Muslims, Mary, and the ‘Son of God’: Colin Chapman Reflects (Part 2)

In reflecting upon The Annunciation, the announcement of Jesus’s coming birth to Mary, IMES MRel faculty Colin Chapman set out last week  to share with us “how he would try to explain to Muslims what we mean when we say that Jesus is the Son of God”. You can find this in Part 1. Colin explains that Jesus’s disciples, each avowedly monotheistic Jews, come to believe during their three years with him that he’s more than an ordinary human being – that he’s the promised Messiah. And, this results ultimately in Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the ‘Son of God’. Colin’s reflection continues below. -IMES Staff

Muslims, Mary, and the “Son of God”: A Reflection (Part 2)

By Colin Chapman

We need to look more closely at our gospel text. The angel says,

‘He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David, and he will be king over Israel for ever; his reign shall never end’ (Luke 1:32 – 33).

This is referring back to the promise that God made to David (2 Samuel 7), that God would establish David’s royal line for ever – that there would always be someone on his throne. So in the Old Testament King David is described as ‘the son of God’ (see Psalm 2:7).

And ‘Son of God’ therefore comes to be a title that is used for the Messiah, the anointed king, the ideal king that God is one day going to raise up as a descendant of David, and who will be God’s agent to establish his kingdom in the world.

Notice therefore that all that this text is saying – all that the angel says to Mary – is that Jesus is going to be the fulfillment of the promise made to David. The angel says nothing about Jesus being God or that he existed with God before he was conceived in the womb of May.

So let’s come back to the disciples and the gradual process by which they begin to see that Jesus is more than a man, a teacher or a prophet. When God raises Jesus from death in the resurrection, they see this as God’s vindication of Jesus, God’s way of demonstrating, proving that Jesus really is the person he claims to be.

They therefore realise that Jesus has come from God and that he is the human being through whom God, Yahweh, the Creator has revealed himself to the human race. And at the end of this process, they still believe in the oneness of God, that God is one, that there is only one God. But they have come to see that this oneness is a more complex kind of unity than the simple mathematical unity of the number ‘one’.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were probably written in the 50s, 60s or 70s of the first century. The gospel of John was probably written later – in the 90s. It’s different from the first three gospels, which we call the Synoptic Gospels, and is the product of John’s reflection over many years.

So whereas Matthew, Mark and Luke describe the gradual process by which the disciples come to understand who Jesus is, John tells us something incredibly bold and strong in the very first verse:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (1:1).

And later:

‘So the Word became flesh; He made his home among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth’ (1:14).

What we find therefore is that the meaning of the title ‘Son of God’ has developed: in the story of the Annunciation the ‘Son of God’ simply means the Messiah, David’s descendant, God’s anointed agent. But in John’s gospel ‘the Son of God’ is the eternal Son, who has always been with the Father.

And these are the ideas that are expressed by John also in the epistle:

‘It is this which we have seen and heard that we declare to you also, in order that you may share with us in a common life, that life which we share with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ’ (1 John 1:3).

Then the Creeds come later – in the 4th and 5th centuries – and by now Christians have had many years to reflect on the relationship between the man Jesus and God.

Now some of my Christian readers may be wanting to say to me at this point:

‘Why are you going into all this complicated, deep theology? Are you trying to challenge and upset my simple belief in Jesus as the Son of God?’

This is where I come back to my starting point. I’m doing this because I think it helps me to understand the problems that Muslims have with our beliefs about Jesus. To us it’s obvious that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is fully human and fully divine, that God became man in the incarnation, that the Word became flesh.

But for our Muslim friends this is impossible; it’s unthinkable that the Creator of the universe should become a creature in the world he has made. So can we try to put ourselves into the shoes of Muslims and understand how difficult, how shocking this idea must have seen to them?

In fact the idea of God becoming man is so difficult to grasp, that we could say that God took a very long time to prepare the human race for the incarnation. If Abraham lived in the 18th century BC, then God spent about 1800 years preparing for the coming of Jesus; and the angel Gabriel visiting Mary is the final stage of that long, careful preparation.

I’m doing this also because I think it helps us to be very patient and understanding with our Muslim brothers and sisters. If for them it’s a slow process by which they come to put their trust in Jesus, it was a slow, gradual process over three years for the disciples to put their trust in Jesus; and it probably took many years after that for them to be able to understand and articulate what they believed about Jesus and his relationship with God.

And let me add that many Muslims experience Jesus before they fully understand who he is. Sometimes it’s through dreams or visions; sometimes it’s through healing in the name of Jesus that they experience the power of Jesus.

So finally, let me say that talking to Muslims and studying Islam have profoundly challenged my Christian faith. But far from weakening or destroying my faith, it has strengthened, deepened and enriched it. It has helped me to realize what incredibly good news it is that, in order to reveal himself to us and to win back our love, the Creator should become a creature in the womb in the Virgin Mary.

Muslims, Mary, and the ‘Son of God’: A Reflection (Part 1)

Being home to millions of Muslims, Christians, Druze and others, Lebanon celebrates many holidays. However, one holiday in particular, “The Annunciation”, has taken on special significance as being the only holiday celebrated by virtually all Lebanese faith traditions. IMES MRel Faculty Colin Chapman shares his reflections below.- IMES Staff

Muslims, Mary, and the ‘Son of God’: A Reflection (Part 1)

By Colin Chapman

Some of the stories in the New Testament are so familiar to us that we don’t find anything surprising or shocking in them. We hear them year after year and we know many of the verses by heart. I suspect that this is true in regard to ‘the Annunciation’ – when the angel Gabriel comes to Mary to tell her that she is going to bear a son.

Because I’ve lived for many years in the Middle East and among Muslims, and because much of my work in recent years has been teaching Christians about Islam, I often say to myself:

‘What if I try to read this passage of the Bible through the eyes of a Muslim? What would a Muslim think if s/he were reading this passage?’

So if I were a Muslim reading the story of the Annunciation, I might be very happy because I would say:

‘This is very similar to the Qur’an, where there’s a whole surah which is called ‘Mary (Maryam)’ (No. 19), and includes a similar account of the angel coming to Mary to announce the birth of a son.‘

As a Muslim I would have no difficulty with verses 30 – 31:

‘Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for God has been gracious to you; you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.’

But then in the very next verse I would come up against a huge problem:

‘He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High …’

And later Mary is told:

‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason the holy child to be born will be called Son of God’ (35).

At this point I might stop reading, because for Muslims it’s unthinkable to describe Jesus as ‘Son of God’. He’s a prophet, one of the greatest of the 26 major prophets and the last one before Muhammad, the final prophet. He’s a human being, but nothing more than a human being.

Muslims totally reject the idea of the Trinity, and some believe (because of a certain verse in the Qur’an) that the Trinity consists of God the Father and the Virgin Mary, who have some kind of sexual relationship to produce Jesus as their son.

So, what I want to do is to share with you how I would try to explain to Muslims what we mean when we say that Jesus is the Son of God.

I would begin by asking my friend what s/he thinks the Trinity is; and if s/he says that it’s ‘God, Mary and Jesus’, I would say that this is as blasphemous to us as it is to them.

Then I would explain that the expression ‘Son of God’ is a metaphor – not meant to be taken literally – and point out that even in the Qur’an the expression ‘son of’ is used as a metaphor: for example, a traveller is described as ‘son of the road’.

From there, I would go on to explain that the first disciples of Jesus were orthodox Jews who believed passionately in the oneness of God. They recited the Shema regularly:

‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord …’ (Deut 6:4).

So the Jewish idea of the oneness of God was very similar to the Muslim idea of the oneness of God. When the disciples said ‘God is one’, their idea must have been very similar to what Muslims believe when they say ‘God is one’.

Then I would explain that the first disciples at the beginning followed Jesus simply as a rabbi, a religious teacher. He told parables about the coming of the kingdom of God; and he never said ‘I am God’ or ‘I am divine’.

But, he claimed to be able to do things that only God can do – like forgive sins, and sit at God’s right hand on the day of Judgement. And in his miracles he did things that only God can do – like calming the storm, healing the sick and turning the water into wine.

So the disciples must have had a problem:

‘He’s a human being, who eats, get tired, sleeps and walks like anyone else; how then is he related to Almighty God, Yahweh?’

Then gradually during the three years that they are with him, they come to believe that he’s more than an ordinary human being – that he’s the promised Messiah. And of course we all know the story of Peter’s confession, when he is the first to put into words that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God:

¹⁵ “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”¹⁶ Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16: 15-16).

And this is where we need to look more closely at our gospel text…in part 2!

Should Christians Advocate for the Respect of International Humanitarian Law in the Syrian Conflict?

*By Wissam al-Saliby

The cornerstone principle in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the principle of distinction: You can only attack military targets and persons directly participating in the war; you can never attack civilians. The violation of this principle, such as indiscriminate attacks, would amount to a war crime.[1] In Syria today, just as in Lebanon’s (un)civil wars between 1975 and 1990, the principle of distinction is not respected, nor are IHL principles limiting the methods and means of warfare.[2]

In the past 5 years, I have given dozens of trainings on IHL to lawyers and human rights advocates in Lebanon and the Arab World. In 2011, I established with colleagues the Summer School on Law and Armed Conflict, an annual 2-week program on IHL for Arabic speaking law graduates.[3]

In my post here, there are two question related to IHL and to the principle of distinction that I would like to raise, and for which I seek answers. The purpose of asking these questions is to reconcile my rights advocacy with my values. The questions are:

1. Should Christians advocate for the respect of IHL at all?
2. In seeking an end to suffering in Syria, should Christians include International Humanitarian Law in their approach?

IHL as IHL

All academic textbooks claim that IHL is anchored in Christian, Jewish and Muslim civilization and tradition. However, reflecting on Biblical ethics, can we as Christians really endorse a law that authorizes and justifies the killing of a man only because this man directly partakes in armed hostilities? The protection of civilians in war is vital, but are we compromising with our faith and values when we declare that it is lawful to kill armed combatants? Aren’t we encouraging the violation of the commandment “thou shalt not kill”.

Knowing that the principle of distinction shifts the responsibility to the individual – i.e. if the individual decides to take part in the hostilities, he accepts the corresponding risk of death – would this render this cornerstone principle of distinction compatible with Biblical values?

A complicating factor is that military service is mandatory in Syria. Men who flee Syria to avoid the draft are among the refugee population in Lebanon and neighboring countries. But fleeing is not an option for many. In this case, would we still advocate for the respect of IHL with the underlying assumption is that the death of these men is acceptable?

Moreover, regardless of the decision to be a combatant, what about the opponent, the potential killer?

We believe that all people are created in the image of God, whether military or civilian, whether participating in war willingly or by force. Therefore can we advocate for the protection of civilians and persons hors de combat while simultaneously giving a license to kill combatants and persons directly participating in hostilities?

IHL as a tool among many

If we take a step backward and reflect on the bigger picture, would we choose to disseminate IHL and advocate for its respect, or choose other forms of interventions if we had the option to do so?

For a faith based organization in Lebanon whose members adhere to Kingdom values, what would be the ideal intervention in Syria that would bring relief to the suffering of Syrians? Would you choose either to:

• Work on respecting IHL to protect the civilian population in Syria?
• Work for peace by addressing the root causes of the conflict knowing that it is tantamount to Mission Impossible because many States are fueling the conflict?
• Work on humanitarian aid and assistance knowing that this alleviates the suffering  but does not heal the wound? or
• Work on securing a safe refuge for the population affected by the conflict in another country, pending their return?

These options are mutually exclusive. You cannot document IHL violations and provide aid at the same time. Because criticism of the warring parties’ actions (i.e. advocating for respect of IHL) will deny you (the perception of) impartiality, a prerequisite for providing humanitarian aid. Moreover, you certainly cannot work for peace (addressing the causes of conflict or jus ad bellum) and, simultaneously, for respect of IHL rules during conflict (jus in bello), as criticism of warring parties instigating and perpetuating the conflict will deny you (the perception of) impartiality.

In answering our call to ministry, how do we respond? Which option brings us closer to the Kingdom of God?

---

[1] An Arab War-Crimes Court for Syria, New York Times Op-Ed by ARYEH NEIER, April 4, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/opinion/an-arab-war-crimes-court-for-syria.html; Time to refer Syrian war crimes to ICC – U.N. inquiry, The Daily Star (Lebanon, February 18, 2013, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Feb-18/206914-un-identified-individuals-in-leadership-positions-responsible-for-syria-war-crimes.ashx

[2] For relevant reports and briefs, consult Human Rights Watch Syria page: http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/syria

[3] Call for Participation in the 2013 edition of the Regional Summer School on Law and Armed Conflict, 19 April 2013, http://amelhumanrights.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/call-for-participation-to-the-2013-edition-of-the-regional-summer-school-on-law-and-armed-conflict-4/

* Wissam al-Saliby is the Development and Partner Relations Manager at Arab Baptist Theological Seminary (ABTS) and is actively involved with IMES. He has significant experience as a trainer and advocate for human rights and humanitarian law in Lebanon and the Middle East.

“Is Allah God?” 5 Reasons I Am Convinced (A Primer to a Much Larger Conversation)

A number of years ago, upon learning of my intention to pursue the academic study of Islam, a dearly beloved relative of mine felt compelled to ask:

“Is Allah God?”

This question took me by surprise, for I felt as though I was being put to the test, as if my evangelical credentials were being put on trail.

However, I have come to understand that this question comes from a place of legitimate concern about moral relativism, compromise, and a desire to be faithful. I, however, have also come to understand that, as a result of who my lord and savior is, the closer we grow in faithfulness and commitment to him, the closer we in-fact find ourselves in the midst of those ‘not like us’ with arms outstretched in love, hearts full of grace, and minds ready to listen. 

Therefore, as a committed follower of Christ, 5 reasons I am convinced Allah is, in fact, God are:

1) Allah is the Arabic Word for God.

Simple as that. At its most basic, Allah is God for no other reason than the simple fact that Allah has been the Arabic word for God for centuries. Millions of Arabic speaking monotheists living throughout the Middle East, Africa, Eurasia and the Americas worship Allah. And, they have worhsiped Him for centuries. Muslim. Christian. Jew. To denigrate Allah is to denigrate the object of faith for millions, including millions of our own Christian brothers and sisters in faith. To illustrate, I offer the closing plea of one Middle Eastern Evangelical Christian to his brothers and sisters in the West, from his article “Allah and the Christian Arab“:

“PLEASE never, never speak against the glorious name of Allah, a name that has been loved and revered by millions of God’s children down through the centuries.” [1]

2) Added to this, Allah is the ‘pre-Islamic, Aramaic-derived’ Arabic word for God.

It is often claimed that ‘Allah’ originated within pre-Islamic Arabian paganism, was exported throughout the Middle East and North Africa via the Arab Conquests, and was subsequently adopted by Arabic speaking Christians and Jews. However, historical and etymological evidence rather compellingly point us in the opposite direction. Historically, Judaism and Christianity were both widespread and well known within pre-Islamic Arabia and they shared a common name for God. [2] That name was Allah. Furthermore, Allah is in all etymological likelihood derived (via Syriac) from Aramaic, the third most common language of the Bible and the language Jesus Christ himself spoke. Any guess as to the Aramaic word for God used by Jesus? Alâh-â. [3]

3) In addition, Muslims themselves maintain that they worship the same God as Christians and Jews, the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc.

As followers of Christ, it is imperative for us to listen to people on their own terms and in their own words, ‘not via the distorted and defensive lenses’ of historical animosity. When the Qur’an, Muhammad and the early Muslim community therefore speak of the ‘one true God’, they intentionally speak of Allah, the ONE God already known to Christians and Jews. Islam self-consciously views itself as both a continuation of and corrective to that which came prior. Islam recognizes the prophets and apostles of Judaism and Christianity, holds a special, if incomplete, view of Jesus Christ, and in principle honors, despite allegations of corruption by some, our respective holy books. Islam clearly recognizes a common affinity with both Judaism and Christianity and deliberately worships the God of both Christians and Jews. Allah.

4) Although vital differences remain, Christian and Muslim beliefs about God are significantly more similar than some might initially suppose.

To paraphrase Miroslav Volf, in Allah: A Christian Response, the similarities between Christian and Muslim conceptions of God in their description of God’s being, character, and ethical expectations allow us to conclude with confidence that Muslims and Christians do, in fact, worship the same God. Volf asserts that ‘normative’ Christians and Muslims “agree on the following six claims about God”:

• There is only ONE God, the one and only divine being.
• God created everything that is not God.
• God is radically different from everything that is not God.
• God is good.
• God commands that we love God with our whole being.
• God commands that we love our neighbor as ourselves.

Volf is therefore led to affirm that:

• To the extent that Christians and Muslims embrace the normative teachings of Christianity and Islam about God, they believe in a common God, such that the God of whom the Christian holy books and great religious teachers speak is the same God of whom the holy book and the great religious teachers of Muslims speak.
• And, to the extent that Christians and Muslims strive to love God and love neighbor, they worship that same true God, such that God requires Muslims and Christians to obey strikingly similar commands as an expression of their worship.

History, etymology, and (very important) questions of salvation aside, when Christians and Muslims begin to unearth the theological substance of their respective traditions, a remarkable amount of common ground emerges.

5) Finally, because I think Jesus would want me to.

In his encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), Jesus reveals something quite remarkable in regard to the manner in which we should understand and interact with those of different social and religious backgrounds. It is a well known biblical fact that Jews and Samaritans, who shared a “significantly similar, albeit vitally different” faith in the ONE true God, hated each other with a passion. So, when the Samaritan woman inquires as to the differences in faith and practice between Jews and Samaritans, Jesus, rather than condemn her ‘inaccurate ritual practices’, offers instead the “most important teaching on worship in the entire New Testament” [5] and a life-altering encounter with himself. In this encounter, Jesus affirms the truth of previous revelation. But he also builds upon, rather than condemns, the elements of truth already present within Samaritan religion.[6] In doing so, Jesus simultaneously:

• Honors and respects the pre-existing worship of BOTH Jews and Samaritans of the one true God, whether fully understood or not,
• Challenges the exclusivity of BOTH Jewish and Samaritan religious and social practice, and
• Reveals the centrality and uniqueness of his own mission as the fulfillment of BOTH Jewish and Samaritan hopes for the salvation of the world.

So, as the contemporary relationship between Christianity and Islam has often been likened to that between the ancient Judeans and Samaritans,[7] I feel fully justified in:

• Respecting the worship of BOTH Christians and Muslims of the one true God, whilst also
• Challenging the exclusivity of BOTH Christian and Muslim religious and social practice, and
• Proudly affirming the centrality and uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the full revelation of God and the fulfillment of BOTH Christian and Muslim hopes for the salvation of the world.

——————————–

For a slightly outdated, yet nevertheless very interesting article by theologian Miroslav Volf as to the importance of this discussion, see here.
For a truly fascinating article by linguistics expert Rick Brown, see here.

——————————–

[1] Rafique, “Allah and the Christian Arab”, Seedbed, 13/1 (1198), 7, as quoted in Rick Brown, “Who Was Allah before Islam? Evidence that the Term Allah Originated with Jewish and Christian Arabs” in Toward Respectful Understanding and Witness Among Muslims: Essays in Honor of J. Dudley Woodberry. (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2012) 147-178

[2] This is attested to by scholars as diverse as Rick Brown, “Who Was Allah,” 147-178, Imad N. Shehadeh, “The Predicament of Islamic Monotheism”. Bibliotecha Sacra. 161 (April -June 2004) 142-162, and Foud Accad, Building Bridges (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress), p. 22

[3] However, the final â is often dropped. And, in Syriac this becomes Alâhâ. Furthermore, the Aramaic Alâh/Alâhâ is cognate to the Hebrew word Elôh.

[4] Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response, (Harper Collins e-books, 2011). Kindle Edition. Locations 1869-1970; 2106-2113.

[5] Kenneth Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008) 210

[6] Christian theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg describes this as “the incurable religiosity of all humankind”. As there is only one God and each of us is created in His image, all humans have a natural desire for God. Hence religion. Through Christ, alone, that desire is satisfied.

[7] For example: Colin Chapman, Cross and Crescent: Responding to the Challenge of Islam. (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007) Kindle Edition. Location 746

Interviews with IMES Director Martin Accad on the Middle East Conference 2013 and the Syrian Refugee Crisis

EthicsDaily.com and CompassionRadio.com recently interviewed IMES Director Dr. Martin Accad in regard to this year’s upcoming Middle East Conference and on the ongoing Syrian Refugee Crisis.

1) Interview with EthicsDaily.com (April 10, 2013)

In reference to the upcoming Middle East Conference 2013, “Your Rights and My Responsibilities: Biblical and Islamic Perspectives on Human Rights,” Dr. Accad said that the topic of rights and responsibilities came about after a conversation with a Muslim friend and cleric who commented that Islam did not believe in human rights but in human responsibility.

“If you care for your neighbor, then your neighbor doesn’t need to claim his rights,” says Dr. Accad, paraphrasing his friend. “The more I thought about that,” says Dr. Accad, “the more I had a feeling that this was perhaps even closer to the biblical understanding of human rights.”

This year, the conference celebrates its 10th consecutive year. Last year, the conference dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, whose Palestinian refugee situation Dr. Accad characterizes as “one of the more flagrant” human rights tragedies in the region.

The first day of the conference will focus more generally on the notion of human rights, with subsequent days focusing on specific rights issues involving, for example, conversion, human trafficking or the Arab Uprisings. It will also explore the tension between freedom of expression and the “defense of God.”

“We will not be dealing with it only from a theoretical perspective, but we will have some activists that will come and share with us about their own experience, their own initiatives,” says Dr. Accad.

Furthermore, “Participants won’t be hearing only from Christians, but as we do every year, we will have Muslim speakers that will come and speak for themselves rather than have Christians speak about them and about their positions.”

Listen to Dr. Accad’s interview below:

The interview was originally posted on EthicsDaily.com here. Dr. Accad has spoken previously with EthicsDaily.com in regard to the crisis in Syria and the implications of the Arab Spring.

For more information about MEC 2013 or to register please visit: www.ABTSLebanon.org/MEC2013

2. Interview with CompassionRadio.com (April 15, 2013)

Dr. Martin Accad’s interview with CompassionRadio.com,  is titled “A Christian Perspective on the Syrian Refugee Crisis”.

Compassion Radio writes, “News reports are often vague and incomplete from the frontlines in Syria. Many are hearing even less from the refugee [communities that line] the borders with Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. But Compassion Radio has a long history reaching out to the Church in Syria and we do know enough to help. Right now at least 850 Christian Syrian families are huddled in the mountains of Lebanon waiting out the conflict. The situation is dire.”

However as Dr. Accad makes clear, “In a situation like this there are no Christians or Muslims. People are running for their lives, they’re losing everything they have, both Christians and Muslims of all backgrounds.”

In an effort to help fill in the details so that listeners can pray and act more effectively, CompassionRadio.com spoke with Dr. Accad.

You can listen to the interview below:

Dr. Accad’s interview first appeared here at CompassionRadio.com. 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Whose Side Is God On?

By Arthur Brown

Sitting on the fence is not always the most comfortable place to be. In trying to avoid aligning yourself with a particular group, belief or political party, it is often easy to alienate yourself from all parties in the debate, thus  potentially becoming irrelevant. I was recently asked by a new group of friends which Lebanese political party I followed, and told I would be welcome to join with them in their allegiance. Playing the ‘dumb foreigner’ card was helpful for me, however it’s not always that easy.

So, which side are you on? March 8 or March 14 [for those following Lebanese politics!]? The side of the Israeli or the Palestinian? Assad or The FSA [or another other Syrian opposition group]? Republican or Democrat? Labour or Conservative? Maybe these questions are not at all helpful, despite the fact that we probably have some opinion on many of them.

Maybe a more important question is how you decide to be on a particular ‘side’ and what being on that ‘side’ represents, both to you and to others. Do we simply follow the ‘party line’ on all issues? Do we unquestioningly accept what a particular media outlet feeds us? Does aligning yourself with a certain group necessarily require whole-hearted allegiance to all their values and beliefs in an unquestioning manner? All to often it seems that we are happy to label either ourselves, or others, and as a result assign them to a particular bounded catagory.  It strikes me that this approach is simplistic, uncritical and ultimately leads to further conflict within any given context, as being ‘with this group’ means being ‘against that group’.  Surely there must be another way.

Or, how about this question… Whose side is God on?

Now wait a minute you might be thinking…… God doesn’t take sides?…… Does He?…….Really?

We’ll come back to that question in a moment or two.

Whether or not we believe God actually takes sides or not, the reality is that many of us claim God’s support for our own views, be they political, social or religious.  Sociologist Emile Durkheim suggests that people often worship little more than a symbolic representation of their own traits and values, and as a result essentially end up worshiping themselves and their selfish convictions. Our views on particular issues have the potential to become idols, as we seek God’s divine approval. In a sense our ‘religion’ potentially becomes a useful hatstand on which we hang our political views. The two become almost indistinguishable and God becomes, in the words of Miroslav Volf, a marker of identity rather than a maker of identity.[1]

Abraham Lincoln famously said, “My concern is not whether God is on our side: my greatest concern is to be on God’s side.” Easy words we might say, and given the deeply divided context into which he spoke, we would be right. Also dangerous, if understood to mean that those ‘not on God’s side’ may be treated in a way  at odds with His divine nature and character. However, given our present reality, fraught with one side seeking power over another, maybe they are words we might do well to reflect on.

So, does God take sides? And if He does, does He takes sides in specific conflicts or political debates?  Does a God who does not ‘take sides’ become irrelevant in the debate? And, if we are convinced that Lincoln has a point, how do we determine which side God is on, and join in with Him, in a way that honours Him in our treatment of the other?

Unlike the power struggles that are all too common in our part of the world, maybe those of us who claim to follow Jesus, need to get to know Him and what He stands for, prior to taking any side, in any conflict or debate.  And maybe, in this search for, dare I say, the real Jesus, we will find someone less interested in ‘winning’ in the conventional way, a way that tends to seek dominance over the other, typically through violence or the threat of violence, or sanctions that harm those already most vulnerable. Instead we will will find the Jesus who takes sides with those on the margins, the weak, the displaced, the poor, and the poor in spirit. However, in taking sides with these, He refuses to become part of the vicious cycle of hate and retaliation.

Mother Theresa always talked about seeing the face of God in those she served. Regardless of which ‘side’ someone may be on, the truth remains that they are still created in the image of God, and therefore to be ascribed with dignity and value.  In our ‘side taking’ may we never loose sight of the face of God in those we oppose.

---

[1] Miroslav Volf Allah: A Christian Response (New York: Harper Collins, 2011), p.191.

Humanitarian Aid as a Weapon of War in Syria

By Rupen Das

The two-year-old conflict in Syria is now being played out in three different but interconnected arenas. There is the military conflict, which at the moment, from all indications is deadlocked. There is the media battle, which the opposition seems to be winning because of the considerable support of the US Government’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) to the Office of Syrian Opposition Support based in Istanbul. The newest arena is humanitarian aid, where the battle to win loyalty is just beginning. The humanitarian dimension has now emerged as a critical political issue as the regime and the opposition groups maneuver to provide basic services and humanitarian aid, which is at the core of the battle to win the loyalty of the local populations. All western militaries have this dimension, whether it is in the concept of the Three-Block War or other similar strategies, where a military unit is involved simultaneously in combat, providing humanitarian aid, and ensuring peace. While military logistics capacity is valuable in responding to natural disasters, when used in the context of war, it is highly manipulative and violates basic human rights. What is new is the emergence of this concept in a civil war, and the use of humanitarian aid by rebel groups and militias to win loyalty. Humanitarian aid is now a weapon of war in Syria. This is in gross violation of all international principles dealing with providing humanitarian assistance.

The recent Joint Rapid Assessment of Northern Syria indicates a downward spiral for all major indicators such as food, livelihood, shelter, heath, water and sanitation indicating a catastrophic humanitarian crisis.

For example, in the northern governates at least 43% of the population in need received no food assistance, at least 55% received no health support, at least 76% received no shelter assistance and at least 88% received no assistance to access safe water.

A number of factors are affecting the delivery of aid into these areas. The first and most significant is increasing violence and criminality, often by militias of the various warring parties. Local agencies report that atleast a third of their supplies are lost in transit. Yet, the more disturbing reports are that both sides in the conflict are now using humanitarian aid as a weapon of war. There are reports that opposition militias often do not let the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) operate in many areas as they see the SARC as being a quasi government agency and thus perceived as pro-regime. Opposition groups also claim that the government is intentionally not allowing aid into opposition held areas.

The local relief providers who are trying to fill the aid gap, are small local communities that have organized themselves, elements of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), and extremist groups such as the Jabhat al Nusra and its allies. Though the FSA has established an Assistance Coordination Unit (ACU), there is no transparency or accountability of the funds that are provided through this mechanism.

The targeting of aid by the FSA, the Jabhat al Nusra (which has strong links with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)) and other actors is based on ideology, ethnicity and religion. The local armed groups are blatantly biased with regards to whom they assist and whom they don’t. This is no different than the regime making it difficult for the UN and other INGOs to cross battle lines and provide assistance in opposition held areas. Their rationale is that war weary civilians will move to where aid is available.

Assisting the vulnerable and those in need is a fundamental Biblical value that is stated repeatedly throughout Scripture. Deuteronomy 10:19 states, “And you are to love those who are foreigners [the alien, the refugee, the migrant], for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.”  And Galatians 2:10, “All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor…” The assistance was to be unconditional and there was to be no manipulation for any religious or political purpose. The community of faith responding unconditionally to those who are weak and in need demonstrates the reality of a compassionate God who knows physical pain and abandonment. Good Friday last week reminded us of this reality. Aid and assistance were never indeed to be weapons of war.

The Red Cross Code of Conduct clearly articulates the principles for humanitarian aid. 1) The humanitarian imperative comes first. 
2) Aid is given regardless of the race, creed or nationality of the recipients and without adverse distinction of any kind. Aid priorities are calculated on the basis of need alone. 3) Aid agency shall endeavor not to act as instruments of government…policy. All parties in a conflict are under international legal obligation to allow the provision of humanitarian aid by a neutral and impartial third party.[1]

Yet none of the actors, whether they are the regime, the various opposition militias, or their international supporters are abiding by these principles and the international community remains silent as the civilian population continues to endure the horrific consequences of the struggle for power.

While many churches insides Syria are struggling against huge odds and acting on the Biblical mandate to provide assistance with no conditionality, much of the global Church seem disengaged and silent with regards to Syria and has lost its prophetic voice for compassion and justice in the midst of this conflict.

---

[1] http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule55

Francis, the Saint and the Pope: What’s in that Name for Us?

by Martin Accad

Two weeks ago, on 13 March 2013, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected to the papacy. The media highlighted right away the newness that the 266th pope ushers in for the Catholic Church, even simply by virtue of who he is: the first Jesuit pope, the first pope from the Americas, and the first pope from the Southern Hemisphere. But Bergoglio himself was also immediately intentional in ushering in the new: he is the first pope to take on the name ‘Francis.’ Since the name that a pope takes on has presumably strong symbolic significance, it is worth reflecting briefly on what that name might hold for us.

Reflecting on Pope Francis’ inaugural address on 19 March, nearly a week after his election, what the name ‘Francis’ primarily means to him is fairly obvious: it represents a vow of care for human beings and for the environment, inspired by an attachment to Christ. The central theme of his inaugural homily was ‘protection,’ a role he derives from the person of Joseph, whose primary role was the protection of Mary and Jesus, and whose name-day it was on 19 March. He solemnly affirmed: ‘Let us protect Christ in our lives, so that we can protect others, so that we can protect creation!’ The new pope also spelled out clearly what he sees as the constituting feelings associated with the responsibility to ‘protect,’ namely ‘goodness’ and ‘tenderness,’ steeped in the kind of hope that the apostle Paul speaks about in Romans 4:18, a ‘hoping against hope.’ ‘Only those who serve with love,’ declared Pope Francis, ‘are able to protect!’

It is true that believing that we, as human beings, could still have a role in safeguarding creation and the human race does require the gift of being able to hope against hope. But this is where St Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) no doubt weighs in as an inspiring figure for his name-sake, Pope Francis of Argentina. Popular stories picture St Francis preaching to hundreds of birds that stood still, listening until he gave them permission to leave, or talking a wolf into giving up its fancy for human flesh and becoming a pet for the inhabitants of a town that wanted to kill it. Such are the stories that earned him the position of patron saint of animals and ecology.

But St Francis had also been the son of a rich Italian merchant who, after enjoying the easy life for a time, gave up such earthly benefits following a dramatic conversion to Christ, and went on to establish a community vowed to poverty that would evolve into the monastic order of the Franciscans. Media reports about Pope Francis shunning the pomp of his new papal position and manifesting a striking level of humility are all indicators of the new pope’s deep commitment to the poor, also in alignment with his homonymous patron saint. At his first appearance as pope at the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica, he was wearing his iron cross over a white cassock, rather than the expected golden cross over a red cassock. And before blessing the crowds, he asked them to bless and pray for him first. He then ignored the expectation that he should ride in the papal limousine and rode instead with the other cardinals in the dedicated minibus. True to himself, Pope Francis has so far opted not to reside in the Apostolic Palace, the official papal residence for over 100 years. He lives instead in a humbler suite of the Vatican guest house.

There is, however, one significant dimension of St Francis preserved for us by history that could not be found in Pope Francis’ inaugural address; namely the saint’s radical peaceful initiative towards the Sultan al-Kamil of Egypt around the year 1219. These were the troubled times of the Fifth Crusade, when the conflict between ‘Christian’ Europe and the Muslim Middle East was at a peak. But while both religious and political leaders of Europe were speaking the language of war, Francis of Assisi had the courage to cross enemy lines in order to proclaim his faith to the sultan. The fact that no mention of Islam or Muslims was made during the new pope’s inaugural homily may have been wise and intentional, considering the disastrous outcome of his predecessor’s treatment of the topic in his now infamous Regensburg Lecture in 2006. And if Pope Francis failed to broach the subject on his first official day as pope, he did deliver a brief but graceful message the next day (20th of March), in his special address to non-Catholic Christian leaders and leaders from other religious communities, with the following words:

I greet and thank cordially all of you, dear friends belonging to other religious traditions; firstly the Muslims, who worship the one living and merciful God, and call upon Him in prayer. I really appreciate your presence, and in it I see a tangible sign of the wish to grow in reciprocal trust and in cooperation for the common good of humanity (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk, 20 March 2013).

As archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had reportedly developed solid friendships with the local Muslim leadership. And certainly in the words cited above, there is solid and respectful common ground that is affirmed. We want to be steadfast in our prayers for Pope Francis, as he courageously walks in the footprints of his no-doubt carefully-selected patron, St Francis, who heard and responded to the urgent call of Christ: to give up worldly riches in response to God’s heart for the poor, to protect the environment in response to God’s command that we care for creation, and to initiate courageous initiatives of Christlike love and witness towards those that many would have us view as our enemies, in response to God’s invitation for us to be his true children. For as Jesus said, ‘blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God’ (Matthew 5:9).

———————————

Sources Consulted

• For Pope Francis’ inaugural address: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130319_omelia-inizio-pontificato_en.html
  
• For Pope Francis’ address to other religious leaders: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/03/20/full-text-of-pope-franciss-address-to-religious-leader/
• For a biography of St Francis of Assisi: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=50

The Medium Is The Message

IMES welcomes guest contributor Matthew Lumpkin.

This painting is about the deep unrest I feel about my government’s increasing use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s or drones) to assassinate people we assert are a threat to us and our interests. We assert that we have intelligence linking them to the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet my government takes these actions in secret and doesn’t publicly acknowledge that they are taking them.

There appears to be no check on our government’s executive power to kill anyone, anywhere in the world who we deem a threat.

Social Assassination

I completed this piece in response to a series of lectures hosted by the Brehm Center for Worship, Theology and the Arts at Fuller Seminary, Calif. The day after I completed it, Israel launched an offensive near Gaza. Not only did they make use of UAV missile strikes for targeted assassinations openly, but they used twitter to post links to video from the drone strikes and Photoshopped images of people they had killed listing the alleged crimes for which they have been judged and executed – their faces rendered in on a blood-red background.

During the Brehm lectures, Shane Hipps, Barry Taylor and Ryan Bolger discussed 20th century sociologist, Marshall Mcluhan’s assertion that all technology is an extension of one or more human senses. I see the drones as an extension of not just our senses but our agency to kill, much as the sword extends the killing reach of the hand. The fact of our being able to carry out these targeted killings is being mistaken for a value or moral imperative to do them. The minimized “collateral damage,” to nearby women, children and other unintended targets is used as a supporting argument.

My Objections

As a follower of Jesus, and a human being, I object to people killing people. When Jesus’ own friends resorted to defensive violence on his behalf he stopped Peter’s swordplay and healed the damage done. Jesus was on the receiving end of individual, political and religious violence mediated through the technology of the cross. On the cross Jesus showed us powerfully and eternally how cycles of violence can only end by refusal to participate.

As an American, I especially object to my government killing people. I object even more when they do it without any check on that power and without transparent oversight. Secret courts don’t count as a check precisely because they are secret.

I singled out Israel above, but my painting is a critique of all those who would turn their human brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons into “collateral damage,” “monsters” or any other mask that makes them easier to kill –to erase. To say that Israel has had to adopt the tactics of terrorists (assassination etc.) to fight terrorists or that America has had to do the same is to admit that we are becoming what we most fear and deride.

No matter how far we distance ourselves through drones, rockets or bullets, the use of violence transforms and deforms both the giver and the receiver. We have extended not only our senses, but our own violent selves out into the world, to our great moral, ethical, economic and human peril.
___
Matt Lumpkin is an MDiv graduate from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California where he now works at the intersection of theological education and technology. He is also the founder of read-together.com , an experiment in social reading designed to bring people in very different parts of the world into conversation around the bible to see how the people you read with change what you read. More at mattlumpkin.com

Understandable Eschatology? Arabs, Evangelicals, and ‘The End’

Eschatology, literally the study of the last things, anywhere is a difficult topic. Nevertheless, the topic is of such magnitude and, whether we realize it or not, such real-world relevance that we must attempt to unravel the complexities [or dare I say absurdities] we too often find associated with ‘The End’.

Of course, volumes have been written about the topic: some great, many bad. As such, it is beyond the scope of this simple post to outline the historical evolution of eschatological thought, attempt the deconstruction of pop-dispensationalism, or present a comprehensive theology of the ‘Last Days’. Instead, I wish to discuss the practical relevance of eschatology for contemporary life in the Middle East and present, what I hope to be, an ‘understandable’ eschatological alternative.

Because whether we’re mindful of it or not, eschatology matters. Especially in the Middle East!

Why Eschatology Matters?

Eschatology matters precisely because ‘eschatology informs our ethics’. As Tom Wright explains:

Life in the present, with its responsibilities and particular callings, is to be understood and shaped in relation to the final goal for which we have been made and redeemed. The better we understand that goal, the better we shall understand the path toward it. [1]

Our beliefs about the future give shape to our interpretation of contemporary events, and motivate our present courses of action: morally, socially, politically, etc.

Consequently, I have been noticing the existence of what seem to be drastically different theological and ethical visions regarding not just our ultimate future, but the very essence of what it means to be a Christian/Christ-follower. In a sense, it is as if two different, even contradictory religious systems tenuously exist side by side, each masquerading under the same title: Evangelical Christianity.

And, the difference is eschatological.

As followers of Christ, we evangelicals are therefore presented with a choice: Apocalyptic Fatalism or Proactive, Self-Sacrificial Love.

For everyday Arabs, such differing visions of Evangelical faith can result in profoundly different outcomes, each bearing remarkably different fruit.

Why Eschatology Matters to the Middle East?

To repeat, our beliefs about the future give shape to our interpretation of contemporary events, and motivate our present course of action. This is especially true in the Middle East. Living here, I have seen first-hand how the beliefs that Western Christians hold can have a direct, often adverse effect upon the daily lives of many Middle Easterners.

The elephant in the room, to borrow a phrase from IMES MRel Faculty Colin Chapman, is of course the dire situation confronting the Palestinians, held in many respects captive to the apocalyptic fatalism of the American Evangelical voting bloc. The consequences of which ripple throughout the region.

I fully agree, therefore, with Colin Chapman’s assertion that “our very understanding of God, our witness to the gospel, and the credibility of the Christian church” are at stake in regard to our theology of Israel-Palestine. [2] It’s that serious.

Furthermore, like a bad movie played out on the international stage, Middle Easterners as a whole tend to get swooped up into this apocalyptic drama, loyal minions to the dark forces opposing God’s elect. [Re-watch Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” with this in mind]. ‘Axis of evil’ was of course the term used in history. 

Eschatology matters.

Understanding Eschatology?

How then can we appropriately understand eschatology in a manner that does justice to scripture and the universal demands of self-sacrificial love?

To venture a response, I was recently fortunate enough to have been able to read John Paul Lederach’s The Journey toward Reconciliation, wherein Lederach employs what I consider to be one of the most illuminating [and concise] metaphors ever encountered in regard to both eschatology and our collective, reconciling mission as the followers of Christ. His words are simple, yet profound. He contends,

We must keep our feet on the ground, connected to the pulse of real-life challenges, and our head in the clouds with a dream that things can be different. [3]

As we dream and work towards our dream, the world changes in response.

Although he may not use the exact terminology as such, Lederach presents his readers with a proactive, as opposed to fatalistic and escapist, eschatological vision whereby the tangible fruit of God’s Kingdom manifest themselves in and through the reconciling mission of Christ and his followers to the world. Our vision of the future determines our present.

Speaking personally, I have always found the language of ‘already and not yet’ (heard in seminaries across the planet) inadequate in regard to God’s Kingdom, in that it is both complex and difficult to understand for the average person AND in that it fails to provide dynamic terminology in regard to God’s in-breaking Reign as experienced in the present.

Lederach’s simple language, on the other hand, is perfect. God’s Kingdom is a Kingdom coming, a Kingdom transforming, a Kingdom in process.

Furthermore, I am heavily indebted to Tom Wright when it comes to the ability to understand and explain eschatology. In regard to Christ’s resurrection , the ultimate eschatological event, he asserts:

Jesus’ resurrection is the beginning of God’s new project not to snatch people away from earth to heaven but to colonize earth with the life of heaven. That, after all, is what the Lord’s Prayer is about. [4]

Eschatology, plain and simple, is this: “God’s name will be honored, His Kingdom will come, and His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”. The future is invading the present. Heaven is invading Earth. It began with Christ, but as his followers this too is our purpose, our mission.

Ultimately, it was Jesus himself who spoke most succinctly and poignantly in regard to God’s Reign, declaring:

The Kingdom of heaven is like yeast, which a woman took and hid in a bushel of wheat flour until the yeast had worked its way through all the dough. [5]

As Jesus teaches us, God’s Kingdom is like yeast working itself through dough, hidden yet transformative upon everything it touches, such that as God’s Kingdom comes and His will is done on Earth as it is in Heaven, ‘Earth becomes colonized with the life of heaven.’

Therefore, in stark contrast to the apocalyptic fatalism of much popular Christian discourse, an alternate and in my opinion much more accurate and Christ-centered reading of scripture provides us with a proactive eschatological vision whereby, like yeast through dough, God’s Reign is actively manifesting itself in our world.

And as such, we Christians become, in our individual and collective contexts, proactive agents of grace, justice, reconciliation and peace, “with our feet planted firmly on the ground, connected the the pulse of real life challenges, and our head in the clouds with a dream that things can be different.“

Jesse Wheeler serves as Projects Manager for the Institute of Middle East Studies (IMES).  Jesse, his wife Heidi, and their adorable son Nimer recently moved to Lebanon and see it as their personal (as well as institutional) mandate to help bring about positive transformation in the thinking and practice between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East and beyond.

______________________

[1] N. T. Wright. After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (Kindle Location 39). Kindle Edition.

[2] Colin Chapman, “A Biblical Perspective on Israel/Palestine” in The Land Cries Out: Theology of the Land in the Israeli/Palestinian Context, ed. Salim J. Munayer et all. (Eugene: Wipft and Stock Publishers, 2012) 238

[3] John Paul Lederach. The Journey Toward Reconciliation (Kindle Locations 1777-1778). Kindle Edition.

[4] N.T. Wright. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. (Kindle Location 4615). Kindle Edition.

[5]Matthew 13: 33 (CEB)