What To Do With Islamic Militancy
We often receive questions representing a broad spectrum of inquiry. It's not uncommon for our resident expert, Martin Selbrede (Chalcedon Vice-President), to provide outstanding summaries of the reconstructionist position on tough issues. Here's one such example:
Q: I was given a link to your site in a chatroom, shortly after someone was ranting about America going back to Christian values, rounding up all the gays and killing them "as per God's Word". That lunacy aside, I'm interested as to what Chalcedon would propose in order to deal with Islam, and in particular the rise of Islamic militancy (if indeed there is a difference).
A: Chalcedon has been subjected to stupendous distortions of its positions, distortions designed to discredit the Lord's work in this important ministry. Consequently, we are rightly sensitive about how any off-the-cuff statements may be used down the line. It is our preference to let the carefully argued positions in our various publications do the heavy lifting. I'm not imagining this issue: I traveled to New York in both April and October of 2005 to attend secularist conferences sponsored in part by the City University of New York Graduate Center that were rife with gross misrepresentations of Chalcedon's positions. I suspect even worse distortion would arise in connection with the hot potato you're calling attention to in your email. Therefore, my words herein constitute my personal reply to you and not an official statement by Chalcedon in any measure or capacity whatsoever.
There have been some individuals who have a favorable relationship, albeit a loose and unofficial one, with Chalcedon. Some of them have written on the issue of Islam, and Chalcedon is in general support of their positions (although we reserve the right to withdraw support if their position shifts to something untenable, however unlikely that may be).
For example, we find the work of Dr. Christine Schirrmacher, perhaps the most competent Christian involved in the study of Islam, to be exceptionally valuable. Her article in the Chalcedon publication "A Comprehensive Faith" delineated how liberal Christianity in the 19th century handed Islam some glorious victories with its sustained attack on the Bible's reliability. Just what Muslim apologists needed: ammunition provided by Christianity itself (so-called).
Also of interest is the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen's article about What Christians Can Learn from Muslims. As he points out, if you told a Muslim his faith was relevant only one day of the week, and the rest of the week he needed to conduct his life along secular lines, he'd laugh in your face. Until Christians re-adopt the totalism of St. Paul and begin taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:4-5), the 24-7 consistency of Muslim life will be a standing rebuke to the Church. As it is expressed in the second chapter of Jeremiah, the heathen worship their false gods with greater loyalty than Israel worships the true One. The indictment stings against us as well. God raises up such examples as a reproof to His own people.
Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, a long-time friend of the late Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, adopts a Historicist approach to the book of Revelation. Most approaches along this line (including Lee's) regard the ninth chapter of Revelation to be speaking of Islam. You will find this position going back to the Reformation and up through the 19th century (where one finds it in E.W. Hengsenberg's commentary on Revelation). Dr. Rushdoony himself, however, did not adopt the views of the Historicists regarding Revelation. He favored the Idealist view, as his own commentary attests, and he had some nominal interest in the Preterist approach as well. In either case, Chalcedon's founder did not see Islam mentioned as such in Revelation 9, although a few associates of his beyond the borders of Chalcedon have promoted that idea. You can find Dr. Lee's commentary on the Internet as a free download if you wish to see how he dealt with the issue.
Finally, the late Otto Scott was once a staff writer for Chalcedon. He was something of an independent voice at Chalcedon in many respects during his tenure. A noted Christian historian, he had written at length about the reversal of Islamic expansion (an expansion achieved by the sword) in Europe several hundred years ago, and was of the personal opinion that similar measures might possibly be required in the future. Europe cannot fight something with nothing. Its gross secularization has rendered it legitimately vulnerable to the appeal of Islam. Only a re-energized Christianity can confront Islam on the field of ideas, in the minds of men.
Let us consider the question you originally posed, "How would Chalcedon deal with Islamic militancy?" Chalcedon is a Christian educational foundation. As such, it doesn't usurp the Scriptural prerogative of the civil magistrate to defend the law-abiding populace from enemies within and without (those defined as such by the explicit Law of God and by no other standard). The civil magistrate can only respond to actual, concrete acts by an individual that violates the law: men are held civilly accountable for what they do, not for what they believe or what they are. One's deeds serve as the only criterion for governmental response. If a Christian and a Muslim both break the same law, the civil magistrate is to deal with them identically. God is no respecter of persons in this regard. The church's mission, as a ministry of grace (rather than of justice, which falls under the charter of the civil magistrate, not the Church), involves penetrating its mission field with the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation.
I am concerned when Christians blithely assume that God will act in judgment against Islam, considering that He has clearly revealed that judgment begins at the house of God. I regard that statement by the Apostle Peter to be paradigmatic. The church is failing in so much of its mission to the world. Paul claimed that he was guiltless of the blood of any man, since he had not failed to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We cannot echo his claim, which implies that we're not in the same blessed place as Paul occupied. Nothing less than unleashing the entire Bible on the hearts and minds of the peoples will secure its blessings to all.
The difference in outlook between Christianity and Islam can be summed up in a nutshell. Paul asserted that the true Jew is the one who is a Jew inwardly, while Mohammad held that one is a true Muslim who is one outwardly. Until this immense difference is fully grasped, until the appeal of religious externalism is appreciated, the preparation of counsel will be stultified and our responses will misfire.
Ultimately, obedience is better than sacrifice. Christians too often look for quick fixes and various forms of "sacrifice" to deal with perceived problems, but God had in mind something more painful: obey His commandments. As Psalm 127 makes clear, unless the Lord is involved, all labor and defense is in vain. Trusting in horses and chariots gets us in trouble: "Cursed is the man that trusts in man, that maketh flesh his arm." (Jer. 17:5) "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: of what account is he?" (Isa. 2:22) But Isaiah makes it clear that "upon all the glory shall be a defence" (Isa. 4:5). England's John Owen delivered a sermon on the text in the 17th century that still warrants our attention today in regard to the matters you've brought up in your inquiry.
For the King,
Martin Selbrede
P.S. When Martin Luther said he'd rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian, I suspect he intended this as a lament that so few competent Christians could be found. Things haven't changed much since he voiced that sentiment. Chalcedon is dedicated to reversing that decline, on the principle that "the entering in of Thy words giveth light." Paul taught that there are mightier weapons available than the carnal ones we tend to default to far too often. As Hengstenberg said, and as I'm fond of quoting, the Word of God is the solvent of all institutions not based on itself. This is the key.
Q: I was given a link to your site in a chatroom, shortly after someone was ranting about America going back to Christian values, rounding up all the gays and killing them "as per God's Word". That lunacy aside, I'm interested as to what Chalcedon would propose in order to deal with Islam, and in particular the rise of Islamic militancy (if indeed there is a difference).
A: Chalcedon has been subjected to stupendous distortions of its positions, distortions designed to discredit the Lord's work in this important ministry. Consequently, we are rightly sensitive about how any off-the-cuff statements may be used down the line. It is our preference to let the carefully argued positions in our various publications do the heavy lifting. I'm not imagining this issue: I traveled to New York in both April and October of 2005 to attend secularist conferences sponsored in part by the City University of New York Graduate Center that were rife with gross misrepresentations of Chalcedon's positions. I suspect even worse distortion would arise in connection with the hot potato you're calling attention to in your email. Therefore, my words herein constitute my personal reply to you and not an official statement by Chalcedon in any measure or capacity whatsoever.
There have been some individuals who have a favorable relationship, albeit a loose and unofficial one, with Chalcedon. Some of them have written on the issue of Islam, and Chalcedon is in general support of their positions (although we reserve the right to withdraw support if their position shifts to something untenable, however unlikely that may be).
For example, we find the work of Dr. Christine Schirrmacher, perhaps the most competent Christian involved in the study of Islam, to be exceptionally valuable. Her article in the Chalcedon publication "A Comprehensive Faith" delineated how liberal Christianity in the 19th century handed Islam some glorious victories with its sustained attack on the Bible's reliability. Just what Muslim apologists needed: ammunition provided by Christianity itself (so-called).
Also of interest is the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen's article about What Christians Can Learn from Muslims. As he points out, if you told a Muslim his faith was relevant only one day of the week, and the rest of the week he needed to conduct his life along secular lines, he'd laugh in your face. Until Christians re-adopt the totalism of St. Paul and begin taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:4-5), the 24-7 consistency of Muslim life will be a standing rebuke to the Church. As it is expressed in the second chapter of Jeremiah, the heathen worship their false gods with greater loyalty than Israel worships the true One. The indictment stings against us as well. God raises up such examples as a reproof to His own people.
Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, a long-time friend of the late Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, adopts a Historicist approach to the book of Revelation. Most approaches along this line (including Lee's) regard the ninth chapter of Revelation to be speaking of Islam. You will find this position going back to the Reformation and up through the 19th century (where one finds it in E.W. Hengsenberg's commentary on Revelation). Dr. Rushdoony himself, however, did not adopt the views of the Historicists regarding Revelation. He favored the Idealist view, as his own commentary attests, and he had some nominal interest in the Preterist approach as well. In either case, Chalcedon's founder did not see Islam mentioned as such in Revelation 9, although a few associates of his beyond the borders of Chalcedon have promoted that idea. You can find Dr. Lee's commentary on the Internet as a free download if you wish to see how he dealt with the issue.
Finally, the late Otto Scott was once a staff writer for Chalcedon. He was something of an independent voice at Chalcedon in many respects during his tenure. A noted Christian historian, he had written at length about the reversal of Islamic expansion (an expansion achieved by the sword) in Europe several hundred years ago, and was of the personal opinion that similar measures might possibly be required in the future. Europe cannot fight something with nothing. Its gross secularization has rendered it legitimately vulnerable to the appeal of Islam. Only a re-energized Christianity can confront Islam on the field of ideas, in the minds of men.
Let us consider the question you originally posed, "How would Chalcedon deal with Islamic militancy?" Chalcedon is a Christian educational foundation. As such, it doesn't usurp the Scriptural prerogative of the civil magistrate to defend the law-abiding populace from enemies within and without (those defined as such by the explicit Law of God and by no other standard). The civil magistrate can only respond to actual, concrete acts by an individual that violates the law: men are held civilly accountable for what they do, not for what they believe or what they are. One's deeds serve as the only criterion for governmental response. If a Christian and a Muslim both break the same law, the civil magistrate is to deal with them identically. God is no respecter of persons in this regard. The church's mission, as a ministry of grace (rather than of justice, which falls under the charter of the civil magistrate, not the Church), involves penetrating its mission field with the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation.
I am concerned when Christians blithely assume that God will act in judgment against Islam, considering that He has clearly revealed that judgment begins at the house of God. I regard that statement by the Apostle Peter to be paradigmatic. The church is failing in so much of its mission to the world. Paul claimed that he was guiltless of the blood of any man, since he had not failed to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We cannot echo his claim, which implies that we're not in the same blessed place as Paul occupied. Nothing less than unleashing the entire Bible on the hearts and minds of the peoples will secure its blessings to all.
The difference in outlook between Christianity and Islam can be summed up in a nutshell. Paul asserted that the true Jew is the one who is a Jew inwardly, while Mohammad held that one is a true Muslim who is one outwardly. Until this immense difference is fully grasped, until the appeal of religious externalism is appreciated, the preparation of counsel will be stultified and our responses will misfire.
Ultimately, obedience is better than sacrifice. Christians too often look for quick fixes and various forms of "sacrifice" to deal with perceived problems, but God had in mind something more painful: obey His commandments. As Psalm 127 makes clear, unless the Lord is involved, all labor and defense is in vain. Trusting in horses and chariots gets us in trouble: "Cursed is the man that trusts in man, that maketh flesh his arm." (Jer. 17:5) "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: of what account is he?" (Isa. 2:22) But Isaiah makes it clear that "upon all the glory shall be a defence" (Isa. 4:5). England's John Owen delivered a sermon on the text in the 17th century that still warrants our attention today in regard to the matters you've brought up in your inquiry.
For the King,
Martin Selbrede
P.S. When Martin Luther said he'd rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian, I suspect he intended this as a lament that so few competent Christians could be found. Things haven't changed much since he voiced that sentiment. Chalcedon is dedicated to reversing that decline, on the principle that "the entering in of Thy words giveth light." Paul taught that there are mightier weapons available than the carnal ones we tend to default to far too often. As Hengstenberg said, and as I'm fond of quoting, the Word of God is the solvent of all institutions not based on itself. This is the key.
