NOT ARCHBISHOP SHARIA

In Egypt, the highest civil court ruled that some people who had converted from being Coptic Christians to Muslims could legally convert back to Christianity. This is not the usual for Muslim countries. The ruling did not address the issue of whether or not people in Egypt who had never been Christians could convert to Christianity from Islam.

It is very weak of Islam that it is the law of Islam that everyone must remain Muslim or face the penalty, which traditionally has been death. There's a great deal of capital punishment in Islam just as there is in Old Testament Judaism. There is no capital punishment in Christianity (real Christianity that is).

At the same time this is happening in Egypt, there are Fundamentalist Muslims in various countries pushing for the strictest sharia. Sharia is "Islamic law," which term is a redundant expression, since Islam is law just as Christianity is law. They are both rules to live by. According to Jesus, those who have been told and reject Christianity (the laws of behavior and belief) will not continue on to the real life.

In England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has raised a number of issues that offend or confuse people. For instance, he said recently one doesn't have to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian. If memory serves, he said he personally believes it. The problem this raises is one of where to draw the line on literal versus figurative interpretation. He also does not hold with 6 24-hour days of Creation. That particular issue concerns the connotation of the terms "hour" and "day." After all, Einstein's observation is correct that time in the sense meant by "24-hours" is directly tied to light where the temporal terms are understood mundanely or literally as the self-styled Fundamentalist mean the term "literal." In the beginning of the Book of Genesis, the first thing is not "let there be light."

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3)

Now, one may argue that those versus themselves are not in chronological order or more to the point, not in sequential order. One may also argue that this whole issue is absurd. It matters though, because so many people construct their entire lives on it (literal interpretation) right up to condoning war and greed and even sexual depravity as so-called Christians and in spite of Jesus's clear and plain expression and exemplary life to the contrary.

Well, another issue Rowan has raised is letting Muslims in Britain resort to sharia where the parties agree to such arbitration just as Jews are allowed to be bound by Jewish arbitration in the court entitled "Beth Din." ("Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'," BBC. February 7, 2008.) We have arbitration in the U.S. We have a range of options concerning arbitration. It can be better than the civil courts. It can be faster, less expensive, and more thoughtful (depending upon the arbiter(s)). Rowan Williams is suggesting sharia concerning only in limited areas of the British legal system. He isn't saying that sharia should be allowed without limitations.

What is the Real Liberal Christian Church position on this? The fact is that Jesus didn't force anyone to do anything, ever. The entire legal system he advocated was doing the New Commandment, the Golden rule, the First Great Commandment and the Second like it, and all things consistent with those. In truth, all of those commandments are ultimately one and the same. They all rise to consistency. Jesus's whole teaching and life can be summed up as having total faith in consistency. God is consistent according to Jesus. That's why one can count on God's promises related by Jesus.

The legal system in Britain is not Christian. It is coercive. Sharia is also coercive. The secular laws of the U.S. are coercive as well. Some may think that Christianity is coercive, but that's a misreading. Even where Jesus says to use progressive discipline [Matthew 18:16-18], in the end the punishment doesn't come from the Church. The members are simply left with no other choice but to conclude that the resister is a heathen. There's no punishment prescribed. Unlike the secular law and misguided religions, the real Church doesn't reserve any right to use violence. The secular law in the U.S. is said to reserve to the government a monopoly on the right to use violence.

Therefore, what is Archbishop Williams talking about? Why is he saying anything regarding British secular law? Mind you, British law is not as secular as U.S. law. He's being ecumenical (heading in the direction of unified belief and system) and pluralistic (peaceful coexistence within the one nation-state of divergent religions, etc.). We believe he thinks that such ecumenicism will lead to moderating sharia in general, even around the world. He has his point; however, such efforts always become diverting when the call for complete Christianity is weakened or understated or absent, etc.

For instance, we wrote in our last post ("Roman Catholics do Jews No Favor Kowtowing") about how accommodating the offended feelings of Jews about Christianity is a fundamental error. Williams himself cites an example from a slightly different perspective. He mentioned the problem raised by British law not allowing the Catholic adoption agencies there to preclude adopting out children to homosexuals. I wrote about this myself at the time. It's a terrible law that says to the Christian religion that it must place children with homosexuals or it may not place children at all.

That law completely ignores the real and censored dangers (See my post: "Homosexuals: What they ignore") of society sliding down, down, down into decadence, which is happening and for which society and the entire planet is being made to pay severe prices offset only by God's perfect recognition of the efforts of people to slow, stop, and reverse that slide.

Now, the Archbishop's remarks started a firestorm. He has apologized for "unclarity" and "clumsiness." However, he wasn't unclear or clumsy (Listen) as those go. He just apologized when he should not have. A good recent example concerns Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who resigned as president from the Institute for Nonviolence and apologized for the way he wrote about certain Jews and their reprehensible attitudes toward, and treatment of, Palestinians and others. (See our post: "The Gall and Hypocrisy of Abraham H. Foxman to Call Arun Gandhi a Bigot.") Many people take things wrong on purpose.

The Archbishop was semantically and theologically wrong though to say that there is not one law for everyone. If the British law allows for any aspects of sharia, then those aspects of sharia are of that one law. Now "one" here is understood completely mundanely, because the real one law is the New Commandment. Anything running contrary to it is ultimately illegal (not sanctified by God).

We are constantly seeing people being asked to or expected to apologize when in fact the listeners are the one's who are lacking. The fact is that detractors cannot withstand the same level of expectations concerning precise speech. If the same spotlight is shown back, only God shines.

If you are interested in the details of the Archbishop's questions raised, read his whole lecture to the Royal Courts of Justice. "Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective." Thursday 07 February 2008.

What this whole thing points out is one of the main themes of the Real Liberal Christian Church. The secular and the religious (Christianity here) are irreconcilable houses. A divided house will not stand. The secular will fall to be replaced by real Christianity, not the traditional but the original that Jesus intends. This is what the prophecy is all about. The evil (selfishness) in people's hearts will be cut off and burned up never to return. It is the coming enlightenment. Archbishop Williams is looking to ways that would avoid that fall. There is his error. There is also the error of those who most rail against him. For an example of an attack upon his talk, see, "Dhimmi — or just dim?" by Melanie Phillips. The Spectator. February 9, 2008. The house she upholds will fall.

Also, we didn't go into the issue of homosexuality and the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church in America. Williams has stood against the leadership of the Episcopal Church in its drive to bring in homosexuals. Rowan Williams is personally accepting of homosexuality, something I am not. Oh, I'm not for stoning homosexuals. I'm just not for saying their lifestyle is acceptable, because it isn't. It's immoral and they do have a choice. Everyone has a choice. No one has to have sex of any kind.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.