Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Sunday September 17, 2006
20 Comments

Who’s Reinforcing Negative Stereotypes?

As I'm sure you've heard by now, many Muslims throughout the world are terribly upset by comments made by the pope during a recent speech. While speaking to a group of university professors in his native Germany, the pope cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam's founder, as "evil and inhuman." He has since offered a less-than-complete apology, saying that he is deeply sorry for the reaction his words have caused. "At this time I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he said on Sunday. "I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect." Of course apologizing for a reaction is no real apology, but we'll leave that aside for a moment.

I found it interesting that the Vatican released a statement shortly after the speech in which Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God." To equate Allah with the God of the Bible is absolutely absurd for they bear only the slightest resemblance. Christianity and Islam are as different as any two religions could be.

Regardless, Muslims around the world are protesting. Here in Canada a news outlet spoke to Adnan Husain, professor of history of Islam and interfaith relations at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. Husain said he's concerned about the ramifications of the pontiff's comments, which he said reinforce widespread and incorrect stereotypes about Islam. "I am very concerned about how this reinforces stereotypes, but particularly, how it sharpens a sense of religious conflict and cultural clash during these times when there is a stated war on terrorism taking place."

Now I don't often attempt to do P.R. for the Muslim world, but I can't help but feel that Muslims could help destroy those "widespread and incorrect stereotypes about Islam" by reacting to this situation with calm. They could react peacefully, calling for dialogue and charity. In short, they could react in the way most Christians do when God is slighted and blasphemed. They could react with righteous indignation rather than burning anger. And yet, here is what the press reports:

"Palestinians used guns, firebombs and lighter fluid to attack four Christian churches in the West Bank town of Nablus. Gunmen opened fire on a fifth church in Gaza."

"In India, angry Muslims clashed with police during a protest in Kashmir. More than 20 were arrested."

"In the town of Tulkarem, a 170-year-old stone church built 170 years ago was torched before dawn and its interior was destroyed, local Christian officials said. In the village of Tubas, a small church was attacked with firebombs and partially burned, Christians said. Neither church is Catholic, the officials said."

"An Iraqi insurgent group threatened the Vatican with a suicide attack over the Pope's remarks on Islam, said a statement posted Saturday on the Web. "We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a website frequently used by militant groups. The message's authenticity could not be independently verified. The statement was addressed to "you dog of Rome" and threatened to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."

This is just a sampling of what the press is offering. There are also plenty of pictures of burning churches, and angry, screaming Muslims holding placards denouncing the pope. To be fair there are several other organizations that have accepted the pope's apology and no longer display such outrage. But the violence continues as do the threats and the anger.

The point is, if you want to undo stereotypes the best way of doing so is not to blame a person who supposedly reinforces a negative stereotype, but in reacting in a way that different than the stereotype. The stereotype of Muslims tells us that they would react to the pope's words with anger, violence and calls for blood. Sure enough, many Muslims reacted with anger, violence and calls for blood. So who is reinforcing the negative stereotype?

Comments (20) »


1. Brian Thornton
September 17, 2006
3:44 PM

“Palestinians used guns, firebombs and lighter fluid to attack four Christian churches in the West Bank town of Nablus. Gunmen opened fire on a fifth church in Gaza.”

Tim,
When is a stereotype no longer considered to be a stereotype, but an accurate representation of reality?

Could it be that the ones reacting to the pope’s words with violence are not reinforcing a negative stereotype, but are just being themselves, taking this as another opportunity to display the true heart of a ‘good’ muslim?


2. Lisa4given
September 17, 2006
5:00 PM

You wrote: I can’t help but feel that Muslims could help destroy those “widespread and incorrect stereotypes about Islam” by reacting to this situation with calm. They could react peacefully, calling for dialogue and charity. In short, they could react in the way most Christians do when God is slighted and blasphemed. They could react with righteous indignation rather than burning anger.

Well said, Challies. Sadly though, most Christians have hardened their hearts when they hear of God being slighted and blasphemed because of the ease and prevelance of hearing His name taken in vain so often without a thought… even by those who profess to know Him. And for those that do stand up against it, there is an uproar for worldly tolerance of it and a cry for unity at the expense of the Gospel.

Yes, we should react with righteous indignation and not burning anger. But do we? The Lord God burns with anger against sin and the unrighteous everyday… but God’s burning anger is perfect and holy. Ours is out of control. Righteous indignation is justifiable more often today in regards to the heretical worldly spew disguised as the watered-down, appeal-to-the-masses-
spineless-twisted Gospel… and yet, most professing Christians are more comfortable turning their heads, willing to accept relative Truth at the expense of the knowable and unchangeable, “It is Finished” Truth of God. What happened to weeping over sinners? What happened to weeping over God’s precious Gospel and proclaiming it without compromise? Who gets the glory in a compromised Gospel? Man.
I praise God for the few men out there willing to defend and proclaim out of love without compromise, God’s HOLY Word for His glory. We should so fervently pray for them.

(By the way Challies, when you hit preview on a post, it is not readable)


3. Brian Thornton
September 17, 2006
5:23 PM

Wow…Lisa…

Was that righteous indignation…or burning anger??? :-)


4. moosiecat
September 17, 2006
5:35 PM

I think it was burning righteous indignation…well said Lisa


5. Ray
September 18, 2006
7:48 AM

In the town of Tulkarem, a 170-year-old stone church built 170 years ago…

Well, I’m glad they clarrified that.


6. s. zeilenga
September 18, 2006
8:20 AM

Ray - yeah, I would have thought a 170 year old church was built 150 years ago. Good thing they told me differently. :)

z.


7. Joel
September 18, 2006
12:41 PM

I don’t see what the Muslims have their burqas in a twist about. After all, everybody knows the Vatican invented Islam in the first place to help them oppress True Bible Christians™ in the Middle Ages, much like it would later loose on the world Madonna and bingo.


8. Heather
September 18, 2006
1:24 PM

“…Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pope’s position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the church ‘esteems Muslims, who adore the only God’.”
—an unsuccessful case for pluralism.


9. Joel
September 18, 2006
2:22 PM

Not really, Heather. What it means is that the Church recognizes that Muslims worship the God of Abraham, but have some thoroughly wrong ideas about Him. Pluralism would be acknowledging that their ideas are just as valid as ours, which Benedict doesn’t do.

And before we get into dividing rabbits over what consititutes a totally different god, let’s remember that Arab Christians used the name “Allah” for our God long before Muhammed was born. It’s the same God, but there the similarity ends.

As for esteeming, well, we’re called to love our neighbor, not to agree with him. It’s Papa Ratzi’s little way of assuring the Muslims that we don’t intend to erase them from the earth the same way they do us.


10. julie
September 18, 2006
4:51 PM

That was well written.

As far as the ‘same God’ question, you can’t worship a God you don’t know and there ‘s only one way to know the only true God—through Jesus Christ. Therefore, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the ‘god’ of Islam is the God of the Bible; though perhaps the Catholic church could make a case for sharing the same ‘god’. It’s strange that they’d want to…


11. Joel
September 18, 2006
5:29 PM

Therefore, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the ‘god’ of Islam is the God of the Bible;

The Koran is a twisting of the Bible, and Islam is a twisting of Christianity and Judaism. If I imagine you blonde, and you have red hair, are you not the Julie of “Looking for my Words?” For that matter, if I imagine you to be a vicious crone, when in fact you’re a sweet young woman, am I actually addressing somebody else in Tim’s comboxes? (Those are mere examples; I assume you to be sweet and intelligent, regardless of age or hair color. Please don’t take offense at the speculation.) :)

It’s a pretty fine semantic point. The important thing is that we (Christians) know God through His Son, who is the only way to Heaven, and the Muslims do not. Their knowledge of Him is wrong (and ours is still limited by our humanity), but He is still who He is, regardless of what we believe about Him.


12. Heather
September 18, 2006
8:32 PM

I realize that my remarks aren’t as sophisticated as what you posted, which was really good, but my point was that the Vatican wants to showcase its desire to have peaceful relations with other religions. But in this case, their reaching out is not seeing much success.


13. steve
September 18, 2006
9:33 PM

I’d hate to say that if the sterotype is more the norm than the exception then the sterotype is indeed correct…. so I won’t.

I’d hate to say that the God of the Hebrews bears so little resemblance to Islam’s Allah that to confuse them would indicate either utter ignorance of one or both Islam and the Bible or complete lunacy… so I won’t.

I’d hate to say that we’ve come to a sad place - a place where truths recorded in the unchanging ink and paper of our texts are unwelcome in the world of spoken flattery and unwavering tolerance at the expense of all candor and honest thought… so I won’t.

I’d hate to say that we now have to pretend we agree with everything and disagree with nothing - even though such an absurd and obtuse concept is a living contradiction of enormous mutant repugnance… so I won’t.

Ahhh… I feel better not having said any of it. *eyes glass over* In fact, I agree with everything… I’m in a… happy place now… good… bye…


14. Joel
September 18, 2006
11:45 PM

I realize that my remarks aren’t as sophisticated as what you posted, which was really good, but my point was that the Vatican wants to showcase its desire to have peaceful relations with other religions. But in this case, their reaching out is not seeing much success.

Heather, I think I misunderstood you. When you put it like that, I agree with you. I’d love to see Benedict take a whole lot stronger stand with Islam. This would be a great time to draw a line in the sand.

OTOH, it’s safer for me to urge that, because I live in a country where I won’t get beheaded for his words. I sometimes wonder if he’s being diplomatic to avoid turning the millions of Christians in Muslim countries into instant martyrs.

Still, I know what I wish he’d say, and it’s a darn sight less polite. :)


15. Brendt
September 19, 2006
9:22 AM

“I don’t often attempt to do P.R. for the Muslim world

Yeah, I don’t often attempt to make rocks float either. ;-)

This is a very good article, but I’m more offended by “good” Muslims non-reaction when so-called “radical” Muslims allegedly hijack their faith and kill people for no reason.

You can bet that if someone massacred 3000 people in the name of Christ, Christian leaders all over the planet would decry this action and state unequivocably that these actions were not representative of the Christian faith.

Five years, and we’re still waiting for a peep from the “good” Muslims about the senselessness of 9/11. Hope no one is holding their breath.


16. julie
September 19, 2006
10:16 AM

Interesting comment, Joel…I’m not sure I understand it but it’s interesting (ever been to an Alpha course?) Perhaps you could help me understand…

Anyway, I thought about your ‘semantic’ point and I still have to disagree. This is not just semantics. Muslims are truly worshiping something and that something is not God. It is an evil powerful demonic force. I know this is not exactly a popular idea here in the material west but that doesn’t make it any less Biblical or true. The only way to fight this evil is through the power of the Gospel—preaching the Gospel with a demonstration of power. Praying for God to reveal himself to the lost. Asking for revival and being willing to lay down our lives in service to the kingdom of God.


17. Veritas
September 19, 2006
10:43 AM

Julie - if you think that ‘the only way to fight this evil is through the power of the Gospel—preaching the Gospel with a demonstration of power’ would actually work - why has it not worked in history? And where does the love of God show through us if we take this approach? Do we dare try and force them into submission to our God? Is this a resurgence of the Evangelistic Enforcer?


18. Jester
September 19, 2006
7:10 PM

Veritas - I believe the “power” Julie is speaking of is that of the Holy Spirit, which is the only power that can be attributed to the preaching of the Gospel, He does all the “forcing”, if it has to be called that (with a new heart it’s really a joy). The demonstration of the love of God which you inquired about is shown in her next sentence… “God to reveal Himself to the lost.” … here we notice the source of power again, even if “through” us lowly creatures, He gets all the glory. Not by human coercion, but God’s own sovereign will to reveal Himself to His elect. Which leads to the answer to your first question… by inferring that the power spoken of was human, then of course, never in history has human endeavor added an iota to the salvation of any soul. However, seeing the power as of the Spirit, then we could say that never in history has the Gospel even once failed to save a single soul MEANT to be saved, it never will either. We might erroneously consider that past missions to Islamic countries or any other place have “failed” in our eyes, but we must rest on the fact that none of God’s elect will fail to be saved. Our calling is as Julie mentioned in her final statement, that believers might be blessed with the strength to lay down our lives for the sake of expanding the reach of the Gospel, even if the “success rate” seems low to our limited vision. When Christ’s sheep hear His voice, they know Him and WILL follow Him. No matter how few they may be, all of heaven rejoices for each and every one. That shows the power of the Gospel.


19. Julie
September 19, 2006
9:56 PM

Thanks for saying so well what I obviously couldn’t Jester.


20. Veritas
September 19, 2006
11:29 PM

Jester and Julie - then we are in agreeance (if that is an actual word). I just wanted to clear up what I perceived to be some synergy instead of monergy - thanks for clarifying.


Post Your Comment Here »