IS IT WRONG TO WORK FOR PEACE?

Christians believe that god- the one, true, living God, was most clearly revealed by allowing himself to be tortured, bled and stuck dying to a tree by his enemies….and all for their sake. It puzzles me when people who claim to represent and speak for this God mock humility, attempts at reconciliation, understanding and forgiveness.

Apparently Christ had it wrong; a life typified by self sacrificing love isn’t the mark of true godlike humanity, rather the distinctive characteristic is the compulsion to conjure up a bull’s-eye just between the eyebrows of everyone who disagrees with you.

The disagreement might be over the most tremendous question imaginable: which god is God, and the ways of interacting are as varied as the answers given. While Christ allowed those who disagreed with his answer to slaughter him and in so doing enacted his faith- “God,” he said before dying, “Is like this towards his enemies,”- Pastor Chuck O’Neal believes that the gospel requires that we refuse to accept overtures of discussion and entreaties of grace, and in so doing enacts his own answer: “God is the one who has no time for people who are wrong.”

Surely such a response reveals a vision of God closer to ancient Rome's Mars than the prodigal father of the gospels.

These hawkish Christians don’t need life or death disagreements to justify the bull’s-eye, either. It's just as likely to appear on the foreheads of brothers and sisters who disagree with them over issues that have remained unresolved since the church began. It might even happen at a conference, between men voluntarily sharing a podium for ostensibly the same gospel cause.

The occasion, big or small, doesn’t matter; or rather it does, because every disagreement, every offer of discussion, every difference of opinion is an opportunity to enact the “god-as-Mars gospel.”

“Can we talk…” draws a resounding “Those are fighting words!”

“It believe…” elicits an abrupt “Those are fighting words!”

“Don’t you think…” Fighting words!

“I’m sorry.” Fighting words!

In response to a group of brave Muslims who offered to begin a conversation, the signatories of A Christian Response extended a presumption of sincerity, asked forgiveness for failing to live up to the faith they proclaim, and encouraged these fellow human being to live up to their own faith commitments.

Did the signatories deny the uniqueness of Christ? No, they recognized the common ethical injunctions of the distinct faiths.

Did the signatories affirm Mohammed’s claim of prophetic legitimacy? No, they pointed out explicitly that both faiths teach the same ethical requirements of love towards God and neighbor. They affirmed that the bombing of innocents is not the way the battle should be fought.

Must their words be interpreted to affirm the identity of the Gods’ of Islam and the Christian church? If the word "god" indicates an abstract category of transcendence, yes. There can be but one ultimately transcendent being. But in regards to which personal transcendent deity, no.

Muslim murders attacked their Western opponents with planes and violence. There is a declaration of a particular vision of God in that.

After failing to take the initiative in working towards the reduction of bloodshed, the church embarrassingly extended grace to the enemy who asked for it. There is a particular vision of God in that.

There’s little doubt that a great war is on. I suspect that none of the signatories of the Christian Response would deny it. The real question is about how the battle should be fought. Which weapons should fall most readily into our armored hands. What default response should an adversary...or an impressionable disciple, expect from us. An individual’s conception of the God they worship will determine the answer.

I’m loosing patience with “Christian” leaders whose constant apocalyptic battling, morph the God of the cross into a weaker version of a violent Allah, and I’m ashamed when those who do not know my God, seem to image him more clearly than his own ambassadors.

Grace is not compromise. Respect is not denial. Measured comments are not universal affirmations, and the gospel doesn’t rule out attempts at charity.