This is just plain fun to watch:
Monday, February 23, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
Religious Extremism: Critiquing a Facebook Meme
There's a (new?) Facebook meme that's crossed my newsfeed recently, one which I think warrants some critical attention. It looks like this:
There are several problems with this meme. Let me list a few.
1. Caricaturing the Left
I've never seen or heard anyone on the political left openly "side" with Muslim extremists--that is, defend the horrors perpetrated by such groups as ISIS or Al Qaeda, or argue that these groups are justified in what they do.
Rather, what I've seen and heard them do is react to sweeping generalizations that impute to all of Islam these horrors, or that strive to hold moderate Islam accountable for Muslim extremists in a way that they don't hold moderate Christians (or Jews) accountable for Christian (or Jewish) extremists.
This is not to say that there don't exist "leftist extremists" who are cheering on ISIS as they lop off Christian heads. But if they exist, they have no reputable public voice in this country--and so I suspect that this meme is really intended to caricature and thereby prematurely dismiss the kind of views I have heard from the political left.
People often hear what their biases tell them to hear, rather than what others are saying. I suspect there are people out there who believe that many moderate voices on the political left are really "leftist extremists" who are "siding with the decapitators" because they don't hear what those voices are actually saying.
The person on the political left says something like the following:
2. Framing the problem as a matter of who to side with in an us/them polarization
There's a disturbing us/them theme running through this meme. There's "us": the Jews and Christians who are labeled as extremists for wanting to exercise religious freedom (freedom to pray where we want and to withhold services where our religious conscience tells us to). And then there's them: the Muslims, who really are extremists, who are actually killing people in gruesome ways. And the liberals, by defending the Muslims while criticizing the Jews and Christians, have chosen to side with them.
This way of framing things actually builds on the first issue I talked about. It is clearly and obviously a mistake to compare a conservative Christian baker's refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding with a nominally Islamic extremist's participation in terrorism and murder. Anyone who treats the two as morally comparable is operating with dangerously distorted lenses.
But no one with any publicly credible voice does that. There are many on the left who both criticize the Christian baker and defend the typical Muslim from being wrongly stereotyped based on the actions of extremists. But that is not the same as likening what the Christian baker does to what the ISIS terrorist does, let along siding with the ISIS terrorist over the conservative Christian baker.
The deeper problem here is the tendency to deflate the meaning of "extremism" in the first two examples so as to implicitly suggest that what is identified as Muslim extremism is as common among Muslims as the desire for freedom to act on religious conscience (even in controversial cases) is among Jews and Christians.
Let me be clear: I think Christians who want to withhold their business services from gay and lesbian couples are misconceiving Christian ethics in a way that promotes division and marginalization, thereby undermining the core thrust of Jesus' love ethic. But laws requiring them to provide such service are demanding that they act in ways that violate their sincere beliefs. Not without reason, of course. For the sake of preserving equality of opportunity for a socially marginalized group, it may be necessary to tread on freedom of religious conscience--but if so, to treat this matter as equivalent to invoking the law to keep extremists from beheading their targets does no one any good.
But in a sense, this meme does that very thing. It lifts up, as the paradigm of Christian extremism, something that even the most progressive Christian can understand and (somewhat) sympathize with: the struggle of conscience faced by the Christian baker. By implication, the meme suggest that even the most progressive Muslim is likely to view in a similar light the ISIS foot soldier hacking into the vulnerable neck of an aid worker.
As such, the meme plays into anti-Muslim stereotypes. It draws a sharp line between us and them, between what we are like and what they are like. By portraying "our" extremism as mild and at worst controversial compared with "theirs," the whole Christian and Jewish community is contrasted with Islam as a whole. And since their extremists target us, they are a threat to us. Sides must be taken.
3. Minimizing non-Muslim Extremism
My final point is related to the preceding one. The meme minimizes the extremism of those who self-identify as Christians and Jews for the sake of sharpening the perceived divide between Islam and other religions.
If we're looking for the worst cases of Christian extremism, refusing to bake a cake isn't among them. One might be tempted to point to Westboro Baptist Church and their hateful signs as a better example--or perhaps the isolated acts of those who kill abortion doctors in the name of Christianity. But these Christian extremists operate within the context of a civil society that has been relatively stable since the Civil War. By contrast, ISIS operates in a war-torn region of the world, one heavy-laden with ethnic conflicts which were, for a long time, forcibly suppressed by oppressive regimes.
We can only learn so much from comparing the worst that Christian extremism has produced in the stable environs of contemporary America with the worst that Islamic extremism has produced in the more volatile social, economic, and political climate of the Middle East.
There are better comparisons. And although I'm not a fan of Christopher Hitchens' overall assessment of religion in god is not Great, Hitchens does discuss, in that book, an example that may offer a better basis for comparison: the ethnic violence that tore through the former Yoguslavia after the collapse of its totalitarian communist regime. Hitchens describes the scene that greeted him when he visited the region in 1992:
And so I think Hitchens is wrong to blame religion for the violence in the former Yugoslavia. But for the same reason, it is wrong to blame religion for the violence perpetrated by ISIS and other groups like them. ISIS and similar groups deserve to be called Islamist extremists only insofar as Islam serves as the identity marker with which they work out their ideology of hate. But if that is what warrants calling them Islamist extremists, then the closest parallel in Christianity--what deserves the corresponding label of "Christian extremism"--may be the brutal ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina by nominally Christian Croats and Serbs.
It is quite possible that different religions don't do enough to identify and guard against elements in their theologies and religious practices that lend themselves to extremist interpretations. It is quite possible that Islam can do far more than it has done in this regard. It is even possible that in recent years, Christians or Jews have done better. I don't know. But if so, these concerns need to be raised and addressed in a spirit of solidarity, in which people of all faiths are working together to defeat the problem of extremism, rather than taking sides against each other and seeing extremism as the problem of the other guy.
Because as soon as we do that, we are on our way to embracing the very us/them thinking that leads to extremism.
There are several problems with this meme. Let me list a few.
1. Caricaturing the Left
I've never seen or heard anyone on the political left openly "side" with Muslim extremists--that is, defend the horrors perpetrated by such groups as ISIS or Al Qaeda, or argue that these groups are justified in what they do.
Rather, what I've seen and heard them do is react to sweeping generalizations that impute to all of Islam these horrors, or that strive to hold moderate Islam accountable for Muslim extremists in a way that they don't hold moderate Christians (or Jews) accountable for Christian (or Jewish) extremists.
This is not to say that there don't exist "leftist extremists" who are cheering on ISIS as they lop off Christian heads. But if they exist, they have no reputable public voice in this country--and so I suspect that this meme is really intended to caricature and thereby prematurely dismiss the kind of views I have heard from the political left.
People often hear what their biases tell them to hear, rather than what others are saying. I suspect there are people out there who believe that many moderate voices on the political left are really "leftist extremists" who are "siding with the decapitators" because they don't hear what those voices are actually saying.
The person on the political left says something like the following:
"There are extremists in every faith, and just as we don't stereotype all Christians as extremists based on the existence of extremists who act in the name of Christianity, so too should we avoid stereotyping all Muslims as extremists based on the existence of extremists who act in the name of Islam."But what is heard is this:
"In saying that not all Muslims are extremists, I am defending Islam--which means I'm siding with Muslim extremists. And in saying that there are extremists who act in the name of Christianity, I am criticizing Christianity as a whole, which means I'm siding against Christians."The above meme invites such an extreme and extremely muddled mistranslation, and hence perpetuates misunderstanding.
2. Framing the problem as a matter of who to side with in an us/them polarization
There's a disturbing us/them theme running through this meme. There's "us": the Jews and Christians who are labeled as extremists for wanting to exercise religious freedom (freedom to pray where we want and to withhold services where our religious conscience tells us to). And then there's them: the Muslims, who really are extremists, who are actually killing people in gruesome ways. And the liberals, by defending the Muslims while criticizing the Jews and Christians, have chosen to side with them.
This way of framing things actually builds on the first issue I talked about. It is clearly and obviously a mistake to compare a conservative Christian baker's refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding with a nominally Islamic extremist's participation in terrorism and murder. Anyone who treats the two as morally comparable is operating with dangerously distorted lenses.
But no one with any publicly credible voice does that. There are many on the left who both criticize the Christian baker and defend the typical Muslim from being wrongly stereotyped based on the actions of extremists. But that is not the same as likening what the Christian baker does to what the ISIS terrorist does, let along siding with the ISIS terrorist over the conservative Christian baker.
The deeper problem here is the tendency to deflate the meaning of "extremism" in the first two examples so as to implicitly suggest that what is identified as Muslim extremism is as common among Muslims as the desire for freedom to act on religious conscience (even in controversial cases) is among Jews and Christians.
Let me be clear: I think Christians who want to withhold their business services from gay and lesbian couples are misconceiving Christian ethics in a way that promotes division and marginalization, thereby undermining the core thrust of Jesus' love ethic. But laws requiring them to provide such service are demanding that they act in ways that violate their sincere beliefs. Not without reason, of course. For the sake of preserving equality of opportunity for a socially marginalized group, it may be necessary to tread on freedom of religious conscience--but if so, to treat this matter as equivalent to invoking the law to keep extremists from beheading their targets does no one any good.
But in a sense, this meme does that very thing. It lifts up, as the paradigm of Christian extremism, something that even the most progressive Christian can understand and (somewhat) sympathize with: the struggle of conscience faced by the Christian baker. By implication, the meme suggest that even the most progressive Muslim is likely to view in a similar light the ISIS foot soldier hacking into the vulnerable neck of an aid worker.
As such, the meme plays into anti-Muslim stereotypes. It draws a sharp line between us and them, between what we are like and what they are like. By portraying "our" extremism as mild and at worst controversial compared with "theirs," the whole Christian and Jewish community is contrasted with Islam as a whole. And since their extremists target us, they are a threat to us. Sides must be taken.
3. Minimizing non-Muslim Extremism
My final point is related to the preceding one. The meme minimizes the extremism of those who self-identify as Christians and Jews for the sake of sharpening the perceived divide between Islam and other religions.
If we're looking for the worst cases of Christian extremism, refusing to bake a cake isn't among them. One might be tempted to point to Westboro Baptist Church and their hateful signs as a better example--or perhaps the isolated acts of those who kill abortion doctors in the name of Christianity. But these Christian extremists operate within the context of a civil society that has been relatively stable since the Civil War. By contrast, ISIS operates in a war-torn region of the world, one heavy-laden with ethnic conflicts which were, for a long time, forcibly suppressed by oppressive regimes.
We can only learn so much from comparing the worst that Christian extremism has produced in the stable environs of contemporary America with the worst that Islamic extremism has produced in the more volatile social, economic, and political climate of the Middle East.
There are better comparisons. And although I'm not a fan of Christopher Hitchens' overall assessment of religion in god is not Great, Hitchens does discuss, in that book, an example that may offer a better basis for comparison: the ethnic violence that tore through the former Yoguslavia after the collapse of its totalitarian communist regime. Hitchens describes the scene that greeted him when he visited the region in 1992:
The mainly Muslim city of Sarajevo had been encircled and was being bombarded around the clock. Elsewhere, in Bosnia-Herzegovina...whole towns were pillaged and massacred in what the Serbs themselves termed "ethnic cleansing." In point of fact, "religious cleansing" would have been nearer the mark...In effect, the extremist Catholic and Orthodox forces were colluding in a bloody partition and cleansing of Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were, and still are, largely spared the public shame of this, because the world's media preferred the simplification of "Croat" and "Serb," and only mentioned religion when discussing "the Muslims."Hitchens goes on to further describe what he takes to be the media's glossing-over of religious identities and divisions:
It would have been far more accurate if the press and television had reported that "today the Orthodox Christian forces resumed their bombardment of Sarajevo," or "yesterday the Catholic militia succeeded in collapsing the Stari Most." But confessional terminology was reserved only for "Muslims," even as their murderers went to all the trouble of distinguishing themselves by wearing large Orthodox crosses over their bandoliers, or by taping portraits of the Virgin Mary to their rifle butts.In Is God a Delusion?, I criticized Hitchens and the other new atheists for failing to distinguish between religion and what I call religionism. There is a difference, I think, between living out a religious faith and using religion as an identity marker to ideologically divide the world between us and them. The latter is what I mean by "religionism," and it's what I think is at work in cases like the violence in the former Yugoslavia. The Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs weren't slaughtering Muslims as an expression of their faith. Rather, they were acting out a divisive us/them ideology, and were invoking Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Islam as identity markers in their ideology of hate (in much the way that racists invoke "white" and "black" and other racial categories).
And so I think Hitchens is wrong to blame religion for the violence in the former Yugoslavia. But for the same reason, it is wrong to blame religion for the violence perpetrated by ISIS and other groups like them. ISIS and similar groups deserve to be called Islamist extremists only insofar as Islam serves as the identity marker with which they work out their ideology of hate. But if that is what warrants calling them Islamist extremists, then the closest parallel in Christianity--what deserves the corresponding label of "Christian extremism"--may be the brutal ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina by nominally Christian Croats and Serbs.
It is quite possible that different religions don't do enough to identify and guard against elements in their theologies and religious practices that lend themselves to extremist interpretations. It is quite possible that Islam can do far more than it has done in this regard. It is even possible that in recent years, Christians or Jews have done better. I don't know. But if so, these concerns need to be raised and addressed in a spirit of solidarity, in which people of all faiths are working together to defeat the problem of extremism, rather than taking sides against each other and seeing extremism as the problem of the other guy.
Because as soon as we do that, we are on our way to embracing the very us/them thinking that leads to extremism.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
AP History Under Fire: Text of a letter to my state legislators
In case you haven't heard, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill--HB 1380--that would do away with AP History in Oklahoma. Reproduced below is the text of what I wrote to my legislators. If you live in Oklahoma, I encourage you to write your own letters (you can get help finding out who your legislators are here, although it doesn't give perfect results on the local level). Feel free to share this post or plagiarize the text freely (although you probably want to replace the personal anecdote if you do).
I am writing to urge you to oppose HB 1380, which would replace AP History in Oklahoma with a locally designed alternative. This bill would be bad for the state, and it would be bad for Oklahoma’s students.
AP courses have a long-standing national reputation for academic rigor. A newly-fashioned Oklahoma alternative would not enjoy that status. Successful performance on AP courses and tests enables students not only to prepare for college by undertaking courses of the sort that they will encounter at the college level, but gives these students the opportunity to earn college credit—thereby expanding the options and opportunities they will have for higher education. For example, in my own experience the college credit from my AP courses enabled me to take a semester off in my sophomore year to travel in India with my family and still graduate on time. This experience not only changed my academic trajectory but deepened my understanding of alternative worldviews and cultures in ways that have had a lasting impact on my life.
Part of the reason AP courses can confer college credit and hence provide these opportunities is because the curriculum and learning objectives laid out by the AP program reflect well what experts in the represented disciplines have recognized to be a sound college-level introduction to those disciplines. The motive for HB 1380 springs, on the contrary, from ideology—and in effect is advocating that a course structure which reflects the recommendations of experts in the field of American history be replaced by a course structure that reflects a specific ideological understanding of the American story. In other words, the motive is to render Oklahoma’s high school history classes less academically credible, less scholarly, but more effective at reinforcing a preferred worldview.
Even if many legislators do not see it in these terms, no one can reasonably expect colleges and universities to see it any other way. Hence, no one can reasonably expect colleges and universities to recognize the proposed Oklahoma alternative to AP History the way that they do the AP course. In short, were this legislation to pass, it would impose a handicap on all Oklahoma students pursuing college careers. The imposition of such handicaps is the opposite of what a state legislator should be doing. It shamefully prioritizes ideological agendas over the welfare of Oklahoma’s young people.
There is a dangerous tendency for those at the political and ideological extremes to confuse balance for bias. When one is prejudicially wedded to a particular worldview and narrative, the open and critical inquiry essential for sound academic scholarship can be misperceived as biased simply because it fails to prejudicially endorse the favored worldview and narrative over defensible alternatives. If we allow HB 1380 to pass unchallenged, my deepest worry is that it will strike a blow against sound academic scholarship in the state of Oklahoma.
Please do what you can to fight this bill.
I am writing to urge you to oppose HB 1380, which would replace AP History in Oklahoma with a locally designed alternative. This bill would be bad for the state, and it would be bad for Oklahoma’s students.
AP courses have a long-standing national reputation for academic rigor. A newly-fashioned Oklahoma alternative would not enjoy that status. Successful performance on AP courses and tests enables students not only to prepare for college by undertaking courses of the sort that they will encounter at the college level, but gives these students the opportunity to earn college credit—thereby expanding the options and opportunities they will have for higher education. For example, in my own experience the college credit from my AP courses enabled me to take a semester off in my sophomore year to travel in India with my family and still graduate on time. This experience not only changed my academic trajectory but deepened my understanding of alternative worldviews and cultures in ways that have had a lasting impact on my life.
Part of the reason AP courses can confer college credit and hence provide these opportunities is because the curriculum and learning objectives laid out by the AP program reflect well what experts in the represented disciplines have recognized to be a sound college-level introduction to those disciplines. The motive for HB 1380 springs, on the contrary, from ideology—and in effect is advocating that a course structure which reflects the recommendations of experts in the field of American history be replaced by a course structure that reflects a specific ideological understanding of the American story. In other words, the motive is to render Oklahoma’s high school history classes less academically credible, less scholarly, but more effective at reinforcing a preferred worldview.
Even if many legislators do not see it in these terms, no one can reasonably expect colleges and universities to see it any other way. Hence, no one can reasonably expect colleges and universities to recognize the proposed Oklahoma alternative to AP History the way that they do the AP course. In short, were this legislation to pass, it would impose a handicap on all Oklahoma students pursuing college careers. The imposition of such handicaps is the opposite of what a state legislator should be doing. It shamefully prioritizes ideological agendas over the welfare of Oklahoma’s young people.
There is a dangerous tendency for those at the political and ideological extremes to confuse balance for bias. When one is prejudicially wedded to a particular worldview and narrative, the open and critical inquiry essential for sound academic scholarship can be misperceived as biased simply because it fails to prejudicially endorse the favored worldview and narrative over defensible alternatives. If we allow HB 1380 to pass unchallenged, my deepest worry is that it will strike a blow against sound academic scholarship in the state of Oklahoma.
Please do what you can to fight this bill.
You Can’t Not Be There
The elders and deacons at East White Oak Bible Church had a great time of fellowship and planning at our retreat last month. We discussed how best to organize our ministry, how to evaluate our church health, how to best utilize and enhance our facilities for greater effectiveness. But there was a key theme that emerged in the midst of the conversation. That theme was more important than any of those items, important as they are.
Here is that key theme: We long to be men who are so filled with God’s Spirit that we greet each opportunity to meet together as a church with joyous expectation that God will meet us. We believe that our spiritual preparedness will lead our congregation to the precious joy that is ours in meeting the Lord together in weekly worship. We want to lead our church in a heart of corporate worship that says, “You can’t not be there!”
This has nothing to do with trying to generate a phony enthusiasm. It has nothing to do with gimmicks to get people emotional. It has nothing to do with guilt trips. It has everything to do with our heart’s preparation for the unique privilege of worship together.
Here is a question that might test the temperature of our souls. When church is cancelled due to weather, how does your heart respond? There are, of course, reasons for a feeling of relief, perhaps from responsibilities or from the hazards of travel. However, if your heart experiences something like joy over not having to go to church, may I suggest that you keep reading? I believe that I need to cultivate in myself a sense of wonder and joy about the unique privilege of worship together. I want to pass that sense of wonder to you too.
This week, I spent time reading through the Psalms. One key principle for interpreting the Psalms is to ask, “How was this Psalm used in the corporate worship of the people of Israel at the temple?” This principle is important because the Psalms were the worship book of Israel in temple worship. So, it is not surprising that lots of words are used in Psalms which convey the power and privilege of corporate worship of the true God. Words like “sanctuary,” “temple,” “courts,” “congregation,” and “throng” are employed to describe the utter marvel of the privilege of worship with God’s people.
In much of the Psalms, the attitude about going to the temple to worship is, “You can’t not be there.” Or, perhaps more clearly, “you can’t help yourself—you just have to be at the temple.” This attitude infected every Israelite at least at some points in Israel’s history. There were times when worship at the temple was an all-consuming passion. Those were times of revival.
So, here we are, centuries removed from temple worship, yet longing for that same delight in the worship of the Lord. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all of us had such a joy, a longing, a passion to be together to worship the Lord that we couldn’t not want to be there? We would be so delighted that we couldn’t help tell others to join us. We would change family plans and activities to avoid missing. We would express our shock to one another that we just can’t believe that God lets us do this.
To capture a bit of this reveling in worship together in the Psalms, consider the Psalms which describe the privilege of joyous praise together:
Psalm 22:25 From you comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will perform before those who fear him.
Psalm 34:3 Oh, magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together!
Psalm 35:18 I will thank you in the great congregation; in the mighty throng I will praise you.
Psalm 42:4 These things I remember, as I pour out my soul: how I would go with the throng and lead them in procession to the house of God with glad shouts and songs of praise, a multitude keeping festival.
Psalm 68:24-26 Your procession is seen, O God, the procession of my God, my King, into the sanctuary—25 the singers in front, the musicians last, between them virgins playing tambourines:26 “Bless God in the great congregation, the Lord, O you who are of Israel's fountain!”
Psalm 100:4-5 Enter his gates with thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name! 5 For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations.
Note in all of these passages above that there is both a personal AND a corporate dimension to worship. The “I’s” and “my’s” are directly related to praise in “the great congregation” in the “mighty throng” in the courts and gates of the Lord. For the Israelite worshiper, there was something very compelling about worship together that brought great thanksgiving and joy.
Now, let’s look at some Psalms which show the contemplation that happens in corporate worship. Not everything is high volume, high energy. Some of what brings the worshiper to worship is contemplation of God’s nature.
Psalm 40:10 I have not hidden your deliverance within my heart; I have spoken of your faithfulness and your salvation; I have not concealed your steadfast love and your faithfulness from the great congregation.
Psalm 48:9 We have thought on your steadfast love, O God, in the midst of your temple.
Psalm 111:1-2 Praise the Lord! I will give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart, in the company of the upright, in the congregation.2 Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.
In these texts above, we see a dimension of “thought,” of something happening “within my heart” in corporate worship. That dimension focuses on God’s attributes, most particularly God’s faithfulness and steadfast love. The Israelite worshiper loved to ponder God’s faithfulness and steadfast love with other worshipers.
Next, there is one verse in Psalm 73 which shows the value of worship together as an apologetic for the truthfulness of our faith.
Psalm 73:17 until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end.
In Psalm 73, the writer Asaph had been lamenting how it seemed that the wicked prosper while the righteous suffer. It was only after the experience of corporate worship that he could see clearly the reality, the truth of his faith. I have seen many people deny the faith that they had once believed. However, I have never seen a person do that who was devoted in body (they showed up), in mind (they engaged their thinking), and in heart (they loved worshiping the Lord with God’s people). The mindset of “you can’t not be there” is so powerful in fending off the attacks of doubt and demons.
In Israel, this idea of “you can’t not be there” was so strong that it even overcame selfishness. Selfishness is very hard to overcome, by the way, because we find it very hard to get away from ourselves. The only place where we truly get away from ourselves is in corporate worship. Even in individual worship, we cannot get away from ourselves because the relationship between ourselves and the Lord is so binary. But in corporate worship, we can indeed get lost in wonder, love, and praise because we join with others. Consider these words from Psalm 84:
Psalm 84:1-2 How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord of hosts! 2 My soul longs, yes, faints for the courts of the Lord; my heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God.
Psalm 84:10-11 For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness. 11 For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly.
The writer of Psalm 84 says that his passion for corporate worship is so strong that he’d rather be there as a nobody than be a big shot anywhere else. In his worship, he concludes that God is so very good that there is nothing good that God would withhold from him. In a jaundiced, skeptical world like ours, even believers can become jaundiced and skeptical. A heart that says, “you can’t not be there” cannot be skeptical because the goodness of God washes over that heart like a flood.
Have you ever wished that you could do something to extend your life? Or that you could extend your joy in life into old age? Psalm 92 offers the principle that a “you can’t not be there” heart of corporate worship causes a person to flourish into old age. In fact, such a heart of worship keeps one young and vibrant.
Psalm 92:12-15 The righteous flourish like the palm tree and grow like a cedar in Lebanon.13 They are planted in the house of the Lord; they flourish in the courts of our God.14 They still bear fruit in old age; they are ever full of sap and green,15 to declare that the Lord is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
I love that phrase, “they are ever full of sap and green.” Corporate worship keeps our lives active at what is most important in life. If you are concerned about fending off the ravages of aging, a heart for corporate worship is far more important than diet, exercise, or cosmetic surgery. I believe that God especially blesses a heart of corporate worship.
Finally, we ought to consider how Israel felt when the privilege of corporate worship was stripped from them. There came a time (586 B.C.) when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, and corporate worship of the true God was forever changed. Sadly, it was only after that opportunity was gone that the people of God recognized what they had had. At that moment, the realized how they had squandered years, even generations, of privilege. It was all gone. Psalm 137 described their sadness.
Psalm 137 By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion.2 On the willows there we hung up our lyres. 3 For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” 4 How shall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land? 5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! 6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!
Dear brothers and sisters, let us not repeat the sins of Israel. Instead, let’s treat each Lord’s Day as a special opportunity to meet the Lord together, to sing His praise, to offer prayers and petitions to Him, to study His Word and His works, to engage fully in the thing that God has created for us to do forever—declare His glory.
You can’t not be there.
Psalm 122:1 I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord!”
Friday, February 13, 2015
Gurnall Another reason the Christian should thank God constantly
"...Satan’s power is so limited, that he shall not do what he can: God lets out so much of his wrath as shall praise him, and be as a stream to set his purpose of love to his saints at work, and then lets down the flood-gate, by restraining the residue thereof. God ever takes him off before he can finish his work on a saint. He can, if God suffers him, rob the Christian of much of his joy, and disturb his peace by his cunning insinuation; but he is under command; he stands like a dog by the table, while the saints sit at this sweet feast of comfort, but dares not stir to disturb their cheer; his Master’s eye is on him. The want of this consideration loseth God his praise, and us our comfort, God having locked up our comfort in the performance of our duty. Did the Christian consider what Satan’s power is, and who dams it up, this would always be a song of praise in his mouth. Hath Satan power to rob and burn, kill and slay, torment the body, distress the mind? Whom may I thank that I am in any of these out of his hands? Doth Satan love one better than Job? or am I out of sight, or beside his walk? Is his courage cooled, or his wrath appeased, that I escape so well? No, none of these; his wrath is not against one, but all the saints; his eye is on thee, and his arm can reach thee; his spirit is not cowed, nor his stomach stayed with those millions he hath devoured, but keen as ever, yea, sharper, because now he sees God ready to take away, and the end of the world drawing on so fast. It is thy God alone whom thou art beholden to for all this; his eye keepeth thee; when Satan finds the good man asleep, then he finds our good God awake; therefore thou art not consumed, because he changeth not. Did his eye slumber or wander one moment, there would need no other flood to drown thee, yea, the whole world, than what would come out of this dragon’s mouth."
[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 102.]
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Us and Them and Murder: Islamophobic Terrorism
This morning I was greeted by two disturbing pieces of news. First, I read that a Muslim woman, dining at a TGI Friday's last week, found pieces of bacon shoved into the straw of her drink in what appeared to be a deliberate show of disrespect for her religiously-rooted dietary restrictions. The second piece of news was more extreme: Yesterday, three Muslim college students--two sisters and the husband of the elder sister--were murdered in North Carolina. The alleged perpetrator, Craig Hicks, described himself as an anti-theist who was openly hostile to religion.
Here is a brief glimpse at one of the victims, a dental student, who made this video to raise money for a missions project:
The motives for the shooting remain undisclosed, but if they prove to be bound up with Hicks' anti-religious stance, then I think we need to keep two things in mind: First, Hicks' atheism is no more the reason for his violent attack than Islam is the reason for 9/11. In both cases, the problem lies with a kind of ideological targeting of people based on group membership. While Islam can be and has been invoked to underwrite that sort of us/them ideology, other things can be and have been invoked as well--including Christianity and atheism. This fact never justifies sweeping generalizations about the group and its members. In fact, falling prey to such sweeping generalizations is the first step towards embracing the very us/them ideology that is the root problem.
Second, if Hicks targeted his victims because they were Muslim, then we ought to take very seriously the idea that what he did should be called an act of terrorism. Islamophobic terrorism. And even if it isn't terrorism, the ideological patterns of thinking that underwrite terrorism may have played a role: It is easier to kill people if you first ascribe to an ideology that dehumanizes them.
What is terrorism? In my academic work on the subject, I've argued that it has to do with how victims of violence are targeted. Terrorists operate from an us/them ideology that sees every member of an enemy group as a legitimate target. Terrorists may select targets based on strategic or symbolic considerations, but they don't discriminate based on their innocence--because all members of the enemy group are seen as guilty, simply because they belong to that group.
Hence, no one in the targeted group is safe. That's why terrorism terrorizes. Being an American is enough to make you a legitimate target in the eyes of Al Qaeda extremists.
This way of viewing terrorism connect the dots between ideas and violence: If you embrace an ideology that divides the world between "us" and "them," and you portray all of them as collectively guilty, then you are laying the groundwork for terrorist violence. And violence that is done because of this sort of ideological motive is different in kind from violence done for, say, personal gain or jealous rage.
Among other things, those who kill because of allegiance to an ideology of hate are harder to deter. If you see yourself as an agent of the Children of Light fighting a war against the Children of Darkness, you may be perfectly happy to sacrifice yourself for the cause. Threats of punishment won't hold you back.
And that's why the most chilling thing I read this morning wasn't the news report of the triple murder (although that surely chilled me deeply). Instead, it was a comment, posted on one of the websites recounting the TGI Friday's incident, that reads as follows:
And to think this diatribe was sparked by the story of a woman who wanted her dietary restrictions respected, and instead had the forbidden food all but shoved down her throat.
Adherents to this kind of ideology know that members of their own group aren't all the same: they're normal human beings who want to live normal human lives, with diverse values and interests. They worship in different ways (or not at all). Some want to stand on a soapbox and spread their faith; others just want to eat at TGI Friday's without having bacon shoved into their drinking straw. But instead of seeing the same humanity and diversity in the other group, those in the grip of divisive ideologies offer a sweeping portrait of what "they" want. And what THEY want is so bad for us that we have no choice but to treat them in ways we would never treat members of our own group.
The philosopher John Ladd, in an essay that has strongly influenced my thinking, finds in Nazism a kind of template for violent ideologies: Such ideologies begin with what he calls the doctrine of bifurcation: the world is divided between the chosen group and the "other" group. They then move onto a doctrine of moral disqualification. The others are in some way rendered less than human: they aren't like us, and so can be legitimately treated in ways that we couldn't otherwise justify. But that's not enough. Another key tenet of these ideologies is the notion of a group mission: Our welfare is threatened by THEM, and so we must, to bring good and right back into the world, knock THEM down--marginalize, oppress, or destroy. Lock and load.
This is the sort of pattern of thinking that enables terrorists to ignore questions of guilt or innocence, and so target civilians. It is the pattern of thinking that feeds cycles of ideological hatred and violence. And were it isolated to a rare comment on an occasional blog post, we could set aside acts of violence like the triple murder in North Carolina as just the actions of a lunatic.
But when the lunatic is acting out the implications of a worldview that is repeatedly endorsed in the public sphere--when there is a subculture that repeats and disseminates and encourages this kind of thinking--the lunatic becomes more than a lunatic. The lunatic is the agent of a cause, and terrorism is the means of pursuing it. This is why our public leaders and intellectuals need to be so very careful about what they say and how they say it--because even those who don't believe in bifurcating the world into the good and the bad, the light and the dark, sometimes find themselves falling into rhetorical patterns and arguments that play into dangerous ideologies of the sort Ladd describes (as Sam Harris has done more than once).
We can't and shouldn't stifle free speech and free expression. But we can model modes of expression that encourage cooperation rather than division, that resist the urge to absolutize any group. And when hateful and ideological speech proliferates, we can counteract it with speech of our own, speech that calls it out for what it is and highlights its dangers.
The vast majority of atheists are well-meaning, decent human beings who care about humanity and disavow us/them ideologies. But sometimes, us/them tropes are invoked by influential atheist figures (who themselves denounce extremism) in ways that fuel subcultures of extremism. People are drawn to the seductive simplicity of a world where enlightened atheists are locked in a (metaphorical) war with the benighted religious fools who threaten the welfare of us all. They indulge this simple worldview, usually just with heated words and self-righteous diatribes. But when enough people begin to say "lock and load," eventually someone does just that. When someone does, we must recognize the depths of the problem--but we should resist the urge to absolutize atheists or attribute to all atheists the ideological motives of the extremists.
And, just to be clear, let me repeat the preceding paragraph with one small change: The vast majority of Muslims are well-meaning, decent human beings who care about humanity and disavow us/them ideologies. But sometimes, us/them tropes are invoked by influential Muslim figures (who themselves denounce extremism) in ways that fuel subcultures of extremism. People are drawn to the seductive simplicity of a world where enlightened Muslims are locked in a (metaphorical) war with the benighted unbelievers who threaten the welfare us all. They indulge this simple worldview, usually just with heated words and self-righteous diatribes. But when enough people begin to say "lock and load," eventually someone does just that. When someone does, we must recognize the depths of the problem--but we should resist the urge to absolutize Muslims or attribute to all Muslims the ideological motives of the extremists.
Or plug in "Christians," if you prefer.
We don't yet know what motivated the killings of three young Muslims in North Carolina the other day. We don't know why Craig Hicks gunned them down. But there is a pattern of thinking in place in this country--sometimes articulated by self-described atheists, sometimes by self-described Christians, sometimes by others--that treats all Muslims as a single unit, characterizing them as an enemy that threatens us all and against whom we must be prepared to take up arms. When someone follows that call and strikes out against innocent members of the group, it is terrorism. Islamophobic terrorism.
If Hicks isn't an Islamophobic terrorist in the sense described here--and he may well not be--then there are others out there who have been primed to be just that. Some use the mistreatment of a Muslim woman in a restaurant as the occasion for a call to arms against the "Muslim threat"--as if the fact that she was treated with disrespect is proof that her kind are poised to ruin our way of life.
We can't address the danger that such ideologically driven individuals pose by treating them as nothing but isolated lunatics. We need to pay attention to the way that the ideas we permit and nurture in the public square can fuel our potential for terrorist violence.
Here is a brief glimpse at one of the victims, a dental student, who made this video to raise money for a missions project:
The motives for the shooting remain undisclosed, but if they prove to be bound up with Hicks' anti-religious stance, then I think we need to keep two things in mind: First, Hicks' atheism is no more the reason for his violent attack than Islam is the reason for 9/11. In both cases, the problem lies with a kind of ideological targeting of people based on group membership. While Islam can be and has been invoked to underwrite that sort of us/them ideology, other things can be and have been invoked as well--including Christianity and atheism. This fact never justifies sweeping generalizations about the group and its members. In fact, falling prey to such sweeping generalizations is the first step towards embracing the very us/them ideology that is the root problem.
Second, if Hicks targeted his victims because they were Muslim, then we ought to take very seriously the idea that what he did should be called an act of terrorism. Islamophobic terrorism. And even if it isn't terrorism, the ideological patterns of thinking that underwrite terrorism may have played a role: It is easier to kill people if you first ascribe to an ideology that dehumanizes them.
What is terrorism? In my academic work on the subject, I've argued that it has to do with how victims of violence are targeted. Terrorists operate from an us/them ideology that sees every member of an enemy group as a legitimate target. Terrorists may select targets based on strategic or symbolic considerations, but they don't discriminate based on their innocence--because all members of the enemy group are seen as guilty, simply because they belong to that group.
Hence, no one in the targeted group is safe. That's why terrorism terrorizes. Being an American is enough to make you a legitimate target in the eyes of Al Qaeda extremists.
This way of viewing terrorism connect the dots between ideas and violence: If you embrace an ideology that divides the world between "us" and "them," and you portray all of them as collectively guilty, then you are laying the groundwork for terrorist violence. And violence that is done because of this sort of ideological motive is different in kind from violence done for, say, personal gain or jealous rage.
Among other things, those who kill because of allegiance to an ideology of hate are harder to deter. If you see yourself as an agent of the Children of Light fighting a war against the Children of Darkness, you may be perfectly happy to sacrifice yourself for the cause. Threats of punishment won't hold you back.
And that's why the most chilling thing I read this morning wasn't the news report of the triple murder (although that surely chilled me deeply). Instead, it was a comment, posted on one of the websites recounting the TGI Friday's incident, that reads as follows:
We unfortunately MUST do to them that which they wish to do to us, all I wish to do is to work, provide a living for my family. worship how I wish, (or not) and enjoy life. THEY want CONTROL over my life and how I live. THEY want me to convert or die. THEY want to tell me what to wear, what to eat, and what to do everyday... They are like the current U.S. Government under Obama on Steroids. Lock and Load Real Americans.Notice here the universal imputation of nefarious motives, the repeated invocation of THEM. And then the call to arms: Lock and load. THEY are a threat to US. WE have no choice but to load our guns and shoot them down.
And to think this diatribe was sparked by the story of a woman who wanted her dietary restrictions respected, and instead had the forbidden food all but shoved down her throat.
Adherents to this kind of ideology know that members of their own group aren't all the same: they're normal human beings who want to live normal human lives, with diverse values and interests. They worship in different ways (or not at all). Some want to stand on a soapbox and spread their faith; others just want to eat at TGI Friday's without having bacon shoved into their drinking straw. But instead of seeing the same humanity and diversity in the other group, those in the grip of divisive ideologies offer a sweeping portrait of what "they" want. And what THEY want is so bad for us that we have no choice but to treat them in ways we would never treat members of our own group.
The philosopher John Ladd, in an essay that has strongly influenced my thinking, finds in Nazism a kind of template for violent ideologies: Such ideologies begin with what he calls the doctrine of bifurcation: the world is divided between the chosen group and the "other" group. They then move onto a doctrine of moral disqualification. The others are in some way rendered less than human: they aren't like us, and so can be legitimately treated in ways that we couldn't otherwise justify. But that's not enough. Another key tenet of these ideologies is the notion of a group mission: Our welfare is threatened by THEM, and so we must, to bring good and right back into the world, knock THEM down--marginalize, oppress, or destroy. Lock and load.
This is the sort of pattern of thinking that enables terrorists to ignore questions of guilt or innocence, and so target civilians. It is the pattern of thinking that feeds cycles of ideological hatred and violence. And were it isolated to a rare comment on an occasional blog post, we could set aside acts of violence like the triple murder in North Carolina as just the actions of a lunatic.
But when the lunatic is acting out the implications of a worldview that is repeatedly endorsed in the public sphere--when there is a subculture that repeats and disseminates and encourages this kind of thinking--the lunatic becomes more than a lunatic. The lunatic is the agent of a cause, and terrorism is the means of pursuing it. This is why our public leaders and intellectuals need to be so very careful about what they say and how they say it--because even those who don't believe in bifurcating the world into the good and the bad, the light and the dark, sometimes find themselves falling into rhetorical patterns and arguments that play into dangerous ideologies of the sort Ladd describes (as Sam Harris has done more than once).
We can't and shouldn't stifle free speech and free expression. But we can model modes of expression that encourage cooperation rather than division, that resist the urge to absolutize any group. And when hateful and ideological speech proliferates, we can counteract it with speech of our own, speech that calls it out for what it is and highlights its dangers.
The vast majority of atheists are well-meaning, decent human beings who care about humanity and disavow us/them ideologies. But sometimes, us/them tropes are invoked by influential atheist figures (who themselves denounce extremism) in ways that fuel subcultures of extremism. People are drawn to the seductive simplicity of a world where enlightened atheists are locked in a (metaphorical) war with the benighted religious fools who threaten the welfare of us all. They indulge this simple worldview, usually just with heated words and self-righteous diatribes. But when enough people begin to say "lock and load," eventually someone does just that. When someone does, we must recognize the depths of the problem--but we should resist the urge to absolutize atheists or attribute to all atheists the ideological motives of the extremists.
And, just to be clear, let me repeat the preceding paragraph with one small change: The vast majority of Muslims are well-meaning, decent human beings who care about humanity and disavow us/them ideologies. But sometimes, us/them tropes are invoked by influential Muslim figures (who themselves denounce extremism) in ways that fuel subcultures of extremism. People are drawn to the seductive simplicity of a world where enlightened Muslims are locked in a (metaphorical) war with the benighted unbelievers who threaten the welfare us all. They indulge this simple worldview, usually just with heated words and self-righteous diatribes. But when enough people begin to say "lock and load," eventually someone does just that. When someone does, we must recognize the depths of the problem--but we should resist the urge to absolutize Muslims or attribute to all Muslims the ideological motives of the extremists.
Or plug in "Christians," if you prefer.
We don't yet know what motivated the killings of three young Muslims in North Carolina the other day. We don't know why Craig Hicks gunned them down. But there is a pattern of thinking in place in this country--sometimes articulated by self-described atheists, sometimes by self-described Christians, sometimes by others--that treats all Muslims as a single unit, characterizing them as an enemy that threatens us all and against whom we must be prepared to take up arms. When someone follows that call and strikes out against innocent members of the group, it is terrorism. Islamophobic terrorism.
If Hicks isn't an Islamophobic terrorist in the sense described here--and he may well not be--then there are others out there who have been primed to be just that. Some use the mistreatment of a Muslim woman in a restaurant as the occasion for a call to arms against the "Muslim threat"--as if the fact that she was treated with disrespect is proof that her kind are poised to ruin our way of life.
We can't address the danger that such ideologically driven individuals pose by treating them as nothing but isolated lunatics. We need to pay attention to the way that the ideas we permit and nurture in the public square can fuel our potential for terrorist violence.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
We Are Equal
I am proud to be a citizen of the USA and the state of Alabama.
For my international readers who may not be familiar with Alabama, it is considered to be one of the most conservative states politically and religiously in the United States.
There are many wonderful aspects of my home state.
For the most part, people are caring, honest, and sincere.
Many folks are taught to respect their elders and to offer a helping hand to a neighbor in need.
Many folks are taught to respect their elders and to offer a helping hand to a neighbor in need.
There are ministries and churches all over the state who will give you food if you are hungry or help you find a place to stay if you are homeless.
In this state you could be in the middle of the bread aisle at the grocery store and receive prayers from a perfect stranger if you look like you need an encouraging word.
A state full of Christians is a wonderful place to live, right?
Well, it is if you fit their interpretation of what a Christian looks like.
You see, folks here have deep rooted and genuine beliefs concerning their faith that have been handed down from generation to generation.
Veering from these doctrines is considered dangerous.
Even asking questions about certain beliefs is considered blasphemous to many people.
The majority of Christians in this state believe that everyone should live life based on a strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
One of the basic tenants of their beliefs is that God doesn't create people to be gay.
Most of these folks think that being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgender is a choice that people make in some type of rebellion towards God.
This isn't just an assumption on my part.
I know this because of years of conversations with fellow Alabamians ranging from perfect strangers, to close friends, and even with family members.
I know this because of years of conversations with fellow Alabamians ranging from perfect strangers, to close friends, and even with family members.
But get this....I used to believe this too!
Growing up gay in Alabama isn't easy for anyone.
Growing up gay in Alabama as part of the Pentecostal Church was excruciatingly painful.
From my earliest memories I heard sermons from the pulpit detailing the abomination that is homosexuality.
I once heard an evangelist use the term "faggots" to describe gay men while he was preaching.
Pastors taught of how the gays and lesbians were perverts who desired to recruit children to add to their population so they could one day take over the government, the country, and the world.
As a teenager coping with my feelings of attraction to the same sex, I sat in church week after week terrified that I was going to burn in hell.
Somehow I had chosen this path of rebellion towards God.
Since God didn't create gay people then I must have made this decision and unless I changed my desires I would never be loved by God.
While I respect a person's sincere religious beliefs, reconciling the fact that I am gay versus their desire for everyone to be straight had been a challenge my entire life.
When you hear the same message over and over again, you start to see it as truth.
It wasn't until my early thirties that I finally found out the real truth.
At 33 years old I found myself sitting in church knowing that the rumors of me being gay had finally reached the senior pastor himself.
On a Sunday morning in front of the entire congregation he looked at me, pointed, and said, "You cannot be gay and a Christian. Oil and water do not mix. You Will Burn In Hell!"
I left the service that day and that church broken but not destroyed.
When I got to my prayer closet I begged God to either change me into a straight person (a prayer I had prayed thousands of times before) or to show me the real Truth to combat what I had been taught my whole life.
This began a period of study and meditation like I had never experienced before.
I was hungry and thirsty to know what my father God really thought about me!
After many months, I came through that period closer to God then I had ever been before and with a clear understanding of what is real and what is false.
Here is The Truth:
God Created You just the way You Are! "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart,"- Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV)
God Loves You and Nothing can change that! "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor ANYTHING ELSE in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."- Romans 8:38-39 (NIV)
God Accepts You for who you are! "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"- Galatians 3:28
Once God revealed these truths to me I found a new Peace deep down in my being.
I finally knew without a shadow of a doubt that He Loves Me!
I realized that I am not a mistake.
I am not an abomination!
I am lovingly and beautifully made with a purpose and a calling to spread His Unconditional Love to ALL People who will listen!
And my friends, SO ARE YOU!
If you ever feel the way I used to and wonder about what the truth really is, pray and meditate on the scriptures above!
Know deep down that God Created You, God Loves You, and God Accepts You!
NOONE CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM YOU!
During this time when lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people are fighting for equal rights around the world you will undoubtedly hear hate filled remarks thrown at you or your community.
No matter what the root of these remarks are, based on misguided religious teachings or stem from basic evil prejudice, don't let their words shake you.
Deep down in your spirit know that before the world offers us equal rights, you are already equal in God's eyes!
Never let anyone make you feel like a second class citizen because the same God who formed the universe formed YOU in HIS Image!
Those that society considers the outcasts and the least of these are raised up in God's eyes!
In Matthew 20:16 Jesus tells us, "The Last will be First and the First will be Last."
Jesus LOVES those that the "main stream church" despises!
We are HIS kind of people!
Jesus tells us in the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you"- Matthew 5:11-12 (NIV)
Through this sermon above Jesus is telling us that people will say horrible and evil things in His name but we will see a great reward in Heaven.
We may face persecution but so did He.
He prevailed over persecution and injustice so that we can live freely, joyfully, and EQUALLY!
In His eyes, we are all precious.
To Him, We Are Already Equal!
As always, remember:
God Created You!
God Loves You!
God Accepts You!
Until Next Time,
SavedByGrace
When you hear the same message over and over again, you start to see it as truth.
It wasn't until my early thirties that I finally found out the real truth.
At 33 years old I found myself sitting in church knowing that the rumors of me being gay had finally reached the senior pastor himself.
On a Sunday morning in front of the entire congregation he looked at me, pointed, and said, "You cannot be gay and a Christian. Oil and water do not mix. You Will Burn In Hell!"
I left the service that day and that church broken but not destroyed.
When I got to my prayer closet I begged God to either change me into a straight person (a prayer I had prayed thousands of times before) or to show me the real Truth to combat what I had been taught my whole life.
This began a period of study and meditation like I had never experienced before.
I was hungry and thirsty to know what my father God really thought about me!
After many months, I came through that period closer to God then I had ever been before and with a clear understanding of what is real and what is false.
Here is The Truth:
God Created You just the way You Are! "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart,"- Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV)
God Loves You and Nothing can change that! "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor ANYTHING ELSE in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."- Romans 8:38-39 (NIV)
God Accepts You for who you are! "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"- Galatians 3:28
Once God revealed these truths to me I found a new Peace deep down in my being.
I finally knew without a shadow of a doubt that He Loves Me!
I realized that I am not a mistake.
I am not an abomination!
I am lovingly and beautifully made with a purpose and a calling to spread His Unconditional Love to ALL People who will listen!
And my friends, SO ARE YOU!
If you ever feel the way I used to and wonder about what the truth really is, pray and meditate on the scriptures above!
Know deep down that God Created You, God Loves You, and God Accepts You!
NOONE CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM YOU!
During this time when lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people are fighting for equal rights around the world you will undoubtedly hear hate filled remarks thrown at you or your community.
No matter what the root of these remarks are, based on misguided religious teachings or stem from basic evil prejudice, don't let their words shake you.
Deep down in your spirit know that before the world offers us equal rights, you are already equal in God's eyes!
Never let anyone make you feel like a second class citizen because the same God who formed the universe formed YOU in HIS Image!
Those that society considers the outcasts and the least of these are raised up in God's eyes!
In Matthew 20:16 Jesus tells us, "The Last will be First and the First will be Last."
Jesus LOVES those that the "main stream church" despises!
We are HIS kind of people!
Jesus tells us in the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you"- Matthew 5:11-12 (NIV)
Through this sermon above Jesus is telling us that people will say horrible and evil things in His name but we will see a great reward in Heaven.
We may face persecution but so did He.
He prevailed over persecution and injustice so that we can live freely, joyfully, and EQUALLY!
In His eyes, we are all precious.
To Him, We Are Already Equal!
As always, remember:
God Created You!
God Loves You!
God Accepts You!
Until Next Time,
SavedByGrace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)