CAN CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS COOPERATE? Names that sound Dutch always arouse my curiosity as an old–line Christian Reformed Hollander. I’ve been reading Bruce Buursma’s Religion column in the Chicago Tribune for some time, not only because it is usually a well–written contribution on a subject of high interest, but also because Mr. Buursma is a son of a colleague, the Rev. W. D. Buursma of Kalamazoo, and when the younger Buursma quotes another person with a name that might be of Dutch origin, our eyes and ears are apt to take notice.

“Islamic, Christian leaders join hands to promote faith” is the headline over Buursma’s April 6, 1985 column. Chicago has its share of Mohammed’s disciples (somewhere between 150,000 and 250,000), and their presence is taking shape on the landscape. It also has a certain Louis Farrakhan, minister of “the black separatist Nation of Islam.” Mr. Farrakhan makes strong statements and has some strange allies. As Buursma puts it, “Farrakhan . . . achieved notoriety during Rev. Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign last year for making statements interpreted as anti-Semitic.”

As if that isn’t enough to embarrass any decent Muslim, the image of Islam is reported to be suffering from the resurgence of the kind of “fundamentalism” seen in such nations as Iran, terrorism, violence and racism. To counteract this a new cooperative group has been formed called the Committee for Improved Muslim-Christian relations. Its instigator and head is Prof. Harold Vogelaar, specialist in Islamic studies at Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago, and a former resident of the Middle East for twenty years.

My point in mentioning all of this Hes in the comments quoted from Lionel Abdul Haqq of the American Muslim Mission and a participant in this cooperative venture. “Faith in general—its quality, its character and its image –is deteriorating in America,” he said. “It’s a problem for all of us, Muslims and Christians and Jews.” Against that background the Committee has committed itself to “tackle the issues of racism, crime and drug abuse,” and to raise its voice against permissiveness and sexual promiscuity, of promoting pleasure above morals.

I might not be comfortable with the kind of “ecumenism” which seems to be reflected in Buursma’s column. But I am pleased to note that there is a real awareness of the extent and depth of moral and spiritual laxity and corruption in these final years of the Twentieth Century.

We “conservatives” have been saying things like this for too long a time. It’s reassuring to notice that our diagnosis is supported by others—even if the corner out of which they come is not one from which we expected much help.

POPE CHALLENGES YOUTH TO BATTLE EVIL – Pope John Paul II has released a 15,000-word apostolic letter entitled “To the Youth of the World.” It is reviewed in the Worcester, MA Catholic Free Press. From this review we gather that the Roman Catholic leader has said some things our own Young Calvinists might well hear! Excerpts from this review speak for themselves:

Pope John Paul II called on the world’s youth to use their strength “not for the struggle of one against another” but for “the struggle against evil . . . against everything that offends God.” (That includes) “injustice, exploitation, falsehood, deceit and everything that profanes human society and human relationships . . . and every crime against life.” The Pope advised youths to educate themselves by building character and warned them not to be critical, skeptical or cynical.

In an apparent reference to television, he warned young people to resist the temptations of “a type of entertainment business that distracts people from a serious commitment in life and encourages passivity, selfishness and self–isolation.”

Pope John Paul encourages youth to examine questions about the meaning of life and death and to realize the importance of living a moral life. “The conscience is the most important dimension of time and history,” he said, urging youths to know and live the Ten Commandments. (He) emphasized the need to develop strong principles so young people might become “credible” adults . . . . “The moral personality formed in this way constitutes the most important contribution that you can make to life in the community, to the family, to society, to professional activity, and finally to the community of the Church.”

He warned young people to be aware that “today the principles ofChristian morality concerning marriage are in many circles being presented in a distorted way.” This distortion transforms a human being, especially a woman, from a subject into an object . . . . “The whole great content of love is reduced to pleasure.”

This apostolic letter is being distributed in a bright blue plastic cover, was printed in seven languages and supplemented by a series of Scripture selections around which the Pope developed his letter. The choice of color and format is deliberate. It is suggested by the aim Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung had for his “red book” of sayings. Mao’s book was widely read and spread throughout China to educate young people during China’s cultural revolution of the mid-1960s. The Vatican would like the blue book to have the same kind of consideration and distribution among today’s youth that Chairman Mao’s red book had in China.

“DON’T TALK WITH MURDERERS” – This is the provocative headline from an April 15, 1985 Wall Street Journal article written by David Satter, identified as a former Moscow-based correspondent (six years), now a “Journal special correspondent who lives in Paris and is writing a book on the Soviet Union.” Commenting on the murder of Major Arthur D. Nicholson by a Soviet sentry, Satter argues that this event ought to be met with stern protest rather than the avoidance of such action in the hope that the USA will not upset USSR leadership.

I’m not in a position to know just how much or what kind of action our government should take with respect to this very serious incident. But I am impressed with Mr. Satter’s observations on the ideological character* of Communist nations as Russia.

“The great weakness of U.S. foreign policy is that while the Soviet Union is engaged in a continuous effort to impose its ideological view of reality on the world, the U.S. has traditionally been blind to the fact that ideology exists.” This is Satter’s thesis. It is important. With what I hope are a few well-chosen quotes let me show something of his argument:

The Soviets use America’s one dimensional** approach to world affairs against it. All Soviet actions are intended to show that the U.S.S.R., dedicated to its MarxistLeninist ideology is “principled” whereas the U.S., aside from a commitment to making money, has no principles at all. Acts like the murder of Maj. Nicholson and the shooting down of a Korean airliner are attempts to achieve a strategic advantage but, at a more fundamental level, they are the Soviet’s way of demonstrating their ideological “superiority,” in particular that they are willing to kill as a matter of principle but that the West is not even willing to defend its dignity when it conflicts with its perceived interests . . . .

I lived in the Soviet Union for six years and, confronted as I was with the mental twilight of a country that daily tries to create its own reality, it occurred to me often that a knowledge of the Soviet ideology is essential to an understanding of the world situation, because it is the ideology that provides the psychological blueprint for the behavior of the Soviet regime . . . .

By the logic of the Soviet ideology, the Soviet regime, as the representative of the working class, assumes a divine character and the life of Maj. Nicholson or the lives of innocent air passengers have no importance compared with the “sacred” security interests of the Soviet state . . . there is no absolute morality but only “class morality,” of which the highest is the morality of the “working class.” Since the Soviet regime supposedly represents the working class, its every action is an expression of its moral perfection, including the murder of Maj. Nicholson. This is why there will be no compensation for his widow and no apology for his murder.

All kinds of speculation exists today about the character of Mr. Gorbachev, the new Soviet leader. His age, the attractiveness of his wife, their interests in things Western, etc. are all being read to believe that Mr. Gorbachev we have a man with whom we can “do business,” whom we can trust to do “the decent thing.” Taking note of President Reagan’s renewed desire to meet with his Soviet counterpart, Satter observes:

Mr. Reagan apparently believes in the possibility that personal contacts can overcome even profound political differences but such faith is misplaced in the case of the Soviet system. It is virtually impossible for a Soviet party careerist, steeped in disinformation and forced constantly to parrot ideological inanities, to hold out against the forces of total spiritual annihilation as he moves up the Soviet heirarchy . The combination of the acceptance of the regime as the arbiter of reality and its class morality creates a self-contained mental universe that rapidly becomes self-justifying and coexists in each person’s mind with the ability to think and react according to normal principles. The resulting split in consciousness, which makes all top Soviet leaders look as if they are members of the same extended family, precludes the possibility that any Soviet leader can have a meaningful exchange of views with a U.S. President.

A few comments (and a recommendation):

1. It seems to me that we were more aware of the ideological character of things once upon a time than we are now. Wasn’t the formidable word ideology really understood by us as something identical to the Bible’s reference to the wicked world? A world we should resist at all costs? Didn‘t that give us a better point of departure for serious address to our people (especially our youth) concerning spiritual and moral and theological issues? I think so. 2. In the citations above reference is made to the American tendency to believe that all ideas and convictions which divide people are dissolvable in the warm and friendly exercise of loving communication. “If only we sit down and talk” we’ll find understanding, affection, unity, agreement—and we’ll eliminate the ugly possibility of hatred, dislike, division, even war. Of course, a willingness to discuss things in a Christian manner can have very blessed results. But to suggest that one’s dearly-held convictions are not matters of principle but only of personal preference or traditional allegiance is scarcely complimentary and, at bottom, ultimate differences between those for and those against Christ are not resolvable, unless we fall down in repentance before Him who is “the seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15). 3. A recommendation: the best Christian spokesman for the Christian position against Marxist-Leninist (Communist) thought among us is, in my opinion, Dr. Lester De Koster. I am not his agent (as some people have been heard to allege), but if you can get him to lecture on this subject don’t pass it up! We can use all the help we can get to be alert to this terribly important anti-Christian, world-wide movement.

SUING THE CHURCH AND ITS MINISTERS – Bringing people before the law to claim legal redress is not unusual these days. And this development is not only threatening the medical profession (malpractice), but is now entering into the church and the parsonage as well.

USA TODAY (April 15, 1985) lists the following lawsuits to illustrate ecclesiastical vulnerability to “the law:”

An Oklahoma court awarded $390,000 to a woman who said the Church of Christ of Collinsville had caused her emotional distress when it branded her a fornicator.

A California jury awarded $2.1 million to a Santa Clara woman who said the Church of Scientology defrauded her by failing to fulfill promises to improve her life.

And the Supreme Court has declared that the interest of the state in protecting a child’s life overrides parents’ religious rights to refuse medical care for the child.

This is of greatest significance for any church which intends to be church as defined by the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds. Because that means the recognition of three marks as indicative of Scriptural genuineness: the pure preaching of the Word, the proper administration of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), and the exercise of church discipline “in punishing of sin” (Belgic Confession, Art. XXIX). The exercise of the third mark requires the making of public announcements.

I think the use of public announcements in the disciplinary process ought to be re-examined.

Not th at the congregation should not be given official information on the crucially important business of the discipline of its members. In fact, this ought to be done with even more regard for the maturity of the New Testament believer. I think it ought to be arranged so that a good discussion of the matter be made possible by the communicant members of the church.

I suggest that we do this only at officially called congregational meetings. This might have the following advantages:

1. It prevents the possibility of a lawsuit alleging defamation of character by virtue of an announcement made in a public worship service.

2. It makes possible not only a more detailed (within the boundaries of Christian propriety, of course) report of the work of the elders in this instance, but also a discussion of the case accompanied by fervent prayers for the spiritual recovery of the person(s) being disciplined.

Since we have synodical study committees on all kinds of matters, maybe one on this subject could be considered as needed and possibly helpful.

WAS KARL MARX RIGHT ONCE? – Somewhere in England while on a vacation trip recently I read that Ka rl Marx said, “The Church of England would rather give up thirty-eight of its thirty-nine Articles rather than one-thirty-ninth of its wealth.”

That qualifies, I’m sure, as a rather cute remark. Since I’m not Church of England or Anglican, I can’t verify its accuracy. I do know that it is an interesting and even edifying experience to sit in on the early morning Communion service in Westminster Abbey.

Forgetting for a moment the kind of Satanic figure Marx was (and is), we’d all have to admit that the tendency of organized religion is to show greater regard for its external treasures than its heavenly mandate. Too bad!

*The term ideology refers to the system of thought known popularly as communism, regarded by its adherents as absolute truth-making it an ardent opponent of Christianity.

**Russian policy is two-dimensional, politico–economic and ideological, while American foreign policy is seen here as mainly interested in the former. You may have noticed that when even President Reagan talks about the evil nature of Communism as an evil ideology criticism in the media can be very severe.