The newspaper’s front page headline obviously makes many assumptions about how it’s readers will understand the question. Should Iran be the next target of the U.S. of A’s current version of an American democratic capitalistic crusade against the Arab’s? Is there another way to read it? How else can “next” be interpreted other than yet another in a potentially never ending string of nations that need to be converted to some alternate belief system?
Should Christians encourage or support this crusade to convert foreigners to their western belief system? Dare we be naïve enough to believe that the intended target is only the leader of the foreign nation and not his successor and fellow citizens who hold the exact same beliefs? ( or worse? ) Is it naïve to obey the instructions of Christ in favour of a seemingly more effective wordly option? Is it naivite or is it simply having the faith as a child.
Dare we be naïve enough to believe that somehow this crusade will have a more positive effect then those of 500 years ago in the same region with the same intentions?
Dare we believe that this faith in western democracy, based on capitalistic principles is not simply an idolatrous faith replacing a true Christian faith that leaves God’s will to be done on earth, or do we need to discard faith and take action into our own hands and make the earth and it’s governments in our images.
Dare we believe that we should not wait to inherit the earth by meekness, ( Matt 5:5 ) but by boldness claim it for ourselves? Thinking we know better than God the plans he has for this earth?
Dare we believe that we should abandon peacemaking ( Matt 5:9 ) in favour of war making? Even if it is described as an end to a means? Dare we believe that such a decision can come from an earnest search for peace as opposed to simply being a way of life?
Dare we believe that anger towards our brothers in Iran is not equivalent to murder? ( Matt 5:21-22 )
Dare we believe that actively resisting evil by acts of generousity is an action that should be discarded in favour of the prior law of “an eye for an eye”? (Matt 5:38-39 )
Dare we believe that loving our enemies ( Matt 5:44 ) can include disrespect for their way of life, their safety and their county’s values?
The parable of the good Samaritan ( Luke 10:25-37 ) is an example given to us of how to treat our foreign enemies. When one is treated unjustly, had his rights violated, and is injured in the process, it is our foreign enemy’s basic human needs that we need to attend to, not seeking justice, punishment for the perpetrator and a coerced restitution.
Dare we to believe that the commandment to “go and do likewise” ( Luke 10:37 ) does not apply to us or to the money and energy we spend in foreign countries of the world? Could billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people not done more to improve the world in 4 years in northern Africa instead escorting the Bin Laden family from the US to the Middle East and then spending 5 years chasing some of them around the back hills of Afganistan just a few hundred kilometers to the north?
Should we Christians think that Jesus’ precise instructions of how his disciples are to behave in order to bring about His kingdom are naïve when it comes to current world situations? Dare we believe that we know better than Jesus Christ how exactly to make our Lord’s Kingdom?
Jesus is clear. What we need is a little more mercy and a little less revenge ( Matt 5:7 ) A little more poverty of spirit and a little less American Pride ( Matt 5:3), a little more mourning (Matt 5:4) and a little less preventative measures, a little more meekness and a little less entitlement. ( Matt 5:5 )
What we need is more peacemaking (Matt 5:9 ) and less war making, more rejoicing ( Matt 5:12 ) and less rejecting. What we need is a personal hunger and thirst for righteousness ( Matt 5:6 ) and less attempts to impose our “rightness” on others.
What the Christian of North America and the world need is a little more God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and Holy Spirit and a lot less George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.
The current faith in western democracy and capitalism along with a couple of the ten commandments thrown in is a complete heresy of Christianity, but what makes things worse is that it is presented to the world as true Christianity and used to justify actions that are not permissible under recognized international law or religion such as attacking sovereign nations with the aim of wiping out people and groups in power in order to replace them with people who are more agreeable to doing business the American way.
It is this repackaged totalitarian value system that is being labeled as “Western Christianity” and is being presented and imposed around the world that is what is most upsetting to those who hold to the teaching of Jesus. They say that the number one cause of atheism in the world today is Christianity. Is it any wonder why?
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Friday, June 30, 2006
HOPE FAITH TRUST
In “Ruthless Trust” Bennan Manning poses the equation that “Faith + Hope = Trust”. Specifically “Ruthless Trust = Faith in the person of Jesus Christ and Hope in his promise.” It sounds good at first and fits in with his theme, but in practical terms and in terms of what we know from the Bible, I would like to propose that a more correct statement would be “Hope + Trust” = “Faith” which could be written as “Faith = Hope + Trust” to retain the same order as Manning.
Please note that this is primarily an intellectual excercise and is certainly not any criticism of Brennan Manning or his writing. It is easy to see that as a debate this would come down to semantics, definitions and splitting hairs.
According to Manning, faith is a defined as a noun. It is something we possess. I would like to define faith as a verb - as something that we do. Having faith is not the same as having feet. It is much more like having dessert. It is an activity that we do sometimes and other times we only wish we did it.
Definitions for the purpose of this argument:
1. Faith is believing ( having certainty) some unseen or “unknown” truth.
2. Hope is having some uncertainty, but wanting something to be true.
3. Trust is when we don’t know something is true for certain, but we take someone else’s word for it being true. If a trusted person says it’s true, then we are certain that it is true.
Regarding the statement Faith + Hope = Trust, there is an implication that hope is a required ingredient to make trust. I will argue that hope is actually an ingredient in faith, not trust. When you watch a man ride a unicycle across a high wire stretched across Niagra Falls, you HOPE that he won’t fall. But if you are sitting on his shoulders, hope just isn’t going to cut it. You need complete trust before you get up there!
Another way to look at this question is to ask, “what sparks this Leap of Faith” required of followers to truly experience the conversion of being a “True Believer”? Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes in “The Cost of Discipleship” that obedience is not only a result of, but also a condition for faith. So we could say that something plus obedience = faith. Looking back at the comparison to Manning’s formula we see that in both his and the proposed formula, it is Trust that belongs on the other side of the equation, so we can write Trust + Obedience = Faith.
According to Hebrews 11:1 Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. So we know that certainty is a major element in Faith, and that was reflected earlier in the third definition. But what produces the certainty? It does not simply happen by magic. Does it come from hoping? No. From obedience? No. Does it come by faith? Maybe some of it. Trust? Hmmm. When we put our trust in Jesus, we become certain of all the hopes we have of him fulfilling his promises. Trusting God to do what is best for us turns our hope into certainty and finally into faith.
Please note that this is primarily an intellectual excercise and is certainly not any criticism of Brennan Manning or his writing. It is easy to see that as a debate this would come down to semantics, definitions and splitting hairs.
According to Manning, faith is a defined as a noun. It is something we possess. I would like to define faith as a verb - as something that we do. Having faith is not the same as having feet. It is much more like having dessert. It is an activity that we do sometimes and other times we only wish we did it.
Definitions for the purpose of this argument:
1. Faith is believing ( having certainty) some unseen or “unknown” truth.
2. Hope is having some uncertainty, but wanting something to be true.
3. Trust is when we don’t know something is true for certain, but we take someone else’s word for it being true. If a trusted person says it’s true, then we are certain that it is true.
Regarding the statement Faith + Hope = Trust, there is an implication that hope is a required ingredient to make trust. I will argue that hope is actually an ingredient in faith, not trust. When you watch a man ride a unicycle across a high wire stretched across Niagra Falls, you HOPE that he won’t fall. But if you are sitting on his shoulders, hope just isn’t going to cut it. You need complete trust before you get up there!
Another way to look at this question is to ask, “what sparks this Leap of Faith” required of followers to truly experience the conversion of being a “True Believer”? Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes in “The Cost of Discipleship” that obedience is not only a result of, but also a condition for faith. So we could say that something plus obedience = faith. Looking back at the comparison to Manning’s formula we see that in both his and the proposed formula, it is Trust that belongs on the other side of the equation, so we can write Trust + Obedience = Faith.
According to Hebrews 11:1 Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. So we know that certainty is a major element in Faith, and that was reflected earlier in the third definition. But what produces the certainty? It does not simply happen by magic. Does it come from hoping? No. From obedience? No. Does it come by faith? Maybe some of it. Trust? Hmmm. When we put our trust in Jesus, we become certain of all the hopes we have of him fulfilling his promises. Trusting God to do what is best for us turns our hope into certainty and finally into faith.
Hope + Trust = Faith
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Requirement of Faith
"I think therefore I am" - But how can I think? I don't think like other animals on earth. If we all evolved together ( humans and animals ) why is there such a huge gap between the humans and even the smartest animals? To say that there isn't, completely ignores the fact that we can recognize that there is a difference ( however large or small ) and ask questions about what that means!!
Let's say evolution, or some similar scientifically plausible cause explains the origin of humans. But then Biology is required to explain how something like evolution can be the explanation of the origin of humans. But to explain biology, a broader field called "science" has to come underneath biology to support it's structure. But what explains science? What explains how scientific laws and principles came about? Is there an explanation within science itself that adequately prooves its own origins? Can you use scientific laws and principles to explain how those very laws and principles came about? Can you simply state that they have always been, that they had to be, and that they could not have been any different?
No.
The only solid base for the origin and nature of science is God.
Chemistry does not create the periodic table of elements any more than mathematics creates numbers and physics creates gravity.
Let's say evolution, or some similar scientifically plausible cause explains the origin of humans. But then Biology is required to explain how something like evolution can be the explanation of the origin of humans. But to explain biology, a broader field called "science" has to come underneath biology to support it's structure. But what explains science? What explains how scientific laws and principles came about? Is there an explanation within science itself that adequately prooves its own origins? Can you use scientific laws and principles to explain how those very laws and principles came about? Can you simply state that they have always been, that they had to be, and that they could not have been any different?
No.
The only solid base for the origin and nature of science is God.
Chemistry does not create the periodic table of elements any more than mathematics creates numbers and physics creates gravity.
Renovare Week 11: May 4-10
Henri Nouwen - Making all Things New
Bringing solitude into our lives is like shutting the doors after living with them open all our lives. All our friends in the form of distractions are suddenly annoyed that they can't come in and start banging on the door! After a while the friends stop coming to visit.
A spiritual life is impossible without solitude.
Bringing solitude into our lives is like shutting the doors after living with them open all our lives. All our friends in the form of distractions are suddenly annoyed that they can't come in and start banging on the door! After a while the friends stop coming to visit.
A spiritual life is impossible without solitude.
