Monday, July 31, 2006

China church demolition leads to clash

The Chinese are fighting a losing battle, trying to contain the Gospel.

AP has the story: China church demolition leads to clash.

Again -- to paraphrase -- when China finally falls to the Gospel, the world will tremble.

In full ...

Police clashed with 3,000 Christians protesting the forced demolition of a partially built church in eastern China, leaving four people with serious injuries, a human rights group said Monday.

Fighting broke out Saturday when 500 officers arrived in Xiaoshan, a district on the outskirts of the resort city of Hangzhou, the Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy reported.

The demolition work went ahead despite the clash, in which about 20 people were hurt, the Hong Kong-based group said.

A Xiaoshan police officer confirmed an "illegal building" had been torn down, but he refused to give his name or any details. Other local government officials refused to comment.

The official Hangzhou Daily newspaper reported an "illegal building" had been demolished Saturday but did not mention a clash or injuries. The paper said a "small number of conniving people" had backed the church's construction in defiance of Chinese laws on land use and management.

The Information Center said the demolition followed orders issued in June by the provincial government and religious affairs bureau to crackdown on "illegal religious buildings," a reference to China's tight restrictions over all forms of worship.

China permits Christians to hold services only in the Communist Party-controlled official church, and unauthorized gatherings are routinely broken up and their leaders often arrested.

The clash appears to have been one of the largest-scale confrontations in recent years between police and Christian worshippers.

Hangzhou authorities in 2003 launched a major crackdown on unsanctioned churches, destroying about a dozen and arresting or detaining large numbers of church leaders.

CONTINUE READING ...

Subduing the Nations with the Gospel


Gary DeMar on Subduing the Nations.

Best line ...

"The church of Jesus Christ should be promoting Jesus Christ as the solution to war, both for Jews and Muslims, not some contrived end-time inevitable conflagration."


The whole thing ...

In a Sunday school class that I was guest teaching yesterday, I was asked about the significance of Isaiah 11 and its prophetic role in history. Modern-day prophetic theorists claim that the passage describes events that will take place during the “millennium” of Revelation 20. I believe Isaiah 11 has significance for what is happening in the Middle East at this very moment. While dispensationalists look for the prophetic inevitability of war—Armageddon—the Bible presents a different perspective rooted in the life-transforming gospel of Jesus Christ to bring warring peoples together in peace. (More about this tomorrow.)

There are several problems with the futurist interpretation of Isaiah 11 and its relationship with Revelation 20. The most obvious one is that Revelation 20 doesn’t say anything about a change in the animal creation. If fact, all the things necessary for a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 are absent from the chapter: a rebuilt temple, the reestablishment of the physical throne of David, Jerusalem as the earthly millennial capital of the world, and the most important feature, the physical presence of Jesus on earth.

Another problem is that Isaiah 11 begins with a prophecy about the first coming of Jesus Christ:

"Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear; but with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist." (Isa. 11:1–5; see Rev. 5:5; 22:16).

At this point, dispensationalists insert one of their many gaps in time, even though there is no indication that there is a gap. While Isaiah 11:1–6 refers to the NT era, the following verses are yet to be fulfilled during the “millennium” of Revelation 20. This is pure conjecture and unnecessary to maintain the integrity of the Bible. John Gill’s comments are helpful at this point:

"The wild and tame creatures shall agree together, and the former shall become the latter; which is not to be understood literally of the savage creatures, as if they should lose their nature, and be restored, as it is said, to their paradisiacal estate, which is supposed to be the time of the restitution of all things; but figuratively of men, comparable to wild creatures, who through the power of divine grace, accompanying the word preached, shall become tame, mild, meek, and humble; such who have been as ravenous wolves, have worried Christ’s sheep, made havoc of them, breathing out slaughter and threatenings against them, as did Saul, through converting grace, become as gentle and harmless as lambs, and take up their residence in Christ’s fold, and dwell with, yea, some of them even feed, Christ’s lambs and sheep, as the above mentioned person."

Lions and bears represent nations in opposition to the kingdom of God (Dan. 7:4, 5). But like David, who killed a lion and a bear (1 Sam. 17:34), the greater David, Jesus Christ, will subdue these animal-like nations in peace with the gospel. I’m optimistic enough to believe that peace can come to the warring factions in the Middle East because the gospel—not land or blood (John 1:13)—“is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). The church of Jesus Christ should be promoting Jesus Christ as the solution to war, both for Jews and Muslims, not some contrived end-time inevitable conflagration.

CONTINUE READING ...

Lest We Forget, Part XXI

"They wanted to encourage Christians in the West".

Join me in praying for these brothers and sisters.

“They stabbed one believer through the mouth with a long knife and poured boiling water down the throat of another who was caught with a Bible. An entire family had been drowned.”

Believers in the Hmong tribe of Southeast Asia agreed to give their testimony on videotape. They wanted to encourage Christians in the West.

One Hmong Christian shared: “The Communist authorities feel threatened because so many Hmong people have become Christians. They beat the Christians to try to force them to return to their worship of evil spirits.”


In full ...

This is by far one of the most encouraging devotions from the awesome book Extreme Devotion, which we frequently highlight on this blog. My favorite line in this devotion is "They wanted to encourage Christians in the West." Isn't that awesome! Take a minute and read this, and then pass it on to a friend. And please leave me your thoughts, I want to know how this encourages you today.

“They stabbed one believer through the mouth with a long knife and poured boiling water down the throat of another who was caught with a Bible. An entire family had been drowned.”

Believers in the Hmong tribe of Southeast Asia agreed to give their testimony on videotape. They wanted to encourage Christians in the West.

One Hmong Christian shared: “The Communist authorities feel threatened because so many Hmong people have become Christians. They beat the Christians to try to force them to return to their worship of evil spirits.”

“The local police forbade us to become Christians. They threatened to put us in jail and even kill us,” a woman added. “But if we have to die for Christ’s sake, we are willing.”

These believers are willing to put themselves in even greater danger to let the world know they are standing strong in the face of persecution. The Hmong tribe is the largest of Southeast Asia and is experiencing the greatest growth of Christianity. It is also one of the most persecuted people groups.

Another woman said, “I thank God that we have remained strong. I do believe that the persecution is just a test of our faith in Christ. It brings out the true riches. It brings out the silver and the gold. Just pray that we will be faithful to the end.”

Steel is strengthened through a tempering process—heated to extreme temperatures, pounded into form, and cooled. Then the process is repeated again and again, heating and pounding the impurities away and then cooling so that the metal can bond. A similar tempering process strengthens our faith. When we are heated by hatred from others, pounded upon by persecution, and then cooled by the gentle reassurance of God’s presence, our impurities are driven out and our faith strengthened. Have you recognized the tempering process in your life? Don’t resist any part of it. Learn from your brothers and sisters in the Hmong tribe. Your enemies don’t realize you will be stronger as a result of their hatred.

CONTINUE READING ...

The Minister of Defense: Reggie's (whole) story


Interesting article from USA Today about Reggie White called Reggie's (whole) story that sheds some light the tension that can exist between a humble Christian life and the fame of modern American celebrity athletes.

Two notable quotes ...

"When I look back on my life, there are a lot of things I said God said. I realize he didn't say nothing. It was what Reggie wanted to do. I do feel the Father ... gave me some signals ... but you won't hear me anymore saying God spoke to me about something — unless I read something in Scripture and I know."

White made the comments in a remarkable and largely overlooked interview with NFL Films that aired just days before his death. There was much more. "Prostituted" is a strong word, but it's exactly how White described the way he had been used by sports ministries and other evangelical groups eager to capitalize on his fame.

"Really, in many respects I've been prostituted," White said. "Most people who wanted me to speak at their churches only asked me to speak because I played football, not because I was this great religious guy or this theologian. ... I got caught up in some of that until I got older and I got sick of it. I've been a preacher for 21 years, preaching what somebody wrote or what I heard somebody else say. I was not a student of Scripture. I came to the realization I'd become more of a motivational speaker than a teacher of the word."

Some initially misunderstood White's changed rhetoric as a sign that he had lost religion. Hardly. Tired of having the meaning of faith spoon-fed to him so that he could spoon-feed others, White decided to learn Hebrew so he could study the original texts of the Old Testament — go straight to the source, in essence.


... and ...

Also, as White apparently came to believe, blending faith with pro sports and commerce might not, in the end, be good for religion. Is justice done for the purpose and power of faith when victorious players claim that God intervened so one Christian player might outdo another? Or when ministries put biblically illiterate celebrities on a pedestal to promote religion as though it were just another product endorsement?

"I used to have people tell me, 'God has given you the ability to play football so you could tell the world about him,' " White said shortly before his death. "Well, he doesn't need football to let the world know about him. When you look at the Scriptures, you'll see that most of the prophets weren't popular guys. I came to the realization that what God needed from me more than anything is a way of living instead of the things I was saying. Now I know I've got to sit down and get it right."

Unfortunately, death allowed him very little time to do that.

As we reflect on White on the occasion of his induction into the Hall of Fame, let's remember his legacy in its fullness. Yes, he was about family and faith. He cared about his teammates and his community, and he played the game with a unique talent and passion. And, yes, Reggie came to reject the very faith-in-sports movement he did so much to advance.

Let's remember Reggie's story — all of it.


In full ...

On Saturday, the late Reggie White will be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The "Minister of Defense" — he was an ordained minister who had a passion for Christian evangelizing during his stellar playing career — will be extolled for his quarterback-sacking prowess, service to the community and commitment to his family and Christian faith.

Amid the deserved praise that will pour forth in the speeches and media coverage, there probably won't be much, if anything, said about another important but less easily swallowed chapter of White's story — namely, his post-retirement disavowal of much of what he stood for as the Jesus-praising champion of jock evangelism. As the greatly changed White put it shortly before his premature death, at age 43 of cardiac arrhythmia in December 2004, "(God) doesn't need football to let the world know about him."

For those who don't follow sports, White was a superstar defensive lineman in the 1980s and '90s, playing primarily for the Philadelphia Eagles and Green Bay Packers. Not only was he a star on the field, selected to the Pro Bowl a record 13 times, but he was also an exemplar in the now-common practice of using athletic stardom to spread the evangelical Christian message. A frequent speaker at churches and religious events, a man quick to turn post-game interviews into opportunities to proclaim God, White probably did more than any other sports star to usher in the conspicuous religiosity that we witness in pro sports today.

As a player, White correctly sensed that his preaching wasn't welcomed by all fans. But he stormed past that disapproval as though it were just another lineman blocking his path to the quarterback. As he said in one live post-game TV interview during his days with the Packers, "God allowed me to use this game as a platform to proclaim the name of Jesus. ... I know some people don't like what I say sometimes, but God has called me to preach a message, and I have to preach the message."

White was also known for citing God's will in announcing pivotal career decisions. When he left the Eagles to sign with Green Bay, he claimed God had told him to make the move. And when he came out of brief retirement late in his career, he again attributed the decision to God's instruction.

A man 'prostituted'

Contrast that with the White who emerged shortly before his unexpected death nearly two years ago. "When I look back on my life, there are a lot of things I said God said. I realize he didn't say nothing. It was what Reggie wanted to do. I do feel the Father ... gave me some signals ... but you won't hear me anymore saying God spoke to me about something — unless I read something in Scripture and I know."

White made the comments in a remarkable and largely overlooked interview with NFL Films that aired just days before his death. There was much more. "Prostituted" is a strong word, but it's exactly how White described the way he had been used by sports ministries and other evangelical groups eager to capitalize on his fame.

"Really, in many respects I've been prostituted," White said. "Most people who wanted me to speak at their churches only asked me to speak because I played football, not because I was this great religious guy or this theologian. ... I got caught up in some of that until I got older and I got sick of it. I've been a preacher for 21 years, preaching what somebody wrote or what I heard somebody else say. I was not a student of Scripture. I came to the realization I'd become more of a motivational speaker than a teacher of the word."

Some initially misunderstood White's changed rhetoric as a sign that he had lost religion. Hardly. Tired of having the meaning of faith spoon-fed to him so that he could spoon-feed others, White decided to learn Hebrew so he could study the original texts of the Old Testament — go straight to the source, in essence.

White told his NFL Films interviewers that some Christian ministers had warned people to stay away from the new, heretical Reggie. That's deeply regrettable. White had something important to say on an issue that is far from settled — the appropriate place of religion in pro sports.

Sports and Christianity

If anything, Christianity in our major professional leagues has become even more forceful, and more problematic, since White retired from the National Football League for good after the 2000 season.

"Faith nights" — at which organizers stage religious programming before and after the ball game, including testimonials by players who urge fans to accept Jesus — are beginning to migrate from the minors to the major leagues. Christian chaplains with ties to Athletes in Action and other evangelical ministries are embedded with nearly every team in major league baseball, football and basketball, bringing players a conservative brand of Christianity and enlisting them in the effort to spread it to the sports-loving public. More than ever, it seems, religious players are testifying to their faith by making frequent religious gestures on the field and praising God in post-game interviews. Of course, pro athletes' religious expressions warm the hearts of many fans. What could be wrong with sports stars modeling religious faith rather than greed, violence and promiscuity? But in truth, religion is not the purely wholesome, non-controversial force in sports that its defenders would have us believe.

For example, is it fair that pro sports teams are allowing themselves to become prime vehicles for Christian proselytizing when they serve religiously diverse communities, and when they play in publicly financed stadiums bought by the tax dollars of many non-Christian fans? There is much to be said for making religion available to pro athletes. But the evangelical ministries dominant in pro sports aren't bringing religion to locker rooms as much as an exclusive form of Christianity laden with a divisive worldview and considerable political baggage.

Also, as White apparently came to believe, blending faith with pro sports and commerce might not, in the end, be good for religion. Is justice done for the purpose and power of faith when victorious players claim that God intervened so one Christian player might outdo another? Or when ministries put biblically illiterate celebrities on a pedestal to promote religion as though it were just another product endorsement?

"I used to have people tell me, 'God has given you the ability to play football so you could tell the world about him,' " White said shortly before his death. "Well, he doesn't need football to let the world know about him. When you look at the Scriptures, you'll see that most of the prophets weren't popular guys. I came to the realization that what God needed from me more than anything is a way of living instead of the things I was saying. Now I know I've got to sit down and get it right."

Unfortunately, death allowed him very little time to do that.

As we reflect on White on the occasion of his induction into the Hall of Fame, let's remember his legacy in its fullness. Yes, he was about family and faith. He cared about his teammates and his community, and he played the game with a unique talent and passion. And, yes, Reggie came to reject the very faith-in-sports movement he did so much to advance.

Let's remember Reggie's story — all of it.

CONTINUE READING ...

Can Believers Be Bible Scholars?

Calvin? Edwards? Luther? Augustine? Morons. Or so says Michael V. Fox of University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Can Believers Be Bible Scholars?


Albert Mohler takes Mr. Fox to task on his blog. To wit ...

Michael V. Fox doesn't believe that faith-based scholarship of the Bible is possible--and he wants to see such scholars marginalized in the larger world of scholarship. In an essay posted at the Web site for the Society of Biblical Literature [SBL], Fox argues, "In my view, faith-based study has no place in academic scholarship, whether the object of study is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Homer. Faith-based study is a different realm of intellectual activity that can dip into Bible scholarship for its own purposes, but cannot contribute to it."


In his work, Theocracy. Theocracy. Theocracy (blog item), Ross Douthat, an associate editor at The Atlantic, mentions that it is much easier to marginalize and insult a group of people than to actually argue with them. Mr. Fox, in my view, is running scared. Rather than debate sound, Bible-believing scholars -- and risk getting his head handed to him -- he chooses to disregard, not only their ideas, but their very right to engage in the debate at all.

In full ...

Michael V. Fox doesn't believe that faith-based scholarship of the Bible is possible--and he wants to see such scholars marginalized in the larger world of scholarship. In an essay posted at the Web site for the Society of Biblical Literature [SBL], Fox argues, "In my view, faith-based study has no place in academic scholarship, whether the object of study is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Homer. Faith-based study is a different realm of intellectual activity that can dip into Bible scholarship for its own purposes, but cannot contribute to it."

That is a shocking claim, but Fox is simply asserting what many others in the academy have thought for a very long time. Even if the secularization of the larger academy is a fait accompli, Fox and many others are concerned that the majority of scholars studying the Bible are believers of some sort, mostly Christians and Jews involved in the serious study of the Bible.

Fox teaches at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and he is unsparing in his denunciation of what he calls faith-based scholarship. In reality, what he means is that scholars who study the Bible as believers forfeit any claim to scholarship. Could there be any more telling evidence of what the secularization of the academy has wrought?

The naïveté of Fox's approach is self-evident, but he apparently fails to see that even an atheist brings a certain "faith" to the work of scholarship. As he sees it, Jewish scholars who would wish to publish academic research on the Old Testament are simply to be discounted because they may well believe in the existence of deity and may see the Old Testament writings as sacred. Beyond this, Christians are to be discounted wholesale, and Christians who engage in biblical scholarship are to be denied the status of scholars, regardless of which testament is their focus of study.

"Faith-based study of the Bible certainly has its place," Fox concedes--but those places are "synagogues, churches, and religious schools, where the Bible (and whatever other religious material one gives allegiance to) serves as a normative basis of moral inspiration or spiritual guidance." His next statement serves as the theme for his entire essay: "This kind of study is certainly important, but it is not scholarship--by which I mean Wissenschaft, a term lacking in English that can apply to the humanities as well as the hard sciences, even if the modes and possibilities of verification in each are very different."

Look carefully at Fox's next sentence: "Any discipline that deliberately imports extraneous, inviolable axioms into its work belongs to the realm of homiletics or spiritual enlightenment or moral guidance or whatnot, but not scholarship, whatever academic degrees its practitioners may hold."

This is where Fox's own lack of intellectual honesty brings his argument to a standstill. Does he really believe that he, or anyone else for that matter, comes to the task of scholarship with absolutely no "extraneous" presuppositions? No, Fox concedes that "everyone has presuppositions and premises," but he insists that, for scholars such as himself, "these are not inviolable." He continues, "Indeed, it is the role of education to teach students how to recognize and rest their premises and, when necessary, to reject them."

Of course, this simply begs the question. Why is the presumption of atheism any less inviolable than belief in Jesus Christ as Lord? In its own way, the same argument holds true for assertions of agnosticism, since the true agnostic argues that the question of God's existence simply cannot be answered. That is about as inviolable an axiom as one is likely to encounter.

Give Fox his due, he attempts to exclude believers from the academy with fair warning. "Faith-based Bible study is not part of scholarship even if some of its postulates turn out to be true." Thus, even if the believing scholar makes a scholarly argument that non-believers find convincing, that work is still to be denied the status of scholarship, simply because the person is neither agnostic nor atheist.

Fox does attempt to distinguish between "faith-based Bible study" and "the scholarship of persons who hold a personal faith." He explains, "there are many religious individuals whose scholarship is secular and who introduce their faith only in distinctly religious forums." Nevertheless, Fox never really explains how these persons are anything other than secular in their scholarly conclusions. Does he believe that persons live in separate intellectual spheres and can operate as authentic believers in one sphere but not in any other?

Fox's frustration is clear: "There is an atmosphere abroad in academia (loosely associated with postmodernism) that tolerates and even encourages ideological scholarship and advocacy instruction. Some conservative religionists have picked this up. I have heard students, and read authors, who justify their biases by the rhetoric of postmodern self-indulgence. Since no one is viewpoint neutral and everyone has presuppositions, why exclude Christian presuppositions? Why allow the premise of errancy but not of inerrancy? Such sophistry can be picked apart, but the climate does favor it."

Fox may dismiss these arguments as "sophistry," but he never answers his own questions. Why should the premise of biblical errancy be considered ideologically neutral, but the assertion of biblical inerrancy is considered to be evidence of distorting bias?

"The claim of faith-based Bible study to a place at the academic table takes a toll on the entire field of Bible scholarship," Fox laments. "The reader or student of Bible scholarship is likely to suspect (or hope) that the author or teacher is moving toward a predetermined conclusion. Those who choose a faith-based approach should realize that they cannot expect the attention of those who don't share their postulates. The reverse is not true."

Get it? In Fox's scheme, the secularist wins the coin toss whichever side turns up. "The best thing for Bible appreciation is secular, academic, religiously-neutral hermeneutic." That is an astounding claim, and one that demands a far more developed argument and series of definitions. Does Fox actually believe in the myth of a "secular, academic, religiously-neutral hermeneutic?" Does he believe in the Easter Bunny?

He cites with appreciation the work of Jacques Berlinerblau, who also argues for a secular hermeneutic. In a response to Fox's essay, Berlinerblau stated that he read Fox's essay "with appreciation and glee." Berlinerblau, who teaches at Georgetown University and Hofstra University, is the author of The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously, published by Cambridge University Press. Berlinerblau congratulated Fox for calling "attention to a topic that is virtually taboo in biblical scholarship."

Berlinerblau criticizes the world of biblical scholarship for its "demographic peculiarities," most specifically the fact that the vast majority of Bible scholars are members of some church or synagogue. He sees this as historically understandable but academically unsustainable. "They continue to ignore the fact that the relation between their own religious commitments and their scholarly subject matter is wont to generate every imaginable conflict of intellectual interest," Berlinerblau asserts. "Too, they still seem oblivious to how strange this state of affairs strikes their colleagues in the humanities and social sciences." Significantly, Berlinerblau seems to understand that this imbalance is overwhelmingly in favor of the secularist. "Before this response begins to sound like the prelude to a class-action suit, permit me to observe that the type of discrimination encountered by secularists in biblical studies is precisely what believers working in the humanities and social sciences have endured for decades. The secular bent and bias of the American research university is well known. It is undeniable that many of its workers are prejudiced against sociologists, English professors, and art historians who are 'too' religious."

But, back to believers engaged in biblical scholarship, Berlinerblau is concerned "by the degree to which explicitly confessional researchers sit on editorial boards of major journals, steering committees, search committees, and the hierarchy of the Society of Biblical Literature."

In contrast to Michael V. Fox, Berlinerblau does not appreciate believers who attempt to compartmentalize their faith and their scholarship into separate worlds. "It is another category of Biblicists that, to my mind, is far more problematic" Berlinerblau explains. "It is comprised of researchers who in every facet of their private lives are practicing Jews or Christians but who--somehow--deny that this may influence their professional scholarly work (which just happens to concern those documents that are the fount of Judaism and Christianity!)"

Sounding slightly less alarmist than Fox, Berlinerblau warns of "a collective ideational drift in the field" of biblical studies--"one that makes it difficult to think or speak about the Scripture in certain ways."

Berlinerblau must be given credit for a finely-tuned sense of humor. Consider this paragraph: "Assume for a moment that you are an atheist exegete. Now please follow my instructions. Peruse the listings in Openings [a listing of academic posts looking to be filled]. Understand that your unique skills and talents are of no interest to those institutions listed there with the words 'Saint' and 'Holy' and 'Theological' and 'Seminary' in their names. This leaves, per year, about two or three advertised posts in biblical studies at religiously un-chartered institutions of higher learning. Apply for those jobs. Get rejected. A few months later learn--preferably while consuming donuts with a colleague--that the position was filled by a graduate of a theological seminary. Realize that those on the search committee who made this choice all graduated from seminaries themselves. Curse the gods."

In his indispensable work, The Soul of the American University, George M. Marsden explains how academia came to embrace this degree of secularism: "One way to describe the current state of affairs, however, is that, in effect, the only points of view that are allowed full academic credence are those that presuppose purely naturalistic worldviews. Advocates of postmodernist viewpoints have, as a rule, been just as committed to exclusively naturalist premises for understanding human belief and behavior as were their turn-of-the-century predecessors who established evolutionary naturalism as normative for academic life. One must wonder, however, whether there are adequate grounds for most academics to insist on naturalistic premises that ignore the possibility of fruitful religious perspectives."

Evidently, Professor Fox needs to read Professor Marsden's book. Then again, I hold little hope that it would make much of a difference. If nothing else, Professor Fox's essay, published by the Society for Biblical Literature, indicates where the debate in those circles is headed.

All scholarship is based in some faith and deeply grounded in some set of presuppositions. For the vast majority of those engaged in academia today, that faith is some form of ideological secularism. Christian scholars should always be absolutely transparent and clear about their confessional commitments. As a matter of fact, this should be an absolute requirement of their confessional institutions. At the same time, we should never allow that those who hold alternative worldviews are any less ideologically or intellectually committed. The radical nature of Professor Fox's proposal indicates just how committed he is to his own faith--and how blind he is to his own faith-based perspective. Watch this debate with interest--it is not going away any time soon.

CONTINUE READING ...

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Piper on Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East

John Piper on Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East, from March 7, 2004.

Hat tip: smartchristian.com

In full ...

Romans 11:25-32

"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

Today I would like to address the issue of Israel's relation to the “Promised Land” in the Middle East. This is not primarily an expository message from Romans 11, but an effort to draw out implications of Romans 11 and the rest of Scripture for a very vexing problem in the world today. The existence of Israel in the Middle East and the extent of her borders and her sovereignty are perhaps the most explosive factors in world terrorism and the most volatile factors in Arab-Western relations.

The Arab roots and the Jewish roots in this land go back for thousands of years. Both lay claim to the land not merely because of historical presence, but also because of divine right. I won't try to lay out a detailed peace plan. But I will try to lay out some biblical truths that could guide all of us in thinking about peace and justice in that part of the world. What we think about this, and what we say, does matter, since politicians are influenced by their constituents in these religiously super-charged situations. And we need to know how to pray. And we need to know how to talk to others in a way that honors the truth. So for all those reasons, and for the reason that God is very much involved in this situation, we should talk about it in the context of Romans 11.

What we've seen in Romans 11 is that Israel as a whole—that is, as an ethnic, corporate people enduring from generation to generation—has a root in the covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants. Verse 16b: “If the root is holy so are the branches.” We interpreted that picture in the light of verse 28: “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your [Gentile] sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” The “forefathers” here correspond to the root in verse 16. So the promises to the forefathers imply that some day the whole tree, with all its branches, will be saved.

Some day. Because verse 28 says, for now “they are enemies.” Verse 28a: “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your sake.” In other words, they are rejecting their Messiah and thus putting themselves against God. This is what Jesus said to Israel in John 8:42: “If God were your father you would love me.” Jesus is the litmus test whether anybody's religion is worship of the true God. But Israel does not love Jesus as God's son and her Messiah. So they are, for now, “enemies of God.”

So when verse 16 says, “If the root is holy so are the branches,” we take it to mean: “If God chose the forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for himself, and set them apart and made to them covenant promises, then someday (after this present time of enmity and hardening are over) their descendants are going to return to God through Jesus Christ, and become God's set-apart, holy people. Unbelief and ungodliness will be banished from Jacob forever (v. 26).

So now we ask, is the so-called “Promised Land” part of the inheritance and salvation that “all Israel” (v. 26) will receive? And if so, what does that say about the rights of Israel today to the Land?

In developing the answer to this question I would like to maintain seven truths which are based on Scripture.

1. God chose Israel from all the peoples of the world to be his own possession.
Deuteronomy 7:6, “ The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”

2. The Land was part of the inheritance he promised to Abraham and his descendants forever.
Genesis 15:18, “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.'”

Then in Genesis 17:7-8 God says to Abraham, “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

Then God confirmed the promise to Jacob, Abraham's grandson, in Genesis 28:13, “And behold, the Lord . . . said, ‘I am the Lord , the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.” And when Jacob was dying he called Joseph to him and said (in Genesis 48:3), “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, 4 and said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you and . . . will give this land to your offspring after you for an everlasting possession.'”

This, of course, creates a huge cleavage between the Islamic view of God's covenant and the Jewish and Christian view of God's covenant. But we believe that this is God's word, confirmed by the Lord Jesus, and so we say, The land is destined to be Israel's land.

But it's not that simple. This is not an issue that can be dealt with in soundbites.

3. The promises made to Abraham, including the promise of the Land, will be inherited as an everlasting gift only by true, spiritual Israel, not disobedient, unbelieving Israel.
This was the point of Romans 9. When Paul grieved over the lostness of so many Jews who were rejecting Jesus and were perishing, he said in verses 6-7, “It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.” In other words, the promises cannot be demanded by anyone just because he is Jewish. Jewish ethnicity has a place in God's plan, but it is not enough to secure anything. It does not in itself qualify a person to be an heir of the promise to Abraham and his offspring. Romans 9:8 says it clearly: “It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” Being born Jewish does not make one an heir of the promise—neither the promise of the Land nor any other promise.

This was plain in the Old Testament, and it was plain the teachings of Jesus (which we will see under truth #4). For example, in the terrible list of curses that God promised to bring on the people if they broke his covenant and forsook him was this: “ And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it” (Deuteronomy 28:63). Throughout the history of Israel, covenant breaking and disobedience and idolatry disqualified Israel from the present divine right to the Land. (See also Daniel 9:4-7; Psalm 78:54-61.)

Be careful not to infer from this that Gentile nations (like Arabs) have the right to molest Israel. God's judgments on Israel do not sanction human sin against Israel. Israel still has human rights among nations even when she forfeits her present divine right to the Land. Remember that nations which gloated over her divine discipline were punished by God (Isaiah 10:5-13; Joel 3:2).

So the promise to Abraham that his descendants will inherit the Land does not mean that all Jews inherit that promise. It will come finally to the true Israel, the Israel that keeps covenant and obeys her God.

4. Jesus Christ has come into the world as the Jewish Messiah, and his own people rejected him and broke covenant with their God.
When Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ [that is, the Jewish Messiah], the Son of the living God.” And Jesus responded to him, “ Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:16-17). And when the high priest asked Jesus, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus answered, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62).

But even though Jesus was the Messiah and did many mighty works and taught with great authority and fulfilled Old Testament promises, nevertheless the people of Israel as a whole rejected him. This was the most serious covenant-breaking disobedience that Israel had ever committed in all her history.

This is why Jesus told the parable of the tenants who killed the Landlord's son when he came for his harvest, and ended that parable with these words to Israel in Matthew 21:43, “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” And it's why he said in Matthew 8:11-12, after seeing the faith of a Gentile centurion and the unbelief of Israel, “Many [Gentiles] will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Israel has broken covenant with her God and is living today in disobedience and unbelief in his Son and her Messiah. That is why Paul says in Romans 11:28, “As regards the gospel [the good news of the Messiah] they are enemies of God.”

5. Therefore, the secular state of Israel today may not claim a present divine right to the Land, but they and we should seek a peaceful settlement not based on present divine rights, but on international principles of justice, mercy, and practical feasibility.
This follows from all we have said so far, and the implication it has for those of us who believe the Bible and trust Christ as our Savior and as the Lord of history, is that we should not give blanket approval to Jewish or to Palestinian actions. We should approve or denounce according to Biblical standards of justice and mercy among peoples. We should encourage our representatives to seek a just settlement that takes the historical and social claims of both peoples into account. Neither should be allowed to sway the judgments of justice by a present divine claim to the land. If you believe this, it would be helpful for your representatives to know it.

We are not whitewashing terrorism and we are not whitewashing Jewish force. Nor is there any attempt on my part to assess measures of blame or moral equivalence. That's not my aim. My aim is to put the debate on a balanced footing in this sense: neither side should preempt the claims of international justice by the claim of present divine rights. Working out what that justice will look like is still a huge and daunting task. I have not solved that problem. But I think we will make better progress if we do not yield to the claim of either side to be ethnically or nationally sanctioned by God in their present conflict.

6. By faith in Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, Gentiles become heirs of the promise of Abraham, including the promise of the Land.
In the words of Romans 11:17, “You [Gentile], although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree”—that is, they become part of the redeemed covenant people who share the faith of Abraham. The reason, as Paul put in Romans 4:13, is that “the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” So all who are united to Christ, Abraham's Offspring, by faith are part of the covenant made with him and his offspring.

Here's the most sweeping statement of this truth— Ephesians 2:12, “Remember that you [Gentiles] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. . . . So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”

Therefore Jewish believers in Jesus and Gentile believers will inherit the Land. And the easiest way to see this is to see that we will inherit the world which includes the Land. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians will not quibble over the real estate of the Promised Land because the entire new heavens and the new earth will be ours. 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, “All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.” All followers of Christ, and only followers of Christ, will inherit the earth, including the Land.

7. Finally, this inheritance of Christ's people will happen at the second coming of Christ to establish his kingdom, not before; and till then, we Christians must not take up arms to claim our inheritance; but rather lay down our lives to share our inheritance with as many as we can.
You recall that all-important word that Jesus spoke to Pilate in John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Christians do not take up the sword to advance the kingdom of Christ. We wait for a king from heaven who will deliver us by his mighty power. And in that great day Jew and Gentile who have treasured Christ will receive what was promised. There will be a great reversal: the last will be first, and the meek—in fellowship with the Lamb of God—will inherit the Land.

Therefore, come to the meek and lowly Christ while there is time, and receive forgiveness of sins, and the hope of glory.

CONTINUE READING ...

On Perilous Border, Lebanese Christians Take In Muslims

From the Washington Post: Shiite Pilgrimage Leads to Church.

In full ...

The word went out -- there was refuge in a Christian village -- and thousands came.

In a pilgrimage of fear, Shiite Muslims from the towns most ravaged along the Lebanese border fled for Rmeish, a hilltop hamlet along a road where Israeli shells fell, at times, every 15 seconds Friday. Here, they escaped to a church, and at the church, a basement lit by soft shafts of sunlight. In it were the wretched of this war: children with dirty feet and a pregnant woman who feared giving birth in squalor, an 85-year-old man whose donkey, his sole possession, was killed by a bomb and hundreds of others among the at least 10,000 who arrived in Rmeish, some drinking from a fetid pool and walking the streets in search of food and goodwill.

"The safety of God," said Heidar Issa, one of those here. "That's what we were counting on."

In a country fractured by faith, torn asunder by 15 years of civil war, they found refuge among the Lebanese Christians they once fought. Their politics often diverged -- over support for Hezbollah, their views of today's conflict -- but they shared a plight. And in a common misery wrought by war, less than a mile from the Israeli border, there was fleeting coexistence rather than talk of strife.

"Everyone is opening their doors to anyone who comes," said Tannous Alem, a 43-year-old resident of Rmeish with a cross around his neck, who had brought 120 people into his home over 12 days. "We're all the same in times like these."

Southern Lebanon, populated largely by Shiite Muslims, has borne the brunt of Israel's attacks, its villages depopulated, its roads and bridges in shambles and nearly every family touched by the war. But the road to Rmeish along Lebanon's border is a microcosm of the diverse country itself: Sunni Muslim village, then Shiite hamlet, alongside Christian town.

Along the sea was Alma al-Shaab, a Christian village with its olive trees, cactuses bearing prickly pears and gardens wilting with no water. Inland was Yarine, a largely Sunni Muslim town, along rolling green hills with cream-colored stones and shrub-like trees. With a wave, an inhabitant there beckoned a passing car: "Welcome! Come join us!" On the Israeli side of the border, antennas stood like sentries along a ridge. Horses, seemingly lost, wandered the streets, unfazed by the explosions. Passing them was a gaggle of Syrian workers, fleeing on foot. Their white flags were tethered to crooked branches, held by hand.

"They are fighting jihad in the path of God," read a sign attached to an electricity pylon in Raamiye, a Shiite Muslim village near the site where Hezbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid more than two weeks ago.

"Please," one woman cried. "Check and see if my home is safe."

"When you come back, can you take us?" another man shouted.

Next was Kawzah, a Christian village with an abandoned Lebanese army checkpoint, then Aita al-Shaab, a village known as a stronghold of Hezbollah, where torn electricity wires dangled like vines along the street. Israeli attacks have destroyed swaths of the village, now deserted. A white Toyota was abandoned there, its trunk unlatched. Next to it was a blue Mercedes, its hood open.

And then came Rmeish, long a rival of Aita al-Shaab, whose Christian inhabitants sometimes served as officers in a Lebanese militia that fought Hezbollah during the Israeli occupation that ended in 2000. The hundreds of displaced people convulsed its streets, gathering along the curbs.

"17 days without water!" one person shouted. Another pointed to the hillsides. "There are still bodies there," he yelled.

In peace, Rmeish was a village of 7,000, picturesque with its red-tiled roofs and tidy streets. Since Israel ordered Lebanese to flee their villages along the border, as many as 10,000 have come, perhaps more. Isolated from the rest of the country, Rmeish suffered the same fate as its neighbors: no fuel for cars even for those who want to leave, no electricity, and supplies of food dwindling, even as stores remained open. To bathe, wash dishes and cook, the displaced draw water from a fetid pool filled by winter rains. Some said they were drinking from it. Diseases like scabies were spreading. The municipal government, overextended in the best of times, has virtually collapsed.

A ride to Beirut, once $10, now costs as much as $400, sometimes more.

"It's so miserable," said Carla el-Hage, a 19-year-old from the village. "This is what you read in history books."

The displaced have gathered in homes, a school and a convent. As many as 700 went to the Tajali Church, part of it unfinished. On a concrete steeple, roofed in red tile, stands a cross. Windows await their stained glass. On the church door was a letter pleading for order: a curfew beginning at 7 p.m., no lights at night and no trucks on the streets that might be targets.

In the basement was Khadija Rahme, a 29-year-old woman, eight months pregnant with her first child. She grasped a half-burnt candle. Her face drawn, she complained that there had not been enough water for bathing in 17 days.

"I'm so scared," she said, pleading. "I'm so scared I'm going to have to give birth here."

Next to her was 50-year-old Haniya Srour, who started crying.

"She's 95 years old," Srour said, pointing to her mother, Malika, lying listlessly on a mattress.

"Look how we're eating," she said, pointing to week-old bread, crumbling in her hands. Nearby was a bottle of drinking water, tinted green. Around the room were mattresses in small spaces, pans and silverware soaking in pots, plastic bags stuffed with clothes, a Koran and their identity papers, and cheap rugs marking the extent of each family's domain.

"Come look at the bathroom," she said, walking into a pitch-black room, the toilet a plastic bucket.

Not everyone in Rmeish was happy with the flood of displaced Shiites. Some complained that a few had broken into deserted houses, searching for food. Others worried that they might become squatters. And there was a sense of relief as thousands managed to travel the dangerous roads and flee toward Beirut since Thursday. But even the displaced were struck by the generosity they found in a village that, almost without exception, they thought the Israelis might not attack because it was Christian.

"They welcomed us with 100 hellos," said Issa, who arrived 10 days ago with 26 people in his truck. "Bless them."

His friend, Hussein Rahmi, nodded. "It's safer with the Christians," he said.

In the church's courtyard walked Fadi Abdoush, a stocky, 23-year-old Christian from Rmeish, with the gait of someone who had taken charge. He worked at a grocery store, but since the conflict began, he had struggled to provide help for the displaced.

"There is no city council," Abdoush said. "I've become the city council now. I've become the mayor."

He turned on a faucet that let out dirty water. "This is what we're drinking," he said.

He walked past 11 steel vats from Holland for shipping hydrogenated vegetable fat that he had lined up next to the church. Filled with stagnant water, they were for washing clothes. He walked into the entryway of his house, where he had set up three large steel plates for baking bread. He pointed out a makeshift latrine, too small to serve so many people. Then he walked into a small concrete hut, with brown tobacco leaves hanging from the roof for drying, where he had put 28 people, one family, who came from Aita al-Shaab.

Sixteen days ago, their house was destroyed. They had walked to Rmeish at 3 a.m.

"We don't know what our destiny is," said Hussein Nassar, the 65-year-old patriarch. "We have no idea what awaits us."

Abdoush looked out at the family. "One day it might be our turn," he said, echoing the words of neighbors that were often repeated Friday.

Along the town's main road was a jarring scene: a rare, chaotic, desperate panorama of life in an otherwise desolate and deserted region. People milled about on the roads, looking for rides. "$500 to Beirut! This isn't a shame? It's not a shame?" Suheil Adeeb shouted. Others stood expressionless. They held bags with clothes, blankets in plastic bags and their cooking pots on the street before them, the metal catching the glint of the sun. "We're waiting for God's help," said Yusuf Jamil, a 24-year-old from Aita al-Shaab.

A convoy left the city. Other cars joined it, frantically, people believing that in numbers there was more safety.

"It's a disaster for them, and it's a disaster for us," said 30-year-old Yusuf Rida.

Three nights before, his house was destroyed. So were three houses of his relatives. His grandfather was killed, as was his grandmother. With his cousin and uncle, they were still buried in the rubble. Before dawn, he walked to Rmeish with his three children and wife, all of them barefoot, bringing nothing with them but their clothes. They slept by the fetid pool.

"I didn't want to leave," he said.

"It was forced upon us," added his wife, Amal.

As they left Rmeish, a convoy with perhaps 100 cars plied the road, the vehicles flying their ubiquitous white flags, as blasts reverberated in the wadis along each side. Ahead, the white flag once tied to the roof of one minibus trailed behind it like a sail. There was a battered red Mercedes, improbably filled with 10 people, and a red tractor carrying 20 in back. They passed olive trees, a plowed but abandoned field and a silver Mercedes that was abandoned. "Joe Taxi," its windshield read.

At each blast, the eyes of Rida's children grew wider, and his wife cried more.

"These aren't my tears," she said. "These are the tears of my children."

He called his brother, staying near Sidon, to see whether he had room for his family. His daughter asked where another relative had gone. But for long stretches, they simply sat in silence, the terraced, rolling hills of southern Lebanon passing their windows.

"We don't know where we're going," he said softly. "We're just going."

CONTINUE READING ...

Conservative Pastor Steers Clear of Politics, and Pays

Interesting. I blogged about this pastor's book here.

Now, the New York Times writes about him here: Conservative Pastor Steers Clear of Politics, and Pays.

Two key quotes ...

(Boyd) said he first became alarmed while visiting another megachurch’s worship service on a Fourth of July years ago. The service finished with the chorus singing “God Bless America” and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses.

“I thought to myself, ‘What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?’ ” he said in an interview.


... and ...

“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”


The rest ...

Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church’s — to conservative political candidates and causes.

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul — packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals — was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.

But there were also congregants who thanked Mr. Boyd, telling him they were moved to tears to hear him voice concerns they had been too afraid to share.

“Most of my friends are believers,” said Shannon Staiger, a psychotherapist and church member, “and they think if you’re a believer, you’ll vote for Bush. And it’s scary to go against that.”

Sermons like Mr. Boyd’s are hardly typical in today’s evangelical churches. But the upheaval at Woodland Hills is an example of the internal debates now going on in some evangelical colleges, magazines and churches. A common concern is that the Christian message is being compromised by the tendency to tie evangelical Christianity to the Republican Party and American nationalism, especially through the war in Iraq.

At least six books on this theme have been published recently, some by Christian publishing houses. Randall Balmer, a religion professor at Barnard College and an evangelical, has written “Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America — an Evangelical’s Lament.”

And Mr. Boyd has a new book out, “The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church,” which is based on his sermons.

“There is a lot of discontent brewing,” said Brian D. McLaren, the founding pastor at Cedar Ridge Community Church in Gaithersburg, Md., and a leader in the evangelical movement known as the “emerging church,” which is at the forefront of challenging the more politicized evangelical establishment.

“More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people.

“Because people think, ‘Oh no, what is going to come next is homosexual bashing, or pro-war rhetoric, or complaining about ‘activist judges.’ ”

Mr. Boyd said he had cleared his sermons with the church’s board, but his words left some in his congregation stunned. Some said that he was disrespecting President Bush and the military, that he was soft on abortion or telling them not to vote.

“When we joined years ago, Greg was a conservative speaker,” said William Berggren, a lawyer who joined the church with his wife six years ago. “But we totally disagreed with him on this. You can’t be a Christian and ignore actions that you feel are wrong. A case in point is the abortion issue. If the church were awake when abortion was passed in the 70’s, it wouldn’t have happened. But the church was asleep.”

Mr. Boyd, 49, who preaches in blue jeans and rumpled plaid shirts, leads a church that occupies a squat block-long building that was once a home improvement chain store.

The church grew from 40 members in 12 years, based in no small part on Mr. Boyd’s draw as an electrifying preacher who stuck closely to Scripture. He has degrees from Yale Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary, and he taught theology at Bethel College in St. Paul, where he created a controversy a few years ago by questioning whether God fully knew the future. Some pastors in his own denomination, the Baptist General Conference, mounted an effort to evict Mr. Boyd from the denomination and his teaching post, but he won that battle.

He is known among evangelicals for a bestselling book, “Letters From a Skeptic,” based on correspondence with his father, a leftist union organizer and a lifelong agnostic — an exchange that eventually persuaded his father to embrace Christianity.

Mr. Boyd said he never intended his sermons to be taken as merely a critique of the Republican Party or the religious right. He refuses to share his party affiliation, or whether he has one, for that reason. He said there were Christians on both the left and the right who had turned politics and patriotism into “idolatry.”

He said he first became alarmed while visiting another megachurch’s worship service on a Fourth of July years ago. The service finished with the chorus singing “God Bless America” and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses.

“I thought to myself, ‘What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?’ ” he said in an interview.

Patriotic displays are still a mainstay in some evangelical churches. Across town from Mr. Boyd’s church, the sanctuary of North Heights Lutheran Church was draped in bunting on the Sunday before the Fourth of July this year for a “freedom celebration.” Military veterans and flag twirlers paraded into the sanctuary, an enormous American flag rose slowly behind the stage, and a Marine major who had served in Afghanistan preached that the military was spending “your hard-earned money” on good causes.

In his six sermons, Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek “power over” others — by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars. Christians should instead seek to have “power under” others — “winning people’s hearts” by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did, Mr. Boyd said.

“America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”

Mr. Boyd lambasted the “hypocrisy and pettiness” of Christians who focus on “sexual issues” like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

“Those are the two buttons to push if you want to get Christians to act,” he said. “And those are the two buttons Jesus never pushed.”

Some Woodland Hills members said they applauded the sermons because they had resolved their conflicted feelings. David Churchill, a truck driver for U.P.S. and a Teamster for 26 years, said he had been “raised in a religious-right home” but was torn between the Republican expectations of faith and family and the Democratic expectations of his union.

When Mr. Boyd preached his sermons, “it was liberating to me,” Mr. Churchill said.

Mr. Boyd gave his sermons while his church was in the midst of a $7 million fund-raising campaign. But only $4 million came in, and 7 of the more than 50 staff members were laid off, he said.

Mary Van Sickle, the family pastor at Woodland Hills, said she lost 20 volunteers who had been the backbone of the church’s Sunday school.

“They said, ‘You’re not doing what the church is supposed to be doing, which is supporting the Republican way,’ ” she said. “It was some of my best volunteers.”

The Rev. Paul Eddy, a theology professor at Bethel College and the teaching pastor at Woodland Hills, said: “Greg is an anomaly in the megachurch world. He didn’t give a whit about church leadership, never read a book about church growth. His biggest fear is that people will think that all church is is a weekend carnival, with people liking the worship, the music, his speaking, and that’s it.”

In the end, those who left tended to be white, middle-class suburbanites, church staff members said. In their place, the church has added more members who live in the surrounding community — African-Americans, Hispanics and Hmong immigrants from Laos.

This suits Mr. Boyd. His vision for his church is an ethnically and economically diverse congregation that exemplifies Jesus’ teachings by its members’ actions. He, his wife and three other families from the church moved from the suburbs three years ago to a predominantly black neighborhood in St. Paul.

Mr. Boyd now says of the upheaval: “I don’t regret any aspect of it at all. It was a defining moment for us. We let go of something we were never called to be. We just didn’t know the price we were going to pay for doing it.”

His congregation of about 4,000 is still digesting his message. Mr. Boyd arranged a forum on a recent Wednesday night to allow members to sound off on his new book. The reception was warm, but many of the 56 questions submitted in writing were pointed: Isn’t abortion an evil that Christians should prevent? Are you saying Christians should not join the military? How can Christians possibly have “power under” Osama bin Laden? Didn’t the church play an enormously positive role in the civil rights movement?

One woman asked: “So why NOT us? If we contain the wisdom and grace and love and creativity of Jesus, why shouldn’t we be the ones involved in politics and setting laws?”

Mr. Boyd responded: “I don’t think there’s a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don’t slap the label ‘Christian’ on it.”

CONTINUE READING ...

Friday, July 28, 2006

20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists


From Chuck Colson over at Chrisitanpost.com ... 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists ...

In the first chapter of their new book, 20 Compelling Evidences that God exists, Ken Boa and Robert Bowman write, “We don’t mean to discourage you from reading the rest of this book. But in the interest of full disclosure, we should tell you that, in a sense, there is only one good reason to believe that God exists: because it’s true.”

That statement is both profound and well expressed. Unfortunately, these days it’s not the kind of statement you can make in public without having scorn heaped upon your head. As the authors jokingly point out, the popular viewpoint regarding truth is, “Anyone who believes that he is right and others are wrong is intolerant.” Now that’s self-contradictory on its face, but it’s almost certain to be thrown at you if you assert a truth claim.

That’s why Boa and Bowman have titled their book 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists—because they recognize that for any claim to truth to be taken seriously in today’s culture, it needs solid evidence to back it up. As the authors write, “There are many such evidences, but they all have value because they help us see that the God of the Bible is real.” In fewer than two hundred pages, they clearly and concisely examine some of today’s most pervasive worldviews and their flaws. Then they present their case for God’s existence and His revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ.

What kind of evidences are they talking about? There’s an amazing variety. They don’t state it right upfront, but they are organizing their “20 compelling evidences” in a way that takes readers through the doctrines of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration—the four basic elements of the Christian worldview that I set forth in How Now Shall We Live?

They start with evidence about the universe and the origins of life. And they talk, for example, about how finely our solar system and our planet had to be calibrated to support life. At “an extremely conservative estimate,” they say, the probability of our planet being capable of sustaining us is about one in a billion. It had to be at just the right place in the solar system, which had to be at just the right place in the galaxy. Even the expansion of the universe had to happen at just the right rate in order for all of us to be here today.

From evidence about the universe, the authors move on to evidence of humanity’s sinful nature; then evidence of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection; and finally, evidence of those who have lived and died for Christ. Examining concepts ranging from Greek philosophy to archeology to the Big Bang theory to postmodernism, the authors make a powerful case for the existence of a loving Creator.

In short, I highly recommend Boa and Bowman’s book. They provide in a very readable form an excellent apologetic resource for Christians wondering how to defend their faith in a world that’s “tolerant” of everything except Christianity.

Ken Boa is a great apologist—one of the most engaging and popular teachers in our Centurion’s training program. You can visit our website, BreakPoint.org, to find out how you can get 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists. While you’re there, be sure to check out some of our other Christian worldview resources.

CONTINUE READING ...

Theocrats! Theocrats! Theocrats!


Daniel Pulliam over at getreligion.com has a fine overview of a great piece in the most recent First Things magazine: Putting "theocracy" fears in their place.

CONTINUE READING ...

Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hezbollah

From today's NY Times ... Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hezbollah ...
The refugees from southern Lebanon spilled out of packed cars into the dark street here Thursday evening, gulping bottles of water and squinting in the glare of the headlights to find family members and friends. Many had not eaten in days. Most had not had clean drinking water for some time. There were wounded swathed in makeshift dressings, and a baby just 16 days old.

But for some of the Christians who had made it out in this convoy, it was not just privations they wanted to talk about, but their ordeal at the hands of Hezbollah — a contrast to the Shiites, who make up a vast majority of the population in southern Lebanon and broadly support the militia.

“Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”

“Please,’’ he added, “write that in your newspaper.”

The evacuation — more than 100 cars that followed an International Committee for the Red Cross rescue convoy to Tyre — included Lebanese from several Christian villages. In past wars, Christian militias were close to Israelis, and animosity between Christians and Shiites lingers.

Throngs of refugees are now common in this southern coastal town, the gateway to the war that is booming just miles away. The United Nations has estimated that 700,000 Lebanese, mostly from the southern third of the country, have been displaced by the war.

But thousands of people have been left behind, residents and the Red Cross say.

What has prevented many from fleeing is a critical shortage of fuel. Roland Huguenin-Benjamin, a spokesman for the Red Cross who accompanied the convoy to Tyre, said Red Cross officials had offered to lead out any people who wanted to drive behind, but many did not have enough gasoline for the trip.

Those who did get out were visibly upset. Some carried sick children. A number broke down it tears when they emerged from their cars here.

“People are dying under bombs and crushed under houses,” Nahab Aman said, sobbing and hugging her young son. “We’re not dogs! Why aren’t they taking the people out?”

Many Christians from Ramesh and Ain Ebel considered Hezbollah’s fighting methods as much of an outrage as the Israeli strikes. Mr. Amar said Hezbollah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back.

One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to leave Bint Jbail.

“This is what’s happening, but no one wants to say it” for fear of Hezbollah, she said.

American citizens remain in some southern villages. Mohamed Elreda, a father of three from New Jersey, was visiting relatives in Yaroun with his family when two missiles narrowly missed his car, while he was parking it in front of his family’s house. His 16-year-old son Ali was sprayed with shrapnel and is now in a hospital in Tyre.

“I have never seen anything like this in my life,” said Mr. Elreda, who arrived here on Thursday morning. “They see civilians, they bomb them,” he said, referring to the Israelis.

“We had to move underground like raccoons.”

He said a person affiliated with the United States Embassy arrived in Yaroun and shouted for everyone to join a convoy that the Israelis had promised safe passage.

He left in such haste, he said, that he had pulled on his wife’s sweatpants (they had a pink stripe running down the length of each leg). His son’s blood still stained his shoes.

He said Yaroun had been without electricity and clean water for more than a week, and he had stirred dirty clothes in a pail of water and bleach to make bandages for his son’s wounds.

The village is largely Christian, but has Muslim pockets, and Mr. Elreda said he walked at night among houses to the Christian section, where a friend risked his life to drive his son to Tyre, while Mr. Elreda stayed with the rest of the family.

On Thursday he joined his son at the hospital.

“He’s my son,” he said, standing at the foot of the boy’s bed. “I just can’t see him like this.”

CONTINUE READING ...

Liberal Christianity Has Not Yet Risen to the Occasion

"Progressive" Andrew Bard Schmookler with thoughts on America, liberalism and the "dark forces" of "fascism."

I don't mean to be dismissive of Mr. Schmookler, he raises some very interesting questions here in Liberal Christianity Has Not Yet Risen to the Occasion.

My contention would be that the reason "liberal Christianity" has not risen to the occassion is that it can't. It is a human movement. Any "Christianity" that denies the authority of Christ is, by definition, of the flesh and powerless.

"Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain."

In full ...


While dark forces have been taking over America in recent years, the institutions from which one might have hoped for a vigorous defense of what's best in America have thus far failed us.

It is hard to imagine how any group could have moved America further and faster in the direction of fascism than has this Bush administration-a news story historically enormous proportions. But the viewer of our mainstream broadcast media has hardly been helped to see this momentous story for what it is.

And while the forces behind this Bush administration have been systematically assaulting our democratic institutions and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the presumed opposition party has been anything but bold and courageous in denouncing these dangerous usurpations.

But there is another part of the American cultural and institutional system from which one would hope for a more powerful defense of our most basic American values: I am referring to mainstream liberal Christianity.

Which Christianity?

America was not founded as a "Christian nation" in the sense that some of the right-wing theocrats would have it. But Christianity is America's majority religion, and it therefore matters a great deal what form of Christianity becomes dominant in this country.

The many forms of Christianity incorporate, in one way or another, the wide range of disparate elements that comprise the sacred Christian texts. They can differ considerably, however, in which elements are given emphasis.

This difference in emphasis makes it possible for profoundly different spirits to express themselves. And when one of these spirits becomes the salient public voice of "Christianity" to wield power in America's national politics, it matters greatly to the whole country which spirit it is.

Will the voice of Christianity that speaks the loudest be one that emphasizes a God who smites his enemies or a God who says "Love Thine Enemies"?

When Christianity is heard in America's political arena, will the predominant voice be one that focuses on condemning those who diverge from the straight-and-narrow path, or the one that emphasizes more the teaching, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"?

Which Christianity will help shape our public policies-the one that is pre-occupied with the distinction between those of right and those of wrong belief, or the one that is most concerned with protecting the most vulnerable and needy?

With what image of the sacred will the strongest Christian voice imbue the American culture?

Will it find the heart of the Christian vision in the "Book of Revelation," where God saves his own while not only destroying his enemies but also inflicting prolonged agony on? Or will it emphasize the teachings of Christ's Sermon on the Mount, with its blessings on the life-serving virtues of the merciful and the peacemakers, and its assurance that it is the meek who shall inherit the earth?

Will it emphasize, as the heart of the human relationship with the divine, the torturing of the flesh of the flogged and crucified Christ (as did Mel Gibson's disturbing and polarizing film, the Passion of the Christ)? Or will the predominant image of Jesus be of him comforting the afflicted and healing the sick?

Will the Christianity that helps shape our public affairs be a religion of guilt and punishment and revenge, or one of forgiveness and love?

Those Into God-as-Warrior Are Trouncing Those Into 'Turn the Other Cheek'

The issue here is not which of form of Christianity is more valid in religious terms, a matter which I would not presume to address. The issue, rather, is which form -which set of values and of narrative meanings-- is wielding power to shape the American polity.

Clearly the ascendant and dominant form of Christianity in the public realm in American today is that of the Christian right. Clearly the power of this salient form of Christianity has been aligned with the Bush administration, and the impact of that power has been, from the standpoint of people with liberal values, to erode some of the best of America's political values, and to jeopardize even the basic structure of our constitutional democracy.

Particularly under the influence of the falsely righteous political leadership by which so many have been seduced, this is a Christianity that cares more about wars against evil-doers than about the hypocrisies of the rich and powerful; it is a Christianity that identifies with the privileged and seems indifferent to (or even blaming of) the poor; it is a Christianity that believes in the wedding of religion with temporal power more than in the autonomy of each human soul to find its own relationship with God.

The right-wing form of Christianity that has seized the public megaphone, and has organized for political action, and has allied itself with a militarist and corporatist and lawless regime, is helping drive the United States down a dark road.

So where, in the face of this polarizing and intolerant Christianity, are the liberal Christians of America and their churches?

I know that many liberal Christians are involved in the grassroots movement to save our country from the dark forces allied in this Bushite regime. And I know that there are some efforts -such as Jim Wallis's book God's Politics-to advance a more liberal idea of Christianity into the public realm.

But what is needed is a movement on the liberal side of Christianity that is as energetic and as cohesive as that which has been mounted on the right-wing side of the Christian spectrum. And this has not happened.

We need also those prophetic voices that historically the liberal mainstream churches have given American in times of need. But in order to be heard in the larger country, those prophetic leaders often must be at the head of a movement. That ringing voice of Martin Luther King did not cry out in isolation, but rather at the end of marches and at assemblages of many thousands whose "Amens" amplified his voice.

There is nothing that harnesses the values and visions of liberal Christianity into a force such as the right-wing Christians created with Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority," or with Pat Robertson's "Christian Coalition," or with James Dobson's "Focus on the Family."

It may be, of course, that liberals are less inclined to organize themselves into a "force" than their more hierarchically-oriented (supposed) co-religionists on the right. Like the famous image of herding cats.

But, as the liberal democracies learned when they were forced into World War II, there comes a time when the threat from the goose-steppers is simply too great to ignore, and when those whose liberalism emphasizes the value of marching to one's own drummer have to learn to march in concert with each other in order to prevail in battle-however unwelcome that battle may be.

CONTINUE READING ...

Thursday, July 27, 2006

BB 'C' No Evil

From the Best of the Web section of the Wall Street Journal's website ... James Taranto gives a picture of whom Hezbollah would free, were it up to them, and the BBC's rather tame coverage of same. Warning: This one is hard to read.


When Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers two weeks ago, provoking the current conflagration, the Shiite terrorist outfit apparently intended to use them as bargaining chips to demand the release of prisoners. Press reports often discuss this as if there were an equivalence between the Israeli soldiers, who committed no crimes but were simply defending their own country within its borders, and Arab terrorists. So it's worth pointing out just who the "prisoners" in Israeli hands are.

According to the BBC "the prisoner Hezbollah wants most" is Samir Qantar. On April 22, 1979, Qantar murdered 28-year-old Danny Haran and his 4-year-old daughter and caused the death of another Haran daughter, age 2. Haran's widow, Smadar Haran Kaiser, describes the crime (she transliterates the murderer's name as "Kuntar"):

"It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border.

Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer.

As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat.

They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her."

The BBC gives a rather more sanitized account of the crime: "Qantar . . . attacked a block of flats in Nahariha in 1979, killing a father and his daughter."


CONTINUE READING ...

More on the Agreement on Justification

Hat tip to RubeRad, who found the joint statement on justification recently signed by Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Methodist leaders. Here it is.



Previous post: Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics Sign Agreement on Justification

CONTINUE READING ...

Prayer Requests: Live from Beirut

Live from Beirut: An Arab-world Christian Satellite TV Station Struggles to Operate from Lebanon

Naj Daoud, the director of the station, gives us the following prayer requests from Lebanon:


Our prayer requests are as follows:

1 — Staff morale and safety

2 — Office safety

3 — Uninterrupted production

4 — Lebanese people suffering from this situation

5 — The vague future of Lebanon



Join me in praying for our Christian brothers and sisters in Lebanon. The full article ...

Ten billion dollars in estimated losses, one third of the country's infrastructure reported completely destroyed, hundreds of casualties, 750,000 displaced Lebanese, hundreds of families without refuge sleeping in open air areas. This is but a brief description of the situation in Lebanon after 14 days of fierce bombing, which has destroyed what reconstructed after the end of civil war 15 years ago. Unfortunately, we are now seeing our dream of a beautiful Lebanon fading away, with little chance that it will ever come true.

Naturally this situation has affected our operation in the SAT-7 Lebanon Bureau. SAT-7 is the ten-year-old Christian satellite television station broadcasting throughout the Middle East. Due to the fighting, our staff morale is very low. In spite of all of this, most of our staff are still coming regularly to the office, even if they carry worried thoughts and distracted minds.

Because of the danger, children, and many other guests can no longer come to our studio to record programs. We are unable to deliver tapes for broadcast regularly. In the past it only took about two days for SAT-7 to ship programs from Beirut to the SAT-7 broadcast center in Cyprus. That is no longer possible because the airport has been bombed, the port is closed, and many roads are destroyed. It is possible to send some programs directly from Lebanon to Cyprus via a rented satellite uplink, but the direct transmission service is often sold out and is simply too expensive to allow SAT-7 to send all of its Lebanese-made programs to Cyprus in that manner.

Still, our team decided to continue to create programs. We have produced special programs about the condition in the country by covering the humanitarian efforts. Our cameramen and reporters, in spite of the danger, were on the streets, going from one place to another to tape interviews and to cover the relief efforts of other Christian organizations.

One interview that was scheduled in downtown Beirut with representatives from the Middle East Council of Churches had to be cancelled after several rockets were fired at east side of Beirut. It was the first time the area had been targeted. The Israelis were attempting to destroy parked trucks. This only added to the concerns of our team, who were operating from a SAT-7 broadcast van, parked outside our building.

Earlier that morning, jet fighters were targeting trucks and vans of different sizes all over the country. So our crew in the OB Van sat in fear all day long, especially as jet fighters were circulating the Beirut sky constantly. Fortunately, thanks to God, we were able to finish the special and send it to our Cyprus office to be broadcast the following day. It was a success.

Our success encouraged us to produce more special programs in addition to scheduling a weekly one hour show to be aired live from the Beirut office. The first live broadcast aired yesterday (16:00 GMT, 11:00 EST).

SAT-7 staff in Beirut are asking Christians around the world to pray for the crisis in Lebanon. We already know that many people are praying and we would like to ask you to continue your prayers, and to pray more fervently. As the Bible says, fervent prayer can accomplish much. And we believe that your prayers and ours are already having an effect on Lebanon. We believe the safety that we have experienced to this point, and the fact that none of us are harmed, and that the work is still going on, is because of all these prayers going up to our Lord.

Our prayer requests are as follows:

1 — Staff morale and safety

2 — Office safety

3 — Uninterrupted production

4 — Lebanese people suffering from this situation

5 — The vague future of Lebanon

CONTINUE READING ...