What should our response to Muslims and the Middle East look like? How do we model Christ’s love to them in a way they can understand?
4so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
John 13:4-5
We must have something they don’t. If they see our love and the joy that comes in knowing Jesus as Savior and not just as prophet, then the Holy Spirit is free to move in them and convict them. Otherwise, we stand in the way.
Perhaps, we as the church in America should stop supporting the war rhetoric. I am not suggesting we revolt, but that we not participate; that we not allow our vote to be swayed by who will continue the war; that we stop believing the worst and start praying for the best. What if we stood together loving and praying for our enemies? What if we reached out to our Muslim neighbors here? What if we stopped seeking our own good fortune and started seeking God’s blessing on others? What if we started praying for Iran? I am.
This is of course a complicated issue. Here’s some contradictory ideas.
1) Isn’t pulling out of the war essentially a selfish act? Iraq was not especially well off before we invaded, but if we leave it could end up as another Somalia, which is not good for anybody, especially Iraqis.
2) Though I would be the first to criticize someone spouting that “Islam is a religion of violence”-type rhetoric, you must remember that Christianity lost a great deal of ground to Islam through violence. Many of the now traditional “homelands” of Islam were at one time as Christian (or more so) than most of Europe.
3) Perhaps the neocons are right when they say that this is a clash of civilizations and that we will end up fighting terrorists somewhere else, if not in Iraq. If so, withdrawing from Iraq carries no ultimate benefit to anyone.
4) A great deal of the Protestant missions of the past couple centuries were made possible by colonialism. I think we could definitely say that without colonialism the spread of Christianity around the world would not have been possible. And yet, we view colonialism (or at least I do) as bad. Which leads to the question — is it really possible to get the kind of “conversion results” that the missions movement is hoping for without moral compromise?
I could come up with tons more.
Thanks Ben for the ideas and questions. You bring up a lot of where I started thinking on this topic. What I am suggesting is that we follow God and only God in this area. Here’s what I would say in answer to your ideas and questions:
1) I never said pull out. What I am suggesting is not that we pull out necessarily, but that we as Christians stop being blind followers of rhetoric. I am suggesting we follow Christ instead of our government. Let the government do what governments do, but let us function as strangers in this world instead of Americans.
2) People are not won to Christianity through Christianity conquering lands. Have the Native Americans been won to Christ in large numbers? Or was that more to do with taking land? The church is growing in strength and numbers in places like Iran where it operates underground. On the other hand, the American church is stagnant, lukewarm. Christ said in revelation that he would spit us out if we were lukewarm.
3) Even if the “neocons” are right, as Christians are we fighting for our own security or the furtherance of the Gospel? I hope and pray we can say the Gospel. The early Church sure wasn’t fighting for security and look at how the Gospel spread!
4) Should there ever be compromise to share the Gospel? I think the Bible would clearly say no. We rely too much on ourselves and human methods. We tell God that we know better; that His ways won’t work. I think God would say we are foolish. His ways and thoughts are higher than ours.
I hope that makes sense. I’d love to hear more from you on this.
Andrew
1) Yeah I agree there.
2) Think about it, though. If the Byzantine Empire had remained powerful instead of slowly being eroded by Islam, all these countries that missionaries are going to — from Mauretania to Turkey, even to Saudi itself — would be functionally Christian, instead of hostile to Christianity. That’s a big difference. Whether we like it or not, missions in a hostile environment is a little weird, and though God does work, you as a westerner are in kind of a funny position. I don’t really know how to explain that further.
3) Well, I don’t approve of nationalism, but the NT is full of encouragement to respect the authority of government. And think about what kind of message you’re sending when you say, “We don’t care what happens to this country or the people who live in it.” As a Christian, we should desire peace for all.
4) I don’t know, dude. Though that makes great sense as a platitude, it sounds a lot like a “let go and let God” interpolation of our mission here on earth. That kind of attitude is the same that William Carey encountered: “Sit down, young man! If God wants to save the heathen, he can do it without your help!” Certainly we should not approve of evil … but when a government outlaws Christianity, well, Christians become outlaws. There are dozens of countries where missionaries are disobeying the law by going there; but I have an idea that you would approve rather than disapprove of that behavior. I don’t know, doesn’t it seem like a similar moral compromise? That is, you can’t really get around it?
Great thoughts on this.
I don’t know a whole lot about the Byzantine Empire. I can say that the Catholic church and its teachings are far from Christianity and have been for several centuries. A good place to learn some truth about it is from a former Catholic:
http://soulrefuge.wordpress.com
The New Testament does encourage us to respect the authority of government, but that respect only goes so far. The NT is full of examples of Christians following Christ first. This means when obeying the law would hinder the spread of the Gospel, we are to follow Christ. I’m not saying I don’t care what happens to the people in this country, but those who live by the sword die by the sword. Desiring peace for all should mean the people in the Middle East as well.
Is it so bad to be an outlaw as a Christian? Is Christianity being legal, acceptable, and even trendy helping the Gospel? I would argue the church in America is more complacent because there is little cost involved. It is not moral compromise to follow the Great Commission over the law of the land. It is moral compromise to respect man’s law over God’s.
The lens we view things through must be our faith and not logic. I have found much of mine has been through the lens of logic and had to make some major adjustments.
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9
Andrew
Say instead “far from Protestant Christianity.” Right or wrong, many of the differences between Catholic and Orthodox doctrine and yourself were brand new in 1500. Veneration of Mary and the “literal body and blood”, for instance, go right back to the very beginning of the church. The eucharist in particular was largely unchallenged until Zwingli. I understand why your friend could be reacting to problems in the Catholic church (I have more than a few problems with it myself), but given the angry nature of his reactions he may not be the best source on it.
I don’t think you understood what I was saying about peace. I mean to say, to discriminate against your own country in favor of those in the Middle East is as bad as the other way around. The true Christian response wants peace for all, and to only care about those in the Middle East is overbalancing. It can just as easily be mere rhetoric as actual compassion.
Once again, to say “just have faith” is a great platitude but is the equivalent of “be warmed and well fed.” It is an easy escape from responsibility.
You say “it is not moral compromise to follow the Great Commission over the law of the land”. Think, though, about why the “respect the government” passages are in place. They are there so that outsiders will see the kind of fruit Christianity bears — respect, holiness, etc. What kind of message are you sending, when you as a “rich American” break the law and lie about what you are doing so you can push your religious beliefs and practices on the local populace and destabilize the government? However noble your intentions, this is how they may very well view your efforts. And then, when you’ve gathered in a few converts, the government clamps down, you run back to America, and those converts have to suffer under the secret police. How is that love? Think, too, of the early martyrs. They were open about their Christianity though it cost them everything. Would they have approved of a missionary who lies about what they are doing?
Ben,
Paul was angry with those who changed the Gospel. Do we write him off as well? Should we calmly sit by while others preach a false gospel that is no gospel at all? A works-based gospel that says salvation depends on being a member of the right church? That’s not a biblical response at all. These teachings in the Catholic church are hardly new. It’s been happening since they sold out to Constantine 1,700 years ago and began paganizing Christianity to appeal to Romans.
The early followers of Christ did not wait for friendly governments to spread the Gospel. Though they were told not to talk further about Jesus, they never stopped. That is what I am suggesting. Not running out every time they’re found out. If the government clamps down after a missionary leaves, as awful as persecution is, are those people not better off knowing Christ for eternity and facing death? Would we rather them be eternally lost? Is that loving? Are we as missionaries trying to “push our religious beliefs”? That’s not a kind of missions I’ve heard about and is completely unbiblical. If that is how you truly feel about missions, you need to take a good hard look back at your Bible.
I am not saying we tip the scales of the war in favor of the Middle East. I’m suggesting that we as Christians not be such adamant and blind supporters as I have been. Let governments do what governments do, but let us as Christians speak about things of God. We stick our foot in our mouth too often when we speak of this war, whether we support it or protest it. The true Christian desires peace for all, but not at the expense of the Gospel.
Andrew
Hm, you may, as you experience more of the world, find out that you are wrong about these things. Then again, you may not. I would study the history of the church a little more before making blanket statements like “they sold out to Constantine”, though … you may find that the Christians from 300-1500 were more Christian than you think, and also realize that you have some misconceptions about what being a Christian means. Remember too, that the canon of scripture, the creeds which are the basis of your doctrinal statements, and a myriad of saints including the Reformed darling, Augustine, were all within that period (post Constantine, pre Reformation).
What you are suggesting about missions just isn’t done. It sounds great, in theory, but how do you get into, say, Saudi Arabia and do that. You last about 24 hours, I know people who have tried. When I say, “pushing your religion on others”, I am talking about how you are perceived. You are perceived as a western colonizer in the 21st century, destabilizing their government, lying and sneaking. This is not how we want to portray Christ. I’m not saying the current model is worthless, but rather that there is a moral dilemma involved.
I’m not a scholar of the early church by any means, but it just seems that everything I have heard from the time of Constantine on is the spread of false doctrine… the mass as a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice, the eucharist as the actual body and blood, Mary as an intermediary and higher authority, etc. A lot of these teachings come from non-canonical books. There are added books in the Old Testament that actually say they came during the time between Malachi and Matthew when God was silent. How can you say that and claim a divinely inspired book of the Bible? There were some great thinkers pre- and post-Reformation. I disagree with many of them. A lot of where I disagree is how they put it into practice. For instance, I agree with much of the points of Calvinism but disagree wholeheartedly with Calvin burning people at the stake.
How do you know what I’m suggesting isn’t done? How do you know there aren’t missionaries who give their lives to a people so they can know Christ? I met a girl just recently whose parents are missionaries in Africa and have been in several dangerous and hostile countries for over twenty years. They also raised three or four children who are all going back to Africa or are already back in Africa. It doesn’t have to look like “pushing our religion on others”. Look into Compassion International. They don’t push their religion at all and yet they are changing lives by bringing the Gospel and aid all over the world.
Governments have had conspiracy theories against Christians since Jesus. Those were the charges brought against him. The religious leaders claimed he was trying to overthrow the Roman government. Of course this should never be the case. It has been at times, but what I have been saying here is that no matter what they assume it shouldn’t be true.
When I say “it isn’t done” I mean marching into a closed country and preaching the gospel on the street corner. You end up in jail, and are deported.
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying about missions. Ah, well.
The “literal body and blood” as a practice had currency as early as we can record it. It just didn’t occur to people that it was a symbol, rather than the actual body and blood, until Zwingli in the 1500s. I personally think it is a symbol, but saying it started after Constantine is incorrect … we have writings, for instance, of St. Ignatius (A.D. 35-107) which describe communion as taking the literal body and blood of Jesus. Ignatius himself was discipled by the Apostle John. That’s a good two hundred years before Constantine.
You are referring, I think, to the Apocrypha? I would suggest studying the canon article on Wikipedia. Rather than the early church treating those “non-canonical” (the correct term is deutero-canonical, actually) works as authoritative, it is because of the Post-Constantine church that you distinguish between the canon of scripture and other works. Etc.
I think I get what you’re saying now about missions. I don’t know that we have people on street corners in closed countries declaring the Gospel. Perhaps we should…? We do have missionaries in every closed country in the world sharing the Gospel with people, not because “my religion is better than yours,” but because God has called them to the ends of the earth.
As far as the doctrine of consubstantiation (I believe that’s what it’s called) I’m not so much concerned about it. What concerns me is the deification of Mary, Mary as an intermediary, membership in the Catholic church required for salvation, etc. Those are in direct contradiction with things Christ said and are obvious false doctrines. They have been confirmed over and over again within the Catholic church since Constantine. Yes, some were in circulation beforehand, but it was Constantine who gave the church the power and freedom to confirm doctrines. It was at that point that the church began to have power over earthly things and lost much of its spiritual fervor.
I don’t know for sure, but it may be the Apocrypha I’m referring to; 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, etc. I believe it is in one of the Maccabees that it says explicitly it was written during a time when the Lord was silent. That would in my opinion disqualify itself as an inspired book of the Bible. The Catholics derrive at least one or two of their false doctrines from these books. It was after Constantine that the church officially declared things canonical, but it is my understanding that it wasn’t much of a question. There were a few books in question, but most of it was widely accepted as the New Testament long before Constantine.
I don’t know that Zwingli was the first to call out the Roman Catholics for false doctrine. He may have been, but it is my understanding that there were groups such as the Anabaptists in existence before then that may not have objected to the Catholic doctrines as much as they tried to live by doctrines they knew to be true.
Missions: yeah, ok. I guess what I am saying is “Those colonial-type missionaries didn’t realize there were problems with what they were doing, so we should probably be looking at the plank in our own eye, in case we are also making mistakes.”
Zwingli: with him, I was referring specifically to, as you say, “consubstantiation”.
Apocrypha: Of course, I’m not an expert on this subject. I think that the Catholic interest in the Apocrypha, like some of their other doctrines we don’t like, may be in many ways a result of the “counter-reformation” … at the onset of the Reformation, I don’t think the Catholic and Protestant views of the Apocrypha were very different. I am pretty sure, as well, that the Orthodox (Eastern) church views the apocrypha as Protestants do, but they still have an “outside of our box” view of Mary. I have actually been meaning to read this book: The Real Mary, to get a better perspective on it — from what I’ve heard, there are many Protestant misconceptions about what Mary means to Orthodox and Catholics. Purgatory, I think, is the big Apocrypha-based doctrine of the Catholics; the Orthodox don’t have purgatory, and I’m pretty sure it was a later innovation — not being completely described until Aquinas (1200s).
I know more about Orthodox than Catholics, but I’m pretty sure that at this point, they both (grudgingly, maybe) accept Protestants as being “saved” as well. They have a much higher view of the sacraments than we do, which is a big reason why I’m not Orthodox; but they still believe that faith in God etc. is required, rather than simply membership in their church.
I think we’re in agreement on missions.
It is my understanding that Catholics, though they say they accept Protestants, in doctrine do not. I believe it was the Council of Trent that pronounced anathemas on anyone who disputed any of their false doctrines. This was all confirmed in the modern era by Vatican II. The people of the Catholic church may accept Protestants, but the church itself does not.
My concern is that the high importance placed on the sacraments becomes a works-based faith. When one must participate in the sacraments to be saved, faith in Christ’s atoning work on the Cross is pushed to the background and as Paul says, Christ died for nothing.
Hm, I wonder if you’re right about Vatican II. I looked up the wikipedia article on it, and they quoted this statement on inter-church relations from the council:
“the Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter”
… the wikipedia article seemed to suggest that this had been a big problem for more conservative Catholics who were against recognition of Protestants (and Orthodox, for that matter). Yes, the anathemas from the Council of Trent and the Schism have not been revoked, but this at least is an overture of peace, rather than the other way around.
Once again, I know more about Orthodoxy than Catholicism, but the Orthodox view of salvation is not that different from, say, an Arminian Protestant’s view. The wikipedia article on the Roman Catholic church seems to pretty clearly outline a view of salvation that is compatible with my view of salvation as a non-Calvinist evangelical …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church#Salvation
Now, whether that is how things play out in real parish life for Catholics, I don’t really know. From what I gather, most Catholics are very nominal, at least in California (where I live). I’ve met only a couple actual practicing Catholics in my life (like, who knew their own church’s teaching), and they were all connected with the evangelical (Protestant) church in some way.
Here’s what I know:
1. Catholics are not considered Christians by most Latin American believers.
2. Vatican II does not fully recognize Protestantism. What it does is essentially say that Protestants have lost their way and should come back into the fold of the Catholic church. You can find more on that here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
3. Vatican II confirms the Council of Trent with all its anathemas against Protestants:
51. This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) the Council of Florence (21*) and the Council of Trent.(22*) And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints “example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession.”(23*) On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.(24*)
You can find that here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
What I have noticed is that the Catholic church is very good at saying what people want to hear. The ecumenical side sounds good if you don’t listen to the anathemas. Vatican II didn’t bring those up because they wanted all Christians back under their control. They want power.
I recall Jesus saying in Matthew 20:
25…”You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
The truth is, most Catholics don’t seem to have a clue what their church teaches. The church is very careful in America especially to teach only what fits with American ideas and ideals. The church is not as friendly and open elsewhere where it has more control, such as in Latin America.
Excellent points. I have as a Christian found the movement to war unsettling (even as early as the Afghanistan invasion). Yet, mostly, I’ve kept silent and only on occasion raised questions about whether this could be a “just war”. Sometimes just raising questions can be as potent as staging a protest.
Thanks for the post.
No one will probably read this comment because it is an old post, but here goes anyway. The books you call the “apocrypha,” are not to the Orthodox. Their just the Old Testament. It’s always been that way. The Catholics didn’t make it up as part of the counter-reformation. The fathers quote Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus just like they would quote any other book of the Bible. (See Irenaeus) Protestants were the reactionary ones. (Protestant and reactionary seem like redundancies, no?)
It’s true that Orthodoxy has never believed in Purgatory. I believe St. Mark of Ephesus argued very correctly when he observed that punishment and forgiveness are the opposite of one another. There is no forgiveness where there is punishment. They are ANTITHETICAL. Purgatory is a product of the Frankish Catholic innovation of placing salvation upon a completely legal framework instead of an ontological one (see Anselm).
We don’t consider Protestants as “saved.” This shouldn’t be misunderstood because we don’t consider ourselves as such. We don’t view salvation as a once and for all thing as Protestants do. We think you may be saved in the end, just as we hope we may be, although you are not considered to be in the Church (neither are Roman Catholics).
There’s no such thing as “just war theory” in Orthodoxy. It’s a western idea rooted in Aquinas. We believe wars to be necessary evils at times, but evils nonetheless. Killing a man is always a sin. Sometimes it is necessary. Sin is not viewed in a legal frame of mind in the East, but rather as simply “missing the mark.” Sin is not being perfect. Sometimes duty requires that we do something less than perfect. You simply go to confession afterwards. (Confession also has a vastly different meaning in Orthodoxy from Catholicism)
Finally, the Orthodox view is very different from a Protestant Arminian’s view. Theosis is the key to an Orthodox understanding of salvation. God became man that we might become gods. Now, this is not the polythesitic Mormon view. It is the patristic one. We do not become gods by essence, but rather by participating in the Divine Energies.
Hope this helps clear things up to anyone who notices it.
God bless.
Mark,
I think we can agree for the most part on the “just war theory” and wars being ugly, but necessary evils. I don’t fully understand the Orthodox positions. Why would you sin and then go to confession? I understand this to a degree, as I often sin and then have to turn and repent. But the way you say this here sounds to me like sin is necessary in some situations. I think God has given us a way out of sin in every situation. We may choose not to take it, but there is a way. The Bible says there is not a temptation presented to us that we cannot resist.
I don’t think most Protestants are Arminian. I for one am not. I understand some of his reasoning, but find most of it deeply flawed. I am not a Calvinist, but would tend to agree more with Calvin’s side of the argument. But then again I consider myself Protestant only following the fact that I am not Roman Catholic.
Where does the Orthodox Church get these views of salvation and us becoming gods? That is not something I have ever heard. This sounds to me like some of the ideas the Apostles fought against. Can you address this further?
Andrew