Comments

Although this deserves longer treatment, here is a short answer to a short article, minus citations. 1. Jesus was not a military leader nor ever killed anyone. Muhammad led 27 military campaigns against innocent villages and caravans, and planned 38 others. “I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies.” (Hadith) Jesus let Himself be killed. Mohammed killed others. 2. Most Old Testament commands to commit violent acts were given to specific groups of people to be enacted upon other specific groups of people in specific historical timeframes. Those commands cannot be reinterpreted to be valid for other groups at other times. Kuranic commands to commit violent acts are not always specific like that: many of them are general railings against "infidels" in any time or place. 3. When comparing religions, one has to look at the original sources, not just adherents' actions. Most of the past violence that has historically been attributed to Christians occurred before Scripture was widely translated/disseminated/read by the masses. This is still true today, and of some of the current groups Galli named above. Believers were/are at the mercy of what their "leaders" tell them "God said". They may or may not have acted with knowledge of true Christianity. The same general lack of knowledge about the Kuran can be discussed but many suicide bombers were educated people with ample access to the Kuran and who, in fact, used it justify their actions.
Jinny Brow
BA, World Religions
Wheaton College

Mark -

I invite you to come, live and learn about this issue in a Muslim country, not in the comforts of US Christianity.

Or just ask yourself a question, which religion can you publicly criticize its foundations and leave it, and which sanctions violence against both.

Your ignorance is astounding, but your casual attitude of moral flippancy is the worse. Next time ask a Christian to whom these questions are more than tea time chatter, one who lives or lived under the weight of its realities.

It should be noted that when violence has been part of the Christian church it is because the state has largely controlled the church and it used the church to justify conquests. Or it is because the church (particularly the Catholic Church) has responded to violence against it. Remember the Crusades were an endeavor to recapture the Holy Land from Islam which attacked first! However since Christianity has been taken out of its entanglement with governments it has GENERALLY NOT been used as an excuse for violence nor has it promoted violence. This is UNLIKE much of Islamic Terrorism. Alhtough some states sponsor terrorism. It should also be noted that the more Islam is controlled or dominates a state it will gravitate toward violence and extremism. This is true for any religion.

It might be good to remember that we live in a fallen world and the results of the Fall can at times be seem even in the best of Christians . As Christians, we are no better than non-Christians. Remember wahat Paul wrote in Romans 7? Only God’s grace can make us what we should be.

Good point, but the historical argument against Christianity does not work. God worked through the Babylonians, but he will judge them for their behavior, check out the prophetic books that warn foreign nations of their treatment of Israel(Ezekiel, Isaiah). Habakkuk comes to mind as well. The Jewish religion, and Christianity does not require violence to please God, and it does not include a promise of eternal life. Once the realization of the Messiah came in Jesus, we are to turn the other cheek and bless those who persecute you, and glorify God by our obedience and dedication to him through behavior, not defend him, or attack others for him.

I agree with Mark Galli. In the name of "purity" (e.g. St. Bartholomew's Day massacre) or in pursuit of eschatological goals such as the establishment of the millenial rule of Christ on earth (e.g. many Cromwellians in the English Civil War) or of secularized versions of the same (e.g. democracy in Iraq), Christans have too frequently and too easily resorted to violence.
I also agree that Christianity is NOT inherently violent. We serve the Prince of Peace. Now to work with one another,so that "zeal for the Lord" is not used as an excuse for unChristlike actons . . .

Jesus, who taught us to know the Father, led us to accept loss and hurt without retaliation. "Do good to those who persecute you." The problem is that we want to follow the "basic principles of this world", as Paul calls the Law Covenant, instead of following Christ. When Paul followed he Law, the basic principles of this world, he was a violent man, an unbeliever, according to his own admission. So is everyone who walks and lives in the Law Covenant instead of walking and living in Christ.

The Cruscades were certainly not without atrocities by Christians, but were essentially a defensive fight against militantly expansionist Islam.

The current events you cite include a number of clashes between Christian and Islamic groups. There are also numberous clashes currently going on between Islamis and Hindu, Animist and other groups (essentially every group that Islam borders with or controls within its sphere of power - see Huntington's work in this regard).

There is little violence between Christianity and non-Islamic groups.

I think your point fails.

Have some confidence in your religion, man! Neither the New World conquest, nor the Northern Ireland "troubles", nor the Rwanda genocide was fundamentally a religious war. Only the New World conquest had any Christian justification, and I hope you don't believe evangelizing America was a bad thing. Muslim-Christian conflicts in Nigeria and Indonesia are overwhelmingly provoked by Muslim supremacists. The Crusades included some awful depredations, but they were ultimately provoked by Muslim assaults on Christianity in Palestine. Musaji's article carefully misses the point: the teachings of Christ are an obstacle to warriors, and antiwar movements often cite Christian belief as a justification, whereas in Islam religious war (jihad) and subjugation of other religions (dhimma) is central. Not all Muslims are violent, but: If you want to keep a Christian from violence, show him his Bible. If you want to keep a Muslim from violence, hide his Quran.

Of course, modern Islamic propaganda campaigns have played on the sins of our past which we must admit and confess to have been wrong. However, Christians should quote Christ's admonition to love our enemies and do good to them as our primary response to persecution and to all our religious opponents, including Jihadists. We need to remind Muslims that Christ never gave the New Testament church a mandate to make war on those who oppose us or to create Christian states. Also, I think we must more consistently protect Muslim minorities in our own communities whenever possible and love them as Christ commanded. We must also at the same time powerfully advocate protection for minorities including Christians in the Muslim and other non-Christian states. We must point out the error of all organized violence, genocide and crimes against minorities including Christians whenever they occur. I am troubled that we are not speaking out more about this current wave of worldwide violence in the name of religion -- and I include myself and my ministries.

Perhaps Mr. Galli should pay attention to what radical Muslims themselves write, as at
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1117&p=community&a=6

Christians who follow Jesus follow him to the cross, where we are rather on the receiving end of violence for the sake of peace; and we are not the perpetrators of violence if we take the way of the cross. We receive from God when we are peaceful and humble and rejected and meek. Jesus said: (Matthew 5:9)
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"..So we must follow Jesus and not the politics and human teachings of the day, or the heated emotions of the time.

Apart from a revelation from God, most Muslims will never see the violence in Islam--because they have a template and that template is violence toward unbelievers. This is part and parcel of Islam where there are 2 houses: the believers (submitted to Mohammed), and those who are infidels--unbelievers, who will NOT submit to Mohammed. That's why they acquiesce to violence. This is also why they (Muslims) so easily take offense to anything that mocks Mohammed and want the offending party beheaded on the spot.

I'm sorry--even for the sake of bettering our relationship with Muslims, I am not about to subscribe to the argument that Christianity is a violent religion. Question: Where are all the news articles re: Christians with bombs blowing themselves up along with many innocent victims? There are none because our FAITH and our Scripture don't condone such action, whereas the Quran DOES condone terrorism, in the name of Allah.

I am not concerned about whether Muslims think that Christianity is violent or not. Their Koran and actions today prove violence is part and parcel its modus operendi. My concern is with the left that tries to portray it as a peaceful religion trying to rewrite the history of the last 1400 years.

I love Muslims, I do not love their violent religion or its concept of God. He is wholly unlike the God of the Bible. The Muslim god is unjust, unforgiving, unmerciful and totally un-gracious. That is a god no one should serve.

We would have the same qualification that Muslims do... those were not "real Christians" I wonder about the Psalms sometimes... C.S.Lewis had some interesting comments on the Psalms. The fact reamains that Christ taught to love your enemies and that early Christians were pacifists until they found the Cynical exploitiing that conviction. How much are we supposed to take? The Crusades would not have been necessary were it not for the Muslim conquest. What is often missed is that perfect people do not exist and Christianity is the only religion to recognize this and make allowances for it.

People of any culture and ethnicity are inherently violent. That people do violent things, then, is not the issue, is it? The question is "What do these faiths do to check and ameliorate this tendency?" That is where the answer to your question lies.

Look at what the "founder" of Islam said, and then look at what the "founder" of Christianity said. It is that simple. The OT may have a violent, bloody element, but has that EVER been regarded as normative for Christianity? War and bloodshed were common for the Hebrew people, and the kingdoms that descended from them. Who has ever linked this bellicose tendency to Jesus?

Look at the NT. See what Jesus said. See what he did. See what his companions and followers in the Scripture said and did. Now, look at the Qu'ran and the Hadiths: what did Muhammad say? What did he do? How did he seek to establish Islam? What did his companions do? Compare that to what Jesus did to establish Christianity.

Have there been violent Christians? Of course! They continue to be human, thus susceptible to failure. Can their violence be squared with what Jesus said and did? Can this be squared with what his companions said and did? Now, what about violence in Islam. Can that be squared with what Muhammed and his companions said and did?

There can be no doubt here. The evidence speaks for itself.

I find it telling that when a Christian answers the charge of Christian vilolence, he will go to the Bible and point to the teachings of Christ and all the admonitions in both Testaments to treat each other and unbelievers with love. He will then usually denounce the violence of so-called Christians unless it is seen as self defence. Some Christians will even say any kind of self defence is unchristian.

When a Muslim answers the charge of violence, the tactic usually seems to be, "Look at you people. You are violent too. You did it first!" (And this is from the moderate Muslims such as the woman cited above.) I have never heard them quote the teachings in the Koran that tell them to love their enemies or treat unbelievers with love. I have never heard moderate Muslims say that those that take up arms carry out suicide attacks in the name of Allah are not true Muslims. (I have heard Christians say this though.)

Now it's possible that I have just not been in the right place to hear these quiet statements, and it's possible that the Koran does include the command to love even the unbeliever and not to do violence to him. But I have yet to hear that from those who claim Islam teaches peace and brotherhood.

The Qu'ran includes only a handful of peace passages, all of which are abrogated, or supplanted by later surahs. Contrast this to Christ of the Gospels, especially Matthew 5-7.

I think it's important to remember that in the days of Muhammad, Christianity had already embarked on a very violent path for many centuries. From the time that Constantine had his vision of the cross: "Conquer by this," Christianity had become associated with a "conquistador" mentality. Thus in every way, Islam was simply following the Christian model. Let us also recall, contemporary evangelical leader's support and biblical justification for the war in Iraq. I remember John Macarthar quoting the words of Jesus: "let him who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one" as scriptural support for invading Iraq. It was Augustine who, centuries before Muhammad, used Jesus' words: "Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full" as a justification for enforcing compliance with Christian values. Scholars today are becoming increasingly convinced that almost everything in Islam was borrowed from Christianity. There is a great deal of evidence emerging to back this up. Thus it may turn out that our animosity towards Islam is really a matter of self-loathing after all.

If I hear one more comment on the crusades I will barf. Were any of us there? The pope said go and take, and the Christians of the time went. During the reformation, much Christian blood was shed on both sides.
In the OT, Israel slaughtered thousands to retake the Promised Land. What is the Christian answer to that in these post-modern times?

Bogosian's comments are convoluted double talk, as is almost any assertion which uses un-named "scholars" for buttressing its point.

At its core, its source manual, the New Testament, the Christian faith is not violent. Governments who have co-opted Christian imagery and symbolism have been violent.

At its core, its source manual, th4e Koran, Islam is violent.

Christian Europe managed to start two world wars in the last century, and didn't keep Nazis and Stalinists in check. My Jewish in-laws family fled to America because of Christian led pogroms.

In Christian lead United States, there was near Native American genocide in the 19th century, the theft of the Southwest from Mexico, the Civil War (essentially a war between evangelical factions, and started by a Christian slave-holding oligarchy), lynch law, the racist justified domination of the Philippines, pogroms such as Tulsa in 1921, a long life for Jim Crow, massive resistance to Civil Rights, bombings of black churches, and now, of course, today's hate your gay and immigrant neighbors campaigns...for starters.

Sure, the 13the Amendment was ratified, Jim Crow finally died in the late Sixties with the Supreme Court's "Loving" decision, and gay people have made gains toward equality despite the conservative Christian revival of massive resistance tactics. All supported...and opposed, by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Is Christianity inherently violent or not? It would seem a moot point. Is Islam inherently violent of not? Why should we think they're "inherently" any better or worse?

How wonderful that people like Mr. Greg Peterson can write what they believe openly in America which is so bad a place because of the Judeo-Christian influence! I wish he would try that in Saudi Arabia! While we are at it I would like to ask Mr. Gali and Ms. Sheila Musaji whether they know anyone arrested in a country that has strong Christian influence for praying to Allah or to Shiva or to Buddha? I do personally know several who were arrested for praying to Jesus and for reading their Bibles in their own homes in Saudi Arabia. Do they know of any church buildings or Hindu temples in Saudi Arabia? Violence is not just killing innocent people by flying airplanes into tall buildings; it is also not allowing people to pray or worship (or not to worship!) according to their conscience. Such basic freedom does not exist for non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the land of the prophet, even today. That is Islam!
George Chavan

The problem with such debates is the ignorance of the debaters' - including myself - of the other faith. How many of us have read the other's Holy Book, carefully? Barring a very few, we repeat what other ignorants have said or written. A true Christian or a true Muslim will be tolerant of the other BECAUSE the founders of both the faiths were men of Peace. There are no two gods, God is one and the same for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists et al. GOD is merciful. I, like every Muslim, begin all my actions by repeating the phrase BISMILLAH which translates as IN THE NAME OF ALLAH [Arabic for God] WHO IS KIND AND MERCIFUL.May He bless us all.We are all His creatures.

Just a quick comment. I didn't know that the Nazis and the Stalinists were Christians. Weren't they anti-Christians and had a strong belief in pure blood and socialism(in its rarest form).
Didn't they throw millions of Jews and Christians into concentration camps and gulags. What history book are you reading.
And I wonder why there are more Jews living safely in Christian nations than in Israel. Could be they were driven out of Islam countries.
As for American Indians, yes, they were treated as savages and again there was slavery at a time when slavery was still in existence, well, it still is in some countries, but, there was a Christian government with Christian based laws that eventually wiped out slavery; and, there are more Indians in this country now than there were ever at their pre-white man days because they were constantly fighting among themselves for control, and yes, land again. Enough said.

Painting with a broad brush, particularly in defense of one's own religion, misses the details to which opponents are attracted. It is easy to pick points here and there and miss the main thing. Neither Islam nor Christianity are exempt from cultural influences or from use by Empire or government for ends other than those of the religion. Broad brush attacks or broad brush defenses serve few purposes other than to make the painter feel so much better.

Mr. Galli:

Are you there? Any comments?

I find this original article shallow and superficial but most of the comments excellent.

I think Mark that your comments were a real shot in the dark. This stuff you write does not equate with the person I think I know. Yes indeed, give a violent person a Bible and he will cease his folly, but for a violent Muslim the Koran needs to be taken away.Mark have you not read the passage yet that says.But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.You must be using a modern Bible where this command from our Lord is not fully given. Olaf

Mr. Galli, wow you really took a beating on this one. Such is the state of mainstream evangelical Christianity, I think. You try to say something outside the accepted perspective on Islam and you get slam dunked.

As a born and raised evangelical now residing in Jordan, I've had my eyes pulled wide open. Too many Muslims that I've met (as well as Arab believers) really believe that American Christianity is linked to policies resulting in violence against innocent civilians, whether in Iraq, Lebanon or the West Bank and Gaza. "Why do you have to pursue American interests with such violence?", they ask me.

It is worth considering, as your brief article did, whether or not we are even aware of this what we could do about it. Be encouraged and help to keep us following Jesus--that we might become true peacemakers.

Of course, 'American Christianity' is only a very small version of 'World Wide Christianity'. Worldwide Christians shouldn't be automatically equated with American Imperialism masquerading as Christianity, anymore than with Historic Crusader politics masquerading as the same.

When someone can point out a Muslim majority country where non Muslims enjoy equal rights in law and in fact with
Muslims, I will grant there is no difference between Christendom and Islam

I didn't say that Nazis and Stalinists were Christian. I said that Christian Europe didn't keep them in check. Not the same thing...and many, if not most, Nazi's were Christian. Nazi's seemed to appeal more to Protestants than Catholics, but there were plenty of both. Some Nazis advocated paganism, but they did that without official party support.

Nazis did try to set up a German Christian denomination in the early Thirties, but there wasn't really much need. Most churches were adequately compliant with their alleged gift from God...or else...as leaders of the Confessing Church movement found out.

Essentially, Nazis promiscuously stole and warped most anything they found appealing to the authoritarian personality, and therefore could be most anything to any bigot. However, as bigots aren't one note, simple minded people, they could find themselves on the wrong side of some high Nazi official if they didn't watch out.

For instance, I could be a bigot and I do have a genetic disease...If some relative of some high Nazi official wanted my job, I would have been very vulnerable, regardless of how much I was of a hardliner.

So....I should keep quiet because I would be arrested in some other countries? I'd say that is a good reason to speak out. One of my ancestors is famous for saying..."Speak for yourself, John." lol

Is there a difference between the US Bible Belt and Saudi Arabia...at least as the Bible Belt was in the Fifties and Sixties? Well, yes... Women voted...unless they were Black women. Just where were conservative evangelical Christians during the Civil Rights era?

Both areas are trying very hard to make gays scapegoats, invisible, and vulnerable to blackmail and abuse. I won't say anything about the Koran, but the Bible says nothing against being gay people...it's just made to seem so...as it was made to seem to say things against Black people when I was a kid.

Don't give me the "Being Black isn't a sin, but homosexuality is"...that's not what conservative evangelicals were saying back then. They said that being Black was caused by sin...the sins of Ham and Babel and "pagan" Africa. (Never mind that the some of the oldest Christian communities are African.) Neither being Black and/or gay is a sin.

Only I sin, what you do is between you, yours, God, and the legal system.

And where are conservative evangelicals now, in general? Still using the same massive resistance tactics against citizen equality...only against a smaller group of people. Now, however, they invite Black people to join in the neo-massive resistance movement. Apparently, the "sin" of being Black has been forgiven. How nice.

Anna, do you really want to say what you said about Native Americans?

Come to New Mexico and talk to people here. There are some towns that long predate Columbus, and which had their revolution for independence in 1680. It had some success and some far reaching consequences. Where do you think the Plains Indians got their horses?

Ben:

Mr. Galli's question was "Is Christianity inherently violent." Questions about American foreign policy, especially concerning the Muslim world, were not at issue. That the US has consistently backed the losers, dictators, megalomaniacs, etc. in the Middle East is without doubt. That the present administration has smothered any generous feeling toward the US in the Muslim world (I presently live in Pakistan) by their actions is obvious. That the world community banded together to confiscate Muslim (and Christian) land in Palestine to give to people who had never lived there (in the last 1500 years or so) from other parts of the world hasn't made the Muslims feel secure or happy with the predominately Christian West (and that has been festering since 1947). All of this is conceded without qualm.

But this isn't the issue.

The question Mr. Galli passed is "Is Christianity inherently violent?" What is your answer?

Many of the comments reveal a certain dualism that I believe is a problem. There is no question that historically Islam has a natural affinity to violence, and that explains a lot of the justifications Muslims today use to commit violence. What is amazing is that given Christianity's pacific beginnings, how much violence we've been prone to commit.

I guess I'm suggesting the human beings are inherently violent, and that a Christian conversation with Muslims has to begin there. Any attempt to justify our record on violence will be greeted with a snicker. AFTER we've established that we're all violent more than we should be, that some of the violence has been justified and some not, then we can begin to have a constructive conversation about what is going on today.

Mark,

I appreciate the humble approach that you are advocating in conversing with Muslims. To offer only a knee-jerk defense of everything related to Christianity will only raise unnecessary walls. However, you don't seem to be acknowledging the radical differences in the origins of both faiths. When a Christian commits violent atrocities, others can appeal to the teachings of Christ to demonstrate that this is sin and inherently unchristian. The same cannot be said of similar acts of violence committed by Muslims. Indeed, many would argue that violence is endemic to orthodox Islam and would point out that it was propagated through violence from the beginning.

To begin with these observations may be neither wise nor loving. To fail to address them, however, neglects an intrinsic element of this debate. We must readily admit our sin, but we must also witness to the standard of Christ by which our sin is measured, and demonstrate the absolute uniqueness of Christ and His Gospel of peace. To communicate less is to do a disservice both to the Gospel of Christ, but to the Muslims with whom we must lovingly share their only real hope of true reconciliation and peace in Christ.

There are the Jainists of India, which have non-violent living and the equality of all living things as their top priorities, and rational thought, rational perception and rational living as their goals. Their nonviolent teachings have extended to America, through their influence on Gandhi, from him to Bayard Rustin and others, to the Civil Rights Movement lead by Martin Luther King Jr. and others.

Of course, my idea of rational thought, rational perception and rational living may not be their ideas. I do, after all, only have only a most superficial understanding of Jainists, and their influence on America is a few generations removed from their core teachings and commingled with other ideas on non-violence and right living, such as Quakerism. (Rustin was a Quaker and Gandhi, I think, wasn't a Jainist.)

The idea that humans are inherently violent isn't necessarily a given for everyone or group, then, and certainly excuses nothing by anyone.

the Jainists, on a superficial look anyway, do seem to actually try to practice what they preach on non-violence and the equality of all living things, as much as humanly possible anyway. And in the main, they seem to be reasonably literate, generous and prosperous as well. Which might explain why they have outsized influence in India, and some European and American converts.

So, how should followers of the Prince of Peace engaged followers of the nonviolent way?

"Why do you have to pursue American interests with such violence?", they ask me.

We are pursuing the American people's safety with some violence because we were violently attacked, violence is still being used against our efforts to help Iraq stand against the terrorist's demands and violent interference,and violence against America is still being planned and publicly threatened.

And Mark your quote, "Instead of us worrying about Islamic violence, perhaps we should take the log out of our own eye and ask, "Is Christianity inherently violent?"
I for one am very concerned about Islamic violence! And you would be too, if President Bush and his administration weren't doing such a good job in keeping their violence from being fought on our shores and in our cities.

I don't believe that every Muslim supports violence, but we don't hear Muslims publicly speak-out aginst the Islamic fanatics on our airwaves. Further, I don't think it is the christian's duty to try and convince people of the Muslim faith that christianity isn't violent. Actions speak for themselves and no one is insitgating violent attacks upon Muslims in the name of christianity.

Jesus was perfect and some of the very same people who witnessed Him and His ministry cried out to have him crucified. We cannot try to be all things to all people in order to be seen as loving.

To those who think we should turn the other cheek and not retaliate, why do we have punishment for crimes then? And if someone were to come into your yard and threaten to attack your children, would you not do anything but stand there and let them do it and then offer them yourself as well?

Whatever the facts are, many Islamics would disagree with your statement that "no one is instigating violent attacks upon Muslims in the name of Christianity."

After all, some conservatives in the US insist that this is a Christian nation, as opposed to a secular nation with a majority of people who are Christians. The US has occupied two Islamic nations since 9/11, and while the Saddam government was only nominally Islamic, the Afghan government was Islamic to the extreme.

If the US is a Christian nation then, your statement would be wrong. However, if this is a secular nation, then it would be true...more or less.

Some conservatives also insist that the Islamic extremists are out to destroy Christianity...an arrogant half truth. They're equal opportunity haters, and they not only hate Christianity, but every other non-Islamic religion and Islamics they regard as not being properly Islamic.

Hey has anyone heard of colonializing missionaries? Dis to not know that one of the slaveships was named Jesus and captained by one who wrote 'Amazing Grace? Did you not know that Christians owened,beat, whipped, beat, branded,sold,and killed other himan beimgs? Did you not know that christians would interrpt worship services,paricipate in lynchings, and return to worship. Have you not read "Rituals in Blood" by Orlande Patterson ot The History of the Christian People by henry Rowe?

True Christians are not violent. We are not taught to be violent or to kill others to get to paradise. The Old Testament took place BEFORE Christianity therefore cannot be used to justify killing or as proof that Christians are violent.