(Part I) Islam's Vision for the World: Control of the Landscape

Islam is Christianity's greatest rival. This is not only true historically, but is playing out before our eyes on the pages of history that are being written today. Moreover, Islam appears to be gaining the upper hand. Many observers are worried that Europe is slowly becoming Eurabia due to Islamic immigration, and that the Christian West is crumbling before our eyes. The truth is that Christians from the South and East are also migrating in record numbers, and combined with the pervasive secularism of Europe, it is unlikely that we will see Islam take over Europe. The reality of Islamic success is much more modest than is often portrayed. Indeed, some have argued that Islam is collapsing internally even while making strides externally. This assertion is not without merit (see my blog Islam is Collapsing).

However, it is not the expansion or collapse of Islam that I want to address directly in this post. Rather it is the method used by Islam to spread a comprehensive culture, a complete and unified way of living wherever it has been established. The purpose for this investigation is to see what, if anything, Christians might learn from the strategy of Islam. Christianity and Islam are competing visions for the world. That is, they both have a global vision. In the first six centuries after Christ the successful spread of Christianity was unrivaled. The birth and spread of Islam from the seventh century on changed the geo-religious map significantly. How did they do it? And what happened to Christianity's global vision. Where is the so-called Christian culture? Where is the unified Christian global vision? Perhaps the best way to answer those questions is by looking at Islam as a mirror of Christianity (see my blog Mirror, Mirror on the Wall). In this way we will see that Islam has done a better job at executing its strategy for the nation of Islam than Christians have for the kingdom of God.

So over the next several days and weeks I will be writing a series of articles that look at the comprehensive Islamic strategy for a unified global culture. In part one, today, we will be looking at Islam's control of the landscape.

Control of the Landscape

When one travels in North Africa or the Middle East there is one image that can't be ignored--mosques and minarets. These are the dominant Islamic images. Islam knows that in order to dominate the religious culture they must control the landscape. This, of course, was understood by earlier Christians. Steeples and bell towers once dominated the landscape in what are now considered Muslim countries. Churches that once dotted the cityscape have now been relegated to obscure places or done away with altogether.

The idea of control of the landscape as a means of creating a unified Christian culture is something that is lost on most Christians here in the West (especially here in America). The Western mind is pragmatic. Therefore, Christians in the West want buildings that are practical, multipurpose, functional, and non-desrcript. On the surface there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this approach. It may even have much to commend. For one thing it's more affordable. Some have even argued that it is better stewardship. Others approach it from a more theological point of view--The church is not a building, they say. Often Jesus' dialogue with the Samaritan women in John 4 is used as a basis to justify this approach. Worship, said Jesus, is in Spirit and truth. Advocates of the more practical approach to church architecture use this as their proof text to support the thesis that buildings and physical space don't really matter.

The reality, however, is that the dominant ideas embraced by a culture will ultimately determine what the landscape or cityscape look like, and this goes a long way in shaping the overall culture. In the secular West the skyscrapers erected by banks, insurance companies, and corporate headquarters have become the new cathedrals of out time. Human beings will always build temples to their gods. Those temples will reveal something of the nature of the god or gods they worship. In that way they speak volumes. In addition, someone, or some religion is going to control the landscape. That religion, whether secular, Jewish, Islamic, or Christian is going to be the dominant force in shaping the culture. As the landscape goes, so goes the culture.

The question for us is what religious buildings are going to dominate the Western cityscape in the future. Is it going to be the mosque or the church, the minaret or the steeple. You may not think it matters all that much, but history shows that it matters a great deal. Furthermore, the change of the landscape and cityscape will also show us to what extent Christianity will be successful in it's mission especially in the North Africa and the Middle East in the same way that the mosque and the minaret demonstrate the success of Islam over the centuries.

This is something that Islam has know from the very beginning. It has been part of their strategy all along. The Islamic conquerers have always known that if you control the landscape and cityscape you control hearts and minds of the people. Architecture is a means of inculturation. It is part of what it means to build a unified culture. In this regard, Islam is presently doing far better than it's rival Christianity.

If christianity is going to be a cultural force it must control the cityscape. If it is going to defeat Islam then Mosque's must be turned into churches and minarets into steeples.

*For further reading see Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, pp. 214ff. I have profited much and borrowed liberally from Jenkins' ideas.

The Most Dangerous Religion on the Planet

Last week a colleague of mine made the statement that Islam is the most dangerous religion on the planet. I have heard that before, and I know what he meant, but there is something that has always bothered me about that statement. On it's face the statement seems true. Since 9-11 many people in the West, especially evangelical Christians, certainly believe it. It is even relatively easy to find statistics to prove it (easy, that is, if you already believe the assertion). However, the truth is that only a very small percentage of Muslims are violent or dangerous. The vast majority of Islamic peoples are cultural Muslims and present little or no danger to other peoples in the world.

I would like to propose a different candidate for the world's most dangerous religion. I believe that Christianity is the most dangerous religion on the planet. There are two ways I believe that Christianity warrants this designation.

First, I believe that Christianity is the most dangerous religion on earth, not as a result of it's expansion, but as a result of it's demise (especially in the West). We are witnessing the death of Christianity in the West, and that death makes the whole planet a more dangerous place.

Historically, Christianity has practiced violence against other religions (especially Islam), against other nations and peoples (the Jews), and against those who resisted it's teachings (inquisition et al). For this the world still awaits an apology (and rightly so). I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said that an apology would go along way if Christians would own up to their past sins against other peoples which they have done in the name of Christ.

But there is a far greater danger than a violent church--a dead church.

A violent church can apologize and repent of its misdeeds. A dead church can only be buried, and leave the world a more dangerous place as a result. To the extent that Christianity fades off into the proverbial sunset of the West the world will become a much more dangerous place. While the Christianity has certainly gone through some dark and troubled times which made it a danger to the world, it has for most of history been a source of moral good, kindness, compassion, and charity.

Indeed, Christianity can be credited with much of the social reform of society: the abolition of slavery, universal education, the formation of hospitals, helping the poor, establishing homeless shelters, orphanages, adoption agencies, women's rights, workers rights, and civil rights. Of course, more importantly, Christianity's greatest contributions are not merely social but moral and spiritual. Jesus came into the world to save sinners, to redeem them and the earth in which they live so that God's will and kingdom will be established on earth as it is in heaven. No other religion makes such comprehensive truth claims as Christianity, and because of this where ever Christianity disappears or dies it leaves the world a more dangerous place.

The death of Christianity makes it a dangerous religion. But Christianity is also dangerous when it is believed, practiced, and lived out in the world. Indeed, properly understood, it could be said that Christianity is a violent religion. Jesus said: From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force (Matthew 11:12). This is a very troubling verse, and it has also given translators a fit. I have read as many as seven different translations of this verse, and many more interpretations trying to explain what Jesus meant.

When Jesus says that The kingdom suffers violence...I take it to mean that the church suffers assaults from it's three arch enemies: the world, the flesh, and the devil. Sometimes this results in physical violence and even death. Other times the violence is moral and spiritual in its nature. We don’t like to think about this very much. We have a very triumphant view of church history (The church, from the days of Pentecost has been marching gloriously on). We quote the North African Tertullian who said, The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. Meaning that the more your persecute her the more she grows. Of course, that was not true for Tertullian (he was martyred), nor North Africa where he ministered (the church almost completely died there), nor for the church in much of the world. The church has suffered much violence of every kind.

But what does Jesus mean when he says that...the violent take [the kingdom] by force...?

I believe that Jesus is saying that violence is absolutely necessary for the kingdom of God to come on earth as it is in heaven. Now here's where we need to be very careful. I do not think Jesus is talking about the church practicing physical violence to that end. Indeed, I believe the opposite. The church has not been given the power of the sword. The churches use of the sword would only ensure it's death by the same. If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. Rather the church's authority is moral and Spiritual.

My point, however, is to show how morally and spiritually violent (and therefore dangerous) Christianity really is.

Our salvation is one of the most violent acts in redemptive history. Not only did it require Jesus suffering the physical violence of the cross, but the even greater violence of the unmitigated wrath, justice, and judgment of God being poured out on him (Matthew 27:45-46).

Our sanctification requires violence. When Paul speaks of sanctification he uses the terminology of mortification (Colossians 3:5). Mortification is the act of putting someone to death. So Paul speaks of sanctification in terms of killing our flesh. This is a violent act. Furthermore, when Jesus talks about eradicating sin from our lives he uses violent language. He says, If your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your right hand offends you, cut it off (Matthew 5:29-30). This is violent language.

Prayer is also a violent means. When we pray for thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven we are praying a violent prayer (Matthew 6:9-10). This means nothing less than the total destruction of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and all of their followers. It is total annihilation of all His and our enemies. To pray, Come, Lord Jesus, come, is also to pray a violent prayer (Revelation 22:20).

And finally, the word of God is a violent weapon. Do you remember what Paul calls the Word of God in Ephesians chapter 6? He calls it the sword of the Spirit. A sword is a violent weapon. The author of Hebrews in Chapter 4, verse 12, also likens it to a two edge sword which cuts so sharply it divides between the soul and spirit, bone and marrow, and the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So you see my point now. I am arguing that, properly understood, Christianity is a violent religion, and as such, it deserves the designation as the most dangerous religion on earth. We do not use physical violence against our enemies (God forbid), but only this spiritual violence can separate us from the world, the flesh, and the devil. Only this spiritual violence can cause us to triumph against all his and our enemies. All the means of grace are violent: word, sacrament, and prayer.

So with this in mind, perhaps we should begin to think of Christianity, not Islam, as the most dangerous religion on the planet.

Michael Jackson and Everyman

I heard it multiple times yesterday by a variety of different people. They all said the same thing:  I had to get out of the house to get away from all the Michael Jackson hoopla on TV. I had fled to the same place for much the same reason. I'm a news junkie, and like many of my friends who work from home, the news is always on playing in the background as I work. 

But yesterday I couldn't take it anymore. I had to get out of the house. So I went to my favorite cigar store to work where I found many other acquaintances doing the same thing. We turned on sports center to play in the background as we worked. Interestingly, though, every time someone walked into the store we all kept talking about Michael Jackson. What's the fascination? Why is it that even people who were trying to get away from all the Michael madness found themselves talking about him? 

Well, for one thing, we all have more in common with Michael then you might think (or more than we want to believe). The typical schtick on Michael Jackson is that he was strange, bizarre, weird, waco, sicko. The truth is Michael was normal. When I say normal, I don't mean that he was a typical guy, or an average Joe. I mean he was, in a sense, everyman. 

During the Middle Ages a new genre of allegorical literature emerged called the morality play. The most famous of these was Everyman. The title of the play is based on the leading character Everyman who personifies each person's journey from birth to death encouraging a moral way of life. 

In this sense, Michael Jackson is everyman. Hence our fascination with his life and death. In a rather perverse way he represents all of us. 

He wore a mask. That is, he hid his true identity. Whether this was from self-love or self-loathing doesn't really matter. We wear masks too. We all have secret lives we are trying to hide from everyone else. We all want makeovers. There is something in us that doesn't like the way God made us. 

He anathematized himself. Michael was obviously a man in pain. He was hurting deeply. In order to cope he not only took drugs, he took anesthesia (a word by the way that means without sensation). To be sure, most of us don't take such drastic measures, but we all try and dull the pain. Perhaps I don't use anesthesia, but I do use distractions. Indeed, as a culture we have overdosed on distractions. It's as if the pain of life is too great so we anathematize ourselves with distractions.

 

He lived in a make-believe world. Michael lived in the now infamous Neverland--an amusement park/ranch of sorts. He seemed stuck in childhood, and he created a make-believe world in which to live. The message seems to be that Michael couldn't cope with the real world. So he built a world of his own to which he could escape. Again, we are not all that different. We have built our own little worlds too. Perhaps they are not as extravagant as Neverland, but they are every bit as fictional and utopian. 

He practiced religious multiple choice. It is almost comic to hear people talk about Michael's religious views. He has at one time or another been a Jehovah's Witness, Muslim, Christian, and Jew. Like so many others in our time Michael's approach to spiritual things was a religious smorgasbord. It was religion by multiple choice. It too is the American way. 

In all of these ways, Michael Jackson is not as strange as he first seems. We are more like him than we may want to believe. He is Everyman, and that's why everyone is so fascinated by his life and death--even those of us who tried to get away from it all yesterday.

However, no matter how much we want to get away from it all, we can't escape the reality that we have more in common with Michael Jackson than we do with Jesus (the ultimate Everyman).

Jesus wore no mask. He unveiled the true identity of God. He showed us the truth about God, ourselves, and our world. And he told us the truth about salvation.

Jesus didn't anathematize himself. He who was without sin took all our sin and misery upon himself being subjected to great physical and psychological suffering. He endured the Father's wrath, anger, judgment, and justice which was poured out upon him on our behalf while he hung on the cross.  

Jesus didn't live in a make-believe world. He was a real person in the real world. Heaven is no fairly tale or utopian fantasy. It is the real world. 

Jesus didn't practice religious multiple choice. He showed us that there was only one way to the Father, namely, through him.

It's a scary thought, that we might actually have more in common with Michael Jackson than we do with Jesus. But what else could explain the trajectory of our culture, the impotence of the church, and our fascination with ourselves vicariously through celebrities like Jackson?