© 2014 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
On January 7, two gunmen, later identified as Muslim extremists, burst into
the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly magazine
that has frequently mocked religions including Islam, killing 12 people and
wounding 11 others. Shortly afterward, another terrorist, later determined to
be connected to the first two, killed four people in a kosher supermarket.
Subsequently, all three were eventually tracked down by French police and
killed in two gun battles.The attacks have been characterized as an assault on freedom of the press, and governments in the western world and beyond have condemned them. Many people around the world, including some in Islamic countries, have stood in solidarity with the magazine, posting signs saying "I am Charlie." Some Islamic publications have expressed similar solidarity. This week, for example, an Iranian newspaper was shut down by Iranian authorities for doing so.
Despite such displays of support for Charlie Hebdo, which means "Charlie Weekly," that magazine is not an example of a free press at its best. Writing in The Atlantic, Paris-based reporter Scott Sayare says that the magazine is "intolerant of religion and believers of all sorts, and smug in those anticlerical convictions. Dialogue with its opponents was never of much interest, and it has repeatedly chosen to target some of France's most vulnerable inhabitants for provocation." Others have pointed out that there is no U.S. equivalent of Charlie Hebdo.
.
As an example of such provocation, Sayare notes, "In 2011, after Catholic extremists in the city of Avignon vandalized 'Piss Christ,' the photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in urine, Charlie Hebdo produced a cover cartoon featuring rolls of toilet paper labeled 'Bible,' 'Koran,' and 'Torah.' The headline read: 'In the shitter, all the religions.'"
This was actually one of the tamer covers. A more typical, anti-Christian cover showed a naked Jesus -- complete with a crown of thorns and nail holes in hands and feet -- having anal sex with an old man with a white beard (labeled "the father") whose robe is suitably hitched up, while Jesus is simultaneously on the receiving end of a triangle with an eye (labeled "the holy spirit") doing the same thing to him. The title referred to the archbishop of Paris having "three daddies," the persons of the Trinity.
But for supporters of freedom of speech and of a free press, the merits or lack thereof of Charlie Hebdo are beside the point. Irreverent and provocative content does not warrant or excuse a murderous attack, and those who perpetrated this atrocity were committing a crime. To be truly free, people must have the freedom to say disgusting and insulting words, and the press must have room even for publications with bad taste and inflammatory content.
Most informed observers see the Paris attacks as part of a larger worldview (*see definitions below) that has driven many terrorist attacks in recent decades, including 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings and many others.
Writing in his blog, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, "The massacre in Paris is yet another sign that a good portion of the world's population operates by a very different worldview and by a very different moral code. There is a form of rationality evident in the ... larger context of Islamic terrorism, and in particular in the attack upon the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. But that rationality is the rationality of Islam, not of the Western worldview; certainly not of the modern Western secular worldview."
Mohler may be sweeping with too large a broom when he blames "the rationality of Islam," without narrowing it to the rationality of radical Islam. But we think Mohler is correct in characterizing that rationality as based on a very different perspective from that which much of the rest of the world holds.
As one measure of that worldview difference, consider how people view human life and what they need to feel justified in taking another person's life. Generally, we in the western world value human life, and to take one, it must be either for defensive purposes or because of a crime, and then only after due process. In contrast, those involved in jihadism, radical terrorism and the like apparently can feel justified taking scores or even thousands of lives, even of people who are no threat to them and are not involved in their struggle, if they can see that life-taking as advancing their goals.
From that point of view, terrorists likely do not see themselves as doing evil but as taking action toward their goals, which they view as right, and perhaps even believe they are called by Allah (the Arabic word for "God") to do.
As another measure of worldview difference, consider the comments of extremist Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, who has known ties to Islamic terrorism. Following the Paris murders, USA Today, like many other publications, ran an editorial condemning the attacks. Choudary then wrote to the newspaper in response to the editorial, and USA Today decided to publish it to show the motivations behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
In his response, Choudary wrote, "Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires." He went on to essentially defend the Paris attacks.
Mohler also points us to an article last October in The Washington Post, which said, "Iraq and Syria, Choudary says confidently, are only the beginning. The Islamic State's signature black flag will fly over 10 Downing Street, not to mention the White House. And it won't happen peacefully, but only after a great battle that is now underway."
The Post article cites Choudary as saying, "We believe there will be complete domination of the world by Islam. That may sound like some kind of James Bond movie -- you know, Dr. No and world domination and all that. But we believe it."
Is that likely to happen? No. But will it be a perspective that continues to foment new terrorist acts? Almost certainly. It's a clash of worldviews.
In TWW team discussions, we have talked about how Christians as individuals might respond across this worldview gulf, and we agree that the teachings of Jesus -- including "love your enemies," "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you ..." -- still apply in our personal relationships. This does not preclude defending others and ourselves against oppression -- God normally works through people in this world. How specifically those teachings might be practiced across a worldview chasm, should the occasion arise, is something for which we will need to rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
How governments, on the other hand, respond to terrorism that grows out of opposing worldviews needs to be driven by the reasons for which governments exist, including ensuring the security of their citizens, enforcing laws and pursuing and punishing those who commit serious crimes. And governments really have to deal with this because the problem of terrorism is too big for individuals to do much about on their own.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Theological Extremism in a Secular Age. Albert Mohler blog
The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders. The New Yorker
People Know the Consequences: Opposing View. USA Today
There Is No 'Charlie Hebdo' in America. New Republic
The 'Charlie Hebdo' I Know. The Atlantic
Iranian Newspaper Shut Down for Showing Solidarity With Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian
In Britain, Islamist Extremist Anjem Choudary Proves Elusive. Washington Post
* Online dictionaries give the following definitions of worldview:
• "a theory of the world, used for living in the world. ... a mental model of reality -- a framework of ideas and attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs."
• "1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group."
The Big Questions
1. What significant beliefs mark your worldview? To what degree is your worldview in line with the kingdom of God? Where, if anywhere, does it differ? Why? When you were young, did you consider the worldview you inherited the "only" worldview? When did you realize there were others? Have you tested your worldview against others?
2. How should Christians who are direct victims of terrorist atrocities respond? How should Christians at a safe distance from those atrocities respond? What effect might the reaction of those Christians who live at a safe distance have on those who live at "ground zero"?
3. Can you articulate the worldview of those who seem opposed to western values in a way that makes sense? In what ways, if any, does understanding the worldview of terrorists help us, and how?
4. How do you handle a one-on-one relationship where your views on political, religious, social, family or other issues differ widely from those held by the other person? Is it possible to remain in a relationship or friendship when you do not agree on key life issues? Why or why not, and give examples.
5. Are there occasions when the idea of "us" vs. "them" might be a Christian way to respond to world events? Explain your answer.
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
John 18:36
My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here. (For context, read 18:28-38.)
This is Jesus' response to Pontius Pilate when the latter was questioning him after his arrest. Pilate first asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" and Jesus responded by asking if Pilate was speaking for himself or repeating what others said. Pilate then observed, "Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me." And he added, "What have you done?" (vv. 33-35). At that, Jesus answered with the words above.
In effect, Jesus' response was that he was operating from a different worldview than were the chief priests. As one difference, he hadn't come to achieve a position of fame or privilege; he came "to testify to the truth" (v. 37). Thus, he viewed almost everything that was happening to him at that point in a different light and as accomplishing a different purpose.
Question: Where does what Jesus said here connect for you? Was there a time when, because of your commitment to follow Jesus, you realized you were interpreting the world around you differently from how you had previously? If so, what specifically about your discipleship caused the change?
Define the values of the kingdom of God. Do its borders match the world's? Where do the kingdom of God and our society intersect? Where do they part ways?
Acts 17:22-23
Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, "Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." (For context, read 17:16-34.)
In Athens, the apostle Paul had an opportunity to address some intelligentsia (v. 18) who'd not heard before about Jesus. Paul used that opening to proclaim the gospel, but did so using a point of connection his audience would understand: their altar to "an unknown God."
The group gave Paul a polite hearing, but it was not a wildly successful encounter. Most of his hearers were not convinced (v. 32), but that's not surprising, for Paul held a different worldview than they did. Under the circumstances, it's remarkable that even a few were converted (v. 34). Both psychology and our experience tell us how difficult it is to even consider something that goes against one's worldview, much less to change the worldview.
Questions: Have you ever been in a conversation about Jesus with someone who was frankly skeptical? How did it go? What did you conclude from it? How did/do you go about establishing a connection with someone who has no connection with church and Bible? What "scripture" do all people, regardless of belief or disbelief, have in common?
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (For context, read 55:6-13.)
TWW team member Liz Antonson comments: "There is a significant difference to be noted when the worldviews of people clash with the 'view' of God -- God's comprehensive intention for humankind. God doesn't have a theory of the world. God doesn't ponder whether he exists. God doesn't query what is morally correct. God declares what is so. When worldviews clash with God's revelation to humankind, it is not the same as when the worldviews of the people of his world clash."
Questions: When have you become aware that how you view the world and your role in it is different from how God declares it to be? Were/are you willing to abandon your ways for God's ways? How easy or hard is that? How can you discern the will of God?
Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (For context, read 13:1-7.)
We said in the "In the News" section that governments need to be the primary responders to terrorism, and the verses above from Paul offer a rationale for that.
Questions: Although governments are as prone to corruption and abuse of power as are other human institutions, and the Roman government of Paul's day was no exception, why do you think Paul so clearly supported them?
Paul would eventually be executed by that state. How do we recognize the line between cooperation with and resistance to political authorities?
Matthew 7:12
In everything do to others as you would have them do to you ... (No context necessary.)
Here's Jesus' command we call the Golden Rule. It is not by any means all that Jesus taught, but it does encapsulate much of the Sermon on the Mount; he also says it sums up "the law and the prophets" (v. 12b), what we call the Old Testament. We said above that for individual Christians facing terrorism, the teachings of Jesus still apply.
Questions: What about when another person's worldview goal threatens your existence or the life of a loved one? What is the difference between an existential threat and a philosophical one? What might we learn from Jesus, and how do we discern when different areas of guidance apply?
For Further Discussion
1. In light of terrorism, comment on Jesus' words in Matthew 10:28: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
2. Author Isaac Asimov, when asked why he thought his novels did so well, said that there were no villains in them. That didn't mean there were no bad guys. But he believed no one was a villain in their own mind. How does Asimov's comment illustrate worldview?
3. Comment on this: Author J.R.R. Tolkien, who survived the brutal war in the trenches in World War I because he got very ill and was hospitalized, held no animus against the German people, and later, when his nation fought against Germany again in World War II, he insisted that the enemy was not Germany or German culture, and that Germans were not intrinsically evil. The war was against the worldview of the Nazis.
4. Comment on our constitutional right in the United States to free speech and free press in light of 1 Corinthians 10:23: "'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up." Discuss also this, from TWW team member Mack Crumpler: "While Charlie Hebdo was within the bounds of human rights, they were outside the bounds of responsibility. They blew it on stewardship. God gave us the right of free speech and he can take it away if we use it unwisely or recklessly or irresponsibly."
5. Read Matthew 4:1-11, and discuss how Jesus' temptations were a worldview clash.
6. Is it okay to criticize another person's belief? Are you okay with someone criticizing your belief? What should be our response when someone criticizes our belief or pokes fun at God?
Responding to the News
We should pray often for our government leaders and those charged with national security who must make day-after-day decisions to deal with the ongoing threat of terrorism.
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment