Proto-Orthodoxy Canon Logic

After reading the “Muratorian Canon” fragment and Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics, it seems to me that the proto-orthodox Christians already had a creed in mind, and if the writings of the Jesus followers didn't fit with their idea of who Jesus was, it wasn't included. Specifically, the writings needed to indicate Jesus’ miraculous birth, crucifixion, and resurrection. These were the requirements, as well as an indication that Jesus was the Savior who was divine.

Writings that were from the gnostic groups were immediately considered heresy by Iranaeus, especially anything that referred to mysteries. Iranaeus held a definition of truth for Christianity to be that which speaks of Jesus being born of a virgin, the passion, and his resurrection and bodily ascension to heaven; Jesus was Son of God, Lord, Savior, King, and God (him)self. God was one and only, and the creator of all, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Anything that deviated from this or the teachings found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were considered heresy by him, especially the gnostic materials, as he said “their statements are quite varied and numerous”.  He also equates Gnosticism with idolatry and as practitioners of magic.

Iranaeus also objected to the gnostic tendency to do anything they desired because they believed there was no such thing as a good or bad deed – that the classification is a human creation, opinion, and to be ignored, as they (the Gnostics) felt that it was the souls desire to experience everything to grow and transcend the need for the human body. All of this to Iranaeus was out of his realm of thinking for what he thought Christianity was or should be, thus he despised it and pushed forward his definition as if it was the norm.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to the “Muratorian Canon” fragment and Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics (pp. 196-211 of After the New Testament
A Reader in Early Christianity) for REL 420: Birth of Christianity at Michigan State University on 3/27/12.

Pluralism and Salvation

In today’s global society, the need for inter-religious dialogue is becoming very important in the efforts for creating peace. It is for this reason that I returned to school to pursue a BA in Religious Studies and a career in interfaith relations. I intend to work closely with Muslim – Christian relations, and as such, knowing the contemporary arguments for religious ecumenism is as important as knowing the history for and against pluralism and salvation of the “other” in Islam.

In Mohammad Hassan Khalil’s “Salvation and the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (in English)”, the fact that not all pluralists are created equal is made known. Pluralism in Islam (and likely elsewhere) has divisions - a main reason for the diversity in arguments for pluralistic salvation. Categorizing the arguments starts by categorizing the types of pluralists. It is of some importance to note that most of these pluralists write in English and reside in predominantly non-Muslim countries.

The esoteric perennialist school of thought began with Rene Guenon. Its core belief is that each of the major religions has truth and lead to God. Later, John Hick argued a congruous form of pluralism akin to the story of the elephant and the blind men – the seeming differences in religion are actually only because of perspective and frame of reference. Building on the perennialist thought and distancing from Hick’s view, Reza Shah-Kazemi uses the term universalism and suggests that in order for a religion to be a valid path to salvation, it need to be divinely inspired, not a human construct.

A critical issue with all of these arguments is that they frequently refer to the Qur’an almost exclusively, whereas the majority of Muslims view hadith to be authoritative. In order for many of these Muslims to be open to the pluralist arguments, there may need to be some reconciliation with their views based on hadith. Simply writing hadith off as fabricated or corrupt does a disservice to the debate, as it is akin to telling someone that what they believe in is lies.

The best way to move forward in the debate is to determine how best to help create a paradigmatic revolution. These paradigm shifts are possible, as history has shown us – in both the USA with the civil rights movement and in recent times, in the Middle East with the Arab Spring.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Salvation and the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (in English) by Mohammad Hassan Khalil for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Paradise for the Perfect

While reading Sayyid Qutb's Qur'anic Commentary on sura 98, I found myself frequently commenting off to the side, “oh, really”. He makes several statements throughout his analysis about which he gives no support. As I stated in my last response paper, entitled “Sharing Jannah”, one of the first steps in analysis of the Qur’an is to pick your translation. Qut’b clearly picked one for surah 98. He then decided to interpret it to mean that only the believers will find Paradise and exist there forever and the rest will burn in the Hell fire.

One problem I have with his analysis is that he makes several statements about Jesus having been the last messenger of Israel and Mohammed as the last prophet period. I found myself asking as I stated above, “oh really?”. Where is his proof? Qut’b offers none. He makes the statement and fails to back it up. Is that because he believes that this is a universally accepted norm? Obviously it is his stance on the subject, but we don’t know why. For me, the rest of his argument based on these assumptions is worthless.

A second problem I had with his analysis is that he offers 109:1-6, “Say: ‘Disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship; neither will you worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine’” as part of his proof against the polytheists. However, this same verse can be and has been interpreted to allow for pluralism and religious freedom. Perhaps what he means is that religious freedom and pluralism will exist and is allowed, but they (the others – the non-Muslims) will perish in the Hell-fire for eternity.

Finally, the third problem I have with his analysis is that it only allows for the perfect to find salivation and it does not give any credence to God’s mercy, compassion, and to be the final judge in the decision of Paradise or Hell. Once again, we find a human limiting God’s power.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Commentary for Quran - In the Shade of the Qur'an - by Syed Qutb for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Sharing Jannah

As a mother would say to her child, “if you want dessert, you have to finish your dinner” or, “if you keep fighting with your sister, you will go to bed early”, scripture, or God’s word tells us how to behave to receive reward or how not to behave to avoid punishment. Every family and every religion has rules. But what do these rules, in Islam, say about the “other”? It seems that it depends on who you ask. Since the scholarly opinions range from inclusion to exclusion, this is question does not seem to have a definite answer.

To demonstrate the pluralistic answer to the question of salvation of Muslims and non-Muslims, Mohammad Hassan Khalil shared opinions of five well-known Muslim scholars: Abu Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī, Muhyī al-Dīn Ibn al-‘Arabī, Taqiyaddīn Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, and Muhammad Rashīd Ridā. The arguments these scholars make include an analysis of even more questions. Before an answer of who is saved can be determined, one has to decide first how to translate the verses, as many words have multiple meanings, from general to exact. Then, once a translation is made, one has to decide how to interpret them (ijtihad). Interpretation includes even more questions.  Should it matter if the verses are Medinan or Meccan? Does the historical context matter or is it a general statement… or rather, a specific statement for a specific time and place only? Have the verses been abrogated and thus null in meaning to today? So many questions! Oh, but we must back up even further.

What is Islam? Is it possible that non-Mohammed following others, such as the Christians, Jews, and Sabians (people of the book) are in their own way submitting to God in the way that God called them to? Are they “Muslims” of a sort? What about God’s compassion and Mercy? Can’t God decide to save anyone if so desired? So do the rules even matter? The mother might choose to punish the child for his or her naughty behavior, but then will still enfold him or her into her arms, giving forth her love to the child. Will God not be as forgiving, if not more?

As for me, I believe in inclusive love and that only humans limit God’s power and mercy, at a fault.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to MUSLIM SCHOLARLY DISCUSSIONS ON SALVATION AND THE FATE OF ‘OTHERS’ by Mohammad Hassan Khalil for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Democracy, not Theocracy

Many Muslims believe that both their personal and public lives should be governed by Islam. That is, that they believe that a theocratic system, by which laws are governed by shari’a, is the only government that is allowed or worthy. However, even secular democratic government may not only be allowed, but in line with shari’a.

The Prophet Muhammad’s message was for spiritual purposes and because of whom he was, he was a leader of the people, much as Moses was in his time. He may have seemed like a king, but there was no kingdom established. He left neither a successor nor instructions for future governance.  This not only allowed for the people to create their own form of government, but necessitated it. Thus, the door was left open to the possibility of even a secular and/or democratic government. What was required is that the system be just, as that concept was certainly Islamic.

In addition to justice, other concepts that were of great importance to include in whatever government was to be set up were: social cooperation and mutual assistance; establishing a non-autocratic, consultative method of governance; and institutionalizing mercy and compassion in social interactions. Democracy offers a great opportunity for promoting these ideals, as they naturally are co-aligned. A constitutional democracy further promotes and protects these ideals by setting to law some basic moral standards that hold both the rulers and the citizens equally accountable.

It is necessary for Muslims to be aware that although shari’a (as it literally means) is infallible, as Allah is infallible, humans are not. As such, the human interpretation of the Qur’an is subject to human experience and error. Any law written with Islamic intentions would still not reach the level of shari’a; rather, it would be fiqh, having the potential the potential to be in error. It is for this reason that consensus, or shura is such an important aspect to Islamic law, as what is best for the people is usually best determined by the people.

If we lived in a perfect world and if we were able to understand God’s word perfectly, then we would not need laws. In such an imperfect existence, laws provide some level of protections to human rights – some justice. Laws given in a constitutional democracy might be perhaps, a best-case scenario for upholding Islamic ideals.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to pages 3-46 of Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou El Fadl for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012.

My Jihad

Although I had to take a break Thursday after becoming literally ill from reading many hateful comments (from all sides) regarding a recent religious hate crime, and the fact that the walls may have thickened in some, I am not giving up. I believe in the Interfaith Movement and I believe that I have a role to play in it, no matter how small. These brick walls were meant to be torn down, even if my head bleeds while banging my head on them.

I will not give in because there are ignorant people out that that will use any excuse to stir up trouble. This is my path, and I tread it with passion. I know how I am and how emotional I can get and how passionate those emotions can be, so strong as to take me off my feet at times. I won't let it take me out. I may have to rest my eyes from the carnage from time to time and breath in fresh air to re-liven my spirit, but with God's help, I will keep on.  I will fight for the rights of anyone to believe that which is their own, with only one exception - don't abuse those beliefs to hurt others. That is not what has been taught by the wise men and women of the ages. Love is. And love it will be.

I will support my friends of all faiths and non-faiths. I will hold their hands and help raise them up when their spirits are down. I will do my God given work to tear down the walls between people with differences and help them toward mutual respect. It starts with me and hopefully continues with you.

Ameen.

(Note: I was taking a break from the debates and dialogues and news that were erupting everywhere, in the Facebook groups I belong to, and on my own Facebook wall. Feel free to come take a look, I take subscribers to my public posts)

Blundering Into an Interfaith Opportunity

How does that old saying go? "Life is what happens when we are making other plans"? Well, God has a sense of humor, for sure - I'm the proof.

Seriously though, all day I had been looking forward to hearing my best friend and her new band play their first gig tonight. I had to  make my typical four hour (round trip) Friday journey to my ex-marital home to drop of my kids with their father, but I was still sure that I could make the show before it was over. I double-checked the time on my Facebook event invite, and sure enough, I should be able to catch an hour and half of the show, if I hurried. Cue God laughing...

I made it to the location of the gig, a quaint little gift shop not far from where I live at 9 pm. The invite said the show ran until 10:30... I was in luck. I saw my bestie outside the front door and assumed she was taking a breather, so I didn't holler, figuring I would rather tackle-surprise her with a big hug instead. I finished rolling up my windows, and headed into the store, as I didn't see my friend outside anymore. I saw a young red-headed girl sitting at a table and thought it was my friend's daughter (I think I should start wearing my glasses more), but my friend wasn't anywhere to be seen, nor was her band.

The people who were in the backroom, where the microphones and seating was, welcomed me graciously. I explained who I was and found out that they had just left. I felt so bad. Not for me, but for my friend because I had promised I would be there to support her, but I had missed it. I called her and apologized for missing it and told her I hoped I could make it to the next gig.

Everyone who was still in the backroom invited me to stay and listen to who was going to play/sing next and mentioned that there was a couple who knew my friend from their church still there. They asked me some things about myself and I happily volunteered details (I talk too much). One question led into another and I began telling them about my majors in Religious Studies and Arabic at MSU. I explained that I intend to have a career in the interfaith movement, and that I was focusing on Christian and Muslim relations. I was steadily getting nervous, because I could just feel the question coming... "but you're Christian, right?"

Silence.

Expectation.

Realization.

Half of me wanted to run out the door as fast as I could. My bestie loves her Christian faith and has been active in her church communities for years, even as a very successful youth pastor for a time. I had no doubt that I was amongst other very devout Christians. I was tired. I had driven for four hours already and since I had missed the gig, I wanted to go home. I didn't feel up to the challenge of standing up for my beliefs at that moment.

The other half was yelling at me, "OPPORTUNITY!" I had just told them I was focusing on Christian and Muslim relations. It wasn't time for me to be a coward. Yup, God was laughing at me. And pushing me. And reminding me why I am passionate about this in the first place. And showing me I can do it. Yes, this is still my path.

My silence only lasted about a second, in reality, although it felt longer than that. I am sure I blushed some as I said, "I used to be."

No one ridiculed me. No one belittled me. No one yelled at me. No one threw me out. There were some Christian affirmations. There were questions. I answered to the best of my ability. Every one was very nice and very polite. I had one gentleman approach me  and tell me that he understands a little bit about what it must be like to try to explain that although our beliefs may be somewhat different, or the terminology is somewhat different, that we love the same God and how beliefs can change as we learn new things. For me, it was reading the Qur'an; for him, it was learning about and embracing his Native American roots.

I am reminded by this experience that we interfaith activists never know when we might be presented with what I am going to call an "interfaith opportunity" much as I would also call it a "teachable moment". We should never shy away from it because we have other plans, or are just too tired for polite debate. We should instead remember our passion for this work, reach in, pull it out, and embrace the moment same as we embrace our new friends.

Have you ever blundered? I would love to hear your stories or reactions.Please take a moment to comment below.

Salam, which means PEACE!

The Apostle

click to watch the movie on my YouTube channel

            Have you ever found yourself hitting bottom, only to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and keep on going? Perhaps hitting bottom was needed to correct your perspective and set your priorities straight again. Often we humans have a tendency to get distracted from those things most important to us, only to have life slap us in the face and remind us. The Apostle is a movie that shows how a low in life can turn us around and bring us back to what made us in the first place. For the main character in this movie, he went from being a successful pastor to becoming a fugitive after losing control of himself and his anger. He repents, turns to God, and remembers his roots as a child saved by God at age seven, his dedication to the Lord, and to evangelizing.

             Sonny is introduced to us as a successful evangelical pastor that whose life is falling apart. He’s lost his wife to another man and then his church because he can’t leave her alone. He loses his children after becoming violent against his wife’s new lover, knocking him into a coma. He has fallen from his place in the community and decides to run from his sin.

Like Paul from the Bible, he wanders into the wilderness to give himself time to make sense of his situation (Gal. 1:17). Perhaps he was wandering into the wilderness to release his sins, much like the goat in Leviticus. (Lev. 16:22) Like the disciples of Jesus, he gives up his worldly goods to follow (Mark 10:21). During this time, he fasted and had visions. He baptized himself, asking Jesus and God to help him and lead him and to allow him to be an apostle. He thus becomes The Apostle, E.F.

            The Apostle decides to set off to Bayou Butte to find another pastor, as he feels led by God to do so. He declares his divine appointment to the new Pastor, and with his help, he begins building a new church, much like the one he worshiped and preached in as a child. He has memories of his childhood church and his devotion. I think that this reminds him how he was and how he should be again.

The people of Bayou Butte seem to accept him and his authority. E.F. exudes charisma, which often makes people want to follow him. He is powerful, strong in conviction and in speech, which is very persuasive. He gets everything accomplished that he says God sent him to do, which gives credence to his appointment as an apostle. E.F. is also strong in might, which he shows when a racist man attempts to cause problems at the church. Instead of the people being offended by his act of fist fighting the man, they cheer him on. He later defends the property from this man and his bulldozer with the power of the bible he set on the ground, daring the man to move it. Instead, he gets the man to confess his faith and accept Jesus. It’s hard to resist a man with such might.

Eventually, E.F. cannot escape his past anymore. He confesses to the other Pastor of his sinful deed while Sammy listens closely. It is possible that Sammy loses faith in this moment, seeing this man who he thinks so much of as a sunning human, rather than an apostle sent by God. I think E.F. realizes that although he tried to be born again new, he cannot escape the law of the earth and that his end as the apostle E.F. is coming.

He truly does seem to work peace and love in the community, helping fix up an old church, helping ease some poverty in the area by giving children money for helping, bringing people to the faith, converting and accepting a previously racist and church-hating man, giving him retribution and peace. He also loving accepts Sammy and helps convert him even though he suspects that Sammy turned him in to the Police, providing forgiveness. I think that he is driven by his guilt and his love for God to do all these things. It seemed that throughout the movie, he did things to make himself look good or to make himself feel good. When he lost his first church, he goes and sings and dances with them and publicly donates money.  Perhaps though, he is again like Paul, and his conviction and need to evangelize comes from realizing how wrong he was before (Gal. 1:13).

In his last sermon, he accepts his fate and asks his church to forgive him and urges them to continue the church in love. It’s hard to know if the church has been set up to continue past his arrest, as the charismatic leader is now gone. If we compare him again to Paul, we can see it is possible, but the Christian movement was far larger than this little church. It seems as though he asks Sammy to take his place, when he gives him his bible. Maybe Sammy will take it on, acting on his guilt of having turned in E.F. or, Sonny.

I think that his experiences with the little church help E.F. realize that he must take responsibility for his sinful deed, which is why that although he feels his end coming, he does not run again. He stays, for God, for the people, for the church, and for himself. I think that it is this act that may allow the church to continue, the fact that although he may have lied to the community by now disclosing his past, they love him and they see him take responsibility, take up his cross and bear it, no matter what it means for himself. In this way they can perhaps relate him to Jesus or to martyrs of old, including Paul, and forgive him of his evil deeds in light of his good, as he is a God fearing, God loving man like the seven year old child of his youth.

               

Written for my Birth of Christianity class on 2/19/12