On March 10th, I wrote a piece on my blog praising the Biblical character Boaz for showing compassion to Ruth, whom I referred to in the article as an "illegal immigrant." Ruth, as you may know, was a descendant of Moab and according to the law at the time was supposed to be excluded from the congregation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3). God apparently was so angry with the Moabites that He even tells the children of Israel "not to seek their peace nor their prosperity all their days forever" (Deuteronomy 23:6) and yet when we read the Book of Ruth we all seem to know instinctively that Boaz is a hero in the story precisely because he showed compassion to Ruth despite what the law--even God's law--said.
Within days the article appeared on several high traffic sites. Almost immediately people began accusing me of twisting the Scriptures by calling Ruth an "illegal immigrant." After all, Ruth was married to an Israelite and the law said that Moabites were only supposed to be excluded from the assembly of the Lord, not from the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3). The response was so strong that I even began to second guess myself--until I read Nehemiah chapter 13 and it dawned on me that it was against the law for a child of Israel to marry a Moabite in the first place--which is exactly what Boaz did in the story of Ruth. No matter which way you look at it, Boaz did what even God's law forbade and He was commended for it--by God.
In the interests of clearing some things up, I'd like to make a few clarification points:
1. Many people have called me blasphemous because I wrote that Joseph discovered his wife was pregnant with an "illegitimate child." I thought it would be obvious to the average reader that after Joseph discovered his betrothed wife was pregnant and before his dream, it certainly would have appeared that Jesus was conceived in an illegitimate way. People have written me and said that Mary should not have been stoned according to the law because she was innocent. Of course! But did Joseph know that before the dream? No he didn't, and yet the Scriptures still refer to him as a just man precisely because He chose compassion over the letter of the law. (Compare Deuteronomy 22:20-21 with Matthew 1:19)
2. People have commented that my illustration of Jesus defending the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath was taken out of context. The argument goes that all Jesus was doing was proving that He's the Lord of the Sabbath, therefore He can do with it what He wants. I agree that Jesus was showing His lordship over the Sabbath, but that still doesn't negate the fact that Jesus used the word unlawful to describe what David did when he ate the showbread in the house of Abiathar the priest--and commends him for it (Mark 2:25-26)! I go back to my original question. If God commended people for breaking His laws because of compassion for their fellow human beings, what might He think of people today who challenge man-made laws for reasons of human compassion? I can understand why some would take issue with using the word break, but is the word unlawful any less offensive? The point is still the same. It appears that in Scripture, God commends people for choosing human compassion over the letter of the law.
3. I realize that calling Ruth an "illegal immigrant" isn't a direct correlation to the situation we have today, but that's not the point. It would have been very easy for Boaz to think of Ruth in terms of an illegal immigrant, and he could have used some great "the Bible tells me so" justifications to deny her compassion according to the consensus of the religious elite of his day.
That was before the new Arizona immigration law. I realize that the law is controversial and that there are legitimate issues of border security that need to be addressed, but who would have known that within a few weeks of my article appearing on the Free Republic, the state of Arizona would pass a law that, among many other things, criminalizes compassion to illegal immigrants? As Eugene Cho points out in his post, The law states that those who “knowingly transport or harbor” undocumented immigrants will be at risk of arrest. In other words, if an individual, or perhaps a church or faith institution, takes an illegal immigrant to a grocery store or provides food, clothing, and shelter for an illegal immigrant, they could be arrested.
How does that square with the direct command of Jesus to take in strangers (Matthew 25:35)? The answer is it doesn't. Showing compassion to another human being should never be illegal, and if it is, then Christians are obligated to "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). I'm not saying that I have this conundrum figured out as to how followers of Jesus should balance upholding the law with human compassion. So with that, my parting words on this issue will be a quote from the beloved Apostle Paul. "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
random thoughts on adoption, race, and diversity
On Friday I'm leaving for Ethiopia with my dad to pick up my adopted son Isaac Biruk Taylor. We're arriving the day after the election. I hope and pray that there's no unrest in the country. If there is, I'd rather be there with my son than sitting back in the U.S. helpless. My wife and I have waited a long time for this. Adoption is a wonderful way to live out the Christian faith, since its an expression of what God does for us when He adopts us into His family in Christ. Our reasons for adopting weren't that spiritual though. We just wanted a son. After we started the adoption process my wife got pregnant. On January 5th 2010, my wife gave birth to our son Christian David Taylor. Now we'll have two boys. We're not planning on having any more children. I pray that God will give our family many great memories together.
I'm watching Anderson Cooper right now. He's doing a segment on how children perceive race. It's chilling. The researcher just took a young white child (maybe 5 or 6), showed him drawings of white children and black children side by side. When the researcher asked the child, show me the dumb child, the bad child, the mean child, the boy pointed to the darker skinned drawings. When asked why he picked the darker pictures, the boy replied "because they are dark." When the researcher asked who are the good and smart kids, the boy picked the white children and answered "because they are white."
The mother was in anguish. She had no idea that her child had already formed these assumptions. Various experts gave their explanations. One expert thought that America's racist culture emitted cultural cues so strong that even a child could pick up on them. Another expert, which I thought was more likely, suggested that children naturally assume that people that look like them share their same traits. One of the possible clues to the puzzle was that the mother said that her son does not live in a diverse community. All of the experts agreed that it's important for parents of young children to befriend people of all different racial backgrounds so that the children can learn diversity from the beginning. In other words, teaching children about accepting people of other colors is one thing. Living it is another.
God, help me to live a life of love and acceptance of others, not just talk about it.
I'm watching Anderson Cooper right now. He's doing a segment on how children perceive race. It's chilling. The researcher just took a young white child (maybe 5 or 6), showed him drawings of white children and black children side by side. When the researcher asked the child, show me the dumb child, the bad child, the mean child, the boy pointed to the darker skinned drawings. When asked why he picked the darker pictures, the boy replied "because they are dark." When the researcher asked who are the good and smart kids, the boy picked the white children and answered "because they are white."
The mother was in anguish. She had no idea that her child had already formed these assumptions. Various experts gave their explanations. One expert thought that America's racist culture emitted cultural cues so strong that even a child could pick up on them. Another expert, which I thought was more likely, suggested that children naturally assume that people that look like them share their same traits. One of the possible clues to the puzzle was that the mother said that her son does not live in a diverse community. All of the experts agreed that it's important for parents of young children to befriend people of all different racial backgrounds so that the children can learn diversity from the beginning. In other words, teaching children about accepting people of other colors is one thing. Living it is another.
God, help me to live a life of love and acceptance of others, not just talk about it.
Monday, May 17, 2010
A quiz for people who know everything
A friend of mine just sent this to me:
Enjoy!
There are nine questions.
This is a quiz for people who know everything!
I found out in a hurry that I didn't.
These are not trick questions.
They are straight questions with straight answers.
1. Name the one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends.
2. What famous North American landmark is constantly moving backward?
3. Of all vegetables, only two can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons. All other vegetables must be replanted every year. What are the only two perennial vegetables?
4. What fruit has its seeds on the outside?
5. You can buy pear brandy, with a real pear inside the bottle. The pear is whole and ripe, and the bottle is genuine; it hasn't been cut in any way. How did the pear get inside the bottle?
6. Only three words in standard English begin with the letters ' dw' and they are all common words. Name two of them.
7. There are 14 punctuation marks in English grammar.
Can you name at least half of them?
8. Name the only vegetable or fruit that is never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form except fresh.
9. Name 6 or more things that you can wear on your feet beginning with the letter 'S.'
Answers To Quiz:
1... The one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends: Boxing.
2. North American landmark constantly moving backward: Niagara Falls ..
(The rim is worn down about two and a half feet each year because of the millions of gallons of water that rush over it every minute.)
3. Only two vegetables that can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons: Asparagus and rhubarb.
4. The fruit with its seeds on the outside: Strawberry.
5. How did the pear get inside the brandy bottle? It grew inside the bottle.
The bottles are placed over pear buds when they are small, and are wired in place on the tree. The bottle is left in place for the entire growing season. When the pears are ripe, they are snipped off at the stems.
6. Three English words beginning with dw: Dwarf, dwell and dwindle...
7. Fourteen punctuation marks in English grammar: Period, comma, colon, semicolon, dash, hyphen, apostrophe,question mark, exclamation point, quotation mark, brackets, parenthesis, braces, and ellip ses.
8. The only vegetable or fruit never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form but fresh: Lettuce.
9. Six or more things you can wear on your feet beginning with 'S': Shoes, socks, sandals, sneakers, slippers, skis, skates, snowshoes, stockings, stilts.
Just don't send it back to me. I've already flunked it once
Enjoy!
There are nine questions.
This is a quiz for people who know everything!
I found out in a hurry that I didn't.
These are not trick questions.
They are straight questions with straight answers.
1. Name the one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends.
2. What famous North American landmark is constantly moving backward?
3. Of all vegetables, only two can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons. All other vegetables must be replanted every year. What are the only two perennial vegetables?
4. What fruit has its seeds on the outside?
5. You can buy pear brandy, with a real pear inside the bottle. The pear is whole and ripe, and the bottle is genuine; it hasn't been cut in any way. How did the pear get inside the bottle?
6. Only three words in standard English begin with the letters ' dw' and they are all common words. Name two of them.
7. There are 14 punctuation marks in English grammar.
Can you name at least half of them?
8. Name the only vegetable or fruit that is never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form except fresh.
9. Name 6 or more things that you can wear on your feet beginning with the letter 'S.'
Answers To Quiz:
1... The one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends: Boxing.
2. North American landmark constantly moving backward: Niagara Falls ..
(The rim is worn down about two and a half feet each year because of the millions of gallons of water that rush over it every minute.)
3. Only two vegetables that can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons: Asparagus and rhubarb.
4. The fruit with its seeds on the outside: Strawberry.
5. How did the pear get inside the brandy bottle? It grew inside the bottle.
The bottles are placed over pear buds when they are small, and are wired in place on the tree. The bottle is left in place for the entire growing season. When the pears are ripe, they are snipped off at the stems.
6. Three English words beginning with dw: Dwarf, dwell and dwindle...
7. Fourteen punctuation marks in English grammar: Period, comma, colon, semicolon, dash, hyphen, apostrophe,question mark, exclamation point, quotation mark, brackets, parenthesis, braces, and ellip ses.
8. The only vegetable or fruit never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form but fresh: Lettuce.
9. Six or more things you can wear on your feet beginning with 'S': Shoes, socks, sandals, sneakers, slippers, skis, skates, snowshoes, stockings, stilts.
Just don't send it back to me. I've already flunked it once
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
1,200 young people dancing in the streets in Hungary--Awesome!
This is one of the most uplifting videos I've seen in a while. My mom is always forwarding me things like this. I thought I'd share this one.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Ignoramus racial moments
Sometimes in life you learn best not from the times that you shine, but from the times that you act like a total ignoramus. It seems that racism and fear of outsiders are on the rise in the U.S.A. With this in mind, I’d like to share two different occasions in which my big mouth revealed my profound racial ignorance. I’m sure there are more, but these are the two that I remember the most.
Ignoramus moment number one: It was 12 years ago. I was working at Steak N Shake training an African American guy how to make the shakes and the desserts. From what I gathered from our conversation, I could tell that this was a man deeply interested in his African heritage. I also got the sense that he felt that the American dream wasn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. With pride the man told me that his ancestors were from Nigeria and that he wanted to reconnect with his roots. That was when I said the words that have haunted me ever since, “If you don’t want to be an American, why don’t you go back to Africa?”
Ignoramus moment number two: It was 9 years ago. I was working as a telemarketer. Lessie was an African American woman around my age that sat a couple of seats down from me. We often talked and laughed about many things to make the day go by faster. One day Lessie got on the subject about people that live in the ghetto. Without giving it much thought I blurted out “Why don’t those people just work harder? Then they could leave the ghetto.” Lessie went off on me. “You have no idea what you’re talking about! You don’t know how hard it is to grow up in the ghetto!” Lessie was right.
So why am I bringing this up years later? Because in two weeks I’m traveling to Ethiopia to pick up my adopted son. Before we were married my wife told me that she always wanted to adopt from Africa. At the time I didn’t think much of it, but after years of miscarriages and fertility specialists we finally decided to adopt. About a month after we started the adoption process, my wife got pregnant and now we have the world’s cutest baby, but in about three weeks I’m going to be the father of two boys, a black son and a white son.
Over the past several years I’ve worked hard to educate myself on racial issues the best that I can. For example: I know that white privilege and institutionalized racism are verifiable realities that exist today despite the claim by many that white people are now the victims. I no longer believe—thank God—that the reason why most black people in America vote Democrat is because all they want is a handout from the government. Basic knowledge of history and sociology can go a long way to clear up these misunderstandings, but the problem is that these are things that you get from a textbook.
The real question that I’m pondering is something that I’ll never be able to get from a textbook. How do I as a father teach my son to respect his culture (both as an Ethiopian and as a black American), to identify with the black American experience, which means recognizing the historical sins of the past and how they’ve contributed to the ongoing realities of white privilege and institutionalized racism; how do I do all that without stifling his individual drive to succeed? I want my son to grow up believing that through faith, hard work, and perseverance anything is possible in this great country of ours even though I know that our nation’s history of racism has made it more difficult for some racial groups to succeed than others. How do I balance concrete reality with faith, imagination, and a sound work ethic?
I’ve asked some of my white friends this question. The typical response I get is that while I should teach my son to respect his culture, I shouldn’t dwell on the sins of the past and on institutionalized racism today because that would stifle his individual creativity and work ethic. I can understand that perspective, but I think it would be wise to hear from black Americans on this issue. I have a feeling that my question is anything but new and unique to most African American households. I also have a feeling that there’s a broad range of opinion on this issue within the black community. If you’re a black American and you’d like to share your experience with me on how you’ve dealt with racism, both individual and institutional, and how you’ve overcome obstacles to create a life of meaning and purpose for you and your family, then I’d like to hear from you.
Aaron D. Taylor is an author and a speaker. To learn more about Aaron’s ministry, go to http://www.aarondtaylor.com Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com
Ignoramus moment number one: It was 12 years ago. I was working at Steak N Shake training an African American guy how to make the shakes and the desserts. From what I gathered from our conversation, I could tell that this was a man deeply interested in his African heritage. I also got the sense that he felt that the American dream wasn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. With pride the man told me that his ancestors were from Nigeria and that he wanted to reconnect with his roots. That was when I said the words that have haunted me ever since, “If you don’t want to be an American, why don’t you go back to Africa?”
Ignoramus moment number two: It was 9 years ago. I was working as a telemarketer. Lessie was an African American woman around my age that sat a couple of seats down from me. We often talked and laughed about many things to make the day go by faster. One day Lessie got on the subject about people that live in the ghetto. Without giving it much thought I blurted out “Why don’t those people just work harder? Then they could leave the ghetto.” Lessie went off on me. “You have no idea what you’re talking about! You don’t know how hard it is to grow up in the ghetto!” Lessie was right.
So why am I bringing this up years later? Because in two weeks I’m traveling to Ethiopia to pick up my adopted son. Before we were married my wife told me that she always wanted to adopt from Africa. At the time I didn’t think much of it, but after years of miscarriages and fertility specialists we finally decided to adopt. About a month after we started the adoption process, my wife got pregnant and now we have the world’s cutest baby, but in about three weeks I’m going to be the father of two boys, a black son and a white son.
Over the past several years I’ve worked hard to educate myself on racial issues the best that I can. For example: I know that white privilege and institutionalized racism are verifiable realities that exist today despite the claim by many that white people are now the victims. I no longer believe—thank God—that the reason why most black people in America vote Democrat is because all they want is a handout from the government. Basic knowledge of history and sociology can go a long way to clear up these misunderstandings, but the problem is that these are things that you get from a textbook.
The real question that I’m pondering is something that I’ll never be able to get from a textbook. How do I as a father teach my son to respect his culture (both as an Ethiopian and as a black American), to identify with the black American experience, which means recognizing the historical sins of the past and how they’ve contributed to the ongoing realities of white privilege and institutionalized racism; how do I do all that without stifling his individual drive to succeed? I want my son to grow up believing that through faith, hard work, and perseverance anything is possible in this great country of ours even though I know that our nation’s history of racism has made it more difficult for some racial groups to succeed than others. How do I balance concrete reality with faith, imagination, and a sound work ethic?
I’ve asked some of my white friends this question. The typical response I get is that while I should teach my son to respect his culture, I shouldn’t dwell on the sins of the past and on institutionalized racism today because that would stifle his individual creativity and work ethic. I can understand that perspective, but I think it would be wise to hear from black Americans on this issue. I have a feeling that my question is anything but new and unique to most African American households. I also have a feeling that there’s a broad range of opinion on this issue within the black community. If you’re a black American and you’d like to share your experience with me on how you’ve dealt with racism, both individual and institutional, and how you’ve overcome obstacles to create a life of meaning and purpose for you and your family, then I’d like to hear from you.
Aaron D. Taylor is an author and a speaker. To learn more about Aaron’s ministry, go to http://www.aarondtaylor.com Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com
Saturday, May 01, 2010
The Demolition of Ali Salem Moussa’s House in Al’ Khader on the 14th of April 2010
ImageThe stove is standing outside under the sky, next to it a washing machine and in the background a big white tent. We are sitting in what till yesterday used to be the living room of the Moussa family, around us nothing but the little remains of the outside walls.
The Background:
The Moussa family owned 4 houses on their property where different parts of the family lived. It is actually not really appropriate to speak of houses since the buildings mostly just include one room, a bathroom and a kitchen, all constructed with simple concrete blocks and a tin roof on top. In 2002 the first of them got demolished the when Israel’s Government started to build the Road 60 to connect the settlements like Efrat directly to Jerusalem and to each other. In this time the family lost a lot of their land to the wall which is supposed to protect the street now stretching through the valley underneath their land.
The Israeli Government came back on the 12th of February 2004 and demolished not only the rebuilt house but along with it two more. In this time it was snowing which made the whole situation even harder to suddenly stand on your land without having a roof above you to protect you from the outside conditions.
Since just one house remained on their property which was not demolished, the whole family had to live together with 17 people in one room. In 2006 Israel’s High Court decided to freeze demolitions on the Moussa family land.
ImageOn the 14th of April, 2010 at around 10:00 am the bulldozers rolled into the town of Al’ Khader and up the hill to the property of the Moussa family.When they arrived, the administrator was asked by Ali Moussa’s son to show the papers with the order for the demolition of this house but in the end he never saw them. At this time their lawyer was already on his way to Al’ Khader with the decision by Israel’s High Court, declaring that the demolition is not legal.
Everything went really fast, the family begged the soldiers to at least wait till the lawyer arrives but they already started their work. The lawyer arrived but not one of the present soldiers paid attention to the court decision and within 5 minutes the whole house was destroyed.
So for the third time all that is left are pieces of tin roof lying around, debris, and a family without shelter. The 8 year old son of the family came home from school just after the bulldozers had left again and he simply did not understand why his home suddenly was completely vanished. He was running around crying and asking his father and his brothers why but nobody could give him an understandable answer.
Ali says that he does not even care anymore, he got kind of used to this. The abnormal became normal here for him and it seems like the experience of having lost his home now three times broke the fear of this loss inside him. He stated clearly: “This is our land and we are going to build up our home again and again on our ground because we know that this is our right.”
On the other side of the valley our home rebuilding project for the Salah’s family is about to get finished and to watch that process while standing in the ruins of another just demolished home seems ridiculous but hopefully it will be possible to rebuilt this simple house within the next days with the support of Al’ Khader’s municipality.
Source: www.holylandtrust.org
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Jesus was a mestizo
I listened to an excellent sermon last night from Ray Bakke, chairman of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding. Bakke brought out the point that in the bloodline of Jesus there were four women of non-Jewish/Israeli heritage in Jesus' bloodline. Tamar (who slept with her father in law), Ruth (a Moabitess/descendent of an incestuous relationship), Rahab (a Canaanite whore), and Bathsheba (a Hittite that pleased David so much that he killed her husband to be with her).
None of us can choose our bloodline, but Jesus being the eternal Word, could choose his bloodline, and these are the people He decided to identify with.
Jesus was a mestizo.
And an undocumented international refugee in Egypt.
Would He be welcome at your church?
Would he be welcome in your state?
None of us can choose our bloodline, but Jesus being the eternal Word, could choose his bloodline, and these are the people He decided to identify with.
Jesus was a mestizo.
And an undocumented international refugee in Egypt.
Would He be welcome at your church?
Would he be welcome in your state?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Who will protect Palestinians from growing settler extremism?
By Lisa Goldman
Last week in Hawara, a town near Nablus, someone defaced a mosque with spray paint. The graffiti included Hebrew writing and a Star of David. Residents of a Jewish settlement nearby had vandalized Palestinian property in Hawara on previous occasions, so both the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinian villagers accused settlers of committing the latest crime. Israel's official position is that it is a deserving, ecumenically-minded custodian of religious sites of all faiths, so the IDF Spokesman was quick to issue a condemnation and promise an investigation.
The defacing of mosques in the West Bank is relatively rare - "only" four incidents were brought to the attention of Yesh Din, an Israeli NGO that monitors law enforcement in the West Bank, over the past five years. But destruction of Palestinian property and acts of violence against Palestinian civilians occur frequently, often several times per week. Over the past few months, they have become more frequent and more violent. Many of these incidents are known as "price tag" operations, whereby settlers destroy Palestinian property as a response to the IDF's having dismantled an illegal outpost. The settlers, say West Bank field workers for various NGOs, are becoming bolder.
The more egregious acts of settler violence are reported in the Israeli media, although rarely with prominence, but most incidents fail to attract the attention of the major news outlets at all - because they occur so frequently that they have become unremarkable, because most Israelis are numb to these stories, and because Palestinians are increasingly reluctant to file a police complaint. Why bother to enlist the help of the police when, as Yesh Din has documented, more than 90 percent of legal cases involving settler violence end with their being closed due to "lack of evidence"?
Advertisement
When Jews, Muslims and Christians deface one another's holy sites or places of worship, the story is reported widely by the Western media - especially when the culprits are members of the group backed by military and political might, as is the case of the Jewish settlers in the Palestinian-majority West Bank. And so the story of the defaced Hawara mosque was reported widely in major news outlets, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, with accompanying photos. But the chances of the perpetrators being arrested and put on trial are very slight. In the cases of the four mosques previously vandalized, allegedly by settlers, two investigations are officially ongoing, and two have been closed for lack of evidence.
Lior Yavne, Yesh Din's research director, says that investigations into complaints filed against settlers by Palestinians fail for a number of reasons. The civil police of Judea and Samaria are understaffed and underfunded. Jewish suspects are almost never included in police lineups. The police frequently fail to verify the alibis of Jews, or to make arrests.
Investigations fail to result in convictions even when eyewitnesses provide accurate descriptions of Jewish suspects seen at or fleeing the scene, holding incriminating evidence - as in a case reported earlier this month by the Jerusalem Post's Dan Izenberg. According to the April 6 article, a settler from Kedumim was caught by police last summer, fleeing a burning Palestinian orchard while holding a jerrican filled with flammable liquid, and with the smell of the liquid on his hands. The suspect refused to answer police questions during interrogation; and less than a year later, the courts dismissed the case for "lack of evidence." Michael Sfard, Yesh Din's legal advisor, described the court's decision as "scandalous."
Palestinian villages are increasingly unprotected by the IDF, which does provide extensive protection for Jewish settlements. At the same time, however, Palestinians are not allowed to possess weapons; the IDF arrests people caught with knives or guns in their possession. Settlers, on the other hand, are permitted by law to carry weapons.
Meanwhile, the IDF is acting according to increasingly draconian orders to suppress non-violent demonstrations against the occupation that are organized and led by grassroots Palestinian movements. Leaders of popular resistance organizations are dragged from their beds during night raids, arrested and jailed - often indefinitely. The villages in which demonstrations take place on Friday mornings have been declared closed military zones. Those who violate the army's orders and come out to demonstrate are regularly shot at with rubber bullets, doused with skunk gas, beaten and arrested.
For Palestinians in the West Bank, the sense of helplessness and frustration must be enormous. When they are attacked, they can almost never hope for justice within the framework of the legal system. Nor are they allowed to defend themselves. Nor can they expect the IDF to protect them. And even when they protest these injustices using nonviolent methods - marching, chanting and waving flags - they are punished with arrests and violence, with dehumanizing skunk gas and beatings. So what happens when there is no legal recourse or justice for the injured and no real civic structure, and when the moderates are systematically crushed? Surely these are the ideal psychological circumstances that make people vulnerable to the beckoning finger of extremism.
Lisa Goldman is a freelance journalist and blogger, and a social media consultant for Yesh Din.
Article source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164748.html
Last week in Hawara, a town near Nablus, someone defaced a mosque with spray paint. The graffiti included Hebrew writing and a Star of David. Residents of a Jewish settlement nearby had vandalized Palestinian property in Hawara on previous occasions, so both the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinian villagers accused settlers of committing the latest crime. Israel's official position is that it is a deserving, ecumenically-minded custodian of religious sites of all faiths, so the IDF Spokesman was quick to issue a condemnation and promise an investigation.
The defacing of mosques in the West Bank is relatively rare - "only" four incidents were brought to the attention of Yesh Din, an Israeli NGO that monitors law enforcement in the West Bank, over the past five years. But destruction of Palestinian property and acts of violence against Palestinian civilians occur frequently, often several times per week. Over the past few months, they have become more frequent and more violent. Many of these incidents are known as "price tag" operations, whereby settlers destroy Palestinian property as a response to the IDF's having dismantled an illegal outpost. The settlers, say West Bank field workers for various NGOs, are becoming bolder.
The more egregious acts of settler violence are reported in the Israeli media, although rarely with prominence, but most incidents fail to attract the attention of the major news outlets at all - because they occur so frequently that they have become unremarkable, because most Israelis are numb to these stories, and because Palestinians are increasingly reluctant to file a police complaint. Why bother to enlist the help of the police when, as Yesh Din has documented, more than 90 percent of legal cases involving settler violence end with their being closed due to "lack of evidence"?
Advertisement
When Jews, Muslims and Christians deface one another's holy sites or places of worship, the story is reported widely by the Western media - especially when the culprits are members of the group backed by military and political might, as is the case of the Jewish settlers in the Palestinian-majority West Bank. And so the story of the defaced Hawara mosque was reported widely in major news outlets, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, with accompanying photos. But the chances of the perpetrators being arrested and put on trial are very slight. In the cases of the four mosques previously vandalized, allegedly by settlers, two investigations are officially ongoing, and two have been closed for lack of evidence.
Lior Yavne, Yesh Din's research director, says that investigations into complaints filed against settlers by Palestinians fail for a number of reasons. The civil police of Judea and Samaria are understaffed and underfunded. Jewish suspects are almost never included in police lineups. The police frequently fail to verify the alibis of Jews, or to make arrests.
Investigations fail to result in convictions even when eyewitnesses provide accurate descriptions of Jewish suspects seen at or fleeing the scene, holding incriminating evidence - as in a case reported earlier this month by the Jerusalem Post's Dan Izenberg. According to the April 6 article, a settler from Kedumim was caught by police last summer, fleeing a burning Palestinian orchard while holding a jerrican filled with flammable liquid, and with the smell of the liquid on his hands. The suspect refused to answer police questions during interrogation; and less than a year later, the courts dismissed the case for "lack of evidence." Michael Sfard, Yesh Din's legal advisor, described the court's decision as "scandalous."
Palestinian villages are increasingly unprotected by the IDF, which does provide extensive protection for Jewish settlements. At the same time, however, Palestinians are not allowed to possess weapons; the IDF arrests people caught with knives or guns in their possession. Settlers, on the other hand, are permitted by law to carry weapons.
Meanwhile, the IDF is acting according to increasingly draconian orders to suppress non-violent demonstrations against the occupation that are organized and led by grassroots Palestinian movements. Leaders of popular resistance organizations are dragged from their beds during night raids, arrested and jailed - often indefinitely. The villages in which demonstrations take place on Friday mornings have been declared closed military zones. Those who violate the army's orders and come out to demonstrate are regularly shot at with rubber bullets, doused with skunk gas, beaten and arrested.
For Palestinians in the West Bank, the sense of helplessness and frustration must be enormous. When they are attacked, they can almost never hope for justice within the framework of the legal system. Nor are they allowed to defend themselves. Nor can they expect the IDF to protect them. And even when they protest these injustices using nonviolent methods - marching, chanting and waving flags - they are punished with arrests and violence, with dehumanizing skunk gas and beatings. So what happens when there is no legal recourse or justice for the injured and no real civic structure, and when the moderates are systematically crushed? Surely these are the ideal psychological circumstances that make people vulnerable to the beckoning finger of extremism.
Lisa Goldman is a freelance journalist and blogger, and a social media consultant for Yesh Din.
Article source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164748.html
Friday, April 23, 2010
Arizona’s Immigration Bill is a Social and Racial Sin
By Jim Wallis 04-21-2010
I got up at 4:30 a.m. on Tuesday to fly to Phoenix, Arizona, to speak at a press conference and rally at the State Capitol at the invitation of the state’s clergy and other leaders in the immigration reform movement. The harshest enforcement bill in the country against undocumented immigrants just passed the Arizona state House and Senate, and is only awaiting the signature of Governor Janet Brewer to become law.
Senate Bill 1070 would require law enforcement officials in the state of Arizona to investigate someone’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be undocumented. I wonder who that would be, and if anybody who doesn’t have brown skin will be investigated. Those without identification papers, even if they are legal, are subject to arrest; so don’t forget your wallet on your way to work if you are Hispanic in Arizona. You can also be arrested if you are stopped and are simply with people who are undocumented — even if they are your family. Parents or children of “mixed-status families” (made up of legal and undocumented, as many immigrant families are out here) could be arrested if they are found together. You can be arrested if you are “transporting or harboring” undocumented people. Some might consider driving immigrant families to and from church to be Christian ministry — but it will now be illegal in Arizona.
For the first time, all law enforcement officers in the state will be enlisted to hunt down undocumented people, which will clearly distract them from going after truly violent criminals, and will focus them on mostly harmless families whose work supports the economy and who contribute to their communities. And do you think undocumented parents will now go to the police if their daughter is raped or their family becomes a victim of violent crime? Maybe that’s why the state association of police chiefs is against SB 1070.
This proposed law is not only mean-spirited — it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe. This radical new measure, which crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. We all want to live in a nation of laws, and the immigration system in the U.S. is so broken that it is serving no one well. But enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable. And enforcement of this law would force us to violate our Christian conscience, which we simply will not do. It makes it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona.
Before the rally and press event, I visited some immigrant families who work at Neighborhood Ministries, an impressive community organization affiliated with Sojourners’ friends at the Christian Community Development Association. I met a group of women who were frightened by the raids that have been occurring, in which armed men invade their homes and neighborhoods with guns and helicopters. When the rumors of massive raids spread, many of these people flee both their homes and their workplaces, and head for The Church at The Neighborhood Center as the only place they feel safe and secure. But will police invade the churches if they are suspected of “harboring” undocumented people, because it is the law? Will the nurse practitioner I met at their medical clinic serving only uninsured people be arrested for being “with” the children of families who are here illegally as she treats them?
At the rally, I started with the words of Jesus (which drew cheers from the crowd gathered at the state Capitol), who instructed his disciples to “welcome the stranger,” and said that whatever we do to “the least of these, who are members of my family” we do to him. I think that means that to obey Jesus and his gospel will mean to disobey SB 1070 in Arizona. I looked at the governor’s Executive Tower and promised that many Christians in Arizona won’t comply with this law because the people they will target will be members of our “family” in the body of Christ. And any attack against them is an attack against us, and the One we follow.
Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles just called this Arizona measure “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless immigration law.” On CNN, I defended the Cardinal’s comments, which likened the requirement of people always carrying their “papers” to the most oppressive regimes of Nazism and Communism. I wonder whether the tea party movement that rails against government intrusion will rail against this law, or whether those who resist the forced government registration of their guns will resist the forced government requirement that immigrants must always carry their documentation. Will the true conservatives please stand up here? We are all waiting.
Arizona’s SB 1070 must be named as a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. This is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It’s time to stand up to this new strategy of “deportation by attrition,” which I heard for the first time today in Arizona. It is a policy of deliberate political cruelty, and it should be remembered that “attrition” is a term of war. Arizona is deciding whether to wage war on the body of Christ. We should say that if you come after one part of the body, you come after all of us.
I got up at 4:30 a.m. on Tuesday to fly to Phoenix, Arizona, to speak at a press conference and rally at the State Capitol at the invitation of the state’s clergy and other leaders in the immigration reform movement. The harshest enforcement bill in the country against undocumented immigrants just passed the Arizona state House and Senate, and is only awaiting the signature of Governor Janet Brewer to become law.
Senate Bill 1070 would require law enforcement officials in the state of Arizona to investigate someone’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be undocumented. I wonder who that would be, and if anybody who doesn’t have brown skin will be investigated. Those without identification papers, even if they are legal, are subject to arrest; so don’t forget your wallet on your way to work if you are Hispanic in Arizona. You can also be arrested if you are stopped and are simply with people who are undocumented — even if they are your family. Parents or children of “mixed-status families” (made up of legal and undocumented, as many immigrant families are out here) could be arrested if they are found together. You can be arrested if you are “transporting or harboring” undocumented people. Some might consider driving immigrant families to and from church to be Christian ministry — but it will now be illegal in Arizona.
For the first time, all law enforcement officers in the state will be enlisted to hunt down undocumented people, which will clearly distract them from going after truly violent criminals, and will focus them on mostly harmless families whose work supports the economy and who contribute to their communities. And do you think undocumented parents will now go to the police if their daughter is raped or their family becomes a victim of violent crime? Maybe that’s why the state association of police chiefs is against SB 1070.
This proposed law is not only mean-spirited — it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe. This radical new measure, which crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. We all want to live in a nation of laws, and the immigration system in the U.S. is so broken that it is serving no one well. But enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable. And enforcement of this law would force us to violate our Christian conscience, which we simply will not do. It makes it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona.
Before the rally and press event, I visited some immigrant families who work at Neighborhood Ministries, an impressive community organization affiliated with Sojourners’ friends at the Christian Community Development Association. I met a group of women who were frightened by the raids that have been occurring, in which armed men invade their homes and neighborhoods with guns and helicopters. When the rumors of massive raids spread, many of these people flee both their homes and their workplaces, and head for The Church at The Neighborhood Center as the only place they feel safe and secure. But will police invade the churches if they are suspected of “harboring” undocumented people, because it is the law? Will the nurse practitioner I met at their medical clinic serving only uninsured people be arrested for being “with” the children of families who are here illegally as she treats them?
At the rally, I started with the words of Jesus (which drew cheers from the crowd gathered at the state Capitol), who instructed his disciples to “welcome the stranger,” and said that whatever we do to “the least of these, who are members of my family” we do to him. I think that means that to obey Jesus and his gospel will mean to disobey SB 1070 in Arizona. I looked at the governor’s Executive Tower and promised that many Christians in Arizona won’t comply with this law because the people they will target will be members of our “family” in the body of Christ. And any attack against them is an attack against us, and the One we follow.
Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles just called this Arizona measure “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless immigration law.” On CNN, I defended the Cardinal’s comments, which likened the requirement of people always carrying their “papers” to the most oppressive regimes of Nazism and Communism. I wonder whether the tea party movement that rails against government intrusion will rail against this law, or whether those who resist the forced government registration of their guns will resist the forced government requirement that immigrants must always carry their documentation. Will the true conservatives please stand up here? We are all waiting.
Arizona’s SB 1070 must be named as a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. This is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It’s time to stand up to this new strategy of “deportation by attrition,” which I heard for the first time today in Arizona. It is a policy of deliberate political cruelty, and it should be remembered that “attrition” is a term of war. Arizona is deciding whether to wage war on the body of Christ. We should say that if you come after one part of the body, you come after all of us.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
It's all about perspective
I'm exhausted. Been driving all day. When my wife and I got to our hotel, Christian wouldn't stop fussing. I called the doctor, ran to Walgreens and bought some Motrin, and now he seems to be doing fine--finally!!. Tonight has been pretty miserable, especially since I got little to no sleep at the flea bag hotel we stayed in last night, but I bet it would be more miserable if I were an African woman living in the deserts of Sudan and having to deal with a fussy baby in 100 degree heat. It's all about perspective.
A lot of people have asked my wife and I how we're holding up, knowing that our son was born with a heart defect and that we had to go to California for his surgery. My wife and I stayed at the Ronald McDonald House in Palo Alto. We were in and out in five days. We met one lady that had been there for 10 months with her daughter. Almost everyone there had been there more than once since their children's conditions required multiple surgeries, with tentative expectations. Our surgeon told us he thinks that the surgery last week will be the only one Christian will need. In and out in five days is practically a miracle at the Ronald McDonald House. We feel like we got off easy.
It's all about perspective.
Monday, April 19, 2010
An Open Letter of Reconciliation and Responsibility to the Iraqi People
I received this today from a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War. They asked me to pass it on.
From Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military
Peace be with you.
To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video:
We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses.
We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions.
There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.
We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.
We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.
More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.
Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.
We have asked our fellow veterans and service-members, as well as civilians both in the United States and abroad, to sign in support of this letter, and to offer their names as a testimony to our common humanity, to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation's leaders, and to extend our hands to you.
With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.
Solemnly and Sincerely,
Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army
To sign, click here!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Heading back
I'm sitting in my son's room at the Lucille Packard Children's Hospital in Palo Alto California. My son's surgery went well, thank God. He'll be released tomorrow and we'll head back to New Mexico. Not looking forward to the traffic in Pasadena. It was stand-still traffic through Pasadena on the way here. On second thought, maybe I'll get a chance to visit my friend Paul Alexander at Azusa Pacific University. Paul is the founder of Pentecostals and Charismatics for Peace and Justice, an organization seeking to restore the peace witness to today's 500 + million pentecostals and charismatics. No sweat. How fitting that Paul teaches at Azusa Pacific University, just around the corner from the famous Azusa street where the revival that launched world-wide pentecostalism began! I think I'm going to e-mail Paul right now and see if he'll be up for breakfast or lunch on Tuesday.
Other than that, I'm looking forward to getting back to New Mexico, and also visiting St. Louis in May. Speaking of May, the embassy date where I'll go and pick up Isaac in Ethiopia is May 24th. I'll be going by myself. It won't be easy, but it's the best option we have right now. Keep us in your prayers!
Sincerely,
Aaron
Other than that, I'm looking forward to getting back to New Mexico, and also visiting St. Louis in May. Speaking of May, the embassy date where I'll go and pick up Isaac in Ethiopia is May 24th. I'll be going by myself. It won't be easy, but it's the best option we have right now. Keep us in your prayers!
Sincerely,
Aaron
Friday, April 09, 2010
Evangelical Leaders Support Reducing Nukes
Evangelicals Send Atomic Fireballs to Congress
For Immediate Release
April 12, 2010
Evangelical college presidents, denominational executives, pastors, veterans, professors, and missionaries are encouraging the Obama administration and Congress to engage in diplomacy with Iran and North Korea and to reduce US nuclear arsenals. Citing scripture, Jesus, and foreign policy experts such as George Shultz, they claim “overcoming the nuclear threat requires international cooperation” and “nuclear weapons are a moral threat” that must eventually be eliminated. For emphasis they provided Atomic Fireballs with their statement, saying “Atomic Fireballs are great candy, but terrible foreign policy.”
Their historic Matthew 5 Project statement, which “calls on our nation to be willing to talk with and listen to antagonists,” offers strong support for the “new START” treaty. The statement was sent to President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all 535 members of Congress. Arguing that “Jesus is the realist,” the evangelical statement recognizes that even though “[t]he United States has crucial disagreements with Iran, Jesus does not say talks should be refused until we approve of the conduct of the adversary.”
The statement also refers to the policy recommendations of George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and other conservative national security experts who are now recommending the elimination of nuclear weapons. “Nuclear weapons are a physical threat to the survival of human life on earth. Prominent national security experts have recently called for reducing and abolishing reliance on nuclear weapons, by verifiable international agreement, in order to enhance national security. This cannot be accomplished unilaterally; it requires international cooperation and verification.” The statement and broad scope of endorsements reveal the growing sentiment among American Evangelicals that the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is both theologically necessary and politically possible.
After laying out their biblical, theological, and political cases, the statement culminates in a call to action that encourages American churches to engage in interfaith and international dialogue and to “urge international cooperation in continued step-by-step reductions, working toward ways to verify abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide.”
ABOUT THE MATTHEW 5 PROJECT
The Matthew 5 Project is an Evangelical effort to promote international cooperation and reduce nuclear weapons through careful analysis of political realities and sound biblical and theological arguments (http://www.matthew5project.org/).
CONTACT
Glen Stassen, Ph.D.
Professor of Christian Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary
135 N. Oakland Avenue
Pasadena, California 91182
626-304-3733
gstassen@fuller.edu
Rev. Paul Alexander, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology and Ethics
Co-founder, Pentecostals & Charismatics for Peace & Justice
Azusa Pacific University
701 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, California 91702
626-815-5434
palexander@apu.edu
For Immediate Release
April 12, 2010
Evangelical college presidents, denominational executives, pastors, veterans, professors, and missionaries are encouraging the Obama administration and Congress to engage in diplomacy with Iran and North Korea and to reduce US nuclear arsenals. Citing scripture, Jesus, and foreign policy experts such as George Shultz, they claim “overcoming the nuclear threat requires international cooperation” and “nuclear weapons are a moral threat” that must eventually be eliminated. For emphasis they provided Atomic Fireballs with their statement, saying “Atomic Fireballs are great candy, but terrible foreign policy.”
Their historic Matthew 5 Project statement, which “calls on our nation to be willing to talk with and listen to antagonists,” offers strong support for the “new START” treaty. The statement was sent to President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all 535 members of Congress. Arguing that “Jesus is the realist,” the evangelical statement recognizes that even though “[t]he United States has crucial disagreements with Iran, Jesus does not say talks should be refused until we approve of the conduct of the adversary.”
The statement also refers to the policy recommendations of George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and other conservative national security experts who are now recommending the elimination of nuclear weapons. “Nuclear weapons are a physical threat to the survival of human life on earth. Prominent national security experts have recently called for reducing and abolishing reliance on nuclear weapons, by verifiable international agreement, in order to enhance national security. This cannot be accomplished unilaterally; it requires international cooperation and verification.” The statement and broad scope of endorsements reveal the growing sentiment among American Evangelicals that the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is both theologically necessary and politically possible.
After laying out their biblical, theological, and political cases, the statement culminates in a call to action that encourages American churches to engage in interfaith and international dialogue and to “urge international cooperation in continued step-by-step reductions, working toward ways to verify abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide.”
ABOUT THE MATTHEW 5 PROJECT
The Matthew 5 Project is an Evangelical effort to promote international cooperation and reduce nuclear weapons through careful analysis of political realities and sound biblical and theological arguments (http://www.matthew5project.org/).
CONTACT
Glen Stassen, Ph.D.
Professor of Christian Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary
135 N. Oakland Avenue
Pasadena, California 91182
626-304-3733
gstassen@fuller.edu
Rev. Paul Alexander, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology and Ethics
Co-founder, Pentecostals & Charismatics for Peace & Justice
Azusa Pacific University
701 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, California 91702
626-815-5434
palexander@apu.edu
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Great News for a Safe and Peaceful World
Hey there,
I just heard some good news for everyone who's afraid of nuclear war (and that means all of us).
Last week, Russia and the USA signed an agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenals by a third. And next week, Obama is hosting leaders from 48 countries to talk about going even further in pursuit of a nuclear-free world.
It's the most concrete progress in decades to reduce the threat of nuclear war.
But public support is crucial if we're going to make Obama's first bold steps really stick. Which is why I just signed this petition backing up the work for a nuclear free world. If you do the same thing today, TrueMajority will make sure it gets delivered to Obama and world leaders when they convene at the White House next week:
Sign here!
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
So, Am I a Reductionist?
A few weeks ago I wrote a post on my blog entitled Will the Real Gospel Please Stand Up? In the post I talked about how America, being a trendy nation, seems to have a gospel to fit just about every corresponding trend in society. For the materialist trend, we have the health and wealth gospel. For the postmodern trend, we have deconstruction and negative theology (I can kick myself for forgetting to add the patriotic gospel, but I’m happy to mention it now). Point being that with all the different gospels floating around—even granting that some of these gospels contain grains of truth—the gospel according to the Apostles often gets lost. After carefully studying the Book of Acts and the Epistles, I summarized the gospel that the Apostles preached this way:
"Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was buried and rose again on the third day. He ascended into heaven and now He sits at the right hand of the Father. On a day that God has appointed, Jesus Christ is coming back to judge the living and the dead. Anyone who repents and believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life."
The vast majority of my critics are people that comment anonymously (undoubtedly people that I know personally) that don’t like either my implied political views or my stance on non-violence. In this case, however, I received a couple of anonymous comments coming from a different direction.
Anonymous number one said, “It's too bad all those parables from Jesus got in the way of his gospel message...”
Anonymous number two was a bit more forthright in saying, “Yeah, you kind of left out everything Jesus announced, performed, and taught while he was in ministry. That is, the best part. Abstract religious thoughts about his death for sin, resurrection, and return have no context or meaning to a seeker without mention of the Kingdom Jesus announced and the history into which this took place. I love this blog overall, but this entry falls prey to reductionism. This is not the whole of the Good News.”
I especially agree with Anonymous number two that the announcement of the Kingdom of God often gets sidelined in standard gospel presentations. Having said that, I do find it odd that the Apostle Paul didn’t mention the Kingdom of God when he summarized the gospel “by which you are saved” in I Corinthians 15:1-4, but I digress.
Here was my response:
“If you're a regular reader of my blog (and you've read my book Alone with a Jihadist) then you'll know that I also have serious criticisms for those that neglect the teachings of Jesus, as if we can divorce Christ's death from His life and teachings. I've made that point in many ways, which is why most of the criticism I get comes from the other end of the theological spectrum than the perspective that you're articulating. So, I do agree with you.
Having said that, I think I made a valid point here that what constitutes as evangelistic preaching nowadays bears little resemblance to how the Apostles preached in the Book of Acts. Case in point, when was the last time you heard a Bible teacher or preacher say that Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead? And yet, this is precisely what Peter claims that Jesus told His Apostles to preach:
"And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be the judge of the living and the dead" (Acts 10:42)
In my own evangelistic sermons, I often emphasize the teachings of Jesus and the parables, but I want to be careful that I don't leave out the elements that the Apostles preached when they were calling people to repent and receive Christ.
Either way, I think this post could generate a good discussion. Thank you again for your feedback.”
So, am I a reductionist?
Or is it that the gospel is so huge and mind-bending awesome that all of us are reductionists regardless of the particular kind of Christianity—new and old—that we follow?
Discuss!
"Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was buried and rose again on the third day. He ascended into heaven and now He sits at the right hand of the Father. On a day that God has appointed, Jesus Christ is coming back to judge the living and the dead. Anyone who repents and believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life."
The vast majority of my critics are people that comment anonymously (undoubtedly people that I know personally) that don’t like either my implied political views or my stance on non-violence. In this case, however, I received a couple of anonymous comments coming from a different direction.
Anonymous number one said, “It's too bad all those parables from Jesus got in the way of his gospel message...”
Anonymous number two was a bit more forthright in saying, “Yeah, you kind of left out everything Jesus announced, performed, and taught while he was in ministry. That is, the best part. Abstract religious thoughts about his death for sin, resurrection, and return have no context or meaning to a seeker without mention of the Kingdom Jesus announced and the history into which this took place. I love this blog overall, but this entry falls prey to reductionism. This is not the whole of the Good News.”
I especially agree with Anonymous number two that the announcement of the Kingdom of God often gets sidelined in standard gospel presentations. Having said that, I do find it odd that the Apostle Paul didn’t mention the Kingdom of God when he summarized the gospel “by which you are saved” in I Corinthians 15:1-4, but I digress.
Here was my response:
“If you're a regular reader of my blog (and you've read my book Alone with a Jihadist) then you'll know that I also have serious criticisms for those that neglect the teachings of Jesus, as if we can divorce Christ's death from His life and teachings. I've made that point in many ways, which is why most of the criticism I get comes from the other end of the theological spectrum than the perspective that you're articulating. So, I do agree with you.
Having said that, I think I made a valid point here that what constitutes as evangelistic preaching nowadays bears little resemblance to how the Apostles preached in the Book of Acts. Case in point, when was the last time you heard a Bible teacher or preacher say that Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead? And yet, this is precisely what Peter claims that Jesus told His Apostles to preach:
"And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be the judge of the living and the dead" (Acts 10:42)
In my own evangelistic sermons, I often emphasize the teachings of Jesus and the parables, but I want to be careful that I don't leave out the elements that the Apostles preached when they were calling people to repent and receive Christ.
Either way, I think this post could generate a good discussion. Thank you again for your feedback.”
So, am I a reductionist?
Or is it that the gospel is so huge and mind-bending awesome that all of us are reductionists regardless of the particular kind of Christianity—new and old—that we follow?
Discuss!
Monday, April 05, 2010
About Friends by Nedra O Brien (guest contributor)
Below is a devotional by Nedra O Brien, my late mother-in-law. For years before she passed away, Nedra wrote devotionals for her church bulletin. Every once in a while I post them on my blog in honor of her memory.
I came across this quote recently… “The friends one chooses determine to a large extent one’s destiny and success in life.” I got to thinking about it and realized there’s a lot of truth there. I thought about various friends I’ve had over the years, some who are still friends and those who are no longer a part of my life. When I think about it, they really have had a big impact on my life in one way or another.
When I was a teenager, I had an older person tell me that I probably wouldn’t have more than two or three close friends as an adult. I thought that was absurd, since, like most teenagers, I was surrounded by friends! But his words turned out to be true and I now thank God for those few close friends I have! They’re what I call my “Proverbs 17:17 friends”. In fact, they are more than friends! Proverbs 17:17 says, “A friend loves at all time, and a brother is born for adversity,”
The footnote in my Bible says, “Friendship is at its best, not in prosperity, but in time of trouble.” As I see it, a lasting friendship has nothing to do with popularity, power or finances, and has no place for selfish motives or ambitions. It’s founded on common interests, goals and dreams and it’s grounded by mutual love and respect.
I once received an email from one of my Proverbs 17:17 friends, which just happened to be about friendship! It went like this: “A friend should be radical. They should love you when you’re unlovable, hug you when you’re unhuggable, and bear with you when you’re unbearable. A friend should be fanatical. They should cheer for you when the whole world boos. They should dance when you get good news, and cry when you cry, too. But most of all a friend should be mathematical. They should multiply the joy, divide the sorrow, subtract the past and add to tomorrow. They should also know how to calculate the need that is deep in your heart.”
Isn’t that wonderful? When you have a friend or two like that, it stands to reason they would have a huge impact on your destiny and success in life. When you have a decision to make or you come up against some difficulty, it’s good to have a friend who will cheer you on or cheer you up. And when you have something to rejoice about, it’s so uplifting to have someone you love rejoice with you.
And you know what? As believers, we all have that kind of friend in Jesus. His own words, found in John chapter 15 say, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing, but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.”
I came across this quote recently… “The friends one chooses determine to a large extent one’s destiny and success in life.” I got to thinking about it and realized there’s a lot of truth there. I thought about various friends I’ve had over the years, some who are still friends and those who are no longer a part of my life. When I think about it, they really have had a big impact on my life in one way or another.
When I was a teenager, I had an older person tell me that I probably wouldn’t have more than two or three close friends as an adult. I thought that was absurd, since, like most teenagers, I was surrounded by friends! But his words turned out to be true and I now thank God for those few close friends I have! They’re what I call my “Proverbs 17:17 friends”. In fact, they are more than friends! Proverbs 17:17 says, “A friend loves at all time, and a brother is born for adversity,”
The footnote in my Bible says, “Friendship is at its best, not in prosperity, but in time of trouble.” As I see it, a lasting friendship has nothing to do with popularity, power or finances, and has no place for selfish motives or ambitions. It’s founded on common interests, goals and dreams and it’s grounded by mutual love and respect.
I once received an email from one of my Proverbs 17:17 friends, which just happened to be about friendship! It went like this: “A friend should be radical. They should love you when you’re unlovable, hug you when you’re unhuggable, and bear with you when you’re unbearable. A friend should be fanatical. They should cheer for you when the whole world boos. They should dance when you get good news, and cry when you cry, too. But most of all a friend should be mathematical. They should multiply the joy, divide the sorrow, subtract the past and add to tomorrow. They should also know how to calculate the need that is deep in your heart.”
Isn’t that wonderful? When you have a friend or two like that, it stands to reason they would have a huge impact on your destiny and success in life. When you have a decision to make or you come up against some difficulty, it’s good to have a friend who will cheer you on or cheer you up. And when you have something to rejoice about, it’s so uplifting to have someone you love rejoice with you.
And you know what? As believers, we all have that kind of friend in Jesus. His own words, found in John chapter 15 say, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing, but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.”
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
What I didn't get a chance to say on the Craig Roberts Show
Yesterday I was interviewed on Lifeline with Craig Roberts , a Christian radio talk show in Northern California. In addition to talking about my book Alone with a Jihadist we also had a healthy debate on Pacifism Vs. Just War theory, with me advocating the former and Craig Roberts advocating the latter. All in all, it was a very good discussion, and I appreciated that Craig kept the dialogue civil, unlike experiences I've had in the past with Christian talk show hosts. Still, one thing I figured out is that when you're a guest on a program and you're arguing a different perspective than the host, the deck is always stacked in favor of the host, mainly because once you've made your point, the host can respond and then go to a commercial break. You never get the last word.
The interview was supposed to last 45 minutes, but Craig kept me on for an additional 15 minutes at the top of the hour. I had a hugely embarrassing moment when I thought that we were still in dialogue mode, and it turned out that Craig was making his closing remarks. I kept trying to cut in till the last moment before he ended the segment--something I hope I never do again! You live and you learn. All in all, I got most of my points in. Those of you that know me, or have had robust discussions with me personally on some of these issues, you know that my brain goes about 1,000 miles a minute. For every point made, I usually have about 5-10 counter points in my head. The problem is, when you have so much information, it's hard to reduce your arguments to sound bites and get every point in. So, in the interest of redeeming myself, here are some of the points I didn't get a chance to say.
1. Craig asked the question of what do we do with all of the warrior imagery in Scripture, in particular the Spiritual Warfare imagery that the Apostle Paul uses and the passages in Scripture portraying God as a warrior. What I said was that the warrior imagery that Paul used is meant to be taken spiritually, and nothing else. In fact, Paul explicitly says "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (I Corinthians 10:4). What I didn't get around to saying was that one of the reasons why Scripture consistently portrays God as a warrior is to illustrate the point that covenant people are supposed to trust in God, not the sword. In fact, the prophet Ezekiel specifically lists relying on the sword as one of the reasons why God sent the Jews to Babylon in judgment (Ezekiel 33:26). One of the constant themes in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is that God got ticked off at His people when they didn't trust Him to fight their battles for them, but instead trusted in their own military might. I find it odd that not once have I ever heard the theme of "repenting for our reliance on our military might" come up in a major prayer and repentance conference here in the U.S. We repent for a lot of other things, but never for trusting in the sword to save us. Interestingly, the period of the Pax Romana, a two hundred year period of relative peace and security of the Roman Empire, ended right around the time the first Christian soldier is recorded. Before then, Christians saw that their primary duty to the empire was to pray for the peace and well-being of their fellow Roman citizens.
2. I made a lot of points about why the Bible should be read through the lens of Jesus, and why Christians are under the Law of Christ, not the Law of the Old Covenant. For example, Hebrews 8:13 calls the Old Covenant obsolete. Jesus said, "You've heard that it was said an eye for an eye, but I say unto you...." still the counter-argument was that Jesus said "I've not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law" (Matthew 5:7-18) What I didn't get a chance to say is that when it comes to Biblical interpretation, when you have numerous verses that clearly say one thing and one verse that seems to contradict the numerous verses, you don't throw out the numerous verses in favor of the one, like many people do in this case. There are a myriad interpretations of this verse ( I like the one that says that if you obey Jesus, then you're fulfilling the Spirit of the Law, which is what Jesus never intended to abolish), the fact is still the same. Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15) (italics emphasis mine). The question of whether a Christian should participate in violence should be determined by Jesus, not by what God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament era.
3. Craig used the cleansing of the temple to show that Jesus was, in fact violent. I pointed out that Isaiah 53:9 specifically says that Jesus never did anyone violence. The example of Jesus cleansing the temple is more of a basis for an aggressive activism against injustice, like what was displayed in the civil rights movement. I wish I would have elaborated on that point of non-violent direct action as a way of addressing injustice in the world. Besides, isn't it a bit of grasping for straws to use a civil protest as a pretext for flying over skies and dropping bombs?
4. Craig made the point that the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount were meant to be limited to personal interactions. I never got a chance to rebut this, so here's my partial answer now. I think the distinction between personal enemies and national enemies is an artificial one, especially when you look at the political backdrop of the New Testament. One of the over-arching themes that we see in the New Testament is that Jesus and the Apostles did not want their followers participating in a rebellion against Rome. The Romans did some awful things, both in their brutal persecution of Christians and also in the way they put down rebellions--like slaughtering and crucifying civilians--yet still the answer that Jesus and the Apostles gave was Christians were not to participate in violence even against such monstrous evil as what the Roman Empire was doing to many of its citizens. In fact, the very context of the Romans 13 passage, which many just war theorists use as the ace in the hole argument, is don't rebel against Rome! Especially if you back up a few verses to the last few verses of chapter 12, you'll see that the entire context of Romans 12:14-13:7 is that Christians should be kind and gentle, and never exacting vengeance even on their worst political enemies!
There's a lot, lot, lot, more I could say on these points, but this post has been longer than normal as is. Thank you Craig for keeping the dialogue respectful.
To my readers, keep your eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our non-violent faith!
The interview was supposed to last 45 minutes, but Craig kept me on for an additional 15 minutes at the top of the hour. I had a hugely embarrassing moment when I thought that we were still in dialogue mode, and it turned out that Craig was making his closing remarks. I kept trying to cut in till the last moment before he ended the segment--something I hope I never do again! You live and you learn. All in all, I got most of my points in. Those of you that know me, or have had robust discussions with me personally on some of these issues, you know that my brain goes about 1,000 miles a minute. For every point made, I usually have about 5-10 counter points in my head. The problem is, when you have so much information, it's hard to reduce your arguments to sound bites and get every point in. So, in the interest of redeeming myself, here are some of the points I didn't get a chance to say.
1. Craig asked the question of what do we do with all of the warrior imagery in Scripture, in particular the Spiritual Warfare imagery that the Apostle Paul uses and the passages in Scripture portraying God as a warrior. What I said was that the warrior imagery that Paul used is meant to be taken spiritually, and nothing else. In fact, Paul explicitly says "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (I Corinthians 10:4). What I didn't get around to saying was that one of the reasons why Scripture consistently portrays God as a warrior is to illustrate the point that covenant people are supposed to trust in God, not the sword. In fact, the prophet Ezekiel specifically lists relying on the sword as one of the reasons why God sent the Jews to Babylon in judgment (Ezekiel 33:26). One of the constant themes in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is that God got ticked off at His people when they didn't trust Him to fight their battles for them, but instead trusted in their own military might. I find it odd that not once have I ever heard the theme of "repenting for our reliance on our military might" come up in a major prayer and repentance conference here in the U.S. We repent for a lot of other things, but never for trusting in the sword to save us. Interestingly, the period of the Pax Romana, a two hundred year period of relative peace and security of the Roman Empire, ended right around the time the first Christian soldier is recorded. Before then, Christians saw that their primary duty to the empire was to pray for the peace and well-being of their fellow Roman citizens.
2. I made a lot of points about why the Bible should be read through the lens of Jesus, and why Christians are under the Law of Christ, not the Law of the Old Covenant. For example, Hebrews 8:13 calls the Old Covenant obsolete. Jesus said, "You've heard that it was said an eye for an eye, but I say unto you...." still the counter-argument was that Jesus said "I've not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law" (Matthew 5:7-18) What I didn't get a chance to say is that when it comes to Biblical interpretation, when you have numerous verses that clearly say one thing and one verse that seems to contradict the numerous verses, you don't throw out the numerous verses in favor of the one, like many people do in this case. There are a myriad interpretations of this verse ( I like the one that says that if you obey Jesus, then you're fulfilling the Spirit of the Law, which is what Jesus never intended to abolish), the fact is still the same. Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15) (italics emphasis mine). The question of whether a Christian should participate in violence should be determined by Jesus, not by what God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament era.
3. Craig used the cleansing of the temple to show that Jesus was, in fact violent. I pointed out that Isaiah 53:9 specifically says that Jesus never did anyone violence. The example of Jesus cleansing the temple is more of a basis for an aggressive activism against injustice, like what was displayed in the civil rights movement. I wish I would have elaborated on that point of non-violent direct action as a way of addressing injustice in the world. Besides, isn't it a bit of grasping for straws to use a civil protest as a pretext for flying over skies and dropping bombs?
4. Craig made the point that the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount were meant to be limited to personal interactions. I never got a chance to rebut this, so here's my partial answer now. I think the distinction between personal enemies and national enemies is an artificial one, especially when you look at the political backdrop of the New Testament. One of the over-arching themes that we see in the New Testament is that Jesus and the Apostles did not want their followers participating in a rebellion against Rome. The Romans did some awful things, both in their brutal persecution of Christians and also in the way they put down rebellions--like slaughtering and crucifying civilians--yet still the answer that Jesus and the Apostles gave was Christians were not to participate in violence even against such monstrous evil as what the Roman Empire was doing to many of its citizens. In fact, the very context of the Romans 13 passage, which many just war theorists use as the ace in the hole argument, is don't rebel against Rome! Especially if you back up a few verses to the last few verses of chapter 12, you'll see that the entire context of Romans 12:14-13:7 is that Christians should be kind and gentle, and never exacting vengeance even on their worst political enemies!
There's a lot, lot, lot, more I could say on these points, but this post has been longer than normal as is. Thank you Craig for keeping the dialogue respectful.
To my readers, keep your eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our non-violent faith!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Code Pink attempts citizens arrest of Karl Rove
I've been accused of only going after the extremism and violent rhetoric of one side. Here's my chance to say, for the record, I don't approve of this either.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/30/rove.protest/?hpt=T2
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/30/rove.protest/?hpt=T2
Monday, March 29, 2010
9 militia members charged in police-killing plot--should these "terrorists" be tortured?
For my 6 out of 10 white evangelical friends that support torture, I have a few questions for you.
1. Are the people in this story terrorists?
2. If so, should they be tortured?
3. If they had a different color of skin and professed a different religion (read: Islam), would your answer be the same?
Can anyone imagine Jesus, Peter, or Paul sanctioning a "Christian" militia?
May God free us from the myths of redemptive violence!
1. Are the people in this story terrorists?
2. If so, should they be tortured?
3. If they had a different color of skin and professed a different religion (read: Islam), would your answer be the same?
By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers – 51 mins ago
DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors said Monday.
The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government, according to newly unsealed court papers. U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said agents moved on the group because its members were planning a violent reconnaissance mission sometime in April.
Members of the group, including its leader, David Brian Stone, also known as "Captain Hutaree," were charged following FBI raids over the weekend on locations in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana.
The idea of attacking a police funeral was one of numerous scenarios discussed as ways to go after law enforcement officers, the indictment said. Other scenarios included a fake 911 call to lure an officer to his or her death, or an attack on the family of a police officer.
Once other officers gathered for a slain officer's funeral, the group planned to detonate homemade bombs at the funeral, killing more, according to the indictment.
After such attacks, the group allegedly planned to retreat to "rally points" protected by trip-wired improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, for what they expected would become a violent standoff with law enforcement personnel.
"It is believed by the Hutaree that this engagement would then serve as a catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the government," the indictment charges.
According to investigators, the Hutaree view local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel as a "brotherhood" and an enemy, and planned to attack them as part of an armed struggle against the U.S. government.
The indictment charges members of the group conspired "to levy war against the United States, (and) to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States."
Eight suspects have been arrested by the FBI, and one more is being sought. Of the eight captured, seven were arraigned Monday in Detroit and ordered held pending a bond hearing Wednesday.
The charges against the eight include seditious conspiracy, possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, teaching the use of explosives, and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction — homemade bombs. All seven defendants in court on Monday requested to be represented by the federal defender's office.
The case "is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society. The FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States," said Andrew Arena, head of the FBI's field office in Detroit.
Stone's ex-wife, Donna Stone, told The Associated Press before the arraignments that her former husband was to blame for pulling her son into the Hutaree movement. She said David Brian Stone legally adopted her son, David Brian Stone Jr., who is among those indicted. She said the marriage lasted about 10 years.
"It started out as a Christian thing," said Donna Stone, 44. "You go to church. You pray. You take care of your family. I think David started to take it a little too far. He dragged a lot of people with him."
Another son of David Brian Stone, Joshua Matthew Stone, is also indicted and currently a fugitive, said Detroit FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold.
On its Web site, Hutaree quotes several Bible passages and states: "We believe that one day, as prophecy says, there will be an Anti-Christ. ... Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment." There's also a picture on the site of 17 camouflaged men, all holding large guns.
The group didn't return an e-mail sent by The Associated Press, and attempts by telephone to reach the Stones went unanswered.
FBI agents in Michigan swarmed a rural, wooded property Saturday evening in Adrian, about 70 miles southwest of Detroit. That same night in Hammond, Ind., law enforcement agents flooded a neighborhood, startling workers at a nearby pizzeria. And in Ohio authorities blocked off streets and raided two homes.
In Adrian, two ramshackle trailers sat side-by-side on the property, the door to one slightly ajar late Sunday as if it had been forced open. Phyllis Brugger, who has lived in the area for more than 30 years, said some people who lived there were known as having ties to militia. They would shoot guns and often wore camouflage, according to Brugger and her daughter, Heidi Wood.
"Everybody knew they were militia," Brugger said. "You don't mess with them."
In Hammond, 18-year-old George Ponce, who works at a pizzeria next door to a home that was raided, said he and a few co-workers stepped outside for a break Saturday night and saw a swarm of law enforcement.
"I heard a yell, 'Get back inside!' and saw a squad member pointing a rifle at us," Ponce said. "They told us the bomb squad was going in, sweeping the house looking for bombs."
He said another agent was in the bushes near the house, and law enforcement vehicles were "all over." He estimated that agents took more than two dozen guns from the house.
In Ohio, one of the raids occurred at Bayshore Estates, a well-kept trailer park in Sandusky, a small city on Lake Erie between Toledo and Cleveland. Neighbors said the man taken into custody lived in a trailer on a cul-de-sac with his wife and two young children.
Can anyone imagine Jesus, Peter, or Paul sanctioning a "Christian" militia?
May God free us from the myths of redemptive violence!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Speak Evil of No Man...Really??
I love the New Testament. I think it’s fair to say that I live, eat, breathe, and drink the New Testament. I honestly think that there’s no piece of literature more inspiring and uplifting than the New Testament. Having said that, I have to admit that more often than not, I find myself frustrated—and a bit annoyed—at its content. Because the more I read the New Testament, the more I realize that God has set the bar sky-high for those that would call themselves Christ -followers. Case in point. The Apostle Paul tells us in Titus 3:2 to “Speak evil of no man.”
Um…excuse me Paul? What were you thinking? Don’t you believe that evil exists in the world? Certainly when you talk about speaking evil of no man, you don’t mean to include people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot …or do you? Oh, wait a second. I almost forgot. You wrote these words when the homicidal maniac named Nero was doing some pretty crazy things, like impaling Christians and using them for torches. My bad. Still, couldn’t you have at least put in an exception clause for those that are really bad?
Why does this verse annoy me so much? Because I’ve got some pretty strong political opinions. And what I think this verse is saying is that even if I believed that the presidency of Barack Obama represents the second coming of Chairman Mao or that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin want to reduce the middle class to permanent serfdom, I’m still not supposed to speak evil of them.
I can hear the half-screams already. You’re proof-texting! Certainly we need to speak against people that believe in killing unborn babies, that are in bed with Wall Street, that raise taxes, that cut social spending, that are steering our country on a path to socialism or—insert your political beef here. Very well then. My question to you is this. Is the person that you’re thinking about worse than Satan? According to Jude verses 8 and 9, Christians aren’t even supposed to bring a reviling accusation against Satan! And, by the way, the context of the passage in Jude is talking about those in authority—including political leaders.
When Jesus spoke about loving enemies, He used the Heavenly Father as an example of someone who is “kind to the unthankful and evil” (Luke 6:35). Notice the word evil. Evil is a pretty strong word. It encompasses everything from your passive aggressive mother- in- law to the terrorism of Osama Bin Laden and—yes—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck depending on your political persuasion. It’s true that Jesus called the Pharisees “Brood of vipers!” (Matthew 23:33) but notice that He never called Caiaphas a snake. Jesus never made it personal. He attacked ideas, not people.
Furthermore, if anyone would have qualified for the title of scumbag, it would have been Zacchaeus; the guy that was using his position with the Romans to screw the poor among his own people. Yet, how did Jesus treat Zacchaeus? He offered unconditional friendship to the man by inviting Himself to his house. Zacchaeus became a changed man (Luke 19:1-10). Heck, Jesus even called Judas His friend after the Scriptures specifically tell us that Judas became indwelt by Satan! (Matthew 26:50, Luke 22:3) Talk about seeing life through rose-colored glasses!
I’m not saying that I have all the answers when it comes to reconciling this teaching with the idea that Christians are supposed to take a stand against injustice and “expose” the works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). I’m just wondering what would happen if Christians worldwide became known as people that are so loving, so kind, so gracious, so humble, that they refuse to speak evil of people with whom they have deep disagreements? What if Christians became known as people that are—to quote the last part of the verse we started with—“peaceable and gentle, showing all humility to all men?” What if?
Um…excuse me Paul? What were you thinking? Don’t you believe that evil exists in the world? Certainly when you talk about speaking evil of no man, you don’t mean to include people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot …or do you? Oh, wait a second. I almost forgot. You wrote these words when the homicidal maniac named Nero was doing some pretty crazy things, like impaling Christians and using them for torches. My bad. Still, couldn’t you have at least put in an exception clause for those that are really bad?
Why does this verse annoy me so much? Because I’ve got some pretty strong political opinions. And what I think this verse is saying is that even if I believed that the presidency of Barack Obama represents the second coming of Chairman Mao or that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin want to reduce the middle class to permanent serfdom, I’m still not supposed to speak evil of them.
I can hear the half-screams already. You’re proof-texting! Certainly we need to speak against people that believe in killing unborn babies, that are in bed with Wall Street, that raise taxes, that cut social spending, that are steering our country on a path to socialism or—insert your political beef here. Very well then. My question to you is this. Is the person that you’re thinking about worse than Satan? According to Jude verses 8 and 9, Christians aren’t even supposed to bring a reviling accusation against Satan! And, by the way, the context of the passage in Jude is talking about those in authority—including political leaders.
When Jesus spoke about loving enemies, He used the Heavenly Father as an example of someone who is “kind to the unthankful and evil” (Luke 6:35). Notice the word evil. Evil is a pretty strong word. It encompasses everything from your passive aggressive mother- in- law to the terrorism of Osama Bin Laden and—yes—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck depending on your political persuasion. It’s true that Jesus called the Pharisees “Brood of vipers!” (Matthew 23:33) but notice that He never called Caiaphas a snake. Jesus never made it personal. He attacked ideas, not people.
Furthermore, if anyone would have qualified for the title of scumbag, it would have been Zacchaeus; the guy that was using his position with the Romans to screw the poor among his own people. Yet, how did Jesus treat Zacchaeus? He offered unconditional friendship to the man by inviting Himself to his house. Zacchaeus became a changed man (Luke 19:1-10). Heck, Jesus even called Judas His friend after the Scriptures specifically tell us that Judas became indwelt by Satan! (Matthew 26:50, Luke 22:3) Talk about seeing life through rose-colored glasses!
I’m not saying that I have all the answers when it comes to reconciling this teaching with the idea that Christians are supposed to take a stand against injustice and “expose” the works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). I’m just wondering what would happen if Christians worldwide became known as people that are so loving, so kind, so gracious, so humble, that they refuse to speak evil of people with whom they have deep disagreements? What if Christians became known as people that are—to quote the last part of the verse we started with—“peaceable and gentle, showing all humility to all men?” What if?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
