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.
It goes without saying that talk is cheap. As you will notice I suggested that I advocated that the quote supposedly attributed to St. Francis could and should be re-read and re-worked in light of the more authoritative and more determinative witness by the Bible. Thus you can see that I suggested that the quote be re-worked to state, "Preach the Gospel at all times: use your words and your life."
Just wondering, Alex. What collective impression did you get from the Biblical data?
From the post, you can see that I fully agree that Jesus is the only one who can fill the God-shaped vacuum that we have. Also, with Calvin I fully agree that each and every person has what he called the sensus divinitatis or sense of the divine. Calvin said, "“No human being can be found, however barbarous or completely savage, untouched by some awareness of religion.” All that is true, and I think is not in opposition to the Newberg book you cited.
The challenge is to define the effects of the fall on human nature and their ability to know and want God in a saving fashion. This is called the noetic effects of sin. Phillip E. Hughes, describes the noetic consequences of the fall as described in Roman 1:18–32 as “ intellectual futility,” “spiritual darkness,” “incredible stupidity,” “false religion,” “gross immorality,” and “social depravity.” Phillip E. Hughes, in Jerusalem and Athens, in “Crucial Passages for Christian Apologetics,” ed. E. R. Geehan (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1971), 134.
Calvin is quite good on this aspect, and he stands on the apostle Paul's thinking who said---and I paraphrase---I Corinthians 2:14
The person who lives on an entirely human level neither welcomes nor embraces the Spiritual realities found in the biblical text because they appear to this person as sheer nonsense; furthermore, because of sin-deformed thinking processes, they are unable to investigate and ascertain their worth because they are not aided by the illuminating work of the Spirit.
Ronald, what is at stake, is a question of how we see humans in their unregenerate state. We can marshal whatever extra-biblical material we want, but it must take second seat to what the "whole counsel of God" revealed in the Bible tells us. Unfortunately, we cannot wish away the effects of the fall.
Just as an aside, many evangelistic strategies with an essentially Arminian anthropology (with a positivistic view of human nature) presuppose that the human will is sick, uninformed, or slightly misguided. These same strategies speak of people innately hungering for God, but deny the pervasive effects of the fall, which Calvinists variously refer to as radical (right down to the root) corruption, pervasive corruption, or the often misunderstood term from TULIP called 'total depravity'.
Yes, I agree that giving is certainly a vital part of Christian worship. Glad you highlighted that. What the pastor was getting at is that fundraising has become a greater and greater part of the job description of missionaries. That is to say, it takes more and more time, energy and resources. I think of missionaries who return to the place to which they have been sent by their mission agency, simply exhausted from the rigors of their deputation schedule where they sleep in a different bed almost every night, and travel thousands of miles in doing so.
As we conferred with these colleagues, many of them have asked if there is not a better way to be sent in a way 'worthy of God.' When a senior pastor suggests that he will serve as a missions' advocate to speak on our behalf, and to make introductions to donors, this is huge. Sure, we must still present the need and the vision, but much of the spadework is done.Was his phraseology of 'hat in hand' out of place? I guess it depends if you are the missionary, like some who feel a certain pressure to be like a salesperson who has to "close the deal" with every relationship they have. I guess it also depends if one is feeling increasing pressure to bring in enough each month to reach the financial targets set by their agency, and the resultant despondency when these are not being met. For some missionaries this is a huge stress, while for others it is not. I still think the pastor's sentiments were magnanimous, and likely a response to the fact that he did not have to ask for his monthly salary.
I fully agree that we need a Christian view of money. Thank you again for your comments.
You hit the nail on the head. If we treat the Bible as being "Thus says the LORD" written, and we truly understand who this LORD is, then we will not take liberties in fooling around with what He says. Isn't it amazing that in translating legal documents, utmost care is given to a precise rendering of the words, idiomatic expressions, and to represent the author's words with utmost respect for that author.
When it comes to Bible translation, unfortunately the idea that all of the Bible is something like an idiomatic expression has taken over. For instance we all get it that "the early bird gets the worm" might need a bit of translation latitude. In that case there is no big argument about word for word translation. However, in the cases above, the two persons of the Trinity, Father and Son, are now treated like they are idiomatic expressions and all kinds of liberties are taken. This is category confusion and more driven by the spirit of the age, than skillful translation.
You raise a good point about gender neutral translations. Without painting the kettle black, un-necessarily, one must ask how much of the spirit of the age has entered into the presuppositions of the translators.
Since translation agencies are staffed by a mixture of all kinds of people, I will not mention any names, but you would do well to read through the attached resources.
Fully agreed that more accountability is needed in the Bible translation field. Just because an agency is a household name does not mean that financial, ethical and theological stewardship should not be taken. The lack of this accountability is how we got into this mess in the first place.
The rendition of the Qur'an by Saskas and Hungerford, i.e. The Qur’an with references to the Bible: A Contemporary Understanding (Fairfax, VA: Bridges of Reconciliation, 2016) and The reference Qur'an coordinated by Jeff Hayes and company are a new genre of English renditions of the Qur'an which use Biblical cross-references. This is not unlike an English study Bible which has cross references as footnotes.
So what is the issue at hand?
If Christians are Islamizing the Bible by putting in phraseology that appeals to Muslims, then this is the mirror image, namely that Muslims (i.e. Saskas) and even Christians (like Jeff Hayes) are Christianizing the Qur'an. In the case of the Saskas rendition he states that his objectives are:
To promote reconciliation. To be a bridge between believers in the God of Abraham. To promote mutual values. (xi-xvi)
He goes on to say that he hopes that Christians and Jews will see the Qur'an "as a continuation of the same message."
This raises a number of red flags. For Christians, the Bible alone is the Word of the Triune God written, and its revelation points to Jesus as the Son of God Incarnate, fully God, and fully human. According to Hebrews 1, Jesus is God's final revelation.
So how can the Qur'an be a continuation of the same message?
Secondly, if you look at page 32 of the Saskas rendition, he cites Surah 3:49, which is a story about the Muslim Jesus doing some miracles. The cross references are to verses about Jesus' miracles in John 5, John 9, Matthew 8, and Mark 12. This can lead someone to think that the Muslim Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are the same person. Absolutely not. The Muslim Jesus is a miracle-working super-human prophet who does everything "by the permission of Allah" but is anything but the Son of God incarnate, showing that he can do the deeds of God, i.e. making water and winds to still, upsetting the natural order with healing, resurrection and the like, because he is God. Miracles in Islam serve to validate someone's prophethood. Miracles in the Bible serve to demonstrate the glory of God, to show His compassion for broken humans, to show that the era of the Messiah has broken in to this universe, and to give foretastes of the consumated Kingdom of God.
If you see the Reference Qur'an you will see that it says that "through the footnotes, this translation strives to show the points of commonality in doctrine between the Qur’an and the Bible." As you can see above, this is a very myopic statement bordering on blindness. If it said, there is a commonality of some expressions, that would be one thing. To say there is commonality in doctrines, is another.
It is important to see that efforts such as the Islamizing of the Bible, and the Christianizing of the Qur'an serve to make Christians think that they are closer to Islam than meets the eye. I believe this is a great deception.
The Encyclopedia of Islam or the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an have good articles.
e.g Zabur
Zabūr
(1,345 words)
Author(s): Horovitz, J. | , Firestone, R.
(a.), a term found in pre-Islamic poetry referring to a written text, and in the Ḳurʾān referring to divine scripture, in some contexts specifically to a scripture of David [see dāwūd ], probably the Psalms. The Arabic root z-b-r is associated with “stone” ( ḥid̲j̲āra ), and verbal forms from it convey such meanings as stoning, lining a well with stones or setting stones in walls according to an overlapping pattern (an unrelated word is zubra , said to designate a piece of iron). A further range of meanings associated with the root conveys the sens…
Source: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition
Zabūr
(843 words)
Author(s): Horovitz, J.
(a.), probably a loanword from the South, but already used by pre-Islāmic poets in the sense of “writ”; in this sense it is still found in al-Farazdaḳ, Naḳāʾiḍ, lxxv. 1. From the second Makkan period onwards, Muḥammad uses the plural zubur in order to denote the revealed books (Sūra xxvi. 196; iii. 181; xvi. 46; xxxv. 23) as well as the heavenly writings, in which human deeds are recorded (Sūra liv. 43, 52). The singular zabūr, on the other hand, occurs in the Ḳurʾān exclusively in connection with Dāwūd. In the early Sūra xvii. 57 Muḥ…
Source: Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition (1913-1936)
Long story short, we share terms with Muslims, but the meanings are radically different. Check out the article, Whi is the Messiah in Islam?
Resonate. For all the nice talk given above and in the video, a few vital items are missing:
a. The whole counsel of God, proclaimed in power, can cause a resonance which is nothing less than open hostility. Think of the sneers and jeers received by Jesus and the Apostle Paul. If one delivers a message that tickles the ears of its auditors, yes, it will resonate, but not in the right way.
b. It is possible to resonate with the values of secular culture more than with the Gospel proclaimed in power. That is why the Apostle Paul said that he would not employ "plausible words of human wisdom." The mission might respond that it has built in safeguards, but if a survey of 15 local CRCNA churches is done in the area where I live, the influences of the culture are strong, if not growing stronger.
c. What about the word, 'resolute' ?Sure it is not as soft and cuddly as resonate, but it implies direction, conviction, being constrained---all which are pregnant with theological value. Is resonate pregnant with Reformed theological value? To this reader, not at all on a first reading, and perhaps not at 5th reading.
I can't escape the force of 'resolute' on a first reading.
Resolute: marked by firm determination
"The love of Christ constrains me" (2 Cor. 5:14) =being marked by firm determination.
Blessings
John Span
Global Missions Capacity Builder
Serving in a partnership between CRWM and Interserve
Matthew you raise many important points. Here are a few areas in which I can wholeheartedly agree:
1. Governments should be allowed to set policies.
2. Christians should be charitable.
3. Christians should utilise prophetic voices in the face of injustice.
4. When one part of the body suffers, then the rest suffers.
Each of these, categories can be subject to category confusion and manipulation, if not treated with discernment. Let me explain.
1. I lived in North Africa. A new president with a lot of resolve came into power. He worked hard to ensure that the day to day lives of people had a sense of security and stability. This was accomplished in part by jailing people who were implicated in causing insecurity, but not necessarily guilty. From the local people's stance, they saw this as the cost of having a largely stable country. That is to say, there was a certain amount of collateral damage. Sounds cold, but they saw this as part of the cost of being at war against the forces that would cause instabillty. Guess what the reaction of some journalists from the West was? They cried injustice, unfair, heavy-handedness and the like. What they were doing was imposing a certain idealistic view on a situation that was not their lived experience. Thus, it would have been convenient for even churches who expressed a lot of sentimental humanitarianism to join forces with the Western journalists and call for the ousting of the president. It would have made good press, but some of the realities on the ground called for other responses.
2. Christians should be charitable. Absolutely. But that needs to be with eyes wide open. That is to say, we need to understand the motivations and means of any group according to their own statements, their own declared intents and their own actions. If a talking snake says that it has a declared intent to topple all of the values and Judeo-Christian ethic in a hen-house, then one must ask if it is prudent to invite the snake into the henhouse under the guise of charity.henhouse under the guise of charity.
To focus Christian charity on Christian refugees and groups that are systemically targeted i.e. the Yazidis, is, as you mentioned, a necessary duty. Just yesterday, I signed a petition asking the government to help with those Pakistani refugees stuck in Thailand, and between a rock and a hard place. In some way their plight is more pitiful yet than some from the Middle-East. They don't get much press, because the press is highly selective especially with stories that can invoke an emotional reaction, such as drowned children etc. Of course, one can be accused of being hard-hearted here, but we need to avoid both sentimental humanitarianism and indifference to the fate of others--both of which are questionable.
3. Christians should speak prophetically against injustice. Absolutely. I agree with you, that should be even when it is politically incorrect. However, recall liberation theology and its advocacy for the poor. On the surface this was great. What actually happened though, was the inclusion of Marxist-Leninist views into this so-called 'prophetic speaking' and it became a tool for socialist leaning governments to co-opt the church. The same can be said of the temporary ban on visas issue to certain passport holders. The church could get co-opted. Not saying it will, but the tendency is easy, especially when righteous anger with a touch of sanctimony sells sermons and print. Sounds callous, but most of the work of Old Testament prophets came with a lot of weeping in quiet for injustice and wrestling with God. Didn't seem to be the stuff of "look how prophetic I am, and look at what a wonderful advocate against injustice I am.' Should concerned Christians address the authorities? Absolutely. With eyes wide open.
4. When one part of the body suffers the rest suffers. Absolutely. Yet, we need to tease apart a few categories. America is not paradise. All Christians in the world are not called to come to the Americas. Some will remain in countries where their witness is vital. They might be abused, be poor, and even die. I have seen this first hand in another country in Africa where I lived. Guess what? Many would not trade in all of the trinkets from the West for the ability and privilege to suffer. They taught me how to pray. Let's drop the notion that we are the solution.
Secondly, some suffering is more newsworthy than others. It is more 'sexy' to highlight the suffering of someone in the West Bank--perhaps with a political agenda behind it--than someone from, say NGoroland. That is why it is prudent for the church to do her homework, as to which sufferings are the most un-noticed, and which should and could be alleviated. Anything that causes the church to receive undue good press for its noble efforts, might be looked at carefully. It might also cause us to ask serious questions about our motivations.
In conclusion:
A while back, we met with what we called "the most powerful woman in __________" Eyes lit up. You met with the First Lady? Actually not. She was the second wife of her husband, now taking care of her five children while he had his fling with his new wife. She walked to work. Sang all day. Came to work tired sometimes because she had been at an all-night prayer meeting. She knows the Living God. For her. Trump? Who is that?
Just how much should the Church [in this case the CRC] get involved with anything or everything?
It appears that a number of comments, including an allusion in my previous post, touch on the fact that a church, in this case the CRC, needs to prioritize its engagements. I wonder at times, if this is one of its greatest challenges, especially when it holds to the idea of "every square inch" is Christ's. It appears that idea, is then taken to mean, that the CRC should get involved in "every square inch" of engagement on this planet.
A while ago Palmer Robertson penned an article entitled "Toward a Reformational View of Total Christian Involvement" in two parts, and suggested the following:
Sadly the church today has assumed that all the labors of the Messianic kingdom must be funneled through its assemblies. Sadly the church has taken upon itself a role too great for its resources. Sadly the assembled form of Christ's people has lost faith in the working of Christ outside its own assembly halls. The result of this tragic assumption by the church of all that which rightly belongs to the Messianic kingdom is two-fold: first, the most essential task of the church, which is to concern itself with that particular revelation embodied in Christ and incorporated in Scripture has been neglected; and, secondly, by wrestling from the kingdom members their initiative in every realm of human existence, the church has robbed kingdom members of their proper and effective role among the world today......
Receiving its impetus and direction from the church, working individually and in groups as servants of the Lord Christ, the kingdom of Christ assaults every structure and seeks to bring every thought of man into sub-mission to Christ. Christian political organizations direct their efforts toward bringing the secular state into conformity with God's intention for the state. Christian social group strain their efforts to seek social justice among men. Christian educational organizations demand that every philosophy be brought into submission to the lordship of Christ......
So long as the church assumes to itself all the prerogatives which belong to these various ways of God's working in the world, its central task and calling, its unique mission to the world shall be dissipated.
....more later...enough said, other than he sketches out three positions in part 2 of his paper, and here he echoes what has been expressed in some of the posts above:
.....the liberal expands the church so that it engulfs the kingdom. As a result, the church is forced into involvements too deep for its competence. The church usurps those areas of concern which belong rightly to Christians in their vocations, and at the same time neglects its distinctive responsibility of expounding Scriptural truth to its people. The result is that kingdom members lack the theological depth necessary for accurate and significant action, while the church issues ineffective decrees on subjects beyond its competence.
The survey lacks the ability to suggest other names than the ones presented. Sure, one can comment on them, but it has the feel of being corralled somewhat.
I agree with some contributors below that it is very useful to affirm the fact that we are Christian, Reformed and we believe in missions. I also do agree that a shorter acronym is easier to handle.
As well, I would suggest that this agency does not need a name that says, "we only speak English" or understand the world from a very limited North American context. This could put some of the names suggested in the survey in a new light.
It seems the name has to depict its core value, or its core business and should be explicitly theological.
Here are a couple of other suggestions:
NChristos --sure it sounds like a Greek island, but it does say that what we do is because we are "in" Christ. Sure doesn't sound overly English or North American either. Anyone in the world who partners with CRCNA mission agencies, and knows some Greek likely will understand it.
Crossland(s) --slightly plagarized, this is a place in Kansas and New Mexico and the name of a church in Newmarket Canada. It does, however, give the idea of the cross at its center, it crosses lands, ie. builds bridges between peoples, and it is easy to say. It could also read, Crosslands Reformed Mission or CRM.
Vidalogos. Something that communicates life, is found in the living word of God. Might be close to Galapagos, but then who is counting? Certainly, has a global feel to it.
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
Posted in: Convince, Exhort, Proclaim, and Speak Boldly: Communication Verbs in Luke and Acts
Thanks Alex:
It goes without saying that talk is cheap. As you will notice I suggested that I advocated that the quote supposedly attributed to St. Francis could and should be re-read and re-worked in light of the more authoritative and more determinative witness by the Bible. Thus you can see that I suggested that the quote be re-worked to state, "Preach the Gospel at all times: use your words and your life."
Just wondering, Alex. What collective impression did you get from the Biblical data?
Blessings
John
Posted in: Thinking Theologically: Are People "All Around the World" Hungering for Jesus?
Thanks Ronald:
From the post, you can see that I fully agree that Jesus is the only one who can fill the God-shaped vacuum that we have. Also, with Calvin I fully agree that each and every person has what he called the sensus divinitatis or sense of the divine. Calvin said, "“No human being can be found, however barbarous or completely savage, untouched by some awareness of religion.” All that is true, and I think is not in opposition to the Newberg book you cited.
The challenge is to define the effects of the fall on human nature and their ability to know and want God in a saving fashion. This is called the noetic effects of sin. Phillip E. Hughes, describes the noetic consequences of the fall as described in Roman 1:18–32 as “ intellectual futility,” “spiritual darkness,” “incredible stupidity,” “false religion,” “gross immorality,” and “social depravity.” Phillip E. Hughes, in Jerusalem and Athens, in “Crucial Passages for Christian Apologetics,” ed. E. R. Geehan (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1971), 134.
Calvin is quite good on this aspect, and he stands on the apostle Paul's thinking who said---and I paraphrase---I Corinthians 2:14
The person who lives on an entirely human level neither welcomes nor embraces the Spiritual realities found in the biblical text because they appear to this person as sheer nonsense; furthermore, because of sin-deformed thinking processes, they are unable to investigate and ascertain their worth because they are not aided by the illuminating work of the Spirit.
Ronald, what is at stake, is a question of how we see humans in their unregenerate state. We can marshal whatever extra-biblical material we want, but it must take second seat to what the "whole counsel of God" revealed in the Bible tells us. Unfortunately, we cannot wish away the effects of the fall.
Just as an aside, many evangelistic strategies with an essentially Arminian anthropology (with a positivistic view of human nature) presuppose that the human will is sick, uninformed, or slightly misguided. These same strategies speak of people innately hungering for God, but deny the pervasive effects of the fall, which Calvinists variously refer to as radical (right down to the root) corruption, pervasive corruption, or the often misunderstood term from TULIP called 'total depravity'.
Thanks for engaging
John
Posted in: Thinking Theologically: Are People "All Around the World" Hungering for Jesus?
Thank you Ronald.
Blessings in Christ
JS
Posted in: Sending Missionaries in Ways 'Worthy of God'
Thanks Larry:
Yes, I agree that giving is certainly a vital part of Christian worship. Glad you highlighted that. What the pastor was getting at is that fundraising has become a greater and greater part of the job description of missionaries. That is to say, it takes more and more time, energy and resources. I think of missionaries who return to the place to which they have been sent by their mission agency, simply exhausted from the rigors of their deputation schedule where they sleep in a different bed almost every night, and travel thousands of miles in doing so.
As we conferred with these colleagues, many of them have asked if there is not a better way to be sent in a way 'worthy of God.' When a senior pastor suggests that he will serve as a missions' advocate to speak on our behalf, and to make introductions to donors, this is huge. Sure, we must still present the need and the vision, but much of the spadework is done.Was his phraseology of 'hat in hand' out of place? I guess it depends if you are the missionary, like some who feel a certain pressure to be like a salesperson who has to "close the deal" with every relationship they have. I guess it also depends if one is feeling increasing pressure to bring in enough each month to reach the financial targets set by their agency, and the resultant despondency when these are not being met. For some missionaries this is a huge stress, while for others it is not. I still think the pastor's sentiments were magnanimous, and likely a response to the fact that he did not have to ask for his monthly salary.
I fully agree that we need a Christian view of money. Thank you again for your comments.
Blessings in Christ
John
Posted in: Are Bible Translators Trying to Bring Christianity and Islam Closer Together?
Thank you for the kind comments, Eric:
You hit the nail on the head. If we treat the Bible as being "Thus says the LORD" written, and we truly understand who this LORD is, then we will not take liberties in fooling around with what He says. Isn't it amazing that in translating legal documents, utmost care is given to a precise rendering of the words, idiomatic expressions, and to represent the author's words with utmost respect for that author.
When it comes to Bible translation, unfortunately the idea that all of the Bible is something like an idiomatic expression has taken over. For instance we all get it that "the early bird gets the worm" might need a bit of translation latitude. In that case there is no big argument about word for word translation. However, in the cases above, the two persons of the Trinity, Father and Son, are now treated like they are idiomatic expressions and all kinds of liberties are taken. This is category confusion and more driven by the spirit of the age, than skillful translation.
You raise a good point about gender neutral translations. Without painting the kettle black, un-necessarily, one must ask how much of the spirit of the age has entered into the presuppositions of the translators.
Since translation agencies are staffed by a mixture of all kinds of people, I will not mention any names, but you would do well to read through the attached resources.
Fully agreed that more accountability is needed in the Bible translation field. Just because an agency is a household name does not mean that financial, ethical and theological stewardship should not be taken. The lack of this accountability is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Blessings on your work
John Span
Posted in: Are Bible Translators Trying to Bring Christianity and Islam Closer Together?
Greetings Harry:
The rendition of the Qur'an by Saskas and Hungerford, i.e. The Qur’an with references to the Bible: A Contemporary Understanding (Fairfax, VA: Bridges of Reconciliation, 2016) and The reference Qur'an coordinated by Jeff Hayes and company are a new genre of English renditions of the Qur'an which use Biblical cross-references. This is not unlike an English study Bible which has cross references as footnotes.
So what is the issue at hand?
If Christians are Islamizing the Bible by putting in phraseology that appeals to Muslims, then this is the mirror image, namely that Muslims (i.e. Saskas) and even Christians (like Jeff Hayes) are Christianizing the Qur'an. In the case of the Saskas rendition he states that his objectives are:
To promote reconciliation. To be a bridge between believers in the God of Abraham. To promote mutual values. (xi-xvi)
He goes on to say that he hopes that Christians and Jews will see the Qur'an "as a continuation of the same message."
This raises a number of red flags. For Christians, the Bible alone is the Word of the Triune God written, and its revelation points to Jesus as the Son of God Incarnate, fully God, and fully human. According to Hebrews 1, Jesus is God's final revelation.
So how can the Qur'an be a continuation of the same message?
Secondly, if you look at page 32 of the Saskas rendition, he cites Surah 3:49, which is a story about the Muslim Jesus doing some miracles. The cross references are to verses about Jesus' miracles in John 5, John 9, Matthew 8, and Mark 12. This can lead someone to think that the Muslim Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are the same person. Absolutely not. The Muslim Jesus is a miracle-working super-human prophet who does everything "by the permission of Allah" but is anything but the Son of God incarnate, showing that he can do the deeds of God, i.e. making water and winds to still, upsetting the natural order with healing, resurrection and the like, because he is God. Miracles in Islam serve to validate someone's prophethood. Miracles in the Bible serve to demonstrate the glory of God, to show His compassion for broken humans, to show that the era of the Messiah has broken in to this universe, and to give foretastes of the consumated Kingdom of God.
If you see the Reference Qur'an you will see that it says that "through the footnotes, this translation strives to show the points of commonality in doctrine between the Qur’an and the Bible." As you can see above, this is a very myopic statement bordering on blindness. If it said, there is a commonality of some expressions, that would be one thing. To say there is commonality in doctrines, is another.
It is important to see that efforts such as the Islamizing of the Bible, and the Christianizing of the Qur'an serve to make Christians think that they are closer to Islam than meets the eye. I believe this is a great deception.
Hope that helps.
John
Posted in: What Is The "Injil"—Sometimes Known as the "Gospel"—in Islam?
The Encyclopedia of Islam or the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an have good articles.
e.g Zabur
Zabūr
(1,345 words)
Author(s): Horovitz, J. | , Firestone, R.
(a.), a term found in pre-Islamic poetry referring to a written text, and in the Ḳurʾān referring to divine scripture, in some contexts specifically to a scripture of David [see dāwūd ], probably the Psalms. The Arabic root z-b-r is associated with “stone” ( ḥid̲j̲āra ), and verbal forms from it convey such meanings as stoning, lining a well with stones or setting stones in walls according to an overlapping pattern (an unrelated word is zubra , said to designate a piece of iron). A further range of meanings associated with the root conveys the sens…
Source: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition
Zabūr
(843 words)
Author(s): Horovitz, J.
(a.), probably a loanword from the South, but already used by pre-Islāmic poets in the sense of “writ”; in this sense it is still found in al-Farazdaḳ, Naḳāʾiḍ, lxxv. 1. From the second Makkan period onwards, Muḥammad uses the plural zubur in order to denote the revealed books (Sūra xxvi. 196; iii. 181; xvi. 46; xxxv. 23) as well as the heavenly writings, in which human deeds are recorded (Sūra liv. 43, 52). The singular zabūr, on the other hand, occurs in the Ḳurʾān exclusively in connection with Dāwūd. In the early Sūra xvii. 57 Muḥ…
Source: Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition (1913-1936)
Long story short, we share terms with Muslims, but the meanings are radically different. Check out the article, Whi is the Messiah in Islam?
Blessings
SC
Posted in: New Mission Agency - Behind the New Name
Greetings all:
Global Mission. Amen to that.
Resonate. For all the nice talk given above and in the video, a few vital items are missing:
a. The whole counsel of God, proclaimed in power, can cause a resonance which is nothing less than open hostility. Think of the sneers and jeers received by Jesus and the Apostle Paul. If one delivers a message that tickles the ears of its auditors, yes, it will resonate, but not in the right way.
b. It is possible to resonate with the values of secular culture more than with the Gospel proclaimed in power. That is why the Apostle Paul said that he would not employ "plausible words of human wisdom." The mission might respond that it has built in safeguards, but if a survey of 15 local CRCNA churches is done in the area where I live, the influences of the culture are strong, if not growing stronger.
c. What about the word, 'resolute' ?Sure it is not as soft and cuddly as resonate, but it implies direction, conviction, being constrained---all which are pregnant with theological value. Is resonate pregnant with Reformed theological value? To this reader, not at all on a first reading, and perhaps not at 5th reading.
I can't escape the force of 'resolute' on a first reading.
Resolute: marked by firm determination
"The love of Christ constrains me" (2 Cor. 5:14) =being marked by firm determination.
Blessings
John Span
Global Missions Capacity Builder
Serving in a partnership between CRWM and Interserve
Posted in: How Should the Church Respond to Trump’s Travel Ban?
Greetings:
Matthew you raise many important points. Here are a few areas in which I can wholeheartedly agree:
1. Governments should be allowed to set policies.
2. Christians should be charitable.
3. Christians should utilise prophetic voices in the face of injustice.
4. When one part of the body suffers, then the rest suffers.
Each of these, categories can be subject to category confusion and manipulation, if not treated with discernment. Let me explain.
1. I lived in North Africa. A new president with a lot of resolve came into power. He worked hard to ensure that the day to day lives of people had a sense of security and stability. This was accomplished in part by jailing people who were implicated in causing insecurity, but not necessarily guilty. From the local people's stance, they saw this as the cost of having a largely stable country. That is to say, there was a certain amount of collateral damage. Sounds cold, but they saw this as part of the cost of being at war against the forces that would cause instabillty. Guess what the reaction of some journalists from the West was? They cried injustice, unfair, heavy-handedness and the like. What they were doing was imposing a certain idealistic view on a situation that was not their lived experience. Thus, it would have been convenient for even churches who expressed a lot of sentimental humanitarianism to join forces with the Western journalists and call for the ousting of the president. It would have made good press, but some of the realities on the ground called for other responses.
2. Christians should be charitable. Absolutely. But that needs to be with eyes wide open. That is to say, we need to understand the motivations and means of any group according to their own statements, their own declared intents and their own actions. If a talking snake says that it has a declared intent to topple all of the values and Judeo-Christian ethic in a hen-house, then one must ask if it is prudent to invite the snake into the henhouse under the guise of charity.henhouse under the guise of charity.
To focus Christian charity on Christian refugees and groups that are systemically targeted i.e. the Yazidis, is, as you mentioned, a necessary duty. Just yesterday, I signed a petition asking the government to help with those Pakistani refugees stuck in Thailand, and between a rock and a hard place. In some way their plight is more pitiful yet than some from the Middle-East. They don't get much press, because the press is highly selective especially with stories that can invoke an emotional reaction, such as drowned children etc. Of course, one can be accused of being hard-hearted here, but we need to avoid both sentimental humanitarianism and indifference to the fate of others--both of which are questionable.
3. Christians should speak prophetically against injustice. Absolutely. I agree with you, that should be even when it is politically incorrect. However, recall liberation theology and its advocacy for the poor. On the surface this was great. What actually happened though, was the inclusion of Marxist-Leninist views into this so-called 'prophetic speaking' and it became a tool for socialist leaning governments to co-opt the church. The same can be said of the temporary ban on visas issue to certain passport holders. The church could get co-opted. Not saying it will, but the tendency is easy, especially when righteous anger with a touch of sanctimony sells sermons and print. Sounds callous, but most of the work of Old Testament prophets came with a lot of weeping in quiet for injustice and wrestling with God. Didn't seem to be the stuff of "look how prophetic I am, and look at what a wonderful advocate against injustice I am.' Should concerned Christians address the authorities? Absolutely. With eyes wide open.
4. When one part of the body suffers the rest suffers. Absolutely. Yet, we need to tease apart a few categories. America is not paradise. All Christians in the world are not called to come to the Americas. Some will remain in countries where their witness is vital. They might be abused, be poor, and even die. I have seen this first hand in another country in Africa where I lived. Guess what? Many would not trade in all of the trinkets from the West for the ability and privilege to suffer. They taught me how to pray. Let's drop the notion that we are the solution.
Secondly, some suffering is more newsworthy than others. It is more 'sexy' to highlight the suffering of someone in the West Bank--perhaps with a political agenda behind it--than someone from, say NGoroland. That is why it is prudent for the church to do her homework, as to which sufferings are the most un-noticed, and which should and could be alleviated. Anything that causes the church to receive undue good press for its noble efforts, might be looked at carefully. It might also cause us to ask serious questions about our motivations.
In conclusion:
A while back, we met with what we called "the most powerful woman in __________" Eyes lit up. You met with the First Lady? Actually not. She was the second wife of her husband, now taking care of her five children while he had his fling with his new wife. She walked to work. Sang all day. Came to work tired sometimes because she had been at an all-night prayer meeting. She knows the Living God. For her. Trump? Who is that?
Blessings in Christ
JS
Posted in: How Should the Church Respond to Trump’s Travel Ban?
Just how much should the Church [in this case the CRC] get involved with anything or everything?
It appears that a number of comments, including an allusion in my previous post, touch on the fact that a church, in this case the CRC, needs to prioritize its engagements. I wonder at times, if this is one of its greatest challenges, especially when it holds to the idea of "every square inch" is Christ's. It appears that idea, is then taken to mean, that the CRC should get involved in "every square inch" of engagement on this planet.
A while ago Palmer Robertson penned an article entitled "Toward a Reformational View of Total Christian Involvement" in two parts, and suggested the following:
Sadly the church today has assumed that all the labors of the Messianic kingdom must be funneled through its assemblies. Sadly the church has taken upon itself a role too great for its resources. Sadly the assembled form of Christ's people has lost faith in the working of Christ outside its own assembly halls. The result of this tragic assumption by the church of all that which rightly belongs to the Messianic kingdom is two-fold: first, the most essential task of the church, which is to concern itself with that particular revelation embodied in Christ and incorporated in Scripture has been neglected; and, secondly, by wrestling from the kingdom members their initiative in every realm of human existence, the church has robbed kingdom members of their proper and effective role among the world today......
Receiving its impetus and direction from the church, working individually and in groups as servants of the Lord Christ, the kingdom of Christ assaults every structure and seeks to bring every thought of man into sub-mission to Christ. Christian political organizations direct their efforts toward bringing the secular state into conformity with God's intention for the state. Christian social group strain their efforts to seek social justice among men. Christian educational organizations demand that every philosophy be brought into submission to the lordship of Christ......
So long as the church assumes to itself all the prerogatives which belong to these various ways of God's working in the world, its central task and calling, its unique mission to the world shall be dissipated.
....more later...enough said, other than he sketches out three positions in part 2 of his paper, and here he echoes what has been expressed in some of the posts above:
.....the liberal expands the church so that it engulfs the kingdom. As a result, the church is forced into involvements too deep for its competence. The church usurps those areas of concern which belong rightly to Christians in their vocations, and at the same time neglects its distinctive responsibility of expounding Scriptural truth to its people. The result is that kingdom members lack the theological depth necessary for accurate and significant action, while the church issues ineffective decrees on subjects beyond its competence.
Hope that helps.
John
Posted in: Help Us Name the New Mission Agency!
Hello Josh and company:
The survey lacks the ability to suggest other names than the ones presented. Sure, one can comment on them, but it has the feel of being corralled somewhat.
I agree with some contributors below that it is very useful to affirm the fact that we are Christian, Reformed and we believe in missions. I also do agree that a shorter acronym is easier to handle.
As well, I would suggest that this agency does not need a name that says, "we only speak English" or understand the world from a very limited North American context. This could put some of the names suggested in the survey in a new light.
It seems the name has to depict its core value, or its core business and should be explicitly theological.
Here are a couple of other suggestions:
NChristos --sure it sounds like a Greek island, but it does say that what we do is because we are "in" Christ. Sure doesn't sound overly English or North American either. Anyone in the world who partners with CRCNA mission agencies, and knows some Greek likely will understand it.
Crossland(s) --slightly plagarized, this is a place in Kansas and New Mexico and the name of a church in Newmarket Canada. It does, however, give the idea of the cross at its center, it crosses lands, ie. builds bridges between peoples, and it is easy to say. It could also read, Crosslands Reformed Mission or CRM.
Vidalogos. Something that communicates life, is found in the living word of God. Might be close to Galapagos, but then who is counting? Certainly, has a global feel to it.
All the best with the process.
John Span