The Internet Monk
"Read.Think.React.Write.Live."
A Webjournal edited by Michael Spencer
Raging Bull, SBC Style
The Embarrassing Apologetics of Jerry Vines
by Michael Spencer
Just
in case you haven't heard, former Southern Baptist Convention President
Jerry Vines took his turn at the recent SBC Pastor's Conference as an opportunity to
say loudly and proudly that Mohammed was demon possessed and a
pedophile. Though many fundamentalist Christians are entirely
comfortable with this sort of ranting, and I'm sure it's similar to
comments delivered by preachers
all over the Christian world every day to a chorus of "amens",
I think it was a stupid- and potentially dangerous- applause line.
For starters, Vines' premise was that religious pluralism cannot imply that Christianity and Islam are equally true or commendable. I've used that line myself, and there's nothing wrong with it. Christianity and Islam are both absolute truth claims. (I once saw a liberal, universalist Muslim on a PBS documentary and she sounded like a creature from another universe.) Mainstream Islam doesn't claim to be equal to Christianity. It claims to be superior to Christianity in every department. And Christianity makes the same claim.
So who was Vines' talking to? Unitarians? Mainline liberal lefties? It appeared he was talking to Muslims, who surely took more than a passing interest in hearing their Prophet called demon possessed and a pedophile. (Mohammed reportedly took a nine year old wife in his harem. Technically not pedophilia to those who understand the marital customs of the Eastern world.) Vines wasn't so much asserting the truth of Christianity as he was asserting the corruption of Islam because of its corrupt founder. Vines wasn't just saying that Mohammed was wrong, or not resurrected or not holy enough to be a holy and saving substitute. He was saying Mohammed was the devil and worse. (With the whole country following the Elizabeth Smart abduction, Vines selection of pedophilia as a description of Mohammed fell on especially well tuned ears.)
It is entirely possible for someone within the Christian worldview to claim that all non-Christians are Satanic captives of evil, and wholly owned by the prince of darkness. Scripture is very frank on the subject of spiritual warfare and neither Jesus or Paul struggled much with political correctness. Paul called pagan rituals demonic, and said that the anti-Gospel of the last days was a doctrine of demons. False teachers are described by Jude and Peter in the coarsest of terms. And the book of Revelation is scary enough on the subject to divide the world into those who are sealed by the Lamb and those who belong to the Beast.
Now, Christians recognize these are "in house" descriptions of the situation, and the pastor's conference of the SBC amounts to an in-house gathering where this sort of rhetoric can be expected. What can also be expected are the ears and eyes of an eager National and International press conveying comments about Islam to the world, and this presence changes things considerably for any speaker. Vines is no newcomer to the spotlight of the SBC annual meeting, and he was well aware that his carefully chosen words would stir up the media hornet's next. With a contingent of "Soulforce," pro-gay demonstrators grabbing the headlines, Vines may have been all the more intentional in provoking a firestorm on the subjects of relativism and tolerance.
Why were Vines' words harmful? Think it through with me.
My first thoughts were the situations of Southern Baptist (and evangelical) missionaries in Muslim countries. Would Vines suggest this approach to evangelism in those settings? Should those seeking to plant churches and win converts in Muslim environments greet Muslims with the announcement that Mohammed was a demon possessed pedophile? Vines' comments, and the lame comments of the SBC leaders who backed him up without even requesting a word of clarification, put hundreds of missionaries in danger of closed doors and real, physical harm. The level of rhetoric Vines is modeling provides Muslim fanatics plenty of justification to target missionaries.
I also had to wonder if any statement in recent memory was more exactly out of the Islamist playbook? Vines almost seems like a ventriloquist for those who want to portray American Christians as crusading opponents of Muslims. No Muslim's distorted images of western Christians will be altered by listening to Vines. The prejudices and caricatures are proven true every time that clip runs.
Anyone involved in ministry with Muslims now has to respond to Vines' comments. Whether it is American Christian and Muslim women carpooling their kids to ball games, or University professors debating the claims of Christianity and Islam, or me working at a boarding school with Muslim students from Africa and the middle east, Vines' tactics forces all Christians to clarify what he and the SBC leadership won't clarify. Do Christians hate Muslims? Do we respect Islam and its sincere adherents?
Vines seems to forget that Muslims hold their version of Jesus in high regard, and you would never hear anything like Vines' comments publically directed towards Jesus from a Muslim. They may have lots of bad things to say about Christians and Jews, but Jesus and Moses would never be called demon possessed. Just as all Muslims are implicated in the latest rhetorical nonsense from Al-Queda, so all evangelicals are implicated in Vines' imitation of a pro wrestling promo for Jesus.
In Acts 17, the apostle Paul is fired up by the idolatry he sees in Athens. When he stands before the Athenian philosophers, however, he says the darnest thing. "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." If you read it all, you will notice that he skipped the part about the Greeks being demon possessed pedophiles, and if you've read the Greek philosophers, you know he had some territory to stand on there.
Paul is building bridges, not burning bridges. The contrast of Christ and Mohammed is a good solid point for any inter-faith apologist, but as someone once said, don't cut off a man's nose and then ask him to smell the roses. I have contrasted Christ and Mohammed many times in classes, conversations and sermons, and I can tell you that the case for the superiority of Christ can be built formidably without using Mike Tyson tactics.
Vines' understandable passion for the Gospel needs to be combined with a focus on the Gospel, and on the Christ of the Gospel. There is good reason to remember that Paul said he focused on the person and work of Jesus. Communicators who bomb the opposition may win the battle, but if the point was to create a personal relationship in which evangelism could take place, bombing is counterproductive. Vines' simply serves as a reminder that preaching is a monologue and a performance, not a conversation, and that is a danger for the unchecked ego. Muslim missionaries plead with us to create relationships with Muslims, and to temper our rhetoric so that those relationships can be built by those ministering to Muslims.
Listen to these words from Frontiers, a missions organization that focuses on Muslim evangelism.
... Christians, especially those in the West, should seek out Muslims and begin building bridges of love. If we show real love now-if we make innocent Arabs and Muslims feel that we are together in this international tragedy-then we will touch their hearts in ways that will not soon be forgotten. They will tell other Muslims around the world of how they were touched by our love. And that will make much easier the job of every Christian who is involved in evangelism among Muslims, both in our country and around the world, for a long time to come.
...now is the time for church leaders to meet with leaders of the mosque to enhance mutual understanding and perhaps discuss ways to work together against terrorism. As I said before, let’s wage peace on Islam!
I have a considerable library on Christianity and Islam. I have deep respect for apologists like Ravi Zacharias and Carl Ellis. In even the most intensely critical works, there is nothing resembling the bludgeoning rhetoric of Jerry Vines. I think its safe to say we ought to defer to the example of a man like Zacharias, who is eloquent and direct, yet is repeatedly invited into Muslim countries by Muslims, to share the Gospel in friendly debate. It's even safer to predict that Vines won't be getting any invitations of that sort.
But he will get more invitations to speak to applauding fundamentalists. And he will be given plenty of opportunities to stand behind his comments and denounce those who encourage him to temper his words with grace or to consider what his comments might mean to those ministering in Muslim countries. I doubt that he will find the curiosity of many Muslims peaked by his tactless comments. He once again demonstrates why Southern Baptists are increasingly ill served by the arrogant fundamentalist club that is their national voice and face.