A student asked me about the Old Testament law and why there are parts of it that we no longer keep. Here's the response I gave.


That's a good question, and the answer is definitely NOT that we are a different culture...some laws (like against eating pork) have been over-ridden (see Acts 10:13-15). But mostly it is because in the NT we have a deeper understanding of the law. It is like the spirit of the law is more nuanced than the original law. You know, when you first learn to write, you are told always use this, never use that, but when you start reading great writers, they sometimes do the very thing you have been told not to do. But you learn that those are exceptions that are not contradictions, rather they are genius -- the great writer saw deeper than the rules...the OT law is the minimum requirement for faithfulness, but keeping that law is not impressive to God - He wants us to (in one sense) forget about trying to keep the law - He has a higher plan for us. Those who point to the law and say "see? I kept the law here and here and here..." are the dorks who don't get it. Sort of like a 1st grader who is proud of the fact that he can draw his numbers perfectly within the lines but knows nothing of what numbers really represent in physics or calculus. At one point in the life of the faithful, number-drawing is good, but as we grow we begin to see that learning to write numbers is only the barest beginning, and to perfect our drawing when we should be considering differential equations is goofy.

In the same way, God taught us laws that then we no longer needed -- what He always wants is faithfulness, not adherence to laws per se...the laws are not arbitrary, He really does want us to not lie, murder, worship idols, but the best way to stop doing that is to put our faith in His fulfillment of the law, and live "in Him" by that faith. Again, it is the faith in His person that fulfills the law for us. Once He came to earth and we heard Him speak, we (like Paul) realized that there is a lot more to real life than laws, but like the first-grader, we need the law first, then we can in a way surpass it. The law is a mountain that we need to climb, find we can't and then receive grace. But then, and only then, do we see the reality that the peak of the mountain is really only the starting point -- we (to borrow from Lewis) were meant to get to the top of the mountain so that we might sprout wings and fly.

Since I posted the last, I thought you might like to hear my Muslim friend's response to my long post (names are withheld, and are not important). Here it is:

Thank you very much for your answer Mr. Y, (ZZZ) is getting these messages too.

I understand what you're saying from your perspective and it sounds correct. I watched the video an CNN and maybe I need to watch it again to understand better. They are talking really fast. However if somebody supports such suicide attacks I cannot agree with them since I am a muslim.

You're right that not every Islam world leader denounced suicide attacks or bombings. But for Turkey I know many Islamic Scholar that they denounce those kind of acts. I like the commentators point on "muslim people are victim of terrorism as well as christian people are". There shouldn't be problem between real believers otherwise the dark powers are going to try to have us fight with each other for those acts that real muslims and christians do not accept. I know you since we met and spent some time, and I did not have any hesitation about your position on that matter I mean I don't think that you think this is real Islam.

We as Turkey have some Al-kaide members in our country's prisons and they did some suicide bombings in Turkey at several locations before 9-11 and after 9-11. I am trying to say that we started to deal with terrorism before 9-11 so I understand your feeling about it. However, we have to work together and protect each other, or they bomb a mosque today and then bomb a church tomorrow then uneducated people think that this is a war between religions. That would be a chaos.

I think we should talk about this on this sunday.

Regards,

XXX

(the Sunday he is referring to is an evening discussion group we have with college students. We have invited this young man, and he has come several times -- once he even cooked dinner for us, and it was GREAT!)

Lately, I have had a great conversation with a friend who is foreign Muslim studying in the US. He wrote me, asking about how people can think that Islam can be linked to terrorists. I believe him to be honest, but not seeing that connection is strange to me, and here is how I answered his sincere question (the reference to Keith Olbermann is because my friend sent me one of Mr. Olbermann's MSNBC rants, and I felt I should address it to the degree KO deserves...):

Hi, XXX - I welcome your reasonable mind and gentle heart, and would love to speak with you about this issue, as I need your perspective. I know a little, and will be glad to lay out what I have understood about it. Please feel free to correct me if you find I am misled.

You ask how it can be that some people are connecting Islam to terrorism. You have perspective that I do not, as you see Islam from the inside, as one who practices the religion. I think most Americans see it from the outside (that is, they are not Muslims themselves) and so see only what Muslims do and say rather than what they believe. It is a hard fact to get around that 100% of the terrorism in the world is committed by people who claim to be doing it in the name of Allah. Of course it is foolish to reverse this and say that 100% of the Muslims of the world are terrorists, but the distinction between those who are and those who are not is best accomplished through the way real Muslims denounce terrorism (as you have done).

Mr. Olbermann is a poor spokesman for anything reasonable. The problem I have with his approach to most subjects (and this video clip is a good example) is that he likes to leave out large portions of his opponents' arguments, then act as though his opponents are fools (which can be very annoying.) I find this approach foolish, and does little to clarify issues.

The opposition to the Mosque/Community Center is not opposition to Islam, or a sign of not wanting Muslims to be able to worship or own property in the US, or a lack of understanding that we were assisting Muslims in Iraq when we fought a war against Hussein (a few of Mr. Olbermann's arguments). These are what we call "straw man" arguments. There are many mosques in NYC already, so Muslims are not being singled out for abuse. What's more, the opponents of this particular project are not saying that the Imam doesn't have the right to buy and build there. It is a free country - he can do so if he wants to, just like any other American. What opponents are saying is that it feels like disrespect and insensitivity to the very people with whom he says he wants to have "dialogue". It is a poor start to a conversation.

But there are other questions that have been raised about this particular project. Representatives of the project have been asked directly if they renounce terrorism and agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization (as America's government officially states). They are willing to renounce terrorist acts in the abstract, but refuse to renounce Hamas. Also, they have said they are willing to accept donations from Saudi and Iran, two of the world's greatest exporters of terrorism, and supporters of Hamas. Because of this, many have been unwilling to support the plan to build this building.

If it is hard for supporters of the Park51 building to see what respect would look like, I would like to suggest a way. I think that the Imam and his donors, who say that they want to build bridges and dialogue with Americans, should instead offer to donate the money they have raised for the Park51 building to help rebuild the Trade Center Towers. This would show the world (and especially the terrorists in the world) that they are Americans first, that there is NO connection between real Muslims and those who flew the planes, and it would prove to Americans that the money donated is not from terrorists. Does this seem outlandish? How important is it to begin real dialogue and prove that there are no ties between these folks and terrorism? It would also show the terrorists that they have no fear of them.

One other reason why Westerners link Islam and terrorism is hearing reports like this one about the Imam of a London mosque who actually supports Osama bin Laden and encourages Muslims to blow up buildings and people in order to teach the West a lesson for supporting Israel. I heard him speak on CNN last Saturday night. (see the excellent interview here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/09/05/gps.int.jihadi.cnn?iref=allsearch). It would be horrible to think that there could be a mosque that preaches this kind of hate right next to the hole in the ground that came about from this kind of preaching.

While there are certainly Muslims who say, like you do, that one can be a Muslim, or a terrorist, but not both; there can be no doubt that there are Muslims who say the full opposite: that Muslims must take their faith seriously enough to die in its cause: that to be a real Muslim one MUST be a terrorist. Therefore, it seems to most of us in America that there is a civil war of sorts within Islam between those like you and those like this London Imam. And we are watching to see who will win. It seems to me that the questions you have are good ones, but they need to be addressed to the London Imam, and those like him, who claim to be "first and last a Muslim." (quote from the interview)

If there were Christians who spoke this way, calling for recruits to kill unsuspecting shoppers and businessmen to bring about the will of God, there would be world-wide outrage, and Christian leaders would be called upon to denounce this horror. The only reason why people would be reluctant to do so would be if they were afraid they would be the next targets of the terrorism. Is this the case in the Muslim world? Do you think moderate Muslims are afraid to speak up and denounce those who commit these horrors in the name of Allah because they are afraid they will be targets?

We would love to see you anytime, XXX, and will bake brownies specially for your visit! Thank you for speaking with me about this issue - relations between Muslims and Christians may be the most important issue on the planet at this time.

ISLAMOPHOBIA.
I think it is actually quite reasonable for people who have seen the continued terrorism over the years -- all from cowards screaming "Allahu Akbar" as they kill unsuspecting civilians -- to be fearful about Islam as a religion. It is more reasonable to use the word "homophobia" than "Islamophobia" but each is used in its sphere simply to stifle debate. But fear of Islam is quite reasonable, given that all the terrorist activity -- ALL of it -- has been carried out by smiling, lying, cowards who claim to be Muslims. It is rather incumbent on those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace to prove their case by their actions, and understand that a watching American public should not be asked to take their word for it. When we invaded Iraq, our troops went out of their way, placing themselves in danger to prove to the Iraqi people that we were NOT there to harm them. And we were liberating them from Saddam! We were fighting on their behalf! It was incumbent on us to prove by our actions that we were not there to colonize, destroy, steal their oil, et c. We shouldn't be ashamed of ourselves and be cowed just because we are called names like "Islamophobic." It is incumbent on the Moderate Muslim to prove that he is peaceful and not acting like the terrorists who cite Islam as their motivation.

"You will know them by their fruits" we are told. A religion should be judged by its actions, and when someone does something evil in the name of God, the true believers are responsible to distance themselves from the act. It should not be reversed and pressure put on the victims of these attacks to make fine distinctions between smiling, honest "moderates," and smiling, vicious liars who are attempting to destroy us with whatever means necessary, including deceit.

This is said in sober logic, not hot anger. This is only being reasonable, and treating American concerns as seriously as we would treat the concerns of Iraqi civilians, or German civilians in WWII. I think it is unreasonable to turn victims into the "bad-guys" and act as though they should be the ones to fix the problem brought about by the actions of the terrorists. It is absurd to say, "We shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of those terrorists - they hold to a completely different religion than we do. We are peaceful Muslims, but they on the other hand, are terrorist Muslims - a VERY different thing altogether. We read the Koran, they on the other hand, read the Koran." But we, the non-Muslims are supposed to be able to parse out the differences, and know that one is good and the other bad? Do you know how the terrorists fought our troops in the desert? They would fire on us without uniforms, then run into the city where they were indistinguishable from the local innocent civilians. These are vicious and cowardly enemies. And if we shoot the wrong one, WE are instantly the bad guys. If they are successful in killing one of our guys either by posing as a local civilian, or by using local civilians as human shields to hide behind to keep us from firing on them, they are heroes to their people! Why should American civilians be expected to be this discerning, or not make decisions out of fear? "Islamophobia" is irresponsible use of language, because it ignores the reasonable fear of the victim.