« Beyond the Right to Life | Main | January/February Issue »
December 07, 2006
Cross Down Crescent Up
The photo here, courtesy of The Layman, is not a spoof. It's real. Two PCUSA churches in Louisiana merged, according to the Layman, and sold one church property to a local Islamic Association, turning down two offers from Christian churches to purchase the property. Perhaps they didn't offer as much money. The church they sold was First Presbyterian Church (Bossier City, LA), and the steeple "was once topped by a cross."
According to the Layman, Rev. Beth Sentell, one of co-pastors of the merged congregation, "said two considerations influenced their decision to sell the church plant to the Islamic Society. First was the amount of money offered, second was the opportunity to engage in interfiath dialogue and friendship." She and her husband, Dr. Web Sentell, "plan to invite the Islamic congregation and its imam to a church supper where the imam will field questions. Dr. Sentell said, 'We worship the same God.'" Co-pastor J. Daniel Hignight was asked "if he would ever seek to lead a member of the Islamic Society to Jesus Christ." He replied, "I don't feel a particular need to convert them to Christianity."
Same God? Islam teaches that God is One and he has no Son. That's not my God, sorry. A Christian pastor who "doesn't feel the need to convert [and that doesn't mean coerce]" to Christianity has forgotten what Christianity is. Maybe these "Christians" really do worship the same God as the Muslims after all?
Muslims in this country, of course, have a right to practice their faith and purchase buildings, and we will continue to see mosques multiply. They will also be free to proselytize here, a freedom denied to Christians in Islamic countries. But there is just something a little unsettling about Christians handing over a building dedicated to Christ to someone dedicating it to the faith of Mohammed, isn't there?
One could almost feel a sense of betrayal. But then again, it's "just a building," isn't it? Yes, but still, it was dedicated to Christ (that Person who is God's Son), one would assume, some years ago.
But as I look at the situation as a whole, including the state of the Presbyterian Church USA in various locations, and in "light" of the statements about which "God" Christians and Muslims worship and whether conversions are desirable, one honestly has to conclude: The Christian faith itself has already been betrayed by many in leadership for some time now. What's the offense of just another building with crescent, when the cross had already been emptied of its power?
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 11:24 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8346aec6b69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cross Down Crescent Up:
» Mere Comments: Cross Down Crescent Up from Stand Firm
PCUSA: Unsalvageable. The photo here, courtesy of The Layman, is not a spoof. Its real. Two PCUSA churches in Louisiana merged, according to the Layman, and sold one church property to a local Islamic Association, turning down two offers from Chr... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 7, 2006 2:23:35 PM
Comments
This reminds me of the Christian heresy of regarding the human body as "just a shell". Perhaps the same type of unbelief is at the core of both. It is a failure to view time and space as being redeemed and sanctified. And that's merely an aside to the trinitarian heresy these folks are proudly displaying!
Posted by: mairnéalach | Dec 7, 2006 11:33:22 AM
Putting the cross over these folks' new, combined "tolerant" church would seem to be whitewashing a tomb, anyway.
Posted by: Joe Long | Dec 7, 2006 12:00:45 PM
Muslims in this country, of course, have a right to practice their faith and purchase buildings...
I take issue with this. Why do they have a right to import jihad, sharia, and everything else about their dark-hearted totalitarian system that turns everything it touches to lifeless sand?
Yes, they are permitted, under the guidance of our Ruling Poltroons, but a right?
Posted by: Gintas | Dec 7, 2006 12:35:12 PM
Without in any way condoning the deplorable reasoning behind the decision of the PSCUSA congregatgions to sell a church building to Muslims, let alone their abandonment of Our Lord's command to bring all nations and peoples to Him, a related question comes to mind. In urban neighborhoods in Chicago and Philadelphia where I have lived, I can think of several former synagogues that were sold to Christian congregations. (I now live two blocks from one.) If we are going to object to a church being sold to become a Muslim temple, should there not also be an equal objection to Jews selling their former temples to Christians? If one objects that Allah is a different God than our because Muslims believe he has no son, does not the same objection hold for Jews who believe that JHWH has no son? And likewise on the same principle, why should this be a one-way street -- should not Christians refrain from buying either Jewish or Muslim temples on this rationale?
I wish to be clear that what I am after is consistency of both thought and principle of action. Fr. Neuhaus in "First Things" has frequently argued that the god of Islam is the same as the Christian god, but misunderstood and worshipped in ignorance. I have never found that convincing, but if the Trinity is to be the touchstone of whether one believes in the Christian god or not, then one must bite the bullet and argue that Jews likewise do not believe in the same god we do. And if so, then why interact with them differently with regard to the issue raised in this post?
Note that the question here is not whether we have generally peaceful relations with Jews while we do not with Muslims. The issue raised is specifically that those who do not accept the Son do not believe in the Christian god, and consequently that consecrated property should never be interchanged between the two sides.
To put the quesiton a bit more broadly, should Christians out of priciple never relinquish a deconsecrated church building to any other use, but necessarily tear it down instead? If not, then why is it worse to allow a former church to be converted into a house of worhsip for another faith, rather than converted into an MRI imaging center or an auto repair shop (to name two instances of which I am personally aware)?
Again, I'm not arguing for or against; I'm raising hard questions. Have at it, folks!!
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 7, 2006 12:39:22 PM
Dear Gintas,
There are different sorts of rights. Mr. Kushiner is refering to a legal right, which Muslims certainly have, as distinct from a legal right. There is no legal litmus test of regious belief for admitting or barring immigrants. (You might want to read the extended debate under the blog "Rudy Giuliani's Damascus Road" on Nov. 18th, which dealt with this at length.) Or do you believe the Constitution should be amended to require every citizen to be a Christian?
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 7, 2006 12:43:18 PM
There are different sorts of rights. Mr. Kushiner is refering to a legal right, which Muslims certainly have, as distinct from a legal right.
Now I'm really confused. ;-) I think I know what you mean. I wasn't clear in my wording but did say it was _permitted_, by which I suppose I was thinking it was legally permitted, in which case we are in agreement there.
Or do you believe the Constitution should be amended to require every citizen to be a Christian?
Straw man, but should Muslims have the legal right to pursue jihad, sharia, etc.? In an ideal Liberal order, I suppose civilizational suicide cannot be opposed by _any_ means, because those means are illiberal. Even when the result is even more illiberal.
Posted by: Gintas | Dec 7, 2006 12:53:07 PM
Good Lord Mr Gintas, if you wish to exclude people of particular religious persusasions based upon the more unsavory aspects of their faith, then I'm curious as to who exactly you would admit? Perhaps the Quakers and followers of more or less Anabaptistic traditions; though I find some modern followers of the Baptist confessions to be rather frightening at times.
I find the arguments over the 'Godness' of Islam's conception of God to be rather silly, when viewed in light of the Christian Tradition. If the Fathers could concieve of Plato believing in God- sort of- then surely we can concede at least a little common ground in our conception of deity with Islam (and Judaism, which has the excact same problems per Trinitarianism and the Incarnation as Islam). There is no ground lost in saying that Muslims worship God anymore than ground is lost by saying a devout Jew worships God. St. Paul seems to have had no problem with saying that many devout Jews of his day (himself formerly) worshiped and sought to serve God, though 'not according to knowledge.' Did St. Paul thereby undermine the Christian faith? I think not. When St. Justin Martyr and others talk about ancient philosophers being 'Christians before Christ,' in a manner of speaking, they do not undermine Christianity or reduce the exclusiveness of the faith. And so on.
It is certainly important to make clear the differences between Islam and Christianity and the necessity of faith in Christ. But we needn't resort to treating Islamic conceptions of deity as if they were pagan or polytheistic or something. The language of the Scriptures and of the Fathers works perfectly well for me in 'inter-faith' relations.
Posted by: Jonathan | Dec 7, 2006 12:59:24 PM
...if you wish to exclude people of particular religious persusasions based upon the more unsavory aspects of their faith...
Yet another Straw Man. I'll state it plainly: many aspects of Islam should be forbidden. Jihad, sharia, polygamy, for example. They are completely out of line with Western Civilization (and Christianity), in fact are directly set _against_ it.
I sense that many Christians think they can make some kind of alliance of convenience with Islam, because Muslims are religious, thus they are our "brothers in the fight against Godlessness" so to speak. I think you'll find you're making a deal with the devil.
Posted by: Gintas | Dec 7, 2006 1:24:49 PM
Mohommmedans in our country are not free to practice jihad inasmuch as this means religously justified murder of "infidels." I thought that this was all Gintas was saying.
Posted by: John Peterson | Dec 7, 2006 1:25:34 PM
>If we are going to object to a church being sold to become a Muslim temple, should there not also be an equal objection to Jews selling their former temples to Christians?
Obviously not from the same people.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 7, 2006 1:30:26 PM
I think that the conditions of this particular sale of a church building, and the spin surrounding it, constitute pandering to Islam but even more, to the sensibilities of the media - an act of near-idolatry, indeed - not so much to Mahomet as to Oprah and her ilk. It's all about looking more tolerant, accepting, multi-whatever, in the eyes of other upperclass white post-Christian liberals, and has precious little to do with the funny little Moslems whose beliefs and potential impact this church apparently doesn't think it has to take seriously. Just be nice to them, and trust to the contagiousness of niceness - never mind that the new invaders, much like our European ancestors arriving on this continent, might well have well-developed immunities to certain pathologies devastating to us.
It is interesting that those who loudest lay claim to respecting other religions, rarely show the very basic level of respect which takes the other guy at his word. Non-Moslems grandly telling Moslems what TRUE Islam is, and poo-poohing their own adamant protestations of antipathy and declarations of hostile intent, are being appallingly condescending and disrespectful, at least to my way of thinking.
Posted by: Joe Long | Dec 7, 2006 1:34:20 PM
if you wish to exclude people of particular religious persusasions based upon the more unsavory aspects of their faith
Perhaps you don't join me in hoping that Homeland Security succeeds in doing just this?
Posted by: Gintas | Dec 7, 2006 2:01:41 PM
>>>Fr. Neuhaus in "First Things" has frequently argued that the god of Islam is the same as the Christian god, but misunderstood and worshipped in ignorance.<<<
Fr. Neuhaus is merely bowing in the general direction of the Curia Romana, an organization of prospective Dhimmis if ever there was one. In the Cold War, when it looked like the Communists were going to win, the Curia developed Paul VI's "Ostpolitik" on the assumption that some sort of accommodation would be needed to ensure the survival of the Church (or at least, of the Curia). Today, with the crescent ascendant in Europe, we see the same sort of spiritual poltroonery in the direction of Mecca. But I sincerely doubt that a theologian the calibre of Benedict XVI actually believes much of what his Secretariat of State says with regard to Islam. Certainly, his selection of a quotation from Manuel II Paleologus was no accident, and contrary to what is now being said, I have no doubt that it actually represents Benedict's true feelings.
The fact is, Islam is a gross distortion of both Christianity and Judaism, which not only claims to supersede both, but also has the chutzpah to tell us (both Christians and Jews) not only that OUR sacred texts are in error, but on how we should be interpreting the texts that remain--while allowing no exegesis or critical examination of their own sacred texts (smart move, since the Quran makes about as much sense as Dianetics).
The fact is, the Allah of Islam is not the Holy Trinity. It is not Yahweh Sabaoth. Allah is in fact a syncretistic mishmash of monotheistic traditons that ends up exalting the worst features of all the sources it has accessed, creating a god who is cruel, capricious, and most certainly NOT the lover of mankind.
The Quran claims to be the verbatim dictation of the angel Gabriel to the prophet. Yet it is also a book that does enshrine violence, does advocate the subjugation of other peoples, does permit conversion by coercion, and does promise its adherents global temporal dominion. If you can judge the spirit by its fruits, then what can we say of the spirits that inspired this religion?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 7, 2006 2:38:26 PM
>>>Non-Moslems grandly telling Moslems what TRUE Islam is, and poo-poohing their own adamant protestations of antipathy and declarations of hostile intent, are being appallingly condescending and disrespectful, at least to my way of thinking.<<<
Just too damned bad, Joe. Toleration is a two-way street, and a religion that brooks no criticism either of its texts, or its beliefs, or its behavior, or its leadership, and which uses violence to intimidate its interlocutors is not looking for toleration but rather to subjugate others. It's not a religion of peace, but a religion of perpetual grievance.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 7, 2006 2:40:39 PM
Dear Gintas,
What our Constitution and laws properly distinguish between is creed and conduct. The 1st Amendment freedom of speech clause gives anyone the legal right to believe and advocate his convictions (subject to libel laws, which are facts and not beliefs, or creation of immediate danger, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre, which likewise does not involve convictions of conscience), no matter how abhorrent -- fascism, communism, racism, abortion, even jihad and the ideas of Peter Singer. What it does not to do is give anyone the right to act on their beliefs in a manner that causes actual harm to others.
Obviously, the paradox is that the person who advocates is likely to be the person who acts. But what hard experience has taught us is that efforts to eliminate danger by proscribing ideas we deem wrong, and proscribing those who hold them as well, results in even worse and more bloodthirsty tyranny. We live with a certain degree of risk because we cherish freedom and wish our own consciences to be respected. (Which Supreme Court justice was it who said, "Freedom is the freedom to be wrong"?)
In the last analysis, your approach is precisely what is both advocated and practiced by none other than the jihdists themselves. They hold that Islam is the truth, and anyone who does not submit to it is a poison in the body politic that must be expurgated by blood. To say that "We can do it but they can't because we're actually right and they're wong" is just question-begging, circular reasoning, and special pleading.
Thus my question about amending the Constitution is not a straw man. It is the logical outcome of your position. By contrast, the defense of free speech does not entail allowing jihad, precisely because it distinguishes speech from overt acts. To assert othrwise is your straw man.
Nor do I think anyone here is proposing an "alliance" with Islam, though there are some (such as Peter Kreeft) who have done that regarding issues such as abortion.
Dear Joe,
Agree, the conditons of this particular sale were ones of pandering. My questions are therefore ones of general principle.
Dear David,
I'm not sure of the import of your cryptic post. Please clarify.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 7, 2006 2:43:51 PM
>>> I'll state it plainly: many aspects of Islam should be forbidden. Jihad, sharia, polygamy, for example.<<<
Islam could certainly use taming of the sort that the British Raj imposed on the more unsavory aspects of Hinduism. We need a little more of the spirit of Charlie Napier in dealing with the Muslim community. Napier, as Governor General of India, determined to suppress suttee (the ritual burning alive of widows on their husband's pyres). The local Hindu holy men protested loudly that suttee was their time-honored tradition. Napier responded that the British were all for tradition. In fact, the British, too, had an old tradition: "If a man burns a woman alive, we hang him. You build your funeral pyre. Next to it, we shall build a gallows. Then let each people act according to their tradition".
That was the end of suttee in India.
A similar approach to Sharia is needed as well. If it is the Muslim custom to kill a woman who commits adulter, it should be our custom to hang the man who kills the woman. If it is Muslim custom to kill apostates, it should be our custom to hang the man who violates freedom of conscience. If it is Muslim custom to burn down a newspaper that prints a cartoon making fun of Mohammed, it should be our custom to put the arsonist away for life.
I'm merely being multicultural here. Let the Muslims enjoy their customs. Let us enjoy ours, as well. Multiculturalism can be a two-way street.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 7, 2006 2:46:59 PM
>I'm not sure of the import of your cryptic post. Please clarify.
Simply that a Christian would object to the conversion of a church where God had been worshipped to use as a place to worship a false god. If a synagogue became a place where God is worshipped in the way He desires presumably those same Christians would have no reason to object. However I can see where an Orthodox Jew might object.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 7, 2006 2:51:03 PM
>>>Non-Moslems grandly telling Moslems what TRUE Islam is, and poo-poohing their own adamant protestations of antipathy and declarations of hostile intent, are being appallingly condescending and disrespectful, at least to my way of thinking.<<<
Ooops. I re-read Joe's post, and having worked my way around the logical double negative, I find my self in fierce agreement with him. I think.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 7, 2006 2:53:38 PM
Whilst the "profanation" of redundant church buildings always strikes some subconscious cord within me, it never fails to reinforce the harsh reality that Christianity is a "use it or lose it" enterprise. In other words, it's do or die.
I know of countless former church buildings now converted to cult hangouts, art galleries, boutiques, residences, affordable housing/flats, etc. The attitude expressed by the selling party here seems to illustrate the malaise and sugary sloth that has gripped Mainliners as a whole...they are watching their denominations wither while their stomachs are bursting from too many chicken suppers and pie socials.
The crescent atop a steeple is an ill omen. We must prepare ourselves.
Posted by: Dominic Glisinski | Dec 7, 2006 2:54:29 PM
Stuart - I was agreeing with you! Perhaps I did so awkwardly. It is the non-Moslem who lectures us that "True Islam is a Religion of Peace" and, grandly, that "All faiths have truths in common" and so forth, who seems to me to be condescending.
Basic respect for Islam would seem to mean accepting it on its own self-declared terms: that of perpetual war with me and my civilization. "No, we're really good buddies, no matter what YOU say" is a contemptuous (and reckless) thing to say to a man threatening your life...I might say it to a three-year-old with an orange plastic cap gun, but it would be raw condescension if he did.
Posted by: Joe Long | Dec 7, 2006 3:03:33 PM
Yeah Joe, it amounts to telling the guy he's insane or stupid.
If you really respect him, and he attempts to practice his beliefs, you need to either kill him or lock him up.
Of course, the best thing to do--before he puts his beliefs into practice--is to win him to the Logos.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Dec 7, 2006 3:34:38 PM
>>>If we are going to object to a church being sold to become a Muslim temple, should there not also be an equal objection to Jews selling their former temples to Christians?<<<
Isn't that the wrong way around? The problem is consecrated ground being lost to a non-Christian religion. I could see a Jewish person being upset that a synagogue became a church but not a Christian person.
I strongly agree with Mr. Koehl's comments in this thread. Christianity doesn't purport to find anything in the Jewish sacred text that can't already be said to be hoped for by Jews. The conservative members of both sides believe that the Jewish sacred text is inerrant so they can agree on a great many matters and can claim a common framework even if they disagree on the end goods of that framework. None of this requires trinitarianism being held by either party. If you add a conservative Muslim to the mix everything goes out the window. The Muslim would view *all* texts held by the Jew and the Christian as corrupt.
Posted by: Nick | Dec 7, 2006 3:53:21 PM
>>>Of course, the best thing to do--before he puts his beliefs into practice--is to win him to the Logos.<<<
The Muslims have an interesting but effective way of dealing with Muslims who achieve that degree of enlightenment. That they have to employ it in this day and age points to an underlying degree of intellectual and spiritual insecurity, one inherent in the Quran itself. People who know they have the true faith have no reason to resort to coercion to keep people in it.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 7, 2006 4:24:49 PM
I gather that the merger of theses two congregations is because they are shrinking.
And the reason they are shrinking is because...?
You've got to appreciate the logical symetry here. If they had the faith to see how tragic and frankly sinful it would be to give sacred ground to the enemy of the Gospel (not to mention of western Civilization) perhaps they wouldn't be shrinking such that they had to merge. More faithful faiths would multiplied.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Dec 7, 2006 5:28:27 PM
I've got two first cousins in Africa engaged in "the best thing to do" and they are fully cognizant of how careful they have to be to avoid that "effective way".
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Dec 7, 2006 5:40:32 PM
Mr. Kushiner wrote:
Same God? Islam teaches that God is One and he has no Son. That's not my God, sorry.
The question has not really been answered: Do, then, the Jews worship the same God as Christians? Yes, yes, yes, Islam is a worse heresy, i.e., than Judaism. The religion that worships the PCUSA god, arguably worse yet... but if we are going to claim that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians (however ignorantly or improperly) on the basis that they say God is one and has no son, then what do we say about the Jews, who, as Mr. Altena ably pointed out, have St. Paul arguing that they do worship the same God?
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Dec 7, 2006 5:42:00 PM
Another disgrace from the PCUSA. This sell out, apparently for top dollar to the religion of intolerance, Islam, is a nice metaphor for for what mainline Protestantism has become.
I doubt the Founding Fathers had any idea that "religious freedom" would become a tool for Islam, which is a totalitarian, imperialistic political movement as well. Even assuming that we can't discriminate against Islam because it is a religion (however bloodthirsty and atagonistic towards Western Civilization), there is no constitutional right for foreigners to immigrate here. We have every right to stop importing any group we see fit. Adherents to a religion that is violent, misogynistic, and at war with the West would be an obvious choice.
Posted by: Grace | Dec 7, 2006 6:14:22 PM
>>>Do, then, the Jews worship the same God as Christians? Yes, yes, yes, Islam is a worse heresy, i.e., than Judaism.<<<
Judaism is not a heresy (heresy applies only to Christianity). And the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is qualitatively different from the relationship between Islam and either Christianity or Judaism.
Put briefly, Judaism is the root from which Christianity sprung. The Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New. Christianity considers itself the New Jerusalem, with the promises made to Israel fulfilled in Christ. The first Christians considered the Old Testament to be their "Scriptures" (the New Testament had not yet been compiled, and in some cases, even written), and the Church deliberately rebuffed all efforts to say that Yahweh of the Old Testament was not the Father of the New (which is why our Bible has an Old and a New Testament, and why we don't honor St. Marcion--though neo-Marcionism remains a constant temptation to Christians). Christians believe that the Old Testament is a prophetic revelation of Christ, as well as the "backstory" of salvation history.
Jews for their part do not accept that Jesus was the Messiah, and thus do not consider the New Testament to be Scripture, but the fundamental bond and unity between the two faiths is demonstrable and unshakable. It's an historical fact.
Islam, on the other hand, is a syncretistic cult that combined elements of the preexisting Arabian polytheistic cults, bits and pieces of Judaism, and aspects of Nestorian and monotheistic Christianity, held together by a series of opportunistic "revelations". It has no organic relationship to either Christianity or Judaism; it cannot credibly claim to be a "new revelation", nor can it credibly claim to be able to correct or modify the Scriptures and Traditions of the older religions. It's a classic case of bottom rail on top--the new kid on the block claims priority over the kids who have lived their all their lives. The derivative cult claims to have an exclusive chokehold on truth--one so strong that if you try to question it, they will kill you.
Shows a fundamental flaw in the Islamic world view.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 7, 2006 6:15:28 PM
>>>I'm merely being multicultural here. Let the Muslims enjoy their customs. Let us enjoy ours, as well. Multiculturalism can be a two-way street.<<<
Sounds like your over your flu. Glad to have you back.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Dec 7, 2006 6:15:54 PM
Judaism is the root from which Christianity sprung.
A slight disagreement on this statement. I believe that Judaism is in fact the remnant of that root after its rejection of its messiah and should be seen as a rival of Christianity. Judaism's full existence came with the destruction of the Temple, the failure of the Bar Kohkba revolt and the creation of the Mishna and later the of Talmud.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Dec 7, 2006 6:47:47 PM
Well Stuart, I've no quarrel with your answer, but that is not what Mr. Kushiner said, and I realize that was not the point of the post, so he should be cheerfully excused. The only reason I pointed it out is that I've heard similarly deficient reasons (e.g., from Ravi Zacharias, et al.) as to why we don't worship the same God as muslims, which apply equally to an exclusion of the Jews... not to mention Calvinists ;-)
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Dec 7, 2006 9:05:00 PM
This is turning out to be a bad week.
Here in Australia our Parliament has just voted to allow so called therapeutic cloning. Selling Churches to Muslims must rate as an equal low.
Stuart Koehl's comments are spot on. Islam appropriates OT/NT characters and doctrine and presents itself as the final perfected version, only it is a bastardised religion w/o God, w/o Christ, no understanding of how we can be made right with God and therefore offering no hope at all.
No wonder they are at war amongst themselves and with everyone one else
Posted by: David Palmer | Dec 7, 2006 9:47:57 PM
Steve, gee, Calvinists- I'e known and read not a few Calvinists and Lutheran sorts who, if they represented the only version of Christianity, would send me scrambling for the nearest Sufi shrine. And this is the thing that bothers me about the tenor of many conservative Christian conversations about Islam- Islam is presented as this uniformly pagan religion with an angry sullen god living off in the desert, and Christianity is the exact opposite with a happy loving God whose followers have never done any wrong (which I daresay many Protestants would almost say, those wretched Catholics and such not being true Christians and all). I doubt many of these people have read the Quran, much less any other Muslim literature, and much less Islamic mystic literature.
One needn't go that far in Muslim thought, particularly in Sufi thought, to find a conception of God that is not only not angry and loveless, but sometimes has a tendency to veer off into universalism. Incidentally, it is also in Sufism that one can perhaps best see the common heritage of Aristotle and Plato that Western and Eastern Europe and the Islamic world- as we both have an essentially 'Western' worldview, as compared to, say, Medieval Subsaharan Africa or East Asia, which are not Western by any means.
The primary problem with Islam, and this is quite evident in Sufism, is not a lack of a God who is loving and gracious. The Quran is full of the relative ease, if you will, of repentance. One of the great debates in early Islam was over sola fide vs. something else- centuries before such debates would erupt in Christianity. The real problem is the lack of an understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and all the things that flow from such an understanding. Absent the Incarnation, Sufi mysticism's fights of love tend to end in absorbtion in God and a sort of pantheism.
One does not sacrifice the truth of Christianity by refusing to engage in uninformed invictive. Granted, it is much easier to resort to broad generalizations and a bumpersticker approach to history and theology- which incidentally is quite helpful to those who have much to gain in propogating visions of World War III against the Muslim hordes.
Posted by: Jonathan | Dec 8, 2006 1:50:26 AM
>Steve, gee, Calvinists- I'e known and read not a few Calvinists and Lutheran sorts who, if they represented the only version of Christianity, would send me scrambling for the nearest Sufi shrine.
That tells us a bit about you.
>One does not sacrifice the truth of Christianity by refusing to engage in uninformed invictive.
Good thing nobody is doing that.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 8, 2006 4:41:04 AM
>>>Islam is presented as this uniformly pagan religion with an angry sullen god living off in the desert<<<
A pretty accurate description of Allah, if you ask me.
>>>Christianity is the exact opposite with a happy loving God whose followers have never done any wrong <<<
I don't know any Christians who would contend that the followers of Christ have never sinned, or that terrible crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity (at the very least, Protestants like to point out Catholic crimes, and Catholics Protestant ones).
But the fundamental tenets of Christianity so plainly oppose such behavior that when it occurs it is clearly an abuse or distortion of Christ's teaching. On the other hand, when Muslims employ violence against infidels, they are acting entirely in accord with the founder of their religion and the tenets of their holy scripture.
The commonly held attitude by our society (from President Bush on down) is an excellent example of transference: that Islam is a good religion distorted by a small number of evil adherents more properly applies to Christianity. The truth is rather that Islam is a bad religion redeemed by some of its better adherents.
>>>The Quran is full of the relative ease, if you will, of repentance.<<<
It is also rigid and inflexible, implaccable in its legalism. Thus, when a man and woman who had committed adultery went to the Prophet and said they wanted to confess their sin, after asking if they were certain, had them stoned to death in accordance with the revealed teachings of Allah.
The contrast with the words and actions of Christ in connection with the woman taken in adultery cannot be more stark.
>>>One needn't go that far in Muslim thought, particularly in Sufi thought, to find a conception of God that is not only not angry and loveless, but sometimes has a tendency to veer off into universalism.<<<
Sufis, in addition to being a minority among Muslims, are generally considered to be heretics by the majority. It's like saying the Amish are the mainstream of Christianity.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 8, 2006 5:28:42 AM
While Stuart is (obvioulsy) basically correct about the asymmetrical relation between Christianity and Judaism on the one hand, and Christinaity and Islam on the other, only Steve Nicoloso (thanks!) and Nick have fully engaged my points. Which are (to reiterate):
1) The criterion that Mr. Kushiner put forward for saying that the god of Islam (Allah) is not the Christian God is the rejection of the Trinity (and by implication also the Incarnation) -- specifically, the Son (Christ) as fully God (and fully man -- God incarnate). But if that is so, then we must by the same logic say that the god of Judaism (YHWH) also is not the Christian God. On this basis, the descent of Christianity from Judaism is irrelevant.
To be fair, Mr. Kushiner made his observation as an aside and perhaps it wasn't intended to bear this sort of weight. But this principle is in fact frequently invoked by those who deny that the gods of Islam and Christianity are the same. My point is that sauce for the Islamic goose is by parity of reasoning sauce for the Jewish gander.
Nick writes:
"Christianity doesn't purport to find anything in the Jewish sacred text that can't already be said to be hoped for by Jews. The conservative members of both sides believe that the Jewish sacred text is inerrant so they can agree on a great many matters and can claim a common framework even if they disagree on the end goods of that framework. None of this requires trinitarianism being held by either party."
I think you'd get a huge objection to this from the Orthodox Jewish side. From their persective, our assertion that God is Triune is polytheism, and that the Messiah is God incarnate as man is pure blasphemy and a turning to Greco-Roman fables. This gets back to Joe Long's point about taking the other side's self-definition vis-a-vis us seriously.
Implicitly, Stuart proposes that instead of the Trinity and the Incarnation as criteria, that we assert the God of Islam to be different from the Christian God, but the God of Judaism to be the same, on the basis of (if you will) legitimate spiritual descent vs. bastardy and theft. How, he doesn't entirely spell out.
At this point, I'm not finding either argument completely satisfactory. Of course I'm inclined by temperament to wish to affirm that the Allah stands on one side opposed to JHWH and the Trinity on the other, but I have a responsibility to follow objective logic rather than subjective cravings. So what I'm suggesting is that we need to give this a *lot* more sustained thought and coherent reasoning, and less visceral reaction.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 8, 2006 6:52:50 AM
>>>Implicitly, Stuart proposes that instead of the Trinity and the Incarnation as criteria, that we assert the God of Islam to be different from the Christian God, but the God of Judaism to be the same, on the basis of (if you will) legitimate spiritual descent vs. bastardy and theft. How, he doesn't entirely spell out.<<<
No, James, I am being very EXPLICIT. Yahweh of the Old Testament is indeed the Father of the New. The early Christians were very clear on that point, and rejected all who would separate the two--such as Marcion.
The Bible is not like the Quran. It was not written (or dictated) by one man, in one place, at one time. Rather, it is the unfolding story of salvation history, a perpetual revelation of God's divine plan for us. The Old Testament ends before the climax of the story, but it provides the backstory and foreshadows that climax. The New Testament begins in medias res--we're in the middle of the story, a story that presupposes and accepts the Old Testament. By the same token, like the Illiad, it ends before the completion of the story, a story in which we remain participants, that will end only with the Second Coming in Glory.
Paul tells us that the Jews are part of God's divine plan, that the promises made to them will not be repudiated. The New Covenant does not supersede but rather completes the Old. We as Christians cannot be supersessionists, whereas Muslims absolutely are.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 8, 2006 7:12:09 AM
Dear David and Nick,
Thank you for your responses and comments regarding my question of conversion of the church property. But, agian, I don't think my point has been fully engaged.
Nick writes:
"Isn't that the wrong way around? The problem is consecrated ground being lost to a non-Christian religion. I could see a Jewish person being upset that a synagogue became a church but not a Christian person."
David writes:
"Simply that a Christian would object to the conversion of a church where God had been worshipped to use as a place to worship a false god. If a synagogue became a place where God is worshipped in the way He desires presumably those same Christians would have no reason to object. However I can see where an Orthodox Jew might object."
Again, this gets back to Joe Long's point about respecting the self-definition of the other side vis-a-vis us. If the Christian is to be upset at the conversion of a deconsecrated church to use by Muslims (or any other religion), and likewise the Jew is to be upset at the conversion of a deconsecrated synagogue to use by Christians (or any other religion), because the Christian and Jew regard this as sacrilege (despite the deconsecration) by a false religion, then should we not have the decency to respect that?
Additionally, if it is wrong in principle to relinquish a formerly consecrated property to use for false worship, then why is it not equally wrong in principle to adopt for our use a property previously used (and thus defiled) by false worship? If we think that we can take a building once used for false worship and use it for our true worship instead, why does that not constitute not taking seriously what they did there? Why does the concern run one way here but not the other? In effect, the implicit assumption here seems to be that you can exorcise and consecrate a previously defiled property to Christian use, but that you can't really ever deconsecrate a property -- which is clearly false.
A further question is how this relates to the spiritual principle of the "despoiling of the Egyptians" set forth by the Fathers. Some pagan temples weree taken over and converted to churches by Christians. But to my recollection the Israelites never did this with pagan temples, but always destroyed them instead.
Again, I'm not advocating indifference to this. I'm suggesting that we need to think through the underlying principles here more carefully, rather than positing one-way streets of relation that all conveniently run in the direction we desire. Christ enunciated the Golden Rule, and we ought to observe it by respecting the religious sensibilities of others as much as we wish our own to be respected.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 8, 2006 7:18:00 AM
"No, James, I am being very EXPLICIT. Yahweh of the Old Testament is indeed the Father of the New. The early Christians were very clear on that point, and rejected all who would separate the two--such as Marcion."
This still doesn't address the main problem. Since the Jews deny the Son and the Holy Ghost, they would deny that JHWH is God the Father in the sense that we say. If the Trinity is made the irreducilbe touchstone for idetifying whether someone worships the Christian God, then by definition Judaism does not. And if it's not made the irreducible touchstone, then we have the problem of how we hold to the Trinity as an irreducible doctrinal essential of our Christian profession for salvation.
I'm not suggesting Marcionite separation; I'm saying that I don't see a clear, carefully worked-out argument with sound criteria being articulated. I would like to have one, instead of off-hand assertions.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 8, 2006 7:24:39 AM
>If the Christian is to be upset at the conversion of a deconsecrated church to use by Muslims (or any other religion), and likewise the Jew is to be upset at the conversion of a deconsecrated synagogue to use by Christians (or any other religion), because the Christian and Jew regard this as sacrilege (despite the deconsecration) by a false religion, then should we not have the decency to respect that?
I respect their right to be upset but I also know they are in error.
>Additionally, if it is wrong in principle to relinquish a formerly consecrated property to use for false worship, then why is it not equally wrong in principle to adopt for our use a property previously used (and thus defiled) by false worship?
>A further question is how this relates to the spiritual principle of the "despoiling of the Egyptians" set forth by the Fathers. Some pagan temples weree taken over and converted to churches by Christians. But to my recollection the Israelites never did this with pagan temples, but always destroyed them instead.
If you want to argue for destroying the buildings and then rebuilding on the property I can live with that.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 8, 2006 7:45:28 AM
>>>Since the Jews deny the Son and the Holy Ghost, they would deny that JHWH is God the Father in the sense that we say.<<<
This simply indicates that the revelation they accept is incomplete, not that it is incorrect. It is not as though the Jews invented something out of whole cloth and then attempted to pass it off on the rest of the world as authentic. Rather, they had and have something authentic, but they are not able to see it for what it truly is. They do not know what they do not know. Thus, Paul's exchatological hope that at the end the Jews, too, will be brought into fullness of Christ, even though they did not accept Him in this world.
>>>If the Trinity is made the irreducilbe touchstone for idetifying whether someone worships the Christian God, then by definition Judaism does not.<<<
Let us say that I know Mr. Smith, my next door neighbor, and I have a cordial relationship with him. But I do not know that Mr. Smith is also doctor and at the same time a scoutmaster. Someone closer to Mr. Smith knows all of these things about him. Undoubtedly, that person has a fuller knowledge of Mr. Smith than I do, but we both know Mr. Smith.
So it is with the Jews and God: they know Yahweh to the extent that He revealed himself to them through Torah. They have a covenant with Him, and He does not reneg on his promises. Do they know Him as well as Christians? As a Christian, I would have to say that they do not. But I cannot deny that they know Him, or that, ontologically, Yahweh is the same God that I worship, since there are implicit references to God's triune nature throughout the Old Testament (which was of immeasurable aid to the Fathers at both Nicaea and Constantinople).
The knowledge of the Jews is incomplete, but what they DO know is true, for what was revealed to them is also revealed to us, and we acknowledge that revelation ourselves.
On the other hand, ontologically, Allah of the Muslims has very distinctive and DIFFERENT characteristics than those shared by the Yahweh of the Jews and the Trinity of the Christians. Hence, Allah of the Muslims is NOT the same God worshipped by both Christians and Jews.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 8, 2006 8:42:00 AM
>>>I respect their right to be upset but I also know they are in error.<<<
Actually, in many areas small Jewish congregations often lease space for services from Christian churches, and conversely, small Christian communities frequently lease space for their services in synagogues or Jewish community centers. There is no real conflict or dichotomy here: Jews as a rule do not proselytize, and Christians have pretty much given up on strong-arming Jews or blaming them for all the world's miseries (as Eliot Abrams has written, the problem today is not that Christians want to kill Jews, but that they want to marry Jews). By acknowledging freedom of conscience, we are also free to provide fraternal aid to each other as long as neither of us has to compromise our respective truth claims.
On the other hand, it seems folly to me to give aid and assistance to a religion whose avowed purpose is to place us in a state of subjugation to them, whose behavior towards Christians and Jews was, and remains to this day, highly oppressive in most places where Muslims predominate, and who do not accept the primacy of conscience in matters of faith (though "there is no compulsion in relgion", Muslims like to present non-believers with Hobson's choice in the matter).
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 8, 2006 8:53:33 AM
Before the advent of Christianity in the Roman Empire, Jews were actually quite successful at proselytizing--between 6 and 9 million folks of the 60 million person Empire were Jewish around the time of Jesus. A significant proportion of those were converts. There were even more hangers-on who liked the religion but couldn't stomach (or perhaps the inhibition was to be located somewhat lower :-) the requirements.
Good examples, Stuart. The level of Jews has stayed pretty constant over the centuries, with the biggest "threat" being annihilation through intermarriage.
A priest friend of mine who has adopted several children from India says that one of the reasons Hindus dislike Christians is because that the converted Brahmins (or other upper-caste persons) will actually marry converted Dhalits (formerly untouchables) and, by taking the Brahmin name will no longer be identifiable as Dhalit--thus upending the Karmic order of the universe.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Dec 8, 2006 9:31:09 AM
It seems fairly clear that the West intends to "Tolerate" itself straight into voluntary dhimmitude.
Posted by: mairnéalach | Dec 8, 2006 10:11:51 AM
Not unique, 1st Baptist Church in Rochester, MN (now "Autumn Ridge" did the same thing: turned down a Christian high school in favor of a madrassas.
Posted by: LAbriAlumn | Dec 8, 2006 10:34:12 AM
>>>Before the advent of Christianity in the Roman Empire, Jews were actually quite successful at proselytizing--between 6 and 9 million folks of the 60 million person Empire were Jewish around the time of Jesus. A significant proportion of those were converts. There were even more hangers-on who liked the religion but couldn't stomach (or perhaps the inhibition was to be located somewhat lower :-) the requirements.<<<
Entirely true. While the number of full converts was low due to the circumcision requirement, the number of "God-Fearers" was much larger (the Centurion in the Gospel might have been one of these, since he had endowed the local synagogue). These were essentially gentile catechumens who chose to observe Mosaic law and worship as Jews, without being fully initiated into the religion. Under the Hasmoneans, the Jews conquered Idumean Arabia and converted all the Idumeans, thus opening the door to a certain Antipater and his son Herod to displace the Hasmonean dynasty.
Jews and Christians were actually competitors for the large pool of gentiles leaning towards monotheism in the second, third and fourth centuries, and this explains at least some of the antipathy between the two groups (at the time of Constantine's conversion, there were probably more Jews than Christians in the Empire, and even more of them in Parthia, outside the Empire). In fact, Chrysostom's polemical homilies against the Jews can only be understood if one recognizes that Judaism was a large, self-confident and outward-looking religion even at the turn of the fourth century. It took a lot to make Jews a more pietistic and non-proselytizing religion--three disasterous wars and a series of legal injunctions dating from the time of Justinian finally did it.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 8, 2006 10:43:51 AM
When considering the churches, stop and think of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
Consider the map of Christendom in A. D. 600, and then again in A. D. 800 and A. D. 1687.
Remember Tours and the gates of Vienna.
Posted by: LAbriAlumn | Dec 8, 2006 10:47:45 AM
>>>When considering the churches, stop and think of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.<<<
The main difference, though, is that the Patriarch of Constantinople did not go out to see Mehmet the Conqueror bearing a Bill of Sale for the place. Rather, the property transfer was accomplished when the Janissaries broke down the doors, slaughtered the people seeking refuge therein, and cut down the priests celebrating the Divine Liturgy at the Holy Table one last time.
If you have to go, do you want to go with a bang, or a whimper?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 8, 2006 11:18:49 AM
Pursuant to federal law, I do not think the church could legally discriminate against the Islamic bidder in favor of a lower bid by Christians or others.
This is the dilemma the liberal society places itself in: it must acquiesce to its invasion and eventual overthrow by illiberal elements.
Posted by: Douglas | Dec 8, 2006 11:46:33 AM
"No, James, I am being very EXPLICIT. Yahweh of the Old Testament is indeed the Father of the New. The early Christians were very clear on that point, and rejected all who would separate the two--such as Marcion."
I would have thought that the general tenor of Patristic Christology would incline one to the view, rather, that YHWH of the Old Testament is in fact the pre-incarnate Logos, rather than the Father ("No one hath seen the Father at any time ..."); and that the Father was, indeed, wholly unknown until revealed by the Son. Marcion was no fool; and his heresy was, as I see it, not so much to concoct an "unknown Father" who sent his Son to Earth, but to dismiss the God of Israel as an evil demiurge without any conntction to either the Father or the Son.
Posted by: William Tighe | Dec 8, 2006 12:33:01 PM
