In Regensburg's wake, is anyone worried about Christian outrage?
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
New York
While oceans of ink have been spilled analyzing Muslim reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s Sept. 12 comments on Islam, I suspect no one has yet devoted sufficient attention to a parallel phenomenon that may turn out to be every bit as consequential – angry Christian reaction to the Muslim protests.
If Regensburg awakened Muslim resentments of the pope, there are signs that the violent backlash seems to be producing a growing fatigue among Christians regarding Muslim sensitivities, as well as doubts about the prospects for dialogue.
This is on my mind because last night I spoke as part of a “Theology on Tap” series sponsored by St. Joseph’s Parish in Bronxville, New York, in suburban Westchester County, on the subject of “Pope Benedict XVI and Islam.” A sizeable crowd turned out, and to take their temperature, it seems clear that it’s not just the pope who needs to do some “damage control.”
My presentation turned on three points:
• First, Benedict is not just being polite when he insists upon his desire for dialogue with Islam. The real “clash of civilizations” Benedict sees in the world today is not between the West and Islam, but between truth and relativism, between belief and skepticism, and in that struggle he regards Islam as a natural ally. Benedict admires the religious and moral seriousness of Muslims. The heart of his Regensburg address was that reason and faith need one another, because reason without faith becomes nihilism, while faith without reason becomes extremism. If the West has moved too far in the former direction and the Islamic world in the latter, perhaps we can each supply something the other lacks.
• Second, Benedict is also in earnest when he said Sept. 17 that he wants a “frank” dialogue. Specifically, he intends to challenge Muslims on two points: the need to reject violence in the name of God, especially terrorism, and the need to practice “reciprocity,” meaning full respect for the rights of religious minorities.
• Third, Benedict has expressed doubt about the capacity of Islam to adapt to pluralistic societies because of its literal reading of the Qur’an and the absence of a tradition of church/state separation. Yet Benedict has also acknowledged that Islam is highly complex, and that there are peaceful and reflective currents within it. The United States offers a particularly interesting test case, since the Muslim community here has the experience of living in a pluralistic environment that can foster rather than inhibit religious belief. Perhaps American Muslims, in part with our encouragement, may offer an important contribution to the global conversation within Islam.
What surprised me as we began to talk about these concepts was the depth of skepticism I sensed, as well as the fairly palpable irritation with what are perceived as irrational and defensive patterns of behavior in the Islamic world.
One man, for example, repeatedly asked why it seems that Christians are always the ones expected to ask forgiveness, while to date no one has suggested that Islamic leaders ought to make a public apology for attacks on Christian churches, or the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. A young woman wanted to know if it’s realistic to expect Islam to be open to the pope’s call for reason, given that Mohammad himself is depicted in the Qur’an as a warrior, and given its harsh language about infidels and unbelievers. Another woman expressed incredulity that Islam is ready for the “conversion” to which the pope seems to want to invite it.
The questions all played to vigorous nodding of heads. How fair the perceptions are is not, for the moment, the point -- they're out there, and are shaping attitudes about what to do next. Of course, people would probably have asked the same things prior to Regensburg, but the experience of the last month obviously deepened the passion with which people asked them.
In response, I ran through all the obligatory points, including that it took sixteen centuries of fairly bloody experience, culminating in the Wars of Religion, before the Christian West itself was ready to renounce the use of force in religious affairs. I also argued that history offers examples of peaceful Muslim/Christian co-existence; that the more extreme reactions to the Regensburg address in the Islamic world were often smaller in scale than media reports suggested, and largely manufactured; that Islam is a global religion of 1.6 billion people, which encompasses a wide range of possible readings of the Qur’an and Islamic tradition; and that recent experience illustrates the potential for Muslim/Christian interaction, such as the coalition in defense of life forged by the Holy See and Islamic governments at United Nations conferences in Cairo and Beijing in the mid-1990s.
Whatever merit such arguments may have, they didn’t seem to cut much ice with this crowd, which I suspect is fairly representative of the Christian “street” in fearing that the next time anyone in the West says anything even remotely critical of Islam, we’ll be right back where we started, the best efforts of the pope or anyone else notwithstanding.
So, they may well ask, what’s the point?
In the end, the only possible reply was the following rhetorical question: What’s the alternative? It’s not as if we face a choice of whether to have a relationship with Islam – we’re thrown in this world together, for good or ill, and so we have to make the best of it. As Christians, we have to pray that the Spirit will act where human effort seems to fall short.
Inarguable as far as it goes, I couldn't help sensing that prayer for divine intervention seemed to many people in the crowd a fairly slender reed upon which to hang our hopes for dialogue.
What all this suggests is that while Benedict faces the challenge of persuading Muslims to move on, Muslim leaders have some hearts and minds to win over as well – beginning in Bronxville.
There's a difference between
There's a difference between a call for war and a call for wanton violence. Why for example, while one could say the crusades were called for by the Pope, the wanton slaughter and sacking of Constantinople was not.
This isn't the same with many Islamic clerics. Even "moderates" like Sistani have death squads pouncing around murdering homosexuals. Other leading clerics are worse. Many of the leaders are not just calling for war, but the form of warfare as well.
I personally do not feel guilty or feel we need to apologize for the Crusades as a whole. Certain acts may need an apology (and I believe have been given) but that war itself was a noble purpose to anyone who has studied it outside of the movie Kingdom of Heaven.
Christianity started as a
Christianity started as a persecuted sect incapable of defending itself by violence and was (therefore?) ambivalent about violence for a long time. Early Christians spilled plenty of ink over whether a soldier could even really be fully a Christian or not. It took centuries of argument to generally accept soldiery as a potentially righteous occupation. However bloodthirsty Innocent III might have been, neither he nor any combination of authorities have ever been able to tear up the root of deep ambivalence toward violence in Christianity.
By contrast, Islam had only the briefest glancing encounter with being a victim of persecution, followed by century after century of battlefield victories. Violence was encouraged from the beginning, and why not? It worked for a very, very long time.
The root experience of each religion can still, in general, be seen today; deep ambivalence toward violence among Christians, support and encouragement of violence among Muslims. There are an awful lot of both of us, though, so there should be plenty of overlap and potential for dialogue. In the end, though, I'm guessing dialogue will be reduced to the christian demand for equality in the muslim world, and the muslim demand to rule over the christian world.
Crazy Diamond, Your
Crazy Diamond,
Your observations are interesting and, I believe, correct. My question is, Does the teaching of Christ have any part to play in Christiantiy's attitude toward violence? Seem that, if it ever did, we've managed to overcome it and move on.
Bob, that's precisely the
Bob, that's precisely the sort of thing I mean! Even many Christians who reluctantly conclude a need for violence in defense of the helpless struggle with "if an evil man strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." Another deep struggle in Christianity is whether Christians are even supposed to ever be powerful enough to politically impact whether their nation uses violence or not. Is the fact that Christians are an important source of political power in many western countries a testimony to the power of the gospel to transform nations or a testimony that we've sold out and we're peddling a watered-down version of "all who love me obey my commands"?
We constantly question ourselves over whether acceptance of any level of violence means we have abandoned Christ's command; or accepting any level of political power means we have abandoned the power of the Holy Spirit; or finding ourselves on a level of socioeconomicgeopolitical superiority over others, means that we have abandoned the gospel. This is in utter contrast to the most common current of thought we see among muslim imams: that abandonment of any level of violence means they have abandoned the way of Islam; that lacking political power means they have failed Islam; that Islam means they should seek and ought to possess superiority in every respect over non-muslims, and formal recognition of and submission to that superiority from non-muslims.
This great divide in the way of thinking between Christianity and Islam is what makes me think that genuine dialogue is a rather faint dream. Our goals are too dissimilar. Our tendency is to see "dialogue" in our own terms, and with our own way of thinking as the background. Religion is persecuted, oppressed, empowered only by the Spirit, and religious folks ought to stick together. Muslims don't see it that way.
As John Allen says, Benedict sees Islam as a natural ally in the struggle between faith and anti-faith. Unfortunately, muslims see an entirely different division - there is the ummah (the muslim world) and there are the infidels. One should bow to the other, and everything, even a pretension (taqqiya) at dialogue, is meant to bring that about.
This reflection on the
This reflection on the people's reaction interested me, mostly because I have seen the same reactions occuring in myself. "Palpable irritation with ... perceived ... irrational and defensive patterns of behavior in the Islamic world" describes how I have been feeling accurately. In some ways I am disappointed in myself, but never the less, it is how I am reacting.
I will watch the developments with interest...
Dredging up papally directed
Dredging up papally directed violence from centuries ago is irrelevant. The church has done all the mea culpas and has justifiably paid the price of a lot of antiCatholocism. That was then and this is now. There is no Pope, no World Council of Churches, etc., etc., promoting violence in the name of God. A huge burden has been placed on the bulk of the Muslim population by the murderous actions of the radical minority. Until that bulk of Muslims begins to openly stand against and denounce their violent brethren, the world can only perceive a silent assent to all the voilence and thuggery by that minority.
"Dredging up papally
"Dredging up papally directed violence from centuries ago is irrelevant. ... That was then and this is now."
Yours is a very 21st Century Western view of history.
In many traditions, and Islam is one of them, what happened hundreds of years ago is still made present right here and right now.
To criticise Muslim violence, without criticising our own, is to invite Muslim accusations of our hipocrisy.
Look at it from the Muslim point of view. The people of which religion and culture slaughtered 6 million Jews in the holocaust only 60 years ago ? Slaughtered 40 million innocent babies since they legalised abortion ? Carpet bombed German cities and dropped nuclear bombs on Hisrosima and Nagasaki? Napamed and Agent Oranged Vietnam? Invaded Iraq ?
There are no Muslim attrocities in the last century which rival in scale those of Western Christians.
Christ taught that before removing splinters from Muslim eyes we need to remove the logs in our own eyes. Only on this basis can we have a proper dialog with Islam.
God Bless
Chris, Understand you are
Chris, Understand you are rearranging history as Muslims see it, but some common mistakes are quoted here: the Jews were slaughtered by the nazis who were neo-pagans if anything, abortions are committed by atheists of various plumage, German cities were carpet-bombed because aforementioned nazis slaughtered and oppressed wholesale and refused to give up the fight, ditto re Hirosima and Nagasaki but read Japanese instead of nazis, and napalm and agent orange were used in defense of the free world.
Christ didn't teach anything about Muslim balks as there weren't any Muslims at the time.
I think Muslims are perfectly capable of formulating their own perceived grievances! Relativating your own is always a bad idea, of which there is plenty about these days. Muslims understand that a lot better than Christians do. Christ also did not teach, roll over and be a dhimmi.
Chris, You make a very good
Chris,
You make a very good point. However, I suspect that much to the anger Muslems (among others) feel toward us as Americans, Christians and Catholics, is not simply based on past events but has to do with the here and now.
Violence need not be physical. Failure to respect others, their customs and beliefs, economic policies that serve our ends without considering their needs, imposition of our values, can and does do violence to others.
When we realize that there are people, a lot of people, in this world who are angry with and hate us, I think one of the first things we need to do is ask ourselves why.
When people have little or no peaceful recourse to justice, they will seek and find othere ways. Most will not become terrorists, but when that many people are angry, and they are, some will become violent. We must expect that. I do not approve of terrorism, but I do, to some extent, understand it.
Unless we honestly address the underlying causes of terrorism, we may, through force and at a great price, be able to controle it, but it will always be there ready to strike where and when it is able.
The saying, "If you what peace, work for justice" contains great wisdom.
The saying, "If you what
The saying, "If you what peace, work for justice" contains great wisdom.
What is doesn't contain is what you do if the other guy's definition of "justice" is horrendously unjust to you. Our idea is generally that the injustice is injury, pain, suffering caused by us to them; the muslim worlds' idea seems to be that the injustice is that we don't bow down to them, we refuse to be ruled by shari'a law, and we don't let them slaughter Jews in quite as massive numbers as they would like.
They're not going to recognize the justice we would be willing to give, and we aren't willing to give what they would recognize as just. So where do can we find common ground?
I have an idea. Have you
I have an idea. Have you ever seen The Russians are Coming. The Russians are Coming?
Sorry. I'm not classically educated. I get most of my ideas from low culture.
In the movie, the Russians and Americans are poised to kill each other when a child falls from a church steeple and gets hung up on a rain gutter. Both sides drop their guns and rush to rescue the child. If Christians sit down to dialogue with Muslims the conversation may well degenerate into rehearsals of old injuries. Let's save the kid. Pick a place or a problem. Iraq. Lebannon. Anywhere. What's needed? Food. Water. Rebuilding roads and homes? Let's get together, roll up our sleeves and do it. And maybe at the end of the day tired from our mutual labor and filled with new found mutual respect, maybe then, we can talk.
An Inspired Comedy !!! We
An Inspired Comedy !!!
We Must Not Confuse What Is Essential In The Church With That Which Is Mutable, No Matter How Ancient It May Be
I think the only thing that
I think the only thing that would have to be pointed out is that the issue of violence is not something Christianity espouses. For the most part, such calls for violence even in the past were more political coming from the state. (The worst cases normally were that way, though there were some unfortunate exceptions.) The calls for violence come from the highest authorities in Islam. (Think Grand Ayatollah Sistani, commonly known as the "Enlightened one" in Shia Islam, and his fatwa against homosexuals and other "undesirables" in Iraq. As is to be expected, sometimes this fatwa is used by many as a chance to settle scores against old adversaries.)
So I think "Christian outrage" is far more justified, and in no way can honestly be compared with "Muslim outrage." Most Christians would probably take a more irenic view of Islam provided the "moderate" factions took concrete steps against those they claim hijack their religion. When a pro-lifer shoots up an abortion clinic, Christianity immediately condemns his violence. While signs are improving, Islamic violence is all too often given a free pass.
"The calls for violence come
"The calls for violence come from the highest authorities in Islam."
The first crusade was called for by the Pope and endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. In purely human terms, authority in the Catholic Church doesn't get any higher than that.
We need to be careful to criticise Muslims when our own record does not withstand close scrutiny.
God Bless
Thank you. I had to look up
Thank you. I had to look up irenic. I love to learn stuff.
Surprised? Given the
Surprised? Given the demographics of Westchester, what other response could be expected?
In the end, the "accomplishments" Chris Sullivan cited remain as the West's heritage from the last 100 years. Trying to justify them as appropriate revenge for wrongs perpetrated by Nazis et al. directly disparages, devalues, and denies the explicit teachings of Christ. And what about the reality that the majority of both protestant and Catholic bishops initially supported the Nazis?
-- Irene