So between the Pope's harmful words on Islam, and George W.'s insistence that there is a new revival beginning in America, I'm a feeling a bit more pessimistic than usual. Beyond the fact that George is becoming known as torturer-in-chief, not to mention Germany also going right-wing and electing some more nazis, there is the problem of being black and white.
When I read what W said, my biggest problem with it, beyond the pure arrogance dripping from all of it, was the way certain people were labeled as "evil-doers," implying in the process that we are a force for good. And now he sees his war of terror as a major source of Christian revival in our country. It may be, though it is not a form of Christianity I would want anything to do with. It is more like Zoroastrianism mixed with Platonism than it is Christianity. Between the Pope's words and George's actions, what choice does a non-Westerner have but to hate us?
Life is not black and white. The second you try to label somebody, you have already failed in understanding them or God. I do believe we are all fallen. I also believe we are created in God's image and redeemed by Jesus. So we are all evil, as well as good. To be blunt about all of it, I think labeling another human being shows at minimum a disregard for Jesus and his teachings, if not an outright hatred of God and what he is doing and has done in our world.
Why do we have such a hard time seeing the log in our own eye? How do we move away from the arrogant faith that so many of us have allowed Christianity to become? I wonder the men above, but even more so for myself. I see so many problems, but that is always so much easier than living out the solutions. Lord help us.
Peace,
Matt
Currently Reading: Hocus Pocus by Kurt Vonnegut and Exiles by Michael Frost. Though very different, they are also very similar, and not surprisingly, wonderful to read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Can you explain what was so harmful about Benedict XVI's words? For the life of me, I can't find anything truly insulting in the section of the speech in question, but I admit I could be obtuse on this one. I think the Pope is being taken out of context by some who will not withstand any criticism whether real or perceived. I wish the Pope hadn't quoted the Byzantine emperor directly since the quotation seems to be more tangential to his point. The point I read is that reason and the teachings of Christianity and Islam make no allowance for conversion by the sword. (The actual history of Christianity and Islam is obviously another matter.)
If the Pope is taking a black and white stance, then he is doing so on the point that it is never justifiable to spread one's religion via violence. I'm okay with that being a black and white stance.
Here is the paragraph that has been the topic of all the debate and fury:
"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion'. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels', he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God', he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...'.
The whole text of the speech can be found in PDF here.
The real deal is that the pope needed to humbly take responsibility for the exact same evils we have committed as Christians so as not to polarize and demonize another faith. He just didn't need to say any of this, showing how another religion appears to be in the wrong is never an effective way of comunicating the gospel. If the gospel is truth, then speak it and let the Holy Spirit convict people of that truth. If Islam is false, then let the Holy Spirit convict people of that falsehood, we don't need to point out the darkness we just need to carry the light wherever we go, in love and truth. I don't think the pope was meaning to be malicious, but nothing about this reflects the radical grace of Christ.
Post a Comment