Good Shepherd Donations At An All Time Low

See the video here: Local shelter donations the lowest in 25 years.

The Good Shepherd Center in Wilmington serves hundreds of meals a day to the homeless and needy. This holiday season the shelter has seen the least amount of donations in 25 years.

See also: Proposition 8 Protest Reaches Wilmington.

Hundreds of protesters gathered in Wilmington to show their disapproval of Proposition 8. It was introduced on the November ballot in California to strike down a court ruling to allow same-sex marriage. The state supported the proposition, which sent alarms throughout the gay and lesbian community.

And: Riegelwood remembered two years later.

Sunday marked the second anniversary of the deadly tornado that swept through Columbus County. Riegelwood changed forever when it touched down, killing eight people. Those who lived through the event looked back to remember they lost.

Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 1

One of my friends mentioned a Phillip Johnson book that dissects evolution just as most Fundamentalist do---needless to say the book sounds interesting despite Dr. Johnson's crackpot theories:

Johnson has advocated strongly in the public and political spheres for the teaching of intelligent design in favor of evolution, which Johnson characterizes as "atheistic" and "falsified by all of the evidence" and whose "logic is terrible". In portraying the philosophy of science, and by extension its theories such as evolution as atheistic...
---
[edit] Neocreationism
See also: Neocreationism
When asked how best to raise doubts and question evolution with non-believers, Johnson responded:

What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it... You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in [the evolutionists'] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence.[32]

Allegations of limiting academic freedom
In 2006 Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary‎, claimed she faced a campaign to get her fired after she expressed her view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time." Murphy, who accepts the validity of evolution, said that Johnson called a trustee in an attempt to get her fired. Johnson admits calling the trustee, but denies any responsibility for action taken against her.[39]
[edit] AIDS denialism
Johnson is involved in AIDS denialism, which challenges the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[40][41][42] He has written five articles about the subject.[43] The scientific community consider the AIDS denialist arguments to rely on cherry-picking of scientific data[44] as denialists selectively ignore evidence of HIV's role in AIDS. Denialism is thought to endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments.[45][46] In the Washington University Law Quarterly, critics Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey criticized Johnson and DI fellow Jonathan Wells for denying the AIDS/HIV connection and promoting denialism without any scientific support.[47] Specifically, they were criticized for signing a petition, which gains publicity rather than deal with the science.[47]

Anyways here are some of my thoughts on the subject:
First, Genesis is not a textbook on history, science and biology, but a spiritual and theological text. Personally, I read Genesis as a "mythic truth"---to me, it's a spiritual narrative, which speaks of God being the beginning of all things as Genesis 1:1 in the Hebrew states: אֱלֹהִ֑ים ‏בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א (berashit bera Elohim), which literally means: "in the beginning of God's or the gods' creating." God is still creating---in other words God is still overseeing evolutionary processes. See also: The Myths of Genesis for an interesting explanation of mythic truth. Anyways to me the narrative of Adam and Eve were superimposed onto a framework of the earlier existing Near Eastern creation myths by the scribes of "the Elohist tradition who referred to God as Elohim, which was derived from the name of the Canaanite God El (generally translated as "God" in English)." One such Near Eastern creation myth was the Enuma Elish part of which the Genesis creation accounts depend on:

Relationship with the Hebrew Bible
The dependence of at least part of the creation accounts found in Genesis on a common ancient Near Eastern "creation-by-combat" myth are "not gainsayable."[2] The ancient Mesopotamians believed that the world was a flat circular disc surrounded by a saltwater sea. The habitable earth was a single giant continent inside this sea, and floated on a second sea, the freshwater apsu, which supplied the water in springs, wells and rivers and was connected with the saltwater sea. The sky was a solid disk above the earth, curved to touch the earth at its rim, with the heavens of the gods above. So far as can be deduced from clues in the bible, the ancient Hebrew geography was identical with that of the Babylonians: a flat circular earth floating above a freshwater sea, surrounded by a saltwater sea, with a solid sky-dome (raqia, the "firmament") above. It is the creation of this world which Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 describe.[3][4] Comparisons between the Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts are often obscured by English translations, which impose on the Hebrew the Christian doctrines of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) and of the Trinity. Thus the opening of Genesis 1 is traditionally rendered: "In the beginning God created both Heaven and Earth...", whereas the Hebrew makes it clear that Genesis 1:1-3 is describing the state of chaos immediately prior to God's creation:[5] In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth, when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said, 'Let there be light!'[6] In both Enuma Elish and Genesis, creation is an act of divine speech—the Enuma Elish describes pre-creation as a time "when above, the heavens had not been named, and below the earth had not been called by name", while in Genesis each act of divine creation is introduced with the formula: "And God said, let there be...". The sequence of creation is identical: light, firmament, dry land, luminaries, and man. In both Enuma Elish and Genesis the primordial world is formless and empty (the tohu wa bohu of Genesis 1:2), the only existing thing the watery abyss which exists prior to creation (Tiamat in the Enuma Elish, tehom, the "deep", a linguistic cognate of tiamat, in Genesis 1:2). In both, the firmament, conceived as a solid inverted bowl, is created in the midst of the primeval waters to separate the heavens from the earth (Genesis 1:6–7, Enuma Elish 4:137–40). Day and night precede the creation of the luminous bodies (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, and 14ff.; Enuma Elish 1:38), whose function is to yield light and regulate time (Gen. 1:14; Enuma Elish 5:12–13). In Enuma Elish, the gods consult before creating man (Enuma Elish 6:4), while Genesis has: "Let us make man in our own image..." (Genesis 1:26) – and in both, the creation of man is followed by divine rest. "Thus, it appears that the so-called Priestly Source account echoes this earlier Mesopotamian story of creation."
------------------------------
Other similarities:
What is Enuma Elish about? It is not primarily a creation story: very little of the content is about creation. Also, much more important than the creation of humans is the creation of the gods: theogony. The vast majority of the content is praising the attributes and deeds of Marduk, and his establishment as the chief god with his temple at Babylon. It is not too difficult to discern the purpose of Enuma Elish:

(1) to establish Marduk’s supremacy as the head of the Babylonian pantheon.

(2) to establish Babylon’s preeminence over all the cities in the country.

Although we have the epic attested only in its Babylonian form, it is obvious that the myth was originally Sumerian: most of the names besides Marduk are Sumerian rather than Semitic names. The Babylonians inherited the gods of the Sumerians, with Enlil (the god of earth) generally as the chief god. In the 18th c. BCE, Hammurabi (1792-1750) not only produced a very influential code of laws, but also effected a religious reform by asserting that Marduk was the chief god. The city of Babylon also rose to prominence during this period (first Babylonian dynasty, 1894-1595).

ENKI AND NINHURSAG: A PARADISE MYTH
(ANET 37-41)

The story takes place in Dilmun, a pure paradise where there is no sickness or death, “the lion kills not, the wolf snatches not the lamb,” etc. Enki (=Ea), the god of the wisdom and the sweet waters that bring life to the land, impregnates the goddess Ninhursag (=Nintu), the “mother of the earth”. She gives birth to the goddess Ninmu. Enki impregnates his daughter Ninmu, giving birth to Ninkurra. Enki impregnates his granddaughter Ninkurra, giving birth to Uttu. Before Enki can lay his hands on his great-granddaughter, Ninhursag advises her to reject Enki unless he brings a gift of fruit. Enki comes with fruit, she happily receives him, but instead of producing a child, she uses his semen to produce 8 different plants. Enki eats these, infuriating Ninhursag. She curses Enki, vowing never again to look upon him with the “eye of life.” Enki apparently begins to deteriorate and the Anunnaki, the Sumerian gods of the underworld mourn, and in the end Ninhursag is brought back to the gods.
Similarities to Genesis 1-3:

-seduction with fruit

-the eating of trees brings a curse consisting of the withholding of life



GILGAMESH AND THE HULUPPU-TREE
(S. N. Kramer, Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree, Chicago, 1938; cf. S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 1944, 30f.). The second half of this myth is appended to the Gilgamesh epic in Tablet 12.

Heaven and earth are separated, humans are brought into being, Anu and Enlil choose heaven and earth respectively for their realms, Ereshkigal has been given the underworld, and Enki has headed for the watery abyss beneath the earth. A tree planted by the bank of the Euphrates river was blown down by the wind and floated away on the river. Inanna (=Ishtar), the queen of heaven sees the tree and takes it home to her “holy garden” where she transplants it and tends it, hoping that when it is grown she can make a bed and a chair out of it. But when it is grown, she is prevented from using it because a serpent has made its home at the root of the tree, the Zû-bird has made a nest in the top of the tree, and the demon Lilith has made her house in the middle of the tree. Gilgamesh saves the day by killing the serpent with his ax, also frightening off both Lilith and the bird family. Gilgamesh cuts down the tree and gives it to Inanna for her bed and chair. Inanna makes two objects out of the tree—pukku from the roots and mikku from the crown—and gives them to Gilgamesh. One day these gifts fall into the underworld, and Gilgamesh is distressed not to be able to recover them. His companion Enkidu goes to rescue them, but is prevented from returning to the living. His spirit gives Gilgamesh a report on what the afterlife is like.

Similarities to Genesis:

-tree with serpent (combined with demon)

See also: Creation myth for various other Creation myths. The Jews were certainly aware of the other Creation myths of surrounding cultures and they had lots to borrow from---however, there are differences between the Judeo-Christian Creation myth as well. Genesis is also a subversive myth:

Paganism and biblical ‘subversion’

So what is the purpose of this portion of Scripture - the first chapter of Genesis - according to biblical historians? In a nutshell, the opening section of the Bible appears to have been written to provide a picture of physical and social reality that debunks the views held by pagan cultures of the time. In short, Genesis 1 is a piece of subversive theology.

Genesis 1 appears to have been written to debunk the views held by pagan cultures of the time

To anyone familiar with the Old Testament this subversive, anti-pagan intent will come as no surprise. One of the golden threads of the Old Testament is its sustained critique of the pagan religions of Israel’s neighbours - the Egyptians, Canaanites and Babylonians. The first two of the Ten Commandments, for instance, are all about shunning the pagan deities of the ancient world. Moreover, the book of Psalms - the hymnbook of ancient Jews - regularly and explicitly declares that the creation owes its existence not to the pagan gods but to Yahweh, the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 50:2 the Babylonian creator god, Marduk, is explicitly named and denounced.
Given the prominence of this motif in the Old Testament it would be surprising if the Old Testament’s longest statement about creation did not take a swipe at pagan understandings of the universe. We do not have to speculate about this. Through a stroke of very good fortune, scholars are now able to see just how the writer of Genesis went about his task of debunking his ancient rivals.

See also: Genesis: The Origin of Revolution. I shall continue this discussion in a subsequent post.

Pro Tongue And Cheek Article On CBF

Squandered Missions
JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF
Published: November 16, 2008

Those darned moderates. Just when the conservatives at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina must have thought they'd routed them all, the moderates came tiptoeing back last week. At the convention's annual meeting in Greensboro, the moderates mounted serious opposition to a motion to remove the progressive Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as a giving option for member churches, and tried to reinstate funding for the Woman's Missionary Union of North Carolina, which has had the gall to assert more autonomy over its operations.

The moderates ultimately lost out, and more of the last holdouts will almost surely now leave the convention. But the convention is the real loser, because it could reach a lot more people through missions with the CBF and the Woman's Missionary Union. Yes, the convention does a lot of good missions work, but it could do so much more.

As it is now, churches that like CBF and the Woman's Missionary Union and are unhappy with the state convention may well support those groups instead of the convention.

Some conservatives in the convention probably voted to keep up the CBF option, realizing that they would lose moderate churches if they didn't. But, true to form, most of the conservatives in the convention left no room for compromise. After all, the CBF is willing to work with churches that put gay Christians into leadership positions. And the organization doesn't require a belief in biblical inerrancy. "If we don't take a stand, this is tolerance," Eric Page of Victory Baptist Church in Columbus said at the meeting, according to the News & Record of Greensboro.

Heaven forbid that a Christian organization would show tolerance.

Draw the line in the sand instead, even if that means losing the opportunity to maximize mission-work opportunities -- and even if it means declining attendance at the annual meetings of the convention. Attendance last week was down an estimated 1,000 delegates from the last couple of years.

"Don't ever forget a Baptist will only do one thing because you tell him to, and that's to stay home," Vic Ramsey of Moyock Baptist Church in Currituck County said at the meeting. "Looking at these seats, a lot of us have taken the hint. To be that broad convention, we need lots of people."

Nah. All they need is a relatively small group of committed conservatives, even if the convention has strayed from the key historical Baptist principles of autonomy of local churches and the right of all believers to interpret and follow Scriptures as they see fit, not as they're told to do. That's moderate talk, anyway.

After last week, more of the last remaining moderates will probably give up on the convention and give their money to other Baptist organizations. So be it. Why would the convention want to preach to the masses when it can preach to the choir?

See more on the SBC here: Is This the Future of the BSCNC? and here: MAINSTREAM BAPTIST: Second Wave or Last Gasp.

It's Time: Week 8---A Baptist Witness That Dissents On Manichaeistic Fundamentalism

Week 8 was suppose to be about Baptist heritage and Dr. Queen's sermon was of course, but in Sunday School, we had a bombardment of Anti-Baptist Neo-Manichaeistic Fundamentalist Dualism. I've never heard so much rampant Neo-Manichaeism in a church setting in person before except for a few times in small groups, maybe, but wow what antithetical Baptist thinking. Our teacher said one can't follow "secular" humanism and Christianity at the same time implying an us vs. them, absolute black and white, either/or mentality. I would like to know if he'd say that to the Reformers---most of whom followed in part some form of humanism blended with Christianity such as: Erasmus and one of my ancestors, George Buchanan. Anyways, here are some more thoughts on the Neo-Manichaeism of Fundamentalism:
First, here is the Fundamentalist Project's "definition of fundamentalism (which) has nine sections, five
related to the fundamentalist ideology, and four to the groups’ organization":

1) Reactivity to the marginalization of religion. Fundamentalist movements are “concerned first with the erosion of religion and its role in society”, and they therefore protect “some religious content, some set of traditional cosmological beliefs and associated norms of conduct”.#--- (#= This and the following quotations are from Gabriel A. Almond, Emmanuel Sivan and R. Scott Appleby, “Fundamentalism: Genus and Species”, in Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, eds., Fundamentalisms Comprehended, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press., 1995, pp. 399-424)
2) Selectivity. Fundamentalism is not merely defensive of the tradition, but “selects and reshapes aspects” of it, that differentiate fundamentalist ideology from the religious mainstream. Similarly, fundamentalists accept some sides of modernity (particularly its technological and organizational features), but refuse others (mainly the ideological
underpinnings of modernity, such as relativism, secularism, and pluralism), some of which are singled out “for special attention, usually in the form of focused opposition”.
3) Moral manicheism. The fundamentalist worldview considers reality to be “uncompromisingly divided into light [...] and darkness[...]. The world outside the group is therefore contaminated, sinful, doomed; the world inside is a pure and redeemed ‘remnant’”.
4) Absolutism and inerrancy. Fundamentalists share a belief in the inerrancy of their sacred texts, “or its analogues (e.g., papal infallibility, a privileged school of Islamic jurisprudence, etc.)”; with a recognizable approach to sacred sources, which opposes the hermeneutical methods.
5) Millennialism and messianism. In their view, history has a miraculous culmination, when “the good will triumph over evil”; and “the end of days, preceded by trials and tribulations, will be ushered in by the Messiah, the Savior; the Hidden Imam”.
6) Elect, chosen membership. The militants of the fundamentalist groups tend to consider their membership as “‘elect’, chosen, divinely called”.
7) Sharp boundaries. Among fundamentalist movements is widespread the idea of a separation between the faithful and the sinful, with the notion “of a dividing wall and other spatial metaphors”. The separation can be
physical, or “implemented through audiovisual boundaries, through a distinctive vocabulary, and through control over access to the media”.
8) Authoritarian organization. Although membership is voluntary, with frequent trends towards equalitarianism, “the typical form of fundamentalism organization is charismatic, a leader-follower relationship”. The tension between these two features makes movements sometimes fragile. Moreover, “since there can be no loyal opposition, there is a tendency toward fragmentation”.
9) Behavioral requirements. “The member’s time, space, and activity are a group resource, not an individual one”. In order to create “a powerful affective dimension, an imitative, conforming dimension”, groups thus have “distinctive music, [...] rules for dress [...] drinking, sexuality, appropriate speech, and the discipline of children”, with censorship of reading and audio-visual material.

How Right-Wing Conservatives are Manichaeistic:

Although the neo-conservatives are secular (and oftentimes quite liberal in their social outlook) and the religious right is theologically-based, these two currents share a number of ideas:

both currents are Manicheistic, i.e., they see the world in absolute black and white, good and evil;

both currents define the forces of good as being led by the U.S. and Israel and see the forces of evil (once defined as the Soviet Union and now see as "the axis of evil" states supporting terror) as including Arabs and Islam;

both currents are confrontational and uncompromising. They believe that there can be no accommodation made with those representing evil. Both, therefore, seek confrontation and conflict, not a resolution of tensions through negotiations; and

both currents are absolutist, since their ideology will allow only for total victory.

Also, Rich Mullins had this to say about the Manichaeism of Fundamentalism: "Everything is spiritual. Which is another hang-up I have with Protestantism, and even more specifically with Evangelicalism. It’s more like Manicheism than anything else. This dualistic system that says that everything physical is evil, and the only good things are spiritual things. And I go, ‘Wow! John wrote a good bit of what he wrote to counter that kind of thinking.’ And yet, all these Bible-believing, Bible-thumping born-again-ers are going around professing the very thing that John tried to put out." (Brendt Waters, interview with Rich Mullins, conducted in April 1996). See also: A Comparison between Manichean & Christian Views of Evil, Persian philosophy and Manichean Texts. Also, it is interesting how fundies always reduce everything to issues of sexuality and compromising morality---even issues, which aren’t sexual in nature are rooted in sexual rhetoric---ie. Sins of the flesh, flesh-nature, etc.---which is part of the reason Fundamentalism promotes a semi-docetic/Manichaean view of humanity.

Next we were told that "secular humanists" were trying to convince Christians that homophobia is wrong and abortion in any case is right and that we should always stand against homosexuality and abortion in all cases as well as pray for adulterers. First of all, it's anti-Baptist to coerce people in matters of conscience as freedom is one of the most cherished tenets of Baptist distinctives. Secondly, homosexuality is most certainly not wrong, but homophobia is even within a Christian context---see: Homosexuality . Thirdly, abortion is debatable as opinions within a Christian framework have changed over time. Consider Saint Thomas Aquinas who supported and defended abortion in every case---so for all the clamor of the Roman Catholic Church’s support and defense of an Absolute Unchanging Morality---Catholic theological opinions seemed to have changed over the years over this so called “Absolute Unchanging Morality.” (See Aquinas on human ensoulment for a counter argument). Also within an uncontextual literalistic and legalistic vacuum in which Fundamentalists read the bible, abortion is permissible as God decreed abortion as per these verses and God's decrees are eternal in a Traditional understanding of God's attributes:

Numbers 31:17
English Revised Version
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (Murder of possible pregnant women= infanticide or feticide)

Hosea 13:16GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The people of Samaria are guilty as charged because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed in war, their children will be smashed to death, and their pregnant women will be ripped open. (abortion)

Psalm 137:9 (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Blessed be he that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. (infanticide)---for example.

See also: Why Abortion is Biblical ---my view is here: TheoPoetic Musings: A THEOLOGICAL DECLARATION AND 95 THESES FOR BAPTIST PROGRESSION. It is interesting to note how anti-abortionist Fundamentalists use Deuteronomy 5:16 to condemn abortion but support capital punishment and war. It's interesting how all the issues mentioned yesterday in Sunday School were sexual in nature, but no calls to stand against the capitalist materialism of Right-Wing Conservatives or to stand against war as Jesus and the Early Church did as for example:

Tatians(164)

You wish (to) make war, and you take Apollo as a counsellor of slaughter. You want to carry off a maiden by force, and you select a divinity to be your accomplice. You are ill by your own fault; and, as Agamemnon wished for ten councillors, so you wish to have gods with you. Some woman by drinking water gets into a frenzy, and loses her senses by the fumes of frankincense, and you say that she has the gift of prophecy. Apollo was a prognosticator and a teacher of soothsayers: in the matter of Daphne he deceived himself. An oak, forsooth, is oracular, and birds utter presages! And so you are inferior to animals and plants! It would surely be a fine thing for you to become a divining rod, or to assume the wings of a bird! He who makes you fond of money also foretells your getting rich; he who excites to seditions and wars also predicts victory in war. If you are superior to the passions, you will despise all worldly things. Do not abhor us who have made this attainment, but, repudiating the demons, follow the one God. "All things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made." If there is poison in natural productions, this has supervened through our sinfulness. I am able to show the perfect truth of these things; only do you hearken, and he who believes will understand. I do not want to be a king: I do not wish to be rich: I decline military service: I hate fornication. (Cadoux, pg 103)

Justin Martyr (d. 165)
writings (153‑160?) martyred

And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid. (I Apology, 11) And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning‑hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.

And:
Athenagoras
'Legatio pro Christianis & De Resurrectione (177‑180)

For the robber, or ruler, or tyrant, who has unjustly put to death myriads on myriads, could not by one death make restitution for these deeds; and the man who holds no true opinion concerning God, but lives in all outrage and blasphemy, despises divine things, breaks the laws, commits outrage against boys and women alike, razes cities unjustly, burns houses with their inhabitants, and devastates a country, and at the same time destroys inhabitants of cities and peoples, and even an entire nation‑‑how in a mortal body could he endure a penalty adequate to these crimes, since death prevents the deserved punishment, and the mortal nature does not suffice for any single one of his deeds? It is proved, therefore, that neither in the present life is there a judgment according to men's deserts, nor after death. (The Resurrection of the dead, 19) How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God s for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it. (A Plea for the Christians, 35)

Anyways as a Baptist, I should have dissented on the opinions professed in Sunday School yesterday, so here I just did.

It's Time: Week 7---The Gospel As A Clarion Call To Social Justice

Week 7 was all about social justice and mercy. Here is a working definition of Social Justice:

Social justice, sometimes called civil justice, refers to the concept of a society in which justice is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. (Different proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes fair treatment and an impartial share.) It can also refer to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.

Social justice is both a philosophical problem and an important issue in politics, religion and civil society. Most individuals wish to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a 'just society' actually is. The term "social justice" is often employed by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or property redistribution. The right wing also uses the term social justice, but generally believes that a just society is best achieved through the operation of a free market, which they believe provides equality of opportunity and promotes philanthropy and charity. Both the right and the left tend to agree on the importance of rule of law, human rights, and some form of a welfare safety net (though typically the left supports this last element to a greater extent than the right).

Social Justice features as an apolitical philosophical concept (insofar as any philosophical analysis of politics can be free from bias) in much of John Rawls' writing. It is fundamental to Catholic social teaching, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by the worldwide green parties. Some of the tenets of social justice have been adopted by those who lie on the left or center-left of the political spectrum (e.g. Socialists, Social Democrats, etc). Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality.

See: Jim Wallis, An Evangelical Ethic of Social Justice, Jim Wallis---Wallis said "Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question ... [t]here are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation."[3] and The Social Justice Roots of Christianity for social justice within a Christian context.

As for mercy---mercy and grace are related. The Greek word for Grace is: χάριν---charin/charis from which charisma comes from. χάριν means:

Definition:
grace
that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech
good will, loving-kindness, favour
of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues
what is due to grace
the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace
the token or proof of grace, benefit
a gift of grace
benefit, bounty
thanks, (for benefits, services, favours), recompense, reward.

The Greek word for mercy is: ἔλεος---eleos, which means:

Definition:
mercy: kindness or good will towards the miserable and the afflicted, joined with a desire to help them
of men towards men: to exercise the virtue of mercy, show one's self merciful
of God towards men: in general providence; the mercy and clemency of God in providing and offering to men salvation by Christ
the mercy of Christ, whereby at his return to judgment he will bless true Christians with eternal life.

Sadly though there seems to be a disconnect in churches between belief in grace and mercy and acting upon grace and mercy. One example of this is when the staff of a certain local church fired a staff member caught in pre-marital sex or so I heard. Some of you may feel that they did the right thing, however, if this is true as a Baptist I must offer my dissent on such a graceless and merciless act. Sure we can write platitudes, sing a bunch of hymns and preach for hours on end about grace and mercy---but unless we act on them, they are all but meaningless. Churches that fire people for certain sins while ignoring others quickly degenerate into graceless legalistic churches, but the Good News is God's Grace and Mercy extends to all and so should the churches' and individuals' grace and mercy.

It's Time: Weeks 5 And 6

I've gotten behind on Blogging on our Sunday School lessons, so I combined these 2 past lessons as they explore similar themes. Week 5 was about churches discovering their God-given mission and week 6 was on fulfilling the Great Commission. These 2 themes are pretty straight forward, so without rehashing the familiar---we discussed what we feel God called us to do talent-wise. For those who haven't seen yet here is a paper I wrote on my calling: TheoPoetic Musings: Christian Ministries.

For me theology and literature are my calling as well as being a whistleblower on Militant Fundamentalist Evangelical Christendom or Right-Wing Traditional Orthodoxy or SBC Baptists or Ultra-Conservative Hyper-Christianity or whatever label one wants to slap on Fungelical orgs., while at the same time being weary of Hyper-Left Christianity as either extreme are dangerous and impede our following Christ---and that is one of the reasons I Blog, now. I started out Blogging in order to share my John Study that I did this Summer with my church friends, who aren't on Facebook---but quickly discovered why Bruce Reyes-Chow calls: Blogging a Spiritual Discipline.

The Movie Signs And Faith

This past Wed. night, we discussed the movie, Signs as we watched that movie for the last two Weds. Vick didn't have a handout prepared as we were going to watch the movie, The Big Kahuna, but had to substitute Signs instead. For that movie the question: how can we share our faith in this postmodern age? is appropriate. But anyways---back to Signs---here is some general background info on the movie:

Signs is a 2002 science fiction thriller film written, produced, and directed by M. Night Shyamalan starring Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, and Abigail Breslin. Although the plot revolves around aliens and crop circles, producer Frank Marshall said, "It's really about human emotions set in motion by a supernatural event." The film received generally positive critical reception and was one of the highest grossing films of 2002.

(As a side note, since Vick is involved in the movie industry, I'd just like to say that one of my relatives on my dad's side, Don Smetzer got to know the Culkin family really well when he was the still photographer for Home Alone).

One of the issues of the movie, Signs, is the loss of faith. In one of the key scenes at 9:17-9:31 of this clip:

reminds me somewhat of 1:37-1:53 of this clip from Amadeus and Family Guy: ---if just for the sense of feeling abandoned by God. Loss of faith is a mystery, but for whatever reason---it happens and tragedy like in the movie is a common cause of it. As an example the esteemed textual critic, Bart D. Ehrman:

... says the reason he turned to agnosticism was due to his inability to deal with the problem of evil and suffering as it is presented in the bible and not the reliability of the text.

Vick brought up this verse within the context of the movie:

Romans 8:29 RSV- For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

In Greek: οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου αυτου εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις

Transliterated: oti ous proegnô kai proôrisen summorphous tês eikonos tou uiou autou eis to einai auton prôtotokon en pollois adelphois

For a more detailed study of this verse see: Romans 8:29. The two key terms are:

proginosko--- Definition
Strong's - to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).
Thayer's - to have knowledge before hand; to foreknow - of those whom God elected to salvation; to predestinate.
Webster's - To have previous knowledge of; to foresee.
And: προώρισεν (proōrisen)--- Definition
-to predetermine, decide beforehand
in the NT of God decreeing from eternity
to foreordain, appoint beforehand

Predestination:
A Calvinist understanding of this verse is that individuals are randomly and arbitrarily chosen by God before God even created the world with no insight into individuals' lives as if God played Russian Roulette to determine who is saved. The Hyper-Calvinist view is that God even chose who is damned through no fault of their own. The Arminian understanding is that: "...God does not so much choose, but instead infallibly predicts, who will believe and, persevering, be saved. Although God knows from the beginning of the world who will go where, the choice is still with the individual." The Barthian view is that:

predestination only properly applies to God Himself. Thus, mankind is chosen for salvation in Jesus Christ, at the permanent cost of God's self-surrendered hiddenness, or transcendence. Thus, the redemption of all mankind is a devoutly to be wished for possibility, but the only inevitability is that God has predestined Himself, in Jesus Christ, to be revealed and given for mankind's salvation.

My view is somewhere between the Arminian and Barthian views, of course. One other note is the question of the Traditional understanding of one of God's attributes, Omniscience---which was subtly explored in the film. Although, I agree with the Traditional understanding, I am sympathetic to the valid question of Open Theism: does God know all? After all, Jesus who is God incarnate said:

Matthew 24:35-36 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Footnotes:

Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.