The Ground Zero Mosque: Focusing The Discussion

In my last few posts I have made mention of the construction of the mosque hoping to be built a couple of blocks from Ground Zero in New York. By now, most all of us in America have caught wind of this story in some form or another. I have not had the opportunity to read other bloggers' thoughts on it--though, I wish that I'd have had the time--but I do know that some have been posting their two cents.

As one whose interest is first and foremost exegesis of the Bible, I thought I'd put my thoughts out there with the hopes of focusing the discussion a bit more. I want to keep this post brief, so, I will simply state my case and be done.

Basically, within the Scriptures themselves, "place" and "space" are central issues. In the Old Testament, especially in texts like Deuteronomy, "the land" is very significant. Further, I have noticed that the phrase "the land" is actually ciphered by the phrase "the place" all throughout Deuteronomy. In some real way, the Old Testament without "land" or "place" as a focus would be like the New Testament without Jesus.

All throughout Israel's history, mountains, arks, temples and other places marked "sacred space." In short, as we read throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, we see sacralization of place happening again and again. Wherever YHWH entered or dwelt, that place became sacred. Just as well, places also became sacred because of the ways that people treated them and the things they did in them. For example, worship took place in a sanctuary where appropriate dress, diet, words, thoughts, etc. accompanied them. Here, things happened differently than elsewhere and thus, contributed to sacralizing the place. This is why it was so troubling when the temple was desecrated and violated! It was not just symbolic, it was a statement about the loss of power and status in real, every day life!

As we move through the New Testament and especially beyond, we see places like Golgotha or the Garden where the tomb was, sacralized by Christians. One only needs to take a tour of Turkey or Greece today to realize that the tourist traps, which the guides try with all of their might to tie back to biblical figures, have become sacralized. Of course, Muslims do the same thing. Their Dome of the Rock, their praying toward Mecca, etc. all denote "sacred spaces" in their theology.

In my view, the issue about the mosque near Ground Zero is not really at all about American rights or it "being too soon" or Islamophobia or other such ideas. At the heart of the matter is really sacred space. To be even more particular, I think the main thing that needs to be addressed is sacralization. Until persons tackle this matter head-on, I believe that frustration will only continue to mount and that threats, veiled or not, and stigmatizing will prevail. The question that needs to be dealt with is: Who should get to sacralize this space and why?

At the most basic level, I see this tension more clearly than any other! This is the heart of the issue because whoever gets to make this space and place sacred will essentially get to imbue it with meaning. Such meaning will certainly flow into issues of social status, religious power and ethical influence. Regardless of all the other nuances that persons draw out of this argument, I truly believe that this is a fundamental matter to which attention MUST be devoted. It may even lead to the conclusion that at this "place" and at this "time" no religious group should be able to claim sacralization on this place because it will only cause more conflict.

To be sure, the issue isn't over nationalism, racism, ethnocetnricsm or any of that, again, the core of the problem is found in the notion of sacralism. It would do all of us well to begin fleshing out our theologies of "place" and "space" so that we can make an educated contribution to the ongoing debates and discussions. This, I submit, would get us much farther along than the empty-headed fellow taunting the sign at the top of this post for whom the matter of "building churches in Saudi Arabia" has more to do with making a point than understanding the depths of "sacred space" and "sacred place."

Submission To Islam

In the last few weeks, talks about the relationship between Islam and Christianity as well as Islam within America have stirred much controversy. On the one hand, the Quran burning festivities have sparked outrage worldwide. On the other hand, the building of a Muslim museum and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero have created much controversy. News analysts, columnists, bloggers and many others have come out of the woodworks to voice their opinions on either or both of these hot topic issues.

At the level of which side(s) to support and which to reject, there seems to be inconsistency. The call to have patience with Muslims worldwide and to refrain from burning the Quran originates from various viewpoints depending on the person. For example, some desire patience so as not to harm American troops around the world. Others desire patience because in a land with freedom of religion, this is simply what one should do; they should tolerate the "other." Still, others think that by yielding patience, we show our power; if we give into anger and retaliation, we show our weakness, just what the Muslim "enemy" wants and so, they get another victory by controlling us. The same things could be said of the near Ground Zero building project. The question might be asked, however, "If Christians and/or Americans are expected to have patience with regard to the Quran burning, why are Muslims or Muslim Americans not expected to have patience with people as the express their anger, hurt and grievances about the mosque in NYC? And what about the rage Christians in America might feel when they see the mobs burning bibles, flags and photos of pastors (in the PRESENT!!!), where's the patience? The Quran burning has only been a "threat" of sorts while these people are actually doing it!

Much of what is going on here is a power struggle. It is sort of becoming a shouting match except with tyrannical tirades; whoever can do the most oppressive, offensive and tyrannical thing, wins. What does the Christian make of this? How does the Christian react? What is the role of Jesus and Jesus' ethics in all of this for the Christian?

Probably, many will see it as weakness or naivete but on a very real level, the call for the Christian is to submit! Submit to Islam? Seriously!?! I find it fascinating that when it comes to wars and governments, the average Christian is ready to rattle off Romans 13 to support their claims. All the while, they leave Romans 12, in connection with chapter 13, out of the equation (see more on this in a previous article of mine HERE). A litmus test of consistency should be applied, however, to the believer who cites this text.

Romans 12.17-21, the five verses preceding the infamously prooftexted 13.1-7, say, "17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Should Christians engage in Quran burning? No! But why? Simply put, because this will not cause us to live at peace with Muslims. Further, this is an act of revenge. What should the Christian do? Perhaps we should share a meal with the Muslims, share a drink with them and listen to them. Either we will get to know them or they will leave with coals heaped on their heads, which is to say, with God's wrath upon them. Paul's advice is wise and sound. We do not fight with the weapons of this world he says in 2 Corinthians, instead, we fight with wisdom from the Spirit of God. That wisdom says to leave room for God's vengeance, in other words, God's wrath, which will have its say in due course. The Christian who revolts against peace and peacemaking with Muslims has not only stirred controversy among inhabitants of this world but also God's wrath against themselves.

As for the building at Ground Zero, should the Christian stand back in fear and never express their feelings? Not necessarily. Should they picket and speak against what they see as injustice? Perhaps. But should they make threats, create fear and incite violence? Not at all. Should the plead for patience? Maybe. Should I ask another rhetorical question and continue on like I'm interviewing myself? :)

Sticking with Paul's advice, it would be most advantageous to sit with the opponent and share food, drink and conversation. Furthermore, that meal should be provided by the one offended as a sort of peace gift. Breaking bread may be the key to "overcoming evil with good" (12.21) in situations such as these. Of course, it is not violent. It is not warlike. It is not pretentious. It is not wrathful. It is not anger-driven. And because it is not any of these, it runs against the grain of how people in our world interact with those they consider most threatening and dangerous to themselves. But even Jesus shared bread with his enemy-betrayer Judas. Jesus overcame evil with good.

Should Christians submit to Muslims? Yes. But not in the sense of giving up. No, in the sense of hearing them out, sharing a meal with them, showing patience to them and maybe even requesting the same. Power in God's kingdom is not the type that lords force over position or anything else over people. Instead, it is a power vested and rooted in submission. It is an upside-down power in the world's eyes and mind. However, it is the way of Jesus. And it is ingrained in the ethic of Jesus. The way forward for the Christian through discussions and issues like these, in my view, starts at the table, the meal table.

But what if they will not come to the table? Well, then, we wait. And how long should we wait? As long as it takes! This, I suggest, is not a show of weakness or stupidity, it is an act of peace and kindness, situated in the deep ethic and heart of none other than Jesus Christ himself who bade us to be peacemakers and to love those considered to be our enemies.