Monday, July 31, 2006
Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East
Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East
sermons Edition
By John Piper
Permanent Link
March 7, 2004
Romans 11:25-32
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Today I would like to address the issue of Israel's relation to the “Promised Land” in the Middle East. This is not primarily an expository message from Romans 11, but an effort to draw out implications of Romans 11 and the rest of Scripture for a very vexing problem in the world today. The existence of Israel in the Middle East and the extent of her borders and her sovereignty are perhaps the most explosive factors in world terrorism and the most volatile factors in Arab-Western relations.
The Arab roots and the Jewish roots in this land go back for thousands of years. Both lay claim to the land not merely because of historical presence, but also because of divine right. I won't try to lay out a detailed peace plan. But I will try to lay out some biblical truths that could guide all of us in thinking about peace and justice in that part of the world. What we think about this, and what we say, does matter, since politicians are influenced by their constituents in these religiously super-charged situations. And we need to know how to pray. And we need to know how to talk to others in a way that honors the truth. So for all those reasons, and for the reason that God is very much involved in this situation, we should talk about it in the context of Romans 11.
What we've seen in Romans 11 is that Israel as a whole—that is, as an ethnic, corporate people enduring from generation to generation—has a root in the covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants. Verse 16b: “If the root is holy so are the branches.” We interpreted that picture in the light of verse 28: “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your [Gentile] sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” The “forefathers” here correspond to the root in verse 16. So the promises to the forefathers imply that some day the whole tree, with all its branches, will be saved.
Some day. Because verse 28 says, for now “they are enemies.” Verse 28a: “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your sake.” In other words, they are rejecting their Messiah and thus putting themselves against God. This is what Jesus said to Israel in John 8:42: “If God were your father you would love me.” Jesus is the litmus test whether anybody's religion is worship of the true God. But Israel does not love Jesus as God's son and her Messiah. So they are, for now, “enemies of God.”
So when verse 16 says, “If the root is holy so are the branches,” we take it to mean: “If God chose the forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for himself, and set them apart and made to them covenant promises, then someday (after this present time of enmity and hardening are over) their descendants are going to return to God through Jesus Christ, and become God's set-apart, holy people. Unbelief and ungodliness will be banished from Jacob forever (v. 26).
So now we ask, is the so-called “Promised Land” part of the inheritance and salvation that “all Israel” (v. 26) will receive? And if so, what does that say about the rights of Israel today to the Land?
In developing the answer to this question I would like to maintain seven truths which are based on Scripture.
1. God chose Israel from all the peoples of the world to be his own possession.
Deuteronomy 7:6, “ The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”
2. The Land was part of the inheritance he promised to Abraham and his descendants forever.
Genesis 15:18, “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.'”
Then in Genesis 17:7-8 God says to Abraham, “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
Then God confirmed the promise to Jacob, Abraham's grandson, in Genesis 28:13, “And behold, the Lord . . . said, ‘I am the Lord , the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.” And when Jacob was dying he called Joseph to him and said (in Genesis 48:3), “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, 4 and said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you and . . . will give this land to your offspring after you for an everlasting possession.'”
This, of course, creates a huge cleavage between the Islamic view of God's covenant and the Jewish and Christian view of God's covenant. But we believe that this is God's word, confirmed by the Lord Jesus, and so we say, The land is destined to be Israel's land.
But it's not that simple. This is not an issue that can be dealt with in soundbites.
3. The promises made to Abraham, including the promise of the Land, will be inherited as an everlasting gift only by true, spiritual Israel, not disobedient, unbelieving Israel.
This was the point of Romans 9. When Paul grieved over the lostness of so many Jews who were rejecting Jesus and were perishing, he said in verses 6-7, “It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.” In other words, the promises cannot be demanded by anyone just because he is Jewish. Jewish ethnicity has a place in God's plan, but it is not enough to secure anything. It does not in itself qualify a person to be an heir of the promise to Abraham and his offspring. Romans 9:8 says it clearly: “It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” Being born Jewish does not make one an heir of the promise—neither the promise of the Land nor any other promise.
This was plain in the Old Testament, and it was plain the teachings of Jesus (which we will see under truth #4). For example, in the terrible list of curses that God promised to bring on the people if they broke his covenant and forsook him was this: “ And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it” (Deuteronomy 28:63). Throughout the history of Israel, covenant breaking and disobedience and idolatry disqualified Israel from the present divine right to the Land. (See also Daniel 9:4-7; Psalm 78:54-61.)
Be careful not to infer from this that Gentile nations (like Arabs) have the right to molest Israel. God's judgments on Israel do not sanction human sin against Israel. Israel still has human rights among nations even when she forfeits her present divine right to the Land. Remember that nations which gloated over her divine discipline were punished by God (Isaiah 10:5-13; Joel 3:2).
So the promise to Abraham that his descendants will inherit the Land does not mean that all Jews inherit that promise. It will come finally to the true Israel, the Israel that keeps covenant and obeys her God.
4. Jesus Christ has come into the world as the Jewish Messiah, and his own people rejected him and broke covenant with their God.
When Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ [that is, the Jewish Messiah], the Son of the living God.” And Jesus responded to him, “ Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:16-17). And when the high priest asked Jesus, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus answered, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62).
But even though Jesus was the Messiah and did many mighty works and taught with great authority and fulfilled Old Testament promises, nevertheless the people of Israel as a whole rejected him. This was the most serious covenant-breaking disobedience that Israel had ever committed in all her history.
This is why Jesus told the parable of the tenants who killed the Landlord's son when he came for his harvest, and ended that parable with these words to Israel in Matthew 21:43, “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” And it's why he said in Matthew 8:11-12, after seeing the faith of a Gentile centurion and the unbelief of Israel, “Many [Gentiles] will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Israel has broken covenant with her God and is living today in disobedience and unbelief in his Son and her Messiah. That is why Paul says in Romans 11:28, “As regards the gospel [the good news of the Messiah] they are enemies of God.”
5. Therefore, the secular state of Israel today may not claim a present divine right to the Land, but they and we should seek a peaceful settlement not based on present divine rights, but on international principles of justice, mercy, and practical feasibility.
This follows from all we have said so far, and the implication it has for those of us who believe the Bible and trust Christ as our Savior and as the Lord of history, is that we should not give blanket approval to Jewish or to Palestinian actions. We should approve or denounce according to Biblical standards of justice and mercy among peoples. We should encourage our representatives to seek a just settlement that takes the historical and social claims of both peoples into account. Neither should be allowed to sway the judgments of justice by a present divine claim to the land. If you believe this, it would be helpful for your representatives to know it.
We are not whitewashing terrorism and we are not whitewashing Jewish force. Nor is there any attempt on my part to assess measures of blame or moral equivalence. That's not my aim. My aim is to put the debate on a balanced footing in this sense: neither side should preempt the claims of international justice by the claim of present divine rights. Working out what that justice will look like is still a huge and daunting task. I have not solved that problem. But I think we will make better progress if we do not yield to the claim of either side to be ethnically or nationally sanctioned by God in their present conflict.
6. By faith in Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, Gentiles become heirs of the promise of Abraham, including the promise of the Land.
In the words of Romans 11:17, “You [Gentile], although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree”—that is, they become part of the redeemed covenant people who share the faith of Abraham. The reason, as Paul put in Romans 4:13, is that “the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” So all who are united to Christ, Abraham's Offspring, by faith are part of the covenant made with him and his offspring.
Here's the most sweeping statement of this truth— Ephesians 2:12, “Remember that you [Gentiles] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. . . . So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”
Therefore Jewish believers in Jesus and Gentile believers will inherit the Land. And the easiest way to see this is to see that we will inherit the world which includes the Land. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians will not quibble over the real estate of the Promised Land because the entire new heavens and the new earth will be ours. 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, “All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.” All followers of Christ, and only followers of Christ, will inherit the earth, including the Land.
7. Finally, this inheritance of Christ's people will happen at the second coming of Christ to establish his kingdom, not before; and till then, we Christians must not take up arms to claim our inheritance; but rather lay down our lives to share our inheritance with as many as we can.
You recall that all-important word that Jesus spoke to Pilate in John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Christians do not take up the sword to advance the kingdom of Christ. We wait for a king from heaven who will deliver us by his mighty power. And in that great day Jew and Gentile who have treasured Christ will receive what was promised. There will be a great reversal: the last will be first, and the meek—in fellowship with the Lamb of God—will inherit the Land.
Therefore, come to the meek and lowly Christ while there is time, and receive forgiveness of sins, and the hope of glory.
spot.com/">Rev. Charles Place
sermons Edition
By John Piper
Permanent Link
March 7, 2004
Romans 11:25-32
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Today I would like to address the issue of Israel's relation to the “Promised Land” in the Middle East. This is not primarily an expository message from Romans 11, but an effort to draw out implications of Romans 11 and the rest of Scripture for a very vexing problem in the world today. The existence of Israel in the Middle East and the extent of her borders and her sovereignty are perhaps the most explosive factors in world terrorism and the most volatile factors in Arab-Western relations.
The Arab roots and the Jewish roots in this land go back for thousands of years. Both lay claim to the land not merely because of historical presence, but also because of divine right. I won't try to lay out a detailed peace plan. But I will try to lay out some biblical truths that could guide all of us in thinking about peace and justice in that part of the world. What we think about this, and what we say, does matter, since politicians are influenced by their constituents in these religiously super-charged situations. And we need to know how to pray. And we need to know how to talk to others in a way that honors the truth. So for all those reasons, and for the reason that God is very much involved in this situation, we should talk about it in the context of Romans 11.
What we've seen in Romans 11 is that Israel as a whole—that is, as an ethnic, corporate people enduring from generation to generation—has a root in the covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants. Verse 16b: “If the root is holy so are the branches.” We interpreted that picture in the light of verse 28: “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your [Gentile] sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” The “forefathers” here correspond to the root in verse 16. So the promises to the forefathers imply that some day the whole tree, with all its branches, will be saved.
Some day. Because verse 28 says, for now “they are enemies.” Verse 28a: “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your sake.” In other words, they are rejecting their Messiah and thus putting themselves against God. This is what Jesus said to Israel in John 8:42: “If God were your father you would love me.” Jesus is the litmus test whether anybody's religion is worship of the true God. But Israel does not love Jesus as God's son and her Messiah. So they are, for now, “enemies of God.”
So when verse 16 says, “If the root is holy so are the branches,” we take it to mean: “If God chose the forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for himself, and set them apart and made to them covenant promises, then someday (after this present time of enmity and hardening are over) their descendants are going to return to God through Jesus Christ, and become God's set-apart, holy people. Unbelief and ungodliness will be banished from Jacob forever (v. 26).
So now we ask, is the so-called “Promised Land” part of the inheritance and salvation that “all Israel” (v. 26) will receive? And if so, what does that say about the rights of Israel today to the Land?
In developing the answer to this question I would like to maintain seven truths which are based on Scripture.
1. God chose Israel from all the peoples of the world to be his own possession.
Deuteronomy 7:6, “ The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”
2. The Land was part of the inheritance he promised to Abraham and his descendants forever.
Genesis 15:18, “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.'”
Then in Genesis 17:7-8 God says to Abraham, “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
Then God confirmed the promise to Jacob, Abraham's grandson, in Genesis 28:13, “And behold, the Lord . . . said, ‘I am the Lord , the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.” And when Jacob was dying he called Joseph to him and said (in Genesis 48:3), “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, 4 and said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you and . . . will give this land to your offspring after you for an everlasting possession.'”
This, of course, creates a huge cleavage between the Islamic view of God's covenant and the Jewish and Christian view of God's covenant. But we believe that this is God's word, confirmed by the Lord Jesus, and so we say, The land is destined to be Israel's land.
But it's not that simple. This is not an issue that can be dealt with in soundbites.
3. The promises made to Abraham, including the promise of the Land, will be inherited as an everlasting gift only by true, spiritual Israel, not disobedient, unbelieving Israel.
This was the point of Romans 9. When Paul grieved over the lostness of so many Jews who were rejecting Jesus and were perishing, he said in verses 6-7, “It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.” In other words, the promises cannot be demanded by anyone just because he is Jewish. Jewish ethnicity has a place in God's plan, but it is not enough to secure anything. It does not in itself qualify a person to be an heir of the promise to Abraham and his offspring. Romans 9:8 says it clearly: “It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” Being born Jewish does not make one an heir of the promise—neither the promise of the Land nor any other promise.
This was plain in the Old Testament, and it was plain the teachings of Jesus (which we will see under truth #4). For example, in the terrible list of curses that God promised to bring on the people if they broke his covenant and forsook him was this: “ And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it” (Deuteronomy 28:63). Throughout the history of Israel, covenant breaking and disobedience and idolatry disqualified Israel from the present divine right to the Land. (See also Daniel 9:4-7; Psalm 78:54-61.)
Be careful not to infer from this that Gentile nations (like Arabs) have the right to molest Israel. God's judgments on Israel do not sanction human sin against Israel. Israel still has human rights among nations even when she forfeits her present divine right to the Land. Remember that nations which gloated over her divine discipline were punished by God (Isaiah 10:5-13; Joel 3:2).
So the promise to Abraham that his descendants will inherit the Land does not mean that all Jews inherit that promise. It will come finally to the true Israel, the Israel that keeps covenant and obeys her God.
4. Jesus Christ has come into the world as the Jewish Messiah, and his own people rejected him and broke covenant with their God.
When Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ [that is, the Jewish Messiah], the Son of the living God.” And Jesus responded to him, “ Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:16-17). And when the high priest asked Jesus, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus answered, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62).
But even though Jesus was the Messiah and did many mighty works and taught with great authority and fulfilled Old Testament promises, nevertheless the people of Israel as a whole rejected him. This was the most serious covenant-breaking disobedience that Israel had ever committed in all her history.
This is why Jesus told the parable of the tenants who killed the Landlord's son when he came for his harvest, and ended that parable with these words to Israel in Matthew 21:43, “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” And it's why he said in Matthew 8:11-12, after seeing the faith of a Gentile centurion and the unbelief of Israel, “Many [Gentiles] will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Israel has broken covenant with her God and is living today in disobedience and unbelief in his Son and her Messiah. That is why Paul says in Romans 11:28, “As regards the gospel [the good news of the Messiah] they are enemies of God.”
5. Therefore, the secular state of Israel today may not claim a present divine right to the Land, but they and we should seek a peaceful settlement not based on present divine rights, but on international principles of justice, mercy, and practical feasibility.
This follows from all we have said so far, and the implication it has for those of us who believe the Bible and trust Christ as our Savior and as the Lord of history, is that we should not give blanket approval to Jewish or to Palestinian actions. We should approve or denounce according to Biblical standards of justice and mercy among peoples. We should encourage our representatives to seek a just settlement that takes the historical and social claims of both peoples into account. Neither should be allowed to sway the judgments of justice by a present divine claim to the land. If you believe this, it would be helpful for your representatives to know it.
We are not whitewashing terrorism and we are not whitewashing Jewish force. Nor is there any attempt on my part to assess measures of blame or moral equivalence. That's not my aim. My aim is to put the debate on a balanced footing in this sense: neither side should preempt the claims of international justice by the claim of present divine rights. Working out what that justice will look like is still a huge and daunting task. I have not solved that problem. But I think we will make better progress if we do not yield to the claim of either side to be ethnically or nationally sanctioned by God in their present conflict.
6. By faith in Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, Gentiles become heirs of the promise of Abraham, including the promise of the Land.
In the words of Romans 11:17, “You [Gentile], although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree”—that is, they become part of the redeemed covenant people who share the faith of Abraham. The reason, as Paul put in Romans 4:13, is that “the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” So all who are united to Christ, Abraham's Offspring, by faith are part of the covenant made with him and his offspring.
Here's the most sweeping statement of this truth— Ephesians 2:12, “Remember that you [Gentiles] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. . . . So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”
Therefore Jewish believers in Jesus and Gentile believers will inherit the Land. And the easiest way to see this is to see that we will inherit the world which includes the Land. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians will not quibble over the real estate of the Promised Land because the entire new heavens and the new earth will be ours. 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, “All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.” All followers of Christ, and only followers of Christ, will inherit the earth, including the Land.
7. Finally, this inheritance of Christ's people will happen at the second coming of Christ to establish his kingdom, not before; and till then, we Christians must not take up arms to claim our inheritance; but rather lay down our lives to share our inheritance with as many as we can.
You recall that all-important word that Jesus spoke to Pilate in John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Christians do not take up the sword to advance the kingdom of Christ. We wait for a king from heaven who will deliver us by his mighty power. And in that great day Jew and Gentile who have treasured Christ will receive what was promised. There will be a great reversal: the last will be first, and the meek—in fellowship with the Lamb of God—will inherit the Land.
Therefore, come to the meek and lowly Christ while there is time, and receive forgiveness of sins, and the hope of glory.
spot.com/">Rev. Charles Place
Official Presbyterian Publisher Issues 9/11 Conspiracy Book
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/131/12.0.html
Christianity Today, Week of July 31
Official Presbyterian Publisher Issues 9/11 Conspiracy Book
Process theologian David Ray Griffin is among the most prominent proponents of theory that Bush administration, not Al Qaeda, was behind attacks.
by Jason Bailey | posted 07/31/2006 09:30 a.m.
Christian Faith
and the Truth
Behind 9/11:
A Call to
Reflection and Action
by David Ray Griffin
Westminster John Knox Press
208 pp.; $17.95
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government, according to a book to be released later this month by Westminster John Knox Press—a division of the denominational publisher for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action is the third book on the subject by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of theology at Claremont School of Theology who is also a well-published and prominent process theologian.
His previous work has influenced Kevin Barrett, a Muslim lecturer for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has received recent national attention for espousing the theory. Of the 133 members in Wisconsin's legislature, 61 signed a letter to university officials and Gov. James Doyle demanding that Barrett be fired before the fall term begins. He is scheduled to teach about some of the conspiracy theories surrounding September 11 during his 15-week fall course, "Islam: Religion and Culture."
"Without David, I would not just lose my faith in Christianity," Barrett said in an interview with CT. "I would almost lose my faith in the humanity of Christians."
Barrett, who co-founded the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, and Griffin are both members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth—a non-partisan organization that is "dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11."
In his book, Griffin argues the Bush administration planned the events of September 11 so they could provide justification for going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. He writes that although Christianity began as a specifically anti-empire gospel, the church has been silent about an imperialistic America—which he compares to the Roman Empire.
"I became more convinced that if the truth about 9/11 was going to be exposed, the churches were probably going to have to be involved," Griffin told CT. "If we become convinced that the so-called war on terror is simply a pretext for enlarging the American empire, we have every reason as Christians to try and expose the truth behind 9/11."
Westminster John Knox (WJK) officials said they published Griffin because of the questions that he raised in his previous books, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions.
"We have a long tradition of being a publisher of somewhat progressive stances on theological and social issues, so it is not out of character for us to do this," said Jack Keller, vice president of publishing at WJK. "Whether or not people were fully persuaded by the arguments, he was certainly raising some interesting issues."
WJK, which has been publishing books by Griffin on theology and philosophy of religion since the 1970s, is part of the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, but publishes books that "cover the spectrum of modern religious thought," according to its website.
Griffin said he has not had antagonistic relations with other Christians over his work and wants the church to understand that the mainstream press is presenting a distorted truth.
"My hope is—and my anticipation is—that people across the religious spectrum of Christianity will respond with outrage," Griffin said. "Not outrage against me, but outrage against what has been done in the name of democracy and the name of a Christian nation."
Some Christians, however, think it is foolish for Westminster to give Griffin a platform.
Earl Tilford, a professor of history at Grove City College who specializes in the military and war, said it is dangerous for people who study religion to comment about national security and that Griffin "obviously knows very little about conspiracy theories."
"It does not surprise me that the PC(USA) press would publish his work," said Tilford, the former director of research at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute. "They are very anti-Israeli and very much inclined to anything that speaks ill of the administration."
James Berkley, the director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom, said that Westminster's decision to publish Griffin's book "is both laughable and pathetic" and that the publishing company is not ideologically in line with most Presbyterians.
"Their choice to print this seems to be pretty idiosyncratic and kooky," Berkeley said. "What a waste of pages and ink that could have been promoting the Christian gospel and contributing to the health and vitality of the Presbyterian church."
Griffin's next book, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speaking Out, will not be published by Westminster but by Olive Branch Press, which published his first two books about September 11. It is scheduled for a late August release.
Christianity Today, Week of July 31
Official Presbyterian Publisher Issues 9/11 Conspiracy Book
Process theologian David Ray Griffin is among the most prominent proponents of theory that Bush administration, not Al Qaeda, was behind attacks.
by Jason Bailey | posted 07/31/2006 09:30 a.m.
Christian Faith
and the Truth
Behind 9/11:
A Call to
Reflection and Action
by David Ray Griffin
Westminster John Knox Press
208 pp.; $17.95
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government, according to a book to be released later this month by Westminster John Knox Press—a division of the denominational publisher for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action is the third book on the subject by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of theology at Claremont School of Theology who is also a well-published and prominent process theologian.
His previous work has influenced Kevin Barrett, a Muslim lecturer for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has received recent national attention for espousing the theory. Of the 133 members in Wisconsin's legislature, 61 signed a letter to university officials and Gov. James Doyle demanding that Barrett be fired before the fall term begins. He is scheduled to teach about some of the conspiracy theories surrounding September 11 during his 15-week fall course, "Islam: Religion and Culture."
"Without David, I would not just lose my faith in Christianity," Barrett said in an interview with CT. "I would almost lose my faith in the humanity of Christians."
Barrett, who co-founded the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, and Griffin are both members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth—a non-partisan organization that is "dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11."
In his book, Griffin argues the Bush administration planned the events of September 11 so they could provide justification for going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. He writes that although Christianity began as a specifically anti-empire gospel, the church has been silent about an imperialistic America—which he compares to the Roman Empire.
"I became more convinced that if the truth about 9/11 was going to be exposed, the churches were probably going to have to be involved," Griffin told CT. "If we become convinced that the so-called war on terror is simply a pretext for enlarging the American empire, we have every reason as Christians to try and expose the truth behind 9/11."
Westminster John Knox (WJK) officials said they published Griffin because of the questions that he raised in his previous books, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions.
"We have a long tradition of being a publisher of somewhat progressive stances on theological and social issues, so it is not out of character for us to do this," said Jack Keller, vice president of publishing at WJK. "Whether or not people were fully persuaded by the arguments, he was certainly raising some interesting issues."
WJK, which has been publishing books by Griffin on theology and philosophy of religion since the 1970s, is part of the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, but publishes books that "cover the spectrum of modern religious thought," according to its website.
Griffin said he has not had antagonistic relations with other Christians over his work and wants the church to understand that the mainstream press is presenting a distorted truth.
"My hope is—and my anticipation is—that people across the religious spectrum of Christianity will respond with outrage," Griffin said. "Not outrage against me, but outrage against what has been done in the name of democracy and the name of a Christian nation."
Some Christians, however, think it is foolish for Westminster to give Griffin a platform.
Earl Tilford, a professor of history at Grove City College who specializes in the military and war, said it is dangerous for people who study religion to comment about national security and that Griffin "obviously knows very little about conspiracy theories."
"It does not surprise me that the PC(USA) press would publish his work," said Tilford, the former director of research at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute. "They are very anti-Israeli and very much inclined to anything that speaks ill of the administration."
James Berkley, the director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom, said that Westminster's decision to publish Griffin's book "is both laughable and pathetic" and that the publishing company is not ideologically in line with most Presbyterians.
"Their choice to print this seems to be pretty idiosyncratic and kooky," Berkeley said. "What a waste of pages and ink that could have been promoting the Christian gospel and contributing to the health and vitality of the Presbyterian church."
Griffin's next book, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speaking Out, will not be published by Westminster but by Olive Branch Press, which published his first two books about September 11. It is scheduled for a late August release.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Christian Email Forwards
Recently I received a couple email forwards from a couple of my family members in Christ. In these forwards, it referred to the death of our service men and women as dying for our freedoms the same way Christ died for our freedom. One such post asked by a mother why her son had to die in several of the wars over time that our nation has been in, including the war in Iraq. I took offence with this reference that they all died for our freedoms in the same way as our Lord and Savior.
Our service men and women that have died though out our history had died for our nation, many to protect our freedoms here at home. WW1 and 2 were such wars.
The Iraq war isn't a war to protect our freedoms and has nothing to do with 9-11 or going after terrorist's or terrorism. It was a hole other agenda by our president and his administration.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not belittling our service men in Iraq, I have a son who has served there and could possibly go back at some point. I'm not belittling the men and women who have died in Iraq, they served their country with honor, it is just to bad we can't say the same thing about our leaders in D.C.
As I watched TV last night late, a show about our independence was on, and a young boy who had seen his father killed by the British came home to his mother, and was set for dinner in his fathers chair at the head of the table. It was his fathers responsibility to say grace for the meal. When he did so, he ended it with the Lord's prayer. As he got to Forgive us for our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us, a play on the verse that follows the Lord's prayer in Matt.
Mat 6:14-15 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
The young man paused for a moment and said there wasn't much forgiveness done today, and he said that his father had always taught him not to ask for God's blessing on killing or fighting. Not an exact quote. But he asked God to grant them the right to defend themselves.
Today not a lot of forgiveness has been done. We have the right to defend our selves, but we are not defending ourselves in Iraq. We haven't even created a stable Iraq. I could say more on the Iraq war but that is for another day.
Lastly Christ didn't die to protect our freedoms, he died to give us freedom. He gave us a freedom we could never get by the deaths of our service men and women. He died for all mankind not just those in our nation. He didn't die to give man peace or freedom in this world.
In Christ's own word, Mat 10:34"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword."
Blessings,
Rev. Charles
Our service men and women that have died though out our history had died for our nation, many to protect our freedoms here at home. WW1 and 2 were such wars.
The Iraq war isn't a war to protect our freedoms and has nothing to do with 9-11 or going after terrorist's or terrorism. It was a hole other agenda by our president and his administration.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not belittling our service men in Iraq, I have a son who has served there and could possibly go back at some point. I'm not belittling the men and women who have died in Iraq, they served their country with honor, it is just to bad we can't say the same thing about our leaders in D.C.
As I watched TV last night late, a show about our independence was on, and a young boy who had seen his father killed by the British came home to his mother, and was set for dinner in his fathers chair at the head of the table. It was his fathers responsibility to say grace for the meal. When he did so, he ended it with the Lord's prayer. As he got to Forgive us for our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us, a play on the verse that follows the Lord's prayer in Matt.
Mat 6:14-15 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
The young man paused for a moment and said there wasn't much forgiveness done today, and he said that his father had always taught him not to ask for God's blessing on killing or fighting. Not an exact quote. But he asked God to grant them the right to defend themselves.
Today not a lot of forgiveness has been done. We have the right to defend our selves, but we are not defending ourselves in Iraq. We haven't even created a stable Iraq. I could say more on the Iraq war but that is for another day.
Lastly Christ didn't die to protect our freedoms, he died to give us freedom. He gave us a freedom we could never get by the deaths of our service men and women. He died for all mankind not just those in our nation. He didn't die to give man peace or freedom in this world.
In Christ's own word, Mat 10:34"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword."
Blessings,
Rev. Charles
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Episcopal Church Losing Its Flock
July 07, 2006
Episcopal Church Losing Its Flock
—Albert Mohler
The Episcopal Church lost its largest American congregation in recent days as Christ Church Episcopal in suburban Dallas declared that it would withdraw from the denomination. The reason? Theological liberalism and the election of an openly-homosexual man as bishop. The worldwide Anglican Communion had demanded that the American church repent and promise no more gay bishops, but the Episcopal Church responded with something far weaker.
Rev. David Roseberry, the church's pastor, told his congregation:
"The mission of Christ Church is to make disciples and teach them to obey the commands of Christ. The direction of the leadership of the Episcopal Church is different and we regret their departure from biblical truth and the historic faith of the Anglican Communion."
This is an historic action, taken by a brokenhearted pastor and church. It is also a wakeup call for liberal denominations. You can't count on denominational loyalty when you act in opposition to the Bible and the Christian faith.
Episcopal Church Losing Its Flock
—Albert Mohler
The Episcopal Church lost its largest American congregation in recent days as Christ Church Episcopal in suburban Dallas declared that it would withdraw from the denomination. The reason? Theological liberalism and the election of an openly-homosexual man as bishop. The worldwide Anglican Communion had demanded that the American church repent and promise no more gay bishops, but the Episcopal Church responded with something far weaker.
Rev. David Roseberry, the church's pastor, told his congregation:
"The mission of Christ Church is to make disciples and teach them to obey the commands of Christ. The direction of the leadership of the Episcopal Church is different and we regret their departure from biblical truth and the historic faith of the Anglican Communion."
This is an historic action, taken by a brokenhearted pastor and church. It is also a wakeup call for liberal denominations. You can't count on denominational loyalty when you act in opposition to the Bible and the Christian faith.
Pope stresses family values on Spain visit
Pope stresses family values on Spain visit
Sat Jul 8, 2006 9:19am ET
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-07-08T140407Z_01_L08175241_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE.xml&src=rss
By Philip Pullella and Jane Barrett
VALENCIA, Spain (Reuters) - Pope Benedict urged Spain to defend the traditional family on Saturday as he began a lightning trip to the country where the Church and government have clashed over the legalisation of gay marriage.
Saying there were certain things to which the Church must just say "No", the pope said the family based on heterosexual marriage was "a unique institution in God's plan".
The 79-year-old pope received a tumultuous welcome in this coastal city, where he will spend little more than 24 hours to close an international gathering of Roman Catholic families.
Tens of thousands of people cheering and waving yellow and white Vatican flags lined the route of the motorcade after he was welcomed to the country by King Juan Carlos at the airport.
Pope Benedict's first stop was at the site of a train crash that killed 42 people last Monday.
Bowing his head in silence toward the pavement outside Jesus station, Benedict made the sign of the cross, laid a wreath of flowers and asked the Madonna to console the bereaved.
Speaking to reporters on his plane from Rome, the pope was asked about the gay marriage law and other changes in Spanish society that have been challenged by the Roman Catholic Church.
He said he wanted to stress the positive aspects of family life in Spain and elsewhere but added that there were some problems that could not be ignored.
"It is true that there are certain things that Christian life says 'No' to. We want to make people understand that according to human nature, it is a man and a woman who are made for each other and made to give humanity a future," he added.
"Let's shine a light on these positive things so we can try to make people understand why the Church cannot accept certain things but at the same time wants to respect people and help them," he said.
But he said preferred to stress the reality of "families that love each other ... which gives hope for the future."
The Spanish law gives gays the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, including on adoption and inheritance. Since the law was passed last year, 4,500 gay couples have married, according to gay, lesbian and transsexual organization FELGT.
The law put Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, with whom the pope was holding talks on Saturday afternoon, on a collision course with the Catholic Church.
On Saturday night the pope was due to preside at a huge rally with families at a futuristic arts and science complex near the sea which will also be the venue of a mass dedicated to families on Sunday morning before he returns to Rome.
A senior Vatican source on the plane said there was a "certain irritation" within the pope's entourage over Zapatero's decision not to attend the Sunday mass.
The source noted that in the past, Cuba's Communist leader Fidel Castro, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and former Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski attended masses presided over by the late Pope John Paul when he visited their countries.
Sat Jul 8, 2006 9:19am ET
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-07-08T140407Z_01_L08175241_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE.xml&src=rss
By Philip Pullella and Jane Barrett
VALENCIA, Spain (Reuters) - Pope Benedict urged Spain to defend the traditional family on Saturday as he began a lightning trip to the country where the Church and government have clashed over the legalisation of gay marriage.
Saying there were certain things to which the Church must just say "No", the pope said the family based on heterosexual marriage was "a unique institution in God's plan".
The 79-year-old pope received a tumultuous welcome in this coastal city, where he will spend little more than 24 hours to close an international gathering of Roman Catholic families.
Tens of thousands of people cheering and waving yellow and white Vatican flags lined the route of the motorcade after he was welcomed to the country by King Juan Carlos at the airport.
Pope Benedict's first stop was at the site of a train crash that killed 42 people last Monday.
Bowing his head in silence toward the pavement outside Jesus station, Benedict made the sign of the cross, laid a wreath of flowers and asked the Madonna to console the bereaved.
Speaking to reporters on his plane from Rome, the pope was asked about the gay marriage law and other changes in Spanish society that have been challenged by the Roman Catholic Church.
He said he wanted to stress the positive aspects of family life in Spain and elsewhere but added that there were some problems that could not be ignored.
"It is true that there are certain things that Christian life says 'No' to. We want to make people understand that according to human nature, it is a man and a woman who are made for each other and made to give humanity a future," he added.
"Let's shine a light on these positive things so we can try to make people understand why the Church cannot accept certain things but at the same time wants to respect people and help them," he said.
But he said preferred to stress the reality of "families that love each other ... which gives hope for the future."
The Spanish law gives gays the same rights as heterosexuals who marry, including on adoption and inheritance. Since the law was passed last year, 4,500 gay couples have married, according to gay, lesbian and transsexual organization FELGT.
The law put Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, with whom the pope was holding talks on Saturday afternoon, on a collision course with the Catholic Church.
On Saturday night the pope was due to preside at a huge rally with families at a futuristic arts and science complex near the sea which will also be the venue of a mass dedicated to families on Sunday morning before he returns to Rome.
A senior Vatican source on the plane said there was a "certain irritation" within the pope's entourage over Zapatero's decision not to attend the Sunday mass.
The source noted that in the past, Cuba's Communist leader Fidel Castro, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and former Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski attended masses presided over by the late Pope John Paul when he visited their countries.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Churches that Embrace Homosexuality Deny Scripture
Churches that Embrace Homosexuality Deny Scripture
Jeff Robinson
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP) -- The issue of whether or not the church should embrace homosexuality comes down to its acceptance or denial of the authority of Scripture, R. Albert Mohler Jr. told a national television audience on CNN’s "Larry King Live" on June 15.
The church is called lovingly to confront the sin of homosexuality and all other sins with the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, said Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
“The first thing [to consider is] whether or not as Christians, God has set a standard to which we are obligated,” Mohler said. “The issue is, always has been and always will be, the authority of Scripture.
“The Scripture very clearly tells us that our Creator has a purpose for our sexuality and that homosexuality among other sins is a violation of that purpose, and so love compels us to tell people the truth and also, as we understand the depth of their struggle with this, to tell them that there is a way out."
Mohler and six other panelists addressed the topic of homosexuality in the church. Panelists included Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual Anglican bishop; Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual and a Time magazine columnist; Jo Hudson, a lesbian who pastors the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas; David Anderson, president and CEO of the Anglican American Council; Michael Manning, a Roman Catholic priest; and Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA).
Homosexuality and the church have been a prominent topic in the news of late in light of the Episcopal Church's annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio. Three years ago the Episcopal Church ordained Gene Robinson in New Hampshire as the first openly homosexual bishop in the denomination’s long history. The denomination is deeply divided over the ordination of homosexuals and some analysts predict a split.
Hudson, a United Church of Christ minister who pastors one of the largest homosexual congregations in America, said God created her as a homosexual and thus being in a same-sex relationship is “wholly and completely” natural.
“I have a wonderful, living, dynamic relationship with God,” Hudson said. “And I know, in the core of my being, that the most natural way for me to be is exactly who I am.”
Mohler said he sympathizes with the desire of anyone who wishes to know God, but that a church that fails to follow Scripture and instead celebrates diversity is bound to celebrate sin.
“[T]he Gospel is about repenting of sin, not celebrating it,” Mohler said. “A church that buys into the logic of [celebrating a diversity of views on sexuality] is a church that's obligated to ordain homosexuals openly and unrepentant or anyone else because it has moved away from the clear authority of Scripture.
“A church that worships diversity is a church that's destined to accept a death knell, because the church itself is grounded in truth. The true church always celebrates the truth."
Sullivan, an openly homosexual Catholic, accused evangelicals of forcing their own interpretation upon Scripture to prove the sinfulness of homosexuality. He pointed out that the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for homosexuals.
“I say the Scripture is clear and Scripture says that I should be put to death,” Sullivan said. “The very verse that says that ‘[You] shall not lie with another man as one does with a woman,’ says that I should face the death penalty. That's clear.... Why is that not taken seriously?”
But Mohler pointed out the importance of understanding Scripture within its proper context. The death penalty for homosexuality was given as a law for Old Testament Israel, he said. With the advent of the new covenant, Christ has now borne the death penalty in the place of sinners and thus the theocratic laws that governed Old Testament Israel are no longer binding, Mohler said.
Although homosexuals no longer face capital punishment, their behavior is still sin according to the Bible, he said. The majority of Christians throughout history have understood the Bible this way, he said.
“There is always the danger that we will read our interpretation of Scripture,” Mohler said. “That's why for one thing we're dependent upon how Christians have read the Scriptures for centuries in which there has been a universal consensus about what the Scriptures had to say about sexuality.”
Robinson said Christians must follow Jesus' example in continually "reinterpreting Scripture." He said the key to Christianity is what is “in one’s heart” and that Jesus would embrace homosexuals just as they are.
“We follow a person [Jesus] who was always reinterpreting Scripture and letting people know that it's the spirit of what's going on in one's heart that is the real key and when he said ‘love one another as I have loved you,’ it means that we need to be moving to the margins, doing justice work, working against racism,” Robinson said.
“[These are] all kinds of things that Jesus would be doing in this day and time. I have no question in my mind that Jesus considers me beloved -- just as I am.”
Mohler, though, said Scripture is clear in teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Christians merely are sinners who have been saved by God’s grace from not only homosexuality but also from various other sins, Mohler said. Thus, there is forgiveness for homosexuals and sinners of all types through faith in Jesus Christ, he said.
“I know the one thing that must not change is this: as one sinner saved by grace to other sinners, I say come to Jesus Christ and come to newness of life,” Mohler said. “It will change your sex life ... It will change every dimension of your life ... by the grace and mercy of God.”
Copyright (c) 2001 - 2006 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press
Jeff Robinson
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP) -- The issue of whether or not the church should embrace homosexuality comes down to its acceptance or denial of the authority of Scripture, R. Albert Mohler Jr. told a national television audience on CNN’s "Larry King Live" on June 15.
The church is called lovingly to confront the sin of homosexuality and all other sins with the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, said Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
“The first thing [to consider is] whether or not as Christians, God has set a standard to which we are obligated,” Mohler said. “The issue is, always has been and always will be, the authority of Scripture.
“The Scripture very clearly tells us that our Creator has a purpose for our sexuality and that homosexuality among other sins is a violation of that purpose, and so love compels us to tell people the truth and also, as we understand the depth of their struggle with this, to tell them that there is a way out."
Mohler and six other panelists addressed the topic of homosexuality in the church. Panelists included Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual Anglican bishop; Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual and a Time magazine columnist; Jo Hudson, a lesbian who pastors the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas; David Anderson, president and CEO of the Anglican American Council; Michael Manning, a Roman Catholic priest; and Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA).
Homosexuality and the church have been a prominent topic in the news of late in light of the Episcopal Church's annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio. Three years ago the Episcopal Church ordained Gene Robinson in New Hampshire as the first openly homosexual bishop in the denomination’s long history. The denomination is deeply divided over the ordination of homosexuals and some analysts predict a split.
Hudson, a United Church of Christ minister who pastors one of the largest homosexual congregations in America, said God created her as a homosexual and thus being in a same-sex relationship is “wholly and completely” natural.
“I have a wonderful, living, dynamic relationship with God,” Hudson said. “And I know, in the core of my being, that the most natural way for me to be is exactly who I am.”
Mohler said he sympathizes with the desire of anyone who wishes to know God, but that a church that fails to follow Scripture and instead celebrates diversity is bound to celebrate sin.
“[T]he Gospel is about repenting of sin, not celebrating it,” Mohler said. “A church that buys into the logic of [celebrating a diversity of views on sexuality] is a church that's obligated to ordain homosexuals openly and unrepentant or anyone else because it has moved away from the clear authority of Scripture.
“A church that worships diversity is a church that's destined to accept a death knell, because the church itself is grounded in truth. The true church always celebrates the truth."
Sullivan, an openly homosexual Catholic, accused evangelicals of forcing their own interpretation upon Scripture to prove the sinfulness of homosexuality. He pointed out that the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for homosexuals.
“I say the Scripture is clear and Scripture says that I should be put to death,” Sullivan said. “The very verse that says that ‘[You] shall not lie with another man as one does with a woman,’ says that I should face the death penalty. That's clear.... Why is that not taken seriously?”
But Mohler pointed out the importance of understanding Scripture within its proper context. The death penalty for homosexuality was given as a law for Old Testament Israel, he said. With the advent of the new covenant, Christ has now borne the death penalty in the place of sinners and thus the theocratic laws that governed Old Testament Israel are no longer binding, Mohler said.
Although homosexuals no longer face capital punishment, their behavior is still sin according to the Bible, he said. The majority of Christians throughout history have understood the Bible this way, he said.
“There is always the danger that we will read our interpretation of Scripture,” Mohler said. “That's why for one thing we're dependent upon how Christians have read the Scriptures for centuries in which there has been a universal consensus about what the Scriptures had to say about sexuality.”
Robinson said Christians must follow Jesus' example in continually "reinterpreting Scripture." He said the key to Christianity is what is “in one’s heart” and that Jesus would embrace homosexuals just as they are.
“We follow a person [Jesus] who was always reinterpreting Scripture and letting people know that it's the spirit of what's going on in one's heart that is the real key and when he said ‘love one another as I have loved you,’ it means that we need to be moving to the margins, doing justice work, working against racism,” Robinson said.
“[These are] all kinds of things that Jesus would be doing in this day and time. I have no question in my mind that Jesus considers me beloved -- just as I am.”
Mohler, though, said Scripture is clear in teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Christians merely are sinners who have been saved by God’s grace from not only homosexuality but also from various other sins, Mohler said. Thus, there is forgiveness for homosexuals and sinners of all types through faith in Jesus Christ, he said.
“I know the one thing that must not change is this: as one sinner saved by grace to other sinners, I say come to Jesus Christ and come to newness of life,” Mohler said. “It will change your sex life ... It will change every dimension of your life ... by the grace and mercy of God.”
Copyright (c) 2001 - 2006 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press
Thursday, April 13, 2006
"The Gospel of Judas"
The Gospel of Judas has been making it's way around the News and there are many thoughts on it. Father Jonathan Morris wrote a good article on foxnews web site about it. His article follows, or you can read it on the fox news web site at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191172,00.html
Besides his bias against the NYT, His article on this subject is right on.
=============================
The Gospel of Judas
by Father Jonathan Morris for FOX Fan
When in New York there are few things I enjoy more than browsing the elegant pages of the New York Times while sipping a cup of a well-brewed coffee. Those pages often make me mad, but usually make me think. Friday’s edition only made me mad.
I’m referring to the article about the “Gospel of Judas.” It offered a dumbed-down, ideology-driven report on the ancient text discovered in Egypt in the 1970’s and recently translated into English by the National Geographic Society. The text depicts Judas Iscariot, the traitor, in a good light. Hard to do, you might say. Yes, it is, but only if you trust authoritative, eyewitness sources like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The New York Times apparently does not.
For all their purported progressive thinking, one would surmise the 17 centuries separating the Gnostic authors of the “Gospel of Judas” (self-proclaimed “progressives” of their day) and the editors at the Times would produce greater evolution of thought. But the paper’s Friday edition read like the diary of an anti-Christian Gnostic apologist of the late second century AD. For when it comes to Christianity, both are incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction. Here’s what the article said and here’s why it’s wrong.
(Read the New York Times article - registration required)
NY Times: “An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years.”
Father J: The "Gospel of Judas" is not an early Christian manuscript. It belongs to the well-known body of Gnostic writings condemned by the early Christian community as heretical (anti-Christian). One of the early Christian Fathers, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, specifically rebuked the text as “unorthodox.”
NY Times: “The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today.”
Father J: Scholars didn’t report new insights into the relationship between Judas and Jesus. They reported new insights into what some second century writers conjectured about the relationship. The early Christian community discarded those conjectures because they didn’t match with eyewitness accounts.
NY Times: “The discoveries of Gnostic texts have shaken up Biblical scholarship by revealing the diversity of beliefs and practices among early followers of Jesus.”
Father J: This is ridiculous. The hundreds of second and third century apocryphal texts, of which the “Gospel of Judas” is a part, have nothing to do with biblical scholarship, since they tell us nothing about the Bible. Moreover, scholars have known for centuries that there was a diversity of beliefs and practices in the early centuries of Christianity. The Christian community sifted through the contradicting beliefs and classified some as faithful representations of the teachings of Christ (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and others as imposters (Gnostic writings, among others).
NY Times: “As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.”
Father J: So much confusion in so few lines! New generations who don’t believe in the Bible as the Word of God may be very good people, but they are not Christians. This is not to say the Bible was dropped from the clouds, or was dictated word for word by Jesus. Christian theology teaches the canon of Scripture was determined by human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit. Amazingly, the New York Times gets things almost exactly backwards. Gnostic texts produced in the second century stem from a clear historical and political agenda, whereas the first century canonical Gospels reflect an attempt by eyewitnesses to put into writing what they had seen and heard.
NY Times: "For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many believers. The Gospel of Judas portrays Judas Iscariot not as a betrayer of Jesus, but as his most favored disciple and willing collaborator."
Father J: The discoveries are troubling only for believers who give equal value to all ancient writings, no matter their credibility. At least two of the four Christian Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The “Gospel of Judas,” on the other hand, was written over 120 years after the death of Christ by an author explicitly condemned as a false teacher by the early Christian community.
NY Times: "At least one scholar said the new manuscript does not contain anything dramatic that would change or undermine traditional understanding of the Bible."
Father J: At least one? From my assessment of the reports that have come out, this has been the norm among all serious scholars. I hope this last quote from the Times is not a feigned attempt at unbiased reporting!
There is good reason to accept the authenticity of this text as part of a body of Gnostic writings, but not as part of early Christian beliefs. The Times repeatedly insinuates the text represents new historical data on Jesus and the beliefs of early Christians. This is completely out of the bounds of professional journalism. As soon as Gnosticism raised its head, the early Christian community recognized it as incongruent with what they knew from first-hand sources about Christ and his teachings.
The New York Times has a tradition of excellence in newsgathering and reporting dating back to 1851, when Henry Jarvis Raymond founded the paper. During the Civil War it stood out for its speed and accuracy in the publishing of eyewitness accounts. Later, during the civil rights movement, it lent its bully pulpit to those who would bring down slavery.
But on this story about the foundation of Christianity, the paper’s unwillingness to trust eyewitness accounts is baffling. I must say, the silliness of giving the same credibility to the “Gospel of Judas” as to the Christian Gospels is unworthy of the venerable tradition of my morning paper. When I read dumbed-down, ideology-driven articles like this one, the coffee, even good coffee, just doesn’t taste the same.
God bless, Father Jonathan
P.S. In the coming weeks we’ll examine the relationship between Gnosticism and “The Da Vinci Code,” just in case the NYT doesn’t get it right.
=====================================
Besides his bias against the NYT, His article on this subject is right on.
=============================
The Gospel of Judas
by Father Jonathan Morris for FOX Fan
When in New York there are few things I enjoy more than browsing the elegant pages of the New York Times while sipping a cup of a well-brewed coffee. Those pages often make me mad, but usually make me think. Friday’s edition only made me mad.
I’m referring to the article about the “Gospel of Judas.” It offered a dumbed-down, ideology-driven report on the ancient text discovered in Egypt in the 1970’s and recently translated into English by the National Geographic Society. The text depicts Judas Iscariot, the traitor, in a good light. Hard to do, you might say. Yes, it is, but only if you trust authoritative, eyewitness sources like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The New York Times apparently does not.
For all their purported progressive thinking, one would surmise the 17 centuries separating the Gnostic authors of the “Gospel of Judas” (self-proclaimed “progressives” of their day) and the editors at the Times would produce greater evolution of thought. But the paper’s Friday edition read like the diary of an anti-Christian Gnostic apologist of the late second century AD. For when it comes to Christianity, both are incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction. Here’s what the article said and here’s why it’s wrong.
(Read the New York Times article - registration required)
NY Times: “An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years.”
Father J: The "Gospel of Judas" is not an early Christian manuscript. It belongs to the well-known body of Gnostic writings condemned by the early Christian community as heretical (anti-Christian). One of the early Christian Fathers, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, specifically rebuked the text as “unorthodox.”
NY Times: “The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today.”
Father J: Scholars didn’t report new insights into the relationship between Judas and Jesus. They reported new insights into what some second century writers conjectured about the relationship. The early Christian community discarded those conjectures because they didn’t match with eyewitness accounts.
NY Times: “The discoveries of Gnostic texts have shaken up Biblical scholarship by revealing the diversity of beliefs and practices among early followers of Jesus.”
Father J: This is ridiculous. The hundreds of second and third century apocryphal texts, of which the “Gospel of Judas” is a part, have nothing to do with biblical scholarship, since they tell us nothing about the Bible. Moreover, scholars have known for centuries that there was a diversity of beliefs and practices in the early centuries of Christianity. The Christian community sifted through the contradicting beliefs and classified some as faithful representations of the teachings of Christ (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and others as imposters (Gnostic writings, among others).
NY Times: “As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.”
Father J: So much confusion in so few lines! New generations who don’t believe in the Bible as the Word of God may be very good people, but they are not Christians. This is not to say the Bible was dropped from the clouds, or was dictated word for word by Jesus. Christian theology teaches the canon of Scripture was determined by human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit. Amazingly, the New York Times gets things almost exactly backwards. Gnostic texts produced in the second century stem from a clear historical and political agenda, whereas the first century canonical Gospels reflect an attempt by eyewitnesses to put into writing what they had seen and heard.
NY Times: "For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many believers. The Gospel of Judas portrays Judas Iscariot not as a betrayer of Jesus, but as his most favored disciple and willing collaborator."
Father J: The discoveries are troubling only for believers who give equal value to all ancient writings, no matter their credibility. At least two of the four Christian Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The “Gospel of Judas,” on the other hand, was written over 120 years after the death of Christ by an author explicitly condemned as a false teacher by the early Christian community.
NY Times: "At least one scholar said the new manuscript does not contain anything dramatic that would change or undermine traditional understanding of the Bible."
Father J: At least one? From my assessment of the reports that have come out, this has been the norm among all serious scholars. I hope this last quote from the Times is not a feigned attempt at unbiased reporting!
There is good reason to accept the authenticity of this text as part of a body of Gnostic writings, but not as part of early Christian beliefs. The Times repeatedly insinuates the text represents new historical data on Jesus and the beliefs of early Christians. This is completely out of the bounds of professional journalism. As soon as Gnosticism raised its head, the early Christian community recognized it as incongruent with what they knew from first-hand sources about Christ and his teachings.
The New York Times has a tradition of excellence in newsgathering and reporting dating back to 1851, when Henry Jarvis Raymond founded the paper. During the Civil War it stood out for its speed and accuracy in the publishing of eyewitness accounts. Later, during the civil rights movement, it lent its bully pulpit to those who would bring down slavery.
But on this story about the foundation of Christianity, the paper’s unwillingness to trust eyewitness accounts is baffling. I must say, the silliness of giving the same credibility to the “Gospel of Judas” as to the Christian Gospels is unworthy of the venerable tradition of my morning paper. When I read dumbed-down, ideology-driven articles like this one, the coffee, even good coffee, just doesn’t taste the same.
God bless, Father Jonathan
P.S. In the coming weeks we’ll examine the relationship between Gnosticism and “The Da Vinci Code,” just in case the NYT doesn’t get it right.
=====================================
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Civil War in Iraq
Many Christian Leaders that were against the war in Iraq talked about what we see happening right now going on in Iraq. Civil war is going to happen in Iraq, just when is the question. Fighting between the differnet groups in the middle east has gone on for over 4 to 5 thousand years. Nearly from the time of the fall of Adam and Eve, with Cain and Abel bing the first, and it hasn't stopped sense. What make our US administration think they can change it with democracy?
The only way change will take place in this world is through Christ, either within the hearts of man one at a time now or when he says enough is enough and returns and puts a stop to mankind's distruction of this world.
The problem yet with the first is that it doesn't happen to everyone, but only those Christ softens the heart of. We will continue to have those that are willing to kill for any reason, religous or not.
It is time for us to stop trying to do what God through Jesus can oly do! War for any reason will not fix the problems that are deeper than a dictator.
Rev. Charles
The only way change will take place in this world is through Christ, either within the hearts of man one at a time now or when he says enough is enough and returns and puts a stop to mankind's distruction of this world.
The problem yet with the first is that it doesn't happen to everyone, but only those Christ softens the heart of. We will continue to have those that are willing to kill for any reason, religous or not.
It is time for us to stop trying to do what God through Jesus can oly do! War for any reason will not fix the problems that are deeper than a dictator.
Rev. Charles
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Sharia Law Comes West
http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2006/02/13/sharia-law-comes-west#639
Sharia Law Comes West
13 February 2006 @ 3:44PM
In the London Sunday Times, Andrew Sullivan wonders why the "Islamo-bullies get a free ride from the West":
You'd think, wouldn't you, it might be helpful to view the actual cartoons so you can see what on earth this entire fuss is about. But the British and American media have decided that it is not their job to help you understand this story. In fact it is their job to prevent you from fully understanding this story. As of this writing no major newspaper in Britain has published the cartoons; the BBC has shown them only fleetingly and other networks have shied away. All have decided not to give you this critical information, without which no intelligent person can construct an informed and intelligent position on the matter. You're on your own.
The reasons given are conventional enough: the press doesn't want to inflame matters further; the cartoons are indeed offensive, and no editor has to publish images that would appal readers; reprinting would merely play into the hands of extremists, and so on.
The one argument you haven't heard is the one you hear off-camera. Many editors simply don't want to put their staffs at risk of physical danger. They have "offended" Muslims in the past and learnt to regret it. In New York the editors of a free alternative paper, the New York Press, decided they wanted to run the cartoons so their readers could have a grasp of what this huge story is about. The owner refused. The staff quit en masse. The editor claims the owner gave him a simple explanation: "I'm not putting lives in danger. We're not getting things blown up."
And, according to an editorial in the Boston Phoenix, Sullivan is right. The Phoenix admits that one of the reasons they won't run the cartoons is "[o]ut of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do."
This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing any of the images in question. Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.
In other words, after just a few days of rioting, the media has already bent over, surrendered, and accepted Sharia law as the arbiter of its editorial decisions.
Our media has just taught a valuable lesson to the various interest groups of the world: if you want to control how your group is covered, be as threatening and violent as possible.
Sullivan notes that online media--not the establishment media--is now the only source for full coverage of this story:
The fundamental job of journalists is to give you as much information as possible to make sense of the world around you. And in this story, where the entire controversy revolves around drawings, the press is suddenly coy. You can see Saddam Hussein in his underwear and members of the royal family in compromising positions. You can see Andres Serrano's famously blasphemous photograph of a crucifix in urine, called Piss Christ. But a political cartoon that deals with Islam? Not our job, guv. Move right along. Nothing to see here.
[...]
And so we have two media now in the world. We have the mainstream media whose job is increasingly not actually to disseminate information but to act as a moral steward for what is fit to print, to become an arbiter of sensitivity, good taste and political correctness. And we have web pages like Wikipedia or the blogosphere to disseminate actual facts, data, images and opinions that readers can judge with the benefit of all the facts, not just some of them.
Take a look at the cartoons. Sure, they obviously offend some people, but they're not outrageous, certainly not in the context of a free society. Other groups have managed to bear similar offenses or worse without resorting to uncontained rampages of violence. And in those cases, the media didn't worry much about who might be offended.
The fact that the cartoons are so mild is a huge part of the story. After all, if people are threatening death over these cartoons, what else will set them into a murderous rage? Wouldn't this information be helpful?
Apparently not, in the view of our media. It is quite easy to stand up as a noble defender of press freedoms when the only people on the other side are finger-wagging octogenarian letter writers complaining about an errant nipple during a Superbowl half-time show. But the pitiful reaction of the press in this instance shows that they are nothing more than bloviating pushovers who will hand over their freedoms as readily as the French in 1940 the first minute they're faced with anything more dangerous than a pile of letters to the editor. But they're worse than just being cowards, because they've just reinforced the only lesson that radical Islamists seem to understand: the best way to achieve their goals is through mob violence.
Will we ever see stories that are as critical of Islamofascism as they are of, say, the American government? I wouldn't hold my breath. Our media has just proven that fear will cause them to cover up anything that might "offend" the mobs of Islamic arsonists. (This isn't exactly new territory for the establishment media, either.)
Who knew that the first major surrender in the War on Terror would come so easily? I didn't. But I can't say I'm surprised to see that it's our media selling us out.
Sharia Law Comes West
13 February 2006 @ 3:44PM
In the London Sunday Times, Andrew Sullivan wonders why the "Islamo-bullies get a free ride from the West":
You'd think, wouldn't you, it might be helpful to view the actual cartoons so you can see what on earth this entire fuss is about. But the British and American media have decided that it is not their job to help you understand this story. In fact it is their job to prevent you from fully understanding this story. As of this writing no major newspaper in Britain has published the cartoons; the BBC has shown them only fleetingly and other networks have shied away. All have decided not to give you this critical information, without which no intelligent person can construct an informed and intelligent position on the matter. You're on your own.
The reasons given are conventional enough: the press doesn't want to inflame matters further; the cartoons are indeed offensive, and no editor has to publish images that would appal readers; reprinting would merely play into the hands of extremists, and so on.
The one argument you haven't heard is the one you hear off-camera. Many editors simply don't want to put their staffs at risk of physical danger. They have "offended" Muslims in the past and learnt to regret it. In New York the editors of a free alternative paper, the New York Press, decided they wanted to run the cartoons so their readers could have a grasp of what this huge story is about. The owner refused. The staff quit en masse. The editor claims the owner gave him a simple explanation: "I'm not putting lives in danger. We're not getting things blown up."
And, according to an editorial in the Boston Phoenix, Sullivan is right. The Phoenix admits that one of the reasons they won't run the cartoons is "[o]ut of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do."
This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing any of the images in question. Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.
In other words, after just a few days of rioting, the media has already bent over, surrendered, and accepted Sharia law as the arbiter of its editorial decisions.
Our media has just taught a valuable lesson to the various interest groups of the world: if you want to control how your group is covered, be as threatening and violent as possible.
Sullivan notes that online media--not the establishment media--is now the only source for full coverage of this story:
The fundamental job of journalists is to give you as much information as possible to make sense of the world around you. And in this story, where the entire controversy revolves around drawings, the press is suddenly coy. You can see Saddam Hussein in his underwear and members of the royal family in compromising positions. You can see Andres Serrano's famously blasphemous photograph of a crucifix in urine, called Piss Christ. But a political cartoon that deals with Islam? Not our job, guv. Move right along. Nothing to see here.
[...]
And so we have two media now in the world. We have the mainstream media whose job is increasingly not actually to disseminate information but to act as a moral steward for what is fit to print, to become an arbiter of sensitivity, good taste and political correctness. And we have web pages like Wikipedia or the blogosphere to disseminate actual facts, data, images and opinions that readers can judge with the benefit of all the facts, not just some of them.
Take a look at the cartoons. Sure, they obviously offend some people, but they're not outrageous, certainly not in the context of a free society. Other groups have managed to bear similar offenses or worse without resorting to uncontained rampages of violence. And in those cases, the media didn't worry much about who might be offended.
The fact that the cartoons are so mild is a huge part of the story. After all, if people are threatening death over these cartoons, what else will set them into a murderous rage? Wouldn't this information be helpful?
Apparently not, in the view of our media. It is quite easy to stand up as a noble defender of press freedoms when the only people on the other side are finger-wagging octogenarian letter writers complaining about an errant nipple during a Superbowl half-time show. But the pitiful reaction of the press in this instance shows that they are nothing more than bloviating pushovers who will hand over their freedoms as readily as the French in 1940 the first minute they're faced with anything more dangerous than a pile of letters to the editor. But they're worse than just being cowards, because they've just reinforced the only lesson that radical Islamists seem to understand: the best way to achieve their goals is through mob violence.
Will we ever see stories that are as critical of Islamofascism as they are of, say, the American government? I wouldn't hold my breath. Our media has just proven that fear will cause them to cover up anything that might "offend" the mobs of Islamic arsonists. (This isn't exactly new territory for the establishment media, either.)
Who knew that the first major surrender in the War on Terror would come so easily? I didn't. But I can't say I'm surprised to see that it's our media selling us out.
