A teenager once remarked casually to me, "Did you know that the Muslim God may be the same God as the Christian God?"
This question always leaves me with a puzzled look on my face. What is it supposed to mean? I mean, it's not like someone would say, "You know, I thought that there were two gods up there but it turns out that there is really only one!"
A better question would be, "Is the Christian and the Muslim conception of God basically the same?" I suspect this might actually be what the person who asks my lead off question is asking--isn't the Muslim and Christian understanding of God basically the same? Isn't the Bible and the Koran basically the same?
Well, not really. The Christian God includes Christ. If Christ is not a "substantial" part of God for you, then you do not have a historically Christian understanding of God. Any belief that does not believe that Christ was literally God come to earth in a way that could not be true of any other human being does not have the traditional Christian understanding of God.
Similarly, historic Christians believe that Christ, his death in particular, is the only way to get right with God. The Koran and Islam emphatically disagree. So again, anyone who thinks that the Muslim and Christian conceptions of God or religions are pretty much the same is neither a good Christian or a good Muslim, at least not in the historic senses of those words.
Others may have a more sophisticated question in mind (actually, I doubt it or they would have worded the question differently): "Is God like an elephant and the Christians and Muslims are just holding on to different parts of the same animal?" Or maybe someone would believe that Christians and Muslims are both, as far as is humanly possible, reaching toward the same Deity, although both do it from a different starting point.
This is a respectable question, although again, a historic Christian or Muslim has to answer "no." A person who adopts this perspective asks a reasonable question, but if s/he answers yes, then s/he has stepped outside the historic boundaries of either faith. That person might be a sociological Christian or Muslim--they might belong to these groups from a socio-cultural perspective. But they have stepped outside the foundations of their respective faith.
Still others I suspect have never believed in a "real" god in the first place, whether Christian or Muslim. This is the person who may not even realize that their "God-language" is really self-talk. This is the person whose prayers are not really directed at any Being out there at all but are nice little monologs. This is the pastor who preaches to his or her congregation in the prayer, making you think, "Wait, I think God already knows what s/he's saying. I thought s/he was talking to God... Or is he or she really talking to us?"
Some people might ask, "Why should I believe in God?" or "God doesn't talk to me so I don't believe in Him any more."
But either God literally exists outside ourselves or He doesn't. If He does exist, then the answer to the question, "Why should I believe in God" is, "Because He exists." Why should I believe that the car coming at me exists? Maybe I don't want to. Maybe it's not driving where I want it to so I'm not going to believe it's coming toward me.
But the answer to this question hardly depends on what's in it for me. If there's a God; there's a God regardless of what I want to think.
So is the Muslim and Christian God really the same God? If you mean are Muslim and Christian beliefs about God the same, the answer is no. If you mean are both religions basically reaching imperfectly after the same Entity, the answer is no if you are a Christian or Muslim in the historic senses of those words. Will the real Deity accept someone from either religion? Not according to the official positions of both religions, although there are some Christian theologians who have argued for the existence of "anonymous Christians" who have had the right faith despite what they think they have faith in. Are these both just similar subjective projections of human longings, again not if you're a historic Christian or Muslim.
So it looks like the answer is no if you are either a true Christian or Muslim in the historical senses of those terms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well put, Ken.... and a good argument for integrating the name of Christ in our curricula, versus just God-talk.Thanks for delineating the reasons for your answer.
Dr. Schenk you have seemed a bit more cranky than normal in your last 3 or 4 posts ... perhaps more ice cream in your diet would help ;-)
That being said I think the Christ being God thing is brilliant and is the strongest reason we (and muslims) answer with a resounding "no" when that question is asked.
Hey Aaron, you've graduated, you've got to call me Ken now or I won't know who you're talking to...
Yes, I've run out of prozac these last few weeks(joke). Actually, I didn't post some of the more raucous ones ;-0
Prof. Schenk,
Let me interact a little bit with your post. You say, "If you mean are both religions basically reaching imperfectly after the same Entity, the answer is no if you are a true Christian or Muslim." It seems to me that monotheistic religions would be reaching after the same God--there is only one, after all, but this does not mean that there is a possibility of harmonization of their beliefs or that some religions are not much more accurate in their consideration of God (as the elephant picture suggests). It seems possible to me that religions can have vastly different understandings of God, that one can be (much) more accurate, that they can even have conflicting truth claims about God without this negating that the pursuit is for the same one. The Christian and Islamic understanding of God can be radically different, impossible to harmonize, having conflict claims, and still be pursuits of the divine.
You also write, "Will the real Deity accept someone from either religion? Not according to the official positions of both religions, although there are some Christian theologians who have argued for the existence of "anonymous Christians" who have had the right faith given the little light they've had." Could this be presumptuous question of religion? That question is not ours to answer. From the Christian tradition, God's work is not to create a religion, but to save the world. If God's work surpasses religious constructs, then that's God's business.
You say that the official position of Christianity is that the Christian God will not accept a Muslim. It seems to me that there is a strong strain of inclusivist thought in the Christian tradition. Further, if Christian theology is correct, that people are made right with God because God in Jesus died, rose, and ascended, then it is safe to say that God does not accept Muslims because they are Muslims. Of course, it is just as correct to say that God does not accept Christians because they are Christians. Rather, He accepts people, and only accepts people, because of who He is and what He has done.
Thanks AP--I feel like I should know what that stands for but I guess I'm having a Schenck moment... and I'm glad for all to call me Ken who wish...
I wasn't meaning to deny the inclusivist position, which as you say apparently has a very long Christian history. I'm actually quite hopeful for Rahner's anonymous Christian position. What I'm saying is that even if there are anonymous Christians, orthodox Christianity believes that the only way they can be saved is through Christ's atoning death.
And I completely agree with you that it is completely God's call on who He saves through Christ, although it would not be Christian to say he will save apart from Christ.
As far as both religions seeking after God, I agree with you in general terms. I don't know about the whole "God shaped vacuum" argument, but I'm not convinced it's wrong either. And since you mention that one might be more accurate than the other, I'm not sure how much we're disagreeing on that one. My claim is that both Christianity and Islam would consider the other vastly less correct than itself.
If we are Christians then we believe God was perfecting human understanding of Him by way of Christ. So both religions believe that God has uniquely reached out to them in a way He hasn't to the other. It seems to me that by any standard that has been used thus far to deem someone a Christian--the Bible, the common understanding of Christians, etc..., Christianity has claimed that Christ is the only path that works to God. Any other answer is a new one, and thus one that has the burden of proof to show that it is indeed from God (or for that matter, not a new religion).
It is of course theoretically possible that something other than this is correct... but I don't see how it can be considered Christian in any normal sense of the word.
On this issue, I think that Wesley's notion of prevenient grace is not only helpful, but necessary (and I think that it harmonizes quite well with Rahner's concept of anonymous Christianity, or at least his supernatural-existential which leads to his understanding of anonymous Christianity).
Wesley understands all people to participate, in at least some minute way, in the grace of God. In this, it is not necessary to exclude anyone. All people live to some extent in the grace of God, as is evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit. I think that living by the fruit of the Spirit is much easier and one is called much more to it through the teaching of Christ, but the Christ-event makes it possible for all to find everlasting life, even if they do not necessarily find the "right Christ."
Overall, though, I agree with you Ken (it's weird calling you that) that the typical Orthodox Muslim or Orthodox Christian should not see the other as correct. However, both religions should see the other as able to be included in God's work. However, the work of the theologian is to speculate who is and is not included. The job of the "ordinary/typical" believer is to worship and worship exclusively the God they are worshiping.
Dr. Schenck,
What do you mean when you say "true" or "good" Christian or Muslim? I think you mean orthodox which quickly leads into a broader question. Who is right? Well that's not a very postmodern question now is it?
I like it how you describe God as the reality that is outside ourselves (what is really there). This is where my faith begins. The question for us postmoderns that I am finding difficult to put my finger on is "Okay, now what?" If we recognize the God who is there, can we know him?
You have stated your dislike of Schaeffer in the past. His answer and his apologetic to the postmodern was an emphatic "Yes, we can know him as revealed in the Bible." What is your answer to this, since he is "kindergartenish?" If he is in kindergarten...man, I suck. What grade is C.S. Lewis in? Perhaps more telling, what grade are you in?
Thanks.
Hi Ken,
First, AP are my initials (Aaron Perry), and we haven't met. So, no Schenck moment. Although, small world, you did attend Durham with my brother, Tim Perry. I also, know some former students of yours--went to seminary with Nate Crawford.
I have a question of clarification. I hear you saying two things. (I might be getting it wrong--or these two things might not be intended to be considered together.) 1. The official position of Christianity is that God will not accept a Muslim. 2. Christ is the only path that leads to God. My question: Does statement #2 lead to statement #1 in your post (whether or not you personally agree)? Or, does God not accept a Muslim because Christ is the only path? It seems to me that this does not follow. If you agree, then I am not understanding how one arrives at statement #1 unless by mere assertion. (You may not have intended to show a correlation, though, or to defend that position.)
Along the lines of what Nate suggested, I wonder if a pneumatological approach is helpful. If salvation is transformational, and the Spirit is the main Actor in transformation, not limited by religion, then can salvation be worked in people regardless of religion because it is the Spirit who works salvation?
I have sometimes used an analogy that parallels Christ being the only way to GOd, but that knowledge of Christ is not necessarily necessary. (The Spirit working transformation in those of other faiths.) It says that the only way to breathe is through your trachea and anyone who is breathing is breathing that way. But all kinds of people are breathing who don't know that they do in fact breathe through their trachea. Thoughts?
I do wonder, Ken, whether the conversation might turn on one or two more straightforward points. (1) The God of the Christian OT is the One who is named, who names himself, and is confessed as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" and, to press the issue further, the God of Christian Scripture is the God who raised Jesus from the dead.(2) Christians believe that God is decisively revealed in Jesus Christ (John 14). Do these considerations not urge an essential distinction? On the other hand, I don't think these claims call into question a more inclusive position (as in AP's posts) or the significance of "the grace that goes before" (as in Nathan's post). / JBG
I think we are all working at the same distinction, the one I think Joel was making:
1) that there is a unique claim of Christianity(Joel used Christian Scripture as the "canon" by which to decide that :-) to find the true expression of true divinity in Jesus Christ and the God who identified with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is an epistemological or, perhaps better, a revelational claim.
2) The question of who God will receive on the basis of his grace (Nate) and perhaps some sort of existential encounter that need not involve knowledge (AP--by the way, small world you being Tim's brother and all). Shall we call this the existential question?
And Daniel, I think you're right that I brought on the confusion with the vague phrase "true Christian," by which I meant "person whose understanding is truly Christian" rather than "person whom God truly receives through Christ."
Daniel, forgive my condescention on Schaeffer--I'm sure he could have run a few laps around me (that's the convenient thing about arguing with people who are dead--they can't argue back very effectively). I actually had included Lewis on the list initially but then deleted him because I consider him a notch above Schaeffer. I'd like to think myself a college level student, but I'm sure I am often more kindergartenish than I know :-)
Ken (just want to be like everyone else;-),
An Indian guy at my dad's job pulled the the elephant argument on my dad, and he quickly responded with, "It's still an elephant, no matter what it feels like!" Short and sweet, and pretty much took care of the guy. Nice job, pappy! :-)
Hi Ken, Nothing to say but you said any onw who wished could call you Ken so... Ken.
Post a Comment