[donaldscrankshaw] Donald: Islam and Christianity

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Donald:
Islam and Christianity
http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1159233661.shtml


   [1]This article by Jonah Goldberg seems depressingly correct:

     The West is surely indebted to Protestantism. But the idea that
     liberal secularism was born from it steals a few bases.
     Protestantism lent itself to being a state religion even more than
     Catholicism did. And while Christianity has long recognized the
     distinction between secular and religious authority, the reality is
     that secularism rests on a foundation of blood, not theology. The
     Reformation inaugurated an era of relentless religious wars. French
     Catholics slaughtered Protestant French Huguenots. Calvinists and
     Lutherans beat the stuffing out of each other. The bloodshed
     continued until, as British historian Herbert Butterfield put it,
     religious tolerance became âthe last policy that remained when it
     had proved impossible to go on fighting any longer.â Secular
     tolerance, in other words, defined the terms of cease-fire.

   Now, obviously, as a Protestant evangelical Christian, I think the
   Reformation was a good thing. While the Pope made a good argument
   about the need for Classical thought in Christianity in his much
   maligned speech (and while sympathetic, I'm not completely convinced
   by that argument), I think the Church in Luther's time had strayed far
   from the right path and needed correction. After all, I believe that
   Christianity is at its core a true religion, and thus anything that
   makes its doctrine and practice more pure makes it more true. That
   said, purity is not something to be sought at any cost. While a
   worthwhile goal, it needs to be sought in humility, acknowledging that
   there is much that I do not know, and even when I know for a
   certainty, I should be teaching the truth in love. My goal is not to
   force anyone to believe anything, but to convince them, and to be
   willing to learn where I am mistaken.
   As Jonah's Jewish, I don't expect him to agree that Christianity needs
   to be pure, so it's understandable that he's more interested in the
   practical results of the Reformation. Likewise, I'm less concerned
   with Islam's purity than the practical effects of what Muslim
   believes. So is it hypocritical for me to believe that Christianity
   should be more pure, while I'm all for Islam being less pure? Well,
   from my perspective, it makes perfect sense, as simply put, I believe
   Christianity is true and Islam is false.
   Here the Pope and I agree, as is clear in [2]this column by Michael
   Ledeen:

     The combination of this crackpot toleration with a general contempt
     for religion made it difficult for us to comprehend the nature of
     the current war. Everyone from W. on down has been at great pains
     to assure us and themselves that we have no basic conflict with
     Islam, that our battle is with some lunatics who say falsely that
     they speak in the name of Islam. So we feel quite uncomfortable
     when the pope â quite deliberately â poses a question about Islam
     itself: Is it capable of responding to reason, or is it, as he put
     it, completely transcendent, beyond the reach of man, and hence
     unchallengeable by man under any circumstances?
     Itâs a big question, not easily reduced to newspeak like âdid the
     pope anticipate the reaction?â Or âdid the pope go too far?â That
     sort of banter is embarrassingly silly. Of course the pope
     anticipated the reaction, heâs one of the smartest and most learned
     men in the world, and heâs spent a lot of time studying Islam. He
     wanted to draw a line. He is not prepared to extend total, blind
     toleration to people who use violence in the name of faith, and
     heâs challenging the Muslims to answer the real questions. That
     quotation he chose â the one that asks, Is there anything positive
     that has emerged from the expansion of the domain of Islam? â
     wasnât generated at random. He picked it quite wittingly. Of course
     he knows that, for several centuries, Islam conserved the wisdom of
     the West, the same âGreekâ wisdom he invoked as the indispensable
     partner of Christian faith. Heâs defying the Muslims to admit that,
     because he knows that the jihadis donât want to hear about it, and
     that an open debate about it may undermine the sway of so many
     dogmatic mosques, schools, TV stations, and Internet sites.

   Simply put, Christians are called to Evangelize. If I believe that
   Islam is wrong, then it is my duty to convince Muslims of this. As a
   Christian, I am not just opposed to radical Islam or fundamentalist
   Islam or Islamic fascism. I am opposed to Islam itself. Most
   Christians would just as soon shirk this responsibility. Calling on
   people to repent and convert doesn't come easily. It's never easy to
   evangelize, and even moreso with people who respond violently when you
   do so. That doesn't make it any less a Christian responsibility.
   Having said that, here's what I don't believe it is my, or anyone
   else's responsibility, to do. I should not be trying to outlaw Islam,
   or to force people to convert, or ridiculing Muslims. I believe it's
   possible to respect Muslims, and even their beliefs, while opposing
   those beliefs. I'm not trying to force them to change their beliefs,
   but to convince them through reasoned arguments.
   And this is not America's responsibility. It's not something our
   government or our military should be trying to do. They need to, and
   do, oppose the radical, violent ideology of Islamic fascism, trying to
   encourage more moderate versions of Islam. That is indeed what they
   should be doing. It is not up to them, but up to us, the Christian
   community, to oppose Islam itself, to say that it is false and force
   it to defend itself. I think it is highly unlikely that Islam will be
   destroyed in this confrontation, but there are several possible
   beneficial results:
    1. It will win Muslim believers to Christianity. This is a real, and
       in a spiritual sense, the most important benefit.
    2. It will force Muslim scholars to defend their faith, and encourage
       in them a more reasoned, and hopefully more moderate faith.
    3. When forced to acknowledge other beliefs within their society, it
       will hopefully require Muslim countries to adopt a more tolerant
       attitude towards other religions, and finally acknowledge the
       freedom to conversion.

   Are these benefits likely to happen? In the short term, no. If the
   reaction to the Pope's speech is any indicator, the immediate response
   will be close-mindedness and violence. That does not make it any less
   worthwhile. While most Muslim leaders probably don't agree, I believe
   that Islam has to move past this. If it doesn't, it will implode. If
   belief needs to be enforced by the sword, it will collapse the same
   way Communism did the moment the sword-arm shows any weakness.
   Applying pressure only accelerates this.

References

   1. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060925/opledereligion47.art.htm
   2. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzBlNTJkOWJiMjQyYWIwOTM0ZjNjOTVmZDI5MDg3MmM=