Question: I have a new question for you to tackle. Is there support in the Bible for the starting of denominations and if so what are the requirements? I would love to hear your comments as most people kind of stutter and and switch topics when asked this question.
Answer: I'm writing this on the fly and I don't have a Bible in front of me at the moment, so I'll give you the first thoughts that pop into my head on this.
First of all, I'm not as negative as most Christians I know when it comes to the subject of denominations. There are many people that see the presence of so many denominations and splinter groups within Christianity as a negative thing. I don't view it that way. If you study the New Testament closely, you'll notice that the apostles approved of diversity within the Church from the beginning.
The first example I can think of is the appointing of the 7 elders in Acts chapter 6. All of the elders chosen were Jews from a Hellenistic background. Dr. C. Peter Wagner in his book, "Acts of the Holy Spirit" says that the incident of choosing Hellenist deacons represents a natural racial/cultural separation in the early church. It doesn't seem that Luke would have us to believe that the incident was a negative occurence. (Of course, we can't press this too far. The church in Antioch was racially diverse and it is certainly held up as a model church for future believers to aspire to)
Another example of a sanctified split is the dispute between Barnabas and Paul over John Mark. After they couldn't resolve their dispute, they went their separate ways. Luke makes no moral judgment on the matter, but we have no reason to believe that Barnabas left the ministry or dropped out of the faith over the issue. He probably continued the ministry in other places.
In Acts chapter 15, when the Apostles dealt with the question of whether Gentiles need to be circumcised to be included in the Covenant community, the Jerusalem Council decided that the Gentiles should not be burdened with the ceremonial aspects of the law even though the Jewish believers continued to practice the Torah in the same way they had always done (although there is evidence that their views did gradually liberalize as is the case with Peter staying with Simon the Tanner). The Jerusalem Council decision was a landmark decision denoting apostolic approval of cultural diversity within the universal Body of Christ.
On the other side of the coin, it's also true that Paul took a negative view of the factions within the Corinthian Church. Some said they followed Paul, others said they followed Peter or Apollos. Paul's point was that Christ should be the uniting factor regardless of who follows who.
Lastly, if you study the Judean Churches and compare them with the churches that Paul founded, you will see that the leadership structure was very different and so was the structure of their meetings. Paul's churches seem to be free-wheeling and "make the leadership structure up as you go along" while the Judean churches seem to be more organized. This tells me that there is no one definitive set of church government in the New Testament. This makes sense because Jesus taught His disciples to shun titles (e.g. In Matthew He says,"Do not call anyone Rabbi, Father, or Teacher)
Knowing that the New Testament does not lay out a uniform set of church government (this is why I reject the doctrine of Apostolic succession) simplifies your question on what is the requirement to form a new group of believers (whether a church or a denomination). The answer is simple: Godly character and doctrinal purity. I don't think the Holy Spirit is as concerned about organizational structure as we are. Just an opinion, but I think it's a wellfounded opinion.
Well that's all for now. I'm definitely not an authority on this subject, so I think this will make a great discussion for the comments section. I'll be out of town for a couple of weeks, so I probably will not be posting for a while. Let's get a discussion going! Perhaps show this to your friends, Pete and see what you guys come up with.
Hope you're enjoying yourself at school. We miss you at SCCC!
Friday, October 12, 2007
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Does Ezekiel 36-39 predict a war with modern day Israel?
If you've ever read a Hal Lindsey book, browsed the Left Behind Series, ever tuned in to TBN, or simply glanced at a Charisma magazine, then you have probably come across the idea in one form or another that the Bible predicts an imminent war with modern-day Israel complete with B-52 bombers, AK-47s and nuclear warheads. The usual culprits for the instigators of the war are Russian and Iran, but sometimes Ethiopia is thrown into the mix as well. The idea is based off of Ezekiel chapters 36-39.
At first glance, these chapters seem like a slam dunk for the prophecy pundits. Ezekiel 36 and 37 describe a restored Israel after having been scattered abroad for a long time. Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe armies coming from the north attempting to annihilate the Jewish people and the bloodbath that occurs as God fights for Israel. The idea that this could happen in our time is certainly plausible (at least with Iran, I see no reason why Russia or Ethiopia would want to attack Israel any time soon, in fact, most Ethiopians believe the Jews are their cousins because they see themselves as descendants of the Queen of Sheba).
As enticing as it may be to pick up the daily newspaper and point to chapters and verses in the Bible to make sense of current events, the conclusions you come to by doing that are usually, if not always, faulty. Worse, they can become self-fulfilling prophecies. It seems that every day another TV preacher calls for war with Iran based on these four chapters of Ezekiel.
Let's break this one down.
First of all, Ezekiel was written after the first siege of Jerusalem when the author was in exile in Babylon. The purpose of the book is to warn those remaining in Jerusalem of its impeneding destruction by Babylon and to give hope that God will restore His people to the land after His punishment for their sins are complete. The most plausible explanation for Ezekiel chapters 36 and 37 is that it refers to the restoration of Jews to the land after the Babylonian captivity. This, of course was fulfilled approximately 70 years later when Cyrus the Persian ruler allowed the first group of Jews to return under Zerubabbel. Although prophecy pundits insist that these chapters must refer to modern day Israel, I would suggest that we allow scripture to interpret scripture and see if the New Testament refers to any of these chapters. As a matter of fact, it does. The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit applies Ezekiel 37:26,27 ( a passage that all prophecy pundits insist applies to modern-day Israel) directly to the Church (II Corinthians 6:16). I find it odd that so many American evangelicals call it heresy to apply ancient prophesies for Israel to the church. By that standard, I guess we can call the Apostle Paul a heretic. Call me crazy, but I think I'll side with Paul over TBN any day.
What about the war prophesied in chapters 38-39? First of all, if we apply the literal hermeneutic closely, which all prophecy pundits insist that we must do, then we should expect Russia, Iran, and Ethiopia to attack Israel riding horses and chariots, not by flying B-52 fighter jets and dropping nuclear warheads. This brings us to a good question. If Ezekiel describes a war with Israel and it doesn't correspond to anything that could happen today, when could this event have taken place?
Good question. I wanted to know that myself. I've found two good explanations. One is that Ezekiel prophesied the events that took place in the Book of Esther. The other explanation says the event happened in the 2nd century B.C. corresponding to the Maccabean revolt.
In my opinion, both of the above theories are credible. Of course, there is another way to look at this even if one adheres to a dispensational perspective. The only other place in the Bible where Gog and Magog are mentioned together is Revelation 20:7-9 and that prophesies an event that will take place at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. In fact if you look at the parallels between the passge in Revelation and the passage in Ezekiel, the similarities are stunning. If this is the same event, then is it really something we should worry about now? Call me crazy, but I think our Lord Jesus Christ is quite capable of putting down a rebellion if He really is ruling from an earthly Jerusalem for 1,000 years as dispensationalists believe.
So, in the end, even dispensational theology, which the prophecy pundits rest on, doesn't support the prophecy pundits views. If this is true, then why do these pundits continue making millions of dollars off their bestsellers? Beats me!
At first glance, these chapters seem like a slam dunk for the prophecy pundits. Ezekiel 36 and 37 describe a restored Israel after having been scattered abroad for a long time. Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe armies coming from the north attempting to annihilate the Jewish people and the bloodbath that occurs as God fights for Israel. The idea that this could happen in our time is certainly plausible (at least with Iran, I see no reason why Russia or Ethiopia would want to attack Israel any time soon, in fact, most Ethiopians believe the Jews are their cousins because they see themselves as descendants of the Queen of Sheba).
As enticing as it may be to pick up the daily newspaper and point to chapters and verses in the Bible to make sense of current events, the conclusions you come to by doing that are usually, if not always, faulty. Worse, they can become self-fulfilling prophecies. It seems that every day another TV preacher calls for war with Iran based on these four chapters of Ezekiel.
Let's break this one down.
First of all, Ezekiel was written after the first siege of Jerusalem when the author was in exile in Babylon. The purpose of the book is to warn those remaining in Jerusalem of its impeneding destruction by Babylon and to give hope that God will restore His people to the land after His punishment for their sins are complete. The most plausible explanation for Ezekiel chapters 36 and 37 is that it refers to the restoration of Jews to the land after the Babylonian captivity. This, of course was fulfilled approximately 70 years later when Cyrus the Persian ruler allowed the first group of Jews to return under Zerubabbel. Although prophecy pundits insist that these chapters must refer to modern day Israel, I would suggest that we allow scripture to interpret scripture and see if the New Testament refers to any of these chapters. As a matter of fact, it does. The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit applies Ezekiel 37:26,27 ( a passage that all prophecy pundits insist applies to modern-day Israel) directly to the Church (II Corinthians 6:16). I find it odd that so many American evangelicals call it heresy to apply ancient prophesies for Israel to the church. By that standard, I guess we can call the Apostle Paul a heretic. Call me crazy, but I think I'll side with Paul over TBN any day.
What about the war prophesied in chapters 38-39? First of all, if we apply the literal hermeneutic closely, which all prophecy pundits insist that we must do, then we should expect Russia, Iran, and Ethiopia to attack Israel riding horses and chariots, not by flying B-52 fighter jets and dropping nuclear warheads. This brings us to a good question. If Ezekiel describes a war with Israel and it doesn't correspond to anything that could happen today, when could this event have taken place?
Good question. I wanted to know that myself. I've found two good explanations. One is that Ezekiel prophesied the events that took place in the Book of Esther. The other explanation says the event happened in the 2nd century B.C. corresponding to the Maccabean revolt.
In my opinion, both of the above theories are credible. Of course, there is another way to look at this even if one adheres to a dispensational perspective. The only other place in the Bible where Gog and Magog are mentioned together is Revelation 20:7-9 and that prophesies an event that will take place at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. In fact if you look at the parallels between the passge in Revelation and the passage in Ezekiel, the similarities are stunning. If this is the same event, then is it really something we should worry about now? Call me crazy, but I think our Lord Jesus Christ is quite capable of putting down a rebellion if He really is ruling from an earthly Jerusalem for 1,000 years as dispensationalists believe.
So, in the end, even dispensational theology, which the prophecy pundits rest on, doesn't support the prophecy pundits views. If this is true, then why do these pundits continue making millions of dollars off their bestsellers? Beats me!
Monday, October 08, 2007
The day I got Left Behind
The year was 1988. I was 11 years old and my younger brother Paul was 7 years old. Our family was visiting my aunt who lived in what we called at the time the "boondocks" of Missouri. I'm not sure if the word is still around today, but back then it meant the middle of nowhere and, with the nearest neighbor being a mile away, that is exactly what it felt like the day my brother and I were walking and talking in a nearby field. As my brother and I were talking and minding our business, something out of the ordinary happened that we still haven't been able to explain to this day. From seemingly out of nowhere, we heard a piercing trumpet blast.
For most young children, this would have been an insignificant incident, but for my brother and I, it meant the end of the world as we knew it. It just so happened that the day we heard the trumpet blast was the day the Rapture of the Church was predicted to happen by the author of the book "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will Happen in 88."
For those unfamiliar with the Left Behind series, the Rapture is the event that millions of evangelical Christians who follow the dispensational interpretation of Scripture believe can happen at any time without a moment's notice. In the Rapture scenario, Jesus snatches Christians away from the earth to take them to heaven while leaving the rest of the world to suffer the horrors of the Seven -Year tribulation prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation.
As children of the charismatic movement, we knew full well the verse in the Bible that says, "In the twinkling of an eye, the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible," (I Corinthians 15: 52). The day we heard the trumpet blast, my brother and I fully expected that after we blinked our eyes, the next moment we would be in heaven. After blinking hard a few times, we both looked at each other with the same horrified expression on our faces. "Oh no! We've been left behind!" we thought. Immediately we ran inside my aunt's house and discovered that our parents and our cousins and aunts and uncles were still standing. For the rest of the day we were thinking to ourselves that not only had we been left behind, but our entire family had been left behind as well.
As I went to bed that night, I remember racking my brain trying to figure out what my entire family could have done so wrong to suffer such an awful fate. Neither my brother nor I were fully convinced that the rapture had not taken place until the next day when the family decided to visit a nearby church. To our relief, we were happy to see a church filled with Bible Believing Christians worshipping the Lord together. We figured that all these Christians could not have been left behind, especially not the pastor. As our family worshipped the Lord together that day, I was inwardly thanking God that I wasn't going to have to take the mark of the beast or swim in a river of blood any time soon. The relief quickly turned to disappointment when I realized that I still had to go to school the next day.
As innocent as this story is, I've told it for a reason. An evangelical Christian may read this story and reminisce about the wonders of child-like faith, but a secular American reading this story is likely to have a different reaction. For millions of secular Americans, the Left Behind theology promoted by TBN, the 700 Club, and bestselling prophesy pundits is not only delusional, but also dangerous. The thinking goes something like this. If millions of Americans believe this doctrine, and these same Americans are the most powerful voting block in the country, why would people who believe the world is heading for an apocalyptic meltdown care about global warming or protecting the rain forest? To further complicate matters in the minds of secular Americans, the leading advocates of the Rapture theory are also the most vocal advocates for neo-conservative politics, which, in their minds, is the belief that America should back Israel unconditionally, wage pre-emptive wars to establish pro-Western democracies, and give little to no regard to what the U.N. has to say about it.
At least, that's how the "left" sees things. No longer are we evangelicals the persecuted minority. We are the ones holding the cards with our Apostle -in -chief holding the highest office in the country. As unfounded as many of the theocracy accusations from the far-left are, American evangelicals, especially those raised on Left Behind theology, are facing some tough questions right now, and will face many more in the future. American evangelicals are still the most vocal supporters of the Iraq war, a war that is a quagmire in the eyes of many, and it seems that hardly a day goes by without a TV preacher calling for war with Iran. To make matters worse, these same T.V. preachers also raise millions of dollars to finance Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, giving little to no consideration to the fact that the people they are displacing to create their apocalyptic scenario might actually be human beings with families to feed. Never mind the fact that both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have committed atrocities against each other beyond anything we in our fast food, mall shopping, church hopping American culture can conceive of. Never mind the fact that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and yet, when Israel was blasting the Lebanese to smithereens last year, preachers were calling it a "miracle of God" despite the fact that the war actually strengthened Hezbollah’s presence in the region. To top it off, according to the Left Behind theology, if someone comes along with a solution to stop Jews and Palestinians from slaughtering each other, according to the same interpretation of Scripture, that person has to be the devil (the antichrist to be exact).
All of the sudden, a cute little story about a boy thinking he has missed the rapture isn't so cute anymore. If millions of others hold to the same beliefs, it could lead to a self-fulfilling pre-mature apocalypse....at least that's how the other side sees it. The question I am asking is this: If a system of Biblical interpretation has potentially dangerous consequences for humanity, should it be abandoned or reformed? How about when high profile evangelicals make statements to the media that we wish would have never been said. Do we get angry with the minister for making us look like buffoons or do we start questioning the theological underpinnings that produced the statement? There are many in my generation choosing the latter. As a non-official representative of evangelicals approaching 30, I would like to ask those older and more mature in the faith to pray for us younger evangelicals. Pray that God will guide us as we look to the Scriptures and formulate new wineskins for the 21st century. Trust me. We're going to need all the prayer we can get.
For most young children, this would have been an insignificant incident, but for my brother and I, it meant the end of the world as we knew it. It just so happened that the day we heard the trumpet blast was the day the Rapture of the Church was predicted to happen by the author of the book "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will Happen in 88."
For those unfamiliar with the Left Behind series, the Rapture is the event that millions of evangelical Christians who follow the dispensational interpretation of Scripture believe can happen at any time without a moment's notice. In the Rapture scenario, Jesus snatches Christians away from the earth to take them to heaven while leaving the rest of the world to suffer the horrors of the Seven -Year tribulation prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation.
As children of the charismatic movement, we knew full well the verse in the Bible that says, "In the twinkling of an eye, the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible," (I Corinthians 15: 52). The day we heard the trumpet blast, my brother and I fully expected that after we blinked our eyes, the next moment we would be in heaven. After blinking hard a few times, we both looked at each other with the same horrified expression on our faces. "Oh no! We've been left behind!" we thought. Immediately we ran inside my aunt's house and discovered that our parents and our cousins and aunts and uncles were still standing. For the rest of the day we were thinking to ourselves that not only had we been left behind, but our entire family had been left behind as well.
As I went to bed that night, I remember racking my brain trying to figure out what my entire family could have done so wrong to suffer such an awful fate. Neither my brother nor I were fully convinced that the rapture had not taken place until the next day when the family decided to visit a nearby church. To our relief, we were happy to see a church filled with Bible Believing Christians worshipping the Lord together. We figured that all these Christians could not have been left behind, especially not the pastor. As our family worshipped the Lord together that day, I was inwardly thanking God that I wasn't going to have to take the mark of the beast or swim in a river of blood any time soon. The relief quickly turned to disappointment when I realized that I still had to go to school the next day.
As innocent as this story is, I've told it for a reason. An evangelical Christian may read this story and reminisce about the wonders of child-like faith, but a secular American reading this story is likely to have a different reaction. For millions of secular Americans, the Left Behind theology promoted by TBN, the 700 Club, and bestselling prophesy pundits is not only delusional, but also dangerous. The thinking goes something like this. If millions of Americans believe this doctrine, and these same Americans are the most powerful voting block in the country, why would people who believe the world is heading for an apocalyptic meltdown care about global warming or protecting the rain forest? To further complicate matters in the minds of secular Americans, the leading advocates of the Rapture theory are also the most vocal advocates for neo-conservative politics, which, in their minds, is the belief that America should back Israel unconditionally, wage pre-emptive wars to establish pro-Western democracies, and give little to no regard to what the U.N. has to say about it.
At least, that's how the "left" sees things. No longer are we evangelicals the persecuted minority. We are the ones holding the cards with our Apostle -in -chief holding the highest office in the country. As unfounded as many of the theocracy accusations from the far-left are, American evangelicals, especially those raised on Left Behind theology, are facing some tough questions right now, and will face many more in the future. American evangelicals are still the most vocal supporters of the Iraq war, a war that is a quagmire in the eyes of many, and it seems that hardly a day goes by without a TV preacher calling for war with Iran. To make matters worse, these same T.V. preachers also raise millions of dollars to finance Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, giving little to no consideration to the fact that the people they are displacing to create their apocalyptic scenario might actually be human beings with families to feed. Never mind the fact that both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have committed atrocities against each other beyond anything we in our fast food, mall shopping, church hopping American culture can conceive of. Never mind the fact that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and yet, when Israel was blasting the Lebanese to smithereens last year, preachers were calling it a "miracle of God" despite the fact that the war actually strengthened Hezbollah’s presence in the region. To top it off, according to the Left Behind theology, if someone comes along with a solution to stop Jews and Palestinians from slaughtering each other, according to the same interpretation of Scripture, that person has to be the devil (the antichrist to be exact).
All of the sudden, a cute little story about a boy thinking he has missed the rapture isn't so cute anymore. If millions of others hold to the same beliefs, it could lead to a self-fulfilling pre-mature apocalypse....at least that's how the other side sees it. The question I am asking is this: If a system of Biblical interpretation has potentially dangerous consequences for humanity, should it be abandoned or reformed? How about when high profile evangelicals make statements to the media that we wish would have never been said. Do we get angry with the minister for making us look like buffoons or do we start questioning the theological underpinnings that produced the statement? There are many in my generation choosing the latter. As a non-official representative of evangelicals approaching 30, I would like to ask those older and more mature in the faith to pray for us younger evangelicals. Pray that God will guide us as we look to the Scriptures and formulate new wineskins for the 21st century. Trust me. We're going to need all the prayer we can get.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Is the Bible inerrant?
Question: Good afternoon and greetings from England.
I have been a member of the fundamentalist movement for a long time now and
I realise that the movement insists that I accept the doctrine of Biblical
inerrancy. The definition of Biblical inerrancy is; "...in its original
form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all
contradiction..."
I read the Bible in my daily devotions and I have felt for a long time that
I have noticed more and more examples of contradictory verses. These
contradictory verses would destroy the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
One example I have found is the account of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter,
as recorded in Matthew chapter 9, Mark chapter 5 and Luke chapter 8. In
Matthew's gospel, Jairus leaves to find Jesus AFTER his daughter has died.
In Luke and Mark's accounts, he leave BEFORE his daughter dies. Although
this is only a detail difference, it makes these two accounts mutually
exclusive. They are contradictory and cannot both be true at the same time.
A non-Biblical example of the same type of contradictory verses would be
the two statements;
1. My sister became a Christian for the first time BEFORE her 18th
birthday, and
2. My sister became a Christian for the first time AFTER her 18th birthday.
I have asked a number of my fellow Christians how they have dealt with
this, and have received various suggestions. However, these suggestions are
rather weak:
1. One said, "Don't look at the contradictions, look at the happy ending
and the raising of Jairus' daughter". While I am more than happy to rejoice
at what the passage shows me of God, if I ignore the contradictory passages
then I am doing no more than 'putting my head in the sand'.
2. Another said, "Look how much these passages agree. That shows they are
consistent". Unfortunately, even if passages are 75%, 80% or even 99%
consistent, if they contradict each other even once, it destroys the
doctrine of inerrancy. You can't have 'degrees' of inerrancy. Something is
either inerrant or it isn't.
3. Another said, "By asking this question, you miss the big picture of
God's grace". However, I do not miss the big picture of God. I love God,
but am asking about a contradiction that challenges a doctrine of the
church.
3. Another said "Look what happens with witnesses at a road accident. One
witness will say that three cars were involved while another will say that
there were four cars. It's just a case of fallible humans getting the
details wrong". This would hold water if the Bible were like humans, i.e.
errant and liable to make mistakes. But it is not. The Bible is the word of
God, written via Luke, Paul, Matthew etc etc. So, if it has the same author
and is inerrant, it CANNOT contradict itself. Unlike witness statements,
the Bible is written by God.
The bottom line is this: God never contradicts Himself. The Bible is God's
word, so Q.E.D. the Bible cannot contradict itself.
Please let me set something straight before I go further. I am a Christian.
I love God. I am not questioning God. However, I AM questioning a doctrine
of the fundamentalist wing of the world-wide Christian church. Seeing as
the church isn't God, it's possible for me to question the church without
questioning God.
For example, we all feel more than able to question the doctrines of the
liberal wing of the worldwide Christian church, and we all feel more than
able to question the doctrines of the Episcopalian wing of the worldwide
Christian church. So any accusation that, in asking this question, I'm
somehow 'backsliding' and need to 'bow the knee' is not applicable.
I would therefore appreciate it if you would explain how we fundamentalists
can sustain the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy in light of the above.
Many Regards
Name withheld
Answer: First of all, let me say thank you for your poignant question. As an evagnelical Christian committed to the authority of Scripture, I too have struggled with this issue. In answer to your question, I think that modern Christians born and raised in the post-enlightenmnet West read the Scriptures in a way that is absolutely foreign to the worldview of the ancient readers to whom the Scriptures were originally written. For example, the idea that something has to be a fact to be true may seem inevitable to us, but, in fact, this idea has only been around for about 200 years. Take the Creation Account in Genesis. We look at the seven days of creation and and try to figure out which came first, the sun or daylight. Ancient readers would have understood the point to be that only one God exists, and that one God is not a moon god, a plant god, or a sun god. In other words, the 7-day creation account wasn't written for scientists, but for an ancient audience steeped in a pagan worldview. Also consider that Jesus said the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the ground. Botanists know there are smaller seeds than the mustard seed. So, was Jesus giving a botany lesson or teaching about the Kingdom of God?
I think if we realize that the Bible is both a divine and a human document, we will not squabble over details irrelevant to the intent of the Biblical authors. We may think the chronological timing of whether the daughter was dead before or after Jairus went to see Jesus is an important detail, but would that have been important to the Biblical authors writing in the first century? The disciples of Jesus weren't writing for the Associate Press. They were writing in a style common to the Jewish culture of their day.
It's important to understand that the Bible does not claim to be dictated by God. The Bible claims to be inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). There is a vast difference between divine dictation and divine inspiration. Divine dictation means that God dictated every jot and tittle he wanted in the Bible. Divine inspiration means that God inspired human authors to express His will in the language and the culture of their day without overriding their human personalities.
Why did God choose to inspire the Bible rather than dictate the Bible? I don't fully know, but I have a hunch it's because God is far more interested in a relationship with human beings than dictating words from the sky. God likes to use human beings for His purposes and He isn't as concerned with squabbling over details as we are. I personally thinks this makes the Bible much more interesting. I'll take the Apostle James' diatribe against the rich over automatic writing any day.
I have been a member of the fundamentalist movement for a long time now and
I realise that the movement insists that I accept the doctrine of Biblical
inerrancy. The definition of Biblical inerrancy is; "...in its original
form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all
contradiction..."
I read the Bible in my daily devotions and I have felt for a long time that
I have noticed more and more examples of contradictory verses. These
contradictory verses would destroy the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
One example I have found is the account of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter,
as recorded in Matthew chapter 9, Mark chapter 5 and Luke chapter 8. In
Matthew's gospel, Jairus leaves to find Jesus AFTER his daughter has died.
In Luke and Mark's accounts, he leave BEFORE his daughter dies. Although
this is only a detail difference, it makes these two accounts mutually
exclusive. They are contradictory and cannot both be true at the same time.
A non-Biblical example of the same type of contradictory verses would be
the two statements;
1. My sister became a Christian for the first time BEFORE her 18th
birthday, and
2. My sister became a Christian for the first time AFTER her 18th birthday.
I have asked a number of my fellow Christians how they have dealt with
this, and have received various suggestions. However, these suggestions are
rather weak:
1. One said, "Don't look at the contradictions, look at the happy ending
and the raising of Jairus' daughter". While I am more than happy to rejoice
at what the passage shows me of God, if I ignore the contradictory passages
then I am doing no more than 'putting my head in the sand'.
2. Another said, "Look how much these passages agree. That shows they are
consistent". Unfortunately, even if passages are 75%, 80% or even 99%
consistent, if they contradict each other even once, it destroys the
doctrine of inerrancy. You can't have 'degrees' of inerrancy. Something is
either inerrant or it isn't.
3. Another said, "By asking this question, you miss the big picture of
God's grace". However, I do not miss the big picture of God. I love God,
but am asking about a contradiction that challenges a doctrine of the
church.
3. Another said "Look what happens with witnesses at a road accident. One
witness will say that three cars were involved while another will say that
there were four cars. It's just a case of fallible humans getting the
details wrong". This would hold water if the Bible were like humans, i.e.
errant and liable to make mistakes. But it is not. The Bible is the word of
God, written via Luke, Paul, Matthew etc etc. So, if it has the same author
and is inerrant, it CANNOT contradict itself. Unlike witness statements,
the Bible is written by God.
The bottom line is this: God never contradicts Himself. The Bible is God's
word, so Q.E.D. the Bible cannot contradict itself.
Please let me set something straight before I go further. I am a Christian.
I love God. I am not questioning God. However, I AM questioning a doctrine
of the fundamentalist wing of the world-wide Christian church. Seeing as
the church isn't God, it's possible for me to question the church without
questioning God.
For example, we all feel more than able to question the doctrines of the
liberal wing of the worldwide Christian church, and we all feel more than
able to question the doctrines of the Episcopalian wing of the worldwide
Christian church. So any accusation that, in asking this question, I'm
somehow 'backsliding' and need to 'bow the knee' is not applicable.
I would therefore appreciate it if you would explain how we fundamentalists
can sustain the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy in light of the above.
Many Regards
Name withheld
Answer: First of all, let me say thank you for your poignant question. As an evagnelical Christian committed to the authority of Scripture, I too have struggled with this issue. In answer to your question, I think that modern Christians born and raised in the post-enlightenmnet West read the Scriptures in a way that is absolutely foreign to the worldview of the ancient readers to whom the Scriptures were originally written. For example, the idea that something has to be a fact to be true may seem inevitable to us, but, in fact, this idea has only been around for about 200 years. Take the Creation Account in Genesis. We look at the seven days of creation and and try to figure out which came first, the sun or daylight. Ancient readers would have understood the point to be that only one God exists, and that one God is not a moon god, a plant god, or a sun god. In other words, the 7-day creation account wasn't written for scientists, but for an ancient audience steeped in a pagan worldview. Also consider that Jesus said the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the ground. Botanists know there are smaller seeds than the mustard seed. So, was Jesus giving a botany lesson or teaching about the Kingdom of God?
I think if we realize that the Bible is both a divine and a human document, we will not squabble over details irrelevant to the intent of the Biblical authors. We may think the chronological timing of whether the daughter was dead before or after Jairus went to see Jesus is an important detail, but would that have been important to the Biblical authors writing in the first century? The disciples of Jesus weren't writing for the Associate Press. They were writing in a style common to the Jewish culture of their day.
It's important to understand that the Bible does not claim to be dictated by God. The Bible claims to be inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). There is a vast difference between divine dictation and divine inspiration. Divine dictation means that God dictated every jot and tittle he wanted in the Bible. Divine inspiration means that God inspired human authors to express His will in the language and the culture of their day without overriding their human personalities.
Why did God choose to inspire the Bible rather than dictate the Bible? I don't fully know, but I have a hunch it's because God is far more interested in a relationship with human beings than dictating words from the sky. God likes to use human beings for His purposes and He isn't as concerned with squabbling over details as we are. I personally thinks this makes the Bible much more interesting. I'll take the Apostle James' diatribe against the rich over automatic writing any day.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Salvation-a great deal!
I must admit that I don't think along the lines of what I am about to write nearly enough. It's very easy for me to get bogged down with the details of life, the rotten state of the world, and an incessant disappointment with my own failures and shortcomings. What isn't easy is to remind myself how good I actually have it. I'm not talking about the typical Thanksgiving "I thank God for my friends, my family, my big screened T.V. and Taco Bell." (Ok, so I don't actually have a big screened T.V. but I think you get the point) I'm talking about a genuine thankfulness for my salvation.
How often do we think about how good we have it with Jesus? How often do we think about just how good is the good news?
Here is the deal that Jesus offers us:
I'll take your pain, your guilt, and your shame and you can have My healing, my righteousness, and my glory.
Where in the world can you get a deal like that?
Why would anyone in their right minds want to pass this up?
Is it perhaps because it seems to good to be true?
How often do we think about how good we have it with Jesus? How often do we think about just how good is the good news?
Here is the deal that Jesus offers us:
I'll take your pain, your guilt, and your shame and you can have My healing, my righteousness, and my glory.
Where in the world can you get a deal like that?
Why would anyone in their right minds want to pass this up?
Is it perhaps because it seems to good to be true?
Monday, September 10, 2007
A new self righteousness
If you've been reading my blog for a while, you've probably figured out that I've been going through a moral/spiritual/theological overhaul within the past two years that has turned my world upside down and caused me to question nearly all of my philosophical presuppositions. One of the truths I've discovered is that Christians must not align themselves to closely with a political agenda. For many that may be an absolute duh.... statement, but for others, the idea that Jesus is neither an American nor a Republican is absolutely earth shaking.
Now that I know that Christianity (especially charismatic Christianity) can not be equated with conservative politics, I have to admit that my mind is a lot freer to think beyond the traditional Christian right moral issues of abortion and gay marriage as the sole issues of concern. As I read the Biblical prophets, I now see that the issue of poverty and the economic structures that create them are exponentially high on the list of, should I say, God's social agenda. When I read Jesus (and His brother James who mimicked Jesus' social concern) I am haunted by the idea that, in the end, Jesus is going to be throwing people into hell because of what they did not do to "the least of these my brethren." Bottom line: whether you are a conservative or a liberal, what you do for or against the poor really matters to God. This is a truth that I have discovered and it's a truth I believe needs to be addressed in a major way, especially in Bible-Believing theologically coservative churches.
But there's a problem. The problem is that, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13(and I'm paraphrasing here) "I can sell all my possessions and give my body to be burned alive, but if I don 't have love, it's all worthless." A social gospel can very easily turn into a "I'm good enough to get into heaven on my own gospel" and that is where the cross screams the loudest "No you can't!" I realize that I can dish out food at a homeless shelter and advocate for global poverty (things that I currently do)-and still have a dirty heart at the end of the day. How easy it is to trade one form of self-righteousness for another.
I think we all need to be reminded from time to time just how much we fall short of God's righteouss standards no matter how hard we try. I think the Apostle Paul had it right when he said, "I'm the chief of sinners." Notice he didn't say I was the chief of sinners. He said I am the chief of sinners. If we as Christians are going to be speaking out on moral issues, we need to do so as self-professed moral failures. Any other attitude misses God's kingdom from the distance of the head to the heart-no matter what side of the political aisle we find ourselves on.
Now that I know that Christianity (especially charismatic Christianity) can not be equated with conservative politics, I have to admit that my mind is a lot freer to think beyond the traditional Christian right moral issues of abortion and gay marriage as the sole issues of concern. As I read the Biblical prophets, I now see that the issue of poverty and the economic structures that create them are exponentially high on the list of, should I say, God's social agenda. When I read Jesus (and His brother James who mimicked Jesus' social concern) I am haunted by the idea that, in the end, Jesus is going to be throwing people into hell because of what they did not do to "the least of these my brethren." Bottom line: whether you are a conservative or a liberal, what you do for or against the poor really matters to God. This is a truth that I have discovered and it's a truth I believe needs to be addressed in a major way, especially in Bible-Believing theologically coservative churches.
But there's a problem. The problem is that, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13(and I'm paraphrasing here) "I can sell all my possessions and give my body to be burned alive, but if I don 't have love, it's all worthless." A social gospel can very easily turn into a "I'm good enough to get into heaven on my own gospel" and that is where the cross screams the loudest "No you can't!" I realize that I can dish out food at a homeless shelter and advocate for global poverty (things that I currently do)-and still have a dirty heart at the end of the day. How easy it is to trade one form of self-righteousness for another.
I think we all need to be reminded from time to time just how much we fall short of God's righteouss standards no matter how hard we try. I think the Apostle Paul had it right when he said, "I'm the chief of sinners." Notice he didn't say I was the chief of sinners. He said I am the chief of sinners. If we as Christians are going to be speaking out on moral issues, we need to do so as self-professed moral failures. Any other attitude misses God's kingdom from the distance of the head to the heart-no matter what side of the political aisle we find ourselves on.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Modern Day Pharisees
The following was written on 9/13/06. It should be noted that I am not quite as optimistic about the state of American Christianity as I was when I wrote this piece last year. In my book, "Reformation: A Biblical Response to Holy War" I will be showing how some of the same tendencies that exist in radical Islam also exist in certain sectors of evangelical Christianity right here in America. The point of the article is still valid though, Pharisees are those who want to rule over others in the name of God.
Question: I was wondering if you would ever do a teaching or side by side comparison of the
Pharisees in Jesus time and the Pharisees in our time. I am very drawn to learn more
about not being a Pharisee.
Answer: Thank you for the question. I think your desire to avoid becoming a modern day Pharisee is an admirable one, but I don't think you have much to worry about if you are a sincere Christian seeking to follow Jesus. I have to confess that in the past, I have thrown the word "Pharisee" around a little too lightly, as many others have done. It seems the word is used most often when one particular group of Christians wants to insult another group of Christians. This trivializes the word and loses sight of who the Pharisees really were and what the modern equivalent would be. Even Paul the Apostle when He was persecuting the church was not as depraved as the other Pharisees who were responsible for delivering up Jesus to be crucified (I Timothy 1:13)
First of all, the Pharisees thought that Jesus was demon possessed even though He did nothing but heal the sick and love the poor (John 8:48). They burdened people with rituals and laws and condemned people for not following their rigid demands (Matthew 23:4). They were powerful religious rulers who had married their zeal with the power of the state (John 11:48). They had a strict interpretation of the Old Testament law which did not allow for mercy. They thought nothing of stoning a woman to death for adultery (John 8:1-12). Lastly, they were motivated not by love for God, but by greed, envy, and power (John 11:48,Luke 16:14).
Do we have an equivalent in our day and age? Yes we do. I believe the religious police in Saudi Arabia and the Mullahs in Iran fit this description perfectly. Check out the book Iran: Desperate for God for a description of the Mullahs and Blink by Ted Dekker for a description of the religious police in Saudi Arabia. Of course, the Taliban would also be a fitting description of a modern day Pharisee. I would put the medieval Catholic Church responsible for the Inquisition in the same category. They used religion to condemn and kill rather than to love and save.
Yes, we have religious people with Pharisaical tendencies in American Christianity, but none to the same level as the actual Pharisees in the Bible as far as I am aware of. One safeguard against a Pharisaical spirit is to have an all-inclusive view of God's love for humanity. It is a human tendency to think of God's chosen as us four and no more, whether it is extreme Pentecostals who think that only tongue talkers will be in heaven (a minority view)or Fundamentalist Christians who believe that all Catholics are destined for hell for believing in purgatory and praying for the dead. Surely God is bigger than our theological squabbles! I am not suggesting that all are saved or that docrine doesn't matter. What I am saying is the cross of Christ has far more ability to save than does Adam's sin to condemn (see Romans 5). May we rejoice that our sins are forgiven and extend the same hope to the rest of humanity. When the gospel is such good news, who needs Pharisees?
Question: I was wondering if you would ever do a teaching or side by side comparison of the
Pharisees in Jesus time and the Pharisees in our time. I am very drawn to learn more
about not being a Pharisee.
Answer: Thank you for the question. I think your desire to avoid becoming a modern day Pharisee is an admirable one, but I don't think you have much to worry about if you are a sincere Christian seeking to follow Jesus. I have to confess that in the past, I have thrown the word "Pharisee" around a little too lightly, as many others have done. It seems the word is used most often when one particular group of Christians wants to insult another group of Christians. This trivializes the word and loses sight of who the Pharisees really were and what the modern equivalent would be. Even Paul the Apostle when He was persecuting the church was not as depraved as the other Pharisees who were responsible for delivering up Jesus to be crucified (I Timothy 1:13)
First of all, the Pharisees thought that Jesus was demon possessed even though He did nothing but heal the sick and love the poor (John 8:48). They burdened people with rituals and laws and condemned people for not following their rigid demands (Matthew 23:4). They were powerful religious rulers who had married their zeal with the power of the state (John 11:48). They had a strict interpretation of the Old Testament law which did not allow for mercy. They thought nothing of stoning a woman to death for adultery (John 8:1-12). Lastly, they were motivated not by love for God, but by greed, envy, and power (John 11:48,Luke 16:14).
Do we have an equivalent in our day and age? Yes we do. I believe the religious police in Saudi Arabia and the Mullahs in Iran fit this description perfectly. Check out the book Iran: Desperate for God for a description of the Mullahs and Blink by Ted Dekker for a description of the religious police in Saudi Arabia. Of course, the Taliban would also be a fitting description of a modern day Pharisee. I would put the medieval Catholic Church responsible for the Inquisition in the same category. They used religion to condemn and kill rather than to love and save.
Yes, we have religious people with Pharisaical tendencies in American Christianity, but none to the same level as the actual Pharisees in the Bible as far as I am aware of. One safeguard against a Pharisaical spirit is to have an all-inclusive view of God's love for humanity. It is a human tendency to think of God's chosen as us four and no more, whether it is extreme Pentecostals who think that only tongue talkers will be in heaven (a minority view)or Fundamentalist Christians who believe that all Catholics are destined for hell for believing in purgatory and praying for the dead. Surely God is bigger than our theological squabbles! I am not suggesting that all are saved or that docrine doesn't matter. What I am saying is the cross of Christ has far more ability to save than does Adam's sin to condemn (see Romans 5). May we rejoice that our sins are forgiven and extend the same hope to the rest of humanity. When the gospel is such good news, who needs Pharisees?
Friday, August 17, 2007
Notes from Colin Powell's speech
I thought my readers might enjoy reading a few of the notes I took on Colin Powell's speaking yesterday at the convention.
Here are two quotes I found particularly noteworthy:
1. The greatest strength we have to fight terrorism is our openness to the rest of the world. Terrorists can knock down our buildings, but they can not change who we are.
2. Trade is now what is driving the political realignment of the world.
Powell also made the note that troops in Iraq are, in fact, in the middle of a civil war. Powell suggested that America puts the pressure on the Iraqi people and not the U.S. military. Powell also mentioned that he supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq when he was the Secretary of State, but he felt that the war has been poorly handled.
Powell mentioned how he had a conversation with President Bush on the current Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the conversation, President Bush said, "I've looked into his eyes and seen his soul." Powell responded, "I've looked into his eyes and seen his soul too, and I still see a lot of KGB."
Lastly, Powell left on a note of hope. In Powell's view, there are too many doom and gloomers who only see the negative. If we compare the world today to 50 years ago, the world has improved much. For example: The 800 million people living in Europe who, in the first half of the century fought two world wars among each other, now live in peaceful, stable democracies. In the past 50 years, over 3.5 billion Asians have been liberated and are on the road to economic prosperity.
These were the points I found particularly noteworthy. Discuss!
Here are two quotes I found particularly noteworthy:
1. The greatest strength we have to fight terrorism is our openness to the rest of the world. Terrorists can knock down our buildings, but they can not change who we are.
2. Trade is now what is driving the political realignment of the world.
Powell also made the note that troops in Iraq are, in fact, in the middle of a civil war. Powell suggested that America puts the pressure on the Iraqi people and not the U.S. military. Powell also mentioned that he supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq when he was the Secretary of State, but he felt that the war has been poorly handled.
Powell mentioned how he had a conversation with President Bush on the current Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the conversation, President Bush said, "I've looked into his eyes and seen his soul." Powell responded, "I've looked into his eyes and seen his soul too, and I still see a lot of KGB."
Lastly, Powell left on a note of hope. In Powell's view, there are too many doom and gloomers who only see the negative. If we compare the world today to 50 years ago, the world has improved much. For example: The 800 million people living in Europe who, in the first half of the century fought two world wars among each other, now live in peaceful, stable democracies. In the past 50 years, over 3.5 billion Asians have been liberated and are on the road to economic prosperity.
These were the points I found particularly noteworthy. Discuss!
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Want success? Get Jesus!
Today my dad took me to the "Get Motivated" seminar organized by success guru Peter Lowe. The line-up of speakers was like a Who's Who of the rich, famous, and influential. Speakers included George Foreman, Suze Orman, Zig Ziglar, and Colin Powell.
One of the interesting points was how both Zig Ziglar (probably the most famous motivational speaker of our generation) and Peter Lowe, both outspoken Christians, continually used scripture in their presentations.
Growing up in the faith movement I heard some very familiar phrases. Here is a brief list.
1. Our minds are controlled by the words we speak.
2. Our words determine our experience.
3. If you want to change your future, change your words.
4. When you speak, you must believe that what you desire has already happened (Mark 11:24 anyone?)
5. A winning belief is when you know you've won.
Amazingly, Peter Lowe then went into a very standard evangelical gospel presentation complete with references from the Book of Romans to explain how sin has separated us from God. He even used the famous courtroom analogy of a father, who happens to be the judge, paying the traffic fine for his son. For a while, I wasn't sure if I was at a success seminar or a Billy Graham crusade.
Although I have a few mixed feelings about presenting Jesus as the ticket to the American dream, all in all I was pleased that the effort was made to minister the gospel to the hundreds, perhaps thousands of those who would otherwise not step foot inside a church. Talk about creative evangelism.
Please pray that God will give me wisdom to address felt needs with the power of the gospel.
One of the interesting points was how both Zig Ziglar (probably the most famous motivational speaker of our generation) and Peter Lowe, both outspoken Christians, continually used scripture in their presentations.
Growing up in the faith movement I heard some very familiar phrases. Here is a brief list.
1. Our minds are controlled by the words we speak.
2. Our words determine our experience.
3. If you want to change your future, change your words.
4. When you speak, you must believe that what you desire has already happened (Mark 11:24 anyone?)
5. A winning belief is when you know you've won.
Amazingly, Peter Lowe then went into a very standard evangelical gospel presentation complete with references from the Book of Romans to explain how sin has separated us from God. He even used the famous courtroom analogy of a father, who happens to be the judge, paying the traffic fine for his son. For a while, I wasn't sure if I was at a success seminar or a Billy Graham crusade.
Although I have a few mixed feelings about presenting Jesus as the ticket to the American dream, all in all I was pleased that the effort was made to minister the gospel to the hundreds, perhaps thousands of those who would otherwise not step foot inside a church. Talk about creative evangelism.
Please pray that God will give me wisdom to address felt needs with the power of the gospel.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Richard Simmons goes to Washington
Forget Elle Woods from Legally Blonde 2. The new political activist for the day is Richard Simmons the zany Sweating to the Oldies excercise guru known for his, shall I say, less than masculine image. I was thinking about what I wanted to write today when, as always, I got my inspiration from The Today Show. (What would this blog be like without Al Roker and Meredith Viera?) Just a quick tip before I proceed, I learned that the primary way Richard Simmons (who used to be obese) keeps the weight off is to substitute a meal for a salad at least 4 times a week. I've been doing this lately, so it was nice to see somebody confirm it on national television.
According to Simmons, when the No Child Left Behind act was passed, the focus became exclusively on academic performance. Physical Education, unfortunately, was left behind. I have to admit that, during my high school years, I could have done without having to undress with a bunch of other guys in a sweaty locker room-but that's just me. I wasn't too proud of my concave. My guess is that those with a manlier physique probably secretly looked forward to it every day.Richard Simmons is introducing a new bill to restore P.E. as a national priority, thus saving it from being cut from the curriculum in schools across the nation.
I'd like to ask my readers what do you think about physical education being a national priority in our nation's education system? Jokes about Richard Simmons aside (cough....Pete....cough), do you support what he is doing? I'd like to hear what you think.
According to Simmons, when the No Child Left Behind act was passed, the focus became exclusively on academic performance. Physical Education, unfortunately, was left behind. I have to admit that, during my high school years, I could have done without having to undress with a bunch of other guys in a sweaty locker room-but that's just me. I wasn't too proud of my concave. My guess is that those with a manlier physique probably secretly looked forward to it every day.Richard Simmons is introducing a new bill to restore P.E. as a national priority, thus saving it from being cut from the curriculum in schools across the nation.
I'd like to ask my readers what do you think about physical education being a national priority in our nation's education system? Jokes about Richard Simmons aside (cough....Pete....cough), do you support what he is doing? I'd like to hear what you think.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Living on the streets of Dakar
I thought my readers might enjoy reading something written by my wife, Rhiannon. Rhiannon will be submitting this article for publication to a children's magazine whose topic for next month is Islam in Africa. I believe that God is raising up Rhiannon and giving her a unique ministry in her own right, advocating for children around the world.
Imagine for a moment waking up on a cold, wet sidewalk to the smell of trash and the sounds of a busy street. You are not wearing shoes because you can’t afford to buy them and no one is willing to buy them for you. Your unwashed T-shirt and shorts are full of holes and you skin is covered in dirt. You go for weeks or months at a time without taking a shower. The only item you possess is a large red tomato paste can that you use for collecting change and sugar cubes when you beg. Your family is a bunch of other kids younger and older then you who are living in the same conditions. Imagining this for your self may be difficult, but this is what life is like for 50,000 to 100,000 talibe boys in the country of Senegal. Although there are kids all around the world who live in conditions like this, I would like to focus on Senegal and the talibe, because My husband and I lived in the capital city of Dakar for a year and a half.
Parents who can’t provide give their boys to a marabout (a Muslim sorcerer believed to have supernatural powers) to raise them and provide them with an education. Many people respect the Marabout because of his knowledge of the Koran. The Zatkat in the Koran asks people to help those who do not have the means to help themselves. This is what a marabout is suppose to do. In the past parents would give compensation or gifts and the boys would work as farmers to support the marabout. They would also go house to house in their village reciting the Koran, receiving donations along the way. Today most of the boys are taken out of the villages into the cities where the marabouts can make a better living. A single marabout may have between 20 and several hundred talibes in his care, depending on his reputation.
All Talibes attend Koranic boarding schools called daaras where they learn about the Koran (the holy book of Islam) and how to read Arabic script. Daaras are dilapidated or unfinished houses or animal sheds without roofs, water or electricity. They are filled with germs, rats, cockroaches and even human waste. These schools receive no support from parents or the government, so in order to have a source of income, a marabout will send his talibes into the streets to beg. Any money that the talibe receives goes to support the marabout and his family. Many marabouts require that their talibes meet a certain quota for the day, which is an equivalent of one dollar, and if they do not meet that quota, they may be severely beaten. It is said that the talibes begging is part of their Koranic education. It is supposed to teach them humility, while at the same time offering the opportunity for other Muslims to practice charity.
The real goal of a Talibe is to know the Koran by heart by the age of 15. They have no formal education apart from learning the Koran, no ties to their family, and little chance of getting a job when they are older. Most become a bifal (disciple of the marabout) and spend the rest of their lives on the streets begging.
If you have read this article and feel that you would like to do something about child slavery, continue reading. Free the Children was started by 12-year-old Craig Kielburger. It is a large network of children helping children through education. Go on line to www.freethechildren.com to read about how you can help. 15-year-old Zach Hunter started Loose Change to Loosen Chains. Do a keyword search for Loose Change to Loosen Chains and read about how you can help free modern-day slaves. Since most children become slaves because of poverty, you or your family can sponsor a child through World Vision, Save the Children or any other organization you may find. This will ensure a future for that child by giving them access to education and health care.
There is not much that can be done for the Talibe, because they are property of the marabouts. There are organizations in Senegal that do reach out to these young boys by giving them food, medical care and a shower. Hopefully one day all a Senegalese boy will have to do is imagine like you did at the beginning of this story. Until then many will go to bed hungry, dirty, and exhausted from a long day begging on the streets.
Imagine for a moment waking up on a cold, wet sidewalk to the smell of trash and the sounds of a busy street. You are not wearing shoes because you can’t afford to buy them and no one is willing to buy them for you. Your unwashed T-shirt and shorts are full of holes and you skin is covered in dirt. You go for weeks or months at a time without taking a shower. The only item you possess is a large red tomato paste can that you use for collecting change and sugar cubes when you beg. Your family is a bunch of other kids younger and older then you who are living in the same conditions. Imagining this for your self may be difficult, but this is what life is like for 50,000 to 100,000 talibe boys in the country of Senegal. Although there are kids all around the world who live in conditions like this, I would like to focus on Senegal and the talibe, because My husband and I lived in the capital city of Dakar for a year and a half.
Parents who can’t provide give their boys to a marabout (a Muslim sorcerer believed to have supernatural powers) to raise them and provide them with an education. Many people respect the Marabout because of his knowledge of the Koran. The Zatkat in the Koran asks people to help those who do not have the means to help themselves. This is what a marabout is suppose to do. In the past parents would give compensation or gifts and the boys would work as farmers to support the marabout. They would also go house to house in their village reciting the Koran, receiving donations along the way. Today most of the boys are taken out of the villages into the cities where the marabouts can make a better living. A single marabout may have between 20 and several hundred talibes in his care, depending on his reputation.
All Talibes attend Koranic boarding schools called daaras where they learn about the Koran (the holy book of Islam) and how to read Arabic script. Daaras are dilapidated or unfinished houses or animal sheds without roofs, water or electricity. They are filled with germs, rats, cockroaches and even human waste. These schools receive no support from parents or the government, so in order to have a source of income, a marabout will send his talibes into the streets to beg. Any money that the talibe receives goes to support the marabout and his family. Many marabouts require that their talibes meet a certain quota for the day, which is an equivalent of one dollar, and if they do not meet that quota, they may be severely beaten. It is said that the talibes begging is part of their Koranic education. It is supposed to teach them humility, while at the same time offering the opportunity for other Muslims to practice charity.
The real goal of a Talibe is to know the Koran by heart by the age of 15. They have no formal education apart from learning the Koran, no ties to their family, and little chance of getting a job when they are older. Most become a bifal (disciple of the marabout) and spend the rest of their lives on the streets begging.
If you have read this article and feel that you would like to do something about child slavery, continue reading. Free the Children was started by 12-year-old Craig Kielburger. It is a large network of children helping children through education. Go on line to www.freethechildren.com to read about how you can help. 15-year-old Zach Hunter started Loose Change to Loosen Chains. Do a keyword search for Loose Change to Loosen Chains and read about how you can help free modern-day slaves. Since most children become slaves because of poverty, you or your family can sponsor a child through World Vision, Save the Children or any other organization you may find. This will ensure a future for that child by giving them access to education and health care.
There is not much that can be done for the Talibe, because they are property of the marabouts. There are organizations in Senegal that do reach out to these young boys by giving them food, medical care and a shower. Hopefully one day all a Senegalese boy will have to do is imagine like you did at the beginning of this story. Until then many will go to bed hungry, dirty, and exhausted from a long day begging on the streets.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
The question of taboo language
Sorry I haven't written for a while. I've been particularly busy researching for my book, "Reformation: A Biblical Response to Holy War." The last post that I wrote, "dung happens" drew an unexpected response from my readers asking me to address the issue of curse words. Since I appreciate the feedback, I'm going to give a brief overview on what I think Scripture has to say on the issue of "cuss words."
The first Scripture that comes to mind is Colossians 3:8 which says, "But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth." Since this is a clear injunction from Scripture, Christians are obligated to obey it. The question then becomes, what is filthy language? Since it would be nearly impossible to put a biblical definition on an issue that depends on subjective judgments; I think that culture, conscience, and common sense come into play here. Given what the common culture accepts as taboo language, I would find it very difficult to justify a Christian using the "F" word for any reason.
Although I can't imagine Jesus or the apostles using words like the "F" word in every day language, I wouldn't put it past Jesus nor the Apostles to use crass language to prove a point. Case in point, Thomas Cahill, a respected New Testament scholar has an interesting translation of Mark 7:18-19 in his book, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills." Cahill quotes Jesus as saying, "What don't you get? Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean, since it doesn't go into his heart but into his bowels, and then passes out into the shithole?"
In the sidenote, Cahill says,
I think there is a deeper issue that is far more serious than the question of crass language verses standard language. There is a big difference between saying I fell on my ass the other day and calling somebody an asshole. One is improper etiquette. The other is a form of contempt, something that Jesus strictly warned against. I think the most important Scripture dealing with language is what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount.
I think the Christian who occasionally substitutes "ass" for "rear" and "shit" for "dung" has less to fear than a Christian who avoids taboo language, but has a habit of cutting other people down by calling them "stupid" "idiot" or "moron." Contempt is a far more serious issue than bad manners. In my judgment, I think it's best to avoid both. What's important to avoid in this discussion is hypocrisy. I think Jesus would agree.
The first Scripture that comes to mind is Colossians 3:8 which says, "But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth." Since this is a clear injunction from Scripture, Christians are obligated to obey it. The question then becomes, what is filthy language? Since it would be nearly impossible to put a biblical definition on an issue that depends on subjective judgments; I think that culture, conscience, and common sense come into play here. Given what the common culture accepts as taboo language, I would find it very difficult to justify a Christian using the "F" word for any reason.
Although I can't imagine Jesus or the apostles using words like the "F" word in every day language, I wouldn't put it past Jesus nor the Apostles to use crass language to prove a point. Case in point, Thomas Cahill, a respected New Testament scholar has an interesting translation of Mark 7:18-19 in his book, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills." Cahill quotes Jesus as saying, "What don't you get? Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean, since it doesn't go into his heart but into his bowels, and then passes out into the shithole?"
In the sidenote, Cahill says,
"Usually translated "privy" or "sewer" the word that Matthew chooses is aphedron, Macedonian slang that would have sounded barbarous to Greek ears. Jesus was not bashful about referring to bodily functions, even if His translators are."
I think there is a deeper issue that is far more serious than the question of crass language verses standard language. There is a big difference between saying I fell on my ass the other day and calling somebody an asshole. One is improper etiquette. The other is a form of contempt, something that Jesus strictly warned against. I think the most important Scripture dealing with language is what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount.
"And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hellfire."
I think the Christian who occasionally substitutes "ass" for "rear" and "shit" for "dung" has less to fear than a Christian who avoids taboo language, but has a habit of cutting other people down by calling them "stupid" "idiot" or "moron." Contempt is a far more serious issue than bad manners. In my judgment, I think it's best to avoid both. What's important to avoid in this discussion is hypocrisy. I think Jesus would agree.
Monday, July 30, 2007
A story of deliverance
I received this e-mail today from a close friend of our family. Her name is Rose Mwangi and she lives in Nairobi, Kenya. Let's take a moment and give thanks to the Lord for His goodness.
Dear family and friends,
Today is the day that the Lord has made and I will rejoice and be glad in it!
Last Saturday July 28, 2007 begun as a normal day for me but one thing I picked out –I had such a strong desire to live and I asked the LORD to give me a scripture that would carry me through the day. God led me to PSALM 118:17-I WILL NOT DIE BUT LIVE TO DECLARE THE WORKS OF GOD!!
At about 11 am I was slowly driving from a side road near Safari Park Hotel from USIU (united states international university) and when I got onto the main road(Thika Road) a man ran towards me with a pistol pointed directly at me!-a certain peace came over me and when I realized what was happening , I silently called out THE NAME OF THE LORD-NGAI !(GOD)! In kikuyu.
In a flash, the man was destructed by a man running on a side path and I heard bullets go off one after another as he begun chasing him. Then a second man ran from the opposite side of the road and came towards me with his pistol pointing in the air. He looked at me and with his pistol signaled me to drive on!
I sped off and it occurred to me that God had just rescued me from another line up of gun murders in our city!!
WHAT A MIGHTY GOD WE SERVE!
If you can thank God for anything today, please thank HIM for sparing my life!! And that you too can live to declare of his wonders!
INDEED THE NAME OF THE LORD IS A STRONG TOWER, THE RIGHTEOUS RUN UNTO IT AND THEY ARE SAFE!
I don’t know why the LORD SPARED MY LIFE, but i did not acknowledge CHRIST as my LORD AND SAVIOR, am not sure I would have had the confidence to call upon the name of my FATHER IN HEAVEN and I urge you my friends and family-ACCEPT CHRIST TODAY FOR TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE!
PSALM 91 FOR YOU AND I love you all .
Rose
Dear family and friends,
Today is the day that the Lord has made and I will rejoice and be glad in it!
Last Saturday July 28, 2007 begun as a normal day for me but one thing I picked out –I had such a strong desire to live and I asked the LORD to give me a scripture that would carry me through the day. God led me to PSALM 118:17-I WILL NOT DIE BUT LIVE TO DECLARE THE WORKS OF GOD!!
At about 11 am I was slowly driving from a side road near Safari Park Hotel from USIU (united states international university) and when I got onto the main road(Thika Road) a man ran towards me with a pistol pointed directly at me!-a certain peace came over me and when I realized what was happening , I silently called out THE NAME OF THE LORD-NGAI !(GOD)! In kikuyu.
In a flash, the man was destructed by a man running on a side path and I heard bullets go off one after another as he begun chasing him. Then a second man ran from the opposite side of the road and came towards me with his pistol pointing in the air. He looked at me and with his pistol signaled me to drive on!
I sped off and it occurred to me that God had just rescued me from another line up of gun murders in our city!!
WHAT A MIGHTY GOD WE SERVE!
If you can thank God for anything today, please thank HIM for sparing my life!! And that you too can live to declare of his wonders!
INDEED THE NAME OF THE LORD IS A STRONG TOWER, THE RIGHTEOUS RUN UNTO IT AND THEY ARE SAFE!
I don’t know why the LORD SPARED MY LIFE, but i did not acknowledge CHRIST as my LORD AND SAVIOR, am not sure I would have had the confidence to call upon the name of my FATHER IN HEAVEN and I urge you my friends and family-ACCEPT CHRIST TODAY FOR TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE!
PSALM 91 FOR YOU AND I love you all .
Rose
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Dung happens-the Bible tells me so
I'm not sure if it's theologically kosher to pick a favorite book of the Bible, but if I could pick a favorite book , the answer would be Ecclesiastes. For me Ecclesiastes is like food for the soul. I love reading the Psalms and I love reading Proverbs, but there is something about the book of Ecclesiastes that grabs me every time I read it. I would even suggest that if one only reads the Book of Proverbs, (which was written during the years of Solomon's reign) and skips over Ecclesiastes ( which was written towards the end of his life); it is like watching Megan Fallows play an adolescent in Anne of Green Gables without watching her grow to maturity in Anne of Avonlea.
Without going into an exposition of the entire book, I would like to point out a passage in Ecclesiastes that I think is probably the most unique passage in the entire Bible. The passage is found in Ecclesiastes 9:11, "I returned and saw under the sun that-The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to all."
Not only is this the most unique verse in all the Bible, I think it is the most unique verse in all of religion. Every religion that I can think of teaches a strict reciprocity principle. You get what you deserve and that's the end of the story. Buddhism and Hinduism teach karma, Islam teaches that everything that happens is directly willed by Allah (and Allah gives people what they deserve). The strict reciprocity principle even makes its way into human cultures.The idea that one's lot in life is directly proportional to the choices one makes is an idea nearly enshrined in American culture. As far as I know, the Bible is the only religious book that allows for time and chance.
I'm glad this is in the Bible. If it weren't, I think we could all rightly question whether the Bible is truly the Word of God, because if a book is going to make the claim to be inspired by God, shouldn't it at least portray reality as it is? While most of us prefer to believe that we are in control of our lives, the reality is-dung happens.
Forrest Gump was right. Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. Sometimes the righteous suffer the majority of their lives through little fault of their own. Other times the wicked prosper despite their evil deeds. Sometimes talentless people strike record deals. Other times world class singers like Eva Cassidy spend their lives in virtual anonymity and die of skin cancer in their early thirties. One just happened to be at the right place at the right time and the other just couldn't catch a break.
Knowing this helps to put things in perspective. Things don't always turn out like they should. That's just life. I think Solomon understood that it is better to adjust to the nuance of reality than to live in a fantasy world of predictability. I don't have a degree in Psychology, but I have a feeling that adjusting to reality makes good mental sense. So the next time I see the world famous bumper sticker with a slightly different word for dung, I'll think to myself, just one more reason to believe the Bible.
Without going into an exposition of the entire book, I would like to point out a passage in Ecclesiastes that I think is probably the most unique passage in the entire Bible. The passage is found in Ecclesiastes 9:11, "I returned and saw under the sun that-The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to all."
Not only is this the most unique verse in all the Bible, I think it is the most unique verse in all of religion. Every religion that I can think of teaches a strict reciprocity principle. You get what you deserve and that's the end of the story. Buddhism and Hinduism teach karma, Islam teaches that everything that happens is directly willed by Allah (and Allah gives people what they deserve). The strict reciprocity principle even makes its way into human cultures.The idea that one's lot in life is directly proportional to the choices one makes is an idea nearly enshrined in American culture. As far as I know, the Bible is the only religious book that allows for time and chance.
I'm glad this is in the Bible. If it weren't, I think we could all rightly question whether the Bible is truly the Word of God, because if a book is going to make the claim to be inspired by God, shouldn't it at least portray reality as it is? While most of us prefer to believe that we are in control of our lives, the reality is-dung happens.
Forrest Gump was right. Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. Sometimes the righteous suffer the majority of their lives through little fault of their own. Other times the wicked prosper despite their evil deeds. Sometimes talentless people strike record deals. Other times world class singers like Eva Cassidy spend their lives in virtual anonymity and die of skin cancer in their early thirties. One just happened to be at the right place at the right time and the other just couldn't catch a break.
Knowing this helps to put things in perspective. Things don't always turn out like they should. That's just life. I think Solomon understood that it is better to adjust to the nuance of reality than to live in a fantasy world of predictability. I don't have a degree in Psychology, but I have a feeling that adjusting to reality makes good mental sense. So the next time I see the world famous bumper sticker with a slightly different word for dung, I'll think to myself, just one more reason to believe the Bible.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Farewell to Tammy Faye
If you are older than 40 and were not living in a cave in 1987, you probably remember Tammy Faye Bakker (who later became Tammy Faye Messner) for her fake eyelashes, tear-stained mascara, and air-conditioned doghouse. In evangelical circles, and among non-Christians, Tammy Faye has been one of the easiest targets for cheap shot jokes, especially for late night comedians. For many Christians, Tammy Faye's name has come to be associated with opulence, excess, and, in general, what many people believe to be wrong with the American Church.
I've seen Tammy Faye interviewed several times on Larry King and, I have to admit, I've grown to appreciate her more than I thought I ever would. I appreciate how Tammy Faye forgave her former husband, Jim Bakker (and stood by him while he was in prison). Even more so, I appreciate how she forgave Jerry Falwell for putting her and her family through hell. I also appreciate how Tammy Faye was able to go on with life after losing her husband, her home, her ministry, and still manage to smile through it all. Who else can you think of that has lost so much, been the subject of personal attacks by the media (and by her fellow Christians) and yet, manage not to take herself too seriously?
Through it all, Tammy Faye never stopped loving and laughing, although there were plenty of people who wanted her to stop doing just that. Although her name had become synonymous with scandal, Tammy Faye found a way to keep on living. Tammy Faye was far from perfect. But then again, so am I. I'm so glad that God uses imperfect vessels to spread His love around the earth.
Tammy Faye passed away over the weekend.
Rest in peace.
I've seen Tammy Faye interviewed several times on Larry King and, I have to admit, I've grown to appreciate her more than I thought I ever would. I appreciate how Tammy Faye forgave her former husband, Jim Bakker (and stood by him while he was in prison). Even more so, I appreciate how she forgave Jerry Falwell for putting her and her family through hell. I also appreciate how Tammy Faye was able to go on with life after losing her husband, her home, her ministry, and still manage to smile through it all. Who else can you think of that has lost so much, been the subject of personal attacks by the media (and by her fellow Christians) and yet, manage not to take herself too seriously?
Through it all, Tammy Faye never stopped loving and laughing, although there were plenty of people who wanted her to stop doing just that. Although her name had become synonymous with scandal, Tammy Faye found a way to keep on living. Tammy Faye was far from perfect. But then again, so am I. I'm so glad that God uses imperfect vessels to spread His love around the earth.
Tammy Faye passed away over the weekend.
Rest in peace.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Does Jack Daniels help the poor?
When I was a student at Christ for the Nations, Freda Lindsay, (the institute's co-founder) would address the students at the beginning of each semester with a simple challenge. On January 1st, read three chapters of the Bible every day and five on Sunday and, by the end of the year, you will have read the Bible straight through. Like a responsible leader of a Bible School, Freda challenged her students to read the Bible straight through every year for the rest of their lives.
Although I've been reading the Bible from cover to cover since I was about 14, I have found Mom Lindsay's (that's what CFNI students affecionately call her) plan to be simple and very effective, which is why I have been on the Mom Lindsay plan for about 8 years now. Unlike a lot of my colleages, I do not underline in my Bible. The reason for this is because I don't want to limit myself to the things that stood out for me in previous years. I would rather have the same verses, or perhaps new verses, jump out at me in a fresh and new way every year.
In light of my year and a half long journey working on the film Holy Wars with director Stephen Marshall, today's reading took on an added significance as I read this word of wisdom from King Lemuel's mother in the Book of Proverbs chapter 31 verses 4-5:
I am not a drinker, nor do I plan on starting any time soon. On the other hand, neither am I a theological teetotaler. Even though I've never heard a pastor preach on this verse (and neither have I ever seen inner-city pastors giving whiskey to the homeless) I'm guessing that, with the exception of a few ultra-conservative pastors, the majority of evangelical pastors, whether charismatic or non-charismatic would agree with the statement that drinking in and of itself is not a sin, but drunkenness is. I always find it humorous when I read the Apostle Paul's advice to the Corinthian Christians getting drunk on communion. The great Apostle's advice is basically "If you want to drink. Drink at home." (author's paraphrase of I Corinthians 11:21-22) In light of a few curious verses like this one,and the fact that our Lord and Savior actually turned water into whine at a wedding ceremony, there is sound hermeneutical grounds for this conclusion.
Here is the problem I am dealing with. If you go to one of the many Muslim countries in the world that has a Christian minority and ask an ordinary Muslim on the street what he thinks of when he thinks of the word Christian, the likely response will be. "Oh, that's easy. Christians are the ones that drink." This is not a statement of judgment on Christians living as minorities in Muslims countries. In fact, I can hardly blame them. I imagine if I were forced to live in deplorable conditions because of my religious status, I might get a little tipsy too after an overbearing work day.
The deeper question I am thinking about is this. Since I am a Christian committed to the integrity of Scripture, I am obligated to view Christian morality as superior to Islamic morality. This makes sense. If it were otherwise, I would be a Muslim. It also means I have to defend the Christian standard of morality, which in this case, prefers moderation over abstinence.
This is not a moot issue. What few realize is that behind the more visible causes many attribute to the rise of radical Islam (such as the presence of U.S. troops in Muslim lands, the oppression of the Palestinians, Western economic imperialism, the U.S.'s support of corrupt dictators in Muslim lands), there is a fundamental belief among Muslim societies that their culture and way of life is superior to that of the West. The argument is that Christianity, although it preaches love and peace, isn't able to produce a just and orderly society because Jesus did not give a comprehensive system of government to regulate every aspect of life as did Muhammed.
The common Christian response is that societies can only change if hearts change. The Muslim response is well that's all good and nice, but just look at your society. On an individual level, the Christian case is a solid one. We all know self-righteous people who think they are better than everyone else simply because they follow a list of do's and don'ts. This is also evident in Muslim societies. Nobody likes a Pharisee, including many Muslims. On an individual level, if we are comparing grace with legalism, grace wins.
The problem comes when we look at the question of Christian morality (which applies very well on an individual level) and apply it to society. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. My question I would like to present to my readers is this: How do we make the case that societies rooted in Christian morality are morally superior than societies rooted in Islamic morality? Or should we try to make this case at all?
Although I've been reading the Bible from cover to cover since I was about 14, I have found Mom Lindsay's (that's what CFNI students affecionately call her) plan to be simple and very effective, which is why I have been on the Mom Lindsay plan for about 8 years now. Unlike a lot of my colleages, I do not underline in my Bible. The reason for this is because I don't want to limit myself to the things that stood out for me in previous years. I would rather have the same verses, or perhaps new verses, jump out at me in a fresh and new way every year.
In light of my year and a half long journey working on the film Holy Wars with director Stephen Marshall, today's reading took on an added significance as I read this word of wisdom from King Lemuel's mother in the Book of Proverbs chapter 31 verses 4-5:
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
I am not a drinker, nor do I plan on starting any time soon. On the other hand, neither am I a theological teetotaler. Even though I've never heard a pastor preach on this verse (and neither have I ever seen inner-city pastors giving whiskey to the homeless) I'm guessing that, with the exception of a few ultra-conservative pastors, the majority of evangelical pastors, whether charismatic or non-charismatic would agree with the statement that drinking in and of itself is not a sin, but drunkenness is. I always find it humorous when I read the Apostle Paul's advice to the Corinthian Christians getting drunk on communion. The great Apostle's advice is basically "If you want to drink. Drink at home." (author's paraphrase of I Corinthians 11:21-22) In light of a few curious verses like this one,and the fact that our Lord and Savior actually turned water into whine at a wedding ceremony, there is sound hermeneutical grounds for this conclusion.
Here is the problem I am dealing with. If you go to one of the many Muslim countries in the world that has a Christian minority and ask an ordinary Muslim on the street what he thinks of when he thinks of the word Christian, the likely response will be. "Oh, that's easy. Christians are the ones that drink." This is not a statement of judgment on Christians living as minorities in Muslims countries. In fact, I can hardly blame them. I imagine if I were forced to live in deplorable conditions because of my religious status, I might get a little tipsy too after an overbearing work day.
The deeper question I am thinking about is this. Since I am a Christian committed to the integrity of Scripture, I am obligated to view Christian morality as superior to Islamic morality. This makes sense. If it were otherwise, I would be a Muslim. It also means I have to defend the Christian standard of morality, which in this case, prefers moderation over abstinence.
This is not a moot issue. What few realize is that behind the more visible causes many attribute to the rise of radical Islam (such as the presence of U.S. troops in Muslim lands, the oppression of the Palestinians, Western economic imperialism, the U.S.'s support of corrupt dictators in Muslim lands), there is a fundamental belief among Muslim societies that their culture and way of life is superior to that of the West. The argument is that Christianity, although it preaches love and peace, isn't able to produce a just and orderly society because Jesus did not give a comprehensive system of government to regulate every aspect of life as did Muhammed.
The common Christian response is that societies can only change if hearts change. The Muslim response is well that's all good and nice, but just look at your society. On an individual level, the Christian case is a solid one. We all know self-righteous people who think they are better than everyone else simply because they follow a list of do's and don'ts. This is also evident in Muslim societies. Nobody likes a Pharisee, including many Muslims. On an individual level, if we are comparing grace with legalism, grace wins.
The problem comes when we look at the question of Christian morality (which applies very well on an individual level) and apply it to society. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. My question I would like to present to my readers is this: How do we make the case that societies rooted in Christian morality are morally superior than societies rooted in Islamic morality? Or should we try to make this case at all?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Egyptian Muslims seeking legal conversion
It's not everyday you hear about positive developments in the Middle East. I received this story from the Missions Catalyst e-newsletter put out by the Caleb Project. Enjoy.
In April 2007 a lower court ruled against 45 Copts who had converted to Islam or been deemed Muslim on account of the conversion of a parent, but who wanted to officially return to Christianity [the traditional religion of Coptic people]. The lower court ruled that Muslims, even if they are converts from Christianity, could not be permitted to apostatize (leave Islam). The Copts decided to appeal.
On July 1, Judge Essam Abdel Aziz of Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favor of the Copts and agreed to consider the merits of their case. A retrial has been slated for September 1, 2007.
"The decision by the Supreme Administrative Court to consider the case of Egyptian converts to Islam wanting to return to their Church is very positive," said Ramsis al-Naggar, the Coptic lawyer who represented 12 of the plaintiffs. "It proves there is still a window of freedom in Egypt."
"It is a step in the right direction," Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights said. "We are optimistic that the Supreme Administrative Court will eventually uphold the principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination, both of which are guaranteed under the Constitution and international law."
In April 2007 a lower court ruled against 45 Copts who had converted to Islam or been deemed Muslim on account of the conversion of a parent, but who wanted to officially return to Christianity [the traditional religion of Coptic people]. The lower court ruled that Muslims, even if they are converts from Christianity, could not be permitted to apostatize (leave Islam). The Copts decided to appeal.
On July 1, Judge Essam Abdel Aziz of Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favor of the Copts and agreed to consider the merits of their case. A retrial has been slated for September 1, 2007.
"The decision by the Supreme Administrative Court to consider the case of Egyptian converts to Islam wanting to return to their Church is very positive," said Ramsis al-Naggar, the Coptic lawyer who represented 12 of the plaintiffs. "It proves there is still a window of freedom in Egypt."
"It is a step in the right direction," Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights said. "We are optimistic that the Supreme Administrative Court will eventually uphold the principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination, both of which are guaranteed under the Constitution and international law."
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Tips on conserving energy
Last week I wrote a letter to my representative Congressman Russ Carnahan regarding Farm Bill Reform. Thinking I would get a form letter pretending to be a personal response, I instead got put on a mass e-mail list. God bless democracy! Here are a few tips on how to conserve energy from your friendly neighborhood Congressman Russ Carnahan.
While most of this is common sense, I didn't know that keeping your dryer free from flint helps conserve on energy. On second thought, being the man of the house, is that something I really need to know?
Note to feminists: I'm actually not a chauvinist. That last line was a sorry attempt at humor. Lighten up!
Anybody up for saving the planet today?
Making sure your home is properly insulated. Proper insulation in attics, ceilings, floors, crawlspaces and exterior and basement walls can save 30 percent on home heating bills;
Installing a programmable thermostat. Turning down a thermostat from 72 to 65 degrees for eight hours a day will save up to 10 percent on your heating bill;
Replacing existing light bulbs with Energy Star qualified fluorescent lights in the lamps and fixtures in your home; this can save up to 50 percent on lighting costs.
Unplug appliances when not in use.
Use appliance efficiently running the dishwasher only when necessary and full. Setting proper washing machine levels, and keeping dryers free of lint.
Don't forget to turn out lights when leaving the room, and keeping blinds up for light during colder months, down to keep heat out during warmer months.
Even setting your computer to sleep or hibernate can limit energy use.
While most of this is common sense, I didn't know that keeping your dryer free from flint helps conserve on energy. On second thought, being the man of the house, is that something I really need to know?
Note to feminists: I'm actually not a chauvinist. That last line was a sorry attempt at humor. Lighten up!
Anybody up for saving the planet today?
Monday, July 16, 2007
Grace abounded much more
There is a verse in Ecclesiastes that says, "He who increases knowledge increases sorrow." The more I learn about global issues such as extreme poverty, human trafficking, the persecution of Christians, religious fundamentalism,the easier it is to throw my hands up in despair and say "What's the use?" The situation becomes even more discouraging when I think about how the name of Christ is being dragged through the mud by T.V. preachers justifying colonialism and oppression in the name of Christian Zionism. At the time of this writing, I am unaware of any respected Pentecostal/charismatic leader in America speaking out against home demolitions and land seizures by Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. To the contrary, many of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are actually promoting this! In the name of Christ! Somewhere, somehow, the Pentecostal/charismatic movement that started out as a beautiful egalitarian movement on Azusa street has decided to turn God into a racist and a land-broker.
As heartbreaking as it is to see the T.V. preachers lead a sizable portion of American Christians on a death march to Armaggedon, I am encouraged when I read the 5th chapter of Romans and discover that in the end, "Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." I was actually planning on writing a post today about how the effects of Christ's righteousness far outweighs the effects of Adam's sin when it comes to the human race, but, lo and behold, the guest speaker at my church yesterday beat me to it! Now my fellow South County Christian Center readers are going to have to forgive me for reiterating what was so beautifully stated yesterday morning.
Perhaps the greatest comfort to me right now is knowing that in the end, everything that is wrong will be made right. Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more!
As heartbreaking as it is to see the T.V. preachers lead a sizable portion of American Christians on a death march to Armaggedon, I am encouraged when I read the 5th chapter of Romans and discover that in the end, "Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." I was actually planning on writing a post today about how the effects of Christ's righteousness far outweighs the effects of Adam's sin when it comes to the human race, but, lo and behold, the guest speaker at my church yesterday beat me to it! Now my fellow South County Christian Center readers are going to have to forgive me for reiterating what was so beautifully stated yesterday morning.
Perhaps the greatest comfort to me right now is knowing that in the end, everything that is wrong will be made right. Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Dying for cell phones
Are people in Eastern Congo dying so that you and I can have cell phones and laptop computers? Read this article and you be the judge. I've been reading a lot about the crisis in Congo lately. I think that we as Christians need to pray for the people of Congo-and take responsible action if necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
