Jul

8

Who can use the word “Allah”?

Filed Under Communicating with those of other faiths, Islam, Sikhism | 1 Comment 

I recently came across a story in the Times of India which describes how in Muslim-majority Malaysia, Sikhs are going to court for the right to use the word “Allah” in their sacred scriptures.  The Malaysian government has banned non-Muslims from using the word.  What is even more interesting is that the Sikhs are not the only ones fighting for this right; even a Roman Catholic newspaper is going to court to keep its right to use “Allah” for God.

As you might know, the use of “Allah” by Christians when referring to the god of the Bible is a controversial issue in missiology.  Some argue that ”Allah” is simply the generic Arabic word for god and as such, it can be used by Christians.  On the other hand, others argue that the word “Allah” is too closely tied to Islam, and using it leads to doctrinal confusion.

There are many issues to consider:

1. Can the word “Allah” be separated from Islam?
2. What do you do if you are in an Arabic-speaking context and there is no other word for God?
3. What word have Arabic-speaking Christians used for God through the centuries?
4. How would using “Allah” for the god of the Bible confuse a Muslim, a new believer, etc?
5. How would the issue be different in a Muslim context as opposed to a non-Muslim context?
6. How would the issue be different in an Arabic-speaking context as opposed to a non-Arabic speaking context?
7. How would this issue affect Bible translation? Translation of Christian materials? Evangelistic materials?
8. How would using “Allah” facilitate or detract from the communication of the gospel?
9. How would not using “Allah” facilitate or detract from the communication of the gospel?

These questions are by no means exhaustive, but they do show how the issue is more complex than many make it out to be.  No matter where you stand on this issue, the reality is that a new believer needs to be taught about the nature of God as revealed in the Bible.  If the new believer was a Muslim then he must be taught the difference between the god of the Bible and the god of the Qur’an.  Similarly, if the new believer was an atheist then he must be taught the difference between what the Bible says God is like versus what he has heard about God from those around him.  This is true for all believers.  We should continually check to see how our view of God lines up with God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures.  As A.W. Tozer once wrote, “What comes into our minds when we think of God is the most important thing about us.” (The Knowledge of the Holy, Chapter 1) 

Jul

2

Why do Muslims not like dogs?

Filed Under Islam | 2 Comments 

Well, not all Muslims.  However, traditionally Muslims have avoided dogs since they are ritually unclean. Here are two interesting stories I saw about Muslims and dogs:

From my studies I had learned that Muslims are usually not that keen about dogs, but I had never really seen documentation about where this came from. So, I decided to do some investigation. Here are a few of Muhammad’s sayings about dogs found in Sahih Bukhari (the most respected collection of Hadiths in the Muslim world):

1. Volume 1, Book 4, #173

Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah’s Apostle said, “If a dog drinks from the utensil of anyone of you it is essential to wash it seven times.””

2. Volume 1, Book 9, #490

Narrated ‘Aisha:  “The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. For I disliked to face him.”"

3. Volume 3, Book 39, #516

Narrated As-Sa’ib bin Yazid: “Abu Sufyan bin Abu Zuhair, a man from Azd Shanu’a and one of the companions of the Prophet said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘If one keeps a dog which is meant for guarding neither a farm nor cattle, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily.” I said, “Did you hear this from Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “Yes, by the Lord of this Mosque.”"

4. Volume 4, Book 54, #448

Narrated Abu Talha: “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying; “Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal).”” 

5. Volume 4, Book 54, #450

Narrated Salim’s father: “Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, “We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.””

 On the blogroll to the right I added a link to an electronic concordance of the Qur’an and Hadith.

Jul

2

Mason Jennings: Great Musician, Not-so-good Philosopher of Religion (Part II)

Filed Under Religious Pluralism | 3 Comments 

Second, Mason rejects the idea that there is only one way to God for a variety of reasons, but I wanted to respond to a couple of them. He says about God, “you are un-namable, unknowable, all we have is metaphor.” I agree that the human mind is incapable of fully grasping God. Thus, he is incomprehensible, but that does not mean that we can know nothing about God. In his song Mason actually claims to know a lot about God.

I also agree that much of our language about God must be in metaphor since God is completely above and beyond us. We must use figures of speech, yet this does not mean that the differences between religions are simply linguistic differences. For example, monotheistic religions believe that God created the universe and is distinct from it. In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no creator God because the universe has always existed. God is either identical to the universe or he does not even exist. These differences cannot be explained away by appealing to semantics.

Moreover, Mason, as religious pluralists must do, must reject the idea that God has objectively revealed himself. If God has not revealed himself to humanity then all differences between religions can be attributed to people holding false ideas (i.e they made it up or just got it wrong).

However, if God has revealed himself and has taught truth about himself and creation then we no longer are at liberty to say that all religions lead to God unless he has said so. If God has revealed himself, what he has said about the way to him is very important. For example, according to Islam, Allah teaches that the way to heaven is earned by following the 5 Pillars or by becoming a martyr. In contrast, according to the New Testament the way to heaven cannot be earned but is received by trusting in Jesus Christ’s death for one’s sins. Moreover, in the Qur’an, Allah says that he has no offspring (i.e Jesus is not the Son of God) and that the worst sin one can do is adding anything to Allah (i.e Trinity). In the Qur’an, Allah condemns Christian doctrine. On the other hand, when Jesus was on earth he said that he was the only way to heaven; thus, he excluded all other paths to God. Repentance of sins and trust in him are the only ways to heaven. The Qur’an and Jesus cannot both be right. They both can be wrong, but they both cannot be right since they clearly contradict each other.

Ignoring these differences is an affront to both religious traditions. The main problem with those who hold to religious pluralism is that they do not take any religion seriously and they somehow think that they can stand above all religious traditions from the past and present and say to them “You are all pretty much the same. You are simply different paths to the same God.” They accuse religious exclusivists of being arrogant simply for believing what their sacred texts say while they see themselves as humble when they place themselves above all religious traditions and declare them all equally valid.

Jun

26

Mason Jennings: Great Musician, Not-so-good Philosopher of Religion (Part I)

Filed Under General religion, Religious Pluralism | 1 Comment 

In his newest album, In the Ever, Mason Jennings includes this provocative song:

“I Love You and Buddha Too” 

Oh Jesus, I love you
And I love Buddha too
Ramakrishna, Guru Dev
Tao Te Ching and Mohammed
Why do some people say
There there is just one way
To love you God and come to you
We are all a part of you
You are un-nameable
You are unknowable
All we have is metaphor
That’s what time and space are for
Is the universe your thought
You are and you are not
You are many, You are one
Ever ending, just begun
Alright, alright, alright
I love you and Buddha too

Mason Jennings is probably my favorite musician. I have listened to him for years and always enjoy his songs. Actually, my favorite concert of all time was a concert of his I went to in Tucson, Az a few years back.

In “I Love You and Buddha Too” Mason is clearly promoting Religious Pluralism, i.e. all religions are equally valid ways to God. The problem with Religious Pluralism and with Mason’s view is that many religions contradict each other. Thus, Mason is forced to reshape the teachings of various religions in order to make his point.

1. First, he incorrectly applies the Christian teaching about loving God (i.e by loving Jesus) to other religions. Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, never taught that people should love him. This would imply desire and attachment, which is the opposite of what he wanted. The Buddha actually diverted attention from himself at all cost.

I am not sure why Mason included “Tao Te Ching” (maybe because it fit in the song) because this is the title of a collection of works from philosophical Taoism. There is no concept in Taoism about loving “Tao Te Ching.”

Moreover, in Islam there is no concept of loving Muhammad. He is the last prophet, the perfect man, but he is not seen as an object of love and adoration (at least in orthodox Islam). There is not even the idea of loving Allah in Islam (except in Sufism).

Mason adopts the Christian belief that God is a personal deity that is to be loved and erroneously tries to apply it to other religions.

Jun

13

Is it ok to “baptize” the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths?

Filed Under Buddhism, Communicating with those of other faiths, Great Commission | 4 Comments 

The Buddha’s teachings can be boiled down to The Four Noble Truths and The Eight-fold Path. The Four Noble Truths are:

1. Life is dukkha (suffering, dislocation, transience. Life is not the way it should be)
2. Dukkha is caused by tanha (desire, thirst for permanence)
3. Dukkha can cease when tanha is removed…cessation of tanha is Nirvana.
4. Tanha is removed through the Eight-fold Path:

                1. Right views
                2. Right intent
                3. Right speech
                4. Right conduct
                5. Right livelihood
                6. Right effort
                7. Right mindfulness
                8. Right concentration

In “Evangelism in the New Millennium: An Integrated Model of Evangelism to Buddhists Using Theology, Anthropology, and Religious Studies” Ubolwan Mejudhon advocates presenting the gospel to Buddhists with a Christian version of the Four Noble Truths.* His “baptized” Four Noble Truths are:^

1. Suffering is a fact of life
2. The cause of suffering is sin
3. The cure for sins is the suffering of Christ
4. The way to deliverance is through faith in Jesus Christ

At first I thought it was a clever idea. However, I then began to question my initial judgment since these Four Noble Truths clearly do not contain the full gospel message. They contain truth but not the entire truth. Nevertheless, I still think these “baptized” Noble Truths can be useful in communicating the gospel to Buddhists as long as they are supplemented with the rest of the message.

*Article is in Sharing Jesus in the Buddhist World, edited by David Lin and Steve Spaulding (2003).
^He credits J.T. Seamand with this version of the Four Noble Truths. Seamand, J.T.. Tell It Well: Communicating the Gospel across Cultures (1981).

Jun

10

The Gospel in Chinese

Filed Under Chinese Religion, Communicating with those of other faiths, Great Commission | Leave a Comment 

I just finished reading a great book on Christianity in China.  In Confucius, The Buddha, and Christ: A History of the Gospel in Chinese Ralph R. Covell presents an outstanding history of Christianity in China.  He discusses the traditional Chinese worldview, Nestorian Christianity in China, the various methods missionaries have used among the Chinese, how Christianity has interacted with Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, and modern attempts of making Christianity Chinese.

Although the book is dated (1986) and only includes limited discussion of the underground house church movement and the amazing growth of Christianity in China since the 80s (some estimate over 100 million Christians in China), it is still a great work for those who are planning on working in China or among Chinese in the Diaspora.  The book is even a great resource for those who are not planning on working among the Chinese people.  Throughout the book Covell discusses the issue of contextualization, which all cross-cultural communicators of the gospel must deal with.  At times Covell does advocate too much contextualization for my theological liking, but he does raise some good points.  I would recommend this book to anyone planning on engaging in cross-cultural gospel communication. 

Jun

1

The Namesake- A look into Hinduism

Filed Under Hinduism | Leave a Comment 

Although I am not a film critic, I would like to recommend a film I saw tonight. The Namesake follows the story of a Hindu family in the U.S. If you are interested in India, Hinduism or in studying cross-cultural communication you will particularly enjoy this film.

*The film contains a few questionable scenes (PG-13).

May

28

Syncretism- Jesus and Hindu gods

Filed Under Communicating with those of other faiths, General religion, Hinduism | 2 Comments 

                                                                         

A few years back I went to India to do some ethnographic research. A national Christian led us around as we did our research. In one of the villages we walked through he took us to the home of a woman who had started attending a small group Bible study he was leading. Upon entering her home I noticed that she had pictures of Hindu deities on her wall just like every other Hindu home I had entered. However, as you can see, her wall was a little different. Instead of just having the traditional Hindu gods and heroes like Shiva and Hanuman, she added a framed picture of a “Catholic” Jesus. Some religions, like Hinduism, are more syncretistic than others yet syncretism is common in all religious traditions.

Syncretism often takes place when animistic cultures adopt a foreign more dominant world religion. In South America, many Catholics have exchanged their traditional gods and spirits for the Virgin Mary and saints, but have essentially kept their animistic worldview. In Africa, many Muslims have added outward forms of Muslim dress and ritual, but have kept their traditional beliefs creating a form of folk Islam. Some scholars contend that up to 75% of Muslims actually practice a form of folk Islam. In Thailand, the heart of Theravada Buddhism, Buddhists are supposed to be practicing the purest form of Buddhism yet most live their lives worshipping local spirits that determine their health and wealth.

Animists in these cultures tend to see Catholicism, Islam, and Buddhism as having to do more with the afterlife, but the everyday life is still about the local spirits. In order to have a successful crop or successful business, and to avoid illness animists must gain the favor or appease the spirits that control their everyday lives.

When ministering to those of other faiths it is important to remember that most Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on do not live the religion that is typically described in textbooks. Although studying the “textbook” form of a religion is necessary, it is equally important to understand the animistic worldview that the practitioner might have.

For more information on syncretism, animism, and folk religions see The Myth of the Eternal Return by Mircea Eliade, The Unseen Face of Islam by Bill Musk, Understanding Folk Religions by Hiebert, Shaw and Tienou, and Communicating Christ in Animistic Cultures by Gailyn Van Rheenen 

May

18

Mecca: the center of the earth?

Filed Under Islam | Leave a Comment 

A few weeks ago the BBC reported that various Muslim scientists and clerics called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT because they believe that it is the center of the earth.    For Muslims, Mecca has always been “theologically” the center of the earth; however, now one Muslim geologist is arguing that Mecca is also physically the true center of the earth since Mecca’s longitude is perfectly aligned to magnetic north.  Although I am not a scientist, I am thinking that other scientists might disagree.  In any case, this story provides a good occasion to review important facts about Mecca:

1. During the time of Muhammad, the Kaa’ba (cube-like building) was an important pagan religious site located in Mecca.

2. After Muhammad gained control of Mecca, he cleared the Kaa’ba of its idols and ”baptized” pagan practices that revolved around the Kaa’ba by giving them new Muslim meanings.  These practices are still performed as part of the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca which all Muslims are expected to do if they are able to)

3. All Muslims are expected to perform their ritual prayers 5 times a day facing in the direction of the Kaa’ba in Mecca.  (Muhammad initially had his community face Jerusalem to do their prayers, but later changed it to Mecca)

4. According to the Qur’an, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaa’ba and were commanded to carry out the rituals that are now performed as part of the Hajj. But, according to Muslim tradition, Abraham only rebuilt the Kaa’ba since Adam built it first.  Also, according to some traditions, when Allah created the world he first created Mecca and then spread out from there, making it the center of the world. 

5.   For Muslims, Mecca is the axis mundi, the center of the world.  It is where heaven and earth meet.  Everyday millions of Muslims face Mecca and are united in their submission to Allah as they perform their ritual prayers.  Mecca is a symbol of what is most sacred and important (non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca).  It is a symbol of the “purest” form of monotheism which began with Adam, was carried on by the prophets who followed him, and which was finally renewed by Muhammad. 

For Muslims, this one city, Mecca, stands as a physical reminder of the oneness of Allah and of the unity of his ummah (Muslim community).  With this understanding of Mecca, it is not surprising that Muslim scientists and clerics want the world to keep track of time based upon their most holy and precious city.

 The BBC story can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359258.stm

Apr

14

Conversing with those of other faiths

Filed Under Communicating with those of other faiths | 2 Comments 

1. Imago Dei and the Fall: When I engage in conversation with someone of another faith, especially about spiritual matters, it is tempting to see him as an opponent to be defeated. In order to combat this sinful mindset I need to remind myself that we are both equally created in the image of God, and that we are both fallen creatures who need a savior. We share in our guilt before God, and in our need to be forgiven and restored with God through Jesus Christ. My enemy is not the person of another faith but rather the powers and principalities that are at work. If I approach others as fellow sinners who have been created in the image of God I will more likely be able to engage them with sympathy, humility and Christ-like love.

2. Learner and Servant: Often when people of different faiths begin discussing their beliefs they end up trying to win the “debate” by proving the other person wrong. Unfortunately, Christians often end up doing the same thing. However, our goal is not to win debates but rather to point people to Christ. In engaging those of other faiths our goal should be to reveal Christ’s love to them in word and deed. One way we can love those of other faiths is by coming to them as learners. If we truly care about them as we claim we do, we need to be humble, ask questions, and be willing to learn from them. Our job is not to “set them straight.” In addition, we can show them Christ’s love by serving them. In obedience to Christ, Christians should always be looking for opportunities to serve, but this is even more important as we engage those of other faiths. Our lives need to reflect the message we are trying to communicate.

3. Similarities and Differences: When discussing spiritual matters with a person of another faith it is helpful to point out common beliefs, especially at the beginning of a conversation. Highlighting how our worldviews overlap to some extent may help break down some of the communication barriers. However, being clear about differences in belief, especially those relating directly to the gospel message (Creation-Fall-Redemption), is more important. Ignoring the differences would be a disservice to both faiths. In contrasting belief systems, Christians have an opportunity to clearly communicate the gospel.

Note: Comparing beliefs should not involve making derogatory remarks about their founder nor their scriptures. This will not make them more apt to listen.

← Previous Page — Next Page →