Do Christians Love Guns?

...that's the title of a recent blogpost and newsletter by Andrew Strom. Find it here.


My first comment on it was, "I agree with you 100%, but I’m afraid you’re in for an avalanche of email every bit as big as the one you got for “Tea Party”"

When I went to hit the "Post" button, the site hung. I thought that was my prediction suddenly coming true, with the sudden avalanche of comments coming in. I finally got mine in later, and proceeded to view some of the comments. It's quite clear to all that just because one receives Andrew Strom's newsletters and frequents his website, isn't an indication that one agrees with him 100%. In fact, predictably, even though "Pasivism" wasn't mentioned in Andrew's article, nor even alluded to, that quickly became a hot topic on the comment stream. Here's one:

A question for all you pacifist Christians. If you were in that grade school, there was a gun on the table next to you and you heard the screams of people and gunshots. Would you leave that gun on the table and say, “violence is not Christian!” and continue to let dozens be killed?
The way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun

 The one just before that was a very long one, probably worth reading to get the jist of the anti-pacifist view. However, all that wasn't the point of Andrew's post.

Here was my longer post:

I posted my comment above, and THEN looked at some of the earlier responses…

I don’t think Andrew is saying that it’s wrong to stand against injustice with use of force. It’s just not the Christian mandate. The police and the military, after all, use force to do many of the same things mentioned above. They’re not in violation of God’s laws. Even a revolution might be in order at times, but don’t mistake it for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

As for the example of David and Goliath, above: The Jewish people had (or still have — depending on your theology) the mandate of maintaining a nation in the land God had given them as a part of God’s covenant with Israel. Christians, under the New Covenant, didn’t receive such a mandate. We’re called to support those in power, especially those who enforce justice.

Now, as to the question, what should we have done during the early Nazi period in Germany, or whether to use a gun to prevent a greater disaster etc etc. …

Is having an easy answer a mark of Truth? Is any one approach automatically the right one for every situation?

I see, in the reigns of King David and King Solomon, a scriptural basis for both passivism and non-passivism. David fought many wars to establish the Kingdom of Israel all the way to the borders God had promised to Moses. He was 100% in God’s will in doing so. However, in doing this, he was a “man of blood”, and therefore wasn’t granted the privilage of building God’s Temple. King Solomon, a “man of peace”, was called to do that, and Solomon’s reign, in stark contrast to David’s, was an era of peace.
Picking up a gun to shoot someone, even to stop a school shooting spree, is a position I hope I’m never thrust into. We could, for the purpose of argument, say it’s a sin. However, the rabbis have an argument based on the degrees of sin — the breaking of a lesser commandment instead of a greater one. A destitute woman has a child who is starving to death. To allow the child to die when it’s possible to save his life, would be a sin equal to murder. The commandment prohibiting murder is one of the greater commandments, whereas the commandment against stealing is one of the lesser. Therefore, the woman would be justified in stealing food, thus committing the lesser commandment, in order to keep from committing the greater one — allowing the child to die.

We’re called to be perfect, even as He is perfect, in a world that is anything but perfect. There are, therefore, no easy answers.

So, to sum up, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong for Christians to own guns, and engage in politics, but not as a part of the Christian mandate. Neither do I believe pacifist are out of order.

In fact, I’d say I’m a pacifist.

John C. Wright's Gospel of the End Times

When I read Orphans of Chaos, by John C. Wright, my first impression was that the author must be some sort of Gnostic pagan, as that sort of philosophy seemed to shine through the narrative. However, when I did my research (okay -- Google) it turned out that at the time he wrote that piece of fantasy fiction, he was an atheist, and the Gnosticism was no more than a backdrop for that particular series of novels. However, since that time, he had converted to Christianity, influenced in a large part by the writings of C.S.Lewis. He's still a fan of C.S.Lewis, and also of G.K.Chesterton. In fact, John C. Wright is now a Roman Catholic (like Chesterton was).

It's rather ironic, in one sense. C.S.Lewis, a Protestant, was converted from atheism through the influence of J.R.R.Tolkien, a Catholic. John C. Wright, a Catholic, was converted from atheism through the influence of C.S.Lewis, a Protestant. I said, ironic, but it's also intensely beautiful in another.

Lest any of my Protestant friends are of the opinion that Catholics are so tradition bound as to obscure any hope of them finding saving faith within their walls, here's a blog post by John C. Wright that will dispel that illusion. He paints his scenario through the medium of Noah, preparing for the destruction of the world. His eschatology is right on, the message is cross centred, and he even acknowledges some of the mistakes made by the Mother Church during the middle ages, insinuating that the church, under persecution, has faired better. Here's a couple of quotes:

The Orthodox Church, the Nestorians, the Copts, the Syrians, and all the Indians instructed by St. Thomas have been ground under the bootheels of pagan kings and paynim sultans for over a thousand years: they have more martyrs to their glory and more saints than earned the palm in the West. When the Church was burdened with worldly power, one thing she ended up doing was corrupting herself, and shattering via Reformation and Counter-Reformation, wars, tumults, and persecutions, into fragments large and small. It was not until the Enlightenment that the keys to the liquor cabinet where the wine of worldly power is stored were locked away from our poor, drink-besotted Mother Church.

And another one:

... So, no, Christians do not need to be in the shoes of Caesar or Pontius Pilot to save the world. That salvation was done by one whose feet were pierced by nails: as far as the world could see, a crackpot agitator who died a traitor’s grisly death. This is because the world sees things backward. The cross the world sees as an instrument of torture, humiliation, and death we Christians see as exalted, and we take it as our labarum of comfort, glory, and victory.

How's that for a Catholic? Read it yourself...

Jesus, Before He Became a Gentile

A very good, concise treatise on the Jewishness of Jesus/Yeshua on Gene Shlomovich's blog -- actually an excerpt from the book, Does God Play Favourites? by Jim Gerrish, readable online.

Fundamentalists vs anti-Fundamentalists

Scott McKnight, at Jesus Creed, is changing his blogging platform. Right now, he has posts up at both his old site and his new one (different posts). I'm not sure how it happened, but one of the posts, prominently visible, as though it was posted in the last few days, is this one, dated 17 Dec., 2008. Maybe the dating thing on the blogging environment isn't working properly, or what? Anyway it's a good blog post about fundamentalists, and how people who have switched to newer ideas can be just as opinionated and hard shelled about their new position as they were about their fundamentalist ideas. Anyway, go there for a good read, and while you're there, take not of their new URL.

...and now, Islamophobia

I just now posted a blog about homophobia, and I read one by Brian Mclaren about Islamophobia.

Apparently, last year, he observed the fast of Ramudan. Before you quibble, what does the Bible actually say about Ramudan? Where is the command to stay away from it?

In much the same spirit, here's couple of blog posts I did a few years back: Letter to a Moslem and The Blessings of Ishmael (the latter was posted just a few days after 9-11)

There's a lot of debate, both in Christian circles and Moslem, as to what extent does the Koran support terrorism. A lot has to do with the definition of jihad. To some, it means all out war against infidels -- thus, a mandate to plant bombs on aeroplanes. To others, it simply means the struggle against sin and injustice, whether it be an inner struggle or outward activism. Since I'm not an authority on Islamic theology, I'll leave it to the experts, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Two more sticking points would be that Islam doesn't believe that Yeshua died on the cross and rose again. They believe he came from God, and is something far beyond any other human prophet. They even call Him the Word. However, the issue of Messiah's death is a major stumbling block (as the cross often is).

The other point is that they don't believe it proper to call Yesua the son of G-d, as Allah doesn't have children. On that point, I wonder if that wasn't a reaction to some Christians during Mohamed's day treating the issue as though G-d had given birth to Yeshua like a human father, through Mary. I could see their point. However, that isn't such a major hurdle, as they still refer to Yeshua as The Word of Allah. In Christian theology, the Word is really what we mean by "begotten of the Father", so in a dialogue with Moslems, we can easily refrain from saying "Son of G-d" and use "Word of G-d" instead.

So, we're left with the stumbling block of the cross, which I'm willing to bare.

Apart from that, there are a number of things that Moslems do better than most Christians, and one of them is fasting, which is what Brian Mclaren did last Ramudan.

Good Samaritan -- retold

I believe there is a difference between homophobia and simply believing that homosexuality isn't G-d's intention for human sexuality. Homophobia affects who we make friends with, how we do politics, and generally gets us tied up in knots.

I don't consider myself homophobic, but I believe that, according to the Bible, homosexuality isn't the right choice. I also don't believe being an alcoholic is the right way, nor sex outside of marriage, nor experimenting with potentially harmful drugs. In the various jobs I've held, I've been good personal friends with people in probably all these categories. I still keep in touch with some of them via Facebook and Skype. None of them calls me alcoholo-phobic, sexo-phobic or drugo-phobic. I just don't indulge in those lifestyles, myself, and my belief in Yeshua keeps me away from it. I also don't believe in bowing down to idols, but I have no trouble at all living in Thailand, where most people do -- including good friends.

I actually don't know anyone whom I'm certain is gay, but I hope they differentiate between homophobia and simply believing it's not G-d's way. However, I have heard rhetoric from that general direction that seems to leave out that option. I'd gladly discuss the subject with them over a pint down at the pub. Just one pint, mind you -- more than that, I start feeling it in the head -- but make it the pub of your choice.

Now, on the other side, here's a news story that makes me think. If Yeshua were telling his parables today, would he have told his story of the Good Samaritan in this context? This was brought to my attention by Tony Jones on Twitter (@jonestony) and it points to a blog post entitled A Modern Good Samaritan Story: Gay Couple Saves Life of Homophobic Neighbor. It's an interesting story that makes one think.

Now, the original story of the Good Samaritan: Yeshua seemed to have a lot of good things to say about individual Samaritans. However, he also agreed with the concusses of Orthodox Judaism that Samaritanism wasn't the right way (John 4:22). They only believed in the Torah, and rejected the Prophets. They refused to worship in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and didn't believe in the Davidic lineage -- which hit at the very basis for Yeshua's claim as Messiah. But it was the Samaritan, in the story, who obeyed the great commandment.

I'm sure many would believe that Yesuah would, without any reservation, have used a Palistinian instead of a Samaritan, or had a Catholic saving a Prod near the peace line in Belfast (or vice versa), or a black saving a Ku Klux Klaner... would he have used the example as recorded in the news story?

Israel, What Are Christians to Think?

Some good sound opinions at Derek Leman's website on the current uproar regarding Israel. On one side are the Christian Zionists, who would shout "Yeah Israel" no matter what they did, for good or for bad; on the other, those who won't ever give Israel the benefit of the doubt about anything, and even begrudge them the right to exist as a state.

Here's what Derek has to say:

Let me suggest a Jewish view, a biblical view of the situation:

1. Israel is the people elected freely and irrevocably by God, whose destiny and purpose serve as the forefront of God’s plan of world redemption.
2. Israel’s relationship with God is one of unconditional love and favor, but its temporal fortunes are tied to the covenant relationship through Torah.
3. The state of Israel is a secular government with little regard for Torah, which is obligated to follow the divine commandments and is not, and which is not guaranteed peace or success in any generation until there is renewal.

Read here for more...

William Gibson, on the "future" of Science Fiction

To some, "future" is what science fiction is all about. William Gibson begs to differ. His last few books have been set in the present (as for myself, at least one of my SF books is set in the distant past, during Earth's recorded history).

The blog post I'm highlighting here is that of William Gibson, himself, and it's a transcription of a luncheon talk on the release of his latest novel, Zero History. He starts by giving some current events which, I must admit, do sound like SF:

Say it’s midway through the final year of the first decade of the 21st Century. Say that, last week, two things happened: scientists in China announced successful quantum teleportation over a distance of ten miles, while other scientists, in Maryland, announced the creation of an artificial, self-replicating genome. In this particular version of the 21st Century, which happens to be the one you’re living in, neither of these stories attracted a very great deal of attention.

It's a great talk for anyone interested in the genre of science fiction. Read the rest here...

Jesus Manifesto: The Interview with the Authors at Next Wave

With all the perceptions of what "Emerging Church" stands for (ie: neo-liberal, social gospel, etc), I find this a breath of fresh air. It's written from what I would broadly refer to as Emerging Church, and it brings an emphasis that many see as lacking, namely, the centrality of Yeshua -- thus, the title Jesus Manifesto. Here are some quotes from the interview that stood out to me:

Frank: We believe that the Jesus disclosed to us in the New Testament is the same Christ whom the Holy Spirit reveals today. He is the Christ of the cosmos, the Christ of Eternity, the Alpha and the Omega, as well as the Christ who lived on this earth as the quintessential human – the second Adam, or more accurately, the Last Adam – who then died, rose again, was glorified, ascended, enthroned, and now lives in His people...

...Scholars have spent a lot trying to figure out the exact nature of the erroneous teaching that captured the minds and hearts of the Colossian believers.

One of the reasons why there is so much debate over it is because Paul never directly addresses the problem. Paul’s primary way of dealing with church problems is to give God’s people a stunning unveiling of Jesus Christ. (Therein lies a valuable lesson for all church leaders.)...

...One side argues for the Jesus of justice – who is largely derived from the Gospel accounts. The other side argues for the Jesus of justification – who is largely drawn from some of Paul’s statements in Galatians and Romans.

While Len and I embrace the Jesus of justice and the Jesus of justification, our book attempts to present a Christ who is far greater, far more glorious, and far richer than simply being the Justice-Giver or the Justifier.

We feel that this third vision of Jesus is sorely neglected in our time. It’s possible to put justice and justification on the throne, and leave the living Christ out in the cold....

...With respect to your last question, I am of the opinion that the driving force of much of the house church, organic church, simple church, and missional church movements is not Jesus Christ. And so I’d like to see this changed. Hopefully, God will use the book toward that end...

Read the whole interview here...

From New York Times: The deminishing stigma of being self published

Times are changing, as this article from New York Times suggests -- entitled The Rise of Self-Publishing:

In this time of Twitter feeds and self-designed Snapfish albums and personal YouTube channels, it’s hard to remember the stigma that once attached to self-publishing. But it was very real. By contrast, to have a book legitimately produced by a publishing house in the 20th century was not just to have copies of your work bound between smart-looking covers. It was also metaphysical: you had been chosen, made intelligible and harmonious by editors and finally rendered eligible, thanks to the magic that turns a manuscript into a book, for canonization and immortality. You were no longer a kid with a spiral notebook and a sonnet cycle about Sixth Avenue; you were an author, and even if you never saw a dime in royalties, no one could ever dismiss you again as an oddball.

But times have changed...

That Makes Two (self published authors making a living)

Two interviews within days of each other of authors who have succeeded in making a living off their self published e-book sales: J. A. Konrath, and Karen McQuestion (click and read their stories).

For some of us (authors) that's good new.

An author who earns a living off e-books

This is good news -- for me, anyway:

So much media attention has been given to the iPad and to eBooks lately that it made GalleyCat wonder aloud: Is it possible for an author to make a living from selling eBooks?

Author, J.A. Konrath of the Jack Daniels series says, "Yes." He has successfully built a career and a living wage doing exactly that. In our interview with him, he tells us exactly how he did it, what the advantages and disadvantages are of publishing traditionally and why he says his books are outselling even bestselling authors such as James Patterson.

Read on for the interview:

What is "Full Time Ministry?"

A great post by Charlie Wear on what it means to be in full time ministry:

Over the years I have heard numbers of people say, “I wish I could be in full-time ministry.” What they are saying is, “I wish I could stop working as a ___________ (you fill in the blank) and work full-time as a pastor, or missionary, or nonprofit leader of some kind.” It is only in the last few months that I have figured out that Jesus wants me to be in full-time ministry and he has wanted that to be my condition from the day he called me to follow him.

In the last few months I have had a shift in my worldview, especially concerning my business as a lawyer. I have begun to see my law practice as my “flock,” the people God has sent to me for ministry. Since that shift I have begun to see my clients through Jesus’ eyes and my daily life as one divine appointment after another. The results have been mind-blowing! I have seen Jesus enter the courtroom with me and set a captive free. I have been given the opportunity to share the good news about Christ with others. I have prayed for physical healing and seen instantaneous results. I have comforted the bereaved and the hopeless. It has been an amazing time.

Read the whole thing...

Tribalism

Here are some gems of wisdom from the Chabad website's "Ask The Rabbi", Tzvi Freeman. Read the whole article and you'll gain a better understanding of Jewish reasons for Torah Observance, as well as some insight into aspects of sociology. This is a must-read for missiologists, emergents, anyone who wonders about the importance of culture ...

Here is but a small quote...

Sociology became a science with the publication Emile Durkheim's monograph on suicide in 1897. Durkheim was a nice Jewish boy who had studied in yeshiva to become a rabbi, as his father, grandfather and great-grandfather before him, but then left to think for himself and challenge his teachers at the Sorbonne. In his paper, Durkheim blamed most of society's woes (especially suicide) on the abandonment of tribalism. He coined the term anomie, which means a state of society where nobody knows who they are, what they have to do with one another or what on earth they're doing here. Durkheim demonstrated, through the first methodological, scientific study of a social phenomenon, that in turn-of-the-century France, suicide was the realm of the tribeless—meaning the Protestant and the agnostic. Catholics and Jews rarely committed suicide. Because they felt no anomie.

What this runaway-yeshiva boy ironically demonstrated, and others after him confirmed is that a human being without a tribe is like a polar bear without ice—he can survive, but he'll be awfully confused. It's through his relationship with the tribe that a human being knows that the earth beneath his feet is solid ground, that tomorrow is a day like today, that he is who he is and it's okay to be that way. Take the tribe away and none of that remains necessarily true.

There's a lot more. Read it for yourself...

Global Warming -- or not Global Warming?

An interesting article was re-tweeted by Bob Hyatt, entitled The great global warming collapse, by columnist Margaret Wente.

My own thoughts -- So, some of the air has been let out of the global warming bubble but I'm afraid of air being blown into the consumerist bubble.

Now that we realise that some data on the far left of the centre was politically tainted, are we now going to rush to the opposite extreme, and give corporations (and our greed) unbridled freedom to pollute the environment as they wish?

I'm wondering if there's any room for the opinion that maybe it's not as bad as we previously thought -- sigh of relief -- but realise there is still some substance to the warnings? I'm afraid that, because of so much extreme politics on either end of the spectrum, the sound and level headed warnings may be buried. It's too hard to judge what it is 100% truth, and what is political tainted. Is that good new?

Scot McKnight reviews Tolkien's Leaf by Niggle

Scot McKnight has a good review of a short story by J.R.R.Tokien, Leaf, by Niggle. I remember reading that book as a teen, not long after reading the Trilogy. I had recently thought that I would like to get my hands on it once again, as I remember that it dealt with issues of the present life, and how it affects the after life.

Anyway, Scot McKnight highlights some issues in which Tolkien demonstrates that the Christian belief is in stark contrast to that of Neo Platonism. That Greek philosophy held that this life is unimportant in comparison to the after life. In Leaf, by Niggle, the protagonist finds that his life long endeavour is only a prelude to what's to come.

The Gospel of the Kingdom -- Jesus Creed

Scot McKnight has been talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom as presented in Luke's two books. (his Gospel, and Acts of the Apostles). He pinpoints many things that could correct our perception of the gospel message.

Forinstance, Campus Crusade's 4 Spiritual Laws and other similar bullet-point presentations, are not theologically wrong, just not the whole story. We're not giving the broader picture, only what applies to me, and, "how can I get to heaven?"

You'll find the following reconstruction on his most recent installment. You'll recognise the Campus Crusade version, but I believe this says it all:

God loves you and everyone else and has a plan for us: the kingdom community.

But you and everyone else have a sin problem that separates you and everyone else from God, from yourselves, from one another, and from the good world God made for you.

The good news is that Jesus lived for you, died for you, was raised for you, and sent the Spirit for you - so you all can live as the beloved community.

If you enter into Jesus' story, by repentance and faith, you can be reconnected to God, to yourself, to others, and to this world.

Those who are reconnected like this will live now as God's community and will find themselves eternally in union with God and communion with others.

Those who preach this gospel will not deconstruct the church. Instead, they will participate in what God is doing: constructing the kingdom community even now.

To get access to all the posts he done on this subject, use the Kingdom tag.

My new Redroom account

I've now got an account on Redroom, which is a site for authors and anyone interested in them. I've applied for status as an author, which they'll consider over the next couple of weeks. In the mean time, I've got a page, including a secondary blog site.

I found out about it through Derek Leman's blog. He's now a Redroom author.

Check it out, and visit a few authors...

Making sense of Messianic Judaism

In case anyone has any problem understanding Messianic Judaism, especially when trying to sort out all the different ideas and such being bandied around in the name of the said movement, here's a good post by Rabbi Derek Leman.

“Messianic Judaism” is a catch-all for a vague and general idea that attracts millions: the Jewish cultural context of the Bible virtually ignored in Christendom for millennia. Millions of Christians of all stripes and persuasions, from the Catholic and Orthodox Christian world to the Protestant, Evangelical, and Charismatic world are hungry to know more about Jesus the Rabbi. ... But many “Messianic Jewish” groups are simply Christians confused about who they are, who Israel is, and what God is doing in these times with his people Israel.

He goes on to list a few of the extremes, such as the "Two House" movement (the idea that all European Christians are probably descended from the 10 lost tribes, and therefore ought to be living kosher), those who view the traditional church as a pagan counterfit of what was meant to be the church, those who believe all believers need to be Torah observant, and more. Anyone who, like me, has tried to learn about Messianic Judaism by trying to read through the trail of web pages and chat room strings, will recognise them all.

At least I'm glad to have come across Derek's blog some time ago. Here's his own take on it, which I fully support:

Messianic Judaism at the core is about Jews and Gentiles who come alongside these Jews to be part of God’s work in the remnant of Israel. We believe that God is calling Jewish people to faith in Messiah within Judaism. ... Messianic Judaism is not an alternative to the Church. Messianic Judaism is a movement within Judaism formed by God and expressing in word and deed a Jewish faith in Yeshua.

Anyway, have a read yourself...

The Case for Protestantism

I've posted comments on this blog sometime ago, casting the Catholic Church in a facourable light, in particular, quoting Alan Creech on his return to the Roman fold. It's evident that the Holy Spirit does lead some to join the mother church, in spite of some factors that Catholics such as Alan Creech willingly share which tend to be on the negative side.

I have my own reasons for not joining. First, I haven't felt the leading of the Holy Spirit to become a Roman Catholic, nor an Eastern Orthodox. Despite many of my pro-Jewish, pro-rabbinical views, I have also not felt the leading to convert to Judeaism (even as a Messianic Jew). I apply Paul's advice to remain as one is, to both issues. I'm a "goy" from my mother's womb, and I remain a non-protesting Protestant.

Some of my reasons for not joining the Catholic Church are probably the same reasons I wouldn't join the Anglecan or the Reformed churches -- nor even Baptist. For one thing, I'm not a follower of Augustine (a fine saint, a shining testamony of faith, but I don't follow him in all of his theology which has formed a basis for both Roman Catholic and Reformed doctrine). Also, my perception of what is a minister, rather inhibits me from joining a group that has such a long tradition of elevating the clergy above the laity.

I also find that some of my reasons for not being a Catholic are the same as Scot McKnight's. Here is a very well written essay as to why he isn't Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox. It's a very good testimonial on behalf of Protestantism, without being anti-Catholic (I hope it's understood that one can be critical without being 'anti-')

Anyway, here it is...