|
In a sermon that has stood the test of time Barry Seagren, originally an American citizen but now pastor of a church in Hampshire, asks five key questions in response to the terrorist attacks of 11th September:
(1) How can God allow such things?
(2) Why do they hate us so much?
(3) Is it right to strike back?
(4) Are we at war with Islam?
(5) Do we still have the courage to be fundamentalists?
The talk was first delivered last November but Barry delivered it again to the CCF under 30 group's recent Epiphany weekend.
-
"The attack on the World Trade Towers a month ago affected me in a way that no other world event has in my lifetime. I'm sure many of us would say the same. We have all been reading and thinking and talking about it ever since. The attacks, and the war on terrorism have dominated the news in an unprecedented way. The comfortable cynicism of our society has been embarrassed and at least temporarily silenced.
We live in a culture in which people shrug their shoulders and say "whatever" to pretty much anything that is claimed or done. But September 11th was something cynicism was unable to process or deconstruct. The act itself was an example of real evil. The response of the New York firemen and policemen was an example of genuine heroism. You didn't hear responses of "whatever" to September 11th.
Today I want to try to comment as a Christian on some of the questions it raises for us as Christians. I know this is difficult in a number of ways, but we do need to apply the word of God to real issues. There are five questions I would like to raise:
1. How can God allow such things?
Those pictures of the World Trade Towers collapsing into a heap of rubble were incredibly powerful. Something that seemed so permanent and secure was destroyed without warning and with horrendous loss of innocent life. It was as though our whole world was falling down. It left us all shaken and depressed.
Is God in control? How can God allow such things?
Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote an article entitled Why does God allow War? just after the outbreak of the Second World War, a time when the horizon was far darker than it is now.
He answered the question this way: The idea that the world partly as the result of its own inner momentum and partly as the result of the preaching of the Gospel would gradually evolve into a better and better place is entirely false to the teaching of the Bible itself. The Biblical world view is thoroughly pessimistic.
So our first reply to the question, "Why does God allow war?" is to ask another question: "Has God ever promised to prevent or to prohibit war?" He cites Matthew 24:6-8 in support, a passage in which Jesus was speaking to his followers about what the future holds: "You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth-pains."
In other words, war will be a normal feature of the whole time between the Ascension and the Second Coming. Lloyd-Jones continues: Our second answer may also be put in the form of a question: "Why should God prevent war?" Under the blessing of peace since the last war men and women in constantly increasing numbers have forsaken God and religion and have settled down to a life which is essentially materialistic and sinful.
Then came a crisis in September 1938. Men and women crowded to places of worship and prayed for peace. Afterwards they assembled to thank God for peace. But was it because they had decided to use peace for the one and only true purpose, namely, to "live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty"? Was it in order that they might walk "in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the holy Ghost"?
The facts speak for themselves.
Thus I ask the questions: Had we a right to peace? Do we deserve peace? Have we a right to expect God to preserve a state of peace merely to allow men and women to continue a life that is an insult to his holy Name? If that was true in 1940, how much more so now? If peace and prosperity lead us to ignore God, whereas hard times bring us to our knees, why should he give us peace and prosperity? That does not mean that God delights in war. He doesn't; he delights in peace. But it is a challenging observation.
We live in a fallen and sinful world. God has never promised to spare us from wars and disasters. But what has he promised us? Of what can we be confident when the world seems to be falling apart?
First, we can be confident of the faithful care of God:
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. (Romans 8:35, 37)
Secondly, and even more profoundly, we can be confident of the overarching sovereignty of God:
Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:37-38)
Jeremiah wrote that at a time when the Jewish nation had been defeated, destroyed, and carried off into captivity. God had not lost control. In a way we cannot understand, the sovereign power of God stands behind all the events of this world. That does not mean that God is the author of evil, but it does mean that the world is not spinning out of control.
Job is an important example here. When all hell broke loose in Job's life, he was given no explanation. In fact, he was never given an explanation.
Instead he was given a call to faith. The Lord's word to Job at the end of the book is, "Job, will you bow before me; will you trust me?" It is the same for us. We may, and we must, trust the one who hasn't lost his grip on the world, and who will never lose his loving, saving grip on us.
2. Why do they hate us so much?
What was so upsetting, perhaps more to Americans than to the British, was the rejoicing in parts of the Muslim world. How can they hate us so much? A great deal has been written about this since. There was an outstanding article by Bryan Appleyard in the Sunday Times (23 September 2001). He doesn't set it out quite this way, but there are perhaps three reasons.
First, they are affronted by our decadence. Much of Islam is conservative and even puritanical. What do they see when they look at the West? Crass materialism, blatant sexuality, disintegrating families, and arrogant godlessness. As a small example, when Geri Halliwell was entertaining the troops in Oman she was pictured fooling around on the beach with virtually nothing on. Completely insensitive.
Secondly, they are humiliated by our success. Michael Binyon, writing in the Times, put it this way:
The Muslim world has an old and proud culture, but one that has felt under assault from the West for the past century. The modern Islamic revival has been in contradistinction to the West and its overwhelming influence. This has coincided with a feeling of political powerlessness across much of the Islamic world - a feeling that America dictates the agenda by which the world lives and that Western assumptions now order the affairs of nations.
Muslim culture peaked a thousand years ago; since then it has slowly but surely lost ground to the West. Across the Muslim world there are feelings of impotence, of frustration. Western culture is taking over; Islam is under threat. That was exacerbated when western troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. The land of Mohammed was being profaned by the infidel.
That more than anything is what infuriates Osama bin Laden, and he longs to see the West, especially the US, driven out of the Middle East.
Thirdly, they are incensed by our favouritism. The issue here is Israel. They see Israel as the last bastion of Western colonialism in an area that was once entirely Muslim. They are incensed by the way the West, especially the US, uncritically supports Israel. There are good reasons for supporting Israel, but also some bad ones. I'd like to single out one of the bad ones, namely the prophetic views of many American Christians.
There is a huge Christian constituency in America; many of them follow a prophetic system called dispensational premillennialism. That system, popularised in the Schofield Bible and in Hal Lindsay's book The Late Great Planet Earth, teaches that the establishing of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948 was a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy and is a key event of the end times.
Eventually the temple will be rebuilt and there will be a millennial kingdom centred in Jerusalem, which will be a revival and continuation of the historical kingdom of David.
Therefore Israel has a special place in the thinking of many Americans because they believe it has a crucial place in the future plans of God. For many, their prophetic views make them automatically and uncritically pro-Israel.
I don't agree with those prophetic views at all. They depend on a particular interpretation of passages in Old Testament which I believe the New Testament shows us to interpret in a different way. The New Testament vision of end times holds out salvation for the Jewish people, but it says nothing about restoration of a Jewish nation. It predicts a return to God, but not necessarily a return to Palestine.
I don't see Palestine as the Holy Land, or the State of Israel as the fulfilment of prophecy, or Jerusalem as the capital of a future millennial kingdom. I am a Zionist, but the Bible teaches me that we come to Mount Zion by coming to Jesus Christ (Hebrews 12:22-24).
There are some good reasons for supporting Israel, but the US needs to be more even-handed, and strongly encourage the Jews and the Palestinians to settle their differences and learn to live together. Otherwise there will be no end to this thing.
So, why do they hate us? They are affronted by our decadence, humiliated by our success, and incensed by our favouritism.
I don't claim those perceptions are entirely accurate, and I certainly don't believe they in any way justify the horrors that have been committed. I am not one of those who wants to blame the victim. Yet I do think they are issues that need to be understood and addressed, and perhaps understood and addressed by us individually in some of our own personal dealings with Muslims.
3. Is it right to strike back?
Shouldn't we turn the other cheek? Isn't that the Christian response? I dislike some of the angry talk of revenge and retaliation, but I do think this is an evil that must be rooted out and will not be rooted out without the use of force.
The key text here is Romans 12-13. The chapter division is unfortunate because it makes us miss a crucial part of the argument.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil (12:19) Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. (12:19) Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (12:21).
In other words, procuring justice and exacting punishment is God's business, not ours. But, notice how Paul continues:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established (13:1) He is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer (13:4)
The links between the chapters are important. The word wrath in 13:4 is the same word used in 12:19; the word punishment in 13;4 is the same as the word revenge or avenge in 12:19. The last phrase of 13:4 could be translated literally "an avenger who brings (God's) wrath on the wrongdoer." It is God's job to avenge. He will do that completely in the future, at the last judgement, but he has ordained the state as his servant to do it in the present, using the sword if necessary.
Therefore, what individuals must not do, the state must do. The reason the individual ethic of turning the other cheek is realistic in a fallen world is that God has instituted the state and given it the right and responsibility of restraining and punishing evil, using force as a last resort.
There are some Christians who are principled pacifists. I honour them, but I do not agree with them. There are others who are not pacifists in theory, but who always seem to disapprove of the use of force, no matter what the occasion. I feel they are naive about the reality and depth of evil. There is such a thing as naked evil. It does not yield to persuasion; there are times when it must be contained by force. This is one of those times.
So, I believe the President Bush is right and that Prime Minister Blair is right. Blair has shown great courage in lining up alongside Bush when he could have pretended that this is not our fight. The Prime Minister has said several times that there are dangers in taking action, but that the dangers of doing nothing are far far greater. Where have we heard that before: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
That is true now, and action, sadly, means the use of force to root out the evil or terrorism from our world.
4. Are we at war with Islam?
The Prime Minister has been at great pains to say no. Here is a passage from his speech on the day the bombing of Afghanistan began:
It angers me, as it angers the vast majority of Muslims, to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, and the acts of these people are contrary to the teachings of the Koran
Every western leader has echoed those thoughts.
Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, is doing all he can to say yes. Here is part of his video address, released when the bombings began:
"I tell them that these events have divided the world into two camps, the faithful and the camp of infidels. May God shield us and you from them. Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. The wind of faith is blowing and the wind of change is blowing to remove evil from the peninsula of Muhammad."
Where does the truth lie? What is the true face of Islam? Islam is as diverse as Christianity. There are many interpretations and many factions, often hostile to one another. But, in past 30 years there has been a strong resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism which is deeply attractive to young people, especially the poor and disenfranchised. A whole generation is growing up which has been taught to see the West as the enemy of Islam.
Samuel Huntington, a Harvard academic, in his extremely important book, The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), expounded the thesis that after the Cold War, the fault lines in the world are going to be between civilisations, supremely Western vs. Chinese vs. Islamic. He says, the dangerous clashes of the future are likely to arise from the interaction of Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance, and Sinic assertiveness.
Is he right? Is this going to end up as the West versus Islam? We should pray that it doesn't. There is all to play for, and this is where the political and diplomatic battle is far more crucial than the military one. What you and I think doesn't matter. There are a billion Muslims out there, and forty states from Asia to Africa with Muslim majorities. If they decide that bin Laden is a perverter of Islam, such terror can be rooted out.
On the other hand, if they decide he is a hero of Islam, we are in for a descent into barbarism. The biggest losers will be the Muslim countries themselves as radical regimes are installed all across the Muslim world.
If you want something to pray for, pray for all the diplomacy going on, and pray for the moderate Muslim leaders. The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD (Proverbs 21.1).
5. Do we still have the courage to be fundamentalists?
That's a strange question. What do I mean? It seems to me that political correctness and multiculturalism have been rampant recently, and we may find ourselves more out of step than ever. Take a few recent examples:
Silvio Berlusconi was pilloried for suggesting that Western civilisation is superior to Islamic civilisation. He was forced to recant. He may have been the wrong guy to say it, but he was right. Civilisations are the fruits of their religious roots, and by their fruits you shall know them.
The Prime Minister, and everyone else, has been eager to say that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. That is just not so. Truth is taking a back seat to diplomacy. The record of the Islamic countries on human rights and especially on religious liberty is atrocious.
Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi, is a wise and perceptive man, but the conclusion of his article last Monday was yet another example:
"Today we live constantly and closely in the presence of cultures radically different from our own. That is what gives rise to fundamentalism: the attempt to impose a single truth on a plural world. If religion is to rise to the challenge of a global age it must oppose fundamentalism in the name of faith itself. God creates diversity and calls on us to honour it. He speaks to mankind in many languages, not one. God has given us many faiths but only one world in which to learn to live together."
God speaks to mankind in many languages, not one; God has given us many faiths! Can you imagine Moses saying that? Sacks has joined in the great post-modern, multicultural project.
We will be under pressure to join in too, to present the Christian faith as simply our way, our truth, our culture, our tradition; one product among many in the great supermarket of faith options and lifestyle choices. Just today the paper reported that a vicar's wife was criticised by her bishop for asking children to pray for Muslims to be converted. In the eyes of many people the real problem in the world is now fundamentalism - those misguided zealots who think they have the only truth.
That word fundamentalism has been spoiled forever, and I'm not saying we should go on using it, but it was once a good word. According to my dictionary, fundamentalism means the strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines. The most fundamental and ancient doctrine of the Christian faith is simply that Christianity is the truth: God is really there, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and his Word is the unique and final revelation of his will.
King David was a fundamentalist: All the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens (1 Chronicles 16:26). Isaiah was a fundamentalist: All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame (Isaiah 44:9). Peter was a fundamentalist: Salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).
Paul was a fundamentalist: The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons (1 Corinthians 10:20). Our Lord Jesus was certainly a fundamentalist: I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).
From now on it is going to be even more difficult to follow in their steps, because those who insist on a single truth in a plural world will be damned as fundamentalists and lumped in with the terrorists and seen as a menace to society. John Cornwell, writing in the Times (25/11/01) put it this way:
Fundamentalism cannot square the circle of religious pluralism. Fundamentalists start by denying rival truth claims, and invariably end by denying their antagonists' right to exist.
His remark leads me to one absolutely crucial distinction, the distinction between proclaiming a single truth and imposing a single truth. There is a world of difference between those two. The apostle Paul was an extremist, a fanatic, but what was his method? He said, I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some (1 Corinthians 9:22).
His method was sacrificial love, not hateful terror; it was patient persuasion, not blind intolerance; it was dependence upon the Holy Spirit, not dependence on the human sword. All in order to bring a lost world to the one Saviour.
We need to hold our nerve on this one, to continue to be the right kind of fundamentalists in a world where fundamentalism will be more despised than ever. There is one truth, one way, one God, one Saviour. And by his grace, may we continue to proclaim it."
Related links
Staying the hand of God - how should individuals respond to September 11th?
| |
