Think Christianity is dying?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/20/think-christianity-is-dying-no-christianity-is-shifting-dramatically/

Breaking the spell

Because freewill theists often confuse Calvinism with fatalism, I've discussed the difference on a number of occasions. In Classical literature, Creon and Oedipus are paradigm examples. Although it's a bit cheesy, Final Destination 1 (2000) is a convenient illustration. 

But is fatalism real, and is there a way to successfully cheat fate? Cosmic fatalism is incompatible with the sovereignty of God. However, witchcraft has a fatalistic streak. By that I mean, hexing somebody. Suppose you come under a curse. Can you cheat fate?

I don't think that's a hypothetical or isolated case. For instance, witchcraft is common in cultures that practice animism, polytheism, and ancestor worship. 

I'm not talking about folks who merely practice occult rituals, but those who gain actual occult power through the practice of sorcery. 

Within the realm of witchcraft, fatalism may be a real phenomenon. If you've been hexed, you may be doomed.

There is, however, a way to break the spell. Christian missionaries have always engaged in "power evangelism". If a pagan converts to Christianity, then he's not doomed. That's a way to cheat fate. That liberates the convert from occult bondage, although there may be some lingering, residual effects. You've transferred allegiance from a lesser, malevolent power to a greater, benevolent power. 

Resources for S. Asian Christians

https://www.saiacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAIACS-PRESS-CATALOGUE.pdf

Corduan on comparative religion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoYEztHpCxo&t=589s

Yucarist

Another potential rumpus in Catholicism: 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/proposal-at-vatican-to-change-eucharist-would-create-a-new-religion

Because Catholic piety centers on externals (rites and rituals), this is all-important. (According to the latest news, that proposal has been shelved.)

I actually don't think there's a problem with substituting cornbread, yucca bread, or rice cakes/crackers in countries that don't grow wheat. Likewise, substituting an indigenous drink for wine if they don't produce wine. Yet this would be the last straw for some Catholics, who idolize the Eucharist. 

Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything (unless you're a missionary)

https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/john-allen-chau-and-north-sentinel-island/

https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2018/11/29/my-response-to-leftist-christians-bashing-john-allen-chau-in-a-meme/

Missionary methods

Was he right or was he wrong? This is where thinking Christians need to step back for a moment and recognize that there is a distinction we have to make between motivation and method. That's not an accidental distinction. It's an important distinction.

But we also come to understand that Protestant missions during that period began to learn certain methodologies that became absolutely essential to the modern missionary movement. For one thing, even as we see the example of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Christian missionary organizations began to send out missionaries, not one by one, but at least two by two. Understanding that some kind of team effort was important.

But I would also point to a distinction in methodology. Jim Elliot and the missionaries who were with him were part of a larger effort. They were part of a culture, of a church sending culture of missionaries. There were those who would continue the effort, who would learn from what happened to Jim Elliot and would continue to try to make contact with the tribe. There was an infrastructure, there was methodology, there was not a solitary effort because if that solitary effort had been the case in Ecuador, there would not have been the following of the team that was able eventually through persistent efforts to reach the tribe with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But we also have to understand that hard lessons have been learned throughout Christian history and in particular, in the course of modern Christian missions about how best to try to reach unreached people groups.

And to put the matter bluntly, this is not the way that most modern missions organizations would seek to reach this kind of group. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't demonstrate the same kind of courage, it doesn't mean that missionaries even today are not serving under the threat of martyrdom and often facing the reality of martyrdom. It doesn't mean that there should have been no effort to reach this unreached people group, not to mention the thousands of other unreached people groups still on planet earth.

But it's also true to understand that Christian missionaries and mission sending organizations have learned something about how, over the long term, to be even more effective in reaching these unreached people groups.

https://albertmohler.com/2018/11/26/briefing-11-26-18/

The gaping lacuna in Mohler's analysis is that he never gets around to presenting a practical alternative. What's a more effective method for reaching the tribe? Mohler repeatedly poses that question, then leaves it dangling in mid-air. He never answers the question he raised. He takes refuge in abstractions and generalities. 

Take his (at least) two-by-two rule. How would that change the outcome of the encounter with the hostile tribe? If a team showed up at the island, wouldn't the whole team be massacred? 

There's a problem when Christian spokesmen feel the need to comment on issues even though they have nothing constructive to say. Why does Mohler bother to critique Chau's methodology when Mohler has no solution to offer? 

Shake the dust from your feet!

1. I've seen a couple of critics raise a biblical objection to John Chau's ill-fated missionary encounter: he disobeyed the command to shake the dust from your feet when you are unwelcome (Mt 10:14; Mk 6:11; Lk 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). That's an issue we have to seriously consider.

2. This is not a direct command to Christian missionaries, but to the Twelve. The doesn't rule out a general application, but some commands to the Twelve are unrepeatable. Moreover, even where commands have a general application, they are only applicable in analogous situations. 

3. The command to the Twelve has a specific context. It's an extension of the public ministry of Christ in Palestine. The Twelve are to go around Palestinian villages, proclaiming the Gospel to Jews.

In the Synoptic Gospels, as well as Acts, the command has explicit reference to Jews. That doesn't mean it can't have a broader application, but the application must be analogous.

These are people steeped in the OT. So they already have that frame of reference. In addition, they either know Jesus by reputation or from firsthand observation, as an exorcist and wonder-worker. So his authority as a messenger is corroborated by his supernatural feats. In addition, the Twelve are empowered to perform miracles (exorcism, supernatural healing).

That's the audience. The audience already has multiple lines for evidence for the Gospel. Their knowledge of the OT. Their knowledge of Jesus as an exorcist and wonder-worker. Their knowledge of the Twelve, as exorcists and healers. 

If, despite all that, they oppose the missionaries, then that's when the missionaries should shake the dust from their feet.

Clearly the Sentinelese tribe has nothing like that background information. They don't have a biblical frame of reference. They never witnessed missionaries performing miracles. They're a blank slate in that regard. Assuming they're religious, it's paganism. 

4. Acts 13:50-51 is an extreme case. Paul and Barnabas didn't merely encounter resistance. They were forcible expelled from the district. It wasn't physically possible for them to evangelize the Jews and gentiles in that area. They were run out of town by the civil authorities.

5. Did the Sentinelese tribe en masse oppose Chau? Did the women and children oppose his overtures? Presumably the tribe is governed by a chieftain or oligarchy of male elders. I doubt their xenophobic policy was put up for a vote. 

6. There are situations in which evangelism may be futile, and given limited resources, it's best to reallocate those resources to a more promising mission field. But throughout church history, missionaries routinely encounter initial, fierce resistance.

Should Missionaries Just Stay Away?

http://www.contextwithlornadueck.com/2018/11/29/should-missionaries-just-stay-away/

Publicity-seeker?

Arminian NT scholar and blogger Scot McKnight has a guest post by Ruth Tucker impugning John Chau as a publicity-seeker:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2018/11/28/john-allen-chau-a-missionary-historian-perspective/

Unless I'm misremembering, I believe Ruth Tucker is an apostate. She wrote a book about her defection from the Christian faith several years ago. That doesn't mean her observations about Chau, Jim Elliot, and Elizabeth Elliot are necessarily wrong, but she does have an ax to grind. I find it odd that McKnight would host her diatribe without any awareness of the conflict of interest. 

Rough rider or reject?

https://asianroughrider.com/2018/11/27/the-death-of-john-allen-chau-rough-rider-or-reject/

Deadly handshake

https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/killing-others-with-a-handshake/

Was John Chau a missionary Rambo?

http://www.dennyburk.com/mission-agency-clears-away-some-false-assumptions-about-john-chaus-mission-to-remote-tribe/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/11/28/slain-missionary-john-chau-prepared-much-more-than-we-thought-his-case-is-still-quandary-us-missionaries/

Christian mission meets cultural relativism

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/09/the-right-to-kill-brazil-infanticide/

Engaging Buddhism

https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/buddhism/

Sending missionaries

1. The martyrdom of Christian missionary John Chau provoked critics of Chau from both ends of the political/theological spectrum. On the one hand you have the secular progressives. One allegation is that he represents white-American colonialism. Some basic problems with that allegation:
i) Was he Aryan? He seems to have a Chinese surname and appears to be biracial. I'm guessing he's Amerasian (or adopted). So he's a poor candidate for white colonialism.
ii) In addition, in what sense did he represent the forces of colonialism? Here's a definition:

colonies for settlement and colonies for economic exploitation
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/#Def

He doesn't represent either one. Is the USA planning to invade the North Sentinel Island?
iii) The Christian faith originates in the Middle East, not Europe. It's not a white man's religion, and it was around many centuries before the USA came into being.
iv) Then you have progressives who say Chau was violating the national sovereignty of the islanders. But aren't these apt to be the same people who support open borders with respect to immigrants and "refugees" to the USA?
v) Another objection raised both by secular progressives as well as some professing Christians is the risk of infecting the islanders. Yet that would preclude Christian mission to many people-groups throughout church history, before the advent of vaccines, antibiotics, and antivirals.
In addition, can the islanders count on everyone to respect their sovereignty? China is becoming increasingly aggressive and expansive. If their geographical isolation and lack of resistance makes the islanders fatally vulnerable to epidemics, then they need to develop some resistance, since they can't expect to live in a bubble forever.
What about medical missionaries?
vi) The bottom-line is that secular progressives despise the Christian faith. Ironically, the people who hate Christianity reveal their desperate need for the very thing they hate.
vii) If atheism is true, human life is worthless. It's impossible to wrong anyone. It's all about power and ruthless self-interest.
2. Chau also came in for criticism from Christians. Reformed author and pastor Mark Jones said he was "unimpressed" by Chau and compared him to Calvin's statement that "zeal without doctrine is like a sword in the hands of a lunatic."
i) Some Christian critics seemed to imply that if a missionary is murdered, that in itself is proof that he was a zealous fool. When I asked Pastor Jones if that applies to St. Stephen (Acts 9), he replied:

You're comparing John Chau to Stephen? Wow. At least Stephen's audience heard the gospel in their language. That's one major difference.

That's an interesting response. How, exactly, is a missionary supposed to master the language of a xenophobic, geographically isolated people-group? Are there grammars and lexicons of Sentinelese language? Are there recordings that provide the pronunciation? From what I've read, it's a language isolate. Presumably, the only way a missionary could learn their language is through immersion, which requires direct contact.
In Acts 14:8-13, Paul and Barnabas don't know the native language, which results in some confusion. Were they wrong to evangelize such areas?
3. Do Christian critics think evangelism is supposed to be risk-free? I asked them what Chau should have done differently to avoid getting killed. No answer. Should we play it safe. Write off countries where evangelism is hazardous?
4. Another objection is that Chau's action was illegal. But even if that's the case, Scripture says the duty of evangelism overrides any laws to the contrary (Acts 5:29).
5. Yet another objection is that he wasn't sent. He was a lone ranger. That raises a number of issues:
i) From what I've read, he was trained and sponsored by a missionary organization:
https://allnations.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/All-Nations-Nov-21-2018-News-Release.pdf
So Chau doesn't seem to fit the profile of a missionary Rambo. But suppose instead of going by himself, a mission team went to the island. If they all got massacred, would that satisfy the critics?
ii) Perhaps some critics would say his sponsor doesn't count because that's a parachurch ministry. Some Christians frown on parachurch ministry. They think missionaries must be sponsored by a local church. And in the Book of Acts we see some coordination between local churches and missionary outreach.
a) However, that's descriptive, not prescriptive.
b) Moreover, although Peter, Paul, and John are said to be "sent" by local churches, they had an independent mandate to evangelize. A direct commission from Christ. They didn't require permission or authorization from a local church.
c) Furthermore, we have passages like Acts 8:5 which says "Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ." There's no indication that he was sent by a local church.
d) What about denominational mission boards? What about missionaries who were sent, not by a local church but by the denomination–via the missions board? Does that count? A denominational missions board transcends the local churches that comprise the denomination. That can't be prooftext from Acts.
Then you have transdenominatinal mission boards. Does that count?
In the nature of the case, missionary outreach has an international dimension. That can't all be coordinated at the level of the local church. There need to be some overarching structures or "connectional" ministries.
iii) In addition, while Acts sometimes refers to people who are "sent", the sender isn't necessarily or even normally a local church. It can take the form of revelatory dreams and visions, Christophanies, angelophanies, Christian prophets, or an audible voice of God:

26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot” (Acts 8:26-29).
19 And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” 21 And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for. What is the reason for your coming?” (Acts 10:19-21).
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus (Acts 13:1-4).
6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. 8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them (Acts 16:6-10).

Yet I'm pretty sure the critics of Chau are cessationists, so they don't think a missionary must be sent in that supernatural sense. But in that event they can't prooftext their position from Acts.
There is a famous passage in Romans:

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Rom 10:14-15).

But in context, I believe that's alluding to Jesus commissioning the apostles. If so, a cessationist can't appeal to that passage. You also have Paul dispatching his deputies. But unless we subscribe to apostolic succession, that's unrepeatable.
6. Perhaps Chau went alone because he couldn't persuade anyone else to accompany him. They were too afraid. Or perhaps he didn't wish to endanger anyone besides himself. As a "person of color", he might have more entree with other "people of color" than a white missionary. He died trying, but his death is a Christian witness. Indeed, that's the etymology of martyrdom. It became a technical term for Christians whose willingness to die for their faith is a witness in its own right.

Are missionaries Typhoid Mary?

https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2018/11/25/deadly-pathogens/

Martyred missionary

http://www.dennyburk.com/slain-missionary-john-chaus-mission-is-not-white-colonialism-its-the-great-commission/

Reflections on reincarnation

1. I rarely write about Hinduism and Buddhism because it's fairly specialized. Reincarnation is neglected in Christian apologetics because most Christian apologetics is focussed on challenges to Christianity in the West. 

2. Before addressing the specifics, I'd like to make a general observation. Not all paranormal claims are mutually consistent. Compare reincarnation with crisis apparitions. There are reports of dead relatives appearing to a loved one to warn them or give them encouragement during a crisis. But if that's true, then how can reincarnation be true? According to a standard paradigm, reincarnation involves a memory wipe. When a person is reborn, they forget their past lives. Start all over again. 

That rules out crisis apparitions. The dead relative has moved on. Been reincarnated. Started from scratch in a new body, as a baby. Immersed in a new life history. 

They don't remember their loved ones from past lives. At this point they are younger than their children. Reincarnation resets the lifecycle. Your late mother can't appear to you as your late mother. She's now a little girl. 

Reincarnation and crisis apparitions can both be false, but they can't both be true. And I think there's unambiguous evidence for crisis apparitions, whereas the evidence for reincarnation is ambiguous at best. 

3. To my knowledge, apologists for reincarnation offer three lines of empirical evidence: déjà vu, transgenerational birthmarks, and memories of a past life. 

4. Déjà vu

i) I think this is the weakest evidence. Not just weak evidence for reincarnation, but weak evidence that it's even paranormal. 

In my own life I've had déjà vu experiences. One time, sitting at a fast food joint, years ago, I suddenly had the intensive feeling that I'd done this before. I'm pretty sure that I hadn't done it before in this life. But since the establishment was built in my lifetime, it wasn't even possible for me to have been there in a past life. So whatever the explanation, it can't be reincarnation.

Likewise, I've lived in at least two consecutive locations where I had déjà vu experiences. But both of them were built in my lifetime, so that can't be chalked up to a past life. And even if they hadn't been constructed in my lifetime, what are the odds that in a past life I lived in both places–not to mention both places in succession?

iii) Moreover, the sensation I've had is more like a time loop than remembering a past life. It's not the sensation that I was in the same place in a different life, but that this life is repeating itself. 

iv) Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. That's my explanation. 

But assuming for argument's sake that déjà vu demands a paranormal explanation, telepathy is a simpler explanation. What if one person's memories occasionally leak into another person's mind? 

5. Transgenerational birthmarks

i) The claim is that babies sometimes reproduce the unique birthmark of a dead person, like an ancestor. In fact, this has become a TV trope:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReincarnationIdentifyingTrait

ii) I haven't studied the literature in sufficient depth to know if such a phenomenon actually exists. Of course, the appeal is circular. If some babies reproduce the birthmarks of a dead person, then those aren't unique birthmarks.

iii) However, let's stipulate for discussion purposes that the phenomenon exists and demands a paranormal explanation. How would reincarnation be an explanation for replicated birthmarks? On a standard paradigm of reincarnation, the soul (mind, consciousness) transfers from the dead body to a new body. A body-swap scenario. But how would that cause any physical traces? 

iv) Why would reincarnation duplicate birthmarks rather than duplicating the body? If the body is not a double, why the same birthmarks? 

v) What reincarnation have to do with heredity? Why would someone be reborn in the body of a lineal descendent? Isn't reincarnation just the idea that the same soul is reembodied? But that's not a genetic or genealogical relation–as if, to be reincarnated, you must be a reincarnated ancestor. Assuming (ex hypothesi) that reincarnation is true, why can't the soul transfer to a body in a different family tree? To my knowledge, reincarnation is usually treated as independent of lineage. 

vi) It would be interesting to know if there's a history of witchcraft or necromancy in these families. If a baby has the birthmarks of a dead ancestor, is that a family curse? Was the baby hexed? Are the dead (damned) casting a malevolent influence on the living? 

6. Past life memories

i) Suppose for argument's sake that reincarnation is true. Suppose someone underwent 100 past lives. In fact, that's a conservative estimate. How would they remember 100 life histories? Wouldn't their recollection be hopelessly scrambled? How would they remember what they did in each life? Who they knew in each life? 

Memory has a sense of relative chronology. You remember childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, middle age, &c. You remember that some things happened to you before other things. 

But if you underwent 100 past lives, how could you possibly keep the timelines straight? Assuming that some people remember events before they were born, that would actually constitute prima facie evidence that reincarnation is false, since it's hard to see how you could keep all those life histories separate in your mind.

ii) An alternative explanation is that those aren't your memories. You're tapping into someone else's memories. They are invading your mind. That doesn't require all the machinery of reincarnation, so it's a simpler explanation. 

iii) To my knowledge, Hinduism has a dualist anthropology while Buddhism has a physicalist anthropology. In Buddhism, humans have no perduring soul. So how is reincarnation even possible? Who's the you that's reincarnated? Weren't you extinguished at the moment of death? A new brain and body won't be you, but a blank slate. 

Encountering Islam

https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/encountering-islam/

Has a transcript