Cooperation and Peace might Require Confrontation

Miroslav Volf, professor of theology at the Yale Divinity School, is a prophet of peace, forgiveness and love. He sees this as the Christian message, and I certainly agree with him there. However, he has some troubling recommendations in regards to our response to Islam. For one thing, he believes that it is very important to recognize our commonalities with Islam:

• If our understandings of God clash, it will be hard for us to live in peace…So exploring to what extent Christians and Muslims have similar conceptions of God is foundational to exploring whether we inhabit a common moral universe, within which there are some profound differences that can be negotiated, discussed, and adjudicated.

• We need to build on what is similar rather than simply bemoan what’s different. (Christianity Today, April 2011)

Of course, finding similarities tends to facilitate relationship. However, Christian love and forgiveness should never be predicated upon distorting reality. Jesus taught that God wants those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). There is never a Biblical hint that we should conceive of God or humankind in a more benign way than reality permits, even if it makes us feel better about the other. Instead, the Bible is ruthless about truth, and demands that we walk and talk the light. Rather than truth undermining relationship, it is the very basis for true and enduring connections. And this is the challenge of love – to love even when we don’t like what we see. This is what it means to love our enemies.

Last week, I admitted to a Muslim-background friend that for me, loving Muslims is difficult. On the subway, I had an altercation with a Muslim man from Iran who claimed that Israel intended to nuke Iran! I felt that, in love, I couldn’t allow that demonizing remark to pass. Consequently, the discussion became more animated. Most of the subway riders turned off their walkmen and were now ingesting what seemed to be superior entertainment. Afterwards, I thought that I should have offered my hand to my Islamic opponent and declared, “I love you anyway, my brother, even if our beliefs are miles apart.” Indeed, love is possible, but it’s difficult. Yet true friendship requires truth spoken in love. If others lack a stomach for this, we cannot control that.

Yes, we have a responsibility to love all, but I think that love shouldn’t require us to overlook significant differences with Islam – something about which Muslims are aware, even if they are unwilling to vocalize them.

The differences can be radical and threatening. Taqiyya authorizes Muslims to lie to promote Islam. The Koran forbids a Muslim to befriend the infidel other than for evangelization. Then there’s the violent side: violent jihad against the unbelievers, and death edicts against all those critical of Islam and even converts from Islam. Muslims are also required to institute Shariah law, which places all others into a subservient and often fearful status. And then there’s the Islamic unwillingness to endure scrutiny, as we all must.

Indulgence and silence aren’t the answers. God warned Ezekiel against the silent treatment:

• "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.” (Ezekiel 33:7-8)

Silence speaks loudly. It tells the other person, “You’re OK! If you weren’t, I’d tell you so!” It communicates peace, when there isn’t peace. Meanwhile, indulgence has become enshrined in US policy towards Islam, even to the point of discrimination. Andrew C. McCarthy wrote:

• Down at Gitmo, the Defense Department gives the Koran to each of the terrorists even though DoD knows they interpret it (not without reason) to command them to kill the people who gave it to them. To underscore our precious sensitivity to Muslims, standard procedure calls for the book to be handled only by Muslim military personnel. Sometimes, though, that is not possible for various reasons. If, as a last resort, one of our non-Muslim troops must handle or transport the book, he must wear white gloves, and he is further instructed primarily to use the right hand (indulging Muslim culture’s taboo about the sinister left hand). The book is to be conveyed to the prisoners in a “reverent manner” inside a “clean dry towel” … there is hypocrisy to consider: the Defense Department now piously condemning Koran burning is the same Defense Department that itself did not give a second thought to confiscating and burning bibles in Afghanistan. Quite consciously, U.S. commanders ordered this purge in deference to sharia proscriptions against the proselytism of faiths other than Islam. And … bibles, are torched or otherwise destroyed in Islamic countries every single day as a matter of standard operating procedure.

The differences raise concerns about Islam and its possible participation in egalitarian society. These can’t be addressed with indulgence, but rather with honesty. Problems can only be addressed if the problem can first be articulated, something that the West is reluctant to do. Perhaps reality might once again become the recognized place of meeting. Recently Angela Merkel of Germany, David Cameron of the UK, and Nicolas Sarkozy of France have all spoken despairingly of their venture into the world of religious pluralism. The benefits of Western culture have failed to bring about anything positive, let alone assimilation. Nor is there any indication that delivering the Koran to Muslim inmates in a “clean dry towel” with “white gloves” wins gratefulness rather than contempt.

Cooperation is predicated on facing our troubling differences, not denying their existence. Honesty shows respect. Besides, we may have many differences with Jews and Hindus, but their religious agendas do not require the subjugation of all others. We cannot ignore this reality.

More on Luke-Acts

Is there any way to prove whether or not the writer of Luke-Acts was historically accurate? According the archeologist John McRay,

• “One prominent archeologist carefully examined Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Islands [contained within the Book of Acts] without finding a single mistake.” ( Case For Christ)

Charges that have been brought against the historical accuracy of the Luke-Acts have largely disappeared as new findings have accumulated. Here’s a sampling from Lee Strobel:

• “For along time people thought Luke was mistaken because no evidence of the term politarchs had been found in any ancient document…However, and inscription on a first-century arch was later found that begins, ‘In the time of the politarchs.’” (Case for Christ)

• For a long time, skeptics had doubted that Lysanias had been tetrarch of Abilene during the reign of Tiberias accoding to Luke 3:1: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar…when …Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.” Scholars claimed that Lysanias ruled at a different period. However, “It turned out that there had been two government officials named Lysanias! Once more, Luke was shown to be right!” (Strobel)

• Once again, critics claimed, “Quirinius was not reigning at the time of the census,” according to Luke 2:1-3: “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone went to his own town to register.” However, a coin with his name was found that “places him as a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod.” (Strobel)

As a result of many such findings, the late New Testament scholar F.F.Bruce concluded: “A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where means of testing aren’t available. Accuracy is a habit of mind…Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.”

This should say a lot about the date assigned for the writing of Luke-Acts. The general rule of thumb is this – the further away from the events that a writer records, the greater tendency for inaccuracy. According to this criterion, Luke-Acts must have been written closer to the events. One further consideration – one who perpetrates a forgery does not prove himself to be a reliable witness. His purpose isn’t history and accuracy but deception. He will be less inclined to research the facts as the writer of Luke-Acts clearly has.

Besides, if he is writing more than 50 years after the facts, he will not be very concerned about the possibility of someone arising to dispute minor facts.

Furthermore, we possess no record of any early writers disputing Lukan authorship and alleging that his works were forgeries. In fact, an early critic of the Christian faith, Celsus (150 AD), charged that the Apostles deceived, without contesting the ascription of the four canonical to their traditionally ascribed authors (Philip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church)

Jesus is God, according to His Own Words

While Muslims believe that Jesus was a great prophet, they adamantly oppose the idea that He is God. A Muslim apologist rightly claimed that Jesus never said, “I am God.” However, many things that Jesus did say are equivalent to actually saying, “I am God.” Here are a few examples:

John 5:18-29: For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Jesus gave them this answer… " For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

I’ll make a few observations about this passage:

1. The educated Jews recognized that Jesus was “making Himself equal with God,” and therefore wanted to kill Him.

2. Jesus gives life “just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life.” He is equating Himself with God.

3. Jesus will judge. However, the entire Bible claims that God is the judge. CONCLUSION: Jesus must be God.

4. All will “honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” However, the Bible tells us that God will not share His glory with another (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus is therefore claiming that He is worthy of the same glory as God. He is either a blasphemer or He is God!

5. Hearing and believing in Jesus brings “eternal life.”

6. At the hearing of His voice, graves will open.

John 8:57-59 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

1. Jesus claims pre-existence. Only God can claim this.

2. He calls Himself “I am,” the name that God used to describe Himself to Moses!

3. The Jews tried to stone Him because, in their estimation, He had blasphemed, making Himself equal with God.

John 10:24-33 Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

1. The Jews knew what He was saying. They just needed something that they could quote in order to condemn Him. Jesus wouldn’t tell them EXPLICITLY who He is, but did so IMPLICITLY, claiming that His miracles spoke on His behalf.

2. Jesus also claims that He gives His sheep “eternal life.” A mere man can not save.

3. He then claims that “I and the Father are one," again making Himself equal to God.

4. The leadership understood that He “claim[ed] to be God" and wanted to kill Him. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say, “You’ve misunderstood me. I’m just claiming to be the prophet of God.” However, He allowed their judgment to stand, affirming indirectly that He is God.

This merely represents a small bit of the Biblical evidence that Jesus is God. It just examines what Jesus said about Himself.

Is the Book of Acts a Forgery?

In hope of persuading me that the Book of Acts is a forgery, my atheist challenger posted a link to an article by Joseph B. Tyson, professor emeritus of religious studies, Southern Methodist University, arguing in favor of a late date for Acts.

Why would a late date suggest that Acts is a forgery? Although this book doesn’t explicitly state who authored it, the writer indicates that he had been traveling with Paul through the use of the “we” passages (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16). If Acts had been written much later (100-150AD), it wouldn’t be likely that the person who wrote as “we” could have been the author. In this case, the “real” author was simply posing as a traveling companion of Paul in order to secure acceptance for his book.

However, there are several sound reasons to date Acts around 63 AD and to suppose that Luke had been its author.

1. The Gospel of Luke had been universally ascribed to Luke by early Christian writings. The Gospel of Luke and Acts are strongly related by virtue of language and structure. Acts, which claims to be a continuation of the Gospel of Luke, is addressed to the same person (Theophilus). Even by the most skeptical assessments, Luke is dated 80-90s. Therefore, Acts couldn’t have been dated much later.

2. The fact that the name of “Luke” (or any other apostolic writer) doesn’t appear in either book argues for their authenticity, since no attempt had been made to add legitimacy to its apostolic pedigree.

3. Acts ends very anti-climatically with Paul under house arrest (approx. 63 AD). It would seem likely that, had Acts been written much later, the book would have provided a resolution to the trial Paul was facing and also a description/explanation of Paul’s martyrdom. However, these aren’t provided. Also, there is no mention of the Jewish revolt and the tragic destruction of Jerusalem (66-70 AD). Such an absence is equivalent to writing a history of WWII without any mention of D-Day or the victory over Nazi Germany. Besides, the destruction of Jerusalem represented the fulfillment of everything that Jesus and the Apostles had prophesied. Therefore, it would seem likely that Acts would have mentioned this event had it been written afterwards.

4. Luke’s authorship of Acts is uncontested among early sources. Paul also identifies Luke as his traveling companion (Phm. 23-24; Col. 4:10-17)

5. Acts was very early alluded to as canonical (Polycarp 110-50 AD; Hermas 115-40; Irenaeus 170). This suggests that these sources recognized Acts as apostolic and not a forgery. It also suggests that Acts couldn’t have been authored post-apostolically.

In contrast, Tyson argues for a later date. Here are his soundest arguments followed by my rebuttals:

1. Most modern scholars who write about Acts favor an intermediate date, i.e., c. 80-c. 90 CE, and they cite a number of factors to support this dating. The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Roman armies in 70 CE is not mentioned in Acts but is probably alluded to in Luke 21:20-24.

This conclusion represents no more than an anti-supernatural bias. Luke 21 is Jesus’ before-the-fact prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem. The critics simply refuse to admit the accuracy of this prophecy and therefore want to date it after the event. Acts doesn’t mention it because it had not yet taken place.

2. Acts could not have been written before c. 90 CE, since the author seems to be ignorant about Paul’s letters, which were not collected and circulated before that date.

This doesn’t seem to be correct, even by Tyson’s own admission. Acts 15 seems to be predicated on Galatians. Even if Acts doesn’t explicitly mention Paul’s writings, it doesn’t mention the other three Gospels – Matthew, Mark and John –
either. This shouldn’t be taken as evidence for a late dating of Acts. Besides, there is no intrinsic reason for Acts to cite these writings.

3. The author is a generation removed from the time of those persons he writes about and, although he devotes significant attention to Paul, he fails to mention important things about him. For example, Paul’s letters reveal that he claimed to be an apostle and that this status was vital to him. But in Acts 1:21-22 the criteria for being an apostle definitively exclude Paul from membership in this group. Further, Acts 1:13 has a list of eleven apostles, to which number Matthias is added to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). Acts makes it clear that the number of apostles cannot be more or less than twelve and that Paul is not included among them. It would be highly unlikely for an author who was also a companion of Paul to go to such lengths to exclude Paul from an office that he so vig-orously claimed for himself.

Although the 11 Apostles did believe there should be a twelfth, this didn’t preclude the possibility of God adding others. Contrary to Tyson’ assertion, Acts does use the word “apostle” to refer to Paul (Acts 14:4, 14). Besides, Acts’ descriptions of Paul – his miracles and his first-hand knowledge of the Gospel – argued in favor of his Apostleship.

4. A growing number of scholars prefer a late date for the composition of Acts, i.e., c. 110-120 CE…First, Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the second century. Second, compelling arguments can be made that the author of Acts was acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 CE. If the author of Acts knew of some pieces from this document, he could not have written his book before that date.

Tyson fails to provide any evidence of Acts making use of Josephus’ writings. Even if he had, Tyson would still have to prove that Acts had borrowed from Josephus rather than from a common earlier source.

Acts was known prior to “the last half of the second century” (Polycarp, Hermas).

The church’s acceptance of Acts as canonical was universal. There is no record of any controversy within the church, nor for the fact that Paul’s traveling companion Luke had been its author. This fact alone represents far weightier evidence than anything that Tyson or the skeptics have been able to offer against Lukan authorship. I’ll put my money on the people who were there at the time, who had talked to the earliest witnesses, than on the skeptics and their 2000-years-later speculations.

Why God

An atheist, with whom I’ve had hundreds of fruitless exchanges, stated, “I'm looking for your God with all my heart and soul, but it seems my requirements for avoiding delusion indicate that your God doesn't exist.”

After all these exchanges, I believe that he is only being provocative. He has already confided that the only reason that he continues to challenge me is to evangelize – to prevent others from falling prey to my arguments. Therefore, my response below is an unsympathetic summary of some of my argumentation:

THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN: While we both agree that the universe is incredibly fine-tuned, you prefer to believe in an unlimited number of universes, expecting that one of them would prove to be the benign universe that we know. You believe in this without any hard evidence whatsoever! Instead, it is so much easier to believe in a Designer.

We both acknowledge that, by conservative estimates, we have over three billion bits of DNA information in our cells. While there is no evidence of even a single protein self-assembling, you have chosen to believe that the genome just self-assembled rather than being the product of Design.

Even the simplest form of life is incredibly complex, but here too you prefer to believe that it just happened, although there isn’t a shred of supportive evidence.

Furthermore, you prefer to believe that our laws of physics just happened from an explosion, even though we have no evidence that this can take place. Nor can you explain what maintains the laws and why they seem to behave in such an other-worldly manner. Nor do you have any explanation for freewill and consciousness if this world is merely materialistic.

Instead, by merely invoking the Designer, we have an adequate explanation for all the phenomena.

THE MORAL ARGUMENT: Against the dictates of our heart, you have had to abandon that idea of moral absolutes like “genocide and torturing babies is absolutely wrong.” In doing this, you have condemned yourself to a life of irrelevance, inconsistency and meaninglessness – a life that must necessarily contradict your presuppositions.

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Existence requires an initial cause generated from One who is uncaused and transcends the universe. Otherwise, you necessarily fall into infinite regress. Most atheists and evolutionists refuse to even deal with this issue saying, “We can’t go beyond the Big Bang, nor do we care to.” However, we must ask the question: “If the Big Bang is fact, what caused it? Where did the initial singularity come from and the laws that governed the expansion.” However, our Designer explains all of this, and this explanation is good for all questions and doesn’t require endless leaps of faith as naturalism requires.

THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT: This argument argues from intelligibility to the conditions of intelligibility – immutable measures (logic, reason) and One who designed the amazing correspondence between mind and the external knowable world. All rational conversation must rest upon these presuppositions, whether we realize it or not. The “Privileged Planet” also recognizes how the features of this earth, sun, moon, solar system, and our position within it, maximizes the potential for knowability.

BIBLICAL PROOFS:
1. Miracles (Especially the Resurrection)
2. Fulfilled Prophecy
3. Changed Lives and Changed Societies
4. External Evidence
5. Internal Evidence (Consistency among the various teachings)
6. Wisdom of the Bible

I will not go into detail regarding all of the Biblical proofs. Even though the evidence for God is ubiquitous – wherever we look – the Bible acknowledges that we have an aversion to the evidence despite our protestations otherwise:

• The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

We don’t seek after God, as Scripture asserts in so many places. Consequently, there has to be supernatural intervention. Therefore, my prayer for you is that, if you really want to know, you will turn to the One who can give you that knowledge:

• But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 4:29)

Without this intervention, even the best arguments – airtight arguments – will not suffice! It required a life-threatening encounter with a blood-thirsty chain saw to attune me to the reality of Christ. I pray that you will not require such a dramatic wake-up call.

The LORD our Righteousness

In response to a Muslim apologist who argued against the Trinity, I cited several OT verses which demonstrate that the Messiah is God. One of these is:

• Jeremiah 23:5-6 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD [Yahweh] Our Righteousness.”

Against this, he stated that,

• Jerusalem was called "The LORD our Righteousness". "In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness…” (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 33:16)"

There are several problems with this response. For one thing, he fails to mention the NIV note which indicates that the “it will be called” can just as easily be rendered “He.”

For another thing, even if Jerusalem is called by this title, the Messiah is also called by this title, and he fails to give an explanation of why this child-King will bear a name of Dvinity. The apologist concludes,

• As you CLEARLY can see, the "LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" title that is given in Jeremiah 23:6 is no different than any of the JEWISH NAMES GIVEN TO PEOPLE AT BIRTH above. It's just another GODly name that Jews traditionally have made up to name each others, which obviously had contributed to the world-wide catastrophe of the polytheist trinity pagan lie that was created 1700 years ago (trinity being invented and born around year 325 by Constantine)!!

Putting aside the fact that there is much historical evidence that the early church worshiped Jesus as God -- In order to prove his contention, he cites many Hebrew names that contain a reference to God, like my own name, Daniel [God’s judge]. However, these names are single words. "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" is a composite of words and not a name, but therefore, a description of our King Messiah.

There is also another important element of this description that we should not overlook. Yahweh is our righteousness. We have received His righteousness as a gift through His death (Isaiah 53). We can’t earn it. Therefore, salvation and forgiveness must come as a free gift. It might be surprising to many, but the Hebrew Bible also agrees with this assessment:

• Isaiah 61:10 I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness,

• Isaiah 45:24-25 They will say of me, “In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength….25But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult.

• Isaiah 54:17 This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication [“righteousness” in Hebrew] from me," declares the LORD.

God the Messiah is literally our righteousness, and not an accidental name.

The Malignant Power of the Mainstream Media

The mainstream media helps to supply the necessary checks and balances on which democratic society has come to depend. But can we really depend upon this media?

• [Peter] Sissons [“One of Britain’s most senior news broadcasters”] made headlines in January when he attacked the BBC for its “institutional” leftwing bias that he said was “written into its DNA.” Sissons, whose memoirs are being published in a series by the right-of-centre Daily Mail newspaper, said that at the BBC, “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”

Clearly, those who show outrage and offense will be favored, while those who don’t are “fair game.” With such rules of engagement, can BBC and other mainstream media sources be trusted?

• …the BBC itself has admitted its anti-Christian bias. In a leaked internal memo in 2006, the BBC admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting. The Daily Mail reported on a secret meeting of BBC executives who were said to be frustrated by the corporation’s commitment to “political correctness” at the expense of journalistic integrity and objectivity. At that time, Andrew Marr, the BBC’s former chief political correspondent, said, “The BBC is not impartial or neutral … It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

I wonder how endemic this problem is within mainstream media? From where I sit, the media seems to be soaked in anti-Christian bias. And what might be the effect of this bias on society, besides breeding cynicism? Judging from the major tectonic worldview shifts of the last few decades, the impact seems to be profound. How will this shift affect the church and Christianity? It doesn’t seem that it could possibly have a benign impact. In fact, from what I’ve observed these days, most Christians feel marginalized, even ashamed to make any kind of public gesture that might be connected with their Christian faith.

Lastly, we are left with the question, “What should we do when our faith is consistently maligned by the media?” Sisson’s perception that “Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended” seems to be on-the-money. Moreover, the implications of this systematic attack on the Christian faith seem to be escalating. With the proliferation of unbalanced—and unanswered—charges that we Christians are now “hate-mongers” and “homophobes,” there has arisen a whole chorus of outcries meant to silence even the few of us who remain vocal in the public arena.

Let us take a look at what the Apostle Peter has written about our first line of defense:

• For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:15)

However, this strategy doesn’t preclude the use of a verbal defense. Knowing that Haman was putting the finishing touches on his plan for the destruction of the Jews, the Jewish Queen Esther risked her life to come before her husband and king:

• "If I have found favor with you, O king, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life--this is my petition. And spare my people--this is my request. For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king." (Esther 7:3-4)

It was this petition, by the grace of God, that saved the Jewish people. Perhaps it is time for us to speak up as well!