people with him."
Another son of David Brian Stone, Joshua Matthew Stone, is also indicted and currently a fugitive, said Detroit FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold.
On its Web site, Hutaree quotes several Bible passages and states: "We believe that one day, as prophecy says, there will be an Anti-Christ. ... Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment." There's also a picture on the site of 17 camouflaged men, all holding large guns.
The group didn't return an e-mail sent by The Associated Press, and attempts by telephone to reach the Stones went unanswered.
FBI agents in Michigan swarmed a rural, wooded property Saturday evening in Adrian, about 70 miles southwest of Detroit. That same night in Hammond, Ind., law enforcement agents flooded a neighborhood, startling workers at a nearby pizzeria. And in Ohio authorities blocked off streets and raided two homes.
In Adrian, two ramshackle trailers sat side-by-side on the property, the door to one slightly ajar late Sunday as if it had been forced open. Phyllis Brugger, who has lived in the area for more than 30 years, said some people who lived there were known as having ties to militia. They would shoot guns and often wore camouflage, according to Brugger and her daughter, Heidi Wood.
"Everybody knew they were militia," Brugger said. "You don't mess with them."
In Hammond, 18-year-old George Ponce, who works at a pizzeria next door to a home that was raided, said he and a few co-workers stepped outside for a break Saturday night and saw a swarm of law enforcement.
"I heard a yell, 'Get back inside!' and saw a squad member pointing a rifle at us," Ponce said. "They told us the bomb squad was going in, sweeping the house looking for bombs."
He said another agent was in the bushes near the house, and law enforcement vehicles were "all over." He estimated that agents took more than two dozen guns from the house.
In Ohio, one of the raids occurred at Bayshore Estates, a well-kept trailer park in Sandusky, a small city on Lake Erie between Toledo and Cleveland. Neighbors said the man taken into custody lived in a trailer on a cul-de-sac with his wife and two young children.

Can anyone imagine Jesus, Peter, or Paul sanctioning a "Christian" militia?

May God free us from the myths of redemptive violence!

Speak Evil of No Man...Really??

2010-03-26T17:27:00.000-07:00

I love the New Testament. I think it’s fair to say that I live, eat, breathe, and drink the New Testament. I honestly think that there’s no piece of literature more inspiring and uplifting than the New Testament. Having said that, I have to admit that more often than not, I find myself frustrated—and a bit annoyed—at its content. Because the more I read the New Testament, the more I realize that God has set the bar sky-high for those that would call themselves Christ -followers. Case in point. The Apostle Paul tells us in Titus 3:2 to “Speak evil of no man.”

Um…excuse me Paul? What were you thinking? Don’t you believe that evil exists in the world? Certainly when you talk about speaking evil of no man, you don’t mean to include people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot …or do you? Oh, wait a second. I almost forgot. You wrote these words when the homicidal maniac named Nero was doing some pretty crazy things, like impaling Christians and using them for torches. My bad. Still, couldn’t you have at least put in an exception clause for those that are really bad?

Why does this verse annoy me so much? Because I’ve got some pretty strong political opinions. And what I think this verse is saying is that even if I believed that the presidency of Barack Obama represents the second coming of Chairman Mao or that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin want to reduce the middle class to permanent serfdom, I’m still not supposed to speak evil of them.

I can hear the half-screams already. You’re proof-texting! Certainly we need to speak against people that believe in killing unborn babies, that are in bed with Wall Street, that raise taxes, that cut social spending, that are steering our country on a path to socialism or—insert your political beef here. Very well then. My question to you is this. Is the person that you’re thinking about worse than Satan? According to Jude verses 8 and 9, Christians aren’t even supposed to bring a reviling accusation against Satan! And, by the way, the context of the passage in Jude is talking about those in authority—including political leaders.

When Jesus spoke about loving enemies, He used the Heavenly Father as an example of someone who is “kind to the unthankful and evil” (Luke 6:35). Notice the word evil. Evil is a pretty strong word. It encompasses everything from your passive aggressive mother- in- law to the terrorism of Osama Bin Laden and—yes—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck depending on your political persuasion. It’s true that Jesus called the Pharisees “Brood of vipers!” (Matthew 23:33) but notice that He never called Caiaphas a snake. Jesus never made it personal. He attacked ideas, not people.

Furthermore, if anyone would have qualified for the title of scumbag, it would have been Zacchaeus; the guy that was using his position with the Romans to screw the poor among his own people. Yet, how did Jesus treat Zacchaeus? He offered unconditional friendship to the man by inviting Himself to his house. Zacchaeus became a changed man (Luke 19:1-10). Heck, Jesus even called Judas His friend after the Scriptures specifically tell us that Judas became indwelt by Satan! (Matthew 26:50, Luke 22:3) Talk about seeing life through rose-colored glasses!

I’m not saying that I have all the answers when it comes to reconciling this teaching with the idea that Christians are supposed to take a stand against injustice and “expose” the works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). I’m just wondering what would happen if Christians worldwide became known as people that are so loving, so kind, so gracious, so humble, that they refuse to speak evil of people with whom they have deep disagreements? What if Christians became known as people that are—to quote the last part of the verse we started with—“peaceable and gentle, showing all humility to all men?” What if?

Meet Tim Wise, the Angry White Man

2010-03-25T08:12:00.000-07:00

I'd like to introduce my readers to Tim Wise, the self-described "Angry White Man"

No, it's not what you're thinking.

Tim Wise is one of the nation's premier anti-racist authors.

Here is the latest article on his blog.

Fair warning, Tim lets nobody off the hook.

Including myself.

Prepare to be challenged.

Dark age in Pakistan: Muslims burn Christian man as policeman rapes his wife

2010-03-23T15:21:00.000-07:00

News Type: Event — Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:06 PM CDT
pakistan, washington-dc, christian-killed, christian-raped, policeman-rape
By Ahmar Mustikhan

Washington, D.C. (March 23, 2010)–International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that a Christian man, Arshed Masih, died yesterday after Muslims burned him alive for refusing to recant his faith. Additionally, a Muslim policeman raped Masih’s wife.

Masih and his wife, Martha, worked and lived at the house of Sheik Mohammad Sultan, a powerful Muslim businessman in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, since 2005.

Pakistan's most powerful man, army chef General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is from the Rawalpindi area and is visiting the U.S. capitol.

In January, Muslim religious leaders and Sheik Sultan asked Masih and his family to convert to Islam. Masih and his family refused to convert and informed Sheik Sultan that they were going to quit working for him. The Sheik became furious and warned Masih that he would kill him if he quit. Masih told his family and friends about the entire incident. Christian leaders tried to persuade the Sheik to let Masih and his family leave his house.

On March 14, Sheik Sultan`s house was robbed. He filed a case of theft of 500,000 Rupees ($ 5,952) against Martha. After taking them for questioning, the police assaulted Masih and raped Martha. Two days later, Sheik Sultan told the couple that he would ask the police to release them if they converted to Islam. The couple refused to recant their faith.

On March 19, Masih was set on fire in front of the police station. At the time, three Muslim religious leaders and three policemen were present at the scene. The perpetrators have not been identified.

Masih was taken to the Holy Family Hospital where he received treatment for three days before finally dying today.

Masih’s children Mary, 12, Nasir, 10, and Neha, 7, are deeply traumatized after witnessing acts of brutality against their family at the hands of Muslims.

ICC’s Regional Manager for South Asia, Jonathan Racho, said “We are outraged and deeply saddened by the murder of Masih and the rape of Martha by the police. As this case clearly indicates, Pakistani Christians are treated as less than animals by the Muslims. We urge the president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zadari, and other high level government officials to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice.”

Dr. Nazir S Bhatti, president of Pakistan Christian Congress, condemned the killing of Masih and rape of his wife.“ Rape of Martha Bibi before her children by Muslim police officials and burning of her husband took place just a few miles from building of the Supreme Court of Pakistan where Muslim jusdges sitting on benches of justice have no sympathy with Christian victims. Perhaps in the eyes of these judges rape of an "infidel woman" is not a crime."

Please call the Pakistani Embassy in your country and demand of the officials of Pakistan to thoroughly investigate the heinous crime committed against Masih and Martha and bring all the perpetrators to justice.

Pakistani Embassies:

USA: (202) 243-6500

Canada: (613) 238-7881

UK: 0870-005-6967

David Kuo's article "God Help Us"

2010-03-23T12:51:00.000-07:00

I just found this article by David Kuo on the website Qideas.

It's a little long but well worth the read.

David Kuo worked for the Bush White House. He later went on to write a book called Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, a book I highly recommend.

David is one of the rare evangelical voices calling on both sides of the political aisle to stop--my words, not his--pimping God to promote their political agendas.

Enjoy!

Will the real gospel please stand up?

2010-03-20T15:59:00.000-07:00

When I read the Book of Acts in the New Testament, I notice a stark contrast between the gospel that the Apostles preached and the gospel that is preached in many American churches today. America is a trendy nation. It seems that for every cultural trend there's a gospel to fit that trend. How does the church react to a materialistic society? No problem! It's called the "health and wealth" gospel. And the postmodern trend? No problem! There are gospels that emphasize "deconstruction" and "negative theology." Sometimes I wonder what Peter, James, John, and Paul would think if they took a look at the books on the Christian best- seller lists today. Or what would they think of the "if you're looking for meaning and fulfillment in your life, come to Jesus" altar calls? Will the real gospel please stand up?

Here's my proposition. What if instead of trying adapt the gospel to make it relevant to the culture, we proclaim the gospel as is and let the culture adapt to the gospel? What would that look like? What are the essential elements that Jesus and the Apostles thought were necessary to qualify as a genuine gospel presentation? Why not just preach what the Apostles preached?

After a careful study of the Book of Acts and the letters of Paul, I've come up with a succinct statement that I believe qualifies as the essence of the gospel. Since the word preach literally means "to herald" or "to announce", think of this as Aaron D. Taylor's official gospel press release.

Here goes. The Apostolic gospel is as follows: "Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was buried and rose again on the third day. He ascended into heaven and now He sits at the right hand of the Father. On a day that God has appointed, Jesus Christ is coming back to judge the living and the dead. Anyone who repents and believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life."

I wonder what would happen if the average American preacher used this kind of language when preaching the gospel? Some say that the average listener would fail to emotionally connect with straight Bible talk such as this. Maybe, maybe not. I don't really know, but I suspect that even if that were true; God probably knew that when He inspired the New Testament. Maybe gospel language isn't meant to be reduced to what we perceive our felt needs to be. Either way, I'll take the real gospel over the best seller version any day.

The Bethlehem Evangelical Affirmation

2010-03-17T10:03:00.000-07:00

We affirm the foundational truth that God loves everyone (John 3:16).

We affirm that as followers of Jesus Christ we are called to do justice and love mercy (Micah 6:8), to be ministers of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:11-21), and to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).

We affirm that the Holy Spirit empowers followers of Jesus to speak and live humbly and prophetically (Acts 1:8).

We recognize that this is the time to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Therefore, we are convinced that the Holy Spirit is leading us at such a time as this to unite as Christians throughout the world in order to pray and work for a just peace in Israel and Palestine.

To this end, we commit to reconnect with the local Palestinian church and to listen and learn from all those who follow Jesus in the Holy Land and to share their stories with our own faith communities.

We further commit to work together to advocate changes in public policy and so achieve a just and lasting resolution of the conflict. Our vision and our hope is that Israelis and Palestinians will live in justice and peace in the land of the Holy One.

Drafting Committee

Paul Alexander
Christine M. Anderson
Brother Andrew
Alex Awad
Bishara Awad
Mubarak Awad
Sami Awad
Gary Burge
Tony Campolo
Steven Haas
Lynne Hybels
Manfred Kohl
Jonathan Kuttab
Paul Johnson
Stephen Sizer
Porter Speakman, Jr.

Prince of Peace God of War

2010-03-15T16:07:00.001-07:00

A friend of mine sent me this video the other day. It's called Prince of Peace God of War. I highly encourage you to watch it. The filmmaker, John Campea, interviews both Just War theorists and pacifists. My only criticism is--ironically-- that the Just War side wasn't adequately represented. Some of the arguments they presented were really grasping at straws, like using the story of Jesus cleansing the temple as a proof text that Jesus approved of His followers killing in war. Really???

Also, pay close attention to how Tony Campolo deals with the Nazi argument. The story he tells, which is the very last part of the film, is one of the most moving stories I've ever heard about the power of non-violent redemptive love identifying with the suffering of the world--the way of Jesus.

Enjoy!

Texas board of education excludes hispanics from history books

2010-03-12T20:49:00.000-08:00

Below is a portion of the AP story about the Texas Board of Education's new standards for textbooks.

Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society."

So I guess we're living in the United White States of America.

It gets worse.

Democrats did score a victory by deleting a portion of an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes."

That an amendment suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes" would even be considered is revealing enough. Of course, the chief culprits in this story are those that name the name of Christ.

Weep with me.

You can read the rest of the story here: