My Parents Are Here!

My parents arrived yesterday from the Cleveland area. They brought "my" Jeep back, so I can now resume my driving in cool. Sorry Hermeneutics students, no grading will get done this weekend!

Sorry, I Couldn't Resist!

I understand the intent, but this sign is ambiguous. It is unfortunately true way, way, too often.

I'm a History / Lit Geek!

My Final Word on "A Common Word"

Having read over the entire letter, I have just a few final comments. The big problem with the document is not what it says, but what it doesn't say. Sure, there are points of contact between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, and, for that matter, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc.). The document, "A Common Word," attempts to highlight points of unity while leaving completely unaddressed the points of disunity. The points of unity are not what is causing all the problems in the world right now; rather, it is the violent intolerance of a growing segment of Islam.

What if the imams came out with "A Common Word" among themselves that totally renounced violence in the name of God/Islam? What if they totally condemned all terrorism, and specifically Islamic terrorism? What if they embraced religious freedom that included not just the freedom of Christians to leave Christianity and convert to Islam but also the freedom of Muslims to leave Islam and convert to Christianity? Friends of mine who are well-informed about Islam tell me that these are the real issues. Until dialogue on these issues begins, all discussion of what is "common" hides the real problems.

For more discussion, see the Acton Institute.

The "OHIO CURSE" Lives On

The Indians couldn't close the deal, though they were up 3-1 in the series. As any Cleveland fan, I have learned how to insulate my heart and not hope for anything, because Cleveland teams, at least since the '50's, always disappoint.
Good News: PITTSBURGH LOST ON THE LAST PLAY OF THEIR GAME AGAINST THE DENVER BRONCOS! I was watching both games simultaneously, and I was comforted by seeing Pittsburg walking off the field in stunned silence. That is always, always, a sweet feeling.

INDIANS 7 / RED SOX 3

Go Tribe! One more to go and we'll be in the World Series!

Speaking of which - I pity the team that wins the American League Championship. Why? They will have to face the Colorado Rockies. This team seems to be a baseball juggernaut.

Indians 4 / Red Sox 2

Go Tribe!

The Indians lead the series 2 games to 1.

Joel Osteen on 60 Minutes

60 Minutes had a piece on Joel Osteen last night. I actually thought it was pretty good. The reporter did a good job, asking tough questions in a non-confrontational way. I learned a lot about Osteen. I don't like his brand of teaching - way too slick for me, too car-saleman-like. Nevertheless, I find it hard, personally, to condemn him, although I would make quite a few changes if he asked me about his ministry. Some of the reaction to Osteen has been pretty harsh. However, when you listen to the drivel preached in most churches today - and I mean evangelical churches! - I can understand why people flock to someone who says something they can use in their lives. If evangelicals want to rage against Osteen, they should look in the mirror; that's the problem. What think ya'll?

From My Hebrew Class

To know me is to love me!

Thanks for the picture, Julie!

The New (Old?) Face of Atheism

Little known facts about Christopher Hitchens.

"He showed up drunk to an exclusive NY dinner club meeting (hosting by
David Horowitz), proceeded to make anti-Semitic remarks, insulted a member of
the club (a priest, who also happened to be a 9/11 hero), and had to be
physically restrained twice as he flew into rages aimed at said priest."

Read about it here, and here.

Browns 41 ; Dolphins 31

We're back to 500! The Browns have beaten the poor, hapless Miami Dolphins.

Game 2: Indians 13 / Red Sox 6 (in 11 innings)

Much better! Now they're home to Cleveland to see if they can finish the job.

HOLLYWOOD'S TOP 12 CHRISTIANS?

I didn't know there were 12 Christians in Hollywood! (Just kidding.) According to beliefnet, here's the list (and here's the article from FOXNews). I wish there was a bigger Christian presence in Hollywood, but I suspect it is hard work to stick to one's faith in that godless industry. For those who keep it real, I tip my hat. See some video here.

1. Mel Gibson 40% - despite all his problems (which I definitely DON'T like, e.g., his DUI, his arrogance, his womanizing, his anti-Semitism - all of these are serious problems, in my opinion), I still like him. For "Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ," I shall be eternally grateful.

2. Tyler Perry 14% - African-American director, writer, producer, actor

3. Patricia Heaton 4% - outspoken former Catholic, now an evangelical Protestant; was Raymond's wife on "Everybody Loves Raymond." I like both her acting and what she stands for publically. Involved with "Feminists for Life," a pro-life organization.

4. Denzel Washington 24% - We all know this dude, the king of cool. I love his movies. Didn't know he claimed to be a Chrstian.

5. Ralph Winter 2% - lots of movie credits (search for him at IMDB); producer of "The Screwtape Letters," (in pre-production)

6. Angela Bassett 2% - famous African-American actress; didn't know she claims to be a Christian

7. Martin Sheen 7% - we know this guy; I think of him as your typical Hollywood wacko, know-nothing, liberal nut-case.

8. Martha Williamson 4% - wrote teleplays for "Touched By An Angel"

9. Kristin Chenoweth 0% - actress; was in "The Pink Panther" with Steve Martin; some of the images I found of her on Google stretched the definition of "Christian;" I admit though, I can see why people think she's hot. Didn't know she claims to be a Christian, though.

10. Philip Anschutz 3% - he made "Holes," "Because of Winn-Dixie," and "A Sound of Thunder;" also purchased rights to Narnia books; attends an Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)

11. Howard Kazanjian - Executive producer for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and producer of "Return of the Jedi"

12. Scott Derrickson - director of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"

I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't know who most of these people were!

RED SOX 10 / INDIANS 3

A painful thing to watch.

Part III of "A Common Word"

The third part of this letter from Muslim imams to Christians is entitled "Come to A Common Word Between Us and You." It is essentially an invitation to Christians to embrace Muslims as fellow worshipers of the same god and as fellow believers. This is the application of Parts I and II. The argument seems to be as follows: Christianity and Islam both call believers to love God. Christianity and Islam both call believers to love their neighbours. Therefore, Christianity and Islam should embrace each other as equals and be respectful of each other's religions. (See a discussion with the head of CAIR here.)

Let me quote some portions of the letter and then make some observations and/or ask questions.

Under the first heading in Part III, the writers say:

Whilst Islam and Christianity are obviously different religions - and whilst there is no minimising some of the formal differences - it is clear that the Two Greatest Commandments are an area of common ground adn a link between the Qur'an the Torah and the New Testament.

What are these "formal differences?" The writers have made no reference to these, and I am curious as to what they think of the differences.


Immediately after this, the writers say the following:

What prefaces the Two Commandments in the Torah and the New Testament, and what they arise out of, is the Unity of God - that there is only one God....Thus the Unity of God, love of Him, and love of the neighbour form a common ground upon which Islam and Christianity (and Judaism) are founded (:13).

I am becoming concerned about this phrase "Unity of God," which occurs throughout the letter. What exactly is meant by this? I know Muslims have a very hard time with the concept of the Trinity. Is all this letter a failure to recognize this? Is all this really a call to reject Trinitarianism, a fundamental teaching of Christianity?

On page 14, the writers launch into a most strange invitation. They write:

"Muslims, Christians and Jews should be free to each follow what God commanded them, and not have 'to prostrate before kings and the like'; for God says elsewhere in the Holy Qur'an: Let there be no compulsion in religion....(Al-Baqarah, 2:256)."

This puzzles me. Muslims are inviting Christians not to use compulsion in religion? What is so strange about this is that this is almost the definition of religious practice in America! Does the same practice prevail in Iran? in Pakistan? in Saudi Arabia? Muslim nations all!

The writers also say this:

As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them -- so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes...

I don't understand the issue here. Where in the world are Christians waging war against Muslims? Although there are many Christians in the United States, American is not an official Christian nation. They cannot be referring to the war in Iraq, can they? Even if American were Christian, the war is not being waged against Muslims on account of their religion, but on account of certain terrorist commitments. Clearly this acceptance quoted above is conditional, subject to much interpretation. I suspect the whole statement here is misleading.

Finally, the writers say this:

Together they [Christians and Muslims] make up more than 55% of the world's population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.

I find this curious for a couple of reasons. First, where is the all the war going on? Iraq is a small place, compared to the Islamic world in general, and besides, a secular government is at war with a group of terrorists. It is not Christians at war with Muslims; to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Second, the only place Muslims and Christians are intertwined is predominantly Christian nations. In Muslim nations, Christians find it hard to exist, let alone worship and thrive.

In my opinion, the bottom line is this: if Muslims are not willing to talk about the differences between Christianity and Islam, no dialogue can go forward. To try to smooth over the differences by highlighting some similarities is no way to move forward. This letter does not help the current state of discussion between Christians and Muslims.

Part II of "A Common Word"

Part II is much shorter than Part I, only just over 1 page. The point of Part II is to show that both Islam and Christianity endorse love of neighbour.

"None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself," says Muhammad.

Quotes from Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Leviticus 19 are quoted to prove the point that Christianity is in agreement.

I have no problem with what the letter says, but I do have some questions. Does "love of neighbour" include freedom? Does it include equality? If so, then why doesn't Islam grant these things to Christians and other non-Muslims under Muslim rule?

Part I of "A Common Word"

I've made my way through Part I of the letter from Muslim scholars called "A Common Word." The topic of Part I is "Love of God," and consists of long quotes from and discussion of koranic passages that deal with the duty of loving God with total devotion, then a brief discussion of Biblical passages that echo this sentiment. They make a big deal of the following saying of Muhammad:

"The best that I have said - myself, and the prophets that came before me -
is: 'there is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the
sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all things."

The letter then makes the following points:

1. This "blessed saying" of Muhammad is very similar to several passages from the Bible, as in the Shema' and as in Jesus's discussion with the young lawyer of the greatest commandment.

2. In both the Koran and in the Bible, this statement of ultimate love for God is restated in several ways and in several passages. The letter states:

Moreover, we also do know...that both formulas have another remarkable
parallel: the way they arise in a number of slightly differing versions and
forms in different contexts, all of which, nevertheless, emphasize the primacy
of total love and devotion to God.

Some observations:

1. They spend much more time on the Koranic passages than on the Bible. I guess this is to be expected, since they are Muslims. I began to wonder though if this whole letter is an attempt to expose as many Christians as possible to passages from the Koran that sound very "Biblical." The end result would be that many uninformed Christians will come away from reading the letter thinking that perhaps there is not all that much difference between the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Islamic tradition. I'm no Islamic scholar, but that doesn't sound right to me. I suspect Muhammad said a lot more than "Love God."

2. When they quote from the Bible, their discussion is pretty accurate. They make mention of Hebrew words and Greek words. I did not feel that they had misrepresented what Scripture says.

3. They seem to acknowledge that perhaps Muhammad got a lot of what he said from the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. What they say is this:

That is to say, in other words, that the Prophet Muhammad was perhaps,
through inspiration, restating and alluding to the Bible's First
Commandment.

Some reaction.

1. So far, I don't understand why what they are saying is significant. Is this simply an attempt to downplay the great differences between Muslims and Christians? Is it a surprise to anyone that both Christianity and Islam call on their followers to love God?

2. I'm suspicious. What is the agenda here?

3. I'm much more concerned about what they did NOT say that about what they did say. In other words, I realize there is some surface overlap between what Christianity and Islam teach, but I also know that there are huge differences.

Well, I need to go for now, but I'll keep working on this.

Thoughts on the Republican Presidential Candidates

Here are some thoughts about the various candidates for president the Republicans are putting forward. My knowledge of these guys is not exhaustive, so I confess freely that I'm simply giving my gut reaction to who these guys are and what they stand for. I can't say I'm thrilled with any of them. I was proud of Ronald Reagan; I was happy with George Bush 41; I was satisfied with George Bush 43. I wish we had a Reagan, someone who inspired confidence and leadership.

Mitt Romney - the problem here is his Mormonism. Politically, I agree with most of what I've heard. He went a bit soft on abortion when governor - understandable, but that doesn't make it right. I suspect it went against his convictions, but he was willing to "go soft" in order to get elected. Not a nice trait. But the big thing will be that, with a Romney administration, Mormons will FLOOD into Washington, and there will be a huge stamp of "legitimacy" stamped upon Mormonism in general. All in all, I would vote for him if he's the nominee, and I think he is electable. He has a presidential aire about him, but I wish he wasn't a Mormon.

Note: here's the link to a memo from Mark DeMoss, asking evangelicals to vote for Romney:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/62b0dd8d-fc86-4669-a254-7288402a7573

Rudy Guliani - the problems are legion here. Socially, he is no better than a Democrat. Pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, etc. His private life is also a mess. His pluses are that he is hard on security and he is probably electable. He would make many Democrats feel comfortable voting for a Republican because he's liberal on so many issues but hard on terrorism and security. I would say he is very electable. However, the conservatives will not vote for him, I suspect. I'm pretty sure I couldn't, even if it meant (gulp) Hillary in the WH. I'm also afraid that if he is nominated and wins, the secular Republican power brokers will realize they don't need the "evangelical vote," and our pro-life stand will be compromised. We may even lose the pro-life plank of the party platform. We simply cannot allow this to happen.

Here's a particularly powerful anti-Guliani post:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004009.html

John McCain - tough on defense/terrorism, but wishy-washy on so much, and weird to boot. I don't think he'll be a factor.

Tom Tancredo - single issue candidate: immigration. He's good on that particular issue, but he simply doesn't have the appeal to lead and win.

Ron Paul - don't know much about him. His followers seem a bit loony. Some of his positions are solid, but I don't think he'll be a factor.

Fred Thompson - I had high hopes for this guy, but he has not missed an opportunity to disappoint. He seems to lack energy, vision, and public charisma. I don't think he'll be a factor.

Mike Huckabee - an ordained pastor has no chance of ever being elected President of the United States. Forget it. His last name doesn't help; "President Huckabee?" No way, he's unelectable. Sounds like somebody from "Mayberry RFD," which doesn't bother me at all, but I think it would bother the rest of the country. Not a factor.

Sam Brownback - I don't like his last name either. Seems to hold good positions on many issues, but again, I don't think he's a factor.

Duncan Hunter - never heard of him.

Some discussions on the web:

Where do they stand?

A discussion on Wikipedia is here.

Bottom Line: I think it will be Guliani or Romney. Of these two, I would much prefer Romney.

I'm sad there is no one who inspires me, no one who makes me proud to be a Republican, like Reagan did. Even both Bushes were more inspiring than this lot. We may be in trouble.

Mastermind of First Twin Towers Attack Claims to have Converted to Christianity

Yes, that's right. Ramzi Yousef claims to have converted to Christianity while in solitary confinement in a federal prison in Colorado. I don't believe it for a minute. Read about it here. The "60 Minutes" report Drudge refers to sounds very interesting. It will air this Sunday, 10/14, 7:30-9:00pm.

The Letter Itself: Contents

Although it runs 29 pages, the letter itself is much shorter. Here is a description of its contents:

The addressees: page 1

Summary and Abridgement: pages 2-3

"A Common Word Between Us and You": pages 4-16

(I) Love of God (pages 4-10)

Love of God in Islam

Love of God as the First and Greatest Commandment in the Bible

(II) Love of Neighbour (pages 11-12)

Love of Neighbour in Islam

Love of the Neighbour in the Bible

(III) Come to A Common Word Between Us and You

A Common Word

Come to a Common Word!

Between Us and You

Notes (which contain much discussion): pages 17-21

List of Signatories: pages 22-29

Muslim Clerics Call For Peace

This is still a developing story, but apparently an international group of Muslim clerics has written a letter to Christians calling for peace. I haven't yet read the letter, but I've posted below a link to it. In any case, this will be, it seems to me, an important moment in the interaction between Islam and Christianity/The West. Here are links to the article:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416235-details/Muslims+tell+Christians%3A+

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301116,00.html


Here is the link to The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which sponsored the letter:
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/

Here's the link to the letter itself (29 pages!):
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/documents/COMMONWORDFINAL091007_000.pdf

I hope to have some response to this letter soon.

Ken Burns's "The War"

Last night we finished watching Ken Burns's new documentary series called "The War." My fascination with that era of history continues unabated; I could have watched 20 more hours of it. There is so much from that time that is meaningful for me personally, even though I wasn't born until 20 years later (1963).

Generally speaking, I liked this series, though I didn't think it matched his series on "The Civil War." I was regularly moved to tears watching that series, and he seemed to do something there that had never been done. I felt a connection with those people - both North and South - that I had never felt before, and I'm someone who is interested in that era. I felt like there was something magisterial, something masterpiece-like about that series, and as I watched it I harbored doubts that he would ever be able to get out from under the shadow that that presentation would cast over all his future work. His other series - on jazz music and baseball, I think - held no interest for me and I ignored them. However, I wouldn't miss "The War" for anything! (His next series is on the national parks!)

I certainly learned things, and several times I was moved emotionally, but I didn't think the series as a whole matched his work on "The Civil War" or other pieces of work on this time of history, like "World at War," "Band of Brothers," and the like. I don't think I'll buy it, though I'm tempted to look at the book, and I would love the cd of music!

Moving from the documentary series itself to what the series covered, I have several comments.

1. With breath-taking awe, I am still deeply moved by the magnitude of the struggle that was WWII. When we see what was at stake, and how much effort had to be expended, the entire struggle terrifies and inspires me. How did the world get to such a point? Why would men attempt such evil schemes? Why do people cause so much suffering? I look back at the mid-20th century in the same way I look at a rattlesnake at the zoo. I am simultaneously drawn toward it and repelled by it.

2. Because of the magnitude of the struggle, I can begin to understand the profound confidence that post-war generation had. They had faced the greatest evil of all time and had won. What could possibly challenge or threaten them now? I can only imagine the levels of confidence, self-assuredness, and deep appreciation for what is good in a culture. It is dizzying. Massive, national "high-fives" all around!

3. I am staggered by the kinds of loss(es) our culture endured. Five thousand here, 18, 000 there, 4,500 again - these numbers were peppered throughout the series. What must it have been like to lose so many people? And I can't help but contrast these kinds of losses with the meagre losses we have faced so far in Iraq/Afghanistan. Now, of course, I don't mean to minimize any single individual's death in our contemporary conflict, and I know our military families are making great sacrifices; I don't mean to deny any of this. But when you look at what our culture endured - at what the American "body politic" absorbed - I can't help but appreciate more what that generation did, and I can't help but disrespect the hollow, whining voices of protest today. We are at war; men will die; but we must win. Our collective memory is too much of Vietnam and too little of Normandy.

4. Massive evil movements inflict inevitable and irreparable damage on the world; it happened once (actually, many times!) and will happen again. In fact, I think it is happened right now. Certain "things have been set in motion that cannot be undone," I think is how Gandolf put it. When Hitler began to move, and was not stopped, there were certain things that were simply going to have to be done, and I think the same is true today. The march of militant Islam, unchecked by governments and nations, consistent accomodation, temporary peaces - "Peace in our time!" - will demand a definitive rebuttal, culturally, intellectually, and maybe even militarily. Maybe that is why I am so fascinated by the WWII era; it looks so much like our own.

5. I knew about the internment camps for Japanese Americans, but I had minimized their evil, either intentionally or in error. But I could not escape from the shame and embarrassment the discussion of these camps roused; I was grieved. I can understand the motivation that led to these camps, but cannot agree with it. The character of the Japanese American community I saw throughout this whole sordid affair challenged me. Despite being so deeply wronged, many Japanese Americans served so selflessly and fought so bravely. They won my respect.

Well, there is so much more I could say, but this post is already too long. One more thought: I long once again for a strong, robust, confident, morally clear America.

Meet the kid who is allergic to everything!

As many of you know, my family - including me - suffer from all sorts of food allergies. But, check out this poor kid! Read about him here. Tyler Savage is his name, and he can only eat chicken, carrots, grapes, potatoes and apples.

I feel for you, Bro!

Mother Teresa - "Come Be My Light" - Introduction

I've been trying to read Mother Teresa's "Come Be My Light," a collection and discussion of her letters, but with all the great stuff going on, like PBS's "The War," my son's football game, other kids activities, and my chest infection last week, I just haven't had time or strength.

I finally have a few moments which I hope to spend by beginning my discussion of this important book.

Mother Teresa's "mission statement," says the book is:

If I ever become a Saint -- I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will continually be absent from Heaven -- to light the light of those in darkness on earth" (:1).

The book is an exploration of Mother Teresa's interior life (:2), not a theological study. The author/compiler Brian Kolodiejchuk focuses on three important aspects of her life. 1) A private vow she made while a nun; 2) mystical experiences prior to the founding of the Missionaries of Charity; 3) her experience of many years of spiritual darkness.

The book is structured around these three aspects. First (chapters 1-2), we read of her initial devotion to Jesus and her internal life. Second (chapters 3-7), we read of her "call within a call," i.e., after her devotion to missionary work, she received, she believed, from Christ a more narrow call, namely to found a new mission. This time of her life was apparently characterized by experiences of particular inspiration (I haven't read these chapters yet). Finally (chapters 8-13), we will read of what it cost Mother Teresa to obey this "call within a call."

Some Random Comments:

1) Brian K. (:4) mentions Malcolm Muggeridge's observation that Mother Teresa glowed with a kind of "luminosity," yet at the same time, suffering intense spiritual darkness privately. I find it amazing that this follower of Jesus did not understand that her public perception did not match her own internal experience. I wonder if there is some kind of spiritual principle at work here. Does God hide from a believer the aroma of Christ that s/he might be spreading? Is there something that would perhaps detract from the glory that redowns to Christ if the believer had a clear understanding of how her/his life testifies to God's grace? If so, perhaps we should be slower to doubt God's work in our lives.

2) I was struck by one statement she makes in a letter to her spiritual director. She asks for all the documents she had given to him in which she had expressed her deepest thoughts. She writes, "I want the work to remain only His" (:5). I admire this passion to bring credit to God alone.

3) A final issue to think about, at least, is the ethics of publishing the letters and documents of someone who had no desire to have them published, and in fact, specifically requested that they NOT be published. It is true that some people who attempt to look "humble" are in fact not so humble; Mother Teresa's life certainly argues against that interpretation. Others are genuinely humble, but don't understand that their exprience(s) could benefit many, many other believers. Those in authority in Mother Teresa's case decided something else: she belonged to the Church, not just to herself. I wonder if she would have agreed. Do YOU agree? In what sense do we as individual believers "belong to the Church?" How would we live differently if we really believed that?