"We are travellers…not yet in our native land" – St. Augustine
One of my New Year’s Resolutions for 2012 has been to “Make an effort to dress well for Mass”. Some of my friends expressed surprise when I said that this was one of my resolutions, since they assumed that I was the sort of person who would naturally dress smartly for Mass.
I was trying to work out how my laxity came about. Here’s how I think it happened…
Today I’m continuing my series of posts in response to the Facebook discussion a couple of weeks ago concerning the March For Life.
In my previous entry I briefly looked at what I think can be done to raise the standard of dialog between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. I would now like to start looking at some of the particular issues which were raised during the exchange. Today I would like to focus upon the opening comment from a former schoolmate:
“I kinda just wish people would stop telling other people how to live their lives….I’m pro-CHOICE, not pro-telling-people-what-to-do….”
As a pro-lifer, you hear sentiments similar to the one expressed above with considerable regularity and, on the surface, such a position seems extremely commendable. In fact, it is one of the sacrosanct secular doctrines in contemporary culture.
I think that respecting other people’s opinion is a good thing, I do. I mean, nobody likes to be told what to do, right? However, there are some immediate problems here. For a start, the statement self-refuting. As soon as you tell someone that they should mind their own business, you’re attempting, at least in some measure, to impose your own will on another person. That means you’re breaking your own rule and not minding your own business!
In the remainder of this post I would like to look at whether the live-and-let-live ideal is consistently applied…
If you have read any material related to Islamic apologetics, you’ll no doubt be familiar with the names Ahmed Deedat and his one-time pupil, Zakir Naik. I came across a video on YouTube of Deedat tutoring Naik. He was supposedly teaching him how to refute Christianity, using training materials apparently known as “The Combat Kit”.
This teaching session is extremely enlightening and I would like to walk through the video and break down the advice Sheikh Deedat gives to his pupil in this video. I thought this would be a worthwhile exercise because I think it demonstrates some of the fundamental misunderstandings of Christianity held by even well-known Muslim apologists, as well as showing flaws in their methodology.
Deedat’s English is rather stilted and, although his voice is calm, what he says at the start of the video isn’t exactly pleasant.
“[The Christian] is trained…he smells a rat…the shit…he wants to change the subject...”
Ahmed Deedat
Deedat tells Naik that, when disputing with Christians, he should get the Christian to hand over his Bible and use it to show him that Christianity is false.
“[Tell the Christian] ’Give it here’…. don’t be shy… their women…they don’t care a damn. This is the book, want to push it down your throat. They want to steal your Imam.”
Ahmed Deedat
Deedat then alludes to Genesis 19:30-38 and tells Naik to use it to shame the Christian. Deedat says this because in that passage, Lot’s daughters get their father drunk and sleep with him in order to get pregnant. Naik seems to think that this scandalous event is some kind of refutation of the Old Testament. However, it’s not for two reasons:
1. He’s comparing it against an Islamic standard
The doctrine of “Isma” in Islam says that all Prophets are sinless. Now, if you hold that belief, it’s understandable why you might be scandalized by this passage, as well as many others in the Old Testament. However, neither Jews nor Christians hold to this doctrine! Although the prophets were indeed used by God, they were also flawed human beings, so their sin shouldn’t really surprise us. Why would he expect Christians to judge Old Testament prophets and patriarchs by a standard exclusive to Islam?
2. He’s performing a basic error in Biblical interpretation
Simply because the Bible records something, does not mean that it condones it! This is basic exegesis. Some texts are prescriptive while others are simply descriptive! Some passages tell us about the good things that we as readers should do, but other passages tell us about the good and bad actions of Biblical characters.
For example, just because King David committed adultery and murder, doesn’t mean that God endorsed his actions or wants Christians to do likewise! What’s funny is that Deedat repeatedly a question:
“Ask the Christian: what is the moral, what is the lesson?”
Ahmed Deedat
Clearly the answer is: don’t get drunk and don’t commit incest! Deedat asks whether the Christian would read such a passage to his mother or daughter. This is a strange question, implying that a text has to be PG-13 in order for it to be the Word of God.
Next in the video, we then see another man enter the room, calling out “Salaam alaikum!”. Rather than giving the customary response (“Wa-Alaikum-Salaam”), Deedat sends him away with “I’m busy now!” and then moves on to the next Bible passage which scandalises him…
Deedat then gets Naik to turn to Genesis 35:22 and to write in large letters above it “Son rapes his mother”. If you look in the text, you’ll see the following:
While Israel dwelt in that land Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it.
Genesis 35:22
Naturally, Deedat makes the same mistakes as noted in the previous section, concerning the sinlessness of Biblical characters, as well as the difference between prescription and description.
Of course, there are three other problems with describing Genesis 35:22 as “Son rapes his mother”. Firstly, the text does indeed say that fornication takes place, but there’s nothing to suggest that it was a violent act of rape. Secondly, as the text says, Bilhah was Israel’s concubine, not wife. Finally, Reuben’s mother was Leah, not Bilhah. Deedat attempts to justify his assertion by saying that “Concubine and wife mean the same thing”.
What exactly is Deedat’s main problem with this passage? After all, didn’t Muhammad’s adopted son divorce his beautiful wife Zaynab so that Muhammad could marry her? What is the real problem concerning Reuben in Genesis 35:22? Deedat goes on and explains.
“[People told Jacob] he screwed your wife and [Jacob] didn’t lose his temper, he didn’t spank him, he didn’t scold him and God Almighty didn’t give him AIDS, Syphilis or Gonorrhoea, nothing. That’s all. The man didn’t react. Nothing. There is not one word… It starts and end… The subject changes”
Ahmed Deedat
Once again, Deedat demonstrates his ignorance of what is happening here, as well as his Biblical knowledge concerning the consequences of Reuben’s sin.
In this passage, Reuben is asserting his dominance. He is attempting to ensure his continued authority over his other siblings. Did Reuben suffer consequences for his sin? He did indeed, but we can’t simply look to the next verse to discover them. We must look later in the narrative, namely at the end of his father’s life. Reuben’s actions result in his being deprived of the blessing and the inheritance from Jacob/Israel that he would have naturally received as the first-born son:
[On his deathbed, Jacob said]: “Reuben, you are my first-born, my might, and the first fruits of my strength, pre-eminent in pride and pre-eminent in power. Unstable as water, you shall not have pre-eminence because you went up to your father’s bed; then you defiled it—you went up to my couch!”
Genesis 49:3
Reuben’s birthright instead passed to his younger brother, Joseph:
The sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born; but because he polluted his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright; though Judah became strong among his brothers and a prince was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph)…
1 Chronicles 5:1-2
Once again referring Naik to his “Combat Kit” study materials, Deedat moves onto a supposed Biblical contradiction…
In an attempt to demonstrate a contradiction, Deedat first refers to is Genesis 25 where the text speaks about Abraham’s new wife, Keturah:
Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.
Genesis 25:1
Their study materials then say that this verse is contradicted by a passage in Chronicles:
The sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bore Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midan, Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan: Sheba and Dedan.
1 Chronicles 1:32
Only a few minutes ago, Deedat was saying that “wife” and “concubine” mean the same thing, yet when there is the opportunity for a polemic against Christians, they are suddenly have very different menings! Deedat mockingly asks why God would be confusing people by saying two contradictory statements. He continues repeating this for some time. He ends by saying that, if the Christian replies that “wife” and “concubine” are basically the same thing, then Deedat’s earlier claim that Reuben “raped his mother” is thereby validated.
If Christians treated the Qur’an in this way they would be rightly chided. Does Deedat know whether there are Christian responses to this supposed contradiction? There are indeed. Firstly, there is the possibility that each passage is simply referring to a different point in time, meaning that Keturah began as Abraham’s concubine and eventually became his wife, much in the same way that a woman today might transition from being a man’s mistress to being his second wife. Secondly, even in Genesis it appears that the term “wife” had a degree of flexibility. For example, in Genesis 16:3, Hagar is referred to as Abraham’s wife, but a few chapters later in Genesis 25:6 it is implied that she was his concubine. It is entirely possible that at this stage of Hebrew culture, the term “wife” was somewhat elastic and was used imprecisely to sometimes refer to concubines. Either way, once again Deedat is applying an Islamic standard of literalism which might be problematic for Islam, but not for Judaism and Christianity.
Deedat moves to his next example found in Genesis 38, the illicit liaison between Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar. It’s at this point that the video stops, but it doesn’t really matter because it’s very likely that he’s going to make exactly the same mistakes as above.
When I lived in London and interacted with Muslims at Speaker’s Corner, I often found that they were very well prepared, no doubt receiving the same kind of training we see here from Deedat. However, as we’ve seen in this video, this training comes along with fundamental methodological flaws, as well as basic misunderstandings concerning what Christians believe and why…
Over the last two days I have briefly shared a portion of my faith journey. During this retelling I have particularly focussed upon my ecclesiastical wanderings, mentioning some of the things which pushed me away from some congregations and drew me towards others.
As I mentioned in the initial post, this blog series was originally a talk I gave at my parish called “Catholics Come Home”. As part of my preparation I spent quite some time on the Internet reading the stories of those who had left the Catholic Church. It was a heartbreaking experience. A large number of the stories I read echoed my own. Many of the sentiments expressed were also very similar. It became clear that, more often than not, the reason someone leaves the Catholic Church is because of lack of pastoral care, rather than doctrine.
In the accounts I read, there were many complaints about the welcome experienced when attending a Catholic parish (or rather, the distinct absence thereof). Many stories were told of abysmal music and of incoherent, boring preaching. There were laments concerning the lack of community and the lack of ongoing Christian formation. There were also unfortunately quite a few incidents described where people felt poorly treated by priests, catechists and other parish staff. Careless words can cut extremely deep and have serious consequences..
The other night I went to see the movie Courageous with a bunch of other guys on a “man trip” ;-). I’ve written about this movie before, but over the next few weeks I’d like to mention a few other thoughts which came to mind while watching the film…
In the story, a group of four men decide to sign a Resolution, a statement of conduct (derived from Scripture) which they promise to follow as both men and as fathers.
In a certain scene, one of the men shows a copy of the Resolution to his wife. She gets really excited and then starts asking him lots of questions. What will the final Resolution look like? What is he going to wear when he signs it? etc. The man gives his wife a look of complete incomprehension and confusion. It’s clear that he hadn’t even considered these things. To this she responds:
“If you’re gonna do this, then do it right. Something like this requires…ceremony!”
I had to smile at this, since, to my Catholic ears, I heard:
“If you’re gonna do this, then do it right. Something like this requires…liturgy“ 🙂
Later in the film we see what this ceremony looks like…
All the men are wearing suits and their family members are present, also in formal attire. They meet in a beautiful park underneath some trees. A long-time friend and minister to one of the men officiates, calling each of the men forward one-by-one. Each man then repeats the Resolution out loud in the presence of his family and pastor, after which he signs a framed copy of the Resolution written in beautiful calligraphy, which he later hangs in a prominent place in his home.
Two days ago, Cardinal Dolan gave his presidential address to the US Bishops. In his speech, he focused on the need for penance and suggested the possible reintroduction of the traditional Catholic practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays:
What an irony that despite the call of the Second Vatican Council for a renewal of the Sacrament of Penance, what we got instead was its near disappearance….
The work of our Conference during the coming year includes reflections on re-embracing Friday as a particular day of penance, including the possible re-institution of abstinence on all Fridays of the year, not just during Lent.
It appears that Cardinal Dolan is moving forward with this initiative, since we have just heard on Facebook that the bishops have appointed a new advocacy spokesman, Gollum:
A while ago on this blog I shared my “life verse”, my favourite Bible verse by which I try to live my life…
But [the Lord] said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness”
– 2 Corinthians 12:9
I brought up the subject of life verses in my Theology On Tap talk. I told those attending that I wanted my talk to inspire those present to read the Bible, to be the kind of person who has a favourite book of the Bible and to be the kind of person who has a “life verse”.
Moses always enjoyed sharing his favourite Bible passages…
I invited those without a life verse to keep their ears open for their life verse during future times of Bible study and during the Liturgy of the Word. Otherwise, what would they say if they got cornered at a party by some enthusiastic Christians, who asked for their life verse?!
I made the point that picking a life verse at random is a risky strategy since, if one decided to play it safe and pick psalm, one might end up choosing Psalm 38…
For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh
– Psalm 38:7
If your new friends know their Bible well, or if they look up your “life verse” on the spot…then things will get awwwkward! As they leave the party, don’t expect them to shake your hand…or even touch you in any way whatsoever!