To Be Born Again CAN DAMAGE YOUR BRAIN?

A study, recently published by Duke University suggests that religious factors like being born again can cause shrinking of the brain. The Abstract of the study states, “The findings of this study indicate that hippocampal atrophy in late life may be uniquely influenced by certain types of religious factors.”

Hippocampal atrophy is the wasting away or decreasing of the part of the brain that is responsible for emotions and senses like fear, anger and pleasure. As people age, the brain deteriorates giving rise to clinical outcomes such as depression, dementia and even Alzheimer’s disease. The Duke study contends damage is also done to older persons who have had “life-changing religious experiences.” The Protestant understanding of being born again was specifically singled out as a contributor to this impediment.

 
The inter-disciplinary study is a welcome addition to a number of studies showing the effects of religion on the brain. As a matter of fact, the study is among the first to examine religious and spiritual correlates with brain atrophy. Although thorough, I have some concerns about the methods used, which would ultimately affect the outcome.
 
I believe the sample size of the study was too small. The study evaluated 268 men and women between the ages of 58 and 84 over the course of two to eight years. The sample was also too narrow in that it examined mainly Southeastern Protestant Christians. In addition, the study could not clearly determine if the outcomes were related to religious experiences or to the stresses that normally accompany persons in the specific age group.
 
I would agree that some religious experiences do bring on stress. However, these experiences are more as a result of cultural and psychological expectations, as opposed to healthy biblical responses to the Scriptures.
 

For example, when Jesus challenged Nicodemus to be born again (John 3:1-21), He was not suggesting that Nicodemus should attempt to relive some childhood experience as a perception of reality. In other words, Jesus was not saying Nicodemus should recover his innocence.

The context is very clear – Jesus was not referring to natural birth. Like some of today’s psychoanalysts, Nicodemus thought Jesus was inviting him to relive infancy when he asked: “How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born?”    

In His lengthy reply, Jesus contended, “flesh gives birth to flesh; the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” In other words, the born again experience to which Jesus referred was not a human phenomenon. Jesus was talking about a new life – a new life in which God imparts spiritual life to a person.

 

Agreed, in attempting to explain this new life, many Christians have made burdensome demands of new believers. Such practices have brought on stress, conflict and a variety of mental health issues. We must therefore ask ourselves whether the mental health challenges that new believers face are related to the born again experience or to the burdensome demands that Christian leaders require, in order to validate the born again experience.

 

To be born again implies that one has chosen to abandon a particular way of living. That abandoned way of living is often referred to as a natural, inherited lifestyle. It is a lifestyle that is often in conflict with the born again lifestyle Jesus talked to Nicodemus about. Because of the noticeable differences between the lifestyles, conflict is inevitable.

   

The conflicts can become more intense among older persons because they are having to change ways that have shaped them for most of their lives. It is difficult to predict the emotional impact such changes can have on converts. We must therefore ask, do the benefits of being born again outdo the apparent risks of hippocampal atrophy?

 
The answer would seem obvious – to be born again offers temporal and eternal benefits. Numerous studies confirm the mental health benefits that accrue to persons who accept the new life Jesus offers. The joy of such a lifestyle is not based on what one abandons, but rather on what one embraces.
 

As Paul presented a defense of his faith before Festus in Acts 26, Festus declared, “You are out of your mind…your great learning is driving you insane.” To this Paul replied: “I am not insane…what I am saying is true and reasonable.” The same is true today - to be born again will conflict with existing worldviews. However, such conflicts do not imply insanity. To be born again is true, reasonable and resonates with the virtuous life Jesus offers in John 10:10 (…I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly).

NO RESURRECTION, No Christianity

 As we discussed the outcome of the Israel “bone box” case, one student asked, “what would happen if a bone box with Jesus’ name is ever found?” Before disclosing my answer, allow me to explain the background and implications of the question.

Following the death of Jesus, His body was placed in a tomb. This practice was very common among families that could afford tombs in the first century. It was also very common for the remains of the dead to be removed from the tomb and placed in a bone box (ossuary) any time after one year from death. The name of the deceased would be engraved on the limestone box and the box would then be stored in a cave with other boxes. Over the years, about 1,000 ossuaries have been found in Israel - many of these with recognizable engravings of names.

It was in this context my student was asking, “What would happen if a bone box with Jesus’ name is ever found?” My answer was very clear –  I would abandon Christianity. The shock was obvious on the faces of these college students. “Does one have to believe the resurrection in order to be a Christian?” Another student chimed in, “…but I know a Christian who does not believe in the resurrection…”

Seriously though, does one need to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus in order to be a Christian? Paul in Romans 10:9 contends that belief in the resurrection is necessary for one to become a Christian. Paul is not suggesting that one must know of the resurrection in order to become a Christian. Rather, I believe I hear him saying one cannot reject the resurrection of Jesus and at the same time want to become a Christian.

 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RESURRECTION

The resurrection of Jesus was humanly impossible- decomposition, not resurrection, follows death. Any reversal of this order is beyond the natural. The New Testament maintains that something beyond the natural occurred and Jesus was seen by several persons for more than a month, following His death. Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians argues, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our faith is useless (1 Corinthians 15:14). To deny the physical resurrection of Jesus is to deny the supernatural intervention, following the crucifixion.

 

Even a cursory reading of Acts will show that the testimony of those who witnessed the resurrection was critical to the new movement. Secular historians claim that the resurrection is a matter of faith and not history. The fact that the alleged experience is not a natural phenomenon means it cannot be considered to be an historical event.

Logically, that would seem to make sense. However, what does not seem to make sense is to conclude that because something does not fit one’s definition of reality, that something did not take place. Okay, here are a few historical questions for the historian:

 

1) How can we account for the empty tomb, within days of the crucifixion?

2) How can we account for the sudden enthusiasm of discouraged and fearful disciples so soon after the crucifixion of Jesus?

 

3) How can we account for the rapid growth of the church, were it not for the message of the resurrection?

 

4) How can we account for the early church wor-shipping on the first day of the week, were it not for an opportunity to remember the resurrection?

 

5) How do we account for the martyrdom of the disciples, were it not for their convictions about the resurrection?

 

6) How do we account for the remarkable conversion and life of Paul the persecutor, were it not for the resurrection?

 

7) How do we account for the missing corpse or even the ossuary of Jesus, knowing that either item would negate the Christian claim of His resurrection?

Answers to these and other questions do not require a religious worldview – then why can’t they be answered? Frank Morrison, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel tried to find answers in their quest to prove the resurrection a hoax – the result? Each one followed the evidence and became Christians.

It is true – people would die for what they believe to be true, but never for what they know to be a lie. Trace the deaths of each of the disciples in Foxe’s Book of Christian Martyrs; excepting John who was banished for the truth, all the other disciples died for what they knew to be true. Even Judas, after betraying Jesus, admitted he betrayed innocent blood. Judas eventually took his own life because he could not live with the memories of his crime.

 

It is impossible to believe the resurrection of Jesus and not be affected by what we believe. The disciples lived and even died for what they believed.

May Easter 2012 challenge us to do something about what we believe.

INJUSTICE!

Rarely do we include the pain of injustice when discussing the crucifixion of Jesus. In his movie, The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson did a great job in depicting the physical pain Jesus suffered. However, the pain of the unjust trials of Jesus is often overlooked. Then, as well as now, justice is rooted in concepts of truth and impartiality. To be honest, to be deprived of justice is often worse than the alleged crime for which one is accused.

In reporting the trial of Jesus, the New Testament accounts for four trials – two Hebrew and two Roman. Laws were broken in all four trials, thus making the miscarriage of justice even more barbaric.

Before providing a catalog of unjust practices in the trials, one must never forget the pre-trial pains Jesus encountered. The Gospel writers were convinced that the Jewish authorities were determined to have Jesus killed, by whatever means possible. The Greek translation of Matthew 26:4 is clear, they intended to take Jesus by “treachery” and “cunning”, and kill him. Following the restoration of life to Lazarus, John reports “…from that day on they plotted to take his (Jesus) life” (John 11:53). Interesting, the authorities that wanted to kill Him were hoping to conduct an impartial trial later.

Space would not allow us to expand on the pain of betrayal by one of His disciples (John 13:2) or the additional pain of abandonment “when all the disciples deserted Him and fled” (Matthew 26:56). Or, consider the pain from the denial by Peter, even after being cautioned. It is hard to imagine the loneliness Jesus must have felt before trial.

I just completed reading Attorney Steven Allen’s book, The Illegal Trial of Christ (Legal Awareness Series, Inc., 2005). I’ve had the book for a few years and was determined to include it in this year’s Easter readings. Allen does a terrific job in explaining the rules of procedure in Hebrew Law. Citing earlier publications by Walter Chandler (The Trial of Jesus [New York, 1908]) and Alfred Edersheim (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah), Allen contends, “Christ’s trial was a mockery of Jewish law” (page 11).

 

Here is a partial listing of laws that were broken by the Sanhedrin – the Jewish organization that was responsible for administering justice:

1. Jesus was questioned at night – proceedings were to be conducted during the day only

 

2. Jesus was taken to the palace of Annas/Caiaphas - proceedings were to be conducted in the Chamber of Hewn Stones (a temple chamber).

3. Jesus was questioned on the day of a Passover Feast and on the eve of a Jewish Sabbath – this was a clear violation of not conducting a trial on the eves of Sabbaths or feast days.

 

4. The accusation was based on the testimony of an accomplice, Judas – in order to convict someone, an accusing witness, together with two eyewitnesses, were required.

 

5. Jesus was taken before a prejudiced judge – prejudiced judges should not participate in trials.

 

6. Jesus was convicted on the basis of His own testimony and not that of any other witness – an accused person was never compelled to testify against himself.

 

7. Jesus asked for an accusing witness, which was His right by law, and was denied – the Sanhedrin never produced one credible witness.

 

8. The merits of the defense of Jesus were not considered – absolutely no defense was offered.

 

9. The judge prejudiced the outcome of the case – Caiaphas the high priest “rent his clothes” during the trial – that was a display of disgust that would negatively influence the opinions of his subordinates.

10. Both Hebrew trials took place within ten hours – the law was clear, if a death sentence were pronounced, a second trial was to be held the following day.

Despite these and many other injustices, Jesus allowed the authorities to crucify Him. He scolded his disciple Peter when he attempted to provide protection - Peter drew a sword and cut off the right ear of the high priest’s servant. To this action Jesus replied, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more that twelve legions (72,000) of angels?” (Matthew 26:53)

 

If Jesus could have escaped crucifixion and chose not to do so, then why did He allow it to happen? Jesus knew death was inevitable. He was paying a price that the prophets predicted hundreds of years earlier. New Testament writers contended that Christ’s horrific death was necessary because of the horrific nature of sin – for which He was dying. In addition, if there was no death, there could be no resurrection – the subject of our next commentary.

Did Jesus Die on A Cross?

Islam, one of the fastest growing religions in the world, does not believe Jesus died on a cross. As a matter of fact, Islam disagrees with the New Testament teaching that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected. In Sura (chapter) 4:157-158, the Qur’an clearly denies the crucifixion:

      That they said, “We killed Christ Jesus the son    

      of Mary, the Apostle of God” – But they killed 
      Him not, Nor crucified him, But so it was made
      to appear to them, And those who differ therein
      are full of doubts, With no knowledge, But only
      conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed
      him not: - Nay, God raised him up Unto
      Himself; and God Is exalted in power, wise.

Muslim scholar Sulaiman Mufasir, summarized the heart of the Islamic view when he said: “Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but God saved him from their plot” (A Prophet of Islam. Indianapolis: American Trust Publication, 1980, page 5).

 
At this point, the issue is not if Jesus died for our sins – it is, did Jesus die as the New Testament said He did? It is an issue of historical accuracy, not theological interpretation. As a matter of fact, if Jesus did not die on the cross as stated in the New Testament then our theological conclusions about the cross are false.
 
Many Muslims cite The Gospel of Barnabas in defense of their anti-cross teaching. For instance, Suzanne Haneef, in commenting on The Gospel of Barnabas says, “Within it one finds the living Jesus portrayed far more vividly and in character with the mission with which he was entrusted than any other of the four New Testament Gospels has been able to portray him” (What Everyone Should Know about Islam and Muslims. Chicago: Kazi Pub., 1979, page 186).
 
A key idea in The Gospel of Barnabas is that Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus. Muslims embrace this since they believe that someone else, other than Jesus died on the cross. But this view is outrageous. In the first place, The Gospel of Barnabas is totally discredited among credible scholars. Actually, some Muslim scholars confuse The Gospel of Barnabas with The Epistle of Barnabas. The late first century Epistle of Barnabas was even cited as Scripture by some Christians. The Gospel of Barnabas is a totally different document, written more than 1,000 years later.

To assume that Jesus did not die on a cross is tantamount to challenging the credibility of the New Testament. In order to remain focused I would simply say that to date, the New Testament is by far the most highly documented book from the ancient world. Furthermore, as an ancient document, the New Testament is the most accurately copied book in the world. Even if one were to ignore the teachings of the New Testament, there is enough non-biblical sources to confirm Jesus’ crucifixion.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote in his “Antiquities of the Jews”, “Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross” (Josepheus: Complete Works. Kregal Publications, 1963, page 379).

 

Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, wrote: “a wise man who was called Jesus…Pilate condemned Him to be condemned and to die” (Annals, 15:44). Similar quotations can cited from first century historian Thallus, second century Greek writer, Lucian and even the Jewish Talmud.

 
The Old Testament and numerous non-Christian sources confirm that Jesus died as described in the New Testament. In addition, the causes of His death have also been verified among historians. As recent as in March 1986, The Journal of the American Medical Association published an extensive article entitled, On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ (Volume 255. Number 11). In the closing paragraph, the authors concluded: “Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted…interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”
 
As we reflect on the death of Jesus this Easter, we should never lose sight of the fact that His death was not indicative of defeat. It was while on the cross Jesus shouted, “IT IS FINISHED” (John 19:30). Based on a Greek interpretation of the exclamation, Jesus was basically saying, “It has been finished and remains finished forever.” This statement was a declaration of triumph. The statement is also used to mean accomplished.
 
For Christians, the death of Jesus on the cross means no one else needs to die for the sins of the people. His mission was accomplished. Hence, our victory is based on the fact of His death and not on the wishful thinking of believers.

Evidence of Jesus WRITTEN ON STONE

On Wednesday morning (March 14), Judge Aharon Farkash acquitted two defendants of forgery charges in the so-called “forgery case of the century.” Some seven years ago the Israel Antiquities Authority contended that the defendants forged an inscription reading “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” written on a first-century bone box (ossuary).

According to Professor Ben Witherington III, (The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family, p.93) “The discovery of the ossuary may well be the most significant biblical archaeological find of our time and the first-ever physical link to the historical Jesus of the New Testament.” The New York Times believes “this could well be the earliest artifact ever found relating to the existence of Jesus.”

Almost ten years ago I read the story of James’ ossuary in Biblical Archaeology Review (biblicalarchaeology.org [November/December 2002]). Following the article by Epigrapher André Lemaire, I closely followed the charges brought by the Israel Antiquities Authority, alleging that the inscription was forged.

Because the ossuary was purchased from an unauthorized source, and not found in its original setting, some scholars question its authenticity. For this reason, the antiquities dealer who bought the item was accused of forgery. However, after more than five years, 138 witnesses and thousands of pages of testimony, the judge ruled that the writing on the artifact was not forged.

WHAT ARE OSSUARIES?

Ossuaries are bone boxes made of limestone. Following death and entombment, the bones of the deceased were taken and placed in a bone box or ossuary. The ossuary was inscribed with the name of the deceased. This process would take place sometime after one year of entombment. Ossuaries would then be stored in a crypt (vault) like books are stored in a library. Of the roughly 900 catalogued ossuaries from the first century, 250 bear inscriptions.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

To date, we have much papyrus or manuscript evidence of Jesus. The absence of artifactual (objects) evidence has given some scholars reason to question the historicity of Jesus. Like Professor Craig Evans (Jesus and the Ossuaries, p.122), I believe we are in possession of a truly significant artifact that confirms and clarifies several important aspects of the life and impact of James, an important leader in the early church.

Agreed, the ossuary may not convey any new information for Christians, but it does seem to provide further confirmation that the Bible often is speaking of real historical figures and real historical events. Ben Witherington III was correct in concluding that “the ossuary evidently provides us with the earliest physical evidence that Jesus, James and Joseph all existed, and lived as devout early Jews tied to the Holy Land, practicing Jewish burial customs and sharing Aramaic, the spoken language of Jews of that locale.”

Apart from the historical significance of the ossuary, one cannot ignore the fact that it was found in our age of visual and tactile learners. Christians can now submit, a physical artifact, not only manuscripts for discussion.

The fact that James’ ossuary, prepared so long after the death of Jesus, should mention the name of Jesus as the deceased's brother, clearly confirms the increasing interest in the Jesus story. This point is consistent with the findings of credible historians - within 30 years the Christian message had spread to all of the major cities of the Mediterranean.

Here we are, almost 2,000 years later, and the interest in the same Jesus, has not lessened. Leaders who lived during the time of Jesus would have been lost in the pages of history. Our interest in their lives is primarily because they interacted with Jesus.

With Easter approaching, it might be appropriate to ask the question, why has no one found Jesus’ ossuary? Christians contend that would never happen in that Jesus was not in the tomb one year later. By the third day following His death, He was resurrected. An ossuary was never necessary and attempts to find same have proven to be worthless.

In one of his letters, Paul argued, “if Christ (Jesus) has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is [y]our faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14). In essence, if anyone ever finds an ossuary belonging to Jesus, Christianity can be considered to be of no use.

The story of Christianity is not information about a dead guru – it is a message of hope about a resurrected Savior. Whereas the message from ossuaries were written on limestone, the message of the resurrected Jesus can be found in credible manuscripts and in the lives of billions of His followers around the world and throughout history.

IS IT TIME FOR…American Sharia Law?

When Muneer Awad challenged the State of Oklahoma on Sharia (Shariah) Law he won the case. He contended that the law discriminated against his religion. For Awad, Sharia Law is a vital part of his religious practice as a Muslim.

Honestly though, what is Sharia Law? Sharia Law, also known as Islamic Law, is the entire body of laws that guides the Muslim believer in this life. The Arabic word SHARIAH, literally means a straight path or an endless supply of water (Quran 45:18). It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle ordained for Muslims. In more practical terms, Sharia includes all the do’s and don’ts of Islam (Shariah: The Threat to America; p. 57).

Muslims believe Sharia Law is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of life, regardless of where one lives. It is a complete way of life from the cradle to the grave. According to Frank Griffel, Professor of Islamic Studies at Yale University, “Sharia…extends to matters con-cerning proprieties of clothing, conduct between spouses, filial piety, behavior at funerals and other questions that Westerners would treat…as moral issues or mere etiquette”.

AUTHORITY OF SHARIA LAW

Sharia Law comes from four sources. The Quran, which is viewed as direct divine revelation and is understood to be the primary source of Islamic Law. The second most authoritative source for Sharia is the Sunna – commonly understood to be the actions and sayings of the Prophet Mohammed. Other sources include the Ijma (consensus of the scholars) and the Qiyas (analytical deduction)

As a religion, Islam is not unique in having special laws as a way of life for believers. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and many other religions have specific laws for their followers. If that is so, then why the conflict with Sharia Law? The truth is other religions expect their own followers to observe their own laws within their own religious communities. In addition, other religions recognize the need to function within secular spheres.

Michael Malloy was correct when he argued that most modern industrialized countries expect laws to reflect a kind of civilized minimum, something that all citizens can be expected to accept and obey in their public life. These laws are framed for diverse populations and are deliberately secular in nature. In industrialized countries, secular and religious laws generally exist somewhat apart.

According to Malloy, “Islam does not separate religious and secular spheres”. Traditional Islam is theocratic, seeking the rule of God in all aspects of everyday life. For Muslims, nature is orderly because it follows the laws of God. Similarly, in Islamic thought, God presents human beings with laws of human order. “There cannot be different sets of laws for different human beings; otherwise, chaos would ensue. The laws of God must be obeyed not only because they are his commands but also because they lead to human fulfillment”. For some Muslims, “human fulfillment” would seem more likely in a theocratic form of government.

THEOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

Traditional Islam is theocratic in that it seeks “the rule of God” in all aspects of everyday life, for in its view there is one God and one correct religion. Although every Muslim would not subscribe to this view, the theology provides fuel for radical Islam. Muslims who subscribe to radicalism often embrace Jihadist theology, a worldview that entertains the idea of holy war on dissenters. The impact of their radical ideology is evident in almost every country in the world.

Americans resent all forms of radicalism in Islam and see Shariah Law as one expression of Islamic radicalism. Americans observe what’s happening in non-Muslim countries in Europe where Sharia is being practiced and resent the lifestyle. The security statistics are frightening.

IS SHARIA A THREAT TO AMERICA?

Some religious scholars believe America can develop its own brand of Sharia Law - laws that include guidelines on marriage, worship, property, funerals and other more culturally related issues. The results of a recent study by The Center for Security Policy disagree. The study was designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate opinion of the official characterization and assessments of this Islamic practice. The massive study contended, “although Shariah certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a religious code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere – economic, social, military, legal and political” (Shariah: The Threat to America; p. 2).

Sharia Law in America requires much civil dialog before any attempt at implementation. This is much more than a matter for the courts.             

A THREAT OF Shariah Law IN AMERICA?

A few days ago District Judge Mark Martin threw out an assault case brought against a Muslim who attacked an atheist. The incident occurred last October at the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Halloween parade. Atheist Ernie Perce was attacked by Muslim Talaag Elbayomy, because he was offended that Perce was dressed in a costume portraying the Prophet Mohammed.

 

According to the Harrisburg Patriot-News, Perce, a member of the “Parading Atheists of Central PA,” filed a complaint with police alleging that Elbayomy attacked him during the parade and inflicted bodily harm. Perce further told ABC 27 News, “he grabbed me, choked from the back, spun me around to try to get (my sign: ‘Muhammed of Islam’) off that was wrapped around my neck.”

Judge Martin threw out video evidence of the assault and dismissed the testimony of an eyewitness police officer. Citing a lack of admissible evidence, the Cumberland County judge dismissed the charges that were brought against the Muslim immigrant. The judge contended that the case represented one man’s word against the other and that the video was inadmissible.

Before dismissing the charges, the judge went on to scold Perce, the victim who was attacked and lectured him about the sensitivities of the Muslim culture. The judged alleged in court that the Muslim was obligated to attack the victim because of his culture and religion. According to a transcribed audio recording of Martin’s remarks posted on YouTube by the victim, which was later re-transcribed for clarity by the National Review Online,  the judge told the victim that “what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They (Muslims) find it very, very, very offensive.”

Brigitte Gabriel, author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, says the exonerated Muslim attacker was particularly pleased with the judge’s decision. According to Gabriel, “he was so proud; he said ‘I am setting a precedent because I want to teach my son a lesson that when you see something like this, you set the record straight and you behave violently’.” (One News Now – 03/01/2012.)

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, believes the judge’s “legal views seem grotesquely out of place.” Turley contends that this is an issue of “free speech…the touchstone of our culture.”

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel believes the judge’s decision is an indication of what may be coming to America if Sharia Law is used in our court systems. According to Staver, “this particular judge actually had the audacity to rule in favor of the attacker, saying that the attacker was compelled to attack this individual because it was an insult to Islam and the Prophet Muhammed.”

Staver’s fear was at the core of an amendment before Oklahoma voters in 2010. This amendment: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.” At the ballots in November 2010, some 70% of Oklahomans voted in favor of the amendment. The law was challenged by Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. He argued that the law violated his First Amendment rights – he won.

 

Oklahoma was attempting to be pro-active because of an earlier case in New Jersey where a woman was denied a restraining order from her husband. Following the testimony of an Imam regarding Islamic law, the judge refused to grant the order, because the woman’s husband’s behavior was consistent with their culture and religion. Early last year, in another case, a Florida judge ruled, “this case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law (Shariah Law), pursuant to the Qur’an.” In an upcoming commentary I will provide an in-depth answer to the question, what is Shariah Law?

For now we need to revisit the issue of appropriate ways to handle those who oppose our worldview. Nowhere in the New Testament is violence considered an option as we face opposition. It was Jesus who said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matthew 5:44). Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians clearly states, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world” (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).

Interestingly, it should be noted that next to the atheist portraying the Prophet Mohammed, was another atheist, portraying the Pope. Although very offensive to Christians, the display did not warrant an abusive attack – a passion for civility and the advice of Jesus in the face of opposition prompted a more desirable response.