Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Easter Sermon 2016

This is the sermon I gave at our main Easter service, March 27, 2016.


Just the Gardener

An Easter Meditation

Rev. Dr. Tom Sorenson, Pastor

March 27, 2016



Scripture: John 20:1-18



Let us pray: May the words of my mouth and the meditations of all of our hearts be acceptable in your sight O God, our strength and our redeemer.



Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! It the most joyous proclamation of the Christian faith. It is the most joyous proclamation that there ever was or ever could be. It is the foundational proclamation of the Christian faith. Without Christ’s glorious Resurrection there would be no Christian faith. If Jesus had only died as he did, brutally executed by the Romans as a threat to public order, we’d never have heard of him. If he’d only died with nothing more his followers would have disbanded and gone home, disillusioned perhaps or at least gravely disappointed, but certainly not inspired to proclaim the empty tomb and continue his teachings. Jesus’ Resurrection is certainly the most amazing thing that has ever happened to any human being. I mean, dead people don’t just get up and walk out of the grave, only Jesus did. Jesus rose to eternal life, eternal life for him and eternal life for us. Easter is simply amazing. Easter is simply impossible, it just happened, that’s all. Christ is risen! Christ is risen indeed!

All of which leads me to ask: If Jesus’ Resurrection is so amazing, why do the Gospels make it sound so ordinary? I mean, they really do, or at least most of them do. Take Mark, the oldest Gospel, for example. In that account three women go to Jesus’ tomb and don’t find Jesus’ body there. Instead they find a figure that Mark just calls a young man. That young man tells them quite matter-of-factly that Jesus isn’t there, he has risen. That’s really all there is Mark’s account. No real drama. No fireworks. Just a man stating a fact as though there were nothing to it. Luke makes it a bit more dramatic, and Matthew, in his typical fashion, makes it a bit more dramatic still. He has an earthquake greet the women at the tomb and a man whose appearance was like lightning. Still, all that man does is tell the women quite matter-of-factly that Jesus has risen. Matthew likes his dramatic details, but all they do is dress up a pretty bland story. The tomb is empty and some figure of other tells the women who find the empty tomb that Jesus has risen.

Then there’s John’s version that we just heard. First in that account Mary Magdalene finds the stone rolled away from the front of Jesus’ tomb. She assumes that something quite ordinary has happened. She tells Peter and another disciple that someone has removed Jesus’ body from the tomb and she doesn’t know what whoever that was has done with it. Peter and the other disciple confirm that Jesus’ tomb is empty. Then they just shrug their shoulders and go home. Mary stands outside the tomb crying. Two angels ask her why she’s crying, and she says it’s because someone has taken Jesus’ body but she knows not where.

Then Mary turns around. She sees what she takes to be something perfectly ordinary. There’s a man standing there. He must have looked perfectly ordinary, for Mary just assumes that he’s the gardener and that he must be the one who for some reason has taken Jesus’ body out of its tomb. Now, that person whom Mary takes to be the gardener turns out to be the risen Christ; but apparently there’s nothing about him that tells Mary that he’s anything other than an ordinary man, not at first at least. If there were, how could she think that he was simply the gardener? I mean, of course there’s nothing wrong with being a gardener; but gardeners look pretty much like the rest of us except perhaps for soiled knees and maybe dirt under their fingernails. John doesn’t tell us that the risen Christ had soiled knees and dirt under his fingernails, but maybe he did. In any event there’s nothing extraordinary about the figure Mary sees. To her, at first, he’s just the gardener. He’s just another man. To her, at first, he’s perfectly ordinary.

How can it be that someone who just got up and walked out of his tomb can seem so ordinary? More importantly, why would God choose to have the risen Christ appear so ordinary to the first people who encounter him? I mean, God could have appeared in the risen Christ like Christ appears in so much Christian iconography: cosmic, immense, stern, surrounded by angels, appearing as judge of the world and everyone in it. Maybe with lightning in his hands, or coming out of his head. There could have been choirs of angels proclaiming the Resurrection, like Luke says there were proclaiming Jesus’ birth. The earth could have been trembling under his divine feet. There could have been a solar eclipse or a new star brighter than the sun sitting above his head. I’m sure a good Hollywood director could come up with a lot of other miraculous, awe-inspiring things that could have been going on for his special effects people to put on film. Yet God didn’t do any of that. No, God in the person of the risen Christ appeared as someone Mary Magdalene took to be just a gardener, a perfectly ordinary man.

You know, I don’t think God ever does anything for no reason. I think that if we perceive God doing something in the world there must be a reason for it. And when God does something in the world there must be some lesson in it for us. It must have some significance. It must tell us something about God and about the world. It must tell us something about how God relates to the world. So what message would God be trying to send us by having Godself in the form of the risen Christ appear as someone so ordinary that one of Jesus’ closest followers, Mary Magdalene, just took him to be the gardener? Well, during Jesus’ lifetime on earth he was forever turning the world’s expectations on their heads. Welcome the prodigal home without question. Praise the hated Samaritan and criticize the honored temple authorities. Pay those who worked one hour as much as those who worked twelve. Dine with people the world calls sinners and tells us to shun. Say the poor and the peacemakers are blessed, not the rich and the war makers the world so honors. In almost everything Jesus said and did he turned the world’s expectations upside down and showed us that God’s ways are very, very different from the world’s ways.

So why wouldn’t Jesus continue his revolutionary teaching and living in his new form as the risen Christ? Well, he would; and he did. See, what would the world expect of a man who was also the Son of God who rose from the dead? Those fireworks I said above were mostly missing from the Gospel’s stories of the Resurrection. We’d expect thunder and lightning. We’d expect earthquakes. We’d expect hosts of angels proclaiming God’s triumph over death. We’d expect sky rockets and firecrackers. We’d expect a great big show. We’d expect power and glory. We’d expect a Cecil B. DeMille movie. That’s what the world would expect, wouldn’t it? Sure seems to me like it would.

God and Jesus Christ of course knew that that’s what the world would expect, so they did exactly the opposite. They had the risen Christ appear as someone Mary Magdalene took to be a gardener. He rose with essentially no special effects. He rose with no fanfare, indeed with no human witnesses to the actual event of his rising. He rose looking perfectly ordinary. He rose looking like an ordinary working person, a man of and from the people, a man of no remarkable appearance or affect. He rose as a gardener. Only after Mary had seen him as a gardener did he reveal to her that he was actually the risen Christ.

Folks, there is a great lesson here for us. We so want to look for God in the spectacular. We want Jesus to return with all the power and fireworks that weren’t there when he rose from the grave. We don’t expect Christ to come to us looking like a gardener. Maybe we especially don’t expect that today because so many people in our context who work at gardening are Latinos, people so many Americans look down on and are suspicious of. We don’t expect it. We probably don’t want it. But there it is, right in the Gospel of John. The risen Christ looked like a gardener.

See, God is telling us something really important in that part of the Resurrection story. God calls us to look for God in the ordinary, the mundane, the unimpressive. God calls us to look for God among the poor, the rejected, the outcast. I confess that I haven’t done it myself, but I have colleagues who do a lot of work among the homeless in Seattle. They say that the presence of Christ is very real among those unfortunate souls. That’s where we should look for God among us, among those Christ came specially to save, the poor, the downtrodden, the scorned, the despised, the rejected, the excluded. That’s where we are to look. That’s where we will find God.

Christ rose from the grave. Yes, he did. That we believe. That we know. That we confess. And when he did he looked like a gardener. Not like a prince. Not like a king. Not like an angel. Like a gardener. God is in the midst of us in our ordinary, unexciting, everyday lives. God is present with us in those lives bringing us grace, peace, and salvation. To find God don’t look up as much as you look across and within. Find God where you live. Find God in how you live. Find God in your gardener. That’s what Mary Magdalene did, and it’s what Easter calls us to do too. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed. Thanks be to God. Amen.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Christ Crucified


This is the sermon I gave at First Congregational Church of Maltby on Good Friday, March 25, 2016. It is a sermon in the tradition of theology of the cross, a soteriology very different from classical atonement theology and for me much more powerful. 



Christ Crucified

A Good Friday Meditation

Rev. Dr. Tom Sorenson, Pastor

March 25, 2016





Let us pray: May the words of my mouth and the meditations of all of our hearts be acceptable in your sight O God, our strength and our redeemer. Amen.



It’s such an odd thing, although maybe “odd” is too mild a word for it. It’s such a bizarre thing, such a fantastic and improbable thing. We Christians follow a crucified Savior. I suppose we take it for granted. We’ve heard the stories all our lives. We sing the hymns: “Where you there when they crucified my Lord,” and so many others. We wear the cross, we put it up in our homes and in our churches. We take it for granted, but think about it for a minute. The one whom we call Lord and Savior, whom we call God Incarnate, the Word of God made flesh, got himself crucified. The world killed him as a common criminal—or worse, as a political troublemaker who was a threat to the good order of his society. The One whom our tradition says rules in glory at the right hand of God the Father was, from an earthly point of view, an abject failure. His followers saw in him manifestations of the power of God Almighty, but he was so weak that the Roman Empire was able to snuff him out without giving the matter a second thought. Christianity is the only major world religion whose founding figure was executed by the ruling authorities as a criminal and a thread to public welfare.

Tonight we commemorate that execution. Tonight we recall and relive that terrible day nearly two thousand years ago when the Romans—and make no mistake about it, it was the Romans not the Jews who did it—when the Romans executed the Son of God upon a cross. We know, of course, that Jesus’ crucifixion wasn’t the end for him, but for that part of the story we have to wait until Sunday morning. Tonight we enter into Jesus’ death not his rebirth. Tonight is about the tomb, and it is about the cross.

So tonight we consider what it means, this crucifixion of the Son of God. For you see, as much as Christians have clung to the Resurrection as giving meaning to our faith and to our lives, we Christians have also, from the very beginning, sensed that there is some ultimate meaning in Christ’s death too. We have sensed that, out of the thousands upon thousands of crosses the Romans used to eliminate troublemakers, this one has special meaning. We have believed from the very beginning that there is profound meaning for us in the cross of Jesus. It has to have meaning or else our faith is in vain. In the passage from First Corinthians that we just heard Saint Paul calls Christ crucified the power of God and the wisdom of God, and that seems so contradictory. What could the power and wisdom of Christ crucified possibly be? I invite you to bear with me while I try to answer that question in a way that makes sense to me and that I hope makes sense and might be helpful to you.

We begin with a question: Who do we say that Jesus is? We say that he is the Christ, and we generally mean by that that he is, as I have already said, the Son of God, or God the Son Incarnate. The Gospel of Matthew has a really good name for him, but it’s one that we generally hear only at Christmas because it appears only in Matthew’s birth narrative. That name is Emmanuel, and it means “God is with us.” Matthew 1:23 That’s who Jesus is for us Christians, God with Us. He is a real human being like us, but he is a human being in whom God is fully present in a unique way. In him we see God revealed to the fullest extent that we mere mortals can comprehend, and in him God lives and experiences human life in God’s own person. In Jesus we see humanity and divinity in total solidarity. We see Jesus’ total solidarity with God, but we also see God’s total solidarity with us. We see God in the person of Jesus taking on and experiencing human life. God always experiences human life of course, but in Jesus we see God experiencing human life in person, and we see how God experiences human life. We see that God does not experience human life remotely, or from afar, not indifferently or dispassionately. In Jesus Christ we see that God experiences human life personally, intimately, compassionately, in divine solidarity with humanity.

In the life of Jesus Christ we see how God experiences human life in reaching out and saving the least and the lost, accepting sinners and welcoming those whom the world casts out, teaching peace and crying out for justice. More importantly for us tonight, we see how God experiences human life in Jesus’ death. God in Christ could reject human death. Jesus could have avoided the cross, perhaps through a display of divine power and certainly by denying his mission, his ministry, and his identity, but he didn’t. Instead he accepted the cross, he accepted a cruel and unjust death. Why?

The Gospel of John suggests an answer. There Jesus’ last words are: “It is finished.” John 19:30 What is finished? Presumably what Jesus came to accomplish, his mission in the world. The important thing about that for us tonight is that Jesus’ mission wasn’t finished short of the cross and death. It couldn’t have been. It couldn’t have been because without the cross and death God’s demonstration in Christ of how God experiences human life would not have been complete. Those harsh realities of human life, the realities of suffering and of death, would have been left out. We would not see God’s unshakable solidarity with us in our suffering and in our death. The cross is the ultimate demonstration of God’s unshakable solidarity with us in all aspects of our lives, even (or especially) in our suffering and in our death.

And that, my friends, is the best news there ever was or ever could be. What, after all, is the real tragedy of human life? Is it not that we live separated from God, or believe that we do? How often have you, how often have I, called the world or some miserable part of it “God-forsaken”? How often have you, how often have I, felt abandoned and alone? In Mark’s account of the Crucifixion, and in Matthew’s, Jesus cries out from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mark 15:34; Matthew 27:46 Have you ever been tempted to call out the same thing? Most of us have. Especially in times of great despair, pain, or grief it is so easy to feel that God has forsaken us. When we look at the world around us, at all the evil, the hatred, the violence, the unjust suffering and death, it is so easy for us to ask: Why has God forsaken God’s world? Surely God is not present in all that suffering! Surely that suffering represents the absence of God not the presence of God.

But I say: Look to the cross of Jesus. There is God the Son Incarnate experiencing the same things we suffer, and worse. There is God experiencing human pain, suffering, injustice, and death. There is God experiencing nothing less than God-forsakenness. And what does that mean? It means that God has transformed God-forsakenness into the very presence of God. It means that God has shown us the way into human suffering, and the way out of it. It means that God goes with us every step of the way in complete solidarity with us, in complete solidarity with all who suffer and all who die. It means that we can have the courage to bear our own pain and suffering because God bears them with us. It means that we can bear our own death because God bears it with us. It means that we can enter into the suffering of others and work to alleviate it because God enters it with us.

God is not aloof. God is not remote. God does not sit in heaven and observe from afar. God showed us what God is like on the cross of Jesus. The cross shows us that God stands in complete solidarity with us in our lives, in our suffering, and in our death. God does not reject those things. In Christ Jesus God entered into them, experienced them, and sanctified them. Because Jesus had the courage to go all the way to the cross to show us God’s love, we can bear our own crosses with the assurance that God bears them with us. Because God is with us we can bear whatever we must bear. We can help others bear what they must bear and work to make their bearing easier. Because God is with us though we suffer and die we can risk everything for peace, we can risk everything for justice, we can risk everything for love. That’s what Jesus did; and because he did it, we can do it too.

That’s the wisdom and the power of Christ crucified of which Paul speaks. It is the wisdom and the power of God entering into complete solidarity with us humans in our lives and in our deaths. That horrible cross that we remember tonight completes God’s demonstration of that wisdom and that power. In that cross it is indeed finished. Thanks be to God. Amen.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Maltby, the UCC, and Me


Maltby, the UCC, and Me:

Reflections on Denominational Relationships in the NACCC and the UCC

Rev. Dr. Tom Sorenson

March, 2016



I am aware that there is some concern in the congregation of the First Congregational Church of Maltby, which I serve as called pastor, that I am too open about my standing in the United Church of Christ and my previous pastoral experience, all of it at Monroe Congregational United Church of Christ. I know of at least one person who holds this concern, for he has expressed it to me quite explicitly. For that I sincerely thank him. I can guess at one or two others who may have the same concern. I don’t know if the matter is more widely held in the congregation or not, but even if it isn’t it is still a serious concern and one that I feel called to address.

The facts of the matter are these: The First Congregational Church of Maltby was founded in the Congregationalist tradition well over one hundred years ago. Monroe Congregational UCC was founded in that same tradition two years later. Both churches were formed in and belonged to the denomination called The Congregational Christian Churches until after the year 1957. In 1957 the Congregational Christian Churches at the national level merged with the Evangelical and Reformed Church to form the United Church of Christ. The UCC from the beginning adopted a congregational polity that honors local church autonomy. The churches of the E and R denomination gave up their more Presbyterian polity in order to become part of the UCC. Because of the congregational autonomy that is central to the Congregational tradition, each Congregational church had to make its own decision whether or not to join the UCC. The church then called The First Congregational Church of Monroe decided to join, becoming Monroe Congregational UCC. The First Congregational Church of Maltby decided not to join the UCC, eventually becoming part of the National Association of Congregational Churches, the denomination to which it belongs today that consists primarily of Congregational churches that declined to join the UCC.

When the Maltby church offered me the call as its pastor at the end of January, 2015, and when I accepted that call, both the leadership of the Maltby church and I were well aware of essential facts of our denominational affiliations. I knew that the Maltby church belongs to the NACCC and not to the UCC. The church knew that I hold ordained ministerial standing in the UCC and that I had recently resigned as pastor of a nearby UCC church. The church agreed in our pastoral call agreement to cooperate with me in maintaining my UCC standing while I served that non-UCC church, and it has done so without problems, a fact for which I am grateful.

Thus it can be a surprise neither to me nor to the Maltby church that I refer to the UCC and to my pastoral experience at Monroe Congregational UCC. The UCC is my church. I grew up in it. I have never been a member of any other denomination and have no desire to be a member of any other denomination if that meant I couldn’t be UCC. I have been educated in the UCC’s history and polity. I was ordained in the UCC and hold ordained ministerial standing in it. I served as pastor of one of its local churches for nearly thirteen years, that service being the only experience as a called pastor that I had prior to coming to Maltby. I serve and have served on committees within the local Conference of the UCC. I have health insurance and a retirement annuity through the UCC. The UCC is my church. I would not serve as pastor of the Maltby church if it were not possible for me retain my UCC standing while doing so.

While being so firmly grounded in the UCC myself, I am of course fully aware that over fifty years ago the Maltby church decided not to join the UCC. I don’t know why it made that decision, although I can guess that it was because of fear of losing its congregational autonomy, which, by the way, it wouldn’t have. No one at the church today was at the church fifty years ago, so no one can tell me about the church’s thinking when it made that decision. Still, since the church made that decision it is my duty as its pastor to respect that decision and to live with it and its consequences. I do that as fully as I am able. I would seek dual standing in the NACCC if that denomination had anything like what the UCC calls dual standing, namely a pastor having standing in two different denominations at the same time, but as nearly as I can tell it does not. I do not see my mission with the Maltby church to be bringing that church into the UCC.

There is, however, more I want to say about that issue. I believe that it would be highly advantageous to the First Congregational Church of Maltby to join the UCC, and I want here to explain why I think that is true. I fully recognize of course that any decision about the UCC, even a decision to hear more about it, is the church’s responsibility and the individual responsibility of each member not mine. With that being said and sincerely meant, here are some of my thoughts on how joining the UCC would benefit the Maltby church.

First of all, please understand that the Maltby church would not have to give up its standing in the NACCC if it joined the UCC. Many UCC churches belong to a second (and some even a third) denomination in addition to belonging to the UCC. In Washington state there are UCC churches that also belong to the Church Disciples of Christ, the Church of the Brethren, or the United Methodist Church. I understand that there are churches in other parts of the country that belong both to the UCC and the NACCC. Maltby would not lose its affiliation with the NACCC by joining the UCC.

Next, the Maltby church would not lose its congregational autonomy by joining the UCC. Article 18 of the Constitution of the UCC states:

The autonomy of the Local Church is inherent and modifiable only by its own action. Nothing in this Constitution and the Bylaws of the United Church of Christ shall destroy or limit the right of each Local Church to continue to operate in the way customary to it; nor shall be construed as giving to the General Synod, or to any Conference or Association now, or at any future time, the power to abridge or impair the autonomy of any Local Church in the management of its own affairs, which affairs include, but are not limited to, the right to retain or adopt its own methods of organization, worship and education; to retain or secure its own charter and name; to adopt its own constitution and bylaws; to formulate its own covenants and confessions of faith; to admit members in its own way and to provide for their discipline or dismissal; to call or dismiss its pastor or pastors by such procedure as it shall determine; to acquire, own, manage and dispose of property and funds; to control its own benevolences; and to withdraw by its own decision from the United Church of Christ at any time.

I sometimes paraphrase this paragraph as saying “local church autonomy is our most sacred of sacred cows, and thou shalt not even think about messing with it upon pain of eternal damnation,” not that most of us UCC folks believe in eternal damnation anymore. The polity of the UCC is deeply grounded in local church autonomy. It gets that polity from the Congregational tradition and shares it with the NACCC, at least in broad outline.

One area of church life in which the Maltby church could greatly benefit from membership in the UCC is around questions of the call and accountability of the pastor. Upon joining the UCC the Maltby church would be part of the UCC’s Pacific Northwest Conference. That Conference consists mostly of Washington state except the southwest corner of the state. It also has one church in northern Idaho and a couple in Anchorage, Alaska. In the UCC, questions of ordination and ministerial discipline are, for our purposes at least, handled by the Conference in cooperation with a local church. In our local Conference the qualifications for ordination include the candidate having earned a Master of Divinity degree from an accredited seminary. It can be any accredited seminary, it doesn’t have to be a UCC seminary, although such seminaries do exist. The UCC has a process for handling both pastoral searches by churches and church searches by pastors. It involves both the church and the person seeking a call to complete what are called profiles. They are essentially identical to the information files churches and pastors complete for the NACCC. Ministerial profiles are distributed through a Conference. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Conference can stop a profile from being sent to a church, but it does mean that the Conference Minister, the ordained head of the Conference, can review a profile and express opinions about a candidate’s apparent fit for a particular congregation. The Conference Minister, or someone appointed by him or her, works with a local church’s pastoral search committee, giving advice and guidance but having no authority to make decisions for the church. This process doesn’t guarantee that a particular church and a particular pastor will be a good match, but it significantly improves the chances that they will be.

Then there’s the matter of pastoral accountability. In the UCC a local church pastor is accountable first of all to the church she or he serves, as a pastor is in the NACCC. Just as in the NACCC the local church calls its pastor and may dismiss that pastor at will. In the UCC, however, there is another layer of pastoral accountability that does not exist in the NACCC. The ordained ministerial standing of a UCC pastor is held by the local Conference (or Association, a subdivision of a Conference that we don’t have here in the Pacific Northwest) in which he or she serves. The Conference thus has authority not over a local church but over the standing of the ordained ministers who have standing in it.

Holding and maintaining standing requires that the pastor comply with pastoral ethics and boundaries among other obligations. In our local Conference we pastors must take ethics and boundary training for a full day every three years. There is no such requirement in the NACCC, although a local NACCC church could of course require such training of its pastor if it so desired. If a church or any of its members believes that a pastor has committed a violation of pastoral ethics or boundaries the church or a person who feels a violation has occurred may file a complaint with the Conference that holds the pastor’s ordained ministerial standing. In our local Conference, and in most Conferences of the UCC, those complaints are referred to the Conference’s Committee on Ministry. If on its face the complaint states facts that would constitute a violation if true, the Committee on Ministry will begin what is called a fitness review. If the review process establishes that the pastor has indeed committed an ethics or boundary violation the Committee has various options before it. It may reprimand the pastor. It may suspend the pastor’s standing and require the pastor to undertake some specified remedial actions before having her or his standing reinstated. Or, in extreme case, it may revoke the person’s ordained ministerial standing altogether. Many UCC churches have a provision in their bylaws that require their pastor to maintain standing in the UCC, but retaining a pastor whose standing has been suspended or revoked is entirely a decision of the local church. An imposition of suspension or revocation of standing means that the pastor in question no longer has standing in and no longer represents the UCC, but it has no necessary effect on the church the pastor serves.

In recent years the Maltby church has had at least one pastor who, as I understand it, committed ethical violations that would result in suspension or revocation of his standing had he had standing in the UCC and had someone filed a complaint. Because the church’s denominational affiliation is only with the NACCC, any complaint or request for assistance around issues of a pastor’s behavior had to go to the NACCC national offices in Wisconsin. I understand that the Maltby church made such a request and that someone came to the church from the national offices seeking to help. That help was, however, very brief; and there was no one in our region to whom the church could turn. That would not have been the case had the Maltby church had standing in the UCC. The church could have called the Conference office in Seattle. Either the Conference Minister or some other representatives of the Conference would have been available to provide ongoing assistance to the church. If the Maltby church had had UCC standing when it called the pastor of whom I am thinking, it is highly unlikely (although not impossible) that that person would have become the church’s pastor in the first place. These considerations around pastoral search and call and pastoral accountability are, I believe, major reasons why the Maltby church should consider affiliating with the UCC.

There are other reasons as well. As a member of the NACCC in this part of the country the Maltby church is essentially isolated. Yes, it belongs to the NA’s regional body; but that body stretches from Alaska to Oregon to Montana and includes only six churches. There is no regional staff. There is no local office. There is an annual meeting of the regional body, but it offers nothing like the programs that are offered at the Annual Meeting of a UCC Conference. Those meetings include presentations by representatives of the UCC’s national staff and workshops on a wide range of topics that are of interest to the local churches and their members. Having people participate in these Annual Meetings can be of significant benefit to a local church.

There are other activities of the Conference in which members of the member churches can participate. There are several Conference committees made up of people from the local churches. They include the Committee on Ministry on which I serve as well as committees dealing with global ministry, youth and outdoor ministry, church development, and Conference finances. The Pacific Northwest Conference of the UCC owns and operates two wonderful camps where retreats are offered for people of all ages. One of them, called Pilgrim Firs, is not far from Maltby, being located just outside Port Orchard. The other, called N-Sid-Sen, is on the shore of Lake Pend ‘Oreille in northern Idaho, a particularly beautiful setting for camp activities. Our Conference Minister Mike Denton has told me that the people of the Maltby church are welcome to participate in camp activities with us, but UCC membership would remove any doubt about their opportunity to participate and would mean that that opportunity would continue after I am no longer the church’s pastor.

Of course, on the whole, the UCC is far more liberal/progressive than is the NACCC. For the UCC’s strong voice on issues of social justice I say thanks be to God, but that voice may be an obstacle to some of the people of the Maltby church embracing the UCC. I think I get that, although I don’t agree with it. Here’s something about the UCC that may mitigate some of that concern. When the national or regional bodies of the UCC take a position on most anything all, it is said that those bodies speak to the local churches not for the local churches. Neither any UCC church nor any member of a UCC church is required to agree with any position taken by some other UCC entity. The UCC is thoroughly congregational in its structure, highly valuing both local church autonomy and individual freedom of conscience. There would be a small cost to the Maltby church from joining the UCC. The member churches owe membership dues to the Conference, but in a church as small as the Maltby church those fees are negligible.

So there it is. I am deeply and strongly UCC. The church I serve is not. I will not conceal my allegiance to the UCC. I will neither forget nor ignore my pastoral experience in the UCC. That allegiance and that experience are big parts of what makes me the pastor that I am. I will not expect the Maltby church to join the UCC nor will I push it to do so. I will merely be happy to be a resource on the UCC if anyone is interested in learning more about it. Local church autonomy and individual freedom of conscience are bedrock values for both the NACCC and the UCC. They are bedrock values for me and I intend to conduct my ministry in accordance with them.

Friday, January 22, 2016

An Introduction to Islam

I will soon teach an introduction to Islam at the church I currently serve as pastor. I have written this rather long introduction to Islam, and you might find interesting and useful.


Basic Facts About Islam

Rev. Dr. Tom Sorenson, Pastor

January 23, 2016



Size and Distribution: Islam is the second largest faith tradition in the world after Christianity. There are about 2.2 billion Christians in the world and around 1.6 billion Muslims. Indonesia is by far the largest Muslim country in the world with a population of nearly 205 million Muslims. Next come Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh in that order, each with between 145 million and 174 million Muslims. The largest Arab Muslim nation is Egypt, with about 79 million Muslims. Iran has about 74 million Muslims, Saudi Arabia about 25 million. Islam is a major faith in countries from Africa (mostly northern Africa but not exclusively that) to China, with major concentrations in the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia. Most Muslims are not Arabs though most Arabs are Muslims. There are about 3.3 million Muslims in the US, constitution roughly 1% of the US population.



Origins: Islam was founded in the early seventh century CE in the Arabian peninsula by the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad was an orphan belonging to a small faction within a larger Arab tribe that controlled the city of Mecca in the western part of the Arabian peninsula. They were traders, and Muhammad led trade caravans across Arabia and into Syria before his experiences that led to the creation of Islam. He was protected, at first at least, by his people who ran Mecca and the Kaaba, the place of polytheistic worship in Mecca where the numerous tribes of Arabs came to worship without the fights and battles that usually characterized their relationships with one another. Muslim tradition says Muhammad was illiterate. That however seems unlikely given the work he did running trade caravans, which certainly required written communication and record keeping.



In the year 610 CE, while Muhammad was on a spiritual retreat in the hills outside Mecca, he had the first of his numerous visionary experiences that led to the creation of Islam and the Koran, Islam’s holy book. Muhammad continued to have these revelatory experiences for much of the rest of his life. Islam teaches that Muhammad would from time to time be essentially overpowered by God. Islam says that during those experiences, which apparently were quite unpleasant, the Archangel Gabriel recited to Muhammad messages that Gabriel had received directly from God, called in Islam Allah. Allah had been worshiped as the supreme God in Arabia before Muhammad, although Islam makes Allah the one and only true God. The word Allah isn’t God’s name. It is just the Arabic word for God. Muslim tradition says Muhammad memorized the divine words that Gabriel gave him in these experiences. Because tradition says he was illiterate it says that he didn’t write them down himself. It says that he recited them to a small group of followers, mostly family members, called the Companions. Some of them wrote down what Muhammad recited to them. Those writings became the Koran. Koran is an Arabic word that means essentially recite or recitation. Reza Aslan, from whose book No god but God I’m taking most of this information, says that the first revelation Muhammad received contained not radical monotheism but a teaching about Allah as a God of love and about social justice in Meccan society.



Radical Monotheism Eventually the revelations came to be about the truly radical monotheism that characterizes Islam today. The basic creed of Islam states “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger” I’ll get to the Messenger bit shortly. Islam is fundamentally, radically monotheistic. In Islam God is a radical oneness, a unity with no variation or differentiation. Islam thus rejects the Christian notion of God as Trinity, as Three in One. For Islam God is One in One. Islam says that God was not begotten and has not begotten, begotten being the word Christianity uses to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Thus Islam has no figure in it anything like what Jesus Christ is for Christians. Jesus appears in the Koran, but Islam rejects the notion that he was himself in any way divine. Islam rejects anything that in any way detracts from the radical oneness of God. Muslims sometimes deny that Christianity is monotheistic, seeing our notion of the Trinity as a belief not in one God but in three.



In Islam God is said to have 99 names. They include:



Al-Khaliq, the Creator

Al-Rahman, the Merciful (the most commonly used)

Al Qudos, the Holy One

As-Salaam, the Source of Peace

Al-Razzaaq, the Sustainer, Provider

Al-Ghafoor, the All-Forgiving

Al-Wudood, the Loving



We Christians should find none of these names offensive. We think of God in those ways too.

Actually, Arabs say that God as a 100th name too, but only the camel knows what it is. That’s why camels are so smug. I quite like that story.



Muhammad the Messenger of God: The basic creed of Islam, there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger, is often mistranslated. In Arabic that statement is La ilaha ila Allah, Muhammad razul Allah. The issue is the meaning of the word “razul.” It is often rendered in English as “prophet,” but it doesn’t mean prophet. It means messenger. It’s not that Islam doesn’t see Muhammad as a prophet. It does, but he is more than a prophet. In Islam a Messenger is one who brings a new revelation from God. It recognizes that there have been three Messengers of God. The first was Moses, who brought the revelation contained in the Torah. The second is Jesus, who brought the revelation contained in the New Testament. The third and final Messenger of God is Muhammad. He brought the revelation contained in the Koran. Islam believes that the first two revelations have been corrupted by the people who claim to follow them but that Islam maintains the revelation in the Koran pure and undefiled. No variety of Islam sees Muhammad as divine, and Muslims do not worship him. They worship only God. Yet Islam sometimes speak of Muhammad in ways that almost make him sound divine. He is the light of God. He is a pure human being. Some varieties of Shiite Islam (more about what that is below) call him the first of all of God’s creations, echoing rather clearly some things that Judaism says about the woman Wisdom in the Jewish Wisdom literature. Whenever Muslims speak the name of Muhammad they say “peace be upon him,” a sign of veneration but not actually of worship.



The early history of Islam: Mecca was Muhammad’s home and the place where Islam began. However, Muhammad’s emphasis on social reform and his radical monotheism were a threat to the powers in Mecca. It threatened their privileged position in society and their business interests by condemning the polytheism of worship at the Kaaba. In 622 CE Muhammad and the Companions left Mecca and moved to the city of Medina some 250 miles to the north. This event is celebrated in Islam as the Migration, and the Muslim calendar begins with it; but it wasn’t exactly an impressive affair. Muhammad and his closest followers slipped out of Mecca under cover of darkness to escape attempts by the ruling people of Mecca to kill them all. Medina is today the second holiest place in Islam after Mecca.



In Medina Muhammad consolidated a position of authority. There was a significant Jewish population in Medina, and at first Muhammad and his people got along well with them. To support themselves Muhammad and his followers conducted armed raids against caravans associated with Mecca, robbing from caravans being an age-old Arab practice. Different people understand what happened in Medina under Muhammad differently, but all groups of Muslims, however they understand it, see it as the ideal Muslim society.



Muhammad fought battles against Mecca from Medina. Eventually Muhammad more or less prevailed. He and his people retook Mecca, the actual taking of Mecca having been more or less peaceful. Muhammad did not take revenge on the people who had opposed and fought against him. Mecca became the center of Muhammad’s movement, which grew rapidly and spread from Mecca across the world. By the time Muhammad died in 632 BCE the entire Arabian peninsula was more unified and peaceful under the banner of Islam than it had ever been before. Eventually the Muslim Arabs established an empire, called the Caliphate, that stretched from Spain to Persia.



By the 10th century or so the civilization of that empire was the most advanced in the world. Arab scholars made advances of world significance in science, mathematics, and other areas of intellectual pursuit. They gave us algebra (a word of Arabic origin) and Arabic numerals, including the concept zero. In Spain, which Muslims from North Africa occupied, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars lived together in relative peace and worked together to create great works of philosophy and theology. Knowledge of Aristotle, which was revolutionary at the time, came into western Europe through Muslim Spain. The architecture of Muslim Spain is some of the most beautiful ever created. It still exists in the Alhambra in Granada. Christians, not Muslims, ended that time of peaceful coexistence between the world’s three great monotheistic faiths. They forced Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity or leave the country. The function of the Spanish Inquisition was primarily to detect false conversions in people who continued to practice their former faith.



The Five Pillars of Islam: Islam is a much less doctrinal religion than is Christianity. Our faith has complex confessions of faith, and we consider what a person believes to be central to the life of faith. Islam has no complex confessions, and Islam stresses one’s actions and ways of living more than it does what one believes (but see the Sunni/Shiite split material below). Islam has no complex creed, but it does have a system known as the Five Pillars of Islam. Each of the five practices is a specifically Muslim variety of a universal spiritual practice. They are:



The Creed (shahadah).  “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is God’s Messenger.” This is the only creed in Islam. It sums up Islamic monotheism and Muhammad’s role in it.



Daily prayer (salaht)  One of the first things I ever knew about Islam is that Muslims stop whatever they’re doing, turn toward Mecca, and pray five times a day. Not a bad idea, actually, although I don’t know that I’d turn toward Mecca.



Almsgiving (zakaht)  Every Muslim has a moral duty to support charitable work. This obligation is enforced in some Muslim countries through a tax that all must pay.



Fasting (sawn)  Muslims fast from dawn to dusk every day during the month of Ramadan, one of the months of the lunar calendar used in Islam. There are exemptions from fasting for the young, old, sick, travelers, and pregnant or nursing women. The end of Ramadan is celebrated on a day called Id al Fitr, which is the biggest holiday in the Muslim calendar.



Pilgrimage (hajj) All Muslims who are physically and financially able to do it are expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during their lifetime. Today the hajj is administered by the Saudis and involves enormous numbers of people every year. The hajj follows a fixed ritual that includes circling the Kaaba and sacrificing an animal in commemoration of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Many Muslims find going on hajj to be a life-changing, transformative experience. Sadly, the enormity of the crowd during the hajj has meant that there have been tragedies in which large numbers of people have been killed by stampeding crowds.



Muslim religious organization: Islam has no overarching institutional structure. There is something of a clerical hierarchy in Shiite Islam. There is none in Sunni Islam (see below for what those terms mean). Friday is a Sabbath day in Islam much like Saturday is in Judaism. Muslims gather at a house of prayer called a mosque for a service of prayer on Fridays. The prayer is led by a man (always a man) called an imam. Imams aren’t priests. They are more or less learned men whose primary function at the mosque is to lead Friday prayers. Friday prayer is not actually one of the five pillars, but it is a standard feature of Muslim religious life. Legal scholars called ulama play a significant role in preserving and interpreting Islam, but they are scholars not clerics.



The Koran: Islam’s holy book, the Koran (also rendered Qur’an in English), is not one of the five pillars of Islam either, but Islam is inconceivable without it. It consists of the recitations the Archangel Gabriel supposedly gave to Muhammad during his numerous visionary experiences. It is organized into 114 chapters called suras. The suras are arranged from the shortest to longest, a feature that I imagine makes the Koran harder not easier to follow and understand. The suras are designated as either Meccan or Medinan depending where Muhammad was when he received the sura. The Koran has been translated into many languages, but all Muslims are expected to read the Koran in the original Arabic. The Arabic of the Koran is said to be the most perfect, beautiful, poetic Arabic ever written. Verses from the Koran are often written in beautiful script and placed on the walls of mosques. You can see some of them in pictures of Hagia Sophia, the great church in Istanbul that was originally Christian but was converted to a grand mosque after the Turks conquered Istanbul in 1453 CE.



The Koran is understood to be literally the words of God. Muslims believe that Muhammad didn’t write it, God did. It contains not human words but divine ones. The origin of the Koran with God is orthodox Muslim teaching. It is not orthodox Christian teaching that the Bible originated with God in the same way Muslims say the Koran originated with God, although some very conservative Christians believe essentially the same thing about the origin of the Bible as Muslims believe about the origin of the Koran.



The Sunni/Shiite split: One of the most important aspects of Islam in the world today is the schism between Muslims known as Sunnis and Muslims known as Shiites. It is a division quite unlike the divisions within Christianity or Judaism, although it is often compared to the way Christianity is divided into so many different denominations.



The split originated with a disagreement within Islam about who should be the successor to Muhammad as the leader of the Muslim community, called the ummah. When Muhammad died in 632 CE the community chose a successor called a Caliph, caliph being an Arabic word that means successor. It chose Abu Bakr, a close associate of Muhammad’s but not a relative of his. Some people wanted to choose a man named Ali, who was Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law precisely because he was from Muhammad’s family. Abu Bakr survived Muhammad by only two years. The community chose a man named Omar as the second Caliph. He spread Islam beyond Arabia, but he was assassinated in 644 CE. The third Caliph was Uthman. He too was a son-in-law of Muhammad. He continued the spread of Islam as far as Libya in the west and Persia in the east. He was apparently a really bad administrator, and he was killed in 656 CE.



The fourth Caliph was Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad whom some wanted to choose as Caliph upon Muhammad’s death. He was married to Muhammad’s daughter Fatima. He had two sons, Hassan and Husein, who become really important in the Sunni-Shiite split. He was opposed by a man named Mu’awiyah, the governor of Syria. Ali was killed in 667 CE. Seems like being Caliph tended to shorten one’s life. Mu’awiyah succeeded him after Ali’s son Hassan declined to take the post. He began a dynasty called the Umayyads that ruled until the mid-eighth century. He made his capital in Damascus, Syria. Ali’s second son Husein tried to seize the Caliphate from him, or maybe he was coming to join a rebellion against Mu’awiyah that had already begun and failed. In any event he was killed at the Battle of Karbala, in what today is Iraq, in 680 CE. Husein is the great hero of Shiite Islam. Shiites see him as a great martyr of the faith because he died opposing a Caliph who Shiites think never should have been Caliph in the first place because he wasn’t related to Muhammad like Ali and his sons were.



Islam today has many divisions within it, but the major one is between Sunnis and Shiites. The Shiites descend from a group called Shia Ali, or the party of Ali. The Sunnis trace their origins back to Mu’awiyah. Sunni is an Arabic word that means tradition. 80 to 85% of Muslims are Sunnis. They are the great majority in most but not all Muslim countries, including significantly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The Shiites are the majority in Iran and Iraq, although Iraq has a large Sunni minority. There is a Shiite minority in eastern Saudi Arabia, but most Saudis belong to a puritanical variety of Sunni Islam called Wahhabism. Shiite minorities in Sunni majority countries are often discriminated against and persecuted. The Sunni minority in Iraq is in significant conflict with the Shiite majority, a conflict that has played a major role in the rise of ISIS.



There are significant theological differences between Sunni and Shiite Islam. The two branches of Islam read the Koran a bit differently, the Shia reading it more mystically, looking for hidden meanings. One of the major differences has to do with people called Imams and someone called the Mahdi. The Shiites believe that only a true descendant of Muhammad can be a true leader of the Muslim world. They look to people they call Imams, supposedly divinely inspired descendants of Muhammad. Ali was the greatest of these Imams. Note that the word imam can mean different things. In Sunni Islam it means the prayer leader of a mosque. It sometimes means that in Shiite Islam too, but it can also refer to these special leaders. The line of true Imams ended a long time ago. Some Shiites believe that there were twelve of them. These Shiites are called twelvers. Others believe that there were only seven. They’re called seveners.



The seveners are particularly interesting and important. They believe that the seventh Imam didn’t die. Rather, he withdrew onto the spiritual plane of existence and is waiting to return to establish a truly just Muslim state. He’s called the Hidden Imam. These Shiites also believe in someone called the Mahdi. He is a Messianic figure who will come to establish peace and justice on earth. To me that sounds a lot like how some Christians believe Jesus Christ will be at his Second Coming. The Sunnis reject all of this belief as pure nonsense.



Husein is a central figure in Shiite Islam, but not in Sunni Islam. Recall that he was Ali’s son who was killed at the Battle of Karbala. He is Shia Islam’s great martyr. Shiites mark the day of his martyrdom as their major holiday. They believe that his death has consequences of atonement of sin that aren’t all that different from how most Christians think of the death of Jesus Christ, although they would never quite call Husein divine. Some Shiites imitate his sacrifice by beating themselves with chains to the point of drawing blood on the day the commemorates his death. Perhaps you have seen film of people in Iraq doing that as I have. Sunni terrorists have attacked Shiite worshippers on this day, especially in Iraq.



In the Middle East today Iran is a major Shiite power, and Saudi Arabia is a major Sunni power, although its Sunni Islam is stricter and more puritanical than is most Sunni Islam. There is great tension between these two powers in the Middle East today. We can I suppose understand that tension purely in geopolitical terms, but I think we miss an important aspect of it when we overlook the Sunni/Shiite schism that lies behind it.



There is a small branch of twelver Shiite Islam that is important today in the conflict in Syria. The ruling Assad family in Syria are what is called Alawite Muslims. Alawites are Muslims, but their faith has some syncretistic elements, including a teaching about three aspects of the one God, that sound a little bit Christian. The Alawites have always been quite secretive about their beliefs, so not all that much is known about them. Because Alawite Islam is a variety of Shiite Islam, Iran backs the Assad regime in Syria, and Saudi Arabia opposes it. So does ISIS, which is radically Sunni.



Jihad: We’ve all heard the term jihad. Most Americans, I suspect, think that it means something like Holy War. It doesn’t. Jihad is first of all an ordinary Arabic word that means struggle, striving, or great effort. Islam speaks of two kinds of jihad (struggle), called the greater and the lesser jihad. The greater jihad is the internal effort of every Muslim to be true to the faith and live the way the faith tells him or her to live. Islam knows as well as any other religion that living a life of faith isn’t easy. For Islam as for most religions that life is one of devotion to God, peace, love of family and others, and caring for God’s people. We all know that isn’t easy. The struggle to live that way is what Islam calls greater jihad.



Then there’s lesser jihad. Lesser jihad is the outward struggle, military or otherwise, against tyranny and oppression. The Koran never calls jihad holy. It calls it either just or unjust. One author (Reza Aslan) calls lesser jihad a sort of primitive just war theory. It says that war must be defensive and must not harm noncombatants. There are verses in the Koran that sound more aggressive than that. Aslan says that they are meant to apply only to the struggle between Muhammad and the Muslims in Medina and their opponents and their opponents’ allies in Mecca and Medina. I of course have no way to evaluate that claim. Still, I think it is most helpful to think of lesser jihad as a kind of just war theory.



Just war theory should not be unfamiliar to us Christians. Christianity has mostly preached just war ever since it became the official state religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century. Toward the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century St. Augustine and others developed a Christian just war theory to take the place of Jesus’ teaching of nonviolence. After all, they thought, it must surely be permissible to fight to defend the now (nominally, I’d say) Christian Roman Empire. Christian just war theory says that a Christian may fight and kill in a war if five criteria are met. They are:



  1. The war must be for a just cause.

2.      It must be defensive.

  1. It must be declared by a legitimate state authority
  2. It must use the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve the just end.
  3. There must be no civilian (noncombatant) casualties.



I believe that this Christian just war theory is a betrayal of Jesus and his teachings, and I believe that it opened the door for Christians to be as violent as anyone else. Be that as it may, Christian just war theory is so similar to Muslim lesser jihad theory that I can’t help but wonder if the Muslim teaching were influenced by the older Christian one. After all, it was the official teaching of the state church of the Byzantine Empire (i.e., the eastern Roman Empire) in the years when Islam arose, and Byzantium bordered Arabia in those years. Some influence of Byzantine Christianity on Islam is, I think, only to be expected. I fear that lesser jihad theory has opened the door to Islamist violence much the same way that just war theory opened the door for Christian violence.



Sharia Law: Perhaps you have heard of Sharia law. Some irrational Americans rant about the need to prohibit Sharia law in the US and to prevent US courts from enforcing it. First of all, what is sharia law? It is a code of rules and regulations for how to live a Muslim life. The ulamas (legal scholars) interpret Sharia law for Muslim communities. There are several different schools of Sharia, but we needn’t bother with those for our purposes. It covers most aspects of life It is somewhat similar to how some Christian communities have regulated communal life through rules about behavior and dress, though it is probably more comprehensive. It does contain severe penalties for some violations of its provisions, especially those relating to sexual behavior. It forms part of the basis for the law in many Muslim countries, though its severe punishments are enforced mostly only in Saudi Arabia. There is no possibility of a US court enforcing sharia law. US courts apply, interpret, and enforce US law. The hysteria of some Americans around sharia law is totally unfounded.



Islam and Women: One of the things that troubles many of us about Islam is the way we think it treats women. It is true that many but far from all Muslim women wear the hijab (veil) or even the burka, a full body covering. That’s because Islam requires modesty of both men and women. Muhammad’s policies toward women were relatively progressive for his time. The lot of women in Arab tribal society was worse than awful. They were completely at the mercy of the men, who could marry as many women as they wanted and discard them at will. Muhammad said a man could have only up to four wives provided that he could properly care for all of them. In pre-Muslim Arabia there tended to be a lot more women than men because so many men died in inter-tribal battles, and every woman needed a man to take care of her. Islam insists that men and women are spiritually equal, but it also tends to specify different roles for people based on gender. Many Muslim societies are very conservative. In those societies generally speaking the public arena is for men and the home is for woman. Nonetheless, many Muslim women today are quite liberated. They practice professions and engage in business. Some Muslim countries including Turkey and Pakistan have had women heads of state, which is more than we Americans can say. Divorce is permitted in Islam but is discouraged. As with so many other aspects of Islam the role of women in the life of that faith is considerably more complex than to outsiders it sometimes appears to be.



Islam and Terrorism: If you get only one thing out of this session, let it be this: Islam condemns terrorism unconditionally, and no act of terrorism can in any way reflect the true values of Islam. It is true that the Koran is not entirely consistent in its sayings about violence, especially violence against infidels, that is, against non-Muslims. Yet for almost all of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims Islam is a religion of peace not a religion of war. Yes, people can proof text verses from the Koran to support most any position they want, but then we Christians can do and in fact do exactly the same thing with the Bible.



Consider this verse from the Koran, sura 5:32. I’ve heard Muslims cite it, sometimes without the “unless” clause, as the foundational teaching of Islam and as a radical rejection of violence: “For this cause we have ordained to the children of Israel that he who slayeth any one, unless it be a person guilty of manslaughter, or of spreading disorders in the land, shall be as though he had slain all mankind; but that he who saveth a life, shall be as though he had saved all mankind alive.” If anyone kills one innocent person it is as if he has killed all of mankind. A pretty strong condemnation of terrorism, don’t you think? And consider this: Islam considers suicide to be a great sin. I haven’t found any Koranic sura directly on point, but all the commentaries I have found on line say the same thing. Islam strictly forbids suicide and considers it a great sin. Yes, there are Muslims who engage in terrorism. They induce others to commit suicide. They kill innocent people. When they do they betray the great faith they claim to represent, and virtually all Muslims strongly condemn their actions.



A follower of a faith betraying that faith in the name of the faith shouldn’t be too hard for us Christians to understand. Christians do it all the time. Just war theory does it. Condemnation of people for being how God made them to be does it. Violence of any kind does it. Yes, some Muslims betray Islam in the name of Islam. That doesn’t make Islam inherently violent. Islam does not have the blanket prohibition of violence that we find in the New Testament (see my comments on that point below), but it strongly prohibits and condemns all unjust violence, suicide, and violence against innocent persons. In other words, Islam strongly prohibits and condemns terrorism.



Most but not all Islamist terrorists are Sunnis not Shiites. Perhaps that’s only because most Muslims are Sunnis, but in any case it’s true. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS are all extremist Sunni organizations. They have all been heavily influenced by the Wahhabist Islam of Saudi Arabia. That’s a strict, puritanical form of Sunni Islam that arose in the eighteenth century under the leadership of a man named al-Wahhab. It is the Islam of the Saud family that rules Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have exported it to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. The Saudi rulers have a somewhat ambivalent relationship to groups like ISIS because they were once themselves much like those groups, and those groups have been heavily influenced by Saudi Wahhabist Islam.



Sunni extremists like ISIS and al Qaeda despise Shiite Muslims as much as they despise secular westerners, or more. Many Shiites hate Sunnis almost as much as ISIS hates them. Tensions between Sunnis and Shiites explain much of the internal dynamics of Iraq. Under Saddam a Sunni minority ruled and had positions of privilege in a majority Shiite country. When we deposed Iraq we and our Shiite Iraqi allies drove most of the Sunnis out of the government and out of the army. Many of those people now fight for ISIS.



Islam, Judaism, and Christianity: There are three great monotheistic religions in the world. In order of their appearance they are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There isn’t all that much similarity between Islam and Christianity except that they are both monotheistic and as they both relate to Judaism (and the similarity of lesser jihad to Christian just war theory). There is more similarity between Islam and Judaism.



These three great faith are all called Abrahamic faiths. That is, all three of them trace their ancestry back to the Hebrew patriarch Abraham. Islam teaches that Abraham build the Kaaba in Mecca. The great stories of the Hebrew Bible appear in the Koran. The verse I quoted above on killing innocent people, for example, refers to Israel and is from a consideration in the Koran of the story of Cain and Abel. The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac plays a central role in the rituals of the hajj. The Arabs, most but not all of whom are Muslim, trace their lineage back to Ishmael, Abraham’s son by the slave woman Hagar whom Sarah drove into the wilderness to die but whom God saved. Certainly the most important similarity between Islam and Judaism is that both faiths are radically monotheistic.



Muslims call Jews and Christians all “People of the Book.” In the Muslim empires of the Caliphate and the Ottoman Turks people of the book had a special status. In those empires Jews and Christians were not discriminated against nearly as badly as Jews and Muslims have been in Christian nations. The Koran does not say that it is related to the Bible, but clearly it is. It has both Jewish and Christian characters in it, including Mary and Jesus. Islam doesn’t make much sense apart from Judaism. It’s radical monotheism almost certainly comes from Judaism. In all three faiths God is primarily a God of love. In all three God is also a God of judgment and of forgiveness. The Muslim God and the Christian God aren’t really all that different in how we understand that they relate to humanity and creation.



Some concluding thoughts on Islam: When I first began to study Islam several years ago I hoped that at the end of my study I would have a more favorable opinion of Islam than I had going into it.  By and large that has happened; yet Islam remains for me a puzzling and contradictory faith.  Let me begin with my favorable impressions before turning to some of the major things that continue to trouble me.



Islam is indeed one of the world’s great religions.  There can be no doubt that hundreds of millions of people over the last 1,400 years, have found the gifts of the spirit and an authentic connection with God through Islam.  It truly has the power to bring people peace, hope, joy, and courage.  If it did not, it would not be the great world religion that it is.  It is a monumental monotheistic faith.  It’s central confession that there is no god but God is a confession that we as Christians share with our Muslim brothers and sisters, as do God’s Jewish children.  The God of Islam is a God of compassion and justice.  Allah’s main characteristic is mercy.  We can rejoice that Islam provides a valid spiritual home for so many of God’s people.



Much of what Americans think they know about Islam is not true.  Historically speaking, Islam has been far more tolerant of other faiths than has Christianity.  Christians and Jews not only survived in the great Islamic empires—the Arab Caliphate and the Turkish Empire—they to some extent even flourished.  Their Muslim rulers never tried to eradicate their religions, although they did put restrictions on efforts to convert Muslims.  The same certainly cannot be said of the fate of Jews and Muslims in the various Christian empires over the centuries.



Again historically speaking, Islam is not necessarily anti-intellectual.  For five hundred years after the founding and rapid expansion of the faith, Arab culture was the most advanced in the world.  Arab culture produced some of the greatest philosophy, science, art, and architecture the world has ever seen.  Much of the heritage of ancient Greece, to which we in the West are so fond of tracing our own cultural origins, was lost in the West but preserved by the Muslim Arabs and introduced into Europe through Arab Spain, often in translations from the Arabic into Latin.



Turning to contemporary issues, there can be no question that Islam does not provide, and cannot legitimately be used to provide, any religious justification for terrorism.  Those who engage in terrorism in the name of Islam defame that great faith.  They are guilty not only of murder but of sacrilege.  In Islam, the use of force must be for defensive purposes only.  It may not be directed against innocent civilians.  Prisoners must be treated humanely and released as soon as possible.  Suicide is absolutely forbidden. 



Islam is flexible and adaptable.  It is the faith of hundreds of millions of people in vastly different cultures, from the deserts of North Africa and Arabia to the tropical jungles of Indonesia.  All Muslims share the central confession that there is no god but God, but they have very diverse cultures. 



All of that being said and sincerely meant, there are some things about Islam that I continue to find problematic and troubling.  One of the most significant is Islam’s teaching about its holy scripture, the Koran.  It is orthodox Islamic teaching that the Koran is literally the actual words of God.  This teaching does not mean that there are no differences of interpretation of the Koran within Islam.  There are. It seems to me, however, that it must limit the scope of scholarly inquiry into the origins and meaning of the book.  Source criticism, so important in understanding the Bible, cannot have much place in Islam, or so it seems to me, since God is said to be the one and only source.  Liberal Christians like me reject much of what the Bible says as representing not the will of God but representing instead ancient cultural understandings and prejudices that can no longer stand.  That approach would seem not to be available to Muslims since they must adhere to the doctrine that the Koran is the actual words of God.  I don’t see how this teaching can do anything but make Islam inherently rigid and reactionary in a great many respects.



The other major problem that I have with Islam is that, while it truly cannot be a basis for the kind of terrorism it is so frequently misused to justify today, it is not at its core a religion of radical nonviolence the way Christianity is, or at least was in its origins.  Jesus was a radical advocate of nonviolent resistance to evil.  Muhammad was not.  Jesus was a counter-cultural, wandering prophet and teacher.  Muhammad was that too, but he was also a military leader.  He led an army.  During the time he was in Medina, he led violent raids against Meccan caravans, and he eventually led a large army against Mecca itself.  Islam’s teaching on violence is not that it is necessarily wrong.  Rather, Islamic teaching on violence sounds like nothing so much as Christian just war doctrine.  It sounds so much like Christian just war doctrine that I believe it must have been heavily influenced by that doctrine, which would have been present in Arabia in the seventh century through Byzantine Christianity.  Just war doctrine is certainly preferable to an unlimited endorsement of violence as a tool of the faith, but the lack of a basis for an absolute rejection of violence in Islam creates problems.  When you say that violence may be used under proper circumstances to defend the faith, you have opened a door that it would be better to leave closed.  You open the door for al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS to claim that what they are doing is in fact defensive and therefore legitimate.  The discussion of terrorism must be conducted on the level of what is and is not defensive rather than on the more fundamental level of whether or not a person of faith can ever resort to violence.  This fact, I believe, makes it more difficult—not impossible but more difficult—for reasonable, faithful Muslim people to condemn the misuse of their faith to justify terrorism.  I say that with full appreciation of the fact that most, in fact nearly all, Muslims do indeed strongly condemn terrorism.  Nonetheless, Jesus’ “third way” (Wink) of creative, assertive, non-violent resistance to evil is the way of life and the way of the future, if the world is to have one.  I greatly regret the fact that Islam does not share that foundational teaching of Jesus Christ.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

An Illness Not a Sin


An Illness Not a Sin

Meditations on Depression and Suicide



I’m a Christian pastor. I serve a Christian church. I have done work as a volunteer chaplain for a local fire department. In my capacity as pastor and chaplain I have on a couple of occasions ministered to survivors of a loved one’s suicide. Once it was a young man who lived with and had been raised by his grandparents who took his own life. Twice it was a woman who had been married to her husband for thirty years before he ended his life. In those cases the surviving loved ones were of course in shock and grief, trying with every resource they had to understand what had happened and how they would go on without their now deceased loved one. Of course they wondered why. They wondered what they could have done, the answer to that being (as it is in nearly every such case) nothing they hadn’t done. Losing a loved one to suicide must be a nearly unbearable trauma for those who live on. I have experienced the death of loved ones, including my wife of thirty years; but I have never experienced the death of a loved one through suicide. I’ve seen the pain in people who have, but even so I’m sure I can truly understand it. It is always a tragedy of immense proportions when the one who decided he or she could not live on is otherwise not on the brink of death. Suicide is a tragedy, and it brings immense pain to those survive.



I have seen the pain of the survivors, but in the cases I just mentioned here I have also seen something going on with them that makes their grief and the trauma of a loved one’s suicide even worse than it must necessarily be. That thing is the fear that because loved one has taken his or her own life that God is then punishing their loved one for the unforgivable sin of suicide. They’ve heard that claim proclaimed by preachers and so-called pastors as divine truth. They suffer their own pain, and they fear for their loved one’s eternal soul. This fear that Christian preachers have instilled in them makes an event that would be unspeakably painful in any event far more painful. It adds fear to grief. It add fear of their loved one being in eternal torment to their own torment at losing him or her. It adds a layer of spiritual fear to a condition of emotional grief.



Back when I was a seminary intern one of the pastors I worked with told me how years earlier, when he was serving a local church in a different city, he had gotten a call from a parishioner whose child had just committed suicide. I said I had no idea what I’d do. He said “you go.” I said “yes, you go; but you go empty-handed.” In those very early days of my life in ministry I had no Idea what I could say in such a situation. Now, years later, I have been in that situation myself; and I have learned that you don’t necessarily go empty-handed. You go as a conduit of the love of God for people in deep pain. You go to offer them God’s care and grace. You go to hold them. You go to sit with them. You go to be with them. In all of those things you do not go empty-handed.



And you go with something else. You go with the good news that there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin. You go with this profound truth: Your loved one who has ended her or his life was suffering from depression. As far as I know that is almost always true. I suppose that if one has received some terrible diagnosis of a terminal illness that one might decide to end one’s life without being depressed. That’s what the “death with dignity” movement is all about, and I don’t think that’s a sin either. In the cases I have dealt with as pastor or chaplain the person who has committed suicide was indeed suffering from depression. In those cases I have told the grieving survivors something that I know to be true: Suicide is a consequence of depression, and depression is an illness not a sin. God does not condemn us when we suffer from heart disease. God does not condemn us when we die from cancer. God does not condemn us when we have failing kidneys. God does not condemn us for the mental illness of depression either, and that means that God does not condemn us even when our depression becomes so bad that we end our life.



Depression is a mental illness. I’ve had it myself. It is an illness every bit as physical as a heart attack or a stroke. Yes, it can interact with conditions in our lives in complex and unhealthy ways; but it is a chemical imbalance in the brain as much as anemia is a chemical imbalance in the blood. It is an illness not a sin. God does not condemn us for having it. God does not condemn us when it causes us to act in a self-destructive way.



I hope that the people to whom I have said that truth heard and believed me. I don’t delude myself that I can overcome centuries of bad Christian teaching all by myself. I just pray that maybe my sharing what I know to be true helped these suffering people at least a little bit. I pray that perhaps what I’m writing here may help someone else who discovers these words online. Depression is an illness. It has spiritual and emotional effects, but it’s still an illness. I don’t understand why anyone thinks God would condemn a person for being sick. We all get sick. We all die. It’s part of our human condition.



So if you have lost a loved one to suicide, I’m am truly sorry for your loss and your grief. Know that God loved you before your loss. God loves you now, shares your pain, and offers you God’s everlasting arms of love as a comfort and support. Know that God loved your loved one before his or her death. God loves him or her now and holds her or him in an eternal embrace of peace. Depression is an illness not a sin. It’s way past time for the Christian church to realize that truth.