What are we to do with Christians wanting to do something about Islam?

"What are we to do about Islam?" is a question Mike Licona asked in this morning's Baptist Press News. By 'we', Mike is referring to Christians. His talk presupposes that 'we' are a corporate actor, an agent, with the capacity to 'do' something. It ignores the fact that Christians are divided into many different sects--there are Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Universalists, etc. But this forgetting of the sectarian differences that constitute late modern Christianity, is a move made possible by the figure of 'Islam.' In other words, in Mike's talk, it is the face of difference that helps solidify 'we' against them. And it is most certainly a 'we' versus them mentality that organizes Mike's thoughts. This becomes clear when he says:

The objective of many Muslims is to Islamicize the world. When a person or a country stands in the way of Islam’s efforts, these regard it as a “war on Islam.” This does not mean all Muslims hate Christians. For over a thousand years there have been many friendships between Muslims and Christians. However, Muslims who have befriended Christians have disregarded the Koran in the process, since it prohibits such friendships (Q 5:51).

So, in effect, it is Christian people and countries versus Muslims and their apparent efforts to 'Islamicize the world.' But in noting that Muslims do missionary work, Mike obscures the enormous time, energy and finances that evangelical Christians spend on missionary work. In some sense, then, what we are seeing here is a turf battle between Christianizing and Islamicizng agents. Mike is a Christianizing agent.

As a Christianizing agent, Mike articulates three ways of dealing with Islamic agents. The first:

Understand that we stand in the way of Islam intentionally. We believe that Islam is a religion that promotes false teachings about God. The Apostle Paul wrote, “But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a Gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!” (Galatians 1:8). Since Islam’s message differs fundamentally from the Gospel, it is clear what Paul taught regarding the fate of Muhammad and those who propagate Islam. A few years later Paul wrote, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). It is the responsibility of evangelical Christians to promote the Gospel of Christ to the exclusion of the core messages of other religions -- including Islam. In the eyes of Muslim Islamicists, this places evangelical Christians at war with Islam.

Again, 'we' is used by Mike to signify the boundaries between the Christian community and the Muslim community. These boundaries, as Mike says clearly, must exclude the 'core messages of other religions because 'Islam's message differs fundamentally from the Gospel.' But does it? Mike is using a logic of differentiation here. One might say that fundamentally, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all three religions tied together through the figure of Moses. And, all three religions are monotheistic. So, Mike's logic of differentiation effectively obscures the historical links between the three religions. Mike is politicizing the relationship by hardening the boundaries into an a-histoircal configuration that fits nicely with the contemporary fears many Americans have of Muslims. Thus,

It is natural to feel anger and hatred toward Muslims who want to kill us. On a national level, we can support politicians who are committed to hunting down and destroying terrorists, upholding free speech, and standing in the way of Muslim thugs who declare war on everything which does not allow Islam to dominate. On a personal level, Jesus tells us plainly what our response should be:

"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.... If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ... But love your enemies, and do good ... and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men" (Luke 6:27-35).

So, in saying that it is 'natural to feel anger and hatred toward Muslims that want to kill us,' Mike is legitimating and normalizing this response over other possible responses. Other responses that include, turning the other cheek, as Jesus might have suggested. But more than that, Mike is conflating the US war on terrorism as part and parcel of a Christian response. This comes through most clearly when he says they want to 'kill us'--meaning 'us' Christians and 'us' Americans--and then when he appeals to a national-scale war-making effort. What is fascinating is how love and war work together in Mike's discourse. This helps construct the difference between the nation on one hand and the individual on the other hand and legitimate the violence that the nation perpetrates against others and the missionary work individual Christians do. In other words, as the nation wages war, realize that Jesus calls us to a "holy war" -- the difference is that our holy war actually involves, well, holiness, and does not involve weapons and violence.

Thus, 'we' are clearly different than them. 'We' are holy and they are not. 'We' are waging a legitimate war and they are not. 'We' have the right religion and they do not. But can these strict 'we'-they boundaries not be deconstructed? Is Mike not helping to cultivate fear? Is Mike not helping discipline those that call themselves Christian? I wonder if Mike has ever met a Muslim.