From The Christian Reader:
Love for the Author
Get "Late Medieval Mysticism" from the Reformation Bookstore
Love is one of the four natural affections, which it is needless to name since everyone knows them. And because love is natural, it is only right to love the Author of nature first of all. Hence comes the first and great commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” But nature is so frail and weak that necessity compels her to love herself first; and this is carnal love, wherewith man loves himself first and selfishly, as it is written, “That was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual” (I Cor. 15.46). This is not as the precept ordains but as nature directs: “No man ever yet hated his own flesh” (Eph. 5.29). But if, as is likely, this same love should grow excessive and, refusing to be contained within the restraining banks of necessity, should overflow into the fields of voluptuousness, then a command checks the flood, as if by a dike: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” And this is right: for he who shares our nature should share our love, itself the fruit of nature.
Wherefore if a man find it a burden, I will not say only to relieve his brother’s needs, but to minister to his brother’s pleasures, let him mortify those same affections in himself, lest he become a transgressor. He may cherish himself as tenderly as he chooses, if only he remembers to show the same indulgence to his neighbor. This is the curb of temperance imposed on thee, O man, by the law of life and conscience, lest thou shouldest follow thine own lusts to destruction, or become enslaved by those passions which are the enemies of thy true welfare. Far better divide thine enjoyments with thy neighbor than with these enemies. And if, after the counsel of the son of Sirach, thou goest not after thy desires but refrainest thyself from thine appetites (Ecclus. 18.30); if according to the apostolic precept having food and raiment thou art therewith content (I Tim. 6.8), then thou wilt find it easy to abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, and to divide with thy neighbors what thou hast refused to thine own desires. That is a temperate and righteous love which practices self-denial in order to minister to a brother’s necessity. So our selfish love grows truly social, when it includes our neighbors in its circle.
But if thou art reduced to want by such benevolence, what then? What indeed, except to pray with all confidence unto Him who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not (James 1.5), who openeth His hand and filleth all things living with plenteousness (Ps. 145.16). For doubtless He that giveth to most men more than they need will not fail thee as to the necessaries of life, even as He hath promised: “Seek ye the Kingdom of God, and all those things shall be added unto you” (Luke 12.31). God freely promises all things needful to those who deny themselves for love of their neighbors; and to bear the yoke of modesty and sobriety, rather than to let sin reign in our mortal body (Rom. 6.12), that is indeed to seek the Kingdom of God and to implore His aid against the tyranny of sin. It is surely justice to share our natural gifts with those who share our nature.
But if we are to love our neighbors as we ought, we must have regard to God also: for it is only in God that we can pay that debt of love aright. Now a man cannot love his neighbor in God, except he love God Himself; wherefore we must love God first, in order to love our neighbors in Him. This too, like all good things, is the Lord’s doing, that we should love Him, for He hath endowed us with the possibility of love. He who created nature sustains it; nature is so constituted that its Maker is its protector for ever. Without Him nature could not have begun to be; without Him it could not subsist at all. That we might not be ignorant of this, or vainly attribute to ourselves the beneficence of our Creator, God has determined in the depths of His wise counsel that we should be subject to tribulations. So when man’s strength fails and God comes to his aid, it is meet and right that man, rescued by God’s hand, should glorify Him, as it is written, “Call upon Me in the time of trouble; so will I hear thee, and thou shalt praise Me” (Ps. 50.15). In such wise man, animal and carnal by nature, and loving only himself, begins to love God by reason of that very self-love; since he learns that in God he can accomplish all things that are good, and that without God he can do nothing.
by Bernard of Clairvaux, from On Loving God
Friday, July 30, 2010
Fairy Tales And Fables
From The Christian Reader:
Fairy Tales and Fables
by Eric Rauch
One of the most severely lacking areas in Christian publishing today is in books for children. Publishers don’t seem to realize that children are quite capable of thinking and understanding. The books that line the shelves of the children’s section are nearly always trite and condescending and do little more than make well-known stories from the Bible look ridiculous. This “dumbing-down” of the Bible often tends to have a negative effect on young eyes and ears as they grow older and more sophisticated. The “stories” that they heard and read as children remain just that: stories. As they come to understand the world around them better, children begin to realize that trains and cars and animals don’t really talk. It is only natural then that they should also begin to think that David, Noah, Adam, and Abraham are really nothing more than fables and cartoon characters. When we teach the Bible in a silly and unreal way to our children, we shouldn’t be surprised when they begin to think of the Bible as a silly book of fairy tales and myths.
Get "The Prince's Poison Cup" from the bookstore
This isn’t to say that fairy tales and myths are wrong for children though. Quite the opposite actually. As human beings we are constantly interpreting life as a story—a grand narrative that is continually unfolding. Stories are necessary for making sense of this world. If life was really nothing more than random chance happenings, as materialism would have us believe, stories would be impossible. Randomness has no cohesive plot; things just happen. The fact that we are always groping for reasons, looking for answers, and trying to make sense of this world points to the fact that we are created in the image of God. God is the Master Storyteller, the Chief Scriptwriter. All truth is His truth and all events, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, are necessary components of His story. If we teach God’s story to our children as nothing more than a fun fable with a moralistic lesson, we are crippling them for life. As discussed in yesterday’s article, we are taking divine revelation—”true truth” as Francis Schaeffer called it—about how the world really is, and spoon-feeding it to our children as candy. The very thing that they most need to know about the world is presented to them on the same level and in the same way as Curious George and Bob the Builder.
But I am happy to report that not all children’s books are created equal. Dr. R.C. Sproul, veteran author and master teacher of the Bible, has also noticed this lack of quality books for children. Rather than bemoan the problem, Sproul decided to do something about it: he wrote. Two of his books, The Lightlings and The Prince’s Poison Cup, are great examples of how Christians should be communicating the truths of God’s world and the Gospel of Jesus Christ to children. Sproul rightly understands that bringing the high truth of the Bible down to the level of children is most effectively done through allegory. Rather than simplifying the Bible, Sproul tells a simple story to illustrate the biblical truth. Both books tell a similar story—one of creation, fall, and redemption—without ever once naming a Biblical figure. The Bible’s story is assumed to be the “ultimate” truth and Sproul’s tales are merely retelling the reality of God’s truth in an allegorical way. Sproul doesn’t dress up a fairy tale as a Bible story, he dresses up a Bible story as a fairy tale; and the approach makes all the difference when the costumes are removed.
Get "The Lightlings" from the bookstore
Sproul begins both of his books with a family, a functioning one at that, complete with parents and grandparents. Grandpa is the storyteller in both books, perhaps revealing a bit of bias toward Sproul’s own role as Grandpa and Great-Grandpa in real life. Both stories resemble the approach taken by William Goldman in the screenplay for the film, The Princess Bride. Grandpa comes to his grandchild’s home and tells them a story to answer a question that they have. This method not only reinforces the primary role of the family in the development of the child in the story, it also helps to elevate and esteem the grandfather as a needed and integral part of the family. In both stories, the parents defer to Grandpa as a trusted source of wisdom, encouraging the child to “ask Grandpa when he comes.” This clever “story within a story” reinforces the real world to the reader, one that exists both inside and outside of the pages of the book.
A helpful appendix is included in each book as a “For Parents” section. This appendix includes questions that can be used to help parents further discuss the story with their child. Several Bible verses are listed after each question that connect the “world of the story” with the real world of the Bible. The artwork by Justin Gerard that adorns nearly every page of both books is a perfect complement to the beautiful simplicity of Sproul’s storyline. These books are exceptional in every sense of the word. These are not merely children’s books; parents (and grandparents) will enjoy reading them as well. My hope is that these two books are only the beginning of Sproul’s books for children and that his books are only the beginning of a positive trend in quality Christian books—for children and adults.
Fairy Tales and Fables
by Eric Rauch
One of the most severely lacking areas in Christian publishing today is in books for children. Publishers don’t seem to realize that children are quite capable of thinking and understanding. The books that line the shelves of the children’s section are nearly always trite and condescending and do little more than make well-known stories from the Bible look ridiculous. This “dumbing-down” of the Bible often tends to have a negative effect on young eyes and ears as they grow older and more sophisticated. The “stories” that they heard and read as children remain just that: stories. As they come to understand the world around them better, children begin to realize that trains and cars and animals don’t really talk. It is only natural then that they should also begin to think that David, Noah, Adam, and Abraham are really nothing more than fables and cartoon characters. When we teach the Bible in a silly and unreal way to our children, we shouldn’t be surprised when they begin to think of the Bible as a silly book of fairy tales and myths.
Get "The Prince's Poison Cup" from the bookstore
This isn’t to say that fairy tales and myths are wrong for children though. Quite the opposite actually. As human beings we are constantly interpreting life as a story—a grand narrative that is continually unfolding. Stories are necessary for making sense of this world. If life was really nothing more than random chance happenings, as materialism would have us believe, stories would be impossible. Randomness has no cohesive plot; things just happen. The fact that we are always groping for reasons, looking for answers, and trying to make sense of this world points to the fact that we are created in the image of God. God is the Master Storyteller, the Chief Scriptwriter. All truth is His truth and all events, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, are necessary components of His story. If we teach God’s story to our children as nothing more than a fun fable with a moralistic lesson, we are crippling them for life. As discussed in yesterday’s article, we are taking divine revelation—”true truth” as Francis Schaeffer called it—about how the world really is, and spoon-feeding it to our children as candy. The very thing that they most need to know about the world is presented to them on the same level and in the same way as Curious George and Bob the Builder.
But I am happy to report that not all children’s books are created equal. Dr. R.C. Sproul, veteran author and master teacher of the Bible, has also noticed this lack of quality books for children. Rather than bemoan the problem, Sproul decided to do something about it: he wrote. Two of his books, The Lightlings and The Prince’s Poison Cup, are great examples of how Christians should be communicating the truths of God’s world and the Gospel of Jesus Christ to children. Sproul rightly understands that bringing the high truth of the Bible down to the level of children is most effectively done through allegory. Rather than simplifying the Bible, Sproul tells a simple story to illustrate the biblical truth. Both books tell a similar story—one of creation, fall, and redemption—without ever once naming a Biblical figure. The Bible’s story is assumed to be the “ultimate” truth and Sproul’s tales are merely retelling the reality of God’s truth in an allegorical way. Sproul doesn’t dress up a fairy tale as a Bible story, he dresses up a Bible story as a fairy tale; and the approach makes all the difference when the costumes are removed.
Get "The Lightlings" from the bookstore
Sproul begins both of his books with a family, a functioning one at that, complete with parents and grandparents. Grandpa is the storyteller in both books, perhaps revealing a bit of bias toward Sproul’s own role as Grandpa and Great-Grandpa in real life. Both stories resemble the approach taken by William Goldman in the screenplay for the film, The Princess Bride. Grandpa comes to his grandchild’s home and tells them a story to answer a question that they have. This method not only reinforces the primary role of the family in the development of the child in the story, it also helps to elevate and esteem the grandfather as a needed and integral part of the family. In both stories, the parents defer to Grandpa as a trusted source of wisdom, encouraging the child to “ask Grandpa when he comes.” This clever “story within a story” reinforces the real world to the reader, one that exists both inside and outside of the pages of the book.
A helpful appendix is included in each book as a “For Parents” section. This appendix includes questions that can be used to help parents further discuss the story with their child. Several Bible verses are listed after each question that connect the “world of the story” with the real world of the Bible. The artwork by Justin Gerard that adorns nearly every page of both books is a perfect complement to the beautiful simplicity of Sproul’s storyline. These books are exceptional in every sense of the word. These are not merely children’s books; parents (and grandparents) will enjoy reading them as well. My hope is that these two books are only the beginning of Sproul’s books for children and that his books are only the beginning of a positive trend in quality Christian books—for children and adults.
The Children Of Abraham
From The American Islamic Forum For Democracy:
The local chapter of the Bureau of Jewish Education gave a summer course offering in Phoenix entitled Islam 101. Josh Sayles reports in today's Jewish News of Greater Phoenix about the course, its instructor, and the thoughts of local leadership.
His report is provided below [#1] and can be found online at this link. The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix also asked Dr. Jasser to provide commentary about the issue and it is also provided below [#2] and available online at this link.
1] Jewish News story as background (Dr. Jasser's commentary follows below at #2) :
Islam 101? BJE course on radicalism labeled as basics
JOSH SAYLES
Staff Writer
Rabbi B. Charles Herring, spiritual leader of Temple Kol Ami in Scottsdale, has been involved in interfaith dialogue for a decade now. Ten years ago, he founded Children of Abraham, a group of about 10 Muslim couples and 10 Jewish couples who meet monthly at one another's homes to socialize and discuss the differences and similarities between the two cultures.
Herring speaks freely about the parallels of the religions, comparing food restrictions, the lunar calendars and the fact that some popular Jewish hymns - such as "Adon Olam" and "Yigdal" - follow Islamic rules of poetry.
"When you spend 10 years together, you're not talking about (holidays) anymore, you're really talking about stuff that's fascinating," he said.
But when Herring launched the group, it wasn't without reservation.
"The first time that we got together, I was basically frightened," he said. "Muslims were being demonized, and I was warned that I was getting myself into deep problems by doing this because I was endangering my life as a Jew. In truth, there's no love lost between international Muslim groups and Jewish groups."
Over time, however, Herring has developed a deep friendship with the members of his Children of Abraham community.
"When you multiply the years we've been doing this, and the amount of time we've spent together - we know each other's kids, and we're in each other's lives. How can you hate the other? They're like your relatives.
"It's so much easier to hate somebody or to be afraid of them."
That is why Herring expressed concern when he learned the Scottsdale branch of the Bureau of Jewish Education (BJE) had run a six-part course June 7-July 12 titled "Islam 101."
The course focused on radical Islam even though the subject matter was not specified in the name. The instructor, Dr. Carl Goldberg, is not without controversy - Azra Hussain, co-founder and director of the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona, as well as a member of Children of Abraham, said that Goldberg has appeared several times around the state at places where Muslim speakers were scheduled to lecture, handing out what she said are anti-Muslim materials outside of the venues.
Goldberg rebutted Hussain. He said that he has never "followed her or anyone else around the state" and that the only materials he distributes are those at his lectures and BJE class. One such handout is titled "Troubling Passages in the Koran," and includes 34 passages that Goldberg finds disturbing. Such passages include: "The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell; they are the vilest of all creatures," and, "Women are your fields; go then, into your fields whence you please."
"When I talk about the Muslim world, I'm talking about the 57 Muslim countries, plus the communities in the West, and I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind that these communities all around the world are pervaded by anti-Semitism," said Goldberg.
He said that for a year or two after 9/11, the media was "not afraid to link the terrorists with Islam, with the religion and doctrines of Islam, but that ended ... when President Bush came out and assured the whole country that Islam is a religion of peace and all we're doing is fighting al-Qaida."
Herring said that his Muslim friends get upset when people cite negative passages from the Quran in an attempt to denounce Islam. "My response to them is, 'Do you want me to give you all the page numbers in the Torah of horrible stuff? Because it certainly is there.' And they decline. They say, 'This is not the answer. We will speak intelligently.'"
Hussain agreed. "Anyone that's going around talking about heinous stuff - ugliness and killing and terrorizing - I can understand blaming people for that, saying that human beings are doing that," she said. "But saying a religion is teaching that, saying a religion is that corrupt and that ugly, you know that's not a place of truth.
"If you came to me and told me that Judaism teaches all these ugly things, I'd look at you and wonder what you'd been eating, because to me, saying a whole religion is doing it is very different than saying some followers or some people who claim to be that (religion) are doing it."
Goldberg, who is Jewish, has a doctorate in history and is a former Russian-language instructor at Arizona State University, said he has no formal training in Islam other than that he has been reading up on it extensively for the last four or five years. He said he is qualified to teach Islam 101 because he is simply quoting "the most respected Islamic sources" and letting his students form their own opinions.
"I'm advising people to go to Islamic sources," said Goldberg. "I'm not advising them to take my opinion. That's the difference. If you have a non-Jew lecturing on Judaism who tells you, 'Go read the Jewish scholars,' I think that's legitimate."
Goldberg said his sources include Sayyid Qutb, Abul Maududi, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Robert Spencer. He said that he is not talking about all Muslims, only those who follow Islamic doctrines.
"It's important to know Islamic doctrines because those doctrines influence the behavior of millions upon millions of Muslims," said Goldberg. "That's what's the important thing. We have to understand what we are dealing with."
Islamic doctrines are the principal foundations of the religion.
Goldberg said that although the threat of Islam is greater in countries that follow Shariah, or Islamic law, there are anti-Semitic Muslim circles throughout the world - including throughout the United States - that pose a danger to Jews.
"What would you do if you had a Ku Klux Klan center, or Nazi party centers all over the United States propagating Nazi ideology?" asked Goldberg. "What would you do about it? It's quite similar, actually, because the ideology is not all that different.
"The (Islamic) organizations in the United States, they are derivatives of the Muslim Brotherhood (around the world), and there's no question where the Muslim Brotherhood stands on this. So they're all part of the same movement. And you may have occasional denunciations, general denunciations of anti-Semitism, but I don't think you have anybody demonstrating coexistence with Israel. So, I think, by extension you have to assume that they're not all that different from Muslim communities elsewhere, after all, that's where they came from. And until we do a survey or a poll that asks these questions ... I'm not sure we can say a whole lot. But the indications are that they support the rest of the Muslim world."
The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic political group founded in Egypt in 1928. Its bylaws are published at ikwhanweb.com.
Bill Straus, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that he is familiar with Goldberg's position, that he has a problem with it and that he questions Goldberg's ability to teach objectively about Islam.
"Having heard some of Carl's allegations, and asking people in the Muslim community whom I feel I can trust, 'Is that true?' I always get the same answer: 'That's if you want to interpret it like the people who want to kill us, the most radical of the radicals,'" said Straus.
"Looking at the Muslim faith through the eyes of Carl Goldberg would be like studying the Jewish faith through the eyes of someone who is suspicious of Jews and views them as his enemy."
To that, Goldberg responded, "I would not use Bill Straus as an authority. He knows nothing about Islam. He's never studied it."
"No, I've never studied Islam," confirmed Straus. "But I'm an authority on prejudice, and Carl Goldberg, like everyone who insists that they have the answer and there is no other, allows that to prejudice his view of Islam."
Aaron Scholar, director of the local Bureau of Jewish Education, said he brought in Goldberg to teach the class not because he thought he was a "Muslim scholar," but because Goldberg has a doctorate in history and would therefore know how to research and use materials in the classroom.
"Our purpose at the bureau is just to inform people, not about the negatives of Islam, but about Islam, the positive as well as the negative ... and (to let the students) make the decisions," said Scholar.
Scholar said that of the 13 individuals who signed up for the class, one walked out "in disgust" after the first day, but he has heard mostly positive feedback from the other 12. Some have requested a follow-up course - Islam 102 - to be taught by Goldberg.
He said he has not yet decided whether Goldberg will be brought back to teach Islam 102 and/or another session of Islam 101.
"(In teaching Islam) you have volatile areas of tremendous sensitivity," said Scholar. "The bottom line is, it's the problems and the solutions we're trying to look at, not the (Muslim) people.
"We're all responsible for factual information. All religions have had serious problems over the ages. Islam, or at least parts of Islam ... or the misreading of Islam - however you want to look at it - is the one that seems to be a threat at the present time. It isn't Catholicism that's creating a problem for society today, it isn't Protestantism, it isn't Judaism. Right now, the focus is on Islam, so the point of any instructional unit is to find out what that part of the religion is all about. It's that simple."
Rabbi Reuven Firestone, professor of medieval Jewish and Islamic studies and executive committee member of the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles, said that he runs into Islamophobia and anti-Semitism on a regular basis.
"People are frightened and anxious and they tend to assume the worst," he said. "The irony is that we as Jews sometimes engage in the same kind of scapegoating that anti-Semites have traditionally directed toward us.
"I don't think, frankly, that people who scapegoat other people ... are doing it because they're evil, but because they're frightened, and that can result in hate and violence. I think there are some people who really push (the envelope) and maybe are in the category of evil, but I don't really know any, and I know lots of anti-Semites and Islamophobes. Mostly they're afraid."
2] Dr. Jasser's commentary for the Jewish News.
A course on Islam
by M. ZUHDI JASSER
On the surface, the Bureau of Jewish Education was perceptive and timely in its offering this summer of a course titled "Islam 101." However, knowing the materials distributed by the course instructor, Carl Goldberg, a Ph.D. in Russian history, a more fitting title would have been "Islam: The totalitarian ideology."
Goldberg conflates various oppressive theocratic interpretations of Islam as "the Islam." A recent missive he sent me stated, "Only by deviating from Islamic doctrine can Islam become compatible with democracy. But, that is logically absurd because then Islam would cease to be Islam."
Goldberg defends his claims by stating that he is simply reporting the "truth" as taught by "leading" Muslim scholars. When presented with alternative modern scholarly interpretations of the Quran and Hadith, he ignores them as contrived, illegitimate or hopeless. His responses to Muslim reformists would certainly make Bin Laden and Imam Al-Awlaki proud.
This is not about Goldberg or the Bureau of Jewish Education. This is about understanding both our enemies and our friends. They are both Muslim, and they both practice a form of Islam. By inexorably linking supremacist ideologies to the entire faith, we are surrendering one-quarter of the world's population to a supremacist mind-set that leaves nothing for the future but a global clash of religions.
We need to recognize the validity of devotional anti-Islamist Muslims and marginalize the ideas of political Islam. We need not one but many courses on Islam, political Islam, salafism and jihadism to name a few. But these courses must teach about the debate going on within the faith. The House of Islam is not monolithic. It has a diversity wherein lies the future of its own political modernization and thus our security.
We need an open and frank discourse about the religion of Islam. Radical Islam is but a symptom of political Islam, which seeks to incorporate Shariah into government. The only way to truly defeat global Islamist terror is to instill in Muslims the ideas of liberty that will give them the strength to reject the supremacy of the Islamic state. This process will not happen in a setting that dismisses the entirety of Islam.
Sadly, the comfort our Founding Fathers had with a critical discourse on religion has been lost. The negative perceptions nationally about Islam have almost doubled since 9/11, beginning at 23 percent negative. Leading Islamist groups in D.C. - Muslim Brotherhood front groups - have only served to fan the flames and advance the ideologies of transnational political Islam. These Islamist groups have ushered in a prevailing perception among Americans that Muslims are disengaged from American security and in denial over the need for real, deep reform.
Education is a journey whose direction and destination should be open and thoughtful. Instruction that castigates an entire faith for the global theo-political movements within it leaves students with nothing but anger. A teacher's responsibilities go beyond repetition of a few facts; they lie in discussing the solutions our students may go on to implement. Without a reasoned Muslim-based solution, there will be only a dangerous vacuum from which no one can benefit.
M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and president of the Phoenix-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy
The local chapter of the Bureau of Jewish Education gave a summer course offering in Phoenix entitled Islam 101. Josh Sayles reports in today's Jewish News of Greater Phoenix about the course, its instructor, and the thoughts of local leadership.
His report is provided below [#1] and can be found online at this link. The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix also asked Dr. Jasser to provide commentary about the issue and it is also provided below [#2] and available online at this link.
1] Jewish News story as background (Dr. Jasser's commentary follows below at #2) :
Islam 101? BJE course on radicalism labeled as basics
JOSH SAYLES
Staff Writer
Rabbi B. Charles Herring, spiritual leader of Temple Kol Ami in Scottsdale, has been involved in interfaith dialogue for a decade now. Ten years ago, he founded Children of Abraham, a group of about 10 Muslim couples and 10 Jewish couples who meet monthly at one another's homes to socialize and discuss the differences and similarities between the two cultures.
Herring speaks freely about the parallels of the religions, comparing food restrictions, the lunar calendars and the fact that some popular Jewish hymns - such as "Adon Olam" and "Yigdal" - follow Islamic rules of poetry.
"When you spend 10 years together, you're not talking about (holidays) anymore, you're really talking about stuff that's fascinating," he said.
But when Herring launched the group, it wasn't without reservation.
"The first time that we got together, I was basically frightened," he said. "Muslims were being demonized, and I was warned that I was getting myself into deep problems by doing this because I was endangering my life as a Jew. In truth, there's no love lost between international Muslim groups and Jewish groups."
Over time, however, Herring has developed a deep friendship with the members of his Children of Abraham community.
"When you multiply the years we've been doing this, and the amount of time we've spent together - we know each other's kids, and we're in each other's lives. How can you hate the other? They're like your relatives.
"It's so much easier to hate somebody or to be afraid of them."
That is why Herring expressed concern when he learned the Scottsdale branch of the Bureau of Jewish Education (BJE) had run a six-part course June 7-July 12 titled "Islam 101."
The course focused on radical Islam even though the subject matter was not specified in the name. The instructor, Dr. Carl Goldberg, is not without controversy - Azra Hussain, co-founder and director of the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona, as well as a member of Children of Abraham, said that Goldberg has appeared several times around the state at places where Muslim speakers were scheduled to lecture, handing out what she said are anti-Muslim materials outside of the venues.
Goldberg rebutted Hussain. He said that he has never "followed her or anyone else around the state" and that the only materials he distributes are those at his lectures and BJE class. One such handout is titled "Troubling Passages in the Koran," and includes 34 passages that Goldberg finds disturbing. Such passages include: "The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell; they are the vilest of all creatures," and, "Women are your fields; go then, into your fields whence you please."
"When I talk about the Muslim world, I'm talking about the 57 Muslim countries, plus the communities in the West, and I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind that these communities all around the world are pervaded by anti-Semitism," said Goldberg.
He said that for a year or two after 9/11, the media was "not afraid to link the terrorists with Islam, with the religion and doctrines of Islam, but that ended ... when President Bush came out and assured the whole country that Islam is a religion of peace and all we're doing is fighting al-Qaida."
Herring said that his Muslim friends get upset when people cite negative passages from the Quran in an attempt to denounce Islam. "My response to them is, 'Do you want me to give you all the page numbers in the Torah of horrible stuff? Because it certainly is there.' And they decline. They say, 'This is not the answer. We will speak intelligently.'"
Hussain agreed. "Anyone that's going around talking about heinous stuff - ugliness and killing and terrorizing - I can understand blaming people for that, saying that human beings are doing that," she said. "But saying a religion is teaching that, saying a religion is that corrupt and that ugly, you know that's not a place of truth.
"If you came to me and told me that Judaism teaches all these ugly things, I'd look at you and wonder what you'd been eating, because to me, saying a whole religion is doing it is very different than saying some followers or some people who claim to be that (religion) are doing it."
Goldberg, who is Jewish, has a doctorate in history and is a former Russian-language instructor at Arizona State University, said he has no formal training in Islam other than that he has been reading up on it extensively for the last four or five years. He said he is qualified to teach Islam 101 because he is simply quoting "the most respected Islamic sources" and letting his students form their own opinions.
"I'm advising people to go to Islamic sources," said Goldberg. "I'm not advising them to take my opinion. That's the difference. If you have a non-Jew lecturing on Judaism who tells you, 'Go read the Jewish scholars,' I think that's legitimate."
Goldberg said his sources include Sayyid Qutb, Abul Maududi, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Robert Spencer. He said that he is not talking about all Muslims, only those who follow Islamic doctrines.
"It's important to know Islamic doctrines because those doctrines influence the behavior of millions upon millions of Muslims," said Goldberg. "That's what's the important thing. We have to understand what we are dealing with."
Islamic doctrines are the principal foundations of the religion.
Goldberg said that although the threat of Islam is greater in countries that follow Shariah, or Islamic law, there are anti-Semitic Muslim circles throughout the world - including throughout the United States - that pose a danger to Jews.
"What would you do if you had a Ku Klux Klan center, or Nazi party centers all over the United States propagating Nazi ideology?" asked Goldberg. "What would you do about it? It's quite similar, actually, because the ideology is not all that different.
"The (Islamic) organizations in the United States, they are derivatives of the Muslim Brotherhood (around the world), and there's no question where the Muslim Brotherhood stands on this. So they're all part of the same movement. And you may have occasional denunciations, general denunciations of anti-Semitism, but I don't think you have anybody demonstrating coexistence with Israel. So, I think, by extension you have to assume that they're not all that different from Muslim communities elsewhere, after all, that's where they came from. And until we do a survey or a poll that asks these questions ... I'm not sure we can say a whole lot. But the indications are that they support the rest of the Muslim world."
The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic political group founded in Egypt in 1928. Its bylaws are published at ikwhanweb.com.
Bill Straus, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that he is familiar with Goldberg's position, that he has a problem with it and that he questions Goldberg's ability to teach objectively about Islam.
"Having heard some of Carl's allegations, and asking people in the Muslim community whom I feel I can trust, 'Is that true?' I always get the same answer: 'That's if you want to interpret it like the people who want to kill us, the most radical of the radicals,'" said Straus.
"Looking at the Muslim faith through the eyes of Carl Goldberg would be like studying the Jewish faith through the eyes of someone who is suspicious of Jews and views them as his enemy."
To that, Goldberg responded, "I would not use Bill Straus as an authority. He knows nothing about Islam. He's never studied it."
"No, I've never studied Islam," confirmed Straus. "But I'm an authority on prejudice, and Carl Goldberg, like everyone who insists that they have the answer and there is no other, allows that to prejudice his view of Islam."
Aaron Scholar, director of the local Bureau of Jewish Education, said he brought in Goldberg to teach the class not because he thought he was a "Muslim scholar," but because Goldberg has a doctorate in history and would therefore know how to research and use materials in the classroom.
"Our purpose at the bureau is just to inform people, not about the negatives of Islam, but about Islam, the positive as well as the negative ... and (to let the students) make the decisions," said Scholar.
Scholar said that of the 13 individuals who signed up for the class, one walked out "in disgust" after the first day, but he has heard mostly positive feedback from the other 12. Some have requested a follow-up course - Islam 102 - to be taught by Goldberg.
He said he has not yet decided whether Goldberg will be brought back to teach Islam 102 and/or another session of Islam 101.
"(In teaching Islam) you have volatile areas of tremendous sensitivity," said Scholar. "The bottom line is, it's the problems and the solutions we're trying to look at, not the (Muslim) people.
"We're all responsible for factual information. All religions have had serious problems over the ages. Islam, or at least parts of Islam ... or the misreading of Islam - however you want to look at it - is the one that seems to be a threat at the present time. It isn't Catholicism that's creating a problem for society today, it isn't Protestantism, it isn't Judaism. Right now, the focus is on Islam, so the point of any instructional unit is to find out what that part of the religion is all about. It's that simple."
Rabbi Reuven Firestone, professor of medieval Jewish and Islamic studies and executive committee member of the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles, said that he runs into Islamophobia and anti-Semitism on a regular basis.
"People are frightened and anxious and they tend to assume the worst," he said. "The irony is that we as Jews sometimes engage in the same kind of scapegoating that anti-Semites have traditionally directed toward us.
"I don't think, frankly, that people who scapegoat other people ... are doing it because they're evil, but because they're frightened, and that can result in hate and violence. I think there are some people who really push (the envelope) and maybe are in the category of evil, but I don't really know any, and I know lots of anti-Semites and Islamophobes. Mostly they're afraid."
2] Dr. Jasser's commentary for the Jewish News.
A course on Islam
by M. ZUHDI JASSER
On the surface, the Bureau of Jewish Education was perceptive and timely in its offering this summer of a course titled "Islam 101." However, knowing the materials distributed by the course instructor, Carl Goldberg, a Ph.D. in Russian history, a more fitting title would have been "Islam: The totalitarian ideology."
Goldberg conflates various oppressive theocratic interpretations of Islam as "the Islam." A recent missive he sent me stated, "Only by deviating from Islamic doctrine can Islam become compatible with democracy. But, that is logically absurd because then Islam would cease to be Islam."
Goldberg defends his claims by stating that he is simply reporting the "truth" as taught by "leading" Muslim scholars. When presented with alternative modern scholarly interpretations of the Quran and Hadith, he ignores them as contrived, illegitimate or hopeless. His responses to Muslim reformists would certainly make Bin Laden and Imam Al-Awlaki proud.
This is not about Goldberg or the Bureau of Jewish Education. This is about understanding both our enemies and our friends. They are both Muslim, and they both practice a form of Islam. By inexorably linking supremacist ideologies to the entire faith, we are surrendering one-quarter of the world's population to a supremacist mind-set that leaves nothing for the future but a global clash of religions.
We need to recognize the validity of devotional anti-Islamist Muslims and marginalize the ideas of political Islam. We need not one but many courses on Islam, political Islam, salafism and jihadism to name a few. But these courses must teach about the debate going on within the faith. The House of Islam is not monolithic. It has a diversity wherein lies the future of its own political modernization and thus our security.
We need an open and frank discourse about the religion of Islam. Radical Islam is but a symptom of political Islam, which seeks to incorporate Shariah into government. The only way to truly defeat global Islamist terror is to instill in Muslims the ideas of liberty that will give them the strength to reject the supremacy of the Islamic state. This process will not happen in a setting that dismisses the entirety of Islam.
Sadly, the comfort our Founding Fathers had with a critical discourse on religion has been lost. The negative perceptions nationally about Islam have almost doubled since 9/11, beginning at 23 percent negative. Leading Islamist groups in D.C. - Muslim Brotherhood front groups - have only served to fan the flames and advance the ideologies of transnational political Islam. These Islamist groups have ushered in a prevailing perception among Americans that Muslims are disengaged from American security and in denial over the need for real, deep reform.
Education is a journey whose direction and destination should be open and thoughtful. Instruction that castigates an entire faith for the global theo-political movements within it leaves students with nothing but anger. A teacher's responsibilities go beyond repetition of a few facts; they lie in discussing the solutions our students may go on to implement. Without a reasoned Muslim-based solution, there will be only a dangerous vacuum from which no one can benefit.
M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and president of the Phoenix-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Relationships: Don't Go It Alone
From Tricycle:
No Gain
Relationships won't solve our problems, but they can help us grow.
By Barry Magid
MY TEACHER Charlotte Joko Beck pretty much sums up her attitude toward relationships when she says, “Relationships don’t work.” Rather than talk about everything we normally think that we gain from relationships, like love, companionship, security, and family life, she looks at relationships from the perspective of no gain. She focuses on all the ways relationships go awry when people enter into them with particular sorts of gaining ideas and expect relationships to function as an antidote to their problems. Antidotes are all versions of “If only...” If only she were more understanding; if only he were more interested in sex; if only she would stop drinking. For Joko, that kind of thinking about relationships means always externalizing the problem, always assuming that the one thing that’s going to change your life is outside yourself and in the other person. If only the other person would get his or her act together, then my life would go the way I want it to.
Joko tries to bring people back to their own fears and insecurities. These problems are ours to practice with, and we can’t ask anyone else, including a teacher, to do that work for us. To be in a real relationship, a loving relationship, is simply to be willing to respond and be there for the other person without always calculating what we are going to get out of it.
Many people come to me and say, “I’ve been in lots of relationships where I give and give and give.” But for them it wasn’t enlightenment; it was masochism! What they are missing from Joko’s original account is a description of what relationships are actually for—what the good part is. In addition to being aware of the pitfalls that Joko warns us about, we should also look at all the ways in which relationships provide the enabling conditions for our growth and development. That’s particularly obvious with children. We would all agree that children need a certain kind of care and love in order to grow and develop. Nobody would say to a five-year-old, “What do you need Mommy for? Deal with your fear on your own!” The thing is that most of us are still struggling with remnants of that child’s neediness and fear in the midst of a seemingly adult life. Relationships aren’t just crutches that allow us to avoid those fears; they also provide conditions that enable us to develop our capacities so we can handle them in a more mature way.
It’s not just a parent-child relationship or a relationship with a partner that does that. The relationship of a student with a teacher, between members of a sangha, between friends, and among community members—all help us to develop in ways we couldn’t on our own. Some aspects of ourselves don’t develop except under the right circumstances.
Aristotle stressed the importance of community and friendship as necessary ingredients for character development and happiness. He is the real origin of the idea that “it takes a village” to raise a child. However, you don’t find much in Aristotle about the necessity of romantic love in order to develop. His emphasis was on friendship.
Aristotle said that in order for people to become virtuous, we need role models—others who have developed their capacities for courage, self-control, wisdom, and justice. We may emphasize different sets of virtues or ideas about what makes a proper role model, but Buddhism also asserts that, as we are all connected and interdependent, none of us can do it all on our own.
Acknowledging this dependency is the first step of real emotional work within relationships. Our ambivalence about our own needs and dependency gets stirred up in all kinds of relationships. We cannot escape our feelings and needs and desires if we are going to be in relationships with others. To be in relationships is to feel our vulnerability in relation to other people who are unpredictable, and in circumstances that are intrinsically uncontrollable and unreliable.
We bump up against the fact of change and impermanence as soon as we acknowledge our feelings or needs for others. Basically, we all tend to go in one of two directions as a strategy for coping with that vulnerability. We either go in the direction of control or of autonomy. If we go for control, we may be saying: “If only I can get the other person or my friends or family to treat me the way I want, then I’ll be able to feel safe and secure. If only I had a guarantee that they’ll give me what I need, then I wouldn’t have to face uncertainty.” With this strategy, we get invested in the control and manipulation of others and in trying to use people as antidotes to our own anxiety.
With the strategy (or curative fantasy) of autonomy, we go in the opposite direction and try to imagine that we don’t need anyone. But that strategy inevitably entails repression or dissociation, a denial of feeling. We may imagine that through spiritual practice we will get to a place where we won’t feel need, sexuality, anger, or dependency. Then, we imagine, we won’t be so tied into the vicissitudes of relationships. We try to squelch our feelings in order not to be vulnerable anymore, and we rationalize that dissociation under the lofty and spiritual-sounding word “detachment,” which ends up carrying a great deal of unacknowledged emotional baggage alongside its original, simpler meaning as the acceptance of impermanence.
We have to get to know and be honest about our particular strategies for dealing with vulnerability, and learn to use our practice to allow ourselves to experience more of that vulnerability rather than less of it. To open yourself up to need, longing, dependency, and reliance on others means opening yourself to the truth that none of us can do this on our own. We really do need each other, just as we need parents and teachers. We need all those people in our lives who make us feel so uncertain. Our practice is not about finally getting to a place where we are going to escape all that but about creating a container that allows us to be more and more human, to feel more and more.
If we let ourselves feel more and more, paradoxically, we get less controlling and less reactive. As long as we think we shouldn’t feel something, as long as we are afraid of feeling vulnerable, our defenses will kick in to try to get life under control, to manipulate ourselves or other people. But instead of either controlling or sequestering our feelings, we can learn to both contain and feel them fully. That containment allows us to feel vulnerable or hurt without immediately erupting into anger; it allows us to feel neediness without clinging to the other person. We acknowledge our dependency.
We learn to keep our relationships and support systems in good repair because we admit to ourselves how much we need them. We take care of others for our own sake as well as theirs. We begin to see that all our relationships are part of a broad spectrum of interconnectedness, and we respect not only the most intimate or most longed-for of our relationships but also all the relationships we have—from the most personal to the most public—which together are always defining who we are and what we need in order to become fully ourselves.
Relationships work to open us up to ourselves. But first we have to admit how much we don’t want that to happen, because that means opening ourselves to vulnerability. Only then will we begin the true practice of letting ourselves experience all those feelings of vulnerability that we first came to practice to escape.
From Ending the Pursuit of Happiness: A Zen Guide, © Barry Magid 2008. Reprinted with permission of Wisdom Publications, wisdompubs.org.
No Gain
Relationships won't solve our problems, but they can help us grow.
By Barry Magid
MY TEACHER Charlotte Joko Beck pretty much sums up her attitude toward relationships when she says, “Relationships don’t work.” Rather than talk about everything we normally think that we gain from relationships, like love, companionship, security, and family life, she looks at relationships from the perspective of no gain. She focuses on all the ways relationships go awry when people enter into them with particular sorts of gaining ideas and expect relationships to function as an antidote to their problems. Antidotes are all versions of “If only...” If only she were more understanding; if only he were more interested in sex; if only she would stop drinking. For Joko, that kind of thinking about relationships means always externalizing the problem, always assuming that the one thing that’s going to change your life is outside yourself and in the other person. If only the other person would get his or her act together, then my life would go the way I want it to.
Joko tries to bring people back to their own fears and insecurities. These problems are ours to practice with, and we can’t ask anyone else, including a teacher, to do that work for us. To be in a real relationship, a loving relationship, is simply to be willing to respond and be there for the other person without always calculating what we are going to get out of it.
Many people come to me and say, “I’ve been in lots of relationships where I give and give and give.” But for them it wasn’t enlightenment; it was masochism! What they are missing from Joko’s original account is a description of what relationships are actually for—what the good part is. In addition to being aware of the pitfalls that Joko warns us about, we should also look at all the ways in which relationships provide the enabling conditions for our growth and development. That’s particularly obvious with children. We would all agree that children need a certain kind of care and love in order to grow and develop. Nobody would say to a five-year-old, “What do you need Mommy for? Deal with your fear on your own!” The thing is that most of us are still struggling with remnants of that child’s neediness and fear in the midst of a seemingly adult life. Relationships aren’t just crutches that allow us to avoid those fears; they also provide conditions that enable us to develop our capacities so we can handle them in a more mature way.
It’s not just a parent-child relationship or a relationship with a partner that does that. The relationship of a student with a teacher, between members of a sangha, between friends, and among community members—all help us to develop in ways we couldn’t on our own. Some aspects of ourselves don’t develop except under the right circumstances.
Aristotle stressed the importance of community and friendship as necessary ingredients for character development and happiness. He is the real origin of the idea that “it takes a village” to raise a child. However, you don’t find much in Aristotle about the necessity of romantic love in order to develop. His emphasis was on friendship.
Aristotle said that in order for people to become virtuous, we need role models—others who have developed their capacities for courage, self-control, wisdom, and justice. We may emphasize different sets of virtues or ideas about what makes a proper role model, but Buddhism also asserts that, as we are all connected and interdependent, none of us can do it all on our own.
Acknowledging this dependency is the first step of real emotional work within relationships. Our ambivalence about our own needs and dependency gets stirred up in all kinds of relationships. We cannot escape our feelings and needs and desires if we are going to be in relationships with others. To be in relationships is to feel our vulnerability in relation to other people who are unpredictable, and in circumstances that are intrinsically uncontrollable and unreliable.
We bump up against the fact of change and impermanence as soon as we acknowledge our feelings or needs for others. Basically, we all tend to go in one of two directions as a strategy for coping with that vulnerability. We either go in the direction of control or of autonomy. If we go for control, we may be saying: “If only I can get the other person or my friends or family to treat me the way I want, then I’ll be able to feel safe and secure. If only I had a guarantee that they’ll give me what I need, then I wouldn’t have to face uncertainty.” With this strategy, we get invested in the control and manipulation of others and in trying to use people as antidotes to our own anxiety.
With the strategy (or curative fantasy) of autonomy, we go in the opposite direction and try to imagine that we don’t need anyone. But that strategy inevitably entails repression or dissociation, a denial of feeling. We may imagine that through spiritual practice we will get to a place where we won’t feel need, sexuality, anger, or dependency. Then, we imagine, we won’t be so tied into the vicissitudes of relationships. We try to squelch our feelings in order not to be vulnerable anymore, and we rationalize that dissociation under the lofty and spiritual-sounding word “detachment,” which ends up carrying a great deal of unacknowledged emotional baggage alongside its original, simpler meaning as the acceptance of impermanence.
We have to get to know and be honest about our particular strategies for dealing with vulnerability, and learn to use our practice to allow ourselves to experience more of that vulnerability rather than less of it. To open yourself up to need, longing, dependency, and reliance on others means opening yourself to the truth that none of us can do this on our own. We really do need each other, just as we need parents and teachers. We need all those people in our lives who make us feel so uncertain. Our practice is not about finally getting to a place where we are going to escape all that but about creating a container that allows us to be more and more human, to feel more and more.
If we let ourselves feel more and more, paradoxically, we get less controlling and less reactive. As long as we think we shouldn’t feel something, as long as we are afraid of feeling vulnerable, our defenses will kick in to try to get life under control, to manipulate ourselves or other people. But instead of either controlling or sequestering our feelings, we can learn to both contain and feel them fully. That containment allows us to feel vulnerable or hurt without immediately erupting into anger; it allows us to feel neediness without clinging to the other person. We acknowledge our dependency.
We learn to keep our relationships and support systems in good repair because we admit to ourselves how much we need them. We take care of others for our own sake as well as theirs. We begin to see that all our relationships are part of a broad spectrum of interconnectedness, and we respect not only the most intimate or most longed-for of our relationships but also all the relationships we have—from the most personal to the most public—which together are always defining who we are and what we need in order to become fully ourselves.
Relationships work to open us up to ourselves. But first we have to admit how much we don’t want that to happen, because that means opening ourselves to vulnerability. Only then will we begin the true practice of letting ourselves experience all those feelings of vulnerability that we first came to practice to escape.
From Ending the Pursuit of Happiness: A Zen Guide, © Barry Magid 2008. Reprinted with permission of Wisdom Publications, wisdompubs.org.
Love Leads To Action
from The Christian Reader:
Love Leads to Action
God’s love for His saints sets His power in motion. He who has God’s heart does not lack for His arm. Love rallies all other affections and sets the powers of the whole man into action. Thus in God, love sets His other attributes to work; all are ready to bring about what God says He likes. God considers all His creatures, but the believing soul is an object of His choicest love—even the love with which He loves His Son (John 17:26).
Get "The Christian in Complete Armor" from the Reformation Bookstore
When a soul believes, then God’s eternal purpose and console concerning him—whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world—is brought to term. Can you imagine the love God has for a child He has carried so long in the womb of His eternal purpose? If God delighted in His plan before He spoke the world into being, how much greater is His delight to witness the full fruition of His labor: a believing soul. Having performed His own will thus far, God will surely raise all the power He has in that believer’s behalf, rather than be robbed of His glory within a few steps of home.
God showed us how much a soul is worth by the purchase price He paid. It cost Him dearly, and that which is so hard won will not be easily given up. He spent His Son’s blood to purchase you, and He will spend His own power to keep you.
As an earthly parent you rejoice to see your own good qualities reproduced in your children. God, the perfect parent, longs to see His attributes reflected in His saints. It is this image of God reflected in you that so enrages hell; it is this at which the demons hurl their mightiest weapons. When God defends you, He also defends Himself. Now knowing that the quarrel is God’s, surely He will not have you go forth to war at your own expense!
by William Gurnall, from The Christian in Complete Armor
Love Leads to Action
God’s love for His saints sets His power in motion. He who has God’s heart does not lack for His arm. Love rallies all other affections and sets the powers of the whole man into action. Thus in God, love sets His other attributes to work; all are ready to bring about what God says He likes. God considers all His creatures, but the believing soul is an object of His choicest love—even the love with which He loves His Son (John 17:26).
Get "The Christian in Complete Armor" from the Reformation Bookstore
When a soul believes, then God’s eternal purpose and console concerning him—whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world—is brought to term. Can you imagine the love God has for a child He has carried so long in the womb of His eternal purpose? If God delighted in His plan before He spoke the world into being, how much greater is His delight to witness the full fruition of His labor: a believing soul. Having performed His own will thus far, God will surely raise all the power He has in that believer’s behalf, rather than be robbed of His glory within a few steps of home.
God showed us how much a soul is worth by the purchase price He paid. It cost Him dearly, and that which is so hard won will not be easily given up. He spent His Son’s blood to purchase you, and He will spend His own power to keep you.
As an earthly parent you rejoice to see your own good qualities reproduced in your children. God, the perfect parent, longs to see His attributes reflected in His saints. It is this image of God reflected in you that so enrages hell; it is this at which the demons hurl their mightiest weapons. When God defends you, He also defends Himself. Now knowing that the quarrel is God’s, surely He will not have you go forth to war at your own expense!
by William Gurnall, from The Christian in Complete Armor
Strength To Be And Act
from The Christian Reader:
Strength to Be and Act
God alone is the source and sustainer of all life; therefore, it is His constant regenerating power that keeps the conscience alive.
Get "The Christian in Complete Armor" from the Reformation Bookstore
Conscience may be defined as the divine influence at work in man to restrain him from sin. One evidence of its orgin is that it always speaks against sin and for righteousness. Therefore, it cannot be the product of our own hearts, which in their fallen state are “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). God uses the conscience to give some knowledge of His righteousness to all, so that no one can stand before Him on the Day of Judgment to plead ignorance (Romans 1). When you become a Christian and consecrate yourself—conscience and all—to Him, the Holy Spirit begins in earnest to perfect you in Christ.
It is sad when God made the world He ended His work of creation—that is, He made no more new species of creatures. Yet to this day He has not ended His work of providence. “My Father worketh hitherto,” Christ said (John 5:17). In other words, He continually preserves and empowers what He has made with strength to be and to act. A work of art, when complete, no longer needs the artist, nor a house the carpenter when the last nail is in place. But God’s works on behalf of both the outer and the inner man are never of His hands.
If the Father’s work is a preserving one, the Son’s is a redemptive one. Both acts are perpetual. Christ did not end His work when He rose from the dead, just as the Father did not end His work when He finished creation. God rested at the end of creation; and Christ when He had wrought eternal redemption and “by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3). From there He continues the work of intercession for the saint, and thereby keeps him from certain ruin.
by William Gurnall, from The Christian in Complete Armor
Strength to Be and Act
God alone is the source and sustainer of all life; therefore, it is His constant regenerating power that keeps the conscience alive.
Get "The Christian in Complete Armor" from the Reformation Bookstore
Conscience may be defined as the divine influence at work in man to restrain him from sin. One evidence of its orgin is that it always speaks against sin and for righteousness. Therefore, it cannot be the product of our own hearts, which in their fallen state are “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). God uses the conscience to give some knowledge of His righteousness to all, so that no one can stand before Him on the Day of Judgment to plead ignorance (Romans 1). When you become a Christian and consecrate yourself—conscience and all—to Him, the Holy Spirit begins in earnest to perfect you in Christ.
It is sad when God made the world He ended His work of creation—that is, He made no more new species of creatures. Yet to this day He has not ended His work of providence. “My Father worketh hitherto,” Christ said (John 5:17). In other words, He continually preserves and empowers what He has made with strength to be and to act. A work of art, when complete, no longer needs the artist, nor a house the carpenter when the last nail is in place. But God’s works on behalf of both the outer and the inner man are never of His hands.
If the Father’s work is a preserving one, the Son’s is a redemptive one. Both acts are perpetual. Christ did not end His work when He rose from the dead, just as the Father did not end His work when He finished creation. God rested at the end of creation; and Christ when He had wrought eternal redemption and “by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3). From there He continues the work of intercession for the saint, and thereby keeps him from certain ruin.
by William Gurnall, from The Christian in Complete Armor
Persisting To the End
From The Christian Reader:
Persisting to the End
There are times when a saint is called to trust in a withdrawing God. “[Let him] that walketh in darkness and hath no light… trust in the name of the Lord” (Isaiah 50:10). This requires a bold step of faith– to venture into God’s presence with the same temerity as Esther into Ahasuerus’s. Even when no smile lights His face, when no golden scepter is extended to summon us to come near, we must press forward with this noble resolution: “If I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16).
Get "The Christian in Complete Armor" from the Reformation Bookstore
Which leads our faith one step further: We must trust also in a “killing God.” We must declare with Job, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15). It takes a submissive faith for a soul to march steadily forward while God seems to fire upon that soul and shoot His frowns like poisoned arrows into it. This is hard work, and will test the Christian’s mettle. Yet such a spirit we find in the poor woman of Canaan, who caught the bullets Christ shot at her, and with a humble boldness set them back again in her prayer (Matthew 15:22-28).
Your work and your life must go off the stage together. Persisting to the end will be the burr under your saddle– the thorn in your flesh– when the road ahead seems endless and your soul begs an early discharge. It weighs down every other difficulty of your calling. We have known many who have joined the army of Christ and liked being a soldier for a battle or two, but have soon had enough and ended up deserting. They impulsively enlist for Christian duties, are easily persuaded to take up a profession of religion, and are just as easily persuaded to lay it down. Like the new moon, they shine a little in the first part of the evening, but go down before the night is over.
Taking up the cross daily, praying always, watching night and day and never laying aside our armor to indulge ourselves, sends many sorrowful away from Christ.
by William Gurnall, from The Christian in Complete Armor
Persisting to the End
There are times when a saint is called to trust in a withdrawing God. “[Let him] that walketh in darkness and hath no light… trust in the name of the Lord” (Isaiah 50:10). This requires a bold step of faith– to venture into God’s presence with the same temerity as Esther into Ahasuerus’s. Even when no smile lights His face, when no golden scepter is extended to summon us to come near, we must press forward with this noble resolution: “If I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16).
Get "The Christian in Complete Armor" from the Reformation Bookstore
Which leads our faith one step further: We must trust also in a “killing God.” We must declare with Job, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15). It takes a submissive faith for a soul to march steadily forward while God seems to fire upon that soul and shoot His frowns like poisoned arrows into it. This is hard work, and will test the Christian’s mettle. Yet such a spirit we find in the poor woman of Canaan, who caught the bullets Christ shot at her, and with a humble boldness set them back again in her prayer (Matthew 15:22-28).
Your work and your life must go off the stage together. Persisting to the end will be the burr under your saddle– the thorn in your flesh– when the road ahead seems endless and your soul begs an early discharge. It weighs down every other difficulty of your calling. We have known many who have joined the army of Christ and liked being a soldier for a battle or two, but have soon had enough and ended up deserting. They impulsively enlist for Christian duties, are easily persuaded to take up a profession of religion, and are just as easily persuaded to lay it down. Like the new moon, they shine a little in the first part of the evening, but go down before the night is over.
Taking up the cross daily, praying always, watching night and day and never laying aside our armor to indulge ourselves, sends many sorrowful away from Christ.
by William Gurnall, from The Christian in Complete Armor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)