|
|
Resistance Thinking Faith
It is through the Jesus lense the Resistance Thinking seeks to explore truth about the world in which we live. In this faith section you will find articles, news and reivews that will help you explore the complexities of the Christian faith.
We will cover a broad range of topics, including: theology, church, leadership, devotions, classic Christian literature, prayer, everyday faith, apologetics, church history, Christian living, Old Testamnet, New Testament, creation, fresh expressions, epistomology...the list could go on and on!
If there is any topic you would like the Resistance Thinking team to go to work on please shoot us an email. If you have any work that could help us all to be more effective 'Resistance Thinkers' please send it in for our team to review.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." CS Lewis
Please browse through the articles below
|
|
Wednesday, 05 December 2007 21:49 |
Bill Muehlenberg restates the case for Christian social and political involvement. For other great articles by Bill check out culture watch.
Salt and Light Business
Bill Muehlenberg, December 2007
Every once in a while I seem to need to restate the case for Christian social and political involvement. Mind you, I have made it numerous times in the past, but I keep getting critics – some friendly, some not so friendly – who let me know that they think what I am doing is at best, not so helpful, and at worst, a waste of time.
The critics can be both believers and non-believers. Here I want to address the former, those who think the Christian life is about only one thing: proclaiming the gospel, whatever exactly that means. They suggest that to take on the moral, cultural and political issues of the day is not what Christians should be involved in, and we need to cease and desist from such activities.
Consider a recent remark I received from a friendly, believing, critic. He said that the activities I am involved in were not what believers are supposed to be involved in. He said, “I am concerned that Christians are distracted in their allegiance to Jesus when they believe they must ‘stand up against’ the sin of not-yet Christians while the church still wreaks of the stench of its own sinfulness. Our only mandate is to love as Jesus loves. He never stood against the prostitutes or tax collectors etc, publicly or privately, only the self righteous Jewish leaders (and there He had the right as He was also a rabbi.).”
Now let me say that there are at least one and a half things said here that I agree with. The first concerns the church: it certainly is in a mess. No quarrels there. It does reek at times, and there are major problems in the church. We have much to be ashamed of.
But what is this critic suggesting? That only when the church gets its act together, then it might be allowed to speak to the rest of the world? If so, can I humbly argue that it never will. The church will never be perfect, because the church is made up of saved sinners. And saved sinners will never be perfect in this lifetime, as much as we try to become more and more Christlike.
So if anyone thinks we have to wait till the church fully gets its act together before believers can engage in any number of activities, then these will just never happen. The command to be salt and light was not given under the condition that the disciples first set up a perfect fellowship of believers. Sure, we are all to strive to be the best believers that we can, so that we can present to the world the best church that we can. But any idea that the church’s perfection must be in place first is simply mistaken.
The second idea is that we are only called to love as Jesus loves. Well, yes and no. Actually there are many commands directed to believers in the New Testament, and many from Christ himself. And what exactly does this critic mean by loving as Jesus loved? I am not sure. From the rest of this critic’s email, it means something about being compassionate and non judgmental. But that too is unclear.
Was Jesus non-judgmental when he cast out the money-changers? Was he being non-judgmental when he challenged the leaders of the day – both religious and non-religious? Will he be non-judgemental when he judges the nations, separating the sheep from the goats?
Was Paul non-judgmental when he challenged Peter to the face? When he said anyone who preaches another gospel should be accursed? Jesus said we should judge with righteous judgment. Paul said we should judge (test) all things. The examples are many.
And is it true that Jesus never challenged any lifestyle or behaviour of non-believers? It seems he did on many occasions. He could say to the woman caught in adultery, “go and sin no more”. He made it clear that the condition for forgiveness was repentance. That obviously involves a change of behaviour, of action, of habit.
My critic thinks that when believers stand against the immorality of the day they are being judgmental and un-Christlike. We must not do this, or we will be out of the will of God, my critic in fact implies. But is this really the case? Let me provide just a few examples to tease this out a bit.
Is a believer out of the will of God and un-Christlike when he seeks to oppose the slave trade as Wilberforce did? Was he being unbiblical and sinful to seek to free the slaves? Was he out of God’s will for seeking to show the love of Christ to these slaves in very real and practical ways? Was he guilty of mere moralising and judgmentalism?
Is a believer out of the will of God and un-Christlike when he seeks to oppose a brothel being opened next to the local kindergarten?
Is a believer out of the will of God and un-Christlike when he seeks to oppose more gambling venues in the neighbourhood which are destroying lives and ruining families?
Is a believer out of the will of God and un-Christlike when he seeks to oppose drug dealers peddling their wares in the local schoolyard?
Is a believer out of the will of God and un-Christlike when he seeks to oppose laws which would mandate that unbelievers teach in the Sunday school?
Were Christian missionaries wrong to set up hospitals, schools, literary programs, prison reform, help for women and children, and other charitable works as they preached the gospel with words as well? Are Christians “distracted in their allegiance to Jesus” when they do these things? I would have thought they were reflecting the love and holiness and righteousness of God in seeking to stand up for what is right and help people in their need.
Now is this all the Christian is called to do? Of course not. But it is a part of it. It is part of obeying Jesus when he said we should be salt and light. It is part of our calling as believers. Is it a question of either proclaiming the gospel or being involved in social action? I do not think so. It is not either/or but both/and. We are called to evangelise and we are called to be salt and light, simultaneously.
I fail to see how believers can drive a wedge between these two. I fail to see how one is seen as biblical and one is not. I fail to see how we can be salt and light if we are just supposed to stand back while all manner of evil is taking place. When I read church history, I see believers up to their ears in all sorts of social involvement.
But some believers just do not approve of such involvement. Indeed, Wilberforce was criticised almost as strongly by fellow believers as unbelievers. They felt that what he was doing had nothing to do with the gospel. Lord Melbourne for example told Wilberforce, “Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life”.
Many critics sought to dissuade Wilberforce from the work of opposing the slave trade. “You are just moralising and being judgmental. Why don’t you just preach the gospel?” they would have complained. I dare say million of blacks both then and now are very, very glad that Wilberforce ignored his critics and did what he felt his Lord was calling him to do.
Having said all that, has the church at times come across as too harsh and too unloving and too judgmental? Yes, at times it has. But some of these complaints are justified, some are not. If a believer pleads for the life of the innocent, whether the slave, or the unborn, some will always find that judgmental. That is the nature of the case. Indeed, if a believer proclaims the unique salvation that comes only in Christ, the non-believer will find that to be intolerant and judgmental.
In one sense, the Christian will never be free of charges of being judgmental or divisive. Jesus was accused of being divisive and narrow. His whole ministry was one of division and separation, wherein people either were attracted to him or repulsed by him. That must be the case with believers as well as we seek to proclaim truth, live lives of integrity, and act as salt and light in a corrupt and broken world.
We can always do better. We can always be more like our Master. We can always be more loving. But with all due respect to my critics, I think they are simply wrong when they say we must drop everything and just proclaim words about Jesus. Words and deeds go together, and often both will be rejected by those who prefer darkness to light, error to truth, self to God.
Continue reading at culture watch
(Used with permission) |
|
Friday, 30 November 2007 22:01 |
Raymond Ibrahim examines the historical revisionism of Hollywood in representing Christianity on film. He uses examples from the latest Hollywood offering 'Beowulf' as well as critiques of 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'King Arthur'.
"Beowulf" and Christ
Front Page Magazine, Raymond Ibrahim, November 29, 2007
By now, the oft-recurring negative portrayals of Christianity in major Hollywood movies have become hackneyed and predictable. Watching Beowulf recently only reinforced this fact. The same subtle depictions and motifs present in movies from decades past were once again present. A favorite being the attempt to try to depict pagans as “open-minded” and “free-spirited” peoples, or, quite anachronistically, as Medieval counterparts to the modern, secular, liberal. The idea being that pagan peoples—unencumbered by the suffocating forces of Christianity—were/are happy, passionate folk, able to live life to the fullest.
Beowulf’s opening scene depicts King Hrothgar and his thanes in an utterly bacchanalian setting: carried in a litter, privates barely covered in a loose toga, inebriated and cheery, Hrothgar declares to the festive crowd that it’s time to party and “fornicate.” (As to how well grounded these representations are to the original text, see John Miller’s “Beowulf the Movie Star.”) Simultaneously, a sullen (and we soon find out cowardly and conniving) Unferth, his advisor, perfunctorily explains to a bystander the advisability of embracing Christianity—all while urinating. When Unferth later suggests to the convivial Hrothgar that perhaps he and the people should consider praying to the “new god,” Christ, a sobered up Hrothgar rejects the suggestion with disdain. Finally, this same Unferth, the only advocate for Christianity in the movie, just so happens to also be the only one in the pagan kingdom who, not only keeps, but constantly beats, a slave—an oblique reminder of the tired charge that Christianity is somehow responsible for slavery.
Released two years earlier, The Kingdom of Heaven, which is set in the Crusading era, follows the same exact anti-Christian paradigm. The opening scene portrays a callous priest gleefully informing the hero of the story, Balian (heroic, we ultimately find out, primarily because he’s wary of Christianity) that his suicide wife is doomed to hell, all while stealing her cross—not for its intrinsic value, of course, but that it’s made of silver. And all the “bad guys,” such as the Templars, have big red crosses painted on their tunics (the fact that these same red crosses still adorn hospitals and ambulances and what that implies altogether missed). Whenever these marauders want to engage in some nefarious scheme against the Muslims—who are always portrayed as noble and fair-dealing—they cynically holler, “God wills it!” In Beowulf, Unferth, the primary antagonist of the tale, is also the only one who wears an extremely large cross around his neck.
Then there’s King Arthur, released in 2004. Again, Arthur, who according to all records (legendary or otherwise) was Christian, now, just as with Kingdom of Heaven’s Balian, is portrayed as being ambivalent towards, and cautious of, Christianity. Conversely, the blue-painted pagan Picts are show as a free-loving people who simply want to live and let live, while the Church in Rome is a hypocritical and oppressive force, constantly out to exploit.
So, according to these films and their subliminal messages, we are to understand that all pre-modern Christians who were zealous over their faith were (and thus still are) all hypocrites—or worse—while all truly good “Christians” were (and still are) discreet, indifferent, skeptical, and cautious of Christianity, such as Balian and Arthur. Furthermore, according to these films, all non-Christians were either liberal and laid back (e.g., pagans), or noble, upright, and truly pious (i.e., Muslims). That pagan peoples habitually engaged in barbarous practices, such as human sacrifices, cannibalism, and slavery, or that Muslim law, then and now, is characterized by extremely draconian measures, such as stoning fornicators, subjugating non-Muslims and women, and, under certain circumstances, still sanctioning the institution of slavery is, of course, never mentioned. Nor is the fact that Christianity abolished things like human sacrifices, and its ultimate law is to love God and one’s fellow man (Mark 12:30-31).
Continue reading at front page magazine |
|
Wednesday, 07 November 2007 22:02 |
Barney Zwartz tries to clear up the misconception that religion has no place in politics. He points out that politicians woo all groups of society as part of a democracy and that Christians shouldn't be excluded from this. He also shows that "all laws legislate morality because they express morals or values...and sometimes the debate is about whose morals and values" and that Christians should be able to have the option to persuade society to accept the Christian worldview without being shut out of the debate entirely.
Religion does have a role in politics
The Age, Barney Zwartz, November 6, 2007
Churches and law- makers are linked by a strong sense of morality. ALMOST the minute Prime Minister John Howard called the federal election for November 24, Australia's religious right leapt into the fray, loins girded and ready for battle.
"Who falls asleep in a democracy will wake up in a dictatorship," warned Christian activist group Saltshakers in a group email at 2.47 pm that day. It's bad form within church groups to tell people how to vote, and Saltshakers didn't. But they identified the vital issues: abortion, homosexual relationship registers, the freedom to choose your children's school.
Down the page were the environment and workplace relations. "Will your representative sacrifice the welfare of people on the altar of 'climate change'? … Will he give bosses, especially in small business, the freedom needed to adequately run their own business? Will he support the man making the investment in larger businesses — or will the unions have control?" Nothing subtle about that agenda.
Later came the Saltshakers' Christian values checklist for seven political parties. Issue 1: prayers to open Parliament each day. Issue 2: teach Australia's Christian heritage in all schools. Issue 3: promote marriage over de facto cohabitation. The Christian Democrats scored 27 of 27, Family First 25, the Democrats and Greens one each — on issue 27, "greater care of God's environment".
These are passionate Christians, beyond doubt. Are they sinister? Hardly. Are they subverting minds and stealing votes? No, they are preaching to the already converted, and at that level of detail there aren't too many.
The fact is Australia simply doesn't have an influential religious right in the way that the US has.
The most important group, the Australian Christian Lobby, is concerned with welfare and social justice as well as individual moral issues. Australians simply are not religious in the American way.
Therefore it is hard to explain the Prime Ministerial openness to two fringe groups. The first, the Exclusive Brethren, seems to be a matter of money. The Brethren give generously, hoping to gain specific and narrow benefits, such as the right to exclude unions from their businesses. Limiting union power would naturally cause the PM great pain, but he managed to steel himself to the task.
The second, the support of Catch the Fire's Danny Nalliah, who emerged from a National Day of Prayer last week to anoint Howard as God's chosen, is mystifying.
Ironically, it was the Islamic Council of Victoria that brought Nalliah to national prominence by suing him under the state's religious hatred law, a case that attracted international attention.
Continue reading at the age |
|
Thursday, 01 November 2007 02:49 |
Bill Muehlenberg writes another great article on balance in the Christian faith and what the role of the church is in regards to social responsibility. You can find other great articles by Bill at culture watch.
The Church, the State, and Social Responsibility
Bill Muehlenberg, October 31 2007
What is the responsibility of believers to social need? Should churches be involved in various works of social service? Is the government alone to be involved in such areas, or can both have a role to play?
These questions raise much bigger issues which cannot here be properly addressed; issues such as the relationship between church and state, the social record of the Christian church, and so on. To narrow all this down a bit I want to interact with a comment posted on a recent article of mine. The commentator had some strong views on these matters, and they really warrant an extended discussion.
This friendly critic suggested that believers should not be in the business of “social welfare” at all, but should leave this entirely to the state. Those who do these activities are basically involved in a works-based salvation and have distorted the gospel. Although this was a somewhat brief comment, he made a number of claims that need to be replied to. With all due respect, I believe that much of his argument and reasoning is fairly suspect, and that his understanding of the gospel and the believer’s calling is rather confused and often simply incorrect.
I certainly do not mean to pick on this individual, but his remarks raise some important points that are worth discussing and reflecting upon. Early on this commentator says, “Governments opted out of social welfare responsibilities and austere church run programs ultimately led to a range of abuses against the target populations.”
It is not fully clear what he means by this, but if he is suggesting that the state had always done social welfare work, then stopped doing it, only to have the churches take over, this is historically rather confused. Yes in one sense the state has always had a hand in providing various social goods and services, and taxes have been raised to allow these tasks to be performed. And that would be, to an extent, part of the job of the state as ordained by God.
However, when the role of the state is discussed in the New Testament, as in Romans 13, it is a somewhat minimalist job description. Maintaining order and administering justice seem to be the main parameters. Of course the sort of justice presented here reflects the more traditional understanding of rendering to each person his or her due, not the much different idea of distributive justice, as reflected in modern socialist and welfare states.
Indeed, it is only recently that the modern welfare state has come on the scene. It in fact usurped the role of the churches, which for centuries had provided social welfare on a wide number of fronts. Increasingly today in the West faceless bureaucrats in taxpayer-funded offices have replaced the local church in providing most social services. The neighbourhood congregation, dealing with real people in real situations, has given way to bureaucracies and welfare programs that certainly have lost the personal touch, and have often been counter-productive in their outcomes.
So in terms of recent history, the churches were first, with the modern, ever-encroaching state coming fairly late in the picture. In fact, the problems of the modern welfare state are many. I have elsewhere spelled out some of these shortcomings. It is unclear why any believer would prefer the state to exclusively minister to human need instead of caring Christians fulfilling their biblical mandate to be salt and light in every area of society.
That is not to say that the state has no role to play: both can and should work together where appropriate. But it is curious that a Christian would rather favour clumsy, impersonal state forces over the love and compassion of God’s people in so many of these vital areas. The commentator goes on the say, “Church resources are exclusively for the Preaching and Teaching of the Word of God.” And, “It is ludicrous to suggest the church should direct resources away from spreading the Gospel of Salvation”.
There are several problems here. The first is a rather truncated and diluted understanding of the gospel and what it means to share that gospel. It seems the commentator has in mind preaching the word, evangelism and missionary work. And the gospel is seen as getting people saved and into heaven. This is all true as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. First, as to the gospel: sure, telling people they are sinners, in need of salvation, and pointing them to Christ the saviour is crucial. But that is not the sum total of the Christian message.
Indeed, the biblical message is much broader. The good news is not just about getting disembodied individuals into a cloudy heaven. That is Gnosticism, not biblical Christianity. God created us as whole persons, bodies included. Every aspect of us is the subject of redemption. And the cultural mandate of Genesis 1 is still in effect.
The fall was an interruption to God’s intended program on planet earth. Establishing the reign and rule of Christ in all areas of life is part and parcel of the biblical Gospel. The Lordship of Christ demands that we seek to reclaim and redeem every aspect of life, all of which were created by God and declared to be good. Sure, sin has affected every area, be it the cultural, social, political or spiritual, but the saving work of God is to reclaim all things in Christ (Col. 1:20). (For more on this, see my recent review of Creation Regained by Wolters).
The commentator goes on to suggest that believers who seek to do social good have “distorted” the gospel, “to provide a sense of self-righteousness to people who feel the need for good works to justify their salvation or to provide a false basis for it.” He continues, “This false emphasis is a works based false gospel taking the focus away from the biblical injunction for the Church to Preach the Word of God” This is a somewhat unfortunate and careless set of remarks.
Now do some people do various good works as a kind of self-righteousness, and to help ensure they are in God’s good books? Yes, there are some. But it really is foolish to suggest that anytime a believer is involved in any act of social charity, he or she is doing it for these wrong reasons.
When the early Christians fed the poor, helped the needy, ministered to the sick, and acted as salt and light in a dark and needy society – all in response to the clear commands of Christ – were they all being self-righteous, or seeking to earn their salvation through good works? As to a right concept of salvation, Ephesians 2:8-9 nicely summarises how it takes place: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.” Sure, salvation has nothing to do with works. But the initial act of saving grace is just the beginning.
Then there is a life-long growth in sanctification, and the expressing of one’s faith in practical ways. As James puts it “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:15-17).
Good works do not procure salvation, but they most certainly are the inevitable and obvious outcome of it. In gratitude to, and love for, God one naturally seeks to spread the love of Christ in a wholistic fashion. This can take many forms. Some believers may feel called of God to work in an AIDS hospital. Some may help in a ghetto soup kitchen. Some may volunteer to help victims of a hurricane. Some may work for a relief and development organisation. Individual believers, churches and parachurch groups can all become involved in such activities. There is nothing wrong with such acts of Christian love and service. And as noted, they do not stand against proclaiming the good news. They are one means of preaching the gospel, and the open doors that may result from such activities will lead to natural opportunities to give a verbal presentation of the gospel message.
The commentator is simply creating a false dilemma here. He is suggesting that the believer must either preach the gospel, or engage in acts of social service, as if one cancels out the other. But it is not a case of either/or, but both/and. Indeed, whenever the gospel was proclaimed around the world, the two have normally gone hand in hand. Christian missionaries preached the gospel and lived the gospel. They told people about Jesus and they also established hospitals, set up schools, helped feed the poor, challenged inhumane customs, and lived the gospel out in the eyes of the non-believers. Indeed, many have noted that one of the main reasons why the early church was so successful in expanding was because the Christians saw no separation between telling people the good news and living it out in very practical and life-affirming ways. For example, when a plague or pestilence would sweep through an area, many would flee, but the believers would remain and minister to the sick and dying.
That is why the early faith expanded so rapidly. It was a whole gospel presented to the whole person. It was not just some pie in the sky in the sweet by and by stuff, but a fully biblical and Christlike gospel. And how could it be otherwise? What good is it to come upon a person starving to death, begging for food, and telling, him, “Sorry, that is not my job. I have to just tell you about a heavenly salvation that has nothing to do with your needs on this earth.”
Very few would want such an emaciated and lopsided Gospel. Jesus ministered to whole people, healing their diseases, dealing with the hunger, as well as pointing them to eternal life. To argue that believers must only present some verbal proclamation of the gospel, while ignoring everything else, flies in the face of everything that Jesus, the early church, and most of Christendom have said and done.
This commentator seems in a bit of a time warp. Over a hundred years ago, the rise of theological liberalism and the social gospel were rightly rejected by biblical believers. The social gospel tended to equate any social action with the kingdom of God, without any mention of sin, Jesus and the cross. That is not what I am on about here, but it seems this is what the commentator seems to be responding to.
Any worldly gospel that does not talk about our sin and need of a saviour is not the gospel. But proclaiming the true gospel is not inimical or contrary to expressing the love of Christ in very tangible and practical ways, in whatever ways God might lead. Thus I respectfully disagree with the basic thrust of this commentator, and his rather selective understanding of the biblical mission, and how believers are to live their lives in this fallen world. The New Testament gives us a much fuller and realistic version of events.
Article found at culture watch
(Used with permission) |
|
Friday, 19 October 2007 21:44 |
Here is a report on the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox.
Darwin's 'Rottweiler', Christian Apologist Heat Up God Debate
Christian Today, October 2007
There is no good reason to believe in a supernatural creator, says a leading British atheist who believes religious explanations of how the world came to be, such as creationism, are petty and outdated – especially when modern science can now offer a better understanding of the existence of life.
Bestselling author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, defended his atheistic view and contested Christianity in a much anticipated debate with Christian apologist John Lennox Wednesday night in Birmingham, Ala. It was a rare opportunity for Americans to witness two popular thinkers from Oxford University engage in a contemporary spiritual warfare – a friendly one – on the existence of God.
"Neither of us wishes to base his life on a delusion," said Lennox in his opening remarks. "But which is the delusion? Atheism or Christianity?"
Faith is blind. Science is evidence-based.
|
|
Read more... [Darwin's 'Rottweiler', Christian Apologist Heat Up God Debate]
|
|
Friday, 12 October 2007 21:13 |
Bill Muehlenberg has an excellent site culture watch which tackles a wide range of issues daily.
Thoughts About Megachurches
Bill Muehlenberg, 11 October 2007
America is usually regarded as the home of the biggest and the best. Well, the biggest, at any rate. So it should come as no surprise that some of the biggest churches in the world are to be found there. Of course the world’s biggest is actually found in Seoul, South Korea. The Pentecostal Yoido Full Gospel Church, headed by David Yonggi Cho, has nearly a million members.
But outside of a few giants such as that one, most of the megachurches are found in the US. Of interest in this regard is the annual list put out by Outreach Magazine featuring the 100 largest churches in America. The 2007 list has just come out, and it is revealing reading.
Topping the number one spot is Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas with 47,000 people attending. At number two is the famous Willow Creek Community Church outside of Chicago, pastored by Bill Hybels. It has an attendance of 23,500. The third largest is also in Houston: the Second Baptist Church, with 23,200 people. |
|
Read more... [Thoughts About Megachurches]
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 14 of 15 |
|
|
