Thankfully, the DC sniper and his accomplice have been captured.  That capture is the result of superb detective work and God’s providence.  After nearly three weeks of terror, those who live in this area are resting better and feeling more secure.  I would like to offer some final thoughts on this massive tragedy:

• First, that John Allen Muhammad was a psychopath is a given.  His behavior reflected delusions of grandeur and power far beyond the normal.  His power over his 17-year-old accomplish, John Lee Malvo, was real and shocking.  But was his psychopathic behavior terrorism?  Since 9/11 we need to ask that question.  Muhammad’s victims were, in the language of the intelligence community, “soft targets--”mother, father, son, cab driver, bus driver, analysts.  The victims were chosen at random, for no specific purpose.  It took three weeks and ten deaths to catch these two men, armed with no more than a rifle and a fistful of bullets.  Further, this dragnet occurred in a part of the US with the highest concentration of police, military and counterterrorism forces.  The US government certainly took this tragedy seriously as well.  The Pentagon sent a spy plane.  The CIA lent its explosives-sniffing canine units.  The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms committed a total of 800 employees to the investigation.  What we have learned from this case is that the lines between terrorists, serial killers and psychopaths are no longer very clear.  The government at all levels can fortify high-profile “hard targets” like the White House and airports but it certainly cannot guarantee security at the local Ponderosa steakhouse.  We are a very vulnerable country and it does not take a bomb or a plane to point this out to us - it only takes one rifle.

• Second, what was Muhammad’s motivation for his killing spree?  This is a difficult question.  It was obviously a mix of ideology and rage.  Muhammad is a Muslim convert, who sympathized with al Qaeda and vented his anger at America.  But his life was also a mess.  Divorced twice, his second wife had a restraining order against him due to his abusive actions.  One cannot simply explain his actions because of ideological convictions stemming from Islam.  He was a loner, with few friends and no steady employment.  In that sense, he fits the classic profile of the deranged serial killer.  In the end, he also asked for $10 million to be deposited in a secret Jamaican account.  In short, we will probably not know all that motivated this complex man.  We must therefore be very careful assigning his Islamic convictions as the prime motivation.  He is a sick man whose psychopathic behavior produced a deranged, obsessive, controlling, and dominating relationship with his accomplice, John Malvo.  He was a modern, urban hunter who stalked his victims like one stalks deer.  He was an urban terrorist with motives too complex for easy conclusions.  It was a dastardly evil that defies understanding.

• Third, one cannot understand his behavior without an understanding of pop culture.  In many ways, pop culture provides the context for this bizarre and tragic series of events.  Phrases used by the police in the public announcements were driven by the notes and calls from the killers.  “My word is bond,” the “five stars” that appeared on the written notes, and the phrase on the tarot card, “I am God,” all come from the music and messages of pop culture.  Muhammad and Malvo were saturated with this culture and it provided the context for their actions.  In that sense, it reminds one of the Columbine killings where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were equally saturated with pop culture.  This culture provides the language and the gore for the serial killer.  An additional aspect of pop culture is the media.  Media saturation took on a life of its own through these three weeks.  The media were a part of the process.  The media dominates and controls how we think about such a tragedy and how we process it.  About the only thing we can do is turn it off - sometimes the wisest thing to do! 

• Finally, Muhammad’s killing of nine people and wounding of four more raises the question of evil.  This kind of dastardly evil causes some people to conclude that no living God would permit this kind of slaughter.  If he cannot prevent it then He lacks power.  If God is good, why did He allow such slaughter to go on and on?  It is imperative that we remember that Muhammad and Malvo are accountable to God for their actions.  Their acts are in rebellion against Him and have violated His moral law.  They are to blame, not God.  Further, God is not sitting on His hands.  The central fact of Christian theology is that God became a victim of evil (the cross) so that He could eradicate evil from this planet.  The atheistic, materialist worldview argues that there is nothing to explain evil and what we must do is to submit to the harsh realities of the world.  I cannot accept that.  God permitted John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo to commit their heinous crimes because of their personal rebellion against Him and His law.  But He also has provided a context for the understanding of evil.  Its days are numbered.  It will not last and it will be defeated. 

See article by Jeffrey Gettleman, “The Week in Review,” The New York Times (27 October 2002).

Back to top

FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA

On this program, I have addressed the issue of free speech in America many times.  Free speech is one of our core values as a civilization, enshrined in the First Amendment and protected as sacred in Western Civilization.  However, in these postmodern times, free speech is being re-defined in the typical postmodern sense.  Let’s think about this:

• First, on 12 October, Jerry Falwell apologized for calling Muhammad, the founder of Islam, a terrorist.  Leaving aside the wisdom of ever making such a statement in public, the media in America did not consistently respond to Falwell’s comments.  For example, the LA TIMES editorially attacked Falwell for his “anti-Muslim ilk.”  The TIMES defends free speech for pornographers but is an opponent of “hurtful speech . . . directed against a religion, a racial group or a minority such as gays and lesbians.”  Ethical questions about homosexuality are considered “hurtful” as are apparently comments about Islam.  As Marvin Olasky has argued, “Newspapers and media law specialists are always on the lookout for laws, regulations, court decisions, or threats likely to have a 'chilling effect' on First Amendment freedoms.  Why the silence here?”  The point is that the Quran is difficult to interpret when it comes to the role of violence - the jihad - in the spread of Islam.  There needs to be an open, scholarly discussion about how we understand these passages.  One can question the wisdom and timing of Falwell’s comments about Muhammad, but it is intellectually dishonest to argue that there should not be open discussion about the role the Quran plays in motivating terrorists and whether Muhammad actually taught and advocated terrorist activities to spread Islam through jihad.  See World (26 October 2002), p. 5.

• Second is what John Leo calls “do-good coercion?”  Consider some examples.  The European Union intends to ban “racism and xenophobia,” “public insults” of minority groups, and other materials it finds offensive.  In Paris, the famous Italian journalist, Oriana Fallaci, is currently on trial for inciting racial hatred in passages of her new novel that disparage Islam.  A French novelist is also on trial for offending Muslims, not in his new book, but in comments he made about the book.  This month Canadian customs agents impounded newsletters defending Israel’s right to exist because it is labeled as possible hate propaganda.  In Saskatchewan last year, a newspaper was fined for publishing an ad that quoted Bible verses on homosexuality.  The man who took out the ad was fined $1,500.  Sweden is forging ahead by passing a constitutional amendment banning all speech or material opposing homosexuality, carrying a jail term of four years for those who violate the law.  In this postmodern world, we can justify “do-good coercion” but the point is that a rose is still a rose; and for me do-good coercion is a serious violation of free speech, one of the most precious rights in Western Civilization.  See Leo’s article in US News and World Report (21 October 2002), p. 12.

• Third, the new 2003 Miss America, Erika Harold, found herself in a difficult situation.  Having been chosen for the honor, she now had to come under the authority of the Miss America organization.  Erika is an awesome representative of the Miss America honor.  A committed Christian, and a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Illinois, she will attend Harvard Law School after her year as Miss America.  She is likewise proud of her multiracial heritage, a symbol of the changing face of America.  But she is also a dedicated advocate of sexual abstinence.  However, the Miss America organization instructed her not to talk about her convictions in this area.  Curiously, throughout her run for the Miss Illinois crown, she consistently promoted the idea of sexual abstinence to the thousands of teens with whom she came into contact.  (Her theme was “Teenage Sexual Abstinence: Respect Yourself, Protect Yourself”.)  After an enormous amount of pressure, George Bauer, interim CEO of the Miss America organization, removed the gag order, thereby allowing Erika Harold the freedom to talk about one of her deepest convictions - sexual abstinence.  See World (19 October 2002), p. 36 and “Breakpoint” (16 October 2002).

Back to top

EXTRA BIBLICAL PROOF FOR JESUS?

A nondescript limestone box, looted from a Jerusalem cave and held secretly in a private collection in Israel, carries an inscription that could be the earliest known reference to Jesus.  The box, an ossuary used at the time of Jesus to hold bones of the deceased that dates to about AD 60, has almost no ornamentation except for a simple Aramaic inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” 

If this is authentic, this ossuary would be the only artifact from the first century that proves the existence of Jesus.  Until this ossuary, the earliest know artifact was a fragment of the Gospel of John, dated from about AD 125.  This ossuary would also be the first artifact to link James, Joseph and Jesus.  The tests and analysis have indicated that this ossuary fits with the typical ones of this period from Jerusalem.  There are some questions about the Aramaic script but some affirm that it is authentic as well.  Two points to guide our thinking:

• First, there is the strong possibility that this ossuary may be a fraud.  At this point the evidence does not point in that direction but it will remain controversial for some time to come.

• Second, our acceptance of the fact there was a historical person named Jesus, who had a brother named James and whose father was Joseph is based on Scripture, not archeology.  We affirm the authority and infallibility of Scripture and that is our basis for truth.  In so many other areas of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, archeology has merely validated what Scripture has taught.  This may or may not be one of those archeological discoveries.

See article in The Washington Post (22 October 2002).

Back to top