Religion and the public square at Veritas

I was at the Veritas Forum at Oxford University on Thursday Night. I very nearly didn't go, as I was quite tired and I knew I had a pretty full Friday coming up. But I didn't really want to let my inviter down, and besides, the topic was a good one: the role of religion in the public square. The speakers were Rabbi Dr Naftali Brawer, Head of Jewish-Muslim Relations for the Chief Rabbi of the U.K., Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who's currently at the forefront of the debates regarding the future of the Anglican Communion, and Professor Tariq Ramadan, who teaches at the University of Oxford and whom you see regularly quoted in the (British) media.

As you can imagine, the debate was pitched at a pretty high-level, and it took supreme effort on my part to concentrate. I didn't take any notes either, so I'm afraid there won't be any blow-by-blow account of the evening here! But it was certainly interesting. I was especially intrigued by Tariq Ramadan. His opening statement (all the speakers were given 5 minutes to make one) was essentially a lecture in hermeneutics, where he went on for a little bit about the need for context. He also distinguished between two authorities - here I lost him a little because either he was mumbling or my seating position wasn't great for the acoustics - but it seemed to me like he endorsed some version of a public/private split. I can't remember the exact phrase now, but he did have some pithy statement on the relationship between principles and ethics; basically, he defended his right to believe while accepting the need to negotiate with rival traditions in the public square.

But his biggest point, which he repeated throughout the evening, was the need to be consistent with one's own values. And after setting such a high standard for himself, he failed to meet it, it seemed to me. On the one hand, he would uphold "universal values" such as equality, but on the other hand, he would revert to some form of social constructivism at points. The other thing I struggled with was figuring out how distinctively Islamic Professor Ramadan's position was. I knew he belonged to the reformist camp within Islam, but I don't remember him quoting the Quran even once, or using Islamic doctrine as a springboard, although Bishop Nazir-Ali, more than once, invited him to do so. In some ways, I almost wonder if his views could have come from a secularist, although that's probably overstating it, and I'm sure Professor Ramadan would insist he is working within an Islamic framework. For him, the thing most needed in the Muslim world was simply more education. By contrast, both Bishop Nazir-Ali and Rabbi Dr. Brawer were not afraid to use the Torah/Talmud and the Bible as sources for their reflections, as they should. I don't think I was the only one who thought so, during the Q&A, a Muslim student in the audience challenged Professor Ramadan to show how his views were part of mainstream Islamic thought. (Obviously, I have insufficient knowledge to make a judgment).

Dr. Brawer was arguably the clearest of the speakers, but also the least interesting, as he didn't really say all that much. Bishop Nazir-Ali, I thought, acquitted himself pretty well. Although there was a point in the discussion where it was all about just war, and I wasn't sure if that was just a tangent. Towards the end of the evening, we got an especially sharp disagreement on what constituted "Judeo-Christian tradition" and its impact on European civilisation. Professor Ramadan insisted that the contribution of Islam to Europe must not be overlooked, whereas Bishop Nazir-Ali defended the Judeo-Christian tradition as necessary to provide the necessary undergirdings for Europe as they cope with the challenges of the future. To put it another way, Bishop Nazir-Ali thinks that we need a Judeo-Christian foundation if we want an increasingly plural society to remain inclusive. (Nazir-Ali had earlier made a distinction between civic and religious pluralism, which I think is an important one)

Like I said, it was a sprawling discussion, and certainly quite academic, so I'm not even sure if I represented anyone fairly! But this continues to be an important topic, especially as mainstream commentators are beginning to recognise that God is back on the agenda.



† Expand post

Takeaways from the getaway: on thinking about other religions

There were various seminars on offer at the student getaway, and I was asked to co-lead one on other religions. Now I’m patently not an expert on world religions, and when you factor in that people can spend 3 years in university doing religious studies, and I had 75 minutes...the task seemed gargantuan! So when I sat down to think how I would do this seminar, I had to think about what I wanted to achieve with it. And one of the big things I came up with was to try to model (very much imperfectly) how to think about the topic of other religions from an explicitly Christian perspective. I thought I’ll offer here some bits and parts from that seminar and how I attempted to run it.

I ran the seminar 3 times over the week, and each time I started by asking why people were in my seminar. They fell primarily into 2 camps: one camp felt as if they had absolutely no knowledge on the subject, and so wanted more information. One or two of them were perhaps motivated by the increasingly multi-cultural nature of British society. The other camp were those who would inevitably say, "I have a friend who is..." and so they wanted to, essentially, know how to be a good Christian and friend.

I then tried to show that while we had all sorts of good questions and agendas in coming to the seminar, and indeed, to the Bible, it would be helpful to begin from another starting point. In essence, before asking our questions, I wanted us to take a step back and proceed to ask, what is the biblical story? After all, if we call ourselves Christians, we would inevitably want to take the Bible as our authority, our foundational story. But just as importantly, I wanted people to see that the Bible wasn’t just a 'Christian' book, but made even grander claims than that. It claims for itself that it is the narrative of everything, from the beginning to the end of history. It focuses in on particular individuals, families and nations, but it is actually telling the story of humanity. And so the Bible is for all peoples, of every religious background, of every age. To ram home the point, I included this great quote from a Hindu scholar to Leslie Newbigin, a missionary in India for many years and who’s written extensively on the topic of mission – some of my readers might be familiar with him. This Hindu scholar said:

"I can’t understand why you missionaries present the Bible to us in India as a book of religion. It is not a book of religion – and anyway we have plenty of books of religion in India. We don’t need any more! I find in your Bible a unique interpretation of universal history, the history of the whole creation and the history of the whole human race. And therefore a unique interpretation of the human person as a responsible actor in history. That is unique. There is nothing else in the whole religious literature of the world to put alongside it."

And so the Bible, while not necessarily answering every single specific question we have, nonetheless gives us fixed points in our reflections on this question. It gives us the shape of the story we’re in.

I then went through 4 questions:
1. Who is God?
2. Who are we?
3. What’s gone wrong?
4. What’s God plan for the world?

And tried to go through these questions in light of the issue of other religions. Let me highlight how I tried to do this with the first question. Firstly, I went to Psalm 97, and asked what we learnt about God from it. From Psalm 97, and from quite a few of the other psalms, especially those that stress God’s kingship, we can learn quite a bit! I then asked how what we learn about God here impacts how we think about other religions. What does the truth, for example, of God as God of all nations shape our thinking? Or the fact that there is only one God? I argued that (although I have to confess I’m not completely sure if this is that explicit in Psalm 97!) that we find both a challenge and an invitation to adherents of other religions. Another way of putting it, which I learnt from my seminar co-leader, is "subversive fulfilment" (which might also be borrowed from Newbigin!). The gospel comes as fulfillment of the religious longing in the heart of humankind. Yet the gospel also stands in contradiction to human wisdom twisted by sin.

I then went to Acts, and one example of how Paul allowed this fixed point to shape his engagement with people of other religions. In Acts 14:8-18, we find the story of Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, where they perform a healing. Immediately news spread and they are feted as gods. And so Paul uses this as a preaching opportunity. But he does so aware of his audience, who would have been pagans who followed traditional Greek popular religion. Earlier on in Acts 13, he had preached to a Jewish audience, but he can’t employ the same rhetorical methods here.

So he begins with common ground, with their shared humanity (v.15), correcting their mistaken notions in the process. He then proclaims the truth that there is one Creator God (v.15b), and indeed He is a God who is sovereign over all the nations (v.16). He then moves on to the truth that God has revealed himself (v.17), that He is the provider and sustainer of life. That would particularly resonate with his hearers, from an agrarian culture, but implicitly it posed a challenge too, since that meant Zeus, the god of vegetation and weather, whom they worshipped, wasn’t in control! Paul had mixed results (v.18-19).

And so I did the same with the rest of the questions (although I think my one on sin was quite superficial!). If we’re all made in the image of God, then surely we need to think of all human beings in that sense first before we think of them as Hindu/Muslim etc. If God left us with a cultural mandate in Genesis 1:26-28, then surely it is right to celebrate aspects of culture which are not blasphemous, although the question of how to disentangle culture from religion is a much more complex one which I steered away from! And so on.

I suppose one thing I realised and would have liked to rectify in my seminar was that Jesus did get sidelined a little. One of the interesting things in Paul’s sermon in Acts 14 is that he doesn’t mention Jesus at all, but I’m pretty sure he would have eventually got there if he had time and opportunity. But he needed to lay the ground first with people whose worldviews must have been radically different from his.

Jesus is mentioned, of course, in question 4, but otherwise I didn’t really think through how he would have fitted in. In John Dickson’s book, A Spectator’s Guide to Other Religions, he has an interesting chapter near the end called “What’s Wrong with Jesus?” in which he shows how Jesus just doesn’t fit into any of the other religions various doctrines or ethics or philosophies, and that’s one way to do it. I recommended John’s book in the seminar, btw, and I was interested to notice that it sold out at the bookstore by the end of the week! I should be in marketing...

One other thing I’ve learnt, 75 minutes is pittance. Not once in the three times I ran my seminar did we get through all our material. Admittedly I was pretty interactive and so allowed people to come back at me rather than rigidly stick to what was in my outline. But still, it’s amazing how quickly time flies! The second time I ran it was probably the smoothest, probably because people seemed to have their expectations adjusted accordingly.

Well, it’s the first time I’ve done anything like this, and so it was a good learning experience. I’m not sure how much I helped students - I certainly hope so!


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 11

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

Facing Samaritan Religion

There’s not much about the Samaritans in the Bible, but what we hear about matters, because they touch on something key to our relationships with people of other faiths: prejudice and hostility. That is IG’s basis for including this short chapter. To put it mildly, Jews and Samaritans did not get along with each other! The origins of Samaritan religion appear to be syncretistic, where worship of Yahweh is mixed with worship of other gods. During post-exilic times, they had wanted to help in the rebuilding of the temple but were not allowed to, although they could join in the Passover should they renounce foreign gods.

We’re not sure if the Samaritans found in the NT should be identified with the former group. In some ways, the Samaritans in the NT were very similar to other Jewish groups, worshipping Yahweh and exalting the Torah. It’s certainly possible that the enmity between the Jews and Samaritans owed as much to socio-political factors as to ethnic or religious differences. The Samaritans had their own temple, their own priesthood, and their own version of the Pentateuch. Since these are key to the religion of the Jews, the divide is therefore pretty stark.

We now go to the well-known passage in John 4, where Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well. This story is often used to illustrate the way Jesus transcends barriers, but more than that, in its context, it is also an apt illustration of how Samaritans fit into God’s plans. The Samaritan woman, in John’s Gospel, is the first person to hear Jesus declare that He is the Messiah. She is also contrasted with Nicodemus, in John 3, as one who is willing to witness publicly to Jesus. In his conversation, Jesus also shows that the temple no longer matters, but "worship in Spirit and truth". The questions about religious practice is a wrong one; what is needed is new birth.

IG takes us now to Luke-Acts and the history of the early church. The disciples are to witness in Samaria (Acts 1:8) among other places! What a joy it must have been to go there and find receptive ears and hearts! Luke has already understood God’s mission to the whole world, however, since he has recorded some of Jesus’ significant encounters with the Samaritans in his Gospel. In Luke 9:51-56, he goes through Samaria but finds himself rejected, and so his disciples react: let’s call down fire upon them! But Jesus rebukes them, he seeks not to meet prejudice with prejudice. “This incident comes at a very significant point in Luke’s Gospel: it is the first thing that happens after Jesus sets out for Jerusalem and the cross. It is immediately followed by the teaching on the cost of following Jesus.” Opposition from the Samaritans, in a sense, is part of his journey towards the cross.

The next story is the famous parable on the good Samaritan, but we should also be reminded that Jesus includes Samaritans in his healing ministry, as in Luke 17:11-19. The Samaritan healed here actually responds better than many of the Jews, and we can also find instances of this in the other gospels.

A short survey that almost functions as an appendice to the previous chapter. It’s interesting to note that mentions of Samaritans in the Bible tend to be favourable! I'm trying to think of who we can regard as analogous to the Samaritans as Christians today, but couldn't come up with anything beyond maybe Christians of a different denomination that perhaps historically we might have disagreements with, maybe over an issue that in retrospect, is trivial. What do you think?

Reflection questions:
Are there any people that Christians in your area think of as the Jews did of the Samaritans? What are the reasons for hostility and suspicion? How can John 4 speak into your situation?

Jesus dealt with prejudice among his own people and against his own people. How did this prepare disciples for their future mission? How can the church in your area be prepared for mission across barriers of prejudice and hostility?

Next:
Facing the Gentile religions



† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 10

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

A New People

The gospel challenges religion. It makes us face up to the truth of universal sin and the impotency of our self-righteousness. As we reflect on how the gospel shapes our engagement with people of other faiths, we ought to let it examine ourselves as well. The gospel as found in the New Testament offers a unique diagnosis of human problems which in turn need to be brought to bear in all discussions about other faiths.

Having made that clear, IG wants to tackle a different question: how the NT shatters ties between people, power and land, the triad that characterises so much of religion. For the cross offers radical answers to old questions: blessing is now available to all peoples, true power lies in weakness, and this new community does not derive their identity from state or land. Yet this is not a case of being so other-worldly that the world right now doesn’t matter. Here’s a great quote from IG: “We might picture Caesar’s kingdom as filling a two-dimensional plane. The kingdom of God is not, then, a separate kingdom within that plane, but a third dimension that intersects with every point on it.”

IG now briefly walks us through the NT with an eye on tracing the theme that God’s blessing to the nations has come in the person of Jesus Christ. Matthew introduces us to the son of David and Abraham, and yet it was the Magi, foreigners of a different faith, who first recognise him as king of the Jews, and the end of Matthew climaxes with Jesus’ declaration to make disciples of all nations, as He is Lord of all. Mark’s gospel appears to be written for a Gentile audience, and while they don’t stand out, there are plenty of accounts of Jesus’ encounter with Gentiles, and it is the Roman centurion, standing at the cross, who cries out, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” Luke-Acts should be taken together, where Jesus interacts with various non-Jews, and the gospel goes from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. John is different. There are not many references to non-Jews, yet the prologue immediately establishes Jesus as the universal life-giver, and in John 12, a significant point in the gospel, Jesus cries out, “The hour has come!” referring to his imminent death on the cross, at precisely the point when some Greeks desired to see Jesus. Taking into account the teaching of the NT as a whole, we recognise that this was always God’s plan, to include non-Jews into his kingdom.

“Working this out was not easy, because including the Gentiles disrupted the ties between religion and a particular people and culture”. Galatians deals with the big question of circumcision and ritual purity, which leads to Paul’s great explanation of the function of the law and the importance of faith, all the while insisting this is not actually new by pointing back to Abraham’s relationship with God. Loving our neighbours as ourselves, through the Holy Spirit, is now the basis of our actions. Galatians refuses to link faith in Christ with a particular culture or set of rules.

The “true Jews” are people without nation or land, and IG turns to 1 Peter to illuminate this. Those who believe and trust in Jesus are the new temple where God dwells. Land is no longer a key issue, for Christians are “aliens and strangers in this world”. The Christian’s allegiance is now first and foremost to God, but this does not require a Christian state. Instead, they should strive to be obedient citizens of the state, again, a radical suggestion considering that the early Christians were suffering persecution! But why? Part of the reason has to lie in the fact that the Messiah is for all peoples, and he has come to rescue people not from their enemies, but from their sins. His ‘sword’ is of a different category. Furthermore, their calling as God’s people is for the purpose of mission – like Israel, they are to glorify God amongst the nations.

God’s kingship is a big theme throughout the NT. In Revelation we will see the Lamb of God upon the throne, judging all the nations. Jesus would have surprised his hearers, though, when he preached the Sermon on the Mount. No mention of an ethnic, political or national kingdom is to be found there. The meek will inherit the earth, not the conquerors. It is purity of heart and the recognition of the need for mercy that is important, not religious laws. The new way of doing politics is peacemaking. Jesus consistently refused political power, and he is called “King of the Jews” only when he is on the cross. Jesus kingdom was not of this world, but it did challenge the kingdoms of this world, as Herod and Caiaphas both perceived. Going back to Revelation, the final vision is of a new land, where all the kings of all the nations will come, there will be no more temples, and the people will be under the direct rule of God (Rev. 21-22).

IG goes back to Acts to dwell a little more on the question of how this new heavenly kingdom interacts with the earthly powers. Right at the beginning, Jesus promises a different kind of power, people and land. The power is that of the Holy Spirit, the people they are to be are witnesses, and land is now redefined not just to mean Jerusalem but the entire earth. The coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 can be read as a reversal of Babel: people don’t build religion to gain power in the land, but people in every land should now hear of the good news of Jesus Christ. This is the pattern of Acts. The bold preaching of the apostles leads to persecution at the temple. Their prayers recognise God as ruler of all, including over the political powers of the day, and they ask for power in the Holy Spirit. The church is willing to sell land, and indeed, abuse of land leads to disastrous consequences (Acts 5). Stephen himself confronts the people-land-power triad in his impassioned speech, where he argues that the temple was no longer necessary.

Acts emphasises the gospel encounters over political encounters, it is the Holy Spirit’s work that Luke is interested in. But “Paul and the other disciples live within the two-dimensions of Caesar’s kingdom as well as in the third dimension of God’s kingdom.” Paul and John stand before the Sanhedrin as Jews and Paul stands before governors and kings as a Roman citizen. But Paul will continually preach the kingdom of God and not about earthly powers. Elsewhere in the NT, especially in Revelation, the link between religion and power can be a dangerous one. The mark of the beast is the abuse of power, wealth and self-sufficiency, and these are the traps religion can fall into. A religion becomes “beastly” when it becomes to closely associated with a powerful leader, or a totalitarian state. Revelation suggests that this sort of religion has its origin in Satan’s schemes. The good news is that we are assured of God’s victory over Satan!

Graeme Goldsworthy has succinctly defined the kingdom of God as “God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule”. IG has been using a similar triad of people-power-land throughout this book in her reflections on the biblical story, missions, and other faiths, but I think it is only in this chapter that I’ve begun to understand why she has taken this angle and how much insight such an approach could provide. I think she’s largely on the money about how much this triad actually informs our understanding of religion in this world. It’s a pity that in this chapter she could only offer a survey as she appears to have much more to offer! My only tiny quibble is that the last subsection of this chapter could have been organised better.

Reflection questions:
What is salvation? What do the Jews of Jesus’ time / people of other faiths / you want to be saved from?

According to 1 Peter, what are the marks of the new people of God?

Nationalist religion, political religion, legalistic religion…how could a God-given religion go so wrong? What might be the results in your context of living by the Beatitudes in relation to people of other faiths?

Where do you see religions linked with land and power in the world today? Where does the Holy Spirit kingdom meet the political powers in your country?

Next:
Facing Samaritan Religion


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 9

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

Setting the scene: The World behind the text

In this chapter, IG simply wants to introduce us to the socio-cultural world of the New Testament. It’s a short chapter, and I’ll just list her observations here:

• Like the world of the Old Testament, this is still a world of many gods, peoples, places, political powers, laws, rituals and stories.
  
• The Middle East however had been under Greek and now Roman rule, and they obviously brought their own cultural and intellectual influences.
  
• The Jews had returned from Babylon, but would still consider themselves in exile as God’s promises of restoration had not been fulfilled. There was expectation that God would work to vindicate himself.
  
• In the meantime, the Jews had to work out what it meant to be holy in their context. How do they continue to relate to people of other faiths, especially their oppressors? These created all sorts of tensions, including
  
  
  
  1. Political tensions: Alexander the Great had conquered Israel; after he died, his empire became divided into two parts, the Seleucid and the Ptolemic, who would then proceed to fight over Israel. The Jews gained independence after 25 years of armed struggle (167-142 BC), but by 63BC, internal power struggles were so bad that the competing leaders turned to Rome for help, which led to them taking power. King Herod and his three sons ruled Israel before Pontius Pilate took over. There continued to be armed struggle, and Jerusalem was captured by the Romans in AD70 and the temple was destroyed.
     
  2. Cultural tensions: Alexander the Great sought to hellenize his vast empire, including things like introducing democratic government and mandating that Greek literature, arts and philosophy were taught in schools. This divided the Jews, some were strongly against this; others, feeling peer pressure, as it were, were ashamed of their identifying marks such as circumcision (which would have been made clear if they participated in athletic competitions, where people ran naked).
     
  3. Social tensions: The high priest happened to also lead the Sanhedrin, which governed the Jewish community, meaning religious and political power were joined. Not surprisingly factions developed to try to wrest for control, each with different ideologies – let’s co-operate with the Romans! Too much foreign influence – we need to exercise more independence from the Greeks! Etc. Also, it was a world of social inequality, with privileged Roman citizens and non-Roman citizens, masters and slaves etc.
  
  
• Various theological issues came to the fore and were debated, such as the afterlife, the meaning of righteousness, and angels and demons. For eg., what exactly is resurrection and is it physical? Do angels act as our mediators between humans and a God who is too far from us? (These ideas might have been syncretistic, influenced by Persian and Babylonian ideas).
  
• The Jews were looking for the “kingdom of God”. For them, this means blessing for righteous people and judgment for unrighteous people, together with transformation of the whole world. Linked to this was the coming of the Messiah, who would bring social, political and religious freedom.
  
• Who are the true Jews? How should they relate to other peoples? These questions gave rise to different answers:
  
  
  
  1. The Pharisees believed the exile was the result of disobedience to the law, and sought to keep every aspect of it. They tried to keep separate from unclean people, i.e those who did not keep the law. They tended to be ‘lay’ people, but also had influence amongst the ‘scribes’, the students of the law.
     
  2. The Sadducees were the priestly party and tended to come from the upper classes. Less strict than the Pharisees, with more emphasis on the written than the oral law, and rejected the notions of physical resurrection, final judgment, and angels and demons.
     
  3. The Essenes were stricter than even the Pharisees, the ascetics of their day. No pleasure, no wealth etc. They saw themselves as the true Israel. The Qumran community is perhaps the most famous of this group, who went to live in the wilderness in isolation. But some did live in cities, and they supported a different high priest from the Sadducees.
     
  4. The Zealots chose the way of armed resistance. They are the revolutionaries. Judas Iscariot and Simon the Zealot might have belonged to this group.
     
  5. The Herodians are another nationalistic group. Little is known about them, except that they supported the kingship of Herod and saw Jesus as a threat to the Jewish nation. (Mark 3:6, 12:13)
  
  
• Separating or fighting the Gentiles…the Jews didn’t look like wanting to bless the nations! Even the Sadducees disliked dealing with the Romans and would not include Gentiles into the nation of Israel. However, the Jews did believe that the restoration of Israel meant that God’s rule would be extended even among the Gentiles. We must also remember that there was a growing Jewish diaspora at this time.
  
• There were some Jewish “evangelists”. They invited others to follow the God of Israel and circumcised them, considering them part of God’s people. So there were Jews who desired that the other nations come to know their God, and people of other nations who were receptive to that call. Sadly, some conversions happened through military might, such as the Idumeans towards the end of 2nd century BC.

Those already familiar with the first century world would not find anything new here, but it’s a clear presentation and helpful to have in mind especially in relation to her subject matter.

Reflection questions:
Withdrawal, cooperation, cultural protest, armed resistance…where can you see Christians relating to political powers, and to people of other faiths, in these ways today?

In what ways is the world you live today like the New Testament world? (Bruce Milne suggest in Dynamic Diversity some interesting parallels, such as the local diversities of the worlds of the 1st and 21st century, and what he calls the “imperial skin” of the 1st century and today’s “globalization skin”. He also suggests that in both worlds, the need to belong to a community is strong indeed due to the fragmentation of society).

Next:
A New People


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 8

I'm certainly taking my time with this series! For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

God, gods and other nations

God wants to bless the nations. This seems to be the consistent refrain of this book so far. But hang on a minute, isn’t Israel’s history largely one of conflict with other nations? IG argues that we need to see this in its larger context, that this was one way to show all nations, including Israel, Yahweh and his righteousness. Furthermore, there are plenty of instances of relative peace between Israel and her neighbours. Finally, we must not forget, as shown in the last chapter, that the exile challenges the links between nations, lands, kings and gods. “This suggests that a battle with a nation is not necessarily the same thing as a battle with her religion and her god”.

IG looks at the reigns of David and Solomon, two of Israel’s most celebrated kings. We remember David for his military exploits, but he also had friendly relations with the kings of Tyre and Hamath (2 Sam. 5:11, 8:9-10), received hospitality from Nahash, one of the Ammonite kings, and also tried to show kindness to one of Nahash’s son (2 Sam. 10-:1-2, who sadly rejected it). There were also foreigners in David’s army, the most famous being Uriah the Hittite, and his overseers, eg. Hushai the Arkite, called “David’s friend” (1. Chron. 27:33). In fact, the behaviour of these two are contrasted favourably with those of the Israelites, the former in the well-known account of David and Bathsheba, and the latter with Absalom’s treachery. As for Solomon, he was not afraid to enlist foreigners in the building of the temple, and he understood God’s desire to bless the nations, reflected in a prayer “that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you as do your own people Israel” (1 Kings 8:43, 2 Chron. 6:33). Again, the most well-known fulfilment of this prayer lies in the visit of the Queen of Sheba, who hears Solomon’s wisdom and witnesses the worship of Yahweh. Sadly, Solomon did not remain faithful all his life as did David, and began to worship other gods, leading to judgment against Israel and hamstringing it from being the light to other nations.

IG now proceeds to look at wisdom literature. It isn’t easy to disentangle all the sources and influences, but it is reasonably clear that there are parallels between the wisdom literature contained in the Bible and the writings of other nations, and that Israel was not averse to using material from other nations. This should not surprise us, as 1 Kings 4 tells us that not only did God give Solomon wisdom, but Solomon used his wisdom to observe all that was going on around him (v.33). It is a good example of what theologians call “general revelation”. IG concludes that “the wisdom literature shows the Bible’s engagement with the human search for right thinking and living”. In other words, God is not indifferent to the concerns of the surrounding nations and the big questions of what it means to live rightly, of suffering and justice. Yet true wisdom understands its own limits, thus wisdom begins and ends with the fear of the Lord. Biblical wisdom is not antithetical to general wisdom, but relates it specifically to God. Nor must we be blind to the presence of folly, which often exists alongside wisdom, as the book of Proverbs notes. Ultimately, God is more interested in relationship; he is here to rescue his world. But there is room for the wisdom of the nations.

Now we turn to the subject of religion and judgment. When we look at Isaiah 1, we get an idea of the kind of religion God hates. The focus here is not the pagan religions however, but Israel’s own hypocritical worship. God hates ritual minus faithfulness. Israel herself needed to know that she would be judged, and IG turns to the book of Amos to demonstrate this. Amos 2:4-8 declares judgment of Israel and Judah in the same language used for judgment on other nations. What is different here is the reason: they have disobeyed God’s laws, followed other gods, oppressed the poor. This is because Israel has not lived up to its chosen status, but in fact behaved arrogantly. God does not play favourites, and he is not just god of Israel, thus he is able to use other nations to judge Israel. But of course, other nations do come under God’s wrath. Why? The most frequent theme seems to be their vicious treatment of Israel – eg. Isaiah 10:7, Ezekiel 25:6. Other reasons include general wickedness, spreading terror, hoarding riches, complacency and pride. The last reason is especially pertinent, showing how the nations often choose to exercise their rebellious autonomy. We can rest assured that God will not overlook wickedness. IG also examines how judgement of other nations are described: in terms of defeat of their gods, punishing both gods and kings, or as putting the gods to shame. The other gods are exposed for their weakness – God’s victory and sovereignty is clear.

In the prophets we often read of God’s grief in his judgment, and his promises of restoration for Israel. Does this apply to other nations too? Jeremiah and Ezekiel lament for Moab, Egypt and Tyre; some of which are commanded by God. God appears to lament over other nations too. Secondly, God often judges that people might come to know him, as Ezekiel often points out (eg. 25:7, 11, 14, 27; 26:6 etc). But this should be accompanied by repentance. Isaiah 19:18-25 speaks of Yahweh’s longing that true worship be established in Egypt and his willingness to bless them if they be his people.

IG now investigates some of the OT stories as cited in the NT as one way of thinking about what really matters. She notes the presence of Ruth, Rahab and Uriah in Matthew’s genealogy. All three acknowledged God and in a sense, became part of Israel, God’s people. Jesus outrages the Pharisees by telling them that the Queen of Sheba and the people of Niveneh would actually judge them. The Pharisees have the Scriptures but fail to acknowledge the Messiah nor repent, something the Queen and the Nivenites do without this privilege! Jesus also mentions the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the leper, and in so doing is reminding those within his hearing of God’s graciousness to Gentiles when Jews were rejecting him. Ultimately, God cares for all humans. “He made them, he is their Lord, whether they acknowledge him or not.” They have fallen, and they deserve judgment, but God wants to show his mercy. How shall we respond, then, to the gracious, living God?

I don’t really have any comments on this chapter, which builds on many of her earlier themes. Instead, I find it more fruitful just to dwell on the wide scope of God’s mission!

Next:
Exploring the New Testament – Setting the Scene: The World behind the text.


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 7

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

God's nation among the nations

How will Israel live? Will they live as the covenant people they were called to be among the nations, or will they bow down to other gods and worship them? Regardless of Israel’s obedience or disobedience, God will still speak to the nations through them, but Israel’s disobedience will bring about adverse consequences.

IG hones in on the story of Israel’s land and power in this chapter. She starts by giving us the foundational premise: all land and power is God’s. She quickly covers Genesis 1-2, where human beings are given stewardship over the land under God. Genesis 3 tells us how humans were quick to desire power for themselves. They wanted to be independent of God, and God responded by expelling them from the land he had originally placed under them. The exile of Cain and the story of Babel continued this pattern. IG suggests that Babel is actually a religious enterprise, where religion is used as the means of power to keep the people in the land. In truth, it is God who gives his people the land, and the breaking of the covenant would result in removal from that land. But Israel had yet to understand this and often adopted the attitudes of the surrounding nations/religions.

We move on now to Joshua and the conquest. IG admits that she has often struggled with this book, having even wished that it was not in the Bible. But she has come to accept this as an essential part of the story of God’s mission. However, she cautions us that we will need to read Joshua carefully, and that it is key to remember that the conquest described in the book is unique. It is the only time Israel is ever asked to take land, a unique settlement of God’s people in a land he has chosen for them. What are the main themes of this book? “Joshua is not only about the establishment of a people in a land, but is also about the aweful reality of God’s holiness and judgment.”

IG reminds us that people have always needed land to live in and to cultivate. The Abrahamic covenant recognises the human need for land and God’s ownership of all land. This is not the most important thing, of course, since at the end of the Pentateuch, Israel still has no land! – but does suggest that the timing of the conquest was pretty important. The Canaanite destruction is one of the most difficult and potentially offensive passages in the Bible, and here IG suggests a few things to be kept in mind.

1. Israel was not allowed to take the land until it was the right time for its inhabitants to be judged. This is hinted at in Genesis 15:16.
   
2. The destruction was carefully limited. “Israel was only given a certain amount of land (Josh. 1:4); and within it there were other peoples to whom God had given land. (Deut. 2:9-25).
   
3. Israel only destroyed those who opposed her. Some of the Canaanites acknowledged Israel’s God and were not destroyed, and it is clear that in the land itself there were “aliens”, some of whom must have been Canaanites, living among them.
   
4. Many 21st century Christians see the total conquest of Joshua as bloodthirsty and barbaric. But for the time, it seems to have been remarkably civilized.
   
5. God’s justice is summarized in Joshua 11:20, which contains the difficult idea of God hardening people’s hearts. IG does not presume to offer any better answers than the myriad of commentators, but this is at least clearly God’s judgment on a wicked people.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, Joshua is about Israel’s and Yahweh’s holiness. Israel was to be set apart, and not to follows the trails of false worship. God’s holiness is such that anything unholy that enters his presence will be destroyed. This is true of the Israelites as well, as seen in the story of Achan (Josh. 7). “The holy God is choosing this particular land and this particular nation to demonstrate his holiness”.

IG moves on to the idea of kingship and political power. The historical books in the OT show that Israel kept trying to be like other nations. This extends to their desire to have a human king. God graciously allowed them this, but warned them that they would have to face the consequences as well. Their kings could very well treat them like the kings of other nations, that is, there was always potential for abuse. Still, God used their desire for kingship for good, as he makes a covenant with David, which ultimately points the way for the arrival of the true King, Jesus the Messiah.

IG then reflects on the question of whether Israel was wrong in wanting a king since the idea of kingship is a major theme in the OT (and of course the “kingdom of God” is a big idea in the NT) and interacts with other commentators on this. “There is a sense in which Israel had to be like the nations, because she was [precisely that], a nation[!] The problem was that, as she was warned, she often became too much like them, and fell into the wrong worship and abuse of power…” David’s reign, while not perfect, did point in the right direction, but sadly, the history of Israel’s monarchy showed what often the king took religion and power into his own hands. Israel too often followed the lead of their human leaders when they should have been holy like God.

We now turn to the exile. This is an important theme “for our study of religions…because it demonstrates that Israel’s God is not like the gods of the nations, because he is not a national or territorial god. The exile breaks the ties between god, king, people and power that support the dangerous triangle. It also has significance for God’s mission to his world, as it forces Israel to live among the nations.” Suddenly Israel had to confront some of these questions:

• Can we live as Yahweh’s people without a temple or land of our own, or without power?
  
• Yahweh is not like other gods, we’re beginning to see that. But what does this say about other gods?
  
• Yahweh’s rule can be seen in the defeat of his people as well as in their victories. How, then, will we see his ultimate victory?
  

These various questions were answered by, among others, Jeremiah, Esther and Isaiah, but IG decides to use Daniel as her case study. At the beginning of Daniel, it appears that Yahweh has been defeated, but the rest of the book reveals that Yahweh is at work in Babylon, showing how he is lord of all. The Babylonian wise men have no insight, Belshazzar pays a high price for his disrespect of God. The people-power-land links with religion is broken. God’s people can live without a temple, or land, or power, at the very heart of a nation with a different faith!

Finally, we now move to Israel’s return to the land. Why did Yahweh do this? We can see that this shows God remains faithful to his covenant, and that he also has a plan. It is still God’s intention to bless the nations through Israel, and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah show how Israel tried to be holy, while living among people of other faiths. The new leaders now emphasised separation a lot more, having realised the problem of trying to be like other nations had gotten them into trouble into the first place. (You could say, I suppose, that they were the early forerunners of the Pharisee sect). This is seen in the building of the temple, where the locals (non-Israelites) offer of help was refused, and in the ruthless dismissal of foreign wives. This obviously cannot be a basis for forbidding interracial marriages, as demonstrated elsewhere in the OT, but appears to be because Ezra is worried about their unfaithfulness to Yahweh. IG ends the chapter with a question: is holiness purely about separation, or is there another kind of holiness that does not depend on where we live or we live with?

This is the first time I’ve read a Bible, or at least OT, overview that uses the theme of land (and its natural association with power) as the lens and it’s pretty illuminating. I’m still not familiar enough with much of the OT to be able to discuss the details of IG’s chapters, though I’m sure she’s pretty much on the mark; I’m simply sitting at her feet as a student at this point! It’s also interesting to ponder about how all of the above might help inform Christian reflection on issues pertaining to community, political power, refugees and so on, keeping in mind that Christians are exiles and strangers in this world, of course (1 Peter 1:2). I’m sure there must have been people who have thought more deeply and acted accordingly on stuff like this.

Reflection questions:
Some people say that, to live at peace with people of other faiths, we need to recognize their gods and even to pray with them. Deuteronomy tells Israel that she will live at peace only if she refuses to worship other gods. What questions does this raise in your mind?

What role has political power played in establishing religions in your area? What role has religion played in establishing political power?

Daniel was able to say to the king of the nation that had taken him into exile, “I have never done anything wrong before you.” (6:22). How does this challenge and encourage Christians who live as a minority, under the rule of people of a different faith?

What sort of holiness is it that can bring blessings to the nations? Do you have to keep separate from sinners to keep righteous? How can we witness to people of other faiths if we keep apart from them?

Next:
God, gods and other nations


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 6

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

Development: the calling of a people

"This chapter explores how God developed the family into his special nation among nations that worshipped other gods." They would learn that they were his “special” people, but at the same time that God was the god of all peoples and Israel was chosen for the sake of all peoples. IG, in keeping with the earlier chapters, first explores how Israel is like other nations. Israel’s stories were similar to the stories of other nations. Other peoples had lists of laws similar to those found in the Pentateuch, a famous example being Hammurabi’s laws. Again, other nations also had historical texts containing the military exploits of kings under their gods, descriptions of rituals, incantations and festivals, wisdom literature, hymns and prayers with similar concerns as those found in the psalms, and so on. This should not surprise us, for the people of Israel were humans who lived in a particular time and place, alongside the surrounding nations, who are also made up of humans living in the same time and place!

But...the Old Testament is also very different. IG argues that "although Israel was in so many ways like the nations surrounding her, Israel’s God was not like their gods". A careful reading will show that these parallel texts are often built on very different assumptions. She gives 2 examples, law and temple, and I’ll quickly go through them here. The context for the Hammurabi Code is very different, for it begins with the king listing his own achievements and ends with much aplomb – the king being the one who received these laws from the god Shamash. On the other hand, the biblical account differs in its emphasis on God’s actions in exodus and covenant and its willingness to tell all about Israel’s leaders, warts and all. The monotheism of Israel is another obvious marker of difference. Again, while the gods of all the nations had temples, we can immediately think of a few differences, including the lack of need on God’s part to live in the temple, or the lack of the image of Israel’s god in the temple. We can summarise how Israel is not meant to be like other nations in one word: holy.

IG then briefly traces the development of Israelite religion from Genesis to Numbers, showing how during the time of Abraham, there was no clear separation from the Abrahamite religion from those of other people but that there is an increasing emphasis on separation, or distinctiveness, as the descendants of Abraham begin to become a nation. Why? IG suggests two things. Firstly, it appears that other religions have changed. In Egypt, the pharaoh is without doubt much more hostile to Israel’s god than during the time of Joseph. Similarly, it appeared that Canaanite religion was becoming increasingly immoral. Secondly, Israel has changed. As already mentioned, the family had now become a nation, a people of the exodus, following a god who had rescued them. Israel was now meant to be a "kingdom of priests", teaching the law (Lev. 10:11), handling sacrifices (Lev. 1-7) and blessing the people (Numbers 6:22-27). They would bring revelation of God to the other nations and be a blessing to them. They were meant to be a “holy nation”, reflecting the very essence of God. This is the overriding concern of Exodus-Numbers. IG makes an interesting point here as well – "if Israel was to be a nation among other nations, she too needed a story, a law and a way of worship, and God met those needs". In other words, God recognises and uses (seeing as he is the Creator, after all!) the conceptual building blocks that help build our identity – a shared heritage, culture etc.

But Israel had no king, unlike their counterparts. Their laws are based on God’s character and a recognition of human beings as made in God’s image. Their worship is different. Sacrifices are made not to “feed God”, but to deal with sin and share in fellowship. Their food laws were different, with an explicit link made to holiness, and the prevention of God’s people joining in the feasts of other gods. In summary,

"On the one hand, the tabernacle, the priesthood, the sacrifices and the worship express Israel’s relationship to her God in forms appropriate to her cultural context. On the other hand, the details prevent her from joining in the worship of other gods, and forbid forms of worship that cannot be adapted for the worship of the Holy One. In all this, they reflect the one holy God, for this is Israel’s purpose among the nations."

God’s people are special, but God is not partial. Leviticus 19 twice expresses the command to “love your neighbour as yourself”, once for the fellow Israelite, and once for the alien.

IG is never afraid to show where the biblical accounts are in some instances similar to the accounts of other nations, but as she deftly shows, this should not disturb us unduly. They are also in many ways different. I think this also shows that the Christian’s relationship with culture is never monolithic: we can affirm and transform certain aspects of a particular culture, but also confront and separate where needed. Btw, I highly recommend also reading either Vaughan Roberts’ God’s Big Picture, especially chapter 4 ‘The partial kingdom’ or Bartholomew & Goheen’s The Drama of Scripture and the chapter ‘Act 3 Scene 1: A people for the king’ as a supplement to this chapter, as either of them are very good in orienting us to the storyline of the Bible in general and the big picture of the Pentateuch in particular.

Reflection questions:
In what ways are Christians in your area like non-Christians? In what ways are they different?

For further study, look up ‘aliens’, ‘foreigners’ or ‘sojourners’ in a concordance. In Exodus-Deuteronomy, where were the aliens to live within the framework of Israel’s laws, and where were they treated differently? On what conditions could they join Israel’s worship? What do the prophets teach about justice for the alien?

Next:
God’s Nation among the nations


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 5b

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

Beginnings: Genesis (continued)

Genesis 12-50 tells us about God’s mission to the world. God’s covenant to bless Abraham and his family is for all the mixed-up, sinful peoples of the world. Genesis is unique in that it is the account of God calling an ordinary man and his family, and so instead of comparing it with other ancient stories, we shall read it in the context of what we know about other nations.

IG then enters into a very interesting discussion regarding Abraham’s relationship with Yahweh. The names of Abraham’s family suggest that his ancestors worshipped the moon god, chief of whom was El. (Remember, Abraham was from the Mesopotamian city of Ur). Citing OT scholar Gordon Wenham, who analyses the names used for God in Genesis in light of Exodus 6:3, where God says to Moses: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them", she concludes that "Abraham was thinking in terms of El, the god he already knew about, but that it was Yahweh who was calling him all the time." IG then documents how Abraham responded to God in ways which was already used in his culture – he did “religious” things, such as building altars, offering sacrifices and cleansing himself.

Abraham's worship is also contrasted with those found in his culture, as seen in the building of his own altars, and the absolute forbidding of human sacrifices seen in the account of Isaac. These patterns continue throughout Genesis. God speaks to Abraham and his family. He encourages them. He loves them. They respond in faith and obedience, and doubt and sin. There is no laying down of “religious” rules, but instead a demonstration of God’s covenant call to a particular family. Indeed, the covenant of Genesis 15, while similar in many respects to covenants in the ancient world, is different in that it is between God and a human family, not a king and a conquered nation, and it is unconditional. Abraham begins to see that this is a God who takes the initiative and keeps his promises, and so he is unlike El and the other gods. El might be said to do these things, but it is God who actually does them.

IG now turns her attention to the other nations in Genesis 12-50. Firstly, nations other than Israel are also Abraham’s descendants. Sadly, the descendants of Lot, Ishmael and Esau will turn to other gods and become some of Israel’s greatest enemies. The Moabites and Ammonites, for instance, result from Lot’s drunkenness and incest. Meanwhile, Abraham fails to share God’s concern for other nations. He lies to Abimelech and the king of Egypt, and causes God’s judgment to fall on them. He fails to take good care of his servant, Hagar. On the other hand, God approaches Abimelech in a dream (20:6-7) and rescues him. The Genesis narrative also seems to cast the mysterious figure of Melchizedek in a positive light, although this is not explicit. Perhaps most significantly, God uses Joseph to provide for the Egyptians during the years of famine.

What about other gods? Genesis is, for the most part, silent – no mention of the Canaanite or Egyptian gods. The only mention of other gods comes in the story of Jacobs. Laban’s household gods (31:19, 30-35) are not taken very seriously. Jacob also orders his household to rid themselves of all foreign gods when he goes to live in Bethel. Why does Genesis choose to record this particular episode? It appears that as Jacob had been disobedient before (having not previously gone to Bethel as he promised to), and in light of the disobedience of more or less his entire family in the previous chapter, where Dinah is raped, particular attention is drawn to the need to obey and trust God here. Jacob recognises that if God is God, all other gods have to go.

In summary, Genesis 12-50 does not directly discuss the surrounding religions. What are we to make of this? Some suggestions:

• The other gods are not important. What matters is that the one true living God is active among the people he has made.
  
• Forms of worship are not yet important.
  
• Other aspects of religion, such as laws and ritual purity, are also not yet important. Trusting God is the more important issue.

"In calling out a people from polytheism, then, God did not give a religion. The way to blessing for a multifaith world was not a religion but a family called to dynamic relationship with the living God."

IG’s discussion concerning Abraham was fascinating, to say the least, but I do feel like I’ve been left hanging a little because she fails to bridge contexts between the world of Genesis and ours. For instance, what are the implications, if she is right, of how Abraham initially conceives of God? To be fair, IG does anticipate these questions in her reflection questions and likely wants the reader to do some thinking of their own by not providing any answers at this point! It’s probable that she’s saving this for later on in the book, but I would have liked more guidance on how to read this in the context of the overall storyline of the Bible / salvation-history. How does the coming of Christ change all this, if it does? Even just a couple of comments along the lines of "I’ll cover this more in chapter X, but here it’s sufficient to say that..." would have been welcomed.

Still, IG does a great job opening our eyes to the reality of a God who draws near and who calls his people, not a demanding deity who needs sacrifices.

Reflection questions:

• Did God call you to religion or a covenant relationship?
  
• If a Muslim, Hindu, or traditional African believer comes to Christ, what sort of religious practice should he or she follow?
  
• Which of the laws or religious practices of your church were given by God?
  
• God spoke to people outside Abraham’s family. Does he speak to non-Christians today?
  
• Paul goes to the story of Abraham when he is discussing how non-Jews – people from another faith background – can be included in the church (Gal. 3). What can you learn from the story of Abraham about mission to a community that already has a different religion? How does this beginning of God’s mission to the nations compare to the beginnings of Christian missions in your country?

Next chapter:
Development: The calling of a people


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 5a

Time to dive back into this series. I'm currently blogging through The Bible and Other Faiths by Ida Glaser. For previous entries in this series, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of the post.

Beginnings: Genesis

IG explores Genesis in a little more depth than others, convinced that it is a foundational book, as well as to provide a model for deeper study of other passages. Genesis 1-11 introduces us to a world of peoples. God creates humankind in his own image, puts them in a good land. Sin enters the world, humans are expelled from Eden, and there is an increase in human wickedness, leading to judgment and the flood. God then “recreates” the world. This world includes the covenant of Genesis 9:8-17, which includes all living beings and the earth itself. And IG wants us to see that people of other faiths are human beings, in God’s land and under God’s rainbow, just like us. "Part of the point of the flood story is to show that all peoples have one source: we come from Noah."

This is underlined by the following sections after Genesis, which gives us some insight into this world of different peoples. Noah and his sons tell us about the presence of sin and inequality. The table of nations in chapter 10 paints a more positive view of peoples in all their diversity. Babel shows God’s judgment on those working against him, and its effects are still seen today in miscommunication and prejudice. Yet IG contends that the division of people is also necessary to limit the effects of sin in this world. And so our differences are both part of God’s providence and the results of our sin.

IG moves on to provide a contextual reading by comparing this account to the other creation stories of the time, specifically, the Babylonian creation epic and flood story. I won’t recount them in detail here, but basically it involves lots of gods fighting against each other, out of which details of how the world and certain elements of it emerge. "The end point of all the creation stories is a particular human society, in a particular place, organized for the service of the gods. Much attention is usually given to the temple building that symbolises all of this." IG, utilising the same literary tools used to read other creation stories to read Genesis, notes a couple of features peculiar to the biblical story.

• Genesis discounts other gods; all things are under the control of this one God.
  
• Genesis gives a different view of the purpose of human beings. They are not solutions to a problem, but to be blessed by him and to hold responsibilities within creation.
  
• Genesis recognises anti-God powers, but God has no need to fight them, he can control them with a word. There is one exception, the human being. God, however, is still supreme, and he is still committed to love us – that is the message of Noah.
  
• God’s judgment are for different reasons. The emphasis on God’s justice and human sin are unique to Genesis, he does not get angry arbitrarily.

In summary, Genesis exalts Yahweh as the only creator of the whole universe and of all peoples, unlike other ancient creation stories.

What do we learn about religion here then? Although specific religions of the time are not discussed, we can still learn quite a bit about human religion generally. Humans need a way to God, and sacrifice seems to be a way – eg. Abel and Noah. Yet at this juncture, just why their sacrifices were acceptable is unclear. (Cf. Cain). But it is clear that God does not need our sacrifices, unlike the Babylonian gods who were “fed” with sacrifices. Instead, God feeds his people instead! (Gen. 9:1-3). Indeed, religion could cause violence, as testified by Cain’s murder of his brother. Nor do religious places impress God – implicit in the Babel story is also a criticism of Babylonian religion, which has Marduk building an impressive temple to the doorway of God. And so religion can easily lead to two fundamental mistakes: that we can be the same as God, or that God is far away and we can find a way of reaching him.

Instead, Genesis paints two pictures of true faith, rest and walking. Other creation stories often gives the origin of religious festivals and their purposes, for eg., to guarantee a good harvest. Yet Genesis only tells us about the Sabbath. There is no need to persuade God to work, but rather, a recognition that we can rest in God’s sovereignty; his work is done, rituals are unnecessary. Secondly, we relate to God not by climbing up to him, but realising that God has come down to us. He walks in the garden (3:8), and those named righteous in Genesis 1-11, Enoch and Noah, also walked with him (5:24, 6:9). It is into such a world, with its different languages and territories and temples, that God speaks and acts, as he calls Abraham.

Before moving to the rest of Genesis, IG provides a short excursus on communication. She notes that the Genesis writer was not afraid to use the thought forms and cultural expressions of his day to deal with their concerns; he shared some of them anyhow! Of course, stories could also be used to challenge other stories, as in Babel. For further exploration, she suggests reading through Hosea, and noting how ideas associated with Baal: fertility, rain, storm, crops etc. are used to show that Yahweh is Lord of all.

I think I’ll stop here, and do the rest of this chapter in the next post. Here are some of questions for reflection that IG suggests:

What creation stories do people in your areas tell? What are the purposes of these stories?
How do the ideas about religion generally help you to understand the specific religions in your area?
How could you use Genesis 1-11 to communicate with people in your area, especially in light of their creation stories?

I think it’s useful to point out too though that creation stories need not be “religious” in the way we usually conceive of them. The Big Bang is a creation story of sorts. Pleasure could be the name of our god. And so on. These questions could provide a fresh way in helping to understand and engage with our non-believing family and friends.

Anyway, please do feel free to comment!


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 4

For previous entries, just click on the Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

Peoples surrounding Israel, and their gods

This chapter’s a short one, offering a quick overview of some features of the Old Testament world. As the time period which the OT covers is a long one, belief systems and practices obviously change and develop throughout. Nonetheless, we can still establish some basic characteristics of these surrounding religions.

• People believed in many gods. They might have a main god, but there would usually be other minor gods as well, ruling over various aspects of life. Society was pluralist.
  
• Gods were associated with particular peoples and places. Religions were territorial and/or national.
  
• The king had a special relationship to the god. He represented people to the god and vice versa, and so sometimes is seen as divine himself. Religion thus had a political character.
  
• Gods were sometimes merged. Sometimes, it was difficult to tell gods apart from their names. Other times, a conquered people meant a conquered god. Religions were syncretistic.
  
• Gods had particular functions. There was a god of war, a god of childbirth and so on; at times they formed a hierarchy based on their importance to everyday life.
  
• Gods often expressed something in the natural world. Baal, for instance, had control over the rain.
  
• There were stories about the gods. “The peoples explained their world by telling these stories, usually vivid poetic descriptions of battles and sexual exploits”. Many of them also had creation stories.
  
• Gods were worshipped in similar ways. They took different forms, were often represented by images, had priests and temples, and sacrifices were commonly offered to them. There were also various rites, some of which acted out the stories of the gods, including their sexual exploits. This led to the rise of cult prostitution.
  
• There were religious experts. Perhaps a priest, or a storyteller, or a seer.
  

IG moves on the people groups of the time, who come from 3 main areas. Firstly, there was Mesopotamia, the fertile land between the Tigris and Euphrates, where Abraham came from and where the Israelites were exiled to. Its people included the Sumerians, whose creation myth included human failure and a great flood. “Sumerian society was organised mainly in villages grouped around cities to form city states, each of which would have a ruling council under a king who was a representative of the city’s chief god”. Then there are the Babylonians. Babylon was a centre of power for much of its history – good (very) old Hammurabi, for instance, was one of its rulers, who attempted to unite the whole of Mesopotamia. One of their gods, Marduk (also Bel), was considered particularly powerful and is mentioned in Isaiah 46:1 and Jeremiah 50:2. Then there are the Assyrians, north of Babylonia. They were a major political force until the rise of the Babylonians. Their goddess of love and war, Ishtar, had her temple in Niveneh.

Secondly, there is Egypt, which was a very different civilization, with the River Nile serving as the basis of its economy. Egypt regularly interacted with peoples in Canaan throughout biblical history, and many Semites (Hebrews) came to live among the Egyptians at different times. They had lots of interesting gods [I did a project on Egypt when I was about 12 or 13 and it was fun finding out about all about them!], most prominent being the sun [god]. Egyptian worship is rather different from Mesopotamia. Their temples were isolationist, with only priests allowed entry, and gods brought out only for special occasions.

Finally, there is Canaan, the "Promised Land". There was an interesting variety of people groups there, including Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Phoenicians and Philistines. Most of what we know about them comes from texts discovered in the ancient city of Ugarit, now part of modern-day Syria. El is the chief god, worshipped under different names – some speculate that Melchizedek was priest of El-Elyon, usually translated “God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). El is Creator, kind, merciful, wise. Under him is a pantheon of gods, sometimes called “sons of El”. The Canaanite god Christians are most familiar with is Baal, meaning “master”. He’s the weather god, meaning that if you want a good harvest you’re best be not displeasing him! Interestingly, there’s a Canaanite story where Mot, the god of death, kills Baal, who in turn gets killed by Anath, Baal’s consort, who revives Baal, has sex with him and therefore restores his powers. This story reflects the pattern of rainfall and fertility in Canaan – Baal’s death corresponding with the dry period and so on. The story was acted out with temple prostitutes to ensure Baal’s “revival”.

Throughout this book, IG will throw out reflection questions from time to time for us to think about, and she tosses up one here:
In what ways are the religions in your area like the religions of these different nations?

My gut feeling is that many of my Malaysian/Majority World readers will have no problem finding points of similarity. Off the top of my head I immediately think of the Dayaks and Gawai, or harvest festival, with various ceremonies performed to ward off evil spirits and offering rites of thanksgiving to gods of the natural world.

This chapter provides us with bite-sized chunks of information for orientation purposes, as many of us will have very little idea of the OT cultural-historical background. It’s almost too short, but since she’s writing The Bible and Other Faiths and not Encyclopaedia of the Ancient Near East, it’d be churlish to quibble.

Next chapter and into the Bible itself
Beginnings: Genesis


† Expand post

The Bible and other Faiths 3

For previous entries, just click on the Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

Reading the Bible

We are invited to read through Psalm 148. At first glance, it doesn’t seem relevant to the topic at hand. We understand the Creator rules over all his creation, but that’s about it. But what if we remember that the worship of Israel, as expressed in this psalm, was the worship of a people surrounded by other peoples of other religions? (We just have to think of modern-day India, Sri Lanka, or indeed, Malaysia). Gods were associated with the moon and stars, stories told of cosmic battles between different gods, nations ascribed their allegiance to different deities. IG invites us to read through Psalm 148 again. This time, we see that this psalm challenges such thinking! Sun, moon and stars are created things, not gods; this is the One God, not just a god of a particular nation, and all aspects of creation – fertility, weather et al. – are subject to Him. Furthermore, “this psalm goes on to say that this God is to be worshipped under a particular name, revealed to a particular people who have received particular favour.” (Psalm 148:19-20)

As we come to the Bible, then, IG wants to deal with how we approach it. She then makes the claim that, although she has said that we must start with God’s revelation and therefore the Bible, it is, in one sense, impossible. We have to read the Bible being who we are. Before we open the Bible, we already have presuppositions, whether we like it or not. Instead, we can allow the Bible to have priority over our own thinking. So it is in this sense that the Bible is our starting point. This is just how all knowledge develops, we understand things in terms of what we know already, and we need to hear in a language we can understand. God speaks into a dynamic, not static, situation, and so in dealing with this book’s topic, we need to see how he says it as well as what he says.

Secondly, it is not immediately obvious where in the Bible we should "start". The Bible doesn’t mention Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam, in fact, the word "religion" itself cannot be found in the OT. It is important that we do not treat the Bible as a Q&A book. She then notes a common method in approaching the Bible with questions about other religions: the thematic method. Idolatry and the uniqueness of Christ are two oft-treated themes, as many point out Jesus as the only begotten Son, the name above all names, and so on, and others point out the frequent condemnation of idolatry throughout the OT and NT. During the 20th century, more people began to notice some other, more positive themes, regarding God’s concern for all nations. For example, Jonah is sent to Niveneh, Jesus draws the Samaritan woman in, and Melchizedek seems to worship the true God, even though he is outside the covenants.

Interestingly, exclusivists, inclusivists, and pluralists all appeal to the same passages. John 14:6 is an interesting test case. For the exclusivist, this is a clear-cut expression of Jesus pointing to himself as the only way. Inclusivists might argue that our understanding of “only way” needs to be broadened, especially in light of John 1:9. Pluralists might argue that this statement is rooted in faith, it is meaningful for Christians but not others. Two little girls might think that their respective daddies are the best daddies in the world, and they are both right, that is their experience.

And so, IG says, it is quite apparent that the thematic approach is inadequate. For one thing, which theme do we choose? We tend to ask themes according to our questions, and our questions might not necessarily be the best ones to ask. Our questions are all tangled up with various assumptions. However, even more problematically, is that the thematic approach is selective, we choose passages that we think are only relevant to our theme. We might also emphasise one theme over another. Those who see the Bible as only a human book will have no problems with seeing it as contradictory and historically and culturally shaped, with no direct meaning for us today. The opposite problem may arise and we read it ahistorically, without noting for example, to whom particular words are said.

IG now proceeds to describe a canonical approach, drawing on the work of Dan Beeby. Here are some of the ways we can look at the overall pattern of the Bible, which helps us see God’s pattern to his world.

1. The U pattern. From the highs to the lows and back again. We start with God’s good creation, then the Fall, climaxing the death of Jesus, and then little by little the new creation is restored.
   
2. Promise and fulfilment. The NT tells us of the fulfilment in Christ that all the OT points to, and then points on to the complete fulfilment that Christ brings.
   
3. From beginning to end. The Bible moves from the perfect Garden of Eden to the perfect heavenly city in Jerusalem.
   
4. Relationships. Perfect relationships between God, humankind, and creation broken and restored.
   
5. Promises, blessings and covenants. How do the covenants, beginning with Abraham in Genesis 12, work out? Blessings not just for Abraham’s descendants, but through them, for the other nations as well.
   

God works in his world throughout history. “If we look at the overall shape of the Bible, we have to conclude that, whatever Israel was chosen for, God’s purposes have always been for the whole of humanity and not only for one particular nation.” Beeby suggests that the nations surrounding Israel are parallel to people of different faiths in our times. It is important to see that Israel existed for the nations, bringing blessing to them. They lived among the nations, struggling with them, yes, but also depending on them, Egypt being the obvious example. Finally, Israel was meant to be a witness to the nations, showing them what God is like, although they often failed at this task. It is the same with Christians in the NT. This, Beeby suggests, can be a basis for a relationship with peoples of different faiths.

IG wants us to note one more important thing, and that is that the link between nations and gods is one that continues to this day. By that, she means that it is often the case that religion is bound up with our ethnic and national identity. If we see a Sikh, for eg., we immediately think that he must be a Punjabi.

IG ends this chapter by briefly noting 3 levels of reading into a text:

1. Author-centred reading: the text as a window. The text becomes a window with which we can become acquainted with a world.
   
2. Text-centred reading: the text as picture. We focus on the text itself, noting how it says things, like looking at a picture in detail.
   
3. Reader-centred focus: the text as mirror. What does this mean for me, today?
   

All three levels gives us important insights and it will help to hold the three together. In parts 2 and 3 of the book she will focus on the first 2 approaches. How do biblical writers relate to the religions of the time, and what does the text say and how does it say it?

Much of what IG says here will be familiar to those who have read hermeneutics and Bible overview books, but it’s a good reminder all the same, especially in recognising that people with different convictions all appeal to the Bible, and in noting the weaknesses of a thematic approach. I certainly appreciated Beeby’s insights into the place of Israel amongst the nations and how that might inform our thinking today!

We now come to part 2 of the book, Reading the Old Testament.

Next chapter
Peoples surrounding Israel, and their gods


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 2

The Academic Scene

In this chapter IG (the Asian in me has won out – I can’t call a lady 30 years my senior by her first name) very briefly traces the development of Western thought and how that has shaped the disciplines of theology and religious studies. In doing so she hopes to help us understand better why such discussion is undertaken in the first place, and the differing stances taken up by different Christians.

What is “religion”? Its origin lies in Latin, meaning “service rendered to the gods”, before taking on a Christian meaning in the European languages, referring primarily to the Christian God. Non-Christians only fell into 3 other categories: Jews, Muslims and heathen/pagans. However, as Westerners came into contact with various non-Christians, especially during the colonial era of the 18th and 19th centuries, they began to realise that “pagans” were not simply uncivilized barbarians but people who had their own ways of thinking and believing. In attempting to describe and make sense of all these new beliefs, they wrote in terms of what they knew already, that is, “religion”.

With Enlightenment philosophy taking a firmer grip of Western thought by the 19th century, it was inevitable that people began looking for a way to analyse “religion” and to come up with theories. Two influential strands in particular stand out, that of idealism, which finds its basis of the world outside the material realm, and positivism, which rejected all supernatural notions and privileged a scientific approach. Although at first glance, both seem opposed to each other, nevertheless both share assumptions that have shaped religious studies to this day:

• Objectivity. Both wanted to explain the world in a way that applied to everyone of all cultures, places and history.
  
• Science. Both saw reason as the primary way to investigate religion.
  
• Essentialism. Both were looking for the “essence” of religion, that common ingredient which would explain all religious phenomena.
  
• Evolution. Both maintained that humans were on an upward slope of progress. For some, that meant leaving religion behind as something “primitive”, for others, it meant an ever more sophisticated understanding of monotheism.

We can see all these influencing how religious studies departments are structured today as they are studied on human terms, for eg. sociology of religion, anthropology of religion etc. At the same time, scholars have seen some of the difficulties this has raised, including the difficulty of locating an “essence”, defining religion in general (should Satanists count? Why or why not?), and the recognition that none of us are presuppositionless. Today, postmodern thinking has also taken hold, and many people have no problem believing that there are different truths for different people.

IG then suggests what a Christian might make of all these:
1. we can be grateful that religious studies has contributed to dispelling ignorance and prejudice and recognising that we have a shared humanity.
2. although religion cannot be understood in purely human terms, nevertheless religions do have human aspects and religious studies helps us better understand these. We can see how faith affects society, for both good and bad.
3. By recognising the assumptions and bases of academic religious studies, we are therefore able to ask critical questions about it, and also think about Christianity for ourselves in light of what we know about God, that is, theologically.

All theology is done in a context. However, in the last 2 centuries, many theologians have been unable to approach the Bible as a revealed book, but only as a human one. They, however, wanted to retain the label “Christian” and chose to reinterpret many of the events recorded in the Bible in a new light.

European Christians traditionally thought of all non-Christian peoples as lost and therefore in need of the gospel. However, some Christians began seeing religion as purely human phenomena, and were also influenced by evolutionary ideas. There were “savages/barbarians” and “civilized” people, and the link was made that Western culture=Christian and therefore more civilized than all other cultures. Of course, a grasp of the biblical faith will help us see that humankind is not evolving upwards, nor are Christians morally superior, but in need of God’s grace. Yet we need to be aware that when we say “Jesus is the only way to heaven”, many will interpret this to mean “Christians are superior to others”.

IG now delineates for us how theologians have tried to understand other faiths, and proposes three widely-used categories: exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist. Not everyone will neatly fit into any of these categories, but they provide a helpful framework.

Exclusivism
Salvation through explicit faith in Christ alone.
God’s special revelation through Israel, Christ and the Bible only.
Christocentric – Christ is Jesus of Nazareth. Holy Spirit given through him.

Inclusivism
Salvation through Christ but not needing explicit faith in him.
There may be special revelation elsewhere (apart from the exclusivist view).
Theocentric – Christ is seen in Jesus, but not confined to him. The Holy Spirit might be at work everywhere.

Pluralist
Salvation available through all faiths.
Religion as differing human responses to the transcendent
Cosmic Christ. Universal spirit.

Also, the word “salvation” might sometimes be used in different ways by different people. Exclusivists and inclusivists both see Jesus as the final revelation from God. In general, IG sees pluralism arising out of a combination of people’s experiences and the ideas explored above, and briefly gives the example of both John Hick and a few Asian theologians: it is not just Western theology that is contextual!

IG ends this chapter by recognising that while all faiths are human, that does not mean it must exclude God. That is the mistake of liberalism. At the same time, conservative Christians need to be reminded that all humans are made in the image of God and that Christians have human shortcomings too. Finally, it is the Bible that we must come back to, to see what God is really interested in.

“We know that we are not able to judge ourselves rightly, let alone to judge our fellow Christians or people of other faiths. We want to hear God’s judgment. This book is in the Lausanne tradition of understanding the Bible as God’s written word. That is where we shall start our search for answers to our questions about people of other faiths.”

A useful chapter, although it suffers a tiny bit from slight repetition. It might also be helpful to note that the word “religion”, when it was used in medieval times, not only referred to what we might now call piety but also to acts of devotion and liturgical practices. In other words, it had a bodily element to it, and so there was no separation between body and soul, or material-spiritual, which is what idealist thought separates.

Chapter 3 is entitled Reading the Bible.


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 1

I’ve been meaning to blog through a book for a while now, but of course my procrastinating habits get in the way. So, without further ado...

I’ve chosen a book on what I think is a timely, and indeed timeless, topic. The Bible and Other Faiths by Ida Glaser is part of the Global Christian Library series, a brainchild of John Stott. This series aims to birth more books with an international authorship, recognising the need for more biblically faithful and contextually relevant books from a non-Western perspective, for both Western and non-Western audiences alike.

From the blurb at the back: “In today’s world, when Christians think about other religions, numerous questions and issues arise – and their convictions about Christ and about other religions can have a significant influence on their understanding of how God relates to people, and what their own conduct towards them should be. From her wealth of inter-cultural and inter-faith experience, Ida Glaser believes that the most urgent questions for Christians focus on their own responsibilities and other people’s welfare...[she] explores biblical perspectives on other faiths and their adherents, with clarity, sensitivity and challenging insights for all Christians.”

The book itself is split into 4 parts: Setting the Scene, Reading the Old Testament, Reading the New Testament, and Seeing Ourselves. There're 15 chapters altogether, and I’m going to dive straight into Chapter 1: People and Places, because Ida herself explains both her background and her hopes for the book in it.

“Every sentence written in this book is written in acute awareness of blood and tears being shed as human beings, made in the image of God, show the effects of the ‘fall’ in the contexts of their religions. It is also written in belief that Jesus Christ is God’s gift to his fallen world”.

So begins Ida. In the face of 9/11, Muslim-Christian clashes in Nigeria,, civil war in Sri Lanka and so on, what should Christians think about it? Ida, upon being invited to write this book, ponders on the popular questions Christians ask about other religions. Is Christ the only way? Is there any truth in religion? What about conversion? Yet Ida, from her time spent both in the Bible and amongst various peoples think that there are even more urgent questions: How can we understand religions and the way they affect human beings? What is God doing amongst people of other religions? How do the great commandments and the Great Commission relate to people of other religions, especially in places of interreligious conflict?

Of course, both set of questions are interrelated, nevertheless, the second set of questions puts the focus both on other people’s welfare and our own responsibility, and so she finds these set of questions much better to ask. For her, a key text that has governed her thinking is Micah 6:8:

"And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Her stress is on our responsibility as Christians: “As we read the Bible we might not find answers to all our questions about other people. But if the Bible is God’s word to human beings, we can expect the answer to ‘What does the Lord require of us’”.

She tells her own story briefly. Born to a Jewish father and a Christian mother, she committed her life to Jesus at 14. Not long after, her parents died in a car accident, and her Jewish aunt, her new caretaker, wept as she couldn’t comprehend how she could be a Christian when she believed that it was Christians who put Jews in the gas chamber. Ida’s awareness of the effects of religion, the question of identity and the possibility of prejudice were all sharply honed from a young age.

At university she encountered people of different faiths, including Muslims and Hindus. From her various friendships she was able to recognise how difficult is was for someone who had turned to Christ from another faith background to deal with their respective families and cultural tensions. She has also welcomed international students to London, taught Physics in Malaysia and the Maldives, and worked in the inner city. I should also say, by way of an aside, having attended a talk by her last year, that she is also no longer Ida Glaser but Ida Coffey, having married late in life! (She must have been at least in her 50s). She is currently Senior Teaching Fellow at the Edinburgh Centre for Muslim-Christian studies and is also looking to set up a similar initiative in Oxford. She also serves the mission agency Crosslinks and lectures at various Christian colleges both in and out of the UK. She tells us all this because she believes her experiences will inevitably affect her writing, and that theology can never remain at a theoretical level.

She concludes this chapter with a brief note on the usage of the words “religion” and “faith”. People tend to prefer to use the latter word than the former to describe their way of life, their duty of God. So she will use the word “faith” to refer to how people describe themselves. However, there are times she will use the word “religion”, in the usual sense Western academics use it to describe people’s beliefs, practices and way of life. She will also sometimes use the word “religion” to describe human efforts to reach God, following Karl Barth, who argued that religion does not start with God’s self-revelation and therefore actually leads us away from him.

There will also be callouts or sidebars sprinkled throughout the book which act as reflection questions of sort. As I blog my way through this book I’ll also highlight those.

The next chapter is The Academic Scene.


† Expand post