On US Politics:

1. Sarah Palin is indeed the Republican answer to Barack Obama--They're both short on experience and substance, they both rely on emotion and the charm of novelty, they both poison the well and hurl potent argumenta ad hominem. In a word, they're both demagogues (whether good or bad we cannot yet say), masters of irrational persuasion who only prosper when a nation's psyche is gripped by anomie, e.g. , post-Tsarist Russia under Kerensky and post-Hohenzollern Germany under Weimar. However, the difference in their treatment by the mainstream media is quite palpable, and is a telling indication of the ideological fault lines currently at work in the United States.

2. The party divisions in US politics are an atypical result of its system's failure to accommodate alternate parties, as witness the death of the Grange, Populists, the Bull Moose, etc. The parties' pro-life pro-capitalist vs. pro-abortion pro-welfare dichotomy is reflective of the divide between (a) the Evangelical vs. Mainline Protestants and (b) the Populist-Progressivist and New Deal movements, due to successive re-alignments under FDR, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton that practically reversed their socio-regional bases from when William Jennings Bryan was rousing rural America against the "cross of gold".

It therefore gives little place to, for instance, Catholics of the one true Church (and also, albeit with less intellectual coherence, Muslims and "Sojourners Evangelicals") who uphold authentic values on life and family values (a Republican position) and defend social and environmental justice (a Democrat emphasis), who have little choice but to choose the lesser evil. This means the Republicans, perhaps, but not by much: for they espouse a socio-economic ideology of atomism that provides the material precondition for the Democrats' present anti-humanist (abortionist and anti-family) orientation. The only-difference is that pro-abortionism kills much faster and more certainly than pro-capitalism, and that most Republicans retain a basicaly valid cosmology that promises them a foothold of hope.

On Philippine politics:

3. The Supreme Court's resolution affirming its earlier decision in the Neri case is a sad event for justice and accountability in the Philippines.  Its radicalized interpretation of U.S. v. Nixon (418 US 683 [1974]), however well-tied to the hornbook but never-quite-black-letter-law principle of separation of powers, ignores the fundamental dynamics of Philippine politics and thus eviscerates the systems of checks and balances in the country.  It also indicates the victory of the Tinga faction over the Carpio group in the Supreme Court--but how long the former will keep the swing justices, and over which issues, is a question that awaits another day.

C'est tout, and may God bless us all.

P.S., The word blogitiuncula was suggested over at the Latin Forum by diaphanus, whom credit and gratitude is therefore due for a fascinating word:)

Reggie McNeal is a well respected guy from the Southern Baptist tradition.  He holds an MDiv and PhD from Southwestern Theological Seminary and has a couple decades of experience leading in the local church.  In addition to teaching at Fuller Theological Seminary he does a lot of traveling and speaking primarily to churches and denominational gatherings in assocation with Leadership Network (he will be speaking at the Catalyst Conference this fall).

Reggie's message is best for those of us who have spent more than a few years in the institutional church in North America.  He addresses our need to rethink ministry with a real focus on the kingdom of God - to shift from looking at the kingdom through church lenses to the church through kingdom lenses.

The following audio is from his talk at the Reformed Church In America's leadership conference earlier this year.  If you would prefer a video format it is available here:

[audio http://livinginliminality.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/reggiemcneal-ad30.mp3]

download mp4

The use of the word Jihad in reference to a holy war is an entirely incorrect usage. Since the aggression of earlier Christians in the 11th century the term Holy War has been used in the Christian sense. A Holy War is waged without rational justification but by the warped vision of a religious leader to conquer the Promised Land (i.e. in the Crusader's mind it was Palestine which was promised to the descendants of Prophet Abraham (a.s.)) and spread their religion. In the 4th century the standards for such wars was set by the Papacy (i.e. the Pope). The first criteria for a holy war was that it was to be violent. Killing was not seen as evil and was to be done deliberately or not. The second criteria for a holy war was the establishment of the Christian Republic. Christ was seen as a political figure who had political ambitions set for his people, i.e. the Christians. The Christian Republic was to be ruled by Christ whose representatives on earth were the Pope, bishops, emperors and kings. The Muslims in Palestine were seen as tyrants who occupied Christian territory which was sanctified by the presence of Christ. Pagans in the Balkans were seen as a threat to Christendom, as well as, Muslims in Spain. The Jews were viewed as a people rejected by God for murdering their Messiah.

Prior to the first millennia, the predominant thought in the Church was that Jesus (a.s.) second coming would come, along with the end of the world, which would occur at the turn of the first millennia. The calendar years were calculated according to the Roman calendar. One Christian writer wrote, "On new year's eve, 1000, a crowd gathered at Rome, awaiting the end of the world. Midnight came, nothing happened and the pope, Sylvester II, blessed the crowd and sent them home."¹ Not long afterwards came the crusaders.

At the request of various popes, beginning with Pope Urban II, between 1095-1270 A.D., military expeditions against the Pagans, Jews and Muslims were carried out from Europe. Christ was seen to have authorized the Crusades himself and the Pope, who exorcised his authority, was his representative on earth. Many Christians in Palestine, and elsewhere refused to join in on the wars even though the Crusades were seen as an international event. The crusaders believed that if they began to conquer Palestine then Jesus (a.s.) would return, fulfill the promises of the Bible and finish establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. This meant that they must launch a Crusade to liberate Palestine from Muslim rule and rid the land of the Jews who, in their opinion murdered Jesus (a.s.) and forfeited their right to God's promises. The European Christians united under the belief that the conquest of Palestine would usher in the second coming of Jesus (a.s.), and the kingdom of God on earth (i.e. the Christian Republic), swept in massive force across Europe and Asia murdering and burning Jews in their synagogues and attacking Muslim and Pagan settlements. Those Jews who did not die and were found out were forced by the sword to abandon Judaism and confess Christianity. Those who did not were murdered on site! Those Jews who did were sometimes exiled but most were murdered by the sword anyhow. Many Jews did confess but in secret reneged on it and sought forgiveness from God or even committed suicide out of the guilt of not forgoing the persecution. A popular remembrance of these events among Jewish circles is the playing of the Kol Nidre (pronounced kole nidray), a song created and played Jews to plead God's forgiveness and renounce the forced Christian vows. The Crusades were the Holy Wars! A holy war waged by religious zealots with a false man inspired vision base on a man made Bible. A Holy War is aggressive, irrational and waged against a people without cause. There is no doubt that this is the reason why the United States adopted the concept of the separation of Church and State. Islam does not condone, nor recognize forced conversions. According to what God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), "If somebody does not accept Islam truly but does so by compulsion or fear of being killed, then that man is not a believer." (Bukhari)²

The word Jihad literally means, to struggle against. Jihad does not initiate aggression, nor does Jihad have to be used in cases of war. There are three ways in which Jihad can be described. First, Jihad is the literal struggle (non-violent) against the sinful temptations of the heart. One can Jihad against him or herself. If one is tempted to steal and takes the appropriate measures to insure that the thought is stricken from his or her mind, through prayer or whatever it takes, then he or she has waged Jihad against his or her heart. Jihad is a character building mechanism and is the constant struggle against sin in our hearts. Second, Jihad is a struggle (non-violent) against the philosophies of society at large, such as atheism or humanism. Jihad of this type is through discourse. Muslims will engage in debates about facts and opinions to insure that people do not abandon the belief that God exists, is active in our lives, relevant in our society and must be worshipped. This type of Jihad spreads our religion, is non-violent and non-aggressive discourse. The third type of Jihad is what the Christian and christianized west attempts confused with their own transgressions and wrongfully propagates spreading falsehood. Jihad is, also, the defense of our families from invading armies and tyrants! As seen in many parts of the world, every side has an aggressor and a defender. Jihad (violent defensive struggle) is a defensive action and not aggressive! It is a nation defending itself from an aggressor. It is the right of every person on earth, Muslim and not, to defend their family from impending destruction and aggression. Qur'an 2:190-193 sets the terms about Jihad of this type:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more persecution and the religion becomes Allah's. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

This type of Jihad (defensive) is not a holy war, which is aggressive in nature. If violence is perpetrated against the Islamic community then God has authorized the means by which they can defend themselves and their families. God has set the guidelines and limits by which such a defensive action may take place. There is no support in the Qur'an or Sunnah for Jihad to be used in any other manner than defense. Islam condemns non-provoked attacks and anyone who claims to be Muslim who does such a thing is not following Islam! During the Crusades Christians waged a Holy War against the Jews and Muslims. Muslims went to Jihad against them to defend their way of life!

Exerpt from Western Misconceptions: The Facts About Islam by BrJimC 2000

Read more and post discussion or debate visit: Islamfactor.org

Edited by the college’s vice-principal, Chris Green, the volume is an unashamed championing of the idea of Christendom, the necessity of a confessionally Christian state, and the importance of evangelicals recovering a rigorous public theology. I had the privilege of attending the original lectures on which the book is based, and Macaulay’s review reminded me just how good they were. He commends David Field, Dan Strange, Garry Williams, and Kirsten Birkett as ‘three Daniels and a Danielle’ who, through their ‘outstanding contributions’ have taken the popular evangelical idea of ‘principled pluralism’ to task, and advocated a return to the Reformational commitment to a whole-of-life, whole-of-society gospel, that rejoices in the thought of Christendom.

Those of us who have had the privilege of studying at Oak Hill in recent years will recognise these emphases as commonplaces among a number of the faculty during our time at college: belief in a truly great Great Commission, in which we are to disciple not simply an assorted collection of individuals from the nations, but the nations themselves; belief that, per Psalm 2, Jesus asked for the nations as his inheritance, and his Father will not withhold them from him; such delight in the law of God that we recognise it as a good and wise way to govern a nation; such a commitment to the Lordship of Christ that we long to see him acknowledged not just in individual lives, but in national constitutions; a presuppositionalism that recognises the idolatry and stupidity of a ‘secular’ state.

Evangelical commitment to principled pluralism and an essentially individualised gospel would have been unthinkable to our Reformational forbears, who were all committed to the idea of Christendom. It’s great to Oak Hill bringing these commitments back to wider notice with the publication of this volume. Well done, Oak Hill, indeed.

Gelukkig zien we af en toe tegenstromen. Vanuit de hiphopwereld maakte Mr. J Medeiras het volgende lied:

What I find encouraging and energizing about her article, however, is her conclusion about what these negatives may be indicators of - that "American Christianity is entering the most exciting era in our lifetime," a "new awakening" or even another reformation.  The challenge is that such a preferable future will require much change - and change is rarely a friend of comfort which we have come to love so dearly: 

"That loud crack heard throughout the evangelical world when national research showed that more than half of American evangelicals believe people of other religions can go to heaven wasn't thunder from an angry God.

This crack came from the rock upon which the modern American evangelical movement sits. It was splitting right down the middle.

There is both rejoicing and lamentation.

I am among those rejoicing.

The universalist/evangelical finding, which came from the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, was one more sign that American Christianity is entering the most exciting era in our lifetime. Some people believe a new awakening is at hand. Others believe a reformation is in the making. No one knows how long it will take or how far it will go.

What's clear is that people in the pews are taking back their faith, wresting it from leaders who helped sell the idea that only the most fundamentalist brands of Christian belief could succeed and that their words alone represented that belief."

Skipping a few paragraphs she continues:

"They're admitting what their own studies show - that evangelicals almost never convert a native-born American who wasn't raised in a church. That most evangelical growth comes from stealing the sheep from other denominations. And that they've stolen about all they can.

They're also admitting that most evangelicals won't evangelize. And if they did, it wouldn't get them anywhere because the usual methods don't work. They don't work first because they usually rest on the idea that Christians are the only ones saved. In today's religiously equalitarian culture, that assertion causes evangelicals to seem distastefully holier-than-thou.

Conversion tactics also focus on telling people the Good News as though no one else knows it. But most everyone has heard it. Again and again. The trouble is that they aren't convinced. They aren't scared of hell. They aren't hoping for heaven. And Christians haven't been good at giving anyone better reasons than that for following Jesus. They have reasons. They just aren't telling them. They need to."

Christine Wicker has also recently published a book titled The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church that expands on her editorial.

When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and God knew best what she brought forth - "And no wise is the male Like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected."

Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariya was she assigned. Every time that he entered (Her) chamber to see her, He found her supplied with sustenance. He said: "O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?" She said: "From God: for God Provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure."

There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: "O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!

While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: "God doth give thee glad tidings of John (the Baptist), witnessing the truth of a Word from God, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a prophet, - of the (goodly) company of the righteous."

He said: "O my Lord! How shall I have son, seeing I am very old, and my wife is barren?" "Thus," was the answer, "Doth God accomplish what He willeth."

He said: "O my Lord! Give me a Sign!" "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three days but with signals. Then celebrate the praises of thy Lord again and again, and glorify Him in the evening and in the morning."

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations.

"O Mary! worship Thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down."

This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger!) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

"And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

"'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.

"'It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"

When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we have surrendered (unto Him).

"Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness."

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and God too planned, and the best of planners is God.

Behold! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

"As to those who believe and work righteousness, God will pay them (in full) their reward; but God loveth not those who do wrong."

"This is what we rehearse unto thee of the Signs and the Message of Wisdom."

The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

The Truth (comes) from God alone; so be not of those who doubt.

If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather together, - our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of God on those who lie!"

This is the true account: There is no god except God; and God - He is indeed the Exalted in Power, the Wise.

But if they turn back, God hath full knowledge of those who do mischief.

[(EMQ) (003:035-063)]

Christianity does this, too.  Christ's resurrection heralded a new wandering age as Christians were persecuted and scattered.  Constantine established imperial Christendom for a new temple age.  In the 20th century, Christendom fell apart somewhere in the 60s and gave way to a new wandering age.  Trouble is, the church is still in temple mode in most of America, including newer churches.

My favorite worship experiences lately are those in rented spaces - bars, theaters, schools.  Property ownership seems anachronistic to the wanderer.  Why not a new church?

• Gatherings are held either in public places like parks or in rented spaces.  You can't become entrenched and insular if you have no permanent home.
• Church membership doesn't exist, instead replaced by accountability groups who walk the same road together.  No affiliation demands emphasis on lifestyle.
• The larger church is better described as a network of smaller churches straddling the line between new church plants and house churches.  Rather than a unified congregation you have a training, support and accountability network for leaders to focus vision and discipleship, as well as promote shared experience.

This church in urban and suburban cities becomes like water, filling available space and time unhindered.  Find your "low points" in the area that need this kind of pilgrim church, keep them filled, and spread from there.  Maintain strong leadership connections, and have the core team do only three things: seek God's vision, share the vision with leaders and train others to do the same.

Was mich unablässig bewegt, ist die Frage, was das Christentum oder auch wer Christus heute für uns eigentlich ist.

Die Zeit, in der man das den Menschen durch Worte-seien es theologische oder fromme Worte-sagen könnte, ist vorüber; ebenso die Zeit der Innerlichkeit und des Gewissens, und d.h. eben die Zeit der Religion überhaupt.

Wir gehen einer völlig religionslosen Zeit entgegen; die Menschen können einfach, so wie sie nun einmal sind, nicht mehr religiös sein. Auch diejenigen, die sich ehrlich als "religiös" bezeichnen, praktizieren das in keiner Weise; sie meinen also vermutlich mit "religiös" etwas ganz anderes.

Unsere gesamte 1900jährige christliche Verkündigung und Theologie aber baut auf dem "religiösen Apriori" der Menschen auf. "Chritentum" ist immer eine Form (vielleicht die wahre Form) der "Religion" gewesen.

Wenn nun aber eines Tages deutlich wird, daß dieses "Apriori" garnicht existiert, sondern daß es eine geschichtlich bedingte und vergängliche Ausdrucksform des Menschen gewesen ist, wenn also die Menschen wirklich rakidal religionslos werden-und ich glaube, daß das mehr oder weniger bereits der Fall ist (woran liegt es z.B. daß dieser Krieg im Unterschied zu allen bisherigen eine "religiöse" Reaktion nicht hervorruft?)-

was bedeutet das dann für das "Christentum"?

Het EJV kreeg op het vorige beleidsplan over het algemeen positieve signalen van de overheid, maar de overheid miste sociale betrokkenheid. Het EJV wil daar -mede door de recente ontwikkelingen- actief mee aan de slag. Gelukkig maar. Ik voel me bevoorrecht dat ik daar een steentje aan mag bijdragen.

Als ik de websites van Time To Turn, Stop The Traffik, De Tijd Loopt en andere organisaties bekijk, dan besef ik dat er nog heel wat werk aan de winkel is in mijn eigen leven. Langzaam maar zeker -stap voor stap- wil ik mijn leven meer gaan richten op een respectvolle omgang met Gods schepping: mens én natuur. Er zijn al wat dingen veranderd:
* Ik koop af en toe fairtrade producten.
* Ik probeer mijn fruit en groenten meer seizoensgebonden te kopen.
* Ik neem zo weinig mogelijk de auto.
* Ik probeer maximum 150 gr vlees per dag te eten en ik eet af en toe geen vlees.

Er zijn echter nog dingen die moeilijk blijven:
* Ik koop mijn kleren nieuw in plaats van tweedehands en ik heb geen idee hoeveel kinderhandjes die hebben moeten maken.
* Ik koop mijn vlees zelden biologisch, en draag dus bij aan dierenleed.
* Ik besteed nauwelijks aandacht aan de verpakking. Mijn koekjes zijn dan ook vaak dik ingeduffeld, zelfs al is het zomer.

Stap voor stap wil ik mijn levensstijl echter blijven omvormen tot een duurzame levensstijl. Ik geloof namelijk dat dit in overeenstemming is met het cultuurmandaat dat God ons -mensen- gegeven heeft: ''Wees vruchtbaar en word talrijk, bevolk de aarde en breng haar onder je gezag: heers over de vissen van de zee, over de vogels van de hemel en over alle dieren die op de aarde rondkruipen. Hierbij geef ik jullie alle zaaddragende planten en alle vruchtbomen op de aarde; dat zal jullie voedsel zijn. Aan de dieren die in het wild leven, aan de vogels van de hemel en aan de levende wezens die op de aarde rondkruipen, geef ik de groene planten tot voedsel' (Gn1:28-30). God geeft ons een gigantische verantwoordelijkheid ten aanzien van zijn schepping. Hoe goed gaan wij met die verantwoordelijkheid om?

Via STOP THE TRAFFIK kan je een brief laten versturen aan je favoriete chocoladefabrikant in de hoop dat die hun chocolade fair trade en slaafvrij zullen maken. Doen!

De nieuwe aflevering gaat over mijn activiteiten op religieus gebied, over het begrip 'Kerk' en besluit met wat lezingen uit het boek "Belijdenissen" van St. Augustinus van Hippo. Het is allemaal in het Engels en omdat het middenstuk vaak wat 'theologisch' is, heb ik op de website van de podcast ook een artikel geschreven over het verschil in kerkbegrip tussen het katholicisme en het protestantisme. Als je interesse hebt, klik op de link, je kunt op de site luisteren, maar er zijn ook links die voeren naar de feed en een link om je te abonneren in iTunes. Have fun. :)

Link:

• Mijn podcasts site

Ik sluit me aan bij de theologen die kritisch staan tegenover natuurlijke theologie. We kunnen God niet kennen zonder de 'speciale openbaring' (o.a. in zijn Woord en zijn Zoon Jezus). We kunnen God volgens mij wel beter leren kennen door zijn schepping, maar daarvoor hebben we een gepast interpretatiekader nodig om die Godskennis te ontdekken.

Laat me het volgende voorbeeld geven om mijn standpunt te illustreren. Misschien heb je wel al gehoord van html-code. Dat is de codetaal van het internet. Die krijg je niet te zien, maar achter elke website zit een code; elke internetgebruiker heeft er dus toegang toe. Dat wil echter niet zeggen dat je de achterliggende kracht achter webdesign begrijpt. Daarvoor moet je een soort ingewijde zijn. Je moet een basiskennis van de code kennen om diens werking te leren kennen. Iedere mens heeft op soortgelijke wijze toegang tot God, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat je een zekere Godskennis hebt; daarvoor moet je toegang hebben tot de Bijbel en tot Jezus Christus, pas dan kan jouw Godskennis uitgebreid worden door de natuur.

Aanleiding voor dit stuk: De preek in ICEL van gisteren en een artikel in Ellips: Kees Ouwendorp, "Het antropische principe en de natuurlijke theologie," Ellips 33, no. 8 (2008): 20-23.

"Jezus is Heer" is zo'n zinnetje dat soms te pas en te onpas gebruikt wordt door christenen, maar hoe dikwijls denken we na over wat dat woord eigenlijk betekent? Ikzelf heb er eigenlijk tot voor kort amper bij stilgestaan, over het Koningschap van Jezus, en de implicaties daarvan op onze relatie tot 'de wereld' en zijn machten. Want als Jezus Heer is, en wij erkennen Hem als dusdanig, dan betekent dat ook dat Hij voor ons belangrijker is dan alle andere 'machten en overheden' die deze wereld  beheersen.

Als we kijken naar een aantal belangrijke woorden uit het Christendom dan is het goed om te beseffen dat deze al in gebruik waren en heel wat betekenis hadden in het romeinse rijk van die tijd. Er was al een andere Heer, de keizer, en het proclameren van Jezus als Heer was zeer zeker een daad van verraad aan de keizer en werd ook als dusdanig bestraft. Trouwens, het woord 'evangelie' was ook al in gebruik voor het goede nieuws van de 'pax romana', een periode van stabiliteit die door keizer Augustus was ingezet over het hele omvangrijke rijk. Het evangelie van Christus, de Heer en Koning, was dus een regelrechte aanval op dat wat heilig was voor de romeinse staat: Jezus werd Heer ipv de Keizer, en het goede nieuws van het romeinse rijk werd vervangen door het evangelie van het Koninkrijk van de vredevorst Jezus. Jezus proclameerde ook het koninkrijk van God, wat in het grieks alweer hetzelfde woord is als gebruikt vooor het rijk van Rome.  Allemaal politieke taal dus. Jezus werd dan ook aan een kruis gehangen met het opschrift 'koning der joden', en de eerste christenen werden vervolgd en doodgemarteld wegens verraad omdat ze de keizer en de orde van het romeinse rijk niet respecteerden.

(het idee van scheiding van kerk en staat waarbij God en de staat allebei hun zeg hebben over andere aspecten van ons leven is pas van de tijd van de reormatie, en was zeker niet iets wat de christenen van voor keizer constantijn serieus genomen zouden hebben. Ze stierven juist als martelaren omdat ze alleen God erkenden!)

Het zinnetje van "Jezus is Heer" is dus niet zomaar een theologisch statement dat losstaat van de wereld waarin we leven. Het is een erkennen dat er voor Christenen maar één Heer is, maar één koning, en dat we niet zullen buigen voor de machten en overheden van de wereld. Geen koningen, parlementen, presidenten of burocratie staat boven onze Heer, en we moeten niet leven naar de wetten van de wereld, maar naar de wetten van onze Heer!! Ikzelf kan de volheid hiervan nog helemaal niet beseffen, maar ik wil ernaar leven.

Ik wil bidden
'Uw Koninkrijk kome, Uw wil geschiede'

ik wil proclameren: Jezus is Heer!!!

shalom

Bram

In the past Christians would simply protect the innocent and the weak, regardless of what the naturalistic and faithless thought about the matter. We would make laws according to the rule of ultimate good while not persecuting the ignorant because of their ignorance, but never particularly prone to be conciliatory toward people of a merely Natural mind. We would have never allowed people to strip the laws of their ordained purpose of protecting the innocent and punishing evil simply because some people can’t tell the difference between good and evil. And we would never have elected people to hold public office that we knew were faithless, because though they may use our words, they cannot understand them.

There was never a need to create a law that faithless people could not hold a public office; we were wise enough to not elect such people as the expression of our God given right to self determination in politics. Why elect someone to office that does not believe in our God given right to self determination because they recognize no God? Or something that is really just as bad, possibly worse, no God that we recognize. It’s not that we don’t recognize everyone’s right to run for office, we’ve simply forgotten our duty to not vote for them because they are opposed to our most fundamental understanding of who and what we are and what should be done in the world.

It is inherently self destructive to the Christian, their societies, their children, and their cause, to be found neutral on any matter of faith or practice, especially politics. Politics is the rule of the community, and community is part and parcel of the expression of the Christian life. As such, a Christian that is not “political” is no Christian at all, because a political life is one that expresses care and concern for the larger community. A Christian that cares only for themselves is a contradiction in terms.

We are committed, demanded, commanded, ordained to give ourselves for others in every way and at every opportunity. To abandon the community to merely Natural men and women is an act of the gravest kind of aggression against Christian love and moderation. Who will tell them right from wrong if not you? Who will guide them in the truth if not you? People that believe that the entire content of human experience and community is explicable in terms of an accidental arrangement of atoms in the void with no ultimate purpose and no meaning beyond today’s Natural lust?

How dare we forget how to be Christians and leave a world to collapse under the weight of its own tragic blindness? How would it last without the infusion of goodwill and reason attributable only to the insight of a Spiritually informed people? Every corner would inevitably descend into the madness of Hitler, and Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, and Alexander. There would be no measurement of evil but the power of one man’s arm against another. The pedophile would become the norm again as he was in ancient Greece, and as he is becoming virtually in the West as sexual purity is explained away as the dying traces of a once robust Christianity. The King would become again an agent of innovative laws according to the dictates of his own unquestionable will. Half the population would be slaves, the other half wolves of varying descriptions. Women would be bought and sold as chattel because there is no naturalistic way to justify the rights of women. There is no Naturalistic way to justify any rights for anyone. It takes the insights of a Spiritually informed person to see the right and wrong that provide the philosophical capital for “Rights”.

We have no right to abandon that post, and more than that, a duty, a righteous charge to fulfill in this present dark age when the Church has become the darkest of all places.

Christopher Neiswonger

I have a Tumble account, for those wanting to stay up to date with me, but in a more micro form.

My site is
Http://jvmoore1.Tumblr.com

Check it out and let me know what you think!

Behalve praktische redenen zitten daar ook nog 'religieuze' redenen aan vast. Ik heb al eerder wat geschreven over het christelijke 'rentmeesterschap' en de keuzes die ik in het kader daarvan maak. Een belangrijk deel van die keuzes hebben te maken met wat ik eet. Zo eet ik alleen Fair Trade chocola, banaan, mango en meer van dat soort 'luxe' exotische dingen. Ik probeer lokale groenten (van de markt) te eten, voor zover dat te betalen is. En ik eet nagenoeg vegetarisch, omdat ik eigenlijk alleen biologisch vlees eet, in verband met dierenwelzijn. Biologisch vlees is alleen niet te betalen als je in de Bijstand zit. Je kunt als christen dan ook over een andere -betaalbare- optie nadenken als het om vlees gaat: halal vlees kopen. Dat is vaak ook biologisch en bij de slachting is er veel aandacht voor dierenwelzijn.

Toen ik gisteren terug kwam van de Arabische supermarkt, de toko en de halal-slager, plurkte ik uit gewoonte wat ik zojuist gedaan had, zonder daar verder bij na te denken. Ik kreeg een stroom aan reacties over halal vlees en dierenmishandeling. En of je niet beter vlees kunt eten waarbij dieren verdoofd zijn. Kun je als christen vlees eten van dieren die onverdoofd geslacht zijn? Mijn antwoord daarop is ja, omdat de halal manier van slachten snel en pijnloos is, bovendien hebben zowel joden als christenen millenia  hun vee onverdoofd geslacht, en niemand die zich daar druk over maakte. Nou is dat laatste een dooddoener, en ik beloofde om op mijn engelstalige blog een uiteenzetting te posten waarom ik denk dat je prima dieren kunt slachten zonder ze eerst te verdoven en toch vinden dat dit hun welzijn ten goede komt.

Laat ik eerst even uitleggen wat ritueel slachten in de Islam nou inhoudt, en ik gebruik verschillende citaten van Wikipedia om dat uit te leggen:

Net als joden kennen moslims voorschriften voor het slachten van dieren voor consumptie. De belangrijkste voorwaarden die in acht genomen moeten worden voordat het vlees is toegestaan voor consumptie (halal) zijn:

• De slachter moet een moslim zijn die bekwaam is in het slachten.
• De slachtplaats moet rein zijn.
• De slager moet zorg dragen voor het comfort van het dier. Het slachtmes mag bijvoorbeeld niet zichtbaar zijn voor het dier of in de nabijheid van het dier geslepen worden. Het slachten mag niet door andere dieren gezien worden.
• Het dier wordt met de kop in de richting van de qibla geplaatst.
• Voordat een dier geslacht wordt, spreekt de slachter de woorden Bismillah, Allahoe Akbar (in naam van Allah, Allah is groot) uit, waarmee hij zijn dankbaarheid en respect uit voor Diegene die in het voedsel voorziet: de Allerhoogste.
• In één beweging worden de halsslagader, de luchtpijp en de zenuwbanen naar de hersenen doorgesneden. Hierdoor verliest het dier het bewustzijn en stopt het hart met kloppen.

Er zijn twee varianten van islamitische slacht: dhabh: doorsnijden van de keel (bij kleinvee/gevogelte en rundvee) en nahr: doorsnijden van de halsslagaders aan de basis van de nek (dromedarissen en rundvee). Over de toepassing van deze varianten bestaat geen eenheid van opvatting onder islamitische geleerden.

En verderop wordt er gezegd:

De omstandigheden waarin een dier gefokt werd, de kwaliteit van het voedsel en het onderdak dat het kreeg, evenals de wijze van transport en de afstand waarover dit verantwoord gebeuren kan spelen ook een rol bij de beoordeling of het vlees halal is. Dierenwelzijn is een belangrijke verantwoordelijkheid (khalifa) die God de mens toevertrouwde.

De Koran stelt dat alle vlees geofferd in naam van iets anders dan God haram is. Sommige islamitische geestelijken zijn de mening toegedaan dat vlees van toegestane dieren die door een niet-moslim zijn geslacht, maar wel op de door de moslims voorgeschreven wijze, ook halal is. Koosjer vlees en vlees van dieren die door christenen in naam van God geslacht zijn, worden ook als halal beschouwd (Soera De Tafel 5).

Ik denk dat hieruit heel duidelijk wordt wat ritueel slachten is, welke overwegingen meespelen en ook waarom dit in mijn idee van christelijk rentmeesterschap valt. In Duitsland heeft men in het kader van wetgeving over halal vlees en wel/niet verdoven een onderzoek laten uitvoeren waarvan ik de in het Engels vertaalde artikel als link onderaan vermeld. Ik wil hiermee overigens niet zeggen dat christenen koosjer vlees moeten eten en dat ze mindere christenen zijn zodra ze dat niet doen, maar als je toch zo begaan bent met het milieu en dierenwelzijn, en je bent christen, dan is het misschien wel een overweging waard.

Bronnen:

• Wikipedia over Dhabihah
• Artikel over rentmeesterschap in de Islam (khalifa) en dierenwelzijn
• The Halal Study - W. Schulze, H. Schultze-Petzold, A.S. Hazem, and R. Gross (Engels)
• Catholic Culture 'Causing Animals Needless Suffering Is Contrary To Human Dignity' (Engels)

So, I suppose I should explain my absence from the wonderful world of the internet... and the rest of the world in general (unless you came to see me at work).

Something hit me a few weeks ago. Something big. I felt like God was calling me to go "out into the wilderness" as Mike so eloquently put it. Not literally into the wilderness, but to take a few weeks and withdraw as much as possible from the "empire", until I felt like it was time to come back. It was finally time to quit talking and start acting. So I started simply, no internet, no TV, no cigarettes, no meat (not quite sure why I felt that was important but oh well), I also had to give most of my worthless possessions away. I understand saying "worthless" sounds pious, but I really didn't have much to begin with. Now, this is not to make it seem like I'm a great Christian and everyone should do this... just trying to be honest about something I felt sincerely called to do. God wanted me to have no distractions, to feel like shit, to make my wife think I'm crazy, and to take a small amount of time to seek him.

During this time I met and had a few talks with some people from various churches in the area and came to this conclusion: despite the fact I thought I was judging the "system" of the church out of love... I wasn't. For that I apologize, to everyone. I hope you all can forgive me. The things I have experienced in my own life and the direction I was drawn in took me out of the church and showed me the flaws of the structure and the pain it caused myself and so many others. But in all my seemingly noble ventures, I was still acting out of pain and anger toward not only the system but the people that are a part of it. From the top tiers of "false-prophet televangelists" to money-mongering, lexus driving preachers all the way down to the genuine and faithful tithers that fill the pews of the dirt-poor churches of rural West Virginia. I didn't feel angry so much as frustrated. But that frustration tended to fuel my rants toward the church.

To understand this frustration I should probably tell you what really led to me getting "exiled" to begin with. The church my parents and I went to had this really sweet old lady in thier congregation from the day they opened their doors to the day she died. Her name was Thelma. Thelma was an amazing woman. She was almost ninety and still incredibly active for her age. She walked everywhere and never missed a church function. My step-dad even lived with her for a while before marrying my mom. She lived less than a block from the church, in what can only be described as the "ghetto" of that small upscale area. She lived off social-security (which isn't much) and after paying what few bills she had and buying a few groceries, she tithed her ten percent or more to the church and the rest of her money either went to the church, the 700 club or various other televangelists. She didn't have much of a family. At least no one that seemed to really care about her. The church mostly seemed to view her as a sweet old novelty. My mom, however, loved Thelma and did everything she could to help her and take care of her. Thelma developed Alzheimers and died in a nursing home, dirt poor and with only my mom to keep her company. The church didn't lift a finger to help her at all in her final days (aside from some comforting words over the phone I suppose). So the point of the story is, while she was dying in the only nursing home my mom could get her into: 1) Some televangelist who didn't even know her name except as a mailing label for a postcard to try and squeeze out a few more dollars in the name of the Lord, was getting richer 2) The pastor of the church she attended and tithed so faithfully all those years was signing the papers on his SUV and his beautiful new home in one of Fairmont's richest suburbs. That sent me over the edge.

The things I missed all these years of thinking about that story was this...

Thelma was not stupid. She had been around a long time. She had the wisdom that comes with that age. She knew what she was doing and for me to say that she couldn't see the problems I could see is arrogant (and probably a little stupid on my part). I'm sure she saw all the problems I did and more. The difference being, she was faithful and put her faith in God that He was at work. A cracked structure couldn't stop that work and she could only be a part of that work. One could argue that she didn't leave the church or defect because she was old and that was her whole life up to that point... but I believe she stayed because she had work to do. She had a loving impact on everyone around her. it wasn't until years later that I recognized that impact. I also began to recognize many, many others within the church system that have the same loving impact on those around them.

So as tempting as it is to say that everyone should leave the church and start a new path... that is not the answer. There are many people in many places that have been placed there by God to do his "seemingly irrational" will. What I'm realizing is, God's church can be anywhere. God's church is unconditional love that comes out where you least expect it. And his grace covers all, perhaps I need more than any televangelist. When we stop judging and ranting against people and start reflecting that unconditional love is when people who have heard only the lies might start speaking the truth. So I guess that raises the question: Do we stop speaking up about the issues we've raised regarding the church and Christendom? No. As long as we realize that even the most money-hungry, war-mongering person who call himself (or herself) a Christian is covered by grace and not in a position to be judged by us, perhaps we can take the steps to spread the love of God and end the injustice carried out in his name.

No one ever won an argument. I've been arguing against the church instead of shutting the hell up and learning how to really love. Love first. People will recognize that love, then if God calls you to speak, perhaps some people will listen.

That said, this is an exiting time and revolution is coming; as with exhibiting unconditional love, speaking the truth as God calls to us is necessary to be a part of that revolution. This "revolution" (I use that term loosely because I don't presume to know what God has planned) won't encompass everyone in God's Kingdom. It's not suppose to. There are people all over the world feeling a stir within them to move out from under the empire, out from 1700+ years of skewed doctrine and bloodshed to find something pure and as close as they can get to the Kingdom of God on earth in the real world. That's exiting and I believe it can have a huge impact on this world. But there are also people within even the most "twisted" (as some might see it) of churches carrying that pure Kingdom of God within them, people like Thelma, and spreading it within the "empire" many of us saw fit to leave. The subversive church is not about a specific movement or inclusion of a specific idea while excluding the others. It's about a community (whether online or in person) showing love, seeking truth and sharing (perhaps reminding ourselves) what we see when we look at Jesus without the filtered goggles of our culture, environment, and education.

Be careful where you place judgement. Take it from my personal experience "judge not, lest ye be judged". So for judgment, cynicism, anger, frustration, hypocrisy, and over all just NOT showing the love that Christ showed... I hope you will forgive me. Like I said, I need grace more than most (or all).

-Chris