There is a difference between radical Islam and Apocalyptic Islam. Radical Islam is a militant, politically activist ideology whose ultimate goal is to create a worldwide community, or caliphate of Muslim believers. Adherents of Radical Islam insist on a literal and fundamentalist reading of the Qur’an. They resist progress in human rights, gender-equality and democratic reforms.
Apocalyptic Islam is different. It is not driven by political ideology as Radical Islam. Rather, it is a theological ideology with a specific emphasis on End Times or Eschatology. Islam believes that their messiah, known as the Mahdi, will come at any moment. According to Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America: “The coming of the Mahdi is established doctrine for both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, and indeed for all humanity.”
Both Shi’a and Sunni branches of Islam have different strategies to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi. Both branches of Islam believe a period of global turmoil must precede the coming of their Mahdi. Both main branches are committed to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. According to Shi’a Muslims, the Mahdi, also known as the Twelfth Imam, is a great spiritual savior.
There are many signs that will precede this Mahdi, “a general and very important sign is that he will come at a time when there is great confutation, intense disputes and violent deaths. When people are afflicted by disturbance and experiencing great fear. It is then that Imam Mahdi will be sent.”
As they work to expedite the coming of the Mahdi, ISIS members, representing Sunni Islam, devoutly believe that they are fighting in a cosmic war in which they are on the side of good, which allows them to kill anyone they perceive to be standing in their way.
Furthermore, they believe that they are the vanguard, fighting a religious war, which Allah has determined will be won by the forces of true Islam. In an upcoming book, authors Berger and Stern explain that "violent apocalyptic groups, tend to see themselves as participating in a cosmic war between good and evil, in which moral rules do not apply."
Iran, representing Shiite Islam, uses a different strategy to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi. It was former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who attributed his role to that of a forerunner for the Mahdi. He believed he was told by the prophet Mohammed that he was “the chosen one to hasten the return of the Muslim’s messiah by creating chaos throughout the world.”
Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, warned in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece a few years ago that “President Ahmadinejad seems to believe that the hand of God is guiding him to trigger a series of cataclysmic events which could precipitate the return of the 12th Imam.” As a theocracy, Iran is uniquely poised to administer this apocalyptic role.
New York Times bestseller Joel Rosenberg contends that Iran’s purpose for wanting to build up its nuclear arms program is to be more equipped for the coming of the Mahdi. For Iran, the destruction of Israel, representing Judaism, and America, representing Christianity, is critical in its pre-Mahdi mission.
According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than 750 million Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.”
When asked to comment on Apocalyptic Islam, Joel Rosenberg said, “For the first time in human history, we now are faced with two nation-states whose leaders are driven by an end-of-the-world [theology]. ISIS is trying to build the end-of-the-world kingdom, or caliphate, for the Mahdi to come and rule. They are not waiting, like the Iranians are, to build genocidal weapons. ISIS is trying to bring about genocide of the infidels right now.”
Egyptian born Dr. Michael Youssef told the Christian Post recently, "To be quite honest, I am not really afraid as much from jihadists as I am fearing that the evangelical church is losing its moorings on the biblical authority for all kinds of different reasons. The challenge from Islam can only be met by a strong Christian church, rather than a weak and indecisive, spineless Gospel preaching."
Like Muslims, Christians believe we are living in the end times. However, the instructions from our Commanding Officer, Jesus Christ, is to ensure that we share the message of salvation with the entire world. We are “to occupy until He comes.” In other words, we prepare for His coming with vigilance, not violence.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Boys and Girls!
In announcing the arrival of our seventh grandchild, our son and his wife engaged in an online discussion with friends about the gender of the child. That kind of gender chatter is fast becoming outdated. The online discussion assumed two genders – male and female. However, in this evolving season of gender neutrality, some activists believe that there are many more types of genders to consider.
Gender neutrality, which incorporates gender-blindness, is opposed to distinguishing people by gender. The idea is to remove any form of gender discrimination in any form of activities and or services provided. Advocates of this view use a purple circle to symbolize gender neutrality. The colored circle is a mixture of colors traditionally used to represent males and females.
It was sensitivity to this gender neutrality culture that prompted Target Stores, the nation’s third-largest retailer, to announce that they will be joining the movement – Target has begun removing signs labeling “boy” and “girls” in multiple departments. The retailer will no longer distinguish between items for boys and items generally preferred by girls.
Target’s website states: “Right now, our teams are working across the store to identify areas where we can phase out gender-based signage to help strike a better balance. For example, in the kids’ Bedding area, signs will no longer feature suggestions for boys or girls, just kids. In the Toys aisles, we’ll also remove reference to gender, including the use of pink, blue, yellow or green paper on the back walls of our shelves. You’ll see these changes start to happen over the next few months.”
All this gender neutral rhetoric is consistent with views held by some sociologists. They contend that gender roles are based on norms or standards, created by society. For instance, masculine roles are usually associated with strength, aggression and dominance.
This school of thought contends that gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through four stages – family, education, peer groups and the media. In other words, much of the behavior we associate with gender is really learned and not inherent or naturally acquired.
Advocates believe, to think otherwise would be to entertain a sexist worldview with prejudiced beliefs that value males over females. Furthermore, advocates believe this stereotypical thinking leads to discrimination, oppression and violence for not adhering to society’s traditional gender roles.
Hogwash – why don’t we take such social theories and apply them to sporting events. For millennia we allow gender distinction in sports because we recognize the differences in strengths between male and female athletes. Such accommodation is guided by biological factors, not sociological.
I agree that some behaviors are designated as appropriate for male or female. However, one cannot ignore that hormonal differences play a significant role in gender differences. This would explain some of the aggression in men.
In her 1989 PhD dissertation at Northwestern University, Psychotherapist Charlotte Smith mapped brain electrical activity and found that women and men process information in different parts of the brain. Other studies confirm that men are naturally more curious and women more attentive to people and social relationships.
John Gray was correct when he wrote, Men Are from Mars, Women Are From Venus. Here Gray provides a practical and proven way for men and women to communicate better by understanding and respecting the differences between them. Gray believes that by pretending that men and women are from different planets can help us to deal with the opposite sex in a loving and accepting way, leading to better relationships.
Gender differences were designed, not learned. I still believe “God created man (mankind) in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
There are three different Hebrew words in this verse that help us to understand what took place – they are translated; humankind, male and female. The words are not only different, but the meaning of each word is so different that no word can be used interchangeably.
For millennia, researchers have concluded that the behavioral differences between boys and girls are inherent. The behaviors are consistent with hormonal differences. In addition, many of the learned behaviors, are consistent with the hormonal differences inherent in boys and girls.
Agreed, preferences for colors like pink and blue are learned. However, the same cannot be said of athletic prowess, the capacity to nurture and other caring or aggressive behaviors.
God made us different!
Gender neutrality, which incorporates gender-blindness, is opposed to distinguishing people by gender. The idea is to remove any form of gender discrimination in any form of activities and or services provided. Advocates of this view use a purple circle to symbolize gender neutrality. The colored circle is a mixture of colors traditionally used to represent males and females.
It was sensitivity to this gender neutrality culture that prompted Target Stores, the nation’s third-largest retailer, to announce that they will be joining the movement – Target has begun removing signs labeling “boy” and “girls” in multiple departments. The retailer will no longer distinguish between items for boys and items generally preferred by girls.
Target’s website states: “Right now, our teams are working across the store to identify areas where we can phase out gender-based signage to help strike a better balance. For example, in the kids’ Bedding area, signs will no longer feature suggestions for boys or girls, just kids. In the Toys aisles, we’ll also remove reference to gender, including the use of pink, blue, yellow or green paper on the back walls of our shelves. You’ll see these changes start to happen over the next few months.”
All this gender neutral rhetoric is consistent with views held by some sociologists. They contend that gender roles are based on norms or standards, created by society. For instance, masculine roles are usually associated with strength, aggression and dominance.
This school of thought contends that gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through four stages – family, education, peer groups and the media. In other words, much of the behavior we associate with gender is really learned and not inherent or naturally acquired.
Advocates believe, to think otherwise would be to entertain a sexist worldview with prejudiced beliefs that value males over females. Furthermore, advocates believe this stereotypical thinking leads to discrimination, oppression and violence for not adhering to society’s traditional gender roles.
Hogwash – why don’t we take such social theories and apply them to sporting events. For millennia we allow gender distinction in sports because we recognize the differences in strengths between male and female athletes. Such accommodation is guided by biological factors, not sociological.
I agree that some behaviors are designated as appropriate for male or female. However, one cannot ignore that hormonal differences play a significant role in gender differences. This would explain some of the aggression in men.
In her 1989 PhD dissertation at Northwestern University, Psychotherapist Charlotte Smith mapped brain electrical activity and found that women and men process information in different parts of the brain. Other studies confirm that men are naturally more curious and women more attentive to people and social relationships.
John Gray was correct when he wrote, Men Are from Mars, Women Are From Venus. Here Gray provides a practical and proven way for men and women to communicate better by understanding and respecting the differences between them. Gray believes that by pretending that men and women are from different planets can help us to deal with the opposite sex in a loving and accepting way, leading to better relationships.
Gender differences were designed, not learned. I still believe “God created man (mankind) in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
There are three different Hebrew words in this verse that help us to understand what took place – they are translated; humankind, male and female. The words are not only different, but the meaning of each word is so different that no word can be used interchangeably.
For millennia, researchers have concluded that the behavioral differences between boys and girls are inherent. The behaviors are consistent with hormonal differences. In addition, many of the learned behaviors, are consistent with the hormonal differences inherent in boys and girls.
Agreed, preferences for colors like pink and blue are learned. However, the same cannot be said of athletic prowess, the capacity to nurture and other caring or aggressive behaviors.
God made us different!
Monday, August 10, 2015
The Faiths of the Debaters
Agreed, today’s headline was borrowed from David Holmes’ book, The Faiths of the Post-War Presidents.
In this volume Holmes looks at the role of faith in the lives of the twelve presidents who have served since the end of World War II. Like Holmes, I share the view that the faith of presidents shapes their character and their character shapes their politics.
With that in mind it is therefore important for us to become aware of the faiths of the debaters, each seeking to become the president of the United States. From information gathered, most of last Thursday’s Republican debaters claim to be Christians.
Former President Dwight Eisenhower was correct in saying that “we are a religious people.” Every potential president knows this and declares his religious leanings very early in campaigning. President Obama understood this and severed ties with the church with which he was a member for more than twenty years. He agreed with his advisors that the anti-American rhetoric at the church would hurt his run for president.
Among some conservatives, it was felt that Mitt Romney’s association with the Mormon Church, often viewed as a cult, damaged his presidential chances in 2012. Decades earlier, the question of John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism animated the 1960 election. Many felt his allegiance to the Pope could undermine his allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
One could now understand the reasoning behind Chase Norton’s Facebook question to the debaters: “What is God saying to you about running for President?” Each candidate, when asked the question, expressed his opinion and exposed his personal religious commitment.
For Texas Senator Ted Cruz, he felt “blessed to receive a word from God every day” as he read the Bible. Cruz also used the occasion to share how he came to faith in Jesus Christ in 1975. The story of his father, now a pastor, was equally interesting.
Donald Trump was not asked to respond to the Facebook question. However, as the Republican front runner, I thought it would be interesting to explore his journey of faith. In 2012, he told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he attended the First Presbyterian Church in Queens, New York. He was also a member of Marble Collegiate Church, a Reformed Church in America congregation and once the pulpit of the late Norman Vincent Peale.
When asked about a personal faith in Christ, during a Question & Answer session at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa, Trump admitted that he had never sought forgiveness for his sins. However, he further admits that he goes to church when he can – but always at Christmas, Easter and “when there’s a major occasion – I’m a Sunday church person.”
In his contribution to the Facebook question, Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker declared, “It is only by the blood of Jesus Christ that I’ve been redeemed from my sins.” Like Cruz, Walker is the son of a pastor and has been exposed to evangelical Christianity from his childhood.
Before the debate even kicked off, retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, tweeted this to his followers: “May the Lord guide my words tonight, let His wisdom be my thoughts.” In his book Gifted Hands, Carson describes being baptized as a boy by the pastor of Detroit’s Burns Seventh-Day Adventist Church. At the age of 12 he told the pastor of another Adventist church that he had not completely grasped his first baptism and was baptized again.
Carson, a former Director of Neurosurgery at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Hospital once said, “Quite frankly, as a neurosurgeon, there’s a lot of emphasis on technical ability, but I believe that that’s something that can be taught, but wisdom comes from God and I think that it’s something that you have to seek.”
The fact that almost every presidential candidate talks about a personal faith in Christ is a healthy sign. Such a faith suggests a commitment to the ethical demands of the Scriptures and the faith community to which they are committed. Although not elected as religious leaders, presidents are expected to console and lift citizens to heights greater than themselves. Christians are well disposed to these demands.
In addition to David Holmes’ book, to which I alluded earlier, I would strongly encourage readers to contact Religion News Service for additional information on the faith of the debaters.
In this volume Holmes looks at the role of faith in the lives of the twelve presidents who have served since the end of World War II. Like Holmes, I share the view that the faith of presidents shapes their character and their character shapes their politics.
With that in mind it is therefore important for us to become aware of the faiths of the debaters, each seeking to become the president of the United States. From information gathered, most of last Thursday’s Republican debaters claim to be Christians.
Former President Dwight Eisenhower was correct in saying that “we are a religious people.” Every potential president knows this and declares his religious leanings very early in campaigning. President Obama understood this and severed ties with the church with which he was a member for more than twenty years. He agreed with his advisors that the anti-American rhetoric at the church would hurt his run for president.
Among some conservatives, it was felt that Mitt Romney’s association with the Mormon Church, often viewed as a cult, damaged his presidential chances in 2012. Decades earlier, the question of John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism animated the 1960 election. Many felt his allegiance to the Pope could undermine his allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
One could now understand the reasoning behind Chase Norton’s Facebook question to the debaters: “What is God saying to you about running for President?” Each candidate, when asked the question, expressed his opinion and exposed his personal religious commitment.
For Texas Senator Ted Cruz, he felt “blessed to receive a word from God every day” as he read the Bible. Cruz also used the occasion to share how he came to faith in Jesus Christ in 1975. The story of his father, now a pastor, was equally interesting.
Donald Trump was not asked to respond to the Facebook question. However, as the Republican front runner, I thought it would be interesting to explore his journey of faith. In 2012, he told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he attended the First Presbyterian Church in Queens, New York. He was also a member of Marble Collegiate Church, a Reformed Church in America congregation and once the pulpit of the late Norman Vincent Peale.
When asked about a personal faith in Christ, during a Question & Answer session at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa, Trump admitted that he had never sought forgiveness for his sins. However, he further admits that he goes to church when he can – but always at Christmas, Easter and “when there’s a major occasion – I’m a Sunday church person.”
In his contribution to the Facebook question, Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker declared, “It is only by the blood of Jesus Christ that I’ve been redeemed from my sins.” Like Cruz, Walker is the son of a pastor and has been exposed to evangelical Christianity from his childhood.
Before the debate even kicked off, retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, tweeted this to his followers: “May the Lord guide my words tonight, let His wisdom be my thoughts.” In his book Gifted Hands, Carson describes being baptized as a boy by the pastor of Detroit’s Burns Seventh-Day Adventist Church. At the age of 12 he told the pastor of another Adventist church that he had not completely grasped his first baptism and was baptized again.
Carson, a former Director of Neurosurgery at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Hospital once said, “Quite frankly, as a neurosurgeon, there’s a lot of emphasis on technical ability, but I believe that that’s something that can be taught, but wisdom comes from God and I think that it’s something that you have to seek.”
The fact that almost every presidential candidate talks about a personal faith in Christ is a healthy sign. Such a faith suggests a commitment to the ethical demands of the Scriptures and the faith community to which they are committed. Although not elected as religious leaders, presidents are expected to console and lift citizens to heights greater than themselves. Christians are well disposed to these demands.
In addition to David Holmes’ book, to which I alluded earlier, I would strongly encourage readers to contact Religion News Service for additional information on the faith of the debaters.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Sports & Prayer
The Jamaicans in our local church were pleased to see the bulletin item - JAMAICA IN SOCCER FINAL. The item appeared the Sunday Jamaica was scheduled to meet Mexico, following their 2-1 victory against the United States.
Apart from the novelty of having a sporting event featured in a church bulletin, one may question what does religion have to do with sports. Thankfully, our church was not praying for Jamaica to win, although that was desired, we were praying for some of the other benefits derived from sports.
We were praying for “a clean game, without injuries and an honorable display of sportsmanship.” Although Jamaica lost the game, that prayer was answered. Somewhere along the line we have been led to believe that sporting activities were designed only to identify champions. Consequently, we are taught to demonize opponents, in that they are there to obstruct us from becoming champions.
Sometimes I wish I could hear the prayers of competing teams. Are they both asking the same God to help them win? Such thinking trivializes prayer. Praying before or during a sporting event should be bigger than “Lord, help us to win.”
Because of the recently completed Women’s World Cup in Canada and the CONCACAF Gold Cup in America, allow me to use soccer as a case study in our reflections on Sports and Prayer. Here are some reasons why players and fans need to pray.
Soccer has its moments of stress and anxieties. One such anxiety comes with the taking of penalties. Studies confirm that this unplanned event is one of the most stressful in the 90 minute game. Business Insider reports that on average, in a penalty, a soccer ball travels at about 70 mph. With the penalty spot just 36 feet from the goal, that means it will take the ball less than half a second to reach the net. That gives the goalkeeper about 700 milliseconds to look which way the ball is going, decide which way to jump and move his body in that direction.
In addition, there is the emotional weight of the team, the fans and the nation one is representing. In the case of penalty shoot-outs, the outcome of the game could also be determined by the success of the goalkeeper or penalty kicker. Prayer does relieve much of that stress.
Although not the most dangerous sport, serious injuries have taken place on the soccer field. Players have suffered concussions, broken bones, dislocations and varying sorts of career-ending injuries. The ripple effects of such injuries affect many, including the player, his sporting fraternity and his family.
The likelihood of injury introduces the whole subject of safety – not just the safety of the players, but also the fans. Stadiums have collapsed killing fans, riots have broken out among fans and various forms of disorder have taken place among unruly fans. Actually, crowd control is no easy task. Imagine, in an emergency, having to evacuate 60,000 persons within a limited period of time and through limited exits. Personally, I pray for safety at soccer games.
Ongoing studies by sport psychologists confirm that an athlete’s spiritual and religious beliefs seem to promote deeper meaning to their athletic successes, failures, struggles and disappointments. In essence, the religious beliefs of the athlete is closely linked to his/her motivation to play.
One way Christian athletes can respond to the self-focused, self-indulgent way of thinking that is so pervasive in competitive sports, is to define sports participation as a religious encounter. One researcher found that some Christian athletes often used prayer in sports to “give glory to God”. The researcher cited one athlete who used the verse, “whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, but for the Lord, not for man” (Colossians 3:23), as his motivation in sports.
Despite the disdain shown to Christian athletes by many in the media, there is a growing interest in sports and religion within some institutions. One such institution is York St. John University in York, England. At York there is an academic research Center for the Study of Sport and Spirituality, which encourages a multi-disciplinary approach to sport and spirituality.
The existence of organizations like Christians in Sports, The Fellowship of Christian Athletes and The Center for Sport and Jewish Life in America, further illustrate the growing interest and importance of the interaction between sport and religion.
So, when we see athletes pray, or when we pray for athletes, our prayers should be much more than “Lord, help us to win.” Our prayers should instead focus on tempering attitudes among those who win and those who did not win. Like one team, we should be praying, “May we put into practice all that we have learnt in our training, and bring to mind all the skills and planning from our preparation times.”
Apart from the novelty of having a sporting event featured in a church bulletin, one may question what does religion have to do with sports. Thankfully, our church was not praying for Jamaica to win, although that was desired, we were praying for some of the other benefits derived from sports.
We were praying for “a clean game, without injuries and an honorable display of sportsmanship.” Although Jamaica lost the game, that prayer was answered. Somewhere along the line we have been led to believe that sporting activities were designed only to identify champions. Consequently, we are taught to demonize opponents, in that they are there to obstruct us from becoming champions.
Sometimes I wish I could hear the prayers of competing teams. Are they both asking the same God to help them win? Such thinking trivializes prayer. Praying before or during a sporting event should be bigger than “Lord, help us to win.”
Because of the recently completed Women’s World Cup in Canada and the CONCACAF Gold Cup in America, allow me to use soccer as a case study in our reflections on Sports and Prayer. Here are some reasons why players and fans need to pray.
Soccer has its moments of stress and anxieties. One such anxiety comes with the taking of penalties. Studies confirm that this unplanned event is one of the most stressful in the 90 minute game. Business Insider reports that on average, in a penalty, a soccer ball travels at about 70 mph. With the penalty spot just 36 feet from the goal, that means it will take the ball less than half a second to reach the net. That gives the goalkeeper about 700 milliseconds to look which way the ball is going, decide which way to jump and move his body in that direction.
In addition, there is the emotional weight of the team, the fans and the nation one is representing. In the case of penalty shoot-outs, the outcome of the game could also be determined by the success of the goalkeeper or penalty kicker. Prayer does relieve much of that stress.
Although not the most dangerous sport, serious injuries have taken place on the soccer field. Players have suffered concussions, broken bones, dislocations and varying sorts of career-ending injuries. The ripple effects of such injuries affect many, including the player, his sporting fraternity and his family.
The likelihood of injury introduces the whole subject of safety – not just the safety of the players, but also the fans. Stadiums have collapsed killing fans, riots have broken out among fans and various forms of disorder have taken place among unruly fans. Actually, crowd control is no easy task. Imagine, in an emergency, having to evacuate 60,000 persons within a limited period of time and through limited exits. Personally, I pray for safety at soccer games.
Ongoing studies by sport psychologists confirm that an athlete’s spiritual and religious beliefs seem to promote deeper meaning to their athletic successes, failures, struggles and disappointments. In essence, the religious beliefs of the athlete is closely linked to his/her motivation to play.
One way Christian athletes can respond to the self-focused, self-indulgent way of thinking that is so pervasive in competitive sports, is to define sports participation as a religious encounter. One researcher found that some Christian athletes often used prayer in sports to “give glory to God”. The researcher cited one athlete who used the verse, “whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, but for the Lord, not for man” (Colossians 3:23), as his motivation in sports.
Despite the disdain shown to Christian athletes by many in the media, there is a growing interest in sports and religion within some institutions. One such institution is York St. John University in York, England. At York there is an academic research Center for the Study of Sport and Spirituality, which encourages a multi-disciplinary approach to sport and spirituality.
The existence of organizations like Christians in Sports, The Fellowship of Christian Athletes and The Center for Sport and Jewish Life in America, further illustrate the growing interest and importance of the interaction between sport and religion.
So, when we see athletes pray, or when we pray for athletes, our prayers should be much more than “Lord, help us to win.” Our prayers should instead focus on tempering attitudes among those who win and those who did not win. Like one team, we should be praying, “May we put into practice all that we have learnt in our training, and bring to mind all the skills and planning from our preparation times.”
Monday, July 27, 2015
Planned Parenthood
A new estimate published by the National Right to Life Committee indicates that there have been an estimated 55 million abortions since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions. This number means that there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 140 abortions per hour, every hour in the United States.
Most of these abortions were done by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. According to its website, Planned Parenthood is “America's most trusted provider of reproductive health care.”
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood’s history is not as impressive as its website. The vision of Margaret Sanger, one of the two founders of the movement paints a picture of a racist with clear intentions to systematically exterminate black people in America.
In an interview with the New York Times (1923), Sanger said, “Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks – those human weeds (blacks) which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”
Sanger established her first full-service “clinic” in Harlem in 1929. Why Harlem, New York - that’s where a lot of the black people, she often referred to as “human weeds”, lived. Sanger described it as “an experimental clinic established for the benefit of the colored people.” In this case, she defined “benefit” as the overall reduction of the black population.
On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions – 30% of abortions done.
Although this information is known by civil rights leaders and politicians, no one attempts to abort the largest abortion provider in this country. Instead, Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually from tax payers – that means it receives an average of $1.5 million a day to conduct its business.
In order to augment its income as a not-for-profit organization, Planned Parenthood now sells body parts from babies.
Recently, Planned Parenthood was caught in a firestorm of well-deserved controversy after two undercover videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress, seem to implicate them in horrific crimes against the unborn. The videos show two top Planned Parenthood executives discussing the best methods to extract baby body parts intact, and haggling with undercover investigators over the prices of these body parts – how disgusting.
Whereas Planned Parenthood calls the organs of murdered babies “fetal tissue,” they call unborn babies “clumps of cells” until labeling their organs as “human” helps their bottom line. And they call their murder of millions “quality family planning.”
Most the body parts are sold to Stem Express, a California-based biomedical company that provides “qualified research laboratories with human cells, fluids, blood and tissue products for the pursuit of disease detection and cure.”
There are a number of things that upset me about the disgusting practices of Planned Parenthood. From its inception, the founder showed a disregard for a group of persons, seen as “defective stocks and human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” That racist premise was the foundation of the movement.
In responding to the recent sale of body parts, Planned Parenthood wants us to believe that this is a good business practice. No, this is repulsive, sickening and ghastly. After looking at the Consolidated Balance Sheets for 2014, Planned Parenthood does not need to sell body parts to augment income. The company is a victim of its gruesome practices.
Thankfully, the company’s attitude to abortion is not the same to a wide variety of human services. I would love to see many of those services retained, but under a different banner. The stench and the sigma of a sordid history must be removed. Until that happens, I will support the move to defund Planned Parenthood.
In attempting to close the door on disgusting practices, Christians must ensure that we do not close our compassion to “the least of these”, to whom Jesus referred.
Most of these abortions were done by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. According to its website, Planned Parenthood is “America's most trusted provider of reproductive health care.”
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood’s history is not as impressive as its website. The vision of Margaret Sanger, one of the two founders of the movement paints a picture of a racist with clear intentions to systematically exterminate black people in America.
In an interview with the New York Times (1923), Sanger said, “Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks – those human weeds (blacks) which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”
Sanger established her first full-service “clinic” in Harlem in 1929. Why Harlem, New York - that’s where a lot of the black people, she often referred to as “human weeds”, lived. Sanger described it as “an experimental clinic established for the benefit of the colored people.” In this case, she defined “benefit” as the overall reduction of the black population.
On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions – 30% of abortions done.
Although this information is known by civil rights leaders and politicians, no one attempts to abort the largest abortion provider in this country. Instead, Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually from tax payers – that means it receives an average of $1.5 million a day to conduct its business.
In order to augment its income as a not-for-profit organization, Planned Parenthood now sells body parts from babies.
Recently, Planned Parenthood was caught in a firestorm of well-deserved controversy after two undercover videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress, seem to implicate them in horrific crimes against the unborn. The videos show two top Planned Parenthood executives discussing the best methods to extract baby body parts intact, and haggling with undercover investigators over the prices of these body parts – how disgusting.
Whereas Planned Parenthood calls the organs of murdered babies “fetal tissue,” they call unborn babies “clumps of cells” until labeling their organs as “human” helps their bottom line. And they call their murder of millions “quality family planning.”
Most the body parts are sold to Stem Express, a California-based biomedical company that provides “qualified research laboratories with human cells, fluids, blood and tissue products for the pursuit of disease detection and cure.”
There are a number of things that upset me about the disgusting practices of Planned Parenthood. From its inception, the founder showed a disregard for a group of persons, seen as “defective stocks and human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” That racist premise was the foundation of the movement.
In responding to the recent sale of body parts, Planned Parenthood wants us to believe that this is a good business practice. No, this is repulsive, sickening and ghastly. After looking at the Consolidated Balance Sheets for 2014, Planned Parenthood does not need to sell body parts to augment income. The company is a victim of its gruesome practices.
Thankfully, the company’s attitude to abortion is not the same to a wide variety of human services. I would love to see many of those services retained, but under a different banner. The stench and the sigma of a sordid history must be removed. Until that happens, I will support the move to defund Planned Parenthood.
In attempting to close the door on disgusting practices, Christians must ensure that we do not close our compassion to “the least of these”, to whom Jesus referred.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Immigrants!
Our first request to migrate to the United States was turned down. The immigration department feared, as graduate students, we would become a liability to America. It was a church that came to our rescue. Recently I reminded the New York congregation of their compassionate gesture almost 25 years ago.
For decades, churches have had to balance compassion and immigration - especially among illegal immigrants. Christians are expected to show care to everyone, especially to the less fortunate. The writer to the New Testament book of Hebrews stated clearly: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.”
Honestly, I have been blessed as an immigrant. Trinidad and Tobago first opened the doors to my grandparents from Barbados, later the country did the same for my mother as an infant from St. Vincent. Jamaica opened her borders to me as a student, and 42 years later I call a Jamaican my wife.
One can therefore understand my sensitivities to immigration issues in the United States – possibly the most ethnically diverse country in the world. Agreed, for security and national identity, we must secure our borders and put equitable laws in place.
The recent random, heartless murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a five-time illegal alien deportee, who benefited from the city’s sanctuary policy has law-abiding Americans, law enforcement officials and political opportunists of all stripes up in arms.
Many are equally annoyed by churches across the country that are brazenly thumbing their noses at immigration laws. For instance, in Northeast Portland, Oregan, the Augustana Lutheran Church is shielding illegal alien Franscisco Aguirre-Velasquez, after he committed drunk driving and drug crimes and violated deportation laws.
In Chicago, illegal alien Elvira Arellano settled at the United Methodist Church of Adalberto for a year before finally being ejected back to Mexico. Last year, the serial law-breaker somehow returned to the Windy City to protest her status “in the shadows.”
Like in my case, it is one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and to persons who were abused and mistreated. It is quite another matter to conspire against orderly immigration laws.
The mixture of compassion and politics leave the church confused. Is there another way to address unfair immigration laws? According to the Bible, compassion is not optional. Early in Jewish history, the Hebrews were reminded: "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).
Hundreds of years later, at the time of King Solomon, there were about 150,000 non-Jews in Israel (2 Chron. 2:17) or about a tenth of the country’s total population. As is usual today, most of these were unskilled workers (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 8:7-8).
However, the question remains, what should be the church’s attitude to illegal immigrants today? I have found Chawkat Moucarry’s volume, The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian’s Perspective on Islam and Christianity to be most helpful. In this volume, Dr. Moucarry suggests at least three things:
Watchfulness – we must always keep in mind the danger of nationalism, whose victims would be minority groups living within the borders of nations. The practice of “ethnic cleansing”, the rise of extreme right-wing theories and inter-tribal warfare remind us that this danger is real and current.
At the global level the more powerful nations need to be on guard against exploiting poorer and weaker ones, and as Christians we should play our part in encouraging governments to develop international relations founded on principles of solidarity and equity.
Clear-mindedness and Tolerance - Christians should know better than others what really separates people from one another: the hardest barriers to break down are not geographic, political, economic or cultural, but spiritual. For instance, two Americans can be much more foreign to one another than a Mexican and an American who share the same faith in Jesus.
Evangelism - By sharing our lives and not just our words, immigrants will see that Jesus Christ really is unique: unique because of His life, His teaching, His love, His death and His resurrection. He is also unique because He alone can reconcile us to ourselves, to our neighbor and to our God: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Romans 10:12-13).
For decades, churches have had to balance compassion and immigration - especially among illegal immigrants. Christians are expected to show care to everyone, especially to the less fortunate. The writer to the New Testament book of Hebrews stated clearly: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.”
Honestly, I have been blessed as an immigrant. Trinidad and Tobago first opened the doors to my grandparents from Barbados, later the country did the same for my mother as an infant from St. Vincent. Jamaica opened her borders to me as a student, and 42 years later I call a Jamaican my wife.
One can therefore understand my sensitivities to immigration issues in the United States – possibly the most ethnically diverse country in the world. Agreed, for security and national identity, we must secure our borders and put equitable laws in place.
The recent random, heartless murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a five-time illegal alien deportee, who benefited from the city’s sanctuary policy has law-abiding Americans, law enforcement officials and political opportunists of all stripes up in arms.
Many are equally annoyed by churches across the country that are brazenly thumbing their noses at immigration laws. For instance, in Northeast Portland, Oregan, the Augustana Lutheran Church is shielding illegal alien Franscisco Aguirre-Velasquez, after he committed drunk driving and drug crimes and violated deportation laws.
In Chicago, illegal alien Elvira Arellano settled at the United Methodist Church of Adalberto for a year before finally being ejected back to Mexico. Last year, the serial law-breaker somehow returned to the Windy City to protest her status “in the shadows.”
Like in my case, it is one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and to persons who were abused and mistreated. It is quite another matter to conspire against orderly immigration laws.
The mixture of compassion and politics leave the church confused. Is there another way to address unfair immigration laws? According to the Bible, compassion is not optional. Early in Jewish history, the Hebrews were reminded: "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).
Hundreds of years later, at the time of King Solomon, there were about 150,000 non-Jews in Israel (2 Chron. 2:17) or about a tenth of the country’s total population. As is usual today, most of these were unskilled workers (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 8:7-8).
However, the question remains, what should be the church’s attitude to illegal immigrants today? I have found Chawkat Moucarry’s volume, The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian’s Perspective on Islam and Christianity to be most helpful. In this volume, Dr. Moucarry suggests at least three things:
Watchfulness – we must always keep in mind the danger of nationalism, whose victims would be minority groups living within the borders of nations. The practice of “ethnic cleansing”, the rise of extreme right-wing theories and inter-tribal warfare remind us that this danger is real and current.
At the global level the more powerful nations need to be on guard against exploiting poorer and weaker ones, and as Christians we should play our part in encouraging governments to develop international relations founded on principles of solidarity and equity.
Clear-mindedness and Tolerance - Christians should know better than others what really separates people from one another: the hardest barriers to break down are not geographic, political, economic or cultural, but spiritual. For instance, two Americans can be much more foreign to one another than a Mexican and an American who share the same faith in Jesus.
Evangelism - By sharing our lives and not just our words, immigrants will see that Jesus Christ really is unique: unique because of His life, His teaching, His love, His death and His resurrection. He is also unique because He alone can reconcile us to ourselves, to our neighbor and to our God: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Romans 10:12-13).
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Did It Really Happen?
On October 21, 1997, the Lee County School Board in Florida voted 3 to 2 to adopt the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools program. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and People for the American Way were quick to bring a lawsuit against the School Board. The lawsuit contended that the planned course would present the Bible as history – and that would be unconstitutional.
In a split decision, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovakevich said that the School Board can implement a course based on the Old Testament, but may not teach a planned companion course based on the New Testament.
In her twenty-page ruling, the Judge said she had been convinced by the school’s argument that the Old Testament course was “ostensibly designed to teach history and not religion.” But she ruled out teaching the New Testament as history, saying that she “finds it difficult to conceive how the account of the resurrection or of miracles could be taught as secular history.” The judge’s ruling leaves us with a major question: Can the resurrection of Jesus be viewed as an historical event?
As a term, history may refer to what actually happened, or it may refer to an historian’s interpretation of what actually happened. The historian does not have to believe what happened, but is obligated to report what happened.
In attempting to determine what happened, historians ask questions about location and witnesses to the alleged events. They look for corroborative evidence. They examine archaeological findings in their quest to answer the big question, did it happen?
Judge Kovakevich suggests that such tests cannot be applied to the resurrection of Jesus. In essence, she finds it difficult to conceive that Jesus could rise from the dead. If that is her position, then she is not interested in investigating the event of the resurrection. Rather, she is expressing her inability to conceive of such an event.
Matt Perman makes the point that a method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.
When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even comes close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
No one is asking the historian to explain the process of resurrection – that is the job of the theologian. However, we are asking the historian to respond to the Christians’ claim of an empty tomb. Following His death, Jesus was placed in a tomb, a common practice at that time. Three days later, Christians’ claim that the tomb was empty.
In order to avoid theft, the authorities actually secured the tomb in which Jesus was placed. Yet the tomb was found empty. The announcement of an empty tomb was not made in another city some years later. Rather, it was made in the same vicinity where Jesus was killed, a few days later. If the claim of resurrection was false, then why didn’t the authorities simply identify a sealed tomb?
Interestingly, it was in order to respond to an empty tomb, the Jews attempted to bribe the guards that were on duty to protect the tomb. The case of bribery would not have been necessary if the tomb was not empty.
Furthermore, the story of the empty tomb was not legend. There is clear evidence that within seven years after the alleged resurrection, the story began to be documented. Normally, it would take decades before a story is considered to be a legend. This story was documented within the lifetime of eye witnesses.
One finds it very strange that the tomb of Jesus was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.
Following his conversion, Paul, a strong opponent of Christianity, made it very clear: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith...” (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Scholars may debate the process of resurrection. However, there should be no debate about the fact of resurrection – the empty tomb continues to provide historical evidence that something phenomenal happened following the death of Jesus.
In a split decision, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovakevich said that the School Board can implement a course based on the Old Testament, but may not teach a planned companion course based on the New Testament.
In her twenty-page ruling, the Judge said she had been convinced by the school’s argument that the Old Testament course was “ostensibly designed to teach history and not religion.” But she ruled out teaching the New Testament as history, saying that she “finds it difficult to conceive how the account of the resurrection or of miracles could be taught as secular history.” The judge’s ruling leaves us with a major question: Can the resurrection of Jesus be viewed as an historical event?
As a term, history may refer to what actually happened, or it may refer to an historian’s interpretation of what actually happened. The historian does not have to believe what happened, but is obligated to report what happened.
In attempting to determine what happened, historians ask questions about location and witnesses to the alleged events. They look for corroborative evidence. They examine archaeological findings in their quest to answer the big question, did it happen?
Judge Kovakevich suggests that such tests cannot be applied to the resurrection of Jesus. In essence, she finds it difficult to conceive that Jesus could rise from the dead. If that is her position, then she is not interested in investigating the event of the resurrection. Rather, she is expressing her inability to conceive of such an event.
Matt Perman makes the point that a method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.
When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even comes close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
No one is asking the historian to explain the process of resurrection – that is the job of the theologian. However, we are asking the historian to respond to the Christians’ claim of an empty tomb. Following His death, Jesus was placed in a tomb, a common practice at that time. Three days later, Christians’ claim that the tomb was empty.
In order to avoid theft, the authorities actually secured the tomb in which Jesus was placed. Yet the tomb was found empty. The announcement of an empty tomb was not made in another city some years later. Rather, it was made in the same vicinity where Jesus was killed, a few days later. If the claim of resurrection was false, then why didn’t the authorities simply identify a sealed tomb?
Interestingly, it was in order to respond to an empty tomb, the Jews attempted to bribe the guards that were on duty to protect the tomb. The case of bribery would not have been necessary if the tomb was not empty.
Furthermore, the story of the empty tomb was not legend. There is clear evidence that within seven years after the alleged resurrection, the story began to be documented. Normally, it would take decades before a story is considered to be a legend. This story was documented within the lifetime of eye witnesses.
One finds it very strange that the tomb of Jesus was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.
Following his conversion, Paul, a strong opponent of Christianity, made it very clear: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith...” (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Scholars may debate the process of resurrection. However, there should be no debate about the fact of resurrection – the empty tomb continues to provide historical evidence that something phenomenal happened following the death of Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)