And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Luke 1:26-30
The Annunciation is one of my favorite feast days, and it’s very popular with the Johnson kids, too. This is the day when God’s promise of salvation has begun to be fulfilled. Let us praise the Holy Virgin by whom that salvation comes.
Author: Eric Johnson
I’m not a real countess, but I play one on the Web
When you register for American Airlines’ frequent-flier program, they give you a choice of about 200 salutations, including “Admiral” and “Vice President” and titles of nobility. I could not resist — no longer am I a mere commoner. As you can see by this envelope, I am…
Is bringing Christ to Iraqis a good idea?
Obviously, all else being equal, the answer to this post’s title is “yes.” I think the answer is “yes, but not right now,” and I’ll explain why.
This is a surprisingly neutral article about Evangelical efforts to convert Iraqis to Christianity. Let me first say that I have the highest respect for the zeal and fearlessness displayed by many Evangelicals, and I have no doubts about their sincerity or love of Jesus Christ. The best of them could teach your average Catholic a thing or two about how to live a Christian life without compromise.
That said, I have serious concerns about how Evangelicals run their foreign ministries. They center around two issues: the prudence of evangelizing in Iraq right now, and their attempts to convert Christians to their brand of Christianity, without regard to the Christian communities that already exist in that culture.
Let’s take the second point first. When I was in Nicaragua a couple of years ago, I saw many Evangelical churches aggressively proselytizing in the Juigalpa province, a poor, rural area. I can understand evangelizing a non-Christian population, but the people were uniformly Christian. This is a part of the world where a large town’s main general store is named after the Fatima apparitions, and bus drivers put a religious slogan (“Jesus Bendiga Mi Camino”), a picture of the Virgin, or both on the rear of their vehicles. (I also noted with satisfaction that Catholic churches weren’t even marked as such, and that everyone — Catholic or Protestant — knew where they were.)
Converting Catholics is an explicit denial that Catholicism is Christian. If Evangelicals really believe that it doesn’t matter what church you go to, as long as you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then why attempt to lure away poor, believing Catholics? Or active members of other Christian traditions who are entirely orthodox about the nature of Jesus?
Next, take a look at this quotation from the article:
“It is every Christian’s requirement to share Jesus Christ’s gospel with everyone on the planet, including every Muslim,” said Richard D. Land, president of the public policy arm of the largest U.S. Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. “If that causes anger and violence, it only shows we must speak more loudly.”
Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do when foreigners misunderstand you? JUST TALK LOUDER!!!
I don’t mean to lampoon Mr. Land or his efforts. (Okay, maybe just a little.) But there’s a serious question as to whether they are undermining the long-term prospects of the Gospel by concentrating on short-term growth of storefront churches. Arabs are enamored of conspiracy theories, and Iraqis are particularly enthusiastic in their love of such things. (Please, spare me any lectures on the evils of “ethnic stereotypes,” because this is generally true. Ask anyone who’s spent time in the Middle East.)
There are many Iraqis — by no means all, but a very significant minority — who believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq to steal its oil wealth and convert the inhabitants to Christianity. Since wealth-stealing and forced conversions are recurring themes in that part of the world, that isn’t as absurd it might seem, and I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss their concerns.
Right now, the United States and its allies are trying to stabilize Iraq so it can have a decent society. That will be hampered if there is a widespread belief among the populace that the “crusaders” are there to destroy or subvert Islam. The Christian message will find a more receptive audience when the hearers are less paranoid and more self-confident.
I’m not a relativist, and I’m not saying that Iraqis don’t deserve to hear the Word of God. Some places just aren’t ready for the Gospel yet. Why not wait another year or two, when things are more stable and there’s a native Iraqi government in place? Contrary to the comment in the article, there’s no “six-month window” to spread the Gospel in Mesopotamia.
Senator Kerry, Man of the People, con’d
More clues as to how Senator John “F-ing” Kerry treats the “little people”:
[On his next ski run], a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis — just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.
When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, “I don’t fall down,” then used an expletive to describe the agent who “knocked me over.”
The incident occurred near the summit. No one was hurt, and Mr. Kerry came careering down the mountain moments later, a look of intensity on his face, his lanky frame bent low to the ground.
Amazing how one little detail — and in the New York Times! — can convey so much. The subtext of so many of Kerry’s speeches is, “I never make mistakes, I know better than you, I’m smarter than you, and therefore I should be in charge and you better not get in my way.” People might not understand the finer nuances of national policies, but they know they don’t like pompous asses. That’s the kind of thing President Bush would just laugh off with a joke.
P.S. Note to Senator Kerry: personally insulting your bodyguards is a bad idea on many levels.
DEATH RIDES A PALE BUTTERFLY…
The secular religion of environmentalism has found a new harbinger of death: the decline of British butterfly populations. Aaaack! Ratify the Kyoto treaty! Recycle your toilet paper! Drive your SUVs off a cliff (after filing the proper environmental impact statement with local, state, and federal authorities)!
Nature emits at least 95% of the carbon dioxide that’s released into the atmosphere. Humans release less than 5%. But it’s that 5% that is going to destroy the butterflies and the rest of the planet. Never mind that major volcanoes have put more debris and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than man ever has, and in short, violent spurts.
Strangely, although many environmentalists buy into the Gaia hypothesis, which says that the Earth is a single organism with many parts (including humans), they think a small rise in one kind of gas spells disaster for the planet. Is the Earth really that fragile? It’s survived five major rounds of extinction before. You’d think that plant life would increase a little bit to exploit this increased resource. It isn’t like CO2 is a new gas, invented by evil scientists.
Another good question is: so what? Environmentalists would respond that mass extinction would throw off the “equilibrium” of the planet. Again, so what? The planet would eventually find a new stasis after a while. According to paleontologists, something like 99% of all species are already extinct; what does a few more matter? Organisms come, and organisms go, and the planet seems relatively indifferent to their fate.
I referred to environmentalism as a “secular religion.” I didn’t mean that clean air and water are religious concepts, but rather that the ideological “story” of environmentalism is rooted in quasi-religious, quasi-Christian beliefs. There is the innocent Garden of Eden (when man was a hunter and gatherer), the Fall (agriculture, or perhaps industrialization — theologians disagree on this point), the Redemption (Earth Day, 1970), and the Apocalypse (global warming).
Once you’ve decided that man’s actions are dangerous and that we somehow stand outside of nature instead of at its pinnacle, it’s just a question of gathering evidence of man’s destructiveness. You do that through generating studies with the foreordained conclusion that man is going to destroy the Earth. Faith seeking understanding, as it were.
If the Earth is created by God and given to man, then it’s a moral failure to abuse it. But if there’s no God, then what does it matter if a few species disappear? Or a lot of species? Unless butterflies are God’s creatures and thus beautiful and worthy of respect in their own right, it’s hard to feel sorry for them.