Atheists Attack Military from Afar
Atheists continue to attack the religious rights of U.S. military members, namely those wanting to freely exercise their observance of Christmas. Naval Support Activity (NSA) Bahrain has held an annual Christmas Tree lighting for years. This event has included the singing of carols, the presence of St. Nicholas, and the consumption of cookies and cocoa. It has also featured a live nativity, composed of base children and local animals. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers views “a Christmas tree, presents, some songs, and even Santa Claus as trappings of secular Christmas.” However, “Angels, nativity scenes, crosses, prayers, and carols focused explicitly on Christianity (e.g., Silent Night) cross the line into a religious devotion rather than a neutral, secular celebration.” The MAAF objected to the nativity program and filed an IG complaint. The complaint stated:
This [nativity] violates the Constitution and the mandates of the command to support all belief while privileging none. The event is billed as a ‘holiday’ event but it is nothing but a Christian activity…it is…clearly and exclusively biased toward Christianity. Also of concern is the likelihood that the predominantly Muslim local population will see the US military as a Christian force…This event threatens US security and violates the Constitution as well as command policy.
The Command Religious Program (CRP) – the Navy Chaplains – removed the living nativity program from the holiday festivities. Whether this was done under advisement from base leadership or if the Chaplains did so of their own volition is unclear. It does not appear an official order was given to remove the program.
If the U.S. Government – including a branch of the U.S. Military – took action against a group or event because of religious content, it would be a violation of policies guarding against discrimination based upon religion. The U.S. Constitution declares clearly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” When Americans of faith are intimidated by atheists threatening lawsuits, they need to remember the rights they have as citizens and stand for the freedoms they are granted in this nation. If they don’t, then brave troops who are right now in harm’s way for those very freedoms will have their own liberties taken away. The aggressive political maneuvering by groups like the MAAF has a direct, measurable and negative impact on troops.
Atheistic Assault Continues Against Military Members
Blake Page claims religion is the reason he resigned this past week from being a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy. Five months prior to graduation, Page asserted he felt discriminated against for being “non-religious.” The president of the West Point Secular Student Alliance (an affiliate of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers) and the Director of Military Religious Freedom Foundation Affairs at West Point declared in a vitriolic blog post:
While there are certainly numerous problems with the developmental program at West Point and all service academies, the tipping point of my decision to resign was the realization that countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times require sectarian religious participation. These transgressions are nearly always committed in the name of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.
Page asserts the U.S. Military Academy makes prayers mandatory, that cadets participating in religious activities receive preferential treatment and that officers in general display open disrespect for non-religious cadets. He wrote in his resignation letter, “I do not wish to be in any way associated with an institution which willfully disregards the Constitution of the United States of America by enforcing policies which run counter to the same.” School officials confirmed Page’s resignation was accepted and that he is being discharged honorably. Spokesman Francis DeMaro, Jr., however, stated the former cadet’s claim that prayer is mandatory is untrue. He said, “The Academy holds both official and public ceremonies where an invocation and benediction may be conducted, but prayer is voluntary. As officers, cadets will be responsible for soldiers who represent America’s great diversity in faith and ethnic background. The Academy provides cadets the opportunity to foster an understanding regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of all.”
The founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Mikey Weinstein, called Page’s resignation an act of great courage. He claimed, “We have the Christian Taliban running amok unchecked in the technologically most lethal organization ever recorded in human kind. There’s no problem except that we have a small document called the Constitution that separates state and religion.” Weinstein, however, commended West Point for providing Page with an honorable discharge and not punishing him for his actions. Not everyone views Page’s resignation as an act of courage. Charles Clymer, a former 2013 classmate who was forced to separate from the Academy due to medical reasons, wrote an open letter on the Secular Student Alliance’s Facebook page. Describing himself both as a Christian and an “aggressive, outspoken liberal,” Clymer noted his outspokenness regarding the “injustice of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, the limited career options of women who serve our country in uniform, and…a very broken system of addressing sexual assault at the Academy and in the Armed Forces in general (among other things).” In his address to Page, he relayed:
I’m angry and disappointed with you over this article, and I say that as someone who very much supports the separation of Church and State. I believe religion belongs in one’s private life, and apart from certain, limited allowances for those who have a faith they practice, government employees should never be given preferential treatment and upon such instances, leaders who allow that to happen should be counseled and/or punished. . . . I never, not even once, witnessed, heard about, or even thought it implied that non-religious cadets face discrimination of any kind at the Academy. I saw widespread homophobia and sexism but never any negative sentiment towards those cadets who identified as Atheist or Agnostic. In fact, the closest thing I ever observed that looked like a pro-Christian bias were the few cadets who believed Islam is evil, and that was a very small fraction of our class. The vast majority of Christian cadets treated non-Christian cadets with respect insofar as their beliefs are concerned. And I should again point out that I spent the better part of two years calling out homophobia and sexism when I saw it, and it wasn’t as though I was “known” for being a Christian in our class. I didn’t exactly spend my free time in Christian-based organizations or attend church services, regularly. I did sing in Gospel Choir for a few semesters but never heard any sort of anti-Atheist remarks during my participation with them. They treated everyone with respect, regardless of faith, gender, or sexuality. My point is that, try as I might, with all my stereotypical, sensitive liberal feelers in tune, I can’t remember ever seeing or hearing about negative experiences of Atheists, Agnostics, or other Non-Christians at the Academy. . . . As a person who prides myself on maintaining honesty in regards to how minorities (of any kind, including spiritual) are treated, I can say with confidence that are you are either blatantly lying or, at the very least, being incredibly misleading with how you represent the Academy’s religious environment.
Clymer noted Page’s poor performance as a cadet, having failed in multiple leadership positions. Page was facing separation from the Academy for medical reasons related to mental health, which likely contributed to his poor performance. He struggled at West Point following his father’s suicide. Diagnosed with clinical depression and anxiety, he was disqualified from being commissioned as an officer. He asked to resign rather than face separation, a proposition accepted by Academy officials. According to Clymer, Page “went behind their backs and claimed the resignation was done to protest Christian Fundamentalists at the Academy, which is a whole lot of bull$h!#.” Page responded by saying he was unconcerned about the perception of others. “That’s really fine. I am not trying to talk about myself. I am trying to talk about church and state.”
It appears, nonetheless, that Page’s actions are actually more about himself than about the separation of church and state. Press reports regarding his resignation have generally failed to note he was facing separation from West Point due to mental health related issues. Weinstein and others will cite this as one of the “countless” instances of “discrimination” against non-theists. The truth of the matter is that this vocal and aggressive minority seeks to overthrow the rights of theists by removing the free exercise of religion in public. They believe essentially that any public demonstration of faith should be deemed illegal – viewing people of faith (particularly evangelical Christians) as “criminals” and extremists (i.e., “Christian Taliban running amok unchecked”). It is time for theists to actively and prolifically defend their rights, rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
* * * * *
SOURCES:
Blake Page, “Why I Don’t Want to be a West Point Graduate”
Charles Clymer, “The Truth about Cadet Blake Page and Why West Point is Not Anti-Atheist”
Michael Hill, The Huffington Post, “Blake Page, West Point Cadet, Quits Military Academy Over Religion”
Billy Hallowell, The Blaze, “Atheist West Point Cadet Quits the Academy, Citing ‘Christian Proselytizing’ & ‘Criminal’ Constitutional Violations”
Moni Basu, CNN, “West Point Cadet Quits Over Religion”
Thanksgiving: A Presidential Proclamation
General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, October 14, 1789
Battle for the Military’s Soul
A recent article by James Dao in the New York Times reported that groups of atheists and secular humanists are “pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the [military] chaplaincy.” Dao notes, “Joining the chaplain corps is part of a broader campaign by atheists to win official acceptance in the military. Such recognition would make it easier for them to raise money and meet on military bases. It would help ensure that chaplains, religious or atheist, would distribute their literature, advertise their events and advocate for them with commanders.”
Jason Torpy, a former Army captain and president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, believes atheistic chaplains would be able to perform all the functions religious chaplains do, including counseling troops and helping them follow their faith traditions. He stated, “Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews. It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.” Torpy has requested to meet with every military branch’s chiefs of chaplains to discuss his proposal.
At Fort Bragg, NC, a group called Military Atheists and Secular Humanists (MASH), has asked the military to appoint an atheist lay leader at the post. MASH chapters at Fort Campbell, KY, and MacDill Air Force Base, FL, are planning on doing the same. They desire to have access to chapel sanctuaries and meeting rooms, and for lay leaders to lead “services” in lieu of chaplains. Atheist leaders acknowledge the contradiction of seeking the chaplaincy or receiving recognition from the chaplain corps, but they believe the imprimatur of the chaplaincy will alleviate the fears atheists have of being ostracized for their worldviews. They claim Christian beliefs pervade military culture, and create subtle pressures on non-Christians to convert. As an example, they point to the Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, which was created to help soldiers deal with stress and prevent suicide. The program assesses emotional, social, family, and spiritual well-being. Atheists erroneously claim the program is “rife with religious code words that suggest a deity or afterlife.” The Army rightly contends the program helps determine whether a soldier has “a strong set of beliefs, principles or values” that can sustain one through adversity, and that it does not gauge one’s religion.
Atheists also objected to an event held at Fort Bragg last autumn – “Rock the Fort.” Sponsored in part by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the event was overseen by the post chaplains with the approval of the post commander, Colonel Stephen Sicinski. Money and manpower were provided for the event, and was held on the parade grounds. Attendance at the event was voluntary, and the commander noted that the event was intended to boost morale and “bolster the faith.” In response, Sergeant Justin Griffith has recruited a star lineup of atheistic musicians and speakers, including Richard Dawkins, to headline “Rock Beyond Belief,” and requested the commander to provide similar resources for it. Colonel Sicinski has refused, saying the event will not draw enough people to justify the use of the parade grounds. He added that it would not be right to use money from religious tithes which came from chapel attendees, which helped finance Rock the Fort. Griffith has appealed.
Griffith is also considering becoming an atheist chaplain. He would first have to earn a college degree, then a graduate degree in theology, be ordained, spend two years in pastoral ministry, and be commissioned. He would also need to receive an ecclesiastical endorsement from a “qualified religious organization,” a role the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers hopes to fulfill.
Paul Vicalvi, executive director of the National Association of Evangelicals Chaplain Commission – the largest representative body of chaplains in the U.S. Armed Forces and Veterans Administration – is “puzzled” by the atheists’ request. Interviewed by Katherine T. Phan of The Christian Post, the retired Army chaplain with over 30 years of service, failed to see the logic behind it. He remarked, “Traditionally chaplains are seen as a person [sic] of a higher power faith. It would redefine the chaplaincy if a non-faith person becomes a chaplain.” Vicalvi noted troops with atheistic beliefs or values who seek care already have psychologists and counselors in the military, most with a secular humanist background. He also emphasized that chaplains are also required to provide emotional and spiritual care to all military personnel, including non-believers, pointing out, “Evangelical chaplains are taught to respect the faith or the lack of faith of anyone in the military. It’s not that we’re against people who don’t have faith or think they are lesser persons. We are there and we respect everyone. That is our fundamental teaching.” During his service as an Army chaplain, Vicalvi counseled fellow soldiers from a variety of backgrounds, including Wiccans. He rejected the characterization made by atheists that chaplains “push Christianity down people’s throats,” adding that if Christian-themed events are organized, they are not funded with appropriated monies, and attendance is always voluntary.
In Vicalvi’s opinion, “Humanism is a religion. It’s a basis of motivation, ethics, day-to-day decision making,” however, “It’s not a power beyond themselves, or higher power, but they do have a god and it’s man. Humanists would claim that they have the power within themselves to be whatever they want to be.” Ultimately, he views the atheists’ demands for chaplains as less about the needs of the troops, and more about a vocal minority of new atheists desiring to spread its anti-Christian movement from the public square into the military.
Book Review: ‘If God Is Good’
Not long ago WaterBrook Multnomah Books sent me a copy of If God Is Good: Faith in the Middle of Suffering and Evil for review. It is the first volume I’ve ever read from best-selling author Randy Alcorn, but after reading this book, Lord willing it will not be the last. The founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries presents an exceptionally well-written work addressing the nature of God’s absolute goodness, knowledge, and power in light of the existence of evil and suffering.
Alcorn launches the work by discussing the problems posed by evil and suffering in general, and then moves forward by providing a biblical explanation of their origins. He deals straightforwardly with the depraved fallen nature of human beings, and points masterfully to Jesus Christ as humanity’s only hope in a world filled with evil and suffering. The entire work, which is saturated with Scripture, is characterized by dealing boldly with the issues at hand and directing people constantly to Christ. This is one of the reasons I appreciate this book so much. As Alcorn continues, he poses problems for non-theists and tackles the arguments proposed by agnostics and atheists. He confronts the objections raised by the likes of Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins fearlessly. I believe this section will prove quite helpful to those who have been challenged particularly by the emotionally charged arguments of this trio.
Alcorn contends ably not only against non-theistic objections related to these issues, but also with unbiblical solutions proposed within the Church to answer these inquiries. He addresses the distortions of the “prosperity gospel,” the myth that Christians never suffer, and the “Christian” attempt to limit divine attributes to explain the issues at hand. Unlike many authors who contend against such unbiblical teachings, Alcorn never comes across as condescending. Rather, he counteracts these teachings in a manner found throughout the book – providing a foundational biblical theology with a sense of strong, compassionate pastoral care. He demonstrates how theology is interwoven; delving into important related areas such as the characteristics of God, free will, the existence of heaven and hell, and the nature of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Alcorn doesn’t flinch as he argues that God not only permits evil and suffering, but utilizes them for the good of human beings and for His own glory. The material presented isn’t ivory-tower theology presented merely for the sake of argument, but pastoral theology interlaced with real-life accounts of people who have been upheld by God’s grace during times of tremendous difficulty. Among the accounts, Alcorn includes the grave personal struggles he has faced.
The 492 pages of text may be intimidating to some, but they shouldn’t fear because this book is written in an easy-to-understand style with a general audience in mind. Anyone who picks up this volume will benefit from one of the very best works ever written on the subject. Randy Alcorn has masterfully written a piece which not only provides substantial support for believing in the existence of God, but also encourages Christians to persevere in the faith knowing that God is involved actively in the lives of His children – even as they suffer. I benefited greatly from reading If God Is Good, and trust you will as well. I give it my very highest recommendation.
* * * * *
Please consider scoring this review at Blogging for Books.
Alistair McGrath, Former Atheist
Alistair McGrath, a Christian theologian and apologist, holds both the DPhil in molecular biophysics and a Doctor of Divinity from Oxford. Noted for works in historical, systematic, and scientific theology, he is also a former atheist. Until recently, he served as Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, but is now occupies the chair of Theology, Religion and Culture at King’s College London. While he believes in evolution (a position with which I disagree), he promotes “scientific theology” and opposes “anti-religionism.” He has been critical of Richard Dawkins, noting the apologist of atheism is “embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology.” His work, The Dawkins Delusion?, is a response to Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and the two debated publicly on the topic, “Does religious belief damage the health of a society, or is it necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society?” Dr. McGrath was interviewed by Dawkins regarding his work, Dawkins’ God, and about faith in general for the documentary, The Root of All Evil?, though the interview was cut from final product. Nonetheless, the unedited footage is available online. In this interview on ‘The Hour’, Dr. McGrath discusses his opposition to “grumpy atheists,” and the need for civil discussion regarding different worldviews.
Islamists Claim ‘Christmas is Evil’
Islamists in Great Britain launched a nationwide campaign denouncing Christmas as evil. Thousands of placards were posted around the UK claiming the historic season of goodwill is responsible for sexually transmitted diseases, debt, rape, teenage pregnancies, abortion, paganism, domestic violence, homelessness, vandalism, alcohol and drugs. One of the other offenses of Christmas – “claiming God has a son.” The hope for Great Britain? The poster declares, “In Islam we are protected from all of these evils. We have marriage, family, honour, dignity, security, rights for man, woman and child.”
What the posters don’t reveal is that Islamic nations lead the world in the persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations. Nonetheless, organizers hope the campaign will “destroy Christmas” and lead British citizens to convert to Islam. Abu Rumaysah, who has called for Sharia Law in Great Britain, led the organization of the campaign. The 27-year-old Islamist declared he was unconcerned about offending Christians, stating, “Christmas is a lie and as Muslims it is our duty to attack it. But our main attack is on the fruits of Christmas, things like alcohol abuse and promiscuity that increase during Christmas and all the other evils these lead to such as abortion, domestic violence, and crime. We hope that our campaign will make people realize that Islam is the only way to avoid this and convert.”
Christine Frost, founder of the East London Neighbours in Poplar charity – a volunteer group which distributes food and presents to pensioners and the lonely at Christmas – remarked, “The more posters I saw, the more angry I got. Someone is stirring hatred which leaves the road open to revenge attacks or petrol bombs through letter-boxes. I told the Mayor we are all scared. If we said such things about Muslims, we’d all be hanging from lamp-posts.” With one in three British Muslim students believing that murder is justified on behalf of Islam, and 40% wanting Sharia Law enforced in the nation, her fears are not unfounded.
A Presidential Proclamation of Thanksgiving
General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, October 14, 1789
Praying for Cancellation
Pastor Terry Jones and the members of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, plan on burning 200 copies of the Quran this Saturday in order to protest the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Jones, author of Islam is of the Devil, informed CNN’s ‘American Morning’ show that the burning is designed to send a message to radical Islamists. The local fire department has denied a required burn permit, but the minister has vowed to press forward with the event nonetheless.
Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has warned that the event would be exploited by the Taliban, cause American forces to face greater danger, and endanger American efforts. Several hundred Muslims, mostly students, gathered outside Kabul’s Milad ul-Nabi mosque on Monday to protest the congregation’s planned event. Wahidullah Nori declared, “We call on America to stop desecrating our Holy Quran!” while the crowd chanted, “Death to America!” Jones, who has received over 100 death threats himself, stated, “We are weighing the thing that we are about to do. What it possibly could cause, what is our actual message, what are we trying to get across?”
The message that Jones and Dove World Outreach will send to Muslims worldwide is one of disrespect. For those who say they are concerned with Islam, particularly radical Islam, burning Qurans will simply fan the flames of fanaticism and violence. I’m sure that Pastor Jones felt a sense of grief when Islamists showed contempt for Christians by burning Bibles and destroying crosses. Rather than acting in similar fashion, the members of Dove World Outreach would do well to heed the words of the Lord Jesus Christ:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
- Gospel of St. Matthew 5:43-48
I, for one, pray the event will be canceled, and hope a more constructive event will take its place.
UPDATE: On Sept. 9, 2010, Pastor Jones and the folks at Dove World Outreach decided to cancel the event. I’m thankful.
Three Things About Islam
This is a provocative piece regarding Islam. Some may classify this as an “Islamophobic” video, while others may classify it as a reason for alarm. You decide, and as the video encourages, study the subject for yourself.
Interestingly enough, this article about “Moderate Islam” appeared in The National Review yesterday.
Administration’s Stance on Religious Freedom Softens
The 11th annual report by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom declared Barack Obama is softening his administration’s stance on religious freedom despite the fact that religious persecution is on the rise. His recent call for nations to respect “freedom of worship” rather than “religious freedom” permits regimes to claim they are not oppressing particular religions if those religions exist in a form acceptable to the state. According to Leonard Leo, chairman of the commission, the signal being sent to the international community is that as long as a regime will “prop up a few churches or houses of worship (of minority faiths), there isn’t going to be a problem.” Steven Groves, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, stated the change in phrase raises a question regarding the administration’s commitment to confront regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, particularly in Iraq and Iran where minority Christian and Muslim sects have been oppressed and attacked. “The term religious freedom carries with it a certain understanding in the international community that is a much broader right than the freedom of worship,” said Groves. The report also criticized the Obama administration for failing to nominate an ambassador at-large for religious freedom. The ambassador-at-large post, which falls under the State Department, is a requirement of a 1998 law that mandates religious freedom as an aim of U.S. diplomacy.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was established to monitor religious freedom and to issue an annual report on U.S. efforts in that area. Commission members are appointed by Congress and the White House. They recommend which nations should be named “countries of particular concern” (CPCs) for severe violations of religious freedom, and suggest appropriate penalties for such violations. Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, and North Korea are among the nations already named as CPCs by the State Department. The CPC label requires the administration to consider sanctions against the designated nations. The annual report also heavily criticizes U.S.-supported nations, such as Iraq and Pakistan, for failing to protect members of minority faith groups from discrimination and violence.
Theology on Thursday
I generally disagree with 99% of the things articulated by atheist and anti-theist Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens’ 2007 book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, has made him the nation’s most notorious atheist. Renowned as a political columnist for Vanity Fair, Slate, and other publications, his manifesto against religion has earned him debates across the nation. As a precursor to his January 5th appearance at the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall, Portland Monthly invited Hitchens to a conversation with a liberal theist—Marilyn Sewell, the recently retired minister of the First Unitarian Church of Portland, Oregon. A former teacher, psychotherapist and author of several works, Ms. Sewell led Portland’s Unitarian group for over 17 years and helped it to become one of the largest in the United States. This edition of Theology on Thursday includes a brief portion of that interview. Ms. Sewell stated and inquired:
The religion you cite in your books is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make a distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Hitchens replied:
I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
I agree strongly with this statement from Hitchens. If you don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, died upon a cross for our sins, and rose again from the dead, you’re not really a Christian in any meaningful sense.
HT: Scot McKnight
Sharia Recruitment in the United States
It was reported that Turkish special forces detained approximately 200 suspected members of the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir group today (July 24, 2008) in simultaneous raids spread across 23 Turkish provinces. Hizb ut-Tahrir, founded in Palestine in 1953 to promote the establishment of a pan-Islamic state, is outlawed as a religious extremist group in Turkey and many other nations. The group focuses upon indoctrinating young people in an ideology calling for the formation of an empire (Caliphate) governed according to Islamic law (Sharia) and condoning any means necessary to achieve that purpose, including militant jihad. The U.S. Government, however, does not consider the Islamist group a terrorist organization despite the fact alumni of the group include 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the late Iraqui terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi. Approximately 300 members of the group met in Chicago this past week for a Khalifah conference entitled, “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam.”
Conference ideologues blamed capitalism for both world wars, the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown, world poverty, malnutrition, and inner-city drug use. One of the speakers, Abu Atallah, even blamed capitalism for the late Michael Jackson’s decision “to shed his black skin.” Another speaker declared, “Secular capitalism has made me devalue my skin” and “kept my family in ghettos.” He blamed his own smoking of marijuana and his grandmother’s playing of the lottery on capitalism as well. He added that capitalism is a form of “economic terrorism” and “causes us to be sent to mental hospitals.” According to Hizb ut-Tahrir, the world’s social and economic problems will only be fixed when an Islamic world government institutes Sharia law and controls all major industries.
Last Sunday, when some in attendance pressed Hizb ut-Tahrir officials about the behavior of despotic Islamic regimes and their relation to terrorists, the conference speakers downplayed those associations. When pressed further over the fact that Islamic governments in Saudi Arabia and Iran are despotic, the speakers claimed those nations aren’t “authentic” Islamic governments adn that the CIA was to blame for problems in those nations. In an interview with WBBM-TV in Chicago, Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Mohammad Malkawi refused to condemn Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Imam Jaleel Abdul Adil, another conference speakers, declared, “if they offer us the sun, or the moon, or a nice raise, or a passport, or a house in the suburbs or even a place to pray at the job, on the condition that we stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life – we should never do that, ever do that – unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt.” (view clip here) Later, during a dialogue between the imam and a member of the audience regarding whether Sharia Law or the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land in the United States, the Imam replied he would eliminate the Constitution. (view clip here)
The American-Islamic Forum for Democracy is the only Islamic group who issued a statement issued a statement in advance of the conference condemning Hizb ut-Tahrir’s radical ideology and challenged others to follow suit. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, stated, “Hizb ut-Tahrir preaches an ideology that calls for the destruction of the principles that America is founded on. While their words are protected by our First Amendment, their actions and movement must not be allowed to take hold. The silence of American Islamist organizations like [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] CAIR and [the Islamic Society of North America] ISNA in condemning the ideologies of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their agenda of insurgency in America speaks volumes to their own, albeit, more camouflaged Islamist agenda.”
Make no mistake, Hizb ut-Tahrir exists to destroy the West, including the American way of life with its liberties.
Sharia Education in the United States
As reported by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune last year (2008), the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA) and the Minnesota Department of Education quarreled over whether or not Islam is being promoted at this public school. TiZA is a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights, financed by taxpayers. Several facts raise concerns about TiZA in regard to promoting Islam. Its executive director, Asad Zaman, is an imam (Islamic religious leader). The school shares a building with a mosque and the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society. The MAS has been described by the Chicago Tribune as the American Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – “the world’s most influential Islamic fundamentalist group.” Most of the students at TiZA are from low-income immigrant Islamic families. The school breaks daily for prayer, its cafeteria serves halal food, and Arabic is a required subject. School busses do not leave until after-school Muslim Studies classes have concluded.
Last spring, the MDE opened an investigation after press reports raised questions about whether TiZA has blurred the church-state boundary. The investigation focused upon the school’s 30-minute Friday communal prayer observance, among other things. The service, led by adults, has been conducted on school premises with both teachers and students in attendance. In a report issued in May 2008, the MDE concluded the prayer service violated the law. According to Deputy MDE Commissioner Chas Anderson, the MDE “wanted TiZA to DO Friday prayers the way all other public schools” handle similar activities, “as release time, under state law.” With such an arrangement, students are able to move off-site for religious activities. TiZA refused, citing “student safety” concerns, and has continued to hold prayer meetings on Fridays. Asked to respond to MDE’s continuing concerns, the school issued a statement through spokesman Blois Olson, stating, “TiZA Academy has reached agreement with the Department of Education … and will continue to work with the department to ensure that we continue to be in compliance with all state and federal laws.”
When asked if other public schools would be allowed to accommodate religion the way that TiZA accommodates Islam, Anderson replied, “We sought guidance, we want guidance” from federal sources and the Minnesota attorney general, “but no one will give us a black and white answer.” MDE says there are broader questions at issue. “This upcoming legislative session may be an appropriate forum” for “a serious discussion about the appropriateness of sectarian organizations sponsoring publicly-funded nonsectarian charter schools in the first place. For now, Anderson added, “This is a gray area. School authorities at TiZA know it’s a gray area, and they are walking right up to and over that line.”
Sharia in the United States
If you think Islam in the U.S. is about openness and cooperation, think again…
HT: Preaching Today
Theology on Thursday
One of my all-time favorite movies is the 1981 Paramount feature, Raiders of the Lost Ark. The hero of the film, Indiana Jones, is an adventurer and professor of archaeology. While lecturing, he quips to his students, “Archaeology is about facts, not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is down the hall.” There exists a contemporary myth which asserts scientists are concerned only with facts while philosophers and theologians are preoccupied with meaning. As a theologian, I am obviously a theist – one who believes in the existence of a transcendent, eternal divine being who is the ultimate origin of the universe. As such, I am decidedly not a naturalist – one who believes that blind chance and natural causes alone are sufficient to explain everything that exists. Theism and naturalism are competing worldviews which are unable to concede any ground to the other. As science historian William B. Provine of Cornell University, an avowed atheist and staunch evolutionist, has rightly observed, if naturalism (e.g., Darwinism) is true as he contends, then there is absolutely no ground for theism, no absolute foundation for morality, no ultimate meaning of life, and no free will [“Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics” in Science, Technology, and Social Progress (Research in Technology Studies), ed. Steven L. Goldman (Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press; London; Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1989), 253-67].
Naturalists (e.g., Darwinists) claim all scientists of their bent are purely objective, simply collecting evidence from the natural world and comparing theories an on ongoing basis without bias. They declare religious explanations for the order of the universe are not science because they are based subjectively upon faith and are not subject to objective analysis. While it is true that religion is based upon faith, it is untrue that faith remains untouched by evidence or reason, or that Naturalists themselves are purely objective in their approach. With claims of neutrality and absolute scientific proof, naturalism holds sway over the thinking of contemporary culture. This was evidenced by the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Edwards v. Aguillard) which claimed views affirming divine creation are not science and therefore cannot be taught in public schools as an alternative theory to naturalistic evolution. Views related to creation were said to belong to the realms of religion, philosophy, and history. More recently, in 2005, District Judge John E. Jones III ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that intelligent design is not science and “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” He claimed the school district’s promotion of intelligent design therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In 2007, the Council of Europe’s Committee on Culture, Science and Education issued a report entitled, “The Dangers of Creationism in Education”, which states, “Creationism in any of its forms, such as ‘intelligent design’, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.’” The report describes intelligent design as “anti-science” involving “blatant scientific fraud.” The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution declaring schools should “resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion”, including intelligent design. It is disturbing that leaders in the realms of government have failed to comprehend a major factor in their determinations, namely, that naturalism is not strictly science, but the Weltanschauung of Darwinists.
One’s Weltanschauung, or worldview, is the overall perspective from which an individual or group views and interprets life in this world and which directs that individual’s or group’s daily decisions and actions. The elements of one’s worldview, one’s fundamental beliefs about certain aspects of reality, are:
epistemology – beliefs regarding the nature and sources of knowledge;
cosmology – beliefs regarding the origins and nature of the universe, life, and humanity;
teleology – beliefs regarding the meaning and purpose of the universe, its inanimate elements, and its inhabitants;
metaphysics – beliefs regarding the nature of reality;
anthropology – beliefs regarding the nature and purpose of humanity in general and oneself in particular;
theology – beliefs regarding the existence and nature of God;
axiology – beliefs regarding the nature of value, what is good and bad, right and wrong.
Bringing these elements to bear, every worldview can be analyzed by its answers to three essential questions:
1) What is the origin (and therefore meaning) of life?
2) Why is there moral chaos in the world?
3) How can, and why should, moral chaos be remedied?
Christianity answers these questions by affirming that God created the world, that life is meant to be lived in subjection to His will; that there is moral chaos in this world as a result of humanity’s rebellion against God’s will; and that the only remedy for moral chaos is the redemptive work of the triune God through Christ Jesus. The basis for this worldview is divine revelation – Holy Scripture (the Bible).
Naturalism asserts the world is a closed, autonomous system with no supernatural intervention. Life exists as a result of blind chance, therefore there is no real meaning of life. Any meaning of life is simply arbitrary. Human life, according to the Darwinist, is no qualitatively different than animal life. Because of this, there is no basis for distinguishing between human life and animals. This means, practically, that “superior” human beings, who have evolved through rigid determinism, have the right to treat non-human animals and “inferior” human beings with indifference or even cruelty. Naturalism perceives humanity’s problem as simply having too much influence retained from his animal past (e.g., aggression, violence). The solution to solving animal retention within human beings is to simply provide education or behavioral alteration in some other form. For the consistent naturalist, there is absolutely no basis for morality. Emphasis is placed on survival of the fittest. What is not fit may be destroyed to make way for that which is superior. It was this worldview which led to the murder of millions in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Naturalism, which dominates secular society, has long distinguished between fact and truth, science and religion, objective knowledge and subjective feeling. Evangelicals have largely fallen prey to this worldview, erroneously subjecting themselves to thinking Christianity is little more than a subjective experience – emphasizing personal decision and religious commitment – rather than comprehending that Christianity is itself a worldview. Everything which exists has come into being as a result of divine action. This means every sphere of thought and activity, not just the religious and spiritual, is to be brought under the Lordship of Christ. Ethics, economics, ecology, philosophy, logic, the arts and sciences, are all subject to Him. Genuine knowledge within these realms means investigating and discerning the ways and God has ordered these matters and utilizing them for His glory. The Christian faith cannot be reduced to a simple formula and restricted to a mere portion of our lives. Our faith must touch everything we see, hear, touch, think, and do, because God is our ultimate reality.
Theology on Thursday
As a Christian, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…
…and I do not believe such belief is irrational, illogical, or unscientific.
Egyptian Court Fails to Uphold Religious Liberty
Maher, a Christian in Egypt who comes from a Muslim background, is currently involved in a legal battle to officially change his and his daughter’s religious registrations from Islam to Christianity. This past Saturday, June 13, the Egyptian court ruled against his petition. Human rights advocates present at the trial stated the petition failed on both procedural and substantive grounds. On substantive grounds, the certificate of conversion obtained by Maher from a Coptic priest was invalid because it was not certified by the Coptic Orthodox Church. In regard to procedural matters, while Egypt’s Civil Code provides the process for amending identity cards, the process requires submission of legal documents substantiating the need for any such amendment. Under Sharia Law, there is no legal concept of conversion from Islam to another religion. Therefore, in the Islamic dominated society, there is no organization to provide Maher with necessary documentation for the procedure. The judge in the case accepted a State Council report declaring the conversion of a Muslim to another faith violates Islamic law and poses a threat to public order. One of the attorneys representing Maher stated this report fails to recognize both the Civil Code provisions and Egypt’s commitments to international law to uphold religious liberty. Maher’s legal team is preparing to appeal the ruling.
Christians in Egypt are requesting prayer for the following:
- For Maher and his daughter to sense the presence and experience the peace of Christ every day.
- For all parties involved with the case to act with integrity.
- For Maher’s attorneys to be strengthened by God’s grace and endowed with wisdom.
- For the appeal to ultimately be successful and positively impact other converts from Islam.
- For officials in the case to hear the claims of Christ Jesus and be drawn to Him savingly.
“Religion of Peace” Strikes Little Rock
According to police, Abdulhakim Muhammad, a Muslim convert, targeted American soldiers outside a suburban Little Rock, Arkansas, recruiting office in order to “kill as many people in the Army as he could.” Muhammad murdered Pvt. William Long, 23, and wounded Pvt. Quinton I. Ezeagwula, 18. The two soldiers completed basic training recently and had volunteered to help in recruiting efforts. Pvt. Ezegwula will likely be transferred to a military hospital for continued treatment, while the Army will provide a military funeral for Pvt. Long.
In documents released yesterday (June 2, 2009), authorities reported recovering Molotov cocktails, several guns (including an SKS assault rifle believed to be used in the shootings), home-made silencers, ammunition, a plastic tub filled with bottled water and food, and compact discs with Arabic writing on them from the Islamist’s pickup truck. Search warrant affidavits reveal police also recovered weapons and ammunition caches from his apartment. Muhammad told investigators he would have killed more soldiers if they had been in the parking lot and that his motive was revenge “because of what they had done to Muslims in the past.”
Muhammad, formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe, has been under investigation by an FBI-led terrorism task force since returning from Yemen last year. At one point he was arrested and jailed in Yemen for using a Somali passport. Muhammad moved to Little Rock this spring and has been working for his father, Melvin Bledsoe, as a tour bus company driver.
The ‘Religion of Peace’ continues to seem an inappropriate title. If this is an aberration of Islamic theology and ethics, then Muslims across the globe need to speak out against this murder and attempted murder.
A Presidential Prayer
Upon entering office as the first President of the United States, embarking on what would be eight years of service to our nation as the Chief Executive of the nation, George Washington prayed the following public prayer on April 30, 1789:
Almighty God,
We make our earnest prayer -
that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection,
- that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination
and obedience to government;
- and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another
and for their fellow citizens of the United States of America at large.
And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all
- to do justice, – to love mercy and – to demean ourselves
with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind
which were the characteristics of The Divine Author of our blessed religion,
and without whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.
Grant our supplication, we beseech thee, through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen
Theology on Thursday
This past Sunday I led Chapel congregants in the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed. Those gathered each confessed, “I believe in the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints.” I’m not sure how many congregations across the country did the same, but I’m doubtful that it was many. Contemporary Americans, including those who call themselves Christians, are generally cynical when it comes to institutions – an outlook which has impacted our comprehension of the Church in a negative manner. All too often people make statements about liking Christ but not Christians, or wanting a relationship with God apart from organized religion.
To be brutally honest, the visible church in North America appears worldly and weak. Televangelists, with their abhorrent anthropocentric theology and perverse avarice, are often perceived erroneously as spokespersons for the church at large. Winning grins and shallow slogan provide comfort to those whose faith is too superficial to endure solid exposition regarding sanctification and suffering. Popular works of fiction are hailed as “the next best thing to Scripture” despite their unscriptural content. Novelists, whether their topic is demonology, eschatology, or even God Himself, are considered authorities in the realm of theology while systematic theologians are often denounced as focusing too much upon “man-made systems.” Democratic individualism, which has much to do with the culture and little or nothing to do with Scripture, permeates everything from altar calls to business meetings. It is no wonder many people are so discouraged with the congregational life they witness, since many congregations are focused upon entertaining the masses rather than carrying out the tasks delineated within Holy Writ. As Spurgeon put it, they are “amusing the goats rather than feeding the sheep.”
Nonetheless, the Christian must never forget that the Church is the family of God, the body and bride of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Revelation 19:7), and the residence of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:19-21). Those within her walls who denounce and belittle her do so at their own peril, for they speak against her Groom (Acts 9:4). At this time, the visible church is mixed with wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30) and Christ is sanctifying His bride so that she will be without blemish and without spot (Ephesians 5:25-27). That reality should make us pause, careful to speak about the Church and her present condition. Contemplate the Church with me and consider these words from the Early Church Fathers:
“As long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints. Of these, some are not now recognized; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramental badge they wear. These men you may today see thronging the churches with us, tomorrow crowding the theatres with the godless.”
- Augustine
“The spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her.”
- Ignatius
“He cannot posses the robe of Christ who rends and divides the Church of Christ.”
- Cyprian
“Make no mistake about it. If anyone is not inside the sanctuary, he lacks God’s bread.”
- Ignatius
“The unity of the Church is proved by the mutuality of the greetings of peace, by the use of the name ‘brother,’ and by mutual hospitality.”
- Tertullian
“If anyone outside the ark of Noah was able to escape, then perhaps someone outside the pale of the Church may escape.”
- Cyprian
“Let us love our Lord God, let us love His Church; Him as a Father, her as a Mother.”
- Augustine
“He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.”
- Cyprian
“…You would receive unity which you do not have, you would receive peace which you do not have. But if you regard these things as nothing, then fight, you deserter, fight against your Commander who says, ‘He that gathereth not with Me, scattereth.’ Fight, then, against His apostle, yes, even against Him who speaks through him when he says, ‘Supporting one another in charity, careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’”
- Augustine
Theology on Thursday
John Charles Ryle (1816 – 1900) was educated at Eton and also at Christ Church, Oxford, where he was the Craven Scholar in 1836. He served as a parish minister for St. Thomas in Winchester, Helminghham in Suffolk, and later at Stradbrooke, also in Suffolk. Later he was appointed as the first Anglican bishop of Liverpool, England. He remained in Liverpool until his resignation, just three months prior to his death. A critic of Ritualism, Ryle was a staunch evangelical. Ryle was not only an exemplary preacher and pastor, but also a prolific author. Some of his most well-known writings are Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (7 vols), and Principles for Churchmen. A leader of the evangelical party in the Church of England, he was noted mainly for his doctrinal essays and polemical works. Ryle’s vigorous advocacy for evangelical doctrine was mixed with graciousness and warmth. Baker reprinted several of his writings in The New Birth (1977). It is within this book which he discusses “The Cross”, expounding the Apostle Paul’s words from Galatians 6:14, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is found, in part, in today’s edition of Theology on Thursday:
“Now what did Paul mean by saying this? He meant to declare strongly, that he trusted in nothing but Jesus Christ crucified, for the pardon of his sins and the salvation of his soul. . . . . For his part the apostle determined to rest on nothing, lean on nothing, build his hope on nothing, place confidence in nothing, glory in nothing, except the ‘Cross of Jesus Christ.’. . . .
He never gloried in his own works. None ever worked so hard for God as he did. He was more abundant in labours than any of the Apostles. No living man ever preached so much, traveled so much, and endured so many hardships for Christ’s cause. None ever converted so many souls, did so much good to the world, and made himself so useful to mankind. No father of the early Church, no reformer, no puritan, no missionary, no minister, no layman,–no one man could ever be named, who did so many good works as the apostle Paul. But did he ever glory in them, as if they were in the least meritorious, and could save his soul? Never! Never for one moment!
He never gloried in his knowledge. . . . He was a mighty preacher, and a mighty speaker, and a mighty writer. He was as great with his pen as he was with his tongue. He could reason equally with Jews and Gentiles. He could argue with infidels at Corinth, or Pharisees at Jerusalem, or self-righteous people in Galatia. He knew many deep things. He had been in the third heaven, and heard unspeakable words. He had received the spirit of prophecy, and could foretell things yet to come. But did he ever glory in his knowledge, as if it could justify him before God? Never! Never! Never for one moment!
He never gloried in his graces. . . . He was full of love. How tenderly and affectionately he used to write! He could feel for souls like a mother or a nurse feeling for her child. He was a bold man. He cared not whom he opposed when truth was at stake. He cared not what risks he ran when souls were to be won. He was a self-denying man,—in hunger and thirst often, in cold and nakedness, in watchings and fastings. He was a humble man. He thought himself less than the least of all saints, and the chief of sinners. He was a prayerful man. . . . He was a thankful man. . . . But he never gloried in all this, never valued himself on it, never rested his soul’s hopes on it. Oh, no! Never for a moment!
He never gloried in his Churchmanship. . . . He was himself a chosen apostle. He was a founder of Churches, and an ordainer of ministers. Timothy and Titus, and many elders, received their first commission from his hands. He was the beginner of services and sacraments in many a dark place. . . . But did he ever glory in his office and Church standing? Does he ever speak as if his Churchmanship would save him, justify him, put away his sins, and make him acceptable before God? Oh, no, never! Never for a moment!
Who is there that is valuing himself on his baptism, or his attendance at the Lord’s table,—his church-going on Sundays, or his daily services during the week,—and saying to himself, What lack I yet? Learn, I say, this day, that you are very unlike Paul. Your Christianity is not the Christianity of the New Testament. Paul would not glory in anything but the cross. Neither ought you. . . .
The cross…means…the doctrine that Christ died for sinners upon the cross,—the atonement that He made for sinners, by His suffering for them on the cross,—the complete and perfect sacrifice for sin which He offered up, when He gave His own body to be crucified. In short, this one word, ‘the Cross,’ stands for Christ crucified, the only Saviour. This is the meaning in which Paul uses the expression, when he tells the Corinthians, ‘the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.’ (1 Cor. i. 18.) This is the meaning in which he wrote to the Galatians, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross.’ He simply meant, ‘I glory in nothing but Christ crucified, as the salvation of my soul.’ . . .
This is the subject he loved to preach about. He was a man who went to and fro on the earth, proclaiming to sinners that the Son of God had shed His own heart’s blood to save their souls. He walked up and down the world, telling people that Jesus Christ had loved them, and died for their sins upon the Cross. . . .
You may rest assured that Paul was right. Depend upon it, the Cross of Christ,—the death of Christ on the cross to make atonement for sinners,—is the centre truth in the whole Bible. This is the truth we begin with when we open Genesis. The seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head is nothing else but a prophecy of Christ crucified. This is the truth that shines out, though veiled, all through the law of Moses and the history of the Jews. The daily sacrifice, the Passover lamb, the continual shedding of blood in the tabernacle and temple,—all these were emblems of Christ crucified. . . . Take away the Cross of Christ, and the Bible is a dark book. It is like Egyptian hieroglyphics, without the key that interprets their meaning,—curious and wonderful, but of no real use. . . .
You may know a good deal about Christ, by a kind of head knowledge. You may know who He was, and where He was born, and what He did. You may know His miracles, His sayings, His prophecies, and His ordinances. You may know how He lived, and how He suffered, and how He died. But unless you know the power of Christ’s Cross by experience,—unless you know and feel within that the blood shed on that cross has washed away your own particular sins,—unless you are willing to confess that your salvation depends entirely on the work that Christ did upon the Cross,—unless this be the case, Christ will profit you nothing. The mere knowing Christ’s name will never save you. You must know His Cross, and His blood, or else you will die in your sins. . . .
Whenever a Church keeps back Christ crucified, or puts anything whatever in that foremost place which Christ crucified should always have, from that moment a Church ceases to be useful. Without Christ crucified in its pulpits, a Church is little better that a cumberer of the ground, a dead carcass, a well without water, a barren fig tree, a sleeping watchman, a silent trumpet, a dumb witness, an ambassador without terms of peace, a messenger without tidings, a lighthouse without a fire, a stumbling-block to weak believers, a comfort to infidels, a hot-bed for formalism, a joy to the devil, and an offence to God.
The Cross is the grand centre of union among true Christians. Our outward differences are many, without doubt. One man is an Episcopalian, another is a Presbyterian,—one is and Independent, another a Baptist,—one is a Calvinist, another an Arminian,—one is a Lutheran, another a Plymouth Brother,—one is a friend to establishments, another a friend to the voluntary system,—one is friend to liturgies, another a friend to extempore prayer. But, after all, what shall we hear about most of these differences in heaven? Nothing most probably: nothing at all. Does a man really and sincerely glory in the Cross of Christ? This is the grand question. If he does, he is my brother: —we are traveling on the same road. We are journeying towards a home where Christ is all, and everything outward in religion will be forgotten. But if he does not glory in the Cross of Christ, I cannot feel comfort about him. Union on outward points only is union only for time.—Union about the Cross is union for eternity. . . . Union about outward points is mere man-made union.—Union about the Cross of Christ can only be produced by the Holy Ghost.”
Theology on Thursday
Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was perhaps the greatest preacher in the English speaking world in the twentieth century. Dr. Lloyd-Jones served as the pastor of Westminster Chapel in London for 25 years and preached extensively throughout England and the United States. During the autumn of 1963, “The Doctor” preached a series at Westminster Chapel on Galatians 6:14 – “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me and I unto the world.” That series has been put into print as The Cross: God’s Way of Salvation (Crossway, 1986). In The Cross, Dr. Lloyd-Jones explains how the crucifixion of Jesus Christ works for our redemption, and why this event is the cornerstone of the Christian life. His opening sermon in the series is entitled “The Wondrous Cross”. Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday is taken from that sermon.
Life is a matter of sowing and reaping, and what a man sows that shall he also reap. There are certain moral laws in operation in this world which are absolute. All of us are responsible beings, and we shall all die and stand before God in judgment and give account of the deeds done in the body. And our eternal destiny will depend upon what we have done in this life and in this world. Life therefore is a tremendous matter. It is the most serious thing conceivable, because what we get in this life and what we will get through all eternity depends upon whether we sow to the flesh or whether we sow to the Spirit.
Very well then, the most important thing to discover in this world is—how does one sow to the Spirit? How am I to live that I shall reap the blessings of joy and happiness and peace in this world and in the world to come for ever and ever? That is the question, but unfortunately, as the Apostle goes on to point out, and as indeed he has been indicating in the whole of his epistle, that question, that problem, has become somewhat confused, because there are false teachers. . . . There are contradictory voices going out in the name of the Christian church. They all say they are Christians, all claim to belong to the Christian church, but they are saying things that are diametrically opposed to one another. . . .
What then is the true message? What is the Christian gospel? . . . How can a man be right with God? How can I sow to the Spirit? . . . What have I got to do in this life and in this world which will render me immune to what may happen round and about me, which would enable me to smile in the face of death, which already assures me that I have nothing to fear when I come to the judgment of God, and which guarantees me everlasting and eternal bliss in the glory indescribable? . . . Here, very fortunately for us, the great apostle answers the question. He puts it in this glorious and tremendous statement, ‘God forbid that I should glory…’ the thing is unthinkable, he says, that I should glory in anything ‘…save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world.’ . . .
The preaching of the cross, the preaching of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on that cross is the very heart and centre of the Christian gospel and the Christian message. . . . The preaching of the cross has never been popular. . . . The preaching of the cross of Christ has always led to persecution. . . . It has always been offensive to people. . . . Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that it was not liked and that it was thoroughly unpopular, this was the very thing that all the apostles preached. They went on preaching and eventually suffered martyrdom and death because they persisted in doing so. . . .
What is the message of the Christian gospel, and of the Christian church? . . . It is not primarily the teaching of our Lord. I say that, of course, because there are so many today who think that this is Christianity. . . . ‘What the world needs today,’ they say, ‘is a dose of the Sermon on the Mount. A dose of his ethical teaching. We must preach this to people and teach them how to live.’ But according to the Apostle Paul, that is not their first need. And I will go further. If you only preach the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, not only do you not solve the problem of mankind, in a sense you even aggravate it. You are preaching nothing but utter condemnation, because nobody can ever carry it out. . . .
It was not the teaching of Christ, nor the example of Christ either. ‘What is the message of Christianity? The imitation of Christ. Read the gospels,’ they say, ‘and see how he lived. That is the way we all ought to live, so let us decide to do so.’ . . . I say once more that that is not the centre and the heart of the Christian message. That comes into it, but not at the beginning. It is not the first thing, it is not the thing the apostles preached initially, neither was it our Lord’s example. What they preached was his death upon the cross, and the meaning of that event. . . .
What, then, do you find when you examine the Book? You find that the cross was there at the centre of our Lord’s own teaching. . . . Now you see after this great confession of Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God [Matthew 16:13-18], the Lord immediately introduces them to his death, and they cannot take it [Matthew 16:21-23]. . . . And then of course you have other statements. There is the great statement recorded in all the Gospels wher the Lord turned to these same men and said, You have got to rethink the whole matter. I am a king. I have a kingdom, but it is not like the kingdom of men, nor is it like all the other kingdoms in this world. In this world great men are served by others. But I came amongst you as one who ministers. ‘For the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many’ (Mt. 20:28). And then there is the last supper. . . . This, he says, is my giving myself, my body to be broken, my blood to be shed for you. Well, there it is, plainly and clearly and simply in his teaching. . . .
Read the four Gospels and calculate, in terms of proportion, the amount of space given to our Lord’s death. . . . Why this prominence? It is because it is the crucial and the central matter. . . . And then you come on to the epistles. I could, by just quoting scriptures to you, prove that this is the central message of the Christian gospel. . . . Blood, the blood of the cross. This is the great theme of all these epistles. . . . This was the centre of the message, how that Christ died for our sins. Paul preached it everywhere. . . .
What right have you or anybody else, what right has any ecclesiastic, to get up and pour his scorn upon the blood of Christ, and to say the cross does not matter, that it is the teaching we want, or that it is the imitation of the person that we need? The whole of the New Testament is proclaiming the blood of Christ, the death of Christ upon the cross, on Calvary. It is the heart and centre of the Christian evangel, the good news of salvation.
And finally, if you want further evidence, consider the Communion table, with the plates of broken bread, and the glasses holding wine. Bread and wine, what do they signify? There is only one answer: ‘I have received of the Lord,’ says Paul, ‘that which also I delivered unto you…’ (1 Cor. 11:23). It is the command of the Son of God himself. The one who instituted the Last Supper, who had it with his own followers the night before he was crucified. Go on doing this, he said, let my people go on doing it always. Let them come and break bread and drink wine. ‘This do in remembrance of me.’ And we Christians do this as the Apostle instructs us, that we may declare, proclaim, preach and announce, the Lord’s death, till he come. Not his teaching, not his example primarily, but his death. And one of the sacraments has been ordained in order that we might never forget. . . .
[Paul] preached the cross because it is the cross that really does this thing that sets us free, and gives us our salvation. . . . The death of our Lord upon the cross was not an accident, it was not the greatest tragedy of all time, neither was it something that you and I must imitate. . . . The cross, the death of our Lord upon the cross, is not something to be regretted. It is not something to be explained away. Nor is it something to be kept out of sight or hidden. . . . So you do not regret the cross, and you do not try to forget it or idealize it, or philosophize about it, and turn it into something beautiful and wonderful. No, what you say is this: I glory in it! Why? Because it is by this that ‘the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.’ It is the means of my salvation. It is the very way in which I am saved. . . .
If he had not died upon the cross, nobody would ever have been saved. There would be no gospel to preach. It is the saving event. It is the act whereby our salvation is accomplished. . . . So the cross is the centre of apostolic preaching because it is the thing that saves us. It does not ask us to save ourselves, it does not tell us to do something that will save us, it says it is done, it has happened, it was happening there. That is the gospel. There is the event which saves us. It is a saving event, that is why he glories in it and that is why he preached it.
That in turn leads me to the next principle which is, ‘How does this cross save us?’. . . Any man who is saved, is saved by the cross, and to be saved means that your sins are forgiven, that you are reconciled to God. You become a child of God, and you begin to receive this blessing. You have no fear of death or the grave and the judgment. You know you are going to inherit glory. . . .
My friends, the Son of God is there dying on the cross because he came from heaven into this world in order to die. . . . He came to give his life a ransom for many. . . . He came to deliver us from this world which is doomed to disaster and final destruction, ‘by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.’ We all belong to the world. We are men of the world, we are born in the world, and we will bear the world’s fate, unless he can deliver us. . . . He saves us by bearing our punishment and by taking our guilt upon him. God smites him, and the law of God is satisfied. . . .
What am I to do? You and I have only one thing to do. I have nothing to do but to believe this message. Nothing else. Do not tell me you are going to live a better life. You have not seen the truth if you say that. Do not tell me you are going to be a better man, or a better woman. Do not tell me that you are going to stop this or that. You have not seen it. You have only one thing to do. . . . Though you may be the vilest man or woman ever known, and though you may until this moment have lived your life in the gutters and the brothels of sin in every shape and form, I say to you: be it known unto you that through this man, this Lord Jesus Christ, is preached unto you the forgiveness of sin. And by him all who believe, you included, are at this very moment justified entirely and completely from everything you have ever done—if you believe that this is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that he died there on the cross, for your sins and to bear your punishment. If you believe that, and thank him for it, and rely utterly only upon him and what he has done, I tell you, in the name of God, all your sins are blotted out completely, as if you had never sinned in your life, and his righteousness is put on you and God sees you perfect in his Son. That is the message of the cross, that is Christian preaching, that it is our Lord who saves us, by dying on the cross, and that nothing else can save us, but that that can save whosoever believeth in him.
Still Held in Vietnam
Two years ago, in March 2007, Le Thi Cong Nhan was arrested in Vietnam. A lawyer and a Christian, Le Thi Cong Nan was sentenced two months later to four year prison term to be followed by three years of house arrest. She was arrested and sentenced with Nguyen Van Dai, a fellow attorney and a Protestant church leader. Both were accused of a wide range of crimes, such as “conspiring with terrorists, in their efforts to promote human rights efforts, including religious rights and democracy.” They were also accused of compiling “evidence of Vietnam’s suppression of the Protestant religion and providing it to the U.S.-based Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam and the U.S. embassy.” The Vietnamese state news agency accused the pair in print of “posting information on the internet…painting biased and distorted pictures of the country and its internal affairs.”
Please pray for these two and other brothers and sisters in Christ in Vietnam who are being persecuted for their faith.
