Now we get to what I consider the real heart of the matter. It’s also the part most likely to upset and offend, because it is going to involve directly naming and confronting sinfulness. However, at the bottom of it, it involves the question of what makes humanity valuable, what reason anyone would have to believe that humans have an inherent value more than simply the sum of our parts. So let’s get right to the question that’s been thrown out by many to Christians:
How can you say that you are praying for the victims and that you love them, when you condemn them and say they are in sin?
To answer this question, we need to look at the very foundation of the Christian faith and worldview, and we need to go back to the very beginning. Well, a few days after the beginning:
All right, let’s get this out of the way right now:
Does the Bible say that Christians are supposed to kill homosexuals?
No, it doesn’t.
Okay, okay, calm down. There is quite a bit to say on this because I want to make sure I handle the Scripture rightly on this. Once again, for a subject commonly engaged with a great deal of emotion and where personal experience is valued over transcendent truth, I desire to take it out of that and into the realm of the testimony of the text.
Homosexuality is forbidden in the Mosaic law, in Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 gives the punishment for this act: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” But again, as mentioned above with regards to Qur’anic commands to execute homosexuals, this is not a command given to all people anywhere to carry out as they wish. This is given to the people of Israel, within the framework of the Mosaic law, to be carried out in that legal system.
That system, of course, does not exist any longer in the sense of the ancient nation of Israel. There is a country called Israel that occupies roughly the same area geographically, but they do not hold themselves under this law. But what about Christians? How do we regard these passages?
I want to start with a couple questions relating to the shooter himself, and his reported faith as a Muslim. I want to address the issue of what it is that drives anyone, at the root, to such a depraved act. I also want to talk about what it means for us as we look at our Muslim neighbors and try to understand what they really believe, and how they can live as Muslims and stand opposed to violence like this.
Firstly: What kind of man could do something so horrible to people who have never hurt him? How can someone commit such an unrepentantly evil act, with so little regard for human life? Even without the issue of radical Islamic terrorism, such an inhuman act is repulsive to consider.
The answer to the first ties into my answer for the last. Somewhere in his mind, this man began to see others as less human than himself. Though he laid claim to a religious identity that made him a creature alongside every other man, in his mind and by his actions he set himself up as the true arbiter of morality. The picture we are getting of him is becoming broader and stranger with each passing hour. But the bottom line is that he placed himself above others, he decided that he was fit to carry out judgment against them by his own reckoning, and ended the lives of people who posed no threat to him. Furthermore, he did it in the name of two organizations that preach the radical message of Salafi Islam, or what is called wahhabism in the West.
The shooter claimed to be a Muslim–was he really Muslim? Do all Muslims have to act like the shooter?
A discussion of the divisions within Islam is not a simple one and probably not possible within a blog post like this. I would highly recommend James White’s book What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an for an excellent discussion of foundational Muslim beliefs, but most fundamentally: the organizations that the shooter claimed allegiance to both represent, as I mentioned, an ultra-conservative division within the Sunni denomination of Islam. Sunnis are the largest branch of Islam, representing over 90% of Muslims in the world. The Shi’a branch represents the next largest slice, but only at about 5% of Muslims. The rest is made up of smaller sects like the Ahmadiyya, Sufi, and Druze, among many others.
It is hard to make a simple pronouncement like “he wasn’t a Muslim” because of this action, since there is so much divisions within the religion itself on that subject. The differences between a Sunni and a Shi’ite is not like the difference between, say, a Baptist and a Presbyterian. It’s more like the difference between a Baptist and a Roman Catholic: there are fundamental differences that, when you see how deep they run, reveal that they are different religions at their root.
The problem is that the Qur’an is not written with a singular, consistent message. There are major inconsistencies between early and later surahs, or chapters. Muhammad moved from being a minority prophet preaching tawhid, or the oneness of God, in the face of polytheistic paganism, to a majority prophet commanding the Muslim armies. So it’s possible to claim the name of Islam and live at peace in the West (as many do) by resting on certain surahs, while another can claim the name of Islam and march under the ISIS flag. There is simply no consistent message within the Qur’an to point to from the outside for such a thing.
This is not to say that individual Muslims cannot have a consistent way of living. But the problem is simply that it’s difficult to ascertain a consistent definition beyond the basics of belief that Allah is God and is one God alone, and belief that Muhammad is his prophet. So if you want to ask “Was he really a Muslim”, the answer is…it’s not as simple as some want to make it. He claimed to believe the tenets of the faith, yet it is becoming very clear he did not live consistently with them.
Indian Muslims shout slogans during a protest against ISIS, an Islamic State group, and the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris, in the eastern Indian city of Bhubaneswar, Friday, Nov. 20, 2015. Multiple attacks across Paris last Friday night left more than one hundred dead and many more injured. (AP Photo/Biswaranjan Rout)
As to, do Muslims have to do this to be Muslims? That plays into the question of consistency again, and I would say the answer is clearly no. There are many Muslims in the West who are able to live, work, and thrive alongside non-Muslims not as secret sleeper agents as some of the more fevered among us imagine, but simply as fellow Americans. There are also Muslims here who have fallen into the sway of radicals, and unfortunately we have seen the result of this once again. As Dr. White pointed out on yesterday’s Dividing Line, one can certainly look at the Qur’an and find passages that require the killing of homosexuals, yet those are also intended to be carried out within some sort of system of justice, with a trial and witnesses, not by one assailant carrying out his own brand of justice. So one could certainly hold the belief that what the Qur’an commands regarding homosexuals is true, without believing that the response to this is picking up a gun and murdering others.
I am planning in the next couple of weeks to have a guest on the podcast to discuss Islam from the perspective of missionary work in an Islamic framework. I hope to be able to discuss all this and more in greater detail then. Until then I highly recommend getting Dr. White’s book and reading it.
My wife came up to me yesterday and asked me, “Does the Bible say we should kill gay people?” I was rather taken aback, since this subject doesn’t exactly come up on a regular basis. But as we discussed the issue, about what Scripture says and what a Christian response to an evil act like the Orlando nightclub shooting looks like, the discussion turned more to the responses she had seen on Facebook. And there are many understandable ones: What kind of person does something like this? How can we hope to stop this from happening again? Then there are ones that ask very pointed questions of Islam, as the shooter was a claimed adherent of Islam and, according to police, called 911 before or during the shooting and pledged allegiance to both ISIS and al Qaeda. Then there were some responses that involved Christians, both from the Christian side (such as “How should we be serving these people in their time of pain and loss?”) and from the secular side (most pointedly, “How can you say you love these people and pray for them when you say they are living in sin and condemned to hell?”)
I think these all deserve discussion from a Christian point of view. Most especially, they deserve discussion because when those around us experience pain and suffering, we should be ready to engage with them meaningfully–not with a pat answer and phony Christianese sunshine, but with the only real answer that matters, the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the hope it provides even in the darkest moments. I don’t intend to make this “the definitive Christian response” but I want to do my best to answer questions I know many of my friends have. I highly recommend listening to Dr. Albert Mohler’s excellent Briefing podcast episode from yesterday, as he calmly yet lovingly discusses some of the specifics from this issue. The Gospel Coalition also has some excellentposts, including one by Nabeel Qureshi, who converted from the Ahmadiyya denomination of Islam and is now a Christian apologist working with Ravi Zacharias’ ministry.
I’ll be putting up several posts over the next couple of days. I want to let this series of posts stand as a place to discuss the questions, responses, and frustrations of many, both Christian and not. I may update it as time goes on. Please feel free to post your own thoughts and anything you would like to see addressed in the comments below. I do moderate for spam and trolling, but I will never turn away honest and heartfelt questions and disagreement.
I want to divide this up into sections, beginning with the subject of the shooting itself and branching out to broader issues. For example:
What kind of man could do something so horrible to people who have never hurt him?
The shooter claimed to be a Muslim–was he really Muslim? Do all Muslims have to act like the shooter?
Does the Bible say we are supposed to kill homosexuals?
How can you say that you are praying for the victims and that you love them, when you condemn them and say they are in sin?
This is my prayerful and thoughtful attempt to bring a meaningful gospel response to a horrific and wicked act. I hope my readers can recognize this, and are willing to engage in that spirit.
Reminder if you’ve forgotten: you can read Dr. Boa’s paper in full here.
There is a greater issue that must be addressed in light of all this, and is the larger reason why I felt this response was necessary: this is an issue of how we, as believers, view Christ’s work on the cross. As Dr. James White writes in his book The Potter’s Freedom:
[T]he ransom that Christ gives in His self-sacrifice is either a saving ransom or a non-saving one. If it is actual and really made in behalf of all men, then inevitably all men would be saved. But we again see that it is far more consistent to recognize that the same meaning for “all men” and “all” flows through the entire passage [referring to 1 Timothy 2:4], and when we look at the inarguably clear statements of Scripture regarding the actual intention and result of Christ’s cross-work, we will see that there is no other consistent means of interpreting these words….[1]
The doctrine of justification by faith is one that requires an understanding of the nature of Christ’s work on the cross. The book of Hebrews discusses this at length, and while I won’t walk through the multiple chapters of argumentation here, I want to discuss some key texts and encourage my readers to read the whole book for themselves, to see the majestic work of salvation accomplished perfectly for God’s people in Jesus Christ.
Listen here or subscribe via iTunes, Soundcloud, or your favorite podcast catcher
First discussion episode of 2016! Dave and Jon are joined by Dave’s friend Ryan who read the Edwards sermon, to discuss what they read as well as talk about the difference between what the world thinks of heaven and the biblical teaching.
Jon and Dave are joined in the Spurgeon Audio studios by Jarod Grice, fellow member at Christ Community Church, musician, and author of an article recently published on Relevant Magazine’s website on the role of tradition in the church. He’s also working on a new album of hymn arrangements that will be out soon, take a listen to some of the content here for free.
We also discussed our experiences of encountering the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and how what we had experienced in life led up to the moment that our eyes were opened to the truth. Take a listen, and stay tuned for the next sermon coming soon!
We’re trying something a little different! Two episodes, and this one rather than being a sermon is a discussion episode where I am joined by Spurgeon Audio producer Jon Ladner and Reformed Pubster and videographer Michael Kraus. We were all present for the debate and we discuss our impressions of the excellent interaction from that evening. Plus: thanks to #prosapologian channel rat Nick Vahalik and the kind permission of Red Grace Media, we have a brief clip from the debate that we are able to use to give just a bit of context. First discussion episode, hopefully first of many!
KINGS WAY TALK 