Under Jerusalem by Andrew Lawler: A book review

 

Having taken the trip of a lifetime to visit Israel and the Holy Land this previous May, I instantly ordered this book when I came across it this fall.  What then are my takeaways about Lawler's book?

1. He isn't writing from a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish perspective, this book isn't designed to bolster the claims of universal truth from any of them.

Archaeology being what it is, one part science and one part storytelling, Lawler's approach serves him well on this front.  He is able to talk honestly about both the finds that confirmed the narratives of each group, and the ones that confounded them, as well as present the characters who organized, funded, analyzed, or protested the digs under Jerusalem beginning in the 19th century according to the reputation their actions have earned, whether that be of a villain or a hero.

2. Even if you have visited Jerusalem, as I have, there is bound to be something shocking and/or wonderful in this book for you to still learn.

Part of me wishes I had read the book before we went, so I could have looked for some of the sites whose digs he describes, another part of me is glad I went there with less pre-conceived notions so I was able to soak in whatever my eyes were telling me.

3. While the book is written and published, the story of archeology under Jerusalem is, if anything, accelerating.

It was remarkable how much of the book takes place in the 21st century, and how many of the excavations he describes are still ongoing to this day.  More "shocking discoveries" in Jerusalem are inevitable, as are, sadly, more explosions of anger and violence because of them.

4.  Our tour guide in Israel emphasized over and over the layered nature of the area's history, how the new was built on top of the old again and again.  In Jerusalem, as emphasized in my recent seminar {What Every Christian Should Know About: The Holy Land} the layers run very deep, and each tells a story even if those digging are only interested in a fraction of it.

Overall, I'd highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to better understand the city in which much of the Bible's events take place, and the place where many of its pages were written.

White Supremacy is not a "hoax" (sorry Tucker Carlson)

How many acts of domestic terrorism, how many mass murders, does it take for a problem to be "real"?

"Its actually not a real problem in America...This is a hoax...They're making this up..."  These were the words of political pundit for Fox News, Tucker Carlson, on his show on August 6th, two days after the mass shooting in El Paso that killed 22 people who were targeted because of their race by a young man who subscribed to White Nationalist ideology.  {Fox News host Tucker Carlson says white supremacy is ‘not a real problem in America’}  To give Tucker Carlson the benefit of the doubt (whether his past actions/words deserve it or not), it seems that he was trying to make the case that there are more important/significant problems in America today than white supremacy.  And while terrorism of any kind has never been high on the list of causes of untimely death in America, I don't recall anyone arguing after 9/11 that Islamic jihadist terrorism was not a big deal for America (even with the Muslim population in America below 1%).  It was easy to get on board with fighting against Islamic jihadists, after all, they lived elsewhere and didn't look like us, to combat them was a military issue that didn't require us to look in the mirror and ask hard questions.  {At least not early on, war tends to result in hard moral questions whether we want it to or not}  The reason for Tucker Carlson's assertion that white supremacy is a "hoax" was also clearly expressed, he believes that treating it like an actual problem in America would be bad politically for those he supports.  His decision to downplay the threat of white supremacy was not a moral decision, but a political one.  Also, to say that a problem isn't the "most important" one as a way of dismissing it, is both illogical and an act of moral cowardice.  To those affected by this most recent example of white supremacy which resulted in violence, it does little good to point out that heart disease kills more Americans each year.  Evil is still evil, even if there are greater threats and fears in this world.  {This is the inherent flaw in the argument made by Neil DeGrasse Tyson for which he was roundly criticized: Critics say Neil deGrasse Tyson should ‘stick to astrophysics’ after his tweets about mass shootings  Also, accident are not morally equivalent to purposeful acts.}   And while I could point to other instances of sin that are more prevalent in the American Church (pride, materialism, and sexual immorality certainly outnumber racism by sheer volume), and within American society in general, how does that in any way diminish the fact that racism/white supremacy is by all statistical measure a problem that is currently growing not shrinking?
I will choose to not address the political ramifications of our society treating white supremacy like a real problem (in other words, whether or not Tucker Carlson is correct in his fear of its impact upon the side he wants to win), for my primary concern is NOT politics, but morality.  From that perspective, white racism and its natural final manifestation, white supremacy, has always been a deadly threat to the American Church.  As a nation that has always had a self-avowed Christian majority, and still does, things which are detrimental to the Church are also likely to be detrimental to the United States.  From how the first settlers interacted with the American Indian population, to the arrival of the first African slaves, the American colonies and later United States of America, have always struggled with the pervasive sin of treating people unlike ourselves as an "other" to be disregarded, mistreated, and even exterminated.  That these faults are not unique to any particular race or nation does not make them any less corrosive and dangerous to the people who make up this nation. 
While better healthcare for those suffering with mental illnesses would benefit the nation greatly, that is not the root of racism/white supremacy.  For the vast majority of those suffering from mental illness have never been violent.  Southern slave owners were not mentally ill, they were racists choosing to commit evil acts.  When the Klan was able to organize parades at the beginning of the 20th century attended by a hundred thousand people, it was not an outbreak of mental illness, but immorality.  Nearly all of those who hate others based upon how they look or where they are from do not suffer from a mental illness, they have chosen to embrace evil.  Some of those who lash out in violence might also suffer from a mental illness, but the true danger of this ideology is far more mundane, and far more difficult to treat than an illness.  Hate is rarely a mental illness, it is a darkness in the human heart that requires a spiritual cure.
Hate is real.  Racism is real.  Anti-Semitism is real.  White Supremacy is real.  When pushed to a dark corner, or exiled from the mainstream, they regroup and return again.  Chants of "Never again" cannot stop them, for they thrive in the fallen human heart.  If we are to minimize them, protect the innocent, and even rescue some of those in their thrall, we must first acknowledge how very real they are. 


I have written about the danger of racism in connection with Christianity on a number of occasions:
White Supremacy and White Nationalism are an Abomination to the Church

The Church: The most diverse organization in the history of the world

If you have a problem with Christians who don't look like you

There are no racists at the Cross

Why we can never allow "them" to be singled out

A review of: "Side by Side" - Being Christian in a Multifaith World by Dr. Richard Olson

On February 1st of this year, Judson Press published a book by Dr. Richard Olson, retired seminary professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas, entitled "Side by Side" - Being Christian in a Multifaith World.  The following is a review of that book that I'm writing as a Christian pastor who is intimately and regularly involved in the related, and often confused with inter-faith ecumenism, topic of intra-faith ecumenism.

My evaluation of Dr. Olson's book is of two kinds, while I find much to admire concerning inter-faith dialogue, peace, justice, and the plight of refugees, at the same time, the further step taken beyond these by Dr. Olson to embrace religious inclusivism is a bridge too far.  It is not an easy task to promote dialogue and peace between religions while at the same time holding firm to one's own belief that the Gospel is the Absolute Truth for all mankind.  It was just this sort of delicate balance that has sparked vicious unwarranted criticism by a few zealots of Christian apologist James White's willingness to debate Muslim apologists in a respectful way while both speakers maintained their claim to absolute truth.  It is an uncomfortable and difficult place to be, defending Truth while also promoting tolerance and peace, but it is the role given to us as disciples of Jesus Christ.  If we reject peace and embrace hate, we quench the fruit of the Spirit within us, if we reject Truth and embrace inclusivism, we set our understanding above that of Holy Scripture.  The goal of tolerance and peace is to be applauded and deserves our active participation, however the method to achieve it of saying, "We all worship the same God", must be rejected if the Gospel of the Apostles is to remain at all attached to its historical foundation.

Let me interact with quotations from Dr. Olson's book, highlighting both that which I agree with and those things regarding which I believe him to be in error.

In the introduction, Dr. Olson writes of an experience from his youth as the son of Baptist missionaries in South Dakota.  A friendship between his father and the local Roman Catholic priest, in a pre-Vatican II setting, and the improving relationships between Catholics and Protestants post-Vatican II, led to this conclusion, "If Catholics and Protestants can overcome ancient barriers, learning from one another and developing deeper bonds of fellowship, we may experience unimagined results in our interfaith relationships." (p. XIII)  The step being advocated by Dr. Olson, from intra-faith relationships/dialogues/worship to their inter-faith equivalent is in the end a comparison of apples to oranges.  Those who engage in intra-faith ecumenism, that is bridge building and cooperation including worship along fellow Christians be they Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, may also be willing to extend those same activities with non-Christians in inter-faith efforts or they may not, but the basis for that choice is not the same unless one is committed to the notion that all religions are participating in the same God and seeking the same Truth.  If religious exclusivism is maintained, there is indeed a basis for inter-faith dialogue, peace, and efforts concerning justice and poverty, but there is not a basis for inter-faith prayer or worship.  Confusion over what is being discussed, whether it be inter-faith or intra-faith, especially from critics not overly concerned with giving the benefit of the doubt, only makes it more difficult for sincere adherents of exclusive theology to reach out to those of other religions without being labeled an inclusivist/pluralist.  Dr. Olson also wrote, "The need for personal relationships with those of other faiths and a deeper understanding of one another's faith and heritage grows more urgent by the day." (p. XV)  In a world of rising violence and polarization, this is certainly true as hatred grows most readily in ignorance.

Regarding effective dialogue, Dr. Olson quoted the guidelines of the World Council of Churches, "Partners in dialogue should be free to 'define themselves'" and added to it, self-serving descriptions of other people's faith are one of the roots of prejudice, stereotyping, and condescension." (p. 7)  This is certainly true, not only is the cause of peace hampered when adherents of a religion are not allowed to define themselves (often instead being defined by their enemies) but so too is the cause of evangelism.  If a Christian believes a false stereotype of a Muslim to be true, and then actually meets a Muslim, how effective will the witness of that Christian be if he/she is acting upon false and likely derogatory impressions?  As Christians, we ought not be afraid of reality, facts, history, and truth.  We must interact with the world as it is, for that is the world we have been called to be salt and light to, not the world as we wish it to be.

In regards to the three faiths who claim Abraham as a forefather, it would be foolish of us to ignore or downplay what we have in common, and at the same time foolish of us to pretend we do not have fundamentally relevant differences.  Dr. Olson acknowledges both aspects of the issue saying, "We have a similar starting place, but we need to be sensitive about presumptions of sameness and instead ask many questions related to beliefs about God's nature and what we mean when we affirm God as one." (p. 32)  Indeed, the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim belief that God is one, i.e monotheism, is a common bond, but what we mean by declaring that God is one is surprisingly different, perhaps a startling revelation those who simply assume that all three are worshiping the same God.  Dr. Olson quotes Stephen Prothero who, "contends that those who write about the oneness of all religions 'are not describing the world, but reimagining it.  They are hoping that their hope will call up in us feelings of brotherhood and sisterhood." (p. 32)  Our world could use an increase in brotherhood and sisterhood, assuming that leads to more peace and less violence, but not at the expense of lying to ourselves about reality.  Dr. Olson goes on to summarize Prothero's words in God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World - and Why Their Differences Matter by saying, "what we share most fundamentally is the conviction that something is wrong with the world.  Life is out of balance; something has gone awry.  Religions differ, however, in diagnosing what has gone wrong, and, therefore, what the prescribed solution is." (p. 33)  Including Prothero's viewpoint acknowledges how this issue undermines the notion that Jews, Christians, and Muslims could be worshiping the same God and yet understand both humanity's problem and the necessary solution so differntely, nevertheless, Dr. Olson will later attempt to bridge that gap while leaving Prothero's objection unrefuted.

There isn't much in "Side by Side" regarding intra-Christian ecumenism, but one comment is worth noting, "We Christians are a varied lot today.  Within Christianity we find those who are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox...and a wide variety of Protestants...as well as less orthodox traditions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah's Witnesses." (p. 42)  White there are some within the Church who struggle to see Orthdoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism as all being "within" Christianity, wrongly in my understanding but I understand the objections, it is a whole different set of issues to assert that the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are "within" Christianity and simply "less orthodox".  Less orthodox?  Both are non-trinitarian, both have an extra-biblical authority, both see themselves as the only true remnant of the Church.  Less orthodox is far too generous a term, non-orthodox would have been more accurate, for how can something which defies the Nicene Creed be "within" the Church?

One observation from Dr. Olson should hit many Christians squarely and accurately with an uncomfortable truth, "It is easy to see (or imagine) what's wrong with another's religion...And it is even easier to take the inherent goodness of one's own religion for granted...this practice of religious self-justification and criticizing the other is resurfacing with urgency in our interreligious world." (p. 59)  We ought not be shocked to learn that this is true, after all Jesus spoke about planks in our own eyes and specks in the eyes of our brother, how much easier to ignore our own faults and focus upon those of people we consider strange, different, even a threat.  Once again, Christians must be grounded in truth and reality, for example: Are there aspects of Islam today that are steeped in violence?  Absolutely, are there aspects of Islam today that have rejected violence in favor of tolerance?  Yes.  Those unwilling to acknowledge that not all Muslims are cheering on the Jihad against the West, are also likely to ignore or gloss over the horrendous history that Christianity has not too recently emerged from of violence, persecution, slavery, and antisemitism.   We cannot have a productive discussion about Islam and terrorism if we fail to disavow the stereotype that all Muslims think alike and refuse to acknowledge that our own family tree has some real ugliness, some of it not that far from where we sit, just visit a Holocaust museum if you need a reminder.

In a precursor to the eventual rejection of the New Testament passages expressing the exclusive claims of Jesus, Dr. Olson correctly writes that, "Those using absolute truth claims may choose particular texts from their Scriptures, read them selectively (and probably out of context), and them apply them absolutely." (p. 64)  While agreeing that such things happen, far too often and with often disastrous results by all manner of people, not just those seeking absolute truth claims, it is not apparent, nor does Dr. Olson make a concerted effort to demonstrate, that such out-of-context interpretation has been done by the majority of the Church historically which has understood the New Testament to proclaim Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life.  In that same section where Dr. Olson is explaining how a religion can have evil followers, he also rightly points out the dangers of blind obedience, focusing upon a soon to come utopia, believing that the ends justify the means, and ultimately choosing to engage in a holy war.  Extremism that embraces such practices is a threat to any religion.

Dr. Olson attempts to paint a positive view of Jesus in the Qur'an, and while it is appropriate to acknowledge that the Qur'an portrays Jesus as an important figure and a prophet, even as "Messiah", the Jesus of the Qur'an is not in any real way the same as that of the New Testament.  The Qur'an specifically denies the Incarnation (Surah 112), the Trinity (Surah 5:116) and the Crucifixion (Surah 4:157)  Dr. Olson concludes with a quote from Tarif Khalidi (from The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature) that Jesus, "ceases to be an argument and becomes a living and vital moral voice, demanding to be heard by all who seek a unity of profession and witness." (p. 99)  Yet as C.S. Lewis famously pointed out, Jesus must be either God, a fraud, or a madman, for he is clearly portrayed as divine in the Gospels and throughout the New Testament (Muslims claim these are all corruptions of the original Biblical text).  How is it that Jesus can be a "moral figure" to unite Christians and Muslims when such a role would have been antithetical to everything we know about Jesus from the Scriptures?  The only way for such a middle-ground with Muslims concerning Jesus would be to concede that critics like Bart Ehrman are right and everything about Jesus' divinity was added later by a corrupt Church intent upon securing its own power over the people.  Unfortunately for Ehrman, and Muslim apologists who have latched onto his arguments, the crushing weight of historical evidence regarding N.T manuscript production and distribution, prior to the Council of Nicea, denies such a conspiracy theory.

The ultimate question from Dr. Olson, beyond less controversial matters of inter-faith dialogue and efforts at peace and justice is simple, "Do I believe that persons devoted to these religions can be in a right relationship with God, both here on earth and hereafter in eternity?  In other words, is salvation possible within these three religions?  These aren't simple yes-or-no questions." (p. 113)  Before answering the question, Dr. Olson briefly interacts with the N.T's many exclusive claims as typified by John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12 where he says regarding John 14:6, "I do not believe that Jesus intended the rest of the verse ('no one comes to the Father but by me') to be an absolute statement of exclusion for all people for all time...I also believe that the unconditional love of God, mediated by Jesus to us, has led some closer to God, even though they may not name Jesus as their Savior." (p. 119)  The basis for saying, "Jesus didn't mean what you think he meant", {I can almost hear Vizzini from The Princess Bride saying "inconceivable" and Fezzik replying, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."} is to say that John's Gospel "offers a mystical reflection on the meaning of Jesus for the world." (p. 119)  In other words, John's words don't really mean what those words normally mean.  Also, how does the notion of "the unconditional love of God" fit with Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world?  How can God's love be so unconditional if he cares about sin and holiness, and why would Jesus die for anything less than absolute necessity?  If salvation is to be found elsewhere, through other means, why would Jesus die?  Lastly, what does "led some closer to God" mean?  Is closer to God enough?  How is God's love through Jesus leading people closer to God who have no idea who Jesus is or who reject Jesus explicitly?  In relation to Acts 4:12, Dr. Olson rejects the universality of Peter's words as hyperbole intended to sway his Jewish audience, nothing more, "Is it intended as an  inclusion-exclusion statement for all believers of the various religions for all time?  Each reader will have to decide.  In light of the context of this statement, I personally don't think so." (p. 119)  Thus the nature of John's Gospel and the audience for Peter's words negate the plain meaning of the text within their own given context in both instances.  While I recognize that this is necessary to move to an inclusivist viewpoint without claiming that the Scriptures are tainted, it is an example of eisegesis not exegesis, putting into the text a meaning one hopes to derive from it rather than letting the Word of God speak for itself.  The rest of the N.T.'s exclusive texts are mentioned later (on p. 146) but no effort is made to interact with any of them (1 Corinthians 3:11, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 John 5:12, Romans 1:21, 3:9, and John 3:36 just to list the ones Dr. Olson acknowledges).

In the end, Dr. Olson openly and honestly admits, "I am an inclusivist...I also believe that the prophets of these other religions received authentic revelation from God and that persons can be in a right relationship with God within those religions." (p. 122)  Leaving out the more complicated questions of "authentic revelation" between Judaism and Christianity {For example: Yes, Isaiah's revelation was certainly authentic, but we differ greatly on what it means}, how is that possible with Islam?  The diagnosed problem with humanity and mandated solution in Islam is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.  Islam offers a list of things to do, Christianity requires a cessation of self-righteous effort in order to accept by faith what has already been done on our behalf.  If God spoke to both Jesus and Muhammad, how did the message become so garbled?  Either humanity is fallen or it is not, either works are the answer or faith is, this is a fence that cannot be straddled unless we jettison any effort at logic and consistency.  Dr. Olson goes on to say, "One other factor contributes to my conclusion - probably the most powerful and important one: my experience with persons of these other religions...As I sense the goodness of these persons...and as I worship as a guest in their places of worship, I have a clear sense that I am in the presence of God and of God's saints, whatever their religion."  (p. 122)  In the end, this is a choice to embrace experience over revealed truth, a feeling of having found "good people" over the Church's two thousand years of preaching the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.  And while I don't doubt that Dr. Olson knows "good people who follow other religions, it is odd to hear a Baptist say that the most important factor in making a monumental theological change is belief that he experienced the presence of God in a mosque and a synagogue, there is no sense here of an allegiance to Sola Scriptura, let alone Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, or Solus Christus, which leaves one to wonder, how can this then be Soli Deo Gloria?  Inclusivism is by necessity a clean-break from the Reformation along with an abandonment of the Early Church as typified in the ecumenical creeds.

The section relating to the Spiritual But Not Religious (SBNR's) as well as the "nones" does not offer anything beyond what is already known, that the Church is struggling to connect with Millennials, but it does offer a sense that those who like Dr. Olson have drifted toward or to inclusivism, if not outright pluralism, are doing so in part because they feel it is a necessary tactic for the Church to woo back this "lost" generation.  If that is the case, Churches which abandon their Gospel heritage to embrace the minority within a generation who seem content to leave "organized religion" behind will likely only succeed in driving away the roughly 2/3 of Millennials who remain committed to their faith.

"Side by Side" ends with a story of a pastor whose church went where most will be unwilling to go: they allowed neighboring Muslims who were building a mosque to use their church for prayer during Ramadan.   (p. 151-52) This episode is presented as an example of "love they neighbor" but one does not need to reject the sacred nature of our places of worship in order to love our neighbors.  On the other hand, Dr. Olson offers four challenges for followers of Jesus Christ that we should all be able to embrace, "- To become more deeply involved in friendship, conversation, and dialogue with persons of other faiths where we live and work. - To be aware, supportive, and proactive when negativity, threats and attacks happen to persons and places of worship of other faiths. - To be compassionate and active in responding to the worldwide refugee crisis, including at the local level. - To offer understanding, care, and support to the vastly growing number of interfaith marriages and families."  (p. 153)  These four goals are noble and worthy of followers of Jesus (with only one caveat, that the Church should not encourage new interfaith marriages {which are not the same as intra-faith marriages like my own where we share a devotion to Christ} while it supports those who already are a part of an inter-faith marriage in accordance with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 712-16).

There is much to appreciate in Dr. Olson's personal experience with, and sharing of, other examples of inter-faith dialogue, friendships, and cooperation regarding peace and justice.  We certainly need more of this attitude in the Church today and less confrontation and hatred.  This goal can, and should, be accomplished, however, without abandoning the exclusive claims of the Gospel. I as a Christian ought to be fully capable of calling a Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist my neighbor, and yes friend, without at the same time letting go of my concern for the salvation of his/her soul.  The focus of Dr. Olson's book was primarily the Abrahamic faiths, but inclusivism within them naturally leads to pluralism as well.  If there is no Truth, then there isn't any truth either.  Mankind is lost, fallen and depraved, with this diagnosis only a fool or one ignorant of the world today and man's history would disagree.  The most important question for humanity thus remains: how can what is wrong with us be fixed?  Only Jesus offers a solution that is within our power: salvation by grace through faith in him.  Thus while I appreciate the openness with which Dr. Olson address the topic of inter-faith relations, and laud his goals of peaceful coexistence, I cannot cross the bridge that he would construct to inclusivism, for the Church and the Gospel are on this side of the river.

Judson Press link to "Side by Side"

Once again, rushing to judgment leads to error.

It should be obvious to Christians that being quick to judge another Christian, especially one you don't know personally, especially one who you only have an incomplete picture of, is both foolhardy and dangerous, and an avenue leading to sin.  While the phrase, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is ingrained in our minds, we are at the same time bombarded with snap judgments and half-truths (if that) from the constant stream of information flowing our way, much of it politically motivated, through both the news media and social media.  The desire to get a story out fast, and the ease of sharing or re-tweeting something, especially something that confirms our own viewpoint or something salacious, can turn a small story into an avalanche that leaves fact-checking and a balanced view in the dust.

In recent months, a handful of people with an online/media presence have hammered away at an apologist that I often listen to (though don't agree with on everything, of course) named James White.  I first came across James White in college when his book, The King James Only Controversy was required reading for my Biblical Criticism class, that book would later form the nucleus of my History of the Bible lectures.

Those critical of James White in relation to a two-part dialogue he participated in with a Muslim Imam, have filled the airwaves/internet with a vast amount of partial truths, innuendo, name calling, and outright lies (easily refutable ones).  Why would they be able to get away with such character assassination?  Because God's people have allowed themselves to become lazy.  They've been spoon fed opinions in the political realm, leaning one way or the other, and have long since grown accustomed to accepting what they hear as the truth without verifying it.  I know that while watching the news, or reading an article online, it isn't possible to verify everything that you see, but when the issue involves accusations of "heresy", "cowardice", and claiming that a Christian is in league with mysterious Islamic forces that are trying to take over the world, one would think that you and I would be willing to at least dig enough to see whether such startling accusations have a basis in the truth.

Throughout this whole ordeal, the video of the dialogue in question has been available online, easily accessible to any willing to watch before reaching a conclusion about it.  Unfortunately, many of those who have been critical have too much invested (politically, emotionally, financially) in an apocalyptic narrative that is threatened by peaceful dialogue with Muslims.  For some, a clash of civilizations, WWIII style, is a desired outcome.  They see this as a pre-cursor to the 2nd Coming of Christ, and/or are looking at this issue through Nationalist eyes and not through Gospel ones.  Do some within Islam want worldwide Jihad and death to all the infidels?  Of course, many of them have joined terrorist groups to further their vision of utopia.  Does their desire make such a global fight to the death inevitable?  Not at all.  The Cold War ended without WWIII erupting, that was a far more grave situation against an enemy far better equipped to wage war, yet it never fully erupted into all out war.  One should then ask, why are so many people in Europe and America so heavily invested in seeing the current level of conflict become a global war?  Why do they want the dream of the terrorists, global war, to come true?

For the sake of the Church, and the sake of the Gospel, we cannot afford, as Christians, to close our hearts and minds to the need of the Muslim people to hear and receive faith in Jesus Christ.  If we choose to write off a billion people as beyond the reach of the Gospel, great will be our shame, and severe our judgment before Almighty God.  If we choose to abandon them, for any reason, we will have failed as the people who have been called by God to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

We won't reach Muslims with the Good News by lumping them all into one group as terrorists.  We won't reach Muslims by shouting from street corners, posting insulting videos, or insisting that any conversation include condemnation of Muhammad.  That avenue offers no hope of success, only the self-righteousness of condemning those who are already lost (as if have been told to do so by God).  How will the Muslims of the world be reached for Christ?  Through patience, understanding, friendships, honesty, and kindness.  If you're not interested in being a part of such a loving approach, your problem isn't with James White or the countless missionaries at work for the Kingdom in Muslim countries today, your problem is with the Gospel.

For the sake of the truth, and to show at least a modicum of interest in it.  Read the article below published by ChristianNews.net  If you still think White is a "dupe" or Judas, dig further, or perhaps look in the mirror and ask yourself why you won't want Muslims to hear about Jesus.

Apologist James White Draws Concerns After Holding, Defending Interfaith ‘Dialogue’ at Church With Muslim Imam

FYI, one of the issues being condemned is the use of a church building for this event.  The Church in the NT is not a building, it is a people.  It is not the place which is sacred, but the people who meet there who make it so by having been saved by God's grace.  To use such a building to further the spread of the Gospel is a use that brings glory to God, not shame.

{Update 11/21  The James White that I used to listen to while working no longer has the same ministry.  In the past 3-4 years he has followed Eric Metaxas down the road of political 'sky is falling' conspiracy theory laden hysteria.  I no longer recommend listening to his messages with the exception of the older material related to textual criticism}

The Folly of Angry Witnessing and the Folly of attacking Christians who befriend the Lost

Is this what Jesus had in mind when said, "Go into all the world..."

From time to time in my life I've seen people standing on a street corner with a homemade sign that lists a variety of things that God hates.  Sometimes the things on the list are accurately taken from the text of the Bible, and sometimes they reflect the beliefs of the person who made the sign, often involving politically motivated choices as well.

What then should the average Christian think in response to such demonstrations, most of which involve anger and shouting, a tactic far more likely to make enemies than friends.  Should Christians care about offending the Lost?  Should we be presenting the Gospel with anger or love?

The most important question, which should be obvious to all who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ but perhaps is not, is this: What does the Word of God say about the tactics we should be using to witness to those who don't know Jesus as Lord and Savior?

1 Peter 3:15-16 is one such key passage, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.  Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

Do you mean, Peter didn't write, "Shout at the unbelievers, ridicule them, call them names, for then they will want to join you."  And he didn't write, "disrespect the lost, treat them with unkindness, and say horrible things, especially false ones, about anyone who dares to befriend an unbeliever."

Peter did write that we must witness with gentleness and respect, and he did write that we must conduct ourselves always with good behavior as representatives of Christ.

So, why all the yelling, why the hatred?  For some, it is a misguided notion that they have to defend the Law of God against societal or governmental forces, and therefore they have appointed themselves as judge, jury, and executioner on God's behalf.  For others, it might be a form of racism or ideology based hatred that is driving their counter-productive attempt to hate-witness.  The most obvious example of this in action in the West today relates to Islam.  There are some in the Christian community, at least they claim to represent Christ, who feel the need to warn about the dangers (which are of an apocalyptic level in their mind) of terrorism from individuals/organizations influenced by Islam, and therefore their only interaction with Islam is angry and militant.  They say things like "All Muslims are terrorists", or "Islam is of the devil".  They think that they're defending Western civilization and Christendom, but in reality all they accomplish is to make terrorism more likely by further marginalizing Muslims living in Western nations, and even more importantly, shutting the door against the Gospel's message even more firmly.  What Muslim, who believes in Muhammad and the Qur'an, is going to listen to what you have to say about the love of God and the desire that God has to offer forgiveness in Christ, when you approach that Muslim by insulting Muhammad and spitting upon the Qur'an?  In what reality does this tactic work even 1 in a million times?

Do you want the Lost to hear the Gospel so that they can be saved, or do you just want credit for yelling it at them?  Do you actually love the Lost, in imitation of our heavenly Father, who sent his Son to die for our sins, while we were still sinners, or has hatred clouded your mind and convinced you that some people are beyond God's saving grace?  (As if you deserved God's grace, but they don't!)

If you can't speak to those who don't know Jesus with gentleness and respect, maybe you should just keep your yap shut and let those whose hearts are burdened for a world full of people without God's love in their lives, be the ones to represent Jesus.

Do Christians really want Muslims to be saved?

In light of recent venomous criticism raised by self-proclaimed Christians against Christian author and apologist James White because of his willingness to dialogue with and debate Muslim apologists and imams with respect and fairness, an important question needs to be asked of the Church.  Do we, as followers of Jesus Christ, really want Muslims to come to know the love of God that is in Jesus Christ?  Do we want Muslims, any and all of them, to be violently killed or saved by love and grace?

If you actually do, as a Christian, want Muslims to come to know the love of Christ, (like any of the Lost: Atheists, Mormons, Hindus, etc.) what attitude would best help that evangelistic effort?  Do expressions of hatred help spread the Gospel?  Does calling all Muslims terrorists help them see that they need to come to Jesus by faith?  Or do we actually push forward the cause of the Gospel through dialogue, openness, respect, honesty, and charity?

James White has been the lightning rod of this issue, but it is far bigger than him.  The Church is being challenged by the violence of terrorism to reject hatred and remain steadfast in the embrace of the peace of Christ.  Giving in to hatred it easy, it appeals to our fallen human nature, it appeals to our tribalism and racism, but it is the opposite of the Fruit of the Spirit which we are supposed to be cultivating as disciples of Jesus.

Consider Saul of Tarsus.  He was a violent man, full of hatred, responsible for the deaths of Christians.  Should the Early Church have killed him in self-defense?  Should they have spewed hatred at him in return?  What did God do about Saul of Tarsus?  He showed him Jesus, and turned him into the Apostle Paul, perhaps the greatest missionary the Gospel has ever seen.  If Peter or John had given in to the temptation to respond to Saul with hate, how many souls would have remained Lost instead of hearing the Gospel?

A related question that we, as Christians, need to answer: Is our hatred of Muslims being driven by our politics?  When contemplating the criticism directed his way, much of which has only a token connection with the truth, James White recently said, "If your politics destroys your passion for the Lost in your life, dump the politics, stick with what has eternal value."

Are you a Christian?  Do you want Muslims, the vast majority of which are non-violent no matter what nonsense you read online or hear from politicians trying to get your vote or businesses trying to get your money, but even the terrorists who have killed Christians, to find forgiveness in Christ?  You have been forgiven for your sins, you came to Christ by grace, are you willing to be so ungrateful an adopted child of God that you would push others away from God's love?  All have sinned, all need a savior, if you think you have any right to be God's gate-keeper and decide who deserves God's grace and who deserves God's wrath, you are woefully and dangerously mistaken.

If the Gospel you claim to believe isn't for everybody, then you don't really believe it.

If you don't show love to the Lost, you have failed in your responsibility to share the Gospel.

Bernie Sanders and the Intolerance of the Gospel

In a recent exchange with a nominee for the position of deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders took great umbrage with an online post made by the nominee, Russell Vought, which contained this statement:

Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned. In John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

I have no desire to wade into a political debate, that should be obvious to anyone who has read this blog before, nor do I know whether or not Russell Vought would make a good deputy director of OMB, the larger question here is whether or not a statement like the one that Vought made, is in fact "indefensible" and "hateful" as Senator Sanders contends.  The statement made by Vought was in the context of a controversy at his alma mater, Wheaton College, but it touches upon a much larger and far more ancient context.
The Church has proclaimed for 2,000 years that Jesus Christ is, as he himself stated in the Gospel of John, "the way, the truth, and the life".  Jesus added clarity to his claim by also saying, "No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)  Along with the verses previously by Russel Vought in his quote, John 8:19, Luke 10:16, John 3:18, could also be listed Acts 4:12, Romans 3:23-24, Ephesians 2:1-10, the list could go on and on.  The New Testament is boldly, unequivocally, and without reservation, absolutely exclusive in its claim that all of mankind already stands condemned by God, as our holy and righteous judge, and that the ONLY possible solution to our desperate state is to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord.  This was the belief of every writer of the New Testament, it was the belief of the early Church Fathers, it was the belief of the great theologians, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, and the belief of the Church in its entirety, with very few exceptions, until the post-modern era when universalist viewpoints began to be adopted by some Christian, and pseudo-Christian groups.  The point is simply this: It cannot be denied that the Gospel makes exclusive claims, claims that by necessity are a rejection of the claims of others, including other religions such as Judaism or Islam, but also those of the non-religious.  These claims are not secret, they're not new, and they're fundamental to the Christian faith.
The Gospel was controversial when it was first introduced, it remains controversial to this day.  The rebellious heart of man hates to hear that repentance is needed, that his/her own efforts are doomed to failure, and that submission to the will of God is necessary.  A response of anger, an attempt to silence those proclaiming the Gospel, is also not new.
To make the Gospel palatable to non-believers is to rob it of its power, to make it acceptable to agnostics and atheists is to slap Jesus in the face.  The Church cannot do this, it must not do this, and those in the "Church" who already have done so, have chosen to leave the historic and Biblical Church.  The Gospel is intolerant, it has to be, for the love of God compels us to share the hope of salvation with a world lost and doomed to destruction.

One final thought: If you think the Gospel if "hateful" and "bigoted", don't read what the Qur'an says about non-believers.  The Gospel in no-way teaches the followers of Jesus to hate unbelievers, to persecute them, and certainly not to kill them, any such actions on the part of "Christians" in the past or present are a rejection of the teaching of the Bible.  Islam has a different problem, the Qur'an both advocates peaceful co-existence AND the destruction of unbelievers (thus making task of moderate Muslims that much more difficult against the fanatics who resort to terrorism).

The Gospel or the Gun: Which do you trust?

In 1945, General George Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union and wipe out the Communists with the help of the remnant of the shattered Nazi army.  In 1951, General Douglas MacArthur wanted to nuke China during the Korean War, forcing President Harry Truman to fire him.  There are always those who believe that the answer to a threat is the barrel of a gun.  It is indeed true that the strong must protect the weak, and a military solution may be the only moral option, but it is also true that militancy and nationalism can run amok with potentially peaceful solutions (or at least less violent ones) lost in the hysteria of fear and fear-mongering.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a number of American and European Christians, including some famous people in leadership positions, view a global war with Islam as inevitable, and perhaps even preferable.  One of the reasons for this militant stance is often a Pre-Tribulation Eschatology that sees a WWIII style conflict as a precursor to the Rapture, and something that cannot or should not be avoided, as it would usher in the return of Christ.  I've written before about the dangers of letting a particular view of Eschatology color your morality and attitude, so that's nothing new, but the issue of confronting Islam has another element that is also troubling.  It would appear that many of those in the pro-war camp are leaning that way because they envision Islam spreading globally and taking over the West through immigration and higher birth rates.  While such an argument might hold water with a statistician, how is it that those who believe in the power of faith, and the triumph of the Gospel, are terrified of the spread of Islam?  If this is simply a battle of ideas, like the Communism vs. Capitalism debate of the Cold War, then it truly would be a confrontation with an unknown outcome, but this is not what Christians believe, at least they shouldn't.  Christianity is based upon historical fact, and those who follow Jesus Christ believe in the triumph of the Gospel over the forces of darkness, whatever they may be.  In Philippians 2:5-11, the Apostle Paul speaks of the ultimate triumph of Jesus Christ, and foretells the day when "every knee should bow...and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."  Do God's people really believe these words, or do they put more faith in the power of the gun?  How could a professing Christian's priorities be so eschew that he/she would prefer a war, and with it the tens if not hundreds of millions of civilian casualties that would result, to letting the Gospel contend, as it has since the founding of the Church 2,000 years ago, with whatever philosophies, ideologies, or religions which oppose it?

The triumph of the Gospel, foretold in Scripture, is found in the conversion of the Lost, the redeeming of those apart from God, not in the obliteration of those who disbelieve in the explosion of a bomb.  I believe in the power of the Gospel, it will triumph over Islam, and all other beliefs, no matter what they may be, in the end, I'm not looking to destroy those who oppose the will of God, it is my responsibility as a disciple of Jesus Christ to share the wonderful grace of Jesus with them, that they too might willingly and gladly bow their knee before the King of Kings.

When cooperation becomes capitulation: The Koran in Church

Those who have followed this blog for any length of time, or who know me personally, are well aware that I am an advocate for intra-Christian ecumenism.  I believe, on the basis of the teaching of Scripture, that all those who are truly disciples of Jesus Christ ought to be working together for the sake of the kingdom of God, as partners not rivals.  There will always be debate and discussion, a healthy thing, regarding our definition of who is and who is not a Christian, with some drawing the circle smaller, and some larger, than others.  I wrote a good deal about that particular question with respect to the teaching of I John some years ago, a booklet you can read by clicking on this link: Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John.

The subject of this post is not intra-Christian ecumenism, however, but inter-faith cooperation.  If we're talking about something like disaster relief, peace initiatives for war torn regions, or a campaign for civil rights of a persecuted minority, it is not unreasonable for Christians to work with non-Christians on these issues, including those of other faiths, Muslims for example.  These are not issues that are particular to Christians, and are areas in which we can work with anyone who is willing to truly help those in need.  There are ways in which these things can be done that do not require a Christian to compromise his/her faith.

The waters get murky when we begin to talk about inter-faith worship.  The elephant in the room is of course the obvious observation that Christians, Muslims, and Jews (to pick the most common groups that might consider such things) cannot all be right in their declarations of what is true, in particular regarding the person of Jesus Christ.  If one proclaims him to be a false Messiah, one a respected prophet, but the third the very Son of God, God in the flesh, these three groups can hardly pray to God or praise God in any meaningful way without one or more of the groups being compromised.  In the end, it is demeaning to all involved if we try to call on the greatest common denominator (to use a math term) that we are supposedly worshiping the same God, when we have such radical departures on what God has done, and is doing, in our world.

The latest episode to illustrate the pitfall of intra-faith worship happened during an Epiphany celebration in Glasgow, Scotland.  The Anglican Cathedral there, St. Mary's, invited a local Muslim teen to read from the Koran about Jesus during the worship service which is supposed to be celebrating the arrival of the Magi to worship Jesus.  The biggest problem with this reading, other than the question of why someone would allow the Koran to be read in Christian worship, is that the passage in question directly contradicts the Gospel accounts by denying the deity of Christ.  Much has been written about this episode, and the backlash it has spawned in England and around the world, for a good article on it, click on the following: Cathedral Marks Epiphany with Koran reading

The most important question now is this: What went wrong in the theological understanding of the leadership of St. Mary's that they didn't see the utter foolishness of allowing the Koran to be read during a service of Christian worship?  There was a failure here to understand the implications of this gesture of cooperation, which was in fact far closer to an act of blasphemy toward Jesus than it was an act of Christian bridge building with a minority.  This is not what ecumenism is, this is not an example of fostering peace and brotherhood, it is instead an act of capitulation that will only confuse those who don't understand the differences between the Bible and the Koran, between Christianity and Islam, and at the same time it will be used by those who oppose legitimate intra-Christian ecumenism to build up the wall and moat around their church even more.

I'm all for intra-Christian ecumenism, and happy to have the necessary discussion of how we define those who are Christian and those who are not.  What happened in Glasgow is a whole different topic, and one that rightly will cause significant ripples throughout the UK and beyond.  The Koran being read in a Christian church is not only a bridge too far, it is an abandonment of the exclusive claims of the gospel about Jesus Christ.

Note: I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't learn about Islam, every Christian should know the Five Pillars of Islam, and the basics of what the Koran teaches, just as they should know about the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.  One can teach and learn about another religion while showing respect to those who follow it, without including those teachings in Christian acts of prayer and worship.

The Dead-End of Anti-Intellectualism in the Church

One of the favorite themes of a growing number of politicians is an anti-intellectualism aimed at scientists, professors, and intellectuals of all kinds.  They combine this thinly veiled envy with a heaping dose of blue-collar mentality and grand conspiracy theories.  The end result is best illustrated by the insanity of the long-running anti-vaccine movement, a movement that is immune (pun intended?) to scientific evidence for it is all dismissed as being part of the global conspiracy involving governments, the CDC, the UN, and many more.  This same anti-intellectualism continues to be attached to issue after issue, to the detriment of our democracy, for few things are as dangerous to a healthy democracy (yes, I know, our gov't is a Representative Republic, but most people don't know the difference between that and a Democracy) as a purposefully uninformed electorate.
The Church is equally at risk when in the grips of anti-intellectualism.  Many evangelicals routinely belittle the public education system (thereby slandering the many good God-honoring men and women working in it), and look upon the higher education system with nothing short of hatred.  Secular though this education may be, it is still absolutely necessary that the people of God be an educated people.  Why?  Because when they're not, they're easy prey to heretics, charlatans, and frauds, not to mention the politicians who look at them with disdain while pandering to their hot button issues.
Just today I came across two examples of anti-intellectualism that are a clear danger to the Church.  The first was also mixed with racism (not a good combo) in that it was a protest against the teaching of the basic tenants of Islam to school children.  As a former teacher, I'm aghast at the idea of limiting the knowledge of the world that our children are given, and as a pastor, I'm entirely convinced that Christian children need to know the basics of not only Islam, but Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, plus the ancient religions of the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, not to mention the basic ideas of Communism, Fascism, and a host of other ideas that make our world tick and explain how we arrived at where we are.  Why?  Because ignorance is a haven for horrible ideas, and ignorance breeds bigotry like cockroaches.  When a Christian teens goes off to college, private or public, religious or secular, that teen needs to know his/her place in the world, needs to know where he/she stands and has little chance of being prepared for the many ideas that will soon flood his/her way if we've chosen to shelter those inside the Church from the many competing ideas that exist in our world.  Teachers need to teach, not pretend that ideas don't exist, how can a high school senior possibly understand the world that we live in today without knowing about the world's religions?  How can people appreciate the government that we do have if they are ignorant of the horrific alternatives that have already been tried?
The second example was once again the same ol' anti-intellectualism of the KJV Only movement, this time from a Chick Publications video that denigrated a seminary education (thereby slandering the many God-honoring men and women who work at America's seminaries) and instead elevating an "ignorance is bliss" attitude about the Bible.  In the video, David Daniels dismisses the manuscript evidence for the Bible, mocking the scholar and archaeologists who continue to work in this field, and treating the term "textual criticism" like a profanity instead of the vital tool that it is.  Why is anti-intellectualism a cornerstone of the KJV Only movement, the answer is quite simple: the entirety of the historical evidence, modern scholarship, and the way in which translations work are so firmly against their belief system that the only way to avoid total embarrassment is to dismiss the opposition as part of a huge conspiracy led by the dreaded intellectuals.  To say this attitude gives the Church a black eye is an understatement.
The Truth is not our enemy.  Facts, history, and knowledge are not the enemy of the Church, never have been, never will be.  We serve a risen savior, a Messiah whose life, death, and resurrection are firmly established in history, to veer off into anti-intellectualism, as a Church, is not only needless and foolish, but a dead-end.

Sermon Video - Submit Yourself to God: James 4:7-10

There is much that humanity doesn't, by nature, like about the idea of submitting to God.  Americans, in particular, confuse their love of political freedom with their need for spiritual submission to God, resulting in a stubborn independence regarding the commands of God.  There is, however, no way to approach God that does not include submission to his will.
What does it mean to submit to God?  James explains several things that this involves: (1) Resisting the devil, we can't hardly submit to God and remain friends with his enemies at the same time.  (2)  Repentance from sin, (3) Removal of the double-mindedness that tries to keep our options open and entertains temptations, and (4) a serious attitude toward our sin that grieves for them as God does.  There are other aspects of submitting to the will of God, and James will discuss one of them in vs. 13-16, but these are enough to show us the difficulty and the necessity of the task.
In the end, submitting to God is an act of humility, one that cannot be accomplished by the proud, and another reminder why God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Politics and Dangerous Assumptions

Presuppositions can be dangerous.  We all have them, they’re the foundational ideas that we hold, often without even being aware of them, that underpin our beliefs and belief systems.  There is a presupposition that was once assumed in the American political landscape, even if our nation didn’t always live up to its lofty ideal, yet now it is being directly challenged.  You ought, I hope, to recognize this presupposition, it is after all something we hold to be self-evident: all men are created equal.  The belief in the equality of humanity is directly connected to the belief in God who created mankind.  Because God made us all, we must therefore be equal.  How could any race or nation be valued more, and more importantly, how could any be valued less, if all were alike created by God?  And yet, this idea is under assault in the political discourse today.  It isn’t being directly stated as such, but the assumption that American lives are worth more than non-American lives underpins many of the issues as they are being discussed today, from refugees and immigration, to trade agreements and foreign policy.  It may seem natural for an American politician to value American lives more, after all a Roman politician would have valued the lives of Roman citizens far above those of non-citizens, let alone the “barbarians” beyond the Empire’s borders, but if those same politicians are claiming to be themselves Christians, and are claiming to represent Christians, it must be pointed out that their belief system is built upon an idea that is anti-Christian.  The idea that God’s people don’t have to care about the lives of Syrians, Mexicans, the Chinese, Muslims, or any other group, is a grave insult to the cross upon which Christ died to offer salvation to the world.  That some of those being labeled in political discourse as the “them” that “we” don’t have to care about (and can even hate), are in fact our fellow Christian brothers and sisters, is a grave sin.  If those claiming the name of Christ don’t have love for their fellow Christians, how can the love of God be in them? (I John 3:16-17) Likewise, those of the “other” who are not Christians fall into the second category of people, for in the Christian mind there can be only two, the Redeemed and the Lost.  How should we treat the Lost?  If we treat them with disdain, if we dismiss them, revile them, hate them, how can we possibly share the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them?

Are you a Christian?  Do you care about those living in abject poverty around the world, or is American prosperity more important to you than their suffering?  Do you care about the rights of people who don’t look or think like you?  If you let a politician sell you on the idea that you must choose “us” over “them”, you are walking away from the call of the Son of God to share the love of God.  Politicians love to have villains, it is an age old tactic to make the foreigner the enemy, but it is not, nor can it be, a Christian one, for it was our king who said, “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you”, and “take up your cross and follow me.”  There isn’t any room near the cross for the politics of division and hatred.

Sermon Video: "God, have mercy on me, a sinner." - Luke 18:9-14

If the actions of two individuals are outwardly identical, or at least nearly so, how would you or I differentiate between the two if we suspected that one was valid and the other was not?  We'd try to look deeper, we'd try to get behind the facade to see the thoughts, emotions, and attitudes that are prompting the actions.  When it comes to God, the same action may be acceptable and pleasing to him from one person and entirely unacceptable from another because God knows the heart of the matter and sees through all our masks.  In the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, Jesus uses an example of two men praying at the same time at the Temple to illustrate the principal that outward appearances are not what impresses God.  The Pharisee, with his spotless reputation and over powering self-confidence, prays thanking God for how awesome he is (not how awesome God is), and expounding upon how well he is keeping even the minutia of the Law.  The tax collector, by contrast, offers but one thought, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner."  Because he is self-aware, knowing the depths of his own sin, the tax collector offers nothing in his own defense, nor does he attempt to speak of his good qualities, he simply acknowledges his woeful state before God and prays for atonement to be made on his behalf.
Two men, both praying at the Temple, one of whom is in the process of becoming right with God, the other of which is drifting further and further away.  Pride is the key factor in the downfall of the Pharisee, trust in himself has replaced dependence upon God, and along with that pride has come prejudice toward everyone else who seems beneath him.  Such dedication and effort to fulfill the Law, by the Pharisee, and all of it a waste, for the grace of God is far from him.  The tax collector, pitiful though he is, and with a history full of sin, has found the grace of God, for he sought it as a drowning man grasping for a life preserver.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

What is a Christian willing to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?

What are we willing to attempt to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?  The answer, literally, should be nothing, for there is nothing that we ought to be willing to utilize evil in order to achieve, but when most people use that phrase they're talking about effort and sacrifice, perhaps a little stepping over the line when needed.
The following video is a test, watch it first before reading my comments upon it below.  Your reaction to this video will judge your ability to understand the purpose of the Gospel, your willingness to obey what it requires of you, and just what it is that you are willing to see blood spilled to accomplish.  The speaker in the 6 minute video is Pastor Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, a 12,000 member church.  He received a standing ovation at the end of these remarks, how will you respond?


Pastor Jeffress in response to ISIS

Did you cheer along with the audience, or did their cheers send a chill down your spine?  The words of Pastor Jeffress paint all Muslims as believers in the ideology of ISIS, saying that the Koran is full of commands to violence, while dismissing the commands of God in the Old Testament, and then following that up by saying that individual Christians need to love our enemies, but our government should blow them all to hell.  Also, where in the Bible does it say that God is against illegal immigrants and refugees, to claim Acts 17:26 as a justification for that political viewpoint is terribly poor exegesis.  Likewise, quoting a politician from the pulpit, and endorsing his viewpoint, especially a politician who has demonstrate virtually none of the fruit of the Spirit, is both foolish and dangerous.  I'm sorry, Pastor Jeffress, killing our enemies by "doing whatever is necessary" is NOT what Jesus taught his followers; not even close.  That misguided ideology led to the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII, civilian casualties be damned.  We cannot defeat radical Islam, just as we could not defeat militant communism, by lowering our moral standards and killing innocent women and children along with those who are actually a threat.  Don't we need to overcome evil with good, isn't that in the Bible, or do we get to ignore that command when the government does the killing for us?

What are you willing to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?  I recently spoke privately with a friend because I was alarmed by his publicly expressed zeal to see Muslims, even if it is just militant ones, killed.  I tried to remind him that our obligation, given to us as a command by Jesus Christ, is to witness to the Gospel to everyone, our enemies included.  Sadly, the response I received later was to mock my concern for Muslims who don't know Christ, it seems some who claim the name of Christ (and thus should know better) would rather cheer while their enemies are killed by a smart bomb than sacrifice to share the Gospel with them.  If that attitude had prevailed in the early Church, the zealot hater of Christianity, Saul of Tarsus, would have been assassinated by Christians instead of hearing of God's forgiveness on the road to Damascus, there would never have been an Apostle Paul who received numerous beatings to spread the Gospel without God's willingness to forgive, God's willingness to turn an enemy of his people into a champion for his grace.
Did you cheer when Pastor Jeffress gave the government a blank check to kill as many people as necessary to stop those living among them who are terrorists?  Do you celebrate when the bombs fall, or when the knees bow in repentance?  The answer matters, there are over a billion Muslims in the world, aren't you required to present to them the Gospel of God's grace?  In the words of that redeemed enemy of Christ, the Apostle Paul, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

Why Christians cannot claim all Muslims are the same

On a recent podcast, James White, author and debater on a variety of Christian topics, explained why it is not only dangerous, but ultimately sinful for a Christian to paint all Muslims with a broad stroke as terrorists.  It has been popular in some circles to claim that all Muslim are interested in Jihad, that a global caliphate achieved by violence is inherent to all Muslims.  Rather than argue about the nature of Islam, let us instead focus upon our responsibility as Christians to witness to the Gospel.  Why can't Christians dismiss all Muslims as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers?  The answer is simple: It destroys any hope you may have of sharing the Gospel with a Muslim.  Maybe you don't care, maybe you're so afraid of Islam, or so angry about terrorism that you simply don't care if there are Muslims who are non-militant (which there are).  Well, that's too bad, you don't have the choice to act that way because you have been commanded by Jesus Christ to share the Gospel with the whole world.  We must care for all of the Lost, even those who dislike us or hate us.  We have been called to show compassion to the Lost, we have been called to bear witness to the trans formative power of the Gospel.  This is not optional, to dismiss a type of person or group of people as being beyond the scope of the Gospel is a sin on our part.  It is not acceptable.  The "throw them all out of the country" attitude is not acceptable.  The "kill them all before they kill us" attitude is reprehensible.  We must reject, without reservation, the temptation to make the world an "us" vs. "them" fight; why, because the Gospel requires us to.  Our response as Christians must be that of our Savior, that is our only option.  It is easier to hate, but it is not Christian, not even a little bit.

The video by James White, pertaining to this topic, begins about 44 minutes into the video and runs for the next 5 minutes or so, and then also picks back up about 1:13:30 until around 1:15

James White on the Dividing Line

And this video from James White as well, beginning at about 38:30, with the most clear explanation coming toward the end of the video

James White on the Dividing Line - video #2

** Disclaimer, I don't agree with James White on everything, primarily we would disagree about Ecumenism (esp. regarding Catholicism), but his work on textual issues (i.e KJV only debate and history of the Bible stuff) is top notch, and his views on Islam are both informed and Biblical. **

The non-Christian militancy of Jerry Falwell Jr.

It has often been said that moderate Muslim clerics and imams need to denounce terrorism and the philosophy of jihad that lies behind it.  This is of course true, but it carries with it the same obligation for Christian pastors and apologists to denounce hatred and other attitudes that are contrary to the Gospel when they come from those claiming to be leaders in the Christian community.  During recent comments to the student body of Liberty University, the president of that institution, Jerry Falwell Jr. said this, "I always thought that if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walk in and kill".  His statement was applauded by many of the students in the audience, and he went on to explain, playfully it seemed, that he was carrying a gun at that time, almost as if he was hoping to find an armed Muslim that he could shoot first.  It should go without saying, but sadly it probably doesn't, that such inflammatory rhetoric is beneath the role of the president of an university, and certainly inappropriate as a topic to the student body of an university, but it also points to a larger issue where Mr. Falwell is misrepresenting the Gospel of Christ.
It is the obligation and right of law enforcement, the military, and government in general to protect its citizens (and by the way the non-citizens aliens in their midst) from danger, which may include of necessity at times preemptive measures when that threat is indeed imminent.  That is the role of duly constituted authority, from a Christian Biblical perspective, but that is not the role of the average citizen.  For the Christian, violence against even one's enemies should be contemplated with sadness, necessary to protect one's life or the lives of the innocent, but never gleefully laughed about, and never wrapped up in fear, anger, or prejudice.  It was, after all, Jesus who taught that we MUST "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".  It was this attitude, adopted by Martin Luther King Jr. that helped transform the racial attitudes of the American people, not the militant self-protection ideology of the Black Panthers.  What do Falwell and others who share his ideas envision?  An America where walking through a shopping mall or into a school you pass a half dozen people brandishing weapons, self-appointed security and vigilantes looking to shoot first and ask questions later, especially if the person in question looks like a Muslim?  This is not America, and it most certainly is not the way shown to us by Jesus who prayed while they nailed him to the Cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".  When Christianity has walked down the road toward violence and militancy, in particular when that those attitudes are mixed up with nationalism, we have known our darkest hours as a Church, we cannot allow the name of Christ to be associated with such things, for the Muslim among us is not an enemy to be slain, but a lost soul to be saved by grace, just as you once were before Christ saved you.

Another day, another mass shooting, is the world going to hell in a hurry?

If you watch the news, diligently, you will hear a story about a mass shooting and/or an act of terrorism somewhere in the world each and every day.  There will be a weather related crisis, or perhaps an earthquake, or a man-made disaster too.  There are plenty of things going on in a world with over seven billion people that demonstrate the inhumanity of man toward our fellow man and the corruption of human endeavors.  We could be pessimists without much prodding.  We could despair of the future and throw our hands up in the air and say, "Come Lord Jesus!"  Many Christians do just that, they're convinced that the United States, the West, even the World is spiraling out of control and the return of Christ is imminent because things are "worse than they've ever been".  This isn't a new phenomenon, it isn't particularly surprising either, but it is sad and unnecessary because by any indication, whether that be violence, poverty, life expectancy, responsible government, and especially the growth of the Church, we are living in the most prosperous and secure generation in the history of mankind.  It doesn't seem like it, not when ISIS is shooting up restaurants in Paris or new polls show that less Americans are going to Church than in prior generations, but it is true.
Our ancestors one hundred years ago, and especially further back than that, lived in a world that was more dangerous, poorer, more corrupt, and a lot less Christian than it is today.
Your gut may be fighting against that claim, you may not want to believe it, especially is you have a lot emotionally invested in thinking like a victim or claiming that the sky is falling, but not wanting to believe a fact doesn't make it untrue.  Five hundred years ago, to pick a random spot in history, the average person lived hand to mouth, always one bad harvest or pestilence away from starvation, and always worried that a marauding army was just over the horizon, not to mention pirates and their own rapacious nobility.  The average person was illiterate, had very few possessions, may never have traveled more than an hour or two away from the place where he or she was born, could expect to bury several children who didn't make it out of infancy, and aside from Europe, lived in a world where the vast majority of the people knew not the name of Jesus, let alone believed in him.
Today, by virtually every measurable statistic, things have improved, and not just a little, by leaps and bounds.  There are still pockets of poverty, endemic bloodshed, and resistance to the Gospel, but they're pockets now, not whole continents.  Africa has been transformed in the past fifty years, millions have been lifted out of poverty and the Church has not only conquered the animism that once thrived there, but is pushing back the frontier of Islam as well.  Asia is following suit, with India and China seeing hundreds of millions of people lifted out of abject poverty and the amount of Christians in their midst growing rapidly.  The world's largest Christian population will soon enough reside in China.  The Church may be declining in the West, but it is exploding in the South and East.
We have many reasons to be optimistic about the future, and many reasons to not despair about the present.  Remember, Jesus spoke of a Church against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, but if the Church is to conquer even the stronghold of the enemy, it will be on the offensive not cowering behind high walls and a moat.

I'm not a pessimist, not because I choose to be an optimist in the face of contrary evidence, but because my faith in the power of God agrees with all of the good things that are really happening in our world today.  The future is in the hands of God, and those hands are capable indeed.

For an excellent detailed examination of this issue, please read the article below by JD King.
Why You've Been Duped Into Believing The Myth That The World Is Getting Worse and Worse

Why we can never allow "them" to be singled out.

After World War II, Pastor Martin Niemoller, who was imprisoned by the Nazis in 1937 and eventually confined at Dachau concentration camp, wrote about the failure of the German people, including himself, to speak up in defense of the "others".  His poignant words offer us a stark warning about letting society, whether that is the government or anyone else, label some people as "other" to be segregated, regulated, or otherwise cataloged.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Christians ought to be the first to raise their voices in protest when a minority group, whether they are citizens or not, are singled out for persecution.  In the political presidential primary currently underway in America, some candidates have proposed rounded up all members of a certain ethnic group to be expelled from the country, one has even floated the idea of a national database for one religious group so that the government can track them.  It should matter to you, not at all, as a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, that the ethnic group in question are Hispanics and the religious group being targeted are Muslims.  If you see them, whoever they are, as not equally deserving of rights and liberties as you are, you will one day regret your folly, even if this nation never persecutes "them" anywhere near as much as Niemoller's did, for you will have to answer for that attitude before Almighty God.  We are Christian by grace, not of our own worthiness, and we are American citizens because in God's kindness we were born (or able to move to) this great nation.  To treat either as something earned to lord over others is a sin of pride and a sin of lacking compassion.

There will be no national round-up of millions, and there will be no national database to track religion, we won't allow it, we will speak out, we have to, for our Savior has taught us compassion and mercy.