Sermons

FILTER BY:

← back to list

Jan 18, 2015

Part 2: ISIS

Passage: Matthew 18:1-26:75

Speaker: Rev. Vivian McCarthy, Pastor

Series: Modern Problems

Category: Current Events

Keywords: isis, modern problems

This week in worship we will be focusing on ISIS/ ISIL/The Islamic State, the second in our Modern Problems series. We will reflect on these questions: How might my anger and fear be affecting my perception of Islamic people – people of the Muslim faith? How does anger and fear shape public perceptions and prejudice? I hope you will consider using the study guide and other supplementary materials to examine your heart and mind in relation to these topics as a person of faith. All of the materials relat-ed to last week’s sermon have been posted on our website: www.rumcweb.org.

There may be lots of things that chill us to the bone or make us deeply and thoroughly angry, but perhaps nothing as much as the beheading of a US citizen posted arrogantly on YouTube. Violence of that magnitude is difficult to contemplate. Hatred that raw and ugly is almost unimaginable. Most, if not all, of us feel violated and fearful.

Last week we briefly looked at how scriptures relevant to issues like these should be used not as proof-texting or to give us specific answers. Rather, the scriptures should shape us so that we are more able to think things through theologically, using the resources of faith: Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition.

The scriptures do not ignore human emotions. Scripture tells the story of God and God’s creation, and to leave out the human condition and the emotions that go along with that condition would make the stories incomplete. Psalm 137 witnesses to the despair and anger of the Israelites when they were held captive by Babylon – in very strong terms:

1 By the rivers of Babylon— there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion. 2 On the willows there we hung up our harps. 3 For there our captors asked us for songs, and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!" 4 How could we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land 8 O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! 9 Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!

We get angry. What we do with the anger is a reflection of how we have allowed God to shape us.

As we touched on last week, there are numerous stories in the Old Testament of conquest and captivity – of violence, often in the name of God. Some of those stories are about grasping for power. Some are about trying to find a better place to raise a family – a Promised Land. In the November 2nd FaithLink, Peter Surran wrote: “It would be a mistake to ignore the existence of violent passages in Scripture, particularly in Old Testament stories about the conquest of Canaan and in some of the prescription of the Law that require stoning as a punishment for a variety of transgressions….It would be good for Christians, therefore, to think twice before basing a characterization of another religion as inherently violent on a verse of their scripture divorced from the entire witness of the book.”

I would add to that statement a similar caution that we should be careful about how we characterize Muslim people – individually or collectively -- either here in the U.S. or even in the Middle East, as not all are adherents to the philosophies and behaviors of those identifying themselves as ISIS, ISL, or, more currently as the Islamic State.

Most everything I read in preparation for today described ISIL as a terrorist organization. I doubt that any of us would disagree. Let’s look at some background.

The organization often referred to as ISIS in the media was once Al-Qaida in Iraq, and it has been called by several names. I first picked up on that when I heard President Obama refer to them as ISIL while the reporters who were interviewing him in a press conference consistently said ISIS. I may not be the only one who wondered what was up with that. Peter Surran wrote:

In a September 13, 2014, broadcast, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered gave a description of the different acronyms used to identify the group and what they mean. According to the report, the decision to call them ISIS or ISIL depends on how you translate the Arabic word al-Sham, which refers to the Levant, ‘an area that extends beyond the current borders of the Syrian State and into Lebanon and even Palestine and Jordan.’ ISIL, then, is how the US government refers to the group, but most media outlets have chosen to go with a translation of that Arabic word that refers only to part of Syria, so it’s ISIS in the major news outlets.

The members of the group, however, have tried to rebrand themselves by dropping all geographic references in their name. They want simply to be called the Islamic State. This change emphasizes what the group actually wants to do: establish an Islamic state – a ‘physical state that aims to expand its borders.’

That information helped me a bit in my perceptions of this issue. People struggling for a place to call their own – for recognition and power – which we found to also be at the heart of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict last week. In both of these areas, the conflict is over land and recognition as a state – a political entity. More than one world conflict has erupted over just exactly such desires, and the desperation to reach those goals, fueled by hatred, tends to escalate the violence. Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying. I do not condone violence nor corruption. I’m struggling to understand why anyone would employ such horrific violence in any circumstance.

Take a look at this map for just a moment and consider the geography of the different names. ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), ISIL (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), or just Islamic State – which seems to me to be a very open concept, geographically.

There are reports that ISIL has perpetrated acts of unimaginable terror on Islamic women and forced children and youth into acts of terror and torture – and this is their own people -- their neighbors. I confess that I wonder how anyone could be desperate enough to do such horrible things to their own people, not to mention journalists and people shopping to prepare for their Sabbath dinner.

In the printed packet for this week, there is an article from the Religious News Service entitled Religious Leaders Try to Cope with Islamic State Attacks, and it briefly addresses ISIL’s recruitment of young people. It reads, “U.S. Christian leaders have also spoken out and say they hope to dissuade youth from joining the Islamic State ranks by developing an alternative world view that counters the group’s religious claims.”
World view. Have you ever listened to someone speaking and just know that you are definitely not on the same planet? World view may be the issue. Not everyone is coming from the same basic set of values and basic thought patterns. And those who are marginalized for some reason or in some way may be especially vulnerable to the “grass is greener” lure of an alternative world view that could lead to radicalization – especially when the marginalized feel powerless or hopeless and see in the new world opened to them an opportunity –a chance – to gain power and security, even if that power and security may lead to a martyr’s death. There is no elaboration in the article about how the leaders intend to go about developing and then offering a positive alternative world view. What would it take for those on the margins – especially young adults vulnerable to radicalization – to find peace and hope in an alternative that does not include violence and terror to make a name for themselves or feel that they have found a way to glory?

Do you remember what we read from the Social Principles last week in the paragraph on World Community? “This generation must find viable answers to these and related questions if humanity is to continue on this earth. We commit ourselves as a Church to the achievement of a world community that is a fellowship of persons who honestly love one another.” This question of world view is not for the faint of heart. It is going to take a great deal of creativity and imagination to speak to those who are in a place where they have a very hard time hearing – who have felt disenfranchised and disrespected and are therefore deeply suspicious of the motives of the institutions and powerful. We can’t simply wring our hands and leave it to somebody else.

As you have probably figured out already, I did find the FaithLink issue about ISIL to be very helpful. Surran raised what I believe to be a couple of pertinent issues for us as Christians in relation to this topic.

First, not all men and women who are adherents to Islam agree with nor approve of the actions or beliefs of ISIL. In September, Muslim clerics sent an 18-page letter to ISIL which draws heavily on passages from the Quran, telling them that they do not understand Islam and “denouncing them as un-Islamic by using the most Islamic of terms.”  As people of faith, we need to keep our minds open and clear when we hear blanket statements or stereotyping of anyone, perhaps especially people who are not like us. Those kinds of statements set people against each other rather than moving us toward God vision of a “new heaven and new earth” where all creation, including all peoples, come together as one holy family.

Secondly, Surran raised the question of peacemaking. In his writing, John Wesley laid out 3 simple rules for Methodist Societies: Do no harm. Do as much good as you can. Stay in love with God.

Our neighbors are increasingly more diverse, including neighbors who are Muslim. Their names may not be easy to pronounce. Their food may not be like our food. But they are our neighbors. We may find ourselves personally in a position to reach out and build community. Taking an interest in those around us can make a place for peace to grow – maybe even friendship! Think about how Jesus built relationships with the outcasts of his day – he sat at table with them and shared a meal; he touched them and spoke with them and offered kind words when they were suffering. I do have to say that I am very disappointed that our invitation to the whole faith community in the Reisterstown community for a service of prayer for peace went unanswered. It seems to me that praying together as people of faith is pretty much the least we could do. But even in this we need to walk in grace rather than characterize the community’s lack of response in a negative light.

God’s vision as lived by Jesus is for a world where people are loved – a kingdom where life is good for everyone and we dwell together in a unity that is healthy and stimulating for us all.

(FaithLink info available here.)