Christian Dominion vs. Islamic Dominion
I'm a little taken aback at times by the underlying tone in many reformed-theonomic leaders as it relates to Islam and the War on Terror. Post 9/11 it's as if everyone's eyes are finally opened to the true threat to Christianity -- Islam. These are the same leaders who regularly decried the threat of Communism and the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and offered not much by way of Islam. It begs the question, "is this not similar to the changing anti-christs of dispensational leaders?" Are not dispensationalist doomsayers the ones who usually change out the identity of the Beast with each new decade? Why then are responsible postmillennialists towing the line of the warfare state and Zionism by demonizing Islam?
This clip from Vision Forum's History of the World Conference features a portion of George Grant's* lecture on The Crusades in which he contemporizes and sanitizes the efforts of the Pope's legions in the Middle Ages to obstruct the expansion of Muslim dynasties. The obvious hermeneutic is to draw implications for our present conflict with Islam. Before the end of the clip Grant is clear to mention the necessity for preaching the Gospel to the new legions of Muslims -- he did not mention a struggle of swords. Yet, this only makes this a neo-Crusade, and offers no restraint on the preemptive invasion of Arabic nations.
I was particularly puzzled by the following quote taken from the clip of Grant's speech:
So I ask, "is Islam a genuine threat?" Are Christian leaders confusing the radicalized rhetoric of the Mullahs with the millions of Arabs occupied with living their lives in peace? Are we neglecting even the reason for much of the radical Islamic rhetoric? Will any conservative Christian dare proclaim that the Palestinian people are living in the largest concentration camp in history? Isn't the continual blind support of Zionism on the part of the U.S. equivalent to dousing a campfire with a gas hose?
I support Dr. Grant's desire to reach Muslims with the Gospel. However, to couch that evangelism in the context of the Crusades is unwise. This type of speech only echoes the war propaganda and reinforces the ambivalence of an already obtuse church unable to recognize the threat of American tyranny, the error of American exceptionalism, and the rise of neo-imperialism.
*Note: I've long admired and enjoyed George Grant's writing and ministry. I still do. He's been a significant player in strengthening the Christian community for genuine Christian service. I disagree with him in all respect.
This clip from Vision Forum's History of the World Conference features a portion of George Grant's* lecture on The Crusades in which he contemporizes and sanitizes the efforts of the Pope's legions in the Middle Ages to obstruct the expansion of Muslim dynasties. The obvious hermeneutic is to draw implications for our present conflict with Islam. Before the end of the clip Grant is clear to mention the necessity for preaching the Gospel to the new legions of Muslims -- he did not mention a struggle of swords. Yet, this only makes this a neo-Crusade, and offers no restraint on the preemptive invasion of Arabic nations.
I was particularly puzzled by the following quote taken from the clip of Grant's speech:
"You see, Mohammed, believed that ultimately the works-righteousness -- the ideological system of Islam -- depended upon global conquest. Faithfulness was measured, not simply by the adherence to the Five Pillars, it was measured by the pursuit of this radical agenda."How similar is this radical ideology of Mohammed to a younger George Grant:
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.I honestly do not see the ideological difference between what Grant is suggesting in this citation, and what he expresses concern over in regards to Islam's ambitions. To isolate it to the use of violence is insufficient. The paradigms of both sides can justify violence. The paranoid secularist reads this portion of Grant and links it with the political activism and lobbying of the Religious Right in order to assemble a frightening monster of religious fascism. But, Grant would likely be the first to argue that there is no theocratic conspiracy. That what appears to be a clear link between him and Jerry Falwell is no connection at all. In other words, don't confuse the rhetoric or ideology of certain radical thinkers with the mass of conservative Christianity.
It is dominion we are afier. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.
George Grant, The Changing of the Guard (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), pp. 50-51
So I ask, "is Islam a genuine threat?" Are Christian leaders confusing the radicalized rhetoric of the Mullahs with the millions of Arabs occupied with living their lives in peace? Are we neglecting even the reason for much of the radical Islamic rhetoric? Will any conservative Christian dare proclaim that the Palestinian people are living in the largest concentration camp in history? Isn't the continual blind support of Zionism on the part of the U.S. equivalent to dousing a campfire with a gas hose?
I support Dr. Grant's desire to reach Muslims with the Gospel. However, to couch that evangelism in the context of the Crusades is unwise. This type of speech only echoes the war propaganda and reinforces the ambivalence of an already obtuse church unable to recognize the threat of American tyranny, the error of American exceptionalism, and the rise of neo-imperialism.
*Note: I've long admired and enjoyed George Grant's writing and ministry. I still do. He's been a significant player in strengthening the Christian community for genuine Christian service. I disagree with him in all respect.
