We Christians have a bad habit of not paying attention. It has hurt us in the past, and it’s about to do it again.
Our big social concern in the 1990s was abortion. Another steamroller social issue was bearing down on us then, though: the homosexual attack on marriage, family, and sexual morality. If we had been paying attention we could have seen it coming. They gave us fair warning, after all: a 1987 article laying out their strategy for “The Overhauling of Straight America,” including these steps:
- Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible
- Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers
- Give “protectors” a just cause
- Make gays look good
- Make the victimizers look bad
- Solicit funds
- Getting on the air with advertisements, celebrity endorsements, and more
The authors followed up this short article with an influential book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90′s. (One of the authors wrote under a different name when the book was published.) Springboarding off the article, the book lays out a brilliant strategic plan for social change. It wasn’t very honest. It was highly manipulative (read the linked article). But it worked. It worked partly because we weren’t paying attention. They handed us their strategy on a silver platter, and we could have countered it with truth against their rhetorical manipulations. But we didn’t even see it.
We’re making the same mistake again today. The big social issue for Christians in the 90s was abortion. That hasn’t gone away, but it was virtually eclipsed in the 2000s by homosexual rights activism. That’s not going away soon either, but it’s about to be overtaken in the 2010s, I believe, by Islam in America.
Islam in America means we’ll be facing more issues like the symbolism and/or reality of a proposed mosque near Ground Zero, or Rifqa Bary’s fate. It raises questions about alleged honor killings in Muslim families, or freedom to share the Christian message at an Arabfest in Dearborn. For all we know it could involve more Islamist violence.
How many of us reading this feel prepared to face those issues from a clear knowledge of Islam’s beliefs and the Islamic world’s intentions?
Not nearly enough of us. And it matters.
Let me illustrate. A pastor friend of mine told me he thinks the Ground Zero mosque issue is easy: it’s a simple matter of freedom of religion. If the government can start dictating where Muslims can build their places of worship, then it won’t be long before it will restrict Christian churches in the same way. If we want our freedoms, we have to allow them the same.
This is but one of many perspectives on the Ground Zero mosque. We could swap opinions on that mosque all day long and miss the far more important question: do we even know what we’re talking about? My pastor friend’s position illustrates the problem nicely. He views Islam as a religion that deserves the same rights and privileges as any other. That’s questionable, to say the least. The following quotes come from Islamic websites.
In general, one can see that Islam is a religion which not only governs the private religious life of an individual, but also mandates and regulates all aspects of public life. (Islam and Democracy)
Religion and politics are one and the same in Islam. They are intertwined. We already know that Islam is a complete system of life and politics is very much a part of our collective life. (Political System of Islam)
Since the Islamic conception of life is a co-ordination between the body and the soul, it was natural that a very close relationship should have been established between religion and politics, between the mosque and the citadel…. As we have just seen, the caliph inherited from the Prophet the exercise of the double power, spiritual-temporal, and he presided over the celebration of the service of worship in the mosque, and he was the head of the State in temporal affairs. (The Political System of Islam)
The West makes a natural mistake in their understanding of Islamic tradition, assuming that religion means the same for Muslims as it has meant for most other religious adherents ever since the industrial revolution, and for some societies, even before that; that is: a section of life reserved for certain matters, and separate from other sections of life. This is not the Islamic world view. It never has been in the past, and modern attempts of making it so are seen as an aberration….
Islam is a “total way of life.” …
Throughout history, being a Muslim has meant not only belonging to a religious community of fellow believers but also living under the Islamic Law. For Islamic Law is believed to be an extension of God’s absolute sovereignty….
As we have mentioned, in Islam God is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority. (The Basics of the Political System in Islam)
It’s not a simple matter of freedom of religion, is it? Islam, according to what we read here, is not simply a religion. It implies a political system of its own, one that historically has been very much at odds with freedom of religion.
There is an important lesson to be learned here about Islam, but first I’m more interested in the lessons we Christians need to learn about ourselves. We failed to do our homework on homosexual activism, and look where it got us. Islam is even less familiar, more foreign to our way of thinking, and the issues it will present to us are going to be more complex. Are we ready for them? How shall we, for example, understand the relation of religion and politics in Islam? How accurately do the quotes above describe Islam? Do most Muslims think of Islam this way, or only a minority? If it is both religion and political system, how does the First Amendment apply to it? Shall we grant religious freedom to a system that historically has created Islamic states almost everywhere it went—states whose nature has been to deny religious freedom?
If you think the Ground Zero mosque comes down to a simple matter of symbolism, or of religious freedom, then you don’t understand the issues deeply enough. I don’t know them well enough myself. Karen Armstrong has made a very persuasive case in her book The Battle for God that much of the trouble the world is in today can be traced to not understanding Islam.
I asked a friend of mine in Josh McDowell Ministry for a good introductory guide, and he recommended Answering Islam: The Crescent In Light of the Cross by Geisler and Saleeb. Having read it now, I’m eager to pass along the same recommendation to you. I was surprised at how little I knew of the Muslims’ faith, especially their view of Allah, the Qur’an, and Muhammad. Did you know Muhammad is not considered to be the founder of Islam—yet it is far more acceptable in Islam to blaspheme Allah than Muhammad? This sheds light on the riots following the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, doesn’t it? Is it confusing nevertheless? It certainly is—which should motivate us to study and to understand better than we do now.
Do you remember the uproar when copies of the Qur’an were reportedly mistreated at Guantanamo? Consider this from Professor Yusuf K. Ibish:
I have not yet come across a western man who understands what the Qur’an is. It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments…. If you want to compare it to anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself.
None of us in the West understand, he says. If Islam is going to be as potent a force in our part of the world as I think it is, then we ought to begin understanding. (We need to respond spiritually, too; another topic for a later discussion.)
I’ve just acquired Kenneth Cragg’s The Call of the Minaret, a classic on the topic, so I’m told, and I’m beginning to look into it. I’ll be studying more and blogging more on this in weeks to come. But you’re not going to get what you need from me. I’m but a beginner—a beginner who is convinced we all need to study up on the next huge social/cultural/religious issue facing the Western world. I don’t want us looking back twenty years from now and saying, “We had our chance, but we blew it off completely. They told us who they were and what we were doing, but we paid no more attention to it than we did to the homosexual activists before them. And now look where we are.”
Also posted at Thinking Christian
August 22nd, 2010 | 12:33 am | #1
I’d reword Mr. Gilson’s statements slightly:
Yes, in all these cases, evangelicals have made the bride of Christ resemble the fat old angry white men of conservative talk radio, which is hardly a credit to Jesus.
August 22nd, 2010 | 1:31 am | #2
Mr. Gilson: you say your friend “views Islam as a religion that deserves the same rights and privileges as any other. That’s questionable, to say the least.” What about people who find Christianity’s “rights and privileges” to be “questionable?” Do you really want to go down the slippery slope of deeming some religions to be unworthy of constitutional protection? I, too, have misgivings about Islam and what it means for the US; however, I think it’s a mistake to suggest that it is not a religion that deserves the same rights and privileges as other religions.
August 22nd, 2010 | 6:57 am | #3
nshapland, read on beyond the sentence you quoted from me. I went on to explain my reasoning.
First, you and I must agree, for it is plain to see, that all religions are entitled to certain rights and privileges under the U.S. Constitution. I’m not suggesting that Islam as a religion is unworthy of constitutional protection. I’m suggesting that to view Islam as a religion might be at least partly in error.
I quoted Muslim sources to the effect that Islam is not necessarily the same kind of entity or system that is mentioned in the First Amendment, but that it is also a political system. To quote two of them again in part,
I went on to ask whether there might be contradictions involved in giving religious freedom to a politico-religious system that has historically worked to undermine religious freedom.
Now, I am not saying I understand fully the implications of this. The one conclusion I drew here was that we don’t understand Islam, we ought to understand Islam, and we ought to be prepared to act with understanding. I’m sure you would agree with that.
August 22nd, 2010 | 10:48 am | #4
Abortion, homosexual marriage, and Islam are incommensurate issues. One is a transaction involving a helpless party, the next a transaction between two consenting parties, and the third is a religion (a billion consenting parties, if you will). The only thing that unites Islam to the earlier two issues is that level-headed evangelicals will be embarrassed by the clumsy public responses of their co-religionists.
It shouldn’t be necessary on this web site to have to point out that these very same arguments (i.e., about an inherent political system) were used to used to attack Catholic immigrants, when they were the new kids on the block.
August 22nd, 2010 | 2:15 pm | #5
Adam,
I’m not sure what you’re responding to here, or if you’re intending to disagree with or criticize what I wrote. What the three issues hold in common is just that they are three issues Christians have faced and are facing. The incommensurability of which you speak might be important in certain contexts, but I don’t know why you brought it up here.
Your second paragraph also comes across as some kind of objection, but against what, I cannot tell. In this post I made a strong plea for understanding Islam. I quoted several Muslims’ statements regarding their religion’s inherent ties to political systems, and I said that this is something we need to understand very well, because it might have significant implications for Islam and the First Amendment. Do you object to deepening our knowledge on these matters?
August 22nd, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #6
If our preaching and teaching does not confront real issues, what can we expect?
August 22nd, 2010 | 8:00 pm | #7
I think that Islam, is perfectly compatible, with democratic republics, in general, and the U.S., in particular. Look at Istanbul, for example. Most residents are Muslim, and yet, most are fully incorporated into the secular culture.
August 22nd, 2010 | 8:25 pm | #8
Abortion and homosexuality are issues that divide Christians, so it is inaccurate to portray those issues as having one solid Christian side. In fact, especially on the issue of homosexuality, much of the social change on this issue can now be attributed to Christians and churches that support gay and bisexual equality.
August 22nd, 2010 | 9:03 pm | #9
Bret, would you say that a single uneasy exception to the general rule in that part of the world is sufficient to support your position?
Javier, your comment, like Adam Baker’s, has no clear connection to what I wrote in the blog post. If it is inaccurate to portray those issues as having one solid Christian side, is it not also inaccurate for you to portray this blog post as if it said that?
August 22nd, 2010 | 10:16 pm | #10
Tom: It certainly shows that there’s no inherent contradiction, between believing in the Islamic faith, and accepting democracy. Islam can go through an evolution, similar to what Christianity went through.
Someone living through the wars of religion, would certainly be excused for believing that there’s no way that Christianity is compatable with a pluralistic culture.
August 22nd, 2010 | 10:51 pm | #11
I smell hypocrisy.
Before worrying about the compatibility of Islam with democracy, I’d suggest American evangelicals have some issues to figure out for themselves. While evangelicals love democracy when they and their friends are in the majority, what will they do when, for example, the gays have the votes–when the majority of people endorse the so-called “gay agenda”?
Is American evangelicalism really more compatible with democracy–or is it rather that American evangelicals love majority rule so long as the majority rule happens to favor themselves? Will American evangelicals continue to defend majority rule when majority rule favors same-sex marriage?
August 23rd, 2010 | 10:30 am | #12
Okay, fine, then C. Ehrlich. Let’s follow your advice. Let’s not think about Islam, or try to understand it, until we have our own issues completely sorted out. Of course that can’t really happen until we see how we respond to being in the minority on same-sex marriage.
So here’s what we’ll do. We’ll wait. Someday same-sex marriage will get voted in. Then we’ll decide whether we really believe in democracy or not. Then if we pass that test, and only if we pass it, will we finally be free to take a look at what Muslims believe. If same-sex marriage never achieves a majority vote, then we’re really stuck; we’ll never be able to determine our willingness to abide by democratic principles. But so be it; if we don’t know how we come out on this issue, we have no right to think about anyone else’s beliefs. That’s just the way it is.
Thanks for the advice. It takes a lot of burden off me. I was all set to read another book or two on Islam, but that would be premature. I’ll go read a novel instead.
August 23rd, 2010 | 10:32 am | #13
Okay. Would somebody please tell me if there’s something drastically wrong with my communication? This happens amazingly often, and it’s happened again: I write a blog post about some general topic, I illustrate it with examples, and none of the comments have anything to do with the general topic. It’s all nitpicking on the illustrations.
I’m especially befuddled at the comments on this post. Adam Baker argues that abortion, homosexuality, and Islam are incommensurate, which has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. Javier points out that Christians don’t all agree on the issues, which has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. Bret Lythgoe argues that Islam is compatible with democracy. I just got done, though, saying it would be a good thing for us all to study for ourselves, rather than rushing to conclusions as if we think we know. (I’ll credit Bret for at least responding on the level of trying to promote clearer understanding of Islam. Thank you for that, Bret.) C. Ehrlich smells hypocrisy, noting that American Evangelicals have issues to figure out for themselves. Didn’t I say something a lot like that in the blog post?
Granted, I said it with reference to our learning about Islam. Was it not clear, though, that this was the point of the whole post? Maybe I didn’t say it often enough, or in the most noticeable locations in the article. Maybe the first sentence wasn’t the right place to put it so people would notice. Maybe the entire last two paragraphs weren’t either. Maybe the communication principles of primacy and recency are dead. Maybe I should have put it right in the middle. But then again, maybe I did:
I can remember tests in English classes, and also the SAT test GRE tests, asking, “what was the main point of the writing?” Do you remember that?
Or maybe the message I should take from these comments is that we just don’t need to pay attention to how well we understand other people. It’s not important to understand Islam; and it’s not important, either, to try to understand what the author of a blog post has actually written. The important thing is to dig out the Least Mockable Unit and attack!
Lest this sound like whining, let me rush to add that LMU commenting strikes me as a source of befuddlement, not of injury. I admit to feeling some frustration with people telling me I’m all mixed up on x, when what I wrote was y. Such comments are easy enough to answer (“I wrote y, not x, so why do you say I was wrong about x?”), so I don’t consider myself harmed by them; and I’m not angry, either. I am very perplexed, though. I just don’t get it.
Hence my question, indeed my plea. What am I missing?
August 23rd, 2010 | 11:09 am | #14
Tom, you’re being a touch dramatic here. No one is suggesting that we should stop trying to understand Islam.
Maybe you could try to be as charitable towards the commentators as you are hoping they will be towards you.
August 23rd, 2010 | 11:44 am | #15
“It’s not important to understand Islam; and it’s not important, either, to try to understand what the author of a blog post has actually written.”
Aaaaaah, little grasshoppah, you slowly coming to the nirvana place of having a critical appreciation of postmodern deconstructionism.
Keep learning, little grasshoppah.
August 23rd, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #16
I make it my policy to be charitable toward commenters, C. Ehrlich. When one of them “smells hypocrisy” in me for something I didn’t say, however, you can count on me taking the direct approach toward pointing it out. I’m speaking of my 10:30 comment. Did I say you were suggesting we stop trying to understand Islam? Sure, but I think you know how to interpret sarcasm. Was it dramatic? Well, I certainly think so! I’m glad you noticed.
But I wonder if your suggestion that I’m “being a touch dramatic here” was also directed to my longer, 10:32 am comment. If so (and you can tell me if this is the case or not, I’m just asking), then in that case you would have done it again: objecting to my saying x, when what I said was y. Other than my sarcasm in the earlier comment (which I don’t hesitate to acknowledge; it was obvious enough), I didn’t say anyone was “suggesting we stop trying to understand Islam.” What I said was that it was odd how no one was expressing any interest in that topic, even though it was the point of the post; and that commenters were blogging LMUs instead.
I continue to be puzzled over that. The same thing has happened to me frequently over the past five years I’ve been blogging, and I just hit a point where I was willing to let my puzzlement be known. If it seemed dramatic to you, then so be it; you’re welcome to your opinion.
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:58 pm | #17
Dear Frustrated Grasshoppah,
Here’s something to soothe your soul that’s from a couple of honest Muslims:
“The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran. … As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.
As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.
Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.”
Read it all here at Mischief in Manhattan.
August 23rd, 2010 | 6:15 pm | #18
And let’s never forget the method of both groups: Passive-aggressive whining.
August 23rd, 2010 | 6:50 pm | #19
“Smells hypocrisy”? He who smelt it dealt it.
August 23rd, 2010 | 7:24 pm | #20
“He who smelt it dealt it.”
A very professorial insight uttered in the Faculty Lounge.
;-)
August 23rd, 2010 | 8:25 pm | #21
Thank you, Mr…and Divides. Sometimes an old-fashioned truism is all that is necessary when confronted by a ball of hot gas.
August 23rd, 2010 | 9:48 pm | #22
Sadly, this is all too typical of Mr. Beckwith’s contributions.
With leaders like Francis Beckwith, we needn’t wonder why evangelicals have a rough time gaining the respect of what might have been their intellectual peers.
August 24th, 2010 | 5:54 am | #23
You’re still working at it (see comment 26, “You also wanted to … “).
Best of luck to you in your noble endeavors.
August 24th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #24
The Geisler and Saleeb book is a good start. In addition to a copy of the Koran, I strongly urge getting ahold of collections of the ahadith, namely those of Bukhari and Muslim. The small collections of the hadith considered most valid are generally pretty affordable.
The ahadith are essential to understanding the religion, so much so that I would go so far as to say that relying solely upon the Koran would be misleading.
August 24th, 2010 | 7:45 pm | #25
Sadly, comments like Francis Beckwith, are reflective of an attitude of deep disrespect, for our Muslim friends. I would have expected better.
Our goal should be, understanding, and tolerence. Obviously there are considerable disagreements, that exist, between Christianity, and Islam. But there is common ground. And although there have been certain radical fringe groups, that claim to represent the “true” interpretation of Islam, there claims are without merit, and there’s plenty of individuals, who are Muslim, and believe that the latter can be be made coherently compatible, with democratic republics, and I think that they’re right.
August 24th, 2010 | 8:14 pm | #26
Francis Beckwith’s comment was directed toward C. Ehrlich, who in comment #11 said he smelled hypocrisy in my call for a better understanding of Islam. In other words, Beckwith was supporting my call for a better understanding of Islam. He is not in the least guilty of the disrespect toward Islam you describe here.
His assessment of C. Ehrlich, on the other hand, was pithy yet accurate, in my view. If you care for a more carefully defined perspective on C. Ehrlich’s way of doing business here, take a look through this thread, especially the summary in #26.
August 24th, 2010 | 11:31 pm | #27
I would be happy to hear Mr. Gilson or Mr. Beckwith respond to the substance of my previous comments. As for the Mr. Gilson’s way of doing business, I’ll refrain from comment, lest I make him even more defensive and hostile.
Understanding Muslims, whether here or abroad, is a worthy endeavor. I have reservation, however, about trying to do this through reading Geisler and McDowell. Imagine a Muslim attempting to understand Christianity by reading a pamphlet called Answering Christianity: The Cross In Light of the Crescent, written, of course, by the locally esteemed fundamentalist Islamic cleric. I’d even have reservations about trying to understand Muslims by simply reading the Koran and the Hadith. Imagine someone trying to understand American Jews by reading Leviticus and the book of Judges!
To understand Muslims, I’d suggest befriending one. Enroll in an Arabic course, or have your missionary friend put you in email correspondence with one. Or, if your overly zealous compatriots haven’t already shut down the local Islamic cultural center, pay it a visit. While American Muslims are some of the most culturally diverse, evangelical Christians will probably find that they have more in common with fundamentalist Muslims than they might care to admit.
August 25th, 2010 | 7:04 am | #28
I endorse all of your suggestions for understanding Muslims, C. Ehrlich, especially if it’s phrased the way you put it just now. On the one hand there is Islam, a religious/cultural/political system (or actually a diversity of systems within a strong common framework), and on the other hand there are Muslims as persons, fellow human beings. I am quite sure we can advance in understanding Islam through books, but that is not at all the same as understanding persons who follow Islam.
I’m not sure what else to say in response to your previous comment, #11, basically because the substance in it was a complete change of the subject. Whereas the topic was understanding Islam, your question (thinly veiled accusation, actually) was whether American Christians were theocrats at heart, specifically whether we would support democracy if gays had the majority on the marriage issue. I generally prefer not to change the subject so drastically in the middle of a discussion thread.
Some overly zealous compatriots of yours and mine have engaged in acts of intimidation, destruction, or violence against Muslims and mosques. I utterly reject and deplore such acts; they are inhuman and unchristian.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:48 am | #29
What a shame that some people still lack basic respect and tolerance for those who are different. Even in 2010. Just as gay and bisexual Americans are part of the American fabric and are our friends and family, Muslims are a part of the American fabric and should be welcomed in, not scapegoated. I rejoice that the ignorance and prejudice regarding homosexuality has been eclipsed by enlightenment and acceptance in the 21st century. I hope the same will one day be true for Muslims. It is a shame that so many people who claim to be Christians are captive to the most primitive bigotry and disrespect of others.
August 25th, 2010 | 9:42 pm | #30
“Your question (thinly veiled accusation, actually) was whether American Christians were theocrats at heart.”
Apparently this is Mr. Gilson’s idea of being “charitable toward commenters.”
Seriously Tom, how do you get this out of comment #11? Just as no one here is advising that we should stop understanding Islam (your dramatized complaint in #12), nothing I’ve said implies that American Christians are theocrats at heart. That said, I support your attempts at conversation, such as they are, as they are some improvement on Mr. Beckwith’s childish contributions (which you also have endorsed).
August 25th, 2010 | 9:46 pm | #31
Tom, I apoligize, to Mr. Beckwith, I misunderstood where his comments were directed.
August 26th, 2010 | 8:32 am | #32
Some statements of opinion refute themselves and need no other response. I will say this, though. First, thank you for supporting my attempts at conversation, C. Ehrlich. If, however, you think your other questions noted here are still live for discussion, I do not share that view. You are charging me with things for which I feel no need to defend myself. You will no doubt continue to have your opinion regardless of how I answer. Other readers will have theirs. I invite them to read the thread and form their own conclusions.
August 26th, 2010 | 10:49 am | #33
I’d even have reservations about trying to understand Muslims by simply reading the Koran and the Hadith. Imagine someone trying to understand American Jews by reading Leviticus and the book of Judges!
To understand Muslims, I’d suggest befriending one. Enroll in an Arabic course, or have your missionary friend put you in email correspondence with one. Or, if your overly zealous compatriots haven’t already shut down the local Islamic cultural center, pay it a visit.
Those are fair points, and I try to keep in mind as I read both the Koran and the ahadith that I don’t come from a cultural background informed each, woven into life, so to speak. Thus, if I’m reading something that seems bizarre/shocking, I just might be missing a frame of reference that would provide an interpretive key. I remember reading a Muslim who complained about the violence of Jesus’ parable of the wicked husbandmen, saying it was a command to violence. It stunned me at first, but I had a frame of reference he didn’t, just going by the surface read.
My one caveat about your suggestion is that levels of observance and practice among Muslims vary, and the Muslim neighbor–or even mosque and imam–may not necessarily be barometers of Muslim orthodoxy, for good or ill. That’s why having the fundamental texts is handy.
August 26th, 2010 | 11:10 am | #34
Muslims hate infidels. They sometimes kill infidels.
I’m an infidel.
I tolerate their hatred of me.
August 26th, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #35
The generalizations of #34 express the sorts of attitudes that have hurt evangelicals in the past, and will hurt them again. It’s the sort of attitude that will create problems with Islam in America and abroad.
Evangelicals will not address this issue so long as they continue to look for the problem within Islam. If only we would listen to Jesus, who instructs us first to remove the plank that is on own eye. Here, the basic threat is hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, raising these possibilities only makes Mr. Gilson defensive and a bit hostile. It’s no surprise though, since the religious leaders of Jesus’ day seem to have acted similarly.
August 26th, 2010 | 2:34 pm | #36
“Muslims hate infidels. They sometimes kill infidels.
I’m an infidel.
I tolerate their hatred of me.”
C. Ehrlich: “The generalizations of #34 express the sorts of attitudes that have hurt evangelicals in the past, and will hurt them again.”
I don’t think so.
Anyways, not all Muslims hate infidels. But many Muslims do.
Furthermore, of the various violent conflicts around the globe, the large majority of them involve Muslims violently fighting other people. That’s a FACT.
Understanding and acknowledging FACTS have helped evangelicals in the past, and will continue to help them in the future.
August 26th, 2010 | 3:41 pm | #37
You do keep trying, don’t you, C. Ehrlich? I’m amused to discover my last posts were defensive and a bit hostile. (If you tell me that my current amusement is also defensive and hostile, you can expect me to smile and chuckle once more.)
August 26th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #38
Bret, thank you for your apology.
September 1st, 2010 | 3:17 am | #39
“Okay. Would somebody please tell me if there’s something drastically wrong with my communication?”
There is something drastically wrong with your communication. Every word is designed to promote dichotomies that are either false or intended to divide people, not unite them in caring for each other.
“This happens amazingly often, and it’s happened again: I write a blog post about some general topic,…”
You write a post about a cultural battle.
“I illustrate it with examples, and none of the comments have anything to do with the general topic. It’s all nitpicking on the illustrations.”
It’s not nitpicking. Your posts on cultural issues are almost always intended to divide people and incite hatred and misunderstanding.
It’s what you do, Tom.
September 1st, 2010 | 7:15 am | #40
Thank you for that reflection on what I am communicating, John. It has given me opportunity to do some serious soul-work this morning, to examine myself in light of Jesus’ instruction and example. That’s always healthy even if not always fun.
I took an extended look at Jesus’ ministry just now through the Gospel of Mark, and I saw in it a range of things like healing, comforting, praying, freeing, providing, blessing, instructing, equipping, suffering, rescuing, and even warning and dividing.
Dividing is not wrong, according to Jesus’ ministry. He created dichotomies everywhere, by confronting error both in teaching and in practice. (The Gospel of John displays that even more clearly.) The point, I take it, is not to avoid dividing, but to be sure that the divisions and dichotomies are based in truth and balanced with other emphases like comforting, freeing, blessing, equipping, etc.
I had thought that the current post was actually not divisive; it was a call to increased understanding. I do not assume that increasing understanding must be accompanied by increasing agreement, but I would hope that it would lead to decreasing prejudice, stereotyping, and (on the other hand) naivete.
Anyway, through this I have seen things in me that need the Lord’s work. Better balance in my writing here is one of them, especially in terms of being encouraging and displaying the light of Christ. Most of all, you have reminded me how much I need the power and direction of the Holy Spirit, for I cannot do it on my own. I appreciate the learning opportunity.
September 1st, 2010 | 4:13 pm | #41
Tom,
Thanks for your reply. I would like to respond to two other points:
1) “Dividing is not wrong, according to Jesus’ ministry. He created dichotomies everywhere, by confronting error both in teaching and in practice.”
Yes, Jesus pointed out dichotomies—but you aren’t Jesus.
2) “I had thought that the current post was actually not divisive; it was a call to increased understanding.”
Wow.
Please explain how you thought the following would increase understanding and decrease prejudice and stereotyping:
“Another steamroller social issue was bearing down on us then, though: the homosexual attack on marriage, family, and sexual morality.”
The victim trope does not increase understanding; it stifles it with the raw emotion produced by an appeal to tribalism.
September 1st, 2010 | 5:30 pm | #42
John,
You’ve shifted from the helpful phase to the painfully obvious. I know I’m not Jesus. He did tell us to follow his example, didn’t he? There are dichotomies in the world, as he so clearly taught, and to try to avoid them would be to follow a lie and to fail to follow Jesus.
Here’s a nice self-refuting observation on your part: “it stifles it with the raw emotion produced by an appeal to tribalism.” I notice how carefully you avoided the use of stifling words loaded with raw emotion.
The current post was an appeal to understanding of Islam. The homosexual attack on marriage, family, and sexual morality I do not need to explain; for what it is, quite plainly, is an attack on marriage, family, and sexual morality.
You don’t have to agree.
I could defend that statement, but here are three other principles I observe in Jesus’ example:
One, he did not explain every detail of his teaching every single time he spoke. I’ve covered that topic in the past, and I don’t accept the requirement to cover it in full detail every time I mention it in passing.
Two, he tailored his message to his audience. He spoke one way to the Pharisees, another way to the disciples, another way to the women he knew, and another way to inquirers. This message is on an evangelical blog, and sometimes we evangelicals say things to our evangelical audience according to what we expect will be evangelicals’ shared understanding.
Three, he didn’t expect everyone to agree with him, and there came a time when he said (paraphrased), “If you’re not going to interact and discuss in good faith and honesty, then ‘neither will I tell you’ the answer to the question you’ve asked”. John, because of interactions we’ve had on my Thinking Christian blog, wherein you took a manifestly unreasonable and rude stance toward me, I’m not going to wait very long here to reach the stage where I consider the conversation to have reached its ending point.
Thank you again for stimulating me to a good time with the Lord this morning. You need not consider it your duty to remind me that I am not He. If you’re going to complain about someone’s appeal to emotion, think twice before doing it with such loaded language in the future; hypocrisy does not become you.
September 1st, 2010 | 6:41 pm | #43
Tom, do you really take your behavior here to be Christ-like?
Even if your understanding of Christ is a bit blurred, you should at least recognize this: being defensive and hostile doesn’t really complement your “call to increased understanding.” But this should also, I suspect, be painfully obvious.
September 1st, 2010 | 7:47 pm | #44
That’s a far too familiar theme of yours here, C. Ehrlich. My answer is in 1st Corinthians 4:1-5.
September 1st, 2010 | 8:00 pm | #45
On further reflection: It’s not just a familiar theme, it’s also an illicit and unimpressive baiting game you’re playing. Or trying to play. I quit letting it bother me a long time ago. I mean, it’s a gnat, it’s kind of annoying in that way, but there’s nothing more to it than that. I thought I’d let you know so you could feel free to let go of it.
September 1st, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #46
Tom, you are consistent in one thing: you are reading too much into my criticisms while yet failing to actually consider them.
September 1st, 2010 | 9:23 pm | #47
Oh, I’ve considered them, C. Ehrlich. See above.
September 1st, 2010 | 11:43 pm | #48
Tom, do you deny that you’ve been hostile and defensive in this thread, or do you defend this behavior?
Insofar as you’ve raised the question of what is “drastically wrong with [your] communication,” you should really address this issue. In all seriousness (your habit of reading into my comments your own suspicions compels me to add this), if you would come to terms with this issue, I really believe it would clear the path for much richer dialogue about your posts.
September 2nd, 2010 | 6:03 am | #49
You already have my answer, C. Ehrlich.
September 2nd, 2010 | 7:27 am | #50
Islam in America: Are we ready?
Another aspect of getting “ready” that I have long found weird has now been captured by First Thoughts editor R.R. Reno in his post Beating Up On the Left.
He quotes an atheist undergrad student, Alex Knepper, who writes in an essay, “The Roots of the Left’s Love Affair with Islam”:
“A consistent rationalist has no home on the modern left, because the left has no particular problem with religion. Its problem is with Christian Republicans. The left doesn’t love Darwin, for example; it just hates Palin. It doesn’t love reason, it hates conservative Christianity. With the left, we are dealing with a political ideology that is completely defined by what it hates. And what it hates is anything at all that stands in support of traditional Western values—whether they are Judeo-Christian religious ones or Greco-Roman pagan ones.”
Reno then goes on to write: “He[Knepper] goes on to argue that, even though conservative in every relevant respect, Islam gets a free pass because its anti-Western. Islam “sticks it to the man,” and therefore becomes an ally of the transgressive Left.”
So in regards to one aspect of Tom Gilson’s question of “Islam in America: Are We Ready?” we have to also ask:
Are we ready to understand how the American Liberal Left views Islam as their ally?
I think I am. As Knepper wrote: “With the left, we are dealing with a political ideology that is completely defined by what it hates.
Result: I tolerate Islam’s hatred for me since I am an infidel. And I also tolerate the Liberal Left’s hatred for me since I am a conservative Christian.
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:07 pm | #51
Tom,
It looks like you haven’t in fact answered this question. So, although you think you have dealt with these issues, you’ve actually just dismissed them, reading into them your own suspicions. Again, it’s consistent.
Here’s to the goal of increased understanding.
September 2nd, 2010 | 6:40 pm | #52
C. Ehrlich and I disagree on this. Other visitors are invited to read the thread and form their own conclusions.
September 2nd, 2010 | 8:07 pm | #53
Tom, at least one other visitor has come to a similar conclusion as I have about your behavior. But the problem isn’t really what others think (and your concern about your public image may actually be hindering you from facing this issue honestly).
Do you have someone who you would listen to, and who would be willing to give you an honest and critical appraisal of your behavior? If you do, I suggest asking that person–in private–to read this thread. And, although I do think certain concessions on your part would only be helpful, I’d advise you not to concern yourself with your public image at this point.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact