Thanks to Peter Y for this one…
Category: Christianity
YouTube Tuesday: The Elisha Song
What? The Devil is wrong with country – part 2 – FAQ
Jacob Aranza is a man who believes in offering solutions to real world problems. He’s a man of the people (unless you’re a rock star or country muso). His second book features a chapter of his questions and answers from readers of the first book. Lest you wander into rock and roll temptation here they are… though sometimes I think Mr Aranza pulls his punches, so I’ve given my own answer to the questions below.
WARNING: May contain traces of bad theology for the sake of satire. Bad theology is easy, I can see why the new atheists take the Bible out of context so often, they can pretty much twist it to say whatever they want.
Several people have asked me if Mr Aranza has anything to say about their favourite 80s band. If yours missed out (from a pretty comprehensive list) then don’t un-despair just yet.
Question: I know what you say about the groups in your book is true, but you didn’t mention my favourite group. What about them?
Aranza’s Answer: I may not have spoken about your favourite rock or country group, but if their goal isn’t to glorify God and help build his kingdom, then their music will hinder and distract you from serving God, and can easily provoke you to rebel against God.
My Answer: You know what, if they’re your “favourite” they’re an idol. Sing the Psalms. They’re the only inspired songs (except for a few in the New Testament, you can sing those too).
Question: The groups I listen to don’t sing about Satan, sex, or drugs. What’s wrong with listening to them?
Aranza’s Answer: Just because a group doesn’t openly sing about immorality doesn’t mean their music is approved by God. If the music you’re listening to doesn’t come from the heart of a spiritual Christian artist you are opening the door to carnality, humanism, and demonic forces. It will distract you from serving him, feed self-centeredness, and eventually breed rebellion in your heart. Just because something appears to be good doesn’t mean it is good.
My Answer: Well, ask yourself “could I dance to this song” if the answer is yes then the music is a stumbling block – and no true Christian would create a stumbling block for their brother (or sister).
Question: I don’t really like what a lot of rock groups sing about, but I don’t listen to the words. I just like the music. Isn’t that OK?
Aranza’s Answer: It might be OK if you didn’t have a spirit or a brain. You may not realise it, but you are more than a physical body. You also have a mind and a spirit which both respond to music. Your mind is like a computer and absorbs what it hears including words to music. It can’t be avoided since your brain takes and stores the information you hear and receive through your senses. Your spirit also responds to music because God created music as a spiritual force. If you are a Christian, the Spirit of Christ dwells in your spirit, making you sensitive to God’s voice and will. When you listen to music that isn’t inspired by God it dulls your sensitivity to God. Eventually it will breed rebellion in you. It’s a lot like smoking cigarettes. They will make you an addict and give you cancer, killing the life in you. This is Satan’s ultimate plan for music, no matter how innocent it might sound.
My Answer: Does it have drums? Drums are a sure sign that this music is the Devil’s music. Drums lead to tapping your feet, tapping your feet leads to dancing, and dancing leads to premarital sex and babies born out of wedlock. Is that what you really want?
Question: What about instrumental music?
Answer: Concerning this subject I would like to quote someone known to have specialised in instrumental music. While I was speaking in Louisville, Kentucky, the pastor shared with me that Phil Driscoll had been there the previous week. Phil Driscoll was in secular music for many years as a writer and instrumentalist making up to $450,000 a year previous to his conversion to Christ. Phil shared that he felt the spirit of whoever was playing the music was the spirit that would influence those who listened to it. I agree with this.
I might add that there are plenty of instrumental albums produced by Christian artists, from jazz to classical, and from pop to easy listening. There’s no excuse for listening to secular music anymore. Whether [or not] the music has words, the spiritual force behind it will affect you.
My Answer: Instrumental music is the most dangerous part. The Bible clearly shows us that playing instruments leads to death. Especially the tambourine. In Judges 11, Jepthath’s daughter plays the tambourine and dances, and her father puts her to death. In 2 Samuel 6 the Israelites dance around playing tambourines and other instruments – and God strikes Uzzah dead. Tambourines and dancing are bad. Despite what the Salvation Army and Timbrel Praise will try to tell you.
Question: I don’t like non-Christian music but I work in a place where it is played al day long. What should I do?
Answer: You can start by expressing your views to your boss. Let him know that the major themes of the music are sex, drinking, drugs and satanism. Try to get them to play instrumental music and offer to bring in your own instrumental music. They’d probably like the Christian instrumental music and wouldn’t be offended because there aren’t any words. If you can’t get rid of the secular music, then be sure to keep a song in your heart that you sing to the Lord. Ask God each day to protect you from the negative forces behind this music. No matter what happens, have confidence that God will give you the power to be victorious in this situation.
My Answer: Ask yourself “what would Jesus do”… not gentle Jesus meek and mild, but Revelation Jesus. Quit your job, and purify the office with fire.
These two are “Bieberievers”
Like many Australian males over the age of 15, the first time I heard of Justin Bieber was when he caused a riot in Sydney. I haven’t heard his actual song. The one that apparently goes “baby, baby, baby, oh” – but I read the lyrics online somewhere. They didn’t sound very intelligent. Which is why I can’t see how these two adolescents (or adults) thought it was a good idea to dub “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, oh” over the top of the lyrics, while dancing badly. And I certainly can’t see how they thought it was a good idea to then put their handiwork on YouTube.
Stuff Christians Watch
That’s it. I’m moving to America. I can make bad television to my heart’s content, knowing that there’s an outlet for anything, so long as I mention Christianity.
This is bad.
What the devil’s wrong with country music?
Country music fans might be feeling like they got off lightly in Jacob Aranza’s first installment – “Backwards Masking Unmasked,” but alas, this was short lived.
I’ll get into the review proper in coming days. First, this new installment includes the following chapters:
- More Backwards Masking
- Music Roots
- Satan’s Agenda
- Country Music: Behind Closed Doors
- MTV
- Guidelines for Christian Music
- Questions Most Asked
- The Mailbox – The Good – The Bad – The Ugly
- Shock Treatment
- Behind the Scenes (part I, II, III, IV, V)
Plenty of blogging fodder. The “Behind the Scenes” chapters are where Aranza tells you what’s wrong with your favourite band. The “Mailbox” is a series of letters he received after his first book, and it’s where we’ll start our review. I’ll try to knock a post on the Q&A out tomorrow…
The Mailbox
Dear Mr Aranza,
Your book Backward Masking Unmasked woke me up to the fact that I have been a part of “rock and roll religion” for most of my teen years. I was a member of a rock and roll group and although I didn’t do drugs or drink, I was greatly influenced from the moral standpoint. I now realise that rock groups don’t intentionally worship Satan, but are serving him just by being into rock. I know it’s going to be tough to give it up, but I know that I need to serve the Lord and do whatever is necessary to do so.
WF, Iowa.
Well, you know what else is tough to give up. Rick Astley.
Dear Mr Aranza,
My mother picked up your book Backward Masking Unmasked for my sisters and I. I am familiar with many of the rock groups and songs. I am also very moved with your book and have decided to stop listening to rock music.
J.G, Maryland.
J.G writes like a Nigerian Scammer. I wonder if Jacob truncated his request for money delivered by Western Union when preparing letters for the book.
Dear Jacob,
I just finished reading your book Backward Masking Unmasked. I must admit I was shocked at all the groups involved in this and I am sure that there are many more. I have been born again for about one and on-half years, but I was still listening to rock music. Well, not any more! I have about 400 albums that are going in the trash and they will be broken and smashed so that no one will be able to listen to them. My radio is now on AM WEZE and WRO; the only stations in the area that have Christian programs. The thought of listening to rock turns me completely off now!
K.B, MA
If only ebay was around when K.B was destroying and dumping his records. The choice wouldn’t have been so straightforward then. Critics of my criticism will no doubt point out the scene in Ephesus where the Christian converts burn their magic scrolls (that were worth a lot of money) – but I can’t help but see destroying 400 albums as a waste. But the biggest waste will be the hours K.B spent listening to Christian radio.
Dear Jacob,
Praise God for your book Backward Masking Unmasked. It helped me get born again! I had gone to church for 12 years and had become very “religious.” I loved rock and roll music. It became my attention at school, my comfort at night, my pride and sex. I started enjoying this music and I wanted to dance. So I did. Oh, it only started when I was in the privacy of my bedroom. A few years later it took me to booze, bars, and the “gay lifestyle.” I centred my life around strip shows and getting attention. I had your book for over six months. I decided to read it one day. Then it dawned on me that Satan had entrapped me just by listening to music.
T.L, Arkansas
Now, lets follow the slippery slope. Rock music leads to dancing, leads to drinking, leads to being gay. Wow. If only somebody had told Bowie. So much pain might have been avoided.
Dear Mr Aranza,
It seemed for many years that no one really cared about what happened to me, so I took to rock when I was really young. I read in all of the rock magazines that the rock groups really cared about their fans, and that made me feel good and wanted, like I really mattered. I now see all they cared about was the money, not me. It is great to know that someone like you thinks I matter. Thank you, and God bless you.
T.F, Michigan
Well. I don’t feel like rock musicians have been manipulating me, or just using me for my money. So I thought I would write Jacob Aranza this letter (I am going to email it to him).
Dear Jacob Aranza,
I am writing to you about a book you wrote more than 25 years ago, called Backwards Masking Unmasked. You might have forgotten about it. I saw on your website profile that you’ve had five books published, so I’m guessing you still remember it. I have two of them by the way, Backwards Masking Unmasked, and More Backwards Masking Unmasked. But sorry, you don’t get royalties. I bought them second hand. One was for sale in an “abandoned” books section. I’ve always wondered what it feels like to write a book and watch its life cycle. From best seller to the bargain bin. You even had a senator endorse your book. That’s cool.
Anyway. I’m a Christian. I love Jesus. But I also love rock music. I like some of the bands you wrote about. But a lot of them have lasted less time than your book. Longevity is so fickle. Half those bands were probably in the “abandoned bin” years before your book. I’m not sure what some of the bands you wrote about sounded like – but if they were anything like Nickelback – I can understand where you were coming from.
What do you think of U2? They’re a rock band. Right? I don’t like U2. I think they write boring music, I don’t know if they’re boring people, but Bono claims to be a Christian and he always talks about charity work and stuff, so he’s probably boring. And he wears coloured glasses. That’s kind of creepy. Bands that court the Christian market are the worst, don’t you think? Like U2, and Creed. And Destiny’s Child. Though Beyonce seems to be a bit less “moral” these days. Come to think of it, so does Britney. I don’t want to put my faith in a Christian band only for them to end up going a bit bonkers and attacking cars with umbrellas. I think I prefer dealing with the secular bands, at least then you know where they’re coming from.
I notice you put your address on your book. Wasn’t that asking for hate mail? Did any rock musicians send you half chewed bats?
So, Alice Cooper became a Christian. Did you apologise for saying he was hellbound? Do you think your book helped him discover the love of Jesus?
I enjoyed your book, but probably not for the reasons you think. Bits of it read like a conspiracy theory movie, or that one with Nicholas Cage where he links disparate facts and circumstantial evidence to make not very compelling logical jumps in order to reach a conclusion. I think it was called National Treasure. Your books are National Treasure-esque Jacob. Thanks for writing.
I notice that in your sequel you include some “fan mail” is there any chance you could include my letter in your next sequel? Perhaps with a link to my blog? I’ll send you the address if that’s possible.
Sincerely,
N.C, Brisbane, Australia
The Aranza Challenge
Having read the twitter like summary of Jacob Aranza’s indictments of bands from the 1980s I challenge you, dear readers, to come up with 140 character summaries of what’s wrong with modern music, and particularly modern rock.
For example:
Nickelback: Materialistic, bleached hair, derivative. Steal riffs from other bands. Messianic complex.
More Backwards Masking Unmasked Unmasked
Well readers, I apologise for the delay between drinks on the Backwards Masking front. There’s life in that dead horse yet, and today my new horse arrived in the mail – “More Rock & Country Backward Masking Unmasked. Which promises, at the outset, to be just as edifying. But comes without the signature of a member of the QTC faculty on the inside front cover. Sadly. Though I may ask our principal to sign it. The first one will be worth dollars on ebay. Tens of dollars. If we ever launch our “Brisbane Presbyterian Relics” store…
But I digress.
Before moving on to book two, I promised to tell you why Olivia Newton-John is to be avoided, and I don’t feel like I’ve done justice to book one yet… here is a bit of Jacob Aranza’s story – the last chapter in the book.
I can never really remember not being around music. My sisters sang, and so did my brother. My sisters were even going to record an album at one time, but my dad thought it would lead to their dropping out of school, so he didn’t let them. They dropped out anyway! As far back as I can remember they were listening to Frankie Valle, Neil Sadaka and others playing similar music. I was always more influenced by my brother who was listening to the Beatles, Poco, Jefferson Starship and the Rolling Stones. He once spent the night outside a concert hall just to get tickets to a Rolling Stones concert.
The crowd that I ran with was just beginning to get into people like Janis Joplin, Black Sabbath, The Guess Who, Led Zeppelin and, my favourite, Jimi Hendrix. Although I had never seen him in concert I treasured every picture, poster of album that I had of him.
What we’re dealing with here people is the genuine article. A convert from the clutches of the dark and dangerous Rock and Roll.
I believe we could have titled it the “Age of Black Lights.” Because of the fluorescent lighting fad we bought black light t-shirts, black-light posters, black-light pants, black-light shoes… you name it and we either had it or could get it!
Awesome man. Black light fever.
Psychedelics were in and words like “far out, heavy, solid and wow” were in their prime. It seemed like the whole world was taking acid, snorting THC, and dropping mescalin.
It may be that this book doesn’t translate well from the 80s – but hearing someone talk about the words that used to be cool when they used to be cool is always fodder for laughs… it’s a cheap shot. But it’s hard to imagine “solid” ever being the height of rock and roll rebellion.
“With rock and roll in my ears, and drugs in my mind, I was trying to understand my role in this messed up world… I was living with my dad and stepmother who was a ‘backslidden Pentecostal woman preacher.’ My friends and I were into the street gangs and we thought stealing and violence were where it was at.”
But it gets worse. Much worse.
As if all this wasn’t bad enough, they had just started integration in the schools. Because our school was 90% Mexican a lot of integration was to come its way. By the time it was all over we ended up with a school that was 60% Mexican, 39% Black, and 1% white! Our school already had problems with drugs, sex and violence. All integration did for our school was put the match to the fuse of a bomb that was already there.”
You know what it was. It was the white people. That one percent. They must have introduced the school to rock and roll…
But then a preacher arrived, took control of a chaotic situation. And converted 1,000 troubled teens within a week.
“Our school turned into a revival center! instead of carrying knives and chains, they began to carry Bibles! You could see T-Shirts throughout the classrooms that read “Read your Bible – It’ll scare the hell out of you.”
I can’t help but think that shirt would have been better off capitalising the Hell.
Aranza converted, but faced Mormonism at home, he moved out, to live with his mum. Who ran a pub. He poured beers. But started preaching to the patrons. And “God kept me straight every day that I lived there.” He didn’t get drunk, or listen to rock and roll once.
Olivia Newton-John
Aranza doesn’t like our (Australia’s) Liv. How dare he.
“Olivia Newton-John who had been looked on for years as a clean pop singer, set pornography to music with her recent hit “Physical.” A segment of the song says “I took you to an intimate restaurant, then to a suggestive movie, there’s nothing left to talk about unless it’s horizontal.”
In case you’re confused, at this point, Aranza helpfully lets you know that horizontal means “laying down”…
These lyrics are basically the reason young people were experimenting with sex in the early 80s.
To close, here’s Aranza’s take on some of your favourite bands – Twitter style…
AC/DC: Sexually charged, on a highway to hell.
Adam and the Ants: Adam, leader of the group, represents rebellion, absurd fashion, and bisexuality.
Aerosmith: Singer impregnated his girlfriend, married her, was arrested for drugs in high school, and their fans get carried away.
Allen Parsons Project: Have a pyramid on their album cover, which causes an out of body experience, and they wrote an album about VD.
America: Singer found God, quit band, lost record deal because the record company said “your fans don’t want to hear about Jesus”…
Beach Boys: Involved in meditation, believe in reincarnation, sing about girls.
The Beatles: Drugs, sex, the occult and a messiah complex. Have children out of wedlock. Sponsored Monty Python.
Bee Gees: Look wholesome, but like drawing naked people. Swear lots. Believe in reincarnation, smoke pot.
Black Sabbath: Satanic name and imagery, including the “rock and roll”/devil salute (incidentally popularised by their singer – who replaced Ozzy Osbourne – James Dio, who died this week).
Blue Oyster Cult: Have the word “cult” in their name. Believe in aliens. Question the cross with their logo.
Richie Blackmore (formerly Deep Purple), Rainbow: Conducts seances, records his music in a haunted castle. “Blackmore’s music and message are certainly not that of a rainbow but rather a “lake of fire.”
Blondie: Bimbo, drug addled, sex addicts.
David Bowie: Gay man, married to a lesbian, drug addict. Says “rock is the devil’s music”.
Eric Clapton: Former heroin addict, world’s greatest guitarist. Treated drug addiction with acupuncture.
Captain and Tennille: Vegetarians, believe in reincarnation and karma.
Alice Cooper: Eats animals, sings about dead people, named after a witch.
John Denver: Messiah complex, looking for meaning in spirituality.
Doctor Hook: Sing about perverted sex, and drugs, and sex and drugs.
Eagles: Satanic, friends of satanists. Give drugs to teenagers. Based on media reports, conspiracy theories, and hearsay.
Earth, Wind, and Fire: Believe in reincarnation. Have a spiritual ritual. Think all religions are the same.
Fleetwood Mac: Sing about witches, especially a “witch in Whales(sic)”. Not Jonah. The country.
Pink Floyd: Encourage rebellion (we don’t need no education) – “Mind control? They have it over the minds of millions of young people as they encourage rebellion against authority in the school classrooms.
The Grateful Dead: Used to be called “the Warlocks.” Sing about destructive habits. Do drugs. Confusing lyrics. “I’m sure some people will be grateful when their music is dead”…
Hall N’ Oates: Possibly gay, like witches. Not wholesome.
Jimi Hendrix: Drugs. Plays guitar with his teeth. Sets things on fire. Likes to “hypnotise” people with music. More drugs. Thinks rock is fun. Died from drugs.
Billy Joel: Does drugs, compares music to sex.
Jefferson Starship: Singer named bastard child ‘god’, did drugs, called rock “church,” sing about drugs. Warning to those wanting to fly in the Starship: “Flight pattern ends in death.”
Jethro Tull: Suggested Jesus doesn’t like denim, but prefers corduroys. Swear when singing about Jesus.
Elton John: Sings about rebellion, disguised as wholesome music. Sings about prostitution and sniffing glue. Possibly gay. Outed by Bob Larson (the exorcist? Possibly).
Janis Joplin: Born in Texas. Died of a drug overdose (possibly related?).
Judas Priest: Bad name. Incorrect message of salvation.
Kiss: Evil, wear makeup. Sex addicts. Possibly satanic.
Led Zeppelin: Delved into occult. Use backwards masking.
Meat Loaf: Thinks rock is supernatural and claims to be possessed on stage.
Bette Midler: Likes pot, flashed her audience.
Iron Maiden: Playing with occultic fire.
Barry McGuire: Started “protest music,” starred in Hair, became a Christian.
Jim Morrison: Messiah complex, died at 27, flashed his audience, promiscuous.
Nazareth: Into the occult and demons.
Ted Nuggent: killed a raccoon, scraped it off the pavement, cooked, and ate it. (This is literal, not a metaphor).
Ozzy Osbourne: Claims the help of the Devil. Treated for rabies after eating a bat.
The Police: Take drugs, sing about Zen. “Watch out for the Police.”
Prince: A man who wears a bikini. Swears. Sings perverted songs.
Queen: Name comes from homosexual slang, Freddy Mercury wears makeup and tight pants.
Patty Smith: Sings about horses. Probably a lesbian. Doesn’t want Jesus to have her sins.
REO Speedwagon: Sings about infidelity. Got into music to meet girls. Claim to have a “cult following”…
Rolling Stones: Equate sex with dancing. Do drugs. Talk about the Devil. Singer has rubber lips.
The Who: Break their guitars. Follow eastern religions. Do drugs. Have fans.
Violence in Joshua (redux)
Luke posted a summary of Mikey’s sermon on the Canaanite genocide. I haven’t listened to it. But I did finish the essay I mentioned in my previous post. This is an experiment in posting essays with footnotes on WordPress. Feel free to tell me why my apologetic for God’s violence is heinous and inappropriate, or to just skip this post. It’s long (I went over the 1,500 word word limit). Does anybody know if there are rules against posting such things before they are marked? I hope my esteemed lecturer reads this before running my text through a plagiarism checker and finds this page online. It is all my own work…
Violence, Joshua and the Christian
Abstract
The question of violence in the Old Testament is a source of consternation for many – from the rabid “New Atheists” to Christians seeking to synergise the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, with God’s actions and commands in the Old Testament.
We will explore the violence in Joshua, engaging with scholarly and theological interpretations of the Canaanite “genocide,” and its moral and ethical implications for the Christian.
Concluding that violence described in Joshua was not genocide, but the destruction, largely through dispossession, of an immoral culture, and there is no conflict in this issue for the Christian.
Introduction
Understanding Biblical violence, especially in Joshua’s conquest narrative, is a difficult task. Some use it to dismiss the notion of God altogether. Richard Dawkins describes the God depicted in the Old Testament as “the most unpleasant character in all of fiction.”[1]
As readers struggle to reconcile the “Yahweh of Armies” in the Old Testament with Jesus the lamb in the New Testament, they apply different interpretive schemas to the Joshua narrative. Some assume intertestamental discontinuity, others read violent rhetoric as a boundary defining sociological device,[2] others use it to derive a “Just War” doctrine.[3] Calvin did not see Joshua as a paradigm for “Christian” warfare, suggesting if not for the “command of God” it was an atrocity.[4]
While acknowledging the work of scholars who argue for an ahistorical interpretation of the conquest account,[5] this piece considers the violence as written, that it occurred as described against the backdrop of Deuteronomic commands to occupy the Promised Land. The question of historical veracity is secondary to this discussion[6] and will only be discussed as it relates to the interpretation of violence in the narrative. This seems the most pastorally valuable approach, as the narrative’s affirmation of violence presents a moral dilemma for the Christian. If we can reconcile ourselves to the notion of actual violence, it becomes easier to justify its use as literary or sociological tool.
Violence in (and around) Joshua
The violent events in Joshua, including the conquest of Jericho (Joshua 6:20-21), Ai (Joshua 8:21-26), and Southern and Northern Canaan (Joshua 10-11), are the culmination of God’s promises to Abraham (Genesis 12, 15), and subsequent commands regarding the land throughout the Pentateuch (eg Exodus 23:23-30; Deuteronomy 6:10-19; 7:1-6, 20). The Joshua narrative is framed as a sequel to the Pentateuch through the repetition of the Deuteronomic account of Joshua taking over from Moses (Deuteronomy 31:23, 34:9, Joshua 1).
We read disturbing accounts of Israelites exterminating cities (Joshua 8:24-26, Joshua 11:10-11), with the Lord hardening Canaanite hearts to prevent their retreat (Joshua 11:20). Yahweh participates in warfare, toppling city walls (Joshua 6) and hurling hailstones from the sky (Joshua 10:11).
The mandated annihilation of the Canaanite nations (Deuteronomy 20:16-18) contrasted the way Israel was to treat other conquered people (Deuteronomy 20:1-16). Israel was to practice חרם (herem).[7]
The “completely destruction” of the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 20:17) was not without reason. They were wicked. Leviticus 18 instructs Israel not to behave like the Canaanites. The list of prohibitions includes child sacrifice, incest, and bestiality, finds a corollary in Canaanite culture. If Israel failed to stamp the Canaanites out they would be led astray (Deuteronomy 20:18), and would face their own cursed expulsion from the land (Deuteronomy 28:25-68). The Canaanites were forewarned of Israel’s impending arrival, and some chose to “melt away” (Joshua 2:9, 24), Millar argues that the “whole world” was watching Israel’s journey with God (Deuteronomy 2:25)[8] – the nomadic occupants of the land had ample time to escape.
At the heart of moral objections to God’s command of “genocide” is the assumption they involved the murder of innocents. The commands themselves are Biblically framed as God’s judgment on the wicked. Canaanite culture was seeped in immorality (Deuteronomy 9:4, Deuteronomy 18:12, Leviticus 18:24-25), the people “hate God” (Deuteronomy 7:10). God’s promise to Abraham came with a four-generation caveat on the basis that the iniquity of the occupants had not yet reached its full measure (Genesis 15:13).
Two seemingly contradictory notions operate regarding the occupants of the land. Israel is to devote those they find to destruction, but the occupants will be driven out (Exodus 23:27-33, 24:34, 33:2, 33:52, Leviticus 18:24, 20:23 Numbers 21:32, 33:52, Deuteronomy 4:38, 6:19, 9:3-5, 11:23, 12:29, 18:12, 33:27). Removal from homelands was a common method of destroying ancient cultures.[9]
This apparent paradox is resolved for us in the case of the Anakites, who were totally destroyed in the Promised Land, but survived in other nations (Joshua 11:21-22). This is not genocide.
The potential injustice is not the punishment of the Canaanites, but the mercy shown to Israel, whose continued occupation of the land depends on obedience (Leviticus 18:28, Deuteronomy 28:36, 63-64, 29:27-28, 30:17-18), they too faced חרם for disobedience (Joshua 7:11).
Understanding חרם in the Promised Land
The interpretation of חרם is controversial. Von Rad (1965) identified it as an integral part of “holy war.”[10] Longman (2003) calls it the climactic aspect of divine warfare.[11] He ties obedience with success in battle against strong enemies, and failure against weak – citing victory in Jericho (Joshua 6:21), and failure in Ai (after Achan’s sin) as didactic moments.[12] Crouch (2009) interprets the command as a socio-rhetorical device brought about as a response to foreign threats.[13]
Rowlett (1996) frames the discussion on חרם and “holy war” at length, concluding that there is nothing culturally unique in Bible’s presentation of divine participation in written accounts of warfare.[14] Lilley (1983) argues that for theocratic Israel all war was “holy,” as was the case for many ancient societies.[15]
Millar (1998) argues for a theological understanding of חרם,[16] he interprets commands to violently dispossess the Canaanites as rabbinic hyperbole,[17] not about warfare, but the need to remove their influence,[18] dismantling the nation.[19] He acknowledges that the command (Deuteronomy 20) is “startlingly literal” – but suggests that the instructions are not simply about military victory but the annihilation of a culture.[20]
A study of Deuteronomy 7 leads to this conclusion. God says he will drive the nations out ahead of them (Deuteronomy 7:1), that the Israelites are to “completely destroy them” (Deuteronomy 7:2), but then provides instructions for living with survivors (Deuteronomy 7:3-5). This would suggest genocide is not the intention, but rather a destruction of Canaanite identity.[21]
Violence in Joshua: A question of discontinuity
In order to reconcile the “immoral” commands and actions God justifies in the Old Testament some scholars, like Seibert (2009), require a separation of the “textual God” and the “actual God”.[22] Cowles (2003) suggests the חרם order came from Satan and was mistakenly applied to Yahweh through Israel’s primitive theology.[23]
These arguments suggest a discontinuity between Yahweh’s Old Testament commands, and Jesus’ words in the New (Matthew 5-7). Death is the punishment for sin (Romans 6:23). It is not out of character for God to be acting as judge over the Canaanites.
Craigie (1978) argues that the violent account was not produced by “barbarous times.”[24] He argues this narrative is pivotal to the Old Testament,[25] and that New Testament writers affirm the Old Testament’s authority.[26]
Violence in Joshua: A question of sociology
Rowlett (1996) and the “German school” require a sociological reading of Joshua’s violent rhetoric at the expense of historical truth, comparing Joshua to Shakespeare.[27] Von Rad (1957) suggests that commands to avoid Canaanite cultic practices follow a long history of Israel “going to school with Canaan.”[28]
Brueggemann (2009) argues against a historical-critical study of Joshua, suggesting that its picture of history is subjective[29] and that the story should be considered sociologically and literarily.[30] His view is that Joshua was both identity building for an oppressed people,[31] and the divine sanction of a new social possibility.[32] Brueggemann accepts that God mandated actual historical violence as “a tightly circumscribed in the interest of a serious social experiment” to end dominion and foster an egalitarian society.[33]
Rowlett’s reading of Joshua in the light of a “thinly veiled Josiah provides” insight into the use of conquest rhetoric similar to surrounding nations in order to develop Israel’s national identity.[34] One may dismiss Rowlett’s conclusions on historical veracity while recognising that the narrative had an identity developing function.
Violence in Joshua: A question of history
Questions have been raised regarding the historicity of events in Joshua and the manner in which the Israelite nation emerged. Noth (1960) argues that Old Testament historical accounts are vieldeutig (capable of more than one meaning).[35] Gard (2003) highlights the divergent interpretations of this violence – after Von Rad (1965) suggested that “holy war” was a product of late theological interpretation of history.[36]
Conversely, Gard’s study of ancient warfare led him to interpret the violence is representative of historical events.[37] Craigie (1978) argues that the violence is historical and essential for establishing a nation in a hostile environment. Goetz (1975) suggests a Utopian vision required a clean slate.[38] Establishing a nation was the purpose of Yahweh’s intervention in history.[39]
Violence in Joshua: A question of theology
Woudstra (1981), like Millar, argues the purpose of the violence in Joshua is theological, suggesting “all dualism between faith and history, and between theology and exegesis should be avoided,” and interpretation should flow from a base of Christian theism, not literature, objective history,[40] or sociology (as advocated by Brueggemann[41]).
Woudstra identifies a schism between those who construct hypothesis on the assumption that God’s intervention in history, and those who assume none.[42] Historical interpretations derived through the latter category will inevitably produce theologically anemic results.
Violence and God: A question of morality
“Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”- Socrates, Euthyphro, 399BC
This Euthyphro dilemma is significant moral question for Christians responding to God’s violent actions. Divine special pleading is not required to justify these actions. The Biblical account leaves no room to question the morality of God’s actions, they are affirmed throughout as just. While one might dismiss the text, one cannot argue that God’s actions are immoral on the basis of the written account.
Goetz (1975) suggests the framework that all deserve death, with mercy an act of grace allowed Calvin to dismiss any analysis of God’s morality vis-à-vis the Canaanite situation “out of order.”[43] Calvin argues it is God’s decision who deserves death, and at what point.[44]
Wright (2004) argues the conquest was a limited event,[45] employing conventional warfare rhetoric, described as an act of God’s punishment, with a promise of equal treatment for Israel in response to disobedience, and that the conquest anticipated the final judgment.[46]
The utilitarian use of violence is not morally normative for the Christian. Neither is all violence necessarily evil.[47] Joshua’s violence serves to fulfill God’s promise to establish a nation. The atonement pivots on an act of violence, which has implications in determining the permissibility of violence.[48] Goetz suggests that the cross should be understood as the focal point of rage between humanity and God.[49] Mouw (2003) concludes Christians are to suffer violence, not enact it.[50]
Rowlett, while arguing for a non-interventionist understanding of Joshua identifies a conundrum for the Christian pacifist – “placing emphasis on divine involvement in conquest stories, rather than human agency, involves the deity in complicity with violence.”[51] Syllogistically, if Yahweh is perfect and just (Deuteronomy 32:4), and complicit with violence, then violence can be just. Furthermore, Jesus simultaneously affirms peacemakers, and the Old Testament (Matthew 5:9,17). Questioning the morality of God’s dispensation of justice in the Old Testament must also raise questions about the morality of his right to judge.
We have rejected both the views of those who see discontinuity between the God who destroyed nations and humbled himself to a violent death, and non-interventionist views of violent accounts. So far as the New Atheists are concerned, interpreting the “God of the Old Testament” without the external criterion of the teaching of Jesus may indeed prove troubling,[52] but in this light Christians can rightly affirm instead the “God of the whole Bible” as perfect, just, faithful and upright (Deuteronomy 32:4).
[1] Dawkins, R, The God Delusion, (London:Bantam), 2006, p 31, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
[2] Rowlett, L.L, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A new historicist analysis, (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press), 1996, pg 181
[3] Boettner, L, ‘What the Old Testament Teaches Concerning War,’ The Christian Attitude Towards War, (New Jersey:Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company), 3rd Edition, 1985, pp 12-17
[4] Goetz, R, ‘Joshua, Calvin and Genocide,’ Theology Today - Vol 32, No. 3 - October 1975, p 264
[5] Dever, W.G, Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come From, (WmB Eerdmans:Michigan), 2003, pp 37-48
[6] Wright, C.J.H, ‘What about the Canaanites?,’ Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, (Leicester:InterVarsity Press), 2004 pp 472-473
[7] חרם (herem) : To devote or consecrate to destruction.
[8] Millar, J.G, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy, (Leicester:Apollos), p 149
[9] Ahlstrom, G.W, The History of Ancient Palestine (Minneapolis: Ahlstrom, G. (1993). The History of Ancient Palestine. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Fortress Press), 1993, p 601
[10] Von Rad, G. Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel, (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 1965
[11] Longman III, T, ‘The Case for Spiritual Continuity,’ Show Them No Mercy: 4 views on God and the Canaanite Genocide, (Michigan:Grand Rapids) 2003, pg 172
[12] ibid, pg 173
[13] Crouch, C.L, War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in the Light of Cosmology and History, (Berlin:Walter De Gruyter GmbH and Co), 2009, pg 183
[14] Rowlett, ‘Divine Warfare,’ Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence, pg 65
[15] Lilley, J.P.U, ‘Understanding the Herem’, Tyndale Bulletin, 44 no 1 My 1993, p 169-177, cf Crouch, C.L, War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East, pg 189
[16] Millar, J.G, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy, p 156
[17] ibid
[18] ibid, p 158
[19] ibid, p 159, “This is theological preaching, urging Israel on to wholehearted obedience. In this context we should expect some hyperbole, at least,”
[20] ibid, p 159
[21] ibid, “Throughout this chapter, it is clear that the Mosaic Preaching is concerned to bring the Israelites to the conviction that shattering the structures of Canaanite society is a theological necessity. This is expressed not in terms of driving out or dispossessing the Canaanites, but of destroying them.”
[22] Seibert, E.A, Disturbing Divine Behaviour: Troubling Old Testament Images of God, (Minneapolis:Fortress Press), 2009, pp 169-182
[23] Cowles, C.S, ‘The Case for Radical Discontinuity,’ Show Them No Mercy, 2003, p 40.
[24] Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Oregon:Wipf and Stock), 2002 [orig. 1978], pp 34-35
[25] ibid, pp 36-37
[26] ibid, pp 37-38
[27] Rowlett, op. cit, p 163
[28] Von Rad, G, Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s historical traditions, (Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, 2001 edition), 1957, pp 24-25
[29] Brueggemann, W, Divine Presence Amid Violence: Contextualising the Book of Joshua, (Colorado Springs:Paternoster Press) p. X
[30] ibid p. 4
[31] ibid, p. 26
[32] ibid, p. 30
[33] ibid, p. 39
[34] Rowlett, op. cit, p 181-182
[35] Noth, M, The History of Israel, translated by Stanley Godman, (New York: Harper & Row) 1960, pp. 48-49
[36] Von Rad, G. Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel, (Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 1965, pg 18, cf. Gard, D.L, ‘The Case for Eschatological Continuity,’ Show Them No Mercy, 2003, p 119
[37] Gard, D.L, op cit, p. 119
[38] Goetz, op. cit. p 273, “Utopian revolution without extermination must degenerate into mere reform-and mere reform compromises with the evil it seeks to redress.”
[39] Craigie, P, The Problem of War in the Old Testament, pp 69-74
[40] Woudstra, M.H, The Book of Joshua, (Grand Rapids:Wm B Eerdmans), 1981, p. 21
[41] Brueggemann, op. cit, p. 3
[42] Woudstra, M.H, op. cit, p. 19
[43] Goetz, R, ‘Joshua, Calvin and Genocide,’ Theology Today, Vol 32. No 3, October, 1975, p 266
[44] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of Joshua. Trans. Beveridge, H (Grand Rapids:Wm B Eerdmans), 1949, p 163, “There is no more ground for obloquy against him than there is against those who pronounce sentence on criminals. Even though in our judgment, children and many women were without blame, let us remember that the judgment-seat of heaven is not subject to our laws… Certainly any man who will thoroughly examine himself, will find that he is deserving of a hundred deaths. Why, then, should not the Lord perceive just ground for one death in any infant which has passed from its mother’s womb? In vain shall we murmur or make noisy complaint, that he has doomed the whole offspring of an accursed race to the same destruction; the potter will nevertheless have absolute power over his own vessels, or rather over his own clay.”
[45] ie. they were not normative of the Old Testament or Israel’s approach to its neighbours
[46] Wright, C.J.H, ‘What about the Canaanites?,’ Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, (Leicester:InterVarsity Press), 2004
[47] As Christian pacifists are wont to do – for example Millbank, J, ‘Violence: Double Passivity,’ Must Christianity Be Violent? Reflections on History, Practice and Theology, edited by Chase, K.R and Jacobs, A. (Michigan: Brazos Press), 2003, p 183
[48] Mouw, R.J, ‘Violence and the Atonement,’ Must Christianity Be Violent?, 2003, p 163
“If it is true, as reformed theology has put it, that the transaction of the cross necessarily required that Christ experience the wrath of the Father, then Reformed thought does indeed insist that violence is an essential feature of the atoning sacrifice of Christ – an insistence, they might go on to point out that has clear implications for questions about the permissibility of violent activity.”
[49] Goetz, op. cit. pg 274, “The cross not only is the focal point of divine wrath against us; it is also the focal point of human rage against God. The human comedy has stored up a reciprocity of outrage that only the trial and death of one who was both the son of God and the son of man can suffice.”
[50] ibid, pp 165-166
[51] Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence, pg 67
[52] McGrath, A, The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, (London: SPCK), 2007, pp 58-59
Ministers, ministry, and semantics
Stuart doesn’t think paid ministers are anything special. I agree. Though “special” is as “special” does. Stuart commented on, and linked to, my post about raising non bitter ministry children. He didn’t like that I used the word “ministry” because we’re all meant to be ministers. Well, yes. But at that point it’s a matter of semantic differences, not theological. I don’t think you’ll find anybody linked to in Stuart’s post who disagrees with him on the fundamental point that those in paid ministry positions have a responsibility to be training and equipping the church to bring the gospel to those they are in relationship with.
What this all boils down to, and I’ve been looking forward to using this phrase here, is an illegitimate totality transfer.
Ministry might be the task of all Christians, but it is only the paid vocation for some. This is the problem with the Presbyterian church and the word worship – worship has a broad semantic range. It’s meaning is dynamic, though each meaning is linked an fundamentally the same. This is true too for the word “ministry” – it’s the best word we have to describe the role of Christians and the job for those we pay to work for the body. A payment that Paul encourages and even mandates (for all but himself).
English words have pretty wide ranges of meanings (I recommend reading Bill Bryson’s Mother Tongue for an exploration of just how English functions, and our church “jargon” (complete with Biblical terminology) is the same. Language is tricky to pin down, and pinning down one word with one specific (minority) definition makes for problematic discussions.
I’ve been reflecting lately on whether Paul’s ministry approach is normative – either for the Christian, or for the paid worker. I think it’s clearly not the case for either. Paul is an apostle, he’s single, he’s schooled in the law, he’s a Jew, he’s different to the other apostles (who have wives, and are paid). He calls the Corinthians to imitate him as he imitates Christ – but he doesn’t call them all to do ministry the way he does, he seems to see his own ministry as a special case. I certainly don’t think we should be expecting everybody within the church to minister in an apostolic fashion. We are (1 Peter 3:15) to be prepared to give an account for our hope, but we’re also a body of Christ with diverse roles and giftings, called to love and serve one another.
Stuart frames the purposes of his posts in the comments on the current one:
Precisely what I want to do in this series is to ask, “Given that paid pastors exist, how can we think of their work (and help them think of their work) in a way that avoids some current problems?”
I have three pastoral concerns here:
1. for pastors, many of whom (at least anecdotally) struggle with overwork and consequent neglect of their wife and children;
2. for church members, who rely too much on paid pastors to do the ministry;
3. for the world, whom the church cannot bless if it is too reliant on paid pastors.
Worthy concerns, and I’m interested to see where Stuart goes while I try to build my own framework and philosophy for ministry (though it’s been pretty heavily influenced by those who came before me…).
I get the feeling that some of this helpful conversation gets bogged down in semantics – we spend so much time defining, or redefining, our terminology in order to engage with one another’s ideas. Izaac reflected on a conversation with one of his fellow students (who is part of the Joshua Tree church plant) mentioning similar issues:
One of our problems was that we were using the same words to describe very different things. When I said church it was not what Danny was thinking when he said church. I wanted to talk to Danny about his role as a student minister – but I prefaced the statement with “For lack of a better word…” and many other things like that.
This has highlighted for me part of the great thing that Stuart, Danny and others involved are trying to do. That is, groups such as these of which they are a part, which seek for radical rethinks of what we are doing, could easily define themselves by what they aren’t. Instead they are working hard to define what they are.
It’s a great conversation, but we need to make sure we aren’t (or are) at cross purposes on the basis of language.
Tall poppies, Mark Driscoll, and the Christian
Australian culture is renowned for tall poppy syndrome – we love cutting down the exalted. We’re a sea of lavender with no place for sunflowers. It’s the same in Christian circles as it is in the real world. We do it, but it seems we increasingly feel guilty about doing it. Is tall poppy syndrome a bad habit? I have to admit its one of my favourite things about our culture. We don’t like pretension. We don’t like big noters. We try to avoid blowing our own trumpets. But because we’re aware that this is a cultural foible it seems we’re trying to stamp it out.
When I posted about Mark Driscoll’s Facebook overadequacy (or perhaps short man syndrome) a couple of people immediately responded that this was “tall poppy syndrome” and that it was wrong. I suspect Driscoll himself would see it that way (except he pays no attention to bloggers or criticism).
Funnily, “tall poppy syndrome” was one of the 18 problems Driscoll diagnosed Australia with – could this be a self fulfilling prophecy? He knew we’d criticise him for being (metaphorically) big, loud and arrogant, so he circumvented that critique by making it a problem. Without really putting the case against it together. Here’s what he said:
“You suffer from tall poppy syndrome. You need to work this into your preaching and teaching so that people see that the tall poppy syndrome is a sin. Thinking that 1000 people in church is a high water mark is unhealthy. The culture generally chops down people who rise up, and the church does the same. That’s a sin. My church gives 10% to plant churches—$1.2 million this year.”
I don’t think tall poppy syndrome is about success. Aussies love a success story, especially a rags-to-riches success story. What we don’t like is people who brag about it. We don’t envy megachurches – we don’t like people who equate their success with their superiority and tell us about it. In short, and pardon my slang, we don’t like “wankers”… tall poppy syndrome is an issue if it’s just thinly-guised jealousy, and it often is. But when it’s pointing to something not quite right about somebody’s self promotion I think that’s ok. I think it’s better than that, I think it’s useful. Especially for those of us who aren’t perfect.
The important questions I think Christians need to answer before chopping a tall poppy to its knees is “who gave the growth” and “to whom is it being attributed” – I think if the answer to both those questions is clearly “God” then we should avoid tall poppyising. But if the answer is anything less – if there’s a skerric of self promotion involved with somebody’s “coaching” or in what they post online – I think we’re right to be a little cynical and to make a little noise.
On the question of Driscoll – God has clearly given him gifts, and his church is clearly growing, and he mostly attributes this appropriately. But it’s when he says stuff like this that I begin to ask questions:
I wrote this book while fathering five kids, pastoring Mars Hill, pursuing my wife, leading Acts 29, growing The Resurgence, traveling, doing media, and so forth. So, it was written in large part late at night, at Little League games, and on airplanes. In many ways, I guess I did my writing much like the apostles did their epistles—on the run, doing ministry.
More on Christianity and Rock Music
I’ll finish going through Backwards Masking Unmasked this week sometime. Don’t despair. In the meantime, I am continuing to discover a larger than expected volume of anti-rock propaganda… Here are some Christians using the power of Rock n Roll to proclaim the power of the rock that never rolls…
Parent your children with this educational program
Muffin the dog at about 1 minute thirty has a good lesson for children about Rock music…
“Objective Ministries” is neither
Poe’s Law is in effect here people. I can’t tell if this is satire or serious.
Objective Ministries seem to epitomise everything that is bad about Christianity in America. Any “ministry” that contextualises by changing “LOL” to mean “Love our Lord” and then puts it on underpants as merchandise raises serious questions for me:
Laughing Jesus Thong
$8.50
They also have a “rock” ministry. Jacob Aranza says no.
Their homepage objectiveministries.org promotes a litany of extremist Christian campaigns.
The US is slouching towards secularism because Obama didn’t use a Bible in his second swearing in (after the botched first swearing).
The page features this cartoon…
… and these ads.
Palin + Jindal: God’s Unbeatable Ticket — Start Prayer Campaigns Today — YES, GOD CAN!
ELECT THE ELECT in 2012!
And an opportunity to pray for France. Because they need it…
This is the type of site we’re dealing with. I am giving you the context so you treat this next point with appropriate gravity.
There is a mission to put a massive crucifix on the moon.
That sentence is worth bolding. I’ll say it again.
There is a mission to put a massive cruficix on the moon.
The page featured a news update about the mission not receiving tax deductible status (there’s now an appeal). If I lived in America, and my taxes went towards putting a crucifix on the moon, I would move to Australia.
The moon campaign follows a similar effort, from a man named Arthur Blessitt (either he changed his name or this is a bizarre case of nominal determinism) to have a cross orbiting as a salvific satellite. That campaign was based on a series of malapropriated Bible verses:
“Then the Sign of the Son of Man will appear in the Sky!
Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”
Jesus
(Matthew 24:30)“And I, if I am lifted up from the Earth will draw all unto Me”
Jesus
(John 12:32)“Like a Faithful Witness in the Sky”
David
(Psalms 89:37)“Now see my witness in the Sky!”
Job
(Job 16:19)
Oh, and a theophany.
“The glory of the coming of the Lord is at Hand”
God to Arthur Blessitt
Objective Ministries’ moon campaign raises an important question (tangentially) about what happens to people who send their ashes into space when the rapture occurs. Apparently you miss out.
Blessitt’s space mission failed – the ashes transport service he was piggy backing with failed. The ashes were lost. You might remember the story – because Scotty from Star Trek’s ashes were on board. Which proved a distraction for the “Mainstream Secular Media” when it came to reporting the mission’s failure…
When the MSM (Mainstream Secular Media) reported on Falcon 1’s failure, they focused on the loss of the cremated remains of James Doohan, an actor who played “Scotty” on the Secular TV show Star Trek, rather than Blessitt’s more important payload. In fact, the Media didn’t report on the cross payload at all, either before or after the failed orbital delivery.
The Objective Ministries founder had a better idea (since superseded):
I propose launching into polar orbit a cross of significant dimensions, with a sun-reflecting surface that will be easily visible in the night sky to the naked eyes of unbelievers. This space-age testimonial will fly over Communist China, Mussulmanned Saudi Arabia, Hindooed India, Godless France, and all other nations in need of the simple yet profound message of Christ’s sacrifice and His offer of Salvation. All the people of the world will see it shine, like a beacon of hope on the runway of the aircraft carrier of the night sky, an omnipresent reminder of the Lordship of Jesus over our world.
Unlike Mr. Blessitt’s plan, mine will require a more elaborate cross design and access to more costly launch services, as it would necessarily require multiple single-payload launches. Fortunately I feel that my connections within the Department of Defense will help bring this plan to fruition.
Orbital Cross Alpha Design:
Potential design of Orbital Cross Alpha, with approaching Space Shuttle.
In order to be viewable and identifiable as a cross to the naked eye, my calculations show that OCA will need to be at least 1000 feet along its main axis and 500 feet along the perpendicular, and placed into Medium Earth Orbit (between 1,243 and 22,236 miles; dimensions will need to be increased for visibility at higher orbits). By being at MEO, it will be high enough to catch and reflect the Sun’s light throughout the entire night.
But wait, there’s more… a new “Cross on the Moon” campaign has begun in earnest. Here’s what the Objective Ministries people say:
The Cross on the Moon Foundation (COM) is a newly formed, non-profit organization dedicated to advocate, design, and implement the placement of a Christian Cross on the surface of Earth’s Moon in 2011. Besides setting their goals on the Moon instead of Medium Earth Orbit, their plan differs from mine in that they will acquire passage for the Cross aboard a private spacecraft. As of this writing they are still developing the details of the Lunar Cross — two leading candidates include a gold plated one that would be visible from a live HD video feed and one formed from a constellation of reflective targets that would be illuminated by earthbound lasers to make it visible to the naked eye — and the transfer mechanism they will use to plant it into the Moon’s surface.
I do not see their plan as a competitor to my own. Rather, it will be one of the many Crosses that will fill the Heavens to proclaim the Glory of our Lord to all spacefarers of the future. We need Crosses not only in MEO and on the Moon, but on every planet, satellite (natural or otherwise), asteroid, space station, and Lagrange point in our Solar System. No quadrant of our system should be left bereft of the sign of His Sacrifice. Therefore, I welcome COM’s participation in this, Mankind’s greatest pre-Rapture adventure.
Also, given that our current non-Christian Commander in Chief does not share in our common creed and consequently will hinder military involvement in Witnessing Missions such as I propose, COM might represent our best opportunity to place a Cross in the heavens before we retake the government in 2012. But fear not; my contacts in the Palin camp confirm that she will be solidly behind OCA when the time comes.
But the evil “secular” government didn’t want this mission taking place… or at least not with tax deductability. And it’s all because Obama is a Muslim… or so they say…
Cross on the Moon Foundation (COM), a non-profit organization dedicated to the private launch of a space vehicle carrying a Christian Cross to be placed on the Moon, has been denied 501 (c)-3 status by the IRS. The reasons given by the IRS are unclear and seemingly contradict the granting of 501 (c) status to other organizations — namely the Lunar X Prize Foundation — engaged in similar private, Secular space missions.
“Secular” appears to be the operative word. While COM President M.N. Clark remains restrained in his words (he still hopes to negotiate and appeal the ruling), it is clear that this decision is a political one based on anti-Christian bigotry handed down from on high in the Obama administration — possibly coming directly from the President’s desk.
How can we know this? It’s a matter of simple deduction: Muslims consider the Moon to be sacred, and would never — if in a position of power to dictate such things, as Obama now is — allow a symbol of Christianity to be erected there. The denial of tax-exemption is not only consistent with Obama’s crypto-Muslim leanings, it further confirms them. This — combined with institutional pressure from Evolutionists deeply entrenched in NASA who want space to remain a Christ-free environment — means that COM will likely never get the tax-exempt status, nor the government issued launch certifications or safety documents that the IRS claim are necessary, as long as the current regime is in power.
Yeah. The current regime is holding us Christians back from our plans to dominate the heavens. The heavens that the Bible says already declare God’s majesty and existence (Romans 1, Psalm 19)…
But wait… there’s more… an update…
Our intercessory prayers have convinced God to alter the mind of the IRS agent overseeing COM’s case and he is now allowing the case to be reopened following a minor change in COM’s by-laws. Glory! But COM also still needs our help in the form of donations. COM President M.N. Clark explains why:
This is probably a good time to summarize why we are asking for donations. First we believe in having a personal relationship with God. Placing a cross on the moon will encourage theological dialogs. Already discussions have begun, mostly on confused atheist web sites. That’s ok. Our God is the creator of the Universe. The more we study the person and the works of Jesus, the stronger our faith becomes. The donations are needed to send the cross to the moon. Several companies are testing components so they can be the first to claim the Google Lunar X Prize, a 501 C-3 philanthropic organization. We need donations in preparation for sending these companies an RFQ (request for quote). If our resources are enough, we will place a physical cross on the moon. Obviously the size of the cross would have significant restrictions. A lower cost option might be to place a cross decal on the rover.
No target is too small for Objective Ministries – they also want to shut down anti-Christian parody site Landover Baptist (perhaps so that people don’t confuse their own site with parody) because, Christians own the internet.
The Internet was created by the United States of America – a Christian nation [ref. 1, 2, 3] – and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech. This is our Internet, and we should exercise our position as its owners and as the guardians of civilization to stop its misuse.
We should shut down stuff we don’t like because that’s exactly the kind of things Christians should be advocating in an increasingly secular country… right? And satire is the worst thing on the Internet. It’s what Christians should be campaigning against. Right?
Perhaps my favourite bit, and the thing that led me to the site in the first place, is this children’s guide for dealing with scary atheists…
Reasons for going to church: you (probably) won’t get AIDS
Seriously. What sort of answer was this (in about the tenth second)…
It must be hard to know what you stand for when your minister sounds like a fortune cookie (check that out on Challies), and can’t get the gospel right… on national TV.