Talking 'bout Religion

I had a very interesting conversation yesterday with a number of coaches and volunteers on the way to Ajloun (about a 2 hour ride). The main topic of conversation of course turned to religion, which, strangely enough, I really enjoy talking about. However, religion is already a difficult issue to discuss properly and cohesively in your own language, but unfortunately much harder when the primary language in the conversation is Arabic, with attempted translation for the vast majority of it which you don't understand. Also, as I learned, the questions that a group of Jordanians (and for the most part Muslims in general I think) will ask you about religion are frequently quite different from the usual questions that I deal with in the US, where even atheists are rooted in a deeply Christian-influenced culture.

I think the first question was something along the lines of: "Why aren't you a Muslim?" OK, good start. I explained that I was a follower of Jesus and believed in the Bible. They reminded me that Jesus was a prophet in the Qu'ran as well, and pointed people to Islam. They also informed me that Jesus never actually died on the cross (apparently a lie that the Jews came up with), but was saved by God. I went on to describe a bit of my belief in the centrality of the cross in Jesus' message, and told them that I believed in what he taught about non-violence and an allegiance to a kingdom not of this world. They kinda laughed at these last points, especially the non-violent part. "What if someone was hurting your mom? What would you do then?"

I was reminded of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1 about Christ's crucifixion being "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." My friends wondered why God would allow a prophet to be executed and why Jesus would teach his followers to follow his example and be so weak and foolish? Regardless of the language barrier, it is impossible to logically explain how Jesus "disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col. 2:15) except by pointing to the resurrection. Yet if you are talking to someone who doesn't acknowledge either the crucifixion or resurrection, then you are a bit out of luck on this argument. So I was stuck with foolishness, which for a follower of Christ seems like a good place to be.

The conversation moved on to the topic of defending the faith when I asked my friends what they thought about the Dutch cartoons depicting the Prophet or the Salman Rushdie (Satanic Verses) controversy. They agreed that the artists behind these blasphemies should be killed (after being given a firm warning) for their offenses against the Prophet and Islam. Now this shocked me a bit, because most Muslims that I have interacted with in the US tend to be a bit more liberal and favor free speech over "defending" their religion against the horrible attacks of artists in foreign countries. However, as I reflected on this conversation and some of the fundamental differences between our faiths, some of these issues made a lot more sense.

(Preface to the final bit: frequently the Christianity that I am about to talk about has been lost in the desire for political and religious power which culminated in the idea of Christendom. However, I subscribe to the words of Jesus, who spoke of a kingdom not of this world (John 18:36) and who told his disciples that the world would hate them and persecute them, but that this little revolution of love would win over the world)

One of the greatest fundamental differences between the teachings of Christianity and the other main monotheistic faiths (Judaism and Islam) is the fact that Christianity is the only one in which the founder (I'm looking at Moses more than Abraham for Judaism) was not a political as well as religious leader (not that Jesus was not political, but he was not a "political leader" in the usual sense). As mentioned above, Jesus talked a lot about his Kingdom, but made clear that it was not like the kingdoms of this world. He denounced violence and ruling by the sword, and points out that if he was leading an earthly kingdom, then his followers would have defended him (John 18:36 again).

However, Islam, since the time of the Prophet Mohammad, has been both a religious and a political entity. Granted, the political cohesiveness of the Islamic world was never really been a single entity after the time of the Prophet and the first 4 Caliphs (because of questions over who should take up the caliphate after him. However, the connection between Islam and politics has remained to this day in a very tangible way (not exclusive, but important as can be seen by the historic desire to control the caliphate).

The important part here, related to my analysis, is that Jesus prepares his followers to be insulted, despised, and executed for their faith (and the apostles confirm this with their lives), but yet warns them not to resist an evil man, for the Kingdom of God is not like the kingdoms of this world. The Kingdom will not spread through conquest (again, the Church regrettably gave up on this vision and lost sight of their savior for about a thousand years of Christendom), but instead through the love and the blood of these "little Jesuses" (Christian was originally a mocking and derogatory term).

However, the political nature of the Prophet within Islam led to a need for Muslims to physically expand the faith through conquest as an earthly kingdom does. In the same way, Judaism was founded and then required a physical place for the Jewish people to dwell in. So it makes sense that assaults on the Prophet or on Islam in general, wherever they occur around the world, are an attack on Islam everywhere, and must be "defended". While I don't agree with the methods of this defense (I kinda support free speech and productive dialogue and criticism), I can see why the nature of the religion would result in this reaction (compared to say a Buddhist freaking out about a fat Buddha statue).

I do not mean for these observations to be perceived as a value statement, but simply as some of my thoughts on a few of the differences between Islam and Christianity and the way that these different beliefs and points of view have come up during my time here. I am painting in broad strokes that obviously miss a lot, and again my argument is contradictory to a lot of Church history (which does not follow what I would define as the message of the Gospel) in the same way that I am sure much of modern "Islamism" is contradictory to what many Muslims would describe as the original message of Islam.