Recently in Faith issues Category

I just finished the book "An Act of State", detailing William F. Pepper's claim that the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a government-arranged assassination, rather than the act of a single racist. Beyond that, Pepper suggests President Lyndon Johnson had a mistress (and mother of his only son) who worked in Jack Ruby's Vegas club - suggesting the possibility of a link to the assassination of President Kennedy. Specifically, President Johnson is quoted by the alleged mistress (Madeleine Brown) as saying, at a party reportedly also attended by then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and future President Richard Nixon the night before the Kennedy assassination "After tomorrow, those [deleted] Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat, that's a promise."

It was also interesting to read Pepper's description of the U.S. Army having a secret unit on hand as a backup plan in his claimed assassination plot against Dr. King.

Later in the book, the author goes off on a rant about the evils of the post-9/11 administration, in terms that are very familiar to me from working at a University, but inadvertently makes an important point many (including Pepper) appear to have missed, namely that election of a Democrat as President may actually make such matters worse, rather than better. Specifically, the New York Times, which has been such an eager watchdog against Republican misdeeds in recent years, is described in the book as helping the government hide the truth of what really happened to Dr. King. And though I lived through all those events myself, this is the first I've ever heard about President Johnson having a mistress, let alone one with a possible connection to the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald.

I feel sure the author and I would disagree about a great many subjects, but I was particularly impressed by his understanding of what Dr. King was attempting to do for poor people in 1968 - which Pepper considers the reason for Dr. King's death.

Here is his analysis of Dr. King's thought (see pages 163-168):
"The Copernican revolution, which postulated the thesis that the earth was only one of the planets revolving around the sun and that the sun itself was one of countless living stars in the universe led to a confrontation with the prevailing perception that divine revelation, not science, was the most valid source of knowledge about life and how it should be lived. The intellectual and moral authority of the church was weakened and gradually eclipsed by the elevation of materialism. Matter emerged as primary with physical measurement and only things suitable for scientific study deemed capable of providing explanations to issues, problems, or events. Scientific inquiry and reason were the fonts of all knowledge.

After reading this chapter, I finally began to understand the anti-globalization movement. I don't agree with it, but do at least now understand its concerns.

But what really got my attention was Pepper's 2003 prediction of the current market meltdown: "It is interesting to note that the growth of margin debt - debt incurred by stock investors - had risen on February 29, 2000 to the level it was on October 1, 1929..."

Pepper foresaw a silver lining in such a cloud: "Should an economic disaster similar to that of 1929 engulf this nation and the wold, there may emerge an opportunity to rebuild this great Republic with a vastly different set of values and priorities...

Should the unthinkable occur it would certainly be a challenge. Whether we as a people would be up to meeting it without the likes of Martin Luther King in the vanguard is another question, but I have always been amazed at the resilience of human beings of whatever race, culture, station or stripe."

Finally, Pepper reminded me of Dr. King's challenge for such a time as this: "Through our scientific genius, we have made of this world a neighborhood; now, through our moral and spiritual development, we must make of it a brotherhood. In a real sense, we must all learn to live together as brothers, or we will all perish together as fools."

Regular readers know that Rev. Donald Sensing is one of my favorite bloggers. Today he struck gold twice in my opinion with these thoughts:

1) What has NATO done for us?

[A commenter explains the basics: "The purpose of NATO is and was to 'keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down.']

...question for NATO's countries: if you will not have enough children to preserve your country, why should the US make up your deficit?"

2) And then in the side bar, I read this timely Halloween thought from Vanderleun:
"It seems strange that a day for the contemplation of mortality has been turned into a carnival of corruption in this country..."

Florida friend Larry recently wrote me as follows "One of the odder things I heard this summer is that the reason it is getting cooler this summer is because of global warming. Only someone who believe that Al Gore has their best interests at heart would believe global cooling is caused by global warming" to which I replied as follows:

"One constant throughout my life has been that no matter what happens, with the weather, or really with anything at all, a large group of would-be nannies is right there to claim it was caused by some bad behavior by folks like me, that can only be fixed by handing all the levers of power to them and their friends so they can take better care of us than we are obviously capable of on our own.

Having already lived in a condo, the one thing I know for sure is that I do not want to give such people any power at all."

With Hurricane Gustav headed for the U.S. coast tonight, one of the best suggestions I've heard for how the Republican party should respond at their convention is by showing America what individual Americans themselves can do to help out in a disaster, rather than sitting around talking about how someone else (in the government) should do something.

One of the worst comments is Michael Moore's "I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven..." Another was the similar earlier suggestion by Stuart Shephard that viewers of a weekly video pray for rain during Barack Obama's acceptance speech for the Democratic party presidential nomination.

I learned long ago not to pray about weather. In my first day on the job after seminary, the congregation had just endured a huge flood, and asked me to pray for rain to stop. I did, and it did - for so long that folks feared for their crops and asked me to pray for rain. I did, and floods immediately returned. At that point, I was sure of only one thing - I was done praying about weather!

It isn't that God can't rain on Republican convention plans. It's rather that even asking for such a thing is as Barack Obama might say "way above my pay grade." Only God knows the full implications of weather, and His comment on the topic was that He "sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (MT 5:45)"

Through all the wars over copy protection in the past decade, one bright spot has until today always been Christian CDs. Sony and other music publishers may have been attacking my PC with rootkits or other tricks to prevent copying when I bought rock albums, but until today I'd never encountered copy-protection in a CD of Christian music.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I brought home the latest "Third Day" CD today, and discovered it too now appears to have been altered to make it difficult to rip into iTunes. Tracks 3-13 are normal, but Track 1 is a copy of all tracks in sequence, and Track 2, in addition to appearing to last 15 days, locked up iTunes when I simply tried to play that track from the original CD. I then checked, and sure enough, their publisher is Sony.

I guess that's fairly mild, as copy-protection tricks go, and fortunately I had another program available to isolate the missing tracks 1 and 2 from the rest of the all-in-one current track 1.But I remain offended that Sony once again apparently feels free to tamper with music I've purchased at full retail price without even feeling the need to put any warning whatsoever on the CD of their intentions to deny me the ability to listen to my purchase on an iPod. Fixing that cost an hour of my time, which I consider more valuable than a CD.

Sadly, from now on, I can no longer trust buying physical CDs of even Christian artists (at least no more from Third Day or anyone else published by Sony.) Instead, I'll likely have to limit my purchases to known-DRM-free MP3s from the iTunes Store and Amazon's MP3 Store. Gresham's Law strikes again, or more colloquially, "one rotten apple spoils the barrel."

Mark Satin has just written an extremely interesting and insightful article for his Radical Middle Newsletter on this non-obvious premise: The Bible is our one essential political book - and we need it now more than ever.

In his article, Mark describes his own recent first and second reading of the Bible, and what he sees of value in it for all of us.

Right away, Mark lists five reasons for the importance of the Bible today:
-- It asks all the important questions that need to be asked (and answered) before we can move wisely into the 21st century. . .
-- It provides a place where left and right can meet, dialogue, learn.
-- It tells difficult truths about human nature.
-- It reminds us of our positive human potential.
-- It calls us to new and better political perspectives.

Further, Mark is sure he's not alone:
"According to Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow, traditional forms of community may be disappearing - but support groups are arising to take their place. About 40% of American adults are involved in support groups at this time . . . and about 44% of those are involved in groups that are described by participants partly or entirely as 'Bible study groups.'
In other words, 17.6% of all American adults - about 40 million people - are engaged in Bible study at this time.
Support groups 'seldom make the headines,' Wuthnow says. 'They are not the stuff that reporters care much about.' But that doesn't mean they're not out there, deeply influencing the culture - including the political culture"

Mark continues with many profound specific insights. Here's one I found particularly interesting, having just read an entire book about the Exodus that neglected to make this simple and (once you think about it) obvious point:
"John Buehrens, former head of the Unitarian Universalist Association, summarizes one take on Exodus as follows:
1. Wherever you live, it is probably Egypt [i.e., Bad - ed.]
2. There is a better place, a world more fair, full of promise and hope
3. The way to it is through the wilderness. There is no other way to get from here to there except by the hard way, being tested as we go "

As always, read the whole thing. And while you're at Mark's site, be sure to also look around for other gems, such as this one from four months ago.

Our church challenged us to eat like the rest of the world this week. That is, not much in terms of quantity, and not much in terms of variety. One goal is for us to know what it feels like to be hungry most of the time.

It began today, and so far I've had one new realization - no leftovers! When my lunch consisted of a single serving of rice and beans, I found myself digging out every last grain of rice and eating it. Likewise the single serving of rice, chicken and veggies tonight.

The feeling of hunger I already know, since the True Hunger weight management system I follow ensures I feel hunger before eating at most if not all meals anyway. (This is a simple secret of the already-thin, who only eat when hungry. Duh!)

One other big change for me personally is drinking mostly plain water for the week - with no diet soda, and no fruit juices.

We are advised to be sensible about health, so I'm making sure I get enough calcium, and hopefully enough calories to maintain the muscle I've worked so hard to develop in place of visceral fat in the past four years. But I'm still making sure it all totals far under my usual 2,200C/day, so I get the full effect. I can't remember ever doing such a thing before when I wasn't overweight.

Tomorrow we have guests arriving from Ecuador for the week. It will be interesting to see what they make of our efforts to eat as they eat. It will also be interesting to see what effect this has on my exercise this week.

Whatever we save on groceries by eating this way (about $100 in our case) we are asked to donate to help feed hungry children in Zimbabwe. The next phase will be for us to help pack literally tens of millions of meals for them. That too will be a good experience, though I'm very concerned about how we'll ensure our food doesn't become yet another weapon used by that sad nation's dictator (Robert Mugabe) to reward supporters and punish opponents. I know we'll try to channel aid through churches, and hope that is a sufficient protection.

One other important point was made in this past weekend's message: there are several levels of poverty. That's an important distinction, because folks we think of as poor in this country are generally still rich by world standards. As one citizen in Soviet era Russia said after viewing a propaganda film about the evil U.S., "I want to live where the poor people are fat."

The truly poor in our world live on two bucks a day, tops, without safe water or health care. Short of becoming the World's policeman (and probably not even then), we can't do much about the many nations with vile despotic governments whose policies ensure hardship. But that leaves many other countries where we can help. And part of that help is for the ecologically-minded among us to stop harming folks further by discouraging the use of DDT to stop malaria, and trying to prevent gifts of genetically-modified food to the starving.

Defenses of recently-released You Tube snippets of sermons by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. tend to emphasize such words are just part of the prophetic tradition.

Speaking as one who has also at times engaged in prophetic preaching, I have one huge problem with this characterization of Wright's words. To be prophetic, preaching must, above all else, be true.

My first reaction on seeing the clips was that Wright was not speaking Biblical truth, but merely repeating the worst available slanders about those he opposes.

Did some verse of Scripture or a visiting angel reveal to him that the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people? Or did that bit of nasty gossip just fit in so well with his low opinion of white folks that he had to include it?

If the latter, he is in deep spiritual weeds. Anyone claiming to be a prophet of God had best speak only God's actual words. Anyone who "helps" God by filling in the gaps with extra material risks a seriously-strong reaction from One who needs no such help.

And why should God be angry about such "help?" Because it undercuts the legitimate prophetic message. Once you know a "prophet" is faking part of a message, why believe any of the rest?

If Obama ends up losing this year's election, the cause may not be white racism, but rather a false prophet. Why? Because even those who love Obama's message of transcending racism and other social divisions have to ask how far his words of love and healing can be trusted when his chosen church of twenty years preaches an exactly opposite message of hatred and division.

As I've said before, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for all his human faults, and some political views with which I disagree, was a true prophet. Jeremiah Wright, on the other hand, is more like the 400 prophets of Baal in the time of King Ahab (1 Ki. 18), preaching what their audience wants to hear.

The Augean Stables (hat tip to Instapundit for the link) makes an excellent related point:
"The prophets are ferocious in their criticism of their own people; they have relatively little to say about the real oppressive forces in the world of their day in the 8-7th centuries BCE. When the people of Israel get smashed by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, the prophets don’t go into a rant about how evil these vicious imperialists are; they invoke them as God’s agents in punishing Israel for their sins. When, under more normative conditions, when they chastise rulers and aristocracy for their treatment of the poor, they do so again with vigorous, even violent rhetoric, but they do so in the hopes of changing their people. The prophets, however rough they may be, love the people they chastise, and rebuke them for the sake of their transformation.

But the core reason for their success comes from the profound attachment that the prophets felt for their people. There is no trace of hatred in their clean anger, no desire to see failure and punishment, no joy in the downfall of the sinners. Indeed, their commitment to the very people they rebuked, in some cases, so savagely, meant that, often enough, those rebuked took them seriously. The very fact that these prophetic denunciations became canonized as sacred scripture — that we hear the shepherd Amos’ version of the tale, not that of the royal priest Amatzia — tells us that not only the prophets, but the leaders of the people shared these values and accepted the prophetic rebukes."

Prophecy is simultaneously the least popular and among the most important of the spiritual gifts. Job opportunities in my church often list the spiritual gifts desired in applicants, yet I often joke it will be a cold day down under before such an ad asks for the gift of prophecy. Valuable though accountability can be, it is rarely welcomed by recipients. King David, for instance, accepted the message of the prophet Nathan about Bathsheba (II Sa. 12.) But Nathan's only reward from David was being allowed to return home alive. Many true prophets (including MLK) weren't so lucky.

The reason a true prophet speaks truth to power is because God wills it. As a shepherd from Tekoa put it "The Lord GOD has spoken. Who can but prophesy?" (Amos 3:8b, RSV) Fame and fortune are usually for the false prophets of this world, not the true prophets of the next.

It is indeed time for a prophetic word about race in America, but I don't expect to hear it from the likes of Pastor Wright. Perhaps MLK is the only true voice in our generation. If so, thank God his words remain readily available here.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on diversity today:
"Robert Putnam, the Harvard don who in the controversial bestseller "Bowling Alone" announced the decline of communal-mindedness amid the rise of home-alone couch potatoes, has completed a mammoth study of the effects of ethnic diversity on communities. His researchers did 30,000 interviews in 41 U.S. communities. Short version: People in ethnically diverse settings don't want to have much of anything to do with each other. "Social capital" erodes. Diversity has a downside.
...
'Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.' The diversity nightmare gets worse: They have little confidence in the 'local news media.' This after all we've done for them.

Colleagues and diversity advocates, disturbed at what was emerging from the study, suggested alternative explanations. Prof. Putnam and his team re-ran the data every which way from Sunday and the result was always the same: Diverse communities may be yeasty and even creative, but trust, altruism and community cooperation fall. He calls it 'hunkering down.' "

Turns out there is one exception:
"Robert Putnam has a possible assimilation model. Hold onto your hat. It's Christian evangelical megachurches. 'In many large evangelical congregations,' he writes, 'the participants constituted the largest thoroughly integrated gatherings we have ever witnessed.'"

Neither Putnam, nor the WSJ author (Daniel Henninger) seems to know why that exception exists, but to me it's duh-obvious: whatever their skin color etc., participants in such churches have important shared values in following Jesus, who commands us to love one another regardless of race, gender, age. health, wealth, or any other Earthly differences.

I don't mean to suggest such churches have it all together when it comes to race relations. But I'm glad to see they are finally at least on the solution side of the equation. As our pastor likes to say, the local church, when it's working right, is the hope of the World.

I'm just back from a two week study trip in Israel, where the topic of "Whose land?" was much in discussion. We read and discussed this recent article about a "One State" solution, and agreed it would be best for both Israelis and Palestinians if they could come to some such agreement, perhaps along the lines of Belgium or Switzerland.

Unfortunately, the news the day after that idea was mentioned included a story about how tensions continue even within Belgium.

Sadly, it seemed clear to us that most folks on both sides in Israeli and Palestinian areas would rather die than share one country. If those views continue, they may eventually get their wish.

Here's my one-sentence summation of visiting Jerusalem, the City of Peace that knows no peace: Never have so many fought so long over so little.

Our group now suspects we know why Jesus wept over Jerusalem. After four days there, that's how we felt too. We all heaved a huge sigh of relief on leaving the city.

(I was expecting a land of milk and honey, but now suspect I have more grass in my back yard than in all of Israel -- even some slums in Chicago look better!)

One major theme throughout the country was power and glory. Pretty much anywhere Jesus ever so much as spat is now a big fancy church, with an even taller mosque nearby. Even though many in Israel still live much as Jesus did, we had to avoid all the main tourist sites to find such places. How odd that the One whose primary teaching was about love and humility is now remembered in ways so opposed to His own teaching.

And much as I'd like to say Jews and Muslims could learn from His teaching, I'm embarrassed to admit Christians could also benefit. How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb? In Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre (site of Jesus' crucifixion and burial), the answer is four. That's how many competing denominations have to agree before work can be done in the building. (From the looks of the place, the last time everyone agreed was about 1890.) Even within the Church, the emphasis seems to be on power and glory rather than love and humility.

Of those around in Jesus' day, the Pharisees (now called Hassidic or Ultra-orthodox Jews) and the Zealots (now called Zionists) were clearly still present today, and not agreeing with each other or anyone else any more than they did 2,000 years ago.

While lost in Jerusalem one evening with an Israeli Jewish friend, he stopped and asked (in Hebrew) directions from a group of Hassidic Jews who refused even to speak to him. When I later asked why, he surmised that although he was Jewish, he wasn't Jewish enough. (With so many external enemies, how can Israelis possibly benefit from such divisions among themselves?)

Another unexpected realization was that the wall of separation now being constructed isn't a sensible and defensible long-term border. Rather, it meanders like a drunken sailor in ways that make it militarily useless. One Israeli suggested even finding work for relatives played a factor in its routing. I'm particularly offended that it may be being built with American aid dollars, i.e. my taxes!

While there, we heard a lot about the folly of the first Crusaders in the Middle Ages, who massacred Jews and Christians who had gathered to greet them as liberators. Unfortunately, it appears Israelis make the same mistake today by treating Arab Christians as though they were Muslim extremists. If Israel were sensible, they would be devoting every effort to make friends of Arab Christians, rather than walling them off among Muslims while continuing to steal their lands for even more illegal settlements..

Although folks often claim God promised Israel to the Jews, that promise was always conditional on their following His ways. Modern Israel, by making itself explicitly secular, and behaving unjustly toward the widow, the orphan and the alien that God commands His people to particularly welcome and defend makes it impossible for God to bless continued Israeli stewardship of land that is above all else His.

I sometimes caution folks who don't want to follow God that He has a Plan B to get their attention, but we don't want to find out what it is. In the same way, I'm sure God has a Plan B for Israel/Palestine, but suspect it won't please many if any in that not-visbly-holy land.

I was thinking again this week about Jesus' story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), and wonder what would have happened if that son had remained unrepentant and distant until after the father died? What if the real and imagined grievances that convinced them to leave home and wish their father dead decades earlier were still as fresh in their mind as if nothing had ever happened since?

Imagine, in this version, you are now the elder brother. You've eventually recognized and apologized for at least some of your own sins, but no apology has ever been considered sufficient, and the prodigal's anger remains as fresh as the day they left home.

Will the prodigal return for the funeral, and if so, how much trouble will he make? (Given the possibility of a further inheritance, you rather expect him to appear.)

If only your own honor might be trampled, that could be tolerated, but there is also a widow involved, who has done nothing to deserve less than full support in this hour of loss, rather than having one more family event ruined by the prodigal's complaints about everyone but himself.

You know your father would have welcomed the prodigal back with open arms, even before they begged forgiveness, but you still don't find it easy to be that loving. You have lots of experience being used as a verbal punching bag, and permitting that doesn't seem to have helped either the prodigal or anyone else.

The question now is, how welcoming should you be?

Isaac and Ismael were last together at their father Abraham's funeral in the Old Testament (Genesis 25:9), and thousands of years later, their heirs are still fighting, so you want to get this right.

This week I finally finished reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, to whom Abraham Lincoln referred upon meeting her as "the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." Given that it was the best-selling novel of the 19th century, I'm inclined to agree with Lincoln's assessment. At the very least, it would be very difficult for any Christion to read this book and still advocate slavery.

What impressed me most about the book is that the primary character named Uncle Tom in the book is not an "Uncle Tom" in the perjorative sense often used in discussions of race.

Rather, he is something even worse (in the views of some moderns) - an authentic Christian. Moreover, he isn't the only one described in the book. And that's the second thing that impressed me about the book - that it makes a very full defense of the practicality of Christian faith, even in the hardest of situations, and for all kinds of people.

Finally, I was impressed by the author's clear understanding of the danger of unlimited power in the hands of most people. I've heard it said that the best form of government is a benevolent monarchy, but how, pray tell, do you ensure the monarch remains benevolent?

In our day, I would ask the same questions of those who think our problems can best be addressed by giving more power to government. I refer to people who (for instance) claim with a straight face that the solution to the terrible care provided recently at government-funded-and-run Walter Reed Army Medical Center would be more government-funded-and-run medical care, run by the same unaccountable bureaucrats who ruined Walter Reed.

Here's how Stowe explained the problem in Chapter XXIX: "The number of those men who know how to use wholly irresponsible power humanely and generously is small."

Any book that still sells well 150 years after it was written is likely worth reading, Better, such books can usually be read for free here on a PC or Mac, or here on a Treo, PDA or iPod..

Over a year ago, Shades told me about a pastor whose blog he and his friends enjoy:
real live preacher
I've read the book, and also read the blog from time to time, but am usually less impressed by it than I hoped to be. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the quality of the messages I hear weekly at Willowcreek. Nah, I think it's more that real live preacher reminds me too much of a lot of guys I knew in my previous work as a United Methodist pastor. Willow is, in my opinion, what the United Methodist church could be, and what it would be if John and Charles Wesley were alive in our day. The church served by real live preacher, on the other hand, might not be a place I'd want to visit twice. There's only so far you can push that "faithful remnant" stuff; Jesus was always surrounded by crowds for a reason.

Today I discovered a new blog by a very different pastor, one I've actually seen and heard: Perry Noble of NewSpring Church in Anderson SC. Perry is just as outspoken as real live preacher, but frankly, about stuff I care about a lot more. The week I was in Anderson, Perry was talking about Deer hunting! Now that's a topic we don't hear much about at Willow, but we would if we were about 30 miles further North into Wisconsin.

Ever heard a preacher talk about farting? Perry does here.
How about masturbation? Perry talks about that here.
The November election? Gotcha covered here.
Hooters? Right here.
He even talks about blogging

The one other thing you might want to know about Perry is that his is currently one of the fastest-growing churches in America, with things to teach even churches like Willowcreek.

Newly-elected U.S. Representative Keith Ellison plans to be sworn in with his hand on a Koran rather than on a Bible. Arguments about that appear to be either:
1) Duh, he's Muslim. Of course he wants to use the book he considers holy, and decent tolerant Americans will have no objection, (advocated here) or
2) Whatever his preference, he's joining a club, and must therefore play by the same rules as everyone else, one of which is being sworn in on a Bible. If exceptions haven't been made for Jews, Mormons, or Atheists, why make one now? (Advocated here.)

Why is it we swear in public officials using a Bible anyway? The answer is that having one's hand on a Bible while swearing is intended to encourage the one doing the swearing to take the words seriously and keep them rather than lying. (That many politicians sometimes lie is not new information.)

The problem with even being a Muslim taking such an oath, regardless of what book is beneath one's hand while doing so, is that Islam officially allows its followers to lie to those outside that faith. Presumably other non-Christian politicians over the years have also felt less than compelled to speak truth merely because their hand is on a particular book.

Even Christians have a problem with swearing on a Bible. In his best-known message Jesus taught "Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Mt 5:34-37 NIV)

Perhaps our public officials need to be sworn in with the help of a lie detector, rather than any book. In fact, I'd personally be in favor of having all speech monitored with lie detectors, if trustworthy ones can ever be developed. I'm all about freedom of speech, but also favor truth in advertising.

To that, I would add just one more bit of advice, from my mother (often heard just before Christmas in our house) "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Although telling the truth was very important to Mom, she wasn't one to just blurt out whatever she was thinking. After all, not everyone who asks "Do I look fat in this?" actually wants a truthful answer.

Update: According to this article, one member of Congress also intends to be sworn in with a copy of Torah. If so, that somewhat undercuts argument #2.

Another Megachurch pastor has proven to have clay feet (Biblical image from Daniel 2:31-43.)

Interestingly, failings of which he has been accused touch on two sins that are seen by some as not just "a" sin, but rather as "the" sin, meaning they are considered so much worse than our own sins that if God grades on the curve we're sure ins for Heaven by comparison.

For some conservatives, homosexual sex is not just one sin among many, but rather "the" sin. This is an un-Biblical, but common view, one that I've heard even from folks I know in our current church, even though our pastors preach against the idea of ranking sins as to seriousness, and remind us we are all sinners, and all loved by God.

Similarly, for some who affirm multicultural moral relativism, hypocrisy is "the" sin. For such folks, there are no other sins, only differences of opinions among cultures as to right and wrong. What makes hypocrisy so bad in their eyes is that the hypocrite proclaims particular values as true for all, yet does not live accordingly.

What the relativists overlook is that setting a high moral goal is no guarantee of attaining it consistently. And failing does not disprove the value of the goal. Personally, I far prefer people who set lofty goals and sometimes fail to reach them than those who set only trivial goals, even if they are always achieved.

(Instapundit offers thoughts on hypocrisy here.)

Our pastor was already planning to preach about homosexuality this weekend. Now that the senior pastor of a member church in our association has been accused of homosexual acts, something is likely to be said in the weekend message about that. However, I will be extremely surprised if the focus of the message is on how wrong either homosexuality or hypocrisy is. I'm almost certain the focus will instead be on God's equal love for all of us, and the importance of recognizing and not excusing our own sin. The associate pastor of the affected Megachurch has already said much the same here.

Side note: Last week's message was on abortion, another decision some conservatives view not as "a" sin, but "the" sin. For multiculturalists, another candidate for "the" sin is intolerance, though that value seems violated by its defenders even more frequently than defenders of moral absolutes fall into hypocrisy.

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the new Islamic Mufti of Australia stirred up a hornet's nest today by claiming women who go out in public unveiled are asking to be raped. As usual, most Muslims either kept quiet or supported his statements, and although he's been relieved of preaching duties for two or three months, he was confirmed as Mufti despite his statements.

If progressive women are capable of being awakened to danger by anything, such statements should be sufficient. The desires of our enemies are far less tolerable than whatever objections one may have to the current administration. Any woman who thinks otherwise might well ponder how it would feel to be homebound unless dressed in a burkha and accompanied by a male relative.

I'm less troubled by the outrageous statements of one evil man, than by the difficulty of finding Muslims willing to condemn his statements. I'm pleased to note that in this instance, one prominent Muslim was willing to publicly call for him to resign. Perhaps there is a bit of hope for Islam yet.

The full story, as reported by the Bangkok Post is here.
Key bits:
"The board [of Sydney's largest mosque] is satisfied with the notion that certain statements made by the mufti was [sic] misinterpreted," Tom Zreika, head of the Lebanese Muslim Association, told local radio.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem," al- Hilali said.

The 66-year-old apologized for offence caused by the comments, saying he had "only intended to protect women's honour," but he refused to withdraw them or resign.

Al-Hilali has stirred controversy before. He has denied the Holocaust, defended suicide bombers, described the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States as "God's work," and blamed Jews for "all the wars and problems that threaten the peace and stability of all the world."

"When it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the woman's responsibility," he said.

Waleed Aly, a spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria, condemned al-Hilali and called for his resignation, saying his views sought to normalize immoral sexual behaviour. "We would have liked to have seen some form of fairly strong censure just given the magnitude and the gravity of the comments," Aly said.

Imam Abdul Jalil Sajid, the chairman of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, who is visiting Australia, sprang to his defence. "I know he is one of the greatest Muslim scholars on earth and Australia is blessed with him," Sajid said.

Powerline notes Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport are refusing to transport passengers who visibly carry alcohol.

To me, the solution seems obvious. If a taxi reaches the head of the cab line and refuses to accept the next willing customer, for any reason, the dispatcher should require that cab to start over at the back of the line, rather than allowing them another choice of passenger.

One of the other cabbies similarly suggested here "We're talking about the choice to run a business. If you choose not to transport alcohol, that's your choice. It's the same choice if you decide not to take someone with a cane or a limp, a toupee or a bad hat. Go to the back of the line."

Daniel Pipes adds (in the original article to which Powerline refers) "Why stop with alcohol? Muslim taxi drivers in several countries already balk at allowing seeing-eye dogs in their cars. Future demands could include not transporting women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals, and unmarried couples."

Here in Chicago we've already had a battle last year over cabbies refusing to pick up Black customers wanting to go to the South Side. In that instance, even Black cabbies were refusing some fares during some hours after a rash of robberies and murders of cabbies on the South Side late at night.

As Chicago made clear to its cabbies then, refusing fares might even cost the cabbie the medallion that allows them to operate a Chicago cab.

Personally, I doubt I'll ever be in a situation of hailing a cab while carrying alcohol. But I can easily imagine the opposite problem - refusing to reward with my fare any cabbie for whom that would be a problem.

While in Boston today, I decided to visit Church of All Nations, which I served as youth pastor over thirty years ago. The new building, completed the year after I graduated and left town is still there, but no longer looks new. More to the point, the congregation itself is no longer there. It's still a church, and still slightly multi-ethnic, but no longer United Methodist. That's sad, because the United Methodists had been there for over a century, doing really good work with several generations of folks in need in the heart of the city.

I enjoyed the service of the new congregation, called City on a Hill Center but found it stronger on fervor than theology. Everyone involved talked really fast, but with reasonable clarity. There was some speaking in tongues, or at least in one or more languages I don't know, but with frequent breaks for comments in English that may have been interpretation thereof. It seemed natural and routine for that congregation, and the place was fairly full. I wish them well, but missed seeing anyone I knew from the old days. The service was still going strong at the 3 hour mark when those with me asked to leave. Had we stayed, a good meal was hot and ready downstairs.

What killed Church of All Nations? I don't really know, but suspect it was part of the continuing decline of United Methodism nation-wide over the past thirty years. To me, it often seemed the only issues of importance to denomination leaders were ordaining Gay pastors, and defending abortion on demand. Neither of those goals would have been popular with folks at Church of All Nations, for whom many other issues would have been more pressing -- such as figuring out why the denomination was losing 2% of its members each year, as other churches grew.

The United Methodist Church (among other denominations) has been called "the Democratic Party at Prayer", and the last 30 years haven't been good for the Democratic Party either, possibly for similar reasons.

I wish both the United Methodist denomination and the Democratic party a return to health, but don't expect either of them to do so until their priorities revert to ones acceptable to more Americans.

One of the religious controversies in Dan Brown's popular historical fiction book "The Da Vinci Code" is the claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene during his 3 year ministry. I'm no expert on the subject, but suspect not.

On the other hand, I have no objection to the idea that Jesus might have been married at some point previous to beginning his public ministry. We know absolutely nothing about his life between age 12 and 30 from the Bible itself, so it is entirely possible that he was married during part of that time.

He certainly wasn't opposed to sex within marriage, or he wouldn't have attended the wedding at Cana in Galilee near the start of his ministry (John chapter 2, verses 1 through 10), let alone provide wine for the occasion!

I do agree though, that he was not still married or the father of a living child by the time he began his ministry, or someone would almost certainly have recorded that information in the Bible. It was already unusual for Jesus to leave his "eldest son" responsibilities for ministry, let alone the question of leaving the additional responsibilities of a husband or father.

I also find it difficult to believe Jesus would have divorced anyone, given his own later teachings about divorce (in Matthew chapter 5, verses 31 and 32.)

Anyone interested in learning more about this topic can find plenty of relevant information provided by Mark Roberts here, including the (to both Roberts and me humorous) theological dilemna posed by a surviving child: "Would that child inherit a sinful nature? Would that child be three-fourths human and one-fourth God?"

Rev. Donald Sensing, in his second-to-last Tennessee One Hand Clapping blog post, provides his typically-excellent explaination of what did and didn't make the cut as part of the Christian Bible's New Testament, and why.

Given current news about a so-called "Gospel of Judas" and the success of "faction" novel and soon-to-be movie "The DaVinci Code", Sensing's insights deserve wide reading.

Here are a few highlights:
What happened is that by the middle of the second century Christians increasingly made a distinction between the apostolic time and their own. Also, there were so many writings claiming Christian authenticity that documents of genuine apostolic origin were being squeezed out. Through a complex series of episcopal meetings, by the fourth century the Church decided that only Gospels of actual apostolic origin should be considered canonical. That meant that writings well known to the Church, such as the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), Gospel of Peter, First Letter of Clement, Letter of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter and Shepherd of Hermas, and now the so-called Judas gospel were excluded. They simply dated far too late to have apostolic authority.
...
The single most decisive factor in the process of New Testamenty canonization was the influence of Marcion, who flourished about 140. Marcion was a wealthy, influential shipbuilder who thought of himself as Christian. However, his religion was basically Gnostic. He set up his own canon that totally repudiated anything Jewish, including the Jewish Scriptures. The “Father” Jesus spoke of was an altogether different deity than the God of the Jews, according to Marcion. Marcion and his many followers viewed the God of the Old Testament as a cruel God of retribution. (Even today, we hear some Christians say that the God of Old Testament was a God of judgment but the God of the New Testament is a God of grace. Such a view has been held by the Church for 1800 years to be heretical, which perhaps shows how strong Marcion’s influence was.)

There was dispute over some issues between the western church and the eastern church but these were resolved in the fourth century. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament, and no other books, were agreed by both east and west to be canonical at the Council of Nicea in 325, the same council that gave us the Nicene Creed. By the end of the 300s, the New Testament books other than the present 27 became definitively excluded.

MITM will miss your blog, Rev. Sensing!

Note: Sensing's blog is ending because he thinks the era of the one-author blog is passing. He feels it takes too much work to keep up for one person to do it well enough to garner large readership.

Speaking as such an author, I think of it as more of a journal, for those who care what I think about various issues to consider, the book my siblings wanted me to write that I never did.

Looking back on my three years of entries, I'm struck by how often an old entry still fully covers my feelings about a "new" issue. There have been times when for one or two months nothing at all has come up that hasn't already been discussed in the blog previously. And surprisingly few of the entries have been dated enough to delete as no-longer-relevant.

Naturally, I'd like lots of folks to read MITM. But even if few other than me ever do, it will at least be a useful-to-me repository of my best thoughts and reference information from others on issues I consider important, in case the same issues ever need further thought. So readers or not, I expect to post here occasionally so long as God gives me breath. Thanks for reading!

Donald Sensing provides a very clear illustration of just war theory in daily life, Gang rape and Christian duty

Sensing's illustration, based on the famous New Bedford rape case hits home for me because I was in New Bedford, not long before that event. I was there to attend a charismatic Catholic worship service with friend (now Father) Frank Lavich, and remember seeing what looked like real tongues of fire atop the worshippers heads as they prayed, just like on the first Day of Pentecost described in Acts Chapter 2. That such a vile crime could take place in the same town as and soon after such a sacred moment shocked me.

Sensing asks, what if "I, a man of the cloth, had also been coincidentally in that pool hall when the rape began. What could my Christian response have been?" He continues "the question for this case is not really WWJD, but what [would] he have me do?"

Sensing also asks an excellent follow-up question: "when the actions of the men made their intentions clear, would intervention have been called for before the rape had technically been accomplished?"

He also wonders whether it would be necessary for me to convince other bystanders to support me before getting involved, and what I'd do if they refused?

Since I literally could have been in that room at that time (if for example we'd stopped by for a Coke before driving back to Boston), Sensing's questions are not at all hypothetical for me.

Sensing published this just before the current war in Iraq began, adding "The rape is going on now...What would Jesus have you do?"

Update:
A useful distinction to make, with regards to the use of force in defence by Christians, is this: Who is being defended?

It's relatively difficult for a Christian to make a moral case for hurting or kiling merely to protect oneself. I mean, what's the worst that could happen? Going to Heaven now instead of later isn't much of a downside to anyone who believes in such a place (as I do) and expects to be there after death.

On the other hand, it's much easier to make a moral case for hurting or killing to protect others, because although an attacker is a person of infinite worth, for whom Christ died, so are their victims. And although Jesus was rarely violent (a smited barren fruit tree and whipped money changers being his only victims), his sympathies were very obviously always with "the last, the least, and the lost" over "the strong, the rich, and the respectable."

A problem Christians have had ever since Emperor Constantine became a Christian around AD 300, is what is appropriate military duty for a Christian soldier? Or, put another way, how does a faith that enabled slaves and nobodies to peacefully overcome a mighty empire guide the continuing activities of that empire afterwards? The answer may lie in defending physically the same sorts of people Jesus and the prophets had defended verbally, like them supporting justice and righteousness for those who would otherwise rarely experience either. The "Pax Romana" really did have some good points, and would have had more such points if it had been as devoted to defending the inalienable rights of the weak as it was to maintaining the perks of the powerful.

Glenn Reynolds and other bloggers have recently suggested that the next international human right to be defended might be the right to keep and bear arms (the often-attacked but perhaps extremely important second amendment of our Constitution.)

It is becoming obvious that weapons are equalizers, and more so as what one person can do with available weaponry increases over time. It is also increasingly obvious that our nation has not been accepted by the World as its policeman, and equally obvious that there are limits to what even our armed forces can do to establish justice and righteousness alone and unaided by others of like mind.

Perhaps the solution, then, in places like Darfur, is not to send in the Marines to fight on behalf of those suffering genocide, but rather to help toughen and arm the current victims sufficiently that their oppressors will abandon their attacks.

Although it's easy to make a case that I don't need a gun, while in good health and a good neighborhood, it's less easy to argue that a single mom in a bad neighborhood wouldn't be safer if she had a pistol and knew how to use it.

Even so, if God is in control, and I firmly believe God is, then Christians must still be careful not to get ahead of God in doing His work. We absolutely need to do whatever good God calls us to do, but absolutely do not need to do so because God can't get the task done anyway, with or without us.

One of the quotes this week regarding Abdul Rahman makes me wonder just how weak Muslims think Allah is, if they have to protect him from humiliation? Abdul Raoulf said: "We will not allow God to be humiliated." Dude, if you believe your own propaganda, Allah is well able to defend himself. It's not your job, and attempting it communicates you are worried your god is weak.

Christians must be careful to have no similar misconceptions. God allows us to share in His work, but definitely is not otherwise unable to get it done. So we do what we can to help the widow, the orphan and the alien, but not because we think God would otherwise leave them without help. Rather, we do so as co-workers with God in establishing a new and better future for all, a foretaste of Glory to come.

Abdul Rahman, of Afghanistan, is on trial for the "crime" of converting from Islam to Christianity, as described here. This raises at least two important points:

1) For Islan's defenders to resort to force either to win converts or avoid losses to other faiths is a public admission they don't believe their own propaganda. In my opinion, only faiths that renounce the use of force in winning and retaining followers deserve any place among the great World religions.

2) If this is the thanks American Christian soldiers can expect for freeing Afghanistan and Iraq, then perhaps efforts there need not continue.

Jesus put it strongly in his most famous message "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." (Matthew 7:6 RSV)

The day Rahman (or any other Christian convert) is executed might be the day Afghanistan becomes no longer worthy of support.

Powerline explains it this way:
"This is, I think, a watershed moment. The American people will bear a great deal of sacrifice, but only on behalf of principle. If, after our liberation of Afghanistan, a man may still be executed for being a Christian--or a Jew, although to my knowledge that case hasn't arisen--there is no logical basis on which our government can continue to request the ultimate sacrifice from its most devoted supporters."

Sadly, there's a similar case in Mississippi: Happy though I was to spend a week last Fall helping folks in Mississippi recover from Hurricane Katrina (details here), my sense of injustice at that state's ongoing attempt to execute Cory Maye for the "crime" of defending himself and his infant daughter from what he thought were criminals breaking in his door (details here) keeps me from volunteering to return to Mississippi, even though needs there remain extreme.

Update: Fortunately, this case has already drawn the personal attention of both President Bush, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who today called President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Abdul Rahman's behalf. Details here.

Clinton Taylor thoughfully provides a photo of Yale freshman and former Taliban spokesman Rehmatullah Hashmi holding a book about the Bible used as evidence in a similar Afghan trial of Christians just before the Taliban lost power.

It's becoming increasingly clear that anyone who sends their child to Harvard or Yale in hopes of an excellent education could hardly be more mistaken.

(Harvard is currently notorious for an incredibly stupid and flagrantly anti-Semitic new publication from their Kennedy School of Government, ironically co-authored by a professor whose endowed chair was recently funded by a now-extremely-unhappy Jewish donor. Details here.)

An important way to avoid throwing pearls before swine is by not rewarding (with either our money or the time of our children) media and universities opposed to everything we value.

Update2: According to this report, even so-called "moderate" Muslims in Afghanistan insist Abdul Rahman be executed.
"The cleric who was jailed three times for opposing the hard-line Taliban said: 'Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.'"
A Mr Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organisation, the Afghan Ulama Council, added: "Cut off his head!" and "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

It would be difficult for such people to reject more completely the teachings of Jesus, who they claim to revere, but understand not at all.

Tigerhawk discussed tolerance today, calling it the ultimate Western virtue.
"Since the end of the Cold War, "tolerance" has become the ultimate Western virtue. This has been easy for us, because it has, until very recently, been possible -- even recommended -- to ignore intolerant people. We could not tolerate the intolerance of Nazis or Commies, but the Nazis are long gone, and the Commies that remain outside of Cuba and North Korea are CINOs1 and in any case not eager to extend a worldwide revolution. The Christian Right and the anti-religion Left are each fairly intolerant of the other, but neither are violent and both groups prefer their own company, anyway.

Resurgent Islam is changing this dynamic. The cartoon intifada has taught us that Muslims all over the world believe that they have the religious obligation to reach in to Western countries and nullify our most cherished rights. Not only does the "Muslim street" think this, but we have endured the absurd spectacle of Arab kings lecturing the Danes and other Europeans about respect."

Tigerhawk goes on to suggest 4 responses:
"First, we can ignore the outrage, at least insofar as it is happening inside non-Western countries. The price for this may be that there are large parts of the world that are off-limits to most Westerners, and/or that the cost of oil may go up considerably. In short, we might suffer a geopolitical defeat in the defense of free speech.

Second, we can knuckle under, and agree to regulate core political speech inside Western democracies. This may well happen in many parts of Europe, where free speech is a recent right and where many consider it more a bug than a feature.

Third, we can forcefully defend the right of speakers in the West to say what they will about Islam or any other subject, but agree that governments in the Islamic world are entitled to suppress speech within their borders and limit the access of their people to speech eminating from free countries. The result may not be any different than the first option, but at least we will be able to look at ourselves in the mirror.

Fourth, we can believe that freedom of speech is important for people everywhere, and oppose oppressive regimes everywhere, including on the Arabian peninsula, for their intolerance of people who believe and speak inconsistently with the powers that be."

The one weakness I see in Tigerhawk's argument is that the only persons we actually need to tolerate are the intolerant. There's no moral virtue in allowing folks to agree with us. It's when we "agree to disagree" that tolerance is involved.

That said, I don't personally consider tolerance a supreme virtue. A favorite verse goes "if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18 NIV) When I was younger, I wondered why the qualifiers were needed. Now I know.

Being a peacemaker is a wonderful virtue, but it is not always possible, both because it doesn't always depend only on us, and because it doesn't always only require what we can do.

Even Jesus once used a whip.

It isn't that there are no moderate Muslims in the U.S. Rather, it is that they pay a terrible price for speaking up.

Stephen Schwartz explains here why, if we want moderate Muslims to survive speaking out against extremists, we must support them against retaliatory attacks.

Sample paragraph: "Dr. Jasser’s case illustrates why American Muslims stay silent: because the price of speaking out is immediate, coordinated attack. Sometimes the Wahhabi offensive on American soil is accompanied by physical threats; violence is not excluded. Born Muslims, living “in the community,” seldom came to America expecting to find Islam in this country run by Wahhabis -- to the immigrant, it was inconceivable that such a situation would be permitted in the US. And yet, thanks to the Saudis, it came to pass, and just as President Bush should push the Saudis to quit financing radicalism, ordinary Americans should write groups like CAIR out of the roster of respectability. These are militants with an incurable penchant for intimidation. Their psychological reign of terror in America must end no less quickly than the literal bloodshed brought by their mentors in Iraq."

Just because a fox is in the henhouse doesn't make it a chicken. In the same way, just because a group like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has a moderate-sounding name is not in and of itself evidence of moderation. (For more about CAIR, both it and its opponents have Web sites, here and here.

A further complication is that many Muslim extremists in America are amazingly well funded, primarily by the Saudis, and historically very successful at using that wealth to win over or destroy potential opposition within or beyond the Muslim community. A recent example is described here.

If we want to live in peace as equals with Muslims, it is imperative that we support those Muslims willing to live with us on that basis over Muslim extremists who refuse to allow the rest of us, including (among other groups) Christians, Jews, Hindus, Shiite and Sufi Muslims, Women and Gays the same rights intolerant Muslims claim only for themselves.

Another great resource for sorting all of this out fairly is Daniel Pipes.

Update: Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, concurs in this WSJ article, and offers many useful suggestions for both Muslims and non-Muslims in how to effectively counter Wahhabi extremism before another 9-11 or worse.

Update2: It gets worse, a lot worse. Last October, the Danish newspaper "Jyllands-Posten", in an intentional demonstration of the meaning of "freedom of speech" published 12 cartoons depicting Islam's prophet Mohammed. Yes, they knew Muslims oppose any such depiction as idolatry, but they are not Muslim, and wanted to show they are as free to depict Mohammed as, for example, Andre Serrano was to take the photo "Piss Christ" depicting Jesus on the Cross suspended in a jar of urine that offended Christians some years ago, or as free as cartoonists in Muslim countries who often depict Jews as pigs and monkeys.

To their great credit, the Danish government has continuously since supported the newspaper's rights to freedom of speech, and refused to punish the paper in any way. Muslims in multiple countries, on the other hand, have gone increasingly ballistic over the incident, issuing sufficiently-credible death threats against at least two of the cartoonists involved that they have gone into hiding. There has also been at least one bomb threat against the newspaper, leading to its offices being emptied, and suicide bomb threats against Denmark. All Danish products are now being boycotted in Saudi Arabia, and Danish citizens providing relief efforts in Muslim areas have been beaten and advised to leave.

Michelle Malkin has been covering this very well, here and here.

Yesterday, a French newspaper, in further defense of freedom of speech, republished the cartoons of Muhammad. As a result, the manager of that paper has been fired, making entirely the opposite point from that intended.

Who cares, you may ask? Frankly, you should. Martin Niemoller's famous World War II era poem makes the point well:
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."

We constantly hear how important freedom of speech is, yet if we do not defend it in cases such as this, we will very soon have no such right. Sadly, ex-President Bill Clinton once again chose another path.

What can you do? Well, for one thing, how about buying Danish products? In addition, have a look at the cartoons yourself, here.

Update3: Donald Sensing comments "This is not a demand for respect or fair treatment. It is a demand that non-Muslims live by Muslim religious rules. Let there be no doubt (as I have said before): this is definitely a religious war, if only on one side. Islamists consider democracy an infidel religion."

From England, sisu reports on an anonymous comment "Even my most left-wing friends have very suddenly become deeply anti-Muslim. ... It seems to be the end of tolerance for Muslims"

It is essential for tolerant persons of all faiths or lack thereof to speak up for mutual respect and toleration as equals now, before another 9-11 or worse results in some third undersecretary of the Post Office suddenly finding herself next in line of succession to the Presidency and wanting only the red button. Orson Scott Card's book "Shadow Puppets", which I recently read, speaks of an ascendant moderate Islam, but describes it as a result of portions of the Middle East being uninhabitable for centuries, with all that implies.

Sadly, the Vatican and U.S. State Department now seem to have joined ex-President Clinton on the path of attempting to appease militant Muslims rather than supporting European friends of freedom.

Update4: Dr. Sanity discusses the differences between guilt-based and shame-based cultures, and thereby sheds a lot of light on both the current controversy and underlying differences between Western and Muslim cultures. Sadly, he sees no way out, short of a "final confrontation", and adds "The last such culture the West dealt with was Japan during WWII. Interestingly, they also had their suicide bombers (kamikaze) and their ritual killings for honor and vengeance related to shame avoidance." In a way, that's hopeful, in that Japan became an admirable World citizen following their own "final confrontation."

Update5: Moderate Muslims just hosted an International Conference on Islam. Sadly, most of the media managed to avoid covering it, which turned out to be one of the points made by its organizers. It isn't that moderate Muslims don't speak up; it's that America's mainstream media ignore them when they do speak up.
"Well this conference went off with very little coverage from the MSM, something Mr. Gokcek noted during our talk."
I knew there was some reason I no longer subscribe to a newspaper, even though I'm a voracious reader. I suspect others feel the same. On a recent Sunday morning, only 4 of the 46 homes on our street had a newspaper in the driveway. When I was a paperboy, many years ago, nearly all of them would have been subscribers.

This blog is based on my centrist results on a political quiz. I'm also interested in similar quizzes on other topics. One such, just pointed out by Tennessee One Hand Clapping measures religious views. Since both Rev. Sensing and I have United Methodist roots, it's no huge surprise that we both scored highest on "Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan." How about you? Take the free 5 minute Theological Worldview quiz here.

As always, Christmas is controversial. This year's items include:

1) Conservatives are complaining that this year's Presidential greeting card doesn't include the word "Christmas." I received the Presidential greeting card, along with over a million others, so off to the refrigerator door to check. Sure enough, the card from George and Laura Bush reads "With best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness, 2005."

However, just one inch above that text, it also reads: "The Lord is my strength and shield; in Him my heart trusts; so I am helped, and my heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to Him." Psalm 28:7 (RSV.) Give it a rest folks. The Psalms are a long way from a generic "Happy Holidays."

2) This morning I was asked for my signature on a nominating petition for the state legislature by Rob Sherman, a locally-prominant atheist. He was surprisingly ordinary looking. No horns or pitchfork, just a tan wool overcoat. Even so, around here he's one of the best-known atheists since Madeline Muray O'hare, often mentioned in stories about opposition to nativity scenes on public property and crosses on city seals. His Web site is here. Though Rob would likely disagree, he's still a beloved child of the most-high God, for whom Christ died.

3) Evangelicals are also complaining, that some megachurches won't be having worship services on Christmas Day. One such church is ours, but the reason is simple -- the church is hosting Christmas services pretty much every other day that week to fit in everyone expected to attend.

I'm not hung up on the date myself. As one of our elders pointed out recently, we don't know for sure on what day of the year Jesus was born. But we do know for sure it was not December 25th. That is merely the day selected by Roman Emperor Constantine after he became a Christian, essentially repurposing two popular pagan winter festivals. (More info here.)

For anyone interested, our elder thinks Jesus was actually conceived during Hanukkah in December, and born during the Feast of Tabernacles in late September/early October. I've heard others suggest the birth was around the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin August 15. Evidence for this includes that "there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night (Luke 2:8 NIV), which they would not have been doing in December.

4) My own pet peeve this Christmas, is that no one seems to be making an actual case for peace on Earth. What calls itself the peace movement in our day has nothing whatsoever to do with actual peace, so far as I can tell. In fact, it seems very much in favor of war, so long as it is waged by anyone else against us.

What is sadly lacking in our time is a real peace movement of people opposed to all wars everywhere, no matter which party is currently in the White House, no matter what armies are fighting, and no matter where and over what.

There is a strong case to be made for real peace, and no one ever made that case better than Jesus himself, along with Mahatma Ghandhi and Martin Luther King, both of whom openly followed Jesus' teaching regarding peace. Where are such people to be found today?

Even so, as Jesus said "In this world you will have trouble. But be of good cheer! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)

Update: Although our church won't be having services on Christmas Day, our Senior Pastor will be sharing the pulpit at the House of Hope, the black church with which the Middlewife and 24 others from our church shared a bus for a week-long "Justice Journey" through civil rights history sites in the South.

The Daily Southtown also attributed a great response to Salem's pastor, State Senator James Meeks, when asked how he felt about Willowcreek not having services on Christmas. After noting Willowcreek expects 50,000 people to attend Christmas services earlier in the week, Meeks added "Unless a person has figured out a way to get that many people to one church on Christmas Sunday, they don't have a right to comment."

Instead, Meeks called the situation a "divine opportunity to bring together the two largest mega-churches (in the area), one white and one black."

So, anyone upset that Willowcreek cancelled Christmas, can now officially climb down off their cross, because building a relationship with Salem is easily more important for our church than anything else we could have done that day.

I recently read Orson Scott Card's book Sarah, in which one of the events was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (from which comes the modern word "sodomy".

One of the Biblical themes regarding Sodom and Gomorrah is that their destruction came after a long moral decline. The end may have come in a moment, but the rot came long before.

Such things are also now beginning to be said about New Orleans, with greater or lesser credibility. On the greater side is a comment that while the South in general has renewed and bloomed over the past generation, New Orleans has been a glaring exception: the most corrupt city in the most corrupt state in the Union. (That is said not to overly blame the current mayor, elected only 3 years ago, even though his own failures in disaster preparedness are now obvious.)

On the lesser side is this comment:
"The image of the hurricane . . . with its eye already ashore at 12:32 p.m. Monday, August 29, looks like a fetus (unborn human baby) facing to the left (west) in the womb, in the early weeks of gestation (approx. 6 weeks)...

"Louisiana has 10 child-murder-by-abortion centers," the groups says, and "five are in New Orleans."

In response, blogger Chrenkoff opines "I prefer to believe in a God that doesn't need to cause $100 billion worth of damage and kill possibly thousands of people just to close down five abortion clinics and stop a few homosexuals from prancing around."

I'm with Chrenkoff in that, and yet, as both the Bible and Card's book on Sarah make clear, sometimes the only way to avoid going down with a sinking ship is to get out before it's too late, as did most of Lot's family.

Another book I'm currently reading Bulletproof: The Making of an Invincible Mind by Chuck Holton points out that there is only one thing for a Christian to fear in life - being outside God's will in any situation. He points out how being outside that will can have consequences, not only for ourselves, but also for bystanders and descendents, as God inevitably and eventually deals with corruption.

Does this mean Christians should stay away from sinful places? Not at all. Holton reminds us that if the worst happens, and we die along with the corrupt in such a situation, we end up immediately in Heaven - no downside there! Just as Jesus spent his days among the last, the least and the lost, despite their many and obvious sins, so must His followers today care deeply about and be fully engaged with those far from God, even if doing so results in going home sooner.

Makes sense to me. As the Bible says, who among us can increase his span of life by even an instant, by going against what we know to be God's will for our life? Even if we could do so, would it be worth the eternal risk?

If New Orleans was politically corrupt for decades, its eventual destruction should not have come as a surprise to anyone.

And yet, if that's where the least and the last and the lost were to be found, we can be sure God and God's people were among them. Those saints are now, like Sarah, safe in the bosom of Abraham.

Update: Eugene Volokh points out, sensibly, that if God sent Hurricane Katrina as a way to punish evil, a reasonable followup question would be "Does God dislike poor people?" As Volokh puts it:
"After all, poor people generally bear the brunt of most natural disasters: It's harder for them to evacuate; they are less likely to have insurance; their assets are less likely to be diversified, so the economic damage is more likely to be severe for them; they are closer to the poverty line, so even small losses may harm them more than larger losses harm rich people; and so on. If you live in a poor country, you're much more likely to suffer from disasters than if you live in a rich country. If you're poor in any country, you're much more likely to suffer from disasters than if you're rich.

So, which is it: Does God dislike poor people? Or might it be that disasters, wars, and diseases are actually not God's punishment for sin?"

It has bothered me for years that a man named Fred Phelps who claims to be the pastor of the so-called "Westborough Baptist Church" of Kansas has apparently gone out of his way for decades to convince the world all Christians are vile hypocrits.

He and his tiny band of co-religionists are best know for trash-talking Gays, but have apparently recently upped the ante by appearing at funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq to "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for 9-11". The "logic" is that God is punishing our nation for tolerating homosexuals.

Until today, I've always assumed Phelps and his followers were just hate-filled attention seekers. But a comment by "Shadow Merchant" on another blog may have just shed light on what's really going on.

"Folks, Fred Phelps WANTS you to kick his teeth down his throat. Even more, he wants your local police forces to lose their cool and give him what he is asking for.

For more information, see his entry on Wikipedia."

All I can say in response is that if "Shadow Merchant" is correct, Phelps had best be VERY sure there is no God.

As our own pastor reminded us a year or two ago, "Time heals all wounds, and wounds all heels."

Traditionally, Islam has taught that we are all essentially good, and that getting to Paradise after death involves doing more good deeds than bad deeds in life, as opposed to the Christian view that we are all essentially sinners, and get to Heaven by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus on all our behalf.

Traditionally, Islam (like Christianity) has also opposed suicide, even in battle.

Recently, however, some Muslims have begun teaching that committing suicide as a part of attempting to kill others in battle is not only permitted, but a certain way getting not only oneself to Paradise, but also seventy others of one's choice.

I consider it an interesting idea, but unsupported by scriptural proof of any kind, much like C.S. Lewis's suggestion in The Great Divorce that a bus runs from hell to Heaven every afternoon at 3 o'clock, and all who will may ride.

Much as I like the idea of such a bus, I would not bet my Eternity on its existence, and find it astounding any Muslim would bet Eternity on Allah's now favoring rather than opposing suicide, so long as it is in battle.

This Muslim atonement idea is novel, and solves the philosophical problem of a Muslim never being entirely sure in this life that they are saved and going to Paradise. And if believed, designating one Muslim in 70 to blow him or herself up among folks they don't expect to see in Paradise may be considered an acceptable cost.

But again, who would be so stupid as to blow himself or a loved one up for such an obviously-unproven idea?

Also, for everyone other than the actual suicide/homicide bomber, how sure can you actually be that you are actually one of the seventy a bomber would choose to "save"?

I've been advocating the need for new ideas in Islam, along the lines of the Protestant Reformation, but this is hardly what I had in mind.

Of all people, Salman Rushdie agrees on the need for an Islamic Reformation, and for once, I find myself agreeing with him.

One of my favorite authors is Dr. Mike Adams, who writes well and humorously here about his life as a token conservative in American higher education.

Recently, however, Adams has outdone himself, and written a truly great essay on the importance of speaking truth to power.
"One of my favorite verses of the Bible is James 4:17. It states that 'Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.' That verse reminds us that we don’t have to actually do something to be morally culpable. In other words, there is such a thing as a sin of omission.

When, in the past, I have contemplated the prospect of cowering away from these situations, I have sometimes found strength by thinking about some old war veterans – some in my family, some friends – who risked or even gave their lives to preserve our nation and our freedom.
...
Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to run from what is right. And war heroes didn’t die on the battlefield for you to cower away while this country is destroyed."

Read the whole thing.

Update: FIRE's The Torch relevantly comments here, in the context of defending a Muslim student attacked for asking to unsubscribe from spam promoting homosexuality, that "Dissent is our most essential right..."

Thanks to The Unrepentant Individual, who considers himself agnostic, for clearly explaining Jesus' views on issues dear to the hearts of progressive liberals.

"Yes, Jesus was a champion of the poor and downtrodden. Yes, Jesus would have fully supported individuals giving great sacrifices of themselves to support the less fortunate. Yes, Jesus understood that in many circumstances, giving the government its tribute and accepting ones place in the world might be a better option than aiming for the glory of armed revolution.

But I see no reason to believe that Jesus supported coercive institutions to achieve such a world. In fact, I would think that Jesus would see that coerced virtue is no virtue at all. And one of Jesus' overlying message to the poor and downtrodden was to accept their place, and that belief in the Lord would ensure their eternal bounty, even if such bounty wasn't available here on earth. Jesus saw that some people in our world would be trampled and bruised. His answer was to turn the other cheek, and that those doing the trampling and bruising would reap what they had sown in the afterlife."

Don't just read the whole thing. Also read the equally-impressive comments.

My own two cents on this is that if Jesus had favored a "big government" political solution to human problems, he'd have lived in Rome and preached to the Emperor and Senate, rather than to downtrodden common folks in a faraway corner of the empire.

In my opinion, Jesus' way of changing the world is, as my church often says, "one life at a time."

Update: The Middlewife adds that Jesus was not fond of the methods of big government types (Pharisees and Sadducees) around him. Though he came to fulfill not abolish laws, his interpretations of laws tended to reduce them to essentials rather than add new layers.

In short, Jesus was radical in reinterpreting conventional wisdom, and almost libertarian in His focus on individuals, but not liberal (or conservative) in the usual political sense.

John Scalzi's "Whatever" blog is hosting a good discussion about Covenant Marriage. After reading the whole thing, I realized I might have something to say myself on that subject after 35 years of marriage, and commented as follows:

"My wife and I were among the last virgins of the 60's generation at our wedding 35 years ago. We'd dated two and a half years, were deeply in love, though not as deeply as now, horny as all get out but wanting to do the right thing, and both quite serious about seeing our marriage ceremony as vows before God, and therefore not to be either made or violated lightly. We genuinely believed then, and still do today, that we were made to be together.

The most surprising aspect of all this is the sex -- far better now than when we were first married. I would never have believed that when I was 21."

If a state "Covenant Marriage" had been available when we wed, I expect we'd have chosen it. But only because its goals matched ones we already shared.

Update: It's not just me. According to this study, other men also have more satisfying sex lives in their 50s than in their 30s.

A good friend asks "I am going to be co-leading a Sunday school class (adults) next Sunday. The scripture passage is John 3:1-17. Can you give me any input about the text and its interpretation that you have learned from any source, especially as it relates to our lives. In other words, what does it mean to you?"

Naturally, I was happy to reply. Sermon mode on:
"Lots to talk about in that passage! It includes the best-known single verse in the entire Bible (John 3:16.)

OK, hope that helps!
May God be with you and bless your leadership of the study, and may those who need to hear this, truly hear and benefit from the hearing, as Nicodemus did."
Sermon mode off.

We in the Blogosphere like to talk a lot about how Mainstream Media must adapt to a new reality or die.

A typical example was my recent discussion at a home show with a vendor of subscriptions for a suburban newspaper I sometimes read. He was eager to tell me about their great low-cost introductory subscription offer, and I had to burst his bubble by telling him I now get my news for free via the Internet, and typically a full day before the same stories are in his paper.

Hugh Hewitt today points out that this means publishers of daily and weekly publications must move to providing information that is still worth reading that day or more later.

"The [Weekly] Standard has figured out that weeklies have to move towards simply great writing on an every-issue basis to assure survival in the era of blogs that can and do produce facts and analysis all day every day. Almost every piece in this issue can be kept and read as time permit and still deliver value. It is a model that every weekly will have to develop or watch circulation decline quickly."

Hewitt then proceeds to apply the same logic to churches:
"And speaking of change, I attended my old church and a new church today. I went to Washington D.C.'s National Presbyterian Church to see an old friend in ministry there, and then took the Red Line to Union Station to attend the 11:00 service at National Community Church, which meets in the multiplex there. While the mainline denominations are striving to keep and build their congregations, the energy of the new churches, as represented by the two-location NCC, is phenomenal. As with every other institution out there, Christian churches have to adapt quickly to a new culture or decline just as quickly as audience share has for old newspapers and the big networks."

Having just returned to a former church for the memorial service of a friend, I have to agree. Though the church was as pretty as ever, the people very welcoming, and the organ a joy to hear, somehow it all seemed vastly smaller than I remembered from almost a decade ago, and a reminder that during a year spent visiting all the churches in that area, I never did find one that compared to Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, IL, which I was already attending occasionally despite its location 4 hours from our home.

National Community Church, I'm happy to report, is a member of the Willow Creek Association, a World-wide network of growing seeker-oriented churches hosted by Willow Creek.

If you are ever looking for a "with it" church, the WCA "Find a Church" link is a wonderful help.

One of my favorite authors is Theodore Dalrymple, especially his book "Life at the Bottom," describing his work as a physician among the poor of London.

According to this article, he is retiring. He will be greatly missed, for his clear-eyed understanding of the daily evils of that life, and for doing what he could to truly help.

Here's an example of his views, to which I can only add that I too unfortunately know several such women:

My patient was not just a victim of her mother, however: she had knowingly borne children of men of whom no good could be expected. She knew perfectly well the consequences and the meaning of what she was doing, as her reaction to something that I said to her—and say to hundreds of women patients in a similar situation—proved: next time you are thinking of going out with a man, bring him to me for my inspection, and I'll tell you if you can go out with him.

Moreover, they are aware that I believe that it is both foolish and wicked to have children by men without having considered even for a second or a fraction of a second whether the men have any qualities that might make them good fathers. Mistakes are possible, of course: a man may turn out not to be as expected. But not even to consider the question is to act as irresponsibly as it is possible for a human being to act. It is knowingly to increase the sum of evil in the world, and sooner or later the summation of small evils leads to the triumph of evil itself.

Here's another wonderful quote from the above article:
There has been an unholy alliance between those on the Left, who believe that man is endowed with rights but no duties, and libertarians on the Right, who believe that consumer choice is the answer to all social questions, an idea eagerly adopted by the Left in precisely those areas where it does not apply.

Read the whole thing.

While at our church, John Ortberg was a great teaching pastor. He went back to California last year, but I just realized his sermons are still available via the Web here.

Here's a sample I found helpful and hilarious from his latest message:
Someone sits in front of a nutritional disaster—a plate full of salt, fat, sugar and grease, fried in oil and covered in butter, and what do they pray?

Is that some kind of a joke? That would take a miracle! At that moment, God’s will would be for you to push back from the table and give the food to the dog, but dogs matter to God too! So, His will is probably for you to give it to the cat.

While on the subject, Rev. Donald Sensing, one of my favorite bloggers also posts his sermons weekly here.

I know, some of you, like me until a few years ago, would rather have a cavity filled than read an extra sermon. I remember my nephew sending me tapes of his pastor's best sermons, and me not listening to them because I could not imagine them not being a waste of my time. I was wrong. Now I am like that nephew, offering CDs of particular messages that I think would help particular people.

So give it a shot. See if either Ortberg or Sensing recently said something that might help you today, as the quote above did me. What's the worst that could happen?

Update: John Ortberg was back in church last night, with a great talk, and the Middlewife and Shades visited Ortberg's new church to hear him last weekend. So this has been Ortberg-festival week at the Middle house.

This was a great weekend for the Piquant family, as P. & S. were married, with Man and Woman in the Middle happily in attendance.

Here's Man in the Middle's part in the ceremony:
"One of the great mysteries of creation is that man and woman are both physically and psychologically different, yet in need of each other. In the Bible, this is expressed in the words, �From the beginning, He made them male and female.� If you are so inclined, it is possible to believe this a mere accident of nature, signifying nothing, but I am not so inclined. In this and other perfections of nature, I see the hand of a skilled and caring designer, one to whom it matters whether we truly live our lives together, or merely co-exist on an insignificant planet of an unknown star. The Biblical account goes on to say, �And the two shall become one.� This is a great mystery, and one of the strongest proofs I have personally found for the existence and love of God.

A biologist can tell you that joy is not necessary for the preservation of the species. If there were no purpose in our existence, no goal in life, then there would also be no need for two to become one in a joyful act of physical union. We could just as well have replied on pollen, like the flowers, or a joyless instinct, like many other species. In fact, the odds favor that, but life is different. Life has given us an excess of joy and fulfillment entirely unnecessary in mere biological terms. Hidden in the act of marriage, as in all the other great turning points of life, from birth to death, is unmistakable evidence of a loving creator�delighted to give us more than we require. Whatever else may be said of it, the joy possible in what we call sexual union is a gift, and its temporary fulfillment a promise of other, deeper, and more lasting joy planned for us by the same creator."

Live long and prosper--together!

Islam is often touted as the world's fastest-growing religion. Theodore Dalrymple (author of one of my favorite books Life at the Bottom), on the contrary sees Islam as doomed to rapid decline, for its:

1 medieval treatment of women. "Here, for once, are instances of unadulterated female victimhood, yet the silence of the feminists is deafening. Where two pieties�feminism and multiculturalism�come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence."

2 inability to distinguish between church and state. "Muhammad unfortunately bequeathed no institutional arrangements by which his successors in the role of omnicompetent ruler could be chosen " and "With political power constantly liable to challenge from the pious, or the allegedly pious, tyranny becomes the only guarantor of stability, and assassination the only means of reform."

3 inability to tolerate dissent. "He sees in the West�s freedom nothing but promiscuity and license, which is certainly there; but he does not see in freedom, especially freedom of inquiry, a spiritual virtue as well as an ultimate source of strength." and "If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry."

Dalrymple is particularly impressed by the utter lack of piety among young Muslim men he sees in prison: "The young Muslim men in prison do not pray; they do not demand halal meat. They do not read the Qu�ran. They do not ask to see the visiting imam. They wear no visible signs of piety" and "What I think these young Muslim prisoners demonstrate is that the rigidity of the traditional code by which their parents live, with its universalist pretensions and emphasis on outward conformity to them, is all or nothing; when it dissolves, it dissolves completely and leaves nothing in its place."

Please, read the whole thing.

Update: A less-sanguine view is offered by Shmuel Bar in "The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism" in the June '04 issue of Policy Review. It discusses:
The Weltanschauung [worldview] of radical Islam,
The legality of jihad,
The dilemma of the moderate Muslim,
The Western dilemma, and
Fighting hellfire with hellfire.

After reading Bar's analysis of the theology involved, it is clear President Bush is correct in saying the War on Terrorism may continue for decades. Islamists have challenged the Muslim world as thoroughly as the 60's radicals did Western civilization, and the resulting ripples are likely to persist for decades, if not centuries.

However pleasant it might be to think of just pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan as we earlier did from Viet Nam, doing so would be interpreted by Islamists as justification for new attacks on the West:
"The Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union were perceived as an eschatological sign [portent of the end of the world], adumbrating the renewal of the jihad against the infidel world at large and the apocalyptical war between Islam and heresy which will result in the rule of Islam in the world. Along with the renewal of the jihad, the Islamist Weltanschauung, which emerged from the Afghani crucible, developed a Thanatophile [death-loving] ideology in which death is idealized as a desired goal and not a necessary evil in war. ... In these circles, the American occupation of Iraq is likened to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; a sense of American failure would feed the apocalyptical ideology of jihad."

During the 1990s, I remember wondering whether we would later look back upon them as another "Gay '90s" like the 1890s. It is now clear that we shall.

For a description of Apocalyptic views within Christianity, see my Y2K Primer.

Update2: Strategy Page has a very comprehensive (i.e. long) discussion of the dim prospects for Islamist terrorists, along with an amazingly detailed history of Islamic terrorist attacks since 1968.

This short excerpt sums up a great deal:
"Most Saudis are willing to tolerate Islamic terrorism as long as it is not practiced in Saudi Arabia. For decades, this has been the attitude in Europe as well, and American operations in Iraq are criticized for "stirring things up." Both Saudis and Europeans preferred doing business with Saddam Hussein, or someone like him, because tyrants are more dependable.

So the world is divided into those who want to treat Islamic terrorism as a police issue, and those that want to root out the support for the terrorists, and reduce the possibility of spectacular attacks using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Each camp considers the other out of touch, and there is little possibility of a meeting of the minds. Sort of like religion; you take a lot of it on faith.
"

Bhikhu Parekh has written a series of four excellent letters expressing the respective views of Osama Bin Laden and Mahatma Ghandi, with each commenting on the views of the other. As they say, read the whole thing.

Two of our pastors both made the same point about Dr. Martin Luther King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech today -- that it was one of the best speeches ever given by a human.

To that, I would add that I consider Dr. King an authentic Biblical prophet for our generation. Sadly, our world is still more prone to kill than heed its prophets, at least while they are alive.

Here are exerpts, from the King Center web site (the full text is available here):
�I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed; �We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.� I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day, even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.�

�...And so let freedom ring, from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that. Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and mole hill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring�And when we allow freedom to ring � when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God�s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, we are free at last.�

The genius of King's message, in my opinion, is that resolving racial problems can only finally be accomplished by reconciling, not by overpowering, and futher, that this is both required by God and possible only with God's help. We go through that gate together, or not at all.

As a next step, Christ followers please also read this King message.

The primary concern about Mel Gibson's new movie "The Passion of the Christ" (due to open Ash Wednesday, February 25, 2004) appears to be that it describes those who opposed Jesus as Jewish. This is news? Who else could it have been than folks in the area at the time? The Gospels are rather specific about both the support and the opposition Jesus encountered from the locals as he taught.

This doesn't single one culture out as worse than others. Nor does it let anyone think their own culture better. Had Jesus beeen born somewhere or somewhen else, the rest of the Bible foretold his reception among humans and the end of his teaching would have been the same.

If Jesus and the Bible were wrong, nothing about Jesus matters much. If they were right, everything about him matters eternally.

If anything about the Gibson movie bothers you, by all means read the book instead. The Gospel of Mark is the executive summary, and can be read easily in two hours. Then you'll have all the information you need to make up your own mind about this most famous of all humans.

Update: Haven't seen the movie yet myself, but do have one small quibble with it -- although we don't know what Jesus actually looked like, he almost certainly had darker skin than the Jesus in this movie.

Update #2: My fondest hope for the movie was that it would be shown in Muslim countries. Their purpose in doing so might be to stoke anger against Jews, but the actual result is likely to be a much fuller understanding of Jesus' sacrifice and "love your enemies" message than is included in the Quoran. Initial reports from Christians in Middle East countries where the movie has opened bear this out.

Update #3: E. and I finally saw "The Passion of the Christ" Thursday evening -- watching Jesus in the garden at the same moment it was actually happening 2,000 years ago added to the impact of the moment.

I came away thinking more than ever that either Jesus was exactly who he said he was (Savior of the World), or else he was a fool. It no longer makes sense to me to think of Jesus as teacher and example, but not redeemer. If Jesus' death did not redeem us, then voluntarily seeking out such a death seems lunacy. My vote, for what it's worth, is that Jesus is indeed our redeemer, and risen Lord.

Donald Sensing found a wonderful Michael Crichton speech on Environmentalism as a fundamentalist religion.

In that same spirit, during our forthcoming trip to the Galapagos Islands (the place Darwin first developed ideas about evolution), I plan to read Darwin on Trial and The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, in honor of all the unproven theories we've seen treated as proven scientific law in the tourist literature we've read while preparing for the trip.

Update: One of the saddest aspects of environmentalism as religion is its neglect of the poor. Though I am somewhat of an "Eco-freak" myself (Prius driver, public transit rider, favor organic food, minimize waste rather than only recycling it), I find myself often opposing organized movements of environmentalists.

Two recent examples are when third world nations were urged by environmentalists to ban DDT and genetically-modified crops. In third world malaria areas, banning DDT costs human lives, in large numbers. Similarly, banning genetically-modified crops in poor countries in the third world costs human lives.

I'm happy to report that the Congress of Racial Equality is hosting a conference this week to make that point with the help of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.

Update 2: Alson see this related entry.

Update3: Michael Crichton's excellent new book State of Fear does a wonderful job of showing just how far wrong environmentalism as religion can go. It also, correctly in my opinion, points out how politicians, lawyers, media and academia all now peddle one fear after another in endless profusion to keep citizens in line, make money, and guard their status in society. He also makes the point already stated above, that arrogantly foolish behavior on our part, even in the name of doing good things such as saving the environment, has very real and often fatal consequences for the poor around the world. It isn't that the environment doesn't matter; rather, it is that we need to recover a sense of humility about our real state of knowledge and ability to act for good in such matters, and refocus on actual science rather than politically-correct pseudo-science. In addition, he points out how little accountability there is among non-governmental organizations, such as environmental charities for the actual use of the funds they raise, suggesting, for example, that some reported "gifts" to other environmental causes are really just hidden fund-raising costs.

Update4: Thomas Sowell describes a more general problem of science, in which only those whose research is likely to reach politically-popular conclusions are allowed access to research data or given grants to do the research.

"This is not peculiar to the United States. In Britain, the claim has been repeated endlessly that putting criminals in prison "doesn't work" and that various rehabilitation programs "in the community" are more successful in reducing criminals' repetition of their crimes.

... Advocates of "global warming" have access to all sorts of government research money but skeptics and critics can depend on no such largess and may even be risking their careers by angering bureaucrats who have staked a lot on this crusade and who control the purse strings."

The Banners: Why are rich people afraid of the Virgin Mary?

"The answer is not banning religious symbols. This brings resentment and engenders a quiet seething that does not encourage peace and understanding.

The answer is not to banish belief but to bring it in and explain it in loving terms to our hungry-minded children. This will truly teach them appreciation and diversity and respect and regard for others."
-- Peggy Noonan 12/29/03 in the Wall Street Journal

There's been a long free-wheeling debate over the past couple of days between Rob Lawson, concerned about the War on Christmas and Christians and Robert Schoble concerned about avoiding the Christian equivalent of Iran.

Both seem to have some legitimate concerns.

I'm with Rob, in that there truly does seem to be a culture war going on in America against traditional Christianity. Thus while bending over backwards not to object to, for instance, a brother allegedly attempting to kidnap his sister today because she married a Christian, folks object strenuously if anyone suggests adding a nativity scene alongside the Menorah, Crescent and assorted winter solstice season decorations.

Singling out only Christian symbols for exclusion is entirely unfair. I'm also against removing all religious symbols from public life; the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. In my opinion, Atheism is just as scientifically unproven as any other religious view.

If our ancestors had managed to remove religion from public life, there might have been no end to slavery in America, and no civil rights victories in the 1960s. Stephen Carter's book God's Name in Vain argues powerfully that the wall of separation between church and state spoken of by the Founders was largely intended to protect the prophetic right to speak truth to power, rather than to protect the State from meddling by the religious.

I'm also with Robert, in that compulsory religion is a horrible idea. America was and still is partly populated by folks fleeing from people willing to compel them to live a certain way in the name of religion. The First Amendment of our Constitution was precisely intended to protect individuals against governmentally-enforced religion.

In my opinion, any religion willing to force submission to its views thereby admits it does not believe its own propaganda. One of the core tenets of the Christian faith (but few others) is that a decision of faith must be voluntary. What I cannot accept about some flavors of Islam is their apparent unwillingness to respect the fundamental right of every human to make a free choice about which if any religion to follow.

Many object to Christianity's claim to be the one (or at least the best) way to God. But at their core, most religions (including Atheism) believe themselves to be the best. Buddhism, for instance, considers itself a greater path, and Hinduism a lesser path.

A key accomplishment of the Hundred Years War in Europe was teaching religious tolerance to Christians. It may also be a key long-term result of the current civil war among Muslims. (For an excellent introduction to that struggle, from someone who's "Been there. Done that", see the Web site of Nonie Darwish, and also this hopeful article from Granta. Donald Sensing has an excellent related article comparing the God of Jesus, god of Mohammed.)

A recent Email from my brother-in-law asked a series of questions related to gays, church and marriage:

1a. "Do you believe that your church is correct in denying membership to openly gay and lesbian congregants?"

It does not deny membership to openly gay or lesbian congregants, so far as I know. It does deny membership to anyone having unconfessed and unrepented sin of any kind, not just sex outside of marriage, but that's the focus, and definitely not the gender of a sex partner.

Personally, I have nothing against Gay marriage. It hardly seems fair to condemn sex outside of marriage among consenting adults who are not allowed to marry, and God is nothing if not fair. That Jesus appears never to have spoken about homosexuality seems quite relevant. As an Evangelical I'm not ready to declare any verse in the Bible is simply wrong, but we do find ways to value some verses more than others, for instance when we allow women to be teaching pastors despite 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

1b. "If you disagree, are you doing anything to change it? If you agree, are you doing anything to assist with ex-gay ministries?"

I haven't felt called to that particular area of ministry, but if the Lord wants me there, I'm sure I'll get the message and try to comply.

At present I have two areas of passion in ministry: Single moms and their kids, and bridging racial divides. I consider both very close to the heart of the prophetic ministry, helping the "last, the least, and the lost" in society, as folks in our church sometimes say. Exodus 22.21-23 uses the terms, widow, orphan and alien in much the same way. The idea is that God judges us by how we try those at the bottom of society, those whom most folks either fail to see at all or treat as outcasts.

Admittedly, some of those folks in our society are Gay, but the ones God seems interested in my helping right now are from broken homes and from non-Caucasian backgrounds. I'm still somewhat amazed by the change. Three years ago I had only one African-American friend, who I'd not seen in over a year. And now I have more Black friends than White ones. We still have baggage, and issues to work through, but we are all convinced God commands us to unity.

2. "Do you believe that my acceptance and persistent expression of gay sexuality is on its face sinful, or in any way condemns me or deprives me of grace, or in any way makes my acceptance of grace any different than anyone else's?"

I am unaware of any active sexual relationship you may ever have had with anyone, male or female, so don't know of any reason to call your sexuality or lack thereof sinful. If I can put up peacefully with living together, and various other outside of wedlock relationships on both sides of my family, I expect I can put up with whatever you've been up to also. And I don't feel a bit superior to anyone, no matter what folks may or may not have done. We're all sinners, and so far below God's perfection that comparing our levels of sinfulness rather misses the point of Christ dying once for the sins of all.

That said, a common error I see made by attendees of our church (but not in the leadership) is to think Gay sex is somehow worse than other sins to which we are all prone. I understand that a substantial minority of singles who attend our church engage in sex outside of marriage. Our church teaches against that, but no more so for Gay attenders than for Straight attenders.

3. "Do you believe there is a tenable position that says that being gay is not "wrong" per se, but it's not as good as being straight?"

I don't recall ever hearing anyone suggest that, though I certainly have seen people act as though they believe it. It's usually similar to the way good liberal folks wax eloquent about how Blacks should be treated just like anyone else, until one tries to date their daughter. The word for that is hypocrite, and Jesus didn't approve such behavior.

A Methodist minister in Tennessee has a Weblog (blog) that touched nicely on the Massachusetts court case regarding Gay marriage: onehandclapping

Personally, I hope that this time, unlike with abortion, our nation will leave the issue up to the states, allowing them to act differently from one another. I'm firmly convinced that if we had done that regarding abortion in the early 1970s, we'd have reached national consensus on the matter years ago, and expect the same would be true regarding Gay marriage.