Should Christians be overly concerned about giving offense? Political correctness is the reigning secular creed of our time. It's the sea we swim in; we are faced with it everywhere in our culture. It cries out, “Don’t you dare say anything to offend me, and if you do I will be offended, and I will let everyone know, futhermore I will tell everyone that you are a bigot, and finally I will tell Daddy, er the government on you and they will make you pay for my hurt feelings." You know I do not exaggerate. So what are Christians to do? We must go back to Jesus and Paul. In Matthew 15 the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Your words have offended the Pharisees.” And Jesus was remorseful and broke down in grief that he had caused offense and apologized profusely. NO HE DID NOT! He was not even perturbed…he said, “Every plant which my heavenly father did not plant shall be rooted up. Let them alone they are blind guides of the blind.” Jesus was not afraid to offend. But I have seen too many Christians tie themselves up in pretzels in order to accommodate sin and not give offense. I ask you, why should we try and out Jesus Jesus. Are we more spiritual than him? I think not. But surely Paul was accommodating and tolerant, and would never give offense. Really? Try reading the book of Acts…almost everywhere Paul went riots broke out…why because he would not tolerate falsehood…he insisted on speaking the truth. But some would say there shouldn't be an adversarial relationship between Christians and an unbelieving world. And I would respond that yes, by all means let Christians everywhere speak truth in love and with grace. But let's give up the silly, unbiblical notion that light and darkness will coexist in mutual fraternity and harmony.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Islam's Many Faces
Encountering the true Islam
by Royal Hamel
His name was Aladdin. In the late afternoon on a sunny day we met on a walking path that circled a beautiful man-made lake. Aladdin was reticent at first, but eventually he acknowledged that he was a Muslim from the Middle East. He seemed astonished at my unfeigned delight in meeting him. For I had been having conversations with Muslims from several countries, and I still had some burning questions. So to spend the next hour walking and talking with Aladdin was for me a most delightful treat.
In fact for some time now I have been looking for resources to help me better understand the Muslim world. And that is why I was so interested just recently to come across an excellent documentary that explores modern day Islam.
Joel C. Rosenberg’s Inside the Revolution: How the Followers of Jihad, Jefferson & Jesus are Battling to Dominate the Middle East and Transform the World found its way to number three spot on the New York’s Times best seller list in April of this year. This fascinating book with its related DVD documentary by the same title portrays an exclusive insider look at the multifaceted world of present day Islam. The author shines a spotlight on radical Islam, then on those intent on reformation, and finally on a group he terms the revivalists.
The documentary has mesmerizing interviews with noteworthy figures like Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel; Porter Goss, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Lt. General Jerry Boykin, a former Delta commander. One of the most interesting interviews involves Tass Saada, a former PLO sniper and author of Once an Arafat Man.
Rosenberg avoids using a wide brush to portray all Muslims as being the same. He states that the majority of Muslims around the world ( 93%) are a moderate people who simply want to live a decent life. Among these moderates he claims there’s a movement dedicated to reforming Islam so that the jihadists will no longer kill and terrorize in the name of Allah. A Moroccan journalist horrified at the violence of Osama Bin Laden says of him, “For me he is not even a Muslim.” For these moderates the answer is still Islam, but armed jihad is not part of the solution. Rosenberg especially highlights Turkey, Morocco and Iraq as Muslim countries that are taking a lead in standing against violence and terror by the radicals.
In the first part of the documentary Rosenberg explores these radicals—the jihadists who though forming only a tiny percentage of Muslims worldwide (7%) nonetheless have tremendous influence and power. Rosenberg states that “the radicals say that Islam is the answer and violent Jihad is the way.” The radicals want to purify Islam by driving out the West, ridding the world of Jews and Christians, destroying the United States and setting up a world wide Muslim Empire. Perhaps the most chilling scenes on the jihadists deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president makes no secret of his intention to foment a second holocaust by ridding the world of the nation of Israel. The narrator shares at one point, “Never before in the nuclear age have the leaders of a revolutionary country held to the belief that the end of the world was at hand and that they were chosen to bring it about”.
Rosenberg concludes the documentary by exploring the phenomenon of so-called “revivalists” who inhabit the Muslim world. He explores the influence of various former radical Muslims who have been changed and are now reaching out in love as opposed to terror. In this section he also mentions what I have heard repeated from many reputable sources, to wit, that many Muslims around the world are experiencing dreams and visions of one of their prophets, Jesus Christ. The experience of former PLO sniper Tass Saada is a case in point. According to Saada the profound hatred he felt for the Jews since childhood was immediately taken from him after he experienced one of these visions.
Inside the Revolution is well researched and supported by a number of prominent experts in the field. People of varying persuasions, including Muslims themselves will profit from viewing it, and all of us will be better prepared for whatever the future holds.
But as good as documentaries and books are, there may be a better way to learn. Many of us have people living on our street with names like Maryam, Hassan, Mohammed, or even Aladdin. Perhaps these are Islamic friends we simply haven’t met yet?
Published in The Guelph Mercury/ Sept 29, 09
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Concerned by THE SHACK
If you haven’t read The Shack, you probably have a friend who has. It is currently one of the hottest books on the market. The novel, written by William P. Young and published by Windblown Media, has to date sold more than eight million copies. It debuted on the New York Times bestseller list in early June, 2008 and has stayed there ever since. No less a figure than theologian and author Eugene Peterson has given it high praise, saying, “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”
The story line centres on the profound pain of Mack, whose young daughter, Missy, was stalked, abducted, and then murdered by a serial killer. As the story opens we are presented with a deeply wounded middle-aged man who endures each day with great sadness, deeply cynical that anything could ever help him. At the heart of his pain there is a deep reservoir of hostility and anger toward God, who has made him drink such a bitter cup.
The novel quickly morphs into an allegory. Mack receives a mysterious note that invites him to meet God in the very shack where his daughter was murdered. There Mack encounters a feisty African-American woman named Papa (God the Father), a smaller Asian-looking woman named Sarayu (God the Holy Spirit), and an unimposing Jewish man garbed in carpenter’s clothes (God the Son)! Yes, for an entire weekend Mack eats with, hikes with, converses with, works with, jokes with the Triune God of the Bible. Without spoiling the book for those who have not read it, Mack’s encounter with the “Trinity” brings deep healing, rest, and some answers to his disturbed soul.
The novel unfolds the person of God to the reader in unexpected, sometimes funny, and, on occasion, emotionally moving ways. I will not soon forget Mack’s first encounter with Papa. This rather large, energetic African-American woman launches herself at him, lifts him off his feet, and whirls him round and round in an exuberant embrace of pure love, shouting his name over and over. The key to the book is revealed when “Jesus” confides to Mack, “You were really stuck and we wanted to help you crawl out of your pain.” In fact, people tell me they found themselves reading this book with tears streaming down their face. It seems something extraordinary and perhaps transcendent has flowed from the author to his reader.
Lynn Garrett, senior religion editor for Publishers Weekly, notes, “People are not necessarily concerned with how orthodox the theology is. People are into the story and how the book strikes them emotionally.” I think Garrett is right on and this is deeply concerning.
Despite my appreciation for certain aspects of the novel I remain deeply troubled by much of the teaching that comes out in Mack’s conversations with the various persons of the Trinity. Does the God portrayed in The Shack speak with the same voice as the God of the Bible? Sadly, in many instances the answer to this question must be “No.” For example, Papa says, “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.” But Historic Christianity, based on the Bible, has never believed that the entire Godhead became incarnate. Only one person in the Trinity became fully human, the second person of the Godhead, the Son, who became our Lord Jesus. If the author can be so wrong on so basic a point, can he be trusted with the other words he puts into God’s mouth?
Again, Historic Christianity has always taught that God’s nature includes both love and justice, and that God one day will punish sin. But William Young’s God says, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment. . . . It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” In fact, in various places Young implies that God will in the end reconcile everyone to himself, contradicting the biblical concept of final judgment and punishment.
In Christian circles, The Shack is causing considerable controversy. Though highly lauded by some, others such as Dr. Albert Mohler rightly insist it contains “undiluted heresy.” And this positive reception of the book by knowledgeable Christians is what is ultimately most disturbing: how can they praise such a work? And what does this say for the state of current Christian wisdom and thought?
[1] The bulk of this book review was originally published in the Guelph Mercury, August 26, 2008. Republished with permission.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
WHO WILL STAFF THE BROTHELS
Justice Ted Matlow, who is presiding in the Ontario case, has recently created some controversy by disallowing two conservative Christian groups from participating in the proceedings. The Christian Legal Fellowship and the Catholic Civil Rights League argued that prostitution is damaging to society, and that there are good reasons why communities might want to restrict it. But Justice Matlow quashed their application to take part because, in his words, the Christian groups hold views that, “reflect the views of only small segments of Canadian society.”
Whoa, hold it right there. I know that Canada holds liberal views on many subjects. But I find it impossible to believe that only Christians would champion the view that prostitution is inherently harmful and degrading. Are we to believe that secular humanists, plain atheists, and agnostics have no moral code? Are people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens lining up with their daughters hoping to get them into one of the better brothels? It’s far more likely that Matlow himself holds elitist views that would not resonate with the average Canadian. Even with the moral bankruptcy of our times, I do not believe that the majority of my fellow citizens are going to applaud a decision to yank the prostitution laws in Canada.
In fact, I’m hoping against hope that Canadians will stand up and shout, “NO-WAY” to legalized prostitution. Let no one be confused about this. When prostitution is fully legalized and the sex trade industry has the entire stigma washed away from it, there is no telling how far the ripples of damage will spread. Will our high schools begin to feature courses like “Soliciting 101” or “How to run your own Bawdy House?” or “Pimping made Profitable”? Will unemployed women under a certain age be forced into job interviews with brothel owners if they want to keep receiving employment insurance? (Before you laugh an incident like this actually happened in Germany in 2005)
So why am I so exercised about this issue? It’s simple: I care about people, all people, prostitutes included. And I hate and abhor the practice of prostitution because of the hellish harm that it inflicts on women. The violence, the virtual slavery by brutal pimps, the rampant drug addiction, the actual danger of being murdered by some deranged john, the wide spread sex trafficking that occurs—I could go on and on.
Advocates claim that these are the very reasons why we need to legalize and regulate the practice. But they are wrong.
Countries like Holland that have had legalized prostitution for years are finally scaling back and passing new laws to discourage and limit the practice. They discovered that legalization didn’t guarantee safety; they learned that it only caused more unregulated street prostitution; they saw how organized crime came into the scene; and they saw that the foreign trafficking of women was all part of the scene. In short the people in Canada who are calling for legalization because of supposed harm reduction are dead wrong. They need to do their homework. Here’s hoping Canada will look at the negative, harmful experiences of other countries that opted for legalization and now wish they hadn’t.
I am hoping and praying that Canadians will be shocked and appalled so that there will be an outcry against the whole idea of treating women as meat to be bought and sold. But I’m afraid that we may now be at the stage where we are so morally challenged that we won’t give it a second thought. Please prove me wrong—let your voice be heard!
Just remember that if prostitution is legalized the brothels will have to be staffed. I can guarantee that those girls will be somebody’s daughters. Whose daughters? I assure you that they will be the trafficked and helpless daughters of some poor peasant in a far off country, or they will be our own daughters. I hope that either prospect makes you thoroughly sick to your stomach.
Published in the Guelph Mercury, August 14, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
One Thing You Can't Do In Heaven
It is no theological treatise, but its focus is more on encouragement and inspiration to share the good news of Christ. Indeed the book is so motivational that it may lead you to put it down in mid-paragraph while launching yourself out your front door looking for some to share with.
No book is perfect and this one easily meets that standard. But there is so much good information and zesty motivation that I will be recommending it far and wide. I plan, Lord willing, to obtain many copies just for giving away. Put it on your reading list for this summer. You will not be disappointed.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Christians who Shun Politics Lack Love
First of all, any and every endeavor that we as Christians enter into the world is done in a place of falleness since the whole world is in sin and under sin. So to centre out the sphere of politics as unworthy is to somehow misunderstand the pervasive nature of sin over every aspect of life. If one were logically consistent with this position a Christian would have to divorce himself from every aspect of life in the world for all is tinged with sin.
Secondly, to ignore politics is to ignore the sphere where power is exercised, the arena where secular authority is legitimately exercised in a fallen world. And by ignoring this realmn the believer in Christ is often guilty of not loving his/her neighbour. For instance the Salvation Army in London in the 19th century entered the political fray and labored to get laws passed protecting young girls from the horrors of pimps, brothels and all the apparatus of white slavery. In short they loved God first, but then they loved their fellow citizen enough to get involved in the dirty business of politics in order to protect and save numerous of their fellow citizens from white slavery. I will content myself with that one example for now. But, they who are too spiritual to get involved in politics are trying to be more spiritual than the Bible that calls us to love both God and our fellow man. And to omit the love that is due our neighbour is a sin of grave omission.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Should The Burka be Allowed in Canada
Covering the Burka Issue from all Sides
Royal Hamel
Who would have thought that overdressed women could engender intense political controversy? But such is the case in France where just recently President Nicolas Sarkozy has strongly repudiated the burka, a tent-like garment worn by some Muslim women that covers them from head to toe. Sarkozy said, "In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen . . . The burka is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement . . . It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
But think not only of France, for a number of Canadian columnists and editorial boards see the burka as a danger to women in our own culture. A recent National Post editorial claims the burka is like "a mobile prison" that nothing in Islam demands, and that it harms women by denying them a face and identity in our open society.
If women want to wear it based on religious conviction, or simply as part of their cultural tradition, I think that any coherent free society has to give its consent. To deny such freedom in a matter of dress would be an attack on the basic rights of women. On the other hand if women are forced to drape their entire body in this manner by a cultural tradition of extreme male dominance I would oppose it. There I've said it. I know, I know, nobody in multicultural Canada is supposed to imply that some cultural values are better than others. But are some cultural traditions in fact undeserving of acceptance?
Oh sure, I can easily enough practise tolerance and live with the burka, but if I examine it somewhat more closely it seems to be largely a case of domineering men saying, "You will hide your form, your personality, and your identity behind this mobile tent because no one outside of this family has any right to know you." Isolating women behind a wall of cloth reminds me of eunuchs in other times standing guard over harems of women by isolating them behind walls of stone. I oppose the burka where it is imposed as dress code because I believe that the female half of the human race is also made in the image of God and is of equal worth to us men. It is neither just nor fair for their identity and person to be hidden and subjugated behind a wall of cloth. The issue of fairness to the hidden woman is crucial. If men in these cultures were similarly garbed there would be no issue since both would suffer equal disadvantages. But men are free to dress as they like.
But there is another side to this issue. If a woman from personal religious conviction wishes to robe herself in the burka, what right has the state to interfere? I would say it has none. And, in the same way, I believe the state has no right to interfere in my freedom as a Christian to carry the symbol of the cross, or in the case of the Sikh to wear a turban, or to oppose a Jewish man donning a skullcap.
At present it is France that is contemplating a burka ban. And since it has already banned the hijab in their state schools they just might pull off the burka in the wider culture. But Islam in its more traditional expressions is growing in many Western nations, including our own. And how deliciously ironic it would be if Canada were to ban the burka. After all our justice system winks at sporting nothing more than sandals at gay pride events in Toronto. How ironic that it might become illegal to overdress in burka fashion while across the street women are allowed to parade topless because the law has chosen not to forbid extremes in under dressing.
Will France ban the burka? Will Canadians in fact join the discussion and move toward the same solution? Your guess is as good as mine. If the world view of secularism tends toward the throwing off of most restraints, the world view of most spiritual people tends to move in the opposite direction seeking to restrain behaviour that causes harm to society. Is there any room for compromise in a liberal democracy between these two sides that are so far apart? My suggestion, let's get someone to design fashionable, see-through burqas.
Royal Hamel is a member of the Guelph Mercury Community Editorial Board.