Ragbag Headliners

Reports: Interpol Hunting Convert To Christianity

Since late July Saudi media have been buzzing with reports that a 28-year-old Saudi woman has embraced Christianity and fled the country, staying initially in a church in Lebanon before moving on to Sweden. ...

The woman’s father said his daughter was working in an insurance company in Al-Khobar (in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province) when her boss, a Lebanese Christian man, influenced her and ultimately encouraged her to leave Islam. According to Saudi investigators, a second man, a Saudi national, helped the woman obtain false documents and leave the country. The woman’s family have pressed charges against the two men because apostasy (leaving Islam) is an Islamic capital offence and a Saudi woman is not allowed to get a passport without the permission of her male guardian. The men will face court on Saturday 15 September. ...

On 2 September the Saudi Gazette reported that ‘Interpol is co-ordinating with the Saudi Embassy in Stockholm and Swedish authorities to return the girl to her homeland before her “kidnappers” move her to another country.’ The embassy reportedly has started a search for the woman, with the aid of Swedish authorities. –By Elizabeth Kendal/Washington Times/September 5, 2012

God Doesn't Keep Jews In A Pickle Jar - Part III

Part three of a conversation between John Piper and Jews for Jesus head David Brickner.

This is part three of a four-part discussion between Bethlehem Baptist Church pastor John Piper and Jews for Jesus executive director David Brickner on the relationship and attitudes American Christians should have toward Israel. See Brickner's initial letter and Piper's first response.

Dear John,

Thank you for your insightful comments on a number of the issues brought up in my first letter to you, many with which I happily agree. We both uphold the need and priority of Jewish evangelism as integral to world mission. We both affirm the ongoing election of Israel (the Jewish people) and God's faithfulness to his covenant people and his promises. We both look forward to the second coming of Jesus and his glorious restoration of all things, including his people Israel. I do want to take issue with two of your comments before voicing my main concern.

To your assertion that the Abrahamic covenant is conditional, I will simply quote my friend and teacher Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: "Promise and blessing still precede the command to obey and to keep the commands of God. Obedience is no more a condition for Abraham than it is for the church living under the command 'If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love' (Jn. 15:10) or 'If you love me, you will obey what I command' (Jn. 14:15)."

Second, I read the context of 1 Corinthians 3 as primarily referring to boasting about different human leaders. It does an injustice to the text to take Paul's hyperbole to then relate to Israel's covenant promise concerning the Land. This results in minimizing the particularity of Israel's election in the midst of the universality of the nations' eschatological ingathering. You are taking away with one hand what you give with the other—when Israel gets all, she actually gets nothing. (Regardless of whether she may, as you point out, end up in the land that was promised.)

However, these disagreements are secondary to my concern over an ongoing problem in the church today. Christians often have a great depth of theological understanding regarding Israel in the past. Many also have a keen interest and firm convictions regarding Israel in the future. Yet when it comes to present-day Israel it seems biblical thinking often takes a back seat to political expedience on both sides of the current conflict.

Christians today desperately need an informed theology concerning present-day Israel. I don't see where your recent response addressed my point concerning the remnant today and the implications of the growing number of Israeli believers in Jesus. Although I know you didn't intend this, your quote from Ryle that "they are reserved and preserved" makes it sound like we are in a pickle jar kept on a shelf somewhere! No. The apostle Paul insisted, "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." "Not rejected" does not mean he has shunted them off to the side for use at a later time. Israel today is marvelous evidence of God's continuing covenant faithfulness, his amazing sovereignty over world affairs, and the great power of his mercy despite human disobedience. The remnant in existence today is also "chosen by grace."

The birth of the modern state of Israel did not occur in a vacuum but sprang from the ashes of the Holocaust, where one third of the Jewish people were systematically annihilated simply because they were Jews. Evangelicals need to think more deeply about the implications of the Holocaust and its connection to Israel today. I believe Israel is in possession of the Land today by divine mercy, a mercy flowing out of the horrors of the Holocaust and to the ultimate defeat of all other efforts at Jewish genocide past and present. This can only be the hand of God in history despite Israel's current unbelief. Present day anti-Semitism is proof that Israel remains at the nexus of the cosmic conflict between God, who keeps his promises, and Satan, who wants to make God a liar. We shouldn't allow history to interpret the Bible, but we must allow the Bible to speak to recent and current history, not just ancient history and the future.

Unfortunately, the current posture of many evangelicals has been to jettison the overarching biblical picture of God's love for both Israel and the nations and to choose sides between Palestinians and Israelis, further fueling the present passions of pain and conflict. This is wrong.

Beginning with the household of faith, Christians must implore the people of the Land on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God and then to one another. Christians need to formulate a full-orbed theology of reconciliation and Israel/Palestine can be the laboratory. As we apply biblical truth to the conflict today, the world will truly see the power of the gospel. To this end I know we both remain deeply committed. May our dialogue help encourage Christians to retake this biblical and gospel-centered middle ground. Let us believe in the ongoing promises of God to the Jewish people and re-double our efforts to proclaim this Good News to Israelis, Palestinians, and all humanity.

Your Jewish brother in Jesus,

David Brickner

Next Week Part Four: Why Israel Exists 'for the Palestinians'—and the Rest of the World

Zach Wahls Gay Marriage DNC Speech "My Two Moms"

Democratic National Convention

'The Gospel Of Jesus' Wife,' New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

Front Side

A discovery by a Harvard researcher may shed light on a controversial aspect of the life of Jesus Christ.

Harvard Divinity School professor Karen L. King says she has found an ancient papyrus fragment from the fourth century that, when translated, appears to indicate that Jesus was married.

The text is being dubbed "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife." The part of it that's drawing attention says, "Jesus said to them, 'my wife'" in the Coptic language. The text, which is printed on papyrus the size of a business card, has not been scientifically tested to verify its dating, but King and other scholars have said they are confident it is a genuine artifact.

"Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim," King said at a conference in Rome on Tuesday. "This new gospel doesn’t prove that Jesus was married, but it tells us that the whole question only came up as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better not to marry, but it was over a century after Jesus’s death before they began appealing to Jesus’ marital status to support their positions."

King, who focuses on Coptic literature, Gnosticism and women in the Bible, has published on the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary of Magdala. She presented her research Tuesday evening in Rome, where scholars are gathered for the International Congress of Coptic Studies.

The idea that Jesus was unmarried and chaste is largely accepted by Christian denominations and a reason for the practice of celibacy among Roman Catholic priests.

"Beyond internal Catholic Church politics, a married Jesus invites a reconsideration of orthodox teachings about gender and sex," said journalist and author Michael D'Antonio, who writes about the Catholic Church, in a blog on The Huffington Post. "If Jesus had a wife, then there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, nothing spiritually dangerous about the sexuality of women, and no reason for anyone to deny himself or herself a sexual identity."

The quote about Jesus' wife is part of a description of a conversation between Jesus and his disciples. In the conversation, Jesus talks about his mother twice and speaks once about his wife. One of them is identified as "Mary." His disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy of being part of their community, to which Jesus replies, “she will able to be my disciple.”

The fragment has eight incomplete lines of writing on one side and is badly damaged on the other side, with only three faded words and a few letters of ink that are visible, even with the use of infrared photography and computer-aided enhancement.

The private owner of the papyrus first approached King in 2010. King said she didn't believe the document was authentic, but the owner persisted. She then asked the owner to bring the papyrus to Harvard, where she became convinced it was a genuine early Christian text fragment. Along with Princeton University professor Anne Marie Luijendijk and Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, King claims to have confirmed the document is real. The document's owner has not been named and King said he does not want to be identified.

It's unclear when the text was initially discovered. The owner who showed it to King found it in 1997 in a collection of papyri that he acquired from the previous owner, who was German. The papyri included a handwritten German description that had the name of a now-deceased professor of Egyptology in Berlin who called the fragment a "sole example" of a document that claims Jesus was married.

The scholars believe the text is from Egyptian Christians before the year 400, as it is written in the language used at that time. Since writing appears on both sides of the fragment, scholars believe it came from a codex, a kind of book, and not a scroll. The scholars also believe the document is a translation of an earlier one that was likely written in Greek.

King notes in her research that the idea of Jesus' celibacy hasn't always existed, and that early Christians debated whether they should marry or practice celibacy. It was not until around the year 200 that Christian followers began to say Jesus was unmarried, according to a record King cites from Clement of Alexandria. In his writing, Clement -- an early theologian -- said that marriage was a fornication put in place by the devil, and that people should emulate Jesus by not marrying.

One or two decades later, Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa declared that Jesus was "entirely unmarried" and told Christians to remain single. But Tertullian did not come out against sex altogether and allowed couples to get married one time, denouncing divorce and remarriage as overindulgent. A century earlier, the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy said in the New Testament that people who forbid marriage are going by the "doctrines of demons," but did not include anything about Jesus being married in order to make the point.

The point of view that ultimately became dominant was that celibacy is preferred as a high sexual virtue among Christians, but that marriage is needed for the sake of reproduction.

"The discovery of this new gospel," King said, "offers an occasion to rethink what we thought we knew by asking what role claims about Jesus' marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family. Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married. The Gospel of Jesus's Wife now shows that some Christians thought otherwise."

The life of historical Jesus is often a matter of controversy, and this is not the first time it's been proposed that Jesus was married. Most recently, Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code" depicted Jesus as being married to Mary Magdalene. The book was published as fiction, but nonetheless attracted loud criticism from Vatican officials.

Update: Speaking on a conference call Tuesday from Rome, King said that some people who have read about the discovery have asked if the papyrus fragment was describing Jesus as being married to the Christian faith, not to a woman.

"One cannot overrule that it might be him saying 'my wife as a church,' but in the context where he's talking about 'my mother' and 'my wife' and talking about 'my disciple,' the one thing you would not say is that the church would be 'my disciple.'"

Even before King's discovery, there has been speculation that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. "I do not think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene," King clarified Tuesday, adding, "whether he was or was not married ... I really think the tradition is silent and we don't know."

King also said that a professor who saw her report asked her if the text on the papyrus could have been a homily and not a gospel, an idea she said she had not considered.

King added that she hopes the discovery will diminish the view outside of academic circles that the debate over marriage and sexuality in the early church is "fixed and over." In current church debates over issues such as same-sex marriage and marriage among Catholic priests, "having more voices from the early church and a better, more accurate version of early Christianity is more helpful," she said.

Update From AP: Wolf-Peter Funk, a noted Coptic linguist and co-director of the francophone project editing the Nag Hammadi Coptic library at Laval University in Quebec, said there were "thousands of scraps of papyrus where you find crazy things," and that many questions remain unanswered about the Harvard fragment. -Huffington Post/September 09, 2012

Foot Note: To view the Papyrus and it’s translation click on the link above.

[They certainly aren't part of the 49% ... No wonder the 49% can't relate]

Celebrating The Jewish High Holy Days: Where Is The Pleasure This Season?

Religion, as it’s talked about in politics and the news, is almost always a negative thing. It’s a source of fear or threat. Inflammation in the Middle East is triggered by competing visions of Allah.

It’s a marker of difference. Pundits obsess (pointlessly) over whether Mitt Romney’s religion make him unelectable; whether President Obama’s former church is a breeding ground for black separatists; whether any belief in any God betrays an ignorant, superstitious or science-phobic mind.

Religion is a stick, which the in-crowd uses to punish the outliers: As in, God hates gays, or God loves gays, or God hates the sin but loves the sinner. Polls have shown that the main reason a younger generation is abandoning religion boils down to this: It’s punitive and mean — too much of a bummer too much of the time.

The truth is that even in private, religion can feel like a weight. You go to church or synagogue because you feel obligated; you send your children to Hebrew school with reservations and over their protestations. The upcoming Jewish holidays, Yom Kippur in particular, can feel like an orgy of self-immolation. The fasting. The counting of sins. The beating of breasts. During this season, the liturgy forces the faithful to regard without blinking their mortality and worse: the chanciness of everything. One rabbi friend prefers to translate these holidays as “the Days of Dread” instead of the preferred but more anodyne “Days of Awe.” Over 10 days, he says, Jews “telescope the horror of life in general and of our lives in particular.”

At their best, the Jewish holidays require a downscaling of expectations. A Jew must recalibrate his or her hopes for the future against last year’s realities. And for so many Americans, reality — personal, political, financial — has fallen far short of dreams. During his staff meeting this week, Rabbi Daniel Zemel of Temple Micah in the District asked the leaders of his congregation to contemplate and discuss this passage from John Stuart Mill: “I have learned to seek my happiness by limiting my desires rather than in attempting to satisfy them.” Hardly euphoric stuff.

Over the past several weeks, I have found myself anticipating these holidays, which my family celebrates, with foreboding. It’s not just their message that makes me tremble, it’s the work. Even Rosh Hashanah, that annual celebration of life’s sweetness, means extra chores for a Jewish mother. I am making lists of ingredients in my head, calculating errands with strategic preciseness, worrying whether last season’s tights fit. My mother would have spent this week polishing the silver, but I have a different life and have to fit my piety in between my deadlines. It might be easier, I sometimes think, to abandon all the effort: We could order Chinese and watch a romantic comedy instead.

But then I remember that, for me, religious observance is about duty, yes, but also joy. And pleasure. The Essenes, an ascetic sect of desert dwellers who lived around the time of Jesus, believed that when they sang in unison on the Sabbath, they were mirroring the songs of the angels in heaven. Even today, Jews’ Saturday morning prayers begin with a flood of thanks: for the roofs over our heads, for the breath in our bodies, for the eyes we have to see. We gather our children close, placing our hands on their heads, and we pray to God to give them health and peace. Saturday by Saturday, we watch them grow.

In this season, I asked the rabbis I know, where is that pleasure? In a divisive political year, in a fragile economy, with tensions simmering in the Middle East, how do we do that spiritual alchemy and turn obligation into joy? My rabbi friend who speaks of “horror” reminds me that although Judaism is a disciplined religion, it is not an abstemious one. We are to take pleasure in sex and in wine (when appropriate). We say blessings before drinking water and when reuniting with a friend after a long time.

Pleasure can even be found on Yom Kippur within the Jewish act of repentance, says Rabbi Gil Steinlauf at Adas Israel in the District. “Even as life can be harsh and painful and filled with loss, we always have the power to act to sweeten life and make it more bearable, even pleasurable.” Repentance in Judaism is a returning to our truest selves, he says; embedded therein is the assumption that “our best nature is good and kind, and the act of acknowledging our mistakes and owning them is, ultimately, a pleasure, a spiritual pleasure that is experienced bodily as we speak our truth and make amends in this lifetime.” In Hebrew, Rabbi Steinlauf reminds me, there are 10 different words for joy. -Lisa Miller/Washington Post/September 13, 2012

Two Faces Of Grace

The experience of the gift of life, of the grace of life, is a mysterious blessing we celebrate and bow to. Grace is the answer to our prayers, and yet it is free of our bidding. How joyous to bask in even an instant of surprising good fortune. How sweetly humbling to be delivered from misfortune.

We most easily and delightedly recognize grace in its form of deliverance. Yet it has another, equally humbling, equally mysterious face. The horrific face of grace can fill us with dread and fear when it appears, but if we are willing to welcome it — as we welcome the good news of the grace of bounty — it too brings us home. In whatever form it presents itself, grace reveals home as free and at peace. Grace is the messenger of the silent core of us, regardless of any tumult on the surface.

Who can truly comprehend what we each have to experience in our lives? We know of horrible experiences, diseases, wars, loss and degradation that many have to go through. And we also hear from many of the surprising grace present with the loss and pain: grace’s horrific face.

This is not the face of grace that we want. We want grace that is easy and beautiful and flowing. We usually — at least initially — resist grace that is ugly and painful. You must have experienced certain events, however they have shown up, as unwanted. If you are still resisting some unwanted event in your life and are willing to open to it now, you can find the grace in that very moment.

Grace does not require you to want something that you do not want. What is required is that you tell the truth about what simply and irrevocably is. What is required is that you stop fighting and hiding from what is. When these utterly simple and deeply challenging requirements are met, the innate grace of your own consciousness naturally reveals who you are and what you can bear.

We have many ideas about what we can bear. These ideas are the reflections of our fear. We doubt our capacity to meet what life and the changes in life give us. But when the willingness to tell the truth in open stillness comes, capacity is discovered.

Part of the horrific grace of being a human being is the knowledge that non-existence is at the end of the arc of our lifetime. We avoid death — other’s or our own — but when death comes close, the possibility is just as close for the discovery of great horrific grace. We don’t want to die. It may sometimes seems dying would be easier than meeting the challenge of living, but you wouldn’t be reading this if you hadn’t chosen life. And yet death will come.

In the horrific knowledge that what we don’t want (death, loss) will come regardless of our desires, there is an indescribable grace that is available. The fact that you have the gift of a human life with reflective consciousness allows you to open your consciousness, rather than to engage in the usual habitual strategies of denial.

The Tibetans speak about this precious human life. I used to doubt the preciousness of a human life because it seemed that the cows, in their unconsciousness of inevitable death might actually have a better life. But what are the cows doing in the pasture? They are waiting for the slaughterhouse. Even the lilies of the field, though not doing anything, simply living and being beautiful, are dead soon enough. We too are headed for the slaughterhouse, we too will be dead soon enough. And because of the horrific grace of consciousness we can meet that inevitability.

If we stop at the horror, if we try to find something to cover it or fix it or distract ourselves from it, we deny ourselves the grace of it. When there is enough willingness to face what has been avoided, the preciousness of every moment of every limited life form is celebrated and welcomed. Facing the horror of changes and endings allows us to fully participate in both what is inherently transitory and what is changeless.

Precious human life. Precious life form. Precious moment of every life — the cow’s life until it is slaughtered or the lily’s life until it wilts — how precious it is to be conscious of being and not being. –By Gangaji/Care2/June 27, 2012

Foot Note: This blog is adapted from a talk given by Gangaji at Kripalu Center, MA in September 2011. Gangaji’s new book Hidden Treasure: Uncovering the Truth in Your Life Story, was published in September 2011 by Tacher/Penguin. In this life-changing book, Gangaji uses the telling of her own life story to help readers uncover the truth in their own. Publisher’s Weekly said, “This gently flowing but often disarming volume invites readers to examine the narratives that shape them, and is a call to pass beyond personal stories to find a deeper, more universal self.” Visit www.gangaji.org for more information about Gangaji and her upcoming events, including the monthly Webcast / Conference Series, With Gangaji, which is currently undergoing an in-depth study of Hidden Treasure.

How Will The Shocking Decline Of Christianity In America Affect The Future Of This Nation?

Is Christianity in decline in America?  When you examine the cold, hard numbers it is simply not possible to come to any other conclusion.  Over the past few decades, the percentage of Christians in America has been steadily declining.  This has especially been true among young people.  As you will see later in this article, there has been a mass exodus of teens and young adults out of U.S. churches.  In addition, what "Christianity" means to American Christians today is often far different from what "Christianity" meant to their parents and their grandparents.  Millions upon millions of Christians in the United States simply do not believe many of the fundamental principles of the Christian faith any longer.  Without a doubt, America is becoming a less "Christian" nation.  This has staggering implications for the future of this country.  The United States was founded primarily by Christians that were seeking to escape religious persecution.  For those early settlers, the Christian faith was the very center of their lives, and it deeply affected the laws that they made and the governmental structures that they established.  So what is the future of America going to look like if we totally reject the principles that this nation was founded on?

Overall, Christianity is still the largest religion in the world by far.  According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, there are currently 2.2 billion Christians in the world.  So Christianity is not in danger of disappearing any time soon.  In fact, in some areas of the globe it is experiencing absolutely explosive growth.

But in the United States, things are different.  Churches are shrinking, skepticism is growing and apathy about spiritual matters seems to be at an all-time high.

Before we examine the data, let me disclose that I am a Christian.  I am not bashing Christians or the Christian faith at all in this article.  In fact, I consider the decline of Christianity in America to be a very bad thing.  Not everyone is going to agree with me on that, but hopefully this article will help spark a debate on the role of religion in America that everyone can learn something from.

Unfortunately, the reality is that most Americans spend very little time thinking about religion or spiritual matters these days.

Just consider the following quote from a recent USA Today article....

    "The real dirty little secret of religiosity in America is that there are so many people for whom spiritual interest, thinking about ultimate questions, is minimal," says Mark Silk, professor of religion and public life at Trinity College"

This is backed up by the numbers.  For example, a survey taken last year by LifeWay Research found that 46 percent of all Americans never think about whether they will go to heaven or not.

To most Americans, faith is simply not a big deal.  This is particularly true of our young people.  Those under the age of 30 are leaving U.S. churches in droves.  The following comes from a recent CNN article....

    David Kinnaman, the 38-year-old president of the Barna Group, an evangelical research firm, is the latest to sound the alarm. In his new book, "You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith," he says that 18- to 29-year-olds have fallen down a "black hole" of church attendance. There is a 43% drop in Christian church attendance between the teen and early adult years, he says.

But it isn't just young people that are leaving American churches.  The proportion of Americans that consider themselves to be Christians has been steadily declining for many years.  Back in 1990, 86 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be Christian.  By 2008, that number had dropped to 76 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of Americans that reject religion entirely has absolutely soared.  According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans with "no religion" more than doubled between 1990 and 2008.

So what is going to happen if these trends continue?

Dave Olson, the director of church planting for the Evangelical Covenant Church, has made some really interesting projections regarding what is going to happen to church attendance in America if current trends continue.

According to Olson, only 18.7 percent of all Americans regularly attend church right now.  If this number continues to decline at the current pace, Olson says that the percentage of Americans attending church in 2050 will be about half of what it is today.

Other research has produced similar results.

According to a study done by LifeWay Research, membership in Southern Baptist churches will fall nearly 50 percent by the year 2050 if current trends persist.

If you are a Christian, you should be quite alarmed by these numbers.

But what is happening to the faith of our young people should be even more alarming for Christians.

The American Religious Identification Survey by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society & Culture at Trinity College is one of the most comprehensive studies on religion in America that has ever been done.

According to that study, 15 percent of all Americans say that they have "no religion".

That is up from 8 percent in 1990.

That is quite a change.

But the move away from religion is particularly pronounced among our young people.

One recent survey found that 25 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 say that they have no religion.

Obviously the Christian faith is not winning the battle for the hearts and the minds of our young people.  The cold, hard truth is that in America today, the younger you are, the less likely you are to consider yourself to be a Christian.

Large numbers of young Americans that went to church while they were growing up are now leaving U.S. churches entirely.  A recent study by the Barna Group discovered that nearly 60 percent of all Christians between the ages of 15 and 29 are no long actively involved in any church.

But not only have they left the church, our young people have also abandoned just about all forms of Christian spirituality.

Just check out the results of one survey of young adults that was conducted by LifeWay Christian Resources....

•65% rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.

•65% rarely or never attend worship services of any kind.

•67% don't read the Bible or any other religious texts on a regular basis.

If this does not get turned around, churches all over America will be closing their doors.  When the survey above first came out, the president of LifeWay Christian Resources stated that "the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships."

But it is not just church that our young people are rejecting.

The reality is that they are also rejecting the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.

One survey conducted by the Barna Group found that less than 1 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 23 hold a Biblical worldview.

The Barna Group asked participants in the survey if they agreed with the following six statements....

1) Believing that absolute moral truth exists.
2) Believing that the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches.
3) Believing that Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic.
4) Believing that a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or by doing good works.
5) Believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth.
6) Believing that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.

Less than 1 percent of the participants agreed with all of those statements.

That is staggering.

But it is not just young adults that are rejecting the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Even large numbers of "evangelical Christians" are rejecting the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.

For example, one survey found that 52 percent of all American Christians believe that "at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life".

Another survey found that 29 percent of all American Christians claim to have been in contact with the dead, 23 percent believe in astrology and 22 percent believe in reincarnation.

Without a doubt, the religious landscape of America is changing.

Over the past several decades, church attendance has been steadily declining, the percentage of Americans that consider themselves to be Christians has been going down, and the number of people that hold traditional Christian beliefs has been dropping like a rock.

So what does all of this mean for the future of America? -By Michael/The American Dream/January 18, 2012

 [Love Gave Us Grace]

The Son

A wealthy widower and his only child -- a son -- both loved and collected art. Their collection included works of some famous painters -- Matisse, Picasso, Raphael, et al.

During the Vietnam War, the son was drafted to military service where he served as a medic in the US Army, and died while attempting to save injured soldiers. The father grieved deeply after being notified of his son's death.

Shortly before Christmas, and just a month after the son's death, there was a knock at the old man's door. Upon opening the door, a young man stood before him carrying a large wrapped package under his arm.

"Sir, I know you don't know me, but your son and I served in the same Army unit, and I am one of several soldiers whose life your son had saved the day that he died. He carried me to safety, after I was injured by enemy fire. Just as he was about to load me onto a waiting Medevac helicopter, he himself was hit on the chest, over the heart, by an enemy's bullet. He was killed instantly. He often talked about you and your love for art. . ." The young soldier then took the package from under his arm and offered it to the old gentleman as he continued, "I think your son would have wanted you to have this."

Upon unwrapping the package, the father noticed that it was a portrait of his son. It was painted by the young soldier. The old gentleman stared in amazement and in awe at the very life-like painting of his son. It was so exquisitely and precisely done that it captured the son's physical features very realistically and vividly--especially the eyes. As the father stared at his son's portrait for several minutes, tears welled up in his eyes and rolled down his cheeks. He then profusely thanked the young man and even offered to pay him, but the soldier protested saying, "Oh, no Sir. It's a gift. It's my simple way of saying thank you to him and to you. I know that I could never ever repay what your son did for me -- it is because of him that I am still alive and standing before you this very moment!"

The father hung the portrait in a very special spot in the house, and every visitor who came was immediately led to the portrait before being shown the rest of the gentleman's fairly extensive art collection.

A few months later, the man himself died, and shortly thereafter, an auction was held to dispose of his art collection. Many art aficionados and wealthy art collectors came eager to purchase at least one of the many famous paintings in the collection.

To start the auction, the painting of the son was brought out, and the customary auction process began after the drop of the gavel and a brief description of the item to be sold. When the auctioneer asked for the first bid, there was complete silence for a long time until someone shouted, "Skip this one and start with the famous paintings!"

But the auctioneer insisted, "Who will start the bidding on the portrait of 'the son' ?. . ."

There was absolute silence for a long time until another voice was heard, "We came to 

see the van Goghs, the Rembrandts, and the other famous paintings!"

But the auctioneer continued. "The son! The son! Who'll take the son?"

The room was once again deathly silent until finally a voice came from the very rear was heard, "Ten dollars!" It was the poor longtime gardener at the deceased's estate, who despite knowing that it was actually all that he could afford, nonetheless took the chance to bid on it, hoping that no one else would buy it.

'Ten dollars! Do I hear twenty?'

Total silence for several minutes until someone yelled impatiently, "Give it to the one who bid $10, and let us go one with the real biggies!"

The crowd was become angry and restless. No one was interested in the portrait of the son.

After the almost deafening silence and getting no further bids, the auctioneer intoned, 'Going once, going twice, sold to the gentleman in the rear for $10!'

A man sitting on the second row then shouted, "Very good! Now let's get on with the auction!"

The auctioneer then laid down his gavel and declared, "The auction is over."

"What?!? How about the rest of the paintings?" came a mixture of disgusted and disappointed shouts.

The auctioneer then replied, "When I was called to conduct this auction, I was informed that it was clearly stipulated in the deceased's will that the painting of the son was the only work to be auctioned, and whoever bought the painting would inherit the deceased's entire estate including his whole art collection. So, the man who made the one and only bid for the son gets everything!" -Author Unknown

Just like the auctioneer, about 2,000 or so years ago, God, our heavenly Father offered His Son, Jesus Christ, and whosoever takes the offer is entitled to be an heir of God's kingdom!

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall. . .have eternal life. -- John 3:16

Ragbag Headliners

New Movie Inspires 'Courage' to Stand for Liberty The recent attacks on U.S. Embassies in Egypt, Yemen, and the U.S. consulate in Libya remind many that freedom comes with a price. The battle isn't always fought on the frontlines. Sometimes citizens here at home have to take a stand to defend our precious liberties. That's the topic of a new film opening across the nation, "Last Ounce of Courage." -CBN/September 14, 2012

^^^*^^^

Last Ounce Of Courage Trailer

<><><>*<><><>

Hate Speech and Foreign Relations

At Opinio Juris, my friend and former colleague Peter Spiro has an interesting post on recent events in Egypt and Libya. Peter argues that there is a foreign relations rationale for banning hate speech. In a world where obscure YouTube videos like “The Innocence of Muslims” can result in the murder of one of our ambassadors, he says, the US should consider banning such material. He notes that European countries have stricter limits on religious hate speech than we and still manage to have functioning democracies.

As I say, it’s an interesting post. Actually, though, this doesn’t seem a workable solution for the US, legally or politically. First, I don’t think Peter means “hate speech,” which typically connotes speech likely to incite violence against minorities. A ban on “hate speech” wouldn’t have applied to “The Innocence of Muslims,” which was not likely to incite violence against anyone, except perhaps the film’s producers. I think the category Peter is looking for is “offensive” speech, specifically, speech that would offend listeners’ religious sensibilities. It’s true that European countries are more comfortable than the US with banning such speech. The ECtHR has ruled that countries can ban religiously offensive speech in certain circumstances — the Otto Preminger Institute case, in which the ECtHR allowed Austria to ban local showing of a film insulting Catholicism, is perhaps the best example. But the ECtHR’s jurisprudence is based on a “human dignity” approach totally different from the American “rights” approach. American constitutional principles would have to be rethought in order to justify a ban on merely “offensive” speech.

Second, the way the world is currently constituted, everyone knows what a ban on religiously offensive speech would mean in practice. The only religiously offensive speech likely to impede American foreign relations nowadays is speech that offends Islam – or, put better, perhaps, speech that offends particular segments of Muslim opinion. One doesn’t hear about attacks on American embassies over speech that offends the sensibilities of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus — and there’s plenty such speech on the internet. Perhaps, as Peter says, Americans should generally rethink our willingness to permit religiously offensive speech. But is American public opinion ready for a rule that, in practice, would forbid speech that offends the followers of only one religion? -By Mark L. Movsesian/Center for Law and Religion Forum/September 13, 2012

<><><>*<><><>

Survey: Religious Persecution On The Rise In U.S.

A valedictorian denied the right to pray at her high school graduation; a directive that a campus Christian group may not require its leaders to be Christian; senior citizens ordered by city officials to stop praying before their meals; and the U.S. government telling religious institutions they must provide insurance coverage for abortifacients:

Those are just a few examples of “religious hostility” documented in a survey released by the conservative Family Research Council and the Liberty Institute. The survey found that attacks on Americans’ religious freedoms have dramatically increased, both in frequency and in the types of incidents. ...

"America today would be unrecognizable to our Founders," said Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackelford. "Our First Liberty is facing a relentless onslaught from well-funded and aggressive groups and individuals who are using the courts, Congress, and the vast federal bureaucracy to suppress and limit religious freedom. This radicalized minority is driven by an anti-religious ideology that is turning the First Amendment upside down.” -By Jon Street/Washington Times/September 10, 2012

How to Treat a Rebellious Israel - Part II

Part two of a conversation between John Piper and Jews for Jesus head David Brickner.

Are American pastors dismissive of Arab Christians in Israel? Should Christians treat the Israeli-Palestinian dispute differently than other conflicts? As pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, John Piper has been addressing these contentious questions for years. After he began informally discussing them with David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus, we invited them to share some of their discussion with our readers. We continue today with Piper's response to Brickner's question, "Do Jews have a divine right to the Promised Land?"  and will continue [next week] with Brickner's response.

Dear David,

Thank you for taking this happy initiative. I am eager to discuss Israel and the Promised Land with you. I love Jews for Jesus. Your leadership, and Moishe Rosen's before you, have been for me a cause for continual thanksgiving. "To the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16) has never ceased to carry weight with me. I pray we will never lose Paul's passion in Romans 10:1: "My heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved."

We both agree that the way God chose to bring all the nations under the sway of King Jesus is astonishing. After sketching it, Paul praised God, "How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Rom. 11:33).

• First, God chose Israel. "The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth" (Deut. 7:6).
• Then, for 2,000 years, he focused his saving work mainly on Israel, "allowing all the nations to walk in their own ways" (Acts 14:16).
• Then he sent Jesus, the Messiah, to Israel, knowing they would crucify him, so that the Gentiles might "receive mercy because of their [Israel's] disobedience" (Rom. 11:30).
• And then, lest we Gentiles think we are the end of the story, Paul told us that Israel "has now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you [Gentiles] they [Israel] also may now receive mercy" (Rom. 11:31).
• And the point of it all? To show that "from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:36).

What was Paul's response to this flabbergasting way of saving the world? Unsearchable! Inscrutable! "Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" (Rom. 11:34).

So, you are right. I believe God has a future for ethnic Israel. And we agree this is not because there are two tracks to glory or two different covenants of grace. Rather, corporate Israel will be saved in the end because she will be grafted back into the same covenant tree with all of us wild olive branches (Rom. 11:16–24). Both Jews and Gentiles become heirs of the promise of Abraham in the same way: "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Gal. 3:29).

So I am persuaded with J. C. Ryle that Israel, as a people, will someday be converted to the Messiah and saved:

    They are kept separate that they may finally be saved, converted and restored to their own land. They are reserved and preserved, in order that God may show in them as on a platform, to angels and men, how greatly he hates sin, and yet how greatly he can forgive, and how greatly he can convert. Never will that be realized as it will in that day when "all Israel shall be saved." (Are You Ready for the End of Time? pp. 137–138)

Moreover, I also believe the promise of the Land to this redeemed ethnic Israel is both conditional and irrevocable. Irrevocable means they will finally have it as a special dwelling place when the Deliverer comes from Zion and banishes ungodliness from Jacob (Rom. 11:26).

The Land is part of God's everlasting covenant with Israel. "He confirmed to Jacob as … an everlasting covenant, saying, 'To you I will give the land of Canaan'" (Ps. 105:10–11). "All the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever" (Gen. 13:15). "I will give to you and to your offspring … the land of your sojournings … for an everlasting possession (Gen. 17:8).

But this irrevocable covenant promise is also conditional. The obedience that comes from faith is the condition. Here's the logic of the covenant promise: "I have chosen him [Abraham], that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him" (Gen. 18:19). They are to keep the way of the Lord, so that the promises will count for them.

Abraham was justified by faith (Gen. 15:6), but his obedience, for example on Mount Moriah, confirmed his covenant standing and was the condition of the final promise: "In your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice [in offering Isaac]" (Gen. 22:18; cf. 26:4–5). Similarly, God spoke this condition to Israel at Mount Sinai: "If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples" (Ex. 19:5).

Thus, when Israel broke her covenant in protracted disobedience, God, after much mercy, brought judgments on her, including eviction from the Promised Land. "The king of Assyria carried the Israelites … because they did not obey the voice of the Lord their God but transgressed his covenant" (2 Kings 18:11–12). "Because you sinned against the Lord and did not obey his voice, this thing has come upon you" (Jer. 40:3; cf. Deut. 28:45; Ps. 78:56–61).

Today, Israel as a nation is a covenant-breaking people—they are rejecting their Messiah, Jesus. In this condition of unbelief and disobedience, she has no "divine right" to the Land of Promise. This does not mean that other nations have the right to molest her. She still has human rights among nations. Nations that gloated over Israel's divine discipline were punished by God (Isa. 10:5–13).

Therefore, the Christian plea in the Middle East to Palestinians and Jews is: "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). And until that great day when Jesus-trusting Israel will inherit the Land without lifting sword or gun, the rights of nations should be decided by the principles of compassionate and public justice, not claims to national divine right or status.

You point out that "it has never been by divine right but rather by divine mercy that Israel has dwelt in the Land." I totally agree. It has always been by divine mercy that Israel has dwelt in the Land. She has never merited it as a right. I wasn't thinking of "divine right" in contrast to "divine mercy," but in contrast to "human right." That is, Israel may have a human right to the Land, even while she has no divine right to it. That is, in negotiations with other nations, covenant-breaking Israel cannot say, "God has given us a right to this land presently in our state of unbelief and disobedience." While Israel rejects Jesus as her Messiah, neither God's mercy nor his justice offers compelling warrant for her possessing the Land.

You say, "God was merciful and allowed Israel to remain in the Land despite her unbelief. … Why could God not act the same in our present day situation?" I answer: He not only can. He is. Israel is in the Land. And it is all mercy. All I am saying with the term "no divine right" is that the promise of God that Israel will someday rightfully possess the Land carries no leverage among the nations while she is rejecting her Messiah.

With regard to the final inheritance of the Land, you suggest that my handling of the promise to Israel "effectively makes its original meaning null." The reason is that I said,

    Jewish believers in Jesus and Gentile believers will inherit the Land. And the easiest way to see this is to see that we will inherit the world which includes the Land. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians will not quibble over the real estate of the Promised Land because the entire new heavens and the new earth will be ours. 1 Corinthians 3:21–23: "All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." All followers of Christ, and only followers of Christ, will inherit the earth, including the Land.

Does this way of seeing things nullify the promise that God will give Israel the Land? I don't think so. Israel will get no less than promised because the Gentiles get more than imagined. For all I know, in the millennium and in the new earth redeemed and glorified ethnic Israel will locate mainly in the new Palestine. But she will also own the world, and no saint will begrudge her emigration, or any Gentile's immigration.

In the present situation in Israel, I agree with your wise counsel: "we must avoid … drawing a moral equivalence between acts of terrorism against citizens and the efforts of a government to defend its people and territory."

My prayer is that the good news of Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, would flood Jewish communities around the world, that the veil would be lifted, and that we would see a massive turning of Israel to the Lord Jesus. "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'" (Rom. 10:12–13).

Next Week Part Three: Conversation between John Piper’s and David Brickner, God Doesn't Keep Jews in a Pickle Jar.

Cell Phones In Church

Confession

10 Questions to Help Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened

This simple quiz will let you know if you're being oppressed.

It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less. -By Rev. Emily C. Heath/AlterNet/September  9, 2012

Foot Note: The Rev. Emily C. Heath is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ (UCC) who serves as a local church pastor in southern Vermont. She is also a former hospital and hospice chapain, and a current chaplain to a fire department. She is a graduate of Emory University and Columbia Theological Seminary.

Dream & Trust ...

"Jesus said...'All things are possible to him who believes.'" -Mark 9:23, NASB

When you think of the dreams you have for your life, do you think they're possible to achieve? Famed entertainer Liza Minnelli encourages us to "Dream on it. Let your mind take you to places you would like to go, and then think about it and plan it and celebrate the possibilities. And don't listen to anyone who doesn't know how to dream." With God, those dreams become stepping stones to achieving his purpose in your life. Allow him to guide you as you dream, plan, and achieve the goals that he makes possible!

Prayer: Lord Jesus, you have shown me so many times in the past that the most impossible things are possible when I trust you completely and do my part. Help me to follow you as I dream, plan, and achieve your will in my life.

Reflection: How have you seen God do the impossible in your life in the past? Make a list of ways he's made everything "work together for good." Then thank him for each thing you've included in your list. –Hour of Power/June 16, 2012

The Abortion War

Fault Lines investigates the forces behind the so-called war on women in the US.

It has become one of the most vicious, important and divisive battlegrounds in the 2012 US presidential election.

Since it was legalised in 1973, the issue of abortion has polarised the US, but now the battle has been taken to a new level.

Last year, an unprecedented number of laws have been passed across the US, all aimed at restricting abortion or reproductive rights.

But the fight goes far beyond the medical procedure, with Republican politicians even attacking the Obama administration for making contraception more readily available.

The US has seen more anti-abortion violence than any other country in the world. Since 1993, at least eight abortion providers, including four doctors have been killed. And there have been over 200 arsons and bombings against reproductive healthcare clinics since 1977.

Why is a medical procedure being reframed as a deeply divisive moral issue in the US? Fault Lines travels to California to meet the next generation of frontline troops fighting to ban abortion, and to Ohio and Tennessee to investigate what lies behind the so-called war on women. –By Fault Lines / Al-Jazeera/Common Dreams/August 30, 2012

^^^*^^^

Fault Lines : The abortion war

A Blessing In Disguise

Photo taken in Sindh in Southern Pakistan

Due to the recent unprecedented severe and wide-scale flooding in several areas of Pakistan, millions of spiders had "colonized" several trees in order to escape the rising floodwaters. And because the waters had taken an unusually long time to recede, the spiders had spun thick webs around many trees.

While spider webs are not an unusual sight to see in Pakistan, particularly during the cyclone [hurricane] and rainy season, this is, however, the very first time that many trees had been nearly completely covered by a mosquito net-like drape of closely-woven, silky spider webs.

An unexpected blessing from the unusual phenomenon is the fact that there had been a drastic reduction in mosquitoes despite the stagnant waters, and there had hardly been any cases of malaria because the mosquitoes had gotten entangled and stuck in the spider webs, where they became a "feast" for the spiders. –Source/Photographer Unknonw

The Golden Age of Islam - A Second Look

The period from the death of Muhammad through the 13th Century marks the glory days of the Islamic empire. It was a period of commerce, industry and intra-cultural synergies and a flourishing of the sciences, art, medicine and architecture. It was the epitome of what civilization should be. Just ask Obama. In his 2009 Cairo speech the president said that Islam "carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment," and praised the "innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed."

While Central Europe languished in the Dark Ages of ignorance, fear and superstition following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century (so the story goes), it was the Islamic world that carried the torch of Classical civilization to a Europe finally stumbling out of the Dark Ages in the 15th century.

By contrast the Islamic world flourished during the Dark Ages: by the 13th century, both Africa and India had become great centers of Islamic civilization, and soon after, Muslim kingdoms were established in the Malay-Indonesian world while Chinese Muslims flourished throughout China.

Islam therefore is a religion for all people from whatever race or background they might be: Islamic civilization is based on a unity which stands completely against any racial or ethnic discrimination. Such major racial and ethnic groups as the Arabs, Persians, Turks, Africans, Indians, Chinese and Malays in addition to countless smaller units embraced Islam and contributed to the building of Islamic civilization.

Moreover, so the story goes, Islam was not opposed to learning from the earlier civilizations and incorporating their science, learning, and culture into its own world view. Each ethnic and racial group that embraced Islam made its contribution to the one Islamic civilization to which everyone belonged.

The global civilization created by Islam also succeeded in activating the minds and thoughts of the people who entered its fold. As a result of Islam, the nomadic Arabs became torch-bearers of science and learning. The Persians, who had created a great civilization before the rise of Islam, nevertheless produced even more science and learning in the Islamic period than before. The same can be said of the Turks and other peoples who embraced Islam. The religion of Islam was itself responsible not only for the creation of a world civilization in which people of many different ethnic backgrounds participated, but it also played a central role in developing intellectual and cultural life on a scale not seen before.

Quite a story. And it is a story being fed to US students from k-12 on through graduate schools. Quite a story? More like a fairy tale.

Victor Davis Hanson has taken down Obama's version of the Golden age of Islam:

    In his speech last week in Cairo, President Obama proclaimed he was a "student of history." But despite Mr. Obama's image as an Ivy League-educated intellectual, he lacks historical competency in both facts and interpretation. … Obama … claimed that "Islam . . . carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment." [In fact] medieval Islamic culture … had little to do with the European rediscovery of classical Greek and Latin values. Europeans, Chinese, and Hindus, not Muslims, invented most of the breakthroughs Obama credited to Islamic innovation. … Much of the Renaissance, in fact, was more predicated on the centuries-long flight of Greek-speaking Byzantine scholars from Constantinople to Western Europe to escape the aggression of Islamic Turks. Many romantic thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to extend freedom to oppressed subjects of Muslim fundamentalist rule in eastern and southern Europe.

Andrew Bostom has skewered the myth that Cordoba was a model of ecumenism:

Expanding upon Jane Gerber's thesis about the "garish" myth of a "Golden Age," the late Richard Fletcher (in his Moorish Spain) offered a fair assessment of interfaith relationships in Muslim Spain and his view of additional contemporary currents responsible for obfuscating that history:

    The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah [ordeal] in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion — to mention only a few disruptive episodes — must give it [i.e.: the roseate view of Muslim Spain] the lie.

    The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility. … Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126 (like the Moriscos five centuries later). … In the second half of the twentieth century a new agent of obfuscation makes its appearance: the guilt of the liberal conscience, which sees the evils of colonialism — assumed rather than demonstrated — foreshadowed in the Christian conquest of al-Andalus and the persecution of the Moriscos (but not, oddly, in the Moorish conquest and colonization). Stir the mix well and issue it free to credulous academics and media persons throughout the Western world. Then pour it generously over the truth … in the cultural conditions that prevail in the West today, the past has to be marketed, and to be successfully marketed, it has to be attractively packaged. Medieval Spain in a state of nature lacks wide appeal. Self-indulgent fantasies of glamour … do wonders for sharpening its image. But Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch.

Serge Trifkovic also has a general take-down of the overblown account of the accomplishments and comity of the Islamic Golden Age in his FrontPage article, The Golden Age of Islam is a Myth.

And now we have Emmet Scott, in a soon to be released study, Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: An Introduction to the History of a Controversy, advancing the thesis that Rather than preserving the Classical heritage, the expanding Islamic empire destroyed it and brought about the Dark Ages.

Armed with new archaeological evidence, Scott makes the compelling case, originally put forward in 1920 by Henri Pirenne, a Belgian historian, that Classical civilization did not collapse after the fall of the Roman empire but was gradually attrited by the onslaught of Arab armies and raiders. The Islamic Golden Age came close to permanently destroying the classical humanistic culture of the West.

Hanson has pointed out the factual errors in Obama's paean to Islam's Golden Age. Andrew Bostom has skewered the myth that Cordoba was a model of ecumenism Trikovic has shown that the continuation of learning, science, technology of the "Golden age of Islam" prospered in spite of Islam and not because of Islam and now we have Emmet Scott skewering the myth that the Golden Age of Islam saved Classical humanistic Western culture. What is next? The glory of Sharia? -By Richard Butrick/Gatestone Institute/January 17, 2012

10 Questions to Help Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened

This simple quiz will let you know if you're being oppressed.

It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

Ragbag Headliners

Kansas City Bishop Convicted Of Shielding Pedophile Priest

A Roman Catholic bishop was found guilty on Thursday of failing to report suspected child abuse, becoming the first American bishop in the decades-long sexual abuse scandal to be convicted of shielding a pedophile priest.

 In a hastily announced bench trial that lasted a little over an hour, a judge found the bishop, Robert W. Finn, guilty on one misdemeanor charge and not guilty on a second charge, for failing to report a priest who had taken hundreds of pornographic pictures of young girls. The counts each carried a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, but Bishop Finn was sentenced to two years of court-supervised probation.

The verdict is a watershed moment in the priest sexual abuse scandal that has plagued the church since the 1980s. Bishops have been eager to turn the page on this era and have put in place extensive abuse prevention policies, which include reporting suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities. But the Kansas City case has served as a wake-up call to Catholics that the policies cannot be effective if the bishops do not follow them.

It was an abrupt ending to a case that has consumed the church in Kansas City and threatened to turn into a sensational, first-ever trial of a sitting prelate. The case had been scheduled for a jury trial later this month, but on Wednesday the prosecution said it would be decided in one afternoon by Judge John M. Torrence in Jackson County Circuit Court.

Before being sentenced, Bishop Finn, 59, his jaw quivering, rose in court and said: “I am pleased and grateful that the prosecution and the courts have allowed this matter to be completed. The protection of children is paramount.”

He added, “I truly regret and am sorry for the hurt that these events have caused.”

The church managed to avoid a lengthy, highly public jury trial like the one earlier this year in Philadelphia, where a high-ranking assistant to the archbishop was convicted of child endangerment and sentenced to prison for three to six years.

The Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker, said that the expedited trial spared the young victims and their parents from having to testify. She said it also meant that the disturbing photographs of children would not be shown in open court. She said the victims and their families “were all ecstatic that this could end today.”

The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, like some other victims’ advocacy groups, applauded the unprecedented conviction of a bishop but said in a statement that the sentence was too lenient. “Only jail time would have made a real difference here,” it said.

The judge dropped two charges against the diocese itself.

The case began when the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, a charismatic parish priest who had previously attracted attention for inappropriate behavior with children, took his laptop computer in for repairs in December 2010. A technician immediately told church officials that the laptop contained what appeared to be pornographic photographs of young girls’ genitals, naked and clothed.

Father Ratigan attempted suicide, survived and was sent for treatment. Bishop Finn reassigned him to live in a convent and ordered him stay away from children. But Father Ratigan continued to attend church events and take lewd pictures of girls for five more months, until church officials reported him in May 2011, without Bishop Finn’s approval. The bishop was found guilty on the charge relating only to that time period.

Father Ratigan pleaded guilty in August to federal child pornography charges, and is awaiting sentencing.

Ms. Peters Baker told the judge in opening arguments that Bishop Finn had been given ample warning that Father Ratigan was a danger to children. She said that the priest had even admitted to Bishop Finn that he had “a pornography problem.”

The prosecutor said: “Defendant Finn is the ultimate authority. The buck does stop with him.”

In May 2010, the principal of the Catholic elementary school where Father Ratigan was working sent a memo to the diocese raising alarm about the priest. The letter said that he had put a girl on his lap on a bus ride and encouraged children to reach into his pockets for candy, and that parents discovered girl’s underwear in a planter outside his house. Bishop Finn has said he did not read the letter until a year later.

The prosecutor said the photographs discovered on Father Ratigan’s laptop in December 2010 were “alarming photos,” among them a series taken on a playground in which the photographer moves in closer until the final shots show girls’ genitalia through their clothing. Confronted with the photographs, Father Ratigan tried to commit suicide, but survived and was briefly hospitalized.

Bishop Finn sent Father Ratigan for a psychological examination, then assigned him to live in a convent and told him not to have contact with children. But despite the restrictions, Father Ratigan presided at a girl’s First Communion and attended an Easter egg hunt and a child’s birthday party.

The bishop is required as part of his sentence to start a training program for diocesan employees in detecting early signs of child abuse, and in what constitutes child pornography and obscenity. He must also create a fund of $10,000 to pay for victims’ counseling.

Bishop Finn and the diocese still face 27 civil suits, 4 of them involving Father Ratigan.

It is unclear whether Bishop Finn will come under pressure by the Vatican or his fellow bishops to resign. Asked at a news conference about Bishop Finn’s future, Ms. Peters Baker, demurred and said, “You’ll have to call Rome.”

Judge Torrence, at the close of the trial, said that he hoped that this ended “a long and dark chapter” in history. “I am convinced that this was an appropriate and just way to wrap this up and let everyone move on,” he said.

John Eligon reported from Kansas City, Mo., and Laurie Goodstein from New York.

By John Eligon and Laurie Goodstein/New York Times/September 6, 2012

Do Jews Have A Divine Right To Israel's Land? - Part I

Part one of a conversation between John Piper and Jews for Jesus head David Brickner.

Do Jews have a divine right to the Promised Land? Are American pastors dismissive of Arab Christians in Israel? Should Christians treat the Israeli-Palestinian dispute differently than other conflicts? As pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, John Piper has been addressing these contentious questions for years. After he began informally discussing them with David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus, we invited them to share some of their discussion with our readers. We begin today with Brickner's response to some of Piper's recent writings and sermons, and will continue tomorrow with Piper's response.

Dear John,

It is an honor to dialogue with you on the important and timely subject of Israel/Palestine, the land and the people. I am deeply aware of your uncompromising commitment to the cause of Christ among all peoples, including the Jewish people. The opportunities you have consistently extended to Jews for Jesus to share our ministry with the family at Bethlehem Baptist Church—and the way you have stood your ground in supporting Jewish evangelism, even after receiving considerable pressure from Jewish community leaders—speak volumes. There can be no doubt that what we share in common is far greater than the areas where we may disagree.

Yet, if I understand your views regarding the modern state of Israel and its current conflict with its neighbors correctly, I do have some real concerns—particularly in light of the current political climate (the U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood) as well as a growing trend among certain Christian polemicists against Israel (see Gary Burge and Stephen Sizer). I believe our exchange will demonstrate to readers that, despite the heated arguments that occur at the poles of the Christian positions on these issues, there is a broad middle ground where the majority of us can stand and exchange our views in an irenic and thought-provoking way.

I have recently reread your article for World Magazine (May 11, 2002), along with sermons you preached at Bethlehem Baptist Church in November 2002 and March 2004, and more recently a blog from March 2011. I'll begin this exchange on the basis of those writings.

I appreciate your clear statement of belief in God's continuing purposes for ethnic Israel. I also note that you affirm, "God promised to Israel the presently disputed land from the time of Abraham onward." And yet there seems to be a "disconnect" between those statements and your comments regarding the present-day situation as well as the future. As I see it, this disconnect occurs at two important points.

First, you say that because the majority of Jews do not believe in Jesus they have broken covenant with God and have no divine claim at this time to the land God promised them.

Second, you say that the future of the land promised to Israel becomes subsumed under the promise of God that all believers will "inherit the land … because the entire new heavens and new earth will be ours."

I believe that these views can potentially undermine Christian confidence in the ongoing election of Israel based upon the Abrahamic covenant and give encouragement to those who have adopted a supersessionist position toward Israel today. (Editors' note: supersessionism teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God's covenants and plans.)

I agree with you that Israel does not currently enjoy a divine right to the Land. But I would argue that it has never been by divine right but rather by divine mercy that Israel has dwelt in the Land. God blessed Abraham in the land he had promised him though Abraham at times acted in unbelief, at times had to fight for his land, and at one point even paid for his land (and in the end never even possessed all the land that was promised him). Similarly, for much of the biblical record, Israel lived in the Land while rebellious and breaking the Mosaic covenant. Yet God was merciful and allowed Israel to remain in the Land despite her unbelief. He did this because of his gracious promise to Abraham and his descendants. Why could God not act the same in our present-day situation?

While God declared that his judgment upon Israel for her unbelief would include removal from the Land, he also promised he would re-gather his people to that land, not based on divine right but again as a result of his mercy. Could God in his mercy allow Israel to be re-gathered to the Land although in unbelief? I believe he could. In fact, it would appear the Scripture implies that Israel will indeed be back in the Land in unbelief prior to the return of Christ (see Ezekiel 37; Zechariah 12; Romans 11).

Could present-day Israel be uprooted once again from the Land because of her unbelief? I would have to say yes, though I hope not. There is a growing remnant of believers in Jesus in the land of Israel, and God has consistently extended mercy on behalf of the remnant of his people. Paul makes much of the theology of the remnant in asserting that God has not forsaken his people. The church can rejoice in that ever-increasing remnant, with all the ramifications it holds for the modern and future state of Israel. As you have noted, "these privileges belong fully and savingly to an elect remnant of Israel now."

The future of ethnic Israel is indeed bright; just as God has promised, "all Israel will be saved. As it is written: the deliverer will come from Zion. …" But surely that bright future must also include the fulfillment of the specific land promises God has made to Abraham and his descendants as well. To imagine that God's very specific promises are subsumed in his wider promise that all believers will inherit the new heavens and earth makes it seem as though God is reinterpreting his original promise so as to effectively make its original meaning null.

Imagine if I had offered your grandfather a beautiful home in Minneapolis and told him very specifically that it was not only for him, but for his descendants. After you move in, I inform you that some time in the future I will be renovating the entire city and you will have a much bigger and better house. Of course, you will share the city with many others as well. And in the meanwhile, several neighbors are moving into the original house I promised your grandfather. Probably you would find either my ability to remember my promises, or my intention of keeping them, somewhat lacking. It seems to me that subsuming God's past and precise promises into his wider, future promises reflects similarly on God's memory or intentions of promise-keeping.

As to the issue of how Christians should understand the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, I agree with you that Israel "should seek a peaceful settlement not based on present divine right, but on principles of justice, mercy, and practical feasibility." Israel's government is secular and should be evaluated by the same standards as any other secular government. There has been injustice and suffering on both sides of the conflict, and we are called to care for all those who are suffering. At the same time we must avoid the common practice today of drawing a moral equivalence between acts of terrorism against citizens and the efforts of a government to defend its people and territory.

Most importantly, I absolutely agree with you that "the Christian plea in the Middle East to Palestinians and Jews is: 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.'" The only hope for peace was born in the Middle East, our wonderful Messiah Y'shua. God loves Israelis and Palestinians equally. Indeed, when Arabs and Jews can say to one another, "I love you in Jesus' name," the world will truly see the reconciling power of the gospel. Through the proclamation of the gospel there today we are beginning to see this happening, to the praise of his grace.

Your Jewish brother in him,

David Brickner

Next Week Part Two: John Piper’s Response, How to Treat A Rebellious Israel