Recently I pointed out that "fundamentalism" can be found just about anywhere. Even though the first two that spring to mind are Islam and Christianity, most people hold to some fundamental beliefs that shape their worldview ... while they complain about people who hold to some fundamental beliefs. This time, I do want to compare the two most obvious "fundamentalists" -- Islam and Christian. Are they basically the same thing?
First, "fundamentalism," for the sake of this discussion, simply means, "strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline." As such, it cannot be automatically classified as "immoral" because "basic principles" are unavoidable. Set aside, for a moment, your conditioned response of distaste for the word. In terms of Christianity and Islam, then, fundamentalism is specifically an adherence to the literal interpretation of scripture -- either the Bible or the Quran (or Qur'an or Koran if you prefer). In both cases, then, the Christian and the Muslim would be a fundamentalist if they seek to follow what's written in their Book. So, how do these stack up? Well, the Quran has unmistakable commands regarding infidels -- unbelievers. The holy book of the "religion of peace" has over 100 references to waging war on non-Muslims. While the Bible has a few Old Testament commands from God for specific groups in Israel's history to attack specific enemies, there are no "open-ended" commands to do so in the Bible, while the commands from the Quran have no "end date." Instead, the Christ of Christ-ianity says the primary command is love -- love God and love your neighbor. Jesus included instructions like "turn the other cheek" and other such things. The New Testament left all sorts of directions to trust in God for our salvation, not some form of coercion or violence. In fact, killing infidels makes zero sense in a biblical framework. It's just not in the Bible.
Now, as we know, there are Muslims who are not violent toward infidels and there are "Christians" who are violent. In terms of "fundamentalism," clearly the Muslim who refuses to war against unbelievers is in violation of his own scriptures while the Christian who chooses violence as a means to obtain God's ends is in violation of his own scriptures. In this sense (the sense that most upsets outside observers), then, the fundamentalist Muslim would need to be at war with unbelievers and the fundamentalist Christian would need to be at peace with everyone (Rom 12:18; Rom 14:19; 2 Cor 13:11; 1 Thess 5:13; Heb 12:14). Those who classify themselves as "Christian" but reject God's Word poorly represent Christ. The fundamentalist Muslim must aim to coerce by force. The fundamentalist Christian must aim to encourage in love. Not the same thing.
13 comments:
Many people will condemn Christianity for the Crusades and Inquisition, but just because someone does something in the name of something, doesn't mean they're in line with it. And while there are those on the liberal side of Islam, they can't argue the same thing. Those that seek the global caliphate are adhering to the teaching of their scriptures, and while there may be some passages that speak of peace in the Quran, they can't ignore the passages of conversion by the sword.
I know that “fundamentalist” has become a derogatory term in recent decades; however, since I interpret it as “allowing biblical teachings to form my convictions” (as I mentioned on May 24), I have no problem describing myself that way. It is interesting to compare the directives of Islam and Christianity towards opponents of each respective belief system--one marked by violence and one by love--“not the same thing,” as you say. I am mindful that the New Testament does not instruct Christians to kill opponents to the faith but instead presents a very different model of behavior; true Christians will never support, for example, executing "heretics” (this condemns “the Crusades,” “the Spanish Inquisition,” and other similar “forced conversion” campaigns orchestrated by the Roman Catholic Church in past centuries). Violence--whether by misguided followers of either Allah or Christ or even atheism--produces no true converts, of course, but rather tends to solidify the victims’ previous convictions. (The adage, “He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still,” applies here.)
Lorna, even the Reformers executed heretics, so it wasn't limited to the Catholic Church. Though there is a slight difference between "convert or die" and "burn the heretic", at least the heretic one I can understand from an Old Testament view of communal purity.
Yes, David, some Protestants (including reigning monarchs) did kill their religious adversaries (regrettably, the Reformers retained many unbiblical concepts and practices common to the RCC). Resorting to deadly violence to spread the Christian faith is in opposition to New Testament teaching (and as I said, no true Christian would condone that action). As grievous as such behavior by Protestants was, however, it was nowhere near on the scale and scope that the RCC committed over several centuries.
Just to clarify: I don’t mean to imply that the Reformers who resorted to deadly violence against their adversaries were not “true Christians” (on the grounds that they evidently did condone such actions), but I am saying that they committed grave error in doing so.
The difference I see is that the Reformers weren't trying to spread Christianity by the sword, but to keep it pure by the sword. While there is no instruction to do so in the New Testament, the Old Testament is full of capital punishments just for heresy.
I would say, David, that violence by the Reformers was not justified in either scenario you mention. I am mindful that Christ is building His church, and it’s not “by the sword,” as the Bible-literate Reformers must have known. Since Stan was comparing Islam and Christianity, and the Quran and the New Testament, I kept my focus there rather than considering any Old Testament practices or directives (since they are not relevant in that comparison).
Sorry, I'm not justifying what the church has done (Roman or Protestant), but comparing a difference between the purpose of the killing between the Christian camp and the Islamic camp. My only commendation of them is that they truly believed in eternal punishment in Hell and believed torture for salvation was better than the alternative. We have gone so far too the opposite side that we (the general we) have allowed our society to degenerate as it has because, as the Pope said recently "who am I to judge". We need to shift more toward the center where we boldly speak out and condemn sin in our midst and punish those believers that step out of the Way.
Got it, David, although, personally, I will leave it to God to “punish those believers that step out of the Way.”
That would require us to ignore Paul in 1 Corinthians, and Jesus in Matthew. The church is called upon to discipline it's members both for the preservation of the faith and the repentance of the sinning member.
David, I don’t believe we were discussing church discipline (as would take place in the local church setting) at all but rather the use of deadly violence to spread the Christian faith (at least, that was the focus of my comments here). So I am afraid you have lost me now.
Lorna, using one of the best known instances, John Calvin as leader of the church in Geneva warned Michael Servetus, a professed believer (on the run from the Roman Catholic Church), to stop preaching his denial of Original Sin and distortions of the Trinity in Geneva. Servetus left, but came back and Calvin had him executed as an heretic. (An unbeliever can't be an heretic.) Neither David nor I would say that Calvin did right, but it was an execution in the name of church discipline. I really can't think of any Christians of former days who sought to induce Christianity onto unbelievers by means of violence. They always did it in the name of defense. Which, I think we're all agreed, is not biblical. But not the same as Islamic fundamentalist jihad.
My point was to differentiate between the violence inflicted by Islam versus the violence inflicted by Christians. Islam kills those that are unbelievers because that's what they're told to do. Christianity kills those that are heretical believers in order to maintain the purity of the Church. Islam spreads Islam by the sword, Christianity spreads Christianity by the Word (maybe the sharpest sword available). I brought up church discipline because to the young Church, it was killing with a view toward discipline, not evangelism. The Crusades were not about spreading Christianity to the Holy Land.
Post a Comment