Main

June 17, 2007

The Continuing Adventures of Minds Openning and Brains Spilling Out

On the lighter side of the news, file under: 'Nothing will surprise me ever again' . . .

Casual Sunday perusal of Powerline, the best blog written by conservative lawyers not named Eugene Volokh, uncovered this gem of Universal Super-Tolerance, the story of an Episcopal priest who decided to become a Muslim. Of course, she's* still an Episcopal Priest . . . and a Muslim . . . but an Episcopal priest too . . . but Muslim . . .

[reboot]

Casual Sunday perusal of Powerline, the best blog written by conservative lawyers not named Eugene Volokh, uncovered this gem of Universal Super-Tolerance, the story of an Episcopal priest who decided to become a Muslim. Of course, she's* still an Episcopal Priest . . . and a Muslim . . . but an Episcopal priest too . . . but Muslim . . .

[reboot, safe mode]

Y'all read that Seattle Times story about the Muslim Episcopal priest? Quotes abound:

Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.

Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?

. . .

"There are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different," said Kurt Fredrickson, director of the doctor of ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. "The most basic would be: What do you do with Jesus?"

Well? What do you do with Jesus?
Redding doesn't feel she has to resolve all the contradictions. People within one religion can't even agree on all the details, she said. "So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?

"At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need."

. . .

Redding's views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal.

She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.

She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.

She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will.

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.

If anybody grasps God's plan in this one, you let me know, 'kay?

* Awesome thing about my Mom #29,764 is that if she were reading this post, she would probably have stopped at the words 'she' and 'priest' and not even bothered continuing to read. I don't even really remember this, but when we were living in Hawaii, our church was in the middle of calling a new pastor. (Welcome to mainstream Protestantism all you evangelical readers). My Mom apparently saved up all the maternal discipline my sisters and I got for a week and single-handedly derailed any chances of that church calling a female pastor for maybe the next 50 years. My Mom rules.

May 06, 2007

Death Is Dead, And So Is Karma

In which we restate the obvious with the full knowledge that such is what the readership here is used to, so we decide to do so "again and again and again, from different angles" (name that Simpsons episode) ... we may even cite sources [gasp]...

.Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma ... I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace ... You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma (Of course, he's right: Hinduism & Karma = Buddhism & the cycle of suffering = Confucianism & Golden Rule-esque sayings = Islam & people crowding Mideast streets 9/12/01 and called the attacks the day before God's punishment on an immoral nation = Judeo-Christianity & the law -ed). You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff. (This quote doubles as Matt Heerema Rant #2684 -ed)a

.1As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (read: Whose Karma was it? -ed) 3Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (read: It was nobody's Karma, but my own purposes that necessitated this man's condition. -ed) 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." 6Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud 7and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing. (See? -ed)b

I was in Borders on day (whoops), and decided to browse the new release Christian section (double whoops). The first thing I noticed, me being me, was that at least half of the book contained something resembling heresy. Of these, the most humorous/not even remotely funny was a work chronicling the interaction between men and God with the underlying thesis that God needs us as much as we need Him, to be taken to the point that man has deeply influenced God, his interactions with us, and the very course of all history that God would dare dictate to us. Decontexualized examples include Sodom and Gomorrah, Job, and kings from Saul to Hezekiah. In other words, history is a humanistic triumph in the face of God. At its core, one could easily grab one core assumption (besides the fact that this author hadn't ever read Isaiah 40): God is capricious, childish, inconsistent, and most importantly, not worthy of anyone's absolute obedience.

One of the greatest lies about the law is that it is as capricious, childish, inconsistent, and most importantly, not worthy of anyone's absolute obedience as the God that set it upon tablets and in our hearts. Sabbaths, no shellfish, sin offerings, what's up with all that? Every politician (except for maybe the bad ones) will tell you that a law is no law without an enforcement vehicle (up to and including helicopters, silly Belgians). So what's God's enforcement vehicle? It may be Hell, but then Hell fits better as the place that those that do not enter into relationship with God choose. Rather/additionally, Karma fills that role. All of the law is there with our welfare as the end. I can't tell you what purpose each rule has, but after you sow so many types of wind only to reap just as many different whirlwinds, you give the Big Man Upstairs the benefit of the doubt. If I stick my finger in the electrical socket a few time and get shocked each time, I'm not sticking my finger in any more electrical sockets, especially after a figurative Michael Riley tells me every socket in the room is hot. (That reminds me; ask me about my cousin in Afghanistan. Good times, great oldies.)

In fact, that reminds me of some 'No OT, no Paul, no Patriarchy' Christians at one Tom Short speaking engagement that decided that (among other things, Dan Brown kind of things, things that should refute themselves but don't) much of the rabbinical law was nothing more than a public health code, with healthy laws ranging from the separation from diseased people rules, to required railings on roofs, to that whole shellfish thing. In this regard, they contend the exact opposite of the God's-off-the-wagon-again crowd: this whole Law thingy makes so much sense, no God I know could have written it. Both extremes lead back to the original lie: God either cares more about proving He's the boss than He does about man's welfare, or He couldn't plan a smiting, much less a path to salvation.

.34Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." 39They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, 40but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.c

.5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- 6just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? 7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.d

The Abrahamic spat above directly precedes Jesus healing the man born blind. The short version is that the Pharisees don't know grace from 18% gratuities, because they miss the fact that righteousness comes through faith. (It's almost like the Epistles were written as direct corroboration of the Gospels. Somebody pinch me.) They then prove their ignorance by approaching everyday suffering and missing the Grace inherent in the moment in favor of the same old Karma. 'Everything is changing,' he replies, 'and I'm setting it all right.'

.Have you ever wondered what you would do to frighten Lazarus after he had been raised from the dead? What would you do to threaten him? Caligula said “I’m going to kill you as I’m killing all the Christians.” Lazarus doubles over in uncontrollable laugher, comes up for air, and says ‘Caligula, haven’t you heard? Death is dead.’ How do you frighten the one who has already been there and knows the one who is going to let him out?e

.55"O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?"f

So Death is dead, but what of Karma?

.21Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[f] nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.g

At the risk of stretching the point, what does the life without Karma look like?

.1The LORD is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the stronghold of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?h

September 18, 2006

Taqiyah And You: About Faith, Hypocrisy And Comparative Doctrine

One of the more interesting stories of the past couple of weeks involves the visit of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to the United States, and a series of speeches he gave primarily related to US-Iranian relations. Views range from 'Khatami is our best chance of finding a moderate, conciliatory voice in Iran' to 'This is the historical parallel of having Goering over to speak in 1938', and the funny thing is that these views are not mutually exclusive.

Khatami's methods come under the scrutiny of the New York Post, which accuses Khatami of a practice known as "taqiyah" that translated as dissimulation or obfuscation. Wikipedia define taqiyah using words that will not be on the SAT:

Taqiyya (التقية - 'fear, guard against')[1] is the dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.
"Conceal their faith?" This seems like a unique doctrine for a religion that appears to esteem martyrdom, so what gives?

If the 21st century has taught us anything, it's that Google knows all, and the first search result for "taqiyah" led me to al-islam.org, and their 'about us' page:

Our objectives are to digitize and present on the Internet quality Islamic resources, related to the history, law, practice, and society of the Islamic religion and the Muslim peoples, with particular emphasis on Twelver Shia Islamic school of thought.
This Twelver Shia school is the predominant Shi'a sect (also the school advocated by the governing Iranians, and a source of concern given certain apocalyptic beliefs, but that may deserve a separate post). The point is that we're getting a more inside story.

The entry speaking specifically to taqiyah was definitely an eybrow-raiser. The justification for the practice follows from the value Muslims place on human life. A situation where one is given a choice to renounce Islam or die is a situation where one is forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and human life is valued over a verbal commitment to Islam. Words do not make one an unbeliever:

If the flame of true Faith is lighting your heart, mere words of tongue cannot extinguish it at all. Those words of disbelief will be just like a dark cover to hide the light of your faith from the unbelievers, but they can have no adverse effect on the flame itself.
Christ felt differently:
14-16"Here's another way to put it: You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We're going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don't think I'm going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I'm putting you on a light stand. Now that I've put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand—shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you'll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven.
As much as I dislike The Message at times, it does sweet things with that piece of scripture. Also:
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
What about the hypocrisy inherent in an insincere renouncement of faith? Apparently, this is dependant on ones definition of hypocrisy, and to the advocate of taqiyah, falsely renouncing ones faith is the polar opposite. Theoretically, one can define a person's position in a 2x2 grid:

True Heart, True Words (open faith) | True Heart, False Words (taqiyah)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False Heart, True Words (hypocrisy) | False Heart, False Words (infidelity)

To the Muslim, those that lie in the top row are okay. Of course, the Christian holds a more exclusive view (only those in the top left cell are saved).

The site also gives instances of taqiyah, two of which interestingly come from the Bible. The first is the story of the Pharisees questioning Jesus about taxation. The second is an incident in Acts 23 where Paul seems to set the Pharisees and the Saducees against each other. In using these examples, the implication appears to be that in each case, the protagonist is lying or otherwise being duplicitous in order to avoid death. This is silly. In the case of taxation, Christ makes the very clear, albeit double-edged points that God deserves our everything and that we are to obey our earthly authorities. In Paul's case, his Pharasaic heritage and belief in the ressurection of the dead are indisputable.

What does this mean to you and me? Honestly, as much fun as it is to compile obscure info, not a lot unless you're looking to understand your Muslim friends (I think this particular issue speaks volumes about how the Muslim world views faith; they also have a unique spin on forced conversions). I suggest that this point of doctrine arose not only as a survival mechanism, but as a consequence of some attachemnt to this world. We are truly different in the philosophical cosequences of God's love, as shown by the multitudes that value(d) the gospel over their life on this world. Believe. Confess. Be the city on the hill.