When A Muslim Buys Christians Lunch

I have been teaching the same Sunday School class for about six years now and, for the most part, have enjoyed it very much. Every couple of weeks a number of the guys get together for breakfast or lunch at a local restaurant. I got word this afternoon that today's meal was a bit different than usual. Here's the short message I received about it, a message that, if all us Christians just stopped a moment to think about, could really teach us something. Sure, as a Christian, I want everyone, including my Muslim friends to come to know and trust Jesus. If that doesn't happen, however, the least I want is for us to be able to at least coexist in peace. Here is a great example of how we can take steps toward making that happen. Read this and then, my fellow Christian, realize that it's your move. Pay it forward!

Email Title: Unexpected Generosity

Email Body:  Most of you know about the New Covenant Mens Meals...we alternate between having breakfast and lunch at an area restaurant every three weeks.  This morning, following a prayer, seven of us had a good meal and a good time at the IHOP on New Circle and Palumbo. When it came time to pay the bill our waitress told us it was taken care of.  When pressed on this, she said another person had paid for all of us and insisted on remaining anonymous.  She did hand us a note he had written:

"Peace From Your Muslim Brother."  Needless to say we were surprised...and thoughtful about this act of generosity and the person doing it.

The Ground Zero Mosque: Focusing The Discussion

In my last few posts I have made mention of the construction of the mosque hoping to be built a couple of blocks from Ground Zero in New York. By now, most all of us in America have caught wind of this story in some form or another. I have not had the opportunity to read other bloggers' thoughts on it--though, I wish that I'd have had the time--but I do know that some have been posting their two cents.

As one whose interest is first and foremost exegesis of the Bible, I thought I'd put my thoughts out there with the hopes of focusing the discussion a bit more. I want to keep this post brief, so, I will simply state my case and be done.

Basically, within the Scriptures themselves, "place" and "space" are central issues. In the Old Testament, especially in texts like Deuteronomy, "the land" is very significant. Further, I have noticed that the phrase "the land" is actually ciphered by the phrase "the place" all throughout Deuteronomy. In some real way, the Old Testament without "land" or "place" as a focus would be like the New Testament without Jesus.

All throughout Israel's history, mountains, arks, temples and other places marked "sacred space." In short, as we read throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, we see sacralization of place happening again and again. Wherever YHWH entered or dwelt, that place became sacred. Just as well, places also became sacred because of the ways that people treated them and the things they did in them. For example, worship took place in a sanctuary where appropriate dress, diet, words, thoughts, etc. accompanied them. Here, things happened differently than elsewhere and thus, contributed to sacralizing the place. This is why it was so troubling when the temple was desecrated and violated! It was not just symbolic, it was a statement about the loss of power and status in real, every day life!

As we move through the New Testament and especially beyond, we see places like Golgotha or the Garden where the tomb was, sacralized by Christians. One only needs to take a tour of Turkey or Greece today to realize that the tourist traps, which the guides try with all of their might to tie back to biblical figures, have become sacralized. Of course, Muslims do the same thing. Their Dome of the Rock, their praying toward Mecca, etc. all denote "sacred spaces" in their theology.

In my view, the issue about the mosque near Ground Zero is not really at all about American rights or it "being too soon" or Islamophobia or other such ideas. At the heart of the matter is really sacred space. To be even more particular, I think the main thing that needs to be addressed is sacralization. Until persons tackle this matter head-on, I believe that frustration will only continue to mount and that threats, veiled or not, and stigmatizing will prevail. The question that needs to be dealt with is: Who should get to sacralize this space and why?

At the most basic level, I see this tension more clearly than any other! This is the heart of the issue because whoever gets to make this space and place sacred will essentially get to imbue it with meaning. Such meaning will certainly flow into issues of social status, religious power and ethical influence. Regardless of all the other nuances that persons draw out of this argument, I truly believe that this is a fundamental matter to which attention MUST be devoted. It may even lead to the conclusion that at this "place" and at this "time" no religious group should be able to claim sacralization on this place because it will only cause more conflict.

To be sure, the issue isn't over nationalism, racism, ethnocetnricsm or any of that, again, the core of the problem is found in the notion of sacralism. It would do all of us well to begin fleshing out our theologies of "place" and "space" so that we can make an educated contribution to the ongoing debates and discussions. This, I submit, would get us much farther along than the empty-headed fellow taunting the sign at the top of this post for whom the matter of "building churches in Saudi Arabia" has more to do with making a point than understanding the depths of "sacred space" and "sacred place."

Read The Quran Sunday: A Reactionary Absurdity

You may have heard by now that in reaction to the Quran burning, another church in Flordia has decided to do the opposite, to read the Quran. That's right, as a part of Sunday morning worship, a UCC congregation led by pastor Larry Reimer will read the Quran.

Reimer says that this idea was born out of a reaction to the burning festivities. His congregants approached him wondering what they should do about the burning and how they should react, immediately after catching wind of the burning plot. Reading the Quran was their idea. The pastor wrongly says, "Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all part of the Abrahamic tree of faith. We all believe in the same God, and in many aspects we are all trying to accomplish the same goals." Well, this just depends on what Jew, Christian or Muslim you ask; it is a terrible over-generalization with only some less than half-truths.

Reimer goes on to say, "And in Islam, there are things that I think any follower of any other religion could learn from. Take prayer, for example. In Islam, one prays at least five times a day. The discipline to do that? Few of us have it. And like Christianity and Judaism, there is a strong call to love God and your neighbor." Personally, I consider this reactionary event an absurd spectacle. It is one thing to react by reaching out to one's neighbors but it is another thing to sacrifice one's own worship and sacred rituals for another. Trading the name of Yahweh on Sunday morning for Allah (or just morphing them into the same thing) or replacing the name of Christ and the Scriptures of our faith with those of Muslim personages and texts is an affront to the Christian faith. Is there a time and place for reading the Quran and having dialog and meal-time with Muslim folks? Absolutely, but worship time should not be placed on the altar of "novelty" and "innovation" and done in the name of "tolerance" just to make a point.

While many are calling this "outreach," I see it less as Christian outreach or even evangelism and more as Christians doing Islamic evangelism. Handing out copies of the Quran to families on Sunday morning is quite offensive. In the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), God's people are commanded to enter towns and demolish things contrary to their faith, especially idols. Yet, here we are, thousands of years later, in the name of tolerance and sensitivity, embracing other ideologies, promoting contrariwise religions and even distributing their worldviews and stamping it as positive.

Don't get me wrong, I am for Christian dialog and conversation and peace and even as I said in this previous post, submission. But submission does not mean sacrificing one's Christian faith to achieve the end-goal of coexistence or even peace. Submission means serving others in the name of Christ all the while maintaining the Christian faith one embodies, even if it means loving the so-called "other" or "enemy." The Quran reading represents to me, a faith gone terribly awry. Again, there is a proper time and place for it and what is being promoted is NOT it! There is also a time and a place for worship, devotion and reaffirming the Christian faith, the corporate gathering of believers (usually on Sunday morning around the world), is one of those times and places!

Some may level the charge that this is mere Islamophobia or fear-driven on my part. It is neither of those. Again, read THIS POST. What it is, is a call to not "burn" the principles of our faith in the name of advocating or embracing the principles of another religion. To read those things into my article HERE is to totally misread and to totally miss the point. When the Early Church came together, to be sure, they were not reading the texts of other religious movements in an effort to create a false unity or to redefine their own identities. Instead, they remained rooted in their Scriptures (the Old Testament) and later, into the 4th century CE and beyond, also the New Testament.

The reductionistic approach that attempts to morph Judaism, Islam, Christianity and/or any other religion into one is both highly offensive to those of us who take our faiths seriously and incredibly ignorant on many levels, especially the theological level. So, this Sunday, I will not read the Quran during worship nor will I promote or support it, as my friend James McGrath desires for all to do. In the end, it is nothing more than a reactionary absurdity that has burnt the Bible and the truths it proclaims just as much as, if not more than, the literal burning of any book such as the Quran.

Submission To Islam

In the last few weeks, talks about the relationship between Islam and Christianity as well as Islam within America have stirred much controversy. On the one hand, the Quran burning festivities have sparked outrage worldwide. On the other hand, the building of a Muslim museum and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero have created much controversy. News analysts, columnists, bloggers and many others have come out of the woodworks to voice their opinions on either or both of these hot topic issues.

At the level of which side(s) to support and which to reject, there seems to be inconsistency. The call to have patience with Muslims worldwide and to refrain from burning the Quran originates from various viewpoints depending on the person. For example, some desire patience so as not to harm American troops around the world. Others desire patience because in a land with freedom of religion, this is simply what one should do; they should tolerate the "other." Still, others think that by yielding patience, we show our power; if we give into anger and retaliation, we show our weakness, just what the Muslim "enemy" wants and so, they get another victory by controlling us. The same things could be said of the near Ground Zero building project. The question might be asked, however, "If Christians and/or Americans are expected to have patience with regard to the Quran burning, why are Muslims or Muslim Americans not expected to have patience with people as the express their anger, hurt and grievances about the mosque in NYC? And what about the rage Christians in America might feel when they see the mobs burning bibles, flags and photos of pastors (in the PRESENT!!!), where's the patience? The Quran burning has only been a "threat" of sorts while these people are actually doing it!

Much of what is going on here is a power struggle. It is sort of becoming a shouting match except with tyrannical tirades; whoever can do the most oppressive, offensive and tyrannical thing, wins. What does the Christian make of this? How does the Christian react? What is the role of Jesus and Jesus' ethics in all of this for the Christian?

Probably, many will see it as weakness or naivete but on a very real level, the call for the Christian is to submit! Submit to Islam? Seriously!?! I find it fascinating that when it comes to wars and governments, the average Christian is ready to rattle off Romans 13 to support their claims. All the while, they leave Romans 12, in connection with chapter 13, out of the equation (see more on this in a previous article of mine HERE). A litmus test of consistency should be applied, however, to the believer who cites this text.

Romans 12.17-21, the five verses preceding the infamously prooftexted 13.1-7, say, "17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Should Christians engage in Quran burning? No! But why? Simply put, because this will not cause us to live at peace with Muslims. Further, this is an act of revenge. What should the Christian do? Perhaps we should share a meal with the Muslims, share a drink with them and listen to them. Either we will get to know them or they will leave with coals heaped on their heads, which is to say, with God's wrath upon them. Paul's advice is wise and sound. We do not fight with the weapons of this world he says in 2 Corinthians, instead, we fight with wisdom from the Spirit of God. That wisdom says to leave room for God's vengeance, in other words, God's wrath, which will have its say in due course. The Christian who revolts against peace and peacemaking with Muslims has not only stirred controversy among inhabitants of this world but also God's wrath against themselves.

As for the building at Ground Zero, should the Christian stand back in fear and never express their feelings? Not necessarily. Should they picket and speak against what they see as injustice? Perhaps. But should they make threats, create fear and incite violence? Not at all. Should the plead for patience? Maybe. Should I ask another rhetorical question and continue on like I'm interviewing myself? :)

Sticking with Paul's advice, it would be most advantageous to sit with the opponent and share food, drink and conversation. Furthermore, that meal should be provided by the one offended as a sort of peace gift. Breaking bread may be the key to "overcoming evil with good" (12.21) in situations such as these. Of course, it is not violent. It is not warlike. It is not pretentious. It is not wrathful. It is not anger-driven. And because it is not any of these, it runs against the grain of how people in our world interact with those they consider most threatening and dangerous to themselves. But even Jesus shared bread with his enemy-betrayer Judas. Jesus overcame evil with good.

Should Christians submit to Muslims? Yes. But not in the sense of giving up. No, in the sense of hearing them out, sharing a meal with them, showing patience to them and maybe even requesting the same. Power in God's kingdom is not the type that lords force over position or anything else over people. Instead, it is a power vested and rooted in submission. It is an upside-down power in the world's eyes and mind. However, it is the way of Jesus. And it is ingrained in the ethic of Jesus. The way forward for the Christian through discussions and issues like these, in my view, starts at the table, the meal table.

But what if they will not come to the table? Well, then, we wait. And how long should we wait? As long as it takes! This, I suggest, is not a show of weakness or stupidity, it is an act of peace and kindness, situated in the deep ethic and heart of none other than Jesus Christ himself who bade us to be peacemakers and to love those considered to be our enemies.

Creedocide

No commentary needed, just have a look!

Exegesis That Starts Wars & Stops Biblical Fidelity

So, I've been on quite a hiatus from blogging over the last few weeks. It all started when the motherboard on my laptop had a meltdown. Well, now I've got the computer back and it's working okay. I've had a number of things happen in my life over the last month, some great and some, well, not so great. I'll save those things for another post perhaps. Anyway...

Last night, just before going to bed, I landed on the local Christian TV station. There were two ladies speaking about2 Cor. 3.13-6. In those verses, Paul is comparing the obstinate hearts and minds of certain Hebrew (Jewish) people in his day to that of his Hebrew forebearers. To quote, the verses say this: "We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

Neither of the hosts read the four verse in their entirety but they did spend about 5 minutes expounding on them. In the course of four minutes, I swear to you that I have never heard such terrible exegesis. On the one hand, it was the type of interpretation that leads people to hate, hurt, start and start fights. On the other hand, it was the type of reading that makes people who actually take the Bible seriously, want to get as far away from these kinds of so-called "Christians" as possible. Here's what happend in those four minutes:

1. The lady who was speaking the most said, "I want you to know that in my heart-of-hearts, I think Jesus is coming back soon. And I also want you to know that every offering or gift that you send in to this program, it is lifting the veils from people's faces. I have a sense of urgency in my heart that Christ is coming back and we want to see as many veils lifted as soon as possible."

(Comments: Do you see what just happened here? This lady totally took the verse out of context and then used it to exploit people for money! She used language cloaked in fear and urgency to try to pull people's heart strings...and wallet strings.)

2. The lady proceeded to talk and said this: "Now, you know, I don't really want to get too deep into this but one of the reasons I feel like the world is going to end soon, that Jesus is coming back soon, is because of Islam. And here's the thing, in these verses, we read about a veil. Now, who is it that wear's veils today? It's the Muslim people."

(Comments: I must admit, I didn't see this coming. She blindsided me with this. She just went from guilt-tripping viewers into giving to pitting Christianity against Islam. So, at this point, she has doubly (or triply) misconstrued this passage and what it is really all about. This is the kind of exegesis that starts wars mind you! The poor lady's logic is just so flawed and terrible.)

3. Now, the other lady who has been sitting there listening the whole time, she finally speaks. On the verge of tears, she says something like, "Oh, that just gives me chills, I've never thought of that, you're right. That's so, true."

(Comments: This fictitious emotionalism is another way to make money. Moreover, it shows you just how stupid these so-called "Christians" who are supposed to love God with their minds, really can be. She totally just bought into this crap. Now, un-thinking Christians who are watching will probably do the same.)

4. The lady who had been speaking the majority of the time chimes in again. She is motivated by the woman's tears and continues to make non-existent connections between the veil in 2 Cor. and Islam. She proceeds to tell a story about a Christian family who was "Pentecostal-to-the-bone". Yet, somewhere along the way, in this hard-core Pentecostal family, one of the daughters converted to Islam. She went on and on about how it hurt the family so bad and that she had never seen anyone so sad. She wondered and wondered how it happened. She couldn't stomach the thought now of this girl (who she knew) being covered with the veil that would bring the end of the world to fruition.

(Comments: Again, it's another heart-string story that is just retarded. It may well be true but it has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about. Furthermore, it was a way for her to segue back into a plea for money: "Please, if you want to see the veil (not spiritual but physical) removed from women like these (contributing to terrorism), contribute to our show. Sow your seed and send your financial gift.")

5. Finally, the lady goes all nationalistic on us (quite what Paul may have actually been railing against in 2 Cor., to some degree) with this: "Just like this young girl, Islam has invaded America, God's territory. We need to stop it. You can help us do that by giving to this show which is sending out broadcast signals all over the world to help remove those veils."

(Comments: So, this whole thing was an apocalpytic-economic scheme which kind of reminds me of how pyramid schemes work--they don't! Anyway, I got sick to my stomach and had a hard time sleeping. I'm grieved that this is what the Western Church is coming to. When will we ever stop being so humanistic, prejudiced and ignorant? When?)

Key Episodes in Islamic History: A Brief Timeline of Islam

Reading through the book Islam Vs. Islamism recently, I came across this brief timeline which I found both fascinating and illuminating:


* 622 The hijra, or migration of Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina; start of the Islamic calendar

* 661–689 Civil wars lead to the split between Sunnis and Shiites

* 744–750 `Abbasid revolution ends the first, Arab-dominated, Omayyad caliphate and establishes political equality among believers. Start of Islam’s Golden Age 1258 Mongols sack Baghdad—end of `Abbasid caliphate and of Golden Age

* 1453 Ottoman Turks capture Constantinople; end of Byzantine Empire

* 1492 Discovery of America breaks Middle Eastern monopoly of trade with Asia; fall of Granada ends Muslim hold over Spain 1683 Ottoman Turks fail to conquer the Habsburg capital Vienna; beginning of Ottoman decline

* 1798 Napoleon Bonaparte’s Egyptian expedition breaks Mamluk power and opens the Middle East to Western influences

* 1856–1857 Heyday of tanzimat reforms to modernize Ottoman Empire; in India, Sepoy Rebellion is crushed, end of Mughals, India becomes British Crown colony

* 1915–1919 During World War I, British-instigated Arab Revolt against Turks; Britain and France plan colonization of Arab East; Balfour Declaration promises Palestine to Jews; end of Ottoman Empire; joint Hindu-Muslim anti-British agitation in India; Wilson’s Fourteen Points and Russian Revolution inspire hope for independence among Muslims worldwide

* 1924 Republic of Turkey under Atatürk abolishes caliphate

* 1928 Hassan al-Banna establishes Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

* 1947–1949 Partition of British Mandate of Palestine, independence of Israel, the Palestinian nakba (catastrophe); partition of British India, independence of India and Pakistan

* 1967 Six Day War or June, 1967 War, Israel defeats Arab states; conquers and occupies Sinai, West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights; crisis of secular pan-Arabism

* 1977–1978 Israeli-Egypt peace accord breaks taboo on negotiating with Jewish state; Islamic Revolution establishes mixed theocraticdemocratic regime in Iran, led by Khomeini

* 1981–1983 Islamists assassinate Egyptian president Sadat; Israeli invasion of Lebanon militarily breaks PLO; massacre of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila; failure of U.S.-French intervention. First suicide bombs by Shiite resistance

* 1988–1993 Islamist resistance leads to Soviet retreat from Afghanistan; Iraq-Iran War breaks Iran’s Islamist dynamism, ends in stalemate; Iraq invades Kuwait, Western-led international intervention defeats Iraq in Gulf War, fueling anti-Westernism; intifada (Palestinian revolt) and Israeli-PLO peace process. Ahmad Yassin Islamists establishes Hamas

* 1996 Hamas’s terrorism interrupts peace process. Taliban establish fundamentalist regime in Afghanistan

* 2000–2001 Failure of Israeli-Palestinian peace process leads to second intifada and emergence of Hamas; 9/11 al-Qaeda of Osama bin Laden 2001 terror attack against United States, Western-led international intervention dislodges Afghan Taliban

* 2003 U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq; attempts at democratization
and international anti-Western Islamist mobilization

Walking The Abraham Path

A friend of mine sent me a link to a fascinating site yesterday. Perhaps this is old news to you but it was new to me. The site deals with "The Abraham Path" that is being recreated in the Mid-East. Here's a bit about the site. After you read this, check it out (click HERE):

"The Abraham Path is a route of cultural tourism that retraces the journey made by Abraham (Ibrahim) through the heart of the Middle East some four thousand years ago. Three and a half billion people — over half the human family — trace their history or faith back to Abraham, considered the father of monotheism. The Abraham Path honors this shared cultural heritage by linking together into a single itinerary of outstanding interest and beauty the ancient sites associated with Abraham and his family."

Did the Pope Baptize A Muslim?

Did the Pope really baptize a Muslim? That's what the news stations and columnists had me believing. However, the man the Pope baptized, while he had a Muslim past, was no longer practicing Islam. Furthermore, he had been writing columns against Islamic extremism and had married a Catholic woman. So, when the Pope baptized the man, He was baptizing him into Christ. He wasn't baptizing a Muslim just for the heck of it. No, the man desired to be a Christian and in doing so, wanted to undergo baptism. This was a conversion, not a mere social event.