My daughter, Alyssa, is 12 years old today! Since she likes all the stuff over at WalrusGiggles.com, I started making a pretty little flash for her. It was going to be a nice little photo-montage… but then something happened. It’s hard to explain. Just click the picture…
I beg my Christian family to be in prayer for Abdur Rahman, his family, and those who have authority over him. Here’s the story by Reuters:
Afghanistan says court to decide fate of convert
By Sayed Salahuddin
KABUL (Reuters) – Under mounting international pressure over the case of a man facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, Afghanistan said on Wednesday the judiciary would decide the case.
An Afghan judge said this week a man named Abdur Rahman had been jailed for converting from Islam to Christianity and could face the death penalty if he refused to become a Muslim again.
Sharia, or Islamic law, stipulates death for apostasy. Afghanistan’s legal system is based on a mixture of civil and sharia law.
“We in Afghanistan have the prosecutor who observes the law and the court that executes it. Whatever the court orders will be executed as the court is independent,” said Mahaiuddin Baluch, a religious affairs adviser to President Hamid Karzai.
Â
When this comment was posted in response to one of my posts, I found it somewhat enigmatic:
Technicalities aside, the idea of three Persons in fellowship with one another certainly does create a pronounced monotheism in the mind. I do appreciate, though, your call to end the name-calling that this issue engenders. God bless.
My post was specifically about the ”fundamentalist” label, and had little to do with the doctrine of the Trinity, so I wasn’t entirely sure what the author was getting at. A quick click on his username, however, took me to a page all about questions that are allegedly “devastating” to the prevailing Christology of the orthodox Christianity. I’m seeing more and more of these pop out of the woodwork lately, and watching the general reaction to them has been almost as interesting as the blogs themselves.
Recently, there’s been a lot of reaction to a new blog whose authors claim to be former ministers who have since turned to atheism, some of whom are still ministering. I won’t hotlink to it, for reasons I’ll mention shortly, but it’s at debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com if you’d like to cut n’ paste that into your browser. Regardless, as you look at some of these new blogs, you find that they are little more than surface-level half-hearted attacks at orthodox Christianity that have been reasonably discussed and dealt with over, and over, and over, and over again. One wonders if there’s a special television station that shows “Sesame Street” and “Blues Clues” for atheists. “Can you find the difference in the two accounts of Paul’s encounter with Jesus? What’s that? A clue?? Oh boy!”
Regardless, one asks the question, “Why do they want to debunk Christianity anyway?” Now there are some atheists out there who are active in the “free-thought” movement who sincerely believe they are freeing peoples minds, but I don’t believe that these folks are that deep in their intentions. No, I believe these surface-level attacks that are popping out of the woodwork are just another lovely example of “blog trolling.”
The tradition of “trolling” is hardly new, and one could trace it back to the very dawn of man. The serpent in the Garden was likely the first troll. Michael Servetus was most certainly a troll. The modern definition, however, applies specifically to the internet being born on Usenet newsgroups. Basically, an individual (or “troll”) would post a message on a newsgroup like alt.fan.feminism about how a woman’s place is in the kitchen, and anxiously wait for a reaction and the game IS ON! The term “trolling” is a bit of wordplay, referring to the fishing practise of passively dragging a baited line behind your boat, and waiting for a bite, in addition to the obvious reference to Shrek’s near kinsman. Originally, trolling was just the hobby of individuals with sadly empty lives who enjoyed the attention. It was a simple joy for the emotionally needy.
Today, however, trolling means so much more. Sure, there’s still the simple pastime of Joe Jerkweed posting “The Stones suck!” on a Mick Jagger fansite, which is a tradition with a long, dignified history that can be traced back to prehistoric times, but is much more familiar within the context of a broken scrawl on a public washroom stall. Trolling today isn’t just a hobby – it can quickly become a career. With keyword-advertising programs like Google adsense paying substantial sums for niche-markets driven by search and content keywords, there is money to be made.  How much money you make, however, is very much hinged on two key, but related, connecting points.Â
Firstly is the the obvious one: traffic. You need to have people actually visiting your site and clicking on things. Hopefully, somewhere in their browsing, they’ll take a peek at one of your sponsors and you make a fifty cents or more. Acquiring internet traffic is challenging today, because most browsing depends on keyword searching. If I want to know about euthanasia method suitable for hamsters, I might look up “hamster euthanasia” or “stumpy-tailed gerbil death” or some other strange string. In fact, now that I’ve posted that, who knows? I might end up being a prominent search result for that phrase (which is… er… disturbing), thereby attracting traffic to my site.
Competing for a prominent listing with Google or other search engines (but lets face it, Google owns keyword searching at the moment) is a tough game to play. Google’s ranking algorithm still is the best of all the indexing search engines (as opposed to directory engines such as Yahoo), partially due to the fact that their algorithm depends on the second of the two hinge-factors I mentioned. A web site about “domestic rodent mercy-killing” can have lots of content, well maintained pages, and all the freebies you can eat, but it won’t make a lick of difference if nobody considers the site of interest. As a blogger and site admin, I will often link to sites I consider reasonably good sources of information. I may, for example, link to the University of Iowa’s official animal research guidelines for euthanizing rodents as I’m discussing the matter, or I may just link the word “hamster” to the Wikipedia entry for definition purposes. Now both of those sites have become more closely associated with those search strings, since I’ve contextually linked to them. Getting people to link to your site as authoritative is no easy task, but there is another way.
What if I could have people link to my site as being authoritatively wrong? What if people linked to my site because they were using me as an example of someone who was stark, raving mad? Timecube.com for example receives links from just about every online news organization at one point or another, but generally it’s in the context of what happens when someone eats too many mothballs in one sitting. Unfortunately, it requires just as much work to be considered authoritatively wrong on a subject as it does to be authoritatively right. Unless, that is, I can get people to link to my site in some other way.
Enter the blog troller. Most comment sections on blogs allow you to hotlink back to your own website, and the more controversial and contrary your comments, the more likely someone will be to check out your blog. If I were to go to, say, Baruchito’s Homecage, which is the cute little blog written from a hamster’s perspective, and posted a comment talking about the best way to kill a hamster, I would probably get a very negative response – but it would definitely be a response (Especially since poor Baruchito, the page’s namesake, passed away in January). With a little time, dedication, and a lot of vicious insensitivity, I would soon have hamster lovers and haters alike bashing away at my page to either rebuke or support me. Meanwhile, I’m off nurturing another blog on euthanizing rabbits.  While I’m getting that project moving along, I’m checking back on my hamster site often enough to post and comment, and ensure the fire is burning nice and hot.
With a little free time, and a lot of attitude, I can have a large chunk of traffic heading to my blog.  Like poured concrete, I allow the discussion to lay the framework to be indexed by search engines, and cross-linked by other sites for a couple of months. Now that the keyword foundation has set, and my page and comments have been indexed and cached by Google, all I need to do now is slap up a few Adsense spots and watch the dollars multiply. Amazingly, I’m now making money thanks to the reaction of the very people I offended the most.
So, as I come across blogs with anonymous authors, and purely confrontational content with little or no depth to any of their posts, I am reminded of the spam I get on a daily basis. Instead of preying on greed or low self-esteem, this new generation of spammer is preying on one’s sense of honour, or in the case of anti-Christian blog-trolling, the desire to defend the faith. Since I have far better things to do that deal with every blog that pops out of the woodwork, and would only further support the dissemination of their wonky ideas (as well as increase their income), I’m going to be much more selective with whom I respond to these days. I would advise my siblings to be equally cautious.
Last time we talked about what happened when Izzy (aka Isaiah) encountered the holiness of God, and what that did to him. It is in the context of His holiness, his “set-apartness,” that we can begin to understand His view on sin, what we called selfishness. My dear friend, Dave, had an interesting take of sin that I believe hits the nail very much on the head. He described “sin” as an act of vandalism. If you consider for a moment that not only are we living in God’s creation, but our minds, bodies and souls are also His creation, then we start to see how messing with those things – even our thoughts – is an act of vandalism against God’s creation. I thought that was an extremely apt description, so kudos to Dave for that great insight.
We’ve already said that “God is Just” but even more, since God is an absolute being, “God IS Justice!” He doesn’t mess around, and because justice is part of His very nature (his ontology to use a fancy-schmancy word), he cannot simply overlook sin. Imagine a police officer or judge who simple overlooked murder or other such crimes. We humans, however, like to think that some crimes SHOULD be overlooked. We want the cop to catch the murderer, but overlook our speeding on the highway. Sometimes we recieve a little grace in those cases, but if the police officer or judge let everyone off, we would no longer consider them just. God, on the other hand, is perfectly just. Hear what the Bible says about God’s justice – and take the time to really think about these verses…
The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love. (Psalm 33:5)
Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep. (Psalm 36:6)
He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. (Psalm 9:8)
Now check out these verses, that place the very kingship of God on the basis of His justice…
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you. (Psalm 89:14)
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. (Psalm 97:2)
His justice is what His throne is built on! And see now how the demonstration of His justice is connected to how God reveals Himself to us…
But the LORD Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God will show himself holy by his righteousness. (Isaiah 5:16)
The LORD is known by his justice (Psalm 9:16)
How does God’s justice affect us? The Bible also talks about how His justice is applied, and how we measure up in the light of it…
I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line (Isaiah 28:17)Â
Does God pervert justice? Does the Almighty pervert what is right? When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin. (Job 8:3-4)
The LORD within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail, yet the unrighteous know no shame. (Zephaniah 3:5)
Let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:24)
I assert that if God, an absolute being whose very nature is ”justice,” lets even one crime go unnoticed, then He would no longer be absolute, and therefor no longer God. But, oh wonder of wonders, I’m going to show you my favourite Old Testament verse regarding God’s justice:
Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him! (Isaiah 30:18)
Wow, think about that. God longs to be gracious. The next statement is referring to His kingship. Ever been to a performance of Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus?” Everyone rises to their feet, because when King George II of England heard the Chorus for the first time, He rose to his feet.  The King need never rise, because he is sovereign. In the same way, this verse refers to the King of Kings, God Himself, rising from His throne to show compassion. Why?! Why does God long to show us grace and compassion? The next verse is the answer: Because He’s a God of justice.
How awesome is that?! Part and parcel of His justice is this desire to be merciful. Blessed are those who eagerly await His grace! Blessed are those who anticipate the King rising to show compassion! We’re going to come back to this passage a little later, but what you should see here are three things:
We’ll talk some more about that third point next time, but for now, think about your own heart, and hold it up to the light of God’s holiness and justice. Consider also what it means to wait in anticipation.
Considering recent discussion about the suitability of parodying religious figures, I found this report to be just too funny. Isaac Hayes who provides the voice of “Chef” on the animated show “South Park” wants to pack it up and move on to other things. Why would he desire to leave the show that features regular appearances of Jesus (who is depicted living in a bungalow and runs a cable call-in show, losing boxing bouts with Satan and singing in night clubs with Santa)? Why would he want to step away from a show who’s Christmas mascot is a talking piece of human excrement? What madness could make him want to walk away from a program where the main Jewish character struggles to save his baby brother from being “brissed” by his parents, and his Jewish mom is described with a word used of female canines for her moral crusades? Why would he want to give all that up?
Because of religious intolerance, of course! Now before you cheer, it must be pointed out that Hayes had no problem with the bashing of Christianity and Judaism over the past decade, but when they aired an episode poking fun at Scientology, that was blatant bigotry! XenuTV has the episode in question posted on their site, and while it is obviously misrepresenting Scientology (and XenuTV is farcically biased as well), it is certainly no worse than past attacks on other religions (if you consider Scientology a religion).
The difference between a Christian apologist and a Scientology apologist can be summed up in one word: dialogue. While I, as a Christian apologist, enjoy a healthy dialogue, and discussing the finer points of my faith and theology, especially with critics, Scientologists seems to first label their critics as religious bigots, then try to make their lives difficult, and then sue the ever-lovin’ out of them. That may be a gross generalization (read “please don’t sue me“), and I admit it is only based on observation of assorted newsgroups, discussion boards, and the like, but that is the image portrayed. Even the most vocal celebrities (read “Tom Cruise” and “John Travolta“) continually skirt around the central principles of Scientology, and the primary criticisms.
The wonderful thing about the good news of Jesus Christ is that it’s GOOD NEWS! Good news travels fast, openly, a beacon of light that shines even brighter against the backdrop of error. I can’t imagine a situation where I wouldn’t want to discuss Christian issues openly and transparently. It’s unfortunate that many Scientologists don’t seem to share that outlook.
This word, “fundamentalism” is tossed to and fro, especially in a Baptist seminary context, and consistently in a very negative light. Popular opinion would have us believe that “fundamentalists” are a congregation of wild-eyed rabid radicals with extreme views and nary a drop of love to be found. “Fundamentalist” has become synonymous with “militant,” “legalistic,” and “stubborn.”
I am on a mission to retake this word, in a Christian spirit. I claim the label of “fundamentalist” for myself, because I drink heavily at the well of the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, and there are some matters of faith that serve as a dividing line between those within the fellowship, and those who have yet to come in. The deity of Christ, for example, is one of those dividing lines. I consider the triune nature of God to be one of those dividing lines as well.
When I speak in terms of “dividing lines” it should be understood that I am not talking about dividing people. If the issue of Christ’s deity causes one to treat those who disagree in an unloving manner, or with contempt, then they are not speaking in the Spirit of God who would have us speak the truth in love. Such “dividing lines” should be understood as opportunities, not assaults. When one considers why a particular issue is key or pivotal, that makes perfect sense. Consider the doctrine of the Trinity: A triune God in which there is genuine love and fellowship between the three persons within that one ontological being has profound impact on our understanding of His nature and His work in our lives. Therefor, the Jesus who is the second person of the Trinity is a different Jesus from that of the modalist viewpoint, in which Christ is merely a manifestation of God. In a modalistic view, Jesus is the Father and the Spirit, which radically changes both the ontological nature of the God, as well as the relationship described in scripture between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The trinitarian and modalistic Jesus are two different Christs. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
This doesn’t mean I run up to Phillips, Craig & Dean (who are Oneness Pentecostals, or modalists) and say, “Hi there guys, I’ve got a stake outside I’d like to introduce you to!” That just means that I recognize that there is to be an ongoing dialogue there, and I must bear that difference in mind when discussing matters of faith and practise with my modalistic friend. If there is to be any condemnation for heresy, it is not mine to mete out – I just have the privilege of giving a reason for the hope that I have (1 Peter 3:15). That’s what a “fundamentalist” really is: someone who recognizes that there are certain fundamentals of the faith on which all things hinge.
The word “fundamentalist,” in it’s negative use, serves one purpose and one alone: ad hominem. It is designed to be a “mark of Cain” indicating that the individual or organization is outside of rational thought and reason. Anything that individual or group might have to offer has come from a well that’s been poisoned by the brand seared into the hearts of the listeners.
You know an argument about a political position, or worldview has fallen to it’s lowest point when someone makes a reference to Hitler, or Nazis. You find this exact same trend in most religious debates, as things are eventually reduced to name-calling… usually some good “isms” are exchanged… until it finally dribbles down to someone using the dreaded “fundamentalist” label.
Folks, that’s not how you win an argument. It’s simple ad-hominem well-poisoning. So, stop it. Just stop. If you’re going to name-call like that, at least pull out the stops and go straight to “Nazi” so we can stop pretending that we have any other intent than dismissing someone.
I’m not going to look at a particular Greek word this week, but rather a section from Mounce’s “The Basics of Biblical Greek.” Each chapter opens with a brief section entitled “Exegetical Insight” which gives practical examples of how the subject matter in that chapter plays out in Biblical exegesis. As I review for a midterm tomorrow, this brief intro to chapter 19 (“Future Active/Middle Indicative”)stood out to me:
In English we think of the future tense as the tense of simple prediction. Greek often uses the future that way, too, but in many biblical passages it carries a different sense. Particularly when quoting the Old Testament (under the influence of a parallel Hebrew construction), the future is used to give a command. “Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery,†and so on, are not predictions about the behavior of God’s people, or we would have repeatedly proven God wrong! Rather they are commands, what grammarians often call the imperatival or volitive use of the future tense. We do this in English occasionally, particularly in casual speech. For example, the student insistently says to her friends about an upcoming party, “You will be there!†This is not a prediction but a demand!
An excellent New Testament example appears when both Jesus and Paul quote Genesis 2:24: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.†In the context of the story of Adam and Eve, it is natural to take this as God’s prediction about how married life will proceed among the offspring of these first two human beings, and there may be a partially predictive element intended here. But when Jesus cites this passage to refute the Pharisees’ generally more lenient views on divorce (Matt 19:5), he knows full well that many of God’s people have violated and will continue to violate this creation ordinance. The same is true of Paul when he establishes the principles of a Christian marriage in the midst of the highly promiscuous pagan culture of Ephesus (Eph 5:31). Rather, both Jesus and Paul are using the future tense verbs of the Genesis text primarily in their imperatival sense–telling believers that God commands them to be faithful to their spouses for life.
That command remains crucial today, when Christians divorce for so many flimsy reasons that the Bible never condones. As the pastor who married my wife and me told us during premarital counseling, “There may be extreme instances in which divorce is biblically legitimate. But if you go into marriage looking for a way out, you will almost surely find it. Far better to commit to each other that you will never divorce, even if those extreme circumstances were to occur. Then you will have to turn to God, to Christian friends, and to each other to see you through the difficult times. And God will prove faithful.†We have heeded this advice for fourteen years now, and will continue to heed it for as long as we live. And in that period of time, while there have been struggles, there certainly has been nothing emerge to seriously threaten our marriage. God does remain faithful when we commit to his commands. And some of them come “disguised†in the future tense.
Craig L. Blomberg
Great insight from Dr. Blomberg, and a challenge to trust God. Moreover, Dr. Blomberg has recently agreed to offer some input via a telephone interview regarding an issue my fellowship is working through right now, so I look forward to attending that interaction.
I’ve removed my previous post regarding a parody I made, combining clips from “The Gospel of John” and an old ninja-movie (neither of which are very good). After having “sacrilege” offered as a descriptive, I have chosen to not cause my readers to stumble.
In order to further understand what Paul is talking about when he says “Christ died for our sins†in 1 Corinthians 15:3, we have to take a little time to think about who God is. What is His nature? What is He like? That’s what we talking about in our Sunday school class this week, paying close attention to two major attributes that Scripture repeatedly applies to God: holiness and justice/righteousness.
Waitasecond, that’s THREE things. Well, not really – the Bible connects justice and righteousness when it discusses God’s nature. Take, for example, the many psalms proclaiming “He loves righteousness and justice,†(Psalm 33:5) “righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne,†(Psalm 89:14, Psalm 92:2) and declaring that “You have executed justice and righteousness.†(Psalm 99:4) The connection between righteousness and justice are self-evident – one cannot be just if one is unrighteous, nor can one be righteous and unjust. The two concepts are intimately connected with each other, and intimately connected with God’s very nature. When we say “God is righteous†or “God is love,†we are not saying that God is conforming to some external standard. He’s not following some set of rules that allow Him to be ranked as “righteous†or “just†or “loving.â€Â When the bible says that “God is love,†it is saying that love is God’s very nature, part of his ontological existence, and any “love†that exists (true love, not Hallmark feel-good mush) finds it’s origin and foundation in God. If I “love†it’s only because God taught me how to do it.
It is in this context that I say, “God is holy†and “God is righteous & just.â€Â The word “holy†literally means “separate†or “unique.â€Â Set apart. Imagine having a jar of pennies, with one perfect gold coin sitting among them. Even if the gold coin isn’t physically “set apart†it still stand separate from the pennies. That which is holy is, by definition, set apart, unique, separated from the rest of the world even when it’s in the world. God’s holiness can only be understood in relation to our own poverty in that regard. One of the most amazing images in the bible that paints a disturbingly vivid picture of that holiness is found in the writings of the prophet Isaiah:
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:1-5 NIV)
Wow. Isaiah, the holiest man in all Israel… perhaps the holiest man on earth at that time… sees God, and he is ruined. The Hebrew word, demah, refers to destruction. The godliest man in all of Israel saw God and was destroyed, crushed under the weight of the holiness before his eyes. Why? Because he murdered someone? Because he was a pornographer in his spare time? No… because he was a man of “unclean†lips – which doesn’t mean he had the mouth of a longshoreman, but that he was human and subject to human things like temper or gossip and the like – and he lived with other unclean-lipped folks. Isaiah (or “Izzy†as I sometimes call him) was a imperfect human standing before a perfect God, and he did what any of us would do: He fell to pieces. Before we can even begin to consider what justice or righteousness means, we should spend some time considering this concept of “holiness.â€Â R.C. Sproul, one of my favorite authors, wrote a book called The Holiness of God – a black-covered paperback which scared the ever-lovin’ out of me the first time I read it. Sproul challenged me to stand beside Izzy at that moment, and I was ruined. I was destroyed. I fell to pieces. Sproul offers this for our consideration:
He saw the holiness of God. For the first time in his life Isaiah really understood who God was. At the same instant, for the first time Isaiah really understood who Isaiah was.
Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.†(Isaiah 6:6-7, NIV)
Isaiah was groveling on the floor. Every nerve fiber in his body was trembling. He was looking for a place to hide, praying that somehow the earth would cover him or the roof of the temple would fall upon him, anything to get him out from under the holy gaze of God. But there was nowhere to hide. He was naked and alone before God. He had no Eve to comfort him, no fig leaves to conceal him. His was pure moral anguish, the kind that rips out the heart of a man and tears his soul to pieces. Guilt, guilt, guilt. Relentless guilt screamed from his every pore.
The holy God is also a God of grace. He refused to allow his servant to continue on his belly without comfort. He took immediate steps to cleanse the man and restore his soul.
