Allah: A Christian Response; Chapter One

WINDING THE WIND

Building off the foundations of his opening about the stakes between Muslims and Christians, Volf begins with a speech delivered by Pope Benedict XVI after the crisis over the Danish caricatures of Muhammad in 2006. The relevant portion is quoted below:

"In the international context we are living in at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected."

Volf then begins with a historical analysis behind the initial support from Muslims for the Pope, and then the sudden backlash that followed when the Pope seemingly turned their back on him. Having not studied this issue in any real depth beyond mining the internet for the alleged cartoon, this was a real eye-opener. This is the world's most powerful Christian and he seems to be sounding tolerant and in the mood for the building of inter-religious bridges. What changed?

The Pope said:

"Intolerance and violence can never be justified as a response to offenses, as they are not compatible responses with the sacred principles of religion."

Volf believes that this reference to Muslim's rioting after the caricatures, and the Muslim backlash against the Pope's words was both productive and dissatisfying. The Pope seemed to be revoking his initial support. But the material seems far deeper than just that.

I will confess, it strikes me as both odd and amusing that caricatures would invoke such a violent response, but this coming from an American sitting in his parents house.

Muslim scholars responded with an "Open Letter" that contained a refutation of the Pope's words, a letter that in one year would become the document "A Common Word Between Us and You."

At this point, Volf has contended that the Pope has actually revealed a great chasm between both Abrahamic religions. His history lesson, build on modern principles, extrapolates from the past wars to create a tapestry of open wounds and smoldering fissions. There is a distinction made between Christianity's "God as reason" and Islam's "God as pure will" that travels back to the 14th century. Miroslav contends that historical Christianity seems to teach that God encourages reason, deliberation and persuasion; the perception of Islam is far more based on arbitrary violence and the use of the sword. In Benedict XVI's view, the Muslim God is a completely arbitrary deity, and therefore Islam is incompatible with deliberative democracy.

Now given that the Pope made comments about freedom and the "intolerance" of Islam in his speech, he inadvertently opened old wounds and showed a perceived distinction between both faiths. For me, this was illuminating. Whatever your thoughts thus far, Volf cannot be dismissed as not chasing the devil into the tall reeds of details.

From my own experience, I have noticed a great chasm between both faiths, but I had never thought to reconcile them together. I still don't think we really can, but Volf has certainly planted something in there. Away we go.

GENERAL RIVER OF CONSIDERATIONS

Even beyond the distinctions between Christianity and Islam (trinity being a big one), Volf contends (himself a strong trinitarian) that he has no interest in creating religious pluralism. He seems to view that as an intellectual cop-out and too easy to fall into. Christians, we are not dealing with some crazed liberal fundamentalist out to overturn everything we hold dear. Nor are we dealing with an impotent scholar who cannot recognize his beard from his nose. Miroslav Volf's work cannot be dismissed, and it ought not be. In fact, in an interview he admitted that the blurb on the back of Allah ["Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?] wasn't his doing and he did seem to express some doubt as to it's intended result.

However, Volf does seem intent on creating a sort of political pluralism. He does leave room for his being overly idealistic, and I do think he is. This is not a slam, but I'm a cynic. At this point, I'm hoping he's right but one glance at the headlines about material within our own borders doesn't give me great cause for celebration.

I'll leave it to later chapters for Volf's thesis to hopefully work it's magic.

A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU

Inspired by the Open Letter mentioned in the first section, the expressed goal of the drafters was not to create division, but to mark similarities. I will several verses (I think that is what they are called).

According to the Qur'an, "Do not contend with people of the Book except in the fairest way." (AL 'Ankabut, 29:46). 

Taking up the claim that Muhammad follows the example of many heresy hunters, Benedict mentions the famous verse from the Qur'an, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Al Baqarah, 2:256).

And the one that stuck out to me and it is according to the Open Letter, "God has many Names in Islam, including the Merciful, the Just, the Seeing, the Hearing, the Knowing, the Loving, and the Gentle. Their utter conviction in God's Openness and that "There is none like Him." (Al Ikhlas, 112:4).

"If justice, mercy and knowledge are God's own attributes, then there is no room for divine capriciousness." (Volf, pg26). I will contend that capriciousness could be compatible with such things, provided it is redefined. But, that would be a redefinition, right?

LOVE OF GOD, LOVE OF NEIGHBOR

According to the Open Letter, Islam is at it's heart about love of God and love of neighbor. Though the Qur'an never explicitly states 'love for God,' a human attribute is applied to God. There is none like Him. The drafters of the Open Letter remind Muslims that their hearts must be completely devoted to God. According to the hadith, Muhammad stated, "None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself." The Common Word then goes on to bring about the two greatest commandments written to Muslims and Christs, love of God, love of neighbor.

They view it as an area of common ground, where Christians and Muslims can rejoice in similarities. This could be the bridge, Volf argues, to bring us closer together. As we found in the first post, Muslims and Christians make up a substantive percent of the world's population, and getting us to play nicely together in our respective sandboxes might be a worthy option. Even, if Volf concedes, it is overly idealistic.

I will conclude this section with a remark from Nostra Aetate, written by the Second Vatican Council:

"The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful, and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God."

CONCLUSION

I will confess that I didn't know this section existed anywhere. In fact, I know many Christians would say it is wrong, dangerous or even heresy to say such a thing. I know many/most Christians would never even think of such things.

I will also confess that I don't really know what to make of such things from the Second Vatican Council. I am looking forward to seeing what Volf writes and how he nuances much of his arguments. Thus far, I am unconvinced, but Volf's thoughts cannot be dismissed.

--NIck

Hopped and Bothered; Stone Smoked Porter Chipotle

Stone -- Smoked Porter w/Chipotle

Alcohol content 5.9%. Dark and nearly nubilous. Almost a mineral white head, akin to bone. Instant pepper aroma, mixed with malt and a hint of roasted coffee. First sip is strong and typical Stone; hidden hop base mixed with a charred tang. As the brew warms, the peppers become stronger on the bite, with the spice lingering nicely on the lips. The flavor, save for the aforementioned charred malts, is restricted solely to the chile. The chile is a nice addition, but is not enough to carry the full weight of the brew to the finish, which is lacking.

Buy if: you want a decent smoked chile beer.

Overall: Though the spices and chile work well, the roasted malts that Stone is known for do little to distinguish it from other beers.

2 out of 5.

--Nick

Roman Catholic Theology and Biblical Theology?

I'm really excited for this book now, as Levering engages with Tom Wright and Richard Hays. Should be a nice back and forth. I will be very interested to hear a Catholic view of eschatology, as well as their view of the "descent into hell" as I lean that way anyway.

McKnight:

Matthew Levering, a Catholic theologian at Dayton University, examines Christian eschatology in the Catholic tradition but first asks if that theology is biblical (Jesus and the Demise of Death: Resurrection, Afterlife, and the Fate of the Christian, Baylor, 2012). What we also are treated to in this clear and versatile academic book is direct engagement with Tom Wright’s approach to eschatology, especially in his The Resurrection of the Son of God and Surprised by Hope.

In a sentence, the problem can be put this way: Catholic theology is too Platonic to be biblical or Jewish. This is what Levering will put to the test, but first he wants to know if major doctrines are biblical. Is Scripture, to use the words of the Pope, the “soul of theology” or not?

Questions today: Is Catholic eschatology too Platonic? (How so?) And does the pushback against Platonism in Christian eschatology lead too often to an eschatology that is too horizontal and not vertical enough? Or, is the recent trend in scholars like N.T. Wright not Platonic enough?

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Richard Beck & "The Theology of Calvin and Hobbes"

I've only now become aware of Dr. Beck's blog, but this has immediate piqued my interest. If you are a fan of this classic comic (as I am), please read and ponder away. Be warned, you will probably disagree with him. ;)

Beck:

Last school year I wrote a series of essays for an "online book" about The Theology of Peanuts. I had such fun with that project and so many of you enjoyed it that I thought I'd offer up this sequel, The Theology of Calvin and Hobbes.

I grew up with Peanuts so that was a natural place for me to begin, but during the writing of The Theology of Peanuts many of you (mostly former students of mine) expressed your fondness for Calvin and Hobbes. Demographically, this makes sense. Calvin and Hobbes appeared from November 18, 1985 to December 31, 1995. I was in college and graduate school during those years, a bit too busy to notice or keep up with the Calvin and Hobbes phenomenon. But for many of my former students Calvin and Hobbes was a large part of their childhood.

So I was late in coming to Calvin and Hobbes, but after The Theology of Peanuts I was looking for something new to explore. Consequently, I promptly went out and purchased The Complete Calvin and Hobbes and sat down to read. The three volumes of The Complete Calvin and Hobbes weighs over 22 pounds, but it is a beautiful bit of publishing. I sat, read, laughed, and pondered through the spring and summer. I now count myself to be a fan of Bill Watterson's genius. My affection for Calvin and Hobbes now rivals my love for Peanuts.

For the table of contents that will offer awesome goodness, click HERE.

--Nick

The Dark Knight, Assaults and Gun Laws?

Healy:

Despite their large differences, all of the U.S. regions have higher average rates of death from assault than any of the 24 OECD countries we looked at previously. The placid Northeast comes relatively close to the upper end of the most violent countries in our OECD group.

 ...

Finally, there’s the question of racial and ethic incidence of these deaths within the United States. Here are the decade’s trends broken out by the race of the victim, rather than by state or region.

The story here is depressing. Blacks die from assault at more than three times the U.S. average, and between ten and twenty times OECD rates. In the 2000s the average rate of death from assault in the U.S. was about 5.7 per 100,000 but for whites it was 3.6 and for blacks it was over 20. Even 3.6 per 100,000 is still well above the OECD-24 average, which–if we exclude the U.S.–was about 1.1 deaths per 100,000 during the 2000s, with a maximum value of 2.9. An average value of 20 is just astronomical. And this is after a long period of decline in the death rate from assault.

I guess for what it is worth, these stats are sobering. I'm not fully convinced that restricting gun laws will solve much though I'm not really a conservative in regards to gun control, but the issue of assaults based on race is illuminating. Especially if one applies it to a larger and more corporate context.

Does being pro-life (including welfare, overall poverty and abortion) factor into this? I think so. Is there a flip side to this, in restricting gun laws that could potentially harm those that would be responsible and defend themselves against such an assault?

Much food to think about. What should be the "Christian" response to gun laws? Does the constitution/individual rights trump Jesus, or can they be harmonized, or is there some other way?

For the rest of the article, click HERE.

--Nick

Grilled "Cheesus?"

I'm at a loss.

For the page, click HERE.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "John Piper & Canaanite Genocide"

Enns:

Pro and con, to my post on John Piper and his view on Canaanite genocide and his view that, “It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases.” 

I will say, however, that, although some pushback comments were very insightful and brought to the table issues of importance, a number of them were implicitly working from a false, though common, dichotomy: pitting against each other (1) engagement of Scripture informed by what we know of ancient context, and (2) any notion of biblical authority, inspiration, etc.

Such a posture is a lamentable innovation of recent generations of Fundamentalist influence on how Christians think about the Bible, prompted by some uncomfortable developments in biblical studies over the last two centuries. But in truth, the church has a long track record, going back to the 2nd century, of grappling with, let’s call it, the problem of history in the Bible, i.e., what it means for a transcendent God to speak within the humble and limiting circumstances of the human drama.
Of particular interest at the outset was how God’s actions in the Old Testament, especially his violence, can be squared with the not only the ethics of the gospel but common reason and decency. One early solution that stuck was to read these passages of violence allegorically. At the end of the day, I don’t think that solution works, but let’s not lose sight of the motivating factor:

God does things in the Old Testament that cause theological problems for Christians, and so we have to think about what to do about them.

We today are latecomers to this conversation, although some, apparently, do not seem to be aware that it is even an issue.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Craig Keener and the Evangelical Left

Craig Keener:

Public reports usually focus on the majority of evangelicals recently affiliated with the religious right. We generally hear little, however, about the third of evangelicals who lean in the other direction (except for a few well-known figures such as Tony Campolo or Jim Wallis). Likewise, many do not realize that evangelicals have never been a permanent constituency of the right: through most of their history, most evangelicals have been politically varied and unpredictable. President Obama and other Democrats who have tried to reach out to evangelicals, therefore, act strategically, even though it will undoubtedly take time for major shifts of political affiliation to occur. 

The association of evangelicals with the political right is recent, not characteristic of the evangelical heritage. Indeed, even the emphasis on separation of church and state in the West arose especially among Anabaptists who faced persecution for dissenting from the state churches. From the late 18th century on, social justice was a defining characteristic of evangelical faith, and the abolition of the slave trade, and ultimately slavery itself, became the leading evangelical social agenda. William Wilberforce and his allies achieved this outcome fairly peacefully in the British Empire. Many evangelicals worked for abolitionism in the United States as well, though the issue ultimately divided this country and its churches, often along geographic lines, and culminated in a civil war. After the war, those evangelicals who had supported abolition remained in the forefront of working for justice among the poor.

What happened to evangelical social concern? In the early 20th century the modernist-fundamentalist controversy polarized many churches. "Modernists" argued for accommodating modern knowledge and "fundamentalists" (not initially a pejorative term) argued for maintaining what they saw as the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Although the spectrum of Christian opinion was actually much more diverse (for example, most African-American churches never felt part of either camp), extreme voices often polarized their constituencies. As characterized by their opponents, these voices either abandoned historic Christian doctrines or rejected modern knowledge. (Such dismissive stereotypes persist today, most frequently as unfair caricatures.)

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

No Forgiveness for Sins?

Quient:

There are some passages in Scripture that seem a bit disturbing when set in the context of the rest of Scripture. We are taught that God can and will forgive any and all sin and yet there are some passages that if read simplistically (or according to what some would call “the plain meaning of Scripture”) appear to teach that some sins cannot be forgiven.

 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit…and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame (Hebrews 6:4,6).

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 10:26).

The good news is that Biblical background and context make all the difference when it comes to understanding the meaning of Scripture. Victor Hamilton in the Handbook on the Pentateuch informs us of how another oddity in Scripture helps us resolve this one. “The Old Testament sacrificial system makes provisions only for accidental sins, not for those perpetrated deliberately” (245). However, when you look at what constitutes an “accidental sin” you soon realize it includes sins that could not possibly be done without knowledge. For instance, the following are included: stealing, lying about something someone lost, and lying about being innocent of another crime or to cover up another crime!

 For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick