Afghan government seeks way to drop case against Christian convert

The Court system in Afghanistan has dropped its case against Abdul Rahman, who was charged with converting from Islam to Christianity, a "crime" that may be punishable by death in the Muslim state. The court sited lack of evidence. Since Rahman claims he was prepared to die for his faith in Christ, it seems that someone could just ask him for a confession of faith if they needed more evidence. In other related news the court also considered claiming that Abdul was mentally unfit to stand trial in apparent desperation to find some reason to dismiss the case.

One now wonders what will become of Afghanistan's most famous apostate. If even his family turned him over to be executed (didn't Jesus say something about that?), I doubt he will be welcome anywhere in that country. No doubt he could go on a speaking tour in the Bible Belt for a while if he knows any English.

But I hope that the Bush administration, and leaders of other Western nations, the UN and other Human Rights advocates will not celebrate this dismissal as a victory for Human Rights. It may have been quite the opposite. In siting "lack of evidence" Afghanistan avoided the whole issue whether people are free to convert - it never went to trial, and so as far as the law is concerned, they still are not. This decision then may only pave the way for more persecution of Christians in the future, perhaps when the government is less directly dependent upon the US and other Western nations who are paying to rebuild its infra-structure after the much-forgotten war in Afghanistan.

One other related thought: the only reason that this man appears to have gotten off is that his country was dependent upon Western aid money. So before we gripe about giving away so much foreign aid to undeserving countries - or on the other hand before we pat ourselves on the back for being so generous to the rest of mankind - let us remember that financial aid given to foreign countries = influence over their policies. The same applies to Federal dollars given to State governments (or to "Faith-based Organizations" for that matter).

Church drops Ball on protecting children?

Here is an interesting little blog post I just read. The author wonders why it is that the Church leadership (in The United Methodist Church and others) is so quick to condemn the war and other supposed acts of "oppression," but fails to speak up when child molesters are not held to account for their crimes against "the least of these," our children.

I must admit, I do not know the details of the cases that he mentions, but in light of all the child abuse scandals that have rocked (not only Catholic) churches in the last few years I am rather astonished that the Church leadership has not taken on this issue with the shrill "prophetic" voice that we have come to expect on so many other (more contentious) issues.

Afghan may be executed for converting to Christianity

Remember before the "war" in Iraq, there was that whole thing with Afghanistan? Taliban?

Well if you recall, we succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban regime that had supported Al-Qaida and set up a democracy. And now everything there is wonderful: women are going to school and learning to read for the first time, men are allowed to shave their beards without fearing an arrest, people who convert to Christianity are punished for their crimes...

Wait a second. What was that last one? An Afghan judge says that since the new constitution says that Afghanistan is an Islamic State, this is the proper punishment for such a crime. Though the Afghani constitution also mentions international standards of human rights, including freedom of religious belief, that part of the constitution has been rejected as a "Western" notion.

It is good that the media has taken note of the persecution of people who have faith in Christ Jesus, which is worldwide problem for millions and millions of believers EVERY day, but this is particularly unsettling example for me as a citizen of the US since we helped set up the current Afghan government.

Now this in my mind begs the question of whether democracy is really such a good thing. Maybe OUR sort of democracy (which is actually a Republic most of whose delegates are democratically elected rather than a pure democracy) is good not because it is democratic but rather because it is democratic AND the people share certain ideological values about the importance of liberty, even religious liberty. After all, if nobody in Afghanistan believes in such things, it won't be a part of their state if that state is a democracy.

Contrary to what I was taught growing up in America, I have come to believe that democracy is not a good in and of itself. In fact, Plato said it was the 2nd to WORST sort of regime (the absolute worst was a tryannical monarchy, perhaps like Stalin's Russia - the best was a philosophical monarchy, perhaps like the Kingdom of Jesus Christ). Now as long as we live in a fallen world, until the Kingdom really does come in fullness, we will need some kind of human government, and a democratic republic has served the US more or less well for a couple hundred years, but that doesn't mean it will work equally well for all others. And I am continually suspicious that any democratic system that is not "under God" must assume a form of secular humanism - we collectively become God.

While studying Political Science at LSU, I was told that one of the most democratic systems in history, if we measure in terms of elligable voter participation, was the Weimar Republic in Germany. They are supposed to have had 90%+ elligable voter participation (as opposed to the US which has around 50% for the really big elections), and yet they elected Hitler!

You see, good ideology and good cultural values are crucial to a good democracy for obvious reasons. If we go around dumping democracies on societies where most of the people are radical Muslims, guess what sort of regime they will elect?

American Democracy is a bit of a fluke historically. This country was settled by people who were fleeing from religious and ideological persecution and our founding documents were written by people who had just won independence from (what they saw as) a tryannical power (some historians suggest that it really wasn't all that bad and in fact the standard of living in the British American colonies was the highest in the world, much better than back in England).
So built into the "DNA" of our country were and still are certain commitments to and attitudes about ideological freedom (within reason of course, as those darn commies found out during the Cold War) and separation of Church and State (which a casual comparison with both Europe and the Middle East will demonstrate has been good for both), hard work and equity and many other things. American democracy was "home-grown" and was an outgrowth of existing cultural attitudes, values, and mores. It was not thrust upon us by a conquering foreign power.

What am I suggesting? That just because we go around conquering truly horrid and evil regimes (lets not forget that part either) and set up democracies in their places, doesn't mean we have done any good thing, since democracy is only as good as the ideological values of the people who vote.

Right now, I do not have any suggestions or really good alternatives: it may be that in the long run the good ideologies will win out on the free market of ideas (assuming that the voting majority will decide to allow free speech). Or it maybe that some kind of puppet interim government (with a very short leash) that is slowly replaced by a real democracy would be appropriate while the people are indoctrinated to hold the sort of values that make for a good democracy (such as, perhaps, a respect for Human Rights as opposed to dismissing them as a "Western notion," having originated in Western Christian cultures). Though I doubt that would be popular, and it might not even be as "utilitarian" as it promises (though no doubt, Machiavelli would approve if it were). Maybe there is a middle way between controlling a newly liberated people and totally cutting them loose to make their own decisions?

I know "indoctrination" is a dirty word, but we might as well call it what it is. Certainly, all people who ever grow up in any society are indoctrinated with certian values that are important to that society and necessary for it to function as it does, this is just part of living together. So the question I am asking is simply this: what sort of cultural values have the people in these countries whose regimes we are changing already been indoctrinated to have and are they conducive to a good and healthy democracy? If not, what should (or can) be done?

Gallop Poll: Church-goers most supportive of Iraq "war"

There are a number of interesting things suggested this article about a recent Gallop Poll suggessting that frequent Church-goers are most supportive of the Iraq War. I will not address the issue of whether or not it is currently appropriate to call the situation in Iraq a "war" as the media generally does (along with Bush-policy critics). I think it fair to say that the invasion of Iraq and subsequent weeks of fighting would qualify as a war (however undeclared).

Church going Christians, Protestants in particular, are most supportive of the war while non-religious people are less so. This may mean no more than Church-goers are more likely to be Republicans and therefore to accept Republican policies (whereas 79% of weekly church-attending Democrats thought the war was a mistake).

Evangelical Christians need to be VERY careful about thinking of ourselves as "Republicans" (or "Democrats"). We are Christians. We are people who live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ in his kingdom. Period. Of course we should participate in our participatory government as a witness to that Kingdom and to its King, but lets not get too attached to America or American politics (or anything else in this age).

Christianity, at least Christianity based on the New Testament, is inherently pacifistic. The whole reason that the Church had to articulate a doctrine of "Just War" was to explain that Christians actually can fight in some wars - as opposed to the complete pacifism that was the default of the Early Church.

One of the areas where American Protestantism really needs to "step up to the plate" is by giving a comprehensive theological account of war that can be applied to different situations (of course this is unlikely considering the fragmentation and individualism of Protestantism). The Catholics, who according to this poll are less likely to support the "Iraq War," have already done this.

Now, it is very hard for me to accept complete pacifism because of the fact of World War II. This surely was a just war for the Allies. On the other hand, the Early Christians didn't conquer the Roman Empire by taking up arms, but by getting on their knees and praying, even as the wild beasts tore them to pieces in the arena. The weapons of their warfare were not of this world, but were indeed mighty through God; and they did indeed conquer the Roman World.

So, maybe the willingness of modern American Christians to fight demonstrates that we, unlike the Early Church, really do trust in chariots and war horses, rather than the Lord to bring peace and justice to our world. Maybe we have sold out to a secular model of "how the world really works" because we don't really put much stock in the promises of our Lord.

Or maybe St. Augustine, an early proponent of "Just War Theory," was right. Maybe Christians should pray as if all depends upon God and act as if all depends upon us. If we want peace, we must go out and fight (and kill) for it (in some circumstances).

It is a difficult issue for me. It is surely good that the Nazi's didn't win World War II and I am firmly convinced that World War II was a just and necessary war considering the circumstances (whereas World War I was the most costly and atrocious blunder that has ever damaged the course of Human history that has endangered the survival of Western Civilization). But all I really intended to say when I started writing was that just because some wars are just, not all are. We American Protestants need to be certain that we are letting our Lord (and not our political dispositions or party allegiances) dictate when we do and do not support war.

With so many lives at stake, we should spend time in prayer and fasting and searching the scriptures and studying the Church's historic teachings on war as well as the best information about any proposed invasions and then discussing the issues involved in the Church community before we lend our support to any war.

Abortion-related News

Two more women have died after taking the "abortion pill", RU-486. The pills were distributed by Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics. I'm glad to see that Planned Parenthood is using MY taxpayer dollars (and yours) to "protect" mothers and children.

Utah Governor Jon Huntsman signed into law a bill that augments the older rule calling for parental notification when minors seek an abortion. The new law requires parental consent. This law sounds like a good one to me, it may save many lives. But I think we (who are pro-life) should take seriously the warnings of critics that this law could put some girls in the difficult possition of choosing between trying to get permission from an abusive father or having an illegal abortion (or some other desperate action). I doubt this would happen much, but the possibility seems real and should be addressed.

Abortion Delenda Est!

Saint Patty's Day

March 17 is Saint Patrick's Day!

I have always been a little bit mystified by the celebration of St. Patrick's day as a minor holiday and in some places, a major holiday. In my mind it has always been kind of like St. Valentine's day: a day named after a saint that nobody knows much about and a day that has been turned into something that this saint probably does not approve of (as I understand it, Patrick was not a drunkard).

Christianity.com has a good article about St. Patrick's life if you, like me, do not know much about him.

As with other "Saints days" -- those days that various Christian groups set aside to remember the holy lives and Kingdom-contributions of certain saints -- there are scripture readings and prayers associated with Saint Patrick's Day. These readings include the "Great Commission" of Matthew 28, since Patrick is primarily remembered as an evangelist and missionary bishop; though for some reason this isn't often a central theme of Saint Patrick's Day celebrations.

Archbishop warns of Church schism

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, the leading figure-head of the 70-million member Anglican Communion warned that the Anglican Communion could split over the issues surrounding Homosexuality. He thought that an alternative structure for the Communion giving national churches/provinces more autonomy, an idea favored by some liberals, would not work. His calls for liberal and conservative church leaders to work together and seek compromise have apparently been ignored, as liberal church leaders in California seem poised to push another gay bishop on the U.S. (Episcopal) Church (see below on Feb. 23).

Bishops say: "No concealed guns in Churches"

The Methodist, Episcopal, and Lutheran (ELCA) bishops that oversee the Kansas area have asked that Churches be added to the list of exceptions on a bill that has already passed the state senate and would allow Kansans to carry concealed weapons. Exceptions, where no concealed weapons may be carried, currently include schools, government buildings, and mental health centers. I thought this story was somewhat amusing (and I would be surprised if anyone offers serious resistance to the bishops' proposal) and as someone who spends lots of time standing in front of Churches, I think a ban on concealed weapons would be a very good idea.

"Paradise Now" movie causes debate

A group of Israelis who have lost children to suicide bombings have asked that the Academy Awards drop the movie "Paradise Now" from consideration for any awards according to a new report. Those who lost loved ones feel that the movie fails to condemn and may even encourage such attacks that have been used by Palestinian and Islamic extremists to attack Israelis. Such an allegation may seem ironic since Warner Independent Pictures is billing Paradise Now as a call for peace.

As someone who actually watched a screening of this film IN the Palestinian West Bank a few weeks ago; I thought I might make a few comments. This is a very intense, extremely well-made (and low budget at that!) film. Does it deserve any Acadamy Awards? Well I am not sure...probably more than some of the other contenders.

Does it encourage suicide bombings or is it a call for peace? Honestly, I think people could take either message from the film, it is very ambiguous - just like the actual situation on the ground in the West Bank. A little Palestinian girl that watched the movie with us said she thought it showed that there were better ways to address the conflict than violence - but, I should probably add, she is a Palestinian Arab Christian (like virtually all of the Christians in the Holy Land).

This film does a very good job of showing the Palestianian people in the way that many of them actually feel: trapped. Trapped in a downward spiral of violence and death. The making of this movie demonstrates that there REALLY IS a will for peace among the Palestinians, yet it is not especially optimistic. There is only one answer for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and we see it when we look at the Cross of Christ: forgiveness. Only when people are willing to say "Father, forgive them," only when people consiously choose that they will not strike back though they have been wounded unjustly, only when people let go of their "rights" (to hate or seek revenge in response to evil) can there ever be peace there. It will be hard. It will be especially hard for those who do not value that kind of radical forgiveness.

I can not imagine the pain of losing a child in a terrorist bombing, and I hope I never know it; but I am certain that behind every bombing there is a bomber. And it would be easy to dismiss him as some less-than-human monster. And to keep doing so every time that it happens. That would be easy, but it would not be honest. The truth is he is actually very much like you or I would be in his situation. Maybe that is the scariest part of this film. By the end you really FEEL the moral ambiguity of it all: you see very clearly that violence will only continue the downward spiral, and yet you sense why a bomber would see it as the only place left to go, you feel trapped with him.