My learning curve re: Libertarianism continues. Yesterday I found out that some of my new conservative-Libertarian friends are “godless.” Since we agree on issues of excessive taxation, education reform, intelligent energy policy, labor union reform, the decline of the GOP via the erosion of principles of liberty and conservatism, the lack of accountability and transparency in government, and the role a citizen and journalist ought to play in all of it...we shall in all likelihood continue to be agreeable birds in the proverbial nest. And as we join forces to promote truth-telling in civic life, I will continue to explore and entertain those Libertarian principles I think are sound. I really do not know what the political theorists have to say about Christian Libertarianism (is there such a thing?) but this is what I will say for myself, for now:
I believe God created us to be free. This freedom allows us to really Live: to inquire, ponder, reason, decide, experience, learn, grow, and inquire again. God does not force His grace and truth upon us, and Christianity rejects the use of duress or coercion to persuade people - as does Libertarianism. We are each free to choose our path as long as we understand that with freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We can and should live Free, but we must not expect others to be harmed or pay the price for our choices (i.e. our freedom must not infringe on the freedoms of others).
The State should have no authority over our God-given freedoms (or "natural rights") except as we agree to submit. The legitimate realm of government should extend only as far as is necessary to protect the liberty, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Government should be as limited as possible while still maintaining order and justice, and we should be wary of those who try to wheedle or steal our freedoms away from us. With freedom we can each choose to search our souls, ponder our origins, and discern some Purpose in our lives – or not. No one can force a "higher purpose" upon another.
My prime example is this: Jesus Christ spent 3+ years walking the earth talking about the Kingdom of God and freedom from oppression. Never once did he use force to persuade anyone. Indeed, this was one of the primary reasons so many Jews rejected Him as the prophecied and promised Messiah: he came quiet as a Lamb instead of roaring like a Lion. Israel's desire for a conquering warrior-king was so whipped-up that they denounced the peace-talking Christ even against all evidence of His authenticity. The Jews wanted to establish a Zionist state in which all non-believers would be punished, banished, or killed; Christ came speaking of love, kindness, patience, mercy, grace, and the brotherhood of all mankind. Christ offered grace - and the Freedom to choose. As Christians, we must do the same. Faith cannot be forced.
Showing posts with label Faith and Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith and Theology. Show all posts
06 June 2008
05 June 2008
The Islamic Law of Apostasy: Murder by Any Other Name
In re: to my recent post on missionaries and Muslims converting to Christianity in the U.K. and elsewhere, Anne of Idaho writes in and asks, "Who is going to be responsible for Islam’s attitude about conversion, i.e., killing apostates?"
Answer: When Muslims choose to murder Muslims who have denounced Islam, the responsible parties are the murderers and no one else...except perhaps the false prophets and teachers who say "believe in Islam, or die." We must not hide ourselves in the hope that the hatred and terror of Islam will pass us by, and we need not assume responsibility for the heinous acts of others.
My encouragement to all Christians - whether missionaries, Muslim converts, or ordinary citizens - is to have the courage to seek, believe, and speak the truth about God whenever and wherever possible. If there is a price for believing and sharing God's truth and grace, whether Islamic enmity or even our earthly lives, then let us gladly pay it. It doesn't matter whether our listener is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan, and it doesn't matter on what nation's soil we stand. In the grand scheme of things, we each have an audience of One. We must open our hearts and live with courage and joy. We must live as if death is already defeated. And so it Is.
Murderers cannot kill us; they can only send us Home.
Answer: When Muslims choose to murder Muslims who have denounced Islam, the responsible parties are the murderers and no one else...except perhaps the false prophets and teachers who say "believe in Islam, or die." We must not hide ourselves in the hope that the hatred and terror of Islam will pass us by, and we need not assume responsibility for the heinous acts of others.
My encouragement to all Christians - whether missionaries, Muslim converts, or ordinary citizens - is to have the courage to seek, believe, and speak the truth about God whenever and wherever possible. If there is a price for believing and sharing God's truth and grace, whether Islamic enmity or even our earthly lives, then let us gladly pay it. It doesn't matter whether our listener is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan, and it doesn't matter on what nation's soil we stand. In the grand scheme of things, we each have an audience of One. We must open our hearts and live with courage and joy. We must live as if death is already defeated. And so it Is.
Murderers cannot kill us; they can only send us Home.
CNS News: Anglican Church Aims to Spread Gospel to UK Muslims
In re: to my "Evangelism: The New Hate Crime" post, Kevin McCandless @ CNSNews.com (London) reports that with more and more Britons embracing Islam, the Church of England is launching a campaign aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity. At the church's General Synod this coming July, clergy and lay members will consider a motion calling for a recognition of the "uniqueness of Christ" and urging the church to proclaim "the gospel of salvation through Christ alone."
Paul Eddy, the priest introducing the motion, said he fears that the Anglican Church has "watered down its faith" in recent years. Where many Muslims are outspoken and publicly robust in their faith, he said the church of England has "lost its nerve." Among other measures, Eddy says he wants to see priests receive training in evangelization. Eddy has already secured support from a number of synod members, including Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, a Pakistan-born clergyman has recently repeated earlier warnings that the decline of Christianity has weakened Britain and led to many neighborhoods becoming "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.
Paul Eddy, the priest introducing the motion, said he fears that the Anglican Church has "watered down its faith" in recent years. Where many Muslims are outspoken and publicly robust in their faith, he said the church of England has "lost its nerve." Among other measures, Eddy says he wants to see priests receive training in evangelization. Eddy has already secured support from a number of synod members, including Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, a Pakistan-born clergyman has recently repeated earlier warnings that the decline of Christianity has weakened Britain and led to many neighborhoods becoming "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.
28 May 2008
I'm with Stupid
This past weekend we went to see Ben Stein’s new docu-film “Expelled.” Though I could’ve done without the insertion of old black-and-white film clips for dramtic effect, I thought the rest of the film was pretty good mainly because Stein did a decent job of choosing representatives from both sides (i.e. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution). He asked respectful and thoughtful questions; he never interrupted; and he gave everyone ample time to speak their respective pieces. For the most part, he got out of the way, which I find admirable in this day and age of unrepentant Me-ism.
The most unlikable scientist in the film heatedly called anyone who does not believe in evolution – as in, ancient lifeless primordial goop spontaenously birthing a living cell which then evolved into every species on the planet – “stupid.” Whatever his beliefs, I don’t see how that sort of name calling is necessary, constructive, or scientific. For one thing, the stupidity of a human being has no bearing whatsoever on a Fact. If a scientist thinks he has a waterproof case, then he ought to thoughtfully and logically present it. If the evidence is sufficient, then no amount of stupidity in the universe matters. It is what it is and eventually all will know it. If, on the other hand, his “scientific” theory is birthed from the loins of pre-existing assumptions, carries numerous unanswered questions in its backpack, is missing key evidence, and therefore requires a series of additional assumptions in order to make it a unified whole, then perhaps he ought to pluck the log out of his own eye and realize that the ignorance may be his – or, at the very least, that he still has some work to do.
Secondly, there is simply no rational justification for calling scientists who reject evolution, or those who believe in a Creator and who think they see both Design and Designer in the universe “stupid,” even if they are one day found to be wrong (which I don’t think will be the case, but allowing for the possibility helps my argument). Very smart people are wrong all the time. Throughout history, very well-educated scientists and researchers have been proven incorrect by later discoveries. Wrong does not equal stupid. It’s a blatant Fallacy, and it’s incredibly annoying to hear puffed-up and self-congratulating scientists use it on their fellow citizens as if it says something meaningful.
I believe there is no conflict between True Science and the existence of a Creator. I believe that serious, exploratory science can, has, and will continue to lead to the discovery of absolutely amazing Truths about the cosmos. Quantum physicists and certain sub-sets of chaos theorists are perhaps coming closest at present, but other newer branches of science may replace these in the future. It is my unapologetic view that what evolutionists call “natural selection” – mutations within species – may well be true, but evolution as a unified theory of the origin of all life on Earth is inadequate, unlikely, and as of yet, unproven. I can accept the fact of changes in a finch’s beak over time, as supported by fossil records. I cannot accept that a single-celled organism rode on the back of some magic crystal, suddenly came to life, and evolved into Me after passing “Go” and dumping off two million other species along the way. Call me crazy - or stupid, as the case may be.
I longingly wait for the day when more scientists acknowledge, as atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins finally did at the end of Stein’s film, that science still cannot explain the existence of a living cell, that neither Nothingness nor non-living matter could possibly have birthed it without some “spark” or “pre-existing” force or yet-unknown element, that the discoveries of microbiology have utterly astounded the scientific community in the years since Darwin, and that the inner-workings of a living cell (reproduction, metabolism, transport, repair) do indeed appear to be fabulously and wondrously engineered and/or designed. When pressed to name possible Sources of that first living blob on earth, Dawkins became uncomfortable and hestitatingly cited ancient alien DNA as one feasible font-o-life. When asked where THAT came from, he smiled and seemed to realize his predicament.
The so-called conflict between science and God is an illusion. The origin of life is neither a scientific question nor a religious question. It transcends both. When we all finally realize this, men and angels can rejoice – and Dawkins and Stein can have a beer and laugh.
The most unlikable scientist in the film heatedly called anyone who does not believe in evolution – as in, ancient lifeless primordial goop spontaenously birthing a living cell which then evolved into every species on the planet – “stupid.” Whatever his beliefs, I don’t see how that sort of name calling is necessary, constructive, or scientific. For one thing, the stupidity of a human being has no bearing whatsoever on a Fact. If a scientist thinks he has a waterproof case, then he ought to thoughtfully and logically present it. If the evidence is sufficient, then no amount of stupidity in the universe matters. It is what it is and eventually all will know it. If, on the other hand, his “scientific” theory is birthed from the loins of pre-existing assumptions, carries numerous unanswered questions in its backpack, is missing key evidence, and therefore requires a series of additional assumptions in order to make it a unified whole, then perhaps he ought to pluck the log out of his own eye and realize that the ignorance may be his – or, at the very least, that he still has some work to do.
Secondly, there is simply no rational justification for calling scientists who reject evolution, or those who believe in a Creator and who think they see both Design and Designer in the universe “stupid,” even if they are one day found to be wrong (which I don’t think will be the case, but allowing for the possibility helps my argument). Very smart people are wrong all the time. Throughout history, very well-educated scientists and researchers have been proven incorrect by later discoveries. Wrong does not equal stupid. It’s a blatant Fallacy, and it’s incredibly annoying to hear puffed-up and self-congratulating scientists use it on their fellow citizens as if it says something meaningful.
I believe there is no conflict between True Science and the existence of a Creator. I believe that serious, exploratory science can, has, and will continue to lead to the discovery of absolutely amazing Truths about the cosmos. Quantum physicists and certain sub-sets of chaos theorists are perhaps coming closest at present, but other newer branches of science may replace these in the future. It is my unapologetic view that what evolutionists call “natural selection” – mutations within species – may well be true, but evolution as a unified theory of the origin of all life on Earth is inadequate, unlikely, and as of yet, unproven. I can accept the fact of changes in a finch’s beak over time, as supported by fossil records. I cannot accept that a single-celled organism rode on the back of some magic crystal, suddenly came to life, and evolved into Me after passing “Go” and dumping off two million other species along the way. Call me crazy - or stupid, as the case may be.
I longingly wait for the day when more scientists acknowledge, as atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins finally did at the end of Stein’s film, that science still cannot explain the existence of a living cell, that neither Nothingness nor non-living matter could possibly have birthed it without some “spark” or “pre-existing” force or yet-unknown element, that the discoveries of microbiology have utterly astounded the scientific community in the years since Darwin, and that the inner-workings of a living cell (reproduction, metabolism, transport, repair) do indeed appear to be fabulously and wondrously engineered and/or designed. When pressed to name possible Sources of that first living blob on earth, Dawkins became uncomfortable and hestitatingly cited ancient alien DNA as one feasible font-o-life. When asked where THAT came from, he smiled and seemed to realize his predicament.
The so-called conflict between science and God is an illusion. The origin of life is neither a scientific question nor a religious question. It transcends both. When we all finally realize this, men and angels can rejoice – and Dawkins and Stein can have a beer and laugh.
27 May 2008
In Deo speramus
It is perhaps fitting that on the day after Memorial Day, Victor Davis Hanson writes about Obama's "frequent recitals of U.S. history in which the Underground Railroad, the freedom riders, women suffragists, and icons of the civil-rights movement figure prominently." Hanson points out that in almost every reference to America's collective past, Obama mentions some sort of reform and/or protest. Hanson then cautions us against adopting as our heroes only those "who found the system wanting and took it on."
Hanson rightly says that there are many historical figures responsible for our freedom and prosperity and that many of them were not social activists. He suggests that Obama ought to try mentioning a few, "whether an Edison and Bell, people of action and courage like Lewis and Clark or Lindbergh, political figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, and military heroism at places like Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Chosun, or Hue" and says there is a need to "remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment".
I wholeheartedly agree. Our nation has birthed many great Citizens who never walked a picket line or marched on Washington D.C. Skepticism and dissent have their place, but we must not ever think an anti-establishment mentality is necessary to Heroism. What is essential are one or more of the following qualities: courage, strength, persistence, the love of justice, honesty, integrity, responsibility, and above all, humility. This list of virtues widens the field considerably. Indeed, I would posit that in addition to our researchers, doctors, nurses, inventors, teachers, writers, and assorted public servants, many of America's greatest citizens are ordinary people attempting to live decent lives in the midst of tremendous personal difficulty.
When I think of Barack and Michelle's seemingly endless harping and complaining, and their focus on an endless parade of negatives, I am reminded of Paul's letter to the Philippians in which he wrote, "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8).
Though we are not a perfect nation, how happy we should be that there is much that is true, noble, just, and good in our history. Ours is not the shameful story some like to tell: an ugly nation of extended injustices interrupted by rare heroic protests. We are more than that.
I will never vote for nor admire a man who thinks that greatness and virtue lie only on our horizon and only through his insight and leadership...rather than behind us and eternally within us by the grace of God. We are not perfect, nor ever have been. But it is God - and not Obama - in whom we hope and trust for redemption, and it is the contemplation not of what is wrong but of all that is good and right that gives us and all our heroes both courage and "the audacity of hope."
Hanson rightly says that there are many historical figures responsible for our freedom and prosperity and that many of them were not social activists. He suggests that Obama ought to try mentioning a few, "whether an Edison and Bell, people of action and courage like Lewis and Clark or Lindbergh, political figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, and military heroism at places like Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Chosun, or Hue" and says there is a need to "remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment".
I wholeheartedly agree. Our nation has birthed many great Citizens who never walked a picket line or marched on Washington D.C. Skepticism and dissent have their place, but we must not ever think an anti-establishment mentality is necessary to Heroism. What is essential are one or more of the following qualities: courage, strength, persistence, the love of justice, honesty, integrity, responsibility, and above all, humility. This list of virtues widens the field considerably. Indeed, I would posit that in addition to our researchers, doctors, nurses, inventors, teachers, writers, and assorted public servants, many of America's greatest citizens are ordinary people attempting to live decent lives in the midst of tremendous personal difficulty.
When I think of Barack and Michelle's seemingly endless harping and complaining, and their focus on an endless parade of negatives, I am reminded of Paul's letter to the Philippians in which he wrote, "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8).
Though we are not a perfect nation, how happy we should be that there is much that is true, noble, just, and good in our history. Ours is not the shameful story some like to tell: an ugly nation of extended injustices interrupted by rare heroic protests. We are more than that.
I will never vote for nor admire a man who thinks that greatness and virtue lie only on our horizon and only through his insight and leadership...rather than behind us and eternally within us by the grace of God. We are not perfect, nor ever have been. But it is God - and not Obama - in whom we hope and trust for redemption, and it is the contemplation not of what is wrong but of all that is good and right that gives us and all our heroes both courage and "the audacity of hope."
24 May 2008
Jesus Christ: Good Man, Great Moral Teacher, or God the "I AM"?
What does a Christian say to someone who acknowledges Jesus Christ as a wise man, or says he was a great moral teacher, but who does not believe in Christ-as-God: God incarnate, God in spirit, and the son of God?
I often refer to the words of C.S. Lewis in his famous book Mere Christianity: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument refers us to two things. One is Jesus' own words about Who He Is. In the gospel of John, we note that Jesus uses the verbal formula "I AM" to describe himself as deity. Jesus says, I am the bread of life (6:35); I am the light of the world (8:12, 9:5); I am the gate (10:7); I am the good shepherd (10:11,14); I am the resurrection and the life (11:25); I am the way and the truth and the life (14:16); and I am the true vine (15:1).
As a Hebraic scholar, Jesus knew that "I AM" is the primary scriptural name of God. It is equated with the name Jehovah and/or Yahweh (YHWH) from the Hebrew haveh meaning "to be", which when conjugated in the singular present form is: "I AM." It also carries connotations of the Hebrew chaveh meaning "to live". When Moses asks God for his name (Exodus 3:13), God answers, "I AM WHO I AM" (or according to the Old King James translation, "I AM THAT I AM").
Jesus' deliberate use of the words "I am" combined with other Biblical, God-equivalent words such as "way," "truth," "life," "bread," "water," and "shepherd," show that he meant to declare his deity. It leaves no room for the "great moral teacher" argument. He was either speaking the Truth, or he was being deceitful, or he was deluded.
The second thing Lewis' words refer to is what Christians understand to be the sword-like attributes of the Logos or Word of God. It slices and separates truth from untruth. In a Christian worldview, celestial logos divides right from wrong, light from dark, and God from all that is anti-God (or anti-Christ). Whether we can appropriately apply the Word to our lives and walk the godly line between truth and grace is always in question. If we do not, the lack is in us - not in the eternal and Logos of the Creator.
In one of my favorite Bible verses, John eloquently proclaims his belief in the eternal and pre-existent deity of Jesus when he begins his book with the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). His use of the word Logos has a deep personal, spiritual, and cosmic meaning for me. This LOGOS of the I AM exists in eternity, ever and always creates. HE moves, whirls, stands, binds, sustains, trancends, and reveals. I AM walks and talks where and when HE pleases - or HE exists not at all. So, for me, the deity of Christ is easy to believe.
Blessings on this Sabbath.
I often refer to the words of C.S. Lewis in his famous book Mere Christianity: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument refers us to two things. One is Jesus' own words about Who He Is. In the gospel of John, we note that Jesus uses the verbal formula "I AM" to describe himself as deity. Jesus says, I am the bread of life (6:35); I am the light of the world (8:12, 9:5); I am the gate (10:7); I am the good shepherd (10:11,14); I am the resurrection and the life (11:25); I am the way and the truth and the life (14:16); and I am the true vine (15:1).
As a Hebraic scholar, Jesus knew that "I AM" is the primary scriptural name of God. It is equated with the name Jehovah and/or Yahweh (YHWH) from the Hebrew haveh meaning "to be", which when conjugated in the singular present form is: "I AM." It also carries connotations of the Hebrew chaveh meaning "to live". When Moses asks God for his name (Exodus 3:13), God answers, "I AM WHO I AM" (or according to the Old King James translation, "I AM THAT I AM").
Jesus' deliberate use of the words "I am" combined with other Biblical, God-equivalent words such as "way," "truth," "life," "bread," "water," and "shepherd," show that he meant to declare his deity. It leaves no room for the "great moral teacher" argument. He was either speaking the Truth, or he was being deceitful, or he was deluded.
The second thing Lewis' words refer to is what Christians understand to be the sword-like attributes of the Logos or Word of God. It slices and separates truth from untruth. In a Christian worldview, celestial logos divides right from wrong, light from dark, and God from all that is anti-God (or anti-Christ). Whether we can appropriately apply the Word to our lives and walk the godly line between truth and grace is always in question. If we do not, the lack is in us - not in the eternal and Logos of the Creator.
In one of my favorite Bible verses, John eloquently proclaims his belief in the eternal and pre-existent deity of Jesus when he begins his book with the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). His use of the word Logos has a deep personal, spiritual, and cosmic meaning for me. This LOGOS of the I AM exists in eternity, ever and always creates. HE moves, whirls, stands, binds, sustains, trancends, and reveals. I AM walks and talks where and when HE pleases - or HE exists not at all. So, for me, the deity of Christ is easy to believe.
Blessings on this Sabbath.
19 May 2008
Researching Religious Figures
In my Internet wanderings this week, I ran across a good essay about the psycho-historical/psycho-biographical study of religious personalities. The subject is of interest to me in two respects: (1) the methodologies involved in investigating an historical religious figure (as opposed to any other kind of historical person), and (2) issues related to understanding the interplay between psychology and spiritualism and/or religion. I am interested in questions like: What is the role of the researcher in studying religious subjects? What place does psychology – of both the researcher and the researched – have in such endeavors? How does one methodically and objectively research religious/spiritual experience? Etc.
18 May 2008
Everything Is Spiritual
Just finished watching "Everything Is Spiritual," a DVD teaching by Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Regardless of your worldview or beliefs, this DVD is a must see. I'll probably be buying it as a gift for everyone on my Christmas list this year. Just Amazing!
12 May 2008
Proverbs 1:7: "The Fear of the Lord"
Certain scriptures and phrases in the Bible have yet to be explained to me to my satisfaction. I therefore spend a fair amount of time reading, studying, cross-referencing, thinking, praying, and otherwise seeking plausible explanations. God says, "Seek, and ye shall find" and so I do, very glad to have His blessing. One such scripture is the first half of Proverbs 1:7, which says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." What was Solomon really saying there at the end of his Prologue? How does "fear of the Lord" line up in the same parade with the flag-bearers of an all-loving, all-forgiving God? Is Solomon talking about the fear of disappointing a loving father - as in a healthy and wholesome dread of displeasing him? Or is he talking about sheer and unadulterated let's-all-hide-under-the-bed Terror? Or something else, or something in between?
My VINES reference lists a few Greek words for "fear" but none of them cross-ref back to this verse in Proverbs, so let's quickly look at each. "Phobos" is equivalent to "flight" and has connotations of both "dread" and "fright." The word "deilia" comes from "deos" and literally means fearfulness, but it primarily denotes timidity and/or cowardice which (the notes say) is not given us of/by God (see 2 Timothy 1:7). And "eulabelia" means caution, reverence, or godly fear: "a mingling of fear and love which constitute the piety of men toward God."
This last Word seems something like what we'd expect from a Proverb. It refers to a reverential respect for God as a controlling motive in life and spiritual matters. Rather than causing terror and flight, it influences and inspires the seeking of the indwelling of the Spirit of God...causing carefulness of word and deed. (Is it not true that once we discover we are Sheep, we are wise to tread carefully and to fear straying too far from the Shepherd?)
My VINES reference lists a few Greek words for "fear" but none of them cross-ref back to this verse in Proverbs, so let's quickly look at each. "Phobos" is equivalent to "flight" and has connotations of both "dread" and "fright." The word "deilia" comes from "deos" and literally means fearfulness, but it primarily denotes timidity and/or cowardice which (the notes say) is not given us of/by God (see 2 Timothy 1:7). And "eulabelia" means caution, reverence, or godly fear: "a mingling of fear and love which constitute the piety of men toward God."
This last Word seems something like what we'd expect from a Proverb. It refers to a reverential respect for God as a controlling motive in life and spiritual matters. Rather than causing terror and flight, it influences and inspires the seeking of the indwelling of the Spirit of God...causing carefulness of word and deed. (Is it not true that once we discover we are Sheep, we are wise to tread carefully and to fear straying too far from the Shepherd?)
21 April 2008
Pope Benedict XVI Prays at Ground Zero
The healing and consolation of God was sought in the Pope's prayer yesterday. It ends thus:
Grant that those whose lives were spared may live so that the lives lost here may not have been lost in vain. Comfort and console us, strengthen us in hope, and give us the wisdom and courage to work tirelessly for a world where true peace and love reign among nations and in the hearts of all.
Grant that those whose lives were spared may live so that the lives lost here may not have been lost in vain. Comfort and console us, strengthen us in hope, and give us the wisdom and courage to work tirelessly for a world where true peace and love reign among nations and in the hearts of all.
17 April 2008
Did Noah Fish?
A Sunday school teacher asked her class, "Do you think Noah did a lot of fishing when he was on the Ark?"
"No," replied Little Johnny. "How could he, with just two worms?"
"No," replied Little Johnny. "How could he, with just two worms?"
10 April 2008
Kathleen Parker: Something Good This Way Comes
Over at NRO Kathleen Parker sub-titles and ends this editorial on Pope Benedict with these words: “The pope is a brave man.” She recounts how the pontiff has stirred up a few storms in the religious environment over the past few years, citing his baptism of an Italy-based Muslim journalist during the Easter vigil as the most recent. In response to this “insensitive” act, angry mobs attacked five Christian churches in the West Bank and Gaza, shot and killed an Italian nun, and burned effigies of the pope, calling for his death. The journalist, Magdi Cristiano Allam, has also received several death threats and is traveling with a security detail while his family is in hiding.
Surprisingly, in the midst of all this, Saudi King Abdullah called for a Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders to begin a dialogue re: suffering the world over. On Easter Monday, Abdullah expressed “distress” over a global crisis that “has caused an imbalance in religion, in ethics, in all of humanity.” Elsewhere, the Riyadh government called for Saudi imams to discourage extremism and encourage a more moderate, peaceful interpretation of Islam. And in Indonesia, Christian and Muslim leaders recently gathered to discuss cooperative efforts while Islamic educators issued an appeal to begin educating young Muslim men without justifications for violence.
Does this mean there is hope for a world gone mad? Parker says maybe, but notes that Pope Benedict’s inflexible insistence on speaking out on human rights in addition to God’s universal love may pose a problem for some. She quotes Father Roger J. Landry, a priest in the Fall River, MA, diocese and editor of the diocesan newspaper The Anchor, who wrote in a recent editorial that Benedict has “insisted that the conversation tackle how such love becomes concrete in analyzing how each tradition handles the question of human rights.”
I am grateful that Pope Benedict insists our dialogue include an honest examination and candid discussions of human rights violations wherever and whyever (and by whomever) they occur. I am also grateful that he does so without apology or equivocation, even under threat of death.
During the pope’s trip to the U.S. later this month, he will address the United Nations (on Friday, April 18th).
Surprisingly, in the midst of all this, Saudi King Abdullah called for a Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders to begin a dialogue re: suffering the world over. On Easter Monday, Abdullah expressed “distress” over a global crisis that “has caused an imbalance in religion, in ethics, in all of humanity.” Elsewhere, the Riyadh government called for Saudi imams to discourage extremism and encourage a more moderate, peaceful interpretation of Islam. And in Indonesia, Christian and Muslim leaders recently gathered to discuss cooperative efforts while Islamic educators issued an appeal to begin educating young Muslim men without justifications for violence.
Does this mean there is hope for a world gone mad? Parker says maybe, but notes that Pope Benedict’s inflexible insistence on speaking out on human rights in addition to God’s universal love may pose a problem for some. She quotes Father Roger J. Landry, a priest in the Fall River, MA, diocese and editor of the diocesan newspaper The Anchor, who wrote in a recent editorial that Benedict has “insisted that the conversation tackle how such love becomes concrete in analyzing how each tradition handles the question of human rights.”
I am grateful that Pope Benedict insists our dialogue include an honest examination and candid discussions of human rights violations wherever and whyever (and by whomever) they occur. I am also grateful that he does so without apology or equivocation, even under threat of death.
During the pope’s trip to the U.S. later this month, he will address the United Nations (on Friday, April 18th).
09 April 2008
Tony Blair: “If you are somebody of faith it affects your politics, it affects everything that you do”
Click here to read a London TimesOnline piece re: former British Prime Minister Tony Blair talking about issues of faith and politics as well as his soon-to-be Faith Foundation. Blair recently converted to Catholocism, a fact now being widely reported in the media on both sides of the Puddle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
