Oh, for the love of God!

11 months ago Australasia had a touch of terror, and it was a touch too close. I'm referring to the 2014 Sydney siege as it was called. It touched on a raw nerve, the West's fear of ISIS. It turned out in the end that the terrorist was actually not part of ISIS, and instead was an extremist with a history of mental illness and criminality. Following this event there was, just like 9/11, a growing concern about Muslims and the Islamic faith. In the face of this incident and the latent stereotypes of Muslims a Twitter campaign started: #illridewithyou. A campaign which demonstrated solidarity with Muslims using public transport. It recognised and represented Muslims as everyday, respectable citizens. It dispelled fears and misconceptions. 

However, it is clear that stereotypes of Muslims and especially those who hold onto the faith of Islam are still prevalent. This has been freshly dredged up to the surface by the recent terror attack in Paris a fortnight ago. ISIS has since taken responsibility for the tragic events which led to 129 civilians dying. The world has in turn rallied around France through changing social media profiles pictures, hashtagging #prayforparis, and applying Facebook's French flag filters. There has also been outcry about the prominence of the news coverage offered to the Paris terror attacks. The publicity given to these attacks has been compared to the Garissa University College attack on April, 2nd by Al-Shabaab (an Al-Qaeda offshoot) that claimed 147 lives and injured 79 others or the massacre of 2,000-odd Nigerians in January by Boko Haram. It is true that these events drew less attention and, indeed, less of an outcry. It does show a double-standard in coverage of tragic events in developed nations in comparison to developing nations. Although, all bad news is good news for the press (perhaps, I'm a little too cynical)  - there is no doubt that news values make Western catastrophies more salient - more news worthy - than those elsewhere.

There is also no doubt that the terrorists are winning. Not because of their gruesome and detestable violence, but because their mind-games are succeeding. They are preying on the paranoia of anyone being a terrorist. However, the decentralisation of terrorist networks is nothing new. Nor, is mistrust for the 'other' a new evolution. It preys on the part of us that perceives and interprets others as with us or against us. Unfortunately though binaries don't do justice to a world that is an a hodge-podge of good and evil. No terrorist is entirely evil. Furthermore, we cannot say that all Muslims are our enemies. Let's avoid using 'Muslim' as a synonym for 'ISIS'.

ISIS is clearly a force that needs to be tackled, but I fear that retaliation - as seen by the bombing of ISIS targets in Syria by French fighter jets - will only lead to further retaliation. Surely we have seen through the case studies of the US's occupation of Iraq and Israel's tactics in the Gaza Strip that revenge only begets revenge. We're seen time and time again how the death of one fanatic, like a noxious weed, draws out many more. More problematically the targeting of ‘innocent’ civilians only creates further bad blood. It is inevitable that civilians will be killed and counted as collateral damage. Judith Butler has argued that the West has a tendency to selectively count and frame who counts as a victim. We must exercise caution with a utilitarian ethic, where the ends justifies the means. For every civilian death counts, because this loss of life is another opportunity for ISIS to recruit a resentful, disgruntled, or grieving civilian. Don't forget it only takes one person to be a suicide bomber. If we think we can enact another "war on terror" the way that the Bush administration retaliated for 9/11, then we're simply repeating the mistakes of the past (just like Bush overlooked the failure of the Vietnam War; not a perfect analogy I know).

I call for a different way. A more difficult way. The way of love. Christians are called to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36). I'm not trying to be profound. I'm trying to tell you something that goes against the grain. In the letter to the church in Rome - which was made up of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians who were on the verge of a church split - Paul appealed to them, to

...therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

Now, when we read that we think of a very heavenly and idealistic sentence. But the word "spiritual" here is about rationality. In fact, this spiritual logic is very practical as I'll point out in a second. Paul then says in the following verse,

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God - what is good and acceptable and perfect.

It is clear here that Paul doesn't want us to take a leaf out of the world's book. Instead, he wants a mental transformation in the Roman church members. The word translated transformed is metamorfoō (which is also used in 2 Corinthians 3:18). It's related to the word metanoia, meaning to have a radical transformation of your mind; a change of perception. It is the opposite of paranoia (thinking that is "off to the side"; thoughts disconnected from rational thinking). So Paul is calling Christian to not follow the way of the world, but instead to think differently, without being paranoid. I want to suggest that the church is called not to conform to the world's group think, but instead to see beyond the binaries, the stereotypes, and paranoia connected to Muslims and the Islamic faith.

One of the horrible consequences of terror is that you sacrifice the complexity and nuance of everyday life for shades of black and white. Is this person a threat or not? However, determining the will of God requires us to be of a sound mind. Paranoia risks us removing ourselves from others literally and emphatically. It risks us shrinking into ourselves. It risks us relying on ourselves. However, we need to rely on the Spirit.

Paul's previous content in Romans 8 demonstrates our need for the Spirit. The Spirit applies in our lives Jesus own life, a life that fulfilled the law and that overcame the flesh. We now can live righteous lives which can be navigated through the Spirit’s mindset. This new-found freedom allows us to find a new freedom as God’s children, for we are no longer in bondage. That’s not to say that we will be free of suffering, but that our suffering is not the last word. For we place our hope in one day sharing in Christ’s glory. However, Paul then offers a series of rhetorical questions reminding us of God’s faithfulness to us in Jesus. He then asks a last two-part rhetorical question (v. 35):

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 

Paul adds in v. 36 a reference to Psalm 44, a psalm of lament which calls on God’s faithfulness in dire circumstances. Despite the psalmist pleading with God to save them from their enemies, he finishes in 26b with “Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love.”

It appears with this last verse in mind he confidently answers his previous questions:

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (vv. 37-38)

This incredible promise demonstrates that the Spirit frees us from our old lifestyle plagued by our flesh and by our disobedience against the law. Despite these barriers and our inevitable suffering God's love in Jesus is secure and supreme. Our status in Christ has set us free from the cares of the world. Our minds instead are being transformed, indeed conformed, into the mind of Christ (12:2). This new way of perceiving the world requires a corresponding new way of interacting with others, including our enemies:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Paul is challenging his readers to not only reject the world's worldview, but to reject the world's way of resolving conflict. This challenge cannot be nuanced or offered caveats, God's role as judge is to be recognised and our enemies are to recognised as the perfect recipients of good acts. Just as God's love was the response to our fallenness and deficiencies in Romans 8, our response to human fallenness (13:9) is to love our neighbours as ourselves (v. 10), for love is the fulfillment of the law (vs. 8, 10). Therefore, the mind of Christ is a way of being and seeing which revolves around Christ-conceived love. The requirement of Christ is for us to prove our love for others, rather than requiring others to prove themselves worthy of our love.There is no footnote or fine print to discharge us of Jesus' precedent of loving and forgiving our enemies).

Hatred only begets hatred. Just as violence begets more violence. The French choosing violence as their weapon (although understandable) will only offer further opportunities for retaliation from ISIS. The French strategy of choosing to fight violence with violence will not bring meaning or resolution to the tragic loss of life in France. Something more radical is called for and that strategy is love. Our minds, our hearts, and very lives are to be anchored in and directed by the love of God. This is our worship of God where we are secure in his love for us so that we may free to love others without paranoia. I feel foolish advocating for love to be our tactic, but, then again, l'amour de Dieu est folie (the love of God is folly). And if God's love is folly, then we all are called to follow in those foolish footsteps.