This morning I was listening to BBC Radio 4's "Start the Week" hosted by Andrew Marr discussing national identity. One of his guests was Maajid Nawaz who used to be a leading figure within an Islamist group called Hizb ut-Tahrir. The BBC website says of him 'from Islamist extremist to champion of democracy' and describes how he became radicalised as a young man by the racism he personally faced in the UK and then by the Bosnian conflict of the 1990's.
The discussion was largely insightful and helpful but hit a sour note when Maajid was presented with a leading question about whether Islamic Extremism was a response to the rise of "Christian Evangelism" (sic). [The terms in which the question was couched betrayed a shameful ignorance of the meaning of the words employed!] Maajid concurred with the view expressed by one of the other panellists.
How convenient. So the line being presented on national radio is that Islamic Extremism is ultimately the responsibility of Christians. In this meta-narrative the secular, liberal, humanist dumps the responsibility for terrorism into the laps of an innocent community because they want to believe the illusion that no-one could possibly take issue with the virtues they feel they alone represent. The meta-narrative they want to impart to the listener is that all conflict is fuelled by "others" and if only they would conform to the secular, liberal, humanist position the world would be a happier place. It is that claim to a 'helicopter perspective' and moral superiority which jars.
By condemning the innocent with the guilty this sort of Liberalism discredits itself - it is not concerned about justice, it is more concerned about pushing a particular ideological interpretation of the world. And that ideological interpretation places a Liberal elite as the sole moral judge. The word 'liberal' is one we all aspire to; to be open, caring, generous etc are wonderful things but these virtues are not the exclusive preserve of those who parade themselves as 'Liberal'. In fact it is my contention that the Liberal is not liberal as this morning's discussion intimated. Someone who is liberal would seek to get their facts straight first, nor would they rush to judgement, nor would they issue a blanket condemnation by association. However a Liberal would, so it seems, happily do all these things.
What do people mean by 'the rise of Christian Evangelism'? If they mean 'the Christian Right' is it really fair to attribute Islamic terrorism to this? Surely an Islamist is just as likely to take offence at secular humanism and its values as to Christianity! This notion that Christian Evangelism and islamic Extremism are two sides of the same coin is a quack diagnosis clutched at by fearful individuals who desperately want a simple explanation of the world they find themselves in. Unfortunately in the process they condemn the innocent with the guilty.
Showing posts with label Clash of Civilizations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clash of Civilizations. Show all posts
Monday, July 02, 2012
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Anders Behring Brevik & Christian Fundamentalism.
Following the dreadful massacre last Friday in Norway I have been deeply disturbed by some of the media coverage. The BBC reported that Brevik was a "Christian Fundamentalist" and repeated this description several times over the course of the weekend. He was also said to "hold extreme Christian views".
So far as I can see the origin of this story line started with one Norwegian policeman describing Brevik as a "Christian Fundamentalist" and this was picked up by the media who ran with it.
One wonders why the editors embraced and reproduced this narrative so uncritically.
Following the dreadful massacre last Friday in Norway I have been deeply disturbed by some of the media coverage. The BBC reported that Brevik was a "Christian Fundamentalist" and repeated this description several times over the course of the weekend. He was also said to "hold extreme Christian views".
So far as I can see the origin of this story line started with one Norwegian policeman describing Brevik as a "Christian Fundamentalist" and this was picked up by the media who ran with it.
One wonders why the editors embraced and reproduced this narrative so uncritically.
Monday, April 11, 2011
NIALL FERGUSON, THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC AND THE RING OF TRUTH . Last night on Channel 4 we had the final part of historian Niall Ferguson's analysis of "Civilization: Is the West History?" Over the preceding weeks he has pointed to several (what he calls) 'killer apps' which enabled the West to progress in a way that other cultures could not; these included Competition, Science, Medicine and Democracy. Last night we had "the Protestant Work Ethic". I believe that Niall Ferguson is correct in saying that part of the West, that is Europe, has learnt to despise the work ethic while other cultures have embraced it. Do we live to work or work to live? I believe we live to be active and creative. Furthermore he is correct in his observations that the Chinese have more Christians than the whole of Europe! As a European Christian I think that is wonderful! Truly wonderful and a remarkable testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit despite decades of persecution the church there has prospered! Christianity can no longer be perceived as a western phenomena - and quite rightly so - because it never was! In contrast to the USA Europe has sold its share of the Christian heritage for a mess of pottage. As a Christian from Europe I can see the consequences of such a dereliction. Niall Ferguson is perceptive in parts; he alludes to a loss of faith within European society which now requires the affirmation of all beliefs, no matter how crackpot, on the basis that no belief is any better than any other. He has hit the nail on the head there. But his solution is not however a reaffirmation of Protestant Christianity but a renewal of faith in ourselves.... hmmm. The problem there is that Europe has already been engaged in an experiment of substituting faith in God for faith in humanity. At that point, you will realise, that Niall Ferguson has lost the plot of his own argument. There has never been a loss of faith in ourselves! Indeed that faith has always been humankinds fundamental problem. The reality is once one abolishes God one also abolishes Man! What do I mean by that? I will argue that the intellectual environment cultivated by Protestant Christianity (which is shorthand for genuine, biblical, apostolic Christianity) has had a number of positive consequences for society and that when we abolish God and substitute Man in his place negative consequences follow. I will follow up this train of thought in the next couple of months by looking at 'Democracy & the Rule of Law' and 'Science' as attributes of a Christian worldview under a series called 'The Ring of Truth'. But for now I will confine myself to the 'Protestant Work Ethic'. I will add one caveat; Capitalism is not the ultimate goal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! From his description I do not believe Niall Ferguson really understood the work ethic. Properly understood it is not about living driven lives under the whip hand of God. It is actually about realising that a believer can glorify God in whatever sphere of life they find themselves in. One does not have to become a priest, monk or nun in order to serve God, one can do so whatever one's circumstances if one's attitude is right. The split between the sacred and secular was broken down and different sets of spiritual and moral standards no longer applied... all are equally called. This is what was meant by the Protestant/Biblical concept of "the priesthood of all believers"; which is also a democratising influence but I'll leave that for another day! Why is it particularly a 'Protestant' work ethic? The priesthood of all believers implies a degree of activism, involvment and personal engagement which will be absent in societies which defer to a special priestly caste. I recall a commentator once saying that the difference between north and south America was that in the south the settlers came to find paradise and in the north they came to build it! That has more than a ring of truth about it. Critics of 'religion' will point out that it reduces the believer to helpless passivity. Well, there may be more than a ring of truth to that too. But I will argue that Protestant/Biblical Christianity is the exception which proves the rule. The work ethic founded on the Creation mandate of Genesis is hardly a call to inaction!
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Anjem Choudary, Wooton Bassett and a Christian Response.
Wooton Bassett is a small town in Wiltshire near the Royal Air Force base to which the bodies of fallen British servicemen are repatriated. In recent years the town has become the scene for dignified grief as many funeral corteges have passed through and the townspeople taking these sad sights to heart have turned out to pay their respects.
It is not surprising then that the planned anti-war march through Wooton Bassett by an Islamic group headed by Anjem Choudary should have caused such deep outrage among many people. It should be pointed out that in no sense could the good people of Wooton Bassett be described as pro-war; regardless of ones views about the politics of war one can still grieve for those who die serving their country.
I suppose the obvious point to make is that, never having heard of Anjem Choudary, this is simply a crass publicity stunt by an unrepresentative group who wish to gain some notoriety for themselves. Whether the march goes ahead or not the angry response has acheived exactly what he calculated it would do - it has granted him a national platform.
It should also be pointed out that there will be those on the far-right of British politics who will also seek to exploit people's natural anger by taking advantage of this march. Anjem Choudary's march is a gift to them too! The far-right will seek to paint all Muslims as closet jihadists and any event which can be used to this end will exploited ruthlessly to the full.
Indeed I would argue that between radical Islamic groups and the British far-right there is some mutually re-enforcing ideological myth-making going on. If people's anger at Anjem Choudary can be hitched to an anti-muslim agenda then the far-right is well served for obvious reasons; and if that anger alienates Muslims from mainsteam national life then groups like Anjem Choudary's can only grow in strength. As Christians we need to be very cautious about how we respond to these challenges - shall we engage in some sort of 'culture war' or will we allow the Gospel of God's Grace help shape our response?
As an Evangelical Christian I don't want my natural anger to be exploited by either of these odious groups and I believe that the Lord Jesus would want us to have some critical self-reflection before giving vent to any sense of moral outrage. It is better - in the final analysis - to suffer a wrong than lash out indiscriminately at others. Indeed a dignified refusal to 'respond in kind' is actually the bravest and hardest thing to do - but that is ultimately our calling as disciples of Jesus Christ; to display by our actions and words the Grace of God to a world naturally inclined to anger, self righteousness and hatred. This is an opportunity to manifest by our love that the Kingdom of God is present among us!
Wooton Bassett is a small town in Wiltshire near the Royal Air Force base to which the bodies of fallen British servicemen are repatriated. In recent years the town has become the scene for dignified grief as many funeral corteges have passed through and the townspeople taking these sad sights to heart have turned out to pay their respects.
It is not surprising then that the planned anti-war march through Wooton Bassett by an Islamic group headed by Anjem Choudary should have caused such deep outrage among many people. It should be pointed out that in no sense could the good people of Wooton Bassett be described as pro-war; regardless of ones views about the politics of war one can still grieve for those who die serving their country.
I suppose the obvious point to make is that, never having heard of Anjem Choudary, this is simply a crass publicity stunt by an unrepresentative group who wish to gain some notoriety for themselves. Whether the march goes ahead or not the angry response has acheived exactly what he calculated it would do - it has granted him a national platform.
It should also be pointed out that there will be those on the far-right of British politics who will also seek to exploit people's natural anger by taking advantage of this march. Anjem Choudary's march is a gift to them too! The far-right will seek to paint all Muslims as closet jihadists and any event which can be used to this end will exploited ruthlessly to the full.
Indeed I would argue that between radical Islamic groups and the British far-right there is some mutually re-enforcing ideological myth-making going on. If people's anger at Anjem Choudary can be hitched to an anti-muslim agenda then the far-right is well served for obvious reasons; and if that anger alienates Muslims from mainsteam national life then groups like Anjem Choudary's can only grow in strength. As Christians we need to be very cautious about how we respond to these challenges - shall we engage in some sort of 'culture war' or will we allow the Gospel of God's Grace help shape our response?
As an Evangelical Christian I don't want my natural anger to be exploited by either of these odious groups and I believe that the Lord Jesus would want us to have some critical self-reflection before giving vent to any sense of moral outrage. It is better - in the final analysis - to suffer a wrong than lash out indiscriminately at others. Indeed a dignified refusal to 'respond in kind' is actually the bravest and hardest thing to do - but that is ultimately our calling as disciples of Jesus Christ; to display by our actions and words the Grace of God to a world naturally inclined to anger, self righteousness and hatred. This is an opportunity to manifest by our love that the Kingdom of God is present among us!
Monday, November 09, 2009
"YOU SWEEP THEM AWAY AS WITH A FLOOD; THEY ARE LIKE A DREAM."
Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall was breached signalling the end of the Communist experiment in Europe. Within a few years the Soviet Union folded up and the world seemed destined for a unipolar future. Some even speculated that with the apparent triumph of Liberal - Capitalist- Democracy history itself had reached some sort of definitive conclusion.
Growing up in the 60's and 70's the mighty USSR seemed to be a monolithic power structure which would certainly outlast me - how wrong I was. As ludicrous as it seems now the Soviet Union and its empire seemed an unassailable fact of life and some of my contemporaries even saw it, on balance, as a force for good!
Psalm 90 seems apt;
"You return man to dust
and say, "Return, o children of man!"
For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night."
It would be a bad mistake to put our trust in Mankind - whatever the political or economic ideology. The lesson of history is not the triumph of capitalism or democracy but the fragility of all that Man constructs and the hubris which asserts its ascendancy. Only God is "from everlasting to everlasting" and security is only found in Him! "Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations". Amen.
11th November 2009. A Wonderful Addendum!
I would like to add this additional comment: God sweeps aside these pretentions of Mankind - these mighty empires come for a season and wither; they are utterly insignificant to God. But in case we are tempted to feel that our individual lives have even less significance 2 Peter 3v8 relecting on Psalm 90 says this, "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years...." Nothing is insignificant to the Lord - He has all the time in the world for you!
Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall was breached signalling the end of the Communist experiment in Europe. Within a few years the Soviet Union folded up and the world seemed destined for a unipolar future. Some even speculated that with the apparent triumph of Liberal - Capitalist- Democracy history itself had reached some sort of definitive conclusion.
Growing up in the 60's and 70's the mighty USSR seemed to be a monolithic power structure which would certainly outlast me - how wrong I was. As ludicrous as it seems now the Soviet Union and its empire seemed an unassailable fact of life and some of my contemporaries even saw it, on balance, as a force for good!
Psalm 90 seems apt;
"You return man to dust
and say, "Return, o children of man!"
For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night."
It would be a bad mistake to put our trust in Mankind - whatever the political or economic ideology. The lesson of history is not the triumph of capitalism or democracy but the fragility of all that Man constructs and the hubris which asserts its ascendancy. Only God is "from everlasting to everlasting" and security is only found in Him! "Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations". Amen.
11th November 2009. A Wonderful Addendum!
I would like to add this additional comment: God sweeps aside these pretentions of Mankind - these mighty empires come for a season and wither; they are utterly insignificant to God. But in case we are tempted to feel that our individual lives have even less significance 2 Peter 3v8 relecting on Psalm 90 says this, "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years...." Nothing is insignificant to the Lord - He has all the time in the world for you!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
"The Clash of Fundamentalisms!"
The Clash of Fundamentalisms is a phrase I believe was coined by Tariq Ali who is a left wing political commentator in the UK. I am a firm believer in broadening my intellectual horizons so I read all sorts of stuff; I don't neccesarily agree with all that I read but I do benefit from the exposure to conflicting ideas. I find some of Tariq Ali's political analysis over-simplistic but it is always refreshing to read something from a totally unfamilar perspective! "The Clash of Fundamentalisms" is the title of a book he wrote in 2002.
The phrase is one that has cropped up (I note) in some serious news magazines in the UK but has been used in a way alien to Tariq Ali's original meaning. As with all such phrases they acquire a life of their own and ultimately come to represent something quite different to the author's intentions. The "Fundamentalisms" he had in view were those of Radical Islam versus Modernity or The Enlightenment. But the subsequent pundits use the phrase to mean a conflict between a form of Christian Fundamentalism represented by the Evangelical Right in the USA (fronted allegedly by George Bush) and Islamic terrorism, which are treated by the pundits as moral equivalents. In their view Evangelicals have brought down on all our heads a dreadful Islamic nemesis!
Their thesis is that Islamic terrorism arose in direct response to the proselytizing activity of Evangelicals over the last three centuries and that the war in Iraq is merely the latest manifestation of this. I believe this is utter nonsense of course.
Personally I believe that Tariq Ali's grasp on the facts is better - radical Islam has an issue with The Enlightenment - it is the godlessness of The West they are combatting not evangelicalism per se. If the pundits really do believe that people like me have provoked terrorist outrages they are very seriously mistaken. I also note that some pundits believe that people like me "make the world safe for terrorists!" Toleration, properly understood, starts where approval ends.... a point "Liberals" have yet to grasp. It isn't difficult to see where this line of reasoning is taking us - the "Liberal" is positioning himself as an innocent victim of a conflict in which he has no stake - he can equitably condemn both sides as equally evil and can vilify them all even handedly.
But having said that there are some issues here which do need to be seriously examined and the time has come to draw together a few threads as this 'blog' starts to wind down. First up we need to define what we mean by "Fundamentalism". In the early 20th Century a series of books entitled "The Fundamentals" was written by a number of leading Christian writers who sought to define Protestant Christianity in the face of the rise a combative "Liberal" theology. "The Fundamentals" were actually a broad set of beliefs but ones most Evangelicals could muster around.
In the following decades "Fundamental-ISM" arose which had a MUCH narrower remit. It has a "Dispensational" interpretation of the Gospel which brought in tow certain understandings of Middle Eastern politics which I (among many Evangelical Christians) do not identify with! "Fundamentalism" also acquired a separationist streak. This brand of Christianity was popularised by the Scofield Study Bible which was published nearly 100 years ago and caught on in a big way in the USA. The Scofield theology was later popularised in a series of books on pop prophecy. I can understand why onlookers might worry about the politics of Fundamentalism drawn from these dubious sources.
I once attended a private seminar at which a Dispensational preacher I will call Mark Sugary spoke. He had us complete a series of questions on 'Are You Born Again?' One question he had was our view on the state of the Mid-East peace process (such as it was at the time); if one thought it was 'a good idea' one might well NOT be a Christian was his conclusion! As an Evangelical Christian I took issue with him on this. He defended himself vigorously - he was NOT saying one cannot be a Christian and believe in Middle Eastern peace merely that that MIGHT indicate that you are not a Christian - my argument was that very question was utterly irrelevant because one is saved by faith in Christ alone and he was introducing another factor: it seemed to me that he was adding criteria the Bible does not demand of a believer, he reasserted that it did.... faith in Christ and the modern state of Israel were bound up inextricably together in his view. We had to agree to disagree but the reality is his opinion is not (what I will term) Classical Evangelicalism it is a modern innovation - and this, let me add, is no mere hair-splitting it is crucial to what we understand Jesus is about. Modern day "Christian Fundamentalism" isn't quite as Christian as it thinks and I have little sympathy for it but "The Fundamentals" I have no issue with..... so am I a "Fundamentalist" or not - you tell me?!
Of course in more recent years the term fundamentalism has been applied to any religiously motivated group - especially terrorist movements.
The crucial question it seems to me is "what is your understanding of The Kingdom of God"? Depending on where you place yourself in the Bible Time-Line you will position yourself on the current political map.... and whether as Jew, Christian or Muslim you believe that human force brings in God's Kingdom. I believe the Biblical position is that the Kingdom is a present spiritual reality (to be fulfilled physically when Christ returns) but those who believe in Eretz (ie Greater) Israel or an Islamic Caliphate (Kalifah) or any sort of theocracy may indeed feel mandated to use physical force. More anon about this in "The Bible Time-Line" blog to follow - but suffice to say that "Classical Evangelicalism" completely rejects the notion of any form of compulsion to bring about The Kingdom of God.... force is antithetical to its nature.... this is a uniquely Evangelical reason for the separation of church and state!
So where does that leave me? I am not recognised as a fellow believer by these Christian Fundamentalists and I feel under the cosh from "Liberals" (so called) who have no grasp on spiritual realities and who regard us all as 'tarred with the same brush'.... but let's face it you can't get much more equitable than condemning the innocent with the guilty! It was ever thus!
The Clash of Fundamentalisms is a phrase I believe was coined by Tariq Ali who is a left wing political commentator in the UK. I am a firm believer in broadening my intellectual horizons so I read all sorts of stuff; I don't neccesarily agree with all that I read but I do benefit from the exposure to conflicting ideas. I find some of Tariq Ali's political analysis over-simplistic but it is always refreshing to read something from a totally unfamilar perspective! "The Clash of Fundamentalisms" is the title of a book he wrote in 2002.
The phrase is one that has cropped up (I note) in some serious news magazines in the UK but has been used in a way alien to Tariq Ali's original meaning. As with all such phrases they acquire a life of their own and ultimately come to represent something quite different to the author's intentions. The "Fundamentalisms" he had in view were those of Radical Islam versus Modernity or The Enlightenment. But the subsequent pundits use the phrase to mean a conflict between a form of Christian Fundamentalism represented by the Evangelical Right in the USA (fronted allegedly by George Bush) and Islamic terrorism, which are treated by the pundits as moral equivalents. In their view Evangelicals have brought down on all our heads a dreadful Islamic nemesis!
Their thesis is that Islamic terrorism arose in direct response to the proselytizing activity of Evangelicals over the last three centuries and that the war in Iraq is merely the latest manifestation of this. I believe this is utter nonsense of course.
Personally I believe that Tariq Ali's grasp on the facts is better - radical Islam has an issue with The Enlightenment - it is the godlessness of The West they are combatting not evangelicalism per se. If the pundits really do believe that people like me have provoked terrorist outrages they are very seriously mistaken. I also note that some pundits believe that people like me "make the world safe for terrorists!" Toleration, properly understood, starts where approval ends.... a point "Liberals" have yet to grasp. It isn't difficult to see where this line of reasoning is taking us - the "Liberal" is positioning himself as an innocent victim of a conflict in which he has no stake - he can equitably condemn both sides as equally evil and can vilify them all even handedly.
But having said that there are some issues here which do need to be seriously examined and the time has come to draw together a few threads as this 'blog' starts to wind down. First up we need to define what we mean by "Fundamentalism". In the early 20th Century a series of books entitled "The Fundamentals" was written by a number of leading Christian writers who sought to define Protestant Christianity in the face of the rise a combative "Liberal" theology. "The Fundamentals" were actually a broad set of beliefs but ones most Evangelicals could muster around.
In the following decades "Fundamental-ISM" arose which had a MUCH narrower remit. It has a "Dispensational" interpretation of the Gospel which brought in tow certain understandings of Middle Eastern politics which I (among many Evangelical Christians) do not identify with! "Fundamentalism" also acquired a separationist streak. This brand of Christianity was popularised by the Scofield Study Bible which was published nearly 100 years ago and caught on in a big way in the USA. The Scofield theology was later popularised in a series of books on pop prophecy. I can understand why onlookers might worry about the politics of Fundamentalism drawn from these dubious sources.
I once attended a private seminar at which a Dispensational preacher I will call Mark Sugary spoke. He had us complete a series of questions on 'Are You Born Again?' One question he had was our view on the state of the Mid-East peace process (such as it was at the time); if one thought it was 'a good idea' one might well NOT be a Christian was his conclusion! As an Evangelical Christian I took issue with him on this. He defended himself vigorously - he was NOT saying one cannot be a Christian and believe in Middle Eastern peace merely that that MIGHT indicate that you are not a Christian - my argument was that very question was utterly irrelevant because one is saved by faith in Christ alone and he was introducing another factor: it seemed to me that he was adding criteria the Bible does not demand of a believer, he reasserted that it did.... faith in Christ and the modern state of Israel were bound up inextricably together in his view. We had to agree to disagree but the reality is his opinion is not (what I will term) Classical Evangelicalism it is a modern innovation - and this, let me add, is no mere hair-splitting it is crucial to what we understand Jesus is about. Modern day "Christian Fundamentalism" isn't quite as Christian as it thinks and I have little sympathy for it but "The Fundamentals" I have no issue with..... so am I a "Fundamentalist" or not - you tell me?!
Of course in more recent years the term fundamentalism has been applied to any religiously motivated group - especially terrorist movements.
The crucial question it seems to me is "what is your understanding of The Kingdom of God"? Depending on where you place yourself in the Bible Time-Line you will position yourself on the current political map.... and whether as Jew, Christian or Muslim you believe that human force brings in God's Kingdom. I believe the Biblical position is that the Kingdom is a present spiritual reality (to be fulfilled physically when Christ returns) but those who believe in Eretz (ie Greater) Israel or an Islamic Caliphate (Kalifah) or any sort of theocracy may indeed feel mandated to use physical force. More anon about this in "The Bible Time-Line" blog to follow - but suffice to say that "Classical Evangelicalism" completely rejects the notion of any form of compulsion to bring about The Kingdom of God.... force is antithetical to its nature.... this is a uniquely Evangelical reason for the separation of church and state!
So where does that leave me? I am not recognised as a fellow believer by these Christian Fundamentalists and I feel under the cosh from "Liberals" (so called) who have no grasp on spiritual realities and who regard us all as 'tarred with the same brush'.... but let's face it you can't get much more equitable than condemning the innocent with the guilty! It was ever thus!
Saturday, November 03, 2007
"GOD IS NOT GREAT!"
Christopher Hitchens recently published a book by this title in which he attributes all of Humanity's ills to "religion" in one guise or another. The word 'religion' isn't one I entirely feel comfortable with because it is hardly a Biblical word at all and it is a word which often brings a lot of preconceived notions in tow which I don't believe are very helpful. I am a Christian but I do not consider myself "religious"! But for the sake of argument let's stick with the word Hitchens uses.
Hitchens is another shrill voice in a recent spate of attacks upon religion. There seems to be an element of panic within the intelligentsia which once confidently predicted the extinction of all religions and anticipated the inevitable dawn of a new rationalist era. The resurgence of religion as a force on the world stage has left these complacent opinion shapers non-plussed and fearful for the future of humanity. History is not following their script.
Hitchens appears to attribute all evil to religion and all good to the Humanist cause. To this end he conveniently redefines the secular ideologies of Hitler and Stalin as "religions" and dragoons Christians like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into the ranks of the Humanists! So much special pleading will cause even the most ardent Hitchens' fan some pause for thought surely! It seems to me a rather desperate expedient which causes him to twist the facts to fit his ideologically driven argument... and surely it is the ideologue's desire to rewrite history we all should beware! It is the natural default setting of humans to "otherise" evil - to attribute all that is wrong with the world to some outgroup and to make out that one's own tribe is on the side of the angels. And surely it is that condemnation of the innocent with the guilty for ideological reasons that is the real cause of evil.... Hitchens has fallen head first into that trap.... secularists are all good, religionists are all bad in a 'cowboys and indians' argument.
There is one aspect of Hitchens' argument which does bear some consideration. The means by which he redefines Nazism and Stalinism as "religions" is their "messianic" and utopian pretentions. And in that regard he is not wrong. But it is precisely those pretentions which caused thoughtful (as opposed to duped)Christians at the time to see these ideologies as anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... in a very real sense these belief systems were "Anti-Christ" systems. The Bible already had a category for critiquing such movements when history shows that it took a good deal longer for the intelligentsia to realise these idols had feet of clay. As astonishing as it seems now there were many western secularists and humanists who defended Stalin and the Soviet system as a force for good. At the time the Stalinist and the Nazi would have argued that their beliefs were firmly founded on scientific rationalism - Marxist economics and Social Darwinism respectively, each claiming the imprimatur of scientific certainty. They certainly would never have regarded these as matters of 'faith'! And certainly not faith in God! Given that historical background, the question is how can you ever know whether your beliefs are truly rational? And if Hitchens' idea is correct how can you ever know if your beliefs are even truly secular?
Applying Hitchens' criteria Humanism is a "religion" because it has a utopian vision of mankind and even if it lacks a specific "messiah" figure it certainly exalts the human spirit so that each individual is their own saviour. Oh and it even has its own heresy hunters too!
In the final anaysis it is only the Gospel which accurately describes the world as it truly is. Quite why it is assumed that people like me make irrational "leaps of faith" rather than weigh up which viewpoint actually describes the world as it really is is a mystery to me, the truth is I never could make the credulous "leap of faith" required by humanist doctrine! When such dogma repeatedly misdiagnoses the human condition and Jesus gets it unerringly right everytime I don't consider that much of a 'leap' at all!
The solution to all anti-christ ideologies is not secularism (whatever that now means!) but Jesus - the real Christ.
Christopher Hitchens recently published a book by this title in which he attributes all of Humanity's ills to "religion" in one guise or another. The word 'religion' isn't one I entirely feel comfortable with because it is hardly a Biblical word at all and it is a word which often brings a lot of preconceived notions in tow which I don't believe are very helpful. I am a Christian but I do not consider myself "religious"! But for the sake of argument let's stick with the word Hitchens uses.
Hitchens is another shrill voice in a recent spate of attacks upon religion. There seems to be an element of panic within the intelligentsia which once confidently predicted the extinction of all religions and anticipated the inevitable dawn of a new rationalist era. The resurgence of religion as a force on the world stage has left these complacent opinion shapers non-plussed and fearful for the future of humanity. History is not following their script.
Hitchens appears to attribute all evil to religion and all good to the Humanist cause. To this end he conveniently redefines the secular ideologies of Hitler and Stalin as "religions" and dragoons Christians like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into the ranks of the Humanists! So much special pleading will cause even the most ardent Hitchens' fan some pause for thought surely! It seems to me a rather desperate expedient which causes him to twist the facts to fit his ideologically driven argument... and surely it is the ideologue's desire to rewrite history we all should beware! It is the natural default setting of humans to "otherise" evil - to attribute all that is wrong with the world to some outgroup and to make out that one's own tribe is on the side of the angels. And surely it is that condemnation of the innocent with the guilty for ideological reasons that is the real cause of evil.... Hitchens has fallen head first into that trap.... secularists are all good, religionists are all bad in a 'cowboys and indians' argument.
There is one aspect of Hitchens' argument which does bear some consideration. The means by which he redefines Nazism and Stalinism as "religions" is their "messianic" and utopian pretentions. And in that regard he is not wrong. But it is precisely those pretentions which caused thoughtful (as opposed to duped)Christians at the time to see these ideologies as anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... in a very real sense these belief systems were "Anti-Christ" systems. The Bible already had a category for critiquing such movements when history shows that it took a good deal longer for the intelligentsia to realise these idols had feet of clay. As astonishing as it seems now there were many western secularists and humanists who defended Stalin and the Soviet system as a force for good. At the time the Stalinist and the Nazi would have argued that their beliefs were firmly founded on scientific rationalism - Marxist economics and Social Darwinism respectively, each claiming the imprimatur of scientific certainty. They certainly would never have regarded these as matters of 'faith'! And certainly not faith in God! Given that historical background, the question is how can you ever know whether your beliefs are truly rational? And if Hitchens' idea is correct how can you ever know if your beliefs are even truly secular?
Applying Hitchens' criteria Humanism is a "religion" because it has a utopian vision of mankind and even if it lacks a specific "messiah" figure it certainly exalts the human spirit so that each individual is their own saviour. Oh and it even has its own heresy hunters too!
In the final anaysis it is only the Gospel which accurately describes the world as it truly is. Quite why it is assumed that people like me make irrational "leaps of faith" rather than weigh up which viewpoint actually describes the world as it really is is a mystery to me, the truth is I never could make the credulous "leap of faith" required by humanist doctrine! When such dogma repeatedly misdiagnoses the human condition and Jesus gets it unerringly right everytime I don't consider that much of a 'leap' at all!
The solution to all anti-christ ideologies is not secularism (whatever that now means!) but Jesus - the real Christ.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
ISLAM, EVANGELICALISM &
THE INDIAN MUTINY of 1857.
This is a letter I e-mailed to "History Magazine"
published by the BBC in response to a piece
entitled "Clash of Civilisations?" published in
the May 2007 edition, Vol 8 no 5.
http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/
"May I take issue with some opinions within
the above article? Diarmaid MacCulloch makes
the point that Wahhabism had no influence
on 19th & 20th Century Islamic calls for
Indian Independence; but Charles Allen,
in his book "God's Terrorists" charts a direct
link between the two and one which
incidentally predates any Evangelical
influence which MacCulloch blames for
religious tension.
If Charles Allen is right, then to term The
Indian Mutiny "The First War of Indian
Independence" is a misnomer because it
was in reality a Jihadi movement which had
no common ground with the majority Hindu
population - no wonder the latter were
uncertain how to respond to The Mutiny.
I should add that these observations aside it
was a very thought provoking article."
"GOD'S TERRORISTS: The Wahhabi Cult and
the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad" by
Charles Allen, published by Abacus 2007,
see http://www.godsterrorists.co.uk/
ISBN 978-0-349-11879-6.
ps I hope to 'blog' a piece on the theme of
"The Clash of Fundamentalisms" in the next
month or two.
THE INDIAN MUTINY of 1857.
This is a letter I e-mailed to "History Magazine"
published by the BBC in response to a piece
entitled "Clash of Civilisations?" published in
the May 2007 edition, Vol 8 no 5.
http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/
"May I take issue with some opinions within
the above article? Diarmaid MacCulloch makes
the point that Wahhabism had no influence
on 19th & 20th Century Islamic calls for
Indian Independence; but Charles Allen,
in his book "God's Terrorists" charts a direct
link between the two and one which
incidentally predates any Evangelical
influence which MacCulloch blames for
religious tension.
If Charles Allen is right, then to term The
Indian Mutiny "The First War of Indian
Independence" is a misnomer because it
was in reality a Jihadi movement which had
no common ground with the majority Hindu
population - no wonder the latter were
uncertain how to respond to The Mutiny.
I should add that these observations aside it
was a very thought provoking article."
"GOD'S TERRORISTS: The Wahhabi Cult and
the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad" by
Charles Allen, published by Abacus 2007,
see http://www.godsterrorists.co.uk/
ISBN 978-0-349-11879-6.
ps I hope to 'blog' a piece on the theme of
"The Clash of Fundamentalisms" in the next
month or two.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Niall Ferguson and
"The War of the World".
Earlier this week the revisionist historian Niall
Ferguson concluded his TV series on Channel 4
in the UK. His contention is that the conflicts of
the 20th Century were not ideological in nature
but fundamentally ethnic. Human ability to
treat other people as "alien" enables them to
indulge in "ethnic cleansing" without the empathy
of fellow feeling. How are we able to treat each
other as if we have come from another planet?
I often wonder if at heart all evil is actually a lack
of empathy - the inability to put oneself in someone
else's shoes.
I have to say that Ferguson's thesis seems to me
to be a re-hash of Samuel Huntington's "The Clash
of Civilizations" rather than anything desperately
original as the TV promo promised. [I've looked at
Huntington's ideas in a blog back in March '06 if
you're sufficiently interested!]
Having concluded that the world's conflicts often
defy simple explanation Ferguson goes on to attempt
a simple explanation = 'too many young men needing
economic prospects'. This is rather too simplistic in
my view, I think (for what it's worth) that young, poor
men are not so much the cause of conflict as the
unwitting foot soldiers of events outside of their
control. But then why should a historian have any
particular insight into the future?
Ferguson's final remarks which made an appeal to our
common humanity were belied by the lack of common-
ality his programmes highlighted. As a Christian I
can understand his attempt to appeal to some higher
concept which will enable us to treat each other as fully
human, but such a concept -it seems to me- cannot be
centred in humanity - we must look beyond ourselves
to truly understand ourselves. Indeed Ferguson's
appeal rests on the ability to empathise - yet to build
a philosophy on ourselves, as all Humanists do, is
actually a subtle denial of the need for empathy. How
often have you heard someones crime described as
"inhuman"? Or have you called someone "inhuman"?
The truth is what we pointlessly call "inhuman" is in
reality all too human. By calling it "inhuman" we are
making a vain attempt to distance ourselves from it
by "alienising" it [what I call "otherising" it!] I am a
Christian because the Gospel of Jesus helps me see
the world as it actually is, and Jesus does not seek to
comfort me with silly notions of my own innate
goodness but confronts me -and us all- with our
alienation from the One who is the source of all love.
"If only there were evil people some where insidiously
commiting evil deeds and it were necessary only to
separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the
heart of every human being." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
in 'The Gulag Archipelago'.
"The War of the World".
Earlier this week the revisionist historian Niall
Ferguson concluded his TV series on Channel 4
in the UK. His contention is that the conflicts of
the 20th Century were not ideological in nature
but fundamentally ethnic. Human ability to
treat other people as "alien" enables them to
indulge in "ethnic cleansing" without the empathy
of fellow feeling. How are we able to treat each
other as if we have come from another planet?
I often wonder if at heart all evil is actually a lack
of empathy - the inability to put oneself in someone
else's shoes.
I have to say that Ferguson's thesis seems to me
to be a re-hash of Samuel Huntington's "The Clash
of Civilizations" rather than anything desperately
original as the TV promo promised. [I've looked at
Huntington's ideas in a blog back in March '06 if
you're sufficiently interested!]
Having concluded that the world's conflicts often
defy simple explanation Ferguson goes on to attempt
a simple explanation = 'too many young men needing
economic prospects'. This is rather too simplistic in
my view, I think (for what it's worth) that young, poor
men are not so much the cause of conflict as the
unwitting foot soldiers of events outside of their
control. But then why should a historian have any
particular insight into the future?
Ferguson's final remarks which made an appeal to our
common humanity were belied by the lack of common-
ality his programmes highlighted. As a Christian I
can understand his attempt to appeal to some higher
concept which will enable us to treat each other as fully
human, but such a concept -it seems to me- cannot be
centred in humanity - we must look beyond ourselves
to truly understand ourselves. Indeed Ferguson's
appeal rests on the ability to empathise - yet to build
a philosophy on ourselves, as all Humanists do, is
actually a subtle denial of the need for empathy. How
often have you heard someones crime described as
"inhuman"? Or have you called someone "inhuman"?
The truth is what we pointlessly call "inhuman" is in
reality all too human. By calling it "inhuman" we are
making a vain attempt to distance ourselves from it
by "alienising" it [what I call "otherising" it!] I am a
Christian because the Gospel of Jesus helps me see
the world as it actually is, and Jesus does not seek to
comfort me with silly notions of my own innate
goodness but confronts me -and us all- with our
alienation from the One who is the source of all love.
"If only there were evil people some where insidiously
commiting evil deeds and it were necessary only to
separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the
heart of every human being." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
in 'The Gulag Archipelago'.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Shortly after the collapse of Communism it was
common in some circles to concur with Francis
Fukuyama's idea that we had reached "The End
of History". The great ideological battle was over
and liberal democracy had triumphed. 'Events'
would still happen, but Western civilization had
prevailed. In due course, its world view and values
would be accepted across the globe.
Fifteen years later this comforting notion looks
rather quaint and naive. Inthe mid 1990s Samuel
Huntington published his book THE CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD
ORDER. In essence, he believes that the new world
order consists of six to nine civilizational blocs
(depending on how one counts them). They are all
mutually incompatible and destined to clash from
time to time. The book made a big impact, especially
as its publication pre-dated the events of 11 September
2001 by several years and seemed prescient in its
vision. the book was also warmly spoken of in
evangelical circles. But perhaps what was lacking
was a thoroughgoing analysis of Huntington's
ideas in the context of the Kingdom of God - not so
much from a missiological point of view, but from the
perspective of Western Christianity. The question I
want to raise is this: by over-emphasising the
'Christian' credentials of the West, are we Western
Christians more likely to be drawn into civilizational
clashes than our non-western brothers and sisters
in Christ who may have grasped the radical nature
of the Kingdom of God better than us? In short: how
do we Western Christians define who we are?
Huntington's civilizations are all 'religious' in nature,
or at least ethno-religious. They are as follows:
WESTERN CHRISTIANITY: Europe, North America,
Australia, New Zealand and some parts of the pacific
rim.
EASTERN ORTHODOXY: Russia, Greece, Serbia and
the Caucasus region.
ISLAM: The Arab nations, South-West Asia, Central
Asia, Caucasus region, Indonesia and parts of the
Pacific rim.
SINIC: China and nations of the Chinese diaspora,
and Indo-China (Japan, Buddhist nations). Described
as Confucian which is a 'good fit' with the hierarchial/
collective nature of Communism.
HINDU: Indian sub-continent.
AFRICAN: Sub-Saharan Africa and Guyana region of
South America.
LATIN AMERICA: South and Central America (though
arguably this might be considered as linked to the
West).
These 'civilizations' each have a distinct identity, and
individuals within them find the core of their identity
from them. They view each other with varying degrees
of mutual incomprehension. Where their geographical
boundaries meet there may be physical conflict. For
example, in Bosnia three of these civilizations come
together: Western Christian (Croatian), Orthodox
Christian (Serbian) and Islam. Huntington's diagnosis
seems to explain the deep roots of the Bosnian war, as
well as many other wars across the world. Because
civilization touches on the individual's sense of identity
and kinship, these clashes can never be negotiated away
or resolved. Warring civilizations may reach a point of
exhaustion and call a truce, but that will not remove
the root cause of the conflict. The civilizations have
irreconcilable characters.
Besides conflict at the interfaces of civilizations, some
nations are described as 'cleft' or 'torn' nations, contain-
ing within themselves populations of different civil-
izations or nations unsure of their identity. Australia,
for example, is described as a 'torn' country; there has
been some internal debate as to whether Australia
should consider itself itself part of Asia (which it is
geographically) or whether it should look back to its
European origins and cultural links with the West. In
the 1990s this debate was bitter and acrimonious
because it touched the Australian sense of identity.
But it is an issue every society has to face: how do we
identify ourselves? Who do we identify with? What
values do we hold in common? More to the point,
how do Western evangelicals identify ourselves?
Who are our kin?
If a Muslim becomes a Christian, the civilizational
cost is self-evident; he becomes estranged from his
roots, and those he leaves behind are dismayed at
the 'civilizational defection' their loved one has
undergone. The cost of becoming a disciple of Jesus
is to leave behind the civilizations of this world and
find one's identity within the Kingdom of God. What
a tragedy if that cost is cheapened by being perceived
as a move westward rather than heavenward!
As a Western evangelical Christian, I struggle with a
double-mindedness borne out of an ongoing internal
conflict. I have been taught (and wished to believe)
that I am part of a 'Christian' nation - one historically
rooted in the gospel and blessed by God as a result.
Consequently there is little or no civilizational cost
involved in becoming a Christian. And if 'Christian'
values and morality have been eclipsed in society,
it is merely a temporary aberration which Christians
should strive to reverse. This would concur with
Huntington's analysis of Western civilization as being
'Christian'. But in our stage of God's strategy, the
Bible narrative has shifted from the limited concept
of a nation-state of God's people to something much
more dynamic with global and cosmic implications:
the Kingdom of God. The promises to Abraham to
bless all the nations (Genesis 2) are mediated via
David's kingdom into Jesus' breathtakingly expansive
vision of the Kingdom. It is tempting to draw flattering,
but deceptive, parallels with the ancient kingdom of
Israel and our own nation. The biblical narrative has
since moved on. To use the adjective 'Christian' in
national terms is sub-biblical in its understanding of
the sweep of scripture. The model Jesus gave us was of
leaven, not a pure nation - a diaspora of God's people
encompassing the earth. This mandate enables us to
engage postively with our culture and national life
while avoiding the dangers of politicising the church.
If we slip into politics with a 'nation' agenda, we will
be seen, not merely as creatures of the political right,
but even of the ultra far-right, with disastrous
consequences for our witness to the nations.
The other half of my divided Western soul is deeply
and profoundly uncomfortable with this identification
of the West with Christ. Firstly, there are more Christians
outside the West who are 'blessed' with a clear civil-
ization vs. Kingdom conflict and blessed with a clearer
sense of 'kin' within the community of the saints.
Secondly, there is little to commend the gospel of Christ
within the history of the West's dealings with other
civilizations. It has proved itself little better than any
other self-regarding, avaricious empire - albeit with
the leaven of a godly diaspora who have made a postive
contribution to the history of the host Western nations.
Huntington quotes a speech by Malcolm Rifkind who,
as the then Defence Secretary of the UK, set about
defining the roots of European civilization and completely
omitted any reference to Christianity. I shudder to think
what Western civilization would look like if it had been
left to its pagan origins.
Thirdly, and most crucially, any over-identification of
the Kingdom of God with any of these civilizations makes
a 'this-worldly' attitude among believers inevitable - an
attitude which has deeply corroded the soul of Western
evangelical Christianity. Our Western civilization has
mired us in compromise, and we have lost any sense of
just how radical the Kingdom of God truly is. I suspect
that, as a Christian, I need to 'defect' from the West in the
same way as a member of any other civilization needs to
if they are to come to Christ. The people of the Kingdom
of God are defined exclusively by the Gospel. They are
our true kin, Jesus is our King, and we are the poorer
for our compromise.
Fourthly, a warning: if Huntington's analysis is correct,
these civilizations will clash when the opportunity arises.
Given the 'religious' character of civilizations, if evangelical
Christians over-identify with the West, we may find
ourselves leading the charge into conflict. What price the
gospel then? Imagine a world fifty years from now,
struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of a
civilizational war in which the West was a protagonist.
When attention turns to the role played by the evangelical
church in the pre-war period, will the conclusion be that
the church fanned the flames of conflict, or that it modelled
grace to a world bent on war?
This article was first published in the February 2006 edition of
'The Briefing' (issue No 329). The publishers can be contacted as follows;
in Australia http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
or in the UK at http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/
Post Script: 2nd May 06. A lengthy rebuttal to this article of mine
appears as a letter from Stephen Hurworth of Perth in Australia in
the "Interchange" section of the May 2006 issue of "The Briefing",
issue 332. He's entitled to take a crack at me, but I stand by my
article.
tagline: Clash of Civilizations. Clash of Civilisations. Religious Conflict.
Evangelical Church. Kingdom of God. Kin. Kinship. Identity.
AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Shortly after the collapse of Communism it was
common in some circles to concur with Francis
Fukuyama's idea that we had reached "The End
of History". The great ideological battle was over
and liberal democracy had triumphed. 'Events'
would still happen, but Western civilization had
prevailed. In due course, its world view and values
would be accepted across the globe.
Fifteen years later this comforting notion looks
rather quaint and naive. Inthe mid 1990s Samuel
Huntington published his book THE CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD
ORDER. In essence, he believes that the new world
order consists of six to nine civilizational blocs
(depending on how one counts them). They are all
mutually incompatible and destined to clash from
time to time. The book made a big impact, especially
as its publication pre-dated the events of 11 September
2001 by several years and seemed prescient in its
vision. the book was also warmly spoken of in
evangelical circles. But perhaps what was lacking
was a thoroughgoing analysis of Huntington's
ideas in the context of the Kingdom of God - not so
much from a missiological point of view, but from the
perspective of Western Christianity. The question I
want to raise is this: by over-emphasising the
'Christian' credentials of the West, are we Western
Christians more likely to be drawn into civilizational
clashes than our non-western brothers and sisters
in Christ who may have grasped the radical nature
of the Kingdom of God better than us? In short: how
do we Western Christians define who we are?
Huntington's civilizations are all 'religious' in nature,
or at least ethno-religious. They are as follows:
WESTERN CHRISTIANITY: Europe, North America,
Australia, New Zealand and some parts of the pacific
rim.
EASTERN ORTHODOXY: Russia, Greece, Serbia and
the Caucasus region.
ISLAM: The Arab nations, South-West Asia, Central
Asia, Caucasus region, Indonesia and parts of the
Pacific rim.
SINIC: China and nations of the Chinese diaspora,
and Indo-China (Japan, Buddhist nations). Described
as Confucian which is a 'good fit' with the hierarchial/
collective nature of Communism.
HINDU: Indian sub-continent.
AFRICAN: Sub-Saharan Africa and Guyana region of
South America.
LATIN AMERICA: South and Central America (though
arguably this might be considered as linked to the
West).
These 'civilizations' each have a distinct identity, and
individuals within them find the core of their identity
from them. They view each other with varying degrees
of mutual incomprehension. Where their geographical
boundaries meet there may be physical conflict. For
example, in Bosnia three of these civilizations come
together: Western Christian (Croatian), Orthodox
Christian (Serbian) and Islam. Huntington's diagnosis
seems to explain the deep roots of the Bosnian war, as
well as many other wars across the world. Because
civilization touches on the individual's sense of identity
and kinship, these clashes can never be negotiated away
or resolved. Warring civilizations may reach a point of
exhaustion and call a truce, but that will not remove
the root cause of the conflict. The civilizations have
irreconcilable characters.
Besides conflict at the interfaces of civilizations, some
nations are described as 'cleft' or 'torn' nations, contain-
ing within themselves populations of different civil-
izations or nations unsure of their identity. Australia,
for example, is described as a 'torn' country; there has
been some internal debate as to whether Australia
should consider itself itself part of Asia (which it is
geographically) or whether it should look back to its
European origins and cultural links with the West. In
the 1990s this debate was bitter and acrimonious
because it touched the Australian sense of identity.
But it is an issue every society has to face: how do we
identify ourselves? Who do we identify with? What
values do we hold in common? More to the point,
how do Western evangelicals identify ourselves?
Who are our kin?
If a Muslim becomes a Christian, the civilizational
cost is self-evident; he becomes estranged from his
roots, and those he leaves behind are dismayed at
the 'civilizational defection' their loved one has
undergone. The cost of becoming a disciple of Jesus
is to leave behind the civilizations of this world and
find one's identity within the Kingdom of God. What
a tragedy if that cost is cheapened by being perceived
as a move westward rather than heavenward!
As a Western evangelical Christian, I struggle with a
double-mindedness borne out of an ongoing internal
conflict. I have been taught (and wished to believe)
that I am part of a 'Christian' nation - one historically
rooted in the gospel and blessed by God as a result.
Consequently there is little or no civilizational cost
involved in becoming a Christian. And if 'Christian'
values and morality have been eclipsed in society,
it is merely a temporary aberration which Christians
should strive to reverse. This would concur with
Huntington's analysis of Western civilization as being
'Christian'. But in our stage of God's strategy, the
Bible narrative has shifted from the limited concept
of a nation-state of God's people to something much
more dynamic with global and cosmic implications:
the Kingdom of God. The promises to Abraham to
bless all the nations (Genesis 2) are mediated via
David's kingdom into Jesus' breathtakingly expansive
vision of the Kingdom. It is tempting to draw flattering,
but deceptive, parallels with the ancient kingdom of
Israel and our own nation. The biblical narrative has
since moved on. To use the adjective 'Christian' in
national terms is sub-biblical in its understanding of
the sweep of scripture. The model Jesus gave us was of
leaven, not a pure nation - a diaspora of God's people
encompassing the earth. This mandate enables us to
engage postively with our culture and national life
while avoiding the dangers of politicising the church.
If we slip into politics with a 'nation' agenda, we will
be seen, not merely as creatures of the political right,
but even of the ultra far-right, with disastrous
consequences for our witness to the nations.
The other half of my divided Western soul is deeply
and profoundly uncomfortable with this identification
of the West with Christ. Firstly, there are more Christians
outside the West who are 'blessed' with a clear civil-
ization vs. Kingdom conflict and blessed with a clearer
sense of 'kin' within the community of the saints.
Secondly, there is little to commend the gospel of Christ
within the history of the West's dealings with other
civilizations. It has proved itself little better than any
other self-regarding, avaricious empire - albeit with
the leaven of a godly diaspora who have made a postive
contribution to the history of the host Western nations.
Huntington quotes a speech by Malcolm Rifkind who,
as the then Defence Secretary of the UK, set about
defining the roots of European civilization and completely
omitted any reference to Christianity. I shudder to think
what Western civilization would look like if it had been
left to its pagan origins.
Thirdly, and most crucially, any over-identification of
the Kingdom of God with any of these civilizations makes
a 'this-worldly' attitude among believers inevitable - an
attitude which has deeply corroded the soul of Western
evangelical Christianity. Our Western civilization has
mired us in compromise, and we have lost any sense of
just how radical the Kingdom of God truly is. I suspect
that, as a Christian, I need to 'defect' from the West in the
same way as a member of any other civilization needs to
if they are to come to Christ. The people of the Kingdom
of God are defined exclusively by the Gospel. They are
our true kin, Jesus is our King, and we are the poorer
for our compromise.
Fourthly, a warning: if Huntington's analysis is correct,
these civilizations will clash when the opportunity arises.
Given the 'religious' character of civilizations, if evangelical
Christians over-identify with the West, we may find
ourselves leading the charge into conflict. What price the
gospel then? Imagine a world fifty years from now,
struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of a
civilizational war in which the West was a protagonist.
When attention turns to the role played by the evangelical
church in the pre-war period, will the conclusion be that
the church fanned the flames of conflict, or that it modelled
grace to a world bent on war?
This article was first published in the February 2006 edition of
'The Briefing' (issue No 329). The publishers can be contacted as follows;
in Australia http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
or in the UK at http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/
Post Script: 2nd May 06. A lengthy rebuttal to this article of mine
appears as a letter from Stephen Hurworth of Perth in Australia in
the "Interchange" section of the May 2006 issue of "The Briefing",
issue 332. He's entitled to take a crack at me, but I stand by my
article.
tagline: Clash of Civilizations. Clash of Civilisations. Religious Conflict.
Evangelical Church. Kingdom of God. Kin. Kinship. Identity.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Patrick Sookhdeo.
Patrick Sookhdeo heads up a couple of Christian organisations
and has the ear of some of the leading lights of the evangelical
church in the UK. He has had some quite extensive exposure
in the evangelical press in this country - but I have a problem
with him.
It seems to me that while he consistently talks up the threat
presented by Islam in the UK he does not offer a genuinely
Christian analysis of that problem. He presents Islam as a
terrible threat and leaves it at that. This -it seems to me- is
woefully inadequate. As a Christian I need to know how to
respond Christianly to this issue and that is something
Sookhdeo consistently fails to give a lead on. What strikes
me about his writing is the gracelessness of it all....as if
the Gospel has nothing to say about how Christians should
respond to these sorts of challenges. I do not deny that
there is a challenge - that is not the point at issue here -
the lack of guidance is the issue I have with Sookhdeo.
In last December's issue of the Barnabas Fund's magazine
was an insert requesting information from churches in the
UK about Muslim attacks on believers here. First up; if such
attacks do occur I will deplore them, but I do not have
sufficient confidence in Sookhdeo to collate such information.
It seems to me that he is only too willing to talk up the threat
level rather than dispassionately sift the evidence. What
standard of proof is he looking for? Beyond reasonable doubt?
Balance of probability? Reasonable suspicion? What if some
church premises are vandalised or a white happens to be
mugged by an asian looking guy - will these events be
classified as Muslims persecuting Christians?
A couple of years ago a friend of mine (who happens to be an
elder of an inner city church) was threatened by a gang of
asian youths. The fact that this was a drug gang resisting the
influence of the local church may not register as such with
Sookhdeo. Will this be clocked up as a Muslim attack? Will
he be that picky?
Reviewing his articles in the Evangelical press in 2005 the
striking feature is that they could be lifted and reprinted
in publications of the far right. They wouldn't even need to
edit out the Gospel because it's not there. That is what
troubles me about his message.........it is not authentically
Christian.
Patrick Sookhdeo heads up a couple of Christian organisations
and has the ear of some of the leading lights of the evangelical
church in the UK. He has had some quite extensive exposure
in the evangelical press in this country - but I have a problem
with him.
It seems to me that while he consistently talks up the threat
presented by Islam in the UK he does not offer a genuinely
Christian analysis of that problem. He presents Islam as a
terrible threat and leaves it at that. This -it seems to me- is
woefully inadequate. As a Christian I need to know how to
respond Christianly to this issue and that is something
Sookhdeo consistently fails to give a lead on. What strikes
me about his writing is the gracelessness of it all....as if
the Gospel has nothing to say about how Christians should
respond to these sorts of challenges. I do not deny that
there is a challenge - that is not the point at issue here -
the lack of guidance is the issue I have with Sookhdeo.
In last December's issue of the Barnabas Fund's magazine
was an insert requesting information from churches in the
UK about Muslim attacks on believers here. First up; if such
attacks do occur I will deplore them, but I do not have
sufficient confidence in Sookhdeo to collate such information.
It seems to me that he is only too willing to talk up the threat
level rather than dispassionately sift the evidence. What
standard of proof is he looking for? Beyond reasonable doubt?
Balance of probability? Reasonable suspicion? What if some
church premises are vandalised or a white happens to be
mugged by an asian looking guy - will these events be
classified as Muslims persecuting Christians?
A couple of years ago a friend of mine (who happens to be an
elder of an inner city church) was threatened by a gang of
asian youths. The fact that this was a drug gang resisting the
influence of the local church may not register as such with
Sookhdeo. Will this be clocked up as a Muslim attack? Will
he be that picky?
Reviewing his articles in the Evangelical press in 2005 the
striking feature is that they could be lifted and reprinted
in publications of the far right. They wouldn't even need to
edit out the Gospel because it's not there. That is what
troubles me about his message.........it is not authentically
Christian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)