Consider some of the most respected figures in religious or political history. Moses is revered by the Jews as their lawgiver. Yet Moses was a murderer. Mohammad is honored by 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide as a prophet. Yet Mohammad may have been a pedophile, having sex with a child bride when she was just nine years of age. Buddha is revered by more than 300 million Buddhists. Yet Buddhism’s founder abandoned his family without warning to search for enlightenment. Karl Marx is revered by atheists and communists. Yet Marx’s philosophies led to the murder of more than 30 million people in the 20th century.

Every great religious or philosophical figure has some dark, stained past that even their so-called good deeds later in life can never erase. The same is even true in Christianity.

Christians regard Paul as the greatest Apostle, and most of the New Testament was authored by him. Yet Paul was a man of cruelty bent on murdering Christians before he became one himself. King David is revered by Jew and Christian alike for his tender heart to toward God and his unswerving devotion to righteousness. God called David a man after his own heart. Yet David was also an adulterer, a murderer, a man even the scriptures call, “a man of war [who has] shed blood”

Jesus Christ is altogether different, wholly remarkable, and completely superior to these men. Unlike these significant figures of history, Jesus Christ lived without sin.

When his enemies publicly opposed him to draw the crowds away from Jesus, he challenged his detractors directly:

His enemies remained silent because none of them could produce any evidence for sin committed by Jesus. It was his sinlessness that made Jesus so powerful. While he had the natural authority that comes with being the Son of God; and while he had the authority that came with being a descendant of King David; and while he had the authority that came from being uniquely conceived and birthed; his sinless nature gave him a moral authority to speak, teach, and act, that no one else on earth possessed.

Even though Jesus was totally sinless, he did not use his position of absolute moral authority to condemn those who had sinned. Instead, he stood in their place, taking the punishment for the sin they deserved—the punishment that we deserve for our sin.

Jesus’ sinless life was not lived in a vacuum or in some useless state as one who meditates in a lonely dessert focused on their own spiritual self-condition. Jesus’ sinless life was lived in real life, with real relationships, in real hardships, like every other normal person—yet without ever having felt, said, or committed a single wrongful thing.

Jesus’ sinless life makes him superior to every other religious teacher and philosopher. In fact, his sinless existence makes him superior to every person, everywhere, at all times. There has never been anyone, and never will be anyone like Jesus Christ.

If Jesus’ life was lived in such a remarkable, supernatural fashion, then what Jesus said, and what he did on our behalf must also have great power. If other religious teachers and philosophers have flaws of character, human failings, weaknesses, and evil deeds to atone for, and yet we regard their teachings as important, then how much more important and superior should we regard Jesus Christ, who spoke, taught, and lived, and even died without sin.

It was with disappointment that I read this article from Thaindian News: Indianised Version of the Bible Hit Among Christians.

The new Catholic translation of the Bible, which apparently went on sale in India this month, has sold like hotcakes, with 15,000 grabbed up in just 10 days. Those are big numbers.

It’s also a big problem.

Apparently the new translation draws “references to other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism.” This means that the terms from these religions are used in the Bible’s text to explain Christianity. Actually, this is not an unusual concept. The same is done in Mongolia with one of two Bible translations called, in English, The Blue Bible. While the translation is popular here, for many it is also controversial.

But back to India…

According to one Indian believer, who is apparently a fan of the new translation, the translators “have also drawn the Indian mythology into it. It’s not only based on [the] Bible like you know foreign standards” (emphasis mine).

This is not good news for Indian Christianity. But it does provide an interesting insight into the application of Christianity in Asia. Syncretism is a common problem in Christianity, but especially in Asia. The blending of words, concepts, and even practices of one faith into—what is supposed to be—Orthodox or Evangelical Christianity usually ends up corrupting the expression of Christianity so much that that expression of Christ becomes unrecognizable for what it was intended to be in the first place.

According to one poster on the Indian forum site iVarta, “It portrays Jesus as Hindu.” Another remarked, “It would be funny if this version of the Bible slowly converts these Catholics back to Hindu practices.”

Holy cow, what are the Indian Catholics thinking?

Adapting presentations or emphasizing certain stories or passages is one thing, but altering the text by melding anti-Christian concepts into the scriptures is a violation of every principle of valid ministry I can think of. It distorts the message of the cross and puts it on par with the myths of Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other nonChristian “ism.”

The contextualization of Christianity in a culture is a controversial work. How much of the presentation of the Gospel must be adapted to a culture, and honor the culture? When must culture be ignored in favor of the supreme truth of Christ? I’m not going to answer that question here, except to say while these are difficlut issues that every missionary and indigenous Christian must wrestle with, there is one thing that must be clear.

You must not change the text of Scripture, or introduce within its text, concepts which are foreign to its original meaning.

Note what one person who bought the new Indianised version remarked, “It’s not only based on [the] Bible like you know foreign standards” (emphasis mine).

Christianity is a foreign religion. There’s no sense denying it. But being foreign to a culture doesn’t automatically invalidate its truth. The indigineous desire to “culturalize” Christianity, or in this case, the Scriptures, very often places the expression of culture over the expression of biblical truth. Certainly there are many aspects of many cultures that are compatible with Christianity. But where traditional beliefs conflict with the Scriptures the Christian is left with no choice. He must abandon that which is contrary to Christ.

In the July 2007 issue of Christianity Today, Dr. David Hesselgrave, Professor Emeritus of Mission Trinity Evangelical Divinity School noted:

“Hindu and Buddhist concepts such as bodhisattva, karma, dharma, samsara, and nirvana can be understood only in the context of the religious worldview of which they are part. Jesus is the Son of God, the only Savior and mediator between God and man. He is no one’s bodhisattva. He died for our sin, not our karma. Hindus and Buddhists have re-made Jesus into an avatar and bodhisattva in order to make their false religions more appealing. When Christians do the same they sacrifice true religion and contribute to Christ’s diminishment.

Contextualization is necessary but it has boundaries.”

Doing what the Indian Catholic church has done reads to me like an abandoning of the exclusive truth of Christ in favor of myth and superstition. If the Indianised translation becomes the Bible of choice of India’s catholics, then I predict it won’t be long before Indian Catholism becomes unrecognizable as Catholism, much less as Christianity.

Now that I’m back into full swing in the office I want to provide some perspective about the effects of the Mongolian riots.

During the four day Sate of Emergency I read many comments from Mongolians, and even had a few discussions on the issue: Is Mongolia’s Democracy Dead?

In short, not by a long shot.

You may have read blogs or comments online that the MPRP (that handily won last week’s election) was intending to use the State of Emergency to take control of the country or reduce freedoms, democracy, the press, and so on. One person I talked with asked if this was a prelude to a declaration of martial law.

From where I sit, these kinds of verbal machinations are—and I want to be diplomatic when I say this—a great big fat load of fantasy crap. Mongolia’s democracy is not dead. I don’t see any telltale signs that the MPRP is going to seize power, restrict freedoms, or declare martial law. Nor do I think they want to. Claims such as this are just, just, just…crap. That’s about as diplomatic as I can be.

The MPRP may not be the favorite party of a lot of people, but I don’t think we can look at their activities of the last four years and credibly say they intend to return Mongolia to the days of communism or forced one-party rule. A smattering of my reasoning…

• If the MPRP intended to restrict freedoms, then the State of Emergency would not have had a built-in four-day limit. It would have been open ended. As the days went by the government made clear that it fully intended to ensure the State of Emergency was lifted by the deadline. And of course, it was.
• If martial law was really an option, it would have happened right away.

As it stands, one of the chief complaints many people have about the government is that it reacted too slowly to the riot threat. Oppressive regimes don’t react slowly to threats, they usually react quickly and with overbearing demonstrations of force. That’s not what happened last week. Yes, five people were killed, including four who were shot. But that’s not an overbearing demonstration of force. Nor is tear gas. Nor are riot police. Nor are water cannons. The only overbearing demonstration of force that went on last week was that of the rioters who would not even allow emergency personnel to put out the fires!

• As for seizing power, the MPRP doesn’t need to seize power—they already have power through legitimate elections. Nor have they tried to wield excessive power that violates Mongolia’s constitution.

There is some debate as to whether is was legal for President Enkhbayar to order all media shut down during the State of Emergency. Even Prime Minister Bayar admitted publicly on July 5th that there was no such legal requirement or allowance for such a move. But I’m not overly concerned with that issue. When buildings are burning and being ransacked and the government decides to take measures to protect life and property, I’m inclined to cooperate with their requests or orders. Cooperating with the order to stop broadcasting did not hurt democracy, or freedom of speech and press in the long term—not one bit. The propaganda that ran on State TV afterward was certainly bogus, but most people aren’t fooled by that kind of garbage. Besides that, after four days everything was back to normal. So how was freedom or democracy hurt or impeded?

Now, these comments of mine should not be taken to mean that I don’t think there wasn’t some corruption going on during the elections. I’m not in a position to make such an accusation, but it would be ignorant to assume that there were no attempts in certain areas to skew election results. Heck, we’ve seen this in the U.S. Remember the efforts in Florida to validate invalid ballots during the 2000 election? In fact, one of the reasons given last week by protesters for their actions was that as poll results were coming in early in the day, their parties were winning. But as more results came later in the day they started losing ground. They therefore accused the MPRP of corrupting the results.

Did they corrupt the results? I have no clue. But I have heard this complaint before—in 2004. John Kerry’s people said early in the day that exit polling gave them big leads. But by the end of the day Kerry had been crushed. Moral of the story? Early returns and incomplete exit polls are not a legitimate basis to protest an election!

I’ve already written about the direction that some MPs seem to want to take to legislate Eagle TV out of existence. There are some people of significance who hold us partly responsible for the riots simply because we provided live news coverage. But, let’s be honest, even if the parliament found a way to legislate Eagle TV off the air, it doesn’t automatically follow that freedom of speech or press in Mongolia would be completely dead. I don’t want to give Eagle TV too much credit, but let’s look at the facts.

Consider that Ulaanbaatar now has 12 terrestrial TV stations, plus many radio stations and numerous newspapers. While all of the stations except for Eagle TV are owned either by politicians or political interests, almost all of them have been influenced in one way or another by the work of Eagle TV. Live coverage of events, once an Eagle-only affair, is beginning to become normal. Live, uncensored viewer calls, once an Eagle-only affair, has been adopted by most stations in one form or another. In fact, once Eagle provides live coverage of a major event, the other stations usually feel compelled to contribute in some fashion. The influence of our values and practices is clearly felt across the industry, and in the halls of government.

Of course, it is my greatest hope that our work will continue unabated and unrestricted. There has been a great deal of growth in Mongolian journalism and freedom of press. But there is still a lot of work to be done and new ground to be broken. I want Eagle TV continue it’s role of leadership in this area. But if we are legislated out of existence, I seriously doubt the powers that be, no matter what side of the isle they may be on, would be able to put the genie back in the bottle. Mongolian media has grown beyond that, and will continue to grow. I hope we will continue to be part of that growth, and help it reach maturity, faster.

In conclusion, a sober look at the political situation may reveal corruption on various sides at various levels. It may reveal serious problems in election practices and the execution of law. It may also reveal persistent problems in journalism and the practice of free press. But the existence of these problems, in my view, indicates growth—and it’s growth for the better. Like it or not, the MPRP is part of that growth. The MPRP isn’t perfect. But neither are the Dems, or the other parties. Step back and take a dispassionate look and you will see that the MPRP has contributed some very positive things to the development of Mongolia’s democracy. To deny it is to dine on sour grapes.

EARLIER: I haven’t gotten much sleep since the station began phoning me reports that protests over Mongolia’s election results have turned violent. The MPRP HQ is under attack. Police have fired into the crowd. Protesters have become violent. There is bloodshed. Ambulances are on their way to address the injured. The MPRP building is on fire. Protesters are becoming more violent and blocking the access of emergency vehicles to the building and even pelting the fire engine with rocks. Army troops have been called to the scene. Eagle journalists estimate there could be as many as 20,000 protesters involved. If so, this would be the largest anti-government protest since Mongolia’s peaceful democratic revolution.

While watching the events online through Skype, one our employees exclaimed, “I’ve never seen such a thing in Mongolia before! This is so scary!”

Eagle is broadcasting the events live, but apparently no other stations are reporting the events live. State TV did for a while, but for reasons unknown to me they have ceased. Though we did receive a report that their microwave equipment was damaged in the protest.

We are scrambling extra resources to cover the events. Associated Press is resourcing Eagle TV video for international coverage.

We have received some minor pressure to stop the broadcasts, but are continuing.

It amazes me that out of 12 terrestrial competitors, and additional cable only TV stations in the capital city, that no one is covering these breaking events. Thousands are people are involved in the protests. The HQ of the ruling party has come under violent attack. These are unprecedented events in Mongolia.

Finally, other stations have started giving coverage.

UPDATE: An informant in the government has let us know that officials are discussing the forced shut down of Eagle TV for our coverage—even though other stations are also now covering the event.

UPDATE: We’ve received a number of threats against Eagle for the coverage, including threats against the building (set it on fire). Security is moving to protect the property against potential overnight threats.

UPDATE: Most of the protests have died out, but a few small fires are still burning. Party and government leaders called a joint press conference to call for calm, but also blamed one another’s parties for the day’s events. Holy cow, I just got word that protesters are regathering at the MPRP building again.

UPDATE: Our staff are trapped on the roof of the MPRP building. When they try to leave the premises, they are attacked and beaten. They have been unable to escape. We are trying to alert the crowds to allow our crew to leave.

COMMENT: It is alarming how many protests we received from government officials and the Mongolian CIA demanding the news coverage be shut down. There is clearly some discussion going on at high levels that part of this protest was fomented by Eagle TV.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Our policy on such coverage would be no different if it were MPRP protesters attacking the Democratic Party building. There is a great deal of pressure upon our management team to force our shut down. However, this would be a critical mistake for Mongolian democracy. Most stations did not provide coverage until long after Eagle TV began rolling live footage of the thousands in the street. Our competitor stations were calling our station manager to congratulate us on our coverage (including those who refused to do any coverage themselves). One competitor even provided dual coverage by running our video on their channel live. In addition, the world is now alerted to the situation in Mongolia. Video from AP, fed to CNN, BBC, and other outlets, was all Eagle TV video, with AP using Eagle TV as their base of operations for their coverage.

The attacks against Eagle TV are unjustified. Though today’s events are tragic, trying to cojole or force the shut down of media coverage through Eagle would be a major step backwards for this democracy. The move by certain officials and party members to pressure the shut down of coverage is a clear sign that even though Mongolia has “freedom of press” it is still fragile and suffers under the influence of those who desire to control all media for their own benefit. We therefore believe that the need for a completely independent channel such as Eagle TV is more critical than ever.