Evangelical Leaders Support Reducing Nukes

Evangelicals Send Atomic Fireballs to Congress


For Immediate Release

April 12, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Great News for a Safe and Peaceful World

Hey there,

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

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

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

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

Sign here!

So, Am I a Reductionist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here was my response:

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

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

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

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

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

So, am I a reductionist?

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

Discuss!

About Friends by Nedra O Brien (guest contributor)

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code Pink attempts citizens arrest of Karl Rove

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


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

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

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

1. Are the people in this story terrorists?

2. If so, should they be tortured?

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

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

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

May God free us from the myths of redemptive violence!

Speak Evil of No Man...Really??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meet Tim Wise, the Angry White Man

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

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

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

Here is the latest article on his blog.

Fair warning, Tim lets nobody off the hook.

Including myself.

Prepare to be challenged.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Pakistani Embassies:

USA: (202) 243-6500

Canada: (613) 238-7881

UK: 0870-005-6967

David Kuo's article "God Help Us"

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

Will the real gospel please stand up?

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

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

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

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

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

The Bethlehem Evangelical Affirmation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drafting Committee

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

Prince of Peace God of War

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

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



Enjoy!

Texas board of education excludes hispanics from history books

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

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

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

It gets worse.

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

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

Weep with me.

You can read the rest of the story here:

Ruth was an illegal immigrant, so does that make Boaz a villain?

Every once in a while I get an “aha” moment and I can’t turn my mind off, thus preventing me from a good night’s sleep. Last night’s “aha” moment came as I was reflecting on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. The tendency of faith leaders advocating for a compassionate approach to illegal immigrants is to appeal to the numerous “be kind to strangers” texts in the Hebrew Scriptures. The problem with this approach is that it elicits a universal response from the other side, “Yes, but those were legal immigrants. I’m talking about illegal immigrants. Since illegal immigrants are lawbreakers, they shouldn’t have any rights. And if you think they should, you’re just another godless liberal seeking to undermine the moral fabric of America….ect…ect..” It occurred to me that one of the most famous and beloved women in the entire Bible was an illegal immigrant. Her name was Ruth.

I’m not making this up. Deuteronomy 23:3 is clear as mud, “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever.” If you’re still not convinced that descendants of Moab were ordered to be excluded from the congregation of Israel, take a look at verse 6, which says, “You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all their days forever.” With this in mind, isn’t it strange that the hero in the story of Ruth is Boaz, a man that showed kindness to a Moabite woman? We look at the story today and know intuitively that Boaz was a hero, but we often forget that Boaz could have very well been considered a villain to the religious leaders of his day. After all, they might have said, the law forbids people like Ruth from being included in Israeli society—and they would have been right.

Kind of strange isn’t it? God writes a law and then commends people for breaking it? I can think of two other examples where this strange paradox occurs. One example is Joseph, the husband of Mary. Once Joseph discovered that his wife was pregnant with an illegitimate child, the Law of Moses said that Mary should have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). Isn’t it a little odd then that the Holy Spirit, speaking through Matthew, calls Joseph a “just man” because He wanted to put her away secretly? (Matthew 1:19) Or how about when Jesus commended David for doing what was unlawful–His word, not mine—on the Sabbath because of a pressing human need? (Mark 2:25-26)

Yes, we’re supposed to respect the law, and I’m not saying that illegal immigrants are right to break into the United States illegally (I happen to believe that nations do have a right to protect their borders); but there comes a time when we have to ask the question of how much should “respect for the law” determine a Christian’s response to those that suffer from economic forces beyond their control? Let’s not forget that it was because of famine and death (read: economic hardship) that compelled Ruth to migrate with her mother in law Naomi. The same story could be told millions of times over today. If God commended people for breaking His laws because of compassion for their fellow human beings, what might He think of people today that challenge man-made laws for reasons of human compassion? Think about it.

Earth to Aaron, holding your baby is more important than saving the world

I'm a dreamer. I can't help it. I was born that way. On my list of things to do before I die, I'd like to preach the gospel to millions of people, save the rain forest, end the Israel/Palestinian conflict, win an Oscar, and--I almost forgot--I'd like to bring peace on earth and goodwill toward men. I'm being a little facetious, but you get the point. Like many people, I want my life to count. The problem is that often times ambitious people like myself can lose our perspectives on life and become--shall I say--a little vain? So how do I pull myself back down to earth?

Enter into Aaron's world: an infant. Last week my eight week old son had a cold. We had to take him to the doctor twice. My wife and I were concerned about his breathing. The doctors gave us a nebulizer. As I sat down with my son blowing medicine up his nose, I had an epiphany. I realized that, at that very moment, I could care less about global warming and peace on earth. All I really cared about was seeing my son recover from his illness. For the past eight weeks, I've probably sat down hundreds of times to hold my son. I feel sometimes that having a child is God's way of forcing people to sit down and shut up. It's therapeutic.

Now that I think about it, Jesus taught that God is a perfect Heavenly Father. God's knowledge of His children is perfect, even to the number of hairs on their head. God has a much bigger to-do list than any human being could ever fathom, yet He takes the time to care for His children, and He's even jealous for their affection! Some find offense at the Bible's depiction of God as a jealous God. I think it's comforting. Who am I that I could demand such attention from the one responsible for governing the universe? I bet if I thought about this some more, my picture of God would get bigger, not smaller.

What I learned from the--gasp!--Word of Faith movement

Perhaps you’ve heard of them. Televangelists with bouffant hairstyles and Rolex watches saying send me a dollar and God will give you a hundred, women with gaudy make-up, and the ever-famous “Be healed in the name of Jeeeee-sus” while pushing people to the ground. These are the excesses that come to mind when the average Christian thinks of the “Word of Faith” movement. I’ve been writing progressive evangelical articles for about a year now on the Sojourners website, but I think it’s time for me to come out of the closet. Not only was I raised in a Word of Faith church; one of the most profound intellectual influences on my life is a female Word of Faith teacher.

I met Dianne Kannady when I was a student in public high school. Dianne was a history teacher and I was the high school evangelist. I started a prayer club and Dianne was kind enough to be the host. It didn’t take me long to figure out that Dianne knew a lot more about Scripture than I did, so I went to her with all of my questions. After I graduated from high school, I started attending her Friday night Bible studies at a church near downtown St. Louis. I also started listening to her daily radio program and for several years met with her on numerous occasions to discuss theology—often for hours on end.

I realize that some people may write Dianne off because of the dreaded words “Word of Faith” but before you do, let me tell you what I learned from Dianne. The first thing I learned from Dianne is that the Bible is progressive revelation and that it should be interpreted through the lens of Jesus (ring a bell Anabaptists?). I also learned that through Christ’s death and resurrection, I’ve been given “everything that pertains to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), “been made a partaker of the divine nature” (Vs 4), I’ve been “seated with Christ Jesus in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 2:6) and that Christ is my “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption” (I Corinthians 1:30). I learned that there are unseen realities all around us and that God’s Word spoken on the lips of faith has limitless power to change what we see and feel. Perhaps most importantly, I learned that love isn’t merely an attribute of God. It’s who God is.

I would have a hard time identifying with the Word of Faith movement today. For one thing, the Word of Faith movement, and modern day Pentecostalism in general, has some pretty huge blind spots. To the average Word of Faith practitioner, the definition of living like Jesus is limited to healing the sick, casting out demons, and saving souls. It has very little to do with practicing non-violence and challenging institutional structures that perpetuate inequality.

Having said that, I often wonder if the emergent /progressive evangelical movement will have the same staying power as the faith that Dianne teaches. If there’s one thing that remains consistent about all of the Word of Faith practitioners that I know, it’s a deep appreciation for the work of Christ on the cross, and an unshakable conviction that the benefits of the cross—be it eternal life, healing, victory over sin—are appropriated by personal faith. While Dianne is hardly a fundamentalist, you won’t find Dianne wishy-washy on issues like the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Deity of Christ, the atonement, or salvation by grace through faith.

Liberation theologians may have a preferential option for the poor, but I hate to be the bearer of bad news for liberation theologians, if we look at the kind of Christianity exploding in the global south, it appears that the poor have a preferential option for Pentecostalism. Emergent groups may congratulate themselves on their intellectual ability to “deconstruct” the Bible in the light of postmodernism, but we’ll see how long that lasts. Because unless a theological movement can bring God from the head to the gut, it runs the risk of having a form of godliness, but denying it’s power. It may save social security, but will it save Sally?

Attack ideas, Not people

I just wrote an article for a new site owned by an online acquaintance of mine. I'd post it here, but the site says they only receive exclusive articles.

I do want you to read it though, since there's a story behind it.

You can find the article here:

It's called "Attack ideas, Not people"

Enjoy!

Great things are happening!

Dear friends,

I hope you're having a good day today. I thought I'd share a few things that I wasn't able to squeeze into my previous letter. A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from an American missionary in Cambodia detailing the life story of a young Cambodian man that has started a church in a remote village. The individual was someone that I taught, and singled out, in last year's Simply the Story workshop in Cambodia. This young man began ministering to children through stories, and in particular, the God's Story recording that our team brought with us. Before he knew it, the children started coming to church--and bringing their parents! It's a real pleasure being a part of training someone that takes the training and uses it to win souls to Christ! I know that there were many other influences that contributed to this young man's success, but I'm grateful to be one of those influences. As the Apostle Paul says, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase" (I Corinthians 3:6).

Secondly, I just received a report from Jean Pierre, our disciple in Senegal. As you may remember, a few months ago I, along with a colleague, taught two workshops in Senegal, one in Ziguinshor and one in Dakar. I've just been told that one of the pastors that we trained has used our training and, again, along with the God's Story recording, has won several people among the Serer tribe to Christ. I've been told that there's a high demand now for the God's Story film. Jean Pierre asked that we send 15 films to him immediately so that he can distribute them to the pastors.

Lastly, you may recall that back in August of last year I sent an e-mail detailing the Muslim attack on the Christian village of Gojra in Pakistan. At least 9 people were killed, over a hundred homes were destroyed, along with several church buildings. I knew that Christians in the U.S. could have an influence on the situation, so I located the general contact e-mail address for the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan. I asked our supporters to write to the U.S. embassy informing them that according to our local sources, the rioting was still going on and that the Pakistani government was not doing enough to protect the Christians in Gojra. Some of you responded. Yesterday, I spoke with one of our Pakistani contacts and he informed me that the Pakistani government has since stepped in and started rebuilding the village of Gojra--including the churches! He told me that when he saw my e-mail he put it out on his Face Book page and eventually a lot of people wrote in to the U.S. embassy. He believes that the e-mails were a big factor in persuading the Pakistani government to help the people of Gojra. Again, I don't presume to say that our e-mails were the only factor in this situation (The New York Times did an outstanding job in covering the situation) but I do believe that they made a difference.

I hope that this encourages you to make a difference wherever you live.

While there is still time,


Aaron

P.S. To learn more about me and the ministry of Great Commission Society, or to make an online donation, please go to http://www.aarondtaylor.com

Can Christians use birth control?

Question: Hey, I did have a question for your blog if it hasn't been addressed before. The questions is about birth control. I was just wondering if you could make a biblical case for or against (or neither?) Christians using standard birth control pills. Do you have any personal convictions about this?

Answer: Thank you for the question. Some Christians will say that God forbids birth control based on His command to Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). I think this is a weak argument though. The question that needs to be asked here is does God intend for all human beings to carry out the mandate to "Be fruitful and multiply" or was this a specific mandate to Adam and Eve? It seems to me that it would make sense for God to give this mandate to the parents of humanity since humanity as we know it was just getting started. Given that the earth is already well populated (some would say overpopulated)it makes very little sense for this commandment to be applied across the board today.

Furthermore, if God did in fact intend for all married couples to procreate without end, then what was the Apostle Paul thinking when He wrote, "But this I say brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they have none" (I Corinthians 7:29)?

Even if you argue that God's mandate to Adam and Eve extended to the rest of humanity, it still doesn't follow that birth control is outlawed. God was laying out a general principle here. He never specified how many children a couple should have, and neither does He give a negative command against people limited the number of children they would like to have. Christians make big mistakes when they turn principles into laws. Think about what Jesus said about David eating the show bread in the tabernacle, which wasn't lawful to eat except for the priests (Mark 2:25-27). Jesus clearly taught that human need takes precedence over the letter of the law. In light of this, I can't imagine Jesus approving of husbands that put their wives health, and in some cases their lives at risk, because of some legalistic adherence to an ambiguous command.

Having said that, I also think some people go too far the other way, looking down on couples that have too many children, according to what they think is too many. An old high school friend of mine wrote on her face book that some of her co-workers are criticizing her for considering to have another child (I believe she has three children). I think that should be a decision between her and her husband, not her and her co-workers. As a general rule, I think that couples should plan the amount of children based on what they can reasonably provide and care for. That number is different for everybody. When it comes to gray areas in the Bible, I think that Christians would be wise to remember the words of the Apostle Paul, "Who are you to judge another man's servant?" (Romans 14:4)

I hope this helps!

Success, Seminars, and Salvation

Ever since the crash of 2008, I've found myself doing a lot of soul searching. At first, like most people, I had no idea what the crash was about. Who caused it? What political party is to blame? And, for Pete's sake, what in the world is a credit default swap? I still have more questions than answers, but now that I've had some time to think, and after reading Jim Wallis's book Rediscovering Values, I'm reminded of a success seminar I attended a few years back in St. Louis, Missouri.

The stadium event was packed with wannabe millionaires. The line of speakers was nothing short of astounding. Colin Powell, Suze Orman, Steve Forbes, Zig Ziglar, George Foreman, a real estate mogul, a wealthy stock trader, and Peter Lowe--the godfather of success. As impressive as the line of speakers was, it's the wealthy stock trader that I can't get out of my mind. To show how easy it is to get rich off the stock market, the man invited a woman from the audience to read a chart designed to aid the would be investor to know when to buy and sell. Whenever there were three green arrows pointing upward, the woman would shout "buy!" When the same stock had three red arrows pointing downward, the woman would shout "sell!" According to the chart, the woman would have made a hefty profit in a short period of time if she had invested real money.

After the wealthy stock trader pitched his course on how to get rich off the stock market, Peter Lowe gave a power point gospel presentation designed to convince the audience of their need for a Savior. The presentation showed clearly that all of us are sinners and that no amount of good works or personal efforts can reconcile sinful people before a holy and righteous God. It also showed that Jesus is the bridge between God and people. Since the event wasn't billed as a Christian event, there was no altar call that day. But the content of Lowe's message could have easily been given by Billy Graham. So why am I looking back at the event as something less than Christ-honoring? Ordinarily I'd be thrilled that so many people had a chance to hear the gospel in one sitting. Has my evangelistic zeal diminished over the past few years? I certainly hope not.

Here's what's bothering me. What does it say about the state of American Christianity, and the classic evangelical gospel that's been the standard for decades now, when the message of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins can be inserted into the middle of a how-to-get-rich seminar? K.P. Yohannan in his book "Revolution in World Missions" puts it this way: "Christian magazines, TV shows, and church services often put the spotlight on famous athletes, beauty queens, businessmen, and politicians who 'make it in this world and have Jesus too!'"

To be fair to Mr. Lowe, the day wasn't only about getting rich. There were many great speakers talking about worthy topics. Perhaps I'm a little bitter because I did attend the stock trader's seminar--and paid handsomely for it. Not surprisingly, I didn't become a wealthy stock trader. I couldn't find the motivation. Looking back on it, I'm glad I didn't. At the time it didn't cross my mind that some of these companies that were mere numbers on a chart could have been either a:) propping up dictators overseas b:) harming the environment c:) paying substandard wages to their employees or d:) exploiting third world farmers.

If there's anything that the economic crisis has taught us, it's that economies--and I would add individuals--that base their life blood on speculative financing, absent of actual labor, may gain the world in the short run, but a day of reckoning will eventually come. I wonder what Amos, Isaiah, and Micah would say about a gospel that promises eternal life in the world to come and a life of wealth and "success" in the here and now? More importantly, I wonder what Jesus would say about it?

Healing and God's will, an honest dialogue

Below is an e-mail exchange between myself and Anita Miller

Aaron: I'm going over your notes in preparation for the workshop. I've come across the "Doubt of Moses" story. You make a point "What kinds of discussions can you have over God making some born with handicaps?" The reference is Exodus 4:11 where God tells Moses:

"Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute? The deaf? The seeing or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?"

You probably know this, but Word of Faith teachers insist that it's never God's will for people to be handicapped, let alone born handicapped. They would say that all handicaps are either caused by the devil or are simply the result of life in a sin-cursed earth. They wouldn't necessarily put the blame on the person or the parents. They would simply say that God wants them healed. They say that a lot of verses in the Old Testament where it appears that God is actively causing something, that what He's actually doing is permitting it. They say that these are Hebraisms that don't directly translate into English.

Yet, this story seems to fly in the face of that.

I've felt for a while that the above teaching is wrong, but mostly because it just doesn't set right with my heart. It seems to me that if you're always insisting that people born with handicaps are supposed to be healed, you're devaluing them by saying that there's something wrong with them. But what if our perspective is wrong? What if God sees it totally different? What if what we see as defects are something totally different in God's eyes? Is it possible that God might create some with handicaps because He sees a higher purpose? (Maybe to teach us humility? Maybe to teach us to be less selfish?) Faith teachers would say absolutely not!

What say you?

Sincerely,

Aaron

Anita: When what we plainly see in the Word clashes with what we are taught, we must make a choice.

I have had to make many alterations in my beliefs as I was teaching through the Bible. Some of what good people taught me I have not justifiable in the Word.

I agree with your observations based on what God said of Himself to Moses. What is "Too young to die?" What is "normal?"

What about us is eternal and what is temporal? What is the "one thing that is necessary?"

Does God heal? Yes! Does God sometimes not heal those who believe for a healing? Yes?

Can we find anywhere is Scripture that Satan has the power to cause people to be born with "defects?"

All the maybes you listed on why people might be born with handicaps could be true, but be sure to note too that trust can only be exercised in times and instances when we do not know the whys. We who teach trust often bend the Word to try to come up with reason why. We have this driving passion to try to know why everything happens. Sometimes God clearly tells us reasons for what happen to us. But there are instances when we do not know the whys. Where is trust?

This passage in 2 Cor 4:15-18 speaks of our physical afflictions as temporary and for our sakes. They also weight the values of the temporal and the eternal.

15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.

16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Does this passage only apply to the children born perfect?" What is perfect by the way? Ps 139:13-18

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
Aaron, we are very shallow sometimes in how we interpret the Word. I agree with your observations and will pray that God will verify HIS meaning to you and that all that is taught by you through the stories will be led by the Holy Spirit.

Aaron: Just a little FYI. The verse in Corinthians that you mentioned. The Word of Faith interpretation is that Paul was talking about persecution there. They say that while it isn't God's will for people to suffer sickness and/or physical deformities, some times it is God's will for people to suffer persecution, and we can't expect God to keep us from suffering for the faith. So they make a distinction between suffering caused by disease and/or birth defects and suffering caused by persecution. I'm not saying I agree with that. I'm just letting you know.

Anita: That is an familiar manipulation of information. When we see a passage that does not agree with what we have decided to believe, we can either rethink our position or spiritualize the passage or dismiss it by saying, "This does not mean what it seems to say.

For example. 2 Cor 4:16 says "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."
For a person to say, "That passage is not about disease," but it is about suffering is interesting.

Beliefs Have Consequences was a radio program I used to host. So if we take to position that this outward man perishing is about the suffering from persecution then from 2 Co 4:16 we must also embrace the idea that all believers are persecuted every day. Is that conclusion true?

Also, if we take on the belief that it is God's will that all diseases should be healed, then only those whose death certificates list as cause of death an accident, murder or that the person died of old age, would be people who died in faith. Actually, for all who die, no matter how old, Doctors must list a physical cause of death. So again, following this idea that God wants all who have physical problems (diseases and handicaps that lead to death) to be healed, means that all people who die would not have died if they had used faith to be healed.

Review of Alone with a Jihadist by Mark Drake

Aaron Taylor has tackled a very important, and difficult, issue in his deeply moving and thought-provoking book, Alone with a Jihadist. Though his book is well researched and contains a wealth of biblical foundation, he writes, not as an observer, but as one who has lived in the midst of the conflict. Don't be misled by the title. This book truly addresses the very struggles we American Christians face in the current political environment. I see myself as a well informed church leader but Aaron's book forced me to re-examine several biblical principals. I am indebted to him for making me think about some important issues I would rather avoid. You may not immediately agree with every conclusion, but anyone seeking a biblical world view needs to read what he has to say.

Mark Drake
pastor, missionary and author of God's Brilliant Plan

Interview with Greg Livingstone, founder of Frontiers

Greg Livingstone is a difficult man to put in a box. He’s a critic of Christian Zionism, American nationalism, and he supports President Obama’s efforts to reach out to the Muslim world. He also happens to be the founder of Frontiers, the world’s largest missionary organization dedicated to church planting among Muslim peoples. Says Livingstone, “When you live outside America you come to realize how important it is to be a Christian first and American second.” He currently resides in London, where the Frontiers international office is located. I had a lengthy conversation with him the other day via Skype. Here’s the gist of what we talked about.

Question: So what have you been up to these days?

Answer: I’m the chairman of a strategic partnership for a country in North Africa, which includes 27 agencies; I’ve been recruiting team leaders for the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church), planting a church among Pakistani Muslims in UK, and writing, mostly on the history of church planting among Muslims.

Question: In recent years, there's been an increase in Muslims coming to Christ but remaining within the cultural fold of Islam. Some are calling this "the Insider Movement." What is your take on the Insider Movement and how should Christian missionaries respond to this movement?

Answer: Frontiers is getting hit on the left and the right with this. This is very current. My bottom line is we’ve got to be Bereans. It’s not a question of pragmatism, it’s a question of staying within Biblical parameters. What I like about the Insider movement is the movement’s proponents are people that love God convinced it’s not enough to see so few Muslims come to Christ. We’ve got to try something else.

Paul says, “I’ve become all things to all men that I might win some.” So their motivation is good but as Tozer used to say: it’s not the lukewarm Christian that’s in danger of heresy, it’s the passionate Christian. I think the Emergent movement is influencing the Insider movement. Of course, you don’t win a Muslim to Christ by saying that Muhammad was a pedophile, but you’re not going to find your Joseph of Armethia, or Nicodemus if you don’t sit in the same room and find some commonality.

Still, the ‘jury is out’ on the Insider movement. There’s very little indication so far of congregations being established with godly biblically based elders by advocates of the Insider Movement. At some point, Muslims obeying the Lord Jesus are going to join the Rev. 6:9 club. A veteran missionary among Muslims has it right when he says, “Sure leave them in the Mosque; Encourage Muslim background believers to stay with and serve their families. But the vast majority will be banished if they actually share Christ as their LORD and SAVIOUR.

Question: There are some that postulate on the possibility of a mass movement to Biblical faith in Christ as a reformation movement within Islam. Do you see this as a possibility? If so, what form might this take?

Answer: Look at Pakistan today. It’s about 3% Christian, the result of a people movement. But only a tiny fraction are regenerated. They’re not impressing Muslims with their godliness. They’re not witnessing. When you get a mass movement, you’re very much in danger of having 80% chaff and 20% wheat. McGavern taught that’s okay because it’s easier to convert a nominal Christian.

I believe that Revelation 5:9 and Revelation 7:9 is not going to happen without Revelation 6:9 referring to the cost: all the people who will be murdered for their testimony. I think that a lot more people are going to have to suffer and die before we see a breakthrough. Consider what happened in the first and second century. A Muslim who called himself a follower of Jesus told me one time. “I really love Jesus. I really love Frontiers. I just wish you’d get rid of this Jesus dying on the cross for our sins stuff.” Many in the Insider movement seem to be satisfied with simply making people pro-Jesus. Every liberal pastor is ‘pro-Jesus; Gandhi was pro-Jesus; but he never ‘bowed the knee’ to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Question: Traditionally, missionaries in Muslim countries have taken the tent-maker approach. Based on the model of the Apostle Paul, they'll go into a country, start a business and/or a humanitarian organization and evangelize under cover. Do you feel that the tent-maker approach remains a valid model for today? Are there emerging models that may replace the tent-maker approach?

Answer: Actually, I read that Paul took a job only when he ran out of church support. Traditionally evangelists went over to Muslim countries and preached openly. After World War II, when Muslim countries got their independence and stopped issuing missionary visas, we classified countries as open or closed depending on whether they would issue a “missionary visa”. In the 70’s, some of us started asking, “Where did Jesus say go into all the world if you can acquire a missionary visa?” I don’t think the tentmaker movement is really modeled after Paul. Paul didn’t work full time. He only worked a job when he ran out of money.

Now, is “tentmaking” a valid model? Well, we really don’t have much choice. I personally want to send people on teams and make room for all the different approaches. I’ll make the evangelist the VP of Public relations until s/he is expelled! The point is, if we don’t have accountability, you can live in a Muslim country for years, and call yourself a teacher, a businessman etc…but don’t tell others you’re a church planter unless what you’re doing is actually leading to establishing a fellowship of believers!

One must show there’s a connection between what you’re going there to do and what you’re leaving behind. That’s why I believe in agencies which are committed to continuity; i.e. they will keep reinforcing a church planting effort with new people until there’s a church planted that is birthing another church! Evangelists don’t plant churches, because they want to go pray with another unrelated individual. Therefore, the evangelist needs team members who will disciple and gather the new believers. When I’m recruiting for church planting teams, I don’t ask a person how many people they’ve led to Christ. I ask them, what would you bring to a church planting effort?

5. Question: What has been the impact of Christian Zionism on evangelism in the Muslim world?

Answer: Obviously, being pro-Israel no matter what they do, anti Arab is not being Christian. Still, Zionism is not the biggest barrier. Yes, it’s a problem, but let’s just suppose that next week the Palestinian issue is settled; then would Muslims start saying “Oh now we want to look at the claims of Christ?” Not likely. They would find some other reason why they don’t want to listen to Christian preachers.

The bigger problem is the offense of having “Christian” soldiers on “Muslim” soil! The greater reason the Taliban can recruit extremists is because infidels are walking on holy soil ‘taking charge’! It doesn’t matter if it’s Israel or anywhere else. They don’t want infidel boots on the ground. This is why invading Iraq was such a bad idea, because now the Taliban or Al Qaeda recruiter can say, “Look, the Christians are taking over our countries!”

I saw America going to Iraq as Vietnam all over again. But if the American government felt they had to remove Saddam, they should have arranged to place Muslim soldiers on the ground, with the West supporting from the air, intelligence, weapons, etc.

Yes it’s a big problem that Bible believing Christians are doing ‘penance’ for their guilt for not stopping the Holocaust. Worse, some are hoping that by backing Israel, they might get blessed; misapplying Genesis 12:1-3 (where God says to Abraham I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you) thinking, “Let’s bless Israel so that God likes us better!” I simply apologize to my Muslim friends and tell them the Christian Zionists have been taught strange things. Still, it's not Christian Zionism that bothers me so much as evangelicals who demonize Muslims. Islam may be Satan's masterpiece, but 1.7 billion Muslims are not demonic; Christ laid down His life for THEM too!

Question: Has post 9-11 U.S. foreign policy, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, been helpful or hurtful to the cause of Muslim evangelism?

Answer: Obviously it’s negative because it set up an unnecessary clash of civilizations, (and as I said, the Muslims feel “occupied”, or “invaded”. Still these world events are a matter of God’s sovereignty in history prevailing. It used to be difficult to make Christians aware of Muslims. Now Muslims are in the news every day! So if you’re a real Christian and you see what’s happening on the news, first you get irritated or angry, but then the Holy Spirit gets a hold of you and you think, “Maybe I should pray for the Muslims, or even support a missionary to give them the GOOD news?”


Question: Do you see a possible role for missionaries to build bridges of understanding on a socio-political level between the West and Islam? If so, what form might this take?

Answer: This is trendy. Peacemaking is ‘the latest answer’. Several organizations have emerged along these lines. I think the one great thing this movement really has going for it is that it helps to communicate to Muslims, in a friendly way, that they have “Dawa” [Arabic for obligatory effort to convert people to Islam] and we have the Great Commission. Why not give them freedom to evangelize in the West, and give us freedom to do so among Muslims?

I like the way the soft approach people better than the critics who don’t do anything to see Muslims come into Christ’s Kingdom! What good are the workers who simply alarm Christians that the Muslims are the evil empire taking over the world? As my co-worker says, “I’m pretty sure “love your enemies” doesn’t mean kill them”

Do you want to be an obedient Christian? Show me how you’re loving your enemies!
However, much as I appreciate those into “peacemaking and reconciliation with Muslims”, I just don’t think they’re going to establish communities of Muslims loyal to Christ who will demonstrate the difference “Christ in you” makes. Different people have different callings. Peacemaking is a wonderful calling. Just don’t make it a substitute for church planting among the unengaged who still have no ‘lighthouse’ where they live.

Question: Lastly, if you can tell American Christians one thing about the Muslim world that they may not know or understand, what would it be?

Answer: It would be that Muslims are not seeking God any more or less than Americans.

Muslims are in bondage to the prince of darkness just like most Americans. The greatest need is for caring Christians to have a divine appointment (i.e. be led to) a Muslims to whom the Father is revealing Himself. It may be that God has put a Nicodemus in your neighborhood. You wouldn’t want to go to heaven and find out that God gave you an opportunity to witness and you ignored it. If you can think about Muslims but are not moved with compassion, then there are reasons to doubt if you’re a true Christian.

Another thing that Americans need to realize is that for a Muslim to become a Christian, is a traitorous act, equivalent to an American selling atomic secrets to the Iranians. That’s why I don’t mind if Muslim background believers don’t call themselves “Christians”. For 1,400 years, people that call themselves Christians and people that call themselves Muslims have been fighting, bashing, and killing each other. The word “Christian” may be as ruined by history as the word ‘gay’. The issue is to see Muslims passing from death to life, knowing “Isa Al Masih” as their Lord and Saviour.

A review of Rediscovering Values

I've been reading Jim Wallis's writings for the past few years now on the Sojourners blog, but this is the first book I've purchased of his. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, "To be great is to be misunderstood." When I Google Jim Wallis I notice that his critics all but accuse him of being a member of the communist party. These same critics are the ones that seem to think that if you don't believe the market should run everything, then you must be a Marxist!

I think that Rediscovering Values can go a long way to silence Wallis's critics if they would just give him a listening ear. Jim Wallis is not saying that he favors a centrally planned economy over a market economy. Neither is he trying to replace capitalism with socialism....or any other "ism." What Wallis is saying is that the private sector, the public sector, and the civic sector should all serve as a system of checks and balances against the other, and neither can function properly without a moral compass that looks out for the common good of all.

Very well written and highly recommended!

Aaron in the news

Below are two articles in major online magazines that feature me and my book.

The first is an article by Mark Tooley for Front Page Magazine (David Horowitz's magazine) entitled Evangelical Pacifism in the War on Terror. In the article Tooley calls me a member of the "evangelical elite" which I thought was hilarious! Those of you that know me well, please don't tell him the truth!

The other article is written by Eliza Griswold, a reporter for the Daily Beast. The article is entitled Christianity's New Culture War and features yours truly.

Point of clarification on the Daily Beast article: I'm not against Christians participating in politics. I do think, however, that the way that Christians have been participating in politics, especially over the past 30 years, needs to be seriously rethought.

Enjoy!

Pat Robertson may be wrong, but so are academic and media elites

When I was a student at Christ for the Nations School of Missions, I learned about the so-called “pact with the devil” that the African slaves of Haiti made to free themselves from the French. Later I learned about the so-called “renewal of the covenant” presumably made by Aristide in 2003 where he officially recognized Voodooism as a state religion. When the earthquake struck Haiti, I knew that it was only a matter of time before a televangelist would say something that the media would pick up and allow themselves yet another opportunity to paint evangelicals in a negative light. While I agree that Pat Robertson’s comments were embarrassing and offensive (For the record: I don’t think that anyone should ever claim they have divine knowledge as to why a specific natural disaster occurs. Luke 13:2-5 speaks loudly against that), I also think that the reaction of the secular media and some in the progressive faith community has been—good intentions not withstanding—condescending.

Perhaps I’m overly sensitive about this. A couple of weeks ago my wife and I visited a peace-oriented church in Albuquerque. After the service I struck up a conversation with a guy that asked me what I do for a living. I told him that I’m a missionary that travels the world and that I lived in Africa for a period of time. When I told him about how missionaries view most African traditional religious practices as demonic, the reaction I got was “Um…oh…that’s nice. I’m sure you see some value in traditional African religious practices (aka withcraft)...don’t you?” I told him the truth. No I don’t.

Here’s the ironic part. While I’m sure that this man felt justified in his appreciation for traditional African culture over and against the supposed mentality of “culturally imperialistic” missionaries, the reality is that millions of African Christians—and I suspect Hatian Christians as well—would agree with me, not him. One of the reasons why Christianity has exploded in Africa, and countries of African descent like Haiti, is because African social systems are structured around fear of evil spirits. Unlike in the West, where the predominant salvation model centers around guilt/forgiveness, in African societies people place their faith in Christ because they view the message of the Resurrection as a cosmic defeat over the power of demonic forces. This is why when Africans (and/ or people of African descent) read their Bibles, most don’t read through the prism of Western liberalism. They take what the Bible says about the supernatural at face value.

Western liberal academia might scoff at the idea that idolatry leads to poverty, but for millions of African Christians, the dots were connected a long time ago. They themselves are fighting against sorcery and witchcraft in their spiritual warfare conferences—without the prodding of Western missionaries. And for good reason. Witchcraft is a poor moral base to build a prosperous society. When people are afraid to succeed in their jobs or businesses because they fear their neighbor will place a deadly curse on them, that’s bad news for the economy. Most African Christian leaders recognize this. This is why when Western media and religious elites treat witchcraft/voodooism as a harmless practice that may or may not be compatible with Christianity, what they’re really doing is trivializing the beliefs of millions of African Christians—a sort of paternalism in reverse if you will.

Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not saying that idolatry/witchcraft/voodooism is the only factor perpetuating poverty in African societies. Certainly the legacy of slavery and colonialism, unfair trade laws, Western interference in internal political affairs and—insert your political injustice here—have all played a role in keeping Africans and people of African descent in economic slavery. But if we in the West want to partner with African- background Christians to bring about social justice in their respective countries, then we need to take their worldview a bit more seriously. If you don’t believe me, read Philip Jenkin’s book The Next Christendom or, better yet, watch any film made in Nigeria. I can’t speak for every African and/or Hatian Christian, but my sense is that while many would be offended by Robertson’s comments, most would also tell us that if African societies are to progress into the 21st century, then both physical and spiritual issues will need to be addressed.

Donate to Haiti!

If you're looking for a good organization to donate to help the victims of Haiti, I recommend International Crisis Aid. Pat Bradley has been helping the suffering around the world for years. You can be sure that your dollars will go directly to those in need.

http://www.crisisaid.org/

Adventures in parenting, the day I brought my newborn home

Sleep, oh sleep, where art thou? My wife and I's first child, Christian David Taylor, was born last week on Tuesday January 5th. I've been told by the sum total of everyone I've ever met that having children is going to drastically change my life. To demonstrate the truthfulness of that statement, I'd like to tell you about the day my wife and I were released from the hospital and had to drive the three- hour drive from Albuquerque to Farmington.

First stop: Walgreens. Because my wife had a C-section, she needed to continue her pain medication...or else. Unfortunately, when the hospital called in the prescription they didn't tell them that we were coming right away. They also got the prescription wrong, so I ended up having to wait an hour, and still had to go to another Walgreens to complete the order. None of this would have been so bad had we not been so sleep deprived and had we been released from the hospital earlier. But by this time we're pushing late afternoon and we still had to go to my brother in law's house to load up the car (No, I didn't make my wife help me load the car. I'm not that clueless!)

Next stop: My brother in law's house. Neither my brother in law nor his wife were home. It had been hours since little Christian was fed, so my wife asked me to go inside and put their three dogs outside so that she could come in and breastfeed. As soon as I opened the patio door to release the dogs, the alarm goes off! Since I didn't know the code, I frantically tried, unsuccessfully, to contact my brother-in- law's cell phone. I stood outside for about five minutes with zero options on the table. Just as I was imagining the cops coming to take me away in handcuffs, my brother in law arrives. Close call!

After loading up the car we set off for Farmington. Thankfully, the journey was pretty uneventful, except for the three dust storms that we drove through. We arrived home at about 10:15 p.m. I struggled, and struggled, and struggled to get the car seat off the base...as my wife stood in the door crying. I've been told that there's a learning curve to parenting. I'm glad my curve has never been measured geometrically. That would be embarrassing. In case you're wondering, we got the car seat figured out now.

I've been wondering how many moments of spiritual enlightenment I'll have now that I'm officially a parent. Will I understand the Father heart of God better? Will I learn the value of patience and selflessness? Will the Bible come alive to me now that I can relate to all of the fathers in the stories? Right now I'm too tired to think of anything profound. Suffice it to say that after the sleepless nights, the poopy diapers, the pee in the face and--list your parental frustration here--I can honestly say that Christian David Taylor is worth every moment of it. I think that's how our Heavenly Father thinks about His children too.

Life House drama

An acquaintance of mine sent me this video a couple of years ago. I still get choked up when I watch it.




Who needs Hollywood?