This article is a short exposition on James 5: 16 – 20.[1] There are three simple things I believe that we can learn from the life of Elijah and they all deal with prayer.[2]
Context:
Short version: God raised up Elijah as a Prophet at a very critical time in Israel’s history.
Jezebel had lead Ahab and the kingdom of Israel [God’s chosen people] into Baal (idol) worship. Elijah made his prophetic statement [As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word … 1Kings 17:1] to Ahab and then waited for around three years as the drought took effect. Elijah stayed with a widow and her son in Zarephath in the interim. Then tragedy struck  … [3]
The Scripture:
James 5:16  Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Jas 5:17  Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. Jas 5:18  And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Jas 5:19  Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Jas 5:20  Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
�
Here is one of the ‘interesting situations’ that Elijah the prophet was in:
1Kings 17:16  And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah. 1Ki 17:17  And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. 1Ki 17:18  And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son? 1Ki 17:19  And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. 1Ki 17:20  And he cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? 1Ki 17:21  And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child’s
soul come into him again. 1Ki 17:22  And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. 1Ki 17:23  And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth. 1Ki 17:24  And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth.
The Outline (Things We All Can Learn From Elijah):
1. Elijah prayed earnestly [James 5:17] [4]
 The widow’s son fell sick and died
 His mother was [naturally] distraught
2. Elijah prayed again [James 5:18] [5]
 Compassion will beget prayer
 Prayer may not net the answer we want
 But no prayer will definitely beget no answer
- Therefore … Pray, pray, pray, pray, pray
Sometimes we have to wait on God.
3.  Elijah prayed [yet] again [6]                              
 The child revived
 This was the first time in recorded history where the dead was raised
The Application:
            Prayer is work. But God will honor prayer in many ways. Elias was subject to like passions as we are. Doesn’t that mean that he was just like us?[7] And doesn’t that mean that we are just like him; if we pray? To pray is to hope. Our hope is in God Almighty—the Maker of heaven and earth! Let God use you.
- Be ready to pray.
- Keep praying
- Keep praying some more![8]
Elijah was subject to like passions as we are.
                Are you like Elijah?
                - Elijah prayed earnestly, he prayed again, and he prayed [yet] again[9]
ENDNOTES

There are (at least) five methodological fallacies in the following paragraphs.  Can you find them?

In 1980, a discovery was made that had the potential to undermine the very Christian faith. For an event of such significance, it all started matter-of-factly enough. A construction worker, excavating near Talpiot, Israel uncovered a 1^st century, Jewish tomb containing ten ossuaries (i.e. bone boxes), six of which bore inscriptions. His discovery wasn’t particularly unusual. Indeed, such finds were a routine part of doing construction work in Southeastern Israel. Although anxious to get back to work, the construction company followed protocol and contacted the Israel Antiquities Authority. The IAA recorded the find, reburied the bones, and transported the ossuaries to a Jerusalem warehouse. At the time, Amos Kloner, who logged the find, insisted, “There’s nothing unusual about this find.” Despite Kloner’s pronouncement, one of the ossuaries disappeared before it could be logged.

Naturally, there has been a lot of speculation regarding the missing ossuary. One controversial theory holds that the so-called “James ossuary,” an ossuary of unknown provenance that bears the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” is the tenth ossuary. This is the position of investigative journalist, Simacha Jacobovici, who argues that the Talpiot tomb is the lost tomb of Jesus. Although radical, Jacobovici’s theory is borne out by the initial evidence. With the inclusion of the James ossuary, the Talpiot inscriptions roughly approximate the names Jesus’ family members: James, Maria, Jesus, Mariamme, Yosa, and Juda. Such a marvelous discovery surely invites further speculation. Could it be that Mariamme refers to Mary Magdalene? Could it be that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married with a son, Juda? Jacobovici certainly thinks so. Having already discounted Jesus’ physical assumption into heaven, in his theory, Jacobovici has no qualms when it comes to challenging dogma.

To substantiate his argument, Jacobovici enlisted the help of James Cameroon, director of the film Titanic, and Charles R. Pellegrino, an expert on ancient epigraphs. Necessary to his argument is evidence bearing out the Mariamme-Mary Magdalene connection. Interestingly, Pellegrino found just such evidence in the extra-canonical (read: suppressed) Gospel of Philip. Encouraged by this discovery, Jacobovici and Cameroon pressed on. They developed a technique called “Patina fingerprinting” and used it to determine the provenance of the James ossuary. Working with a CSI expert, they compared sediment taken from the James ossuary with sediment from the Talpiot ossuaries using an electron microscope. The results? An unequivocal match. Unfortunately, conservative elements within the archaeological community remain skeptical. Regardless of their academic quibbling, the odds are with Jacobovici and Cameroon. Quite literally. Andrey Fueuverger, a statistician at the University of Toronto, gave 600 to 1 odds that the Talpiot inscriptions refer to the “Royal Family.” Admittedly, more work is necessary, but if the provenance of the James ossuary can be sufficiently demonstrated, there can be no doubt that Jesus was buried at Talpiot. Christians, believe what you want, but the evidence suggests that Jesus was just a man—and a family man at that. Judaism may yet be vindicated.

Solution

1. Jacobovici’s information regarding Jesus’ family comes from the four gospels, which were not contemporaneous with Jesus. As such, they should not be used as evidence in an empirical investigation.

2. There’s very little evidence to suggest that Mary Magdalene was actually called Mariamme. In fact, Pellegrino is the only epigrapher to posit as much.

3. The “Patina fingerprinting” technique, used by Jacobovici to prove the authenticity of the James ossuary, was invented for that expressed purpose.

4. Although scientifically sound, Fueurverger’s odds don’t indicate that the individuals found at Talpiot comprise the “Royal Family.” They instead give the odds of the six names occurring in a single tomb. Oops. Looks like Jacobovici and Cameroon are initiates into the sublime mystery known as “lying with statistics.”

5. Perhaps most damningly: Even if Jacobovici’s theory is correct on some basic level, there’s no way to prove it. We can’t check the Talpiot bones with existing DNA, for obvious reasons.

In the end, Jacobovici and Cameroon are guilty of retroactively using science to support a foregone conclusion. Sadly, such methodological skulduggery happens all too often at the confluence of science and religion. Perhaps this explains the reluctance of some serious religious scholars to use “hard” science in their work.

In recent times, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of religious sites and services available online. In fact, according to recent surveys, religion is the second most popular search topic on the net, second only to searches for pornography. Interestingly, people searching the net for religion aren’t doing so simply to read about religion; instead they are utilizing the net largely in order to participate in religion and to perform religious ritual. By means of the internet, devotees are performing virtual worship to gods/goddesses on screen, taking virtual pilgrimages to sacred spaces, and performing virtual purification rites that previously could only be performed at the sacred sites themselves. For those who are embracing such virtual religious practices, the internet is praised as a “new” medium through which large numbers of people can connect with religion and spirituality in easily accessible and personally meaningful ways and also as a means by which people who might otherwise be alienated from religion those away from their homelands, those who are suspicious of religious institutions, etc. may find a way to connect to the religion/spirituality for which they are longing.

Internet religion is not without its critics, however instead, many people argue that far from allowing people to connect to religion, virtual religion instead causes people to be further alienated from it. In support of their argument, critics of internet religion claim that virtual ritual is problematic insofar as it is not real; that is, a god onscreen they claim cannot substitute for a god on an altar/icon at a church and a virtual pilgrimage cannot provide the same meaning/depth of experience as can a trip to the actual pilgrimage site. Further, critics claim that because such virtual rituals are often performed solo and in the privacy of the devotee’s home, office, etc., they cause devotees to be separated from religious community.

What do you think about this issue? Do you think that something is missing from virtual ritual and if so, what specifically might be missing? Further, do you agree with the critics that such rituals distance devotees from “the real” or should we instead embrace cyber technology insofar as it allows the sacred to be more easily accessible to everyone? Finally, what do you make of the critics’ claims do their arguments about virtual ritual rest upon a false conception of the “timelessness” of religious ritual?

Do they espouse overly strict and/or antiquated notions of community?

Religion in America is profoundly underappreciated. I don’t mean there aren’t enough believers; I think these believers lack a genuine understanding of their own faiths. In the mainstream media, politicians, pundits and talking heads blather about the “fundamental tenets of Christianity” as if all the Bible talks about is peace, love, and understanding. Zen Buddhists willfully ignore the enthusiastic support of both major Zen churches for Japan’s role in World War II. And who can blame them? Who wants to talk about rampant anti-Semitism in the Gospel of John or the use of the Lotus Sutra to justify the murder of Chinese civilians? This is the cold, hard, violent side of religion. It isn’t pleasant, and it isn’t peaceful. But it is a part of us, no matter how much we want to deny it. The nasty side of our religion is one that we, as believers, have to confront honestly – without trying to explain it away – because otherwise we are lying to ourselves and others about the history of our own tradition.
A true understanding of religion tackles those issues that are so tempting to avoid. It harmonizes academic rigor with a believer’s faith to produce someone who is capable of confronting the darker side of their own tradition – and thus someone who is better equipped to confront life’s hardships. Spirituality is like going to the gym: if we do the hard, honest work of struggling with our own faith, then we will have spiritual muscle to flex when life throws us a curve ball. We will have a thriving, vibrant tradition to give us solace in times of tragedy, instead of a house of cards that collapses at the first challenge. That’s what I think. Do you agree? Are we being honest with ourselves about our own faiths? And does wrestling with our faiths create a stronger faith or a weaker one?

T.U.L.I.P.

“T” stands for Total Depravity!!

The title alone stirs up stomachs. The topic of predestination to some is no laughing matter. I discovered this as I turned to my dad who is an Independent Baptist pastor and questioned him about the topic (he would not shut up).

In high school I read a book given to me by a close friend entitled DEBATING CALVANISM, authored by Dave Hunt and James White. This debate answered so many questions, my personal favorite being, “Do you have any choice in your OWN salvation?”

I have been raised in a Baptist church and predestination was never taught or mentioned so you can imagine that when I heard about the topic I went crazy, and had to know more.

The soteriology based on predestination is not just a one time high school find, lives are built around this theology. Let me point you to some well-known (my personal fav) verses in Romans 3:10-18. Pretty much Paul tells the Romans how incredibly depraved they are as humans and tells them that only by God’s grace, that is a gift, are they saved.

But is this REALLY what this passage is talking about? Armenians say, “Not exactly.” James White debates the soteriology called “synergism” which teaches that God’s grace does not save an individual without the joined effort by man’s willingness. However, all throughout the Bible the soteriology of “monergism” is proclaimed, God is fully able to save without the aid of His creatures.

This debate between synergism and monergism attempts to explain the results from sin by mankind. If monergism determines one’s salvation, what then must man do to gain entrance into Heaven?

Back to predestination! In Romans and now in Jeremiah 13:23, it is stated that no man can change their fate in death. “Can an Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil,” Jeremiah 13:23. Therefore, since human kind is born sinful, how can one say they do good things? It is not possible according to this verse! If humans cannot do good things, what chance do they have getting into Heaven with works?

The debate over predestination is long past due for a solution, so I have one: We all know that humans are sinful (get over it, it’s the truth), without the grace of God to make humans known of their disgraceful actions humans would NEVER know they were doing wrong. God gives us grace then we depend on our faith to keep us in check of our sinful nature.

God chose to love some. HE CHOSE TO LOVE US. He also chose to damn some to Hell. But the bottom line here, God created us; he can do what he wants. When you make a piece of pottery and you do not want to place it in the State Fair, the pot does not look at you from the windowsill and start freaking out! Therefore, what gives us the right to question what God does?
-Heather Bougher, student of Journalism/Religious Studies, Junior

Recently in the media (including Slate, MSN, The New York Times, and YouTube) and even on IU’s campus (in the 2006 Patton Lectures by Daniel Dennett) there has been a rash of “debate” between atheists and theists on the existence of God and the role of religion in human civilization.

I put the word “debate” in quotes because, as with so many sensitive topics, each side (adopting, for the moment, the incorrect assumption made by most of the “debaters” that there are only two sides to the issue) seems to be more invested in antagonizing and villainizing the other than actually engaging in any sort of deep dialogue.

My question is, what does this debate accomplish for either side? And, perhaps more importantly, what could it accomplish were it conducted in a more civil, respectful manner?

The Reverend Jerry Falwell, 73, died Tuesday, May 15, 2007. Falwell, an important early televangelist, was best known as the founder of the Moral Majority, a conservative lobbying group, and as an outspoken fundamentalist, evangelical Christian. He was instrumental in the melding of conservative religious values and Republican Party politics, with some people arguing that his efforts played a key role in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. He also founded Thomas Road Baptist Church, one of the first mega-churches, and Liberty University, both in his hometown of Lynchburg, Virginia. One of the most polarizing figures in the contemporary Christian world, Falwell’s credibility had, in recent years, fallen considerably after he made comments such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks were God’s judgment on America for allowing homosexuals, pagans and the ACLU so much influence. He also condemned the Teletubbies, the children’s cartoon characters, one of whom he had accused of being gay. Episodes such as those led many commentators to claim that Falwell’s influence and prestige had already waned well before his passing. What do you think? Was Jerry Falwell irrelevant even before he died, or does he still represent the public face of conservative Christianity in the United States?

Within the United States there are religions that encompass communities ranging from all ends of the religious spectra. These relgions range from those that are “traditional” to “non-traditional,” to put the categories in the most basic form. However, even though the top ten largest religious bodies in the U.S. remain closer to the Christian-traditional (according to www.adherents.com) end of the spectra does not rule out the fact that there are Hindus, Daoists, and Buddhists living amongst the general population. Therefore, instead of seeing an individual with a shaved head, living a rather primitive form of everyday life then dismissing the fact that they are “confused” and need “The Lord” one should embrace the diversity.

Maybe the facts prove that the U.S. is not ready to educate themselves about Eastern Religions, or it could be that one is too wrapped up in their own confusion on how to live.

Why not learn about Eastern Religions? Why not accept their culture and further you’re own experience of different cultures. Cultures that reach beyond just having a roommate who has more or less money than you could ever imagine your own family to have.

There is a book that I just discovered and have yet to buy, but the author Sage Bennet, Phd. has been studying other traditions for over eight years and wrote a book entitled -Wisdom Walk; Nine Practices for Creating Peace and Balance from the World’s Spiritual Traditions.- The book explores nine different traditions and explains main ideas from them all to encourage readers to not only get a taste of diverse traditions but tips on how to apply certain teachings to enlighten one’s mind, body and soul to enhance society.

No matter what one’s background, whether Christian or Buddhist, having the knowledge and understanding of other cultures and lifestyles will and can in someway produce a more open and accepting community. So someone does not have the same beliefs as you, are you going to ignore them because of their beliefs or will you try to better your self-awareness of people different from yourself?

How often do you dismiss others because of their beliefs or culture? What do you think about opening your mind to understand new ways of thinking (or at least trying to figure out what you do not believe as opposed to trying to figure out what all the thoughts about religion that are swarming your head are).

In a word: indispensable! At the key worship experience, Sunday Mass, Catholics hear four texts: an Old Testament reading, psalm response, a New Testament reading and the gospel. The preaching explicates these readings. The celebration of each of the seven Sacraments begins first by hearing scripture readings. In fact, the Sacraments themselves have their root in the Scriptures. The other key worship, the Liturgy of the Hours, prayed for nearly two thousand years, consists of psalms and canticles. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) Catholics have been engaged in bible studies and renewal programs that use the Bible. Yes, Catholics are steeped in the Scriptures. What Catholics don’t know is “chapter and verse.” It has never been a teaching style for Catholics to memorize texts.
About interpretation. Catholics hold that “we acknowledge that the books of the Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures” (De Verbum [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation] 1965, 12). The Bible is infallible in sacred truths. This does not mean that every historical detail is “accurate.” In this regard, Catholics are not literalists. The church assures an accurate interpretation of the text. This involves a scholarship that probes the original author’s social, linguistic, historical and theological contexts. There is a caution toward purely personal interpretation that does include the insights provided by the larger community, the church.
-Fr. Robert Keller, O.P., St Paul Catholic Center at IU