eChurch Christian Blog

My friend Polycarp has posted his “Friday Question”:-

What is the proper way to read the bible?

Be sure to pop over and share your thoughts.

Cross post by Mariano over at Atheism is Dead. This is part 2 and part 1 can be found here.

The American Humanists Association is one of the groups that collected donated money to fund self-serving ad campaigns instead of helping people in need during a time of worldwide recession. The 2008 AD ads read “Why believe in God? Be good for goodness’ sake” the 2009 AD ads read the same with the addition of “No God? No Problem!” (see the bus ad/billboard archive).

In this segment I will consider part of the AHA’s 2008 AD explanation for the ads which is entitled “Interesting Facts You Might Not Know.” I will consider one of their facts: “Why not believe in a god?” and consider another in part 3, namely: “Without a god, why be good at all?”

This fact is elucidated thusly:

Why not believe in a god?

There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of God, description of what God does, or list of things God wants humans to do. Different cultures, faiths, religious denominations, theologians, and ordinary people have held wildly varied beliefs for centuries. In fact, people aren’t always talking about the same thing. So it’s difficult to know where to start any rational or useful exploration of the subject.

Most definitions of God aren’t scientifically testable. They are philosophical abstractions, logical contradictions, imprecise spiritual notions, or subjective feelings. So there appears no way to show that this or that particular god idea is true or false, or even makes much sense. Moreover, most people don’t even want their god idea to be scientifically testable, since that might result in it being falsified.

Those definitions of God that are scientifically testable, such as the very humanlike and limited god ideas of children and ancient peoples, have always lacked evidence. The Santa Claus idea also falls into this category [emphasis in original].

Let us parse this elucidation before considering the next.

It appears that the lesson learned is “There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of God…So it’s difficult to know where to start.” Therefore, since it is difficult why bother; just do not believe in a god.

Would this argument be accepted with regards to any other issue with which humans deal? “What son? Your schooling is difficult? Well, just quit.” Or why not, since it is difficult, just go ahead and choose one, or more, god(s) out of a hat?

Furthermore, “Most definitions of God aren’t scientifically testable.” But why is scientific testability the criteria? Is it scientific testable that scientific testability is the ultimate, if not only, cogent epistemology? If not, then the criterion fails its own criteria and eternally loops in a cycle of circular illogic (for how atheists restrict their thinking by appealing to “science” see Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation? part 1, part 2, part 3).

They have not established why we must adhere to their search for God parameters. If we do not know whether there is a God we do not know for what sort of evidence to look. If, for example, God is non-physical should we expect a non-physical being to give off, or leave behind, physical evidence? Do we look for wet evidence of a dry object? Science deals with the natural so why is it being called upon to investigate the supernatural? In fact, when science begins to uncover evidence of God it must change in order to accommodate the new evidence.

Try this, “There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of _________ (fill in the blank)…So it’s difficult to know where to start.” It just so happens that we do have a place to start: natural theology, or general revelation—inferring the existence of a creator and even particular characteristic of this creator from nature. This is one way to show that this or that particular God idea is true or false, or even makes much sense. So, to be fair, they are stating that “it’s difficult to know where to start” well, you can start at the parsed post On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:

1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

A very lucid guest post by Levitt over at the Rosh Pina Project. Levitt is a Messianic Levite and shares his thoughts on the priesthood, which I think is rather cool.

Guest post by Levitt

In the context of Galatians, Paul makes the point that the Torah given by Moses was an addition to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was added in order to make sin very clear so that we will all know, and be without excuse that we have fallen short of the righteous standard set before us by God. So it was a temporary addition until the Messiah came, the Seed, and now that He has come, the Torah has done its job.

We read in Hebrews 7:

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness.

Now with Messiah there is a New Priesthood according to the Order of Melchizedek. Now this system is different from my ancestors, the Levitical Priesthood. You recall this was provided for under the Torah given by Moses, which describes it’s operation. Now it is interesting to note that if you have a New Priesthood you surely need a new Torah under which it can operate. Equally if you have a new Torah, then surely the Old Priesthood has no structure under which to operate.

Previously only one type of priesthood was permitted, the Levitical Priesthood. Now this Hebrews text clearly tells us that the Levitical Priesthood could not bring perfection. Blood sacrifices only temporarily covered sin, Messiah blood brings complete removal of sins.

The writer of Hebrews says that the Levitical priesthood has been done away with and replaced with the Priesthood of Melchizedek. This would require a change in the Torah. As long as the Torah of Moses was in effect, no other priesthood was valid except the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood.

Hebrews 7:18 states that the Mosaic Law was set aside because it was weak and useless!

Because it is no longer in effect, we now have a New Priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek. If the Mosaic law were still in effect, then how could Yeshua function as a priest?

Yeshua is a priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

We read in 2 Corinthians 3:

You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Messiah, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. And we have such trust through Messiah toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

• v7 Paul refers to the Law as the ministration of death
• v9 he calls it the ministration of condemnation
• v3 and v7 highlight the Ten Commandments as these are the tablets or engraved stones

The point Paul is making, the Ten Commandments were leading to death and condemnation. If they were in force today, this would still be true. Good then that they are no longer in force. v7 and v11 says they are passing away. From this passage it is clear, that the Ten Commandments are no longer legally in effect.

The Torah still stands to reveal the holiness of God, provide a rule/guide for conduct, and to define sin, and ultimately it is a tutor to lead us to utter faith in Moshiach. However it is clear that no righteousness, justification, sanctification or perfection is through the Torah. This comes through Yeshua the Messiah’s work. This is the fulfilment of Torah, and brings the Torah to its intended completion.

Indeed, the superiority of the Torah of Moshiach is seen by the fact that it will be never be rendered inoperative.

Cross-post by Mariano – Atheism is Dead

Edd Doerr, “former elected head of the American Humanist Association for 14 years” dissents from the current AHA campaigns.

This seemed like a good occasion to consider just how the AHA purposes that we be without God.

As for the AHA ads which read “No God?…No Problem! Be Good for goodness’ sake,” Edd Doerr wrote, “I am embarrassed by the A.H.A.’s “good without God” campaign.”[1]

This is because, as he explains:

Humanists are philosophical naturalists…one item of the humanist worldview is emphasizing the many positive positions we hold in common with a wide range of religious believers.

I refer to such matters as peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, the environment, social justice, democracy, women’s rights and so on.

He feels that there are more pressing matters upon which to focus and thus, is embarrassed by “angry debates about philosophy.” He states that “Our planetary society does not have the luxury of engaging in” such things and states:

Progressive and mainstream humanists, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others of good will need to concentrate on what unites us, not on what divides us. Divisive ad campaigns invite blowback and stimulate both ends of the religious spectrum to engage in fruitless bouts of name-calling and invective.

Indeed, atheist complain of being viewed with suspicion, at best, and yet as long as they insist on defining atheism as anti-theism, anti-religion, anti-religious people, anti-God, anti-anything/everything and pro-nothing but a negative position and belligerence they cannot expect much more.

The very reason for inventing terms such as Humanists, Brights, etc. was to attempt to get away from the negative connotations of the term “atheism.”

For example, “New Atheist” movement poster boy Sam Harris warned that:

…our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence. My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one…I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense.”

Moreover, while Sam Harris argues that there should be no such word as “atheism” American Atheists counter-argue that they have fought long and hard for the acceptance of atheism and thus, the term should not be gotten rid of. Keep in mind that Sam Harris is the atheist Buddhist mystic who does not like the labels “atheist,” “Buddhist” or “mystic.”

“Humanism” has always been premised upon the concept of atheism is disguise. Note the words of the late Corliss Lamont who taught a course in Humanism at Columbia University; from “The Independent Mind Essays Of A Humanist Philosopher,” pp. 63-64:

I suppose that the first and fairest question to ask our redefiners is, What is the purpose and value of this complex and bewildering game? I imagine that their chief answer is that they do not wish to cut themselves off…

They wish to work within the tradition or within the church and win people over gradually to a new and more acceptable idea of God; to evolve a religion relevant to modem conditions while retaining the hallowed and well-loved words of old. All this would become impossible if they acknowledged themselves as atheists…

There is the additional consideration that the term atheist has certain undesirable connotations apart from its primary meaning as simply a denial of theism, It has frequently been associated with enemies of society and narrow-minded dogmatists…

The attitude of the redefinitionists perhaps comes most appropriately under the heading of what is sometimes called “strategy.” Direct, frontal attacks on the old ideas do not, we are told, result in progress. They stiffen the defense mechanisms of the faithful and handicap the critic by making him appear a crank and a radical…

Some of them, akin to those who aim to reform the church from within, plan to win subtly…though always being careful to call it something else.

With this in mind we will consider the reasoning behind the ads as we progress.

[1] Edd Doerr, “Atheists’ Ad Campaign,” New York Times, December 9, 2009, Letter to the Editor

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:

1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

On the subject of atheists, do check out David’s post over at Anglican Samizdat, picking up on the interesting comments made by Peter Hitchens on his brothers beliefs.

PART 2 HERE.

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.

Harry’s place have an interesting post looking at the phenomenon of US support for Israel.

Within the post Gene makes this comment:-

Now American non-Jews support Israel for a lot of different reasons, some of which (like Christian end-times theology) make me squirm.

I thought the term “Christian end-times theology” was of particular interest. I am assuming that Gene is alluding to the armageddonist, final battle apocalyptics, Revelation of St. John literalism, much espoused on God TV and US networks.

The term “Christian end-times theology” is to me bit of a misnomer in this regard. I view this as an end times eschatological paradigm rather than a theology.

The reason I make this point, is that I hold a Zionist-theology without this particular eschatological view. I accept of course that eschatology is oftentimes theologically driven, however, they are not necessarily the same thing for me personally, and a distinction should be made between eschatology and theology. I do acknowledge that eschatology is often referred to as a “branch of theology”.

It is for me entirely consistent to hold a Zionist theology and yet reject Dispensationalism and more specifically Premillennialism.

I thought this to be an excellent post from David over at the Anglican Samizdat Blog, in which he articulates a very important and salient point, relating to the correlation between our general perception of the “human condition”, and our political and theological worldview.

Anglican Samizdat

Some friends recently returned from a stay at a kibbutz in Israel. The individuals they were staying with believe they have the solution to the problems in the Middle-East: if only the people were allowed to go about their daily lives free of political agendas and politicians, there would be peace and harmony.

This assessment is based on the liberal fallacy that man is essentially good and, if left alone, his innate goodness would flourish resulting in God’s kingdom being established on earth. Political liberals believe this, as to religious liberals. What they are both overlooking is the Jeremiah 17:9 factor: original sin.

Mankind is not innately good, he is innately evil. That is not to say every person is as evil as he could be, but that no person is as good as he should be. Even Christians who have been judicially exonerated through Christ’s atoning sacrifice will continue to sin as long as they are this side of heaven, since their old nature is still present.

The secular government has a divinely appointed role in restraining evil – a fact that goes unrecognised by political and religious liberals.

To put it another way:

Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

This is a fantastic cross-post by bananabrain over at the Spitoon:-

the kangaroo court of militant atheism is a toxic, anti-reason fallacy

An interesting article from The Point of no Return blog, affording us an insight into the psyche of the Iranian regime, especially in relation to how they view Jews and Christians.

Point of no Return

The Sh’ia prejudice behind Iran’s foreign policy

The force driving Iran’s foreign policy is ideology: a Shi’ism that considers Jews ‘unclean’ and the unauthentic Jews and Christians of today ‘infidels’ – not protected peoples. Menashe Amir, chief editor of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Persian-language website explains in this JCPA brief (with thanks: Eliyahu):

“To grasp Iran’s ambitions and foreign policy, one must first understand the Islamic Republic’s religious ideology. The Iranian regime believes that the right religion for humanity is Islam, and the right sect of Islam is Shi’ism. An Iranian’s religious and national duty is to restore Shi’ism to its rightful position of leadership.

“To express his enduring respect for Judaism and Christianity, Ayatollah Khomeini used to say, “Moses is my right eye and Jesus is my left.” But in a meeting with Islamic ambassadors in Tehran, he also aired the view that today, given how diluted those faiths have become, there are no authentic Jews or Christians left.

“Iran’s ultimate aim is to establish global Islamic rule, a new Islamic empire, but this time under Shi’ite leadership. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself endorses the Shi’ite belief that once the Mahdi (“the Guided One”) makes his prophesied return, the whole world will convert to Shi’ism. This belief, strange as it may sound to Western ears, lies at the heart of Iran’s foreign policy, including its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. It is for this reason that this ambition presents a grave problem not merely for Israel, but for Arab countries, Europe, and the whole world.

“Ahmadinejad once visited a painting exhibition in Tehran and remarked that there are two main arts in life: jihad and shahadah (“religious war” and “martyrdom”). That’s the essence of his ideology. During the Iran-Iraq war, the regime was criticized for engaging in a futile conflict that took the lives of half a million Iranians. The reply was that during the eight years of war, some seven million Iranians were born, so why cry over half a million killed “for the sake of Islam”?

“In his book Towzihol-Masael (The Explanation of Problems), Khomeini contended that Jews, Christians, Bahais, and Zoroastrians are considered infidels insofar as they refuse to accept Mohammad as a prophet, as are Sunnis, insofar as they don’t accept the twelve Imams of the Shi’ites. Khomeini then ruled that a Muslim mustn’t touch infidels, deal with them, or come into contact with them. Jews, in particular, are considered unclean. In his 1970 book Velayat-e faqih (Islamic Government), he portrayed the Jews as crooks, liars, and enemies of Islam.

“Iranian leaders call for the annihilation of Israel because these “unclean Jews” occupy the Muslim land of Palestine and hold the keys to the holy Al-Aqsa Mosque and other Islamic holy places. For tactical reasons, the Iranians take up the banner of the Palestinian cause in order to show the Arab countries that while they are making peace with the Jewish enemy, the Iranians are the only Muslims who uncompromisingly fight on behalf of the Palestinians.

“Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust for tactical considerations, too. By denying the Holocaust, the Iranians deny the legitimacy of the State of Israel and thereby gain respect in the Islamic world.

“When Ahmadinejad declared that Israel ought to be wiped off the map, he added that this was merely the first stage of the confrontation with the West, which, for all intents and purposes, means Christianity. Indeed, part of the animosity that Iranians express toward Judaism and Israel stems from the fact that they consider Judaism to be a pillar of the Christian faith. ”

Read article in full

Cross-post Cranmers Curate:-

This by Cranmer’s Curate first appeared on the US-based news service for Anglican Communion orthodoxy, VirtueOnline:

Thank the good Lord the Holy Spirit did not inspire ‘money is the root of all evils’ to be written but rather ‘the love of money is the root of all evils’ (1 Timothy 6v10 – RSV).

As postmodernism strengthens its grip on the Western mind, money is one of the few inescapable realities left in the institutional Church. At gatherings of Anglican clergy at the local level, Laodicean self-delusion is now pandemic. If there is a worldview unifying the diversity of ‘traditions’ around the room, it would be the religion of the new Volkswagen advertisement – Dudeism.

The dude has a worldview suited for the times, he’s in touch with the modern world, he doesn’t get hung up on old doctrines – in fact he’s inclined to satirise them with a dry one-liner. But the satire towards others is balanced by the self-mockery on the T-shirt, which shows that the dude is basically a nice guy.

Dudeism is comfortable driving through ambiguous ideological terrain – in fact the vehicle has been designed to do that – and it is chilled about picking up the passengers of the permissive society.

Amongst the dudes in dog-collars, the most extraordinary theological opinions are affirmed as insightful, even by professing Evangelicals. If the dudes are exercised about anything, it is about the ‘quality of relationships’. But don’t expect to hear the dudes mention biblical holiness as a quality that should be characterising these touchy-feely ‘relationships’. And of course to state categorically which ones should be genuinely touch-feely and which ones not and with whom would be to commit the one cardinal sin for the dude – ‘judgementalism’.

It is such a relief that in this clerical Avatar world of in-your-face 3D theological diversity there is the God-given and inescapable reality of hard cash. This cosy, postmodern, all-affirming, dudeistic love-in cannot escape from the reality of the diocesan budget deficit. It cannot escape from the reality that sustainable churches are those with enough regenerate Christians whom the Holy Spirit has moved to give real money generously and sacrificially to the work of Christ’s Kingdom in and through their local church.

In their behaviour within the institutional Church, Christlikeness demands that these viable churches should not become arrogant or bullying or reactionary. Their financial generosity is a work of God’s unmerited grace in them as the Holy Spirit has applied the Word of God to their minds, hearts and actions.

But the problem now facing these orthodox churches is that they are becoming the victims of their own success. Unlike churches that have dwindled into non-viability because of a liberal-induced famine of the Word of God down the years, they can afford a vicar and therefore they are liable to get one. But God spare them a new vicar in the form of one of the dudes posing as an Evangelical.

This mainly affects medium-sized Anglican Evangelical churches, Conservative and Charismatic. The megachurches are able to call the shots with dioceses over appointments. But Evangelical churches that are viable but not mega are much more susceptible to pressure from liberal-led dioceses to take a soft Evangelical incumbent or one who will turn out to be less than a fighter for biblical truth, one who is not going to threaten the dudeist status quo.

Unfortunately, this practical downside to the inside strategy of Evangelicals trying to operate within the structures of the institutional Church is happening on the ground. Generous, godly, viable churches with an evangelistic track record are being sold postmodern dudes for pastors.

The Apostle Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1v9-11 is so very urgent for local churches facing appointments in these increasingly dangerous times: ‘And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God’ (RSV).

Orthodox Anglican churches facing vacancies really do the need the spiritual discernment to spot the dude at the interview and issue the Archdeacon with a firm no thank you.

Otherwise, institutional neo-liberalism, which is dudeistic in theory but not in political practice, could win by stealth.

I just wanted to draw your attention to a fascinating discussion over at The Church of Jesus Christ.

Question of the Day: Is Hell a Necessary Christian Doctrine

Hat-tip: More Books and Things

9 Marks

The Neo-Liberal Stealth Offensive by Phil Johnson

The gospel’s most dangerous earthly adversaries are not raving atheists who stand outside the door shouting threats and insults. They are church leaders who cultivate a gentle, friendly, pious demeanor but hack away at the foundations of faith under the guise of keeping in step with a changing world.

No Christian should imagine that heresy is always conspicuous or that every purveyor of theological mischief will lay out his agenda in plain and honest terms. The enemy prefers to sow tares secretly, for obvious reasons. Thus Scripture expressly warns us to be on guard against false teachers who creep into the church unnoticed (Jude 4), wolves who sneak into the flock wearing sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15), and servants of Satan who disguise themselves as angels of light (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Theological liberalism is particularly dependent on the stealth offensive. A spiritually healthy church is generally not susceptible to the arrogant skepticism that underlies a liberal’s rejection of biblical authority. Liberalism must therefore take root covertly and gain strength and influence gradually. The success or failure of the whole liberal agenda hinges on a patient public-relations cam­paign.

That is precisely how neo-liberals have managed to get a foothold in the contemporary evangelical movement. Consider how evangelicalism has changed in just a few short decades.

CLASSIC EVANGELICALISM

Historic evangelicalism has two clear distinctives. One is a commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The other is a conviction that the gospel message is clear and non-negotiable.

Specifically, evangelicals understand the gospel as an announcement of what Christ has done to save sinners, redeem Adam’s fallen race, and usher believers into his eternal kingdom. The gospel is not a mandate for sinners to save themselves, redeem humanity, recover human dignity, safeguard cultural diversity, preserve the environment, eliminate poverty, establish a kingdom for themselves, or champion whatever social concept of “salvation” might be popular at the moment. In fact, the gospel expressly teaches that sinners can be justified only through faith in Christ alone, and exclusively by his gracious work—not because of any merit they earn for themselves.

The Protestant Reformation clarified and illuminated those same two principles—sola Scriptura and sola fide. Indeed, they are sometimes known as the formal and material principles of the Reformation. But they weren’t novel ideas someone dreamed up out of thin air in the sixteenth century. They are and always have been essential principles of biblical Christianity. In the long course of church history, those truths have frequently been clouded and confused, or mingled with (and sometimes overwhelmed by) bad teaching. Yet since the time of Christ and the apostles those truths have never been totally silenced. They are in fact the very backbone of New Testament doctrine.

Historic evangelicalism made much of that fact. From the dawn of the Reformation through the mid-twentieth century, few evangelicals ever thought of questioning Scripture or modifying the gospel.

CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICALISM

With the advent of the seeker-sensitive movement, however, evangelicals began to be influenced by a new species of entrepreneurial leaders who marginalized those core doctrines by neglect. Most of them didn’t overtly deny essential biblical truths; but neither did they vigorously stress or defend anything other than their own methodology.

The results were predictable: Churches are now filled with formerly unchurched people who are still untaught and perhaps even unconverted. Multitudes of children raised on a treacly diet of seeker-sensitive religion have grown up to associate the label evangelical with superficiality. Most of them cannot tell you what the term originally meant, and they reject whatever vestigial evangelical boundaries or doctrinal distinctives their parents may have held onto. But they still call themselves evangelicals when it’s convenient, and many have remained at the fringes of the visible movement, decrying how out of step the church is with their generation. That, after all, is exactly what they learned from their parents.

This is fertile soil for liberalism to burst into full flower, and that is precisely what is already happening. Evangelicals are blithely following a number of trends that advance the neo-liberal agenda. Unless a faithful remnant begins to recognize and resist the neo-liberal strategy, evangelical churches and institutions will eventually succumb to rank liberalism, just as most of the mainstream denominations did a century ago.

FOUR LIBERAL TRENDS EVANGELICALS MUST RESIST

To help you withstand the drift, here are four major trends today’s crop of neo-liberal leaders are fostering and taking advantage of:

1. They recklessly follow the zeitgeist.

Theological liberals have always been diligent students of the spirit of the age. A century ago, they were known as “modernists” because post-enlightenment values were the pretext they used to advance the liberal agenda. They insisted that if the church refused to change with the times, Christianity itself would become irrelevant.

Naturally, “changing with the times” meant abridging the gospel message. Sophisticated modern minds would not accept the miracles and other supernatural elements of Scripture. That was okay, the modernists insisted, because the real heart of the Bible’s message is the moral and ethical content anyway. Besides, they said, practical virtue is what the church ought to focus on. They considered it sheer folly for preachers to stress difficult doctrinal features that sounded primitive and offensive to modern ears, such as the wrath of God, blood atonement, and especially the doctrine of eternal punishment. Future generations would be lost to churches that held onto such beliefs and refused to accommodate modern thought, they solemnly warned. The situation was urgent.

(Of course they were dead wrong. Churches and denominations that embraced modernist ideas declined severely, and some died. Churches that stayed faithful to their evangelical convictions thrived.)

Nowadays, neo-liberals argue that the church needs a thorough overhaul based on the challenge of postmodernism. The world has changed its point of view once more, and the liberals still complain that the church lags behind, out of step, and increasingly irrelevant. Notice, however: although the neo-liberals’ pretext departs from the modernism favored by their nineteenth-century counterparts, both the line of argument they use and their theological agenda remain exactly the same. The doctrines postmodern liberals relentlessly challenge are the same ones the modernists rejected, especially God’s hatred of sin, penal, substitutionary atonement, and the doctrine of hell.

It’s no secret that the world has always despised certain aspects of biblical truth. If it were a legitimate goal for the church to keep in step with the world, it might make sense to review and revise the message from time to time. But the church is forbidden to court the spirit of the age, and one of the main reasons the gospel is such a stumbling block is that it cannot be adapted to suit cultural preferences or alternative worldviews. Instead, it confronts them all.

Beware of church leaders who are more worried about being contemporary than they are about being doctrinally sound, more concerned with their methodology than they are with their message, and more captivated by political correctness than they are by the truth. The church is not called to ape the world or make Christianity seem cool and likable, but to proclaim the gospel faithfully—including the parts the world usually scoffs at: sin, righteousness, and judgment (cf. Jn. 16:8). Jesus expressly taught that if we are faithful in that task, the Holy Spirit will convict hearts and draw believers to Christ.

The desire to be hip and fashionable leads to another trend currently advancing the neo-liberal agenda:

2. They want the world’s admiration at all costs.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with being winsome. As recipients of divine grace and the Spirit’s fruit, we should by definition have personal charisma (cf. Gal. 5:19-23). We also ought to maintain a good testimony before the world. In fact, to qualify as an elder, a man “must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace” (1 Tim. 3:7).

That of course speaks of a person’s character: graciousness, compassion, and a reputation for integrity. It is not a prescription for appeasing worldly tastes or endorsing every earthly fashion. When we need to shave corners off the truth or compromise righteousness in order to gain the world’s friendship, bearing the reproach of Christ is an infinitely better option. No true friend of God deliberately seeks the world’s camaraderie (Jas. 4:4).

But one of the common characteristics of liberalism is an obsession with gaining the world’s approval and admiration no matter the cost.

We witnessed the germination of this attitude in the evangelical movement at least four decades ago, especially among contemporary church leaders who let neighborhood surveys and opinion polls determine the style and agenda of the church.

When churches give in to that craving for worldly approval, they inevitably subjugate the gospel to a more popular message. At first, they won’t necessarily deny (or even challenge) core gospel truths such as the historical facts outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. But they will abbreviate, modify, or add to the message. The embellishments usually echo whatever happens to be politically correct at the moment—climate change, world hunger, the AIDS crisis, or whatever. Those things will be stressed and talked about repeatedly while the historic facts of Christ’s death and resurrection, the great themes of gospel doctrine, and the actual text of Scripture itself will be largely ignored or treated as something to be taken for granted.

Feed any church a steady diet of that for a few years and they will have no means of defense when someone attacks the faith more directly. That’s precisely what is happening today with various attacks on substitutionary atonement, the exclusivity of Christ, the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, and other essential Christian truths. All of those things were first downplayed in order to make the church’s message sound more “positive.” Now they are being subjected to a full-scale assault.

Such problems are exacerbated and the liberal craving for worldly esteem reaches a white-hot intensity in the academic realm. That brings up yet another feature of the neo-liberal agenda to watch out for:

3. Their “faith” comes with an air of intellectual superiority.

Liberals treat faith itself as an academic matter. Their whole system is essentially a wholesale rejection of simple, childlike belief. Their worldview foments an air of academic arrogance, setting human reason in the place of highest authority, treating the Bible with haughty condescension, and showing utter contempt for the kind of faith Christ blessed.

Consequently, liberals are and always have been obsessed with academic respectability. They want the world’s esteem as scholars and intellectuals—no matter what they have to compromise to get it. They sometimes defend that motive by arguing that the secular academy’s acceptance is essential to the Christian testimony.

Of course that is a quixotic quest. It is also a denial of the Bible’s plain teaching. Believers cannot be faithful to Scripture and win general accolades from the wise men, scribes, and debaters of this age. The world hated Jesus, and he made it clear that his faithful disciples mustn’t expect—or seek—the world’s honor (Jn. 15:18; Luke 6:22; cf. Jas. 4:4). Paul, himself a true scholar in every sense, wrote this world’s wisdom off as sheer foolishness: “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God” (1 Cor. 3:18-19).

True Christian scholarship is about integrity, not accolades. Liberalism covets the latter, and that explains why liberals are always drawn to ideas that are stylish and politically correct, yet they are resistant to virtually all the hard truths of Christianity, starting with the authority Scripture claims for itself.

Be on guard against that tendency. Here’s one more:

4. They despise doctrinal and biblical precision.

This may sound like an oxymoron, but while treating faith as an academic matter, liberals prefer an almost anti-intellectual, agnostic approach to dealing with the specific truth-claims of Scripture. They like their doctrine hazy and indistinct.

One maneuver neo-liberals have perfected in these postmodern times is an artful dodge when they dislike a particular doctrine but cannot afford to make a plain and open denial. Instead, they will claim, “Scripture is simply too unclear on that point. We can’t really be sure. The point is disputed by top scholars, and who are we to speak with too much certainty?”

Thus without denying (or affirming) anything in particular, and without even technically dismissing the matter under discussion as an unimportant point, the ruse effectively sets the truth aside. The skeptic’s goal is thus accomplished without incurring any of the odium of skepticism.

Heavy doses of that flavor of postmodern, neo-liberal evasion have conditioned multitudes of church members to regard carefulness and precision in handling doctrine as both unimportant and potentially divisive. These days the person who shows evidence of doctrinal scruples is much more likely to be held in suspicion or disdain among evangelicals than the neo-liberals who have deliberately made the study of biblical doctrine seem so cloudy, confusing, and contentious.

In reality—and this is a lesson the church should have learned from both Scripture and church history—unity and harmony cannot exist in the church at all if there is not a common commitment to sound doctrine.

CONCLUSION

As long as these four trends and others like them continue to thrive within the evangelical movement, the threat posed by neo-liberalism looms large. Conservative evangelicals should not grow apathetic or take too much comfort in the apparent meltdown of Emergent Village and the liberal wing of postmodernized Christianity. Even if the Emergent ghetto does finally and completely give up the ghost, many of the leading figures and popular ideas from that movement will simply blend into mainstream evangelicalism, which is growing less mainstream and less evangelical all the time.

We must pay attention to the lessons of history and stand firm on the truth of Scripture—and we desperately need to be more aggressive than we have been so far in opposing these neo-liberal influences.

This is a timely reminder and an excellent post from our Lutheran brother over at the CyberBrethren blog. I personally worry at the tendency of some to have faith in their faith, or faith in their belief, which can be a subtle deception:-

CyberBrethren:-

I have, over the years, conversed with many Calvinists, in person and over the Internet. I always ask them, “Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are among God’s elect and are saved?” There are generally two reactions to that question: (1) A long and rather painful pause after which they say, “I hope I am. I do believe in Christ.” or (2) A quick, “Yes, I believe in Christ.” Now, let’s be honest here and admit that many Lutherans would answer in somewhat the same way. But here is the problem.

If our feelings of certainty in our salvation is based on our feeling that we have faith, we will flounder. The answer we must always give to the question of “Do you know you are saved?” is not, “Yes, because I have faith” but rather, “Yes, because Christ Jesus died for me” and of course, in my opinion, the very best answer of all is simply to point people to Luther’s explanation of the Creed and say, “Here, this puts it very well.”

Point yourself, and others, not to faith, not to subjective feelings that there is faith in your heart, but always, always, always, point people to Christ and what He has done for you and the whole world. Do not confused faith in faith, with trust in Christ. There is a key difference.

We are Christians, not Faith-ians.

For those who are not sure which Creed and explanation from Luther is referred to here, Jim Claybourn, helps us out:-

I loathe abortion, but this from US State Delegate Bob Marshall is just wicked:-

Cross-post Polycarp:-

The GOP does not speak for God or THIS Christian

The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest. – State Delegate Bob Marshall (here)

No, Delegate Marshall, God’s doesn’t work that way. Read John 9 and Romans 2.

Let me restate his theological idea: Disabled children are God’s punishment.

Unsurprisingly, P Z Myers has also picked up on this.

It is fortuitous that the Jerusalem Post should report on the existential threat posed by anti-Zionist “theologians” to Israel, when the Archbishop of Canterbury who is currently in Jordan has just been quoted as saying:-

……the theology of Christian Zionism has no historical base and is a recent Protestant addition. – Eurasia Review.

Of course the irony is that the Archbishop of Canterbury is widely thought of as someone who is willing to embrace any new wind of zeitgeist doctrine, and usher it into the church as quickly as possible, overturning millennia of orthodoxy.

Jerusalem Post:-

Israel is facing a threat from theologians and activists in prominent Protestant churches throughout the world, in addition to the threats posed by “lawfare” and the Goldstone Report, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, charged on Tuesday.

Cooper was speaking at a plenary session of the seventh annual Jerusalem Conference in the capital.

“Theologians and activists in some prominent Protestant churches are seeking to destroy Israel from Above,” Cooper warned. “Their activities threaten to turn traditional friends into enemies and erode support for Israel in the United States…. They cast Israel as a theological mistake, conceived in the sin of the last gasp of Western colonialism.”

According to Cooper, the center of the Protestant theological war against Israel is the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, an umbrella organization of liberal church bodies, boasting a worldwide following of 349 churches and 580,000 members.

He said one of the most prominent denominations in the WCC is the Presbyterian Church, which was the first to call for divestment from Israel. Cooper warned that 50 members of the US Congress belonged to the Presbyterian Church and, although many of them were friends of Israel, church policy was run from the top by a tight group of activists.

“Anti-Israel momentum is building,” Cooper warned. He charged that the leadership of these churches had “accepted the Arab narrative.”

Cooper said he was specifically concerned by three documents published by members of the WCC in the past three years. They are known as the 2007 Amman Call, the 2008 Bern Perspective and the 2009 Kairos Document, issued by Protestant theologians last December.

Cooper stressed that the Amman Call, issued at the end of a WCC conference called “Churches Together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East,” supported a peace settlement with Israel based on a two-state solution and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

In another section, the authors of the Amman Call wrote, “Risk the curses and abuse that will be aimed at you and stand in solidarity with us and our Palestinian brothers and sisters of all faiths as we defiantly reject the possibility that the occupation will continue.”

In the following year, a group of Protestant theologians gathered in Bern, Switzerland to review the theological underpinnings of Christian attitudes toward Israel,Cooper continued. No Jews were invited to participate. The Bern Perspective, as the document the group issued was called, denied the Jewish understanding of a connection between themselves as a people and the Land of Israel.

“In effect, this marked the return to replacement theology, in which Jews were stripped of their legitimacy,” charged Cooper. Replacement theology holds that the Christians replaced the Jews as the people of the Bible.

“It is not fair to deny our validity as a people and a nation and to take away our Torah,” said Cooper.

According to the Bern Perspective, “the contemporary conflict in Palestine-Israel resounds with biblical metaphors. However, there was significant consensus in theconference that the Bible must not be utilized to justify oppression or supply simplistic commentary on contemporary events, thus sacrilizing the conflict and ignoring its socio-political, economic and historic dimensions.

“We are called not only to expose manipulations of scripture that ignore context and complexity, but to offer readings of text that promote the values of God’s kingdom: justice, peace, reconciliation and forgiveness…. Let us continue to critically and creatively examine notions of the ‘Promised Land,’” reads the document.

Cooper also expressed concern over the Kairos document, which wholeheartedly embraced the moderate Palestinian political line (as opposed to Hamas), arguing that the Palestinian resistance was a response to the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, that religious liberty and freedom of access to the holy places was denied under a “pretext” of security, and that Palestinians suffered from the “wrong interpretation” of theologians who maintained that God had promised the land to the Jews.

The document called on “individuals, companies and states to engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation.”

Cooper also warned that there were indications that some Evangelical Christians were also becoming hostile to Israel and that it could mark the beginning of a dangerous trend.

However, he added that it was not too late for Israel and the Jewish community abroad to engage in dialogue with the Protestant churches and rekindle their friendship toward Israel. One of the problems, said Cooper, was that few Israelis were aware of the threat from these churches

Cross-Post by Joseph Weissman (Seismic Shock). Previous posts on Stephen Sizer; here, here, and here.

This past week, ABC News reported the arrest of Ayatollah Khomeini’s granddaughter Zahra Eshraghi, along with reformist husband Mohamed Reza Khatami.

In direct relation to this news, illustrated with a photo of Hassan Khomeini guarding a copy his book on Christian Zionism, Stephen Sizer comments:

Two years ago I took part in a lecture tour of Iranian universities at the invitation of Dr Zahra Mostafavi, the daughter of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Predictably, I was accused by Zionists of siding with the Iranian regime, with holocaust deniers, and those who allegedly want to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, etc, etc. I am glad that  what I always knew but could not say at the time has been made public – that they are part of the opposition movement to the Iranian regime. The picture is of Khomeini’s grandson, Hassan Khomeini.

Lara Setrakian, writing for ABC News, logged this story a few days ago.

[...]

I have several points to make in response to this.

1. Stephen Sizer presents this arrest as allowing him to finally reveal the secret of Khomeini family members in opposition to the Ahmadinejad regime.

Yet this is not news: the New York Times reported in April 2003 that Eshraghi was a leading reformer opposed to the oppression of women in Iran. The New Republic reported in August 2009:

Eshraghi and her husband are open supporters of Mousavi and have officially endorsed him through their party; both were arrested a day after the election. In another interview ten days before the election, Zahra said, “Mousavi was one of the very few people trusted by my grandfather.”

2. Zahra Mostafavi’s public support for Moussavi – also reported by TNR in August 2009 – is no secret either, and is not something Rev Sizer is revealing to the world just now.

3. Zahra Eshraghi, grand-daughter of Khomeini, is not the same woman as Zahra Mostafavi, Khomeini’s daughter. Both are active in women’s politics, but whereas Eshraghi actively opposes the chador (Islamic veil) being forced on women, Mostafavi sees wearing the hijab as divine law and therefore not up for debate. There is a clear difference, and Sizer had nothing to do with Eshraghi during his visit to Iran. Sizer was invited by Zahra Mostafavi.

4. In July 2006, Zahra Mostafavi wrote a letter to Hassan Nasrallah in praise of Hezbollah, imploring children to become suicide bombers. Not good.

5. Zahra Mostafavi did not invite Stephen Sizer to Iran in a personal capacity or even on behalf of her family. This was a tour organised by the NEDA Institute. Indeed, Sizer himself wrote in a report on his website:

In October 2007, she [Dr Zahra Mostafavi] invited me to give a series of lectures on the impact of Christian Zionism on the Middle East. The tour was arranged and facilitated by Dr Jawad Shabarf of the NEDA Institute for Scientific Research in Tehran.

In January 2006, Dr Jawad Shabarf wrote to Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson on behalf of the NEDA Institute. You can read Shabarf’s corresponse with Faurisson on a Google Cache of the neo-Nazi Zundelsite.

Rev Sizer’s acceptance of an invitation from the NEDA Institute is still inexcusable. It is not justified because Zahra Mostafavi’s niece is a reformer.

6. Hassan Khomeini, depicted in Rev Sizer’s blog, clearly supports terrorist activity against Israeli civilians.

From Payvand’s Iran News:

Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the father of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, said in a July 18 letter to Hizballah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah that he is ready to go to Lebanon to fight the “enemies of Islam and humanity,” Iranian state television reported. Khomeini met with Nasrallah during a July 2 visit to Damascus, IRNA reported.

7. If Rev Sizer’s visit was genuinely out of concern for the opposition to Ahmadinejad, why did he spend his time criticising apocalyptic Christian Zionist theology without even mentioning Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic Mahdist theology?

8. If Rev Sizer was genuinely opposed to the Iranian state in 2007, why did he appear on the Iranian state’s Press TV in 2008? And why did he cite a Holocaust denier in the process?

9. If Rev Sizer was politically opposed to the Ahmadinejad regime in 2007, why did he appear at a political conference in 2008 alongside representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are armed and funded by the Ahmadinejad regime? (Holocaust denier Frederick Tobin was also in attendance, as were Neturei Karta reps).

10. Why was Rev Sizer happy to allow his book on Christian Zionism to be translated into Farsi by Zahra Mostafavi for open usage – despite knowing full well how the Iranian regime treats its Christians?

I do not believe that the very sad arrest of Zahra Eshraghi and Mohamed Reza Khatami justifies or negates Rev Sizer’s political alliances in any way.

For Christians interest in peace and justice who respect Rev Sizer’s writings, these developments may seem disconcerting.

Stephen Sizer’s output is focused on what he sees as the violent outworking of bad theology. Emploring Christians to embrace the Biblical quest for peace and justice, Reverend Sizer presents himself as a moral leader for how Christians should engage in politics.

Perhaps he too has some learning to do.

Trust Calvin L Smith to never skirt around the “toughies”:-

This is a cross-post by Chris Lazenby over at the King’s Evangelical Divinity School Blog. A simple message, but desperately needed in this day and age in my ‘umble opinion.

What is the Gospel? Or, to translate the word ‘gospel’, what is the Good News? You may think it a rather unexpected, or even silly question, to be asking on the website of a college which exists to teach the bible and Christian theology. And yet, I would suggest it is not. I believe there is a great deal of confusion over this word and guess that if you were to put this question to a number of churchgoers, you would get various answers. In the majority of the larger denominations for example, you’d most likely be told something along the lines that the Gospel is simply the love of God. Or that Jesus loves you and has a plan for your life. Some people asked may also talk about Jesus dying for us, but not be clear as to how this works.

The thing is, we can answer this question in many different ways. The Gospel is like a multi-faceted gemstone which has beauty running through it which looks different when viewed from different angles. And of course, part of this beauty is the good news that God loves us. But the message left there could apply to dozens of religions. What really makes Christianity different is Christ. Christians believe that God has sent his Son into the world to show what he, God, is like; to demonstrate his love for us and to reconcile us with himself. In Jesus’ death we see that no matter what we human beings do to him, he will still love; ‘Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.’

And yet, profound as these these things are, there is still more. And here is where we come to what I see as being the heart of the Gospel. The key word missing above is ’sin’. Such an old fashioned word is it not? And yet, we are all steeped in it; born into it; unable to avoid it, in thought, word and deed. How do we get rid of this sin; the things we say and do which we shouldn’t; or the things we don’t say and do which we should?

If we are honest, we’ll admit that we can’t sort this out ourselves. We can’t go back and put right everything we’ve ever done wrong. And we can’t pay God some kind of compensation, because he doesn’t need anything we can offer. And anyway, everything we do have, he gave us in the first place, including life itself. We know that God is a God of justice and that wrongdoing should be punished. And this is where the angle of so-called ’substitutionary atonement’ comes in. We can’t always do right or put right our wrongs, but Christ could and did. He lived a perfect life and, in his death, took the punishment for sin that we deserve.

Now it is precisely here that we seem to run into problems for so many people in the 21st century. Substitutionary atonement is now seen by many as a liability for the Christian church and even evangelical individuals and organisations are falling out about it. For many today, the doctrine is seen as an embarrassment or even an offence. We should not talk about sin and punishment to people in church; we should not point out the hopeless predicament we’re in and the desperate need of a Saviour. No! all of this is too negative. We might even put people off coming to our services! The idea that God should send his own Son to be punished for our transgressions has been rejected by many today as being a monstrously unjust idea. Steve Chalke, the well-known Baptist pastor, speaker and writer, has described the doctrine as ‘cosmic child abuse.’

And yet, throughout the Old Testament we read of a people who know they are sinners and who are instructed by God to offer substitutionary atonement to him so that they may be forgiven; their best goats, lambs, bulls, turtle-doves, whatever it may be; cosmic animal abuse if you care to use Steve Chalke’s disturbing terminology. And all of these sin atoning sacrifices are, in the New Testament, said to have been shadows of an ultimate sacrificial atonement to come. ‘(Christ) entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption’ (Hebrews 9:12).

God has always reached down to bring his people up out of the mire. We can’t lift ourselves up because in our natural state, we are at enmity with God (James 4:4) ‘There is no one righteous, not even one’ (Romans 3:10). So the coming of Christ is the ultimate demonstration of love; not a warm, fluffy love, but a love as hard as nails which refuses to be deflected. God the Son became a human being as we are (though without sin) and reached down into this murky world to raise up all those who would believe out of the mire, washed clean and ready to be presented to their heavenly Father; ‘Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behaviour. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation’ (Colossians 1:21-22).

God knows that we need to know we are forgiven and that therefore, we need to know that justice has been done. Jesus ‘was delivered over to death for our sins’ (Romans 4:25) through a love for us that is so great that, not only does this love pay the price – take the punishment – for sin, it leaves us in do doubt that the price is paid, so that we can know for sure that we are free and forgiven. But, for us to be in this condition of freedom and forgiveness, we must attach ourselves by faith to this Saviour, this lifebelt which has been thrown down to us, so that we are pulled from the slime into the very kingdom of God, where he has ‘raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.’ In this joyous state, we rejoice in St. Paul’s words in Romans 8:1; ‘Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’: and in Ephesians 1:7; ‘In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.’

Let me reiterate again that there is absolutely no way that we could do this by ourselves. We need a Saviour. There are many people calling themselves Christians today who do not know they need a Saviour and indeed, do not know what they need to be saved from. Let’s be absolutely clear on this. If we for one moment believe we do not need a Saviour; that we can somehow earn our own way into God’s favour by our own good deeds, we blaspheme against God. ‘I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die’ (Gal 2:21).

Whatever your own views on this topic, I’d urge you to think on it carefully, to search the scriptures and examine ‘whether these things be so’ (Acts 17:11). And I pray that God will bless you in your efforts.

Cross post from Calvin L Smith. Previous relevant posts; here, here and here.

This Kind of Language is Unhelpful

15 February 2010

An Anglican priest who recently attended a Palestine conference organised by the Federation of Islamic Student Societies today blogs of his participation in the conference. Revd Stephen Sizer also refers to the Jerusalem Declaration, a document he helped draft and which he says “repudiates Christian Zionism as a deviant heresy”.

This is strong language indeed. Of course, it is no secret Revd Sizer has widely publicised his intense dislike of Christian Zionism, which he has every right to do. But surely labelling millions of fellow Evangelical Christians deviant heretics goes too far. Those destructive false teachers repudiated in the New Testament usually have a major trait in common. Whether the Galatian heresy which denies the power of Christ’s salvific work through the cross, the Colossian heresy, incipient Gnostic dualism in the Johannine writings, or the heretics Jude warns against who “deny our master the Lord Jesus Christ”, the heresies roundly condemned in the New Testament tend to deny the person and work of Jesus Christ. In short, they Christologically defective. Thus, it is quite one thing to challenge particular doctrines and teachings, including Christian Zionism, but quite another to state millions of fellow Christians who have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour are deviant heretics, a label generally reserved for those whose teachings in some way deny the person of Christ.

It is also language which is unnecessarily polemical and polarising in nature, rather than the biblical language of gentle reproof and reconciliation as a first port of call for resolving disputes, theological or otherwise, within the Church. Drawing on this kind of language is also ironic, given how reconciliation is a central feature of the Jerusalem Declaration. Jesus tells His disciples they will discern what is good and bad by the fruit it produces. Unfortunately, the fruit of polarised language and the very public and pejorative denunciation of fellow Christians over their response to Israel has brought not only ecclesial division, but also little hope of much-needed reconciliation between Christians over the thorny issue of how to respond to the Middle East crisis.

Repudiating Christian Zionism somehow as a monolithic movement also lacks nuance. Which version of Christian Zionism is referred to here? The British variety, which tends to be more covenantal than geographical in nature, or perhaps the US variety, which includes (but is not limited to) a more apocalyptic and political expression? Meanwhile, some Christian Zionists espouse an Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema (Greater Israel) much like Israel’s Likud party, but others simply believe the Jews should be allowed to return to the land of their forefathers, less concerned with the exact borders or the political structures in place. Between these positions are various theological shades of Evangelical Christianity over responses to the Jewish people and modern Israel, highlighting how current Christian responses to the issue are quite complex. Yet the language of polarisation both masks these complexities and the at times weak arguments of those who would rather seek to promulgate a black and white, dualist narrative that demands an equally polarised response: “You are either with us or against us”.

It isn’t helpful when this desire to repudiate Christian Zionism leads to expressing those views in ways or situations which some Christians might argue are unsuitable. I find it deeply ironic that the Jerusalem Statement opens with the Scripture, “Blessed are the peacemakers”, yet Revd Sizer has chosen to share a platform with a speaker who has condoned suicide bombings and another who openly salutes the terrorist organisation Hamas.

Finally, the Jerusalem Statement arguably lacks a strong hermeneutical and theological basis, engaging in the very mining of the Bible for supporting prooftexts which its authors condemn Christian Zionism for doing. After all, using the Bible this way allows you to make it say whatever you want. The Statement does precisely this, engaging in a typically liberationist decontextualisation of 2 Corinthians 5:19, recontextualising it in the context of the Palestinian milieu. Thus, hundred of years of Protestant hermeneutics emphasising authorial intent are discarded in favour of a postmodernist reader-driven interpretation which is subjective and relativist. Actually, in 2 Corinthians 5 the apostle Paul is not promoting the dissemination of a message of reconciliation between men and peoples, but rather a message of reconciliation between God and Man. In other words, Paul’s message and ministry of reconciliation is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

An extensive, genuine, fair, theologically and biblically-sound, and, importantly, united Christian approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict will never be achieved without respectful dialogue, eschewing the language of polarisation, or refraining from denouncing fellow Christians as heretics or sharing platforms with people who damage our credibility and even condone violence towards innocents. Admittedly, these and other approaches may secure plenty of back-slapping from among those we agree with. But shouldn’t the Christian way of doing theology move beyond preaching to the choir in a bid to win over our fellow Evangelical Christians in gentleness and truth?

I never realised that the “Jerusalem Declaration” states:-

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

This is simply unhelpful at best.

This is the link for the declaration:-

The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism

It’s a bit of a wake up call for me personally, as I know that some very prominent Anglican conservative evangelical groups (here in the UK and abroad) adhere to this declaration and loudly trumpet the fact.

Worrying.

Lovely piece by the neurosurgeon and scientist Dr. Charley Gordon over at The BioLogos Foundation:-

[.....]

My question is this—what else are we missing? As a medical student learning about how the body works, I thought it fascinating to understand how we fight off disease, how the brain responds to stress and how we reproduce, how we perceive vision and memory—the list goes on and on. These, too, are miracles in plain sight. Regardless of how you believe these everyday miracles came about, they speak to an underlying order and bedrock physical principles that we can only contribute to an eloquent genius. Without the predictable, physical laws that order our universe, none of these miracles could happen. In fact, we would not happen. But how soon we forget the mystery of beauty and the joy of being able to breathe and to think! Like the thousands of people hustling by the “Young Archer” for decades, we scurry past God’s most wondrous creations on display every day. And in doing so, all too often we miss the miracle hidden in plain sight.

God, the Artist

In Romans 1:20, we are told, “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal purpose and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse.” In other words, God’s invisible qualities show up in the visible universe. This is really amazing when you think about it. We can learn about God by studying nature? Yes, it is true and biblical. The more we learn about our universe, the more examples we find of physical laws that mirror spiritual laws. There are these consistent physical laws and principles that allow us to exist, all of which are orderly and consistent. The Bible teaches us that the spiritual world and the natural world are inter-related, and as we learn more about the natural world, we better understand its Creator.

Read All