This will be my first post on this website. I found this website by doing research over the Internet on Islam. I have a growing concern for the safety of my family here in the United States. I come from a Christian background, I attend a Catholic Church and have Jewish ancestry. My concern is over all of the violence in the world - in the name of Religion or Politics. I have read the Koran (Quran), the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Hindu religous texts, and many other religion’s “textbooks”. My basic understanding of religion is that is essentially the same all over the world, just slanted differently across the cultures. I do know that history repeats itself, and just as the Christians spread their religion through violence and tyranny thousands of years ago - Muslim Extremists are now attempting to do the same in the West. Through alot of my research I am learning that most people of Islam, openly or secretly, support the conversion of people to thier religion. With the recent video that was released of the weekend (9/2/06) in which members of Al Quada are asking Americans to covert - I have a growing concern that Muslims are beginning to support the Extremists on a more often of a basis. This leads to the growing concern of my personal safety as a law abiding citizen of the world. I will be frequenting this website more often to see what the ‘scholars’ are saying about the theological aspects of our future. But I think, as much as we don’t want it to be, it is boiling down to “Christendom versus the Islamic Empire” more and more everyday. While not being too religous myself, I pray that the violence will stop, and people will understand the true meaning of peace.
Latest comments
- njohnson on A look at Walter Brueggemann on biblical authority
- njohnson on Telling the Stories of Scripture
- njohnson on The Meaning of Transcendence in the Postmodern World
- njohnson on The Creation Narratives as Thought Experiments
- njohnson on 5 Reasons I would claim to leave the church
- njohnson on Shane Claiborne and the rich young ruler
- njohnson on The New Man in Colossians 3
- john doyle on New creation in Paul and scripture: a response to John Doyle
Other recent posts
- john: the longing to belong : The longing to belong is innate in us, part of our very nature. Irish philosopher, John O'Donohue
- toledomudhen: Jason Silverthorne : user's biography
- rogermugs: roger mugs : user's biography
- splaestro: Brian C Young : user's biography
- LatinAmericanview: Commissary to the Gentiles BY Marcus Eli Ravage-(biographer of the Rothschild Family) : The Century Magazine February 1928 By Marcus Eli Ravage You Christians worry and complain about the Jew’s influence
- rogermugs: The answer to sin : I was a believer for almost 21 years before I happened upon Hudson Taylor's spiritual secret, and was shocked how clearly he
andrewperriman.com
- 'Intentional kingdom living' and the sheep and goats
- New creation in Paul and scripture: a response to John Doyle
- 1 Cor. 3:10-15 - Christian workers and the day of fire
- Surprised by Hope: facebook, parousia and new creation
- Gospel and the post-Christendom paradigm
- Gal. 6:15 - Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but new creation
- The Canaanite 'genocide' and the renewal of creation
- New creation, Spirit, blessing and kingdom: a clarification of terminology
User login
Creative commons
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
A dangerous place to be
I thought this post from someone who probably doesn’t consider himself (herself?) to be part of the emerging church was worth highlighting. Where is the emerging church called to position itself in this growing confrontation? Are we unavoidably part of Christendom and should just accept the fact? Should we in some way side with Islam against an old paradigm of Christianity that we now distrust? Or should we position ourselves between the two - and perhaps get ourselves crushed as these empires grind against each other? There are all sorts of dangers that present themselves, from the theological to the physical. Is the emerging church called to be in a dangerous place?
Critical from within
If we are striving to organize our communal life around Jesus, I think most of the public will not hesitate to throw us in with the rest of Christendom, in a knee jerk kind of way. On one hand that bothers me because I don’t want the public to think all Christians are like the ones on American TV. But on the other hand i think that being marked out as altogether different would be just another contribution to the public opinion that Christians are boorishly divisive and sectarian.
If by Christendom we mean Western, predominantly American, evangellyfish empire, I do not believe we are unavoidably a part.
If we mean the worldwide Church, I believe, as I assume most in the emerging church do, that we are unavoidably a part.
Since many communities and individuals participate in both of these, and since I think that Western popular christianity, particularly the american, reductionist, dualistic, pseudo-political sort is a bit of an infection in the body, I believe that part of the role of the emerging church is to be critical from within.
I think we ought not set ourselves markedly apart from the parts of the Church with whom we disagree or even dislike, as it is now our differences that mark us out in the minds of the observant public, and unfortunately our squabbling has become the common denominator of all Christian behavior.
We become the people who are against this and that, him and her.
Since many of those in the emerging church have in one way or another been influenced by postmodernism, the emerging church is finding itself in sufficient conditions for rethinking some of the older questions, as well as asking new ones. My hope is that a non-naive, ecumenism might become one of the goals of the emerging church, in turn witnessing to the world that the followers of Christ are one.
The emerging church needs to hammer out a theology of idolatry and other gods. It needs to make up its mind about universalism and other such issues. Because where Islam presents itself as a kind, moderate, religion with humanitarian interests we need to know whether the church needs to descend into its midst and call them unto Christ anyway, or somehow understand them to be part of the new humanity. I doubt the latter would be possible, but I’d love for someone to show me that it is.
And where Islam presents itself as an oppressive empire, or a violent regime, I’ll just say it straight up, we ought to declare Jesus as King, sometimes from the rooftops, and sometimes quietly, slowly, subversively (and maybe, no joke, we can find a way to ‘shout’ quietly and subversively) and summon leaders and followers and whoever to repentance. We ought to rescue dehumanized women and brainwashed children, etc.
This would obviously require us to work out a theology of violence and peace on the macro level, as well as what it means to bless those who hate, on a micro level.
In my opinion, what we know as ‘evangelism’ needs a serious overhaul.
Aside from its various political connotations, I think we could learn a lot about effectual mission from the word ‘altruism’.
My guess is that we are called to be in a dangerous place.
Pacifistic Idealism
I don’t like to seem so pessimistic, but, universal peace is only a wonderful concept at first glance. For, a true world where all are prosperous would ultimately only lead to overpopulation, starvation, disease, and other such matters.
I personally, am very much a pacifist. If I, alone, were placed in a room with another, and infomed that one of us must die, I would be inclined by my beliefs, to die so as to save the other person. Christ is the model for this belief.
To make the connection between the two. The right thing to do, would be, rather than fight, to die. Ultimately, I think I would fall short of this expectation, as I assume you would.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest that, while maintaining your personal pacifistic beliefs, you reevaluate your thoughts on war in general, for, death must happen, one way or the other.
For, a true world where all
That’s nothing short of an insult to the creativity and planning abilities of our Creator.
RE: "an insult...our Creator"
Perhaps it could be taken as an insult, but to me, it seems more insulting to look at the present state of the world and attempt to improve upon it.
In my mind, it seems that any attempt of man to improve upon any divine creation would be nothing short of faulty.
In my mind, it seems
Improving upon the creation is something the Creator is encouraging all of us to do. It started when God placed man in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it:
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
Why would something that was just created recently need cultivating and keeping if it’s so wrong for us to care for the creation and for each other? Based on your comments, you would also suggest keeping antibiotics away from millions of dying children in order to avoid overpopulation and keep a few comfortable?
Improving upon the creation
“Improving upon the creation is something the Creator is encouraging all of us to do.”
=/
I can see your point there. However, seeing and planning a better tomorrow than today isn’t the same as ‘cultivating and keeping.’
This seems to me more like when man was tempted by the serpent to search out a better life, and ate the apple from the tree of wisdom. In a similar way, the author of this is tempted with the hope of a more perfect world, when, maybe his/her eyes need to turn upon the eden in which he/her lives, and not be tempted into trying to perfect god’s assumedly-flawed creation.
Perhaps the world is fine as it is, and perhaps one needs only cultivate his own garden, and not attempt to seek out flaws in others, nor cultivate others’ for them, for, maybe the joy of life lay in the cultivating, and not the benefits reaped from it.
“you would also suggest keeping antibiotics away from millions of dying children in order to avoid overpopulation an keep a few comfortable?”
I wouldn’t suggest it. Though, surely you can see how the manufacturing of the antibiotics, or the effort of the people making them, must be taken from somewhere to be spent saving the children’s lives and not saving others? It is all a balance, to give something, it must be taken from somewhere else. This is what makes decisions like this one hard. One must weigh which is more deserveing, or more just, when, it seems, to me, that both effects are equal, only some long, and some short term.
Many times, time and effort needs only be taken away from work or monetary gains, and with this I wholeheartedly agree, and admire in anyone. But, in the same way, I do not value economy, nor politics, but try to shift my values towards quality of life, rather than efficiency or quantity of it.
Not pessimistic
I do tend to agree that this is a bit of an insult to the creator, i’m sure he was a little more ingenious - and created us with enough creativity - to get over this problem.
In fact, this view is more secular than Christian, because the Kingdom really is about being a ‘blessing to the nations.’ Being a blessing to the nations is hardly about accepting poverty. But if you view progress / development / prosperity in the secular form, the result is overpopulation, starvation, disease etc. because the secular form of prosperity is actually ‘consumerism’ which means we live for the ‘now’ and build nothing for the future.
The KINGDOM (Christ) form of progress / prosperity / development is creative development - ie, figuring out new and wonderful ways to create more food, conquer disease, and build cities and towns while nurturing and helping the environment to flourish. As for overpopulation, my feeling is it may be a bit of a myth, especially if we find new ways to house people. If food is no problem, and we build correctly, I believe God made the planet suitable for EVERYTHING that is needed - after all, He was the one who said we should ‘be FRUITFUL and MULTIPLY.’
You could call me an optimist :) Although, I’d have to agree that if the present western countries continue to embrace this secular view they are going to destroy more than anything - and find themselves in severe poverty very soon as well.
be FRUITFUL and MULTIPLY.
This is a very good argument, however, I just don’t personally feel the need to continously improve upon our condition. While improvements aren’t bad, I often feel that they are driven, more than anything, by competition with another country/race/religion/tribe. This I do not agree with by any means, for, the root of this competition seems to me to be our own high opinion of ourselves. I suggest only, that perhaps, as individuals, we are no better, nor greater than any other indiviual, only different. And we should try not to bias things in our favor, as that would be selfish.
I like to view the beauty of the world in it’s present form. I receive great joy in helping others, but I like to try to help others in qualitive, rather than quantative ways measured in population or people saved or good deeds done. I see it more important to enjoy life than to simply live it.
Also, I like optimism. I think it’s more important than anything to try and keep a good outlook on everything.
emergent and politics
Boiling everything down to Xtianity vs Islam is very short-sighted, for you need to take into consideration the relatively quiet but very effective ‘evangelism’ that the Hindu Right is involved in. Beyond this there is the largely latent factor of China and its ambivalence towards religion - but it will allow a state censored form of anything.
What will eventually happen in a globalised world is anybody’s guess. In any case, Western society is shedding its Xtian moorings and beginning to dabble in all sorts of religious and cultural experimentation.
What is on very public display now is not Xtianity vs Islam, though it has been spun that way, but rather the ‘neocon worldvision’ (or as some are terming it ‘neocononialism’) vs. all other perceived hegemonistic/balancing possibilities. The action in the Middle East is very much a neocon proxy war to dominate resources since that is considered key for an eventual dominance of the global economy.
Where Christians, and specifically emerging will end up in this new world will be determined by their ethic and eschatology. If the emerging ethic is going to find its roots in Jesus’s teachings, then the emerging church will come out as a voice for peace regardless of the dominant politics in which they are embedded.
But if the forces to the political/religious right are able to find a rapprochement with a postmodern understanding, then the outcome will be that the emerging church will become a fringe part of the existing political standard handmaidency to the conservative, right-wing political forces.
By implication then, the first ‘clash’ will occur within Christendom between the evangelicals and the emerging church over what ethic/eschatology is demanded from a close reading of the NT - a ‘historical Jesus - partial preterism’ reading (Wright, Dunn…) or a ‘Jesus = Power - dispensational’ reading.
I am assuming now that the proportion of Christians who consider themselves emerging will continue to grow in numbers to the point where their political views will start making a difference on the ground, in elections, and assuming also that the emerging church movement will experience enough homogenisation for emerging to have a ‘position’ on the various issues.
Andrew raises an interesting possibility “Should we in some way side with Islam” and if there is an emerging consensus on eschatology and what to make of Christendom, the implications of exploring common ground with other religions (especially monotheistic - Judaism and Islam) might allow the emerging church to become a very powerful catalyst for change.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Personally, I don't think
Personally, I don’t think we should be siding with any religion at all - I’d prefer to side with Kingdom, Christ being the King.
Well, of course, definitions of ‘kingdom’ and ‘Christ’ could perhaps be the problem, but because he is the Prince of Peace you could expect me to side with whoever wants real peace - and actually, within Christendom, there is still an element of Kingdom in there somewhere and that’s who I’m going to side with. Emerging church needs to include itself in Christendom, whether it likes it or not, otherwise it isn’t really building as much as it is tearing down and creating more seperation and confusion about Christianity.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that Christendom is also filled with religion, so instead of defecting against it or complaining about it i’d prefer to work within it to change it as best as I can (working in team with others) so that in 50 years time when people talk of Christendom they are no longer talking about the religious tyranny that happened hundreds of years ago (can someone get over it already?) but rather the ancient way of peace, love, AND development (progress, in the positive sense) that encompasses what the Kingdom really means.
Andrew, i’m not sure why the emerging church would rather seperate than work with and change the current state of church. We’d be in a MUCH more interesting and better place if Martin Luther (who I respect) and the reformers perhaps reacted a bit more peacefully WITHIN the church, rather than seperating and trying to change from the outside. Of course, I know they were in a predicament that perhaps forced them to do what they did, but in our case we are not. We have the ability to change the church from the inside, we just need patience and trust Christ that he really IS building His Church, and that His Spirit really WILL guide us into all truth and anoint us to affect change from the inside.
As far as Islam is concerned, I think that it - a long with ALL religion - must go. The only ‘religion’ which should remain should be the ‘religion’ (disciplines) of KNOWING, and getting to KNOW Christ (God.) But religion, the ‘scoring points with God’ formula must go. I include Islam in that, because it’s fruit is nothing but slavery to law. I include ‘religious’ Christianity in that, because it doesn’t advance Kingdom but merely enslaves to law as well. But, I have the opportunity rather to work ‘within’ that circle because the theology is all there, it just needs to be ‘extracted’ and made clear that’s all.
Jesus Christ is transnationally Lord!
A quick note. Just saw this:
2. Because of Christ, the “Christian Nation” is a trans-national, supra-national entity; and due to war, the Christian witness in Muslim nations has been devastated.
The Religious Right has perpetuated the myth that America is a Christian nation, that therefore our international policies somehow have the imprimatur of God. However, we must learn that there is no parallel between ancient Israel and the United States (or any other modern nation) – we cannot presume that anything we do as a nation has the direct guidance or blessing of God. We seem to care little about how many missionaries in Muslim nations have had their ministries devastated by war. Christian evangelism is the proclamation to the world of the Prince of Peace, and here is a nation calling itself “Christian” fighting a destructive and questionable war, appearing to care very little about civilian deaths and casualties. Christians and Muslims have a long and ugly history (remember the Crusades and the Serbs in Kosovo!), and the current war on terror is not helping this history.
“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of thosewho bring good news,who proclaim peace,who bring good tidings,who proclaim salvation,who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” (Isaiah 52:7)
From Bob Robinson at http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/
Is Jesus Christ trans-religiously Lord?
Live to serve : Serve to live
911 Five Years Later
In light of this conversation and today’s date, I want to bring to light the wonderful work of MEMRI (The Middle East Media Research Institute) which is an independent, nonpartisan organization. Today MEMRI released a powerful documentary in which three key areas of the Islamic world is analyzed: Education, Religion and the Media. I encourage everyone to watch this documentary:
http://www.memrifilms.org/
“When the twin towers collapsed… My lungs filled with air and I breathed in relief, as I had never breathed before.”
‘Ali ‘Uqleh ‘Ursan, Syrian Arab Writers Association chairman Al-Usbu’ Al-Adabi (Damascus) September 15, 2001
propaganda war
Virgil, I went thru the pdf collection at MEMRI. That’s a lot of stuff to go thru bro! But I don’t really see anything unusual there. Those who have been looking at news on a more global level are quite familiar with most of this.
Is there some particular analysis that you would like to bring forward on this issue?
Live to serve : Serve to live
Oh no...
I was not expecting anyone to go over everything they’ve done - the documentary however is highly educational in that it offers an insight into the Islamic mind in light of the attacks of 911…plus I like Ron Silver.
I think that it is very important when we speak of “Christendom versus the Islamic Empire” we understand what Islamic extremism is and how those people see us as well. Honestly I don’t care that much about “why” since I know that the Islamic world has been chewing away at Europe’s heels long before Israel’s 1948 creation. There is a deeper question here that is not being answered in my opinion and that is: how will I prevent my family from being killed and destroyed by groups of people who want to do just that; this requires an immediate solution, not a study into finding out why it happens. We can try to understand why, but that is not relief from immediate danger.
Any thoughts?
Isn't that a bit alarmist?
Isn’t that a bit alarmist? I would have thought the likelihood of you and your family being killed by muslim extremists is rather small - certainly smaller than dying from cancer or in a traffic accident. And how is the immediate concern to protect your family a ‘deeper question’ than the historical and political causes of tension between east and west? To be a little more blunt and insensitive than I would like, I would suggest that your anxiety about ‘relief from immediate danger’ (where are you living? Baghdad? Kabul?) is symptomatic of the sort of knee-jerk, defensive, distrustful attitude that seems to make it so hard for Americans to understand the underlying causes of the conflict. Or is that unfair?
Good point Andrew
But I do live 1/2 mile away from the biggest Air Force base in the country. I guess you could say “just move you idiot” but that’s not the point. I would also respond that possbly the people working in the WTC five years ago never even thought an airplane would hit their office building.
Really the question is even deeper than that. When I wake up in the morning, the first things coming to my mind are about my girls, working to provide for them, and sometimes…checking opensourcetheology for updates :) When most Islamic Fundamentalists wake up in the morning, what do you think they think about? Killing Americans maybe?
I think assuming that most Americans want to kill Muslims just for the heck of killing Muslims is seriously inaccurate - I don’t think the same can be said of Islamic extremists. But maybe that’s just a knee jerk reaction based on Middle East media coverage.
Eschatology, anxiety, personal ontology
Virgil,
I know this is a sensitive issue. Just know these are sincere questions, asked in a tender tone.
I guess I am thinking, all worldviews have to make something of these questions. What about your branch of preterism?
There’s got to be a theological aspect to your question about ‘protection”, so there’s probably a theological context for the answer.
too many thots
Virgil,
The worldwide reach of Christendom came from the use of military might, so did the growth and domination over the M/E of the Islamic faith. I don’t think one can vilify the one and glorify the other.
I am no expert on Islam. My first proper introduction to it came from Colin Chapman (mentioned in the ‘God’s Politics’ post by Peter) way back in 1982 when he had just got out of that Lebanon war and was taking a break and teaching us Islam at LICC. That was a very good intro and helped to remove a lot of my prejudices. Colin also got us to each get a copy of the Quran and read it. I must admit to being very pleasantly surprised by the Quran! I liked it, especially the almost single-minded concentration of justice.
Comparing how we in Christendom follow our Bible with how the Islamic world follows the Quran, one must conclude that they are far better at it. Here, I believe is the key. If we can talk to Muslims about the Quran and understanding/following it better (there is a lot of pacifism there!) while learning how to respect the bible better, that itself will go a long way towards bringing about healing.
A good dose of a ‘Western style’ positive but critical approach to the Quran from within Islam and an overhaul of the use of the Hadith will do Islam a world of good.
Having said that, Cristendom has a very long way indeed to go in understanding Islam. We had better do a lot more in terms of respectful study as “People of the Book” before we can even begin to attempt to dialogue. But, without dialogue and mutual understanding there will not be any peaceful way forward.
Without rehashing older history, America has to get out of fiddling in the M/E. This is critically important for Christianity because America claims to be a Christian nation. Whatever they do seems to be done for the sake of Christianity, and I am sorry to say that what they have been up to has not been what anyone could call just or fair. You may disagree with me but let me assure you that while the views that you found so offensive in MEMRI were on the shriller side, the non-Muslim world (Africa, Asia and now even many in South America) largely feels that the Americans have led themselves and their allies into a very foolish and unjust position.
Your reading of the news from the world of Islam has convinced you that they are out to get you. My reading is that as long as they are talking Quran and if we can take action to prove that we believe that God is just and that therefore we are equally or even more committed to justice - then there is hope.
From the standpoint of your own security, I can only say that the policies that the allies in the ‘war on terror’ are persuing now are guaranteed to create more insecurity and more terrorism.
From a purely defensive standpoint, even assuming that your reading is right, for the allies (U.S. in particular), if the same resources that went into the Iraq war had gone into consolidating-establishing-rebuilding Afghanistan and into strengthening the internal defences and self confidence internally, you would not now be feeling so threatened.
America declared war. This war has no fixed target, the enemy is anywhere and can include even American citizens! The torn fabric of America’s own freedom is a very high price to pay for how this war has been conducted!
The silent understanding that you have is that the terrorists include most Muslims and so no attempt will be made to heal or understand and respond positively!
I believe that ff you could believe and would be willing to try to befriend the 99.999% of Muslims who would prefer peace to war, then terrorism would cease. But the bogeyman of “Satan America” has first got to be firmly dealt with.
Beyond that, if there is to be dialogue, we must study history. At least recent history. That crusader mentality that is an unfortunate legacy of the ancient past must first be corrected. But, more practically, studying how we got into this present mess will show us important and specific areas of hurt that have to be dealt with before any understanding and trust can be established.
Finally, (sorry that this is long winded - very dangerous to ask me for my thoughts on anything!) Israel does not need to cease to exist. Israel can be a very important catalyst for peace. Israel needs to get back to the territiory of its mandate as a first step, and trust and security can both become a reality.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Agh...your premise..
Sam, I am not ready to accept the premise that Christianity spread by the use of force or violence, which is what some of your comment was based on.
Is the West entirely free of guilt in this matter? Of course not, but I am not ready to accept the guilt of Islamic terrorism because I am am a white, male, English-speaking, Christian human living in the U.S.
Dealing with Muslims with love and understanding is the way to go, no question about it, but my concerns are both about the future of my great-grand children AND what tommorow morning brings. Closing our eyes to the immediate danger will only bring another 9/11 in my opinion - we cannot focus all on befriending Muslims and ignore the radicals and extremists who are bent on killing us.
One of the best examples in dealing with Muslim folks comes from McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy - ironically this was cited recently by a McLaren critic to illustrate how not to love Muslims…go figure. I love this example and if Christians would act more this way, peace would be closer to grasp:
Premise Christendom
Not wanting to really move off the topic of this thread as it is an important one, I would just like to say that IMO the worldwide spread of Xtianity is very tied to militarism.
South America was militarily subdued and forced to become Xtian. North America and Africa too. In Asia, for various reasons, military conquest did not result in the wholesale spread of Xtianity. Western empire building, which was always certainly military, preceded and went hand-in-hand with the spread of Christianity.
Leaving Islam out of the pic, just go to Africa and ask any Christian member of any former colony what they think of having been conquered, enslaved and having all their natural resources exported for the benefit of their colonisers? Today, the existence of the church there is in spite of its initial establishment. African followers of Jesus recognise that the missionaries were mostly good but very sadly deluded people. No other evidence of the power of the gospel and the truth of our Lord is needed - He saves in spite of our injustices in His name.
Any other reading of the spread of worldwide Christianity is looking at church history through very rose colored specs! You did a thorough job of deconstructing Calvin, turn the same talents to looking critically at 2k years of our propoganda.
I have known many, many young people who felt a call to ministry and started seminary and then lose their faith (or worse, become cynics). The prime reason is that the mythology that they have been indoctrinated with starts to crack and the truth - very often ugly - becomes painfully plain.
BTW I rather liked the McLaren anecdote. On a one-to-one level and in our homes, let’s teach and practice love to one another and to our neighbors. Incidentally, my reading of the NT makes me believe that the frequent calls to show love to our brothers and sisters in Christ is actually an apostolic attempt to correct a tendency of the earliest followers showing ‘more’ love to their neighbors (viz parable of the Good Samaritan style Lk 10:25-37) in obedience to Jesus teaching - which I believe they all memorised!
Live to serve : Serve to live
Then and Now
Jesus found himself in the midst of the ‘conflict’ between Israel and Rome. I have always found it amazing how he showed compassion to the centurion and healed his servant - even though rome, and the occupying army in particular were regarded the enemy. In todays climate of conflict I believe we need to be compassionate as Jesus was - particularly in seeking to redress injustices that are at the heart of a Islamic critique of the west. If emerging church, or any part of the church could take a lead in bringing aid to Palestinians and others in suffering. a significant bridge may be built over which peacemakers could cross.
Jesus vs politics
That is a very interesting observation! Did political leanings not matter to Jesus any more than ethnicity? Jesus was frequently in Samaria and in the Decapolis, He moved freely between Galilee and Jerusalem. He healed the Syro-Phonecian woman’s child and revealed Himself to the Samaritan woman.
If Jesus was apolitical and unimpressed by ethnicity and even ignored a person’s purported religion…
Live to serve : Serve to live