Splitting Hairs A Little Too Finely
Our old friend Al Mohler is at it again. This time he is discussing the recent papal visit to Jordan and comments the pope made regarding his respect for Islam. What Mohler writes barely disguises the typical SBC antipathy towards Roman Catholicism, and when it comes to the pope’s comments the hair is split on a microscopic level. It’s Mohler’s closing paragraphs where we see the real issues:
In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction. Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.
Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God’s Son, and takes millions of souls captive.
This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.
The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point. To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who “along with us adore the one and merciful God.” To deny the Trinity is to worship another God.
Respect is a problematic category. In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth. We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.
On a theoretical level, I cannot disagree with any of that, but let’s consider for a moment the practical applications of some of those statements. This one is my favorite, “…we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.“ “Gracious and winsome” is a little hard when you are declaring war. Even [insert name of current "hottie" gracing the covers of the check-out gossip mags here] is going to look pretty ugly when pointing a gun at me.
This also ignores another rather important fact. If our goal is to indeed “spread the gospel,” how can that be done with an “enemy?” How do you speak to an enemy enough to convince them of your point of view? In purely theological terms the essential question is, “How does the gospel destroy its rivals?” The answer (and we are going to get incredibly religious here) lies in the love and humility of Christ on cross, set in these New Testament times, in direct juxtaposition to Joshua conquering of the Holy Land.
The mindset that Mohler speaks from here is one of complete intolerance. It leaves no room for disagreement. One must conform or be subject to subjugation or destruction. I believe with all my heart in the truth of my religion and faith. I deeply resent the implications in Mohler’s comments that I am less than fully faithful to my God (and he will even admit I share faith with him – unlike Roman Catholics, Muslims, or Mormons) because I seek to find a way to live with those that believe differently.
You see, I would argue that I am the one of stronger faith. I believe that if I engage with those that believe differently, my faith will prevail, and that if it does not, I have faith in God to deal with the situation. Mohler would have the Christian either retreat into monasticism or come forth to holy war – I see little deep faith in that, ony a desparate clutching to speck of belief.
The bottom line is this – if you cannot live with someone you cannot convert them. That is the beauty of America. We have tried to create a place where we can live together to have the opportunity to convert the other. What Mohler fails to understand with his gospel first, nations second approach is that if we take that away we are no better than the Islamic extremists that would see us dead.
I am tempted to get more deeply theological here, but I must resist – that is not the purpose of this blog. Rather, I will say this. I am sure Mohler would stop short of violence in his efforts not to offer “respect” to those that believe differently, but I think that may be the only place he will draw the line. If in this nation we marginalize all people that believe differently we are going to find ourselves very alone. I think that is where Al Mohler and those that think like he does are headed.
It’s a crying shame.
Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Phil on 14 May 2009 at 10:06 am #
In my humble opinion, I believe that a very fundamental change needs to occur in the doctrinal view of many faiths, and particularly in the mainstream Christian and Muslim faiths, in order to completely solve the problem of religious bigotry. That change would consist of the following:
Instead of viewing the members of other faiths (or even of no religious faith at all) as being “condemned to hell”, when they die, by failing to accept your beliefs and faith while alive, consider and be willing to accept the very real possibility that God should be the judge, not us, and that each person will be judged on their own merits, what they did with what they have. Many billions of people have died and will die without ever having the chance to hear fully about your particular faith. A merciful God would not condemn anyone without the chance to hear and accept all of the truth He has to offer, whether in this life or in the hereafter. It is good to “bear witness” of your own faith and reason for believing what you do, but it should be done in a respectful manner, without condemning or belittling the other person or their particular faith or religion. Even if they don’t accept it, we cannot judge their reasons, and we cannot judge them, since only God can change people from within, which is where true change occurs in a person.
Unfortunately, too many in both the Christian and Muslim faiths don’t follow this humble advice. They seem to believe that members of the other faith(s) are condemned to an everlasting hell if they don’t accept their faith, and they tend to have an “all or nothing” attitude towards other faiths: either they go to heaven if they are of their faith, or they go to hell if they are not. I believe that this kind of attitude tends to invite extremist, non-tactful, non-tolerant, and uncooperative actions towards those of other faiths.
The LDS position towards other faiths, is a good one to follow, in my opinion. That position is that all decent religions and good belief systems have different truths and different strengths, and should be respected for them. Of course, we believe that our religion has the most truth and strength (but that is necessary for a strong believer in any particular religion, otherwise that person wouldn’t be in that religion!). It is good to respect other religions for the good teachings they do have and for the help and strength they provide for their followers, both past and present. We can attribute any errors that we perceive in a particular religion as a failing of man, not God. For example, the current version of radical Islam, which invites terrorist actions, as a doctrine of man (and of Satan) and not of God. This is an extreme example of the above attitude failures I have outlined. I am also convinced that the much milder version of this attitude, such as that expressed by Al Mohler, of treating other faiths as the “enemy”, is also of man (and Satan) and not of God. It is also the same attitude which caused severe persecutions in past history, against those who believed differently than those of the group in power.
We see this same attitude problem on the part of many atheists nowadays with regards to those who believe in God. In the same manner, too many of them treat us as the enemy, and treat us with lack of respect, bigotry, and in a belittling manner.
We also see this same attitude of treating those who don’t believe like us as the “enemy”, to a huge degree in the political world. We can go a long ways towards getting along better with the opposite party by treating them with respect. We don’t have to sacrifice or compromise our basic strongly held opinions, but we can try to appreciate them for the strengths they do have and try to build on common ground. I also believe that athiests would treat both Christians and Moslems better if we begin to treat them also with more respect and understanding. Just like those of other religions, we should not try to judge them, but let God be the judge. We should not be afraid to express to them our heartfelt beliefs, but should do so in a respectful, non-judgemental, and uplifting manner.
coltakashi on 14 May 2009 at 10:40 am #
Before Islam, there was Judaism and Christianity. How did Peter, John, James (the brother of Jesus) and Paul view Judaism, which did not embrace the Gospel of Christ? They were still able to go to the Temple in Jerusalem and participate in at least some of the worship activities there. Because Judaism did not embrace Jesus as the Messiah, was Judaism therefore regarded as an enemy religion?
My understanding of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles is that Christ and his apostles saw Judaism as containing much truth, including the heritage of all the prophets, but that it was incomplete. They were not afraid to excoriate the particular leaders of the Jews in their day, but it was particular Jews they opposed, not Judaism per se. Even as they received revelation about taking the Gospel to gentiles, they made a point of teaching the Old Testament as a foundation for understanding God’s love for mankind and His expectations of us. It seems to me that the early apostles expected that gentile converts would actively seek opportunities to hear the Old Testament in its Greek-language Septuagint form at the synagogues in their cities so they could better understand the message of Christ.
The attitude of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders has been similar: That not only Christianity in its modern multiple manifestations, but also Judaism and Islam, are incomplete patterns for knowing and worshipping God, but contain much that is good and even true. People who are faithful to those good and true elements of their faiths are honorable men and women who deserve respect. In Mormon belief, every person born on earth has an influence we call “the light of Christ” which guides us toward what is good and true, and we are all, even in our ignorance of the fulness of the Gospel, subject to God’s judgment based on how well we followed that light. Those people who are ethical and moral can be “saved” by Christ through the power of his atonement, even in their ignorance of the fulness of the Gospel, with an eternal reward that is every bit as blessed and wonderful as most people imagine.
And of course, Mormons believe that every person born on earth will eventually have an opportunity, before the Resurrection, to hear the fulness of Christ’s Gospel, from people working under the leadership of Peter himself, who wrote so eloquently about Christ offering salvation to the dead. So even though we put a lot of our personal resources into missionary work, we also do not believe that people who don’t accept our message are bound for hell, per se. We are not so intent as others on insisting on dividing our neighbors between the saved and the damned at the earliest opportunity.
So Mormons do not view Islam as an “enemy faith” any more than they view Judaism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or various forms of Protestantism in that way.
I know that the tendency to make up a theological “enemies list” in some denominations has classified Mormons alongside Muslims in the eyes of some people. But I don’t think the example of Jesus himself and the early Christians requires that kind of relationship (or lack of it). We can acknowledge the good in others’ religious beliefs without abandoning our own belief that we have something they need, in both the present world and in the eternities.
pdale on 14 May 2009 at 11:22 pm #
Interesting points from all. I live across the street from a great Catholic family, and next door to a Hindu family, and we all get along great. But as I understand it there isn’t much room for error in the Catholic view that certain sacraments, from baptism to last rites, better happen…or else. Protestants seem to be a little more flexible on some of those things, except that my good Hindu friends are still in serious eternal trouble.
As already mentioned, in our LDS understanding, everyone will have the opportunity, in this life or the next, to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to accept it and be saved,….or not. The billions who never even heard of Jesus the Christ in this life certainly will in the next. The bigger, eternal picture, is what helps us see everyone as brothers and sisters, most of whom simply haven’t heard the Gospel yet.
As John said, we need to be able to live with people if we’re going to convert them. No better example of that than the way the Savior lived.