Christianity Today, known affectionately to me as the virtual forum where emergent and fundamentalist Christians meet to throw stones, recently published an article titled, Love Your Muslim as Yourself. This article was common-sensical enough, suggesting that we would do well to learn more about our Muslim neighbors. What I found fascinating was not so much the article itself, but rather- the heated back and forth dialog that ensued. If ever there was a close-to-live demonstration of what postmodernists understand as mankind’s inevitably subjective reading of objective evidence, it was demonstrated in this feedback section.
What appeared before me on my pixel-laden flat-screen was a lesson in fractured community. Some people were incensed by the article; accusing Christianity Today of going the way of the liberal media; others were encouraged by the open-hearted approach towards Muslims that the author advocated; still others suggested that the author was playing religious games rather than calling evil for what it is. One person really went over the top, claiming that he knew for a fact that: “Allah is Satan,” and that, “You can love them (Muslims) and then go to war and kill them if necessary...” Apparently, “Jesus is coming back as in Zechariah 14 and killing the 200 million Islamic army.” Who knew?
To me, Jesus came into our world to offer much more than “the best of religion”. In fact, in many ways, I think the coming of Jesus was actually the death of all religion. I believe more needs to be said about a life in Christ being about people freed of religious, ethnic, sectarian bonds. Posturing as if Muslims are simply demonic- across the board- is not only inaccurate, but also furthers a stereotyping trend that I believe Jesus came to deliver us from.
One of the most imaginative, and dare I say “inspired”, conceptions of how Muslims might fit into the Kingdom of God, is postulated by C.S. Lewis in The Last Battle, the last of the Narnia Chronicles. As you might remember, Lewis effectively suggests that those who worship God (by any name - in this case a god named, Tash, representing Allah) were received by Aslan (representing Jesus), as if they were worshipping him- when they were worshipping God in spirit and truth, to the best of their ability.
To me it seems ridiculously simple-minded and naive to suggest than Allah (which is simply the Arabic word for God) is Satan. That is not to say that the concepts of Allah and Yahweh are entirely equal either. But again, “spirit and truth” seem to be essential ingredients in the right worship of the Creator of the Universe. We must remember that God receives us- as we are, regardless of our particular religious-cultural milieu. In this life, we all “see through a glass darkly”, even if some more so than others.
Still, regardless of how we might conceive of God-fearing Muslims playing into the next world, there still exists the issue of how to deal with Islam in the here and now.
Central to “the question of Islam” is whether or not the normative understanding of the Faith should be as a religion of peace, or contrarily- as a religion of aggression. Interestingly enough, scholars familiar with the Koran (from which Muslim identity is derived) will tell you that the issue is not clear cut. There is much room left to interpretation. And that explains why we see such variety in Islamic approaches to other faiths.
Some believe the Koran prescribes, at least by implication, the concept of Holy War; others think it does no such thing. Interestingly, these variations in interpretation are not so different from the variety of self-understanding we see evident amongst Christians. It seems that the same issues are at play: subjective human beings will read into Scripture- period. That’s true regardless of whether you subscribe to the teachings of the Bible, or the Koran. Dare I mention the Crusades here?
That still leaves us with the question of how to deal with Islam, today. And on this issue, perhaps the Christianity Today article could have better distinguished the political and spiritual aspects of the debate. Now, don’t get me wrong. Normally, I get very nervous when people suggest we should keep faith and politics separate; after all, one is really an extension of the other. However, in this instance, the question of what our U.S. national response, versus what our personal response as Christians, and collectively as the Church, should be, are not exactly the same things.
From a practical point of view, the question of how to deal with Islam (at least in its radicalized form) is not a simple one. However, there is no doubt in my mind that 1960’s inspired love-ins alone will not adequately deal with what is a very real threat. I think some people believe that simply smiling widely and speaking softly will win over the hearts of those who would call themselves our enemies. For the most part, this belief is a Hollywood-inspired myth. While it at first appears “sensitive”, it’s actually highly “western-centric”; failing to take into account very real cultural differences.
I recently heard it said that, to the radical Muslim, a sign that reads “We Want Peace” might be interpreted to mean something like, “We Will Not Fight Gloriously. We Will Roll Over and Die When You Attack Us”. As much as this offends our sensibilities, I think we have to face the fact that this cultural translation might be more accurate than we’d like to believe. Such “peaceful” slogans may actually embolden those that would call themselves our enemies. These are the cultural nuances America's political leaders (charged with governing and protecting all of the peoples, faiths and creeds of the nation) need to pay attention to in practicing real-politic in the 21st century.
However, in my mind, this lesson in real-politic does not change the response required from those of us who would call ourselves disciples of Jesus. While there are some things that the Bible is unclear about (despite all ranting to the contrary), on this issue, Jesus offers what amounts to a blanket statement. He says: "You have heard that is was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven.” Matthew 5:43-45.
Despite the fact that many might suggest that such a response is unreasonable (for some of the very reasons I describe above), I don’t think we can weasel our way out of Jesus’ admonition here. Nowhere does he mention, or even hint towards, this command being “seasoned” by the complexity of the situation, on the ground. Danger itself- be it real and present, or not so much, creates no exception to the rule. By its very definition, an enemy will always pose a threat. And yet, Jesus calls us to love and pray for them.
Clearly, this is no easy teaching. But perhaps, beneath its sheer superficial impracticality, lies the genius that is the hope for all the world.
Because I do not subscribe to the myth of Christian America, I can (with some difficulty) separate the interests of the nation, from the interests of the Bride of Christ. From a Christian perspective, the issue is rather clear-cut. From a political perspective, not nearly so; especially when you consider the many faces of Islam.
However, lest we get too pompous here, I think we need to remember the theology brawl that was evidenced in the feedback section of the Christianity Today article I mentioned earlier. Such behavior suggests that we Christians have a long way to go in offering our own version of a united front. Isn’t it ironic that we lament the difficult task of defining Islam, when we ourselves often represent something close to a religion with a multiple personality disorder?
Another of Jesus’ comments about a plank and a speck comes to mind here.
