Two things happened recently, separately, but on the same day. Coming together their impact was more pronounced than either would have been on their own.

The first thing was that I sought and received advice from a NZ Anglican organization concerning where I might find a “church home”, a place to belong and worship within the NZ Anglican province, but one that upheld the conservative, Biblically orthodox and traditional teachings of the early Church fathers, just as Anglicanism did at the time I was baptised and confirmed in that church.

The advice I received confirmed my own search. There was no such parish in the diocese in which I live, and the nearest one is over 300 miles away. The NZ Anglican province has gone largely liberal in it’s theology, that is, inclined towards secular humanism, egalitarian feminism, revisionism, and an anthrocentric view of what is Christian belief.

The second thing is something that happened on an official Anglican forum, one with a “conservative” ethos. It happened at the hands of an Anglican priest. This clergyman claimed his right to “call a spade, a spade” which is all very well… provided the spade really is indeed a spade. This priest and I do not agree on matters of theology. He is considerably more liberal in his position than I, and as a result the wrongly identified “spade” was described with a quite uncharming string of invective. So much for the fruit of liberal theology.

But to change tack just a little…

In an article published recently in The Daily Telegraph of Sydney, Australia, the following was reported:

Reverend Sue Emeleus, a deacon at St George’s Church, Paddington, said Sydney Anglicans take a very literal view of passages in the Bible that forbid women to have leadership roles over men.

“But given the way Jesus listened to women went against all cultural mores at the time, I think he would do the same now in encouraging women to speak up and let their opinion be known,” she said.

Source

The interesting thing is that nowhere in Scripture justifies this idea that Jesus considered the opinions of women, or anyone for that matter, over and above the immutable will and word of God. In all things the words and ways of men were measured against the wisdom and truth that came from the Father - not the other way around. Jesus spoke to us that which He heard from the Father, and those were His teachings. (John 14)

I would say this is a human-centred speculation (anthrocentric), not an insight revealed by the Spirit of God. And as such, it gives an example of how liberal theology creeps in to separate us from Spiritual wisdom and contaminate one’s understanding of Biblical truth.

Puritan Lad, of Covenant Theology blog fame, links to an article headed Church of England to consider introducing “super-bishops” to avert crisis over women and asks the so simple and most sensible question:

Why not just obey the Scriptures to begin with?

Yes, why not indeed?

I could go on with so many examples of how abandoning the plain truth of Scripture has lead to such a mess in Anglicanism at present, but this will do for the time being.

And now back again on my previous tack…

It seems I don’t have a “home” in Anglican circles, or not for just now. There are other good people on that forum, ones who are faithful loyal servants of Christ, but a forum is not a church - not the visible church although its members may well be a part of the invisible church. I find it profoundly sad that Anglicanism is struggling the way it is due to the “enemy within”, the influence of liberal theology (and those priests and bishops who subscibe to it) that makes a mockery of true Christian belief and turns fruit totally rotten. Liberal theology is nothing short of disobedience and idolatry leading to unbelief. There seems very little that I can do personally but pray.

But there is considerable hope in some recent happenings, such as GAFCON (Global Anglican Future), and the true faith of the Global South and Southern Cone provinces of the Anglican Communion. They remain true to orthodoxy and are encouraging and supportive of those other faithful Anglicans in otherwise heterodox parishes and provinces elsewhere. So in spite of all the press to the contrary, it should be made known that there are still Anglicans faithful to the true gospel everywhere, often just “getting on with the job” in spite of the ecclesiastical politics going on around them. Good things are happening.

I was raised an Anglican, not a Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, or anything else, and while the Invisible Church has no denominational barriers and in that sense nor do I, I still wish to remain as one of the faithful in my own church inheritance… if that can be possible.

The Christian worldview prescribes a horizon that is further afield than that of a secular or naturalist one. If I were to stand on the beach and look out to sea, on a clear day I may be able to catch sight of the fishing boats in the distance out there. But if I stand on the cliffs behind me, I can see not only the fishing boats but more of the ocean beyond them as well. Someone who subscribes to a secular view may deny the existence of what goes beyond their own perceived horizon, but the Christian knows that the end of this temporal life is not the true horizon at all. The naturalist worldview is confined to what is known by nature, denying the supernatural. The Christian worldview accepts that we have a spiritual life that continues far into eternity beyond. Read more on this here and here too.

I have often referred to myself as a passionate quilter. When suggested that I could make this hobby and interest into a business, I found myself thinking that I am already in business - but not in the way that one normally thinks. I make my quilts for leisure, pleasure, treasure and good measure. It is a relaxing pastime and hobby, one that gives expression to creativity and artistry, and certainly provides pleasure. The treasure is the finished quilt. But there is more to it than that.

One day I costed one of my quilts and found that the materials alone came to considerably more than what one might pay for a pure wool blanket. Add in the number of hours to make it, at even the minimum wage, then unless one especially wanted a quilt with the artistry involved, it would not be a cost effective way of procuring warmth. The choice could be one quilt or at least five wool blankets, probably more. There is a price below which a sale demeans the item, the workmanship that went into it, and the labour of the one who laboured. I decided not to offer my quilts for sale.

There is a wellknown saying that goes “It is more blessed to give than receive.” Value cannot always be measured in monetary terms alone. A gift that has special meaning is often treasured beyond the monetary value of the item as appraised by some objective criterion. There is treasure in the gift, plus more accrued to it by the one receiving the gift, and even more again by the blessing received by the giver. The accumulation is treasure indeed.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
(Matthew 6:19-21)

The Christian worldview accepts that every action and every outcome must sooner or later be measured against an ultimate norm for its ultimate value. This kind of treasure is not stored in this temporal world but is weighed for good measure in the eternal one that continues beyond. Good deeds in themselves will not secure anyone’s salvation, and so it needs to be said that salvation is itself a gift ~ from God through our faith in Christ. Check it out. But wherever you invest your treasure, there indeed will your heart be too.

An Opportunity to Create Treasure

A friend posted the following to her blog today, and I would also like to pass the message on:

As you know, I always encourage readers of this blog to share their talents and skills with others, and today’s post is about sewing for others, and in this case, almost literally sewing a sunset by volunteering to sew for people who are experiencing those final sunset days of life. A couple of days ago, I received a request from someone who manages volunteers for a hospice in Mississippi. She was looking for volunteers to sew for her hospice patients and was asking me for resources. I will be sewing for this hospice, Odyssey Healthcare (www.odsyhealth.com) as well as continuing to sew for Mission of Hope (www.missionofhope.org). I would like to encourage you to sew simple projects for this hospice, or perhaps one like it in your area. Although my dad was never put on hospice care before he died, I had the opportunity to watch the hospice staff as they visited other patients in the nursing home, and I was always impressed with their unique ability to bring smiles to people who were in situations where all they wanted to do was cry. I think that people who are directly involved in hospice work must be very special people indeed.

Anyone who sews, knits, crochets, or quilts can volunteer to donate simple projects. Blankets, pillows, pillowcases, adult bibs, crafts, and quilts are all acceptable. Apparently, there are no restrictions and any donations will be used, with nothing going to waste.

If you should decide to volunteer to sew, knit, quilt, or crochet for this worthy cause, here is the contact information

TClark@odsyhealth.com or 228-297-5976 (NB. This is a USA phone number)

(I would suggest that initial contact be made via e-mail or phone because there are a few guidelines that must be followed.)

The mailing address is : Tiffany Clark, Manager of Volunteer Services, Odyssey Healthcare, 9414 Three Rivers Road, Suite 3, Gulfport, MS 39503

I hope that some of the readers of this blog will consider sharing sewing, quilting, crocheting, or knitting skills, even if it’s just one time. You might play a small part in making someone’s final sunset just a little bit easier, and after they have passed through that final sunset, the blanket or pillow that you made might bring some comfort to the family left behind. At first, they might see through tears, but eventually, they will be able to look at a project that someone sewed or quilted, and remember happier times with their loved ones. The tears may still come, but with each passing day, it may become just a little bit easier to smile through those tears. Wouldn’t it be a great feeling to know that perhaps by creating just one simple project, you might play a part in bringing a small measure of comfort to someone?

Source: Sewing Sunsets of Life

The catchy pithy title of this post is the same as that of a book I am currently reading by Dr Douglas Groothuis, associate professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary. That I am doing so coincides rather remarkably with several recent events that have all served to remind me that we are living in an Age where “truth” is being allowed to have quite different meanings to different people.

It was brought home to me in my own family when my son told me that one is only guilty of having done something if one is found out. He went ahead and tried the same argument on a Judge and discovered His Honour was not particularly impressed, overruling the particular objection being thus defended. But where had he learnt such a thing? It was not from me, someone who sees truth as that which corresponds to objective reality, not a matter of subjective persuasion or angle of perception. Feelings of guilt may be present or not, but if one did something… then one did something, discovered or not. But my son has grown up in a postmodern culture pervaded by moral relativity, and thus his point of view is probably not too suprising. It is certainly the view espoused by an important American philosopher, Dr Richard Rorty, who takes the position of the pragmatist, asserting that truth is what one’s peers lets one get away with. Now I can get myself in a right tangle with the truth, asking the question of whether or not the Judge, peering over his spectacles, was a peer… and if that should matter at all.

Postmodernism raises challenges to those who argue that truth is absolute, objective and universal. Truth decay, Dr Groothuis explains, is a cultural condition in which such a view of truth is considered implausible, held in open contempt or not seriously considered. However, he does go on to reassure us that the truth itself does not decay, but just our human grasp of it has slipped.

One intellectual mentor of Dr Groothuis is the late Dr Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) who pointed out that we need to distinguish the content of truth (what statements are true) from the concept of truth (what truth is) because our view of the latter shapes everything about us - or about our beliefs. And the problem with postmodernism, argues Dr Groothuis (and I wholeheartedly agree with him!) is that it accepts a “poisonous” and untrue view of the truth. It is one thing to believe something is true when it isn’t, but quite another to believe that whether or not it is depends entirely on personal choice. For example… whether or not I believe that gravity is true (that it exists and will have a predictable effect on me) is hardly a matter of choice such that I can jump off a cliff and choose whether or not to crash in a broken heap at the bottom.

But objective truth has little to do with spiritual reality if you listen to Ophra. Check out what she is saying here and prepare to be amazed. The truth is anything that you want to believe it to be. Postmodernism, broadly understood, has dispensed with Truth and has replaced it with truths… as many truths that everyone and anyone likes to manufacture and believe in order to suit themselves.

Another concerning thing about truth is that these days it may not be politically correct and thus should be strictly censored. For example… the Canadian government has ordered a Christian ministry that teaches doctrine and the differences between Christianity and pseudo-Christian cults be shut down because its reference materials were “critical” of the beliefs of those who are not Christian.

MacGregor Ministries has had to relocate its corporate structure into the United States because it points out that:
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that all their so-called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and even their official ‘Mormon Doctrine’ statements contradict each other…”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that the reason the Book of Mormon has no maps is because there is not one scrap of archaeological evidence to support it!”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that their prophet Joseph Smith was heavily involved in the occult when he founded Mormonism.”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that that they encourage visitations from dead relatives from the ’spirit world,’ a practice forbidden in the Bible. (Deuteronomy 18:10- 12.)”
~ “Neale Donald Walsch who wrote the bestseller Conversations with God says, ‘Hitler went to heaven’ (Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Book 2, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc., 1997; p. 35) And the reason according to Walsh ‘There is no hell, so there is no place else for him to go.’”
~ “The Bible states that the ONLY WAY to heaven is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Universalism teaches that there is not just one way of salvation but many different ways. The Christian inclusivists state salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, but they change the meaning to be that His grace extends out to those who do not believe (not needing faith) because he died for them too.”

Now these teachings are objectively verifiable facts. But MacGregor Ministries were given an ultimatum that required them to say that all religions are equal, that Lorri MacGregor was to stop writing their magazine on the cults, that they were to remove their websites and stop selling any products to help teach about the cults, and any future DVDs that they do on the Bible must not be persuasive in favour of Christian truth.

This situation brings to mind the persecution of the Apostles in the first century of the Christian church. They were ordered to stop their preaching. However, as we are told in Acts 5: 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!

Another example of truth being censored where it is not politically acceptable is that which is portrayed in Geert Wilder’s recently released film “Fitna”.

The film really does little more than highlight certain surah written in the Qur’an and show news clips to demonstrate how those surah have been played out in recent time. It does not provide “context” that would suit an Islamic apologist who might prefer to intellectualize away the bald facts, but there is an objectivity to it that simply cannot be denied. If you wish to view the film, it is available in many places on the internet, and one such place is Mark Alexander’s blog, “A New Dark Age is Dawning“, right here.

I rather like the comments on Cranmer’s blog where he writes the following:

There is one religio-political agenda which has no compatibility with British democracy; indeed, it is in the process of destroying it. It may be observed that one may attack Christianity and offend Christians by blaspheming the name of Christ with impunity; there is no sensitivity to the level of this offence, and therefore no censorship. But any such attack on Islam and its prophet not only meets with the full force of the law, there are draconian levels of pre-emptive censorship just in case the Queen’s Peace is disturbed.

The default ‘blasphemy law’ in the UK is now Shari’a, and it is under its absolutes that all religio-political discourse must now be conducted. The Qur’an is now treated with greater respect than the Bible; the name of Allah is more fearful than that of Jehovah; and the life and teachings of Mohammed are more sacred than those of Jesus.

Cranmer presumes the Archbishop of Canterbury is content with the incorporation of this aspect of Shari’a into UK law, albeit by the back door.

Note that reports do not mention ‘the Islamic Prophet’; just ‘the Prophet’. The ‘Son of God’ would undoubtedly be pre-fixed with ‘whom Christians believe to be’ in almost every media narrative.

and concerning Network Solutions’ withdrawal of the film from the internet…

This is an unacceptable pre-emptive censorship, and must be an infringement of constitutional right. Network Solutions has caved in to radical Islam and spat in the face of free speech. It should not be for Network Solutions to determine what is and is not acceptable any more than it should be for Google. If causing offence is deemed to be unacceptable, who knows who might get offended next and which sites will be pulled?

And it is noteworthy that Network Solutions is perfectly content to host radical Islamic websites, some of which belong to (or are closely affiliated with) terrorist groups like Hizbollah.

The postmodern philosophy of today is waging war on the view that truth is absolute, objective and universal by nature, that it is one and undivided, the same for all people everywhere at all times. And where it does appear in its objective and rational form, it must be put away as far too abhorrent and repugnant to consider.

Easter Sunday… the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. Many sceptics have become Christians while attempting to refute the Resurrection. To present all the evidences here would take too many words, but a summary list of salient points to address include:

~ this event occurred exactly as predicted
~ the Roman seal was broken and the Roman Guard (4 -16 man security force) gone missing
~ the huge heavy stone (1½ - 2 tons) was moved away, having to be pushed up an incline
~ Jesus was not in the tomb, but his burial bandages were left behind
~ over 500 eyewitnesses saw him alive, including disbelieving and hostile witnesses who were subsequently convinced it was He
~ the lives of His followers changed dramatically and despite torture and death they did not recant

The significance and explanations surrounding each of these points have been debated strenuously, and the proof evidence presented continues to point to the only reasonable conclusion, namely, that Christ rose bodily from death.

To follow these evidences and the arguments every way concerning them, click on the following links. Go on, I dare you! Sceptics and scoffers beware. If you are prepared to give honest consideration to what you read here, prepare for (at very least) a seed of doubt to enter your disbelief.

Evidence for the Resurrection by Josh McDowell
Evidence for the resurrection of Christ by Peter Kreeft
Evidences for the Resurrection by J. Hampton Keathley III, M.Th.
Evidence for the Resurrection from “Contend for the Faith“, an Apologetics and Theology Resource.

A comment from Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Boston College:

The historical evidence is massive enough to convince the open-minded inquirer. By analogy with any other historical event, the resurrection has eminently credible evidence behind it. To disbelieve it, you must deliberately make an exception to the rules you use everywhere else in history. Now why would someone want to do that?

Ask yourself that question if you dare, and take an honest look into your heart before you answer.

Today is Good Friday. Why is it good? As a child I used to think it was good because we had hot cross buns for breakfast - lovely and spicey, warmed in the oven, butter melting and dripping down our chins. And it was a day off school. Perfect! But apart from that, I thought it was pretty bad that Jesus was crucified - that anyone could be crucified. How was that good? It should really be Bad Friday instead.

On the radio news this morning I heard that the Muslims in Auckland were complaining that all the shops had to stay closed today. It wasn’t fair on them since they were being penalized by having to observe a holy day from a religion which wasn’t their own. Well, tough! They knew before they came here that New Zealand is a country whose traditions are founded on Christianity, not Islam. If they don’t like it, they are free to leave and live in an Islamic country where Easter means nothing. I have no sympathy with such a complaint. Also, I am not asking them to attend Church. But if they can’t go shopping, they might like to pick up a Bible and spend that time reading the true story about the historical Jesus. As I have written about in a previous post, they are thinking He is someone else instead. Not so. The Biblical account of the historical Jesus predates their own version by a good 600 years, and is the actual eye-witness accounts of those who knew Him, lived with Him, listened to Him, and in many cases died for their belief in Him. To read about Him, it is to the Bible that one really must turn.

So on Good Friday our shops remain closed. I know that is an imposition on those who are not believers. They have to give up one day of shopping, a day of consumerism, a day of letting the moths fly their wallets. But to a child’s eyes, that is a small price to pay for those wonderful hot cross buns for breakfast!

It is Easter Sunday, the day we celebrate the real goodness of Easter, that makes sense of the Friday beforehand. Do you believe it was possible, that it could really have happened, that Jesus rose alive from His death? There is some incredibly strong evidence to support that it happened. If you don’t believe that it did, on what basis don’t you believe it? Have you actually investigated the evidence before making a judgement? Or are you simply prejudiced by your own uninformed scepticism? If you have not looked into the evidence, then do be honest about it. And think about this… that if Jesus did indeed rise alive from such a hideous and certain death, then that is something that needs to be taken pretty seriously indeed. There is far more to the story than just a plain simple response. If you have not already done so, then start checking out some of the evidence which can be found from here on. You could be in for surprises!

Crossing one’s fingers behind one’s back means that what one is saying is not the truth.

The recent death has been reported of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This organization is a cult that preaches an aberrant non-orthodox Christian theology while claiming (falsely) to be Christian - see here. What really caught my eye about the report of their president’s death was a comment as follows… Over the years, Hinckley laboured long to burnish the faith’s image as a world religion far removed from its peculiar and polygamous roots. Still, during his tenure the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention and United Methodist Church - the three largest U.S. denominations - each declared Mormon doctrines depart from mainstream Christianity. “We are not a weird people,” Hinckley told Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes” in 1996. “The more people come to know us, the better they will understand us,” Hinckley said in an interview with The Associated Press in late 2005. “We’re a little different. We don’t smoke. We don’t drink. We do things in a little different way. That’s not dishonourable. I believe that’s to our credit.”

Yes, it may be considered to their credit… that they don’t smoke nor drink (although a little red wine has proven advantages to health, thus credit worthiness may be disputed) …and it is not dishonourable; not as a rule.

But that is NOT what was meant by the churches mentioned in the comment - the Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists and United Methodists. The now late Mr Hinckley sneakily shifted the topic of conversation sideways to avoid the issue of doctrine. Nobody was saying those things were dishonourable. It is their non-orthodox theology that is a departure from mainstream Christianity, and that was the issue which Mr Hinckley seemed to have preferred to avoid.

Sneaky, eh?

It needs to be said…

Jesus is not honoured by being called a great prophet.
He was and is the Messiah, the Christ. He is the Son of God.

To think that one honours Him by regarding Him as a great prophet, but not as the Christ, is to belittle and denigrate Him instead.

This is what Islam does to our Saviour.
Not just Islam, but any religion - and any individual - who does not recognize Him for who He is.

And yet I know they are not.

Actors in the Islamic movie, “Jesus, the Spirit of God”.

A director has produced what he says is the first film giving an Islamic view of Jesus Christ, in a bid to show the “common ground” between Muslims and Christians. Nader Talebzadeh sees his movie, “Jesus, the Spirit of God,” as an Islamic answer to Western productions like Mel Gibson’s 2004 blockbuster “The Passion of the Christ,” which he praised as admirable but quite simply “wrong”. “Gibson’s film is a very good film. I mean that it is a well-crafted movie but the story is wrong — it was not like that,” he said, referring to two key differences: Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God, and does not believe he was crucified.

These folk are convinced they are right. But wait, the Jesus of the Bible lived seven centuries before the Qur’an was written, and the New Testament gospels were already in existence. Did the Qur’an come up with new evidence about Jesus? No. There isn’t any that was not already known in Christendom. Nothing has been discovered since that favours the Islamic stories over and above the Biblical stories. Where did their version come from then? Islam tells us that the Qur’an was handed down to Mohammad, from Allah, via the Angel Gabriel. The Islamic stories of Jesus - or rather, of the Prophet ‘Isa, as they believe they know of him - come from their god, Allah. When I compare these stories with those of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of the New Testament, I seriously wonder if we are meaning the same person. In fact, I think this has to be a case of mistaken identity. The purported facts are so different in each case. Even Islam is saying exactly that, and that the purpose of this film is supposedly to give the truth. If that is the truth, then it has to be about somebody else - not Jesus of the Bible.

Talebzadeh says it aims to bridge differences between Christianity and Islam, despite the stark divergence from Christian doctrine about Christ’s final hours on earth.

“It is fascinating for Christians to know that Islam gives such devotion to and has so much knowledge about Jesus,” Talebzadeh said.

“By making this film I wanted to make a bridge between Christianity and Islam, to open the door for dialogue since there is much common ground between Islam and Christianity,” he said.

Source

But how does such a film “bridge the differences between Christianity and Islam” ?

I would say it points out the differences between Christianity and Islam, and just makes them so much more obvious. There is no bridge there at all.

There are two main sources for the stories of the Islamic prohet ‘Isa - the Qur’an, and the aHadith. The Qur'an gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections, which are recollections of Muhammad's words and deeds, establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future. The Qur’an declares that the true name of Jesus is ‘Isa, and his message was pure Islam - submission to Allah. ‘Isa was born to Mariam, daughter of ‘Imran, under a date palm tree and spoke while still a baby in the cradle. He breathed life into clay birds and foretold the coming of Muhammad. Apparently ‘Isa was given a book, namely the gospel, and the message revealed in that book is Islam. The book in its original form has since been lost, but his teachings are now incorporated in the Qur’an. ‘Isa was “supported” by the Holy Spirit and his disciples were all Muslims. ‘Isa was not crucified but he did ascend to Allah, and on the Day of Judgement he will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. The prophet ‘Isa will have an important role in the end times, establishing Islam and making war until he destroys all religions save Islam.

However… The Qur'an, written in the 7th century AD, cannot be regarded as having any authority whatsoever to inform us about Jesus of Nazareth. It offers no evidence for its claims about biblical history. The Qur’an’s numerous historical errors reflect a garbled understanding of the Bible. ‘Isa is not an historical figure. His identity and role as a prophet of Islam is based solely on supposed revelations to Muhammad over half a millennium after the Jesus of history lived and died.

Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua in Aramaic, and Jesu in Greek. It is interesting that Jesus’ name Yehoshua' contains within it the proper Hebrew name for God, the first syllable Yeh- being short for YHWH ‘the LORD'. Yeshua of Nazareth was never called ‘Isa, the name the Qur'an gives to him. Arab-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasou' (from Yeshua) not ‘Isa.

Jesus did not receive a book. He spoke as He was given to speak from God, the Father.

The claim that Jesus was not executed by crucifixion is without any historical support. One of the things that all the early sources (and that includes historical texts ex-biblical) agree on is Jesus' crucifixion. Check that out here.

Mariam the mother of ‘Isa is called a sister of Aaron, and also the daughter of Aaron's father ‘Imran (Hebr. Amram). Clearly Muhammad has confused Mary (Hebr. Miriam) with Miriam of the Exodus. The two lived more than a thousand years apart! In the Bible Haman is the minister of Ahasuerus in Media and Persia (The Book of Esther 3:1-2). Yet the Qur'an places him over a thousand years earlier, as a minister of Pharoah in Egypt. The claim that Christians believe in three Gods — Father, son Jesus and mother Mary — is mistaken. The Qur'an is also mistaken to claim that Jews say Ezra was a son of God. (At-Taubah 9:30) The charge of polytheism against Christianity and Judaism is ill-informed and false. (Deuteronomy 6:4, James 2:19a)

Jesus' alleged foretelling of Muhammad's coming (As-Saff 61:6) appears to be based on a garbled reading of John 14:26, a passage which in fact refers to the Spirit.

Dr Mark Durie sums up as follows:

‘Isa (Jesus) of the Qur'an is a product of fable, imagination and ignorance. When Muslims venerate this ‘Isa, they have someone different in mind from the Yeshua or Jesus of the Bible and of history. The ‘Isa of the Qur'an is based on no recognized form of historical evidence, but on fables current in seventh century Arabia.

For most faithful Muslims ‘Isa is the only Jesus they know. But if one accepts this Muslim ‘Jesus', then one also accepts the Qur'an: one accepts Islam. Belief in this ‘Isa is won at the cost of the libel that Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures, a charge that is without historical support. Belief in this ‘Isa implies that much of Christian and Jewish history is in fact Islamic history.

The Jesus of the gospels is the base upon which Christianity developed. By Islamicizing him, and making of him a Muslim prophet who preached the Qur'an, Islam destroys Christianity and takes over all its history. It does the same to Judaism.

In the end times as described by Muhammad, ‘Isa becomes a warrior who will return with his sword and lance. He will destroy the Christian religion and make Islam the only religion in all the world. Finally at the last judgement he will condemn Christians to hell for believing in the crucifixion and the incarnation.

This final act of the Muslim ‘Isa reflects Islam's apologetic strategy in relation to Christianity, which is to deny the Yeshua of history, and replace him with a facsimile of Muhammad, so that nothing remains but Islam.

Source

And to cap it all off, our Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. The prophet ‘Isa is not the Son of God, nor the son of Allah, since Allah is not a father and he has no son at all.

It beggars belief that anyone can think that Jesus of Nazareth, the historical Jesus of the Bible, is the same as the Prophet ‘Isa of Islam. Just who do they think they are kidding?

Archbishop Tutu is causing a stir!

Besides being a much loved personality held in high esteem by a great many, his words tend to carry extra weight being those of a Nobel Peace Laureate. Last month he said in a BBC interview that he is depressed by the Church’s “obsession” with the issue of gay priests, and believes that its Gospel message is being undermined by “extreme homophobia”.

His words were: “God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another. In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality.”

He said that the Anglican Church has seemed “extraordinarily homophobic” in its handling of the issue of ordination of gay priests, and that he had felt “saddened” and “ashamed” of his church at the time.

Asked if he still felt ashamed, his words were: “If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes. If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn’t worship that God.”

A phobia is a persistent, abnormal, irrational fear of something. Given that to be the case, calling someone a “homophobe” when it is understood that the prefix “homo” is to be expanded to mean either a homosexual person, or homosexuality, is to imply that they have a persistent, abnormal, irrational fear of homosexuality or a homosexual person.

However, it is often translated to mean a hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality, more so that a fear. And those who use that term to describe others are usually unwilling to separate sin from sinner, behaviour from the person per se. They refuse to accept that Christians can love the sinner (person) while deploring the sin (behaviour) and that hating the sin does not mean hating the person - not at all.

It could be argued that it is actually quite reasonable to have a fear of homosexual behaviour, and for a number of reasons. From the point of view of a Christian, such behaviour is a transgression against God and to commit sin is a serious thing - offending God is not a wise thing to do! Also from the point of view of a Christian, the consequences of sin are fearful, both eternally and in the here-and-now. There is a cost involved, a price required to be paid. For Christians the spiritual price is already paid, but we must “go and sin no more” and in health terms, the cost will still remain - huge costs! Therefore a fear of such behaviour, and the hatred of sin, is a quite reasonable and rational thing… provided it does not become a phobia with all the unhealthy aspects of phobias.

But the secular use of that term, when aimed in a loose and derogatory fashion at faithful Bible-believing Christians, is not usually meant in that way at all. There is nothing nicely refined in the meaning when it is hurled as an insult. It is deliberately meant to mislead and obfuscate, abuse and discredit.

So how is the beloved Archbishop Emeritus using that term? Well, I would say… completely out of order! And the following is what I mean:

There is an incredibly strong push from the politically powerful Gay Lobby to have homosexual behaviour considered “normal” behaviour, that it is just another form of sexual expression on par with heterosexual behaviour. They are succeeding in many quarters, but have smacked into a brick wall when it comes to the Church. Although many who subscribe to a more liberal theology will work hard to argue that God did not really mean to include same-sex sex as a sin, they have almost 2,000 years of traditional Christianity (plus a great many more thousands and thousands of years of Judaism before that) attesting to the meaning of Scripture on this point. The position of the Church, of all mainstream Christian churches, is that sex outside of marriage is a sin against God - both hetero and homo and anything else. This is the Scriptural truth. For more on this topic, see here.

Bishop Tutu makes the error of equating rejection of homosexual practice with racism, two things that are not moral equivalents. Skin colour is genetic, but for no want of trying, scientists have been completely unable to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation. Even presuming that one day they did, it is still behaviour that is sinful according to God’s Moral Law, just as one can say that the behaviour of alcoholism is sinful although there has already been a genetic predisposition established there. We all have sinful predispositions, but that does excuse us nor make our behaviour no longer sinful. On the other hand, skin colour is not a matter of morality. Bishop Tutu’s stance on this, siding with the fallacy that is propagated by the Gay Lobby and also the Inclusive Church (liberal Christians), has him the hero of those factions who object to the authority of Scripture, that want to (in essence) rewrite it to remove the damning words against their sexual immorality, and have the Church recant thousands of years of tradition and Biblical truth. And when the Church defends against this direct attack, he will side with those factions and call faithful Bible-believing Christians - homophobic! The Church presents the moral law of God - and if that must makes Him homophobic too, and if Bishop Tutu does not worship one such as that, then just what God does Bishop Tutu worship?

Sadly, Bishop Tutu has moved away from traditional Biblical Christianity and is showing his theology to be coloured liberal. He preaches a leaning towards universalism, the doctrine of inclusiveness taken beyond Christian boundaries. His speech at the World Council of Churches Convention in Porto Alegre, Brazil (2006) shows cause for concern.

Jesus — was quite serious when he said that God was our father and that we belonged all to one family, because in this family all, not some, are insiders. None is an outsider — Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, all belong, all are held in a divine embrace that will not let us go — all, for God has no enemies — I have said that God is not a Christian — Some people chewed me up for saying that, but I believe it. Some like to think that we Christians have the duty of protecting God. But I wish these people could meet the Dalai Lama. He is a holy person, incredible. We are the ones who keep trying to put limits on God, but God gives the incredible gift of grace.

A reporter asked Tutu if there are any limits to plurality and diversity when seeking unity. “God is the God of all,” replied Tutu. “We are too prone to excommunicate. God welcomes all of us.

Source

Yes indeed, God invites us all… but not all of us respond positively to Him, and not all take Him up on His offer of redemption. Only those who accept become the children of God. Not all… not at all. Bishop Tutu is confusing invitation with unconditional acceptance. God does not accept us unconditionally, although He does invites all to accept His plan for redemption and obedience thereafter. He welcomes us, but He has in mind to transform us, not keep us remaining the same. He also respects our integrity and if we choose not to accept, then He respects our wish to remain outside His Kingdom - we are responsible for our own excommunication. Bishop Tutu is expressing the beliefs of universalism, not of Biblical scholarship and Truth. The Dalai Lama is a holy man, but in not in Christianity. It was Jesus Himself who said “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) God welcomes us all, but on His own conditions, not ours. The grace He gives us is common grace, that is, common to all. Common grace is not saving grace, as Bishop Tutu would know but seems to have quite forgotten.

I listened to the recent BBC broadcast where Bishop Tutu expresses his views on homosexuality and the Church. I disagreed with him on many points. He is not preaching the full Gospel, only a partial gospel - a social gospel in fact, one of good works, not one of redemption and transformation. He tells only half the story, and by disputing the authority of Scripture he permits himself to pick-and-choose in a way that has caused error to creep into his beliefs. Accordingly, he now misjudges the church and because of his own status and influence, he is perpetrating mischief.

An excellant appraisal of this interview with Bishop Tutu has been written here by Dr Lisa Severine Nolland. An excerpt follows:

In broader terms, Desmond's biblical theology is fatally flawed. Though he claims he loves the Bible and especially the words of Jesus, in truth Desmond's theology is seriously compromised by a Pick-n-Mix approach. His bottom line seems to be the overwhelming love of God and the requisite to ‘do good' within a broader framework of ‘progressive' 60s Liberation Theology. Desmond preaches the ‘soft', human, God-has-low-standards-and-wears-his-heart-on-his-sleeve Jesus; the ‘hard' Jesus holds little appeal and is either ignored or rejected. Christ's teaching about the wrath and judgement of Almighty God on personal sin; individual choice pregnant with eternal consequence for good or for evil; holiness, righteousness, truth and morality; heaven and hell and so forth are filtered through the lens of Matthew 25 (‘I was hungry, and you fed me' etc.) - and very little remains. The ensuing void thus severely truncates the Christian Gospel on a good day and radically deconstructs it on a bad, as Bob Duncan notes.

Read here a particular view Bishop Tutu expresses and scroll down skimming the 100 comments to see what it has spawned. Do you see him defending Christian truth in this?

Here Bishop Tutu writes that “no religion is violent, thus by definition, Islam is not”. He explains that no religion teaches that murder and killing is right, so I must glean from such an opinion that he has never read the Qur’an or aHadith. And note the fallacy in his argument - that of constructing a definition and then attempting to validate something against it, rather than to take that something and look at its properties in order to validate or re-work the definition. Anyway, he is wrong, as neatly demonstrated by the writer of the final of the 31 comments. But again, look at the response he gets - the numbers all clinging to his every word as to one of great authority and unquestionable knowledge.

I’m sorry, Archbishop Tutu, but… I think you’ve lost the plot.

On a Christian forum there was recently some discussion concerning whether or not the forum itself could be regarded as “church” and if so, presuming that women’s ordination to the priesthood may be unBiblical, were women (myself being one of those) permitted therefore to “teach” men in such places. Having presented my arguments against the ordination of women to the priesthood, if a forum could be considered a church, then I was being hooked on my own beliefs and should remain silent. Ouch!

The question was raised along the lines as follows…

“Judah, this of course becomes interesting when we consider the meaning of church.

What consequences we wish to take from that regarding biblical disciplines and behaviours we can discuss… or maybe the gentlemen can discuss. ”

But now for my considered response…

Yes, I agree that some do perceive the internet as a form of “church” - and I have also referred to “the internet church” in my own posts in places. In that regard I am likening to a church (the body of Christ) the kind of fellowship we can have with other Christians all over the globe, meeting as it were in one common place, that being a particular forum to which we each post and chat with each other. But even in calling it that, I am fully aware of the limitations of such, and that it does not entirely meet with the distinguishing characteristics of “church” in its visible sense.

One point that I believe is absolutely essential to make is that the church is both visible and invisible.

Article XIX of the Church of England (1571) speaks of the church in this way:

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

However, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-46) speaks a little more fully of the church as follows:

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
3. …

It goes on to describe components of the visible church, such as ordinances administered and public worship performed.

In its true spiritual reality as the fellowship of all genuine believers, the church is invisible - the church as God sees it. In this spiritual reality Christ is “head over all things to the church, which is his body ….” (Ephesians 1:22); “the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Hebrews 12:23). This is “church” in the broadest sense, including all the redeemed in earth and heaven, and in all ages. This is, as I understand it, the “church” to which is referred in the perception some have concerning Christian fellowship on the internet.

But the church is very definitely visible as well. Scripture passages are very numerous in describing it. In some cases, the word is used in the singular, and in others the plural; in some it is used with reference to a specified church, and in others without such specification. In all cases the sense refers to the visible church. In Acts 11:26, it is said that Paul and Barnabas were “gathered together with the church,” where the church at Antioch is meant. In Acts 14:23, Paul and Barnabas are said to have “appointed elders in every church,” that is, churches which they had planted. In Rev. 2 and 3 the seven churches of Asia Minor are addressed. In Acts 16:5 we are told that the churches “were strengthened in the faith.” There are a great many more references to the visible church, and then the Apostle Paul writes his letters to the various visible churches, the epistles that make up a large part of the New Testament.

It is in these epistles that the matters of church government is addressed. These churches are definitely and permanently organized bodies, and not temporary and loose aggregations of individuals. It is quite impossible, for example, to regard the church at Antioch as a loose aggregation of people for a passing purpose. The letters of Paul to the churches at Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, cannot be regarded as addressed to other than permanent and definitely organized bodies. These churches were served by two classes of ministers - one general (apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, then those with various of the spiritual gifts), the other local (elders, bishops, deacons - and those titles may be to some extent interchangeable) who exercised the highest ecclesiastical functions. Membership was controlled (baptism, discipline) and officers selected, ordinances observed, sacraments administered, duties and tasks carried out, and relationships ordered in respect to external authority. These components form the distinguishing characteristics of the visible church.

Keeping within the all-important correct context… Paul was writing to the visible churches of the New Testament concerning their own matters of government when he stipulated what he, as an apostle speaking with apostolic authority, designated as the appropriate gender roles for within the visible church. He does not reference these roles to what was fashionable of the day, or culturally appropriate or inappropriate, but to the bigger picture of God’s order of creation which stands for all time. By pivoting his instruction on this act of God (creation) he keeps it clear of any cultural fad/fashion changes in respect to both geography and time.

I am saying, therefore, that these rules apply to the visible church - not to the invisible church of which a cyber-fellowship may possibly be likened - and to the visible church everywhere through all time.

An internet forum is not a visible church as it lacks many of the distinguishing characteristics of such - the aspect of joint public worship of God, the administration of the sacraments (Baptism and Holy Communion being two fundamental ones) and the Biblical system of organization and government, ministry in practical/physical matters, apostolic authority, etc.

The forum to which I post is a forum for debate, I believe. Even although the Apostle Paul’s gender roles have no application in this not-a-church-in-the-visible-sense situation, I do not consider myself to be there in any teaching/authority role, such as Paul forbids to women in regard to men, but am posting my points of view and substantiating them as one does in a debating context.

One last point… when it comes to the analogy of harassment and bullying as was mentioned in the original question, I understand the idea behind that analogy, but there also has to be an objective reference point. For instance, what say that a woman cries “Rape!” and accuses the other of such, because she feels raped, when the other did not even touch her? We all have different thresholds of perceptual experience, and whereas one may feel bullied by somebody’s actions, another may not. We do have to ask if the accused objectively bullied or not. Likewise, the perception of a forum as a church must be verified by reference to what actually distinguishes a church Biblically in the context of Paul’s words, and what is generally agreed upon by the Christian churches themselves. If we do not submit the subjective to the objective, then maybe I can get away with accusing you of stealing my lunch off the table when you are, in fact, fast asleep tucked up in your little bed the other side of the world. And a wink to you, too!

The recent Folsom Street Fair (San Francisco) provided such an explicit expression of “gay pride” which was abhorrent to many but, allowed to take place in a public place, appeared to be condoned by society and those authorities charged with upholding the law. Morals aside, the law was broken many times over but no sanctions applied. The Fair celebrated the moral decline of the western world. Apart from the presence of children who were exposed to these things, a form of child abuse in itself, another obscenity arose in the blessing given events by some clergy members of The Episcopal Church. I am no longer shocked by the depravity of humankind, thanks to the nature of my professional career, but it is disturbing to witness the mockery of God who is holy and who in His compassion for us made that ultimate sacrifice for the restoration of our relationship with Him.

To change tack a little, so often I have found that words from the Bible are used out of context, or only part of the message is given so that it is purposely distorted to mean something else instead. It is always worth going back to have another look for oneself and, casting aside any agenda, being prepared to open one’s heart to the teaching that those words were meant to provide in the first place.

For instance, it is so fashionable today among some to fire off the admonition not to judge others, and neglect to see that Jesus taught us that we are indeed to make judgements, but that they are to be “righteous judgements” that involve discernment, recognition of sin, based on God’s revelation of Himself and His word. These same people will often adopt a sanctimonious “it is not my place to judge others” stance in defiance of Christ’s instruction as given in John 7:24, making out that those who make such righteous judgements of sin are Pharisaical - that they are self-righteous, hypocritical and pushing a non-God-given doctrine. The problem is that these critics read their Bibles with an agenda, and usually one with a liberal bias heavily loaded towards the social gospel which largely ignores the primary reason for the Incarnation in the first place.

I have heard it said that those who speak those righteous judgements that Christ has told us to make (John 7:24) are lacking compassion. Whereas some may be doing so, I would suggest that the opposite is often the case. Truth may be spoken without love, but love without truth is not love at all. It is merely some sentimental sop condoning permissiveness. A traveller comes to a crossroads and has to decide a destination. He makes an inquiry and is told “I care about you deeply, fellow traveller, and will even carry your bag for you. But I wont tell you which path ends up where”. That is not compassion. His informant doesn’t care a damn!

This is splitting God’s love from His righteousness and holiness. They are not to be split, being two facets of the one God, integrated parts of His character. Indeed they cannot be split. God requires us to be holy as He is Holy. Without His word concerning what is sin we can not know just what dire situation we are in, that mankind’s behaviour has become so debauched and depraved that we are desperately in need of His compassionate act of redemption in Christ. These things cannot be divorced from each other. There is little compassion in ignoring the crimes against God that we sinners are capable of committing, and the consequences of them both here-and-now and eternally. Hush up the nature of sin and its horrific consequences and you steer people away from their need for God.

We hear it so often today - “God is love” - but just what that love really is has been forgotten. It is seen as a description of certain behaviours, the loving thing to do. Indeed it is that, but the real basis of this love - and what is truly meant by “God is love” - is in the Incarnation where Jesus came among us primarily to give Himself as the atonement for our sins, for our redemption. That it was necessary, that our sin made that so, and that He willingly did this great thing is the real love of God. That is the foundation of His compassion - it is His compassion. The rest of what Jesus did emanates from this primary purpose. Lose sight of that, and love becomes just another word, one we hope to see and exercise ourselves, but seldom close to the great act of compassion that took place on Calvary nearly 2,000 years ago.

God is not mocked. He is patient and gives us time and many second chances, but there is an end to his patience and that will be coming. It comes for each one of us when we get to confront Him face-to-face, and at the end of time itself.

The more I think on that terrible Passion of Christ, his scourging and crucifixion, the agony of His burden in the Garden of Gethsemane, the events of the next day, the humilation, the pain, the utterly horrendous torment and trauma… the more I grieve for those who are unregenerate and the great harm that they bring to themselves in their ignorance, defiance and mockery of God. Christians who are most cognizant of what it cost Jesus are not ones who go around with the kind of attitudes that rejoice in the sufferings of others, who want to punish and gloat. That has been said of conservative Christians. It is that cognizance of Christ’s sacrifice that spawns compassion, a truly deep compassion that bears fruit in our evangelism and actions towards others. Anything pharisaical is from a superficial brush with Christian ideals, not from deep in the heart where Christ’s Passion is known, where God’s mercy and forgiveness has been received with genuine humility. Having been forgiven much, one does not dare condemn another. Those players in the Folsom Street Fair do not need my condemnation as they manage to do that most generously for themselves. They need Christ’s compassion, and more desperately than they surely care to know.

1 Corinthians 2: 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment.

There are three Christian forums (some prefer the Latin plural “fora”) to which I post now-and-then, in two of which (in the USA and NZ) I have Administrator and/or Moderator duties, and the third being the Anglican Mainstream Forum based in the United Kingdom. I hasten to add that I don’t hang out on forums all of the time as real life frequently intervenes and takes me elsewhere. But on one of those forums, all those with orthodox or traditional Christian beliefs are constantly challenged by those prefering a more liberal theology, and get to be called “Pharisees” for resisting the revision to our faith which has been handed down from the Apostles and taught by the Church for almost 2,000 years.

Well, it just ain’t so! That does not make one a Pharisee. No, not at all.

Why object to this term? Because it is used to derogate, to depreciate another, to imply a self-righteous judgemental attitude held by the one so called, and most usually, it is applied quite incorrectly as well. The semi-common usage of this term is to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. It is used as ad hominem in a debate, is often a “red herring”, and unless ignored or refuted can obscure the issue. The use of the term needs to be addressed, and it’s meaning clarified for all who would bandy it around improperly.

Back in New Testament days the Pharisees were the “conservative party” within Judaism, holding very strictly to the Torah and the Talmud, and paying strict attention to detail in the observation of both. They were obsessed with adherence to the minutiae of doctrine, and their doctrine went far beyond that of Scripture to that instead of man-made tradition - “the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:9b). Thus their judgements of others were not based on Scripture, but on their own (and those of their predecessors) vain legalistic imaginations.

The heart of Pharisaism is found in Luke 18:9 - “confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else” (NIV); “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt” (NASB); “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought” (ASV); “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (KJV).

The Pharisees epitomized self-righteousness, and they were zealous. But their zeal was not according to the knowledge of the righteousness of God. The righteousness of God is that based in the atonement - the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone, imputed to all believers. Not anything of our doing, but a gift of grace from God. The Pharisees sought to establish their own righteousness. Trusting in themselves, they based their righteousness on their own nit-picking law-keeping and believed themselves above all others. They looked down on, viewed with contemp, set at nought and despised - we are told.

The Pharisees were hypocrits. They believed that their own law-keeping recommended them to God, and in believing that, they believed that all law-breakers were not in favour with God. They judged others, but in denying the imputation of righteousness made through grace, they did not have that imputed righteousness themselves, the only righteousness that satisfied God’s demand - their own self-righteousness fell far short. They were sinners deserving of damnation and did not know it. Their standard was the wrong standard. They exalted themselves through their own efforts rather than boasting in the cross of Christ (Galations 6:14).

So what distinguishes a modern-day Pharisee? They are those who elevate themselves and despise others, ignoring the fact that we are all sinners whose salvation can not come from our own efforts but only from the imputed righteousness of Christ. They are those who make false judgements of others, not judging with the righteous judgement (John 7:24) as Christ has told us to do, but with the hypocrisy where in their hearts they deny their own sin and need for His mercy and forgiveness as well.

So, pointing out God’s moral law is not in itself “being a Pharisee” and doing so to teach or rebuke is not either, if the manner in which it is done is not one of self righteousness and superiority. But how quickly one is accused of being so if the other does not want to hear, does not want to know, or simply does not agree with the Scriptures that so clearly state it as so. No, no and no - it just ain’t so!

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. Matthew 15:21-28 (NIV)

The following, pertaining to the story of the Canaanite woman, has really astonished me. I will explain why after you have read the writer’s view of the passage from Scripture alongside it here. We are seeing Jesus here in the process of gaining a new insight into the inclusiveness of God, and into his own part in extending that inclusion to others. And who opens his mind to that new insight? A Gentile woman. Some think that Jesus was simply testing the woman, to see whether she would push on to get what she wanted. But I don't see any reason for Jesus to act like that. I think it more likely that he had absorbed some of his cultural milieu without thinking it through completely. So when Jesus says that it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs, she replies, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” She is respectfully pointing out to Jesus that the Jews might think of Gentiles as dogs, but if they can be called dogs, then they are the sort of dogs who belong to the family, the dogs who sit under the table and snap up the titbits that fall to the ground. She is saying that there is more than enough of God's goodness to go around and that non-Jews, strangers, foreigners qualify for God's provision. And then we see the greatness of Jesus in his humility. He is not too proud or defensive to be taught a lesson by “one of them”, one of the “out” crowd. Instead of telling someone to throw her out, he says to her, “For saying that, you may go — the demon has left your daughter.” He says, in effect, “You are right!” In effect, he says, “You have taught me something new, something true.” And he is so committed to this new insight that he acts on it by healing the woman's daughter. In this passage the Saviour of the world accepts a new insight about God from a Phoenician woman.

In the previous two entries to Judah’s Journal I raise the question of just who is Jesus. The evidence is compelling in its claim that He is indeed who He is said to be, the Son of God - God incarnate. We are told that He is the image of the invisible God ~ Colossians 1:15. He claims for Himself “I and the Father are one” ~ John 10:30. The Nicene Creed states this as “being of one substance with the Father”.

But Jesus was also born fully human, of flesh and blood, subject to the same temptations and tribulations as all humankind but not giving in to them. While being fully human, He is of one substance with the Father (God), and somehow these two states are held in tension in the one person of Jesus Christ. He is the perfect human. This may be hard to get one’s head around, but that is the conclusion reached by many great minds who have weighed the evidence and can see no better alternative. That is the belief of those who call themselves Christians.

So back to the story of the Canaanite woman…

The writer of the interpretation above sees no reason for Jesus to have the woman plead with Him for her daughter’s healing. I see the writer as having turned his back on the context in which this event occurred, and the knowledge we have of God’s overall plan that involved Jesus.

In the very first place, the Jews were God’s chosen people, those through whom He would recover the situation brought about by mankind’s fall from grace when man disobeyed God and went his own way - which is what we all do. Not to go into the details right here, Jesus was to be the One who would bring redemption - first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles and all the rest of us up through the ages. The Canaanite woman was not a Jew, and thus her situation was not first call for Him. This is the background to understanding the conversation between them.

It is important to realize that the Gospels are, beside an account of the “Good News”, a record of how Jesus taught His disciples. They had to learn God’s plan for His people, and the order and means by which it would come about. At that stage Jesus had not yet become the sacrifice that brought to fruition the plan of redemption. His work was among the Jews… until later.

The woman persisted and kept calling upon Jesus. As her cries became more urgent, her faith grew with it. Recognizing Him, she called Him her Lord. She humbled herself, acknowledging her own unworthiness in relation to Him. This is an essential part of the equation - we are not worthy of our own account, but only by His grace do we receive. Not of our own doing, but by He who shall have the glory. This “small matter” of humility must not be overlooked. Her answers were humble, made more so through her interaction with Jesus, and gave evidence of her great faith. Jesus commented thus, and as a result, He healed her daughter.

The writer ignores that point. He cannot see the reason for initially denying the woman’s request. I see four reasons - the three already mentioned (His purpose in relation to God’s plan, growing her faith, seeking her humility for God’s glory) plus another lesson for the disciples, that of refusing to act simply for the sake of expediency, for getting the woman off their backs so to speak. This was a teaching moment not to be missed.

And now the crunch! The writer states “I think it more likely that he had absorbed some of his cultural milieu without thinking it through completely” and “In effect, he says, ‘You have taught me something new, something true.’ ” What does this say about who Jesus is? He has become so human in this writer’s view that His perfect nature is now compromised such that He has become flawed like the rest of us. The writer has Him succumbing to the cultural conditioning of the day, not thinking something through completely, thus making an error of judgement and requiring to be taught by us instead. What kind of Jesus is that?

This looks to me like a revisionist argument, the product of more liberal theology. Jesus, in being made more man than God, is being reconstructed to be more believable to those who suffer from disbelief. Scripture is being redefined to accommodate our lack of faith - and also our lack of knowledge of God. There is a complete neglect of the context, both the immediate one whereby the disciples are being taught and the woman is attended to spiritually, and the over-reaching one whereby God’s plan for our redemption is revealed. There is a bending of Scripture to satisfy another agenda altogether - the notion of “inclusiveness” which is actually contrary to what this event is about.

What saddens me greatly (about this skewed interpretation that I found) is not just what I have written about it above, but that it is the teaching (a published written sermon) of an Archdeacon of the Anglican Church of New Zealand, the Vicar of my local parish …to which I do not belong.

A Journalist Investigates Cuttent Attacks on the Identity of Christ

Paperback: 311 pages
Publisher: Zondervan (2007)
Language: English
ISBN: 978-0-310-24061-7
Product Dimensions: 8.0 x 5.25 x 0.75 inches

Lee Strobel, with a journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, was the award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and a spiritual skeptic until 1981. His wife became a Christian and Lee was antagonistic to her beliefs.

But deciding to be fair and objective, as much as he could from his bias towards atheism, he decided to sift through and weigh up the evidence for the Christian claims about Jesus. After all, a fair trial of the available evidence was a sound legal move and one by which he, as a legal journalist, should surely grant the claims made concerning the one called Christ. Setting out to interview the most highly regarded scholars of Christianity, he was staggered by what he discovered.

As a result, given the veracity of the evidence, he too became a Christian. Lee has since published the results of those interviews so that others may also consider the evidence, and in their role as jurors of one, decide the outcome of the “Case” he presents.

This latest “Case” book considers further the truth about Jesus. From the back cover of this book comes the following summary:

Today, the traditional picture of Jesus is under intellectual onslaught from critical scholare, popular historians, TV documentaries, Hollywood movies, bestselling authors, Internet bloggers, Muslim debaters, and aetheist think tanks. They’re capturing the public’s imagination with a radical new portrait of Jesus that bears scant resemblance to the picture historically embraced by the church.

How persuasive is this new image of jesus? Is it based on well-supported facts and arguments - or does it fade away when exposed to the hot light of scrutiny?

In this dramatic investigation, award-winning writer and former legal editor Lee Strobel explores such controversial questions as:

* Did Christianity suppress “alternative gospels” that portray Jesus more accurately than the New Testament?
* Did the church distort the truth about Jesus by tampering with the early Biblical texts?
* Have fresh insights and explanations finally disproved the resurrection?
* Were the essential beliefs about Jesus stolen from earlier mythology?
* Have new objections disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah?

Evaluate the evidence for yourself as leading experts grapple with the latest objections from today’s foremost critics. Then reach your own verdict in The Case for the Real Jesus.