Magic Statistics

Islamic extremism continues to move south in Africa.  Muslim radicals demolished a simple church in Benin only three days after its completion.  The church had been built by the indigenous evangelical missionary group Christ’s Power Ministries (CPM) for use by the Ayizo tribe.

About four months earlier militants also destroyed a CPM training center where over 2,000 Christian workers, including 1500 'disciples' and 650 children's ministry workers were educated, missionaries said.

It came as a major setback for the organization as the center apparently gained recognition for its effectiveness and members of neighboring Christian communities interested in starting  similar projects visited the center to observe training methods and activities.

In addition two CPM mission schools were reportedly ransacked and destroyed by Islamic militants. It was not immediately clear which group was behind the several attacks in recent months.

Islam is spreading rapidly in Benin.  The leader of CPM estimates that some 30% of the population is now Muslim.

h/t: Voice of the Martyrs Canada

This post seems especially appropriate in view of Bishop Ingham’s moral commendation of animal behaviour.  Mafia-like activity has been observed in the animal kingdom.

Cowbirds have long been known to lay eggs in the nests of other birds, which then raise the cowbirds' young as their own.

Sneaky, perhaps, but not Scarface.

Now, however, a University of Florida study finds that cowbirds actually ransack and destroy the nests of warblers that don't buy into the ruse and raise their young.

Jeff Hoover, an avian ecologist at the Florida Museum of Natural History, is the lead author on the first study to document experimental evidence of this peeper payback — retaliation to encourage acceptance of parasitic eggs.

The photo at right shows a parasitized warbler nest with three parasitic cowbird eggs and five warbler eggs.

The team studying the cowbird hit squads found that, after a parasitic egg was removed, cowbirds often returned and ransacked the nest.  The returning cowbirds were always female.

The offspring of warblers that accepted cowbird eggs had a better survival rate than did offspring of warblers that tossed out cowbird eggs.

"Retaliatory mafia behavior in cowbirds makes hosts' acceptance of cowbird eggs a better proposition than ejection," Hoover said. "The accepting warblers in our study produced more of their own offspring, on average, than those where we ejected cowbird eggs."

Cowbirds were also observed destroying non-parasitized nests.  As the warblers re-built their nests, cowbirds would time their egg-laying for optimal parasitizing.

h/t: Faith-Science News

That friendly advice brought to you by Binks, who invaded titusonenine earlier today as part of the “Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton” Campaign 2007.

Hmmm. So, invading is OK, but not immanentizing?

Only four days after tickling the ears of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council at their meeting in Oregon, Michael Ingham has struck again.  Yesterday he wowed a select group of mostly Anglican homosexual-rights activists in Ottawa.  The man is a veritable itinerant evangelist.

The Globe and Mail story is reported by Bp Ingham’s fellow religious partisan, Michael “no-pretence-of-journalistic-objectivity” Valpy.

The Christian church has a deeply flawed understanding of sex that has led to morally groundless objections to masturbation, birth control, abortion and homosexuality, says a leading Canadian Anglican bishop.

One may dispute traditional church teaching on those matters, but to say they are “morally groundless” is away over the top (not to say obtuse).  Masturbation has been regarded as morally problematic because it typically entails transgression of our Lord’s teaching against looking at a woman lustfully.

Objections to abortion are only incidentally related to sex.  Abortion’s fundamental ethical problem is that it directly and intentionally kills an innocent human being.  (Mike should consult the Sixth Commandment on that.)

Bp Ingham appears unaware that ancient strictures against contraception were overturned in all branches of Protestantism during the early 20th century.  The Church of England, for example, went on record permitting contraception at the 1930 Lambeth Conference.  He should catch up with the latest developments in sexual teaching before condemning restrictions his church abolished decades ago.

We’ll return to homosexuality momentarily.

In particular, the church has been wrong for centuries on the notion that sex exists only for the purpose of procreation, Right Rev. Michael Ingham, bishop of the Greater Vancouver Diocese of New Westminster, told a conference in Ottawa last night.

Wrong again.  Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism all affirm that, in addition to procreation, sex serves the worthy function of enhancing the relational unity of husband and wife.

"Christianity as a religion stands in need of a better theology of sexuality," he said, "a better understanding of the complex role sexuality plays in our human nature and of the purposes of God in creating us as sexual beings."

Given that Bp Ingham’s knowledge of church teachings in this area is, shall we say, spotty, he is hardly in a position to advocate a “better theology”. Orthodox Christian doctrines of anthropology and sexuality, moreover, reflect deeper and more subtle understanding of the human condition than what he has to offer.

The Bible's Christian New Testament condemnation of homosexuality, he said, is "almost certainly" a proscription of sex between adult males and young boys — tolerated in the 1st century AD in Greek society — and not a proscription against adult homo-eroticism.

"[The Christian biblical writer] St. Paul understood same-sex relationships only in terms of the older-man and younger-boy relationship of the Greeks, which we call pederasty, or in other words child abuse. . . . But no difference was perceived [by the Christian church] between child abuse and adult same-sex love.

This is easily shown to be completely erroneous.  Let’s have a look at just two verses from St Paul:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So, Mike, tell me this: If “St. Paul understood same-sex relationships only in terms of the older-man and younger-boy relationship”, what is he doing mentioning lesbianism, let alone rejecting it?  According to you, he didn’t even understand such a thing.  Yet, he condemns it right alongside male homosexual behaviour.  How do ya figure that?

Those two verses also make clear that Mike is wrong to claim that Paul’s condemnation of homosexual activity was based on inherently exploitive relationships.  Both lesbians and male homosexuals are described as turning away from “natural relations”.  The problem in Paul’s eyes is not exploitation, but sexual gratification with members of the same sex.

"Today we have a better understanding of homosexuality as a basic and natural orientation experienced by some members of the human community, just as we find the same thing among some animal species, and in Christian terms we must come to think of this as not only natural but also God-given and good."

It goes from very bad to even worse.  Many paedophiles insist their sexual desires are “natural”.  Is that supposed to prove something about the moral acceptability of those desires?  What’s “natural” here is the fallen condition of the human race.  We are all inclined to sinful urges and impulses of various kinds. God wants all people to repent, believe in the Lord Jesus, and then to love and serve him by obeying his commandments.

Is whatever animals do all right for human beings to do as well?  How about stalking, killing, and eating each other?

At this point, part of me (the naïve part?) wonders why Bp Ingham is taken seriously as a pastor and teacher.  Clearly, when it comes to sexual ethics, he has no idea what he's talking about.  How did this man ever graduate from seminary?

What’s especially galling about this utterly uncritical news story (“press release” is more like it) is reporter Valpy’s breathless cheer-leading.  He portrays Bp Ingham as the brave iconoclast, the virtuous rebel.  What a load of rubbish.

Bishop Ingham's call for a new theology of sex will be felt as a shock throughout the 77-million member Anglican Communion, Christianity's third largest denomination.

Sadly, no, it’s not a shock.  We’ve heard it all before from far keener theological minds.

The story is headlined, "Bishop demands a 'better theology' of sex".  I’d say the Anglican Church of Canada should demand better biblical and theological understanding from bishops.

Previous related posts:

• Michael Ingham to Episcopal Church: We’re great
• Episcopal Church asked to “slam doors”
• Did God really say . . . there is sin and judgment?