A Fascinating Journey

A review of Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical Subculture by Randall Balmer

When I first found out that we were assigned to read MineEyes Have Seen the Glory, I expected it to be reminiscent of Salvation onSand Mountain: Snake Handling and Redemption in Southern Appalachia that I read in an earlier course. In one way, it was: I found it fascinating. I found myself scribbling down the margins, underlining phrase after phrase and circling words. I thought I knew what there was to know about evangelicals – or at least how to spot them – but I found out that there is more variety to this group of people than I gave them credit for. It is for this very reason that Randall Balmer set out to research for this book – to show the variations that exist within the subculture of evangelicalism that many (like me) thought was monolithic[1]. Although he succeeds in painting a general picture of evangelicals by pointing out similarities that can typically be found across the board[2], he was successful in demonstrating the variety among them as well.

            I learned that although it was typical for evangelicals to be bible thumpers – those who place a huge emphasis on following scripture and the belief that the Bible is infallible – (as I believed they were), that not all believe that the bible is free from errors. Certainly the more fundamental groups – the majority – did, but not all. It reminded me that there are always exceptions. To demonstrate this point, Balmer focused on Douglas Frank[3] in chapter fourteen.

            I was also surprised to learn that some Episcopal churches are evangelical as well. Having grown up Episcopalian, I would never have considered Episcopalians as part of the evangelical subculture – mostly because I was hounded by a few evangelicals who thought so differently than me and because it was so different from my grandmother’s church, which was evangelical. I've always believed that the Episcopal Church in America was pretty liberal. After reading about … it caused me to stop and think for a moment about some members of my old church that could have fit the bill and were surely fired up for the lord[4].

            Some of the groups he visited and wrote about I wouldn't have immediately known were evangelical, as it seems like they are a little more closed off to the rest of society – so I may have just not had any contact with this type to know of them. I am familiar with the Amish from living near Greenville, MI, and I would never have considered them as Evangelical and I've had some run-ins with Mennonites and Seventh Day Adventists, again, without any of the usual testifying/witnessing. My interactions with them led me to believe they were tight knit and kept themselves away from the rest of “us”. To me evangelical meant someone who not only was excited about their born-again status, but wanted to round everyone up to join them – not keep it to themselves. Granted, the Mennonites in Balmer’s study were no longer Mennonites per se (they were born-again)[5], they just maintained the modesty of the culture they grew up with.

            Other of the groups are well known to many who watch or listen to the news, watch television or

listen to AM radio, use the internet (especially social media), and/or pay attention to politics. These are the

evangelical televangelists and leaders of the evangelical mega-churches. I’d be mighty surprised if an adult today hasn't heard the names Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggert, or Rick Warren – or even “Crystal Cathedral”.  What I did notice is that he seemed to visit more of the mega-churches that had met decline – the only church that seemed to be thriving was Warren’s. I wonder if that is a good portrayal of the status of mega-churches today or if it was more indicative of something else that I garnered throughout my reading of the book – that the author feels some disdain toward evangelicalism, even if he is or was a member of the subculture[6].

            I took to the habit of circling words that, I believe, identify his bias against either the group he was studying or evangelism as a whole. Balmer’s distaste for the “Phoenix Prophet”[7] is evident (I believe) by the use of the words he chose in his description of the Capstone Cathedraland of Frisbee[8]. It also appeared to me that Balmer is not a supporter of youth church camps by the way he spoke of it in chapter five.

            Balmer suggested that such camps are a way to keep children “safely within the evangelical fold” which eventually prevents the kids from potentially from experiencing the full drama of being born-again – especially since the evangelical beliefs and lifestyle have been “drilled into them since infancy”[9]. He later gives an autobiographical account of how such camps made him feel defeated and inadequate[10], none of which puts such camps in any kind of positive or ambivalent light.

            Other groups he seemed particularly taken with, especially Douglas Franks group in Oregon. Balmer admits in the epilogue that he probably let it show that Franks spoke for him about how he felt about evangelicalism. To be fair, he does indicate on page seven that the book is a not a “detached and dispassionate analysis”, but a bit of self-disclosure, albeit not an autobiography.

            One group that he didn't cover was Christian Scientists. I thought it odd that he left them out of his study, but he included a half-Pentecostal and half-Episcopalian congregation. The reason I say this is because of my own interaction with Christian Science in the past (I was engaged to a Christian Scientist). I remember the testifying/witnessing that went on there and some of the fundamental teachings of the religion. I thought that they would fit well in his variety show; alas, there was only a passing reference in the whole book.

I think that Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory is a good book to introduce the reader to evangelicalism as it shows that there is variation within the fold, just as anywhere. Although it may lead to a bit of a stereotype, it helps break down some of them and open the eyes of the reader to the diversity that exists even in subcultures like evangelicalism. Perhaps it will even interest the reader enough to learn more about specific groups written about in the book or to ask more questions instead of making assumptions when interacting or learning Christians (or members of any religion) in the future.  

Bibliography

Balmer, Randall. Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory. 4th. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006.

---

[1] (Balmer 2006, 7)

[2] Conservative dress; use of certain phrases like “on fire for the lord” and talking about being “saved”; campaigning or generally supportive of republican or conservative candidates; anti-abortion efforts; emotional outbursts in church or when discussing religion; avoidance of “worldly” things like modern music (unless it is contemporary Christian Music); avoidance of alcohol, adherence to traditional gender roles; and a view that homosexuality is sinful (Balmer 2006)

[3] Douglas Frank believed in a living Bible instead of an inerrant bible (Balmer 2006, 265).

[4]

[5] (Balmer 2006, 229)

[6] In the prologue of the book, Balmer spoke of his fundamentalist youth, including an anecdote about witnessing to a Catholic (because he didn’t consider the boy to be a “real” Christian) (Balmer 2006, 4-11)

[7] This is the title of Chapter 4 which is about Neal Frisbee who is also called the Rainbow Prophet.  (Balmer 2006, 71-90)

[8] “gaudy jewel sitting atop some otherworldly launching pad … overwhelming scale”, “claims of healing” (the use of the word claim here tells me than Balmer didn’t believe that Frisbee had any such abilities – especially since he felt nothing at the healing he took part in),  “frequently boasts”, “antics”, “carnival atmosphere”  (Balmer 2006, 71-90)

[9] (Balmer 2006, 93-94)

[10] (Balmer 2006, 105)

Evangelicalism - American’s Folk Religion and Subculture

In Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory (1), Randall Balmer presents a picture in which Evangelicalism is a subculture within America, while also referring to it as “America’s folk religion”. Folk religion is defined as “religion which occurs in small, local communities which does not adhere to the norms of large systems” or as “the appropriation of religious beliefs and practices at a popular level” in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (2).  Evangelicalism as described in Balmer’s book fits these descriptions as he shows the reader that evangelicalism is not a unified system that is the same across the nation, rather there is much diversity, not only in practice, but in thought (3). In the epilogue, Balmer opines that it is the popular appeal that better explains evangelicalism than the popular reference to a “mosaic” (4). Balmer visited eighteen different centers of evangelicalism across the nation and each one differed from another, although they held some commonalities, such as a personal conversion experience, the importance (and typically, infallibility) of scripture, and the expectation of an impending apocalypse (5).

Throughout the book, be frequently referred to the evangelical subculture in America, by subculture, I believe he meant that evangelicals across the nations, although varied in form, exhibit cultural norms that are not part of the wider American culture. They are a sub-set that can easily be identified because of their behavior and beliefs. It is often evangelicals’ literal interpretation of the bible that gives way to a list of rules that a “true” Christian (6)  must follow after being born-again that sets them apart as a subset of American culture, but also sets them apart from other Christian groups, like Roman Catholics (7).  Balmer includes conservative Protestants: fundamentalists, charismatics, and Pentecostals in his study of evangelicalism (8).

Typically, these groups all eschew modernity – not modernity in the sense of technology (here they follow previous evangelical innovators like Whitfield and Finney) – but in morality (9). In fact, several of the groups that Balmer interviewed/studied made great use of some of America’s modern marvels (Radio, Television and Cinema, and the Internet) to aid the spread of evangelicalism. Some ways in which they spurn modernity include rules about modest dress (10), the role of women at home and in the church (11), their firm views on reproductive rights (anti-abortion) (12), and their anti-evolution/pro-creationist agenda in the school system (13).

Evangelicals also exhibit some behaviors that tend to identify them as such: conservative dress; use of certain phrases like “on fire for the lord” (14) and talking about being “saved”; campaigning or generally supportive of republican or conservative candidates; anti-abortion efforts; emotional outbursts in church or when discussing religion; avoidance of “worldly” things like modern music (unless it is contemporary Christian Music); avoidance of alcohol, adherence to traditional gender roles; and a view that homosexuality is sinful (15).

As with any culture, the evangelical subculture has made contributions to the world in areas like education, music, art, and politics. Grassroot evangelical movements have been responsible for the creation of several Bible Schools, Colleges, and Universities over the years, as Balmer’s study indicates (Biola University and Temple University, to name a couple) (16).

US Governors Map, January 2013 (Wiki)

Politically, evangelicals can consider themselves responsible for the election of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s (17) and for the rise in votes for republicans as a whole. It is because of evangelicals that a war is frequently forged against women’s reproductive rights and who make the pro-choice camp nervous and worried of a return to the old days of back-alley coat hanger jobs (18). They are certainly a force to be reckoned with if our red/blue maps are any indication.

In the form of art contributions, we find the visual artist, Thomas Kinkade, who paints scenes that evoke certain wistful emotions and are considered not surreal, but unreal by Balmer (19). The paintings are meant to be a window into an idealized world – perhaps a window into a heaven-like beauty in which “true” Christians hope to find themselves one day. Another art form has been hugely influential on the spread of evangelicalism: music.

A still from Jesus Christ Superstar

As Balmer points out in chapter sixteen, the evangelical music scene was fairly static from inception until the 1960s, when it exploded (14). David Stowe brought this explosion into focus for us in class while he lectured on his book, No Sympathy for the Devil. He not only explained that the hippie generation, which was already heavily involved in the enjoyment of music, became a huge part of the evangelical scene when they found Jesus and converted into Jesus Freaks, rather than just hippies. He played some key songs for us so that we could get a taste for the sound and the words of worship and calling within the music. Voices of the time included: Love Song, Children of the Day, Barry McGuire, Bob Dylan, Larry Norman, Rez Band, the Jesus Christ Superstar musical and soundtrack, Billy Preston, Andrae Crouch, Edward Hawkins Singers, Elvis, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Johnny Cash, and the Vineyard Group (21). Balmer focused primarily on the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) scene, which didn’t evolve until the 1990s. He interviewed the group, Jars of Clay, that was instrumental (pun intended) in the second evangelical music boom (22).

So, if you encounter an individual that is modestly dressed, witnesses to you about the fire he has for the lord from being saved (while listening to contemporary Christian music), and hands you a bible and tells you that it is protected by God and free of any error, you might have found yourself an evangelical.

(1) (Balmer 2006)

(2) (Bowker 2000)

(3) In a discussion about folk religion as compared to the Native Americans, Goustad writes, “Similarity of structure, however, does not imply uniformity in expression.” (Goustad and Noll 2003, 2) I found that there was a parallel between the variety of early native traditions and Evangelicalism as described in Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory.

(4) (Balmer 2006, 335)

(5) (Balmer 2006, 336)

(6) There are several references throughout the book (Balmer 2006) about the “true Christian”: speaking in tongues (or other spiritual gifts), xv; witnessing, 4; attending a particular kind of church (one that teaches inerrancy of the Bible and End Times prophecies), 60; followers of a particular preacher (in some cases), 78; can’t mix the Bible and “heathen” traditions, 220; and repentance and obedience, 241 to cite a few.

(7) Roman Catholics are not considered “real” Christians by many Evangelicals. (Balmer 2006, 4)

(8) (Balmer 2006, xvi)

(9) (Balmer 2006, 64)

(10) (Balmer 2006, 97, 108, 228-230, 231, and 237))

(11) (Balmer 2006, 41-44 and 161)

(12) (Balmer 2006, 44, 148-173, 190, 205, and 236)

(13) (Balmer 2006, 44)

(14) (Balmer 2006, 21 and 98)

(15) (Balmer 2006, 44, 81, and 205)

(16) (Balmer 2006, 134 and 323)

(17) (Balmer 2006, 82, 148, 173, and 299) and (Stowe 2013)

(18) I must admit that I am pro-choice and this is an issue I have been debating the sixth grade, As such, I have heard many accounts, over time, about what used to happen to desperate women who sought to end an unwanted pregnancy before it was legal.

(19) (Balmer 2006, 320)

(20) (Balmer 2006, 297-298)

(21) (Stowe 2013)

(22) (Balmer 2006, 293-308)

Bibliography
Balmer, Randall. Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory. 4th. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006.

Bowker, John. "Folk Religion." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Oxford University Press. 2000. 

http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780192800947.001.0001/acref-9780192800947-e-2493 (accessed December 8, 2013).

Goustad, Edwin Scott, and Mark A. Noll. A Documentary History of Religion in America: To 1877. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.

Stowe, David. "No Sympathy for the Devil Lecture." East Lansing, December 2, 2013.

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.

Reincarnation & Islam

It’s amazing how much one word can drive debate. Reincarnation seems to be one of those concepts that either a person believes or they don’t. There is no middle ground. So, the fact that it has been a debate in Islam is of no surprise to me. I've been debating the possibility of reincarnation since I was young. In fact, it was this very word, heard out of my mouth, which caused the first religious debate in my life – with my conservative Christian grandmother. I will never forget that day nor the first question she asked and my first reply.

I find it extremely interesting that this debate takes place in Islam as well, because up until I read this article, I had no idea it did, although I still held my belief in the possibility. However, because I do love to debate, I also like to play “devil’s advocate”. In doing so, I would point out that “dead” and “die” in the verse, "And you were dead, and He brought you back to life. And He shall cause you to die, and shall bring you back to life, and in the end shall gather you unto Himself" (2:28) could be figurative as well as literal. Death could be death to ignorance and rebirth into truth. In Christian theology, baptism is a type of death and rebirth, where the death is to the sinner and rebirth to the saved. The same could be said of Islam.

As for the critics against the concept of reincarnation, I can see how they also are reading the verses of the Qur’an. This, like so many debates in Islam and in religion in general, is a matter of interpretation. Beginning and leading out from there, you have perception. Until each and every human has exactly the same experiences in life, perception will remain, which means so will differing interpretations.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Reincarnation in Islam by Sultan Shahin, Asia Times Online, Dec 25, 2003, for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012 

The House that Christ Built

A comparative look at the Gospels of Mark and Thomas

Originally written on 4/19/12 for my Birth of Christianity class

 

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Mark

After reading both the gospels of Mark and Thomas with fresh eyes, I am struck with the idea that one is like timber available for building and the other is like a finished structure, ready for tenants.  The gospel of Thomas (hereafter: Thomas) is simply a list of sayings attributed to the person in history named Jesus. It is referred to as his secret teachings, although the secrets are not given away freely, as many of the sayings can be difficult to understand (ex: Thom 10, 17, 19, and especially 42). The gospel of Mark (hereafter: Mark), on the other hand, is a narrative – a story. It has a beginning, middle and, as most stories do, builds to a crescendo before coming to an end. There are no real secrets here, as what Jesus says is often explained to his disciples (Mk 4:14-20). 

When walking through the lumber yard of Thomas, the reader is not given a map, as no map would make sense. There is no seeming order to Jesus’ sayings and sometimes certain sayings even seem to be repeated, although with small variations (ex: Thom 2 and 94; 55 and 101). Although there is no apparent order to the list, one could sort the sayings into themes, the names by which might depend on the reader and his or her interpretations of the sayings.

It is the roughness of Thomas, the crude way it is written as only a list, that I think would have appealed to the first followers of Jesus. It allowed for variations of opinions, for interpretations by the self. Each person would have the same opportunity to find in it those things which resonated within.

Several themes that I noted within the gospel of Thomas may have found resonance with the early Christians. These include the search for knowledge or wisdom, the oneness of all life, the necessity to be like a child to experience the kingdom of God, what God’s imperial rule is like and simple rules to live within humanity’s communities. These themes may have been easily acceptable to any of the followers of Jesus that were familiar with the likes of Socrates, who also was a proponent seeking wisdom and of the concept of “Know thyself” (Thom 2, 3, 67, 92, 94).

Thomas may have also appealed as seeming more authentic, as if the author was writing the sayings down best as he could remember, without tarnishing anything with embellishments. At the same time, it could have put off those that found the list too confusing and difficult to understand, especially with the implication of these being secret teachings; when the reader didn’t understand, it would be too easy for him to disregard it as make-believe. For these people, Mark would be much easier to understand, thus easier to accept as authentic.

Tract Housing

As mentioned before, Mark is much more than a list of sayings, although when walking through the halls of the structure, pieces of Thomas seem to be peeking out through the paint here and there (ex: Mk  2:20, 2:21-22, 6:4-5, 12:17, 12:31,  and Thom 104, 47, 31, 100, 25 respectively). Although the reader can tell that the authors of Mark and Thomas visited the same lumberyard, it is just as evident that Mark’s author either missed much of the materials available, or only sought certain pieces for his structure. Perhaps Mark’s author had an agenda: to tell a story about Jesus from the perspective that he understood. If that was the case, then he would have selected those pieces that made sense to him and then added to them some structure so that other readers would see what he saw. Another possibility could be that Mark’s author knew more details than the author of Thomas. Finally, it is just as likely that the structure was not unique to Mark’s author, but instead was one of several tract homes. 

Mark’s appeal to the Jesus followers would have been the narrative he gave of the man that they followed, worshiped, and glorified. The author begins with Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit and flows through the geographical travels of his subsequent teachings and healings until the author concludes with Jesus’ death and resurrection. Themes found in Mark are the power of belief, the lack of belief in man, the coming of the kingdom of God, a sense of urgency, and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is also defined in Mark as Christ, son of God, Holy, son of David, last of the prophets, and Lord (Mk 1:1, 1:24, 10:48, 12:6, and 16:19 respectively).  This stands in contrast to Thomas, where Jesus is defined as an angel, philosopher, and teacher, although Jesus rebukes the last saying, “I am not your teacher” (Thom 13).

The definition of Jesus in Thomas is not the only difference we find from Mark. There is no death and resurrection theme in Thomas; rather, the kingdom of God is already present for those that understand (Thom 113). It is not faith that brings salvation in Thomas (Mk 9:2, 22, 29). Instead, looking within and bringing what is inside out is what saves (Thom 70). Also lacking in Thomas are the references to the old testament that point to the idea of Jesus fulfilling ancient prophecy in Mark (Mk 1:2, 10:48, 12:10, 14:49, 15:27). These differences may have separated audiences that paid heed to one gospel or the other (or both).

As mentioned previously, Thomas may have resounded more with Jews that were familiar with philosophers like Socrates. They may have been drawn to some parallel ideas and may even have been interested in the idea of having secret knowledge. I imagine the more philosophical type may have already been less interested in ancient readings such as those found in the Hebrew Bible (except for where wisdom could be gleaned) and would have already been along a path of introspection when Thomas was written. Thus, these people may have been less likely to be looking for the Messiah foretold in the ancient scriptures. Thomas would have also been easier for the gentiles to relate to as well. The Jews that were more scripturally bound may have been more drawn to the finished housing of Mark’s gospel.

Jews that knew their scripture and who were suffering would have taken much solace in learning the tradition of Jesus’ teachings and healings and salvation offered to them through faith in him and in God’s possibilities (Mk 10:27). The gospel as a historical type story would have also been familiar to them, as many of their ancient scriptures that they held dear were written as historical stories. The followers of Mark’s gospel likely saw overlap in Thomas, but may have turned away from it because of the lack of support of Jesus as the Messiah, come to save mankind.

The choice of which gospel one might follow still would have been individual, but I can see the draw to that which is more complete, explained, and feels like guidance. Thomas is given to the reader as a list of secret teachings (or sayings) of the person named Jesus. The sayings are not explained, but left bare, without embellishment. By contrast, Mark is a complete story with explanations given along the way. The house has been built, the walls painted, furniture moved in and waits for the tenant to move in and make it his or her home.

Interfaith Marriage - Take 2

When I wrote my first post about interfaith marriage, I was speaking from opinion, not experience. Now, I can speak at least somewhat from experience. As some may realize, from reading my self-expose, I was born and raised Christian - Episcopalian, to be exact. When I converted to Islam, I was still married and living with my husband, who was Christian, raised Dutch reformed. He wasn’t thrilled that I converted, but since he knew how I felt about religion – that I wasn’t going to push anything on him and that we had both already decided that our children would choose their own paths in life (with our guidance to love God and others), it wasn’t a very big issue for him. As for my new Muslim friends, I was told that I should divorce, as a Muslim woman cannot be married to a Christian man (for more info, read my post regarding these opinions). Others told me that because I converted after I married, that I had no reason to end the marriage. I had no intention of divorcing over religion. 

I will admit that although my husband didn't care that I converted, he did have an issue with what I was going to tell our children or what I might do in front of them (pray or maybe wear hijab) or where I might take them (the mosque). I didn't feel it would be appropriate to have such a drastic change for my kids, so I agreed at first to "keep it on the down-low". I mentioned things here and there, and the kids saw me pray on occasion, but I would never take them to the mosque, unless they wanted to go (they didn't). Thus, things were fine in our household, regarding religion. 

Sometimes my husband and I would debate Islam and Christianity, as I love to debate (and finally we disagreed on something to debate about). It was apparent that it was going to be a subject we were going to have to agree to disagree on. Part of his animosity towards hearing anything about Islam came from his parents, who consider Islam to be evil. They questioned how I could convert to such an evil ideology. I tried to explain to them that Islam was not evil and the terrorists like Osama Bin Laden did not represent the whole of Islam, rather only a fringe element, like any other religion (see my post on extremism for more info), but my explanations fell on deaf ears. I even told my mother-in-law, at one point, "you know me and how important peace is to me, I want to go into peace work even - I am not going to convert to something that is evil and hateful." Nothing I said mattered. 

One day, while on a drive, I asked my husband if I could read a Sura to him. I wanted him to hear how similar to the bible it was. He allowed me to, so I read Sura 19, Maryam, to him. He was surprised at what he heard. Of course, we discussed the differences in the Jesus birth stories, but he admitted it sounded much like what is in the Bible. He allowed me to read a few other small Suras to him and admitted there was nothing bad there. He seemed to relax about my conversion a bit more and even told me I could take the kids to the mosque with me if I wanted to (I still didn't as I didn't think they were ready). 

Before I continue with this story... I should apprise you of some vital information. My marriage was on the rocks before I converted. There was some hope of reconciliation, but at his abandonment of marriage therapy, all hope I had vanished. This is a bit of a he-said/she-said issue, but the point is, my marriage was not in a happy place and hadn't been for a long time.  I don't believe that my conversion had anything to do with our resulting divorce. On with the story...

So, my husband filed for divorce about four months after I converted. The reason I was told that reconciliation was not possible was to do with my decision to return to school to study religion and Arabic. He was not supportive of this decision, but as it was vital to my health and sanity, I took doctors' recommendations to do so (another long story for another day). Again, religion was not the cause of my failed marriage, but it certainly played in the resulting divorce legalities and custody dispute. Perhaps I should have titled this post "Interfaith Divorce".

I was never so shocked in my life to read the divorce papers and see that he was seeking full legal and physical custody of our children, listing among other things, my conversion and the "need" to keep our children Christian. Until that point, I didn't know that religion could play a part in a custody suit. I didn't know I could lose my children for converting. I was furious, of course. He knew I had no intention of stuffing my beliefs down our children's' throats, just as I didn't as a Christian. As far as I am concerned, this choice was being driven by his parents and their fears and his anger toward me for choosing school. What was supposed to be a simple easy divorce turned out to be nothing but. 
 

The custody battle waged on for almost a year. I almost lost them to him physically (but not legally, as he dropped that) as the referee in Montcalm County couldn't say enough about Islam and my immature conversion. I was even accused by this man of potentially leaving the country. He ridiculed me for converting and it was obvious that Islam was playing a big role in his decision to award custody to my ex-husband. I had never felt truly discriminated before in my life, as I did that day. My heart felt like it dropped through the floor. Here I was, fighting to keep joint custody of our children, as I felt it was important that they have both mom and dad as much as possible and I was going to lose them over religion. Was this the USA? I was in shock. I didn't believe that this sort of thing could happen in our country. The really terrible part about it was that I had already agreed to continue raising our children as Christians. Since I believe in the interfaith movement, I had no issue with this. Still, small-town thinking in rural USA was going to take away my babies.

I fought. I praise Allah, my lawyer, and justice that the judge ruled in my favor when we protested the referee's recommendation. I had discussed the matter with CAIR and was ready to pursue the outright discrimination with them, if need be, but since I won in the long run, I decided to drop it - I had my kids, and that is what mattered most to me. I may still pursue something, to make sure that no one else in Montcalm County or the State of Michigan goes through what I went through, but I don't know if I have already waited too long. The battle was hard fought and it was a relief to my kids when they learned they were going to stay with mommy (we live two hours from each other now, so during the week they had to live either with him or me). I drive them back and forth to their father every weekend (that little caveat the judge through in still makes no sense to me - I  thought "joint" meant that we would continue to meet half-way).
 

Things now have mostly settled down. My kids have their bibles (I had to laugh that his parents thought they had to supply them with bibles for use at my house, as if I don't have 4 different versions on my shelf, already available to them, as well as almost two full shelves of Christian readings. (And many books about other religions and mythologies.) My kids know that Mommy and Daddy don't believe exactly the same. They know some Arabic and a little about Islam. They like saying Bismillah before eating. I still don't take them to the mosque, as I don't go often myself now that I am almost two hours from my home mosque. I do however drag them to Muslim Student Association and MSU Interfaith Council meetings from time to time. They've seen me in hijab without freaking out. (My daughter has her own collection of scarves because she finds them pretty) I don't wear hijab normally, but still they have seen me in one. They love their Muslim babysitter and miss her now that school is in session. My son is voiceful about being Christian and I support him. My daughter is just happy to love God at this point. We pray together in our own ways. We discuss religion without taboos. We're happy. To me, that is the best part. 

Now, there is more... and for this, I already know all the lectures that may come. I am dating a new man. Yes, I know dating is considered haram, and I know why. This man is Iraqi, but he is not Muslim. He is Chaldean Catholic (Honestly, I didn't even know this existed before). My psychologist thought this was a hoot. Isn't it ironic that in this relationship, I, the American white girl is the Muslim, and he is the Iraqi brown boy Christian. Yup, that's my life alright, I like to do things backwards. Seriously though, even as a Christian, I never thought I would ever, ever date a Catholic. Catholics were what Episcopalians were not! (but, oh, so similar)

When I saw him, I had already committed to myself that I was not going to chase any man. That if a new man was going to come into my life, he would have to find his way to me. Well, all that went out the window when I looked up from my book and saw him. I knew instantly that I had to meet him. I saw him talk to an Egyptian, Muslim friend of mine, and I hoped I would be introduced. When that didn't happen, I took matters into my own hands. (I am ever willful) I introduced myself and after some chit chat, the new guy left my friend and I alone for a few moments. My friend said to me, "You should know, he's Christian." I responded with a simple, non-committal "OK." I later found out that my friend had also told this new guy, "You should know, she's Muslim." I guess he could tell there was something in the air between us. 

That was almost 9 months ago. Sometimes we talk about religion, and he is a good sport. He's honest and has no problems agreeing to disagree with me. I know that his sentiments about Islam come from persecution he and his family suffered in Iraq, as he is here as a refuge, but he doesn't seem to hold that against me and respects my right to believe as I wish, as I respect his. I have to admit that I think it helps that we are both "liberal" and perhaps more spiritual than religious. We have talked about marriage and children, and this might be one sticking point with me, but I haven't decided yet. He knows that another baby could hurt my health a lot, and he loves my kids already. He's said we don't need to have another child or we could adopt. I asked him the "what if?" and he replied that he would want his child raised Catholic. I asked about Islam. He agreed that Islam would not be hidden and that we would allow the child to choose for him/herself with gentle guidance to love God and others from us, as I already guide my children. We both love Jesus, so that is not an issue at all, of course. On one hand, that's good enough for me, but I know that is the me now speaking. Me later might become more "religious" and might want my child raised as a Muslim instead. At the same time, I still have two children I am raising Christian... what's one more? I pray and I know that God will give me the guidance I need when the time comes.

So here I am, a esoteric-ish, post-Episcopal Christian, Muslim, divorced from a Protestant Christian, raising two non-denominational Christians, dating a Chaldean Catholic Christian. Is it easy? Most of the time. The custody battle was the only part that wasn't, and I will admit it was probably the hardest time in my life thus far. Overall though, I think interfaith relationships/marriages/families can work, with the proper attitudes, communication, cooperation, and respect. 

I think I need to call my Buddhist cousin now...