Thursday, May 29, 2014

Why We Love Superheroes

http://www.pluggedin.com/familyroom/articles/2010/whywelovesuperheroes.aspx
 






Have you ever wondered why we find certain superheroes so appealing? Take Spider-Man for instance. You start with Peter Parker, a normal guy who snaps pictures for the school paper. He sees the world much like we do, albeit through a camera lens. Suddenly the mother of all spider bites sends him climbing the walls battling evil. Oh, he's still Peter Parker. He eats, sleeps and puts on his red and blue jumpsuit one leg at a time just like the rest of us. But he's special.

Or how about Superman? While not a native of Earth (he was sent here as a baby from another galaxy), he's mortal, speaks perfect English and looks like a GQ cover boy. Yet mild-mannered Clark Kent also possesses amazing strength, plus the ability to fly and see through things. Like Spidey, Hulk, Flash, The X-Men and countless other beloved characters, he is simultaneously human and superhuman—a person who can intimately relate to mankind, yet is uniquely empowered to save humanity from its current malaise.

Sound like anyone you know?

A Champion for the Ages
I believe we are wired by our Creator to resonate with that kind of hero. Jesus Christ arrived on this cosmic dirt clod as a baby, fully divine, yet fully man. He got hungry, thirsty and tired, just as we do. He was a blue-collar laborer. He laughed, loved and cried. He knew betrayal and pain. Hebrews 5:15 says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin."

At the appointed time, Jesus shed his secret identity—a carpenter whose time had "not yet come" (John 2:4)—and began working miracles, displaying amazing spiritual strength and yes, even seeing through things (including a Samaritan woman in John 4:16-19). He came to rescue us. Not by soaring through town in a flashy red cape, but by humbly enlisting us into his own heavenly Justice League before heroically laying down his life. He is the one uniquely empowered to save humanity from its eternal malaise.

Throughout history, cultures have concocted second-rate saviors that tap into people's inherent need for a man-god. The most popular hero in Greek mythology was Hercules, sired by Zeus and born of a mortal woman. Destined to be the lord of his people, Hercules looked, walked and talked like your rank-and-file Athenian, yet exhibited extraordinary strength and went on to rule as an immortal god on Mount Olympus. Or so the story goes.

I'm not suggesting that Superman and his comic book peers are dangerous mythological counterfeits out to distract us from the one who truly deserves our affection. We simply need to connect the dots back to Jesus. After all, He's the genuine article.

Iron Man: A Stark Contrast
Of course, not every colorful hero of biblical proportions is a metaphor for Christ. One example—with an origin story that reads like Acts 7:51-8:3 and 9:1-31—resembles the spiritual journey that turned Saul of Tarsus into the apostle Paul.

Before becoming Iron Man, millionaire playboy/inventor Tony Stark simply cruised casinos, consumed alcohol and amassed sexual conquests as cavalierly as James Bond. Unlike 007, however, he didn't thwart warlords; he armed them. That is until a missile demonstration ended with Stark's capture by a murderous Middle Eastern dissident who ordered him to build a weapon of mass destruction. He escaped by using the materials to forge tricked-out battle armor. In the process, Stark had the Marvel Comics equivalent of a Damascus Road experience. He repented of his past and pledged to help the very people he'd been hurting, aided by a novel power source and high-tech exoskeleton that conforms to his body Transformers-style.

Something else about Iron Man's unique origin story makes it special: No radioactive spider bite. No exposure to gamma rays. Stark wasn't accidentally endowed with new skills. Rather, his heroic journey mirrors an arrogant sinner coming to grips with his own depravity, choosing to change and battle forces of darkness.

The Ultimate Super villain
Speaking of forces of darkness, the parallels between fact and fiction don't stop with the good guys. Nearly every superhero must contend with a super villain, usually a disgruntled megalomaniac bent on ruling or destroying mankind. Just as Spider-Man battled the Green Goblin high above the city streets, the Lord and his angels war against forces of darkness on our behalf in heavenly realms. There has never been a more ambitious, frustrated or vengeful super villain than Satan, the scheming, lying adversary of Jesus who himself wears disguises to conceal his true identity (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Just as we shouldn't lose sight of Christ's ultimate heroism, it would be equally unwise to underestimate the real super villain currently at large.

With this year's superhero movies in mind, our children and the culture at large are once again primed for a conversation about the deeper significance of these defenders. Hollywood has handed us a golden opportunity to help fans of all ages see the power of redemption and how modern heroes can point to mankind's inner longing for rescue by the real Savior.

Updated May 2014

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

An Antidote to Being Unbiblically “Radical”

An Antidote to Being Unbiblically "Radical"

THE GOD OF THE MUNDANE: A critique of Matthew Redmond’s book
Written by Shane Lems | Sunday, August 25, 2013


To bring God glory and honor, the Christian doesn’t have to change the world or do all sorts of spectacular things for the good of the Kingdom. A follower of Christ can serve the Lord well in an obscure, behind-the-scenes, everyday manner (whether trimming lawns or teaching driver’s education). Christians can please God without ever doing anything special or extraordinary. To live “a quiet life” (1 Tim. 2.2) is to live a Christian life.

So argues Matthew Redmond in THE GOD OF THE MUNDANE. In a world of fame, glamour, stardom, and super-sizing, this book broadcasts a message every ordinary Christian needs to hear: you can serve God well right where you’re at. “This little book is not a call to do nothing. It is a call to be faithful right where you are, regardless of how mundane that place is” (loc. 1102).

“It is encouraging that there is a God of the mundane, because lives are just that – mundane. This is good news for those who have tried trying to live fantastically. And this is spectacular news for those who have been tempted to think their lives escape the notice of God because they are decidedly not spectacular” (loc. 245).

Redmond isn’t ambiguous in speaking of vocation: “[The Apostle Paul] never asks [the recipients of his epistles] to stop being who they are. He never challenges them to go anywhere. We don’t even get hints that lead us to believe he is making them feel guilty for living in comparative comfort compared to his lack of it. That’s weird. And it’s weird because this is so common in our pulpits and in conferences held for zealous college students” (loc. 291).

I appreciate Redmond’s breakdown of how the guilt of doing nothing in life works:
Stage One: I feel guilty about doing nothing.
Stage Two: Therefore I must get on with something obviously significant.
Stage Three: Now we judge others by this standard. If they are not doing something obviously significant then we automatically say to ourselves or to them and certainly to others, ‘They are not serious about their faith! If they were, they would do…’” (loc. 712).

What is Redmond’s radical call? There is no radical call. That’s the point. “Be nobody special. Do your job. Take care of your family. Clean your house. Mow your yard. Read your Bible. Attend worship. Pray. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Love your spouse. Love your kids. Be generous. …Expect no special treatment. And do it all quietly” (loc. 1096).

I highly recommend this book for average Christians who think they are doing nothing for Christ. If you feel like your job in hospital billing, irrigation, or basketball coaching isn’t good enough, get this book. THE GOD OF THE MUNDANE is a modern-day application of Luther’s excellent discussion of vocation coupled with his theology of suffering (not glory!). This book might go against the flow of some things you’ve heard in evangelical circles, but it’s a good counterpoint that is definitely needed.

(By the way, the book is available for under $3 at Kindle.)

Shane Lems is pastor of the United Reformed Church in Sunnyside, Washington (in the Yakima Valley). He is a graduate of Westminster Seminary California. He blogs, along with fellow classmate Andrew Compton, at Reformed Reader.

Monday, May 26, 2014

Milton Friedman - Greed

An excerpt from an interview with Phil Donahue in 1979.


In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

How Ephesians Killed My “Radical” Christianity

from here: http://thelogcollege.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/how-ephesians-killed-my-radical-christianity/

How Ephesians Killed My “Radical” Christianity

by Pastor Peter Jones
Note: This has nothing to do with David Platt’s book Radical. I have never read it or to my knowledge read anything else he has written.
==========================================================
What is a Radical?
Definitions matter. So before proceeding I wanted to define the term “radical.” By “radical,” I mean that strain of Christian thinking that says living a normal Christian life, getting married, having children, raising them in Christ, loving your spouse, being faithful at your job, attending worship, reading your Bible, praying, loving the saints, and then dying is not enough. It is that strain of Christianity that says, “There must be something more that I must do to be a good Christian.” The radical thinks and preaches that, “Good Christians do amazing things for Jesus.” This type of thinking is found in all branches of Christianity. There are mission weeks, revival meetings, monks who abandon all, elusive second blessings, pilgrimages to Rome, women who leave marriage and children far behind, men who leave jobs to enter the ministry, young men who believe that memorizing the Westminster Shorter Catechism is a means of grace, preachers who imply that Word and Sacraments are not enough, and conference speakers who demand that we pray more and more. The halls of faith echo with phrases like: Be radical. Give it all up for Jesus. Sacrifice everything.

I was raised to think like this and my guess is that many of you were as well. Our Christian life was driven by questions like , “Am I doing enough?” But over time I found that this pressure to do great things for God was not just burdensome, but it was unbiblical. The epiphany came as I studied Ephesians a few years back.


Radical Indeed
The first chapters of Ephesians are some of the most glorious chapters in all the New Testament. All Scripture is inspired by God, but maybe Ephesians is blessed with a double portion. Here are a few of the verses about our great salvation.

We are blessed with every spiritual blessing (1:3).
We are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (1:4).
We have redemption through his blood (1:7).
We have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (1:13).
We were dead. Now we are alive (2:1).
We have been raise up with Christ and seated with Him (2:6).
We were once strangers to the covenant, but now have been brought near (2:12-13).
We have access through Christ by the Spirit to the Father (2:18).

And on and on and on it goes. (See especially 3:17-21.) Paul gives us a grand picture of the great redemption we have in Christ and the great work our Lord did for us. Chapters 1-3 of Ephesians are Paul’s unfolding of this mystery (3:9) to the saints at Ephesus. In chapter 4, Paul begins to explain to the saints what this mean for their daily lives. Ephesians is neatly divided between what God has done for us in Christ (1-3) and how we are to respond (4-6). Or to use other terms it is divided between the indicative and imperative.

Not So Much
The first three chapters are radical. Coming back from the dead is radical. Being made clean is radical. Being united to the covenant, as a Gentile, is radical. But when we get to chapters 4-6 the radicalness disappears. After reading chapters 1-3 we would expect Paul to turn on the jets. We are Spirit-filled, covenant included, blood bought, once dead-now alive, Christians. We were made to do great things. If Paul were a modern preacher he would follow this up with a call to evangelize or do missions or go give all you have to the poor or change the world (or at least your community) or start a neighborhood Bible study. He would close Ephesians with a call to be radical.

But the real Paul disappoints us. There is nothing in these chapters about doing amazing things for Christ. There is nothing about missions or evangelism. There is nothing about changing the world or your community. There is no call to give away all you have. Paul does not encourage the men to examine themselves to see if they are called to the ministry. Women are not encouraged to leave all behind and be “fully devoted to Jesus.” There is no call to parents to make sure they raise “radical” children. So what does Paul tell us to do?

Live with one another in lowliness and patience
(4:2).
Reject false doctrine and grow into maturity (4:13-15).
Put off the old man. (4:22)
Don’t lie. (4:25)
Get rid of sinful anger. (4:26-27)
Stop stealing and work hard so you can give to those who
have need (4:28).
Watch your speech (4:29, 31, 5:4).
Be kind to one another (4:28).
Don’t be sexually immoral (5:3-7).
Avoid fellowship with darkness (5:11).
Speak to one another songs (5:19).
Give thanks (5:20).
Wives submit to husbands (5:22, 24).
Husbands love wives (5:250).
Children obey parents (6:1-3).
Fathers raise godly children (6:4).
Work hard for those over you (6:5-9).
Fight against the Devil and his minions (6:10-20)

Not very radical is it?

A Bad Kind of Radical
Paul is radical, but not in a way we like. He is radical about killing sin. He wants us to stop having fits of anger. He wants us to cut out our gossiping tongue. He wants us to be thankful in all circumstances. He wants us to pray. He wants us to get rid of greed. He wants us to make sure we keep our speech clean. All of this sounds pretty boring and hard. What sounds more exciting a speaker talking about reaching your community for Christ or one talking about taming your wayward tongue?

We don’t like Paul’s call to be radical because it is a lot easier to love the lost whom we haven’t seen than our wife who we see every day. We don’t like it because forgiveness is hard (4:32) and fornication is easy (5:3). We don’t like it because we would rather be known for doing something amazing than be obscure and keep the peace (4:3). We don’t like it because he says a lot about submission and nothing about evangelizing the ladies at Starbucks. In the end, those calls to be radical aren’t radical at all. They are just a distraction. The Christian life is not about going some place for Jesus or doing great things for him. It is being holy right where we are. It is loving our brothers and sisters in our churches. It is being faithful to our family obligations. It is working hard at our vocations. In a fallen world, if we do this, we are being radical enough.
==========================================================
Pastor Peter Jones is pastor of Christ Church of Morgantown, West Virginia. This if from his blog, KUYPERIAN COMMENTARY.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

What is the value of Christian music?


from here: http://www.blogos.org/gotquestions/christian-music.php

What is the value of Christian music?

By S. Michael Houdmann, Got Questions Ministries

I recently attended the TobyMac, Skillet, and Lecrae concert at Red Rocks Amphitheatre outside of Denver, Colorado. It brought back some very interesting, and divergent, memories for me. Before I came to faith in Christ, I had attended some secular, to say the least, concerts there. And, after becoming a Christian, I remember attending a DC Talk concert there. Needless to say, there can be a very different vibe in the amphitheater depending on the type/style of music being played.

I am not very musical in that I have very little musical talent. I do not play any instruments. I can sing well enough that my voice blends in with those around me. But, I have always loved music. As a teenager, I had quite the collection of 80s and 90s rock cassettes. My cassette holder was filled with music from AC/DC, Def Leppard, Mötley Crüe, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Poison, Bon Jovi, Tesla, Firehouse, etc., etc.

After I became a Christian in my mid-to-late teens, one of the first things the youth pastor who discipled me told me to do was to throw away all of my secular music. What?!? He said I shouldn't be filling my mind with that garbage. We actually sat down and listened to a few songs and he had me pay attention to the lyrics. He was right, most of it was garbage. I reluctantly threw all of my cassettes away. Well, all except the favorites cassette I had created. Shhhh!

To replace my music collection, my youth pastor gave me two Petra albums (Not of This World and Beyond Belief if I remember correctly) and one DC Talk album (Free At Last). It was a difficult transition for me. The quality of the music was very different. The style of music was very different. I had to occasionally, gasp, listen to the radio to hear good rock music. But, I definitely noticed a change in my thoughts, mindset, and behavior when I stopped filling my mind with anti-Christian messages and started listening to music that was in agreement with a Christian worldview.

Now, 20ish years later, I listen almost exclusively to Christian music. Thankfully, the quality of Christian music has increased dramatically since the early 90s. And, thankfully, there are quality Christian musicians playing good music in virtually every genre of music. I have, over time, broadened my listening habits to include more "Christians in a band," such as Switchfoot, the Fray, and Lifehouse, instead of exclusively listening to "Christian bands." I think I have reached a level of spiritual maturity that I could listen to secular music with no ill spiritual effects, but I choose not to.

My youth pastor was entirely right. If we fill our minds with garbage, garbage will come out in our lives. Especially as a new Christian, I did not need the negative influence that secular music was giving me. I needed to entirely separate myself from it so that there would be less competition in regards to what was going on in my mind. I needed to be, and wanted to be, "transformed by the renewing of my mind" (Romans 12:2). And, secular music was not going to help that process.

For me, Christian music was, and is, extremely important. It has had a tremendously positive spiritual impact on my life. It has greatly aided me in my walk with Christ.

Admittedly, I am sometimes disappointed by the lack of spiritual depth in the lyrics of much of contemporary Christian music. At the concert the other day, I wish the Gospel presentation had been far more clear. There was a lot of talk about the fact that Jesus saves and that He can help you with the problems in your life, but very little about how He saves and how He can clean and redeem our lives. But, as a guy in his late 30s, I was not the target audience of the concert. If that concert had been 20 years ago, it likely would have been precisely what I needed to hear.

Lyrics in Christian music should be positive, encouraging, and point towards the value of having a relationship with Jesus Christ. Christian music does not need to be a theological dissertation. Christian music should not be looked at as a primary discipleship method. That is the responsibility of parents, pastors, youth pastors, teachers, and mentors.

What Christian music did for me as a new Christian was replace the sewage I was listening to with a message that pointed to Jesus as Savior, both of my eternal destiny and my everyday life. What Christian music does for me now is provide a clean, encouraging, and uplifting form of entertainment. I need that. Most of you probably need it too.

Monday, May 5, 2014

What about bad things done by the Church?

From here: http://creation.com/bad-things-by-church

What about bad things done by the Church?

rubbish-bin
© iStockphoto.com/ogergo
Our Creation magazine is dedicated to defending the truth of the Bible, especially as it concerns creation by Jesus Christ. In particular, two main logically independent issues that CMI addresses are:
  1. Is creation right?
  2. Why does it matter?
Professing Christians who committed atrocities were acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christianity. Conversely, evolutionists who committed atrocities were acting consistently with evolution.
This article mainly addresses point 2. In the past, we have frequently supported this point by showing that Christianity has been the most powerful force for good in history.1
This includes motivating charity, education, abolition of slavery,2and science.3 The evidence is so strong that even some high-profile atheists have conceded that biblical Christianity drove the Salvation Army’s charity and one even proclaimed, “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.” 4 Similarly, T.H. Huxley (1825–1895), the famous agnostic known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, advocated teaching the Bible to children for its great morality, and insisted on this for his own children.5

The vital difference

About the only response that anti-Christians can give is that the history of the church has not always been good. The most important issue in reply is this:
Atrocities in the name of Christ are inconsistent with real Christianity, which is revealed in the Bible; atrocities in the name of atheism are consistent with it.
Note that we are NOT claiming that all atheists are always ‘evil’ or can never do good things, but that atheism provides no basis for judging right from wrong.
Evolutionist Jaron Lanier showed the problem, saying, “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
In reply, the leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins affirmed, “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”6
So here we have a leading atheist admitting that evolution provides no basis for morality. Instead, he and his fellow atheists have needed to borrow from Christian concepts of sanctity of life and charity. Similarly, the Jewish libertarian columnist Jeff Jacoby gave a lucid summary of the argument:
“Can people be decent and moral without believing in a God who commands us to be good? Sure. There have always been kind and ethical nonbelievers. But how many of them reason their way to kindness and ethics, and how many simply reflect the moral expectations of the society in which they were raised?
“In our culture, even the most passionate atheist cannot help having been influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview that shaped Western civilization. …
“For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees ‘Thou shalt not murder.’ It certainly cannot be proved wrong by reason alone. One might reason instead—as Lenin and Stalin and Mao reasoned—that there is nothing wrong with murdering human beings by the millions if doing so advances the Marxist cause. Or one might reason from observing nature that the way of the world is for the strong to devour the weak—or that natural selection favors the survival of the fittest by any means necessary, including the killing of the less fit.
“It may seem obvious to us today that human life is precious and that the weakest among us deserve special protection. Would we think so absent a moral tradition stretching back to Sinai? It seemed obvious in classical antiquity that sickly babies should be killed. …
“Reason is not enough. Only if there is a God who forbids murder is murder definitively evil.”7
Therefore, the corrective for faulty application of Christianity is not atheism but correct (biblical) application of Christianity.
Given the reasoning above, it should be no surprise that the atrocities committed in the name of Christ are not only an aberration, but pale compared to the monstrous atrocities committed by atheists for atheistic reasons. Some specific well-known cases in each category will now be addressed.

Christian atrocities?

Inquisition

The Inquisition is certainly a black spot; biblical Christianity, from a human standpoint, tells people to come freely to Christ, not be forced to profess Christ because of threats. But the Inquisition also must be put into perspective, both compared with the numbers and the culture of the time. Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834): historians such as Henry Kamen estimate between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy,8 out of Spain’s 6–10 million total population. So at most 0.05% of Spain’s population was killed. While this is nevertheless deplorable, it means that the Inquisition’s rate of executing people was lower than that of the state of Texas today, while atheist Stalin often killed that many before breakfast (so to speak). Furthermore, Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts—indeed, some criminals uttered heresies precisely so they would be transferred to the Inquisition courts.

Salem witch trials

This was a travesty of paranoia and mass hysteria in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. However, they killed fewer than 25 people, far short of the “perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions” that the late antitheist Carl Sagan (1934–1996) claimed. Further, they were stopped when Christians protested at the travesty of justice in the unfair trials and how they violated all biblical standards of evidence.9 Even a trial proponent, the Puritan minister Increase Mather (1639–1723), opposed the ‘spectral evidence’, i.e. from dreams and visions, instead of the biblically required plurality of eyewitnesses (Deuteronomy 17:619:15Matthew 18:162 Corinthians 13:1). He also made the statement that has now become a vital part of Western justice, “It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that One Innocent Person should be Condemned.”10

Crusades

While many people attack Christianity for the Crusades, an increasing number of historians regard them as a belated response to four centuries of Islamic aggression that had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.11
The Muslims quickly conquered the Iberian Peninsula (now Spain and Portugal) well before the Crusades. They would have almost certainly conquered Europe were it not for the King of the Franks, Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne. In the Battle of Tours (ad 732), Martel’s infantry army stood firm against Muslim cavalry, and repulsed their repeated charges while inflicting enormous casualties. The Muslim leader Abd-er Rahman was killed. Afterwards, the remains of the shattered army retreated back across the Pyrenées, and never returned.
Also, just think about the historic centres of Christianity, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and the rest of North Africa—they are now Muslim lands, converted at the point of the sword. And after the crusades, the Muslim Turks conquered the ancient land of Asia Minor, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul, the site of many of his missionary journeys and home of the Seven Churches of the book of Revelation. Furthermore, when they conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453, some 800 years after its founding, they turned Hagia Sophia (‘Holy Wisdom’), the world’s biggest Christian church at the time, and the centre of Eastern Orthodoxy, into a mosque.
In this, they were following the example of Muhammad himself. Evangelist Lowell Lundstrom (1939–2012) observed, “During Muhammad’s ten years in Medina, he planned 65 military campaigns and raids, and he personally led 27 of them.”12 In Sura 66:9, the Koran affirms, “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” Historian Sir Steven Runciman notes, “Unlike Christianity, which preached a peace that it never achieved, Islam unashamedly came with the sword.”13
Even Richard Dawkins recently admitted:
“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”14
So, in a similar note to the main teaching of this article, while atrocities committed in the name of Christ, such as during the Crusades, were inconsistent with the teachings of Christ (such as “Do not murder”), the atrocities committed by Muslims are consistent with Muhammad’s teachings and actions.15

Religious wars?

It’s important to note that religion had nothing to do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu–Tutsi war in Rwanda, Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian-French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponnesian War, Assyrian wars …

Christian terrorists?

When Islamic or atheistic atrocities are announced, the secular media almost invariably resort to moral equivalence with claimed Christian terrorists. Let’s address a few of them.
Regarding the IRA (Irish Republican Army), Rev. Dr Mark Durie, a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, points out the truth:
“The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA’s ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic. IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.”16
Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber who killed 168 people and wounded over 680, has often been called a “Christian terrorist”. But he was an agnostic to the end. In fact, his final pre-execution public statement was William Ernest Henley’s strongly humanist poem Invictus(1875). This starts, “I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul,” and finishes, “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”17 Such defiant rejection of his Creator is hardly the mark of any Christian, good or otherwise.
Also, the news media were quick to label the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik as a Christian. But Breivik specifically denied that he was a religious Christian, caring nothing for God and Christ:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”18
He could not be more wrong.

Hypocrites in the Church

Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.
Jesus reserved some of his strongest criticism for the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But He in no way condemned the righteousness that they stood for in public. Matthew 23:1–3 records:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practise and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practise.”
Thus the charge of hypocrisy was not an attack on the morality they preached but on their failure to live up to it. He actually told His followers to be even more righteous than the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20).
We are upset by hypocrisy precisely because we recognize that something intrinsically good has been debased and let down by the hypocrite’s failure to meet the very standard he proclaimed. Hence the saying, “Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”
This atheist criticism amounts to preferring that we both say and do the wrong thing rather than say the right thing but do the wrong thing.19

Atheistic atrocities

The eugenics movement looked like a Darwin family business. … Darwin’s son Leonard replaced his cousin Galton as chairman of the national Eugenics Society in 1911.
Atrocities committed in Christ’s name pale in comparison to the record-breaking tens of millions killed by atheistic regimes just last century. This was thoroughly documented by Rudolph Rummel (b. 1932), Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, who coined the term democide, meaning ‘murder of a people by their government’:20 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis (including 6 million Jews, ⅓ of all Jews in Europe), 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields. This is many times more deaths than all ‘religious’ wars put together in all centuries of human history, and this is just for the 20th century!
We have previously documented the evolutionary basis for the Holocaust.21 This included eugenics, which was so Darwinian that non-creationist Denis Sewell documented:
Atrocities committed in Christ’s name pale to the record-breaking tens of millions killed by atheistic regimes just last century: 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields.
“[In the] years leading up to the First World War, the eugenics movement looked like a Darwin family business. … Darwin’s son Leonard replaced his cousin Galton as chairman of the national Eugenics Society in 1911. In the same year an offshoot of the society was formed in Cambridge. Among its leading members were three more of Charles Darwin’s sons, Horace, Francis and George.”22

Summary

Professing Christians who committed atrocities were acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christianity. Conversely, evolutionists who committed atrocities were acting consistently with evolution.
The term ‘atrocity’ has meaning only under a Judeo-Christian worldview; it has no meaning in an evolutionary philosophy.
The horrors of atheistic atrocities in the 20th century alone dwarf all the ‘Christian’ atrocities in all centuries combined.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Sarfati, J., What good is Christianity? Creation 29(4):6, 2007; creation.com/christianity-good. Return to text.
  2. Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian heroCreation 29(4):12–15, 2007; creation.com/wilberforce. Return to text.
  3. Sarfati, J., Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14, 2009; creation.com/whyscience. Return to text.
  4. Catchpoole, D., Atheists credit the Gospel: Two high-profile atheists concede that to get practical help to the poor and liberate them from poverty you need Christianity’s teaching about man’s place in the UniverseCreation 32(4):48–49, 2010; creation.com/atheists-credit-christianity. Return to text.
  5. Grigg, R., Huxley, Morality and the Bible, Creation 34(4):40–42, 2012. Return to text.
  6. Evolution: The dissent of Darwin, Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan–Feb 1997. Return to text.
  7. Jacoby, J., Created by God to Be Good, Patriot Post, 15 November 2010. Return to text.
  8. Kamen, H., The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, Yale University Press, 1999. Return to text.
  9. D’Souza, D., What’s So Great About Christianity? p. 207, Regnery, Washington DC, 2007; see review by Cosner, L., J. Creation 22(2):32–35, 2008; creation.com/dsouza. Return to text.
  10. Mather, I., Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men, Witchcrafts, Infallible Proofs of Guilt in such as are accused with that Crime, September 1692. Return to text.
  11. Spencer, R., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), Regnery Press, 2005; Spencer, R., Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Regnery Publishing, 2007; Stark, R., God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, HarperOne, 2009. Return to text.
  12. Lowell Lundstrom, The Muslims are Coming (Sisseton, SD: Lowell Lundstrom Ministries, 1980), p. 37. Lundstrom served for ten years as president and chancellor of Trinity Bible College, in Ellendale, North Dakota. Return to text.
  13. Quoted in Lundstrom, Ref. 12, p. 37. Return to text.
  14. Cited in: Gledhill, R., Scandal and schism leave Christians praying for a ‘new Reformation’, The Times (UK), 6 April 2010. Return to text.
  15. See J. Sarfati, Unfair to Islam? creation.com/islamunfair, 2008. Return to text.
  16. Durie, M., Creed of the sword, The Australian, 23 September 2006. Return to text.
  17. Gallagher, M., Timothy McVeigh, Christian terrorist, Townhall.com, 28 October 2002. Return to text.
  18. See also Bergman, J., “Anders Breivik—Social Darwinism leads to mass murder”, J. Creation 26(1):48–53, 2012; Sarfati, J., Norway terrorist: more media mendacity, creation.com/breivik, 11 August 2011 Return to text.
  19. Wieland, C., The Haggard tragedy: “Christianity must be wrong because of all the hypocrites in the church!” creation.com/haggard, 9 November 2006. Return to text.
  20. Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994; hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM. Return to text.
  21. Weikart, R., From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, 2004; see review creation.com/weikart. Return to text.
  22. Sewell, D., The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Ideas Changed Politics, p. 54, Picador, London, 2009; see also review, Bergman, J, J. Creation 25(1):19–21, 2011. Return to text.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Christian women: feminism is not your friend

From here:  http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/04/22/christian-women-feminism-is-not-your-friend/

Christian women: feminism is not your friend

abortion-demo-march
Christian women (and men): please, let feminism go.
Better yet, let yourself go from it.
Release yourself from its shackles.
Everyday I hear from people who tell me they are ‘pro-life feminist’ or ‘Christian feminist.’ Yet millions of modern feminists would respond that such a thing is not possible. Feminism, they say, exists largely to combat the patriarchal evils of pro-life Christianity. They claim that calling yourself a pro-life feminist is like calling yourself a carnivorous vegan, or an environmentalist Humvee enthusiast. The concepts are contradictory, they argue, and I agree — though I’d say the term ‘pro-life feminist’ could be more aptly compared to ‘abolitionist slave trader’ or ‘free market communist.’
So I urge you: unbind yourself from the bondage of this term that’s become inexorably tied to a demonic dogma that obliterates the unity of the family, drives a wedge between a wife and her husband, and digs a giant chasm between a mother and her child.
Why put yourself on a spectrum that includes, to a large degree, somewhere – whether on one end or in the middle or in between or strewn throughout — a passionate belief in the inalienable right to murder the baby in your womb?
Why? What is accomplished? What truth did feminism reveal that will now be lost, or forgotten, should you stop ascribing to the label?
What truth did feminism reveal at all, actually?
That women are equal to men in human dignity and intrinsic value? No, feminism did not reveal this. Christianity revealed it. Christ revealed it. Christian thinkers throughout the ages have affirmed it and taught it; notably Thomas Aquinas, who said that women are meant to rule alongside men. That was 800 years ago, or 600 years before the term ‘feminist’ existed.
Here’s the part where I’m accused of being ignorant of feminist history.
I will admit that I haven’t taken any feminist studies courses, nor have I ever used the word ‘gendered,’ nor have I had any occasion to whip out femi-jargon like ‘phallogocentrism’ and ‘gynocriticism,’ but I have read a more comprehensive account of world history, so I do know this:
‘Feminism’ is derived from the French word ‘feminisme,’ and it was, from what I understand, first used by a French philosopher in the early-mid 19th Century. Adopted by ‘first wave feminists’ during the suffrage movement, the ‘reclaim feminism’ conservative Christian crowd now insists that it was coopted by radical man-haters in the 60′s.
They’re correct that the ‘tone’ of feminism has grown more — shall we say – unpleasant, but that doesn’t mean it was necessarily hijacked by ideological pirates. The point here is that feminists initially fought for goals like voting rights and property rights (among other things, which we’ll get to later). Now, no woman is barred from voting or owning property based on her gender. So the mission has evolved, and evolved into something far less noble.
And we arrive at the real problem:
Feminism is no longer a matter of fighting for equal rights. Feminism has turned in on itself and become an effort to redefine what constitutes a ‘right’ and what constitutes ‘equality.’
We live in a society where unborn humans are the only group consistently and seriously deprived of basic legal protections. Incidentally, feminists — liberal feminists, modern feminists, feminist feminists, whatever you want to call them — are the ones primarily responsible for codifying this injustice into law. The only true ‘equal rights’ movement left in America is the pro-life movement, and guess who the pro-lifers are fighting against?
Feminists. They might be ‘new wave feminist’ or ‘third wave feminists’ or ’12th ripple of the third wave redesigned neo-feminists 2.0,’ but they’re feminists, one way or another.
This is a pretty convincing indication that feminism has, at the very least, outlived its good. There is nothing surprising about that, because feminism, unlike Christianity, is a human construct. It’s an ideology. It’s a political theory. It’s a label. It is not eternal, it is not perfect (there’s the understatement of the decade), and it is not indispensable.
Feminism, like ‘liberalism,’ like ‘conservativism,’ like the Republican Party, like the Democrat Party, is a finite thing that exists and serves a certain purpose in a certain set of circumstances. When the times change, and the circumstances change, it will either die or its purpose will change.
Think of political labels like seatbelts. A seatbelt is a good thing, assuming you’re in a car and the car is moving. But if you’re underwater, or the car is on fire, suddenly the seatbelt is less a safety mechanism and more a deathtrap. So it’s not enough to say that ‘seatbelts are good.’ What you mean is ‘safety is good, and seatbelts sometimes make us safer.’ Similarly, equal legal protections are good, and feminism, at one point many years ago, helped ensure those legal protections. Times have changes, and feminism no longer serves that purpose.
image
This car is our culture, and feminism is the seatbelt that melted and trapped you inside this blazing inferno.
It should also be noted that the problems with feminism stretch far beyond abortion. It seems, for instance, that even many conservative feminists subscribe to the notion that women were subjugated and oppressed for the entirety of human civilization, until the emergence of the feminist movement.
They tie female liberation to the Industrial Age, equating the liberty of womanhood with her ability and opportunity to work a job and participate in the American democratic system. Lost in this theory is the fact that Christian civilization — before the United States, before industrialization, even before Gloria Steinem — afforded many rights to women. How often do you hear anyone mention that females were members in equal standing to men in the vast majority of the English Guilds in the Middle Ages?
Yes, thanks to Christianity, there were women in many occupations and practicing many trades, long before we were all seduced by the siren song of the assembly line.
chisel
Feminism, at its roots, has also struggled to differentiate between equality of rights and equality of being. We all deserve equality under the law, but that doesn’t mean we are all equal.
Equality: sameness.
To be equal is to be the same. Women are not equal to men because they are not the same as men. Therefore, a woman’s freedom is really slavery if it forces her to abandon all of the unique feminine abilities and characteristics that make her a woman. The same could be said for men, if his freedom requires him to shirk that which sets him apart from women and makes him a man.
From my reading of the history of feminist theory, it would seem that feminism has always embraced a sort of Platonic idea that our bodies are mere shells for our souls, and so our gender differences are just mechanical.
Christianity, on the other hand, has from the beginning taught that our bodies are in union with our souls, and our physiological differences run much deeper than flesh and bone.
I’m venturing way off into the weeds here, and I don’t want the point to get lost in an academic discussion. Whatever feminism was, we have to deal with what it is.
And what is it?
First, it’s the single loudest voice in favor of slaughtering innocent children.
Do I need to proceed to a second point?
Go ahead and tell me that the pro-abortion feminists are but members of a ‘spectrum.’ The question is whether you want to include yourself on a spectrum that ends, on one side, in the blood of infants.
Here’s an interesting question: if, in order to erase abortion, we had to erase all of the other things that feminism accomplished, would you erase it? Would you flip that switch? In this outlandish hypothetical, would you obliterate feminism to end abortion, if it meant obliterating whatever else feminism has achieved?
I hope that you would. I would if I was you. If all the works of feminism had to be turned back just to undo what it’s done in the last 40 years, I’d do it.
This is all a long way of asking: does the good of feminism outweigh the evil of it?
I say no. An emphatic, unflinching no.
It’s not even close, in fact.
And, beyond that, what does it say about feminism that it so quickly turned into this monstrosity? It might be time for pro-life feminists to confront the possibility that pro-abortion feminism is not some kind of extreme perversion of first wave feminism. It might be time to consider the chance that, though many of the pioneer feminists did not advocate abortion, and may have even stridently opposed it, they still developed the theories and ideas that would later be used (and used logically) to fuel the pro-choice movement.
Feminism, from the very beginning, at its earliest stages, had a habit of presenting the family and religion as enemies to female equality. Elizabeth Stanton, friend of Susan B. Anthony, and one of the godmothers of feminism, said that “the bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling block in the way of women’s liberation.” This was a woman of the first wave — not the second, not the third. This is Scripture made out to be an obstacle, a ‘stumbling block,’ way down at the very foundation of feminist theory.
Meanwhile, Susan B. Anthony’s newsletter “The Revolution” had this motto: “The True Republic – Men, their rights and nothing more; Women, their rights and nothing less.”
From the very beginning, at its earliest stages, feminism was a movement designed to find equality with men — and then dominance over them. Christianity has always taught harmony and love between the sexes, while feminism preaches competition and exclusion. There is simply no way to reconcile feminism with Biblical notions of marriage, and even the early feminists knew it.
I’m no Susan B. Anthony biographer, but even I recognize this famous quote from the first lady of feminism:
“There is not the woman born who desires to eat the bread of dependence, no matter whether it be from the hand of father, husband, or brother; for any one who does so eat her bread places herself in the power of the person from whom she takes it.”
Casting ‘dependence’ as the ultimate evil, characterizing the family and marriage as a power struggle — this goes to the very heart of feminist thought. To deny that is to deny reality.
untitled (52)
But why argue over this? If you believe that women should have equal protection under the law — good. I agree with you. Almost everybody agrees with you. That belief just makes you a constitutionalist.
If you believe that women possess an equal inherent worth and dignity — great. I agree with you. That belief either makes you Christian, or brings you closer to becoming one.
All of the ground is covered, there is no need for feminism. Whatever good could be found, it’s now covered in piles of death and hatred, and no matter what anyone wants to believe, the roots of ‘bad feminism’ can be traced back to ‘good feminism.’ Saying that you need to cling to feminism just because you believe in equal protection under the law is like saying you have to be a Klan member just to be a states rights proponent (the KKK has had its own ‘waves,’ and its earliest members were essentially guerillas fighting against northern occupation of southern states).
So there is no need for it, unless you wish to tinker with the definitions of ‘equal protection’ and ‘inherent worth and dignity,’ so as to justify things like abortion-on-demand and taxpayer subsidized birth control.
For that, you need feminism, and for that, you don’t need Christianity.
I think it’s time to choose between the two.