Now, a few days ago I wrote about a tendency, within the Chalcedon Foundation, towards Geocentrist beliefs. So, is Chris Ortiz is a geocentrist ? Well, even if he is that question is simply not relevant to Ortiz' critique of bellicose Christian rhetoric deployed against all of Islam : his argument rises or falls on it's own merit.

What's worth noting, also, is this :

The Chalcedon Foundation's apparent opposition to a US and / or Israeli attack on Iran is consistent with Chalcedon's theological positions. Christian Reconstructionist theology is post-Millennial meaning ; Reconstructionists feel that --instead of triggering events leading to the Tribulation, the Apocalypse, and Armageddon that must precede the Second Coming-- they instead must impose Christian theonomic rule - government under Biblical Law ( as parsed by RJ Rushdoony ) - and only after 1,000 years of theonomic rule will Jesus finally return.

That theological view should lead Reconstructionists to take a very long view of history because, in Reconstructionist theology, the world is to be preserved, not blown up. So based on that ( I would assume ) Chris Ortiz, takes George Grant and reformed theonomists to task for jumping on the "demonize Islam" bandwagon :

"I'm a little taken aback at times by the underlying tone in many reformed-theonomic leaders as it relates to Islam and the War on Terror. Post 9/11 it's as if everyone's eyes are finally opened to the true threat to Christianity -- Islam. These are the same leaders who regularly decried the threat of Communism and the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and offered not much by way of Islam....

This clip from Vision Forum's History of the World Conference features a portion of George Grant's* lecture on The Crusades in which he contemporizes and sanitizes the efforts of the Pope's legions in the Middle Ages to obstruct the expansion of Muslim dynasties....

I was particularly puzzled by the following quote taken from the clip of Grant's speech:

   

"You see, Mohammed, believed that ultimately the works-righteousness -- the ideological system of Islam -- depended upon global conquest. Faithfulness was measured, not simply by the adherence to the Five Pillars, it was measured by the pursuit of this radical agenda."

How similar is this radical ideology of Mohammed to a younger George Grant:

   

"But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
    It is dominion we are afier. Not just influence.
    It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
    It is dominion we are after.
    World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to
    accomplish.
    We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we      
    must never settle for anything less."
    George Grant, The Changing of the Guard (Ft. Worth, TX:  
    Dominion Press, 1987), pp. 50-51

I honestly do not see the ideological difference between what Grant is suggesting in this citation, and what he expresses concern over in regards to Islam's ambitions....

So I ask, "is Islam a genuine threat?" Are Christian leaders confusing the radicalized rhetoric of the Mullahs with the millions of Arabs occupied with living their lives in peace? Are we neglecting even the reason for much of the radical Islamic rhetoric? Will any conservative Christian dare proclaim that the Palestinian people are living in the largest concentration camp in history? Isn't the continual blind support of Zionism on the part of the U.S. equivalent to dousing a campfire with a gas hose?

I support Dr. Grant's desire to reach Muslims with the Gospel. However, to couch that evangelism in the context of the Crusades is unwise."