By Jokim Schnoebbe

There are many Christians who defend their faith in the inspiration of the Bible by saying (in effect) that they have accepted it by faith. They have thus, as it were, accepted their faith by faith.

This might lead us to suppose that all of them regard their faith as something subjective, but this is not so. Many of them claim that their faith is true, that their opinions correlate to objective reality. When asked why they believe this, most of them say it is because they have the inner assurance that their faith comes from God.  Therefore it is the true faith.

Now if all these people agreed about the content of their faith, we would have to admit that their faith does likely come from God. The trouble is that they do not. Which leads—provided that God exists at all—to two possible conclusions: (1) God grants different people faith for various contradicting opinions. (2) Their faith is not only a God-given thing but also the result of their own reasoning, experience and authority (and often an ill-thought-out jumble of these three).

To Christian apologist C. S. Lewis, the first conclusion was not an option. Otherwise he would have had to believe that God did not care much for truth. And that would be the same as saying that God did not care for reality, because truth is a description of reality. And how could Ultimate Reality not care for reality? To keep believing in such a “God,” one would have to reduce Him to something very much less than God. He would be some sort of indefinable force that gives people faith no matter what the content of their faith.

Having said this, C. S. Lewis did recognize that all knowledge of God is incomplete, and that people’s use of Reason, Experience and Authority is never perfect. His God was One who saw people’s true desire for Him, even when buried underneath many incomplete and even false conceptions of Him. Lewis believed that “every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him.”

This leaves us with option two. People’s concrete faith is not only a God-given thing but also the result of their own reasoning, experience and authority. The examples one could give in support of this are too numerous to recount.

Can anyone doubt, for instance, that human reasoning is involved in the current debate on homosexuality in the Anglican Church? Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson thinks that homosexuality is a good thing; but a number of his colleagues, particularly in the developing world, think of homosexuality as a serious perversion of God’s creation.

Robinson has obviously a very different kind of faith on this point than his opponents. Both, however, seem to share a strong sense of God being on their side. Robinson described his bishopric as “a calling from God.”  But others, such as Bishop Robert Duncan, were not impressed by his claim of God’s approval. “This body has divided itself from millions of Anglican Christians throughout the world,” he said, adding: “May God have mercy on this church.”

The one believes in a God who blesses the church by giving her homosexual leaders; the other one calls on God’s mercy for the church’s apostasy in this area. Both cannot be right. Their respective faiths cannot both be God-given. They can conceivably be given by a force, by some vague energy, but not by the Ultimate Fact-hood of all existence.

Can a supposedly God-given faith, then, ever be sufficient evidence for the divine origin of the Bible? Judging from C. S. Lewis’ efforts to give reasons for his faith, it is safe to say that he did not think so.

This is taken from Jokim Schnoebbe’s blog, he is also known as the Author Jacob Schriftman. I first met Jokim a few years back in South Africa and we traveled together for a teaching tour in the far east. We also lived together here in Sweden for a few months where we both were involved in a course with YWAM. He is a talented speaker,artist,teacher,author,father,husband and fotball player (and a few other things). I warmly recommend his work.You can read more about him on his site schriftman.net and purchase his books on Amazon as Jacob Schriftman or as Jokim Schnoebbe.

Jim Forrest, an expert on this part of the world comments on the conflict.

The recent Georgia-Russia mini-war in and around South Ossetia was definitely not a religious war, but it serves as a reminder that religious identity doesn’t even come in third place when issues of national identity are at issue. While the battle raged, the majority of participants — and casualties — were Christians on both sides.

In both countries, the Orthodox Church — in practice, though not officially — functions as the national church. Russia has an icon of St. George at the center of its national coat of arms; the average Russian atheist regards himself as an Orthodox atheist. Georgia prides itself on having adopted Christianity in the 4th century, six centuries before the baptism of Russia.

No matter how borderless Christianity is in theory (“neither east nor west, neither Greek nor Jew”), in practice national borders are as substantial as cathedral walls.

The Orthodox churches in Russia and Georgia, led by Patriarch Alexei in Moscow and Patriarch Ilya in Tbilisi, are no exception. It’s rare for either church to stand in opposition to its government. The Russian Orthodox Church has been especially notable for being quick to bless Russia’s military — and has been all but silent in voicing criticism about Russian actions, no matter how brutal. Patriarch Ilya also has been equally silent about post-Soviet Georgia’s deepening association with the United States and the U.S.-sponsored military buildup that has resulted.

Thus it has been a surprise to note the efforts made by the leaders of both churches, first to prevent the recent war and then, their efforts having failed, to speed its end.

Ilya seems to have been the one who took the first step. In April he sent a letter to Alexei in which he noted the potential “role and authority of our churches to prevent the escalation of tensions and help restore good bilateral relations.”

While Alexei’s response has not been made public, it is likely that he intervened with Russia’s president and prime minister (he is on close terms with both Medvedev and Putin) in hopes of encouraging renewed diplomatic efforts to prevent conflict.

But when Georgia’s military bombarded Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 8, hopes to prevent war were shattered. (What lay behind Georgia’s action is baffling. It was something like Connecticut opening fire on New York. The Russians had already made clear what would happen in such a case. Georgia’s small army hadn’t a chance against Russian forces. Was President Saakashvili imagining that America, his military sponsor, would join the battle? Had he even been encouraged to open fire? I’d love to know.)

What is remarkable in the context of the days that followed was Patriarch Alexei making a public appeal to the Russian state to declare a cease fire.

“Today blood is being shed and people being killed in South Ossetia,” he said, “and my heart deeply laments over it. Orthodox Christians are among those who have raised their hands against each other. Orthodox people, called by the Lord to live in fraternity and love, confront each other.”

In a sermon given in Tbilisi two days later, Patriarch Ilya said that “one thing concerns us very deeply — that Orthodox Russians are bombing Orthodox Georgians.”

Note that when Alexei made his appeal, he was definitely not acting as the Russian government’s amen chorus. At the time, Russia’s leaders were strongly resisting international pressure for a cease fire. It seems likely that Russia was hoping, war having begun after years of tension, to seize the moment to bring South Ossetia, bitterly at odds with Georgia for many years, into actual rather than ex officio inclusion in Russia — a goal Russia is still pursuing, but at present without warfare with Georgia.

Will the two churches make more vigorous efforts to prevent renewed conflict? And if so, how? How willing are the two churches to prevent the cross from being used as a flag pole?

Why Sarah Palin ?

I just came back from a wonderful vacation in Budapest last week. American and western media has focused on Gustav, and McCain appointing Palin as his Vice president candidate.

I love several factors about her, she has proved herself to be a good leader in smalltime towns in Alaska and the obvious fact of her being a woman. She stands  the chance of being Americas first female president if McCain dies, or gets to old to stay in office.

Only one travel outside USA

What horrifies me none the less, is that she got her first passport in July 2007, and has only traveled abroad once. The travel was to American troops in Kuwait and Germany. She has not seen anything of the world but Americanism.

Despite the good things I have read about Palin, it is not good enough for such an important post. It gives me just another incentive to head over to the only other option America offers me, Mr Obama. But depite her experiance the Republican party has made a bold move nominating a woman.

I applaud both sides

The Democrats should be commended for nominating the first African American for the office of president of the United States, and, similarly I applaud the selection of a woman by the Republican Party as their nominee for vice president. Those choices for diversity can be praised without necessarily voting for either candidate. Both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin should be evaluated on the basis of their records, ideas, and leadership