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 Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. 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.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
A Response to Patrick Sookhdeo on Halal Meat. The December 2010 issue of "Evangelicals Now" carried a full page article by Patrick Sookhdeo concerning the general sale of Halal meat in UK supermarkets. The question he posed was this; 'should Christians eat Halal meat?' The March issue of EN published a letter I wrote in response to Patrick Sookhdeo's piece. Dear Sir, The article 'Supermarket Halal' starts well by giving an overview of the biblical position regarding meat sacrificed to idols and that faithful Christians need not feel compromised by eating halal meat. Patrick Sookhdeo mentions two contexts where the eating of such meat may be problematic: where a weaker brother's conscience may be adversely affected by our example or where we are publicly associating ourselves with the deity to whom the meat has been sacrificed. So far so good. But I am frankly baffled by the author then leaping to the conclusion that eating halal meat purchased in a supermarket can mean we are 'embracing Islamic law' and 'furthering the Islamisation of society'! These assertions simply do not follow from his exegesis and consequently look contrived. If the conclusions do not flow from sound Bible teaching the casual onlooker may conclude that evangelicals are simply stirring up people's fears about national identity. To imply some sort of Islamic conspiracy is unwarranted and the suspicion will arise that we are fellow travellers with some very dubious political elements. This concern will compromise our witness to what is afterall a minority group who will have cause to fear the tone we have struck. Of course, this whole halal discussion could be resolved by adequate food labelling, but if I do eat halal unknowingly, what of it? My faith in Jesus is not compromised even if I knowingly share a halal meal with a Muslim friend or enjoy a curry on Brick Lane. Everday scenarios are covered by 1 Corinthians 10:25 and it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the real life contexts that lead to the consequences EN predicts. Surely, in so far as halal is an issue at all, it can be a means to demonstrate the freedom in Christ we have from all such dietary concerns. In fact, to take an overly ostentatious stance against certain foods runs the risk of appearing to be just as legalistic as any Islamist! Irony aside, there is a major spiritual question here, but it is not about what we eat, it is about whether, as Christians, we respond to these sorts of issues with faith and love, or are we motivated by unbiblical fears? Sadly, this article and EN are veering towards the latter: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out. Sincerely, Peter Swift. Addendum: It is not my wish denigrate the work Patrick Sookhdeo has done over the years in helping support hard-pressed Christian minorities overseas. My concern is that such work may be tarnished by ill considered teachings in a field where he is considered by some to be an authority.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Qur'an Burning in Florida. It has been reported on the news that a church in Gainsville, Florida, is proposing to burn copies of the Qur'an in order to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Ostensibly justified as a protest against militant Islam it is difficult to see how this action will not alienate all Muslims, and indeed appal all people of good-will. As a Christian, and as an Evangelical Christian at that, I want to go on record and state that this proposed action falls far short of the conduct all followers of Jesus are called to follow. The tendency among some professed Christians toward loathing and fear of Muslims in general is a denial of the Evangelical faith we claim to profess; instead of loathing we should respond with love, instead of fear we should respond with faith. I can only assume the church in question are publicity seeking but in doing so they have not brought any honour to the name of the Lord Jesus and one day they will have to account for that to Him.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Lunchtime Service at St Helen's Bishopsgate!
If I can't get to church on Sunday because of my shift pattern I try to get to a midweek lunch time service instead.
St Helen's is located in The City near 'The Gherkin' and all the talks are downloadable for free from www.shmedia.org.uk
William Taylor is currently doing a series of talks from the Gospel of Luke. Can I recommend his series called 'Light & Lies' order code SE10/023-s1-ACD.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Militant Cleric's Anti-British Rant in School Assembly.
Imagine the scene where a cleric uses the platform at a school assembly to denounce the British presence in his country and calls for his co-religionists to make a stand with those the army is oppressing there.
At the time of this incident the army had been deployed a couple of years earlier to help preserve the peace in that country and were taking casualties in this thankless task. There was some feeling that the army should be pulled out and the inhabitants "left to get on with it!" The cleric made his appeal to a secondary school in Bradford which had a large number of third and fourth generation immigrant children from his home country. Their forebears had come to the city to work in the textile industry which depended upon cheap labour - and that was recruited from overseas. The important point is that the cleric clearly felt that these children owed some loyalty to the old country and its people.
On the whole the children were baffled rather than inflamed by the impassioned plea by this man and I don't think anything much came of it. The cleric was not invited back to the best of my knowledge. By this time the children had only the most tenuous links with the old country and any resentment towards "the British" had long since dissipated. The stories of their grandparents and great-grandparents having to walk from Bradford to Leeds to attend their nearest place of worship had passed into folk memory and any resistance to such buildings being developed locally (as alien impositions on the national culture) had long since ceased. Additionally the immigrants had by now their own well established school system. That did not mean, however, that the immigrant community felt entirely at ease among the host nation and there persisted some unspoken but genuinely felt fear that the conflict in this cleric's country could have serious repercussions on British streets. Occasionally their children would be asked to disperse quickly from school on the basis of rumours circulating in the city that they would be targetted by gangs of local youths. This was probably sheer paranoia - but even so it was a genuinely felt fear, met with a resolve not to retaliate in kind.
A casual observer in the secondary school would have found one aspect quite jarring however. Each class did not have a number to designate them; the classes were given the names of those who had been "martyred". Such markers emphasised to the children that, as well assimilated as they were in English culture, there were differences too. Yet the names of the martyrs were carefully selected to emphasise their English rather than foreign origins. In fact the names of the schools themselves were carefully chosen for the same reasons as if there was a concerted effort not to create an immigrant subculture but to stress that they too belonged and wished to belong. So the challenge to the host community is how welcoming they choose to be.
From an Evangelical perspective (and that is where I am coming from!) there is a much deeper challenge - do we see our role as defenders of our national culture against faiths perceived as 'foreign'? Are we inclined to feel threatened, defensive or even angry? In the face of militant calls from hostile clerics do we really believe that the Gospel is our greatest asset or do we think we need to take "action" of some other sort?
Oh! by the way the assembly I described was in 1970 and the cleric was an Irish Catholic priest.... I was there that day! This was St George's Secondary School on Cliffe Road and I was there for two years in "Anne Line" and "Henry Morse" before moving onto St Bede's in Emm Lane, Bradford.
post-script, 12th March 2010.
I came across this BBC article on local history which ties in nicely with the comments above, just click on the link... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/content/articles/2006/05/12/bradford_irish_katie_feature.shtml
Imagine the scene where a cleric uses the platform at a school assembly to denounce the British presence in his country and calls for his co-religionists to make a stand with those the army is oppressing there.
At the time of this incident the army had been deployed a couple of years earlier to help preserve the peace in that country and were taking casualties in this thankless task. There was some feeling that the army should be pulled out and the inhabitants "left to get on with it!" The cleric made his appeal to a secondary school in Bradford which had a large number of third and fourth generation immigrant children from his home country. Their forebears had come to the city to work in the textile industry which depended upon cheap labour - and that was recruited from overseas. The important point is that the cleric clearly felt that these children owed some loyalty to the old country and its people.
On the whole the children were baffled rather than inflamed by the impassioned plea by this man and I don't think anything much came of it. The cleric was not invited back to the best of my knowledge. By this time the children had only the most tenuous links with the old country and any resentment towards "the British" had long since dissipated. The stories of their grandparents and great-grandparents having to walk from Bradford to Leeds to attend their nearest place of worship had passed into folk memory and any resistance to such buildings being developed locally (as alien impositions on the national culture) had long since ceased. Additionally the immigrants had by now their own well established school system. That did not mean, however, that the immigrant community felt entirely at ease among the host nation and there persisted some unspoken but genuinely felt fear that the conflict in this cleric's country could have serious repercussions on British streets. Occasionally their children would be asked to disperse quickly from school on the basis of rumours circulating in the city that they would be targetted by gangs of local youths. This was probably sheer paranoia - but even so it was a genuinely felt fear, met with a resolve not to retaliate in kind.
A casual observer in the secondary school would have found one aspect quite jarring however. Each class did not have a number to designate them; the classes were given the names of those who had been "martyred". Such markers emphasised to the children that, as well assimilated as they were in English culture, there were differences too. Yet the names of the martyrs were carefully selected to emphasise their English rather than foreign origins. In fact the names of the schools themselves were carefully chosen for the same reasons as if there was a concerted effort not to create an immigrant subculture but to stress that they too belonged and wished to belong. So the challenge to the host community is how welcoming they choose to be.
From an Evangelical perspective (and that is where I am coming from!) there is a much deeper challenge - do we see our role as defenders of our national culture against faiths perceived as 'foreign'? Are we inclined to feel threatened, defensive or even angry? In the face of militant calls from hostile clerics do we really believe that the Gospel is our greatest asset or do we think we need to take "action" of some other sort?
Oh! by the way the assembly I described was in 1970 and the cleric was an Irish Catholic priest.... I was there that day! This was St George's Secondary School on Cliffe Road and I was there for two years in "Anne Line" and "Henry Morse" before moving onto St Bede's in Emm Lane, Bradford.
post-script, 12th March 2010.
I came across this BBC article on local history which ties in nicely with the comments above, just click on the link... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/content/articles/2006/05/12/bradford_irish_katie_feature.shtml
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!
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!
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.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
THE DANISH CARTOON ROW!
& a Christian response to it.
In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK
there is an excellent letter from Joel Edwards,
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance.
"In a week when many celebrated the defence of
free speech in the racial and religious hatred bill,
but then had to swallow the consequences of
liberty with the BNP [British National Party]
court case victory, we are presented with
another challenge. Islam is known as a religion
of peace. In light of the controversial publication
of Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad,
here is an opportunity to engage with a bemused
public and sceptical press about Islam and to
recognise that in a liberal democracy arguments
must be won through engagement and not
intimidation. The Evangelical Alliance supports
the Muslim Council of Britain for distancing itself
from violence. As Christians we understand only
too well the pain still caused by seeing one's faith
ridiculed, but urge Muslims to defend their beliefs
through dialogue."
The letter can be found on page 35 of The Guardian,
Saturday, 4th February 2006.
Post-Script. 7th Feb 06.
I had a letter of my own published in today's
Guardian regarding the police reaction to the
slogans used at last Friday's demo in London.
"The police have been unfairly criticised in my
view for taking a softly softly approach to the
inflammatory rhetoric at what was otherwise
a peaceful demonstration. What would the
headlines have said if they had waded in purely
on the strength of the language used? It's time
to take a deep breath and calm down."
& a Christian response to it.
In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK
there is an excellent letter from Joel Edwards,
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance.
"In a week when many celebrated the defence of
free speech in the racial and religious hatred bill,
but then had to swallow the consequences of
liberty with the BNP [British National Party]
court case victory, we are presented with
another challenge. Islam is known as a religion
of peace. In light of the controversial publication
of Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad,
here is an opportunity to engage with a bemused
public and sceptical press about Islam and to
recognise that in a liberal democracy arguments
must be won through engagement and not
intimidation. The Evangelical Alliance supports
the Muslim Council of Britain for distancing itself
from violence. As Christians we understand only
too well the pain still caused by seeing one's faith
ridiculed, but urge Muslims to defend their beliefs
through dialogue."
The letter can be found on page 35 of The Guardian,
Saturday, 4th February 2006.
Post-Script. 7th Feb 06.
I had a letter of my own published in today's
Guardian regarding the police reaction to the
slogans used at last Friday's demo in London.
"The police have been unfairly criticised in my
view for taking a softly softly approach to the
inflammatory rhetoric at what was otherwise
a peaceful demonstration. What would the
headlines have said if they had waded in purely
on the strength of the language used? It's time
to take a deep breath and calm down."
Sunday, December 18, 2005
"Sharia by Stealth" Conspiracy Theory.
There seems to be an idea currently being peddled
around evangelical circles in the UK of a rather
unsavoury conspiracy; that Muslims are (over time)
seeking to take over the country and subvert it's
democratic institutions.
This notion has been put about by a couple of lobby
groups who have their own agendas and who
are attempting to garner support for themselves
from among Evangelical Christians by appealing to
base populism. Personally I am intensely
suspicious of the motives of anyone using such fears
as a persuader. "By their fruit you shall know them".
As an Evangelical Christian I wish to make it clear
that such groups do not speak on my behalf nor,
in my view, do they have the right to claim to speak on
behalf of Evangelical Christians generally. Their
message of gracelessness and fear is totally antithetical
to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it is corrosive to our
witness to the onlooking world. I would urge
discerning Christians to graciously show these
interlopers the door.
There seems to be an idea currently being peddled
around evangelical circles in the UK of a rather
unsavoury conspiracy; that Muslims are (over time)
seeking to take over the country and subvert it's
democratic institutions.
This notion has been put about by a couple of lobby
groups who have their own agendas and who
are attempting to garner support for themselves
from among Evangelical Christians by appealing to
base populism. Personally I am intensely
suspicious of the motives of anyone using such fears
as a persuader. "By their fruit you shall know them".
As an Evangelical Christian I wish to make it clear
that such groups do not speak on my behalf nor,
in my view, do they have the right to claim to speak on
behalf of Evangelical Christians generally. Their
message of gracelessness and fear is totally antithetical
to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it is corrosive to our
witness to the onlooking world. I would urge
discerning Christians to graciously show these
interlopers the door.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Apologies to Rob Bradshaw!
I want to apologise to poor Rob Bradshaw at
biblicalstudies.org.uk for my ungracious and
cranky outburst over the Daniel Scot affair.
The poor guy has taken some stick from me
about all this - which is not really his
responsibility - he is just passing on what he
has been "reliably" told. I just happened to find him
while trawling through the internet reviewing
material relating to DS .
I suppose I feel rather cranky about this
case because it has become a rallying
point for the evangelical church against Islam
and if I understand the case correctly I think
we are the ones in the wrong.
In the "August 2005 archive" you will find the gist
of the case [The "2 Daniels" Affair] so I won't
repeat myself here. I do not particularly have a
gripe with DS - I do have a gripe with the wider
evangelical church [of which I count myself a
member] for egging him on into this confrontation
with the Islamic Council of Victoria and the
Australian courts [VCAT - Victoria Civil &
Administrative Tribunal], and the following
remarks are addressed to that wider
evangelical community.
I appreciate that the church wishes to
assert it's independence from state
interference. Actually I agree that such
legislation regarding "religious vilification"
is a restriction on freedom of speech. I
would rather have a frank free-for-all
than a prissy discussion limited by law.
[But evangelicals need to appreciate that
such freedom also puts us in the firing
line and we will need to learn to respond
with the graciousness we claim to live by;
for example demos over "Jerry Springer
the Opera" do not sit easily with this].
As evangelical christians we are required
to respect the law of the land, even if we
disagree with it, unless we are obliged to
compromise the Gospel. This case has
often been misrepresented in our circles
variously as DS being maliciously prosecuted
for merely "conducting a seminar on Islam" or
as "DS facing jail for criticising fundamentalist
Islam" - these are disingenuous; and they
never had "the ring of truth" about them. If you
read the Higgins judgement it was precisely
because DS did not focus his tendentious
comments on Islamic Fundamentalism but on
all Muslims generally that he was found to have
breached the law. And if he faces jail at all it is
for contempt of court for wilfully refusing to
make an apology as instructed. DS has been
given a prominence beyond his gifting - it
will not be the first time a godly man's
enthusiasm for his subject has outstripped his
judgement. Instead of trying to lovingly
correct this guy, DS has been set up to test the
law in the state of Victoria - but the
issues under discussion are not the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he
is God's Son (and thus cannot be
superceded by any other revelation),
and that by his sacrifice on the Cross
he has redeemed all those who put
their exclusive trust in him. No, the
issues under discussion are: how we
to understand the Koran and whether
the Muslim community tacitly support
terrorism and if there is a
sinister plot afoot to take over the
country. This was NOT what I was
initially lead to believe this case was about.
They are hardly key Gospel issues
are they?
This indicates to me that despite
our assertion that this case is all about
freedom of speech to preach the
Gospel; the hard evidence actually
suggests it is all about freedom of
speech to express our fear of Islam.
The question I want to pose to my
fellow Christians is [the rationality
of this fear aside]; is this an
appropriate response for us and
what does it reveal about the true
state of our faith? Even if your
worst fears come true we are in
God's hands not theirs!
By giving way to fear we are in
danger of merely being children of
our age and we have lost the
perspective that the children of
God should have. I do not blame
the church - but I am troubled
by an apparent lack of integrity by some.
I can only assume that our leaders are
being unduly influenced by certain opinion
shapers into adopting a conspiracy
theory of a "Sharia by Stealth" plot
to take over the country.
As an Evangelical Christian I believe
we must resist this hyperbole and inject
a good dose of grace and commonsense in
to this debate. I will go on record and
say that I am intensely suspicious of
the motives of anyone who uses such
fears as a persuader! The Muslim
population in the UK is 2.7% - I
believe that they have far more cause
to be in fear than we have - so let's
keep things in proportion eh?
If I have wound up people over this
business I want to say sorry - but I
feel compelled to speak out because
we are in serious danger of dis-
gracing ourselves. This cause may
have the unwitting effect of
politicising evangelical christians
in a way that has been relatively
unknown on this side of the
world and will place us, not
merely on the right, but on the
ultra-far-right of politics. This
will be disasterous to our
witness to the onlooking world.
I am writing this in the hope that
our leaders will take note of this
danger.
All comments are welcome and will be
published in full..............please write......
but expect a robust response..................
you are especially welcome if you have
joined us from Rob Bradshaw's blog!
if you want a strictly private forum you
can contact me directly at
peterswift57@yahoo.co.uk
I want to apologise to poor Rob Bradshaw at
biblicalstudies.org.uk for my ungracious and
cranky outburst over the Daniel Scot affair.
The poor guy has taken some stick from me
about all this - which is not really his
responsibility - he is just passing on what he
has been "reliably" told. I just happened to find him
while trawling through the internet reviewing
material relating to DS .
I suppose I feel rather cranky about this
case because it has become a rallying
point for the evangelical church against Islam
and if I understand the case correctly I think
we are the ones in the wrong.
In the "August 2005 archive" you will find the gist
of the case [The "2 Daniels" Affair] so I won't
repeat myself here. I do not particularly have a
gripe with DS - I do have a gripe with the wider
evangelical church [of which I count myself a
member] for egging him on into this confrontation
with the Islamic Council of Victoria and the
Australian courts [VCAT - Victoria Civil &
Administrative Tribunal], and the following
remarks are addressed to that wider
evangelical community.
I appreciate that the church wishes to
assert it's independence from state
interference. Actually I agree that such
legislation regarding "religious vilification"
is a restriction on freedom of speech. I
would rather have a frank free-for-all
than a prissy discussion limited by law.
[But evangelicals need to appreciate that
such freedom also puts us in the firing
line and we will need to learn to respond
with the graciousness we claim to live by;
for example demos over "Jerry Springer
the Opera" do not sit easily with this].
As evangelical christians we are required
to respect the law of the land, even if we
disagree with it, unless we are obliged to
compromise the Gospel. This case has
often been misrepresented in our circles
variously as DS being maliciously prosecuted
for merely "conducting a seminar on Islam" or
as "DS facing jail for criticising fundamentalist
Islam" - these are disingenuous; and they
never had "the ring of truth" about them. If you
read the Higgins judgement it was precisely
because DS did not focus his tendentious
comments on Islamic Fundamentalism but on
all Muslims generally that he was found to have
breached the law. And if he faces jail at all it is
for contempt of court for wilfully refusing to
make an apology as instructed. DS has been
given a prominence beyond his gifting - it
will not be the first time a godly man's
enthusiasm for his subject has outstripped his
judgement. Instead of trying to lovingly
correct this guy, DS has been set up to test the
law in the state of Victoria - but the
issues under discussion are not the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he
is God's Son (and thus cannot be
superceded by any other revelation),
and that by his sacrifice on the Cross
he has redeemed all those who put
their exclusive trust in him. No, the
issues under discussion are: how we
to understand the Koran and whether
the Muslim community tacitly support
terrorism and if there is a
sinister plot afoot to take over the
country. This was NOT what I was
initially lead to believe this case was about.
They are hardly key Gospel issues
are they?
This indicates to me that despite
our assertion that this case is all about
freedom of speech to preach the
Gospel; the hard evidence actually
suggests it is all about freedom of
speech to express our fear of Islam.
The question I want to pose to my
fellow Christians is [the rationality
of this fear aside]; is this an
appropriate response for us and
what does it reveal about the true
state of our faith? Even if your
worst fears come true we are in
God's hands not theirs!
By giving way to fear we are in
danger of merely being children of
our age and we have lost the
perspective that the children of
God should have. I do not blame
the church - but I am troubled
by an apparent lack of integrity by some.
I can only assume that our leaders are
being unduly influenced by certain opinion
shapers into adopting a conspiracy
theory of a "Sharia by Stealth" plot
to take over the country.
As an Evangelical Christian I believe
we must resist this hyperbole and inject
a good dose of grace and commonsense in
to this debate. I will go on record and
say that I am intensely suspicious of
the motives of anyone who uses such
fears as a persuader! The Muslim
population in the UK is 2.7% - I
believe that they have far more cause
to be in fear than we have - so let's
keep things in proportion eh?
If I have wound up people over this
business I want to say sorry - but I
feel compelled to speak out because
we are in serious danger of dis-
gracing ourselves. This cause may
have the unwitting effect of
politicising evangelical christians
in a way that has been relatively
unknown on this side of the
world and will place us, not
merely on the right, but on the
ultra-far-right of politics. This
will be disasterous to our
witness to the onlooking world.
I am writing this in the hope that
our leaders will take note of this
danger.
All comments are welcome and will be
published in full..............please write......
but expect a robust response..................
you are especially welcome if you have
joined us from Rob Bradshaw's blog!
if you want a strictly private forum you
can contact me directly at
peterswift57@yahoo.co.uk
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
The "2 Daniels" affair.
Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah recently lost a case brought against them by the "Islamic Council of Victoria" in Australia, under that state's "anti-vilification" laws. The case arose out of comments made by Daniel Scot at a seminar which caused offence to some Muslims sent to monitor the content. I first became aware of the case when I read a report of the case in the August 2005 edition of "Evangelicals Now" published in the UK.
Personally I was shocked by the report but not for the reason the correspondent
might have wished. I was dismayed by [a] what the report seemed to confirm was said at the seminar and [b] by the graceless tone of the article itself. If you
are sufficiently interested you'll need to check it out for yourself because I am not repeating that tosh here. [Evangelicals Now, August 2005, page 9]. Make up your own mind.
People have remonstrated with me that this is simply an issue of "freedom of speech". Okay, I can understand that. Maybe it is a bad idea to have a law
regulating what might/might not cause offence to people of different faiths.
Perhaps people should have the right to say crass things without fear of prosecution. I don't have a problem with that as an argument. But I do
think that this case bears further examination than it's caricature currently
allows. We must be careful to distinguish between defending the "freedom of
the pulpit" to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, and condoning any
and every abuse of that public platform by preachers speaking "off-message".
Uncritical support of the "2 Daniels" may backfire; here are a few of my
"rules of engagement" for anyone to comment on.
1] If Christians go head to head with the law of the land they need to make sure that it is done for the right reason and in the right way. As a Christian I believe that we should apply the test of "causing no offence but the offence of the Cross",
by this standard what was said at the seminar does not pass muster. "Tap-room
theology" is for the tap-room to justify not the church, sometimes such comments are all too human [say after the London Bombings when people are
frightened] and as such can be forgivable, but they are certainly not Christlike.
I believe that we should model the grace we preach.
2] It is one thing to critique a belief system, it is something else again to single out a particular faith group for wholesale condemnation. To do this in God's
name - as the article seems to suggest - escalates the stakes again and sadly
shows that we ourselves have become Jihadists/Crusaders in our own way!
3] The Daniels perceptions of Islam may be technically correct for all I know,
but what they say the Koran teaches isn't automatically translated into direct
action by it's readers. This is self evident, not all Muslims turn to terrorism.
Which suggests to me that there are shades of opinion within Islam. It could be that Daniel Scot has a particular view of Islam borne out of his own difficult time in Pakistan. If so, why didn't some church leader at one of the series of seminars say to him, "Brother, I am concerned that some of the things you have been saying will appear ungracious and unkind. It may be that what
you have said could bring the gospel into disrepute and such language is unlikely to win over our Muslim neighbours. It may be that your teaching is deeply influenced by the very difficult experiences you have had in Pakistan. Let's talk it over". No evangelical church I know of allows uncritical access to it's public platfrom for people to speak "off-message".Perhaps if the Australian evangelical church had drawn a distinction between defending the "freedom of the pulpit" against state interference while dissociating itself from the intemperate sentiments expressed on that occasion it would not now be caught up in an unholy mess, which can only be described as a "culture war" - which has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and has more in common with ultra-right wing politics. This campaign may prove to be very costly - not least to Daniel Scot himself.
4] It is very unscientific but I've trawled through some Christian websites which comment on Islam. It seems to me that the discussion is almost always in terms of "threat" or a coming "Clash of Civilisations". A few seem to relish the prospect of a war between Islam and The West. The question I want to raise is have Christians so sold out to "The West" that we have lost sight of where our true citizenship actually lies? Is the church engaged in a "culture war" at the expense of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ? Do we have confidence in the Gospel - or do we give way to fear and hostility towards those we are called to love? This alone may distinguish us from the far-right.
Concluding Thought:
Let's assume that the world is indeed destined to spiral down into a "Clash of Civilisations", imagine the world 50 years from now living in the aftermath of a Third World War, and attention turns to the role played by the evangelical church in the run upto that conflict. Will they conclude that the church fanned the flames of that conflict, or that they modelled grace to a world bent on war?
Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah recently lost a case brought against them by the "Islamic Council of Victoria" in Australia, under that state's "anti-vilification" laws. The case arose out of comments made by Daniel Scot at a seminar which caused offence to some Muslims sent to monitor the content. I first became aware of the case when I read a report of the case in the August 2005 edition of "Evangelicals Now" published in the UK.
Personally I was shocked by the report but not for the reason the correspondent
might have wished. I was dismayed by [a] what the report seemed to confirm was said at the seminar and [b] by the graceless tone of the article itself. If you
are sufficiently interested you'll need to check it out for yourself because I am not repeating that tosh here. [Evangelicals Now, August 2005, page 9]. Make up your own mind.
People have remonstrated with me that this is simply an issue of "freedom of speech". Okay, I can understand that. Maybe it is a bad idea to have a law
regulating what might/might not cause offence to people of different faiths.
Perhaps people should have the right to say crass things without fear of prosecution. I don't have a problem with that as an argument. But I do
think that this case bears further examination than it's caricature currently
allows. We must be careful to distinguish between defending the "freedom of
the pulpit" to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, and condoning any
and every abuse of that public platform by preachers speaking "off-message".
Uncritical support of the "2 Daniels" may backfire; here are a few of my
"rules of engagement" for anyone to comment on.
1] If Christians go head to head with the law of the land they need to make sure that it is done for the right reason and in the right way. As a Christian I believe that we should apply the test of "causing no offence but the offence of the Cross",
by this standard what was said at the seminar does not pass muster. "Tap-room
theology" is for the tap-room to justify not the church, sometimes such comments are all too human [say after the London Bombings when people are
frightened] and as such can be forgivable, but they are certainly not Christlike.
I believe that we should model the grace we preach.
2] It is one thing to critique a belief system, it is something else again to single out a particular faith group for wholesale condemnation. To do this in God's
name - as the article seems to suggest - escalates the stakes again and sadly
shows that we ourselves have become Jihadists/Crusaders in our own way!
3] The Daniels perceptions of Islam may be technically correct for all I know,
but what they say the Koran teaches isn't automatically translated into direct
action by it's readers. This is self evident, not all Muslims turn to terrorism.
Which suggests to me that there are shades of opinion within Islam. It could be that Daniel Scot has a particular view of Islam borne out of his own difficult time in Pakistan. If so, why didn't some church leader at one of the series of seminars say to him, "Brother, I am concerned that some of the things you have been saying will appear ungracious and unkind. It may be that what
you have said could bring the gospel into disrepute and such language is unlikely to win over our Muslim neighbours. It may be that your teaching is deeply influenced by the very difficult experiences you have had in Pakistan. Let's talk it over". No evangelical church I know of allows uncritical access to it's public platfrom for people to speak "off-message".Perhaps if the Australian evangelical church had drawn a distinction between defending the "freedom of the pulpit" against state interference while dissociating itself from the intemperate sentiments expressed on that occasion it would not now be caught up in an unholy mess, which can only be described as a "culture war" - which has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and has more in common with ultra-right wing politics. This campaign may prove to be very costly - not least to Daniel Scot himself.
4] It is very unscientific but I've trawled through some Christian websites which comment on Islam. It seems to me that the discussion is almost always in terms of "threat" or a coming "Clash of Civilisations". A few seem to relish the prospect of a war between Islam and The West. The question I want to raise is have Christians so sold out to "The West" that we have lost sight of where our true citizenship actually lies? Is the church engaged in a "culture war" at the expense of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ? Do we have confidence in the Gospel - or do we give way to fear and hostility towards those we are called to love? This alone may distinguish us from the far-right.
Concluding Thought:
Let's assume that the world is indeed destined to spiral down into a "Clash of Civilisations", imagine the world 50 years from now living in the aftermath of a Third World War, and attention turns to the role played by the evangelical church in the run up
to that conflict. Will they conclude that the church fanned the flames of that conflict, or that they modelled grace to a world bent on war?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)