Any thoughtful person must be drawn to better generalizations than we appear to be getting from the casual and distracting volumes of information circulating in general public. The public is pushed around by the negatives, the conniving, the crime waves, the murders, the conflicts of nearly everything – including religions. What if instead of accusing one another between the largely secularized West (meaningfully influenced by Christianity) and the Islamic dominated nations (internationally at odds and diluting freedom in their faith) – both holding contrary elements and accents in them, we began talking about what troubles each side, and investigated to discover if legitimate questions may be addressed peacefully? Let there be no doubt, Islamic peoples have some just grievances that drive them. Those grievances tend to stem from religious beliefs, conflicts with Israel, and stern traditions of conflict. The West has legitimate grievances, and ideals of democracy to advance. Underlying this is the belief that democracies, overseen by the public, are less likely to disturb peace. In an age of atomic threat, this is a vital matter. In times past issues would stem from objectives, in a range of nuances, more than they now do. A different world has emerged, but the old continues to conflict. In the areas of democratic society, believers in any direction have the legal and civil rights of equality, given (common grace) rights from God. If this were not true, that this is our Father’s world and he has an ongoing good-will interest in it, we have no justification to press God’s order as basic option. If God were to abandon humanity, as the deist presumes, Christians may have no theistic duty in society. If a man abandons his family, he has no further claim on it. If reputed Christians turn away from Christ, they are apostates. In the physical world all persons remain in common grace with the duty of all other citizens. Our concern is to find where people are in context, and negotiate mutual peace.
One can’t pass off a religion in which the people are so generous in charity; so devout in the call to prayer; so careful to keep holy festivals; so stern about morality as they perceive it; and accepting so rigid a culture as required, even to the extent that the leaders can find persons willing to commit suicide among the faithful to carry out the mandates of their beliefs. Some Muslims perceive their cherished beliefs and accepted way of life will require death for their faith – part of their mission. Tolerance does not offer approval.
Our diplomats may not be sufficiently trained to meet the need, perhaps even to meet the necessary pattern of discussion. Perhaps the West is so remembered from the context of Christianity that the presuppositions are lost or are seen to be irrelevant in a time when mankind moves to be free from organized religion, and leave the matter to the feelings of each individual. This last leads to paganism. Pagans simply turn away from God and believe they can press on alone. But, they can’t make it well enough to thrive or even survive. So substitutes arise (like meditation) and, for sophisticated persons humanity emerges in winning, to become a caricature of God. From mankind will be found right and wrong – through science the future is assured, even to offer resources, health and good life. This last is also a caricatured alternative for immortality. An article of this human deification is that mankind, with superior methodologies, will be so intelligent, so resourceful, so altruistic that we will by discovery, invention and manufacture find substitutes for the depleted resources of earth. There is insufficient evidence that finite can approach infinite at all. The world is facing severe problems that threaten all societies. Current secular approaches seem highly wishful for finite mankind. The marvels of mankind are being challenged by larger ones.
As odd as it seems, we must approach enemies with love, care for the survival of all, hear them out, and extend the olive branch without threat. Offer solutions that leave citizens free to choose God. By the life lived, by the blessing of God, by the application of the morality of truth, by the education of fairness and justice, by the sharing of blessing, by communication of hope – we live. One does well to conjure the relationship of Kings Hiram of Tyre and David of Israel. Apparently the identification of Israel with the plan of God did not prevent a pleasant and workable relationship between the leaders, the cultures, and the citizens. We know there was some intermarriage, and that it appears to have been manageable. One wonders if a scholar might write a human constitution for biblical world culture. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020