Responding to ISIS

I wrote this for folks at church; some people have found it helpful, so I thought I'd share it more widely. Here are a few quick thoughts on how to respond to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, which has obviously been in the news a lot recently with the execution murder of Alan Henning.

1. Remember God's Justice

Lots of the Psalms can appear quite bleak at first reading. But actually, they were written precisely to help God's people respond to difficult situations like the rise of the Islamic State. Here's Psalm 10:7-15, for example.

7 His mouth is full of lies and threats;
trouble and evil are under his tongue.
8 He lies in wait near the villages;
from ambush he murders the innocent.
His eyes watch in secret for his victims;
9 like a lion in cover he lies in wait.
He lies in wait to catch the helpless;
he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net.
10 His victims are crushed, they collapse;
they fall under his strength.
11 He says to himself, “God will never notice;
he covers his face and never sees.”

12 Arise, Lord! Lift up your hand, O God.
Do not forget the helpless.
13 Why does the wicked man revile God?
Why does he say to himself,
“He won’t call me to account”?
14 But you, God, see the trouble of the afflicted;
you consider their grief and take it in hand.
The victims commit themselves to you;
you are the helper of the fatherless.
15 Break the arm of the wicked man;
call the evildoer to account for his wickedness
that would not otherwise be found out.

And the Psalms keep pointing us back to God's justice. He will do what is right. He will repay those who attack and murder the innocent; he will repay those who have been hurt unjustly, and those who have hurt them.

2. Don't be afraid

It's easy to be afraid of the seeming rise of Islamic fundamentalism. But the fact is, the Bible is very clear that God's people will always be opposed. The way the UK has been for centuries, where Christians are free to practice our beliefs and even in positions of power, is very much the minority position in world history. We should not be surprised that people who do what is right are sometimes attacked. We shouldn't be surprised that Christians are attacked and persecuted. We should remember and support them (and see Open Doors for ways to do just that). The Bible is also clear that we don't need to be afraid of those who oppose us. We know the end of the story – we know that Jesus wins.

But that final victory does not come about by us fighting. Even in the final battle in Revelation, in Rev 20:7-9, all the armies of the world gather to attack God's people, but God's people do not need to fight to defend themselves. God wins the victory, and God will defeat Islamic fundamentalism, whether sooner or later; we do not need to be afraid.

3. Love our neighbours; love our enemies

Our call is rather different. We are called to love those who hate us; to pray for those who persecute us. Christianity did not conquer the Roman Empire by military force; we conquered it by patient suffering and love for the oppressed. We should pray for those in authority in ISIS and those who seek to kill Christians, that their hearts would be changed just as the Apostle Paul's was.

We are also called to love our neighbours. It's important to recognise that there are many Muslims who are appalled at the things being done in the name of Islam. We should love them and seek to support them and defend them from those in this country who would seek to hurt them.

The Death of Osama bin Laden

‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’
Ezekiel 33:11, NIV

I've been meaning to write this post ever since I heard about bin Laden's death, but it's been a very busy couple of weeks. It raises all kind of questions, but I'm going to think about three of them. Was what happened just? Was it right? And should Americans have rejoiced the way they did?

First, was it just?

Osama bin Laden had personally declared war on the US. He claimed responsibility for and delighted in the events of 9/11, and clearly intended to continue to do such acts whenever he was able to do so. Had the USA captured him and put him on trial in any court in the world (except possibly those operating under Sharia Law), he would have been found guilty, and in any court that allowed the death penalty, he would have been sentenced to death. There was no possibility of reasonable doubt about his guilt, or about the seriousness of his actions. The killing of Osama bin Laden was, without a doubt, just.

But was it right?

That is a harder question. Was it right for the US to send a team of heavily armed Navy Seals into Pakistan without permission and to assassinate an unarmed man? Again, perspective helps here. The US is at war in Afghanistan, a war which had as one of its major aims to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The war spills over the border into Pakistan, and Pakistan is officially on America's side in that war.

For the US, acting without Pakistan's permission was a necessary part of the operation. If they had asked for permission, they would have put the Pakistani government in a difficult position. Either they grant permission, in which case they get even more protests from their own population, or they refuse it and lose all US support. Far better for the Pakistani government not to have to make the choice at all. Furthermore, had the US told Pakistan of its intentions, the Pakistani authorities are sufficiently compromised by links to Al Qua'eda that it is highly likely that bin Laden would have been notified and enabled to escape. In addition, if any country (except Russia or China) had been knowingly harbouring bin Laden, it is likely that the US would have if necessary declared war on them to get at him. Much better for them, and much better for the host country, not to have to bother.

Was it right to kill bin Laden given that he was unarmed? I have already pointed out that he would have been sentenced to death anyway, so the only issue is the manner of his death. If one is in battle, and a sniper has the opportunity to shoot the enemy commander, they do not worry too much whether or not he is armed at the time. Even if it was not in battle, if in WW2 a German tank column was moving through Europe, and a British sniper caught sight of the German General Rommel and shot him, even if he was not even carriyng a gun at the time, that would be regarded as perfectly legitimate. And bin Laden clearly thought he was at war with the US. I don't see what the moral difference is.

In addition, there are problems associated with keeping bin Laden in prison. It would provide an incredibly high-profile target for protests and suicide bombings, and it could be argued it was far better tactically to kill him and bury him at sea. Having said all that, I think if it would have been possible to capture and put bin Laden on trial, that may have been even better.

I don't mean better from the point of view of justice at all - I mean from the point of view of what bin Laden seemed to understand so little about - mercy. Of course he didn't deserve it - if he had deserved it, it wouldn't have been mercy. To allow him the possibility of repentance would have been a very merciful thing. Of course, to allow him the possibility to give a memorable speech inciting the Muslim world to unity and hatred of the West would have been a very dangerous thing, so it would have had to be handled carefully.

And so we come onto the question about whether it was right to rejoice. I think relatives of those killed in 9/11 could have rejoiced. But ultimately God does not rejoice in the death of sinners, but rather that they turn from their wickedness and live. If bin Laden had turned around and become a force for peace in the world, even a living demonstration of the power of God to change sinners, that would have been cause for rejoicing. As it is, it seems that he is just one more unrepentant sinner going to Hell. That isn't something to rejoice in, especially when we recognise that it is what we deserve too - it is where we would be but for the grace and mercy that God has shown us.

Burning the Qur'an?

There's a big row about some American nutter who decided to burn a Qur'an and then decided not to, but lots of Muslims rioted anyway.

And there's something about the whole story that I just don't get. It's obviously big enough for world leaders to intervene...

Most of the Muslims I know and have known have been reasonably intelligent, socially moderately normal people. There were a few oddballs, but I know plenty of non-Muslim oddballs as well. Most people in poor countries I know and have known have also moderately normal.

So is there something about Muslims in Afghanistan that means they stop maturing at about the emotional maturity of a stroppy teenager?

Or is it a normal, mature and sensible human reaction to riot and kill people because some silly chap on the other side of the world bought a Qur'an with his own money and then set fire to it? And let's be honest, he didn't set fire to it, and the one he would have set fire to was probably only an "interpretation" of the Qur'an (i.e. translation), which the Muslims don't even think is holy.

I'm a committed Christian, and have a very high view of the Bible. And to be honest, if someone down the road bought a Bible and set fire to it, or used it as loo roll, I don't especially mind - they can do that if they want to. I might like to have a chat with them about why they felt that way, but they're free to do it.

I am fully aware that people blaspheme God, and say all kinds of nasty things about him, and disrespect him in all kinds of different ways. Now I disagree with them, but I figure that God is big enough to deal with that himself.

So what is going on? Is there a new thought police in town? Do Afghan Muslims have an emotional age of 13? Is the God they believe in too small to look after himself? Or is the media whipping up a storm in a teacup to sell copies?

I don't know, but there's something odd going on...

Priorities in Global Mission

This is an extract from an e-mail sent to me by a friend of mine who is involved in mission in the Muslim world...

Every year, the world Christian Church gives 125 BILLION dollars to Christian missions, through more than 20,000 different agencies....

Now considering the strategic importance of Islam, what percentage do YOU think the Church allocates to North Africa and the Middle East - the heartlands of Islam?

Think of a number before you scroll down...

5%?

..

..

2%?

..

..

1%?

..

..

Actually it is 0.07% - just 84 million dollars!

I ask myself a simple question:

"Is this really the result of a Spirit led strategy in the Church?"

Or does it show that the global Church would rather put resources into more 'responsive' areas (which often already have flourishing Christian populations?)

Interfaith Dialogue

Is conversion a legitimate goal in dialogue? Yes. It is perfectly legitimate for believers who take seriously the exclusive claims of their religion to try to persuade others of the truth they proclaim. There is nothing wrong with hoping and even expecting that some people, having carefully examined these claims, will make a life-changing decision as a result of transparent and free dialogue. Unless we accept conversion as a possible outcome for dialogue, our claim to be tolerant remains unproven.
Chawkat Moucarry

From here.

A Common Word

This seems to be important. A group of Muslim scholars have produced a common statement of belief, with the aim of trying to get some kind of peace with the Roman Catholics.

However, the problems are all in the detail, and the BBC really don't get it... I'll just mention a few.

Significantly the letter acknowledged that the Prophet Muhammad was told only the same truths that had already been revealed to Jewish and Christian prophets, including Jesus himself.

Yes, but Muslims claim that the reason the beliefs are so different now is that the Christians and the Jews corrupted theirs, but the Muslims kept theirs the same. Incidentally, there is quite a lot of evidence for what the early Christians believed, and there is absolutely none that they believed the same as Muslims do today.

Or this, from the letter itself:

Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets.

Well, quite. The question is over who isn't a combatant. Personally, I don't think that British civilians in London count, but others seem to disagree. And I don't think I've ever seen any Muslim in a position of authority arguing that Israeli women and children weren't combatants and that those who attack them are wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to work with Muslims and that it is helpful to agree on some important ethical issues. But the BBC's:

The document examined fundamental doctrine and stressed what it said were key similarities - such as the belief in one God and the requirement for believers to "love their neighbours as themselves".

once again misses the point. For Christians, this is a response to God's salvation. Christianity is not about obeying ethical precepts. It is about a relationship with Jesus Christ, which then leads to us seeking to follow him.

Some interesting reading...

Here is St John of Damascus (lived 676-749) on Islam. He doesn't like it much...

And here is Ruth Gledhill (religion correspondant for the Times, noted for trying to be fair-minded) on why she prefers both Gene Robinson and GAFCON to Lambeth.

And just from me briefly on church politics.

Church politics is a Bad Thing. The Church is meant to be about building people up in their knowledge of and love for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. But at the same time, as soon as one side in an argument becomes politicised, the temptation for the other side also to become politicised is almost irresistible.

Sharia Law?

In the news recently, a judge suggested that it would be a good idea if Muslim communities in Britain could regulate themselves using Sharia law on areas like family law and some transactions, while not going beyond the sanctions of the laws of the UK.

This and most other such discussions miss the very simple key problem - who determines which jurisdiction applies? For example, suppose a Muslim woman, married to a Muslim man, with children, becomes a Christian. Sharia law, as far as I remember, would claim that the woman was under its jurisdiction as she did not have the authority to convert without her husband's permission. And if she did convert, depending on the interpretation of Sharia, she would either get killed (prevented in the above suggestion) or treated as if dead - divorced and separated from her children with no right to contact them, regardless of whether her husband was abusive (for example) or not.

Islamic Reformation?

Turkish muslims start looking critically at the Hadith. Good news - and about time too! That sort of criticism of religious traditions is best done from within a religion.

Secret Believers - Brother Andrew and Al Janssen

Just finished reading this book...

Most of it is set in a fictionalised Muslim country, and particularly a fictionalised major market town there. All the characters and events are allegedly real, but they weren't necessarily in the same place to start with.

As a way of telling true stories about Muslim Background Believers in Muslim countries, though, it's quite sensible. And as would be expected, some of the stories are quite moving.

All in all, it's really encouraging to read about how God is working in countries like that, to read about the perseverance of the church, and it's a real spur to prayer.

There's quite a bit on how to respond as well. Definitely worth a read..

Edited to add: Of course, this sort of thing also happens in England.

Images of Mohammed

Silly mess with Gillian Gibbons getting jailed for letting her class vote to call the teddy bear Mohammed. The whole thing raises far too many questions...

• Was this the same Gillian Gibbons who was my form tutor when I was 11?
• How does Islam cope with the huge inconsistency in not allowing images of people but allowing a) TV and b) retinas?
• What would they do if we all named our teddy bears / dogs / pigs Mohammed? Not after the "prophet", of course, but after the child who suggested they name the teddy after him?
• Is this finally going to make the Islamists look too stupid for words?
• Do they have photo ID in Muslim countries?
• How many teddies or equiv called Mohammed are there in Muslim countries? I'm guessing at least hundreds, if those kids were happy to call theirs Mohammed.
• Isn't this the sort of thing that the army is for? Aren't British passports meant to help in this?

(NB - the picture on the right is a picture of Mohammed (the famous one), but it was made by a (Persian) Muslim in the 16th century, so it's probably ok). From Wikipedia.

Why Muslims Become Christians

This piece is well worth a read...

Couple of Links

Interesting things from my wider reading:

Al Mohler posts a good piece on the importance of expository preaching compared to addressing perceived needs

Abu Daoud passes on some "wisdom" from an Islamic cleric about when consent is needed for marriage (except this is the consent of the bride)

Stupid Terrorists

I, for one, am glad that the terrorists we have at the moment seem to be a spectacularly stupid and incompetent bunch. OK, they probably won't stop short of world domination, but I'd rather have incompetent terrorists than the IRA any day.

I've taught a lot of bright Muslim kids. I'm glad they don't go in for terrorism.

I don't agree with Scott Adams that the (considerably more competent) terror attacks on Israel are necessarily stupid. Their purpose seems to be to a) to get the 72 raisins they are expecting if they die as martyrs. b) to keep reminding the Muslim world that they should attack Israel. Of course, they'd be much more sensible to try non-violent resistance if they genuinely think they're being oppressed by the Israelis.

Israel 2 - The Dome of the Rock

Lots of potential to offend here... In fact, the Dome of the Rock and surrounding area is just about the most politically sensitive area in the world. In fact, an old fat politician just visiting the area managed somehow to trigger the Second Intifada. I'm neither aiming to offend or not offend here - I'm simply aiming to describe the world the way I see it. On the right is a picture of me not seeing the Dome of the Rock.

It's pretty certain that the area was the area used for the Jewish Second Temple (as built in Ezra and Nehemiah, as enlarged by Herod and as visited by Jesus. Jews claim (with pretty good evidence) that it was also the site of the First Temple (destroyed in 587/586 BC), and before that the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite which was bought by David in 2 Samuel 24. Muslims deny at least some of that, mostly because it would mean that the Jews were probably the legal owners of the site, which they claim was where Muhammad ascended into heaven from (that's at one end of the site, covered by the Al Aqsa mosque).

The Dome of the Rock is built over a rocky outcrop on the site, thought to have been the actual threshing floor of Araunah. A later tradition also identifies it with the rock where Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac in Genesis 22. The Muslims, of course, claim that it was Ishmael who was nearly sacrificed (though that claim doesn't seem to appear in the first 2000 years or so of the story being told, but that sort of thing never really seems to worry Muslims much).

It is a very noticeable and beautiful building when seen from a long way away.

It is even more amazing from a hundred metres or so away.

But close up, it becomes very apparent that it is in fact the most prominent and famous building in the world to be built almost entirely out of horrible 1970s B&Q-style tiles.

The Dome of the Rock is meant to be one of the key early examples of Islamic art. It is therefore interesting that it actually seems to have been commissioned by Muslims, but designed and built for them by a group of Syrian Christians....

Islamic Art

I was in a (very obviously) Muslim-run takeaway last night, and noticed the decor.

The Qur'an doesn't officially ban pictures of people, even of Muhammad, so there is a lot of Islamic art depicting him (see here for examples). But in common with Christianity and Judaism, there's a ban on worshipping images of people. (Some Christians sometimes give the impression of worshipping images - what they say they are doing is using the images of people as a kind of visual biography to recall to mind what those people did and help them focus on God through what he has done in the lives of people. I reckon that's possible - it's between them and God but personally it's not something I do much.)

In modern Islam, the ban on worshipping images has grown into a virtual ban on images of people in art, with the result that even early on their art became very heavily based on geometry and letter forms - it looks very nice actually. Some Christians have gone down the whole prohibiting images of people line, but when they have usually haven't produced such nice alternatives.

Anyway - back to the take-away. The decor was mostly geometric with Arabic words in, with some big framed photos of Islamic shrines, mosques, etc. What suddenly struck me as odd though was the television in the corner. The Christians I know who don't like any pictures of people don't like television either. I just don't get how people can be against any pictures of people in their art, yet be absolutely fine with them on television. Are good films not art?

Another bit of me wants to point out that they're actually making images of everyone they see on their retinas - otherwise they couldn't see them.

Islamic Dialogue

A few weeks ago, I attended a dialogue between three Islamic scholars from Al-Azhar university in Egypt and three Christian scholars from Oxford.

Lots of interesting stuff was said – here are a few highlights.

Attitude to Revelation

The Muslims, understandably, went for the traditional line, with the Qur'an as perfectly dictated from God. The Christians, by contrast, also took the traditional line, which is far too often neglected in the popular understanding. They defended the view that God's perfect revelation of himself is in the person of Jesus.

The Muslims also took the somewhat odd, though orthodox Islamic view that the gospels were revealed verbatim to Jesus rather than written by and through human authors, albeit inspired by God. The Christian view is that the books have both human and divine authorship – that God used the people who were writing them and their situations and knowledge to have written exactly what he wanted written. It's interesting that that has been the view back as far as we can tell, including at the time of the rise of Islam. In fact, the only evidence for the Muslim view of the origin of the Christian Scriptures at all is that the Qur'an says it.

Attitude to Jesus' Death

The Muslims seemed scandalised by the idea of the cross – that Jesus could take the punishment for others. Probably the clearest explanation for them to understand was in terms of taking the dishonour and shame for humanity. The importance of recognising that Jesus' death was voluntary was also stressed.

I was interested in asking them two questions, but didn't get the chance.Given they believed that God was all-powerful, whether they believed that God could have made himself human, or how they recognise that God is both just and merciful – how they reconcile those two facts. For Christians, the two are reconciled in Jesus – that God is both just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus, to quote Romans 3:26.

Attitude to Conversion

As with Tariq Ramadan, the Muslims argued that people should be allowed to follow Christianity if they wanted to, and should be allowed to convert from Islam to Christianity or vice versa. They recognised that most Muslim countries did not allow this and that the “classical” view was that people who converted from Islam should be killed. Also as with Tariq Ramadan they argued that that view should also be respected and seemed disinclined to try to change the situation in Muslim countries.

On the other hand, when the subject got near the idea of blasphemy, they got angry having previously been chatting in a kind manner for over an hour. They seemed adamant that speaking ill of Mohammed should be very illegal. Which made me wonder what about religious freedom. If I am allowed to be a Christian, am I allowed to say that Jesus is God's perfect revelation, and therefore that the Qur'an is not? The answer seemed to be “no”, but again I didn't get a chance to ask in more depth.

Tariq Ramadan

A few weeks ago, I went to hear prominent Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan speak on "The Future of Islam in the West". These are some of my quick reflections.

TR drew a strong distinction between the central tenets of Islam and certian cultural expressions of them. He said that faithfulness to the central tenets was what mattered from a muslim point of view, however that might be culturally expressed.

He then said that many of the problems with Islam in the West are because many of the muslims here are trying to use cultural expressions of Islam from their previous cultures (e.g. traditional Pakistani culture) in the West, rather than the longer and more difficult process of finding a Western cultural expression of Islam.

There was also a fair bit of stuff about using the central tenets of Islam to critique cultures, both in the West and in countries more used to Islam.

There were too many silly or boring (from my point of view) questions, so I didn't get a chance to ask mine. However, it seems to me that his arguments have some interesting consequences...

Firstly, he was careful not to criticise anyone's cultural expression of Islam. So if someone's cultural expression is to blow up anyone who disagrees with Muhammed, I'm not at all convinced he'd criticise them for that.

Secondly, and more seriously from a logical point of view, he didn't define how to tell the central issues apart from the cultural issues. The Qur'an clearly contains what he would say are both cultural and central, and it's hard to see why he'd put eating pork as something that is absolutely forbidden, but shaving as something only culturally forbidden (which I think he does).

This is also interesting because it kind of parallels some questions in Christianity, especially with regard to interpreting the Old Testament laws. Except there I think it's easier, and it's pretty obvious that the Bible says we should love our enemies rather than killing them.

College Quotes

Here are (paraphrases of) a couple of the more interesting / scary quotes from people I've been chatting to in the last week or so at college:

It's odd, you know, I think "Wow, [insert name of college here], bright hope for the future of the Church of England". But then I look around, and it's like, us."

And yes, I know that inasmuch as there is hope for the future of the C of E, it's God, not us.

Before I was a Christian, I had a load of Muslim friends who used to talk to me a lot about their faith. So I started looking into Islam, but I realised that their idea of God is exactly the sort of thing I'd have come up sitting in an armchair for fifteen minutes, so it couldn't possibly be true.

Cross-Cultural Mission

One of the basic principles of Christian mission is described by Paul in his first letter to the church in Corinth:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23, NIV

Basically, if we want to reach goths with the good news of Jesus (for example), the best way of doing that is to give up all the secondary cultural stuff and become a Christian who is also a goth.

Otherwise, if you've got a bunch of Christians who are all (as many are in the UK) white, university educated, middle class, non-smoking professionals, then outsiders are going to look in and say "That's a place for white university educated middle class non-smoking professionals, but I'm a black brickie who smokes and left school at 16, so I don't fit in." It shows people that they can fit in, it gets rid of most of the barriers, and lets them see Jesus better on their own terms. It doesn't demand that they have to change all their cultural stuff, that might well define who they are, if they are going to become a Christian.

I'm a Christian first and foremost. Yes, I'm white, middle class, university educated, non-smoking. But that should all be negotiable (except it's hard to change my DNA or the past). It doesn't define who I am, so I can change it if I love other people enough and really want them to know Jesus.

Now here's where the rubber hits the road. I know of no Christian churches which are doing this in trying to reach Muslims. I don't know Christian churches where the leaders grow beards, the women wear head coverings, they sit on the floor and put the Bible on a stand, where they only eat halal food. And we wonder why so few Muslims in the UK become Christians! Isn't it obvious! It's because we're not making the effort - because we are holding too tightly to our own culture to bother trying to reach them. I'm not saying we should become Muslims; I'm saying that where issues are negotiable (like hair styles, probably not like gender roles) then we should be willing to compromise to reach others.

What do we do instead? Benedictine techno-trance (no offence to those who really love that stuff), but the C of E seems to plug loads of money into alt.worship stuff because it is trendy even though it seems to bear no fruit and they don't know who it's meant to be reaching.

I know some great fresh expressions of church. I've talked about some on this blog - I've got friends involved with initiatives like the Plant and Eden. But they work precisely because they are losing classic white, middle class, etc culture and changing their culture to that of the people they are trying to reach. Where are the Christians willing to become like Muslims to win the Muslims?