Allah had no son

I remember picking up a Chick Track some years ago that talked about how Allah had no son. I don't recommend nor endorse Chick Tracks. But it was the first time that I learned that Muslims have a huge problem with Jesus being God's Son (or Allah if you will). Recently, some one put it this way, "Jesus is not the Son of God because God could not have had such relations with a woman."

If I were talking to a Muslim about this, I think arguing would be futile. So why do it?

I got out my interpretation of the Qur'an to see what it says (because the Qur'an can't be translated only interpreted, and I do not know Classic Arabic.) about Mary and Jesus.

Surah 19 is about Mary. In Section 2 :16 the preface reads, "She [Mary] gave birth as a virgin to Jesus...[who] was a servant of Allah, a true Prophet...but no more than a man: to call him the son of Allah is to derogate from Allah's Majesty, for Allah is High above all His Creatures..."

and 19:35: "It is not befitting to (the majesty) of Allah that he should beget a son..."

My response hopefully would be not to argue, but to simple say something like this. The birth of Jesus was like this. When his mother was engaged to her husband before they were married and before they had come together, she was with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph who was a righteous man would have broken off the engagement quietly, but an angel appeared to him and told him that what was conceived in Mary was from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and his name will be Jesus because he will deliver his people from their sins.

Investigating Islam

This is the first (hopefully not last) of a series of posts I want to do on investigating Islam, especially Islam in Europe.

I tried to remember the 5 pillars and only could remember 3. So, I admit my ignorance.

I plan to read the Quran and have actual participants of the religion tell me what they believe and practice.

Why am I doing this?

A fact finding mission. I want simply to know what Islam looks like in Europe.

Comparison of religions

When comparing world religions I will agree, they all are similar (otherwise they would not be called religions), but all religions are not the same.

If we take out "truth" from them all, we do get some comparisons. This tells me man was made for worship.

However, if we consider "truth" when comparing religions, the amount of truth in each one lies on a continuum from mostly true to barely true. If there were no truth at all in every religion, it's no more than futile motions.

The two demoniacs

Just finished reading about the two demoniacs in Mat 8:28-34. There is an obvious point: Jesus was not afraid of dealing with demon possessed men, and as Son of God he had the power and authority to exorcise the men. This is what Matthew was communicating.

So, going outside the "point" of the story is usually a bad idea. And my next musings are no exception. Beyond this point is my opinion and personal reflection and does not add to the point mentioned above.

I have questions. These two guys lived in a cemetary, and they were so violent no one could pass by there. But Jesus had the audacity to. They thought he was going to torture them. And it seems they sensed he was going to exorcise them. They didn't ask for this, and I wonder even if they could have. The demons were expelled into swine who ran into the water. The ones feeding (the pigs) lost their herd. Since swine are not kosher, why were people feeding them? These had to be non Jews. They ran into town and told what happened, and the people "implored" or "encouraged" Jesus to leave.

The story's focus is the exorcism. But we have no idea what the reaction of the exorcised was. And what about the sentiment of the pig feeders? If we go with "implore," that makes it sound as if the people were upset with Jesus either for killing the pig feeders' pigs or for casting out the demons in the two men.

If we go with "encouraged him to leave," this makes it sound like the people were supportive of what Jesus had done, but realized he had stirred up something that would harm him and/or them. Therefore, they encouraged him to leave to avoid hurt and violence. If they thought Jesus would be harmed, they did not recognize him as the Son of God like the demoniacs had.

There is nothing to suggest they felt they would be harmed as a result of what Jesus had done. But they lived among the demon possessed and felt no harm. Were they so used to bad spiritual stuff that they weren't afraid for themselves? This is what I think was the case.

I think the people of G (there is some speculation about the actually name of the place) were complacent with darkness around them. The pig feeders (probably evil themselves) wouldn't take on Jesus head on and so went into town to raise up a mob. The people obliged and felt that if the whole town went with the pig feeders they could convince Jesus to leave, not for his sake, but because they felt threatened. Light had come into the darkness and the Light was rejected.

Before we think poorly of the people of G, we should probably see ourselves as either the violent men or the pig feeders or the town mob. We may not be demon possessed. But I bet we're hanging out with the pigs trying to keep them healthy to consume. And if we really think about it, we would rather the light stay away from us. Sure, we may say we are followers of Jesus. But he entered the darkness alone. It's a place we're not willing to go; our own darkness.

We too would rather strongly encourage Jesus to leave us alone with our violence and our baseness.

Pro-giving

This is a follow up from the post below.

So many times in the realm of ideas and philosophy I tend to state what I am against but not what I am for. I take a more defensive stance rather than an offensive. So, in an attempt to state what I do believe about giving, I give you this post.

In review, I am against church or denominational mandatory tithing. I am against the idea of the church being the storehouse of God. It simply is not.

As Christians we are to support its mission, which is to be examples of loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves, despite how much we fall short. 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. This is how we do it.

If you earn some money, first determine how much you can give back to God happily. Set it aside and then give. That may be 1%, 10%, or 50%. The percentage does not matter. You may not even know the percentage. You may can only joyfully give $5 out of $1000 you make. Fine. Give the $5. But if you can raise your threshold of giving, you will notice God's provision.

This system is not a the-more-I-give-the-more-I-get system. This is not health and wealth which is a lie too. This is one way that God has give his followers to be active in his work everywhere. You decide how much you can participate. I've seen $10 go further than large amounts.

This is not exhaustive but does give the basic idea of Christian giving

Anti-tithing

Disagree that Christians are required to "tithe," or give 10% of their income to the church.

Proponents of the teaching have as Malachi 3:10 as their proof-text, as was the case in tonight's sermon. The argument is tied to the word "storehouse," equaling the "church."

I did a quick search in the OT for the word, "storehouse." It is actually made up of two Hebrew words 1) house and 2) treasure. It is mostly a place for storing things such as wine, oil, and food. What one finds more often is that the word "treasure," relates to the riches of kings or the riches of the house of God. In the book of Ezra and Nehemiah one finds these references to money being paid to the treasury (of work). And in Nehemiah 10:38 one finds that a legit Levite was to take a 10% of the tithes and bring them to the "storeroom," (the NIV is a bit tricky here, I prefer "treasure room," rather than "storeroom.") of the treasury. However, the word for "treasury," is the word used in Malachi 3:10.

A couple of observations: 1) In the above mentioned Ezra and Nehemiah passages that speak of money being paid or brought to the treasury, there is no mention of it being a tithe. 2) In the Nehemiah 10:38 passage, one does bring a tithe but Nehemiah 10:39 shows that it was not 10% of anyone's income.

Someone may want to say that God's people (i.e. the children of Israel) were to take care of the needs of the priests (and maybe later even the workers of the walls and temple) by giving them items that would sustain them. And that by comparison, church members should give 10% of their income to sustain the church and her ministers. Thus, we should all give 10% to the church.

It is true that all the other tribes were to support the priestly tribe, the Levites with tithes. And even the Levites had to tithe what they received. But this does not connect the "church," with a "storehouse," not even by comparison.

The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) has one word for the two Hebrew words and that word comes from a verb meaning "to store up," giving a definition that means a place for keeping things safe. A storehouse.

I am pretty sure as Christians we are not suppose to be giving to the church so she can "store up," what we've given. In fact, as Christians we are not to store up treasures (same word as above) that will disintergrate.

We are not storehouses, keeping it all in for ourselves, are we?

Click on this link for the ironic name of this church pictured above.

What do you suggest...

...not that it will matter but...

I was asked this morning at 10:45 am to speak tomorrow at the evening church service. That barely gives me 24 hours to prepare something. I'm rusty on all this.

So, you can give me your subject if you want, but I'm not going to check my email until after I get this thing finished. I've been mulling over the following:

a) the glory of God
b) the feeding of the 5000
c) Jonah
d) something totally controversial but what I do not know
e) anything on Leviathan but it's not as fresh as I would like to think
f) how to share the gospel with a Muslim
g) answering the question posed to me last week in SS on my thoughts on hell from Luke 16
h) imprecatory prayers and their use in today's world (my favorite so far)

I've spent anywhere from 2 seconds to 2 minutes so far meditating on each of the above topics. That means I need to stop blogging and start praying.

"Give me oil in my lamp keep it burning burning burning, give me oil in my lamp I pray, hallelulah..." (See here for more prayerful lyrics)

ARDI: Ancestor?

I perked up when I heard about the new discovery (actually just the release into mainstream news of a 1992 discovery) of Ms. Ardipithecus ramidus (aka Ardi). She's older than (4.4 million years ago) Lucy (3.2 million years ago), and her scattered bones all over Ethiopia may help us fill in the Monkey Evolution Chart we see on shirts and bumper stickers.

What I hope this doesn't do is bring out the Evolution vs Creation debate for the upteen time. Why? Quite frankly I'm tired of hearing it.

Let's let the scientists do their job, and those teachers of the faith do their job. Let's let the people of faith believe whatever they want, and the scientists discover whatever they want. Let's stop trying so hard to harmonize a pre-scientific text with a 19th to 21st century scientific world.

Now, after we have let the scientists report their findings, and after we have allowed our theologians the chance to agree or disagree, let's try to find out really what both are saying.

Well...for those who think this really matters.

I've talked about evolution before but rarely. I imagine I'll stay pretty apathatic even after my interest in Ardi dies. At this point Ardi and Lucy are interesting but not foundational to my faith. If you start going into too much detail, don't be insulted if I fall asleep. And it's OK if prehistorical biology is not my thing. I know for some it is. But for those who feel threathened in their faith because of Ardi, don't be, and remember that when the first 11 chapters of Genesis (or Psalms) were written the writer (or maybe writers/editors/compilers) had a very limited understanding of the world around him. If you will notice he was more interested in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, than he was with Adam and Eve. The author was concerned about "origins," but only enough to get us to what he really wanted to talk about, (which was not Creation) which was the origin of the Jewish nation and Father of many nations.

A new change coming

Life is always full of changes. And for me and Lady R our lives are about to change a whole lot. We are expecting!

Yesterday was the 15th week. We had our a normally scheduled doctor's appointment, and she said everything looked fine. This is good news, and we've waited to say something until we were past the first trimester because of a previous miscarriage.

Please pray for us as we become parents and for the protection of our little one. We should know if it is a boy or a girl just before we come back to the States in a few weeks for a little R&R.

David and Bathsheba

It's that time again. Time that I got another story completed. I need to say I realize that the Taj Mahal is not a palace but a tomb (Lady R said I needed to put that disclaimer in). And Bathsheba means possibly the 7th daughter.

Enjoy!

Flinging things and thinking ships

Today, I decided to take some time and actually "study" the Bible rather than just reading it and getting a nice little thought for the day.

Every since seminary I've been wanting to really nail down the Hebrew from both Jonah and Ruth. Learning two languages in the last three years has sort of put a damper on keeping up the Hebrew (and Greek). In fact, it still is and will be until we get back to the States some time next year. And for the record, I do not believe you need to know one iota of Greek or one jot of Hebrew to read and completely understand the Bible. For me, I just enjoy "studying" the Bible in this way. It certainly is not needful/necessary. As the French say, "C'est juste mon truc" (It's just my thing).

In Jonah 1:4, the Lord is said to have "sent out," "hurl," or "flung," a great storm on the sea. I get this image of this really big hurricane, and God is so much bigger than it, that he can fling it onto the sea. I just like the word "fling," or "hurl," for a storm sent by God onto the sea.

In the same verse, the ship that the sailors were on is said to have been on the verge of breaking up. Literally, we have the ship "thinking about," "planning," or "considering" breaking up. Granted, we know that the ancient Hebrews (those who wrote and those experiencing the storm on the ship) did not believe that ships had a brain and was thinking. But the use of personification grabs the reader's attention. The ship "considering breaking up" shows how close the ship was actually was in being destroyed. It literally was on the very verge of it.

The point. God hurls storms and ships think. That's a pretty cool ship and an even cooler God.

Job fights back

Started reading the book of Job again.

I like how he, in his most trying time, still defends himself. Job has just lost everything. His three friends have just come over to "to sympathize with him and comfort him," and "they sat down on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights with no one speaking a word to him, for they saw that his pain was very great."

If they had stopped there, they would have acted appropriately. But Eliphaz thought, like so many, that he needed to preach Job a little sermon. He starts out (ch 4) by reminding Job how Job used to be an encourager to others. But now Job is not toughing it out as he has encouraged others to do. In fact, it has to be Job's fault for his misery.

But Job returns the discourse: He does not want (or need) a sermon; he's looking for understanding. And his "friends" are scared of trouble. In addition, Job did not want a problem solver.

Things could easily change in a moment's notice. I am not in the storm of life today. Tomorrow I maybe, we just never know. But from this vantage point of being outside of trouble and having been in a "situation" within the last year, I can say "sermons" are not the medicine for a hurting soul. No matter how true the content of the sermon may be, the timing of its delivery is so important. It may just need to wait. Besides, usually the "preacher" does not have all the facts anyway to compose his "message."

El Shaddai, El Shaddai El-elyon Adonai

I appreciate the attempt of the author of this hymn to worship God using one of the many Hebrew names for him in the Bible.

If you were to examine the long and sometimes controversial history of the event where God was being called "El," and Amy Grant's live version, you might be intrigued by the results. It is not my purpose to go into all that story here. But I do find the name "El" (and it's derivatives) fascinating. And here's why...

When God is talking to Moses in Exodus 6:2-3, he says that he is revealing himself as YHWH but that he had revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as "El Shadday." (orאֵל־שַׁדַּי)

Many have sought to find out exactly what El Shaddai means, and they have come up with "God of the mountain," "God of many breasts," "God Almighty," and a few others. Mettinger follows the path of "the one of the mountain," and like most who do go down that path offers the similarity between the Hebrew word and an Akkadian word (shadu) as evidence. I am not arguing either for or against this view. I am simply exploring it along side Mettinger.

Mettinger makes note of the study of Albrecht Alt which challenged the conclusions made by another German OT scholar Julius Wellhausen. Wellhausen had assumed that the text of the patriarchs was a description of the faith of Israel during the monarchy. Alt investigated the term "God of the Fathers" (Der Gott der Väter) and noticed that this designation treats God as "nameless,(he's just the God of so-and-so)" and "site less." The deity is not defined by a certain geographical location. Therefore, wherever so-and-so goes so does his God. This lead Alt to assume that the term "God of the Fathers" was used for a nomadic people. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a term defining the one (the deity) that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (i.e. the fathers) had put their faith in. Mettinger adds, "If this presumption is correct, then we would have in 'the God of the fathers' an example of interplay between way of life and understanding of God, evidence to the effect that the understanding of God evolves in conjunction with the challenges presented by life itself." (Mettinger, 55)

Is it not true that we write worship songs to reflect our personal understanding of God in our personal life experience?

The Context

Lady R is always telling me "Life is Context." She's pretty good at reading a situation accurately because she's a great at determining meaning from the context.

I think we could take a similar approach when reading the Bible.

I've just finished one of my favorite books, In Search of God by Tryggve N.D. Mettinger. This is the first time I've read it all the way through although I was first introduced to the book in seminary. Our Hebrew professor had us read a portion of it about Job, and I was intrigued by the concept of God fighting chaos monsters (namely Leviathan and Behemoth). This started my journey towards my thesis.

Mettinger offers some thought provoking ideas of how to interpret the names of God throughout the history of the Hebrews in a Ancient Near East context. I'd like to share some his ideas on this. So, look out for those posts in the future.

Are Causes hamartia?

I went to church on Sunday.

I went to a, what looked to me like a younger tamer version of, Woodstock festival on Saturday.

I found some interesting differences between the two events. Now the "Woodstock"-like festival was a local Celtic festival celebrating a huge mark for, we'll say, local Celtic studies. So obviously, it was nothing like the French church service. Those differences are evident but we might as well mention them anyway. The festival was lively with lots of music, lots of dancing, lots of beer and local cider, lots of people, and lots of fun all culminating in one weekend. The church service happens every weekend with the same few people, little music (well there is more music than anything else), little enthusiasm, little interaction, and overall little benefit.

But the differences I saw were over the importance of incorporating social justice into the lives of those in attendance. Let me try to illustrate this. All over the church I see signs encouraging people to get involved in social justice causes mainly by buying commerce equitable (fair trade or the French site) products. One gets the feeling that if you buy fair trade you are being a good Christian. OK, fine. I have no problem with fair trade (except in some cases with cotton but that's another post).

At the Celtic festival I found a booth where people were selling various products and people ready to get you involved in making sure everyone gets a fair trade around the world (ohh, except Coke, and they are evil just because they are). I've even had the chance to talk to one of the more outspoken advocates of fair trade; I happened to be near her when I ordered a glass of that Satanic brew.

These are two institutions having the same goal; involvement in a cause for the betterment of humanity. But are these two groups being properly involved in the greatest good? What's the importance or even motivation to be more involved in social justice? I thought about this during the sermon when I heard the French version of Matthew 6:33 where righteousness in French is rendered justice. That may satisfy Christians who need a biblical mandate to get them more interested in social justices. But for others, they are motivated to get involved as a result of being affected by something even bigger than the cause of the day. However, if the Christian thinks that being more socially active ensures that he is a good Christian, then he has missed the mark. I am not saying social justice is not something good for a Christian. Sure it is. If you have seen the movie Amazing Grace about William Wilberforce, you have seen an example of how getting involved in social justice projects can have a huge impact on those around you. I am saying that, for a Christian, being involved in any cause without being connected to an even higher goal is missing the mark. He's simply getting involved to look good and possibly for selfish reasons.

The same is true for our earthy friends who put all their energies into their "causes," whether it be fair trade or something else. All of us want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. So, often social causes are a way to participate in something larger than ourselves. Stopping AIDS in Africa, promoting recycling, bring attention to child abuse, or buying fair trade products are all great in and of themselves. When one is involved in a project with others for a common goal, one can have this bigger-than-me feeling fulfilled. But it's not enough. Sure, one may be remembered as a great philanthropist and have a huge commemorative statue erected on their behalf. People may look to this one as an example, but the mark has been missed. It's been missed, in my humble opinion, because righting wrongs in society is the indirect result of people being in touch with the greatest good, God. Otherwise, we all become idol worshipers missing the Creator himself and helping others for pure self promotion.

Who is building whom a house?

Let me know what you think?

PUSH

I know you all have probably got this in your email box, but it applies to me so I'd thought I'd put my version here.

There is this rock. It's a massive rock. God says push on the rock. You push on the rock and after a while you ask God, "What are you doing?"

God says, "Don't worry about moving the rock, if I had wanted it moved I would have moved it myself. I never intended for you to move it, I just wanted you to push."

You ask, "But to what end?"

God answers, "The purpose was to build your muscles for the next task ahead of you."

BTW This is not another Sisyphus lesson. We can talk about that if you wish, but I put it here to say what it says. And I don't think it says God has willed us to fatalism.

Protestant vs Catholic

I think I have figured out the main difference between Protestants and Catholics. I must preface my answer by saying these observations are localised. This is just what I have observed from my interaction with Protestants and Catholic in this tiny part of France I live in.

Literacy.

Yep. I go into a Catholic church and I see a ton of paintings or sculptors depicting some scene of the sacred. Tons of symbols everywhere. Even the mass is a symbol. The robes the priests wear are symbolic. The Scripture is read. The homily spoken. The songs sung. Granted, there is usually an order of service (that's to help us outsiders follow along or for those who are not used to coming to church often). But by and large the faithful have it all memorized. Afterwards, everyone exits the doors and finds their way back home or some other Sunday afternoon activity.

At the Protestants. The walls are white (or at least plain). You might see a cross up front somewhere. The service is usually routine. You sing from a book a couple of songs. You pray out loud or silently (this is one oral part of the service). You sing again from the hymnal. You sit down and "turn in your Bibles" to Book Chapter Verse and hear a sermon usually read for a literate audience. While you are trying to pay attention to the 3 to 5 points (outlining is highly literate skill), you notice the only vestments on the walls are things written, like a verse or two. Afterwards, you get plenty of oral interaction. People usually come up to you and give you kisses and talk to you for a minute or so.

I wonder if the reason Protestantism is not more widespread in France is because they are trying to appeal to the mind instead of the heart. Who knows? I say let's learn from each other. The Protestants can learn how art can help us engage in worship, and the Catholics can learn how to fellowship better.

I call it story time

I've thought about starting something new here at CL. Story Time. It's a time you sit back and hear a story being told. But this is not just a passive activity. Ideally, this would just be oral. No reading or writing but that's a little hard in this format. duh!!

To participate, after you have heard the story, you answer 5 questions.

1. What did you like about the story?

2. What shocked or surprised you about the story?

3. What does the story say about humans?

4. What does the story say about God (if anything)?

5. What does one do with the story?

I'll leave my responses in the comment section. Enjoy!

Michener's God

James Michener was a writer who did extensive research on whatever topic he was writing. I was introduced to Michener during a summer class I took in Israel, and I picked up his The Source to see through his eyes how archeology can inform us about the past.

If you have read his Hawaii, you know Michener does not treat "Christians" with great kindness. Still, he has a lot to teach us about his view of God.

I present to you the theory of the evolution of God (religion) with special relation to the evolution of the Hebrew religion (or monotheism) to which he as well as many other scholars hold. My source is his Source.

I guess we start with "apelike man from Africa...looking for water...in a time when gods have not yet been called forth by hunger of man." This could have been about 12 000 years ago. Eventually, "man" began to walk upright (already having developed the capacity for language) and hunt for food. While the males were hunting the women were gathering wheat from away and learning to plant it closer to their primitive lodging.

Humans have moved into the arena of naming spirits and forces but have yet to develop "placating ceremonies." Crops depend on the sun and rain. There is an "I-It" relationship to the natural world and spirit world. There is "an impersonal spirit but inanimate."

Later, we've moved into an "I-You" (is there any influence from Martin Buber's I-Thou ?)relationship. The human thanks the flood by giving "him" an offering. Therefore, the elements have become personified.

The storm, the wind, the wild boar, and the water will know we mean them no harm if we put a high stone on a rock. They can then see we are not out to hurt them.

A lot more time passes, and we have the Canaanites and their fertility deities like Astarte (Ashtart) called Ashtoreth by the Hebrews, Ishtar by the Babylonians, and Aphrodite by the Greeks. Basically, we go from 1. self-awareness to 2. awareness of the natural world to 3. seeing the need for showing the elements that we are nice people to 4. personifying the elements to 5. placating the evil spirits who may cause us harm to 6. pleasing the fertile spirits/gods for the continuation of our self (both reproducing our own kind and the reproduction of the Earth).

Our monoliths are now established, considered dropped down from the sky by the gods. These stones became special and among the many monoliths erected, certain ones became holy. Trash collected around them and eventually covered most of the rock leaving just the top. This symbol becomes the "father of all gods" or "El," the source of all power.

The rise of monotheism is an attempt to pull all the gods together into one.

I realize that this is a pretty oversimplified explanation of the rise of monotheism. I sort of wanted it that way. To start, I, myself, need a simple way of understanding this process.

But why couldn't there have just been "God?"