Christianity and Islam : A Discussion
Very rarely does quoting a theological tract from the 14th century get you into hot water, but there's always that rare exception, as Pope Benedict XVI has found out.
The crux of the controversy is this: Benedict's statement that the Qur'an allowed for "holy war," thus opening the gates to Islamic militancy in a way that he believes Christ and early Christians did not. Benedict's deeper (theological) point is that the Christian tradition of viewing Christ as "logos" - as opposed to the Islamic tradition of viewing Muhammad as a prophet - is more than a surface distinction: to paraphrase him, it has created a more 'reason-centered' Christianity, where the ideal is one of free debate. By comparison, he does not see this same center in Islam.
I'd also certainly welcome anyone outside of those two faiths or any/all faiths to the discussion, too. One caveat, of course: let's play nice. Let me be clear that "playing nice" is a double-edged sword. Just as commenters should not needlessly antagonize each other with stereotypes and old tropes, by the same token, I'd prefer controversial discussions not be flattened dead with a comment of "that offends me." Offensive and impolitic points can be vital to understanding. It's most likely we will all be offended by this discussion at one point or another! But that doesn't make the issues less salient or various opinions less valid.
posted by Joshua @ 7:10 PM
6 Comments:
Well, it's one thing to look at the question from the Pope's theoretic standpoint, and much another to look at it from a pragmatic American stanpoint.
As an agnostic, I'll say that Christ taught love and noble passivity in the face of agression, and while I haven't read the Qu'ran, condoning Holy War is a statement I certainly can't get behind.
That said, when you figure to O.T. into matters, it all gets a little murkier, and for an unimpeachable, divinely inspired text, the Bible sure offers it's share of contradictions and mixed messages. (For some sick fun, get a protestant to say that the Bible is 100% true, and then bring up the book of James.)
Also, Christ's teachings have, throughout history, been interpreted in some interesting ways, and arguably more blood has been spilled in his name (and still is) than anyone else's. If the history of the church has taught us anything, it's that Christians don't need the Gospel to call for Holy War - they'll do it just fine by themselves, no matter what their Lord has to say on the subject.
In truth, I don't think that faith or religion has all that much to do with religious strife. We're all too far removed from the source for it to have real meaning on that sort of thing. The grand majority of people have their beliefs handed down to them as part of a racial, and familial, identity. So now Christianity is about with Christmas trees and Easter eggs, and Judaism is about Seders and Bar Mitzvahs. I don't know enough to speak authoritatively about Islam, but it seems to me that the infighting between sects is a much bigger issue than their jihads against infidels.
Faith is personal, but religion is social, and thus leads to tribalism, and having beliefs be inherited, while natural and understandable, just exacerbates the problem. The first follwers of Moses, Jesus and Muhammed all faced persecution to follow beliefs that - to them - were worth dying for. Centuries later, the decendents of those disciples face persecution if they don't follow, and the original teachings become an afterthought, to be cherry picked for justification of one's actions. It's worthy of mention that each of the three major religions believes itself to be the single route to God, as if GOd would spawn an inherently divisive and tribal species to rule the earth and then judge entry to paradise on dietary habits, or baptism, or which direction you face when you pray.
My personal faith is that if God is to be found, he is found in society's ability do accomplish more than the sum of it's parts. I think this would be a GREAT world religion, excapt that I don't need anyone else to follow it in order to hold my own belief. Still, I wonder from a secular standpoint, would the world be better off with a single, worldwide religion, that once instituted, would then lose it's fanaticism as time went on? Could such a course actually be a solution to it's own cause?
Before we get too much into it, there's this:
(For some sick fun, get a protestant to say that the Bible is 100% true, and then bring up the book of James.)
Am I alone in not getting the joke here? What about the Book of James is so difficult to take literally? That is, what is in inherent in Protestant theology that makes accepting James's message literally so impossible? Clue me in, please.
Now, onto the item:
Still, I wonder from a secular standpoint, would the world be better off with a single, worldwide religion, that once instituted, would then lose its fanaticism as time went on? Could such a course actually be a solution to its own cause?
Essentially, this has happened, in that the secular liberalism the West (especially Europe) has been imbibing for the last century has lost not only its 'fanaticism' but its very will to live! The result has not been a pleasant post-modern utopia where people freely discuss things reasonably. Hardly: so many are now willing to belive anything and nothing, because the core is gone. Look at the passivity with which the Netherlands accepts its fate, as discussed elsewhere. Is this honestly a good thing?
No, religion (or belief in God, if you prefer) must be a touch fanatical if it is to have any hold and produce any good works. Should it presume human infallibility? Of course not. Any true and sincere believer should not become an idolater of his own creed. But at the same time, should that belief be confident and at times zealous? I should hope so: better that than a half-hearted faith that has no hold on the hearts of man.
Out of more curiosity than anything else, I raised the point of this post (mythos, logos, and prophethood) with one of my classes today. It turned into a surprisingly good theological discussion - cut short by the accurs'd bell - between a group of students who clearly were familiar with the concepts.
As fate would have it, I have two students who indeed believe Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets and are quite well informed. Good clean fun, that.
But back to the larger point: I think, by putting the achievements of Jesus so far out of reach - indeed, by making him the Christ and the Logos - Christianity has done humanity a great service: that is, the doctrine of Original Sin and the corrupted and fallible nature of humanity. If Jesus were merely mortal, it would imply that humans can achieve a mortal perfection and complete attunement to God's will.
The recognition of the universality of sin - in its many entrapments - remains for me the most theologically excellent points about Christianity: so long as we remain in the flesh, we are susceptible. Doesn't experience alone teach that?
Sorry it took me forever to respond. The crack about the book of James refers to chapter 2, which explains that works are required in addition to faith, and precedes it with a nice warning not to pick-and-choose which parts of the holy law apply to your life. Whenever I brought up this chapter to the protestants in Oklahoma, at least, they would twist their logic to a tortured pretzel trying to explain why it didn't apply. Not being a literalist myself, I can say that James Chapter 2 is easily my favorite thing in the bible, though. Read it again. It's pretty awesome.
Yeah, I actually read it again right after your first comment.
I figured that might have been what you meant, but let me (in as friendly a manner as possible!) dissuade you from using the term "The Protestants" when you mean something more like "The Literalists." As the former, I wondered what there was in the Book of James that I was supposed to find so offensive!
Fair enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home