Let’s just keep turning down the heat.

We often hear that Islam is steeped in war, and that the Koran counsels ongoing warlike attitudes and continual war upon the infidels (non-Muslims). There is truth in these claims. In the seventh century, Islam was established in Arabia by military conquest. And, in this respect, it is much more like Judaism than Christianity.

Most of us have a highly sanitized, Sunday School view of Moses, but if we read thoughtfully we will see that, as well as being a prophet and the receiver of the law, he was a fearsome military leader. The Bible is quite clear (Exodus through Joshua) that Israel was established in Canaan by military conquest. So the warrior-prophet, Mohamed, is much more comparable to Moses than to Jesus, who never conducted or counseled violence of any kind.

Jews, however, have managed to foster those peaceful elements of their faith, and to limit the more warlike elements, to the point that most people today, with the possible exception of those who are presently at war with Israel, would recognize Judaism as a religion of peace. And most Moslems today are trying to do the same thing with Islam. They are fostering a spiritual understanding of jihad, and Christians should be encouraging them in this effort, rather than inciting fear every time the word appears. Words like "jihad", because of their history of bloodshed and violence, are admittedly problematic, but no more so than the word "crusade", which, though it never appears in the Bible, has posed a problem for Christians in much the same way.

Words are fascinating, but so problematic that sometimes I wish we could all just hum for a while. "Islam", for example, means "submission" and most Muslims interpret this as something they themselves must do before God, but some people suggest it should be understood as something they intend to inflict upon others. It, no doubt, has a terrible history, but it isn't inevitably defined by its history. I wonder what the verb "convert" meant for those who, during the Crusades, were forced to submit to Jesus at sword point. Surely Islam must be allowed to grow and evolve over the centuries in the same way Christianity and Judaism have.

Of course it's right and prudent to be concerned about militant anything, including Islam. But we must be very careful to not stir up fear in people. John tells us, "There is no fear in love…" 1 John 4:18, so it’s fear that makes love so difficult for us. And we all see what fear can do, whether promoted by Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, or Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or the fine, upstanding Christians in the Ku Klux Klan.

My little contribution to this pacifying effort is simply to encourage people to refuse to send emails around that may have the effect of stirring up fear. "…perfect love drives out fear…" 1 John 4:18 And I’m sure we can do this in spite of our fear, with God’s help of course. For, as our Muslim friends so often remind us, GOD IS GREAT.

The Shack

I make a modest attempt to keep up with popular spirituality, which means, among other things, reading New York Times best sellers once in a while. Of course a best seller is just a book that, for whatever reason, is selling like crazy, so I wasn’t particularly surprised to find that The Shack, by William P Young, is not a great book. But I’m still inclined to recommend it.

I don’t really like the style. It feels overwritten in places and, like too many Evangelical novels, tends toward drippy sentimentality. And it’s really mystifying to me that Young would begin the book with a Larry Norman quote that’s actually a very unpoetic reworking of a well known verse by Robert Frost. I feared for a moment that he was avoiding non-Christian references, but he later quoted Rousseau, Kahlil Gibran, and Albert Einstein. Go figure.

Apart from these style matters the only thing that seriously bothered me was The Missy Project outlined at the end of the book. This is a pretentious, self indulgent, marketing scheme in which readers who’ve “been touched by the wonder of this book” are asked to flog it as widely as possible, buying copies to give to family, friends and even total strangers. It seems to be working, however, so what do I know? One of the reviewers I read said he’s been buying them by the case. Hmmm, so that’s how you produce a best seller. Perhaps the Gideons could start placing it in hotel rooms alongside that other best seller. Come to think of it, maybe it’s naïve to imagine that good books can make it on their own.

All this being said, there are some things about The Shack I did enjoy. For example, the presentation of God in three persons was creative, and the Father appearing as a black woman was an interesting way to challenge the traditional, unbiblical stereotype. It was also fun to see Her cooking and cleaning and listening to heavy metal, secular music just for enjoyment and because She loves the artists. – Works for me. If we are to believe John 3:16 God loves Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin just as much as The Gaithers and Casting Crowns. – And She steadfastly insists that She’s “especially fond” of all of them.

The discussion of suffering and God’s purposes is also very worthwhile, as are the discussions of heaven, the church, God’s relationship with non-believers, and the importance and nature of forgiveness. These are matters we need to reflect on more thoughtfully than we often do, and this book gets the wheels turning. And I particularly appreciated the Father’s insistence that She never, for a moment, turned Her back on Jesus when he was dying on the cross; a view I've been promoting for many years. – And doesn’t this gender thing mess with your mind?

Of course, I have some theological disagreements with this book, as I do with almost everything, but who cares? it’s well worth reading. It won’t change the world, but if it manages to change our minds about a few things that’s more than enough to ask.

So many contemporary Christian books are dogmatic and narrow, answering questions no one’s asking. This one is open and inquisitive, questioning answers too many have accepted for too long. And it’s also kinda fun.

Let’s Encourage Conversation

As I say, if you google around a bit you will find that Holocaust teaching is compulsory in the UK, but you will also find that the concern expressed is not utterly without foundation. Click on the following Daily Mail article, Teachers Drop Holocaust, for example. It’s clear that some people are concerned that the Holocaust is being soft-peddled in some schools, but that’s a far cry from suggesting that it’s a general policy of the schools of the UK, or that Muslims have had anything directly to do with it. Another article in the TIMES entitled, Holocaust Group Slams British Schools, leaves much the same impression.

These articles indicate that it’s difficult to teach controversial subjects in the public schools; something Christians know from our own experience here in North America. For us, of course, the big issues have been different -- evolution, sexuality, and a few works of literature like The Catcher in the Rye (the "F" word) and Huckleberry Finn (the "N" word) -- but the general situations are probably much the same. Though every now and then a particular issue blows up in the media, I expect if we did a study we would find lots of teachers just quietly soft peddle these topics, or avoid them all together, because they are "afraid" of what might happen if they wade in. It's not so much a concern for their personal safety, though in some extreme situations it may be, but they worry about what might happen in the classroom if, for example, an all out war were to erupt between the godless evolutionists and the godless creationists. I've been in these battles, on both sides of some of them, and I've seen what can happen. I understand the reluctance of teachers when they hit these hot topics

As the demographics of our society change, the hot topics will change, but the principles remain the same. Just as Christians resent it when departments of education mandate that our children be taught things in school that go against what we are teaching them at home and in church, so we can expect that Muslims and others will resent it when the same is done to them. And the solution, of course, is the same for them as it has been for us; public, reasoned, civil dialogue.

We need to have the humility to understand that, no matter what the topic, some people are going to disagree. Perhaps some of these disagreeable folk are evil, ignorant, confused or just plain stupid, but most of them are just like us, reasonable people with reasonable concerns. But the only way to know one from the other is by talking to them and, thanks to our own battles, Christians have the expertise to be very helpful in this situation.

I want to reiterate that I believe the Holocaust happened pretty much the way we've been told, and that I also believe it should be a prominent part of the public education curriculum. But the Holocaust, for many reasons, has always been a controversial topic for some populations among us. Learning to deal with controversial topics is part of education in a civil society, and it is, therefore, an important part of the work of public education to manage, not suppress, dissent.

Why Should We Remember the Holocaust?

A few weeks ago I received an email claiming that “This week, the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offended' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred”. It contained pictures of Holocaust death camps and warned that “This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving in to it”. And, as a memorial to those who died, who must not be forgotten, it requested that I forward the email to as many as possible.

Now, I believe the Holocaust took place pretty much as we’ve been told. I am sympathetic to the cause of remembering it, and I believe we need to learn the great lessons the Holocaust has to teach us. But I am not sympathetic to the cause of this email which has been circulating for many years at the expense of the Muslim community. The claim that the teaching of the Holocaust is banned in the UK, because of the Muslims or for any other reason, is factually untrue. If you google around a bit you will find that Holocaust teaching is compulsory in UK schools.

This email is actually a cynical attempt to stir up fear and resentment toward Muslims. And, if we remember the Holocaust, we should also remember that this is the sort of misinformation Hitler used to foster fear and hatred of the Jews. It is precisely this kind of bigotry and manipulation of public sentiment that the memory of the Holocaust should cause us to resist. So, if you receive this email, or any like it, Please don't forward to anyone without checking it out. People are still getting hurt.

Necessity Is the Mother of More than Invention.

In my last posting I wrote “The Supreme Court has decided [the unborn child] is not a human someone.”, and it was pointed out to me that this is not the case. (see comment July 11) The Supreme Court actually declared the existing law unconstitutional because the process it defined for obtaining a legal abortion was not accessible to all. This decision, as was also pointed out, left Parliament free to design a new law that would meet the requirements of the constitution. Parliament, for whatever reason, has failed to do so.

This is an important correction for two reasons. First, it clarifies the reason for the court’s decision, and we need to strive to be fair and accurate. Second, it places responsibility on Parliament, where it rightly belongs. And, since Parliament is elected by, and accountable to the people, it reminds us that we are all in some measure responsible for the lack of legal protection for the unborn in Canada.

All this being said, however, I do believe the fundamental issue touches profoundly upon the constitutional status of the unborn as human beings. If they are not human beings the situation as it stands may be acceptable. But if they are it seems intolerable that their lives can be terminated at the whim of two individuals (a mother and a doctor) with no form of legal due process whatsoever, particularly when we consider the constitutional guarantees of “security of the person”, and the requirements of fundamental justice. But the problem goes even deeper than the humanity of the unborn.

It’s hard to imagine, in this day and age, with all of the information we have about fetal development, supported by amazing pictures and ultrasound images, that anyone can persist in the notion that these vulnerable little beings are less than human. Yet, even so, most societies have been willing to sacrifice children, and other classes of human being, on the altar of necessity. Our own ancestors chased them up chimneys and down mineshafts, tethered them to work benches, treadmills and even worse. All because they thought it was necessary.

Abortion is defended in our generation for the same reason slavery was defended in a previous one, not because people think it is good, right, fair or just, but because they believe it is necessary. And those of us who oppose abortion will probably achieve more, at least in the short run, by working to make it demonstrably unnecessary than by working to make it illegal.

What parliament can be successful passing laws against things the people “need” to do? Yet there is something dreadfully wrong with a society that “needs” to allow the killing of it’s most vulnerable members. No society can be truly successful when it “needs” that much.

Are You Sure We Got the Order Right?

Re: Morgentaler named to Order of Canada

Henry Morgentaler has a dismal record when it come to taking orders but he seems more than willing to accept this one. In fact, he even said he deserved it. Some have insisted he was joking, but that’s one of the problems with these awards. It gets to where you’re not sure if anyone’s being serious. Remember when Henry Kissinger, the hawk who so relentlessly promoted the Vietnam war, won the Nobel Peace Prize? Perhaps they were thinking of a different Henry Kissinger but somehow he ended up with it. And this is nothing new. Way back in 1521 Henry VIII got the Pope award for “Defender of the Faith”. Embarrassing eh? And the Queen’s still using it on her letterhead just to rub it in. But at least Henry didn’t disgrace the award until after he got it.

Now, if you haven’t already guessed, I’m pro-life. I think Dr Seuss got it exactly right when he said, “A person’s a person no matter how small”. I think the unborn are the “Whos” of our time, and the womb is our “Whoville”. People are people, and to intentionally kill one, if not always murder, is always homicide. But, thanks largely to the courageous efforts of Dr. Morgentaler, abortion, though clearly the intentional killing of someone, is nothing at all in this country. The Supreme Court has decided it’s not a human someone, so it’s herbicide? Clearly not. Pesticide? A bit harsh, but I think we’re getting warmer. It’s whoicide, plain and simple, and I don’t think whoicidal people should get national awards.

But, as they say, it’s an ill wind that blows no good. The folks who decide who gets the OC are clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel, so my name should be coming up soon. And when it does I’m planning to turn it down. It’s not that I think I’m too good to be associated with a man like Morgentaler, it’s just that I’m such a snob. I simply want to continue to be a part of that diminishing company of Canadians who don’t have one.

Kindness*

In my last posting I asked how we should “engage” Phillip Pullman’s criticism of Judeo/Christian Theism. I use the word “engage” specifically because I believe that this is not something we do very well.

As Christians we’re often startled by criticism. We still imagine that we’re the only restaurant in town, and tend to treat our critics with disdain. The truth is, however, that we are now one of countless options at the spiritual smorg. When we owned the table we got away with offering up some pretty unappealing, and even unhealthy fare. We may have to apologize for some of the things we did in the past, and we will certainly have to do better in future. So we should probably begin by reading some of the comment cards and taking the criticisms to heart.

And, so, it occurs to me that the essence of engagement is kindness. Though we think of kindness as being nice, the concept is actually deeper than that. It means to acknowledge that another being is the same “kind” of being as I am, i.e., kindred. When I am kind to another person, an animal, a plant, or perhaps even an inanimate object, I am recognizing that we share something I value for myself and should, therefore, value for the other.

And when I treat an opponent or enemy kindly I recognize that she or he has legitimate needs and concerns just as I have. My opponent has fears and failings, faults and limitations, and, in this, he or she is similar to me. When my opponent is mistaken, confused, wrong, or even hurtful and unkind, I recognize these things because I know them in myself. And when I have to acknowledge an insight, admit an error, confess a failing, I do so freely, expecting to be well received because, after all, we are two of a kind.

From this platform of kindness, and humility I might add, I believe we can begin to engage in many helpful dialogues. It’s a great new world, and it’s going to take some getting used to. But, in such a world, every challenge is an invitation to relationship, kindness, engagement.

* The insights on kindness I got from my son, Mark. Most of my investments have been flops, but my kids just keep on paying off.