How are Christians to live in a culture becoming more and more hostile to Christian faith and morals? Rod Dreher, an important contemporary thinker and writer, talks with John Stonestreet of "Breakpoint" and offers "a realistic look at what being the church means in a post-Christian culture." Here's the audio: (It's about 28 minutes.)
The culture of our nation is moving further and further away from biblical morality. And it sometimes feels as though we're powerless to do anything about it. But during this week's broadcast, John Stonestreet welcomes blogger, author, and columnist Rod Dreher, who explains what he's dubbed "the Benedict Option," a developing plan for Christians to weather the cultural storm ahead.
The speed at which the sexual revolution has rewritten right and wrong in America is breathtaking. But we've by no means seen the end of our culture's decline. And commentators like Rod Dreher, an author and columnist at “The American Conservative,” say things will likely get worse before they get better. For several years now, Dreher has been sounding that alarm. He thinks what we're witnessing isn't a mere moral slip, but a fundamental and long-term shift away from Christian “cosmology,” or ultimate meaning. In response, he's proposed what he calls “the Benedict Option,” “a kind of deliberate, strategic retreat so that we can tend our own gardens...and cultivate the deep roots that our kids and their kids, and their kids’ kids will need to hold on to the faith through the dark times ahead.”
Update 5/28/15: In addition to the interview above, a friend told me Rifqa had also been interviewed at Fox News on May 19, 20015. Both the Fox interview and the one above are not to be missed!
Original post: Oh my, the interview above is not to be missed! What a wonderful, courageous young lady. As a teenager Rifqa Bary converted to Christ and then had to flee her Muslim home to save her life. (In America no less!) I followed her story closely when it unfolded a few years ago. Now Rifqa Bary has written a book, Hiding in the Light. Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, author of Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus(about whom I have previously written here and here) says, “Enrapturing heart and spirit, Rifqa masterfully shares insights into immigrant Muslim life, tearing the veil of mystery with the power of the gospel. Although chronicling her own account, her words echo the cries of young Muslim women worldwide, and manifest on each page is the signature of our sovereign God. Rifqa’s story is authored by Jesus—come read what He’s written.”
Rifqa is one amazing, inspiring young lady. Watching the video above, you will probably find yourself (as I did) moved, quickened in spirit, and fighting a tear.
WASHINGTON -- This summer, the U.S. military is planning an unprecedented training exercise, happening across seven states on private lands and towns in the Southwest.
The Jade Helm 15 operation is making many residents feel uneasy. Speculation about why the military wants to train in American communities instead of on military bases is fueling a growing number of theories across the Internet and social media.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has even asked his National Guard to monitor it. So what is Jade Helm 15?
According to the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, it's "realistic military training" taking place simultaneously in seven states from Southern California to Texas.
Over eight weeks, America's elite Special Forces will practice "unconventional warfare" by practicing operating outside their normal support systems, adapting to new terrain, and working with civilians to gain their trust.
When news of the operation broke, the phones inside Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert's office lit up.
These inspired words encapsulate the Gospel of Christ beautifully. They give identity, stability, hope, and meaning to our lives. William Barclay offers a fresh translation which communicates the message particularly well.
11 For the grace of God has broken into history for the salvation of all men. 12 It is training us to renounce the life in which God is banished from the scene, and in which the world's desires hold sway, and in this age to live a well-ordered, upright and godly life, 13 while all the time we are waiting for our blessed hope to be realized, when the splendour of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ bursts upon the world. 14 He gave himself for us, to liberate us from all wickedness and to make us a people purified to be his own, and eager to live a noble life.
. . . Under the new law, moms-to-be would have to visit the office for in-person counseling before returning two days later for the procedure. As part of that consultation, a doctor is required to tell them the age of their baby, the alternatives to abortion, and the risks of it. They'll also learn that if their infant survives the procedure, the medical staff will do everything they can to care for the child. Any doctor who fails to comply could face criminal charges and/or lose his license. For pro-lifers, Tennessee's move puts it just behind Oklahoma's new 72-hour waiting period -- with Florida and North Carolina next in line to enact similar laws.
As popular as the idea was in the legislature, it was even more so with locals. In a poll by Vanderbilt University, only 28% opposed the 48-hour waiting period. Planned Parenthood must have made up a good bit of that percent, since its spokesmen were out in full force blasting the bill as "embarrassing." Calling it a "sad day" for Tennessee, the group's Steven Emmert argued that postponing abortions two days was somehow an "emotional hardship" for women.
Most of us in the United States aren't very aware of Israel's internal politics. That includes myself. Consequently, I found this article of interest.
This month the left lost its mind over Ayelet Shaked. The daughter of an Iraqi Jewish immigrant, Ayelet Shaked was an infantry instructor who worked for Israel’s elite Golani Brigade and a computer scientist who worked for Texas Instruments. Now she’s a mother of two married to a former fighter pilot.
She’s also Israel’s new Justice Minister.
The New York Times compared her to Michele Bachmann and had her quoting Ayn Rand. The Financial Times compared her to Sarah Palin. So did Italian, Spanish and Norwegian media outlets.
These analogies are not based on anything except the gender and politics of all three women. They are shorthand signals, telling liberal readers to hate Ayelet Shaked just as they hated Palin and Bachmann. [more...]
Flaherty frequently cites Marlin Newburn, a prison psychologist who “has been on the front lines of racial violence for 30 years.” According to Newburn, these “predators,” do not reflect “a subculture,” but “a primary part of the black culture [.]” This culture “is one of sadistic and primitive impulse where they [the predators] believe themselves to be 10 feet tall, bulletproof, very smart, good looking, gifted, and tougher than anyone.” These “predators” live “without any sense of personal responsibility or boundaries with others.” Hence, while “assaulting or killing someone, the absence of a conscience is considered among their peers as an indicator of strength and power.” The expression of “joy in the process [of violence] only heightens their street cred.”
When two Muslim thugs shot up Charlie Hebdo, segments of the American media were apoplectic over the number of France’s “No-Go” zones, Islamic neighborhoods that non-Muslims dare not enter. Yet America has had legions of its own No-Go zones for decades: We just call them “inner cities.”
I enjoyed this Q&A very much. I found it's slow pace agreeable and John Lennox's responses as helpful as ever. I have blogged about Dr. Lennox in the past here, here and here. Lennox teaches mathematics at Oxford University and is one of the foremost exponents of Christian faith today, The sound comes on around the 28 second mark.
Is American honor gone forever? Have we abandoned our Iraqi allies and interpreters even more egregiously than we did our Vietnamese allies? Here is an account of America's outrageous disregard for the lives of our Iraqi allies and here is the testimony of an American soldier who served two years in Iraq. With anguish we must admit it is true what others have said, "It’s dangerous to be a friend and ally of the United States."
Short version of the first post can be found here. Excerpt:
Our withdrawal from Vietnam was ignominious, but we were not completely without honor: For example, Dorothy Martin, the wife of our ambassador, left her personal suitcase behind so that one more Vietnamese woman could squeeze onto the chopper beside her.
President Obama has amnestied, or is about to amnesty, millions of illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America, who came here for better economic opportunities, as is understandable. Do we not have room in this vast country for a couple of thousand Iraqis who helped us in the war and now, because of that help, are threatened with murder by monsters? Who are we? [my emphasis]
There are plenty of Americans out there who don't understand why Louisiana is pushing the Marriage and Conscience Act. I have two words for them: Donald Verrilli. Late last month, the President's Solicitor General should have had every state scrambling to do what my home state is attempting: preventing on a small scale what the Obama administration wants to do on a national one. During the oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Verrilli admitted that one of the side effects of redefining marriage may be to punish the entities that believe otherwise -- even if they're religious!
The easiest way for the government to put the squeeze on these institutions is by stripping their tax exempt status -- which is just one of the things that Louisiana's Marriage and Conscience Acts would outlaw. "The central thrust of the bill guarantees that the state of Louisiana will not make tax determinations based on a person or organization's beliefs about marriage," Austin Nimocks explains.
"In other words, if a church believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, the Marriage and Conscience Act simply ensures that the government cannot functionally defund and eliminate that church's existence by withdrawing its nonprofit status."
Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) has been a staunch defender of the measure -- and the religious liberty it defends -- and spoke over the weekend about the bill's importance. Asked why he was focusing on this bill and not economic growth, Jindal fired back that the two issues aren't "mutually exclusive." "In Louisiana, we don't believe in discrimination against anybody. In terms of economics, look, our economy has grown twice as fast as the national economy. Our job creation three times as fast as the national economy. We actually right now have more people working than ever before, our highest ever per capita income ranking... So I think that we can have religious liberty and economic growth..."
The bill, he explained, simply says "the state of Louisiana cannot discriminate against those families, individuals or businesses that have a traditional view of marriage. To me, this is common sense. A business owner shouldn't have to choose between their sincerely held religious beliefs and being able to operate their businesses. They shouldn't have to lose their licenses, pay thousands of dollars in fines. The religious freedom act had a strong, bipartisan majority. I'm hopeful this bill will as well. We can have religious liberty and tolerance."
CBN News: Utah Sen. Mike Lee believes that nearly every abuse of federal power today is rooted in one overarching issue: the failure to properly interpret and follow the Constitution.
What is disgraceful is that we have a "leader" with ginormous moral turpitude living in the White house. (See the The Family Research Council report below which also rips Planned Parenthood.) Meanwhile, CBN News offers the following coverage: "Pain Capable Bill Passes First Legislative Hurdle"
WASHINGTON -- A bill to protect unborn babies older than 20 weeks has passed its first hurdle.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Wednesday evening, 242 to 184. Almost every Republican voted for it and almost every Democrat against it.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, trumpeted the act as being quite consequential.
"H.R. 36 is the most pro-life legislation ever to come before this body," the top Republican said of the bill.
During heated debate before the vote, Democrats and Republicans took up familiar positions.
Many Democrats said they had to protect America's women and those women's right to make their own medical decisions. Republicans said they had to protect the most unprotected of classes: America's unborn children.
"We have no higher obligation than to speak out for those who can't speak for themselves, to defend the defenseless," Boehner stated on the House floor. "And that's what this bill does."
Bill sponsor Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said, "We have given these little babies less legal protection from unnecessary cruelty than the protection we have given farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act."
Democrats avoided talking about the babies, but concentrated on women who get abortions.
After predominantly Christian South Sudan seceded from the Republic of Sudan in July 2011, Sudan's Arab-Islamist regime in Khartoum declared its intention to Islamise Sudan fully.
The Islamisation includes a campaign of systematic persecution, especially in the strategic major centres of Khartoum, Khartoum North (Bahri) and Omdurman.Foreign Christians have been expelled, numerous Southerners have been driven out and several churches have been seized and destroyed.
In mid-November 2014 National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) agents oversaw the partial demolition of the Khartoum Bhari Evangelical Church, a property belonging to the South Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church (SSPEC) [see RLPB 288 (26 Nov 2014)]. Then on Sunday 21 December 2014, Rev Yat Michael, an SSPEC pastor visiting from Juba, South Sudan, was arrested as he addressed the congregation at the partially demolished property.
Both pastors faced the Khartoum Bhari Criminal Court on 4 May where they were charged jointly with undermining the constitutional system (Article 50 of the Sudanese Penal Code); waging war against the state (Article 51); disclosure and receipt of official information or documents (Article 55); arousing feelings of discontent among regular forces (Article 62); breach of public peace (Article 69); and offences relating to insulting religious beliefs (Article 125). Of the five charges, Articles 50 and 51 carry the death penalty or life imprisonment if found guilty.
Morning Star News (MSN) was able to speak briefly with Pastor Michael on 7 May. 'God will intervene and protect us even in prison despite the serious charges brought against us,' the pastor said. 'Thank you all for your prayers and concerns for us over this long period of imprisonment.' According to MSN, whilst NISS officials offered to drop the charges if the SSPEC paid $12,000, SSPEC will not open itself up to extortion. The pastors commenced a hunger strike on 28 April to protest their detention. Their families are understandably anxious. Pastor Michael's wife implored MSN, 'Let us continue to pray for them so that God can help them to be released.' The next hearing is scheduled for Thursday 14 May. [Visit the Religious Liberty Prayer Bulletin blog for updates.]
I'm familiar with this story, as are most of you. But the fact that Barronelle Stutzman published this article in the Washington Post May 12th struck me as significant. In her article Stutzman spells out the vicious attack made against her and which continues. A fair-minded person has to ask, " Is this America?" - And by the way, what does it say about the integrity and "friendship" of her alleged gay friend? I don't think he comes off well at all. Stutzman writes:
I’ve been a florist in Richmond, Wash., for more than 30 years. In that time, I’ve developed close relationships with many of my clients.
One of my favorites was Rob Ingersoll. Ingersoll came in often and we’d talk. Like me, he had an artistic eye. I’d try to create really special arrangements for him. I knew he was gay, but it didn’t matter — I enjoyed his company and his creativity.
Then he asked me to create the floral arrangements for his wedding. I love Rob, and I’d always been happy to design for his special days. But there’s something different about a wedding.
Every person in the creative professions regularly has to make decisions about where they lend their artistic talents and which events they will participate in. For me, it’s never about the person who walks into the shop, but about the message I’m communicating when someone asks me to “say it with flowers.”
The root of nearly every free-speech infringement on campuses across the country is that someone—almost always a liberal—has been offended or has sniffed out a potential offense in the making. Then, the silencing campaign begins. The offender must be punished, not just for justice’s sake, but also to send the message to anyone else on campus that should he or she stray off the leftist script, they too might find themselves investigated, harassed, ostracized, or even expelled. If the illiberal left can preemptively silence opposing speakers or opposing groups— such as getting a speech or event canceled, or denying campus recognition for a group—even better.
I thought it a terrific speech. So did National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez whose summary and comments follow below. Update 5/15/15: Peter Wehner at Commentary offered a thoughtful appreciation, summed up to some extent in this paragraph:
When you read the speech in whole, what stands out, I think, is that Governor Bush is articulating his understanding of the Christian faith in a way that is principled but not harsh, in a manner that is persuasive rather than aggressive, unapologetic and not offensive. He cares very much about the state of the culture, but he’s no culture warrior. This speech was his effort to unwind some fairly widespread caricatures, to represent his faith in a way that invites understanding rather than promotes division and distrust.
It can be a touchy subject,” Jeb Bush said during his commencement speech at Liberty University this weekend. “I am asked sometimes whether I would ever allow my decisions in government to be influenced by my Christian faith.” “Whenever I hear this,” the former governor of Florida, said, “I know what they want me to say.”
“Whenever I hear this,” the former governor of Florida, said, “I know what they want me to say.”
We of faith do know; we hear it increasingly said and see the idea behind it increasingly enforced. In many ways it’s what people have been saying since John F. Kennedy’s (in)famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. Indeed, since Kennedy, Catholics have led the way on this question for better or worse, first in seeking a place at the table of American civil society, then in diluting our contribution to it by privatizing and relegating to Sundays some of the best we have to offer.
This is not true of all Christians, thanks be to God. But it has been a scandal in our public witness and has allowed for the manipulation and marginalization of religious people that we see today.
Back to Jeb. When asked about if his Christian faith would influence his politics in any real way, he said:
The simple and safe reply is, ‘No. Never. Of course not.’ If the game is political correctness, that’s the answer that moves you to the next round. The endpoint is a certain kind of politician we’ve all heard before — the guy whose moral convictions are so private, so deeply personal, that he refuses even to impose them on himself.
Yes, that’s the game. And playing that way gets us to the point where we see Christianity making less of a difference in American political and cultural life. It’s a difference that, from our earliest days, we’ve relied on, that we’ve needed. It’s one that has been a corrective and a conscience.
And so Bush continued, knowing where we are, and assuming he was speaking to an audience poised to work to turn things around in whatever fields they go into, as Christians in environments — and a country — increasingly hostile to public, robust religious engagement beyond worship services or comfort or nostalgia: “The mistake is to confuse points of theology with moral principles that are knowable to reason as well as by faith. And this confusion is all part of a false narrative that casts religious Americans as intolerant scolds, running around trying to impose their views on everyone.”
DERSHOWITZ: Everything that the critics of what Geller has said could be said about Martin Luther King. Now, I don’t want to make any comparisons between the two of them morally or legally. But from a Constitutional law point of view, there’s no difference. Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely in order to provoke and bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. It’s part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see. [Not my bolding]
Brent Budowsky, a columnist for "The Hill," says the Drudge Report "determines the content of debate in our national discourse on an hourly basis." I agree. I read the Drudge Report several times a day, as do millions of others. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, it seems to me he gets a substantial percentage of his topics from the Drudge Report. But so do liberal outlets. Budowsky writes:
While as a liberal, I do not suggest the following with a great deal of pleasure, but Matt Drudge is by far the single most influential person in the American media, and it is fair to ask: Is he the second most influential man in America?
For more than any individual in the media, Drudge dominates his competitors to the degree that he has no competitors, and determines what you watch on television, what you read in newspapers, what you hear and radio, and even what you read on the Internet about politics more than any single person in American history.
MSNBC may claim it is liberal and Fox News may be the house organ for conservatives, but if you turn on either in the morning, you will often see the guiding hand of Drudge. The New York Times may consider itself the finest newspaper in the world, but while one of the Times' political reporters is reduced to writing ditties complaining that Hillary Clinton does not answer her questions, one entry on the Drudge Report can trigger 100 questions to any politician in America. Network anchors come and go, but Drudge remains, the omnipresent force who is required reading for political editors, television producers and campaign managers from all parties.
The New York Times has peered into Pamela Geller’s heart — and found it full of hate. I’ll let others make the argument that it’s unseemly to so viciously attack the victim of an attempted murder just three days after the attack — to accuse her of intentionally provoking the attempt on her own life and the lives of her friends and supporters, no less. And Rich Lowry has offered a convincing argument that Geller was motivated not by hate, but rather “defiance.” Let me instead offer a defense of hatred.
But first, a confession. I’m far more hateful than Pamela Geller. In fact, I’d argue there’s no way that she could hate jihad more than I do. I’ve seen jihad up-close, in an Iraqi province where jihadists raped women to shame them into becoming suicide bombers, where they put bombs in little boys’ backpacks then remotely detonated them at family gatherings, where they beheaded innocent civilians while cheering wildly like they were at a soccer match, and where they shot babies in the face to “send a message” to their parents. I’ve seen the despair in the eyes of the innocent victims of jihad, and — believe me — that despair is infinitely greater than the alleged “anguish” caused by a few cartoons.
It's well worth becoming acquainted with Bosch Fawstin, the anti-Jihad cartoonist who won the Mohammad cartoon-creation contest held in Garland, Texas. He submitted the following winning drawing. Fawstin is the creator of the Pigman comic book series.
In the video below Fawstin delivers a short speech in response to winning the prize. After Fawstin finishes speaking, keep listening to what Robert Spenser and Pamela Geller have to say.
Interviews:
Here's a short Greta Van Susteren interview with Fawstin:
"I understand the threat that we face and that's why I do what I do," Fawstin said. "I do it because we're being threatened. This has to be fought head-on."
"As artists, as writers, as thinkers, as Americans, as people who love freedom, and the entire West, we need to hit back. Not with violence, with the truth, with our art, with our writing," Fawstin said. "Once free speech goes, it's over."
T he persecution of Christians has reached an all time high in China and the government is contributing to the suffering of the faithful, according to the 2014 annual report released last week by Christian human rights organisation China Aid.
Based on the report, there were 572 documented cases of persecution against individuals from different religions last year compared to 143 cases in 2013, equating to a 300 per cent increase.
The report told of government sanctioned modifications or demolitions of Christian property under the guise of eradicating illegal structures.
"The increase in government-sanctioned persecution against religious practitioners and human rights lawyers and advocates reflects the overall political transformation that is occurring within the Communist Party in China (CPC), namely an orchestrated effort to consolidate power and suppress dissent and any perceived threats to the Chinese government, including the growth of religion in China," China Aid stated.
As for the number of religious practitioners who suffered from abuse, 17,884 reported being persecuted in 2014 compared to the previous year's 7,424. The number of persecuted church leaders also rose to 2,682, compared to 800 in 2013.
Based on the statistics, one of the most alarming changes reported was the huge increase in the number of 'dissidents' sentenced by the government, from just 12 people in 2013, to a total of 1,274 individuals in 2014.
. . In its classical mode, liberalism requires the citizenry that it serves to respect the crucial distinction that obtains between the principle of a given rule and the consequences that the rule might feasibly yield. Simply put, a country in which the people regard certain individual rights as inviolable axioms of nature — and who accept with alacrity, therefore, that they will often be used for ill — will be a country that boasts protections of those rights within its national charter. A country in which the people are focused primarily on what might be done with those rights, by contrast, will be a country that prefers to elevate and to abide by the whims of transient majorities — or, perhaps, by the discretion of a supposedly enlightened few. In Indiana, we were given an insight into which of these countries the people of the United States would rather live in.
- Read the whole thing... It constitutes accurate and important analysis.
Why is the United States barring a persecuted Iraqi Catholic nun — an internationally respected and leading representative of the Nineveh Christians who have been killed and deported by ISIS — from coming to Washington to testify about this catastrophe?
Earlier this week, we learned that every member of an Iraqi delegation of minority groups, including representatives of the Yazidi and Turkmen Shia religious communities, has been granted visas to come for official meetings in Washington — save one. The single delegate whose visitor visa was denied happens to be the group’s only Christian from Iraq. . . . [More...]
. . . As an articulate, English-speaking Iraqi Christian, who is not only personally a victim of ISIS but also an aid worker with a broad perspective on the suffering of the Christian community there, Sister Diana would make an exceptional witness.
Whether conscious or not of her high value in that regard, those who decided to block Sister Diana from entering this country on a visitor visa acted in a manner consistent with the administration’s pattern of silence when it comes to the Christian profile of so many of the jihadists’ “convert-or-die” victims in Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Kenya, and Iraq. In typical U.S. condolence statements, targeted Christians have been identified simply as “lives lost,” “Egyptian citizens,” “Kenyan people,” “innocent victims,” or “innocent Iraqis.”
Me: It's certainly true that the Obama administration cares not a fig about religious persecution around the world, but in addition to that, it has developed a particularly strong animosity toward reporting atrocities and persecutions committed against Christians. I have almost finished reading the remarkable story of Bob Fu [God's Double Agent], who as a Chinese advocate for religious freedom secured wonderful cooperation from the George W. Bush White House and President George Bush himself. The contrast between Presidents Bush and Obama could not be more dramatic. GWB put religious freedom high on his list of foreign policy concerns. From all the evidence, the current occupant of the White House despises Christians.