The Ideological War In The Aftermath Of
September 11

by Josh Moody (January 2002)

Professor Sir Norman Anderson, Islam In The Modern World (Apollos 1990)
D. A. Carson, The Gagging Of God (Apollos 1996)

Summary: September 11th is not a lesson in the importance of holding no certain religious convictions. Rather it shows us that what matters is what we believe not how much we believe it.

[Note we are not here asserting that Jesus is the only way to God, or dealing with such matters as the viability of the unique claims of Christ in the contemporary atmosphere of religious relativisitic pluralism. See Josh Moody, Authentic Spirituality]

1. Introduction

We read in the newspapers of the war in Afghanistan. We hear of the ‘war on terrorism’. But there is another kind of battle going on presently. This is an ideological war. It is a fight to decide what kind of interpretation of the events of September 11th will gain general credibility.

To understand the issues at stake three areas of inquiry need to be pursued. To begin with we need to understand the secular ‘gospel of tolerance’. Then we need to understand the nature and claims of Islam. Finally we need to understand the importance of maintaining the truth of the Christian gospel, especially in this current climate.

This subject is well introduced by a quotation from a recent New York Times article that I was sent. In it, retiring journalist Anthony Lewis, argued that the lesson we should learn from September 11th is that certainty, of whatever kind, is wrong. Comparing Attorney General Ashcroft, a committed Christian, to Osama Bin Laden, he wrote that Ashcroft is as much an “enemy of decency” as terrorist mass murderer Osama bin Laden. For “Certainty,” he said, “is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right, like Osama bin Laden and John Ashcroft.”

Such a view is based on three widely held misunderstandings. It is based on the view that certainty of whatever kind is wrong, that Islam and Christianity are basically the same and that political tolerance depends upon ideological ambiguity. None of these propositions are in fact true. Instead September 11 reminds us that 1. A conviction of the truth is foundational for social tolerance and personal morality. 2. Islam and Christianity are different.

1. September 11th reminds us that a conviction of the truth is foundational for social tolerance and personal morality.

a. What prevents evil and promotes good is a conviction of the truth.

We in the West have had plenty of opportunity in the last century to have already learnt this lesson. In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler was allowed to rise to power and exercise evil dominion because too few people were willing to sacrifice their lives for the truth. Pastor Martin Niemollor penned a famous poem to sum up this route complicity of which he believed the German Protestant church was guilty: “First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.” (Martin Niemollor, 1945. There are several versions of this poem extant. This version is taken from an article on the 50th anniversary of WW II that appeared in Time Magazine, Aug 28, 1989. Niemollor was a famous Anti-Nazi activist who after the war was was instrumental in producing the Stuttgart Confession of Guilt).

b. A conviction of the truth leads not to intolerance but compassion

It is widely asserted that the only foundation for social tolerance – being willing to allow people the political right to believe what they like – is necessarily founded upon a relativistic view of truth. But

i. Tolerance was historically framed within a Christian worldview. It is true that Christians have pesecuted themselves and other people at times. But, historically, the beginnings of tolerance were not born within a relativistic ideological framework. Instead, John Locke, for instance believed that, “The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure, all sincere; nothing too much, nothing wanting.” John Locke is often believed to be the founder of modern tolerance because he developed a theory of knowing which kept religious knowledge in the realm of opinion in a response to the religious wars of his age. However, also important for the development of religious tolerance, and at a more practical level, was Roger Williams who founded Providence, RI, in 1636 and in 1639 established the first Baptist church in America. Locke’s highly influential Essay Concerning Understanding was not published until 1690.

ii. Tolerance philosophically depends upon truth. The basis of social tolerance is the belief that the ‘truth will out’. In other words, in a free atmosphere of inquiry the best ideas and the truest truths will rise to the surface. Without this conviction concerning the primacy of truth it is practically speaking impossible to maintain an atmosphere of social tolerance.

iii. A conviction of the truth of the Christian gospel leads – and has always led – to acts of self-sacrifical compassion on others (including others of different faiths). American Christians have interpreted September 11th as a call to repentance and an opportunity for compassion. They have been active in evangelism and good works. Many came to New York to deliver tracts. Many also came to offer practical service, free of charge, like cleaning out apartments caked in dust. Their compassion, as their evangelism, has impressed; a newspaper report noted that, for example, “when Cille Powell of Summerville, S.C., was in one apartment that lacked a toilet brush, she put on rubber gloves and scrubbed out the bowl by hand”. This Cillie Powell was a part of a Southern Baptist group, the very kind of organisation that would be condemned as ‘fundamentalist’.

c. Relativistic ‘tolerance’ is (ironically) intolerant

The great irony of the gospel of tolerance is, as D.A. Carson described it, that it is deeply intolerant: “the gospel of relativistic tolerance is perhaps the most ‘evangelistic’ movement in Western culture at the moment, demanding assent and brooking no rivals”. You only have to assert the belief that there is only one way to God to feel the cold shoulder of relativistic ‘tolerance’. It may, in fact, soon be the case that in certain situations one is no longer allowed to assert this historical, Biblical, Christian belief. Contemporary tolerance is not tolerant: it insists that it is the truth, even while at the same time proclaiming that ‘the truth’ does not exist. As G.B. Shaw said “There is only one religion in the world, though there are a hundred versions of it”. Anything that denies this is not acceptable. In the end relativistic tolerance only tolerates other relativists.

d. Science has strong roots in Christian truth

While developing the point fully is beyond the bounds of the subject of this paper, in this context it is important to realise that Christianity has played a key role in the development of modern science. The ‘conflict-thesis’ postulated by the media between Christianity and science is biased. Today many scientists are Christians. The truth of Christianity was the atmosphere in which the modern scientific enterprise took its first breath. (J.H.Brooke, Science and Religion – Some Historical Perspectives, CUP 1991; C.A.Russell, Cross-Currents – Interactions Between Science & Faith, IVP 1985).

2.Islam and Christianity are different.

a. They are different in beliefs

While both Islam and Christianity believe in one God (they are catalogued by textbooks of religions as both ‘monotheistic’) their beliefs about God, salvation, revelation and religious practice are radically different. A Moslem believes that there is one God. A Christian believes that there is one God in three persons. A Moslem believes that Jesus was a prophet, on a par with Adam and Moses. A Christian believes that Jesus is God incarate, the sovereign ruler and Lord of the universe. Why then do people think they are the same? Some people say that they are the same in an effort to be nice. But, as we have seen, we can disagree with someone and still be loving. A Christian may disagree with a Moslem; he is still commanded by Jesus to love his neighbour. Other people say they are the same out of a religious conviction to the mystical one-ness of all religions. But to assert this is really to deny both Islam and Christianity for neither believe the other is correct. This mysticism portrays an attitude of superior arrogance to all other religions, believing that the real truth is that they are all the same (even though they don’t think they are). Other people still think that Islam and Christianity are the same out of simple ignorance. They believe that the basic message of Christianity is to ‘do good’ and they believe that the basic message of Islam is the same. In fact, the heart of the Christian message is the cross of Christ. The central tenet of Islam, the “Five Pillars”, are in contrast a set of religious duties.

b. They are different in practice

Most Muslims are not violent and any prejudice towards them in that regard must be strenuously opposed by Christians at this time. However, the violence of Islamic countries towards those who convert to Christianity is a matter of public record. Where Islam is strong – in the countries it controls – becoming a Christian can be a life-threatening step. As Harvard historian Samuel P. Huntington puts it, Islam has “bloody borders.” Becoming a Muslim in England or the USA, in contrast, may be difficult but it is not usually dangerous. If Jesus was right that false prophets shall be known by their “fruit” (Matthew 7:15-20) surely it cannot be the case that the truth in these matters is immaterial?