Worship – Getting it Right

Shel – I’m sure I posted this before from James KA Smith – but I am reposting below with the new additions he has added.

Oh well we are nice in SD but a little behind the curve - particularly in the church world. To avoid the 90s mistakes and crash I recommend Jamie’s book, Desiring the Kingdom and also Renovation of the Church by Ken Carlson and Mike Lueken (or simply the Book of Acts and 1 Corinthians ).  If you go to a church “to simply take in the show” you are indeed “going” to church – but not becoming “church.”   The level of actual engagement of the church in worship and prayer is VERY low in the show-model. This is BECAUSE the attractional 90s liturgy doesn’t aim to engage – just give a short emo-fix to get you there, social-media buzz then, and come back with enough friends that when you reject this faith the show can still go on.  None of this is making you a mature, worshipping, jesus-centered disciple.   This should put the fear of god in any leader of such a thing.  This creates people who leave church forever after a few years of being formed into a consumer of a religious show. 

Jamie nails it:

An Open Letter to Praise Bands

Dear Praise Band,

I so appreciate your willingness and desire to offer up your gifts to God in worship. I appreciate your devotion and celebrate your faithfulness–schlepping to church early, Sunday after Sunday, making time for practice mid-week, learning and writing new songs, and so much more. Like those skilled artists and artisans that God used to create the tabernacle (Exodus 36), you are willing to put your artistic gifts in service to the Triune God.
So please receive this little missive in the spirit it is meant: as an encouragement to reflect on the practice of “leading worship.” It seems to me that you are often simply co-opted into a practice without being encouraged to reflect on its rationale, its “reason why.” In other words, it seems to me that you are often recruited to “lead worship” without much opportunity to pause and reflect on the nature of “worship” and what it would mean to “lead.”
In particular, my concern is that we, the church, have unwittingly encouraged you to simply import musical practices into Christian worship that–while they might be appropriate elsewhere–are detrimental to congregational worship. More pointedly, using language I first employed in Desiring the Kingdom, I sometimes worry that we’ve unwittingly encouraged you to import certain forms of performance that are, in effect, “secular liturgies” and not just neutral “methods.” Without us realizing it, the dominant practices of performance train us to relate to music (and musicians) in a certain way: as something for our pleasure, as entertainment, as a largely passive experience. The function and goal of music in these “secular liturgies” is quite different from the function and goal of music in Christian worship.
So let me offer just a few brief axioms with the hope of encouraging new reflection on the practice of “leading worship”:
1. If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship. Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice–and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing” the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing–so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,” passive worshipers. (Shel – On the other hand if those leading the worship are SO low volume that also discourages the church to join their voices – a good middle is vital.)
2. If we, the congregation, can’t sing along, it’s not worship. In other forms of musical performance, musicians and bands will want to improvise and “be creative,” offering new renditions and exhibiting their virtuosity with all sorts of different trills and pauses and improvisations on the received tune. Again, that can be a delightful aspect of a concert, but in Christian worship it just means that we, the congregation, can’t sing along. And so your virtuosity gives rise to our passivity; your creativity simply encourages our silence. And whileyou may be worshiping with your creativity, the same creativity actually shuts down congregational song.
3. If you, the praise band, are the center of attention, it’s not worship. I know it’s generally not your fault that we’ve put you at the front of the church. And I know you want to model worship for us to imitate. But because we’ve encouraged you to basically import forms of performance from the concert venue into the sanctuary, we might not realize that we’ve also unwittingly encouraged a sense that you are the center of attention. And when your performance becomes a display of your virtuosity–even with the best of intentions–it’s difficult to counter the temptation to make the praise band the focus of our attention. When the praise band goes into long riffs that you might intend as “offerings to God,” we the congregation become utterly passive, and because we’ve adopted habits of relating to music from the Grammys and the concert venue, we unwittingly make you the center of attention. I wonder if there might be some intentional reflection on placement (to the side? leading from behind?) and performance that might help us counter these habits we bring with us to worship.
Please consider these points carefully and recognize what I am not saying. This isn’t just some plea for “traditional” worship and a critique of “contemporary” worship. Don’t mistake this as a defense of pipe organs and a critique of guitars and drums (or banjos and mandolins). My concern isn’t with style, but with form: What are we trying to do when we “lead worship?” If we are intentional about worship as a communal, congregational practice that brings us into a dialogical encounter with the living God–that worship is not merely expressive but also formative–then we can do that with cellos or steel guitars, pipe organs or African drums.

Postscript to “An Open Letter to Praise Bands”

So, I guess my little “Open Letter to Praise Bands” generated some interest. I’m glad that it could be a catalyst or foil for some intentional reflection on thehow of Christian worship. I won’t even attempt to address the array of responses it has generated. I’m content to let some misreadings spin themselves out. So I’m not out to police the ways I’ve been misunderstood.

However, I do think it’s important to name an issue in the background that affects how we can have this conversation: not all Christians share the same theology of worship. Indeed, my concern is that some sectors of North American Christianity don’t have much of a theology of worship at all. Many of us–including many congregations–have only an implicit understanding of what worship is, and we have not always made that explicit, nor have we subjected our assumptions to rigorous biblical and theological evaluation.
It is my passion for theological intentionality about worship that generated my book Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. It’s not fair to ask those who read a blog post to read an entire book, but I would invite those who both agreed and those who disagreed with my “Open Letter” to consider Desiring the Kingdom as a fuller articulation of the theology of worship behind my criticisms.
Many of the negative reactions to my missive stem from a fundamentally different understanding of what worship is. That means we are working from fundamentally different starting points. So when someone thinks that I “misunderstand” what’s happening in worship, actually I just disagree with the assumptions behind such worship.
I think this is why some have missed two crucial points in my “Open Letter”–points that were admittedly touched on just briefly. Let me reiterate them here:
1. Worship is not only expressive, it is also formative. It is not only how we express our devotion to God, it is also how the Spirit shapes and forms us to bear God’s image to the world. This is why the form of worship needs to be intentional: worship isn’t just something that we do; it does something to us. And this is why worship in a congregational setting is a communal practice of a congregation by which the Spirit grabs hold of us. How we worship shapes us, and how we worship collectively is an important way of learning to be the body of Christ. (For a helpful account of how our congregational practice of singing embodies theoneness of the body of Christ, see Steve Guthrie’s marvelous chapter, “The Wisdom of Song.”)
2. Because worship is formative, and not merely expressive, that means other cultural practices actually function as “competing” liturgies, rivals to Christian worship. In Desiring the Kingdom, I analyze examples of such “secular liturgies,” including the mall, the stadium, and the university. The point is that such loaded cultural practices are actually shaping our loves and desires by the very form of the practice, not merely by the “content” they offer. If we aren’t aware of this, we can unwittingly adopt what seem to be “neutral” or benign practices without recognizing that they are liturgies that come loaded with a rival vision of “the good life.” If we adopt such practices uncritically, it won’t matter what “content” we convey by them, the practices themselves are ordered to another kingdom. And insofar as we are immersed in them, we are unwittingly mis-shaped by the practices.
Again, there’s much more to be said about this, and a blog isn’t the venue. I do invite those who have been prompted to think about these matters to consider Desiring the Kingdom as a way to continue the conversation.
Much, much more could be said. But let me stop here, and please receive this as the encouragement it’s meant to be. I would love to see you continue to offer your artistic gifts in worship to the Triune God who is teaching us a new song.
Most sincerely,
Jamie

 

Stuart Murray on Institutional Anabaptism

“All movements tend to become institutionalized in time, and Anabaptism is no exception.  The vibrant and radical missionary movement of the first generation gradually morphed into the settled denominational life of later generations.  Apostles and prophets gave way to bishops and pastors.  The commitment to pacifism degenerated into passivity.  One symptom of this is reluctance to allow leaders to lead and an often obsessive commitment to ‘good process,’…which reduces progress to a snail’s pace.  A Mennonite friend says that ‘process is the Mennonite drug of choice.” – Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist, Herald Press, p. 166

 

HT: http://abnormalanabaptist.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/stuart-murray-on-institutional-anabaptism/?utm_source=feedly Robert Martin

2007-2008 the Years That Almost Killed Me (or did but He raises the dead)

Mercy Church was started in a dream, a vision, to be a church – committed to orthodoxy and yet ok with questions and debate on secondary theology and lifestyle issues (hence the blend of: broadly evangelical, spirit-filled, and anabaptist).

We started from a small group of about 15 adults meeting in 2004, went public the fall of 2005, then merger it with an older traditional church through 2007 and January 1 of 2008 it was a legal marriage.

The challenges of planting with out a mother church in a city MSA population of 230,000 were and are huge.  Getting over 50 people was an amazing breakthrough, growing in a healthy way over 100 was a work of god and many leaders being raised up.  Now in the 150 with over 230 people has been a lot of work, trial and error, trying to discern being faithful to our non-attractional vision of Jesus – while reaching truly unchurched folks.

Church leadership has a high burn-out rate – church planters – even higher.  No one signs up for this knowingly without a strong sense of motivation and call.  There is very little margin from the word “go”.

I hit a personal wall in 2007 just burned out by all the constant lifting, work, and very little time to recover.  Thankfully we are part of larger spiritual family and there were enough leaders to allow me to take a renewal sabbatical (not to be confused with a study sabbatical). This was so important to refocus on freedom in Jesus.  Confronting lies I was believing about myself (sometimes fostered by destructive people in my life at the time – which I did not totally understand) and God’s work.

I am still a person who prefers driven -ness over lack of motivation in leaders -it’s easier to learn to slow down than it is to get someone moving from a state of no momentum.  However, the gift of God that Mercy Church has become since 2009-10 and onward is priceless.

We are a place that is marked by Holy Spirit power and Christ’s life through those who can admit they need the mercy of God.

It is the ones who cling to outward power, show (to be seen and see), and numbers alone without a truly Jesus-centered self-critical mindset that give rise to the nones (those who drop out of the fakery after some years and then asking FINALLY – what on earth am I doing in this?!).  It’s those who forget the beauty of the Gospel of the Kingdom in the marginal people and marginal places in our own lives – who miss the presence and power of the Spirit.

I love how Paul gets more real and honest about his weaknesses and sin struggles throughout his ministry.  He digs into the presence of God.

In the letter 2 Corinthians Paul is defending himself by responding to the church’s captivation by the so-called “super-apostles” (today it would comparable to the personality cults of pastors or lay-leaders in a local church) who are also leading away from the centrality of Jesus (while claiming to be following Jesus!).  There are some wonderful verses here that make be think of the whole point of Mercy Church

2 Cor. 12 6 If I did want to brag, I wouldn’t make a fool of myself because I’d tell the truth. I’m holding back from bragging so that no one will give me any more credit than what anyone sees or hears about me. 7 I was given a thorn in my body because of the outstanding revelations I’ve received so that I wouldn’t be conceited. It’s a messenger from Satan sent to torment me so that I wouldn’t be conceited.

 

8 I pleaded with the Lord three times for it to leave me alone. 9 He said to me, “ My grace is enough for you, because power is made perfect in weakness. ” So I’ll gladly spend my time bragging about my weaknesses so that Christ’s power can rest on me. 10 Therefore, I’m all right with weaknesses, insults, disasters, harassments, and stressful situations for the sake of Christ, because when I’m weak, then I’m strong.

 

11 I’ve become a fool! You made me do it. Actually, I should have been commended by you. I’m not inferior to the super-apostles in any way, even though I’m a nonentity…

It is a place that admits and person that admits they only exist because of the Mercy of Jesus – where you can actually experience deep growth and change.  Mercy is a place of depth.  It’s not about what you do, what you make, who you hob-nob with out in the world of SIoux Falls that we care about – it’s what are you building your very center of your heart on?

Jesus and His Spirit working in the messy, weak, foolish, and beautiful body of Mercy Church – this is why I am here.  It is this kind of church I am called to be an “under-shepherd” to.

Getting your identity from judgement by the world’s standard will leave in the dark in the depth of your soul.  Getting it through Jesus – well that’s life.

I’m a weak fool for Christ, who’s fool are you?

+Pastor Shel, Chief of Sinners

 

Why Young Pastors Leave the Ministry

There is an epidemic occurring right under the nose of church middle judicatories and no one seems to notice. Young pastors (less than five years in the ministry) are leaving in droves. The Lilly Foundation has poured millions of dollars into “Sustaining Pastoral Ministry” initiatives and it’s too soon to tell whether or not their approach is working. Aside from the obvious reasons pastors leave the ministry (sexual impropriety, financial mismanagement, and marital dissolution) here are the top ten reasons why young pastors call it quits:

1. The discontinuity between what they imagined ministry to be and what it actually is is too great.

2. A life without weekends sucks.

3. The pay is too low (most pastors in my denomination make less money than a school teacher with five years experience).

4. They are tired of driving ten year old cars while their congregations trade in their cars every two years.

5. Many young pastors are called into difficult congregations that chew pastors up and spit them out because experienced pastors know better.

6. Even though the search committee told them they wanted to reach young people, they didn’t really mean it.

7. When the pastor asked the search committee if they were an “emergent church”, the members of the search committee thought he said “divergent church” and agreed.

8. Nobody told the young pastor that cleaning the toilets was part of the job description.

9. The young pastor’s student loans came due and the amount of money he/she owes on a monthly basis exceeds his/her income.

10. Working at McDonalds has alot less stress.

Why do you think young pastors are leaving in the ministry in droves?

This post comes from the NakedReligion blog… I find the ten reasons that he came up with to be quite intriguing. See what you think… (Sorry, but this post is no longer available at its original source)

Todd

The post Why Young Pastors Leave the Ministry appeared first on ToddRhoades.com.

So what’s an Anabaptist? By Scot McKnight

So what’s an Anabaptist?

By Scot McKnight

I am often asked, “What is an Anabaptist?” and “Who are the Anabaptists?” If one listened to everyone who claimed an Anabaptist connection, it would be easy to be confused. For many today a progressive politics is Anabaptist; for others it means being either Yoderian (John Howard Yoder) or Hauerwasian (Stanley Hauerwas). Fair enough, but neither of them is the full representation of Anabaptism.

So today I want to sketch the view of the one description of Anabaptism that shaped the 20th century the most. I refer to Harold S. Bender‘s classic essay called “The Anabaptist Vision.” No, it is not true that all Anabaptists agree with Bender, and no, some today (like Thomas Finger, in his big study, A Contemporary Anabaptist Theology, or J. Denny Weaver, Becoming Anabaptist) want to frame things in a different way, but it can be said that Bender’s sketch is the most influential view of Anabaptism of the 20th century.

There are three major dimensions of the Reformation: Luther and the Lutherans in Germany, Calvin and the Reformed in Switzerland, and Zwingli-generated (and then finished later by others) Anabaptism. Anabaptism spread through Switzerland, South Germany, Moravia and then into the Netherlands. The early Anabaptist theologians and statements of faith were uniformly Protestant in theology (justification, salvation by faith) yet were not simply Lutheran or Reformed. Their emphasis on adult baptism, upon profession of faith, as part of commitment to be a disciple, and to form into a fellowship of discipleship distinguished the Anabaptists from both the Lutherans and the Reformed, not to mention the Catholics.

Anabaptism is largely responsible for the nonconformist impulse of the church — to be sure, it has some connections to those before it, like the Waldensians of Italy, but the Anabaptists were radical in their nonconformity to the State and to State-sponsored churches — that is, the Catholic Church, Lutherans and the Reformed. All non-State churches in the U.S., and that’s most, owe some debt to the Anabaptists.

They were a courageous lot — thousands were put to death. They paid their life to be nonconformists, and there’s a positive way to put this: they died in order to be faithful to their commitment to follow the Bible, the New Testament and Jesus Christ.

For Bender, the Anabaptists are the full implementation of the Reformation. Neither Luther nor Calvin went far enough. Bender’s focus is Luther, not Calvin, and he cites evidence that Luther late in his life realized his “mass church,” which was basically everyone born into the community/State would be baptized and be Lutheran, was ineffective in transforming the life of the person. The early Anabaptists, like Conrad Grebel, observed the lack of discipleship among the Lutherans of the Reformation. So the Anabaptists carried through the Lutheran reforms and broke with 1,500 years of the church.

Bender is famous for three features of the Anabaptist vision:

  1. The essence of Christianity, or the Christian life, is discipleship — a committed following of Christ in all areas of life. The word on the street in the 16th century — and this word repeated often enough by bitter enemies of the Anabaptists — was that they were consistent and devout Christians. If Luther’s word was “faith,” the word for the Anabaptists was “follow.” The inner conversion was to lead to external transformation.
  2. A new conception of the church as a brotherhood of fellowship. The ruling image of a church among the Catholics and Reformers was more national and institutional and sacramental, while the ruling image for the Anabaptists was fellowship or family. Joining was voluntary; the requirement was conversion; the commitment was to holy living and fellowship with one another. Thus, the Anabaptist separated from the “world” to form a society of the faithful. This view of the church led to economic availability and liability for one another.
  3. A new ethic of love and peaceful nonresistance. Apart from rare exceptions like Balthasar Hubmaier and the nutcases around Thomas Müntzer, the Anabaptists lived a life shaped by love and nonviolence. They refused to coerce anyone.

Thus, for Bender, the focus was on discipleship not sacraments or the inner enjoyment of justification. The church was not an institution or a place for Word proclamation in emphasis but instead a brotherhood of love. In addition, against Catholics and Calvinists who believed in social reform, like the Lutherans the Anabaptists were less optimistic about social transformation. But, unlike the Lutherans who split life into the secular and sacred, the Anabaptists wanted a radical commitment that meant the creation of an alternative Christian society.

Scot McKnight is author of The Jesus CreedHe blogs at Patheos.com, where this post originally appeared.

“I Am A Church Member” – A Conversation with Thom Rainer

 

“I Am A Church Member” – A Conversation with Thom Rainer by TREVIN WAX

Today, I’ve invited Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay and author of the new book I Am a Church Member: Discovering the Attitude that Makes the Difference to join me for a conversation about church membership.

This book carries a long list of endorsements from church leaders across the theological and methodological spectrum of evangelicalism. It is a brief book that challenges church members to shift their mindset from self-serving to self-giving.

Trevin Wax: I Am a Church Member began as a blog post that garnered a great deal of attention and response. What prompted you to write the initial blog post? What did you learn from the response to that post?

Thom Rainer: I wrote the initial blog post after noting that in my research that church conflict was increasing. Over one-half of the conflict issues dealt with church members arguing over their personal preferences.

I hoped and prayed the blog would cause all of us church members to rethink our attitude about church membership, and to understand we are there to serve, not necessarily to be served.

Trevin Wax: You write about plateaued and declining churches in North America as seen in declining evangelical influence in the culture. We are tempted to blame secular culture, national politics, or church leaders. But you believe church members should “look in the mirror.” Why?

Thom Rainer: If outside forces and culture were the reasons behind declining and non-influential churches, we would likely have no churches today. The greatest periods of growth, particularly the first-century growth, took place in adversarial cultures. We are not hindered by external forces; we are hindered by our own lack of commitment and selflessness.

Trevin Wax: You devote a chapter to encouraging members to pray for their church leaders. There’s a moving story about a busy pastor who has no time to grieve the death of his best friend. Do you find that many church members are unaware of the pressures of pastoral ministry? How can we be better “pray-ers” for our pastors?

Thom Rainer: Most church members have little awareness of the daily demands and pressures of a pastor. His calling is one of the most challenging a person can have. Indeed, it is an impossible task in the pastor’s own strength.

I encourage church members to pick a time of day (for me it’s noon) to pause to pray one or two minutes for their pastors.

Most church members evaluate the pastor through the lens of “what is he doing for me?” We need to ask how we can help our pastor serve others rather than ask what can he do for me.

Trevin Wax: What happens when church members are focused on their own preferences and desires instead of the church’s mission? How can we move from being self-focused to self-giving?

Thom Rainer: The self-focused church becomes a church in conflict. No church can satisfy all the preferences of all the church members.

I recommend strongly that churches have an entry point class (a new members’ class) so clear expectations can be established for church members, including attitudinal issues. I also recommend that every church buy and distribute hundreds of copies of my book :)

Trevin Wax: There has been a resurgence of interest in church membership in recent years. Where do you see the conversation about meaningful church membership going in the years ahead? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this movement?

Thom Rainer: I am encouraged about the resurgence of interest in church membership. I see the conversation expanding in the near future.

Most of the conversation today is about what we are supposed to do as a church member. Very soon you will likely hear more and more about the attitudes church members should have.

An action plan without a biblical mindset is worthless, if not dangerous.

Trevin Wax: What do you hope this book will accomplish?

Thom Rainer: I pray that my little book will contribute to the conversation about biblical attitudes about church membership. I am even bold enough to pray that God will use it to change hearts from self-serving to serving.

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same Deity?

The Piper I Like.  I have been involved in mult-faith dialouge – but I agree with moderate-conservative Religious Jews, Muslims, and Hindus – we DO NOT worship the same God!

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same Deity? (Episode 71):

I don’t care how many attributes line up between your god and mine. Jesus says you can’t be worshipping the Father if you are rejecting him [in the Son]. And that is the approach I think we should take with all Muslims. We should befriend all of the Muslims in our lives and there are many, at least in my neighborhood. And we tell them the unsearchable riches of Christ, and especially go to the gospel where the glory of God is revealed in the death and the resurrection of Christ. – John Piper

Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?

Shelby- Remember our Arab and Persian christian brothers and sisters have lived with this violence more than any of us.

April 21, 2013

Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?

By Victor Sharpe

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted in his book, Gandhi: The Power of Pacifism, by Catherine Clement, as follows:

 

While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.

 

Gandhi was referring to the experience during his lifetime in the Indian sub-continent, but the growth of Wahhabism and the current resurgence in Islamic triumphalism since Gandhi’s death in January 1948 now poses an increasingly existential threat to the West, to Judeo-Christian civilization, as well as to Hindus, Buddhists, and members other faiths.

 

The question repeatedly posed by the talking heads on the TV networks and cable television is how and why so many Muslims, young and old, are living in the West and enjoying all the material and educational benefits bestowed upon them — and also committing hideous acts of terror and perpetrating atrocities upon innocent civilians, even against their very own neighbors.

 

The Times Square bombing attempt on May 1, 2010 by Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad and the 2009 Fort Hood massacre of unarmed members of the military by Major Nidal Hasan (still described by the problematic U.S. administration as “workplace violence”) are well-known.  So too is the attempt at terrorism by a Somali immigrant, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who had come to America at the age of five with his family as a refugee from the hell that is Somalia, and who attempted to kill thousands during a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.  But until the Chechen Muslim brothers succeeded in their massacre at the Boston Marathon, most terror attacks had been thwarted since the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon by the 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers, in which 3,000 people were murdered.  This time, however, the Muslim miscreants succeeded.

 

It was the baleful President Carter who undercut the shah of Iran, an autocrat who jailed and restricted the jihadists and Islamic groups but who was nevertheless a supporter and ally of America.  Just like President Obama, who equally undercut Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the subsequent void was quickly and gleefully filled by Islamic fundamentalists and the Muslim Brotherhood who imposed sharia law and raised the banner of Islamic supremacy.

 

With the shah’s fall came the Ayatollah Khomeini from his exile in France, and almost immediately Carter’s foolish act resulted in a seemingly endless and most definitely humiliating imprisonment of American Embassy staff in Tehran.  Since then Iran has fed the flames of Islamic terror around the globe, arming, and funding terror organizations such as Hamas and Hezb’allah.  Ayatollah Khomeini preached violence to ultimately conquer “the land of the infidel.”  By that he meant Israel, Christian European states and Britain, the United States, and the entire non-Muslim world.  His followers throughout the Muslim and Arab world have all endorsed the legitimacy of jihad against what they call the “enemies of Islam.”  Islamic martyrdom operations — specifically blowing up soft targets like the spectators at sporting events — are guarantees to paradise even if the victims are children.

 

So the answer to those talking heads in the media who endlessly ask why so many Muslims commit such atrocities can be seen both in Koranic passages and in, for instance, the sickening hate indoctrination found in the government-controlled Palestinian TV and radio broadcasts.

 

Here are some of the grisly passages from the Koran:

 

“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191

 

“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123

 

“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5

 

“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85

 

“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”… Koran 9:30

 

“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Koran 5:33

 

“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19

 

“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65

 

“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28

 

“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12

 

“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60

 

And here are some examples of the Palestinian broadcasts that sow hate among children as young as three years of age, spawning yet another generation of terrorists and destroying hope of any true and lasting peace with the embattled State of Israel.

 

For example, the children’s show, The Best Home, included a scene in which a young girl recited a poem filled with messages of hate and other libels demonizing Jews.  The poem made the vile and fantastic assertion that Jews, “Allah’s enemies, the sons of pigs,” defiled the Quran and Jerusalem, “murdered children,” “cut off their limbs,” and “raped the women in the city squares.”

 

This message of vitriol — aimed at the future generation of Palestinians — not only serves to foster hatred and violence, but undermines the very essence of coexistence and peace.  It poisons the minds of innocent young children instead of promoting respect for one another, which is a cornerstone for true peace.

 

In our politically correct world, members of the media and commentators often seek to distance Islam from so many acts of horrific violence, using terms of alleged distinction such as “radical Islam” or “moderate Islam” and so on.  But let us reflect on the words of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the close friend of Iran’s genocidal president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

In reply to the term “moderate Islam,” which was apparently quoted to him by a Western journalist, Erdoğan said: “These descriptions are very ugly; it is offensive and an insult to our religion.  There is no moderate or immoderate Islam.  Islam is Islam, and that’s it.”

 

Certainly, attempting to constantly give, as liberals do, a free pass to Islamic abuses; to play down its violent ambitions of world conquest; to ignore the evident threat to Judeo-Christian civilization from sharia law and imposed dhimmitude merely encourages the violent tendencies of the followers of what has been called “an ideology wrapped in a religion.”

 

The two Chechen brothers thus almost certainly succumbed to the hatred towards non-Muslims which proliferate in Islamic texts, on Islamic websites, and in Islamic social media.  And they are not alone.

 

Victor Sharpe

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/why_do_so_many_muslims_embrace_religious_and_ideological_warfare.html?utm_source=feedly#ixzz2R90BuVgV
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

The Shepherd-King in the Temple

The Shepherd-King in the Temple

21APRby 

Meister_des_Mausoleums_der_Galla_Placidia_in_Ravenna_002

In the liturgical calendar, today is “Good Shepherd Sunday.” Here are a few exegetical and contextual notes about today’s Gospel text.

I love beautiful church buildings. In my own faith journey, my imagination has been captured by the wonder of natural light filtered through stained glass windows, the “lift” felt as one gazes up toward soaring ceilings, the solidity and weight of stone walls and wooden furniture, the soft light of candles, the brilliant colors of banners, vestments and symbols of faith. I am sad for those who have never known the power of such surroundings and how they can aid faith.

But I also know and accept that these are not ultimate things. If Paul and Silas can offer worship in a Philippian jail cell at midnight, then one can worship anywhere. Though I love, respect, and treasure good church architecture and accouterments, I do not put my trust in them for the ultimate well being of my soul or the community of faith.

A key to today’s Gospel passage is its setting: “At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon” (John 10:22-23, NASB).

The Feast of the Dedication was a holiday to remember the re-dedication of the Temple after the victory of Judas Maccabeus about two hundred years before the ministry of Jesus — today it is known as Hanukkah. In his commentary on John’s gospel, Fr. Francis Moloney remarks, “In celebrating Dedication, ‘the Jews’ pride themselves on their reconsecrated Temple, the physical evidence of their belonging to God, and, in some way, of God’s belonging to them.”

The word “temple” in Hebrew is equivalent to “palace.” It represents not only a place of worship for the people, but the residence of the King. In Israel, the King was known as “the Shepherd” of the nation. The image of a shepherd tending the flock was a part of Israel’s imagination from the days of the patriarchs, and all of their great leaders were depicted in this fashion. Of course, the ultimate Shepherd was Yahweh himself, as David confessed in Psalm 23and as the prophets proclaimed (see Ezekiel 34).

One should keep these connections in mind when reading John 10: Shepherd = King = Temple (palace).

Each year, on this Sunday we remember that it was right there, in the palace of the great King, that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the Shepherd of Israel, the one who would gather his sheep and feed and protect them. Indeed, he would give “eternal life” (the life of the age to come) to them. At the culmination of his talk, he even proclaimed, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

In other words, right there in the portico of Solomon, Jesus claimed oneness with the Glorious One the Jewish people believed inhabited the Temple, the One to whom they came to pray and offer sacrifices. On the very occasion when they were celebrating that magnificent building, Jesus stood in their midst and claimed to be the Lord of the Temple, the Shepherd of his people.

What is most important, Jesus said on that day, is not the Temple itself, but listening to the voice of the King.

Jesus Doesn’t Send a Christian to the Nations, But a Church

Wax is definitely one of the Neo-Reformers I like…

The Great Commission was given to a community.

Western readers have tended to read the Great Commission passages (especially Luke 24 and Matthew 28) in light of the autonomous individual. We interpret the commissioning scenes as tasks assigned to individual Christians.

But a proper focus on the corporate dimension of these accounts helps us understand the commissionings in light of the identity Jesus bestows upon a community.

Jesus does not send a Christian to the nations, but a church.

A “Fulfilling” People

By seeking and saving the lost in His ministry, Jesus has formed a new people, the true Israel, who will finally fulfill God’s purposes in the world, in light of God’s own work in fulfilling the promise He made to Abraham. Jesus sends a community to the world, in fulfillment of his work in Israel.

A Foreshadowed People

The communal witness of the church is foreshadowed and promised in the Old Testament, and it sees its arrival as the Holy Spirit descends to fulfill God’s promise in the New Testament. To interpret the commissioning texts as applying only to individuals is to miss the rich, biblical overtones throughout the Scriptures that envision a community serving as salt of the earth and light of the world.

A Gospel-Formed People

The church is united as a witnessing community, but it’s the gospel we witness to that constitutes our identity. After all, the gospel is centered on the Sent One who witnesses to the Father. The person and work of Christ make possible the existence of this witnessing body.

A God-Exalting People

The terminology of witnesses in Luke 24 likely echoes the Lord’s words to Israel in Isaiah 43:10-12:

“You are My witnesses” – this is the Lord’s declaration – “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me. I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me. I alone declared, saved, and proclaimed – and not some foreign god among you. So you are My witnesses” – this is the Lord’s declaration – “and I am God.” (HCSB)

Don’t miss the high Christology on display here. By adopting the same words of Yahweh to Israel, “You are my witnesses,” Jesus is associating Himself with God, and He is associating his followers with Israel.

The implication is that Jesus is the embodiment of Yahweh and His followers are the true Israel who will finally fulfill the task given to God’s people. Witness flows from knowing Jesus.

A Spirit-Empowered People

There is an eschatological dimension to the corporate nature of the “witnesses.”

It is true that Acts 1:8 focuses on the geographical expansion to the ends of the earth, not the eschatological promise of Christ being with the disciples to “the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Still, there is a strong element of eschatology in Acts 1:4-8, since Christ’s last words in Acts are preceded by a question from the disciples regarding the timetable of the kingdom’s restoration to Israel. Their desire to know the timing of God’s kingdom coming in its fullness is rooted in Jewish eschatology. When Jesus brushes off their question, He does not do so because it has no validity, but because He desires to focus on what the disciples are to be (and therefore do) in the meantime.

The disciples will indeed be an eschatological people, not because they know the signs and the times, but because they are indwelled by the Spirit who empowers their witness to the ends of the earth. John Stott is right to describe the church as the “pilgrim people of God.”

The corporate witness of the church is missionary in its purpose and eschatological in its framing.

Presence and Proclamation

The most concentrated power of witness is in the corporate, common life of the church united on mission for Christ. The church that is truly “present” in a community will necessarily proclaim the gospel. The communal identity of the church is essential as an undergirding of our proclamation as we seek to fulfill the Great Commission.