Title: Waging
Peace On Islam?
Subtitle: Tying Together Radical Love and Forgiveness
with the Original Mission of the Church in this World
Author: Christopher
Travis Haun for Rethinker.net
Date: May 2005
The
following rethink is a letter I wrote to the editors of Christianity Today in
response to a refreshing interview between Stan Guthrie and Warren Larsen. It can be found here with high
recommendations:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/june/2.46.html
Waging Peace on Islam; A missionary veteran of Asia
proposes one way to defuse Muslim anger about the Crusades.
From: Christopher Travis Haun
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 3:02 AM
To: letters@ChristianityToday.com
Subject: letter to the editor | Sheep Among
Wolves?
Dear CT
Editors,
My thanks
for printing the interview “Waging Peace on Islam” in the May 5th
issue. The unique perspective of a seasoned missionary Warren Larsen was
refreshing.
The point
Larson made about “defusing Muslim anger” by giving them a never-before-seen
glimpse of supernatural forgiveness is certainly a radical one. The 1979 Dera Ghazi Khan anecdote gives a tremendous example for us
to take to heart; rather than seeking ‘justice’ they forgave. And it sounds like our Lord received
substantial Muslim glory for it!
Larson’s flow seems to resonate in fine harmony to the sentiment Paul
lent the Corinthians,
“. . . But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put
up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.”
Larson’s
proven strategy seems radical indeed--but not original. His words allowed me for the first time I
hear a new twist on our Lord’s revolutionary words in Luke 6:
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your Muslims, do good to
those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
If some Muslim strikes you on
one cheek, turn to him the other also. . . If you love those who love you, what
credit is that to you? Even ‘Muslims’ love those who love
them. And if you do
good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘Muslims’ do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect
repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘Muslims’ lend to
‘Muslims,’ expecting to be repaid in full. But love your Muslims, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get
anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most
High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is
merciful.”
From the
fourth century AD on, the chapters of our history books tell of many crusades
by various groups who were quick to invert the cross and sharpen it into a
sword. Instead of giving the pagans
cause to glorify God over our good works, they look at ‘Christian history’ and
find it all too easy to sing our parodies:
“God made us the boss / God gave us the cross/ We turned it into a sword/ To spread the word of the Lord/
We use his holy decrees/ To do whatever we please.”
Contrasting that war-making history with the martyr paradigms of the
Apostles and the Christians of the earliest centuries, how can anyone doubt
that Church history after Emperor Constantine has little or no continuity with
the work our Lord gave the Apostles? Of
course the Apostles themselves were a feisty bunch in their early years. When they weren’t quarreling over who would
be the greatest in Messiah’s kingdom, they were, at least one occasion, quick
to ask their Rabbi if they should call down fire from heaven on kingdom
impediments. But after years spent with
Jesus, after their seeing the example of Him laying down his life for the
ungodly, and after the subsequent indwelling of the Spirit, these ‘Sons of
Thunder’ became ambassadors of Christ’s love.
I am
concerned that Evangelicalism is shifting subtly but surely more towards the
strategy and mission of the medieval churches than the first century churches.
As we imbibe more and more from a kuyperian stream
served from dozens of cups of modern Reformers, is not our inclination and
muscle turned more and more toward unsheathing the sword (i.e., military
force, law, and government) to further
Christ’s earthly kingdom? It’s difficult
to be contrary to Kuyper’s most quoted epithet:
“There is not a square inch in the
whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over
all, does not cry, ‘Mine!'"
But does
that cry not seem to shift the strategy of the organizable
church eventually and invariably toward the taking of dominion over the
political and economic spheres of the world? If my sight is clear, such a strategy can
only lead to new crusades using the machinery of this world. The consequent domination attempts can only
flame indignation of those dominated, whether Pagan or Muslim.
And so I
prefer the Larsonian strategy of Ambassadorship to
the strategies of the Conquistador. I
prefer it because its methods and aims seem to harmonize more perfectly with
the mission our Lord gave to the Apostles and their co-workers.
This was the
last command the Lord left the Apostles—and arguably therefore the
Church—with. The Lord commanded the
tribes of Israel to conquer and dismantle the Canaanitic
culture with sword and fire, and to rule the inhabitants of the purified land
with civil, ceremonial, and moral laws.
But to the Apostles and to the Church the Lord’s marching orders were
entirely opposite in many ways. Instead
of going in as lions among hyenas, we are to go out as sheep among wolves. We are to use prayer and the persuasive
preaching and teaching of the Scriptures as our weapons. If we can lay down our earthly weapons and
show love and forgiveness in response to derision and persecution, perhaps then
the religious devotees of the world’s various systems may recognize something
supernatural in us. But as long as we
wage war with the weapons of this world, I suspect we will simply fuel the wars
of this world.
Grace and
peace,
Christopher
Haun