AgapeRevolution.com

Entries from March 2006

Lack of Male Direction?

March 31, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Washington Post has an article asking what is happening to the boys.

This phenomenon cuts across all demographics. You'll find it in families both rich and poor; black, white, Asian and Hispanic; urban, suburban and rural. According to the Census Bureau, fully one-third of young men ages 22 to 34 are still living at home with their parents — a roughly 100 percent increase in the past 20 years. No such change has occurred with regard to young women. Why?

My friend and colleague Judy Kleinfeld, a professor at the University of Alaska, has spent many years studying this growing phenomenon. She points out that many young women are living at home nowadays as well. But those young women usually have a definite plan. They're working toward a college degree, or they're saving money to open their own business. And when you come back three or four years later, you'll find that in most cases those young women have achieved their goal, or something like it. They've earned that degree. They've opened their business.

But not the boys. "The girls are driven; the boys have no direction," is the way Kleinfeld summarizes her findings. Kleinfeld is organizing a national Boys Project, with a board composed of leading researchers and writers such as Sandra Stotsky, Michael Thompson and Richard Whitmire, to figure out what's going wrong with boys. The project is only a few weeks old, it has called no news conferences and its Web site ( http://www.boysproject.net ) has just been launched.

I think that the problem can best be described as a lack of purpose, and I think that this lack of purpose is probably a result of the feminist movement. The feminist movement had some legitimate complaints about women being historically mistreated, but the solutions and rhetoric of the movement were too radical. (1) Women have taken on the traditional male role in society, and many do not need husbands for financial support at all. The traditional family structure offered a man the purpose of providing for and protecting his family. If women do not need provision or protection anymore, what is there left for males to do other than play video games? (2) The feminist movement launched an extremely hostile attack on men. The philosophical position of many feminists was very much like that of Marxists. Marxists argued that capitalism was the root cause of all of society's problems. Feminists argued that masculinity was the root cause of all of society's problems. After having launched a successful attack on masculinity, what we have now is the outgrowth of that, which is undriven males who just do not care about anything any more. (3) There could also be a rebellious element to this. Males may be tired of female empowerment, tired of being a social cancer, and tired of being put at a disadvantage in employment and college admissions. So the lack of motivation could be a conscious or unconscious expression of male frustration.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture

The Playboy Legacy

March 31, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Wall Street Journal has an article today by Matthew Scully on the Playboy Legacy.

Hugh Hefner turns 80 next Sunday, and The Mansion is once again the place to be. "A major pajama party" is planned, as he told Maclean's, along with other observances equal to the dignity of the occasion. But this milestone also has "Hef" in a reflective mood, wondering how he will be remembered and trying to sum up "the major message in my life."
. . .
He is certainly right to believe that he has left his mark in the world. Richard Corliss in Time magazine is overstating it a bit when he writes that "porn doesn't affront contemporary community standards. It is a contemporary community standard." But he is close enough, and we have Hugh Marston Hefner, more than anyone else, to thank for the great plenitude of porn we take for granted today.

There was a dark and joyless time in America when one could actually go about daily life without ever encountering pornographic images. A child could grow up scarcely knowing that "adult entertainment" existed, much less acquainted with its many varieties. Hotel stays, in that prudish, stuffy era, had to be endured without pay-as-you-go porn, in-room and On Command. American males could not avail themselves of hundreds of millions of obscene films every year–as they do now, courtesy of even respectable corporations like Time Warner and Comcast–or take in the show at "gentlemen's clubs" when porn is not enough.

It was Mr. Hefner who put the real money in porn, a business hard to go poor in under any circumstances (except for the unfortunates given starring roles) and today a $57 billion-a-year global industry. He brought it into the central stream of culture, so that now even upscale bookstores stock Penthouse or similar offerings without a second thought. He gave porn that "classy" feel and its phony creed of "artistic" expression and protected "speech" by which far livelier fare than Playboy would soon ease into popular culture.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture

Onward Christian Soldiers

March 31, 2006 · 1 Comment

During the recent incident over Abdul Rahman, I read some responses of Christian leaders to the incident. I noticed a common theme among the Christian responses to the incident, which is that they were all state centered in their approach to the situation. When they saw the Rahman situation, there was only one issue that they thought was important, which was that Rahman was being oppressed by the Afghan government. I did not see a single Christian response to the event that praised Rahaman for the unbelievable sacrafice that he was making. I think that this highlights a problem within Christianity, which is that Christians excessively view the state as the solution to their problems instead of recognizing the transformational power of Christianity.

The prosecutor said that Rahman could avoid the death penalty if he renounced Christianity and converted back to Islam. Rahman rejected the offer. Rahman cared more about Jesus Christ than his own life. How many Christians in the religiously free west would turn down that offer if given the chance? The faith of Rahman was unbelievable, and the most that Christians could say in response to this event was that it was unfair. If Christians today lived at the time of Christ, how would they have responded to His trial and death? Would they have recognized the importance of the sacrifice that Jesus Christ was making or would they have been too busy writing about how the Jewish and Roman authorities were punishing Jesus unjustly? Jesus, obviously died an unjust death, but the injustice of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is not what makes that event so important. It was the radical love of Jesus Christ and the redemptive nature of the sacrafice, which made it so incredible.

Christians have forgotten how Christianity became the world’s largest religion. It was through the suffering of early Christians who went and preached the gospel until they met their own unjust deaths. The willingness of early Christians to die for their faith had a powerful transformational effect. Agape love is far more powerful than any weapon. This is why Paul said, “‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:17-21) Jesus told us that anything is possible with faith. “‘Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, Move from here to there, and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.’” (Matthew 17:20) With nothing but faith and love, a small sect of Christian radicals conquered the Roman Empire without using a single weapon.

Christians in the West today have lost their faith. When they see problems in the world, the recourse to those problems is usually a legal recourse. The best example of this may be the problem of Islam. Islam is an evil religion that has perpetuated itself exclusively through coercion and the sword since its beginning. In Islamic nations today, there are endless confused Islamic radicals that are willing to launch endless suicide attacks on the U.S. The danger could become far more dangerous if the Islamic world obtains nuclear weapons. The problem with Islam is that it is almost impossible to defeat it militarily without using immoral means. The combination of guerilla warfare and suicide tactics make Islam extremely difficult to deal with.

The solution to this problem that most conservative Christians advocate is military action by the United States to combat the problem. Conservative Christians also tend to believe that spreading democracy will ultimately be the solution to the problems of the Muslim world. The flaw in this logic, as I have discussed before, is that democracy does not sanctify people or change their worldview. Therefore, setting up democracies in a part of the world with unvirtuous people will only produce unvirtuous democracies. I have also argued that from a strategic standpoint for the U.S., the best policy for the U.S. is to pull out of the region (after it completes any commitments that it has in Iraq) and allow Islam to destroy itself. The advantage of this solution is that while there will be bloodshed at least Islam will be suffering the consequences of its own intolerance instead of the U.S. However, this is an imperfect solution because no matter what the U.S. does many people are going to die. If the U.S. stays engaged in the region, it will only be able to deal with the security threats by using extreme and immoral tactics like torture and mass slaughter. If the U.S. disengages, there will be bloodshed from internal conflict in the Islamic world.

The only solution to the problem of Islam is an option that unlike democracy actually can sanctify people and change their worldview, which is Jesus Christ. The Christian Church needs to send an army of Christian soldiers into the Islamic world who will bring nothing with them but faith, love, and the gospel. These Christian soldiers would conquer the Islamic world with love. There would be some bloodshed, but not close to as much bloodshed as would occur through the state based solutions, and unlike the state based solutions, Christian soldiers can offer eternal salvation instead of just physical salvation. These missionaries should not come from the West. The Islamic world has so much animosity toward the West that Western missionaries would probably be an ineffective army. This army would have to come from the rapidly growing church in Africa and East Asia. Western Christians would have to sacrifice by providing massive amounts of financial resources to fund this Christian army to the Islamic world.

I am not arguing that state based solutions are never appropriate. When the lives of Christians are at risk, Christians should use all means available to come to the aid of those Christians. After all, the Apostle Paul made use of his legal options when he appealed to Caesar while he was on trial for unjust reasons. However, Christians need to move beyond their state centered approach to problems. When Christians like Abdul Rahman risk death by taking a stance for the faith, Christians need to recognize the greatness of the stance and not just the unfairness of the situation. Christianity conquered the Roman Empire with nothing more than faith, love, and the gospel. Now the Church needs to conquer the Muslim world with an army of Christians who use the same tactics.

Onward, Christian Soldiers

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,

With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;

Forward into battle see His banners go!

Refrain

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,

With the cross of Jesus going on before.

At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;

On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!

Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;

Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.

Refrain

Like a mighty army moves the church of God;

Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.

We are not divided, all one body we,

One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.

Refrain

What the saints established that I hold for true.

What the saints believed, that I believe too.

Long as earth endureth, men the faith will hold,

Kingdoms, nations, empires, in destruction rolled.

Refrain

Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,

But the church of Jesus constant will remain.

Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;

We have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.

Refrain

Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,

Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.

Glory, laud and honor unto Christ the King,

This through countless ages men and angels sing.

Refrain

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · Politics · Theology

Highest Court of Massachusetts Upholds Restrictions on Marriage Licenses

March 31, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The New York Times is reporting that the highest court of Massachusetts has just held that it is constitutional for the state to prohibit a resident from another state from getting a marriage license in Massachusetts if the marriage license would be void in the applicant's home state.

Massachusetts's highest court ruled today that same-sex couples who live in other states cannot get married in Massachusetts unless gay marriage is legal in their home states.

In an opinion written by Justice Francis X. Spina, the court upheld a 1913 statute that says that no out-of-state resident can get married in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in the person's home state, unless the person intends to live in Massachusetts. Five justices concurred, at least in part, with Justice Spina's opinion; one justice dissented.

"The laws of this commonwealth have not endowed nonresidents with an unfettered right to marry," Justice Spina wrote for the majority. "To the contrary, the rights of nonresidents to marry in Massachusetts have been specifically restricted."

He added, "I recognize that the brunt" of the law's impact "has inevitably fallen disproportionately on nonresident same-sex couples rather than on nonresident opposite-sex couples" because no other state currently allows gay marriage.

However, he said, the fact that the court had ruled in November 2003 that Massachusetts same-sex couples should be allowed to marry "does not now compel a conclusion that nonresident same-sex couples, who have no intention of living in Massachusetts, have an identical right to secure a marriage license that they could not otherwise obtain in their home states."

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Law

Agape Love in Second Chronicles and Luke

March 31, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Second Chronicles Chapter Thirty

Hezekiah sent word to all Israel and Judah and also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, inviting them to come to the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem and celebrate the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel. The king and his officials and the whole assembly in Jerusalem decided to celebrate the Passover in the second month. They had not been able to celebrate it at the regular time because not enough priests had consecrated themselves and the people had not assembled in Jerusalem. The plan seemed right both to the king and to the whole assembly. They decided to send a proclamation throughout Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, calling the people to come to Jerusalem and celebrate the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel. It had not been celebrated in large numbers according to what was written.

At the king's command, couriers went throughout Israel and Judah with letters from the king and from his officials, which read: "People of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, that he may return to you who are left, who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria. Do not be like your parents and your fellow Israelites, who were unfaithful to the LORD, the God of their ancestors, so that he made them an object of horror, as you see. Do not be stiff-necked, as your parents were; submit to the LORD. Come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever. Serve the LORD your God, so that his fierce anger will turn away from you. If you return to the LORD, then your fellow Israelites and your children will be shown compassion by their captors and will return to this land, for the LORD your God is gracious and compassionate. He will not turn his face from you if you return to him."

The couriers went from town to town in Ephraim and Manasseh, as far as Zebulun, but people scorned and ridiculed them. Nevertheless, some from Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and went to Jerusalem. Also in Judah the hand of God was on the people to give them unity of mind to carry out what the king and his officials had ordered, following the word of the LORD.

A very large crowd of people assembled in Jerusalem to celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread in the second month. They removed the altars in Jerusalem and cleared away the incense altars and threw them into the Kidron Valley.

They slaughtered the Passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the second month. The priests and the Levites were ashamed and consecrated themselves and brought burnt offerings to the temple of the LORD. Then they took up their regular positions as prescribed in the Law of Moses the man of God. The priests splashed against the altar the blood handed to them by the Levites. Since many in the crowd had not consecrated themselves, the Levites had to kill the Passover lambs for all those who were not ceremonially clean and could not consecrate [their lambs] to the LORD. Although most of the many people who came from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover, contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, "May the LORD, who is good, pardon everyone  who sets their heart on seeking God—the LORD, the God of their ancestors—even if they are not clean according to the rules of the sanctuary." And the LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people.

The Israelites who were present in Jerusalem celebrated the Festival of Unleavened Bread for seven days with great rejoicing, while the Levites and priests praised the LORD every day with resounding instruments dedicated to the LORD.

Hezekiah spoke encouragingly to all the Levites, who showed good understanding of the service of the LORD. For the seven days they ate their assigned portion and offered fellowship offerings and praised the LORD, the God of their ancestors.

The whole assembly then agreed to celebrate the festival seven more days; so for another seven days they celebrated joyfully. Hezekiah king of Judah provided a thousand bulls and seven thousand sheep and goats for the assembly, and the officials provided them with a thousand bulls and ten thousand sheep and goats. A great number of priests consecrated themselves. The entire assembly of Judah rejoiced, along with the priests and Levites and all who had assembled from Israel, including the foreigners who had come from Israel and also those who resided in Judah. There was great joy in Jerusalem, for since the days of Solomon son of David king of Israel there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem. The priests and the Levites stood to bless the people, and God heard them, for their prayer reached heaven, his holy dwelling place.

Luke Chapter Fourteen

When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, "Blessed are those who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'

But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.'

"Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.'

"Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.'

"The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

"'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

"Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'"

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · Theology

Agape Love in Amazing Grace

March 30, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav'd a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev'd;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believ'd!
Thro' many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
'Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promis'd good to me,
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.
Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.
The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who call'd me here below,
Will be forever mine.
When we've been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we'd first begun.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · The Arts

State Sponsored Biblical Interpretation II

March 30, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Summa Theologia mentions that state support for the views of liberal religious sects is likely to be a new area of Establishment Clause litigation. There was recently a Federal District Court case that was litigated on this issue. In Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum v. Montgomery County Public Schools (2005), the Maryland Federal District Court decided whether to issue a restraining order that would stop the operation of a sex education curriculum that the school district wanted to implement. The court decided that it is a clear principal of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that a governmental entity cannot take an action that favors one religion over another. The court held that the sex education curriculum of the school district favored the views of liberal religious sects over the views of conservative religious sects. The court pointed out that the curriculum treated the views of Fundamentalists and Baptists about homosexuality "as unenlightened and Biblically misguided." The court quoted directly from the curriculum: "Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals." The curriculum also stated that "'Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.'" The curriculum specifically affirmed the views of certain religious sects on the issue of homosexuality: "Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else." The court concluded that it "is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest . . . ." Therefore, the court granted a motion, which prohibited the school district from implementing the proposed revised curriculum that was at issue in the case.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Law

State Sponsored Biblical Interpretation

March 30, 2006 · Leave a Comment

A new article by David French and Cody Groeber discuss the next great establishment clause battle. (pg25) Public Schools and Universities are providing religious literature to students that mocks orthodox religions and endorses liberal religious organizations by name as the proper source for religious instruction.

The University of Michigan publication “What Is an LGBT Ally?” answers the “Common Misconception” that “Homosexuality is immoral” by stating: Some texts of the Old Testament are used to condemn homosexuality. Taken literally and out of context, Biblical passages can be used to justify slavery, prohibit the wearing of red dresses and eating of shrimp and shellfish, and to reinforce the inferiority of women. The University of California at Berkeley takes the next step. It characterizes conservative religious views as “intolerant” and directs students to state-approved religious organizations: While some places of worship and religious denominations are intolerant of people with different sexual and gender identities, others are very accepting, including Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the predominantly GLBT Metropolitan Community Church.

   Posted by Summa Theologiae

Categories: Law

The Dangers of a Democratic Pakistan

March 30, 2006 · 1 Comment

Duncan Currie has an article in the Weekly Standard discussing how the Bush Administration’s policy toward Musharraf, the unelected leader of Pakistan, complicates President Bush’s push for democracy in the Muslim world.

Bush's lackluster results on the pop quiz obscured his vague praise for "the general," Pervez Musharraf–praise that, in retrospect, offered a prescient clue as to how Bush's administration would handle the Pakistani regime. "He's just been elected–not elected, this guy took over office," Bush said. "It appears [Musharraf] is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the subcontinent."

Prizing "stability" over democracy: That doesn't sound like a rhetorical trope of President Bush, does it? Certainly not when he's waxing apologetic about the Arab and Muslim worlds. "We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East," Bush told a British audience at London's Whitehall Palace in November of 2003. "Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain: to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold."

This demonstrates an argument that I have made on prior occasions (Out With The Neo-Cons and A Response To Summa). The neo-conservative obsession with democracy is both utopian and dangerous. There is a false belief that democracy will sanctify people. Currie says directly in the article “Pakistan remains a fountainhead of terrorism and, over the long haul, promoting civil society and democratic governance is the only viable antidote.” Democracy does not sanctify people. As I have stated before, creating a democracy in a nation with unvirtuous people will produce an unvirtuous democracy. Democracy is only a method of governing. It does not alter people’s worldviews. The policy that the Bush Administration has toward Pakistan should be the general policy of the U.S. and not the exception to the rule. We have to abandon this utopian mindset that we can change the Muslim world. Instead, we have to adopt a policy that pragmatically deals with security interests in the Islamic world.

The example of Pakistan demonstrates why this utopianism is dangerous. Pakistan easily has one of the most radical populations of Islamic people in the world. Pakistan is also the only Islamic nation in the world that currently has nuclear weapons in its possession, and Pakistan is currently in an intense nuclear standoff with India over a border region known as Kashmir. President Musharraf, the unelected leader of Pakistan, has been a reliable ally of the U.S. in the war on terror. His troops have captured important terrorists. He is also a secular leader. If there were Democratic elections in Pakistan, it is likely that Musharraf would be replaced by a radical Islamic leader, and that radical Islamic leader would have nuclear weapons in his possession. There is a substantial risk that this could spark nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Pakistan and India have been on the brink of nuclear war with a relatively sane secular leader in place in Pakistan. This situation could easily devolve into nuclear war if a radical Islamic religious leader is added to the situation since such a leader's demands concerning the Kashmir region are going to be much more radical. The current situation between Palestine and Israel demonstrates this point. Palestine just had a democratic election. Hamas, a radical Islamic terrorist group, won the election. Unfortunately, since Hamas does not even recognize the right of Israel to exist, a negotiated peace between Israel and Palestine is impossible now. Adding this type of radicalism to the India-Pakistan conflict could devastate the Asian continent.

Furthermore, with these nuclear weapons in the hands of a leader with ties to radical Islamic groups in Pakistan, there is also a real risk that such an Islamic leader might give those terrorist cells nuclear weapons. The terrorist cells would probably attempt to detonate those nuclear weapons in major cities like New York City and Washington D.C., which could bring an end to the U.S. This would also probably produce nuclear retaliation by the U.S. against the Islamic world. Such terrorists might also attempt to detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel, which would destroy the Israeli state. There is also a risk that this Islamic leader in Pakistan could proliferate nuclear weapons to other Islamic nations, which would exponentially increase the risk of all of the aforementioned scenarios.

Pakistan becoming a democratic state would easily be one of the greatest security threats to the world. This demonstrates why it is bad policy to (a) assume that democracy will make bad nations into good nations and (b) to assume that it will always be better for global stability for nations to be democratic. The U.S. needs to understand that we are not going to fix the Islamic world. The Islamic world will be a very dangerous part of the world no matter what we do. Therefore, we need to move beyond this democratic utopianism, and we need to look at how we can best deal with specific security threats that will inevitably emanate from this chaotic part of the world.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Politics

Religion of Peace?

March 30, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Washington Post has yet another example of Muslims peacefully resolving their differences.

Supporters of two Islamic religious leaders fought gun battles in northwestern Pakistan, leaving at least 24 people dead and 14 injured, officials and witnesses said Tuesday.

The fighting, which began Monday, continued until early Tuesday between followers of the two whose rivalry flared earlier this year over their competing religious radio stations in Khyber Agency, a tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

Sikander Qayyum, a senior security official in Peshawar for Pakistan's tribal regions, said 24 people were killed and 14 injured.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Theology

Rahman In Italy

March 30, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Washington Post is reporting that Rahman is safely in Italy where he will be granted asylum. 

Italy granted asylum Wednesday to an Afghan who faced the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity, and Premier Silvio Berlusconi said the man was in the care of the Interior Ministry after arriving in Italy earlier in the day.

Abdul Rahman "is already in Italy. I think he arrived overnight," Berlusconi said, declining to release more details.

Rahman's jailing in Afghanistan inspired an appeal by Pope Benedict XVI to Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and efforts by the United Nations to find a country to take him.
. . .
Anticipating that Italy's Cabinet would approve Rahman's asylum, Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said Tuesday that such a move would bring "all the forms of protection and assistance" related to recognizing refugee status.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Law · Politics

The War on Christians

March 29, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Washington Post is reporting today on a recent conference, which discussed the War on Christians.

The "War on Christmas" has morphed into a "War on Christians."

Last December, some evangelical Christian groups declared that the religious celebration of Christmas — and even the phrase "Merry Christmas" — was under attack by the forces of secularism.

This week, radio commentator Rick Scarborough convened a two-day conference in Washington on the "War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006." The opening session was devoted to "reports from the frontlines" on "persecution" of Christians in the United States and Canada, including an artist whose paintings were barred from a municipal art show in Deltona, Fla., because they contained religious themes.

"It doesn't rise to the level of persecution that we would see in China or North Korea," said Tristan Emmanuel, a Canadian activist. "But let's not pretend that it's okay."

I do not think that all forms of oppression that conservative Christians complain about is oppression. For example, the complaints about using “happy holidays” and not “Christmas” is a good example. Both sides of this debate were equally incorrect. The diversity people that wanted to go with "happy holidays" were being disingenuous because Hanukah and Kwanza are an artificial attempt to create alternative holidays. I am not saying that Hanukah has not been around for a long time. What I am saying is that it would not be a notable holiday for people of the Jewish faith except for its proximity to Christmas. This effort to create alternative holidays was not a Jewish effort. If it had been, the effort would have been to get people to say Happy Hanukuh, which I find to be respectable unlike the wimpy politically correct "i hate religious truth claims" "happy holidays" label.

On the other hand, the Christians in this debate were also incorrect. While the motives for people choosing to say happy holidays were questionable, what right do Christians have to force other people to mention their holiday? People can say happy halloween if they want at Christmas and that should be of no concern to Christians because we believe in religious freedom, and we do not coerce people into practicing our holidays. This does not mean that Christians cannot freely say Merry Christmas, but Christians should not disparage people who choose not to use that language. There are other examples like the need to have the Ten Commandments in public buildings where even if conservative Christians are correct that the Ten Commandments should be there, I do not think that constitutes oppression. So my basic point is that some issues that conservative Christians complain about are on the trivial side.

However, a high level of hostility toward Christians does exist in the United States. The claims about Christians being in the majority are deceptive. Polls do not reveal who is actually really part of a certain faith. They only reveal who identifies themselves as being a part of a certain faith. There are a very high percentage of people who self-identify as Christians, but probably at least half of those people know little or nothing about the Christian faith, and they do not integrate any of its principles into their life. They are Christians in name and atheists in practice, and that is how there can be a high level of hostility toward Christian beliefs in a nation where so many people self-identify as Christians.

The main sources of hostility toward Christian beliefs in society today emanate from elite institutions. First, public education is the ultimate example of oppression in society today. The law coerces Christians into attending schools that indoctrinate them into anti-Christian beliefs and values systems. Examples of this indoctrination exist across the curriculum, but particular problems include all of the diversity education, science classes, sex education classes, economics classes, and the methods that schools use to educate students about morality and values.

Second, education in public universities is at least as hostile as public education to Christians. The public funds these institutions to both educate students and increase knowledge about the world through research. Unfortunately, nearly all faculty members at these institutions are on the far left politically, and as a result, both the publicly funded education and research tends to be leftist indoctrination that attacks Christian values. It is extremely rare to find a Christian conservative faculty member at such an institution that is out of the closet even though conservative Christians make up at least a third of the population in the United States. Even if there are a few token conservatives at these places, they will rarely be committed Christians. They will usually be libertarians who are just as hostile toward Christian beliefs as the left.

Third, the entertainment industry (Hollywood) is extremely hostile to Christian values. Committed Christians probably makeup at least one-third of the general population in the United States. What percentage of the entertainment including television, cable, and movies is targeted toward that demographic? Even after the massive success of Passion of the Christ, this is still the case. There are easily more openly gay characters on television than openly evangelical characters. The sex obsession has become absurd. There is a new law on television, and it applies to basically any show ranging from shows with a youth audience like Fear Factor to Letterman or Leno. You can call it the common law of Hollywood or whatever you want, but it is now a requirement that a younger woman cannot appear on television unless at least one-quarter to one-half of her breasts are exposed. The Victoria’s Secret commercials that are shown in prime time are worst than all of the programming itself. They are literally no different than what one might see at a strip club. These complaints are just about network television. Cable channels like HBO are basically soft core pornography that sometimes come with basic cable packages, and because of the cable monopoly, it is impossible to choose what cable channels one will purchase. So if one gets cable because they like the History Channel and that person gets HBO blocked, they are still funding HBO. To my knowledge, there is not a single character on television who is single that openly chooses not to engage in immoral sexual behavior. Television shows and movies now openly make fun of people for being virgins. (See 40 Year Old Virgin and Vegas on NBC) They also make fun of people for being born again Christians. (See Scrubs on NBC) Even though committed Christians are a major demographic group, elite institutions not only do not represent this worldview, they are openly hostile to it. 

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture

Transcript of Partial Birth Abortion Testimony

March 29, 2006 · 1 Comment

See here for more transcript

Q. Dr. Chasen, in your experience, how is the fetal head extracted in a dismemberment D&E?

A. The fetal head is extracted by placing the forceps around it and crushing it.

Q. How readily is that — how easy is that to accomplish?

A. In some cases it is relatively easily accomplished and in other cases it is very difficult.

THE COURT: Does it hurt the baby?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

THE COURT: But you go ahead and do it anyway, is that right?

THE WITNESS: I am taking care of my patients, and in that process, yes, I go ahead and do it.

THE COURT: Does that mean you take care of your patient and the baby be damned, is that the approach you have?

THE WITNESS: These women who are having [abortions] at gestational ages they are legally entitled to it –

THE COURT: I didn't ask you that, Doctor. I asked you if you had any caring or concern for the fetus whose head you were crushing.

THE WITNESS: No.

~

Q. You mentioned direct visualization. What does that mean?

A. That means when the skull is obstructed at the level of the cervix, at that point I place a clamp on the front part of the cervix and, applying mild traction to this, it exposes the skin at the back of the fetal neck at the site through which I place the scissors. So I can in almost all cases actually visualize the spot through which I place the scissors.

~

Q. Which ones [referring to earlier question about use of KCl or digoxin to effect fetal demise before starting to evacuate the uterus in a D&E]?

A. These are women that, because they are choosing to undergo abortion, do not want to experience a live birth, and I let them know that there is a small possibility but a possibility that they will go into labor, by laminaria insertion and that they could deliver a live baby, and that one way to preclude that if we are successful is to induce fetal death prior to that.

Q. How long does it take, Doctor, in your experience, for the fetus to die after the umbilical cord has been cut?

A. It's not instantaneous.

Q. What effect, if any, can that delay have on the woman?

A. In waiting — if you're asking if we would wait until we could confirm a fetal demise that the heart wasn't beating in this woman who is already being subject to risks of anesthesia and in which prolonged operative times could increase the risk of bleeding an infection, then that could have an adverse effect on the patient.

THE COURT: Despite all of those reasons, Doctor, can you finally give an answer at how long does it take?

THE WITNESS: I don't know exactly how long it takes.

THE COURT: Could you give us an approximation?

THE WITNESS: During most D&Es I perform I'm not watching the fetal heartbeat while I am doing it.

THE COURT: I didn't ask you that, Doctor. Do you know how long it would take approximately for the fetus to die if the umbilical cord is cut?

THE WITNESS: I would — I — I think it would take several minutes, at least.

THE COURT: Under 10?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

THE COURT: Under five?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

 ….

Excerpts from direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Westhoff:

THE COURT: I want to know whether that woman knows that you are going to take a pair of scissors and insert them into the base of the skull of her baby, of her fetus. Do you tell her?

THE WITNESS: I do not usually tell patients specific details of the operative approach. I'm completely –

THE COURT: Do you tell her that you are going to then, ultimately, suck the brain out of the skull?

THE WITNESS: In all of our D&Es the head is collapsed or crushed and the brains are definitely out of the skull but those are –THE COURT: Do you tell them that?

THE WITNESS: Those are details that would be distressing to my patients and would not — information about that is not directly relevant to their safety.

THE COURT: Don't — whether it's relative to their safety or not don't you think it's since they're giving authorization to you to do this act that they should know precisely what you're going to do?

THE WITNESS: That's actually not the practice I have of discussing surgical cases with patients.

THE COURT: I didn't ask you that. I said don't you think they ought to know?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't.

Its sure is odd that for how much the word "choice" is tossed around, the good doctors sure are concerned that those patients who are legally entitled to make the decision to end the babies life should not know exactly how it is they are killing their offspring. 

posted by Summa Theologiae

Categories: Culture · Law · Science

An Interesting Question

March 29, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Where are all of the horrified moderate Muslims who are concerned over how their religion has been hijacked by radicals in Afghanistan? Richard Cohen expresses his outrage over this in the Washington Post today.

What strikes me about the threat to execute Abdul Rahman, the Afghan who converted to Christianity, is not that Afghanistan remains deeply medieval and not even remotely the democracy that George W. Bush would like it to be, but that with the exception of the (largely) Christian West, the rest of the world has been mostly silent. The Americans have protested, the Brits have protested, the Vatican has protested and so (I assume) have some others. But if there has been a holler of protest from anywhere in the Muslim world, it has not reached my ears. That is appalling.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Current Events · Law · Politics · Theology

Morning-After-Pill Laws Threaten Religious Freedom

March 29, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Washington Post (AP) is reporting on new efforts at the state level to require that hospitals, including religious hospitals, make the morning-after-pill available to rape victims.

A growing number of states are considering laws that would require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, drawing criticism from supporters of the Roman Catholic Church, which likens the morning-after pill to abortion.

Seven states already require all hospitals to dispense the drug, which helps prevent a pregnancy within 72 hours of sex. A dozen states are considering similar legislation.

The laws would include hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church, which teaches that life begins at conception. Opponents say states are attempting to force those hospitals to go against their beliefs.

(Posted By Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Law · Politics

New Book on the Biblical Aspects of U2

March 29, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Christianity Today has an excerpt on their website from a new book on the Biblical aspects of the music of U2.

One clear indication that Bono and U2 know the Scriptures well is that they sing in the same phrases and patterns as the Scriptures. U2 often borrows lyrics straight from the Bible—a practice most clearly exemplified on their 1983 album War, which closes with the song "40" taken from Psalm 40 and a refrain from Psalm 6. Like many U2 fans, I was drawn into thinking about the connections of their songs to the Bible through their practice of closing concerts with "40." The feeling of a crowd of thousands singing "how long to sing this song" at the top of their lungs is awesome, sending shivers down my spine in a way that, if I may be honest, happens less often than I'd like in church. If you have attended one of those concerts, or even if you've only heard it on their first live album, Under a Blood Red Sky, you understand the incredible connection U2 makes through this simple revival of an ancient psalm. The crowd goes on and on singing "how long to sing this song," long after U2's four members have left the concert hall and said goodnight.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: The Arts

Rahman Is Free!

March 29, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Washington Times is reporting that Rahman is free.

An Afghan man who faced a death sentence for converting to Christianity was released late last night from jail in Kabul. U.S. and U.N. officials had said earlier they expected he would seek asylum abroad.

Abdul Rahman was released from the high-security Policharki prison on the outskirts of Kabul, Deputy Attorney General Mohammed Eshak Aloko told the Associated Press. 

"We issued a letter saying he was mentally unfit to stand trial, so he has been released," he said. "I don't know where he is now."

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Law · Politics

God and Europe

March 28, 2006 · Leave a Comment

See Full Story from Christian Science Monitor here

(posted by Summa Theologiae)

Categories: Culture

More Chaos In France

March 28, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The New York Times (IHT) is reporting on more chaos that is occuring in France.

Hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets of cities across France today in the biggest show of force to date against Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and his new labor law targeting youth.

The police said that 450,000 people turned out nationwide, not including Paris, where hundreds of thousands more people marched in a colorful, mainly peaceful demonstration marked by scattered incidents of violence.

One of the country's largest unions, the CGT, put the nationwide figure at 3 million, a turnout that the CGT secretary general, Bernard Thibault, hailed as "historic."

Incidents erupted in Paris and several other cities, including Nantes, La Rochelle, Grenoble and Bordeaux, Europe 1 radio reported. In Paris, about 100 hooded youths clashed with the police in midafternoon, the radio and witnesses said, and toward the end of the march the police fired tear gas to disperse hard-core elements.

The marches were part of a nationwide day of action against the Villepin legislation, which was intended to encourage hiring by making it easy for companies to fire workers under age 26 during their first two years on the job.

The New York Times also has an article analyzing some of the underlying causes of the protest.

Behind the current political crisis seems nothing less than the essential question confronting Europe today: whether its safety net can survive in a more competitive world.

But France has not been seized by a desire to sacrifice. This is a protest that uses the revolutionary methods of the streets — which proved so potent in last fall's riots in the disadvantaged city suburbs — in defense of the status quo.

. . .

This is also a cross-generational conflict. Baby boomers embraced by the generous French social welfare system want to protect treasured benefits long into retirement. Their children want to keep the system in place only if they can benefit from it.

"It is a collective failure of the French system," said Louis Chauvel, a sociologist who studies generational change. "You earn more doing nothing in retirement at the age of 60 to 65 than working full-time at the age of 35. And we have organized society so there is no room for new entrants."

. . .

Mr. Sarkozy described a very simple formula for lowering France's chronic 10 percent unemployment rate.

"There is only one way to reduce unemployment in France," he said. "You have to explain to the French people that they have to work harder."

The underlying cause of France's problems can be reduced down to one word: selfishness. Nobody cares about anything but what they want. Despite rhetoric about socialism, nobody cares about the common good, and the word sacrafice is not even part of the French vocabulary. We are witnessing the consequences of French secularism. Attempting to live without God has corroded French virtue. This is a society so consumed with its own selfishness that French women have to be paid to have babies, and any adjustments to the social infrastucture that is sending France to its own ruin is met with riots and extreme internal instability. Imagine the chaos that will exist when this social infrastructure collapses because there is not enough resources to fund it.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Politics

Is The Idea of a “Personal Relationship” with God Biblical?

March 28, 2006 · 2 Comments

Christianity Today's Leadership Blog has an interesting essay by John Suk with concerns that he has over the idea of personal relationship with God. 

The phrase “a personal relationship with Jesus,” is not found in the Bible. Thus, there is no sustained systematic theological reflection on what the phrase means. In fact, people experience the personal presence of God – in a wide variety of idiosyncratic and highly personal ways. Publicly, however, when people say they have "a personal relationship" with Jesus, it sounds like they are saying they have a relationship characterized by face-time, by talk-time, by touching, by all the things – and especially the intimacy – we usually associate with having a personal relationship with another human being.

As a result, using the language of personal relationship is bound to lead to all sorts of confusion. As a pastor I met more than a few people who experienced doubt, or perhaps anger, because they didn’t experience Jesus the way their Christian friends claimed to.

The language of personal relationship with God has become popular due to the pervasive influence of the language of secularity. So Marsha Witten cogently argues in her book, All is Forgiven: The Secular Message in American Protestantism (Princeton, 1993), a close textual analysis of fifty-eight sermons on the parable of the prodigal son as found in Luke 15:11-32. Twenty-seven of the sermons were preached in mainline Presbyterian churches, and the rest to conservative Southern Baptists. In both traditions, Witten discovers, preachers respond to secularity by accommodating their language to it. Biblical language that emphasizes God’s transcendence is replaced by language that emphasizes God’s immanence. Jesus is not in heaven, at the right hand of God; he lives in our hearts. God is primarily seen as a “daddy,” as sufferer on our behalf, and as extravagant lover. In these sermons the traditional language for God is accommodated to the human desire for connection and intimacy.

Furthermore, these sermons lack much sense that Christianity has anything to say beyond one’s personal relationship to God. In both conservative and liberal denominations, the language of conversion has been replaced by the language of personal relationship. The language of personal relationship fits with secularity; the traditional language of conversion, of trading faiths through a dying to self, does not.

I believe that Professor Suk expresses some legitimate concerns about the use of the phrase “personal relationship with God." One of the biggest concerns that I have about the use of this word is that it is jargon, and using jargon can cause Christians to lose sight of the gravity of what they are saying, which is very dangerous. Similarly, there is danger in developing the idea that God is just some carefree teddy bear in the sky. Think about what we are talking about here. This is not a personal relationship with your best friend Jack. This is a personal relationship with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and eternal ruler of the universe. This is something that we cannot take lightly. Exodus 20 says, “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” It is important that we respect God’s holiness. There is great danger that when we use trivial language toward God we are not respecting his holiness. The consequences of not respecting God’s holiness can be great. In Leviticus, Aaron’s sons were consumed by fire because they created an unauthorized fire with incense in the tabernacle. (10:1-2) After this happened, Moses said to Aaron “This is what the LORD spoke of when he said: 'Among those who approach me I will be proved holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honored.'” (10:3)

However, while I agree with the concern about the risk of trivializing our relationship with God, it is simply incorrect to state that a relationship with God should not be a normal part of the existence of every human being. The argument that the Bible never uses the word “personal relationship with God” is misguided. The Bible does not have to use this precise terminology in order for it to be true. While God is a transcendent and holy God that we must respect, He is also a God that is immanent in the affairs of human beings. When He created the world, He spoke the world into being demonstrating His transcendence and separateness from creation. (Genesis 1) However, when God created Adam He formed Adam from the dust with His bare hands, and He breathed the breath of life into Adam (Genesis 2) demonstrating that He would have a special relationship with human beings.

Transcendence and immanence are both elements of God’s nature. However, the Old Testament places greater emphasis on God’s transcendence, and the New Testament places greater emphasis on God’s imminence. After all, there is nothing that God could have done to be more immanent in human affairs than to be born into the world, to live with us, and to die for us. When Jesus taught us how to pray, He said “[t]his, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . . .” (Matthew 6:9) Notice how He tells us to address God. We are to address God as our Father. How could there be any more of a personal relationship than that? However, notice what follows, he also says that we are to acknowledge God’s holiness and transcendence by saying, “hallowed be your name.” In First John it says, “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” (1 John 3:1) Not only is God our Father, but we are His children, and he loves us. How could this be anything but a personal relationship with God?

The greatest evidence for this personal relationship may be in a parable that Jesus told.

Then Jesus told them this parable: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (Luke 15:3-7)

The essence of this passage is personal relationship. When one sheep is lost, the Shepherd leaves the other sheep behind to find the one. This demonstrates that God is radically concerned for each of us as individuals. However, there is something even more crucial in this passage. When Jesus finds the sheep, what does He do? He places it on his shoulders and takes it home. This conveys a deep and radical level of intimacy that God is willing to have with each individual person.

He also expresses fear that the discourse of personal relationship with God is a secularization of Christianity. This is untrue for a few reasons. First, the risk of placing too much emphasis on God’s immanence is not that we will devolve into secularism. It is that we will devolve into pantheism. It is that we will not be able to distinguish between the Creator and the created. I have seen nothing that suggests that this distinction is being abolished through the emphasis today on God’s immanence. Second, the idea that a personal relationship with God is somehow secular is mistaken. From a secular standpoint, the idea of a personal relationship with an immaterial being is delusional. Third, the emphasis that is being placed today on God’s immanence is in large part a correction against excessive historical emphasis on God’s transcendence. The Christian view of God was strongly influenced by the views of God that were held by Plato and Aristotle. Their views of God were extremely rationalistic and deistic in character. For them, God was just some unchanging eternal rationalistic deity in the sky that was the first cause of all things, and the primary function of this God was basically to beam down rational ideas to humans. Two of Christianity's most important theologians, Augustine and Aquinas, directly integrated much of this view of God into their approach to Christianity. This view of God was also extremely influential during the Enlightenment. We are now just getting over that pagan conception of God and realizing that there is something special about our relationship with God because He is not only a transcendent God, but he is also a personal God that loves us and is deeply concerned about our wellbeing.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · Philosophy · Theology

Holiness Without Legalism

March 28, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Christianity Today has an interview on its website with Kevin Mannoia about a new vision for “Holiness churches.”

A new theological manifesto marks an effort by historic Holiness churches to rearticulate their key doctrine for today. At the end of February, the Wesleyan Holiness Study Project (WHSP) released a document that had been in the works for three years. . . . From the 1840s to the end of the 19th century, key leaders believed that the culturally dominant form of Methodism had slipped from its original commitments and formed splinter groups to revive the concern for holiness taught by Methodist founder John Wesley. These groups served the poor and culturally marginalized, and taught them principles of holy living.

. . .

We recognize . . . that in the mid-20th century a lot of what we did was based out of a legalism that was behaviorally oriented and in many cases became judgmental. And we’re trying to say that we all recognize that pitfall. We reject that, and we want to capture the spirit of this message afresh.

. . .

[W]e have also fallen prey to the idea of a privatized faith, that you are holy internally and that it has no external responsibility to community and to culture. We recognize that we cannot be holy in our hearts without an overflow of action and engagement with other people and with culture. The important thing here is that holiness begins with God. It does not begin with the church, it does not begin with a person, it does not begin with the Bible. It begins with God.

One characteristic of God is holiness, and at the root of that is his love for humanity. Out of that abundant love then, his otherness, which is essentially his holiness, finds expression in reaching and engaging with humanity for redemptive and reconciling purposes.

So if we pursue becoming Christ-like, which is the essence of holiness, then we will not only be transformed into his holy character, but that love will flow through us and compel us to engage and to transform culture. You can’t have individual holiness without social holiness. It’s impossible.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · Current Events · Theology

Legalized Infanticide In Nazi Denmark

March 28, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Weekly Standard has an article on the coming holocaust in Europe. Infanticide is legal in Denmark.

Dutch doctors kill scores of babies each year and justify this fundamental abuse of human rights upon the inherently discriminatory concept that they can decide that another human being's life is of such low quality it has no business being lived.

In this sense, the Dutch infanticide program is explicitly akin to the murder of Baby Knauer in 1938. Unless we decide to revise our historical assessment of that crime and proclaim Hitler's authorization for the baby's euthanasia as compassionate and right, the systematic program of Dutch infant euthanasia should be loudly and universally condemned.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Current Events · Law · Politics

Afghan Attorney General Orders Release of Rahman

March 28, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The New York Times is reporting that the Afghan attorney general has ordered that Rahman be released.

The attorney general in Afghanistan has instructed the country's Justice Ministry to release a jailed Afghan man who faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity, a prosecutor in the case said today.

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasei, said that one of the reasons stated in a letter from the attorney general was that prosecutors were unable to complete their investigation into the case of the Afghan man, Abdul Rahman, in one month.

Mr. Wasei said that prosecutors had initially completed their investigation into Mr. Rahman's case on time, but the court then sent it back to them for further investigation that pushes his incarceration beyond the one-month limit set by Afghanistan's laws.

"And that was the main reason that the attorney general decided to release him," Mr. Wasei said.

Categories: Current Events · Law · Politics

Rahman Seeks Asylum

March 28, 2006 · Leave a Comment

ABC News (AP) is reporting that Rahman is seeking asylum in another country.

An Afghan man who faced the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity has appealed for asylum in another country, the United Nations said Monday. U.N. spokesman Adrian Edwards said the world body was working with the Afghan government to meet the request by Abdul Rahman, 41.

"Mr. Rahman has asked for asylum outside Afghanistan," Edwards said. "We expect this will be provided by one of the countries interested in a peaceful solution to this case."

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Law · Politics

Why Do Religious Colleges Become Secular?

March 28, 2006 · 1 Comment

Joseph Bottum at First Things has some interesting commentary on the pressures that push religious schools, like Baylor University, in the secular direction.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Theology

The Puritan Work Ethic

March 27, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Christian History, which is a publication of Christianity Today, has an interesting article on the Puritan work ethic.

Suffering from poor health all his life, Richard Baxter preached, he said, "as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men." Living daily in the shadow of eternity gave the Puritans a deep appreciation for living every moment on this earth to the fullest for God. "Promise not long life to yourselves," Baxter advised, "but live as those that are always uncertain of another day."

For the Puritans, to "redeem the time" (as Baxter put it) meant to order one's daily life in accordance with godly principles and for maximum effectiveness. One of the Puritans' favorite epithets was well-ordered. Their opponents nicknamed them the disciplinarians. The Puritans aspired to be worldly saints—Christians with earth as their sphere of activity and with heaven as their ultimate hope. Baxter exhorted his readers, "Write upon the doors of thy shop and chamber, … This is the time on which my endless life dependeth."

This approach to life resulted in three vintage Puritan traits: the ideal of the God-centered life, the doctrine of calling or vocation, and the conviction that all of life is God's.

This principle of centering one's life on God could not be more at the heart of the Christian message. This is the first and greatest command of Jesus, but it is something that goes back to the time of Moses. In Deuteronomy it says:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (6:4-9)

For the Christian, worship should not just be singing songs at church on Sunday. It should be something that makes up every second of one's life, and it should be something that encompasses every area of one's existence. Everything that we do in our lives should be an act of worship and total committment to God. Although I believe that these denominations are too legalistic in their approach to Christian life, we can learn much from the level of dedication of groups like the Puritans, the Amish, and the Mennonites.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · Theology

Another Update On Rahman

March 27, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The conflicting news reports seem to continue. The Washington Post has an AP article on its website, which states that the charges have been dismissed. It is difficult to tell what is going on with the case.

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 26 — A court on Sunday dismissed the case against an Afghan man facing possible execution for converting from Islam to Christianity, officials said, paving the way for his release.

Abdul Rahman, who became a Christian in the 1990s while working for an aid group in neighboring Pakistan, might be freed as soon as Monday, an official said.

. . .

A Supreme Court spokesman, Abdul Wakil Omeri, said the case had been dismissed because of "problems with the prosecutors' evidence." He said several of Rahman's relatives testified that he was mentally unstable and prosecutors would have to decide if he was mentally fit to stand trial.

Another Afghan official closely involved with the case said the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence and returned the case to prosecutors for further investigation. But he said Rahman would be released in the meantime.

"The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly on the case.

"The decision about his release will be taken possibly tomorrow," the official added. "They don't have to keep him in jail while the attorney general is looking into the case."

Time Magazine is also reporting that the case has been dismissed.

The dismissal of a case against an Afghan citizen for converting from Islam to Christianity has saved Afghanistan's government a damaging showdown with its primary patron, the United States. Under mounting pressure from Washington and other Western backers, President Hamid Karzai is reported to have intervened personally to have the case of Abdul Rahman, 41, who converted to Christianity 16 years ago, dismissed. But the grounds on which the case was thrown out — insufficient evidence and other technicalities, as well as questions over the sanity of the accused — do not change the basic problem that had put both Karzai and his Western backers in a tight spot. . . . Not surprisingly, there is speculation that Abdul Rahman may leave Afghanistan once he's out of jail.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Law · Politics

Massive Growth In The African Church

March 27, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Washington Post (AP) has an article today on the changing face of the Christian church.

The Redeemed Christian Church of God was founded in Lagos by men and women who were once the target of missionary work themselves. Now their church is one of the most aggressive evangelizers to emerge from the recent advance of Christianity across Africa, and their offices in the high-tech corridor of greater Dallas reflect the group's bold, entrepreneurial approach.

The Redeemed Church is part of a boom in African churches establishing American outposts. Jacob Olupona, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who compiles data on African congregations in this country, has found hundreds of examples in cities large and small.

"Anyone who writes about Christianity in America in the 21st century," Olupona said, "will have to write about African churches."

At the core of the shift are pastors from Nigeria. Over the last century, Christians in the West African nation have swelled from a tiny minority to nearly half the population, and its pastors have shown an exceptional talent for winning new believers abroad.

. . .

The United States, with its ever-expanding megachurches, influential evangelists and deep religiosity, seems an unlikely mission ground. But the Redeemed Church believes Christianity here has become a lifestyle, not a transforming way of life, and they feel obliged to rescue the people who brought them the faith in the first place.

"There is a vibrancy in Africa," Akinkoye said. "We are offering that gift back to America."

Since Christianity gained dominance in the West centuries ago, a false association has existed between the West and Christianity that should not exist. This was decided back in the early church when there were conflicts over whether new gentile Christian converts would be required to practice ancient Jewish customs, and it was decided that Christianity is something much bigger than the Jewish culture and identity. Although there were some compromises early on between the early Christian Jews and Gentiles, it was clear that Jewish customs like circumcision would not be defining elements of the Christian identity.

Christianity has never been a religion limited by any culture, ethnicity, or national identity. It has always been a universal religion that transcends these humanly constructed identities. This article about the rapid growth and strength of the church in Africa demonstrates where the heart of Christianity is in the world today. Europe's Christian identity died out long ago and the U.S. is heading in a similar direction. It would be ironic if it is the evangelization of the African church that brings about a Christian religious revival in both the West and in the Muslim world, as I believe is possible. 

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · Culture · Current Events · Theology

An Update On Rahman

March 27, 2006 · Leave a Comment

It appears that the initial AP reports about the case being dismissed were not accurate. However, according to a New York Times article that came out today, it looks like things are moving in a positive direction although I have already stated my objections to a finding of mental illness.

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 26 — The case of an Afghan man facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity was returned to prosecutors on Sunday because of “investigative gaps,” a move that will delay, if not scuttle, an investigation that has created an international uproar.

Court officials said the mental health of the defendant, Abdul Rahman, 41, would be evaluated. Although prosecutors vowed to continue the case, a finding of mental illness by public health authorities could thwart their effort.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Law · Politics

Agape Love In Revelation (7:16-17)

March 27, 2006 · Leave a Comment

'Never again will they hunger;
never again will they thirst.
The sun will not beat down on them,'
nor any scorching heat.

For the Lamb at the center before the throne
will be their shepherd;
'he will lead them to springs of living water.'
'And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.'

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · The Arts · Theology