« Touchstone Archive Classics | Main | Fish Riding Bicycles »
August 23, 2007
The Offensive Name of God
Most of you have read about the Dutch Bishop who has suggested that Christians in that country start calling God "Allah."
Albert Mohler blogs about it:
Bishop Tiny Muskens of Breda, a former missionary to Indonesia, suggested that conflict between Christians and Muslims could be lessened if Dutch Catholics followed the lead of some Christians in Muslim-dominated lands and adopted Allah as the preferred name for God.
And Mohler zeroes in on what the real problem is: this "Allah" [the Arabic word for God, true enough] doesn't have a Son, whereas our God the Father does.
So, a man appointed to be a guardian of the Gospel of the Son thinks that relations will be better with Muslims if we start saying "in the name of Allah..."? Does he also think they will improve when we continue "... the Father, Allah the Son, and Allah the Holy Spirit?" (not that I am suggesting this....) I assume he believes that Jesus is True God of True God, and I hope that isn't too much to ask.
Besides, if I'm going to slip into a semitic language in addressing God, I think the word is Abba, Father. The Holy Spirit inspires us to pray Father, and also call Jesus Lord. There's no avoiding the offense of Christianity.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 12:02 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/234392/21043041
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Offensive Name of God:
Comments
Tell that to the Patriarch of Seleuca-Ctisiphon-Chicago.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 23, 2007 12:28:32 PM
I wrote elsewhere that I will be killed before I would call God "Allah".
I was then informed: "Then you’d better not come to my church! The Antiochian Orthodox Church is based in the Middle East (our patriarch lives in Damascus), so our traditional liturgical languages are Arabic and Greek. While my parish worships mostly in English, we use token amounts of Greek and Arabic in repeated parts of the service, including the Trisagion (Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.). In Arabic, we call God Allah. It’s not a special Muslim “name” for God, but simply the Arabic word for God, used by Christians and Muslims alike. And we were using it long before Muhammad was born!"
And
"There is no other word for “God” in Arabic than “Allah,” so there is no other word for Arabic-speaking Christians to use.
Well, there is the old Arabic word for “a god” (i.e., one of a number of gods), which is “ilah.” This the standard Muslim confession of belief begins “La ilah il-Allah ...” which means “(There is) No god but Allah” or even more literally “No god but-TheGod” ("Allah," from “Al-Ilah,” The God)."
So given this additional information from Orthodox Christians that I was completely unaware of previously, I humbly yielded to the fact that there are some instances and places where it's acceptable to use the word "Allah" to refer to the Christian triune God.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 23, 2007 12:30:05 PM
I just read an essay on this that joking suggests getting all Muslims to instead use "Yaweh" or "Jehovah" instead of Allah.
Posted by: Roy Hill | Aug 23, 2007 1:02:09 PM
"Besides, if I'm going to slip into a semitic language in addressing God, I think the word is Abba, Father."
Or "El" or "Yahweh" ("Jehovah"), because our faith has Jewish roots, not Arabic. And I'm sure THAT will go over well with Muslims!
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 23, 2007 1:05:15 PM
There is, however, an Arabism which is most apt to adopt to describe this situation. Perhaps we should begin to refer to
"Europe (peace be upon it)."
Posted by: Joe L. | Aug 23, 2007 1:09:13 PM
And I wonder if Bishop Muskens has considered how much calling God Allah has helped those Christians in Muslim lands recently, like say in Palestine and Iraq.
I think the recommendation that Muslims start calling God Yahweh is a hilarious and perfect riposte.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 23, 2007 1:48:46 PM
Actually, Dr. Mohler addresses the use of Allah to mean God among speakers of Arabic in an addendum to his blog entry. The last time I checked, the Dutch do not speak Arabic. This is not a suggestion that we all start speaking Arabic to bridge the gap, but that we all, wherever we live and whatever language we speak, start calling the Christian God "Allah," the name used by Muslims for their god. And it appears clear that the purpose is to convey the message that their god is our God. As Dr. Mohler eloquent demonstrates the god of the Muslims is not the same God Christians worship and inherently cannot be so. Indeed, devout Muslims should be as offended by this suggested as should be devout Christians.
Once again, we see this effort to bring reconciliation by blurring the truth and by watering down distinctions which really do matter. It is the same issue we faced last May over the debate of whether a professing Catholic could be president of the Evangelical Theological Society and why I was then so insistent that such distinctions matter (and should matter to both Evangelicals and Catholics). It is an insult to the faith of all devout believers to water down and, in effect, belittle distinctions for which the martyrs shed their blood. And it is a blasphemy against the God whom we worship to call Him by a name used by others for their god when the intent in doing so is to blur the lines between Him and another god. So Arabic Christians who call our God "Allah" are not blaspheming because that is their word for God, but Dutch (and English) speakers are when they do so when the purpose is to equate God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost with the god of Islam. That is one thing about which both Christians and Muslims should agree.
Posted by: GL | Aug 23, 2007 1:54:32 PM
Are there any transcripts of this talk? Most of the news stories I've seen have been sorely lacking in direct quotation which makes me suspicious.
Posted by: Chad Toney | Aug 23, 2007 2:35:29 PM
I used to wonder about the difference between "God" and "Allah" and whether they were the same or not. Later, I became aware that they were definitely not the same person; they spoke different things to their people. Recently, though, a friend of mine spent two years in Southeast Asia as a missionary there to an almost entirely Muslim people group. She learned some of their prayers in Arabic and the native tongue and even prayed Muslim prayers with them sometimes. Affirming only what a Christian would, she still had the chance to show how much they could agree on: God is almighty, He alone is God, etc. She also said, "There is no God but Allah," but stopped short before the end of that phrase. Basically, she practiced becoming all things to all people while still clinging to God: Father, Son, and Spirit. She used the same name, Allah, that they did. However, both she and her friends there knew, because she had explained it to them, that they were not talking about quite the same person.
I'm reminded of some of C.S. Lewis' thoughts on the subject. Specifically, how a faithful follower of another religion who had never heard of Christ might be led to follow the parts of his religion which were most Christian while ignoring the other parts. However, this applies to those following faithfully, not those trying to call God by a name which is not his in their language.
On the other hand, I completely agree that a Dutchman - my ancestry is Dutch, by the way (see my last name) - or any other non-Arabic speaker referring to the Christian God as "Allah" is confusing the issue in his own mind and risking far more than he seems to understand.
My friend used "Allah" so that she could be understood and to further distance herself from some there who called themselves "Christian" yet did not live like it, making a very bad name for Christ there. She did not do it to ease tension - though it did - or to fit in. And further, she asked her friends that ageless question: "Who is Jesus?"
These others would seem to answer, "nobody," for that is what their obfuscation does in practice.
Posted by: Josiah A. Roelfsema | Aug 23, 2007 2:40:26 PM
I'm still convinced that "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same god?" is a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sort of question.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 3:09:54 PM
I understand the desire to tar-and-feather the bishop, but learning that he comes from work in Indonesia I'm even less inclined to do so. He's probably not grokking the proper arguments against such a move and is still in a missionary mindset.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 23, 2007 3:29:06 PM
Wonders,
Let's rephrase the question and see if that helps. What if the question were, "Did Israelites and Canaanites worship the same god?" With that change, would you still say that this question "is a 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' sort of question."
Seems to me that a false god is a false god. Muslims consider our triune God to be a false god and Christians consider their god to be a false god. It is an insult to both faiths to try to equate our gods.
Posted by: GL | Aug 23, 2007 3:34:38 PM
Let's rephrase the question and see if that helps. What if the question were, "Did Israelites and Canaanites worship the same god?" With that change, would you still say that this question "is a 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' sort of question."
No. Monotheism and polytheism are not the same thing. At all.
So while the answer to your new question is a mixture of yes and no, depending on how far the Israelites happened to have sunk in their idolatry at any given moment, there isn't an easy "yes or no" to the other question.
To answer “yes” can underscore the fact that both Christians and Muslims are monotheists. We both believe there is only one God, though we strongly (even violently) disagree as to his nature, his purposes, and how he is to be worshiped.
To answer “yes” can also imply a sort of universalism, where the one God is the diety behind all religions. The prophet Muhammad is the one God’s messanger, along with Moses, Jesus, Buhdda, etc.
To answer “no” can communicate that the portriat of God that the Muslims proclaim is antithetical to the one that Christians see revealed in Jesus Christ.
To answer “no” can imply a sort of neo-paganism, as if there is a pantheon of various gods of the different religions vying for power.
Anyway, I think it’s silly to say things like “clearly neither believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.” It entierly depends on what you are really talking about. As such, the question distorts more than it reveals.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 3:42:31 PM
>I'm still convinced that "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same god?" is a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sort of question.
I don't know why you say this. Clearly the answer is no. They worship a God that is not there. We worship the God that is there.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 23, 2007 3:51:15 PM
Wonders,
I disagree with your reasoning here, but I'll leave it to others to continue the debate.
I will leave on this note, once you answered "no" to any of your questions, you answered the main question, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. The believe the triune God of the Christians is a false god, so, by definition, there god is not our God, for our God is the triune Father, Son and Holy Ghost and any god who is not that triune god is not our god. Therefore, by their definition of their god and our definition of ours, they cannot be the same god.
Posted by: GL | Aug 23, 2007 3:56:14 PM
We don't worship a god (like Zeus or something) - we worship God. To talk of "the same God" implies that there can be multiple Gods, which is false. There can be multiple gods, but, by definition there can be only one God. So, to say "No, Christians and Muslims worship different Gods" is to say something impossible. There is no such thing as "different Gods".
The difference between monotheism and polytheism is not a matter of us having one god, and them having a few more. We're talking about different things.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 3:58:37 PM
There is no particular reason to assume that two faiths which each assert that there is only one God, are necessarily asserting the same one!
Personally I'd think that a stubborn semi-convert from paganism, who insisted on worshipping both the true God AND some minor deities from his ancestral pantheon (like the Celtic figure who morphed into St. Brigit, by some accounts), would be a lot easier to deal with than a worshipper of a rival exclusive, single god. I have come to question whether the god Mohammed was prophet of, is even (a badly misunderstood notion of) God at all.
Posted by: Joe L. | Aug 23, 2007 4:14:06 PM
We don't worship a god (like Zeus or something) - we worship God. To talk of "the same God" implies that there can be multiple Gods, which is false. There can be multiple gods, but, by definition there can be only one God. So, to say "No, Christians and Muslims worship different Gods" is to say something impossible. There is no such thing as "different Gods".
Isn't that what David Gray said? I agree with him and you as well, Wonders, but only as far as my quote of you above, which I think supports his and my position on where we disagree with you.
Posted by: GL | Aug 23, 2007 4:19:01 PM
Well, yes - and everything not of faith is sin, etc. But what of Islam as an extreme Christian heresy? This is how the fathers saw it. Do heretics worship the same God? Heck, the Protestant and Catholic views of God are not the same - does that mean only one of us worships God and the other worships no one?
It's just a dumb question. A better one might be - is their worship (to whichever spirit we might speculate that it ends up being routed to, or no one at all) pleasing and honoring to God?
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 4:21:15 PM
By the way, Wonders, you will note that I only capitalized God when referring to the Christian God. I sued a lower case "g" when referring to the god of the Muslims. I would expect them to follow the same practice in reverse for the reasons you cite.
Posted by: GL | Aug 23, 2007 4:23:58 PM
"Do heretics worship the same God?"
Of course not. That's why they're heretics.
"Heck, the Protestant and Catholic views of God are not the same - does that mean only one of us worships God and the other worships no one?"
Come on. None of the Reformers differed a whit with any of the classical views of God. There was never an argument there. The differences were elsewhere.
"A better one might be - is their worship (to whichever spirit we might speculate that it ends up being routed to, or no one at all) pleasing and honoring to God?"
You really do have the wrong end of the stick, WFO. Worship that is not directed to the true God has but one name: idolatry.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 23, 2007 4:59:20 PM
Come on. None of the Reformers differed a whit with any of the classical views of God. There was never an argument there. The differences were elsewhere.
That wasn't the rhetoric of the time, if I recall. I do believe the term "heresy" was used.
My point is that two people can worship God, and one worship him rightly and the other wrongly. There are degrees of this - we do not all worship Him or understand Him in the same way. We agree that the worship and understanding of God need not be perfect for it to be worship. And we agree that if the understanding and worship is too far off, it is not honoring to God but becomes idolatry.
Where I disagree is the notion that it is helpful, in the context of monotheistic religions or sects, to speak of people worshiping different Gods or gods.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 5:09:24 PM
"That wasn't the rhetoric of the time, if I recall. I do believe the term "heresy" was used."
You can be a heretic about matters other than the nature of God. But, to my knowledge, none of the key players in the Reformation thought the other side held an heretical view of God.
"Where I disagree is the notion that it is helpful, in the context of monotheistic religions or sects, to speak of people worshiping different Gods or gods."
At a minimum it jolts people out of their complacency. You might get just a little nervous if you doubted what you worshipped was in fact the True God.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 23, 2007 5:16:29 PM
>Where I disagree is the notion that it is helpful, in the context of monotheistic religions or sects, to speak of people worshiping different Gods or gods.
Telling the truth is helpful.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 23, 2007 5:29:16 PM
David Gray,
I think you missed WfO's point. The moment you "speak of people worshipping different Gods or gods," it implicity admits to the conversation the idea of different gods. Monotheism rejects that there can even be a conversation of different gods, because there's only one to worship. Anything else is a false god, perhaps a demon or spirit, but not the sole Creator, Alpha and Omega.
Muslims and Christians cannot worship "different gods." Either Christians are worshipping the Only God, or Muslims are worshipping the Only God. There are no "different gods" to be worshipped in monotheism, and thus in Christianity.
Posted by: Michael | Aug 23, 2007 5:53:42 PM
>I think you missed WfO's point. The moment you "speak of people worshipping different Gods or gods," it implicity admits to the conversation the idea of different gods.
Well Biblical language refers to other gods.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 23, 2007 5:57:49 PM
"There are no "different gods" to be worshipped in monotheism, and thus in Christianity."
This reminds me of the old television show, "To Tell The Truth." (At least I think that was the name.) Three persons would tell the panel: "I'm John Smith." "No, I'm John Smith." "You're both wrong: I'M John Smith!" Then the panel would cross-examine the three to determine which one told the truth and which two were liars. There is only one true John Smith, but there may be any number of pretenders. So too with the Only God.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 23, 2007 6:06:24 PM
>>> Telling the truth is helpful.
I agree. Sometimes truth-telling unites people while simultaneously dividing others.
Can't win 'em all!
;-)
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 23, 2007 6:11:42 PM
So (to what I insist is still a stupid question) do Christians and Jews worship the same God?
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 7:32:42 PM
Why is that a stupid question?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 23, 2007 7:39:01 PM
So (to what I insist is still a stupid question) do Christians and Jews worship the same God?
Sadly, no. (I assume you mean today's Jews and not those who lived before Christ.)
Posted by: GL | Aug 23, 2007 7:41:14 PM
Maybe rather than waiting for the obvious criticism, I should clarify my answer. Today's Jews worship the Father, who, of course, is God, but they deny the divinity of the Son, specifically, Jesus, who also is God. May we all pray for the day when they, the Muslims, and all others on earth worship the One True God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Posted by: GL | Aug 23, 2007 7:45:11 PM
I almost think that this question has two answers depending on what you are referring to. In the discussion, people are talking about both "Allah" as a generic linguistic term for absolute deity, and "Allah" as a name for a specific deity to which specific deeds and opinions can be ascribed.
As far as the linguistic term itself, I know several christian arabs who worship in primarily arabic speaking churches who use the word "Allah" for God simply because, as Truth Unites wrote, thre isn't another word for God. In that sense, Allah is God
In the sense of a proper name, however (which is ow I'm assuming the average dutchman would say it), Allah refers to an absolute God who has commanded specific things to his prophet Muhammad. Contrast that with the God who is our Father (who, if we are to use proper names should indeed be Abba or YHWH). Like Allah in the sense of a proper name, our God is also known by what he has done (calling Abraham, parting the red sea, resurrecting Christ, etc). In both cases, a generic name for God has been given the additional meaning of a God who has done specific things.
What am I getting at? Basicaly, I agree with those who say that in churches, countries or ethnic enclaves where arabic is the primary language, Allah is the word for God, and the debate would proceed along the lines of what Allah has or has not said and done for His people.
In the netherlands, where the terms are likely more commonly used as proper names, calling God the Father Allah is simply incorrect, as the contect of the word is palpably different.
(This was true, as I understand it, in greese as well. Evidently Theos and Zeos were at one point equivalent variants of the generic term for asolute deity. But Zeos became associated with a specific thunder god in the pantheon and the ret is history. That is why our christian forebears use theos in the new testament. While Zeus is actually equivalently derived from "divinity", it was so encrusted with polytheistic crud that it was completely unusable for christian purposes)
In this vein, look at the greek language.
Posted by: Aaron Calhoun | Aug 23, 2007 7:56:02 PM
Evidently I can't spell "Greece".
Posted by: Aaron Calhoun | Aug 23, 2007 7:57:11 PM
"I think you missed WfO's point. The moment you 'speak of people worshipping different Gods or gods,' it implicity admits to the conversation the idea of different gods."
This is a fundamentally tendentious and distorted misreading of very plain language, that applied consistently would prevent the discussion of any hypothetical entity whatsoever. It "admits to the conversation the idea of different gods" only in the sense that it admits the fact that different people believe in different gods. It does not admit that all the different views involved are equally valid or true, or that all (or any) the supposed gods in fact do exist. That is why, as David Gray correctly notes, the Scriptures do speak of "the gods" of other peoples. That does not commit the human authors of those Scripture, any more than it does the divine Author who inspired them, to admitting that the other gods are in fact real or gods.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 23, 2007 7:57:28 PM
"I think you missed WfO's point. The moment you 'speak of people worshipping different Gods or gods,' it implicity admits to the conversation the idea of different gods."
This is a fundamentally tendentious and distorted misreading of very plain language, that applied consistently would prevent the discussion of any hypothetical entity whatsoever. It "admits to the conversation the idea of different gods" only in the sense that it admits the fact that different people believe in different gods. It does not admit that all the different views involved are equally valid or true, or that all (or any) the supposed gods in fact do exist. That is why, as David Gray correctly notes, the Scriptures do speak of "the gods" of other peoples. That does not commit the human authors of those Scripture, any more than it does the divine Author who inspired them, to admitting that the other gods are in fact real or gods.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 23, 2007 7:57:41 PM
"I think you missed WfO's point. The moment you 'speak of people worshipping different Gods or gods,' it implicity admits to the conversation the idea of different gods."
This is a fundamentally tendentious and distorted misreading of very plain language, that applied consistently would prevent the discussion of any hypothetical entity whatsoever. It "admits to the conversation the idea of different gods" only in the sense that it admits the fact that different people believe in different gods. It does not admit that all the different views involved are equally valid or true, or that all (or any) the supposed gods in fact do exist. That is why, as David Gray correctly notes, the Scriptures do speak of "the gods" of other peoples. That does not commit the human authors of those Scripture, any more than it does the divine Author who inspired them, to admitting that the other gods are in fact real or gods.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 23, 2007 7:57:46 PM
James,
It reads the language as the layman would. Do I recognize that "the gods" of the Old Testament (or "the gods" of other religions) are lesser things? Sure, and so do you. Does the average person appreciate the distinction between strict monotheism and henotheism? No, and that's where the use of "different god" becomes a tar baby.
I recall an older thread regarding a professor at Seattle U who is both a Christian and Islamic "priestess," where you said to me that it is necessary to say precisely what I mean, and therefore to choose my words carefully. Well, I think we should choose our words carefully and say precisely what we mean--and we do not mean to call Allah (as a proper noun) a god, but instead an object of worship, as is Yahweh (who is also properly understood to be a god, the God).
Posted by: Michael | Aug 23, 2007 8:24:44 PM
"Today's Jews worship the Father, who, of course, is God, but they deny the divinity of the Son, specifically ..."
I'm not so sure. The Fathers, or early Fathers at least, believed that He who walked in the Garden at the cool of the day, He who appeared in the burning bush, He who dwelt above the cherubim upon the Ark was the pre-Incarnate Logos; and that the Father Himself was unknown until revealed by the Son. So it seems to follow that contemporary Jews do not know the Father.
Posted by: William Tighe | Aug 23, 2007 9:27:32 PM
"Today's Jews worship the Father, who, of course, is God, but they deny the divinity of the Son, specifically ..."
I'm not so sure. The Fathers, or early Fathers at least, believed that He who walked in the Garden at the cool of the day, He who appeared in the burning bush, He who dwelt above the cherubim upon the Ark was the pre-Incarnate Logos; and that the Father Himself was unknown until revealed by the Son. So it seems to follow that contemporary Jews do not know the Father.
Posted by: William Tighe | Aug 23, 2007 9:27:50 PM
Here is part of what I'm trying to say. If a Muslim (or a Jew) says something about what God is like that contradicts what we know him to be in Christ, the correct response is not "Well, your god may be like that, but not mine. Your god is a false god." The correct response is "No, God is not like that - he's like this."
The former presumes a polytheistic framework, the latter presumes a monotheistic one. As we are both monotheists, this seems the most accurate way to talk.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 10:06:47 PM
Dr. Tighe,
I'll accept your view on this. What you say makes sense.
Posted by: GL | Aug 23, 2007 10:08:05 PM
>>>In the sense of a proper name, however (which is ow I'm assuming the average dutchman would say it), Allah refers to an absolute God who has commanded specific things to his prophet Muhammad. Contrast that with the God who is our Father (who, if we are to use proper names should indeed be Abba or YHWH). Like Allah in the sense of a proper name, our God is also known by what he has done (calling Abraham, parting the red sea, resurrecting Christ, etc). In both cases, a generic name for God has been given the additional meaning of a God who has done specific things.<<<
The generic name of our God would be Elohim. In Hebrew that means god or gods. Usually it means our God. It comes from the same root as Allah, since both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages. God's proper name is YHWH. In English translations of the Bible, Elohim is translated "God" and YHWH is translated "the Lord."
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 23, 2007 10:39:34 PM
True enough Judy, although I would say that the "generic" name of our god is God, the Hebrew generic name of god is Elohim.
My main point was that God has taken great pains (so it seems to me) in the Old and New Testaments to define who he is by what he has done, not by a random name like you often see people giving in western culture. That's why, in my view, you see so many phrases in the Bible such as "The Lord, the God who..." or variants. That's why it is not necessarily incorrect to say to a muslim that you believe in Allah (as generic God) but you disagree on what he has done for his people. Though I don't witness much to muslims, I wonder if that would be more of a fruitful approach.
The whole discussion reminds my of a (probably apocryphal) story about a group of missionaries who were teaching a fairly remote tribe the ways of the faith. Initially, they wanted to distance themselves from the polytheistic framework, so they basically made up a name for God. The whole thing didn't catch on, mostly because the native thought that they were introducing a rival, foreign deity. Then, one of them started using the word for their supreme sky god to refer to the Father, and the natives began converting almost immediately, because that sense of being invaded by a strange and foreign god was replaced by the idea that the supreme being whom they had perceived in nature actually loved them and had done amazing things for them. All of a sudden, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, it was less an issue of a foreign King out to conquer them, but a message from one whom they had known imperfectly who was now reaching out through these people.
Then again, I doubt very much that this is the situation in the Netherlands.
Posted by: Aaron Calhoun | Aug 23, 2007 10:57:25 PM
For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 11:34:28 PM
Yeah, I pretty much missed the obvious reference.
Posted by: aaron Calhoun | Aug 23, 2007 11:45:49 PM
I have a Latvian friend who has told me about how, while "Dievs" is what they call God, they also still have songs and legends from their pagan days which talk about Dievs as being one of many gods. One folk-rock song in particular she remarked on as using not-quite-pagan but also not-quite-Christian Dievs-meanings. (It's a fairly humorous song, I understand, about a goat who climbed up to heaven to lodge a complaint about something, I forget what, but I don't think it's meant to be blasphemous so much as weird. But then, I don't speak Latvian.)
Posted by: Peter Gardner | Aug 24, 2007 12:14:29 AM
"The Fathers, or early Fathers at least, believed that He who walked in the Garden at the cool of the day, He who appeared in the burning bush, He who dwelt above the cherubim upon the Ark was the pre-Incarnate Logos; and that the Father Himself was unknown until revealed by the Son. So it seems to follow that contemporary Jews do not know the Father."
OY-VEY!!! Ai-yi-yi-Yi-YI!! Slaps forehead. Aye carumba! I would not be near, NOT ANYWHERE NEAR, if any of you ventured into an orthodox Jewish synagogue and boldly proclaimed that contemporary orthodox Jews do not know God the Father. I'm running in the opposite direction. See ya!
Those orthodox Jews with the curly sideburns have no love, actually it's more like deep-seated seething, never-forgetting disgust of the early Church Fathers whom they regard as hateful, persecuting anti-Semitics. They'd snicker in loud contempt at any assertion that contemporary Jews do not know God the Father.
There might not be violence, but it wouldn't be a pretty sight either. Spittle flying everywhere and a din louder than La Guardia airport.
Dr. Tighe, best to keep those thoughts to yourself, my friend.
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Aug 24, 2007 12:25:17 AM
>Dr. Tighe, best to keep those thoughts to yourself, my friend.
No, best to share them.
>Those orthodox Jews with the curly sideburns have no love, actually it's more like deep-seated seething, never-forgetting disgust of the early Church Fathers whom they regard as hateful, persecuting anti-Semitics.
And they are in rebellion against God having rejected His Son. So I don't think I find their loathing of the Fathers to be authoritative.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 24, 2007 1:07:55 AM
The more I think about the "Yahweh-as-preincarnate-Logos" idea, the more it makes sense. So the cloud in the garden (and whoever was walking around in the cool of the day) was the Second Person. So was the burning bush, and there is no contradiction between "no man has seen the Father" and the fact that Moses saw Yahweh "face to face" (as well as his, uh, "back parts"). And the Captain of the Armies of the Lord is (of course) the Son. Theologically, this makes more sense as well. The Son makes known the Father so every sense experience of God must be the Son. Through this wonderful arrangement, God maintains both His imminence and his transcendence. It's pretty cool.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 24, 2007 8:23:10 AM
Okay, this may already have been beaten to death, but let me introduce a new metaphor:
Three factions of a medieval society are all (obviously enough) monarchists. Not a democrat or republican in the bunch. However (for the sake of argument and don't take this metaphor too far) they are on an island without direct contact with the capitol. Two parties disagree with one another on the legitimacy of the Crown Prince; the third party, however, acknowledges that the Crown Prince and all previous messengers of the King were authentic messengers - but their messages were all terribly garbled, and that they themselves happen to have direct orders from the real regent (and by the way the Crown Prince wasn't really a prince, either, that was part of the garbling...) - and it turns out the King, according to them, revealed himself in a different language, with a radically different value system, and says (through intermediaries, of course) that everyone previously looked to as an authority really owes fealty to him. And, oh, the royal bloodline followed a different historical path than anybody'd previously heard, too.
At this point it might occur to someone to ask, whether the third party of sincere monarchists, great believers in exclusive kingship in one individual though they are, just possibly could be working for a different king entirely, whether bastard pretender or simple figment of their collective imaginations, a convenient fiction to advance their own agenda.
Posted by: Joe L. | Aug 24, 2007 9:03:43 AM
I hesitate before making this recommendation, but one might profitably (but very cautiously) peruse the work of the English scholar Margaret Barker (b. 1944), whose works combine startling perceptions and wild heterodox theology, works such as *The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God* or *The Great High Priest: the Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy* or *On Earth As It Is In Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament*.
Posted by: William Tighe | Aug 24, 2007 11:23:39 AM
Nobody has seen the Father. Ever. William Tighe is correct about the teaching of the fathers; all OT theophanies are manifestations of the preincarnate Logos. He is also correct, along with David Gray in the conclusions he draws. Biblical Judaism has not existed since the destruction of the Temple. Talmudic Judaism is not the same thing, as there is no priesthood and no sacrifices, which is what the Jewish worship of the LORD was all about.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Aug 24, 2007 11:49:10 AM
The American Thinker has an interesting article on this issue, Who Is Allah?, discussing whether Allah is the same as God. An excerpt:
What Archaeology Says about AllahMuslims claim that in pre-Islamic times, "Allah" was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets and apostles. Indeed, the credibility of Islam as a religion stands or falls on its core claim of historical continuity with Judaism and Christianity. No wonder, then, that many Muslims get uppity when the claims of Islam are subjected to the hard science of archaeology.
Because archaeology provides irrefutable evidence that Allah, far from being the biblical God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was actually the pre-Islamic pagan moon-god. Indeed, it is an established archaeological fact that worship of the moon-god was the main religion of the ancient Middle East.
But what about the Arabian Peninsula, where Mohammed (570-632) launched Islam? During the last two centuries, prominent archaeologists have unearthed thousands of inscriptions which prove beyond any doubt that the dominant religion of Arabia during Mohammed's day was the cult of the moon-god.
In fact, for generations before Mohammed was born, the Arabs worshipped some 360 pagan gods housed at a stone temple in Mecca called the Kabah. According to archaeologists, the chief deity of Mecca was the moon-god called al-ilah (meaning the god or the idol), which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. Pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave themselves: Mohammed's father (Abdallah), for example, had Allah as part of his name.
He goes on with sections on what history and theology say about Allah, concluding, "And the theological differences go on and on, so much so that the God of the Bible cannot possibly be the Allah worshipped in Islam. Unless, of course, a Dutch bishop says so." And continues:
Allah and EurabiaMohammed thought the Jews and Christians of his day would receive him as a prophet. But the Bible says that any new revelation must agree with what is already established in Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). So they rejected his Allah as a false god. And Mohammed replied by setting his Islam on a permanent warpath against Judaism and Christianity that continues to this day.
The Dutch bishop and other Muslim fellow travelers think they can buy a fake peace with Islam by playing relativistic word games as a part of an "inter-faith" dialogue. But Muslims understand much better than do post-modern Europeans that ecumenical appeasement is a symptom of a Judeo-Christian civilization that is weak and dying.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 24, 2007 2:04:01 PM
Hypothetical. Suppose you were forcibly kidnapped by Islamic terrorists. You are blindfolded and you feel the sharp edge of a sword on the back of your neck as you are forced to lean forward.
The leader of the group shouts out to you: "You shall either live or die by how you answer the following question. Who do you worship???"
And what if you respond: "I worship Jesus who is Allah!"
Do you think you'll live or do you think you're gonna be a headless martyr for Jesus? After all, you did say "Allah", right?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 24, 2007 3:05:58 PM
David writes of the Jews,
"And they are in rebellion against God having rejected His Son. So I don't think I find their loathing of the Fathers to be authoritative."
Do you really think so? What will be the end result of the rebellion do you gather?
Why, exactly, do you think that Jews should listen to anything we have to say about their relationship with God, considering how we demonized Jews (yes, even in the Fathers)? Just a question.
Posted by: Sam | Aug 24, 2007 3:14:34 PM
Fascinating history, Judy. So when Crusaders referred to Muhammadans as Apollo-worshipers, they should have said Diana, perhaps! Explains those crescent moons, as well.
Anyway, it'll be a cold day in Baghdad before I call the Almighty what my enemies wish me to call Him - particularly when the name "Allah" appears to have been sullied by being offered to idols first.
Sam, lots of folks don't know this, but Christians and Jews actually have some serious theological differences. It's as if they're entirely different religions, really.
Also, a surprising number of folks can listen to arguments about things like theology, without necessarily faulting a speaker for misdeeds of his intellectual forebears in past centuries. If I threw out everything ever said by anyone whose group had ever demonized the Irish, the English, the Scots, the Germans, the French, Americans, Presbyterians, Christians, conservatives, or Southerners, I'd have to learn Sanskrit to find any statements I didn't have to discard on "prior offense" grounds. Jewish people, like anyone else, should listen to arguments based on the strength of the arguments, not the character of the arguer's ancestors.
Posted by: Joe L. | Aug 24, 2007 3:37:01 PM
Joe, are you following Ethan's lead in leaving out your last name to avoid being googled? Please tell me what the disadvantages or problems are with putting down your full name.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 24, 2007 3:45:39 PM
"Jewish people, like anyone else, should listen to arguments based on the strength of the arguments, not the character of the arguer's ancestors."
Reasonable. Joe L., what do you think of NOT listening to the argument based on the strength of the argument because you're hyper-militantly focused on your subjective perceptions of the character of the arguer? Or to the class of people that the arguer belongs to [not counting ancestors], as the case may be?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 24, 2007 3:48:20 PM
Judy - yes, it seemed like a good idea, but I guess I shouldn't bother; I've had no ill effects, and it's way too late by now, isn't it? And you're professionally partisan, which is a different category anyway.
TUAD - there ARE some folks I positively won't listen to, no matter how reasonable what they're saying might be (I won't know; I'm not listening, remember?). However, in doing this I take the risk of being wrong based on pure, subjective prejudice. I mean, Rosie O'Donnell or Jimmy Carter could theoretically say something really, really smart, beautiful and wise, and I would miss it - I will live with that risk and that loss. It will be all my own fault. But not because I'm focused on Rosie's or Jimmy's character, but rather because I've calmly dismissed them long ago and focused elsewhere entirely.
A person who wanted to indulge such a subjective judgement against All Christians, is taking a far bigger risk of missing something very important, and maintaining more prejudice than I have time or energy for, at my very worst.
Posted by: Joe L. | Aug 24, 2007 4:08:52 PM
>What will be the end result of the rebellion do you gather?
Rebellion against the triune God which is not followed by repentance results in damnation. For anyone, not just Jews.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 24, 2007 4:43:59 PM
Michael,
"It reads the language as the layman would."
On the contrary -- you have, as I already pointed out, put on a tendentious spin on it that would not occur to most layman.
Of course we should speak carefully. But what constitutes speaking carefully is also determined by context, both grammatical and social. Between the present thread and the one you previously cite, you don't seem to be able to distinguish properly between
a) common usage of common terms,
b) special technical definition of common terms,
c) common usage of special technical terms, and
d) how individual words vs. entire statements will be understood.
To repeat a point from myself and Davvid Gray that you did not address -- the Scriptures contain some 250 references to "gods" (Hebrew "elohiym", Greek "theos"). Virtually none of those are modified in the manner that you demand as a condition for avoiding a misunderstanding that imputes real existence. So, according to you, the authors of Scripture -- including Christ Himself as the ultimate author -- must either have actually believed that these other beings were also real gods, or else they were incredibly obtuse or careless and completely failed to take into account how other people would hear and read and understand what they said. Or else you can jettison belief in the full inspiration of Scripture and adopt the "henotheism to monotheism" developmental postulate of "comparative religion" scholars and theological revisionists, who hold that the Scriptures merely reflect human "experience" of or speculations about God.
Which is it, Michael?
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 24, 2007 4:55:11 PM
Thanks Joe L. Again, it sounds reasonable to me.
Interestingly, there are people who are not only prejudiced against Christians, but they are also prejudiced against the Bible. Or prejudiced against the Catholic Church. Or prejudiced against organized religion.
Hypothetical example. Gay atheist who may get AIDS or may give AIDS to someone. And a Christian social worker, after 2 years or more of ministering to this guy, shares that the triune God has revealed in His Bible that homosexual behavior is a sin and that Jesus loves him. And receiving Jesus' forgiveness involves repenting of sin. And therefore, same-sex behavior is not an option, that it's his cross to bear in following Jesus.
And this heart-hardened gay atheist responds "You're a hypocrite! You have a huge log in your eye! Who are you to talk to me about sin when you have sin in your life? Didn't you tell me that you had an abortion when you were 17 years old before you became a Christian! In fact, Christians in general are a bunch of phonies! Ted Haggard, Fred Phelps, Catholic Pedophile Priests! I will continue in my gay behavior! The Bible is a hateful Book! God made me this way! He'll love me no matter what!"
So then, this well-meaning Christian social worker is reduced to tears and resolves never again to share Christ's gospel to gays because they'll always be able to say that she's a hypocrite with a log in her eye and that the Church is full of hypocrites.
Furthermore, she resolves never to talk to young women who are thinking about abortion and sharing with them not to do it because they'll be able to say that she's a gross hypocrite with a huge log in her eye because she had an abortion.
Geez, I wonder how Christians can be Salt and Light in a fallen world when the fallen world can simply yell out, "Hypocrite! Shut up! You're not perfect either because you have a log in your eye."
So much for Jesus using Christians to uphold biblical, moral accountability.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 24, 2007 5:04:27 PM
On Muslims,
James properly points out that just because two groups claim monotheism they do not necessarily worship the same God. Also, using Paul's arguments in Athens on the Unknown God in support of Muslim theology is a bit thin. There was no system of theology in place at that alter, which was kind of the point. Muslims, believe it or not, have a real system of theology. Analyzing that system doesn't result in a Christian or a Jewish God. That is why they discount both the old and new testaments. Something that neither Jews or Christians do.
On Jews,
Christianity has never claimed the the OT is a wild fabrication of a formerly true story. Traditional Christianity claims that the Old Testament is theologically true and recognizes the same God appears in both. Anything else, last I checked, is still considered a heresy. No such heresy has been declared by any body in Christendom for those who believe Muslims worship a different God. I'll be happy to review evidence that says otherwise.
Conclusion,
Jews worship God (though they may dispute on firm theological ground whether Christians worship God) and Muslims worship Something Else.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 24, 2007 5:46:55 PM
There is no other word in Arabic for God but "Allah" (from al-Ilah, "the God"); "ilah" means "a god" (one of many). The Hebrew "El," "Eloh" and "Elohim" are cognate words, as are East Syrian "Alaha" and West Syrian "Eloho." I suppose there must be cognate words in Amharic and Ge'ez, but I don't know what they are.
Posted by: William Tighe | Aug 24, 2007 6:44:16 PM
TUAD,
You choose martyrdom in order to perfectly experience Christ's sufferings. There can be no higher calling for a Christian.
Posted by: Anna | Aug 24, 2007 11:14:16 PM
James,
You offer me a false dichotomy. There is, of course, a third option (and probably a fourth and fifth): that the context of scriptural authorship allowed a proper understanding of the text. Whereas the church is the holder of Christ's truth, that truth was originally revealed to and in a different cultural setting--and accordingly couched in their terms of competing "gods"--and therefore reads certain words differently than we do. I can speak for my generation, you can speak for yours. The majority of my generation would recognize the tacit approval of alternative belief systems the moment they hear "different" or are given the opportunity to compare two options--in this case, the option of gods.
There is no tendentious reading here; I am putting no spin on "god" other than reading for what it says--it suggests in and of itselfa higher being separate from humanity, whether that is the one Supreme, True God or a pitiable falsehood. I understand perfectly well what is meant by "different gods" in the thread, but I also understand where WfO was coming from.
Posted by: Michael | Aug 25, 2007 12:59:13 AM
>The majority of my generation would recognize the tacit approval of alternative belief systems the moment they hear "different" or are given the opportunity to compare two options--in this case, the option of gods.
I don't think there are any living generations for whom that is true.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 25, 2007 1:31:33 AM
On the contrary, Michael, once again (as you so invariably do when you're caught out) you're moving the goalposts as a desperate CYA maneuver. You originally offered *no* qualification whatsoever about a "different cultural setting" or "your generation" and "my generation" (the latter two phrases being an appeal to hogwash crap in any case). You said it was wrong to speak of these other entities as "gods" -- period. And my previous posts were the ones that took into account "the context of scriptural authorship" against your flat assertion that all such usage was wrong. So, you're still evading the question and issue -- as usual.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 25, 2007 6:52:22 AM
>>>I wrote elsewhere that I will be killed before I would call God "Allah".<<<
I am presently worshiping in a Melkite Greek Catholic parish that celebrates the Divine Liturgy in English, Greek, and Arabic. Arabic has been the language of the Melkite Churches of Antioch (both Catholic and Orthodox) since the ninth or tenth centuries, and when we sing in Arabic, God is indeed Allah.
The problem is not in what word you use for God, but what you mean when you use the word (what ever it might be). When Christians speak of God, whether they call him God, or ho' Theos, Dei, or Allah, they mean precisely "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and indivisible".
When Jews speak of God, they speak of the Lord Adonai, the Sacred Tetragrammaton, He Who Is. But from Jewish Scripture, one can indeed arrive at the Christian Trinity (albeit not in precise Nicene terms: there is indeed a God who is Father, a Messiah who is God's Son, the Divine Logs, and a Spirit of God who infuses all things with life.
But when a Muslim speaks of Allah, he means something very different from that which is meant by a Christian or even a Jew who speaks of God. Ontologically, the Allah of Mohammed is very different from the God of Abraham or the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He has different attributes, he acts in different ways, he teaches different things--and thus, one cannot really say that he is the same God whom Christians and Jews worship and adore.
This is the fundamental error made by Bishop Tiny Luskins (was that name taken out of Monty Python, or what?) is drinking the bathwater of those who believe that all monotheistic religions are created equal, and that all worship the same God. But that is not enough: we need to ask what people mean when they invoke God, and determine whether their God is OUR God.
Muslims are pretty clear in indicating that our God is not their Allah. Our understanding of God is hopelessly corrupted and erroneous, and though our error can be granted a certain toleration, we are still infidels, to be converted or subjugated, to be brought into submission to the law of Allah, which is the Sharia.
The sooner Bishop Tiny and is followers recognize this, the sooner Western Christendom can begin to reassert itself within the land of its birth.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 25, 2007 12:50:48 PM
I don't think any of us are suggesting that what the Muslims speak of when they talk about Allah is incompatible with the God we know revealed in Jesus. We're not the same religion, we have serious disagreements on absolutely fundamental questions. All this is without dispute here.
However, I continue to argue that our relationship to the Muslims is a fundamentally different one than say, the relationship of an Ephesian to an Ammonite. One could ask "do Ephesians and Ammonites worhip the same god?" and the answer is academic. No. The Ammonites worship Chemosh, and the Ephesians worship Artimas. These are two different gods, and no one would suggest that they are really the same person using the same name.
But, when we talk of, say, Jews and Muslims, its not that simple. Both Jews and Muslims agree that there is only one God who created heaven and Earth. So the issue at stake isn't choosing between different gods, but how the one God is to be understood and worshiped. Is God to be understood the way Muhammad described him, or the way that the Torah does?
This is the way Augustine understood the relationship between Christianity and the pagan world in The City of God. There are a plethora of "deities" in Rome, and most of this just needs to be rejected as either superstition or diabolical. But, when it comes to the Platonists, these people actually seem to know something of the nature of God. They then can be argued with at a much higher level. Their thoughts need salvaging and correction, but there is at least a part of their understanding that is true understanding, and not "pure" idolatry. They know that God exists, and even know some true things about him - but they lack the fullness of God's revelation and have also some very mistaken misconceptions about his nature.
I just think it rather silly speculation to talk of which "Gods" the various monotheistic religious groups are really worshiping. If you were to say "is the Muslim portrayal of God basically the same as the Christian portrayal" then I would absolutely emphatically answer "no". But to say they are therefore in actuality worshiping "different Gods" isn't something I am comfortable saying.
I'm not going to posit some pantheon of dieties each with their own cults - The Reform Jew god, the conservative Jew god, the Sunni Muslim god, the Shiite Muslim god, the Mormon god, etc. All subservient to the Christian God - who is the true God atop Olympus...er the Heavens. Despite what was said, that really IS the way many people hear this. No - there is one God; there is no other.
The recognition that Muslims believe in and attempt to worship God need not be a slippering slope to universalism. The demons believe, and Aaron's sons worshiped. Worship of whom you do not really know is insufficient - salvation is of the Jews, and God seeks more than just "generic worshipers" - he needs to be worshiped in Spirit and Truth.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 25, 2007 2:51:11 PM
Sorry - the first sentence should read:
I don't think any of us are suggesting that what the Muslims speak of when they talk about Allah is compatible with the God we know revealed in Jesus.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 25, 2007 2:52:12 PM
I don't think one can clearly distinguish between speaking about two different persons and the same person, differently.
The Muslims intend to be worshipping the uncreated Creator.
That would be YHWH. They get His character very very wrong, though.
I agree that only those who speak Arabic should use Allah for YHWH. (which I'm inclined to either translate as The Creator or speak as haShem, or Adonai Elohim)The Divine Name given, is of course, a sentence, involving a different conjugate of hayyah - to be.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 25, 2007 6:05:00 PM
>>>I don't think any of us are suggesting that what the Muslims speak of when they talk about Allah is incompatible with the God we know revealed in Jesus.<<<
I most certainly am.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 25, 2007 7:53:38 PM
>>>Sorry - the first sentence should read:
I don't think any of us are suggesting that what the Muslims speak of when they talk about Allah is compatible with the God we know revealed in Jesus.<<<
Never mind, then.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 25, 2007 7:55:28 PM
I can't find it, but some months ago on MC we already had a lengthy discussion on this topic (whether the God of Islam and/or Judaism is the same God as that of Christianity). As I recall, Ethan Cordray made a particularly worthwhile contribution as to why and how we can distinguish Judaism from Islam as having a genuine relation to Christianity in this regard. Can anyone find that thread for us?
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 26, 2007 6:47:34 PM
I recall Ethan's post as well, and though it was quite perceptive.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 27, 2007 6:32:29 AM
Why thanks, James and Stuart. I don't recall it at all. Someone please find the thread, so I can remember what I said! :-)
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 27, 2007 8:34:17 AM
I think I found it: Cross Down, Crescent Up, concerning the incident of a church selling its building to be used as a mosque.
You guys are right; I was pretty insightful there! :-)
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 27, 2007 8:37:46 AM
I'm not entirely sure why it's important whether or not Christians and Muslims "worship the same God." In matters of theological understanding and especially practice, the two are manifestly different. This seems to me to be the relevant point, not whether we can identify Allah and the Trinity with one another. In the case of the original article, the supposed saying that we "worship the same God" is not a meaningful theological statement but rather a rhetorical gesture indicating that our theological and practical differences are not relevant, which they clearly are.
Second, I'm also not entirely sure that the question of the different relationships Christianity ought to hold with Judaism and Islam is helped by the "same God/different God" distinction. The real question is, Is contemporary Jewish theology and practice recognizable as legitimate under a Christian theological framework in a way that Islamic theology and practice is not? I'm not the one to ask for an answer, but I think that's the question we need.
I believe that the answer to whether all three "worship the same God" is by its nature unknowable. What we're really trying to figure out is which forms of worship are acceptable to the being we Christians believe to be the One True God.
Ethan just says it far better than I do. Perhaps I'll just stop posting altogether, and Ethan can change his signature to "Ethan C. and WfO".
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 27, 2007 8:45:09 AM
One of the key points to remember is the Christians embraced the totality of Jewish Scripture and made it their own. Their exegesis might differ from that of the Jews, just as it differs among the Jews themselves. The first Christians were, after all, Jews, and thus Christianity can be seen as an outgrowth of Judaism (either the fulfillment or perversion of it, according to Christian and Jewish thought respectively). Christians deliberately rejected attempts to separate Christianity from its Judaic heritage when it rejected Marcion in the second century.
In contrast, Islam claims to be a new and ultimate revelation, and rejects both Christianity and Judaism . Contrary to what most people believe, Muslims do not accept the texts of the Christian and Jewish Bibles, which they believe to be utterly corrupted. When the Qu'ran and Hadith do refer to our Scripture, it is in a twisted and corrupted form, and only for the purposes of supporting Islamic claims. Thus, the link between Christianity and Judaism is strong and direct, that between Islam and the others shaky in the extreme.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 27, 2007 9:14:10 AM
"Is contemporary Jewish theology and practice recognizable as legitimate under a Christian theological framework in a way that Islamic theology and practice is not? I'm not the one to ask for an answer, but I think that's the question we need."
And the answer is "yes", if I read Paul aright. "Legitimate" is a great word here, as the rest of us are adopted sons; and the Jewish inheritance (even in its "contemporary" manifestation, I think) deserves our acknowledgement and respect in a way the Mohammedan mania does not and cannot.
Romans 11:
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
Posted by: Joe L. | Aug 27, 2007 10:38:59 AM
The comparison of Muslims to Platonists doesn't hold. The Platonism is not built on a specific rejection of Jesus Christ as messiah; Islam is. I don't see how the "we worship the same God but different" folks can get around a charge of modalism.
Posted by: Gina | Aug 27, 2007 6:05:51 PM
Erase that "the" in front of Platonism, please.
Posted by: Gina | Aug 27, 2007 6:06:38 PM
What about the "they purport to worship (what must be by definition) the same God, but wrongly" folks?
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 27, 2007 9:47:19 PM
>>>The comparison of Muslims to Platonists doesn't hold. The Platonism is not built on a specific rejection of Jesus Christ as messiah; Islam is. I don't see how the "we worship the same God but different" folks can get around a charge of modalism.<<<
The main problem is mixing apples and oranges here. Platonism is a philosophical system; Islam is a religious system. There have been Christian platonists (Origen, anyone?) and platonism remains an important thread in Christian theology. Islam, on the other hand, is a syncretistic cult invented by one man in the seventh century AD through a combination of disparate elements of Jewish, Christian (mainly Nestorian and gnostic), Manichean and the native Arabian animism as a means of unifying the tribes of Arabia and bending them to the will of a single charismatic leader. Mohammed is merely a more successful Joseph Smith, who gave his followers some of what they wanted in order to get all of what he wanted. Any resemblance to Christianity or Judaism reflects not an ontological relationship, as between Judaism and Christianity, but merely the echo of the source materials Mohammed used when compiling the quaint little war manual most people know as the Quran.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 28, 2007 6:25:43 AM
To return to the news item that began this thread, Don Feder has a good column on the larger political meaning of Bishop Tiny's suggestion. Excerpts:
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) thought the prelate’s proposal a capital idea. “It reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same God,” CAIR Spokes-thug Ibrahim Hooper told FOXNews.com. Then, why don’t Muslims begin praying in the name of Jesus, or use the Hebrew word Adonai (Lord) in their prayers?....If there’s nothing in a name, why didn’t Joshua order that on entering the Holy Land, the God of Israel would henceforth be known as Baal, to facilitate relations with the Canaanites? Why did Jesus instruct his disciples to pray in his name?
....A poll in De Telegraaf, the largest paper in the Netherlands, found 92% of the Dutch opposed to the bishop’s bootlicking.
....The papers were filled with comments like “Sure. Let’s call God Allah. Let’s call a church a mosque.” Hollanders can also pray toward Mecca, dress their women in burquas and beat them when they’re “disobedient.” Why go half-way?
....In a 2006 [Dutch] opinion survey, 63% said the Religion of Peace is incompatible with modern European life, 68% felt threatened by “immigrant or Muslim young people,” 53% feared a terrorist attack by Dutch Muslims and 47% believed that at some point in their lives, Holland would be governed by Islamic law.
....Less sanguine is a French-born rabbi serving a synagogue in Brussels. Writing in The Jerusalem Post last October, Rabbi David Meyer confessed: “I am frightened not just by the anti-Semitism, but by the collective European response of indifference and appeasement. Today, Europe worships compromise. It is ‘fanatical’ in its non-violence. It is a Europe that, in the face of Islamic fanaticism, is ready to stay silent” – or suggest that we all begin praying to the god of jihad.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 28, 2007 7:37:08 AM
"What about the 'they purport to worship (what must be by definition) the same God, but wrongly' folks?"
"Wrongly" mistakenly, or "wrongly" disingenously?
Posted by: Joe L. | Aug 28, 2007 7:37:12 AM
"Wrongly" meaning worshiping him in ways he does not command and ascribing to him much that is not true.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 28, 2007 9:54:03 AM
" 'Wrongly' meaning worshiping him in ways he does not command and ascribing to him much that is not true."
You are unnecessarilly generous. "In ways He forbids, and ascribing to Him abominations", would I think be closer (and more charitable, as it does not give the false impression of "partial credit").
I get the impression that Islam, when highlighting its superficial resemblence to Christianity or to Judaism, is showing a "Mars Hill" mentality of its own, trying to prove to us that our own altar is the altar of ignorance and folly - or, short of that, to use a supposed kinship (never taken too seriously on the other side!) to jockey for advantage.
I must contend that the logic that "if there IS one God in a religion, it must be The One God of Christianity in some form" is flawed, a mere philosophical construct based on false premises (among them the contention that religions must actually BE logical at all). Not to put too fine a point on it, Moslems worship as God, whatever it was that gave its revelations to Mohammed - and they worship EXCLUSIVELY that god that Mohammed was prophet OF, whether black spirit of the pit or chemical imbalance of the brain.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 28, 2007 10:22:54 AM
To pop in briefly:
I think if you consider the source of the two different religions, it clarifies things a bit. Faithful Christians believe that we worship "the One God, the Father . . . and in Jesus Christ . . and in the Holy Spirit . . ." Now, we believe that this faith has come to us through divine revelation from the One God.
What is the source of the Islamic revelation? It could either be a demon or the whims and ideas of Muhammad ibn Abdullah, or his companions. So, while it is true that monotheists worship one god, it is not necessarily true that we all worship the One True God. Particularly, in the case of Islam, their god is either a demon or a fictitious character. Saying that all monotheists worship the One God but just misunderstand His character seems, therefore, somewhat inaccurate. Neither a demon or figment of imagination is the One True God.
Posted by: Scott Pennington | Aug 28, 2007 11:22:55 AM
>Saying that all monotheists worship the One God but just misunderstand His character seems, therefore, somewhat inaccurate. Neither a demon or figment of imagination is the One True God.
Amen!
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 28, 2007 11:30:53 AM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004