I don’t have to surf the web long before I come across someone insulting me.
Superstitious. Uneducated. Bigoted. Narrow-minded. Weak. Homophobic. Brainwashed. Intolerant.
I am a Christian, and humanists have epithets aplenty for those of my ilk. I take them in stride because I used to be one of them, with a ready insult of my own for anyone who dared admit they gave credence to the Bible. Now I know better, and strive for humility in recognition of my own sinful shortcomings. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
Is my new attitude tolerated by humanists? Hardly. “How dare you claim to know better than us?” they protest. “Keep your low self-esteem issues about sin to yourself. We don’t need your holier-than-thou attitude!”
It’s an entertaining game, the stances we take toward those of different worldviews, the little indignations we feel over the stances they take toward us. It’s a universal game, too: everyone has a worldview of some sort, even if they claim not to (textbook agnosticism), so everyone can play. And does.
In the last year, however, the game turned ugly.
Who cares how it started. What is fair to say is that some members of one worldview — Islam — took exception to opinions voiced about them by others. A cartoonist was threatened with death, a prophet was called “evil and inhuman,” a pope was burned in effigy, a president was demanded to convert.
But the bulk of all that tension didn’t revolve around opinion so much as perceived intent, a fear of the next imagined move by others in a longer chain of consequence. Consider, for example, how atheists feel when they hear about Christians praying for their salvation. Prayer should be a laughing matter to someone who doesn’t believe God exists — and yet it unnerves atheists because the Christian intends change in their lives. Intent is threatening.
So what do Christians and Muslims intend for one another? Do Christians intend to subdue a Middle Eastern empire? Do Muslims intend to kill Western infidels?
Not only do such fears fuel international conflict, in America’s pluralistic society they breed distrust, fear and discrimination. For two religions that promote peace, it’s amazing to watch each side perceive such a threat of violence in the other. What is lacking from both is a frank explanation of intent.
The time is ripe for Christians, Muslims, and others to clear the air by laying out, in plain terms, their stance toward those who do not share their beliefs. No more equivocation — diplomacy, long touted as the antidote to violence, begins with open dialogue, and that begins when adherents of each worldview spell out the core beliefs that influence how they view others.
In particular, these six questions should be addressed:
1. Identity. Do non-believers have the same intrinsic human worth as believers, or are they in some way inferior?
2. Attitude. Are believers encouraged to regard non-believers with respect and empathy?
3. Fate. What is the ultimate outcome for non-believers as a result of their different worldview?
4. Influence. What changes are believers encouraged to bring about, directly or indirectly, in the lives of non-believers?
5. Method. What techniques are believers permitted to use to bring about change in the lives of non-believers?
6. Tolerance. What civic rights do believers concede to non-believers?
You can probably answer these questions for those of other worldviews, explaining how they see you. In fact you’re probably itching to do so, in order to point out the disrespect and grievances you’ve suffered from them. It was tempting for me to do so in writing this post — in fact, I did so in the beginning, didn’t I? Oh, I am such a martyr for my beliefs! So are we all.
But painting ourselves as victims is the coward’s way of pointing fingers, and will only prolong conflict. Instead we need to step out from behind our silent prejudices and be forthright about how we view others. Revealing our beliefs to the very people they are about will, hopefully, encourage us all to be a little more magnanimous toward them in our actions, words, and private thoughts.
I will go first.
I am a Christian, and here is how my beliefs influence the way I see nonchristians. In answering these questions I won’t pull any punches. I will be frank, putting my worst foot forward (without sacrificing fullness or accuracy) so that others will know the worst they can expect of me. I’ve included links to Scriptural passages that explain the juicier parts.
1. Identity. Christians and nonchristians alike are created by God and share His image, and all are sinners. Nonchristians also share Satan as a father (1), as I did when I was a nonchristian. The fact that I’ve been adopted back into the family of God does not mean I’m superior, or that nonchristians are inferior — I was saved because of what Jesus did on the cross, not because of anything I did or do. Jesus modeled the worth of the nonbeliever’s life in the parable of the lost sheep (2), and by the fact that He died in the place of sinners who hated Him (3).
2. Attitude. I respect nonchristians because, like myself, they reflect God’s glory; I empathize with them because, like myself, they are sinners. Although the Bible is truth, nature also reflects truth, so I can learn plenty from nonchristians who are fellow observers of nature and of life. The Bible forbids me from judging others, warning me instead to judge myself (4) — even to the point of considering myself the worst of all sinners (5), which makes sense considering that I’m privy to no one’s inner thoughts but my own. The Bible encourages me to show compassion to all, and to view myself with humility regarding all.
3. Fate. All human beings will one day be judged by God, whose holiness and perfection is so great that we will all fall short and be condemned (6). Those who accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross will escape judgment and join God in heaven for eternity; those who rejected His sacrifice on the cross will be condemned to hell for eternity (7). Heaven isn’t a reward for goodness or moral superiority, but only for pathetic sinners like me who accept the way out that God has provided.
4. Influence. The Bible commands Christians to make disciples of all nations (8); we’re eager to share our faith with others because Jesus has had such a positive impact on our lives. The Bible further teaches us to love our enemies and to bless those who persecute us (9). We, along with all human beings, are commanded to subdue the earth (10), advancing fields of benefit to all humankind such as industry, technology, medicine and science. We’re also encouraged to be “salt and light” to nonchristians, living as an example of the joy we have in Jesus Christ (11).
5. Method. In making disciples of all nations, Christians are to pray, to preach God’s Word, and to perform acts of service such as feeding the hungry and healing the sick (12). We are prohibited from using force or coercion . At worst, nonchristians can expect us to present them with the Gospel and to pray for them. Those who lack interest are not to be pestered further, as Jesus instructed His disciples to shake the dust off their sandals as they departed from unbelieving towns (13).
6. Tolerance. Christians are commanded to live at peace with everyone if possible (14). We’re also taught to pray for our government’s leaders and to respect civil authority (15). We must not allow ourselves to be condemned by what we approve, so we vote in ways that reflect Biblical values, which nonchristians may see as an attempt to enforce Christian standards on a pluralistic society. While we respect separation of church and state, we do vote our individual consciences (which are informed by the Bible) because we can’t check them at the door when entering the polling booth.
There, that’s it. I’m not hiding anything — there’s plenty in there that nonchristians will find offensive. My goal isn’t to duck the dicey issues, it’s to reveal them in the hope that nonchristians will see how much room there is for peaceful coexistence. If my beliefs make others uncomfortable, should I change them? No — and I shouldn’t be expected to, nor should I expect this of others. I accept that nonchristians may (and vehemently do!) believe things of me that I consider unfair and unflattering. In our pluralistic world we can all agree to disagree. Jesus has certainly given me ample room for this.
Of course in answering these questions I don’t speak on behalf of all Christendom. Indeed many, both Christian and not, will disagree with the way I’ve represented Christianity. No one can speak for an entire faith, not even the Pope, which is why I’ve answered the six questions for myself. Do some nutcases protest at soldiers’ funerals or blow up abortion clinics? Yes, and they need to answer for themselves. So should every individual Christian, every Muslim and Jew, every Hindu and Buddhist and Wiccan and humanist and atheist. We all need to own up to how our core beliefs influence our views of others.
Toward that end, it’s time for others to respond. In light of recent tensions, I hereby extend a first invitation to Muslims.
Does the Qu’ran advocate violence against those who do not convert? In the last year we read that an Afghani citizen who professed faith in Jesus Christ would have been executed had he not been evacuated to another nation. We heard death threats issued against Americans in the name of Muhamed, and against a satirical cartoonist and everyone who published his work. We read that Iran’s differences with America would be resolved if only Bush would convert to Islam.
Through all of this, many voices in America have insisted that Islam is a religion of peace. These voices have not, for the most part, been Islamic, so we have many questions.
As the Islamic population of America grows, will Muslim Americans use the democratic process to seek to establish sharia law? Do Muslims consider the blood of infidels as valuable as the blood of fellow Muslims?
Since 9/11, Islam in America has enjoyed increasing public support and attention as a minority religion, all with minimal activisim from Muslims themselves. It seems as though Muslim Americans have been riding under the radar. Perhaps that’s due to a fear of prejudice and reprisals. Still, in the face of recent headlines we’re left wondering whether American tolerance is protecting a religion we don’t fully understand, one that may in fact be antithetical to tolerance itself.
We’re willing to listen. How do Muslim Americans view the rest of us? What do you want for us? What do you want from us? What methods are you permitted and encouraged to use to accomplish these goals?
Now is a fantastic opportunity to speak.
October 22, 2006 at 8:25 pm |
I’ll admit I’m nervous about how this post will be received. I’m attempting to extend an olive branch of tolerance and hoping to see it reciprocated. I have a feeling, however, that humanists will not take it that way. We’ll see what kind of comments come in here, and also elsewhere if this post is pasted on bulletin boards to be tarred and feathered.
October 23, 2006 at 9:51 am |
I think that you are exaggerating a little in your belief that we are all sinners because we are not Christian, but that is not what I am commenting about. I disagree with your belief that I will go to hell because I don’t believe that we were all born in sin – what has a 1-hour-old baby ever done to be born into sin? – but I respect your belief in that.
Back to the issue at hand, I think the biggest problem here is the way life is perceived. (Modern day) Christianity and Judaism places life at the top of everything.
You will not see anyone in the modern world killing themselves in the name of their religion.
You will not see any Christians or Jews hiding behind their children as human shields. I don’t know if this is written in the Quran or anything and I don’t know the sense behind it, but until everyone has the highest regard for human life, no real diplomacy will be able to take place.
October 23, 2006 at 10:09 am |
Just a couple of responses to taltalk before I address forester:
Just to be clear, I am certain that forester agrees with me that we are all (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, man, woman, and child…) sinners. Christians are Christians precisely because they have been shown (by the Holy Spirit) the reality of their own sin, and claim (through faith) Christ’s atonement for it.
Indeed, it is probably not possible to justify the doctrine of original sin without recourse to special revelation (i.e. God said Adam’s sin is imputed to all, and that is why it is so). But how about the empirical fact that millenia of humanism’s efforts of self-improvement have failed to produce a single perfect human, and inductively it is reasonable to believe that the 1-hour-old baby will end up falling short as well?
I think one of the big problems is that half of the world believes that there are some things worth fighting (and dying (and killing)) for, and half of the world that doesn’t. The half that doesn’t naively thinks (or only wishes?) diplomacy could get the job done.
October 23, 2006 at 10:16 am |
Good, because that wasn’t my intent! We’re all sinners because we’re all sinners — it’s not a matter of not being Christian. In fact, it could be argued that I’m doubly guilty for my sins because, as a forgiven Christian, I really should know better, and seek to do good (and avoid sin) out of gratitude as well as duty.
Cool. I disagree with you too, and I also respect your belief.
Agreed. You’re right to point out that Christianity and Judaism seem to have improved in their respect for life in step with modernity. It’d be interesting to dig into the relationship between modernity and faith, and how they have contributed positively to each other.
I wonder, and hope, that the Qu’ran does support a high regard for life. When I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X it seemed that this was true — that Malcolm X moved from violent means to a deep appreciation for the global family of humankind, and that this progression was a direct outgrowth of his Islamic faith.
But then there are people like Osama bin Laden (an extremist, granted) who illustrate the single most poignant difference between Americans and (extremist) Muslims:
That’s so blunt, so to the point, that it worries me. Is it in any way indicative of mainstream Islamic mentality? I doubt that, but I don’t know. If it is, can those with such a value system participate in a pluralistic society?
Like you, my ignorance of the Qu’ran hinders my ability to explore these questions. I really need to read it for myself.
In the meantime, thank you so much for reading and contributing your thoughts!
October 23, 2006 at 10:45 am |
Now to this post itself.
Supposing every person in the world reads this post, and registers their list of 6 answers. Then what? As you pre-emptively concede, none of the world’s religions will speak with a unified, definitive voice. So how do you sort out the terrorist, fundamentalist muslim from the peaceful, modern (liberal?) muslim? (How does the abortionist sort the nutcase bomber from you?)
Even if we can identify a segment of Islam that honestly reports that Method = military jihad (actually it shouldn’t be too hard, given the number of people we see on the news chanting “Death to America”), where do we go from there? Threatening intent has already been expressed, and requires a response — how would your confessional framework help in designing that response?
And there’s also the problem of honesty. A terrorist is more likely to hide his intent by subscribing to the statement of a liberal, peaceful muslim. Any particular individual that is open and honest enough to admit they want to kill us, is more likely a particular individual that expects the killing to be performed by somebody else.
One final practical consideration:
Each next Christian that comes along cannot be expected to know whether somebody has previously expressed a lack of interest, and given the great commission, is to be expected to engage in renewed ‘pestering’. Are you proposing some kind of National Do-Not-Evangelize list? I would say rather that the non-Christian should expect (from doctrinally consistent evangelical Christians) continual challenges to his worldview, although individual Christians may each eventually shake his dust off of their feet.
I wonder if your framework needs another element: Disengagement — what do you have to do to get me to leave you alone? I’m sure we’d all like to hear from the Mormons & JWs on this one, like is there a particular sign I can hang on my door to prevent them from ringing the bell?
October 23, 2006 at 11:51 am |
I enjoy reading your blog and comments, not because I necessarily agree with you (a 1-year-old wil eventually sin, but it’s like condemning a man before he has killed someone to death row). I enjoy seeing your openness to other people, even when their beliefs are very different than your own.
If we had more people like you, the world would be a much better and tolerant place.
Kudos.
October 23, 2006 at 3:17 pm |
Speaking of Malcolm X, note that he learned (and/or taught?) hate early on, as part of the (almost exclusively American) Nation of Islam. He learned tolerance by going on a pilgrimage and seeing “true” Islam (how does non-NOI distinguish itself from NOI?), a mix of many races (arabic and african, to say the least). Somehow things have gone topsy turvy since then, I guess!
October 23, 2006 at 9:46 pm |
Awesome post, if for no other reason than the issues it addresses.
Two thoughts: One is the issue of “transparency.” The idea that true evangelicals don’t feel it necessary to “bait and switch” or soft-coat elements of their faith to “get people in the door.” Rube Rad asked “how do we know?” if a Muslim is really who and what he says he is? The same question holds true for Christians.
And the answer is simply this: Actions speak louder than words, or, in the voice of the Scriptures, “By their fruits shall you know them…a good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matt. 7:16-17).
In most evangelical churches I’ve attended (I consider myself to be one), the emphasis is placed on “transparency” and an open, honest witness. The idea being that so much of the world is ready to believe that “we” are trying to sell them a bill of goods, that one of our focuses should be to deprive them of any ammunition to justify their cynicism.
Most religions, to include Islam, have a humanist basis, in that they rely to some degree on works and “devotion” in achieving salvation. Sharia demands absolute adherence to a burdensome code of laws, much like the Pharisees. Hindus, Buddhists, and many others talk of reincarnation, Karma, essentially “working it off” and “achieving” heaven.
Christianity is the only faith which puts the burden of atonement on its Savior. With salvation come certain “expectations,” but scripturally these are born out of a desire to show devotion, rather than “earn” love. If you have to earn it, it isn’t love.
“They will know we are Christians by our love.” What then, is the bellweather test for Muslims? Humanists? Atheists? What “fruits” should we expect from their worldviews? Getting those answers is a great purpose for this kind of post.
October 24, 2006 at 9:25 am |
They will know we are Atheists by our meaninglessness
October 24, 2006 at 9:29 pm |
I think of original sin as being the “nature” of being human, and I’m using the word nature in an Aristotelian sense here. In this way of thinking, everything has a nature, or essence. An unsaved human is – by it’s very nature – separated from God, and therefore suffers from original sin. Original sin is not due to anything anyone has done (unless we’re talkling about Adam and Eve). There are sinful actions, but they are caused by **being** in a state of orignal sin. Modern people don’t usually speak about things having an “essence” anymore, and that makes the idea of original sin confusing as all get out to a lot of people; they keep asking, “what did I do by being born?” The answer is, you didn’t do anything. The concept is a reminder not to be content with yourself as you are, not to settle for this world, to push, instead, for a much more real existence than can be had here. That sort of existence can only be had by closing the gap that sin represents. Only God can so this, but you have to want it.
November 13, 2006 at 12:34 pm |
[...] In What Do We Intend? I suggested that pluralistic societies may be threatened by intentions — what proponents of one worldview intend for those of another. I invited all people to be clear about how they view others, and I kicked off by explaining how Christianity shapes how I understand, interact with, and seek to influence nonchristians. In doing so I demonstrated that Christianity poses no threat to pluralism because Christians follow a God who commands peaceful tolerance and forbids coercion. [...]
April 26, 2007 at 10:29 pm |
It is diffinitely time to begin getting all believers prepared as best as can for what is about to come on America and the entire world. Certainly, the confirmations are through the roof of the coming of the close of the ages .
Many have been shaped by what they have seen that is produced on the screen. Fades and style are the ripples of the world that have been flowing through the heart of mankind for many years now since the invention of the printing press. Many compare circumstances present describing them as something that happen in a movie.
Christ himself said , ” If God did not cut short those days for the sake of the elect , mankind would destroy himself.”
The earth itself is undergoing much stress due to this pathway of mankind.
The Honey is about to give out completely. No Pollination, no crops, no crops no feed for livestock, no livestock no milk. No food.
For a gluttony , selfish, and greedy with pride people.
It’s not just America, it is all over the world.
The wars, the rumour of wars, are only the tip of the iceberg of what is instore here for mankind and the world.
We are of in the world , but not of the world. If they do not confess
Jesus Christ as God, the Messiah come in the flesh and walked among men, they are of the antichrist. And this includes all forms of judism, moslem, hindu, or any other pagan invented belief that denies the sole
gospel of Jesus Christ..
Soon now, this one that Jesus told us that will come , the one written about by Daniel the prophet… Matthew 24:15….This lawless one will be revailed and many are going to be decieved and many will be tolerant and become lukewarm.
There is already a saying that is beginning to be quoted within the circles of those that claim to have been christian and converted to moslem .
The Saying is, ” To be a good christian is to become a good moslem also”
Many will compromise and fall away just to save their own lives and feed their bellies.
Can Christians and Moslems coexist ultimately ? The Answer is no.
The lawless one will make war on the saints….and then the end will come.