My recent HNN blog What Would Jesus Do with a Qur’an? Actually He Might Burn It ignited a firestorm of controversy (puns intended), especially after Robert Spencer was kind enough to pick it up for Jihadwatch.  This blog was the theologically-focused sequel to the more political one the previous day, Fahrenheit 9-1-1: Burning Qur’ans and Bibles, which had slammed our government and military for apparently privileging Islam and the Qur’an over Christians and the Bible (especially considering that just a year ago the American military burned Biblesen masse in Afghanistan).  An Iranian cleric, whom I met in Tehran in 2008, maligned me via Facebook as an “anti-Muslim Christian,” while Sean Hannity’s former worse half, Alan Colmes (or one of his website apparatchiks), accused me and Spencer of intolerance.   

But not all disapproval has been so shallow or easily dismissed.  An old and very  good friend of mine, the Reverend Wiliiam Charles Treadwell  (rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Waco, TX) took me to the theological woodshed for daring to argue that Jesus might approve the destruction of those parts of the Qur’an that deny Christian teachings about Him, as well as the ones that, prima facie,promote violence.  I realize that this is not the Theology News Network, but considering the keenly religious dimensions—Christian as well as Islamic—of not just this one specific issue but of the entire twenty-first century clash of civilizations, it is entirely appropriate to examine conflicting views of how the Messiah Jesus (remember, the media always refers to “the Propet Muhammad”) might act in certain situations—considering that one-third of the human race, and three-quarters of the American population, professes  allegiance to Him.

Herewith Father Chuck’s critique, with what I deem the most important points highlighted:

[T]he reason I think you are terribly wrong is not because I am afraid it might inflame the radicals.  Last time I checked they were pretty jacked up already.  The reason I think you are wrong is because assuming Jesus would burn the Qur'an is poor exegesis and poor theology of the death and resurrection of Christ.  The biblical passages… where Jesus strikes out at people  are done to religious "insiders," meaning those who claim to be God's chosen but who do not live up to the expectations of their faith.  The "things" he strikes out at (the fig tree) are clearly apocalyptic metaphor for those "insiders" who are expected to produce fruit but who are not.  Jesus did not strike out against the Romans or any other outside group, only insiders who should know better.

In our modern context I don't think Islam can be considered "insiders" to which we apply the teachings of Jesus.  They clearly do not think they are.  Therefore Jesus is speaking to us—Christians who claim to know Christ and to follow Christ.  And this is the reason the burning of the Qur'an is abhorrent to the Christian faith.  The summary of Jesus' entire teaching ministry is utterly contrary to violent emotional reaction to other people's bad behavior.  The Parable of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin and the Prodigal [Son]… speak just the opposite…. Christians make a lot of noise about how Christianity is a better way than other religions, and I hold firmly to this truth….[and] we have an opportunity to show it.  So instead of whining about how no one cried out when they burned the Bible, we have an opportunity to show “the more excellent way” [St. Paul, I Corinthians 13]…. to respond to hate….to fear…to uncertainty with love.

Burning the Qur'an might feel good, but it will not further the cause of Christ….  As they nailed him to the cross he did not say "rain down fire upon them."  He said, "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."  THAT is the difference between Christianity and any other religion I know….

Let me preface my rejoinder by acknowledging that “those of use who construct images of the historical Jesus always blend in some of our own features.” (1)  This goes for individuals, political parties, authors, and even—dare I say it?—ministers and priests.  I am conservative, Republican, Christian, and a military veteran who works as an academic specialist on violent Islamic ideologies;  Fr. Chuck is a priest in a mainline liberal denomination, shepherd of souls, Democrat and like most Americans he has never worn camouflage except to hunt.  Inevitably, those predilections and biases will seep into how we view, and try to apply, the teachings and the example of Jesus Christ.  That said, neither of us can be reduced to caricatures of “conservative” and “liberal” Christian:  I am neither an “evangelical/fundamentalist” nor a Biblical literalist (I don’t buy a six-day creation, for example; and, mirabile dictu, I believe evolution, albeit directed by God, occurred); Fr. Chuck, I know for a fact, is neither a pacifist nor, like many in his denomination, willfully ignorant of the Islamic roots of jihad. 

Now to the issue at hand.  There are, by my estimation, five substantial charges in Fr. Chuck’s writ against my contention that Christ might approve of burning some parts of the Qur’an:  1)  poor exegesis  (primarily, seeing the fig tree account as anything but apocalyptic; 2)  misapplication of  the position of Judeo-Christian “religious insiders” to Muslims; 3)  Jesus’s forbidding of “violent emotional reactions to others’ bad behavior;” 4)  the alleged “whining” utilization of the tu quoque argument by those on my side; and 5)  that anyone supporting torching Qur’ans is only doing so because it “feels good”—which does “not further the cause of Christ.”

I will treat these points in ascending order of importance. 

Like Marty McFly when called “chicken,” I automatically bristle when anyone directs the term “whiner”   my way.  Perhaps Fr. Chuck and others on that side of the aisle (or, in his case, the altar) perceive as mere complaining my condemning the deafening silence from the media and the Muslim world when Bibles are burned by the U.S. military or by Muslims themselves.  However, I don’t see it that way; my point in bringing up such seemingly acceptable Bible bonfires is to point out the hypocrisy of political leaders such as President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, as well as that of Muslims for whom, according to their own religion, both the “Torah”—the Hebrew Scriptures—and the “Injil”—the New Testament—are holy (albeit corrupted) books that should be revered only slightly less than the Qur’an—not razed.  Likewise, while no doubt there are Christians (and, to be fair, atheists, Hindus and others as well) who would enjoy sending a Qur’an up in smoke, I for one am not among them; as I pointed out in my first blog on this topic, I think that Dr. Henry Jones’ statement that “goose-stepping morons…should try reading books instead of burning them” equally applies to non-Nazis, as well.  But what about those who have read the Qur’an and decide legitimately—not out of spite, but in emulation of the Ephesian converts to Christianity, who burned books of magic (2)—that the frankly anti-Christian Islamic scriptures need to be disposed of in like fashion, if only symbolically (knowing full well that there are millions of copies of the Qur’an extant)?  Perhaps, under these parameters, the Qur’an could be burned clinically, even dispassionately, as a token of Christian rejection thereof.  Not likely, but possible.

Such a Vulcanesque disposal might at least heed Fr. Chuck’s warning that Jesus prohibited “violent emotional reactions to others’ bad behavior.”  Now, while I doubt Pastor Jones was exactly channeling Mr. Spock in his approach to the whole issue of placing Qur’ans and Bics in very close proximity, note that he did first broach the idea on July 12, 2010—sixty days before the 9/11 target date.  With that long a period of premeditation, it’s hard to argue that Jones was being emotional at all; “Sudden Qur’an Torching Syndrome,” thus, is not a diagnosis that would seem to fit Pastor Jones’ intentions.  (The same might not be true of the New Jersey man who publicly burned a Qur’an on 9/11 and was subsequently fired by the New Jersey Transit Authority—he does seem to have been emotionally reacting to, ironically, the public , and ultimately successful, pressure aimed at dissuading Jones.)

Fr. Chuck’s final two points are the most challenging for anyone trying seriously to grapple with the question of what the historical Jesus Christ would bid His followers do with the scriptures of the world’s second-largest religion:  how to exegete the only two clear-cut examples of Jesus employing violence in his personal, pre-Resurrection life (cursing and thereby killing the fig tree (3); driving the moneylenders from the Temple (4)); and whether anyone other than Jews (at the time of the events) or Christians (today, as those who accept his Messianic and divine role) can be considered “religious insiders” to whom Jesus was directing his teachings and mission.  True, many Christian scholars reason, as does Fr. Treadwell, that Jesus’ killing of the fig tree is an apocalyptic sign presaging judgment on Israel if that nation would not repent and bear fruit. (5)  But is that the only possible exegesis of this event? (6)  In both Matthew and Mark Jesus, when explaining the withered fig tree to the Apostles, says nary a word about any apocalyptic judgment; rather, he tells them that if they have sufficient faith they could do the same or greater (such as moving mountains).  And what’s particularly striking about the fig tree’s destruction is that Jesus does indeed seem to be, frankly, having a “violent emotional reaction” because He was hungry and the lack of figs simply made Him mad!  Note, too, that the Lord appears to be a bit irrational because, as Mark says, “it was not the season for figs.”  How is a poor fig tree supposed to bear its fruit out of season?  I am a Christian who believes Jesus Christ rose from the dead in order to atone for my sins, yet I cannot help but think that He was having something of a divine (low blood sugar-induced?) fit at an uncooperative fruit tree.  Perhaps the alleged apocalyptic pedagogy that is tortured out of these passages is simply to hide that fact; it’s certainly not a given that the fig tree event is “clearly apocalyptic metaphor,” as Fr. Chuck would have it.

This brings me to a point I only touched upon in my previous blogs but which I think deserves greater treatment:  why are there no statues in churches of Jesus shriveling the fig tree, or with a whip in hand overturning moneylending tables in the Temple courts?

We have all heard people say a hundred times over…that the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed a most merciful and humane lover of humanity, but that the Church has hidden this human character in repellent dogmas and stiffened it with ecclesiastical terrors till it has taken on an inhuman character.  This is…very nearly the reverse of the truth.  The truth is that it is the image of Christ in the churches that is almost entirely mild and merciful.  It isthe image of Christ in the Gospels that is a good many other things as well….In any case there is something appalling, something that makes the blood run cold, in the idea of havinga statue of Christ in wrath….The Church can reasonably be justified therefore if she turns the most merciful face or aspect towards men….it is very much more specially and exclusively merciful than any impression that could be formed by a man merely reading the New Testament for the first time.  A man simply taking the words of the story as theystand would form quite another impression…full of mystery and possibly of inconsistency; but certainly not merely an impression of mildness(7)[emphases added].

Over the centuries the Church has created and exhibited statues and icons of Jesus crucified, resurrected, healing, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, transfiguring—but not  of Him divinely nuking a fig tree or going Indiana Jones, “Temple of Doom” on moneylenders.  As Chesterton says, there have been good reasons for that overemphasis on the meek and mild Jesus; but let us not pretend that this is the only Christ described in the New Testament.  In the truly apocalyptic passages, the returned Jesus is terrifyingly described as riding a white horse, with eyes of flame, wearing a robe dipped in blood; indeed “from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron….” (8)  I have little doubt that the Returned Christ of St. John’s vision would not hesitate to burn Qur’ans; and I’m not sure that the Gospel one who gets surly when hungry and is fond of whips might not do so, as well.

Finally, Fr. Chuck opines that Muslims are “not insiders” like Jews (and, later, Christians) and thus cannot be targets of Christ’s warnings and wrath, as were the fig tree and the Temple loan sharks—nor, by extension he seems to be saying, should they or their holy book be targeted by Christians in any fashion.  Allow me two observations on this topic.  First, destroying Qur’ans, by fire or any other method, would in no way constitute an attempt to impose Christian norms on Muslim “outsiders;” rather, it would simply represent an admittedly provocative Christian rejection of Islamic teachings which in many crucial areas (the Crucifixion and Resurrection; the Atonement; the Trinity) are diametrically opposed to those of Jesus and the New Testament.  Second, Islamic theology is predicated on the very idea that  the revelations of monotheism given by the One True God to the Jews and then the Christians were corrupted and that Muhammad’s revelation re-created the pure community of faith that had eluded Moses and Jesus—so in a very real sense, Muslims certainly do claim to be “insiders.”  Now, of course, they are not going to subject themselves to what they see as the corrupt teachings of the false New Testament Jesus, but I wonder what Christ would tell Muslims were He here today?  Somehow I think a reference might be made to false prophets (9) or to the fact that even demons can be monotheists. (10)

Fr. Chuck and a considerable number of Christians on his side (not just liberals, either) seem certain that they know how Jesus the Christ would deal with this issue.  I, on the other hand, am not so sure what Christ would say to his followers holding a Qur’an in one hand and a bottle of lighter fluid in the other;  I suspect that He would disarm them with a gem along the lines of “let him who has never sinned light the first match.”  But I also believe He might very well tell both Christians and Muslims “go, and read the Qur’an no more.”  And He just might treat the Qur’an like the fig tree.

Related Links

• HNN Hot Topics: The Cordoba Mosque