A Christmas Message

 

The nicest Christmas card I received this year was from a Jewish friend. An animated ecard of Salisbury Cathedral, a children’s choir singing “O Holy Night.” 

This does not surprise me. In my experience, all religious acrimony is between the religious and the non-religious or the phony religious, never among the religious. The religious always share more than what separates them—I would say infinitely more, for it is the experience of the infinite. Among us, we know. In Saudi Arabia, I could anticipate any student or faculty member with a good beard would be a friend—as a devout Muslim. The clean-shaven were always more likely to be hostile towards me, as a Westerner and a Christian. My own Catholic faith has been deeply enriched, along the way, by Jews like Leonard Cohen and Martin Buber, Hindus like Ramakrishna or the Bhagavata Purana, Protestants like William Blake and William Lane Craig. I have far more in common with a devout Jew than a secular Christian.

Artists are the same. True artists recognize a fellowship far more significant than any political, philosophical, or aesthetic differences. They have all felt the thumb of God, to use Margaret Atwood’s image, pressing down on their head, and this makes them brothers and sisters. You don’t fight with family; Father would not be pleased.

I find ecumenism is therefore a good test against Pharisaism. If a Christian runs down Judaism, or vice versa, a Catholic Protestantism, or vice versa, a Buddhist Christianity, and so forth, you know they are not genuine about their own religion. They are just using it as a mask; wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Serious artists similarly do not run down aesthetic schools other than their own. Fans or critics may mock country music, or jazz, or bubblegum, or whatever. But serious musicians do not; music is music. We rock snobs used to condemn the Monkees as phonies; but not Jerry Garcia, say, or Frank Zappa. We used to condemn Tin Pan Alley; but not Robbie Robertson, Paul Simon, or Keith Richards. We used to condemn Lawrence Welk. But among his buddies were many great jazz musicians.

This is not indifferentism. All the great religions are essentially true, not equally true. Often apparent disagreement is only a matter of terminology or emphasis. Yet when it is real, one must be right and the others wrong. But that mistake is far less important than being a good Muslim, if Muslim, or a good Jew, if Jewish.

Similarly, not all artistic styles and forms are equally difficult or equally beautiful. Photography is a lesser calling than oil painting. Musicianship is a lesser art than composing. Hip hop is less sophisticated than jazz. But that is secondary to doing a fine job at whatever medium and genre you are working in.

Nor is a serious artist eager to condemn another for bad art, if their heart is in the right place. Any true artist also knows the inspiration comes not from them, but from elsewhere; there but for the grace of God… 

And the same for the religious. In the words of Goethe, “Man is doomed to err, so long as he is striving.” It is in the striving; it is where the heart is.

Do Muslim and Christians Worship the Same God?

 

I am usually in awe of William Lane Craig as a philosopher. But in his claim that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, I think he is off the mark. 

He argues that there is cause to accept the possibility that we worship the same God; but not sufficient warrant. It is possible, he says, that it is not the same God, and then he leaps to the conclusion that Yahweh and Allah are not the same God. 

Surely, at a minimum, he is actually giving no better justification for his own claim than for the claim that they are the same. It is possible; that does not make it necessary.

But it is not even possible. We are actually obliged to accept that it is the same God. 

Craig offers two analogies: first, we see a man treating a woman well, and observe that her husband is kind to her. But as it turns out, that man is not her husband, and her actual husband abuses her. In this case, if we say her husband treats her will, and another insists her husband abuses her, we are not talking about the same person.

His second example is the Immaculate Conception: Protestants commonly assume this Catholic doctrine refers to the birth of Christ. But to Catholics, it refers to the conception of the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, the two are not speaking of the same thing. Mistaken identity.

But these analogies, or any mistaken identity problem, depend on there being more than one existing item or person it is possible to be referring to: more than one man man in the world, and more than one conception. Therefore, confusion is possible.

By definition, there is only one God in the universe; and both Christians and Muslims aver it. Accordingly, it is impossible to accuse either of a care of mistaken identity, that they are thinking of another God.  By definition, Muslims and Christians simply must be worshipping the same God, whether or not they have different conceptions of Him. To disagree, Craig must first declare himself a polytheist.

If Muslims and Christians do differ in their concept of God, it is probably not very useful to argue about it. God is in his essence beyond human conception. Some things may be necessarily true, for example, by definition; but beyond such points it is unreasonable to insist that your own conception is the right one.

To demonstrate that they are different Gods, Craig points out that the Muslim God is hostile to non-Muslims, while the Christian God loves everyone, “unconditionally.”

Problem: Does the Hebrew God of the Old Testament love the Canaanites and Philistines “unconditionally”? That’s far from clear. He does, after all, want them wiped out, men, women, children and cattle.

And does the God of the New Testament, really? The scribes and Pharisees? The “goats” thrown into the eternal flames?

The term “Muslim” properly means “obedient to God.” So God loves Muslims. This seems to me the same as the Christian teaching: God loves those who love him, but those who reject him are damned.   Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, turning from God, is the unforgivable sin.

It is an odd partisan blindness on Dr. Craig’s part.

Xerxes Calls for Diversity over Christian Unity

 

This is the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Xerxes in his latest column questions the value of Christian unity. He says it all seems to be a matter of mouthing scripts designed not to offend anyone. The real Christian unity, he suggests, would be in things like giving money to a food bank.

What, after all, he asks, does he have in common with “the gun-toting far-right evangelical fringe in the U.S. that’s now being called ‘Christian nationalism.’ Just as they have little in common with the Christian minority in India being squeezed out by the strongly pro-Hindu policies of Narendra Modi. And as they in turn have little in common with the robed guardians of priceless art treasures in the Vatican.”

This took me by surprise. The value had always seemed self-evident to me. It is as though someone had suddenly declared themselves in favour of war, as consistent government policy. Had to stop and think.

It is firstly to present a united front to God. We are all children of one divine father; disunity among us must be as troubling to him, as much against his wishes, as disunity among brothers and sisters to the father in a family. (Assuming the parent is not a psychopath. But that is another story.)

It is, second, for the sake of ourselves and one another. Any sincerely religious person is in a sincere quest for the truth. If we disagree on what we believe, it is urgent and mutually beneficial to discuss this, and see to what extent we can find agreement. If we disagree, why? This is how truth is sought, and how it is found.

It is, third, to present a consistent witness to the unchurched, to the non-religious, who need our guidance. To the extent that Christians cannot agree, it leaves the despondent without this clear guidance. 

“I have very little in common” Xerxes protests, “… with the gun-toting far-right evangelical fringe in the U.S. that’s now being called ‘Christian nationalism.’” 

He does not list the points on which he disagrees; I can only guess that it is on toting guns, voting for the political right, being evangelical, and being “Christian nationalist.” 

As to owning a gun or voting for the policies of the right, these are political or cultural considerations, not religious ones. They are not relevant; unless one can make a case that owning a gun or voting for the Republicans is immoral. Perhaps; but that argument must be made. 

Evangelical? We are all, as Christians, supposed to evangelize. That is the Great Commission—in other words, our chief duty as Christians. Leonard Cohen has referred to Christianity a “the great missionary branch of Judaism,” and I think that is about right.

I had to look up “Christian nationalism,” a new term. I don’t mean new to me; a new usage in absolute terms. It is usually used as a pejorative, not by the people so described for themselves.

I turn to Wikipedia. While imperfect, it is about as unbiased a source as we can expect to find on such a topic. Wikipedia says “Christian nationalists support the presence of Christian symbols and statuary in the public square, as well as state patronage for the display of religion, such as school prayer and the exhibition of nativity scenes during Christmastide or the Christian Cross on Good Friday.”

On that definition, I am a Christian nationalist. I like nativity scenes. If we are going to celebrate Christmas as a public holiday, why draw the line at trying to conceal what it is all about?

Moreover, if Christian symbols are barred from the public square, this is not neutral. Religion is being suppressed. This is discriminatory. 

Most fine art, architecture, and history until recent years is religious in nature. The Sistine Chapel; Da Vinci’s Last Supper; the pyramids; the Elgin marbles; Dante’s Divine Comedy; Milton’s Paradise Lost. Prohibiting it all from the public square, or refusing it public support, would be massively destructive to our culture, our cultural unity, and our quality of life.

Many of the freest and most “progressive” countries in the world have an established church: they are, constitutionally, “Christian nations.” I don’t like established churches, as opposed to support for monotheism in general, but do you really think this is a serious problem in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Malta? Are these problematic “far-right” regimes?

Note too that the idea of “separation of church and state” is alien to the Canadian constitution. (Nor does it appear in the American one.) The preamble to the Constitution Act, 1982, identifies Canada as “founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.” That makes Canada legally at least a monotheistic state, if not a specifically Christian one. A right to expressly religious schools, Catholic or Protestant, is guaranteed by the constitution at least for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. That includes school prayer.

So Canada is also a Christian nation, by Wikipedia’s definition. Anyone opposed to Christian nationalism is opposed to Canada.

To be fair, I can guess at a second possible intended meaning to the term: a deification of nation and nationality. This, however, would not be Christian, but an idolatry. The term in this case is misapplied.

Xerxes thinks that the  “Christian minority in India … have little in common with the robed guardians of priceless art treasures in the Vatican.”

Actually, thirty-three percent of Indian Christians are in communion with the Vatican. I have rarely attended a Catholic mass anywhere in Canada or the Middle East without at least a few South Asian faces. Apparently there is a unity in Catholic Christianity that does not occur in Xerxes’s old-line Protestantism. I have noticed that in the Middle East: even within one Protestant denomination, they seem to segregate into ethnic congregations. 

I see this as unfortunate. One of the great joys of being Catholic is feeling a part of a family that is truly worldwide. 

As a Catholic, I also feel close to evangelical Protestants. That was historically not always the case, but it shows our progress towards Christian unity. A Catholic charismatic service is hard to distinguish from a Protestant Pentecostal one. And this is far from people mouthing scripts.

Perhaps old-line mainstream Protestants are the one group that feels alienated from the body, the “one holy, catholic and apostolic church” we all acknowledge in the Nicene Creed. And perhaps it is actually due to the lack of spirit—the disunity is effect, not cause, of the spiritlessness.

“The true unity of the Christian Church – if it exists,” says Xerxes, “lies in its actions.” And he lists several acts of charity. 

I see two problems with this position. First, acts of charity are incumbent on all of us, not just Christians. Atheists would be the first to insist that not only Christians are moral or charitable. Second, to Christians, acts are not sufficient. That would be earning salvation by our own merits. So charitable acts are not definitive of Christianity.

Xerxes also scoffs at prayer in general, let alone ecumenical prayers for Christian unity. “I don’t have much faith in what a former boss called ‘Gimme Prayers’: Please God, gimme a red wagon. Cure my cancer. Bring my wife back.”

But this is a serious distortion of what prayer is all about, including, surely, any ecumenical prayers. If you look through the standard prayers of the Catholic Church, “gimmes” are not prominent or that common. “Give us this day our daily bread” and “Lead us not into temptation” in the Our Father. “Pray for us” in the Hail Mary. “Show unto us the most blessed fruit of thy womb” in the “Hail Holy Queen.” “Have mercy on me, a sinner” in the Jesus prayer. No gimmes in the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Confiteor, and so forth. Jewish prayers, I am advised, are similar.

Not that it is wrong to ask God for things, but it should be obvious that God is giving us what is best for us in any case. So the point of prayer is not to get stuff, but to establish a loving relationship with God.

Generally speaking, we can do that in fraternal unity despite any disagreements over points of theological doctrine.

Mary and Islam

 

A Muslim (Persian) depiction of Mary with Jesus

Nobody gets religion; on the left or on the right.

A piece from PJ Media claims the Vatican has “betrayed” Mary by saying she is a bridge among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. They object to the claim in a Vatican document that she was “a Jewish, Christian and Muslim woman.” After all, how could she have been a Muslim -- “A religion that came into being 600 years after Mary died.”

Bad theology there, pal. Mary did not die, in the conventional sense. The term is “dormition.” She ascended bodily into heaven. At least, that is what Catholics believe. Even if she hadn’t, she, like all the saints, is alive in heaven. Accordingly, why couldn’t she have become a Muslim at some point after 622 AD?

This further supposes, falsely, that Islam began with Muhammad, as Christianity began with Jesus Christ. By that assumption, when did Judaism begin? “Islam”” means “submission”: that is, submission to the one true God. Accordingly, as far as Muslims are concerned, there were Muslims long before Muhammed, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and, of course, Mary. They would have thought and believed all the same things Muhammed thought. Muhammed did not come to change anything, but to restore the true faith, and place a seal on it.

The article’s second objection is that “Islam presents Mary, the Mother of Christ, as ‘married’ to and ‘copulating’ with Muhammad in paradise.” Shocking? Why? Did you suppose God was against sex?

Ah, but, the article says, this claim violates the Christian doctrine that she was eternally a virgin.

That is not the Christian doctrine. That is the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. If this fatally alienates Islam from Christianity, it equally divides Christianity. 

Moreover, the Muslim claim is actually compatible with Mary being eternally a virgin. In fact, Islam believes she was. They are closer to Catholicism here than Protestantism is. Marriage in heaven is necessarily a very different matter from marriage on earth. The article makes the point that the Arabic word implies copulation, not some Platonic relationship. Fine—but imagine how “sex” works in heaven, given that in heaven one does not, until the resurrection, have a body. Perhaps Mary, uniquely, does; even if so, Muhammed does not. Does this really contradict the concept of Mary’s virginity? How exactly?

Third, even if this hadith were controversial for Christians, it is not an article of faith for Muslims. A hadith is a tradition about Muhammed, not something from the Quran, and all hadiths are not equal. The chain of authority behind this particular hadith, according to a Muslim site, is “weak.” Any Muslim is free to take it or leave it.

Undeniably, there are differences between Christianity and Islam. But there is a tendency to exaggerate them.