Defeating Radical Islam — An Astounding Answer from an Unexpected Source!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a remarkable woman.  Born into a Somali Muslim family, she endured the typical abusive environment surrounding young girls and blossoming women until finally escaping the fate prescribed by her father: being pledged in marriage to an older Somali man that she had never met and fleeing to anonymous safety in Europe.  As a refugee, Ms. Ali built her new life in Holland, ultimately becoming a Dutch citizen and then a Minister of the Dutch Parliament, championing the cause of other refugees, particularly Muslim women and children facing oppressive actions by their male relatives. As Ms. Ali learned more of the western, Enlightenment world view prevalent in Europe, she jettisoned her earlier Muslim beliefs in favor of “reason.”  She gained prominence as she teamed with film producer Theo Van Gogh to create a movie called “Submission,” dealing with Islam’s treatment of women.  Not long after, Van Gogh was gruesomely assassinated by a young Muslim man for his part in this movie.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali has lived under government or private protection ever since.  She now resides in the United States, speaks and writes regularly, and is a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.  If you’d like to read about her life, you will find her own recollections and musings in her two books, Infidel and Nomad.

In her second book, Nomad, Ms. Ali makes clear that she is now an atheist, believing that reason leads inexorably to this world view.  Yet she is not militantly so.  She believes the greatest threat to the world today is radical Islam, and she speaks regularly against it, arguing that it must be decisively defeated for the world to live freely and prosperously.  Unlike many western analysts, Ms. Ali rejects the notion that moderate Muslims will be able to eradicate it, no matter how hard they try, because radical Muslims believe that anyone who denies their understanding of Islam, even ones who practice some other version of it, cannot be true Muslims.  Therefore, the views of moderate Muslims are as misguided as those of pagans or infidels.  Likewise, though governments should rightly use power when necessary to eclipse the influence or advancement of militant Islam, power itself will not bring the movement to an end, only contain it.

What then does this converted atheist believe is the one antidote to radical Islam?  The Christian Church!  Listen to these quotations from Nomad:

“I would prefer, as a fourth option, to offer Muslims who cling to the idea of a creator and eternal life a religious leader like Jesus, who said, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to god the things that are God’s,’ rather than a warrior like Muhammad, who demanded that the pious seek to gain power by the sword.” (p. 250)

“To help ground these people in Western society, the West needs the Christian churches to get active again in propagating their faith.  It needs Christian schools, Christian volunteers, the Christian message.” (p. 250)

“The churches should do all in their power to win this battle for the souls of humans in search of a compassionate God, who now find that a fierce Allah is closer to hand.” (p. 251)

“A mosque is an island of gender apartheid….The contrast with the churches I have attended in America could not be more complete.  Men and women, children and adults, people of all races intermingle. Their attire is no different from what they might wear on the streets.  There are no ablutions.  The members of the congregation take their places on long wooden benches….The central message is one of love.” (p. 252)

“They [moderate churches] need to step up to the challenge of provided new Muslim immigrants with the concept of a God who is a symbol of love, tolerance, rationality and patriotism….” (p. 253)

“Some readers may still be skeptical that the clash of civilizations can be won through religious competition.  But I know it can work because I have seen it with my own eyes.” (p. 253)

Ever since personally discovering the transforming power of the gospel, I have believed that Church holds the key to overcoming the threat of Muslim extremism, as well as to reaching all who languish under the stifling legalism of works-based justification.  But never before have I heard of an atheist who knows the ins and outs of Islam and who has some basic understanding of Christianity who then openly concludes that of all the potential victors over radical Islam only the Church can win the day — but only if the Church takes serious her mission!

More on this in my next post.

Hope for the PC(USA)? Perception Is Not Reality…. (Part 2)

Yesterday I began a response to an open letter from “the Chicago eight” concerning the future status of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  The authors’ claim is that the future of our denomination is bursting with hope, and that we disaffected evangelicals are just blind at the moment — our perception is not reality.  Today’s blog is my concluding response to that open letter.

2)  Halfway through, after attempting fruitlessly (see yesterday’s blog) to show how deeply missional the PCUSA is, the letter claims, “The PC(USA) simply has not turned its back on proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.”  Yet the very fact that the writers felt the need to make this declaration shows the sad state of our denomination.  Who in a healthy denomination would feel the need to defend their institution from the charge that the institution has turned its back on proclaiming Christ as Lord and Savior?  Why would such a charge ever be leveled at a church that is faithfully following Christ?  Only if the charges have some prima facie support would one even tackle the question.  How sad that the authors at least implicitly recognize there is enough evidence against our institutional faithfulness to feel they have to come to its defense.  Yet what they offer as a defense is worse than flimsy.

3)  This letter urges those in congregations contemplating departure to “…insist that your leaders re-expose you to the voices of fellow Presbyterians who are resolute in their intentions to stay.  Do not allow one-sided presentations to be all you consider as you seek to discern God’s call to you and your congregation.”  Yet earlier, the authors said, ”We know that those contemplating the possibility of leaving are bathing the decision in prayer, and are genuinely seeking to discern God’s will in this.”  Is God not capable of speaking clearly to those genuinely seeking His will, who are ”bathing” their questions in prayer?  What makes the Chicago eight assume that evangelical leaders are unfair and one-sided in their presentations to their flock of these profound issues?  Why were there no similar calls to the liberal wing of the church in its single-minded and blindly one-sided push to divide the PCUSA by ramrodding a change in ordination standards?  I am offended by the implication in this paragraph that those committed to staying in the PCUSA are truly following God’s will, and those contemplating leaving are in danger of missing it.

It would seem to me that if the Chicago eight were wholly committed to seeing God’s will followed, they would equally urge those congregations that are not presently considering leaving to call on their leaders to expose them to those in the church who are resolute in their intentions to leave, so that they are not limited by one-sided determinations to stay.  The implications from the words of this letter are clear: staying is right; leaving is wrong.

4)  We are further warned not to be tempted by greener grass elsewhere because: a) such grass has its own problems; b) our grass may be regenerating in ways we haven’t seen; c) the process of jumping the fence brings heretofore unknown perils.  Beware the law of unintended consequences, and remember to count the cost before taking action (after all, we are reminded, Jesus gave us this piece of wisdom).

It is certainly true that the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.  However, often enough it is, and that is why grazing animals seek to leave their over-grazed or otherwise unhealthy confines.  In point of fact, having served in the EPC denomination for 7 years before re-entering the PCUSA in response to God’s call, I can affirm that the grass really is greener for evangelicals in that fold than it is in the PCUSA.  It suffers from none of the problems that plague our desolate pastures.  Certainly there are issues being debated in the EPC, but none of them deals with keeping or jettisoning orthodoxy.  We are told that PCUSA grass may be regenerating in ways we have not noticed.  Of course, if this is true it’s a tautology.  If there is regeneration going on, we are unaware of it because we haven’t noticed it.  This letter, however, does nothing to instill any faith in the notion that PCUSA grass is getting greener anywhere.  The most likely explanation for our not noticing any significant regeneration is that nothing significant is happening.  Indeed, overtures to this coming GA make it clear that liberals are seeking to spray the remaining grass with Roundup.  As to the warning that seeking to jump the fence brings unforeseen perils, many of those leaving have indeed discovered this.  The perils relate almost wholly to our denominational machinery doing all in its power to penalize or inflict economic and ecclesiastical harm upon those leaving.  I’ve not heard of any congregations, who having left the PCUSA in the past are now saying, “We sure wish we had stayed.”  Perhaps there are some, but they must be in the tiny minority.  If the authors of this letter are really concerned about the perils facing those contemplating departure (I am thinking specifically of our GA moderator and vice-moderator), I can tell them how they, out of the deep love they profess, could quickly eradicate the bulk of the perils involved in leaping the fence:  TAKE DOWN THE FENCE.  Why not allow free and unhindered departures for those who believe God is calling them to go?  In our local churches we allow any member to move to another congregation without putting up barriers or demanding some payment before releasing him/her.  The attitude our larger leadership has had toward churches wishing to shift membership reminds me of repressive regimes that have built border walls not to keep out illegal immigrants but rather to keep in citizens seeking freedom or opportunity elsewhere.  All the feeble arguments to justify such draconian behavior fall far short of the law of love to which God calls us all, and sully the name of Christ.  Lastly, we are called to beware the law of unintended consequences.  This is a good reminder.  Would that all the proponents of homosexual ordination and a new form of government had been given this warning and heeded it!  We would not now be facing what brings such worry to the Chicago eight.  Yet perhaps the consequences our denomination is now reaping were not unexpected or even unintended by the liberal wing.  That is between them and God.  But as the Scriptures remind us, “We reap what we sow.”  The authors of this letter also quote Scripture, reminding us of Jesus’ words to count the cost.  Though they apparently do not realize it, this is exactly what many of us have been doing, leading to the painful conclusion that to remain in the denomination we have poured our hearts and labors into and thereby lose fellowship with Jesus through disobedience is too high a price to pay.

5) Lastly, these authors tell us confidently that the “season of change” we are experiencing now is simply “…the birthpangs of a new church as it is being reformed by the Holy Spirit.”  I am astounded by what appears to me to be brazen folly.  Our denomination, like other mainlines that have trodden this path before us, is being torn asunder as faithful Christians leave in droves, and these interpreters tell us these wrenching pains are merely birthpangs caused by the Holy Spirit’s reforming work.  To many of us, these convulsions are signs of death throes, not birth pangs, and they are due not to reformation caused by following the Spirit, but to conformation caused by following a bankrupt culture.  While liberals seem eager to wheel the PCUSA to the obstetrics ward to behold a new birth, we see lying in an ICU bed a beloved denomination whose life is ebbing away from decades of addiction to deadly practices.  Time will tell whose diagnosis is correct.  But the fact that the Holy Spirit has never led the Church to embrace moral and theological positions in opposition to the Word before should offer some clues.

We are told that “reformation is strengthened by reinvesting ourselves and all of our congregations….”  But my question is, “Reinvesting in what?  In a denomination that is deaf to the leading of the Spirit, and hellbent on pursuing the life of the flesh?  To what end?  If our leadership showed any degree of repentance and remorse for leading the PCUSA to the brink of destruction, and called on evangelicals to join in reversing direction to regain our biblical footing, I would be among the front lines of response — which I’m sure would be huge.  Sadly, however, our liberal leadership seems content in its error.  This letter is just one more sign of deluded hubris.

Lastly, the letter acknowledges that “…the Church of Jesus Christ is facing a complex, turbulent time,” but that these eight elders together “…share a genuine hope for the future of the PC(USA).”  I wish I could be so sanguine about our future.  But where the church ought to experience turbulence is on the border where her life and influence clashes with that of the world, not in the middle of her heartland where peace, unity and purity ought to reign.  The turbulence we see is in the core of our institution, and when the infection causing this distress has so deeply invaded our vital organs, there is not much cause for hope.  With no other positive evidence, the Chicago eight tell us they are confident their hopes are sure because they are based on the resurrection of Christ.  But I would remind them that a rebellious Israel was confident that God would protect her from captivity or worse, even when she refused the calls of prophets to repent.  She was wrong.  A denomination that thumbs its nose at God may speak confidently of Christ’s resurrection power, but if we retain any memory of our Scripture we should not be surprised when it reaches out its hand before slipping under the waves of oblivion only to discover that the nail-pierced hand of the Savior is not there to save it.

My prayer is that these eight will listen to their own words — Perception is not reality – and see what the vast majority of  Christians in this denomination and around the world see so clearly.  Should that happen, my hope for the PC(USA) will flicker to life.

Hope for the PC(USA)? Perception Is Not Reality…. (Part 1)

Yesterday, 8 Presbyterian elders of various persuasions issued a joint letter to the many thousands of disaffected Presbyterians presently contemplating leaving the PCUSA.  The letter was a plea not to leave, saying in essence that things are not as bad as you think, that perception is not reality, that there is much going on to stir hope that God is rebirthing this denomination.  I felt this letter deserved a response, as one of those apparently misguided, disaffected members to whom it was addressed.  There is too much to cover in one reasonably-sized post, so I will offer installment one today, and post the remainder tomorrow.

Though the authors completely skirt the profound issues tearing about our denomination, they do acknowledge that we are undergoing “complex changes.” They want the disaffected to know that they love us, and want to continue to serve Christ together side by side — as long as we remain in this denomination.

I am grateful for these stated affections, but find it hard to receive love that is delivered with such a patronizing approach.  I’m sure the authors aren’t even aware of this, but the overarching message that “Your perceptions of what is going on in our denomination is not at all on target” discounts our years of experience, struggle and efforts to undo the damage done in the name of “progress” to a once great denomination.  They, of course, see the reality; we are awash in false perceptions.

This is seen even in the choice of words to describe how both sides of the debate have responded to the changes in ordination standards and in the revised Form of Government.  For those in favor of these, the departures from the past are a welcome change.  For those opposed, they feel like a betrayal.  Notice the subtle differentiation which discounts our position.  The changes are indeed a good thing, though they may feel to us right now like a betrayal.  But one day, these enlightened elders hope, our wounded feelings will pass as we too discover how wonderful these developments really are.

I would like to respond to the claim of the authors that with regard to the health of the PCUSA, “perception is not reality” — that if we only knew the facts, we would join them in tiptoeing through the tulips into a bright, new springtime of hope.  Here are some purported evidences to support their view of reality, and my counter observations:

1) “The PC(USA) is deeply missional.”  Why?  Because a) the 2010 GA reaffirmed the 2008 GA’s call to “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide”; b) the 2012 GA will take up the vision to plant 1001 new worshiping communities in the next 10 years; c) there are now some evangelically-minded leaders at the GA offices level who have dreams of how to equip Presbyterians to turn things around; d) Tom Taylor (formerly an evangelical pastor, now president of the Presbyterian Foundation) “…often affirms, ‘Planting and growing congregations, proclaiming the gospel effectively, building up the church – these are at the core of who we are as Presbyterians.’”

This is slim evidence for such a bold claim — that our denomination is deeply missional!  As a Texan might say concerning a drugstore cowboy’s claim to be a successful rancher, “All hat and no cattle.”  The 2008 GA launched a glitzy campaign to grow the PCUSA deep and wide.  How successful was it?  The fact that the 2010 GA had to reaffirm this commitment should give us some clue.  The GA offices have come out with another plan, one based more on marketing hype than on substance, in my opinion, to create 1001 new “worshiping communities” in 10 years.  It’s a lofty goal, to be sure. But what constitutes a “new worshiping community”?  How long will they stay in existence?  What will make them “Presbyterian”?  What resources will be mustered for this effort?  What motivation in the present church is there to take up this challenge?

It’s true that because of significant unrest and refusal of the evangelical wing of the church to financially support the liberal agenda of the GA offices over the last decade, concessions have had to be made by the liberal leadership– the office staff has been downsized and restructured a number of times, bringing in leaders more responsive to evangelical concerns.  But after 30 years of liberals at the helm, with our denomination lying on the operating table in danger of bleeding out, is this not too little, too late?  The quotation from Tom Taylor (whom I like and respect personally), while nice-sounding, is in reality laughable.  What he says was once true of Presbyterians (close to a century and more ago), but it in no recognizable manner reflects the core of who we are as the PCUSA now or in recent memory.

Let’s look at some statistics to back up my realism: over the last decade, according to denominational statistics, the PCUSA has lost 20% of its official membership.  From the 6 years of 1999-2004, our average rate of loss was 1.5% of our total membership annually.  For the last 6 years (2005-2010), that rate has jumped to 2.6%.  That means over the last 6 years we have lost members at a 73% faster rate than over the 6 earlier years.  You may remember that in 2005, the Peace, Unity and Purity report, adopted by the 2006 GA, was made public.  To say that we have been “building up the church, growing congregations and proclaiming the gospel effectively” is to blind oneself to the data.  We have been trending from bad to worse.

As for planting new churches in the midst of closing or losing existing ones, here are the facts for the period from 1999-2010.  The PCUSA was made up of 11,216 congregations in 1999.  Over the last 12 years, we have established 248 new congregations, averaging a little over 20 per year.  In the past we used to receive at least some congregations from other denominations or from independent status that wished to transfer in.  In the last 6 years, that has dwindled down to an average of around 1 per year (these represent mostly Korean congregations wishing to affiliate with the “mother church.”)  Of course in the last 12 years we have also lost churches either to institutional death, merger or dismissal.  This number totals 1099, an average of roughly 91.6 per year.  We now stand (2010 figures) at 10560 congregations, a total net loss over the last 12 years of 656 churches.

So, how are we doing at growing the church deep and wide?  Pretty miserably, when we look at the facts.  If one were to compare our statistical trends to those of countries and their emigration rates vs. their immigration rates, I’m afraid we would mirror countries like Iran and North Korea (where people are straining to leave) more than the United States or England (where people are straining to get in).  Yet this letter tells us that we have always been missional, that this is at the core of our being as a denomination, and that great things are happening.  My response to the authors: your perception is not reality.

“I Don’t Want to Go to Heaven If…”

How would you finish the title sentence above?  It’s hard to imagine anyone not wanting to go to heaven, unless their vision of God is so anemic and insipid that they imagine the shadows of this world to be better than the bright realities God has promised.  But people sometimes put their own conditions on their entrance into heaven (as if God is anxiously hoping that He won’t be rejected and lose out by not having us around because heaven just wasn’t up to snuff).  I’ve heard folks say (half in jest): I don’t want to go to heaven if –

there are no golf courses
I can’t have sex anymore
my drinking buddies won’t be there
my drinking buddies will be there
they don’t serve pizza (or fill in your favorite food)
my beloved pet of 15 years isn’t there….

Most of these statements are really aspirational, I believe.  People are saying, “I can’t imagine a perfect existence without _____.”  But if they were assured that heaven will be better than any experience or relationship they’ve known to date, who’d be so foolish as to turn it down?

Last week I was at the gym working out, and in an attempt to ignore my body’s cries for relief I focused on the music blaring from the overhead speakers.  I’d never heard this song before, but the tune was catchy and the lyrics sounded vaguely religious, so I was intrigued.  Turns out the song title is “Heaven”, and it was released about 6 months ago by an up and coming band named O.A.R. (short for Of a Revolution).

The refrain that grabbed my attention was “I don’t want to go to heaven if I can’t get in.” What a revealing line!  Now in the interest of full disclosure, I must report that one of the band members ( guitarist Richard On) declared that this piece is not really about heaven (or religion) at all, but about one’s attitude in this life:  “The song comes from the belief that you are perfect the way you are and if anyone thinks differently, you probably don’t need them in your life” .

With respect, I would challenge the notion that such a perspective has nothing to do with religion or heaven.  Woven throughout “Heaven” is the theme of self-justification:

all i want is understanding to live my life the way that i planned it; wouldn’t change a thing…

cause I’m no criminal I’m not your enemy all i have is life and i don’t wanna go to heaven if i can’t get in…

everybody got a problem with the way i live i don’t wanna go to heaven if i can’t get in…

oh, I’m not your enemy i never met no criminal and in the end I’d do it again i don’t wanna go to heaven if i cant get in.

The main complaint seems summed up in this couplet:

everybody got a problem with the way i live
i don’t wanna go to heaven if i can’t get in.

Far from being non-religious, this song reveals the heart of our fallen, human nature.  We want to define life on our terms, to set our own standards for good and evil, to be free of any outside authority, living life the way we want to and calling it good because it’s the way we want to live.  If others get in our way, or point out our shortcomings and “make us feel judged,” well, to hell with them.  If they won’t embrace me on my terms, then I don’t want to be  around them.  Of course, the ultimate extension of this attitude is reflected in the words, “I don’t want to go to heaven if I can’t get in.”  I may be a crotchety old buzzard, a self-absorbed prig, a strutting peacock, a shameless orgiast, but if God won’t accept me as I am, then “Hasta la vista, baby — I’m headed for the freedom of hell!”

I find this attitude frightening — eerily reminiscent of the pose struck by the character Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost during the opening scene after Lucifer and his minions have been tossed out of heaven for their revolt against God.  As the Evil One seeks to rally his dark troops, he justifies their actions and revels in their newfound freedom, urging his compatriots with these memorable words: Tis better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven!

There is a world of difference between saying, “Let me be the person God created me to be” (i.e., “Don’t box me in to your expectations for my life”) and “I will be whatever I want to be, and no one, not even God, can overrule or pass judgment on my decisions.”  Humility bows willingly before divine correction; arrogance angrily shakes it off.  Humility looks with astonishment on those who would make demands on God’s hospitality, preferring instead to cling to God’s mercy; arrogance sets the terms under which the creature will deign to fellowship with the Creator.

Perhaps you think I’m making too much of a song.  Maybe I am.  But our theology (whether Christian or not) is often reflected in our music.  From the biblical Book of Psalms to the full range of hymns and spiritual songs in every era of the Church universal, people know that what we sing and listen to shapes and proclaims lyrically what we believe most deeply.

Instead of the message, “Welcome me as I am, and leave me to be whatever I wish,” I much prefer this redemptive song which highlights not just welcome but forgiveness and transformation through the mercy of God offered us in Jesus Christ:

Just as I am, thou wilt receive, wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve; because thy promise I believe, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

O that God would raise up more talented musicians like those of O.A.R, but whose minds and hearts are saturated with biblical truth.  Music is such a powerful medium of communication, and the messages carried in song shape our thoughts and attitudes slowly but surely.

“Heaven” has a catchy tune.  But it has deadly lyrics.  Someone needs to tell O.A.R. that when they stand before the One with nail-pierced hands and thorn-scarred brow and say, “I don’t want to go to heaven if I can’t get in,” the host of heaven will roar with encouragement, “You can get in!  Just not on your terms.  Accept the gift that will make you fit for heaven!”

O Lamb of God, I come, I come….

CLOSE

They’ve Taken My Church, and I Don’t Know Where They’ve Stashed Her*

(*with apologies to Mary Magdalene on her Easter morning exclamation).

I use Google reader to subscribe to the news link on the Presbyterian Church (USA) website — it’s a way to stay in touch with what our denominational leadership considers important enough matters to draw the world’s attention to.  Every so often, I fall a few days behind and have to scroll through a number of stories to catch up.

For example, earlier this month I missed checking from December 6-8.  Ten different “news” stories awaited me.  Reading through them, I was struck afresh with an all too familiar, all too sad epiphany.  The PCUSA has lost its way — it’s hard to find any serious emphasis on the person and work of Jesus Christ, on the message of eternal salvation, on the urgency of evangelism.  Instead, we seem to have devolved to a social action movement with a veneer of quasi-religious platitudes.  Let me summarize the ten stories important enough to be highlighted on our denominational website:

1) Special needs kids in Havana, Cuba get special ed care — Presbyterians are there in a tangential way to help; 2) Mission Crossroads magazine now has its content available online so you can follow how we advance the causes of justice, peace, and “witness”; 3) “More Than Consultation — Collaboration” tells of leaders across the church discussing refugee resettlement issues; 4) an international cluster bomb accord has been derailed after failing to meet humanitarian concerns — our denomination apparently had a small role in lobbying with others to this end; 5) atheists have now launched a campaign to rally unbelievers to their cause (I’m not sure why this was included, unless we wish to take some credit for producing more unbelievers for the atheists to rally); 6) “Our first Christmas together” looks at the ups and downs of various “firsts” for neophytes in parish ministry; 7) a California church is lauded for winning an “energy Oscar” in response to its “green” efforts; 8 ) faith groups in Kenya seek ways to strengthen their HIV/AIDS prevention strategies; 9) religious groups spend nearly $400 million on DC political advocacy efforts; and 10) the sale of the property of a Native American congregation will financially benefit future Native American Presbyterian ministries.

Many of these stories reflect good things happening – I don’t dispute that.  For me the issue is that these kinds of things are being done while the main calling of the church of Jesus Christ is being neglected, or worse, consciously avoided.

Where are the stories of the power of the Holy Spirit being poured out on Presbyterians proclaiming the gospel with thousands responding in a single day?  Where are the accounts of healings in Jesus’ name that bring many into the Kingdom?  Why do we not hear of congregational sacrifice where members sell property and possessions to take care of the influx of the poor into the church?  Where are the stories of fellowships sending pioneers out to neighboring cities, states, countries, to reach the unchurched?  Where is the passion to exalt Jesus Christ as Savior of the world and Lord of creation?  Where are the accounts of our leaders gathering those wise in the ways of God and tested in Spirit-directed battle to strategize on how to win to Christ our lost generations?

As I scrolled through the “news stories” on the denominational website, I couldn’t help comparing them in my mind to the stories told of the church in the Book of Acts.  Ah, someone will say, Acts covers a period of some thirty years. These ten stories are being reported over three days.  True, and valid, to some extent.  The response would be more trenchant, however, if we ever saw significant reporting of Acts-like activities in our midst today.  The problem isn’t so much with what we are accomplishing.  It’s with what we’re missing.  We as a denomination are accomplishing so little of eternal import.  We have our eyes on the wrong target.  Our passions are misdirected.  We enshrine justice, equality, and goodness as ultimate pursuits, and render Jesus one of many means to accomplish these ends.  As a result, we have no gospel for the world, except that of our own fleshly-inspired efforts to succeed in building the utopia that our Enlightenment saints and their deistic offspring never could pull off.  It’s no wonder the PCUSA has no heart for evangelism.  You can’t preach convincingly when you believe no gospel; and you can’t have a gospel when Jesus Christ is no longer the center of your being and doing.

I understand from recent conversations and online reports that many liberal Presbyterian leaders feel shocked to see so many evangelicals and moderates fleeing to other denominations in response to this year’s pyrrhic victory of the theological left.  I’m shocked as well — not that so many are leaving, but that the liberal leadership could be so willfully blind as to think that those faithful to the gospel would do nothing but go down with the ship.

Not all of us have left yet, however.  Some of us remain hopeful that though the church seems to have been taken from us, and is now thoroughly moribund, Jesus is in the resurrection business.  As Mary Magdalene discovered, her work was not to tend to a misplaced corpse but to bow in wonder, joy and love before her risen Lord.  May that same risen Lord free us from the task of tending to a dead denomination, and fill us with wonder, joy and love by restoring to fullness of life a once great gospel movement!

Justice and the Freedom of Religion

Let me share with you how “freedom of religion” is understood by Muslim law (and by most Muslims around the world).  It goes like this: all human beings are free to believe whatever they wish about religious matters, with no earthly penalty, until they are presented with the “call to Islam.”  Once the message of Islam has been preached to them, they are then under obligation to make a decision for Islam.  Their freedom now is the freedom to leave what they have heretofore believed and the freedom to embrace Islam.  Should they choose not to embrace Islam, and they have the misfortune to live under a Shariah-compliant government, they are free to keep their old religion or to keep their heads, but not both.  That is, all who hear the summons to Islam and reject it are to be executed.  The one exception to this in Islamic law applies to those whom Islamic jurists recognize to be “monotheists” in their religion (traditionally Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians), though this exception is not always allowed in practice.  Islamic law ”graciously” allows such obstinate monotheists to remain as such under the reign of Islam, provided they accept their status as “dhimmi”, i.e., people of second class status whose religious, civil and social rights are severely restricted and who are liable to a special poll tax for non-Muslims.  Regarding those born as Muslims, or those who convert to Islam, they have forfeited any right to change religions, again under penalty of death.

From one perspective, Islam’s rationale for this is understandable.  If God has really revealed the true religion and you have accepted it as true, then to later turn your back on it (and God) is the ultimate insult.  What would be an appropriate penalty for a human servant that has slapped the face of its Divine master?  Death would be too good, but execution is the most extreme penalty available to earthly rulers, and so it is enjoined by Shariah law.

In contemporary news we are seeing the intended application of this view of “religious freedom” in the case of Yusef Nadarkhani, the 34 year old Iranian pastor who has been under government arrest since 2009.  He was originally charged with apostasy against Islam, having been born to a Muslim father but converting to the Christian faith at age 19.  Nadarkhani’s claim was that he was never a practicing Muslim, so he could not have apostatized.  The lower court looked into this claim, and seemed to substantiate it, but refused to release him, in part because in his successful work as a pastor Rev. Nadarkhani had seen numerous Muslims become followers of Jesus under his ministry.  When the case began to receive international attention and disapprobation, the Iranian authorities attempted to change the story, arguing that the pastor had never been charged with apostasy, but rather with rape, extortion and sedition (as a Zionist spy), all of which carry the death penalty.  This turned out to be patently false, as the original written allegations by the government openly cited apostasy and nothing else, and no evidence was produced to support the later charges.  The lower court’s original conviction of Nadarkhani as an apostate was appealed to higher courts, until it finally reached the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the lower court with the clarification that should the “guilty” party recant his Christian faith, the death penalty would be annulled.  It also ordered that his religious beliefs prior to his conversion to Christianity be investigated, and any appropriate actions taken.

As a result, the lower court again convicted Nadarkhani of apostasy, arguing per Shariah law that since he was born of a Muslim father, he was by law a Muslim, and to now declare himself a Christian was to repudiate Islam.  The pastor has been given the opportunity to recant.  Should he publicly refuse to do this three times, he will be found guilty beyond remedy.  Presently, government officials have visited him with anti-Christian Islamic propaganda, demanding that he read it and respond to them formally.  Their hope is, presumably, that in reading this he will see the light and turn to Islam.  Failing that, their hope is that he will incriminate himself by how he disputes the propaganda, thereby sealing their case of apostasy against him.

Freedom of religion in the Islamic world bears little resemblance to its counterpart in the USA.  To make this case, let me share just one recent case filled with sad irony.  Early this year Abdul Awkal, a Muslim inmate in OH, filed a lawsuit claiming that the state government was obstructing his First Amendment guarantees in the practice of Islam.  At issue was the fact that the prison was not serving him halal meals prepared according to Islamic law, even though it served kosher meals to Jewish prisoners.  The prison meal policy with regard to Muslim prisoners states: “The diet will be free of all pork and products containing or derived from pork. The institution will provide nutritionally adequate meat and non-meat alternatives.”  A prison imam stated his opinion that this is sufficient.  But Abdul Awkal is not satisfied.  Nor is he willing to settle for kosher meals, though Islamic law declares such food to be acceptable.  He wants halal meals, even though they would cost the state significantly more to prepare.  The reason?  He is on death row for the murders of his estranged wife and brother-in-law, neither of which is in doubt, and he wants to help his case before the divine bench by becoming as observant a Muslim as possible before his execution.  Using our government’s First Amendment protection of freedom of religion, Abdul Awkal has successfully forced a change in Ohio’s prison meal system, even though according to his religion the request he has made is not a religious requirement.  Ohio prisons now have banned all pork products from their menus for any prisoners.  This may have settled Mr. Abdul Awkal’s lawsuit (though that is not certain), but it has raised the specter of lawsuits from pork producers and processors in the state.

All this because we take the freedom of religion so seriously.   As a country we bend over backward to avoid impeding the rights of individuals to practice their faith, without questioning the validity of their beliefs as long as they don’t break established law.

Mr. Abdul Awkal seeks the full protection of the law to change governmental behavior to accommodate his wishes, even though his religion does not require such extremes.  And he seems to have succeeded in this quest. On the other hand, what in our country is guaranteed as a freedom of religion is considered a capital crime in Iran.  Mr. Nadarkhani was arrested and tried for becoming a Christian and for pastoring others who have determined they wish to be Christians.  He has no recourse to any protections from the government.  All the power rests in the hands of the courts, which are committed by Islamic law to forcing him to recant or to executing him for refusing.  This is undisguised religious tyranny, and it is inherent in the history and practice of the Islamic empire.

Why?  There are so many reasons, but at the back of them is the theological motif of Allah as a god of unmatched power, who accomplishes his will by any means necessary, including both the threat and the use of power.  Islam’s spread by the sword was not an aberration but a fulfillment of Muhammad’s vision of a god who would conquer the world and bring everything into submission under his sovereign will — hence the name “Islam.”

We may and should cry out for justice for Yusef Nardarkhani in the hopes that worldwide abhorrence of the Iranian government’s behavior will shame its leaders into releasing an innocent man.  But we must not be under the illusion that should this happen those leaders will have recognized that they were in the wrong.  They will only have been engaging in the practice of realpolitik, attempting to curry favor publicly while cutting their losses with Nadarkhani and continuing to practice in the cloak of darkness what they “know” to be God’s will with regard to apostates.

No More Tiers in Heaven

The Fellowship Gathering in Minneapolis last month has elicited much deserved praise.  What a joy to be among 2000 like-minded Christians certain that they were worshiping the same God together!  How uplifting to join voices in unfettered honor of our Lord and King!  I deeply appreciated the leadership given to thoughtful, inspirational and Christ-centered worship.

Also praiseworthy was the radically profound teaching from Scripture presented by Ken Bailey — for me, it was the highlight of a tightly-packed two days.  I wish we had had more opportunity for wisely chosen, biblical input in pursuit of divine guidance.

I’m grateful as well for the carefully crafted structures to involve all participants in small group discussions, which resulted in some new insights and some promising friendships.

And of course, running into old friends and fellow evangelicals proved to be a spiritual oasis in a denomination which for me appears increasingly as a desert.

I am grateful for all these blessings — indeed the emotional and spiritual enthusiasm I experienced along with many others was so powerful that I fear it may have short-circuited our critical faculties.  While the experience of being together in worship and fellowship was so exquisite and profound, I wonder if our assessments of the options offered by the Fellowship may be inordinately colored by those positive emotions.

At this point, I am not enamored with the “tiered” approach offered by the Fellowship for four reasons:

1) Although there has been much talk of seeking the mind of Christ, I found little evidence that we were gathered in Minneapolis for that reason.  Instead, our admittedly limited time was crammed with the best of human plans, all geared to offer as much help as possible to people and churches in a wide variety of settings.  The watchwords of the meeting were “context” and “situation.”  The four major tiers were presented as options among which we could choose depending on what was best for us in our context.  By the standards of wordly reason and human logic this made good sense.  We, however, are Christians who claim that our desire is to walk according to the will of our Master.  Not once was the question addressed: “What does Jesus Christ will us to do as an evangelical community in response to the direction of the PCUSA?”  It seems to me that since the mind of Christ is not divided, He must have one intention for us.  Yet we were not willing to wrestle with that question.  Instead, we were given a number of options sanctioned by our unofficial leaders, and told that we could rightly choose among them depending on “what worked best for us in our context.”  Wouldn’t the more biblical approach be to decide what Christ is calling us together to do, and then figure out from our own individual contexts what it is going to take for us to get where he is calling us to go?  I fear we have been listening more in this process to the Zeitgeist of American entrepreneurial individualism than to the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

2) The Fellowship leadership has offered these options as if they are achievable goals.  Yet much is outside our control as far as denominational approval of alternate structures.  If such approval is given, whether to form overlay presbyteries or parallel ordaining and installing structures within presbyteries or even to recognize a “New Reformed Body” so that churches so wishing could be transfered out of the PCUSA into it, all of this will take time.  And time is precisely what those most aggrieved with the present realities of this denomination feel they do not have.  Given the lack of graciousness in the actions of many presbyteries to date, I wonder why we should believe that future decisions from those bodies and upcoming General Assemblies would approve Fellowship-inspired structures that could undermine or derail the present trajectories of the liberal wing of the church.  Despite what the Fellowship is presently saying, even after a New Reformed Body is constitutionally created in January no PCUSA congregation would be able to transfer out of the PCUSA into the NRB, if I read my polity correctly.  That New Reformed Body (NRB) would first have to be recognized officially by the PCUSA, something which could only be done by a legally convened GA.  Since the denomination is not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to call a special meeting of the last GA, the earliest this could be taken up would be next summer at the 2012 GA in Pittsburgh.  My guess is the most likely outcome would be to refer the motion to a task force for a report and decision at the 2014 GA.  Since churches can only be dismissed to other recognized Reformed bodies (I’m assuming this is still the case in our new Form of Government), the NRB would remain essentially an empty warehouse at least till then.  No PCUSA churches could be dismissed to it — to the EPC, CRC, RCA, etc., yes; to the NRB, no.  Who among the disenfranchised is going to wait around so long to sunder ties with a denomination they have lost faith in?

3) The Fellowship movement has put the cart before the horse ecclesiologically.  According to our Reformed understanding, it is a serious sin to bring division into the body of Christ.  It is wrong to create one more denomination unless one can argue persuasively that the body to which we presently belong has become apostate.  Yet at the August Gathering, the Fellowship leaders almost tripped over themselves to get to the microphone first to declare that “Louisville is not the problem”, that “we have established good friendships with members of Covenant Network,” that ”we are not here to denigrate the denomination….”  If we are not willing to declare the PCUSA apostate, then we have no business planning a new denomination, no matter how many friendly ties we say we want to maintain with the PCUSA.  Either we remain and seek to reform, because the PCUSA is still part of the true church, or we shake the dust off our feet and leave, because it has become apostate.  But we cannot affirm the legitimacy of the PCUSA and affirm the rightness of a decision to create a new denomination at the same time.

4) It seems to me that all of the tiered options end up “damning the PCUSA with faint praise.”  In the process we demonstrate that we are not all that committed to the unity of the body.  In option 1, we argue that since the stench of the larger denomination has not yet invaded the relatively evangelical presbytery to which we happen to belong, we are content to stay and minister in our own little sandbox.  Who cares about the health of the whole body as long as things still work fine in the little finger of which we are a part?  In option 2, we argue that if we evangelical churches can band together regionally to form our own presbyteries so that we can sweep clean the stench from our geographical region, then again we can pretend that all is well, even as the rest of the body to which we are attached continues to rot away.  In option 3 we look for an intervention which will give us some say in how our little body part will function, while sharing that function with an alien mind which will sometimes have it do the opposite of what we want.  In option 4, we say the whole body is basically okay, but we would rather be grafted on to a new body.  We’re awfully sorry that the old body will have to do without its big toe on one foot, but we would like to start fresh on a new foot.  The problem with each of these tiers is that we demonstrate that we really do not love our denomination enough to fight for its return to health — we are only concerned with preserving our contentment or agenda as long as we can.  What kind of ecclesiology is that?  We are not being honest with the rest of the church.  Either we are committed to the whole denomination, or we are not.  If we are not, we must ask why, and if the reasons are not good enough we must deal with our sinfulness before the Lord in not committing our full support to His church.  But let’s end the game-playing of saying we have no axe to grind with the denomination while at the same time sharpening our axes to sever ties.

My biggest disappointment with the Gathering’s tiers is that there was no consideration of the possibility that Jesus’ purpose for us might be that we band together and use the formidable resources He has given us to reclaim the denomination for its original biblical and Christ-centered mandate.  I’ve made no secret of my conclusion that the PCUSA as an institution is presently apostate.  Departure to a faithful wing of the true church is a legitimate option. But staying to wrest the denomination back from those who are tearing it from its moorings is also a faithful option, and the one which I believe Jesus calls us to follow.

I wish the Gathering had been called to debate and decide this fundamental issue, and that as an evangelical body we had fused our minds and hearts around one unified purpose, convinced that this was Jesus’ command for us with regard to the PCUSA.  If the consensus was to pick up and leave en masse, I would have joined obediently.  If the consensus was to stay and reclaim, I would have joined with joyful obedience.  But instead we got tiers — tiers so we could pursue whatever “works best in our own context.”

I’m consoled by the truth that the Lord Jesus remains head of His church, and that in the end all will be well.  There will be no more tiers in heaven.  Till then, let’s continue to pray and engage in the daily battle.