What A Christian's Response Should Be To "Live 8"

Last weekend saw a major international extravaganza called Live 8 take place on the world stage

Live 8 concerts, which took place in 10 cities around the world, were an attempt to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the very successful Live Aid concerts which delivered much needed aid to starving people in Ethiopia & Somalia in 1985. It was also, on a grander scale, an attempt to be the beginning of the end of world poverty.

What was strange about this event or these events, is that no money was solicited or raised, only signatures. It was promoted as an attempt to raise awareness of the dire need in the 3rd world, and to send a message to the leaders meeting at the G-8 summit in Scotland this week.

There is much I could say regarding the technical and political aspects of the event, but I will try to confine myself to dealing with the more philosophical question of what should the Christian view of poverty be and the answer.

As my dear wife, Vickie, asked at one of the speakers remarks, that we are going to end world poverty, "didn't Jesus say- the poor you shall have with you always?" The answer is yes, He did. So this is the dilema; if Jesus said we will perpetually have the poor among us, how hard should we try to change that? Are we not just chasing our tails?

The obvious answer is that of course we should work continuously to help the poor and to eliminate hunger & disease. The Bible is full of admonitions to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, aid the widow and orphan and so forth. The reality, though, is that while you can win the battles, you cannot ever win that war and actually end poverty, disease, and suffering. It is one of the consequences of the fall. As in everything, God judges the intent of the heart and it is our attitude toward poverty and need that counts as much, if not more than our actions.

One of the great differences in a liberal, secular humanist mindset and a conservative Christian mindset is that the Christian sees a need and asks "what can I do to meet that need?" A liberal humanist mindset, most often, sees a need and asks "how can I get everyone else to meet that need?" That is why there is so often a push to create more and more public projects and to raise taxes. It relieves one of the personal responsibility to give as they are led. If I know that my taxes are going to supposedly take care of the needy, it relieves me from further obligation and a personal contact with those in need. My duty is done. It is also a way to try and force those, who may not feel the call to give to what "I" feel is important. "The rich guy has all of that money he does not deserve, let's get him to give more." All of my YWAM friends will rememebr DTS 101- "the need is not the call."

What is also lost in much of this discussion about poverty is that there are thousands of Christian and other private aid agencies working tirelessly and often in dangerous, self sacrificing situations to bring relief to the poor and needy. They are supported by the charitable hearts of people moved to give personally and often sacrificially. I just heard a report that from the U.S. alone over $30 Billion a year is donated to aid the poor in the form of private donations. I do not have figures but I know that millions of others in Europe and Asia also give generously to helping those who cannot help themselves.

Too many of those involved in events like Live 8, and those violently protesting the G-8 Summit and other events, have never and will never understand the concept of personal sacrifice and giving. Their idea of sacrifice is being arrested for civil disobedience in a western nation. How about risking your neck to make a change in a 3rd world situation? It will not happen.

The faithful believer and follower of the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not have to be told to give. He or she looks for ways to give. They do not feel a need to try and compel others to give, they are too focused on giving all they can all of the time. Anyone rememebr Mother Teresa? I do not recall her showing up at major events asking for help. Remember that giving, from a biblical perspective, is most profitable when done is secret without making a show of it. We saw one example of those making a show in the story of Ananias and Saphira.

Is it wrong to support just policy toward the 3rd world? No, of course not. Is it wrong to join in, in pointing out need, and helping meet need? Again the answer is no. But Live Aid, Live 8 and other such events are the best "the World" can has to offer. Believers and followers of Jesus Christ have something better and do not need an event to see need and to try and meet it. We should be asking and seeking it out every day from our Heavenly Father.

We should never feel convicted by what "the World" does, we have The Holy Spirit to do that. And we know that He is always loving, just and right.

Is the Qur'an More Holy Than The Bible?

For those who have been tuned at all of late it is impossible not to have heard more than your share of news regarding the alledged flushing of a Qur'an down a toilet, at the terrorist detention facility at Guantanimo Bay, Cuba.

I wrote a post, on another site, regarding the selective outrage on the part of the media with regard to this, which by the way, it now appears, never even really happened. But I posed the question of, "even if it had happened, why the selective outrage?" Bibles and Christians are desecrated and abused on a regular basis and we hear nothing of it. Vickie & I had our own experience with this in Morrocco in 1981, and a year later dear friends of ours were imprisoned for several months, for having Arabic language Christian literature in their position. What do you suppose happened to this literature?

In 2002, during a siege, Palestinian terrorists held hostages at the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem. According to priests who were held hostage, the terrorist used pages from a Bible for toilet paper. This by itself is of course an outrage, but even without that, just imagine Christians holding hostages at a mosque, or laying siege to one? President Bush, our entire military and every Christian in America would be held personally responsible. We would also be seeing a new rash of kidnappings and beheadings, in so-called justyfied retaliation. I can hear the mainstream media now explaining how we deserve what we get for the behavior of right-wing, Christian extremists.

But I digress. That was a political article. Here I want to deal with a more spiritual issue regarding the Bible & the Qur'an (Koran for those in Texas & Oklahoma).

The following article appeared in Saturday's Wall Street Journal- Opinion Journal online. I encourage you to read the whole article, but here are a couple of paragraphs from it:

Newsweek and the Quran
The Muslim holy book isn't just a "bible." It's far more sacred than that.
BY KENNETH L. WOODWARD
Saturday, May 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006719

"I am in no position to pass judgment on my Newsweek colleagues, nor would I want to. Among them are highly sensitive editors who frequently caught errors in my own copy. My concern is that all Americans understand how deeply sacrilegious such an act as Newsweek described would be to Muslims, and why it is not like flushing pages from the Bible down the drain--as Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and other commentators have suggested.

The Quran is not "the Bible" of Muslims. It is infinitely more sacred than that. To use a Jewish analogy, it is more like the oral Torah first revealed on Mount Sinai, which was later passed on orally through the prophets and eventually written down on scrolls for all to read. Whereas Christians regard the Bible as written by human beings inspired by God, Muslims regard the Quran--the word means "The Recitation"--as the very words of God, revealed aurally to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic. To hear those words recited is, for Muslims, to hear Allah. If, for Christians, Jesus is the logos or eternal Word of God made flesh, the Quran is the Word of God made book, and every Arabic syllable in it lives as the breath of the divine. In short, what Christ is for Christians the Quran (in Arabic) is for Muslims: the living Word of God made present in this world. Moreover, to recite the suras or verses of the Quran, as devout Muslims do, is to breathe in the very words of Allah. Thus, recitation of the Quran is for Muslims much like what receiving the Eucharist is for Catholics--a very intimate ingestion of the divine itself.

This, then, according to Newsweek's story--now retracted and "regretted" by the magazine's editor--is what some interrogators flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. "

What does Woodward say about the Bible and the Qur'an? Just look at the subheading: The Muslim holy book isn't just a "bible." It's far more sacred than that.

As I responded to Opinion Journal & Mr. Woodward on this, "I question his knowledge of, and belief in the authority of, The Bible aka the Word of God." Mr. Woodward states that the Qur'an is "not just the bible." It is more. Not just a bible?? The Bible, per Woodward, is on some lower order, a book written by men who were inspired, but the Qur'an is "the very words of God."

Hello?!!! For a religious writer Woodward's bible knowledge appears to be sorely lacking. First of all, the Torah he refers to in his comparison is still part of the Bible. Secondly, with regard to the Bible being written by "inspired" men, 2Timothy 3:16 says "all scripture is God-breathed," and 2 Peter 1:20-21 further says: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. What does God breathed or carried along by the Holy Spirit mean? Did he miss this somehow in his reading of this?

Woodward indicates that Muslims look to the Qur'an as something higher and more sacred than Christians do the Bible, and that may be partially correct. But the way he puts it makes one believe that the Qur'an has a greater authority. This is not true.

The real difference in the two books is in the eye of the beholder and speaks more to the state of Christianity and an apostate western world than it does of the books themselves. Woodward is the perfect example of the faithless western Christian who sees the Bible as a book written by well intentioned men containing some good advice, and a good deal of mythology, while Muslims hold a much higher regard for their schrift.

I assume that Woodward's point is that we need to respect their book more because it is seen as more sacred. I reject this entirely and refuse to raise the Qur'an to a higher standard, or to lower the Bible to a lower standard than each rightfully deserves.

As Christians, we must let this be a wake up call. We must ask ourselves what is the Bible? What authority does it have? And, based upon that authority, what shall I do?

Once we answer these questions, in our own lives, we will be in a better position to respond to the attacks and comparisons in the world at large. This is all a part of that Holy War that I have written about in the 3 past posts. This is no small matter. Please do not let it be.