I too descend from John Bowne/Hannah Feake. Samuel Bowne/Sarah Franklin’s son, James, m. Caroline Rodman whose daught., Mary, m. John King, whose daught., Caroline,
m. Thomas Waterman Jenkins.

Do you, by any chance, have a copy of that statement that the Dutch wanted John Bowne
to sign while in prison? That would put his response in better context.

The Bownes, and other early Quakers, were truly remarkable people. The strength of their
conviction always being tested.

Thanks in advance if you can pass this along.

Dave Jenkins
Howell, NJ

I realize that the suggestion of regulating cost and limiting (if not eliminating) the profit motive smacks of socialism, but in the end, it may turn out that “the kingdom of God is not a democracy”, as a wise man once said. Maybe some things are more important than the ability of corporations to make more and more money.

I have read a few of these in the past and have long thought to comment, but now I can’t resist.

The problem is not with the question “Can there be such a thing as a ‘muslim-Christian’?” The problem is with the assumption of most american evangelicals that there IS such a thing as a “messianic Jew”. Even among Reformed Christians, there is an assumption that the values of dispensational-premillenialism may still be correct (e.g. that the modern state of Israel in some way represents the Old Covenant people of God) when the theology is fatally flawed.

Failure to understand the relation between covenant and kingdom is at the heart of the matter. The parable of the tenants should be instructive (particularly so in light of your use of the vineyard image from Isaiah in your posting about The Shack).

“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance’…”

“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?’

Even the elders and chief priests to whom and about whom he was speaking (see Matthew 21: 23 and 45 – 46) were bright enough to answer correctly. “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”

Jesus’ reply sounds the death knell for dispensationalism and at the same time gives perspective to Paul’s comments on “stumbling blocks”. “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you that THE KINGDOM OF GOD WILL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

The idea of a hyphenated Christian of any description is an assault on the gospel and on the finished work of Christ. When Peter attempts to live as a “messianic Jew” in Antioch, Paul opposes him to his face. We should react in similar fashion not only to those who espouse theological syncretism, but also to those who refuse to separate their nationalistic/political allegiance from their faith. The idea of the “Dutch-Christian” or the “English-Christian” or the “American-Christian” ought to be as obsolete as the weapons of war which were once used to impose those unfortunate labels on the people of surrounding nations.