eChurch Blog

Quick spiritual check-up, courtesy of CyberBrethren:-

Christ-Centered or Just Religious? Three Ways to Tell

1. Your reaction when things fall apart.

Do you catch yourself saying, “God, why is this happening? I’ve done x, y, and z?” Do suffering, difficulty, and obstacles provoke “why?” questions predicated on your goodness or effort? You’ve been working so hard, reading your Bible, going to church, serving others . . . why would God let this happen to you now? If that’s your line of thinking, it reveals you believe God owes you. And that’s religion, not Christ-centered thinking.

2. Your reaction to others.

Do you compare yourself, bad or good, against others? Do you belittle, mock, condescend, even if just internally? Do you resent others’ successes? Do you celebrate others’ failures? Do you really wish people would get their act together, or do you really wish people knew Jesus? Are you frequently annoyed, put out, irritated, embarrassed, or inconvenienced by others? Is it about you, or others? If you, that’s religion, but not Christ-centeredness.

3. Your appraisal of Jesus.

Is he your greatest treasure? That’s the number one indicator of gospel-conformity. You may know right off the bat if this is true or not. For some, it’s true only sentimentally or religiously. You may think it’s true ultimately, but your time, talents, words, emotions, and bank account testify differently. These are all heart issues. Anybody can get the behavior right. The Pharisees certainly did, and most of them went to hell. But this isn’t even about looking Pharisaical or legalistic or churchy. There’s a lot of Christian hipsters out there in coffee shop churches who have no idea they’re just religious, not Christ-centered.

I’ve already blogged twice in two days about the large-scale massacre of Christians in Jos, Nigeria, here and here.

As is sadly the case when blogging about the decimation of Christian communities across at the hands of Islamic extremists, it rarely drives much Internet traffic to our blog, simply because there is a high degree of apathy in the Western world, and yes, I am including the Christian community.

As long as it’s not on our doorstep, then it really isn’t that important.

However, I’ll not stop highlighting the plight of our Christian brothers and sisters in Islamic lands on this blog, as long as I draw breath.

Anyway, Melanie Phillips has put up a poignant short post in the Spectator:-

The jihad in Nigeria

Utterly appalling violence by Muslims against Christians in Nigeria where the latest tally after weekend attacks on three mostly Christian villages is some 500 dead. The media have described these events as ‘riots’; I would call this a jihadi pogrom. It is but the latest episode in what the media persist in characterising as inter-ethnic violence, but which is in fact a systematic attempt by Muslims to murder and ethnically cleanse the Christian community. The onslaught is described as ‘retaliation ‘ for violent attacks in Jos last January, in which the majority of the victims were Muslim. But as the Barnabas Fund reports, there is evidence that those January attacks were in fact Christian retaliation against Muslim aggression — in particular on that occasion an attack on a church — which has been going on for years.

The fact that the jihad in Africa is widely ignored in the west is not just a moral dereliction of duty. It is a refusal by the west to understand what it is actually up against. What is happening to Nigeria’s Christians makes a mockery of the frenzied western obsession with Israel. To understand the real cause of global tumult we should look carefully at Africa, and the appalling suffering of those upholding the religion that underpins the western world.

Very interesting research from the Pew Forum surveying people’s use of the Internet as a news source.

But check this comment out:-

Asked what subjects they would like to receive more coverage, 44% said scientific news and discoveries, 41% said religion and spirituality, 39% said health and medicine, 39% said their state government, and 38% said their neighborhood or local community.

41% wanted more coverage of religion and spirituality! Who would have guessed that one?

Admittedly this research has a US bias, but let’s not write off this research as potentially applicable to the UK.

I seem to have a recurring theme over the last couple of days relating to the Internet:-

Blogs are a growing but still relatively underutilized influence on today’s religious discourse, according to a study of the religious blogosphere by the Social Science Research Council.

The Tyranny of the SEO Church, Revisited

80% think that Internet Access is a basic Human Right

This headline from Ekklesia:-

Church of Scotland says now is the time to end the nuclear threat.

Well thank goodness for that. I have dedicated my life to warning as many folk as will listen, of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of Iran the Church of Scotland.

It’s about time the Church of Scotland decommissioned their weapons and came to the negotiating table without relying  on unremitting threats of atomic “pre-emptive strikes” on other denominations, with whom they have slight theological differences.

Well I thought it funny….and I’m bored….

More absolute madness from Harriet Harman’s “Equality” drive:-

Mail:-

Vegans, teetotallers and atheists are to be given the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, under Harriet Harman’s controversial new equality laws.

People who do not eat products and refuse to wear leather have been singled out for inclusion under the new legislation by Labour’s super-quango – the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Official guidance issued by the body points out that the ‘ethical commitment’ of vegan’s to animal welfare is ‘central to who they are’.

The code of practice explains the legal implications of the equality bill states that religions need not be mainstream or well known for their adherents to gain protection.

The Equality Bill, masterminded by Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, is due to come into force this Autumn.

It makes it a legal requirement for public authorities, including schools, to consider the impact of all their policies on minority groups.

But the guidance explains: “A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.”

Singling out vegans as meriting protection from religious discrimination, it says: ‘A person who is a vegan chooses not to use or consume animal products of any kind.

‘That person eschews the exploitation of animals for food, clothing, accessories or any other purpose and does so out of an ethical commitment to animal welfare.’

A spokesman from the commission explained: ‘This is about someone for whom being vegan or vegetarian is central to who they are. This is not something ‘thought up by the commission’.

‘Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret it and the commission offers factual and proportionate guidance to organisations where necessary. We are providing guidance on the implications of the equality bill.’

The legislation also covers ‘any religious belief or philosophical belief’ and even ‘a lack of belief’.

This means that members of cults and “new religions” such as Scientology, whose supporters include the film stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, would also be offered protection, as would atheists.

The official guidance has already caused controversy after warning that schools which force girls to wear skirts may be breaking the law – because the policy apparently discriminates against transsexuals.

It claims the dress code may breach the rights of girls who feel compelled to live as boys.

Religious leaders have condemned Miss Harman’s equality laws for sideling religion to promote a false idea of ‘tolerance’.

The Archbishop of York has warned that Christianity risks being wiped out from public life in the name of equality.

The Pope has also described the Bill as ‘unjust’, restricting religious freedom and violating ‘the natural law’.

Under the legislation, people with philosophical views such as pacificism and humanism could also seek protection from discrimination.

However, the Commission has insisted that scientific or political beliefs such as Marxism and fascism would not be covered. People for whom abstention from alcohol was a way of life would also be protected.

The watchdog also warns that advertisements giving preferential treatment to men or women could be illegal.

This could mean the end of “ladies’ nights” at clubs, when women receive cut-price drinks or free entrance but men pay full price.

Archbishop Cranmer has put together an excellent piece on this today, which cuts straight to the heart of the matter and exposes this “equality” folly:-

That is the only logical conclusion of Harpy Hormone’s Equality Bill, and one which Cranmer not only foresaw but was sufficiently prescient to sound the trumpet about years ago.

The moment the state begins to define ‘religion’, and then attempts to apportion rights and liberties under the guise of an enlightened tolerance of relativist equality, there is no logical end to the official recognition of all manner of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions, all of which have to be equal under the law irrespective of the common good and irrelative to the inherent counterknowledge believed or propagated.

If you wish to believe that a carpenter from Nazareth can rise from the dead, you are free to do so. But in the age of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’, this is no different from believing that a middle-eastern illiterate warmonger had a direct line to Allah; a man can walk around with the head of an elephant; you should never cut your hair; you can be cremated in the open air; you believe that a mortal man may speak infallibly; and if you walk around Tesco in a hoodie carrying a light sabre you are in harmony with ‘The Force’.

And if you want to worship Satan, that is perfectly cool. If you want to take Pagan holidays, that is accommodated. And if you want to believe in man-made global warming, the courts have already decreed that your devotion to such a philosophy is indeed the same as religious faith.

And now we learn that vegans are to enjoy the same protection against discrimination as religious groups.

And if they, why not vegetarians, non-dairy consumers, wheat-eschewers and teetotallers?

Oh, and Atheists are to be given the same protection as well.

Professor Dawkins will be very happy.

Now, this is going to get very interesting indeed.

An atheist in the House of Commons who presents himself in the chamber during parliamentary prayers will have the right in law to object to the affront. Those of all faiths and none will have the right in law to object to the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, which is a manifest discrimination against not only Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, but also the Nonconformists and Roman Catholics.

Continue Reading

Does anyone else find odd the idea of access to the Internet as a fundamental human right? Of all of the “human rights” is this not somewhat intriguing?

Still it goes to show that my comments a couple of days ago were right:-

BBC

Internet access is ‘a fundamental right’

Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.

The survey – of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries – found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide.

Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens.

International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access.

“The right to communicate cannot be ignored,” Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News.

“The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created.”

He said that governments must “regard the internet as basic infrastructure – just like roads, waste and water”.

“We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate.”

Continue Reading

Matt Wardman has an interesting post on this.

Bill Muehlenberg has put together an interesting post looking at the correlation between religion, democracy, morals and freedom.

As a quick caveat, I will say that when Bill uses the term “Religion” I suspect he’s referring explicitly to the Christian faith. I make this caveat as the problem nowadays is that whenever the word “Religion” is used in the context of democracy, freedom, morals and so forth, the immediate thought is the repressive totalitarian Islamic theocracy.

Unfortunately more and more in the minds of folks that I interact with, I am finding that the fear of the Islamic theocracy is transmitted to a general fear of all religions.

As a result atheists and others reject out of hand any form of non-secularisation, as they perceive that “religion” intends to ultimately restrict their freedoms, as in the case of the Islamic theocracy. Because of this perceived fear they no longer recognise that they are themselves beneficiary’s of a system formed by the influence of Christianity.

Religion, Morality and Democracy by Bill Muehlenberg:-

In a few days there will be an international gathering of atheists in Melbourne. Richard Dawkins and many other misotheistic heavyweights will be there. I suspect it will not be unlike so many other religious gatherings, complete with revered leaders, sacred texts, official orthodoxies, denunciations of outsiders, and fanatic followers. The zeal and fervor on display there will undoubtedly match that of any church meeting.

And they are most welcome to gather there and hold their little pow-wow. After all, that is what democracies are all about: allowing those of differing opinions and worldviews to freely assemble and discuss their faith. But the ironic thing is, while democracy allows these atheists the freedom to assemble, it is by and large what atheists so dislike which seems to make democracy possible.

That is, there has long been noted the connection between faith and freedom; between religion and democracy. Many intellects and analysts have noted how democracy really needs a moral foundation in order to successfully operate. And many have noted that morality requires a religious foundation to successfully operate.

Thus there is a strong, historic connection between religion, morality, democracy and freedom. A number of authors have discussed these connections. One thinks of Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1835 classic, Democracy in America for example.

The French writer and historian was greatly impressed with the American experiment at the time, and noted in his work the strong role religion played in the life of the young republic. Indeed, he contrasted Europe with America, focusing on the importance of religion to the new nation.

Many other key commentators have written about these interrelated aspects. Michael Novak has written extensively on such themes, including his quite important 1982 volume, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. It is a masterful treatment of how democratic capitalism is really a three-legged affair: a democratic political system; a free market economic system; and a moral/spiritual cultural system.

Other volumes worth pursuing here include John Hollowell, The Moral Foundation of Democracy (1954), and Claes Ryn, Democracy and the Ethical Life (1978). In addition to these newer writers, other older thinkers can also be mentioned.

Consider a famous letter British politician Lord Macaulay sent to an American friend on May 23, 1857. In it he stated that the average age of the world’s greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith.
From faith to great courage.
From courage to liberty.
From liberty to abundance.
From abundance to complacency.
From complacency to selfishness.
From selfishness to apathy.
From apathy to dependency.
And from dependency back again into bondage.

Can we escape this fate?

He was quite right to note the moral/spiritual underpinnings of freedom and democracy. Indeed, this is not a very new insight. The history of Ancient Israel, especially as found in the book of Judges, reveals this very same set of connections. When Israel forgot about Yahweh and slipped into sin, they always ended up in bondage and judgment. Freedom was restored only when they got their moral and spiritual priorities sorted out.

My secular and atheist friends will complain however that it is not just the Judeo-Christian worldview that made democracy possible. What about the ancient Romans and Greeks? Yes and no would be my reply. Yes, any nation which has had some sort of religious basis will have a greater chance of both lasting, and lasting with a modicum of freedoms.

In that sense I think philosopher Peter Kreeft is right to argue that the most durable societies have been the most moralistic, while our recent officially secular societies appear to be rather short-lived, whether fascist or Marxist. Says Kreeft:

“The longest-lasting societies in history were all highly moralistic, the Confucian (over twenty-one hundred years), the Islamic (almost fourteen hundred years), and the Roman (about seven hundred years). The longest-lasting moral order in history has been that of Mosaic law: it has structured Jewish and then Christian life for thirty-five hundred years (though not as a continuous civil society).”

He cites Charles Colson who says that a community’s longevity is proportionate to its morality. To which Kreeft adds: “And to its religion, for no society has yet existed that has successfully built its knowledge of morality on any basis other than religion.”

As to the ancient Greeks and Romans, they were certainly a mixed bag in terms of freedom and democracy. They were a far cry from a modern democracy, with perhaps the majority of their own people being slaves. Historian Rodney Stark discusses this matter:

“While the classical world did provide examples of democracy, these were not rooted in any general assumptions concerning equality beyond an equality of the elite. Even when they were ruled by elected bodies, the various Greek city-states and Rome were sustained by large numbers of slaves. And just as it was Christianity that eliminated the institution of slavery inherited from Greece and Rome, so too does Western democracy owe its essential intellectual origins and legitimacy to Christian ideals, not to any Greco-Roman legacy. It all began with the New Testament.”

You can pursue his thoughts on this further in his important 2005 book, The Victory of Reason. But let me finish by noting some other voices on this connection between democracy, morality and religion. Benjamin Franklin said this: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and viscous, they have more need of masters.”

Edmund Burke put it this way: “The only liberty I mean is a liberty connected with order; that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them.” George Washington noted that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports.”

Historian Will Durant made this observation, “There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.” Or as US General Douglas MacArthur once said, “History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.”

Such thoughts can be repeated at length. But let me conclude by returning to de Tocqueville who rightly said this about the US: “America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

That is true of all modern democracies. Morality seems to be essential to freedom and democracy, and religion seems to be essential to morality. That case needs to be argued for more fully, but it does offer us something to think about as our atheist friends enjoy the freedoms Australia now offers.

Please bear in mind that this harrowing letter comes from Bishop Ben Kwashi, who is “on the ground” in Jos, Nigeria. If you need to catch up on recent events from Jos, then click; here, and here.

Anglican Mainstream:-

People were in deep sleep and woken up by about three this morning to meet with death. Men women children and pregnancies were all littered on the road as they were  killed as they were probably fleeing to God knows where. This is a premeditated killing in the worst way. Please continue in prayers for us. The cost of being a Christian is rising by the day.

+ben

Bloody heartrending…

Here is a report from the LA Times today:-

Nigeria massacre leaves more than 120 dead – Witnesses say Muslim herdsmen armed with guns and machetes attacked three Christian villages outside Jos. The violence may have been in revenge for an attack last month.

Reporting from Kano, Nigeria – The attacks came in the night, as the villagers slept. Hundreds of Muslim herdsmen armed with guns and machetes swooped down on three Christian villages outside Jos in central Nigeria, killing more than 120 people early Sunday, according to witnesses.

There were contradictory reports on the casualties. Some said more than 120 were killed, while others put the number at about 200.

The massacre in volatile Plateau state — long beset with ethnic-religious violence — was apparently a revenge attack. Nomadic Fulani herdsmen had accused a group of local indigenous Christians — Berom people — of attacking their camp late last month, killing four people and stealing about 200 cattle.

In the latest violence, which appeared unrelated to national sectarian political frictions, hundreds of herdsmen launched coordinated attacks about 3 a.m. on three villages, Dogo Nahawa, Ratsat and Zot, about six miles south of Jos.

The herdsmen charged the villages, firing in the air, then cut down villagers as they fled their huts, witnesses said.

“Some people, whom we believed to be pastoralists, attacked three villages including our own with machetes, killing and burning people,” said Fidelis Tawkek of Dogo Nahawa in a phone interview. “They burned down most of the houses. They killed many women and children.

“They escaped after the attack. Up to this moment, houses are still burning and barns are smoldering.”

Jos and the surrounding areas had seen a series of violent attacks in January, which left more than 320 dead, police figures show.

Plateau state is on the dividing line between Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north and the mainly Christian south, but the recurrent violent outbreaks have as much to do with bitter rivalry between the indigenous Christian Beroms and Muslim Hausas who came later, settling in Jos about a century ago.

The city lives on a knife’s edge, with friction between the Christians and Muslims who compete for jobs, business, land and resources. Similar tensions radiate throughout the state: Thousands have died in ethnic-religious violence in Plateau state in the last decade.

Sunday’s violence — allegedly involving the nomadic Fulani herdsmen — was slightly different. Because it was said to involve nomads, who reportedly fled after the attack, it was probably not related to the usual flare-ups resulting from the bitterness between the Christians and Hausa Muslims in the Jos area.

But the violence underscores the Muslim-Christian rivalry that permeates Nigerian political and economic life. The most recent example has been the bitter power struggle in the ruling People’s Democratic Party between southern Christians and northern Muslims over the presidency, following the illness of President Umaru Yar’Adua, a Muslim.

The country’s political stability hinges on a ruling party deal that the Muslim north and Christian south should rotate power: eight years to the north and eight to the south. The jostling over the presidency was resolved when the PDP affirmed that a Muslim northerner would rule until 2015.

On Sunday, acting President Goodluck Jonathan placed security forces in Plateau state on alert and ordered them to track and arrest the killers.

UPDATE: The BBC report has upped the number of murdered to 500.

BBC

Some 500 people were killed in Sunday’s revenge attack after religious clashes near the Nigerian city of Jos, local officials say.

The figure had previously been put at about 100 – it is always difficult to get accurate figures for such clashes in Nigeria.

Officials say two mainly Christian villages near Jos were attacked from nearby hills by people with machetes.

There is a long history of local tension between Muslims and Christians.

The attacks are said to have been in revenge for the killing of several hundred people in January.

Acting President Goodluck Jonathan has put security forces on alert to stop the flow of weapons to the area.

Many of the dead in the villages of Zot and Dogo-Nahawa are reported to be women and children.

Jos lies between the mainly Muslim north of Nigeria and its largely Christian south.

Some further Internet links on this:-

Muslims slaughter hundreds of Christians in Nigeria (Catholic Culture)

Violence Erupts in Nigeria’s State of Jos (Vatican Radio)

Nigeria: Radical Islam and the challenge of dialogue (ACN News)

400 Killed in Fresh Jos Crisis (Lagos Daily Champion)

Before you read this one, do have a quick look at this link from a very recent post, in which it is proffered that there is no good evidence that education leads to secularisation, in fact, the opposite may be true.

Opposing Views – by American Atheists

A study claiming that liberals and Atheists are “more intelligent” than religious believers is causing a buzz in the news media and academic circles.

Authored by Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, the study claims that “more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences (such as liberalism and atheism…) than less intelligent individuals.”

Fellow academics are saying that Kanazawa’s research and conclusions are flawed.

And now, some Atheists agree and are speaking out.

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, said that “intelligence” — especially as reflected by so-called IQ tests — can be difficult to define and quantify. “There are often cultural, ethnic, and even sexual biases at work here, and a good case can be made that there are actually many different kinds of intelligence,” said Buckner. “Something like ‘intelligence’ has to be understood in a very broad context, and Dr. Kanazawa seems not to have given that sufficient consideration.”

“We have never said that Atheists or other non-believers are inherently ‘superior’ or ‘smarter’ than religious people, even though we do assert that logic and evidence are on our side regarding our conclusions.

Questions about religious beliefs and whether ‘god’ exists should be discussed and argued based on the best evidence.”

Buckner also noted that members of American Atheists vary considerably regarding political philosophies, saying that “liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and other (less orthodox) categories can all be found among our members and leaders.” He added that a Catholic or Muslim with an IQ score higher than a random non-believer, for instance, does not constitute any special evidence regarding claims any of them might make.

“And we’re totally against Atheists suddenly telling the world, ‘Hey, look at us, we’re right because we’re bright!’ ”

Kathleen Johnson, Vice President for American Atheists, said that she prefers to suggest that all or at least most Americans can, with sufficient reasoning, understand the need to question religion.

“There are all kinds of Atheists, just as there are all kinds of believers,” said Johnson. “We advocate a polite, courteous, and ‘spirited’ exchange of views, and we encourage everyone — Atheist and religious alike — to exercise their First Amendment rights by expressing their opinions in a constitutional manner in the public square. We can win in the marketplace of ideas without invidious comparisons or pointless insults aimed at those with whom we differ.”

Cross-post from Calvin L Smith (Principal of King’s Evangelical Divinity School) and nuff said:-

Why Does the BBC Do This?

See this story on the BBC News website concerning horrific violence in Nigeria overnight leading to the death of over a hundred people, mainly women and children, macheted to death. Now read the same story as reported on the CNN website. Notice the major difference in how the story is reported? (Hint: One of the report identifies the religious affiliation of the victims, the other expressly avoids doing so, even to the extent that the report seems incomlete and somehow artificial).

Why does the Beeb do this? Is it driven by fear, either of opposition from or alienating a proportion of its Muslim audience? Or perhaps disdain for Christianity? All of the above? Lest someone feel I’m being overly-sensitive here, it’s important to note the BBC doesn’t have a particularly good track record when it comes to Christianity, while many feel Islam gets rather better treatment. Whether that is the case or not is for others to decide. But I suggest when a Christian village is attacked on a Sunday morning and a hundred people – predominantly women and children – are slashed to death with machetes, yet our national tax-funded broadcaster fails to report the full facts, it has hardly a wise act by a corporation regularly fending off accusations of anti-Christian bias.