Sadaam just needed his Islamic Bible...

I received an e-mail recently which not only shocked me with its “biblical geography”, but with the very revealing perspective many citizens of our country believe we have in the world (see the interpretive move with the symbol of the “eagle” at the end of the e-mail). This “chain mail” provides ample material for all sorts of reflections. Enjoy!


VERY INTERESTING-
1. The Garden of Eden was in Iraq
2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!
3. Noah built the ark in Iraq
4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq
5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq !
6. Isaac ' s wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq !
7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq
8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq
9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel
10. Amos cried out in Iraq !
11 Babylon , which is in Iraq , destroyed Jerusalem
12. Daniel was in the lion ' s den in Iraq !
13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the Fiery Furnace!)
14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the 'writing on the wall' in Iraq
15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq
16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq ..
17. The wise men were from Iraq
18. Peter preached in Iraq
19. The 'Empire of Man' described in Revelation is called Babylon , which was a city in Iraq!
And you have probably seen this one: Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible.

But do you know which nation is second?
It is Iraq !

However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible.
The names used in the Bible are Babylon , Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia . The word Me sopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris
And Euphrates Rivers ..

The name Iraq , means country with deep roots.

Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible.
No other nation, except Israel , has more history and prophecy associated with it than Iraq

And also, This is something to think about: Since America is typically represented by an eagle.
Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages...

The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran ( 9:11 ) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah;
And there was peace.

(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!

This is a ribbon for soldiers fighting in Iraq
Pass it on to everyone and pray.

Pulpit, Power, and Purpose

A recent conference held at the University of Chicago considered the relationship of Pulpit and Classroom in terms of advocacy. The conversations were oriented around the ethics of "advocating" in a religious and/or academic setting. Thought-provoking, challenging, and inspiring, the conference furnished ample material for reflection. I hope that my thoughts prove interesting, useful, and/or helpful for you.

The keynote address was offered by Dr. Franklin Gamwell, who provided a theoretical framework in which to reflect on the issues being considered. Dr. Gamwell began by carefully and narrowly defining religious communities and academic communities. Specifically, he built his definitions around the engagement of the "original" human question: "What makes human life ultimately worth living?" Religious communities, he proposed, give answers to this question. Academic communities, on the other hand, do not assert an answer or any answer, but provide a setting for critical reflections on proposed answers in order to assess the truth of such claims. In religious communities, certain things are assumed and then used to provide answers to the ultimate human question. But in academic communities, nothing can be assumed. Everything must remain open to question and argumentation. This openness to question and argumentation is a parameter for "discourse": the suspension of beliefs to examine the truth-hood of a belief.

Narrowing the focus, Gamwell suggested that Christians cultivate authenticity (living with the true Christian answer to the human question) through acting on belief in Jesus the Christ. In relation to Christian belief, academic discourse suspends belief to determine the validity of the Christian answer to the original human question. Theology, then, as a subset of academic discourse, critically reflects on Christian claims toward the original, ultimate human question.

Given this framework, we can begin to ask important ethical questions. What is the role of the preacher (a member of a religious community)? And what is the role of the teacher (a member of an academic community)? Provided the above definitions, how are preachers to preach and teachers to teach? What ethical considerations guide the appropriate use of speech when thinking on what to say and how to say it? Are specific topics inappropriate for certain settings?

Gamwell suggested that claims, which are announced and not discussed or argued, are not, in fact, "discourse." Thus, advocating through claims, which are not eligible for discussion or critique, is not appropriate for the academic setting. In contrast, such claims may be acceptable in the religious setting (i.e. from the pulpit) where "complete discourse" may not be suitable.

This is not to say that "answers" to the human question cannot be provided in the academic setting, but that they must be bound by discourse and not simply asserted. Whatsmore, religious settings can offer opportunities for discourse, but that such discourse is difficult (if not impossible) in a "preaching setting" where there is only one voice (that of the preacher).

Dr. Gamwell's presentation and the subsequent discussions were fuel for thought as I considered my own preaching, my own teaching, and my own future. The questions “how did I preach?” and “how will I preach?” became the question “how should I preach?” In my year at Perryville Christian Church, I intended and attempted to espouse a conversational approach to preaching. Specifically, I hoped to spark discussion, dissension, and constructive consideration. Many times I was unsuccessful, but on a few occasions I found success in my attempts. Those moments of discussion and dissension were not only fruitful, but healthy for the congregation, myself, and the community.

Now, after attending the conference, I might couch my approach to preaching in new terms: discursive homiletics. Instead of accepting the dichotomy between preaching with claims (religious community) and withholding assent for deliberation of claims (academic community), why not (attempt to) bridge the gap between academy and religion through preaching with teaching in mind. In other words, instead of offering a sermon that is creatively interpreted truth, exempt from question or communal consideration, why not offer the sermon as the starting point for discussion, question, dissension, debate, and reflection?

The problem with this approach is the differing church structures within the Christian faith. Polity most definitely changes how we consider preaching. For me, a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the “priesthood of all believers”, congregational autonomy, resistance to creeds, and a heritage of rational inquiry make a discursive homiletic possible. However, a church polity characterized by strict hierarchies and creedal affirmations complicate the matter.

As a Disciples preacher, I can offer my sermon as “presentation.” I can responsibly provide, within my sermon, my assumptions and hermeneutical framework. After exposing my assumptions and interpretive lens, I can also point to, describe, or offer complementary, competing, or contradicting perspectives about the content of my sermon. I can ask the congregation (rhetorically, of course) to follow my thinking down a particular road while admitting and even describing of other paths.

But for more hierarchical communities of faith, the clergy may, in practice, be forced into “re-presentation”; namely, re-presenting what has already been presented as true for the denomination or religious community as a whole. The priest, minister, or pastor may be communicating creatively what is asserted (claimed) hierarchically. There is no room (or at least much less room) for communal conversation regarding elements of faith, practice, and dogma. As a result, discursive homiletics is not (as) possible.

I believe there may be (or, in fact, are) creative ways to resolve this difficulty within more strictly structured churches, but I feel the freedom of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) provides an advantage for developing and practicing a type of preaching which will (I believe) effectively engage a post-modern culture interested in conversation rather than firm assertion. The growth of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) may depend on a discursive homiletic seeking an active, responsive mind and not simply a listening ear. I have come to find in my engagement with unchurched individuals, religiously disenfranchised individuals, congregants, youth, and new church movements that more and more people are desiring religious leaders who will preach “with” rather than preach “at”. Already I have seen churches (and not just Disciple Churches) make steps in the direction of “presentation,” and I hope that such a trajectory will be investigated, tested, and pursued.

The pulpit is a place of great power. It is a space which can be used to shape individual people, congregations, entire communities, and the world. Making room within that space for conversation may amplify the power the pulpit possesses, and it may intensify the transformation catalyzed by the Christian message.

Open Theism

There is a theological perspective, grounded in "free-will" thinking and augmented by a particular philosophy of time, which argues for a new understanding of God's foreknowledge.

(1) The classical view of God asserts that God is omniscient (or, all-knowing). To be omniscient is understood to mean that all things that exist can be known. What, then, exists that can be known? Typically, all actions and events-past, present, and future-are within the scope of God's knowledge. However, this presupposes that the future has, in some sense, already happened (a glorified "past" in the mind of God). But why must future events and actions already exist? The open theist is led to ask: How can future events, actions, and decisions already be objects of God's knowledge?

Open theists would argue that the future is not already determined; it has not already "happened" so to speak. The future, being OPEN to what WILL happen, is not within the scope of God's knowledge (omniscience). This is not because God DOES NOT know, but because the future is empty and has nothing which can be known. This open view of the future allows for God to remain omniscient, although augmenting what is possible for God to know. The future is no longer an object of God's knowledge simply because it is no longer concrete; no longer an object.

This shift in the understanding of omniscience changes how we concieve of God. But not entirely.

(2) The new "omniscience" does not hinder God's Will or God's Plan for human history. For open theists, God can still steer the course of human history toward a divine end which culminates in the triumph of God's goodness over the forces of evil and death. This is done not through absolute control, for God does not know and therefore does not absolutely control human decision, but through intimate present knowledge and unlimited reaction.

God, still omniscient, thoroughly knows the present. God knows all of the individual decisions that a person may or may not make, and has a specific reaction for each of those decisions (when they come about) which will ultimately lead to God's end. Thus, divine providence has not been evacuated from the picture, only modified.

(3) This view is not abstractly detached from the biblical text. According to open theists, the texts speak of a collective destiny which is still determined by God, but remains open to individual decisions, beliefs, and actions. This must be true, says the open theist, because moral decisions are punishable, which presupposes the freedom to choose between what is right and what is wrong. For this to occur, the future must not be closed, but open to the possibility of choice.

In other words, God knows where history will go, just not how, because that is up to us. In this view, there is no longer a God which makes humans passive recipients of what happens, but active agents of what will come about. And this, says the open theist, is worth understanding.