Beau Walker

Who's my neighbor?

2008-07-07T16:16:00.001-07:00

Hello to everyone! It has been a long time since I have posted so if you are still out there, I hope all is well. Things have been particularly busy for me lately for a couple of reasons. First, I took a heavy load of classes for my Religious Studies Degree. Second, I have moved forward with a church plant in St. Joseph, Mo. We meet in the Ice House Theater on Sundays at 11:00AM. With that said, I would like to share with you a bit of the message from this past Sunday.

Living in a ever increasing small world, the question 'Who is my neighbor?' takes on an even more interesting dynamic. In a country like the USA, where we consume far more than most when it comes to energy, natural resources, shopping etc., our local actions truly have global implications. For example, our desire for cheap clothes perpetuate problems such as child labor. Or, suburban sprawling, which is rampant in the US creates a high demand for raw materials such as lumber. All of that is a broad stroke of which I would be glad to discuss at another time. The question still remains however; 'Who is my neighbor?'

Traditionally, neighbor meant a fellow member of one's people. A people is a community of solidarity in which everyone bears responsibility for everyone else. In this community each member is sustained by the whole, and so each member is expected to look on every other member "as himself" as a part of the same whole that gives him the space in which to live his life. Does this mean then that foreigners are not neighbors? This would go against scripture, which insisted upon love for foreigners also, mindful of the fact that Israel itself had live a life of a foreigner in Egypt. Generally speaking, only the "sojourner (a temporary resident)" living among the people was reckoned as a member of the community of solidarity and so as a "neighbor." One rabinnic saying ruled that there was no need to regard heretics or apostates as neighbors. Also the Samaritans, who not long before had defiled the Temple in Jerusalem by "strewing dead mens bones" during the Passover festival itself were not neighbors.

Now that the question has been focused in this way and we have established a reliable foundation to work from, we see that Jesus answers the question with a parable of the man on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho who falls among robbers, is stripped of everything, and then is left lying half dead on the roadside.

This is a perfectly realistic story, because such assaults were a regular occurrence on the Jericho road.

A priest and a levite--experts in the Law and salvation, its their vocation! come along, but pass by without stopping. I don't think there is any reason to suppose these 2 guys were cold-hearted uncaring men. Maybe they were afraid and wanted to get to where they were going. Possibly they just didn't know how they could help the man, especially because he looked like he was beyond help. Have you ever met someone like that? Someone so beaten down by life you didn't know where to begin in helping them?

At this point a Samaritan comes along, presumably a merchant who traveled this road frequently and knew the owner of the nearest Inn; a Samaritan, someone who in other words, didn't belong to Israel's community of solidarity and is not obliged to see the assault victim as a 'neighbor', HIS NEIGHBOR.

How do we reconcile this type of thinking in the church today? So many people in our world feel marginalized, unwelcome and mistreated by the so-called 'Samaritans' sitting in our churches. I believe one way to reconcile this is to realize we are all the man in the ditch. We, all of humanity, are beaten, robbed, plundered and left on the road side. The burden of the question begins to make a pertinent shift at this point. The issue is no longer which other person is a neighbor to me or not. The question is about me. I have to become the neighbor, and when I do, the other person counts for me "as myself." When we learn to walk in the other persons shoes we in turn begin to realize that their shoes aren't so different from ours. We reconcile the question of 'Who is my neighbor?' by acknowledging also that God, who once seemed so distant to humanity, became our neighbor in His Son Christ.

Cheers,

Beau Walker
Make12 Fellowship
11:00AM Ice House Theater

Moving Forward

2008-03-13T17:32:00.000-07:00

It is an interesting time indeed. The quest for the authentic Christian life often leads people down the road of history in hopes of discovering how one ought to live. Like an onion, they begin to peel away the many layers of religiosity and Christendom, only to look into their hands and find they are empty. In light of this, I cannot help but visualize what the church Christ came for is intended to look like. Aware of 20 centuries of missions history, the growth of the first century church continues to be an enigma to me. In the early church period, people were committed to the cause of Christ at the risk of martyrdom, using all avenues available to see the Gospel of Christ advance. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy were central to early missions. Samuel Escobar comments on the early church "Conversion to Christ brought a Christian experience that included belief in the gospel of Christ, who was confessed as Savior and Lord by His atoning death in the cross and resurrection; a change of behavior in order to live a life worthy of the gospel, patterned on Jesus' example; and belonging to the body of Christ, the new humanity God was creating in his church." In the centuries before Constantine, the expansion of Christianity took place because of the hundreds and thousands of testimonies of peoples lives changed by the power of Christ. However, beyond the 3rd century, maybe earlier, the spread of Christianity succeeded by other means. Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in the year 313, inaugurating a period in which the church was tolerated within a framework of religious freedom. In other words, she lost her reason to fight to survive in a certain sense. In 381 the Edict of Thessalonica established Christianity as the state religion. In crept Christendom.

Over time we see her being the catalyst of the political, social and cultural fabric in the west. Additionally, she brought with her the many ideas of Christendom. She spread across Europe by forcing herself upon the masses. Now in Western America the church is in a somewhat similar state. For example, there isn’t the resistance to the church like there was in the first century. People’s lives are not threatened due to religious orientation in the west as they were in past.

Today, the spread of Christianity is now measured by other means. Now, some schools of church growth, for example, regard mission as a manageable task that could be completed by a certain date, using appropriate technology and following business principles of management by objectives. When realizing the traditional way of doing missions, I realize to what degree it has become just a human enterprise. It saddens me to think of how far we are from the first century, not just in years but in mission. Nevertheless, the sadness quickly turns into a deep hunger and passion for Christ to move on humanity as He once did. Convicting us all of what He did and changing our response from apathy to action as we share our testimonies in power and love to humanity. Outside our doorsteps lies a world in wait of our stories. The powerful story of Christ and what He did to us may be the most powerful weapon we have for a skeptical postmodern world. The skepticism we face is nothing the first century church didn’t experience. Our fears and doubts are not our own either. As we step into the world I pray we all understand our mission is the same as it was 2000 years ago. To live a life believing the Gospel, compelling us to share the greatest story ever told about a Man who lived among us, relating to us, transforming us and allowing us to share in a Kingdom with a status we don’t deserve.

Environmental

2008-03-10T10:30:00.000-07:00

This morning I was excited to read that a group of Southern Baptists are stepping up their game in caring for our environment. It is great to see the church responding to what could possibly be the most pressing issue our global-community is facing. The Southern Baptist has a membership of 16 million people. We can only hope that this emphasis on stewardship of creation will spread through all denominations like a shock wave. Secular scientists have already declared that our environmental problems, pollution and global warming, are deeply rooted spiritual issues. I agree. Read my previous blog on Christianity and the Environment for helpful guidance in adopting a christocentric approach to caring for creation.
Here is the link: Christianity & Environment

The link to Southern Baptist: church to step up climate fight.

Additionally, the Vatican has added care of creation to the list of their "deadly sins." 7 Deadly Sins

Question: Does your church leadership emphasize caring for creation? In what ways have you heard them or seen them practice Biblical stewardship of our earth?

Food for thought: Population Growth

What Would Jesus Buy Trailer

2008-02-28T15:57:00.001-08:00

The shopping holidays have passed us by and now we enter into an Easter season. This video comes at you a couple of months late but nevertheless makes you wonder where American priorities are. Do you fall into any of these categories? I know I like spending money on coffee.

" extra ecclesiam, nulla salus"

2008-02-12T12:14:00.000-08:00

“No salvation outside the church!” For those of you who have recently heard this for the first time I feel obliged to inform you, it is not a new idea. That’s right, this “doctrine” has been handed down through the centuries by many a theologians, mostly from the Catholic camp. What? Yeah, this type of teaching is prominent in Catholic teaching and other Eastern Orthodox Traditions (capital T emphasized). But don’t take my word for it, read further.

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation;
that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for thisin the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Doesn’t this contradict scripture? God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Peter proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

If it is God’s desire for all men to be saved, then it is fair to say there is a possibility the Institutionalized Church is limiting His redemption. But that is just it. The way this dogma is taught today contradicts its original meaning as well. Today you hear “There is no salvation outside the institutionalized church.” This basically means “where people are married and buried.” If these basic tenets are not observed then “two people having coffee are fooling themselves, that isn’t church.” Even the Catholic Church understands the universal (not to be mistaken as universalism) salvific will of God. But today, the phrase is used differently. What are they really saying? They are saying that unless someone is a full fledged, baptized member of the Institutionalized Church they will be damned. Even a perfunctory reading of Catholic teaching will enlighten a person’s awareness at where this teaching comes from and originally meant.

Bottom line, all of this is nonessential. Why? Because if it were true, that a person cannot be saved outside the Institutionalized Church, then we need to stop doing outreach, street ministry, Bible study, hospital visitations, home visits, Bible discussion over coffee, and so on the list goes. Missions are useless as well. So instead of making yourself feel good by going to visit people in a 3rd world country who you can’t play a part in “redemption” sow that plane ticket money into the Institution because that’s who has trump on salvation.

What do I think? Me thinks this is man’s attempt at preserving a way of life he created that is daily growing more and more irrelevant to what God wants to do on earth. The Institutionalized Church is not the access door for the Kingdom, Christ and the work of the Cross are. Read the beatitudes. Consequently, we, the Church, the ekklesia, the called out ones, are the access door for the Kingdom and everything within range of our effective-will can and should be touched by it. My prayer is we all see God’s desire to use us outside the Institutionalized Church to further His Kingdom. I encourage you not to fall into this same trap that was set by the Catholics during the Reformation when experiencing a mass exodus. Look at what came of people being obedient to God and not man. The birth of the Protestant Church!

Brand New - Jesus Christ

2007-12-29T10:04:00.001-08:00

Christianity and the Environment

2007-10-07T11:35:00.000-07:00

In the Book of Genesis chapter 1 verses 26 and 27 it says, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; in number; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’"[1]

Even a perfunctory reading of this account throws a question mark over the traditional interpretation of it. Whereas, the prevailing theme in the creation account in Genesis has been taken as man’s dominion over the Earth and his freedom to do what he wills with it, there seem to be large amounts of Biblical evidence asserting that God alone is in charge. For example, Psalm 24:1 says, “The Earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.”[2] Subsequently, God did give man dominion over all of creation, and appointed him as steward who would care for what He had given to him. The overarching truth then is that God alone is creator and everything in Heaven and Earth are His creation. As a consequence, it seems if God has given man dominion over His creation, then it should be the central task of humanity to take care of it in all moral purposiveness.

A lot of this misinterpretation of man’s role within creation has come from a misunderstanding of what we are meant to do as stewards given dominion by God. First, it is important to understand the original meaning of the word dominion. The word dominion in Hebrew is ‘radah’. It is a word used when referring to a king’s authority over people and his obligation as a good ruler to serve them and care for them. His responsibility to his realm of rule or the range of his effective-will, was and is to make it a better place for the people. Secondly, the word steward was meant to be understood as a person who would work, ‘till or serve.’ The word till is actually translated ‘replenish.’ In his writing on the Hebrew meaning of stewardship Roland Moss says,

The Hebrew word conveys a wide range of meanings in the Old Testament, but it most often includes the implication of filling to, but not beyond, a finite, defined limit or capacity, usually a volume or period of time. The significant facts seem to be that the word implies a limit, and that it also implies the satisfaction and blessing of the thing filled. [3]

In light of this understanding then, God seemingly put man in a position to care for the “garden,” making it a better place to live for all humanity with an understanding that there were, and still are parameters for this stewardship. This idea of stewardship, to ‘fill’ or ‘replenish,’ does not give us a license for unrestrained exploitation of land or a limitless spreading out of human population. What it does seem to convey is that humanity is given the unrestricted right to do whatever they can as stewards to make use of creation while maintaining a harmonious existence with it. The question arises then as to what God will think about man’s care of His creation when He returns. Will man look to God and say, thanks for letting us use your earth, sorry we tore it up? Or will he say, thanks for letting us use your earth I hope you find it in better working condition now then when you first gave it to us? There are many issues surrounding this concern of how we are handling the earth and the resources it provides us.

Global warming is a mainstream issue dominating much television and media. Carbon emissions have rapidly increased since the industrial revolution and methane is a growing concern in the green house effect. Rain forests are disappearing at alarming rates. One statistic states we are losing an equivalent to the size of the state of Indiana every year. Land conversion is a concern in many countries today. Many farms and open prairies are being converted into suburban “sprawls” and most recently rural “sprawls”. This facet of mishandling creation is contributing to numerous degradations of creation including; species extinction and endangerment, species fragmentation, land degradation, deforestation, increase in carbon emissions and it is creating a higher demand on raw materials for building, just to name a few. We are exhausting our natural resources at alarming rates today when we could easily be practicing sustainable methods for the care of our environment. How has humanity become so poor at caring for their environment? Can the exploitation of earth be traced back to a specific people, time or place?

The following account of environmental care is based out of the book Environment and Christian Ethics, written by Michael Northcott. He gives a great example of a time when humanity began to neglect creation. He begins by explaining how the dispersal of European influences in ecology during the sixth century coincided with the expansion of Christianity from the Mediterranean basin to its current population covering more than a third of the globe. The expansion was actually led by monks such as Patrick, Ninan and Columba. They influenced the agricultural development in Europe through various innovations including the domestication of sheep. This proved to be quite profitable for the monks. Additionally, monasteries were most dense in prairie lands where the monks would drain wetlands and establish communities. The communities were developed by sustainable farming methods where they were self-sufficient and self-governed, reflecting the Christian and Hebrew methods of caring for creation through farming practices. This agricultural practice caused a deep respect and gratitude toward creation and there was a general sense of thankfulness to God for His provisions. However, alongside the careful stewardship of creation, there was a general fear of the wild aspects of nature, thus motivating the monks to domesticate and transform it into a workable resource for humanity. This is evidence of a growing problem in the monastic movement’s relation toward creation and how they engaged it. Nature was something that had to be brought under subjection motivated by fear, resulting in a paradox within the monastic movement’s original intents.

The monastic movement continued to grow, naturally accumulating more land to keep up with the demand for food, finances and other resources. As they grew, the monastic movement saw financial prosperity and became more powerful. About this time The Black Plague came to Europe by way of trade routes stretching across the East to Mongolia. The plague killed many of the workers in the monasteries resulting in a shortage of people to sustain the prosperous agricultural industries. The result of this was that agricultural lands were changed to sheep grazing lands, which so happened to be quite profitable for the monasteries. But at the same time the relationship between man and nature began to dissolve. The monasteries accumulated mass amounts of surplus money and as corruption crept in, so did the secular crown. At this point the monastic communities began to dissolve and the lands were taken over by secular agriculturalists that had no understanding of the relationships between God, man and nature. The original practices of the monastic movement disappeared and their agricultural methods lost. What were once sustaining agricultural practices, caring for God’s creation, became a totally exploitative methodology and mindset between man and nature. For centuries the same practices imposed on creation by the secular crown have been practiced. The way we treat our land has become more secular than it has sacred.”[4]

How has this dissolution of the monastic agricultural practice affected our agricultural mindset today? I want to turn now to some modern day agricultural practices in America, specifically in the Heartland region. There is a growing concern in the Midwest about population dispersion. For example, rural American population growth is outpacing the big cities today, but at what cost?

The term “sprawl” has various interpretations. Basically it is derived out of this fact; Americans are using up land at an alarming rate to build large inefficient homes and the population growth has increased since they began moving to the suburbs and more recently to the countryside. Most definitions of “sprawl” do have some commonalities such as: “Low-density development that is dispersed and uses a lot of land; geographic separation of essential places such as work, homes, schools, and shopping; and almost complete dependence on automobiles for travel.”[5] The reason sprawling is such a large concern in the states, and for that matter, around the world, is that it has a huge impact on the land and environment. Demanding two and a half to three acres of land per home, Missouri has seen 435,000 acres (689 square miles) of farmland, fields, forests and prairies converted into sprawls between 1982 and 1997. The total area of Missouri is 69,697 sq. miles (180,516 sq km) of which land takes up 68,945 sq mi (178,568 sq km) and inland water 752 sq mi (1948 sq km). These numbers do not take into the consideration the already developed land in Missouri.[6] It also does not factor in the rate of increase in land consumption either. However, in all fairness we can see that if the consumption rate of land by “sprawling” continues at the rate it is going the majority of land in Missouri will disappear within the next couple of centuries. This is an extremely conservative number considering we have not taken into account the land, which was developed in years prior to 1982 or after 1997.

Suburban and rural sprawling has many negative effects on our environment. It changes the face of our landscape, the natural environment and other aspects of nature important to our quality of life. Studies have shown that land consumption as this occurs for three reasons: unlimited density of settlement, unlimited outward extension of growth, and “leapfrog” or fragmented development pattern.[7] What occurs from low-density growth causes a greater loss of agricultural land than dense growth.

Another risk of sprawling is what it does to groundwater. Because homes are built in suburban or rural parts of the country they require an on-site septic system, which causes more pollution to our water than urban water systems. Considering only 2% of the water in the world is for human consumption, this is something to be taken very seriously.

How can these exploitative practices on our earth be changed before it is too late? In An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation it says, “Many concerned people, convinced the environmental problems are more spiritual than technological, are exploring the world’s ideologies and religions in search of non-Christian spiritual resources for the healing of the earth.”[8] The problem we are facing with our planet today is deeply spiritual and can be traced back to the fall in the Garden of Eden. The relationship between man and nature must be handled as such, dealing with it from the pulpits of our churches.

One of the first steps we can take as individuals is to adopt a Theocentric model into our lives. Reverend Margot Hodson gives a model on integrating proper Biblical stewardship into our worldview. In understanding that God, Humans, the earth and the rest of the cosmos have broken relationships with one another she believes a Christ centered approach can mend this dysfunctional relationship.[9] This model is drawn out of Colossians 1:15-17 which says,

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.[10]

This passage seems to allude to the doctrine of Natural theology, which is the belief that we can get to know God by observing nature. Calvin DeWitt says “We know Him by two means: First, by creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the Apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.”[11]

What can we do corporately? Obviously, we cannot go back to the hunter-gatherer days or all live in monasteries. What can be done is the messages from the pulpits of churches could be changed. One example of this can be found in a place called Wolvercote. Wolvercote is a small village in England who has recently gone “green.” Confronted by “newbies” characterized by having two cars and bigger house not considering CO₂ emissions and contributing to global warming, the locals began to get frustrated. Having lived there their entire lives in Wolvercote, prominent leaders in their community began to speak out about global warming and ethical living. Also, a vicar of a local church began weaving environmental issues into his sermons. But the church did not just isolate themselves and try to work this out on their own, it was a community effort. As a result, what has happened in this town has been a dramatic reversal in its environmental ethics. Jane Muir the journalist who wrote this article says “Wolvercote's carbon footprint might only be a speck relative to the foot-trodden mess of the whole world, and the effect of one village in middle England changing its habits is fairly minuscule, but it is something - and it is something that is generating other good things.”[12]

Additionally, we could all make adjustments in our lifestyles at home. Gardening is a great practice, which was often used by the monks. One particular order from the 6^th century, founded by St. Benedict found this to be a way to be in harmony with the cosmos. Ian Bradley says, “In the sixth century St. Benedict, founder of western monasticism, saw husbandry as a way of providing a sustainable lifestyle for his monks which fitted in with the rhythm of the seasons and provided a physical counterpart to their spiritual labours of prayer and contemplation.”[13] Gardening can be a connection point between humanity and nature giving them a since of God’s provision for their lives. Through gardening we learn to nurture what God gives us locally. But it can also give us a global gardening mindset as well.

In closing it is important to say that our world is in need of hope. As concerns grow for our world there will be many questions needing answered. The coming years may very well be the toughest humanity has seen yet, but they may also be the years where the churches will rise to the occasion and fully engage the biggest mission field the world has ever seen.

[1] New King James Bible (Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1982)

[2] Ibid. Psalm 24:1

[3] Rowland Moss, The Earth in Our Hands, (London: Intervarsity Press, 1982), 89.

[4] Michael S. Northcott, The Environment and Christian Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 1966), 42-47.

[5] E. Heimlich and William D. Anderson, “Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond; Impacts on Agricultural and Rural Land,” Economic Research Services 803, (1995): 9-31.

[6] Ibid.,

[7] Tina Axelrad, “The Costs of Sprawl: Summary of National Literature Review.” Agricultural Economic Report 803, (1998), 26.

[8] R.J. Berry., The Care of Creation (Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 19.

[9] Rev. M. Hodson ‘True Meaning of Biblical Stewardship’ 27 June 2007[Lecture at Wycliffe Hall, University of Oxford]

[10] Ibid., Colossians 1:15-17.

[11] C.B. DeWitt, Earth-Wise (CRC Publications,1994), 13.

[12] J. Muir, “A Little Can Go A Long Way,” The Guardian, (2007)

[13] I. Bradley, God is Green (Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd,. 1990,) 92,93.

Letter to a Christian Nation

2007-09-28T08:35:00.000-07:00

Letter to a Christian Nation is a book written by Sam Harris, a self proclaimed atheist. It seems to be a manifesto for the secularists of the 21^st century. By advocating the end of organized religions and faiths across the world, Harris believes the world will ultimately see peace and atheism prevail. He pointedly makes claims at the various contradictions seen in diverse faith groups. He specifically directs this book toward the Christian population in America. By challenging the Christian majority in America, he attacks them by making statements about their stances on social and political issues including war, abortion, morality, and AIDS. He then goes on to popularly common Christian beliefs such as Hell, young earth, Biblical Inerrancy, creationism, The Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ, and so on. Undoubtedly, many people of faith would be outraged by this writing. Yet Harris takes aim at any religion, blaming them for the spread of ignorance, belief in eschatological events, and the supernatural among many other issues relating to religion.

With his barrage of attacks targeted at the multiple faith groups, Harris lays out some questions deserving of a well-thought-out response. For example, he makes some strong points regarding the stance on abortion and affirms that Christians spend excessive amounts of time and energy trying to abolish it when there is genocide happening today in Africa. He continuously criticizes the Christian stance on contraceptives in Africa, a place where missionaries preach and teach against it in a time of overwhelming population and AIDS issues. Although his comments on abortion and contraceptives may have some value, his argument loses a fair amount of ground when he discusses stem cell research. Currently the study of the human embryo is at such an infantile stage we aren’t sure what it will lead to. Harris confronts Christians on an issue that most of the world is still weary and ignorant of, not taking into consideration scientists may learn it is a bad thing. Nevertheless, he makes some valid points regarding religious identities in the world and it would be a dishonest analysis of this letter if one were to say Harris’ argument didn’t have some truth to it, regardless of his rants.

His insight to the Muslim agenda for world domination by the sword, as it has been historically and still is today, has some validity to it. Harris states, “The earth is now home to about 1.4 billion Muslims, many of whom believe that one day you and I will either convert to Islam, live in subjugation to a Muslim caliphate, or be put to death for our unbelief.” p. 83 Undoubtedly, Islam is a rapidly growing religion throughout many parts of the world. There is growing concern throughout Europe on how they will deal with the fundamentalist Islamic’s who have brought into their midst the practice of martyrdom, particularly in France and England. Since the beginning of writing this paper there have been three attempted terrorist attacks on the United Kingdom. Thankfully they were thwarted off by observant police officers who noticed a smoking car parked on the side of the road. Sadly, a terrorist attack was committed on the Glasgow Airport in Scotland where a car engulfed in flames was driven into a building. It is a situation very difficult to eradicate. What Harris fails to do in his analysis of the Muslim faith is to lay out a course of action to effectively deal with these challenges. However, Harris does effectively communicate the heart and motive Islam has in our world. He says, “The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a fantasy, and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. Harris’ thoughts on Islam leave both the secular and religious reader, wondering what could be done. In the end it seems like Harris is another dumbfounded reporter of what everyone already knows.

He goes on to make some of the traditional atheist arguments regarding Christianity, but fails to present sufficient evidence for them. For example, he misses the intended target with his statements regarding the virgin conception. This is undoubtedly a pillar of the Christian faith that Harris is keenly aware of. It is one of the chief arguments in Harris’s Letter formulated to dissolve the beliefs in the Christian doctrines throughout the world.

Harris argues of the falsity of the virgin conception by addressing the Prophet Isaiah in chapter 7:14. “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Before we look at this passage it must be noted that from 80c.e, most Christian assemblies have taught that Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception. What Harris says in regards to the meaning of the word virgin, pronounced almah, is that the original meaning is “young woman,” not virgin. This is commonly held to be accurate, but Hebrew scholars do tell us the word almah does not strictly mean virgin, but a young woman of marriageable age as well. Additionally, just because Isaiah calls her a young woman doesn’t mean she is not a virgin. Young woman and non-virgin are not synonymous terms.

In the conclusion of Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, he acknowledges the positive changes which occur in the lives of people when they accept Christ. However, staying true to his form he equates these experiences to those of a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Harris believes these experiences are nothing more than misinterpretations about the nature of reality and have nothing whatsoever to do with science or our universe. He calls these experiences “…a biological phenomenon, religion is the product of cognitive processes that have deep roots in our evolutionary past.” To Harris’ dismay, however, many believers, specifically Christian, have faith not because of a “cognitive process” but because of revelation and having witnessed the transforming power of Christ in our world. In other words, there is empirical evidence proving the miracle-working power of Christ. Additionally, many people are Christian not because of an emotional experience, but because of an over abundance of historical proof of Jesus’ virgin birth.

It is highly probable that Letter to a Christian Nation will impact the way many people think about faith around the world. Harris is another voice speaking out against religious fanaticism and it is much needed in today’s world. History has shown us that we cannot sit idly on the sidelines keeping silent. Islam is a growing threat and one can only hope this book persuades some governments to some form of diplomatic action. Although Harris did not give an accurate definition of Christianity, his questions should resonate deep within their hearts causing them to think about their actions. Stances on political and moral issues have been commonplace in the Christian world when Christians should be known for their “love for one another.”

Harris’ book is not a threat to religious organizations. Rather, it is a wake up call. The Christians of America need to work on representing Jesus to a world devoid of accurate understanding of His teachings. This book serves as a launching point for them to do so. Harris is just one of millions who have an inaccurate understanding of Christianity. He has put the questions out there for Christians to answer and now is the time for them to step forward. Although this book may hurt deeply, it is also a very powerful tool in helping the world see how atheists and secularists view the world. Sam Harris has undoubtedly made an impact. Whether this impact is negative or positive I have not quite decided yet. Regardless, the fact is he has made an impact. I would challenge anyone to read this book with an open mind, and prepare yourself to have your worldview challenged.

Christianity Rediscovered

2007-08-10T08:00:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to take the Gospel to an indiginous people group? Having never heard the Gospel you would be the first representative of Christ to them. What would you tell them? What would you show them? Liturgy, Gospel, doctrine, organizational skills for church leadership? I have often pondered this subject, questioning what I myself would say to such a group of listeners. or maybe thats just it. maybe they are more than listeners. maybe I would actually be the listener. now there's a thought. A Western European person or American, whatever, going into an indiginous tribe seemingly knowing everything there is to know about gospel, prosperity and of course community, sitting down and listening to the heart beat of such a culture. Although this opportunity seemed very unlikely in todays world, i have come upon a story of such a westerner who approached the the famous (in particular contexts) Masai tribe who live in the Great Rift Valley of East Africa numbering between 300,000 and 400,000.

Vincent Donovan is a Catholic Missionary who was serving in Africa for a number of years before he had a startling revelation. In his book Christianity Rediscovered For a century the Catholic church had been using their schools as a means of evangelizing the native people of Africa. Drawing the tribal people out of the bush and into the classroom the christians would rename, reform and return the people to their tribe. At first glance this approach to evangelization seems to have be a creative way leading to conversion and transformation. I can see why some would think this approach to ministry would work. Unfortunately, I am a westerner thinking like a westerner though. And in order for successful ministry to be done anywhere, especially a place like Africa, there must be a capitualtion of the western worldview to that of Africa or wherever you are taking the Gospel. In response to this evangelization methodology what was really happening in Africa was the school children would graduate from school and return to their tribe retaining little more than their Christian names and were absorbed back into cultural heritages. Realizing the inability to reach the people of Africa by bringing them into their buildings and christian culture Donovan realized it was time for him to engage theirs.

Upon approval from his superiors, Donovan began making weekly safaris to meet the acclaimed Masai tribes. Donovan made the decision to consistently visit them over the course of a year, simply getting to know them. What he learned was astounding. One of the first things he learned is that the Masai were a highly religious people. Yes they were pagan, but they did give thanks to their god(s) for his provisions. He found them to be very communal as well. This is very important. Keeping in mind the churches approach to evangelism for the previous century, Donovan learned the tribes do not make independent but rather tribal decisions. I.e. if the tribal leader decides to relocate they all did. If he chose to go into another tribe and steal their cattle(the Masai believe all cows belong to them and it is their right to take them) they would. If he chose to follow a particular god they all did.

One day while standing in the midst of the Masai teaching the Gospel, Donovan was asked a direct question about his God. He was telling the story of Abraham when he was asked, "This story of Abraham-does it speak only to the Masai? Or does it speak also to you? Has your tribe found the High God? Have you know Him?" After much thought he replied, "NO, we have not found the High God. My tribe has not known Him. For us, too, he is an unknown God. But we are searching for Him. I have come a long, long distance to invite you to search for Him with us. Let us search for Him together. Maybe, together we will find Him."

Upon finishing this book I have came to a staggering realization of my own ideas of what Gospel should mean to certain people groups. Westerners have the idea that if God is present in a community there should be certain materialistic benefits. I.e. church buildings, prosperity, capitalism and a whole other host of "benefits." The true benefit though, the one I am after, and so few find, even though many claim to have found but make the common mistake of talking about it instead of living it, is Christ's Gospel. And whatever that is, the proclamation of the kingdom for the poor? the direct line of communication to God for all people not just a select few? or simply that following Jesus and not some religious person or organizations systems of thought, is the best way to live? I am diligently on that path as Donovan is to rediscover Christianity. and once I have rediscovered it, I want to rediscover it again.

yours trully,
Beau

Who founded Christianity?

2007-02-19T11:12:00.000-08:00

There are some marked differences between the letters of Paul and the Gospels. A few modern scholars have taken those differences and gone so far as to claim that Paul is actually the real founder of Christianity.They claim that Jesus never intended to start a new religion (he was just trying to bring about some reform within Judaism), and that Paul is actually the one responsible for creating doctrines about Jesus that led to the ultimate split between Judaism and Christianity.

In the wake of this rising criticism to who founded Christianity, the Bible provides clear and concise evidence that it began with Christ and was clarified through the works of the Apostle Paul.

First of all, for us to dismantle the idea of Paul as the founder of Christianity we must take into account the fact that Paul’s message is Christocentric. The Book of Acts 9:20 reads, “Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.” The immediacy of this preaching, that Christ is indeed the Messiah, shows Paul was not promoting a religion fabricated from within his own ideals. Rather, Paul had received revelation of the Christ outside the nexus of his traditional Jewish ideas and teachings of who the Messiah was and used his Jewish platform to integrate Christ into the center of Jewish beliefs. Brian Hedges acknowledges N.T.Wright by saying, “Wright beautifully demonstrates that Paul spoke from the theological platform of Judaism, a world-view that he never cast off, but rather recast with Jesus Christ in the center.”

Additionally, there are numerous scriptures within the writings of Paul which clearly prove Paul was an ambassador of Christ teaching doctrine he indeed learned from Christ’s teachings. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:17,” Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..” This passage parallels Christ’s teaching in John 3 when Nicodemus comes to Jesus and Jesus explains to him he must be born again to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Both of these scriptures are proof that if one is in Christ he is a born again new creation.

Secondly, Colossians 1:15, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,” is a scripture Paul surely writes to testify of the Book of John in chapter 1:1. This scripture indicates Jesus being the Word which was in the beginning, the firstborn over all creation.

Third, and there are many other examples, in Matthew 3 Christ receives the baptism by water. Paul teaches in Romans 6 the necessity of believers to be baptized as Christ was.

Paul was clearly teaching as an Apostle appointed by Christ doctrines which he received from Christ. It is evident he was not starting a religion he had fabricated despite what scholars believe of him. There are too many examples which verify Paul’s allegiance to Christ for one to sufficiently prove otherwise.

Resources:
New King James Bible http://www.founders.org/FJ55/reviews.html">http://www.founders.org/FJ55/reviews.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

2007-01-28T16:19:00.000-08:00

2007-01-25T10:13:00.000-08:00

It is finished

2007-01-25T09:04:00.000-08:00

I enjoy reading the story of creation in the Book of Genesis. There is so much creativity and awesomeness in what God was doing on the Earth. From the dividing of night and day to the creation of creatures and ultimately the creation of man, the Book of Genesis is so majestic in nature. It says that for 6 days God created and then He looked at everything He had made and said, ahh yes it is all good!

Genesis 1:31 "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

As you know God had put Adam and Eve in the Garden to be stewards of everything He had created. They had a perfect relationship between each other until the fall of man through the eating of the apple. This then set into motion centuries of attempts at the complete restoration of man's relationship with God. None of which totally worked until of course Jesus' arrival. At this point I want to explain to you an idea of the resurrection you may not have thought about.

For us to reach the point where we understand our place in the world today, as a church and/or a body of believers we need to grasp the full significance of the resurrection.

John 20:1"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb."John is telling us here that Easter day is in fact the first day of the week. John tells us twice Easter is the first day of the week. V19"then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." John wouldnt waste words so there is significance here in what he is saying.

Remember this, if Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday then Friday was the 6th day and Saturday the 7th or Sabbath (day of rest) and Sunday the 1st.Look back to Genesis and notice on theh 6th day God said he saw everything was good and finished creating. John 19:30 "So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit." On that Friday Jesus looks all the way back to Genesis 1 when God saw everything as good, then announces once again to humanity "It is finished"! Through the offering up of His life Jesus once again finished the creation of man. And as this wasnt enough to prove to humanity the authenticity of this restoration of humanity God shows us another thing.

John 20:15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, "Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away."

Where did God put Adam and Eve? In the garden! Who did Mary mistake Jesus for? A gardener. Once again God had put humanity back in Eden! God has put you and I back in the garden to be stewards of His creation and once again to be in a perfect relationship with Him! Easter means much more than life after death. Easter is about us living this life here on Earth as stewards of everything God has given us operating in right relatioship with Him as Adam once did!

Mark 7

2007-01-23T09:48:00.000-08:00

Mark 7:24 Jesus got up and went away from there to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a house, He wanted no one to know of it; yet He could not escape notice. 25 But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28 But she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs." 29 And He said to her, "Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter." 30 And going back to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, the demon having left.

Its interesting to notice here Jesus is referring to this womans daughter as a dog. Doesnt this seem out of character that jesus would resort to name calling? What Jesus was trying to do was put her off to avoid publicity. Undeterred, the woman responds in a way which moves Christ to heal her daughter of this demon. What has happened?

Remember, Christ came announcing a Kingdom accessible to all. Jews had this exclusive right to the Temple and Gentiles werent allowed to enter the inner courts. At this point in Mark, Christ has a following of people who want healed and delivered. This woman approaches and Jesus tries to avoid the publicity by comparing her child to a dog. This title of dog was given to gentiles and puppy to gentile children by the Jews. So insert dog and Jew in the following and it reads,
27And He was saying to her, "Let the Jews be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the Jewish bread and throw it to the gentiles." 28 But she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the gentiles under the table feed on the Jewish crumbs."

The woman latches onto his use of the term puppies and conceives the deliverance of her daughter might count as a mere crumb. This revelation of Christ moves Him to see this womans daughter delivered He doesnt even go to see her, He just says it. He exorcises the demon at a distance without a word. A mere crumb or a mere understanding of Christs teaching is enough to deliver us all from whatever anguish we are in. He is not exclusive. He is an all inclusive teacher who never intended for us to feel unworthy of what He offers. I encourage you if you are feeling unworthy to read this chapter of Mark and see yourself as this woman, willing to take just a crumb. It is more than enough.