Calling Christians to Kill All Islamic Terrorists: With the Gospel

The bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England has brought out the usual vitriol from all sides.

One group says it’s clearly an attack because of Islamic terrorism: it is.

One group says it’s clearly an attack because of a desire to hold women down: it is.

The first group attacks the second group for not saying “it’s Islamic terrorism.”  The second group attacks the first group for not acknowledging the context: a concert by a young woman whose fans are mostly other young women attacked by a man.

They’re both right.  This guy was an Islamic terrorist who probably had a view of women that says they have a particular place in society that doesn’t involve them wiggling on stages in skimpy costumes or gathering at such a concert to watch one of their “kind” wiggle on stage in a skimpy costume.

Now let me say something outrageous that could get me in big trouble with all sides: this guy did what he believed to be right.  I don’t agree it was right.  I don’t condone his actions.  Had he lived, I would have been the first to suggest the death penalty for him (yes, I’m okay with the death penalty).  What he did was despicable, deplorable and demonic.

But he acted based on what he believed was right.

So claiming it’s Islamic terrorism, while true, offers no real solution.  Saying it was sexism, misogyny or whatever the current, in vogue term is for someone who thinks women should be barely seen and certainly not heard, while true, offers no real solution.

You cannot stop anyone who thinks they are doing what is right.  End.

Wringing our hands, spilling out platitudes, arguing about who is properly defining the problem are all a waste of time.  Why?  Because none of these things get to the real bottom line here.  These guys are so convinced they’re right to believe what they believe, they’ll strap a bomb on their own body and DIE for what they believe.  To take a line from the Godfather (Part Two) when Michael Corleone was asked by Hyman Roth what he thought about people in Cuba who were willing to die for their cause, Michael says something like “it means they can win.” 

They can win.

These sexist Islamic terrorists have a long view of history and are perfectly willing to be a part of the larger reality they accept as true.  And they are convinced not only of their righteousness, but of their ability to ultimately win the day.  They believe with absolute surety.  They believe with their entire being they will win out.

And they’re winning.  Western culture has pretty much capitulated to the idea that this is the way it is.  As long as the bombings are small enough to pass through our consciences quickly, so we can get back to whatever pleasure or inanity is otherwise occupying our time, the terrorists win.  They are smart – they know this.

So what are our options?

Katy Perry says (I’m paraphrasing) “can’t we all get along?”  Katy, please stop talking about things you don’t understand – just because you’re famous doesn’t mean what you say is meaningful.  Well, no, we can’t get along because these guys aren’t interested in getting along, at least not on Katy Perry terms.  If Katy wants to wear a burka and shut up and stop singing for a living and spit out babies, then I’m sure she’ll get along just fine with her Islamic overlord.  Somehow I’m thinking that ain’t where Katy wants to be.

So the Katy option is out.

We can take the Rod Dreher option: kill them all (meaning the Islamic terrorists).  Read Rod’s column here: Manchester Islamic Terror.  This one implies an actual solution  but is as fanciful as Perry’s.  There are two problems with Rod’s suggestion.  First, indiscriminately killing everyone who believes as this man  believed won’t wipe out that belief.  Rod is an Eastern Orthodox Christian – Rod, let’s go back and see what the Romans tried to do to the early church.  As I recall they tried to wipe it out, but, as many theologians have argued over the centuries, the church was fertilized with the blood of martyrs.  Yes, killing as many of these guys as possible would certainly get rid of those believers.  Problem is, it’s fertilizer for the soil in which new believers are grown.  True believers will always continue to arise.

Secondly, however, Rod’s suggestion will mean many innocents will die as collateral damage in efforts to wipe out these guys.  Isn’t that precisely what we hate about decisions to blow up concert venues?  If these Islamic terrorists attacked military installations and fought military troops, we wouldn’t have the same feelings.  But we feel righteously self-justified in saying “kill them all” because this bombing killed women and children – non-combatants.  Yet, would not our efforts to kill them, no matter how well-intentioned and no matter how well executed, end up killing people we don’t intend to kill?    Wouldn’t that start making us look like . . . them . . . ?

So the Dreher option is out. (In Rod’s defense, plenty of others have suggested this option, too).

The only option that will really work is to get these fanatics to believe something else.  These guys are religious.  They believe in the supernatural.  They believe in one God.  The believe that Abraham is in their lineage.  There are points of connection with Christianity that must be exploited.  I’m not particularly versed in the best way to evangelize Muslims, but it must be done.  These guys want to believe in something bigger than themselves, beyond themselves, besides themselves.  We have to seek to get them to believe . . . in Christ.

I know this wouldn’t be the way the culture would have us go.  Somehow our politicians think if we speak loudly and don’t carry a stick that somehow the terrorists will  . . . do what?  Hide?  Quit?  Threats mean nothing to these guys because they believe in something greater and grander.  They aren’t the least bit concerned about what happens to them in this life – and they seek heaven through the only method they understand, which is to follow the Koran and get rid of infidels.  You aren’t going to dissuade them by killing their fellow Islamic foot soldiers.  You aren’t going to dissuade them through empty threats.  You aren’t going to dissuade them by playing nice, like they’re stray dogs you’re trying to get to come with you so you can take them to the pound.

You have to give them something they can believe that is supernatural, compelling, larger than them, that provides meaning in life beyond this one.

There’s only one alternative available: Christianity.

For the atheists and so-called “freethinkers” and others who reflexively argue “The Crusades” please go away.  When’s the last time a Christian strapped a bomb on himself and blew up a large number of innocent people?  Timothy McVeigh was NOT a Christian, so please don’t start with him, either. 

Christians, for all their faults, simply don’t go around killing people willy nilly.  It’s not what we do because (a) it violates the sixth commandment and (b) because Jesus told us not to do it and he told us to love our neighbor as ourselves.  While in practice in this evil and corrupt world, Christians don’t always succeed as would be ideal, they try mighty hard to make loving neighbor  a reality.  That’s why Christians have routinely sponsored blood drives, chartered hospitals, (Baptist Healthcare in Louisville, where I live was started by . . .  you guessed it, Baptists), started homeless shelters, drug rehab centers, food banks and clothing places.  Christians believe in something bigger than themselves, beyond themselves, besides themselves.  And it starts with a willingness to accept the supernatural.    There is an intersection with Islam that the secular world simply cannot penetrate because it is unable.  The gospel message of Jesus being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, dying an atoning death on the cross, being buried and being bodily resurrected is the only real chance we have to reach Muslims.

Suppose all 1+ billion Muslims in this world converted to Christianity tomorrow and really believed it?  It would hardly bring down Western culture.  It might rent the current fabric a bit, especially if such believers became a cohort of socially conservative types.  But that’s a far cry from killing people in order to gain heaven.  The world would be much safer – isn’t that what everyone claims  they want?

My Question to Vicky Beeching: Are you a lesbian or Christian first?

“The sad thing is that these Christians believe they are acting out of love - that they are defending what the Bible teaches. So they genuinely don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. They don’t see it as hatred or homophobia ― they see it as standing up for God’s truth,” Beeching wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. “And history shows that people can do terrible things when they feel like God is on their side and they have the moral upper hand.”  Vicky Beeching (Read article here).

Ms. Beeching is a so-called “gay Christian” who appears to think standing up for God’s truth and defending what the Bible teaches is hatred and homophobia.  According to the article on the Huffington Post, she was upset that someone wrote her a seven page handwritten letter suggesting she repent of the sin of lesbianism.  She tweeted the following: 

I mean, who has time to hand-write SEVEN pages?!  They contain “prayers of repentance” for me to “pray daily” to “save myself from hell.” L (You can access the tweet here). 

No threats, no attempt to intimidate, harass or harm, just quoting Scripture and indicating a concern Ms. Beeching was likely going to hell and offering prayers she could pray to possibly avoid hell.  What a rotten, vile, nasty, disgusting, awful human being who obviously couldn’t care less about the state of Ms. Beeching’s soul.  Seven pages, hand-written.  Yeah, what a jerk.

Since when is a sincere concern for someone’s soul a slight to a Christian?  Even if you feel that concern is wrongheaded?  One of my best friends for many years is an agnostic with whom I have had many wonderful and heartfelt conversations.  He and I remain friends to this day, despite me moving 10 hours away.  He cared about the state of my soul and knew I cared about his.  I recently gave him a Bible – he thanked me for it.  Whether he’ll read it or not, I don’t know.  But I know he was not offended because he gets that I did it out of concern for his eternal soul.

Shouldn’t Ms. Beeching, in Christian charity, give this person the benefit of the doubt?  Or is she more concerned with her status as a lesbian than she is her alleged Christian faith?  Her tweet evinces absolutely none of the kindness, understanding, and warmth she demands from those who disagree with her.  The irony of her head shaking, holier-than-thou attitude seems completely lost on her.

I don’t see Ms. Beeching quoting Scripture to support her concerns or her beliefs, either.  Therein lies the problem.  It’s “sad” according to Ms. Beeching that Christians actually attempt to argue with her about what the Bible says and “defend” truth.  Why is it sad?  Because they’ve misunderstood the many passages that indicate homosexuality is sinful?  No, it’s sad because it’s “hatred” and it’s “homophobia.” 

Let’s make sure we’re very clear about what the Bible says here.  Not one single letter, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, letter, or book in the Bible, not one, contains any message that indicates homosexuality is acceptable to God.

Not one.

I do not condone nor do I justify any personalized, vitriolic invective against Ms. Beeching.  If people who claim to be Christians are writing truly wicked things, then they need to look in the mirror.  However, given Ms. Beeching’s comments about the awful “hand-written” letter she described, it sounds like what she really means when she uses terms like “hatred” and “homophobia” is something like “people disagree with me.” 

The irony and logical and philosophical inconsistency is so appallingly ludicrous, it’s almost hilarious.  It would be funny if the subject matter weren’t so serious.

Rather than explain how the Bible justifies her lifestyle, she defaults to current social clichés.  Does this mean she’s admitting her homosexuality is not Biblically acceptable?  If not, then what argument is she making?  More: it seems peculiar for her to argue people will do “terrible things” when they think “God is on their side.”  Is not Ms. Beeching’s justification for her ongoing lesbianism a belief God is okay with it?  Does that not then mean, by logical inference, God is on her side?  Further, does it not then follow, by her own logic, that she is equally capable of doing “terrible things” because she thinks God is “on her side?” 

Ms. Beeching believes she’s doing a service for other “gay Christians” by being available to them via social media.  Is it possible, even remotely possible, that she’s, GULP, wrong?  Is it possible, even remotely, that the Bible says homosexuality is sinful?  If so, wouldn’t restraint be the appropriate by-word?  Yet Ms. Beeching evinces an attitude that she’s right and anyone who disagrees with her is wrong. 

But isn’t that precisely the problem here?  There is no middle ground.  Either homosexuality is acceptable to God or it’s not.  If not, then Ms. Beeching is wrong in leading people astray to continue wallowing in their sin while believing their salvation is assured.  If she’s right, then shouldn’t she exercise the kind of charity she demands of others?  Wouldn’t that be the “Christian” thing to do?  But I guess for Ms. Beeching the more important question is whether it’s the right “lesbian” thing to do.  We know how she answers that question.  And maybe that says everything.

Dark Matter = Supernatural?

5% of the universe is made up of matter.

95% of the universe is made up of “dark” matter and “dark” energy.

According to scientists.

So let me get this straight – according to the scientists so many of you know and love (I’m talking to you Brandon Phinney Read about him here) , 95% of the universe is made up of stuff we can’t see, can’t touch, can’t observe, can’t understand, and can’t know if it really, actually, truly exists.  I don’t, of course, appreciate the nuances here, but nuances don’t seem altogether important when the numbers are so staggeringly large. 

This means 95% of reality is stuff scientists know almost nothing about and are, at some level, speculating is out there because of the little we do know about the actual matter scientists can see.  Recognize, too, that even that 5% we “know about” is spread out over gazillions of miles such that scientists really don’t know anything about 99.9999999999999999999999999999%[1] of that matter because it’s so far away it’s only “knowable” through faint echoes from scientific equipment that may, or may not, be truly observing what is actually going on out there.  Moreover, simple logic tells me that our “local” observations of the matter which makes up space do not necessarily correlate to what matter looks like or acts like elsewhere.  It’s not a bad hypothesis, but until we get there, we just don’t really know.  It’s like living in Hawaii and assuming that Nome, Alaska has the same weather, all the time.  Not so much.

Think of the other, obvious implication of this scientific “understanding.”  It means that most of reality can only be observed indirectly.  Now atheists like Brandon Phinney claim to accept science as giving us the answers to life.  Well, if most of reality can’t be observed, and Christianity says that the “really” real is spiritual and you can’t see spiritual stuff, except indirectly through the material world – good golly are scientists just now coming to the top of the mountain only to find a Christian theologian has been sitting there for years?

Hey, don’t blame me, the scientists you love to quote are the ones saying this about the universe.  Now, before you get too wound up, I know the drill – I don’t understand because I’m not a scientist and don’t have a degree in quantum physics (or is even that already past its prime?) or some other such discipline and if I did have such a degree, or (we’ll just throw this in for fun) half a brain, I’d get that what scientists are saying is that dark matter IS in fact matter, we just haven’t figured out a way to see it yet.  We will, in time.  Sounds like a “science in the gaps theory” to me.  But what do I know, I’m just a loopy Christian who sees a correspondence between what the Bible teaches and what scientists are coming to learn about our universe and our existence.

The Bible treats this world as a temporary blip on the radar, not the final resting place for Christians.  Jesus told his disciples he was going to prepare a place for them (John 14:2 – 3); Paul explained that Christians are citizens of another realm (Philippians 3:20).  Jesus spoke repeatedly of the spiritual battle raging all around us.  The book of Job examines the sovereignty of God in light of Satan’s efforts to undo Job, which serves as a warning to all that there is much going on we don’t see.  Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Revelation all contain passages describing the fall of Satan from the heavenly realm.  The idea is the heavenly realm is an enormously large place with many, many, many inhabitants.

Here’s the point.  I agree with the scientists that most of the universe isn’t observable, because most of what God created is supernatural.  It defies ordinary, natural perception.  We don’t see it directly. 

When Jesus was on this earth, much of that supernatural was concentrated in him, which explains why demons were drawn to him (much like the opposite poles of magnets are irresistibly drawn toward each other).  He gave us a taste of heaven through his teaching, his actions, his presence, and his resurrection. 

There’s a reason the universe seems to run on principles – because the God of the universe made it so.  There’s a reason so much of the universe can’t really be understood, or catalogued, or analyzed or even known at all – because the God of the universe made it so and he is beyond our ordinary understanding.  God’s ways are higher than ours and different than ours and the “heavens are higher than the earth.” (Isaiah 55:8 – 9).

Scientists are onto something – if only they would truly follow the facts to where those facts might actually lead them – to God.

---

[1] This number is made up for purposes of emphasis – it’s probably actually much larger!

The Mike Pence Episode - Honor Means Nothing (Unless a Feminist Says So)

            I don’t write nearly as much as I used to only because there is insufficient time (or maybe I’m just too much of a perfectionist and too lazy – weird combination, I know).  Yet, a storm erupted on Twitter recently after a writer at the Federalist (a woman no less) literally commended Mike Pence for his decision to never eat alone with a woman not his wife and to avoid alcohol when his wife is not with him.  (You can read the article HERE).  Leave out the alcohol portion and you have the Billy Graham rule, which, paraphrased, says never be alone with a woman who isn’t your wife.   This rule came out of the Modesto Manifesto which Graham and others in his group (George Beverly Shea for one) worked up some basic rules for their evangelistic endeavors.

            Here’s the point that any Christian man knows: he is a SINNER.  It doesn’t mean, as some commenters suggested, that Mike Pence is assuming every woman wants to have sex with him.  It does mean that you never know when a man and a woman who are alone together might find themselves becoming attracted to each other to the point of having sex.  So Mike Pence, knowing that he’s a sinner and, here’s the point, not wishing to compromise either his wife or the other woman, let alone himself, chooses to avoid even putting himself in a position to be the temptee or the tempter.  What an awful, nasty, vile, contemptible human being – seeking to avoid putting himself in a position that could create all kinds of problems for everyone involved.

            Some commenters suggested this was a lack of discipline on Mike Pence’s part because if he were self-controlled and self-disciplined he wouldn’t have sex with a woman who isn’t his wife.  Oh, so it’s NEVER happened, EVER, that a man and a woman, either or both married to someone else, neither of whom were considering having sex with the other, found themselves in a circumstance that resulted in the time and opportunity and then . . .GASP. . . sex.  No, that never happens when people just exercise self-control and self-discipline.  Yeah, right.  And the moon is made of green cheese, pigs fly, and dogs never bark.  

            Do people who want to lose weight keep donuts around them constantly?  No, they don’t buy donuts.  Someone who really has a problem eating donuts might even drive to work by a different route to avoid the temptation of stopping in at Dunkin Donuts or Krispy Kreme.  We don’t turn this into a claim the person lacks self-control.  Rather, we commend them for taking necessary steps to avoid putting themselves in a position to fail.  We argue they’re, in fact, exercising self-control by avoiding the temptation.  Isn’t Mike Pence doing a similar thing?

           

            More bizarre is some commenters suggesting this kind of action by Pence was anti-woman.  I don’t get the argument at all, so I refer you to Soraya Chemaly at the Huffington Post:   Mike Pence is why we should stop excusing religious sexism.  This article attempts to explain Billy Graham’s rule in purely secular and feminist terms.  Ms. Chemaly, put bluntly, is clueless.  She assumes the Graham rule is all about male domination, as if it’s impossible this rule could have other motivations.  A three minute search on Google would tell her the “rule” is part of a broader understanding by Graham and his friends.  She has no understanding whatsoever of Christian theology, and apparently looks at the world through a hyper-feminist lens that assumes anything a man does is “out to get” women.  It’s as if late night dinners between men and women, alone, or meetings, alone, or whatever, alone, are the ONLY ways women can ever get ahead in this world.  Really, Ms. Chemaly?  You really believe this?  Is that how you got published at the Huffington Post and other venues?  Or did you get there on merit?  Doesn’t that imply that somehow women are unable to move ahead without a man helping them?  Doesn’t that contradict everything you claim is true about women?  Kind of weird.

            Ironically, if prior to this report occurring, had Ms. Chemaly, or any other writer at the Huffington Post, been aware of Pence having dinner with a woman not his wife, they’d be the first to scream “hypocrite” and launch into a diatribe about how he’s just another Christian “faker.”  Ms. Chemaly wouldn’t commend him for helping a woman “move up in the world” or write about how he was showing his “self-control” by going out to dinner with a woman who wasn’t his wife but not having sex with her.  No, she’d lambaste him for taking advantage of his power as Vice President and would almost certainly accuse him of all kinds of dishonorable conduct.

            Even more ironic is that the many of the same people who defended Bill Clinton (it’s his private life) when the sex scandals rocked the White House in the mid-90’s are the very same people arguing just the opposite with Pence – that it’s NOT just about his private life.  Gosh, I don’t know for sure, but that seems somehow inconsistent and, dare we even speak it, hypocritical?  I don’t know where Ms. Chemaly was on the Clinton thing (a few minutes on Google revealed nothing) so I won’t assume she defended Clinton on the “private life” grounds.  Nevertheless, she certainly makes clear she doesn’t think this is a feature of Pence’s “private life” or at least that it ought not to be.

            Jesus was very clear that Christians would face this kind of persecution (and yes, that’s what it is – you don’t have to be beaten to be persecuted).  The truth is this “outrage” exposes the complete lack of consistency among the liberal intelligentsia.  It really doesn’t matter what Mike Pence does; he’ll be skewered because they hate all there is about Christianity, don’t understand Christianity, and are not interested in really trying to understand Christianity.  If Ms. Chemaly wanted to report honestly about the Graham “Rule” a few minutes on Google would clarify.  But if she did that, she’d actually have to care what it means and why Billy Graham did what he did, and she’d have to actually think about his motives.  In turn, she’d have to consider what Mike Pence is actually thinking and doing rather than relying on her own caricature of what’s going on here.  It’s so much easier to caricature, because then you get to say whatever you want and all your arguments work perfectly because you’ve made it so.  Mike Pence is bad because Christianity is bad and, moreover, my arguments, which start with the assumption his motives are bad, prove he’s bad because there is no other possible outcome since I’ve set up everything to prove my premise without having to resort to any actual reality[1].  For this reason, Ms. Chemaly can’t be taken seriously.

            It is worth noting other writers have suggested that Jesus’ example with the Woman at the Well suggests being alone with a woman is acceptable.  Two problems here: first, neither Jesus nor the woman were married.  Second, the guy with this woman was Jesus, the sinless God-Man – he didn’t need to worry about whether he might sin.  It’s not an apples to apples comparison, although it’s not a bad effort.  I would have lauded Ms. Chemaly if she had been willing to think of it, but she can’t because she won’t because she almost certainly has no idea what the story of the Woman at the Well even means.  The bottom line of this story is that Jesus treated this woman with respect and dignity, despite her grossly sinful lifestyle (serial marriages and now living with a man not her husband).  But it doesn’t signal anything about how married men ought to behave when around women not their wives.  The upshot of this narrative isn’t that it’s okay for men and women to hang out together – that’s trivializing what’s going on here.  It was Jesus treating her like he treats all sinners who are willing to repent and believe, with dignity and respect – man, woman, black, white, straight, gay – Jesus was an equal opportunity dignifier. 

            So Mike Pence should continue to adhere to the Graham Rule in order to protect everyone involved from even a breath of scandal.  He’ll leave office his conscience intact, his marriage intact, and his Christian witness intact.  Whether Ms. Chemaly ever understands is on her not him.

---

[1] Ms. Chemaly does cite numerous statistics to back up her claim that women don’t make as much money as men – which is true on the whole.  Even here, however, she neglects to put the numbers into any kind of context.  She string cites numbers as if the numbers themselves prove her point.  There are numerous factors that play into this reality.