The Pastor's Desk

A Response to Tyranny

2012-02-10T16:31:00.030-05:00

Do not think that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish (Esther 4:13-14 ESV).

Prior to the events that convulsed the entire world in the mid-20^th century, a group of Lutheran and Reformed churchmen and theologians penned and signed a document remarkable for its prescience and courage. For some, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, their signature was costly indeed.

The Barmen Declaration was written in May of 1934 by Karl Barth, Hans Asmussen among others, representing some leaders of the German Evangelical Church. It was a direct repudiation of many of the claims of their church’s developing relationship with the Third Reich. It was a response to one of the earliest efforts of the Nazi Party to control society, in this case by co-opting the Protestant Churches into a single Protestant Reich Church headed by a single bishop and representing “German Christianity.” The process had its collaborators from within the church. For a good synopsis see “The Protestant Church in Hitler’s Germany and the Barmen Declaration” at http://www.gci.org/history/barmen .

Here are a few of the highlights of the Barmen Declaration:

We declare before the public view of all the Evangelical Churches of Germany, that the unity of this confession and thereby also the unity of the German Evangelical Church is severely threatened. . . .

Together we may and must, as members of the Lutheran, Reformed and United churches, speak today to this situation. Precisely because we want to be and remain true to our various confessions of faith, we may not keep silent . . .

We repudiate the false teaching that there are areas of our life in which we belong not to Jesus Christ but another lord . . .

We repudiate the false teaching that the church can and may . . . set up special leaders (Fuhrer) equipped with powers to rule . . .

We repudiate the false teaching that the state can and should expand beyond its special responsibility to become the single and total order of human life, and also thereby fulfill the commission of the church.

For the entire declaration see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/barmen.htm .

Difficult times produce enduring faith statements. The Manhattan Declaration spearheaded by Robert George, Timothy George, and Church Colson in September, 2009, and endorsed by many Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical leaders addresses social issues critical to the contemporary church – it is a statement of commitment to stand for specific principles of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and religious freedom. Its premises are prescient and its authors and signatories may yet be seen as courageous. A pertinent section:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions (Manhattan Declaration, emphasis mine).

For the entire document see http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx.

As if in fulfillment of prophecy, the Obama administration through a department of Health and Human Services mandate has recently required many people of faith to “compromise their deepest convictions.” All institutions run by religious organizations which employ or serve individuals not of their own faith were required to supply health insurance which includes coverage of both birth control and abortion-inducing drugs.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops responded with a pastoral letter which has been shared in pulpits throughout the land. In part, it states:

And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so) . . .

We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God-given rights . . .

Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America (1835, 1840) saw tremendous strength in the many voluntary societies of our culture, whether churches, political organizations, or social circles with specific mandates and missions. We might call these mediating institutions.

“As Yuval Levin noted in National Review Online last week, institutions such as the Catholic church represent a mediating layer between the individual and the state. This layer, known as civil society, is one of the principal differences between Western liberal order and the socialist view . . . The attack on Catholics is, Levin concludes, ‘an attack on mediating institutions of all sorts moved by a genuine belief that they are obstacles to a good society’.” (Jonathan V. Last in The Weekly Standard).

Since the outbreak of the controversy, the White House on Friday offered a compromise – insurance companies, not faith-based employers, would have to pay for these employee benefits. Some have simply called this a shell game. So, since the outbreak of a stiff backlash from many quarters, there has been some backpedaling, but hardly a surrender of policy objectives from the administration, objectives which directly assault the concerns expressed in the Manhattan Declaration. Can we really be confident that this assault is over, or is this only a shift in tactics?

The scripture quoted at the outset of this entry is taken from the book of Esther. In the reign of the Persian despot Xerxes (Ahasuerus), powerful political forces led by a man named Haman had engaged in intrigue to eliminate the covenant people. The question is, Are we now in such a moment of peril? Certainly death and extermination are not threatened (except to the unborn), but has the fundamental right to religious liberty been threatened in a pervasive way? If so, the lesson of Queen Esther is preserved in scripture as a lesson for people of faith of all ages: Do not think that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish (Esther 4:13-14).

The Apostle Paul's Facebook Page

2012-01-27T11:01:00.014-05:00

I have a confession to make: I’m a facebook ignoramus. I’ve been on the social networking site for a year or two and I’ve collected a number of friends but the medium still baffles me. The same holds true with LinkedIn. If I want to speak to someone or show them my pictures, I like to keep it personal, as in between you and me. So I just send a personal e-mail with an attachment. I rarely post anything for my whole network to see at one time, and I don’t check my friends’ postings that often. My son Tom called me a facebook wallflower. I’ve come to the dance but I just sit in the corner – I don’t say too much myself and nobody much speaks to me.

Truth be told, I am usually on the laggard’s end of the so-called diffusion of innovation curve. That curve says that new technology catches on with the population in a kind of bell-curve with 20 percent of the population at the receptive front end, most folks who “go with the flow” in the middle 60 percent, and the laggards in the final 20 percent. Luddites belong on the final 3 percent and never do get with the program – they may be better off for their choices, I’m not to say.

It works something like this: The first time I got an answering machine when making a phone call (remember when that was an innovation?) I thought, “I’m not going to talk to a machine and I’ll certainly never get one of these depersonalizing monstrosities myself. I mean, it’s like talking to HAL in the movie 2001.” Now, nearly a lifetime later, when I get no answer and no answering machine, I wonder, “What’s wrong with these folks, are they so anti-social that they don’t want to know who’s calling or why?” But that’s only after being in the last 10 percent in the buy-in on the original invention. The first time I read an e-mail, maybe in 1993, I thought “This is never going to catch on.” My guess is I’ll finally get facebook figured out, once everybody else on the planet has.

I think the Apostle Paul was just the opposite. He was on the front end of innovations. I was really intrigued to find his facebook page. Actually, he has several of them, but Romans Chapter 16 is one of the most interesting. I count thirty “friends,” ranging from Phoebe of Cenchreae to Philologus, Julia, Nereus, Nereus’s sister and Olympas. He posts things on their wall – sometimes just a greeting, sometimes a commendation (Beloved Persis has worked hard in the Lord), and sometimes an instruction (Welcome Phoebe and help her in whatever she may need from you). Several of his friends are on group sites (Greet the church in Prisca and Aquila’s house). Near the close of the chapter he also sends messages on behalf of eight co-workers (Timothy, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, Tertius, Gaius, Erastus, and Quartus) – he lets them use his page to do so – “I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.”

These are people with whom he travelled, lived, toiled, suffered, and worshipped. These relationships were the result of hands-on, out of the comfort-zone ministry. That puts real life behind the friend postings. “Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.”

In addition to posting encouraging, instructive, or just chit-chatty notes on the walls of his friends he is also an early advocate of de-friending. “(W)atch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” We see this kind of personal yet public communication in many of Paul’s letters -- the first-century version of the facebook page. What do we learn from it? Several things, I think.

1) The apostle Paul really was an innovator, and not just in the area of communication. His vision for bi-cultural churches made up of Jews and Gentiles was never really understood by many of his contemporaries and was a source of much of the persecution he faced. Yet, this did not hinder him from spreading this God-inspired vision of spiritual innovation, rooted in a Gospel meant for all ethnic groups, despite criticism, obstacles, and obstructionism. This is the price of innovation. He consistently taught his entire network, But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ . . . For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Eph. 2:13).

2) Paul’s innovative vision helped him to build bridges to others. He understood that without a conscious, pro-active effort to cross social, ethnic, political, and spiritual barriers the Gospel gets locked up in certain ethnic groups. He was very serious about fighting against this all-too-human tendency to keep the good news to ourselves and those like us. This can only be done through relational bridge-building.

3) Paul was a man of contemplation and prayer. At the same time he was intensely social. I admit I find this trait difficult to imitate -- most of us tend in one direction or the other, a typical Myers-Briggs I(ntrovert) or E(xtrovert), but rarely both. He built relationships and teams of people to perform the ministry of planting churches and preaching the word in environs where Christ was not known. He was always surrounded with real-life friends, not just virtual friends, who traveled and toiled with him in ministry. He also found time to pray consistently and spend serious time in the desert of Arabia hearing from God.

4) Paul worked at communication. He wrote letters (including his facebook-like greetings pages), sent co-workers as delegates to the churches, spoke with God constantly about the churches he cared for, and made frequent personal visits when possible, despite arduous journeys. He also accepted his limitations (such as a jail cell) and made the best of his circumstances without losing track either of his vision or his social network. I’m sure he would have been a creative and avid user of facebook for purposes of the Gospel.

This is not an appeal to become facebook or twitter fans (or whatever innovation is next), but to understand the power and value of relational bridge-building in living a joyful and effective Christian life. It’s never too late to begin building a social network of real friends.

A Time to Reflect

2012-01-13T16:16:00.015-05:00

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth” (Genesis 1:14-15 ESV).

It is customary in our culture to take time to reflect during the New Year season. We consider the previous year and look forward to the year to come, perhaps making a list of resolutions, re-visiting personal goals, or just making a mental note of desired improvements. Seasons of self-reflection are recommended in Scripture. With the aid of the Holy Spirit we are called to consider the direction of our lives. As the psalmist implored, Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting! (Psalm 139: 23-24 ESV). Paul exhorts the Corinthians regarding the communion, Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup (I Cor. 11:28). And again, to the same Corinthians, Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves (II Cor. 13:5).

Our custom of reflecting in the New Year is a function of chronos, chronological time. Our planet completes its journey around the sun and another page is turned. In fact, time is both the catalyst and the object of our reflections. Our reflections, prompted by the time of year become considerations of how we have spent and how we will spend our time. This is another biblical theme, captured by the psalmist. Psalm 90 is a reflection on the nature of time, God’s lordship over it, and our place within it. For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night, and again, So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom (Psalm 90:4,12).

The church father, Augustine, reflected in depth on the nature of time in his masterpieces The City of God and The Confessions.

For eternity and time are rightly distinguished by this, that time does not exist without some movement and transition, while in eternity there is no change, who does not see that there could have been no time had not some creature been made, which by some motion could give birth to change, -- the various parts of which motion and change, as they cannot be simultaneous, succeed one another – and thus in these shorter or longer intervals of duration, time would begin? Since then, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the Creator and Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said to have created the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unless it be said that prior to the world there was some creature by whose movement time could pass (The City of God, XI, vi).

Let them therefore see that there could be no time without a created being . . . Let them also be extended to those things which are before, and let them understand that thou, the eternal Creator of all times, art before all times, and that no times are co-eternal with Thee . . . (The Confessions of St. Augustine, XI, xxx).

In other words, time is a child of the created order.

In general, the scripture speaks of two kinds of time – chronological time (measurable time denoted by the Greek chronos) or season or opportunity, often denoted by the Greek kairos. Though these concepts overlap in both Greek and Hebrew, I think they are helpful distinctions, especially as we examine our use of time in the New Year. As Augustine noted, time is a creature of God. It is also a gift to be stewarded with great care.

We see these concepts side by side in the beginning of the beautiful poem which opens Ecclesiastes chapter 3, For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven (Eccl. 3:1 ESV). The poem goes on to speak of seasons of opportunity for the various events of life.

If I were to make a distinction, I would say for purposes of reflection that chronos is measured time, intellectually understood and precisely defined, like the movement of the planets. Comprehension of kairos on the other hand, is a matter of discernment, even spiritual insight. Winter begins on the solstice, but winter weather may not. There may be a mandatory retirement age in some jobs, but there is a greater or lesser capacity to continue working depending on one’s physical and intellectual vigor.

Discerning the season of opportunity is reflected in our folk sayings: “Strike while the iron is hot,” or “A stitch in time saves nine.” Biblical Proverbs carry a similar meaning, The sluggard does not plow in autumn; he will seek at harvest and have nothing (Prov. 20:4). Jesus tells us, We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no man can work (John 9:4). Paul exhorts the Galatians, And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season (kairos) we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity (kairos), let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith (Gal. 6:9-10).

Shakespeare ties the concept of chronological time and season of opportunity together, “Time and tide wait for no man.”

The mighty acts of God reflected in prophecy move in sync with his pre-determined seasons, But when the fullness of time (kairos) had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman . . . (Phil. 4:4). Jesus spoke of the kingdom in terms of ripening seasons, The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground . . .But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come (Mark 4:26,29).

So many opportune seasons rise and fall before our eyes -- receptive hearts and teachable moments with our children, opportunities to serve our neighbors or minister to our parents or church family, job prospects, and political or economic climates ripen or sometimes rot as we observe. It was often the job of the Old Testament prophets to determine and announce what God was saying and doing in the seasons of Israel’s history.

Time is a gift from God to us. Our time on earth and even time itself will one day be consummated.

Because of sin we often miss or abuse our seasons of opportunity. These wastelands of regret need redemption through Christ’s great act of atonement on the cross. Because of grace we can approach God for understanding and aid as we walk into the future. The just, we are told, shall live by faith.

So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom (Psalm 90:4,12).

Mission Possible

2011-08-12T12:39:00.004-04:00

The things that are impossible with men are possible with God (Luke 18:27).

The original Mission Impossible was a popular cold war era spy show. I always enjoyed watching the opening scene which usually included one of the stars getting a secret, anonymous phone call or locating a top secret mini- cassette recording (high tech in those days) with instructions on how to defeat the bad guys. The message always outlined an extremely dangerous mission which started out with, “Your mission, should you decide to accept it …” I was always on edge watching the spy team perform the impossible task. But they always succeeded. Of course, they had to or that would be the end of the series.

Speaking of mission, I have a pet peeve about mission statements for churches. I know a mission or vision statement is an important way to clarify a church’s sense of calling, and many churches have benefited from succinct statements of what God has called them to do. I guess what bothers me is that the idea of creating a mission statement for churches has emerged only in the last twenty-five years or so and actually comes from the business world. Some seminaries have adopted it as a “must do” for all churches and pastors. How did the church get along for two thousand years without mission statements? The problem is these church-designed statements often do no more than re-state the obvious.

Over the years I’ve read things on church bulletins like, “We are called to know Christ and make Him known.” What church isn’t? Or, “Loving God, loving His people, loving the world.” That really narrows it down. These things seem to come in threes by the way; for instance, “Open hearts, open hands, open minds.” That could mean almost anything you want it to. How about this one? “A home to the faithful, a resource to the community, a witness to the world.” Wait a minute, that’s’ ours!

I’ve even known some churches go to the trouble of clarifying their mission only to collapse within a year because the more essential biblical principles of holiness, forgiveness, preservation of unity, or doctrinal purity were ignored. Contrary to the beliefs of some, a mission statement is not a cure-all. My point is, the Bible gives us plenty of things to do without trying to boil them down into nice little sound bites.

Despite all the negatives about brief statements on church life, they’re not all bad. So, in contradiction of everything I’ve said so far, I’d like to explore one of these that is important to us. Staunton Grace Covenant is intended to be a contemporary expression of the historic Christian faith. This means that we respect the work of the Holy Spirit manifested throughout the church’s 2,000 year existence. We understand that God has worked through different church communions and confessions in marvelous ways through the centuries. The experience, the historic doctrines, and the Creeds of the church throughout its history are of great value to us today. God has had His people in every age who have loved Him and obediently served Him. Their knowledge and experience is our gain. We are safe staying in touch with the experience and faith of our forebears. It is appropriate to recite their creeds, sing many of their hymns, and embrace their traditions where appropriate. To do so is simply a recognition of God’s sovereign activity in His church through the centuries. It is not “selling out” to tradition, it is recognizing God’s work in history.

That we are a contemporary expression of the historic Christian faith also means that there are boundaries to our beliefs and practices. It is not “anything goes.” We ask ourselves, what does the Bible teach on this matter and how has the church historically understood the Bible’s teaching? To hold this posture means we are orthodox in the best sense of the word. It also protects us from fads and gimmicks which could appeal to our carnal nature but may be of no value in aiding our spiritual growth.

We adhere to a biblical faith which affirms the teachings of historic orthodoxy regarding Christ, the Trinity, salvation, and many other things. We also believe that many traditions and cultural forms of worship need to be adapted to the contemporary age and culture. For us that means the use of technology such as PowerPoint or video as well as drama, or a contemporary music style. Style and form are the outward dress, clothing the internal reality of a heart devoted to Christ. Good form with a bad heart profits nothing. A good heart with bad cultural forms wins very few. A contemporary expression of the beauty and power of the historic Christian faith is an effective proclamation of Christ’s Lordship to our generation.

Referring to liturgies and style of worship, the Reformer, John Calvin put it this way:

[B]ecause things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, [they] should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation. It will be proper, as the interest of the church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or edify: if we allow her to be our guide, all things will be safe (Institutes of the Christian Religion IV, x, 30).

Becoming a contemporary expression of the historic Christian faith is more important than you may think. Books like the best-selling The DaVinci Code, published a few years back, prey upon this generation’s profound ignorance of the genuine traditions and beliefs of our faith. They try to replace orthodox Christianity with another historic faith and thus another Jesus. Paul warned us about accepting the teachings of another Jesus and another gospel (II Corinthians 11:3-4, Galatians 1:8-9).

As we rely on God’s Spirit and Word, we will experience his truth and presence. Jesus has promised that the Holy Spirit will guide His church into all truth, and we will be united with fellow believers in our own and other ages, showing that we are one as Jesus prayed in John 17. He promised in the beginning that His people would enjoy His presence to the very end of the age (Matt. 28:21). Let us celebrate what He has done in previous times, and let us rejoice in a present work of grace today. “Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, Today if you hear His voice do not harden hearts” (Heb. 3:7-8). In so doing we will truly be a contemporary expression of the historic Christian faith. Now there’s a mission we can get excited about.

Secure Enough to Serve

2010-04-14T14:04:00.004-04:00

Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him (John 13:3-5).

A professional mediator once told his class that many workplace disputes escalate into lawsuits simply because the plaintiff felt dishonored or their point of view ignored – i.e. they’d been “dissed”. Showing sincere regard for a person, giving them a chance to express their grievances, and hearing their story, often defuses explosive workplace relations. According to him, respect for the aggrieved parties is at the heart of resolving conflict.

Since we are made in the image of God, most of us have an innate sense of honor, however distorted by our fallen nature. We are offended, perhaps even righteously indignant, in the face of disrespectful behavior toward ourselves or others. The flip side of this – and the unhealthy side --is that we are very concerned about how others perceive us. Teenagers want to be perceived as cool by their peers. Adults want to be well thought of, or respected. In fact, one study of workplace attitudes stated that visible recognition for one’s contribution to the company was a critically important reward for many workers.

It is true now, as it was in Jesus’ day, that menial tasks are not particularly attractive to most of us. This is not because they are difficult, but because they don’t confer any special honor or status. No one really remembers who set the table or washed the dishes at a meal. Usually we only remember if the food was good or not. This makes Jesus’ actions in the above passage striking indeed. He had nothing to gain from serving his disciples in this menial way. And yet, through his example and his teaching, he shows that the most dignified position a disciple can hold is that of a servant.

It is significant that Jesus understood that “the Father had put all things under his power.” He knew who he was and was secure in that. He was confident of his own dignity. Menial service did not diminish his self-esteem. In fact it was Jesus’ sense of dignity that made it easy, even natural, to take up the servant’s towel. Today, many people, influenced by fear of feeding gender or ethnic stereotypes, or having a need to project an image of importance, refuse to be seen in a servant’s role. This is really a shame. While we do not seek to force others to serve us, and we do not allow ourselves to be enslaved – we lose immeasurably when we refuse to serve others because of our own insecurities. This is, in fact, a sign of weakness rather than strength.

Another sign of insecurity is the inability to receive service from others. Do you find it difficult to just sit back and let someone serve you? (Don’t take this too far!) Does it make you jumpy, like I just can’t receive this? Maybe this is the same problem with a different face – pride. It’s interesting that further on in this passage, Peter refuses Jesus’ service, possibly out of insecurity or embarrassment for his Master. In a strange way, pride and insecurity are related. Pride says I am better than others. Insecurity says I need to look better than I am. How refreshing when we meet someone who is just comfortable with who they are. I think Jesus was this way. We can overcome the infirmities of pride and insecurity in our lives by imitating Jesus’ joyful and willing acts of service.

Then there is the issue of the counterfeit of service – slavery. Author Gary Chapman in his book, Five Signs of a Functional Family says “Slavery is at the heart of dysfunctional families. When people serve others because they are forced to do so, freedom to truly serve is lost. Slavery creates anger, bitterness, and resentment. An attitude of service renders service that is freely given, not out of fear but out of choice. It comes out of the personal discovery that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive.’ In the early stages of development, acts of service must be required. But the goal is that the child will quickly find personal satisfaction in serving others.”

There is a security and satisfaction that comes in serving others in an unsung way. By imitating Christ we experience his joy and sense of security as we serve others. Actually, we become great. “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:26).

A church community like this one offers many opportunities to serve others, often in the most unseen ways. Some have a spiritual gift of service, it is your primary motivation. Regardless if service is your primary gift, we are all called to serve. Keep your eyes open for opportunities to serve someone else’s interests and not just your own. You will be amazed at the joy that it will bring you.

The Public Reading of Scripture

2009-05-12T12:03:00.014-04:00

(First Publshed in the Graceline Newsletter of Staunton Grace Covenant Church)

Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching (I Tim. 4:13 NIV).

In many hi-tech church services today, clips from popular movies are used to get the congregation’s attention and point to spiritual lessons. In an effort to win a hearing with unbelievers contemporary art is used as a “hook” and many times more than a hook. Film clips and other art forms sometimes become the basis of a pastor’s message. I have seen film excerpts used very effectively, and on occasion I have used a film clip or the words of a popular song to make a point. While this is sometimes valid, I’m afraid that by neglecting the centrality of Scripture the real meat of a church service is omitted. One thing is clear, throughout its history the church has made the public reading of Scripture a central pillar of its worship services. The fact that this strikes some as novel, too formal, or even boring, demonstrates how far the contemporary church has strayed from historic and Biblical practice.

Some groups are thoughtlessly drifting toward making a message from contemporary art the actual focus of their worship services. While this may be entertaining, it cannot be a good thing in the final analysis. A couple of years ago on a trip to Croatia, I bought a nice imitation silk rug. Nice and cheap, that is. If you’ve ever seen a genuine hand-crafted oriental silk rug, you know they are beautiful, durable, and exquisitely made, not to mention expensive. The genuine article just grows more attractive with age. The imitation in my office grows more ragged and wrinkled with age. I’m afraid those churches and pastors who are depending on Stephen Speilburg and Tom Cruise for their primary message are going to find their investment in people’s lives devalued in the end. We can go for something cheaper and more entertaining, but those who cherish the Scriptures will see their value increase continually over time. It’s like a sign hanging in a local jewelry shop, “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.”

C. S. Lewis, writing about the fourth century bishop Athanasius and the lasting value of sound teaching, put it this way,

He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine ‘whole and undefiled,’ when it looked like all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius – into one of those ‘sensible’ synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away. (C.S. Lewis, Introduction to St. Athanasius the Incarnation, MacMillan, 1946, xvii-xviii).

Scripture is the very voice of God speaking to the church. Public reading of Scripture has as much or more validity in the church’s historic practice than any other form of public worship. Singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, inspired utterance, testimony, fervent prayer, and sermons are to accompany the simple reading of Scripture, not replace it. As stated in the book of Hebrews, The word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Heb. 4:12). God’s word written is the primary means by which the Holy Spirit speaks to our souls today. That’s why we should make the reading of the Bible a personal habit, a family practice, and a corporate discipline. When an elder, the pastor, or a member of the congregation reads from the Bible in a service, we should be especially attentive for the voice of God to each of us. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path (Ps. 119:105 KJV).

We are fortunate to have many good Bible translations today. Some translations, known as paraphrases, may help us to understand the message of Scripture. Among these are The Living Bible, and The Message. While these may be helpful to us, they should not be our primary source for Bible reading. I recommend the New International Version (not the new Revised NIV which bends the gender of Biblical language), The English Standard Version, the New American Standard, or New King James as your best sources for regular Bible reading.

The apostle Peter put it this way, And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts (II Peter 1:19).

Affinity Fraud

2009-04-07T14:20:00.005-04:00

(This is an abbreviated version of an article published on January 6, 2009)

Wall Street maven Bernard Madoff’s 50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme, the largest in history (excluding the social security system), has generated a spate of sensational headlines. “Scope of Alleged Fraud Still Being Assessed,” “Madoff Ran Vast Options Game,” “Spielburg and Katzenburg Get Hit,” “Impact on Jewish Charities is Catastraphic.”

A Ponzi scheme, named for Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant who established a scheme involving thousands of investors and millions of dollars which collapsed in 1920, is a deceptive investment scam which promises exceptional returns on the dollar. The only problem is it is not earned dividends or capital gains which fuel the return but other investors’ principal. The scheme only works as long as new investors can be persuaded (conned) into buying or re-investing into the plan. Eventually the great pyramid must collapse.

One of the more famous recent schemes entangled leading members of the new government of Albania in the 1990’s. Fueled by an unrealistic view of the potential of the free enterprise system thousands of Albanians were caught up in the hysteria. The scheme involved hundreds of millions of dollars. It collapsed in 1997 provoking serious social unrest in Albania costing up to 2,000 lives by some reports.

One headline in this recent scam that especially caught my attention was an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Madoff Exploited the Jews” by Ronald Cass, dean emeritus of Boston University School of Law(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122956340954216799.html).

Dean Cass describes the phenomenon known as affinity fraud – the tendency for groups defined by religious, ethnic, social, or ideological affinity to become targets of insider confidence games. In the Madoff case it was both the social affinity of membership in the same posh country club as well as the religious/ethnic tie of being Jewish, hence the large number of well-known Jewish contributors and Jewish charities affected by the scam. “The sense of common heritage, of community, also makes it less seemly to ask hard questions. Pressing a fellow parishioner or club member for hard information is like demanding receipts from your aunt -- it just doesn't feel right. Hucksters know that, they play on it, and they count on our trust to make their confidence games work.”

According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission:

Affinity fraud refers to investment scams that prey upon members of identifiable groups, such as religious or ethnic communities, the elderly, or professional groups. The fraudsters who promote affinity scams frequently are - or pretend to be - members of the group. They often enlist respected community or religious leaders from within the group to spread the word about the scheme, by convincing those people that a fraudulent investment is legitimate and worthwhile. Many times, those leaders become unwitting victims of the fraudster's ruse.

These scams exploit the trust and friendship that exist in groups of people who have something in common. Because of the tight-knit structure of many groups, it can be difficult for regulators or law enforcement officials to detect an affinity scam. Victims often fail to notify authorities or pursue their legal remedies, and instead try to work things out within the group. This is particularly true where the fraudsters have used respected community or religious leaders to convince others to join the investment. (See more at http://sec.gov/investor/pubs/affinity.htm )

Affinity fraud is actually rather common. Some recent major frauds include that of Greater Ministries International. 18,000 investors, mostly believers, lost $448 million dollars in a scheme which collapsed in 1998. In 1995 the New Era scam bilked 1,100 investors and 180 evangelical organizations out of $135 million. Affinity fraud crosses all ideological and ethnic lines. The Wall Street Journal recently reported a $100 million Ponzi scheme which entangled members of B’nai Israel Congregation in Norfolk, VA through a trusted member of the community. Similar frauds are reported by the SEC involving African, Armenian, and Korean Americans.

All in all, I think Solomon had it right, A faithful man will abound with blessings, but whoever hastens to be rich will not go unpunished (Proverbs 28:20). Essentially he is saying to avoid get rich quick schemes. That’s why I find that the confusing entanglements such schemes tend to create are better left at the sanctuary door.

Freedom of Speech Not Restricted to Secularists

2008-10-16T16:23:00.007-04:00

This election cycle has brought its share of religion-based squabbling, charge, and counter-charge. Religious speech has always played a role in the public debates of American society. This includes the sometimes volatile political theater of election campaigns and presidential politics.

In the first twelve Presidential inaugural addresses, religious or biblical themes are mentioned over eighteen times. I got tired of counting after the first twelve but the practice continues throughout the subsequent inaugural speeches. Sometimes passages of scripture are cited, or there are lengthy pleas for God’s favor on the nation.

Lincoln’s second inaugural, one of the most significant in our history, contains an extended theological reflection on the causes and meaning of the civil war. It makes the bold – even startling -- assertion that the practice of slavery brought the judgment of God upon the nation. “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondmen’s 250 years of unrequited toil be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether’.”

That address is chiseled in stone on one wall of the Lincoln Memorial. Neither the speech, nor its inclusion in a national monument would have passed muster with the ACLU if they’d have had a say. I sometimes wonder when this watchdog of liberty is going to launch a court case to have the monument, or at least the wall containing the address, demolished.

When John Kennedy’s fitness for office was questioned because of his Roman Catholic faith during the 1960 presidential campaign, he gave a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He needed to make the case that his religious affiliation would not dictate his policy decisions. There was particular concern that his allegiance to the bishop of Rome and the Catholic hierarchy would trump his allegiance to the constitution. The speech advocated a strict separation of church and state. It came just short of requiring public servants to check their faith-convictions at the door in order to hold public office. I disagree with many of the assertions in Kennedy’s speech, but the fact is his willingness to address questions pertaining to his personal faith was a turning point in his campaign, and relieved the misgivings of many Protestants toward voting for him.

Martin Luther King, Jr., in the heat of the intense struggle for civil rights wrote a letter from his jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama. Along with his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, it is one of the most significant documents of the movement. In the letter he states the moral basis for his refusal to obey Jim Crow laws. It’s addressed to a group of ministers in Birmingham who opposed his protests. The heart of his argument is taken from natural law theory, “I would agree with Saint Augustine that ’An unjust law is no law at all’ . . . An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.”

In the most significant public policy struggle of the 20th century, King recognized and drew from a heritage rooted deeply in the theological traditions of the Christian Church.

Thomas Jefferson with support from James Madison crafted the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in 1786. It is the forerunner of the free exercise and non-establishment clauses of the First Amendment. In the Virginia statute, these eminent founders rejected the idea of a state-church supported by tax revenues, or state-mandated church attendance. The statute clearly rejects the idea of depriving persons of the right to hold public office because of their religious opinion as a matter of state policy. I find it difficult to believe their intent was to apply a gag order to public political discussion or to restrict the right of voters to support members of their own faith communities based on common values and worldview.

What they advocated in place of an established church was a veritable free-marketplace of spiritual discourse whereby “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.” It appears, at least to this legal layman, that the intent of the statute is to promote religious discourse not restrict it, and by the means of free, open, and un-coerced religious discussion to maintain a vibrant faith life for the commonwealth, and later, the country.

Fast forward to today. We often find that the public discourse and campaign speeches of politicians are laced with biblical, faith-based, or spiritual references, and draw on various aspects of these traditions. Many times the debate is discordant and religious discourse is used unwisely or even destructively. But it is without question a part of our heritage, both noble and ignoble. A true understanding of the first amendment should have it no other way.

That is why I am very surprised to read a first amendment scholar such as Charles Haynes calling candidates to “dial back the God talk” in a recent column (“Using Religion to Win Votes Subverts Constitution” Sept. 29, 2008, firstamendmentcenter.org ). The premise seems to be that we should restrict free speech in order to protect the non-establishment clause. Surely the first amendment freedoms compete at times, but chiding candidates for reaching out to religiously motivated voters misses the mark. This assertion runs counter to our popular political traditions and seems to contradict first amendment principles.

No doubt, this freedom can be, and is, abused. There is no question we need to return a civil tone to public debate in our country. And no doubt, exposing falsehoods, and refuting slanderous and false accusations about one’s faith are critical to the proper use of this freedom. But enlarging, not restricting free speech, including religious speech in the public square, is in the true sprit of the constitution.

What is Sharia and Why Does It Matter?

2008-10-10T16:35:00.009-04:00

Back in February of this year (2008), Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, stirred great controversy through an interview on BBC. He stated that in view of England’s growing Muslim population it would become necessary to accept some principles of Islamic sharia* law into the British system of jurisprudence. The statement provoked strong criticism throughout Britain.

But criticism was by no means universal. Harvard Law Professor and Islamic scholar Noah Feldman wrote a lengthy defense of sharia’s place in the modern world which was published in The New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin ). He asks, “How is it that what so many Westerners see as the most unappealing and pre-modern aspect of Islam is, to many Muslims, the vibrant, attractive core of a global movement of Islamic revival?“

Professor Wael B. Hallaq of McGill University in Montreal states in The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005), “One of the fundamental features of the so-called modern Islamic resurgence is the call to restore the sharia, the religious law of Islam. During the past two and a half decades, this call has grown ever more forceful, generating religious movements, a vast amount of literature, and affecting world politics.”

To complicate the discussion it was revealed by The Sunday Times of London (http://143.252.148.161/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece ) that as of September alternative sharia courts have been established in five locations in England with more on the way. The courts are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal under the Arbitration Act of 1996. They are considered a form of alternative dispute resolution. The courts issue rulings on matters ranging from domestic violence to divorce, inheritance rights, and nuisance suits against neighbors. According to The Times these courts have the full backing of British civil courts and are enforced by the British legal system. This, only six months after Archbishop Williams first broached the subject to great public opposition.

Muslim-born Anglican priest Patrick Sookdheo’s response to Williams’s original proposal is instructive, “The process of setting up a system of sharia courts recognized by the state and its civil law will help those Muslims in Britain who appear to be working to develop a network of loosely-knit Islamic autonomous regions, a de facto non-territorial Islamic state.”

So the question is: What is sharia and why does it matter? I think this is the single greatest cultural question confronting western democracies as we enter the first half of the 21st century.

Sharia, or the sacred law, is the legal tradition of Islamic culture and societies. It embodies the guiding principles for the legal systems embraced by Islamic republics. It has a long history of development and carefully established traditions. The keeping of sharia is a central feature of the Islamic faith, which is a system with both religious and political traditions at its core. The sources of sharia are the Quran, the sunnah and hadith (traditions and sayings of Mohammed and his companions), ijma (established consensus of Islamic legal scholars), and qiyas (argument through analogy in matters not already addressed by the established legal tradition). In short, sharia is the guiding principle of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). And fiqh is to Islamic societies what the common law and case law are to the British and American systems of jurisprudence.

This provokes another question: Are the two traditions compatible? Can one system be assimilated into the other, or are they two mutually exclusive competing systems which cannot occupy the same space at the same time? This is a question western societies must examine and answer sooner rather than later. Here’s why.

In his book Who Speaks for Islam? John L. Esposito, director of the Georgetown University Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding asserts that a majority of Muslims worldwide desire to see sharia as a source of law, and in some cases as the source of law for Muslims. This is one of the clearest implications of his research in which he used data from the Gallup World Poll of Muslims along with co-author Dalia Mogahed.

As Harvard Law Professor Feldman stated above, for Muslims, sharia is clearly “the vibrant, attractive core of a global movement of Islamic revival.” Both Esposito and Feldman indicate that popular impressions of sharia are a caricatures of a noble tradition.

It is on precisely this point that the water becomes muddied. Non-Muslims tend to portray the call to establish sharia as an extremist or radical position. But it appears that mainstream Muslims in places like Britain want to establish sharia as a source of law. If this is in fact so, is this really a moderate position? I don’t think so. Yet it appears to be a majority position within the community of practicing Muslims worldwide.

Excluding caricatures, no matter how noble some aspects of the tradition of sharia may have been in Islamic societies in antiquity, is this a tradition whose influence should be fostered and accepted uncritically in the name of tolerance? Or do we insist that the establishment of a parallel system of jurisprudence endorsed by the state is at odds with the principles of our constitution? It appears that Great Britain is unwilling to say so. This question is quickly becoming critically important.

*The word sharia, like many words transliterated into Latin letters from another alphabet (in this case Arabic) does not have a precise spelling in English. It is sometimes spelled shari’a, shari’ah, or shariah. I have standardized the spelling as sharia even in quoted passages.

Will the Real Anglicans Please Stand Up?

2008-07-26T12:13:00.011-04:00

Who speaks for historic Anglicanism?

As a child I used to watch the television game show called “To Tell the Truth.” Three individuals would appear before a panel claiming to have had an unusual experience or to be a member of some profession or trade. They would answer the panel’s questions about their work or other relevant matters. In the end the panel would try to guess which of the three was the real astronaut or holder of the record for deep-sea diving. At the moment of truth the real candidate would reveal his or her identity by standing while the other two remained seated.

The Worldwide Anglican Communion is engaged in such a contest just now. The recent ceremony joining two male priests in the diocese of London featured language directly reflecting the marriage rite of the Church of England as reported in The Telegraph in June. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury responded in a joint statement with Archbishop of York John Sentamu, “Those clergy who disagree with the Church's teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it." As one observer wrote of this tepid response, this sends the message, ”Keep trying, we’ll eventually change our minds.”

In the face of deep divisions facing the Communion many are asking, ”Who are the true Anglicans?” Is it those who support ongoing dialogue in the face of deep disagreement? This stance is a hallmark of the Anglican Church historically. Or are the true Anglicans those who say the time for dialogue is past, faithfulness to Christ and the Biblical revelation requires action not words. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams presiding at this decade’s Lambeth conference states that the Worldwide Anglican Communion is facing one of the most “severe challenges … in its history.” The kettle of controversy ignited earlier this decade continues to boil over.

The catalyst for Archbishop Williams’ statement is the effort by African and Asian bishops to call the church back to biblical and evangelical roots. The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) met in Jerusalem from June 22-29. They issued a statement of historic significance. The GAFCON statement expresses three distinct concerns about the Worldwide Anglican Communion, and comes to some startling conclusions. As a student of church history, I would say the significance of this document cannot be overstated.

The three concerns of the statement are: 1) “the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ which is contrary to the apostolic gospel;” 2) the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are “out of communion with the bishops and churches that promote this false gospel,” resulting in a realignment of parishes in Western churches with other provinces of the global Anglican Church; and 3) “the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Communion of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle,” with impunity.

The document acknowledges the historic significance of the see of Canterbury but denies that recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury is necessary for Anglican identity. In light of the inaction of the Anglican Communion leadership in failing to address the concerns expressed by the bishops of the Global South they write: “We can only come to the devastating conclusion that ‘we are a global communion with a colonial structure.’”

The GAFCON statement can be viewed at:
http://www.gafcon.org/

Archbishop Williams, responded in part by saying, “By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?“ He also urges the bishops to keep waiting. The bishops of the Global South seem to be asking, Waiting for what, the universal apostasy of the Communion?

You can view his entire response at:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org:80/

Here in the U.S. the division within Anglicanism is highlighted by the schism between conservative evangelicals who are seceding from The Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC) and the liberal wing of the church. The lightning rod for the division is two-fold: first, the 2003 ordination of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson of the diocese of New Hampshire supported by the liberal wing, and secondly, the removal of many parishes, and at least one diocese from communion with TEC. The point of conflict is lawsuits over property rights filed against the seceding parishes, including 11 here in Virginia.

For now, at least, Virginia courts are deciding in favor of the conservative groups who have affiliated with the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). A recent decision of the Fairfax County Circuit Court upheld the right of the parishes to split from the TEC based on an 1867 Virginia law designed to accommodate church property disputes in the post-civil war era.

Predictably, the two groups have responded very differently.

Statements on the websites of the ADV and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia make an identical claim from differing perspectives. In their own mind at least, each is carrying the banner of the “true Episcopal Church.” These claims are summed up in two succinct statements from each group:

The ADV site states “While we disagree with their (TEC’s) decision to walk apart from the worldwide Anglican Communion, we acknowledge their right to do so. We would hope that they would acknowledge our right to remain faithful to the tenets of faith that have given comfort to our forbearers who built the churches TEC and the Diocese are now trying so hard to take.”

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia site says that “The Diocese remains steadfast in its commitment to current and future generations of loyal Episcopalians and will continue to pursue every legal option available to ensure that they will be able to worship in the churches their Episcopal ancestors built.”

Well put, but claims to represent ancestors are hard to prove. There is a subtle but important difference between remaining true to inherited faith-tenets and remaining ensconced on property in the name of the “Old Guard.” Is the diocese of Virginia prepared to say that true Episcopalians are those who carry a particular bloodline as opposed to fealty to a particular doctrine?

The question of fidelity to the historic faith is central to communions which rely on apostolic succession for validity such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Anglican Church. They see themselves as stewards of a trust passed down from previous generations by the apostolic authority of the bishops of the church. It was a dispute over the nature of episcopal authority that caused Sir Thomas More to lose his head (literally) when defending the doctrine of the primacy of the bishop of Rome during the Protestant Reformation in England in 1535, depicted so well in the 1966 movie “A Man for All Seasons.”

The purpose of the doctrine of apostolic succession in the patristic (early post-apostolic) church was two-fold: to preserve doctrinal purity and ecclesiastical unity. At least in theory, the Anglican communion opted to make doctrinal purity primary when these two purposes came into conflict during the Reformation in 1535. Charitably, let us say, the Anglican church severed unity with the Roman church in order to preserve apostolic truth rather than the more crass motive of political independence from the intrusive authority of the Roman bishop and his representatives known as legates. Otherwise, the entire house of cards collapses since neither ecclesiastical unity nor doctrinal purity would have been at issue.

Those who feel conscience-bound to remain in the tradition of succession, do well to commit themselves to the primary purpose of succession – the doctrinal purity of the church.

Will the real Anglican Communion in the United States please stand up? As an observer with no personal claim or association with either party, I cast my vote unwaveringly for the ADV, CANA,GAFCON and their commitment to the historic doctrines of their faith. Let’s hope the courts continue to do so as well.

Jimmy Carter's Shrinking Legacy

2008-05-16T15:32:00.025-04:00

In early 1976 I participated in the mass meeting of the Democratic Party in the Mt. Vernon precinct of Northern Virginia. I voted for a little known candidate from the South named Jimmy Carter. After he won his party's nomination I voted for him again in the November election. At the age of 23 I served as an election official at the polls that year as a Democratic; any other party affiliation was considered something akin to treason in my home growing up. It was satisfying to work a big election like that one. I was especially attracted to Carter, as were many evangelicals, because he boldly identified himself as a born-again Christian and made a point of emphasizing the role of piety in fulfilling the duties of public life.

For most, Carter was a disappointment as president. He was considered naïve and failed to inspire the confidence even of his own party. In the next election Ted Kennedy launched an unusual challenge to the incumbent president for his party’s nomination. Carter’s approval rating bottomed-out at 21% just prior to the 1980 convention, the lowest ever for any sitting president. (This is still true despite recent statements by AOL claiming the honor for George W. Bush). He won only 35% of the popular vote in the general election that year.

He seemed unskilled in his handling of SALT II talks (scrapping rather than building on previous negotiations), the energy crisis (after declaring an energy war he prescribed driving 55 and wearing long-johns, only resulting in gas lines -- again), inflation (double-digits), the self-punishing 1980 Moscow Olympics boycott and Russian grain embargo, and the infamous “malaise” speech which shifted blame for these problems onto a demoralized society. And this is the short list.

Developments in Iran were especially misread. In Teheran in December, 1977, he offered a toast praising the despised Shah resulting in riots. The intelligence on the emerging Islamic Revolution was either non-existent or badly managed. The later ill-fated decision to allow the deposed Shah to enter the U.S. from his exile for medical treatments resulted in the U.S. embassy hostage crisis, and Carter’s passive “Rose Garden” strategy for solving that crisis caused many to question his competence. These missteps affect us to this day.

He did achieve a dramatic breakthrough agreement with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Menachem Begin at Camp David in 1978. Sadat subsequently lost his life to Islamic radicals who considered his actions traitorous.

Evangelicals were especially disappointed with his support of the Equal Rights Amendment and the 1978 White House Conference on Families. Though Carter denied it, many felt that the ERA would sound the death-knell to efforts to restrict abortion practices in this country. Many evangelicals saw the conference on families as an effort to re-define the family in terms of nearly any group-living arrangement under the same roof. Both are issues that continue to concern social conservatives today. Many evangelicals, not previously party-conscious, fled Carter’s party to embrace the Reagan candidacy in 1980. Most never looked back.

In a telling excerpt from his presidential memoirs Keeping Faith, he reports on a 1978 cabinet level conversation about allowing the deposed Shah of Iran into the country: “[Secretary of State] Cy [Vance] made it clear that he was prepared to admit the Shah for medical reasons. I [Carter] was now the lone holdout. I asked my advisors what course they would recommend to me if the Americans in Iran were seized or killed.”

Jimmy Carter knew that allowing the Shah into the U.S. would expose American personnel to danger and told his advisors so. He proceeded with it anyway. In the eyes of Iranians and the wider Islamic world the resulting hostage crisis and humiliation of the United States government validated the new Khomeini government – a triumph for the Islamic Revolution.

The work of the Carter Center in Atlanta with international election commissions, his efforts with Habitat for Humanity, along with his many publications since leaving the presidency make him one of our more successful ex-presidents. In 2002 he won the Nobel Peace Prize for international efforts to resolve conflict, promote human rights, and improve living standards in the two-thirds world. But even these achievements deserve closer scrutiny. Financial and political shenanigans connected to his endeavors bring the ex-president’s judgment and even his integrity into question.

Carter has been showing up in some interesting places since his loss in that 1980 election. His financial connections with principals of the Pakistani-based Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and their involvement with the politics of the Muslim world have never been adequately explored by the mainstream press. The bank had close connections with Carter confidant and chief lender Bert Lance’s National Bank of Georgia. After the worst international banking scandal in history, BCCI was shut down in 1991, but not before marring legendary presidential advisor Clark Clifford’s otherwise stellar career. Carter, who reportedly accepted millions from the bank’s co-founder for various projects, managed to walk away unscathed and was awarded the Nobel Prize for the work of the Carter Center a decade later.

Reports in two books The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI (1993) by then Time magazine reporters Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynn and False Profits (1992) by then Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Truell and reporter Larry Gurwin reveal a very troubling relationship with the bank’s founder Agha Hasan Abedi.

According to False Profits:

In the spring of 1987, Abedi took Carter and his wife on a world tour, with stops in London, Hong Kong, Tibet, Peking, and Moscow. It was ‘almost a social trip,’ with big dinners scheduled at every stop, said Bill Kovach, a former editor of the Atlanta Constitution, who went on part of the trip. He later told a reporter that Carter and Abedi were not only friends but that the former president talked about the Pakistani Banker ‘almost like a religious figure.’

I include the last line simply to show that the former president’s ability to make character judgments seems fatally flawed, as indicated by the following observations. While Abedi drew deep draughts of prestige from Carter’s friendship and presence on numerous excursions into the Third World, Carter’s philanthropic projects benefited from millions in BCCI’s largesse. In The Outlaw Bank the authors state,

Though the sums he received were huge by any standard of measure, Carter claims to have had no idea either that he was being exploited by Abedi, or that his benefactor was deeply corrupt. Still Carter went ahead and took at least 1.5 million from BCCI after the bank was indicted and convicted in Florida. Later, as press criticisms mounted, his foundations stopped taking money from BCCI and began to get similar contributions from Sheikh Zayed, who by then controlled BCCI . . . Carter’s judgment was similarly flawed when his foundations accepted more than $11 million from a Japanese gambling magnate named Ryoichi Sasakawa, who had once spent three years in jail awaiting trial as a war criminal and was later convicted in a vote buying scheme. Carter denies he personally profited in any way from such transactions.

Most troubling to me is that the mainstream press is aware of these relationships but generally gives him a pass on all of it.

In 1995 former Carter undersecretary of state Richard Holbrooke, chief U.S. negotiator in Bosnia, had to force his ex-boss out of the process according to Holbrooke’s memoir To End A War (1998). Carter’s intrusive efforts and willingness to appease Bosnian Serb war criminal Radovan Karadzic threatened the progress of the negotiations. Thanks to Holbrooke’s efforts under the Clinton administration the region is making progress toward recovery as a result of the Dayton Accords. But again the episode reveals Jimmy Carter’s lack of judgment in his dealings with criminal figures.

Carter or his surrogates make several appearances in To End A War. This one is telling:

In an effort to head off a resumption of the bombing Radovan Karadzic had reached out again to Carter . . . It was a difficult situation for Strobe [Talbott], one of the most polite people in Washington, and always respectful of the former president, whose administration he had covered as a journalist. But, determined to protect the negotiations he told Carter that the Karadzic channel had to be shut down at least until our efforts were given a fair test. The Administration, Strobe told Carter, would not accept any offer from Karadzic, no matter what it was. Carter was not happy, a CNN camera crew was already standing by outside his office, and he had hoped to announce that he had reached an agreement with Karadzic. After several difficult talks with Strobe, he agreed to hold off.

As stated above, the great achievement of Carter’s presidency was the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. Recent activities seem to place even that legacy under a cloud. His call for continued U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority despite the victory of the militant Hamas party in the 2006 parliamentary election again caused many to question his judgment. The publication of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid brought charges of anti-Semitism. According to press reports, a long-time center director and 14 members of the 200 person advisory board resigned from the Carter Center.

Carter’s latest quixotic episode involves his self-appointment as negotiator with the terrorist-led government of the Hamas party. At least The Washington Post in an April 17 editorial has recognized the nature of Carter’s efforts at appeasement.

Mr. Carter justifies his meetings with familiar arguments about the value of dialogue with enemies . . .But it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder, or the extinction of another state. That is what Mr. Carter is doing by lending what is left of his prestige to an avowed terrorist such as Khaled Meshal – or Mahmoud al-Zahar.

The ex-president seems to have an affinity for such actors on the world stage.

So, why should I be concerned with these developments on a blog called The Pastor’s Desk? Quite simply, Jimmy Carter also styles himself as a representative of evangelical Christianity and liberally (pardon the pun) mixes his religion with politics – or vise versa. According to Christianity Today (April 2008) Carter is a leader of the New Baptist Covenant. Their January meeting attracted 15,000 participants and its leadership met at the Carter Center. He, along with Democratic Party operative Jim Wallis (see his interview in CT, dated May 2008) among others are the new breed of highly visible politically liberal “evangelicals.” Expect to see them more and more in the coming months.

One of Carter’s recent books is a New York Times best-seller entitled Our Endangered Values (2006). A central premise of the book is found in the Introduction: Increasing influence of fundamentalists in American religion and government has resulted in profound departures from traditional American values. The former president raises some valid concerns about U.S. policy in the post 9/11 world, but the tone and premise of this book are troubling.

In Our Endangered Values Jimmy Carter’s attempt to lump politically conservative evangelicals with Islamic fundamentalists has popular appeal but is misguided. Also troubling are his repeated accusations of demagoguery against evangelicals who hold different policy views from himself; views which are, like his, often inspired by religious faith. Carter’s repeated use of the “d” word in the book is itself an exercise in demagoguery.

As I wrote nearly a year and a half ago (a local editor twice rejected my op-ed review of Carter and Our Endangered Values), “It’s hard to say where all this might go in the long-run, but in the immediate future I expect to see more of the same. In the next election cycle I think we’ll see a number of candidates scape-goating religious conservatives out of one side of the mouth, while giving us a lot of God and values talk out of the other. It gets votes.”

By the way, I did learn one thing from that 1976 election: a mere profession of faith is never sufficient reason to support anyone with your vote.

Under the Radar

2008-02-28T12:01:00.012-05:00

In the midst of the election excitement here in the U.S, two events of great import are passing under the radar for most Americans. On the cultural level I think they carry as much significance as the election outcomes themselves.

The first is the exchange of open letters between 138 Muslim clerics and mostly western Christian leaders. The international group associated with the Royal Aal-Bayt Institue for Islamic Thought in Jordan published the document “A Common Word Between Us and You” in October 2007. In the document, they state that “The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians. The basis for this peace already exists. It is part of the foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbor.”

In November a response was spearheaded by the Yale Center for Faith and Culture entitled “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between Us and You.”

Among the authors of the document are Harold Attridge, dean of the Yale Divinity School, and Miroslav Volf, founder and director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture. Miroslav is a native of Croatia. I first met him in 1992. He has served for years as a visiting professor on the faculty of the Evandjeoski Teoloshki Fakultet (Evangelical Theological Seminary) in Croatia where I served as dean for several years in the mid-90’s, and continue as a lecturer annually. His books Exclusion and Embrace and The End of Memory have gained international acclaim.

The Yale document has garnered the support of many well-known evangelical and traditional church leaders, including some of my colleagues from the seminary in Croatia. The hope is that the effort will produce the fruit of peaceful dialogue and increased understanding between the Christian and Muslim worlds. To be frank, I am more than guarded in my optimism.

The Yale document has generated not only support, but strong criticism as well. One of the more insightful responses comes from the Barnabas Fund which is led by Anglican priest, Canon Patrick Sookhdeo, a converted Muslim who understands the issues at hand better than most. A very brief summary of the objections are as follows:

1) The Yale document fails to recognize that “A Common Word” appears to be in the da-wa tradition of Islam. That is, a call to conversion to Islam. 2) The eagerness to respond has blinded the authors to the negative implications of the Muslim letter. 3) The apologetic tone of the response plays into the historic Muslim insistence on a dominate-subordinate relation between Islam and other religions. In essence, the response is an appeasement. 4) The many signatories in support of the Yale statement signed it without an adequate understanding of Islam’s approach to other religions. 5) The Yale statement surrenders theological ground regarding the deity of Christ in light of the Muslim insistence that God is one and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, which is quoted in the Muslim letter. 6) While the role of Muhammad and the Muslim understanding of the unity of God are recognized there is no reciprocal statement confirming the Christian view of Christ and the Gospel. 7) The Yale authors take responsibility and apologize for both the Crusades and the “excesses of the war on terror,” thus reinforcing Muslim belief in collective guilt (and thus the justice of collective retribution), and that the war on terror is an extension of the Crusades pitting Christendom against Islam. 8) Muslims have welcomed the apology and published the admission of guilt by Christians without conceding any historical wrongdoing on the part of Muslims, moderate, radical or otherwise, including the persecution of believers and suppression of religious freedom within Muslim dominant countries.

The Barnabas Fund analysis recognizes the value of dialogue, but they see the Yale Statement as “giving everything away without receiving anything in return,” i.e. it is an act of appeasement. There can be no dialogue where the human rights of Christians in predominately Muslim countries are not given equal hearing with Muslim concerns

I think these criticisms are valid, and reveal a serious flaw in the approach of the Yale Center. The question is, is this a kind of cultural Munich Declaration (“Peace in our time”) or the opening of a genuine dialogue? Only time will tell. Meanwhile Miroslav Volf has posted a letter on the Yale site acknowledging similar criticisms and committing to deal with them honestly. My concern in all of this is that the project’s detractors will be written off as intolerant and reactionary. As stated in the Barnabas Fund analysis, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical or even alarmed.

You can view both original documents, the Barnabas Fund analysis, and Miroslav Volf’s letter on the following links:

http://www.acommonword.com/
http://www.yale.edu/faith/
http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/

The second event is Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ statement of February 7 on BBC that some accommodation to Muslim shari’a law is inevitable in Britain. While little noticed in the States, the statement generated headlines throughout Britain. The public outcry and some high level calls for his resignation reportedly shocked the Archbishop. So why the strong reaction? Simply put, many Brits feel vulnerable, not only to terrorist threats, but to cultural threats, as well --- a more genteel version of the clash of civilizations.

Again, Canon Sookhdeo’s response to this controversy: “The process of setting up a system of shari’a courts recognized by the state and its civil law will help those Muslims in Britain who appear to be working to develop a network of loosely-knit Islamic autonomous regions, a de facto non-territorial Islamic state.” (More, http://www.barnabasfund.org/ , Barnabas Fund’s Response to the Archbishop of Canterbury).

It is too easy for the intellectually smug to write off such criticisms as alarmist hysteria or Islamophobia. I’m not so sure. I’ve never considered name-calling to be a very impressive argument. Such concerns need to be taken seriously.

Canada also faces conflict over shari’a. In 2005 Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty abruptly announced his intention to end all faith-based arbitration in his province. This was in order to fend off efforts to establish shari’a courts in addition to the existing Catholic and Jewish arbitration relating to family law which had been recognized since 1991. But now there are efforts afoot to introduce shari’a compliant no-interest mortgage instruments such as are currently popular in Britain for Muslim banking clients.

In a book entitled The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, published in 2005 by Cambridge University Press, Professor of Islamic Law, Wael B. Hallaq of McGill University in Montreal writes the following:

“One of the fundamental features of the so-called modern Islamic resurgence is the call to restore the Shari’a, the religious law of Islam. During the past two and a half decades, this call has grown ever more forceful, generating religious movements, a vast amount of literature, and affecting world politics.” He also writes that Muhammad established Islam as “a new religion with a political order at its center” (emphasis mine).

For students of Islam, there is nothing controversial about either of these statements. What amazes me is how few Americans are familiar with these facts, and have never spent an iota of energy considering their implications. I say Americans, not westerners. Europeans are well aware of them by now and as the Rowan Williams controversy shows, are busy wrestling with the implications.

The concerns many are raising about the implications of Islamic law in western society are sincere. These questions are arrived at honestly. They deserve honest answers. They should not be summarily dismissed. Perhaps that is the kind of dialogue some signatories of the Yale statement are hoping for.

As time goes on, the implications of the role of shari’a law will only increase in importance both in Europe and in North America. While most Americans are wasting their time with the American Idol, a seismic shift is taking place directly under their feet. The Yale Center’s call for dialogue is certainly in order, but I’m not sure how many in the west are capable of asking a single intelligent question about the issues. The average American has no idea what the political tenets of Islam are, or how they might be expressed in the public square. Maybe we should start thinking about it.

Welcome to the Pastor's Desk

2008-01-31T16:41:00.000-05:00

Welcome to week one of the Pastor’s Desk blog. For over ten years I’ve been writing a column for the Graceline, the quarterly newsletter of Staunton Grace Covenant Church. Now that we are focusing on our website as our medium of communication, the Pastor’s Desk feature is morphing from a column to a weblog.

So what should you expect from this site?

For one thing, I plan to write more often than quarterly, and my musings will probably cover more turf than the standard Graceline newsletter. In addition to the blog I plan to post previous articles, course notes, and an occasional report, video, or slide show from various ministry engagements around the Shenandoah Valley or from around the world. You will find these reports on this blog or on my website PastorStevePaulus.com

It’s my privilege to communicate with you in this way, and it’s my prayer that we can use this space as a means of spiritual encouragement. On the link to PastorStevePaulus.org there will be a significant archive section including previous Pastor’s Desk articles, notes from courses in Biblical Studies and Church History, and articles on social and cultural issues first published on the op-ed page of the Staunton News Leader, a Gannett paper. I’ve had the privilege of teaching and serving churches and seminaries in Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Romania, and Ukraine. I expect to bring both course content and insights into the state of church and society in post-communist Europe to this page.

I will include a schedule and updates on teaching and ministry activities, trips, and conferences that Jane and I are planning.

I’m also including an interactive feature of the site. I’m not a fan of chat rooms or anonymous reader comments. To be honest, I think they dumb down and crassify the level of public discourse and are thus a real disservice, generally. It will be possible for members of the site to e-mail me directly with opinions, responses, or reactions, but I can’t commit to a response. My time is reserved for my family, friends, and the local congregation here in Staunton. I may select a few e-mails to respond to on occasion. Your best chance of getting a response would mean including your name (first and last). Preference would be given to members of the congregation, and personal friends and acquaintances.

As you can see the site also includes a link to our church webpage StauntonGrace.org. I hope you will visit here often. Better yet, I hope you will find frequent visits to this site and the StaunontGrace.Org website worth your time. In the peace of Christ.