Not to go all political here (and I’m sure I’ll probably regret this article), but I have to say that there are some things that don’t belong in a church newsletter, let alone said from a pulpit. This church bulletin contains some examples of this particular principle:

I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.

[...]

Arnold Toynbee, the world renowned historian, stated that what the Zionist Jews did to the Palestinians is worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews, because, as he stated, Jews should have learned from their tragic experience.

While I am a supporter of Israel (because of their being a democracy under siege, and a consistent political ally in an area where there are few to be had) in general, I think they have handled some of the Palestinian situation poorly in a number of cases.  I do think that a two-state solution is, at the moment (if not forever), completely unworkable, as it would basically create a terrorist state within immediate proximity of its target (as demonstrated on numerous occasions).

However, just as the pulpit isn’t a place to play politics within our own country, it is even less so an appropriate place to dabble in the politics of other countries.  (And why on earth would you attend a place like this – for 20 years, no less – in the first place, with all of the tinfoil-hattery coming from the pulpit?  Bizarre…

I have a confession to make. I quite often agree with one of the Pyros.* Despite his occasional tendency to throw a non sequitur into an otherwise brilliant post, thereby unnecessarily alienating half of his audience, I have found that Dan Phillips often has some great insights. And even the post that I want to talk about has some great stuff in it. But some of the turf that it wanders into disturbs me, probably because I’ve been there myself.

Pastor and author Tim Keller wrote an article some time ago on how he would speak to a post-modern person who grasped many of the ideas of Christianity, but had a hard time with the concept of hell. In his analysis**, Dan notes:

1. This is how Keller does it
2. This is how I do it
3. This is why I do it that way

Certainly, the concept of not all Christians approaching every situation in the exact same manner is quite laudable, and is probably one of the applications of the instruction to “work out your own salvation” (Philippians 2:12). And there is also validity to demonstrating differences in style, especially when one is careful (as Dan was) to show that one is not criticizing the other person, but simply showing contrasts. Such articles allow the reader to see things from different perspectives, and better understand himself and others.

What bugs me, though, is part of the “why”. Leading up to his main point, Dan says:

I think the problem with apologetics today is that too much apologetics is too apologetic. Too often, we actually come across as if we’re saying, “Yeah, sorry… but I do believe this. Sorry. I know it’s lame. It’s true for me. You don’t have to believe, if you don’t want to. That’s cool. But there you have it. Uh… Sorry!”

Now, maybe I’ve been under a rock, but I’ve never heard anyone say something like that, or even seem to be implying that. But I’ll give Dan the benefit of the doubt that he’s not knocking down a straw-man, and affirm that if such a viewpoint exists, it’s wrong.

A bit later, Dan goes on:

Because to me it feels like [Keller's] approach says, “You have a right to challenge God, and oppose your judgment over His. My job is to make God seem reasonable to you, in your judgment, by your standards.”

And so the person who accepts Keller’s line of reasoning may be saying, “Okay, now that makes sense to me, so I can accept it. It’s okay with me if God is God in that area. He has my permission.” (And then I guess God says “Cool!”, and goes on being God.)

OK, much of this (again) comes off to me as very straw-man-ish (or at least, highly exaggerated) and I don’t intend to address it directly.

Sidebar: Major kudos to Dan for admitting that this is how Keller’s approach feels to him. This is a mind-blowing contrast to what would appear in many blogs whose authors generally agree with the Pyros. Many of those blogs would tell us exactly what Keller’s motivation definitely was, why he was going to hell for it, and why Dan was in questionable standing for not using better “discernment” and utterly slamming Keller.

But the first part of Dan’s impression gives me pause, in which he decries the concept that “[y]ou have a right to challenge God”. Now perhaps “right” is, indeed, too severe of a word. But God does not demand that we simply accept His ways blindly.

Right at the outset of the book of Isaiah, God spends Isaiah 1:2-17" target="_blank" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%201:2-17;&version=50;">16 verses basically telling the children of Israel, “You clowns couldn’t be more messed up if you tried.” After that accurate and severe condemnation, what is the Isaiah 1:18" target="_blank" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%201:18;&version=50;">very next thing that God says (emphasis mine)?

“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the LORD,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool.”

Do you see that? God just (rightfully) blasted these people for 16 verses, and then appeals to their reasoning. Lest I incorrectly interpret this verse, I checked a couple of online commentaries to see how they viewed it. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible notes that God presents this statement:

1. [So that Israel can] know if [God] accuse[s them] without cause.
2. Lest sinners should pretend any rigour on God’s part, he only wills them to be pure in heart, and he will forgive all their sins, no matter how many or great.

And the Jamieson/Fausset/Brown commentary notes that:

God deigns to argue the case with us, that all may see the just, nay, loving principle of His dealings with men.

This isn’t a case of God being a wimp or subjugating Himself to our reason. This is pure grace on His part that He even bothers to stoop down and help us to see our sorry state from a level that we can actually grasp. I believe that this was actually one of the points of Jesus’ incarnation.

God would have been perfectly just to simply wash His hands of us and tell us all to (quite literally) go to hell. But He did not do that. And what’s more, the graciousness doesn’t end with Christ’s ascension back into heaven. The writer of Hebrews Hebrews 4:15" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:15;&version=50;">tells us that “we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses”.

Ought we to question everything? Certainly not — we’d be wasting our time. And there are going to be some things that we just don’t understand because of the finitude of human minds. May God grant us the grace to accept those things, trust Him, and move on.

But are there going to be times that we question — or even rail against — God? Yes. And at the risk of sounding flip: He’s a big boy; He can handle it.

* Actually, in a sense, it’s an understatement to say “one”. At times, they’ve all said some pretty good stuff. Truth where you find it, and all that. But I find myself in agreement with Dan most.

** By the way, it is interesting to note that Dan’s article is titled “The Hell, you say? (Keller on Hell, discussed)” — emphasis on “The” is Dan’s. He has taken a common phrase in current-day culture — which even contains profanity, in the way that the phase is normally used — and used it as an illustrative point. While Dan doesn’t bang the “contextualization is evil” drum much (if at all), I’m waiting for the real drum-bangers to call him out for doing this. Don’t worry — I’m not holding my breath while I wait.

From here:

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.

Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world.

A third reason for Botros’s success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme — from the pressing to the esoteric — often expressed as a question (e.g., “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” “Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?”). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes — always careful to give sources and reference numbers — from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet — the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present — the illustrious ulema.

Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.

More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.

Also:

Botros spent three years bringing to broad public attention a scandalous — and authentic — hadith stating that women should “breastfeed” strange men with whom they must spend any amount of time. A leading hadith scholar, Abd al-Muhdi, was confronted with this issue on the live talk show of popular Arabic host Hala Sirhan. Opting to be truthful, al-Muhdi confirmed that going through the motions of breastfeeding adult males is, according to sharia, a legitimate way of making married women “forbidden” to the men with whom they are forced into contact — the logic being that, by being “breastfed,” the men become like “sons” to the women and therefore can no longer have sexual designs on them.

To make matters worse, Ezzat Atiyya, head of the Hadith department at al-Azhar University — Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution — went so far as to issue a fatwa legitimatizing “Rida’ al-Kibir” (sharia’s term for “breastfeeding the adult”), which prompted such outrage in the Islamic world that it was subsequently recanted.

Botros played the key role in exposing this obscure and embarrassing issue and forcing the ulema to respond. Another guest on Hala Sirhan’s show, Abd al-Fatah, slyly indicated that the entire controversy was instigated by Botros: “I know you all [fellow panelists] watch that channel and that priest and that none of you [pointing at Abd al-Muhdi] can ever respond to him, since he always documents his sources!”

Incapable of rebutting Botros, the only strategy left to the ulema (aside from a rumored $5-million bounty on his head) is to ignore him. When his name is brought up, they dismiss him as a troublemaking liar who is backed by — who else? — international “Jewry.” They could easily refute his points, they insist, but will not deign to do so. That strategy may satisfy some Muslims, but others are demanding straightforward responses from the ulema.

All in all, the article is interesting reading on the way one Christian (with a $5MM bounty on his head) has decided to take up a peaceful AND effective mission into a world that needs to know Jesus…

UPDATE: I meant to include the concluding paragraphs, as well, and must not have pasted them over:

But the ultimate reason for Botros’s success is that — unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint — his primary interest is the salvation of souls. He often begins and concludes his programs by stating that he loves all Muslims as fellow humans and wants to steer them away from falsehood to Truth. To that end, he doesn’t just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites all his viewers to come to Christ.

Botros’s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote “Israeli interests,” or “demonize” Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another. And so Father Zakaria Botros has been fighting fire with fire. [emphasis mine]

HT: NRO

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.
- Ephesians 4:2

Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.
- Phil. 4:5

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
- Colossians 3:12

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,
- 1 Peter 3:15

Do you see any of these Biblical commands in this article at Slice of Laodicea? Because all I see is condescending nastiness. It seems Ingrid’s love of scripture only extends as far as it takes to attack and destroy the parts of the body of Christ that don’t look exactly like her.

Perhaps this is a piece of scripture that escaped her notice:
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. 11 For people like that have turned away from the truth, and their own sins condemn them.
– Titus 3:10-11

Give it a click for fullsize.

Thanks to the BHT.

While we spend most of our posts here discussing the heresy hunting of the full-timers - the ODM’s, periodically I like to lurk around and see what the part-timers are up to… one posting ground site is the Rapture Ready bulletin board.  For those who moderate and post at the RRBB their motivation is purely eschatological, in a hyper-Dispensational scenario there must be a Great Falling Away before the rapture.  Therefore the writings of the ODM’s are often applauded and reposted as proof.  I go to sites like this to see how the ODM’s are quoted on the street.

Recently I read a few reviews of a a new book by Bishop Tom Wright on the afterlife: Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church.  Since I too believe the Bible teaches an eternity spent, not in heaven, but on a new earth – I think I’ll read it.

Then these two streams came together: a news story about Bishop Wright posted and commented upon at Rapture Ready.  The really amazing thing are the reactions.  Of course, anyone who does not believe in a pretrib, premill, rapture is suspect at rr-bb.  He also carries the suspisious title of “Bishop.”  So I expected them to dismiss him.  But I was truly amazed at the comments: one calls him a heretic, another hopes he repents and gains an intimate relationship with Jesus… others just delve into ad hominem attacks and mock his appearance.

So, maybe my eyes are foggy as well – but where in this article does Bishop Wright promote heresy?  Of what, exactly, does he need to recant and repent? 

I think my favorite response was:

1. The Dude Looks Crazy…
2. What is he Talking About I Couldnt understand a word he was saying it was like he was talking another language!

Now that’s logic that’s impossible to dispute!

UPDATE: It was correctly pointed out by Chris L., that my original distinction between “Professional” and “amateur” was insulting to those who really are professional about discernment… so I have substituted the terms for “full-time” and “part-time,” respectively.

 

I normally don’t go to political sites and find articles which have a good grasp of Christianity or Christian history, but this weekend I read an excellent historical analysis of Jesus’ impact on the world, and the radical change he introduced.

And so when the people came to Jerusalem to make their offerings to God, they were met at each step in the process of religious devotion with another checkpoint at which tolls were extracted. The journey to Jerusalem often meant crossing a Roman checkpoint — ka-ching! Since the trip was long and hard on the animals, it was better to travel light and buy the sacrifices in Jerusalem — ka-ching! You can’t use pagan Roman coins for that sort of thing, of course, so off to the money-changers — ka-ching again. Tithes, offerings, sacrifices, festivals, Rome got her cut — ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. In fact, that’s the only reason there even was a temple or a King Herod. Rome would have long ago plundered it and killed him, except you don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

If the temple was the bridge between heaven and earth, Herod was the troll who lived under the bridge. Every pilgrim was forced to pay the toll. That’s what kept Herod in power: no ka-ching, no king. Ordinary Jews hated the regime, and the anger was boiling over, but Herod didn’t care what they thought; he had Rome on his side.

You can read the whole thing here.

For the first time ever, I actually laughed at one of TeamPyro’s “pomotivators”. (Ya know, those posters where they lovingly try to correct what they perceive as theological error by mocking those that hold to it. It’s in the book of Hezekiah.)

Not because it was directly funny, mind you. But rather for its “pot calling the kettle pigmentationally complete” nature:

To quote the Ginzu knife commercials, “but wait, there’s more”. Not only is the absolute fall-out-of-your-chair-laughing irony of this poster (given who/where it comes from) totally missed, but in the very next sentence (after the unveiling of the poster), Phil notes something that strikes him as ironic.

Now that, boys and girls, is the ultimate in irony.

HT to Van Til at BHT for noticing the poster and pointing out the irony (not that I needed any help in seeing it).

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Happy Resurrection Day!

This is the final post in the current series of articles on Holy Week:

Part I: Lamb Selection Day
Part II: Passover Preparation
Part III: Passover Banquet
Part IV: Passover Sacrifice (also inserting Jesus’ use of remez while on the cross)
Part V: The Feast of Unleavened Bread

Today, in Part VI, we will briefly discuss the Feast of Firstfruits.

As we discussed in yesterday’s article, the feast of Firstfruits is the third celebration during Passover week, and it is celebrated the day after the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

The Meaning of Firstfruits

Many Christians do not realize that the Jewish calendar, as established by God, is set up around the agricultural calendar of Israel. There have been number of discoveries of ancient agricultural calendars from Israel, which link the religious and agricultural calendars together. One of the most prominent was the discovery of the “Gezer Calendar Stone” (right), which is housed in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum in Turkey.

When you have entered the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance and have taken possession of it and settled in it, take some of the firstfruits of all that you produce from the soil of the land the LORD your God is giving you and put them in a basket. Then go to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name and say to the priest in office at the time, “I declare today to the LORD your God that I have come to the land the LORD swore to our forefathers to give us.” The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God. Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: “My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, O LORD, have given me.” Place the basket before the LORD your God and bow down before him. And you and the Levites and the aliens among you shall rejoice in all the good things the LORD your God has given to you and your household.(Deuteronomy 26:1-11)

So, the same way that we are to give to God the first part of our money, resources, time and everything else, these people brought the first part of their crop to God.
In the case of the Feast of Firstfruits, the celebration is of the first grain from the barley harvest – planted between the two rainy seasons of the year. Unlike modern farming, each family unit had its own plot of land on which they were to grow food for their family. From this farm, each family was supposed to collect the first grain of the harvest (which was typically fully ready in the weeks after this festival) and bring it to God to say “I am bringing you the very first part of my harvest, and I trust that you, God, will provide the rest for me and my family so that we will not starve.”

The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb a year old without defect, together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil—an offering made to the LORD by fire, a pleasing aroma—and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin of wine. You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. (Leviticus 23:9-14)

The New Meaning of Firstfruits

In the year of Jesus’ crucifixion, we know that Jesus was sacrificed on Passover at 3:00 p.m., the time in which a lamb was sacrificed for the sins of all of Israel, representing God’s deliverance of His people from Egypt. And thus, Jesus became the sacrifice who has saved all who will believe in him and make him Lord, delivering them from the spiritual Egypt, sin.

On Saturday, he was buried (or “planted”, as Ray VanderLaan likes to say), and the people in the Temple celebrated the Feast of Unleavened Bread, praying for God to bring forth life out of the ground.

And so on Sunday, Jesus became the firstfruits of those who would be resurrected, leaving us with the promise that we would be the harvest to follow. And we know we can trust God with this! As Paul wrote to us:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (I Corinthians 15:20-23)

Amen!

Grace and Peace,

Chris