John Wilks:
In today's world, judgment is often treated like a dirty word. In fact, there is a cottage industry of theology out there constantly proclaiming "the Jesus I knew would never judge or condemn anyone."
These sorts of statements stem from a profound (if misguided) appreciation for the vast and unending love of Christ.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
i dunno, it immediately made me think of greed and consumerism that goes hand in hand with a capitalist culture.
I would say that having a profound appreciation for the vast and unending love of God isn't misguided at all.
I think the problem with "judgement" is it starts of by implying that everything is black and white. It goes on to imply, to me anyway, that there are transgressions that are too big for God's love and that God's compassion can't (or won't) keep someone free from condemnation.
If God's love, compassion, and forgiveness is larger than we can imagine, then I don't believe it's right to have the arrogance to think that we know if God will condemn anyone at all.
Perhaps because of your titillation with the subject and the fact that that he used the words "dirty" and "judgment" in the same sentence?
Since you asked.
More likely, I think, because defenders of homosexual conduct have repeatedly argued that judgement (that is, distinguishing between right and wrong) is somehow improper for a Christian. Although, Jonathon does have a good point about the whoring of the church to consumerism.
Post-liberal, are you referring to the homosexuality debate among Anglicans in general, or has there been some recent event on the topic in the Anglican Communion?
I don't know where we got such a crazy idea that "judgement is somehow improper for a Christian."
I seem to recall it started with this radical fellow saying some crazy nonesense about how we should not judge each other or we might be judged ourselves.
Who was that guy?
I hope the religious leaders in his community showed him the error of his "hell-bound heretic" ways.
Matthew 7:1-5
We *do* treat judgement as a dirty word. That I agree with 100 percent. Judgement is much for good as for bad. Those who claim Jesus as Lord should embrace judgement, knowing that through the grace of God they will be found righteous.
However, I do not judge my fellow Christians knowing that whatever measure that I judge by, I also will be judged.
Or as a good friend says "the responsibility of that type of decision making is beyond my pay scale." I.e. God is the one that does that. Thank God.
Ah yes. The 'judgement argument'.
The idea that you should never judge the actions of anyone is not Biblical, nor reasonable. Paul, Peter, John, Jude -- well, every single one of the Epistolary authors judged people, particularly false teachers.
Also, the reality is that we do judge people's actions. Jim -- you recently judged my thoughts on Rep. Murtha as wrong and shameful. Was it sinful for you to do so? By your own reasoning, yes. Theresa -- you recently judged the actions of the Judicial Council as wrong. By your own reasoning, you were wrong to do so.
The "don't judge" argument is a cheap rhetorical device trotted out by those who think that a sinful behavior is not sinful. It is inherently contradictory because using it requires -- get this -- judgment!
Scratch part of that last argument. I was conflating what Rev. Mommy said with what someone else said.
John,
I didn't judge your thoughts. I criticized your comments, and I never claimed that they were sinful or that you were going to Hell for them. There's a difference.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Jim
Well, Jim -- Hell is a reality. But for the blood of Christ, you, me, and everyone else on this earth is heading there. We do no one any favors by telling them that they can bow down before "Allah" or "Ganesh" or any other hunk of rock or wood and escape the fires of eternal punishment. We do not help them by preaching and teaching anti-Biblical values that give the slap of moral endorsement on immoral conduct. Real love proclaims truth.
Post Liberal, it is rather sad that homosexuality is the great issue in the UMC and the Anglican community these days when, as you say, we should be more focused on poverty and injustice. I suppose that we have the fight the battles that are thrust upon us. I think that a lot of people would prefer to direct our energies at more worthwile pursuits, but those who wish to pervert the gospel into license for immorality won't let us. They are, of course, welcome to stop so that the Church can get back to the work of the Kingdom. But I fear that they will not.
Well, Jim -- Hell is a reality.
No kidding. I never claimed otherwise.
We do no one any favors by telling them that they can bow down before "Allah" or "Ganesh" or any other hunk of rock or wood and escape the fires of eternal punishment.
I never claimed that they would.
We do not help them by preaching and teaching anti-Biblical values that give the slap of moral endorsement on immoral conduct. Real love proclaims truth.
I agree that we do should not teach anti-biblical values and real love proclaims truth.
Where we disagree is that I view the spirit of grace and love as the most important biblical value and much more important than keeping the Laws of the Old Testament.
I am not kosher. I don't view works as a prerequisite for entry into heaven. As you have noted But for the blood of Christ, you, me, and everyone else on this earth is heading there (Hell). Why then do you focus on the splinter in someone else's eye?
Why mention the splinter in my eye every time that I point out the presense of particular sins that you so heartily approve of?
I'm getting in here late. Wow. My thought was of many different things that no one wants to hear that they have to stop doing - homosexuality being just one.
"It's my life and I'll do what I want with it." One of the most demonic phrases there is.
"Repent after me."
--- A T-shirt I made once after my mom and I talked religion together.
Forgive me, but aren't Muslims also worshipping the same God of Abraham that Christians and Jews are - they just call "him" Allah as the name above all names in their tradition? And, from my understanding of Islamic studies, Muslims to NOT use any image to represent God in their worship, generally the only images of decoration are floral and geometric patterns that represent the order that God brings to the world. Granted, they see the actual words of the Qur'an as being inately divine in and of themselves. Being Ahl al Kitab - people of the book - Muslims are related to Jews and Christians in their shared story of the OT. And for Hindus, they are polytheists on the surface to the outsider but all "gods" in that tradition are mearly representations of the overarching Brahman. It's a lot like how Christians call themselves monotheists yet still believe in a triune God.
I just hate the exclusivist arguement because it puts God into a tidy little box called "Christianity" without allowing God to be God and express that divinity or to inspire beyond our understanding through avenues we may never see as being "of God."
But, yet again, I must be wrong. I am, after all, a "hell-bound heretic."
"Allah" is Arabic; it means "God". It does not denote some foreign "god". Allah, in the Arabic language and in the Koran, is the "God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob".
I am not defending Islam one way or the other, but we must be mindful of "Christ" (Greek), "Messiah" (Hebrew), or "Abba" (Aramaic) as words we have no problem using. In their own languages, they are as proper as "Allah" is to Arabic. None of these words challenges His deity.
We can play semantics, but if "Allah" is god, then he is a false image of God erected by Satan to deceive people from the true understanding of God revealed in Christ. Certainly God did not reveal himself to Mohammed in the cave but either (a) Satan did or (b) Mohammed fabricated the encounters.
There is, of course, option (c):
You're wrong.
As a Christian, I can see no options beyond A and B.
So C isn't an option?
If you know of an option C, go ahead and tell us. Don't keep us in suspense.
Option C is that God can, in fact, reveal Himself to whomever He wants, however He wants. Which doesn't preclude Him from revealing Himself to Muhammed in the cave. Certainly God can do that and no one can know for sure if He did except Muhammed...certainly not you.
Well, Phil, the New Testament never speaks of a future message for mankind to hear from a future prophet.
And the Koran explicitly contradicts many core concepts of the Christian faith (e.g. the divinity of Christ). So it is not a coherent message and therefore cannot be from the same God.
I wouldn't limit God to the Bible. God's bigger than that. And more mysterious.
I'm glad your belief system works for you.
I get your point, but as a Christian, by definition, I must limit my belief system to the Bible.
I could do otherwise, but I would cease to be a Christian.
Greg,
I've read some of the Koran also, and I don't get the same sense of what you draw from it. Muhammad was an educated man and was well-versed in Hebrew as well as Christian scripture and literature. It seems to me, as some translators have pointed out, that Muhammad did not seek to found a new religion. In fact, the call seems to directed toward those "people of the Book" and those disciples of Jesus who do not live according to what they profess to believe.
Like John, however, there is that very distinct denial of the divinity of Jesus the Christ even as the Koran points out that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin.
By the way, how did we go from "Why did this post make me think of homosexuality" to "Muhammad is a liar" ... "is not" ... "is, too" ... yada yada yada??
"...they have no control over the grace of God; that grace is in His hands alone, and that he vouchsafes it to whom he will. God's grace is infinite."
-Surah 57:29
There is an inherent sense of not being able to fully know the bigness of God in Islam which includes how and whom God loves. Through my in depth study of Islam in college - majored in religion, studied: Islam from its beginnings through the Mideaval period, the Qur'an, Mideaval Islamic Law, Islamic Literature, and to a lessor degree, Islamic art, as well as various aspects of Eastern philosophies and religions - there is a shared love and respect for all other "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) and a profound respect for Jesus and his teachings. Upon closer readings of the passages, it is not the People of the Book that are not in God's favor, rather only the unbelievers or those who turn away from God - whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim. But beyond that as well is a sense that God's love is for everyone and God who is the "most compassionate, most merciful" holds that compassion and mercy for all.
Certainly, in the Qur'an and Islam more generally, Muslims are regarded as being more right than their fellow People of the Book. But can't the same be said by Judaism about Jews or Christianity about Christians? Reading through these comments seem to suggest that quite easily. That's just one of the human additives to religion, to set oneself in a higher place theologically than another.
There is limited mention of creation or other stories from the Hebrew scriptures, in part, because those scriptures were considered to be a given part of God's revealed texts. A common heritage. There are, however, sections of the Qur'an that retell important stories of the Hebrew Bible. Just for one example, the most notable of which is that of Joseph and his brothers. (Compare Genesis 37:9 and following with Surah 12. Note the last arat (verse) which says "This is no invented tale but a confirmation of previous scriptures...")
As for my use of the term "exclusivist"... I use the term in the sense that there are generally three approaches to religion: exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist. Exclisivists generally say "my way is the only way and everyone else is wrong." Inclusivists would say, "Other ways are valid but my way is ultimately right or the best." Pluralists say, "all ways have value and merit." I would go on to say, as a pluralist, that I dare not have the arrogance to think that God hasn't worked. or isn't working, in and through those of other religious persuasions or none at all. The only one with a monopoly on "The Truth" is God. I would never go so far to say that any one human creation (read: religion) has the right to claim to hold the entirety of God's ultimate Truth.
So, to answer your questions, Greg: The object of Allah's love is all creation without limits and through my more thorough study of Islam, Allah doesn't just "look" like God, they are simply different names for the same God.
I was typing my response as Michael posted his...
Michael, I would say that you have a fairly accurate view of the Qur'an and Muhammad's intentions.
And before someone claims that my view is skewed because I must've been taught by a Muslim who was trying to convert me or anything, my professor of Islam was a Mennonite who went to divinity school.
Jason,
I thought your comment was very well put. The "infidels", as you mention, are those not necessarily non-Muslim who have turned their backs on the Lord, even the "people of the Book". At least, this is what I have gathered from much of what I have read. In fact, it is difficult to tell the difference between any one of the Hebrew prophets and the Koran - warning of the coming judgment for those who refuse to repent.
Post a Comment