Below is an exchange I am having with a close friend of mine. I'll be sure to add his responses to this post as they come. I think it may be of interest to many who wrestle with issues of faithfulness to the the way of Christ in our post-9/11 world.
Friend:
Alright... I've been pondering this for some time and can't quite sort it out. I'd lik
e your take on
it so I can gauge if I'm sliding in the wrong direction... :-P (thought I'd start it off with a quick jab). What do you believe a western hemisphere Christian's response should be to Islam's rapidly expanding Jihad (violence and/or politically) that seeks to ultimately establish their Sharia law as universal as Mohamed prophesied and commanded?
My response:
That's a fair question, friend! And it certainly deserves to be taken seriously. I'll give some initial thoughts and then be eager to hear your response. (Let's hope this can be a respectful dialog rather than what some of our former facebook exchanges have been like... and I'm not just blaming you there). First, I need to say that I don't think you'll find my answers very satisfactory because we have some radically different theological assumptions and biblical interpretations, but I'll at least be honest to answer from my own perspective -- which is all I can do.
I would start by questioning how really serious the threat you mentioned actually is. I know that there are some Islamic radicals who hold the views you describe, but I think they are a very small minority. The vast majority of the Muslim world does not read the Qur'an in the way that Osama bin Laden, et al. do. I think there is a lot of fear-mongering out there in the media that points to the most radical opinions on earth and then claims them to be more widespread than they actually are. Look at a nation like Turkey -- an almost completely Islamic nation, but I think you'll find radical attitudes about Sharia law very rare throughout that entire nation. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving people and that violent jihad is only one interpretation that a few radicals cling to. Of course, you could dispute this, but I think the very fact that there are nearly a billion Muslims in our world set next to the relatively few acts of terrorism perpetrated by those billion people indicates that terrorism in the the name of jihad is the position of an extreme minority. Most Muslim scholars insist that Islam is a religion that values peace... and I agree.
But with that aside, I do think we need to be concerned about that small minority that see it as their religious duty to kill the infidels. (You could point to recent Irish history in which Protestants and Catholics had the same views for one another, by the way. So Christians are not immune to this disease of hatred.) In one sense, I think that the nation-state will do what the nation-state will do. It will spend enormous amounts of money in order to protect us, it will fight its preemptive wars, it will do its wire taps... and there isn't a whole lot I can do about all of that as an individual person. So in a sense I think my opinion about how the government should act is something of a moot point.
In my own worldview, however, I believe that at the very center of all of creation is a bleeding, suffering Lamb. The fabric of the universe --real reality -- is disclosed in the cross and the non-violence that the cross reveals about the heart of God. Think about this. The first three hundred years of Christianity were lived under the thumb of an oppressive, pagan empire that demanded worship of false gods. Christians in those centuries saw it as their duty to primarily remain faithful witnesses (the Greek is "martyrios" from which we get "martyr") in the face of empire. They did not see their job to be to seize governmental power, infiltrate the senate, and legislate policies that would direct Rome into a "Christian nation." That would have been unthinkable and, even if it were possible, many would have said that it shouldn't be done in the first place. Instead, they believed their role was to live out the radical, non-violent love of Jesus even at the cost of their very lives. And by doing so they bore witness to the Lamb Who Was Slain. They stood apart from the empire precisely in the fact that they refused to take up the sword even when their lives were threatened. To participate in the violence of the world would be to deny the gospel itself -- or so Christians thought in those days.
Now suppose (worst case scenario and all of the fear-mongers' predictions come true) that radical Muslims conquer America and force us to abide by Sharia Law (although I can't see that happening anytime soon). What would my response be? Of course, I would lament the removal of my political freedoms. But it would not change my faithfulness to the way of Jesus in the least. I would see my life as a recapitulation of those Christians in the first centuries of our faith. I might be persecuted, I might die, but it would be an opportunity to show my oppressors the radical love of Jesus that refuses to return violence with violence. And that, in light of eternity, is completely worth it. And talk about being an evangelical witness! Such a response would certainly strike the hearts of many Muslims!
In other words, the nations will war with one another. Empires will come and go. America may or may not remain the power over me for the remainder of my life... but my responsibility to walk in the pattern of Jesus, to turn the other cheek, to put away my sword, to not take revenge but instead leave room for God's wrath, to suffer alongside the suffering Lamb -- will all remain the same.
I realize this view is a very radical answer and might seem way "out of the box" in light of current political debates and theories. But, in my own interpretation, it is more faithful to Scripture than engaging in the games of the powers and principalities of this dark world. I think when Constantine established the Holy Roman Empire in 313 AD, the purity of the church was deeply wounded. We're still living with his decision to wed worldly military power with the Christian faith. I reject that marriage as an impure version of The Way. And for a far more articulate manifesto on what I've just stated, I would refer you to John Howard Yoder's radical book "The Politics of Jesus" or some secondary sources on his thought.
In short, I'm not going to loose any sleep over those few Islamic fanatics out there. Not because they don't pose a threat, but because the way I will choose to live under the guidance of the gospel will not change even if they DO threaten my way of life.
I hope that makes a little bit of sense to you. I think the fundamental questions that we need to be asking are, "What is the gospel? What implications does it have on my relationship to the political world? Could the current Constantinian wedding of state power and faith be harmful? And do I really believe that perfect love drives out all fear?"
I'll be delighted to hear your response and am certainly open to your disagreements. I promise to consider your opinions seriously if you do the same for me.
Grace and Peace,
Greg
