Recommended Reading Round-up

1) The significance of ritual in and out of church:
This PIECE from a Lutheran blogger reflects upon the importance of ritual and formality in light of a firefighters' memorial ceremony and in light of the ways that "worship wars" are playing out in his own denomination.  Good stuff here that I wish more American Christians would consider.

2) The rise of the Intolerant Left:
Many have been commenting in recent weeks about how 'illiberal' liberalism seems to have become in our nation.  Was all that talk about tolerance and inclusion and respect for all peoples was just a smokescreen to disarm critics until the Sexual Revolution had gained enough power to simply impose its views and silence all dissenters?  Or will an empowered left reclaim the classic "progressive" values of freedom of thought, speech, and expression along with freedom and protection for dissenters and minorities?  A Christianity Today article explores these issues HERE.

3) Jeb Bush's comments on Religion and Freedom:
In connection with #2 above, THIS article at The Federalist discusses Jeb Bush's comments about the positive contributions that Christianity has made to American culture (quoting everyone from Chesterton to MLKjr) and the importance of freedom of religion, as he tries to court evangelical voters at Liberty University.

4) Memorializing a good Oak Tree:
THIS piece at the ever-thought-provoking Front Porch Republic site explores our human condition in connection to place and time as it reflects on what to do when an historic oak tree at the center of town dies.

5) Finally, Why ISIS is winning:
And what the world should be doing to stop it, HERE.  I've been saying in conversations and on this blog that I believe ISIS and its allies form the most purely demonic political and military movement in our world since the days of Hitler and Stalin.  What is perhaps even more shocking than the rapid rise and expansion of ISIS - which by some estimates now has some 100,000 fighters and controls a territory the size of Indiana - is the halfhearted response of the West.  I understand the reasons for caution.  Our ill-conceived adventures in the Middle East are likely one factor that contributed to the rise of ISIS to begin with.  Yet surely the world's most powerful nation cannot stand by wringing its hands while the Islamic State establishes itself as a permanent 'state of Terror,' founded on the blood of tens of thousands of innocents, and implacably opposed to human rights for anyone and everyone who does not share their own ideology of militant Islam?

Some interesting recent news and commentary

As you can see I've slowed down a good bit in my blogging as I've tried to attend not only to my duties as a clergyman but my dozen or so other hobbies as well.  The line between "renaissance man" and "unfocused" is a rather blurry one, isn't it?  So I may be on a bit of a (partial) blogging hiatus for a while.

Yet I still run across interesting news and commentary that hits on the major themes discussed on this blog (theology, paleo-orthodox church-renewal, political philosophy, religious freedom, etc.).  So I just thought I'd share a few things that I've been reading recently.

1) One is "Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed" by Austin Fischer at the Patheos blog.  He discusses the relationship between truth and beauty and God (an important topic to "catholic" Christians of all stripes) and why he is no longer a Calvinist.

2) Another that I recently read was at NPR, "Attracted to Men, Pastor feels called to Marriage with a Woman."  Many Christians who experience attraction to members of the same sex (or ambiguous attractions that are hard to label) have been arguing for years that they have some very real and Biblical lifestyle options, such as holy celibacy.  Another option that has perhaps been getting more attention lately is entering into the Biblical marriage covenant (one man + one woman) and settling down in a traditional family.  Some might see this as some kind of betrayal of the true meaning of marriage - but I suspect that is because our culture has so romanticized marriage that we have forgotten the very down-to-earth reasons for which it was created (so eloquently rehearsed toward the beginning of the traditional Anglican wedding liturgy).  

It seems to me that liberals in the various Christian churches who constantly argue that we must change our historic teachings on sexuality and marriage to include gay individuals have been systematically ignoring the voices of these self-identified gay Christians who themselves are also committed to historic and Biblical orthodoxy when it comes to sexual morality and marriage.  There are actually quite a few of them and their experiences also need to be accounted for in our conversations.

3) I've been very interested in numerous pieces written since the Muslim radicals rampages in France last month on questions of secularism, multiculturalism, cultural integration, and religious freedom/persecution in Europe.  The BBC has run several stories - such as this one - suggesting that most European Jews are seriously considering relocating (either to the USA or Israel or elsewhere) because they feel their communities and values are endangered by secularism on the one side and Antisemitism (of the old neo-nazi kind and now the newer Islamic kind) on the other.

4) Some other good pieces - such as this one - have asked whether Islam, a fundamentally public religion, is even capable of conforming to the expectations of European secularism, which developed in connection not with "religion" in the abstract but with Christianity in particular.  It is a question worth asking.

5) Personally I'd like to see a more informed debate about the relationship between Islam and violence.  Many political leaders simply shut down the conversation by asserting that "Islam is a religion of peace" yet studies show that the most violent and intolerant places on earth also tend to be Muslim-majority places as well - as even some Muslim writers have recently pointed out who are willing to have an honest discussion about the good AND the evil of contemporary Islam.  I think that discussion is worth having without the conversation being shut down by platitudes that are politically correct but practically useless if we want to understand what feeds extremist Islam and how it might be countered.

Cardinal and Anglican bishop pray for martyred family

In what may be a more common occurrence in the future, more and more Christians are coming together across denominational lines to pray and speak out on behalf of our persecuted brothers and sisters.  Recently a Muslim mob in Pakistan burned to death two young Christian parents and their unborn daughter as well (the mother being pregnant), for allegedly insulting Islam.

After these despicable acts, acts that do indeed cause many in the civilized world to look at contemporary Islamic culture with suspicion to say the least, a Roman Catholic cardinal and an Anglican Bishop joined together, not to hurl stones at Muslims, but to pray for the victimized family and speak out for the rights of religious minorities everywhere.  I hope and pray that as we become more aware of atrocities against Christians around the world we will see more and more unity among the church in prayer, in compassion, and in advocacy for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and speech around the world.
I hope that statesmen and political leaders will be invited to these events to be reminded of the great needs and injustices that exist in these days and their duty as leaders to address them.

You can read the full story here.

Secular Politicians touting the goodness of Islam?

When I was in high school, our school was sued by the ACLU because each Monday a student would pray over the intercom.  This was deemed by the ACLU an unacceptable promotion of religion as such by an arm of the government, and the court agreed.  It has come to be accepted orthodoxy in our legal circles that government organizations or representatives should not favor or promote one religion over another, or over non-religion.  So this raises the interesting question asked in THIS ARTICLE at The Economist blog:

"SHOULD democratically elected leaders in more or less secular countries ever say that this or that religion is essentially good or essentially bad?"  

Are they not acting as theologians when they claim that Islam is a good and beautiful and peace-affirming faith?  Are they not promoting one religion over another?  I've never heard our President make such sweeping positive claims about United Methodism - though I would be happy if he did.  Could it be that they do not trust the general public to think for ourselves and come up with the "right" decision regarding the relative merits of Islam?  Here are a few more quotes from the article:

"In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11, arguments about the fundamental nature of Islam caused some acrimony between George W Bush and his evangelical supporters. The Bush administration's line was that Islam as such was not the adversary. On the contrary, it was worthy of respect as a great and inspiring religious tradition in which millions of people found comfort....
Meanwhile Tony Blair went through a phase of carrying a Koran around with him, and arguing passionately that Islam in its truest self was an inspiration to peace and altruism. He seemed convinced that his own passionate Christian beliefs gave him some insight into the problem of scriptural interpretation. A few days ago, it was Barack Obama's turn to make a solemn distinction between Islam itself and people who claimed to be waging a terrorist war in its name. In a speech to the UN General Assembly, he said:The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims all over the world aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice...

The article goes on to raise the issue - always an important one in any theological statement or statement about theology - of authority or credibility.  Presidents Bush and Obama and British Prime Minister Tony Blair all claim to be practicing Christians who have never been practicing Muslims.  Do they really know more about Islam than those "Islamic State" militants who have been practicing Muslims all their lives?
As the article states: 

...it is somehow odd for a Western politician to be telling anybody, however horrible and unworthy of respect: "You don't understand your own religion, but I do..." 

Perhaps it would have made more sense for President Obama to point to the recent Open Letter from 120 Muslim scholars denouncing The Islamic State as "un-Islamic."  The problem is that there is disagreement and diversity of opinion among Muslims themselves as to what their religion requires or allows - what Allah desires - when it comes to the use of violence in the name of Islam.  So again we are left with a prickly question about what a supposedly secular leader should do?  Is it appropriate for a President or Prime Minister to promote certain understandings of Islam as actually more faithful to Allah or to "the true spirit of Islam" than others?  Or to swing the question around, would it be appropriate (though it has certainly happened before) for a President or Prime Minister to tell us that either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism was more true to Christ than the other?  

The suggestion at the end of the article actually makes good sense to me:

Almost exactly the same rhetorical effect could have been be achieved if Mr Obama had confined himself to saying something like: "We know that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims in America and across the world who share our abhorrence of Islamic State..."  That would be a statement about political science or religious sociology, rather than theology...

-------------------------------------------
In other news the Islamic State recently destroyed one of Iraq's oldest Christian Churches in its continued campaign of persecution against the followers of Christ.  As a pastor and Bible-teacher rather than a politician, I am quite sure that the Islamic State represents the most viciously evil and demonic political ideology that we have seen since the days of Stalin or Hitler; it is without a doubt "anti-Christ" in its aims and its actions.  

I'll leave it to Muslims (who know far more about the Koran than I) to debate whether the Islamic State is a legitimate expression of Islam.  It seems to me that the great majority of Muslims say that it is not true to Islamic teachings, but a sizable minority obviously believe that it is - which I suppose is what an outside observer would have to say if asked whether any particular Christian denomination is a legitimate expression of Christianity.  

Christians persecuted in chaotic Iraq

The CNN headline from this week: Facing fines, conversion, or death, Christians flee Mosul.

A couple years ago our media and political leaders were rejoicing at the "Arab Spring" that - everyone quite naively said - would bring a wave of (Western-style) freedom and democracy across the Middle East.  Instead we've got violence in Lybia, Egypt, and Iran, and all out civil war in Iraq and Syria.

Today there is much suffering among the civilian populations of these countries, but especially among our brothers and sisters in Christ, who have often been singled out for violence, and have been forced to flee their homes.  In the case described in the CNN report, Christians are compelled to convert to Islam, or pay a fine, or leave town.  Most seem to be choosing the last option (since they don't really know how safe they will be if they stay under the ISIS regime if they do pay), but it seems their homes and all their possessions are being stolen from them by ISIS.  This situation is all the more outrageous since Christians were living peacefully in these communities centuries before Mohammed or Islam were ever born.

What can we do who believe in Christ when we hear of such stories of persecution in the news?

First of all, we should pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ.  Pray that they will be safe; that the hearts of their enemies will be turned away from violent ideologies; pray especially that the followers of Christ will be strengthened by the Holy Spirit to boldly hold fast to the Savior of our souls, even in the face of persecution.  Pray that they will not respond to hate and violence with more hate and violence, but will dedicate themselves to truly following the Prince of Peace.

We should also remember that Jesus warned his disciples repeatedly that we would be hated on account of his name, and we shouldn't let platitudes about "the progress of freedom in the 21st Century" distract us from the fact that his words are proving true all around the world - and there is no immutable guarantee that we too, who currently live in free countries, will not one day face similar situations.

We should also urge our elected officials to speak out and seek to uphold freedom of religion and freedom of speech all for all peoples around this world (including right here as they pass laws that affect us).  I am trying to get in the habit of writing more actual 'stamp and paper' letters to my representatives - what good is having a voice, after all, if I don't use it to speak up?

I think that we should also urge our elected officials to take a less hawkish and more cautious approach to foreign policy goals - just because a tyrant is oppressive it does not necessarily follow that the country will become a haven of peace and freedom if we forcibly remove that tyrant from power.  Today we might seriously ask the question of whether the Iraqi people would have been better off had we left Saddam Hussein in power.  Without any doubt, the Christians of Iraq would have been (not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died in the war).
To be clear, I do not stand for isolationism, I do not hold that we should give up engagement altogether, or stop advocating for the God-given rights of all people (see above) - but it seems to me that we have been far too optimistic about what can really be accomplished through military means, and far too optimistic about the ability of the West to impose our values on other cultures, or the willingness and ability of Islamic culture to welcome our Western-style free democracy, since even the best real world examples have a questionable record when it comes to protecting minorities, and especially religious minorities.

We can also urge our church leaders and church mission organizations to respond - as best they can - to the needs of refugees in all of these countries, as in fact The United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) is actively doing in the Middle East.

Any more ideas that you have?  What else can we do?

Whelby supports Bartholemew on ancient cathedral

I was saddened to hear that the ruling party in Turkey is pushing forward plans to again convert the Hagai Sophia into a Mosque.  The Hagai Sophia was built after the Roman Emperors converted to Christianity in ancient times.  It is a huge and beautiful church building that served for a Millennium as the cathedral for the Patriarch of Constantinople, the leader of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the world.  Around AD 1500 the city was conquered by Muslims - Ottoman Turks (thus, 'Turkey') - who converted the great church into a mosque and white washed all of the beautiful mosaics.  In the 20th Century a secular government came to power which converted the building to a museum.  Across town is the Blue Mosque which copies the architecture of Hagai Sophia, and also makes one wonder how another mosque of that size would be needed in the city.  Converting the cathedral into a mosque would seem to be an attempt to make a statement about the power of an expansionist Islam over Western/Christian culture.   

In any case, I am heartened to hear that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Whelby has lent his support to the Ecumenical Patriarch in this matter, stating that Hagai Sophia should not become a mosque.  I, for one, think that the cathedral should be returned to the Eastern Orthodox community in Istanbul from whom it was forcibly taken; a Christian community which has certainly not thrived under Turkish rule.  There are several petitions to that effect floating around the Web.

Christian comeback in Europe?

Is Europe hopelessly anti-Christian and must it's self-destructive secularism inevitably open the way for it to become the next Muslim continent? Some commentators have lamented this possibility. But Philip Jenkins disputes this analysis in an article (and in his new book, God's Continent ) in which he argues that Christianity is poised to make a comeback in secular Europe. I hope and pray that he is right - and am more than willing to take another mission trip to Europe, as the campus ministry I serve did last Summer.

Two paragraphs from the Jenkins article stuck out to me:

In fact, the rapid decline in the continent’s church attendance over the past 40 years may have done Europe a favor. It has freed churches of trying to operate as national entities that attempt to serve all members of society. Today, no church stands a realistic chance of incorporating everyone. Smaller, more focused bodies, however, can be more passionate, enthusiastic, and rigorously committed to personal holiness. To use a scientific analogy, when a star collapses, it becomes a white dwarf—smaller in size than it once was, but burning much more intensely. Across Europe, white-dwarf faith communities are growing within the remnants of the old mass church.

I have long wondered if this is basically what may happen to the "Mainline" or "historic Protestant" Churches of the United States, including The United Methodist Church. As the society moves away from a Christendom approach, fewer and fewer people will join our churches, fewer will come to us to baptize their children, fewer will come for church weddings, fewer will do any of these things "just because that is what one does." In other words there will be fewer nominal Christians (and fewer nominal United Methodists). Those who are left will be the truly committed: the disciples of Christ, not merely the cultural Christians, will populate our churches.

Of course, we will shed a great many more members (that is, our membership roles will shrink significantly, even if actual church attendance remains somewhat steady). We can only guess where our membership will "bottom out" - but when it does, we will have a wonderful opportunity to regroup and then grow.

The other thing that struck me was this:
Jürgen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.” Europe may be confronting the dilemmas of a truly multifaith society, but with Christianity poised for a comeback, it is hardly on the verge of becoming an Islamic colony.

Could it be that a growing number of European intellectuals will recognize how important the Christian notions of justice and love, of humans bearing the image of God, of faith and reason - how all of these Christian elements have made possible not only the birth, but also the continuation of Western Civilization? We'll see what happens.

Culture clash in France?

The other day I saw this interesting news story: French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in an exceedingly rare presidential address to parliament, said that the Muslim 'burqa' - a full body gown would not be welcome anywhere in France as it is, he said, a sign of "debasement of women."

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

This story is very interesting to me because it illustrates, I believe, the very real cultural clash that exists between modern Western liberalism and more traditional cultures in several ways.
First note that Sarkozy has declared that the garment, though exclusively associated with Islam, is not a religious sign; I wonder though, if conservative Muslims would agree? Certainly it has associations with their traditional gender mores, if not a vital part of Islam itself. In any case, how is it that president Sarkozy has made this determination?

Secondly this is interesting to me because it is the very same ideology that claims to embrace "pluralism" and "inclusivism" that is now (ironically) selectively banning certain traditional clothing choices in the name of liberty and equality. Surely there is something self-contradictory here (perhaps even something self-destructive) in the way that our liberal Western ideology plays out?

Now I don't doubt that at least some traditional Arab - and indeed Islamic - gender mores do indeed involve the abasement of women. But is it the place of Western cultures that praise multiculturalism to dictate the cultural expressions of those of other cultures who live within our boarders?

I certainly would not be in favor of allowing immoral practices to go on in my state or country just because they express the culture of a sub-group in our midst (and indeed it is because of my own religious convictions and social upbringing that I would not). And yet the dilemma is there: what of all that "inclusivism"? Is it just so much talk? Perhaps so - and if so, maybe we should just be a bit more honest with immigrants - in our Western countries it really is our way or the highway.

I personally believe, that in an increasingly complex world, governmental leadership must be wise, and seek after balance and compromise. I also believe that this can be done with greater fairness and sensitivity if these sorts of issues are decided on the local level for the local context.

What do you guys think?
(note: the picture above was taken a while back in England - the sign reads "Stop France from outlawing Islam")

Patriarch responds to Muslim theologians

You may remember that some months ago 138 Muslim scholars wrote an open letter to various Christian teachers and leaders of major Christian Churches including the pope, the major Orthodox Patriarchs, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the heads of Lutheran and Methodist world-communions, and others asking for dialogue and a warming of relationships between the world's largest two religions.

Recently I read a response from Patriarch Alexy II, of the Russian Orthodox Church, that welcomes such a dialogue, while being careful to stress the need to guard the total theological integrity of both faiths. As an example, his letter includes a wonderful description of the character of God, working mostly from 1 John - explaining what we mean when we say that "God is love" and why this necessitates our belief in the Trinity, and how it also finds ultimate expression in our belief in the atoning death of Christ on the cross (both of which are, of course, explicitly rejected in the Koran). It's a wonderful expression of some of the foundation stones of classical Christian faith. I recommend it!

Teddy-Bear Crisis over...?

The British school teacher, Gillian Gibbons, who was jailed in Sudan for "insulting Islam" was released today into the care of British officials. She was arrested and sentenced to 15 days in prison for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Muhammed." Under Sharia Law, which is enforced in Sudan, this is a punishable offense.

Gibbons released an apology, stating that she was sorry for causing distress to the people of Sudan, by allowing students to name a teddy bear "Muhammed."

New British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is delighted at the turn of events, saying that "common sense has prevailed." See source article .

My question is: if common sense has actually "prevailed" - then why is Gibbons, who has just been released from prison, issuing an apology to the people of Sudan over a teddy bear?!

If devout and orthodox Christians in the West had heard that a Buddist had named his dog "Jesus" we might be mildly annoyed, but clearly no one in the US or even Europe would be jailed for this.

This highlights how different Western and Islamic values are - we do see a sort of a "collision of civilizations" here, but not the sort that some thinkers had expected. Islamic civilization (as represented by the Sharia Law-enforcing countries*) is extremely defensive and non-tolerant in the face of opposition, and makes dissenting views illegal (just ask dissenters in Turkey who have "insulted Islam"), while late-modern/post-modern Western culture is determined to see all points of view as equally legitimate and to be inclusive/tolerant of every possible conviction (because, having rejected all "absolutes," we lack a coherent foundation to stand upon in opposition to any position). So, Sharia Law countries will lock people in jail for "insulting Islam" (whatever that may mean) and the sort of Western values that the Gibbons apology represent will expect such people to apologize for ever being so insensitive/intolerant to begin with.

Do you see how radical Islamic and radical pluralistic ideologies work so nicely together? - the one is aggressive and narrow-minded, self-assured in its own divine foundations; the other is so uncertain of any foundations or absolutes at all, that it is forever apologizing for those moments when it lapsed into having and defending real convictions of any kind.

And what do you expect will happen to more traditional Western values, such as freedom of thought/speech in such an environment as this?

* I recognize that there will some debate as to whether Shariah enforcing nations are representative of "Islamic Civilization." I agree that this is certainly a debateable point, and I hope that such debate will begin in earnest across the Muslim world. But it does seem to me (and I freely admit that I am NO expert here) that these nations represent the greatest continuity with what Islam has been historically, while more moderate varieties of Islam are moderate precisely in so far as they have integrated Western/Enlightenment values into their worldview.

"Al-Jazeera English": coming to TV near you?

The well-know Arabic-language news programs of Al-Jazeera will now be available in English. The new English-speaking Al-Jazeera channel "hopes to steal viewers from CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp. by giving the world's 1 billion English speakers news from a non-Western perspective."

Al-Jazeera has at several times been banned in 18 Western countries and its reporters are still banned in 4 Arab nations. It has been accused by the Bush administration of inciting terrorism. Al-Jazeera has been frequently accused of contributing to anit-Western, anti-American, and anti-Semitic attitudes in the Arab-speaking world.

My own concerns are well captured (and exaggerated) in this (politically incorrect) Mad TV skit.

Of course, the whole story does raise the issues of the amount of power weilded by mass media. Where is the line between news "from_______ perspective" and propaganda? Is there one?

It was easy to ask this question while listening to NPR in the runnup to the elections when the story every day seemed to be "we are all so excited that the Democrats are going to take back the congress!!" In not so many words. One wonders if the American people would have been as "upset about Iraq" if the news coverage had been more favorable or if the majority of reporters had been supporters of the war from the beginning. I am not saying that they should have been supportive, mind you, I am just asking you to imagine the way coverage would have been handled if they had been, and then if things like National Elections might have therefore turned out differently. Regardless of your party (or lack thereof) if the answer to that question seems to you to be "yes" then that ought to be scary. It scares me.

I also can't help but wonder what happens to the soul of a society in which all of the people are constantly exposed to 24-hour "news" networks? Could this be a major contributor to the polarization and the breakdown of bi-partisan dialogue in our country? When everything happens at the speed of a soundbite? When complex issues are dumbed down to a 30 second spot? Could real and serious dialogue possibly survive in such an environment?

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).

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?

"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.

U.S. to continue aid to Palestinians

The United States will continue giving humanitarian aid to Palestinians in spite of the formation of a Hamas government, according to a Yahoo news report.

As someone who was in the Palestinian West Bank last month, I am very relieved to hear this. The people there are simply desperate and they see the U.S. as one of the major reasons for their situation since we give so much (military) aid to Israel, who is subjugating the Palestinians.

These issues should also be important to Christians because pretty much every single member of the Church, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), in the Holy Land is an Arab/Palestinian.

Clash of Civilizations?

As probably everyone knows by now, one of the biggest news stories in the world for the last couple of weeks has been the great protest among Muslims across the globe over cartoons published in Denmark featuring the prophet Mohammed (whom it is always sacrilegious to depict, according Islam) and picturing him in a negative and mocking fashion.

The worldwide outcry has now turned violent in many places, including the burning of Danish embassies and Christian missions in Middle Eastern Countries. And all over a political cartoon published on the other side of the world that, without modern (Western?) telecommunication, no one in the Middle East would even be aware of.

The furor has some people raising the alarm over an inevitable Clash of Civilizations between the Western/Christian (or perhaps "Post-Christian") Civilization and the Muslim/Sharia Civilization. Others have brought up thorny questions about what to do when there seems to be a clash between “human rights” (whatever that phrase means these days) and freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

I certainly understand that people are upset when others blaspheme their God – my Lord and Savior’s name is used as a cuss word in most every movie I see – but at first I was a bit shocked by the viciousness of the protesting: “Can we not just live and let live – after all, it is on the other side of the world, why do they care so much?”

I am certain that those who published the cartoon may see the worldwide reaction as evidence that their own critiques (even mockery) of Mohammed and Islam were justified. I suspect, however, that they do not understand the particular iconoclastic sensitivity of the Muslim religion.

But to be honest, I doubt that all of this rage is entirely religiously motivated, religion is just a convenient way to differentiate the adversarial “teams.” Let me explain: what we have in the Muslim Middle East is a civilization that was once the most powerful empire the world had yet known. At its height in the Middle-Ages the undivided Ummah (Muslim political community) was larger than the Roman Empire had ever been. It was culturally, intellectually, religiously, and militarily vigorous; and though it failed in the 8th Century to conquer Western Europe, it was able to (eventually) re-conquer the Holy Land after a massive invasion and occupation by Latin Crusaders in the 11th -13th Centuries.

Now fast-forward a few hundred years. The Middle East is now among the poorest parts of the world with some of the highest birthrates and disease rates as well as some of the lowest levels of education. Much of the blame for the failure of Islam as a political power (and the Muslim religion puts an emphasis on political unity and strength in a way that is unknown in Christianity or even Judaism) is placed upon the colonial empires of Western European (Christian) nations and more recently the state of Israel – which is widely seen as a colonial project of the United States, the latest Western Christian Empire that threatens Islamic culture.

This weakness of their civilization has also caused a theological crisis: since the Muslim Ummah is the only people who are completely faithful to God ("Allah," in Arabic) and, as the Muslims say many times in their daily prayers "Allah akbar!" - God is greater, stronger than anything else, then it follows that the Ummah should also be strong. But it is weak. This has led to the rise of various forms of what we might call "puritanism" (purity movements) in Islam since the 19th century.

So, we have a large number of poor, angry, and defensive people who see a powerful (compared to them) Western European nation as mocking the thing that means the most to them as the source of their identity: their religion. And so all that resentment for the decline of a civilization comes pouring out. The reactions we see are not simply about anger over a political cartoon they are about anger over the last 200 years or so of Middle-Eastern History.

Now, this theory I have forwarded here does not really address the issues of whether Islam can hold the same values of freedom of expression that the Western Culture has produced or whether our Civilizations are fundamentally irreconcilable. I really don’t know how to address those questions (I am not even sure if “multi-cultural” Western nations are able any longer to hold the values that Western culture has produced).

The United States Supreme Court once ruled that “fighting words” were not protected as free speech. What do we do if all critiques of Islam are understood by huge numbers of people to be blasphemous and worthy of death? Would it even be possible for both Islamicist Muslims and people (such as myself) who are extremely critical of Islam to abide together in a country that promised to both of us freedom of speech and religion?

Some pretty smart people have said it is impossible. Other pretty smart people have said those first people were driven by anti-Islamic feelings to unwarranted conclusions.

Another VERY important question raised by this controversy is: At what point (if any) does free speech (or free religion??) become 'irresponsible'? And maybe more to the point: Who decides?

These may be some of THE questions for the 21st Century.

I can say two things for certain: 1) if a large number (say, 100%) of Middle Eastern Muslims would accept Jesus Christ as their divine Lord and Savior (whose teachings are inherently pacifist), many of our current problems would evaporate (though, no doubt, new problems would arise); and 2) if the United States were to cut its economic dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we would be much better off, and possibly even better-perceived by Middle Eastern Muslims.

I am really interested to see how all of this plays out. I also wonder what the ever increasing numbers of Muslims living in European countries (and, to a lesser extent, in the US) will mean for the future of these debates. I am hinting at a lot of really complex questions here that I am still trying to articulate at this point. What do you all think?

If you haven't heard about any of this, here are some links to learn a little more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184043,00.html

Bethlehem sees more Pilgrims

About 30,000 people converged on the little town of Bethlehem this year to celebrate Christmas in the city that is the birthplace of Jesus Christ. This figure is roughly twice that of last year and the most since the outbreak of the current Israeli-Palestinian violence in September of 2000.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179708,00.html

There had been concerns about safety after a group of armed gunmen captured Bethlehem's City Hall just days before Christmas, but later left the area, hurting no one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10542632

Concern about Iran and Israel

Today we read that, in another overtly anti-Semitic public statement, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has (after the manner of a neo-Nazi) called the Holocaust a myth claiming (presumably on no evidence at all, but for ideological reasons) that it never happened. Ahmadinejad's remarks have incited yet another wave of international criticism, but as yet, no action.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051214/ts_nm/iran_holocaust_dc

Now as I read that story, it called to mind another that made the headlines just a few weeks ago when Iran's hardline president said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Remember that?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20051026-0711-iran-israel.html

Now of course, this sort of radical rhetoric, unhelpful as it may be, may all still be just chest thumping on the part of the (Shi'ite) Islamic Theocracy (Iran) who has more fully implemented "shariah" (Divine law) than any other Muslim country. But then, as I thought a little more, I remembered two other recent headlines that have been focused on Iran. One was just a few days ago: Russia sells an advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.

Why Russia is allied to Iran, while other places like Afghanistan hate Russia, why Russia is building a nuclear reactor on Iranian soil, and why Russia is selling her advanced weaponry to Iran (more advanced than our own anti-aircraft systems, since our own new weapons development slowed down so much during the 90's) are all beyond my comprehension. But they are. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051202/ap_on_re_eu/russia_iran_arms_1

And we all know about the international concern that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

In other words, we may very soon (or already?) have an explicitly anti-Semitic Islamic Theocracy with nuclear weapons and mid-range delivery technology "just across the way" from Israel. This should be more than a little bit troubling, even for those of us who are not "blind supporters" of whatever Israel does.

It should also be remembered that Israel's military is nearly as advanced as our own (since we sold it to them) and is both experienced and effiicient. And of course, they too are rumored to have nuclear weapons. I think we should also keep in mind that Isreal, not so long ago, has shown a willingness to engage in pre-emptive attacks (and with great effectiveness) when they feel greatly threatened (does anyone remember "The Six-Day War"?).

I wonder just what would happen if Israel confirmed that this hostile regime in Iran was indeed poised to strike with nuclear weapons? Would a pre-emptive strike (even a nuclear strike) be on the table? What would happen if Israel decided to launch it? I suspect that Iran would be unprepared and pretty much decimated. But then, I wonder what the other (mostly Sunni Muslim) Middle Eastern nations in the area would do? How would they respond? It is a pretty scary situation that is developing right now.