eChurch Blog

I just checked out the poll on the Alpha website and it currently stands at 98% “No God”, which really made me laugh because I am in one of those “dark” moods and the Alpha course has caused me nothing but trouble this year

The Sun – By BRIAN FLYNN

A CHRISTIAN advertising campaign has proved an Almighty failure after its own survey declared: “God doesn’t exist.”

The multi-million pound drive for The Alpha Course posed the question “Does God Exist?”.

It urged people to consider the evidence before going online to choose “Yes”, “No” or “Probably”.

More than 88,000 responded to the posters and adverts.

But embarrassingly the poll on the Christian website backfired with a massive 96 PER CENT insisting there was no God – and only three per cent saying they did believe.

One per cent were unsure about God.

A graph on the group’s website highlights the result – next to an ad by TV adventurer Bear Grylls plugging the Christian courses.

The nationwide campaign started in September – inspired by a Humanist Society advert last year that declared there was “probably no God”.

Alpha chiefs last night blamed a web sting for the response.

Spokesman Mark Elsdon-Dew added: “I don’t think this is indicative of people’s faith in this country.”

But the Humanist Society said the poll had backfired.

By MATTHEW WAGNER- Jerusalem Post

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, chairman of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, said Thursday that his organization was compiling a list for publication of haredi institutions that receive its donations.

The move comes after Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, considered the most respected and influential halachic authority among Ashkenazi haredi Jews, signed a declaration saying that receiving money from Eckstein’s organization was “close to idolatry.”

“We are not trying to push anyone into doing anything against their will,” said Eckstein, who spoke with The Jerusalem Post from the US. “If they don’t want funds, they don’t have to accept them. But we are not going to go along with a situation in which haredi institutions accept them under the table without publicizing where they get their funding. So we are compiling a list to make sure everything is perfectly transparent.”

A month ago, Elyashiv signed a document together with Rabbi Tuvia Weiss, head of the Eda Haredit’s rabbinical court, that stated it was forbidden to receive donations from organizations like the IFCJ, probably the single largest philanthropist to Israel.

According to Eckstein, the IFCJ raises $70 million a year among Evangelical Christian communities around the world who are interested in supporting Israel.

The importance of Christian charity has grown due to the financial downturn in the US. Many haredi organizations that might prefer not to receive money from Christians have no other choice if they want to stay afloat.

Now, with Elyashiv’s ruling, it remains to be seen which will be stronger – haredi organizations’ fidelity to their spiritual leader, or their desire to continue to do good deeds.

What complicates matters is speculation that the timing of Elyashiv’s decision is no coincidence and that his “handlers” might be using him to advance a political agenda.

One of the most high-profile haredi recipients of the IFCJ’s money is Rabbi Yitzhak David Grossman of Migdal Ha’emek. Grossman, known as the “disco rabbi” for his unique methods of Jewish educational outreach among youth, has been involved with various social activism projects for more than three decades.

Grossman might also be vying for the position of Jerusalem chief rabbi. Those opposed to Grossman might have purposely arranged for Elyashiv’s decision to be made and published ahead of the upcoming race to hurt Grossman’s chances of winning.

According to Eckstein and IFCJ sources, however, Grossman is not alone. Various haredi organizations in Israel and abroad receive money from the IFCJ or have received support in the past. These haredi bodies include Bnei Brak’s largest soup kitchen; a shelter for battered haredi women located in Beit Shemesh; and a soup kitchen for the needy in Haifa run by the city’s Chief Rabbi Shear Yeshuv Hacohen.

Another haredi organization funded by the IFCJ is Tikva, headed by Rabbi Shlomo Baksht, chief rabbi of Odessa, which helps homeless, abandoned or abused Jewish children in Ukraine.

In March of this year, Ukraine’s Rabbi Yaakov Bleich lamented that Christians were stepping in to provide funding where Jewish organizations were unable to do so.

Kollel Chabad gave thousands of care packages to needy families in Israel this past Rosh Hashana, funded by the IFCJ.

Rabbi Menachem Brod, spokesman for Chabad in Israel, said that he was not aware that Kollel Chabad received aid from the IFCJ. He said that Chabad’s rabbinical court in Israel had issued a halachic decision binding only in Israel recommending to its emissaries not to receive money from Christians.

According to Eckstein, the IFCJ has aided in funding security costs for Chabad Houses in Morocco and India and for the Chief Rabbinate in Turkey.

The document to which Elyashiv added his signature, originally drafted in 2002 by the Eda Haredit, gives three reasons for the prohibition against taking money from Christian organizations. First, publicizing that Christians have given to Jewish charities aggrandizes Christianity, which is a form of idolatry according to many rabbinic opinions. Therefore, it is “close to idolatry.” Second, it aids missionary activity by making Jews beholden to Christians. Third, there is a prohibition against receiving charity from a non-Jew when it causes a desecration of God’s name.•

Previous related Post:-

At the heart of the current crisis in the Muslim world are the different conceptions of tradition. And the refusal to interpret the Qur’an with scientific as well as theological methods. The lesson of a great Islamologist, Michel Cuypers

He is Aref Ali Nayed, the drafter of the “letter of the 138″ to Benedict XVI. He is reacting combatively to what the Catholic Islamologist Michel Cuypers has written for www.chiesa. But his ultimate target is the Church of Rome

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it

by Sandro Magister

ROME, October 23, 2009 – In his general audience on Wednesday, October 14, Benedict XVI gave the example of Peter the Venerable, the great abbot of Cluny who in the 12th century, in order to “increase knowledge” of Islam, “provided for the translation of the Qur’an.’

Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, something more is happening. A growing number of Christian scholars are applying to the Qur’an, in order to deepen understanding of it, the methods of interpretation already applied to the Bible: founded not only on tradition and theology, but also on historical-critical and literary analysis.

These latter methods found it difficult to obtain approval in the Catholic Church, but have been in common use for many decades. They are among the “conquests of the Enlightenment” welcomed by the Church, which Benedict XVI – in an important speech on December 22, 2006 – said he hoped would be welcomed by the Muslim world as well.

In effect, Muslim exegesis of the Qur’an has over the past century undergone “an intense interpretive activity no less significant than that of the Middle Ages,” as documented by, among others, the Islamologist Massimo Campanini, in an essay published in 2008 in Italy by Morcelliana under the title, “L’esegesi musulmana del Corano nel secolo ventesimo [Muslim exegesis of the Qur'an in the twentieth century].”

But contemporary Muslim exegesis – as Campanini shows – mostly attempts to apply the Qur’an to human activity, to practical behaviors; it is eminently “a hermeneutics of praxis.” As for the rest, it does not depart in any way from the traditional exegetical methods of Islam.

***

One of Catholic scholars who applies the tools of modern exegesis to the Qur’an, especially literary exegesis, is Brother Michel Cuypers, who lives in Cairo.

His most recent book, published two years ago in France, is fascinating. It is dedicated to the analysis of one chapter of the Qur’an: “Le festin: une lecture de la sourate al-Mâ’ida [The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth sura of the Qur'an],” with a preface by the eminent Muslim scholar Mohamed-Ali Amir-Moezzi.

Some time ago www.chiesa reprinted an extensive interview with Cuypers, and more recently, an article on the role of tradition in the Islamic interpretation of the Qur’an, published also in “L’Osservatore Romano”.

In this latest article, describing the most recent developments in the interpretation of the Qur’an in the Muslim world, Cuypers demonstrates how today there are “modernists” who tend to exclude recourse to tradition, with this result:

“The Qur’an therefore becomes the only truly normative source for Islam. This is a ‘sola Scriptura’ that is not without influences from the Protestant model (some modernists are happy to be called the ‘Luthers of Islam’). This liberation from the shackles of tradition permits the hypothesis of a new exegesis of the Qur’an, which is being called for today by some Muslim intellectuals. The ‘occasions of revelation,’ drawn from the hadîth, are no longer the privileged method of exegesis as they were in the past. A critical exegesis has now become possible.

“This open position nevertheless has the repercussion of placing the modernist Muslim intellectuals at the margins of the general current of Islam, which remains overwhelmingly bound to the sunna as a norm of faith and law organically connected to the Qur’an. This makes it clear that the different ways in which Muslims understand tradition are at the heart of the current crisis of Islam.”

***

So, this passage in Cuypers’ article prompted a vehement reaction – in the commentary reprinted further below – from a Muslim scholar who belongs instead to the branch of Sunni Islam that is most orthodox and bound to tradition: the Asharite branch, founded by the theologian Abu ‘l-Hasan Al-Ashari (873-935). Its greatest exponent was Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), who was very critical of his contemporary Averroes, whom he accused of rationalism.

The author of the commentary is Aref Ali Nayed, a name familiar to the readers of www.chiesa. In 2006, he published on this website a twofold reply to Benedict XVI’s memorable address in Regensburg, and two years later, a polemical commentary on the conversion from Islam to Christianity of Magdi Allam, who was baptized by pope Joseph Ratzinger at the Easter vigil in 2008.

Nayed is a prominent figure in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and Islam. Born in Libya, he has studied the philosophy of science and hermeneutics in the United States and in Canada, has taken courses at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, amd has given lectures at the Pontifical Instititue for Arab and Islamic Studies. He is a consultant for the Interfaith Program at the University of Cambridge. He has directed the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center in Amman, Jordan. This year he founded an Islamic studies center, called Kalam Reseasrch & Media, in Dubai.

But above all, Nayed is one of the 138 Muslim scholars who addressed to Benedict XVI, in 2007, the famous letter “A common word.” Even more, he was its main architect. He was part of the delegation of five Muslim representatives who on March 4 and 5 of 2008 arranged the subsequent interreligious dialogue forums with the Vatican, taking a leading role in the first of these.

In short, with these credentials it is natural to rank Nayed among the Muslim figures most involved and “open” in dialogue with the Church of Rome.

But from his statements it can be gathered that even in dialogue, Nayed does not at all soften the elements of contrast. On the contrary, it seems almost as if he exaggerates them. For him, the lecture in Regensburg is “infamous.” By baptizing Magdi Allam, the pope has done an “unfortunate” thing. And so on.

In replying to Cuypers, Nayed also adopts a combative tone. He completely ignores his extensive and elaborate arguments, to zero in on a single phrase. And he uses this as an opportunity to level against the Catholic Church, in the matter of biblical exegesis, the same accusations of obscurantism that are typical of secularist polemics. And, vice versa, to claim for Islam precedence in those methods of historical criticism and literary analysis that later became the prerogative of Jewish exegesis, then Protestant, Enlightenment, and finally Catholic.

It is instructive to read this text sent to www.chiesa by Nayed, because it gives a picture of the actual level at which the intellectual dialogue between the Catholic Church and Islam finds itself today.

One must not be deceived by the embraces and declarations of peace that are produced in so many interreligious ceremonies. Nayed is a highly educated and likeable person. Just like Cuypers, a member of the Little Brothers of Jesus. But there is an abyss between the two worlds.

The article from www.chiesa with which Nayed takes issue is the following:

> Islam Has Its Luthers, Too. But Reform Is Far Away

Here is his reply:

__________

On Muslim and Catholic Approaches to Sacred Hermeneutics

by Aref Ali Nayed

In the Name of God, Compassionate.

Under the title “Islam Has Its Luthers, Too. But Reform Is Far Away”, Sandro Magister writes:  “At the heart of the current crisis in the Muslim world are the different conceptions of tradition. And the refusal to interpret the Qur’an with scientific as well as theological methods [...] The question of tradition [...] seems to be even more burning for Islam. This is tightly interwoven with the question of the interpretation of the Qur’an. The fundamentalist currents inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, idealize the original Islam, taking it as their only model and refusing to apply to the Qur’an the criteria of scientific as well as theological interpretation. Muslims who interpret the Qur’an using methods similar to those applied to the Bible by Christian exegesis are few and far between. The great centers of Islamic theology, like Al-Azhar University in Cairo, are very distrustful of the modern methodologies of literary analysis. The fruits of a critical interpretation of the Qur’an come almost exclusively from non-Muslim scholars.”

Magister then offers “The lesson of a great Islamologist, Michel Cuypers” in the form of a presentation under the the title: “Tradition as seen by the Muslim faith, yesterday and today”. The way Magister sees it, “At the conclusion (of that presentation), Cuypers shows how important it is that the Muslim world open itself to a critical interpretation of the Qur’an.”

The spirit of Magister’s introduction, and the way he reads the concluding part of Cuypers’ piece share the same attitude that some Catholic scholars and officials have sometimes expressed, in recent years, regarding the Qur’an and its interpretation.

They speak from the same self-righteous vantage point that in the recent past made the ill-founded claim (that Catholic-Muslim dialogue is hindered by Muslim belief that the Qur’an is the very speech of God (exalted)). It is important to point out, yet again, that that claim clearly suffers from being stuck in a double bind: First, the bind of misunderstanding and misrepresenting Islamic teachings regarding the Qur’an. Second, the bind of misrepresenting Catholic doctrine on Christian Scriptures, through false contrast. Let me explain how this double bind works.

The Qur’an, is the very discourse (kalam) of our Exalted One God (Allah), as revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and as faithfully preserved through uninterrupted communal transmission (tawatur). The Qur’an is eternal (qadim) in essence, origin, and as essential divine discourse competence (kalamullah as kalam nafsi). It is, however, also historical in its unfolding, as revelatory performance (kalamullah as kalam lafzi), and was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in intimate engagement with the historical and living circumstances and events of the Muslim community (tanzil and tanjim).  (For more on this, see  “Al-Insaf” of Imam Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani, d. 1013 CE).

Muslim scholars have always based their interpretations and exegeses of the Qur’an on the bases of several sciences, including the science of the ‘circumstances of revelation’ (asbabulnuzul), on the science of the history of the Qur’an (tarkhulqur’an), and on the careful study of the linguistic modes familiar to the Arabs around the time of revelation (ulumulugha). Muslim scholars developed a comprehensive apparatus of historical-critical-linguistic methodologies for understanding the Qur’an (ulumulqur’an). (For more on this, see “Al-Itqan” of Imam Jalaloddin Al-Suyuti (c. 1445-1505 CE).

Muslim scholars were always aware of the fact that interpretation, understanding, and exegesis of God’s eternal discourse are forms of human strenuous striving (ijtihad) that must be dutifully renewed in every believing generation. Solemn belief in the eternity and divine authorship of the Qur’an never prevented Muslim scholars from dealing with it historically and linguistically. On the contrary, belief in the revelatory truth of the Qur’an was the very motivation for spending life-times in close scholarly study of God’s discourse. (For more on this see “Kitab Al-Ilm” of Imam Ibn Abd Al-Barr)

Massive libraries of interpretative and exegetical discourses, theological, juridical, ethical, and spiritual were worked out by the successive generations of Muslim scholars from the earliest times and up to today. It is precisely on the basis of their solemn belief that the Qur’an is the very speech of God that Muslim scholars, through the ages, engaged Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, and even skeptical and naturalist scholars in dialogue. All the major manuals of Muslim theology be they Maturidi, Ash’ari, Mu’tazili, Ja’fari, Isma’ili, or Ibadi exhibit remarkable broadness of vision and actively engage the beliefs of Philosophers, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddhists.

Interestingly, the exegetical Muslim historical-critical-linguistic apparatus, in synthesis with ancient Talmudic methodologies (such as the hermeneutic rules of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Ishmael), was transmitted through Sephardic Jewish scholars like Hasdai ben Abraham Crescas (c. 1340-1410/1411 CE) and Baruch de Spinoza ( 1632-1677) to the earliest Protestant hermeneutical masters (like Johann August Ernesti (1707-1781)). The “High Criticism” and “Historical-Critical Method” that stemmed from Protestant Reformation Hermeneutics were directly influenced by Spinoza’s ultimately Andalusian Talmudic Hermeneutics which was steeped in the Qur’anic Hermeneutics of AndalusianMuslim scholars.

It is also interesting to commentary that the methodologies and conclusions of the Protestant High Criticism were, for several centuries, rejected by the Catholic Church. This rejection was most systematic and explicit in Pope Leo XIII’s “Providentissimus Deus” (1893) and Pope Pius X’s Anti-Modernist “Pascendi Dominica Gregis” (1907).
Under the tremendous pressures of Protestant biblical scholarship, the Catholic Church finally, but only grudgingly, partially, and conditionally accepted some aspects of the historical-critical method. Pope Benedict XV did start this process of conditional acceptance in “Spiritus Paraclitus” (1920), but it was not until Pope Pius XII’s “Divino Afflante Spiritus” (1943) that Catholic scholars were finally allowed to catch up with the advanced state of Protestant biblical studies.

Thus, it is quite ironic some Catholic scholars now accuse Muslims of an imaginary closure that more accurately describes the Vatican’s own pre-1943 closure to historical-critical methodologies.

What is even more ironic is the fact that some Catholics, not only imagine such Muslim closure, but go on to attribute it to the Muslim belief in the divine authorship of the Qur’an (i.e. that the Qur’an is the very speech of God). This is very strange indeed, and comes down to thinking that one who believes in the divine authorship of a sacred text can not possibly be a dialogue partner on theological matters!

In making this strange claim about the Muslim creed regarding the Qur’an, some Catholics seem to forget the Roman Catholic dogmatic position regarding Christian Scriptures. Since at least the Council of Trent, the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has again-and-again re-affirmed a very strong, dictation-like, position regarding divine revelation, and has always maintained that the “holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself” (Vatican II, “Dei Verbum”, Chapter III.).

Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus (1893) makes it clear that a strong belief in the divine authorship of the Christian Scriptures has been ‘perpetually held and professed’ by the Church:

“This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition, and in written Books, which are therefore called sacred and canonical because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church. This belief has been perpetually held and professed by the Church in regard to the books of both Testaments; and there are well-known documents of the gravest kind, coming down to us from the earliest times, which proclaim that God, who spoke first by the Prophets, then by his own mouth, and lastly by the Apostles, composed also the Canonical Scriptures, and that these are his own oracles and words: a letter, written by our heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the human race in its pilgrimage so far from its heavenly country”.

It is true that the Catholic Church since 1943, and especially since Vatican II, and in light of the findings of historical-critical scholarship, began to also stress the involvement of the human authors. However, even in  “Dei Verbum,” God’s own inerrant authorship has always been affirmed by the Church. Even Pope Pius XII’s “Divino Afflante Spiritus” (1943) re-affirms the same creed, and expands rather than cancels the scriptural creeds of Pope Leo XIII’s “Providentissimus Deus” (1893).

Therefore, given the dogmas of the Catholic Church regarding Christian Scriptures, it is strange, and ironic indeed, that some Catholic scholars still hold that upholding the divine authorship of a sacred text is a hindrance to theological dialogue! If such belief in divine authorship prevents its adherents from theological dialogue, then Catholic scholars would have the same dialogical inhibitions that some of them imagine Muslim scholars to have.

Furthermore, the traditional Sunni position with regards to respectfully approaching the Qur’an and tradition is not that distant from the Catholic position with regards to respectfully approaching Christian Scriptures and tradition. Pope Benedict XVI himself recently advised typical Catholic caution regarding over enthusiasm for historical-critical methodologies:

“The scientific study of the sacred texts is important but is not sufficient in itself because it would respect only the human dimension. To respect the coherence of the Church’s faith, the Catholic exegete must be attentive to perceiving the Word of God in these texts, within the faith of the Church herself. If this indispensable reference point is missing, the exegetical research would be incomplete, losing sight of its principal goal, and risk being reduced to a purely literary interpretation in which the true Author God no longer appears” (Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 2009).

It is indeed ironic that some Catholics now advise Muslims to produce ‘Luthers’ and ‘Lutheran-style’ approaches to the Qur’an. Such advisors should remember the strenuous efforts of the Catholic Church to contain the consequences of upholding the [Protestant] “Sola Scriptura” principle.

Unfortunately, some Catholic statements regarding Muslim approaches to the Qur’an seem to be based on ill-founded “Islam versus Christianity” contrast tables developed and advocated by some “Islam experts.” It is essential, for the sake of mutual-understanding, and for the sake of God, to stop making these harmful false distinctions, and to stop preaching down to Islam about the wisdom of using the historical-critical method to study the Qur’an.

God knows best!

The text by Brother Michel Cuypers to which Nayed replied:

> Islam Has Its Luthers, Too. But Reform Is Far Away

And a previous article from www.chiesa with an interview with Cuypers in “Il Regno,” on applying to the sacred book of Islam the methods of literary analysis already applied to the Bible:

> For a Renewed Interpretation of the Qur’an: The Lesson of a Great Islamologist

By Michelle A. Vu – Christian Post Reporter

The so-called “defamation of religions” U.N. resolutions, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, would create a “global blasphemy law,” the chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom warned on Wednesday.

Leonard A. Leo testified to Members of Congress on the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission that though the resolutions sounded “tolerant and progressive,” in reality they would “exacerbate” religious persecution and discrimination around the world.

“Although the ‘defamation’ resolutions purport to protect religions generally, the only religion and religious adherents that are specifically mentioned are Islam and Muslims,” pointed out Leo, who noted USCIRF has been closely monitoring the resolutions for several years. “Aside from Islam, the resolutions do not specify which religions are deserving of protection, or explain how or by whom this would be determined.”

Out of concern that the resolutions would be abused to oppress religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries, Christian as well as secular human rights groups had launched several campaigns this year to alert U.N. members on the danger of such proposals.

Open Doors, a ministry that works with persecuted Christians, launched an advocacy campaign earlier this month aimed at preventing the resolutions from passing at the United Nations. The ministry is lobbying key countries, which will vote on the resolutions, and organizing a petition drive against the proposal.

And back in March, more than 180 non-government organizations from around the world signed a petition urging the U.N. Human Rights Council to not adopt the resolutions. Despite their efforts, however, the resolutions passed. The NGOs participating in the petition voiced concern that the resolutions would be manipulated to justify anti-blasphemy laws and intimidate human rights activists and religious dissenters.

Since 1999, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has annually sponsored the “defamation of religions” resolutions in the U.N. Human Rights Council, its predecessor, and, since 2005, in the General Assembly.

The resolutions are currently non-binding, but OIC has publicly stated that its goal is for the U.N. to adopt a binding international covenant against the “defamation of religions.”

USCIRF Chair Leonard Leo denounced the resolutions as a “poorly veiled attempt to export the repressive blasphemy laws found in some OIC countries to the international level.”

“Under these laws, criminal charges can be levied against individuals for defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging, and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations,” said the religious freedom expert.

USCIRF is among the many groups that have spoken against the resolutions. Other groups include The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Freedom House, U.N. Watch, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, and Open Doors USA.

The “defamation of religions” resolutions are expected to be formally proposed for renewal by OIC next month or later this year.

By Barry Rubin

Here’s a tip for understanding the Middle East. For Arabic-speaking countries and groups, there are two parallel lines of discourse going on: one in English, one in Arabic. The English-language one is directed outward at the West; the Arabic-speaking is for the direction of policymakers, opinionmakers, and the masses. Not surprisingly, the first is more moderate; the latter, more radical.

The exact proportions vary with each country or movement. But even in Egypt, a large-scale recipient of U.S. aid, the state-controlled newspapers publish an almost unending stream of anti-American hate propaganda. A key problem, however, is that most Western policymakers, opinionmakers, and journalists either don’t take non-English talk seriously or aren’t even aware of it.

In contrast, democratic states like Israel or America says basically the same thing in both languages, with at most very small variations. Perhaps that’s one reason why many or most Westerners aren’t aware of the wide gap that exists in other societies.

The variation between true and false discourse—though sometimes in the same language—is, of course, quite ancient. In the “Communist Manifesto” of 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.”

But this was before the Age of Public Relations. Even the Communists quickly became masters of saying two contradictory things simultaneously. If they were still around today the Communists would have defined themselves as a race and called anyone who opposed them a racist or, more likely, would have coined the term Communophobia. But I digress.

Here’s a fun example of how doublespeak is done:

The Soviet leadership addressing the Polish people in 1920:

“Our enemies and yours deceive you when they say that the Soviet government wishes to plant communism in Polish soil with the bayonets of the Red Army.”

And now here’s the Soviet leadership addressing the Red Army in 1920:

“Over the corpse of Poland lies the road to world revolution. On bayonets we will bring happiness and peace to laboring humanity.”

I think you get the point. Back to the Middle East of today. The more radical the group—as with Hamas or al-Qaida, for example–the higher the proportion of radical statements made in English. They just don’t care. Hizballah is a little more devious.

As for Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a member of the Communist Manifesto school on that one, but Tehran gets a lot of mileage with a relatively few lies.

But why do should we believe the Arabic more than the English? Let me limit the answer to three of the most important points:

First, the Arabic dialogue establishes the main principles and the limits of what is acceptable. An example is the Palestinian debate. How is the Palestinian Authority going to accept a two-state solution based on ending the conflict, security guarantees, and settling all Palestinians in their own state if nobody even dares say that in Arabic? Exceeding the boundaries can get you killed, cost you your position, have you branded a traitor, and give your enemies ammunition against you.

For a Palestinian politician to say that Israel has ever done anything good and honestly seeks compromise peace is something like a Republican male politician putting on a dress and marching down the street with a poster proclaiming the virtues of Joseph Stalin. In Mississippi. On the Fourth of July. In the middle of an American Legion picnic.

That’s why it is almost impossible to find a moderate statement by any Palestinian leader in Arabic—and I’ve read many thousands of them. Two examples come to mind: when Arafat was making a televised speech from Gaza which he knew was being closely watched and an angry Palestinian general when they entered Hebron complaining that people who committed terrorist acts caused damage to the economy.

During the peace process era, by the way, when Arafat was to give a speech in front of an American Jewish audience, leaders of a dovish Jewish group edited the lecture to make it more palatable. That’s what I mean by lying for peace. Thinking that if you misrepresent the facts on the basis of wishful thinking somehow everything will work out ok in the end.

Second, discussion in Arabic encompasses a huge volume of statements made in all sorts of situations. In contrast, each English-language remark is crafted with a specific purpose in mind—to communicate to Western public opinion or governments.

Third, experience shows overwhelmingly that what is said in Arabic corresponds to what countries and groups actually do.

I fondly recall my biggest success ever with the New York Times. Meeting with an open-minded journalist, I pulled out a huge pile of translations from the Arabic—U.S. government ones from the Foreign Broadcast Information Service which in the pre-computer era used to take up large spaces on my bookshelves—and showed him what was actually being said by Palestinian groups, far more hardline than the American media was reporting. He wrote up a front-page piece on it. Ah, those were the days!

Today, MEMRI plays a very important role in bringing the Arabic discourse to Western attention. In fact, it has been so successful precisely because these facts are so distant from what is expected and reported in the media. Not only does it translate the many extremist statements but also the far fewer moderate writers who say divergent things.

Now, here’s why you have to study carefully the primary sources (original, Arabic-language material and not just what the Western media say). Someone always spills the beans. After all, you have to keep the troops’ morale high and prove you haven’t sold out.

So here’s a MEMRI translation of an interview given by Walid Sukariyya, a Hizballah member in Lebanon’s parliament. He tells it like it is.

Syria’s stance on peace with Israel? It’s just for “tactical bargaining chips.”

How does Syria fight America? “Since, for obvious reasons, Syria cannot [conduct] a confrontation through direct resistance it has opened [its] border with Iraq to all the resistance fighters of Al-Qaida, even though it does not share their ideology.”

Notice, he said al-Qaida. And of course that’s, as I’ve previously reported but which is pretty obvious, one of the main affiliations of the Iraqi insurgents. So, in other words,

–Syria is working with al-Qaida (this should not be a controversial statement but in the Western debate it’s considered as such).

–Al-Qaida is dedicated to the destruction of America and the West.

–Therefore, Syria is an enemy and even under the narrow definition of what used to be called the “war on terrorism”—which is now only against al-Qaida—Syria is on the other side.

Finally, “This is why Damascus supports the resistance – because it does not want to confront the enemy itself.” Right, Syria (and Iran) use Hamas and Hizballah to fight Israel without risk to themselves. And they won’t stop doing it.

Thanks, Walid. And let that be a lesson to all of you out there: Listen to what people in the Middle East actually say, especially when they are speaking their own language.

MEMRI translation, from Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London) October 19, 2009. Special Dispatch | No. 2612 | October 22, 2009

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Interesting?

The swine flu virus has been making headlines since April, and large majorities of Americans continue to cite it as a news story they are following closely. Yet, if given the chance, only 47% of Americans would get a swine flu vaccine, while an equal number would not. While 60% of Democrats would get a swine flu vaccine if it were available, just 41% of both Republicans and independents would get vaccinated. Republicans are also more likely than Democrats to say the media are overstating the danger involved in swine flu. The country as a whole is roughly split on whether the media are presenting the danger associated with virus appropriately. Among those who say they would not get the vaccine, the most cited reason is that the vaccine is too risky or has not been tested enough. Another quarter say they are healthy or just never get flu shots, while 16% do no believe in vaccinations. Despite any skepticism towards the media’s portrayal of swine flu or of the vaccination itself, fully 64% say they are very (17%) or somewhat (47%) confident in the government’s ability to deal with the swine flu. Read more

Melanie Phillips

The frenzy over the participation of BNP leader Nick Griffin on Question Time this week has been a classic case of failing to identify the real elephant in the room.

By fixating on the ‘far right’ as the supremely evil force in British public life, the mainstream political class has failed to grasp that a half-baked neo-Nazi rabble is not the main issue. There is another more lethal type of fascism on the march in the form of Islamic supremacism.

The Islamists, or jihadis, are intent upon snuffing out individual freedom and imposing a totalitarian regime of submission to religious dogma which erodes and then replaces British and Western values. Now these two types of fascism are doing battle with each other — and with the white working class and lower-middle classes caught between them.

For it is the intense anger of these people with the fact that — as they see it — they are the ignored victims of the jihadis that is driving them into the arms of the BNP.

There are, of course, many factors fuelling BNP support. Most broadly, increasing numbers at the lower end of the social scale feel the mainstream parties are ignoring their most pressing concerns. Most of these anxieties involve British national identity: uncontrolled immigration, multiculturalism, the loss to the EU of Britain’s ability to govern itself.

Most toxic of all, however, is the threat from Islamic supremacism and the concern of the disenfranchised white voters that the political establishment is supinely going along with the progressive Islamisation of Britain.

All around them they see the establishment responding to Islamist bullying with acts of appeasement. Jihadis parade on the streets threatening to behead infidels — but it is white objectors whose collars are felt by the police. The mainstream political parties are all petrified of saying anything about either the steady encroachment of Islam into Britain’s public space or the linked phenomenon of mass immigration.

So the BNP has been handed an extraordinary electoral advantage: it can tell voters that it is the only party prepared unequivocally to denounce such things. The rise of Nick Griffin is intimately related to the unchecked march of Islamism in Britain. The BNP is, in one sense, merely the other side of the jihadi coin.

It is highly relevant that Griffin is an MEP for North West England — and did not stand in the old National Front power base around London. His party’s new appeal is based on a new power base — the north-west and Yorkshire.
Research by academics at Manchester University reveals that support for the BNP is highest in areas of high Pakistani and Bangladeshi concentration — but significantly, not where there are concentrations of Indians. Strikingly, BNP support actually falls away steeply in Afro-Caribbean areas.

So to try to damn the BNP as racist misses the point by a mile. Not that the accusation is untrue — despite its attempt to rebrand itself, the BNP remains a racist party with strong neo-Nazi overtones.

But it attracts votes talking about religion and culture. Crucially, it is cynically using the Islamisation of Britain as cover for its animus against all Muslims and non-white people.

There are many British Muslims, after all, who are a threat to no one, who want to enjoy the benefits of a secular society and human rights and are themselves potential victims of Islamism and sharia law. But the BNP seeks to elide this distinction. It hates not just Islamism but all Muslims; indeed, it has seized upon the widespread concern over Islamic extremism to morph seamlessly from Paki-bashing into Muslim-bashing.

The fears it exploits are those of ordinary white folk in areas of high Muslim immigration who have watched the transformation of their neighbourhoods from communities of people like themselves into a landscape they no longer recognise.

The voters the BNP are seeking are bewildered and distraught that no one in authority seems to notice or care — and that they are dismissed as ‘racists’ for expressing such concerns.

It is this asymmetry of anger which helps the BNP so much. Those who this week seemed to be risking an aneurysm over Griffin’s TV appearance either dismiss the jihadis as an exaggerated problem — or, on occasion, even march behind their incendiary and hate-driven banners.

There is no Griffin-style outrage over the regular appearances in the media by the fanatics of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas supporters or Iranian-backed jihadis, even though they endorse terrorism and the extinction of human rights.

Liberal society cannot see them as a threat because, under the prevailing doctrines of multiculturalism and moral relativism, minorities can never be guilty of prejudice or bad deeds. Only the ‘far right’, it appears, can be racist.

It is not hard to demonstrate that Islamism is a real and present danger not just to democracy, but to groups such as women, gays, Jews, apostates and liberal Muslims. Yet liberals appear to recognise fascism only if it has a white face.

To those at the bottom, who live outside the bubbles of wealth or ideology, the face of intolerance is all too easy to recognise. They can see the churches of Britain being steadily replaced by mosques, can no longer find a local butcher selling pork, or are being regularly intimidated by local youths declaring ‘this is a Muslim area’. They are in no doubt that they are watching the takeover of their country and civilisation.

Stories that attract little attention in the press loom large in the concerns of the BNP target voters. The priests in east London being beaten up by Muslim youths who shout racial and religious abuse. The councils that tear up the planning laws to accommodate the expansion of mosques or madrassas. These are the issues all but ignored by mainstream media and politicians.

As a result, the debate is allowed to descend into a clash of extremists. Last March, for example, Islamists demonstrated against a parade in Luton of Royal Anglian Regiment soldiers returning from Afghanistan.

The jihadis were protected by the police, while the only people arrested that day were locals protesting at this provocation. That event led in turn to a demonstration in Birmingham last August by the self-styled anti-Islamists of the so-called English Defence League (EDL) and other groups.

The cycle continued. The EDL provoked a counter-protest organised by Unite Against Fascism and a day of violent disorder. Similar clashes have subsequently occurred in Luton, Birmingham and in Harrow — brawls invariably characterised in the media as between the ‘far right’ and ‘anti-fascists’.

This is where it gets messy. The so-called ‘anti-fascists’ include a number of Islamic fascists, not to mention far-left boot-boys. As for the ‘far right’, the EDL furiously protests that it has no connections with the BNP and stands against them.

But one or two individuals in the EDL have been associated with the BNP in some form or other. Most tellingly of all, EDL leaders have admitted that it is opposed not only to Islamist extremism but to ‘all devout Muslims’ — a BNP-style pitch.

To our progressive elite, however, the credentials of such groups are irrelevant. In any street altercation like this, the anti-Islamist demonstrators must be aggressors and those who confront them must be either their victims or heroic anti-fascists.

The left has a blind spot when it comes to defining ‘fascism’. In its Manichaean way, it views everything that is not ‘left’ as ‘right-wing’, everything that is ‘right-wing’ as evil and everything that is evil as ‘right-wing’.

Fascists, therefore, are inescapably ‘the far right’. The left rest their own claim to moral virtue on their imagined historic role in fighting fascism. So they jump at any chance to wrap themselves in that heroic mantle.

Thus the Communities Secretary John Denham compared the EDL to Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts, who in 1936 were repulsed in the battle of Cable Street when they tried to take over London’s East End. ‘The tactic of trying to provoke a response in the hope of causing wider violence and mayhem is long established on the far right and among extremist groups,’ he said. This was as absurd as it was offensive.

The most alarming point was that Denham ignored the Islamist protests which inspired the EDL in the first place. This is the same John Denham who told a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference that there was a need for ‘critical engagement’ with lawful groups with whom one disagreed.

Would Denham ‘critically engage’ with the BNP or EDL? Hardly. He’s apparently still fighting them at Cable Street.

But he would, it appears, engage with jihadis who endorse the Islamisation of Britain, death to gays and apostates, the destruction of Israel and the second-class status of women. It is this kind of cravenness and moral inversion that makes people despair of mainstream politicians and sends them towards the BNP.

Worse still, the label of the ‘far right’ toxifies everything it touches. There is now a real danger than anyone who opposes Islamic supremacism will find themselves vilified not only as ‘Islamophobes’ but also as BNP fellow-travellers.

Such an intellectual atmosphere would leave liberals reluctant to speak out against Islamism. This would be the surest way to ensure that Nick Griffin is given access to a far greater audience than the million-odd voters he has so far attracted.

The tactic, for both the jihadis and the BNP, is clear. The Islamists have an incentive to provoke a violent reaction by white groups calling themselves names like English Defence League — simply in order to produce yet more demonisation of the anti-Islamists.

In this way, the jihadis can establish control of an area as they become untouchable — and the fortunes of Nick Griffin and the Muslims he despises become inextricably intertwined. When these groups are left alone to fight each other, they both win.

This poses a grave challenge to liberals. If they absent themselves from this fray, the battle lines over the survival of Western freedoms will be drawn between the neo-fascists and the Islamofascists.

At a time when there is such contempt for our established political parties, this is a fearsome prospect. As such disorder grows more violent, all minorities will be caught in the firing line, and society risks lurching into ever more panic-driven and repressive measures. And the wedge driven into the ranks of the defenders of the West makes the Islamists’ eventual victory more likely.

There is already a huge fissure among anti-Islamists over whether or not to ally with European neo-fascists. Since liberals are either silent, or even aligning with the jihadis on the grounds that ‘we are all Hezbollah now’ and turning instead upon the pivotal victim in this civilisational war, Israel, some anti-Islamists say that allying with neo-fascist groups is a no-brainer, because ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

But this is a highly dangerous course. Islamic fascism must be fought to defend Western values of freedom, democracy and tolerance. This cannot be done in an alliance with white neo-fascists bent on their negation. Sometimes, my enemy’s enemy is also my enemy.

This is why all decent people must join in the fight against Islamic supremacism. Support for the BNP would plummet if the political mainstream were to limit immigration, denounce cultural Islamic imperialism and refuse to give one inch to sharia law, saying no to polygamy, sharia finance, sharia courts and all attempts to set up a parallel Islamic society in Britain.

Freedom can only be protected if its defenders are united. But with Britain’s collective brain turned to multicultural jelly, liberals are refusing to acknowledge the civilisational battle now under way and gathering pace.

The obsession with the ‘far right’ has cemented progressive opinion into its current lethal state of cultural somnambulism. Liberals must raise their eyes, raise their game and ask where this is leading. For there is far worse on the horizon than a nasty man on Question Time.

Previous Related Post:-

Parliament of the World’s Religions

By Bill Muehlenberg

I have been thinking a lot lately about the soon to be held Parliament of the World’s Religions (PWR). And moments ago my eyes noted an ad in a magazine I was flipping through. The ad was for an upcoming “World Congress on Refractive Error”. For a brief moment I thought this ad was in fact referring to the PWR.

The conference was actually about eye care and vision correction, but its title seemed most relevant to the PWR. You see, a simple dictionary definition of refraction is “deflection from a straight path”. And that seems to very nicely summarise what the PWR is all about.

It really is dedicated to ‘refractive error’. It is about leading people into error, and distorting their vision as to what religious truth really is. Biblical Christianity is clearly about truth, but the PWR is all about the opposite of truth. It is about pluralism, syncretism, relativism and eclecticism.

Highlighting the importance of truth in the Christian worldview is easily done. The Bible everywhere talks about the necessity of truth. Indeed, in the New Testament alone, the word ‘truth’ appears some 152 times. Truth is absolutely vital in the Christian view of things.

But we live in an age which scoffs at truth and claims that objective truth does not exist. In some ways, this is nothing new. We all recall the words of Pilate when he was interrogating Jesus: “What is truth?” But of special interest here is what Jesus said just prior to this. In the previous verse (John 18: 37) Jesus made this amazing claim: “For this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

He of course reinforced this theme elsewhere. For example, he could also make this remarkable claim about himself: “I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14: 6). As Philip Ryken comments, “Jesus Christ is the true Savior, who was and is the true Word of God, incarnate. Elsewhere John describes Jesus as the true light (John 1:9), the true bread (John 6:32), and the true vine (John 15:1). He calls Jesus ‘the faithful and true witness’ (Rev. 3:14). He says that Jesus came from the Father ‘full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14). He says, ‘we know that the Son of God has come … so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life’ (1 John 5:20).”

And the entire Christian life is defined in terms of truth. Ryken again offers a nice summary here: “The Bible says many things about standing with Jesus on the side of truth. It tells us to worship in truth (John 4:24), rejoice in truth (1 Cor. 13:6), obey the truth (1 Pet. 1:22), be established in the truth (2 Pet. 1:12), walk in the truth (e.g., Eph. 5:8-9; 2 John 4), do the truth (1 John 3:18), and speak the truth in our hearts (Ps. 15:2). Truth is not a theory for the believer in Christ; it is a way of life.”

But truth is the very thing being downplayed at the PWR. Instead we have a religious smorgasbord, where delegates can simply pick and choose their own preferred spirituality, without any worries about the question of truth. It is a perfect environment for modern Westerners who live in a constant state of relativism and subjectivism.

Consider this from the PWR website, dealing with FAQs: “Will religions be ranked, scored, or evaluated? No. The purpose is to promote understanding and cooperation, not to judge.” That’s for sure. ‘Just leave your critical faculties at home’ is what we are being told here.

We are being asked not to make any judgments, assessments, or critical evaluations. Now that might be fine when trying to weigh up what pair of pants to put on in the morning, but it is not at all helpful when dealing with ultimate religious truth claims.

And of course all religions do make truth claims, even if the claim is that there are no truths! The various religious truth claims are often quite at odds with those of other religions. And given that they deal with the really important issues of life – such as, What is reality? What is truth? Who is God? How do we get right with God? – we very much do have to judge and make careful evaluations.

The Bible certainly tells us to do this. We are told to “test all things” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). We are admonished to “Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim 4:16). We are also told, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves” (2 Cor. 13:5-6).

We are warned about spiritual deception: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1,2). As Paul says, “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way” (2 Thess. 2:3).

Indeed, Paul informs us in 1 Cor. 2:15 that “the spiritual man makes judgments about all things”. This is the very opposite of what is expected of the delegates at the PWR.  The suspension of judgment in this area is a recipe for disaster. One might as well exhort mushroom lovers to just grab and eat any that they find in the ground, and not worry about making critical judgments concerning them. The consequences of this suspension of judgment could be deadly.

But if there is such a thing as the one true God, and if there are indeed deceiving spirits and diabolical opponents of this God, then we should expect to see this manifested at such conferences. This relinquishment of spiritual discernment is just what we should expect in a world which is at odds with God and his purposes, and is in fact hostile to them.

“But you are being so exclusive” I hear the critics charge. But life is all about exclusion, discrimination and narrow boundaries. When I choose one woman to be my wife, I am excluding all the others. When I choose one football team to follow, I am excluding all the others. When I choose one therapy to deal with an illness, I am excluding many others.

And it is not just Christians who are insisting on exclusiveness. As Richard Ramsay notes, “Although Christianity may be accused of being exclusive, all religions are exclusive. Buddhism rejects the Vedas and the caste system of Hinduism. Islam excludes other religions and elevates the Quran above other sacred writings. When other religions reject Jesus as the only Lord and Savior, they are excluding true Christianity.”

Ironically, the PWR website claims it is not aiming for religious unity, and is quite happy for people to reaffirm their own religious traditions. But as just noted, to affirm your own religious worldview automatically means that you must exclude or renounce elements of other religious worldviews. It cannot be otherwise.

To choose vanilla ice cream is to automatically reject chocolate ice cream. To choose Islam is to reject the central claims of Christianity. Thus the danger of religious syncretism and pluralism being promoted at the PWR: it speaks much of tolerance and inclusion, but it can only do so at the expense of truth.

While some religions may downplay truth, Christianity is above all things a religion based on truth. To claim to be a follower of Jesus is to decide to exclude all rivals to that faith. To accept Jesus Christ as the only saviour is to exclude all other claimants. To affirm the uniqueness of Christ is to reject claims of religious syncretism.

As Jesus so very clearly stated, “He who is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23).

MILL VALLEY, Calif. (BP)–David Bebbington, professor of history at Scotland’s University of Stirling, delivered this year’s Deere Lecture at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, speaking on “Revivals, Revivalism and the Baptists.”

“Revivals were defined in the 19th century as those outpourings of the Spirit which resulted in the quickening of the church and the conversion of sinners,” Bebbington said, describing the characteristics of 19th-century revivalism as “mass conversions of unbelievers as well as outbursts of fresh vigor that stirred whole congregations or even larger bodies of Christians.”

The phenomenon of revival, he said, exerted a major influence on the life of many evangelical denominations, including Baptists.

Bebbington discussed three ways in which the term revival has been employed over the centuries: a planned event such as a Billy Graham crusade, a spontaneous event in a congregation or a spontaneous event affecting a larger region.

“The Baptists were rarely innovators in the field of revivals. Rather, Baptists usually copied and were influenced by other denominations,” he said.

The congregational model had great repercussions for Baptists, Bebbington said. Characteristics included a minister in charge, tight discipline, Calvinist theology and gradual conversion. He explained that revival among Congregationalists developed not in England, but in New England, where the Congregationalists migrated in the 17th century to escape the tyranny of Charles I.

“The greatest advocate of the Congregational approach was Jonathan Edwards, who in 1734 in Northampton preached a powerful sermon on justification by faith, which precipitated a revival,” Bebbington said.

“The movement in Northampton was one of the first expressions of the Great Awakening that swept America during the coming decades. As this movement developed, it remolded Baptist life in America.”

The Methodist model, with John Wesley as its central figure in the mid-1700s, also influenced Baptists.

“Led by laymen, not trained ministers, their revivals were excitable as opposed to restrained meetings. Arminian instead of Calvinist, they looked for instant conversions and held long meetings, sometimes over a period of days. These characteristics were an effective formula for church growth,” Bebbington said. “The Baptist approach to revival during the 17th century had, in many places, become little different from that of the Methodists.”

Bebbington described the synthetic model of revival, developed in the 1800s in Kentucky by Barton Stone and in upper New York State by Charles Finney, as encouraging physical prostrations, women speaking and protracted meetings.

“These revivals were planned and organized,” he said. “This newer approach encouraged immediacy, with no need to wait for salvation. Their leaders were called revivalists and ignored boundaries, and they were labeled nondenominational.”

The synthetic style of revival triumphed during the 19th century “with a largely homogeneous evangelical approach to awakenings,” Bebbington said. “It was adopted by many Baptists in America, Britain and elsewhere.”

During the later 19th century, the modern style of revival emerged, Bebbington said, noting that it came in response to the changing social conditions of the time.

“It was urban, with leaders concentrating on industrial and commercial centers and targeting whole cities as opposed to particular congregations,” he said, explaining that the leaders were businessmen and the revivals were interdenominational and were conducted with a restrained tone.

“The most obvious form of the revival phenomenon in the later 20th century was the Billy Graham crusade,” Bebbington said. “The evangelist was a Southern Baptist, and many Baptists gave him their support, but his meetings were scrupulously interdenominational.”

Bebbington described how revival also was a global force during the 20th century.

“The epicenter for the global spread was the Welsh Revival of 1904-05. Events were so dramatic that visitors came to witness them and returned home to share the atmosphere with their congregations in Pennsylvania, Madagascar and Patagonia.”

The Deere Lectures were named after Derward Deere, who served as a Golden Gate Seminary professor of Old Testament from 1950-68.

SPRADLIN EXAMINES RIGHTEOUSNESS — The Apostle Paul did not have a righteousness of his own but only righteousness that comes by faith, California pastor Roger Spradlin said during a Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary chapel service.

“Everyone who is honest must admit that we are not capable of our own righteousness. We are sinful,” said Spradlin, pastor of Valley Baptist Church in Bakersfield and vice chairman of the SBC Executive Committee. “Much of the Bible is written to show the inadequacy of human righteousness. No one goes to heaven because they’re good.”

Spradlin, speaking from the Book of Philippians on Oct. 1, said righteousness from God can’t be earned but is a gift God grants to those who believe.

“When we receive salvation, God pronounces us righteous. It happens in a moment,” he said, adding that glorification, which Paul also mentions in Philippians 3, happens in a moment as well.

“But sanctification, the development of Christian maturity and the result of knowing God is a progressive action which develops over a lifetime,” he said.

Spradlin identified two types of “knowing.”

“You can technically know about someone, or you can have a relationship and experientially know the person. This second definition is the type of knowing to which Paul refers,” he said.

After salvation, believers still have the tendency to sin, Spradlin said, noting, “We need power to resist sin, the power of spiritual transformation. Sanctification changes the way we live on a daily basis.”

Part of experiencing God and developing Christian maturity is sharing Christ’s pain and sufferings, Spradlin said.

“We want strong faith, but we don’t want to be tested; we want patience, but we don’t want trials; we want to grow, but we don’t want pain,” he said, noting that God uses pain to shape His children. “Our pain can enable us to enter into His suffering, to feel a portion of what He felt, to know Him.”

Spradlin challenged students to imagine the great heart of God.

“How He grieves over the culture we live in. All around us are broken lives,” he said. “The greatest requirement is to love God. Then you will love the souls that God loves.

“… You know about Him, but don’t make it all about head knowledge. Don’t forget to really know Him.”

Based on reports by Phyllis Evans of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

Previous Related Posts:-

US Previous Related Posts

Supporters and opponents of legislation that will expand hate-crimes protections to homosexuals continue to wait on a Senate vote on a defense authorization bill that includes the controversial measure.

Despite objections that it would infringe on the religious liberty of pastors and other faith leaders, the U.S. House Thursday passed a defense bill that includes historic hate crimes protections for homosexuals.

UK Previous Related Post

Free speech is not hateful (Lord Waddington) – Civil liberty surely implies the freedom to express your own views, and with it a readiness to defend the right of others to express their views about you.

Petition and Prayer for Life and Free Speech

Miguel Hayworth a street preacher is at the centre of a row over freedom of speech after police threatened to arrest him for reading the Bible in public.

Victory on Euthanasia in the Coroners and Justice Bill

Bishops fight for right to criticise gay lifestyle

Coroners and Justice Bill will undermine both free speech and sanctity of life

Act Now for Free Speech: Coroners and Justice Bill in the Lords

Christian Response to Free Speech and Assisted Suicide: Bill Update

Christian councillor Alan Craig (leader of the Christian People’s Alliance) calls for free speech for Geert Wilders

WASHINGTON (BP)–The U.S. Senate sent a landmark bill Tuesday to President Obama that includes hate-crimes protections for homosexuals which critics say will infringe on the religious liberty of pastors and other faith leaders.

It is the biggest federal legislative victory to date for homosexual organizations.

In a 68-29 vote, senators passed 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which includes the hate crimes measure that adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” as well as disability, to the current categories — such as race, religion and gender — protected from hate crimes. The House of Representatives voted 281-146 on Oct. 8 for the same defense legislation, which was used as a vehicle for the hate-crimes measure though it is not directly related to the controversial provision. President Obama has said he would sign the bill.

“Sexual orientation” includes homosexuality and bisexuality, while “gender identity,” or transgendered status, takes in transsexuals and cross-dressers.

Obama has promised to sign it into law despite his opposition to funding in the bill for a specific fighter jet engine. He made his pledge at an Oct. 10 dinner sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s leading homosexual organization.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., an opponent of the hate crimes proposal, argued during floor debate that passage of the bill would lead to the policing of thoughts and words. He pointed to a case in Canada in which a youth pastor, Stephen Boissoin, was fined $7,000 by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for writing a letter to the local newspaper critical of homosexuality. The ruling is being appealed. Boissoin wrote, in part, “From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators. Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that kissing men is appropriate.”

Said DeMint, “Canadians right now live under this kind of regime, where so-called human rights commissions operating outside the normal legal process prosecute citizens for espousing opinions the commissioners disagree with. Today in the United States only actions are crimes. If we pass this conference report, opinions will become crimes. What is to stop us from following the lead of the European countries and American college campuses where certain speech is criminalized?

“Can priests, pastors and rabbis be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted if it says certain things are right and wrong?”

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and others oppose efforts to expand hate-crimes protections based not only on their inclusion of categories defined by sexual behavior or identity but also because of concerns about the potential impact on religious freedom.

They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible’s teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim’s “sexual orientation” after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.

The bill included language designed to protect freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion, but some religious liberties organizations do not consider the protections adequate.

The House voted 249-175 in April for hate-crimes expansion as a stand-alone bill. The Senate approved similar hate-crimes language as part of the defense authorization bill in July. The different versions of the defense legislation went to a conference committee made up of members of both chambers to work out a compromise. That committee reported the bill out with the hate-crimes language included.

Under the measure, people convicted of a hate crime would be subject to more prison time and penalties than people who commit a crime that falls outside the class of hate crimes.

The legislation would authorize the U.S. attorney general to provide assistance to state and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

According to the hate-crimes language in the bill, it “applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim.”

FURTHER INTERNET NEWS LINKS TODAY

Senate Passes Hate Crimes Bill

Bill on ‘hate crimes’ ignores hatred towards traditional marriage backers, Tony Perkins says