The Difference Between Christianity and Islam

Ran accross this article which describes stoning for adultery as a brutal affair in some Islamic countries. Human rights groups are drafting a resolution to protest the practice. Quoting the article, regarding the case of one Malak Ghorbany,

"Lily Mazahery, president of the Legal Rights Institute in Washington, D.C., had the lead role in drafting the San Francisco resolution, telling WND: 'Malak is receiving the penalty of death for having committed 'adultery,' which, under the Sharia legal system includes any type of intimate relationship between a girl/woman and a man to whom she is not permanently or temporarily married. Such a relationship does not necessarily mean a sexual relationship. Further, charges of adultery are routinely issued to women/girls who have been raped, and they are sentenced to death.'"

I notice that it is only the women who are stoned and that, according to the article, the testimony of the woman only counts for half of that of the man.

Vacation

My excuse for few posts in recent days is - vacation. The primary evidence is as follows. 

This is Mohlman Lake, about 7000 feet up in the mountains of Western Montana.

It was a last chance to get away with my boys, age 19, 17 and 15. One will be a sophomore in college, the second will be a senior in high school. We are not far from the empty nest. They had never had the opportunity, and the five hour climb turned out to be worth every step. (Must give credit to my brother-in-law, and his son-in-law, for getting us up there and back in one piece, and for knowing how to fish.)




Our campsite, sleeping on rocks, unable to build campfires due to fire danger, armed with extra-strength pepper spray to ward off grizzlies. What a way to relax!

I've always felt like the mountains of Montana were like Narnia and I've always felt a sense of awe there. Cartoonist Stan Lynde once did a strip where a cowboy rides through such scenery for several frames. The final box has him saying something to the effect of "anybody who can see this and not believe in God, just ain't payin' attention".



Then we hiked about 8 miles in Glacier Park. Need I say more...

...And I Agree Completely

Jim Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy writes in the Weekly Standard about the breakup of the ECUSA and the struggles in the PCUSA. The article is titled Religion Without Foundations.

I've been writing quite a bit about subjectivism in matters of faith, the lack of adherence to both scripture and the consensus of church history. Tonkowich says of the mainliners:

"In contrast to Christians through the ages, the denominational left has substituted sentiments for facts, passions for authority, and subjectivity for reason. Their belief seems to be that if they "create space for dialogue" it will allow them to emote and vote with the result that a simple majority determines the new revised standard version of God's truth and will."

Those Dangerous Dispensationalists

Interesting art exhibition by one Jill Greenberg who has caused a sensation by making a political statement out of photos of crying babies. To get the photos, she had to get the kids to cry, ususally be giving the kids a lollypop and then taking it away. One might argue this does no permanent harm to the kids, but it does seem rather - shall we say - insensitive? But that isn't the gist of this post.

Quoted in the press release for the exhibition is Bill Moyers' 2005 piece There is no Tomorrow, which gently savages evangelicals and all politicians who are supported by evangelicals.

"For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The offspring of ideology and theology are not always bad but they are always blind. And that is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts. "

Outreach, Worship and Sunday Mornings

Been busy of late, not a lot of time to think, much less write. I found a great little article in Touchstone, where one John Parker writes some gentle and prodding thoughts in his Guide for the Cineplexed, Parker is an Orthodox Priest, but obviously has some evangelical influence in his past. One small point that immediately stuck out is that while so many megachurches are meeting in theaters, warehouses, theaters, schools and anyplace else that will hold lots of people and won't feel too "churchy", almost everyone wants to get married in a place that feels - like a church. The church in which he once served, went so far as to construct a "wedding chapel" precisely because of this conundrum. "Until now, this church has never had a place 'suitable' for 'that special day.' Who wants to get married on a stage? In a warehouse? In a theater? "

The reason for the "neutral" atmosphere of the seeker service is to make the service comfortable and inviting for the "unchurched". And in America, not only have the inherently "religous" trappings been removed, but also all symbols that smack of authority. We are egalitarian, at least in the image we try to present. But I think Parker puts his finger on the real issue that seeker churches have maybe not considered fully enough.

Over the Edge

In all honesty, I have had a hard time knowing exactly what to think after the whirlwind events of the last couple of weeks in both the PCUSA and ECUSA conventions. I had expected the revisionists in the ECUSA to hold their ground. I did not expect them to stake out new territory. (Much reporting on the convention can be found at David Virtue's news site here.)

In the ECUSA, now simply “The Episcopal Church” or TEC for short, delegates were somewhat stunned at the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, bishop of Nevada, to the post of Presiding Bishop. Since most Anglican provinces do not ordain women as deacons or priests, much less bishops, this was hardly a conciliatory move to engender trust from other provinces – this was a defiant act of autonomy. On top of this, Schiori is on record as supportive of the consecration of Gene Robinson, the openly Gay Bishop of New Hampshire.

Incredibly, in the Episcopal convention, the House of Deputies voted down a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved” by a vote of 675 to 242. Apparently such exclusive language was politically incorrect.

Why I Am Not Emergent - Part 3

"Within Emergent are Texas Baptists who don't allow women to preach and New England lesbian Episcopal priests. We have Southern California YWAMers and Midwest Lutherans. We have those who hold to biblical inerrancy, and others trying to demythologize the scripture. We have environmental, peacenik lefties, "crunchy cons," and right wing hawks." (Tony Jones)

Emergents generally don’t like to be categorized, and there is enough diversity within the movement that any attempt to categorize, including my own, will be inadequate. What I have attempted to show in parts 1 and 2, is that on two key assumptions of a philosophical trend which is categorized as postmodernism, the leaders of the emergent movement tend toward viewpoints which mirror those assumptions.

Assumption 1: There is no such thing as objective knowledge - knowledge unaffected by bias.Emergent leaders Tony Jones and Brian McLaren protest that they do believe in truth, yet they seem to fall back on the notion that objective knowledge of that truth must be held in supreme suspicion, making the concept of truth essentially meaningless.

Assumption 2: Language is a construct of society – words do not signify reality, but a cultural perception of reality.The propensity to want to find new ways of looking at Scripture allows emergents to comfortably remain in dialogue with those of wildly varying viewpoints, and to be suspicious of anyone who would not be open to wildly varying viewpoints.

This leads me to the third assumption, to which Emergents may not actively ascribe, but will tend to fall in line with in practice:

Assumption 3: Language is a mask to power. Those who control the language have the power.
a. History then, reflects the interpretations of those who controlled the culture at the expense of those who did not.
b. Justice means standing against the oppressor and with the oppressed, allowing alternative constructions of reality to be heard.
Emergents are very concerned about the poor and the oppressed, and this good and is consistent with much of scripture. But this seems to include a tendency to assume that all who are disenfranchised are victims and all who are successful by definition oppress. This leads to a corresponding suspicion of traditionally orthodox and established views of the faith and an openness to new and marginalized views.

I have back track to call attention to Brian McLaren’s open letter to Chuck Colson at this point. I think he honestly tried to explain the distinctions between radical postmodern craziness and the more nuanced views with which he is more comfortable, claiming that Colson’s view of “Postmodernism” is itself a straw man.

It is certainly possible to take the worst statements of adherents to a philosophy and string them together in an unfair way. But it is also possible to protest that one does not believe something and then turn around and make numerous other statements that prove otherwise. McLaren's protests about being misunderstood are betrayed by his own confusing and noncommittal statements.

But it is the concept of the metanarrative that is the critical point for this post. The metanarrative, the all-encompassing, totalizing world-view that explains everything in a certain way and as a result, crushes everything that does not conform. This is the key topic which McLaren attempts to explain to Colson.