Tuesday, November 4, 2008

The Aftermath

I just read this on another site and thought it perfectly articulated the bewilderment and slow healing that accompanies growing discernment. Time helps that wound hurt less, but it never really heals.

"...Discovering that you’ve been deceived and manipulated [by Pentecostal teaching] can put major strain on a marriage. Many people exit Charismania with little sense of what’s real and what’s fake about their Christianity. This can prompt a major life crisis. And husbands and wives often handle this crisis differently. Perhaps one spouse spends all his time reading and researching doctrine, while the other one grows apathetic about all things Christian. Losing one’s faith in the “Word of Faith” message is akin to losing a loved one. When you discover that it’s NOT necessarily true that you’ll always be victorious in precisely the way you declare victory…when you discover that miraculous healing is NOT necessarily “always God’s will” for every situation…when you discover that the “hundredfold harvest” is essentially a myth, a con, promoted by unscrupulous “men of Gawd” so that they can line their own pockets and pursue their own luxurious lifestyles even as they themselves do not “sow” all THEY have into OTHER ministries because they KNOW that they won’t receive a “hundredfold return”…

Well, these discoveries are like little deaths. At least they were for us. And as with any death, any loss, nothing will ever quite be the same again. There’s grief. There’s pain. There’s a keen sense of disappointment. And just as the grieving process over an actual physical death can take its toll on a marriage, so can this type of death, the death of one’s belief in the sort of “fairy tale God” taught and promoted at Charismaniac churches."

(emphasis mine)

While the author is talking in this context about the effect unsound doctrine can have on marriage, I would offer that the most profound and painful scar is left in the individual's soul. It is finding out that Santa Claus doesn't exist, to the nth degree. You wonder if you will ever really trust God again, let alone other Christians. The pain of change, of having your eyes opened up to the deception and teh manipulation and the eisogesis....is more acute than the pain of staying with the deceived flock playing "make believe". It is hard, at times, not to slip into cynicism and even bitterness. The only antidote is staying close to God...prayer, and studying what His Word actually says.

False prophets come and go, but He is always faithful.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Christian Kitsch and Jesus Junk - It's Just Not Funny

The increase of seasonal kitsch catalogues coming in the mail this time of year, coupled with the unavoidable fact that I am on several Christian retailers’ mailing lists calls an ugly trend to my attention that keeps getting uglier every year. It is the trivialization of Christianity and Christ Himself by turning the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” into a commercial marketing opportunity.

In an excellent paper discussing this disturbing cultural phenomenon, author Jared Bridges relates an incident that occurred a few years ago when he accompanied two Eastern European students to a Kentucky Christian bookstore.
“One of the two, Andrei, was a Christian who wanted to visit the store while in America to purchase some Christian music. The other student, Sasha, was an admitted atheist who was merely along for the ride. While Andrei went to a “listening station” to peruse the latest D.C. Talk album, Sasha and I walked around the store, looking at such products as “Bibleman” videos and “Testa-mints” candies. It was then that the atheist Sasha made an observation that is particularly damning to the contemporary evangelical subculture. He said, “Christians in America market God just like everything else. In my country, Christians take God more seriously.” I couldn’t help but sadly agree with him, and I could offer no defense.”

The same has occurred to me, more than once, and my reaction at times has varied. Some of the merchandise marketed as “Christian” is so absurd that my immediate response is to laugh; it appears to satirize itself. The culture war of the Jesus and Darwin fish is one example of this. I remember walking with my family past the window of an upscale boutique in Maine a few years ago and laughing hysterically at the hand-painted, porcelain mouse Nativity set. The idea of portraying Mary, Joseph and the Christ Child as furry mice dressed in period clothing seemed so ridiculous that, at the time, I didn’t stop to ponder the spiritual implications of it.

In the meantime, I have seen Veggie Tales Nativity sets, rubber ducky Nativity sets, Precious Moments Nativity sets, and much more. It gets worse.

Bible action figures? Talking Jesus dolls? That one I had seen in a Christian catalogue; still, seeing the doll “live” in Wal-mart a few weeks ago added a new dimension of creepiness.

Forget purity rings. There are entire lines of abstinence-promoting “Christian” underwear targeted at teens now. Here’s where it gets really weird: there’s stuff like this marketed by atheists, specifically for the purpose of mocking Christians (which I will not link to). It’s getting hard to tell which is which.

Product description:
"Blessed are the shopping list scrawlers and the test takers when their pencils are topped with one of these replicas of Jesus. Handsomely detailed with a red robe and arms outstretched in blessing or prayer. Five 1-1/4 inch tall, soft vinyl Jesuses on each illustrated blistercard."


Last year, a colleague showed me a Catholic site that sells porcelain knick-knacks depicting Jesus playing soccer with kids, hockey with kids, etc. It made me cringe – I seriously couldn’t believe anything that stupid could exist. That was before the yearly deluge of evangelical-oriented catalogues arrived – now I can buy anything from Jesus Band-aids and flip-flops to rubber Jesus pencil-toppers. Banal stupidity evidently knows no denominational bounds. However, what’s interesting is that the patrons of businesses which market Jesus Junk (I did not invent that term; do an Internet search), tend to be Protestant Evangelicals.


This is, by and large, the same group that criticizes iconoclasts. I do not know a whole lot about Eastern Orthodox iconography, but I do know that the artwork is not supposed to be realistic – the images are seen as symbolic, rather than representational. More importantly, God looks at the heart behind any kind of tangible object made for His glory. The icons, at least, are created with an attitude of awe, reverence and respect. The same cannot be said of T-shirts and posters that attempt to cleverly link Christ with well-known product lines. Since when did Jesus Christ become a name-brand product to be marketed?

Again, Evangelicals will be quick to criticize the Catholic tradition of displaying the crucifix (“leaving Christ on the Cross”) and turning the symbol into an object of devotion. While there may be some legitimacy to this charge, it is a fact that Catholics are worshiping the crucified, resurrected and living Lord. But more importantly, it is impossible to look at a crucifix, in church or elsewhere, and not recognize the solemn meaning of the symbol. By definition, the crucifix forces one to confront the horror that our Savior endured, and does not seek to obscure or sugar-coat the reality of the atonement. Can the same be said of cutesy Precious Moments cross figurines (as popular with Catholics on First Communions as with Protestants), cross maze games, cross bling-bling, or cross lollipops? (I’m not making this stuff up. See here for some of the cheesiest examples of American evangelicalism gone awry).

Am I the only one who sees this as seriously sick? It’s not funny. Actually, satire is funny. There is much about our American evangelical sub-culture that is rich fodder for insightful comedians, and we deserve to laugh at ourselves. Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” on SNL and Seinfeld’s “You stole my Jesus fish” episode are examples that come to mind. Charlatan televangelists like Mike Murdoch and Benny Hinn SCREAM to be made fun of, and Christian as well as secular comedians cleverly profit from knowing where and how much to skewer the fundies. But here’s where it ends. Marketing God’s Name, much less in such a crass and tasteless way, is beyond disrespectful – it is blasphemous.

Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God and His death on the cross is humanity’s only hope of salvation. Sticking His image on car dash boards and air fresheners is to lose sight of that in a uniquely irreverent way – because these items are ostensibly bearing the label “Christian”. Really? I’m a “Christ-follower” because I wear a WWJD bracelet? In predictable fashion, “Christian” pop-culture annoyingly apes secular pop-culture by coming up with a “spiritual-cool” alternative for every worldly trend – including Twister-style digital dance games. Who cares about living a God-honoring life when you’ve got the latest digital toy – only with CCM tunes? As blogger Jason Janz writes, ‘we have created a subculture’.

Analyzing this appalling trend, Janz cites three reasons for the mass appeal of Christian kitsch: 1) many people trust that wearing Jesus Junk will result in conversions (it won’t); 2) many Christians seem to believe Jesus Junk promotes Christian community (it doesn’t); and 3) many people seem to be in the business because of pure commercialism (true). See his excellent essay here.

Janz writes:
“Does the joining of the holy with the common compromise the message of the cross? We can knock out about half of all Jesus Junk if we just decide not to purchase anything that blends two worlds. Budweiser beer and gambling have never been a friend to grace and to endeavor to meld them into cutesy clichés harms the credibility of the Gospel. You can now purchase poker chips with John 3:16 on one side that says “Don’t Gamble With Eternity.” Then you flip it over, and it quotes Mark 8:36 with the phrase, “Accept Jesus Before You Cash In Your Chips.” This is compromise.”

Yes, it is. But it’s also treading the Name of God underfoot, and in a sense, “pimping the Lord”, to paraphrase a courtroom TV judge. Can you imagine Muslims plastering Muhammad’s likeness on coffee mugs, or carving it into Jack-o-lanterns? And remember, Muhammad was a human prophet. THIS IS THE DIVINE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE AND SAVIOR OF MANKIND. This trend is wrong on so many levels that old-fashioned idolatry actually looks more benign when compared to the cross water ring-toss games and Jesus sweatbands and boxer shorts. One Midwestern seminary professor keeps a collection of Jesus Bobble-head dolls to underscore this point.

It could be argued that I, also, am not innocent of this and have supported the Christian kitsch industry with my “Luther is my Homeboy” t-shirt purchase. Truth be told, it was an impulse purchase and if I had really sat down and thought about it, I probably would not have spent $22.00 on a joke that most people don’t even get anyway. (Besides, the historical Luther had an anti-Semitic streak that holds no comic appeal). However, there is a fundamental difference between the theo-geek humor inherent in “Luther is my Homeboy” and the more crass “Jesus is my Homeboy” shirt which I have also seen. The former was a well-meaning, beer-enjoying, passionate guy with his own flaws and failings, just like everyone else. The latter was the sinless Son of God Who died for my sins and deserves my eternal gratitude, reverence and worship. See the difference?

Bridges said it well when he concluded:
“The truth is that kitsch does trivialize God. It is a taking of his name in vain that makes the label “Christian” just another brand name on par with any other. Rather than being transformed, Christians who use kitsch conform to the world by marketing God in the same way that the world does.”
(see full essay here).

And that, my friends, is the bottom line: trivializing God, diluting the Gospel message, and commercializing our faith is the net result of all this junk. Clearly, someone is buying it, because the manufacturers keep churning it out and the catalogues keep coming, year after year. It is a sad commentary of the frivolous times we live in, when truly nothing is sacred anymore.

These guys are both pastors themselves (as well as sons of pastors) and are being ironic, not mocking:

Quotes Worthy of Sharing


I am gathering thoughts for at least two entries I plan to write soon: one on the difference between secular counseling and psychology and Biblical (nouthetic) counseling; and a review of "Imprisoned for Christ", my former pastor's autobiographical account of persecution of the Christian Church in 1985 Bulgaria. However, pressed for time, this morning I would like to share several excerpts I have read on other blogs over the past week that have particularly stirred me. These wonderful and edifying thoughts are linked to the original entries, so that you may read them in context. Enjoy!

"From first thesis to last words, Luther lived at the foot of the cross, where our rebellious condition meets with the beauty of God’s lavish grace in the gospel of his Son—a gospel deep enough to cover all the little and massive flaws of a beggar like Luther and beggars like us." – From John Piper, “Desiring God” blog

Remember the glow of joy that seemed so real when first you and He met? Think of the times when He seemed as close as your own heartbeat. Know that He loves you now as much as He loved you then. And He always will. May my love and yours for Him continue steadfast, growing daily as discover and do His will.


AMAZING BLAZE

The fire that, years ago, You ignited

Since then has warmed and lighted

Each dark, distant corner of my life.

Over rough, and sometimes winding days

In often unexpected ways

We’ve come together to this place.

And, my Lord, as I stand here backward gazing,

I find this thought still amazing:

THE FIRE YOU SET IS STILL BLAZING!


- From Don Kimrey, “Scripture Student” blog

Shame. It's what keeps us from Jesus, because Jesus doesn't keep us from Himself. We don't want to face Him with our guilt and shame.

Yes, we are unworthy of such love and forgiveness. But Jesus loves sinners. Why else would He have died for us?

…we are so guilt-stricken sometimes that we refuse to take the forgiveness handed to us. We think we are horrible. Some of our sins are so bad we don't want a soul to know about them. We have murdered, cheated, lied, we have stolen hearts and lives and selfishsly lived out our own wills.

We are the sinners. The guilty.

But there is forgiveness in Christ. He offers us forgiveness. He loves us - the sinners.

Do we want to live our lives in guilt? Do we want to hold on to our stains when Jesus Christ is offering to cleanse us and make us white as snow?

When guilt sweeps over us, let us run to Jesus and bow our heads before Him. Let Him pour the cleansing forgivness over our heads and wash away the bloody stains.

From Ashley Weis, “A Weis Writer” blog

We should turn to Christ. Quit putting it off. I don't care if you just sinned and you are ashamed. RUN to Christ. He is always always way more willing to forgive us than we are capable of sinning. Run to Christ, even when your deceived heart is not inclined to do so. If you are not spending time in prayer and in the word then you cannot expect to be able to fight temptation when it presents itself. The Bible says that the Lord never leaves you to a temptation without providing a way to escape it. Don't be too lazy to find the escape.

-From Susan, “Thus Saith The Lord” blog

Friday, October 31, 2008

Happy Reformation Day!!

In honor and memory of the many heroes and martyrs of the Christian Reformation, who gave their lives for the supremacy of Christ and His Word...

"Sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria"
--- "by Scripture alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, Christ alone, glory to God alone"

"The Freedom of a Christian" by Martin Luther

Christian faith has appeared to many an easy thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social virtues, as it were; and this they do because they have not made proof of it experimentally, and have never tasted of what efficacy it is. For it is not possible for any man to write well about it, or to understand well what is rightly written, who has not at some time tasted of its spirit, under the pressure of tribulation; while he who has tasted of it, even to a very small extent, can never write, speak, think, or hear about it sufficiently. For it is a living fountain springing up unto eternal life, as Christ calls it in John iv.

Now, though I cannot boast of my abundance, and though I know how poorly I am furnished, yet I hope that, after having been vexed by various temptations, I have attained some little drop of faith, and that I can speak of this matter, if not with more elegance, certainly with more solidity, than those literal and too subtle disputants who have hitherto discoursed upon it without understanding their own words. That I may open then an easier way for the ignorant—for these alone I am trying to serve—I first lay down these two propositions, concerning spiritual liberty and servitude:—

A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none, a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.

Although these statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are found to agree together, they will make excellently for my purpose. . . .

Let us examine the subject on a deeper and less simple principle. Man is composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily. As regards the spiritual nature, which they name the soul, he is called the spiritual, inward, new man; as regards the bodily nature, which they name the flesh, he is called the fleshly, outward, old man. The Apostle speaks of this: "Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day " (2 Cor. iv. 16). The result of this diversity is that in the Scriptures opposing statements are made concerning the same man, the fact being that in the same man these two men are opposed to one another; the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.

We first approach the subject of the inward man, that we may see by what means a man becomes justified, free, and a true Christian; that is, a spiritual, new, and inward man. It is certain that absolutely none among outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or liberty, nor, on the other hand, unrighteousness or slavery. This can be shown by an easy argument.

What can it profit the soul that the body should be in good condition, free, and full of life; that it should eat, drink, and act according to its pleasure; when even the most impious slaves of every kind of vice are prosperous in these matters? Again, what harm can ill health, bondage, hunger, thirst, or any other outward evil, do to the soul, when even the most pious of men, and the freest in the purity of their conscience, are harassed by these things? Neither of these states of things has to do with the liberty or the slavery of the soul.

And so it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever works can be done through the body and in the body. Something widely different will be necessary for the justification and liberty of the soul, since the things I have spoken of can be done by any impious person, and only hypocrites are produced by devotion to these things. On the other hand, it will not at all injure the soul that the body should be clothed in secular clothing, should dwell in secular places, should eat and drink in the ordinary fashion, should not pray aloud, and should leave undone all the things above mentioned, which may be done by hypocrites.

And, to cast everything aside, even speculations, meditations, and whatever things can be performed by the exertions of the soul itself, are of no profit. One thing, and one alone, is necessary for life, justification, and Christian liberty; and that is the most holy word of God, the Gospel of Christ . . .For faith alone, and the efficacious use of the word of God, bring salvation. . . .

Since then this faith can reign only in the inward man . . . and since it alone justifies, it is evident that by no outward work or labour can the inward man be at all justified, made free, and saved; and that no works whatever have any relation to him. And so, on the other hand, it is solely by impiety and incredulity of heart that he becomes guilty and a slave of sin, deserving condemnation, not by any outward sin or work. . . .

Meanwhile it is to be noted that the whole Scripture of God is divided into two parts: rules and promises. The rules certainly teach us what is good, but what they teach is not forthwith done. For they show us what we ought to do, but do not give us the power to do it. They were ordained, however, for the purpose of showing man to himself that through them he may learn his own impotence for good and may despair of his own strength. For this reason they are called the Old Testament, and are so.

For example, "Thou shalt not covet," is a precept by which we are all convicted of sin, since no man can help coveting, whatever efforts to the contrary he may make. In order therefore that he may fulfil the precept, and not covet, he is constrained to despair of himself and to seek elsewhere and through another the help which he cannot find in himself . . . Thus the promises of God give that which the precepts exact, and fulfil what the law commands; so that all is of God alone, both the precepts and their fulfilment. He alone commands; He alone also fulfils. Hence the promises of God belong to the New Testament; nay, are the New Testament.

It is clear then that to a Christian man his faith suffices for everything, and that he has no need of works for justification. But if he has no need of works, neither has he need of the law; and if he has no need of the law, he is certainly free from the law, and the saying is true, "The law is not made for a righteous man" (1 Tim. i. 9). This is that Christian liberty, our faith, the effect of which is, not that we should be careless or lead a bad life, but that no one should need the law or works for justification and salvation. . . .

So, too, His priesthood does not consist in the outward display of vestments and gestures, as did the human priesthood of Aaron and our ecclesiastical priesthood at this day, but in spiritual things, wherein, in His invisible office, He intercedes for us with God in heaven, and there offers Himself, and performs all the duties of a priest . . . . Nor does He only pray and intercede for us; He also teaches us inwardly in the spirit with the living teachings of His Spirit. Now these are the two special offices of a priest, as is figured to us in the case of fleshly priests by visible prayers and sermons. . . .

These two things stand thus. First, as regards kingship, every Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that, in spiritual power, he is completely lord of all things, so that nothing whatever can do him any hurt; yea, all things are subject to him, and are compelled to be subservient to his salvation. . . .

Not that in the sense of corporeal power any one among Christians has been appointed to possess and rule all things, according to the mad and senseless idea of certain ecclesiastics. That is the office of kings, princes, and men upon earth. In the experience of life we see that we are subjected to all things, and suffer many things, even death. Yea, the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject, as we see in the first place in Christ the Firstborn, and in all His holy brethren.

This is a spiritual power, which rules in the midst of . enemies, and is powerful in the midst of distresses. And this is nothing else than that strength is made perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all things to the profit of my salvation; so that even the cross and death are compelled to serve me and to work together for my salvation. This is a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and almighty dominion, a spiritual empire, in which there is nothing so good, nothing so bad, not to work together for my good, if only I believe. And yet there is nothing of which I have need, for faith alone suffices for my salvation, unless that in it faith may exercise the power and empire of its liberty. This is the inestimable power and liberty of Christians.

Nor are we only kings and the freest of all men, but also priests for ever, a dignity far higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we are worthy to appear before God, to pray for others, and to teach one another mutually the things which are of God. For these are the duties of priests, and they cannot possibly be permitted to any unbeliever. Christ has obtained for us this favour, if we believe in Him: that just as we are His brethren and co-heirs and fellow-kings with Him, so we should be also fellow-priests with Him, and venture with confidence, through the spirit of faith, to come into the presence of God, and cry, "Abba, Father!" and to pray for one another, and to do all things which we see done and figured in the visible and corporeal office of priesthood. But to an unbelieving person nothing renders service or works for good. He himself is in servitude to all things, and all things turn out for evil to him, because he uses all things in an impious way for his own advantage, and not for the glory of God. And thus he is not a priest, but a profane person, whose prayers are turned into sin, nor does he ever appear in the presence of God, because God does not hear sinners. . . .

Here you will ask, "If all who are in the Church are priests, by what character are those whom we now call priests to be distinguished from the laity?" I reply, By the use of these words, "priest," " clergy," " spiritual person," "ecclesiastic," an injustice has been done, since they have been transferred from the remaining body of Christians to those few who are now, by a hurtful custom, called ecclesiastics. For Holy Scripture makes no distinction between them, except that those who are now boastfully called popes, bishops, and lords, it calls ministers, servants, and stewards, who are to serve the rest in the ministry of the word, for teaching the faith of Christ and the liberty of believers. For though it is true that we are all equally priests, yet we cannot, nor, if we could, ought we all to, minister and teach publicly. . . . This bad system has now issued in such a pompous display of power and such a terrible tyranny that no earthly government can be compared to it, as if the laity were something else than Christians. Through this perversion of things it has happened that the knowledge of Christian grace, of faith, of liberty, and altogether of Christ, has utterly perished, and has been succeeded by an intolerable bondage to human works and laws; and according to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we have become the slaves of the vilest men on earth, who abuse our misery to all the disgraceful and ignominious purposes of their own will. . . .

And now let us turn to the other part: to the outward man. . . .

Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough justified by faith having all that he requires to have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day even till the future life, still he remains in this mortal life upon earth, in which it is necessary that he should rule his own body and have intercourse with men. Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such blessing have been conferred on it, and hence has only this task before it: to serve God with joy and for nought in free love.

But in doing this he comes into collision with the contrary will in his own flesh, which is striving to serve the world and to seek its own gratification. This the spirit of faith cannot and will not bear, but applies itself with cheerfulness and zeal to keep it down and restrain it . . .

These works, however, must not be done with any notion that by them a man can be justified before God—for faith, which alone is righteousness before God, will not bear with this false notion—but solely with this purpose: that the body may be brought into subjection, and be purified from its evil lusts, so that our eyes may be turned only to purging away those lusts. For when the soul has been cleansed by faith and made to love God, it would have all things to be cleansed in like manner, and especially its own body, so that all things might unite with it in the love and praise of God. . . .

On this principle every man may easily instruct himself in what measure, and with what distinctions, he ought to chasten his own body. He will fast, watch, and labour, just as much as he sees to suffice for keeping down the wantonness and concupiscence of the body. But those who pretend to be justified by works are looking, not to the mortification of their lusts, but only to the works themselves; thinking that, if they can accomplish as many works and as great ones as possible, all is well with them, and they are justified. Sometimes they even injure their brain, and extinguish nature, or at least make it useless. This is enormous folly, and ignorance of Christian life and faith, when a man seeks, without faith, to be justified and saved by works. . . .

We may see the same thing in all handicrafts. A bad or good house does not make a bad or good builder, but a good or bad builder makes a good or bad house. And in general no work makes the workman such as it is itself; but the workman makes the work such as he is himself. Such is the case, too, with the works of men. Such as the man himself is, whether in faith or in unbelief, such is his work: good if it be done in faith; bad if in unbelief. But the converse is not true that, such as the work is, such the man becomes in faith or in unbelief. For as works do not make a believing man, neither do they make a justified man; but faith, as it makes a man a believer and justified, so also it makes his works good. . . .

So, too, no good work can profit an unbeliever to justification and salvation; and, on the other hand, no evil work makes him an evil and condemned person, but that unbelief, which makes the person and the tree bad, makes his works evil and condemned. Therefore, when any man is made good or bad, this does not arise from his works, but from his faith or unbelief . . .

Lastly, we will speak also of those works which he performs towards his neighbour. For man does not live for himself alone in this mortal body, in order to work on its account, but also for all men on earth; nay, he lives only for others, and not for himself. For it is to this end that he brings his own body into subjection, that he may be able to serve others more sincerely and more freely . . .

Yet a Christian has need of none of these things for justification and salvation, but in all his works he ought to entertain this view and look only to this object—that he may serve and be useful to others in all that he does; having nothing before his eyes but the necessities and the advantage of his neighbour. . . .

Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith. . . .

Hence in the Christian life ceremonies are to be no otherwise looked upon than as builders and workmen look upon those preparations for building or working which are not made with any view of being permanent or anything in themselves, but only because without them there could be no building and no work. When the structure is completed, they are laid aside. Here you see that we do not contemn these preparations, but set the highest value on them; a belief in them we do contemn because no one thinks that they constitute a real and permanent structure. If any one were so manifestly out of his senses as to have no other object in life but that of setting up these preparations with all possible expense, diligence, and perseverance, while he never thought of the structure itself, but pleased himself and made his boast of these useless preparations and props, should we not all pity his madness and think that, at the cost thus thrown away, some great building might have been raised?

Thus, too, we do not contemn works and ceremonies—nay, we set the highest value on them; but we contemn the belief in works, which no one should consider to constitute true righteousness, as do those hypocrites who employ and throw away their whole life in the pursuit of works, and yet never attain to that for the sake of which the works are done. . . .

Ephesians 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Leaving Islam Means Death...

Church and mosque in Jerusalem

There's a widespread belief that the penalty for leaving Islam is death - hence, perhaps, the killing of a British teacher last week. But Shiraz Maher believes attitudes may be softening.

Ziya Meral's parents disowned him when he converted from Islam to Christianity.

"They said 'go away, you're not our son.' They told people I died in an accident rather than having the shame of their son leaving Islam."

FIND OUT MORE...
Shiraz Maher
Shiraz Maher (right) presents Could I Stop Being a Muslim? on Radio 4 on 22 April at 2000 BST, repeated 27 April at 1700 BST.
Or listen to it on the BBC iPlayer

Born and raised in Turkey, he decided to convert to Christianity after moving to university. He knew telling his parents would be a difficult moment even though they're not particularly observant Muslims, and he planned to break the news to them gently.

In the end, events overtook him. Before heading back to Turkey for the holidays, Ziya briefly visited a Christian summer camp where he was filmed eating a bowl of spaghetti.

The first his parents heard of his conversion was when they saw Ziya on the national news being described as "an evil missionary" intent on "brainwashing" Turkish children.

His parents decided they would rather tell people that he was dead than acknowledge he was a Christian. And Ziya, who now lives in the UK, is not alone in this experience.

Sophia, which is not her real name, faced similar pressures when she decided to become a Christian.

Coming from a Pakistani background but living in east London, 28-year-old Sophia spoke about the extreme cultural pressures her family put her under.

SENTENCED TO DEATH
Hashem Aghajari
Hashem Aghajari, a history professor in Tehran (pictured), was sentenced to death for apostasy in Nov 2002
He had said Muslims should not follow clerics "like monkeys"
The sentence sparked off a month of student protests and was quashed by Iran's Supreme Court
Abdul Rahman began a new life in Italy after his trial for apostasy in Kabul collapsed

"They kept saying: 'The punishment is death, do you know the punishment is death?'"

In the end, Sophia ran away from home. Her mother tracked her down and turned up at her baptism.

"I got up to get baptised, that's when my mother got up, ran to the front and tried to pull me out of the water.

"My brother was really angry. He reacted and phoned me on my mobile and just said: 'I'm coming down to burn that church.'"

For Sophia and Ziya, a lot of the prejudice they faced seemed to be borne out of cultural ideas, which are particularly ingrained in the South Asian community relating to notions of family honour.

Student demos in Iran
Aghajari's death sentence sparked protests and a review

But it's too easy to say this is just a cultural problem. Dig a little deeper and you find that there is a theological argument which advocates the death penalty for apostates, which has serious implications for British society.

Last week, British teacher Daud Hassan Ali, 64, was shot dead in Somalia. His widow, Margaret Ali, said her husband was targeted by Islamists who "believe it is ok to kill any man who was born into Islam and left the faith".

Those renouncing their faith for atheism or agnosticism are viewed in a similar way to those who adopt another faith.

A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.

Until recently, I would have shared that view, but since personally rejecting extremism myself, I've been re-examining the issues which I once regarded as conclusive.

Discretion

I was staggered to learn that the Quran does not say anything about punishing apostates and that its proponents use two hadiths instead to support their view. Hadiths are the recorded traditions and sayings of the Prophet which, in addition to the Quran, provide an additional source of Islamic law.

The hadiths which relate to apostasy are linguistically ambiguous and open to interpretation. Distinguished scholars told me that the hadiths actually speak about a death penalty for treason, not apostasy. And even then, they stressed the punishment is discretionary.

I believe the classical law of apostasy in Islam is wrong and based on a misunderstanding
Usama Hassan
Scientist and imam

Dr Hisham Hellyer is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies at University of Oxford, and has researched classical Islamic law.

He believes the death penalty punishment is no longer applicable and should be suspended under certain circumstances.

Usama Hassan, a Cambridge-educated scientist and an imam, goes further and says the classical scholars were wrong in how they interpreted the Quran. He is unequivocal in denouncing those who advocate the death penalty.

"I believe the classical law of apostasy in Islam is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of the original sources, because the Quran and Hadith don't actually talk about a death penalty for apostasy."

Last year Egypt's Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, unequivocally told the Washington Post that the death penalty for apostasy simply no longer applies. It provoked a flurry of debate in Egypt and the wider Middle East.

Traitor

The idea of killing apostates has become a resurgent theme in recent years, a fact closely-related to the increasing politicisation of Islam since 9/11.

It epitomises the "us and them" mentality felt by many Muslims between themselves and the West. And there's an uncomfortable conclusion to all this.

Muslim attitudes towards apostasy are a metaphor for the wider struggle taking place within Islam
Shiraz Maher

If there is a death penalty for treason, then who defines what treason is?

Earlier this year a group of men from Birmingham pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to kidnap and behead a British Muslim solider because they regarded him as a traitor. Joining the British army was to them treason against Islam.

So while the debate surrounding one aspect of apostasy continues, it is simultaneously throwing up an entirely new series of challenges around other issues including what should be considered treason against Islam.

When Ziya talked about what happened to him, he was just finishing a report on the experiences of apostates, called No Place to Call Home. He had interviewed 28 apostates in six different countries as part of a year-long research project.

His report found that although the death penalty is rarely applied through the courts, apostates still face gross and wide-ranging human rights abuses at the hands of the state, radical groups and local communities."

It seems that Muslim attitudes towards apostasy are a metaphor for the wider struggle taking place within Islam, between those who argue for a progressive form of Islam and those who argue for more dogmatic interpretations.

Attitudes to apostasy may be a useful barometer for judging where it's headed.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

More Stories from India You Won't See in the News...

A Christian stands inside a vandalized church in Orissa, India.

Their story must be told. From Gospel for Asia, "Persecution of Christians is a Way of Life in India"

Every day, Gospel for Asia missionaries and Bible college students make a calculated choice to serve Jesus, knowing that they could be beaten or even face martyrdom for their Christian faith.

Raju in Uttar Pradesh is one of them. So are Vikram in Delhi and several Bible college students in Maharashtra.

Anti-Christian extremists do not like the fact that Raju's church in Uttar Pradesh has grown to more than 150 believers. And two weeks ago, they found a way to let him know it.

Around 7 p.m., returning home from visiting new believers, Raju was attacked from behind by an extremist mob of 10 people piled on three motorbikes. The radicals pushed him down and kicked him repeatedly in the face.

Raju's own motorbike fell on him, fracturing his hand. He was also left with injuries on his face from the kicks. He was unconscious for about five hours and unable to speak for a while after being admitted to a hospital. He was released several days later and is doing much better, but doctors have advised him to rest for a few more days because of internal injuries.

Every day, Gospel for Asia missionaries and Bible college students make a calculated choice to serve Jesus, knowing that they could be beaten or even face martyrdom for their faith.

In Delhi, GFA missionary Vikram leads a church of 80 believers. The Lord is also touching many more with the love of Christ through him. Not surprisingly, radical anti-Christians are not happy to see so many worshipping the Savior. They recently threatened Vikram, demanding that he not conduct any more worship services there.

"If you do," they warned, "we will do the same things that are going on in Orissa."

They also threatened the owner of the house Vikram rents, telling him that if he continues to let the missionary rent there, they will destroy it.

Vikram is being watched, and he knows he needs to be careful. For now, his church is still meeting, just at a different location. And by God's grace, so far he and those around him have been protected.

In Maharashtra, three Bible college students faced opposition while handing out tracts on their field internship. Local members of an extremist group began to speak out against them, claiming that the men were trying to forcibly convert people. They went to local police and filed a complaint, forcing the authorities to arrest the missionaries-in-training.

That evening, the police came to the believers' home where the men were leading a prayer meeting to make the arrest. When they heard of the incident, Gospel for Asia leaders appealed for the men's release by contacting a person in higher authority, who assured them they would have the police station release the men immediately.

For safety reasons, the police authorities waited until the next morning to let the men go. Local believers arrived at the police station, ministering to the students with love and food.

GFA leaders ask for your prayers for these missionaries and Bible college students in various parts of India as they joyfully serve Jesus, seeing many lives touched through their sacrifice.

Pray for Raju as he recovers from his injuries, and that this will happen quickly so he can continue his ministry at full strength. Pray for protection, encouragement and strength for Vikram and his church believers. Pray that the Bible college students in Maharashtra will be strengthened in their faith as they continue their training in the calling God has given them.

And give the Father thanks for such laborers who, like the Apostle Paul, are choosing to not count their lives as dear to them for the sake of the One who gave His life for them.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Understanding the Genealogies in Matthew and Luke


One thing I love about the study of apologetics is that if I am willing to put in the time and effort to study the Word, the answers to my most nagging questions will eventually be teased out of the text.

Take, for instance, the differences in the genealogies of Christ as recorded by Luke and the apostle Matthew. Now, granted, when lengthy lists of unpronounceable names show up in the Old Testament, my natural reaction is to stifle a yawn and buzz through them with gritted teeth. I may be a theo-geek, but that just about tests the limit. I'll be the first to admit that knowing Samlah from Masrekah was the grandfather of Baal-Hanan frankly doesn't do much for me.

However, if we are talking about Jesus, I sit up and pay attention.

Why does the genealogy of Christ matter so much? For one thing, fulfilment of Messianic prophecy stands or falls on His lineage. If uninterrupted descent from David (who lived about 1000 - 900 B.C.) to Jesus can be proven and verified from more than one source, it goes a long way in refuting skeptics' denial that Christ was the Messiah. For another, several sources documenting an unbroken human lineage in a manuscript as ancient as the Bible would provide yet another argument for it's validity.

Besides providing strong evidence of the Bible's historical validity, the human ancestry of Jesus reveals much about the impartial character of God -- He used all kinds of messed up people in His Son's family tree. Jacob was a deceiver. Rahab was a prostitute AND a Moabite, (as was Ruth), the most cursed of all pagan nations. David committed murder and adultery (and by extension, Bathsheba was an adulteress). His son Solomon turned to paganism and was responsible for the division of the kingdom. Manasseh was one of the most evil kings Judah ever had. There were more than a few bad apples on the family tree of our Savior.

As any student of Scripture has noted, the genealogy listed by Matthew differs from Luke's after David. From Abraham to David (Luke goes all the way back to Adam), they are almost the same, but diverge at David. For years, this question troubled me and seemed to cast doubt on the Bible's inerrancy. With some study, I have found that there are several very good explanations for the apparent discrepancy. Evidently, there was more than one way to trace a genealogy in ancient clan-based societies. One type of genealogy in a royal lineage recorded legal heirs to the throne (which, according to many scholars, is what Mathew used), whereas Luke traces the direct bloodline of Joseph to David.

Several scholars suggest that Matthew follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father through Solomon; see Matt. 1:6-7, 16), while Luke records that of Mary (Jesus' blood relative through Nathan, see Luke 3:31). In Lee Stroble's well-known book, "The Case for Christ", this was one possibility put forth, but I personally do not think it is very likely. For one thing, tracing a genealogy through the mother's side would have been highly unusual (although Judaic heritage was considered to be inherited through the mother). More importantly, both Luke and Matthew explicitly name Joseph, without any reference to Mary. Update: here is a well-researched defense of Luke being Mary's genealogy; I may have to re-think my stance:

Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of DavidJoseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin[Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
Assuming, however, that both Gospel writers were tracing Christ's lineage through Joseph, we come to the intriguing question of why Luke names Joseph's dad Heli, while Matthew 1:16 mentions "Jacob, the father of Joseph". To answer that mystery, we need to dig into a study of biblical genealogies. (Hats off to those guys who edit the study Bibles - they've really done their homework).

From the NIV Study Bible's Introduction to 1 Chronicles:

"Analysis of genealogies, both inside and outside the Bible, has disclosed that they serve a variety of functions (with different principles governing the lists), that they vary in form (some being segmented, others linear) and depth (number of generations listed) and that they are often fluid (subject to change).

There are three general areas in which genealogies function: the familial or domestic, the legal-political, and the religious. In the domestic area, an individual's social status, privileges and obligations may be reflected in his placement in the lineage (see 7:14-19); the rights of the firstborn son and the secondary status of the children of concubines are examples from the Bible.....As to form, some genealogical lists trace several lines of descent (segmented genealogies) while others are devoted to a single line (linear genealogies).

Comparison of genealogical lists of the same tribal or family line brings to light some surprising differences. This fluidity of the lists may reflect variation in function. But sometimes changes in the status or relations of social structures are reflected in genealogies by changes in the relationships of names in the genealogy or by the addition of names or segments to a lineage. The most common type of fluidity in Biblical materials is telescoping, the omission of names from a list. Unimportant names are left out in order to relate an individual to a prominent ancestor, or possibly to achieve the desired number of names in the genealogy. Some Biblical genealogies, for example, omit names to achieve multiples of 7: for the period from David to the exile Matthew gives 14 generations (2 times 7), while Luke gives 21 (3 times 7), and the same authors give similar multiples of 7 for the period from the exile to Jesus (Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38)."


Additionally, the word "father" is sometimes used more loosely in a genealogy simply to mean "ancestor"; likewise "son of" can also mean simply "descendant".

Matthew's Gospel reflects an apparent fondness for numbers and a concern for systematic arrangement...which shouldn't surprise us; after all, he was a tax-collector by profession! Many of the generations between ancestors were assumed, but not listed, by Matthew, such as the elapsed time between Rahab and David. In Matt. 1:8, he calls Jehoram the "father" of Uzziah, but again, several generations were assumed and "father" clearly means "forefather" here. He may have chosen the number 14 for telescoping his genealogy because it is the numerical value of the name David, although that is not certain. In any case, Matthew's genealogy seems to trace the legal lineage of Christ, as indicated by all the kings listed (beginning with David and Solomon).

This practice of "telescoping" genealogies also helps explain why we don't have to be dogmatic about there only being 4,000 years' worth of generations between Adam and Christ. This is a common argument from the Young Earth Theory proponents, who insist that since the Bible's lineage is recorded without any obvious gaps from Adam to Jesus, that "proves" mankind has been around for only about 6,000 years. Clearly, if Matthew could record a pedigree from the Babylonian exile (626 B.C.) to the birth of Christ (generally set at 6 B.C.) in 14 generations while Luke did it in 21, the history of mankind could easily be recorded with representative names and it could appear to cover only 4,000 years. Nowhere does Scripture claim that the list is exhaustive, and neither should we.

Frankly, it would be interesting to see how the genealogy of Jesus' biological family continued, although it is doubtful the church of the first century would have placed importance on such a record. Obviously we know that Christ Himself did not have human descendants (despite what Dan Brown would have us believe), but He most likely did have quite a few nieces and nephews. Scripture is unequivocally clear that Jospeh and Mary parented other children (mentioned in Luke 8:19, Mark 6:3, 1 Cor. 9:5 and elsewhere), so with four brothers and at least two sisters, Jesus probably had a very large extended family. My guess (and it is purely speculation) is that God, in His sovereignty, did not want anyone to be able to boast or take undue pride in linking his or her pedigree to that of His Son, as Old Testament Israel did in claiming human descent from Abraham. The entire theme of the New Covenant proves that our "adoption as sons" or "being grafted in" (to the tree representing God's family) is based on spiritual, and not biological, heritage.