Testimonial for Alone with a Jihadist

Taylor’s journey to pacifism takes us from a charismatic upbringing to dramatic encounters with other faith traditions, and raises pertinent questions for our generation. Challenging the legitimacy of US Christians’ reliance on war amidst worship of the “Prince of Peace,” Taylor guides us down this road of hypocrisy, delivering insight on Christian Zionism, the violent Evangelical, and the US Muslim conundrum. A Christian voice for peace, providing evidence of our need for change as well as practical steps to take to get there, Alone with a Jihadist will make a knock-out debut.

Laurel Frodge, Sojourners

Another casualty of a white man's hatred

When I first heard that there was a shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum today, my first thought was that this despicable crime was carried out by an Islamic extremist. I imagine a lot of others made the same assumption as well. Naturally with so much in the news about Iran's president--perhaps soon to be late president-- Ahmadenijad making public statements denying the holocaust, it's all too easy to cast the anti-semitic stereotype squarely at the feet of Muslims alone, as if being Muslim is somehow equated with being anti-semitic.

As we learned today, what a grave mistake that is! The reality is anti-semitism has historically been a white phenomenon. Think of the Inquisition, the Russian Pogroms--and the Holocaust. This is why it should come as no surprise that the shooter at the Holocaust memorial museum was a white supremacist, not some hot tempered "son of Ishmael" (as the T.V. preachers like to say) destined to create trouble for the Jews because of some longstanding blood feud between the descendants of two historic brothers. Indeed, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has already released a statement saying:

"We condemn this apparent bias-motivated attack and stand with the Jewish community and with Americans of all faiths in repudiating the kind of hatred and intolerance that can lead to such disturbing incidents."

I think that white Americans need to stand up and take notice. Perhaps we need to give some deeper thought as to what we mean when we use the word "terrorist." As we've seen today, a Jew hating terrorist isn't just someone with the first name "Achmed" (think of Jeff Dunham's Achmed the dead terrorist") and an ethnicity labeled "Palestinian." Anti-semitic terrorism comes in all shapes and colors.

My thoughts and prayers go to the family of the security guard that was murdered today. May they feel the comfort of Christ in this dark hour.

Early Christians' views on war, power, and politics

In my upcoming book "Alone with a Jihadist: A Biblical Response to Holy War" I've written some things that are likely going to get me into trouble with a lot of religious people. One one level, I feel sorry that I have to offend so many people, especially people that I love and respect. On another level, I feel a sense of righteous indignation (at least I hope it's righteous indignation and not something else) that what passes for Christianity today in the Western world is so far from what Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church had in mind. The quotes below cover the period of the first two centuries of Christian history. As far as I know, no historians dispute what you are about to read. As you read these quotes, I'd like for you to ask yourself a question. Which is more likely? That the early Church after the closing of the New Testament, and hence closest to the lives of Jesus and the Apostles, started out in error but then gradually came to the truth around the time of Constantine--or the other way around?

The Early Church and the World, Professor C. J. Cadoux writes: “Up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.”

“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.” (On the Road to Civilization—A World History, A. K. Heckel and J. G. Sigman, 1937, pp. 237-8)

The Encyclopedia of Religion states: “The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, affirmed that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented them from participating in the Roman army.” In his book

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.”—The Rise of Christianity (London, 1947), E. W. Barnes, p. 333.

The book The Early Christian Attitude to War says: “Inasmuch as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war . . . The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.”

“They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—History of Christianity (New York, 1891), Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163.

“The behavior of the [early] Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.”—Our World Through the Ages.

” And The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, states: “[Early Christians] refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers.”

The Catholic Herald of London stated: “The first Christians . . . took Jesus at His word and refused to be conscripted into the Roman army even if the penalty was death. Would the whole of history have been different if the Church had stuck to its original stand? . . . If the churches of today could come out with a joint condemnation of war . . . , which would mean that every member would be bound in conscience to be, like the Christians, a conscientious objector, peace might indeed be assured. But we know that this will never happen.”

“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world…Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens…They would not hold political office.” --- On the Road to Civilization, A World History (Philadelphia, Chicago, etc; 1937) Albert K. Heckel and James G. Sigman, pp 237, 238.

“Zealous Christians did not serve in the armed forces or accept political offices.”-- World History, The Story of Man’s Achievements (River Forest, Ill; 1962) Habberton, Roth and Spears, p. 117.

“While among Romans it was considered the highest honor to possess the privileges of Roman citizenship, the Christians announced that they were citizens of heaven. They shrank from public office and military service.”-- “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177” by F.F.G. Guizot, former prime minister of France, Vol. III of The Great Events by Famous Historians (New York; 1905), Rossiter Johnson, ed, p. 246.

“The Christians were strangers and pilgrims in the world around them; their citizenship was in heaven; the kingdom to which they looked was not of this world. The consequent want of interest in public affairs came thus from the outset to be a noticeable feature in Christianity.” – Christianity and the Roman Government (London; 1925), E. G. Hardy, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, p. 39.

“The emperors disliked Christianity because it seemed unpatriotic and un-Roman.”—The Course of Civilization, Volume One, (New York; 1961), p. 144.

It's time for a Reformation!

Thoughts on Obama's speech to the Muslim world

The world stood at attention today as President Obama gave a historic speech to the Muslim world. In mainstream U.S. media, expectations of the speech ran from highly pessimistic to cautiously optimistic. For a sizable minority in the U.S., the very idea of the speech in a place such as Cairo Egypt represented either a cow-towing to terrorism--or worse, a secret plot to turn the U.S. into a Muslim nation by a president who's secretly a Muslim himself.

Adulation and frenzy aside, since the speech was addressed to Muslims, what matters at this juncture isn't so much how most Americans will view Obama's historic action, but how the vast majority of Muslims will view it. With this in mind, I thought I'd offer some perspective as someone who has lived and worked in the Muslim world and has spent considerable time analyzing world events in light of a Christian missionary perspective.

First, the praise. President Obama didn't waste time acknowledging the achievements Islamic civilization has made to world history. By praising Islamic contributions to fields such as science, philosophy, and architecture; the president touched on an issue felt deeply by most Muslims worldwide--the knowledge of a lost golden age. Although knowing this might not mean much to us, the fact that the president acknowledged some positive aspects of Islamic history probably caused a few teary eyes from some proud Muslims.

The president went on to acknowledge the tension fed by Western colonialism that "denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims" and, even more recently, how during the Cold War many Muslim nations were "often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations." The historical truth of this statement is undeniable, but thankfully, Obama didn't stop there. He also directly challenged jihadist propaganda with the words: "Just as Muslims to not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interesed empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress the world has ever known."

The president also touched on the religious freedom issue, promised additional development aid for Pakistan and Afghanistan, recognized Iraqi sovereignty by honoring their wishes to withdraw troops by 2012, affirmed his support for Israel while recognizing Palestinian grievances, made it clear that democracy should not be imposed on other nations by force, reaffirmed his commitment to a nuclear free world ( a position that John McCain recently signed onto I might add), and made it clear that the U.S. is not seeking a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. All of these are very important steps for eroding the base of support for Al Qaeda and like-minded groups.

Now, the criticism. Obama in my opinion went too far in emphasizing common values between America and Islam. In Obama's words, "America and Islam are not exclusive, instead, they overlap and share common principles." I beg to differ. America was founded on the Christian/enlightenment principle of separation of church and state. In Islam, the idea of a separation between church and state--or more accurately mosque and state--is an anathema. These ideas are worlds apart and it takes a whole lot of cherry picking of Koranic verses by liberal and moderate Muslims to try to reconcile the two.

I also felt that the manner in which the president addressed the religious freedom issue was weak. Although the president did say, "freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion" he didn't touch on the reciprocity issue, which is the fact that Muslims enjoy--and often demand-- freedom in the West to propagate their faith but deny the same freedom to minority religions in their own countries. While the president could have made a clear moral appeal on this issue, all the world got was, "Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's." Lame.

The president's address of women's rights wasn't much better. While he spoke to the issue of allowing women the freedom to wear the head scarf (translation: we're not France!), this is an issue affecting Muslim women in the West. It has little to do with the lives of millions of Muslim women living in Muslim countries. The president could have taken this time to condemn the stoning of adulteresses, absurd rape laws, the kidnapping of young Christian girls to marry older men, and a host of other rampant abuse that many Muslim women suffer by their male counterparts.

Will the president's speech make a positive difference in U.S./Muslim relations? Yes it will, but the impact will be minimal. It's very important to understand that there was very little in Obama's speech that hasn't already been said by previous administrations--including the Bush administration. Even on the issue of calling on Israel to freeze settlement expansion, the president said nothing new. As a matter of fact, every president from Carter until now has said the same thing, and absolutely nothing has changed because Israel refuses to comply to America's wishes and America continues to bankroll the Israeli government. Muslims know that President Obama is very unlikely to change the status quo in this arrangement--especially with Netanyahu in power.

Another reason why the president's words will ring hallow in many Muslim ears is because the speech seemed to be directed at contradicting jihadist propaganda while speaking very little to the issue that the vast majority of Muslims care about the most--more political and economic freedoms. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Muslims want more democracy, not less. Many Muslims, however, see the U.S. as an obstacle to democracy because we are the ones supporting many of the oppressive dictators ruling over them.

Will the speech spur a change of heart in Al Qaeda members and like minded groups? Of course not! The only way to deal with these people is to pursue an aggressive agenda, along with our allies, to disband their networks, freeze their assets, arrest the murderers, and bring them to justice. The speech will however, contribute to eroding the base of support for radical Islam if it's followed by sound policy. Christians should pray that God gives our nation's leaders wisdom on exactly what those policies should be. Because for Muslims worldwide, actions speak louder than words.

This just in....the Iraq war was a holy war...according to the Pentagon!!

Despite the repeated attempts of former President George W. Bush to renege on his usage of the word "crusade" to describe the Iraq War, there are some in the evangelical community who suspected all along that for Bush and his top aides, the Iraq War was indeed a holy war. At the time, the majority of evangelicals--including myself--cheered as the President and his top aides cast the Iraq war in moralistic terms, invoking the name of God to bless the bombs dropped by U.S. planes in the initial "shock and awe" campaign.

When other Christians tried to tell us that invoking the name of God to bless the invasion of a sovereign nation was wrong, we laughed and mocked. Who in the world--other than liberals of course-- actually believes that the President of the United States of America would launch a modern day crusade? It turns out that the minority was right. I was wrong.

Earlier this week GQ magazine released a set of memos from none other than the former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In a set of memos placed on Bush's desk every morning over a period of several months (titled the World Wide Intelligence Update), Rumsfeld quoted numerous passages from the Bible and superimposd them against a backdrop of soldiers, tanks, and fighter planes.

If the leader of a Muslim country were to invoke passages from the Koran to call on Allah to bless their troops as they attacked their American enemy, we would have with absolute certainty called that fanatacism--and we would have ridiculed anyone who thought otherwise. But because it was our leaders and they were calling on the name of our God and reading from our Bible--even though anyone with an elementary Bible knowledge knew that they were twisting the Scriptures by divorcing them from their original contexts--we called them pious.

To my fellow evangelicals that love Jesus and want to see His purposes fulfilled in our world, here are a few examples of how the Holy Scriptures were twisted by the Pentagon to sanctify a holy war.

1. In the first picture, there are three soldiers sitting in prayer with their machine guns pointed heavenward. The Scripture reference is Isaiah 6:8 which says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" I can remember as a young boy going to church and seeing these words on a banner hanging over the center stage of the sanctuary. These words have inspired thousands of Christians to go into all the world and devote themselves as Christ's ambassadors to humanity. Now apparently we're supposed to believe that God had the U.S. military in mind when He inspired Isaiah to write these words.

2. In another frame we see a tank gliding across the Iraqi desert as the sun is setting. The Scripture for the day? Ephesians 6:13 which says, "Therefore take up the whole armor of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." I guess I was absent that day in Sunday School when the teacher said the Apostle Paul had America's War on Terror in mind when he wrote these words. Somehow I always thought this verse was talking about prayer against demonic powers seeking to overthrow believers in their faith. Who would have known?

3. Perhaps the most bizarre frame is the one using Psalms 33:16. Although the verse says explicitly, "The King is not saved by a mighty army," the verse is plastered across an American tank, a missile, and a U.S. soldier showing that victory does come through a mighty army. Talk about missing the point!

There's only one word for such a blatant misuse of Scriptures to sanctify a political agenda--idolatry! The American Church let this happen. I let this happen. May God be merciful to us and move upon our hearts to repent.

Should soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan proselytize?

Blogging and me share a love/hate relationship. One the one hand, I hate writing articles because often it takes me hours of mental sparring to get to exactly what I want to say. On the other hand, I love the feeling of accomplishment after having written. Yes, I know it’s weird, but this is why I only post about once or twice a month. My mental sanity can’t take much more.

Over the past few days, however, I’ve felt a compulsive urge to go to my computer and start typing. Call it a blogging binge if you will. My only justification for this latest binge is the hope that at least a few people will read what I have to say and put themselves through the same agonizing soul searching as I’ve had to do over these past few days. So if you’re ready for some no holds barred gut grabbling heart stopping soul searching, please read on. If not, I’ll understand.

It all started a few weeks ago when I read a post by Brian McLaren on the Sojourners blog stating that according to a recent Pew survey, white evangelical Christians are the one group in America the most likely to support torture. This really bothered me. The reason it bothered me—and I’m still unable to let it go even as I write—is not because I don’t understand the moral complexities involved in protecting our country. What bothers me is that if the survey is correct, then that means there’s something in evangelicalism—more specifically white evangelicalism—that causes people who look like me and think like me to be more prone to violence than others even after all other moral factors are considered. Troubling!

It doesn’t stop here. It’s come to my attention that Christian soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been actively distributing Bibles and attempting to convert Afghanis and Iraqis to Christianity—and now Al Jazeera is blasting footage throughout the Muslim world of Lieutenant Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief military chaplain in Afghanistan, counseling his followers in how to “hunt souls for Jesus” by distributing the New Testament to Afghani civilians as “gifts.”

One might ask why I as a Bible believing Christian—and a missionary at that—would be so vehemently opposed to this? I can understand why some might think that I’ve had a sudden memory loss and forgotten that Jesus told His followers to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Why in the world would I oppose soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan distributing Bibles to the local population?

Here’s why. Imagine our country was invaded by…say a country like Indonesia…a country with a majority population of Muslims. Imagine further that the president of Indonesia called the invasion a “jihad to rid the world of evil”—but then turned around and insisted that the invasion of America was not a war against Christianity and has nothing to do with trying to impose Islam on the American people. Now further imagine that the same invaders that occupy our country and patrol our streets with tanks are also distributing copies of the Koran in English at the local Wal Mart—howbeit with smiles on their faces. How likely is the average American citizen going to buy the story that the invasion of our country had nothing to do with attacking our faith, especially given our knowledge of the long history of Islamic/Christian relations?

Now that I think about it, there is a connection between these two stories. Remember what I just mentioned about the footage of Lieutenant Colonel Gary Hensley counseling his followers to “hunt souls for Jesus?” That took place at the huge military base in Bagram. If you’ve ever seen Taxi to the Dark Side, then you’ll know that Bagram is a place that—at least we know in the past—the U.S. military has used to torture and detain prisoners indefinitely. And by the way, very few of the prisoners—at least initially—were known terrorist suspects. Many of them were handed over to the U.S. military—with little to no evidence against them—by tribal warlords looking for a quick buck.

If this isn’t a call to action for Christians to wake up to the reality of the militarization of our faith, then I don’t know what is. According to a world public opinion poll taken in five Muslim countries, nearly two/thirds of the respondents said they believe the “war on terror” is an effort by fundamentalist Christians to spread Christianity in the region. Is it really that hard to understand why?

It’s time for Christians to wake up and divorce once and for all our faith from all things military. Mixing the Kingdom of America with the Kingdom of God not only does serious damage to our country; it also does serious damage to the integrity of the gospel. Let the missionaries proselytize. Soldiers should stick to doing what they do best. Defending our country—and our constitution.

Michael J. Fox and the reality of Bhutan

Recently former Family Ties and Back to the Future star Michael J. Fox visited the country of Bhutan as part of his documentary exploring the theme of optimism around the world. A much publicized part of the documentary is the "gross domestic happiness" that the Bhutanese king ensures his people. Here is what Fox had to say about his visit to Bhutan.

“Bhutan sets an excellent example,” said Michael J. Fox. “The fourth King and the government have been very wise and the people have been very smart and responsible in the way that they’ve responded to their leadership. I hope that y’all are aware of the gift you’ve been given, about where you live and how beautiful it is, and also how you’ve taken care of it.”

Now I don't fault the actor for seeing the positives in the way they do things in a far away country. Too often we in America think that our system of government and way of life are the only possibilities available to ensure the possibility of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps we in America can learn a lot from the way they do things in Bhutan. Having said that, let me insert a reality check that you will not see in Fox's upcoming documentary.

Below is an e-mail I just received from one of the top leaders of the underground church in Bhutan. I've omitted the names for security reasons:

Dear Respected Brother Aaron,Family and all the faithful praying family's in USA warm and loving greeting's to you all. i am writing you this email on behalf of our two impassioned brothers who are in the jail for the last three years and their kids and family's are now is a very tough situation financially they are dry and children's without school and because they could not pay the dues to schools and school authority has discontinued their schooling's so please do kindly pray for this very urgent needs and share it with those praying friends
i am trusting the lord for the miracle to happen and their kids will be able to rejoin the schools and they will also have food and clothes at home while their parents are in the jail for the cause of the gospel.
please do kindly share it with others as an urgent prayer request please.
blessing's

Apparently the "gross domestic happiness" comes at a price. In Bhutan, you are only allowed to be happy if you conform to the King's religion.

Please pray for these brothers, and if you would like to help them, e-mail me at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com

On white evangelicals and torture--some intense soul searching

A few weeks ago, I read an article by Brian McLaren that caused some intense soul searching. In his post on the popular God’s Politics blog, McLaren cited a Pew Forum study showing that 6 out of 10 white evangelicals believe that torture is often or sometimes justified, making white evangelicals the religious group the most likely to support torture. As a white evangelical myself, I realize that for many people, the torture question is morally ambiguous, especially in light of the infamous ticking time bomb scenario, so it is not my intention to demonize those who participated in this survey and answered honestly. What troubles me isn’t so much that some of my fellow white evangelicals believe that in a sin cursed earth, morally complex situations arise in which Christians sometimes have to choose the lesser of two evils; what troubles me is that most white evangelicals think this way.

Think about it. If this survey is correct, then atheists and Muslims are less likely to support torture than white evangelical Christians—and we are the ones who claim that if everyone on earth were to become like us, the world would be a more peaceful place. Even if we allow the white evangelical survey respondents the highest benefit of a doubt assuming that they had the most morally complex situations in mind, there’s still the question of what is it about evangelicalism, and more specifically white evangelicalism, that makes us the most likely to respond to evil with violence? In his post, McLaren framed the question this way:

Why would white evangelicals be most likely to support torture? Could some conventional theological assumptions of evangelicals have anything to do with it?

The truth is probably a combination of many factors, so in no way do I think that what I’m about to propose is the only factor, or even the greatest factor, but I’m convinced it is a factor and worth mentioning. Since McLaren opened up a huge can of worms with his open-ended question, allow me to throw in my two cents.

I believe that one little discussed factor is an exaggerated emphasis on total depravity in evangelical circles. Whether most evangelicals realize it or not, our underlying assumption is that those who are not born again are only capable of evil. Even if we notice good behavior in non-believers, our understanding of the Christian faith demands that we attribute it to selfish motives.

The translation usually goes something like this:

If society is going to change, then hearts have to change. Only a personal relationship with Christ can take away the evil and murder in people’s hearts, therefore we must send missionaries to convert the terrorists/radical Muslims to Christianity.

So far so good. I’m all for sending missionaries to preach the gospel to Muslims. Anyone that knows me will tell you that my life’s work has been devoted to extending the gospel to unreached regions of the world—and I refuse to apologize for it. But notice what happens next when we take the original assumption, namely that people apart from a personal relationship with Christ are only capable of evil (or at the very least good with tainted motives), to its logical conclusion:

Therefore, unless we convert these people to Christianity, the only other way to deal with them is through force.

As harsh as this may sound, I think if the vast majority of evangelicals were honest with themselves, they would discover that this is their underlying assumption. The problem with this idea is that it fails to take into account that even fallen human beings are created in the image of God. And even though the image has been marred by sin, there still remains a trace of God’s goodness in every human being.

Lest I be misunderstood, I’m a firm believer in the doctrine of total depravity—as long as we define total depravity as the idea that only God is truly good and that no one will seek God on his or her own apart from God’s gracious revelation. The problem comes when we turn a Biblical proposition and stretch it beyond its intended meaning. When we take total depravity to mean that every non-believer at all times is only capable of sinning, we forget that even fallen human beings are created in the image of God and are therefore capable of reason. According to Jesus, even evil people know how to give good gifts to their children. Jesus always affirmed the humanity of fallen human beings, and so should we. If we fail to affirm the humanity of others outside our fold, then we’re left with a theology that says the only way to deal with evil people is to convert them or kill them—or torture them.

This is one explanation for why so many evangelicals support the torture of other human beings as a matter of national policy. Now as to why so many white evangelicals support torture, that’s another subject for another day. I think I’ve done enough soul searching for one day. Thank God for His mercy!

A review of "Spirit of the Rainforest"

I love reading missionary books. Though I haven't read every missionary classic (I still haven't gotten around to reading God's Smuggler though I am a huge fan of Brother Andrew), I've read most of them. From Don Richardson's Eternity in their Hearts to K.P. Yohannan's Revolution in World Missions to Bruce Olson's classic autobiography Bruchko, most missionaries that I know have a staple of books that they turn to for inspiration. And with the exception of Yohannan's book, nearly every missionary classic is written from the perspective of a white missionary. Never have I read a book narrated from the perspective of a life long shaman living in the remote jungles of the Amazon.

Until now.

Enter Jungleman, the narrator of Spirit of the Rainforest. Without giving too much away, I can tell you that Jungleman was a real shaman of the Yanamomo people that narrated his story over a period of several years to an American named Mark Andrew Ritchie before he died in 1994. According to a friend of mine, Dorothy Miller, who edited the book, Spirit of the Rainforest is in every university library in the United States, and for good reason. Jungleman's first hand narrative provides valuable insights for anthropologists into the lives and culture of a very remote Amazon tribe--even though Jungleman pulls no punches in describing his disdain for anthropologists.

Fair warning. Jungleman's first hand narrative may be one of the most violent books you'll ever read. Anyone who thinks that native cultures should be preserved no matter what (lest "Eden" somehow be spoiled) and that missionaries are guilty of cultural imperialism are in for a rude awakening. In Jungleman's world, and indeed the Yanomamo world, the jungle is populated by spirits that actively communicate with people. These spirits cause the Yanomamo people to raid villages, slaughter their relatives, take the women captive, and then wait in fear for retaliation. Like the Waodani people in End of the Spear, the cycle of violence and revenge has persisted for as long as any Yanomamo can remember.

What I really liked about this book is that it confirms one of the central themes I've written about in my latest book "Alone with a Jihadist"--namely that violence begets violence. Nowhere is this more evident than in a very moving speech given by Shoefoot, the leader of a mysterious village called "Honey" that happens to follow the ways of Yai Pada (the Yanomamo word for God). After his fellow villagers raid another village over a violent domestic dispute between a husband and a wife, Shoefoot, (also known as "Doesn't grab women" because he refuses to behave like other men in his position) has this to say to his people:

I want to talk to you about one little thing today. Those of you who can read have seen in Yai Pada's book where it says, 'If it is possible, as much as you can, live at peace with all men. And never take vengeance into your own hands, but leave room for Yai Pada's anger.' Yai Pada says 'Vengeance is mine, I will pay back.' Because you are my family and my best friends in the world, I want you to know that I think Yai Pada wrote those words just for us Yanomamo. You all know that our whole life all we ever wanted was vengeance. You old women know how you saved the bones of your relatives, waiting for your boys to grow up so they could drink those bones and go kill. You know that our old spirits always told us to kill for vengeance. Now we follow a spirit that tells us to do completely different. I tell you that Yai Pada wrote this for the Yanomamo because no one knows more about war than we do. We all know that no fight ever ends. We always make sure that it goes on and on. If we let Yai Pada take care of vengeance, then our fights will always get smaller. If he wants to kill them, let him. But we won't be blamed for it when it happens, and the fight will never get bigger. I'm not going to say I like what you did. You were wrong to try to take vengeance yourselves. When you take the fight to them, it always gets worse.

It would be very easy to read this story and praise Shoefoot for his courageous stance against violence in his culture. I'm sure many readers of this book have done that, and have missed the point entirely. Before you allow yourself to feel those warm fuzzy feelings of admiration for Shoefoot, I'd like to invite you to an exercise. Read Shoefoot's words again, but this time imagine an American pastor saying this to a congregation of Bible believing Christians on the anniversary of 9/11. I wonder how many members he would have left after delivering such a speech?

Is it possible that Yai Pada wrote the words "Vengeance is mine" not just for the Yanomamo people, but for us as well?

Intolerance wears many faces these days

Last week Carrie Prejean, also known as Miss California, lost the Miss U.S.A. pageant because she committed the unthinkable crime--at least in Hollywood--of giving an honest answer to the politically charged topic of gay marriage.

"In my family, I … believe marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Prejean's answer was neither hateful nor intolerant, but for these words she has been subjected to a litany of media backlash. Perez Hilton, the celebrity blogger judge that asked the question has gone on nothing less than a smear campaign on his blog site. Even Donald Trump, one of the owners of the pageant, said her answer "probably did cost her the crown." It seems that Hollywood media is tolerant to everyone except for those who agree with the majority of the Americans, including--ironically--California, that the definition of marriage that has been around since the beginning of human history should remain intact.

What's happened to Carrie Prejean over the past week has been nothing less than a media lynching for failing to toe the cultural elite party line. It's intolerance. Plain and simple. I'm sure that many of my politically conservative evangelical friends are upset--and for good reason. So am I. But let's get real for a minute. Without minimizing Prejean's pain (nor her heroism for standing up for her beliefs), it's likely that the former Miss California will get a hefty book deal out of this and will be a favorite in the evangelical speaking circuit for a long time to come. Meanwhile, over the past week, two eleven-year-old boys have hung themselves because of the merciless taunting by their peers for the perception that they were "gay."

These two situations are vastly different in degree, but they're not so different in kind. On the one hand, we have a woman that expressed a religious belief with political implications and the agents of intolerance splashed the blogosphere with hate speech. On the other hand, we have two dead boys because their perceived sexuality painted them as the other in the eyes of many.

For the record, there's no evidence that Carl Joseph Walker- Hoover or Jaheem Herrera were actually gay, but not that it should matter. Just as racial bullying is socially taboo nowadays, so should sexual orientation bullying, but too often school officials look the other way when a child is bullied over perceived sexual orientation. Unless we want more young boys hanging themselves, this is going to have to change--and Christians should be leading the way in this effort.

Sadly, it seems that Christian leadership is lacking these days. Nowhere is the culture war more evident than in the two mostly highly visible faces of American Christianity--the liberal face and the conservative face. While most theologically liberal Christians would likely side with the Hollywood-blogger-induced smear campaign against Carrie Prejean, theologically conservative Christians are some of the worst perpetrators of hate speech against gay people--just ask any gay person.

Here is where the problem lies. On both sides of the so-called culture war the definition of tolerance has been lost. Both sides seem to think that the word "tolerate" equals "condone." But the very definition of tolerance assumes genuine differences in beliefs and practices. Jesus was the most tolerant man to ever live. His entire life and ministry was characterized by pursuing genuine table fellowship with tax collectors, prostitutes, and drunkards, but that doesn't mean that Jesus condoned extortion, prostitution, and drunkenness. Jesus didn't condone their lifestyle, but He did affirm their humanity. For Jesus, every human being was--and is--infinitely valuable.

If Carry Prejean is a true Christian, and I have no reason to believe that she is not, then now would be the perfect time for her to speak up on behalf of young boys and girls across the nation harassed by bullies at school because of their perceived sexual orientation. Carry Prejean has a national platform. Tens of thousands of elementary and middle school children across the nation do not. They suffer in silence. It's time that the world sees real Christianity looks like. While the body count rises, the clock keeps ticking.

Perhaps Carrie Prejean will respond. Maybe she won't. It's likely that Carry Prejean will never even see this article. So if we don't see an anti-bully campaign from the former Miss California, let's not hold that against her, because the important thing is not how Carrie Prejean will respond. The important thing is how will you and I respond?

How not to become a political junkie

My name is Aaron Taylor and I must confess that lately I've become a bit of a political junkie. Part of this is justifiable--at least to me--because I'm an author that writes about peace and social justice issues from a Christian perspective and if I'm going to be interviewed on radio or television (something that will happen within the next few months) then it would do me some good to know what I'm talking about. Even with this in mind, a daily diet of blogs, websites, magazines, and cable-news can be a bit stifling spiritually, so I think I've come up with a solution.

For my fellow junkies, here is what I recommend.

When you watch the evening news or read your favorite blog, turn what you are watching and reading into a prayer. This allows you to talk to God and to be a part of the action at the same time. Over the past few weeks I've prayed for the crisis in Darfur, victims of gun violence here in the U.S., wisdom for the president to turn around our struggling economy, the safe return of a captain held hostage by Somali pirates (a prayer answered!), and just about everything else in between.

When it comes to choosing between prayer and grumbling, which response is more likely to move heaven, shake the earth, and draw us closer to God?

If you said the latter, then I hate to break the news to you, you've become a political junkie and there's only one thing you can do to change your situation.

Repent!

A moving story

Here is a link to a great story I thought my readers would enjoy. I'd love to comment but I don't want to spoil the ending.

Enjoy!

Two Muslims come to Christ in Senegal--through stories!!

Dear friends,

Last week Rhiannon and I were in Hemet, California honing our skills as Bible story tellers. I was with Rhiannon for the first two days of the workshop and then I flew to Eugene Oregon to promote my book "Alone with a Jihadist" at the Society for Pentecostal Studies annual conference. When I returned to California, I was happy to hear that Rhiannon had shared a story and led a small group discussion. This was a big step for Rhiannon and from what I hear, she did an excellent job with the story of the floating ax head (II Kings 6:1-7). Way to go Rhiannon!

As one of the co-instructors, I got the chance to share the story of Mary and Martha to the entire group (Luke 10:38-42). Afterwards, a man came up to me and said, "I want to tell you that you did an excellent job presenting that story. And I ought to know. I have 62 education credentials!" I know that the power was not in my presenting, but in the story itself.

Another quick testimony: There was a man at the workshop who came from a church background that de-emphasized the miraculous for today. Growing up he was taught that Jesus did miracles only because He wanted to prove to people that He was God, not because of any particular desire on His part to heal sick people. But when the man heard the story about the one leper that Jesus healed (Mark 1:40-45) he noticed that the story says Jesus was "moved with compassion." It was then that he realized Jesus healed people because of His compassion, not just to prove to people His deity. So he decided to be like the leper in the story and He prayed to Jesus, "Lord, if you are willing, I know that you can heal my back." At that moment the man was instantly healed and he was able to bend over like he couldn't do before.

Isn't it amazing how one story in the Bible can undo an entire lifetime of wrong teaching?

Let me give you another example. This one really hit home for me. For those of you that have been following our ministry for a while you know about Jean Pierre, our disciple in Senegal. Jean Pierre has been working very hard as an evangelist in his nation, often traveling from village to village and sowing the gospel through whatever resources that are available (our ministry supports him on a monthly basis). Two weeks ago, Jean Pierre told me that he and a colleague were going to be traveling to two different villages to share the gospel together. I suggested that they share the story of Jesus turning the water into wine at the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-11) and the story about Jesus coming to his disciples in the middle of the night walking on water (Mark 6:45-52). Well, just last week Jean Pierre wrote to me and told me that 5 people came to Christ from hearing these two stories. And two of them were Muslims! And then two days ago I talked with Jean Pierre on Skype and he told me that one of the men that received Christ is already sharing his testimony about God's love to his friends and his family.

Friends, this is real fruit, and I want to see more stories like this happening around the world. Henry Blackaby, a noted Bible teacher, says that when it comes to discerning the will of God for our lives and ministries,the best thing to do is to find out where God is working and join Him! Clearly God is working in the oral Bible story movement, and I honestly think that we're barely scratching the surface for what He wants to do. Which is why I'll be co-teaching another workshop at the end of this month in Lake Charles, Louisiana, traveling to Nigeria in July to teach missionaries working throughout all of West Africa, and then making a trip to Haiti (date not yet set) and another trip back to Senegal in October.

I'm also working on a model for radio and television, but that's in the very early stages right now. I've been working with Dorothy Miller, one of the most respected leaders of the oral Bible story movement worldwide. Dorothy has been working with me one on one to hone my skills and, to be quite honest, it's been very frustrating. I'm the kind of guy that likes to jump head first into things (ready, shoot, aim!) and Dorothy is a perfectionist to the nth degree--which is exactly what I need. I know that I'm going to need a lot of practice before I can take this to the airwaves, so between Dorothy's meticulous mentoring, your prayers, and some patience and perseverance on my part, I believe it can happen.

Thank you for your continued love and support.

Aaron

P.S. Some of you may have noticed that our Great Commission Society website is down. I'm creating a world-class website, (which will be found at www.aarondtaylor.com when its up and running) that will incorporate the details of the Great Commission Society ministry. For now, if you'd like to make a donation to our ministry you can send it to

Great Commission Society
P.O. Box 400
Arnold, Mo 63010

A milestone--I baked my first cake

Tomorrow is Rhiannon's birthday. She'll be 33. Ever since we've been married Rhiannon has vowed to teach me how to cook. When Rhiannon was a little girl, she made a list of what she wanted in a husband. The list was strikingly specific. She even requested someone with brown hair and blue eyes. It's a little odd that I happen to meet every one of the items on her list except for one, which is a love for cooking (and/or baking).

I don't know why I've never taken this up. Perhaps it's because the few times in my life I've tried to cook or bake, they turned out to be disasters. I guess I'm still a little traumatized by the time when I had to bake something for my fifth grade class. I chose monkey bread thinking it would be easy. There was just one little problem with the monkey bread I made.

I accidentally replaced sugar with salt.

Ooops!!!

That was embarrassing.

Tomorrow we'll be going to Fuddruckers to celebrate Rhiannon's birthday with a few of our friends.

It will be the historic debut of my world class baking.

Please pray.

Pentecostalism's forgotten non-violent roots

As I write this post, I’m sitting in a hotel room in Eugene, Oregon waiting for the Society for Pentecostal Studies conference to start. It’s nice to have a day to myself. I’m thankful I was able to sleep in this morning, but I’m going to be honest with you – I’m pretty nervous.

Most of the people that will be attending have doctoratal degrees and are teaching subjects like history, theology, philosophy, and ethics on a university level. The most education I have is two years of a very fundamentalist Bible school, a third year school of missions, and a semester at a community college. I don’t even have a bachelor’s degree.

So why am I here chumming with Pentecostal scholars?

As someone who hasn’t pursued high education, but decided to go the self-education route and take my non-credentialed Biblical knowledge straight to the mission field, it would be very easy for me to a) dismiss myself as someone that a Doctor of Divinity would never listen to or b) dismiss the Doctor of Divinity as someone who needs to jump off his intellectual high horse and try sharing a Bible story with a Senegalese villager.

Somehow I don’t think that either of these approaches would be the right attitude. The fact is that Pentecostalism started out as a radical, non-violent faith that challenged — not championed — power structures that perpetuate poverty and ethnocentrism. Pentecostals (and their charismatic godchildren) today have done an absolute 180 and are, tragically, now some of the most militant Christians on the planet. Thanks to TV evangelists, the unholy fusion of Christianity, Zionism, and American nationalism is the status quo in most American Pentecostal/charismatic churches — with very few exceptions.

I imagine that most of my Pentecostal/charismatic friends would be shocked to discover that the vast majority of Christians that experienced the revival at Azusa street (the revival that birthed Pentecostalism world-wide) also believed that the proper Christian response to war is conscientious objection. Most of the historic Pentecostal denominations that exist today started out as officially pacifist. As a matter of fact, the Assemblies of God didn’t officially change its position until 1967. Perhaps even more shocking is that some of the Pentecostal pioneers were imprisoned and — yes, it can happen in America — tortured for their refusal to participate in World War I.

Most Pentecostal/charismatic Christians today, especially the younger ones, have no idea that their heritage is rooted in non-violence, but guess who are the ones that do know this? The scholars! Which is exactly why Pentecostal scholars need to play a larger role in shaping the Pentecostal movement for the 21st century. As a Pentecostal/charismatic Christian myself, but an outsider to academia, I’m here to rub shoulders with some of the most prominent Pentecostal scholars from around the world — and to deliver a message to them. Tell our people about our heritage!

For the sake of God, our country, and the world, I hope someone listens.

Aaron D. Taylor is the author of Alone with a Jihadist, scheduled to be released in mid-2009.

Grace abounds to the chief of torturers

On the first day of the Obama administration, our newly elected president signed the order to close down Guatanamo. Scores of human rights advocates were in ecstasy. For those of us committed to peace and social justice the words Guatanamo and Abu Ghraib invoke images of shock and horror. How could we as a nation have stooped so low? Where was the outcry from the Body of Christ?

These are crucial questions that we as a nation need to ask ourselves. What happened in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and, yes, even Afghanistan—think Taxi to the Dark Side—is a stain on our nation’s moral character. But let’s be clear about one thing. Much worse crimes have been committed by much worse regimes in the not too distant past. To put it mildly, when you stack the crimes of Dick Cheney against the crimes of Duch, a former Khmer Rouge prison commander, the latter makes the former look more like Dick Van Dyke.

Between 1975-1979, Duch was the director of the Tuol Sleng prison during the horrific era of the Pol Pot regime. Pol Pot’s dream was to turn all of Cambodia into an agricultural commune. Under Pol Pot’s rule private property, currency, and religion was abolished. Just about anyone associated with the middle to upper class were considered a threat to Pol Pot’s communist dream of a poor man’s paradise. It’s estimated that the Khmer Rouge killed up to two million people during their reign of terror. Nearly 17,000 of those people passed through the Tuol Sleng prison where they were tortured in monstrous ways—before they were marched to the infamous Killing Fields to be executed.

Fast -forward 20 years. In 1999, a British journalist discovered Duch in Northwestern Cambodia. The Duch that he discovered was hardly the same man. By 1999, Duch had converted to Christianity, worked for two Western aid organizations, and even started a house church while in hiding. Today, Duch is on trial for crimes against humanity by a U.N. backed court designed to reconcile the Cambodian nation with its troubled past.

I was in Cambodia last month teaching a seminar to Bible school students, so I got the chance to interact with many Cambodians about their nation’s troubled past. It was my fourth time to the nation and, little did I know, the trial of Duch—which is the first official trial of a former Khmer Rouge official—began during my visit. The occasion was truly historic. While it seemed to me that many of the Christians were willing to forgive and put the past behind them, Duch himself has remained an enigma.

There’s little doubt that Duch has demonstrated genuine remorse over his past crimes. Unlike the other four defendants (to this day, only five former Khmer Rouge officials have been arrested)Duch has admitted that crimes occurred at the prison under his watch, and yet Duch hasn’t made a formal confession of guilt. His reason? He claims that he was forced to do what he did. Had he not followed orders, he would have been killed—or worse.

I have to admit that I’m on the fence about this one. Not that I don’t think that Duch should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned up for the rest of his natural life. I do. Neither do I think that fear for one’s life justifies torturing 17,000 people and sending them to their deaths. It doesn’t. I hope that Duch eventually pleads guilty and makes a formal unqualified apology. What troubles me about Duch’s defense isn’t that it’s absurd, but that there might be a grain of truth in it—even if it still doesn’t justify what he did.

Visit the Killing Fields today and the tour guides will tell you that thousands of war criminals are walking the streets of Cambodia with impunity. In fact, former Khmer Rouge officials fill just about every position of the Cambodian government today. They’ll also tell you that it’s very difficult to prosecute former offenders because many of them were brain-washed adolescents that were forced into what they were doing, much like the child soldiers today in northern Uganda that are forced to do horrific things by the rebel leader Joseph Kony. With so many people forced into the miserable position of having to choose between kill or be killed, it is very difficult to identify who the real perpetrators were—the ones that had a legitimate choice.

To top things off, many scholars postulate that it was the longstanding U.S. bombing campaign of the Cambodian countryside—a campaign that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians—that drove an impoverished population into the arms of the Khmer Rouge in the first place. How much do you want to bet that there will never be as much as a truth and reconciliation committee on that matter? Given the seriousness of the times, the actions of the U.S. bombers are also understandable—frighteningly understandable. I bet that many of them went on to live productive, healthy, and, yes, even godly lives afterwards.

The Apostle Paul marveled that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ could save even him, the chief of sinners. In his former life as a religious extremist, Paul had presided over the deaths of countless Christians and yet what he did seems to pale in comparison to what Duch did at the Tuol Sleng prison.

But maybe that’s the point. If the grace of Christ isn’t sufficient to cover everything—including the worst imaginable sins—how could we be sure it’s sufficient to cover anything? As mindboggling as it may be, the truth still remains. “Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more,” (Romans 5:20). Whether it’s Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the guard at Abu Ghraib, or a former Khmer Rouge official, the Biblical record is clear. God’s grace abounds even to the chief of torturers.

The Word of God prevailed!!--Back from Cambodia

Dear friends,

I’m back from Cambodia. For all of you that prayed I want to give a heart-felt thank you. During this trip, I joined three other missionaries (one from Australia, one from Nepal, and an American missionary living in Thailand) in teaching the Simply the Story workshop to national pastors, missionaries, and Bible school students.

Although there has been significant church growth over the past 20 years, Cambodia is still a Buddhist nation recuperating from the horrific communist bloodbath that took place under the leadership of Pol Pot between the years 1975-1979. During this time Pol Pot’s regime literally killed off the nation’s intellectuals and sought to create a society composed of nothing but rural farmers. Pol Pot’s extreme brand of communism brainwashed the people into suppressing individuality and downplaying critical thinking. When you combine the twin factors of Buddhism and Communism (both of which downplay individuality and critical thinking) with a historically reserved people and, to top it off, translation difficulties, teaching the value of telling stories and formulating discussion made for a very challenging task.

But the Word of God prevailed!

One by one the workshop attendees began to come alive to the Word of God. Even some that were skeptical in the beginning came around towards the end. By the end of the second week, we left a core group in place committed to telling Bible stories, and teaching others to do the same.

Here are two examples:

When the story of Namaan was presented (2 Kings 5:1-27), one young Cambodian man was touched by the fact that Namaan’s servant, who was an Israeli that had been captured by the Syrians (remember that Namaan was a commander of the Syrian army), instead of being bitter towards Namaan, the girl told him about Elisha the prophet so that he could be healed of his leprosy. Seeing in this story a lesson about forgiving enemies, the man stood up and said, “My grandparents were killed by some of Pol Pot’s soldiers and for so many years I was bitter and only wanted revenge, but since the talk about the war crimes tribunals over the past few years, I’ve learned that I need to forgive. Learning this story validates the decision that I have made and I hope that we as a people can learn from this servant girl’s example.”

The second example came during the second week. A Filipino missionary that was new to the country was sitting in a small group listening to the story of Jesus being rejected by his hometown (Mark 6:6-6). The storyteller was a workshop attendee. One of the things that this workshop does is it gives people a chance to get their feet wet in telling stories and formulating discussions. Although I felt that the storyteller in this case was grossly underprepared, it didn’t matter to this man. When it came out in the story that Jesus was rejected not only by his hometown, but also by his family, the man went off to the side and wept. It turns out that this Filipino man had also been rejected by his family. From the story he learned that although Jesus did everything he could to reach his relatives, He didn’t let their rejection of Him stop Him from moving forward in His ministry. Another life touched by the power of God’s Word!

Such is the beauty of stories. One of the things that I’ve learned throughout this process is that it’s very easy to botch a sermon (Yes, I’ll admit. I’ve botched a few sermons over the years), but if I focus my energy on telling a story, and I’ve made sure that my listeners have heard the story enough so that they are sure to remember it after they leave, then the story itself will continue to teach the people long after I’m gone.

I’ve read so many books over the years that have tried to teach me how I as a missionary need to make God’s Word relevant to the people I minister to. Now I’m wondering why I read all those books. The very idea that I, a minister of the gospel, need to make God’s Word relevant is based off a faulty premise. As if God hasn’t already made His Word relevant! As if God when He wrote His Word didn’t have every single culture or type of audience in mind (and, yes, that includes a postmodern audience).

No, I don’t need to make God’s Word relevant. God has already done that! My job is to tell the stories He has placed in His Word, tell them accurately, and let the stories become the teacher. I have a feeling that God’s Word is a much better communicator than I’ll ever be.

Think about it,


Aaron

Off to Cambodia!!

Dear friends,

Rhiannon and I are enjoying our time in Farmington, New Mexico. Since we've been here, I've had invitations to speak in four different churches. Just the other day we were meeting with a pastor of a good sized church here in Farmington. It was about 20 minutes before the mid-week service began and I was sharing with him the power of taking simple Bible stories and anchoring messages from the stories (as opposed to beginning with pre-existing points and taking bits and pieces from several stories to prove the points). The pastor was so excited that he immediately introduced me to his son, the youth pastor of the church, and asked me to take the youth service for the evening.

Normally, not having time to prepare a message would have rocked my boat, but since I already had several stories in my repertoire, all I had to do was pick one. I ended up telling the story of a leper that was healed by Jesus but disobeyed His orders to not tell anyone about what had happened. The story is found in Mark 1:40-45. After I told the story, I was able to throw out questions to the youth group to make them think about what the story teaches about grace, healing, the character of Jesus, how we should treat others, and, ultimately the price of disobedience. I could tell the young people were blessed, which in turn blessed me because I don't get a chance to speak to young people very often.

Next stop: Cambodia!!

I've been to Cambodia three times in the past. One of those times my wife was with me. To give you a brief history. From 1975-1979 the Cambodian people suffered under the brutal regime of Pol Pot, one of the most cruel dictators in human history. Millions of people were relocated from their homes and forced to live in agricultural communes. Those deemed as a threat to the regime, like intellectuals and Western sympathizers, were tortured and killed. By the end of the nightmare, somewhere around 2 million people were killed, which is why the words "killing fields" are often used to describe the tragedy of Pol Pot's rule.

But thanks be to God, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ has grown exponentially since that awful time period! Shortly after my wife and I arrived in Farmington, New Mexico I was invited to Cambodia to join a team of three other men who will be teaching the "Simply the Story" method to missionaries and national pastors throughout the country. The format will be the exact same format used when my wife and I went to Thailand in November. To give you an idea of the power of this workshop, I'd like to share a report from a missionary in Thailand about what happened as a result of the last trip that we took. Shortly after the workshop, some Karen Bible School students decided to cross the border into Burma and put into practice what they had learned. Here is what happened:

I didn't get out of the (name of the camp omitted) until later in the evening, then a trip down to (name of the camp omitted) where I had a chance to speak with (name omitted) regarding his STS usage during the December evangelism campaign. (name omitted) is just recovering from Malaria, so you may want to keep him in your prayers.

Anyway, (name omitted) said that he and (name omitted) took 15, 3rd year students and went to 3rd & 5th brigade which covers 20 villages. I've been to 5th brigade and it is a heavy war zone. He shared of one very close call where Junta troops attacked the village just as they left from ministering STS.

These area's are heavily Animist and reluctant to the gospel. (name omitted) did say roughly 2 dozen adults received Christ as a result of STS. He said there were so many children acknowledging Jesus that they promised to return to the villages this March after Bible school graduation and try to disciple them.

They had several invitations to return to the villages as the leaders want to hear more of this "Jesus". Doesn't that just sound like the days of ACTS?

I count it an honor and a privilege to have played a small part in this. Please pray that God will do similar things as a result of the Cambodia workshop. I'll be out of the country from February 6th-24th.

I can't wait to give you a positive report when I get back!

While there is still time,

Aaron

P.S. If you would like to make an online contribution to our ministry, please go to my website.

Finally the media tells the whole story

Some friends sent this video to me. It's the most truthful presentation I've seen yet on the biggest obstacles to peace in the Middle East. It also confirms what I've written in my book "Alone with a Jihadist." I was floored that a major media outlet in the U.S. reported on the 100 Arab homes that are demolished in East Jerusalem every year. This has been going on for the past 40 years and very, very few Americans know about it. The report only mentions last year, but according to an Israeli human rights organizations ICAHD, which stands for Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions, it happens every year. Still, I didn't think a major U.S. media outlet was ever going to report that. Guess I was wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

A review of Crime and Punishment

I started a tradition a few years ago of reading one classic novel a year. Some of the novels I've read over the past few years include Charles Dicken's David Copperfield, Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin and John Knowle's A Separate Peace. This year I chose Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.

For years I've heard that not only was Dostoevsky a Christian, but he is also considered one of the greatest novelists of all time. To be labeled a classic novelist puts a person in a pretty elite class, but in this case the label isn't wasted. Crime and Punishment delivers.

The story is about a brilliant, but conflicted student striving to make his place in the world but is constrained by his impoverished background. The main character Raskolnikov develops a theory that the world is divided into two classes of men, inferior and superior. According to the theory, the superior class (which is an elite group of extremely rare individuals) isn't subject to the same laws as the inferior class because the superior class is able to contribute to society in ways that the inferior class can not by virtue of their intellect.

Early on in the novel, Raskolnikov decides to put his theory to the test by murdering a despised pawnbroker. Raskolnikov figures that the cynical, vile woman is a drain on society and, after all, her money and possessions can also be used to feed a lot of poor people. Since Raskolnikov is one of the superiors, his moral judgment is also superior, which makes him above the law. Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov fancies himself in the same category like a Napolean Bonaparte or a Russian general that makes a siege on a city for nationalistic interests. He figures that if generals can lay sieges on entire cities, killing whomever they please, for the purpose of advancing human civilization, then why can't he murder a useless old pawnbroker?

Herein lies the genius of the book. Crime and Punishment was published in 1866. Woven throughout the book are characters that represent the major ideological movements of his day--including capitalism and communism. By creating characters that intellectualize to the point of near insanity, Dostoevky virtually predicted the Cold War about 80 years ahead of its time. Even more importantly, he revealed the moral bankruptcy of people that spend too much time intellectualizing and not enough time mixing with real people with real problems.

Throughout the novel I kept asking myself if there was any hope for Raskolnikov? Will this young man finally see the error of his ways and repent? When is this guy going to get off his intellectual high horse and face up to the fact that he committed a horrible crime? Will Raskilnikov forever remained imprisoned in his own thoughts?

The answer may surprise you.

Read it and let me know what you think.

An open letter to the black church

On behalf of white evangelical Christians everywhere, I’d like to congratulate the black church for a well-deserved victory. The election of Barack Hussein Obama as the first African American president of the United States is a watershed moment not only for America, but also for oppressed people everywhere.

I’m 30 years old, so I wasn’t around during the decade of the civil rights movement, but here is what I’ve heard. At a time when your people were considered less than human by mainstream America, you chose to love your oppressors. You faced the dogs and the fire hoses. You refused to ride in the back seat of buses. You walked into segregated schools with your heads held high. You sang in mass to the tune of “We Shall Overcome”—and overcame you did.

My message to the black church is simple, but urgent. To my fellow black Christians I’d like to say thank you and please. Thank you for winning the struggle for civil rights but please, oh please, do not give up your non-violent heritage that made it possible. In a world where the very presence of nuclear weapons puts the human race in jeopardy, if there ever was a time for the message of non-violence to reclaim its rightful place in American history, that time is now—and you’re the ones that can make it happen!

The irony is now that you have a man commanding the most powerful military in the world, the temptation is all too great to forget that, unlike the American revolution where victory came at the barrel of the gun, your victory came not by the power of might, but by the power of right. Your victory is a victory that came not from violence, but from non-violence.

Last year I was struck by the irony of hearing a speech by John McCain praising Dr. King for his life and legacy when, as I recall, it was Dr. King who said, “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government.” Dr. King was the most vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy in his day and yet how often is he praised for his courage to face down his own government?

This year I’m struck by another irony. In a blog post entitled “The forgotten heart of King’s dream,” author Greg Boyd points out that every year he and his wife attend the annual Dr. Martin Luther King breakfast. This year the keynote speaker was four- star general Colin Powell. In Powell’s speech, he attributed the greatness of America to the greatness of our soldiers throughout history, and even equated soldiers today with Kings call to service. Colin Powell is perhaps one of the most honorable men to ever grace the U.S. military, and of course there are many honorable men and women serving in our armed forces today, but isn’t it ironic that a message praising U.S. military might would be given at a service commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King?

All of the evidence from his books, speeches, essays, and sermons suggests that Dr. Martin Luther King believed that violence never achieves lasting solutions. Dr. King taught that non-violent redemptive love is the most powerful force for good in the world—especially when directed towards one’s enemies. We all seem to know intuitively that Dr. King changed the world for the better, but few today seem to pay much attention to how he changed the world. Since September 11th, King’s values of loving the enemy and turning the other cheek are now viewed as hopelessly naïve by mainstream American culture—including by many in the black church.

As a lifelong member of the Pentecostal/charismatic tradition, I consider the historic shift of much of black Pentecostalism from pro-peace to pro-war to be nothing short of tragic. I have a hunch that the influence of Christian Zionism has a lot to do with this, but regardless of the reason, it’s high time for black Pentecostals—and the black church everywhere—to reclaim it’s non-violent heritage.

American Christianity as we know it today is in desperate need of a reformation. For the first three hundred years of Christian history, followers of Jesus were thrown to the lions because they renounced the sword and embraced the cross. The vast majority of American Christians today have forgotten this. Who better to remind us than you? The media may mock you. The world may laugh at you. But one thing you can know for sure. If you can once again bring non-violence to the forefront of the American psyche, there’s a white boy from Jefferson County Missouri cheering for you every step of the way.

Aaron D. Taylor is the author of “Alone with a Jihadist”, scheduled to be released in mid 2009. Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com

An atheist praises Christian missionaries in Africa

I remember when Rhiannon and I were living in Senegal we always got a laugh at the foreign exchange students that would come to Senegal to learn the culture. Nearly all of them followed the liberal academic consensus that Christian missionaries are guilty of cultural imperialism. One day we met a Nigerian Christian girl that was taking a class with these students and she openly challenged them by saying that she was an African Christian and that she was glad that the missionaries came and evangelized her people. The irony in all of this was that here these students were criticizing Christian missionaries for our supposed "patronistic" attitude towards other cultures and worldviews and yet they refused to listen to the cultural perspective of an African Christian. Here was an African Christian speaking highly of Christian missionaries and somehow, these students still didn't get it!

Here is an author that actually gets it. You can read the article here.

What makes this even more astounding is the author is an avowed atheist!

I guess this shows that intellectual honesty can truly come from bizarre places sometimes.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were this honest?

Question: Do I need to get re-baptized if I rededicate my life to Christ??

Question:

Hi Mr. Taylor, Greetings in the name of Jesus .

I would like to ask you a question on baptism, but first I will explain a brief history of conversion.
In 1996 I believe, I went to church and listened to a reverend preach during a crusade and if I remember correctly he asked the congregation a question about being saved, I stood cause I knew I wasn't at the time. After, we prayed the prayer of repentance and repeated Romans 10:9: 'that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved.
Days later I was baptized, spent time in the church for a number of years but , have backslided and now I have repented and I believe I have fully surrendered my heart to God and want to serve him. The Bible says one Lord , one faith , one baptism and in rev, it says repent and do thy first works.
I think that I may not need to be baptized again, but, if I did not mean it or had fully surrendered to God before immersion the first time, should I be baptized again? I always believe that Jesus was the son of God but was God in the flesh is this also correct?

I thank you
so much for your time and answering,
May God Bless All
John

Answer:

In principle, normally I wouldn't recommend getting baptizing again, but after reading the very last line of your question, I suggest that you get baptized again. Here is why. I don't believe that a person can truly be saved without acknowledging that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God is not enough because unless Jesus is fully God and fully man, then His blood doesn't qualify to be the atonement for the sins of the world. Please refer to one of my previous posts Why the deity of Christ matters. My suggestion is that you solidify in your heart that Jesus is God in the flesh. And once you've done this, you can be baptized into the fuller revelation of who Jesus is.

May God bless you as you commit your life to Christ fresh anew!

Who would Jesus bomb? A serious Christian response to the crisis in Gaza

A wise man once said, “The first one to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him.” That wise man was Solomon and the saying comes from the book of Proverbs, a book respected as the Word of God by both Christians and Jews alike. As an evangelical Christian born and raised in the charismatic movement, I grew up hearing only one side of the Israeli/Palestinian story, primarily the Israeli side. I always assumed that God gave the land to Jews and if the Palestinians don’t like it, well, they can sit on a tack, because everyone knows that Palestinians are the devil.

Sunday school songs aside, what’s happening in the Gaza strip is serious. That’s why we need a grown-up Christian response. Sadly, that’s exactly what’s lacking in this crucial hour.

So here goes.

I believe that Israel has the right to exist in safe and secure borders. I also believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. I understand the sentiment of President-elect Obama when he says that if rockets were being fired at his home while his two daughters were asleep, he would do everything he could to prevent it. I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization that espouses an ideology diabolically opposed to freedom and progress. I despise the fact that they persecute my brothers and sisters in Christ living under their thumb and, of course, firing rockets indiscriminately at civilians is never justified. Period.

So is Israel justified in their heavy- handed approach towards the citizens of Gaza? Judging by the fire breathing on both sides of the debate, I don’t see a consensus on this one coming any time soon. As for my fellow Christians, we can debate the subject until Jesus comes back and the debate will have largely missed the point. Sure Israel may—or may not—be justified in their aerial bombing campaign and subsequent invasion of the Gaza strip, but that question alone shouldn’t determine the proper Christian response. Why? Because Christians are called to live by a higher standard than what’s merely justifiable.

Jesus would have been completely justified in slaying the bloodthirsty Romans of His day. The crimes that the Romans committed against the Jews were every bit as bad, if not worse, than the crimes Palestinians commit against the Jews today. But when Jesus hung on the cross, He showed the world that there’s a higher law in God’s moral universe than brute justice. And that law is mercy. When it comes between following the suffering redemptive love of the cross and the enemy crushing way of the sword, Christians are supposed to choose the cross—at least that’s what Christians used to believe.

No I don’t think that followers of Jesus would be prudent to impose New Testament standards on non-Christians, but what I find particularly odd is that when Palestinian Muslims embrace Christianity (like the case of Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader who recently made his testimony public) we expect them to embrace a new attitude towards their former enemy Israel. We expect them to love, bless, do good to, and pray for their enemies—like Jesus says to do. But when an Israeli Jew embraces Jesus as Messiah, most of my Christian friends don’t expect them to be less militant towards their Palestinian neighbors but more militant. We expect them to fight for their land and liberty even if that means that on the other side homes are demolished, land is confiscated, Palestinians participating in non-violent demonstrations are either tortured, imprisoned, or assassinated (this happens all the time in the West Bank by the way) and, as in the case of Gaza, women and children are denied food and medicine for years on end.

My Christian friends would say that problems in the Middle East would be solved overnight if every Jew and Palestinian would simply confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Without meaning any disrespect to people of other faiths, as a Bible believing Christian, I’m compelled to agree. But here is where the argument falls apart when the wrong people use it. Some of the same people who use this argument are also the ones bombarding the White House with e-mails urging our Secretary of State to let Israel fight. They never seem to ask themselves the question of who would Jesus bomb? What a shame that is! Because how can we as Christians say that the world would be a better place if everyone became one of us when we’re the ones cheering when the bombs go flying?

Can Viagra bring down Bin Laden?

I came across a serious, yet hilarious column the other day written by conservative commentator Cal Thomas. In the column, Thomas shares a story about how CIA operatives in Afghanistan have actually used Viagra to win the hearts and minds of Afghan tribal warlords--and they are giving away useful information regarding the whereabouts of Taliban militants as a result!

You can read the article here.

Oh how I wish this column had been written while I was writing my book "Alone with a Jihadist"! What a great example of nonviolence in action. If only the vast majority of Christians in America could free their minds to think more Biblically, we might just conclude that violence isn't the only way to solve problems.

All hail the King of Peace!

Why the deity of Christ matters

There are many things that I love about Christmas. I love the cookies, the Christmas trees, and waking up early to open presents. I love the extra time with the extended family, seeing people that I don’t normally see throughout the year. I love all those things, but what I love the most about Christmas is it’s the one time of the year where even non-religious people find within them the desire to sing about the God who came to earth in the form of a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger. Often during this time of the year I wonder how so many millions of people can sing songs like “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” and “Joy to the World” without considering the meaning of the words they are singing. Today on this Christmas day I’m going to ask you to do just that.

About six weeks ago, I was flying over the Pacific Ocean when a very nice guy about the same age as me decided to engage me in conversation. In the beginning it felt like I was talking to a fellow missionary and we were encouraging each other in our respective faiths, but not too long into the conversation I realized I was talking with a Jehovah’s Witness.

Let me say first that I have a lot of respect for Jehovah’s Witnesses. When I was in Senegal my wife and I, along with our faithful disciple Jean Pierre, used to go every week to the university to distribute Christian literature. One of the questions people often asked us is “Are you Jehovah’s Witnesses?” That my wife and I would be mistaken for Jehovah’s Witnesses speaks powerfully to the dedication that many people in this movement have for their cause. I also admire the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses stand for their convictions. Even though it’s culturally taboo to knock on doors, they still do it. Even though American culture praises people that vote, celebrate the holidays, and serve in the military, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse. Regardless of whether one agrees with these positions or not, that takes grit. They genuinely don’t care what others think about them—and I deeply admire that.

Even on the linchpin subject of “Who is Jesus?” Jehovah’s Witnesses are light years ahead of the vast majority of people in our culture that take their theological cues from books like “ The Da Vinci Code” and “Embraced by the Light.” Jehovah’s Witnesses will tell you that all things were created by Jesus, through Jesus, and for Jesus. They’ll tell you that Jesus holds everything together. They’ll even tell you that Jesus is the exact representation of who God is. All of these statements are Biblical truths. But even though they have a very high view of Jesus, in Kingdom Hall thinking, Jesus is still a created being, not God Almighty. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but they stop short of saying that He is God.

So why split hairs over a technicality?


Shortly after I got home from my trip, I called my good friend Dianne Kannady with Riches in Christ Ministries (http://www.richesinchrist.com). Dianne is one of the best Bible teachers that I know, so I decided to pick her brain for a few minutes about a question that had been nagging at my mind since the start of my dialogue with Nick (We’ve been corresponding with each other ever since). If you read the Book of Acts, one thing that you will notice is that more often than not, when Peter or Paul preached the gospel, they emphasized the humanity of Jesus when discussing His resurrection and His ability to forgive sins and grant eternal life (See Acts 2:22, 13:38). The question that had been gnawing at my mind is this: Since the Book of Acts records sermons that Peter and Paul preached where the deity of Christ isn’t explicitly mentioned, and we know that some of the people that heard their messages believed and were saved, how important is it then for someone to believe in the deity of Christ to be saved?

Dianne wasted no time in getting to the point. Here is a summary of what Dianne said to me. On this Christmas day, I think we all need to be reminded of these truths.

1. The Bible teaches that one of the primary points of deception, especially in the last days will be on the subject of the identity of Jesus. Many people will preach a different Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4, I John 4:1-3)

2. There are two traps that people tend to fall into when it comes to the identity of Jesus. One error is to undermine His deity. The other error is to undermine His humanity.

3. The sermons recorded in the Book of Acts are merely a synopsis of what was said, not necessarily the sermons in their entirety.

4. Peter and Paul didn’t necessarily have to emphasize His deity in their sermons. That Jesus claimed to be God was already a given. That was why He was put to death. In Jewish law, there were only a few crimes punishable by death, and one was blasphemy.

5. When Jesus claimed to be the “Son of God” the Jewish people of His day understood Him to be saying, “I am God.” In the language of their times, they didn’t distinguish between “God” and “Son of God.” (John 5:18, 10:33-36)

6. If Jesus isn’t God, then His blood doesn’t qualify to be the sacrifice for the sins of the world.


As true as the first five points are, it was Dianne’s last point that grabbed me in the gut. How easy it is to forget that essential truths of the gospel are all connected! You can have a beautiful glass of water, but if there is just one drop of arsenic, then the whole glass is poisoned. So it is with essential doctrine. If the deity of Christ is in any way undermined, then the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is undermined as well—and down goes the house of cards. If Jesus isn’t God, then He doesn’t qualify to be our Savior either. God says in His Word, “I, even I, am the Lord, And besides me there is no Savior” (Isaiah 43:11). This explains why the Apostle Paul used the terms “Jesus”, “God”, and “Savior” interchangeably (especially in the Book of Titus). You can’t have one without the other.

The central truth of the entire Bible is this: Only God can save. As tempting as it might be to attribute our salvation to anything other than God Almighty bearing the sins of the world in His own body on a tree, we must resist! As my friend Dr. Eddie Hyatt pointed out in a recent editorial, Jesus didn’t say that He would build His Church on the foundation of His moral teachings (as important as His moral teachings are). He told Peter that He would build His Church on the revelation of Who He is (Matthew 16:18). Jesus said, “Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

Although words like “doctrine” and “orthodoxy” are out of vogue with our postmodern culture, I would like to encourage you to take some time today and reflect on the claims that Jesus made about His identity. The doctrine of the deity of Christ matters whether we like it or not. It matters for the world and, according to Jesus, eternal destinies are determined by whether people believe His claims or not.

Lastly, to my fellow believers out there, I would like to encourage you to “Earnestly contend for the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) Don’t let culture shake you from your faith in who Jesus is and what He came to do for you—no matter who is doing the talking! And to everyone reading this, believer and non-believer alike, I’d like to wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

With lots of love,


Aaron

What's wrong with this quote?

I just got back from Dakar Senegal this morning. Had an awesome time for the past three weeks breaking new ground for the Kingdom of God in West Africa.

And then I come home to this in my e-mail box.

First read this article here.

Now let's zero in on the quote

"When people respond positively (to missionaries), it is when they don't have their full freedom," said Yssef. "Once they recover their normal health and situation, they recover their ability to decide."

Remember that this is coming from a Muslim leader in a country that throws people in prison (and sometimes worse) for converting to another faith.

Anybody else but me see a problem with this logic?

Can somebody say Duh?

Oh the joys of traveling!

I'm writing this post in a hotel located in the very southwestern corner of Senegal, a country located at the westernmost tip of Africa. My wife and I lived here for about a year and a half in 2003 and 2004. During that time we led a young man to the Lord named Jean Pierre Coly. Since my wife and I left in 2004, Jean Pierre has went on to do great things for God in this country. Much of his ministry is focused on equipping pastors and evangelists in the southern part of the country with tools for evangelism, which is right in line with a direction our ministry has taken since we've moved back to the States. Today my wife and I co-taught about 60 people today ranging from pastors, elders, missionaries, to new converts. Our teaching on how to share God's Word to illiterates using simple Bible stories was very very well received. In that we rejoice!

But the journey getting here hasn't been as pleasant.

For starters, my father in law came with a team of six other people to meet in Dakar (the capital of Senegal) so they could travel to a country in the north together ( name omitted for security reasons). While Eliot and the team of Americans traveled to the North, Rhiannon and I stayed back in Dakar. During this time Rhiannon got very sick and I had to take her to a nearby clinic to calm her stomach. The team was in the North African country for four days and they were supposed to arrive back at the Dakar airport at 9:00 P.M. Well, the plane didn't arrive till 2:00 a.m. and for some bizarre reason, the workers at the airport didn't put their bags on the conveyor belt till 3:30 A.M. None of the team spoke French and neither was I allowed to go inside to help them. (I'd like to give my sincere thanks to my good friend Ralph Bowen who waited with me that night.)

Two days later Rhiannon, Eliot, and I flew to the town of Zinghinshour but when we arrived we discovered that our bags were left back in Dakar. We were told that we wouldn't be able to pick them up till the next morning at 10:00 A.M. Although it was inconvenient spending a day without basic necessities, we were glad that our bags actually did arrive the next day.

But wait, the drama doesn't stop there. We put our bags in a taxi and when the taxi got back to the hotel, the taximan wasn't able to open the trunk. The man had to go to a locksmith to open the trunk of his car so he could retrieve our bags. To top things off, I got locked in the bathroom in our hotel room last night. It was bizarre. I don't think that's ever happened to me before.

Why am I telling you all of this? Because today at the conference I issued a challenge for the pastors and evangelists that were present to use the training that they received at our seminar to share the gospel in at least one new village over the next year. Eight people raised their hands and made the commitment, and judging by what I know about the character of the people that raised their hands, I believe they are actually going to do it. What if as the result of our coming here this month, eight new fellowships are planted next year? Would it all be worth it? I think so.

Think about it. What's a few hours of inconvenience compared to the possibility of just one soul spending an eternity in heaven? The Apostle Paul said "For our light affliction is working in us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." Paul was beaten, stoned, and shipwrecked for the sake of the gospel. What's a few hours of lost sleep compared to that? Or a few minutes locked in a bathroom?

I don't know about you, but sometimes I think that if Paul's affliction was light, I'd hate to see a heavy affliction! Now that I think about it, what does that tell us about the affliction that Jesus suffered for us on the cross? The affliction that Jesus suffered for us on the cross makes Paul's affliction look like cotton candy. Yet Jesus willingly suffered for us so that we could have eternal life.

May we all learn to imitate Jesus in the way of self sacrifice, even if the sacrifice is little; it's the heart that counts.

Until next time,

Aaron

P.S. Quick update. I'm back home now. Rhiannon got sick a second time in Guinea Bissau. And then just before we flew back to the U.S. from Dakar we were in a vehicle that ran over a curb and the impact was so hard that my father in law accidentally belted Rhiannon on her side and knocked one of her ribs out of place. We were really under attack this trip!