The World's Fastest Growing Religion

One of the reasons I so appreciate my friendship with Elissa.is that there are many things, art being one, that she is so much more learned and thoughtful about than I. Truth be told, I'm the classic shallow guy that prefers a sports poster to a Monet (well, maybe not exactly, but you know what I mean). Her comments are always relevant and thoughtful, and very much appreciated.

I have two additional thoughts to Elissa’s recent discussion (and my follow up comments) regarding this past week’s Muslim rioting in response to the Danish cartoon kerfuffle.

First, there is a big fundamental difference between what drives Christian reactions and Muslim reactions to things like this cartoon or Serrano’s portrait. I believe “true Christianity” does not encourage these violent reactions; “true Islam” does. You and I would both agree that the far right Christian extremists who quickly write off someone like Serrano and condemn all involved are not acting in line with the true Gospel. We would want to explain to a nonbeliever that bombing an art gallery (or abortion clinic) in the name of Christ is not true Christianity. Christendom is full of "false churches" or "false gospels (medieval Catholicism, the Crusades, maybe even the “fundamentalist retreat” of the early 20th century), all of which I would argue have perverted our faith. Christianity is unique because we recognize the gap between how we ought to act and how we actually act. Honestly, I’d be afraid that if someone had to judge the merits of Christianity by watching me for a day, they’d be turned away by the hypocritical inconsistencies of Scripture and my life. But at least we recognize the gap.

The Muslim reactions, however, are not unordinary. The violent riots are a direct outworking of what they believe. That is what I think John Piper.was getting at. Islam is a violent and aggressive religion, BY ITS VERY NATURE, and is not open to criticism or critique. And, regardless of how in vogue or politically correct it is currently to accept Islam as a viable religion, Islam is at its very root opposed to and hostilely against Christianity. Sure, we make a distinction between Islam and what President Bush week referred to in the State of the Union as “radical Islam; the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.” But the real difference is only that the “radical Islamists” have decided to act on what their theology (via the Koran and Hadith) actually teaches. If all Muslims lived like the Koran taught, we’d have a much bigger war on terror than we can ever imagine. Just like if Christians actually cared for the poor and afflicted like Jesus taught, we might have a better answer to questions of poverty.

See, for Islam, there is NO dichotomy between sacred and secular, cf. Christian theonomists. While I, as a westerner, can advocate a theory of religious plurality and freedom of religion because I think it works well as a secular political structure, Muslim’s find it difficult to grasp this concept of free religious expression. I take offense to certain mockeries of Christianity, but I also recognize that there is certain level of discourse that takes place within a democratic society that I allow, even if I disagree. Like Piper said, I know that persecution comes with the Christian turf, so to speak. But when the Muslim religion is challenged, or when someone who is not a Muslim does something that Muslim’s cannot do (i.e. depict Muhammad), they react. Often violently. Piper mentioned Rushdie. Ayatollah Khomeini (sp?) condemned Rushdie to death and ordered Muslims to execute Rushdie and the publishers of his book. This is no Senator Helms speech. There is a significant difference between Christian and Muslim reactions. There is a spiritual (and at times literally physical) battle between Christianity and the Prince of this world – I believe Islam v. Christianity is one of the major battle fronts in our day.

Second. Elissa, I’m confident that you are able to appreciate art and artistic expression on levels far beyond me because of the depth of your training and experience. I can only hope to glean from your wisdom. But I often find the philosophy of art a bit slippery, and explanations like Serrano’s don’t always help me, but seem more like the legalese crafted by witty lawyers that I’ve read everyday for several years now. If I don’t like a piece of art or seem to misunderstand it, I am quickly ushered to the author’s intent and told how I am supposed to view this work. Other times the art fails to elicit any reaction on my behalf, or seems meaningless to me, at which point I am told that the art is what the viewer makes it, that there is no one meaning, so even if its nothing to me it could be full of value to someone else. To me, this reduces art and its critique to an individual level, and erodes any sense of collective appreciation or collective standards for art. I, however, find value in some collective social standards. Depth or no depth, art appreciation or not, most people (Christian or otherwise) see the placement of the crucifix in a bottle of piss as a very inflammatory and derogatory gesture. That says something to me. I too find Serrano’s work offensive. Just like I find the F-word offensive, and no argument from anybody about how it “no longer really means what is used to mean” or “its ubiquitous usage negates any cultural taboos” is going to change that. Regardless of how Serrano may try to justify it, his artwork offends me. It does not help me redefine or personalize my relationship with Christ. And I think he has grossly misunderstood the Eucharist, its elements, and any meaning found in the juxtaposition of celebrating the “body and blood of Christ.” Is he free to make this art? Sure. Except that his art was federally funded through the NEA, which means my tax money paid for his “expression.” And except that in my opinion this type of artistic expression is done, and encouraged, less for the expression and more for the political/power motivations.

This was my big bone to pick originally with my comments on Elissa’s blog regarding the “Danish cartoon fiasco.” Both then and now I am most interested by the reactions of the Muslims to the cartoon, and the media’s reaction to the Muslim reactions. By and large, the media has been sympathetic to the Muslims, and few Muslim’s have been apologetic for their violent reactions. There is a double standard, and once again Christians get the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

For example. The New York Times will not print the pictures of the Danish political cartoon. The Times said this: "(We) and much of the rest of the nation's media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

Sounds good so far. Except that this past week the Times also ran an article entitled "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery" which included a picture of a dung-covered Mary. No bombs in Mohammed’s turban, but crap on Mary? Please someone define “gratuitous assault.”

Serrano’s work was published in the LA Times and Boston Globe in 1989, and Serrano was featured in a New York Times fashion spread. Or how about "Corpus Christi," the play with a gay Jesus who had sex with some Apostles. Any detractors were condemned by The New York Times as having "contempt for artistic expression."

There seems to be a double standard.

As a humble Christian, I should be and have a right to be offended by mockery of my Savior, and I should also be careful not to intentionally or maliciously offend others, misguided as their faith might be. I too once walked in darkness. But while we are taught to turn the other cheek and rejoice in persecution, Muslims are taught to fight back. While Christians are maligned by a majority of the cultural elite despite the fact that cultural mainstream is broadly “Christian” (84% of Americans claim to be “Christians,” however loosely that term applies), Muslims are applauded and exonerated. We are judged by a double standard. In a post 911 America, I find it hard to understand why the religion that inspired the terrorist attacks on our country gets off so easily.

I refuse to play by those rules, and I do not believe that the current Muslim behavior is similar at all to the way Christian’s have previously reacted to similar situation.

Then again, that's just my opinion.