I (all about me) will be in Chattanooga this week to speak at the University of Tennessee in the LeRoy Martin Distinguished Lecturer Series. I will be drawing on recent reflections about Islam and Turkey to consider the assets and liabilities of Christian political engagement in the United States. Here is the description from the Philosophy and Religion Department, which is hosting the event:
D.G. Hart’s comparison of Political Islam to Christian activists in the United States is a provocative and even inflammatory juxtaposition. Aside from obvious and significant differences between political activism and the use of violence, conservative Muslims and evangelical Protestants do register significant objections to secular understandings of society and the state. They also seek to have secular governments recognize, if not implement, the morality taught in sacred texts. In sum, both groups are raising important questions about the secular politics and whether efforts to bracket religion actually end up imposing a secular version of morality on citizens. And yet, some political observers in the United States do not find the Religious Right to be as threatening as political Islam. On the other hand, other commentators see no difference because all politically motivated religious groups are at odds with the norms of liberal democracy. These considerations raise important questions about whether Christianity is more compatible than Islam with liberal democratic societies, and whether secular constructions of public life owe their existence the developments of Christianity in the West. D. G. Hart will explore these questions in the light of his recent book From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism (Eerdmans, 2011).
The event is scheduled for Thursday, September 27, 2012, Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 5:00 pm in the University Center’s Raccoon Mountain Room (269). The public is welcome. Rotten tomatoes are not.
61 Comments
Darryl,
As it regards the West, from what little I understand, it’s a matter of procuring the success of the west as developments ‘stolen’ from them(Turks) and they are simply in need of reclaiming what was originally theirs. IOW, the west is successful because they took our ideas and so our ‘westernizing’ is really just taking back our inheritance. The Islamists on the otherhand simply lie about harkening back while actually trying to rapidly modernize their nations.(Iran-Nuclear ambitions etc.)
Darryl,
Good thoughts. Let’s continue with your Saul thoughts.
“not to mention the failure of the Israelites more generally, to purge the land of the pagans.”
Good lord, they (we) can’t keep their own children in line and can’t stop sleeping with their neighbors. Holy War??!! We’re getting ahead of ourselves, I imagine. David can’t purge the land of pagans (or maybe he can), but he sure as hell can take out a faithful soldier (Uriah) when nookie is on the line. When it comes to holy war, crushing the unbelievers, etc., and being personally holy (somewhere there in Leviticus), well, think globally, act locally, I guess (“For obeying is better than sacrifice”). Baby steps, Darryl, baby steps.
Darryl, of course Mike’s article isn’t meant to be a comprehensive history. Yet he does makes some points about Islam that can be missed in the comparison – contrast department with Christianity. In the West we, more or less, see religion as something separate from government. Of course, it wasn’t always seen that way. But that was due to a misreading of the Christian religion, rather than consistent with it. And granted, various Christian advocacy groups today look to use and influence government to create or maintain a so-called Christian society. That’s grown over the last 30 years mainly due to a growing secularization. But that very growing secularization is evidence of the basic 2K understanding in the West or it would never have been allowed.
When the West looks at Islam it uses that western-religion lens. But Islam teaches that the spiritual is the temporal. Theologically, the Islamic religion knows no religion that is not the embodiment of the state with all its power and functions. They are one. Of course, it has been practiced in different ways, some moderate, some not. But that basic template directs the faithful in a direction that explicitly owns the sword to establish and enforce Islam. I was about to say “civil” sword. But that would be incorrect. There is no civil, it is all religion… it’s all Islam.
This distinction is really my only point. And it doesn’t mean that there haven’t been, and aren’t, more moderate strains of Islam here and there. But those strains are viewed by theological Muslims in a similar way that the OPC would view the World Council of Churches, i.e. a “Rodney King” aberration from the true religion. I hope the Rodney Kings of Islam can catch some old-time revivalism and grow. But it doesn’t help the moderates if the west misconstrues Islam.
Jack, I hear you. My main point is that I’m not sure I’d use “theological Muslim” the way you do. I don’t know which version of Islam is the theological one. I do think it is distinct from political Islam, though.
I agree that when Christians attempt to act as God’s agents in holy war, it has confused the spiritual and the temporal. Richard Gamble’s book shows how Americans (most of whom profess to be Christians) have confused the American nation with a church.
It is inconsistent with the new covenant law of Christ for citizens of the kingdom of heaven to kill for the sake of another kingdom. Those being killed might not even know they are being killed for “secular” (not “holy”) reasons.
We don’t drown you for your views on baptism but rather for your political sedition in sharing those views publicly and acting on them. I agree that the traditional praxis is not inherent in being Christian.
We don’t kill your for being Muslim. We kill you before you can kill us, because you would kill us simply because we are Christians. There is no other reason you could possibly have for killing us except that we are not Muslims.
More than one point I have in there. Take the one you like.
Psalm 58:6 O God, break the teeth in their mouths;
tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord!
7 Let them vanish like water that runs away;
when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted.
8 Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime,
like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.
9 Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns,
whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!
10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 Mankind will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
surely there is a God who judges on earth.”
Darryl, I think that would a fruitful line of research to pursue, i.e. to what degree are the theological (orthodox?) and the political on the same page? If we mean the political to be the state and its mandated spread throughout the world, I think there may be a closer correlation with that and orthodox Islam than most westerners believe.
Some of the most “orthodox on the gospel” folks I know are also the same folks who read Chronicles (if my people) as if it were talking about a covenant of works with America. And some of the folks who agree with me that Muslims don’t care if they are being killed for Christian reasons or secular ones, well, these folks have no clue about what the gospel is.
That is not only a disappointment to me, but a puzzle. People who have the same gospel have different politics, and people who have the same politics have different gospels. And I ask myself, how can they know so much about the grace of God and think the way they do about their enemies? And they ask themselves about me, how can he be so “conservative” when it comes to gospel doctrine, and still not see the right of America to do whatever it takes to protect Israel from the Muslims?
I could say there are different kinds of “conservative”. Neo-cons who want their version of ” economic liberalism” are not the same as Luther and Calvin when it comes to politics. But what I usually say is this–you can believe the gospel without wanting to “conserve” that which has come about with the passing of time..
Psalm 109 Be not silent, O God of my praise!
2 For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me,
speaking against me with lying tongues.
3 They encircle me with words of hate,
and attack me without cause.
4 In return for my love they accuse me,
but I give myself to prayer.
5 So they reward me evil for good,
and hatred for my love.
6 Appoint a wicked man against him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.
7 When he is tried, let him come forth guilty;
let his prayer be counted as sin!
8 May his days be few;
may another take his office!
9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow!
10 May his children wander about and beg,
seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!
11 May the creditor seize all that he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!
12 Let there be none to extend kindness to him,
nor any to pity his fatherless children!
13 May his posterity be cut off;
may his name be blotted out in the second generation!
14 May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out!
15 Let them be before the Lord continually,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth!
16 For he did not remember to show kindness,
but pursued the poor and needy
and the brokenhearted, to put them to death.
17 He loved to curse; let curses come upon him!
He did not delight in blessing; may blessing be far from him!
18 He clothed himself with cursing as his coat;
may curses soak into his body like water,
like oil into his bones!
mark: That is not only a disappointment to me, but a puzzle. People who have the same gospel have different politics, and people who have the same politics have different gospels. And I ask myself, how can they know so much about the grace of God and think the way they do about their enemies? And they ask themselves about me, how can he be so “conservative” when it comes to gospel doctrine, and still not see the right of America to do whatever it takes to protect Israel from the Muslims?
me: Maybe because what it means to be a Christian is simply to be a sinner who believes in Christ for salvation and nothing more. Sinners have all kinds of sins and wrong beliefs regarding life in this world. Some fit your political, economic, and social worldview. Some don’t. Some have consistent approaches to those categories. Most probably don’t. That would tell me that their worldviews aren’t necessarily anchored in their common faith. And if they think their worldview logically flows from the gospel faith once delivered, then maybe those sinners are coming to conclusions about Christ’s work beyond what is intended, i.e. their salvation.
The apostle Paul summed it up well: It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Tim. 1:15-17)
cheers…
Amen, Jack, to the need for patience with each other. I don’t think it’s a bad “individualism” to agree that those who believe the same gospel have liberty on other matters of conscience.
Romans 14: 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.
Romans 12: 3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members,and the members do not all have the same function,
16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I woke up this morning with this thought. Somewhere in the world today a Muslim is reading Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, and using it as a model for his own book—Muslims and Liberals Who Don’t Kill Christians. One of the reasons I like Machen so much is the way that he simply ignored and dismissed the Constantinian past (both Reformd and Catholic). Machen was so libertarian in his politics (non-Constantinian) that he should be viewed as himself a “liberal” by Reformed folks on the theonomy end of the spectrum. Theonomists only look foolish when they try to claim Machen as one of them.
But to get back to Jack’s point. This imaginary Muslim using Machen’s book as a model will assume Constantinianism as inherent in not being liberal. Machen does not assume that Constantinianism is inherent in Christianity.
Of course Jack probably still likes the way he said this better! And somewhere in the world a Muslim is reading Van Til and becoming way more epistemologically self-conscious. And that Muslim is writing a little essay with the title–Why I Believe in the God who Wants all Christians Dead.
Anabaptists are not social gospel liberals. Or to say it in reverse, social gospel liberals (Jim Wallis, Richard Hays) are not anabaptists. Anabaptists are not doing church as a model for how non-Christians are supposed to do the world.
Those who think that the usa is an exceptional “covenant of works” with God (and this is a larger group of people than only the theonomists) tend to be somewhat double-minded on who “the people” are in the “if my people” thing. On the one hand, they seem to say, if we Christians get our act together, then that will trickledown in blessing to our beloved nation-state. On the other hand, they also seem to be saying, if our nation-state gets its act together (by voting for the right person), then God will reward us again for being better than the rest. In either case, these folks are worried about what’s going to happen to those in the same territory. Anabaptists are not.
mcMark, unbelievably prescient since last night I compared Machen to Ataturk (favorably, and their dates almost coincide 1881-1937 and 1880-1938).