| Jordan, as in the country... |
[Apr. 27th, 2006|10:11 am] |
| [ | mood |
| |  WOW | ] |
Did I even write a post mentioning that I applied for a Critical Language Scholarship to learn beginning Arabic in Jordan? I think not. But...
I GOT IT!!!!!!!!
Congratulations! This letter serves as notification that you have been selected as a recipient of a U.S. Department of State Critical Language Scholarship for participation in the Beginning Level Arabic program in Amman, Jordan from June 16 -- August 12, 2006. We received over 1,200 qualified applications for the 30 spaces available. Of many outstanding applications submitted, the review panel found yours to be particularly impressive. On behalf of the American Center for Oriental Research (ACOR), the Council of American Overseas Research Centers (CAORC), and the U.S. Department of State, we would like to congratulate you on this appointment.
ALLAHU AKBAR!
(I do not yet have health insurance, proof of which is required before I can go, but I am praying and hoping that proof of having applied for insurance will be enough. The people I have spoken to seem to think that I can work around this... but I am nervous about it. I will be talking to the program today about what I can do.)
Please keep me in your prayers. I have SO much work to do before I can really celebrate, but a longer post should follow in a couple of weeks, after everything's done.
All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.
Keep praying. I love my friends. |
|
|
| O, Hard-Hitting Reality..... |
[Mar. 13th, 2006|07:36 am] |
Last night I fell asleep reading New Testament commentary and didn't get nearly enough work done; this morning I woke up at 4:30 and read a chapter in Muslims and Christians Face to Face by Kate Zebiri which I highly recommend... I was thinking about it and debating parts of it in my mind and responding to other parts with "Wow!" and it hit me like a ton of bricks: "What on EARTH made me think I could study this full-time and hold down a full-time job?" I mean, this is just 1 of 4 classes I'm trying to keep up with, and I'm frustrated that I have to go and basically baby-sit elementary schoolers in an hour when, honestly, I could spend my life researching Muslim-Christian dialogue and only skim the surface.
On that note, I think a summer-intensive abroad program in Arabic would be just right for me, because, while everything I'm studying is interconnected, my brain feels fragmented jumping from one subject to the next and having to do all this work. Having to force myself to think in Arabic on top of it all is just... yeah. And of course, my thinking in Arabic is fragmented since I don't have a fluency. (I'm going to sit on my kursi and open my kitab because I am a taliba... not exactly thinking in Arabic, is it?) |
|
|
| My First Exegesis Paper! A Rite of Passage for Any Seminarian!!! |
[Mar. 7th, 2006|12:03 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  accomplished and happy! | ] |
Here is my first exegesis paper ever! Yay! Excitement! The assignment was:
-------------------------------------------------------
A 5-page analysis of a miracle story, parable, or narrative incident in the life of Jesus that appears in more than one of the synoptic gospels and/or John. Study the passages in a Synoptic Parallel and/or in John, note chances and differences from one Gospel to the other, read what the textbooks and/or other commentators say about the pericope, and briefly describe the details of the story, determine its purpose and function in the overall narrative, and discuss its theological message or ministerial impact.
(The verses can be found here: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm and here: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke14.htm)
-------------------------------------------------------
The question of what it takes to inherit the kingdom of heaven – who will be invited and who will be denied access – is a prominent theme of the gospels. In both Matthew and Luke, Jesus addresses this issue using several parables, and while many of them appear quite similar in structure and content from one gospel to the other, a close reading of these parallel parables reveals differences in tone and overall message. These differences reflect the very different backgrounds of the evangelists and their audiences, which in turn direct their various theological interpretations of the life and ministry of Jesus. In this exegesis I will analyze one of these parallel parables as it is told in both Matthew 22:1-14 and Luke 14:15-24, exploring both the content of the pericopies and their positions within their respective narratives. I will show that, though the content of each version of the parable is familiar, the instruction of the parable can be seen quite differently from one gospel to the next. For Matthew and his audience, entering the kingdom of heaven depends on upholding, rather than breaking, God’s original covenant with Israel. Luke, by contrasts, insists on a severing of ties with tradition in order to enter the kingdom. Both messages may seem contradictory, but they fulfill the same ultimate purpose in showing two very different communities the requirements involved for entering the kingdom of heaven.
The basic plot of both versions of the parable is the same. In each gospel, Jesus likens the kingdom of heaven to a great feast given by a prominent, wealthy individual. When everything has been prepared, the master sends his slave (or, in Matthew, many slaves) to bring those who had been invited to come to the dinner and celebrate. The invited guests refuse their invitations, provoking the master to great anger. So the master sends his slave (or slaves) into the streets again to invite others. Those who had originally been thought worthy to attend his dinner refuse to come to his house, so the master withdraws his invitation from them, while those originally deemed unworthy to share his company end up filling his house and enjoying his banquet. In both parables, Jesus is speaking not only his disciples but also to the Pharisees, those in charge of upholding the law of the Torah, and his message can be read as one of warning. Those who finally come to rest in the kingdom of heaven will not necessarily be those who were first invited. God will make surprising choices as to who is in and who is out of the kingdom, and the ultimate price of refusing his invitation is permanent denial from his kingdom. However, exactly who these originally invited guests are, their motives for refusing their invitations, their interactions with the master’s slave-messenger(s), and who the newly-invited guests are vary considerably between Matthew and Luke. Likewise, Matthew’s surrounding context for this parable is very different from Luke’s, changing the tone of the parable considerably. Though Jesus probably told this particular parable only once, it has a wide range of theological, ethical and political implications based on its various renderings by Matthew and Luke to communities of very different people with particular needs.
Matthew's parable falls near the end of the narrative between two extremely bold, controversial, and incendiary actions of Jesus: the driving out of money changers from the temple and the pronouncement of the woes on the Pharisees. In this context, the words of the parable, spoken to the Pharisees, are clearly addressed to enemies. This explains, to a degree, the razor-sharp tone of the language. But why are the Pharisees Jesus' enemies? Again, a close reading of the parable itself will help reveal the answer. In the parable, the feast that the invited guests refuse is no ordinary dinner; it is the wedding banquet of a king. Not only was this to be an occasion of tremendous joy and splendor, the likes of which could not be equaled, but the term "wedding" implies a relationship and a binding covenant. The implication is clear: those who originally shared God's promise, indeed, those who were given the responsibility to uphold God's covenant with Israel, have turned their backs on their task. That the Pharisees had broken their covenant with God and made light of the Torah that they were charged to uphold has already been established in many passages of the gospel. Jesus has claimed that he had come to uphold the law and has told those who would be his followers that their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees or they will never enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:20). Had the Pharisees truly upheld the law that they instead exploited, they would have recognized Jesus as its fulfillment, sent by God. The parable alludes to the hostile way in which Jesus and the prophets who had gone before him were actually received by the Pharisees when it describes how the invited guests "seized," "mistreated," and "killed" the king's slaves (22:6). Therefore, those who should have best understood God's commandment forfeit their opportunity to enter into his kingdom, and the opportunity is instead opened to all the rest, and the wedding hall was filled with "both good and bad" (22:10). Matthew emphasizes the moral character of the newly-invited guests but does not define it; righteous and unrighteous alike, saints and sinners, are invited into the kingdom of heaven, for even those who never knew the law are favored over those who knew it and hypocritically exploited it. However, the parable does not end here. Though the invitation to the feast is extended to all, accepting the invitation means doing so on the king's terms. Thus a man who enters the feast but does not don a wedding robe (which the king provides) is cast "into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (22:13). Thus, though sinners will be invited along with the righteous into the kingdom of heaven, truly accepting the invitation still means conforming to the will of God.
Matthew was a Jew writing for those Jews who had separated from mainline Judaism (whether or not they called themselves "Christians" at this point is unclear) by accepting Jesus as the fulfillment of the scriptures. Carl Holladay, in A Critical Introduction to the New Testament summarizes Matthew's task as "help[ing] the Christian community define itself over and against the synagogue" (137). This negative definition of establishing an identity in contrast and opposition to a previous one explains the highly polemical tone of his gospel and particularly the parable in question. Matthew addresses an audience of converts still new to the Jesus movement, and he has a duty to uphold Jesus' message in light of Jesus' Jewish identity and his relationship to the Torah, and interpret it for those who knew themselves to be breaking away from their tradition. Even while Matthew's gospel and this parable in particular is highly polemical, establishing an "us-verses-them" mentality toward the Pharisees, it should also be seen as keeping in continuity with the scripture. The message of this parable is that one must break with the Pharisaic interpretation of the law and accept the invitation of God's "slaves" (the prophets and Christ) in order truly to keep the covenant of God.
Luke's parable appears far gentler than Matthew's upon first glance. The polemic tone is replaced by more rational language, and the metaphors are not as extreme. While Jesus is still speaking to Pharisees (and presumably his disciples as well), the gospel has not yet established them as enemies seeking to trap or kill Jesus, as has Matthew's by the time this parable is presented. Rather, Jesus has been invited to a sabbath meal at the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees, and so his parable can be seen as a word to the wise addressed to acquaintances. The guests are invited to a "great dinner" rather than a "wedding banquet" and thus the covenant implications of Matthew's gospel are not implied in Luke. The most striking difference between the two gospels, however, is found in the behavior of the invited guests. Whereas Matthew's guests are portrayed as evil and ungodly, Luke's guests are simply busy. They give the master's slave reasonable excuses and even send their regrets. When the master becomes angry at their ingratitude and withdraws his invitation, the new guests who are invited are defined not by their moral character but by their status as social outcasts -- "the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame" (Luke 22:21).
Luke's parable must be understood in light of his Gentile background and Gentile audience. Luke was writing to bring outsiders from the fold of Judaism into a movement that was begun by a Jew primarily among other Jews. Whereas in Matthew’s parable, many slaves are sent to bring the invited to the feast, in Luke, only one slave is sent, who can readily be identified as Jesus, who opens the gates of the kingdom of God to Gentiles and Jews alike. Although Luke is careful to show the continuity between Jesus and the prophets who came before him, his own community of Gentiles does not have the same history with these prophets, and therefore his audience would not relate to the story of many slaves, or prophets, being rejected and killed, nor would they have a personal stake in the covenant that is being “made light of” in Matthew’s parable. Luke instead addresses communities who are new to God’s promises, and the newly invited guests of his parable are the not only the most destitute of society, but they are also those who have been marginalized due to the low status of their wealth or physical condition. Like these social outcasts making their societal debut in unexpected splendor, Luke’s community is quite new, not, as in the parable, to grand society and material satisfaction, but to the sharing in the responsibility that comes with being adopted into the family of God.
Two lessons can be learned from Luke’s parable and an understanding of his audience. First, Jesus is not looking for half-hearted discipleship but full commitment. The invited guests who turn down their invitations are not the ungodly traitors of Matthew’s parable, but their fate is the same: “None of those who were invited will taste my dinner” (14:24). Luke intends to make sure his community knows what is at stake to become a follower of Christ; they must leave behind their ways of life, and even the presumed necessities that take time away from God are to be discarded. This message is made clear in the following verses, 25 – 33, when Jesus claims, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (14:26). To follow Jesus is a sacrifice for all who choose, Jew and Gentile alike, but for the Gentile community in particular it meant a parting of ways with their old traditions and with the family and friends who cling to those traditions. Those who place higher priorities on their possessions, the worldly pleasures or burdens to which they cling, will be those kept out of the kingdom. Secondly, in identifying who will be let into the kingdom, Luke effectively communicates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Torah to his Jewish community. By showing that those who would be given access to the kingdom are the poor, the sick, and the oppressed, Luke shows the members of the community how they are to treat “the least of these” and interprets the ministry of Jesus as modeling a life of selflessness and generosity, without the attachment to possessions that leads to greed, self-absorption, and ultimately dissatisfaction. Therefore, Luke not only instructs his community negatively, that is, by showing what they must forfeit and sacrifice in order to become a follower of Christ, but he subtly provides positive instruction for a life of giving, caring, and healing.
In both Matthew and Luke’s presentation of this parable, the demands on those who enter the kingdom of heaven are high. Yet for Matthew, speaking to a community of Jews who had separated (or were separating) from the Judaic tradition as it was taught to them by the scribes and Pharisees, an emphasis is placed on upholding the original covenant of God and not only that, but going a step further to understanding the true meaning of scripture as it was fulfilled in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Luke, whose community of Gentiles had no such connection to the scriptures of Israel, emphasizes instead a severing of ties to all the things that keep human beings separated from God. Yet though Matthew’s parable emphasizes a strengthening of ties to the spirit of the Torah while Luke’s emphasizes a severing of ties to tradition and community, the message of the parable to those who would be followers of Christ is clear. The spirit of the law that Matthew implies in his parable is clarified in Luke’s message of faithful living involving selflessness and generosity toward the poor and weak. The renderings of the parable by both Matthew and Luke should be seen as complementing one-another, teaching that the key to discipleship and entering the kingdom is committed faithfulness to God marked by sacrifice and service.
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm happy with it and would like to know what my theologically-inclined lj friends (or any of my friends, for that matter) have to say! |
|
|
| We have a new baby kitten!!! |
[Feb. 20th, 2006|01:19 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  the cuteness! | ] |
Kari (my roommate) brought home a tiny, adorable addition to the family this weekend -- a beautiful new kitten named Duchess. She is SO adorable! She's mostly white except for a gray-striped head, a gray tale, a couple of gray patches on her legs, and a gray spot right on her butt. She's extremely friendly and has spent a good part of today snuggling up with me and trying to eat my elbows and toes. Although I've had cats around my whole life, this is the first time I've had one this little; she's only a month and a half old! We have 2 other cats, and they have mixed feelings toward her. Jasmine, the oldest, is totally put-off. She avoids Duchess and if she must make contact, it's in the form of hissing and whapping. Pepper (who has similar markings, except that she's basically gray all over her back) is much more receptive to her, but still skeptical. It's kind of like: "Hmmm... you look kind of like a cat, but you must be some kind of mutant cause you're so small..." For the most part, though, Pepper is being a good sister, while Jasmine, queen of the universe, is not stooping to become friends with this impostor.
Duchess was watching the ice dancing with us last night, and Kari and I have a feeling that she jinxed most of the athletes into falling. She's also probably the reason the Russians basically got away with walking like chickens out there and winning the Original Dance. Kari's and my theory is that Duchess was sitting there thinking, "Hmm. That was interesting. That looked like something I could eat. You win."
I guess that probably made no sense to anyone, but whatever. I'm allowed to be silly around adorable baby cats. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 13th, 2006|06:26 pm] |
Sarah posted a Johari Window in her journal, and now I'm curious too. To those of you who only know me through lj, I know I don't really post enough to give a clear impression of who I am; that's something I'll try to change in the future. But if you want to share your impressions, I'd be quite curious to see what you all might think of me. Those of you who know me in person, I'm eager to hear from you all as well. :)
If you feel so inclined, go here:
Johari Window
Thanks! |
|
|
| Go Steelers! |
[Feb. 5th, 2006|08:34 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  energized | ] |
Okay, so I need to post a real update about my life soon, cause things have been happening. But for now, I'll just say...
GO STEELERS!!!!!!!!!
I'm not a football fan, but I'm cheering the Steelers on cause I love Pittsburgh (thanks to Sarah, of course). I'm all decked out in my "Pittsburghese" T-shirt, black pants and golden-yellow socks. I wish I could make an icon out of the picture Sarah just took.
Anyway, the Steelers just made an amazing touchdown, rushing more yards than ever before in Superbowl history (not that I would really know that, but the refs just said so).
GO PITTSBURGH!!!!
(The pastor at my church was really cute today. He was talking about how we shouldn't invoke the name of God in trivial matters, like in praying for our favorite sports teams, but he fake-coughed "Pittsburgh Steelers" most unsubtly. It drew an "Amen" from someone in the congregation.)
(As a side note, I truly thank God that I am just auditing Arabic, cause there's no way I'm going to be ready for the quiz tomorrow after tonight...)
EDIT: They definitely just won their 5th Superbowl! With at least 2 legitimate touchdowns! Yay! |
|
|
| Apparently, Yes, I am a Heretic... |
[Jan. 10th, 2006|05:33 pm] |
But I don't really think it's fair to have lj people who know more theology than I do tell me that this is wrong before I get the chance to figure it out for myself...
| You scored as Monophysitism. You are a monophysite. You do not hold to the idea of a hypostatic union of the divine and human in the person of Christ and instead hold that Christ had only one nature, which is a fusion of the divine and human. Condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681.
Pelagianism | | 83% | Monophysitism | | 83% | Chalcedon compliant | | 75% | Modalism | | 58% | Nestorianism | | 50% | Apollanarian | | 33% | Adoptionist | | 33% | Monarchianism | | 25% | Gnosticism | | 17% | Socinianism | | 8% | Albigensianism | | 0% | Arianism | | 0% | Docetism | | 0% | Donatism | | 0% | </td>
Are you a heretic?
created with QuizFarm.com |
|
|
|
| Book of Daniel... |
[Jan. 7th, 2006|03:30 am] |
|
This God-forsaken show actually makes me long for 7th Heaven. Dear God... |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 5th, 2006|02:56 am] |
Here's my final book review for my dialogue class. I hope no one notices any big-time errors, cause it's been sent already. I don't care; the class isn't even graded. Sigh. It took me way too long to write this.
Confronting the Scriptural Barriers to Dialogue: A Review of Martin Forward’s
Inter-Religious Dialogue: A Short Introduction
If God speaks to us and, it would seem, from their testimony, to others too, we must seek to understand what Ultimate Reality has to disclose through others who also claim to hear his voice. … In our continuing dialogue, we can hope to grow further into the Truth that offers healing or salvation to our wounded world, which, for all its troubles, most humans in most times and places have believed to be brooded over by an eternal Spirit of transforming grace. (151)
This is the conclusion to which Martin Forward comes in his Inter-religious Dialogue: A Short Introduction. In this exploration of human encounters with what he calls “Transcendent reality,” Forward opens windows into the history of interfaith dialogue and presents a compelling case for the need for members of different traditions to learn from each other in order to heal the wounds of religious discord and allow grace to permeate our lives via unexpected sources. He contends that inter-religious dialogue is not a new phenomenon and invites his readers to see sages, prophets, and political leaders of the past as dialogicians, yet he argues that an inter-religious theology of religions is needed in contemporary society more than ever before. As globalization brings people of all creeds together in schools, workplaces, and even homes, religious isolation and exclusivism is not only impractical but also contrary to what Transcendent reality may be trying to teach us. Forward summarizes the history of interfaith dialogue clearly and makes a case for its necessity effectively. Lacking in his analysis, however, are practical measures for people of faith to re-evaluate their scriptures and theologies in order to become more inclusive and open to recognizing the power of Transcendence at work through beliefs not only different from but even contradictory to their own. While Forward is able to point to what is good and ultimately true in many religions and is able to argue that we must grow deeper in our understanding of truth by working with, rather than separating ourselves from, others, he fails to toil in-depth with the scriptures, theologies, or beliefs that have been interpreted by some to limit the parameters of Transcendent grace to a particular faith. People of faith who take their scriptures seriously may wish to see the power of Transcendent grace at work in all people, yet may be unable to interpret the more difficult passages of their scriptures (John 14:6 for Christians, for example, or Sura 25: 1-5 for Muslims) in ways that validate other religions. In my evaluation of Martin Forward’s work, I will demonstrate the need for Forward to combine his noble intentions for vibrant and respectful interfaith dialogue with practical methods of interpreting scripture in ways that make such dialogue not only necessary but plausible without sacrificing the integrity of the divergent faiths involved.
In his opening chapter, Forward refutes an implicit interpretation of inter-religious dialogue as being merely a conversation between members of two different faiths which may or may not be respectful or productive. Whereas di-logue could mean two people talking to each-other, “dia-logue signifies worldviews being argued through to significant and potentially transformative conclusions, for one or more participants. It involves a much more consequential encounter.” (12). Therefore, effective interfaith dialogue occurs when people attempt to wrestle with different faith perspectives in addition to their own in order to reach deeper insights into the nature of Transcendence. It implies that dialogue is not merely a conversation for the purpose of communicating one’s own faith to others, nor is it simply a method designed for understanding what others believe; rather, dialogue is a journey in which all participants seek truth through both talking and listening, based on the premise that our faith in Transcendence can be deepened through our interaction with its creation. Participants in dialogue are risk-takers who open themselves to the possibility of re-interpreting their beliefs in light of new understandings from others. However, Forward recognizes the importance of coming into dialogue with a firm grounding in one’s own tradition and an acknowledgement of one’s own faith perspective. Since dialogue is working through, rather than around one’s faith, participants in dialogue should take their own faith seriously and regard their beliefs as a catalyst for starting new conversations rather than as an inhibition to dialogue or a fortress to isolate them from others. Forward mentions “rootedness” as an indispensable element for authentic religious dialogue (74) and warns his readers against pluralists who, in their attempts to be ecumenical and inclusive, are blind to their own biases and perspectives. If we cannot consciously acknowledge our roots, we may be more likely to take certain beliefs or ideologies for granted, thereby reinforcing barriers to interfaith understanding rather than penetrating them. However, the need to be grounded in one’s own faith in order to open one’s self to new perspectives is a difficult, messy paradox. Traditional Christians, for example, believe in God’s self-revelation in the form of Emmanuel; when members of other faiths reject Jesus as God’s form of self-revelation, they also reject what Christians believe to be God. Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the verbatim word of God, unchanged throughout eternity, and so every word in it must be true, including every word that refutes the claims of other traditions (such as the crucifixion of Christ or divine incarnation, interpreted in different ways by both Christians and Hindus). When one looks at the specific issues with which one must deal in interfaith dialogue, the noble goals of deeper understanding of the Divine and of each other become confounded by difficult obstacles which Forward either disregards or deals with inadequately.
Before looking specifically at the issues which complicate interfaith dialogue and which, I believe, Forward glosses over, let us look at why interfaith dialogue is desirable in the first place and who is likely to come to the table of dialogue. As previously mentioned, interfaith dialogue is based on the premise that we can learn from one-another and gain deeper insight into Transcendence through each others’ witnesses. Wesley Ariarajah, in Not Without My Neighbor, claimed that what is ultimately at issue is the self-sufficiency of religions. If a believer adheres firmly to the conviction that his religion is based on a once-and-for-all revelation of God, he might not be inclined to seek truth anywhere other than in the history and scriptures of his own faith. If, however, he believes that Transcendence is porous to this world through many sources, including but not limited to his own belief, he may be inclined to dialogue with others. In order to believe that dialogue is desirable in the first place, one must believe that Transcendence permeates people of all creeds and that, as Forward says, “We come to our deepest knowledge of Transcendent reality through our relationships with others…” (76). I can agree with Forward on this conclusion, but I am also glad that he acknowledges that others will disagree, believing that the revelation of their own faith is so complete that it need not be supplemented or enhanced by other perspectives (74). I will argue that dialogicians can still converse with people who narrow the parameters of Transcendent reality to their own perspectives and even be inspired by their sense of religious loyalty. If dialogicians are willing to open themselves to a variety of perspectives in order to gain a deeper understanding of truth, some of these perspectives will come from those who do not see themselves first and foremost as dialogicians, but as members of one particular faith which they may interpret to be the sole revelation of the Divine. As Forward says in his discussion of a global ethic, “We need not only an ethic of agreement but also an ethic for coping for disagreement, where religions have wronged others. … Any ethic we pursue has to recognize the need for justice and integrity of creation, and avoid any spurious harmonization that papers over profound inequities.” (62) I would also apply such an ethic for coping with disagreement to interaction with those who are not willing or not ready to engage in dialogue for fear of compromising their own traditions. Even as dialogicians acknowledge the need to listen to each other for the good of humanity, as Forward puts it (74), they must also acknowledge that they will probably be ready to listen to others before others are able to listen to them. They must be cautioned to enter into conversation with those skeptical toward dialogue respectfully.
Now let us look at some specific reasons why people of all faiths might be skeptical towards dialogue. Martin Forward writes from a Christian perspective: that of a Methodist exposed to religious plurality at an early age. From his inclusivist Christian perspective, however, he is able to criticize traditional Christian viewpoints because he understands them better than he understands the traditional viewpoints of other religions. Yet his criticisms of traditional Christianity do not attempt to re-interpret either scripture or theology, which are imbedded in the faith of traditional Christians. He seems to agree with John Hick in his argument, for example, that “we need a paradigm shift to place Transcendent reality, however named, whether personal or non-personal, at the centre. Christian faith, or even Jesus himself, is not at the centre of things. According to Hick, like other, equally true religions, Christianity is contingent upon God, is blessed by him and witnesses to him” (40). How does Forward deal with the fact that Christians see Christ as the center of the universe because Christians see Christ as God Himself? How does he attempt to deal with the fact that if Christians do put “Transcendent reality” at the center of things, many will not be content to leave this reality unnamed and impersonal, since they believe that it was indeed the personal revelation of God in the form of Man that united the human with the Divine, and it is within that revelation that Christians discover how to live in God and for God? If interfaith relations must start with finding the most inclusive way possible to define God, calling God the “Transcendent Reality,” for example, many will find that their faith is compromised to begin with not because they are opposed to being inclusive but because such a definition of God is too vague and fuzzy to them to be substantial. Forward suggests that an approach to interfaith theology might by asking, “What sort of Transcendence is Transcendence; what does it require of us to infer about it?” (69). The question itself may be easy enough for members of many different faiths to ask, but the answers to that question will most likely differ, not narrowing but rather focusing “Transcendence” in a particular way that may be contentious among other religions. To answer the question, it is not enough simply to observe or even rejoice in the “sheer variety of human responses to the Transcendent” (69); people of faith must dig into their scriptures and interpret them in order to understand the responses to Transcendence that they see in others. Reinterpreting scripture may be necessary in order to see Transcendence at work in others, but such reinterpretation is far better than ignoring the scriptures. Forward barely addresses scripture at all in his discussion of creating an inter-religious dialogue of religions, and his failure to acknowledge how scripture itself can play a role in interfaith dialogue probably discourages many from entering into the process.
In his chapter entitled “To Mend the World,” in which he focuses on Christian-Jewish relations, Forward he brings to light several arguments which criticize or even condemn parts of the New Testament as being anti-Semitic, quoting Eliezer Berkowits, who claimed that in the summer 1978 edition of Judaism that “Christianity’s New Testament has been the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in history… Without Christianity’s New Testament, Hitler’s Mien Kampf could never have been written” and Rosemary Ruether’s Faith and Fratricide in which she characterizes anti-Judaism as the “left-hand of Christology” (103 – 104). To his credit, Forward himself does not believe that Christology can or should be dismissed, claiming that “It is possible, indeed essential, for Christians to frame a Christology that differs from Jewish beliefs but does not encourage Christians to hate Jews” and he recognizes that the integrity of Christian identity is too heavy a price to pay, even for improved relations with Jews (109). Yet he fails to balance such heavy criticism of the New Testament, which is, after all, the witness of the story of Jesus Christ, the heart of the Christian faith, with scriptural context that shows alternative interpretations of the gospels and the epistles. It is, indeed, possible to interpret the New Testament in ways that are favorable to the Jews and ways to interpret Jesus as fulfilling, rather than negating, Mosaic Law. Pointing out more favorable interpretations does not deny Christianity’s tragic history of anti-Semitism and can go farther toward healing Christian-Jewish relationships than can denying or ignoring parts of the New Testament because it is more honest.
Furthermore, while Forward is correct in his assertion that it is wrong to sacrifice the foundation of a faith in order to improve its relationship with other faiths, in one respect his approach to Islam effectively does just that. He draws a parallel between finding new ways of interpreting the New Testament to finding new ways of interpreting the Qur’an. “Although, at present, it is hard to see that the willingness of some Christians to evaluate the Bible as a human document would appeal to many Muslims,” he claims, “some have already begun such a process” (107). The fact may be that some Muslims have begun to deny that the Qur’an is the literal word of God, just as some Christians deny the literalness of the crucifixion or the virgin birth. However, the latter are still beliefs central to traditional Christian faith, and the former is still the foundation of Islam. The revelation of the Qur’an to Muhammad is the origin of Islam as an organized religion, and to interpret it as a human document undermines Islamic revelation as it has been understood for generations. The claim that the Qur’an is final, infallible, and eternal is as central to Islam as the Trinity to Christianity, and the preservation of the Qur’an is the mystery and miracle that defines Islam. Members of other faiths may not believe in this scripture, but it is impossible to come to an understanding of Islam without recognizing the faith that most Muslims have in the Qur’an as the uncreated, eternal word of God. While religions have changed over time, if dialogue is limited to those who reassess central beliefs, only those on the fringes of their faith will participate. What then of the importance of rootedness in a particular tradition? Must we not recognize that there are ways for members of different religions to come to the table of dialogue with the courage and integrity to speak not only of the similarities but also of the differences between their faiths and to come to understandings in light of the dialogue which enhance their own faith and their respect for one-another without glossing over or ignoring their differences?
I believe that such dialogue is possible and credible only when it seriously considers the scriptures and theologies of the different religions of the world. In particular, those who chose to enter into interfaith dialogue cannot afford to ignore the passages in their scriptures or the theological interpretations which have been traditionally interpreted in exclusive ways. Dialogicians can be pioneers in interfaith relations and open the doorway to interfaith understanding for others within their faith if they take seriously not only the passages that open them to learning from others but also those that focus “Transcendent reality” in ways which others might not recognize. After all, while our similarities might allow us to see transcendent grace at work in one-another, it is through our differences that we truly learn something new about Transcendence. In his final chapter, Forward does mention the necessity of examining scripture and key religious figures across traditions in order to come to new understandings of issues with moral and religious implications that affect us all in contemporary society, such as sexuality, gender equity among men and women, and environmental concerns (144 – 145). It is probably easier to look at passages of scripture that deal with moral human behavior than it is to wrestle with different scriptural understandings of the nature of Transcendence, the ultimate purpose of human life, or the afterlife, yet scripture must be dealt with at all levels of dialogue. Even if particular verses of scripture or traditional creeds are argued over or refuted, they should not be ignored. Taking the scriptures seriously does not mean following them blindly, nor does it mean that someone going into the dialogue with a firm understanding of scripture is necessarily not vulnerable to new interpretation or even changing her mind. Rather, one’s faith can only be deepened and enhanced or even transformed if one has a clear grasp of that faith in light of its scripture and tradition, and that often means intra-faith as well as inter-faith struggle.
I will conclude with an example. In my introduction, I noted a couple of passages from Christian and Islamic scripture that have been interpreted in exclusivist ways, and yet are fundamental to Christian and Muslim self-understanding. From the Bible, I mentioned John 14:6, in which Jesus says to his disciples, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me.” I have struggled with this passage in my experience as both a Christian and a Muslim; it is often used by Christians to justify an exclusive interpretation of salvation. Yet Muslims consider themselves followers of Jesus as well. Might not Christians and Muslims discuss this often divisive verse in light of the fact that Muslims consider following the actions of Jesus, as a role-model and prophet, the straight path to heaven? Such an interpretation may lead to a debate between faith verses works and what it means to be a follower of Jesus, and Christians and Muslims may learn much about the nature of God as well as their soteriologies from a lively discussion or even debate of this passage. I also cited Sura 25: 1-5:
Blessed be He
Who has sent down the Salvation upon
His servant, that he may be a warner to all beings;
To whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens
And the earth; and He has not taken to him a son;
And he has no associate in the Kingdom; and He created it very exactly.
Yet they have taken to them gods, apart from Him, that create nothing and themselves are created,
And have no power to hurt or profit
Themselves, no power of death of life or raising up…
which seems like a direct refutation of Christianity. Yet this passage could be an opportunity for Muslims to show Christians what the absolute sovereignty of God means to them, as well as provide Christians with the opportunities to discuss the language of the Trinity and the importance of the crucifixion. Through discussing such passages with members of other faiths, dialogicians are forced to wrestle with their interpretations and may indeed come to new insights about Transcendence. My own Trinitarian belief is enhanced by my understanding of the perfect unity of God expressed in the Islamic concept of Tawheed.
Martin Forward’s introduction to inter-religious dialogue stresses the importance and necessity of dialogue but falls short of wrestling with the passages of scripture that make interfaith dialogue such a difficult but necessary challenge. The modernization of the world alone is not enough to show that interfaith dialogue is necessary, nor is even our recognition of “Transcendent reality,” in others. For people of faith to believe that dialogue is a worthwhile endeavor, they must acknowledge that they have something to learn from others. This means recognizing that our sacred texts teach us different things about Transcendence, and that when we enter into dialogue we should have an understanding of our own faith, from its traditions and scriptures, as well as a willingness to enhance our faith through the knowledge we gain of others. If we go into dialogue ignoring the scriptures and theologies of our own faiths, not only do we have little to contribute to our partners in dialogue, but we also disrupt the foundation upon which dialogue with others can build. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Dec. 9th, 2005|02:29 pm] |
I have so much work to do and so much journaling to catch up on, but instead of writing about my life, I thought I'd post the lyrics of this upcoming Sunday's anthem, because they made me very happy.
When God's Time Had Ripened...
When God's time had ripened
Mary's womb bore fruit,
scion of the Godhead,sprung from Jesse's root:
so the True Vine branches
from the lily's stem
the Rose without blemish blooms in Bethlehem.
More than mind can fathom,
limit or untwine,
this mysterious yoking, human and divine,
but what reason fetters,
faith at length unlocks
and wise hearts discover truth in paradox.
As the Bread of heaven
that we might be fed
chose a manger cradel in the House of Bread
so has Life Eternal
mingled in the womb
with our mortal nature to confound the tomb.
For this swaddled infant
in a humble place
holds our hope of glory and our means of grace
in the Love enfleshed here
dawns the world's rebirth
promise of salvation, pledge of peace on earth.
I just think it's one of the sweetest advent songs I've ever heard. |
|
|
| Hartford Seminary |
[Sep. 29th, 2005|06:36 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | happy | ] |
I never actually posted about my first night of seminary at Hartford Sem, and now it's two and a half weeks later and I don't know what to say, exactly. Convocation was beautiful; interfaith prayers were read, hymns were sung in a variety of languages, pretty much what you'd expect from an interfaith seminary. I would guess there were about 40 or so new students there, along with some other students and most of the faculty. The small chapel felt pretty crowded. When the dean, Ian Markham (also one of my professors) asked us to raise our hands by denomination, I was one of about 5 Presbys, and there were all kinds of Christians from Congregationalists to Catholics to Evangelicals, some Unitarians, I think one agnostic, 3 or 4 Jew, and about 7 or 8 Muslims. Unfortunately, no one was a Hindu or Buddhist, though Dr. Jane Smith, when she introduced herself as the professor of Intro to World Religions (and also the co-director of the MacDonald Center, home of the Islamic Studies program) told us to consider the possibility that we might have been a Hindu in a former life. :) Above all, I got a feeling, sitting there, that we were all drawn to the seminary for various reasons, but that this seminary is definitely unique in its interfaith focus, the only place of its kind in the country, and that whatever we wanted to do afterward (teaching, preaching, research, etc.), the world needed people like us, trained in interfaith dialogue and theology, to listen with open minds and hearts and to use what we learn to create peace. It seemed exactly like the kind of place I had always wanted to find, and I felt so blessed to be there.
After convocation, most of the new students met for the "Dialogue in a World of Difference" course, which consisted mainly of "sharing our stories." We had small group discussions, in which we divided into threes and explained something of our religious background (as well as whatever else we wanted to share). It was the first time I had ever really explained to a Muslim that I had converted to Islam and then later reaffirmed Christianity, and I was nervous about doing so at first, because a part of me still feels like I've betrayed Islam by leaving it behind, particularly since once upon a time I made a concious decision to become one for what I thought would be forever. In the two and a half weeks that I've been here, though, the Muslims to whom I've told my story have been absolutley wonderful. I've met several that I would love to become better friends with, but we rarely have time to meet outside of the seminary. Anyway...
This isn't nearly all of what I wanted to say, but now that I've said at least this much, I am going to start posting the questions and responses I've written for my Islamic History class, because I'm eager to hear what some of you all have to say about the work I'm doing in there. Feedback from all is appreciated.
I have to go to a lecture now on the shared religious experiences of Christian and Muslim women. :) I'm going to really try to keep up with this journal more, as I have so much to say these days (but, of course, no time at all to say it.) |
|
|
| Wow. |
[Sep. 23rd, 2005|10:06 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | amused | ] |
I will soon, inshallah, update with several real posts. I have a lot of entries "on hold" (saved privately, to be posted later publically) because I want to take some time to write about my first night of seminary before I post what I wrote for my Islamic History class. I've been swamped with work and haven't had much time to update or comment, though I've been reading my f'list regularly. But anyway. In lieu of an actual update on my life and my seminary, here's something, well, else. It's in a category all it's own:
( Bestseller in Mideast: Barbie With a Prayer Mat ) |
|
|
| Bishop Spong Taught at Hartford Sem Last Summer! |
[Sep. 19th, 2005|08:16 am] |
The Future of Christianity: The Need for Radical Reformation
Under the guidance of Bishop John Shelby Spong, students will be challenged to “think the unthinkable.” We live in a world vastly different from the one that gave birth to our creeds: Christianity will not survive if we simply repeat the slogans of the past. Christianity needs to come to terms with the challenge of science, the discoveries of feminism, and the critical reading of the Bible. This is a course for all those who are outside, on the edge, tempted to leave or struggling to change from within the Church of the 21st Century. At the end of the course students will be invited to think imaginatively about faith and their role in the future of Christianity.
I guess it shouldn't be too shocking, given that my seminary is the most ecumenical and interfaith in the United States, but... I am surprised.
There are more traditional voices at Hartford Sem, too, but...
Not sure what to think about this. |
|
|
| Today, I Become a Seminarian. |
[Sep. 12th, 2005|09:45 am] |
| [ | mood |
| |  contemplative | ] |
I am excited. :) Right now, I'm trying to think of something substantial to say, but very little is coming to mind. I feel like I should be reading or studying the Arabic alphabet. I want to say something profound, but only the mundane details of my schedule are coming to mind right now. Inshallah I'll have much more to say after convocation, orientation, and my first class tonight.
My Class Schedule for Fall 2005:
Introduction to Arabic I: Monday and Thursday, 4:20 - 5:30
Dialogue in a World of Difference: Monday: 5:30 - 8:30
Islamic History I: Online
Yeah, it probably looks like a light load, but... Arabic. I'm pretty terrified of it, actually. And Dialogue and Islamic History are definitely heavy reading courses. Plus, substituting is in full swing. I have a half day today starting at noon and another half day tomorrow and another one Friday, and days that I'm working already peppered through my September schedule, with more work days coming. My free time is definitely coming to an end.
Since I am doing my coursework for Islamic History I online anyway, I have decided to post my class entries in my journal in case any of you have some feedback for me to consider as I ponder issues and ideas. I've decided to make an Islamic History filter for those interested in hearing about my class and possibly contributing your thoughts and ideas as they occur to you and as you wish. Some of you I know are not particularly interested in theology; others list Islam specifically on your interests page. And with some of you, whether or not you'd like to be part of this filter isn't so obvious. So, if you don't want to be part of the filter, let me know with a little comment.
And pray for me, because, today, I become a seminarian. (Wow.) |
|
|
| A Hero Participates Decently in Society! |
[Sep. 10th, 2005|10:57 pm] |
Joseph Campbell is full of crap. ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) sk8eeyore and I watched "The Power of Myth" (disc 1 only so far) tonight and decided that this "life-changing" and "enlightening" documentary definitely falls short of its profound reputation, but it's quite fun to make fun of, so it was still a decent evening. This will not be a comprehensive review of the documentary, but...
1) According to Campbell, all religions are true, if interpreted as "metaphor." Then he goes on to say things like,
2) "Religious people" in society "despise life" and believe that "our every impulse is evil until we're baptized or circumcised." (Yeah. Right.)
3) Unlike Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism have no duality of good vs. evil. Nature, in all its form, reflects the Creator and therefore is united with the Creator and is itself divine. Thus...
4) All that is within the world is to be embraced and experienced. "Then how do we say no to the evil and filth and brutality in the world?" "We have to say yes to it!" Therefore...
5) Heroes don't try to change society. They "participate decently" in society. They "don't judge" just like Jesus told us!
6) Logically, then, the teaching of Jesus boils down to "experience life fully" and "participate decently in society."
*coughbullshitcough*
7) The purpose of ritual is to turn our consciousness outward to something greater so that when we return to our normal consciousness we may discover that that greatness is truly in ourselves. When we look beyond ourselves we find the divine and can recognize it within us.
8) Priests are simply the tools of society. They are ordained to help society worship the deities that were already there. SHAMANS, on the other hand, um... something about having a deeper consciousness because they're schizophrenic... these are the people who really interpret the divine to the people... blah blah blah...
9) Folklore doesn't really come from folk. It comes from the elite.
10) Rituals of today have lost their meaning because they're happy parties instead of painful circumcisions. Even the Roman Catholic Church has lost the power of its ritual because it has given up trying to hold its services in the original language of Jesus: Latin.
11) We are all the centers of the universe, which has no circumference. Therefore we are all the centers of... what, exactly?
12) Mythology is the vocabulary used to explain that which transcends words altogether. Therefore, it is an effective weapon against and cure for theology which is... a vocabulary used to explain that which transcends words altogether. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
