// Home

Lecture from non-Christian devalues message

Reuben Lindeman
Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

Many may groan when they hear this first point, but still, we must consider the effect of Mr. Lewis’s worldview on his presentation. Stephen Lewis made clear in his presentation that he is a philanthropist who hates the Church and the scriptures. This means that everything he said is coloured to the point that it is practically unusable for us as Christians. When he named a statistic he talked about causes and such. This can be misleading due to his purposes and lack of knowledge of God. I know from my course on the subject here at Redeemer that statistics are easily manipulated and misrepresented. If you desire simply to be emotionally stoked into doing something about what Mr. Lewis decides is an injustice, then this talk was for you. If, however, you desire to be concerned about what God says justice is and what God defines as what we are to be about, then the talk was relatively useless. Mr. Lewis admitted that he does not understand why children die and why all this pain persists. It would have been far more profitable to have a God’s Word centred Christian present.

Stephen Lewis speaks at Redeemer

Stephen Lewis speaks at Redeemer. Photo by Nathan Giancola


 

Stephen Lewis proclaims himself a follower of Judaism and of the Old Testament, but he does not fear God or shun evil. The first clue was his cursing and liberal use of God’s name in vain. The second clue was the condemnation of Uganda for their zeal for righteousness according to the Torah. In Leviticus 20:13 God condemns to death any who practice homosexuality after stating in Leviticus 18:22 it was detestable to even do such a thing. Stephen Lewis and the Christians who were clapping in condemning the just Biblical punishment of death are living in a fairy world.  God is the one who sets up governments and He is the one who gives them the sword to punish and protect. We have no right to decide what is good and evil; only God can and He has given His mandate. But it is not all judgment; Uganda did not set up this law simply to find some people to kill. If the fear of this law causes those who are living in this particular sin to come to their senses and repent, then the law is a great mercy! Terribly, it seems that Mr. Lewis and many Christians have forgotten this truth.

On the matter of social justice and global health, I only have one question: what point is there to improving health when we leave the condition of the soul untouched? Have we forgotten the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? No matter how wealthy or healthy someone is in this world, it is not even a breath compared to the eternity in hell; the same is true about suffering in this life compared to eternal life.

I have a challenge to us as Christians: Why is it so often when a non-Christian is in our midst, we reduce our standards to match theirs? God’s name was used in vain four times (once by a panel member) as well as cursing. What angers me is that the three times Stephen Lewis used God’s name in vain, it was not met with stunned silence or disapproval; rather it was met with laughter! Do we, as Christians, not fear God? No wonder Stephen Lewis calls the church hypocritical, for in our actions we name ourselves among the heathens!

It seems social justice in the Redeemer understanding is that Christianity is a works-based religion. When we are concerned for material well being of the family of rebellion (that is those not in the family of God), then we shortchange them of eternal life and we shortchange ourselves by turning from the Gospel and focusing on what does not last, still hoping God will reward us. At one extreme is the danger to declare the Gospel without concern for physical well being. Redeemer seems to focus on the other extreme: to be concerned about physical well being without declaring the true Gospel. Neither is Christianity. Christianity is first understanding the Gospel and then living it out. Social justice in true Christianity is a by-product of Christ’s work in us, not the mainstay. All social injustice is a problem of the heart. If we truly want to deal with injustice, we need to pray, preach the Gospel, and encourage countries when they enforce Biblical laws.

EDIT: For The Crown's response to this article and the comments below, see the open letter.

The Crown reserves the right to edit or remove any comment that:

  • is libelous, threatening, obscene, or constitutes hate speech
  • directly and deliberately insults other posters
  • is promotional or commercial in nature

Furthermore, The Crown reserves the right to reproduce the comment in the print edition of the newspaper.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati

Comments

Thanks John. Timeless words

Thanks John. Timeless words from an apparently timeless man.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 22:46.

Confounding?

Mr. Bloedow, first I would have to ask, are you defending Reuben Lindeman's statements about the uselessness of non-Christian ideas, the capital punishment of homosexuals and the idea that Christians need only to preach to people for social justice to occur?? Secondly, I would say that most of the posts on here that are well constructed pieces of opinion, although some of them are too critical, but overall not many are cowardly. I still don't understand how people who refers to themselves as Christians can justify claims for death, unless it is in the most dire of circumstances. Also to reply to Kevin's statement about homosexuals being the most common transmitters of HIV/AIDS, I feel this is a very critical ideal. The only rationale I can think of for this thinking is the idea that homosexuals do not construct long term relationships and that you think of them prostituting themselves around with any other partner they can find. I think this is very demeaning and rude.
Submitted by Kyle Schroeder (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 21:47.

Homophobia, obviously

Actually Kyle I was referring to statistics such as the following: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/... A cursory examination reveals that male-to-male sexual behavior accounts for the majority of transmission of AIDS among adolescents alone. Therefore as homosexual activity is more likely to pass on HIV/AIDS it is much more dangerous- whether or not each man is promiscuous or not, they are still more likely to pass on the disease to whoever they sleep with. This is not some rude form of homophobia- this is biology and statistics. However I could, if necessary, find statistics relating to long-term commitment ratios between homosexuals relative to that of heterosexual couples if you REALLY want to go there.
Submitted by Kevin Bratcher (not verified) on Mon, 01/02/2010 - 01:41.

Stats don't tell the whole story, Kevin

Yes, statistically you are more likely to spread HIV through homosexual activities. However apparently black people are more likely to spread it than white people. Could it be because there's more to the story than just the numbers? Homosexuals are a far higher risk towards substance abuse and addictions (variety of theories as to why) which puts them at a higher risk of using needle drugs, which makes them a higher HIV risk. They also may be less likely to use protection because there is no fear of pregnancy. The problem with HIV being spread through homosexual activity is not the sexual activity itself, but rather other things associated with it. Also are we not taught to love the sinner but hate the sin? Or even better, love the sinner and forgive the sin? It is not our job to judge, it is not our job to condemn anyone to death, it is not our job to pick and choose which parts of the Bible we decide to cling to for that given argument. If you truly hate homosexuals and have ever lusted (or sinned in any way) then you are a hypocrite and need to look deep within yourself. Note: that last paragraph was not directed at you, Kevin, as much as...well, whoever needs to read it.
Submitted by Jeff Sieger (not verified) on Wed, 03/02/2010 - 00:08.

Kyle, I've posted a couple of

Kyle, I've posted a couple of additional comments that appear lower down in reply to others. At any rate, 1. My comments are what they are. 2. This discussion is supposed to be primarily among Christians who share the Bible as their common source of authority. I don't have the inclination here to back up theologically even further to deal with comments from people who don't share that authority. Clearly you don't because you use "dire circumstances," whatever that means, as your standard for the death penalty rather than Biblical criteria. Secondly, your language about the matter suggest that you don't distinguish between the role of the civil magistrate and individuals in society, since you talk about justifying claims for "death" rather than for the death penalty or capital punishment. Thirdly, in objecting to Kevin's statement about homosexuality and AIDS, you object based on your feelings, not on facts. Your feelings are completely irrelevant to the point. If you're interested in facts, here is a link to one of many articles I've see in the past year or two from around the world which demonstrate that still today, HIV/AIDS is essentially a "homosexual disease": http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2009/02/20/asia/OUKWD-UK-AIDS-ASIA.php. And in terms of your comment on the longevity of homosexual relationships, an argument often used to encourage same-sex marriage, you might be interested in this recent article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html .
Submitted by Tim Bloedow (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 22:14.

Death in the Bible

It is critical to separate Old Testament and New Testament when talking about death. In the OT they stoned people to death, in the NT Jesus PREVENTED a stoning. Also this: "HIV/AIDS is essentially a 'homosexual disease'" made me physically cringe. Also I'm not surprised that gay marriages are roughly as successful as straight marriages. Or are we going to put every adulterer to death as well? What about those who engage in pre-marital sex? What about those who receive or give oral sex? Man, gonna be a lot of dead people around.
Submitted by Jeff Sieger (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 23:56.

decon cont'd

I wanted to say that I agree with the kind anon asking "where is the love?" Saying that yours is a standard based on "Biblical criteria" may be failing to take into account the primary rules of Love that Jesus emphasized when you were examining rules laid out by God for a then-saviourless Jewish people through a very convoluted and complicated cultural medium. Do you still avoid food that is 'unclean,' pork and the like? And having already said more than I intended, I wanted to point out that saying "My comments are what they are" isn't an appropriate, intelligent, nor appropriate response to dear Kyle's request for clarification, it just REALLY makes you sound like even more of an ass than your comments alone already have.
Submitted by Anno nimbus (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 01:55.

Clearly I don't share the

Clearly I don't share the authority of the Bible???? what do you mean by that?
Submitted by Kyle Schroeder (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 00:23.

Where is the love?

Where is the love?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/02/2010 - 01:31.

As the spouse of a struggling

As the spouse of a struggling Christian who has come to hate the church, I shudder to think how this article could destroy the small commitment that remains.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 20:22.

You're not the only one with

You're not the only one with this fear.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 12/02/2010 - 12:51.

certainly not

this article is exactly the opposite of what God has called us to be as His children.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 19/02/2010 - 09:21.

A Clumsy Jeremiad

Wow. This article reminds me of Reg, the zealot in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" who asks, in all seriousness, "What have the Romans ever done for us?!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso It is this type of sentiment that makes Reformed and evangelical convictions seem like Protestant jihadism. Just because Stephen Lewis may “hate the Church and the scriptures” doesn’t mean that “everything he said is coloured to the point that it is practically unusable for … Christians.” It is unfortunate that Reuben, in his puritanical zeal for righteousness and justice, is willing to call down fire and brimstone because his sensibilities to profanity were offended. Even more disappointing, however, is that Reuben has forgotten an important tenet of the Kuyperian model: COMMON GRACE. We must remember that BOTH Christian and non-Christian cultural and intellectual achievements are the result of the human ability to reason; itself we believe to be a gift from God. Speaking to common grace in their book, "The Passionate Intellect" (Baker Academic: 2004), Norman Klassen and Jens Zimmermann state: “Non-Christian insights are ‘wrong’ only insofar as they miss the context in which all knowledge gains its full measure, namely, when it is dedicated and used for the glory of God. Intellectual achievements are not, in other words, the exclusive domain of the Christian.” I wish Reuben had considered this before he invoked “worldview-ism” in this clumsy jeremiad. In many ways, I can understand Reuben's puritanical spirit that is reacting to God-absent social justice movements that will never quell systemic evil. Whether authentic (or simply to get published as a radical), I sense in this article a desire to shake up an apathetic Christianity. Fair enough. There is a burning desire to have uniquely Christian answers to social problems, and in one sense, Christ is uniquely the “prince of peace.” But our God is bigger than evangelical, or yes, even Dutch Reformed cultural convictions (and linguistic sensitivities!) If Reuben’s goal is to be a prophetic voice, he’d better be sure he’s picked the right target for condemnation; I’m not sure Stephen Lewis warrants an Old Testament-style ass kicking.
Submitted by David McFarland (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 19:51.

Lewis is an embarassment

This and other comments about the expertise of Stephen Lewis give the impression that there is only one way to do foreign aid or only one right way to do it and that Lewis has figured that out. That is juvenile and foolish and self-contradictory. Self-contradictory because this absolutist view comes at the expense of an absolutist commitment to Scripture. This confirms the Biblical antithesis of reality and the fact that you can't serve two masters. This is the kind of perspective that socialists, including many in Reformed circles, use to hide behind. Socialism is the idolatry of Messianic State-ism and is completely incompatible with Christianity theologically and materially. Apparently Lewis poo-poo'd microcredit in his talk or Q&A. Of course he did. He's a strident socialist and microcredit is free market, private property approach to solving poverty. Anybody who thinks Lewis is an expert on anything except humanism needs to get out more, including the Redeemer leadership who picked him to speak who are simply hiding their penchant for socialism behind a very superficial veil of academic sophistication. And those commenters and other readers who think the invite to Lewis was justified because he's an expert even though not a Christian, let's suspend the controversy for a moment on the merits of inviting a non-Christian, and look at the data, look at the research, look at the evidence on the ground in terms of whether or not Lewis's socialist approach which depends on government to government aid and other grandiose schemes that are useless on the ground. Haiti's in the news a lot these days. Students and professors, why don't you do some diverse reading and look at material that doesn't simply reinforce socialist norms. Look at the evidence of how status quo foreign aid hasn't worked to the benefit of the people on the ground. Look at the work of the new leading international expert on foreign aid, Zambian-born economist Dambisa Moyo. No, she is not a "colonialist." Look at her picture on the internet. Look at her credentials. She's taken the foreign aid industry by storm by exposing with evidence the complete inadequacy of the socalist big government, Establishment-NGO, UN-baptised approach to foreign aid. I would be stunned if Redeemer's socialist-leaning leadership would invite her to be your feature speaker. Students, grow up, exercise some independent thought in the spirit of serious inquiry, and stop picking up the crumbs from a socialist table. And speaking of epistemology, the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. The Bible doesn't limit that to the knowledge of God or the knowledge of the Church. The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of scientific knowledge. The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of medical knowledge. The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of political knowledge. The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of economic knowledge. That is the Biblical antithesis and epistemology, and it's wholly incompatible with any concept of moral or epistemological neutrality.
Submitted by Tim Bloedow (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 21:46.

ree-dee con-voy

Is this still you posting, or just someone egging us on? Because this doesn't seem consistent with the person who earlier preached at us re: sphere sovereignty. Or was that someone who I found more intellectually sound? Nvm, just don't get all scripturist on me again, that's not very Kuyperian is it? The only thing I learned from him (was it him? Or Dooye? Or other?) was general revelation. And the only thing I learned from my first-year, half-credit (because it was so painfully basic and simple) course Introduction to Worldview was "avoid -isms. They are idolatry. Always." You seem to be ignoring the possibility that your hermeneutic is skewed, which may work for a while but like any problem will only get worse the longer you ignore it, which has certainly been the case with this very issue of scripturism and Western society. So accept my most sarcastic thanks for making sincere Christianity so much harder today, on behalf of all the people like you that have made it possible. Can you really serve both Scripture and the Living God?
Moving along, after and I guess throughout your continuing harping on socialism you make some(literally) nonsense(though possibly true, for all I care) claims about Haitian aid and tell us to find our own proof of this (no I won't, that's your responsibility, your post and point is more important to you than it is to me), and simplify the problem to "socialist big government." Maybe the problem is less socialism than liberal capitalist democracy; even the name makes it seem like a complicated balancing act. Maybe the problem is one of accountability, or maybe our government isn't democratic ENOUGH. And to me at least, the more democratic a government's character, the more it resembles ideal socialism and really an embodiment of Christian ideals of loving, sharing, selflessness, humility, integrity, and even detachment from materialism. Not to discount the practicality of the microcredit concept(allegedly put forth by Dr. James Rusthoven as I understand, though I guess neither you nor I were there to confirm this, but for whom I have tremendous respect and who is a professor at McMaster alongside Lewis as well as having taught Philosophy of Science and Bioethics courses at Redeemer) but wouldn't it be better if rather than depending on independent people to feel compelled to contribute, entire nations (with vastly greater resources) could say with confidence that they can represent the desires of their people in contributing to relief efforts? Doesn't reflect very positively on the society if it can't be confidently described as at least that philanthropic and sympathetic.
And, though my epistemology is rusty, "fear" of the Lord (which is an awfully poisonous phrase in contemporary parlance) may be necessary, but also foundational. That is, it can't be the only principle from which a person produces. Nobody pays any heed to the man with a sign proclaiming the end of the world etc because he's not speaking with relevant authority, though he might be acting out of cold fear of the wrath of God (which I'm aware may be a misinterpretation of the phrase). Newton was dedicatedly Christian, seeing science as a way of studying God's creation; even Darwin began his voyage strongly a orthodox Anglican, though he did go on to scale it back to agnosticism(the skeptic's choice). But looking at it critically, the tangent you chose to end your rant on didn't hold much bearing on the conversation at hand.
Altogether, what most bothered me was your calling socialism inherently idolatrous. Perhaps the contemporary implementations of it have been/are, but did you reach intellectual maturity during the cold war perchance? When all those inquiries were all around like the Spanish Inquisition, and you found yourself fearing and condemning those on trial? You know, I've heard more than once the community of the early church likened to a socialist government of sorts. That's the Christianity I subscribe to, if any at all. So you know what, if that's not compatible with your idea, YOU'RE WRONG and have gotten too far into your own reflection to be legitimately interacting with the real world. Enjoy your church shelter, but that's the root of what's wrong with the Redeemer community, people become too preoccupied with maintaining a doctrinally coherent image of a personal Christianity that they lose touch with the legitimate living one they should instead be fostering. I won't back anything I've said with scripture references, simply because in spite of going to Christian Reformed schools ALL MY LIFE including a full tour of study at Redeemer, having recently graduated, I never really engaged with that supposedly primary book of belief because it didn't seem to matter as much as the ideas I was being taught. Which, in as regurgitatory a setting as the academic community, was seemingly the right call (in that short-term sense, at least. Maybe my spirituality sufferedlol).

btw, I'm the one who told you to screw your theological whatever whatever. You don't seem to have wasted enough time on Internet discussions to understand just how pointless rigidly defending one's perspective on here is. You're also very lucky this place shelters more suckas than trolls. And yes I include myself in the former of those for this post.



"CHRISTIANS WHO KILL. ...We're about out of ideas on this planet, aren't we? That's why I love people like George Bush [Sr., president of the USA 1989-1993] or this guy, Pat Robertson, this televangelist in the States. These are Christians FOR stronger nuclear armament. What a great deal of faith! 'Cause I know if Jesus were here, he'd probably have an uzi on him.""That's another good thing about Bush [Sr.] being gone, man, because for the last 12 years with Reagan and Bush we have had fundamentalist Christians in the White House. Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the exact word of God, including that wacky, fire-and-brimstone Revelations ending, have had their finger on the _button for 12 years. 'Tell me when, Lord, tell me when! Let me be your servant, Lord!'"{Bill Hicks, 'Relentless,' 1991, retrieved from YouTube "Bill Hicks - Religion" posted by operationmongoose}{Bill Hicks' 'Revelations,' 1993, retrieved from YouTube "It Seemed So Plausible" posted by oddmeter}
Submitted by Annie no nymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 01:43.

Validation

Because I frequent many news and commentary websites the sort of emotional flaming that spouted in response to this article is hardly surprising. While the comments of people like Mr. Schroeder and Ms. Akers and one or two anonymous comments are helpful and constructive in that they argue a certain point and try to create a new understanding, I would like to remind the apparently unbalanced masses of two things: to submit an unqualified, insulting, and/or completely nonconstructive comment even in an online forum is at the best pointless; at the worst, hate-filled. Secondly, to do so anonymously is just cowardly. It was bad enough when we had people writing articles they couldn't put their own name behind- if you're going to comment, stand up for it with your name or keep your mouth shut. You create a far worse problem with your pointless raging and slandering when the rest of us are hoping to have a good discussion. That sad, Mr. Bloedow raises the excellent point that most people outside of philosophy and political science don't seem to consider- that perhaps there's a difference between civil and personal roles in dealing with criminal and sinful activities. While it is valid to argue that Christ says to "turn the other cheek" for the individual, it is not valid to do so for the government. Let us not forget Romans 13: 1-5: 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This passage is specifically relevant to Stephen Lewis' absurdly slanted presentation of the law that was considered for Uganda. Why, briefly, was it absurdly slanted? Because unlike Mr. Lewis' wishful thinking, the purpose of the bill is not specifically to "kill them homosexuals." Consider this, rather- homosexuals are far more likely to spread STDs to others during sexual activity. Therefore by implication, for a homosexual who has AIDS to willingly engage in sexual activities with another man (or a woman with another woman) might in fact be construed as at best, reckless endangerment of the life of another- at worst, murder. Consider, then, that in Africa where AIDS is such an epidemic it MIGHT just be better for there to be strict laws limiting any dangerous form of contact between individuals having AIDS and those who don't. (But wait, you say- does that mean no one with AIDS can ever have sex again? Well, perhaps not...but would you if you thought your partner would probably get a life-threatening disease from you?) Beyond the point about the homosexual law, however, the fact still remains that the government does in fact have the power of the sword, not just in those dangerous Old Testament times, but in fact in the New Testament as well. This is a key argument for policemen, jail time, and of course the death penalty. Jesus was not on earth to rule in office and administer punishments- his purpose was different. However, we as Christians are not supposed to all mirror Jesus life and ONLY Jesus life in order to prove our Christianity- unless we're all supposed to preach for three years and be crucified? Do not let yourself fall into the "Life is purely WWJD" mindset. Finally, because so many of these complaints would be better addressed in a forum (hey there's an idea), I will conclude with a challenge: Why would Redeemer, being an avowed Christian university with written faith statement et al, having determined to hold an intentionally named "FAITH and Social Justice Conference," choose to bring in an avowedly non-Christian-- even ANTI-Christian-- speaker to be the main speaker for the conference. Certainly I would not mind Stephen Lewis at a workshop or specifically to discuss his work and what we can do in Africa. However, to produce him as the main speaker, to sponsor him as the big event AT a Christian conference AT a Christian university, is downright paradoxical. There is a vast ocean of difference between listening to the message of a non-Christian and giving them a seat of honor in your gathering-place, and that is what the SJ Conference did in fact do by making him the main speaker. Why did they do it? Maybe they thought it would bring in more people and be more relevant if somebody famous with all sorts of honorary degrees draped over his name gave the main speech. However, I think a speech by someone like the humble Mr. Asanyo- who managed to quietly disarm Mr. Lewis' vindictive and hate-filled rage against Christianity- would have been a more fitting leader. He might have filled our hearts not just with the knowledge that people need food, shelter, and protection, but that they need SALVATION. That perhaps instead of just handing out condoms and food packs to everyone we could do ALL THAT- and ALSO preach the Word and save people's souls. While it is certainly commendable to give someone another 10 years to live, if you do so and willfully disregard the state of their soul then you are in fact HATING them. You are saying, "I do not believe I need to fulfill my calling to preach to the nations with you- I'll just give you some food and send you on your way." How is that ANY different from Mr. Schroeder's quotations from James 2? If you don't dress it up at all it is plainly saying "Here, be full, be happy, but I don't care if you're going to hell." You have thus provided all the material and worldly needs of a person, but have neglected their ever-more-important SPIRITUAL needs. ANY message that simply touts human life here and now, material needs, and all the other treasures we try to store up on earth "where moth and rust destroys, and where thieves break in and steal "(Matthew 6:20) without having any care for the treasures we should be storing up in heaven is at best the lesser half of the message. And when we're talking about justice from a Christian perspective, we CANNOT only go on half the message. It is irresponsible and completely against our calling to do so. It is not justice. This is not, however, something I would expect a workshop leader to understand- that is, a workshop leader who hates the government God appointed over us, twists the story of Daniel, and touts the Beatitudes of Luke not along with, but instead of the Beatitudes of Matthew simply because it fits with his view of Christians as good people NOW instead of in heaven. (Note this last was not an attack on the person- just his worldview, and beliefs). In the future, I pray that we seriously consider whether the people we choose to represent our Christian institution and teach our Christian students are themselves, in fact, Christians. Or anywhere remotely near sympathetic to Christians.
Submitted by Kevin Bratcher (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 03:03.

Your argument about

Your argument about government is not all that applicable. Think of the time when the bible was written. Things were run MUCH differently. Many governments are skewed on issues just like the homosexual one. Our answer should not simply be 'hey here's a problem, let's get rid of it'. How do we do that? kill them? Yes, there needs to be consequences if they're intentionally spreading AIDS. But as drastic as death? Do we want to encourage that? And at the same time, even though we don't believe their faith, we need to understand the beliefs that they have in Africa. Many of them are convinced that sleeping with a virgin will cure them of AIDS. We think this is absurd, but it's what they know and believe and they're so desperate that they will do anything to heal themselves. So do we kill them or bring them to the healing hands of God? Government is to be respect, yes, without question I agree with you. But, we also must stand up for things that Christ clearly teaches us. If we are to obey our government, does this mean we should be supporting abortion and gay marriage even though our government has laws saying that it's ok? If the government says they need to, should our Pastors begin marrying same-sex couples when the bible speak against it? You are right about needing to bring people salvation and perhaps that is the ultimate focus. But what Reuben argues and almost sounds like you're arguing is that this takes priority. In the long run, it should. James 2 urges a union between faith and action. They need salvation, but they need to know that the God behind this salvation, the church that is the face of this God behind this salvation is going to take care of them physically. A beginning Christian doesn't always understand eternity, They experience their current, physical situations. I think you're valid in saying that perhaps we shouldn't have had a non-Christian speaker as keynote, but maybe we're so focused on the salvation side and preaching at people that we needed to shake things up and get out of our straightforward box of thinking. I don't know if Stephen Lewis should have come, but no one going to that session should have gone with the expectation of learning about a Christian perspective, which is what Reuben did. He bashed Lewis when he already knew that he wouldn't find a Christian man with Christian ideas. He was giving a different perspective, the physical side of injustice, not the spiritual because the church already knows so much on that topic (not all I admit). And we should be Christ like because Christ is the Son of God. He knows God. We barely understand a single thing about God because our minds can't fathom, but Christ knows God. It's not about the time Christ spent ministering, it's about what He did during that time. That's what we must be learning from and that's what people are saying here about 'WWJD'. Remember the trinity? THREE-IN-ONE? Wouldn't you want to model your life after someone that is apart of the TRINITY??
Submitted by Kristin Serrick (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 14:27.

WWJD vs. OWJD

I guess there are 2 dangers I see in the WWJD mindset- 1. We turn Jesus into purely a moral teacher- we overemphasize the things he did and ignore his salvational mission, or the fact that He is also God and therefore is not to be known simply for what He did in the Gospels but also for what God does in ALL the Bible. 2. We begin to believe that we can do ONLY what Jesus Did (OWJD)- in other words, we fall into the "everyone should be a preacher, missionary, or schoolteacher- anything else isn't a Christian calling. This results from the idea again that we are simply to model ourselves on what Jesus did in the Gospels and nothing else. However if we understand that the rest of the Bible is inspired and revealed by God then we may and must conform our lives to the whole of the Bible, not purely to 4 books. Therefore we understand from Paul that all spiritual gifts are equal, and we understand from various other places that we are able and required to serve and glorify God through any duty we fulfill in this life, whether it be policeman, businessman, doctor, military man, politician, or social worker. As far as obeying the government, I believe we are to without question obey everything the government tells us to do that does not conflict with God's laws. Therefore by implication our ministers must not obey the government in performing homosexual marriage ceremonies because to do so would be to sin against God's commandments. Whether it is expedient or right to implement the death penalty for not specifically homosexual activity but rather homosexual activity between one with HIV and one without, which is statistically and biologically proven to have a massively higher risk of transference of the disease, is more a question of whether it is at all right for the government to implement the death penalty. If you believe that fundamentally the government derives its authority from God and is given the power of the sword by God to carry out His vengeance on earth, then the government absolutely has the right to carry out the death penalty. The fact remains- regardless of whether a criminal is put to death in 1 year or dies after 40 years of jail time- that God can call that man to become a Christian by the efforts of Christians or entirely through divine work at ANY time, and therefore giving an extra 39 years to a man's life is irrelevant to whether he will become a Christian. One might even argue that looming death makes one's religious association quite important and might drive more people to God in their last hours. The death penalty, for whatever reason it is implemented, just like any other punishment is not meant to exclude our Christian work of evangelizing and bringing God's truth to people who follow heathen cultural beliefs (such as the one you mentioned about curing AIDS). In fact, the two can work together quite well- indeed, they must work together. If we simply evangelize person by person then the government is not doing its job to protect its people. If the government simply kills people who endanger the lives of others through their actions, then we are not doing our jobs as Christians. Both must be fully and devotedly employed to fulfilling the callings God has given them. --As a side note it may be worth noting that Uganda is ranked 29th in terms of adult prevalence of HIV aids- most of the 28 countries above it are also African countries. Clearly Uganda is doing a pretty good job of containing it.
Submitted by Kevin Bratcher (not verified) on Mon, 01/02/2010 - 14:41.

Controversy again?

I graduated from Redeemer a couple of years ago, but I distinctly remember a number of articles being printed in the Crown that seemed to serve only one purpose: creating controversy. The editor at the time accomplished this by printing articles that should not have been printed, making mis-leading headlines and just generally doing whatever he could to stir up trouble. To be honest, I feel the editor is more at fault than the author. For better or worse, an individual is entitled to their private opinions. However, that individual is not entitled to share that opinion in a newspaper such as the Crown, that is not what free speech is about. And never mind the opinions, the fact that sentences such as "When he named a statistic he talked about causes and such" made it past the editing stage should get everyone who this article passed by in trouble. Stop trying to make The Crown more than it is. By adding these tabloid-esque articles, all that happens is the opinion of the Crown (and potentially Redeemer as a whole) goes down. The Crown is not a for-profit newspaper so the only positive that comes from a lot of people talking about it is the increased ego of those in charge. So I challenge the editor, the staff and all writers for the Crown to take a serious inward look next time they write or publish an article. What are your reasons for the article? Is what you are writing actually news or would it be better served on a blog? Is your only goal some sort of personal gain or glory? Personally, I hope this is the beginning and the end of articles like this with this year's edition of the Crown.
Submitted by Jeff Sieger (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 00:39.

Dialogos

The Crown as newspaper is pretty irrelevant to the world at large. More or less, it's just an intra-school promotional vehicle, a basic summary of social events and perceptions. So really, if it rouses the community and prompts some sort of inflamed discussion, it's kinda spurring people into debate about something they'd just glaze over otherwise. I quite enjoy the conversation that's unfolding, it's really been touching on a lot of what the Redeemer community is at its core, if only in the periphery. What you say takes it very seriously by holding it up as some kind of 'example to the wider community' but really, who bothers reading it if they're not intimately connected to the Reedee community already?
It seems to me that personal gain and glory for the publishers and writers are irrelevant here in comparison to the real and emotional change it catalyzes.
So personally, I hope this continues to happen, even more often, and this phenomenon would be even more greatly improved by the introduction of a FORUM for the Crown, and having it set up to require usernames would even be beneficial to discussion perhaps, though if this commenting section remained that would be a lovely companion in discussion.
Submitted by Anon y maas (not verified) on Mon, 01/02/2010 - 22:41.

Response

There once was a forum for the Crown, and I believe it was created for the very reason of controversy and to stroke the ego of the editor. If you want to make a statement as opinionated as this, make a Facebook note or a blog post. The Crown represents Redeemer as a whole, and as such should not take on such opinion-based pieces. At the very least, label it an EDITORIAL and not as an article.
Submitted by Jeff Sieger (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 21:10.

Good for Reuben

As a committed Scottish Calvinist, a Reformed Presbyterian (RPCNA) in the tradition of the Covenanters, I am stunned at the pathetic degree of illiteracy among other commenters when it comes to a Biblically coherent concept of the civil government and Biblical social theory. Regardless of one's views on the Uganda bill, many commentators are completely confusing the role of the civil government with the role of individuals and the church in dealing with sin. Your views are indistinguishable from the heathen humanist ethos in which you live, which is driven by the ideology of Messianic State-ism whereby the state becomes all things to all people, and its role in society is all-embracing so it becomes nonsensical in that view even to try to distinguish the role and function of the state from the role of any other component of society. It's stunning that anything that goes by the name of Kuyperianism or Calvinism could promote political centralism instead of sphere sovereignty - but then adherence to any concept of "natural law" and moral and epistemological neutrality will lead you to centralism. Only an embracing of the Biblical antithesis will provide the necessary foundation for a coherent Biblical sphere sovereignty. I was also struck by the cowardly objections to Reuben's article even being posted and the childish accusations of hate, including one with no substantive rationale for this accusation, by a commenter identified as Prof Chris Cuthill. As fallible as it might be, Reuben's original article is probably the most theologically coherent and Biblically responsible statements on this page (in the top three most coherent anyway - one of the other more thoughtful comments was submitted anonymously).
Submitted by Tim Bloedow (not verified) on Sat, 30/01/2010 - 23:22.

You sir, preach of a God and

You sir, preach of a God and a faith that I do not want to follow. If I, as a committed follower of Christ, one who defines myself by the God I serve and not the denomination and set of beliefs that seem to divide the church, do not want to follow the God you are promoting, then how do you expect the lost, the broken, the orphan, the widow, the fathers and mothers and every other lost soul that we are called to witness too to want to follow this God?? I think we all need to ponder are we serving a denomination and set of rules that we all can sit here and argue about, or are we serving a God that loves EVERYONE.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 13:58.

Amen

Your comment made is beautiful and I agree with you completely we are not to ever let ourselves be blinded by prejudice. We tend to as Christians forget who we are serving and modeling oulives after we are living for GOD and GOD IS LOVE
Submitted by Karisa Germain (not verified) on Fri, 19/02/2010 - 09:28.

We Want the Real Thing

I think the difference betwee6n what Anonymous says/believes/advocates and what Mr. Bloedow believes/advocates is summarized in this article by a man who came from a former communist country, Bulgaria. He describes how Europeans reject the pietistic faith of Anonymous, but embrace wholeheartedly the faith and worldivew of Mr. Bloedow. I spoke with another Bulgarian today who said that when the pietistic churches first e6ntered Bulgaria after the fall of Communism, the church he was in grew to 1,000 people! But when it was discovered the church had no answers for culture (eg. was anti-/theocracy and anti-/theonomy), the church dropped to 50. People are hungry for the real thing. The "lost, the broken, the orphan, the widow, the fathers and mothers and every other lost soul that we are called to witness to in Bulgaria DO want to follow this God": http://www.americanvision.org/worldviewforum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=1312
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 22:06.

It should be noted to the

It should be noted to the reader of this comment that the Reformed Presbyterian church is a tiny fringe denomination that preaches Theocracy as a strange hybrid between Jewish law and Christian gospel. No other mainstream reformed tradition holds to this position. In this case the use of reformed is a misnomer.
Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 08:17.

Breaking the 9th commandment

Should I be surprised that the two people who reply to me violated the 9th Commandment by bearing false witness? But that's OT, so maybe it's irrelevant!! I hope this anonymous poster didn't get that dishonest and false representation of the RPs from Redeemer or from his church. And I hope the other person who replied to my post with his completely anti-creedal stance is not a member of a long-time member of a Reformed Church. That would be sad indeed in terms of what it says about the theological condition of that congregation.
Submitted by Tim Bloedow (not verified) on Sun, 31/01/2010 - 21:52.

Sir, you seem to be taking

Sir, you seem to be taking some awfully personal attacks on the people who have previously commented on your post. Let us be reminded that the Christian faiths calls us to rebuke, AND encourage, and both these actions must be done out of love. Remember 1 Corinthians and the whole love section? take a look its a good read. The first verse really seems to stand out here, "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels but have not love I am a resounding gong or a clanging symbol." To outright rebuke and personally attack someone in the manner you seem to be doing you come off as a resounding gong. As the black eyed peas asked "Where is the love?"
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/02/2010 - 01:26.

Wow!

This article is just... Wow... so wrong on so many levels... Very little I can say without becoming incredibly judgemental and/or sarcastic... Bravo to Stephen Lewis for his very appropriate critic of so many churches globally that do so much to add to injustice rather than to work to illiminate it... Bravo to Redeemer for hosting such a eloquent and direct speaker to move our hearts for the cause of justice... As has so often been the case, God uses one from the 'outside' to enlighten those who fancy themselves on the 'inside'.
Submitted by Ken Dryfhout (not verified) on Sat, 30/01/2010 - 02:25.

Such a refreshing reaction to

Such a refreshing reaction to this article!!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 30/01/2010 - 11:33.