The continuing and escalating row over the Mohammed cartoons has pitted Muslims against the secular, largely western, post-Christian world - though no doubt fuelled by the perception of that world as Christian, and hostile to Islam (the televised burnings of the Danish flag clearly depict its design based on cross).
In the row that is going on, which could spiral dangerously out of control with Iran’s interventions, where is the Christian voice, and what should that voice be saying? Is there anything to be learned which might affect the beliefs and practice of the emergent church?
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
What we are seeing in the world today is a result of allowing governments to fix the problems created by religions. The solutions need to come out of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities and leadership without letting our governments get involved. We need to wage a non-violent protest against fundamentalism in all religions. As long as there are religions in the world that see their own way as the only way, their own people as the only people of God, and the only solution as supernatural redemption in life after death then war and terror will always be an easy answer. When you mix that idealogy with a healthy dose of economic injustice you will always get war and terror.
The solution to Muslim terrorism is contained within the religion of Islam. It is right in their sacred texts. We need strong Islamic religious leaders willing to take up the cause of correcting their religion from the inside out and leading a modern liberal Islamic movement. What can the Christian church do to help spread the message of non-violent peaceful Islam?
The same is true for Christianity. We need leaders in the mold of Martin Luther King jr. and Gandhi that understand Jesus’ message is a political message. The church’s mission should be to produce these leaders. We need lots of them because they will all be killed just like all the great leaders before them have been killed. We need to keep putting more leaders out there just like soldiers. We also need to get behind them with masses of people.
The task of the church should be taking up the radical non-violent anti-imperialistic message of Jesus. Christians need to side WITH mistreated muslims in their fight against the Imperialistic forces that hold them down. We need to execute a non-violent protest that produces 2 winners rather than a violent war that produces 1 winner and 1 loser (or 2 losers). Christians need to help muslims "save face" rather than beating them into submission through our government. Submission is a dangerous position to hold someone. People do horrible things from that position.
How can we expect our nations to be at peace if we can’t first have our religions be at peace. We should lead the cause and let our governments follow. The answer to all of these problems lies within the texts of all these religions. We are in a theological arms race to see which religion can find humility first.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
1. My impression is that the emerging church is not greatly interested in ‘inter-faith’ matters - at least, attempts to stimulate conversation about Islam on this site have not been very successful. I find this rather odd given the professed social and political awareness of the emerging church. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that the movement developed as a reaction against modernism - not least religious forms of modernism. We are still dealing too much with what we are emerging from, not what we are emerging into contact with.
2. We are going to have to be careful how we frame the ‘political’ agenda. My guess is that the emerging church needs to develop a distinctive paradigm of political engagement and argumentation that will differ from familiar paradigms of the right and the left. I think an important part of this paradigm will be a heightened sense of being a distinctive community in the world - not so much to the exclusion of others but for the sake of others.
3. If it is good at anything, the emerging church is good at conversations, and could perhaps find a calling in encouraging open community-level conversations between Islam, Christianity and democratic secularism.
4. There are some important theological questions to address with regard both to how the Christian community understands itself and how we relate to other religious communities. I am fairly confident that the theological rethinking that is currently in progress at many levels will give rise to new ways of answering these questions that will better equip us for the challenge of being authentically Christian in an increasingly pluralistic, if not increasingly Islamic, world.
5. We need to hear from people who are talking with Muslims. What questions or new perspectives are being generated by such conversations?
6. I wonder if the emerging church - or simply the church - shouldn’t be seeking to play some sort of mediatory or advocacy role on behalf of Islam - for example, helping Islam to understand (from bitter experience!) how rationalism and pluralism impact religious faith, and helping the West understand the sensitivities, fears and aspirations of Islam.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I am with you on this Andrew. Conversation is the key to these interfaith problems and conversation is what the emerging church is good at. One of the biggest problems that those of us opposing the war have is that there doesn’t seem to be any conversation with the people we are suppose to be helping. It is hard from our vantage point to tell if this is a mirage. Our media is so unreliable and our governments are so anti-conversational.
It would seem to me that if I was Bush or Blair, that I would have monthly PUBLIC conversations with people in Iraq that are sympothetic to the war or atleast find some Islamic leaders that are willing to speak out against the radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Call them "fireside chats" or something (to borrow a line for the past). I just don’t understand why these conversations are not happening in public. It would be so much more effective than the scare tactics that are currently used. Is this a U.S. media problem only? I get the feeling that it may be better in Europe. At a minimum I feel that Blair would be more capable of this type of conversation (insert favorite Bush joke here).
I can’t tell if this is becasue A)compassionate muslims don’t exisit. B)our media doesn’t give them the air time. C)they are too afraid to speak D)our governments know them but won’t speak to them in public
There is a small part of me that would like to back the war if I could only see our governments selling it to us on the basic of the ideals of social justice and liberation rather than scare tactics that turn up empty. Can the emerging church fill this role somehow? I agree Andrew that maybe this could be our role. I have to believe that there are compassionate Islamic voices that could be publicized and maybe we are the ones that could do it. It doesn’t appear that our governments are smart enough to do it. Maybe we are afraid that if we look for this conversation we will find nothing beneath the surface other than barrels of oil and a stockpile of weapons with the label "made in the USA".
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Andrew, re the "need to hear from people who are talking with Muslims. What questions or new perspectives are being generated by such conversations?"
Check out www.peacemakers.tv - a project just kicking off but with huge potential.
On the site, you can register to get further information and free access to multimedia ‘dialogue’ resources.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I’ve gotta say - I think the best thing that OST can do is stay out of this situation. Muslims simpley want the west to leave them alone and respect them. Once the west starts preaching judeo-christianity it looses any ability to be a player in mediation or assitance. After watching days of rioting and bloodshed because of a comic strip on TV I can only think that the west has missed the point entirely. For nearly 2000 years missionaries have gone all over the globe trying to spread Christianity through deeds or by force. This was evident in places like Vietnam where the French Missionaries performed inquistion style techniques to convert people to Christianity. Western nations (who are primarily composed of Christians) shouild not expect Muslims to listen.
Think about how you might feel if Muslim Missionaries came to your city and tried to tell you that their way was better and that if you did not accept the teachings of Mohammed you would die a terrible death.
Muslim nations are in need of help. The people are held below the povery line. This allows fundamentalist and religious leaders to insite anger in their people against the west.
We can no longer be seen as judeo-christian & militaristic but we should also be wary of appearing secular as well. This is a government issue because this is a political issue.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I agree with larry’s recommendations - if you accept his description of methods. OST seems mainly to be about having intelligent conversations with reasonable people. I’m not sure this works in the Muslim contexts we are looking at! But should Christians take the message of Jesus to Muslims, and is there anywhere that is off-limits to them?
In a similar conversation on our church website, somebody who was until recently working across W. Africa mentioned that tens of thousands of Muslims had turned to Christ in the last few years in Burkina Faso. Also, he was very clear about what the Christian voice should be saying: "God loves Muslims!" - which is maybe not what they are always accustomed to hearing in their own belief system or from any other system.
More than a voice though, I think something like that proclamation should be an inner motivation. People who may not be willing to listen to a message are often moved by what they sense is in the heart.
I was impressed by a director of Christian Aid who I heard on the radio recently, saying that his organisation doesn’t use aid as a back door to evangelism, and that his workers had been able to stay on in Afghanistan long after other Christian organisations had been forced to leave, because they had earned respect in this way.
However to me, this also created a false distinction. Evangelism is both words and actions. Actions sometimes have to be allowed to speak louder than words - but sometimes the right to use words has to be (and is) earned. Yet there are times when even ‘the right’ to be heard is not one that primarily comes from an appreciative audience, but from a mandate which is God-given.
On a personal level, the few experiences I have had with Muslim neighbours in this country have shown me that it is very possible to have meaningful religious conversations - one to one. There may be more of a difficulty when one is facing groups of people, with the accompanying group pressure. At such times, I have found it necessary to have a very clear, and very simple idea of what it is that I want to say about Christianity.
But what is the Christian voice? Maybe it should, in the first place, be an unspoken message from the heart: God loves Muslims. I would say this is the message of the Spirit. It accompanies in turn a very old-fashioned interpretation of the gospel, and understanding of the New Testament Jesus.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I think that trying to tell Muslims that Jesus or God loves them is the wrong strategy. We need to tell them that WE love them. Then we need intelligent Muslim leaders to learn a modern approach to their OWN scriptures. They need to recognize that their sacred scriptures are NOT to be taken literally (just like we should do with the bible). Any time you take ancient scriptures about afterlife and hell so literally and use them out of context you end up with hatred and exclusion. I feel like there is probably a wonderful message of peace and love of God and neighbor in their texts if they can learn to read their texts in context.
I’m not an expert in Islamic texts, but what I’ve seen so far is that it needs proper exegesis. I’ve not heard enough people placing its texts in context and applying the INTENT into modern culture without the ancient worldview. They have made the same mistakes the fundamentalist Christians have made. Anytime you have texts that cry out for social justice and religious laws it is an opportunity for going overboard and applying narrow truths to broad issues.
Has anyone heard Muslim leaders saying "we need to value our texts but we need to understand that the ideas cannot be taken literally when it speaks about afterlife or holy war". Fundamentalism and foundationalism kills in all religions. We don’t need to convert them to Christianity, but somebody needs to bring their religion into the 21st century (or at least the 19th would be ok). Maybe explaining our success in progressing our own theology can help them make the same advancements. Public confessions of the past sins in Christian theology might help them draw the same conclusions about their own mistakes. We need to explain about how our theologies of a strictly theistic God, literal hell, and substitutionary atonement have created wars and destruction.
Maybe we could help them build quality Muslim seminaries to update the theology WITHIN their own religion rather than forcing our religion on them. The secret is not making Christians out of them, but the world would be a much safer place if there were more "modern muslims" or even "post-modern muslims" with the skills to take their religion seriously but not interpreting their ancient texts literally.
I just found this while I was working this post. I’ve not researched it well, but it is very interesting…
http://www.ijtihad.org/discourse.htm
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Amen to that! To take it a step forther we also need secular organizations working on separating mosk and state.
anti-fundamentalism-ISM and evangelism
danutz
two points, if i may…
firstly, how is your consistent, derisive denunciation of Christian fundamentalism - whatever that is - however that is defined (and my suspicion is that it is frequently, usefully "defined" in order to frame whatever ‘straw man’ suits an argument) - any different from the divisiveness that you so readily ascribe to it? At least in spirit, you seem equally set on continuing the (modern?) pre-occupation / determination to prove or, at least, promote the rightness of one sub-set of humanity - in this case, those possessing a liberal, non-fundamental theology - over against another.
thus, even while you denouce fundamentalism, you seem to espouse a related form of intolerance, to that which you would apparently wish those of us who are less familiar with it, to associate with the object of your distaste. i will admit that i used to assume that you were being deliberately provocative, tongue-in-cheek, when i first began to absorb the agenda of your ost contributions, but increasingly i wonder whether you can see at all the problem of credibility you create with this discrepancy, if not for yourself, then for those who might wish to otherwise embrace - in a metaphorical sense - the contribution that you and your broader views undoubtably make towards, not only debates, but towards Christian community?
~
secondly, in not unrelated vein, your disposition, as revealed within this particular post, would seem to imply that there is no alternative to "making converts" or forcing "our religion" onto others; a view i think should be earnestly reconsidered. ‘evangelism’ is, at its most essential level, simply the telling of good news, news the nature of which, as Peter points out, many, including those of us within the formerly pagan, barbarian west, have appreciated and responded to in spite of the concomitant changes to worldview that it requires or brings. changes, many, are only to glad to have the opportunity to make.
indeed, all over the world today, people continue to respond to that good news. it may be quite arrogant - and simply incorrect - of us, if we assume that the global appeal of the message of Christ is in any way attached to western conversion techniques. moreover, the message of Christ is not a western religion - it has never been exclusively so, it is, of course, primarily a semetic faith and worldview - and the globalisation of it, as it increasingly takes on indigenous forms is a continuing testament to that reality.
all of which is not to deny that there are issues to be identified and, where appropriate, responded to, in regard to fundamentalist attitudes, cross-cultural evangelism and inter-faith relations - God knows there are many - but I do get tired of hearing ‘straw-man’ arguments which seem to prey upon post-modern sensitivities, ignorance of non-western peoples and cultures and which readily conspire towards forming an uncharitable agenda to deride certain forms of Christian community that posit their own faith in a different light from others - others who consider themselves more enlightened, yet subtly posit intolerance and suspicion of these other members of the Christian community.
i’d better add that i do not suggest you personally, danutz, are guilty of any or all of these particular attitudes by association with my address being initially directed towards yourself: rather, i’ve broadened the debate in order to provide a context for the uncharitable agenda which i seem find frequently at work in the cultural matrix of western Christianity. nevertheless, conscious i may’ve fallen prey to the same lack of charity against which i protest so innocently, i will look forward to your repost.
yours, affectionately…
shalom! - john
Re: anti-fundamentalism-ISM and evangelism
First let me apologize for using a word that I keep forgetting is often misunderstood. When I used the word "fundamentalist" I do not mean it to be a put down. You easily use the words "modernist" or "liberal" which I am not fond of but I recognize that it does somewhat relate to some views which I have. When I say “fundamentalist Christian” I’m referring to those that adhere to strict fundamentals that were created early in the past century as a backlash to the development of modern science (particularly in the area of evolutionary science). Mostly what I mean is that these people adhere to strict literal interpretation of the bible in those areas that seem extremely bizarre to most of the industrialized world (6-day creation, virgin-birth, literal afterlife, etc). Forgive me if you fall into that category but don’t like the label. It is difficult to carry on these conversations without some labels. Would the label “literalist” be more acceptable? If not please suggest another.
Secondly, my “pre-occupation / determination to prove…” my point is something that I really can’t stop. I don’t expect you to stop trying to prove your point. Your request to have me discuss topics here and NOT incorporate the basic principles of my belief system is not fair. I hope you will reconsider that viewpoint. I’ve been very impressed that OST is a stellar example of a ethical and compassionate discussion group that stimulates quality debate without becoming divisive. Conflict is inevitable, but I feel like I’ve done nothing more than consistently express my particular process for biblical interpretation and show how applying it to every topic can provide solid consistent answers. I expect the same of you even if we disagree.
It seems to me that you are just upset that I have a different opinion. I’m not sure how to fix that. I can’t really change my views because they have helped me immensely. I’m not sure how that is being “ungenerous”. I’ve not asked you to stop sharing your views, have I?
Lastly, I feel like the points I’ve made on this post are very good because they do not take the position that the only solution for problems it to force others to adopt our own way of thinking or believing. I’m not suggesting that we discontinue evangelism. I am pro-evangelism although I am post-Evangelical. I am also pro-gospel but I probably interpret the gospel to be something that you don’t. I prefer “the secret message of Jesus” that is often overlooked in traditional presentations of the gospel.
I hope you will also read deep enough in my posts to recognize that I am post-liberal and post-modern. Brian Mclaren would tell us that being “post” something is not a rejection of that thing. It means we have absorbed that logic and made it a part of us, then moved on to add other things in light of what we now understand. I have absorbed modern liberalism and also absorbed fundamentalism (I have 30+ years of that in my brain) and the very reason that I am on OST is that I’ve been able to move past both of those viewpoints but I have kept the valuable parts of both.
labels, fables and straw men
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I am also no expert but I do known that central to Islam is the belief that the word, precisely as it appears in the arabic Quran, is the word of God. It is claimed to have been dictated by Mohammed over a couple of decades, accurately transcribed and has been copied perfectly ever since.
His sayings (Hadith) are are kept separate but are also relied heavily upon by Muslims.
For me interpretation of both is where the problem lies because despite the belief that the word is God’s and that Mohammed was the instrument of its delivery, both the Hadith and the Quran require interpretation, and they did in medieval Arabia when it began.
As a non-Muslim I find it difficult to square this circle, such is the nature of faith though.
For me the real issues are the insecurity that comes from a perceived persecution exagerated and exploited by the Israel situation and a clever manipulation of the Western media, coupled to a cultural bully-boy mentalitly, which always requires a crowd to start it and an audience to see it.
Censor the Western Media and they will not burn flags (whatever their design - Christain did not invent the cross) and, I would go as far as to suggest that the extreme factions would not fly aeroplanes into buildings or bomb commuters anymore. Not simply because they would be starved of the vital oxygen of publicity, but because our culture would no longer be filled with a massively skewed, fear centred indirect hate campaign against the enemies of Israel, the American economy and dominance of Christianity in world politics.
A agree with other commentators that all religion should be removed from all politics.
Surely then……..
…….we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Are you suggesting censorship is the answer? How about creating new uncensored dialogue that would contain the truth and would overshadow any false information. I can’t imagine that less honest communication could solve anything. But that is just my opinion and the opinion of the founders of nearly all our western governments.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I would add to John’s criticism a couple of more:
1. The insistance on the "modernization" of Islam - does this not strike anyone else as a secular crusade? The language is just as paternalistic as colonialist justifications ("those people are barbarians!" i.e.: "without [what we consider] civilization", was the previous mantra).
2. I am increasingly uncomfortable with the strict politicization of Islam as the root cause of violence among Arab countries. Surely, surely we can understand that religion — EAST AND WEST — has been used by those individuals who are oppressed, pyschologically, economically, politically, and ideologically (cf: Christian traditions) as a modus operandi for resistance, as well as a source of raw materials for resistance and self-understanding. The point here is that religion of any kind is simply rarely THE source of conflict as I believe it has been made to be here. This interaction is complex. Therefore, conclusions about "fundamentalism" of any kind that frame the phenomenon as a central factor in the war of modernity/pre-modernity have only half of the story; the rest of the story has to do with how people appropriate religion individually, as groups, in certain historical time periods, and their social locations and relations of power to their neighbors and enemies at any given time.
The difficulty with the suggestion for modernization proposed by danutz is clearer now: modernizing their religion (and their culture which is far less separate from their religion than the West may suppose of themselves) may be within the exact matrix of the Muslim complaint against the West.
I do agree with Danutz, however, that public confessions may have a powerful role to play. This seems to me to be a very good idea.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Makaden, the difference in my suggestion is that I feel change MUST come from WITHIN their own religion and people. We cannot force them to modernize or post-modernize their religion. Please note that major difference in my original post. That solves the problem you recognized about why they already have issues with our attempts to modernize their culture.
You are also right that relgion is NOT the sole reason for these problems. It is the toxic mixture of exclusive religious beliefs combined with economic oppression that causes the problems.
To use a metaphor that I think will relate, we can think of it as trying to loose weight. The 2 things that mix to cause weight gain is excessive food intake and lack of excercise. You can solve the problem by attacking one of the 2 and have some success, but the most successful approach is to correct both areas at once.
I hope that you literalists don’t take my metaphor "literally" and make the assumption that I’m suggesting we buy everyone in Iraq diet pills and "buns of steel" video. (LOL… I couldn’t resist!)
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I appreciate your attempt at a clarification.
PS: Still not a literalist. :)
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Re "OST seems mainly to be about having intelligent conversations with reasonable people." I think we are in danger on this site of appearing to be racist. Clearly there are reasonable Muslims? I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but let’s just take care.
Anyway I cannot agree with Larry’s recommendation that we ‘stay out of it’. Where does that come from? When we are tarred with the same brush as oil-hungry worshippers of mammon, are we to condemn ourselves by our silence?
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Every person acts reasonably based on 2 things, the information they have available to them and their underlying goals. To think otherwise would be to think less of what God has created (in this case the human mind/soul/heart).
What seems unreasonable to you will be reasonable to them based on their goals and information (which forms their perspective). Changing their goals and giving them more quality information is our task.
We can’t stay out of it, but we can lead rather than push.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Racism applies to races, not religions. But I am suggesting that, important as reasonable conversation is, something more is required. Otherwise we go no further than interfaith dialogue (important as that may be). Christianity is about rather more than reasonable conversation. That’s why I suggested that ‘God loves Muslims’ is not a bad starting point. Christianity, uniquely it seems to me, has a God who freely loves all people, irrespective of race, religion or creed, and offers that love without coercion. Since we, if we are Christians, are God’s ambassadors, it follows that uniquely we hold that love in our hearts - whether it is accepted or rejected. This is a message of the Spirit before it becomes a message expressed in whatever form in which the gospel is spoken.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
If you tell Muslims that "God loves them". You have not told them anything they didn’t already know. What makes you think they don’t already know God loves them?
We need to tell and show them all of these points:
1)Christians love God - Muslims don’t know this and it’s not evident in our cultural secular values which "appear" to them to come from Christianity rather than our secular society. They have no way(lack of information) of knowing this because in their world society and religion are integrated.
2)Christians love Muslims - Muslims don’t know this and it’s not evident in our government’s actions. From thier viewpoint military actions "appear" to come from Christianity rather than a secular government. Again all their information about how the world works would tell them that government actions are closely aligned with religious beliefs. How would they know otherwise?
3)God loves Muslims - I mean this different than you. I mean that we need to publicly say God loves Muslims just as they are. We cannot say that God loves all people "even if they worship the wrong god". We need to say that God truely loves Muslims and appreciates their worship of him! If we can’t say that and understand that they also worship the creator of the universe regardless of our theological differences then everything else we say is mute. I’m NOT saying we have to accept their religion as 100% true or equal to ours, but we need to acknowledge the underlying similarities in the same loving way that we can acknowledge our own differences in OST.
4)God loves Christians - This will be the hardest point to make because it violates some Muslim principles. We can’t prove it, but it should show in our actions if we follow #1-3.
Those are the issues which me must have conversation about because based on history those 4 points are NOT clear to everyone.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
ok - Some comments…
This comes from an historical perspective. Is there any evidence that minding the business of the Arab world has been helpful to either party? I believe it has caused much resentment, death and political oppression. It was, afterall, the west that created these fundamentalist dictators in what had been before societies that were at the forefront of all advances. We can never win what is essentially a holy war with another religion. I propose getting out of their shorts and providing aid and love. Give the people what they need get now (on a limited basis) only from imans and eventually the west will be seen as more than just evil and godless.
Maybe they know it, maybe they don’t - but what does that have to do with the underlying problem? By the simple fact that Christians are not Muslims you lose ground.
While I don’t doubt that there are Muslims who aren’t feeling the love from Christians I don’t like your choice of words. When you say …"our government’s actions" are you refering to the Pope in Rome? Western goverments are secular, not Christian, even if a majority of the people in the west are Christian. This is for good reason. The idea that goverment actions would be closely aligned with any religion’s beliefs scares me to no end.
Uh oh! Who are we to decide what religion is 100% true or where equality in religion comes from? Have we not forgotten that we are all God’s children? A muslim might rightly believe that Islam is 100% true and that all other religions are not equal. This is why using Religion to solve the bigger probelm will not work. And, by the way, which sect of Christianity did you propose to use as a model? Do you consider all sects of Christianity true and equal?
Since we are attempting to change the hearts and minds - perhaps we stick to things we can prove?
Respectfully…
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
No offense, but semantics are going to make your case. The fact is we have very published reports of Christian language in the Army (see General Boykin), from the bullypulpit of the Presidency, the century-old fact of Western Christian missionaries who have served in an ad hoc fashion as Western ambassadors, and from the pre-existing perception that the "West" is "Christian".
Exactly how does a cherished principle of the separation of church and state overcome the factual reality described here? Danutz has you here.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I didn’t realize anyone was trying to have anyone here - I thought we are having an open discussion of views. Just because people who are participants in secular goverments use religions language (christian or otherwise) does not establish a factual reality that this separation does exist. If it did not we would not see progress in the areas like science (stem cells come to mind), human rights (gay marriage comes to mind), right to privacy (abortion comes to mind), freedom of thought (abilty to question like we do on OST comes to mind). Being a secular government does not mean that absolutley none of the core morale values are derived from god’s word. It means that a more practical approach is taken to ensure that the laws of society are allowed to evolve as the world progresses. If government enforced God’s law as written in The Ten Commandments or The Bible we would have a lot of people in prison or dead. Could you imagine enforcing a law on coveting? Should goverment put people to death for working on the sabbath even though not all the people subscribe to that belief?
The reason I so cherrish this principal is because we can see how the integration of church and state has caused problems throughout history and currently. Nothing is black and white - I am well aware of all the greys.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
Muslim perception of the US as Christian (see my citations) makes your point about disestablishment moot.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Larry, please read my earlier post again. Somehow I think you have read it 180% in the wrong direction. Where do I suggest that any relgion is 100% correct? I’m stating the EXACT OPPOSITE. Something is off-base in our conversation here. Did you miss the word "NOT" in my post.
If we do that we will not be able to speak about God and certainly not ANY particular theology. What is wrong with speaking on faith instead of on things we can "prove".
Also, you need to read in my post that it doesn’t matter that you and I know our government is seperate from our religion. What matters is that Muslims don’t know that and we need to tell them and help them learn that about us.
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
I am sorry if I misunderstood your point. I agre that it doesn’t matter if we understand that our government is separate from religion if Muslim’s don’t understand that.
So how do we deal with this problem by talking about God and Christianity?
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Some suggestions off the top of my head:
1. Resist public political representations that explicitly tie Christianity to our government in a way that makes it appear our faith endorses our actions. Write letters to the editor, complain our representatives, etc.
2. Have our more famous Christian leaders make public statements that either denounce violence or distance our faith from the actions of our government.
3. Insist that missionaries make it known that they do not represent the United States or western countries.
4. Resist the exploitation of global capitalism and the destruction of social structures in the Muslim world by the export of our cultural filth (MTV gets pumped into Muslim lands and contributes to the breakdown of family and culture — as it does here — and these exports feed immensely the idea that Western culture is out to "destroy" Islam).
I’m sure there are more ideas…
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Now you’re talking Makaden. Separate the Gospel from the culture it inhabits. If we could be more overt in our criticism of our own culture and society when it is off-track, we might actually get a hearing from Muslims, and who knows, from many people of no faith who might otherwise not listen. To quote Kenneth Scott Latourette: "Christianity, if it is not hopelessly denatured, never becomes fully at home in any culture. Always, when it is true to its genius, it creates a tension."
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Now we are getting somewhere!
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
Exactly! That’s my point. We can’t control other people all we can do is to go completely overboard to show our love and confess our sins to the point of complete humility. HUMILITY! that is the answer to stop wars. Jesus showed us that concept over and over. Christians washing Muslim feet? Public confession of Christian sins. How about public confession of allowing our Christian religion to be sold to the republican party? We cannot allow Christianity to be used as a political commondity and then claim that our government is secular when it makes mistakes.
Anyone here read Donald Miller’s campus confessional idea in "Blue like Jazz"?
I know it is hard for you guys to get over this, but the idea of acknowledging God’s love for Muslim worship would be an incredible peace building concept. I’m NOT advocating acceptance of all their religious beliefs but couldn’t we at least have public acknowledgement that we admire their dedication and love of God? Couldn’t that be like verbal foot washing (to use symbolic language).
Re: Secular satire and Muslim rage
God loves Muslims - this is of course shorthand. There is much more involved in that statement that needs unpacking. But my point was that before it is a verbal message, it is a reality provided by supernatural means - a love that only the Spirit of God can put into a person’s heart. (danutz - I mean metaphor for the innermost part of a person’s being, consciousness, seat of the affections etc).
Is this something that Muslims already know? Not, I suggest, in the way the NT defines it: " - - - God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us." - Romans 5:5. My understanding of Islam is that there is not such personal interaction between Allah and his people. That would be to diminish his greatness. He is relationally distant and unknowable.
Is it valid to say we worship the same God? I’m not sure that is a meaningful track to go down. We both worship one God - but we see that God very differently indeed.
My wife and I used to live in an apartment on the same landing as a Muslim couple and their children. He was a doctor, an Egyptian training at the local hospital. She was a convert to Islam, and English. Their devotion to Islam was strict. Mona could not leave the house without Issam, which meant she had to stay at home most of the day, much of the time. We spent time with them, but Annelise, my wife, would go into their apartment with Mona, and Issam would come into ours to talk with me.
We talked a lot about our beliefs, over a period of time while we were staying there. But it seemed that the gap between Issam and myself, as far as beliefs went, just continued to get wider.
One evening, at the end of a long and rather fruitless conversation, I said to Issam (using, in desperation, what is known as the ‘quaker question’ from a certain American-based evangelism programme - I have never used it before or since), "Issam, if you were to die tonight, what reasons would you give to God to let you into his heaven? How certain could you be that he would accept you?" (At this point, contributors to the site who argue for a this-worldly salvation need to suspend their immediate reactions!)
Issam paused, and said "I know that if I am a good Muslim, God will accept me." So I said, "Are you a good Muslim?" He replied, "No, but I know if I am a good Muslim he will accept me!"
My point was that Christians can be certain that through the death and resurrection of Christ, we can receive God’s forgiveness, for this life and the life to come. What a terrible uncertainty to live with, not knowing if God accepts us, not having the means to know, not having the grounds to know.
I didn’t see Issam again for a few days after that, but when we met again, he said to me: "Peter, after you asked me that question, I was unable to sleep all night!"
It would make a good story if I was able to say that I then shared with him the simple story of God’s forgiveness through Jesus - and how a relationship with God can be enjoyed through him, but that didn’t happen. He moved from the apartment shortly afterwards, but I still hope today that he might be able to put a friendly face to some views which have not always accompanied the best of images to Muslims over the centuries
"God loves Muslims" can be a very unusual and a very radical thing indeed to introduce to Muslim people.