The Fundamentalists Were Right

It’s risky saying anything good about Fundamentalists.  To paraphrase John Wesley on Arminians (those holding views ascribed to Jacob Arminius):  “To say ‘There is a Fundamentalist’ has the same effect as saying, ‘There is a mad dog.’”

Yet, I’ve long had a quiet respect for many of those old-time Fundamentalists.  No, I don’t respect the self-aggrandizing J. Frank Norris type of Fundamentalist but I do the Robertson McQuilkin type.  They may have made mistakes in strategy but they seem to have grasped the significance of the conflict in which they were engaged.

That conflict was, in brief, the clash between theological Liberalism and Christian orthodoxy.  In particular, this was Christian orthodoxy with an Evangelical flavoring.  While the seeds of theological Liberalism were planted well before the nineteenth century, the plant came to full bloom during that century and continued to flower into the twentieth.  Several thought-movements contributed to Liberalism, including the Enlightenment and Romanticism, but at heart it was a repudiation of the supernatural.  The Bible, though inspiring, was not inspired.  Miracles couldn’t have happened. 

 H. Richard Niebuhr summarized the nineteenth century incarnation of Liberalism:  “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”  The statement, while useful, is like all such summaries, lacking in detail.  Christ was without a cross in the sense his death was not part of any atonement—he died as an example of self-sacrificing love but not to provide salvation.  And, Niebuhr might have rounded out the summary by saying Christ was also “without an empty tomb.”  Rejecting miracles, most Liberals also rejected the resurrection, at least in any meaningful sense.  Jesus might have “lived on” in the memories of his disciples but he was not raised from the dead.

This, of course, is the extreme form of Liberalism.  Individual Liberals might have retained certain elements of a more orthodox Christianity but all jettisoned something crucial from the Faith, something fundamental.

Evangelicals had been opposing this erosion of orthodoxy since it began appearing in seminaries and churches sometime around the mid-1800s.  Then, in 1910, wealthy California businessmen Lyman and Milton Stewart began financing the publication of “The Fundamentals.”  Appearing over the next five years, this series of ninety essays, written by Evangelicals from a variety of denominational traditions and from several countries, defended the essential elements of the faith.  The Stewarts paid to send the essays to each pastor in America.  A few years later, those who held the views described in the series were dubbed “Fundamentalists.”  While the term may have been coined as a simple description, it soon became a pejorative.  To be a “Fundamentalist” was to be ignorant, a Neanderthal; though Fundamentalists were so anti-scientific, critics likely thought, they probably hadn’t heard of Neanderthals.

You see, though the Liberal Kingdom may have been “without judgment,” Liberals didn’t mind judging.  Harry Emerson Fosdick, the 1920s’ best-known Liberal pastor, assured his congregation that Fundamentalism existed only in the “backwater” of Christian thinking.  Of himself he proudly declared: “They call me a heretic. Well, I am a heretic if conventional orthodoxy is the standard. I should be ashamed to live in this generation and not be a heretic.”

The “conventional orthodoxy” was, of course, historic Christianity.  This was the vision of Christianity championed by the authors of The Fundamentals.  This was the Christianity promoted by such backwater thinkers as G. Gresham Machen, a member of Phi Beta Kappa who had degrees from Johns Hopkins, Princeton Seminary, and Princeton University.  Machen, who had done post-graduate study in Germany where he sat under some of the most virulent Liberals, rejected what Fosdick would so highly praise.   Machen eschewed the term “Fundamentalism” because he insisted what he and those like him taught was simply Christianity.  Liberalism, Machen argued, was not Christianity at all; it was a new religion.

Fosdick’s statement provides another insight into the Liberal mindset.  When the New York pastor suggests, in effect, he would be “ashamed to live in this generation” and hold ideas held by countless Christians over the preceding centuries, he shows why Liberalism is often called “Modernism.”  Though he was no Fundamentalist, C. S. Lewis clearly understood how the Liberals of his day and earlier were guilty of “chronological snobbery.” 

When Fundamentalists stood for “the faith once delivered to the saints,” they were standing against that mindset.  They were insisting there were certain core beliefs without which Christianity could not be Christianity.  These beliefs were “fundamentals;” that is, they formed a “necessary base … of central importance,” to use a dictionary definition of the term.  If they were sometimes guilty of taking their opposition to the modern too far (suggested in the clearly apocryphal argument ascribed to a Fundamentalist, “If the King James Version was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me”) they had also seen the danger in a frenzied embrace of some new thing.

Over the preceding 1900 years most Christians had held this position; abandon certain beliefs and whatever you may call your belief system, it isn’t Christian.  The creeds were an attempt to define those beliefs clearly (honest, they were trying to be clear).  Depart from what the creeds taught and you were walking on dangerous ground.  Classic Christian thinkers said the church should be one, holy, catholic (embracing believers everywhere), and apostolic.  By apostolic they meant the church should continue to teach what the Apostles had taught.  Near the end of his life, John told his fellow believers, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God….” How were they to test the teachings they were hearing?  They were to measure them against “what they had heard from the beginning,” test them against the Apostles’ teachings.

The Fundamentalists understood how the Liberals’ teachings would end: Jesus was a good man who said a lot of good things—nothing more.  They probably never imagined a time would come when some would question whether Jesus actually said all those good things.

At the outset of the so-called “Battle for the Bible” in Southern Baptist life, the self-described “moderates” often argued, “Baptists are not a creedal people.”  I thought it was a foolish and disingenuous argument.  Of course, Baptists are a creedal people; in part, because Baptists are a Christian people but we also insist there are certain affirmations to which you must agree if you are a Baptist.  As far I know all Baptists believe the only proper candidate for baptism is one who has made a commitment to Jesus Christ; any Baptist pastor who insists newborns in his congregation must be baptized to counter the effect of original sin has ceased to be a Baptist.  During the debate a lot of moderates were tossing around the term “soul liberty” as if they were citing a creed.  Question the concept and they could become pretty intense, hardly moderate at all.

The truth is, most belief systems have certain “fundamentals” that are essential to those systems.  Even when those fundamentals are drawn from the canons of biblical criticism, sociology, psychology, and anthropology they are still fundamentals.  Fundamentalists reportedly forced faculty members who embraced Liberal notions to resign from universities and seminaries, though it was Machen who was forced to resign from Princeton.  Yet, is there anywhere a seminary belonging to any mainline denomination where a professor who believes the Pentateuch is the product of editing taking place over centuries and containing the works of several anonymous authors—none of whom was Moses—teaches alongside a professor who believes the Pentateuch is primarily the work of Moses?  Is there a New Testament department at a mainline school where a redaction critic teaches alongside a professor who believes Mark wrote the gospel bearing his name, perhaps basing the account on his recollection of Peter’s preaching? No, the Liberals would not tolerate it. 

In my life I have attended three graduate schools.  Two were Evangelical; the third was the Religious Studies department of a secular university.  While I was at the university, a respected church historian who taught at a Baptist school applied for an opening in the department.  During the interviews he mentioned an interest it what we would today call spiritual formation.  That scholar’s chances of joining the faculty ended when the New Testament professor declared, “I won’t teach with that Pietist.”  The faculty of the Religious Studies department scoffed at Evangelicals, presented books like The Late Great Planet Earth as representative Evangelical theology, and discounted Evangelical scholars because they hadn’t gone to the right schools. Though they did not condone error, the teachers at the Evangelical schools were more tolerant than those at the university.

The Christian tradition has long had room for what is called “adiaphora.”  It refers to things that are indifferent, not essential.  Belief in the deity of Christ is essential to Christian theology; whether Christians should use or abstain from alcohol is—my teetotaler friends’ opinion notwithstanding—not essential.  The beliefs embodied in the creeds mentioned earlier tend to be essentials, though we might differ about the exact meaning of certain phrases in those creeds.  For example, the clause from the Apostles’ Creed, “he descended into Hell,” is interpreted differently by Lutheran and Reformed theologians.  Others suggest the clause simply means Jesus really died on the cross.  Nothing crucial rests on how the phrase is interpreted; historically, each group agreed: “On the third day He rose again from the dead.”

If the Fundamentalists seemed sometimes to make almost everything an essential, the Liberal sometimes made it seem as if very little was essential.   In the end, I suspect convincing those Fundamentalists something was not essential would be easier than convincing those Liberals something was essential.  If you could show that the Scripture treated the matter as indifferent, the Fundamentalist would probably agree; the Liberal wouldn’t care much what the Scripture said—no matter how essential the Scripture made the matter.

Perhaps you noticed my title is in the past tense.  I don’t have as much respect for those who might call themselves Fundamentalists today.  Neither the callousness of the late Jerry Falwell nor the smug arrogance of Pat Robertson is worthy of respect.  Such attitudes are detrimental to the cause of Christianity; so, too, is the fearful fractiousness of some Fundamentalists.  In truth, some Fundamentalists forget the watching world judges Christians by their demeanor before they judge them by their doctrine.  But, since Machen’s hope for an adjectiveless Christianity is no longer realistic, if it ever was after the rise of Liberalism, I suppose I need some label.  So, though journalists sometimes blur the distinction between the terms, I prefer to be known as an Evangelical rather than a Fundamentalist.  “Evangelical” has a grander history.  More important, “Evangelical” focuses on the great fundamental—the Evangel. 

Still, as I said, the Fundamentalists were right—fundamentally. 

It Matters That You Are a Christian

This message was preached on the fifth anniversary of the so-called “9/11 attacks.” I took the occasion to address some matters concerning the value of Christianity.  I might not preach such a long sermon today but, instead, break it up into smaller bits. 

If you are interested in reading more about world religions, consider these books:  Win Corduan, Neighboring Faiths; Huston Smith, The World’s Religions; or Eerdmans Handbook to World Religions.  These are surveys and most public libraries will have at least one of them.  Of course, there are online sites about world religions—some intended to win converts to that religion and some intended to educate about the religions.  The website for the North American Mission Board has downloadable fact-sheets on world religions.

John 14:1-6

Do you remember where you were five years ago tomorrow? 

On November 22, 1963, I was sitting in a high school English class when the principal broke in to announce that President Kennedy had been shot;  I’d moved on to a bookkeeping class when the word came he had died.

Five years ago, I was sitting in my office with the radio turned off.  Oh, I’d heard that a plane had hit the World Trade Center but thought it was merely a very tragic accident.  Then, shortly after 9:00, Philip called to make sure I’d heard a second plane had hit the WTC and a third had hit the Pentagon—these were no accidents, they were deliberate.

It’s hard to believe it’s been almost five years.  The world is a different place than it was before September 11. 

I suppose we’ve learned more about Islam, in particular, than we ever would have if there had been no attack on America. 

In the past five years, President Bush has made a great effort to portray Islam as a religion of peace and brotherhood.  I understand his motives—he wants to distance the terrorists from the average Muslim we’re likely to meet on the street, on the campus, or at the office.  I understand this.

Unfortunately, though the President may be acting with the best of intentions, his words in pursuit of good will from the Islamic community have sometimes been overstated. Listening to the President, we might imagine that Muhammad, not Jesus Christ, was born to be “Prince of Peace.”

As you know, our nation responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 by interning thousands of Japanese-Americans who lived on the west coast. Although it seemed reasonable to many at the time, we’ve since come to see it as a reprehensible act against patriotic fellow-citizens. 

Maybe the memory of that shameful episode in our history made some people afraid we would start rounding up all people of middle-eastern ancestry to put them in stockades.  While I think better of the American people, I guess I can understand their concern. 

In all of this, some have come close to suggesting that Christianity isn’t that much different from other religions.  Of course, even before September 11^th it was considered intolerant to even suggest that one religion might be better than another.  That’s an understanding of toleration that is far different from what I learned as short a time ago as the beginning of my studies in church history.  Back then being tolerant meant allowing any and all religions to be freely practiced; it did not, as it does now, demand a conviction that all religions are equally valid.

My intention this morning is not to assault Islam.  The Islamo-terrorists aren’t typical Muslims. 

This morning I don’t intend to outline the tenets and doctrines of Islam or any other non-Christian religion.  There are lots of good books and articles which will help you if you’re interested—I, however, would suggest you be sure to read at least one published before September 11^th.

That I may draw comparisons between Christianity and Islam only reflects our new preoccupation with a religion embraced by 800 million or more people around the world.

My intention is to try to answer the question:  Does it matter if you’re a Christian?

It matters if you’re a Christian because Christians have a realistic view of the human condition.

The Christian world-view asserts that we humans live in a state of rebellion against the Creator, whose image we bear, a rebellion that has marred every faculty we possess and relationship we share.  The common word for this state of rebellion is sin.

Our view of sin allows Christians to admit that we have not always behaved Christianly.  We—or at least those claiming to be Christians—have sometimes been brutal and bloodthirsty.  Critics sometimes say Christians are arrogant, yet we Christians have an almost infinite capacity to confess we have done wrong in the past.  Christians, for example, admit the Crusades were wrong;  f there have been similar expressions of regret from the Muslims whose harassment of Christians in conquered lands helped inspire the Crusades, I haven’t heard them.

There are dark blots on the history of most religions.  People calling themselves Christians bought slaves sold by people calling themselves Muslims.  Yet, no one successfully claims that the failure of some to live up to the ideals of the religion they profess means that religion is false.

Hinduism believes our problems are the result of our having forgotten we are gods.  Buddhism teaches that our problems arise from desire, that if we stifle all desire—even the desire to be an individual--we will attain perfection.  Islam teaches that sin is disobedience to the law of God but denies the notion of original sin; the solution to the problem is resolute obedience to God’s law.  For the Muslim it all depends on human effort.

 Christians, on the other hand, insist that the solution to our problem cannot arise from our own efforts.

Christian theologians Lewis and Demarest have written:

            …the most profound human predicament is rooted in the inner person.  The fallen human heart has a basic tendency to turn away from God's ways.  Until the inner self is born anew all the education, culture, and environmental improvements, like aspirin, may remove symptoms, but they do not address our most radical need.  Until a provision is made for reconciliation to the transcendent, personal God, all other spiritual disciplines are only like Band-Aids.

This portrait of the human condition is confirmed throughout the Bible but perhaps nowhere more succinctly than in Paul’s statement:  “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

It matters if you’re a Christian because Christianity presents a realistic way of salvation.

Every world religion offers some scheme by which we might hope to escape from the problems caused by our human condition.  All except one places the responsibility for that escape on the believer.

Buddhism teaches that through disciplined self-renunciation the believer will, after many reincarnations, finally will attain nirvana.  But the way to nirvana involves the careful following of some 227 rules for men and 311 rules for women.  Originally, Buddha did not plan to have women disciples but when he was finally persuaded to make a place for them, he fabricated more rules for them than for men.

Islam speaks of faith but the Muslim’s primary hope for forgiveness rests in living in light of the “five pillars”.  But even this is no sure way to salvation. 

Christianity teaches that the resolution to our great problem of sin rests in God’s decision to reach out to fallen humankind in Jesus Christ who died to pay the debt of our sin and then offered full and free salvation to all who put their trust in him.  The Christian view of salvation begins with a realistic view of our sin and consequent helplessness;  it continues this realism by showing us how God graciously did for us what we could not do for ourselves.  As Peter wrote, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God…” (I Peter 3:18)

Whereas both Hinduism and Buddhism picture salvation as involving countless reincarnations to purify our karma, Christianity promises immediate spiritual rebirth to those who trust Christ.  As Paul says, “the one in Christ is a new creature.”

It matters if you’re a Christian because Christianity offers a comforting hope.

 The hope of the Eastern religions is summed up in the notion of Nirvana.  Itself a confusing concept, Nirvana is not to be confused with the Biblical heaven.  In the final state of Nirvana individuality is extinguished (as one would blow out a candle); in heaven, so Christians believe, individuals—perfected by God’s grace—continue to exist as individuals.  Your identity is not lost but enhanced because the corruption of sin is eradicated. 

For the believer, heaven is not to be experienced only after many, many, many incarnations; it is experienced immediately upon the believer’s death.  A vivid reminder of this is found in Jesus’ words to the repentant thief who died with him on the first Good Friday:  “Today you will be with me in paradise.”

In heaven Christians enjoy the presence of God for eternity.  John in the Book of Revelation pictures this.

REV 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb [2] down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. [3] No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. [4] They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. [5] There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

Islam also pictures heaven as a great garden, but it is so very different.  Because Muslims believe Allah is so transcendent, so far above us, many Muslims place little emphasis upon having a relationship with him and his presence has little role in their view of heaven.  Instead, they see heaven as a place of continual sensual delight for those who have lived well enough to please Allah.

So our hope involves the affirmations that we, as individuals, will live for eternity, all the while enjoying the glorious presence of God.

It matters if you are a Christian because Christianity offers a noble moral ideal.

Before I address this issue let me make two points:

·  Many of the practitioners of non-Christian religions live exemplary lives, lives marked by generosity and compassion.  No one would deny that.

· A second observation I want to make is this: It is possible to judge a world-view by the actions it inspires.  While there have been no true “Christian nations,” there have been those in which the Christian world-view as been the dominant influence.  It’s also important to remember that in nations and cultures where the Christian world-view has dominated even those who make no profession of faith in Christ are often influenced by it, influenced enough to act in light of it.  For example, during WW II Japanese soldiers, especially in the Philippines and on Okinawa, brutalized the native populations.  The conquering Americans, on the other hand, provided food, water, and other help to those same people.  Such actions were the result of the dominant Christian world-view.

[If I were preaching this sermon today, I would spend more time talking about those sad occasions when those supposedly representing “Christian” nations or communities failed to behaving in a truly Christlike way toward others.  While Cortèz, some of the Puritans, and others did commit outrages against natives in the new world; were always those individuals who bravely voiced opposition in the name of Christ.]

What do we see when we compare the impact of those dominant world-views?

The notion of Karma which plays so large a role in Buddhist thinking looks at an individual in a tough situation and says, in essence, “Karma is working itself out—he is getting what he deserves.”  Hinduism looks at the same situation and says, “Suffering is an illusion.” 

Beliefs have consequences.  World-views impact the world. 

[Should you want to read more on this topic I recommend Alvin Schmidt’s How Christianity Changed the World.  The book was published earlier as Under the Influence—the title change was probably made because in the US “under the influence” is associated with what some English-speaking nations call “drink driving.”]

The Christian world-view which sees each person as made in the image of God allows neither indifference nor denial when faced with human suffering..

It was this world-view that prompted Mother Teresa of Calcutta to spend more than four decades helping the forgotten men and women dying on the streets of that city.  The problem had been there for centuries but the dominant world-view of that culture led to nothing being done.

African American poet and novelist Alice Walker points out that nowhere in the Muslim world is a woman treated with true respect.  While this will vary from country to country, the Muslim attitude toward women is directly related to the teachings of the Qur'an.  The Islamic holy book teaches that there will be more women than men in hell;  it also teaches that men may “scourge” or whip unruly wives and female servants.

[Today I might take more pains to point out that some Muslim nations have a far better record in promoting women’s rights than others. Still, Walker’s observation should not be quickly discounted.]

This is far from Paul’s statements that wives are to submit to their husbands; in fact, the corresponding instruction to husbands is “love your wives.”  Only sick minds or radical critics can find any sanction of spousal abuse in the New Testament.

Individuals Christian writers and sometimes groups of Christians have failed to follow the example of Christ, but most objective historians will admit that Christianity has done more than any other philosophy or world-view to elevate the status of women.

The moral ideals of Christianity, when applied, have changed the world for the better.

It matters if you’re a Christian because Christianity upholds spiritual freedom.

 From its beginnings Christianity has taught that the choice to follow Jesus must be freely made, that no one can be coerced into faith in Christ.  While it’s regrettably possible to point to incidents in the history of the church when people were forced to be baptized, such forced conversions took place only when there was an unhealthy marriage of church and state.  And, even then there were critics of such methods.  Ramón Lull, a fourteenth-century Italian scholar and monk, went as a missionary to the Muslim nations.  He insisted that love, not the sword, was the way to win the hearts of the Muslims.  

Those who defend Islam insist that Muhammad’s preaching, not coercion, won the first converts and those who did not convert were to be left alone,   In fact, the Qur'an says that non-believers may be slain wherever they are found.  Surah 9:5 states, “When the forbidden months are past [Ramadan], then fight and slay the idolaters wherever ye find them….”  While Jews and Christians may have been allowed to continue to practice their religion at first, in time they were placed under such economic and social pressure that many chose to convert.

Today, no nation where Christians form the majority religion practices forced conversion.  In no nation where Christianity is the dominant religion is there any threat of punishment for converting from Christianity to another religion or for abandoning Christianity for no religion at all.

Today, there is no Islamic country where a man or woman may convert to Christianity without threat of punishment or even death.  In most Islamic nations, Christians face intense pressure and sometimes persecution just for practicing their faith.

I saw an interesting interview last week.  The journalist was speaking with a group of American Muslims.   They all agreed that the acceptance they had received in America was unprecedented in a non-Islamic nation.  Cells of angry, plotting young Muslims are rarely found here because economic and educational opportunities seem open to everyone, regardless of their religious background.  [In recent days, there may have been American Muslims who have been “radicalized” but this isn’t due to a change in our nation’s openness but to changes in recruiting techniques, economic downturns, etc.  The economic downturns impact everyone but those susceptible to radical propaganda may fail to see that fact.]  Such cordial openness is not despite our nation’s long association with Christianity, but because of it.

Amazingly, however, one of the most frequently repeated criticisms of Christianity is that we Christians try to force our religion on others.  How sad that passion and enthusiasm are considered coercion. 

It matters if you’re a Christian because Christianity has the privilege of offering Christ to the world.

No other world religion, no matter how sincere their practitioners, has any figure to match Christ.  The ultimate difference between Christianity and any non-Christian religions is Christ.

Buddha denied he was the savior.  At his death he told his followers, “Buddhas do but point the way; work out your salvation with diligence.”  While we appreciate Buddha’s honesty what are we to make of Jesus’ statement, also made just before his death, “I am the way the truth and the life.  No one come to the Father except through me?”  Compared to humility of Buddha’s statement, Christ’s statement seems to reflect a monumental arrogance.

Yet, Christ was known for his humility.  During his trial he refused to defend himself or answer his accusers. 

Muhammad once ordered the death of a slave girl and her master because the slave had written a poem making fun of him.

Humble or not, Christ made a statement which demands our attention.  That statement and others he made call for us to make a decision about him.  C. S. Lewis and others have understood this:  Anyone who said the kinds of things Jesus Christ said about himself is either an arrogant liar who merits our contempt, a lunatic who deserves our pity, or he is the most remarkable person who ever lived.

Jesus claimed to be God, Jesus claimed to be bringing full and free salvation, Jesus claimed to be the one who held the destiny of the world in his hands.  Jesus claimed that not even the cross would undermine his mission—in fact, the claimed the cross was part of his mission.

Those claims, fantastic and exceptional as they were, received their confirmation on the first Easter morning.

CONCLUSION

When Paul preached before the adherents of other religions in Athens he treated them with respect and courtesy.  At the same time he presented the claims of Christ with clarity.  He concluded by pointing to the great confirmation of the gospel—the resurrection.

Those who follow Islam, the religion founded by Muhammad, know his remains may be found in his tomb at Medina.

Those who follow Christianity, the religion founded by Jesus Christ, know his tomb may be found in Jerusalem, his empty tomb.

If you’re a Christian, that matters.

  

*****************************************************************

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

     Following the presentation of this sermon I was asked several questions which I believe merit some response on this page.

1.     What about Nazi Germany under Hitler, wasn’t Germany a “Christian nation?”

First, we should understand that many German Christians were unaware of Hitler’s evil plans; they saw him as one who would lead the nation from the terrible economic conditions which prevailed after World War I.  When these Christians finally came to see Hitler as he was, it was too late—he was already in power.  Hitler placed his own bishops in power to force cooperation from pastors and churches.

Second, some German Christians were merely nominal Christians.  Sadly, this is true in every culture.

Third, some Christians bravely opposed him.  The Confessing Church took a bold stand against him and many pastors suffered for it.   Bonhoeffer and Niemöller were both imprisoned, Bonhoeffer was executed.

Fourth, Christianity was “used” by Hitler who tried to use it as a vehicle for his ideas.  He had no real faith of his own and planned to destroy the church when he had finished with the Jews.

Fifth, numbers of ordinary Christians risked their lives to rescue Jews in Nazi controlled lands.  Their stories have often been untold.

2.    Weren’t the Crusades acts of aggression against Muslim lands?

The Crusades had complex origins, some fought for religious reasons, some fought for adventure and glory. The Qur'an promises protection for Jews and Christians, “People of the Book,” yet Christian pilgrims on their way to the Holy Lands were being harassed by Muslim authorities or at least authorities failed to intervene when bandits kidnapped such pilgrims.  Unfortunately, this was enough to start the bloodbath which became known as the Crusades.  The Crusades shouldn’t have happened but they did.  [While I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, sociologist Rodney Stark has written an informative book on the Crusades:  God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (2009).  Propagandists on both sides probably exaggerated the atrocities committed by the other side.]

3.    Since poverty breeds depravity isn’t the hatred directed toward the West by Muslim nations rooted in the differences in wealth between industrialized nations and non-industrialized nations?

       The Christian world-view actually holds that depravity breeds poverty.  Poverty is the result of a number of dynamics, including exploitation of the powerless by the more powerful.  It is more complex than that alone.  Yet, blaming the poverty of Islamic nations on the West seems disingenuous.  Poverty in some of these lands has existed since before some Western nations even existed.

         More importantly, some of their own policies have contributed to poverty in Middle Eastern lands.  How often are the oil sheiks and the political despots asked to share their wealth?  Then, too, some of the repressive policies of nations like Afghanistan invite poverty.  Remember, it was naïve young women from the west who traveled there to teach Afghan women how to establish cottage industries.   [The reference here is to Dayna Curry and Heather Mercer whose story is told in their autobiographical book Prisoners of Hope.]  Imagine how different our standard of living would be if women were not allowed to learn to read or to have jobs.

4.    Is the lack of freedom in Muslim countries caused by the religion or by zealous militaristic regimes hungry for absolute control?

It’s impossible to answer this question except to say that the Christian world-view, with its notion of total depravity, warns against any individual or group having absolute power over others.  It doesn’t matter if the individual or group is a Christian or not.  No one can be trusted with such power. [Today I might point out that in nearly 1500 years few, if any, western-style democracies have developed in an Islamic land.  If freedom of religion is a hallmark of democracy, than there are no true democracies in these lands.  Of course, my comments represent a bias toward democracy.]