Roy said "Rationalism was actually a very good thing. After all it did bring
us modern science and mathematics. Where would we be without those things?"
then he said "they [the early church] focused on Jesus Christ as the central
figure of all reality."  I think this is really suggesting where we ought to
put our effort:  using rational thought and methods where they are
beneficial to better understand God, the central Figure.

Rationalism (science, naturalism, "modernism") is an extremely useful tool,
and we would probably be wise to recognize it as such, rather than as a
world view.  The difference between treating rationalism as a tool and as a
worldview is this:

If we accept modernism as a world view, we are forced into the false
conclusion that it can indeed explain the meaning of life (which it can't).
However, as merely a tool, it can be used to better explain things like the
creation of the universe and how information and design and, therefore, a
Designer, were necessary.

If we accept modernism as a world view, then we are forced to conclude that
only those things that are visible and can be "scientifically" studied are
real.  However, as a tool we can use cutting edge modern discoveries about
the mind and brain to point us toward a realm of existence that transcends
mere brainwaves and gray matter.

Any other examples?



-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Hershberger [mailto:royh@...]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 6:20 PM
To: Christian-Ghetto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Christian-Ghetto] Nee, postmodern before his time?


On Monday 14 February 2005 01:19 pm, Jim Berge wrote:
> Maybe we ought to simply get rid of all labels and categorizations and say
> that we follow Christ.  Suddenly, all the POMO, MO, Post-POMO, Cheerio,
> Oreo and Wack-O labels dissolve and we're left with a personal
relationship
> with the God who created us and wants to have a relationship with us.
>  Wouldn't that be cool?

I know what your saying. The tendency to want to label everything is very
modern. See there I go again. He He

But seriously, your exactly right. Nee wasn't postmodern he was just in
touch
with God a lot more then most Christians of his day. The fact that he was
from China may have also helped him to escape from the extreme rationalism
of
the West.

The ancient church was much the same way. Their world view was dominated by
many of the same ideas we are now just starting to recapture. Yet they
lacked
something.

Rationalism was actually a very good thing. After all it did bring us modern

science and mathematics. Where would we be without those things? Without
them
we may have remained more balanced in some spiritual sense, but we never
would have grown technologically. Obviously there is a side to God and his
creation that is highly ordered and structured, and because he is interested

in redeeming all of creation it was necessary that we go through this phase
of human development.

The danger of embracing postmodernism whole heartily is found in the old
pendulum ride analogy. Our culture seems to be taking things to another
extreme forgetting the good things that modernism has brought us.

That's why I believe that what you suggest is very wise. In one of the books

I'm currently reading, "Ancient-Future Faith," the author Robert Webber,
talks about the early Churches focus on 'Christus Victur'. Christ's victory
over the powers of darkness, and his redemption of all creation. They did
not
focus on the current cultural trends, they focused on Jesus Christ as the
central figure of all reality. If anything we should try to focus on that as

well. Get away from the "follow the fad mentality" and concentrate on the
One
main and lasting theme.



Community email addresses:
   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto
Yahoo! Groups Links

On Monday 14 February 2005 01:19 pm, Jim Berge wrote:
> Maybe we ought to simply get rid of all labels and categorizations and say
> that we follow Christ.  Suddenly, all the POMO, MO, Post-POMO, Cheerio,
> Oreo and Wack-O labels dissolve and we're left with a personal relationship
> with the God who created us and wants to have a relationship with us.
>  Wouldn't that be cool?

I know what your saying. The tendency to want to label everything is very
modern. See there I go again. He He

But seriously, your exactly right. Nee wasn't postmodern he was just in touch
with God a lot more then most Christians of his day. The fact that he was
from China may have also helped him to escape from the extreme rationalism of
the West.

The ancient church was much the same way. Their world view was dominated by
many of the same ideas we are now just starting to recapture. Yet they lacked
something.

Rationalism was actually a very good thing. After all it did bring us modern
science and mathematics. Where would we be without those things? Without them
we may have remained more balanced in some spiritual sense, but we never
would have grown technologically. Obviously there is a side to God and his
creation that is highly ordered and structured, and because he is interested
in redeeming all of creation it was necessary that we go through this phase
of human development.

The danger of embracing postmodernism whole heartily is found in the old
pendulum ride analogy. Our culture seems to be taking things to another
extreme forgetting the good things that modernism has brought us.

That's why I believe that what you suggest is very wise. In one of the books
I'm currently reading, "Ancient-Future Faith," the author Robert Webber,
talks about the early Churches focus on 'Christus Victur'. Christ's victory
over the powers of darkness, and his redemption of all creation. They did not
focus on the current cultural trends, they focused on Jesus Christ as the
central figure of all reality. If anything we should try to focus on that as
well. Get away from the "follow the fad mentality" and concentrate on the One
main and lasting theme.

I think that all along, God has preferred to work in a particular way with
humanity, regardless of the time or place we live.  He is a person, and we
simply need to get to know him personally.  The message has been the same
throughout the ages, but our peculiar and unique ways of relating to the
world around us strongly colors everything we do, not just our relationship
with God, but our understanding of reality, science, art, everything.

So, maybe we just need reminders once in a while (like the one from Watchman
Nee below) that put us back on the right track.  As a society, we've been
drifting toward materialism and naturalism, believing that everything ought
to be explainable by science or reason. If my computer doesn't work exactly
the way I think it ought to, then I can't just let it go...I have to get the
software or hardware or whatever to force it to obey me.  Everything about
our lives is pragmatic and designed to satisfy our curiosities, lusts and
desires.  There is no more room for mystery or open ends, and no reason for
them either.

Thankfully, God created me as a strong Perceiver (one of the personality
traits defined by the Myers-Briggs typing system), so I have not only the
ability but the strong desire to let things slide and keep decisions open.
This helps in my postmodern transition, and in fact it makes me embrace many
aspects of POMO thinking.  But in fact, even the label "postmodern" bugs me,
because it smacks of pragmatism, and the need to boil everything down to a
category.

Maybe we ought to simply get rid of all labels and categorizations and say
that we follow Christ.  Suddenly, all the POMO, MO, Post-POMO, Cheerio, Oreo
and Wack-O labels dissolve and we're left with a personal relationship with
the God who created us and wants to have a relationship with us.  Wouldn't
that be cool?



-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Hershberger [mailto:royh@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:08 PM
To: Christian-Ghetto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] Nee, postmodern before his time?


I started reading the book "What shall this man do?" by Watchman Nee. When I

read the following Nee quote in the intro I was struck at the fact that many

contemporary ideas about the faith are finally catching up to where Nee was
decades ago. He states:

"We human beings are not to produce "perfect" books. The danger of such
perfection is that man can understand without the help of the Holy Spirit.
But if God gives us books they will ever be broken fragments, not always
clear or consistent or logical, lacking conclusions, and yet coming to us in

life and ministering life to us. We cannot dissect divine facts and outline
and systematize them. It is only the immature Christian who demands always
to
have intellectually satisfying conclusions. The Word of God itself has this
fundamental character, that it speaks always and essentially to our spirit
and to our life."

Later as I was getting into the heart of the book he states:

"Christianity is based not on information but on revelation"

How easily we forget that. As moderns, even as moderns morphing into
postmoderns, it seems that we still tend to seek rational information above
divine revelation.



Community email addresses:
   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto
Yahoo! Groups Links

I started reading the book "What shall this man do?" by Watchman Nee. When I
read the following Nee quote in the intro I was struck at the fact that many
contemporary ideas about the faith are finally catching up to where Nee was
decades ago. He states:

"We human beings are not to produce "perfect" books. The danger of such
perfection is that man can understand without the help of the Holy Spirit.
But if God gives us books they will ever be broken fragments, not always
clear or consistent or logical, lacking conclusions, and yet coming to us in
life and ministering life to us. We cannot dissect divine facts and outline
and systematize them. It is only the immature Christian who demands always to
have intellectually satisfying conclusions. The Word of God itself has this
fundamental character, that it speaks always and essentially to our spirit
and to our life."

Later as I was getting into the heart of the book he states:

"Christianity is based not on information but on revelation"

How easily we forget that. As moderns, even as moderns morphing into
postmoderns, it seems that we still tend to seek rational information above
divine revelation.

Very good...a balanced approach. I think the real answer lies not in bashing
or embracing postmodernism, but coming to an agreement on what it actually
means.


-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Hershberger [mailto:royh@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:17 AM
To: Christian-Ghetto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] Nomo Pomo-a Postmodern Rant


A funny but thought provoking little rant about PPMs (Proponents of
postmodern
ministry)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2003/cln30130.html



Community email addresses:
   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto
Yahoo! Groups Links

A funny but thought provoking little rant about PPMs (Proponents of postmodern
ministry)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2003/cln30130.html

HI Juliet,

Nice to hear from someone new. Welcome.

I think I understand what your saying. It seems like everybody has an agenda
or a spin. Sometimes the cacophony of voices and opinions gets to be so
tiresome and deafening that one needs to shut it all down for a while. It
seems that during times of political elections this is even more pronounced.

I'm glad God isn't just another voice competing to be heard in this same
fashion. He is in fact the exact opposite. You have the right idea in just
turning all the other voices off so you can focus on the One true voice that
actually has something worthy of hearing. Perhaps if we all spent more time
listening to that still, small voice we might have more inspiration to engage
in the intelligent conversation you speak of. And I'm with you on hoping and
looking for more of those.

As far as our collective destruction goes, I think that all depends on what
voice we end up listening to. I for one am pretty hopeful that we will chose
the right one. I think we are on the edge of pulling our collective heads out
to smell the fresh air and see the light.

Roy


On Friday 29 October 2004 09:41 am, Juliet wrote:
> Roy-
> I'm still listening.  More so even, hungry for discourse that is not
> riddled with platitudes, piety and rhetoric.  However, these past weeks, I
> have stopped listening to my christian radio station, I have stopped
> reading the christian focused group lists that I subscribe too, and I have
> committed to seeking after the wisdom and leading of the Holy Spirit.
>  Seeking God's light, and trying to be true to the call for the
> brother/sisterhood of believers is difficult. Intelligent conversation
> about what it means to be a Christian in these days and times, is sorely
> missing, and desparately needed.  My prayer is that it will be easier after
> the US elections.  My fear is that so much has been said and done in the
> name of God, that we are well along the path to our own collective
> destruction.
> Grace and peace,
> Juliet

Seems to me this whole Christian Ghetto thing may be drawing to a close. There
has been nothing going on here for a long time, so it may be time to close
shop and move on.

I did want to leave some closing thoughts however with anyone out there who
may still be listening.

Two main events stand out during the existence of this discussion group. First
was concerning our friend Mark, who called himself "The Defender of the
Faith." Mark seemed to be the epitome of modernistic fundamentalism. What I
mean by that is that he represented  modern Christianities reactionism toward
materialistic naturalism. He attempted a response to such challenges using
the same modernistic reasoning methods of the materialists themselves. The
result was a shallow, literalistic interpretation of scripture void of life
and imagination.  It was a futile attempt to turn the scriptures into a
scientific textbook that explained everthing clearly if only we took the most
obvious literal meaning to heart. It striped Christianity of it's wonder and
mystery, reducing it to a mere deduction in reasoning.

The second was our friend Tim, the deconstructionist. Tim, was reacting to the
Fundamentalism described above. He had a lot of legitimate gripes with the
type of Christianity he saw around him. His response was to throw out
everything he had ever learned about Christianity and to try and rebuild it
according to modern sensabilities. The result could barely be discribed as
even a type and shadow of Christianity. Though it still looked to Jesus
Christ for inspiration it actually had more in common with secular/atheistic
humanism then traditional Christianity.

I believe that both these approaches to finding truth have some things in
common, though we would tend to think of them as polar opposites. They are
both the result of modern enlightenment thinking combined with an ignorance
of ancient consenting wisdom.

Lately it seems that my collective thoughts and all the books I've been
reading have had one main theme, the importance of developing a historical
perspective and holding to a solid link to the wisdom of the past. This theme
has come to a crescendo in the book I'm currently reading, The Rebirth of
Orthodoxy by Thomas C. Oden. Oden contends that modernism is on the edge of
a complete collapse and that orthodox (with a small o), or what he calls
classic Christianity is experiencing a rebirth. He describes classic
Christianity as teaching that holds fast to what has been believed and widely
consented to around the world by all Christians at all times and in all
places, summed up in these words: "everywhere, always, and by all." He argues
that the early, ethnicly diverse, fathers of Christianity, both East and
West, under great duress, persecution, and threat of death, reached a
consensus of faith and doctrine. That consensus has stood the test of time
and scholarly rigor through the centuries having been passed down to every
generation unchanged in it's basic beliefs and tenets.

This concept is ringing very true in my ears, and it has started to make clear
some answers to many of the questions I have been struggling with for years.
For example I have held the position for a long time that scripture is not
enough to discern God's word. I leaned toward a personal piety to help deal
with this problem, but I've come to realize through experience the
shortcomings of such an approach. There are many very pious people who are
shallow and unbalanced in their doctrine in spite of their zeal for the
scriptures. Oden's approach helps to overcome such shortcomings by appealing
to traditional consensus to help us sort out what the scriptures are really
telling us.

Oden is also quick to point out that the orthodoxy he is speaking of is much
different then modern fundamentalism even though some may be tempted to draw
comparisons. For example he states concerning scripture:

"Orthodoxy requires that no scripture text be stretched symbolically beyond
recognition or restricted to its most obvious sense. It was assumed by the
classic exegetes that the Holy Spirit had veiled the outward expression of
some texts whose meaning would be revealed in God's own time. As the person
has body, soul, and spirit in union, so does the interpretation of scripture
have not only literal, historical, and moral meanings, but also a spiritual
or mystical meaning."

I see a great deal of wisdom here. As moderns we have played with the notion
that new ideas are always the best ideas. We have forgotten the wisdom of the
past and have been attempting to reinvent the wheel. Both deconstructionsts
and fundamentalists are guilty of this. There has to be a better approach
that remains anchored to ancient wisdom that has stood the test of time.

Tim, the deconstructionist would often say to me that there was no way he
could return to the type of narrow, legalistic Christianity he had left. He
felt it was either that or he had to throw the whole thing out and start
anew. I argued that he was throwing out the baby with the bath water, and
that there was an alternative that was not so extreme as the path he was
taking. Yet I admit I didn't really have anything to point him to other then
my own faltering words of weak understanding.

The tried and true collective wisdom of the ancients may be what I was
missing. I admit also to my own tendency to appeal to the new or novel rather
then clinging to the established consensus of the past. The key to climbing
out of the Christian Ghetto may be a rediscovery of the depth and richness of
Christianities historic rememberings.

I'm currently working on a new Gel newsletter that will expound more on this
theme. It will have some book reviews including The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, as
well as an article or two that deal with this idea. I'll be posting the
newsletter here on the Christian Ghetto.

Please feel free to respond to this. If it sparks new discussion that's great,
if not it may be the final word. Though this forum will remain open for as
long as Yahoo keeps us on their servers.

Roy

"I am not able to understand, only to understand more. The picture that I wish
to examine is not static, it is growing and living. Even as I understand how
the hinges of a door allow me to open it, I find that it leads to a room even
larger than the first. But I think perhaps that is part of wisdom. Knowing
that I cannot know all, understanding that I cannot understand all. If the
Maker's creation was understandable would I not find the Maker something less
than great, would I not consider myself equal with the Maker? It is a tribute
then to His greatness when I find myself more confused even at the very
instant that I have gained insight."

Atrus, writer of ages

If you received a 404 error page when attempting to access the
articles in the last GEL newsletter it's because the server has
apparently crashed in an unredeemable fashion. The site is now on a new
server, but unfortunately this server does not have all the features of
the old one. As a result I have temporarily made it available at the
following link:

     http://lambontheweb.org/gel

     A few of the sites features may not work properly, but you will be
able to access all the articles and book reviews including the ones
listed in the last newsletter. Please forward this email to anyone who
you may have forwarded the newletter to, and anyone who recently
requested to be placed on the newsletter mailing list please re-submit
your request. Many of my emails went down with the server and I may have
missed some newsletter requests.

     May God bless you as you seek him throughout this new year!

     Roy Hershberger

GEL Newsletter
Keeping you updated on the latest features, articles and reviews.

In this issue we are featuring two new articles and two new book reviews recently added to GEL. Plus an expanded and updated version of a previously featured article.


New Articles

Seeking a True Spiritual Culture 

One of the sad realities of our present Western cultural environment is that those who consider themselves to be devoted Christians often have lifestyles that differ from popular culture in form but not in substance. In other words Christians are often defined by the fact that they go to church on a regular basis, by the words they use or don't use, by the kind of music they listen or don't listen to, by the type of books or magazines they read or don't read, by the kind of company they keep or don't keep, or by the places they go or don't go to socialize. Yet if we look below the surface of such outward behavior we often find a lack of spiritual depth, and a lifestyle that is not all that different from everyone around them.

Read complete article here: http://kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/featureframeset1.shtml



Temptation: An Opportunity for Spiritual Growth

Our current culture often views issues of right and wrong as a personal choice. This has led to a lack of objective standards, a loose cultural attitude toward morality, and an indifference toward the issue of temptation. Temptation is often seen as an old fashioned concept, and the benefits of resistance are no longer discerned. This is an unfortunate development however, because learning to overcome and resist actually has great rewards. It is in fact a vital part of our growth as human beings, playing a indispensable role in the development of our character and dignity.

Read complete article here: http://kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/featureframeset2.shtml



Are the Scriptures the Word of God: Seeking a Balanced Perspective 

This is a more complete and balanced rewrite of an older article. It asks some important questions that we must consider before reaching any certain conclusions about how God intends us to view the Scriptures.

Read complete article here: http://kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/featureframeset5.shtml



New Book Reviews
A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey
By Brian D. McLaren

>From the Back Cover: McLaren's A New Kind of Christian is a street-level excursion into this present millennium - a world where ministry by control, condescension, and smug certainty gives way to incarnational faith.

Read complete review here:
http://kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/featureframeset3.shtml



Walk On - The Spiritual Journey of U2  
By Steve Stockman

I have always found some inspiration in the life and music of U2. Such a statement bothers some Christians and that is precisely why they need to read this book. One of the things I have always most admired about this band is that they are real and they often wear their hearts right out on their sleeves... There are some very deep, inspiring, contemplative, introspective and sometimes questioning themes that flow consistently through the lyrics of U2's songs. In fact, I don't know of one album that U2 has released that didn't express some facet of spirituality in one way or another.

Read complete review here:
http://kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/featureframeset4.shtml



Thanks for reading!

Roy Hershberger
GEL
http://kbproweb.com/gel

---

To subscribe to this newsletter go to our web page:
http://kbproweb.com/gel

To unsubscribe simply respond to this email and type
"unsubscribe" in the Subject column.

Hi to all
I am Kev, 36, married, from lincolnshire UK.
I am a full time Christian Musician, Singer & Songwriter.
I Love to use the power of the internet to communicate to my
christian family around the world.
Much more about me & what I do can be found at my website
www.kevward.com
God Bless you all

OK, so the reoccurring theme seems to to be community. That makes sense since
God is mostly interested in relationships.

I'm speaking of my life lately, everytime I turn around it's something new
about community - how God wants to build it and establish it - how he wants
to show us how ridiculous and petty the things are that we let divide us as
human beings.

I've been conversing with a guy who has had some pretty interesting things to
say about groups. He has been involved in a lot of Christian groups/churches
over the years and he has come to realize that non of them have ever really
reached a state of true community.

He mentioned an author named Scott Peck who has really dug into the whole
group thing. What Peck has discovered is that all groups go through four
stages - pseudo community, chaos, emptying and community.

This really confirmed to me the whole problem with most churches. Things are
never allowed to get past the pseudo-community level. If chaos starts to
emerge it is immediately nipped in the bud either by authority sent in to
restore order or by a split. Our institutional mentality is not allowing true
community to develop.

True community is forged in the fires of chaos, a fire that must burn out the
dross of pride. Pride can not exist along side community. So the emptying
process is essential or we are left with only a false, shallow, surface,
community that has no power to change either ourselves or the society around
us.

> This causes me to think back to the dream I had which I titled "Escaping
> into the Ocean of God's Spirit":
> http://www.kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/frameset_hardquestions.shtml

Whoops, wrong url it should be:
http://www.kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/frameset_spirituality.shtml

> To keep the analogy accurate, we would have to shun the institutional
> church and forge into the wilderness alone.  I don't think that's the
> proper course of action, though.  We need some sort of accountability to
> other Christians, especially to those more mature than us and able to teach
> us and nurture us. And of course, there will be those that are less mature
> than us, whom we will be mentors to.  But this can only happen when the
> Body of Christ is functioning like a body.

I think if we take the plunge into the wilderness we will find plenty of
others along side of us. If we are truly entering into the land that the Lion
inhabits he will make sure we have the help and support we need. There is no
need to fear starving to death within the Lions domain.

That brings me back to the question of just where is the Lions domain and how
do we get there.  I guess the only thing that comes to mind is the example
that the Word gave by his own life, a life lived and controlled by the power
of the Holy Spirit. A focus on the Kingdom of God and a desire to see all
humanity enter into it.

This causes me to think back to the dream I had which I titled "Escaping into
the Ocean of God's Spirit":
http://www.kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/frameset_hardquestions.shtml

A Spirit controlled, God centered, kingdom aware life. How do we get there?
That obviously entails a lot of things. Brokenness and humility to name a
couple of essentials. It's a life that transcends the material world and all
it's fears, wants, and persuits. The word adventure comes to mind. Not
necessarily always pleasant or glorious, but seldom boring for very long.

Roy's reference to Narnia reminds me of one of my all time favorite quotes.
I've never read the books, but at one point the kids are talking about
meeting Aslan the Lion:

One asks "Is He safe?"

The other answers "Of course He's not safe...but He's good!"

To keep the analogy accurate, we would have to shun the institutional church
and forge into the wilderness alone.  I don't think that's the proper course
of action, though.  We need some sort of accountability to other Christians,
especially to those more mature than us and able to teach us and nurture us.
And of course, there will be those that are less mature than us, whom we
will be mentors to.  But this can only happen when the Body of Christ is
functioning like a body.

The bible say, if all were ears, who would do the smelling?  And if all were
feet, who would do the stinking?  I mean....ummm....the talking?

Reminds me of a book I once read called The White Stone (or something like
that).  I've read better books, but it begins with a big tough gang member
from the inner city being handed a bible and told to read it.  He becomes a
believer in Christ strictly according to what he read in the bible.  And
when he finally comes face to face with institutional Christianity, he is
greatly saddened and disheartened by it all, because it doesn't look at all
like what he learned from the bible.

We're bordering on "sola scriptura" here, and I believe we have other
revelations available to us that are just as important as the bible.
Nevertheless, it makes me wonder:  if we wandered into the wilderness of
pure biblical understanding and simple faith, of what possible use would
institutional Christianity be?  I can't think of anything except the social
club value...a time and opportunity for Christians to gather and hang out
and discuss topics they all have in common...but not much more than that.



On 9/23/03 4:53 PM, "Roy Hershberger" <roy@...> wrote:

>
>> Well, friend, you're still at the zoo, and the revenue from the money you
>> paid to get in only supports and continues the concept of the zoo.  Is the
>> institution called ³the zoo² at fault?  It¹s only providing the public with
>> a service which they have requested and desire.
>
> I was thinking of your great analogy above this morning and my thoughts took
> it a bit further. The animals in the zoo could be compared to the Word of
> God. We come to the zoo to examine the lion, but it's all very safe and
> controlled, and how much about the lion do we really learn by looking at him
> for a few minutes behind a cage.
>
> If we really want to learn about the lion the best way is to go live in the
> African wilderness and spend time with him in his natural environment. We
> have to leave the safety and comfort of the zoo and head into the wild
> unknown.
>
> The Lion of Judah certainly can't be contained within the confines of an
> institution yet that seems to be where we want to put him so we can examine
> him under our own terms. But we need to be ready and willing to face him on
> his terms and in his environment if we really want to get to know who he is.
>
> The question that's coming to me know is, where is the wilderness in which the
> Word of God lives, and how do we get there? :-) hmmm... I'll have to think on
> that a while. Any ideas?
>
> Metaphor, I love it. It's a language we as Christians need to learn fluently.
> As I wrote the above paragraphs images of the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord
> of the Rings come to mind. It's powerful man.
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
> Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

> Well, friend, you're still at the zoo, and the revenue from the money you
> paid to get in only supports and continues the concept of the zoo.  Is the
> institution called ³the zoo² at fault?  It¹s only providing the public with
> a service which they have requested and desire.

I was thinking of your great analogy above this morning and my thoughts took
it a bit further. The animals in the zoo could be compared to the Word of
God. We come to the zoo to examine the lion, but it's all very safe and
controlled, and how much about the lion do we really learn by looking at him
for a few minutes behind a cage.

If we really want to learn about the lion the best way is to go live in the
African wilderness and spend time with him in his natural environment. We
have to leave the safety and comfort of the zoo and head into the wild
unknown.

The Lion of Judah certainly can't be contained within the confines of an
institution yet that seems to be where we want to put him so we can examine
him under our own terms. But we need to be ready and willing to face him on
his terms and in his environment if we really want to get to know who he is.

The question that's coming to me know is, where is the wilderness in which the
Word of God lives, and how do we get there? :-) hmmm... I'll have to think on
that a while. Any ideas?

Metaphor, I love it. It's a language we as Christians need to learn fluently.
As I wrote the above paragraphs images of the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord
of the Rings come to mind. It's powerful man.

I got an email today from someone who read my article in GEL called "Love/Hate
Church Dilemma," which can be found at the url below:

http://www.kbproweb.com/gel/framesets/frameset_reform.shtml

I found it interesting that my views have changed somewhat. If I were to
wright the same article today I think I might be less concerned with the
consequences of institutionalism and more  concerned with modern
Christianities worldview in general, which is perhaps the real source of the
problem.

In fact I've come to realize that the main reason I have not been able to find
the fellowship that I hope for within a "local group of believers" is not so
much that people are wedded to an institution but more so because they are
wedded to a view of Christianity that is somewhat shallow and static, having
been shaped more by 20th Century modern culture then by anything relating to
Jesus Christ or Scripture.

My views on what it means to follow Christ, on what it means to be a
Christian, have undergone incredable change and growth in the last 10 years,
yet it seems that many of the Christians around me have remained the same. I
have a very difficult time talking or relating on a deeper level with them
because I just don't think the same as they do anymore.

It's kind of shocking to realize this. One always assumes that the people
around you are undergoing the same changes, but when they don't one tends to
feel rather isolated and unconnected.

Just some things I thought I would share with the ghetto. Any comments from
the silent majority?

Roy

thanks!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Hershberger [mailto:roy@...]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 8:32 PM
To: roy@...
Subject: Johnny Cash


Great article on Johnny Cash:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/King20030914.shtml


Community email addresses:
   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Great article on Johnny Cash:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/King20030914.shtml

How can our faith make powerful inroads into the culture around us rather then
being stuck inside "the Christian ghetto?" This article has an intersting
perspective on that. There is certainly a challenge here to reach beyond our
religious comfort zone and develop a more "for real" faith that speaks
clearly to the broader culture.

http://www.jesusjournal.com/articles/publish/article_102.html

I often wondered what happened to Leslie Phillips. This article answers that
plus has some interesting things to say about T-Bones work and perspective on
how his faith effects his music. Interesting comment about Bob Dylan as well.

http://www.jesusjournal.com/articles/publish/article_102.html

Roy,

I firmly believe in what you said:

I think our only hope of drawing the radical element of the Muslim world into
some type of negotiations is to first win their respect. After that we have
to win their trust.

It will be interesting to see how this works.  The mind frame of the Iraqi
public is SO different than ours.  Sometimes I wonder if they will be able to
handle freedom.  Although we see the US as being in a "post-Christian" age, the
influence of earlier times of faith permeate our thinking.  We were brought up
to tell the truth and respect other people.  Most of us know we can't rebel
against our society without hurting ourselves as well.  We understand that if we
don't like the guy in the White House, if we wait 4 or 8 years, they'll be gone.
We don't overthrow our form of government just because we don't like it.  It is
about respect for the other guy and having patience.  I don't see either of
those in Iraq.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  I have a lot
of respect for George W ... he has more guts than I do and is willing to stay
his course.  May God bless this mission.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Hershberger [mailto:roy@...]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 6:31 AM
To: Christian-Ghetto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] Re: Some thoughts on the coming war (in
retrospect)


Hi Denny,

First of all let me apologize for not responding to this earlier. I never
received the email personally and just saw it today for the first time when I
visited the Ghetto on-line. Seems that yahoo groups has a lot of problems in
this area.

Anyway it was kind of interesting reading it now after the fact. Seems to me
many of Senator Byrd's fears were a bit over blown to say the least, but
where do I start? How about I just comment on one paragraph of his statement.

Senator Byrd states:
> This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
> doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The
> doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other
> nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening
> but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the
> traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of
> international law and the UN Charter.

For one thing it gave some actually teethe to the UN's resolution that
demanded Iraq disarm. Saddam and those like him have grown accustomed to
playing games with the international community because there has never been
any real consequences for not complying. If there are no consequences for not
complying how can such resolutions have any merit or effectiveness?

Unfortunately it was the very weakness of the UN and past US addministrations
that made this action necessary. We finally have a leader who is strong
enough to put action behind words. If the radical Muslims of this world had
not perceived the US as weak they would have never attacked us on 9/11. I
think we can thank Bill Clinton and his missuse of the military for that. I
think our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq is sending a firm message to any
future terrorists who may be planning something that we are willing to pay
any necessary price to preserve our liberty and freedom.

I don't think we can call these actions "preemptive." Terrorism is not
represented by any one state, but there is a firm case to be made that those
who harbor and assist terrorists are equally at fault, and are thus a
threatening enemy that we have every right to engage.

To me the bottom line comes down to how we view human nature. If we fail to
understand the terrorist mindset we will continue to falsely believe that we
can somehow negotiate with it. Unfortunately this is so very unlikely and far
to dangerous to test. The terrorist's worldview understands one thing best.
Power. After all that is the very thing that motivates it in the first place.

I think our only hope of drawing the radical element of the Muslim world into
some type of negotiations is to first win their respect. After that we have
to win their trust. The first steps in doing both of these things is to say
what we mean and mean what we say, and never ever show an unwillingness to
pay the price for our security and freedom again.

In case others missed your email I'll paste it in below:

***********************

Hi Roy. . .Denny here

I don't know if you've had an opportunity to read Senator Byrd's address
dealing with an Iraq Invasion. I am pasting it for you to read. Your critique
would be appreciated.

Denny

Statement
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech

We Stand Passively Mute

Wednesday 12 February 2003

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human
experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of
battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of
war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully
silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the
nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own
uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the
editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of
the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt
to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents
a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the
recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The
doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other
nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening
but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the
traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of
international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of
world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they
will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level
Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the
table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more
destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a
world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of
many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our
time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging
worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation,
suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once
solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little
guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are
being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their
stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less
than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also
short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling.
Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be
judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large
projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to
projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic
policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding
scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has
fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has
ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.
This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland
security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long
and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.
In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and
urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances,
possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like
the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question
the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as
well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient
art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that
reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders,
and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil,
denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude
insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive
military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need
the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the
newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome
military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating
attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military
manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support
of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters
cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence
that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We
have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the
dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated
land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has
not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark
on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is
our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the
war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of
plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming
an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil
for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of
power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on
Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the
Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by
Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession?
Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the
interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join
the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for
nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant
Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences
for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage
attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a
shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly
impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely
destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is
currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the
awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest
superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this
Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of
horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation
of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 --
this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send
thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and
biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could
possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on
Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray
that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a
rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a
last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any
President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation
which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our
country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be
having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner
so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our
own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.


Community email addresses:
   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Denny,

First of all let me apologize for not responding to this earlier. I never
received the email personally and just saw it today for the first time when I
visited the Ghetto on-line. Seems that yahoo groups has a lot of problems in
this area.

Anyway it was kind of interesting reading it now after the fact. Seems to me
many of Senator Byrd's fears were a bit over blown to say the least, but
where do I start? How about I just comment on one paragraph of his statement.

Senator Byrd states:
> This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
> doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The
> doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other
> nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening
> but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the
> traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of
> international law and the UN Charter.

For one thing it gave some actually teethe to the UN's resolution that
demanded Iraq disarm. Saddam and those like him have grown accustomed to
playing games with the international community because there has never been
any real consequences for not complying. If there are no consequences for not
complying how can such resolutions have any merit or effectiveness?

Unfortunately it was the very weakness of the UN and past US addministrations
that made this action necessary. We finally have a leader who is strong
enough to put action behind words. If the radical Muslims of this world had
not perceived the US as weak they would have never attacked us on 9/11. I
think we can thank Bill Clinton and his missuse of the military for that. I
think our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq is sending a firm message to any
future terrorists who may be planning something that we are willing to pay
any necessary price to preserve our liberty and freedom.

I don't think we can call these actions "preemptive." Terrorism is not
represented by any one state, but there is a firm case to be made that those
who harbor and assist terrorists are equally at fault, and are thus a
threatening enemy that we have every right to engage.

To me the bottom line comes down to how we view human nature. If we fail to
understand the terrorist mindset we will continue to falsely believe that we
can somehow negotiate with it. Unfortunately this is so very unlikely and far
to dangerous to test. The terrorist's worldview understands one thing best.
Power. After all that is the very thing that motivates it in the first place.

I think our only hope of drawing the radical element of the Muslim world into
some type of negotiations is to first win their respect. After that we have
to win their trust. The first steps in doing both of these things is to say
what we mean and mean what we say, and never ever show an unwillingness to
pay the price for our security and freedom again.

In case others missed your email I'll paste it in below:

***********************

Hi Roy. . .Denny here

I don't know if you've had an opportunity to read Senator Byrd's address
dealing with an Iraq Invasion. I am pasting it for you to read. Your critique
would be appreciated.

Denny

Statement
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech

We Stand Passively Mute

Wednesday 12 February 2003

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human
experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of
battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of
war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully
silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the
nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own
uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the
editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of
the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt
to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents
a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the
recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The
doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other
nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening
but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the
traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of
international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of
world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they
will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level
Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the
table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more
destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a
world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of
many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our
time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging
worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation,
suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once
solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little
guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are
being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their
stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less
than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also
short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling.
Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be
judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large
projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to
projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic
policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding
scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has
fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has
ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.
This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland
security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long
and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.
In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and
urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances,
possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like
the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question
the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as
well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient
art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that
reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders,
and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil,
denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude
insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive
military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need
the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the
newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome
military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating
attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military
manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support
of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters
cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence
that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We
have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the
dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated
land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has
not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark
on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is
our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the
war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of
plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming
an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil
for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of
power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on
Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the
Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by
Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession?
Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the
interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join
the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for
nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant
Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences
for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage
attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a
shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly
impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely
destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is
currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the
awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest
superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this
Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of
horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation
of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 --
this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send
thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and
biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could
possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on
Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray
that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a
rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a
last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any
President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation
which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our
country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be
having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner
so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our
own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Some times I wonder if persecution is a necessary part of a healthy growing
group of Jesus followers. Is it possible to grow out of our complacency in
this culture? I've always hoped and believed it is, but from my personal
experience lately I'm having more doubts. It seems we are just too
comfortable to really want to commit to something that goes deeper then the
status quo of Christendom.

04/16/03
China's Amazing Story
Keith Cox

David Aikman, formerly of Time magazine, recently spent a fascinating three
months researching the state of Christianity in China.  He tells an
incredible story.  The Chinese church after fifty years of repression and
persecution is thriving.  When the Communists took control of China five
decades ago there were an estimated four million Christians in China.
Today's estimates, though difficult to determine, are around 80 million
Christians in China.  That is a twenty-fold increase in the church over a
time that the Chinese population only tripled. (Footnote 1: David Aikman,
"David Aikman on the Contemporary State of Chinese Christianity."  Ethics
and Public Policy Center.  Washington D.C.  26 September, 2002.)
Certainly, astounding things are happening in the Chinese church.

As for the level of official persecution, the picture is more optimistic
than in years past.  The Communist Chinese government still attempts to
control all churches through its Bureau of Religious Affairs, which
ironically is headed by an atheist, but the underground church is often
given breathing room to live.  Seminary training outside of state run
schools is still prohibited, but the underground church has courageously
developed secret seminaries to train a new generation of Christian
leaders.  Often times the seminarians make great sacrifices to attend
these secret seminaries moving away from home and family and risking
government reprisal. (Footnote 2: Ibid.)  Amazingly, with a determined
faith, they accept such costs for the sake of the gospel.

Possibly more startling than the incredible growth of the Chinese church
is the impact the faith is having in the upper echelons of Chinese
society.  Christian Studies Institutes are popping up in many Chinese
universities as academics attempt to study and understand Christianity.
There are reports of weekly Bible studies among influential playwrights
and poets.  And most startling of all was Chinese President Jiang Zemin's
response when asked what one thing he wished he could secure for China's
future?  He responded that Christianity would become the dominant religion
in China! (Footnote 3: Ibid.)

Aikman, the reporter, cautions that this does not mean that the president
is himself a Christian.  Rather, Aikman thinks Jiang says this on purely
utilitarian grounds: he believes that Christians make good citizens, and
so a country of Christians would make a great country.  This is certainly
an incredible change from just decades ago when Mao-tse Tung attempted to
destroy Chinese Christianity.

Still, one of the most impressive things Aikman reports about the Chinese
church is their vision: the Chinese church believes that it is their
calling to evangelize the Muslim world. (Footnote 4: Ibid.) The vibrancy
and faith entailed in such vision is incredible.

Certainly, God is at work in this world.  Unarguably, He is at work in
China.

Copyright (c) 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM)

"A Slice of Infinity" is aimed at reaching into the culture with words of
challenge, words of truth, and words of hope. If you know of others who
would enjoy receiving "A Slice of Infinity" in their email box each day,
tell them they can sign up on our website at
http://www.rzim.org/publications/slice.php.  If they do not have access to
the World Wide Web, please call 1-877-88SLICE (1-877-887-5423).

Copyright notice:  "A Slice of Infinity" may be copied and re-transmitted
by electronic mail, and individual copies of a particular "A Slice of
Infinity" may be printed, provided that such copying, re-transmission,
printing, or other use is not for profit or other commercial purpose.
However, "A Slice of Infinity" may NOT be reproduced in any form on the
World Wide Web or in print media or other media without express written
permission.  RZIM considers requests to reprint, transmit, or otherwise
reproduce "A Slice of Infinity" (or portions thereof) in print, or other
media on a case-by-case basis; please contact RZIM at 1-800-448-6766 to
submit a request.

Pretty interesting, but very predictable. I think this mentality comes from
the firm belief that anything less then a a young earth view is short of
"real" Christianity and is thus a poor witness to the world. I think they
really believe that a view of creation like Hugh Ross' does not really
challenge the naturalistic view, but is only a deadly compromise of faith and
Scripture.

But underneath it all was the realization, either consciously or
subconsciously, that they would come out looking pretty foolish. That, I
believe, was probably the real clincher.

To me the sadest thing of all is that the young earth view can not hang it's
hat on one of the most powerful cases for intelligent design. The Big Bang.
Thus they find themselves opposing the very thing that could actually give
the greatest strength to their worldview. Kind of bazaar in a way, wouldn't
you say?

On Thursday 03 April 2003 08:11 pm, Jim Berge wrote:
> It's been a long time since I checked in with the Ghetto, but I just had to
> offer up this little tidbit.  This really makes me sad to think that there
> are respected Christian "apologists" out there who fear that God's truth is
> so fragile that if us Christians are seen disagreeing in public,
> Christianity will crash down around our ears.
>
> Is it my imagination, or is there something seriously wrong and scary and
> disappointing with the statement below?
>
>
> Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis had agreed to a debate on the Mike Rosen show
> on radio station KOA in Denver on October 11 between himself and Eugenie
> Scott (well-known anti-creationist and director of the National Center for
> Science Education).
>
> Even though the host of the program, Mike Rosen, is known to be
> aggressively anti-creationist/anti-Christian in his philosophy, Ken had no
> problem agreeing to the debate with Dr. Scott.
>
> Just two hours before the debate, Answers in Genesis found out that Mike
> Rosen had also asked Dr. Hugh Ross from Reasons To Believe to participate
> in the debate. Dr. Ross is a well-known progressive creationist ­ he
> promotes the idea of the Big Bang, billions of years of Earth history,
> local flood, soulless people before Adam and Eve, etc. Dr Ross opposes much
> of the teaching of creationist ministries like Answers in Genesis because
> of our stand on six literal days of Creation, no death, bloodshed and
> disease before sin, global flood, young Earth, etc.
>
> As soon as we heard that Dr. Ross would be participating in the debate, we
> realized that this could end up being a very poor Christian witness for the
> secular community with two people representing Christianity but holding
> very different views (i.e., Ken Ham and Hugh Ross) and an ardent
> evolutionist/humanist (Eugenie Scott) who would agree with much of what
> Hugh Ross was stating in opposition to the literal creation position. In
> addition, the host would side with those against the literal creation
> position, so we recognized that this would not be prudent to continue with
> the debate.
>
> It's from this article:
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4134.asp
>
> ...which is from the creationist organization Answers In Genesis.
>
> I hang my head in disappointment...

This couldn't be written by someone who lived in the 40s. Sounds more like an
insightful reflection of our current post-modern mindset. Go's to show us
that human nature doesn't really change that much.

"Man is becoming as narrowly 'practical' as the irrational
animals. In lecturing to popular audiences I have repeatedly found it
almost impossible to make them understand that I recommend Christianity
because I think its affirmations to be objectively true.  They are simply
not interested in the question of truth or falsehood. They only want to
know if it will be comforting, or inspiring, or socially useful." -- C.S Lewis