The return of a Canadian from a Libyan jail last weekend raises this question in my mind
Have you noticed one missing fact from all the debate and discussion going on about the building of a mosque at Ground Zero in New York City? No one seems to mention the fact that it is to very difficult to build a Christian church in most Islamic countries and probably impossible to ever build a church near the site of some national tragedy or any site of national significance. I’m not arguing for “fair play,” just perspective. We believe in religious pluralism and multiculturalism, so, of course, mosques can be built in the U.S. and Canada. Historically, Christians have argued not for the freedom to practice Christianity, but for the freedom of all religions. This, in fact, lies behind the multiculturalism we see in the U.S. and Canada. But don’t we go wrong when we start to believe that all religions or cultures are equal though they are different? Are we really so sure that some are not better than others? And, yes, I mean morally better. President Bush told us that “Islam is a religion of peace,” but can this really be substantiated? I’d like to ask Don Symes about this common way of thinking about our world. Symes just returned home to Nova Scotia this weekend after spending 56 days in a Libyan jail accused of a crime he did not commit. (And so far as this author, Ken Symes, knows, Don Symes is not a relative.)
When I heard Don Symes’s description in the CBC News interview (click here to see it) of what he endured over those eight weeks, well he never said it, but it sounds to me like he was tortured under conditions most of us cannot really fathom. Hungry and sick, he lost 24 lbs; he was crammed into confined spaces with large numbers of prisoners, many of whom smoked excessively and he witnessed repeated acts of cruelty and assault toward other prisoners. Don Symes says he feared for his life constantly and I believe him. In the video, Don describes the horrible experience of being transported in the “smokehouse,” the vehicle used to transport prisoners from the El Jadida jail to the court once every week.
Sunni Islam is the state religion of Libya and shapes law and order in the country. No form of Christian witness to Libyan citizens is permitted, indeed given the work of the secret police, it is considered dangerous. Even the churches of expatriates in the country are strictly monitored. Only about 2% of the indigenous population is Christian, definitely a persecuted minority—for example, even importing Arabic Bibles is illegal. (For more information on Libya, see the Operation World profile and click on the jail pic above.) We fail to realize how different some countries in the world are compared to our own. It is quite likely that when the Pakistani worker accused Symes and two other men of assaulting him, his word was taken over that of Don Symes and his co-accused since they were non-Muslim, even though their alibi was solid. According to sharia law, the testimony of a Muslim far outweighs anything said by a kafir.
What should surprise us is not what happened to Don Symes in Libya but that it is not happening more often to Canadians working abroad in Islamic countries. Perhaps it is. Curiously, the story of Symes’ return to Canada from the Libyan jail has not received much media coverage at all—nothing beyond the Halifax newspaper and two Nova Scotian TV stations. I think it is a story we need to hear. [The day after posting this I discovered that CBC News Network ran a more in depth interview, so I upgraded the above video.] Canadians arrested abroad may not be treated with the same standards of justice we adhere to and they cannot count on the Canadian Embassy to help them even when being tortured or held without just cause in a foreign prison.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to figure this out, but cultural relativism is wrong—not all cultures, and certainly not all religions, are equal. C.S. Lewis explained, “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring... Christian morality to Nazi morality.” I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that we give up on love, tolerance and respect for adherents of other world religions, but the idea that all religions and their resultant moralities are equally true and beneficial is misguided. To be clear, personally I respect Muslims and support their freedom to practice their religion. I do not advocate hatred or intolerance of Muslims. I believe that the campaign of resistance to the so-called Ground Zero mosque is fueled by misinformation, intolerance and, perhaps, hatred (see The great “Ground Zero mosque” hoax in The Washington Post). In a land which guarantees religious freedom, why can’t they build a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero? At the same time, respect for Muslims does not mean that I have to agree with everything their religion teaches. Specifically, I do question if George Bush was misguided when he proclaimed that Islam is a "religion of peace."
Updated with clarifications: September 1, 2010 by Ken Symes
What's your story? How we came to putting our faith in Christ is the greatest story any of us can tell. If it's been a while since you've told the story of the difference Christ has made in your life, watch out, I might ask you to type up your story and post it here. That's what I did to my new friend, Margaret Evans. We only met a few weeks ago after she posted a comment at my Mere C.S. Lewis blog. I really liked what she had to say about her experience with C.S. Lewis and so I asked her if she would share her story of finding faith. And here it is, in her words...
I grew up in the south, where going to church was just what you did. Much like voting or joining the Rotary Club, it was part of being a “good citizen.” My parents raised us in the Methodist Church. We were active members, and it was pleasant and comfortable. But here’s the thing: it didn’t take. I considered myself a Christian – wasn’t everybody? – but I never thought much about what that meant, and it wasn’t particularly important to me. So, like many “cultural Christians,” I went off to college and started reading widely and thinking deeply – and meeting smart atheists, some of whom were my professors – and what little faith I had was shaken. I was an English major at a small, prestigious college with strong ties to the Episcopal Church, but it was there that I began losing my religion. In graduate school, the bulldozing of my faith continued. Along with lit courses, I had comparative religion, philosophy, and critical theory (deconstructionism!), all of which combined to pull the rug out from under this small-town southern girl. Not that I minded. I fancied myself quite sophisticated in my new found “enlightenment,” which consisted, mainly, of a conviction that there’s no such thing as “truth,” that life is a random series of meaningless experiences, and that belief in God is for the ignorant. Looking back, I see that my atheism (which I preferred to call “secular humanism”) was as much a “cultural” thing as my Christianity had been. I was running with a different crowd now – academics, artists, journalists – and scoffing was just what you did. My default attitude in those days was amused scorn.
Fast-forward almost two decades. I’m now married with a five-year-old daughter. Western culture is 20 years more decadent. I begin to experience a nagging concern that won’t let go: I need to take Amelia to church. Christianity is her heritage, and she knows nothing about it. She deserves to be exposed to it, if only for the sake of education. She won’t learn about it in school. It’s my responsibility.
These were my thoughts, three and a half years ago, as I took my child to a pretty little Presbyterian church one Sunday morning in December to hear the Christmas portion of Handel’s Messiah. We sat together on the front row, and I listened. And I remembered. (My parents had sung in the choir when I was a girl, and the Messiah was much loved in our home.) I sat there that morning in December, and something inexplicable – and completely unexpected – happened. Something cold and hard and cynical (my heart?) cracked open, and I wept like a baby on the front row of that church. “For, unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given… and the government shall be upon His shoulders…” I had heard those words a thousand times, and suddenly – for the first time – I knew they were true. And that everything – everything – was about to change.
I had no idea.
That morning in church was just the beginning. I often think that G.F. Handel opened my heart, but it took C.S. Lewis (and plenty of other writers) to bring my mind along for the ride. I’m a natural skeptic, so I needed lots of intellectual back-up after that initial moment of revelation.
Lewis gave me a whole new way of seeing; he addressed my natural skepticism and made it okay to believe in miracles... He spoke to my heart AND my mind and allowed me – no, freed me – to really "go there." Know what I mean? In my heart, it was where I already wanted to go, but I needed an intellectual shove. I guess you could say Lewis was my "closer." I remember reading 'Mere Christianity' on the treadmill at my gym, and just weeping openly with joy (and relief!) and wondering why nobody had ever said it to me like THIS before! It really changed my life. Next, I read 'The Screwtape Letters,' which I still think is possibly THE wisest, most insightful book I've ever read. But I'm no Lewis expert. I've read the 'Abolition of Man' and lots of essays (and, of course, the Narnia books) but haven't read the Space Trilogy or even The Great Divorce. (They're all on my list...)
My point is that “conversion” isn’t a one-time thing... an “event” with a beginning and an end. It may have a catalyst (like Handel’s ‘Messiah’), but it’s an ongoing process of growth and discovery. Ever since that day in church, I’ve been reading and studying, praying and worshipping… trying to figure out what it means to follow Christ. My husband remains an agnostic, as do many of our friends. I’ve even lost a few friends over my conversion, and have suffered a fair amount of marital strife because my husband simply doesn’t understand. As a writer, I’ve struggled with the compulsion to make my faith the focus of my work, but I’m a columnist for an alternative newsweekly, so it’s not a great fit. In short, it’s been an extremely difficult, challenging time… and absolutely amazing. In spite of everything, I have no regrets. I look forward to each new bend in the road with faith, hope and love.
Thanks Margaret for posting your story. Margaret mentioned that she was a columnist (and she's actually the editor too) and I think you would enjoy reading more of her work, so please visit her newsweekly's website. You can also read Margaret's story at very interesting blog called On The Fence with Jesus which I highly recommend. And, of course, if you'd like to read C.S. Lewis which Margaret would highly recommend, as do I, then please visit the Mere C.S. Lewis site and check back everyday for a new reading.
A short while ago, I wanted to find a picture of a politician who could represent Ezekiel Bulver — a fictional character whom C.S. Lewis once wrote about. We could call him Lewis's pit bull; I'll explain in a moment. I was clipping this story of Ezekiel Bulver to post at Mere C.S. Lewis, a blog at which I offer daily readings from Lewis. I like to illustrate the readings with contemporary pictures, and, thus, I was searching for the perfect politician to represent Ezekiel Bulver.
Following Lewis' description, I needed to find a politician who never bothered to prove that their opponent was wrong, but instead would start by explaining why this opponent was wrong. Lewis gives a bit of a biography of Ezekiel Bulver, explaining that at age 5,
he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third — ‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. (C.S. Lewis, "'Bulverism,'" God in the Dock, 273)
So, you can see, I needed a member of Parliament who was well known for standing up in Question Period to attack members of the Opposition and accuse them of fighting for causes without sufficient reasons, while he himself would claim that he and his government had solid reasons and not causes.
I chose John Baird to be a living representation of Ezekiel Bulver. Unofficially, Baird is known as the Prime Minister's "pit bull." Officially, he was the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure —very visible in this last year as he played a key role in the implementation of Canada's economic stimulus plan. On Friday, the Prime Minister appointed John Baird to be the new House Leader —the member of the government who works with the opposition to try to ensure the passage of bills in the House. I cannot imagine any worse candidate for such a strategically important role. Obviously, the Prime Minister is looking for a fight. You send in the pit bull to attack not to negotiate. Ezekiel Bulver is not the man to sit down and reason with his opponents. He will either humiliate them and make them look stupid or, more likely, he will infuriate them and provoke them to act stupidly. In any case, I found it ironic that Stephen Harper would appoint the man I chose to represent Ezekiel Bulver to be the new House Leader, a role obviously not well-suited to Bulver or Baird, in my opinion.
Guess it's been a rather political post this time; maybe I'll get some Bulverish comments ;) If you want to read more about Ezekiel Bulver from C.S. Lewis, check out the Ezekiel Bulver posts at Mere C.S. Lewis. And, in closing, one Scriptural principle for overcoming Bulverism is found in the Epistle of James:
My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because our anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. (James 1:19-20, TNIV)
CS Lewis warned that "until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs" (274). As Christians, Lewis urges us not to be like Bulver, not even to be like pit bulls with lipstick. There is a better way, a more reasonable approach.
It was a fairytale wedding come true for the older members of Generation X, like me. I got up very early on that morning of July 29, 1981, joining a worldwide TV audience of 750 million, to witness the very beautiful twenty-year-old Diana become The Princess of Wales when she married Prince Charles at St. Paul's Cathedral in London, England. The wedding ceremony with all of its pomp and circumstance was absolutely stunning.
As is well known now, there marriage proved to be anything but a fairytale. After the lack of intimacy, distrust and infidelity, they were separated and then divorced — exactly the ending to marriage that we Gen Xers expect to see. Today, exactly 29 years after their wedding (and 14 years after their divorce), while certainly disillusioned about marriage, I still find myself believing and wanting to believe in marriage, in a love and intimacy between two people that lasts a lifetime. There is no fairytale romance, wedding and marriage; it does not magically just happen in our real world. It takes love and patience and suffering and hard work to have a great marriage. But this ideal of a love and intimacy between two people that lasts a lifetime, I know it must exist. I know because this is what the Scriptures describe for us — Jesus himself saying, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Matt 19:5-6)
Recently, I put together a list of the Top Ten Bible Readings for Weddings. This is a great top ten list which I've posted at Squidoo.com in hopes that couples looking to include a Scriptural reading in their wedding will find it. I hope you'll check it out too! Squidoo is a fun and fascinating site... and the more people who visit my "Squidoo lens," the higher my ranking, so help a friend out ;) My lens has risen from #8335 all the way up to #285 in the "religion" category.
While reading the Toronto Star last week, this headline caught my attention, "How facts can make things worse." Being a big proponent of "the truth shall set you free," I was alarmed at the notion that getting facts can make it worse. How so? It turns out that the article is about a fascinating research project about how presenting facts to politically conservative people in the U.S. can actually cause them to solidify their wrong position! (If it's too hard to read in the window below, you can find it here: How facts can make things worse.)
After reading the article, I wondered how it might apply in Christian circles. Is it possible that we who value the truth might also be subject to the "Backfire Phenomenon"? What do you think? I'll comment below, but just to review, here are two salient points from the article:
It is known as the backfire phenomenon: misinformed people who are given correct information not only reject that information, but end up believing the wrong information even more strongly.
Part of this response can be attributed to a common psychological phenomenon known as motivated reasoning — when people encounter discordant information [they] find a way to deal with that information in a way that doesn’t threaten what they already know or believe.
So does the backfire phenomenon happen in Christian circles? By presenting facts to some wayward Christians do we actually make things blow up even worse? I suspect this is exactly what has happened in the last 40 years with regard to the erroneous teaching about an end times "rapture" of believers. Thanks to Hal Lindsey's The Late, Great Planet Earth it became very popular to believe that true Christians would be raptured to heaven before the outpouring of God's wrath in the last days. Now, in reality, the term "rapture" is not biblical nor is the concept supported in the Bible. There's just no way that Bible verses like Revelation 4:1 support the idea of all believers being taken up to heaven before seven years of wrath ("After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this"). But, when we have tried to correct this teaching by presenting evidence from the Scriptures, it has only made things worse and multiplied the false teaching about the rapture. In fact, it exploded into the best-selling series of Left Behind novels. Now it seems almost impossible to present the Biblical truth on this matter and have it heard. Trying to do so with the novel readers only makes things worse.
What do you think? Are there other examples in the Church where presenting the facts only makes things worse?
Another example that came to mind for me is in those circles where the sovereignty of God has been taught in such a way as to promote a deterministic understanding of reality, leaving us to be merely puppets pulled by God's strings. Though it seems abundantly clear that we are radically free event o run wild, presenting the Biblical teaching on free will — the human power to choose only seems to make things worse (I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live" - Deut 30:19; "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" - Josh 24:15; "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" - John 3:18; "Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely" - Rev 22:17). Though the Scriptures clearly teach that humans have free will, presenting these facts to some people only makes things worse and they then support even more extreme versions of determinism where nothing happens apart from God willing it which serves to make God the author of evil (theologically, an unacceptable position rejected by the early church).
Anyone want to weigh in? Is it true that sometimes facts make things worse in the church? What do you think?
The new containment cap has been installed, but for some unspecified reason the integrity testing has been delayed. I hope and pray that this cap will stop the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I know I've been focused on this disaster for a while now, but I do remain very concerned that this crisis is not being taken seriously enough, especially in the Christian community. The water is becoming toxic, ocean life is being killed, and livelihoods are being devastated. Human folly is wreaking havoc with God's good creation. And look at the rate at which it is happening. Watch above to see how the oil is flowing according to the conservative estimate. Start moving the slider to see what the more realistic numbers look like.
Please join me in praying that the oil will stop gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. I'm hoping for the best with this new containment cap, but concerned that testing on Tuesday was delayed. God have mercy! Here is a suggested prayer:
We pray today for the preservation of the Gulf of Mexico and the lands and waters it touches: Please stop the oil from gushing into the ocean; Give them success with this new containment cap. Guide those who labour to contain the oil that endangers the creatures of sea and land; Strengthen those who work to protect them; Have mercy on those whose livelihoods are suffering; Forgive us for our carelessness in using the resources of nature, and give us wisdom and reverence so to manage them in the future, that no one may suffer from our abuse of them, and that generations yet to come may praise you in the beauty of your creation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Previously, I expressed how surprised I was at how little of a Christian response there was to the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, at least based on what I could find on the Internet.
Recently, someone pointed me to a video circulating on the net in which a pastor from Florida claims that the oil spill catastrophe is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy! To be fair, Pastor Carl Gallups would probably say that he does not claim this, but rather asks if it could be the judgment of God and fulfillment of prophecy. (I've invited Pastor Gallups to reply to this posting, and I will post any reply I receive from him. I am very open to debating this with him so that we can arrive at truth.) Let's be clear, to ask a leading question like this is to imply the answer. Most people viewing the video or listening to the original radio broadcast would conclude that Gallups believes the oil spill disaster is God's judgement on the US for turning against Israel. But see for yourself...
The conclusion Pastor Gallups gives in the video sums it up nicely: "April the 19th, Israel celebrates its independence in 2010. On April the 19th, Fox News reports that the U.S. will no longer automatically support Israel in the United Nations. The next day, on April the 20th, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explodes. Coincidence? Or the hand and judgment of God?" World Net Daily interviewed Pastor Gallups and they got Bible prophecy heavyweight Hal Lindsey (author of The Late Great Planet Earth) to back him up, "I believe this is evidence that when you turn your back on Israel, especially when you've been a supporter, you're gonna see judgments come from God." Really? I object to Lindsey and to Pastor Gallups.
There are at least three good reasons why this horrible disaster is NOT God's judgment on the US: (1) God gave no warning, (2) Fox News isn't presenting actual facts about the US and (3) the Genesis prophecy ultimately concerns the children of Abraham by faith not by land.
1. God gave no warning. Here's how biblical prophecy about judgment works: (1) God decides he must judge the people's sin so He sends a prophet, (2) if the people listen and repent He does not judge them, (3) but if they continue in sin, having been warned, they are then judged. Think about the Ninevites, for example. God sends the prophet Jonah and even though his prophetic message is, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown," when the people repent, God does not overthrow their city. If you think this through, the judgment-punishment must be clearly connected to wrong behaviour if it is to be effective. Philip Yancey illustrates this very well: "Think of a parent who punishes a young child. It would do little good for that parent to sneak up at odd times during a day and whack the child with no explanation. Such tactics would produce a neurotic, not an obedient, child." So regarding the oil spill crisis, where was the warning? How is the US to know that they are being punished for their policy towards Israel if God has not warned them? Wasn't it clear to the Pharaoh of Egypt why the plagues came upon his land? Why wouldn't God warn President Obama? As Amos 3:7 says:
Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing
without revealing his plan
to his servants the prophets.
2. Fox News is reporting gossip which cannot be substantiated. This article fails to meet the standard of journalistic credibility. Let's get real: there was no significant change in US policy toward Israel on April 19 and not even the Fox article is claiming any change took place on April 19. The only sources that Fox News refers to in this article actually deny that any policy change has occurred! Now, here's the real kicker: the Fox News articles claims that the US has a history of using its veto at the UN Security Council on votes against Israel making new settlements in the occupied territories. Examine the history for yourself and you'll see this is wrong. The US voted for UN Resolution 242 in 1967 which forbids Israeli settlements in the territories and so far as I know the US has consistently called on Israel to stop building these new settlements. Even if what Fox News is alleging about President Obama were true, I don't see how this would be a "major shift in policy" — it sounds rather like a consistent confirmation of ongoing US policy.
3. The Genesis prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel. In Genesis 12, God made this promise to Abraham:
I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you. (Gen 12:2-3)
While many (dare I say dispensationalist?) Christians think a prosperous nation of Israel in the promised land is the fulfilment of this promise, they are at odds with the New Testament. (Personally I vote for the NT over and against dispensationalism.) Paul and the other apostles were quite aware of the promises made to Abraham and they saw them as being fulfilled through Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham. In Galatians 3, explaining how this very promise made to Abraham is being fulfilled, the Apostle Paul declares:
Those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Gal 3:7b-9)
The blessing of the good news that Jesus Christ is Lord is how God blesses the nations (ie. Gentiles) through Abraham. And as Christians today carry this message more nations and more Gentiles will be blessed. And, to continue Paul's thought into Genesis 12:3, those who bless Christians who are sharing the gospel will themselves be blessed, but those who curse Christians proclaiming that Jesus is Lord will themselves be cursed — well, Jesus changes our perspective on that, saying, "Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:28). Sorry, there's just no way that the Bible ever gives some kind of blanket promise of blessing to the nation of Israel (past or present). And I would argue that the US should certainly not automatically vote with Israel in the UN. It is a lousy interpretation of Genesis 12:3 to suggest otherwise. In conclusion, I want to underscore again what a horrible tragedy we are seeing in the Gulf of Mexico, worsened now by Hurricane Alex. It seems apparent that many mistakes were made, many "shortcuts" taken in the construction of the Deepwater Horizon. Human error, human greed and human arrogance are to blame for this disaster, not God. Pastor Gallups looks at the oil spill crisis and sees the righteous judgment of God; I look and cry for what we've done — clearly not what God has called us to do with this good earth and its resources. What we should be able to hear from the Gulf of Mexico and its beaches is creation groaning for redemption, having been subjected to frustration due to sin (Romans 8:18-25). God help us! Please, Lord, stop this oil from ruining sea and land. Have mercy on us.
