Several days ago I posted a link to Facebook of a religious quiz that prompted many replies as people posted their results. One young Moroccan friend whom I've never met and know only in a very small I-met-you-on-Facebook way stated he didn't do well and said the question about Islam was too easy. He proceeded to give me a super-short quiz (2 questions) on the Quran and I told him I read it this past year. Anyway, a local friend -- someone two years ahead of me in high school -- started asking Zayd a few questions about his Islamic beliefs. Mercy, grace, ways to please God .. good topics like this came up. One day I thanked them both for their discussion and posted how I see grace in Islam and Christianity. I figured I'd copy and paste it here for your critique. I am curious if I understand "grace" correctly according to your views of it. Please let me know.
This is what I wrote ...
In Islam there is grace and it is God's grace and mercy that permits one to enter His heaven. While we may never be assured that we will be there, we can hope our chances are good because we have obeyed the rituals laid out for us in the Quran and ahadith. Since Muhammad was supposedly the best example of a Muslim (literally, submitter to Allah), this is why most Muslims strive very hard to follow the ways of Muhammad. (Some take it to an extreme like the Taliban outlawing toothbrushes in Afghanistan since the Prophet used a miswak. They think most modern inventions are unlawful.)
Just as Christians often say they follow Jesus and seek to live their lives according to his teachings ("no man comes to the Father except through me"), Muslims will strive to be like the perfect Muslim - Muhammad - so they may live a life pleasing to God. Both are following someone in order to please God. While Christians will want to glorify God because He has already saved us and we were created to do good works and as we follow Jesus, our lives will reflect his actions and teachings (ideally!), Muslims want to do good deeds and follow Muhammad (their best example) because they hope to obtain salvation on Judgment Day.
So in Islam grace is present in that God allowed you into heaven, however, you try to please Him by overcoming tests on earth and proving yourself worthy of His choosing you. In other words, you strive (the greater jihad) to overcome your sinfulness, you strive to have inward and outward expressions of piety whether that is your willingness to forgive someone who has wronged you, putting up with polygyny although you don't really love being one of four wives, caring for your children or ailing parents or even how you dress and practice modesty (e.g. covering your hair, face, or just from chest to knees).
In Christianity we realize we can never do enough to make us worthy of God's heaven so we recognize we are sinners in need of a Savior. God's grace is demonstrated in that while we were in our sinful conditions (NOT all prettied up by religious observation and rituals), He sent Jesus into the world to pay for our sins. It's a gift from God...not something we work for which would be payment/wages for our work. As Chris quoted from the verse this is so we can't boast in that we earned our salvation and good standing before God somehow. All the glory goes to HIM - the Creator, the Sustainer, the Savior of mankind!
It's only when we recognize our neediness, our complete inability to save ourselves or earn our spot in heaven and cry out to God for His mercy, that we realize what grace is: God's gift to undeserving sinners. As the old song goes...that's why grace is so amazing. :)
Friday, October 8, 2010
Kafiri and Jahili Tendencies In Us All ... maybe?
Notes and my reflections as I read Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time by Karen Armstrong
I was slightly amused as I read Karen Armstrong's description of the kafirun of Muhammad's day. She notes instead of "unbeliever," kafir "implies a discourteous refusal of something that is offered with great kindness and generosity." (Like God's offer of free salvation as a gift, not earned by your works, perhaps?) According to Muhammad, God had revealed himself to the people and some of them rejected God, therefore, the Quran scolded them not for their "lack of religious conviction, but for their arrogance." Instead of realizing their dependence upon God, they regarded themselves as "self-reliant" and refused to submit to Allah or anyone else.
That's not really what amused me, but this did. "The kafirun are bursting with self-importance; they strut around haughtily, addressing others in an offensive, braying manner, and fly into a violent rage if they think that their honor has been impugned. They are so convinced that their way of life is better than anybody else's that they are particularly incensed by any criticism of their traditional lifestyle." (pg. 79)
Armstrong notes that the "chief vice of the kafirun was jahiliyyah" - not how it is usually translated as the "age of ignorance" that supposedly characterized the pre-Islamic period. Rather she notes the jahili had "an acute sensitivity to honor and prestige; arrogance, excess, and above all, a chronic tendency to violence and retaliation."
Um, does this not seem very much like a number of self-called Muslims today who are quick to issue death threats, burn tires and hurt or kill others when they perceive their honor or religion has been slighted by the evil West? Are these who consider themselves followers of Muhammad not demonstrating these kafiri and jahili traits?
Indeed Armstrong admits it wasn't easy for the Muslims at this time to give up the traditions in which they were raised. It wasn't always easy to moderate ideal bedouin standards to "act like a slave ('abd), praying with ..nose on the ground and treating the base-born like equals." I think this attitude still lingers and is why the descendants today can mistreat Filipino maids for instance. These "base-born" servants certainly aren't on equal footing in society with the powerful Saudi, right?
Armstrong said the Quran "urges Muslims to behave with hilm, a traditional Arab virtue. Men and women of hilm were forbearing, patient and merciful." OK, wait, I thought the pre-Islamic Arabs had few virtues, but these hilm traits are fantastic! In fact as she went on to describe such things as being slow to retaliate, controlling anger, remaining calm in difficult circumstances, leaving revenge for Allah instead of hitting back (what?!) and turning the other cheek, I thought I was reading a description by the Apostle Paul or Jesus! (pg. 80-81)
By the way, I'm not casting stones. I realize there are plenty of so-called Christians - myself included more times than I care to admit - who don't act according to Jesus's wonderful traits. That's why I noted the information from the author about it not being easy to give up the traits in which we were raised. Not that anyone had to teach me how to be selfish or want to retaliate when I feel wronged or threatened. It all came very naturally. And it's why living like Christ is difficult and can only be done through his power. (see John 15)
I think the point of this post is that we all have a bit of kafirun in us, don't we? We all have a bit of those jahili tendencies so let's not be so quick to judge fellow humans and let's encourage each other to walk the way Jesus taught us by example: in love, serving others.
I was slightly amused as I read Karen Armstrong's description of the kafirun of Muhammad's day. She notes instead of "unbeliever," kafir "implies a discourteous refusal of something that is offered with great kindness and generosity." (Like God's offer of free salvation as a gift, not earned by your works, perhaps?) According to Muhammad, God had revealed himself to the people and some of them rejected God, therefore, the Quran scolded them not for their "lack of religious conviction, but for their arrogance." Instead of realizing their dependence upon God, they regarded themselves as "self-reliant" and refused to submit to Allah or anyone else.
That's not really what amused me, but this did. "The kafirun are bursting with self-importance; they strut around haughtily, addressing others in an offensive, braying manner, and fly into a violent rage if they think that their honor has been impugned. They are so convinced that their way of life is better than anybody else's that they are particularly incensed by any criticism of their traditional lifestyle." (pg. 79)
Armstrong notes that the "chief vice of the kafirun was jahiliyyah" - not how it is usually translated as the "age of ignorance" that supposedly characterized the pre-Islamic period. Rather she notes the jahili had "an acute sensitivity to honor and prestige; arrogance, excess, and above all, a chronic tendency to violence and retaliation."
Um, does this not seem very much like a number of self-called Muslims today who are quick to issue death threats, burn tires and hurt or kill others when they perceive their honor or religion has been slighted by the evil West? Are these who consider themselves followers of Muhammad not demonstrating these kafiri and jahili traits?
Indeed Armstrong admits it wasn't easy for the Muslims at this time to give up the traditions in which they were raised. It wasn't always easy to moderate ideal bedouin standards to "act like a slave ('abd), praying with ..nose on the ground and treating the base-born like equals." I think this attitude still lingers and is why the descendants today can mistreat Filipino maids for instance. These "base-born" servants certainly aren't on equal footing in society with the powerful Saudi, right?
Armstrong said the Quran "urges Muslims to behave with hilm, a traditional Arab virtue. Men and women of hilm were forbearing, patient and merciful." OK, wait, I thought the pre-Islamic Arabs had few virtues, but these hilm traits are fantastic! In fact as she went on to describe such things as being slow to retaliate, controlling anger, remaining calm in difficult circumstances, leaving revenge for Allah instead of hitting back (what?!) and turning the other cheek, I thought I was reading a description by the Apostle Paul or Jesus! (pg. 80-81)
By the way, I'm not casting stones. I realize there are plenty of so-called Christians - myself included more times than I care to admit - who don't act according to Jesus's wonderful traits. That's why I noted the information from the author about it not being easy to give up the traits in which we were raised. Not that anyone had to teach me how to be selfish or want to retaliate when I feel wronged or threatened. It all came very naturally. And it's why living like Christ is difficult and can only be done through his power. (see John 15)
I think the point of this post is that we all have a bit of kafirun in us, don't we? We all have a bit of those jahili tendencies so let's not be so quick to judge fellow humans and let's encourage each other to walk the way Jesus taught us by example: in love, serving others.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Pre-Islamic Arabia, Muhammad on the Scene, Satanic Verses
I have been reading Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time by Karen Armstrong the last few days. I enjoyed reading more about the life of the people at that place (Arabia) and time (~600 AD) in the world. I got a better understanding of bedouin traits: how they were communal and sharing because life - even survival - was difficult at times. Little hoarding and much generosity going on. In fact Ms. Armstrong said a bedouin could be so generous and hospitable that he would use up any wealth he had on one night of feasting and hosting his guests.
Apparently this all started changing as a few tribes settled. The Quraysh for example as they became "keeper of the keys" in Mecca (I remember this from Reza Aslan's book) and started gaining wealth due to their caravan and pilgrimage businesses. The merchants started gaining more wealth and in the process generosity was sacrificed, the divide between rich and poor became pronounced, pleasure became the new religion and people started abandoning the traditional Arab fatalism for a notion that perhaps security could be found -- in stuff! Thus in these first seventy-three pages, I've concluded capitalism contributed to Islam's founding!
The Hanifs (those seeking to go back to the "pure religion" of Abraham) came along but "had little impact on their contemporaries, because they were chiefly concerned with their own personal salvation." Armstrong said they didn't seek to reform society or change people's morals. Instead they "simply withdrew from the mainstream." I noted this heartfelt quote attributed to the Hanif Zayd as he stood near the Kabah, "'Oh Allah!' he cried, 'If I knew how you wished to be worshipped, I would so worship you, but I do not know.'" (pg. 45)
Armstrong mentions Muhammad's first followers - generally young people, freedmen, slaves, women, the 'weak' - and how they were disenchanted with the market-driven direction their society had taken. She notes Muhammad knew this could be no mere social reform, but inward reform - it had to be a spiritual solution!
On page 53 Armstrong mentions for some, Muhammad was the "long-awaited Arab prophet" and I wondered about this. Did the Arabs truly anticipate Allah sending a prophet to them? Armstrong notes that Allah was a God worshiped already in the region, but unlike the Muslim Allah, he was distant. The pagan Arabs relied on three goddesses, those mentioned in the 'satanic verses', Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, to intercede for them because Allah couldn't really be bothered directly by the people.
Speaking of the Satanic verses Armstrong mentions how they were revealed during a time Muhammad was really sad about the growing division his message brought between him and the people he loved who would not accept his message from God. She tells how Muhammad said these verses and the pagans were joyful that their three interceding goddesses were now sharing "divine honors with Allah." Of course Muhammad never meant for this conclusion to be reached and he was duly scolded by Gabriel who revealed corrective verses which when spoken to the pagans were "a slap in the face that not only eliminated the gharaniq [the three goddesses] but insulted the revered ancestors." (pg. 72)
Apparently this new corrected version also made it clear that "all the previous prophets had made similar 'satantic' mistakes." Armstrong continues, "It was a struggle to make sense of the revelations and all too easy to confuse the deeper current inspiration with a more superficial idea of one's own."
Don't you think many people have done this very thing? They have gotten into their minds what ideas they want promoted then they go to the Scripture to twist meanings, take things out of context or cherry pick in order to support their own agendas? For instance Armstrong notes that the Quran speaks of God also in feminine terms and may be one reason so many women initially converted to Islam. But how often do we read blogs today and read articles and hear news reports about women in Islam suffering from highly man-centered interpretations? How often are women taught they were created merely to serve their husbands good food, keep tidy homes, satisfy their husbands' sexual needs and fantasies while also incubating and nurturing his precious children?
Also how can the Quran be the direct word of God when it includes "satanic verses"? Shouldn't it have a disclaimer that most of these words are from Allah, but there might be a few thoughts from the jinn that got in there by accident?
Those are things that cross my mind anyway. How concerned are you that someone else's (a jinn, a man who wanted to keep women down) thoughts made it into the Quran?
More notes from this book to come including some thoughts on the kafirun and jahiliyyah according to Armstrong.
Apparently this all started changing as a few tribes settled. The Quraysh for example as they became "keeper of the keys" in Mecca (I remember this from Reza Aslan's book) and started gaining wealth due to their caravan and pilgrimage businesses. The merchants started gaining more wealth and in the process generosity was sacrificed, the divide between rich and poor became pronounced, pleasure became the new religion and people started abandoning the traditional Arab fatalism for a notion that perhaps security could be found -- in stuff! Thus in these first seventy-three pages, I've concluded capitalism contributed to Islam's founding!
The Hanifs (those seeking to go back to the "pure religion" of Abraham) came along but "had little impact on their contemporaries, because they were chiefly concerned with their own personal salvation." Armstrong said they didn't seek to reform society or change people's morals. Instead they "simply withdrew from the mainstream." I noted this heartfelt quote attributed to the Hanif Zayd as he stood near the Kabah, "'Oh Allah!' he cried, 'If I knew how you wished to be worshipped, I would so worship you, but I do not know.'" (pg. 45)
Armstrong mentions Muhammad's first followers - generally young people, freedmen, slaves, women, the 'weak' - and how they were disenchanted with the market-driven direction their society had taken. She notes Muhammad knew this could be no mere social reform, but inward reform - it had to be a spiritual solution!
On page 53 Armstrong mentions for some, Muhammad was the "long-awaited Arab prophet" and I wondered about this. Did the Arabs truly anticipate Allah sending a prophet to them? Armstrong notes that Allah was a God worshiped already in the region, but unlike the Muslim Allah, he was distant. The pagan Arabs relied on three goddesses, those mentioned in the 'satanic verses', Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, to intercede for them because Allah couldn't really be bothered directly by the people.
 |
| The goddesses who interceded to Allah on behalf of the pre-Islamic Arabians |
Speaking of the Satanic verses Armstrong mentions how they were revealed during a time Muhammad was really sad about the growing division his message brought between him and the people he loved who would not accept his message from God. She tells how Muhammad said these verses and the pagans were joyful that their three interceding goddesses were now sharing "divine honors with Allah." Of course Muhammad never meant for this conclusion to be reached and he was duly scolded by Gabriel who revealed corrective verses which when spoken to the pagans were "a slap in the face that not only eliminated the gharaniq [the three goddesses] but insulted the revered ancestors." (pg. 72)
Apparently this new corrected version also made it clear that "all the previous prophets had made similar 'satantic' mistakes." Armstrong continues, "It was a struggle to make sense of the revelations and all too easy to confuse the deeper current inspiration with a more superficial idea of one's own."
Don't you think many people have done this very thing? They have gotten into their minds what ideas they want promoted then they go to the Scripture to twist meanings, take things out of context or cherry pick in order to support their own agendas? For instance Armstrong notes that the Quran speaks of God also in feminine terms and may be one reason so many women initially converted to Islam. But how often do we read blogs today and read articles and hear news reports about women in Islam suffering from highly man-centered interpretations? How often are women taught they were created merely to serve their husbands good food, keep tidy homes, satisfy their husbands' sexual needs and fantasies while also incubating and nurturing his precious children?
Also how can the Quran be the direct word of God when it includes "satanic verses"? Shouldn't it have a disclaimer that most of these words are from Allah, but there might be a few thoughts from the jinn that got in there by accident?
Those are things that cross my mind anyway. How concerned are you that someone else's (a jinn, a man who wanted to keep women down) thoughts made it into the Quran?
More notes from this book to come including some thoughts on the kafirun and jahiliyyah according to Armstrong.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Cultural Wars, Depicting the Crucifixion, Suffering
This is the last of my notes from Thomas Cahill's book. Now I'm working on notes from Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time by Karen Armstrong.
The author states that almost from the beginning of Christianity there were "pictures that form a distinctively Christian message," however "so intense was the suffering of Jesus before and during his crucifixion that the early Christians could not bring themselves to depict it." He states that it wasn't until the fifth century - when "Augustine of Hippo lies dying, the barbarian hordes are overrunning the empire, and Patrick is in Gaul making his fateful travel plans to evangelize the Irish...on the verge of the Middle Ages" - before Christians finally depicted the crucifixion and even then it did not take a central place in their churches.
Only when four hundred years had passed since Christ's crucifixion and one hundred years since Rome "discontinued the practice of crucifixion and no one living had witnessed such a procedure, did Christians forget the shame and horror of the event sufficiently to begin making pictures of it. [By this time] many of the gruesome details of actual crucifixion had been forgotten" and Jesus didn't look like a man in agony hanging there. (pg. 285-288)
"We do not have to adopt a theology of substitution - the theory that God required a spotless human victim to make up for human sin - to make sense of the crucifixion. Such a theory, it seems to me, is a remnant of prehistoric paganism and its beliefs in cruel divinities who demanded blood sacrifice. But Jesus's suffering body is surely his ultimate gift, for it is his final act of sympathy with us. From all ages, human suffering has been the stumbling block that no life can avoid and that no philosophy has been able to comprehend. In the Hebrew Bible's Book of Job, God refuses to explain why good people must suffer. In the New Testament, he still does not explain, but he gives us a new story that contains the first glimmer of encouragement, the only hint of an explanation, that heaven has ever designed to offer earth: 'I will suffer with you.' The flesh of Jesus is the bread of the poor, the sick, the miserable, the dispossessed -- their nourishment. 'For just as the sufferings of Christ overflow into our lives, so does the encouragement we receive through Christ,' Paul tells the Corinthians. Whatever pain we suffer, he has suffered. However acute our suffering, he too has borne the whips, the thorns, the nails, the lance, the cross.'" (pg. 293-294)
"Jesus insists on forgiveness, turning the other cheek, peace, and compassion, always compassion -- and which of us wants to hear that? The leaders of the Jewish religious establishment rejected Jesus in his own lifetime, not principally because he rejected the Torah of Moses or because he claimed to be God, but because of his midrash, his interpretation of God's word. He insisted that all of Jewish sacred scripture -- the Torah and the Prophets -- was asking them to live in a way that they considered unrealistic. Any Christian who imagines himself morally superior to those who turned away has only to glance at the subsequent history of Christian persecution of Jews to realize that Christians have been far more successful at rejecting Jesus than any Jew has ever been." (pg. 318)
all quotes from Desire of the Everlasting Hills by Thomas Cahill
"Paul and his fellow Christians were already fighting a war on three cultural-political fronts: against Jews who accused them of the capital crime of blasphemy, against Greeks who found the Jewish notion of physical resurrection hilarious, and against Romans who were eager to round up 'troublemakers,' especially ones who prayed to a 'god' that the Romans themselves had executed. In their monotheism, Christians were accused of atheism, in their Messianism, of heresy. In their communism, they appeared an obvious threat to the economics of class; in their joyous inner freedom and their comprehension of the essential equality of all human beings before God, they stood an outrageous challenge to the whole socio-political order of the Roman empire." (pg. 232)
"Paul called his converts 'the brothers and sisters loved by God,' and Peter, in a vision, came to the conclusion that 'God has no favorites.' The Jesus Movement became a movement for the universalization of Judaism, making Jewish ideas and even the Jewish social context available and applicable to all humanity. We should not, however, see Jesus as the beginning of this development, any more than we see Moses, rather than Abraham, as the beginning of monotheism. Jesus, like Moses, took advantage of a living tradition that was astoundingly rich in possibilities. Long before Jesus, the classical prophets had already looked forward to the outpouring of God's 'Spirit on all humanity,' an incredible outpouring from which no one -- not even the 'women' and the 'slaves' of Peter's quotation from Joel -- would be excluded. And we cannot be surprised that women and slaves, far more than any other categories of society, swelled the ranks of a movement that assured them that, however insignificant their places in society, in the eyes of God and his Assembly they were the equals of anyone." (pg. 239)
By helping the poor and afflicted, they were helping Christ, and it was not a duty, but a privilege. (see Matthew 25)
"Paul called his converts 'the brothers and sisters loved by God,' and Peter, in a vision, came to the conclusion that 'God has no favorites.' The Jesus Movement became a movement for the universalization of Judaism, making Jewish ideas and even the Jewish social context available and applicable to all humanity. We should not, however, see Jesus as the beginning of this development, any more than we see Moses, rather than Abraham, as the beginning of monotheism. Jesus, like Moses, took advantage of a living tradition that was astoundingly rich in possibilities. Long before Jesus, the classical prophets had already looked forward to the outpouring of God's 'Spirit on all humanity,' an incredible outpouring from which no one -- not even the 'women' and the 'slaves' of Peter's quotation from Joel -- would be excluded. And we cannot be surprised that women and slaves, far more than any other categories of society, swelled the ranks of a movement that assured them that, however insignificant their places in society, in the eyes of God and his Assembly they were the equals of anyone." (pg. 239)
By helping the poor and afflicted, they were helping Christ, and it was not a duty, but a privilege. (see Matthew 25)
Only when four hundred years had passed since Christ's crucifixion and one hundred years since Rome "discontinued the practice of crucifixion and no one living had witnessed such a procedure, did Christians forget the shame and horror of the event sufficiently to begin making pictures of it. [By this time] many of the gruesome details of actual crucifixion had been forgotten" and Jesus didn't look like a man in agony hanging there. (pg. 285-288)
"We do not have to adopt a theology of substitution - the theory that God required a spotless human victim to make up for human sin - to make sense of the crucifixion. Such a theory, it seems to me, is a remnant of prehistoric paganism and its beliefs in cruel divinities who demanded blood sacrifice. But Jesus's suffering body is surely his ultimate gift, for it is his final act of sympathy with us. From all ages, human suffering has been the stumbling block that no life can avoid and that no philosophy has been able to comprehend. In the Hebrew Bible's Book of Job, God refuses to explain why good people must suffer. In the New Testament, he still does not explain, but he gives us a new story that contains the first glimmer of encouragement, the only hint of an explanation, that heaven has ever designed to offer earth: 'I will suffer with you.' The flesh of Jesus is the bread of the poor, the sick, the miserable, the dispossessed -- their nourishment. 'For just as the sufferings of Christ overflow into our lives, so does the encouragement we receive through Christ,' Paul tells the Corinthians. Whatever pain we suffer, he has suffered. However acute our suffering, he too has borne the whips, the thorns, the nails, the lance, the cross.'" (pg. 293-294)
"Jesus insists on forgiveness, turning the other cheek, peace, and compassion, always compassion -- and which of us wants to hear that? The leaders of the Jewish religious establishment rejected Jesus in his own lifetime, not principally because he rejected the Torah of Moses or because he claimed to be God, but because of his midrash, his interpretation of God's word. He insisted that all of Jewish sacred scripture -- the Torah and the Prophets -- was asking them to live in a way that they considered unrealistic. Any Christian who imagines himself morally superior to those who turned away has only to glance at the subsequent history of Christian persecution of Jews to realize that Christians have been far more successful at rejecting Jesus than any Jew has ever been." (pg. 318)
all quotes from Desire of the Everlasting Hills by Thomas Cahill
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
John's Jesus -- Making Jesus God, Jews as Enemies, 'Rigid' Church People
Bear with me while I finish posting my notes from Desire of the Everlasting Hills by Thomas Cahill. Only one more post after this one.
The author points out that most Jews seemed to be expecting only one Messiah, however the term "Son of God" was often used of both angels and prophets, "indeed of anyone who could be considered God's mouthpiece." "Son of God" and "Savior" also were used within the Roman world for "whichever Caesar happened to be occupying the imperial throne." (pg. 255)
The question then becomes is Jesus the unique "son of God" or as some English versions of the Bible put it "the only begotten son" which I've read in the past was the King James-era method of declaring someone as a unique person not necessary begotten of a person in a human birth way. Oh, I found this which explains it a bit more clearly perhaps.
While the author makes concession in the book's end notes that there is a case for Paul making Jesus God, the author's view is the opposite. He said neither Paul nor Mark, Luke nor Matthew thought of Jesus as God. But the writer of the fourth gospel - credited to John - did. (pg. 257)
Do you agree that John was the only one?
About the Gospel of John the author writes, "the delightful parables of the Synoptics are nowhere to be found, replaced by dignified but boring speeches that sometimes run to several pages" and "overwhelm us with airless solemnity that leaves us begging for the sinewy, down-to-earth Jesus of the Synoptics. John's Jesus is always in control." (pg. 271-272)
Bah! I take it this author likes action better than words! Perhaps he should be in movies instead of writing books! :-)
It is John's Jesus of "the ancient creeds, of tasteless religious art, of German passion plays and Hollywood movies. He is the immobile icon loved by ecclesiasts and theologians. It is if John's symbolic reverence has made an icon too awesome to be touched by the soiled and unconsecrated hands of ordinary humans....The weight of human and fleshly, the sweaty and smudged is finally overcome in John by the weightless illumination of the divine." (pg. 272)
The author states that this process of icon-making is what later lead Mary from being a simple Galilean woman to rising to Mother of God, perpetual virgin status of the Church.
"Many who are comfortable with the Synoptic tradition and even with Paul feel that here at the threshold of John's Gospel they must part company with the New Testament. They may be believers or half-believers, Jews, humanitarians, agnostics -- all of whom may cheer the insights and advances of Paul and the Synoptic evangelists but find themselves abashed and compassless once they come into the field of John's unearthly glow. The author continues that it's not the deification of the God-man that makes them uncomfortable, but "a spirit of touchy exclusivity" that repeatedly surfaces throughout Western history with "devastating results." For in John, the author claims, the Jews are often enemies, often "designated with contempt, the lost people who 'have no king but Caesar.'" This gospel "is still capable of leaving Jewish readers purple with rage and Christians red with embarrassment." (pg. 273-275)
For about two minutes I wondered if something was wrong with me for never being one of those Christians who found John's gospels embarrassing, but as I kept reading I found out why.
Cahill points out that the Johannine church developed separately almost like an island cut off from the mainland (which - the "mainland" - grew slowly into "the Great Church of succeeding centuries.") John's church didn't rely on a central administration of bishops and deacons, but "was wholly dependent on individual, prophetic inspiration - from 'the Spirit' -- and it rejected the notion that anyone but Jesus could be pastor, that is, their shepherd. ... For all its problems, the high Christology of the Johannine community gave its theology a profundity and piercing clarity that other churches lacked; and its Spirit-based social ambience encouraged equal participation by all, especially women, in its common enterprises of charity and prayer." (pg. 276-277)
"Its insistence on there being but one way of thinking makes uneasy anyone who has ever had an unorthodox thought. It comes as no surprise that John is often the favorite evangelist of the uptight and unrelenting; and his rigidity can call to mind contemporary churchpeople of several unfortunate varieties. The difficulties of John's Gospel are extreme enough that to this day Christian churches use its passages sparingly in their lectionaries, whereas the other gospels are proclaimed in full." (pg. 277)
Am I one of those "unfortunate varieties" of church people because I happen to like John? Maybe. I am a bit rigid about certain doctrines! I feel there are some matters too important to be wishy-washy about. While many I know like John's gospel (not sure if he is their favorite evangelist since we all have different tastes), I must tell you that they don't seem to hate Jews or blame them for crucifying Christ. I read a book a couple years ago by a Jewish American guy who appealed to his fellow Jews to understand that - although liberal Jews and conservative Christians may not agree on politics in the United States - we conservative Christians were great friends of the Jews in many matters. He explained that while European Christians of the past were often anti-Jew and blamed Jews for killing Jesus, North Americans were strongly influenced by London-born John Nelson Darby who was very pro-Jewish. Darby made missionary voyages to North America in the 1800s and his beliefs became more popular here. Therefore, instead of us seeing Jews as Christ killers, we see Jews as the ones who brought us Christ and the Bible we hold dear. Our Savior was a Jew! "Our" Paul! "Our" Isaiah! "Our" David!" How can we hate the Jews? In fact I grew up hearing that the Jews didn't kill Jesus. In reality, we all did if we believe he died for our sins for all of us are sinners. I think this is why many of us were puzzled when Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ came out and Jews were fearful that we would blame them for killing Jesus. Huh? That thought never crossed my mind!
So although "my people" may like John, I wanted to clarify that we are among the Jews' best friends. This is actually a point that annoys me quite a bit because my people often equate today's Zionist State of Israel with the Jews and thus conservative Christians are one of the most staunch supporters of Israel today despite the country's many war crimes and mistreatment of people. My Syrian friends know this and is one reason they were quite surprised that Andrew and I were nice people. They figured we all were monsters, apparently.
Lastly, the author admits to some of John's literature as being "the most beautiful of the New Testament."
On this point, I totally agree with Thomas Cahill. What from John's Gospel or letters do you find most beautiful? What do you greatly dislike? Any favorite stories from John?
Any thoughts on any of this? Please share.
The author points out that most Jews seemed to be expecting only one Messiah, however the term "Son of God" was often used of both angels and prophets, "indeed of anyone who could be considered God's mouthpiece." "Son of God" and "Savior" also were used within the Roman world for "whichever Caesar happened to be occupying the imperial throne." (pg. 255)
The question then becomes is Jesus the unique "son of God" or as some English versions of the Bible put it "the only begotten son" which I've read in the past was the King James-era method of declaring someone as a unique person not necessary begotten of a person in a human birth way. Oh, I found this which explains it a bit more clearly perhaps.
The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten." ...
So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is the meaning attached to its use in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son." Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant.
The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16. In fact, John is the only New Testament writer who uses this word in reference to Jesus (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses this word to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters through faith. (Source)
While the author makes concession in the book's end notes that there is a case for Paul making Jesus God, the author's view is the opposite. He said neither Paul nor Mark, Luke nor Matthew thought of Jesus as God. But the writer of the fourth gospel - credited to John - did. (pg. 257)
Do you agree that John was the only one?
About the Gospel of John the author writes, "the delightful parables of the Synoptics are nowhere to be found, replaced by dignified but boring speeches that sometimes run to several pages" and "overwhelm us with airless solemnity that leaves us begging for the sinewy, down-to-earth Jesus of the Synoptics. John's Jesus is always in control." (pg. 271-272)
Bah! I take it this author likes action better than words! Perhaps he should be in movies instead of writing books! :-)
It is John's Jesus of "the ancient creeds, of tasteless religious art, of German passion plays and Hollywood movies. He is the immobile icon loved by ecclesiasts and theologians. It is if John's symbolic reverence has made an icon too awesome to be touched by the soiled and unconsecrated hands of ordinary humans....The weight of human and fleshly, the sweaty and smudged is finally overcome in John by the weightless illumination of the divine." (pg. 272)
The author states that this process of icon-making is what later lead Mary from being a simple Galilean woman to rising to Mother of God, perpetual virgin status of the Church.
"Many who are comfortable with the Synoptic tradition and even with Paul feel that here at the threshold of John's Gospel they must part company with the New Testament. They may be believers or half-believers, Jews, humanitarians, agnostics -- all of whom may cheer the insights and advances of Paul and the Synoptic evangelists but find themselves abashed and compassless once they come into the field of John's unearthly glow. The author continues that it's not the deification of the God-man that makes them uncomfortable, but "a spirit of touchy exclusivity" that repeatedly surfaces throughout Western history with "devastating results." For in John, the author claims, the Jews are often enemies, often "designated with contempt, the lost people who 'have no king but Caesar.'" This gospel "is still capable of leaving Jewish readers purple with rage and Christians red with embarrassment." (pg. 273-275)
For about two minutes I wondered if something was wrong with me for never being one of those Christians who found John's gospels embarrassing, but as I kept reading I found out why.
Cahill points out that the Johannine church developed separately almost like an island cut off from the mainland (which - the "mainland" - grew slowly into "the Great Church of succeeding centuries.") John's church didn't rely on a central administration of bishops and deacons, but "was wholly dependent on individual, prophetic inspiration - from 'the Spirit' -- and it rejected the notion that anyone but Jesus could be pastor, that is, their shepherd. ... For all its problems, the high Christology of the Johannine community gave its theology a profundity and piercing clarity that other churches lacked; and its Spirit-based social ambience encouraged equal participation by all, especially women, in its common enterprises of charity and prayer." (pg. 276-277)
"Its insistence on there being but one way of thinking makes uneasy anyone who has ever had an unorthodox thought. It comes as no surprise that John is often the favorite evangelist of the uptight and unrelenting; and his rigidity can call to mind contemporary churchpeople of several unfortunate varieties. The difficulties of John's Gospel are extreme enough that to this day Christian churches use its passages sparingly in their lectionaries, whereas the other gospels are proclaimed in full." (pg. 277)
Am I one of those "unfortunate varieties" of church people because I happen to like John? Maybe. I am a bit rigid about certain doctrines! I feel there are some matters too important to be wishy-washy about. While many I know like John's gospel (not sure if he is their favorite evangelist since we all have different tastes), I must tell you that they don't seem to hate Jews or blame them for crucifying Christ. I read a book a couple years ago by a Jewish American guy who appealed to his fellow Jews to understand that - although liberal Jews and conservative Christians may not agree on politics in the United States - we conservative Christians were great friends of the Jews in many matters. He explained that while European Christians of the past were often anti-Jew and blamed Jews for killing Jesus, North Americans were strongly influenced by London-born John Nelson Darby who was very pro-Jewish. Darby made missionary voyages to North America in the 1800s and his beliefs became more popular here. Therefore, instead of us seeing Jews as Christ killers, we see Jews as the ones who brought us Christ and the Bible we hold dear. Our Savior was a Jew! "Our" Paul! "Our" Isaiah! "Our" David!" How can we hate the Jews? In fact I grew up hearing that the Jews didn't kill Jesus. In reality, we all did if we believe he died for our sins for all of us are sinners. I think this is why many of us were puzzled when Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ came out and Jews were fearful that we would blame them for killing Jesus. Huh? That thought never crossed my mind!
So although "my people" may like John, I wanted to clarify that we are among the Jews' best friends. This is actually a point that annoys me quite a bit because my people often equate today's Zionist State of Israel with the Jews and thus conservative Christians are one of the most staunch supporters of Israel today despite the country's many war crimes and mistreatment of people. My Syrian friends know this and is one reason they were quite surprised that Andrew and I were nice people. They figured we all were monsters, apparently.
Lastly, the author admits to some of John's literature as being "the most beautiful of the New Testament."
On this point, I totally agree with Thomas Cahill. What from John's Gospel or letters do you find most beautiful? What do you greatly dislike? Any favorite stories from John?
Any thoughts on any of this? Please share.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Luke's Jesus & A Favorite Parable
"Luke is preeminently the evangelist of God's mercy to sinners; and his gospel is the one that dramatizes most believably Paul's insistence to the Romans that 'God's love for us is shown in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.' Like the father of a prodigal child and like Jesus forgiving the executioners who drove the nails into his hands and feet, God does not wait for our repentance; he loves us anyway.
Luke is, in Dante's words, 'il scriba dela gentilezza di Cristo,' ' the scribe of the kindness of Christ.' Luke's portrait of Jesus is one that has had the most effect on the West; it is, in fact, Luke's Christ that has made an indelible impression on the world's imagination." (pg. 207)
The author states while Matthew disdained religious hypocrisy as the "one thing that can make a Christ-like life impossible," for Luke this was wealth. (pg. 190)
In speaking of a sequence of events in Luke's gospel the author writes, "Luke is building up a purposeful sequence, which begins by answering the question 'Who is my neighbor?' and goes on to remind the reader that unfailing kindness (even to strangers) is possible only if we keep Jesus in mind -- that is, if we pattern our lives on his -- and that such a resolve can be accomplished only if we pray as Jesus did, asking Jesus's loving Father (who is also our Father) to watch over us." (pg. 188)
Desire of the Everlasting Hills by Thomas Cahill
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
Luke is, in Dante's words, 'il scriba dela gentilezza di Cristo,' ' the scribe of the kindness of Christ.' Luke's portrait of Jesus is one that has had the most effect on the West; it is, in fact, Luke's Christ that has made an indelible impression on the world's imagination." (pg. 207)
The author states while Matthew disdained religious hypocrisy as the "one thing that can make a Christ-like life impossible," for Luke this was wealth. (pg. 190)
In speaking of a sequence of events in Luke's gospel the author writes, "Luke is building up a purposeful sequence, which begins by answering the question 'Who is my neighbor?' and goes on to remind the reader that unfailing kindness (even to strangers) is possible only if we keep Jesus in mind -- that is, if we pattern our lives on his -- and that such a resolve can be accomplished only if we pray as Jesus did, asking Jesus's loving Father (who is also our Father) to watch over us." (pg. 188)
Desire of the Everlasting Hills by Thomas Cahill
 |
| The Father Lovingly Welcomes His Son Home |
11Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.
13"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.
25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "
Friday, October 1, 2010
Paul's Jesus
I know I said this book, Desire of the Everlasting Hills by Thomas Cahill, was about Jesus so you're likely confused about last night's post concerning Paul. I don't blame you! :) I think the author is trying to give background to Jesus - the world just before he was born and also people surrounding him or immediately following his life here. Chapter three was The Cosmic Christ: Paul's Jesus. I shared what I did yesterday because I often hear people say Paul invented Christianity. Also I literally laughed when the author said what he did about Paul wondering about the Meaning of his hostess asking if he wanted one lump or two. This guy writes with some subtle humor!
I know a lot of people don't like him, but I do like Paul. To me he is an example of how Jesus can change a person's life. He was a religious man bent on purifying his religion because some new innovation was starting to creep in. He wanted his people to be pure before God and not start having these wrong thoughts about this crazy Jesus person being their Messiah or worse yet - God! He was a good Jewish man and knew the shema as well as the next Jew!
Anyway, you see how Paul went from this religious terrorist to sharing news about Jesus' offer of free salvation? He never spread his religion by force - no telling people to convert, die or pay the tax to live as a second-class citizen. Not that he could anyway seeing how Rome was in control, but again, he never twisted arms to make people convert. Really, how can anyone force another to convert? Does that really "take" in God's eyes if you convert for the sake of not wanting to be killed, taxed or even for the love of a man (for those who convert in order to marry)?
I enjoy authors who draw word pictures for me. So I liked reading and imagining this:
"Dimly, we can see [Paul] entering a new booth, engaging in conversation whomever he can -- potential customers, their servants, his fellow merchants. We can see him taking a room in the tiny house of some merchant from a neighboring booth, gradually gathering a small community around him, instructing them in the Gospel and watching it take root among them. Then far into the night, sometimes with the help of a friendly scribe, sometimes alone, he scratches his letters to the church-communities he has had to leave behind, trying to find the right words, the words that will catch fire in their hearts and enable them to keep going. If nothing else, the overwhelming loneliness of this man -- always beginning again, always 'a stranger in a strange land,' always opening and closing his letters by naming distant friends, always recalling his ties of affection to those he has had to leave behind -- should impress us." (pg. 127)
The author states that Paul made a case for the equality of women reminding the Corinthian church that although the story of creation claims woman came from man (the rib story), from thereon out men have always come from woman - including the Messiah! Although Paul never stated that the rich and poor should have the same income, he would have "no part in treating anyone according to income....Within the community of believers everyone was to be treated equally." (pg. 142)
I especially loved how he summed it up here:
"The cosmic Christ, whose glory knocked Paul from his horse on the road to Damascus, who sums up in himself the whole of the created universe, eventually leads Paul to thoughts that no one has ever had before -- thoughts about the equality of all human beings before God. In this ancient world of masters and slaves, conquerors and conquered, a world that articulates at every turn, precisely and publicly, who's on top, who's on the bottom, Paul writes the unthinkable to his Galatians..."There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (pg. 147)
Another thing of note, the author reminds us that when Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, he asked Paul "why are you persecuting me?" Jesus was in heaven, but the persecution of the believers was felt personally by Jesus and he identified the Church with himself. Also Paul had these thoughts concerning Jesus setting us free: "Like Moses leading the People out of Egyptian slavery, Christ the Redeemer has ransomed us all from the slavery of sin. We must go forward into freedom, not backward into chains." (pg. 148) Paul didn't think a gentile had to become a Jew and keep all the Law (which was given to the Israelites not everyone). In his view, this freedom in Christ was meant to free us from "all human rules and conventions."
Next chapter deals with the Gentile (non-Jewish) Luke's Jesus.
I know a lot of people don't like him, but I do like Paul. To me he is an example of how Jesus can change a person's life. He was a religious man bent on purifying his religion because some new innovation was starting to creep in. He wanted his people to be pure before God and not start having these wrong thoughts about this crazy Jesus person being their Messiah or worse yet - God! He was a good Jewish man and knew the shema as well as the next Jew!
Anyway, you see how Paul went from this religious terrorist to sharing news about Jesus' offer of free salvation? He never spread his religion by force - no telling people to convert, die or pay the tax to live as a second-class citizen. Not that he could anyway seeing how Rome was in control, but again, he never twisted arms to make people convert. Really, how can anyone force another to convert? Does that really "take" in God's eyes if you convert for the sake of not wanting to be killed, taxed or even for the love of a man (for those who convert in order to marry)?
I enjoy authors who draw word pictures for me. So I liked reading and imagining this:
"Dimly, we can see [Paul] entering a new booth, engaging in conversation whomever he can -- potential customers, their servants, his fellow merchants. We can see him taking a room in the tiny house of some merchant from a neighboring booth, gradually gathering a small community around him, instructing them in the Gospel and watching it take root among them. Then far into the night, sometimes with the help of a friendly scribe, sometimes alone, he scratches his letters to the church-communities he has had to leave behind, trying to find the right words, the words that will catch fire in their hearts and enable them to keep going. If nothing else, the overwhelming loneliness of this man -- always beginning again, always 'a stranger in a strange land,' always opening and closing his letters by naming distant friends, always recalling his ties of affection to those he has had to leave behind -- should impress us." (pg. 127)
The author states that Paul made a case for the equality of women reminding the Corinthian church that although the story of creation claims woman came from man (the rib story), from thereon out men have always come from woman - including the Messiah! Although Paul never stated that the rich and poor should have the same income, he would have "no part in treating anyone according to income....Within the community of believers everyone was to be treated equally." (pg. 142)
I especially loved how he summed it up here:
"The cosmic Christ, whose glory knocked Paul from his horse on the road to Damascus, who sums up in himself the whole of the created universe, eventually leads Paul to thoughts that no one has ever had before -- thoughts about the equality of all human beings before God. In this ancient world of masters and slaves, conquerors and conquered, a world that articulates at every turn, precisely and publicly, who's on top, who's on the bottom, Paul writes the unthinkable to his Galatians..."There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (pg. 147)
Another thing of note, the author reminds us that when Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, he asked Paul "why are you persecuting me?" Jesus was in heaven, but the persecution of the believers was felt personally by Jesus and he identified the Church with himself. Also Paul had these thoughts concerning Jesus setting us free: "Like Moses leading the People out of Egyptian slavery, Christ the Redeemer has ransomed us all from the slavery of sin. We must go forward into freedom, not backward into chains." (pg. 148) Paul didn't think a gentile had to become a Jew and keep all the Law (which was given to the Israelites not everyone). In his view, this freedom in Christ was meant to free us from "all human rules and conventions."
Next chapter deals with the Gentile (non-Jewish) Luke's Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)