Post 235--"Human Rights"

Recently the European Court of Human Rights upheld an Austrian woman's conviction of calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile. The conviction, it ruled, did not restrict her freedom of speech. The "Court's" judgement was approved by a higher court apparently who ruled that the earlier one had "carefully  balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected."  She is said to have publicly declared that the Prophet's marriage to a young girl was akin to "pedophilia."  Back in 2011 she was convicted of "disparaging religious doctrines" and ordered to pay a fine of  $713 plus costs, a ruling that was also upheld in higher places (The Associated Press, Vancouver Sun, October 26, 2018). 

I do not know enough about that marriage to argue for or against the woman's opinion.  Even if I had enough data to support her opinion, I would definitely not state it this way in public. As a Christian, I have no desire to insult what my neighbour holds dear and precious, even if I disagree with him. I may wish to convince him of another truth and change her mind about his own, but I would do so with respect in the fashion of dialogue, where two partners explain their different opinions, opposing, contradictory opinions even, but always with respect. 

The only time I would turn more vociferous would be when "the other" becomes unjust or oppressive. If it were an extreme case, I might lose it.

You may have noticed that I placed quotation marks around "court" in the first paragraph. There's a good reason for that, at least from the Canadian point of view. Canadian human rights "courts" are anything but courts. Not infrequently they are described as "kangaroo courts." They hand out sentences without the solid data that characterize the more standard courts.  I've had no experience with them, but I read the newspapers and too often read about the soft "legal" --there's those quotation marks again!-- reasoning practiced in these  "courts," reasoning based more on bias and prejudice than on facts and legalities. Whether this holds true for their parallels in the EU, I am not sure.   

Of course, Christians who read the Bible literally can find plenty of excuses for berating other religions. The Old Testament (OT) makes short thrift of the pagan religions that surround Israel without any attempt at showing respect. The New Testament (NT) has its own examples. Jesus, in fact, castigates the leaders of His own religion something fierce, for having twisted its spirit and turning it into a vehicle of oppression. He leaves our Austrian woman far behind in the dust with His insults! The issue for Him was that the good of the best religion was so thwarted and abused that it became impossible for our Lord even to control Himself. He became totally disrespectful in public! He became a model revolutionary!

So, there is a place for lack of respect, for telling it as it really is, but there has to be a pretty good reason for that. Jesus pushed the line for appropriateness; I would  not go beyond Him, for His was based on true insight and wisdom and on love for the poor who were the victims.

In today's Vancouver, the egoism and greed of the property owners would probably evoke the same outburst from Jesus as did the religious leaders of His day. It is no wonder that entire groups of residents blare and yell it out in often brutal language. It is a shame that the Church and individual Christians are playing the same game as their secular counterparts. I am ashamed of them and am moving closer to shouting down especially church leaders who only bring bandages and ambulance service to the homeless, instead of attacking the systemic issues of greed and selfishness. 

But, to come back to our Austrian lady, should she have said what she did?  I would probably say "no."  But should she have the legal freedom of speech to say it?  I would probably say "yes."  Freedom of speech should not be restricted by emotions and bias. Political correctness is going too far. But that's human rights "courts" for you.  

Post 196--First Coming--by Madeleine L'Engle

I do not know much about Madeleine L'Engle, but I do know whose "First Coming" she's talking about in her  poem.  I'll give you a chance to beat me to it.  Say it!........  Yes, you're right: Jesus's. I found this poem in a church bulletin last night. I immediately changed my plan for this post and decided to let you in on Madeleine's poetic musing.  A fine one it is. Simple, eloquent, true. 

Here it is. Make this pre-Christmas day of Friday worthwhile by doing your own musing on Jesus' birth--the Incarnation, as we call it in proper theological term.  The core of that word is the Latin "Carnus" or some such form, which means "flesh" or "meat. You come across it in words like "carnal" and "carnivore." So guess what "incarnation" refers to--Jesus coming into our flesh and blood, taking on our body.  But let me not digress....


                                                     First Coming

                                He did not wait till the world was ready,
                                till men and nations were at peace.
                                He came when the heavens were unsteady
                                and prisoners cried out for release.   

                                He did not wait for the perfect time.                                     
                                He came when the need was deep and great.
                                He died with sinners in all their grime,
                                turned water into wine.

                                He did not wait till hearts were pure.
                                In joy He came to a tarnished world of sin and doubt.
                                To a world like ours, of anguished shame
                                He came, and His Light would not go out.

                                He came to a world which did not mesh,
                                to heal its tangles, shield its scorn
                                In the mystery of the Word made Flesh
                                The Maker of the stars was born.

                                 We cannot wait till the world is sane
                                 To raise our songs with joyful voice,
                                 For to share our grief, to touch our pain,
                                 He came with Love: Rejoice! Rejoice!

                                 

Post 147—President Obama’s Farewell Address

Though I prefer to share Canadian events or currents with you, a farewell address from the world’s most powerful man—at least, so it is claimed time and again—should not be ignored, even if he is American. I think it can be argued that US Presidents have more effect on Canada than our own PMs.  Our PM’s largely react to what a US President says or does. This is not a criticism of anyone; that’s just the way things are in this globalized world.

Once again, it’s Jim Denison’s wise words of today about Obama’s farewell that I wish to share with you. Here goes:

President Obama gave his farewell address to the nation last night. He spoke from McCormick Place convention center in Chicago, less than four miles from Grant Park, where he gave his 2008 victory speech. Watching his address, I was struck by two contrasting themes. One: Mr. Obama clearly wanted to claim success for his last eight years in office. Every president leaving office wants to do the same. It's a natural way to consolidate gains and celebrate progress. At the end of his speech, he repeated the familiar "Yes we can!" from his 2008 presidential campaign, followed by "Yes we did!" Two: The president wanted to cast his vision forward, clearly setting the stage for confrontations with the Trump administration and its competing agenda. He cited a laundry list of contentious issues, from climate change to discrimination to health care, and made it clear that he is not going to fade from view. His party has no clear leader and could face even more congressional losses in 2018. It seemed to me that Mr. Obama was not only framing his administration now ending, but also making a campaign speech for his future now beginning. In coming days, I plan to share my thoughts regarding Mr. Obama's worldview and its consequences for our culture. For today, let's think about his farewell speech and more specifically, the right spirit in which to respond. Consider a lesson from the recent election. In the current edition ofNewsweek, Michael Wolff notes that the establishment media was so surprised by Trump's success because they were so out of touch with Trump's America. Their alignment with liberal values and cultural elites made it difficult for them to see other worldviews coherently or objectively. Those of us who embrace biblical values must be careful not to do the same. For instance, I know pro-choice supporters who are personally opposed to abortion but believe the choice should be with the mother rather than the government. They see themselves as defending both the mother and the child. I disagree strongly (for my white paper on this issue, see Abortion and the Mercy of God), but I need to understand their position before I can persuade them to change it. Denigrating them as "baby killers" is as offensive to them as calling the pro-life position a "war on women" is to me. We can be "culture warriors" or we can be cultural missionaries, but we cannot be both. There are times when we must defend biblical truth, as did the prophets and apostles (1 Peter 3:15). But there are also times when we should build relational bridges over which to lead people to biblical truth. Jesus condemned the Pharisees' hypocrisy (Matthew 23), but he engaged the Samaritan woman in gracious conversation that led to the conversion of her village (John 4). As we respond today to President Obama's farewell address, let's do so in a way that respects both his office (Romans 13:1) and his person (2 Timothy 2:24). Let's stand for truth, but let's do so in love (Ephesians 4:15). Let's value the people we influence more than the debates we win.There are no red states or blue states in heaven, only eternal souls.  It's this last sentence I have a little trouble with--"eternal souls" or "eternal resurrected people?"

Post 145—Some food for thought to bring you into the new year

To begin with, a happy new year to you! The following is a post from an outfit called “Reasons to Believe” (RTB).  They talk a lot about believing, reason and faith. Sometimes they get pretty philosophical.  I am forwarding their post to you just to give you some stuff to ponder as you make your way into 2017.  They tell you about a new book that you could find interesting, even if it is politically incorrect.   But don’t let that put you off. It’s the politically incorrect who are free, at least compared to their counterparts, the politically correct. The latter are hung up on all sort of opinions and don’t dare to discuss things openly.  They don’t dare to ask whether all religions are the same or whether their founders all meant the same; they are too scared to do so. That’s why they attack those who do, for then the correct folk feel threatened. Who knows: someone could just force them to discuss the forbidden!  In addition, the post leaves you with some unanswered questions. Tackle them. Ponder them. Work them out. Send me the conclusions you reach. I am curious. Your conclusions could become the fodder for a post, with our without your name, something you will have to decide.  I won’t use your name unless you specifically tell me I may. So, here goes: Has anyone ever tried to tell you that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you believe something? These days, anyone who doesn’t believe that all ideas—especially about religion—are equally valid is likely to be labeled “intolerant.” In an age of growing religious pluralism, how do we articulate why it matters what we believe and what tolerance truly is? Kenneth Samples, RTB theologian and philosopher, is here to help you with his brand-new book, God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader. Ken begins with a detailed look at the historic Christian portrait of Jesus Christ, then shows you how Jesus is unique compared to the founders of four major world religions: Krishna, Gautama (Buddha), Confucius, and Muhammad. Using eight objective criteria, Ken demonstrates that it is logically impossible for their claims to be equally valid. While there may be some notable overlaps in ethics and worldview, their teachings about mankind, God, and eternity are mutually exclusive. The book concludes with a thorough and thoughtful examination of what tolerance means for Christians in a pluralistic world. God among Sages is  is hot off the presses, and you’ll be one of the first to have it! Blog Summary and Highlights Have you ever felt threatened by a question? Perhaps someone was questioning your beliefs, and you didn’t know how to respond. Or perhaps you were the one asking a difficult question. In a recent blog post, Jeff shares his love of questions and why our faith welcomes inquiry. In other blog posts, scholars Kenneth and Fazale respond to questions of their own, dealing with theology and biological design. “How Do We Pursue Sanctification Amid a Sinful World?” by Kenneth Samples “Never Fear an Honest Question” by Jeff Zweerink “Q&A: Why Would an Infinite Creator Employ the Same Designs?” by Fazale Rana

Peter LaBarbera

---

============xxxx *

Post….—Remembrance Day 2017  *                          POSTED    NOV….   2017

Post 130—Prostitution Gone Mainstream?

Out of / in Nigeria

You may remember that I spent 30 years in Nigeria, from 1966-1996.  Even though that’s been 20 years ago now, it still seems like yesterday. Since I left the country, I have written 13 books and many articles on my work there, including Christian-Muslim relations and mission memoirs. Thus, though I was physically away from Nigeria, psychologically, emotionally and mentally I was/am still there. Even today, due to sleep apnea, I dream frequently and by far most of my dreams are still about Nigeria.

During the course of my ministry in Nigeria, I often traveled far and wide. One car trip I stayed overnight in a “local” hotel, places few Caucasians frequent; we prefer the more modern and convenient ones. I chose a local one just to see what they are like and what goes on there. It was not a pleasant or comfortable place to stay, though much cheaper, something that does a Dutch heart like mine good. 

Hymn-singing Prostitute

Like most Nigerian hotels, prostitutes were abundant. I overheard one of them humming and even softly singing Christian hymns. So I screwed up my courage and asked her how she could be singing Christian hymns while practicing prostitution. Her story broke my heart. She was from Ghana, where she had married with two or three children. Her husband abandoned her and her children. She tried every which way to provide for her children but was not successful. In her wanderings she ended up a prostitute in this Nigerian hotel. She could see no alternative.

Jesus and Prostitutes

Her story immediately reminded me of Biblical stories about Jesus and prostitutes. Go to John 7:36-50; 8:1-11 and to Luke 7:236-50.  If you want to read further on the subject in the Bible, just google “Jesus and prostitutes” and you’ll get a very full plate of stories and commentary on these stories. I am an emotional person and had to work hard at containing my emotions at  her story and those about Jesus all at once. This was the first and only time in my life that I consciously sought out a prostitute, even if it was only to satisfy my curiosity about her story. But the Jesus stories told me one thing very clearly: I was in no position to judge her.

Prostitution in Vancouver

The above paragraphs form the backdrop to this and the next post about prostitutes in my city, Vancouver, Canada. (When you write about Vancouver, you always need to specify which Vancouver, since there is a smaller city by that name in the south of the American state of Washington.) 

Apology to Sex Workers

On September 17, 2016, about three weeks ago, the Vancouver Sun featured a story on p. A16 with the heading “West End sex workers get civic apology,” written by Glen Schaefer, with the subheading, “City unveils memorial to trades people driven to margins during 1980s.” The article was flanked by a picture by Ben Nelms I might have included in this article if I had the digital know-how for it. As it is, I can only reproduce the caption underneath the picture. It reads, “Indigenous transgender sex work activist Jamies Lee Hamilton, left, and University of British Columbia professor Becki Ross unveil on Friday a memorial—a retro lamp-post with a red bulb—that has been dedicated to sex-trade workers of Vancouver’s West End Community.” 

Now I live in that part of Vancouver and do remember the stories people told me about the situation in the West End (WE). The entire “industry” had been wiped out by the time we arrived on the scene in 2001. We were still left with quite a contingent of homeless folk and addicts, who were also under pressure to move out of the area, though today they are re-invading the area with a vengeance. Had my wife and I heard of the ceremony ahead of time, we probably would have attended it out of pure curiosity, since it took place within three short blocks from us. On the evening of Sept. 17, we did take a stroll there and, sure enough, there was that new retro lamppost with clear inscriptions and a red light on top, right in front of St. Paul’s Anglican Church. A very respectable memorial at a very respectable residential/church location.

Reversal of Attitudes

How things have changed during these short 15 years that we have lived in the WE.  During that decade and a half the official attitude had been turned upside down from chasing out these prostitutes—and their clients!—to apologizing for that act!  Ross, the UBC sociology specialist in the sex trade, spoke the following:

"The early 1980s marked the full fledged anti-
prostitution crusade to purge sex workers from 
the WE. Davie sex workers built the foundation of 
what would become this city’s first Gay-
neighbourhood, and yet hookers on Davie have 
never been honoured as the former fighters for 
gender, sexual and racial minorities.”

Though I hesitate to “correct” a sociology expert on the topic, my understanding of the background to the WE’s gay culture is that it goes way back to nearly a century ago. I doubt that these prostitutes—and I insist on calling a spade a spade—laid that foundation. Ross will have to persuade me of that.

Maybe, just maybe, more on the subject next time. I will try….

Post 121--Bieber the Believer

I’ve had the following document on my blog waiting list for a long time, since December 15, 2015.  There have always been reasons, usually good and valid reasons, I pushed it out of the way to make space for other concerns. I decided today to share it with you, old as it is, simply because I think it such an interesting document. I know next to nothing about this Bieber while you probably do. This issue here may be an old one for you, something like “been there, done that” kind of thing. Nevertheless, here it is, straight from the Denision Forum of the above date:

BIEBER THE BELIEVER: THE FAITH OF JUSTIN BIEBER

·                                    Written by Nick Pitts

In Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, a young Lucio observed that "our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we often might win by fearing to attempt." These doubts, Lucio describes, are often silently underscored by the axiom that appearances are deceiving, what you see is not what you get. So it is necessary to proceed with caution—if at all. However, could doubts be more of a hindrance than a help?

In the October/November issue of Complex Magazine, Justin Bieber was an incubator for doubts when he boldly came out with his faith. One person expressed a common sentiment, writing that it was a "publicity stunt, shameless little twerp." The ladies of The View, a daytime television talk show, expressed hesitation over his overt and bold comments. Fox News commentator Juan Williams even skeptically weighed in, saying: "Do you really believe… that he's studying the Bible; that he cares about the Bible; that he cares about anything but Justin Bieber?" 

Williams and company were not alone, joined unexpectedly by Justin himself. "I think that people, as soon as they start hearing me say I'm a Christian, they're like, 'Whoa Justin, back up, take a step back.'" 

Why the doubts and hesitation? Justin has a long history and a longer list of fans affectionately known as 'beliebers' who have followed him through his antics. Who can forget how Bieber first came on to the scene, informing audiences that his end goal would be to make "One Less Lonely Girl"? His primary subject matter interest would be the "Baby," some girl he met "One Time." Singer and rapper Usher joined him for a time as he tried to find "Somebody to Love." He wanted to be that "Boyfriend" that could make her "Smile." However, this litany of chart topping hits may have created reasons to celebrate, but they also caused some problems.

Such problems include those with the police. He has been arrested twice, once for DUI while allegedly drag-racing the streets of Miami and another time for assaulting a limo driver. Then there was the video of a sleeping Bieber, filmed by an alleged prostitute.  But that video was overshadowed to a certain degree by another video in which Justin was heard making racist comments and jokes. 

So how does Justin respond to these individuals and their comparison of his past life with his present direction? "I do not want to shove this down anyone's throat. I just wanna honestly live like Jesus." 

Bieber, like the Apostle Paul to the church at Galatia (1:13-15), is not running away from his past, he is embracing it. In Bieber's words:

"If we can understand that we're all imperfect, let's come to God and come for his help. You're not weak by doing that. I think that's a common misperception of Christians, that you're being weak because you can't handle it. None of us can handle this world, dude! It's eating us alive. But, man, I don't wanna have to do it on my own." 

Instead of dwelling on the past, Bieber is in love in the present and wants to tell everyone about it. Describing his relationship with God like that of a girlfriend, Bieber told Complex: 

"If I have an awesome, bomb girlfriend, I'm gonna wanna show her off and go around and tell people my girl is the sh** [editorial censorship]. I'm not gonna cheat on her because she's the best. It's like with God: The whole thing with religion is you present yourself holy and bring your offerings so that God can bless you, when the whole point of the relationship [should be], 'No, I'm gonna do this because he loves me. I'm gonna do this because he's amazing and not because [I] have to, because [I] want to.'" 

Unconventional in his approach and candid in his appeal, Bieber is raising eyebrows and causing heads to turn. He is offering the world another, albeit unusual, example of Christ. "I think that with Christians, they've left such a bad taste in people's mouths. Just like, overly pushy with the subject, overly churchy and religious." Instead, he is offering a different approach, one in which he is "sharing what I'm going through and what I'm feeling."

What Justin is feeling is something intensely personal and less transactional. Bieber finds, "That's the whole thing with religion that's been throwing off the people. It's not a 'have to.' It should be just like a personal relationship. Like, 'Hey, I love you because you first loved me.'

Post 87 –Remedy for Religious Fundamentalism?

Remedy for religious fundamentalism?  Who would have the nerve to make such a proposal? Seeking a remedy for such a wild societal phenomenon?  You’re in for a bit of lay philosophizing. Hope you’re up to it?

Some behind-the-scene stuff here. Originally I made a typographical error in the above paragraph. Instead of “seeking,” I wrote “seeding”  so that the sentence read “Seeding a remedy….”  Now wouldn’t that be wonderful? We just go out, buy a bag of seed, put it in the spreader and there it goes throughout the society, slowly germinating and sprouting the “remedy” flower till it has taken over the entire field.  Wouldn’t that be nice? Alas, only a typo!  Not even a dream, though it almost germinated one in me!

One of my favourite columnists in the Vancouver Sun, Michael Den Tandt, had the courage—or should I say “nerve?”-- to suggest a remedy, using the title of this post I borrowed from him, but without the extension “…is clear.”  His full title: “The remedy for religious fundamentalism is clear” (Boxing Day, Dec. 26, 2015).  Wow!  This is something we’ve all been waiting for: a clear remedy for this scourge of fundamentalism. I could hardly think of a more appropriate Christmas gift, even now that we are into January 2016 with Christmas long behind us.

For those of us who are writers, there is enough in Den Tandt’s column to fill a good-sized volume with comments, reactions and alternatives. I will have to be very selective to keep this down to an acceptable blog post length. It’s possible that I will have to use two posts even to say the minimum, but that would not be the end of the world, at least, not of my world. So, Michael, I’m going to think along with you a little and make some suggestions as well as ask some questions. I do this in the framework of appreciation for your courage to even dream of a remedy of so intractable a global scourge.

Den Tandt’s remedy? In his words, “It is, simply, ecumenism.” That term means, again in his own words, “the notion that people of faith, and indeed agnostics and atheists, have far more in common than they sometimes wish to believe.”  My association with Humanist Atheists has taught me that this is a typical perspective of that group of people. In fact, based on my association with them, I consider that part of the core of Humanism and Atheism. Taking that away from them would be similar to taking Jesus away from Christians or Muhammad from Muslims. You end up with an empty shell. 

Jesus observed that a tree shall by known by its fruit. We know that there are many kinds of trees, each with its own fruit. Now trees have certain basic things in common that mark them as trees. They have roots, stems, branches and, often, leaves and, usually, fruit, though not necessarily edible. Without those they are not considered trees. Though they share certain structural features, their root structures vary, bark is different so that we can identify them as this or that kind of tree. Their leaves look and behave differently as does their fruit. Trees, yes, all of them, but still they are very different from each other, used for different purposes ranging from shade, decoration,  construction, canoes, nesting, food all the way to burning. All trees, yes, but how different from each other.  By their fruit, including their various uses, you will know that it is this tree or that tree. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between a Western apple tree and an African baobab would be looked at askance.                           

Every society is undergirded by a worldview that gives it shape and values. Most members of a given society are hardly aware of that worldview; they just assume it as their “common sense,” but it affects both their thought patterns as well as behavior.  In fact, it creates their culture. Part of that worldview is the dominant religion of the culture. Yes, behind every culture lies a religion of some sort. That is to say, a more or less coherent set of values and ideas by which the  people guide their lives and form their social structures and to which the people have given their hearts. All of this means that you can learn something about a people’s religion by analyzing their culture.

It may be that the above was more true in the past when most cultures tended to be cohesive mono-cultures and mono-religions.  This situation may be breaking down into groupings within a given culture so that today one finds more worldviews next to each other in any society. Nevertheless, the dominant cultures of the world have religions behind them, religions that have taken on a large variety of shapes, values and beliefs that undergird the societies.

Now, can you possibly believe that with, say, Chinese or Indian cultures being so different from Western cultures, the roots of these greatly different cultures are one and the same? If the fruits of two or more trees are widely different, can you argue that the trees are one and the same?  If you did, people would not take you seriously. These cultures are different because the underlying religions are different from each other. The fruits from all these different cultures are different because the religions are different.

Dogmatic insistence that these religions are basically the same is just that: dogma, ideology, in this case modern Humanistic , Secular or Atheistic ideology or religion. Adherents of these movements will ward off any argumentation countering that dogma as much as any Christian will resist arguments against Christ or a Muslim against Mohammad. We all defend the values, philosophies and beliefs that constitute the core of our hearts and minds. Den Tandt is really expressing a major core value of one of these three close buddies, Humanism, Secularism or Atheism—or all three.

I am tired of having to mention all three of this triad all the time. I am going to refer to the whole gamut simply as “Humanism,” realizing full well not all adherents are Atheists. This will also hold for the next post.

Now, I’m all for the tolerance and peace Den Tandt is really after and I honour him for trying to help us solve a major problem of our time.  Absolutely. However, that should not be based on the faith of one of the many religions, in this case, Secular religion or worldview. He is really interpreting the entire range of religions from his particular secular dogmatic view point. And that's alright, as long as he recognizes the legitimacy of others as well. His remedy is undergirded by another core component of his worldview or religion, namely that his is the only rational or scientific one. And if I may be politically incorrect, most adherents of his Humanism, deep down, have contempt for all the other religions except their own and basically think of them as nonsense. I would hope this is not true of Den Tandt, but there is a sign in his column that would make us think that this might be the case, but that we’ll examine in the next post.

As a closing aside, there is one other religion that thinks of all religions as being the same, namely Baha’i. Baha’i members I know tend to be very sweet and amicable people; most of them have none of the hard pride that tends to mark Humanists—or condemnation. I suspect the reason for the difference between these two perspectives to be that the Baha’i come out of a non-Enlightenment context, a context they share with all non-Humanist religions, whereas Humanists have faith in reason which has harder edges and less room for emotion or affection.  

Post 70--Born Again

You’ve come to expect a mix of religious and so-called “secular” topics from me. I’ve explained the reasons for that more than once. It is simply that they are not two separate areas or regions so much as that religion underlies all subjects; it serves as their substratum.  They do not exist as separate entities so much as the religious infusing and shaping everything else. 

And so, today we jump from the topic of water consumption to that of being born again. The reason for my concern for the economics and ecology of water consumption is precisely because I am born again. Of course, reason, observation, experience, etc., all play a part as well, but the direction in which they lead you is ultimately decided by your value system, your worldview, your beliefs and, finally, your religion, i.e., your ultimates. If you are truly born again, then water issues must concern you, for they are so basic to the life of your neighbor throughout the world.

Born again. In the minds of the average writer in the Vancouver Sun (VS) this is about the most vicious pejorative you can use to describe Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, especially their American versions.  Once you have described Evangelical or Fundamentalist action as the result of being born again, you no longer have to take it seriously; it is guaranteed to be wrong, damaging, anti-social, ridiculous even. Nothing further needs to be said.

But what is this thing called “born again?”   Let’s go back to the original reference to it in the Bible:

Jesus Teaches Nicodemus

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. ² He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

³ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.^[a]”

⁴ “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit^[b] gives birth to spirit. ⁷ You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You^[c]must be born again.’ ⁸ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3).

It must be admitted that Jesus’ explanation is not too clear to our modern way of thinking, but one thing is clear: It is necessary if we wish to see the Kingdom of God.  It is not just something nice, not just icing on the cake of salvation; It is a necessary condition.  Without it you cannot see the Kingdom of God; without it, you cannot be a Christian. That’s pretty drastic. 

Since the early history of Christian theology, scholars have widely discussed the meaning of being born again. I hope to take you through some of that in the next post.  However, it is no wonder that it is unpopular with the secular crowd. The need for it is the human condition, which, according to both the Bible and Christian theology, is totally distorted.  May I say the word?  Sinful!  Stronger still, dead in sin!  There, I’ve said it. Phew! Now that ain’t pretty and it’s not going to raise my popularity with my favourite VS writers, most of whom I appreciate and read regularly. 

No wonder that proud mankind is offended by this evaluation of human nature. And no wonder most folk try to evade its truth by poking fun of it and castigating it for its association in our minds with extreme fundies in the southern USA. In terms of the West, it has been rejected in principle ever since the Renaissance centuries ago and by the subsequent philosophical developments through rationalism, secularism and post-modernism.  It is offensive, humiliating, demeaning. It is one of the reasons the dominant worldview in the West rejects it outright and pokes fun of it.