A friend recently told me about the book, SOULS IN TRANSITION, in which the authors, Christian Smith and Patricia Snell, suggest that students today are less skeptical about religion than in the past, but also less interested: “Liberal Protestantism’s core values –individualism, pluralism, emancipation, tolerance, free critical inquiry, and the authority of human experience—have come to so permeate broader American culture, that its own churches as organizations have difficulty surviving.”
Do those students -- less skeptical and less interested in religion -- represent the larger population? Are we all becoming less invested in those religious institutions? The decline in interest in the organizations seems real enough. "The United Methodist Church’s U.S. membership has continued to shrink, ... membership decline tracks with that of other mainline denominations since 1966." (http://churchexecutive.com/archives/umc-membership-reaches-12-million-worldwide) Similarly, "According to this year’s National Rabbinic Survey, declining involvement in Jewish activities was cited as the most pressing issue." (For more on this, see http://www.jewishpost.com/culture/Synaplex-A-Creative-Response-to-a-Decline-in-Synagogue-Identification.html) I think reformed Judaism in America shares liberal Protestantism’s values.
Decline in membership among the mainline (liberal) churches implies that people spend less of their time, money, and energy on those religion-centered activities -- going to church (mosque/synagogue) or going on missions; supporting the church/mosque/synagogue's programs with their time and money; attending religion-affiliated schools and colleges; etc. Such decreases certainly threaten the continued strength of those institutions.
If liberal values are responsible for the declines of mainline Protestant church membership and involvement in Jewish activities in America, can those liberal organizations survive? How? Must they resort to preaching less tolerance and pluralism? Squelch free inquiry? In short, be less liberal?
Imagine what we'd have if our churches and synagogues did that. How would it be in our communities if our fellow citizens rejected pluralism, accepting only traditions exactly like theirs/ours? How would it be if we couldn't explore other beliefs, or try out new ways of worship, or allow different kinds of people into their/our church hierarchies? In fact, we do have some of those conditions now, here. People of one faith want to destroy the written holy scriptures of another faith, or deny them the ability to build their worship and service buildings in certain places, or refuse membership or leadership positions based on gender or gender-orientation. Some faiths claim that their ways are the only right ones; other ways are wrong, or worse.
Total church membership may not be declining. According to the WASHINGTON TIMES newspaper (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2010/feb/12/latest-church-growth-stats-in/), overall membership among the largest 25 denominations in the USA rose by about one half of one percent from 2009 to 2010. Also, the number of new mosques in the country is increasing very rapidly.
What does this all mean for the broader American culture if liberal Protestant and Jewish institutions decline and the remaining (presumably less liberal) ones grow? Who will teach those liberal values? Ultimately, will "liberal Protestantism’s" core values be lost?
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
“FOREIGN”
I saw this sign on an airport wall recently: THE WORD "FOREIGN" IS LOSING ITS MEANING. The sign advertized the latest long list of cities outside the USA to which this particular airline flies.
What does "foreign" mean in our global environment? An on-line dictionary gives twelve definitions. Did that airport sign mean to convey that the word "foreign" is losing all its twelve meanings? Let's consider just two of the definitions: "strange or unfamiliar," and "of another country or nation."
My granddaughter studied in Europe as an undergraduate student. After graduation, she lived in Korea, and now she plans to spend this summer in Europe again. She lived in places which, at first, she found "strange or unfamiliar," but to which she soon acclimated. That is, those places lost their strangeness and became familiar to her. It's as Nicole Frehsee reminds us in "Twain Tracks," published in Hemispheres Magazine, March 2012, page 23: Mark Twain wrote that, "travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness."
Our world often gives us mixed messages. Unlike the airline's encouraging sign on the wall, traditional religious teachings may discourage "getting to know them." In the Old Testament (called by some the "Hebrew Bible" or "Jewish Bible") we find many references to "foreigners." For example, in the Torah, where many commandments are found, we read in Genesis 17, "Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, ... shall surely be circumcised." Could it be that foreign males might be changed from foreigners to people "like us" by the ritual of circumcision?
In still another example, the last two chapters of Ezra report how that prophet dealt with the great sin of "not [keeping] themselves separate from the neighboring peoples...We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us." It seems that God had commanded the Israelites not to "give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons."
In Luke 10: 33-37, Jesus, a Jew, tells the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan, a member of the minority, someone who might have been considered a "foreigner" to the majority of Israelites. In fact, Jesus referred to Samaritans as foreigners (Luke 17:18). In Matthew 10: 5-6, Jesus sends out the 12 disciples saying, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He seems to be saying, "Avoid those foreigners."
But in Genesis 23, Abraham negotiates with foreigners to buy a burial plot for Sarah. As a result, that place became less foreign for him and his family. The book of Ruth tells us how she, as a foreigner, earns acceptance and becomes part of King David's lineage.
As my granddaughter has done, both Abraham and Ruth got past the "strange and unfamiliar." It is true for me and for others I've known, and maybe for you too: As we come in contact with foreign people, practices, customs, beliefs and worship traditions previously unfamiliar to us, they feel no longer so strange or different, but increasingly comfortable. We come to "know" them. In that sense, the word "foreign" really can lose that part of its meaning. So maybe the airline with its sign, and Mark Twain, are right: Going there and meeting those who are strange, unfamiliar, or from another nation or country, can reduce our prejudice and narrow-mindedness.
I saw this sign on an airport wall recently: THE WORD "FOREIGN" IS LOSING ITS MEANING. The sign advertized the latest long list of cities outside the USA to which this particular airline flies.
What does "foreign" mean in our global environment? An on-line dictionary gives twelve definitions. Did that airport sign mean to convey that the word "foreign" is losing all its twelve meanings? Let's consider just two of the definitions: "strange or unfamiliar," and "of another country or nation."
My granddaughter studied in Europe as an undergraduate student. After graduation, she lived in Korea, and now she plans to spend this summer in Europe again. She lived in places which, at first, she found "strange or unfamiliar," but to which she soon acclimated. That is, those places lost their strangeness and became familiar to her. It's as Nicole Frehsee reminds us in "Twain Tracks," published in Hemispheres Magazine, March 2012, page 23: Mark Twain wrote that, "travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness."
Our world often gives us mixed messages. Unlike the airline's encouraging sign on the wall, traditional religious teachings may discourage "getting to know them." In the Old Testament (called by some the "Hebrew Bible" or "Jewish Bible") we find many references to "foreigners." For example, in the Torah, where many commandments are found, we read in Genesis 17, "Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, ... shall surely be circumcised." Could it be that foreign males might be changed from foreigners to people "like us" by the ritual of circumcision?
In still another example, the last two chapters of Ezra report how that prophet dealt with the great sin of "not [keeping] themselves separate from the neighboring peoples...We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us." It seems that God had commanded the Israelites not to "give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons."
In Luke 10: 33-37, Jesus, a Jew, tells the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan, a member of the minority, someone who might have been considered a "foreigner" to the majority of Israelites. In fact, Jesus referred to Samaritans as foreigners (Luke 17:18). In Matthew 10: 5-6, Jesus sends out the 12 disciples saying, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He seems to be saying, "Avoid those foreigners."
But in Genesis 23, Abraham negotiates with foreigners to buy a burial plot for Sarah. As a result, that place became less foreign for him and his family. The book of Ruth tells us how she, as a foreigner, earns acceptance and becomes part of King David's lineage.
As my granddaughter has done, both Abraham and Ruth got past the "strange and unfamiliar." It is true for me and for others I've known, and maybe for you too: As we come in contact with foreign people, practices, customs, beliefs and worship traditions previously unfamiliar to us, they feel no longer so strange or different, but increasingly comfortable. We come to "know" them. In that sense, the word "foreign" really can lose that part of its meaning. So maybe the airline with its sign, and Mark Twain, are right: Going there and meeting those who are strange, unfamiliar, or from another nation or country, can reduce our prejudice and narrow-mindedness.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
VALUES SEEM TO SEPARATE US MORE THAN BELIEFS
Over the past 10 years, I've been writing about similarities and common ground among the several Abrahamic faiths. During that time, I've come to the conclusion that we are more divided by our values than by our specific beliefs. What do I mean by that? For example, I don't see much difference in the way liberal or progressive believers act about inclusion (e.g., including others as "acceptable" in our systems of tolerance). More conservative believers tend to exclude others. It seems there's a spectrum, with the most liberal on one end, and the most conservative on the other.
And it seems that, the closer one is to one end of the spectrum, the more likely that one is to call names. Here's an example: In 1995, after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, a local Baptist preacher, the Rev. Dr. Amos C. Brown, pastor of the Third Baptist Church in San Francisco, said, "...[Jerry Falwell], Pat Robertson and their colleagues in the Christian Coalition have worked mightily to prostitute Christianity, putting the religion of Jesus Christ into the service of the conservative politics of the Republican Party, in the process abusing prayer for political gain." (See Brown, Amos "Christianity and Rightist Politics." SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, May 3, 1995, p. A-19. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/05/03/ED2259.DTL, retrieved 2 March 2012) Brown makes no bones about calling the Christian Coalition an organization which uses Christianity to further its own goals. He has no use for their approach to Christianity.
Here's another example of the spectrum. The Taliban in Afghanistan try to enforce very conservative rules on women - how to dress, where they may go (with male escorts) and not go , what educational opportunities they might be allowed, and what work they might do. (Others, like Greg Mortenson, have challenged the Taliban's positions about women's education by building schools for young women and men in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I would call his actions "progressive" and others might refer to him and his actions as "liberal.")
At the liberal end of the spectrum, an American Muslim woman has founded the Islamic Networks Group (ING) which works to "...counter prejudice and discrimination against American Muslims by teaching about their traditions and contributions in the context of America’s history and cultural diversity..." The need for their work is highlighted by the recent controversy over the building of a mosque in New York City, and by the planned Qur'an burning by a Florida pastor. Both those who resisted that building, and those who supported the burning, represent a more conservative, less tolerant perspective. See the two ends of the spectrum?
Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV), are "an inclusive community rooted in the traditional Qur’anic ideals of human dignity and social justice." (See http://www.mpvusa.org/) This group addresses, among other issues, "human rights, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state — as well as inclusive and tolerant understandings of Islam." Their statement of concerns could easily reflect concerns of, for example, The Center for Progressive Christianity (See http://www.tcpc.org). It's not that Islam and Christianity are the same, but it's true that Progressives in both faith traditions share the same or similar concerns. The web page for the World Union for Progressive Judaism (See http://wupj.org) says that it "is rooted in the Bible, [and stresses] ... desire to learn what God expects from us: justice and equality, democracy and peace, personal fulfillment and collective obligations." See the similarities? Social justice, not social control, is a common goal of these progressives.
And it seems that, the closer one is to one end of the spectrum, the more likely that one is to call names. Here's an example: In 1995, after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, a local Baptist preacher, the Rev. Dr. Amos C. Brown, pastor of the Third Baptist Church in San Francisco, said, "...[Jerry Falwell], Pat Robertson and their colleagues in the Christian Coalition have worked mightily to prostitute Christianity, putting the religion of Jesus Christ into the service of the conservative politics of the Republican Party, in the process abusing prayer for political gain." (See Brown, Amos "Christianity and Rightist Politics." SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, May 3, 1995, p. A-19. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/05/03/ED2259.DTL, retrieved 2 March 2012) Brown makes no bones about calling the Christian Coalition an organization which uses Christianity to further its own goals. He has no use for their approach to Christianity.
Here's another example of the spectrum. The Taliban in Afghanistan try to enforce very conservative rules on women - how to dress, where they may go (with male escorts) and not go , what educational opportunities they might be allowed, and what work they might do. (Others, like Greg Mortenson, have challenged the Taliban's positions about women's education by building schools for young women and men in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I would call his actions "progressive" and others might refer to him and his actions as "liberal.")
At the liberal end of the spectrum, an American Muslim woman has founded the Islamic Networks Group (ING) which works to "...counter prejudice and discrimination against American Muslims by teaching about their traditions and contributions in the context of America’s history and cultural diversity..." The need for their work is highlighted by the recent controversy over the building of a mosque in New York City, and by the planned Qur'an burning by a Florida pastor. Both those who resisted that building, and those who supported the burning, represent a more conservative, less tolerant perspective. See the two ends of the spectrum?
Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV), are "an inclusive community rooted in the traditional Qur’anic ideals of human dignity and social justice." (See http://www.mpvusa.org/) This group addresses, among other issues, "human rights, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state — as well as inclusive and tolerant understandings of Islam." Their statement of concerns could easily reflect concerns of, for example, The Center for Progressive Christianity (See http://www.tcpc.org). It's not that Islam and Christianity are the same, but it's true that Progressives in both faith traditions share the same or similar concerns. The web page for the World Union for Progressive Judaism (See http://wupj.org) says that it "is rooted in the Bible, [and stresses] ... desire to learn what God expects from us: justice and equality, democracy and peace, personal fulfillment and collective obligations." See the similarities? Social justice, not social control, is a common goal of these progressives.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
“EXTREMISTS EVERYWHERE? MAYBE MODERATES TOO?”
I've been troubled for a long time by the seemingly overwhelming number of religious extremists in the world. And I've ranted for years about the media's too-frequent connection of the words "Muslim" and "extremist" in their reporting of events in the Middle East. Seldom do they seem to report about Muslims without connecting to extremism somehow.
Well, here's a change for the better. On Christmas Day 2011, the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE reported on Muslim families who celebrate Christmas. In his article, "Muslims Who Celebrate Christmas" (San Francisco CHRONICLE, December 25, 2011, p. C9) author, Raja Abdulrahim, tells of several families who view Christmas as a "happy time," or a "fun holiday," or a way to celebrate the "magic of Christmas." These people are taking a moderate view of the differences between their faith and the majority's religious traditions. They are seeking to assimilate, or to be good neighbors. They resonate to the message of "peace on earth and good will to all." Because they can maintain their religious beliefs, they don't feel the "imposition" of non-Muslim ways on them. (We must remember too that Jesus is an important Prophet in Islam.)
But the author reminds us that "Most clerics, however, will argue that followers of Islam should not participate in the Christian holiday." This is certainly a more conservative (but not extreme) point of view.
More troubling are reports in the same newspaper of "...growing extremism inside Israel's insular ultra-Orthodox community." Author Aron Heller uses the terms "religious extremists" and "Extremist sects" in his reports. (See "Protest's Use of Nazi Images Condemned" in the San Francisco CHRONICLE, January 2, 2012, p. A2.) It's clear, in this Associated Press article, that the media can and does use this term to describe groups of believers in faith traditions other than Islam.
Heller characterizes the concern caused by these "extremists" this way: "...[Ultra-Orthodox Jews] have become increasingly aggressive in trying to impose their ways on others as their population has grown and spread to new areas." That's troubling for me and you (I presume) as we realize we have to face people who want to impose "their ways" on us by threatening or violent means. But that's what societies have always faced, and that is why we have armed forces to defend us.
Indeed, Heller attempts to "size" the problem by informing us that Ultra-Orthodox Jews "make up 10 percent of Israel's population." That's about 730,000 people, a large number. But Arabs in Israel number about twice that, and Jews who are not Ultra-Orthodox comprise about two thirds of the entire population. So we can see that most Israeli citizens - Jews and Arabs - are not extremists.
The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR reports that the dialog between Christians and Jews is becoming ever more open. And dialog proceeds from a position of tolerance rather than extremism. So while extremists may threaten, and even destroy and kill others, moderates discuss and understand the points of view of others. Rather than rant, I can applaud dialog.
And I can applaud these authors' reporting which tries to inform rather than scare us.
Well, here's a change for the better. On Christmas Day 2011, the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE reported on Muslim families who celebrate Christmas. In his article, "Muslims Who Celebrate Christmas" (San Francisco CHRONICLE, December 25, 2011, p. C9) author, Raja Abdulrahim, tells of several families who view Christmas as a "happy time," or a "fun holiday," or a way to celebrate the "magic of Christmas." These people are taking a moderate view of the differences between their faith and the majority's religious traditions. They are seeking to assimilate, or to be good neighbors. They resonate to the message of "peace on earth and good will to all." Because they can maintain their religious beliefs, they don't feel the "imposition" of non-Muslim ways on them. (We must remember too that Jesus is an important Prophet in Islam.)
But the author reminds us that "Most clerics, however, will argue that followers of Islam should not participate in the Christian holiday." This is certainly a more conservative (but not extreme) point of view.
More troubling are reports in the same newspaper of "...growing extremism inside Israel's insular ultra-Orthodox community." Author Aron Heller uses the terms "religious extremists" and "Extremist sects" in his reports. (See "Protest's Use of Nazi Images Condemned" in the San Francisco CHRONICLE, January 2, 2012, p. A2.) It's clear, in this Associated Press article, that the media can and does use this term to describe groups of believers in faith traditions other than Islam.
Heller characterizes the concern caused by these "extremists" this way: "...[Ultra-Orthodox Jews] have become increasingly aggressive in trying to impose their ways on others as their population has grown and spread to new areas." That's troubling for me and you (I presume) as we realize we have to face people who want to impose "their ways" on us by threatening or violent means. But that's what societies have always faced, and that is why we have armed forces to defend us.
Indeed, Heller attempts to "size" the problem by informing us that Ultra-Orthodox Jews "make up 10 percent of Israel's population." That's about 730,000 people, a large number. But Arabs in Israel number about twice that, and Jews who are not Ultra-Orthodox comprise about two thirds of the entire population. So we can see that most Israeli citizens - Jews and Arabs - are not extremists.
The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR reports that the dialog between Christians and Jews is becoming ever more open. And dialog proceeds from a position of tolerance rather than extremism. So while extremists may threaten, and even destroy and kill others, moderates discuss and understand the points of view of others. Rather than rant, I can applaud dialog.
And I can applaud these authors' reporting which tries to inform rather than scare us.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
“SEPARATING CHURCH/MOSQUE/SYNAGOGUE AND STATE”
I often think about how religious practices affect our lives in our secular world. For example, we're just completing the season where we have seen the conflicts over displaying religious symbols on our public property; and arguments about why we should say "Happy Holidays" to one another rather than "Happy Hanukah" or "Merry Christmas." I think we're just seeing the to-be-expected frictions among our citizens in this multi-cultural society of ours. We're still learning that there are more views of the world, and of God (Allah, G-d, etc.), than those we heard about as children. Open your daily newspaper and read about these differences of opinion, and how they can intrude on your routine.
Here's another example. Many of us eat meat, and most of us meat-eaters consume beef. I had forgotten how important, to some segments of our society, is the method of slaughtering our cattle and other livestock. We're not talking here about performances of archaic rituals, but about day-to-day operations. How do you kill the cow that I'll eat?
Observant Jews and Muslims require that their foods be Kosher or Halal, according to their specific laws. In the Netherlands, the private sector's slaughter process has changed , while still accomodating those requirements. "...changing public attitudes towards animal welfare forced a rethink" of how religious slaughter is done for the Jewish and Muslim communities.
When can you work or shop? Can stores be open on Sunday, the Christian day of rest? In my home town, back in the day, and today as well, many stores close to observe the Sabbath. Nowadays, of course, most large stores are open according to market conditions rather than according to religious considerations. In observant Jewish communities, most work must be forsaken on the Sabbath. No cooking, no driving...
But in Israel, it's daily transportation that can be affected by beliefs. Some buses are gender-segregated.
According to one Rabbi, segregated buses are not required by Jewish law. Still, some ultra-Orthodox Jews are pushing for segregation in areas of Israel where they comprise a majority. (Some of us remember when, in the USA, conservative Christians in the south believed that races must be segregated, and only 50-some years ago did Rosa Parks disobey the rule, thereby fueling the civil rights movement.)
We've just witnessed what has been called the "Arab Spring." We're now learning about the possible coming to power in Egypt of a religion-based political party. In this article , the author, Sarah El Deeb, writes, "The Nour Party, a more hard-line Islamist group, captured 24.4 percent [of the votes in the recent Parlimentary election]...Its members say laws contradicting religion can't be passed.” Meanwhile, the (relatively more moderate) Muslim Brotherhood's party has won about 36.6% of the votes. And the liberal parties, to whom credit has been given for leading the revolts, have won only around 20%.
We'll have to see how it pans out in Egypt. But suffice to say the tensions between secular and religious values and practices are likely to continue in Egypt, and as certainly in all our societies.
Here's another example. Many of us eat meat, and most of us meat-eaters consume beef. I had forgotten how important, to some segments of our society, is the method of slaughtering our cattle and other livestock. We're not talking here about performances of archaic rituals, but about day-to-day operations. How do you kill the cow that I'll eat?
Observant Jews and Muslims require that their foods be Kosher or Halal, according to their specific laws. In the Netherlands, the private sector's slaughter process has changed , while still accomodating those requirements. "...changing public attitudes towards animal welfare forced a rethink" of how religious slaughter is done for the Jewish and Muslim communities.
When can you work or shop? Can stores be open on Sunday, the Christian day of rest? In my home town, back in the day, and today as well, many stores close to observe the Sabbath. Nowadays, of course, most large stores are open according to market conditions rather than according to religious considerations. In observant Jewish communities, most work must be forsaken on the Sabbath. No cooking, no driving...
But in Israel, it's daily transportation that can be affected by beliefs. Some buses are gender-segregated.
According to one Rabbi, segregated buses are not required by Jewish law. Still, some ultra-Orthodox Jews are pushing for segregation in areas of Israel where they comprise a majority. (Some of us remember when, in the USA, conservative Christians in the south believed that races must be segregated, and only 50-some years ago did Rosa Parks disobey the rule, thereby fueling the civil rights movement.)
We've just witnessed what has been called the "Arab Spring." We're now learning about the possible coming to power in Egypt of a religion-based political party. In this article , the author, Sarah El Deeb, writes, "The Nour Party, a more hard-line Islamist group, captured 24.4 percent [of the votes in the recent Parlimentary election]...Its members say laws contradicting religion can't be passed.” Meanwhile, the (relatively more moderate) Muslim Brotherhood's party has won about 36.6% of the votes. And the liberal parties, to whom credit has been given for leading the revolts, have won only around 20%.
We'll have to see how it pans out in Egypt. But suffice to say the tensions between secular and religious values and practices are likely to continue in Egypt, and as certainly in all our societies.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
“FAITH IN ACTION”
I've just returned from a visit in the South. I was impressed with all the signs along the roads which say, "the only way to heaven is through Jesus." What do these signs really mean? Do the people who post these signs just want to tell the world of their beliefs? Or are those people telling us why they act as they do? Or perhaps are they telling us how we all should act?
According to John 14:6, Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” What might the “only way” or “except through me” mean? What action might this require? Just how should we act?
Here's one answer to those questions. In John 14:12, Jesus says, “...anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.” And in John 14:15, he says, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” Interpolating the “greatest commandment,” (Matthew 22:34-40) it would appear that the “only way to heaven” is to love God with your whole heart, and your neighbor as yourself.
I'm reminded of the words of James 1:27, wherein he says: “Religion that God our Father accepts as sure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” For me, this passage restates Jesus' calls to action in John 14:12. James continues, in 2:15-26: “...faith, if not accompanied by action, is dead.” In other words, your actions display your beliefs.
Charles Dickens' classic, A CHRISTMAS CAROL, illustrates this point well. Ebenezer Scrooge initially appears as a stingy businessman, who has no love for his fellow citizens, and no place for kindness or charity in his life. As the story unfolds, he becomes aware of who and what he is, and where this might take him. At the story's end, he has changed his beliefs, and (consequently) he has changed his actions. He has been transformed into a generous and joyous man who takes great interest in his employees and neighbors.
Although Dickens' story is not about religious faith per se, it clearly represents the “action” portion of the James text. Dickens underscores the importance of loving your neighbor as yourself. Not surprisingly, both Judaism and Islam (and other religions) also teach their adherents to care for widows and orphans and protect themselves from the evils of this world. They're doing what Jesus called, “doing what I have been doing.” Doesn't this go a long way toward getting them to the Father too? I hope so.
I wonder if those road signs might carry a clearer message if they read, “the only way to heaven is through loving God with your whole heart, and loving your neighbor as yourself.” I wonder.
According to John 14:6, Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” What might the “only way” or “except through me” mean? What action might this require? Just how should we act?
Here's one answer to those questions. In John 14:12, Jesus says, “...anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.” And in John 14:15, he says, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” Interpolating the “greatest commandment,” (Matthew 22:34-40) it would appear that the “only way to heaven” is to love God with your whole heart, and your neighbor as yourself.
I'm reminded of the words of James 1:27, wherein he says: “Religion that God our Father accepts as sure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” For me, this passage restates Jesus' calls to action in John 14:12. James continues, in 2:15-26: “...faith, if not accompanied by action, is dead.” In other words, your actions display your beliefs.
Charles Dickens' classic, A CHRISTMAS CAROL, illustrates this point well. Ebenezer Scrooge initially appears as a stingy businessman, who has no love for his fellow citizens, and no place for kindness or charity in his life. As the story unfolds, he becomes aware of who and what he is, and where this might take him. At the story's end, he has changed his beliefs, and (consequently) he has changed his actions. He has been transformed into a generous and joyous man who takes great interest in his employees and neighbors.
Although Dickens' story is not about religious faith per se, it clearly represents the “action” portion of the James text. Dickens underscores the importance of loving your neighbor as yourself. Not surprisingly, both Judaism and Islam (and other religions) also teach their adherents to care for widows and orphans and protect themselves from the evils of this world. They're doing what Jesus called, “doing what I have been doing.” Doesn't this go a long way toward getting them to the Father too? I hope so.
I wonder if those road signs might carry a clearer message if they read, “the only way to heaven is through loving God with your whole heart, and loving your neighbor as yourself.” I wonder.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
“DRIVING, VOTING AND SAUDI ARABIA”
The LOS ANGELES TIMES published two interesting articles this year about the “rights” of women in Saudi Arabia, and of course, this being the western press, both articles linked those “rights” to Islam and Islamic law, called Sharia.
In the June 18 online edition, the TIMES published Alexandra Sandels' article with the headline, “Saudi women get in the driver's seat to defy ban.” Sandels reported that about 3 dozen women had driven that day, defying “the ultra-conservative kingdom's longstanding driving decrees.” Apparently, these women had (have?) driving licenses from other countries. They want to drive for the usual reasons – they need to transport themselves to and from work and shopping, and their children to and from the usual school and after-school activities.
According to the kingdom's rules, women may not drive, nor may they do many “normal” activities without permission from their male guardians. Sounds archaic, doesn't it? Women have been arrested for driving or for organizing protests in favor of women driving.
Jeffrey Fleishman wrote a September 25th article entitled, “Saudi Arabia to allow women to vote.” Not only vote, but to stand as candidates for local office, and serve on the King's advisory council, the Shura Council. Perhaps with an eye to legacy, aging King Abudullah will give women voting rights in the 2015 election. (We in the USA must remember that women's sufferage came to this country in 1920, but only after 70 years of organizing, campaigning, and enduring resistance.)
Fleishman writes: “Abdullah built the country's first coeducational university and has granted 120,000 scholarships to students, many of them women, to study outside the country. Each move was opposed by clerics and religious ultraconservatives in the royal family.” Fleishman calls Saudi Arabia, “...one of the world's most repressive states.” Why are Saudi Arabia's clerics opposed to what we in the west would accept as the normal way to treat women in the electorate, or to support women as students? Simply put, it has to do with how they view Sharia (Islamic law), the rules set out in the Qur'an and in the Sunna, i.e., the collection of cultural “norms” developed from the sayings, teachings and practices of Mohammed. But as in most religious matters, the views on these things are not monolithic.
Sunni Muslims generally recognize one of four schools of thought here, and Shia Muslims a fifth. These schools developed as Islam spread, and people tried to reconcile local customs with Islamic law. The schools range from very conservative to much less so. Moreover, certain transgressions are considered much more significant than others, and more significant penalties are prescribed for them. Those penalties are the ones we in the west often hear about, when they occur.
Muslim–majority countries vary in how they treat women. Unlike Saudi Arabia (and the USA), the three most populous Muslim-majority countries have elected women as leaders: Indonesia elected Megawati Sukarnoputri as president; Pakistan twice elected Benazir Bhutto as prime minister; and Bangladesh elected Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina as prime ministers.
Change is slowly coming to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps inspired by citizens in neighboring countries, some women have decided to take the chance, and are driving. The King is granting women the right to vote. Progressive change is coming, but, as always, not without resistance.
In the June 18 online edition, the TIMES published Alexandra Sandels' article with the headline, “Saudi women get in the driver's seat to defy ban.” Sandels reported that about 3 dozen women had driven that day, defying “the ultra-conservative kingdom's longstanding driving decrees.” Apparently, these women had (have?) driving licenses from other countries. They want to drive for the usual reasons – they need to transport themselves to and from work and shopping, and their children to and from the usual school and after-school activities.
According to the kingdom's rules, women may not drive, nor may they do many “normal” activities without permission from their male guardians. Sounds archaic, doesn't it? Women have been arrested for driving or for organizing protests in favor of women driving.
Jeffrey Fleishman wrote a September 25th article entitled, “Saudi Arabia to allow women to vote.” Not only vote, but to stand as candidates for local office, and serve on the King's advisory council, the Shura Council. Perhaps with an eye to legacy, aging King Abudullah will give women voting rights in the 2015 election. (We in the USA must remember that women's sufferage came to this country in 1920, but only after 70 years of organizing, campaigning, and enduring resistance.)
Fleishman writes: “Abdullah built the country's first coeducational university and has granted 120,000 scholarships to students, many of them women, to study outside the country. Each move was opposed by clerics and religious ultraconservatives in the royal family.” Fleishman calls Saudi Arabia, “...one of the world's most repressive states.” Why are Saudi Arabia's clerics opposed to what we in the west would accept as the normal way to treat women in the electorate, or to support women as students? Simply put, it has to do with how they view Sharia (Islamic law), the rules set out in the Qur'an and in the Sunna, i.e., the collection of cultural “norms” developed from the sayings, teachings and practices of Mohammed. But as in most religious matters, the views on these things are not monolithic.
Sunni Muslims generally recognize one of four schools of thought here, and Shia Muslims a fifth. These schools developed as Islam spread, and people tried to reconcile local customs with Islamic law. The schools range from very conservative to much less so. Moreover, certain transgressions are considered much more significant than others, and more significant penalties are prescribed for them. Those penalties are the ones we in the west often hear about, when they occur.
Muslim–majority countries vary in how they treat women. Unlike Saudi Arabia (and the USA), the three most populous Muslim-majority countries have elected women as leaders: Indonesia elected Megawati Sukarnoputri as president; Pakistan twice elected Benazir Bhutto as prime minister; and Bangladesh elected Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina as prime ministers.
Change is slowly coming to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps inspired by citizens in neighboring countries, some women have decided to take the chance, and are driving. The King is granting women the right to vote. Progressive change is coming, but, as always, not without resistance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
