Something Healthy in Denmark
Srdja Trifkovic explains why western submission to fundamentalist Islamic sensibilities in response to the Cartoon Jihad is not only a surrender, but also a distraction:
While Danish artists have every right to draw and publish cartoons that mock Muhammad, and while various bien-pensants, busybodies and jihad’s fellow-travelers who suggest otherwise deserve our studied contempt, the entire debate is based on flawed assumptions.
The real problem is this: a figure as disturbing as the founder of Islam should not be gently made fun of, at least not until his remarkable career has been given a vigorous public treatment in the Western world.
The trouble with those cartoons is not at all that they offend fervent Muslims—that sort are offended by our very existence—but that by their placid humor they humanize a man with a hugely problematic legacy, and thereby offended the memory of untold millions of victims of Jihad through the ages.
Ahmed Akkari, spokesman of the Muslim organizations in Denmark, said that Muslims all over the world want the “truth†about their prophet to become known to the rest of the world. “We want respect for Muhammad restored and we want him to be described as the man he really was in history,†he declared.
In the spirit of multicultural tolerance and interfaith dialogue we willingly take the challenge. We’ll briefly examine Muhammad as “he really was in history,†relying exclusively on the orthodox Islamic sources: the Kuran and the hadith, or recorded “traditions†about the prophet. Those sources provide an account of uncertain historical accuracy, but that account is regarded as true by all true Muslims and it provides the scriptural basis for the Muslim faith and the Islamic law.
Trifkovic then goes on to a detailed exposition of the life and actions of “the prophet,” including among other things (1) his murder of a poetess who had mocked him, slain while nursing her baby; (2) his murder of other critics who dared cross him; (3) his attack on a Jewish tribe and the orgy of rape he and his followers imposed afterward; and (4) his “marriage” to a seven year-old girl, which he “consummated” when she was nine. This is just a sample. Check out the article for all the details.
If these things are true, then this so-called prophet deserves much harsher mockery than he has received. The question is whether we allow bullying and intimidation to prevent us from discussing these things, because the truth may actually cause more offense than the satire.
Solidariteit!
BACKGROUND: Heaven Will Direct It
related articles
- The War Within (July 1st, 2007)
- Five Years Later: Americans Trapped in Saudi Arabia (June 27th, 2007)
- Anti-immigrant Immigrant? (June 13th, 2007)
- WorldNetDaily: Elrod v. Thompson (June 11th, 2007)
- The Price of GOP Control (October 27th, 2006)
February 15th, 2006 at 10:15 am
And a champion arises from Denmark? Wow! May such champions arise elsewhere and speak the truth — in love, yes, but the truth nonetheless.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Extremist writes, “If these things are true, then the “prophet†deserves much harsher mockery than he has received.”
You call yourself a Christian? I am not saying you need to endorse the Muslim religion or never state why you believe in Jesus Christ as opposed to Mohamad, but is this how you love your enemy — by treating him even harsher?
When you and I were enemies with God, is that how God treated us?
Or is this your political sphere of life that is separated from your faith?
I always knew Jesus said “do unto others as they have done to you.”
February 15th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Why do so many “Evangelical Christians” fail to get it?
Jesus and his first follower did not triumph in victory by fighting with worldly wisdom and values. THey did not conquer a Greco-Roman world by “one-upping” there enemies. They ONLY made a mockery of their enemies by the cross. They only became victorious through a willingness to suffer and die with Christ rather than seeking their own vengence and justice.
Too many Evangelical Christians simply think we will over come those who oppose the Christian way of life by winning a war of words, propaganda, and military action. This only reveals that we too believe the cross of Jesus is nothing but foolish wisdom, of which we are to enlightened to actually believe in.
February 16th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
For a fine example of tangible extending grace rather than seeking vengence and revenge, see my post:
http://rexeffect.blogspot.com/2006/02/mandisaa-grace.html
February 16th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Rex said: “And you call yourself a Christian?”
Yes, Rex, I suspect Extremist does call himself that, and with good reason. You see where one stands on the issue of pacifism versus just war is not the sine qua non of Christian faith–although it appears to me that you and many others always try to frame things that way.
The fact is there have been many Christians–some with some pretty big names that you would probably recognize–who felt that “harsh” treatment even to the point of violence is compatible with Christian faith if such measures are necessary to contain various forms of tyranny such as the murder and rape of innocents.
For a fine example of such thinking, consider this post. BTW, I agree that Mandisa’s example is exactly the type of grace that Jesus would have us practice in our daily personal interactions as we face the inevitable slights and insults which come our way. But it is the epitome of naivete to think that a secular nation state can be expected to “turn the other cheek” when faced with threats to its own citizens or allies. In the same way, it would be foolish to believe that the Memphis police should stand idly by and allow violent crime to go unchecked, all in the name of “following Jesus’ example.”
February 16th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Again, we have another fine example of the way of Jesus and the cross having a ceiling put on it. Where in the Bible do you see that Jesus asked us to follow him only in our personal lives? Nowhere, that is what our Government wants you to believe — and it is wrong. Jesus bids you to call him Lord over everything and in everything, surrendering your entire life at the cross.
I never said that pacifism vs. just war was a testimony of true Christianity. But when someone is unwilling to love their enemies, maybe it does then question how much of a Christian we are — or — at least it exposes a serious flaw in out Christianity. How and the world does any Christian seriosly justifiy from a Christian / biblical standpoint the support of do unto their enemies what their enemies have done to them?
And don’t worry, Mike or anyone else, I am not trying to condemn anyone because I certainly have my own flaws in my attempt to follow Jesus.
February 16th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Extremist said, “If these things are true, then this so-called prophet deserves MUCH HARSHER MOCKERY than he has received. The question is whether we allow bullying and intimidation to prevent us from discussing these things, because the truth may actually cause more offense than the satire” (Highlights mine).
I am saying that to advocate the returning of harsher treatment to someone else because of what they have done is not Christ like. There is no way to justify this from a Christian standpoint.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Rex said: “I never said that pacifism vs. just war was a testimony of true Christianity. But when someone is unwilling to love their enemies, maybe it does then question how much of a Christian we are — or — at least it exposes a serious flaw in out Christianity.”
Rex, I guess it comes down to what exactly we mean by the word “love,” and who exactly are the “enemies” that Jesus is talking about, eh?
Again, there are many Christians who feel that “harsher treatment” as you call it is very much justified in certain situations and that such notions are not merely mental gymnastics but actually grounded in scripture and natural law. I would encourage you to read the article which I linked. I doubt that reading it will change your mind, but perhaps it will expose you to some well-articulated argument for the use of force by a Christian. Even if you don’t agree with it, you are in school after all and should be in the habit of considering all points of view on a given subject.
Jesus denounced evil rather strongly when he encountered it and I believe that he would have much to say about Muhammad’s track record of murder and rape–some of it might even be downright “harsh.”
Shalom.
February 17th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Fascinating. Thanks for shining the light on these matters.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
My dear Rex,
You asked, “When you and I were enemies with God, is that how God treated us?”
How did God treat us? What does Scripture, for example, tell us how God shall treat His enemies? I, for one, remember living in fear, fear of punishment, wrath, discipline. In fact, love does discipline, does it not? Does love ever chide with words? Does it ever rebuke, stiffly, when a child is in danger, when a child is reckless? Similarly, is it ever wrong to strike a child, or a loved one for that matter? Would Jesus countenance a parent striking her daughter or not; was it wrong for my father to strike my drunken sister as she slugged my cancer-wracked mother, knocking my mother out? Or would it have been loving for my father to let my sister knock him out, too? Is the cross powerless for me if I sin (killing the madman about to kill my neighbor) in order to save that very madman from killing my neighbor? Is my act not a sacrifice, namely, a sacrifice of my own righteousness (do I really have any?) for the sake of the man intent on murdering someone else? Is it wrong for me to harm someone to prevent them from harming themselves AND the fifty people sitting quietly on the subway? Is love ever found in a clench fist? (I think so.)
After working a miracle for the Centurion, Jesus does not tell him to lay down his sword; after escaping jail, Paul does not tell the baptized jailor to stop shackling people. For Christians, the sword is always a last resort; for its enemies, the sword is the first resort. Love gets furiously defensive, I believe, or else it is not love; and love in a fallen world is often confused with violence when it is in fact merely healing in a violent way. For if we can liken the world to a sweater that has been violently turned inside out, there is only one way to heal that sweater: to violently turn the inside in. The healer is not at fault if his method causes pain; the destroyer is at fault for creating the problem in the first place.
You and I have been down this road before. I have sent links to at least two of my essays; and Mike the Eye Guy has pointed you toward a posting at American Christianity’s best journal (well, perhaps “First Things” is better). I am not cavalier about suffering, pain, injustice, death, warfare: I know these things in my bones. But I feel at peace with conflict, abhorrent as at is. You do not, apparently, and that’s OK. But no one, at least no one I know here, would suggest that your pacifism reveals immaturity in Christ. We see things differently. Is that not enough to say?
In peace,
BG
February 17th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
The issue is not about discipline or rebuke or anything else for that matter. The issue is about how we love our neighbors, even those neighbors who have declared themselves to be our enemies.
God’s discipline must be kept in the context of his grace. God’s discipline is not for the purpose of mocking us, humiliating us, or for treating us as we deserve to be treated. God’s discipline is a means of grace so that we can become the justified and sanctified people he has called us to be in Jesus Christ. Another words, discipline is an act of love. Further more, to be one who disciplines another immplies a role of spiritual authority of the discipliner over the disciplinee.
But when I read language that says our enemy deserves to be mocked because of what he or she has done, it does not register as an act of love — as a means towards showing grace. Secondly, the greatest way we could “shame and expose the falicy of those who committ injustice against us” is to suffer their evil rather than seek our own vengence. This is what made the people of the Roman Government turn in favor of the Christians. This is what made Americans embrace Martin Luther King and the cause of Civil Rights vs. the KKK (because the suffering of the Afican Americans expsed the evil of the KKK — but had the African Americans sought their own vengence, the rest of the world would probably have felt the south was justified in their accusations and persecutions of the Black man).
Nevertheless, unless I am mistaken, the comment Extremist made did not sound like a comment made out of love for his enemies and that is why I questioned it. And I maintain, just because such comments are politically or socially acceptable does not make them ethical as a Christain. As Christians we are called to be above the ethics of polotics and social culture.
This will be my last comment on this issue. Thanks.
February 17th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Thanks to everyone for the comments, but what’s all this discussion of violence?
I said that if Mohamed is guilty of the things described in Trifkovic’s article, then he deserves harsher mockery than he has received in the Danish cartoons. The issue is not the justification of violence but the justification of harsh mockery.
Rex has questioned my Christianity on the grounds that I wholeheartedly endorse mocking someone shown to be an unrepentant murderer, rapist, and abuser of children. I would add that I am doubly in favor of such mockery when that person claims to be a prophet of God and spawns a religion that tends to lead large numbers of its followers to excuse the murder of innocents as God’s will.
However, Rex has failed to explain why condemning evil through mockery is out-of-bounds. Nor has he explained why he apparently believes that evil must only be condemned in generalities and not with regard to a specific individual’s actions.
Resolved: Mockery is a justified response to violence perpetrated in the name of Islam.
I defend the affirmative position. Here is my argument:
Jesus and Paul both mocked those guilty of false teaching and hypocrisy, thus it is not inconsistent with Christianity.
Advocating the murder of innocents in the name of Islam is an evil similar to the evils mocked by Jesus and Paul, if not worse.
Therefore, it is not inconsistent with Christianity to mock those who advocate the murder of innocents in the name of Islam.
Discuss.
February 17th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Extremist said:”Thanks to everyone for the comments, but what’s all this discussion of violence?
Rex said:”Too many Evangelical Christians simply think we will over come those who oppose the Christian way of life by winning a war of words, propaganda, and military action.
I think the highlighed part of Rex’s comment is where the thread shifted from the original idea of “mocking” to outright fighting. I suppose I picked up on that and off track I went–sorry.
I have no logical retort to your syllogism. Rex?
February 17th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
No need to apologize, Mike. Your contributions are always appreciated.
Great link, by the way. At the risk of re-introducing a distraction (and worse yet, one involving everyone’s favorite, overused trump card — Hitler!), this was one of the best bits:
February 18th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Extremist said, “I would add that I am doubly in favor of such mockery when that person claims to be a prophet of God and spawns a religion that tends to lead large numbers of its followers to excuse the murder of innocents as God’s will.”
Remember that our own religion has a long line of people in history who have murdered innocent people in the name of Jesus Christ.
Well after reading the neat little syllogism by Extremist, one might think that automatically concludes the case. Right?
Wait a minute.
1) Extremist must define mocking and then show that what he considers to be mocking is tantamount to what he claims Jesus and Paul did. (I agree that Jesus and Paul spoke and taught against sin and evil, and even sometime very cadidly. But I am very skeptical of considering their teaching to be on par with mockery).
2) Even if Extremist can show that Jesus and Paul did “mock” the practices of sin/evil committed by others, he must demonstrate the historical and situational context before he can even begin to justify such action as being appropriate in the twenty-first century. (Establishing the context does not automatically justify such action in our society. It would seem strange that just because Jesus overturned the tables, we could enter a “health and wealth” church and overturn their tables).
3) Extremist must still demonstrate how the present day war or words (and violence) against Islamic people / nations is consistent with loving neighbor — even the neighbor who makes himself/herself to be an enemy. (this is something he REPEATEDLY DODGES
in answering a reply. I have maintained that loving neighbor must be interpreted in light of the cross of Jesus and how God has treated us when we were enemies with him).
4) If “mocking” a person is ever a justified action (?), Extremist must still demonstrate why it is justified in this circumstance. To demonstrate such circumstancial justification, Extremist must also demonstrate the redemptive goal of such action. (And of course while the no one has forced the Muslim world to demonstrate with violence, something which is wrong, we see the chaos brought about by the lack of exercising responsible judgment in the “freedom of the press”).
5) And just for laughs, while the murders and shedding of blood by radical Islam is certainly evil and displeasing to God. I am sure that God looks down on this “chosen, Christian” nation called the U.S. and sees our bombs which shed blood as well and feels exactly the same as he does when another Muslim executes a suicide bombing. Because the truth is, we are just a bunch of selfish, sinners as well who want to rule the world just like the people in the middle east want to. And therefore we resort to the same violent and sinful tatics as they do. (I am sure #5 will get all of you boiling).
Though we do disagree on this issue severely, God bless you as well. You and I both need his grace. May he deal with us merciful, for otherwise we are all doomed to destruction.
February 18th, 2006 at 9:38 am
(1) mock (v.)
I think it is fairly easy to fit a great many statements that Jesus and Paul made into one of those categories. In fact, I would dare say that your question to me — “And you call yourself a Christian?” — qualifies as well.
(2) If you’re suggesting that some historical circumstance has changed so that defying or challenging evil is no longer necessary, then I’m afraid you’re going to have to explain that one a little bit more.
(3) To love does not mean to always say nice things about someone no matter what evil they spew. To love is to will good toward someone — to practice the golden rule. If I were deluded by false teachings into excusing or advocating premeditated murder in the name of God, I hope that someone would speak the truth to me no matter how much it might offend me or be uncomfortable for them.
Given your aversion to violence, I would have thought you would see mocking and rhetorical or artistic opposition as a much better alternative than returning violence for violence. Thus, I’m perplexed by your assertion that the Christian thing to do is not only to lay your family’s head on the chopping block of Muslim fanaticism, but to say “please” and “thank you” as the axe falls.
You are the one who dodged Bill’s point about love and discipline:
(4) The only purpose for speaking the truth about evil is to help others avoid it. How is that not a “redemptive goal?”
(5) We’ve been here before. Why do you insist on ignoring intent? Not all bloodshed is equal. A soldier or policeman who accidentally causes the death of a civilian while trying to bring evildoers to justice is one thing. A suicide bomber who straps on a belt of explosives and heads for the nearest Starbucks to purposefully kill as many women and children as he possibly can is something totally different. I don’t believe for one second that God feels exactly the same about the soldier or policeman as He does about the suicide bomber. Deep down, I don’t think you really believe that either.
February 18th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
I will not dodge BG’s question. Where does scripture say how God treats us as his enemies? The answer is Romans 5.
When we were enemies of God because of our own wrong doing, instead of God destroying us he showed grace and mercy towards us by placing the punishment of our sin on his Son Jesus. Translate = Instead of God treating us as we deserve, God treated us kindly even though we treated him unkindly.
I believe this doctrine of grace should therefore be incorporated into our own lives (at least for those of us who believe it) in the way we treat other people. It should not be just for our personal relationships but also be for our business, public, political, social, etc… Anotherwords, there should be no limits placed on how God’s love for us shapes the way we love (i.e. treat) other peolpe.
As I have maintained in the past… If every time someone committed an act of aggression / evil against us, how would it be different if instead of putting up a physical defense (just because we can) we actually turned the cheek and said “I will love you with the love of God even if you do not want to reciprocate that love.” I think we would win our enemy over as a friend, just like God is winning his enemies over as frieds and just like the Christians living under Roman tyrany won their enemy over as friend. Sure, winning such an enemy over as friend might take a while and might not happen in our life time (oh yeah, I forgot that Americans are people who demand instant results or else) but winning them over will happen. How do I know? The cross of Jesus is the only victory in this world — of course it still remains a foolish stumbling block to most of this world, INCLUDING many Americans.
As for a difference in a suicide bomber and a police officer sworn to uphold the law. Yes, I realize there is a difference their and that is why I have never stated that I was 100% pacifistic. But I see no difference in a suicide bomber entering Starbuck in the name of Mohamad and a soldier firing a machine gun in the name of America for a war that is about American politics and not justice for all the world.
February 18th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Now Extemist, if, as Romans (and the gospel itself maintains), God demonstrates love by showing mercy rather than justice how do you see that being incorporated into your life and the way you treat others (on any level)?
February 18th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Rex said: “As I have maintained in the past… If every time someone committed an act of aggression / evil against us, how would it be different if instead of putting up a physical defense (just because we can) we actually turned the cheek and said ‘I will love you with the love of God even if you do not want to reciprocate that love.’
If you did that, you might possibly end up dead. I am well aware that physical death is not the worst of all possible conditions, but your wife and children might object to your refusal to defend yourself (or them) and view your absence as more than a mild inconvienence.
In the mid 1970s, a young minister with a freshly-minted MDiv arrived at my congregation and proceeded to teach our youth group that violence, even in self-defense, was wrong under all circumstances. As a 15-year-old Christian reared in rural Southwest Virginia, such notions struck me as patently foolish and unrealistic (and in fact, not consistent with scripture taken as a whole).
A short time later, the minister moved to Europe to become a missionary. A few year later I ran into him again. Curious, I asked him if he still held to his strict pacifism. He replied, “No,” and went on to relate how his time spent in the stark reality of Cold War Europe had convinced him that there were certain situations in which Christians could wield the sword (and presumably to speak “harshly” about specific examples of evil as well) and he seemed to have a new appreciation for Romans 13:3-5 (and, no, I’m not saying that all governments at all times are God’s agents, only that scripture does indicate that in some instances they will be).
Once removed from the safety net of academic abstraction and American rule of law, my friend arrived at a somewhat different, and I would argue more balanced, position from which he started.
BTW, I just posted on another article, Our American Babylon, which I recommend in addition to the one I linked to in my comments above.
February 18th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Mike, I appreciate your thoughts but lets not ask the question of whether Christian should ever participate in violent revolt or defense from an ad hoc (begining with our own experience) position. Lets ask the question begining with the Bible, exploring what the kingdom of God and the kingdom ethic is all about and then (and only then) apply that to our own context.
Lets also keep in mind that we would never even consider talking about violent revolt and defense if we did not have the capability to do such. I wonder how we might approach the whole issue if we were, as a nation, rendered completely helpless in terms of economy and military power and therefore actually for once in our lifetime had to rely on and wait for God’s deliverance like the early Christians had to.
Further, I would like to make a couple of comments about scripture. When we discuss the whole issue of pacifism vs. just-war and the way that a Christian should relate to the nation-states of this world, why do we always forget about the book of Revelation (which I read as an a-millenialist rather than a pre-millenialist) and specifically Revelation 14.9-12. The beast (Rome) is a nation-state which belongs to this world and the Christians are told not to worship the beast but remain faithful to Jesus (which means not to surrender any loyalty to the nation-state). I do not think it is too much of a stretch to, in an attempt to apply this passage in the contemporary, to read as the beast the nation-state which belong to the twenty-first century world (i.e. China, Suadia Arabia, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Great Britan, etc…) These are all worldly kingdoms and while they may at times adopt some principles from Christianity, for the most part they have their own agenda in mind. Further more they do not seek to serve the kingdom of God but rather thenselves. This passage should question, at best, the strong ties some Christians want to make between Americanism and Christianity.
In Romans 13.1, Paul instructs the Christians “to be subject to the governing authorities” (TNIV). Note Paul never says we should endorse or participate in the governments policies, rather we should just not revolt against the rules (so long as those rule do not make us sacrifice our faith). Now, consider the fact that those Christians had no political voice but still were bound to pay taxes. Today many conservative Evangelical Christians want to insist our Nation was founded upon Christian prinicples. However our nation was founded upon revolution from a government because we were taxed without representation. But so were the earliest Christians. So why were are nation’s founding fathers free to not be subject to the governing authorities? The answer to this question is an underlying principle of our nation’s values which is very un-Christian. That principle is that one can separate the faith convictions from their political conviction (a form of neo-platonism) and operate under one set of convictions on Sunday and another set of convictions throughout the rest of the week. This principle extends to the way Americans do business, to the way Americans approach economics, and many other spheres. This is an abhoras act of idolatry (the replacement of God and his way for someone or something else).
So why do so many Christian who live in the U.S want to defend the U.S. as if the world could not survie without the U.S. (And that is what the last two presidents have immplied throughout their presidency). The U.S., just like every other nation-state, stands in defeat at the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and will one day, either sooner or later, be brought to its knees. That is why I only want to serve the kingdom of God and be a part of the only kingdom which will stand.
February 18th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Rex,
USA as modern day Beast like that in Revelation–interesting. A beast that nourishes you and provides you the time and space to study theology to the point that you believe that your country is, well, a beast. Now that’s a paradox!
Obviously, we disagree on these matters and in all likelihood always will. I believe that you are making a theological mistake, but as the first article I linked points out, pacifism is at least an honest theological mistake.
Despite our disagreement, I certainly won’t make the uncharitable mistake of questioning your Christianity. The statement you made to Extremist–”And you call yourself a Christian?”–is certainly ironic considering the original topic of “harsh mockery.”
I do hope you take the time to read and consider the articles I linked. As I’ve said before, you owe it to yourself as a student to be exposed to well-articulated arguments which run counter to your own beliefs. Perhaps that is one of the reasons you hang out here. If so, then I commend you for it.
Pax
February 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I admitt that I should have not used the phrase “and you call yourself a Christian” in response to a view held by Extremist. While I question whether his view is consistant with being Christ like, my intention was not to question his faith conviction. This is what happens when a person writes and/or responds in a hastily fashion to someone else. Occasionally I say things I later regret and this is one instance. This is surely not the first time and, unforunately, I am sure it will not be the last. But for all the readers, especially Extremist, please accept my apology.
Mike:
I read the post you linked too and appreciate you providing it as a resource for a very important issue.
I have read presentations affirming a “Just War” position before. In fact, I used to advocate a just war tradition. I changed as my hermeneutic for approaching the Bible changed. I am providing a link to my blog where you can read about this further if you would like. See: http://rexeffect.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-i-am-pursuaded-towards-practicing.html
I would also like to point out that even if Just War is an ethical position for Christians to affirm and practice, it does not immply that every war is just. If Just War is correct, then I would suppose WWII was just. However, I have serious questions as to whether the war in Iraq is just under the rules of what constitutes a just war. First, we know there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Second, it is questionable how serious of a terrorist threat Iraq really was (even if Iraq is a terrorist threat, why are Christians worried about protecting any worldly kingdom which includes the U.S.). Third, if Iraq is a just war, why are we so selective in our justice? There at least a dozen countries where extreme oppression and injustice is experienced.
I am pretty convinced that our involvement in the middle east (which predates any Al-Quieda (sp?) terrorist attack against the U.S., foriegn or national) is more about the U.S. trying to protect American politics and America’s position as “top dog” of the world. If my suspician is correct (and anyone who studies history knows that time will reveal the truth), then this war is not about making right any injustice and oppresive acts commintted by radical Islamist and is therefore an injust war.
God’s care for people in the U.S. is no greater than his care and concern for people in India, Russia, Mexico, etc… And I think it is quite Biblical to state that God is not concerned one bit about making sure America remains secure as a political and economic power among the world. God can accomplish his purposes with or without the U.S.
February 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Rex,
Both of the articles I cited affirm some of your sentiments, e.g. that not all wars are just even if some are and that God does not “favor” the U.S over other people. Fr. Neuhaus does point out, though, that we are, in our time and place, American Christians, and that we cannot escape that identity. Well, ok, maybe that’s possible in the somewhat abstract and rarefied air of the academy, but not in the streets that I walk in every day. Fr. Neuhaus’ contention, is, I believe, that we should make the best of our pilgrim situation and I would concur. For many of us, that means participating in and attempting to be salt and light in a secular “system” (a la Daniel in Babylon) and making our stand against that system at such time it violates our ultimate allegiance to God.
I would also agree that the justness of the current war in Iraq is arguable among people of good will and faith. History, as they say, will tell the tale. In the meantime, I am not one to ride the fashionable bandwagon of second-guessing this country’s leadership over every jot and tittle of foreign policy, especially when my knowledge in such matters is relatively limited. For what it’s worth, I refrained from doing so during the Clinton Administration as well.
This statement of yours, though, gives me considerable pause: “And I think it is quite biblical to state that God is not concerned one bit about making sure America remains secure as a political and economic power among the world.”
Not concerned one bit…really? How do you know? It seems that God was quite concerned about keeping Cyrus in power long enough to do His bidding. If Cyrus, why not the U.S. (or any other nation state for that matter)? I agree that God is perfectly capable of accomplishing his purposes without the United States, but does that automatically eliminate the other possibility that he might actually use the this country to accomplish his will from time to time(see the Augustine quote at the end of Fr. Neuhaus’ article)?
To make such a statement presumes quite a bit of knowledge, perhaps even access to the mind of God Himself. I knew the professors at Harding Graduate School of Religion were good, but I didn’t know they were that
February 19th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
The rest of my post which for some reason was lost in cyberspace…
…I didn’t know they were that good!
It seems that in such matters that a little humility and agnosia might be in order.
February 19th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Allow me to augment my statement a bit.
From my understanding of God, he is not interested in preserving America as the top political and economic power — at least for the same reasons we are. God is no more concerned about American than he is with any other country or people group. With a little humor… God is not concerned with feeding our greed for feeding our fat bellys and the need to control the World remote control.
I realize that God has and may still have a purpose for the U.S. And while God can use us for his purposes in spite of the our own sins, by and large I believe God desire to use the U.S. for his purposes coinsides with whether the citizens of the U.S. are willing to submitt unto God (and I do not believe such acknowledgement/submission to God should come via legislation and political manuvering).
February 20th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Rex said…
While I sincerely appreciate the sentiment, I cannot accept your apology. To do so would be just as hypocritical as the statement for which you offered the apology.
My position is that you have nothing to apologize for. You thought my position was inconsistent with my beliefs and you used a rhetorical question with a slightly mocking tone to make that point. Big deal. I didn’t take offense or complain about it, and I’m certainly not going to start a riot. I only pointed out that it is not consistent with your own position.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. The use of mockery should not be our first or most frequent rhetorical tactic, but it should not automatically be out of bounds either. The context matters. While your use of it may or may not have been called for in this instance, it certainly would have been justified in response to someone who used religion to justify murder.
February 20th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Also Rex, I do not agree with your statement that, “God demonstrates love by showing mercy rather than justice.”
Love and justice are not incompatible. God is perfectly just and perfectly loving. The sacrifice of his son served a deeper justice while offering us mercy at the same time. Your formulation implies that allowing the guilty to escape punishment equals love, while requiring that the guilty receive punishment equals justice. I think it is more complicated and more mysterious and more glorious than that.
God’s mercy is more than just permissiveness.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I know that I have returned late to the party, but I think there is more to be said (though much of what has been said has been truly amazing).
Is the State part of God’s will? Is it essentially part of His will? Interesting questions.
My sense is this: that if the US government, for example, were evangelizing the world, distributing Bibles, planting churches, building Christian schools and colleges; if it were preaching the gospel at every turn; if it were turning its vast economic engine solely to cloth the naked, feed the hungry and elevate the poor; and if it were to dismantle its military and proclaim a diplomacy solely of peace and pacifism, brothers like Rex would be less eager to suggest that the nation-state is beastly. In fact, if American Christians were to organize themselves in the wake of the (possible) demolition of the US government, devoting their energies solely to building the Kingdom of God, such Christians would no doubt do so in a manner very similar to if not identical with the manner and machinations of a nation-state. And surely most Christians would applaud this.
Now when Jesus holds up the coin with Caesar’s image on it, what is He doing? When He declares, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s”, what does He mean? My answer is this: When Jesus asks, “Whose image is on this coin?” He is also asking, “Whose image is on you?” The answer, of course, is that the image of God is stamped on all of us; that the image of God is stamped even on Caesar. Thus, we can give to Caesar what is his, a few paltry coins; but we are really to give to God what is His, which is our very selves, and everything else, including, perhaps, even the coins.
Now, what did Paul say to His Athenian listeners about the State (in Acts 17)? He said:
God … made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; (NASV) [In the NRSV, we find: From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him.]
I believe it is clear what Paul is saying: that God determines the nations, their lifespans and even their boundaries, so that the nations would seek God. Note that Paul mentions nary a word about the Kingdom of God; note that he mentions nothing about two kingdoms. Rather, he seems to be suggesting the many kingdoms that God has appointed.
So then, we can conclude this, can we not? That Christians can indeed serve God in the State; that Christians can indeed serve God’s purposes through the State; and that the State, per God’s design, is in part created to provide boundaries within which humans may seek and know God.
Interesting, of course, is the problem of whether any state is evil. Are there states that ultimately become corrupt, or even begin corrupt? Or does Paul have a notion of state that was limited to the consolidation of Pax Romana; was he unaware of tyrants in faraway places?
Lastly, concerning our initial discussion about harsh language and gestures, let us remind ourselves of Paul’s reaction in Corinth (Acts 18):
“When they opposed and reviled him, in protest he shook the dust from his clothes and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.’” (NRSV)
If I am not mistaken, Paul’s reaction is very, VERY inhospitable; it was a severe reaction of rejection. It is not one of turning the other cheek. Of course, one could suggest that Paul was upset with himself afterwards, that he was contrite and apologetic. But that is dubious, as Jesus Himself told the Seventy to do essentially the same thing in every town that rejected them! Alas! If they do not receive you, insult them!
I am not at ease with the things I’ve raised here; perhaps I’ve even written fallaciously or have posited heresy. But my overall sense is this: that the issue of state (war, strong language, etc.) AND living the Christian life in relation to that state, is not a clearly defined one in the least.
Peace.
Gnade