This morning at the men's Bible study, we discussed Matthew 5:43-48, which says, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
It strikes me how unlike our world, in general, and Islam, in particular, this passage (and, thus, Christianity) really is. Everything in our world tells us to hate our enemies and to persecute those who persecute us. But that is not what Christ says.
In regard to Islam...some genuine muslim leaders would have us believe that Islam is not a religion of the sword. I'm not here to determine whether they are right or wrong. I only want to point out, in the first place, that it is hard to get around the clear passages in the Quran and in select Hadith ("inspired" accounts of Muhammad's words and deeds) that plainly direct muslims to use the sword.
For example, several places in the Quran seem to advocate the sword:
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not" (2:216).
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (9:5).
"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29).
One widely-accepted Hadith records Muhammad's words to the commanders of his expeditions: "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them" (Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294).
In the second place, although it is true that the Quran does seem to advocate a non-violent propagation of religion--i.e., “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256a)-- it is also true that Muhammad was not simply a religious leader alone but a military general par excellence as well. As one author has commented: "No matter how you cut it, Muhammad was not only a religious leader, but a military leader who waged war against his enemies as soon as he had the means. Following his example, Muslims quickly carved out an enormous empire. And what ended Muslim expansion was not a change of heart or doctrine, but European military might" (http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html).
Christ, on the other hand, came not wielding the sword but laying down the sword. His was not a kingdom of this world but a heavenly and spiritual kingdom. He came loving His enemies and praying for those who persecuted Him and calls His disciples to do the same. Not only is it unlike Islam, it is unlike everything in and of this world.
Now, in the interest of fairness, I need to admit that much that has transpired (and may still be transpiring) in the name of Christ by professing Christians has been deeply troubling. But there is (although there ought not to be) a difference between what Christians DO and what the Bible says that Christians OUGHT to do.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Camp Hope Gathering
Last night, we had quite an evening together at Camp Hope! We had several large teams with us from Minnesota, Massachussets, and Ontario, Canada, and several homeowners and church members too. For the first time since moving in to our new dining facility (in February-ish 2006), we went outdoors under the big tent to enjoy the cool breeze and the room to move about freely. It brought back memories of the "early" days after the storm, in October and November 2005, when we used to meet every week outside under the big tent. How things have changed since those days!
Last night was a lot like those early days in other ways too. For one thing, we had a fantastic testimony time of encouraging one another. It was much like it was after the hurricane, when time and again person after person stood to express their faith and their gratitude to God for His faithfulness! Several were able to say that they were thankful for the storm and for the way God has mobilized His people in such a major way afterwards for nigh unto 18 months now. Non nobis Domine! (For you non-Latiners, see Psalm 115!)
I would ask one thing in closing. Please pray for us. We continue to seek to reach out to the community around us. Pray that the Lord will be in these efforts. Pray also for the church as we seek to move ahead on building our own facility. There are many unknowns and many potential problems (perhaps the foremost of all is financial! but there are others). Pray for the Lord's provision as we move forward for His glory and not for our own.
Last night was a lot like those early days in other ways too. For one thing, we had a fantastic testimony time of encouraging one another. It was much like it was after the hurricane, when time and again person after person stood to express their faith and their gratitude to God for His faithfulness! Several were able to say that they were thankful for the storm and for the way God has mobilized His people in such a major way afterwards for nigh unto 18 months now. Non nobis Domine! (For you non-Latiners, see Psalm 115!)
I would ask one thing in closing. Please pray for us. We continue to seek to reach out to the community around us. Pray that the Lord will be in these efforts. Pray also for the church as we seek to move ahead on building our own facility. There are many unknowns and many potential problems (perhaps the foremost of all is financial! but there are others). Pray for the Lord's provision as we move forward for His glory and not for our own.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Studying the Bible -- the con article
Last night I mentioned two articles from Wednesday's paper on whether or not we should study the Bible. I discussed the pro-Bible study article last night (see the blog below). Tonight, I'd like to take up the con article. This particular article is written by Sam Harris, who has authored at least two books that seek to inculcate an anti-Christian (and, actually, an anti-"religion") worldview. What are we to say in response to this?
Well, the first thing I would like to say about Mr. Harris' article is that we, as Christians, should welcome the chance to engage men and women like him on an intellectual level about the claims of Christianity. We Christians have nothing to be ashamed of or timid about. We have THE Truth. Let us not relegate the intellectual front seat to the so-called "scientists" of our world. God made our minds, and He made them for His glory. As Christians, we ought to use our minds and engage our world in a battle for reclaiming the mind for God.
The second thing I would like to say is that I'm rather disappointed that Mr. Harris chose not to offer factual evidence to support many of his claims in the article. He did not skimp on the rhetoric, to be sure; he let that fly full tilt. But he omitted offering supporting evidences to back up that rhetoric. For instance, at one point he claims that "[b]ooks like the Bible...get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong." But he does not explain what he means by "every significant fact." It's hard to argue against him when he does not give supporting evidence. We can discuss whether or not a specific "x" or a specific "y" is, first of all, a significant fact and, second of all, something that the Bible gets right or wrong. But it's hard to argue against a nebulous statement like, "the Bible...get[s] almost every significant fact...wrong." It's kind of like trying to nail JELLO to the wall.
The third thing that I would like to say is that when Mr. Harris does give an example of what he means, he leaves his own flank exposed to counter attack. Let me explain what I mean. At one point, Harris says: "There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith--but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy" (emphasis added).
Where are all his "better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak"? Does he mean to suggest that compassion and ecstasy are better reasons to do these things? I would considerately beg to differ for at least the following three reasons. First, compassion and ecstasy are NOT deeper than religion; they are actually part and parcel of the Christian religion. And, I would argue, they are not only part and parcel of it but lie at its very heart.
Second, Mr. Harris has no objective basis for his ethic of compassion and ecstasy. His belief system (atheism, I presume) offers no basis for claiming that another person besides himself OUGHT to pursue compassion and ecstasy. If he believes in the value of compassion and ecstasy, that's fine. But his belief system does not allow him to impose his values on any one else. In other words, you cannot be an atheist AND have an objective ethical system (one that says that ALL people ought to do such and such). Where is the basis for Harris to say that we, who must then be evolved from the apes, are to be compassionate? Says who? You have to have a theistic worldview, like that of Christianity, to be able to impose an ethical system (whether it be one of compassion and ecstasy or something completely different) upon ALL people. And that's what Christianity does. It says that because God made all people, they belong to Him. And they are subject to His rules and commandments, to His ethical system.
Third, not only does Mr. Harris have no objective basis to command me or you or anyone else to live according to the laws of compassion and ecstasy, he also does not have any basis to motivate me or you to keep that command. He says that compassion and ecstasy are deeper than religion. Well, why should I be compassionate? Where is the motivation for atheists, who are evolved from the apes, to be compassionate? Why not pursue survival of the fittest? Once again, you have to assume a theistic worldview, like that of Christianity, to be able to give an objective motivation for us to be compassionate or to follow any other ethical guideline. Christianity says that Christ's death is our motivation. As Christians, we are to be compassionate, for instance, because Christ was; and we are to be loving, because God showed His love for us in this, that while we were yet His enemies, Christ died for us. As Christians, we love because God first loved us. That is true and objective motivation!
In the end, I would like to encourage you not to be swayed by rhetoric but to think through the claims such rhetoricians are making. And I would also like to encourage you to read your Bibles! Soli Deo gloria!
Well, the first thing I would like to say about Mr. Harris' article is that we, as Christians, should welcome the chance to engage men and women like him on an intellectual level about the claims of Christianity. We Christians have nothing to be ashamed of or timid about. We have THE Truth. Let us not relegate the intellectual front seat to the so-called "scientists" of our world. God made our minds, and He made them for His glory. As Christians, we ought to use our minds and engage our world in a battle for reclaiming the mind for God.
The second thing I would like to say is that I'm rather disappointed that Mr. Harris chose not to offer factual evidence to support many of his claims in the article. He did not skimp on the rhetoric, to be sure; he let that fly full tilt. But he omitted offering supporting evidences to back up that rhetoric. For instance, at one point he claims that "[b]ooks like the Bible...get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong." But he does not explain what he means by "every significant fact." It's hard to argue against him when he does not give supporting evidence. We can discuss whether or not a specific "x" or a specific "y" is, first of all, a significant fact and, second of all, something that the Bible gets right or wrong. But it's hard to argue against a nebulous statement like, "the Bible...get[s] almost every significant fact...wrong." It's kind of like trying to nail JELLO to the wall.
The third thing that I would like to say is that when Mr. Harris does give an example of what he means, he leaves his own flank exposed to counter attack. Let me explain what I mean. At one point, Harris says: "There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith--but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy" (emphasis added).
Where are all his "better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak"? Does he mean to suggest that compassion and ecstasy are better reasons to do these things? I would considerately beg to differ for at least the following three reasons. First, compassion and ecstasy are NOT deeper than religion; they are actually part and parcel of the Christian religion. And, I would argue, they are not only part and parcel of it but lie at its very heart.
Second, Mr. Harris has no objective basis for his ethic of compassion and ecstasy. His belief system (atheism, I presume) offers no basis for claiming that another person besides himself OUGHT to pursue compassion and ecstasy. If he believes in the value of compassion and ecstasy, that's fine. But his belief system does not allow him to impose his values on any one else. In other words, you cannot be an atheist AND have an objective ethical system (one that says that ALL people ought to do such and such). Where is the basis for Harris to say that we, who must then be evolved from the apes, are to be compassionate? Says who? You have to have a theistic worldview, like that of Christianity, to be able to impose an ethical system (whether it be one of compassion and ecstasy or something completely different) upon ALL people. And that's what Christianity does. It says that because God made all people, they belong to Him. And they are subject to His rules and commandments, to His ethical system.
Third, not only does Mr. Harris have no objective basis to command me or you or anyone else to live according to the laws of compassion and ecstasy, he also does not have any basis to motivate me or you to keep that command. He says that compassion and ecstasy are deeper than religion. Well, why should I be compassionate? Where is the motivation for atheists, who are evolved from the apes, to be compassionate? Why not pursue survival of the fittest? Once again, you have to assume a theistic worldview, like that of Christianity, to be able to give an objective motivation for us to be compassionate or to follow any other ethical guideline. Christianity says that Christ's death is our motivation. As Christians, we are to be compassionate, for instance, because Christ was; and we are to be loving, because God showed His love for us in this, that while we were yet His enemies, Christ died for us. As Christians, we love because God first loved us. That is true and objective motivation!
In the end, I would like to encourage you not to be swayed by rhetoric but to think through the claims such rhetoricians are making. And I would also like to encourage you to read your Bibles! Soli Deo gloria!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Reactions to studying the Bible
Today's paper had two articles (one pro and another con) about reading the Bible. I found these articles intriguing, and I thought it would be beneficial to discuss them in turn. The reason being, the articles were both published in the Los Angeles Times and subsequently picked up by smaller newspapers around the country. So, the point is that many folk have been exposed to the arguments in these articles.
The first article, the pro-Bible article by Stephen Prothero, called forth several frightening statistics about the lack of Bible knowledge amongst many Americans. For instance, Prothero states that the undergraduates that he teaches commonly mistake Moses for the Apostle Paul, telling him that it was Moses who was blinded on the road to Damascus and Paul who led the Israelites out of Egypt. Other "more scientific" surveys suggest that only 1 out of 3 Americans can name all four Gospels, while 1 out of 10 actually think Joan of Arc was Noah's wife!
All this while, according to the second article, 83% of the population believes the Bible to be the "literal" or "inspired" Word of God.
Really the only thing I take issue with in the first article is Stephen Prothero's conclusions, or, shall we say, the solution he offers for the problem of biblical illiteracy. Prothero suggests that we should teach the Bible in our public schools. (I don't have a problem there.) But he goes on to support that contention by arguing that "only 8 percent of U.S. high school students have access to an elective Bible course" and then by concluding that, "[a]s a result, an entire generation of Americans is growing up almost entirely ignorant of the most influential book in world history."
Well, the fact that only 8% of students have access to Bible classes ought really to have nothing to do with the fact that "an entire generation of Americans is growing up almost entirely ignorant" of the Bible, if in fact 83% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal or inspired Word of God.
There seems to be a deeper question here, namely: why would 83% of the population believe that the Bible is God's literal Word and, yet, there still be such rampant disregard of it? Either, the 83% really DON'T believe the Bible is God's literal Word, or, they really don't believe in GOD HIMSELF (at least not the Christian God, who is revealed on the pages of His literal Word, and who demands that His followers love Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength).
Prothero goes on to say that "[e]ven evangelicals from the Bible Belt seem more focused on loving Jesus than on learning what he had to say."
Question: Can you love Jesus and not know what he had to say?
To be sure, one answer to the problem of biblical illiteracy may be to teach the Bible in our schools. But surely there are other answers: NAMELY, to read it for ourselves, to preach it and teach it from our pulpits and in our Sunday school classes, to pass it on to our children by teaching it to them from an early age in our homes, and to live it out before others (including our children).
In other words, we need to put our money where our mouth is...we need, with St. Augustine, to take and read! Tolle lege!
The first article, the pro-Bible article by Stephen Prothero, called forth several frightening statistics about the lack of Bible knowledge amongst many Americans. For instance, Prothero states that the undergraduates that he teaches commonly mistake Moses for the Apostle Paul, telling him that it was Moses who was blinded on the road to Damascus and Paul who led the Israelites out of Egypt. Other "more scientific" surveys suggest that only 1 out of 3 Americans can name all four Gospels, while 1 out of 10 actually think Joan of Arc was Noah's wife!
All this while, according to the second article, 83% of the population believes the Bible to be the "literal" or "inspired" Word of God.
Really the only thing I take issue with in the first article is Stephen Prothero's conclusions, or, shall we say, the solution he offers for the problem of biblical illiteracy. Prothero suggests that we should teach the Bible in our public schools. (I don't have a problem there.) But he goes on to support that contention by arguing that "only 8 percent of U.S. high school students have access to an elective Bible course" and then by concluding that, "[a]s a result, an entire generation of Americans is growing up almost entirely ignorant of the most influential book in world history."
Well, the fact that only 8% of students have access to Bible classes ought really to have nothing to do with the fact that "an entire generation of Americans is growing up almost entirely ignorant" of the Bible, if in fact 83% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal or inspired Word of God.
There seems to be a deeper question here, namely: why would 83% of the population believe that the Bible is God's literal Word and, yet, there still be such rampant disregard of it? Either, the 83% really DON'T believe the Bible is God's literal Word, or, they really don't believe in GOD HIMSELF (at least not the Christian God, who is revealed on the pages of His literal Word, and who demands that His followers love Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength).
Prothero goes on to say that "[e]ven evangelicals from the Bible Belt seem more focused on loving Jesus than on learning what he had to say."
Question: Can you love Jesus and not know what he had to say?
To be sure, one answer to the problem of biblical illiteracy may be to teach the Bible in our schools. But surely there are other answers: NAMELY, to read it for ourselves, to preach it and teach it from our pulpits and in our Sunday school classes, to pass it on to our children by teaching it to them from an early age in our homes, and to live it out before others (including our children).
In other words, we need to put our money where our mouth is...we need, with St. Augustine, to take and read! Tolle lege!
Sylvester Stallone a Christian?
Some of you will have seen the newest "Rocky" film, I think it is the sixth such. In that film, which I confess I have not seen, Rocky embarks upon a journey that closely parallels (according to Stallone) the journey of Stallone's own life. It is a journey that has led to an explicit profession of faith in Jesus Christ. The following is what Stallone had to say in the latest edition of Christian Living Magazine. There are several versions of this interview on-line for you to read (for example, http://www.infuzemag.com/peeks/archives/2006/12/rocky_balboas_s.html); it obviously was not an exclusive interview. What follows are excerpts:
Stallone: "This film is very biographical, especially in the beginning scenes. With this movie, I felt as though I needed to say something through the character about how I was wayward and lost, and how I could get on my feet again....As a young person, you feel that the world revolves around you and that you have all the vim, vigor and energy to take on the world. But after you're knocked down a few times, you see that you need guidance, light and spiritual help. I now realize how heavily I rely upon Jesus, the Word of God and His support."
Christian leaders: "You say you found things out the hard way...that you were wayward and lost. What was your journey like? Can you share a bit about your experience in Hollywood?"
Stallone: "Sure. In 1980, my marriage was not good. I was seduced by temptations and morally weakening. When you make it bigin Hollywood, it's like you have keys to the candy store. Your morals get corrupted, and you start believing your own hype. You surround yourself with people who will tell you what you want to hear. I would end up writing a new 'Rocky' because I needed the moral compass that character would give me. But then, I'd give in to the lackadaisical, irresponsible life stars live. Finally, I hit rock bottom, and my career went stagnant. It was at that low point that I knew I had to get back to the basics of faith in God and Christ."
Christian leaders: "I understand that your wife played a role in that healing process?"
Stallone: "Yes. I have a wonderful wife and three great kids, all of whom I'd die for in a second. Through my wife's influence, everything came into place. I asked God for help, and He gave it to me. I didn't find answers through 'yes friends,' lawyers or agents, but through God....I believe that as long as you have Christ in your heart, there's no such thing as losing."
Thoughts?
Stallone: "This film is very biographical, especially in the beginning scenes. With this movie, I felt as though I needed to say something through the character about how I was wayward and lost, and how I could get on my feet again....As a young person, you feel that the world revolves around you and that you have all the vim, vigor and energy to take on the world. But after you're knocked down a few times, you see that you need guidance, light and spiritual help. I now realize how heavily I rely upon Jesus, the Word of God and His support."
Christian leaders: "You say you found things out the hard way...that you were wayward and lost. What was your journey like? Can you share a bit about your experience in Hollywood?"
Stallone: "Sure. In 1980, my marriage was not good. I was seduced by temptations and morally weakening. When you make it bigin Hollywood, it's like you have keys to the candy store. Your morals get corrupted, and you start believing your own hype. You surround yourself with people who will tell you what you want to hear. I would end up writing a new 'Rocky' because I needed the moral compass that character would give me. But then, I'd give in to the lackadaisical, irresponsible life stars live. Finally, I hit rock bottom, and my career went stagnant. It was at that low point that I knew I had to get back to the basics of faith in God and Christ."
Christian leaders: "I understand that your wife played a role in that healing process?"
Stallone: "Yes. I have a wonderful wife and three great kids, all of whom I'd die for in a second. Through my wife's influence, everything came into place. I asked God for help, and He gave it to me. I didn't find answers through 'yes friends,' lawyers or agents, but through God....I believe that as long as you have Christ in your heart, there's no such thing as losing."
Thoughts?
Friday, March 16, 2007
Christians as "Valiant for Truth"
This morning in Bible study, we meditated upon Matthew 5:33-37, and discussed the importance of Christians being people of our word and those who stand for the truth. Our discussion reminded me of the character in the second part of John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, Mr. Valiant-for-truth." So, I thought I'd share the excerpt from the book that outlines Mr. Valiant-for-truth's stand for the Truth (the complete on-line version can be found at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/pilgrim.html).
"...and just at the place where Little-Faith formerly was robbed, there stood a man with his sword drawn, and his face all over with blood. Then said Mr. Great-Heart, Who art thou? The man made answer, saying, I am one whose name is Valiant-for-truth. I am a pilgrim, and am going to the Celestial City. Now, as I was in my way, there were three men that did beset me, and propounded unto me these three things: 1. Whether I would become one of them. 2. Or go back from whence I came. 3. Or die upon the place. Prov. 1:11-14. To the first I answered, I had been a true man for a long season, and therefore it could not be expected that I should now cast in my lot with thieves. Then they demanded what I would say to the second. So I told them that the place from whence I came, had I not found incommodity there, I had not forsaken it at all; but finding it altogether unsuitable to me, and very unprofitable for me, I forsook it for this way. Then they asked me what I said to the third. And I told them my life cost far more dear than that I should lightly give it away. Besides, you have nothing to do thus to put things to my choice; wherefore at your peril be it if you meddle. Then these three, to wit, Wild-head, Inconsiderate, and Pragmatic, drew upon me, and I also drew upon them. So we fell to it, one against three, for the space of above three hours. They have left upon me, as you see, some of the marks of their valor, and have also carried away with them some of mine. They are but just now gone; I suppose they might, as the saying is, hear your horse dash, and so they betook themselves to flight.
MR. GREAT-HEART: But here was great odds, three against one .
VALIANT-FOR-TRUTH: ‘Tis true; but little and more are nothing to him that has the truth on his side: “Though an host should encamp against me,” said one, Psa. 27:3, “my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident,” etc. Besides, said he, I have read in some records, that one man has fought an army: and how many did Samson slay with the jawbone of an ass!
MR. GREAT-HEART: Then said the guide, Why did you not cry out, that some might have come in for your succor?
VALIANT-FOR-TRUTH: So I did to my King, who I knew could hear me, and afford invisible help, and that was sufficient for me.
MR. GREAT-HEART: Then said Great-Heart to Mr. Valiant-for-truth, Thou hast worthily behaved thyself; let me see thy sword. So he showed it him.
When he had taken it in his hand, and looked thereon awhile, he said, Ha, it is a right Jerusalem blade.
VALIANT-FOR-TRUTH: It is so. Let a man have one of these blades, with a hand to wield it, and skill to use it, and he may venture upon an angel with it. He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edge will never blunt. It will cut flesh and bones, and soul, and spirit, and all. Heb. 4:12.
MR. GREAT-HEART: But you fought a great while; I wonder you was not weary.
VALIANT-FOR-TRUTH: I fought till my sword did cleave to my hand; and then they were joined together as if a sword grew out of my arm; and when the blood ran through my fingers, then I fought with most courage.
MR. GREAT-HEART: Thou hast done well; thou hast resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Thou shalt abide by us, come in and go out with us; for we are thy companions."
Let us, as Christians, take up our "Jerusalem blades" and fight for the Truth!
"...and just at the place where Little-Faith formerly was robbed, there stood a man with his sword drawn, and his face all over with blood. Then said Mr. Great-Heart, Who art thou? The man made answer, saying, I am one whose name is Valiant-for-truth. I am a pilgrim, and am going to the Celestial City. Now, as I was in my way, there were three men that did beset me, and propounded unto me these three things: 1. Whether I would become one of them. 2. Or go back from whence I came. 3. Or die upon the place. Prov. 1:11-14. To the first I answered, I had been a true man for a long season, and therefore it could not be expected that I should now cast in my lot with thieves. Then they demanded what I would say to the second. So I told them that the place from whence I came, had I not found incommodity there, I had not forsaken it at all; but finding it altogether unsuitable to me, and very unprofitable for me, I forsook it for this way. Then they asked me what I said to the third. And I told them my life cost far more dear than that I should lightly give it away. Besides, you have nothing to do thus to put things to my choice; wherefore at your peril be it if you meddle. Then these three, to wit, Wild-head, Inconsiderate, and Pragmatic, drew upon me, and I also drew upon them. So we fell to it, one against three, for the space of above three hours. They have left upon me, as you see, some of the marks of their valor, and have also carried away with them some of mine. They are but just now gone; I suppose they might, as the saying is, hear your horse dash, and so they betook themselves to flight.
MR. GREAT-HEART: But here was great odds, three against one .
VALIANT-FOR-TRUTH: ‘Tis true; but little and more are nothing to him that has the truth on his side: “Though an host should encamp against me,” said one, Psa. 27:3, “my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident,” etc. Besides, said he, I have read in some records, that one man has fought an army: and how many did Samson slay with the jawbone of an ass!
MR. GREAT-HEART: Then said the guide, Why did you not cry out, that some might have come in for your succor?
VALIANT-FOR-TRUTH: So I did to my King, who I knew could hear me, and afford invisible help, and that was sufficient for me.
MR. GREAT-HEART: Then said Great-Heart to Mr. Valiant-for-truth, Thou hast worthily behaved thyself; let me see thy sword. So he showed it him.
When he had taken it in his hand, and looked thereon awhile, he said, Ha, it is a right Jerusalem blade.
VALIANT-FOR-TRUTH: It is so. Let a man have one of these blades, with a hand to wield it, and skill to use it, and he may venture upon an angel with it. He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edge will never blunt. It will cut flesh and bones, and soul, and spirit, and all. Heb. 4:12.
MR. GREAT-HEART: But you fought a great while; I wonder you was not weary.
VALIANT-FOR-TRUTH: I fought till my sword did cleave to my hand; and then they were joined together as if a sword grew out of my arm; and when the blood ran through my fingers, then I fought with most courage.
MR. GREAT-HEART: Thou hast done well; thou hast resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Thou shalt abide by us, come in and go out with us; for we are thy companions."
Let us, as Christians, take up our "Jerusalem blades" and fight for the Truth!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Wednesday night at Camp Hope
This week we have another team of volunteers in town from Word and Deed Ministries in Ontario, Canada. According to their own count, they have already sent down over 200 volunteers in something like 12 teams! And let me assure you, every one of these teams that have come down have been characterized by the same traits: they work hard; they love to sing the rich, old hymns of the faith; and they relish digging into the Word! Let me assure you, I look forward to visiting with them each time they come.
Speaking of digging into the Word, we have recently added a section on the home page of our website that subdivides Scripture into daily readings so that you can read through the Bible each year (actually I think it takes you through the OT once and the NT twice each year). Let me encourage you to make use of the reading plan and start today.
If you need a link back to our home page, click here www.fpcgulfport.org
Before closing, let me ask you to continue praying for us here. Pray for the church, the leadership, the teaching and preaching of the Word, the Camp Hope ministry, and the impact of the gospel here on the Coast. Even if you are not able to come (or to return) as a volunteer to help out, you can pray. And, as E.M. Bounds has reminded us, prayer is not preparation for the greater work; prayer is the greater work.
Speaking of digging into the Word, we have recently added a section on the home page of our website that subdivides Scripture into daily readings so that you can read through the Bible each year (actually I think it takes you through the OT once and the NT twice each year). Let me encourage you to make use of the reading plan and start today.
If you need a link back to our home page, click here www.fpcgulfport.org
Before closing, let me ask you to continue praying for us here. Pray for the church, the leadership, the teaching and preaching of the Word, the Camp Hope ministry, and the impact of the gospel here on the Coast. Even if you are not able to come (or to return) as a volunteer to help out, you can pray. And, as E.M. Bounds has reminded us, prayer is not preparation for the greater work; prayer is the greater work.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Pleasure and things that perish...
This past Sunday, I made a point in the sermon of Jesus' comments in John 6:26-7 (ESV), "Truly, truly I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you." I pointed out that the spirit of our world and of the devil wants us to labor for things that perish and to find our pleasure in those things, rather than in Christ which alone endures to eternal life. (If you would like to listen to the sermon, click here http://firstpresbyteriangulfport.mypodcast.com/).
Well, in reading C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters, I came across a great quote related to this that I wanted to share with you. What follows is Screwtape (a senior devil) speaking to Wormwood (a junior devil and Screwtape's nephew):
"Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's [i.e., God's] ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula [i.e., to get us to labor after what perishes!]. It is more certain; and it's better style. To get the man's soul and give him nothing in return--that is what really gladdens Our Father's [i.e., Satan's] heart."
Well, in reading C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters, I came across a great quote related to this that I wanted to share with you. What follows is Screwtape (a senior devil) speaking to Wormwood (a junior devil and Screwtape's nephew):
"Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's [i.e., God's] ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula [i.e., to get us to labor after what perishes!]. It is more certain; and it's better style. To get the man's soul and give him nothing in return--that is what really gladdens Our Father's [i.e., Satan's] heart."
Friday, March 09, 2007
Sermons on-line now!
Here it is at last! With many thanks to Tammy Turnage for all her hard work...we have solved the puzzle and figured out how to put our sermons on the website. You can check out last week's by clicking on the "Resources" link in the menu on the left hand side of the home page or click here http://firstpresbyteriangulfport.mypodcast.com/ to go directly to the site.
I'm sure there will be a few kinks to work out over the next few weeks and months. But, with a little help from our faithful sound guys, James Jordan, Chris Carter, and Mark Otto, we will finally be able to put each week's sermon on line. We hope that this will make it easier for you to get copies of each week's sermon. If you see Tammy on this coming Sunday, be sure to tell her "thank you" for her hard work in getting this started.
I'm sure there will be a few kinks to work out over the next few weeks and months. But, with a little help from our faithful sound guys, James Jordan, Chris Carter, and Mark Otto, we will finally be able to put each week's sermon on line. We hope that this will make it easier for you to get copies of each week's sermon. If you see Tammy on this coming Sunday, be sure to tell her "thank you" for her hard work in getting this started.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Sunday Night Children's Choir
On Sunday night, our children's choir will be presenting a musical entitled, "King of the Jungle." The kids have really been working hard rehearsing their lines and learning the songs, and their parents and other adults have put a lot of time and effort into developing the costumes and props. Roddy and Lucy Russell, Melinda Jones, and Mary Alice Martin have done a great job pulling all this together. It looks to be a great evening. Come and hear our young people lift up the name of the Lord in praise.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
A shared story
Recently, a couple that visited and worked with our Camp Hope ministry sent me an email containing a story that I want to share with you. You may have seen it already; it may have been circulating around the email world, but I thought I would share it, because it relates to what we have been talking about lately. Here goes:
"A few months before I was born, my Dad met a stranger who was new to our small Tennessee town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later. As I grew up, I never questioned his place in my family. In my young mind, he had a special niche. My parents were complementary instructors: Mom taught me the Word of God, and Dad taught me to obey it. But the stranger? He was our storyteller. He would keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures, mysteries and comedies. If I wanted to know anything about politics, history or science, he always knew the answers about the past, understood the present and even seemed able to predict the future! He took my family to the first major league ball game. He made me laugh, and he made me cry. The stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn't seem to mind. Sometimes Mom would get up quietly while the rest of us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to say, and she would go to her room and read her books. (I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.) Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions, but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home...not from us, our friends or any visitors. Our long-time visitor, however, got away with four-letter words that burned my ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush. My Dad was a teetotaller who did not permit alcohol in the home, not even for cooking. But the stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis. He made cigarettes look cool, cigars manly and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (much too freely!) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I now know that my early concepts about relationships were influenced strongly by the stranger. Time after time, he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked...and NEVER asked to leave. More than fifty years have passed since the stranger moved in with our family. He has blended right in and is not nearly as fascinating as he was at first. Still, if you were to walk into my parents' den today, you would still find him sitting over in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures. His name? We just call him TV."
I wanted to share this not because I believe TV is absolute EVIL--I don't. And I don't believe the solution is to get rid of all television sets immediately. I wanted to share this story because there is clearly some truth in it. Television has definitely brought many good things into our homes (and it continues to). But it has also brought a lot of bad into our homes as well. We must all think critically about the TV and our use of it and about what it teaches us and fills our minds with, instead of uncritically watching it and allowing our kids to do the same. Let us use TV wisely, and let us think about its message and its medium according to a Christian world and life view. Let us view TV, and everything else in this world, through the "spectacles" of Scripture.
"A few months before I was born, my Dad met a stranger who was new to our small Tennessee town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later. As I grew up, I never questioned his place in my family. In my young mind, he had a special niche. My parents were complementary instructors: Mom taught me the Word of God, and Dad taught me to obey it. But the stranger? He was our storyteller. He would keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures, mysteries and comedies. If I wanted to know anything about politics, history or science, he always knew the answers about the past, understood the present and even seemed able to predict the future! He took my family to the first major league ball game. He made me laugh, and he made me cry. The stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn't seem to mind. Sometimes Mom would get up quietly while the rest of us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to say, and she would go to her room and read her books. (I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.) Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions, but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home...not from us, our friends or any visitors. Our long-time visitor, however, got away with four-letter words that burned my ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush. My Dad was a teetotaller who did not permit alcohol in the home, not even for cooking. But the stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis. He made cigarettes look cool, cigars manly and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (much too freely!) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I now know that my early concepts about relationships were influenced strongly by the stranger. Time after time, he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked...and NEVER asked to leave. More than fifty years have passed since the stranger moved in with our family. He has blended right in and is not nearly as fascinating as he was at first. Still, if you were to walk into my parents' den today, you would still find him sitting over in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures. His name? We just call him TV."
I wanted to share this not because I believe TV is absolute EVIL--I don't. And I don't believe the solution is to get rid of all television sets immediately. I wanted to share this story because there is clearly some truth in it. Television has definitely brought many good things into our homes (and it continues to). But it has also brought a lot of bad into our homes as well. We must all think critically about the TV and our use of it and about what it teaches us and fills our minds with, instead of uncritically watching it and allowing our kids to do the same. Let us use TV wisely, and let us think about its message and its medium according to a Christian world and life view. Let us view TV, and everything else in this world, through the "spectacles" of Scripture.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Jesus tomb revisited
I meant to get this blog on last night...but, alas, the best laid plans of mice and men...
On this past Sunday night, the Discovery Channel televised the somewhat anticipated documentary, "The Jesus Tomb." It was quite fun to watch the critical analysis afterwards that was moderated by Ted Koppel. I say "fun," because, for once, "objective" scholars were actually arguing against the anti-Christian thread of this film instead of arguing against Christianity itself! All of the scholars (even those who were not Christians) dismissed the movie's logic and conclusions with a wave of their hands (though several of them praised the film's cinematic flair). And if you saw the film, you will understand why. It was hardly what I would consider a documentary and more like sensationalist-journalism...a.k.a., entertainment. It would have been better, perhaps, for the film's producers to portray the film as "fiction," in the same genre as The Da Vinci Code.
The sad thing in all this is that there will undoubtedly be those who are looking for something that will confirm them in their unbelief, without their having to do much research and study of their own, and this will clearly qualify.
On this past Sunday night, the Discovery Channel televised the somewhat anticipated documentary, "The Jesus Tomb." It was quite fun to watch the critical analysis afterwards that was moderated by Ted Koppel. I say "fun," because, for once, "objective" scholars were actually arguing against the anti-Christian thread of this film instead of arguing against Christianity itself! All of the scholars (even those who were not Christians) dismissed the movie's logic and conclusions with a wave of their hands (though several of them praised the film's cinematic flair). And if you saw the film, you will understand why. It was hardly what I would consider a documentary and more like sensationalist-journalism...a.k.a., entertainment. It would have been better, perhaps, for the film's producers to portray the film as "fiction," in the same genre as The Da Vinci Code.
The sad thing in all this is that there will undoubtedly be those who are looking for something that will confirm them in their unbelief, without their having to do much research and study of their own, and this will clearly qualify.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Jesus Tomb?
Many of you may have seen the news programs advertising the forthcoming "new" documentary that will be airing on the Discovery Channel this coming Sunday night at 8pm (Central time). James Cameron (who has directed such blockbusters as The Terminator and The Titanic) has collaborated with Simcha Jacobovici (TV's Naked Archaeologist) to produce this documentary, which is actually anything but "new." The show revisits a 26 year old tomb, known as the Talpiot tomb, for the purposes of "proving" that Jesus of Nazareth's remains are contained therein, alongside the bones of Mary Magdalene and their son, Judah, or so the program wants us to believe.
Cameron's and Jacobovici's thesis is nothing but the same old line that has been promulgated by the Jesus Seminar and that has, most recently found expression in the Da Vinci Code book and movie. As I tried to show in my discussion of the Da Vinci Code last June, these claims are way off base. But they do make for good television! (From a worldly perspective anyway!)
What are we to say about this new documentary?
Dr. Ligon Duncan, of First Jackson recently sent out the following to the officers of the church there:
Andreas Köstenberger (a Prof of NT at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC) says this:
"As you’ve heard, James Cameron, director of the blockbuster movie 'Titanic,' is out to sink an even bigger ship—Christianity. He claims that Jesus’ bones and those of his mother, brothers, wife, and child named Jude, were found in ossuaries (bone boxes) in a Jerusalem tomb.
On Larry King Live last night, Cameron and his collaborator Simcha Jacobovici claimed that they produced a TV documentary (to air on March 4 on the Discovery Channel) simply in an effort to 'report the news' so that people can draw their own conclusion. Yet according to Ben Witherington, Simcha is a practicing, orthodox Jew. Are we really to believe that the 'revelation' that Jesus’ bones have been found—hence no resurrection—are of no religious concern to this man? To me, at least, this one has the almighty dollar sign written all over it.
"Let me list just some of the most egregious problems with the way in which this find (in the 1980s!) is being interpreted by Cameron and Simcha:
· the claim that Mary Magdalene’s bones were found in one of the ossuaries on the basis that the name 'Mariamne' (Mary) is inscribed on it is bogus; the connection drawn here is pulled completely out of thin air
· the highly suspect use of statistics and DNA 'evidence' to support their case; Jesus, Joseph, and Mary were among the most popular names in first-century Palestine, and, of course, people buried in the same family tomb would for the most part be related; as Witherington rightly points out, we 'would need an independent control sample from some member of Jesus’ family to confirm that these were members of Jesus’ family'—but, of course, we have no such thing
· all the earliest accounts of Jesus’ death and burial indicate that Jesus’ body could not be found and had not been moved; there is no ancient evidence at all for a Jesus’ family tomb whatsoever
· why would this family tomb have been in Jerusalem? Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth
· there is no historical evidence for Jesus having a son named Jude; there is no credible historical evidence that Jesus was married, to Mary Magdalene or anyone else (plus see the first point above)
· if Jesus died and a year later his bones were transferred to an ossuary, and this ossuary was placed in a Jerusalem family tomb, this would mean that all the early Christian martyrs, including the apostles, knowingly died for a fraudulent religion; this is highly implausible.
"It is hard to know whether one should dignify this kind of warmed-up sensationalist commercial ploy with a serious rebuttal. Why would an orthodox Jew and an unbelieving Hollywood producer time the release of a television documentary denying Jesus’ resurrection just prior to Easter? Because of serious scholarship or maximum personal profit?
"Simcha says we Christians should be open to the evidence he presents. I agree; if Jesus’ bones are in that box, Christianity is based on a false premise—the resurrection of Jesus (see the Gospel resurrection narratives; the apostles’ preaching in the Book of Acts; and Paul’s summary of the gospel in 1 Cor. 15:3–4). The problem with Simcha’s 'evidence,' however, is that he is connecting the dots far too quickly to arrive at his desired conclusion. Surely it will take better evidence to overturn the well-attested fact of Jesus’ resurrection."
Here are some other websites to scan for responses to Cameron and Jacobovici:
Hollywood Hype: The Oscars and Jesus’ Family Tomb, What Do They Share?, Darell Bock.
The Jesus Tomb? ‘Titanic’ Talpiot Tomb Theory Sunk From the Start, Ben Witherington.
Greg Koukl opened his show Sunday discussing tactics Christians should take on this issue. Here is the audio link (you may need to register to hear it).
The Jesus Tomb, Andreas Köstenberger. (This is the site from which I got the above quote).
Ben Witherington was on Issues, Etc. (2/28/07) and here is the audio link.
Cameron's and Jacobovici's thesis is nothing but the same old line that has been promulgated by the Jesus Seminar and that has, most recently found expression in the Da Vinci Code book and movie. As I tried to show in my discussion of the Da Vinci Code last June, these claims are way off base. But they do make for good television! (From a worldly perspective anyway!)
What are we to say about this new documentary?
Dr. Ligon Duncan, of First Jackson recently sent out the following to the officers of the church there:
Andreas Köstenberger (a Prof of NT at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC) says this:
"As you’ve heard, James Cameron, director of the blockbuster movie 'Titanic,' is out to sink an even bigger ship—Christianity. He claims that Jesus’ bones and those of his mother, brothers, wife, and child named Jude, were found in ossuaries (bone boxes) in a Jerusalem tomb.
On Larry King Live last night, Cameron and his collaborator Simcha Jacobovici claimed that they produced a TV documentary (to air on March 4 on the Discovery Channel) simply in an effort to 'report the news' so that people can draw their own conclusion. Yet according to Ben Witherington, Simcha is a practicing, orthodox Jew. Are we really to believe that the 'revelation' that Jesus’ bones have been found—hence no resurrection—are of no religious concern to this man? To me, at least, this one has the almighty dollar sign written all over it.
"Let me list just some of the most egregious problems with the way in which this find (in the 1980s!) is being interpreted by Cameron and Simcha:
· the claim that Mary Magdalene’s bones were found in one of the ossuaries on the basis that the name 'Mariamne' (Mary) is inscribed on it is bogus; the connection drawn here is pulled completely out of thin air
· the highly suspect use of statistics and DNA 'evidence' to support their case; Jesus, Joseph, and Mary were among the most popular names in first-century Palestine, and, of course, people buried in the same family tomb would for the most part be related; as Witherington rightly points out, we 'would need an independent control sample from some member of Jesus’ family to confirm that these were members of Jesus’ family'—but, of course, we have no such thing
· all the earliest accounts of Jesus’ death and burial indicate that Jesus’ body could not be found and had not been moved; there is no ancient evidence at all for a Jesus’ family tomb whatsoever
· why would this family tomb have been in Jerusalem? Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth
· there is no historical evidence for Jesus having a son named Jude; there is no credible historical evidence that Jesus was married, to Mary Magdalene or anyone else (plus see the first point above)
· if Jesus died and a year later his bones were transferred to an ossuary, and this ossuary was placed in a Jerusalem family tomb, this would mean that all the early Christian martyrs, including the apostles, knowingly died for a fraudulent religion; this is highly implausible.
"It is hard to know whether one should dignify this kind of warmed-up sensationalist commercial ploy with a serious rebuttal. Why would an orthodox Jew and an unbelieving Hollywood producer time the release of a television documentary denying Jesus’ resurrection just prior to Easter? Because of serious scholarship or maximum personal profit?
"Simcha says we Christians should be open to the evidence he presents. I agree; if Jesus’ bones are in that box, Christianity is based on a false premise—the resurrection of Jesus (see the Gospel resurrection narratives; the apostles’ preaching in the Book of Acts; and Paul’s summary of the gospel in 1 Cor. 15:3–4). The problem with Simcha’s 'evidence,' however, is that he is connecting the dots far too quickly to arrive at his desired conclusion. Surely it will take better evidence to overturn the well-attested fact of Jesus’ resurrection."
Here are some other websites to scan for responses to Cameron and Jacobovici:
Hollywood Hype: The Oscars and Jesus’ Family Tomb, What Do They Share?, Darell Bock.
The Jesus Tomb? ‘Titanic’ Talpiot Tomb Theory Sunk From the Start, Ben Witherington.
Greg Koukl opened his show Sunday discussing tactics Christians should take on this issue. Here is the audio link (you may need to register to hear it).
The Jesus Tomb, Andreas Köstenberger. (This is the site from which I got the above quote).
Ben Witherington was on Issues, Etc. (2/28/07) and here is the audio link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
