Norway has experienced a nightmare--3 hours of abject terror. On Friday afternoon, right around 3:30, thirty-two year-old Anders Behring Breivik ignited a bomb outside government offices in Oslo, killing at least 7. As the bomb exploded, he was on his way to Utoya Island, about 20 miles from Oslo, the location of a youth camp run by a political party. Dressed in a police uniform, he asked to address the group (there were some 700 people at the camp) before opening fire on them. He killed at least 86, gunning them down in cold blood. By 6:30 PM Breivik was in police custody, having taken almost 100 lives in 3 short hours. In the meantime, the eyes of the whole world had shifted to Norway and millions were wondering just who would do something like this, and why.

Within hours of the event, news headlines were proclaiming that this was the work of a Christian fundamentalist or extremist. The Atlantic splashed this headline on their site: "The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway’s Massacre." The Washington Post said, "'What we know is that he is right wing and he is Christian fundamentalist,' deputy police chief Roger Andresen said Saturday morning at a televised news conference. 'We have not been able to link him up to an anti-Islamic group.' He said that the suspect had not been arrested before, and that police were unsure if he had acted alone."

Was this the work of a Christian? Was this terror consistent with a man who claims to be a follower of Christ? Many believe that it is.

The declaration that Breivik is a Christian seems to have come largely from his Facebook profile where he assigned himself the labels "Christian" and "Conservative." That was enough for many people, and especially for those with an anti-Christian agenda. Frank Schaeffer immediately jumped online and said, "I told you so!", writing on his blog, "In my new book 'Sex, Mom and God' I predicted just such an action. I predicted that right wing Christians will unleash terror here in America too. I predict that they will copy Islamic extremists, and may eventually even make common cause with them." Carl Trueman gets it right when he says: 

If a man doesn’t hesitate to use his parents’ sex lives to get a cheap laugh and sell a few books, one should not be surprised if he sees yesterday’s events in Norway as a great opportunity for puffing his own prophetic insights, trying to flog a few more copies of his own recent book and demonstrating that the Left too can have as tenuous a grip on logic, evidence and argument as Glenn Beck (who would ever have thought there was link between Tim Keller, Bill Edgar and religious terrorism?). Yes, you guessed it, Frank Schaeffer has done it again. Just goes to show that every cloud has a silver lining — if you are sufficiently self-absorbed, that is.

How are we, as Christians, to understand this event? How are we to think about the media declaring that this is the work of a Christian?

Before we do anything, we ought to be in prayer for those who have been so deeply affected by Breivik’s acts of terror. A whole nation has been left reeling; tens of thousands are in mourning, having had a friend or family member gunned down. As Christians we know where hope lies and we know that only the Lord can bring true, lasting hope and healing. And so we weep with those who weep, praying for the people of Norway, asking that the Lord would bring comfort.

In what remains of this article I simply want to trace my own thinking on this man and on these events. Here is how I have thought it through.

A few days ago I read through R.C. Sproul’s little book When Worlds Collide. This book was written in early 2002, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Sproul wrote it as a response to those events, as a means of grappling with the difficult questions related to God’s sovereignty and human suffering. As I read the book I was struck by how relevant it remains today, especially since 9/11 is still so real and since so many people still have not really dealt with it in their hearts and minds (and perhaps never will).

It is interesting to trace Sproul’s teaching on the subject. Here I’ll provide just a few quotes that ought to give you a sense of his logic.

The events of 9/11 were a mortal blow to relativism, because the response of Americans and the response of people the world over, after looking at this heinous attack on human life, was the very "unrelativistic" declaration that "This is evil." … One cannot have such a shocking encounter with pure evil and walk away, saying, "Well, it's a relative thing."

*****

If we look carefully at the biblical understanding of God and construct our worldview on this basis, we see that God in His providence is a sovereign God, who not only governs nature and the laws of nature but who raises nations up and brings nations low. Within His providence come both blessing and calamity.

*****

If God did not ordain all things, He would not be sovereign over all things. And if He is not sovereign over all things, then He is not God at all.

*****

God's ordination of all things does not annihilate human decisions or the forces of nature. Yet at the same time the sovereignty of God stands over every human event.

*****

I do not know why God ordained 9/11, but I know that He did ordain it because if He did not ordain it, it would not have happened. Since it happened, I know for certain that God ordained it in some sense. That is one of the most difficult concepts even for devout Christians to deal with. Yet the concept is found on almost every page of sacred Scripture. It is at the very heart of the Christian faith.

*****

The word "tragedy" presupposes some kind of order or purpose in the world. If the world has purpose and order, then all that occurs in it is meaningful in some respect. The idea of a "senseless tragedy" represents a worldview that is completely incompatible with Christian thought. It assumes that something happens without purpose or without meaning.

*****

Christians do not allow for meaningless events to take place, because at the heart of the Christian worldview is the idea that everything in history has a purpose in the mind of Almighty God. God is a purposive God; He is not chaotic.

*****

In the final analysis, that which defines the Christian worldview is the glory of the cross. The cross remains the symbol for all that is loved and embraced in the Christian worldview. It is also the symbol for all that the pagan worldview despises. The cross is the symbol that causes worlds to collide. It provokes a war that will not end until the consummation of the Kingdom of God.

From his earliest days, Mosab Hasson Yousef had a view of the inner workings of Hamas. The son of one its founders, from childhood he was immersed in the shadowy world of Middle Eastern terror and politics. Arrested time and again by the Shin Bet, the Israeli internal intelligence service, he eventually made the decision to become a double agent, working for Israel instead of against her. For ten years, from 1997 to 2007, he lived like this, deeply embedded within Hamas, suspected by no one, yet passing vast amounts of information to Israel. In this way he prevented assassinations, stopped suicide attacks and provided information leading to the arrests or killings of many terrorists. He was Shin Bet’s most valuable source of information about Hamas.

In 1999 he had a chance encounter with a British visitor who invited Yousef to learn about the Christian faith. Curious and intelligent, Yousef took this opportunity and was immediately struck by the difference between Jesus Christ and Mohammed, between the Christian faith and the Islam he had inherited from his fathers. In the months that followed he made a slow conversion to Christianity and was quietly baptized.

Eventually Yousef grew tired of his double life and convinced the Israelis to release him from his position with them. With some reluctence they agreed and allowed him to move to the United States where he continues to live today. Son of Hamas is the story of his life, “A gripping account of terror, betrayal, political intrigue, and unthinkable choices,” according to the rather verbose subtitle.

Where have all the grown-ups gone? It's a question that has perplexed me. Why is it that young people these days seem unwilling, or perhaps unable, to grow up? What is so attractive about youth, about perpetual adolescence, that is so attractive? My wife and I have discussed these things at length, trying to understand why so many of the young people we know (young people who are really not so young anymore) seem stuck. They are working on second or third college degrees; they are living at home with mom and dad, even into their thirties; they are looking at marriage only in their late twenties or early thirties. What is happening? When I was young I could hardly wait to pass through my teenage years so I could live life as an adult and in so doing I think I followed generations before me. What has happened since?

Ayaan Harsi Ali is one of Europe's most controversial political figures, even if she is one who has since relocated to America. One of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world, Ali is the author of a bestselling biography and the writer of a controversial movie. When her film Submission was screened in Holland, it led to murder of Theo van Gogh, it's producer. As van Gogh cycled to work one morning, Muhammad Bouyeri shot him several times, then nearly decapitated him and stabbed a five-page letter into his chest. The letter was addressed to Ali. The film and the book have forced her to live in hiding and under constant protection.

Last week I wrote a brief article about apostasy and heresy and concluded with a portion that dealt with the difference between dialog and controversy. I quoted an article written by David Samuel. He dealt with this same subject and said

I think this explains the ease with which many in recent years have been able to enter into dialogue with Roman Catholics and even Muslims and Hindus. It demands a certain detachment from the truth to be able to do that. You are obliged to put a question mark over it, otherwise you are not genuinely engaging in dialogue, which means, at least in principle, you are prepared to change and qualify your beliefs. I think we must be very careful to distinguish between dialogue and controversy. Dialogue carries with it implicitly this assumption, that you will be prepared to modify and change your position, in the light of the debate, if it so requires you. But controversy, in which all the Reformers engaged, is quite a different thing. You start from what you know and believe to be the truth, and your object is to expose the error and confusion of the opponent's position and, if possible, persuade him of the truth. It was dialogue in which Satan engaged Eve in the garden. She would have been safe if she had insisted on controversy. When men have not a fervent love of the truth and no sense of abhorrence of error they are in the anteroom of apostasy. It is said that the apostle John fled from the public baths, where Cerinthus the heretic appeared, lest they should fall on him. Today some evangelicals would be glad to stay and engage in friendly dialogue.

He is correct that dialogue carries with it the assumption that there is a question mark hovering over my beliefs. It is consistent with a postmodern mindset, in that I acknowledge that though I believe what I believe quite strongly, it might just be all wrong. Certainty is sin. Those who dialogue enter into their dialogue with that attitude and it is no wonder that they are often persuaded that they are indeed wrong. As Christians we have no need, no right, to dialogue about our faith. We are not on equal footing with others when it comes to the fundamental doctrines.

In October of this year 138 Muslim scholars and clerics sent an open letter to Christian leaders and teachers around the world. “A Common Word between Us and You” was their call for these two faiths, which claim billions of adherents from across the globe, to peacefully co-exist. It was a call to base all future interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims to be built upon what these Muslim clerics believe is the common ground between the faiths. “The basis for this peace and understanding already exists,” they say. “It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity.” And our common ground should lead to this:

Thus in obedience to the Holy Qur'an, we as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.

So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill.

Their rationale is based in part on their Scripture and in part on matters perhaps more practical:

Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians is not simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders. Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest religions in the world and in history. Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they make up more than 55% of the world's population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.

And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony.

Four scholars at Yale Divinity School’s Center for Faith and Culture chose to respond to this with a full-page advertisements in the New York Times (that was published on November 18). They titled this response “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You.” It was endorsed by over 100 Christian theologians, pastors and scholars, among whom were Rick Warren, Brian McLaren, Leith Anderson, Timothy George, Richard Mouw, Robert Schuller and John Stott. It has long been an observation that efforts of this kind create strange bedfellows. This is no exception.

The letter was one of penitence and delight—penitence for wrongs committed by Christians against Muslims, and delight for the efforts of the Islamic scholars to find this common ground between the faiths. Some might even see a tone of pandering. “As members of the worldwide Christian community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world.” These Christian leaders agree with the common ground between these two faiths.

What is so extraordinary about A Common Word Between Us and You is not that its signatories recognize the critical character of the present moment in relations between Muslims and Christians. It is rather a deep insight and courage with which they have identified the common ground between the Muslim and Christian religious communities. What is common between us lies not in something marginal nor in something merely important to each. It lies, rather, in something absolutely central to both: love of God and love of neighbor. Surprisingly for many Christians, your letter considers the dual command of love to be the foundational principle not just of the Christian faith, but of Islam as well. That so much common ground exists--common ground in some of the fundamentals of faith--gives hope that undeniable differences and even the very real external pressures that bear down upon us can not overshadow the common ground upon which we stand together. That this common ground consists in love of God and of neighbor gives hope that deep cooperation between us can be a hallmark of the relations between our two communities.

The letter concludes with further agreement that this common ground ought to be the basis for further interfaith dialogue. It concludes with the promise that these leaders will continue to labor towards the goal set by these Muslim clerics.

“Let this common ground”--the dual common ground of love of God and of neighbor--”be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between us,” your courageous letter urges. Indeed, in the generosity with which the letter is written you embody what you call for. We most heartily agree. Abandoning all “hatred and strife,” we must engage in interfaith dialogue as those who seek each other’s good, for the one God unceasingly seeks our good. Indeed, together with you we believe that we need to move beyond “a polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders” and work diligently together to reshape relations between our communities and our nations so that they genuinely reflect our common love for God and for one another.

Given the deep fissures in the relations between Christians and Muslims today, the task before us is daunting. And the stakes are great. The future of the world depends on our ability as Christians and Muslims to live together in peace. If we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony you correctly remind us that “our eternal souls” are at stake as well.

We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another. It is with humility and hope that we receive your generous letter, and we commit ourselves to labor together in heart, soul, mind and strength for the objectives you so appropriately propose.

So here is an example of dialogue. This is not controversy such as the controversy carried on by the Reformers during the time of the Reformation. It is not controversy like the controversy generated by Jesus’ Apostles as they took the gospel to the nations following the Lord’s death. Rather, it is dialogue, the likes of which we saw when Evangelicals and Catholics attempted to get Together. It is dialogue that, by all appearances, places Christians and Muslims on equal footing as they attempt to work together to arrive at some kind of agreement. Perhaps most shockingly, the documents takes for granted that the God of Christianity is the god of Islam. Nowhere in this document would one come to believe that the God of the Bible is different than Allah of Islam.

Nowhere in the Bible do I find Jesus telling us to find common ground with other faiths—with people who chase false gods and who are wholly committed to the downfall of the Christian faith. Nowhere do I see the Apostles, as Christ’s representatives, engaging in dialogue or seeking common ground in which to pursue God together. Rather, I see the promise of division and hatred. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth, “says Jesus.” “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”

Robert Munday read the document and the reply and offers six questions, all of which are worth considering. Essentially he asks, “Do the men and women who signed this document really understand what they have signed?” Do they understand that Islam always has been and always will be fundamentally opposed to the foundational beliefs of Christianity? Do these people not realize that Muslims will and must reject the authority of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the existence of the Trinity, the atoning death and the glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ?

In a follow-up article Munday says, “There is much that is commendable in interfaith dialogue [He and I would feel differently on this point]. But if it is to have any real significance for Christian believers, those who engage in it must start with what Scripture teaches regarding the essential nature of the Gospel. Many of those who claim to represent Christianity in interfaith dialogue have already succumbed to a relativism that lacks such a foundation. And, increasingly, Christian respondents are so eager to find common ground, in light of the terrors that have occurred and fears regarding the future, that they are taking the course of appeasement in the face of Islam, eager to find “Peace for our time”--peace at any cost. It will not serve Christians well if they underestimate the true distinctiveness of the Gospel. And it will not serve anyone well if we underestimate the challenges that the world faces from the religion known as Islam.”

He touches on something important here. As Christians we have the Bible and within its pages we have the gospel. This is something that is distinctive to Christianity and something that has been given to us by God as a sacred trust. This is where we must begin. We cannot downplay or ignore the gospel of Jesus Christ. If we lose the gospel, we lose everything. There is no need, no call, to dialogue about the gospel. And there is no reason to dialogue with people who have and will and must reject it.

If you are interested, here are the documents (in PDF format): A Common Word and the Christian Reply.

What do you think? Do Christians have any business being engaged in dialogue with Muslims? If so, what would we hope to accomplish? What would our goal be? How can we defend this from the Bible?

There are a couple of things I wanted to post before we head into the weekend…

Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!

FoxNews is reporting that “Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear ‘Muhammad.’” In response to the riots and the obvious danger, authorities was moved from a prison for women to a secret location where they expect she will be safer. “The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gibbons, who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.” Whether or not she can avoid the still-more-serious punishment of being slaughtered by angry and senseless radicals remains to be seen.

As I read the story, I couldn’t help but think of Acts 19 where Paul preached the gospel in Ephesus. Fearing that the success of the gospel would destroy the business of the men who crafted images of Artemis, a man named Demetrius rallied the crowds and began a riot. For two hours they yelled “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” Stop and imagine that for a minute. For two hours they filled the city with the senseless, stupid cries of “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

“Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

For two hours. Luke did not miss the humor in it. “Now some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together.”

Sound familiar?

Al Mohler and Tom Brokaw

Dr. Mohler just posted this at his blog:

I am scheduled to appear on tonight’s edition of NBC’s Nightly News to discuss younger evangelicals and the Emerging Church movement. I discussed these issues with NBC’s Tom Brokaw earlier this week, and I was very encouraged by the quality of the discussion and by Mr. Brokaw’s interest in the story and knowledge of the background. It will be interesting to see how the segment comes together. The segment is scheduled for tonight’s edition of Nightly News. Check television schedules for your area.

I always enjoy watching Dr. Mohler’s media appearances and will definitely be trying to tune into this one (sometimes easier said than done since Canadian channels don’t often carry American news).