Comparing and contrasting Christian belief to others

For the last two meetings of the theology reading group we discussed I believe. Help my unbelief!: Christian beliefs for a religiously pluralistic and secular world by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

It is a 400+ page summary of the author's five-volume systematic theology series called Constructive Christian Theology for the Church in the Pluralistic World.

The book is an ambitious and admirable project. The author not only discusses all the main topics in systematic theology but also attempts to bring each topic into dialogue with science (representing the secular world) and the major religions: Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

I am in two minds as to how much the project has succeeded. I am glad Karkkainen tried. I learnt a lot about other religions. The compare and contrast approach was done in a respectful and honest way. I think there are two problematic extremes I have noticed in comparisons of religions. One is to force similarities that actually aren't there and to ignore or minimise real differences. The opposite extreme is to deny any similarities and demonise the religion of the "other". The author avoids both extremes.

I don't know enough about other religions to know if the author's descriptions were reasonable and accurate. I did learn a lot and found them helpful. It is interesting how in Judaism there is little emphasis on heaven and eternal life. How should that affect how Christians read the Old Testament? The discussion highlighted for me how certain Christian beliefs are distinctive, such as salvation by grace and the affirmation of the goodness of God's creation. I found it ironic that Buddhism and Hinduism are dominant in communal cultures but are highly individualistic in terms of their views of "salvation" and religious life.

I found Karkkainen's engagement with science somewhat disappointing. References on scientific topics were often popular websites such as space.com. Sometimes details were garbled, such as his description of quantum entanglement (page 90). He only mentioned a few authors on this topic, and some of the references were quite old. More recent authors such as Alister McGrath, Tom McLeish, Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, Peter Harrison, Alvin Plantinga, and Rodney Holder were not mentioned.

On theology, Karkkainen models "generous orthodoxy" in the sense of affirming central orthodox Christian beliefs while graciously acknowledging differences in how those beliefs are to be interpreted and lived out. He references authors from a range of traditions, convictions, and perspectives. Although he is Lutheran, he is comfortable criticising Martin Luther!

I looked through the index and counted page references to different theologians: Jurgen Moltmann (25), Augustine (23), Aquinas (15), Barth (14), Luther (14), and Pannenberg (7). I found this interesting, but I'm not sure what to conclude from it.

The beauty and paradoxes of the power of God

How powerful is God? What is the nature of God's power? How is the power of God similar and different to the power of humans?

This month in the theology reading group we are discussing The Power of God and the gods of Power by Daniel L. Migliore. A helpful summary of the book is here.

The book is marked by clarity, insight, and humility. Migliore engages with the Bible and theologians (mostly Protestant) from various eras and perspectives. It is distinctly Trinitarian, is wary of abstractions, and teases out practical implications to churches and individuals. 

Here are a few of the things that stood out to me.

Human agency reflects that everyone, regardless of their situation, has some power and this is an important part of their humanity. It is diminished when we are now allowed to express it, feel we can't or don't. (pages 2-7).

God's power is radically different from the human will to power, e.g., to dominate others. God reveals his strength (power) "most awesomely in the humility of a servant Lord." (p. 15).

As for any concept, it is important to consider what images and metaphors we associate with it.

The Greek gods were each associated with an irresistible power: sex, wine, war, and destruction, ... They promote the myth that we are helpless while in the grip of their power. This myth undermines our agency and the associated human dignity. (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13). (p. 9) 

In American culture, the images of power include sheer almightiness (God is like Superman), captive power (God is a divine butler at our beck and call), and ineptness or indifference. (p. 20)

If we misconceive divine power we will misconceive and misuse human power. (p. 32)

The activity of the Trinity defines who God is and the nature of the power that God exercises: creative, suffering, and transformative love. (p. 57)

Scholastic theology has a fraught legacy as its metaphysical approach to understanding God is relatively independence from the Biblical witness. It framed God's power in abstract terms and as absolute (omnipotent), immutable, and impassible. (pp. 62-65).

There is an interesting transition in the history of Christian art, where before Constantine Jesus was portrayed as a shepherd and later as a king. (p. 67)

In considering what role power should play in the church there has been and continues to be a false dichotomy. The first choice is accepting the reality of power in any human institution, exercising it strongly, sometimes to the point of accepting abuses of power as just and unfortunate reality. The second choice is to eschew any sorts of structures that will involve members exercising power over others. These two choices were embodied in the Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, respectively.

The power of the triune God is seen in actions as Creator, Redeemer, and Transformer.

The life of the church is to be a living witness to the nature of the power of God. This is reflected in participants are not passive observers, servant leadership, and not being self-focussed. The church should not to be coercive, including in evangelism. (p.68)

Unfortunately, widespread reports over the past decade of abuse: sexual, spiritual, and financial, reflect how much the church has failed. This is relevant to the book we will discuss next month, When Narcissism Comes to Church.

On theodicy, "suffering is the greatest mystery of human life." (p. 83)

"God freely suffers for the salvation of others - that is the deepest message of Scripture regarding human suffering." (p. 85).

 "Suffering is not primarily a theoretical problem but an agonising reality of life." (p. 87).

"Homogeneity in the Christian community is therefore a contradiction of the gospel of God's omnipotent love, which frees us to accept as brothers and sisters those considered strangers and enemies. A community that calls itself Christian and is complacent about its economic, racial, and cultural insularity is a community without the power of the Spirit..

Some church leaders advocate an outreach program for congregations that would focus on people most similar to their present members. But evangelism that deliberately aims at homogeneity for the sake of church growth is a display of spiritual weakness rather than real spiritual strength. ... (p. 106)"

The final chapter considers the practical implications of the Christian theology of the power of God for the dialogue between Christians and Muslims. This is one of the most helpful and constructive discussions I have encountered about the ground and nature of such dialogue. Mutual respect means acknowledging both common ground and real differences. Both Muslims and Christians affirm the unity of God and are against idolatry and immorality. Their central difference concerns fundamentally different perspectives on the power of God. Christians affirm the "weakness" of God profoundly manifest in both the incarnation and the crucifixion of Jesus.

Lectures on science and Christianity: part 2

 I have uploaded to YouTube part 2 of my lectures on Science, Christianity and Apologetics

Historical and Philosophical Perspectives

0. Overview of Part 2 

1. Do ancient religious texts contain modern scientific knowledge? 

2. The Christian origins of modern science 

3. Science and philosophy 

4. Some landmark historical conflicts between science and Christianity 

5. Science, Christianity, and mission in the context of colonialism

Beauty, art, and mission

 Last night my wife and I watched Many Beautiful Things, a documentary about the extraordinary life of Lillias Trotter. It captures the beauty of her life and art and how she followed Jesus. The striking cinemaphotography gave a glimpse of the amazing ways that Trotter could see beauty in nature and then capture it in watercolours. Daily she wrote diary entries about her life and spiritual journey including ornate pictures of scenes and people she engaged with. She was independently wealthy and of frail health. She had artistic talent that could have led to her being the greatest English painter of her time, according to the judgement of John Ruskin (the leading English art critic of the 19th century). Yet, her desire to follow Jesus led her to care for destitute women in London and eventually women and children in Algeria. This choice was a great disappointment to Ruskin.

You can watch it for free on Youtube (with endless ads) or on RedeemTV without ads. I thank Tanglaw Roman for bringing it to my attention.

Who decides whether a woman is "free" or "oppressed"?

I read a fascinating New York Times article
The College Student Who Has France’s Secularists Fulminating,
which describes how Maryam Pougetoux, a student leader has caused offense because she wore a traditional head scarf when interviewed on TV about student protests.
Some secularists considered it inconsistent with her being president of a student union and with advocacy of the progressive and feminist values she stands for.
Critics seem focused on her clothes rather than what she said.

In such discussions I wonder about whether some women in the Western world are really free?

There is incredible social pressure (from both men and women) for women wear make up, high heels, revealing clothing, and adopt certain poses. Some women freely choose such options, others do so out of compulsion, whether consciously or sub-consciously.

This cartoon is by Malcolm Evans 

The article about the french controversy is interesting to juxtapose with a recent article in The Australian newspaper, Race, gender politics swamp great debate, Controversy has arisen because the Sydney University Debating Society has introduced gender-based quotas for their teams.

The article features the photograph below of a student who supported the quotas. 

COSAC talk: science in ancient religious texts

Today I am giving a talk, ``Do Ancient Religious Texts Contain Modern Scientific Knowledge?" at COSAC. Here are the slides.

The video clip in the talk is from here.

A video of the talk is below.

Cooking up a family reconciliation

I enjoyed watching the movie Today's Special. It is a light-hearted "foodie" movie. A young man in New York  wants to become a great chef. However, due to his father'hs poor health he is forced to take over the Indian restaurant owned by his father, an immigrant of Indian Muslim origin.

 

It nicely portrays the reconciliation of father and son and multi-cultural New York. The movie makes you want to go out and eat some good Indian food. This is good since I am in India right now!

Honour, shame, and the Gospel

The Gospel of Jesus transcends culture. Nevertheless, communicating it and living it out does take different forms in different cultures. This video nicely presents the Gospel that may be more meaningful in cultures in which honour and shame play a central role.

A moving personal account from a former Muslim

I highly recommend the book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi. In particular, I would recommend this book not just to people with Muslim and Christian backgrounds but also secularists and atheists. It may rattle your cage a little. It did mine.

The book is extremely well written and easy to read. It tells a fascinating and moving story. I read the whole book within two days because I just could not put it down. Besides the great story, the book has two significant strengths. First, it is quite educational. As he tells his story he gradually explains key aspects of Islam and Muslim practise and beliefs. I learnt an incredible amount. I was unsettled by my ignorance, but also challenged to learn more. Moreover, Qureshi does not just present facts but helps the reader see the world from the viewpoint of a Muslim, including what it feels like to be a Muslim, particularly living in the West. You are invited to walk in his shoes. The second strength is that Qureshi is warm and respectful of Muslims as people, while being (eventually) critical of the Qu'ran and Mohammed. Reading the book should be quite unsettling to Westerners who have a harsh and hostile attitude to Muslims. It also explains the diversity of Muslims and how many are greatly distressed by terrorist acts being committed in the name of Islam.

Qureshi grew up as a "third culture kid". His parents immigrated to the USA from Pakistan and are Ahmadiyya Muslims. His father served in the US Navy, including several years at a nuclear submarine base in Scotland. The family life centred around the local mosque and extended family. The family was warm, close knit, highly protective, and devout. Yet they were very isolated from the surrounding community. Although Qureshi attended secular schools, he had virtually non-Muslim friends, until he went to college. There he had a close Christian friend, who played a significant role in his life. This led to a long and painful re-examination of his religious beliefs. This should stimulate all of us to critically evaluate what we believe and why we believe it.

Qureshi highlights the incredible and tragic personal cost of leaving Islam, even for those living in the West. Some of the discussion of violence in the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad is unsettling.  The book makes clear following Jesus and following Muhammad are not the same thing. Also, a Muslim and a secular Westerner do not see the world in the same way.

Certain practices of Muslims were described that one could be easily critical of: weak apologetic arguments, appeal to authority, not going to source documents, social pressure to conform (role of shame), partisan factions, self righteousness, uncritical faith, special pleading to explain difficult verses in a holy text, double standards of reasoning, not really listening to others, ....
Yet, as a Christian I found this somewhat unsettling because I have sometimes seen somewhat similar practises in the Christian community!

So read the book and be unsettled.

The responsibilities of free speech

I am thankful that in Western democratic societies, free speech is a valued and fundamental right. However, I think it is right that comes with responsibilities.
I am not particularly sympathetic to claims that it is fundamental free speech issue when it comes to

-pornography,
-tabloid newspapers publishing titillating details of the private lives of celebrities,
-people gratuitously using swear words on prime time television
-"art" that deliberately seeks to be offensive to religious people

These may be celebrated causes of libertarians in affluent Western countries.
Instead we should consider focusing on cases such as

Sri Lankan newspaper editor Lasantha Wickrematunge who was murdered.
He was a longtime critic of the oppressive and corrupt government that was just voted out of power.

Xu Zhiyong is a Chinese legal scholar and human rights activist. One year ago he was jailed for four years.

I found the two articles below raised important issues.

Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr
by Bruce Crumley, published in Time magazine in 2011.

 Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.

When 'free speech' becomes a kind of fundamentalism by historian Charles Walton.

I find the readers comments on both articles rather disappointing. Many appear to have made little effort to actually understand what the authors are trying to say and simply condemn them. This simple lack of civil discourse is a worry to me.

Is the Trinity conceptually possible?

The Trinity is one of the most confusing concepts in Christian theology.
How can God be three persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] yet one?
Non-Christians sometimes say it is illogical and nonsense.
This is particularly true of Muslims who consider it offends the unity of Allah.
[Aside: It also seems that most Muslims think Christians believe the Trinity is God, Mary, and Jesus.]

I am currently reading the fascinating book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi.
I will write more about it later. Here I just want to highlight one small part of the story I found fascinating because of my interest in the relationship between science and theology.

Like most Muslims, Qureshi thought the Trinity made no sense.
But he became open to it in a completely unexpected circumstance. In an organic chemistry class (!) he learnt about the resonance structures of the nitrate ion [shown above]. This molecule does not have a single structure. Rather, it simultaneously has the three structures above. It is not one or the other, but all three of them. This is a result of [the bizarre properties of] quantum physics, it is the same as Schrodingers cat, being both dead and alive at the same time.

Learning about resonance structures did not lead Qureshi to believe the Trinity was true. It just made him open to the idea that it was conceptually possible that it could be true. He could no longer dismiss it out of hand.

From revolution to disillusion

Adam Michnik, a historian who helped to overthrow the Soviets in Poland, once said: 

“Revolutions have two phases: first comes a struggle for freedom, then a struggle for power. The first makes the human spirit soar and brings out the best in people. The second unleashes the worst: envy, intrigue, greed, suspicion and the urge for revenge.”

This is in fascinating article about Iran,  The revolution is over, in a recent issue of The Economist.

Do ancient religious texts contain modern scientific knowledge?

Sometimes Christians tell me that the Bible contains scientific knowledge. I disagree.
I am currently in India and the Prime Minister recently gave a speech when he was opening a new hospital. He said that ancient Hindu texts contained knowledge of genetic science and plastic surgery. 
Some Muslim evangelists claim that the Qur'an contains modern science on diverse subjects such as embryology, cosmology, geophysics, special relativity, water, and astronomy. 
A popular website about that is here.
The Wikipedia page about this issue is worth reading. A detailed rebuttal of Islamic claims is here, including a detailed technical critique of the claim that the Qur'an contains the actual value speed of light. A related useful critique of Bucailleism is here, including a discussion of how it is rejected by many Muslim scholars.

I believe that most of the arguments, regardless of the religion involved, more or less follow a similar pattern that I describe below, step by step, in symbolic form.
I then discuss why I think each step of the argument is problematic.

Consider religion R which has an ancient sacred text T.
Here R=Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, …  
and T= Bible, Qu’ran, Mahabharata, …

1. Text T contains a passage P which uses certain words W.
2. W can be equated with a modern scientific concept C [e.g. genetics, big bang, …]
3. Therefore T contains modern scientific knowledge.
4. Scientific expert Dr. S agrees with claim 3.
5. T was written thousands of years ago before anyone knew about C.
6. It follows from 3. and 5. that God must have told the authors C.
7. Therefore, all of text T is “the word of God” and religion R is true.
8. Text T should be taught in school science classes.
9. You, the hearer or reader, should convert to religion R.

I now explain in some detail how most of the steps in this argument are problematic.
Some steps involve logical fallacies.

2. The word W in text T can be equated with a modern scientific concept C.

This usually requires a debatable translation and extrapolation of the specific word.
Examples include  Christian young earth creationists claiming that “leviathan” in the book of Job is a dinosaur or Muslims claiming that “nutfah” [sperm-drop] is an embyro containing chromosomes.

3. Therefore T contains modern scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is highly specific, detailed, technical, and often mathematical. It goes beyond a few words. That is why there are whole textbooks on highly specialised subjects. For example, the “big bang theory” is not just a vague idea about an explosion at the the beginning of the universe.
It is a set a detailed mathematical equations that make quantitative predictions that can be [and have been] tested by detailed astronomical observations.
Even if one were to accept 2., this is far from the text T containing useful and detailed scientific knowledge.

4. Scientific expert Dr. S agrees with claim 3.

A. Sometimes the expert is quoted out of context.
An example, is Professor Joe Leigh Simpson. In a 2002 Wall Street Journal article, he explicitly states he has been mis-quoted. Nevertheless, Muslim apologists, web sites, and literature continue to mis-quote him.

B. Sometimes the credentials of these “experts” are inflated or irrelevant.
In some cases I have checked them out and found they were not tenured faculty at the stated institution, but appear to have had some minor part-time teaching, research or technical or support role in the past. Furthermore, they do not have publications in relevant reputable international
peer-reviewed scientific journals.
If someone did a Ph.D in nuclear physics thirty years ago, and has since worked as an engineer, I fail to see how they are qualified to write authoritatively about biology.

C. Finally, this raises the problem of argument by appeal to authority.
Even brilliant experts can be wrong. Linus Pauling won two Nobel Prizes [Chemistry, Peace] but he was wrong about the structure of DNA, quasicrystals, and the therapeutic value of massive doses of vitamin C. On controversial issues, you can usually find equally qualified experts with opposite opinions. The only case where I think appeal to authority has some value is when there is an
overwhelming consensus among experts. For example, 97 per cent of climate scientists accept the evidence for human induced global warming.
Another example, is the fact that New Atheists cannot produce a single academic historian in a major university who believes that Jesus was not a historical figure.

5. The text T was written thousands of years ago before anyone knew about the scientific concept C.

Usually the information that the text contains is similar to common knowledge from the time it was written and the author presumably had access to. For example, the information about sperm and foetus development [allegedly embryology  and chromosones] in the Qu'ran actually reflects ancient Greek understanding.

6. It follows from 3. and 5. that God must have told the authors C.

This conclusion does not follow because the claims 3. and 5. are not valid.

7. Therefore, all of text T is “the word of God” and religion R is true.

It is not valid to argue from the specific to the general.
Just because every swan I see is white does not mean there are no black swans in the world. When I read The Hindu newspaper I find that their reports of cricket scores are completely accurate. However, that does not mean I always believe their reporting  of political events. Furthermore, the validity of the cricket scores certainly does not give the horoscopes credibility.
Suppose you ask for me to help you solve a mathematical problem and I do. That does not mean you should trust me for financial or relationship advice.

8. Text T should be taught in school science classes.

Because point 3 is not valid [i.e. T does not contain modern scientific knowledge] this does not follow.

9. You, the hearer or reader, should convert to religion R.

Because the preceding argument is not valid the conclusion does not follow.
One needs to find alternative arguments to justify belief in a specific religion. Elsewhere, I have written why I believe the Gospel of Jesus is true.

On the other hand, some atheists point out the failure of these arguments and claim that justifies atheism. That is also a fallacy. If I present a faulty argument for Pythagorus theorem in geometry that does not establish that the theorem is false, just that my argument is wrong.

I thank some of my Indian friends for bringing this issue to my attention and asking for my response. 

Seek the welfare of the city

What should the role and responsibilities of Christians be in the public square?
How can secular democracies function when many citizens are religious?

This past month at my theology book discussion group we read and discussed Miroslav Volf's book, A Public Faith: How followers of Christ should serve the common good

My first problem with this book was that my expectations were too high. Volf's earlier book Exclusion and Embrace, is a hard act to follow. It is highly original and challenging, particularly in its engagement with postmodern literature.

I mainly recommend it because it wrestles with important issues that need to be addressed by both Christians and non-Christians.

What is the "common good"? It is "human flourishing". Christians can serve others. They can also question things in society that are preventing people from flourishing. An example is how Western secular society has degenerated into a focus on "experiential satisfaction." This follows the change in the USA from a focus on God to Nation to self, as described by Andrew Delbanco in The Real American Dream.

I think Volf may be a little weak in his view of the prophetic role of Christians. He seems so keen to find common ground and get a "seat at the table" that he is reluctant to be marginalised by them calling on society to repent and to right injustices.

I feel the book may be too controlled by responding to extremist agendas, caricatures, and critiques. Significant space is spend responding to the influential Muslim, Sayyid Qutb. It reminds me of yet another book on "creation vs. evolution" which is responding to a debate defined by extremists such as Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham.

Previously, I posted about how I don't like the label "science and faith". Similarly I don't like the label of "faith-based initiatives". The problem is that this plays to secularist claims that contrast "faith" and "reason" and "evidence". There is just as much "faith" and "personal values" in the views and policies of right-wing conservatives, Marxists, libertarians, Muslims, neoliberals, .... and Christian activists.

The book could have benefited from some concrete discussion and examples of how his proposals might work in practice. One example might be the Clapham Sect, associated with William Wilberforce.

Nevertheless. the book is a valuable contribution. Jeremiah 29 says

4 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. 7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

Why are these people so angry?

My family enjoyed watching the movie Argo. I liked the beginning which gave a very brief historical background to the taking of hostages in the American embassy in Tehran. After Iran democratically elected a Prime Minister he nationalised oil industries owned by British and American companies. This led to CIA staff based in the embassy engineering a coup in 1953 and re-establishment of the oil companies and the rule of the Shah who used his secret police SAVAK to brutally crush dissent, including with torture.

The movie shows many scenes [some from actual historical footage] of angry and "fanatical" Iranians demanding justice, burning Uncle Sam effigies, storming the embassy, .... Some have criticised the movie as portraying stereotypes.
Learning just a little of the historical background helped me understand why they
were so angry.

Secularists oppose a truly secular state

Recent riots involving parts of the Muslim community in Australia have stimulated significant debate. I thought this Opinion piece by Paul Kelly, Editor at Large of The Australian newspaper was quite insightful and appropriate, reflecting on what it means for Australia to be a secular state. Here is an extract:

It is equally important, however, to acknowledge the secular state is under assault not just from religious crusaders but from secularists. In Australia today racist language is a taboo, yet attacks on religious belief are frequent and almost fashionable. 

The sanction extended to media displays of contempt for people with religious belief, notably Christianity, seems to reflect a new prejudice by people many of whom aspire to drive religion from the public square into the exclusively private realm. 

Perhaps they do not comprehend, but this is a direct assault upon the secular state and the terms of peaceful co-existence between the state and religion. In this concept, the state became neutral between believers and non-believers and neutral among different types of believers. 

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

It is important to acknowledge that even the term "secular" was coined by Christians and used in a positive light by Augustine and Luther. That was something I learnt recently in a fascinating history seminar.

Books on Islam and science

My knowledge and understanding of Islam is extremely limited and something I would like to correct. An interesting and important issue is the relationship between Islam and science, both past and present. Here are a few books that I would eventually like to read.

Islam's Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science by Nidhal Guessoum, a Muslim and Physics Professor at the American University of Sharjah (United Arab Emirates).

Islam, Science, and the Challenge of History by Ahmad Dallal based on his 2008 Terry Lectures given at Yale. He is a historian who is currently Provost at American University in Beirut.

An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam by Taner Edis, an atheist physicist who grew up in Turkey. The reviews on Amazon are worth reading.

I welcome suggestions about other relevant books and articles.

Why didn't Jesus publish?

A couple of gems from the Postscript to Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview by Albert Wolters.

In the history of the church redemption has often been misunderstood to be salvation from creation rather than salvation of creation. But the point of the gospel is that creation itself is the goal of the salvation that the gospel announces. (page 121)

 in making provision for the communication of the good news to many different cultures in the succeeding centuries, Jesus did not (like Mohammed) write a book. Rather, he formed a community to be the bearer of this good news. The identity of that community is formed by its mission - its being sent by Jesus - to make known the good news of the kingdom. (page 122)

The postscript was co-authored by Michael Goheen and some of the same material can be found in his essay Reading the Bible as one story.

Finding similarities and differences in interfaith dialogue

This week I encountered a new term, "Judeo-Islamic tradition." It occurs in an interview with Mark Cohen in the latest issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly. He states:

The term “Judeo-Christian tradition” only became popular after World War I and especially after the rise of Nazism in Europe. In fact, Judaism is much closer to Islam in its belief system and practice than it is to Christianity. My emeritus colleague Bernard Lewis coined the term “Judeo-Islamic tradition” to describe it.

I think this illustrates a profoundly important difference. Islam and Judaism are based on law. Christianity is based on grace.

What is sacred ground?

Each week I go out for breakfast with my son, usually at Hungry Jack's. We read the newspaper and talk about a Christian book we are reading.
This is one of the few times in the week when I look at a hard copy of a newspaper. I still prefer it to reading online.
In today's Australian newspaper there is a good column by Greg Sheridan, Both sides guilty of excess in US Islam debate.
He mentions an excellent column by Charles Krauthammer, Sacrilege at Ground Zero, which gives a persuasive and balanced argument about why building a mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks is not a good idea. He points out the relevant example of how Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns to leave the monastery they had build near Auschwitz because it was an inappropriate location.