Can Christians Acknowledge the Qur’an to be the Word of God?

The title of this post is also the title of an upcoming seminar at the University of Durham (UK) presented by  Professor David Burrell, current of Notre Dame.

I don’t know anything in the world about Professor Burrell, so I have no idea what his answer will be, so this will not be a criticism of the professor’s position in anyway. Instead, I thought I’d just post the following comment:

Since this is the topic for a seminar, I’m sure that  there will a long lecture/discussion, however I am also sure that there doesn’t need to be. In fact, my decidedly unscholarly answer to the question is as follows:

No.

Christians can not acknowledge the Qu’ran to be the Word of God because the Qu’ran denies the divinity of Jesus. Christians, whatever else you may wish to say in order to define us, are people who believe that Jesus is God come to Earth. This is flatly denied by the Qu’ran. To claim to be a Christian and to acknowledge the Qu’ran as the Word of God are contradictory actions and absolutely incompatible.

Consequently, I confess, it seems like an odd question to address in a seminar.

 

 

Shedding Our Shoulds

In a conversation on the meaning of words and their power in written form, a friend of mine recently told me that “we do well to steer clear of continually “should”ing on ourselves and others.” I realize that the connection isn’t immediately clear but it doesn’t have to be to follow this post. I want to reflect upon this idea of “shoulding on ourselves and others.”

My friend sees something unseemly about discussing what people should or should not do. In this case, the question was whether or not one should allow meaning which comes from “beyond the text” to supplant the author’s intended meaning. At least that was my question. However, my friend demurred, attempted to “do well” and encouraged me to do the same. (Or to say it more clearly, he refused to enter into the discussion because he didn’t see that “shoulding comes into play” here.)  But do we really “do well” when we avoid conversing and/or thinking in terms of “shoulds”?

There are some who might  say  that shoulds are wicked and cruel chains which enslave us to expectations to which we can never aspire. Consequently, we can only be free once we shrug our should-ers and their burdensome shoulds. Others may concede that shoulds are always with us while advising that they be trained in the art of silence, lest their incessant chattering  disturb our communion. I understand why some would think this way. I am a witness to the harm done by shoddy shoulding. Yet, I disbelieve that we do well by steering clear of the shoulds, and I do not believe that we do well in attempting to silence the should-ers. Instead, I think we do well when we learn to discern the shoulds from the suggestions.

I haven’t done any research into the matter, but I sense that Jesus didn’t tend to should a great deal. Instead, I suspect that he tended to speak in simple commands. He had the authority to do that. However, he did occasionally should his audience. When the disciples requested  a seminar on prayer, Jesus said “this then is how you should pray” and gave them  a demonstration. After explaining how some folks are so intent upon the Kingdom of God that they avoid marriage, he told the audience “The one who can accept it should accept it.” When he rebuked the hypocrites for neglecting the “weightier matters of the law”, Jesus said to them “You should have practiced the former without neglecting the latter.” Finally, in a lesson on  fear, Jesus told his disciples that he would “show you whom you should fear”.

Admittedly, seizing upon the translations of Jesus’ words which employ the word “should” is not exactly a scholarly method. (It would be interesting to know how the Greek expresses the concept translated as should, but honestly I lack the energy and resources at present.) Yet, I think it’s helpful in thinking about the problem of “shoulding on” others and ourselves. Here we have Jesus, the True Human, the most free human and he did not avoid shoulding his listeners.  Jesus, who came to set the captives free, does not appear to regard all shoulds as manacles upon humanity. Nor did he completely silence the shoulds for fear of their effect on his communion with others. However, he did not merely should his hearers. He shouldered the shoulds himself and instead of shedding the shoulds, he shed his blood.

We do well when we attempt to follow Jesus by discerning the shoulds while shouldering them as well.

“Indwelt” vs. “Spirit-filled”

Is there a qualitative difference between these two concepts regarding the relationship between a Christian and the Holy Spirit?

Having been away for so long, it’s a bit foolish to expect a response in the comments but I cast the question into cyberspace and let it land where it may.

I pose the question because of a lesson  by Dr. William Lane Craig about the Holy Spirit, in which he said more than once that being indwelt by the HS is not the same as being filled with the HS. I’m not sure I agree with him, but I do think it’s an interesting thing to discuss.

Abortion Plan A

This is an open letter to every Christian who is worried about the legal status of abortion under President-elect Barak Obama.

Dear Christians,
For the love of God, for the love of the unborn and for the love of the daughters of America, have compassion on mothers who are either considering an abortion or have aborted their babies. Why?

Hear the word of the Lord:
1 But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. 2 He prayed to the LORD, “O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”
4 But the LORD replied, “Have you any right to be angry?”
5 Jonah went out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the LORD God provided a vine and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine. 7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”
9 But God said to Jonah, “Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?”
“I do,” he said. “I am angry enough to die.”
10 But the LORD said, “You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?” (Jonah 4 NIV)

God is compassionate, even to those so ignorant, so confused, so wicked that they do not know “their right…from their left…” Since you are being transformed into the likeness of Jesus (2 Cor. 3:18) who in his very nature is God (Philippians 2:6), then you too ought to be compassionate.

You can show compassion by countering ignorance with education. Teach women about the nature of the unborn child inside them. Teach them about the physical and psychological effects of abortion on all involved. Show compassion by alleviating confusion through gentle guidance and attractive alternatives to abortion. Resist wickedness by doing good. Provide these mothers with food, clothing and shelter. Offer them accepting communities where they can safely heal. Welcome these women and their children into loving homes. Have compassion on these people just as God had compassion on Nineveh.

In the US, citizens have the right to petition the government and to vote on issues but that’s not the way it is everywhere. If you didn’t have the right to lobby against abortion, what would you do? Give up and leave these women in ignorance, confusion and wickedness? Or would you concede compassion feeling like it was a lesser course of action? For God, the lesser course was judgment. His first action was to send Jonah to warn the people so that He might have compassion on Nineveh.

Christians, you are God’s first option. He sends you compassionately to those who don’t know right from wrong because He cares about them. Please, reprioritize your options in the battle against abortion. Let lobbying and legislation be your Plan B.

Make compassion Plan A.

A Sermon Illustration

Come on! Can’t you just hear it? Maybe if you read the description…

Ability Before and After the Fall

As I understand Calvinist/Reformed doctrine;

1) As are result of Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden (Gen. 3) aka “The Fall”, every aspect of creation is corrupted by sin, particularly the human will.

2) The will is enslaved by sin and as a result it is unable to do anything good, especially have faith in Jesus through the Gospel.

3) Consequently, faith is only possible after the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner.

4) Once regenerated (i.e. born again) the will is no longer enslaved,

5) which is why the regenerate are able to have faith / believe in Jesus.

RC Sproul puts it this way, “before a person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He must be born again…one does not first believe, then become reborn”.

Among the Reformed, there is this idea that not only are the “reborn” enabled to have (saving) faith in Jesus, but they also inevitably will have (saving) faith in Jesus. Again, as I understand it, the faith of the regenerate is inevitable because God is Sovereign and His call is consequently efficacious.

Consider this:

Since the enslavement of the will to sin is one result of The Fall, it is reasonable to think that Adam was created with an un-enslaved will (aka a “free” will), one capable of believing God. However Adam, with his unbound will, chose to disbelieve God, instead believing his wife (also in possession of a yet-to-be-bound will) who had believed Satan’s lie about God. As a result, we see not just one (Adam’s) but two (Adam’s and Eve’s) wills unfettered by sin choosing to disbelieve and disobey. Furthermore, God’s command was not efficacious as evidenced by the fact that both Adam and Eve did not obey. Consequently, it appears that faith is not inevitable even though the will is not enslaved to sin. If this was the case for our first parents, why should we assume that this is not the case for their descendants?

If the Reformed position is correct, and the regenerated will inevitably chooses faith in Jesus, then it would appear that the post-lapsarian, freed will is less free than Adam’s pre-lapsarian, uncorrupted will. After all, Adam was able to exercise his will so as to reject faith in God whereas Adam’s regenerated descendants are apparently unable to reject faith in Jesus. Said another way, there seems to be less freedom (of choice) for those in Christ than there was for Adam prior to The Fall.

Comments are open. Bring your own tar and feathers.

Gloria in Excelsis Deo

Is it appropriate to be proud of someone when they do what they ought to do?

I’m proud of my wife today because she was faithful. She’s been grappling with her weight problem for years, but recently the struggle has intensified. Like a lot of folks, she has used food to comfort her and has turned to it instead of turning to God. For the past six months she has been changing this relationship with food and has lost forty (plus) pounds without dieting, without demonizing fat, carbs or starch. She eats what she wants when she is hungry. She doesn’t eat when she isn’t hungry. She stops when she’s no longer hungry. She prays when tempted to eat for reasons other than hunger. Sadly, for the past week or two she hasn’t lost any weight. She’s plateaued. She’s felt a bit frustrated that folks other than me haven’t noticed the weight loss and she hasn’t seen much progress. You might think that now is not really a good time for her to “testify” to the goodness of God in this process.

While visiting the doctor with our baby girl today for vaccinations, the doctor noticed my wife’s weight-loss and asked how she did it. My wife told this Muslim woman about her problem with emotional eating and explained that she has been turning to God for comfort and not to food. She told her that as a Christian, we believe that God loves us and wants to be the one who comforts us. She also mentioned how she prays and reads Scripture for encouragement in this struggle. Another Muslim woman doctor noticed that my wife has lost weight and so she got to talk to her in the same way.

So here’s my wife, feeling frustrated by a lack of recent progress in changing her relationship with food, feeling discouraged because so few people have seen a difference in her shape and she’s basically being called upon to testify to God’s faithfulness. It would have been really easy for her to answer these two women glibly, “I’m eating less.” But instead, she opened up to them, confessed her weakness and told how God is changing her. This is what Christians are supposed to do.

I love my wife.

The Consensus on Abiogenesis

Thanks to the noteworthy success of the theory of Global Warming to achieve wide-reaching acceptance in the West, the way has been paved for a new school of inquiry that we shall call “Consensual Science”. Through the application of the fundamental ethic of Consensual Science (“If enough people say it’s true, it is true; especially if they have really expensive advanced degrees in subjects that most people can’t pronounce correctly.”) , I would like to investigate the complex subject of abiogenesis.  Since I am not a scientist, I will avoid unnecessary, sciency jargon, like the words “sciency” and “jargon”.

For those who may not know, the word “abiogenesis” is a big word with a definition which can be used to impress people at parties. You should look it up before you read any further.

While there is some debate among scientists regarding the specifics, the vast majority of humanity has reached the following consensus: some things are alive while other things are not. There also seems to be further agreement among most folks that the easiest way to make a living thing is to begin with at least one living thing, however two living things is often preferred since there tends to be the possibility of a tax break in most states. Yet, within the scientific community, there is speculation about the possibility of combining non-living things in such a way as to produce living things, but so far there have been no successful attempts at doing so…at least none which the overwhelming majority of humanity would recognize as belonging to the category of “living thing”.  So, for the moment there are two explanations of where living things come from. Let’s look at them in more detail.

One says: “Under the right conditions, with the right stuff and given the right amount of time, non-living things will make living things. We believe this is true because it has happened at least once in time as demonstrated by our being here today.” The other explanation says: “Since it takes living things to make other living things, some living thing(s) had to make the living things we see around us. We believe that an intelligent Living Thing of unimaginable power made living things as demonstrated by our being here today.” Again, the consensus among most people in the world seems to be a version of the second explanation, taking into account some variables, such as the possibility of multiple intelligent living things. Despite their opposing views, supporters of both explanations have tended to enthusiastically agree that the other is completely bonkers. (Yeah, I know I promised not to use sciency jargon.)

Both positions are very compelling, but they can not both be correct. So which one is? The answer is the explanation provided by the overwhelming majority of people on the planet. This I know because Consensual Science tells me so.

Please Stand By

This blog will become active in the near future.