Jack Bauer Evangelism

The Nativity According to Stephen King

You gotta go and see this one...

Michael Bird has the provocative title My Christmas Sermon: The Nativity According to Stephen King.

Good stuff.

Spanking and the Book of Proverbs

Paul Wegner is a professor of Old Testament at Phoenix Seminary.  He has written an excellent essay on the use of discipline in the book of Proverbs--"Discipline in the Book of Proverbs: 'To Spank or Not to Spank'" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48/4 (Dec. 2005).  He looks at the full context of Proverbs to see its use of discipline.  Along the way, as the title of the article suggests, he looks at the issue of spanking in its biblical contexts as well as within the current psychological literature.  Wegner summarizes the Proverbial wisdom in this way:

In reality the book of Proverbs, when taken as a whole, encourages its readers to use multiple levels of discipline ranging from pointing out improper behavior to the use of corporal punishment. In fact, the Hebrew word musar, commonly translated as "discipline" in the OT, has a wide range of meanings that suggests various levels of discipline, including on one end of the spectrum "teaching or instruction" (Prov 1:2, 3, 7; 4:13), then progress- ing to "exhortation or warning" (Ezek 5:15; Job 20:3), and climaxing with "discipline or chastening" (Prov 13:24; 22:15; 23:13). To draw from only a few Proverbs (e.g. Prov 13:24 or 23:13-14) would be to miss the complexity and range of discipline discussed in the book. The book of Proverbs provides a full range of discipline so that even extreme behaviors can be adequately handled. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines discipline as "[t]raining that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character of a person." The implication is that this is an ongoing responsibility of parent- hood, from infancy to at least late teens, but it does not mean that the same disciplinary techniques will be used throughout this process or that spanking will be the supreme disciplinary technique.  (pp. 719-720)

Wegner goes on to outline in some detail at least eight levels of discipline as found in the book of Proverbs.  These levels begin with the encouraging of proper behavior and instructing about the nature and consequences of bad behavior.  So often the focus in on spanking alone--either to defend its use or to speak against it.  Wegner's survey is much fuller and places corporal, non-abusive punishment (i.e., "spanking") in its proper context.  The book of Proverbs is about wisdom--learning to live life in the fear of God along with its practical applications.  So much of the proverbial wisdom is contextual.  It is learning to live in the texture of God's world with all its manifest and wonderful variety.  The proverbial sayings are not cookie-cutters.  They are general wisdom that need to be applied.  This idea of context is even seen by some in the psychological community today.  A striking example is research psychologist Diana Baumrind at the University of California-Berkley's Institute of Human Development.  In an address at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in San Francisco she said:

We found no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.... I am not an advocate of spanking, but a blanket injunction against its use is not warranted by the evidence.  It is reliance on physical punishment, not whether or not it is used at all, that is associated with harm to the child.

Dr. Baumrind went on to conclude:

Studies of verbal punishment yielded similar results, in that researchers found correlations just as high, and sometimes higher, for total verbal punishment and harm to the child, as for total physical punishment and harm... What really matters... is the child rearing context. When parents are loving and firm and communicate well with the child [a pattern Baumrind call authoritative] the children are exceptionally competent and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as preschoolers.  (quoted in Wegner, p. 731)

Now Baumrind's conclusions will not be new to any wise parent--of course it's the context that matters!  But it is nice to be able to throw around such "psychological insight" from someone even remotely associated with Berkley--for those for whom such things are needed.

Christians and Occupy Wall Street

A good article on Occupy Wall Street is Jordan J. Ballor's How Christians Ought to "Occupy" Wall Street (and All Streets).  Here are a few select quotations:

 

It is true of course that the Christian gospel has inherently social implications, and that in some cases direct political action and social activism are entailed, at least for individual Christians working out of their own convictions, if not always for the institutional church itself. It makes sense, then, that the consciences of some Christians are deeply pricked by the message emanating from the Occupy movement and have wholeheartedly thrown their lot in with the cause of the so-called "99 percent." This is in part why religious activists like Jim Wallis and Shane Claiborne have positively engaged the Occupy movement.

But involvement in and support of the Occupy protests do not represent a normative way for Christians of all convictions to engage the world. We are not all called to identify ourselves with the rebelliousness of the perpetually outraged. In identifying the institutions of the church with these protest movements ecclesial leaders risk overlooking the most important occupiers: those Christians who occupy the pews every Sunday morning and pursue various occupations throughout the week. The range of cultural engagement by Christians is therefore coextensive with the panoply of morally legitimate activities in the world. This has been true from the church's earliest beginnings. 

Later he writes:

What this means is that there are Christians who already occupy Wall Street every day in their occupations as businessmen and women, bankers and investors, traders and executives, secretaries and receptionists, janitors and security guards. The church's responsibility to these "occupiers" is to provide them with the moral and spiritual formation necessary to be faithful followers of Christ every day in their productive service to others.

And then the article ends with this:

Christians therefore must occupy the world in their occupations, doing all their work as Christians, whatever it is, "whether in word or deed," as the Apostle Paul instructs, "in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him" (Col. 3:17 NIV). In this way the church finds its most significant and transformative cultural engagement through its affirmation of the daily work of Christians who already occupy Wall Street (and all streets).

Christmas as the Triumph of Christ Over Paganism

I had thought of writing about Christmas and its "pagan" origins but then Michael Bird went and said what I think so well.  He has written December 25 Means the Triumph of Christianity Over Paganism.  Here are Bird's thoughts:

Yes, we’ve all heard the JW, Free Presbyterian, and Puritan arguments that the 25th of December was originally a pagan festival to celebrate the birth of the sun god Sol Invictus, Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, “the birthday of the unconquered sun,” therefore, Christians should not celebrate Christmas because it is a pagan holiday. There might be some truth to this. The 12th century  Syrian bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi wrote: “It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day.” Yet I would point out that historians actually question which came first, the Christian festival of Christmas, or the pagan festival to Invictus, both were celebrated on Dec 25, but who did it first is not clear.  The truth is that the selection of Dec 25 for Christmas could have been taken over from any number of winter solstice festivals.

But let’s grant a Christmas vs. Sol Invictus competition vying for people’s religious attention in the third and fourth centuries of the Roman Empire. What does it mean? Well, you might notice two things. First, some of the third century emperors like Aurelian and Decian who persecuted Christians were devoted to Sol Invictus. Decian wanted to unify the Empire around the worship of Sol Invictus, and thus sought to purify the Empire of Christians. Second, note also the forthright desire of some European intellectuals to return western civilization back to a pagan pluralism  as if paganism will lead to a more open minded and tolerant society (see Alain de Benoist’s On Being a Pagan). Bad news for Decian – his empire is gone and Jesus not Solus Invictus is celebrated on Dec 25. Bad news for neo-pagans like de Benoist, as long as “Hark the Herald Angels” and “O Holy Night” are songs people hear, sing, and enjoy at Christmas, they don’t stand a chance in hell.

Christmas means that the unconquerable god of the Romans just got conquered. A pagan Roman holiday just got stuffed with more Christianity than a December Turkey stuffed with spiced bread crumbs. Dawkins can issue a secular intifada against Christianity all he likes, but we got the best holiday, the best music, and the best message – joy to the world and peace on earth. So Christmas ain’t going away any time soon.

Tertullian wrote: “We [Christians] are but of yesterday, and yet we already fill your cities, islands, camps, your palace, senate, and forum. We have left you only your temples” (Apology 37). To that I would, add: “Oh, FYI, we just stole your holiday and crowned Jesus as King of kings on top of  a city with seven hills, sitting on a big bad ass throne using Jupiter, Sol Victus, and Caesar as a foot rest. Hope that’s okay, if not, too flipping bad.”

Christmas means that Jesus has defeated the powers, the pagan gods that military rulers used to bring their peoples into subjection, to oppress all dissent, and to bring misery upon the masses of men and women.  Christmas means that the tyranny of paganism – its pantheon, politics, and power – have been broken by a Jewish man who died on a Roman cross. Christmas means that the power for peace does not come from a Roman legion, but is heard in the anthem of a legion of angels singing praises to the infant Jesus. Christmas means that the pagan kings who, “To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace” have been robbed and plundered of the one thing which gave them power: fear. Christmas means freedom from the worship of the state so that we might enter into the state of worship of the one true God and his Son. Christmas means the greatest social reversal since Cinderella because, as Mary sang,  ”He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly (Luke 1:52 NRSV)” (shh, don’t tel the Tea Party, St. Mary might be launching a class war on the rich!). Christmas means God has entered into the lowliness of the human estate in order to raise humanity up to the ceiling of heaven. Christmas means that what stands between heaven and earth is not a plethora of gods with the sexual ethics of Charlie Sheen and the behavior of an  undisciplined toddler with superpowers, but the man Jesus Christ who came, lived, and died to reconcile humanity to God. Christmas means the victory of God over the inhumanity and irreligion of paganism. So I say, bake that ham, roast that turkey, pour forth the wine, sing and make merry, cause Jesus just kicked the Roman gods and all the evil that they stood for in the testiculus - why not celebrate it!

Merry Christmas!

Change in American Culture

One of the great things about high lighting when reading a book is that a few years later you can pull that book of the shelf and see the main points of importance.  I pulled off my shelf J. Daryl Charles' Between Pacificism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition (IVP, 2005) and came across these thoughts:

Most contemporary observers, and not a few Christians, assume that American Society--and, for the moment permit to write as an American--could never become "totalized" and oppressive.  After all, we convince ourselves, democratic government has built-in checks and balances.  What is more, we have never known the dark side of statist rule and oppression that have visited other societies.  While these balances do potentially retard the speed with which a society degenerates, they are foremost procedural and do not affect the moral foundations of a people.  When a whole people--and everything in that culture--is full of putrefaction and moral rot, it is only a question of time as to when the system collapses and a "new elite" must step in to fill the power vacuum that has resulted.

But my interest here is not to engage in apocalyptic gloom.  The point to be made is this: there is a qualitative difference between legality and morality.  Laws will inevitably be a reflection of the values of a particular society.  This is why Christians--religious conservatives especially, at least in the American context--need to be saved from the folly of trying to change laws and enact legislation without simultaneously seeking to change the way people think.  The laws of the land will follow the engine of values and principles that a people hold dear.  If a people's highest values are self-interest and autonomy, its laws will become utilitarian.  If  a society has a low regard for the value of human life (whether at the beginning or the end of the life spectrum), then its laws will reflect that view of human personhood.

The attempt to change culture by merely changing its laws is at best cosmetic.  Our priority is to change the hearts and minds of people.  This is slow, arduous work.  That is why evangelism proper (in the narrow use of the term), while important, is only a small part of what Pope John Paul II has called "evangelization" of culture.  That is, we must begin t reseed culture from the ground up, as it were, training and educating our own in terms of broader Christian worldview thinking so we are prepared to impart values to broader culture.  If we resist or ignore long-term efforts to educate and penetrate culture by changing the way people  think, no amount of "godly legislation"--or evangelism, for that matter--will ever be able to change culture at the root.  It will be the equivalent of pouring Roses Lime Juice on cancer.  (p. 139) 

Is Britain a Christian Nation?

Over at Powerline there is an article entitled "Is Britain a Christian Nation?"  They quote the prime minister as stating the Britain is a Christian nation.

Britain is a Christian nation and should not be afraid of standing up for Christian values to help counter the country’s “moral collapse”, Prime Minister David Cameron said Friday.

In a rare foray into religion by a British premier, Cameron said “live and let live” had too often become “do what you please” in Britain.

The “passive tolerance” of immoral behaviour had helped fuel the August riots, excess in the banking industry and home-grown Islamist terror, he said.

“We are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so,” Cameron said at an event in Oxford, southern England, to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.

“The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend.

The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option.”

The problem is that the actions of the people is continuing to trend contrary to this "Christian" nation status.  Later in the article Cameron is quoted as saying:

Cameron described himself as a committed but only “vaguely practising” member of the Church of England, who was “full of doubts” about big theological issues.

It seems as though Cameron wants the fruit of Christianity--its moral base--but not the full throttled belief system that undergirds that morality.  It reminds me of Israel at various times in the Old Testament when they wanted the fruit of the covenant but not with heart-felt devotion to the Lord.

 

Christopher Hitchens Has Died

Christopher Hitchens has died.  His battle with cancer is over.  His battle with God is over.  Hitchens has been called a "public intellectual" and he spent the last years of his life engaged in an all out broadside against God and belief in him.  He was energetic in this unbelief and he gloried in it.  Here is a sample:

But I should not conceal the fact that I am not so much an atheist as an anti-theist.  I am, in other words, not one of those unbelievers who wishes that they had faith, or that they could believe.  I am, rather, someone who is delighted that there is absolutely no persuasive evidence for the existence of any of mankind's many thousands of past and present deities.  Is Christianity Good for the World, p. 12

Pastor Douglas Wilson had opportunity to not only debate Christopher Hitchens but also spend time with him on a book/debate tour.  Pastor Wilson had written a fine reflection on Christopher Hitchens in light of his death.  It can be found HERE.

Domestic Violence--New Study and Resources

The New York Times reports on a recently released study on sexual abuse in the U.S.   

An exhaustive government survey of rape and domestic violence released on Wednesday affirmed that sexual violence against women remains endemic in the United States and in some instances may be far more common than previously thought.

Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report. 

 The full report mentioned by The New York Times can be found HERE.

Back in October 2010 I preached a sermon entitled "Domestic Violence and the Church".  It can be accessed HERE (under the date of 10/10/2010).  This was my attempt to speak to this issue that is so often left unspoken about in the Evangelical church.

A number of resources I used for my sermon came from Dr. Steven Tracy.  He is a professor at Phoenix Seminary and one of the founders of Mending the Soul ministry.  A few of the specific essays that I used are:

"Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering in 1 Peter" Calvin Theological Journal 2006

"Patriarchy and Domestic Violence: Challenging Common Misconceptions" JETS 50/3 (Sept 2007)

"What Does 'Submit in Everything' Really Mean? The Nature and Scope of Martial Submission" Trinity Journal 29 (2008)

The "Scientific" Shepherd

A little Christmas humor...

"Baal is Dead!"--Meditations on the Clouds

In the midst of my preparations for preaching on Habakkuk chapter three I read an essay by David Toshio Tsumura entitled "Ugaritic Poetry in Habakkuk 3" (Tyndale Bulletin 40.1, 1989, pp. 24-48).  Amongst many biblical scholars it is common place to hold that Habakkuk chapter three was influenced by Ugaritic poetry.  For example, F. F. Bruce in his commentary on Habakkuk 3.8 states the following:

Yahweh's campaign against the enemies of his people is depicted in terms reminiscent of the conflict with chaos in Semitic mythology--Marduk's victory over Ti'amat (the subterranean deep) in the Babylonian Genesis, for example, or Baal's victory over Yam (the unruly sea) in Ugaritic lore.  The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary edited by Thomas E. McComiskey (Baker, 2009), p. 886

Tsumura's article challenges this consensus of literary connection Habakkuk 3 and Ugaritic mythology.  In his article Tsumura discusses and quotes various Ugaritic myths including discussion of Baal as "rider of the clouds"--a common designation for Baal in Ugaritic texts.  Along with reading this article I also read some of the Enuma elish--sometimes called The Chaldean Account of Genesis.  This depicts the god Marduk slaying Tiamat and then slicing  her up to create heaven and earth.  I read all this to get a handle on something of the Babylonian mindset as well as to see if this would help me understand Habakkuk chapter three better.

So with all these thoughts floating in mind I stopped studying to go for lunch at my favorite pizza place down the street.  The sky was full of majestic clouds creating a somewhat overcast day.  As I turned into the parking lot and while looking at the clouds (yet still managing to drive in a safe manner!) I thought of Baal's epithet--"rider of the clouds."  My very next thought was, "Baal is dead and you, O God have killed him."  This brought a smile to my face.  Baal is dead.  He is a spent force.  There are no devotees to this ancient Babylonian god.  He is studied for historical interest only.  The true and living God--the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ--he is alive and active today.  It is he who of whom Nahum speaks when he says:

In whirlwind and storm is his way, and the clouds are the dust beneath his feet.  (1.3)

This living God has made war against the false gods in the past (Exodus 12.12; Numbers 33.4; 2 Samuel 7.23) and these gods are no more.  He will continue to make war against the false gods of our time.  He will not give his glory to another!

I am Yahweh, that is my name; I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven images...The LORD will go forth like a warrior, he will arouse his zeal like a man of war.  He will utter a shout, yes, he will raise a war cry.  He will prevail against his enemies.   Isaiah 42. 8, 13

What to Teach in Student Ministry

A recent post about what to teach in student ministries had a number of insightful thoughts.  I think the suggestions work whether one has a traditional youth ministry or if one is looking primarily to the family to do the teaching.  Here are the first two points:

(1) I believe that Christology should be at the center of our teaching.
All of us around the table that day would affirm the need to present the Gospel regularly in and through our teaching. But this simply means that the plan of salvation is presented regularly. That students “know” how to be saved. But that’s not really what I mean by having Jesus at the center. I believe you can give the plan of salvation regularly, and not have Jesus at the center of your teaching. What I mean is that Jesus, pure and simple, should be presented constantly. Our teaching should be saturated with Jesus. We should be telling stories about Jesus. We should be talking about Jesus teachings. We should be presenting Jesus’ character. We should be discussing Jesus’ death and resurrection. We should be teaching about this second-coming to judge. Christology should be the center and serve as the central criterion for all our teaching. I don’t think we can teach too much of Jesus. Some might protest and say that students will become bored if all we discuss is Jesus. I think that has more to do with the how than the what.

(2) I believe that we should not just teach Jesus haphazardly or selectively. 
We should teach our students a Gospel. They should know at least one Gospel story inside and out – and if possible more. Not a truncated, externally pieced together set of ideas about Jesus. But actually an authorized story of Jesus, one of the Four Gospels. Students should know the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Or at least one or two of them by the end of their Student Ministry years. I believe students think they know a lot about Jesus and the gospel. But truth be told, they don’t know intimately a New Testament Gospel. I deal with College students all the time who grew up in youth ministries who know fragments, but have not been taught a whole Jesus. How much do we teach Jesus? How much do we teach the Gospel – again this is not a reference to the plan of salvation.

Here’s a suggestion: Each segment of the SM takes a Gospel and its their job to instill that Gospel into the students. I would suggest this plan:

• Middle School : Mark
• High School : John
• College : Luke or Matthew

The full post can be found HERE.

Letter from Former Planned Parenthood Employees

A group of former Planned Parenthood employees has written to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the Energy and Commerce Committee.  In their letter they state of their willingness to testify regarding illegalities they have knowledge of regarding Planned Parenthood's use of public funds and abortion.  A portion of the letter reads as follows:

"It is a matter of public record that the affiliates of PPFA and its national headquarters receive roughly $1 million per day in federal-state support, for a total of $1 billion or more in any three-year period. This alone would merit close government attention as to whether or not these funds are being spent appropriately and, specifically, in keeping with the federal law which stipulates that none of these funds should be made available to a program in which abortion is used as a means of family planning. We can state categorically, from personal experience, that abortion is indeed deployed as a means of family planning according to the mission of the organization for which we once worked."

One of the signers is Abby Johnson who is the author of Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line.

To see a copy of the letter go HERE.

For a news story regarding these events go HERE.

Jesus in Habakkuk (Part 1)

I finished up a sermon series on Habakkuk yesterday.  One of my goals in preaching through this Old Testament prophet was to see Christ Jesus in the book.  I stressed that the name of Jesus is not in the book--not in Hebrew or in any sort of "Bible Code!"  So the challenge was to relate the content of Habakkuk to Christ Jesus without forcing themes or arbitrarily just switching topics ("Now I'm going to speak about Jesus.") without any connection in the text itself.  I won't claim to have a great job at this but it was a conscious thought as I prepped and preached.  In this series of blog posts I will articulate some of the connections I brought out in the preaching series.

One of the first things to do in coming to an Old Testament book is to check for any explicit quotations of that book in the New Testament.  This is important because these quotations in their New Testament contexts form the basis for understanding how the New Testament authors saw Jesus Christ in the Scriptures and how they understood the previous revelation to be speaking to their time in light of the coming of the Messiah.

Habakkuk 1.5 is the first such passage that is picked up in the New Testament.  It reads:

Look among the nations!  Observe!  Be astonished!  Wonder!  Because I am doing something in your days--you would not believe if you were told.

These are the Lord's first words in response to the cries of Habakkuk in his painful confusion and questioning as to why God is not responding to the evil in the midst of Judah (1.2-4).  God's response is to begin speaking of the judgment that is to come upon Judah at the hands of the Chaldeans (1.6).  Verse five is an arresting declaration of God's sovereign judgment about to begin.  Context is important here because I've seen this verse used as the theme verse for a mission's conference year's ago.  The organizers of the conference saw the language of "nations" and how God was doing something "astonishing" and, presto--theme verse for world missions!  Not a good use of Scripture.  The context is God's just judgment upon his own people for their willful rebellion against his law and the subsequent violence that ensues.  (Note: the language of "violence" is used seven times--1.2, 3, 9; 2.8, 12, 17--as well as related words such as "destruction" and "strife")

The apostle Paul quotes Habakkuk 1.5 in his sermon at Pisidian Antioch found in Acts 13.16-41.  Acts 13 is a significant chapter.  It deals with the beginnings of Paul's first missionary journey.  It gives us Luke's recitation of Paul's first sermon to the Jewish synagogue.  It also serves as the transition point of Paul's moving to the Gentiles as the Jewish community of Pisidian Antioch rejects the message of Messiah Jesus (Acts 13.44-47).

Paul's sermon in Acts 13 begins by setting the covenantal context with particular focus on the Davidic promises (the parallels with Peter's first sermon in Acts are noteworthy even including the use of the same prooftext--Psalm 16).  Paul speaks of the death and resurrection of Jesus.  It is through this one who has been raised from the dead that forgiveness of sins in offered:

Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.  (Acts 13.38-39)

It is at this point, in the conclusion, that Paul urges a response by the use of Habakkuk 1.5.

Therefore, take heed, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you: "Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; for I am accomplishing a work in your days,  a work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you."

That is how Paul ends the sermon.  It is meant to be an exhortative prod that moves his hearers to belief in Jesus.  The failure to heed this message of the risen Messiah will bring judgment--a judgment like what the Prophets spoke about in the time of Judah's rebellion against the word of the Lord.

Where is Jesus in Habakkuk?  The threat of divine judgment administered in a striking and sovereign manner cannot be dismissed as "just for them" way back in history.  God's surprising ways include a crucified and risen Messiah.  Judgment will be a reality for all those who do not heed this message of the risen Jesus and find their refuge in him (Psalm 2.12).  But for those who heed this message the threat of judgment is no more: "Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him" (Romans 5.9).

 

Rookie of the Year Award

Just a little bit of fatherly bragging today...

My son Thaddeus swam for Greenway High School this past season and he received his Varsity letter while just a Freshman.  Also he was selected "Rookie of the Year."

Here is a great shot of him swimming the butterfly.

Islam in Britain

This is from Patriots Newswire.

A Christian worker in Britain has filed a lawsuit after losing her job when she exposed a campaign of systematic harassment by fundamentalist Muslims.

In a landmark legal case, Nohad Halawi, a former employee at London’s Heathrow Airport, is suing her former employer for unfair dismissal, claiming that Christian staff members, including her, were discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

Halawi’s case is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), an organization that provides legal support for Christians in the United Kingdom. CLC says the case raises important legal issues, and also questions over whether Muslims and Christians are treated differently by employers.

Halawi, who immigrated to Britain from Lebanon in 1977, told the London Telegraph “that she was told that she would go to Hell for her religion, that Jews were responsible for the September 11th terror attacks, and that a friend was reduced to tears having been bullied for wearing a cross.”

Halawi worked at the airport for 13 years as a saleswoman at World Duty Free, where she sold perfumes. Halawi was dismissed in July, following complaints by five Muslims that she was being “anti-Islamic.”

Halawi says her problems with the Muslims began after she defended a Christian friend who worked with her at the same store, and who was being harassed by the Muslims for wearing a necklace with a cross.

Matters got worse after Halawi described a Muslim staff member as an “allawhi,” or “man of God” in Arabic. Another worker, however, who overheard the remark, thought she said “Alawi,” his branch of Islam. The misunderstanding led to a heated argument, after which Hawali was suspended and then fired.

Halawi says she persistently complained to management that she was being subjected to personal religious abuse and harassment from Muslim staff, some of whom went so far as to mock her about “shitty Jesus,” according to the CLC. She says a group of “extremist” Muslims were the perpetrators, and that other employees are now worried that their jobs could be at risk if the Muslim group turns on them.

“One man brought in the Koran to work and insisted I read it and another brought in Islamic leaflets and handed them out to other employees,” Halawi told the London Telegraph. “They said that 9/11 served the Americans right and that they hated the West, but that they had come here because they want to convert people to Islam…This is supposed to be a Christian country, but the law seems to be on the side of the Muslims,” Halawi said.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of the CLC, said in a statement that Halawi’s case is the most serious she has pursued, and that “it raises huge issues.”

“First there is the level of Islamic fundamentalism prevalent at our main point of entry to the UK. Secondly, there are very real issues of religious discrimination, which it would appear those in authority are turning a blind eye to, using the current loopholes in employment law as an excuse,” Williams said.

The Halawi case comes amid concerns that Christianity is being marginalized in Britain at the same time that Islam is spreading rapidly and Muslims are becoming more assertive.

British MP David Simpson, for example, has warned that Christianity is seen to be fair game for criticism and abuse while Islam receives special protection in the United Kingdom.

During a debate in the House of Commons in May 2011 about the treatment of Christians around the world, Simpson said: “In the United Kingdom, the policy seems to be that people can do whatever they like against Christianity – criticize it or blaspheme the name of Christ – as long as they do not insult Islam.”

For more of this article see HERE.

Trent Franks and New Pro-Life Legislation

This comes from Patriot Newswire:

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., an outspoken pro-life advocate, is preparing to do battle again on Capitol Hill.

On Tuesday, he’ll chair a House hearing in support of his latest legislative effort, the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act (PreNDA). The measure would ban abortions done on the basis of gender or race.

“It would simply say that you cannot discriminate against the unborn by subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex,” Franks says.

He points to a finding by the Guttmacher Institute: “…the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women.” Franks also believes that sex-selection abortions are on the rise in the U.S. and notes a Zogby International poll that found 86 percent of those surveyed believed gender-based abortion choices should be illegal.

Pro-choice advocates say PreNDA is an “anti-choice” measure. Nancy Northup, President of Center for Reproductive Rights, calls it a “trumped up bill for a trumped up problem,” and says it’s a ridiculous waste of congressional resources at a time when the U.S. economy is faltering.

“This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it’s about taking women’s rights away,” said Northup.

PreNDA contains both civil penalties and jail time for those who violate the ban, but not the women who seek or obtain abortions. Franks says he believes women who find themselves with an unintended pregnancy are “victims” who need help in the midst of a crisis, not punishment.

However, those who perform abortions done solely for sex- or race-selection purposes could face fines and up to five years in prison.

"Like a Warrior...Like a Woman"

In preaching through Habakkuk 3.8-15 I spoke of how God is a warrior coming to do battle against the house of evil (Hab 3.13) and on behalf of his people.  I began by quoting Exodus 15.3 in which Israel sings that "Yahweh is a warrior, Yahweh is his name."  They sing this after their deliverance from Egypt through the Red Sea.  God is a warrior who comes for the deliverance (salvation) of his people.

This morning I came across more "warrior" language but also something else.  Isaiah 42.13-14 reads:

The LORD will go forth like a warrior, he will arouse his zeal like a man of war.  He will utter a shout, yes, he will raise a war cry.  He will prevail against his enemies.

I have kept silent for a long time, I have kept still and restrained myself.  Now like a woman in labor I will groan, I will both gasp and pant. 

Here is a wonderful multiplication of images which is startling.  God is like a warrior raising a war cry against his enemies.  He is also like a woman panting in labor for the deliverance of his people.  Both images are captured in the same context.  Now I reject all notions of calling God "our Mother."  This is a trend for some.  I was reminded of the words of Mark Driscoll when he states his concerns regarding this growing trend among some in the "emergent" church.

I am particularly concerned, however, with some growing trends among some people...the rejection of biblical names for God, such as Father, which is essentially apologizing before the unbelieving world for the prayer life of the flamboyantly heterosexual Jesus, who uttered the horrendously politically incorrect "Our Father" without ever having the decency to apologize for being a misogynist patriarchal meanie."  Confessions of a Reformission Rev (p. 22)

So our God is Father.  And yet he uses this profoundly and uniquely feminine image of a woman in labor to communicate his grace.  Regarding this image E. J. Young writes:

A strong figure introduces the second line and is placed first for emphasis.  As the travailing woman shrieks in pain, so will God also do, for, as Calvin justly remarks, it is only by such figures of speech that God's ardent love toward us can be expressed.  The implication is that it has been difficult for God to hold His peace when He beheld wicked men forming a kingdom with the express purpose of destroying His own kingdom and bringing His purposes to naught.  His own loved ones were the objects of the enemies' wrath, and yet God must constrain Himself.  Yet He longs to deliver His own, and now shrieks aloud, as though unable to endure longer.  The time for action has arrived.  The Book of Isaiah (vol. 3), p. 129

These images of the warrior and the laboring woman are powerful communications of the character and action of our God in his sovereign quest for salvation and deliverance.

One final thought: any doctrinal formulation of impassibility must make its peace with theses images without muting them or gutting them of their force.  D. A. Carson has short but insightful discussion of this issue in his little book The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God:

It is no answer to espouse a form of impassibility that denies that God has an emotional life and that insists that all of the biblical evidence to the contrary is nothing more than anthropopathism.  The price is too heavy.  You may then rest in God's sovereignty, but you can no longer rejoice in his love.  You may rejoice only in a linguistic expression that is an accommodation of some reality of which we cannot conceive, couched in the anthropopathism of love.  Give me a break.  Paul did not pray that his readers might be able to grasp the height and depth and length and breadth of an anthropopathism and know this anthropopathism that surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:14-21).  (pp. 58-59)

God is like a warrior roused to do battle for his beloved.  God is like a woman crying out in labor that now is the time of deliverance.  Praise God for his revelation of his heart of grace!