Evangelical Reformation

Recently leaders of the Muslim community wrote an open letter addressed to Christians entitled “A Common Word between Us and You,” calling us to work together for the common good based on the mutually shared commitments of both communities to love of God and of neighbor. A group of Christian leaders, including some evangelicals, formulated a response that they called “Loving God and Neighbor Together.”
My purpose in this post is to express the following concerns related to this Christian response:
·    “A Common Word between Us and You” keeps referring to a line from the Koran regarding God which asserts that “He has no associates.” That sounds very much like a repudiation of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Though this term is discussed, this discussion does little to assuage concerns that this language might constitute a rejection of Christ’s deity. We must have their assurance that this is not the intent of this language before we proceed. We must insist on that as a condition for working together.
·    The “Loving God and Neighbor Together” response extends a groveling apology about the Crusades— a misguided attempt at humility. As we look over the history of Islam and Christianity, we have done substantially better than they have in conveying the love of God and neighbor. Had they begun by owning up to their shortcomings, perhaps this response might find warrant. They did not. Therefore, this apology leaves the impression that Christianity has failed in the area of love while Islam has succeeded. Though the church’s record is stained, it has done a far better job of manifesting love of God and neighbor than any other institution in history. Therefore, such an impression impugns the name of Jesus, the Lord of the church.
·    This misrepresentation of the record leads to my third objection to the Christian response. “A Common Word between Us and You,” which recounts the commitment of Islam to love of God and neighbor, fails to address the deafening silence of the Islamic community in the face of atrocities committed in the name of their religion. If they believe in love of God and neighbor, where is their condemnation of their Islamic brothers who are murdering innocent people in cold blood, and continue to do so? Where is their disassociation from them and from their behavior? Though there has been some denunciation, it has been far too weak to be meaningful. I remember the memorial service convened in Washington, DC, after 9/11, which included a Muslim cleric. I waited for any repudiation at all of the horrendous deeds that have been perpetrated in the name of Allah. None were forthcoming. Nor does this document seem to notice the continuing atrocities. To write this letter to us without first addressing that issue, and without addressing it in the letter, represents the grossest form of insincerity, especially since the bloodletting in the name of Allah continues. And what of the Muslim nations that make becoming a Christian a crime or the inequities of sharia law or the widespread preaching of hate? This unloving behavior that seems to be an integral part of the practice of Islam in much of today’s Muslim world should have been addressed in any Christian response. Where was it? What is the point of dialogue about love if they are not willing to display love of neighbor by confronting the ongoing, widespread destruction of neighbor by their fellow Muslims? The failure of the Christians responding to their letter to address this issue constitutes a betrayal by them of brothers and sisters in Christ and others who suffer mercilessly at the hands of Muslims with no significant outcry from the Muslim community or its leadership.
It is my hope that stronger evangelical leadership will rise up to provide a better response to this offer to work together extended by Islamic clerics.

The Democratic approach to winning elections has remained rather consistent across the years beginning with the New Deal. They promise to distribute your tax money in a way that will buy them the most votes. What is new about this presidential election is the extent and shamelessness to which this technique is employed. The Democratic candidates are working to outdo each other in promising handouts paid for with your money.

They are not the only ones dispersing your money. Congress and the President recently approved a plan to stimulate the economy by passing out money to selective groups of people. Financial experts almost universally agree that this free money program will not help the economy. However, it does serve to buy favor for those distributing it. It is redistribution of wealth to gain political favor.

This practice is problematic on several counts. First, at root it is dishonest. There is something essentially unethical about the government using its power to forcibly extract that which belongs to one person and give it to another. The so-called progressive income tax might be viewed as unethical for the same reason. However, the current practice of redistribution of wealth is even more egregious. It is one thing to force those who make more to pay disproportionately more in order to maintain highways and armies and make other expenditures that represent the legitimate role of government. However, it is quite another matter to take that which has been coerced from those who make more and hand it over to those whom the government deems worthy.

In addition to being unethical, this practice seems to be patently unconstitutional. Though a majority on today’s Supreme Court may not view it as such, one suspects that if the writers of that document could be resurrected, they might consigned to the stocks for robbery those implicated in this practice.

This practice is also problematic because it is destructive to our economy. It is the opposite of supply-side economics, taking wealth from those who create jobs, which leads to a decline in tax revenues, which leads to higher taxes to make up the difference, which leads to further decline in tax revenues, and so on.

Yet another problem with the redistribution of wealth for political gain is its tendency toward escalation to the point of ruination. This is evident in the Democratic primaries. We find candidates seeking to outdo each other in the amount of handouts that they promise. They have already passed totals that our economy can sustain. They are bankrupting us in order to gain office.

However, our greatest concern should not be with the problems of this practice but with its political effectiveness. The fact that it works tells us that many of the American people either can’t see the dishonesty and destructiveness of this political approach, or that they don’t care that it is dishonest and destructive.

If they can’t see its problems, we have finally become a nation too poorly educated to function as a democracy. If they don’t care, we have become a nation too perverse to function as a democracy. I would be interested in your perspective on which of these problems is making this political gimmick into an effective tool.

In our next blog our plan is to consider the cultural and spiritual roots of this problem.

Have you ever thought of what it is like to be in combat? Perhaps you have had that experience. However, most have not. Imagine what it is like to live in an area inhabited by enemy soldiers possessing the weapons, training, and intent to destroy you.

Living in that environment would alter our demeanor. We would act with greater seriousness and intensity.

This sobriety and intensity is found especially in a leader, who has responsibility for the welfare of those under him. He must maintain an attitude that gets their attention, make them aware of danger, and that motivates them to carry out orders.

“Would you mind bringing some ammunition with you, that is, if its not too much of a burden,” is going to get people killed. Running out of ammo in the middle of the battle because in was inconvenient to carry would spell disaster.

Jesus lived in a combat environment. Scripture tells us that His enemies were looking for a way to kill Him, and they would succeed. More sobering yet was the fact that Jesus had to die to win.

The battle He was fighting was not with the Jewish leaders or the Roman soldiers, both of which would participate in His death. Rather, He was engaged in a cosmic struggle with Satan and the forces of darkness for the souls of human beings.

He asserted that He was meek (Matthew 11:29), but, as previously noted, meekness is not gentleness or mildness, nor was that His demeanor. Rather, He conveyed the intensity and directness of a leader in combat.

As such, He was no Mr. Rogers. His interaction with His disciples resembled that of a Marine Corps drill sergeant. He knew that the welfare of His disciples depended on their attentiveness and obedience.

Scripture often reminds us that we are also involved in warfare. Scripture refers to us as soldiers and calls us to fight. We, too, are also dealing with matters of eternal life and death.

This being the case, living in a combat zone as we do, it would be dangerous to think that gentleness and mildness should be our normal operating mode, as many evangelicals do. Mr. Rogers cannot be our model. This demeanor does not convey the seriousness of the situation. It does not get people to stop deadly behavior. They does not motivate people to life-saving action.

For example, gentleness does not get done the job of discipleship. “I know that for the last three weeks have talked about the need for you to be in Scripture, and you have not made it yet. Don’t let that discourage you. Maybe you will get to it this week.”

How about, “Friend, do you know that the Devil is out to destroy you. You have failed to get to your Bible for two weeks, now. You had better get to it this week or you could be in real trouble. You are wondering around the battlefield without your steel helmet and your weapon. You are going to get yourself killed. Tell me what is so much more important.”

Sure, there are occasions for gentleness, and we see Jesus convey that quality at times. But most of the time He was tough, and we need to be as well if we are going to develop a mature, effective army of Christian soldiers.

Gentleness and mildness are producing spiritual wimps that are losing the battle with the world, the flesh, and the Devil. We could use an evangelical reformation that will replace gentleness with gumption.