Did Jesus wear designer robes?

The Prosperity Gospel from The Global Conversation on Vimeo.

J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu
Part of the Lausanne Global Conversation

The growth of non-Western Christianity across Africa is largely due to the New Pentecostal Churches. Upwardly-mobile youth are drawn to their dynamic worship styles and pursuit of wealth and success. The prosperity gospel has found fertile soil as it resonates with tribal religion. Prosperity promoters raise serious theological concerns. The gospel of Jesus Christ neither glorifies poverty nor prosperity.

For thousands of believers in Ghana, “Jericho Hour” is the place to be on a Thursday morning. Founded in 1998, this prayer meeting—where “giant solutions await your giant problems”—is hosted by Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams in the Prayer Cathedral on Accra’s Spintex Road. Three thousand make their way there to pray for breakthroughs in business, for international travel, for a suitable spouse, and, when experiencing setbacks, for vengeance on those spiritually responsible.

It is part of a wider movement founded by Duncan-Williams in 1979. His African mentor was the late Benson Idahosa of Nigeria, who conferred upon himself the titles of “Professor” and “Archbishop.” Duncan-Williams’s personal transition from “Pastor” through unauthenticated “Rev. Dr.” to “Bishop” and now “Archbishop” is no less intriguing.

Duncan-Williams’s 26-year marriage ended in divorce in 2005 after much-publicized efforts at reconciliation mediated by the American pastor T. D. Jakes. In 2008 he married a wealthy African-American diplomat turned entrepreneur, and lives in Accra in a home which is widely described as palatial. Such lavish displays of wealth are usually the domain of politicians, who are believed to achieve their material success by stealing from the public purse. Rumor about the sources of the couple’s wealth is probably inevitable.

Read on for the rest of the article (plus responses)

Terminator: Salvation

ChristianityToday explores some themes from the Terminator movies:

The human-machine relationship. From cell phones to iPods, technology is playing a bigger and bigger part of our lives, to the point where some people have said that we are all becoming de facto cyborgs ourselves. The original film makes humorous references to pagers and answering machines, both of which were fairly new at the time, as well as the bigger, factory-sized machines that make such devices possible.

In this increasingly mechanized and technological world, it is more important than ever that we hold on to something spiritual, to the thing that makes us uniquely human; in Terminator Salvation, a teenaged Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) points to his head and his heart and tells his fellow prisoners to "stay alive, in here and in here." But humanity is no mere spiritual abstraction; it is also rooted in the world of organic, physical life. So the people in these films love each other, have children together, and die for each other sacrificially.

The source of meaning and morality. In the first two sequels, John Connor and his wife-to-be, Kate Brewster (Claire Danes), are assisted by Terminators that have been re-programmed to protect them—and they ask these robots if there is anything more to them than their programming. Are the Terminators "worried" about dying? If John and Kate are killed, will that "mean anything" to them? Faced with such questions, the Terminators betray little emotion, and reply simply that they would have no reason to exist if John and Kate died, and that they need to "stay functional" in order to keep their human masters alive.

But there is more to a meaningful life than simply following your programming, and both T2 and T3 end on notes which suggest that the "good" Terminators have achieved something resembling free will; in both films, the Terminator goes beyond the orders he has been given and sacrifices himself for the greater good, even though he didn't have to.

T2, in particular, goes even further and suggests that the Terminator of that film has learned "the value of human life." Interestingly, though, when John initially tells the Terminator it is wrong to kill people, he can't think of a reason beyond "Because you just can't, okay?" It isn't until the TV series The Sarah Connor Chronicles that a former FBI agent named James Ellison (played by the openly Christian Richard T. Jones) explains to a Terminator that it is wrong to kill because human life is made in the image of God and is therefore sacred.

And so, just as the re-programmed Terminators derive their meaning partly from the ones who have programmed them, but also partly from their freedom to go beyond their programming, so too we humans derive our meaning from the One who breathed life into us, and from our ability to exercise our free will in his service.

Destiny, prophecy and fatalism. The future is not set, and there is no fate but what we make for ourselves. So say several characters in each of these films, and yet, these characters don't always behave as though they truly believe this. After all, John Connor sent the adult Kyle Reese back in time to become his father—and much of the new film revolves around John's conviction that the teenaged Kyle needs to be rescued so that he can fulfill that destiny.

The films even play with the idea that efforts to change the future will just make things worse. In a couple of deleted scenes from the original film (available on some versions of the DVD), Sarah convinces Kyle that they should destroy the company that built the machines, to prevent the machines from being born—just as the machines are trying to kill Sarah to prevent John from being born. But, as we also see in T2, all Sarah ends up doing is luring the Terminator to one of the company's factories—thereby guaranteeing that the technology which makes the machines possible will end up in that company's hands.

In this, the films sometimes resemble Greek myth more than anything biblical. (T3 makes its debt to the Greeks explicit when the general who puts the machines in charge on Judgment Day tells his daughter, "I opened Pandora's Box.") To the Greeks, fate was unavoidable, and efforts to prevent a prophecy from coming true usually ended up fulfilling it.

And yet, the films resist fatalism. Just as the biblical prophecies often came with a call to repentance or an assurance that salvation was waiting on the other side of judgment, so too the Terminator films stubbornly cling to hope.

Death is certain, but human life remains precious nonetheless. The human spirit cannot be defeated or assimilated by machines. And, as the newest film makes especially clear, we can never rule out the possibility that we will get a "second chance."

The Great Commission And Creation Mandate

Dr Leong Tien Fock's paper for NECF Forum VI: TRANSFORM NATION AGENDA
is already online for preview. It takes a fresh look at the Great Commission in light of the Creation Mandate and provides a firm biblical-theological basis for what is called "wholistic mission". Here is an excerpt:

The eschatological Kingdom and the Great Commission

It is in the context of what the Church and disciples of Christ are called to be and to do that the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations by “going,” “baptizing” and “teaching” them is given. Certainly, in “going” to make disciples, the Gospel must be preached and accepted before the “baptizing” can happen. But the Gospel to be preached is the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is an invitation to repent and believe in Jesus so as to enter the Kingdom of God, thereby having a foretaste of the eschatological salvation. This explains why there is such a focus on “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you,” that is, teaching them to submit to God’s reign by seeking to do His will in every area of their life.

The Great Commission is premised on “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” This means Christ is already reigning in heaven and on earth. Hence the Great Commission is premised on the presence of the eschatological Kingdom of God. But Christ will not impose His authority on the nations. When disciples, and not just converts, of all nations are made, people of all nations will willingly recognize Christ’s authority and seek to do God’s will. Hence the Great Commission is, in this sense, about seeking God’s Kingdom to “come” to, and hence His will be done in, all nations. Since not everyone will become a disciple, Christ’s reign will not be universally recognized. And since even the disciples of Christ have not yet fully experienced the eschatological salvation, Christ’s reign will not be
perfectly recognized. The Great Commission is given with the promise that Christ would be with His disciples even to end of the age. Hence the work of the Great Commission is to continue until He comes back to consummate the Kingdom, where His reign will then be universally and perfectly recognized.

The kingdom of God and the Creation Mandate

Since the Kingdom of God was promised in the Old Testament, we need to understand what the kingdom or reign of God means in that context to fully appreciate the meaning of the Great Commission (note: the Kingdom refers to the eschatological Kingdom, while kingdom refers to kingship or reign in general). In order not to miss anything, we need to go all the way back to the very first commission given to the human race: the Creation Mandate (Gen 1:28).

It was before the Fall and in the Garden of Eden that God blessed Adam and Eve, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus the mandate to fill and subdue the earth and rule over the creatures was given when Adam and Eve were in direct fellowship with God and before there was a need for world redemption.

This mandate must first be understood in this context before we can relate it to the Great Commission.

When the earth was first created it was “formless and void” and God had to do some major renovation on the earth and the solar system before life on earth was possible. Then he created plant and animal life and finally human life (Genesis 1). God further developed (a small portion of) the earth by planting the Garden of Eden and placed the first human couple there to “cultivate it and keep it” (2:15).

It is in this context that the Creation Mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill and subdue the earth (outside the Garden of Eden) was given. What did it mean to Adam and Eve?

John Walton in his Genesis commentary explains:
If people were going to fill the earth, we must conclude that they were not
intended to stay in the garden in a static situation. Yet moving out of the garden
would appear a hardship since land outside the garden was not as hospitable as
that inside the garden (otherwise the garden would not be distinguishable).
Perhaps, then, we should surmise that people were gradually supposed to extend
the garden as they went about subduing and ruling. Extending the garden would
extend the food supply as well as extend the sacred space (since that is what the
garden represented).

The Garden was a “sacred space” because it was within this space that God dwelled with Adam and Eve. And within this space God’s will was to be done perfectly (“on earth as it is in heaven”). And when they sinned by not submitting to His will they were driven out. In other words, the Garden was where the kingship of God was fully realized, and to expand the Garden by filling and subduing the earth was to expand the kingdom of God. It was thus the pre-Fall version of the command to seek first God’s kingdom and righteousness (Matt 6:33).

The Creation Mandate came with the assurance of the availability of food in the Garden (Gen 1:29) just as the command in Matthew 6:33 came with an assurance of the provision of food (and other basic needs) through a promise. The implication in both cases is that the need to “make a living” is no excuse for not fulfilling the mandate or the command to extend God’s kingdom.

But how would the multiplying of human beings and the filling and subduing of the earth actually work out in history?

Albert Wolters has answered it well:
When God rested from His work of creation (and renovation) on the seventh day,
this is not the end of the development of creation, however. Although God has
withdrawn from the work of creation, he has put an image of himself on the earth
with a mandate to continue. The earth had been completely unformed and empty;
in the six-day process of development God had formed it and filled it—but not
completely. People must now carry on the work of development; by being fruitful
they must fill it even more; by subduing it they must form it even more. Mankind,
as God’s representatives on earth, carry on where God left off. But this is now to be
a human development of the earth. The human race will fill the earth with its own
kind, and it will form the earth for its own kind. From now on the development of
the created earth will be societal and cultural in nature. In a single word, the task
ahead is civilization.

Thus the Creation Mandate is to develop a civilization that would spread to the whole earth.

But what kind of civilization would this be? The first human civilization was that of the ungodly Cain and his descendants. They did build a city and develop agriculture, industry and the arts (Gen 4:17-22). But they did not call upon the name of the LORD (cf. 4:26). And Lamech not only practiced polygamy; he boasted about killing a boy for hitting him and, unlike Cain, had no fear of the consequence (4:23-24). It was a godless civilization that eventually led to the Flood, which destroyed the world except Noah and his family.

The Creation Mandate was given before Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God. And they
were in direct fellowship with Him. So the civilization was intended to be distinctly (but not completely) different from that developed by Cain and his descendants. The difference would not be in the building of the city and the development of agriculture, industry and the arts. All this is part of the mandate to “fill and subdue” the earth. The distinct difference would be that the civilization is developed in obedience to, and in fellowship with, the Creator.

Hence, the civilization is to be an expression of the kingdom of God. In other words,
the kingdom of God is to be expressed through a civilization. What then is this civilization supposed to be like?

Read on for the rest of article

Prince Caspian

LeaderU compiled some resources on CS Lewis and The Chronicles of Narnia (with Prince Caspian hitting the big screen)

From Dr Bruce Edwards: "The dramatic climax of this story is not, however, the suspicious victory over King Miraz in battle, but the discovery of the now King Caspian’s true lineage, that he, too, is a Son of Adam, else he could not be qualified to reign in Narnia. In one poignant moment that epitomizes the humility required of true leaders, Aslan asks the triumphant Caspian if he were now ready to become king; “I—I don’t think so, Sir. . . I am only a Kid.” To his surprise, Aslan replies, “If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would have been a proof that you were not.” Caspian needed to know the limitations of his own powers, and when he needed to rely on others—and especially Aslan—to win the day.


Nikabrik: The Dwarf Who Would Be Lost

As is the case with LWW, there is yet a betrayer in Narnia, for found in Prince Caspian is a parallel story to King Caspian’s glorious victory is the tragic story of Nikabrik, the stubbornly faithless dwarf. Of all the sad stories of bewitched and bewildered creatures in Narnia who become captive of evil, none is more mournful than the tale of Nikabrik.

This wayward dwarf, incapable of overcoming his profound distrust of the “old stories,” epitomizes a less cunning but equally desvasting aspect of evil’s lure akin to that of the White Witch. Nikabrik—like the band of self-seeking dwarves who fall by the wayside in The Last Battle—is world weary and full of skepticism. When asked if he believes in Aslan, he shrugs that he will believe in “anyone or anything” who will throw off the yoke of oppression under King Miraz; he is not discriminating: “Anyone or anything, Aslan or the White Witch, do you understand?”

Though rebuked by the more pious and respectful badger, Trufflehunter, Nikabrik still harbors his doubts and nurtures his cynicism. As events progress, the impatient and unschooled Nikabrik, rejecting out of hand the promise of help from ancient prophecies or the mobilization of Caspian’s friends, instead puts his trust in his companions, a hag and a werewolf, and plans to call upon the dark magic of the long dead White Witch:

“All said and done,” he muttered, “none of us knows truth about the ancient days of Narnia. . . . Aslan and the Kings go together. Either Aslan is dead, or he is not on our side. Or else something stronger than himself keeps him back. And if he did come—how do we know he’d be our friend? . . . . Any anyway, he was in Narnia only once that I ever heard of, and he didn’t stay long. You may drop Aslan out of the reckoning. I was thinking of someone else.

This is the voice of despair and alienation masquerading as the voice of reason. So distant is he from Narnia’s traditions, its history, its promise—and its relationship to its Creator and King, Aslan—Nikabrik can seriously contemplate “a power so much greater than Aslan’s,” which he defines as holding “Narnia spellbound for years and years, if the stories are true.” Falsehood has become truth, black has become white, destruction has become destiny.

This is Lewis’s cautionary tale to any civilization drunk on the wine of its own self-importance and ability to survive or thrive without historical perspective and relationship to God. This is “chronological snobbery” gone wild, a disposition not only to disbelieve the old stories, but to substitute an opposite meaning for the original.

In the end, Nikabrik confesses, “Yes,” said Nikabrik, “I mean the Witch…We want power: and we want a power that will be on our side. As for power, do not the stories say that the Witch defeated Aslan, and bound him, and killed on that very stone which is over there, just beyond the light?” When the Trufflehunter and others eloquently counter his virulent, militant unbelief, Nikabrik bellows:

“Yes they say . . . but you’ll notice that we hear precious little about anything he did afterwards. He just fades out of the story. How do you explain that, if he really came to life? Isn’t it much more likely that he didn’t, and that the stories say nothing more about him because there was nothing more to say? . . . . They say [the White Witch] ruled for a hundred years: a hundred years of winter. There’s power, if you like. There’s something practical. . . .Who ever heard of a witch that really died? You can always get them back.”

A witch who never dies, whose “practical” power to sustain winter a hundred years is more impressive than the return of the rightful king, the rallying of treasonous ne’er-do-wells to necromancy to revive her —these are the perverse foundation of the new society Nikabrik envisions for himself and fellow dwarves and outcasts. This is how bleak and self-destructive their own imaginations have become. But it cannot prevail so as long as there are those who love and trust the truth."

Redefining Success For Malaysia

We all want Malaysia to be a successful nation, but what is the definition of success? This article from Sept 07 issue of Kairos magazine (written by Steven Wong) listed six acid test questions as we evaluate how 'successful' we are as a country.

"Nation Building - With or Without God?" From NECF: Most of us are used to thinking of history in linear terms, with a beginning, a middle course and a specific end. This view is actually based on the Judeo-Christian perspective Prior to Christianity, the Classical Greek thought supported a cyclical view, in which historical events were repeated over and over by consecutive societies. The Eastern view of history is quite the same. Even so, not everyone who adopts the linear view finds God in history.

The humanist believes that humans will continue to evolve upwards until they attain perfection and paradise, the perfect society. The Marxist believes that the dialectic of class struggle will eventually produce the classless society (communism), which is their version of the perfect society. Both ideologies are based on the theory of evolution which does away with God. On the contrary, Christians believe that God is active in history. George Bancroft, an eminent historian in the 19th century said, “Providence is the light of history and the soul of the world. God is in history and all history has a unity because God is in it.” The providential view of history is the correct view of history. The end of history, or His Story, is the resurrection and judgement and the eternal life beyond for those who believe.

One area we can very clearly see God at work in history is the march of the Gospel. God has determined the time for each nation to hear the Gospel. He directed Paul and his companions where they should preach and He is still directing missionaries today.

Do we see God’s hand on the nations, and on our nation too, or do we think God is interested only in Israel? Do we need to spend more time studying our nation’s history to see where God is leading our nation and the Church in Malaysia? Do we believe that we, in cooperation with God, have a role to play, a part in shaping history? Or do we think as like the humanists or Marxists that we are but helpless spectators in the inexorable march of history? Our belief will shape our action.

John Rambo: To Hell and Back

Rambo 4

[Warning: This review contain spoilers]

The situation of Rambo 4 is just not something you want to be in while you are on a mission trip. Seriously! Since Christians are in the resurrection business, we shall examine whether it is possible to resurrect a 20 years old trilogy with a 61 years old actor. John Rambo is a cult figure; on par there with G.I. Joe. Both have wonderful action figures.

Twenty years ago, John Rambo hit the big screen and was an instant hit. Starred by a young and slimmer Sylvester Stallone, it portrayed the homecoming of a Special Forces Vietnam veteran. The first movie was named Rambo: First Blood, based loosely on a novel of the same name by David Morrell. In the movie, John was rough handled by a small town sheriff who mistaken him for a drifter and in retaliation, a small town in the United States was almost blown up and burnt down.

The second movie was Rambo: First Blood Part 2, where a more muscular John was enlisted to find American P.O.W.s in Vietnam and ended in a successful rescue operation.

The third movie was just named Rambo 3 where John blows up a Soviet mountain fortress in Afghanistan. All these movies were violent with gory scenes of killing, maiming, explosion and destruction. However, all three movies highlighted certain groups of oppressed communities. In the first, were the unappreciated Vietnam veterans who fought in a highly unpopular war; in the second, the left behind prisoners of war in Vietnam, and in the third, the oppressed in Afghanistan under the Soviet Union. It is highly ironic that the Americans armed forces have replaced the Soviet forces today.

This movie is about another group of oppressed people, the Karens of Myanmar. The Karens are Christian tribal people and have been at war with the Myanmar military Junta for 60 years, making it the longest civil war in history. There have been reports of atrocities committed by the military that was graphically shown in the movie. It was 20 years after John Rambo left Afghanistan and went to live in Thailand. He was living a quiet retiring life when he was approached by some American missionaries to bring them up river into Myanmar. He reluctantly agreed. The group was captured by the local warlord. John was approached by the church pastor to lead a group of mercenaries to rescue them. This he did with a great deal of noise, explosions and flying body parts. The movie does raise some interesting questions.

First, what is the nature of Christian mission? Does God want his people to travel into volatile and hostile political situations to minister comfort and his word? The American missionaries wanted to bring medicine and food to the Karens. It is interesting to watch in the movie, scenes of them feeding the tribal people, treating their medical conditions and preaching from the Bible. In a way, moving into these unstable situations is asking for trouble. Reports of missionaries killed and recently of the Korean missionaries’ hostage situation highlight these. What is the Christian response? Do we still go, knowing that we will be tortured and killed? And when our missionaries were captured, what should the sending agency’s response? Negotiate, pay the ransom, or send in mercenaries?

Second, the issue of pacifism and ‘just’ war arises in the story. Initially the leader of the missionaries was a pacifist but became a killer after his imprisonment. The violence in the movie is consuming. At the beginning, when the soldiers were committing atrocities on the civilians, we watch with horror. At the second part when the ‘good’ guys started killing the soldiers, we feel satisfied and even gratified. Our sense of justice seems to be fulfilled. In a sense, we even begin to enjoy the violence.

Third, this movie brings to a close the spiritual journey of John Rambo. During the trilogy, John tried to justify his action by blaming the military for making him a ‘killing machine.’ In this movie, he came to realise that he was already a psychopath before the army trained him. This self-realisation brought peace to John Rambo and this movie ended with him reaching his home in the States, a journey he started 3 movies and 20 years ago. It is a journey of self-discovery and sometimes we need to come to terms as to who we are before we can move on.


Finally, the movie asks an important question; is violence ever justifiable? This is a violent movie but it never glorified violence. Violence was used to portray the evil that is in our hearts and our deeds. It was used to show how one community oppresses another.Violence was also used as a means of redemption. Unlike the earlier three movies, I walked away from this one shaken and stirred.

Parental guidance is needed and some scenes were too graphic even for me. You have been warned.


.

‘Allah’ is for all Malay Speaking People in Nusantara

From Kam Weng's blog:

"Recently, the Malay media has printed several articles that insist non-Muslims cannot use the word Allah to describe the supreme God they worship. One such article, written by the Director-General of IKIM (Institute of Islamic Understanding), appears in the following site

It is a pity that this article is printed only in the Malay press. Its assertion that only Muslims have exclusive authority to decide how Bahasa Malaysia may be used for religious purposes would certainly draw a vigorous response in the English media (though certainly not in the censored mainstream English newspapers). Perhaps the article is intended more to ‘educate’ Malay readers even though readers of the Malay press show little interest in the issue. Political scientists may also be interested to note that the Government issued a gag order to prevent further discussion of the topic only after Muslim scholars were first allowed to express their views in the press.

As a result, the Malay papers have not printed a single article that offers a substantial analysis of the issue from the Christian perspective. To address this omission and unfair imbalance, I am making available an article written by a scholar who has studied in a renowned university in the Middle East and taught in Indonesia."

The Legacy Of Billy Graham

By Rev Wong Fong Yang, on his visit to The Billy Graham Library

I stood there in one of the rooms speechless when I saw Billy Graham (Video presentation) placed his Bible on the stump of a tree, he kneeled and prayed to God and exclaimed that he accepted and believed the Bible in totality as the inspired word of God by faith. After that singular moment of utter surrender, Billy Graham never waivers for one bit about the Word of God. Always with the Bible in one hand and the other hand gesturing vehemently, he would speak with great confident and summoned the crowd to come to Christ and to put their faith in Him. “The Bible says!” is his clarion call. We can better appreciate this incident when we understand the context that Billy Graham was in. During the early stage of his ministry, it was a time when Bible was subjected to higher critical method of interpretation. Many doubted whether the Bible could be trusted in its entirety. Miracles recorded in the Bible defy rationale and were considered untrue. Charles Templeton, a better preacher and more brilliant man than Billy Graham in those days, shipwrecked his faith because he rejected the authority of the Word of God. Templeton did not believe that the Word of God is fully inspired and therefore could not be trusted completely. Billy Graham too struggled but he came to a settled conviction and by faith took the Bible at face value as the Word of God. He never looked back.

No wonder God uses Billy Graham as His mouthpiece to convict hundreds of thousands of people of their sins and to turn them to Him.

No wonder God uses Billy Graham to bring revival and renewal around the world.

No wonder no one can indict Billy Graham of any scandals. He is completely above board with regards to sex, money and power.

Billy Graham has anchored his life and ministry solidly upon the Word of God.

In an age when politicians, movie celebrities, spiritual and business leaders at the ecclesiastical and corporate world faltered and hogged headlines because of sexual or financial impropriety, Billy Graham stands tall. Billy Graham merely stands in biblical tradition where great men and women who were greatly used by God because they held on to the Word of God and allow it to shape and mould their lives.

Bahasa Malaysia Milik Semua

Karya Keropok Lekor

Isu baru-baru ini yang melibatkan akhbar edaran dalaman Gereja Katolik dan isu pengimpotan bahan-bahan agama daripada Indonesia oleh Sidang Injil Borneo Sabah untuk penggunaan gereja melahirkan perasaan gusar secara amnya. Penggunaan istilah-istilah yang mempunyai kaitan rapat dengan agama Islam dan Kristian, dalam penerbitan dalaman dan bahan-bahan keagamaan khususnya dalam Bahasa Malaysia sebagai bahasa ibunda, telah melahirkan kerisauan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri tentang impaknya kepada masyarakat. Namun begitu, syukur kepada Ilahi atas kurnianya, masalah-masalah dapat diselesaikan dengan jasabaik dan persefahaman antara pihak-pihak yang terlibat. Sebagai wadah Bahasa Malaysia, Cahaya Nusantara berpendapat bahawa mungkin elok jika hujah-hujah yang dibincangkan dirumuskan dalam beberapa poin yang berikut, untuk renungan pembaca.

(Poin-poin yang dirumuskan ini tidak semestinya menggambarkan pendirian peribadi mana-mana penyumbang blog ini)

1. Menurut Presiden SIB Sabah, Pdt. Jerry Dusing, istilah “Allah” telah digunakan dalam ibadah gereja SIB dan Alkitab semenjak penubuhannya pada zaman pra-kemerdekaan lagi oleh jemaah Bahasa Malaysia yang rata-ratanya kaum pribumi di Sabah dan juga dipengaruhi oleh amalan-amalan dan kosa kata agama gereja di Indonesia. Penggunaan Bahasa Malaysia adalah lebih meluas lagi pada masa kini oleh rata-rata muda-mudi yang menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia sebagai bahasa ibunda dan pengantara. Menurut statistik, penganut agama Kristian di negara ini adalah kira-kira 10% dan hampir 60% daripada mereka menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia sebagai bahasa ibunda mereka.

2. Menurutnya lagi, penggunaan istilah “Allah” untuk mewakili Tuhan oleh orang Kristian seawal zaman pra-Islam lagi dan diteruskan ke zaman moden di negara-negara yang mempunyai pengaruh bahasa Arab, untuk menerangkan konsep ketuhanan monotheistik agama Abrahamik. Bidang etymologi (pengkajian perkataan) mencadangkan bahawa “Allah” bermaksud “Tuhan yang satu" dan mempunyai persamaan dengan “Elaha” dalam bahasa Ibrani yang bermaksud Tuhan.

3. Menurut Bob Kee dalam blognya, beliau berpendapat bahawa penggunaan istilah “Allah” dalam penterjemahan Alkitab mempunyai sejarahnya yang tersendiri. Dalam analisa sejarahnya, istilah-istilah seperti יהוה (YHWH), אֲדֹנָי (Adonai), אל (El), אלהים (Elohim) dan nama-nama Tuhan dalam bahasa Ibrani sukar diterjemahkan khususnya dalam frasa gabungan אֲדֹנָי יהוה (Adonai YHWH) yang banyak terdapat dalam kitab Perjanjian Lama.

Seperti dalam Bahasa Inggeris, di mana kata “Lord” dan “God” digunakan, teks Injil Matius pertama yang diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa nusantara oleh Albert Cornelisson Ruyl pada 1629, menggunakan “Allah”. Istilah ini terus digunakan dalam abad-abad berikutnya dimana frasa gabungan Adonai YHWH diterjemah sebagai “TUHAN Allah” dan Elohim sebagai “Allah”.

Oleh yang demikian, adalah penting agar kita dimaklumkan bahawa penggunaan istilah "Allah" bukanlah amalan yang baru, tidak langsung mempunyai sebarang agenda. Malah, penggunaan istilah "Allah" adalah perkembangan sihat ke arah dialog antara agama-agama Abrahamik.

4. Kata “Allah”, di samping kosa kata Arab dan Sanskrit yang mempunyai konsep-konsep agama yang saling berkait seperti syurga, neraka, dosa, doa, sengsara, dsbg tidak ekslusif kepada satu-satu agama. Bahasa Malaysia sebagai bahasa Nusantara dan berpinjam dari pelbagai budaya mampu menguraikan konsep-konsep sains, teknologi dan tidak asing lagi, konsep-konsep agama secara berkesan tidak mengira ajaran Islam, Buddha, Hindu mahupun Kristian. Menteri-menteri Kabinet, seperti Tan Sri Bernard Dompok dan Datuk Zainuddin Maidin dalam kenyataan-kenyataan lepas menyatakan bahawa Bahasa Malaysia adalah bahasa untuk semua.

5. Di samping itu, Dr. Ng Kam Weng berpendapat bahawa gereja mempunyai hak untuk mentadbir soal dalamannya adalam peruntukan Artikel 11 (3) selagi tidak bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan dan mengamalkan nilai hormat-menghormati dalam suasana masyarakat majmuk di negara ini. Rakyat Malaysia yang berbahasa ibunda Bahasa Malaysia mempunyai hak dan keperluan untuk mendapat bahan-bahan agama dalam bahasa dan budaya mereka sendiri. Dengan kawalselia KDN yang efisien dan bijaksana, serta hubungan transparen, ikhlas dan akrab Gereja-Kerajaan, penulisan-penulisan bagi hal-ehwal dalaman umat Kristian sudah tentu akan diterbitkan dengan bertanggungjawab dan bijaksana.

6. Daripada membazir masa dan tenaga untuk berbalah tentang isu-isu penggunaan kata, adalah lebih bermanfaat agar kita memupuk persefahaman dan menyelesaikan masalah dengan sikap yang terbuka dan progresif. Adalah lebih wajar kita memandang kepada isu-isu yang lebih serius yang dituntut oleh agama seperti menjaga kebajikan anak-anak yang kurang bernasib baik, fakir miskin dan tertindas, memelihara alam sekitar, menegakkan keadilan sosial dan integriti di samping berjiran (dalam ertikata sebenarnya) antara agama untuk menghayati dan menyayangi satu sama lain dengan lebih akrab lagi.

7. Bagi masyarakat Kristian di Semenanjung Malaysia yang beribadah dalam bahasa Inggeris dan ibunda masing-masing, mungkinkah ini satu renungan untuk kita membudayakan penggunaan bahasa kebangsaan dalam kehidupan seharian dan ibadah kita? Sejauh mana kita memiliki, membaca dan menghayati Alkitab dalam Bahasa Malaysia? Emosi kita mempertahankan saudara-saudari kita di Malaysia Timur perlulah datang bersama usaha untuk bersama-sama mereka untuk membentuk jatidiri Gereja Malaysia yang bersatu termasuklah mengambil perhatian yang lebih serius terhadap penggunaan bahasa tersebut dalam gereja-gereja tempatan.

Christians Pray To Allah?

Just when you think the Cabinet has some sense left in them, the Sun reported that "ruled that restrictions on the use of the word “Allah” are still enforceable and thus Catholic weekly Herald cannot use the word although its printing licence has just been renewed".

-----------------------------------------------------------

We can heave a sigh of relief now that the government has finally backpedalled on the decision to prohibit non-Muslims from using the word ‘Allah’. Although it probably is just a temporary reprieve from a policy that threatens religious freedom in the country, we may take this opportunity to promote mutual understanding and clear up some public misconceptions.

The Reluctant Writer represents many when he/she writes, "Prior to this, Muslim Malaysians truly did not know that Christian Malaysians pray to Allah. They have always thought that Christian Malaysians referred to their God as ‘Our Lord’, ‘Our Lord Jesus’ or ‘Christ’. I dare say that it is only now Muslim Malaysians are aware that Christian Malaysians pray to Allah. If that is indeed the case then just confirm the fact. Muslims can be taught to accept that, if indeed that is the case...Do Christian Malaysians, in all honesty, when they speak about Christianity in Malay call or refer to God as ‘Allah’?"

Although others have clarified that Christians in Sabah and Sarawak have indeed been using the word ‘Allah’ for a very long time, such widespread confusion deserves a more sustained and well-documented response. And who better to do it than Dr Ng Kam Weng of Kairos Research Center?

In his blog, Dr Ng explained "The historical evidence suggests that Quranic Arabic was a subset of Arabic language and literature in the Middle East at that time. It is also beyond dispute that ‘Allah’ was widely used by all monotheists in pre-Islamic Arabia...

It is because of the linguistic affinity between the term ‘Allah’ and other Semitic terms that Christian Arabs called the supreme God ‘Allah’ centuries before the appearance of Islam. Arab Christians continue to use ‘Allah’ today.

It is also true that historically, Christians in South East Asia have used ‘Allah’ to refer to the supreme God they worship. The earliest Christian writing in Malay, Kitab salat as-sawai (Christian prayers) was printed in Arabic type 1514. Christian catechisms in Malay were published around 1545. ‘Allah’ was used in the printed version of the Gospel of Matthew in Malay (1629) and the complete Malay Bible (1731-1733). (photos of 19th century Malay Bibles available here)

‘Allah’ as such has been used in the liturgy, prayers and worship among the Christian native peoples of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak from the very beginning when these churches were first established generations ago. The fact of the centuries-long usage of ‘Allah’ among native Christians bears importance significance to what is perhaps an unexpressed charge behind the Deputy Minister’s declaration, “We cannot let other religions [the context refers to Christianity] use it because it will confuse people.” That is to suggest that there is a hidden agenda when Christians use ‘Allah’ in their Scriptures, that is, to confuse Muslims.
But Malay-speaking Christians have already been using ‘Allah’ for centuries and there was never any suggestion that in using the term ‘Allah’ Christians were at any time confusing Muslims. Indeed, it may be argued that the existence of a common term ‘Allah’ facilitates communication and promotes mutual understanding between Christians and Muslims.

The Malayan Declaration of Independence (1957) provides an outstanding example of how common usage of ‘Allah’ builds mutual understanding. The Declaration of Independence begins with the phrase “Dengan nama Allah yang Maha Pemurah lagi Mengasihani, segala puji bagi Allah yang Maha Berkuasa.” The Declaration continues to affirm an agreement between the Queen and the Malay Rulers whereby Malaya was granted Independence. Obviously, the Declaration assumes that both the Queen of England (who is the head of Christianity in England) and the Malay Rulers could appeal to the same supreme God (‘Allah’) to ratify their agreement. The Deputy Minister ought to take note that there was no hint of any confusion regarding the Independence granted to Malaya."

On the history of the name "Allah"

...the term ‘Allah’ was the common term used to refer to the supreme God long before Islam existed. The evidence for this is supported by many authoritative reference works including the following:

“That the Arabs, before the time of Muhammad, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah – “the ilah” or the god, if the form is of genuine Arabic origin; if of Aramaic, from alaha, “the god” – seems absolute certain” (Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, ed., H. A. R. Gibb & J. H. Kramer, p. 33).
“The cult of a deity termed simply “the god” (al-ilah) was known throughout southern Syria and northern Arabia in the days before Islam… It seems equally certain that Allah was not merely a god in Mecca but was widely regarded as the “high god,” the chief and head of the Meccan pantheon,…Thus Allah was neither an unknown nor an unimportant deity to the Quraysh when Muhammad began preaching his worship at Mecca” (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, ed. John L. Esposito, p 76-77).
The Japanese scholar Toshihiko Izutsu remarks that it is precisely because the name Allah was common to both the pagan Arabs and the Muslims that gave rise to the heated debates that arose between Muhammad and his adversaries. Likewise, Muhammad addressed his adversaries in the name of ‘Allah’ without bothering to explain what this name meant given their common understanding of ‘Allah’ as referring to the supreme God (God and Man in the Quran, Toshihiko Izutsu, pp. 100-117).

A Theological Perspective on Emigration

By WP HOW

This topic was being discussed vigorously at the forum, and WP How undertook to summarise and synthesize the results. Your feeback and comments are most welcome.

The First Emigrant

"Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. 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." This was the promise given to Abraham in the twelfth chapter of Genesis. In those days, no one left the place where they
grew up. People had a cyclical notion of time based on the seasons of agrarian life. Seeds were planted, the rains came, plants grew and were harvested, and the cycle repeated itself. Sacrifices were offered to the gods and goddesses of nature to ensure that nothing disrupted this cycle. To attempt a break from this cycle, to find a new place to live, is to risk disaster. Yet Abraham heard a call, to leave, to go. He also heard a promise, a ludicrous one at his age, or more precisely, the age of his wife. That he would have innumerable descendants. So Abraham, the father of faith, prospered through his migration, not merely in wealth, but moreso in faith and in God's favour. There could be no better outcome from his decision to emigrate. Although well known for being the first emigrant father of faith, Abraham is not the most famous emigrant. That distinction belongs to another.

Jesus the Emigrant

"From heaven you came, helpless babe." Thus begins the lyrics of The Servant King, a popular Christian song. Jesus went from the first class country of heaven to the lower class country of the world. He came not as a powerful ruler, but as a dependent baby; he was not born into riches but into the relative poverty of a working class family; he grew up not in the centre of secular power, Rome, but in a distant outpost; he grew up far from the religious centre of gravity, Jerusalem, in the remote region of Galilee. The description of Jesus' emigration is that of Philippians 2:5-8. It is a downward movement, from a comfortable place and one of hardship leading to death. And we are called to follow in this pattern.

Emigration and the Great Commission

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The disciples stayed in Jerusalem until they received the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They remained in Jerusalem until persecution broke out, led by none other than Saul. The believers were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria, and preached the gospel wherever they went (Acts 8:1-4).

Emigration and the Family

Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you (Exodus 20:12).

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26).

If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen (1 John 4:20).

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? (Matthew 7:9)

Scripture seems to contradict itself. Are we to love our families or hate them? How do we resolve this seeming contradiction? One solution is to love our families well, but to love Jesus so much more in comparison, so that our love for family seems like hate.

In 1979, after Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize, she was asked, "What can we do to promote world peace?" Her answer: "Go home and love your family." There are some who find it hard to provide enough for their families and have to emigrate for love of their children. They face many hardships adapting to their new country but it is for the sake of their children's future. Some love their families solely and forget about the world. Others think of the greater good but neglect their children. We first need to provide for our families and then be in a place to give to society.

At the same time, we are not to idolize our children. We need to commit them also to the Lord. They are God-given guests in our home for a season, for whom we have a responsibility to extend hospitality, love, and nurture, then let go back into the arms of God.

Emigration and Talents

[The kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them . . . . each according to his ability...

'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'
"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

We all have been entrusted with God-given talents, not to be buried in the ground and ignored, not to be abused for selfish gain, not to be adulated as part of our self-identities. What do we have that has not been given by God, be it beauty and brains, health and wealth, and opportunity? Talents are not solely for me and my family, nor my race and country, it is for all God's people and to accomplish His
purposes.

Therefore, Christians of diverse talents ought to work together for the good of the body of Christ; each neither coveting nor belittling the other's talents. Parents who love their children and appreciate their unique talents rightly encourage them to exercise their gifts.

Exhorting our children to do their best is good. The problem is when we limit the scope of service to self and family instead of extending the scope to God's kingdom.

So ask not what gain my talents can bring me, but rather what God is doing in the world, and can my talents be used to serve His purposes. We are called to stewardship of our talents.

Emigration and Citizenship

The question a biblical steward will ask is not how can I achieve personal gain with these gifts, talents, and resources, but rather, how can I steward them so as to loose the vision of God in the world?

But citizenship, of course, is more that just a relationship with a land. It's a relationship with the people of that land and a vision for society. It is quite biblical to love your land and your people.

As people of the Bible, our particular love is always for the sake of the whole (Tama Ward Balisky, Stewarding Citizenship).

In the light of the kingdom of God, Malaysian citizenship does have its advantages: it provides access to closed countries. Beyond that,
citizenship also calls us to nurture a wholistic vision for society, beyond our own benefit to God's shalom for all. God's shalom needs to be extended by the church to the poor, the foreigner, and all those in the underbelly of society. Those who emigrate and adopt a new country are entrusted with stewarding a new citizenship. In both cases, those who grow up in a multicultural Malaysia have a unique contribution to a world split asunder by many conflicts. It may be to give voice to a way of living peacefully with Muslim neighbours. Muhibbah is a uniquely Malaysian notion. It is not easily appreciated in societies that idolize the individual. Where intellectualism prevails, being right is prized and the community spirit of muhibbah is lost. As Christians, our identities are rooted in Christ, not defined by our
nationalities. So let us use our passports for the Kingdom of God.

The following is a true story of an Indian Christian family. The father stayed in India; the son went to Canada. They were Christians and they were partners for the gospel. In India, the father built hospitals for the poor. In Canada, the son started successful businesses, channeling profits for the father's charitable work. So those who emigrate need to have a wholistic vision, and those who stay too need to see that we all belong in the Kingdom of God. Together we can partner with God in the work He is doing around the world.

Spiritual Emigrants

No matter where we live and what passports we hold, we are emigrants from the kingdom of this world to the kingdom of God. In essence, the question that must be answered first is whether I am a good steward of my heavenly citizenship. Stewardship is responsibility with a trust. It entails practical things we do, how we order our priorities. When it comes down to it, the way we live our lives announces to the world our true citizenship. If we are loyal citizens of God's kingdom, we allow our Lord to direct which country we should live in.

Islam Hadhari: Developmental framework

National policy must aim to embrace all
by Tricia Yeoh

For the first time in Malaysia, a religious framework has been instituted within a national socio-economic development plan. Islam Hadhari was introduced in the Ninth Malaysia Plan as a "comprehensive and universal framework for the nation".

Indeed, Islam Hadhari is interwoven into many chapters, promoting "a progressive developmental outlook" and "a moral society with strong religious and spiritual values." This has stirred a wave of interest in Islam Hadhari: what it is, its implications, and how Malaysians should react to it.

Islam Hadhari literally translated means Civilisational Islam, a theory of government based upon the principles of Islam as derived from the Holy Quran. It seeks to emphasise development consistent with the central tenets of Islam. In particular, ten fundamental principles have been outlined and this includes faith and piety in Allah, a just and trustworthy government, and freedom and independence to the people.

This initiative has been very much a brainchild of current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who introduced the concept in 2004, several months after his ascension into premiership. This step was taken to project a moderate Islam, perhaps as an attempt to soften the ex-Prime Minister's rather hard-line declaration of Malaysia as an Islamic state three years earlier. A new and fresh ideology might have been deemed necessary for his administration. Interestingly, we are the sole country promoting Islam Hadhari as national policy, which means that its definition is based purely upon one interpretation of Islam - Malaysia's.

However, it has also been emphasised that Islam Hadhari is not a new religion or mazhab (denomination). According to the official Islam Hadhari website, it is an effort to bring the ummah back to the fundamentals as prescribed in the Quran and the Hadith. This piece does not seek to delve into the theological or philosophical aspects of Islam Hadhari, but to explore its practical expression in Malaysian society.

Multiracial and Multireligious Malaysia

Malaysia: Truly Asia, the tourism slogan, is a Malaysian reality as seen in its major religions represented by Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, and Sikhism. In such a diverse and multicultural society, the call for harmony has always been a commitment of the government. National unity is of prime importance, with a range of policies implemented to this end, from educational to national language and national service policies.

The introduction of Islam Hadhari as a universal framework for national development implies that it applies to all Malaysians. The question is this: does it contradict or complement the government's efforts at promoting national unity? The answer lies not in mere rhetoric, which unfortunately has been one of the criticisms of Islam Hadhari, but in its actual fleshing out of policy into practice.

One obvious indicator of whether Islam Hadhari will work constructively towards national unity or not is the public's response. It will therefore only serve to strengthen national solidarity if, and only if, all Malaysians alike receive it with welcoming arms.

A non-Muslim can only appreciate the Muslim point of view if three elements are accepted. First, that Islam Hadhari should be advocated, since it combines fundamental elements of true Islam with modern development. Second, Islam is holistically applicable in all spheres of life, private and public. The Quran and Hadith certainly provide clear principles for this purpose. Finally, Islamic values can and should be assimilated into all levels of society.

What then of the non-Muslim's response? Are Islam Hadhari's principles really universal in nature? The first of these is "Faith and piety in Allah". Adherents of religions that do not preach Allah would be uncomfortable with this requirement.

For the sake of argument, assuming these ten principles are indeed universal and sound, how realistic is it that they can be translated into universally accepted practices? This is the real point of contention.

Cause for Concern?

That non-Muslims increasingly find it difficult to reconcile a sole religion as the basis of socio-economic development is a given. Whether or not these concerns are justified is another question. A spate of recent incidents has served to perpetuate some fears.

In October 2005, a non-Muslim student complained that she was barred from her university convocation because she refused to wear the tudung. Early this year, a directive was issued for all policewomen, Muslim or not, to wear the tudung for official ceremonies. The failure of some girls to wear the tudung resulted in their removal from a school netball team. There have been recent incidents of Hindu temple cleansing in the Klang Valley, bulldozers completely obliterating 100-year-old deities. Local authorities want to prosecute couples for public indecency (holding hands) on the count this is un-Islamic. A forum discussing the rights of religious freedoms as held in the Federal Constitution was recently disrupted.

It is interesting to note that all these have taken place after the Islam Hadhari concept was introduced by Pak Lah himself in 2004.

I started with the premise that for Islam Hadhari to be considered constructive towards the government's national unity efforts, it should be acceptable to all Malaysians. Although its principles may ensure Malaysia's multiracial society will benefit, its implementation process has begun to stir some anxiety.

If recent cases listed above are examples of the actual expression of Islam Hadhari, suffice to say it will not be well received by the non-Muslim public.

If, however, these are not good examples, then greater effort must be taken by the government to ensure it truly intends for Islam Hadhari to live up to its name as a civilisational and progressive Islam.

The problem in Malaysia is that most issues, including religion, are politicised for vested interests. Islam Hadhari should not be yet another tool to gain political clout. Unless the government can circumvent this, I cannot see how Islam Hadhari will get an all-round approval. It needs to seriously consider how to cater to the 40% non-Muslim public. Their responses cannot be disregarded. This is detrimental as it forms the basis of socio-economic development for the next four years.

Both the principle and practice of any unifying policy must receive equal affirmation from all races in Malaysia.

If Islam Hadhari in principle is something whose values all Malaysians alike can readily accept, this will be a tool to unite the country's diverse peoples. However, if this cannot be equally translated into an all-encompassing set of practices, it is potentially divisive in nature and must be rectified urgently.

The writer is a research analyst with a policy institute. The views expressed are her own. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com

Allah, Who Is Confused?

What a Christmas gift we got from the govt this year! A friend Look.Observe wrote this letter to Malaysiakini, and indeed, more should do so in the media and blogs:

"It is with great unease and displeasure I read news in recent days of how the prime minister has systematically clamped down on other religions. First it was the issue of Hindu temple demolition, which was completely blanked out of mainstream newspapers. It seems that the irresponsible authorities who insisted on bringing down the temple were not brought to justice at all.

The Malaysiakini video clearly shows how the authorities have wronged the people, particularly the Hindu community in Malaysia. Instead of discussing the issue and taking proper steps, the issue was blanked out from all Malaysians. This leaves no room for Malaysians to learn from history as to not repeat such blunders.

At the dawn of the new year, Christians, particularly the Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christians in East Malaysia, got themselves another ‘Christmas present’ from the Internal Security Ministry. The ministry threatened not to renew Herald weekly’s publishing permit because the word “Allah” was used to refer to God. This is a very unreasonable act by the government.

Th word “Allah” is also used in the Middle East by all the religions of the Abrahamic faiths. Islam, Christianity and Judaism were all founded in the Middle East. So why then is the government making an issue out of nothing when such practices of Christians calling their God “Allah” is not an issue at all there?

By warning Herald not to publish their BM section because the term “Allah” was used, the ministry is actually telling Christians how to call their God in BM. BM is the national language of this country. It belongs to all Malaysians regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. The language is not exclusive to any party, race or religion.

I have never heard of any government imposing on a person or a group’s right to call out to their God or being told how to call their God. At the most, a person or group can try to convince the other person/group of how they believe God should or should not be called, but they have absolutely no right to impose it.

The answer to my question above would be that no one has the right to tell me how to address my God because my relationship with God is between me and God. It does not involve the country or the government. If it is wrong or if God does not like it when I address Him as “Allah” in BM, He can then strike me dead with lightning. I really don’t need the government or anybody else telling me how to address my God if God does not mind it."

Siew Foong at the NECF called for prayer:

2Chronicles 19: 6-7 “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of bribe.”

1. Justice and fairness to prevail
2. Christian leaders and lawyers involved in the lawsuits: wisdom, sound judgment and courage.
3. Against the temptation of the evil one, the spirit of compromise and the fear of man.

The Golden Compass: Atheism For Kids?

Al Mohler: Tayangan The Golden Compass sebagai filem gergasi musim sejuk ini merupakan cabaran baru bagi umat Kristian -- terutamanya ibu bapa. Yang baru adalah penerbitan sebuah filem fantasi menarik dengan para pelakon terkenal ini yang juga membawa suatu pesanan yang secara langsung subversif terhadap agama Kristian. Barangkali ia bukan cabaran terakhir sebegini.

Setelah menonton filem ini pada suatu tayangan pendahuluan dan membaca ketiga-tiga buku His Dark Materials karya Philip Pullman, saya yakin kita menghadapi suatu cabaran yang nyata dan memerlukan pemikiran cermat dan kematangan daya fikir.

Teruskan penerokaan anda dalam topik ini di sini:

LeaderU: The Golden Compass: A World of Spiritual Darkness

A Briefing For Concerned Christians by Al Mohler

Atheism For Kids by Gene Edward Veith

A Primer on Atheism By Russ Wise

Golden Compass: Pointing In The Wrong Direction

ChristianityToday Review

Review by the Thinking Christian

Christian Journalism?

"A slim, bespectacled former Marxist from a Russian Jewish background, Olasky is a journalism professor and editor of World magazine... American welfare policy had come to an impasse: Though welfare had done some good for those who needed only a temporary boost to get back on their feet, it had also created a permanent underclass - the chronically poor, whose poverty was related to social pathologies such as alcohol addiction, drug abuse, fatherless homes, and crime. Every on both sides of the political aisle agreed that welfare needed to be reformed, but no one knew how to do it... In researching the vast proliferation of Christian charities in the nineteenth century, often dubbed the Benevolent Empire, Olasky found that the churches specialized in personal assistance that didn't just hand out money; they helped people change their lives, focusing on job training and education. They required that the poor do some useful work, giving them a chance to rebuild their dignity by making a worthwhile contribution to society. They helped outcasts to build a social network - to reconnect with family and church for ongoing support and accountability. Most of all, they addressed the moral and spiritual needs that lie at the heart of dysfunctional behavior.

Clearly, this goes beyond what any government can do. In fact, government aid can actually make things worse. By handing out welfare checks impersonally to all who qualify, without addressing the underlying behavioral problems, the government in essence "rewards" antisocial and dysfunctional patterns."

Quoted from "Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity" by Nancy Pearcey, page 61

Olasky also wrote a book suggesting how Christian journalism looks like in Telling The Truth . Do check it out!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: The Sad State of Christian Journalism
1. Biblical Objectivity
2. Directed Reporting
3. A Great Cloud of Journalistic Witnesses
4. Field Reporting and Interviewing
5. Organizing for Readability
6. The Streets Declare the Sinfulness of Man
7. Investigating and Profiling
8. Leads, Nut Grafs, Bodies, Ends, Headlines
9. Theocentrism or Egocentrism?
10. Biblically Directed Reviewing
11. First Person Accounts and Sports Stories
12. Modern Journalism Emerges
13. Overview of Start-up Considerations
14. Journalistic Ethics in an Era of Subjectivity

Appendices:
A. Line-by-Line Editing: Example
B. McDowall's Defense of Biblical Sensationalism
C. The Decline of American Journalism
D. A Christian Journalism Revival?

Hospitable Society

Feasting and care for the poor have been polarized in contemporary culture. If you’re a “conservative,” you’re in favor of free trade, consumption without guilt, festivity without concern for those who can’t join you, who probably deserve their poverty anyway. If you’re a “liberal,” you renounce festivity because other people are hungry and how dare you eat when someone else isn’t.

The Biblical prophets combine a promise of festivity with severe denunciation of greed, luxury, and oppression. But they combine the two seamlessly by emphasizing hospitality. The promise is a feast like the feasts of the Pentateuch, where the widow, stranger, and Levite are not forgotten but included as welcome guests.

Against both “conservative” indifference and liberal asceticism, the Bible presents the ideal of the hospitable society.

- Peter Leithart

Regaining Our Virtues

What Is Moral Relativism?
Virtues (morality) are not like ice cream flavors (“Yucks!”), but like insulin to diabetics.

The modern Enlightenment worldview considers what is empirically testable as ‘public facts’ that are objectively knowable, tradition-free and observer-neutral. What is not scientifically provable (i.e. ethical value, theology) is considered ‘private values’ best kept in the closet. It created the separation of religious truth in upper story (faith) and scientific facts in the lower story (reason). In the public squares, boardroom or lecture hall, religious conviction is ruled out of court in decision-making. Result: Faith became privately engaging but publicly irrelevant. (Os Guinness)

After WW2, there is a shift in people getting disillusioned with absolute claims as masks for power. In the postmodern mood, there is a complete loss of hope for truth. Truth is not discovered; truth is created (social construct).

Three types of moral relativism:
- “Society Does” Relativism: Observe that people in India think it is wrong to eat cows while beef steaks are popular in U.S. See “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis.

- “Society Says” Relativism (Normative ethical relativism): If ethics are relative to each culture, then anyone outside the culture loses the right to critique it. Essentially that was the argument of the Nazi leaders during the Nuremberg Trials. A moral reformer like a Martin Luther King, Jr. would be immoral by definition because he's violating the rules of society. There is a moral Law above the law of the land that even governments are beholden to.

- “I Say” Relavitism: Who are you to say how I ought to live? Everything is a private judgment call, a personal preference or mere opinion. “Every man did what was right in his own eyes”.

Relativism's Fatal Flaws
1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing. (oppose racism, exploitation, genocide)
2. Relativists can't complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can't demand justice and fairness.
4. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

"You shouldn't force your morality on me." Always ask, "Why not?" Usually the response is going to be an example of his/her forcing his/her morality on you. Why is relativism a self-defeating position? If I said that my brother is an only child, you would say that my statement is self-refuting. An only child would not have a brother.

1. There are objective moral rules. Each of us is privately aware there is something wrong with us. Maybe we feel guilty because we are guilty.
2. 'We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.’-CS Lewis. Christians have a consistent foundation to speak out against social evils based upon God’s revelation. Moral relativists do not.
3. Each of us has violated those laws many times and is guilty of moral crimes against our sovereign, the moral law-giver, the Judge. We ought to be punished.
4. The Christian message makes sense in this world. Love: Amnesty and mercy are offered to anyone who abandons the rebellion and seeks forgiveness on God's term. On Christ the solid rock we stand. All other ground is sinking sand.

Materials shared at DNous Academy 2007 Camp are based on Greg Koukl's “Ambassador For Christ” resources in www.str.org and Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith's book Relativism - Feet Firmly Planted In Thin Air

What Is Dualism?

Scripture defines the human problem as moral rebellion against God but the Greeks believe the problem is metaphysical. The material world is seen as evil/chaotic while the spiritual Forms are rational/good. Augustine treated the contemplative life of prayer and meditation in monasteries as superior to the active life of ordinary work in the world. Descartes and Kant pictured the world as a huge mechanistic system moving in fixed patterns by natural laws while the mind is the realm of thought, emotion, will.

Three types of Christian dualism:
Human - Body versus Soul (Two opposing substances, one is “important/redeemable” and the other “useless/lost.” But man is a cohesive whole. The whole man was created good, and the whole man is being redeemed.)

Reality - Heaven versus World (Escape this hopelessly lost physical world for an otherworldly, disembodied existence. Heaven and earth shall be renewed.)

Faith - Sacred versus Secular (Prayer and religious meditation is more valuable than manual labor. All of life is sacred.)

Biblical Thinking Tools

Creation: The physical world God made was GOOD! Nature is a showcase of His glory. Humanity is made in God’s own image for relationship, different from the rest of creation. Life is sacred. Work is meaningful in a rhythm of rest and labor.

Fall: We have pushed God out from our thinking and living. In disobedience, we have made physical and mental substitutes (idols) to tell us right from wrong. Sin has corrupted nature, fractured social relationships, alienation, resulted in toilsome work directed by selfishness. But even sinners still bear God’s Image and capable of genuine knowledge by God’s common grace.

Redemption: Christ has freed us from power of sin, reconciled us with God and restored us to be fully, truly human. Our work shares in His redemptive purpose to reverse the effects of sin. We join Christ in ushering His kingdom come, His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Saved to do good in THIS world, not an otherworldly escapism.

How Shall We Live?

Abraham Kuyper, journalist/theologian/politician/educator says: “There is not a square inch in the universe that Christ does not claim, “This is mine!” The Lordship of Christ embraces all of life. Do all things for the glory of God. If all life is the Lord’s, reflect about your area of study, interest, vocation and leisure. For example:

•Science – What’s Its Method and Limits? How Shall We Consider Macroevolution?
•Medical Fields – How shall I view mercy killing, abortion, cloning, stem cell research?
•Business/Economics – How should wealth be distributed? By merits or social status? Do corporations have moral duty or only profit?
•Law –How does the church relate to the state? What is justice? Should we legislate morality?
•Psychology – Certain brain functions and emotions are co-related, is there a soul distinct from the brain? Is moral behavior like homosexuality determined by biological factors?
•Media/Journalism – What are ethical issues and virtues relevant to my vocation?
•Literature – Should we seek the author’s intent of writing? Does meaning reside in the reader?
•Movies – Was it honest or artfully done well? What does the story say about what’s right, true or beautiful? Who’s the good guy?

God Doesn't Play Dice, But Does He Play Mahjong?

So what of dice and mahjong? (by Paul Woods)

In response to developments in quantum mechanics Einstein complained that God does not play dice – the universe’s physical functioning is not based on chance. Neither is its missiological functioning.

A few years ago an OMF colleague and I were discussing the increasing numbers of Mainland Chinese who live abroad. With horizontal, rotary, sweeping motions of both hands, he told me “God is washing the (mahjong) tiles”. Mahjong is the classic Chinese game similar to a combination of playing cards and dominoes, in which the tiles are shuffled or washed after each game. From this we derived the term mahjong theology to advocate Diaspora Ministry. In His sovereignty, today God is shuffling the pack, and washing people from various ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds all over the planet. Just as God washed Ruth and Rahab into the community of faith, so now He is washing Chinese to the UK, for example. This is nothing new; Acts 17:26-27 tell us that God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

For us, the migration phenomenon of the early 21st century ties together the Great Commission with the ethics of God-fearing community, and an acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty in the affairs of men and women. Indeed, Christian ministry among migrants has been described as Acts 1:8 in reverse; God is bringing people from the ends of the earth right to our street. We are to respond to this challenge right where we live.

Some may perceive migration as a menace, but as citizens and Christians we should view it as ministry opportunity. Unprecedented numbers of people are on the move, looking for safety, freedom, or just a better life. The expansion of the EU and ASEAN, improved communication, and ever-cheaper travel have all shrunk our world. At the same time, poverty, conflict, and hardship in many regions have caused millions to cross borders to richer, more stable nations.

Migrants are often creative, proactive people looking for a better life. There is much anecdotal evidence that migrants are more open to new things than those who remain at home. Yet the same people are vulnerable and needy. Before leaving China, one student was told by non-believing relatives, “If you need help in Britain, go to a church. They will look after you”. Our own Diaspora ministry showed us that
while apologetics and Bible study were important, the vital factor in the journey to faith was God’s love manifest through His people, across a faith – non-faith interface.

Read the entire Encounter issue on Mission and Migration here

GospelTranslation.org

Here are some updates on the project that Agora is a part of with Open Source Mission.

Our goal with the GospelTranslations.org project is to make gospel-centered resources accessible for Christians of every nation and language . Our vision is that Christians everywhere will be able to learn about the gospel in their own languages and without financial impediments.

Believe it or not, we now have nearly 50 active translators in 9 languages, and in addition to the book that we are working on, we’ve translated about 40 Desiring God articles. The team with the most volunteers currently is the Spanish language one, and we will probably have enough Spanish material in the next month or two to actually start publicizing a Spanish Resource site. Bahasa Indonesia has the second most translations — chapters from CJ Mahaney's "This Great Salvation" and a few articles as well.

But the Bahasa Malaysia and Chinese language teams would need more help. If you guys are interested to help out on a voluntary basis, let's network and contact andrew at opensourcemission dot com

We are now in partnership with Desiring God, 9marks and Sovereign Grace in providing their online resources free.

Endorsements

“Sovereign Grace is passionate about gospel-centered churches built on the foundation of sound doctrine. That’s why we’re excited to partner with Open Source Mission. OSM’s new approach to translation and free distribution of gospel-centered materials will help make such churches a reality around the world.”

- C.J. Mahaney, President, Sovereign Grace Ministries

"I believe Open Source Mission is an answer to our prayers. We’re trying to make Desiring God's resources as accessible and affordable as possible to as many peoples around the world as possible...but we can't keep up with all the language translation requests. O that we had a new model to facilitate translations...I think Open Source Mission might be that model."

- Jon Bloom, Executive Director, Desiring God

"The western world is incredibly wealthy and ironically selfish. We in the Christian community should reflect the generosity God has shown us in Christ by investing in resources for the benefit of others. An obvious way is the translation of solid, gospel material into other languages. Open Source Mission and Sovereign Grace Ministries once again lead the way in generosity and zeal with their new translation initiative, GospelTranslations.org. I trust the men behind this program and most importantly I trust the God they serve who desires to see men and women from every nation come to know him."

- Dr. Mark Dever, Senior Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church