Although it is only September, I think it is safe to say that the “Burn a Koran” day is the pseudo-event of the year. Despite being completely insignificant, the fifty member Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida has managed—thanks to the media—to get worldwide exposure for their book-burning. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, even weighed in, saying, “It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”
Most reasonable people are probably wondering why we are talking about this stupid stunt, much less giving it so much attention. Like most Americans, I am opposed to making inflammatory gestures that serve only to irritate people of other religious faiths. Although we may have the right to do so, it doesn’t mean that we should.
But while I think we can agree that burning Korans is silly, I think we can also press the issue tolerance and respect for other religions a bit too far. A prime example is Peter Wehner’s recent post on Commentary magazine’s blog. Although I agree with almost all of it, his claims about how God would feel about the issue seem contrived and presumptuous:
Jones’s actions would also be an offense against the Christian faith. From what we know, Jesus not only wasn’t an advocate of book-burning; he was a lover of them, most especially the Hebrew Bible, which he often quoted. Beyond that, Christianity is premised on evangelism, on spreading what the faithful believe to be truth about God, history, and the human person. There is nothing that would lead one to embrace coercion or to stoke (literally) the flames of hatred.
Claiming that Jesus was a book lover is a bit of a stretch (and not just because codexes didn’t replace the scroll until the sixth century). It’s not particularly surprising that Christ loved the Hebrew Bible since the book is primarily about him (Luke 24:25-27).
I’m certainly not in a position to know what God would think about the issue. But I think it is safe to say that he isn’t as tolerant as we are (or at least in the same way). Pastor Phil Johnson recently pointed out a truth that should be apparent to anyone who has read the Old Testament:
Nothing is more offensive to God than false religion. The first two of the Ten Commandments underscore that truth. The order of the Commandments is significant. By ruling out false religion before forbidding murder, adultery, or stealing, Moses’ Law made clear that that false religion is the vilest of sins.
We have a tendency to regard all religion as inherently noble and honorable. We tend to think that a non-Christian who is devout in his or her religion is somehow morally superior to the wanton sinner who openly traffics in drugs or pornography or some other notorious sin.
But let’s be honest: that is not a proper biblical perspective. False religion is gross sin. The person who worships a false god is as abhorrent to the true God as a publican or a prostitute. And the person who worships YHWH in a false or hypocritical way is engaging in wanton sin just as surely as the thief or murderer.
Such a claim is a smack in the face to American Christians who, despite whatever denominational affiliation we claim, essentially act like good liberal Protestants.
We tend to assume that God has many of the same preferences that we do. If we are against book-burning (and make no mistake, I am and hope you are too) then we assume he is also. But is this necessarily true? If YHWH considers Islam a false religion, then it is unlikely that he has a great affection for the Koran. This is not to say he wants us to burn them. I certainly believe that he does not. But we should be hesitant to make claims that God is as opposed to censorship of religious texts as we are.
Yet another thought experiment: Imagine that you (a devout Christian, Jew, Mormon, Hindu, etc) are shown a button and are told that if you press it, all knowledge of the Koran will cease to exist. Every text version across the globe will instantly disappear and any passages that were memorized will be forgotten. Muslims will not otherwise be affected other than their having no recall of the words of Allah as collected by Mohamed.
Would you press the button? How would you justify your decision? Would your decision be different if you had to make it solely based on the teaching of your faith and not on received cultural assumptions?
Note: Although it should go without saying, I don’t think God is a conservative American evangelical either.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
Pastor Johnson’s point is underscored by the early Churches primary concern over the Creed rather than about legalistic disputes. From the view of the secular ruling class all religions are the same because they’re all equally meaningless apart from their use as behavior control. So the are unconcerned and often uneducatedable about matters of belief.
I’m torn a bit about the Koran burning. It’s counterproductive, not to mention unkind, to insult. However we must affirm the right, to live without coercion. The threat of, “do this or I’ll get violent” must not be reinforced in any way.
And then there is the strategic wisdom of the Chinese, “If you’re enemy is easily angered, provoke him.”
September 7th, 2010 | 2:16 pm
Where to start?
OK, first, the first two commandments are about idolatry, not false religion, per se. False religion is a kind of idolatry in that it is worship of something that is not the true God, but there is something different nonetheless about worshiping something false, potentially out of ignorance, versus creating a god of one’s own making to worship instead of the true God. In that sense, you and I both, along with a fair portion of our brothers and sisters in Christ, remain guilty of idolatry in spite of ostensibly worshiping the true God. Pastor Johnson is correct, but not correct enough–go back and read pretty much any of the prophets and you will find them lighting a fire under a nation that worshiped the true God but ignored the plight of the widow, the orphan and the sojourner in their land and thus worshiped God falsely.
Second, if advocating the treatment of others with civility and deferential servanthood makes one a de facto liberal white Protestant, then I guess 28 years of considering myself an evangelical just went out the window. If we want to see the true God incarnate, look first to the cruciform, kenotic God in Christ, hanging on the cross, counting himself a bondslave. But we would much prefer the kick-ass Jesus confronting the moneychangers in the Temple because, by God, that’s how WE’D handle it … YOU GO, JESUS!
Would I press the button? No. It’s God’s button, not ours. The mystery of sovereignty and free will requires no less, and if God can stomach it, who am I to usurp his prerogative? If I push the button, an idolator.
I don’t think God is a conservative American evangelical either.
I’ll bet Jim Wallis agrees with you, but that ain’t saying much.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:37 pm
Rev. Mike . . . but there is something different nonetheless about worshiping something false, potentially out of ignorance, versus creating a god of one’s own making to worship instead of the true God.
I agree. But isn’t that what the Koran does? Isn’t the Allah of the Koran a completely different god than the true God?
Second, if advocating the treatment of others with civility and deferential servanthood makes one a de facto liberal white Protestant, then I guess 28 years of considering myself an evangelical just went out the window.
What I meant was that the liberal American Protestant views is to claim that any God worthy of worship must hold values that are similar to them. I believe in civility and deferential servanthood too. But that doesn’t mean I expect God to act in the same way. God says that I am not allowed to kill my fellow man but that does not mean that he is not allowed to wipe out whomever he chooses.
Would I press the button? No. It’s God’s button, not ours.
For this hypothetical to be actual it would require that God give us the ability to make the choice about pressing the button.
The mystery of sovereignty and free will requires no less, and if God can stomach it, who am I to usurp his prerogative? If I push the button, an idolater.
I’m not sure I follow your thinking. Let’s say that we have a class of objects that can lead to eternal harm (from God’s perspective) and that lead to very little good (from our perspective). Are you saying that to eliminate that class of objects (assuming, of course, that God gave us the power to do so) would be usurping the sovereignty of God?
If that is true, then why do we cure any diseases?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:11 pm
–Off topic.
Joe,
A question for you: do you think that ‘think progress’ blog are “dishonest far left hacks”?
Jim thinks so:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/09/naacp-joins-with-dishonest-hacks-at-think-progress-to-smear-tea-party/
Was wondering what you thought?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:22 pm
Doug A question for you: do you think that ‘think progress’ blog are “dishonest far left hacks”?
Hmm. . . let’s break down that phrase:
dishonest – Yes, sometimes they are. Their premier blogger, Matt Yglesias, even defended being dishonest: “Fighting dishonesty with dishonesty is sometimes the right thing for advocates to do.” (http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/13/liberal-blogger-matt-yglesias-advocates-lying-on-twitter/#ixzz0ysCBWp5w)
far left – That is a relative term. Are they on the “left”? Of course. How far left if hard to determine since it would be in comparison to another leftist group.
hacks – If by hack we mean “a professional who does a substandard work” then I’d probably have to say that I don’t have enough evidence to make a determination either way.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:41 pm
Isn’t the Allah of the Koran a completely different god than the true God?
Yes, but then I set this one up pretty weakly. My bad. Think in terms of the Israelites at Mt. Sinai and the golden calf. This is an admittedly thin line I’m drawing but in the case of Allah’s worshipers, this far removed from Mohamed’s purported revelations, they are worshiping a false god from lack of knowledge of the true God and cultural strictures that strongly (!) discourage what they view as apostasy. The Israelites, however, having seen the true God, chose nonetheless to create a false one in his place. Maybe I’m making a distinction without a difference, but it seems to me nonetheless to be a qualitative difference and thus should be responded to differently.
God says that I am not allowed to kill my fellow man but that does not mean that he is not allowed to wipe out whomever he chooses.
Yes, but that may be just bit too hyper-Calvinist and esoteric for this conversation, right up there with the whole “if God can do anything, could he make a rock so big even he couldn’t lift it” line of discussion.
For this hypothetical to be actual it would require that God give us the ability to make the choice about pressing the button.
To take that analogy further, God literally or metaphorically gave us the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and said don’t eat, but we had the choice to do so anyway.
The mystery of sovereignty and free will requires no less, and if God can stomach it, who am I to usurp his prerogative? If I push the button, an idolater.
Are you saying that to eliminate that class of objects (assuming, of course, that God gave us the power to do so) would be usurping the sovereignty of God?
If that is true, then why do we cure any diseases?
Again, I come back to the kenotic, cruciform God. I would say that the scriptural bias in the imago Dei seems to be toward creation and banishment of chaos rather than destruction of something created. Destruction seems to me to lean towards judgment, and I draw a distinction between judgment and discernment. Discernment is ours to exercise, but it properly arises as a gift of the Spirit; judgment is God’s and God’s alone because the holy God alone is in a position to do so righteously and justly in perfect harmony.
So, why cure disease? Because it moves away from the inherent goodness of God’s creation. And yet, God does not always cure disease. At what point do we quit trying and at what cost?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:51 pm
Joe,
Thanks for answering. But in the link you chose, Matt says:
“In an interview, Yglesias said he was not referring to his own conduct as a blogger for the nonpartisan think tank, the Center for American Progress, in advocating dishonesty.
Asked who he meant by “advocates,” Yglesias said, “Politicians, things like that.” Not bloggers? “Not me. No I don’t think that’s conducive to what I do. I’m trying to inform people, so I try to present them with accurate information,” Yglesias said.
“What I write on my blog is honest,” Yglesias said.
—-
I don’t even think you believe Matt is a dishonest person.
Anyway, thanks for the answer.
September 7th, 2010 | 4:41 pm
I think this is an excellent post. However, it will cease to be the “pseudo-event of the year” if Americans overseas actually get killed over this, which is far from a remote possibility.
September 7th, 2010 | 4:49 pm
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Matt. 5:9
September 7th, 2010 | 4:50 pm
Joe Carter’s assertions are correct. At the core of all religious worship in other religions is enmity towards the true God. We should make a distinction between people who are nominally or culturally faithful and those who pursue their religions with tenacious hearts (meaning anyone who worships, not for the sake of others, but because his or her convictions have led him to do so). What makes a devoted Hindu or devoted Muslim so devoted? Not piety; not love – the reality is, their faith emerges out of opposition to the truth of who God is. They hate Him. Islam is inherently hateful to the truth of God’s grace and mercy. People hate that, and in their hatred have constructed false ideologies to counter it. Hinduism is inherently hateful to the oneness, simplicity, and unity found in the Godhead. And on and on.
Where it gets tricky is in the fact that the particular ways in which many Christians worship, the practices they practice, and the teachings they teach or believe are also rooted in enmity towards God. It is unlikely that a serious Christian can press hard into Christianity for any great number of years without running into the fact that huge parts of his heart are angry at God, and accusing, and brokenly venomous. Some Christians deal with this, some don’t. Those who don’t deal with it invariably fall back into bitterness and compromise. Typically they also possess more tolerance for those of other faiths, a tolerance which seems to them like sensibility and fair-mindedness, but is actually little more than collusion in the hateful ideologies of the wicked.
September 7th, 2010 | 6:30 pm
It seems a bit ironic that left out of this discussion is the book burning that happens in the Scripture. (Acts 19:19). Without wanting to go too far in emphasizing the individual human ability to reason and choose, the distinction between the book burning in Acts and the book burning in this case is that they are converted believers whose burning of their books is a sign and embodiment of their repentance. The burning of the books of false gods and beliefs is dangerous, but not to be thrown out altogether. I would guess that in very few instances would book burning NOT be a sign of insecurity, fear, violence, anger or any other number of vices. So perhaps it is important to nuance a bit what is actually happening here: anger and violence towards others or a sign of dying to self and repentance within the community.
September 7th, 2010 | 9:02 pm
[...] To understand why that is, I think Joe Carter proposes an interesting thought experiment in a recent post on First things: [...]
September 7th, 2010 | 9:48 pm
Leigh, another distinction is between burning books as a symbol of what *I* reject, and burning books as an attempt to suppress their possession or use by others. The believers in Ephesians did the former, the Nazis the latter. But as you say, these people in Florida are doing a third thing — burning a book they have never had an interest in to show, what? That they’re better than Muslims? I can’t see a real constructive purpose to it, but neither do I see any so sacrosanct about bound, printed matter as to say that for the right reasons, under the right conditions, lighting it on fire as a symbolic act must be categorically wrong.
September 8th, 2010 | 9:50 am
Considering the christians routinely get attacked and murdered by muslims the world over, the real problem with burning the koran is that it’s such a small gesture.
September 11th, 2010 | 5:12 am
Let’s suspend disbelief for a moment: Imagine if Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and all the other religious icons got together to discuss this issue, would they nit-pick about burning books and what’s the best way to increase hatred toward each other’s religions? Or, would they agree to pool their strengths, to share their love of life, and improve the lot of ALL humankind? Would they try to kill each other off or would they strive to embrace and protect the beauty of life?
As I understand it, the real idea behind ALL religions is very similar: to help their followers live a good life, to teach them to love life and try to do the best they can by emmulating the qualities of their chosen god, whatever the name he/she goes by.
Life is just too short and too precious to waste our energy bickering and hurting others when there are so many critical issues on Earth for us to resolve. Does global warming ring a bell? No? Then how about starvation, poverty, disease, and so many other world-wide threats to life on Earth? Our strength and love of life will lead our way if we allow them to. Or political/religious rants can serve to obscure what’s really important, to inflame more hatred, and to detract from our ability to improve life on Earth for everyone.
September 17th, 2010 | 2:16 am
“Life is just too short and too precious to waste our energy bickering and hurting others when there are so many critical issues on Earth for us to resolve. Does global warming ring a bell? ”
Are you perhaps assuming that everyone in the entire world thinks that global warming is a critical issue? Because you are “bickering” with those for whom global warming does not “ring a bell”.
Do not boast of a tolerance that only comes from the mere fact that you personally do not care about an issue.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact