The current firestorm related to James White’s decision to facilitate an interfaith dialogue with Imam Yasir Qahdi is puzzling in the least and has become a stumbling block for many who do not understand how White cannot understand that he is “dancing with the devil” as the saying goes. Mr. White’s response to those critical of his decision has been the polar opposite of remorse and he has in fact dug his heels in and maintained that his actions were right and consistent with what Christians should be doing. Is that true? What bridges can be built to people who teach that Christians who do not submit or convert to Islam should be murdered? What madness is this that has gripped Christians today such that they believe the lie that building bridges to nowhere constitute evangelism? I won’t rehash all of Mr. White’s actions related to this in detail. You can read about that here – http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/facts-reveal-james-white-islamic-dupe-clueless-evangelicals-are-desperate-save-his
What I wish to address is the support Mr. White has received. Surprisingly a couple of people with very different perspectives, one might say two people with theological beliefs very much at odds with one another, have stepped into the fray to defend Mr. White’s error. I am speaking of Phil Johnson and Michael Brown. This has added a layer of intrigue to the entire situation but has also served to obfuscate the truth of what critics of White’s decision to promote an interfaith dialogue have been saying. By engaging in what appear to be damage control activities on behalf of Mr. White, Johnson seems to have exposed himself as a hypocrite of the highest order. You can be the judge of whether or not that is true based on the information contained in this article. His previous statements seem to be completely contradictory to his stated position concerning James White’s ecumenicalism, or to use the new and improved phrase, interfaith dialogue.
Do you know the truth about you? Not what you think is the truth but the real, behind the scenes look of you? The way you define who you are, what is it that make you, you? Is it the culture you were born with? Is it the family you’re born into? Is it money you make or the challenges you overcome? What is the truth about you?
Find out all about yourself as Steven Menking from the Amateur Society tells us all about the truth about ourselves. You can listen at 646-668-8485, press 1 to be live on air. Or, download Stitcher on your mobile device.
In what can be described as another wildly misguided missive poorly aimed and good only for virtue signaling to a cadre of reality-oblivious followers, William Dwight McKissic, an African-American Texas pastor, drafted a resolution that was considered at the annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix this week. What was misguided about his resolution? Simply this – McKissic sees in the so-called Alt Right, a source of unparalleled evil and hatred such that any rational individual would condemn it.
The Christian Post writer Michael Gryboski states in his write-up about the Resolution that, “The Alt Right is a political movement generally associated with white nationalism and known for launching intense attacks on ideological enemies on social media.” Oh the evil of such individuals who would oppose other people’s viewpoints along ideological lines! Note to Gryboski – this IS political discourse in America today. Social Media IS a political battlefield occupied by people of all ideologies including black supremacists, Hispanic and Latino supremacists, and every other ethnicity who has a grievance to advance.
The following story appeared in a recent edition of Leadership Journal.
“A traveler, between flights at an airport, went to a lounge and bought a small package of cookies and a newspaper. The woman found an empty seat in the gate area and sat down next to a man reading a magazine. After a couple of minutes she became aware of a rustling noise. From behind her paper she peeked to see the man sitting next to her helping himself to her cookies. After the initial shock she decided not to make a scene so she reached over and took a cookie for herself.
A minute or two passed and then came more rustling. The woman peeked from behind her paper and sure enough, the man was helping himself to another cookie. Again the woman decided not to make a scene and instead reached over and took two cookies for herself. This same process occurred several more times until there was one cookie left. The man broke the cookie in two pieces, ate half, and slid half over to the woman, got up and left.
The woman couldn’t believe the audacity of the man and was still fuming over the whole affair when she boarded her flight. After takeoff the woman needed something in her purse and when she opened it up the first thing she saw was her package of unopened cookies.”
Our assumptions can be misleading more often than we want to admit!
Following up on last week’s discussion of change and growth, we now turn to the related concepts of flexibility and adaptation. Change and growth are certainly necessary ideas for us to grapple with, but in order to understand this dynamic we must also understand our threshold for change. From a worldview perspective, flexibility and adaptation match this concept nicely.
What do flexibility and adaptation mean in this context? Where are the lines for ‘not flexible enough’ and ‘too flexible’ in the process of change? How are those lines determined? What do differing worldviews have to say about this concept? Why should we care?