Jan
4
A few days ago I finished a study on the Gospel of Mark and realized just how many times Mark notes that Jesus was surrounded by a crowd of people (18 different times from what I saw). Although many rejected Jesus during his three-year ministry, he always attracted crowds because of his teachings, miracles, and lifestyle. I think we can learn from this as we seek to communicate the Gospel to those of other faiths.
One of the most important things we can do is to point others, especially those in other religious traditions, to the life of Jesus. This would include not only encouraging them to read the Gospels, but also for us to fill our thoughts and words with Christ. As we live out a Christ-like life and point others to see the beauty of Christ in the Gospels, others will be drawn to Him.
This past summer I heard the testimony of a sister in Christ who left Hinduism after seeing Jesus’ moral superiority over the Hindu gods she had been worshiping. In a similar way, many Buddhists have been drawn to Christ because of his compassion and selflessness. Many Muslims have been drawn to Christ as they see his love and experience his forgiveness. Also, many animists have been drawn to Christ because of his power to cast out evil spirits and heal the sick. As during his three-year ministry, Jesus continues to draw people to himself.
For example, in China there are now between 50-89 million Christians and some estimate that by 2010 there will be 119.5 million Christians. Moreover, in 1900 there were only 8.7 million Christians in Africa (8% of the pop.); however, in 2000 there were 346.5 million Christians in Africa (44% of the pop.).
May Christ continue to build up his Church by drawing all the nations to himself!
*Stats come from Disciples of all Nations by Lamin Sanneh.
Dec
5
The Disobedient Prophet?
Filed Under Islam | Leave a Comment
Last month I went to the annual meeting for the American Academy of Religion. The most interesting session I attended was titled “The Disobedient Prophet? Tensions between Qur’anic Verses and Prophetic Practice.”
The first presenter discussed the tension between minimalism and comprehensiveness in the development of Shariah law. He argued that the early Muslim community took a minimalist approach in which Muslims could choose to do as they wished as long as it was not required or forbidden in the Qur’an. He then argued that in time, the comprehensive position won out in which Shariah Law was understood to encompass all of life, based upon the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the example set by Muhammad). He finished by arguing that the different schools of law in the Islamic world differ due to the way they have chosen to work out the teachings of Qur’an and the Sunnah.
The second presenter gave the example of how the Qur’an (9:5) teaches to “slay pagans wherever you find them,” yet Muhammad chose to ransom prisioners at the end of the battle of Badr.
The third presenter gave the example of the Qur’anic injunction to beat a disobedient wife (4:34), yet some hadiths recount how Muhammad discouraged men from doing so.
The fourth presenter gave the example of how the Qur’an teaches that those guilty of sexual immorality should receive 100 lashes (24:2), yet in a hadith Muhammad says that those guilty of sexual immorality should be stoned instead.
At the end of the session, the panelists came to the conclusion that these contradictions were only apparent. They went into detail describing how Muslims through the centuries have attempted to solve the tensions. Some of the “solutions” were more convincing than others.
In any case, I left the session reminded of the difficulty and complexity of studying other faiths. Those in the Christian tradition who have studied theology, church history, and biblical studies know how complex some issues can be. It is common place for those who have even graduated with an M.Div. to feel like they just began to scratch the surface on so many different areas of study.
Therefore, as Christians who are studying other religions, we should be humble and realize that the various religious traditions we are studying have their own complex history of practices and beliefs, and cannot be “figured out” any more than Christianity can be “figured out” by simply reading a few books.
Aug
5
Who Speaks for Islam?
Filed Under Islam | Leave a Comment
I recently came across a very interesting book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. This book is based upon a Gallup’s World Poll in which they “surveyed a sample representing more than 90% of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims” (xi). The book provides great information on what the worldwide Muslim community thinks about politics, radical Islam, gender issues, and the west.
In the first chapter of the book, Esposito and Mogahed introduce the reader to the basic beliefs and practices of Islam. Unfortunately, a few of their statements reveal an apologetic bias. For example, they write that “Islam means a strong commitment to God and shares the same Arabic root as the word for peace, or salaam” (7). Actually, Islam means submission (to God). Thus, a Muslim is one who submits to God. A couple of pages later they write, “Jesus’ mother, Mary, is mentioned by name more times in the Quran than in the New Testament” (9). I am not sure exactly what point they were trying to make, but they are clearly trying to make their Christian readers feel more comfortable with Islam. This apologetic bias does call into question how the Gallup’s poll data was presented in the book. Nevertheless, the book is still valuable.
Instead of summarizing the book I just want to list a few of the findings that I found the most interesting:
1. 7% (91 million) of the Muslim world is radicalized (They believe that the 9/11 attacks were “completely” justified) (97).
2. Radicals are not more religious than the general population (98).
3. On average, the radicalized are more educated than moderate Muslims (71), disproving the idea that radicalism comes from the poor and uneducated.
4. The attributes most associated with the U.S. are: ruthless (68%), scientifically and technologically advanced (68%), aggressive (66%), conceited (65%), and morally decadent (64%).
I would recommend this book to those who want to better understand what Muslims believe (just beware of the bias of the authors).
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:
- In 2008, Muslims offended by puppy photo in Scotland
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374564,00.html - In 2006, Australian Muslim taxi cab drivers refuse service to blind with guide dog
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2121657.cms
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.
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
Feb
28
An Islamic Reformation?
Filed Under Islam | Leave a Comment
According to Islam, the goal of life is to submit and obey God. For the Muslim, this means obedience to God’s revelation in the Qur’an. However, because many daily concerns are not addressed in the Qur’an, how does a Muslim know what God requires? To answer these types of questions Muslims turn to the example of Muhammad, as recorded in the hadith. Hadiths are reports of the actions, sayings, and teachings of the prophet. These hadiths are grouped into various collections, some more authoritative than others. Therefore, although theologically the Qur’an is more important to a Muslim, the hadiths are more influential in their day to day life.
The reliability of the hadiths have for the most part been unquestioned within Islam, that is, until now.
In a recent BBC story it is reported that the Turkish Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned theologians at the Ankara University to study the hadiths and provide a revised edition of the collection. The Turkish government and the leading theologians in Turkey believe that many of the hadiths are not authentic and that they obscure the true teachings of Islam. They argue that many of the hadiths have taken on “cultural baggage” that is passed off as true Islam. According to the Turkish government, these inauthentic hadiths often have negative influence on Muslim societies.
It is difficult to say exactly how much this will affect the Muslim world; however, it is certain that if this new revised edition of the hadiths begins to be used around the world, Islam will begin to look much differently. Also, as with the Protestant Reformation, we could see a division within the Muslim world between those who accept the new collection of hadiths and those who will hold on to the old. Only time will tell.
Here is the link to the BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm