Category: Religions
A Parable (You Know Where This is Going)
The Good Samaritan
Today is 9/11. Every year we speak about remembering 9/11 and we should. We should never forget. We should never forget what fanaticism can do. We should never forget what fundamentalism can do. We should never forget that religion can be dangerous at times. We should never forget that humans can be hateful. What we need to avoid is “remembrance” that moves us toward revenge, eye-for-an-eye behavior, and away from the gospel.
That being said,I have a parable to tell:
It was a mild day at Ground Zero in New York City, NY. A large crowd has gathered to hear a famous religious teacher. He was difficult to define. Unlike many of the religious conservatives in his country he refused to align with any sort of military agenda in the name of God. He was critical of the fundamentalist as well accusing them of placing so many rules on the people that God had been removed from the equation. Likewise, he offended the more sensible liberals with talk of ridiculous things like “angels, demons, spirit, and miracles”. Many in the crowd were there in interest of what he would say regarding how people should respond to the hateful events of 9/11 that had taken place nine year ago.
A well-dressed man, a local seminary professor with a freshly minted Ph.D. in theology, approached this religious teacher to ask him a question. He said, “Teacher, what does it look like to behave in such a way as to inherit eternal life?”
The teacher responded: “What is written in the Scriptures? How would you interpret it? How would you answer this question?”
The lawyer responded with a glee look on his face as if he was about to ace the final exam: “You should love the Lord your God with all you heart and all your strength and all your mind , and your neighbor as yourself.”
The religious teacher responded: “Well done! If you do this you will find life.”
Since this way the day when Americans everywhere were seeking to “remember” what had happened on 9/11 and how, God forbid, it would never, ever, ever happen on this land again lest someone pay, the professor asked a question seeking to justify himself: “Ok, but really, there are so many people on this planet, how should I define such a broad word as ‘neighbor’?”
The religious teacher responded: “There was man driving late at night from Buffalo here to New York City. It was partly rainy, partly snowy, and it was creating a semi-slushy surface. The man did not like the song on the radio so he looked down briefly to change the channel only to notice he had lost control of his car. As quick as he could look up his car was sliding toward a ditch on the side of the road. There he crashed into the wet muddy ditch with the car being smashed and his limp, unconscious body stuck inside.
“An hour or so later, in the early morning, a pastor in a hurry for a local denominational conference was driving toward the accident. He was going to be one of the first speakers and he was already a bit behind schedule. He saw the car wrecked on the side of the road and he though, “Oh no, this is an inconvenience. I am already late. If I can’t be on time to my own talk the presbyter will never ask me to speak again. Besides, I don’t have the tools to free that man and geez, what if he has HIV or something? I can’t risk my health. I have a family and a church that I am responsible to care for. I am sure someone else will do something.”
About forty-five minutes later a local Democratic candidate for state senator was on his way to meet with some prospective donors. He went over his speech once, twice, three times. He was running on a platform for the “marginalized”. He wanted to see reform for the poor and he felt that the government was only allowing unjust laws further assisting an already unjust system.
As he approached the wreck on the side of the road he thought to himself, “Surely someone has already called 9-1-1. Why waste time doing something that is clearly the task of a fireman or state patrol. We are all gifted in different ways to make things better and my way is fighting this unjust system! Others are gifted for events like this. I must be on my way.”
Two more hours pass and a young man who was a student at NYU, who majored in biology, and who had just spend some time with his family in the upper part of the state, hurried back toward the Big Apple. He had a class with an important final scheduled in a couple hours.
The man was a Muslim. He received a lot of stares on days like 9/11. People called him a “terrorist” and talked about how “hateful” his religion is. He sometimes felt like he was all alone in this world. He needed to do well in school, he needed to do well on this test, he needed to make something of himself. No one else was looking to give him a hand out.
Then he saw the car. He knew what he had to do. He pulled over and put on his emergency flashers. He jumped out of his car and ran toward the wreck on the side of the road. The door would not open so he removed his coat and wrapped it around his hand so he could smash out the window. After bloodying himself up a bit pulling and tugging and tearing the man out of his car he carried his limp body back to his own vehicle. He drove as fast–yet as cautious–as he could to the nearest hospital.
When he arrived he provided the people with his contact information. He told the nurses that he would come back later that day and if there was any problems they could call him at his number that he provided. He then made his way to take his test knowing he would be late, but that he did the right thing.
“So what does it mean to love your neighbor? This is what it means. This Muslim modeled what it means to show the love of God to others.”
Scandal! How could this religious teacher be so insensitive. Muslims killed Americans on this day! They shouted and yelled at the man and he simply walked away. The young professor sat there a bit stunned. In all his theological studies he noted within himself that he had forgotten this side of religion. As he looked around at the grumbling faces he realized he was not alone.
I am fairly sure that if Jesus was around today he may very well tell a very similar version of this parable (see Luke 10.25-37). The Samaritans were impure “dogs”. They were half-breeds with a corrupt religion that only spoke some half truths. They were to be shunned for their false religion and awkward culture.
Today I do not call Americans to remember the words of Jesus for no American is responsible to call Jesus “Lord” by virtue of your citizenship in this country. But Christians do call Jesus “Lord” and this means more than simply “Savior”. It means he is our Master and if he is our Master he is the one who defines love of neighbor for us. Let us use these times to shows Muslims everywhere what it means to follow and love like our Christ.
The Basic Definition of Religion (Blog a Qur’an Day)
Today I am participating in the “Blog a Qur’an Day” with Andrew Jones and a long list of Christian bloggers. On this day it is easy to demonize Muslims for the terrorism of 9/11, but we must remember that fanaticism is not the only voice of a religion. We Christians have our fanatic fundamentalist and we do not let them serve as our spokesperson. It is only fair to acknowledge with moderate Muslims that there is a different face of Islam that is pious, loving, and worthy of being called our neighbors. So this is why I am blogging a portion of the Qur’an. I am doing it to show that just like the Jewish-Christian Scriptures have some areas that make us blush along with other areas that are beautiful so the Qur’an has many areas that all Christians can affirm with an “Amen!”
I have chosen Surat Al-Ma’un (Sura 107, the “small kindness”) which says the following:
Sura 107
1. Have you seen the one who denies the Recompense (the Judgment)?
2. For that is the one who drives away the orphan.
3. And does not encourage the feeding of the poor
4. So woe to those who pray
5. But are heedless of their prayer-
6. Those who make show [of their deeds]
7. And withhold simple assistance [Al-Ma'un: small kindness]
Christians may hear echoes of Jesus our Messiah and James the Just in this Sura. First, we are reminded of Jesus’ words when he said, “If therefore you are presenting your offering on the alter, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the alter and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Mt. 5.23-24) Jesus is saying that sacrifice is secondary to reconciliation. If a religion is worth its salt it will result in loving actions toward one’s brother or sister.
James, the brother of our Lord, wrote something similar: “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep one unstained by the world.” (1.27) As with Sura 107 so with James the Just: if you claim to be religious the ideal picture of piety is care for those who are in greatest need. Religious claims void of this kind of love for other humans is hypocrisy at best. On 9/11 let us Christians and Muslims remember that while we may disagree on very important issues this is no excuse for hateful actions toward one another. Let us remember that God will sort it all out in the end and that we are responsible to act in the knowledge of God’s will that we have been given.
Remember on September 11
I can vividly remember when the tragedy struck on this day just nine years ago. Eerily, exactly one week before I had gathered with my co-worker and his friends, and I remember them talking about what might happen if the United States were attacked. Maybe they were prophets or something? I remember walking up on that September 11 morning to the distress of my mother and of this nation. I remember ending that day with friends somewhat depressed and with the sound of fighter jets patrolling the airway. That day will always be a memorable day.
Today is the ninth anniversary of that day. Today is a day to give honor to those who died, their families, and those who gave themselves to the cause of finding survivors and cleaning up the mess. Today is a day to remember those who did this, and what they did this for.
Just as importantly, today is a day to remember that those of the same faith as those who did this are not the ones who did this. I remember visiting two Muslim countries—one moderate, one conservative—a few summers back. I remember that the media portrayals of these people are not the same as walking among them. I remember seeing Muslim husbands and wives walking in their grand malls, holding hands and smiling. I remember Muslims looking for taxis, drinking a Starbucks, and a mother looking after her children at the play set. I remember our Indian Muslim driver in Warangal, India who was so patient with us.
I am not excusing the actions of those Muslim’s involved in the September 11, or any other scandal and act of terror, just as I do not excuse any Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, or atheist from heinous acts. I just ask that we remember on September 11 that Muslim’s are human beings who have the same needs as the rest of us. Remember on September 11 that hate gets no one anywhere. Remember on September 11 to love your fellow Muslims because many of them go through the same struggles you do.
______
Hear These Muslim Voices:
- M. Mahmoud: “First Person: A Proud Muslim and American” and “Walk in an American Muslim’s Shoes”
- Zeenat Rahman: “What We Do on September 11 Matters”
Qur’an Burning Canceled!
According to several news sources (CNN here) it appears that Pastor Terry Jones of the World Outreach Center in Florida has canceled the scheduled Qur’an burning. Whew!
Update: So it may not be canceled?!
Pondering the Media Coverage of the Qur’an Burning “Church”
While I was reading a post by fellow Western Seminarian Jonathan Shradar (see here) it dawned on me that this is really a small group of extremist. I am wondering if the media should blush a bit for giving this “church” so much attention (including people such as myself with our media-via-blogging). If this causes any sort of global outrage by Muslims it could be suggest that it is in part because we here in the United States decided to scream the news to the world.
When a group of fifty Christians hands out food to the homeless you will never see it on CNN! I am sure the news would have spread because in today’s YouTube world it is difficult for something like this to go unnoticed, but major media still has the power to make a story go front-and-center to the public. It is a diabolic nature of this story that made it worth covering for news agencies. Are we responsible for making this into a much larger problem? I am beginning to think we may have some blood on our hands as well.
Another Good Reason Not to Burn Qur’ans: Retaliation on Christians Abroad
I know a woman who used to be a medical aid worker in Pakistan. Today she received an email from one of her former colleagues which was forwarded my way. Here is an excerpt from the email:
I have just written a letter to Rev. Terry Jones pastor of the Church in Florida which is planning to burn the Quran on the 11th of Sept. All of you know what effect that will have in Pakistan. Americans will be targeted . Christians will be targeted. Churches may be burned and who knows what else may happen if this plan is carried out. The mission work in Muslim lands like Pakistan will be badly effected. My whole family will be at risk and our children in _____. When emotions run high unthinkable things can happen. Please I request that many of you write to express you feeling about this.
If the burning of Qur’ans doesn’t irritate Christians in and of itself the potential harm done toward Christians in countries like Pakistan as retribution for the burning should worry us. What this church is doing is concern for Christians abroad. It could become harmful to our own brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if there is no retaliation toward Christians the fact that this could be a potential cause of suffering should deter.
What this church is doing is prototypical “eye for an eye”. You crash airplanes into our buildings we will retaliate. The problem with this? The cycle never ends. Let us pray that if this pastor has any sense, if he listens to the voice of the Spirit at all, if he cares about the collective wisdom of the Christian community, that he will not go through with this event.
Read the Qur’an Day (I’m with James McGrath on This One)
Qur'an Script
Stephen Prothero (of whose writing that I have read I have enjoyed) has called for moderate Christians to take a stand against that insane bunch of pseudo-Christians in Florida who plan on burning copies of the Qur’an on 9/11 (see his CNN.com article here). Since I have little means of doing so it seemed most evident that this blog would be a good place to say something. One idea that I find very helpful was proposed by James McGrath on his blog–instead of burning the book let’s take some time to read a bit of it.
I have read bits and pieces of the Qur’an and I have read enough on Islam to be familiar with it (which is more than most people I know). I have learned a few things over the years: First, every religion has their extremist. Osama bin Laden is not the only or even the best representative of Islam. When Pat Robertson speaks, or John Hagee, or the late Jerry Falwell, many of us Christians blushed. Yet when bin Laden “issues a fatwa” against “the great Satan” we automatically take his word as a representative of Islam. We would never, ever, ever let Muslims say the aforementioned extremist speak for all of us so why do we ignore those Muslims who say bin Laden and other extremist do not speak for them?!
Second, the Jewish-Christian Scriptures have a whole bunch of embarrassing passages! I know the apologist amongst us do not think so but no matter how many helpful interpretations of the “genocide” in the Book of Joshua that I read it still makes me a bit uneasy to read the relevant passages. Our Scriptures can be a bit difficult at times but oddly enough we always point toward John 3.16 or some other nice, “loving” passage to say “this is what Christianity is about at the core, don’t judge us by the more difficult passages.” Yet, when a Muslim says the same thing about the Qur’an we denounce them as apologist and say that the book is full of hate and calls to jihad. Sorry, but this is not fair or consistent.
Let us remember that loving our Muslim neighbor does not equate to abandoning our Christian confession. In fact, it is part of it. As others have said so I repeat: I am sure that if Jesus was with us today he would retell the parable about the Good Samaritan. He would make it the “good Muslim” and he would likely preach in on 9/11 at Ground Zero. Christians, let us remember who our first allegiance is toward. It is toward Jesus who let his enemies crucify him while asking for the Father to forgive them. It is not to Mars the god of war, or to the deistic pseudo-god of American religion, but to the God who we know as the Creator and Lover of the world.
One Quick Thing On Christian-Muslim Relations
I really do not care if you are for or against a mosque being built near Ground Zero at the future 9/11 memorial. What does concern me is how many Christians have been throwing fits about it while showing absolutely no concern for the many Muslims in Pakistan whose lives have been lost or greatly altered by natural disasters. I know running to help every time something goes wrong in the world can be exhausting but if you have the time and energy to rally against this mosque you surely must have the resources to help other humans in need. As I see it our willingness to fight against one thing while refusing to serve toward another shows that many of us have absolutely no understanding of the gospel. That’s all I have to add.
Saturday Film Review: 08.21.10
I watched one movie this week and this is my review:
This movie is quintessential modern American spirituality. It is based on the book by the same title written by Liz Gilbert. Since I have not read the book I do not know how accurately it depicts this woman but if she is anything like the character played by Julia Roberts it is a pity that so many young women find her story inspirational. It conveys a simple message: you are the center of your universe.
If you are not “happy”, get divorced. If your life has any routine and you are bored with it, toss it away for some pseudo-adventure. The great irony of it all is that Gilbert finds herself moving toward Hinduism, a religion that has traditionally said that people should stay where this life puts them while doing your best to move up the ontological ladder in the next life. Like most people in our culture interested in a religion like Hinduism this is ignored in favor of its vague spirituality that connects you with everything and everything with you and this that and the other.
The title tells you all you need to know about the movie. The woman is fed up with her marriage. He is not a bad man. He is not an addict, he doesn’t beat her, he hasn’t been unfaithful. He is boring. When someone bores you move along. This is what Gilbert does and it leads her into another dead end relationship. She decides she has put herself into a cycle of poisonous relationships and the only way to break free from such a prison is to flee myself and my immediate surroundings.
Of course, as many of us know, where you are located is not the problem. Rather, you are likely the problem and when you run away from life one thing never goes away…you. Gilbert doesn’t understand this. She is short-sighted. She thinks she will find whatever it is that she is seeking by going to Rome, India and Bali.
In Rome it is all food and friends. In India it is Hindu spirituality, self-discipline, and self-forgiveness (or better said, self-justification). In Bali she seeks order, guidance, and of course, she falls in love. That is where the movie ends.
I am sure many viewers bought into this like children buy into fairy tales. It will be “happily ever after”. Maybe Gilbert found love. I don’t know. I have no intention of reading her work, but most people like her will get bored again. And when they get bored again they will do what they did last time and flee. And one day you are old and alone and you realize you lived for yourself and all that earned you was yourself. This is not a good consolation prize.
There is something to be said about good old “stick-with-it-ness”. Our society hates it, which is why it should be all the more appealing. The preferred alternative is what Eugene Peterson calls “a long obedience in the same direction”. Where this movie is dead wrong in its message is that the answer to life’s struggles is to wipe the slate clean and start all over. Sure, there may be an occasional success story but most people remain miserable. Narcissism has always been a back stabbing friend and no matter what garb of “spirituality” or “enlightenment” it is wearing it seeks to destroy you in the end.
Finally, I must note, as a Christian this is one perfect example of why the resurrection should cause us to be different. Gilbert saw this life and this life only (which, again, is very ironic considering her passion for Hindu spirituality). When you think this is all you got it doesn’t matter the means as long as you get the most of this so-called “happiness” before you die. The resurrection calls us to fidelity, not happiness. It calls us to joy, a “peace that passes all understanding”, and a trust in God, not the total abandonment of virtue for the sake of self-realization. I hope that if you watch this film or read any of Gilbert’s books you do so with a critical eye or maybe critical eyes.
“It’s Not About Religion, It’s About Spirituality” = Meaningless
Yesterday, novelist Anne Rice made the news talking about her Christianity-less Christ. Along with many others I wrote about how ridiculous it is to say such a thing. While I am criticizing stupid punch-lines used in our culture that have not been thought through let me address another. Today, New York Knicks power forward Amare Stoudemire was featured in a short article on his trip to Israel to “explore his ‘Hebrew roots’”. In this story he is quoted on ESPN.com as saying something just as misguided: “It’s not about religion, it’s about spirituality for me”.
Let us think this through. What does it even mean? Religion can be defined various ways but essentially it boils down to some sort of deity, a mode of worship, a system of belief, and the meaning that stems from such things. Even if you say you are spiritual you are essentially saying you are religious. You may say no more than, “There is something greater that us that transcends us that we must approach in our own way.” Fine, but this is a religious construct.
Modern so-called “spirituality” is a religion. In fact, the above generalization is shared by many people today. So what if the deity is not explained or named–most “spiritual” people are saying essentially the same thing. You’re beliefs may be to religion what the buffet is to a meal but it is still a religion.
So let’s stop saying things like this without thinking. Sure, we can let a celebrity off on this one because we don’t pay them to think. But everyone else, please avoid such meaningless language.
Religion Isn’t About Getting Along: Laura Cooper Challenges Pluralism
I do not know to which religious persuasion Laura Cooper of the blog History Club adheres (update: she is a deist, which I once was as well), but I think she has figured out the flaw of so-called religious pluralism. In a recent post she writes criticizing what she understands to be the flattening of religious world-views by the author Mel Thomson in Teach Yourself Philosophy of Religion. In her critique she writes,
The attempt to credit all religions as “equally true” is a well-meaning attempt at tolerance and inclusion. Those things come at the price of reason, though, something which the author interestingly referred to as a consequence of embracing such inclusion. We avoid reasoning with those who hold different beliefs for fear of seeming prejudiced, intolerant, or closed-minded. This, of course, is nonsense.
She compares this approach to religion with what our culture does with things like “Mexican Culture Day” or “Chinese Culture Day” where the real culture itself is hardly seen and the only impression one gets of that culture is “the food and celebrations”. Likewise, religious pluralist boil down all religions to the point where they really get none of them. They get hang up a lotus symbol next to a cross understanding neither.
Cooper continues,
Instead of continuing to seek the truth, we are constrained by our current idea that “all religions are equally true” and “all cultures are equally good” (except, of course, the ones that failed and whose adherents we no longer have to consider). I am not saying (and once I mention this, proponents of the “all paths lead to the same place” camp ease off) that America is the paradigm of success, or that only my ideas and culture are “correct”. I am saying that truth and correctness exist somewhere, and not all religions are on the road to achieving it.
In the tradition of Stephen Prothero she rightly shows that this religious pluralism dishonors all religious persuasions. It is one thing to be tolerant. It is important to listen to other perspectives. It is something totally different to argue they really believe what I believe with different semantics. In essence this is a new religion–the pluralistic, American imperialism that guises itself as something other that an attempt at metaphysical homogeneity (but enough with my perspective).
I recommend reading her whole book review here.
Why θεός, Not יהוה? Further Thoughts on Christianity and Islam
In a previous discussion on this blog Ekaputra Tupamahu made an important statement that I have been pondering. I have argued that it is dangerous to state that Allah equates to God the Father because Muslims will not confess that Allah raised Jesus from the dead. Ekaputra challenged this statement by reminding me that in Indonesia Christians declare that Jesus is anak Allah “son of Allah”. According to Ekaputra this appears to be a declaration that Jesus is the Son of the God that Muslims already know as Allah.
As I have thought about the language of the New Testament there is something that Ekaputra, as well as James McGrath, may very well be correct about: early Christian witness appears to appeal to the deities of the pagan world as a starting point for gospel proclamation. I do not think that this means that the early church affirmed pagan worship as sufficient, nor salvific. But it may be correct that there was some pagan worship that was correct in its assumptions, or some deities that correctly reflect, to some degree, the true God. But I emphasize may be!
I say this because it is true that the church proclaimed Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Jesus Christ, the Son of God). It appears that there is an attempt to identify Jesus the Messiah as the Son of the common Greek word for God. The early church could have transliterated the covenant name of God יהוה (YHWH). But the general designation for “God” was used: θεός.
What I have not heard James or Ekaputra say, and I would like to hear their statements on this, is that if we acknowledge that God the Father is known, through some form of general revelation, to Muslims that the one thing we must continue to proclaim is “Allah has a Son, He has raised His Son from the dead” and that there is no other way to Allah, but by Jesus.
Equally, if there are those out there that would like to weigh in on why it is that that θεός makes no difference, I would like to hear your opinion as well. I would like to know why you think that the early Christians did not proclaim Jesus as the son of YHWH to the Greco-Roman world? Or do you think that they did when they equate Jesus with κύριος (although Jesus is never called “son of the Lord”)?
Juxtaposing Christianity and Islam
While I fully intend to response to James McGrath and Ekaputra Tupamahu’s comments on my post, “Yes, God is God of All: A Rejoinder to James McGrath and Ekaputra Tupamahu” I first want to mention some similar discussions going on in the blogosphere. First, Christianity Today is asking people whether or not Christians should join Muslims in celebrating Ramadan here. Second, T.C. Robinson weighs in with his response which has receive some comments here. Third, James McGrath has spread the discussion to his blog here.
Yes, God is the God of All: A Rejoinder to Ekaputra Tupamahu and James McGrath
Is there a difference between the Calvinist and Arminian understanding of God? Yes. Are there similarities between the Calvinist and Arminian understanding of God? Yes. Is there a difference between the Calvinist and Open Theistic understanding of God? Yes. Are there similarities between the Calvinist and Open Theistic understanding of God? Yes. Is there a difference between the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim understanding of God? Yes. Are there similarities between the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim understanding of God. Yes.
I have suggested that the differences between Calvinist and Arminian Christians or Calvinist and Open Theistic Christians is more than merely a qualitative distinction when juxtaposed to the Christian and Islamic understandings of God (see here and here). James McGrath and Ekaputra Tupamahu responded with observations that I found valuable, yet misleading. Both replied with the suggestion that if I make a distinction between the God of Christianity and the God of Islam that is not merely theological but ontological I am close to making a mistake similar to that of Marcion.
Of course, Marcion was a second century heretic who argued that the God of the New Testament was not the same God of the Old Testament. The God of the NT is loving and kind and He sent Jesus to save us. The God of the OT was cruel and evil in that He created our world. I make no such assertions which I think James rightly noted.
The God revealed through Jesus in the NT is the God revealed to Israel in the OT as the one who delivered His people from Egypt, parted the Red Sea, secured rights to the Promise Land, established the Davidic dynasty, sent His people into exile, and called prophets to speak His oracles. Jesus is the pinnacle of this action because in Jesus God has spoken His finalized authoritative word as the author of Hebrews wrote (1:1).
So no, I do not deny that the God revealed to Israel is the God revealed through Jesus Christ. Instead, I affirm this very thing.
Therefore, the question that must be asked is whether or not Jews and Muslims worship the true God but from a different, maybe ignorant, perspective or if the God that they claim to worship is their own ideology and therefore distinct from the true and living God of Christianity. If I deny this am I making the same mistake as Marcion?
Ekaputra suggests that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. He likens God to his father. To Ekaputra this man is his dad. To Ekaputra’s uncle this man is “brother”. It is the same individual who is related to from different perspectives. I do not know if Ekaputra affirms the exclusivity of Christ but I do see this as being greatly in danger of becoming some sort of Christian pluralist.
James on the other hand observes that Muslims claim to worship the God of Jews and Christians. In theory this may be affirmed though I think there are plenty of conservative Muslims who will says that the Jews and Christians no longer worship the true God, Allah. But that is neither here nor there.
The point James is trying to make appears to be this and I am open to correction. Muslims believe in One God who is absolute and shares a lot of the characteristics of the Christian God who is also understood to be the One, true God. Therefore, while there are differences between Islamic and Christian depictions of God, like Ekaputra states, this is still the same being.
Neither Ekaputra nor James indicate whether or not there understanding of what it means to “worship” the same God is equated to being in a sufficient relationship with Him or if one can worship the true God while being utterly defiant against Him by denying something about Him. To clarify, do Ekaputra and James suggest that Muslims worship the God of Christianity yet because they reject His Son they are not in right standing with the true God? Or do they see Islam as another equal approach to God?
I acknowledge that the true God is the God of all. Therefore it is true that the Christian God is the God of Jews and Muslims. But I do not know if this should be seen as saying that Jews and Muslims worship the true God.
The error that I think both Ekaputra and James are making is equating similarities with identity. Yes, Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim a lot of the same things about God. But similarities do not mean identity. All three of us have mothers. There may be a lot of similarities between our mothers. Our mothers may even have the same name. But our mothers are different ontologically and this is best understood through the life actions of our various mothers. These are three different women.
I do not find it outside of the Jewish tradition to argue that those Jews who are apostate are no longer rightly “knowing” God. While I am not able to venture in Qumran’s polemic against their fellow Jews it should be noted that Johannine Jews had no problem going as far as to say, through the words of Jesus, that those who are not following the move of God in Christ should no longer call God Father, but rather the devil (Jn. 8:44). Or that those who reject the Son no longer have the Father (1 Jn. 2:22-24). Or Paul who argued that the Jews had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2) and that God’s way of not rejecting His people was through a remnant (therefore, non-remnant Jews are in essence, for now, are rejected) (Rom. 11:1-2). If there is no knowledge of the true God then our semantics about “worship” are somewhat insignificant. To know God is to know Him according to special revelation.
The critique of Pauline and Johannine churches is not that the God of the NT is different from the God of the OT, but that the God of the NT is the God of the OT and to deny the God of the NT is to reject the God of the OT. If one rejects the God of the NT how is it possible to still worship Him?
When Paul addresses the Athenians (Acts 17:23) he may be able to say that they “worship” the true God ignorantly as the “Unknown God” but this use of “worship” is by no means the same as what I seem to think Ekaputra and James are suggesting. If Ekaputra and James can say “worship” means that there is an ignorance and a lack of salvific relationship, but the ultimate object of their worship is the God who is God of all, then we may have common ground.
My problem is that the God of Islam is a God identified. Allah is not merely an unknown God. The worship of Allah is not merely hopeful prayers toward heaven. The identity of God is assumed and it does not include any mention of the God who was incarnate in Jesus or the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
Therefore, I wonder whether or not Ekaputra and James think that Paul could have suggested Jesus was son of Zeus, but that there were some slight differences. Or that Jesus is the same as the God of Hinduism, but the Father and Spirit are revealed in thousands of manifestations. I do not want to put words in their mouth, but I’d like to know their thoughts.
My question to both gentleman, and I am all ears on this, is if one worships the true God ignorantly does this mean (1) that although their object of worship is indirectly correct their understanding of God is greatly diminished, (2) their relationship with God, as regards salvation, is not established, and (3) their “worship” is not satisfactory, in the same sense as the redeemed, since it is not according to “knowledge” of the true God? Or do you two see this as just another approach to God, equal with Jesus but different?
Is “Allah” the Father of Jesus? [2 of 2]
When one suggest that Christians and Muslims worship the same deity we may ask whether or not the god of Muslims is said to have acted in history as the Father of Jesus is said to have acted. I think the answer is “no”. I think most Muslims would be pleased with this answer since Islam does not affirm Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.
Another approach is the confessional/creedal approach. This is quickly rejected by so-called “Christian” pluralist, but I think it is still a valid approach. Let us use the most widely affirmed creed of Christendom, “The Apostles’ Creed”:
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
As aforementioned this is the most basic Christian creed. Even Oneness Pentecostals can affirm it! Yes, Muslims cannot affirm several important statements: (1) Jesus as God’s Son. (2) Jesus born of a virgin. (3) Jesus suffering, crucified, buried, descending into hell, and resurrecting. (4) Jesus being on the “right hand” of God the Father. If any of these statement can be affirmed the meaning of the words being confessed differ from the meaning of this creed.
We must therefore ask ourselves when we seek to be pluralistic about the Christian faith whether or not we want to side with the early church and their desire to maintain the teaching of the apostles or our current cultural climate.
