Muslim's Praying in the National Cathedral is Taking Tolerance Too Far.
America is an exceptional nation. We are exceptional because while some people have more obstacles in their journey than others, any American who gets an education and works diligently has an opportunity to improve their lot in life. Further we are the only nation who has increased our influence in the world without consolidating our power and conquering territories and peoples. We have used our power to liberate other nations and peoples. We have had many great days in America and many sad ones. But last Friday, November 7, 2014 was one of the saddest days in American history.
It was a sad day indeed when Muslim Prayers were held in the National Cathedral. The national cathedral is the prominent Christian center in America. Many prominent Americans including President Woodrow Wilson are buried there. It represents the Christian heritage and values of our nation. While far from being a theocracy or wholly Christian, there is no doubt that the Christian faith has had a strong influence on our nation. The Bible is the foundation of our legal system. Our founding documents are replete with Christian and covenantal language. While any nation that follows Christian teaching will show forbearance to other faiths embracing them dishonors the Christian faith and dishonors God.
Washington's term tolerance had a very different meaning from the politically correct religious tolerance that was on display at the National Cathedral last week. Tolerance did not demand that Jewish Americans embrace Christians or conversely that Christians endorse and engage in Judaism. It did allowed for the giving or taking of offense. Washington encouraged liberty of conscience and mutual citizenship while celebrating distinction in and religious expression and participation. He made it clear that Jews and Christians (and by implication Muslims) could maintain their distinct beliefs and practices and separate lifestyles while showing forbearance to one another. He continued:
"May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."
It was a sad day indeed when Muslim Prayers were held in the National Cathedral. The national cathedral is the prominent Christian center in America. Many prominent Americans including President Woodrow Wilson are buried there. It represents the Christian heritage and values of our nation. While far from being a theocracy or wholly Christian, there is no doubt that the Christian faith has had a strong influence on our nation. The Bible is the foundation of our legal system. Our founding documents are replete with Christian and covenantal language. While any nation that follows Christian teaching will show forbearance to other faiths embracing them dishonors the Christian faith and dishonors God.
Shortly after his inauguration President George Washington visited Newport, Rhode Island, a predominantly Jewish town, that had lost many of its son's in the Revolution. They were invaded and occupied by the British; many of its residents had fled the city due to their Torrie loyalties. The city's 19th century economy never recovered. As part of the ceremony welcoming Washington Moses Seixas, Warden of Congregation Kahul Kadosh Yeshuat Israel known today as the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island penned an epistle welcoming the President to the city. Washington's famous reply helps to define religions diversity in America:
He wrote, "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens."
Washington's term tolerance had a very different meaning from the politically correct religious tolerance that was on display at the National Cathedral last week. Tolerance did not demand that Jewish Americans embrace Christians or conversely that Christians endorse and engage in Judaism. It did allowed for the giving or taking of offense. Washington encouraged liberty of conscience and mutual citizenship while celebrating distinction in and religious expression and participation. He made it clear that Jews and Christians (and by implication Muslims) could maintain their distinct beliefs and practices and separate lifestyles while showing forbearance to one another. He continued:
"May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."
While acting with good will toward others and without "bigotry toward others,"we could" each sit under "our own fig tree," preserving our distinct attitudes, beliefs and practices. Tolerance as Washington defined it required neither the acceptance, approval or embracing of values and beliefs different from your own, nor the combining of religious services. As Washington used the term "tolerance" people can hold differences of opinion and even disagree and express religion differently while showing good will, and without bigotry. Tolerance as used to today often involves approving and accepting things which you are against for the benefit of "getting along." This is not what Washington advocated. A biblical term that distinguishes Washington's brand of tolerance from its contemporary use is "forbearance."
American exceptional-ism shows forbearance to Islam. Since the first US mosgue was built in North Dakota in 1934, and the oldest mosque still in operation was built five years later at the end 1939, the United State has had a history of befriending, supporting and liberating Muslim people. The US built the oil industry in North Africa and the Middle East and returned it to the African and Arab countries for their own development and eventual prosperity. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I the Balfour Declaration of the victorious countries allowed Middle Eastern sects to establish the new nations that would occupy the Arab peninsula. Neither the US, nor any allied nation attempted to impose, it's culture or religion on of the Muslim nations. The only point of tension was that the Balfour Declaration established the country of Palestine or Transjordan as a place for the Jews to live safely among the Middle Eastern peoples. With the collapse of the European economy during the depression Islamic people started coming to the the US for the prosperity it offered, to get away from sectarian in fighting between Shia and Sunni, and the rise Nazism which was no friend of Islam.
While Hitler exploited the Arab nations anti-British colonial attitudes, the reality was Hitler considered Muslims to be sub-human. The Allied victories in North Africa saved the Muslim World from potential genocide and allowed the current Arab nations to rise and thrive. In 1948 as part of the United Nations charter the allied powers divided the then Transjordan into the nation of Israel and Jordan, providing separate national states for those living in Palestine and the Jews. In the early 1990's we liberated the nation of Kuwait from an oppressive Arab secular dictator. Later in the decade the United States joined with European Union nations to liberate Bosnia-Herzegovina from an oppressive genocidal Christian government. After 911 we removed the Tali-ban from its oppressive control of Afghanistan and Iraq leaving Muslims government in its place . The United States has done more to liberate Muslim people to practice their way of life freely than any nation on the earth, including their own governments. Yet our forbearance for Islam in no way requires a blending or Islam and Christianity that is in practice syncretism.
Those who invited the Muslim group into the National Cathedral may be well intended. They may be seeking to be conciliatory towards Muslim. They would probably assume that their expression of tolerance represents the way Jesus responded to those of different religion and ethnicity and is Christian-spirited. Although He respected people's liberty of conscience and sought no harm to those with whom he differed, Jesus showed forbearance without approval or acceptance of those with whom he disagreed:
First examine how Jesus related to the Samaritan woman. The Samaritan's were an ethnic group that practiced a false syncretistic religion that combined elements of Judaism with paganism. Due to Solomon's duplicitous worship of other gods the prophet Ahijah predicted that after he died his Kingdom would divide with 2 tribes remaining loyal to Solomon's son Rehoboam and 10 would follow his servant Jeroboam. Jeroboam was promised that if he exclusively followed Jehovah he would become heir of the covenant blessings (1 King 11:26-40). Following the division of the nation Jeroboam became convinced that if he turned back to God the people would turn back to Rehoboam and reunite. He built a counterfeit altar to God and combined the worship of Jehovah with evil pagan worship rites attempting to separate the Jews from Jehovah (1 Kings 12:25-33). God brought judgment on these 10 Northern tribes of Israel. They were conquered by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. A small population that had been deported in 722 BC from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, were brought back by Shalmaneser, intermarried with the Gentiles, and re-established the counterfeit worship of Jeroboam on Mt Gerizim where Abraham is thought to have offered Issac. The Samaritans were a disenfranchised minority in the first century.
When Jesus met the the Samaritan woman he showed her great forbearance but acted quite differently from than those practitioners of today's religious tolerance (John 4:7-15). She was surprised that he interacted with her. She gave him a drink he offered her the water of life. Denouncing her adulterous relationship (John 4:16-17), Jesus makes no apology for offending her. She defensively asks him whose religion was the right one. Jesus told her that the path to salvation came through the Jews, in other words, he declared her religion to be counterfeit, and he, himself, to be the Messiah:
"The woman said to him, 'Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.' Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.' The woman said to him, 'I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things., Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am he.' (John 4:19-26 ESV)" Notice his response , "you worship what you do not know," that is, a pagan syncretistic religion that was false and deceptive. The Jews worshiped "what we know," that is, what had been revealed to them from God, "for salvation is from the Jews." He made it very clear that entering into a covenant relationship with God through him was the only way to God (John 14:6). Although Jesus showed respect of the woman's freedom of conscience and showed a surprising forbearance and respect for her (John 4:27), he neither embraced her false beliefs or harmful behaviors. He never apologized for offending her. Those who use the term tolerance to mean granting acceptance or approval of false or harmful beliefs or behavior without giving or taking offense fail to use the term the way George Washington used it or the way Jesus demonstrated.
In a second example, the incident ot The Syro-Phoenican woman:, Jesus forbearance shows his disagreement, or disapproval of someone's lifestyle while using harsh strong language.
"And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, ,Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she answered him, 'Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.' And he said to her, 'For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.' And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone. (Mark 7:24-30 ESV)"
A Syrophecian was a Gentile of modern day Syria. Her people were common enemies of Israel. When she came to him and asked him to exorcise her demon-possessed daughter he said, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.'' He says "the children," that is, the Jews the children of Israel were more deserving of healing than were Gentiles. Further he calls her ethnic groups "dogs." Dogs were undomesticated wild scavengers and general nuisances in 1st century Israel, calling someone or a race of people dogs was a demeaning racial slur, equivalent to using the "n-word." Rather than being conciliatory or embracing her Jesus spoke in harsh terms highlighting their differences in beliefs, values an status. In modern parlance this would have been intolerant speech. Had Jesus been an NBA owner he would have been forced to divest himself of his team.
Rather than taking offense the woman admitted her unworthiness her humility. Jesus healed the daughter. The essence of saving grace is humble repentance before God. Salvation comes to those who deserve it least. Although I do not encourage treating people diminutively or speaking to them disrespectfully words used emotionally even hyperbolically, that may offend, may not be intolerant. Sometimes they strong language is necessary to shake someone out of their apathy or complacency or to show the depth of a speaker's feeling or conviction. I can show forbearance to someone and disagree or disapprove of either their belief or behavior. Taking offense is their choice, I am not responsible for how people respond to truth.
The truth made it very clear how wide the separation was between her and God and how hopeless her situation was apart from his grace. Had this woman rejected Jesus because she chose to be offended, rather than considering the veracity of his statement, her daughter would have remained in the clutches of Satan. Disguising the truth, speaking in euphemism or politically correctly may enable a person to continue in false beliefs or act inappropriately. Offending someone is not necessarily intolerant. Forbearance speaks the truth with graciousness, no matter how hard the truth is to accept. No one is served when the truth is compromised.
Political Correctness creates a counterfeit reality that diminishes important differences and problems, and hides the feeling, values and opinions of the speaker. It disrespects values and priorities of the individual or ethnic group. When the National Cathedral hosts Muslims prayer it is a truly sad day for America, both religions are diminished and the truth is denied. The Christian value or exclusive worship of God is compromised. Like the Samaritans and the Syro-Phoenicians one need not embrace false religion to advance spiritual peaceful relationships especially when doing so violates the Second commandment.
The nation of Israel was repeatedly judged for recognizing and embracing false Gods. In neither incident above did Jesus make any attempt to reconcile his teaching with the teaching of the day. The Episcopalian leaders who brought Muslims into a place of worship are bringing a false deity into a place set aside for the worship of the One True God. It could bring God's judgment on the nation. Before anyone argues that the age of grace operates by different rules let us not forget that Jesus came to fulfill the law not abolish it (Matthew 5:17); Paul advised that the Old Testament was written for the instruction of the church (Romans 15:4), and the oft quoted text that God gave all scripture to teach us how to live is a reference to the Old Testament text (2 Timothy 3:16 &17). The warning against syncretism applies to us today as much as it did then. Inviting Muslims into the National Cathedral is a turning away from the true God that will have dire consequences for our nation.
While Hitler exploited the Arab nations anti-British colonial attitudes, the reality was Hitler considered Muslims to be sub-human. The Allied victories in North Africa saved the Muslim World from potential genocide and allowed the current Arab nations to rise and thrive. In 1948 as part of the United Nations charter the allied powers divided the then Transjordan into the nation of Israel and Jordan, providing separate national states for those living in Palestine and the Jews. In the early 1990's we liberated the nation of Kuwait from an oppressive Arab secular dictator. Later in the decade the United States joined with European Union nations to liberate Bosnia-Herzegovina from an oppressive genocidal Christian government. After 911 we removed the Tali-ban from its oppressive control of Afghanistan and Iraq leaving Muslims government in its place . The United States has done more to liberate Muslim people to practice their way of life freely than any nation on the earth, including their own governments. Yet our forbearance for Islam in no way requires a blending or Islam and Christianity that is in practice syncretism.
Those who invited the Muslim group into the National Cathedral may be well intended. They may be seeking to be conciliatory towards Muslim. They would probably assume that their expression of tolerance represents the way Jesus responded to those of different religion and ethnicity and is Christian-spirited. Although He respected people's liberty of conscience and sought no harm to those with whom he differed, Jesus showed forbearance without approval or acceptance of those with whom he disagreed:
First examine how Jesus related to the Samaritan woman. The Samaritan's were an ethnic group that practiced a false syncretistic religion that combined elements of Judaism with paganism. Due to Solomon's duplicitous worship of other gods the prophet Ahijah predicted that after he died his Kingdom would divide with 2 tribes remaining loyal to Solomon's son Rehoboam and 10 would follow his servant Jeroboam. Jeroboam was promised that if he exclusively followed Jehovah he would become heir of the covenant blessings (1 King 11:26-40). Following the division of the nation Jeroboam became convinced that if he turned back to God the people would turn back to Rehoboam and reunite. He built a counterfeit altar to God and combined the worship of Jehovah with evil pagan worship rites attempting to separate the Jews from Jehovah (1 Kings 12:25-33). God brought judgment on these 10 Northern tribes of Israel. They were conquered by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. A small population that had been deported in 722 BC from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, were brought back by Shalmaneser, intermarried with the Gentiles, and re-established the counterfeit worship of Jeroboam on Mt Gerizim where Abraham is thought to have offered Issac. The Samaritans were a disenfranchised minority in the first century.
When Jesus met the the Samaritan woman he showed her great forbearance but acted quite differently from than those practitioners of today's religious tolerance (John 4:7-15). She was surprised that he interacted with her. She gave him a drink he offered her the water of life. Denouncing her adulterous relationship (John 4:16-17), Jesus makes no apology for offending her. She defensively asks him whose religion was the right one. Jesus told her that the path to salvation came through the Jews, in other words, he declared her religion to be counterfeit, and he, himself, to be the Messiah:
"The woman said to him, 'Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.' Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.' The woman said to him, 'I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things., Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am he.' (John 4:19-26 ESV)" Notice his response , "you worship what you do not know," that is, a pagan syncretistic religion that was false and deceptive. The Jews worshiped "what we know," that is, what had been revealed to them from God, "for salvation is from the Jews." He made it very clear that entering into a covenant relationship with God through him was the only way to God (John 14:6). Although Jesus showed respect of the woman's freedom of conscience and showed a surprising forbearance and respect for her (John 4:27), he neither embraced her false beliefs or harmful behaviors. He never apologized for offending her. Those who use the term tolerance to mean granting acceptance or approval of false or harmful beliefs or behavior without giving or taking offense fail to use the term the way George Washington used it or the way Jesus demonstrated.
In a second example, the incident ot The Syro-Phoenican woman:, Jesus forbearance shows his disagreement, or disapproval of someone's lifestyle while using harsh strong language.
"And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, ,Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she answered him, 'Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.' And he said to her, 'For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.' And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone. (Mark 7:24-30 ESV)"
A Syrophecian was a Gentile of modern day Syria. Her people were common enemies of Israel. When she came to him and asked him to exorcise her demon-possessed daughter he said, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.'' He says "the children," that is, the Jews the children of Israel were more deserving of healing than were Gentiles. Further he calls her ethnic groups "dogs." Dogs were undomesticated wild scavengers and general nuisances in 1st century Israel, calling someone or a race of people dogs was a demeaning racial slur, equivalent to using the "n-word." Rather than being conciliatory or embracing her Jesus spoke in harsh terms highlighting their differences in beliefs, values an status. In modern parlance this would have been intolerant speech. Had Jesus been an NBA owner he would have been forced to divest himself of his team.
Rather than taking offense the woman admitted her unworthiness her humility. Jesus healed the daughter. The essence of saving grace is humble repentance before God. Salvation comes to those who deserve it least. Although I do not encourage treating people diminutively or speaking to them disrespectfully words used emotionally even hyperbolically, that may offend, may not be intolerant. Sometimes they strong language is necessary to shake someone out of their apathy or complacency or to show the depth of a speaker's feeling or conviction. I can show forbearance to someone and disagree or disapprove of either their belief or behavior. Taking offense is their choice, I am not responsible for how people respond to truth.
The truth made it very clear how wide the separation was between her and God and how hopeless her situation was apart from his grace. Had this woman rejected Jesus because she chose to be offended, rather than considering the veracity of his statement, her daughter would have remained in the clutches of Satan. Disguising the truth, speaking in euphemism or politically correctly may enable a person to continue in false beliefs or act inappropriately. Offending someone is not necessarily intolerant. Forbearance speaks the truth with graciousness, no matter how hard the truth is to accept. No one is served when the truth is compromised.
Political Correctness creates a counterfeit reality that diminishes important differences and problems, and hides the feeling, values and opinions of the speaker. It disrespects values and priorities of the individual or ethnic group. When the National Cathedral hosts Muslims prayer it is a truly sad day for America, both religions are diminished and the truth is denied. The Christian value or exclusive worship of God is compromised. Like the Samaritans and the Syro-Phoenicians one need not embrace false religion to advance spiritual peaceful relationships especially when doing so violates the Second commandment.
The nation of Israel was repeatedly judged for recognizing and embracing false Gods. In neither incident above did Jesus make any attempt to reconcile his teaching with the teaching of the day. The Episcopalian leaders who brought Muslims into a place of worship are bringing a false deity into a place set aside for the worship of the One True God. It could bring God's judgment on the nation. Before anyone argues that the age of grace operates by different rules let us not forget that Jesus came to fulfill the law not abolish it (Matthew 5:17); Paul advised that the Old Testament was written for the instruction of the church (Romans 15:4), and the oft quoted text that God gave all scripture to teach us how to live is a reference to the Old Testament text (2 Timothy 3:16 &17). The warning against syncretism applies to us today as much as it did then. Inviting Muslims into the National Cathedral is a turning away from the true God that will have dire consequences for our nation.
Muslims praying in the national cathedral is taking tolerance too far. We can respect each other's liberty of conscience we can treat each other civilly without dishonoring each other's religion. It is a sad day when we break the second commandment in the name of tolerance.
Comments
Post a Comment