domingo, 17 de abril de 2011

Ancient Roman Society: Another Portrayal of Humanity’s corruption



Is Rome worth one good man’s life? Julius Caesar and Gladiator imply it was not. If even a few people such as Maximus and Brutus that made history by reaching human ideals, could not build a society worth of itself, then how about the thousands of tyrants that have had power in the government? No matter how hard we try and strive to have a perfect government, every time we get the same results: death, disease, injustice, poverty and in-satisfaction. Human government will never be perfect because it was created by men, who only work for their selfish disdain.
Relativism of character is one of the main themes stressed throughout the play Julius Caesar. We can see this because though Julius Caesar was thought ambitious, he actually was an excellent and sympathetic military leader. He managed to establish some advantageous reforms for the people; which made Rome a prosperous, open, and trustworthy place to live. Julius Caesar was not completely good, which is why he was killed, but if he could have become a tyrant we know not. Relativism is also portrayed in another character in Julius Caesar, Brutus. While Brutus seems to be the hero of the day, he made several mistakes such as letting Anthony give a speech during Caesar’s funeral, and later sending his army into battle. More serious issues in Brutus’ character include the assassination of Caesar, his own friend, and his own suicide. Julius Caesar portrays this relativism to express the fact that human kind is not absolutely honest or corrupt.
In contrast, Gladiator presents a more idealistic hero. Even though Maximus went though much suffering, he almost seems not to have internal conflicts, unlike Brutus. In Gladiator there is no relativism, you are either good or bad. Maximus is clearly the light shining in a world of darkness, while Commodus inspires gruesome repulse; reminding us of all the ruthless people that have governed our world since ancient times.
Brutus and Maximus, the story’s heroes, had several things in common. Both were honorable; they inspired loyalty and respect in their subjects and army; a priceless gift. Both had a transparent character and wanted the best for Rome, which they served with all their will. Neither of these two characters strived for nor desired power. Nonetheless, both heroes shared the misfortune of losing their wives; and later they also died. But did the heroes’ will die too? Both stories end with the physical destruction of the hero. But do their values and motifs also get destroyed? They both fought for what they thought was right, but we might also want to question the reasons and arguments that supported their way of thinking.
As we examine the characters from a closer perspective, we can distinguish some significant differences between the two heroes. Brutus, on one hand, proves a more realistic character. Brutus was more easily persuaded into the conspiracy, and even though he sincerely believed that Caesar would become a tyrant, he did not have the slightest evidence to prove it. Blinded by false accusations and thinking that he would change the course of history for good, Brutus betrayed his friend. However, on the long run, Brutus did not accomplish that much. At the end, when he mutters out his last sentence, he certainly expresses regret. He says: “Caesar I kill thee with not half so good a will”, which means that now he wanted to kill himself more than he ever wanted to kill Caesar. Was it because guilt was strangling him from the inside? Though still honorable, Brutus does not seem a good leader or example to follow anymore.
On the other hand, Maximus was not persuaded into the conspiracy but forced into it. When Caesar asked Maximus what he wanted most in the world, he answered “go home.” When Commodus asked to help him he denied him too. He did not want any part in war, which is why he said: “dirt cleans easier than blood”, referring to becoming a farmer and quit being a general. But as he became a slave, and then a gladiator, he was unwillingly forced into the struggle. Once more, he submitted to his principles, he was true to his own feelings, and longed to see a new Rome, free from the tyranny and corruption that had rendered it; his last desire and accomplishment. Obviously, we must also remember that this idyllic character is only found in movies.
Though imperfect heroes, Rome still was privileged to have them.
 Heroes were not very common in ancient times; and they are still rare. 
For this reason we would think that the crowds would respect heroes and honor them more, 
but clearly this was not the case, the crowds were not worthy of them.
 In both stories, senators agreed that manipulating crowds was important for the government of Rome. 
And in gladiator, Gracchus said: “Rome is the mob… conjure magic for them and they will be distracted”, 
 which means that he did not think very highly of it. 
And one time Lucilla also said: “the mob is Rome- once you control them you control everything.”      
     Even though these heroes wanted Rome to be a republic instead of an empire,
 the people were more comfortable being ruled by a tyrant. 
One sign of this was when the crowd wanted to crown Brutus after he gave his speech, 
which is ridiculous, because that was exactly what Brutus was working against: Rome having another Caesar.
 What is the purpose in having a perfect government if the people do not deserve it anyways? 
Clearly the people also have responsibility in this matter.
Both gladiator and Julius Caesar portray this idea of imperfection. Brutus’ character is a little more realistic that Maximus’ character. But even the ideal Maximus was at last a victim of humanity’s cruelty and was never able to see the reform he brought about. Until humans get rid of their selfishness, which obviously they’ll never accomplish by their own means, we will never have a just government. And even when men tried to establish a theocratic rule, thousands of people were killed, like in the crusades. No matter how much you strive for righteousness, you are still bound by your human nature of error and sin. We cannot do it by our own means. Therefore the only time when our thirst for justice will be satisfied will be when Jesus comes down to earth again to rule as everlasting king.

Lord of the Flies: A Reflection on the Human Heart.


Nataly Arenas                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

The short novel Lord of the Flies is an outstanding literary work in which William Golding shares his personal analysis of the structure of society and its imperfection. Golding recreates a fictional scene in which several 5-12-year old British boys are scattered on an inhabited island due to a plane crash and have to figure out how to get rescued. Throughout this piece, Golding develops in a consistent way the concept of original sin and how it is rooted to the human heart.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions defines the term of original sin as the state of sin into which everyone is born as a result of the fall of Adam. 1 The way that Golding expresses his point of view in the book has several phases. The first one is where he states the characters that are involved in the conflict to which we can all relate in our common society. We all know a Piggy, which is the intellectual character that gets easily frustrated when he cannot find an answer to the surrounding circumstances. At the same time, we can also picture in our heads a Ralph, which is the kind of democratically -elected leader that tries to establish laws and order in a community. And finally, we also have an idea of how an authoritative and powerful figure like Jack can manifest himself in the actual world.
Despite all the obvious differences between the characters they share some particular similarities, including the fact that they all come from the same background- they are all British boys, and from this we are supposed to infer that they are highly educated and civilized, but the book itself “reacts to the pervasive belief in the superiority of British culture and to the belief that to be British was in some sense the direct opposite of being a savage." (Olsen 2) Nevertheless, and most importantly, all the boys share another common trait that is native to them, sin. Gradually, we find more faults in the characters that induce us into thinking that even though they are children, the worldwide symbol for innocence, they are unable to ignore their sinful instinct, and as we move more into the story we are more disappointed in their conduct.
Rom 7:15-17 says: “what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.” This is exactly what is happening to the children and what Golding is trying to prove.  For instance, we know that Ralph’s goal was to establish laws and order on the island and that his genuine desire was for the children to follow and obey them. From this we know that Ralph obviously distinguishes what’s right from what’s wrong. But to our frustration, we encounter that Ralph was later willfully present at the feast and watched the dance that led to Simon’s murder. Ralph indirectly participated in this terrible event only by being there, and we read that his conscience would not let him conceive the fact that he had sold his morals for a piece of meat.
The other characters also distinguished between good and evil. For example, Piggy was often telling Ralph to explain in the assemblies to the children “what’s what” (   ). Piggy was the one who said: “ I know there isn’t no beast—not with claws and all that, I mean—but I know there isn’t no fear either… unless we get frightened of people” (   ), which adds to what he said earlier: “perhaps this isn’t a good island”(   ), meaning that he understood the terminology. But despite his recognition of good and evil, he was also present at the abominable dance, and later denies Simon’s murder which can be translated as a denial of sin. And finally comes Jack, who is no different than the other two because he said: “we’ve got to have rules and obey them. After all, we’re  not savages” (   ). But at the end there was no question concerning whether he sinned or not. Among his multitude faults were his cruelty, swearing, cursing, murder, idolatry, not only to a beast but to himself and finally the lie to his tribe about a beast roaming through in the island.
In his book, Golding uses countless of other examples (including that of Roger and Henry) of how despite the fact that the children knew the difference between good and evil, had the same education or at the same time different personalities and worldviews, they all had the same miserable outcome: Sin. Golding himself says: “I still think that the root of our sin is there, in the child. As soon as it has any capacity for acting on the world outside, it will be selfish; and, of course, original sin and selfishness--the words could be interchangeable . . . You can only learn unselfishness by liking and loving.” 3 From this information we can state that Golding firmly believed in the concept of original sin and agreed with the Bible concerning this universal and inevitable truth.
In Lord of the Flies, Golding also uses several allusions to the Bible, and the main one in that of Adam and Eve found in Genesis 3. According to the Bible, the first two human beings were innocent, but not ignorant, due to their knowledge of God’s law. Still, they believed themselves ignorant, and changed God’s truth for a lie. The outcome of their bad decisions affected all human race and they themselves had to live in constant fear all their lives.
In Golding’s story, the children did not carry the burden of the adult life yet and therefore were still innocent. However, they were not ignorant, the law of good and evil was already written in their hearts due to the fall: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Rom 3:23. Still, the children also believed themselves ignorant and created an excuse for sinning, which was the necessity to kill the beast (which was also a lie). There is no doubt of the juxtaposition that Golding created,  and which once more proves his understanding of the Biblical concept.
Unfortunately, Golding leaves us without any hope as he limits himself to write in one of the last sentences of the novel that “Ralph wept for the end of innocence {and} the darkness of man’s heart” (   ). At the end, the children were rescued by an officer whose attitude resembled that of Jack at the beginning of the story; it seems that all the evil that we faced throughout the pages will be doomed to repeat itself all over again, since the children are taken to another war. However, the Bible contrasts this tragic ending with a refreshing promise in I john 4:4 which says: “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.”

“We are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners.” R.C.  Sproul.



Works Cited
1)      “Original sin.” Encyclopedia. Accessed 29 september 2010. Avaliable. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Originalsin.html
2)       Kirstin Olsen, Understanding Lord of the Flies: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000) 2, Questia, Web, 29 Sept. 2010.
3)      William Golding, "William Golding Talks to John Carey," in William Golding: The Man and His Books, ed. John Carey ( London: Faber and Faber, 1986, 175.)
4)      R.C. Sproul from The Holiness of God. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 2nd edition (July 1, 2000)

Essay on Job


Nataly Arenas
Philosophy of Christianity

The book of Job is one that most Christians purposely avoid because of its tedious, long, and hard-to- understand speeches.  What sometimes we forget is that it makes part of the wisdom books, one who will broad your understanding of the character of God and is necessary for each Christian to read in order to uncover the heresy of the prosperity theology, learn about theodicy and therefore use apologetics to strengthen other’s and your own faith.  
The book of Job can be classified not only as a wisdom book but as a historical piece. The story of Job is simple to understand but hard to interiorize because it uncovers a reality that can change your entire vision of how Christianity works. The first two chapters explain the basic situation, where Job was a man who probably lived before God had established his covenant with Abraham.  Job was blameless before the people and upright before the Lord. He feared God and shunned evil. There is also a very impressive description regarding his wealth. He was the greatest man among all the people in the East and he was also the priest of his family. The Bible says that Job’s regular custom was to make sacrifices early in the morning for his children in case that they cursed God in their hearts.
One day, when the enemy presented himself before the Lord, God addressed Job’s piety. The enemy replied with a rhetorical question in which he implied that Job had a conditional righteousness upon God’s blessing, but if God would stretch out his hand and strike everything he had, Job would surely curse him to His face.  God accepted the wager and let the enemy take away Job’s wealth and family, but not his health.  The next time that the enemy went before the Lord, “the LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." (Job 2:3).
 One of the things that was the most complicated for me when studying the book of Job was theodicy, which is answering the problem of evil justifying God.  How do you demonstrate God’s justice in a book where he seems to be entirely the opposite? This book says that even though Job was pious before the Lord, God destituted him of every possession, his family and his health “for no reason”. And also, near the end, God also restituted everything to Job, which seemed like he was compensating him for some wrong he did to him. At a first glance, God’s justice seemed completely gone, but then, I was forced into looking deeper into the book, and only then I understood God’s greater justice and mercy throughout every situation. As it says in I Corinthians 10:13: “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” God’s justice is evident in this verse, God knew that Job could withstand this terrible trial and come out with a new and strengthened character.  
Apparently, Job suffered without any reason, but what this means is that he did not sin in order to deserve punishment. But God DID have a reason; God might have tested Job in order to see whether he had a conditional or unconditional faith, or perhaps to show His glory.                     But even if God did not have a reason, justice is not the only thing that matters. We don’t really want God to be just with us! If he were just we would all be dead because we are sinners. God doesn’t worry that much about being just, but about being merciful and compassionate.  Grace is breaking justice, and God is graceful. We will never understand some of these things due to our limited minds. The only thing that is required from us is faith, and trust in God’s perfect will for our lives. As Romans 8:28 says: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” One last time, God is also just because at the end, he answers Job’s prayer by appearing to him; God confronts and comforts Job, and finally Job doesn’t need any more explanations, he just sees God and is satisfied. If God had explained everything that had happened to Job, we would all be waiting for God to explain our own suffering, which most of the times does not happen.
This leads us to another important point. God wants our righteousness, and this is evident because he had a fatherly pride on Job’s piety, (this proves that Eliphaz’s rhetorical question, “What pleasure would it give the Almighty if you were righteous?” was completely mistaken.) But not only this, God also wants our unconditional faith.  It doesn’t matter if we are suffering, we have to remain righteous, like Job did even though he was pressured by his wife to curse God and die. There are many people that think that we should only be pious in order to earn God’s grace and salvation, and this is a great falsehood, which again addresses the heresy of the prosperity theology. According to Zophar, Job was suffering because of his own wickedness; but now I understand that this theology was so wrong that it was sinful and Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar had to make sacrifices for their sin and only Job could pray for them in order for God to forgive them. God was furious at how these three friends insulted His just and holy character and how they failed to comfort Job. The truth is that even the most righteous people suffer, and we have great examples, starting with Jesus, then Paul, David, Daniel, Joseph, and many others.
Job’s problem was that he fixed his eyes upon his own little problem, forgetting God’s sovereignty. And Although Job 2:3 says that he did not sin by charging the Lord with wrong doing, we have to keep in mind that there were many things that Job said afterward that seemed to blaspheme against God (without cursing him or losing fellowship with him), and God’s appearance in anger at the end confirmed Job’s missteps.
We learn from this book that sometimes we have to step back and get out of our own individual problem in order to see God’s justice, which is not always evident, except on an universal scale. And like Job, our faith has to be unbought and unconditional; in order for it to be successful we do not necessarily have to ask God the reason of our suffering, but trust that His will is perfect and that our character will be perfected and purified by the trial. At the end, we should only want to see God’s face and feel satisfied by his presence; He Himself shall be the answer to all our problems. We should not serve God in order for him to like us, but in gratitude for what he has already done.


Christianity’s Syncretism: An Ever-Present Threat


Nataly Arenas
English
March 28, 2011

Every year, about two billion people celebrate the birth of Christ spending all their money buying gifts which are delivered by a roly-poly red-suited American (St. Nicholas Center). And about a hundred-thousand celebrate the resurrection of Christ by hunting colored eggs and chocolate bunnies in baskets. Any connections? True, it is our duty as Christians to celebrate essential holidays such as Resurrection Sunday thanking God for his unconditional love; however, we must not allow syncretism to plague our faith or become an obstacle that detracts from the true significance of Christianity's holiest days. Instead we must “put everything to the test, hold on to the good and avoid every kind of evil,” that we may not be deceived and sin as a result.
The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Dr. Elwell, defines syncretism as "the process by which elements of one religion are assimilated into another religion resulting in a change in the fundamental tenets or nature of those religions."
Syncretism concerning the Christian church in most cases develops when the message that we learn and now pass on to others, that Jesus came in the flesh and died for our sins in order to save us, loses its attractiveness to the world and ceases to impact the lives of those that are currently lost (Missiology). Therefore, the church, lacking faith and memory of what God has already done, takes action. As runoff picks up pesticides as it flows through a harvest, so does the church adopt new pagan customs and traditions appealing for non-believers. In a short while, our vision is completely clouded and deviated from the truthful ways.
 Whether the church allowed syncretism to sneak in somewhat unconscious of the fact or in complete awareness, this has slowly but steadily led to heresies in the faith and has caused thousands of people to stumble through the ages.
There is a one and only reason why we must fight syncretism in our faith: because God detests it. God sent the Israelites to fight into what they called “holy wars” and destroy the people from all the surrounding nations, including all women, children and even cattle. God’s main purpose for demanding this was that they might not contaminate themselves and adopt the other nations’ sinful customs. God wanted the Israelites for himself, and he would not share Israel with other gods; the LORD was and still is a jealous God (Ex 20:5).
However, Israel’s disobedience was almost immediate after they agreed to God’s statutes. For example, while Moses spent forty days with God receiving the commandments from God’s own hand, Aaron, the high priest fell under the trap of syncretism. Aaron was persuaded by the Israelites to make a golden calf, and he attributed to this deaf and blind, man-made idol all the wonders they saw in Egypt. Even though Israel repented after a massive slaughter, they kept returning to their sin, just as a dog returns to its vomit. God, not tolerating that Israel was always selling herself away to other gods like a prostitute, banished North Israel into Assyrian captivity and Judah into Babylon for 70 years (Missiology). But eventually, this did not work either because of Israel’s stubbornness and hardness of heart.  
Naturally, we must be aware of the fact that syncretism is something the LORD detests, and therefore we must do everything to avoid not only future blending of beliefs but also uncover these falsehoods that are hidden throughout Christian history.
The threat of syncretism is not an issue that has been discovered recently. In fact, in 1517 Martin Luther started a movement (sparked by his ninety-five theses) known as the Reformation, whose purpose was eradicating syncretism. I believe Luther understood well what Jesus says in Matt 18:6: “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” During these times, peasants had to hear mass preached in Latin (of which they understood but little) and they were denied access to the scriptures. Only the priest could read the Bible; therefore the peoples were forced to have a blind faith and believe unquestioningly everything they were told. Consequently, people such as Luther and Calvin were severely concerned about false doctrines in the church like indulgences and the selling of ecclesiastical offices; another evidence of the tremendous corruption. The uncovering of these scandals resulted in the further division of the church between Protestants and Catholics, which succeeded the previous split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (when Emperor Leo III prohibited the worship of images.) Certainly Luther’s efforts were not only rewarded by men (in his popularity amongst Christians), but also by God. So what makes us think that God will not reward us for fighting for the truth about the gospel and avoiding syncretism?
Furthermore, statistics say that 20% of Protestants and 28% of Catholics believe in reincarnation, and similar percentages also believe in yoga as spiritual practice, astrology and energy flowing from the environment (Ethics Forum). In Africa, about 69.9 percent of all Christians still believe in ancestral spirits that “protect” them and “bring them fortune” (Congdon 1985, 297). Nevertheless, even after knowing these facts, we might still be tempted to think that since we do not believe in astrology or the reincarnation, then we should not worry about syncretism too much. Well, consider the origin of Christmas. Most of us at least have heard that there is something controversial about it, but perhaps we never dug more into the issue for fear that we might not like the outcome of this research.
When I first read about the origin of Christmas, my heart sank. The truth is that the traditions usually held during Christmas existed long before the birth of Jesus Christ. The 25th of December was suggested as the date for Jesus’ birth because it was four days after the winter solstice. In ancient cultures, the 21st of December was considered as the sun’s death because it was the shortest day of the year, (due to the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth’s axis.) Three days after the 21st, the sun would be born again. The Roman Catholics began saying things like Christos Sole or “Christ the sun” in order to make the connection between Jesus’ and the sun’s birth (Last Trumpet Ministries). However, it has been agreed on by scholars that the 25th of December was by no means Jesus’ birth because The Scriptures say that shepherds were out with their sheep the night Jesus was born. If it were winter, the snow would not have allowed the shepherds to do so; most would agree that Jesus was born sometime in September (which really does not matter.)
And furthermore, where does the Christmas tree come from? Naturally it was a pagan symbol too. What we call now “Christmas tree” made part of the Yule festivity celebrated in Germany. This was a fertility festival where evergreen trees were decorated and gifts shared during a large feast. Also, pagans hung holly and mistletoe on the doors of their temples and homes in order to invoke fertility powers (Last Trumpet Ministries). Jeremiah 10:3-4 says “For the practices of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.  They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.” We cannot pretend to approach God when we are filled with pagan rites; he does not approve us in his sight.
There is an even scarier rite, Easter. Easter’s practices are even more ancient than Christmas’; they emerged shortly after the flood. The scriptures say after the account of Noah’s ark, that there was a man named Nimrod, a great warrior who founded many cities, including Babylon and Nineveh. After Nimrod’s death, his wife Semiramis convinced people of his divinity and he later became known as Baal. However, this wasn’t the only trick queen Semiramis played on the ignorant people. Semiramis assured the people that her illegitimate son Tammuz, was actually Nimrod reborn and he was supernaturally conceived. Semiramis also persuaded them that Tammuz was the savior; since people had already been looking for the promised one.  In the long run, people did not hesitate to worship her too as the fertility goddess, who had “hatched” from an egg. Semiramis was then propagated through the world with several different names, some of which are Ishtar, Ashtur, and finally, Easter (All about Jesus Christ). Adding to the imagery, rabbits are also involved in this aspect because as a matter-of-fact, they have always been considered very fertile animals because they produce lots of offspring every year. From there we get the symbolism in Easter, or better known as the fertility festival.
There is no doubt that syncretism has defiled the celebration of Christ’s resurrection and reduced it to a meaningless diversion involving egg-and-bunny hunting. But now that Easter’s pagan origin seems evident, we need to trace it to church history. In order for the church to prevail, it collected all pagan rituals and deities assigning them a Christian name. Only then the peoples would pledge loyalty to the church and submit under its authority. For example, Catholic saints are simply the Greek gods also adopted by the Romans under a different name, i.e.: Athena and Diana, Zeus and Jupiter.
It seems that Christians strive for celebrations such as Christmas and Easter simply to commemorate what they first intend it to, such as the birth and resurrection of our LORD; but at the end it is just another pagan worship. And if all of this makes us feel disappointed and sad, we must also remember what the LORD says in Hosea 6:6: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” If we really want to worship God, we must do it in spirit and in truth. When we understand this, we will not long for these pagan rituals anymore but experience the joy that comes from obeying God’s commandments.
At last, we know that if we are people after God’s own heart, we must love what he loves and hate what he hates: syncretism (Deut 7:25-26). We have no excuse, for in modern times, we do not have the same difficulties such as those experienced by the ones living during the Dark Ages. God has disposed wonderful tools such as Bible study softwares and websites which we can dig to find revelation about hidden mysteries, and I also encourage you to use the available communicating methods to help our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to come out victorious from darkness and the threat of syncretism.
Sources
§  “St. Nicholas Center” stnicholascenter.org. Accessed 26 March 2011. Available http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=35
§  “Worldview and Syncretism” Missiology.org. Accessed 26 March 2011. Available http://www.missiology.org/mongolianlectures/worldviewandsyncretism.htm
§  “Worldview and Syncretism” Missiology.org. Accessed 26 March 2011. Available http://www.missiology.org/mongolianlectures/worldviewandsyncretism.htm
§  “Christian Syncretism on the rise” Ethics Forum. Accessed 26 March 2011. Available http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/12/christian-syncretism-on-rise.html
§  (Congdon 1985, 297).   Congdon, G. Dal. 1985.  An investigation into the current Zulu worldview and its relevance to missionary work.  Evangelical missions Quarterly 21 (July): 296-99.

§  “Origin of Christmas” Lasttrumpetministries.org. Accessed 26 March 2011. Available http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract3.html
§  “Origin of Easter/ Resurrection Day” allaboutjesuschrist.org. Accessed 26 March 2011. Available  http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/origin-of-easter.htm