Dr Paul Allen

Moral equivalence has two purposes.  One is to enable the morally confused to hide their confusion.  The other is to allow the immoral to hide their immorality.  Here are two examples as applied to the Israeli-Arab conflict: 1. One is the assertion we hear regarding the latest Israel-Hamas war by members of the Western Left, Muslim supporters of the Palestinians and even by a few individuals on the right: “Palestinian babies are as precious as Israeli babies.” Professor Cornel West, a lifelong progressive running for president as a Democrat: “As I have said for the past 50 years, a precious Palestinian child has the same value as a precious Israeli child.” David Cronin, an editor at Electronic Intifada, a large pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel website: “Palestinian babies are just as precious as my new daughter.” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called the hospital blast a "devastating loss of innocent life".  Anthony Albanese calls for the protection of Israeli and

Tomorrow in Washington DC, a few miles away from the church I pastor, will be a rally called the “Trans Day of Vengeance.” The event will be led by the “Trans Radical Activist Network” and has been promoted by political leaders around the country. Supporters of the “Trans Day of Vengeance” say that the Trans Community is under attack, and their protection can only come through retribution. This week has exposed a seething, violent hatred towards those who won’t fly the rainbow flag over their homes, churches, and on their social media accounts. That the Day of Vengeance takes place the week of the Nashville shooting is no coincidence—or if it is, one of the leaders of the trans movement called it “a happy coincidence.” The media has also shown hatred for the church—with major outlets even strongly implying (if not outright declaring) that the church is responsible for the shooting at its own school. The White House expressed support for the calls for vengeance on those that oppose the

Saul’s destruction of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 is a tough passage of Scripture. God commands Saul to destroy an entire city—women and children included—and rebukes Saul for showing mercy to some residents. Many have called this a “text of terror” that condones a massacre and depicts a genocidal God. While I have no desire to dodge this being a difficult passage, I do want to offer five observations that give a more nuanced understanding of what’s happening. 1. History of the Amalekites The Amalekites were not your friendly next-door neighbours. They’re depicted throughout the Bible as muggers preying on the vulnerable. In Exodus 17, they attack Israel—a defenceless nation of homeless, wandering slaves who’ve just left Egypt. In Numbers 14, they attack Israel in the wilderness again. In Deuteronomy 25:17–18, Israel is told, “Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked a

Matthew 19:13–15 features the wonderful account of Jesus’ welcoming children and blessing them. The disciples, thinking it beneath our Savior to receive the little boys and girls, attempt to turn the children away. Surely, they must have been thinking, that Jesus was too busy and too important to waste His time with children. They believed He had more significant matters to deal with, people of greater influence and power to address. But Jesus did not agree with their assessment. In yet another instance of reframing the disciples’ notions of propriety, Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (v. 14). We dare not miss the significance of Jesus’ words. If children had no capacity to understand the things of God and the person and teachings of Jesus, it would make sense to keep them at arm’s length from the Savior until they’re old enough to really grasp Him. Jesus’ welcome of the children implies that our young on

And as is too often the case with ancient church history is we can’t be as certain as we’d like to be. We certainly know that by 300 the universal practice of the ancient church was to baptize children, to baptize the children of believers. The problem is what happened before 300 and how certain can we be about it? A number of years ago now two German Lutheran scholars marshaled all of their vast learning, one to say the early church did baptize infants, that is very early, and another to say the evidence just isn’t clear. Part of the problem in evaluating evidence is you can quote an early father saying, “We baptize children,” but that doesn’t tell you how old the children were. Obviously, it’s one thing if you baptized a one-month-old, it’s something very different if you baptized a thirteen-year-old, and yet they’re both children. And so when we look at the evidence in the early church in the second and third century, the evidence is simply inconclusive. I don’t think eith