Fear and Fundamentalism

By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Webster defines fundamentalism as “Religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.”  Religious fundamentalism is not limited to Christianity.  There are fundamentalist Jews with their Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament in the Christian Bible) and fundamentalist Muslims with their Qur’an.  In these Religions of the Book, fundamentalism defines and limits God’s word in a sacred holy book.  That makes literal fundamentalism a form of idolatry.

            Fundamentalist Jews believe that the ancient dictates of the Torah (Mosaic Law) as set forth in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy remain God’s law today, just as fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God, and Muslim fundamentalists believe that the Qur’an is the word of God made Book. 

            Fundamentalist Jews and Christians are a minority in their faiths while most Muslims are fundamentalists who believe that the Qur’an is God/Allah’s perfect and immutable truth.  Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians are also exclusivists who believe that their religion is the one true faith and that all unbelievers are condemned by God to eternal damnation.

            Religious fundamentalism originated in the 19^th century as the product of fear—the fear of dynamic advances in knowledge and reason that challenged the truth of traditional religious doctrines.  The fear of progress and modernity fostered religious beliefs grounded in the certainty of ancient scriptures and doctrines that were immune to change.  Religious fundamentalism puts God’s word in a holy box where it gives believers a sense of security against the unsettling changes that have come with progress and modernity.

 

            Lovett Weems has referred to Christian fundamentalism as bibliolotry, and that principle of biblical idolatry applies to Jews and Muslims who believe their holy books are the perfect and unchanging word of God.  Weems, like most Christian pastors, considers the Bible the final authority in matters of faith and practice but not the inerrant and infallible word of God; and while Christians consider the teachings of Jesus to be God’s word, there is no verbatim record of his teachings.  The four Gospels are the only source of his teachings, and they should be read critically since they were put on the lips of Jesus by evangelists in the early church.

            The danger of Christian and Islamic fundamentalism is a zealous exclusivism that can motivate believers into being aggressive instruments of a vengeful and judgmental God who condemns unbelievers to hell.  That danger can be alleviated by a faith that understands the mystical and universal power of God through experience and reason.  The Discipline of the United Methodist Church explains this function of a dynamic faith in Our Theological Task.

            John Wesley lived and preached in England over 250 years ago.  He was ahead of his times but behind ours.  Wesley admired John Locke, but he was skeptical of democracy and opposed to American independence.  Even so, Wesley liberated the Anglican religion from its bondage to stiff-necked doctrines with the teachings of Jesus on God’s love and mercy.  Wesley and his Methodists put heart into Anglicanism, and in the process likely prevented a violent revolution that was building in Great Britain against Dickensian excesses of capitalism.

            John Wesley developed the ideas incorporated in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.  It provides the four elements of Our Theological Task which urge the use of tradition, experience and reason in interpreting scripture.  This enlightened way of understanding scripture prevents believers from succumbing to the temptation of fundamentalism and its false sense of security in the literal meaning of ancient scripture as God’s inerrant and infallible word; but even within Methodism the Confessing Movement advocates more fundamentalist beliefs.

            Fundamentalism is absurd to those who have accepted advances of knowledge and reason on their journey of faith.  But there is reason to worry about fundamentalism in the world in which Christianity and Islam represent over half of the world’s population, and Islam is expected to overtake Christians as the world’s largest religion by 2070.  Unless Islam becomes less fundamentalist, we can expect to see more fear, religious polarization and violence in the future.

            Radical fundamentalists who are committed to kill unbelievers in the name of God represent a clear and present danger to humanity and must be captured or killed.  But we should seek to reconcile with fundamentalists who have not yet allowed their beliefs to justify violence. Both approaches are based on the greatest commandment to love God and others as ourselves which is found in the Hebrew Bible, was taught by Jesus, and offered by Muslim scholars as a common word of faith.  Love for others supports both eliminating those who would do harm to others, and reconciling with those who wish to live in peace in a universal family of God.

            Religious reconciliation based on a common word of faith can defeat the fear of religious fundamentalism and the violence that it spawns, but it requires understanding one’s neighbor to include unbelievers—even apostates—as illustrated in the story of the good Samaritan.  Sharing a common love of God and neighbor does not resolve all religious differences, but it provides a fundamental common value of faith that enables all believers to overcome fear and be reconciled as spiritual brothers and sisters in the family of God and in the unity of all believers.

            Remember: God is love. And …There is no fear in love.  (I John 4:16-18)

Notes and References to Resources:

See Blog/Archives for related blogs: Religion and Reason, posted December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, posted December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, posted January 11, 2015; Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, posted January 4, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, posted January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? posted January 25, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil? posted February 15, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, posted May 3, 2015; and Christians Meet Muslims Today, posted June 21, 2015. 

In The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism (Random House, NY, 2001), Karen Armstrong has described the nature and origin of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

  

Dianna Theadora Kerry has related fundamentalism and radicalization to psychology in God, religion and fundamentalism: an unholy trinity, posted in The Conversation on July 2, 2015 at  

http://theconversation.com/god-religion-and-fundamentalism-an-unholy-trinity-42326.

For a brief description of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral by Lovett H. Weems, Jr. and a chart of its four elements by George E. Koeler, including the danger of bibliolotry, see Weems, John Wesley’s Message Today, Abingdon Press, 1990, pages 11-13.

On Our Theological Task in The Discipline of the United Methodist Church, see pages 78-91 at https://www.cokesbury.com/forms/DynamicContent.aspx?id=87&pageid=920.

Religion, Heritage and the Confederate Flag

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr., July 19, 2015

            With the lowering of the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds in Columbia, S.C., an NAACP official opined that the flag should now be the object of moral introspection.  That may have inspired the KKK and several black activist groups to demonstrate their moral introspection of the flag on the statehouse grounds on July 18. 

 

            Just what does the Confederate flag represent—Is it hate or heritage?  A CNN poll found that 57% of Americans consider the flag a symbol of Southern pride rather than racial hatred; but racism has been endemic in the South.  Southern heritage is a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly, and the bad and ugly came to a head in the War Between the States, the Civil War, or whatever we call the terrible war that ravaged America from 1860-1865.  During that time more than 500,000 Americans lost their lives—more than in all the wars fought since then.

            The Confederate flag represents a tragedy that was as much about religion as it was about slavery, states’ rights and clashing cultures.  We need to be honest about our history and heritage.  Most Christians in the North and South were reluctant to condemn slavery as immoral since it was not condemned in the Bible, which was for them the source of God’s truth.  In How the North distorts Civil War history, Hugh Howard has noted that Abolitionists were a vocal minority, and President Lincoln was not one of them.  He pursued the Civil War in order to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery—at least not until it was politically expedient to do so.    

            It is legitimate to ask whether Lincoln’s determination to go to war to preserve the Union was worth the cost.  About 50 years later another President, Woodrow Wilson, advocated self-determination, which was the motivation for secession, as an inalienable right of all people; and later in the 20^th century Americans applauded the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  It seemed that political unions were no longer sacred.  If Texas or California sought to secede from the Union today, would the remaining states go to war to prevent it?    

            The vast majority of Confederate soldiers were small farmers without slaves whose social, economic and political interests conflicted with the aristocratic slaveholders.  They were on the verge of their own civil war until the ”fire-eating” aristocrats convinced the dirt-farmers that if they did not join them in seceding from the Union and fighting the North that the slaves—who represented a majority in S.C.—would be emancipated, assume political power and destroy their livelihoods.  So the dirt-farmers went to war for self-preservation, and ironically, to preserve the institution of slavery and the wealth of their adversary slaveholders.

            The belief in white supremacy did not end with slavery and continued to plague politics and religion in the South well after the Civil War.  It spawned the KKK and other white supremacy groups that supported a racist Jim Crow culture; and until the civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth century most churches did not condemn white supremacy and quietly supported a separate but equal culture.  But there is no Biblical precedent for white supremacy, only the naming of the Semitic Jews as God’s “chosen people;” and Jesus was a Semite, not a Caucasian with blue eyes as he is depicted on many church walls.

            The idea that God favored Semitic Jews over whites may have played a role in the anti-Semitism of the 20^th century, especially in Germany, where Jews tended to live in urban ghettos and were not well assimilated with the rest of the Christian population.  Nazism was a secular religion based on white (Aryan) supremacy that could not be reconciled with the idea that Jews were the chosen people of God, and that undoubtedly contributed to the anti-Semitism that led to the hatred and violence directed by Nazis against Jews, which was similar to the hatred and violence directed by the KKK against blacks in the Jim Crow South.      

            There are similarities between the Antebellum South and the Jewish state of Israel today, and it is complicated by religious animosity.  Because Israel is a democracy, Palestinians, who are Muslims, are seen as a threat to Jewish political control of Israel, much as white southerners feared freed blacks in the Ante-Bellum South.  The Palestinians have a higher birth rate than Jews and are destined to outnumber Jews in Israel if they do not have their own state.  That makes the Palestinian threat to Israel as demographic as it is military.

            Culture shapes religion, just as religion shapes culture.  The violent conflict between the ideals and aspirations of radical Islam and those of libertarian democracy can be considered a culture clash.  And while slavery is not a factor in that current culture clash, it is similar to the Antebellum culture clash between the Jeffersonian ideals of an agrarian democracy and the ideals of an industrial North that was just beginning to understand its destiny.

  

            Religion, politics and race have often made strange—even uncomfortable and sometimes violent—bedfellows.  As students of history, all Americans should consider the Confederate flag as an object of moral introspection.  As for all the nation’s problems that are so often blamed on a degenerate South, It’s not Dixie’s fault.  The South has produced its share of hate, but it has also produced a culture known for its gentility and grace.  Southern religions continue to reflect those disparate qualities, from fundamentalist snake handlers and those who condemn unbelievers to hell, to progressives, both black and white, who focus their faith on reconciling their differences on religion and race through the forgiving love and mercy of God.

Notes and References to Resources:

The CNN poll found that 72% of blacks saw the Confederate flag as racist, while just 25% of whites agreed; of Southern whites 75% saw the flag as a symbol of pride while 18% saw it as racist.  See http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/confederate-flag-poll-racism-southern-pride/.

On How the North distorts Civil War history, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-north-misremembered/2015/07/10/2def245e-2667-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On It’s not Dixie’s fault, see  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-dixies-fault/2015/07/17/7bf77a2e-2bd6-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

Reconciliation in Race and Religion: The Need for Compatibility, not Conformity

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Last week’s blog concluded with the observation that Sunday morning is the most segregated time of the week—but is that such a bad thing?  Should traditional black churches be expected to conform their unique worship services to a common norm in order to achieve racial reconciliation?  And what about religious differences between Jews, Christians and Muslims? 

            The purpose of reconciliation in matters of race and religion is to achieve compatibility, not conformity.  The diversity, or pluralism, of races and religions has given the U.S. its strength.  It requires the assimilation of different races and religions in a common culture, but not their conformity.  The only mandatory standard of conformity in the U.S. is its rule of law.

            But some racial and religious differences require reconciliation based on a standard of legitimacy beyond that of the law, and that standard is love for one another.  Racism and religious fundamentalism have long plagued our nation and the world with hatred and violence; but after the horrific racist violence at Emanuel AME church on June 17 it was love, not law, that reconciled grieving black and white folks in Charleston, for all the world to see.      

            That demonstration of forgiveness and reconciling love overcame racial and religious differences that have traditionally segregated black and white Christians.  Those differences reflect a so-called “separate but equal” culture forced upon blacks in the Jim Crow South that did not change until the civil rights advances of the mid-twentieth century culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Most blacks now share middle class cultural values with whites, but there remains a black subculture with divergent values, primarily in urban areas, that remains a source of racial unrest.

            The black church has traditionally been the central social and political institution of the black community and has never conformed to an integrated model of the church.  For this reason, few mainline Protestant churches have integrated congregations, and that is reflected in the United Methodist Church (UMC), which is not as united as its name implies.  Most UMC churches are predominately black or white, with integration at conference administrative levels.  In their church activities and worship, black United Methodists seem more like their African Methodist Episcopal (AME) kin than like those whites in their own UMC denomination; but even with their differences, black and white United Methodists are congenial and compatible.   

            Civil rights laws provided the secular standard of legitimacy needed to eliminate racial discrimination, but it was God’s forgiveness and love that has enabled black and white Christians to experience true reconciliation.  A similar common word of faith is needed to reconcile religious differences among Jews, Christians and Muslims, and that common word is the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself, including one’s unbelieving neighbors as taught by Jesus in the story of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). 

            The main obstacle to religious reconciliation is the belief of religious fundamentalists or exclusivists that theirs is the one true faith and that God condemns all unbelievers to hell.  At their worst, radical Islamist fundamentalists like those in ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and el-Shabab consider it a matter of faith to dispatch unbelievers to hell.

            As with race, religious diversity can enrich a culture unless it becomes so divisive as to motivate fear, hatred and violence.  Both the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’an provide examples of divine sanction for violence, and despots have used those precedents to justify violence not only in religious fundamentalism, but also in racism, Fascism, Communism and Nazism. 

            Traditionalism might be included as an “ism.  Like religious fundamentalism, it can motivate zealotry to preserve traditions that block progressive change.  That was evident in the dispute over the Confederate battle flag, which was characterized as a conflict between hate and heritage.  Fortunately reason and compassion carried the day with a spirit of reconciliation exemplified by Governor Haley and most S.C. legislators.  The flag flap was a reminder of the racial division that has plagued the South for many years; and while racial reconciliation has come slowly, most blacks are now assimilated in a pluralistic culture based on shared values.  There is no race war in America, despite the horrific efforts of Dylann Roof to create one.

            Progress toward religious reconciliation is less certain.  While most Muslims in the U.S. share our libertarian values, many are offended by the hedonism and excesses of freedom of a libertarian culture and favor fundamentalist Islamic laws (shari’a) that prohibit individual freedom.  The reconciliation of differences in religion and politics requires a political climate of libertarian democracy and human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech; and those freedoms cannot exist under shari'a, with its oppressive apostasy and blasphemy laws.

            Reconciliation in matters of race and religion is ultimately a matter of the heart, and that requires the transforming power of God’s love and mercy to first reconcile people with God and then with their neighbors.  God’s spiritual power enables us to love all people as our neighbors, regardless of their race, sex, religion or sexual preference, and to accept those of other religions as our spiritual brothers and sisters in the family of God.   But a word of caution to those seeking God’s spiritual power.  Satan does a convincing imitation of God, and does some of his best impersonations in the synagogue, church and mosque.  The way to tell the difference is that God seeks to reconcile and redeem us through love, while Satan seeks to divide and conquer us through fear.  Remember that God is love, and there is no fear in love. (1 John 4:16-21)       

              

Notes and References to Resources:

For related blogs, see the following at Blog/Archives:  The greatest commandment, posted January 11, 2015;  Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith and Politics for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? posted January 25, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, posted February 22, 2015;  Promoting Religion Through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness? posted February 8, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil? posted February 15, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, posted June 21, 2015; Confronting the Evil Among Us, posted June 28, 2015; and Racism, Religious Exclusivism and Reconciliation, posted July 5, 2015.  

       

The cultural and religious diversity of the black church in America is described by E.J. Dionne, Jr., in Liberated by grace, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-african-american-church-as-religious-oasis/2015/07/05/98c7b834-2114-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

Marc Thiessen described “stupid” attitudes tying racism to the Confederate flag after Dylann Roof used that flag to justify his atrocity in Charleston in There’s no race war in America, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-no-race-war-in-america/2015/07/06/c91c19fe-23d9-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On increasing tensions between Muslims and law enforcement agencies in England over how to counter the draw of Islamist radicalism, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ten-years-after-77-bombings-britain-is-split-over-how-to-fight-extremism/2015/07/03/4d0bbf66-19e5-11e5-bed8-1093ee58dad0_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

In Ethnic America, Thomas Sowell explained the correlation between the effective integration and wellbeing of minority groups in America with their willingness to take advantage of the opportunities for education and employment and assimilate into a pluralistic American culture.

The ban in Deuteronomy 20:16-18 and its application by Joshua at Jericho (Joshua 6:20-27) are precedents for ethnic cleansing; and the sword verses in the Qur’an call for slaying the infidel unbelievers and are often cited by radical Islamists (9:5; 9:29).  See these and other verses that justify violence in the name of God in the J&M Book at pages 585-592 (Mosaic Law) and at pages 498-502 (Islamic Law).

  

Reconciliation as a Remedy for Racism and Religious Exclusivism

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Last week we looked at what racism and religious exclusivism have in common: They both divide us and are opposed to God’s will to reconcile us.  Both God’s will and secular reason urge us to be reconciled.  Jesus prayed for a unity of all believers, and we celebrate our national political unity and equality under the law on July 4.  Whether we consider religion or reason to be the motivating force for reconciliation, it is a fundamental principle of legitimacy that all people are equal under God and the law, no matter how unequal they might otherwise be.

           

            White racism is motivated by the belief that God ordained the white race as superior to all others.  The Southern Poverty Law Center considers the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) a white supremacist group, and reports that the CCC “oppose[s] all efforts to mix the races of mankind,” and that "God is the author of racism. God is the One who divided mankind into different types. ...Mixing the races is rebelliousness against God."  Those white supremacist views were echoed in the manifesto of Dylann Roof to justify his massacre of nine people at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. on June 17, 2015.

            A spokesman for the CCC has denied any affiliation with Roof, who appears to have been a lone-wolf terrorist who was probably motivated more by a demented and narcissistic desire to bring attention to himself than to promote the cause of white supremacy.  Whatever his motivation, the tragic episode illustrated the analogous relationship between the hatred of racism and religious exclusivism; and while racism may not be as likely to produce deadly acts of terrorism as religious extremism, both are instruments of evil that originate with fear and suspicion that can grow into hate and violence.

            Religious exclusivism promotes the supremacy of one religion over others and condemns all unbelievers, and fundamentalists assert the supremacy of holy law over secular law, denying fundamental freedoms.  The evils of religious exclusivism can be countered with a belief in the transforming power of God’s love to reconcile people of competing religions into a universal family of God.  The first step toward reconciliation is finding common ground; and for Jews, Christians and Muslims it is a common word of faith in the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors, with our neighbors including those of other religions.  That same principle applies to racism as a form of belief based on a distorted understanding of God’s will.

            Finding common political and social values is necessary to reconcile the religious and racial differences that divide us.  Religions in libertarian democracies have conformed their doctrines to modern economic and political values that support free enterprise and libertarian democracy, even though they were not mentioned in the ancient scriptures.  That has not happened in the tribal cultures of Islam, where strict adherence to Islamic law (shari’a), with its apostasy and blasphemy laws, has precluded the freedoms of religion and speech.  Many devout Muslims are offended by the materialistic and hedonistic excesses of Western libertarian culture, and believe that a theocratic Islamist culture is superior to that of a libertarian democracy.

            In Islam no distinction is made between the sacred and the secular (religion and politics), while in libertarian democracies governments are prohibited from favoring or promoting any religion.  The reconciliation of religious and political differences in the modern world requires the acceptance of the freedoms of religion and speech, but many devout Muslims accept apostasy and blasphemy laws that prevent those freedoms in order to constrain immoral behavior.

            Those whose power or status is based on racial division or religious exclusivism oppose change.  White supremacists excluded blacks from political power in the Jim Crow South until the civil rights revolution in the 1960s enabled black leaders to gain political power by emphasizing black solidarity in gerrymandered single-member districts that elected black representatives.  But concentrating black voters in single-member districts has produced more predominately white districts with white representatives who have little concern for black interests.  That has institutionalized racial polarization at local, state and national levels, with politicians now more interested in maintaining their polarized racial constituencies than in promoting racial unity.

            The continuation of traditional black educational and social institutions that emphasize their racial identity also contributes to racial polarization, but black leaders resist integrating traditionally black institutions for the same reason that religious leaders resist abandoning the exclusivity of their traditional religious doctrines.  They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of racial division and religious exclusivity and see change as a threat to their status.

            Reconciliation is the remedy for racism and religious exclusivity, and it requires finding common values while respecting important cultural and religious differences.  In the political realm that requires sharing a sense of political unity and providing equal justice under law.  In the spiritual realm it requires a colorblind belief in the unity of all believers and a spiritual kinship in a family of God.  Jews, Muslims and Christians can find a common word of faith in the greatest commandment to love God and their neighbor as themselves; but while most blacks and whites share similar Christian beliefs, Sunday morning remains the most segregated hour of the week.      

Notes and References to Resources:

For related blogs, see the following at Blog/Archives: Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the family of God, posted January 4, 2014; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith and Politics for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? posted January 25, 2015; Promoting Religion Through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness? posted February 8, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil? posted February 15, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, posted June 21, 2015; and Confronting the Evil Among Us, posted June 28, 2015.   

The Southern Poverty Law Center considers the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) a hate group and a modern reincarnation of the old White Citizens Councils that were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South.  The group's newspaper, Citizens Informer, regularly publishes articles condemning "race mixing" as elaborated above.  See http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/council-of-conservative-citizens.  Eugene Robinson referred to the CCC in his commentary on racism in The Washington Post, June 22, 2015, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-roots-of-racism/2015/06/22/24e61d56-1909-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

Confronting the Evil Among Us

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            This website has often addressed the evil of religious hatred and violence, especially between Muslims and Christians; and there are striking similarities between the evil of religious hatred and violence and that of racism.  Racism is an ugly reality that continues to plague our nation, but until the recent church massacre in Charleston it appeared that racial violence was a thing of the past.  That assumption must now be reconsidered.

            The horrific acts committed by Dylann Roof at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston on June 17 left us in shock, sorrow and shame, wondering how to confront this old/new evil among us.  There is no evidence that Roof was part of a racist hate group.  He appears to be a lone wolf, a dysfunctional and demented man whose evil acts were self-motivated.  There have been similar mass murders in our nation, but the fact that Roof was part of our community haunts us.  How do we confront this evil that is among us?

            We hear calls to restrict the sale of guns and to remove the Confederate flag from the front of the State House.  Those public actions may be justified, but they are not likely to counter the evil that motivated Dylann Roof, who fits the psychological profile of other mass murderers who are primarily motivated by a demented and narcissistic need for personal glorification and who kill to bring public attention to themselves.  According to Ari Schulman, the way to stop them is to deny them publicity (see Notes below).

            If Roof’s crime is evidence of a resurgence of racist violence among young white men, which seems unlikely, our response should be similar to that for countering religious violence. Racists who are likely to commit violence must be identified, monitored and apprehended before they commit violence, much as the FBI identifies and monitors suspected Islamist terrorists.  But that is especially difficult since racist websites allow self-radicalization without personal contact with known racist groups.  For racists who are not likely to commit violence, efforts should be made to mitigate their racism through biracial discussion groups, both religious and secular. 

            The same principles of dialogue that can reconcile religious differences also apply to race relations and other divisive issues that polarize society.  Evil originates in the fear and suspicion of those unlike us, and unless people who feel alienated from others are willing to relate to them seeking common values, their negative attitudes can metastasize into hate and violence.  Both faith and reason are needed to counter the evil of hate, first with acceptance and accommodation, then seeking reconciliation.

            There are bookstores and social media sites that promote racial and religious division and hate, and the freedom of speech allows such activities; but it also allows our condemnation of such hate speech as immoral.  At the very least, publicizing hate-mongers who incite racial or religious violence puts law enforcement on notice of the danger posed by them.  Texas police recently thwarted mass murder by two armed radical Muslims at an event sponsored by Pamela Geller, who is noted for her hate speech and inciting anger among Muslims.

            Some question whether evil exists as a dark and divisive spiritual power that competes with the reconciling light of God’s love.  My life experience has convinced me that evil does exist and that we are in a cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil.  That dualist concept is questioned by many theologians; but it is prevalent in Christianity, especially in the Gospel of John, where it is symbolized by the contrast between light (God’s love) and darkness (evil).

            Love is the antithesis of hate, and it is made the moral imperative of our faith in the greatest commandment to love God and neighbor and in the new command to love one another.  The Evangelist John equates God with love and states that fear is the enemy of love (I John 4:16-18).  Love reconciles and redeems us as children of God, while Satan uses fear and hate to divide and conquer us.  Unfortunately, Satan does a convincing imitation of God, and does some his best work in the synagogue, church and mosque.

            Our moral obligation to reconcile and redeem others as children of God should not be confused with converting them to Christianity.  The Gospel of John provides a mystical concept of the unity of all believers (John 17:20-23) that transcends all religions.  Reconciliation and redemption come to all who follow the Logos, or word of God, as personified by Jesus in John’s Gospel (John 1:1-14).  When Jesus says I am the way and the truth and the light (John 14:6) he is calling people to follow him as the word of God, not to worship him as a surrogate Christian god.  The second part of that verse—No one comes to the Father except through me—has done more to divide us than reconcile us when used to support exclusivist Christian doctrines.

            It is easy to say that we love our neighbors as ourselves—even those neighbors that we don’t like (see the story of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37)—but it is difficult to apply that moral imperative of faith in everyday life.  How can we love a person like Dylann Roof?  Only in the context of loving all others, and that requires protecting them from dangerous people like Dylann Roof.  That principle of love provides the ethical foundation for self-defense and justifies our police and military forces.  Our criminal laws and system of justice protect the public from those who would do them harm.  They are instruments of our love for others, and enable us to confront the evil among us, which comes in human form.

            On June 22, Governor Nikki Haley provided an example of how politicians can confront the evil among us.  Surrounded by politicians of all stripes—Democrat and Republican, black and white—she recounting the events and emotions in Charleston following the church massacre and, to the cheers of all present, she called for removing the Confederate flag from the State House grounds.  Governor Haley’s eloquent speech emphasized that when Satan’s power of evil is sown among us it can be countered by God’s powers of forgiveness, love and reconciliation.

Notes and References to Resources:

See Blog/Archives for related blogs: Religion and Reason, posted December 8, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, posted December 29, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, posted January 11, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil, posted February 15, 2015; Jesus: A Prophet, God’s Only Son, or the Logos? Posted April 19, 2015; and Moral Restraints on the Freedom of Speech, posted May 17, 2015.        

On reconciling racist attitudes through small biracial groups, much like interfaith dialogue groups, see Kathleen Parker, A blue print for changing the way that we talk about race, Washington Post, June 26, 2015, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/starting-not-one-but-many-conversations-about-race/2015/06/26/bad3181e-1c3d-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On moral limitations on the freedom of speech, see Brian Hicks, Free speech is a responsibility, not the right to change history, Charleston Post & Courier, June 24, 2015 at http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150624/PC16/150629747/free-speech-is-a-responsibility-not-the-right-to-change-history.

For a psychological profile of the typical mass murderer, see Ari N. Schulman, What Mass Killers Want—and How to Stop Them, Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2013, at https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=mm#inbox/14e17d326648579d?projector=1. 

On homegrown lone-wolf terrorists who are not radical Muslims, see Scott Shane, Homegrown Radicals More Deadly Then Jihadists in U.S., New York Times, June 24, 2015 at

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0; cited by Ashley Barnes in her comment of June 24, 2015 to Christians Meet Muslims Today, posted June 21, 2015.

On the difficulty of identifying lone-wolf racists, see Marc Fisher, Washington Post, June 25, 2015 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lone-wolf-extremism-easy-to-form-difficult-to-track/2015/06/25/121d981e-19e7-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

For commentary on John 14:6, see The way the truth and the life at page 416 of The Teachings of Jesus andMuhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy; and on The unity of all believers, see page 420, ibid.

For Governor Nikki Haley’s speech on June 22, 2015, as reported in the Washington Post, see

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/22/south-carolina-officials-and-activists-call-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-near-the-state-capitol/?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=.  As reported in The State of Columbia, S.C., see http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article25175821.html.

Christians Meet Muslims Today

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr., June 21, 2015

            Two weeks ago we looked at the future of religion and found that Christians in the U.S. and Europe are leaving the church in increasing numbers (as nones with no religious affiliation).  Last week we speculated that if Jesus and Muhammad met today they would agree that the greatest commandment to love God and their neighbors as themselves—even those neighbors of other religions—is a common word of faith, and would expect their followers to do the same. 

            What about their Christian and Muslim followers?  We don’t have to speculate on what happens when they meet.  There is suspicion and hostility among Jews, Christians and Muslims today.  Why can’t those People of the Book get along?  Because many of them see the world through the prism of ancient holy books that they believe provide the perfect and immutable word of God—as if God had nothing more to say to humankind.  This denies the living word of God and holds believers in bondage to exclusivist religions that defy reason.

            Catholics may be the exception.  As the Vicar of Christ the Pope provides encyclicals on modern issues, but the ancient scriptures, tradition and church bureaucracy can be as stifling for Catholics as for others.  The reason why institutional religions resist change and compete rather than cooperate with other religions is institutional inertia.  Until Jews, Christians and Muslims allow advances in knowledge and reason to liberate them from the bondage of their ancient scriptures and exclusivist beliefs, their institutional religions will wither and ultimately die. 

            But even if traditional religions die, God will not die.  The nones who have left the church may have abandoned the gods of traditional religion, but most have retained faith in an eternal power beyond all powers that they have personally experienced and will continue on their journey of faith.  New religions will continue to emerge, and perhaps some of the old ones will adapt and survive.  Those that do will have to abandon the exclusivist idea that God favors their religion over all others, and conform their doctrines to concepts of libertarian democracy, while balancing individual freedom with the collective responsibility to provide for the common good.

            Current trends in religion indicate that will likely happen in progressive cultures, despite surveys that indicate Christianity is declining in progressive cultures while growing with Islam in less progressive cultures.  Current religious beliefs and values are diverse and constantly changing, despite the efforts of conservative believers to maintain the purity of traditional beliefs and doctrines.  That is because religions invariably reflect their cultures, just as cultures reflect their religions; and progressive cultures will continue to produce diverse and dynamic religions. 

            Modern Christians vary from fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God and that all unbelievers are condemned to hell, to progressives who believe the teachings of Jesus are the word of God and interpret those teachings using their experience and reason.  The beliefs and values of Muslims also vary widely, ranging from the radical jihadists of ISIS to moderate and progressive Muslims who make an effort to conform their faith to the norms of libertarian democracies.  In fact, the beliefs and values of Christians and Muslims are so varied that progressive Christians and Muslims often have more in common with each other than with fundamentalist believers in their own religion.

            Individually Christians and Muslims tend to accommodate each other in their social and work environments, but collectively they are uneasy and suspicious of other religions.  Examples are evident in a social media that promotes religious extremism.  To counter the negative images of social media more interfaith dialogue is needed between moderate believers to promote interfaith understanding and build personal relationships that counter religious polarization.       

            In libertarian democracies it is a challenge to balance individual freedom with providing for the common good.  Even if hate speech is legal, it’s immoral, and the misuse of that freedom undermines interfaith relations.  At the other end of the spectrum apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islamic cultures prohibit any freedom of religion or speech.  The trend is toward religious polarization rather than accommodation and reconciliation, but more personal relations between Jews, Christians and Muslims who share the same values can reverse this trend.

            Complicating matters at the national level are U.S. military strategies that have responded to Islamist extremism with large deployments of U.S. combat forces.  Many devout Muslims see such military interventions as a threat to Islam, and turn away from their traditional sectarian conflicts to confront the U.S. as a common enemy.  Such U.S. strategies have attracted more converts to radical Islam and made it more of a threat to the U.S. and its allies, not less. 

            To promote peace, U.S. national security strategies must support moderate Muslims and avoid exacerbating the hostility of more fundamentalist Islamists.  That requires a policy of containment rather than military intervention, supporting Muslim leaders who support the freedoms of religion and speech and oppose discrimination against women and religious minorities.  Such a policy requires that U.S. security assistance in Islamic cultures is in the form of military trainers and advisors rather than in large deployments of U.S. combat forces.

            In summary, for Jews, Christians and Muslims to overcome the divisive inertia of their institutional religions and exclusivist doctrines they must accept advances in knowledge and reason, oppose religious fundamentalism and support the individual rights of libertarian democracy so long as those rights are balanced with the collective responsibility to care for the poor and needy; and they must support moderate Muslim leaders in their struggle against extremist Islamism.  If the great Religions of the Book can manage those reforms, they should be able to survive and contribute to peace in a modern world of religious diversity and cultural change; otherwise they will remain a source of conflict rather than reconciliation.            

             

Notes and References to Resources:

On an encyclical of Pope Francis on the environment and related issues of poverty, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/18/what-you-need-to-know-about-pope-franciss-environmental-encyclical/.

On containment as a national strategy, see Walter Pincus, In Iraq lessons of Vietnam still resonate, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-iraq-lessons-of-vietnam-still-resonate/2015/05/25/86a20a82-00bd-11e5-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1; also Thomas L. Friedman, Contain and Amplify, at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/opinion/thomas-friedman-contain-and-amplify.html?emc=eta1&_r=0.  

Jesus Meets Muhammad Today

By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The teachings of Jesus and Muhammad have been considered the word of God for Christians and Muslims since the birth of those religions.  Those teachings described the will of God, including standards of legitimacy (what is right) for believers, but since those ancient times there have been dramatic social, political and economic changes that necessitate new interpretations of those teachings.

            Many contemporary issues, like those relating to democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law, were not addressed by Jesus or Muhammad because they were not relevant to their time and place.  Today progressive believers interpret their scriptures to relate to current issues, but fundamentalist believers cannot do that since they believe that their ancient scriptures and holy laws remain the perfect and immutable word of God.  

            The ancient settings for the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad shaped their content.  For Jesus, 1^st century Palestine was under Roman rule and Jesus never addressed the political and legal issues of governance as did Moses and Muhammad.  Even so, the early teachings of Muhammad in Mecca were not concerned with issues of governance and were similar to those of Jesus, but that changed when Muhammad left Mecca for Medina and assumed political power, and his teachings reflected ancient issues of law and governance like those of Moses, not Jesus.

            In the ancient times of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, authoritarian rule was the accepted norm for governance and holy laws provided obligatory standards of legitimacy.  Since the 18^th century democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law have been the accepted norms of law and government in the libertarian democracies of the West, where religions have rejected authoritarian rule and conformed their doctrines to libertarian values and capitalism. 

            Culture shapes religion just as religion shapes culture.  While freedom and libertarian values have transformed culture and religion in the West, little has changed in the tribal cultures of the Islamic East where authoritarian forms of government continue to rule under Islamic law (shari’a).  Globalization has brought Christians and Muslims from these divergent cultures closer together, resulting in suspicion and even hostility based on religious and political differences; but that conflict can be resolved with understanding that leads to the respect and accommodation of their religious and cultural differences, or better yet, to religious reconciliation.

            There are significant differences in the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on concepts of legitimacy, law and governance.   The teachings of Moses and Muhammad were based on the absolute sovereignty of God, with no distinction between the sacred and secular; but Jesus spoke of different obligations to God and to Caesar.  Muhammad, like Moses, emphasized submission to God’s law, while Jesus emphasized the principle of love over law. 

            If Jesus and Muhammad were to meet today, what would they say about the relationship between religion and politics?  First they would set aside their many differences and debunk the principle of religious fundamentalism that asserts the immutable truth of their ancient teachings, then reaffirm the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for modern times.  Then they would consider how to apply the principle of love over law to issues of religion and politics. 

            Both would likely agree that libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law are political ideals that are consistent with God’s will, but that for those cultures with no experience in democratic governance, authoritarian rule under religious law is justified so long as fundamental human rights, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech, are protected.  Both Jesus and Muhammad would lament the libertarian excesses of modern democracies that put individual rights and personal gratification ahead of providing for communal needs, especially caring for the poor and needy, and then they would encourage their followers to apply the principle of love over law to reconcile their differences in religion and politics.

            There is an irony in religions embracing the libertarian values of the Enlightenment as an ideal of faith as well as politics.  Libertarian values are analogous to forbidden fruit; once tasted, there is no turning back.  In libertarian democracies traditional religions had to conform to advances in knowledge, reason and libertarian values to survive, and in the process they lost members and power.  But that decline in religion should not be confused with a decline in faith.  Individuals can adapt their faith to changing times more easily than institutional religions; and if religions expect to survive, they must also learn to adapt their ancient doctrines to modern times.

            The ancient teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on morality and law related to their time and place.  If Jesus and Muhammad were to meet today, they would adapt their teachings to modern times and reject any teaching inconsistent with the greatest commandment and the principle of love over law.  While they would acknowledge that some cultures are not yet ready for libertarian democracy, they would agree that God’s will is a matter of the heart that cannot be coerced by law and is consistent with both freedom in politics and free will in religion.  Finally, they would emphasize the need to reconcile all people of faith into the universal family of God.

Notes and References to Resources:

The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, is an interfaith Resource on the website that presents those ancient teachings with commentary that relates them to contemporary issues, as explained in the Introduction at pages 10-15.

     

See Blog/Archives for related blogs: Religion and Reason, posted December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, posted December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, posted January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, posted January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? Posted January 25, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, posted February 22, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, posted March 29, 2015; and Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, posted April 12, 2015.

On the paradox of fundamentalism that pits unquestioned belief in ancient scriptures against freedom in religion and politics, and relates that theme to Michael Walzer’s latest book, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, see E. J. Dionne at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-paradox-of- fundamentalism/2015/06/03/e4808cbe-0a13-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.