It seems that the Manhattan Declaration has somewhat in common with extreme fundamentalism.  Both obscure the gospel through moralism.  God and country seem to be getting much attention these days.  Sadly, though that is a good thing, God gets the short end of the stick so-to-speak.  The gospel gets muddled so that those who believe in justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and those who believe in a sacrament or works based justification are all considered Christians.

While most fundamentalists would not do that, they do spend far too much time trying to change people from the outside in, rather than plainly proclaiming the gospel as God’s saving power that will change people from the inside out.

With this in mind, I decided to post this exposition of Galatians 1:1-10.

Here at Fundamentally Changed, we love Christian morality.  We love the USA.

More than that, we love the gospel, and will not compromise it for any of the other.

No Compromise

Gal 1:1-10

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Gal 1:1-5)

Wasting no time, Paul identifies himself. His identification, however, is more than just a name. He is not Paul, but an apostle as well. Neither is he an apostle of men, but an apostle of Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead. In other words, Paul is stressing to the people that he was both called and sent of the Father and the Son. He was neither chosen by the vote of any assembly, nor sent by any man. Usually when one speaks in this manner the hearers should beware, because abusive leaders are characteristically quick to assert their authority while humble leaders are slow to do so. Authority is easily and quickly abused. Paul, however, is not of the sort to do so. In fact, Paul is somewhat reluctant and cautious when asserting his authority. This is evident in his letter to the Corinthians (2Cor 11:30;12:11). Paul would rather rejoice in having been made weak rather than in the fact that God had honored him with the gift and office of the apostolate. It is indeed true that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ and the Father who sent Jesus. Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion confirms that truth (See Acts 9:1-22).¹

Why does Paul speak of himself in this manner? When one considers the epistle to the Galatians as a whole it is seen that Paul had preached the gospel to them and they had believed it. Sadly, there were those who corrupted the gospel and misled the people. While doing so, it seems that Paul’s authority, calling, commission, and status as an apostle was called into question. Some have come saying that angels had given them another gospel (See Gal 1:8,9), and others probably had asserted that they had more authority and knowledge than Paul, as they were from Jerusalem and were associated with the Jerusalem church.² Reluctant though he might have been, Paul was forced to present his credentials and explain his authority for the sake of the gospel.

Paul uses his normal greeting by expressing his desire that his readers receive grace and peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. It is necessary that we notice Paul’s stating that grace is not from the Father alone, but from Jesus Christ who is our Lord.³ He continues his greeting while laying a foundation for the whole of the letter by stating that grace and peace comes through the redemptive work of Jesus who died for our sins, and to deliver us from this present evil age. He makes a similar statement to Titus telling him that Jesus “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Tit 2:14) Paul mentions Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection here both to show us that we receive grace and peace through Him as well as to establish from the beginning his own confidence that we are set free from sin by God through Christ’s redemptive work. This is a corrective to the legalism that was prevalent in the Galatian churches. We can only stand in awe of such inspired wisdom that enables a man to write an introduction that both wishes his readers well and establishes such a strong and firm theological foundation for his letter.

Paul states that the redemptive work of Christ was according to God’s will. This, too is a statement calculated to help the Galatians see that God’s way of salvation is through Jesus alone, and not through the works of the law. God planned for Jesus to come and die for our sins. Jesus Himself said as much when he said, “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.” (Jn 12:27) Peter would later speak of Jesus’ life, ministry, and redemptive work as being God’s plan (See Acts 2:22-24;4:27,28).⁴ Paul is serious about expressing to the Galatians the fact that Jesus is God’s ordained way of salvation. If he can establish this truth from the beginning, he will be able to build on it for the purpose of destroying legalism.

While the final part of Paul’s greeting may seem to be simply an expression of praise, it is actually much, much more than that. While he says, “to whom be glory for ever and ever”, Paul is not only praising God, but also stating God’s plan and purpose in sending Christ to die and rise again for our redemption. God’s goal in all that He does is for His glory. In the letter to the Romans, Paul expresses awe and adoration when contemplating God’s glorious plan, saying, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” (Rom 11:33-36) Everything was made by God for Himself and for His glory.⁵

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Gal 1:6-10)

Without further ado Paul plunges into his message to the Galatians. Normally, Paul gives thanks for the ones to whom he writes. He does this even for the carnal Corinthians (See 1Cor 1:4-9). There are no thanks, however, for the Galatians. Neither does Paul commend them for any good in the lives. Instead, Paul immediately says, “I am SHOCKED at you!”

Shocked? Indeed. The Galatians had removed themselves from God the Father, the One who had called them into the grace of Christ.⁶ They had fallen away from the Father. Thinking to have improved themselves, they had actually deserted God. How is it that they had deserted the Father? The Father had called them into the grace of Christ, but they have now abandoned the truth of grace for a legalistic self-righteousness. They had traded gospels.

Paul’s complaint against the Galatians is that they had left the Father for another gospel- message of glad tidings.⁷ That message, however, was not gospel. There was simply no good news to be found it that message. As a matter of fact, it was only a perversion of the true gospel. The true gospel is about Christ, but this gospel is about self effort instead of Divine grace in the person of Christ. Remember, “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (Jn 1:17) Thus the gospel of grace is the gospel of Christ. We cannot have gospel without Jesus and the grace of God given to us through Him. Sadly, there were those who were changing the good news into something that is of an opposite character than that of grace.⁸ The Galatians had fallen away from the Father by accepting this pseudo-gospel that rejected His grace.

Notice that Paul knew that the Galatians were neither experiencing and enjoying God’s grace, nor the new “gospel” that they had received. They Galatians were being troubled and agitated by those who changed the gospel of Christ. The gospel is the power of God to save those who believe (Rom 1:16), and it is the good news of God’s glorious happiness that He chooses to share with us (1Tim 1:11;Mt 25:21). To change this gospel of grace and glory is to take all of the joy out of it. It is no wonder that the Galatians were troubled. They now stood in doubt and fear about their souls. No longer were they standing securely in the grace of God⁹, but were dependent upon themselves for their acceptance before God. They were troubled indeed with heart trouble. They were unsettled, insecure, doubting, and struggling to conform to the demands that this pseudo-gospel placed upon them. By accepting this perversion of the good news, rejecting grace, and moving away from God the Father (Isn’t is precious to think of God as a caring Father instead of as a harsh taskmaster?) the Galatians had allowed these false teachers to agitate their once peaceful hearts- hearts that had once had peace because of the grace of God in Christ.

As we read verses eight and nine we see Paul pulling off the gloves to fight with bare fists. He simply states that he had warned them in the past of false teachers, and now warns them again. His warning is also a command: excommunicate the false teachers. Let them be anathema! They do not love the Lord Jesus, so they are accursed by God¹⁰, and should be removed from the fellowship of the church. Should they protest that they had seen a vision, or received their teachings from an angel, Paul emphatically states that they would still be accursed and should be excommunicated. He understands that Satan and his angels often disguise themselves as the angels of light and ministers of righteousness.¹¹ Paul demands that the Galatians not even have fellowhip with him if he changes and does not preach the gospel of grace. Salvation by grace is that important. Apart from grace there is no salvation; neither is there salvation apart from Jesus. (The writer recommends that the reader pause at this time and read John 14:1-6, Acts 4:12, and Eph 2:1-10.) It is for this reason that we should take a no compromise stance when it comes to grace and the gospel. To allow any tampering with the gospel of grace will be to allow the perversion of the gospel. When the gospel is perverted the souls of men are jeopardized.

Paul now asks, “am I now trying to please men, or am I trying to please God?” He is, of course, trying to convince men of the truth while seeking to please God by speaking truly. Sadly, it seems that the false teachers had claimed that Paul was a man-pleaser. He admits that he was in the past by saying, “if I still pleased men, I would not be the servant of Christ”.¹² His former life as a Pharisee was indeed a life of pleasing men. That had changed, however. Now Paul seeks to please God. One cannot charge him with being a men-pleaser, as he has just declared accursed those who preached contrary to grace. This would by no means please men. It would anger them instead.

This passage tells us much about the heart of the apostle as well as the heart of God. God simply is not pleased when the gospel is distorted in any manner. Whether it is by grace being used as an excuse to sin¹³, or by grace being replaced by works, God despises the perversion of the gospel. Too often we are prone to be men-pleasers. We want so very badly for people to think well of us. We desire to allow the world the opportunity to do as they please and still profess Christianity, so we lead them to believe that they can live as they please and still be saved despite warnings to the contrary¹⁴. On the other hand, we may seek to show our fellow Christians how much that we agree with them and impose on people rules and regulations that are either unBiblical or extra-Biblical, and tell them that they must observe these things if they are to please God. In so doing we are often found guilty of transgressing against grace. How truly sad this is. It is time for those who preach and teach the Word of God to sound a blast of the trumpet against false teaching and false teachers. It is time to stand firmly for the gospel of the grace of God which is designed to give glory to God. Let us accept and proclaim God’s grace in His Son Jesus Christ and preach the gospel.

Let there be NO COMPROMISE!

1See also 1Cor 15:9,10;2Cor 11:21-33;12:1-13

2We do not definitely know this, but can reasonably infer that something similar to that must have happened, because Paul emphasizes that he had a relationship with the apostles in Jerusalem although he was not dependent upon them for his theological knowledge (See Gal 1:15-24;2:1-10). In fact, having heard of Paul’s conversion to Christ, the Judaean churches glorified God because of him.

3See 1Pet 5:10 cf Jn 1:16,17 God is the God of all grace, but Grace came through Christ.

4Paul also notes that Jesus’ redemptive work fulfills the Scriptures. Cf Rom 1:1,2;1Cor 15:1-4

5See also Col 1:15-17;Rev 4:9-11. Also, notice Jesus’ words in Jn 12;27,28;13:31,32. Of special significance is John’s statement that our sins are forgiven for His name’s sake (1Jn 2:12).

6The Father calls us to the Son by the Spirit. See Gal 1:15;Jn 6:44;Mt 16:13-17;1Cor 12:1-3

7The gospel is glad tidings, or good news. See Lk 2:10,11;Rom 10:15

8 It seems to be a trivial matter to teach the Law and affirm works, but this does more damage than human reason can imagine. Not only does it mar and obscure the knowledge of grace, but it also removes Christ and all His blessings, and it completely overthrows the Gospel, as Paul says in this passage. The cause of this great evil is our flesh. Steeped in sins, it sees no way to extricate itself except by works. This is why it wants to live in the righteousnesses of the Law and to rest in trust in its own works. Therefore it knows nothing or nearly nothing about the doctrine of faith and grace, without which the conscience cannot find peace.

Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26: Luther’s works, vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works (26:vii-55). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

9In Rom 5:1,2, Paul states that we stand in grace. Not only are we saved by grace through faith, but we are secure in that grace. Our very standing before God is “in grace”, not in works of our own.

10See Jn 3:19-21;1Cor 16:22

11 If he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Cor 11:4) Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Cor 11:13-15)

12See Mt 6:24;Eph 6:5-8;Col 3:22-25;4:1

13See Jude 1:4

14See Mt 7:21-27;Gal 5:19-21;Heb 10:24-31

I found this image while surfing the net. This of course is a paraphrasing of the actual indicated passage but the meaning is accurately captured.

By Pervez Hoodbhoy
Guardian – 25 November 2009

The question: Can Islam be reconciled with science?

Material resources are immaterial to the current sorry state of science in Islam. To do science, it is first necessary to accept the key premises underlying science – causality and the absence of divine intervention in physical processes, and a belief in the existence of physical law. Without the scientific method you cannot have science because science is all about objective and rational thinking. Science demands a mindset that incessantly questions and challenges assumptions, not one that relies upon received wisdom. If this condition is not fulfilled, all the money and machines in the world make no difference.

Can Islam accept the premises of science? There are some versions of the religion that can, and others that simply cannot.

But before proceeding further, let me distinguish between ancient science – which Muslims did brilliantly – and modern science. They are not quite the same but are so often confused together that it is important to make the point. The ancient science of the Greeks, Chinese, Muslims, and Hindus was a rather limited affair that did not put any theological system under undue stress. Scholars observed, drew a few conclusions, and wrote a treatise that only a few could read. It was inconceivable at that time to imagine that the workings of the entire physical world could be understood from just a handful of basic principles. There was almost no link to technology and therefore no impact upon how people actually lived.

Not so for modern science. This product of the European Enlightenment is now the essence of a universal human civilisation. Although it was fuelled by the discoveries of ancient science, including Muslim science, the Enlightenment had an impact that was totally different from the stellar works of individual ancient scholars.

Modern science defines our world by constantly creating new technologies. It also claims to explain everything from the scale of the atom to the universe, and from times that range from the present to the very birth of the universe. It evokes resistance among traditionalists because it offers an explanation of how humans emerged from the depths of biological evolution to their present form. All this makes it hugely different from ancient science, which is what the Greeks and Muslims – as well as Chinese and Hindus – had done so splendidly in their respective times. So if a civilisation did great ancient science, this does not automatically mean that it is equally qualified for doing modern science.

To return to the issue of the compatibility of science with Islam: at one level the for-and-against arguments resemble those for Christianity. Islam has had its share of pro-science reformers, such as the 19th century figure from India, Syed Ahmad Khan and the Iranian Jamaluddin Afghani, who argued that miracles specified in the Qur’an must be understood in broad allegorical terms rather than literally. Following the rationalist (Mutazillite) tradition of 9th century Islam, Muslim rationalists insisted on an interpretation that was in conformity with the observed truths of science. This meant doing away with cherished beliefs, also held by Christians, of the great flood and Adam’s descent from heaven, etc. It was a risky proposition at that time but it was far safer than it is today when the mood has shifted away from empirical inquiry.

On the other hand, fundamentalist versions of all religions, including Islam, are philosophically averse to the notion of material forces running the world. They insist that the divine hand constantly intervenes, and so individual wellbeing requires constant supplications to the powers “up above”. This belief system ascribes earthquakes, as well as drought and floods, to divine wrath. On this basis, it would be fair to say that Saudi Islam, or the various Wahhabi-Salafi-Deobandi versions, reject material causality and hence the very basis of modern science.

Shia Islam, on the other hand, while politically assertive and insurrectionist, is less inclined towards pre-modern beliefs. Ayatollah Khomeini was quite content to keep science and Islam in separate domains. He once remarked that there is no such thing as Islamic mathematics. Nor did he take a position against Darwinism. In fact, Iran is one of the rare Muslim countries where the theory of evolution is taught. Today it is a front-runner in stem-cell research – something which President George Bush and his neo-conservative administration had sought to ban from the United States.

But there is another side of the coin: Khomeini also developed the doctrine known as “guardianship of the clergy” (vilayat-e-faqih) which gives mullahs much wider powers than they had generally exercised in the past. Instead of being simple religious leaders, in post-revolutionary Iran they became political leaders as well. This echoed the broader Islamic fusion of the spiritual and the temporal, something that science is acutely uncomfortable with.

To conclude: scientific progress in Muslim countries requires greater personal and intellectual freedom. Without this there can be no thinking, ideas, innovations, discoveries, or progress. The real challenge is not better equipment or faster internet connectivity. Instead, to move ahead in science, Muslims need freedom from dogmatic beliefs and a culture that questions rather than obeys.

Do you think that fundamentalists blur the gospel and come near to replacing it with moralism?

Ben at Paleoevangelical thinks so, and notes that there is a parallel in the Manhattan Declaration.

Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics recently held an excellent lecture and discussion on the topic “How Dangerous is Religion?” The lecturer was the Australian philosopher, Tony Coady, who argued that religion is not dangerous. He did a fine job of sorting through the complexity of the claim, including the difficulty of defining religion for such purposes, and the fact that religion can be used for both good and ill (so too with non-religious ideologies). More interesting still was the subsequent discussion. A number of those present offered the following critique of Coady’s argument: while religion itself isn’t necessarily dangerous, fanaticism and extremism are dangerous and certain features of religion make it more susceptible than atheism to those pitfalls. What are the features of religion that create this propensity? Coady’s critics suggested that religion’s dependence on ‘faith’ means it cannot be accountable to rational reflection and critique. While this understanding of faith, as an alternative to reason, is not what Christianity means by the term, I will leave that for another day. Instead I want to respond to their broader claim: Religion is not accountable to reasoned reflection.

The claim is an important one that deserves to be taken seriously. First, however, we should note that even if religious people are more likely to be fanatical than atheists this is not by itself a strike against religion. It depends on what alternatives the absence of religion has to offer. If the alternative to fanaticism is apathy and quietism in the face of injustice, I’m not sure I’d make the trade. Many of the Christian leaders of the American civil rights movement were considered fanatics for their devotion to the cause; Martin Luther King was investigated by the FBI for alleged radical ties. Bishop Tutu was considered an extremist for his opposition to South African apartheid. Of course, Christians fell on both sides of both issues, as did atheists. My point is that fanaticism might be a worthwhile risk in a quest against injustice, over and against alternative risks (such as the risk of apathy). Of course, it might not be worth the risk. Which risks are to be preferred is a complex question, and people of good will could be expected to fall on both sides of the question. It is a parallel case to how pre-modern and early modern political philosophers tended to fear chaos and mob-rule above all else, while the classical liberalism of modernity tends to fear cruelty above all else. We have to pick our poison. But on all this, I would expect Coady’s critics to agree: before we say “Let’s prevent fanaticism by eliminating religion,” we’d want to know what we’re getting in its place.

Second, I turn to what is my primary concern. The critics’ claim is simply too general to be of any use. To say ‘Religion is not accountable to reasoned reflection’ is like saying ‘Sport is violent.’ It is? Rugby can be violent, as can American football. Boxing and mixed martial arts are violent, but lawn bowling and golf are not. So the answer is, and must be, ‘It depends.’ So too with religion. The theology of Thomas Aquinas takes reasoned reflection extremely seriously; in particular, Aquinas holds himself rigorously accountable to his understanding of Aristotelian philosophy, which he combines with what he learns from Augustine (who himself learned from Plato, but also Cicero), as well as the Bible, as interpreted by various others. So the charge wouldn’t apply to Aquinas, at least not without a great deal of further explanation. For similar reasons it doesn’t apply to countless others such as Luther, Calvin, and Barth. We should note in particular those late scholastic and early modern thinkers whose work comfortably spanned across disciplines such as Theology, Literature, and Philosophy, before those disciplines were as segregated in the academy as they now are. Think of Ockham, Erasmus, Milton, Locke, and others. As for how even one of these thinkers relate reason to revelation, or theology to philosophy—that is a subject for countless dissertations. At the lecture, Coady called one critic’s comment ‘Nonsense’ and I think this is what he had in mind. To make a general claim without engaging, or even showing an awareness of, the genuine diversity among religious believers on this question is clearly missing a step.

On the other hand, I have been to fundamentalist churches in the southern United States where some of the members do fall under the critics’ description. They stubbornly resist my most charitable attempts to engage them intellectually. But even these cases can be understood only by reference to the particular historical narrative under which they emerged. This ultimately traces, as various historians have shown, to disagreements within the church about how to respond to the Enlightenment, disagreements which came to a head in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A certain brand of fundamentalist Christianity saw the excesses of the Enlightenment as a feature of higher education as such, thus those churches became militantly anti-intellectual, and hence you can now find Southern Baptists who think the world is a few thousand years old. But this isn’t a feature of ‘religion’ any more than fistfights in ice hockey are a feature of ‘sport.’ (Perhaps what the critics really have in mind is that such anti-intellectualism reveals how public reason is exercised differently by The Educated as opposed to The Masses, but that is a problematic feature of democracy, not religion.)

When it is suggested that religion exempts itself from rational engagement, I wonder what people think goes on in theology tutorials at Oxford. If any of my students responded to my critiques of their tutorial papers by saying, “Well, it’s just a matter of faith so that’s the end of it,” I would tell them to go away, stop wasting my time, and try again next week. So what does go on? I have an analogy to propose that might help Coady’s critics understand better. Were they to find this a helpful analogy, I think we could then investigate what lies at the heart of their objection to religion’s public role. Because despite the objections listed above, I think the critics’ concern is an important one.

What goes on in the Christian theology with which I am familiar would probably strike Coady’s critics as rather like both philosophy and literature. The discipline is primarily an engagement with texts, and thus requires the sorts of skills demanded of a student of literature or, perhaps in some cases, of a legal theorist adjudicating cases. It is true that theology requires a certain imaginative ‘entering ‘in’ to the texts in question, but this is not unlike the immanent critique expected of a philosophy student reading Mill or a medical student watching Gattaca. The student cannot respond by saying ‘Mill is rubbish’ or ‘I hate the genre of science fiction.’ She must take on the assumptions of the text so as to engage it internally, on its own terms. So too with the texts central to the discipline of theology.

Perhaps what the critics really have in mind as objectionable is that the texts central to theology—the Bible and, for Catholics at least, certain papal teachings—have a certain kind of authoritative status that makes them exempt from rational engagement. Not only is this untrue, it misunderstands the role that interpretation plays in any text—not just in weighing its normative force but also in simply reading it. I think the role the Bible actually plays is more analogous to the way a favourite novel might become ‘authoritative.’ For example, one of my favourites is Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning To Kill A Mockingbird, especially for its protagonist Atticus Finch. I wish I could be the sort of father that Atticus is. I wish I were as kind to my children, as wise to my colleagues, as generous to those less fortunate.

In this sense, the novel and its protagonist have a certain kind of authoritative status for me. And this influences my public life, including my voting habits, what I choose to write, and so on. Now in a sense, I am taking this ‘on faith,’ for what I find compelling about Atticus isn’t something for which I can offer a deductive proof. I could not necessarily persuade you to model your parenting after Atticus as well. I simply find it compelling, and it may well be that when I reach the end of my life I will regret having Atticus as my hero. I may say, ‘What a fool I was to pour my life out working, as he did, to repair injustices against racial minorities, to help my children see past disability and difference, to display character and integrity even when acting in secret.’ I might conclude that, but until I’ve lived more of my life, I won’t know for sure. Until then, I’m going on faith: I cast my lot with Atticus.

But this doesn’t mean that the novel’s authoritative status within my moral imagination is exempt from rational thought. Even someone who doesn’t share my love for the book could potentially persuade me (a) intra-novel, that my reading of Atticus’s character is faulty or (b) extra-novel, that I ought not model my life on Atticus because the book is morally corrupting. So too with Christians in public. If someone seeks to ban the sale of pork because it is unclean, we need not simply throw up our hands and say, ‘There’s no reasoning with these people!’ There is a long way we can go provided we are willing to generously enter-in to the perspective of our anti-pork interlocutor, seeking reasons that might persuade her given her own presuppositions. This is what philosophy tutors expect of their students; it is what a literature tutor expects even from a student who hates the set text for that week. It is certainly what I aspire to when engaging fellow theologians or a philosopher: I would read his work, the work of those he is drawing on (whether Aristotle or Kant or Mill or Singer, or whoever), and so on. Eventually, of course, we might reach an impasse, but that’s true of all conversations.

Now in light of all this, is there any merit to the critics’ comments at the recent lecture? I think there is, and it’s well-worth exploring. But it would need to begin from a different point, one far less general. They claimed that the way religion relates reason to revelation can create fanaticism. To evaluate that, we’d need to have a much more particular description of religion in mind. Perhaps we could instead ask, ‘Does recent Roman Catholic theology run the risk of fanaticism because it is hierarchical?’ Or, ‘Does American-style Christian fundamentalism run the risk of fanaticism because it is (a) nationalist, (b) anti-intellectual and (c) Biblicist?’ (Or even, ‘Are Platonists potential fanatics because they have a singular view of the good?’—which was the argument of Richard Rorty, who considered epistemological foundationalism dangerous in the same way someone like Julian Savulescu considers religion dangerous.) Those are all worthwhile questions, but asked in these terms we see how complex they really are.

It is a hopeful sign that in May 2010, Savulescu and Stephen Clarke are planning a Uehiro Centre event on this topic of tolerance and religion in public. And in August 2010, the European Society of the Philosophy of Religion will meet in Oxford for their annual conference, the theme of which will be Religion in the Public Square. Both events will be worthy places to continue this conversation.

–John Perry

Slapdash is (or was in 2007) a single woman who questioned her previously held views on abstinence. She wrote an excellent post expressing her questions and frustrations with the abstinence-only movement. Here are some highlights:

Basically I grew up with a fear of physicality, and no matter what anybody said about all sins being equal in the eyes of God, having premarital sex was obviously the worst sin anybody could commit.

For a long time, though, that was okay. I wasn’t a very active dater in high school or college, and I had a pretty calm and quiet libido. I pretty much assumed that anybody who had premarital sex just couldn’t control themselves – it was a character flaw or failure.

When I had my first real boyfriend, at 26, I still wasn’t terribly tempted to have sex with him, though my libido was starting to wake up. In that case, two things really kept our sexual appetites at bay: we were dating long-distance so rarely saw each other; and, well, he was gay. At the time I just thought he was being a good Catholic.

Fast forward a few years. I’m 30 and suddenly I am thinking about sex a lot. My next serious boyfriend and I have a much harder time keeping our clothes on, but both wanting to be good Christians, we draw at least a few lines that we don’t cross.

But now I’m in my thirties and all the purity/abstinence messages I’ve heard since junior high aren’t very satisfying anymore. Good Lord, in biblical times was anybody expected to live as a chaste person for a decade or more after they’ve physically matured? People were married off at 14 or something back then… does that stuff still apply today, when people are putting off marriage longer and longer, and when church demographics are skewing toward women so much that it’s noticeably harder than ever to find a husband?

I started to think that the church really doesn’t know how to handle singles who haven’t married off by age 25. So how do they handle it? They call singleness a “gift”. And by “they” I mean married people. If a single person says it, they are probably trying to convince themselves as much as anyone else. (“Singleness is a gift” is complete horse shit to nearly every single Christian I have ever known.) They have talks reminding us of the great gift our virginity will be to our spouse. (Really? I am not sure I care that much… the gift I would want is for my spouse to be disease-free, not necessarily sex-free.) They call on the Apostle Paul, who eschewed marriage as a distraction from serving the Lord, as a model for us singles. (Nice…the same Apostle Paul who says women should obey their husbands and not speak in church.) They talk of Jesus being our spouse. (Yuck!) They claim Song of Solomon is a spiritual ode to God’s love for us. (Really? It reads like down and dirty medieval porn.) They say that God is getting us ready to meet our spouse – cleaning our internal house, so to speak. (Whatever. I have a lot of friends whose lives were messes when they met their spouses.)

Then I look around the room at the other adult leaders and friends I have at church, and count off the number of them that I know have had, or are having, sex with their boyfriends and girlfriends. And none of them is being rained upon with fire and brimstone. They haven’t become degenerates. Their lives haven’t gone to hell.

And I start thinking that this whole adult abstinence bit is really a crock of shit. The last straw comes when a close friend gives me Lauren Winner’s book Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity as encouragement for me to continue being abstinent, and then four months later has sex with her new boyfriend. Given all the mounting theological doubts I am entertaining by this time, I decide right then and there that holding out on sex to please a God I’m no longer sure exists is an act of legalistic futility.

Read the rest of the post here.

Thanks for sharing!

Over these past few years I know what it has been like to be on the top of your faith and I know what it is like to almost lose it. I know the arguments for both accepting and rejecting faith in Christ. I know how true Christianity and false Christianity look like and have experienced both sides of the proverbial coin.

And one major problem has allowed me to examine why I truly believe in Christ: hypocrisy.  This one major problem that has spread throughout the body of Christ is why I have wondered why I believe in Christ in the first place. This one major problem has made me wonder is it worth fellowshipping with those who call themselves Christians. And this one major problem has almost destroyed my faith, my ministry, and my life.

Jerks—I can’t stand them. If anyone is honest with himself or herself they would probably say the same thing. I mean, who says that they love jerks? I mean anyone with half a brain would probably say, “I can’t stand jerks.” I mean that’s just me, but who knows these days. But it seems like the epidemic of “jerk-itis” is on the flippin’ rise. I see girls that are in love with macho jerks; I see people in government that are elitist jerks; I see corporate executives that are greedy and are ravenous jerks; I see jerks, jerks, and more jerks.

But the one place I have seen more jerks in my life than any other place unfortunately is not in the clubs, Washington, D.C. , or on Wall Street—nope, the place I have seen my fair share of jerks is in the church. Now it is one thing for some atheist to write this statement; but this is coming from someone who is a passionate believer in Christ, who loves Christ and His church, and was a former “jerk.”

You see, when I first became a Christian I was brought up more with the mentality of being a legalist jerk than being a compassionate servant. For me it was all about being right and wrong and it was about who could be the most holy and dress in the best suit. It was about politics and about CCM (hating it, then liking it, then having to hear it is the “devil’s music,” then finally liking it). It was about going to that “Christian college,” and abstinence and about dating is bad and courtship is good. In the end it was about me, myself, and I. I didn’t even grasp the picture of what authentic Christianity looked like until recently in life. All I was seeing previously was hypocrisy, fundamentalism, legalism, and everything that the Lord hates but the things that permeate the Church.

Jerks are everywhere man and they come in all shapes and sizes. They are nonbelievers but they are believers as well. I am not saying that the things above like CCM, abstinence, and courtship are bad things. But having the attitude that because I like or practice those things makes me better than you is “jerkish.” What we need to do to eradicate the “jerk-itis” syndrome that is going around the church today is replace everything “we hate” with the royal law as James puts it: to love God and to love others. If we would become a band of believers that were known more for who we love than for what we hate—the world wouldn’t have to see us as bold-face bigots or hatemongers; we could be seen as revolutionaries, as compassionate servants of the kingdom desiring life change in every individual life.

I have been there and done that when it comes to being a “jerk,” and now I abandon it for something authentic—a true servant of Christ. Laying aside any fundamentalism, or legalism, or judgmentalism, or homophobia, or hypocrisy, or anything that would hinder me from opening up the truth of the gospel with others—I serve God with all my heart and love God and love others.

Here’s a “short test” to see if you pass or fail the “jerk test”:

“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.” (James 3:9-10)

So if you praise God yet curse men, you pass the “jerk test” with flying colors, and if you don’t, well then you fail. If we were honest with ourselves, I would say we all have passed and have been there, done that. Let’s resolve never to commit the act that James has spoken of, but let us always do the following:

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right.” (James 2:8)

[this is from a series of articles entitled: “Why I Hate…”]

In the last few days I’ve been lucky enough to experience a conjunction of two fascinating events.

Last week while listening to a conversation about religion and whether the idea has any merit, I heard the person defending religion strike a firm blow against religion by employing what’s generally referred to as the Watchmaker Analogy. Then, only a few days ago, a relative received through their door – hand-delivered – a newsletter from the local Christian chapel proclaiming the glory of Christ Jesus, as they tend to do.

I hadn’t realised that the chapel in question was run by a fundamentalist; a chap who identifies himself in the newsletter as the ‘evangelist’ of the chapel. The newsletter offered several rather excitable items about how wonderful Jesus is – and I don’t doubt He may be – and also a dubious piece about how a local stone circle, dated to around 4,000 BC, proved that ancient man was monotheistic. I’ll maybe come back to that one.

Still, with the recent example of the Watchmaker Analogy still fresh in my mind, I was intrigued to find that his newsletter featured an article based around a common creationist argument called Irreducible Complexity.

Because I’m likely to ramble on about both of these, I’ll deal with Irreducible Complexity first, and tackle the Watchmaker Analogy in a separate post.

Irreducible Complexity (IC) is, in essence, the argument that the existence of a system that must be complex to do its job is proof that the system was designed and created ‘as is’, and thus proof of a designer/creator. That is, the system couldn’t have gone through any intermediate developmental phase because if it was not exactly as it is, it could not work.

This is usually used in the denial of evolution: a point of contention for many Bible literalists, who for some reason insist that their all-powerful God could not possibly have used an automated or semi-automated mechanism of creation. God, they say, could not have used an evolutionary system but must instead have had to make each and every individual by hand. Except that, apparently, creationists will allow for what they call ‘micro-evolution’ – meaning that parents can create offspring, who might resemble them, take a combination of their traits, but can’t possibly be part of an overall process of ‘macro-evolution’. It’s all very complex.

Which brings me back to the point: complexity. The chapel newsletter carries an article about birdsong. Most of the article I agree with: birdsong is pure and beautiful natural sound; birds are extremely skilful musicians; birds sing to mark territory and in courtship. And so on. There are some claims that I don’t know are true, but can imagine may be: birds sometimes sing just for the joy of it; birds can remember a great many different songs; some birds have compound vocal cords and can sing more than one note at once. But then, in its last section, the article goes off at a bizarre and rather depressing angle:

“[Evolution] does not explain why birdsongs are so beautiful, when a simple shriek would have done the job.”

“Evolution also cannot explain how the voice mechanism of birds developed. It could not have developed gradually, because many parts are needed all at once for a bird to be able to sing. Birdsong is powerful evidence that the creator exists.”

This is a classic example of the argument of Irreducible Complexity:

• Birds require a particular configuration of vocal components in order to produce songs that sound beautiful to us.
• If any of those parts was not present, the bird could not sing.
• Therefore, the bird could not have evolved.
• If birds did not evolve, then the theory of evolution is disproved.
• If the theory of evolution is disproved, then everything must have been created by the God of the Bible.

This is painfully obvious nonsense. On all counts.

Firstly, birdsong as we hear it today is the result of modern birds’ vocal systems. Ancient birds may not have produced such intricate song.

May use more than 140 characters.

If a bird uses its song to defend its territory from rivals and to attract mates, then the bird with the best song will have the best chance of mating and passing on its genes – including those that affect the vocal system – to the next generation. This is how natural selection works.

That a bird’s song sounds beautiful to us is interesting, but it’s entirely irrelevant to the bird. Their concern is whether their song does the job they need it to do. The newsletter mentions that “a simple shriek would have done the job”, apparently ignoring the fact that ’song’ of many birds is merely a shriek. And it does do the job, it’s true: but if a songbird is attracted to someone based on the complexity of their song, then it’s to be expected that the most successful in breeding will be those who produce the most complex song. Thus, natural selection dictates that the tendency for complex song will be reinforced over the generations.

Millions of years ago, it’s quite likely that there were no ’songbirds’, or that their ’song’ was simply a yell or a growl or a chirp. Now suppose that one particular proto-bird found that a slight genetic variation lent him the ability to make two slightly differing sounds, rather than just the standard one. Being interesting for this reason (bearing in mind this was before the invention of TV, and you had to make your own entertainment), the chap in question might well find himself mobbed by adoring girls. He gets a whole lot of mating done, and causes a large number of kids to be born, many of whom share his unique ability. They’re genetically predisposed to be able to make those two distinct sounds. They’re the most successful breeders of their generation, and sooner or later, two sounds is just ordinary. At which point, the bird who’s born with the ability to make three slightly different sounds becomes the flavour of the month. And so on.

But there’s really no point explaining all this. Those who understand natural selection and evolution will know how this works. Those who fear the very notion – who believe that it’s lies spread by the Devil to lure people away from God – won’t learn about it because they know they’re right.

The problem for me is the utter irrationality of the literalist, creationist position. And I say this advisedly, knowing that to atheists and anti-religionists, my own beliefs as a pagan would be (and are) considered deeply irrational, stupid and primitive.

But even I have problems with the argument as set out above. There is an insistence, oddly enough common to creationist and anti-religionist alike, that science and religion are in fierce opposition and cannot in any way be reconciled. One must ultimately defeat and eradicate the other. The notion held by creationists is that if you wish to prove your religion is correct, you must undermine and disprove science. This idea is in itself ridiculous. Science and religion are like wave and particle: they are two separate, distinct ways of looking at something which is in reality neither of the two, and they both have their uses, but ultimately they are a distinction that nature itself does not observe. They are categories that result from the human desire to order and organise, not from any observed characteristic of the universe.

To say that evolution must be disproved in order for religion to be proved is gibberish. Evolution exists – that much we know, despite the protests of the creationists. Exactly how it works, well, that we’re still learning about. That there is a ‘theory of evolution’ doesn’t call into question the existence of the process – it only refers to our tentative description of how that process works. But in truth, the factual reality of evolution has no bearing on the likelihood of the existence – or not – of any divine creative force. Creationists argue that evolution cannot be true because God exists. Richard Dawkins and his followers argue that God cannot exist because evolution exists. Both claims lack logical validity. If God – or any comparable entity or intelligent – exists, then evolution is simply a tool of creation. If God does not exist, then evolution is simply a mechanism.

This article was written by John MacArthur in Pulpit Magazine (A Ministry of Shepherds Fellowship).  This is worthwhile reading for anyone in political and/or spiritual leadership.

——————————————————————————–

The Manhattan Declaration

Posted: Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009

(By John MacArthur)

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.

In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

John MacArthur

The right’s ever-present critiques of “judicial activism” are probably best understood as expressing discomfort with the notion of the Constitution as a sword, a way of not just halting, but affirmatively rolling back prior encroachments by the majority into the minority’s solace. How curious, then, that Obama’s ascendancy would coincide with conservative attempts to use the Constitution as a means of social change — in the opposite direction, and without the intellectual backing that continues to power the progressive Constitution.

More and more, we hear conservatives tout the Constitution as a document of “limited government,” therefore antithetical to everything President Obama stands for (e.g.). Although we’ve previously addressed that question specifically, and legally, we might be giving our opponents too much credit. While the Constitution does create a “limited government,” no conservative commentator has ever truly traced the logical steps between that point and the conclusion that, say, health care reform would be unconstitutional. Rather, most commentators seem content to rest conservatism’s case on the general sentiment that government is and ought to be “limited,” whatever that means.

For a political theory premised elsewhere on the idea that constitutional “feelings” shouldn’t compel constitutional rules, this intellectual laziness is unforgivable. The “rights” revolution that, over the course of the twentieth century, transformed the Constitution into a profoundly countermajoritarian document relied upon a rigorously intellectual attempt to re-ground the Constitution in democratic theory, addressing its flaws while preserving its strengths. At the movement level, progressive rhetoric on rights has always been accompanied by well-grounded legal arguments, originalist or otherwise. By omitting this intellectual core and proceeding on rhetoric alone, the conservative “limited government” movement manages to do little more than become their own straw-man version of liberalism in reverse.

The Constitution was drafted by men who understood that sentiments and feelings have little meaning unless reduced to rules by which we must all abide. The 20th century’s progressive leaders — those men and women who gave us Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and a new way of addressing the countermajoritian difficulty — appreciated the distinction.  Middle-aged men dressed up as Revolutionary soldiers, waving the Gadsden Flag and wielding Obama/Joker posters, can hardly claim to be the equal of either.

The following is a transcript of a Bob Jones University men’s dormitory radio “dorm meeting.” It was broadcast in 1996 on WBJU AM 620, an on campus only radio station available to Bob Jones University students.

What would happen is this: the radio dorm meeting would be announced and, at 10:30 PM, each room on each floor of each men’s dormitory would be required to tune in Radio 62, WBJU and listen. Enforcement was by each individual room’s Assistant Prayer Captain (APC), hallway Prayer Captains (PC) and each hallway Monitor.

Then, like FDR’s “Fireside Chats”, we men were regaled by the wisdom of Dean of Men Tony Miller and toady (in this particular case, Jon Dalton).

Remember – this is a university. The “men” being addressed are between the ages of 18 and 25-plus.

Also remember, Tony Miller was part of the BJU Administration – supposedly highly trained and highly educated.

Not a word has been changed or altered. I’ve tried my best to break up the transcript into readable paragraphs — and readable sentences — hey, it was hard.

Enjoy…

Asst. Dean of Men, Jon Daulton

Bob Jones University Assistant Dean of Men Jon Daulton:

…and please refrain from using words that could be considered un[audio dropout] toward Christian behavior and language. Some example words are words like “hock”, “gee”, “golly”, “gosh”, etc. This is definitely out of keeping with Christian character that we are trying to maintain here.

Dean of Men, Tony "M" Miller

Bob Jones University Dean of Men Tony Miller:

Thank you, Mr. Dalton, and - uh - along the lines of that last announcement is some of what I want to talk to you about tonight. - uh - Recently I‘ve been getting reports that have concerned me about what our young men are doing in the dorm or out around on campus - uh - place their focus – that they’re making their heart focus on the comments that they’re making, words that they are using.

I understand there are a lot of individuals using the term “crap”.

Now - uh - let me just mention this, men. There are some words I’m going to speak about tonight that – uh - we’re not - uh - are not encouraging you to use, simply because I’m making reference to them or encouraging you to look at the etymology of words.

- uh - You hear people today use the term “that sucks” or “you suck” and - uh - have no idea that they’re being more than just derogatory toward someone. When they have to check into the etymology, what they find out that this has to do with the description of homosexual’s activity in oral sex. And - uh - I know many of you have never heard that, but you really need to realize that some people are thinking that when you use that term, though you might not be thinking - uh - that you’re not being anything more than derogatory.

Let me give you a example of some other things - uh - one of my assistants recently mentioned that until he looked up the idea behind the word “shaft”. You hear people say, “I got shafted” or “you should be shafted”. That has the idea of sexual intercourse and - uh - if you look up that in its etymology, or what we would call the connotation of it, you’ll find a problem on it.

Some people call another person, you’re nothing but a - uh - a “woose” – and - uh – that is certainly not just being derogatory in its etymology. That originally started out in - uh - referring to female gentile parts - uh - genteel parts, that is, not gentile. We want to make sure we’re correct on that. But - uh - gen – gentle parts of a woman, saying that a guy who is an effeminate individual that was - uh - referring to female parts.

- uh - You know, a lot of guys , I guess in the dorm are - uh - are being crude - uh - using terms that refer to men’s sexual parts in a crude or crass way. There are scientific ways of referring to men’s - uh - parts - uh - you know you can speak of a man’s pee – penis. - uh - But there are men that go around saying “you’re nothing but a dick”, and that is - uh - certainly - uh - profaning and making light of that part a man’s - uh - body. - uh -You know, referring to a man’s - uh - testicles as his “balls” and that sort of thing, once again is getting off on the light side or the profane side.

- uh - Once again – uh – - uh - defecating - uh - is often times - uh - used in a profane way with “SH” word, but - uh - some people are doing that in a eu - uh - euphemistic way of using the term “crap”.

And, men, we really need to be careful in regards to our speech, our focus and where we’re putting our minds - uh - you know, just an excessive focus on the sexual parts. And men or women – uh - can only tend to lean toward inappropriate thoughts and…[audio fades out]

If you have 4 minutes to kill, you can hear the actual recording here. The recording is poor in quality — probably because the person recording the radio address could have and would have been severely disciplined or expelled.

Introduction:

Quran as the main holly text in Islam introduces Muslims as Moderate:

و كذالك جعلناكم امته وسطا لتكونوا شهداء علي الناس و يكون الرسول عليكم. بقره 143

“Thus we appointed you as a midmost nation that you might be witness to the people and that the messenger might be a witness to you.”

Furthermore, at the beginning I mentioned “In the name of God, the Companionate the Merciful”. This is the verse that has been repeated about 114 times in the Holly Quran. How the followers of such a text could become radical? This is a very important question.

Many researchers have tried to answer this question and we can distinguish their answers in different ways. In this paper I categorize different approaches to Textual, Situational, and Strategic to understand the causes of radicalism. And I think it is the strategic one that has contributed to continuity and expansion of radical movements during the past decades.

Different approaches and solutions: a review

As it was mentioned above, we can distinguish at least between three main approaches: Textual, Situational and Strategic. Situational approach comprise those who emphasis on internal and external situation in the Islamic world. Those who refer to internal situation in the Islamic world as the main cause of expansion of radicalism, emphasize on different aspects like value systems, political systems and social systems. I will try to review these approaches briefly.

Textual approaches refer to some verses in Holly Quran and their interpretation as the main cause of radicalism. They refer to Salafist’s interpretations as a way of thinking and interpreting that has fueled radicalism. They also mention the religious schools in some countries as places that teach such interpretations of Islamic Holly texts. As a solution they ask the governments to close those schools and ban the supporting groups.

If we look at the history of Islamic teaching and scholarship we have had such schools in the past but it had not led to radicalism.

Furthermore, radicalism has been and is a global phenomenon, not limited to Islam. For example Isaac Rabin was killed by a Jewish Radical. Or there are many Christian radical movements in the west and especially in the US. It is also true about other religions, like radical Hindu etc. But in here I want to talk about Islamic Radicalism. To justify their behavior, all of them refer to their religious texts.

Situational Approaches

1-Internal Situations

The second approach emphasis on situation. In this approach we can distinguish between those who emphasis on internal and external situation of Muslim world.  Most of the researchers in the west emphasize on internal situation in the Islamic world as the main cause of expansion of radicalism. However, they emphasize on different aspects. Value system is the most emphasized one. Many people, even among the high ranking politicians in Europe and US has mentioned that the radicals are against freedom, democracy, human rights, rights of women etc. This is why they hate the US or the west. They believe that what’s going on between Radical movements and the West is “A Battle for Global Values”[1]. They call their opponents radical, terrorist, uncivilized and the foe of civilization.

It is needless to say that even current situation in many Islamic countries manifest that Islamic values and western values though not identical but compatible. You witnessed maybe the first example in the Islamic Republic that are two important values of Muslim and western world (Islamic+ republic). They do not mention the behavior of the US and some other powers in different parts of the world. I don’t think that behaviors like occupation, double standard, sanction and invasion are better than terrorism, hatred, etc.

Some others emphasize on tyrannical and corrupted political institutions in the Muslim world as the main cause of frustration and radicalism. They believe that lack of freedom and democracy in some Muslim countries, has led to frustration and hatred toward the west. They emphasize on democracy promotion as the solution. The do not recognize that sanction, occupation, intervention, and securitizing situation in the Islamic countries are the main obstacles of democracy and development. This group and the former do not pay attention to the reasons that dictatorships and corrupted regimes in the Islamic world have been supported by democratic countries during the past six decades.

The third group believes that though the majority of the Muslim world is moderate, however their weakness in comparison to the radicals has led to the domination of these societies by the later. This argument refers to the advantage of radicals over moderates. It is said that the radicals have “money” and “organization” but the moderate’s dose not. “This asymmetry in resources and organization explains why radicals … have influence disproportionate to their numbers.”[2] This approach sees to solution in “creation of moderate Muslim networks” and the United States “has a critical role to play in leveling the playing field for moderates.”[3]

These approaches neglect that the grievances of all Muslim worlds, even liberals and seculars, are similar and somehow identical. These grievances include occupation, intervention, humiliation, sanction; double standard ….As the Gallup world poll of 9000 person in the Muslim countries manifest, Radicals and Moderates has many things in common. Both radicals and moderates admire the west for its technological achievements, democratic procedures and freedom of speech.[4]

If we look at different political movements in the Islamic world during the 20^th century, we see that the Islamic radicals are the last. We have experience different National, Social and Liberal, all secular movements with the same dissatisfactions. And it was the western countries that one way or another contributed to their failure both in domestic and foreign policy arena. Now that these groups have lost their political and social bases in the Muslim world, the west is looking for them. They don’t know that the US has lost its credibility even among the liberals and seculars.

2-External Situation

The second group of situational approach emphasizes on the external situation. As I mentioned it is foreign intervention, occupation, invasion and double standard that has led to the creation of appropriate situation for radicalism to grow.

Radicalism as a way of thinking has always existed and will continue to exist. As a psychological problem of a few people, it always exists. But as strong political and military movement, it needs suitable environment. Such an environment has gradually been provided for them during the last decades. And its root cause goes back to narrow minded strategic calculations that still exist in the US and the west.

Behaviors such as occupation, intervention, double standard, sanction etc. that led to creation of current situation in the Islamic world in general and Middle East in particular, stem from the dominant strategic calculation in the west that: “To control the world we need to control the strategic sources and locations”. This way of thinking has led to above mentioned behaviors in the Muslim world in General and M.E. in particular. This strategic calculation has not changed, at least, since the cold war bipolar system. The current internal and external situation in the Muslim world is the byproduct of this way of thinking.

Different movements have reacted to this situation. We have had radical (national, liberal and social) movements, all of them secular.  If we just think about how to defeat them, we may succeed, but like the past, it will be replaced by another movement and may be even more dangerous. If we want to resolve the problem, the West in general and the US in particular need to change their way of thinking and behavior.

Democracy and moderation would not grow under a heavily militarized and securitized environment. In order to foster democracy we need the confidence of the people. To have that, occupation, invasion, sanction and intervention must end.

Future perspectives and scenarios:

As it was mentioned, what is going on has nothing to do with values, political systems and economic situation. During the past decades almost all global powers have tried to increase their influence in the Middle East for strategic reasons. The strategic importance of the region has increased during the past few years and it will continue to increase during the coming decade.

1-    US dependence on foreign oil has increased during the last one and a half decade from 42% in 1991 to almost 70% in 2008.

2-    Once again the US faces rising powers with unclear future direction and she needs more instruments to control them.

3-    US allies and friends in the M.E. are facing with many internal challenges and their dependence on US support is increasing.

4-     US involvement in the Persian Gulf and M.E. has increased after sep. 11.

For these reasons, the United States dose not have so many options. US withdrawal from the region will lead to empowerment of both its regional and global rivals.

If the US wants to continue the Bush administration polices, she had to deal with stronger regional and global forces with limited resources. It is not possible without paying huge costs that the US economy cannot tolerate.

The last possible and rational choice for the US is to use its regional and global influence positively to solve regional problems like Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghanistan conflict, and support a regional security framework comprising all regional countries. This option will improve the US image in the Muslim World and paves the way for decreasing huge costs of over-extension of military forces. At the same time, it will contribute to expansion of democracy in the region.

The root of all the problems goes back to the US strategic calculations and behaviors. In order to create a positive image, the US needs to take positive concrete steps to manifest that it is on the side of justice, development and prosperity in the Middle East and the entire world.

[1] . By Tony Blair

[2] . Buliding moderate muslims Networks, p xii.

[3] . ibid.

[4]. John L. Esposito & Dalia Mogahed, What makes a Muslim radical?,

https://www.cof.org/files/Documents/Conferences/2008Summit/BridgingDivides71.pdf

]]> http://1minionsopinion.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/still-the-single-greatest-idea-ever/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:55:21 +0000 1minionsopinion http://1minionsopinion.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/still-the-single-greatest-idea-ever/

Still the simplest and most sensible explanation for species adaptation, still the most misunderstood concept by all those who claim it’s wrong.

On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago today. And no, I haven’t read it. I suppose I should but I haven’t gotten around to it. I don’t have to read it to know it’s on target, though, because scientists all over the world agree it’s on target and experimentation over the years has verified the inherent truths of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary model. It’s the best scenario we’ve got that can explain how we got to this point that doesn’t rely on any supernatural nonsense to make it work.

Religion Dispatches has a nice article about the evolution/ID argument today. Lauri Lebo does make the mistake of claiming Kirk Cameron was on Family Ties; it was actually Growing Pains, but I can see how she’d mix those up. Still doesn’t excuse something that easy to check, but anyway, the article:

Most recently, last week, former Family Ties child actor and born-again Christian Kirk Cameron and evangelist Ray Comfort, led a crusade at college campuses around the U.S. and Canada, distributing free altered copies of Origin of Species.

Because Origin is in the public domain, Comfort was legally able to add to the book his own new 50-page introduction, in which he quotes from Mein Kampf in order to link Darwin to Adolf Hitler, accuses Darwin of being sexist, and argues falsely that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record.

And he deleted chapters 9-12 or something. I saw a copy of it and the sneaky turd doesn’t even put his name on the cover to let people know it’s not the original Origin. Pretty much everything that made Darwin’s case got pulled out.

Next month marks the four-year anniversary of the decision of Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which Judge John E. Jones determined that intelligent design was merely religion masquerading as a scientific conceit and therefore unconstitutional to teach in the public schools.

Since then, evolution’s opponents have been struggling to redefine their message.

But the underlying point remains the same. As a woman distributing Comfort’s altered copies of Origin last week explained to CNN, it was important to her because evolution “impacts a person’s eternal destiny.”

I don’t see how, personally. Evolution has nothing to do with a person’s personal belief in heaven or hell. Why would it have to be one or the other? Is it totally necessary to faith to buy into the 6000 year old earth, or is it possible to finally admit that’s an unfounded fallacy and move on to what’s proven fact? Of course I already know the answer to that one. I recently found a comment by someone basically claiming God made a mature earth just to take the mickey out of future scientists and their radio carbon dating. I’m surprised I haven’t seen any arguments claiming osteoporosis killed the dinosaurs because their bones were already “millions of years” old and fragile when they hatched in the first place…

It’s going to take a lot more than scientific evidence, rational thought and reasoned debate to get people to accept the very real fact that in the scientific community, there is no debate over whether evolution is real. Sadly, most of the fighting continues to take place in the U.S., where our tradition of anti-intellectualism and history of religious fundamentalism provided fertile ground for the battle over religion versus science. (In a 2006 survey of western nations, Turkey was the only country in which fewer people accepted evolution than in the United States.)

According to Ron Numbers’ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, in the wake of the publishing of Origin, Christians in America were, for the most part, able to make peace with Darwin’s theory and evolutionary principles. It wasn’t until the early 1900s, when a series of religious pamphlets, The Fundamentals, were published arguing for the acceptance of the Bible as literal truth that a widespread backlash to evolution was born.

Four books worth of Fundamentals pamphlets were published in 1915. 1925 marked the official banning of evolution in the classroom, but Intelligent Design as an idea grew out of scientific advancements in the late 1950s, according to Lebo, and have continued to make headway. Four years ago, Kitzmiller v. Dover took science’s side but that hasn’t stopped people from trying to manipulate science classes to make room for creationism as a theory equal to (or better than) everything we’ve built on since Darwin wrote his book.

The new creationist/intelligent design strategy has been to pressure states and school districts to water down the teaching of evolution until it’s virtually meaningless and to raise doubts in children’s’ minds about the validity of science.

As Don McLeroy, one of the members of the Texas Board of Education, who led efforts to instill intelligent-design friendly language into his state science standards, said during hearings this spring, “Somebody has to stand up to the experts.”

And that should be up to other experts who have a better theory and can demonstrate it with verifiable scientific experimentation. Don’t just point at some dude caressing a piece of fruit while he jabbers towards a camera and some dopey child star oohs and ahhs. That’s not proof of anything.

Last week, Comfort was quoted in Charisma saying he doubts intelligent design will ever be taught in schools alongside evolution. “That’s because we have to remember who we are as Christians,” he said. “We’re the folks who believe in Adam and Eve [and] Noah’s Ark … and so in the name of science, they are going to resist as much as they can.”

Well of course we will. Bible stories are for religion class. Science class is supposed to introduce kids to how the world works and what we think we know about the universe. It’s not the place to fill their heads with shit they’ll need to take on faith. It’s the place to fill their heads with facts that have been demonstrated as most likely answers to life, the universe and everything and encourage them towards those fields to prove or disprove any fact or hypothesis or theory they dare to take on. We will never have all the answers. We will always find more puzzles that need solutions. But no matter what, “God did it” will never be a sufficient or verifiable answer to anything.

Talk:

Thanks to René from backdoorbroadcasting.net for providing the link.

Wiley Drake

BUENA PARK, Calif. (ABP) — A former Southern Baptist Convention officer who made headlines in June when he said on national radio that he was praying for Barack Obama to die now says he wants to see the president live long enough to stand trial for treason.
Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., was second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2006-2007.

Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., issued a press release Nov. 19 calling for an end to “imprecatory prayer” — words of judgment from the Book of Psalms prayed back to God, directed toward Obama.

Read HERE the rest of this text.

Courtesy of Progressive Scottish Muslims

By now, you know that there exists such a thing as a gay Christian – a person who both believes in Jesus Christ and is attracted to their own gender. But how about gay Muslims? Surely I jest, right? People can practice Islam – that religion that the American media tells us is a horrible, woman-hating factory of terrorism – and simultaneously be part of that big, rainbow flag-waving band of gays?

Well…yes and no. Of course, there are gay Muslims – there’s no reason to think that different statistics govern the distribution of homosexuality within a certain faith just because they adhere to the pillars of Islam and live the word of the Qur’an. The bigger issue, really, is that Muslims, more so than Christians, do not feel that it’s possible to reconcile their faith with their sexuality, which puts them in a difficult situation.

In the contemporary Islamic world, seven countries legally declare that same-sex intercourse is punishable by the death penalty. In other nations, monetary fines, prison time ranging from one month to life sentences and corporal punishment are the official responses to homosexual behaviors. And in others, laws are unclear, but recent responses have included forced labor, fierce moral condemnation and public banishment. Clearly, it’s not okay to be gay in Islamic society.

All of these responses stem from a single story – fewer than a dozen verses – from the Qur’an. That’s the story of Lut and the city of Sodom, a sinful place where citizens worship idols, gamble and commit other typical ancient transgressions. Lut, one of the only pure dudes, spoke with the sinners and said, “Do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly.” The passage directly refers to the male villagers forcefully having sex with male travelers to assert their power. For this reason, many gay rights advocates claim the passage condemns homosexual rape and lust, not homosexuality entirely.

The only other explicitly negative scriptural reference to relationships between two men is in the oral traditions based on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. One of these hadiths says, “Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Lut, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done,” the deed being, of course, anal sex.

Progressives have made other interpretations of the scriptures, but it’s unquestionable that the dominant conclusion regarding gays is one of reprehension. Non-straight orientations are perceived as unnatural: people are born straight, and homosexuality is simply an inherently evil corruption stimulated by sin or disease. One anti-gay blogger expains, “Same-sex attracted Muslims are not sinful for feeling how [they] do, but [they] must strive not to do anything that Allah has forbidden. This in itself is a means of attaining His reward.” If gays were only to pray harder, obviously, they would be cured.

So…Muslim men attracted to other men are not automatically dismissed as bad Muslims, but rather misguided and urged to seek the counsel of Allah. While it’s interesting that traditionalists are willing to recognize the reality of homosexual feelings at all, the emotions are viewed as something deviant. And in this respect, many people who oppose the legitimacy of homosexuality are imperialistic, framing themselves as the civilized, enlightened ones who must correct the flaws of the homosexuals and save their souls from damnation.

Although the dominant Muslim philosophy is that same-sex attraction is not immediately sinful, merely psychologically perverse, this notion is discarded the moment a person “comes out.” Traditionalists say this declaration of identity represents disrespect for God and demonstrates the person has made their choice: sin over the glory of Allah.

Gay Muslims face a brigade of unflinchingly disapproving opponents to their sexuality – death penalties, fines, morality assault – and for this reason, gays in the Islamic community often feel they have no choice but to stay silent. They frequently lead double lives, attempting to adhere strictly to the status quo of their religious society while pursuing clandestine, hidden same-sex relationships. These people typically struggle with internalized homophobia and severe dissatisfaction, but they believe the alternative – being expelled from their religion – is far less favorable.

Courtesy of ABC News

Other gay Muslims feel that a freer life with the liberty to love their ideal person is a satisfying enough risk, so they turn their back on Islam entirely.

But the Muslims who have managed to assert themselves as practicing Muslims who experience public, same-sex relationships are the ones at the head of the gay rights movement in Islam. They lead official institutions like the Al-Fatiha Foundation, started in 1998 to share their interpretation of the Qur’an with regard to sexual orientation and encourage people to support an end to discrimination. They produce films like The Road to Love and A Jihad for Love to showcase people who are both gay and Muslim. They write blogs urging readers to understand that to be gay is not to refute Allah’s words.

Still, the movement is far from making any significant strides in bringing about equality legally; it remains a mostly web-based movement, primarily led by forums and blogs by gay Muslims. Remarkably little has been written academically or even journalistically on the subject, and there’s essentially no central authority on the issue. All of this contributes to the generally invisible nature of gay society in Islam.

Although there’s an official government ruling on homosexuality, all Muslims don’t share this perspective, and it’s important that these alternative viewpoints are not buried or lost. This complex, multifaceted debate on whether the issue of homosexuality is a transgression of scripture, law, morality or none of these is integral to understanding the gay rights movement within Islam. It appears that ultimately, the debate’s not about the actual specifics of being gay, but rather the issue of more progressive interpretations of the Qur’an as a whole. Fundamentalists fear if they concede on one progressive interpretation, they must concede on the others. And if that were to happen, their control of tradition and what is “true” to the Muslim population would be lost.

William Willimon in a blog entry titled “Between Two Worlds: Advice for New Pastors” (May 11, 2009) writes:

. . . Scripture, the tradition of the church, has a privileged place in the communication of the church. Pastors are ordained, ordered to bear that tradition compellingly, faithfully, quite unoriginally before their congregations, not primarily so that their congregations can think through the tradition, but rather so that they can, in their discipleship incarnate Christian truth. We pastors are not free to rummage about in the recesses of our own egos, not free to consult other extraecclesial texts until we have first done business with Scripture and the great tradition. Alas, too much of today’s theological training (arising out of the German university of the Nineteenth Century) places the modern reader above the texts of the church, assuming a privileged, detached and superior position to the church’s historic faith.

Sadly, too often the seminary has taught its students to step back from the Christian tradition and its Scriptures, to reflect, learn to critique, and actively to question. True, such stepping back and critique are developmentally appropriate for the formation of the church’s leaders. Yet when the seminarian becomes a pastor, she takes her place as leader of an organization that has goals like embodiment, engagement, involvement, participation, and full-hearted commitment, embrace of the enemy, hospitality to the stranger, group cohesion, koinonia. The whole point of discipleship is not cool consideration of Jesus but rather following Jesus.

Willimon’s observations about the purpose of seminaries and churches are in order.  Strangely, though, I find myself arguing with Willimon even as I strongly agree with him.   “Following Jesus” is complicated by having a canon that contains four very different gospels, a Bible that includes different theologies, and a Bible that contains unChristian, horrific texts.  So “following Jesus” is not so simple or obvious.  Which Jesus are we to follow:  Matthew’s Jesus, Mark’s Jesus, Luke’s Jesus, John’s Jesus, or Paul’s Jesus?  And what manuscripts are we to use?  And to speak of the historic church faith or of church tradition is – is problematic.  Better put an “s” on tradition so you speak of church traditions. 

Biblical criticism is not an option!  And yes, dealing with the church’s Scripture and its traditions are not optional either, but neither is it optional to deal with insights from science or experience or reason.  Not for the modern Christian.  Experience, science, and reason are equally important sources for our theologies and practices.  Yes, experience, science and reason are problematic sources, but all sources for our theologies are problematic! 

I think Willimon would disagree with me on non-biblical sources for theology being equal to Scripture.  Willimon emphasizes that we start with Scripture and tradition.  Starting with Scripture and tradition gives the appearance that other sources get trumped.   I argue that Scripture, tradition, reason, science and experience are all equally valid sources. And I argue that, in one sense, Scripture is canonized experience so getting the “ego” out of our theologies and practice may sound good, but I’m not sure that is accurate or honest.  There is a fine line between Scripture, tradition, and experience.

Julia Obrien, the Stern Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary, is also troubled by obsession with biblical criticism and problems with the Bible.  Reflecting on this year’s Society of Biblical Literature meeting, Obrien writes in her blog (November 22, 2009):

how many people treat the Bible as if it is on trial, believing that all they’re been asked for is an up-or-down vote about its value.  Walking through the book exhibits at SBL, I’ve seen again how many “popular” books mark their territory by passing judgment on the historical accuracy of the Bible and/or how good its answers to life’s questions are.  The Bible is a good /accurate book or the Bible is a bad/inaccurate book.  Read this book to help you decide!

I don’t read the Bible that way.  Not anymore.  I am willing to name what’s wrong with the Bible, but that doesn’t stop me from living in it.

Obrien, like Willimon, believes biblical criticism is not the only task or the last task of the clergy or the church.  I agree!  But let us not think that we should move beyond biblical criticism as if we can all of a sudden forget the biblical critical work we have done.  Neither let us think that thinking about a biblical text, getting correct doctrine or theology, is our ultimate task either.  Our focus should be on following Jesus; and that we are forced to do with imperfect sources, including our imperfect egos.

What if following Jesus is being impeded because we set church up in a way that prevents honesty about God, the Bible, church tradition, and ourselves? 

Personally, I don’t find fundamentalist Christianity to be a faithful way to follow Jesus.  We better be careful about eschewing the importance of teaching biblical criticism in congregations or acting like we do biblical critical work and then move beyond it or forget it.  And we better be careful about thinking that biblical critical work is an end to itself.   

I like to say that even with all the confusion about following Jesus we should have enough we are sufficiently clear about to keep us busy.  Of course, what is sufficiently clear to me and what is sufficiently clear to others is not always the same.

Well, enough rambling, here’s a reading from the Goofed-up Bible, Matthew 199:14.

And Jesus said, “I’m not feeding one person, I’m not healing another individual, I’m not saying another word about God’s forgiveness and mercy, until we get Genesis 1:1 figured out.”

Oh, and here’s Luke 199:14.

And Jesus said, “I’m not feeding one person, I’m not healing another individual, I’m not saying another word about God’s forgiveness and mercy, until we get Genesis 1:2 figured out.”

Globebloggers Johnny Kaje and Anson Burlingame have had a dispute over the issue of “faith is crap,” culminating in Anson blogging about it and Kaje writing a humorous piece about her trip to Springfield to the Skepticon II event.

All of which has made me think about one of the most bizarre beliefs in the fundamentalist world.  There are some weird and disturbing interpretations of the Bible, and then there is the doctrine of the Rapture.

For those of you out of tune with modern fundamentalism and evangelicalism, here is the Rapture in one sentence:  At some point in the future—usually in “our lifetime“—Jesus is going to return to the Earth to “gather” his born-again followers, who will be “taken up” into the air to be with him, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves in the dark days ahead, which Christians call the Tribulation.

Now, as bizarre as this seems, apparently more than 40% of all Americans believe in some version of it.  I don’t mean they believe in Jesus’ return in general (most Christians so believe), but in the specific idea of the Rapture, the one in which a car on I-44, full of people, could have its driver raptured into heavenly bliss while its other, less saintly passengers, would end up smashed against an oncoming big rig, the driver of which was also the recipient of a ticket to ride. 

So, what does this have to do with politics?  Well, I have suggested that some Republican candidates, like Mike Huckabee for instance, sometimes appear to be unable to make a distinction between American foreign policy and Israeli foreign policy, as when the Huckster visited Israel recently and criticized Obama’s position on Jewish settlements in occupied territory.

Since Huckabee is a born-again Christian who believes in the Bible as the Word of God, his biblical views obviously have some impact on his political views and thus on his political decisions, particularly involving the Middle East.  And so do the biblical views of millions upon millions of other Americans.

As Sam Harris put it:

It really is not an exaggeration to say that some significant percentage of the American electorate, which if they turned on their television today and saw that a mushroom cloud had replaced Jerusalem, they would see a silver lining in that cloud.  In so far as people like that elect our presidents and congressmen and in so far as they get elected as presidents and congressmen, that’s a terribly dangerous state of affairs.

Dangerous, indeed. 

Just to remind you of how dangerous, here is a clip of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson—just two days after 9/11—discussing their religious view of America—again, one with which many Americans concur:

Now, that is why these bizarre beliefs must be challenged and ridiculed. 

Faith in a “higher being” is one thing, but specific beliefs that lead to the kind of reasoning employed by wildly popular evangelists like the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson is another.

UPDATE: 

Fox 31 TV in Denver posted a story on yet another right-wing Christian, this time a car dealer just outside of Denver, in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, who posted this billboard:  

A reporter for Fox 31 interviewed the car dealer:

“Since Fort Hood, I’ve had it,” owner Phil West* told FOX 31 News Friday. “You can’t suggest things. You can’t profile. You gotta call a spade a spade.”

“Everything I have read about Mr. Obama points right to the fact that he is a Muslim. And that is the agenda of what Muslim is all about. It’s about anti-American, it’s about anti-Christianity,” West said.

As I said, there are political implications of bizarre religious beliefs.  In fact, I’m surprised John Putnam, local birther, born-again Christian, and Captain of the Jasper County Morality Police, hasn’t erected such a sign on I-44.

*I believe the gentleman’s name is Phil Wolf.

Random Bob Jones University Memories…

Judging from the feedback I’ve received, on and off the web, both positive and negative, there seems to be some interest in life at Bob Jones University – more specifically, my life at Bob Jones University.

Occasionally, and usually without warning, random BJU “flashbacks” will snap me out of the here-and-now and for a moment…I’m back walking the well-worn covered sidewalks of the Fortress of Faith.

Some recent forgotten BJU moments:

A group of master debaters -- Sam is far right.

1) The time I received 25 demerits for calling Sam Lamerson “The Master Debater” because Sam was a member of the University Debate Association. Someone more spiritual than I overheard me say “Master Debater” and “turned me in” to the proper BJ authorities.

2) Since you brought up masturbation, the memory of Mr. Tony Miller’s “Masturbation Lectures” still haunts me. At a “Men’s Dorm Meeting”, Mr. Miller would stand on a chair and preach to the assembled dorm occupants about the evils of masturbation. Some of his more disturbing quotes:

“Men, there are those here who will continue this and prefer it to sexual intercourse with their wives.”

“When you fantasize about a woman while masturbating, you not only harm your spirit, you sully hers.”

Mr. "M"

Hard to believe the wizards-of-smart at BJU later promoted this moron to Dean of Men where I believe he continued his “Big M” lectures via the on-campus radio station WBJU AM 620.

3) Listening to Dr. Katherine Stenholm go off on Tina Turner’s song, What’s Love Got to Do with It. Dr. Stenholm believed that art (whether a song, painting, photograph or motion picture) was immoral if it did not punish or condemn immorality. She spent an entire class hour explaining to us why Ms. Turner’s song was immoral.

4) As BJU Cinema students, we were required to plan our budget for our student film projects – the thing is we had to figure in another 15 to 20% to cover what we film students called “The Pachter Factor”. Fredrick J. Pachter was the cinema faculty member that processed our black & white 16mm motion picture film – and he had a habit of ruining a good bit of it. So, when we students would be shooting, we always shot more footage than we needed to cover “The Pachter Factor.”

5) Watching a film about the Holocaust during Cinema Lab, the supervising cinema instructor, Mr. Bruce Polhamus, covered the lens of the film projector during the scenes showing dead, naked, female bodies. Did Mr. Polhamus think those scenes were sexy?

6) Cinema faculty member, Mr. Ray Gahagen, a small be-speckled, Woody Allen look-a-like who spent an enormous amount of time trying to computerize our manually controlled ACME animation camera and stand. Mr. Gahagen spent weeks cooped up in a small, lime-green room in the Animation Department writing in machine code and BASIC. We’d ask him, “How’s it going, Mr. Gahagen?” His reply was always the same: “Still working the bugs out.”

Mr. Gahagen was later “let go” for reasons – well – let me just say he and Woody Allen had a lot more than looks in common…

We never did get that ACME stand computerized.

7) Spring time, in the back of the Concert Center (now called Stratton Hall), when I caught my speech teacher, Mr. Don Ryerson and his fiancé, Miss Rosa Miles “making out” – BJU style. All I said was, “Hi, Mr. Ryerson!” in a very cheery voice. He and Miss Miles could’ve been severely disciplined or fired, but I never said a word. My speech grades did improve, however.

Speaking of the Concert Center, I pooped on the roof in the spring of 1980. Some other time – it’s a long story.

9) Someone was smoking pot on first floor of Johnson (Dormitory) during the summer of 1981. Never found out who – dammit.

10) If you were a really good looking girl and you took Mr. Wade K. Ramsey’s Photography 101 class, you would get an “A”.

11) October 1984 – Dr. Bob Jones III convenes the first ever (and only) BJU “Ghost Busters Chapel.” Seems a student, James E. Witt, worked part-time for a taxidermist and managed to snag a set of bear paws and bear feet and brought them back to campus. Apparently, bear paws and feet, when stripped of their fur (pelt? skin?) look very similar to human hands and feet. Mr. Witt had the bright idea of leaving these human remain look-a-likes on the keyboard and pedals of a student piano located in the University’s “Practice Shacks”. Someone actually did think they were human and called the Greenville (South Carolina) police AND Dr. Bob III at approximately 2:00 AM. Later that same day, Dr. Bob III called a campus assembly and proclaimed any Halloween pranks or ghost stories “off-limits”. In other words – expulsion. Hence, the “Ghost Busters” Chapel.

12) Grady Stone from Wilson, North Carolina predicted the MP3 player, February 1980.

13) It was I, Ektachrome, who invented the first “Walkman” long before Sony ever did. Back in the late fall of 1978, I took my RCA 9-volt transistor radio and spliced together two sets of audio ear-plugs so I could listen to WFBC-AM after lights out (11:00 PM). Everything – the radio and the ear-plugs – could be hidden safely inside the stuffing of my pillow. Unlike the Sony Walkman, my radio wasn’t stereo, but at least I kept up with the Top-40 of the late 70’s.

Dr. G. Salter

14) Bob Jones University – the only place where I have met two people who actually met and shook hands with Adolf Hitler – and later came to work on faculty at BJU – Dr. Guenter Salter and Ms. Edith Long. Unusual, indeed.

15) The day in Child Psychology Dr. Walter Fremont walked from his desk to where I was sitting and rubbed his hands through my curly hair and said, “There’s a ni**er in the woodpile!”

To this day I have no idea what that had to do with class.

He, Dr. Fremont, was also the guy that declared it was “okay” to make fun of fat people because “they can help it.”

16) I experienced repeated episodes of “counseling” by various dormitory supervisors. First there was Mr. Craig Olsen, Dorm Supervisor of Reveal Dormitory – Mr. Olsen was fat, soft, effeminate and a total prick. Second, there was Mr. Doug Sprunger, a total creep. This guy played a major role in finally getting me “shipped” (expelled).

There is an addendum to Doug Sprunger – he later became pastor at a small church near the Ektachrome Family Compound in Illinois. My only hope is that Illinois treats him as well as he treated me.

17) I hate to admit it – the rice & gravy at the Dining Commons was divine.

18) 1981 – my roommate and I snuck off to see Raiders of the Lost Ark. Twice.

19) I got in trouble in Biological Science Survey for laughing at Mark Dutton and Dave Doran drawing “smiley faces” on pictures of male genitalia in our biology textbook. (The seating was alphabetical – Doran, Dutton, Ektachrome, etc.) I was fine until Dutton tilted the book in my direction and said, “Oh look! He’s happy!”

20) And last, a salute to the BJU Vintage (yearbook) Staff of 1981, who, when faced with a spacing problem on page 285, invented a student to fill the space – Cecil H. Sandersen of Zephryhills, Florida.

This event took place in the days long before Photoshop – they cut the head off of an underclassman and pasted it onto the body of an upperclassman. Brilliant.

Only problem was, “Cecil’s” face was the real face of a real student named Doug Haughton, Jr. (on page 297) – and friends of Doug’s pointed out the fact that he was also “Cecil H. Sandersen” – well, the jig was up. Dr. Bob Jones III came down hard on the 1981 Vintage Staff.

I’m sure they’re still suffering…

1981 BJU "Vintage" Staff

 Twenty Flashbacks – that’s enough for now.