Akram's Razor - Reflections on Islam, Muslims & America

Guest Post: "What is a Christian?"

And now for something completely different, as they used to say on Monty Python.

What follows is a guest post for your consideration by Dustin Shramek, who runs "His Peace Upon Us," a Christian blog dedicated to building bridges between Muslims and Christians. He suggested that we swap posts to share some perspectives that our respective audiences are perhaps not used to considering. Which I thought was a nice idea (assuming I ever get a my act together and write something).

So, without any further ado, here it is. (I'll share my reactions in a separate post.)

What Is a Christian?
by Dustin Shramek, His Peace Upon us

Most people would be surprised to learn that the label “Christian” is only used three times in the Bible (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, & 1 Peter 4:16). Yet, it is quite common today since 2.1 billion people call themselves Christians.

But rather than define “Christian” in its broadest way (anyone who takes the name), I want to show what the biblical definition of Christian is. Most fundamentally, to be a Christian is to be a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ. There are three key components of being a follower of Jesus Christ: 1) it is a work of God, 2) it is by faith alone, and 3) it produces a change of heart (and thus change of behavior).

Being a Christian Is a Work of God
The term “born again” has all kinds of bad connotations, but it comes straight from the teaching of Jesus Christ in the Injil (gospel). “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Apart from the grace and mercy of God we will not desire to obey him or know him and no one would become a follower of Jesus Christ.

This is why Paul says, “But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed” (Romans 6:17). We give God the thanks because he is the one who makes it happen. In Ephesians 2:4-5 Paul declares the love of God that moves him to save people, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved.”

Being a Christian Is by Faith Alone
One of the most important things that the Bible teaches about being a Christian is that we cannot and do not do anything in order to be saved on judgment day. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

It is our sin that keeps us from God. Each of us disobeys God everyday, for no one can claim to obey the command to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind (see Deuteronomy 6:5 [from the Tawrat] and Matthew 22:37 [the Injil]). We may try, but we all fail. We are shameful sinners.

God, on the other hand, is holy. He never does what is wrong. And he does not allow impurity and uncleanness in his presence. This is why he judges sin. Unfortunately, no amount of good works can remove our sin. If you are thirsty and I offer you a cup of water with a drop of deadly poison you would not drink it. If I poured that cup into a larger cup and filled it with more water, though the poison still remained, you would not drink it. If I dumped that cup into a bucket and added more water you still would not drink it. No amount of fresh water is going to entice you to drink the water as long as the poison remains. Just as no amount of good works is going to make us worthy to be in God’s presence as long as sin remains.

This is why we need Jesus the Messiah. He came and obeyed God perfectly. Then he went to the cross and died in our place. Because of our sin we stand guilty before the Judge. Because of our sin we stand defiled before the Holy One. Because of our sin we are full of shame before the Honorable One. Jesus Christ took our sin, removed our guilt, cleansed our defilement, and bore our shame.

Because Jesus Christ has done all this, our only response is to believe. We simply put our faith in him and his death and resurrection on our behalf. We cannot save ourselves. We trust the one who is uniquely God’s Messiah.

Being a Christian Produces a Change of Heart
Finally, the mark of any true Christian is a changed heart, that is, a changed life. Those who once were slaves to sin become slaves to God (Romans 6:12-16). Jesus the Messiah said, “You will recognize them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:15-20). People can call themselves Christian all day long, but if they do not obey the will of God they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as Jesus Christ taught, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

Many people call themselves Christians, but true followers of Jesus Christ only happen by the grace and mercy of God through faith alone that produces in us good works. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is not about being an adherent to a religion (Christianity) it is about knowing a person. God has made himself known through Jesus Christ who lives today in heaven at God’s right hand. By faith we follow him and know him.

NYT on African-American Jews

There's a very interesting piece in the NYT on African-American Jews, who struggle for acceptance in the broader Jewish community.

Black Rabbi Reaches Out to Mainstream of His Faith - New York Times

The touching video report that accompanies it is worth watching, as well.

The Decline of Catholicism in the US

Sad news to me as an admirer of Catholicism. (Not to mention someone born & bred in Boston. What would Boston be without kids going to CCD after school?)


Religion News: Catholics Lose More Faithful Than Any Other Group

In the marketplace of American faith, Catholicism is the big loser.

Catholics have lost more members to other faiths, or to no faith at all, than any other U.S. religion, according to the new survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The survey, based on interviews with 35,000 U.S. adults, found that 31 percent of Americans were raised Catholic, but only 24 percent still identify as Catholic.

Perhaps more worrisome for church leaders, while 2.6 percent of Americans converted to Catholicism, four times as many -- 10.1 percent -- of cradle Catholics have left for another faith or no faith at all. Roughly 10 percent of all Americans are former Catholics, the study reported.

Speaking of Boston's Catholic roots, it's interesting to see that an important new book on this trend--The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture by Philip F. Lawler--focuses on good old Beantown.

Religion Dispatches - "UK Muslims & the 'War on Christmas'"

Have only written one piece so far, but I'm am now pleased to call myself a contributor to the interesting new progressive blog on religion Religion Dispatches. 

My first post is on the topic of "UK Muslims & the "War on Christmas":

Interesting and ironic news from the British front of the "War on Christmas." In the UK, some seemingly unlikely champions for the Christmas spirit are entering the lists. Muslims and Hindus are urging people not to throw the Baby Jesus out with the Yuletide bathwater by needlessly deemphasizing the holiday's theological message.

I also opine therein about how ironic it is that the Christmas season should find itself defended by such inveterate Grinches, with their coldly individualistic, dog-eat-dog vision of government and social policy.

The Christian Right's surprisingly newfound attachment to Christmas

There's an interesting article in Alternet on America's decidedly ambivalent attitude towards Christmas back when it was a "Christian nation" largely free of all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, and other non-Christian subversives who, to the Christian Right's rage, now expect American institutions to acknowledge their beliefs and sensibilities, as well.

As you read these examples of past animus towards Christmas remember that these are the forefathers (and the continuing inspiration) of much of the contemporary evangelical movement. Ironically, their ancestors were the "cultural elite" of their day looking down on the masses for their "deviant" but (as is often in popular religious life)  far more holistic and life-affirming holiday festivities.

The horrified comparisons to, gasp, Catholicism (e.g., "popish") show you how vilified it was in American cultural life until fairly recently. It seems that some early American Christian leaders were very "Wahhabi", doing their best to stamp out out every form of spiritual expression that  did not find favor with their arid scripturalism.

AlterNet: Once Upon a Time the Religious Right Demonized Christmas, Even Banning Its Celebration

It's ironic to hear Religious Right groups portray themselves as the great defenders of Christmas - their spiritual forebears hated the holiday and even banned its celebration. 

The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay frowned on Christmas revelry, considering the holiday a Roman Catholic affectation. A law in the colony barred anyone from taking the day off work, feasting or engaging in other celebrations on Christmas, under penalty of a five-shilling fine. 

The law was repealed in 1681, but Christmas celebrations remained unpopular in New England and other colonies for many years. That did not change after the Revolution, because many Americans viewed Christmas as a Tory custom, a reminder of the expelled British. 

Although Christmas became popular in the South as early as the 1830s, other regions were apathetic. Writer Tom Flynn notes in his 1993 book The Trouble with Christmas that Congress did not begin adjourning on Christmas Day until 1856. Public schools in New England were often open on Dec. 25, as were many factories and offices. Many Protestant churches refused to hold services, considering the holiday "popish." 

Not until after the Civil War did Christmas begin to seriously affect American cultural and religious life. European immigration increased sharply after the war, and many of the newcomers came from countries with strong Christmas traditions. Germans, Italians, Poles, Swedes, Norwegians and others brought the holiday and many of its features, including Christmas trees and Santa Claus, to America in a big way. 

The celebration spread, and in 1870 Christmas was declared a federal holiday by Congress. But practices in the states continued to vary. As late as 1931, Flynn reports, nine states still called for public schools to remain open on Christmas Day.

Speaking of little known facts about Christmas, did you know that Christmas' most beloved icon after Santa, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, is nothing more than the figment of a department store advertising campaign?

Never liked that critter, though I must confess to still enjoying the charming old stop-motion movies on his adventures.

See "Jesus Camp", but not for the typical reasons

Watched the controversial "Jesus Camp" documentary yesterday. I found it engrossing, and I must say that I find myself somehow disagreeing with everybody (critic as well as supporter) in the media on this.

On the one hand, I find these children infinitely more sympathetic and profound than did the many commentators in the MSM who've sounded the alarm of fundamentalist take-over after watching this movie. Nor do I think hysterics about militia training camps are warranted because some kids do a dance in camouflage and fatigues, or because people in this film are fond of war metaphors to describe their spiritual commitment.

On the other hand, I think the documentary's conservative critics are wrong to accuse it of bias or willful misrepresentation of evagelicalism, as it is a very humanizing (and, I think, uncontrived) portrayal and this community though in some respects atypical undeniably shares most of its core values with broad swaths of the Christian Right. It's not the filmmakers' fault that they happened to capture some innocent but incredibly thought-provoking (and, for some secular folks, sinister) scenes guaranteed to generate outcries and debate. (As a Muslim, I say, "Welcome to our world.")

I will grant to critics that the insertion of the liberal Christian radio host was mistaken and sends the wrong message. His commentary is for the most part superfluous, and of little help in showing where the fascinating characters encountered in the film are coming from. My guess is that the filmmakers were, ironically, trying to balance out the film by including another Christian perspective, but it's ultimately counterproductive since he comes off (perhaps incorrectly--I don't know him), as just another liberal critic who doesn't get evangelicalism.

It's ironic given the theological and cultural differences involved, but I suspect that Muslim Americans can understand these people far better than most other non-evangelicals. Muslims know how it feels for every innocent attempt to harmonize one's daily life with one's religious values to be met with mockery, prejudice and paranoia.

Many people in restaurants roll their eyes when they see a party at a neighboring table lower their heads to silent say grace. Most Muslims, I suspect, react very differently--they smile and quietly intone "Masha'Allah".

This is a fascinating and moving documentary whose lessons are far more profound than the political commentary it has inspired. It's a real shame that it's been viewed and debated primarily in political terms. Whatever one thinks about these people, this is far more about counter-culture, diversity and religious revival than politics.

It's worth watching a second time with the directors' highly articulate and thoughtful commentary on.  And don't skip the bonus features, either, as they include a number of other fascinating enlightening vignettes.

Netflix zindabad! (Takbir!)

After 10 years, VA relents and allows Wiccan burials

Veterans who are Wiccans may now choose to have a pentacle on their graves in military cemetaries.

It's also quite interesting so see that in spite of separation of church & state, it took them 10 years and a lawsuit to get this fairly trivial matter (which normally takes only a few months, according to the article) approved.

Formally, all religions are equal before the law, yet an ostensibly secular government authority fought for a decade to banish the symbol of a completely innocuous religious tradition because it gives some Christians the willies.

As is often the case with misunderstood minorities, here unspoken shared culture and religious values within the majority trumped formal commitments and allowed officials to pursue their own agenda even when it is clearly at odds with the law.

It's a shame that officials aren't required to make explicit the values that inform them when making decisions affecting other communities. For example, when there's a controversy in a local municipality over the construction of a mosque, the public would seem to have a right to know how many of its representatives actively opposing such project also "happen" to be fringe evangelicals, hardline Zionists, or members of some other faction likely to have ulterior motives when opposing Muslim initiatives these days.

The advantage of being in the majority is that your beliefs, background and preferences are invisible and, thus, unchallengable by your opponents.

Use of Wiccan Symbol on Veterans’ Headstones Is Approved - New York Times

To settle a lawsuit, the Department of Veterans Affairs has agreed to add the Wiccan pentacle to a list of approved religious symbols that it will engrave on veterans’ headstones.

The settlement, which was reached on Friday, was announced on Monday by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the plaintiffs in the case.

Though it has many forms, Wicca is a type of pre-Christian belief that reveres nature and its cycles. Its symbol is the pentacle, a five-pointed star, inside a circle.

Until now, the Veterans Affairs department had approved 38 symbols to indicate the faith of deceased service members on memorials. It normally takes a few months for a petition by a faith group to win the department’s approval, but the effort on behalf of the Wiccan symbol took about 10 years and a lawsuit, said Richard B. Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United.

"May Almighty God give you pain!"

Am hurriedly and a bit belatedly slaving away on a paper so I mustn't tarry in the Blogosphere long, but I figured I'd share a quote that just touched me (and caused me to creepily giggle in the middle of a crowded cafe).

From the exquisite collection of letters by the famed Chisti Sufi Sheikh Nizam ad-Din Awliya, Fawa`id al-Fuad ("Morals of the Heart"), as beautifully translated and helpfully annotated by Bruce Lawrence:

In this vein the master told a story about `Ali Khokhri.  "`Ali Khokhri lived in Multan.  He never trusted someone unless that person had experienced love or pain.  Even if an individual was pious and devout, he would say: 'So-and-so is nothing.  He doesn't have any tears (ishk)!"  The correct word would never come on his tongue.  He would invariably say ishk (tear) instead of `ishq (love)."  With respect to this word, the master recalled the statement of Yahya Ma`az Razi--may God be merciful to him.  "He used to say:  'One particle of love is better than the obedience of all humankind and also the entire angelic host!'"  The master also recalled that  Shaykh al-Islam Farid ad-din--may God sanctify his lofty secret--many times would say to whose who came to visit him:  'May Almighty God give you pain!'  People would be surprised.  'What sort of supplication is this?' they would ask themselves.  Now it is evident," concluded the master, "what he meant by that supplication [for unless you experience the pain of separation from god, you cannot experience an intense love for Him." 
(Fascicle IV, Assembly 14, pg. 133)

I just love the image of a saint warmly wishing people pain, and the ensuing puzzlement.

Of course, most of us (myself included) live in abject terror of pain, yet some great souls can, like the persecuted Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) or the early Christian martyrs see a higher, ennobling purpose in it.

Hopeless class warrior that I am, I'm sorely tempted to make some contemporary analogies, but I'd best get back to work.

May we all learn to appreciate pain!

Am also reading Sharafuddin Maneri's Maktubat-i Sadi ("The Hundred Letters") (trans. Fr Paul Jackson), which is comparably inspiring reading.  In fact, I like the Makhdum al-Mulk's collection of letters even more than Fawa`id al-Fuad, which says a lot.

The only problem is that that they're both so beautifully written, profound and long that it's really difficult to get through them quickly to write a paper.  I keep finding myself lingering and re-reading things as the clock ticks pitilessly away.

Like Nizam ad-Din, this also contains a wealthy of unexpectedly vivid aphorisms that have made me inexplicably guffaw in public.  (For example, here's a great quip concerning, if memory serves, the challenge of taming one's ego:  "Few can catch a wild ass, but none ever will if they do not try.")

Oh, I have no idea what a "fascicle" is, either.  Sounds like something an ice cream truck sells.

Concessions vs. compromises with "folk religion"

Was reading about theology when I should be updating some technical specifications for the IT project I'm working on when I came across some intriguing observations about Christian faith and its tensions with popular practice that I think could be fruitfully applied to Islam.

Try substituting "Sufism" for "folk religion" in the quotes and you'll get a sense of how concerns the excesses of "popular" religion are both natural and legitimate yet simutaneously prone to great exaggerration.

The observation that "The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error" sums up my view of Islamic orthodoxy and religious authority in some important respects.  There are and always will be "churches" where Islam's true teachings are taught, but within all institutions run by human beings error and truth inevitably coexist to some degree (yes, my Sufi friends about to blurt out in outrage "Not in my tariqah!", even with the reality of wilaya within the Ummah). 

Perhaps most importantly, this is not a problem that needs to be stamped out.  Its presence in the world is as inevitable as death and taxes, and negotiating these tensions is an integral part of a Muslim's spiritual life.

I found the final point about truth never disappearing intriguingly similiar to the famous hadith promising that the Ummah will never agreeing on error (on which Austrolabe has an interesting post). 

Sadly, this inspiring and comforting hadith most often seems to be invoked to promote a mechanical and surprisingly "democratic" conception of religious truth as being basically poll-driven.  For example, an article on "Following the Majority" on one Islamic website concludes:

Having quoted no less than SEVEN Hadiths, from authentic sources, two things become clear: 

1. The Muslims will divide into 73 Groups
2. The largest group will be the right group.

Now, I see a bevy of problems in this reasoning, but I'll just note one that's perhaps less obvious:  Is there not a conflict between the notion of the wisdom of the majority and all the dire millenial warnings about the Last Days that promise a time when piety and true scholarship will be rare, when the Quran will disappear from the Earth, and so on and so forth.  If we are to take these ahadith literally, as the the-majority-is-always-right Muslims would certainly insist, how do we square the expectation of rampant impiety and ignorance with the principle that numerical majority will be always correct on all matters of faith? 

Needless to say, like many reform-minded Muslims--I wouldn't presume to flatter myself with the label "reformer"--I do not see this tradition as automatically validating the prevailing status quo among scholars (without even getting into whether we can establish that with certainty; ijma is not a simple matter). 

Instead, I see the promise as a heartening assurance that, no matter how bad things get, truth will always remain with us.  The correct understanding may not be the majority view, but it'll be out there for those seeking it.   The Truth's out there, Scully.

Great Apostasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compromise with folk religion  Especially in the worship of the Church, the many Protestants viewed the Roman Catholic Mass as an amalgam of superstitious inventions more reminiscent of a pagan mystery rite rather than the simple discipline taught by the apostles and practiced by the early church. Protestants tend to think of many of the Catholic holy days, and most of the rituals, as accommodations to the popular tastes of unconverted people through the centuries, incompatible with biblical faith. Natural tastes for pomp and ceremony, and the sort of natural belief in mana and fetishism that seem common in unrevealed religions, and the natural man's wish to have sacred places to pray in, and sacred objects that enable mortals to touch the divine, tempted people away from the truth of the absolute sovereignty, holiness, and otherness of God. The Church was failing at its teaching mission and made too easy accommodations to practices that folk religion could accept in this erroneous fashion.

Descent into true apostasy  Although Lutherans and Calvinists hold that the Ecumenical Councils of the early and medieval church are true expressions of the Christian faith, many assert that the councils are at times inconsistent with one another, and err on particular points. The true Church, they argue, will be mixed with alien influences and false beliefs, which is necessary in order for these impurities ultimately to be overcome and the truth to be vindicated. But in Rome's case, in the arbitrary authority presumed by the bishops, and the Catholic doctrines of infallibility, the final result was a dark epitome of falsehood, an ideal model of rebellion against God.  The Westminster Confession of Faith (Calvinist), states:    

The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will. (25:5)

Therefore, although these groups believe that errors can and have come into the church, they deny that there has ever been a time when the truth was entirely lost.

 

Progressive Faith Blog Con

I realize that the whole 20th century practice of meeting other human beings in the flesh flies in the face our way of life, but nonetheless there's a neat event coming up in New Jersey for those of us who blog about religion and spirituality and who are on the Left.

It's the Progressive Faith Blog Con being held at Montclair State University in the Garden State July 14-16.

Shabana and I would love to attend, but its proximity to our exodus from bondage in DC at the beginning of August makes that a daunting undertaking, especially with Raihana in tow, but who knows.

Here's the event's mission statement:

Faith and politics have the capacity to profoundly divide, or to profoundly connect. The first annual Progressive Faith Blog Con is a chance for progressive bloggers of faith to meet one another, talk with one another, and learn from one another.

Our progressive politics are rooted in our theologies, and our theological stances inform our politics; why not celebrate them together? During this weekend gathering we'll break bread together, talk about the subjects that fire our passions, and put faces with the names on our blogrolls.

During the first annual Progressive Faith Blog Con we'll talk about the intersection of religion and politics; the roots and branches of our faith traditions; ecumenical and interfaith blogging engagement; and the challenges and blesssings of pluralism. We'll have breakout sessions around faith-tradition, and around meditation, liturgy, and scripture. We'll talk about justice and poverty, about progressive faith activism, and about the religious right. The conference will be led by and for our community, and it will be shaped by each of us who attends. Join us for a weekend of learning, connection, and conversation!

Any of you faceless but dear comrades-in-arms out in the Blogosphere who live in the vicinity of Montclair State University and are open to swapping a place to crash in exchange for some opinionated conversation and/or bitter rants about the state of the world should feel free to drop me a line at the email here.  (If you really have a swank setup, we might even let you play with the baby a bit.)  Am open to making the trek, but this whole paying for a hotel room thing is for the birds.  I'd much prefer to mooch off a kindred spirit.

BTW, Muslim readers shouldn't let the p-word scare them.  The Progressive Muslim Union did not invent (or copyright) the notion of "progressive Islam".  In fact, despite its monopolization of the label for a time, I'd argue that the organization never got the concept, at least not collectively.