These statements and more have been told directly to me, or have come up in class discussions. What we did in the class was break into small groups and look at the following:
a. What is the presupposition behind what is being asserted?
Take the statement, "The Jesus of the Bible is always accepting, always kind." The person making such a statement has, in effect, created a designer, Jesus. This designer Jesus will indulge whatever this person wants. The presupposition is that it is fine to create a designer Jesus in one's own image. This is an erroneous presupposition, as it fails to reckon with multiple passages that present Jesus as the Judge of humanity and who will call into account the thoughts and deeds of humans. Little wonder that people in the book of Revelation would rather be buried alive than meet the wrath of the Lamb.
b. What partial truth is being presented?
Take, the statement, "....inclusivity of a creator God from whom we have never been separated." Behind this statement is the idea that humans have never been separated from God. This is a partial truth, as all humans are the recipients of daily divine revelation..." the heavens are declaring the glory of God." In this sense, they are not blocked from receiving this revelation. Yet Romans 1 is very clear that humans "in the sphere of unrighteousness" are both truth holders and truth twisters. The partial truth here is that all humans have a connection---what John Calvin called the sensus divinitatis---with God. The blatant lie, of the above statement, is that the Christian God by definition is both Creator and Redeemer and Judge, and every human knows that there is something wrong with our relationship to this Sovereign.
c. How are two or more ideas being conflated illegitimately?e
For example, on one level, we can all say that we are "in Christ" as he holds the universe together by the word of his power. For that matter, in this sense, we can say that even my sheep-dog is in Christ. On the other hand, the Apostle Paul uses the phrase "in Christ" in a very technical sense to differentiate those who are savingly in union with Him due to faith in Him, and those who are not. Yet, I had a person come up to me assert, in a universalistic sense, that "all people are in Christ" and by implication, already saved. My response was, "so why do we have a Savior?"
d. How are two or more ideas pitted against each other illegitimately?
For example "Since it is a prophetic word and we can’t quench the Spirit it must be true." Here the need to discern the spirits is pitted against the injunction not to quench the Spirit. This is a clever way to disarm a person who may have serious questions with what is allegedly a prophetic word. If you think this is just theory, I closely examined a very faulty method of outreach to Muslims, which was supposedly "one of the greatest works of the Holy Spirit in this century." As I did so, I was warned that doing so would constitute quenching the Holy Spirit.
Daniel, what I tried to get across to the class is that "correctly handling the word of truth" is not unlike the work of the eye surgeon who removed my cataracts. It is serious business, and a cavalier attitude on the part of the eye surgeon could well lead to blindness on my part. How much more are we called to be skilled workmen knowing that how we handle this Word of God, has eternal consequences.
"But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word." Isaiah 66:2
My question to you Daniel, is, what additions would you make to the list? I could use them in my next class.
I am a CRC commissioned pastor who teaches at Mukhanyo Theological College in South Africa. The list of quotes, yes, does include 2 quotes from overtures. The quotes were to sharpen the theological acumen of the students, just as I could have used a quote from a billboard that I saw today, which said "Jesus Loves You---*no terms and conditions apply." We would apply the same questions---ie. presuppositions, partial truths, etc to that quote, as to the Synodical quotes. Since these were class discussion questions---and I should have been more explicit as to the exact nature of where the list was used---they were not footnoted as I would do in any of the articles that you can see that I write either here on the network, or an academia edu.
Hope that helps. What is your theological take on the two overture quotes? Good, bad, or indifferent? Hope to hear from you.
I read through your article and the subsequent comments. It appears to me that three things are going on:
a. You want to facilitate voices that would otherwise not be heard.
b. You want to set a tone for the Network and protect some people from offense.
c. You want to prevent some things from being published.
All of these are laudable on their own, but when combined behind a certain philosophical stance, they can form something of a monster. It seems that this is being objected to.
For example, I submitted an article for father's day. I think everything was OK with the censorship committee, until I made reference to a delicate subject, namely the prevalence of fatherlessness in a certain community. Then, very likely, the article was tossed.
Kristen and Mark, you evidently need the wisdom of Solomon to moderate, yet I would ask the following questions:
a. Might it be patronizing to think that a certain group of people on this planet are so delicate that they cannot withstand a challenge?
b. In the theories of intersectionality, the more intersections of victimization that one has, the more right they have to speak. Is it possible that some of your own statements would indicate that you have espoused the victimhood business that goes with intersectionality? That is to say, this becomes the grid through which articles are posted or not posted.
c. As much as I applaud "a" and "b" and "c" in proper perspective with proper controls, even extending to the presuppositions of the moderators, is it possible that something draconian is being advocated under the rubric of setting a nice tone? Who gives the moderators these powers? I see you say that "I will...." a number of times. Could it be that some of the comments reflect a sentiment that Moses faced when asked, "who made you judge...?"
As an author who has frequently contributed to the Network, there is much to applaud about it as a vehicle for disseminating information.
Yet, as an author who has also had a recent post 'taken down' I do wonder if all is as shining and bright as is sketched out above. I wonder if the Community Guidelines are such that they permit a person or a panel to remove posts that might provide other perspectives, critically [and I use that in an academic sense of a fair and just treatment of an issue] examine even trends within the CRCNA, and even do the same with some current news.
For example:
a. Could an article such as one that recently appeared on the blog Reformed Every Day which lamented what the author termed as 'breaking covenant' by the leadership of Netland CRC with their installation of a deacon living in a same-sex marriage be allowed?
b. Could an article entitled "Not White Fragility: Mutual Responsibility" by George Yancey a bivocational pastor who has touched on many of the weaknesses of an almost hallowed book be allowed?
c. Could an article critiquing Critical Race Theory be allowed? Could an article examining what the author sees as a confusion between systematic racism and systemic racism be allowed?
All of this material is out there and it is my view that the readers of the Network would benefit from wider perspectives. This could prevent a level of cynicism that has developed and might do something to avoid the charge [addressed to a degree above] that the Network more strongly features one angle than another.
To answer your challenge, perhaps I could picture the situation in a different way. Imagine that you had an ancestor named King Gelwicks. He was a model king, kind, compassionate, generous, just and a protector of his subjects. All of your family from the time he reigned talked about his exploits and derived a sense of identity from having such an honored ancestor.
Now imagine that someone named John Span came along and took on the name Gelwicks in order to gain some of this honor. He told everyone that if King Gelwicks was good, he was even better. In fact this Span person called himself Emperor Gelwicks. He established a huge following, but members of the original Gelwicks family said that he had hijacked their family name, their family history, and their family honor.
My question to you. Should the Gelwicks family care in the least about the chain of events?
If they protested, should they be called "unfairly unbalanced", "lacking in objectivity" and "embarrasing?"
I am using "spiritual bondage" in a negative sense in the quote above. That is to say, Duries's book suggests a bondage of demonic origin. This has nothing to do with being bondslaves of the Lord Jesus Christ who simultaneously enjoy the "glorious liberty of the children of God."
Here is the citation. I contacted Dr. Greenlee, but he no longer has the document that he cited.
Ken Wycherley, Evangelism and discipling (London: EUROM, Evangelical Missions Alliance, 1991) as cited by David H. Greenlee, “Christian conversion from Islam: Social, cultural, communication, and supernatural factors in the process of conversion and faithful church participation” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996), 26.
Blessings in Christ, and any pertinent research that you acquire would be appreciated as well.
If I might, I would take the Areopagus address in Acts 17 as an example:
a. As much as the apostle Paul was incensed at the idolatry of the Athenians, he still addressed them respectfully as "men of Athens."
b. He did not return the insult when they called him a gutter-sparrow, or in modern language, 'a bird-brain.'
c. He told them that he had made "careful observations on the objects of their worship" or that he had taken the time to really understand what made them tick. This is evident by his observation about the altar to "an unknown God" and his knowledge of Greek poets---even though he used them to undercut their religiosity.
d. He used a very wise tactic of telling them that they were "highly religious/devout" which is a word that can also mean "stupidly superstitious." He did not come across immediately as 'in their face' but would actually show them that the second meaning applied to them.
e. As much as he pointed out their altar to 'an' unknown God it was to confront their wild-card theology that said that all gods---known or unknown--had to be appeased.
f. He took a personal chance---knowing that Socrates had been judged and condemned at the same place--to proclaim to these supposedly smart people, that they really were quite ignorant.
He seems to do this as a diplomat and gentleman and uses the word "us" just like he did at Lystra in Acts 14.
g. He took another personal risk when he told them--at a location full of temples--that God doesn't live in temples, and that unlike Greek gods he is not dependent on humans.
h. Through his 3-point sermon, he moved from creation, providence to resurrection and future judgment--i.e. he packaged the material for a non-Jewish audience, but still used the essence of the Gospel to bring his audience to a call to repentance in light of the impending threat of judgment.
After all of this, we read that some scoffed, some believed, and some wanted to know more. I believe that Paul anticipated these three responses and yet did not shirk from the task.
Thank you for your collective responses. If I may, I think they can be grouped into a few categories:
a. An awareness that not all is well in that part of the world. Martin Vegt would have his readers believe that most or all of this is due to abuse of Israeli power. Others are less sure of that. I would tend to agree with the latter. The Palestinian Media Watch [https://www.palwatch.org/]group wrote a book examining the statements made for Western consumption by Palestinians and those made mostly in Arabic for local consumption. The book, Deception: Betraying the Peace Process copiously documents the posture of Palestinians as innocent victims when targeting Western audiences, and stating its jihadist agenda of driving every Jewish person into the sea in its Arabic media presentations. Thus a highly effective propaganda machine is at work. I believe it would behoove Synodical delegates to be aware of this dynamic.
b. Concerns that the CRCNA might be swayed to jump on to a "hot-button" topic with or without adequate background information. A few authors spoke to this. What makes these considerations complicated is the fact that Christians are called to seek justice, yet the open question remains---and which the delegates will likely deliberate upon--- is whether it is necessarily the CRCNA's task to have official involvement here.
c. Comparisons to apartheid, and Nazism were made as a justification for CRCNA involvement. One must wonder, however, if it is possible that delegates could be emotionally manipulated either by appeals to Western guilt, racism and the like, and cause them to forget that multiple theologies are at play in this situation. On the other hand, an appeal to being known, individually or collectively as social justice warriors, taking the moral high ground, in shining armor, has a certain magnetism to it.
d. An assumption (rightly or wrongly) is made that Palestinians are necessarily a certain ethnicity. In an interview given by PLO executive committee member, Zahir Muhsein in March 31, 1977 with the Dutch newspaper Trouw he stated:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
James Dorsey, “Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke redden,” Trouw, March 31, 1977. https://brabosh.com/2016/02/18/pqpct-bbo/
Nick, my intention was not to impugn ill motives, but to highlight the fact that motives are a powerful driver of decisions. A friend suggested that I look into the area of "virtue-signaling" as he thought this might be at play here. [Below are three links for some background.] Long story short, individuals or groups of persons signal to other individuals or groups that somehow they are more virtuous by the positions they adopt. For example, if my church adopts Sabeel's "HP Free Church" stance, then it will likely see itself as more virtuous than those who don't.
Theologically, one must ask, why the need to get affirmation from others, Christian or not, as indicating a level of virtue? Could the photo of Mamoud Abbas with a CRC delegation be a virtue-signaling exercise? That is to say, it could be stating "look at us, and with whom we have our photo taken." A subtext might also read---as Doug pointed out below, in response to Martin---if you don't agree with this photo and all that it stands for, then you are less than virtuous.
Could it be that with this issue the CRCNA might be on a virtue-signaling quest? How would we know? What would it look like? Might it be a rather un-Reformed manifestation of works righteousness? Is the Network the best venue to ask these kind of delicate questions?
You have encouraged your readers to do some background reading. I have been doing some.
First of all I went to the Sabeel website. I was quite amazed at how open they are about promoting liberation theology, even to the point of offering a course on it. I worked in Central America in the mid 80's when liberation theology and its curious blend of sociology, Marxism, calls for biblical justice and calls for the preferential option for the poor were promoted. The Sabeel and other Palestinian liberation theologians are using the same playbook, but now instead of Che Gueveraz and company as the models to emulate you have the so-called Palestinian martyrs and Jesus as the model Palestinian. Hate to say it, but this theology has hijacked the Biblical Jesus.
Here is a short quote on liberation theology in a recent article that has nothing to do with Palestine, but everything to do with the Gospel:
first encountered Liberation Theology as an undergraduate student at Spring Hill College, a Jesuit institution in my hometown of Mobile, Alabama. Though I was a new believer and lacked a sufficient theological vocabulary and framework to engage it, even then I sensed it was a departure from the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
The more I studied, the more concerned I grew. When I transitioned to seminary I became more fully aware of Liberation Theology’s many problems. Those concerns remain with me to this present day. Liberation Theology is distinct from social justice. The latter is amorphous, multifaceted, difficult to define, and rapidly evolving. Liberation Theology is concrete, well-defined, and comes with its own theological method and message of redemption.
To summarize, Liberation Theology arose in the 1950s and 1960s in Latin America. Liberation Theology speaks to various groups and ethnicities with a strong appeal to those who find themselves oppressed. In America, Liberation Theology gained broader appeal in the 1970s due to the writings of James Cone.
In short, Liberation Theology argues that Jesus’ ministry focus was liberating the oppressed, empowering the weak, and raising up the socially marginalized. Indeed, the message of Christ, they argue, was one of freedom from political oppression and disenfranchisement, not one of repentance, faith, and forgiveness from sin.
In particular, Cone denied essential Christian doctrines like substitutionary atonement. More broadly, he radically reimagined Jesus’ mission from redemption from sin to social empowerment. It’s an entirely different theological framework, with entirely different presuppositions, and with entirely different ends to achieve.
Cone reconceptualized the person, work, and ministry of Christ. He presented a messiah who came not to redeem the spiritually lost, but to empower the politically dispossessed.
He argued the death of Christ was unnecessary, and even unhelpful in that it depicts passive obedience to suffering and shame. It’s an interpretation of Jesus’ work on the cross that contradicts Jesus’ own explanation of this death—that “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His Life a ransom for many(Matt. 20:28). Cone propagated a new theological system, alien to the New Testament, and well outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
For Cone, the defining reality of one’s life is one’s human experience, through which we are to interpret Christ’s message and mission. But for Christians, this is inverted. Christians are to start with Scripture, submit to its authority, embrace the gospel of Christ and develop a Christian worldview, and then interpret our human experience by it.
Liberation Theology, as espoused by James Cone, is not slightly off. Liberation Theology isn’t a different flavor of the gospel. It’s a different gospel. It is no gospel at all.
Martin: This is only the tip of the iceberg. Today I skimmed through a book I had read previously entitled, Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews by Sam Solomon and Elias al-Maqdisi. If you want to answer question #4 with any depth, it is a must read. Curious that I do not see it on any of the pro-Palestinian biographies.
This is a direct quote from the Muslim cleric al-Qaradawi [obviously not for Western consumption] who wields a great deal of influence in the region:
Jews are the greatest enemies of the Ummah (the worldwide Muslim community)! And their enmity to Islam and Muslims has been, still is and will continue as long as Muslims and Jews remain on this earth. This issue has been settled without question or argument as Allaah says (you will find the stanchest enemies of those that have believed are the Jews...) Sura 5:82. So the ever ongoing Jewish enmity towards the Muslims is permanent through the testimony of the Noble Qur'an and fully embedded in the mind and conscience of every Muslim who believes in the Qur'an. His faith in this sense cannot be shaken in this world. This should explain the wave of mockery and (disapproval) of the frivolous peace efforts that are undertake and are being held under the pretext of peace with the Jews...which will Never ever be!! (p. 16 above)
Martin we fully agree that the Gospel is bigger and more powerful than the above quote. Witness the book, Son of Hamas... Yet, if we disregard these theological realities due to the very real presence of real suffering and real injustice in this area, it is to our detriment.
Posted in: Hermeneutics 101
Thank you for engaging, Daniel.
These statements and more have been told directly to me, or have come up in class discussions. What we did in the class was break into small groups and look at the following:
a. What is the presupposition behind what is being asserted?
Take the statement, "The Jesus of the Bible is always accepting, always kind." The person making such a statement has, in effect, created a designer, Jesus. This designer Jesus will indulge whatever this person wants. The presupposition is that it is fine to create a designer Jesus in one's own image. This is an erroneous presupposition, as it fails to reckon with multiple passages that present Jesus as the Judge of humanity and who will call into account the thoughts and deeds of humans. Little wonder that people in the book of Revelation would rather be buried alive than meet the wrath of the Lamb.
b. What partial truth is being presented?
Take, the statement, "....inclusivity of a creator God from whom we have never been separated." Behind this statement is the idea that humans have never been separated from God. This is a partial truth, as all humans are the recipients of daily divine revelation..." the heavens are declaring the glory of God." In this sense, they are not blocked from receiving this revelation. Yet Romans 1 is very clear that humans "in the sphere of unrighteousness" are both truth holders and truth twisters. The partial truth here is that all humans have a connection---what John Calvin called the sensus divinitatis---with God. The blatant lie, of the above statement, is that the Christian God by definition is both Creator and Redeemer and Judge, and every human knows that there is something wrong with our relationship to this Sovereign.
c. How are two or more ideas being conflated illegitimately?e
For example, on one level, we can all say that we are "in Christ" as he holds the universe together by the word of his power. For that matter, in this sense, we can say that even my sheep-dog is in Christ. On the other hand, the Apostle Paul uses the phrase "in Christ" in a very technical sense to differentiate those who are savingly in union with Him due to faith in Him, and those who are not. Yet, I had a person come up to me assert, in a universalistic sense, that "all people are in Christ" and by implication, already saved. My response was, "so why do we have a Savior?"
d. How are two or more ideas pitted against each other illegitimately?
For example "Since it is a prophetic word and we can’t quench the Spirit it must be true." Here the need to discern the spirits is pitted against the injunction not to quench the Spirit. This is a clever way to disarm a person who may have serious questions with what is allegedly a prophetic word. If you think this is just theory, I closely examined a very faulty method of outreach to Muslims, which was supposedly "one of the greatest works of the Holy Spirit in this century." As I did so, I was warned that doing so would constitute quenching the Holy Spirit.
Daniel, what I tried to get across to the class is that "correctly handling the word of truth" is not unlike the work of the eye surgeon who removed my cataracts. It is serious business, and a cavalier attitude on the part of the eye surgeon could well lead to blindness on my part. How much more are we called to be skilled workmen knowing that how we handle this Word of God, has eternal consequences.
"But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word." Isaiah 66:2
My question to you Daniel, is, what additions would you make to the list? I could use them in my next class.
John
Posted in: Hermeneutics 101
Hello Benjamin:
I am a CRC commissioned pastor who teaches at Mukhanyo Theological College in South Africa. The list of quotes, yes, does include 2 quotes from overtures. The quotes were to sharpen the theological acumen of the students, just as I could have used a quote from a billboard that I saw today, which said "Jesus Loves You---*no terms and conditions apply." We would apply the same questions---ie. presuppositions, partial truths, etc to that quote, as to the Synodical quotes. Since these were class discussion questions---and I should have been more explicit as to the exact nature of where the list was used---they were not footnoted as I would do in any of the articles that you can see that I write either here on the network, or an academia edu.
Hope that helps. What is your theological take on the two overture quotes? Good, bad, or indifferent? Hope to hear from you.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Good day Kristen and company.
I read through your article and the subsequent comments. It appears to me that three things are going on:
a. You want to facilitate voices that would otherwise not be heard.
b. You want to set a tone for the Network and protect some people from offense.
c. You want to prevent some things from being published.
All of these are laudable on their own, but when combined behind a certain philosophical stance, they can form something of a monster. It seems that this is being objected to.
For example, I submitted an article for father's day. I think everything was OK with the censorship committee, until I made reference to a delicate subject, namely the prevalence of fatherlessness in a certain community. Then, very likely, the article was tossed.
Kristen and Mark, you evidently need the wisdom of Solomon to moderate, yet I would ask the following questions:
a. Might it be patronizing to think that a certain group of people on this planet are so delicate that they cannot withstand a challenge?
b. In the theories of intersectionality, the more intersections of victimization that one has, the more right they have to speak. Is it possible that some of your own statements would indicate that you have espoused the victimhood business that goes with intersectionality? That is to say, this becomes the grid through which articles are posted or not posted.
c. As much as I applaud "a" and "b" and "c" in proper perspective with proper controls, even extending to the presuppositions of the moderators, is it possible that something draconian is being advocated under the rubric of setting a nice tone? Who gives the moderators these powers? I see you say that "I will...." a number of times. Could it be that some of the comments reflect a sentiment that Moses faced when asked, "who made you judge...?"
Thanks for engaging
John Span
Posted in: Debunking 5 Myths About The Network
Thanks for posting this article Staci:
As an author who has frequently contributed to the Network, there is much to applaud about it as a vehicle for disseminating information.
Yet, as an author who has also had a recent post 'taken down' I do wonder if all is as shining and bright as is sketched out above. I wonder if the Community Guidelines are such that they permit a person or a panel to remove posts that might provide other perspectives, critically [and I use that in an academic sense of a fair and just treatment of an issue] examine even trends within the CRCNA, and even do the same with some current news.
For example:
a. Could an article such as one that recently appeared on the blog Reformed Every Day which lamented what the author termed as 'breaking covenant' by the leadership of Netland CRC with their installation of a deacon living in a same-sex marriage be allowed?
b. Could an article entitled "Not White Fragility: Mutual Responsibility" by George Yancey a bivocational pastor who has touched on many of the weaknesses of an almost hallowed book be allowed?
c. Could an article critiquing Critical Race Theory be allowed? Could an article examining what the author sees as a confusion between systematic racism and systemic racism be allowed?
All of this material is out there and it is my view that the readers of the Network would benefit from wider perspectives. This could prevent a level of cynicism that has developed and might do something to avoid the charge [addressed to a degree above] that the Network more strongly features one angle than another.
Thanks
Rev. Dr. John Span
Posted in: Who Is Muhammad in Islam? Prophet, Priest, or King?
Thanks for engaging, Roger.
To answer your challenge, perhaps I could picture the situation in a different way. Imagine that you had an ancestor named King Gelwicks. He was a model king, kind, compassionate, generous, just and a protector of his subjects. All of your family from the time he reigned talked about his exploits and derived a sense of identity from having such an honored ancestor.
Now imagine that someone named John Span came along and took on the name Gelwicks in order to gain some of this honor. He told everyone that if King Gelwicks was good, he was even better. In fact this Span person called himself Emperor Gelwicks. He established a huge following, but members of the original Gelwicks family said that he had hijacked their family name, their family history, and their family honor.
My question to you. Should the Gelwicks family care in the least about the chain of events?
If they protested, should they be called "unfairly unbalanced", "lacking in objectivity" and "embarrasing?"
JS
Posted in: "A Dozen Bad Ideas for the 21st Century"
Thanks Roger:
I am using "spiritual bondage" in a negative sense in the quote above. That is to say, Duries's book suggests a bondage of demonic origin. This has nothing to do with being bondslaves of the Lord Jesus Christ who simultaneously enjoy the "glorious liberty of the children of God."
Blessings
JS
Posted in: Three Words Affecting the Church in the New Decade
Thanks Martin:
Had never thought of the concept of "virtue shaming." Very illustrative.
Blessings
John
PS. Some people are also using the term "Cultural Marxism" to describe the new type of class struggle that is behind intersectionality.
Posted in: Reversion: Why Do ‘Christian Converts’ From Islam Return to Their Old Religion?
Greetings:
Here is the citation. I contacted Dr. Greenlee, but he no longer has the document that he cited.
Ken Wycherley, Evangelism and discipling (London: EUROM, Evangelical Missions Alliance, 1991) as cited by David H. Greenlee, “Christian conversion from Islam: Social, cultural, communication, and supernatural factors in the process of conversion and faithful church participation” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996), 26.
Blessings in Christ, and any pertinent research that you acquire would be appreciated as well.
Dr. John Span
Posted in: 90% Retention Rate or 90% Attrition Rate? Doctrine Matters
Thanks Roger:
If I might, I would take the Areopagus address in Acts 17 as an example:
a. As much as the apostle Paul was incensed at the idolatry of the Athenians, he still addressed them respectfully as "men of Athens."
b. He did not return the insult when they called him a gutter-sparrow, or in modern language, 'a bird-brain.'
c. He told them that he had made "careful observations on the objects of their worship" or that he had taken the time to really understand what made them tick. This is evident by his observation about the altar to "an unknown God" and his knowledge of Greek poets---even though he used them to undercut their religiosity.
d. He used a very wise tactic of telling them that they were "highly religious/devout" which is a word that can also mean "stupidly superstitious." He did not come across immediately as 'in their face' but would actually show them that the second meaning applied to them.
e. As much as he pointed out their altar to 'an' unknown God it was to confront their wild-card theology that said that all gods---known or unknown--had to be appeased.
f. He took a personal chance---knowing that Socrates had been judged and condemned at the same place--to proclaim to these supposedly smart people, that they really were quite ignorant.
He seems to do this as a diplomat and gentleman and uses the word "us" just like he did at Lystra in Acts 14.
g. He took another personal risk when he told them--at a location full of temples--that God doesn't live in temples, and that unlike Greek gods he is not dependent on humans.
h. Through his 3-point sermon, he moved from creation, providence to resurrection and future judgment--i.e. he packaged the material for a non-Jewish audience, but still used the essence of the Gospel to bring his audience to a call to repentance in light of the impending threat of judgment.
After all of this, we read that some scoffed, some believed, and some wanted to know more. I believe that Paul anticipated these three responses and yet did not shirk from the task.
Hope that helps
John
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Greetings all:
Thank you for your collective responses. If I may, I think they can be grouped into a few categories:
a. An awareness that not all is well in that part of the world. Martin Vegt would have his readers believe that most or all of this is due to abuse of Israeli power. Others are less sure of that. I would tend to agree with the latter. The Palestinian Media Watch [https://www.palwatch.org/]group wrote a book examining the statements made for Western consumption by Palestinians and those made mostly in Arabic for local consumption. The book, Deception: Betraying the Peace Process copiously documents the posture of Palestinians as innocent victims when targeting Western audiences, and stating its jihadist agenda of driving every Jewish person into the sea in its Arabic media presentations. Thus a highly effective propaganda machine is at work. I believe it would behoove Synodical delegates to be aware of this dynamic.
b. Concerns that the CRCNA might be swayed to jump on to a "hot-button" topic with or without adequate background information. A few authors spoke to this. What makes these considerations complicated is the fact that Christians are called to seek justice, yet the open question remains---and which the delegates will likely deliberate upon--- is whether it is necessarily the CRCNA's task to have official involvement here.
c. Comparisons to apartheid, and Nazism were made as a justification for CRCNA involvement. One must wonder, however, if it is possible that delegates could be emotionally manipulated either by appeals to Western guilt, racism and the like, and cause them to forget that multiple theologies are at play in this situation. On the other hand, an appeal to being known, individually or collectively as social justice warriors, taking the moral high ground, in shining armor, has a certain magnetism to it.
d. An assumption (rightly or wrongly) is made that Palestinians are necessarily a certain ethnicity. In an interview given by PLO executive committee member, Zahir Muhsein in March 31, 1977 with the Dutch newspaper Trouw he stated:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
James Dorsey, “Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke redden,” Trouw, March 31, 1977. https://brabosh.com/2016/02/18/pqpct-bbo/
May God give great wisdom to the delegates.
Shalom Salaam
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Nick, my intention was not to impugn ill motives, but to highlight the fact that motives are a powerful driver of decisions. A friend suggested that I look into the area of "virtue-signaling" as he thought this might be at play here. [Below are three links for some background.] Long story short, individuals or groups of persons signal to other individuals or groups that somehow they are more virtuous by the positions they adopt. For example, if my church adopts Sabeel's "HP Free Church" stance, then it will likely see itself as more virtuous than those who don't.
Theologically, one must ask, why the need to get affirmation from others, Christian or not, as indicating a level of virtue? Could the photo of Mamoud Abbas with a CRC delegation be a virtue-signaling exercise? That is to say, it could be stating "look at us, and with whom we have our photo taken." A subtext might also read---as Doug pointed out below, in response to Martin---if you don't agree with this photo and all that it stands for, then you are less than virtuous.
Could it be that with this issue the CRCNA might be on a virtue-signaling quest? How would we know? What would it look like? Might it be a rather un-Reformed manifestation of works righteousness? Is the Network the best venue to ask these kind of delicate questions?
Shalom Salaam
John
https://spectator.org/the-power-and-prevalence-of-virtue-signaling/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/12/24/virtue-signaling-and-other-inane-platitudes/YrJRcvxYMofMcCfgORUcFO/story.html
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Virtue%20Signalling
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Martin:
You have encouraged your readers to do some background reading. I have been doing some.
First of all I went to the Sabeel website. I was quite amazed at how open they are about promoting liberation theology, even to the point of offering a course on it. I worked in Central America in the mid 80's when liberation theology and its curious blend of sociology, Marxism, calls for biblical justice and calls for the preferential option for the poor were promoted. The Sabeel and other Palestinian liberation theologians are using the same playbook, but now instead of Che Gueveraz and company as the models to emulate you have the so-called Palestinian martyrs and Jesus as the model Palestinian. Hate to say it, but this theology has hijacked the Biblical Jesus.
Here is a short quote on liberation theology in a recent article that has nothing to do with Palestine, but everything to do with the Gospel:
first encountered Liberation Theology as an undergraduate student at Spring Hill College, a Jesuit institution in my hometown of Mobile, Alabama. Though I was a new believer and lacked a sufficient theological vocabulary and framework to engage it, even then I sensed it was a departure from the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
The more I studied, the more concerned I grew. When I transitioned to seminary I became more fully aware of Liberation Theology’s many problems. Those concerns remain with me to this present day. Liberation Theology is distinct from social justice. The latter is amorphous, multifaceted, difficult to define, and rapidly evolving. Liberation Theology is concrete, well-defined, and comes with its own theological method and message of redemption.
To summarize, Liberation Theology arose in the 1950s and 1960s in Latin America. Liberation Theology speaks to various groups and ethnicities with a strong appeal to those who find themselves oppressed. In America, Liberation Theology gained broader appeal in the 1970s due to the writings of James Cone.
In short, Liberation Theology argues that Jesus’ ministry focus was liberating the oppressed, empowering the weak, and raising up the socially marginalized. Indeed, the message of Christ, they argue, was one of freedom from political oppression and disenfranchisement, not one of repentance, faith, and forgiveness from sin.
In particular, Cone denied essential Christian doctrines like substitutionary atonement. More broadly, he radically reimagined Jesus’ mission from redemption from sin to social empowerment. It’s an entirely different theological framework, with entirely different presuppositions, and with entirely different ends to achieve.
Cone reconceptualized the person, work, and ministry of Christ. He presented a messiah who came not to redeem the spiritually lost, but to empower the politically dispossessed.
He argued the death of Christ was unnecessary, and even unhelpful in that it depicts passive obedience to suffering and shame. It’s an interpretation of Jesus’ work on the cross that contradicts Jesus’ own explanation of this death—that “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His Life a ransom for many(Matt. 20:28). Cone propagated a new theological system, alien to the New Testament, and well outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
For Cone, the defining reality of one’s life is one’s human experience, through which we are to interpret Christ’s message and mission. But for Christians, this is inverted. Christians are to start with Scripture, submit to its authority, embrace the gospel of Christ and develop a Christian worldview, and then interpret our human experience by it.
Liberation Theology, as espoused by James Cone, is not slightly off. Liberation Theology isn’t a different flavor of the gospel. It’s a different gospel. It is no gospel at all.
Source: https://jasonkallen.com/2019/05/james-cone-jesus-christ-the-perils-of-liberation-theology/En
Martin: This is only the tip of the iceberg. Today I skimmed through a book I had read previously entitled, Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews by Sam Solomon and Elias al-Maqdisi. If you want to answer question #4 with any depth, it is a must read. Curious that I do not see it on any of the pro-Palestinian biographies.
This is a direct quote from the Muslim cleric al-Qaradawi [obviously not for Western consumption] who wields a great deal of influence in the region:
Jews are the greatest enemies of the Ummah (the worldwide Muslim community)! And their enmity to Islam and Muslims has been, still is and will continue as long as Muslims and Jews remain on this earth. This issue has been settled without question or argument as Allaah says (you will find the stanchest enemies of those that have believed are the Jews...) Sura 5:82. So the ever ongoing Jewish enmity towards the Muslims is permanent through the testimony of the Noble Qur'an and fully embedded in the mind and conscience of every Muslim who believes in the Qur'an. His faith in this sense cannot be shaken in this world. This should explain the wave of mockery and (disapproval) of the frivolous peace efforts that are undertake and are being held under the pretext of peace with the Jews...which will Never ever be!! (p. 16 above)
Martin we fully agree that the Gospel is bigger and more powerful than the above quote. Witness the book, Son of Hamas... Yet, if we disregard these theological realities due to the very real presence of real suffering and real injustice in this area, it is to our detriment.
Shalom, Salaam
John