Continued on page 2

Muslim civilization is trying to annihilate parts of itself.

Roots of GWOT in Internal Conflict

Have you ever stood too close to adog fight and gotten bit? Ever try tobreak up a fist fight and get slugged?

Human tendency to weight our ownproblems heavier than others’ makesdiscovering the roots of terrorismdifficult. In the Global War on Terror(GWOT), we take more credit than wedeserve. Some say America is to blameand others expect America to solve theproblem. In reality we are just spectatorsstanding too close to a vicious brawl.

Western and Muslim civilizationshave been at odds for generations, attimes even trying to annihilate eachother. This time we are witnessing andexperiencing the collateral damage froma Muslim civilization that is trying toannihilate parts of itself.

Where are most people dying in theGWOT? Is it in conflict betweenMuslims and non-Muslims or is itbetween factions of Muslims themselves?

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the bloodspilled from American soldiers pales incomparison to blood that Iraqis andAfghans are spilling from each other.From Morocco to Indonesia, many moreMuslims are dying from conflict withother Muslims than from conflict withChristians.

Even in Sudan, where a Christiansouth has been fighting for independ-ence from a Muslim north, the conflict

was not recognized as rising to the levelof genocide until Muslims beganfighting each other in Darfur province.

Unfortunately, ethnicity obscuresour ability to perceive what is reallygoing on. We see Kurds pitted againstArabs in Iraq, Tajiks and Uzbeks(Northern Alliance) allied againstPushtun (Taliban) in Afghanistan, andblack skinned tribes struggling againstArabs in Sudan. Note, however, thecommon presence of religious conflict inall of these ethnic ones.

Religious affiliations mobilizecombatants much like the English andGermans rallied to Protestantism while

the Spanish and French rallied toCatholicism in nationalistic wars thatracked seventeenth century Europe.

We can better understand violencewithin Islam by investigating some ofour own differences within Christianity.

The main theological issue drivingconflict in Islam today is essentially thesame controversy that has dividedmodernist and fundamentalist Christiansfor the past century.

Fundamentalist and modernistChristians can be differentiated by manycriteria, but the one which appliesequally to Muslims relates to principlesfor interpreting divinely inspired texts.

1-21-2 New Insight on the Origins of the Global War on Terror

3 3 President Names Enemy 4-54-5 Al-Qaida Hunts for a New Home

66 Characteristics of World’s Largest Churches 7-87-8 Resources & Opportunities

Continued from page 1.

Fundamentalistsvest their scriptureswith great authority.They take them atface value andinterpret themliterally in allinstances exceptthose where afigurative meaning isblatantly obvious.

Modernists are more skeptical. Theytreat their scriptures more as literaturethan as divine law. They preferallegorical and figurative applications.

Everyone knows the Christmas story.Jesus was born of a virgin, wrapped inswaddling clothes, placed in a manger,visited by shepherds and wisemen, thentaken to Egypt to escape King Herod. Sohow do fundamentalists and modernistsrespectively interpret this story?

For fundamentalists, the Christmasstory as recorded in the gospels is truehistory. However, Dr. Frederickson ofBoston University was quoted in theWashington Post on 22 December 2001in an article titled “The Story of Jesus’Birth Revised” as saying, “I can’t thinkof any New Testament scholar who takes[the gospel account of Jesus’ birth] tobe historically reliable.”

The same article quotes Dr. MarkusBorg of Oregon State University saying,“The truth of these stories is notdependent on their historical factuality . . . the truth lies in their use of suchuniversal metaphors as light in darkness,waking from sleep, the coming of thedawn.”

According to the Washington Post,modernists who are able to see beyondthe literal language to the deeper literarymeanings are the true scholarlyChristians. To the fundamentalist,however, men like Dr. Borg and Dr.Frederickson cannot even be consideredto be Christians.

Fundamentalist Christians finddivine authority in their scriptures for allkinds of social positions like definitionsfor human life, marriage, and sexuality.

Modernists using “scholarship” makethese same scriptures accommodate a

variety of social positionsas being “Christian.”

So how does thisprinciple of interpretationdivide Islam? Let us look athow different Muslimsinterpret a passage onJihad.

Muhammed Pickthall’stranslation of Qur’anSurah 9:5 says, “Then,

when the sacred months have passed, slaythe idolaters wherever ye find them, andtake them (captive), and besiege them,and prepare for them each ambush, butif they repent and establish worship andpay the poor-due, then leave them theirway free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving andmerciful.”

About this idea of slaying thenon-believers unless they repent,Al-Muhajiroun issued a press release that was readable on their web site(www.al-muhajiroun.f2s.com) on 16September 2001. It said, “The Talebanare Muslims working for theestablishment of Shari’ah, and Muslimsin the East and West therefore have anobligation to support them. . . . OMuslims, stand together and unite tofight . . . the book of Allah calls you, andparadise awaits you.”

On 21 November 2001, in an articletitled “The Distortion of Islam” thenational newspaper of the Muslimcountry of Bangladesh, The Independent,proclaimed about this exact same verse,“The commandment to “slay the paganswherever you find them” in verse 9:5speaks of hostile Arab tribessurrounding Medina . . . When sincerescholarship and exegesis is applied, itbecomes quite clear that verse 9:5 is oneof self-defense and not a carte blanche tokill all non-believers.”

The same newspaper ran an editorialon 18 September 2001 in which ZahidulHague asserted, “I don’t think anyIslamic country can support such sort ofterrorism because Islam itself is areligion of peace.”

How can both be correct? The truth is that Islam is a religion

at war within itself. On one side are the

fundamentalists adhering to the literalmeaning and authoritative application oftheir divinely inspired scriptures. On theother side are the modernists who use“sincere scholarship” to interpret theQur’an according to their definition oftrue religion.

Between the modernist Muslims andmodernist Christians is very littledifference. Of such it can be said thatthey worship the same god -- the god ofmodern scholarship which takesauthority over the literal words of theirrespective texts.

Between fundamentalist Muslims andChristians we also find some strikingsimilarities. Both ascribe divine authorityto literal interpretations. Both arebattling against modernists for publicinfluence. But these cannot be said toworship the same God.

The gods and methods offundamentalist Christians and Muslimsdiffer greatly because their sacred textsare very different. On one hand theApostle Paul admonishes, “If theunbeliever leaves, let him do so” (1Cor7:15), while Mohammed tells his peopleto “Slay the unbelievers” (Surah 9:5).

Without reins of power,fundamentalist Christians fight againstmodernist ideology in the press and incourtrooms with arguments. Similarlycut off from political dominance,fundamentalist Muslims resort toterrorism against even their own people.

Terrorism may have become a globalmenace, but its roots go deep intoMuslim sectarian conflict. America cantake many steps to enhance its security,but only one long term solution gets tothe root of the problem. Since it is thefundamentalist faction of Islam thatpromotes terrorism, only reformation offundamentalist Islam or conversion offundamentalist Muslims will end theirterrorism.

Belief systems come and beliefsystems go and sometimes they subtlychange. A few of them manage to hangaround for thousands of years.Fundamentalist Islam is one beliefsystem whose time has definitely cometo pass or change.

Radical Graffiti, Indonesia 1996

Bush Praised for ‘Naming the Enemy’ by Patrick Goodenough, International Editor CNSNews.com, reprinted with permission

President George W. Bush clearlyidentified the enemy for the first time ina speech he delivered on 6 October2005.

So say a number of conservativecommentators reacting online to thepresident’s speech, in which he spoke ofthe ideology behind Islamist terror andattempts to create a “radical Islamicempire.”

More than four years after 9/11, andafter the “global war on terror phrasewas briefly sidelined by someadministration officials in favor of the“global struggle against violentextremism,” Bush on Thursday chose anew and more specific emphasis.

“Some call this evil Islamicradicalism; others, militant Jihadism;still others, Islamo-fascism,” he said in aspeech at the National Endowment forDemocracy.

Bush, in fact, used the phrase“Islamic radicalism” another half dozentimes during the speech.

He likened Islamic radicalism toearlier failed ideologies, primarilycommunism, and accused Iran and Syriaof collaborating with terrorists, warningthat the U.S. “makes no distinctionbetween those who commit acts of terrorand those who support and harborthem.”

He also referred, without using theterm, to Islamists’ vision of setting up a“caliphate” under Islamic law.

“The militants believe thatcontrolling one country will rally theMuslim masses, enabling them tooverthrow all moderate governments inthe region, and establish a radicalIslamic empire that spans from Spain toIndonesia,” he said.

Many commentators in recent years,both supporters and opponents of theBush administration, have criticized thenotion of fighting a war againstsomething as abstract as “terrorism,”calling the phrase meaningless, vague, ora politically-correct euphemism designedto avoid offending Muslims.

The term “Islamic radicalism” waswelcomed by many of thesecommentators as a clearer and morespecific definition of the enemy.

“Finally, four years after thebloodiest Jihadi attack on the WesternHemisphere, and perhaps worldwide, thePresident of the United States namedthe enemy,” said Walid Phares, aterrorism expert and professor of MiddleEast studies. “He used the ‘ism’ word.”

Phares, who was born and raised inLebanon, recalled urging Bush in a letterlast year to “name the ideology behindthe terrorists.”

“Americans are not fighting norbeing targeted by an abstract calledterrorism, but a growing body ofideological concepts,” Phares said at thetime. “They need to know what is it theyare up against.”

“At long last, Bush has identified theenemy,” wrote Marc Shulman in a poston the weblog Israpundit, adding that“this speech represents progress forthose of us who have become sick andtired of having the politically-correctword ‘terrorists’ used to describe ourenemy.”

Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit saidof the speech: “Notable features -besides its overall clarity - are thenaming of Iran and Syria, and hiswillingness to talk about a war againstIslamic terror, not just generic ‘terror.’”

“There wasstill quite a bitof politicaleggshell-walking, butthis marks thefirst time thatBush hasidentified anddescribed thereal goals ofradical Islam – to re-establish themythical caliphate and the globaldominance of Islam,” commentedCharles Johnson on Little GreenFootballs.

“For the first time that I know of,the President has spoken openly aboutthe jihadists’ dream of establishing thecaliphate,” wrote Islamic specialist andauthor Robert Spencer on his weblog,Jihad Watch. “He still spent a lot oftime in his speech talking about peacefulIslam, but this is nevertheless a stepforward toward reality.”

Liberal commentators were as quickto criticize Bush’s speech, which MarcCooper, a contributing editor to TheNation, thought “went over like a Marsbar in the diabetes ward.”

“Tired and over-used themes,” wasthe verdict of the Comments from LeftField blog.

“The guy just can’t let some themesgo,” it said. “He yet again evokes thememories of 9/11, throws a little terrorpolitik in there with some WMDs.”

Writing in Village Voice, liberaljournalist Laura Rozen described Bush’sspeech as “Churchillian mimicry” andsaid it remained to be seen whether itcould “staunch the growing grumblingof his base.”

Read the full speech at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.htmlSubscribe to the free CNS News daily E-Brief at www.CNSNews.com.

Dagestan

Al Qaida’s Latest Target for New Basesby Elizabeth Kendal from WEA Religious Liberty News & Analysis: Religious-Liberty@xc.org

In January this year Islamic jihadistslaunched a fresh offensive aimed atdrawing Dagestan, a southern republic ofRussia between Chechnya and theCaspian Sea, into the jihad (Islamic holywar) for the Caucasus. Unlike themilitaristic Chechen jihadist incursioninto Dagestan of August 1999, thisrecent offensive has been a guerrilla-styleterror campaign.

According to a July 2005 report bythe Russian Academy of Sciences, therewere 70 Islamic terror attacks inDagestan in the first six months of2005, compared with 30 for all of 2004.The attacks, which are becoming moresophisticated and deadly, primarilytarget Russian soldiers and Dagestan’spolice and government officials.

Sources indicate that as many as2,000 Islamic insurgents, manybelonging to the Al Qaeda-linked JamaatSharia, are involved in the insurgency.Sergei Markov, a Kremlin adviser,recently told the Christian ScienceMonitor, “Our forces have captured orkilled citizens of 52 countries operatingwith the terrorists in the northCaucasus. The enemy brings an ideologyof radical Islam that seeks politicalpower through terrorist methods.”

“‘We are no longer talking aboutChechen secessionists challengingMoscow,’ says Mr. Markov. ‘Now it’sradical religious ideologues who aim todestroy the unbelievers and establish anIslamic caliphate.’”1

Around 11 September, the Islamist“Kavkaz Centre” (Caucasus Centre)published on its website a press releasefrom Jamaat Dagestan Sharia.2

After a string of murders andassassinations, Jamaat Sharia has claimed“legitimate power” in Dagestan. In itspress release, Jamaat Sharia protests thatthe “law of kafirs” has destroyed the

“law of sharia” in Dagestan, enabling akafir state to be built upon the blood oftheir ancestors.

Jamaat Sharia labels those whoprotect the “kafir state” as “kafir” and“gun meat,”and commands that they“repent before Supreme and AlmightyAllah, to leave your kafir and the dogservice, and for the sake of own blessingto accept the Islam and to [come underthe] protection of religion of Allah!!! All that who on amnesty has left thekafir and slavish work, has repented andhas accepted the Islam, we promise aftera victory and establishments of laws ofSharia to employ in Islamic Army. Thevictory is close!!! To Allah Akbar!!!”

However, along with this promise ofamnesty for those who desert the “kafir”and turn to Islam (i.e. submit to JamaatSharia and its Wahhabi/orthodox creed)is the warning that the amnesty willexpire at the end of September. Thiswould be just in time for a jihadistRamadan offensive.

Dagestan was annexed by Russia in1813 and became an autonomousrepublic in 1920. Christianity wasintroduced by Armenians and Georgiansin the 6th Century. One of Dagestan’s

most famous buildings, the JumaMosque, is a converted 6th CenturyChristian basilica. Today around ninepercent of the population is ethnicRussian, and around ten percent of thepopulation is Christian. The maintension within Dagestan is not betweenChristians and Muslims (who are mostlytraditional Sufi) but between themajority Muslims and the aggressive,pro-jihad, pro-sharia, Wahabbi minority.

Most of the Wahhabi jihadists inDagestan draw their inspiration from theAfghan mujahideen who fought theRussians through the 1980s. Chechenleader Shamil Basaev and many othersfighting the jihad for the Caucasusreceived their training in Afghanistan.

With around 34 ethnicities and 29languages (mostly mutuallyunintelligible), Dagestan is the mostdiverse region in all of Russia. Dagestanis not an ethnic name but rather itsimply means “land of mountains” inTurkish.

Dagestan is nominally ruled by aState Council that includesrepresentatives of the 14 main ethnicgroups. Unfortunately, since the breakup of the Soviet Union the real power

Ethnicities of Dagestan

C

auca

sian

Peo

ples

(70%

)

Avar . . . . . . . . . . 28%

Dargin . . . . . . . . . 16%

Lezgin . . . . . . . . . 12%

Lak . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Tabasaran . . . . . . . . 4%

Chechen . . . . . . . . 3%

Rutul . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Agul . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Tsakhur . . . . . . . . . <1%

Turk

(19%

) Kumyk . . . . . . . . . 13%

Azeri . . . . . . . . . . 4%

Nogay . . . . . . . . . 2%

Oth

er (1

1%)

Russian . . . . . . . . . 9%

Tat . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Ukrainian . . . . . . . . 1%

Tatar . . . . . . . . . . <1%

Ossetian . . . . . . . . <1%

half a dozen others . . . . <1%en.wikipedia.org

in Dagestan has been with the StateCouncil Chairman, MagomedaliMagomedov, a representative of theformer Soviet Union, who is backed byPutin but not the people, and whosymbolizes extreme corruption.

If anything, the dissatisfactionDagestanis have with the ruling powerscan only be of benefit to the Wahhabijihadists, as recruitment to Wahhabismand jihad is so much easier amongstdisaffected Muslims in search of povertyrelief and regime change.

This is not the first time in recenthistory that jihadists have attempted tocapture Dagestan. In August 1999jihadists from Chechnya staged anincursion into Dagestan and declaredDagestan to be an Islamic State.However, they were quickly repelled byRussian forces backed by local militias.This year’s guerrilla terror has been

quiet enough to slip under the radar,yet significant enough to do realdamage, and horrific enough to instill fear. There are two mainreasons why Dagestan is importantfor the jihadis.

1) Terrain: Dagestan is a land ofmountains, making it a good base forIslamic terrorists and a difficult placefor Russia’s mechanized forces.

2) History: Andrei Smirnovnotes, “During the 19th centuryCaucasus war, Dagestan andChechnya formed an almost unitedfront against the invading Russianarmy. The residents of the territorynow encompassing the two republicsformed an Islamic state called ‘Imamate,’which was able to confront Russiaeffectively for decades, until its leader,Imam Shamil, surrendered to RussianGeneral Alexander Baryatinsky in 1859.Knowing this shared history quite well,the separatist leaders of Chechnyarepeatedly tried to drag the people ofDagestan into their struggle forindependence.”3

Smirnov continues, “Despite thefailure of his 1999 venture and theredeployment of Russian troops toChechnya in 2000, Shamil Basaev didnot stop his attempts to move the wareastward, beyond the Chechen borders.Specifically, he initiated a very careful,and very slow process of preparingDagestan for guerrilla warfare. Thehundreds of militants from Dagestanwho had joined Basaev’s group in themid-1990s made this process mucheasier to organize. A Dagestan fieldcommander, Rabbani Khalilov, becamethe leader of the Dagestani mujahideen.”

The jihad in the Caucasus not onlythreatens religious liberty, but it alsothreatens to turn the Caucasus into aterrorist haven.

If jihadists can control the Caucasusmountains and Dagestan, then they canreplace the mujahideen training camps ofAfghanistan and threaten “moderate”and “secular” Muslim communitiesaround the world. The Caucasus wouldbecome a major base for training anddeploying jihadis, just as Afghanistanwas under bin Laden and the Talibanthrough the 1990s.

Jamaat Sharia gave the people ofDagestan until the end of September torepent and submit. With eight monthsof terror that include a string ofstrategic murders and assassinationsbehind them, the threat declared, andRamadan underway, the January 2005words of Andrei Smirnov reverberatelouder than ever, “. . . Dagestan is nownearer detonation than ever before.”

Notes:1. “Russia sees Global Jihad on Southern Flank” by Fred Weir, 25 July 2005 www.csmonitor.com/2005/0725/p07s01-woeu.html and “Secret

Sects Threatening to Put a Match to Tinderbox Republic” from Sebastian Smith in Makhachkala, Russia, 19 July 2005www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1699086,00.html

2. “Kavkaz Centre publishes Jamaat’s press release “Sharia” without reductions kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/09/13/4068.shtml and“Radical Islamic Group Names Itself Legitimate Authority of Russia’s Dagestan” 11 September 2005www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/11/dagestanpower.shtml

3. “Dagestan’s Insurgents Regroup As New ‘Sharia Jamaat’ Organization” by Andrei Smirnov, Eurasia Daily Monitor, 19 January 2005jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2369112

The “flagship” mega-church in Colorado Springs, New Life Church, features small groups.

Continued on page 7.

World’s Largest Churches Set Trendsby Wolfgang Simson, reprinted with permission from FridayFax (17 Sep 04) www.cmd.org.nz/ffax/04-0917.htm

Even though influence is moreimportant than size taking a look at theattendance of the world’s largestchurches gives an impression of developments in recent years. Much ischanging. Churches which had anattendance of 300,000 a decade ago,such as ‘Ondas del Luz y Amor’ inBuenos Aires, now have “only” 70,000.Completely new models are popping up,such as the Indian University whichbecame a church, regularly seeing 80,000people attending.

The membership of mega-churchesfluctuates strongly, so the numbershere are the attendance, not members.

Yonggi Cho’s church in Seoulclaims a membership of 773,000, but anattendance of “only” 253,000 in themain church and the main satellites.

What is church?

One trend which is growing strongeris that the church is starting to see itselfdifferently. It is no longer understood asa single, organized fellowship (with apastor, a building, a program, and amore-or-less creative name), but as anorganic community of Christians intowns and regions, the sum of themembers of related house churches, cells,groups, and fellowships. This gives thechurch, as in the times of Acts, aregional instead of denominationalidentity. “The church in Corinth,”Ephesus, Antioch, or Jerusalemcorresponds today to “the church inBerlin,” Boulder, Beijing, or Brasilia.

Regional house church networks arereplacing mega-churches.

Such regional churches are not led bya “Senior Pastor,” but by regional teams,generally formed by the coalescing of the five-fold ministry. It is very noticeablethat the traditional pastoral ministrytends not to play the key role, but,rather, people with an apostolic or prophetic gifting, as hinted at in 1Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 2:20.Christian community and unity is

formed by belonging to the same regionor town; unity is lived out in networkedhouse churches and large celebrations, or at least in leaders’ meetings in placeswhere Christians are heavily persecuted.

One of the smaller (!) house churchnetworks in southern China has anattendance of 400,000; larger networksnumber several million. The twentylargest regional (not national) housechurch networks in China, Vietnam, andnorthern India would completely changethe list of largest churches below.

For security reasons, we cannotpublish any names or other details, withthe exception of V. Choudhrie in India,because most, if not all, such large,regional house church networks exist innations which persecute or repressChristians. They generally belong to thegroup which missiologist Prof. David Barrett calls “Crypto-Christians” –underground Christianity.

We believe that there are aroundtwenty regional house church networksaround the globe with an attendance ofover 250,000. Hence, the list belowstarts with the world’s previously largestknown church – the Yoido Full GospelChurch, ranked 21st.

Which are trend-setting nations?

These developments started outsidethe West (North America, Europe,Australia, and New Zealand), so many

Western pastors and Christian leadersfind them difficult to take seriously.Many still understand the West to bethe center of Christianity, as in 1700,from which missionaries are sent out tocomplete the Great Commission.

Traditionally, the USA, Britain, orGermany have been the trend-settingnations in the Church. That is where theinfluential publishing houses have theirheadquarters and where the vast majorityof conference speakers, authors, andseminary professors come from. It seemsthat many are asking, “What good thingcan come out of Vietnam, India orNicaragua? And yet exactly these andother non-Western nations are home to the most important trends inChristian activity. Are we payingattention?

What about the USA?

Up until recently, mega-churcheswere a typically American phenomenon.It is striking, then, that not one of theworld’s forty largest churches is in theUSA or another Western nation. Thereally significant church growth is takingplace basically outside the West.

The Washington Post recentlypublished a study by church researcher,John N. Vaughn, revealing 840mega-churches in the USA, with a weeklyattendance of over 2,000 (figures of 23 May 04).

Continued from page 6.

The top five American churches byaverage attendance are:

1. Lakewood Church, Houston, TX (25,060)

2. World Changers, College Park, GA(23,093)

3. Saddleback Community Church, Lake Forrest, CA (20,100)

4. The Potters House, Dallas, TX (18,500)

5. Fellowship Church, Grapevine, TX (18,129)

The world’s largest churches arebigger than the largest U.S. churches bya factor of ten. This list begins at the21st largest by average attendancebecause the larger churches cannot beidentified for security reasons.

21. Yoido Full Gospel Church, Seoul, Korea (253,000)

22. Works and Mission Baptist Church,Abidjan, Ivory Coast (150,000)

23. Yotabeche Methodist P. Church,Santiago, Chile (150,000)

24. Mision Carismatica Internacional,Bogotá, Colombia (150,000)

25. Deeper Life Bible Church, Lagos,Nigeria (120,000)

26. Elim Church, San Salvador, ElSalvador (117,000)

27. Nambu Full Gospel, Seoul, Korea(110,000)

28. AOG Grace and Truth, Kyanggi-do,Korea (105,000)

29. Kum Ran Methodist, Seoul, Korea(80,000)

30. Vision de Futuro, Santa Fe,Argentina (70,000)

30. Ondas del Luz, Buenos Aires,Argentina (70,000)

32. Young Nak Presbyterian Church, S.Korea (60,000)

33. Winners Chapel, Ota, Nigeria(50,000)

34. Yesu Darbar, Allahabad AgriculturalInstitute, India (40,000- 80,000)

35. Soong Eui Methodist, Inchon, Korea(47,000)

36. Ministeria La Cosecha, San PedroSula, Honduras (35,000)

37. Chattisgarh/Madhya Pradesh HouseChurch Network, India (30,000)

Parabola O Jednom MostuA Parable in Bosnian and English

available from: www.ParableOfTheBridge.com

Barbara Farah teaches English tospeakers of other languages. Many ofher students were refugees from Bosniaand Croatia who described thedestruction of their homeland and theancient Stari Most bridge. Barbara’sconversations with her students and herown travels to Mostar inspired thisstory. Parable of the Bridge tells about abeautiful bridge built by a kind kingwho wishes to communicate with hispeople. When an imposter tries todefame the king, the bridge is destroyedand a temporary bridge is built. Thedeath of the king’s ambassador paves theway for a permanent bridge to be built.

Momentum Web-Based Magazinewww.momentum-mag.org

Momentum is a new web-basedpublication designed to help believersimpact the least-reached 27% of theworld. Senior Editor Justin Long desiresto build six things in its readers:

1. Drive: a passion to head quicklydown the path to the least-reachedpeoples of the world

2. Energy: a capacity to bring theGospel across barriers of culture,language or location

3. Effort: actions that lead toevangelism, church planting, andsocietal transformation

4. Inspiration: an ability to recruit theunmotivated and unmobilized into the movement

5. Power: increased effectiveness through self-discipline, accountability andunwavering focus

6. Strength: to resist outside forces that would sway us from the task of frontiermission.

Momentum is published bi-monthly via PDF, in English with additional translationsplanned. There is no fee for downloading or redistributing this journal, thoughMomentum will gladly accept contributions to help defray the costs of production.

director: Dr. Bruce Sidebotham mailing address: P.O. Box 3488, Monument, Colorado 80132-3488 e-mail: bside@oprev.org, phone: (719) 572-5908, fax: (775) 248-8147, Web Site: <www.oprev.org> The Operation Reveille Equipper is a FREE quarterly resource.Donation checks to help with publication and distribution costs can be made out to Mission to Unreached Peoples.

– Earthquake Relief in Pakistan –A terrible earthquake has caused massive devastation in the Kashmir area of Pakistan, India, and also parts of Afghanistan. Thisis the worst natural disaster to have hit Pakistan in recorded history. The present death toll as of 18 October stood at over50,000 and was expected to go higher. The United Nations estimates more than 4 million people have been affected by theearthquake, and 1.5 million homes have been destroyed.

Kashmir is one of the most unreached areas in the world, with a tiny fraction of one percent of its inhabitants beingChristians. Furthermore, this part of Pakistan has been home to an insurgency that destabilizes Pakistan and seeks to annex theIndian portion of Kashmir to Pakistan so that the Muslims there will not be under secular and Hindu non-Muslim government.Relief efforts here are important to global security.

Some Specialized Organizations Engaged in Disaster Relief in PakistanOrganization Contact Information

Asia Harvest 1903 60th Pl., Ste. M1204, Bradenton, FL 34203web site: www.asiaharvest.org e-mail: office@asiaharvest.org

Christian Aid Mission PO Box 9037, Charlottesville, VA 22906 phone: 1-800-977-5650web site: www.christianaid.org e-mail: friends@christianaid.org

Jubilee Campaign 9689-C Main Street, Fairfax, VA 22031 phone: 1-877-654-4331

Open Doors PO Box 27001, Santa Ana, CA 92799 phone: 1-888-524-2535web site: www.opendoorsusa.org e-mail:usa@odusa.org

Voice of the Martyrs PO Box 54, Caney, KS 67333 phone: 1-800-747-0085web site: www.persecution.com e-mail: thevoice@vom-usa.org

– I.D.O.P. –

Visit www.idop.org for details