King Abdullah II comes to Washington
My law school, which is part of The Catholic University, invited Jordanian King Abdullah II to come speak about Islam this week. I was unable to attend the event, but the remarks from the King, the president of the University (Very Rev. Father O'Connell), and the Archbishop of Washington (Cardinal Theodore McCarrick) can be found here:
Traditional Islam: Path to Peace
Generally, I think it is good for opposing viewpoints to be heard (Catholacism v. Islam), especially for law students and religion majors. We should never be afraid to hear opposing viewpoints from our own. The goal should always ultimately be to seek the truth, not simply win an argument. If your position truly is correct, you shouldn't fear the opposition. I'm no scholar on Jordan's position in global politics or King Abdullah's ability to champion Islam or his political platform (though his message of Islam being the path to peace juxtaposed against how he has treated opposition to his government, Palestinians, and his father's endorsement Saddam Hussein is troubling). What I found problematic were the statements made by the Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal McCarrick.
Father O'Connell's statements were pretty harmless. Cardinal McCarrick's comments though make me feel uneasy that a man in a high level of Catholic Church leadership would be so careless with his words. I do believe in religious tolerance, and that persecution toward an opposing religion/philosophy is prohibited in the Bible. Rather, we are called to bless others and not curse them, espectially those who persecute us (Rom. 12:14). However, what the Cardinal was doing went beyond tolerance and stepped onto the grounds of pandering in the name of tolerance at the expense of the God that the Cardinal's doctrine says put him in his position of authority in the Catholic Church.
They are subtle, but here are the comments that caught my eye:
"A few months ago, when I was privileged to pray for you...I asked Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world, to bless you..."
"May Allah, the merciful and compassionate, continue to guide your steps..."
"In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate God, we pray. Amen."
A few comments.
- I understand that Allah is a name for God, just like in the Bible some of the names of God are Yahweh, Adonai, Jehovah, etc. The name in and of itself is not cause for alarm.
- The God that you give that name to is entirely the difference. The God of the OT and NT and the God of the Qur'an are NOT the same. Because the God you worship is different, this makes the name you give that God different. See the difference?
- Why are the God of the Bible (Jehovah) and the God of the Qur'an (Allah) different? Here are some basic reasons:
- God's nature: Jehovah is a trinity of persons; He is not three gods, nor one person in three forms, but a monotheistic God. Allah is one person, a strict unity.
- Jesus: Second person in the trinity, is both God in spirit and man in flesh. The Qur'an states that Jesus was a prophet, second only to Muhammad. He was not the son of God.
- Salvation: Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice on the cross, where his righteousness was imputed onto man to turn away the wrath of God. Man receives the free gift of righteousness by trusting in Christ's sacrifice, thereby allowing reconciliation back to God. Allah forgives sin by grace for those who believe in Him, the fundamental Islamic doctrines, that Muhammad is His prophet, and obeying the Qur'an.
- The Cardinal asked God to bless the King, and ended the prayer in the name of Allah. But which God was he praying to? Was he praying to Yahweh, but giving Him an Arabic name? Or was he praying to the Islamic God Allah? Big difference.
- It violates the law of noncontradiction (something cannot be 'A' and 'non-A' at the same time in the same relationship). One could be right and the other wrong, or both could be wrong. But they cannot both be right. These two religions cannot be compatable, b/c they both claim they are the exclusive way to God.
- "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Jesus in John 14:6
- "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). Qur'an 003.085
- It actually undermines the Cardinal's own authority. If he is praying to Jehovah, then he is required to acknowledge Christ's necessity as Savior, which Islam denies. If he is praying to Allah, then Jesus is reduced to a prophet, not God in flesh, the Bible becomes a continuous lie and not a book of divine revelation, and all authority which the Cardinal derives vanishes completely.
6 Comments:
Hey, would you say the God of the Jews is the same as the God of Christianity? I mean the Jews don't believe in a Trinity.
I would also add that it is quite arguable that the God of the OT is quite different from that of the God of the NT.
Both Muslims and Christians speak about peace in their life, that something outside them has changed them. To many of both, this provides objective proof that their religion is correct.
Objectively speaking, isn't the proof that Christianity is "correct" the exact same proof that Islam is "correct"?
I think there is an argument that since Christianity adopts religious math with its Trinity doctrine - that the 3 Gods are One - then it is not so bad to say that the 3 religions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, are in fact one God.
Perhaps, Judaism worships God the Father, Christians worship God the Son, and Muslims worship the Holy Spiriti, and Salvation can be derived through either. Even within Christianity, the exact relationship between the three entities is far from settled.
But if so, why would the entities be so mutually exclusive? Why would Muslims believe Jesus was merely a prophet?
To that, I would respond:
1. By incorporating the Trinity, I think it is obvious that human principles like mutual exclusivity do not apply.
2. To test the true followers. All 3 religions preach peace. Thus, the true followers of either should be peaceful.
And what about Christian Salvation is most important?
1. Realizing that you are fallen and need the help of a Deity, or
2. That such Diety was a man who died on a cross?
With all due respect, I have found many Christians and non-Christians alike who when asked why the believe what they believe, respond with something like "Because I feel it's right" or "Because it changed me." I would submit that personal experience is de facto the only objective way for people to rule out other religions as inferior. Thus, we arrive at an apparent contradiction since personal experience is inherently subjective to the individual.
I am not convinced that the evidence of an empty tomb provides conclusive objective support that Christianity is the "correct" religion. Christians love to think that it is, but it is not. None of us physically saw the empty tomb. The evidence we have of it is purely circumstantial and heresay as none of the Gospel writers themselves were present, rather they collected the testimony of others.
Thus, inferences themselves must be made. You must first believe these accounts. I would presume that many people who believe these accounts would say the reason they do is that "they feel it is right" or "belief in the Gospels changed me," thus going back to my prior statement that an "objective" measure of religions is ironically inherently subjective.
Couple thoughts:
The answer, "I believe what I believe b/c it feels right," or "it has changed me," isn't a legitimate response for any Christian. Nor is the evidence that a Christian leads a peaceful life a proof that Christianity is correct. To offer it demonstrates a lack of any sort of serious study of the scripture. The Bible itself calls for objective criticism in passages such as Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:16, and in 1 Thes. 5:21 Paul specifically instructs the believer to test all things (esp. his own words), and hold onto what is good. The standard is an objective look at the system of belief and all that entails. There is nothing subjective about the approach.
Evidence of an empty tomb does not provide conclusive evidence, but it is the lynch pin of the core of evidence. It is incorrect to say that the evidence is circumstantial or heresay; if that's the standard, then everything that we don't personally observe is heresay and therefore not to be trusted. But that is not the case. If someone reports on something that you didn't personally witness, you test the source of the reporting and corroborate it with other sources. Ancient history deserves the same standard. Otherwise, we would have no reason to believe that the Spartans invaded Troy, the Wright brothers actually flew, or that the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor. But we do accept these as true- why? Because we have various sources, they corroborate together, and have stood up to criticism over time. The Bible deserves the same level of critique.
Re: the issue of whether depravity or Christ's death is more important - this isn't a valid question, b/c these are two parts to the same concept. It's the same as asking whether the tire, the rim, or the axle on the wheel of your car is most important. You could make an argument for any part of it, but in the end, the fact is that if you remove one component, the rest of it doesn't work. The elements of depravity (fallenness that requires COMPLETE work of a diety, not just help), atonement (Christ's death), and justification (trusting that Christ's death satisfied God's judgment AND provides the righteousness required for reconciliation) are all required to represent the Christian idea of salvation.
Thanks to you both- good discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home