Arab Christians Worship Allah Too (A Dialogue Too Friendly for Focus on the Family - Part Two, by Brian McLaren)
[Continued from yesterday's part one] On January 3, 2008, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink criticized those of us who responded to an invitation to dialogue with 138 Muslim scholars. As an early signatory to the document, I thought I would reply to the criticism. (Focus on the Family's statements are in italics.)
4. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary (Southern Baptist), termed it "naiveté that borders on dishonesty."
Did it border on dishonesty for God, who has all power, to be expressed among us as a Word "veiled" in frail human flesh? Was it naive for Jesus to go to Jerusalem, knowing what waited for him there? Would it be naïve or dishonest for us to claim to love our neighbors and even our enemies, as Jesus taught us, and then to reject requests for dialogue? Wouldn't it be more naïve to think that the problems between Christians and Muslims around the world will be resolved by a refusal to dialogue? And when our neighbors come to us, reaching out their hands in friendship, and when our hearts tell us – after sincere prayer and reflection – that we cannot fold our arms in exclusion but must open them in friendship, how can we not respond?
5. Their response — initiated by Yale Divinity School and endorsed by other liberal Christian leaders — apologized for the sins of Christians during the Crusades and for "excesses" of the global war on terror, without mentioning Muslim atrocities.
When you have a conflict with your wife where both you and she have made mistakes, do you only agree to acknowledge your own faults if she will also acknowledge hers? If you say, "Yes, I may have made a small mistake, but you made even bigger ones," do you expect this to lead to a better relationship? If Muslims apologized for their faults, would you then be willing to dialogue with them in a respectful way?
6. It even seemed to acknowledge Allah as the God of the Bible.
Are you not aware that the word "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God, just as in English we say God, and in Spanish people say Dios, and in Greek, theos? Did you know that when millions of Arabic Christians pray, they use this normal Arabic word for God? Don't you know that throughout history, the Christian faith has used the words for God already found in the language and culture into which they came with the good news of Jesus Christ?
7. The very name of the Muslim communiqué — A Common Word between Us and You — is from a verse in the Quran that condemns "people of the Scripture" (Christians) for alleged polytheism (the doctrine of the Trinity).
Are you aware that the trinity is not just a matter of disagreement, it is first a matter of misunderstanding between Christians and Muslims? Do you see that we can only deal with disagreements when we have achieved some basic understanding of what we mean by our key terms? Are you aware that many Muslims believe that our doctrine of the trinity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different gods? Can you suggest a way of clearing up this misunderstanding without respectful dialogue? And are you aware that the apostle Paul respectfully quoted the writings of Greek philosophers and respectfully referred to Greek religion in his dialogue with the Athenian philosophers? With Paul's example in mind, should we never have any interaction with the Quran, one of the most important works of literature in the history of the world and unspeakably precious to about 21 percent of the world's population – except to argue with it? Have you ever actually read the Quran?
[TO BE CONTINUED…]
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) was a pastor for 24 years. Now he serves as board chair for Sojourners. His most recent book is Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, and he launches an eleven city tour at the end of January (deepshift.org). Just before the tour begins, he will be in Davos for the World Economic Forum, participating in Muslim-Christian dialogue.
Add to:
Category: Islam, Religious Right
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Mohler is referring to the substance of the letter, and not suggesting that any dialogue at all is naive.
"Are you not aware that the word "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God, just as in English we say God, and in Spanish people say Dios, and in Greek, theos?"
I cannot imagine they are unaware of that fact. The same could be said for the term ba'al. God is not a word, but rather the beginning and the end. So no, the God of Islam is not the God of the Bible, no matter how the word translates.
The issue is not that they do not have a God. It is that they call the wrong thing God.
That doesn't mean we can't dialogue with them, but I think Christian leaders ought to be careful about what they cede as common ground.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 8, 2008 11:13 AM
Kevin, did you read the posting by Tony Dickinson on Brian's "Mourning Benazir Bhutto" blog (January 3, 2008 6:49 PM)? Please reread it, and pay special attention to the fact that St. Francis of Assisi directed his brothers to be willing and ready to share the Gospel with Muslims but to be careful not to trash Islamic beliefs or bad-mouth the prophet Muhammad.
I've seen you do both of those things in these recent dialogues. Can you tell me how constantly asserting and defending your disrespectful attitude toward Islam and Muhammad will encourage Muslims to want to know more about Christianity? How will we ever be able to share our faith with Muslims if Christians like yourself continue to defend and support bad faith and disrespect between the two faiths?
Regarding the name Allah, you are correct to say that the fact that Christian Arabs use the same word doesn't by itself demonstrate that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. But you should take a look at the "100 beautiful names for God" that Islam recognizes and see if some of the attributes they identify are similar to God's attributes as we believe them to be.
It's just not as simple and straightforward as you want it to be, Kevin. I know I've written this to you before. It's simply not true that Muslims 'call the wrong thing God.' Just becuase you want it to be so doesn't make it so.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 8, 2008 11:53 AM
I cannot imagine they are unaware of that fact.
Many, in fact, believe and teach otherwise -- I remember my second year in college that someone tried to tell me just what "Allah" meant. But Arab Christians use the very same word.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 11:55 AM
I hate to sound all squishy, but this is a situation where I can respect both the NAE and FAF. Both groups are pursuing different ends, and both groups goals are reasonable.
NAE's response to A Common Word is verrry diplomatic, but that is appropriate given that their goal is to reach some sort of modus vivendi with Muslim scholars that would allow both Christians and Muslims to live peaceably.
FAF, meanwhile, wants to ensure that both Evangelicals and Muslims remain aware of dinstinct Christian doctrines. There are differences between the two faiths that cannot be papered over, and FAF is right to point these out.
My first reaction is to say "carry on" to both FAF and NAE.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 8, 2008 12:12 PM
OK - most of understand that the word/title 'Alah' is at times used as a generic term for 'God'. But we are dancing a little too close to the edge if we are saying that Alah of Islam and Alah of Christianity are the same Deity.
So - maybe for clairifacation...
The 'deity' of Islam and the 'deity' of Christianity are not the same 'deity'.
'...not just a matter of disagreement, it is first a matter of misunderstanding...'
My Islamic friends do not misunderstand. They disagree that my 'God' and their 'God' are the same. They do not believe that I as a Christian will go to Heaven as I do not believe in 'their' Alah. We are in total agreement that we disagree and are at peace with it.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 12:16 PM
In many cases Muslims DO misunderstand. They are often taught that the Trinity is three separate "gods". And sometimes the three Persons in the Trinity are identified as God the Father, Jesus, and Mary. Their understanding of what we mean by "son of God" often differs from our understanding. Misinformation about Christianity has often been spread among Muslims, just as misinformation about Islam has often been spread among Christians. (Similarly, misinformation is spread about Catholicism among Protestants and vice versa, etc., etc.)
Perhaps your Muslim friends have more understanding than that, and that is good. I had Muslim students last summer who decided to study some of Islam's differences with Christianity, and it was apparent that there are misunderstandings in the Islamic world about many of our doctrines.
Do we worship the same God or not? We could debate it until the proverbial cows come home and not arrive at any more clarity. As I said before, it just isn't a cut-and-dried, simple yes or no matter.
Wolverine, I agree with you, although I'm not sure the NEA folks are ignoring the doctrinal "differences that cannnot be papered over". I think Brian's concern is more the confrontational, accusatory approach that FAF is using in its address to the NEA than any actual disagreement with them over doctrinal matters.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 8, 2008 12:38 PM
FAF, meanwhile, wants to ensure that both Evangelicals and Muslims remain aware of dinstinct Christian doctrines. There are differences between the two faiths that cannot be papered over, and FAF is right to point these out.
I agree completely that certain Muslim and Christian doctrines are irreconcilable. The trouble, however, is that Focus has never been a clearinghouse for theological issues, only political/cultural ones, and that's where it crosses the line. Many Christians believe that Islam itself by and large represents a threat to the Christian faith and Dobson is feeding upon that to raise funds. The NAE, on the other hand, would have more of a theological bent since it started out as a group of like-minded churches/denominations counteracting what it saw as theological liberalism within the greater church.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 12:41 PM
Very solid response Brian. Thanks. I'd also be very interested to hear Mohler's response to this if he ends up responding. Will you post it here?
Posted by: Alex | January 8, 2008 12:45 PM
It appears that I wrote NEA instead of NAE. My error. NEA is the teachers' union.
Sorry.
D
Posted by: Don | January 8, 2008 12:57 PM
Thank you Brian, again, for being a voice of reason and peace in stark contrast to those who would seek war and confrontation.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 8, 2008 12:58 PM
Wolverine makes a good point. I have no objection to FOTF expressing their concerns and criticisms (even though I disagree with them), as long as in doing so they are not attempting to place road blocks or restrictions on the dialog between Christians and Muslims.
The “Common Word” outlines the beliefs shared between Christians and Muslims; it also acknowledges the differences in our beliefs.
Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) wrote a book called “Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions” in which he discussed the importance of dialog with members of non-Christian religions without compromising our own beliefs. We don’t have to agree with Muslims (or anyone else) about the deity of Christ, but let’s not allow our disagreements to become a stumbling block in our dialog with Muslims.
Since a couple of people have repeated their belief that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians, I will repeat my belief, supported by the teachings of the Catholic Church, that they do. The Church teaches that the truths found in non-Christian religions come from God.
But then, we don’t have to agree with each other on that point either.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 8, 2008 1:04 PM
Amen -- especially on your point number 6.
As an Arab Christian, it always bothers me when Americans refer to Allah as the name of the Muslim "God."
Islam didn't even come to the Arab world until the 7th Century. Christian Arabs have been calling God "Allah" since the first century -- long before Islam even came on the scene!
Posted by: Deanna | January 8, 2008 1:33 PM
Jesus taught that there is One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So did Muhammad. If we are both worshipping the God Abraham worshipped, we are worshipping the same God. Both the New Testament and Koran call Jesus the Word of God. Both say Jesus was born of a virgin by a special act of God. Both reject a Monophysite understanding of Incarnation. Both reject the idea that there are 3 Gods or that Mary is a God. On that, Muslims and Christians agree.
The word "Trinity" does not occur in the Bible.It is not a term Jesus required for salvation. We might be able to find a word for God which both Christians and Muslims agree on if we talk to each other.
Christians such as Nicholas of Cusa and St. Francis have found common ground with Muslims. Pope John Paul II prayed in a mosque. I think that if Muslims and Christians together read such books as Marcus Borg's Jesus or John Spong's Jesus for the Non-Religious, we'd discover that both traditions can come to a similar understanding of who Jesus is.
For both, God is all-Merciful and He can have mercy on whom He wants to have mercy. God does not need to kill His Son in order to satisfy a bloodthirsty sense of justice--that would mean that God is weaker than His justice. We are called to forgive each other, and we don't have to sacrifice our children to do so. We simply forgive--and if we can, God can. One thing we can learn from the Muslims is the power of God's mercy.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 8, 2008 1:40 PM
Ashpenaz -- Then what do you do with Jesus the Christ? He, and no one else, is the ultimate Judge -- remember He said to the disciples after His resurrection, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Me." That is the point where any theological commonality between Christians and Muslims -- or, for that matter, any other faith -- breaks down.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 2:51 PM
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 8, 2008 1:40 PM
Some good arguments - but you fail to deal with one big fact of the Christian faith. What does Islam teach about Jesus the Savior? To the Christians - Messiah has come. To the Jews - they are looking for Messiah to come. Islam - I do not believe that Messiah plays any part in their faith.
Yes there is commonality in many things. There is a commonality between myself and Pres. Clinton. There is commonality between me and King Kong. (some might say more with Kong than Clinton - LOL)
But when the basics are examined under the Light of the Gospel - the differences are glaring.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 3:04 PM
"I've seen you do both of those things in these recent dialogues. Can you tell me how constantly asserting and defending your disrespectful attitude toward Islam and Muhammad will encourage Muslims to want to know more about Christianity?"
If asserting that they believe in a false God is disrespectful, then God himself is disrespectful. Reaching out to Muslims (which, btw, this is not a Muslim blog) respectfully is valuable, but pretending that they worship the same God is, as Mohler suggests, false.
"It's simply not true that Muslims 'call the wrong thing God.' Just becuase you want it to be so doesn't make it so."
They call the wrong thing God, and that isn't because I want it to be so. Simply asserting the opposite does not make my statement false.
That does not mean I am going to throw tact out the window when discussing with Muslims. My posts here are not an attempt to reach out to Muslims. Nonetheless, in sharing my faith, if I somehow left the impression that we essentially believe in the same God, and this is acceptable to God, I have made a grave error.
I agree with Wolverine's statement, that both groups are aiming toward different ends. I have no problem with the FAF and the NAE dialoguing from different perspectives, but Brian's responses here paint those with whom he disagrees as uneducated fools (asking whether they know that Allah translates to God, as though none of them have considered that red herring of a question).
What if I choose to invent a God, who I name 'God'. I believe he is omniscient, brilliant, powerful, loving, just, and awesome in every way that the God of the Bible is awesome.
I also believe that this particular God requires me to drink Miller High Life, and that those who drink fancier beers should be put to death.
Would you think I worship the same God because I list all sorts of positive attributes about what I call God, or do you point to my idol worship of the Champagne of Beers as proof that I believe a false God?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 8, 2008 3:36 PM
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 3:04 PM
"Islam - I do not believe that Messiah plays any part in their faith."
Actually, Shiite Muslims believe in a hidden Imam, who is present in the world and will be revealed in the fullness of time. Thus, they have beliefs that correspond both to Messianism and to the Incarnation. NB: I am not claiming a one-on-one correspondence. Much of the discussion here, though, makes it clear just how little most Christians know, or want to know, about Islam.
I also believe, as somebody once said, that when people gather together in the spirit of love and reconciliation, they are acting in Jesus' name *whether they know it or not.*
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 8, 2008 4:10 PM
"I also believe that this particular God requires me to drink Miller High Life, and that those who drink fancier beers should be put to death."
I would call you a heretic. Everyone knows Miller is blechy.
However, kidding aside, your analogy is very flawed. We all believe many things about God that aren't all necessarily held in common by all believers. Many of us have used those beliefs for justification of our actions, whether correctly or incorrectly. Many of us have used our beliefs to explain why bad things have happened to us (God's punishment). Many of us have used our belief in God as an excuse to get as rich as possible (prosperity gospel). I may not agree with either approach to God, but I also can't say we aren't worshipping the same God or that people who believe the way I have described are not truly Christians. We certainly have different perspectives and understandings, but it doesn't mean we necessarily aren't Christians. Just because we don't understand God the same, or because we even have misunderstandings of Who God is (and none of us actually understands God) doesn't mean we worship different Gods.
In saying that, I am not saying I believe Islam is a viable path to salvation, nor am I saying it is a form of Christianity, nor am I saying I think the God of Islam is the same God as the God of Christianity. I'm just saying the analogy is flawed--You could also use it as a means to say that Lutherans and Catholics or Baptists and Pentacostals don't worship the same God, too. And I don't think that was your intent.
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 4:15 PM
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 8, 2008 4:10 PM
'...Shiite Muslims believe in a hidden Imam...'
OK - but not sure that the hidden Imam is the same as the Savior of the World. From my discussions with Muslims - they do not believe that I will be going to Paradise when I die as I am an infidel and not worthy.
I know that we can live in peace. But will we live in peace?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 4:25 PM
Both Muslims and Christians agree with Jesus when He says this:
"28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."
32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions."
Earlier, Jesus repeats what God said to Moses, that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--all of whom Islam considers prophets. If there is One God, as Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad say, and that One God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also as Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad say--how can Jesus, Moses, and Muhammed be worshipping different Gods? I believe that Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (and their followers) are worshipping Abraham's God. I don't see how you can reach another conclusion.
Also, if both Muslims and Christians believe that Jesus is the Word of God, how is it that we are not saying the same thing, with a different emphasis? I think Jesus would say to the Muslim, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God."
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 8, 2008 4:55 PM
The Bible says that God created us All.
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created him; male and female created he them."
And instead of judgment being by groups, as many believe, He sees us as one creation, but judging individually by the
commandments and teachings of Jesus Christ, His son, listed in the Gospels. Part of the very reason why He came and taught, the other being His sacrifice. Both were needed. After all, Jesus said the following-
John 11:25
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"
But He also said,
John 8:50
"And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth."
And,
Matthew 12:32
"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
Perhaps making salvation more than just a label or lip service- but behavior actually matters. Making it realistic- that paradise will always be paradise. And that His sacrifice opened the door to salvation- but we actually had to walk our talk, which explains why He preached along with his sacrifice.
Matthew 16:27
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."
Revelation 20:12
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book
of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
And, the further one is from those teachings- the further God is, from us- explaining how it is possible for His judgment to be perfect- regardless of any label, avoiding hypocrisy.
What if Christ really meant what He said?
Matthew 24:34
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Mark 13:30
"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."
Luke 21:32
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."
John 18:36
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:.."
And,
Revelation 1:3
"...for the time is at hand." (AD 96)
But when we add that generation and do the math, instead of seeing the greatest insult against the very core of who Christ was
and is- some have historically revered it. While, prior to that time, we label it darkness of ages because man takes a step backwards
in its Own creations, missing the very "seal" that was indeed placed. Yet, we marvel, of that time, at the growth of Christianity, the
incredible sacrifices and true martyrs, brought on by one man- who was crucified.
It's hard to imagine God being more concerned for our soul over flesh. Yet Christ said-
Matthew 10:28
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Because it is also very difficult to accept one would choose to sin, even with a "seal" placed. Yet, Christ said-
John 3:19
"...and men loved darkness rather than light..."
Matthew 24:3 and 24:28
"...Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? ...For wheresoever the
carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together."
Which could be why John said-
Revelation 22:11
"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still:
and he that is holy, let him be holy still."
So, nearly 2000 years go by, many still waiting for His "literal" return, rather choosing to believe that His apostles are still in sleep, His Kingdom on hold, or error of doctrine- for a more righteous generation still to come- as in the likes of us? So there are those who have taken the words of Paul and have made salvation into a "hollow" word. We can not use the words of Paul to omit the words of Christ. That, in itself, is hypocrisy. Someone greater than Paul came- Christ!
Probably- out of the very fear of being of the "second"
Revelation 20:6
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests
of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."
Why? Because then we would have to be responsible.
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 8, 2008 5:19 PM
“What if I choose to invent a God…”
As many people in this country have done - present company excluded.
“…this particular God requires me to drink Miller High Life, and that those who drink fancier beers should be put to death.”
What about us teetotalers who used to drink fancy beers? Does that make me the equivalent of an atheist?
“You could also use it as a means to say that Lutherans and Catholics or Baptists and Pentecostals don't worship the same God, too.”
There are some Protestants who claim that Catholics aren’t Christian. How much hope should we have that those people would be willing to enter a dialog with Muslims?
“I know that we can live in peace. But will we live in peace?”
That is a very good question, the answer to which I believe is: Not if we don’t at least try, which is, as I understand it, the whole point of "A Common Word."
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 8, 2008 5:22 PM
Brian, this is a very, very good article, in my opinion. Thank you for clarifying that many of the words we, as Christians, use, are often similar to what Muslims think. You have done good for all of us in writing this. I thank you, and I pray that one day we will realize that we are "all one", in heart and faith. My personal goal is to be the peacemaker I want to see in the world. Blessings of peace to you, Betty
Posted by: Betty Bazur | January 8, 2008 5:34 PM
I know that this may be hard to hear, but Islam (whether or not "Allah" is just the Arabic word for God) is a religion inspired by demons.
St. Paul would completely agree. There could be no other explanation for Mohammed's seances but that Islam is from "...deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." 1 Timothy 4:1
Posted by: Nate Musson | January 8, 2008 5:37 PM
'Miller's High Life!'
Heretic! Away with him!
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | January 8, 2008 5:38 PM
I do not believe that Messiah plays any part in their faith.
Sunni Muslims also believe in the Mahdi, who is a Messiah-like figure who will defeat the Antichrist. Yes, Muslims believe in an Antichrist. Moreover, Jesus has ascended to heaven according to Islamic belief and will return on the day of judgment to carry out God's judgments. Even the prophet Muhammad will be subject to the judgment Jesus administers.
Some of these beliefs come not from the Qur'an but from the hadith or traditons--sayings of the prophet Muhammad that have been collected.
And by the way, one of the Qur'anic titles for Jesus is Mesah (my spelling is probably suspect), which is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed one".
Much of the discussion here, though, makes it clear just how little most Christians know, or want to know, about Islam.
Sadly, how true.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 8, 2008 5:50 PM
"Islam is a religion inspired by demons."
IF that is the case, then are you opposed to Christians engaging in a dialog with Muslims? Is there any point in responding to "A Common Word," or should there be a perpetual rift between the Christian and the Muslim worlds?
Let's skip eschatology for now and consider what that means in the current age.
If we hope to evangelize Muslims, then doesn't that necessitate dialog?
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 8, 2008 6:08 PM
Thanks, Don, for the backup - go lower left quadrant!
Much of the discussion here reminds me of Alan Watts's comment that when he pressed Christian theologians to explain what their religion was about, they gave more and more elaborate statements of its form without *ever* addressing its meaning.
Preventive maneuver: Yes, I know Alan Watts was not a Christian, although he started out as one. The story above was told to explain why he had not remained one. Thus, it should serve as a cautionary tale to those who are inclined to give reflexive defenses of Christianity's form - far from evangelizing, you may be actively alienating those who first and foremost want to know what Christianity *means.* That issue bears some thought in this context.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 8, 2008 6:21 PM
"However, kidding aside, your analogy is very flawed. We all believe many things about God that aren't all necessarily held in common by all believers."
That was kind of my point. Certain issues are non-negotiable. If I supplant my love of Christ for a love of a tasty beer at a tasty price, I have traded everything. If I believe that this or that financial crisis is God's punishment for this or that, then I am likely in error, but my central faith in Christ stands.
"What about us teetotalers who used to drink fancy beers? Does that make me the equivalent of an atheist?"
No, but it will make it really hard to take you up on the offer to have a beer with you if I am ever in New Orleans.
I am not opposed to dialogue with Muslims, though I suspect the trading of letters signed by 200 people each will result in an exchange of banalities and nothing else (which I think is part of the criticism here). I think it depends on the goals. If the goal is to workout a peaceful geopolitical solution, then maybe it is good to ignore certain doctrinal discrepancies, central though they may be.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 8, 2008 7:14 PM
kevin s. claimed,
"So no, the God of Islam is not the God of the Bible, no matter how the word translates."
Kevin, I seriously doubt that you know enough about the theologies of the Abrahamic religions to make that statement. The God of Islam is the God of Abraham and Moses and Jesus by definition. Whether they UNDERSTAND God the same way you do is certainly a different story. However, I am sure that you do not UNDERSTAND God in the same way I do. How would you like it if I said that your God is not the Christian God (because I am a Christian and understand differently from you)? There is much diversity of understanding within Islam - from the sufis to the salafis - as there is between Islam and Christianity.
No human has the capacity to UNDERSTAND God completely and correctly. But like the blind men trying to describe the elephant, we can share with each other and try to increase our understanding beyond our own experience.
Posted by: Hali | January 8, 2008 7:29 PM
The friendly Jehovah's Witness who used to regularly visit me at my previous address, and with whom I had mutually respectful dialogue, was very concerned for my eternal future because I did not believe exactly as he did. Does that mean that he believes in a different God?
I don't think he does. In fact I believe that this particular man is not far from the kingdom. He believes a number of what I would say are fundamentally false things about God, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the same God.
mark
Posted by: mark | January 8, 2008 7:30 PM
kevin s, do you believe that Mormons believe in the same god as those of us on this list believe in? Just curious how you evaluate these things.
Posted by: carl copas | January 8, 2008 7:33 PM
neuro_nurse wrote,
"There are some Protestants who claim that Catholics aren’t Christian. "
Apparently, sometimes it's mutual. My ex husband, who was brought up Catholic, believed that Protestants danced naked around a bonfire. Imagine his disappointment when we started attending the local Presbyterian church! :)
Posted by: Hali | January 8, 2008 7:40 PM
"it will make it really hard to take you up on the offer to have a beer with you if I am ever in New Orleans."
Coffee! I offered to take you out for coffee!
I've changed my mind anyway; I'd rather have you over for dinner. aeauooo@yahoo.com
“I suspect the trading of letters signed by 200 people each will result in an exchange of banalities and nothing else."
"If the goal is to workout a peaceful geopolitical solution, then maybe it is good to ignore certain doctrinal discrepancies, central though they may be.”
I agree with both points, but most especially with the second.
“My ex husband, who was brought up Catholic, believed that Protestants danced naked around a bonfire.”
You mean they don’t?!
“Imagine his disappointment when we started attending the local Presbyterian church!”
Oh, well maybe it was the Episcopalians then.
Last year I became very upset when I saw an article in MSN that claimed the Pope had said that Protestant churches lack the means to salvation (I’m married to a Baptist). When I looked at the text to which the article referred I found that the Pope had said exactly the opposite.
“The friendly Jehovah's Witness […] was very concerned for my eternal future because I did not believe exactly as he did.”
I had a similar experience when I was in college (the first time). A couple of guys tried to use the sola fide argument to convince me that I was going to hell because I am Catholic. Obviously they failed, but it sure aggravated me and made me very resentful of that type of evangelism.
I think this is relevant to our discussion of Islam for the reason that Another nonymous brought up above – if we aren’t careful we will alienate those we are trying to evangelize.
Nate Musson brought up Paul in his post above. I would like to use Paul as a model for a different reason. Consider Paul’s speech at the Areopagus: he started by acknowledging the Athenians’ religiousness (Acts 17:22).
In the time I have spent in Muslim countries I have found Muslims in general to be pious and devoutly religious. I learned a great deal about God and about faith from spending time with our Muslim brothers.
BTW, my sister-in-law is Muslim.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 8, 2008 8:21 PM
I'm not sure what "other thing" Muslims might be referring to as Allah. They share a heritage with Jews and Christians, so we all start with the same idea of one God. I believe they have some misunderstandings about Allah/God, but I can't see that they're basically referring to a different entity. Many Christians may not have a complete understanding of God, and certainly different Christians have somewhat different understandings, but is it proper to say each Christian has a different God? I don't think so.
I thought this post was, if anything, even better than Part 1. It was a masterful use of the method of responding with questions. The questions Brian uses are right on point, and the method has the advantage of tending to stimulate deeper thought in readers than declarative statements.
Jesus was willing to dialogue with Samaritans. Perhaps that is somewhat parallel to Christians today dialoguing with Muslims. If you are secure in your faith, you should not have a problem dialoguing with those of other faiths. If you are insecure, you very well might have a problem with it.
Thanks, Brian.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 8, 2008 8:26 PM
Dr. Mohler is on the board of Focus on the Family. Dr. Mohler also signed off on the full page ad giving the President a dispensation for the Iraq occupation under Just War Theory, without actually addressing the Just War criteria at all. The justifications were what we now know were the canards of WMD and a new theory of pre-emptive war, which is actually in violation of Just War theory.
Dr. Mohler's denomination is not part of the National Association of Evangelicals - his denomination is the Southern Baptists. The history of the Southern Baptists is one forged in the crucible of the runup to the Civil War in order to give cultural support to the Southern polities of slavery and myths of racial superiority which could not be sustained within the larger body of Baptists. It took the Southern Baptist Church until 1995 to admit that their racial discrimination tenets were wrong. However, in 2000 the reactionaries re-established control and eliminated the centrality of Jesus in favor of biblicism, a kind of Phariseeism which reduces Jesus to a merely perfunctory and ceremonial role in atonement with no particular weight given to his words or teachings more than, say, that given to Rahab in helping the spies. This is to avoid the scandal of the Sermon on the Mount that they find too radical to the wisdom of the natural man.
Since it has expanded beyond the Southern "Bible Belt" to become a 16 million member denomination, the peculiarly southern cultural pre-eminence in its theology has been subsumed into a kind of American nationalism of the same general emphasis of affirming a particular regional, now national, culture and political agenda.
While Ted Haggard was leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, FOTF and its Southern Baptist supporters did have a kind of leadership influence on NAE, because Rev. Haggard was closely associated with James Dobson and in fact his megachurch is in Colorado Springs, just like FOTF. Haggard was completely abandoned by FOTF, despite James Dobson's initial overtures about compassion, forgiveness and restoration, after the initial disclosures of his failings. Unfortunately, forgiveness and reconciliation aren't part of the FOTF agenda - separation and condemnation are, and part of that is a complete unwillingness to talk to any "enemy" - thus you will never see a dialogue, for instance, between James Dobson and Jim Wallis or Brian McLaren. FOTF is so absolutist that capitulation is the only route to dialog with "enemies," domestic or foreign. You will never hear any but fellow travelers on Focus' broadcasts nor read anything but politically conservative voices in its publications - except as distorted straw man cartoon opponents easily denounced, and listeners and viewers are exhorted to give no credibility to outside "liberal mainstream media" sources. For instance, many loyal to FOTF still don't believe the photos showing abuses at Abu Ghraib or reports of torture of prisoners are at all credible.
Unfortunately, within our own traditions, Dr. Mohler and FOTF are playing the same roles that authoritarian religious voices do within other cultures. They represent universal intolerant strains of human personality and psychology, expressed and delivered within and by their own cultural norms. Instead of being moved by religion, it is used as a tool to express a certain kind of mindset that predates their own religious knowledge. They want to use their religion in service of what they already think they know instead of having their errors illuminated by it.
Dr. Mohler is a vey intelligent man with great reasoning powers, no doubt greater than my own. However, I think that Ben Franklin's observation is apt, from his autobiography. He said that it was a great comfort to be a reasonable being, since one could then find so many reasons for doing what one wanted.
Dr. Mohler, having gone so far out on a limb to practically have reasoned himself into atavistic Holy War as Just War, is hardly likely to find it easy to abandon that failed position, but to find ever more reasons in support of his error.
Thus, having so completely given his reason over to war, he must oppose any reconcilation that comes except through the victory in war and unconditional surrender he reasoned was the will of God.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 8, 2008 9:06 PM
brian is my hero.
Posted by: josh | January 8, 2008 9:46 PM
"...believed that Protestants danced naked around a bonfire..."
We do at our church. You mean you don't? Bo-ring!
Posted by: canucklehead | January 8, 2008 9:48 PM
Hali
Thanks -- that's the best laugh I've had all week. I was brought up in a Catholic neighborhood, but in a Presbyterian Church. I always wondered why the Catholic kids looked at me funny.
Posted by: c kitty | January 8, 2008 11:57 PM
"How would you like it if I said that your God is not the Christian God (because I am a Christian and understand differently from you)?"
Do you understand that Christ is the son of God and that God sacrificed his son to die for our sins? If so, then you believe in God. If not, then you don't, or at minimum believe God to be a liar.
But, honestly, you seem not to have read what I have written. I have made the point that there are certain beliefs that are non-negotiable in the Christian faith. If you think that Christ's deity is one of them, then we do not practice the same religion.
"The friendly Jehovah's Witness who used to regularly visit me at my previous address, and with whom I had mutually respectful dialogue, was very concerned for my eternal future because I did not believe exactly as he did. Does that mean that he believes in a different God?"
Yep.
"kevin s, do you believe that Mormons believe in the same god as those of us on this list believe in?"
Nope.
Please take some time and explore what JWs and Mormons believe about God (not what their talking points are when they go door-to-door) before deciding that I am flippant for making the above assertions. Suffice to say, neither believe that YOU are going to heaven for eternity.
"Coffee! I offered to take you out for coffee!
I've changed my mind anyway; I'd rather have you over for dinner. aeauooo@yahoo.com"
Can my wife come, too? She voted for Kerry, so she's "good people", as you might say. Also, she can't eat rice.
To the Catholicism bit...
I am assuming, Neuro, that you believe Christ died for your sins: Past, present and future. You find this restoration freeing, not constricting, and therefore you are able to do good for God, unencumbered by the sin that you have made a decision to leave on that cross.
That is why you do the good you do, from an eternal perspective. It isn't a personal tic, or an aptitude for good, but rather the recognition that Christ died your flesh that continues to commit wrong on a daily basis.
If that is your perspective, then you have salvation. Many Catholics find that tradition, guilt, and other elements interfere with this essential truth. In some cases, this literally causes them to reject God's gift on the cross.
That is my problem with Catholicism, that it interferes with a relatively simple message. You disagree, obviously, but that is what I think drives the "Catholics aren't Christians" mentality.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 9, 2008 12:34 AM
Basically Christians have an attitude problem. Rather than listening to what others are saying - even when we disagree and/or find their views offensive - we'd rather jump in or dissuade other Christians from listening to other people at all.
Posted by: joe | January 9, 2008 6:31 AM
Hali,
"Protestants danced naked around a bonfire."
What? Are you saying you DON'T!? HERETIC!!!
(I'm sure you can tell I'm just kidding, but just in case--I'm just kidding)
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 10:25 AM
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 10:25 AM
Dancing and Naked are a picture that even I do not what of me. I have a hard enough time standing in front of the mirror to shave. LOL - King Size
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 10:28 AM
Was Jesus a Christian?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 9, 2008 10:37 AM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 9, 2008 10:37 AM
Was Jesus a Christian?
Interesting question -
It would be like asking if the Queen of England is also subject to the Crown. How can the one that wears the Crown also be subject to the Crown.
Believe that this might be a 'chicken and egg' thing.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 12:32 PM
"Was Jesus a Christian?"
Jesus was a liberal Jew.
Posted by: Hali | January 9, 2008 1:12 PM
me:
"How would you like it if I said that your God is not the Christian God (because I am a Christian and understand differently from you)?"
kevin s.:
"Do you understand that Christ is the son of God and that God sacrificed his son to die for our sins? If so, then you believe in God. If not, then you don't, or at minimum believe God to be a liar."
Kevin,
1. That is not an answer to my question. Would you be willing to answer my question directly?
2. Jews do not believe in Christ's deity. Are you saying that Jews don't believe in the same God as you? Actually, the Jewish and the Islamic understanding of God are closer to each other than to traditional Christianity's (they skip that whole triune thing).
Posted by: Hali | January 9, 2008 1:21 PM
Hali,
as usual I agree. Since we seem to be critiquing the other parts of the Christian family or as I like to call it the tree I thought I would critique protestanism. I have found that fundamental forms of religion (conservative Christianity) lacks substance or depth. They tend to be about creating cultural hegemony while pretending to be obeying the truth. Many of them tend equate Christ's "simple" message w/ simple implementation.
The message of Christ is a hard message but for today's modern conservative evangelical they tend to downplay that part and make knowing Jesus more of an intellectual exercise instead of a living, breathing, suffering, joyful life giving relationship w/ God. It's really sad to see how much the protestant religion has fallen from what Luther envisioned and I am no fan of Luther.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 9, 2008 1:22 PM
“Can my wife come, too? She voted for Kerry, so she's "good people", as you might say. Also, she can't eat rice."
Of course! My wife voted for bush, but I don’t hold it against her. No rice? So gumbo and red beans & rice are off the menu.
“Many Catholics find that tradition, guilt, and other elements interfere with this essential truth. In some cases, this literally causes them to reject God's gift on the cross.”
Yes, I was one of those “recovering Catholics” who left the Church for what I perceived as incongruities – for lack of a better word.
I wandered foot loose for many years, then began to recognize the spiritual hunger I was suffering – a hunger that I have since learned can only be satisfied by the Eucharist.
I started going back to mass and one day picked up a card for the “Welcome Back” meetings for returning Catholics. I started attending and found myself in a room full of people who were angry at the Church, but who also seemed to be suffering from the same hunger I was.
Being married to a Baptist who was taught that Catholics believe in salvation through works (some Catholics may believe that, but that’s not what the Church teaches) and that praying to saints is tantamount to idolatry (she still cringes when we walk into Catholic churches where there are a lot of statues of saints), I understand the difficulties some Protestants have with our beliefs.
Courting and being married to my wife has made me look very closely at my beliefs and at the teachings of the Church. It also made both of us look at our beliefs and values and discover that most, if not all of the doctrine about which we disagree is peripheral to the centrality of Christ in our lives – we could not have married each other without that.
So no, I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the point you raised. I disagree with the sola fide argument and think that many Protestants AND Catholics don’t really understand the teachings of the Church. I’m still surprised sometimes when I read the Catechism, but more often than not, I am comforted when I read the Catechism and find that the doctrine of the Church coincides with my values.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 9, 2008 1:29 PM
Posted by: kevin s. | January 9, 2008 12:34 AM
"I am assuming, Neuro, that you believe Christ died for your sins: Past, present and future. You find this restoration freeing, not constricting, and therefore you are able to do good for God, unencumbered by the sin that you have made a decision to leave on that cross."
That is a very succinct statement of Christianity's form (see my last post). The problem is, to anybody who doesn't agree with it already, it sounds like a meaningless abstraction.
From what I understand, a large part of Islam's appeal stems from the fact that it offers a way of life, in which God is seen as present in every moment and in every detail. (Mohammed originally wanted his followers to pray 100 times a day, but he was talked down to 5.) It's all about praxis.
So my question is: How would you respond to a Muslim who wants to know what the Christian life has to offer that is similarly sustaining on a day-to-day basis? Something that is not an abstraction, but can actually be put into practice beginning now? Might you and I actually have something to learn from that Muslim about enriching our own spiritual lives?
Think about it, please.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 9, 2008 1:37 PM
fascinating... especially the question of whether the God of Islam is our God. I loved the points that some made that many of those who said "no" knew next to nothing of Islam. And many of the rest of us, too :-)
Personally, I like CS Lewis' point of view, in the Chronicles of Narnia, that "Many of those who thought they were worshiping Tash will find that they were really worshiping Aslan, and many of those who thought they were worshiping Aslan were actually worshiping Tash."
The fact that I ascribe certain attributes to God doesn't mean that He has them. Moreover, I can't believe that the name equals the object of worship... I'm pretty sure that the one whom I call "God" doesn't call Himself "God". The best evidence is that He at least sometimes calls Himself something that renders as "I AM" when compressed to a bandwidth that humans can absorb.
Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except by me." He also said, "I have sheep in other pastures" which is a bit mystifying, but there's no way to know if those sheep see Him in exactly the same way. Did He die for their sins, too, or did they not fall? If the latter (and this is wild speculation), would they be worshiping a different God, and doomed to a life apart from our God, if they didn't acknowledge the necessity of Jesus' death as a sacrifice for their sins?
I believe that no human comes to the father except through Christ. Maybe in other pastures you still have to come through Him (whatever that means in that hypothetical context). I don't think it follows that it can *only* happen in the way we we understand it. Even in this pasture, if you have faith in the Lord you will be saved, but it would be very presumptuous of us to assert that God doesn't have ways of bringing Muslims to Him without their following the 4 spiritual laws. Maybe He does! It would also be stupid of us to act as though we were sure that God would take care of it in the next life so we could afford not to tell others about the one way we *know* works, just in case that _was_ their only option.
FWIW.
Posted by: blatant fool | January 9, 2008 1:46 PM
James Dobson has to make payroll at Focus, controversy sells, so he objects to play to part of his audience, who then write him a check to be their proxy. Follow the money.
Posted by: Joe Carson | January 9, 2008 1:56 PM
"1. That is not an answer to my question. Would you be willing to answer my question directly?"
I wouldn't care if you said I worshipped a non-Christian God. That charge has been levelled at me (and every conservative here) countless times. I would, however, respond by countering with the question I asked.
"Jews do not believe in Christ's deity. Are you saying that Jews don't believe in the same God as you? "
I've answered this question repeatedly, but yes. I had a rather lengthy back and forth about it on the "Mourning Benzir Bhutto" post.
"That is a very succinct statement of Christianity's form (see my last post). The problem is, to anybody who doesn't agree with it already, it sounds like a meaningless abstraction."
Right, it was an assumption I was making about Neuro's beliefs. This is not what I lead with when I am discussing by faith with non-Christians.
"So my question is: How would you respond to a Muslim who wants to know what the Christian life has to offer that is similarly sustaining on a day-to-day basis?"
I would emphasize that Christianity is not regimented in practice. Many churches offer the opportunity to go to church and pray every day, while others take a "small church" approach, where people are encouraged to meet in homes. Others believe in personal meditation. Others devote themselves to social justice and commune with God through service to the poor. Still others find pleasure through a better understanding of God's word.
My core assumption for anyone who would accept the message of Christ is that they find some measure of unease with their own religion. I find generally that this manifests in attitudes toward either culture or religious practice. I would work to extend their thinking beyond the practices associated with religion, but reassure them that there are Christians who are very devout.
Obviously, Western cultures are more private about religion, a function of our individualistic nature. We tend to look down upon public displays of piety (for example street preaching or even charismatic church services). That is an American thing, not a Christian thing, and it would be difficult for a Muslim to swallow.
Christians far too readily embrace this ethos, which is not at the core of the Bible's teaching. We also embrace America's ethic of freedom, often (incorrectly) applying it to scripture. I would ask the Muslim not to judge Christianity simply by the fact that some churches disregard doctrine related to (for example) homosexuals in church leadership. It must come as a shock to many Muslims that we even allow this to go on, much less embrace these ideals in some quarter. Again, this is American culture, not Christ.
(side note: I would love to see the letter to the Muslim community include that last observation. I suspect they would lose a few signatories.)
"Something that is not an abstraction, but can actually be put into practice beginning now? Might you and I actually have something to learn from that Muslim about enriching our own spiritual lives?"
Sure, and I never said there was not. The stereotypical example of this would be to look for ways to emulate Islam's devotion to prayer, but there are other ways.
As I've stated before, I have no problem with dialogue or with finding common ground. I think the critics of this letter would say the same thing. I personally wouldn't choose to make a big deal out of the letter or the criticism, but since it has come up, the critics do make some valid points. Those points ought to be treated fairly, in my view.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 9, 2008 2:15 PM
Kevin -
Thanks for the thoughtful response. :-)
Posted by: blatant fool | January 9, 2008 1:46 PM
"FWIW."
A great deal, IMO. Please continue posting in this vein.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 9, 2008 2:35 PM
Most Christians are OK with Lewis' idea that the Word of God can manifest as Jesus in our world and as Aslan in Narnia. If that's possible, why isn't it possible that the Word of God can manifest as Jesus in Israel and the Koran in Arabia? The Word of God is the light that enlightens all men. I don't see why the Word of God can't use different means to do that.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 9, 2008 3:14 PM
Was Jesus a Presbyterian who danced naked around a campfire?
Posted by: canucklehead | January 9, 2008 7:40 PM
Was Jesus a Presbyterian who danced naked around a campfire? Posted by: canucklehead
No, dummy, he was a WASPY male evangelical who supported God, country and the NRA. He also liked Nascar.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 9, 2008 10:11 PM
"God.213-65-3201 bless you!"
OK - how should we handle the French use of the word "Dieu"? Is there a different French deity? [Well - ask me about that later.]
Allah, Elohim, Dieu, God, Gott, Deos, YHWH, Hashem... that's the name we've given to the Supreme Being who created the world and the seas and us, is above and beyond all things, is eternal, omnipresent and omniscient. Allah. God.
Now is the "deity of Islam" the same as the "deity of Christianity"? -- Let's start closer to home.
When Sojourners speaks of "God", do they mean the "God" referred to to carry out the inquisition? Is the deity of Sojourners--God--the same as the deity of the Inquisition--God?
Even closer, is my mental picture of God, even Jesus--the Christian Incarnate God--the same as yours? Don't bet too much on that.
Does that mean that our mental image of God creates a new God every time? So there's an "Eric Christian Deity", a "Brian McLaren Christian Deity", a Christian deity"?
There is only One God. 'La illah ila Allah.' And in this the Muslims agree with the Jews and the Christians.
When Muslims profess that God is Compassionate and Kind, they're getting something true about the One Unchangeable God of the universe. On other points, I find -- surprise -- a number of disagreements (starting with the fact, that I don't think God favors or disfavors Arabic as a language).
When Christians profess Allah was incarnated in Jesus, and that Allah is love (which they do every Sunday at communion in Bethlehem and Nazareth); they're professing something true about the Immuable Eternal God of the Universe.
Christians once said that God disfavored or was angry at Hebraic People; today some say that God prefers them over their Arab brothers and sisters. In both cases they are wrong about the true identity and intent of God. Same word "God" - both wrong description of His nature.
Either we accept that Allah=God and recognize that the name we use "is a partial revelation" (George Mc Donald)-- maybe we use the Hebrew "Hashem" - which means "the name"--already understanding we can't get it right-- OR:
--we need to qualify each use of the word "God" with our full social security number. We'll come up with statements such as: "God.213-65-3201 bless you." "Thank you, and God.215.67.432 be also with you."
May the grace and peace of Allah the Father, Allah the Son and Allah the Spirit be with all of you. Que Dieu nous donne sa paix.
Posted by: Eric | January 10, 2008 4:16 AM
Well-stated Eric!
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 10, 2008 7:00 AM
Christians don't believe that Jehovah or El or Allah or God the Father was incarnated in Jesus--that's a heresy called Modalism. Christians believe that in Jesus the Word of God became flesh. The Word was God, but you can't say God was the Word. You can say the ocean is water, but you can't say water is the ocean. The Son is not the Father. Most Christians who proclaim "Jesus is God" are Modalists (T. D. Jakes, for example) or Monophysites. Clearing up our own heresy would help before we try to dialogue with Muslims.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 10, 2008 9:16 AM
Dear Ashpenaz,
For many, Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God the Father- and nothing can change that- regardless of whether we believe or not. And we will All go before Jesus after our physical death, as well.
Jesus is humble, meek, incredibly forgiving, correct, and loves us enormously. Unlike what most expect in a supreme being, He does not force us to believe in him- but it doesn't mean He is not one with the Father. And in dialogue, that same respect needs to be reciprocated.
Yes, the Father was before the actual human flesh of Christ- but Jesus was the incarnation of him.
If one finds they can not believe this- then how could the decency within anyone object to His teachings. It is the way...and could be the
common bond between all.
For me, this is fact- because I have seen him and He has told me many things- or else I am a liar.
Peace,
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 10, 2008 11:32 AM
Dear Ashpenaz - so, I learn a new word today. I am a modalist, I guess, a long with a few others.
You're moving me one step closer to the conviction that theology can (sometime) be a huge distraction. If I rewrite a sentence and change one comma, what will I become?
However, I had to go and dig out again. Colossians says: "For in Him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form."
Well - all the fullness of the Ocean does not dwell in the water.
But figuring out the Trinity has got to be an impossible mission, no? Not from here.
But trying to walk with Him today? Possible - that's pretty cool.
Peace, Salaam, Shalom.
E
Posted by: Eric | January 10, 2008 1:27 PM
If you believe that Jesus was the Incarnation of God the Father then, yes, you are a heretic, a Modalist. Please read the Athanasian Creed for clarification of what you need to believe to be saved.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 10, 2008 2:24 PM
"Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms."
God is one in essence fully revealing himself in Jesus, Holy Spirit, and the Father. He is one. It's really that simple.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 10, 2008 2:52 PM
John 8:58
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
John 10:38
"But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."
John 10:30
"I and my Father are one."
JLA and Syr,
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 11, 2008 7:47 AM
Brian,
I have been involved in active interfaith dialogue with Muslims for several years. Let me be clear: I love Muslims, but I hate Islam. So while I agree with several of the criticisms that have been leveled against the signing of the response (I was invited but declined) perhaps my biggest issue was the fact that Muhammad was referred to as "The Prophet" several times throughout the letter. Having discussed this on a forum of which I am part that consists of perhaps a hundred workers among Muslims and many former Muslims, the consensus was clear: "Your prophet" may have been appropriate but most certainly not "The Prophet". Any face value reading of this response certainly seems to come across as an endorsement of sorts of Muhammad and his prophetic career and thus his revelations as well. Honestly: Do you believe that Muhammad was a prophet of God in any way shape or form? And if not, then isn't it indeed rather disingenuous to call him "The Prophet"? Muhammad is clearly the greatest heresiarch that history has yet to produce who refers to the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Cross as the greatest forms of blasphemy imaginable. That said, wouldn't you agree that while attempting to be as gentle as a dove we should also attempt to be wise as serpents while standing firm in our commitment not to compromise our most fundamental and core beliefs?
Sincerely,
Joel Richardson
Posted by: Joel Richardson | February 4, 2008 11:51 PM
While Arab Christians do use the word Allah to refer to God (or Yahweh), there is a clear difference between Islam’s Allah and the Biblical Allah. But the argument that Allah was used because that is simply the Arab word for God is a complete lie. Think about this: The letter was written in English, and it was not written to Arabs, but to Muslims from all over the world of various nationalities and languages. Thus Mclaren’s defense is proven to be indefensible. Because the letter was written in English to Muslims from all over the world, the English word “God” or even the more accurate name “Yahweh” should have been used. Period. The fact that Mclaren even argues that Allah was approriate and was only used because it is how Arbs refer to God displays his ignorance regarding Islam: Most Muslims are not Arabs…
Posted by: joel richardson | February 5, 2008 7:29 PM
To modarate:
seek and you will learn.You are wrong to doubt whether Muslims beleive in the comming of the Messiah (YASHUA-JESUS).Even though Christians like you claim common ground with Judaism, funnily this very very sacred idea of the RETURN OF JESUS is ONLY shared by Muslims and NOT jews.
yes Muslims do beleive that none Muslims are going to HELL, but so do CHRISTIANS and JEWS think of the others.
to DON:
the 100 so called names of Allah are a DISCRIPTION, ie : the mercifull, almighty,loving, forgiving...etc (in Bible)
to another Modarate:
the only real difference between shiats and sunneis is the leader ship of the appostals,the shiats beleive that the cousin and nephwes of the prophet should take charge, and the sunni beleive that he who is more learned and older should.
As for iNCARNATION muslims do not beleive in that.
to Nate mussan:
No where doese timothy 4:1 mentions Islam, quran or Mohamed, but infact it is describing what will happen to the then beleivers whose ancestors will stray.Like now all those MONEY LOVING EVANGELICAL PREACHERS, AND not to forget the POPE who loves totaly opposite to what jesus preached.Also many muslim and christian preachers.
I could quote you many many sayings of jesus condeming his own people and especially the religious leaders.
To Elizabeth daniels:
to quote a few quotes of Jesus proving he is God or son of God, their are equaly many quotes that cCONTRADICTS all and even some say that god calls other prophets MY CHILDREN.
funny how jews deny jesus and the bible,and christians accept judaism(even though it contradicts nearly all biblical teachings)but deny islam and Mohammed, YET Muslims accept all Prophets and the ORIGINAL UN OMITTED TORAH AND BIBLE.
Posted by: lisa | February 19, 2008 5:00 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?