John Rankin Blog

Should the Size of Government Be Cut Drastically? Samuel in the Face of Saul.

2011-07-14T07:14:00.001-07:00

In the face of our present political and economic crisis, I believe the most important question is this: Should the Size of Government Be Cut Drastically?

But, is this merely a political concern, or at the deeper level, is it biblical?

Let's consider Samuel in the face of Saul.

The first covenant Yahweh Elohim made with Adam was that of freedom, where as image-bearers of God, we were made to be good stewards of the creation as we build human civilization.

Following the introduction of sin (a/k/a broken trust with God and one another), Yahweh made a series of covenants across the millennia aiming to redeem this broken covenant. The apostle Paul can thus say: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1).

In the midst of this redemptive history, judges were ordained by Yahweh, their King, to govern the 12 federated tribes of Israel according to the Law of Moses. This was in service to true freedom. But the Israelites yearned for a human king, such as those in the pagan nations. They rejected the final Judge, Samuel, and embraced Saul as a king, who thus enslaved them through a top-down government.

In my next post, we will look at some details of this pivotal conflict between Samuel and Saul.

Persuasion Impossible?

2011-06-18T17:43:00.000-07:00

In 1989-1991, I headed up a pro-life presence at New England's largest abortion center.

Part of the strategy involved our banner with the slogan, "You Have the Power to Choose Life." We also had ten signs that posed thoughtful questions (e.g., "How Does Human Abortion Add to Your Own Dignity?").

One purpose was also to engage in conversation with the hundreds of "pro-choice" supporters recruited from the local colleges by the Boston chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW).

Two weeks before our first "Sacred Assembly for the Unborn," I visited the street outside Preterm, and chatted with some pro-life activists there who also participated in Operation Rescue (a strategy I rejected on biblical grounds). They supported the forums I did on college campuses, but said that conversations with abortion supporters, and the possibility of persuasion, could not happen on the streets.

Yet, after nine months, and multiple hundreds if not more conversations with "pro-choice" activists, Boston NOW ordered that no more activists be sent there when we were present. The reason? "They are persuading too many of our people."

I have great confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit through sound thinking. In my new initiative, the Pre-Partisan Caucus, I am aiming to get sound thinking into our nation's politics, to effect a national change of mind. Persuasion impossible? I believe not, and in this space I will share the stories as I progress.

###

Sacred Assemblies for the Unborn (1)

2011-05-20T09:13:00.000-07:00

Is it possible to literally save tens of thousands of unborn lives with a simple national strategy? Yes.

♦ In 1989-1991, I headed up an effort on Saturday mornings in front of the largest abortion center in Massachusetts, which I now call the Sacred Assemblies for the Unborn (SAU). We saw 200-300 women walk away from their abortion appointments by their own choices.

♦ Many women went to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, gave birth, and a number found Jesus.

♦ After nine months of this witness and worship, the hundreds of college activists recruited by the National Organization for Women (NOW) stopped their counter demonstrations, since we “were persuading too many of them.”

♦ The Brookline Police commended our conduct, and the Boston Globe, other media and the Attorney General could not criticize it.

♦ We started this strategy again on May 14, 2011 in front of Planned Parenthood in the South Bronx, with great fruit. Thousands of people saw us, with overwhelming support. In the next post on this topic I will start sharing street-side stories. Real ministry to hurting people in the name of Jesus.

♦ Click on www.teinet.net/prolife.html for further information, including the signs we used which are visually dominant, and provoke honest thinking. Such thinking always serves the Gospel, and such thinking is what the devil fears.

###

Has the Connecticut Governor Lost His Moxie?

2011-04-26T10:29:00.000-07:00

To watch Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy (D) in action, words like moxie, vigor, verve and aggressiveness seem appropriate.

This was evident in his debating style during the 2010 campaign. And after taking office in January, Malloy hosted 17 public meetings across the state seeking input from the citizenry. In the process, he repeatedly expressed his interest in any and all ideas on how to address the 3.7 billion dollar deficit, to simplify government and make the state business friendly. In the honest contest of political ideas, his metamessage was “bring it on.”

After this process, Malloy has now reached a “compromise” with the finance and appropriation committees of the Democrat controlled legislature. The result is a looming 1.5-2.0 billion dollar increase in taxes. There are still outstanding issues concerning public union “concessions,” and the question of the state’s balanced budget law.

In January, I contacted the Governor’s office and went through ten rounds seeking to set up a brief 15-minute meeting with him. My initial inquiry was succinct: “Dear Governor Malloy: If needless redundancies in state law could be cut by 99 percent, and set the economy on fire for every sector of the state, would you be interested? I have a serious ‘pre-partisan’ proposal in this respect, and would love to meet with you.”

My proposal can be seen at www.prepartisan.us, at both the national and state levels. The Governor was given this link, and at his office’s request, I also mailed him a hard copy. These ten rounds lasted three months, and the final answer: “ … we will have to decline your request to meet with Governor Malloy.”

Now my proposal is bold, but also most substantial, and its ethics are well tested. Thus, how seriously should I take the Governor when he cannot even risk 15-minutes in accord with the moxie of his public persona?

###

Core Mission of the TEI

2011-02-25T15:59:00.000-08:00

One way to express the core mission of the TEI is this way: To win a debate is not the goal, but to win an honest relationship in the face of a debated issue serves the Gospel.

I have addressed three forums with perhaps the most effective lesbian activist in the nation -- Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. First at Boston University, then at Harvard, then at The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, CT. Arline led the way for the 1989 Gay Rights Bill, and the 2004 Same-Sex Marriage Bill, in the Massachusetts State House. Both first in the nation.

After the third forum, Arline gave me a hug -- and yet we disagree completely on the matter of same-sex marriage. In a recent email, as we are making plans for another forum, Arline said: "You have shown yourself to be a true gentleman and a thoughtful advocate."

For anyone who knows the territory of the debate over same-sex marriage, and realities of the larger pro-homosexual movement, this is a remarkable statement. And able to be unpacked in many honest ways. Arline has given me permission to share this quote.

Jesus said, "Come to me, all you are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).

To accomplish the mission of "first the Gospel, then politics ..." and thus make a difference in the culture, is no easy pursuit. But it becomes possible when the Gospel is truly first in every breath we take.

###

New York City Council Against the Gospel

2011-02-14T06:31:00.000-08:00

At present, the New York City Council has 24 of the 27 necessary votes in place to put discriminatory legal burdens on the 23 Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the five boroughs. This is driven by the money of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

These rules directly oppose pro-life centers that embody the generous nature of the Gospel in caring for needy and hurting women, and their unborn children. It is not enough for these council members to support human abortion -- they also see fit to try and wipe out the freedom of those who believe otherwise.

What to do? If three simple questions are posed directly and often enough to each of these council members, then the moral, intellectual and spiritual weakness of the abortion position will be exposed:

1] Do you oppose male chauvinism? [It is easy to show how the whole abortion industry is driven by men who get women pregnant and take off.]

2] Do you believe in honest science? [It is easy to show the biologically discrete humanity of the unborn.]

3] Do you believe in the God of the Bible? [Many who politically support abortion also claim to believe in the God of the Bible.]

To say "yes" to any of these questions leads to conversion to the truth. To say "no" exposes the council members to the lie of the abortion position. They then have to justify a chauvinistic, unscientific and unbiblical position. And this they cannot do.

Thus, such questions honestly and publicly undermine the psychological confidence for those who support human abortion and oppose pro-life centers. This is necessary to accomplish.

###

Provocative Reality: "The Pain That Dares Not Speak Its Name"

2010-12-16T04:56:00.000-08:00

As we consider the onward push for nation-wide same-sex marriage, and open homosexuality in the military, here is a question: Is our culture being shaped by the rule of law, or is it being molded to conform to some deep pain that can never be satisfied by law?

In 1895, Oscar Wilde spoke of "the love that dares not speak its name" in his public trial for homosexual conduct.

I once spoke of "the pain that dares not speak its name" to a crowded and astounded legislative assembly.

But the content was not original; rather I was speaking the words of others.

In 1988, while working on my Th.M. in Ethics and Public Policy at Harvard, I was in a class on feminist ethics. One day at lunch, three female classmates sat down with me.

One woman spoke, saying, "You know John, for an evangelical, you're a nice guy." As if encountering an oxymoron. She continued, "The three of us are lesbian, and every lesbian we know has been physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused by some man in her early years." I was stunned, as this was new to me.

I immediately prayed in my spirit, "Dear God above, has the church heard this, or do we just pass judgment?" This was an anecdote, not a statistical claim, but I have since learned how pervasive it is, and for male homosexuals as well.

In 2002, I was testifying before the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, with 600 people crowded into the main room and two overflow rooms, and it was being broadcast live on CT-N.

I shared this story from my Harvard classmates. When I came to the line about the abuse, I could hardly hear myself speak due to the groans that then filled the room. Afterward, a friend told me that all the groans came from women wearing same-sex marriage stickers. They then literally held their breaths until I was done with that thought.

Despite the highly anguished response to my testimony, the media had no interest in follow through, and never even attempted to criticize it. Silence.

This is reality. This is the forbidden question in politics and media, for such abuse is far broader than just that experienced by people driven into homosexual identities. Unless those of us who are servants of the Gospel can speak to the pain that dares not name itself, to an undeserved shame imposed on so many children and teenagers -- giving love and hope for deliverance instead -- then our national politics will continue to get sucked into the cesspool.

###

Question of Rape & Incest (4): Testimony of a Raped Woman

2010-10-21T07:22:00.000-07:00

In the fall of 1989, I was interviewed on WGAN radio in Portland, Maine, a 50,000 watt super-station. The topic of rape and incest was raised, and I sought to give answer.

Then a woman called and stated on the air that she had once been raped. Though this was radio, the stillness of the air permeated as her authority and emotions were evident. The talk show host looked at me as thought I were trapped.

But, instead, she then said that I was the first man she ever heard who understood her pain. And in listening to me, the hatred she had held against all men for years, drained out of her heart.

She also stated that it is incredible for a woman who has been raped and impregnated by a man, to then allow another man to scrape out her uterus.

And this hits reality on the head. How often is the topic of rape & incest used by "feminists" to justify abortion-on-demand? On the backs of raped women.

###

Question of Rape & Incest (3): Testimony of a Woman Conceived in Rape

2010-10-20T12:08:00.001-07:00

In the mid-1980s, I was addressing an ad hoc forum in front of the Student Union at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Toward the end of a two-hour event that saw many people come and go, with about 100 people still there, a woman student asked me about rape and incest.

As I began to give answer, she interjected and stated, in the presence of everyone there, that she herself was conceived though an act of rape. I was amazed.

So I asked why she of all people would argue for abortion in the case of rape. “Would you rather have been aborted?” She was astonished, for she had never thought of it this way. Her concerns had been for the raped woman, her very mother. We brought the forum to a close shortly thereafter, and I walked over to her. We then went to the Student Union and sat down at a cafeteria table, and she shared her story.

She was a freshman or sophomore, thus about nineteen-years old. Her mother was raised in a West Virginian coal mining town, where everyone knows everyone, and where abortion was opposed except in such cases as this. Her mother was eleven years old when raped, and the rapist was known. Perhaps, as I read between the lines, by a member of the extended family.

When her mother was known to be pregnant, her family exerted severe pressure on her to get an abortion. The shame factor was huge, and a child born of rape would serve as a constant reminder of the evil act committed. This courageous girl resisted, carried the child and gave birth.

This twelve-year old mother was thus treated as “dirt” by the town, and her daughter was thus treated as “double dirt.” Because she saw her mother’s pain and wanted to stand up for her, the daughter uncritically accepted the abortion rationale in college – until she happened upon the forum.

I looked straight at her and said something like, “It doesn’t matter that you were conceived in rape – you are just as loved by God as anyone else, including those conceived in a loving marriage, or where there is great wealth.”

I saw these words touch her soul in a fashion she had never experienced, affirming her as an equal image-bearer of God. These words were received like water through the parched lips of a severely dehydrated person. So dehydrated that I ended the conversation there, realizing that such Good News was so radical that she needed time to process it.

###

Question of Rape & Incest (2): Testimony of a "Pro-Choice" Physician

2010-10-19T13:47:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I spoke of the question posed me at Brown University in 1989 concerning rape and incest.

In 2009, I was in a social gathering, and met a woman physician whose husband is one of the top academics in the world. We had a delightful conversation, and we talked theology as well as a range of other topics.

At one point, I was about to give definition to the image of God in wide context, using the example of the POSH Ls (peace, order, stability and hope; to live, to love, to laugh and to learn). Before doing so, I mentioned the context of the abortion debate at Brown, and she said, "I am pro-choice."

I said no problem, that was not my focus. When I came to part of the story where I raised the question of whether or not abortion "unrapes" a woman, she jumped in energetically and graciously, "No!" She knew that an abortion does not remedy such an evil act.

In other words, and as the conversation continued, the common reality of the image of God between us was evident. This is the basis to address such deeply painful questions.

###

Question of Rape & Incest (1): Brown University 1989

2010-10-18T22:53:00.000-07:00

As the question of rape & incest has arisen in the 2010 U.S. Senate races in Colorado and Nevada, here is a series of looking at the question with truth and, especially, mercy for women so victimized.

At a debate in April 1989, at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, I spontaneously articulated some elements of the image of God. I was questioned about the issue of rape and incest. A young woman believed that the right to have an abortion should be available to those who became pregnant by such a violent act.

I began to frame my response by looking directly at her and saying: “In your life, are you like me, seeking the qualities of peace, order, stability and hope?” As I spoke these words, I had her eyeball-to-eyeball attention, and the hundreds of students and faculty in the Sayles auditorium came to a hush. The century old seats, bolted to the floor, always creaking at the slightest movement, also ceased their chatter, producing a moment of intense focus. She said, “Yes.”

I then said, “Is it also fair for me to assume, that like me, you also seek to live, to love, to laugh and to learn?” Again, the same focus of intensity defined the audience, the seats unmoving, and again she said, “Yes.”

So I continued, “Then there is far more that unites us than divides us – we are seeking the same qualities. The question is, in the face of the hell of rape and incest: Does abortion unrape the woman and restore to her the lost qualities of peace, order, stability and hope? Or does the abortion only add further brokenness?”

The room continued its quiet, and I could have left the issue there. I knew that the resonation with the image of God, as represented by these qualities, was so complete in that moment that most students and faculty could answer the question themselves and deduce from there the reality I was addressing.

When I spontaneously defined these qualities of God’s image – peace, order, stability and hope, to live, to love, to laugh and to learn – they were immediately imprinted in my soul. They sum up well the theological realities of the image of God, and they make an easy acronym, the POSH Ls. I have identified and defined the POSH Ls ever since.

In my next blog post, I will detail briefly how a woman "pro-choice" physician responded to this story two decades later.

###

Speakng the Truth -- in Both Directions

2010-09-17T12:05:00.000-07:00

In my two recent articles on Fox News Opinion, my purpose was to be biblical, sober minded and speak the truth -- first to a pastor who was set to inflame the Muslim world by burning a Qur'an; and second to an Imam seeking to inflame the United States in service to a one-way religion that pursues Islamic hegemony.

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/03/rev-john-rankin-pastor-terry-jones-dove-world-outreach-center-burning-koran/ and http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/10/rev-john-rankin-ground-zero-imam-rauf-cordoba-house-islam-questions-jesus/.

In the first case, even though no Qur'ans were burned, but due to a false report from Tehran that it indeed happened, there were riots in Kabul, and 17 Muslims were killed by security forces (Wall Street Journal). In Kashmir, Muslims went on a rampage against Christians, burning homes and churches, killing 18 people, including 7 children (direct report from Dr. T. Valson Abraham, General Secretary, India Pentecostal Church).

Judgment begins with the household of God (1 Peter 4:17), and thus Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, has blood on his hands even if he finally backed off an agenda that would have multiplied the carnage a thousand fold. Violent Muslims are responsible for their own sins, but we know the Truth in Jesus as the Son of God, and are thus held to a higher standard

In the second case, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is in the driver's seat of his own agenda, causing continued and deepening controversy over his planned "Cordoba House" near Ground Zero.

The only answer in both cases is the true Gospel, in proactive power as elsewhere defined.

This morning, while speaking on the subject, I met a young man who comes from a long line of esteemed Muslim leaders back to the town of Sahih al-Bukhari (A.D. 810-870), who composed the authoritative Hadith of Muhammad's life. This young man is a convert to Jesus Christ, and thanked me for being an American Christian who treated Muslim peoples with respect. He said that while many Muslims in the world are coming to Christ through miraculous visions of Jesus, and other signs and wonders, what keeps them in Christ is the love Christians show for one another and for all people. Amen.

###

By Definition, Darkness Flees the Light

2010-09-07T05:54:00.000-07:00

In my recent article on the Fox Forum, I opposed the burning of the Qur'an:
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/03/rev-john-rankin-pastor-terry-jones-dove-world-outreach-center-burning-koran/. I received many emails, and many posted comments, where people did not understand the argument.

As I gave response, I was gratified for those who did a little more biblical thinking, and saw more clearly what I was saying.

The temptation, in theological and political terms, is to react to known evil. But without biblical literacy, those reactions to reactions only deepen the quagmire of human suffering.

In John 1:5, the text says: "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it" (NIV). The word used here for "understand" comes from the Greek term katalambano -- "to reach up, seize hold, dethrone, pull down and trample." Another translation for the word is "overcome." Or, to put it simply, we cannot overcome what we do not understand.

In physics, by definition, darkness has no atomic existence, and is a pure negative -- the absence of light. When the light shines, the darkness dissipates. The same is true in ethics and spiritual warfare. We do not chase the prince of darkness, rather we let the Light shine, and the devil flees. Darkness cannot fathom how light operates.

This simple interpretive reality powerfully unpacks biblical theology and life, and empowers us to redress evil proactively and not reactively. It makes all the difference.

###

Step Six -- Opposing the Burning of the Qur'an

2010-08-31T11:32:00.000-07:00

Despite several further attempts to communicate directly with Dove World Outreach Center, no success. They remain adamant to burn the Qur'an on September 11.

If you click on www.johnrankin.org, and look under the Announcements, there are two new items, especially this one:

A Call to Action in Gainesville, Florida on September 11, 2010: The Bible is Against Burning the Qur'an.

I have notified the Gainesville Police, so that we work in conjunction with their protocol. The evil consequences are so great, that the church must show up en masse. Please read it, and forward it to everyone you know.

Also, if you click on www.teinet.net/media.html, you can listen to my WJTN radio interview on the subject (about 25 minutes). Please forward it likewise to everyone you know.

Finally here, on Thursday, I have an op ed piece scheduled in the major media, with a very large readership, and I will send the link when published.

More details to follow in the next blog.

###

Step Five -- Opposing the Burning of the Qur'an

2010-08-26T08:42:00.000-07:00

Please email Dove World Outreach Center at info@doveworld.org, or call them at 352.371.2487, and ask why Pastor Terry Jones does not have the confidence to debate me on the matter. I have never made such a public challenge before, but this is needful. I have made three entreaties to speak with him one-on-one, and only refusal or no response.

If you click on http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/26gainesville.html?th&emc=th, you can see the article this morning in the New York Times concerning the burning of the Qur'an.

A local article in Gainesville can also be read at http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100826/ARTICLES/8261021/1118?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar.

The city of Gainesville has refused the church a burn permit; the church's insurance company has canceled their policy; and their bank has called in the mortgage.

Yet, in an email to his supporters, Pastor Terry Jones has become more adamant in his plans to go forward in the September 11 burning of the Qur'an. Despite all the concerns ramping up about violent reactions. Despite the Gospel being able to be slandered as a result.

###

Step Four -- Opposing the Burning of the Qur'an

2010-08-25T10:07:00.000-07:00

Again, I have heard back from the staff of Dove World Outreach Center (http://www.doveworld.org). I thus offered to fly to Gainesville for an open ended conversation with Pastor Terry Jones, and his leadership team. No reply thus far.

In the meantime, the next step is to ask President Obama to publicly oppose the burning of the Qur'an (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact; call 202.456.1111 or 202.456.1414; fax 202.456.2461). Please forward this request to all your friends, and act on it.

The President should do so, as a professing Christian who speaks of his deep respect for Islam, and in the authority of his office. How could he do otherwise? If he does not, what will be his responsibility be for the fallout of such an act?

Mr. Obama has already stepped into the controversy about the Cordoba House Islamic Center and Mosque planned to be built near Ground Zero. Though there has been a media and political frenzy about the matter, this issue only serves to draw attention away from the real danger of the burning of the Qur'an on September 11.

In a nutshell, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf made this initiative in the name of "religious and cultural understanding." But he has not made himself available for a public forum on the matter. Thus, he is in the driver's seat of having caused controversy, while traveling the Muslim world as an emissary for the U.S. State Department (!). And President Obama has not helped matters in his comments.

Accordingly, Imam Rauf should hold a public forum, and proactively outline why and how the Cordoba Initiative serves unalienable rights and constitutional law in this pluralistic nation that welcomes him as a citizen. Then take questions from all interested parties. Nothing less will serve "religious and cultural understandin": at this juncture.

That should be that, and then turn our focus where it belongs.

###

Step Three -- Opposing the Burning of the Qur'an

2010-08-24T07:37:00.000-07:00

I continue, directly, to seek to persuade Pastor Terry Jones not to publicly burn the Qur'an on September 11, 2010.

In the meantime, I would ask that every biblically faithful church publicly pray this Sunday and next, that he would change his mind. And it would be edifying to read aloud the Affirmation: Yes to the Bible, No to the Burning of the Qur'an: http://www.teinet.net/noburning.html.

On his website, www.doveworld.org, the only biblical reason cited for the proposed Qur'an burning is Acts 19.

Here is my perspective:

The citation of Acts 19 is at the end of the article, Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran. But in this context, in Ephesus, the burning of the sorcery scrolls was done by former practitioners. They were new converts to Jesus, and were not responding to a Christian burning their scriptures, as it were. Rather, they responded to the demonstrable power of the Holy Spirit through Paul in miracles and deliverance; and to the reality of the seven sons of Sceva being unable to do so likewise, thus being beaten up by the demons as they themselves did not know Jesus. They were, of their own informed choice, ridding themselves of their resources to practice pagan sorcery. A powerful act of repentance.

Ephesus was the largest pagan worship center in the eastern Mediterranean at the time. It traced back to the legend of the Amazons, the goddess worship also leading later to the temple of Artemis, and the central reality of sacred prostitution. Documents have been unearthed in Ephesus containing incantations and secret information of sorcery. It seems likely that these are the type of scrolls burned in Acts 19, and why they had such high value (50,000 drachmas then would be worth about 5 million dollars now).

Moses and Daniel were well instructed in the pagan texts of their times, not to mention the secret arts of the Egyptian and Babylonian sorcerers. We see no parallel for an attack on the pagan scriptures (e.g., the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Babylonian Genesis), by either Moses or Daniel. Rather, we see the power of the Holy Spirit, of signs and wonders confirming the preached Gospel -- first in the exodus through Moses and Aaron, and second in Daniel’s prophetic ministry that led the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar to repentance.

In fact, I argue that Daniel saw the end of child sacrifice in Babylonian territories where practiced theretofore, as well as the end of other evil practices. He was the de facto prime minister for the seven years prior to Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance. It was a proactive and not a reactive witness.

And Paul knew well the Greek poets, as we see him citing them in Acts 17. He appealed through these pagan writings to the living God. He took poems dedicated to Zeus, redeemed them for worshiping the one true Creator, and called people to believe in Jesus. No burning of pagan Greek scriptures, stories or poems.

And thus, at the overview level, the Affirmation underscores the power of the proactive, and as discernible at every warp and woof in the Bible.

###

Step Two -- Opposing the Burning of the Qur'an

2010-08-23T06:40:00.000-07:00

[sign at the bottom and forward to others if you embrace this affirmation]

Yes to the Bible, No to the Burning of the Qur’an

An Affirmation of Biblically Faithful Christians

We affirm the full and equal dignity of all Muslim peoples in the sight of the one true Creator. We do so in affirming the complete truth of the Bible, while at the same time not affirming the nature of the Qur’an.

In the public sphere in the United States, unalienable rights, as rooted in their historical Source, are to be honored equally for peoples, Muslims likewise. This is due not to religious identity, but on the grounds of a deeper shared humanity.

Thus, to put it in political language, our partisan affirmation of the Bible leads us to affirm the full human dignity of those who believe in a text we do not believe in. This is to love God and neighbor, to fulfill the “Golden Rule” of treating others as you wish to be treated.

The ethics of the Bible are by definition proactive, reflecting the declared goodness of the order of creation, and its redemption in Jesus. The word “Gospel” means “good news,” it starts in Genesis and is fulfilled in Jesus. This is Theology 101 for Christians.

Therefore, as biblically faithful Christians, we always seek to be proactive in our actions toward all people. The Gospel empowers us to give to those who would take from us, love those who would hate us, and bless those who would curse us. And as Jesus said, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

The poet, Heinrich Heine, a German Jew who converted to Christianity, wrote in 1820: “Where books are burned, they will, in the end, burn people, too.” Prophetic of Nazi Germany.

So, here are seven questions for those who would burn a copy of the Qur'an:

1. How can such a proposed action be other than one of reactive fear, not one of proactive confidence? It is foreign to the Gospel.

2. Is not the burning of the Qur’an seen by Muslim peoples as bad news, and thus a hindrance to Muslims grasping the Good News in the lives of Christians?

3. Is not the burning of the Qur’an an act of accusation and condemnation? The name of Satan in the Hebrew (ha’satan) means “the accuser” or “the slanderer.”

4. Does not the burning of the Qur’an thus burn Muslims in their very souls?

5. Does not the burning of the Qur’an by professing Christians thus slander the name of Jesus Christ?

6. What happens if people are killed, injured or persecuted as a result, if properties are burned or damaged, due to an inflamed Muslim world as images of a burning Qur’an flood the internet? Who will be ultimately responsible?

7. Jesus, in the face of his enemies during Passover Week, embraced their toughest questions in public assembly. Is not the burning of the Qur’an the opposite of such confidence in communication?

For Christians who embrace the proactive confidence of the Gospel, we seek out the toughest questions from Muslims in public assembly, among equals in the sight of the one true Creator, where the Bible and the Qur’an can be looked at side by side.

###

To join this Affirmation, email your name and contact information, with church or Christian leadership position if applicable, to: tei@teinet.net. Also, and importantly, to automatically receive email TEI Updates (on this matter and others), click on http://www.teinet.net/contact.html, enter your email address, and click “Go.”

Step One -- Opposing the Burning of the Qur'an

2010-08-22T10:35:00.001-07:00

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, plans to publicly burn a copy of the Qur'an at his church on September 11, 2010.

1. If he does, the images will reverberate on the internet internationally, and this could lead to unparalled fury in the Muslim world. How many deaths, injuries, persecutions, burning of churches and attacks on U.S. interests and American citizens might result?

2. The Gospel would thus be slandered.

3. I have been in direct contact with the church, in an appeal to dissuade Dr. Jones from such an act. In so doing, I offered to debate him publicly, and that included his freedom to persuade me that I am wrong in opposing him, if he could make the case biblically. Always a level playing field, in confidence that the truth will thus rise to the top.

3. His church leadership deliberated my offer for 2 1/2 days, then said Friday (August 20): "This is not something Dr. Jones wants to pursue at this time."

4. But time is of the essence, so please pray he can still be dissuaded. This will be the content of my next several blog posts, coming fairly quickly, as I outline my biblical reasons and a concerted strategy.

###

Unalienable Rights or Same-Sex Marriage? (2)

2010-08-12T06:52:00.000-07:00

Here is a simple statement: There is only one Source for unalienable rights in human history -- the God of Genesis 1-2.

This, I believe, is the all-defining issue for politics in the United States today. The nation will rise or fall on how we understand or fail to understand this reality.

The advent of same-sex marriage advocacy, along with other issues, directly threatens these rights -- rights that are the gift of the Creator to all people equally.

I have posed this question relentlessly over the years to skeptics on the university campuses, in media interviews, and in many one-on-one or small-group conversations with various skeptics of the Bible.

None has yet shown otherwise. If there is someone who can, I am eager to learn of it. I am always accountable to tough questions and any information that would change what I understand.

In my next post I will share a Mars Hill Forum interaction when this issue became crystalized for me in 1997, even as I had been making the case since 1984.

###

Unalienable Rights or Same-Sex Marriage? (1)

2010-08-10T08:24:00.000-07:00

The debate over same-sex marriage is so contentious because people's lives and identities are front and center. Hopes and fears are crystalized in public profile.

The pressure in the top-down media, in politics, on the campuses, and in business, etc., is to accept homosexuality as a normal variant of the human experience. To say no to homosexuality in any fashion is viewed as mean-spirited, as "homophobic."

Thus, how is the truth spoken in love? Are we able to affirm the positive before we say no to anything we view as negative? In view of the recent federal ruling in San Francisco that reversed a vote of the people on same-sex marriage, this matter is aiming for the U.S. Supreme Court, via the Ninth Circuit.

How do we address such a matter consistent with the priorities of "first the Gospel, then politics...? As I seek to do so in this series of posts, I invite all questions. Namely, are my factual assertions true, are my opinions based on established facts, and is the result one where justice and mercy are advanced for all people equally in the name of Jesus?

The central question in this debate revolves around the nature and Source of unalienable rights -- a matter the political and legal classes fear to address. For it brings to bear the question of the Creator, his identity, human nature, and our response to him. This is where I wlll start in the next post.

###

The Loneliness of an Abortion-Rights Activist

2010-08-02T15:43:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I mentioned Bill Baird, well-known abortion-rights activist. We debated at North Adams State College in 1984, and then he refused to address a local group of clergy with me thereafter.

I did have three other encounters with him. First was on a radio debate on WEZE, Boston (Christian station). He tried hard for me to call women who have abortions as though they were "murderers." I refused, instead pointing out the male chauvinistic responsibilities at play in most abortion decisions.

After a subsequent debate on WEEI, Boston (then a all-news station), we joined in the same elevator ride from the 44th floor of the Prudential building. He had a female friend with him, an avowedly "feminist pornography publisher." There Bill said to me baldly, "I can have sex with anyone, anywhere, anytime I want." Thus, sadly, confirming the male chauvinistic realities at play.

Finally, in 1990, I met Bill at a Planned Parenthood Rally in front of the Massachusetts State Capitol in Boston, just a block from my office at the time. There was some bad blood between him and Planned Parenthood, so none of his fellow abortion-rights activists would talk with him. So I did, and at some length after the event as well, not in a debating fashion, but in seeking to find his humanity in the face of the debate.

As we parted ways on Bowdoin Street, I was struck deeply by a spirit of lonliness in him. Abortion tears apart due to the torn apart relationships that lead to it. And this prior tearing apart produces illness in the human spirit, and ultimately an eternal loneliness apart from the intervention of God's grace. So I pray for Bill, if he is still alive, and indeed for all people who have similar internal struggles.

###

The Reality of the Grassroots

2010-07-28T13:50:00.000-07:00

In today's political climate, we see most clearly the stark contrast between a)self-serving elitists who lust after political power, on the one hand; versus b) the grassroots where most people simply want to live their lives in pursuit of honest work and honest relationships, on the other.

I was first introduced to this, personally, in 1984, after the second public debate I addressed in pro-life ministry. My debate opponent, at North Adams State College in Massachusetts, was the infamous Bill Baird. He was the owner of abortion centers in Boston and New York, and a successful litigant before the U.S. Supreme Court on matters of birth control and abortion.

After the debate, Bill and I were invited to address a meeting of United Church of Christ (UCC) clergy at a church in Ware, MA. The UCC clergy were heavily in favor of "abortin rights," and thus, a friendly audience to Mr. Baird. The woman minister seeking to arrange this meeting was thus deeply perplexed, and apologetic to me, when Bill refused.

So we both addressed the group separately. After my presentation, a UCC minister approached me with several questions, pressing me hard, as he favored legalized abortion. As I gave answer each time, he finally stood back with a displeased posture and a disquieted spirit in his soul, and said, "You think fast on your feet." I said, "Well, I don't know how fast I think on my feet, but I do try to do my thinking before I stand up and speak." He was frustrated -- his elitist attitude assumed that I should not be able to answer his questions, so he had to resort to his quip.

After a nice luncheon that followed the meeting, one of the church women who helped prepare it approached me in hushed tone, and asked, "Are you the pro-life minister who spoke today?" I said yes. Then she said, "Thank you so much. All of us in the pews are on your side."

The truth is that regular people at the grassroots value marriage and the equal humanity of the unborn, even in the midst of great trials. Elitists do not.

###

David & Jonathan: Continuing the Conversation

2010-07-26T17:33:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I addressed the question, posed by a professing atheist, as to whether David and Jonathan had a homosexual love.

Two repondents have raised further questions in the comments section. And for this I am grateful. Namely, the essence of the love of hard questions is that we are always open to being given new information, and as the evidence may require, to make necessary changes.

Peter Attwood makes the point that the Greek word "agape" does not exclusively refer to God's love. In this he is correct. I referred to it as Yahweh's self-giving covenantal love in the context of 2 Samuel 1:26. Peter cites two New Testament passages as examples. When the Jewish scholars spent 37 years translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek Septuagint (ca. 284-247 B.C.), they were very thorough in seeking to make the most faithful translation -- an art, not a mathematical science. They landed on "agape" for covenantal love, because in its few uses in classical Greek literature at the time, in each context, it was a self-giving love that was requiring nothing in return. Thus, it was the best approximate word for covenantal love, and thus applied to 2 Samuel 1:26 in the context of the emerging Davidic covenant. So, can it be used for a type of self-giving love otherwise, as we see in 2 Timothy 4:10 and 1 John 2:15? No doubt.

But too, the critical point here is that it was not "eros" or erotic love referenced in 2 Samuel 1:26, as would be necessary in order for a homosexual interpretation to gain any footing.

This brings us to the comment by Thomas referring to 1 Samuel 20:30. Here, King Saul was angry with his son Jonathan precisely because Jonathan knew Saul wanted to kill David out of jealously, and Jonathan protected David. Thomas' use of the King James Version (KJV), and its antiquated language (1611/1769) is problematic though, e.g., "unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness." To the modern reader unfamilar with centuries-old language usage, this could appear as having a hint of sexuality. The New International Version (NIV - 1984) does a better job translating what was meant: "to the shame of the mother who bore you."

Thomas' concern for the complexity of male-male friendship, or female-female, is well grounded. But again, there is nothing erotic in the language of the text between David and Jonathan, or between Naomi and Ruth. In both cases, it is the covenant keeping love of Yahwwh that defined sacrifical self-giving friendships in his sight.

###

Atheist Asks: Were David and Jonathan Homosexual?

2010-07-23T05:15:00.000-07:00

As I noted in my previous post concerning a discussion with a number of atheists and believers, a young woman skeptic posed a question of the Bible, and here it is: "Were David and Jonathan homosexuals?" This she did one-on-one after the meeting.

There is one nearly universal reality among skeptics of the Bible -- they affirm or allow for sexual relations outside marriage. And so often, they do so due to brokenness in their own lives. So there can result a concerted attempt to drag the Bible down to this pagan level.

Now, this young woman is intelligent, sensitive and full of life. This is not an ethical issue for her, as she puts it, but one of intellectual interest -- she has heard both side argued intelligently. And in an email to me, she concluded: "And thank you again for coming, it was very much a gift to have you there."

In 2 Samuel 1:26, David laments Jonathan's death in battle with his father Saul: "I grieve for you, Jonathan, my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a woman."

So skeptics and homosexual activists say, "Aha -- this looks like language between homosexual lovers."

Now, Jonathan had earlier affirmed that David was the anointed choice of Yahweh to become king. In so doing, he put aside his own lineal claim as the son of the rebellious and pagan King Saul. So, this is the biblical understanding of a profound friendship between two men. The comparison David makes is based accordingly. Nothing sexual -- and had King Saul even suspected the possibility, he would have had them both executed, delighting in such an excuse. It was not the comparison betwewen heterosexual and homosexual erotic love, but between two completely different types of love.

Some years ago, I was talking with a homosexual activist on the phone, and he posed the same question. In thinking aloud with him, I noted that the Hebrew word for "love" here is "ahav," the general term in the Hebrew Bible, and always defined by context.

So I said, let's look at the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by some 70 Jewish scholars between 284-247 B.C. Greek has many words for love, and as such, the specific word chosen will modify the context. I told him that if the Greek word here were "eros" (for erotic or sexual love), then he would be right. And when I said this, I did not know the answer, never having looked up this passage in the LXX before. I was thinking the word might be "philos" or "storge" for friendship love.

As I pulled the LXX off my shelf and looked it up, the term turned out to be "agape" (pronounced with the emphasis on the last syllable, with a long "a" vowel sound). The word refers to Yahweh's self-giving covenantal love, far greater than, and with no sexual connotations. There are a range of cognate details than can be looked at here, but this is the essential and core reality. Jonathan affirmed Yahweh's covenantal love of David as the one anointed to be king, and David affirmed this love of Jonathan as without comparison. Jonathan was was a man of remarkable integrity.

###

Atheists, the Goodness of Genesis, and Laughter

2010-07-21T07:14:00.000-07:00

Last night I enjoyed four hours of conversation with four atheists (or quasi-atheists), and three Christians. The meeting was set up by a young Christian woman who invited these friends -- two of whom once considered themselves believers.

I began by reading my web article on "The Gift of Thinking" (go to www.teinet.net and click on the "Biblical Theology" icon). From there the discussion ranged freely as each person shared some of his or her background, and there was much edifying and mutual laughter.

Central issues dealt with cause and effect, and especially, the matter of trust. I shared how the only text in human history that assumes trust is Genesis 1-2. All pagan texts and secular constructs assume the original presence of distrust in human relationships.

As we talk about human nature, and when we delve below the deepest pains, people are wired from infancy for trust. And we all seek trusting relationships insofar as possible. But when people have suffered broken trust repeatedly, it becomes hard again to learn trust. There are always defenses in place for the sake of survival.

Here we see Jesus, who took all the human history of broken trust onto his body on the cross, died, atoned for our sins, rose again and is coming again. He heals broken trust for all those who believe in him, and establishes the power of forgivessness that allows us to live with hope and purpose.

In Friday's blog, I will share one hard question posed by a young woman who was once a believer, but now considers herself a skeptic of the Bible.

###

A Pro-Abortion Testimony Reversed in Mid-Stream

2010-07-19T15:02:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I referred to the break-out session I attended at a pro-abortion conference sponsored by the Massachusetts Council of Churches in the mid-1980s.

Many clergy were there, and as a pro-life advocate, I was in the minority. So, after the Rev. Spencer Parsons, representing the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR), gave his presentation, there was time for interaction. I was astounded by two testimonies.

First, one minister stated how he used to be "pro-choice" but became pro-life once he looked more thoroughly at the issue. He was articulate, and people listened closely.

Then, second, and especially, a woman gave a personal testimony. In the late 1950s, she became pregnant. Her husband was planning a divorce, they already had four children, and financial stress was high. She spoke of the humiliation of going before several hospital committees to petition for a "therapeutic" abortion, and being denied each time.

As people listened, the empotional wells were being touched deeply. I sensed that most people there, myself included, were expecting the follow-through of a back-alley illegal abortion, spattered blood, an ambulance, a fleeing quack, an emergency hysterectomy and crippling after-effects.

Instead, she paused, looked a bit surprised with herself, and continued: "But, my husband returned to the marriage, our son was born, and he is the greatest joy of all our children!"

The break-out session was not the same thereafter.

Once, when the enemies of Jesus were opposing his plan to heal a crippled man, he asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to to good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4).

###

Can You Imagine Jesus Performing an Abortion?

2010-07-17T08:01:00.000-07:00

There is great freedom of soul in asking or being asked hard questions -- whether at the emotional or intellectual levels, whether in personal, cultural or political context. It is intrinsically biblical in nature.

The more we share questions and learn, the more we know how little we know compared with what there is to be known; thus, the more we grow in humility, and therefore, wisdom.

In this series of blogs, my purpose is to share personal anecdotes where I have interacted with people on a range of questions, and in various contexts. I will largely draw from my years of public policy ministry, past and present.

__________________

In the spring of 1984, I addressed my first public debate on human abortion, at Gordon College. The Rev. Spencer Parsons, ordained in the American Baptist Churches, represented the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR).

In our interaction, at one spontaneous moment, I asked: "Can you imagine Jesus performing an abortion?" He stopped in his tracks, tried to say yes several different ways, but he could not convince himself, and finally had to say no.

After all, Jesus came to heal and save, not to destroy, so even a representative of RCAR could not push the envelope that far. And, if we claim to be disciples of Jesus, what are the redemptive actions needed in such a context? So many women are pushed into abortions by men who got them pregnant and took off, or otherwise refused the responsibilities of fatherhood.

One or two years later, Spencer and I crossed paths at a day-long conference sponsored the Massachusetts Council of Churches. It was essentially a pro-abortion lobbying effort, and the main speaker was Dr. Beverly Wildung Harrison, theologian and author of "Our Right to Choose" (Beacon Press, 1983).

I attended a break-out session Spencer led, and after the conference was over, we spoke at some length. He told me that I was the only pro-life advocate he knew that took time out to truly communicate with him. (I know there are many others who could easily do so -- it is a matter of living our lives where we seek out skeptics on their own turf). At the end, he agreed with me that, yes, the Bible affirms the unborn as image-bearers of God deserving full protection. His concerns turned out to be rooted more in human politics than theology. He believed that, somehow, legalized abortion would make matters better than the days of "back-alley" abortions.

I disagreed, but more importantly, the power and person of Jesus triumphed in the conversations.

###

The Gift of Thinking

2010-03-09T11:42:00.000-08:00

In the summer of 2008, I was reading a manuscript to my ninety-year old father, Dr. Emmett Clair Rankin. He has failing eyesight. At one point he interjected, and said, “You know John, as a little boy, you were always thinking.”

And I have been thinking about that ever since.

What a remarkable gift – the freedom as a child to think, to wonder, to dream. And it was fully possible in my case, because of the blessing of growing up in a loving and stable home, where I had an uninterrupted childhood. No intrusions of poverty, illness, death, war, divorce, fratricide etc.

My father grew up Presbyterian, but due to his adult experience of judgmentalism in a local Presbyterian church, and hypocrisy in a local Congregational church, he migrated to the Unitarian Universalist church. There, my third grade Sunday School teacher was agnostic and taught us to be skeptical of the Bible - saying that miracles could not occur, and that Genesis is a myth. So I thought, why cannot miracles occur, and if Genesis is a myth, why bother?

I was skeptical of skepticism, and as I told that to my aged father, he laughed heartily in agreement.

Skepticism is good if used in pursuit of the truth, but it can also become an idol if used as an excuse to flee the truth. I was given the gift of good skeptical thinking, which is intrinsically biblical, where the love of hard questions is a central reality.

As an eight year old, I wondered about space, time and number. Where do they end? Can they end? Search the world over – in every religious, philosophical, literary or scientific idea ever spoken or published – and you cannot find any idea or deity that is not also limited by the boundaries of space, time and/or number.

Except for Yahweh Elohim, the LORD God of Genesis 1-2, whose very name in the Hebrew means the One who is greater than space, time and number, whose power is unlimited, whose nature is good and whose purpose in making man and woman in his image was to bless us; who in the person of Jesus, is the eternal I AM who came into our finite world to love and save us, and who gives the power of the Holy Spirit to transform our lives, and the lives of nations.

In the summer of 1967, at age fourteen, I was in Boy Scout camp where chapel was required. One Sunday in August, as I was getting dressed for chapel, a fellow Scout was not getting out of his bunk, so I asked him why. He said he did not have to go to chapel, and all I had to do to get out of chapel was tell the Scoutmaster that I was an atheist. So I asked him, “What is an atheist?” He said, “Someone who does not believe there is a God.”

I thought about it a second, and said, “But I don’t know.” So off to chapel I went, a positive agnostic before I knew what the word meant, someone skeptical of skepticism, someone not fleeing the truth but seeking it, someone given an unsullied gift of thinking from my earliest childhood, someone who thus ran into the very Presence of the Creator some ten or twelve weeks later in prep school. Of that, I write elsewhere.