The War Against Jihadism is a Theological Battle

In my last post I referred to an interview I heard with George Weigel. Since then I read his new book “Faith, Reason, and The War Against Jihadism-A Call to Action” (see link in left panel).

The book has 15 lessons about “things we cannot not know”. These lessons are grouped under three headings: “Understanding the Enemy, Rethinking Realism, and Deserving Victory”. I found it particularly satisfying to see someone write plainly and openly about the enemy that declared war on us. Abandoning political correctness while still retaining civility and fairness is rare. Weigel seems to pull it off in this concise and critical work.

Weigel correctly identifies the struggle not as a “war against terrorism” (a method), but a “war against jihadism” (an ideology which has no qualms about using terrorism to further its ends). He also correctly identifies that ideology as religious, as seen in his first “Lesson”: “The great human questions, including the great questions of public life, are ultimately theological”.

Ideas have consequences. Faith, and that which is the object of one’s faith, matters. Thus we are engaged in a war, though not of our choosing, which we will only win if we recognize and identify as a war of ideas as well as a physical war. Faith has to be considered along with reason in this battle.

It will involve “[c]hallenging the assumption in the American foreign policy establishment that the only answer to global jihadism is to convert 1.2 billion Muslims into good secular liberals…”. If it is a theological battle, not a secular disagreement, then our approach must be to begin to understand the theology that drives a jihadist to blow up those whom we (in our sense of logic and justice) consider “the innocent”. All 15 lessons are valuable and instructive. We might like to ignore or reject his last lesson that we cannot not learn (“There is no escape from U.S. leadership”), but this lesson and all before it derive from looking at the world situation realistically.

Get the book. Read it. And then ask your favorite candidate who is running for office this year what approach they have to winning this “war against jihadism”. Their answer will tell you whether they are serious enough to deserve victory.

Respect For Differences

I heard an interview where Catholic author George Weigel discussed what is needed for inter-faith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. See the transcript here. Weigel said:

The prerequisite for serious inter-religious dialogue is a frank acknowledgement of differences. Tolerance does not mean ignoring differences, as if differences don’t make a difference. Tolerance means engaging difference with civility and respect, but with a clear understanding of your own moral values as applied to politics, and why they’re worth defending.

This has relevance in other situations as well: political discussions between Republican and Democrat friends; theology differences between different Christian denominations; policy issues within religions denominations; or in disagreements within a church.

You find “politics’ in every organization, even a church. Good people disagree on deeply held issues. To often, though, we avoid discussing issues where we know there are strong disagreements. We don’t want conflict, and we end up shrinking from true dialogue.

Using Weigel’s formula for serious dialogue above, here are some suggestions for engaging in true dialogue with respect for each other.

· Frankly acknowledge that differences exist. Ignoring them is like trying to cap a volcano.
· Know that differences matter. If you strongly believe something, you don’t want to just be told that it’s OK to disagree and let’s move on. That is effectively saying your beliefs don’t really matter. They matter to you.
· If your beliefs and values matter, you want to defend them--respectfully. In Weigel’s interview he links this defense to reason, not emotion. Reasonable dialogue involves civility and respect; and it seeks to find common values that enable us to live and work together in harmony.
· Respectful and reasonable dialogue means discussing issues, not people. Another author I’ve heard recently said that “refuting” an argument “doesn’t mean reject strongly or angrily. It means to argue successfully against. . . . It involves rational discourse.”

We may differ on various issues, but if we can agree on certain values we can still live together in peace. You may not be able to find peace with everyone (you may want it, but they may not). Even then, Paul’s advice in Romans 12:18 applies, “ If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” Respect for differences and for each other makes it work.

Setting Goals-a bizarre way to start

This is a bizarre way to start a column on setting goals, but it’s very effective. Read the entire column (it’s short) at http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/02/setting-goals-for-the-new-year/. It’s called “Setting Goals For The New Year”, by JP Moreland at ScriptoriumDaily.com.

“It’s the time of year when we set New Year’s resolutions. However, before you do, I offer you something to ponder. Suppose I invited you over to play a game of Monopoly. When you arrive I announce that the game is going to be a bit different. Before us is the Monopoly board, a set of jacks, a coin, the television remote and a refrigerator. I grant you the first turn, and puzzlingly, inform you that you may do anything you want: fill the board with hotels, toss the coin in the air, grab a few jacks, fix a sandwich, or turn on the television. You respond by putting hotels all over the board and smugly sit back as I take my turn. I respond by dumping the board upside down and tossing the coin in the air. Somewhat annoyed, you right the board and replenish it with hotels. I turn on the television and dump the board over again.”