NRB

Confronting the ‘Islamophobia’ Bait

By Craig L. Parshall, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

“My zeal has consumed me,
Because my adversaries have forgotten Your words.”
Psalm 119:139

Much of the mainstream media has clearly thrown out the red-meat bait about America’s supposed intolerance of Islam. Now they are waiting for Americans, and more particularly Christian Americans, to bite. The “bait” comes in the form of shamelessly loaded questions that appear in the headlines of the national press. On August 19th, CBS.com ran this explosive headline: “Does America Hate Islam?” The August 30th cover of Time magazine asks: “Is American Islamophobic?” The Labor Day issue of The New York Times constructed that same argument-by-implication that we are religiously bigoted with this headline: “American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?” Meanwhile, as we approach the solemn remembrance of the 9/11 slaughter, the media has given full-time coverage to the opposition against the construction of a Mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero, and has aired every nuance about a pastor of a small church in Florida who has announced plans to burn copies of the Quran. Regarding the latter, our top anti-terror commander, General David Petraeus, has warned that it may endanger our mission in Afghanistan, and no less than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made reference to the Quran-burning as well. While the media plays fast-and-loose with innuendos about our alleged “intolerance,” the Christian Church needs to take a hard, Biblical look at this issue. Below is my modest proposal that we remember three main points.

Point #1: The facts show that Americans are amazingly accommodating toward Islam, amidst a chorus of cultural spokespersons who argue just the opposite. Unlike Switzerland, we do not have a ban on minarets. In fact, Santa Clara, California, has just approved a 64-foot Muslim minaret. Moreover, the United States has 27% more mosques than does Great Britain, even though we both have nearly identical Muslim populations. Ask religious liberty attorneys how often they have witnessed Christian churches arbitrarily denied building or expansion permits compared to Mosques or the houses of worship of other religions. According to polls, most Americans believe Muslims are patriotic and are not more dangerous than those from other faiths. A recent poll showed that 72% of Americans would see no problem with a Muslim serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. This is stunning, considering the legitimate concern that a Sharia-law observant Muslim would not be able to appreciate the Christian and Western world-view presuppositions that informed the Founders when they drafted the Constitution.

Point #2: There are occasions when Christians can coalesce with followers of Islam and other faith groups in matters of general social or political welfare. When the children of Israel labored under a despotic occupation by a pagan culture, God sent Jeremiah to tell them how to live. “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will have welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7). In City of God, Augustine argued that this kind of practical coalition-building can help achieve a certain measure of “temporal peace” that can help protect the Church of Christ so it can be free to do its work. He also linked that Old Testament verse to I Timothy 2:2, where Paul reminds us to pray for our leaders in government (regardless of their religious faith) to the practical end that we can be allowed to “lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” We can stand with Muslims and people of all faith (or no faith at all) on broad “welfare” issues such as the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and legitimate issues of religious liberty as an example; issues that go to the general “welfare” of the nation in which we live. But on the other hand, we should stand firmly against the manipulations of the media elite whenever they demand ill-advised, super-accommodations from Christians toward Islam (or any other religion) merely out of deference toward the current climate of cultural opinion.

Point #3: Christians are called upon to stand against the false ideas of the Islamic religious system, which is different than standing against all those who are within it. It is beyond debate that at least at its extreme outer perimeter (e.g., Saudi Arabia) Islam encourages the near-enslavement of woman, the moral blindness of men, and a false picture of God as wholly devoid of a redemptive heart and a loving intent. I have heard repeatedly from those who leave Islam and embrace Christ that the motivating factor for them was the understanding that God so loved them that He gave his Son, Jesus, as a sacrifice. We can never forget to show the love of Christ toward all men and woman, regardless of their religious profession. The Apostle Paul, after listing a long catalog of lifestyles (and worldviews) condemned by the Bible, reminds the church at Corinth, “such were some of you …” (I Corinthians 6:11). Having received grace, we must also show it. Nevertheless, there also remains for us in the Church a significant prophetic (i.e., forth-telling) role to play in America. The flip side of love is truth (Ephesians 4:15). If there was ever a time to teach, preach, and live out historic Christianity, and the Gospel message that is at its apex, without apology, it is now. And that will include, undoubtedly, speaking out against false religious systems. What will mark us as authentic followers of Jesus is how, and in which direction, we focus our “zeal” in the process.

Read further within NRB today...

THE NRB PRESIDENT'S BLOG

Creation Care or Stewardship? (Part One)

Many on the evangelical left are all aflutter about so-called Creation Care and the need for the church to establish new priorities and policies to address environmental problems. Most on the evangelical right are skeptical: Let’s see, you want me to divert resources from reaching the world with the life-saving Gospel of Jesus Christ and apply those resources to saving an earth that will be destroyed at the end of history?

While the above is a vast (and unfair?) oversimplification, it does at least set forth the primary division of the two views. Should the church focus primarily on the eternal destiny of lost men and women, as directed in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20)? Or should the church re-assume its neglected Creation Stewardship responsibilities, as directed in the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:28)?

From my perspective there are four significant reasons why the evangelical left’s Creation Care advocacy will likely have a very hard time getting the attention of traditional evangelicals.

Article continued...

First, Creation Care seems like a call away from evangelism. The evangelical left would not put it in those terms, but the call to “re-prioritize” the mission of the church can only be seen as a call to do more of one thing and less of another. Worse in the minds of some, the left seems to suggest that Creation Care deserves an equal priority with evangelism. Yet the Scripture clearly teaches that there are only two things that live forever: the Word of God and the souls of men and women.

Second is the reality of the resource constraints faced by every church. To many church leaders, the hard-edge politics of the Global Warming debate along with the emerging scandals of deliberate data manipulation, suggest this is a divisive public policy question – not an opportunity for engagement by the church. With the historic ministry commitments of the church, the limited resources available to do the work of ministry, and the press of life in general, it is easy to see why churches are likely to take a pass on the call to make Creation Care a missional priority.

Third is the eschatology (the doctrine of last things) embraced by many evangelical churches and their widely-held view that we may be approaching the “end” of the “End Times.” In this view, if the End Times are upon us, how could creation stewardship be meaningful? This stands as an enormous barrier to prioritizing creation stewardship. Of course, forecasting the timing of the unfolding of Last Things is a landscape littered with error. But current events in the Middle East are persuasive to many on this point.

Fourth is the view that Creation Care is idolatrous. One of the most disturbing aspects of the environmental movement is the extent to which it has become a religious movement in and of itself. Environmentalism has its doctrine, its sacraments and its worship – just like any other religion.

Professor Paul Rubin at Emory University goes even further. He argues that among the religious aspects of environmentalism are:

1. A holy day (Earth Day);
2. Food taboos (Eat organic!);
3. Self-sacrificing rituals (Recycling);
4. Sacred structures (Recycling bins);
5. Proselytizing (Efforts to “convert” others); and
6. Subjective belief systems (Global Warming is a theory impervious to facts).

To most evangelicals, all this suggests a movement that worships the created thing rather than the Creator. The evangelical left does little to disabuse this notion when they argue that part of our calling is to “serve” the earth.

From a biblical perspective, it is safe to say that Jesus (through whom all things were made) would not be pleased with the wanton destruction of the creation the Father called “good.” But nor would He be pleased with an idolatrous view of Creation Care that diminishes the church’s commitment to reach the world with the Gospel.

In the end, Christ’s own words bring clarity:

Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! (Luke 12:24)

Yet this same teaching where Christ declares man to be more valuable than other creatures leads us to profound reasons why evangelicals cannot ignore Creation Stewardship altogether.

This will be the topic next time . . .

Read further within Defining Vectors...

Note: Congress is in recess from August 9 - September 12, 2010.

DISCLOSE Act: Danger Looms for Associations

By Frank Wright, Ph.D., President/CEO

There is a lot to consider as we wrap up seven months of Congressional activity in Washington, D.C., prior to this year’s lengthy August recess. With November’s elections looming, many pundits are claiming that poll results will be a referendum on the policies of President Barack Obama. Yet the party “in control” in Congress historically loses seats in the first midterm election, so absent a landslide it will be difficult to tell whether or not voters approve of the President’s policies. And while many demonstrations around the country seem to point to dissatisfaction, proof will only be shown in the ballot box.

No one can ignore the fact that the 111th Congress has been historic. To date, it has approved massive spending packages and doubled the federal deficit. Congress also passed a form of government-run health care that is unique in our nation’s 234-year history. While the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were fighting over the details of the U.S. Constitution 220 years ago, both groups would no doubt be shocked by the size and scope of the federal government today.

Article continued...

This week, the Senate dealt with the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act (H.R. 5175/S. 3628), legislation that would have the effect of dramatically limiting the free speech of non-profit issue advocacy groups and individual American citizens alike. The DISCLOSE Act was written as a reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v F.E.C., and demands that organizations divulge their membership lists to the government. It would also require organizations to disclose certain donor names on their website and in political advertising. (You may read more in my letter to the Senate here, and in an analysis by our Sr. Vice President and General Counsel Craig Parshall here.)

Since there are vocal factions in the Democrat Party committed to re-introducing onerous campaign finance laws, a Congressional attempt to negate the High Court’s decision is not surprising. It is also not surprising given the level of President Barack Obama’s commitment to this issue. During his January 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama looked at the Supreme Court Justices sitting in front of him and publicly took them to task for their decision in the Citizens United case. That was an unprecedented bit of political theater – Supreme Court Justices attend the State of the Union address only as a sign of respect to the Office of the President. They never clap or show any emotion since their very presence only serves to highlight their position as representatives of our nation’s third and impartial branch of government, rather than signaling tacit approval of the current President or his policies. For the President to call out the Supreme Court Justices in such a manner – as if he or the Executive Branch had the authority – was a surprising turn of events.

So given the President’s political commitment to the DISCLOSE Act, it was good news this week when the Senate took a procedural “cloture” vote and this truly nefarious legislation failed 57-41. A 60-vote majority was needed in order to “win” cloture and move to a Floor vote, so for the moment, the DISCLOSE Act is on hold. Tuesday’s victory was a direct reflection of the efforts of American citizens and organizations that are determined to protect First Amendment free speech, and we thank those of you who contacted your Senators about the DISCLOSE Act. However, this is not a politically dead issue in Congress and may resurface again in the Senate before the end of the 111th Congress. Please continue to pray for our elected officials, on every side of the political aisle, as they wrestle with legislation that will profoundly affect our nation for decades to come. Please also pray for NRB’s Government Relations and Legal Departments as they stand on the front line every day, representing First Amendment issues so that you may remain free to present the Gospel of Christ to a lost and dying world.