Christianity and Islam: A Reply to the President

In his remarks at a recent prayer breakfast, President Obama insisted on creating a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam. President Obama said: "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim crow all too often were justified in the name of Christ."

The outcry against his comments has been swift and justified. The problem with his remarks is that there is no moral equivalence between the terrorist acts of Islam and slavery practiced by Christians in the antebellum South. One is the logical outworking of a religious system, the other is an illogical perversion of it.

Violent Muslims believe that their version of Islam is more faithful to the essence of Islam and the Quran. And they are right. Their position is supported by the Quran, the founding of Islam and the long tradition of Islamic conquest. The image of Muhammed as a warrior is central to Muslim theology and practice. The most common image of Muhammed is of the prophet brandishing a sword. Atrocities such as the enslavement and rape of Yezidi girls, the burning of churches, and the burning alive of captives is perfectly consistent with Muslim history and theology.
On the other hand, Christ himself told Peter to put away his sword. Violent Jihad is one of the five pillars of Islam. Love thy neighbor as thy self is one of the two great commandments of Christianity. While Islam has always been accompanied by slavery and war, wherever Christianity has spread violence and slavery have ceased.

So, what about the President's assertions? Is Christianity rightfully indicted by the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery and racism? Lets deal with each in turn. First, the Crusades were a long time ago. The first was proclaimed by Pope Urban II in 1095. Doesn't it say something about the moral superiority of Christianity that in order to find anything to indict it, you have to go back a thousand years? To indict Islam you need go back no further than yesterday! Still, history is history. Were the Crusades an evil that is to be laid at the feet of the church? First, understand that the Crusades were defensive, not offensive in nature. The Crusades began as a response to the military conquest and persecution of Christians by Islam. Second, the Crusades were arguably more about protecting trade routes than about religion. No one was trying to convert anyone else at the battle of Ascalon. Finally, I would point out that the Crusades did not come to an end because Islam sued for peace. Rather, Christians brought the Crusades to an end because they recognized that making war in the name of Christianity was inconsistent with the teachings of Christ!

So, what about the Inquisition? Well, as an evangelical let me point out that the Inquisition was an exclusively Catholic affair. From our theological standpoint we would argue that Catholicism is a blend of Christianity and pagan beliefs and practices. We should not be surprised that pagans and secularists would torture and kill their adversaries. Also, during the time of the Inquisition, the Catholic church was famous for its secular nature. Many, if not most people, were Christian in name only. There is a famous saying that is all too relevant here. "The sins of hypocrites cannot be charged to the church." Just because a person calls himself a Christian does not make him one. The Inquisition was not carried on by genuine Christians. Indeed, true Christians were usually the ones being persecuted by the Inquisition.

As for slavery, history shows that wherever Christianity has spread, slavery has disappeared. Christianity is penicillin for the infection of slavery. What do we make then of slavery in England and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries? William Wilberforce was an English evangelical and politician who opposed slavery. Indeed he is widely credited with being the major force behind the end of slavery in England. Wilberforce spoke of Christianity as a tide that rises and falls in a society. As the tide of Christianity fell in England, the society became more amenable to atrocities such as slavery. In fact, he identified the decline of Christian doctrine as an influence in British society as the chief cause of slavery. Thus, slavery was not the product of Christianity, but the result of its declining influence. Time does not allow me to go into detail, but evangelicals were responsible for the abolitionist movement in both England and America. As for those who attempted to use the Bible to justify slavery, their burden was to overcome Christianity's historical and theological predisposition against the practice, a battle which they ultimately lost. Islam and Christianity are not equally guilty of atrocities. One is the logical outworking of a religious system, the other is an illogical perversion of it.

Also, let me say a word about the distinction between "moderate" and "radical" Islam. Both the media and the current administration make the same mistake. The difference is not in kind, but in extent. "Moderates" and "Radicals" do not represent different kinds of Islam. Rather they represent different levels of commitment to the essentials of their religion. The Radical is simply more Muslim than the Moderate. WE see the same phenomenon in Christianity. Liberal Christians do not represent a different branch of the faith. By denying the fundamentals of their faith, they are merely less Christian than conservative believers. For this reason, encouraging Moderate Islam gets us nowhere. It is like saying we prefer those who have a milder case of Ebola over those who have a worse case. In the end, it's still Ebola.  

Having said all this, should we treat our Muslim neighbors with suspicion and disdain? Certainly not. Likewise, we should defend the freedom of every American to practice their faith, as long as they do so peacefully. As believers we must view Muslims as potential recipients of grace, just as we are. We must lovingly offer the gospel of Jesus Christ as the only hope for salvation. But as a nation, we need to recognize that Christianity is far more compatible with freedom, democracy and peace than any other religion - especially Islam. 

Ideas Have Consequences

          Ideas have consequences. There are two views of humanity in the world today. And both were on display at the Colorado vs. Arizona basketball game on January 15. A college basketball game seems like an odd place for a clash of world views, but such is the condition or our society. Bill Walsh, who was calling the game, took the opportunity to present his fellow broadcasters with gifts. He gave Dave Pasch a copy of the Origin of Species, because Pasch doesn’t believe in evolution. Pasch countered by offering to give Walsh a "book that counters the Origin of Species" at their next game.

Unfortunately, most of America's cultural leaders today side with Bill Walsh, and ideas always have consequences. If evolution is understood as the evolutionist intends it to be understood, then human life has no inherent sanctity, no dignity, and no special status at all. The late Stephen J. Gould, who was Professor of Paleontology at Harvard University, openly denied the idea that human beings have any special status or any special origin at all by suggesting that we are simply an accidental “twig” on the “amazingly arborescent tree of life.” We are a pure, biological accident. The wonder is not that some creator called us into being, or some plan produced us. Rather, said Gould, in all the randomness of natural process, look what resulted—isn’t that amazing? But, it is not meaningful in any moral sense. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University says that all of evolution is about the contest of “memes”—the basic units of genetic data. It is a rather bizarre idea, but what he is saying is that the survival of the fittest works its way down to the tiniest elements, such that human beings are simply machines produced by biological evolution in order that germs can replicate themselves. We are basically germ factories and germ hosts until we die, and then they will move to another body in which to take up their form and shape and sustenance. Your sole reason to exist is to be a germ factory.

Such is the nonsense our schools are teaching today. This is what is taught at Oxford and Harvard Universities. This is what is established in the curriculum, and this is the worldview that shapes the minds of those who make our laws and judge our cases and teach our children and report the news.

 
           Ideas have consequences, and the idea of evolutionary naturalism tells us that human beings are simply an accident. There is no special status, no special quality, no special sanctity or dignity of life. And if human beings really are just a biological accident, then why not abort in the womb or put them into Hitler’s ovens?

I suggest to you that this is the very reason The 20th century saw assaults on human life and human dignity on an unprecedented scale. Historians now believe that perhaps as many as a billion human beings were murdered by atheistic ideologies in the twentieth century. It may be that a half a billion died in Communist China alone. Over 200 million died in Stalin’s death camps and by his execution squads.

Christendom has been criticized for its occasional crusades and  inquisitions. But Christianity has nothing to compare to the millions slaughtered by atheists in the killing fields of Cambodia, and Rwanda. Indeed the one by product that always accompanies Atheism is mass murder. It is the chief characteristic of that philosophy.

Another product of this secular view is that human beings are no longer considered superior to animals. The animal rights movement has now built an entire argument against human dignity apart from other animals. This kind of argument, they insist, is a form of “speciesism.” Humans, these animal rights activists argue, are not superior to other animals—just more powerful in manipulating the environment. The logical end of this argument is that to wear animal skins and eat animal meat is the equivalent of murder. What right do we have to deprive the animal of its life or of its skin?

In contrast to this deadly worldview, we offer a Biblical concept. The Bible clearly teaches that we alone are created in the image of God:

            Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26 NKJV).

 The Bible teaches that we alone are spiritual beings. The image of God is a spiritual image. It has to do with the fact that there is a unique spiritual capacity within us. There are three kinds of life that a creature may possess. The first is Biological life. This refers to the capacity to eat, grow, reproduce and carry on the biological processes necessary for survival. Plants, animals, and human beings all possess biological life. The second kind of life is psychological or emotional life. This is the capacity to remember, and to process events both intellectually and emotionally. Animals and humans both possess this capacity. Clearly both humans and animals learn, and experience emotion. However, the final category of life is unique to human beings. I refer of course to spiritual life. This is a dignity about which the Scripture is very clear. Alone of all creation, human beings may consciously know and worship God. Indeed the Bible teaches that we did not arise by accident, but that God created each of us personally.

 

Psalms 139:13 - 16 (NKJV):

For You formed my inward parts;

    You covered me in my mother’s womb.

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

    Marvelous are Your works,

    And that my soul knows very well.

My frame was not hidden from You,

    When I was made in secret,

    And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.

    And in Your book they all were written,

    The days fashioned for me,

    When as yet there were none of them.

 From the moment of conception (defined as the exchange of genetic information) to the end of natural death we are made in the image of God. This clearly rules out Abortion, Euthanasia, and the use of embryo's for experimentation, or to harvest stem cells, or to destroy embryos that are unwanted as a part of fertility treatments. There is no biblical ground or cause to take the pre-born life. It is murder and has been recognized as such from the very beginning of biblical time. We are the image bearers of God, and we are fully deserving of the dignity that should be accorded to every human being. Human life must be defended. Ideas have consequences.