Truth as an Object / Truth as a Journey

I've written about truth before (from the vantage point of falsifiability) but like most things, my mind has been kicking around some ideas.

I used to think of "the truth" as a treasure to be found. I could think, read, maybe even actually discover what the "right" answers were to life's most perplexing questions, but mainly about God.

I have always wanted to believe, but I have always been dogged by doubt. For every reason to believe there is a reason to doubt. For every yin a yang, for every black a white. I can argue every side inside and out and if you let yourself do that, it's quite exhausting. 

Unknowingly, I had adopted a traditional Western view of the truth. It goes something like this:

There is only one truth and (surprise) it just so happens to align to my beliefs.

In other words, truth is a zero sum game; a science experiment; a mathematical equation to be solved. The truth is singular, definable, and crystal clear. Ignoring the fact that this idea of truth flies in the face of lived human experience and it's utterly convincing and cutting in its logic. Above all, truth is a thing, an object, an idea to find and believe in.

For the most part, I still stand by this idea. That is, the truth is the truth. Facts are facts (and not alternative facts). Science is a great way of understanding the universe (evolution, vaccines, etc.) math is great (yay, bridges)!

Here comes the but....

But the truth is more complicated than only understanding the world and experiences through a reductionist lens.

Simply put, science is critical to creating a better life for humans but science can't tell us how to live or tell us what the meaning of life should be. Science is the blank coloring page, you can't change the outline, but we decide how to color it and embellish it.

Let me clarify, that yes, I am oversimplifying it, and maybe even overstating my argument. For example, evolution has guided our decisions and there is evidence to suggest we have already made a choice for before our brains are even aware of that choice being made. This is not an air-tight argument, it's a blog. So, while I maintain math and science truth as "captial T truth"...I also find this kind of truth alienating on a personal level. Our metaphors for truth don't fit the lived experience of most humans.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about that is unrelated to truth but related to time.

In the west we see time as moving forward and our metaphors for time involved "getting over things", "moving on", etc. However, our lived experience as time do not match the lived experiences (how often a simple memory can take us right back to a trauma). However, other cultures use a metaphor of walking backwards. We can only see the past, not the future we're stumbling into. I find this metaphor much closer to reality.

I've come to believe truth isn't an object but a journey we take, and on that journey, and hopefully, at best, the truth unfolds before you. Of course there is a place for science and math truth, but to force that kind of metaphor into our relationships, religious or spiritual realm, personal choice, art, etc. it doesn't work so well. Maybe I just don't want everything to be explained by science. I prefer the metaphor of a walk. I may wander here a bit, I may get lost, I may even stop for awhile. If I saw it was a zero sum game, maybe I have a personal crisis or breakdown, but if I see truth and life, as one long adventure, I can have the wherewithal to keep going.
 
Last spring I had a rabbi come to our multifaith forum and she shared this story with our panel. I think it's a good place to end.

"The Baal Shem quoted the Psalm, "Truth shall spring out of the earth" (85:12) and asked, "Surely it must be easy to find Truth?" "Indeed it is easy, " he continued, "but no one wants to bend down. No one is willing to stoop to pick up a little Truth..." A popular saying states that one can walk the length and breadth of the whole world with the Truth. The Baal Shem accepted this, since the Truth is knocked about everywhere on earth"

A Passion For Truth - Abraham Joshua Heschel

State of Mind

Sometimes I feel worn out.  The kids are in bed. The dishes aren't done but I am.

I don't mean just physically but mentally and spiritually. Lately, my spiritual life feels like I am running in place in one of those huge hamster wheels.

My actions show that I feel like God doesn't mind if I miss a prayer (or two or three or four). I feel disconnected from it all. This life has ups and downs and all arounds, and right now I'm in one of those ruts.

Frequently, I find my mind wandering to the future, never satisfying with what's right in front of me. Too busy to just be. Many people would be surprised to hear me say that because I am "in the moment" for most of my life. This is true for sometimes in moments with my children I am almost brought to tears of joy or beauty. When I am alone though, my mind betrays me.

The truth is, the future isn't better. The future might not exist at all. Now is better than the past and the future. It's all we have. The plans I make are just preparation. They should not be a substitute for living. If you are familiar with the Buddhist concept of mindfulness you know I just cribbed all that from my little bucket of Buddhist knowledge.

God, help me to see what's right in front of me.

I wanted to litter this little post with quotes from the Buddha and scripture and add a cute picture or two but it would just be for my pride's sake and plus, it's getting late.

Being mindful will help me be open to being closer to who God wants me to be. When I do pray, here's what I pray for.

Faith
Patience
Love of others especially my enemies
For the poor and helpless
To help those in need
Those in conflict areas of the world
For the scared and sick
To be a servant of others
All these characteristics to be in myself and family
To be where God wants us to be.

There and Back Again: The Beatitudes, Part I

When I started blogging back in April of 2010, one of my ideas was to write some biblical commentary. I had started a blog at some point in 2009 centered on my amateur efforts at biblical commentary. However, I got busy with life and I was quickly interested in other projects along the way. That failure gave me the idea of a "blog of lowered expectations". I would create a blog without a theme; it would be a repository of ideas, new and old, finished or unfinished. Hence the "fragments".  This post brings me back full circle. I'm finally getting around to posting some of my commentary.

This first (?!?!) series will be on the Beatitudes. My original idea was to post what I had saved on my PC with some minor edits and additions but I just can't operate that way. For example, I had an actual introduction to the Beatitudes but I re-wrote 95% of it. Present Neil is never happy with Past Neil and Future Neil just giggles at the both of them. So, go figure. I have no timetable to getting this done, it may come and go or if I get on a roll, I may just start popping them out rather quickly. Time will tell.

Introducing the Beatitudes 
Matthew’s fifth chapter begins Jesus’ "Sermon on the Mount". It is the centerpiece of Jesus' ethical revelation and contains many of Jesus’ most well known sayings. It has been debated, dissected and generally misunderstood over the centuries. The sermon delivers a radical vision of what the Kingdom of God is like. If you're a believer you can't help but feel a little uncomfortable reading the text. It is uncompromising in it's ethical and moral standards.

More importantly, the sermon sets Jesus apart from other wandering Jewish teachers. There is no doubt that Jesus' teaching established something different than what came before. Whether or not he intended to create a whole new religion, I'll set aside for another time. In the sermon, Jesus tells us that the conventional wisdom of the ages is worthless. The Kingdom of God runs counter to the Kingdom of Man. It shouldn't be a surprise to find out the Greek word used for "Kingdom" is the same word that is used to describe "Empire" when people referred to the "Roman Empire".

The sermon begins with the Beatitudes. The Beatitudes are series of eight (more like eight and a half) formula statements on who is "blessed". The word beatitude comes from a Latin term meaning "happy", "fortunate" or "blissful" (Wikipedia, man). The key phrase in the Beatitudes is "blessed" so it's important to explore what the term in Greek really meant. Most translations go with "blessed" but others chose "happy", "fortunate" or even the phrase "God blesses".

I'm not a big fan of translating the word "happy". It might have some value in revealing some of the original word in Greek - but I don't think it encompasses all the meanings in my understanding of the concept.

Something I will keep in mind for the commentary is the fact that we have two versions of the beatitudes. The first comes from Matthew 5 and the other from the so-called "Sermon on the Plain" as recorded in Luke. Luke's version only has four beatitudes (along with corresponding "woes"). I am no scholar so this brings up important questions I have about the hypothetical "Q" source that served source material for Matthew and Luke (the material that Matthew and Luke share that is not shared by Mark). As we discuss each beatitude, I will tackle both versions (or lack thereof) into account.

Here's an overview of the people who are "blessed" (the Luke version is in parenthesis)

• The poor in spirit ("the poor")
• Those who mourn ("those who weep now")
• The meek
• Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness ("those who hunger now")
• The merciful
• The pure in heart
• The peacemakers
• Those persecuted for righteousness sake ( Luke records "when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man").

According to conventional wisdom, most of the characteristics on this list wouldn't be considered "happy", "fortunate" or "blessed". Rather, just the opposite. Where the world sees failure and rejection, Jesus sees blessings. As I unpack each of these beatitudes we'll see just how they act as a positive on a believer.

Just reading the list reminds me of how "other-worldly" being a Christian is supposed to be like and how "unChristian" I am.

I don't want to be poor or be sad. I'm more shy than meek and I don't hunger enough for righteousness. I am merciful only when it's convenient for myself or those I love. I'm more self-interested than pure of heart and I am only a peacemaker because I don't like conflict.

The truth is, I'm a work in progress.

This reminds me of the fact that I am too afraid to pray for wisdom because I'm too afraid of how God will teach it to me. All the same, I look forward to the challenge of wrestling with these Kingdom Characteristics. Maybe it will help my journey towards being who I want to become.

The Formula to my Faith

Because nobody asked and there is no demand, here it is. A percent breakdown of how my patch-work faith is put together I  created while sitting at a child's birthday party under black lights.  

25% - Traditional Christianity   - I am an unabashed liberal in so many areas of my life but when God and Jesus are reduced to symbols…it bothers me. Some say these events really didn’t happen or that they are symbolically true…there may even be some truth in that. However, I believe in the historical accuracy of most of what is the recorded in the gospels (with some obvious examples of inclusions in the text). I believe Jesus actually defeated death and rose again…. otherwise, why am I doing this?  

25% - Liberal Christianity – While I am pretty traditional in my beliefs surrounding the gospels, everything else gets complicated.  I don’t believe everything literally happened in the Bible (nor do I think the author’s original intent in many cases was that it was supposed to be understood in a literal sense).  On the other hand, I don't believe everything is patently false either. I believe in evolution, I don’t believe in hell, I have problems with Paul, I am fine with women leadership and practicing homosexuals in the Church.

17% -Kierkegaard's Understanding of Faith – Faith and reason are not reconcilable in my book. There’s no need to attempt to do so, it only makes us look silly. Also, just because I don't understand 50% of what he writes doesn't mean I can't dig his concepts. 

12% - Historical Criticism – Some may claim foul here. I mean, this isn't a reason why I believe but without this tool in the tool chest, I wouldn't be a believer. We must put an ancient text in its historical context of culture and possible author motivations. Otherwise, we simply won’t understand the text clearly..  If the Bible is only understood “as is” it’s not half as impressive and you’re missing out on it’s true beauty.   

10% - Cosmological Argument – Look, it’s not convincing to some, but for me, it works.

5% - Pascal’s Wager – I mean, it makes sense. Besides, it's a fun little story. 

3% - Personal Experience - There have a been a few times that seem too good to be chance events. On the other hand, one can fool one’s self very easily.

2%  - Ontological Argument – eh, only here because an agnostic that I respect said it was the most convincing argument he had heard. That’s how much I respect him.  

1% - Hope in things unseen – Well, hope is a beautiful thing now isn’t it?

 

Well, there's this too but just wanting something can't make it true, nor would it be a good reason to believe in something. There's a lot of research that shows genetic predisposition to believe in religion (or not to believe).  I think my brain is split down the middle on that one.

That's all party people, keep it real and keep working it 'till the cows come home. 

The Problem with Truth

What is truth?

Lately the question has been kicking around in my life, so here I find myself typing out my thoughts.  When it comes to truth, I am no relativist.  I have little patience for those folks who believe all opinions, religions or cultures are all “equal” or “the same”.  I mean no one is stopping you from believing that way, but it’s just plain lazy.  

On the other hand, I think the Buddhist/Hindu/Jain story informs my point of view as well.The story goes like this… there were once six blind men that were taken to an elephant and asked to describe what an elephant was like. 

I know this looks and sounds like a mean fraternity prank.

Each of the six men had a different description of what an elephant was based upon where they stood in relation to the elephant. The man at the trunk was convinced an elephant was like a huge python, the man at the tusk believed an elephant was like a spear, the guy at the ear thought it was like a fan, etc., etc. Of course the point of the story is that none of the men were completely right and none of them were completely wrong. They each had a part of the truth but not the full truth. 

For Hindus, the "truth" (and for that matter, God) is too subjective (or in God's case incomprehensible) for anyone person to claim they can see the whole truth. Most people are like those blind guys, believing they know what the elephant is.  

When Buddha was asked by people what truth was, he was said to have been silent. Jesus was also silent when Pilate asked him what the truth was.  Maybe the question is just a big trap question. Maybe the truth about truth is that it's like the Tao, once you name it, you’ve lost it. 

..................

I am a Christian, so in theory, I am supposed to have a clue about the truth. On Sunday my pastor had a whole sermon on truth and Christianity. One of his points was that good, sincere people can be wrong about their beliefs.  One example was about  the woman who believed she could survive like a plant, off of only sunshine and water.  Yes, the story was true. 

In this particular case the woman was proved wrong by the simple fact that she almost died (she had to end her little experiment).  As silly and disturbing as her truth claim was, it could be verified in the here and now. She could be proved right or wrong.  

The "truth" is, religion kinda sucks as a truth claim.

Not too long ago, we had a visit from some Mormons in our house. They came by while I was doing yard work, so I set up an appointment with them the following week. After about 40 minutes about talking about the cross, Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham, I finally asked them how they knew they were "right". One of them replied that they had prayed about it and they felt God had given them confirmation of the truth of The Book of Mormon. This is a standard Mormon line. They feel it's true, so therefore, it's true.

I asked him if he thought the Islamic terrorists "felt" they were "right".  He replied that yes, he thought that they believed they were following "God's will". If religion's truth is based on how you as an individual feel about it - isn't this a problem?  Even if I move beyond my "gut feelings" and I put my trust in the Bible, a church, a pastor, etc., you are still no better (although you might be better informed). Any given church may have misrepresented, mistranslated or even misunderstood "God's will" thus muddying the water even more.

This brings me to the idea of unfalsifiable beliefs. This is best explained by John Wisdom's Parable of the Invisible Gardner:

 "Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The skeptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."

This parable brings up some problems for all religious believers, as faith can’t be verified. It cannot be proved true (or false) in our lifetime.  One could say that some Christian claims might be able to be "proved" wrong by a discovery of an ancient artifact. However, many believers might question the authenticity or realiablity of any discovery thus undermining this claim of falsifiability. 

While falsifiability does prove to be a problem for the veracity of any truth claim, I don't think it sinks all religions. If the religion's truth claims can be proved likely to be not true at all (i.e. Mormonism) then, you have a clear case for disbelief.  However, I would posit that if God exists, a level of mystery would be needed in order to retain the moral free agency of people. Either way, I do find problems with discovering what the “truth” is from any religion’s point of view.

All this week I kept thinking about why my pastor’s sermon rubbed me the wrong way. What’s the problem with stating that Christians have “the truth”? I mean, I am a Christian after all, don’t I believe my own faith?

I guess that’s what it comes down to – faith.  For me, faith is ultimately a call for the believer to stop trying to answer what the “truth” is. Because once our faith is something you know as a fact then it’s not really faith anymore.  You cease to have free will and are only responding to something you have to respond to.   I am suspicious of people who seem to know it all.   

"You should never never doubt what no one is sure about"

Some people take comfort in answering life's riddles - they put their faith into a church or God or something else entirely. That way their doubts are silenced, their "truth" preserved.  My profession has honed my skills as a thinker - every question can be questioned, every query can be reversed to show another side. When I come up with an answer, a new question is then created. Maybe I am insane. Lately I've been consumed with doubt.

Authentic faith, like the pursuit of truth, requires authentic doubt. Questioning your beliefs or your faith isn’t just a burden, it’s a gift. That’s how Kierkegaard saw faith, as a miracle from God.  When Jacob wrestles and struggles with God he isn’t struck down by a lightening bolt, he is blessed. It is because of his struggle he gets the blessing.  

The more I struggle, the more I risk, the more I feel like this is the way it’s supposed to be. 

I guess my problem with claiming I have the truth is that in doing so, I am ignoring the fact that I have doubts about my truth claim. It doesn’t mean I don’t believe in my truth claim, it’s just it can’t be proved.  The idea that my truth claim is somehow better than the other blind guy trying to feel the elephant is a little silly.  So, we’ll just keep feeling together, hoping the elephant is really there.

Postscript: Just read an interview with the new pope and I thought he pretty much summed up this whole post a lot better than me:

"In this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation. Our life is not given to us like an opera libretto, in which all is written down; but it means going, walking, doing, searching, seeing … We must enter into the adventure of the quest for meeting God; we must let God search and encounter us."

Stories from Before the Big Bang.....

The other night I couldn’t sleep because I was thinking of the cosmological argument for God’s existence and the Big Bang.  Yes, these sorts of things keep me up at night from time to time as well as thinking about making an excel spreadsheet of my comics collection and fantasizing about quitting my job and doing something crazy like moving my family to the other side of the globe.   

 I'm a big fan of the whole school of thought, "we are a way for the universe to know itself". Sounds cool, ya know? Really without us or another sentient, conscious beings, the universe is a utterly pointless and meaningless affair.

Anyway, if you’re unfamiliar with the cosmological argument, here is one version:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Most believers point to the “cause” being God – although this itself is a leap of logic and faith.  The obvious weakness to this next leap is that if God started the universe and everything has a cause (per premise #1), then where did your “eternal” God come from?  It starts the whole argument over again. 

So this got me thinking what came about before the start of the universe?

Oh, that's clever.

I am reasonably sure I have thought about this before, but this particular evening, the idea stuck around in my head. I should state that I am way out of my depth here. Basically, my knowledge of the cosmos and philosophy can be fit into the palm of very small child. Maybe this is why I find it so fascinating because everything I read, I learn something.  Nonetheless, I will carry on because that’s what bloggers do (I  guess). 

I recently finished reading Klosterman’s Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs (eh, it's alright) and in one section he rails against probability, stating that everything is 50/50. Either something is going to happen or it’s not.  Either it is or is not true, etc. etc. . Of course if you play with this idea enough it gets absurd:  Unicorns: 50/50, UFO’s: 50/50, Noah’s Ark: 50/50,  and so on and so forth. 

Even still, there is certain logic to it.  I am working under two assumptions here and they are basically clarifying the positions above:

1. We know the universe began
2. Something can’t come from nothing

If we are discussing the prehistory universe (and apparently there are whole books on this subject) then we find ourselves, whatever our position to be, in theoretical conjecture.  Is everything at this point 50/50? Maybe there are no odds at this point, just ideas that are variously silly, educated, absurd, realistic, obvious and troubling. I guess what I am trying to say is that something caused the universe into being. It was either on purpose or a happy accident.

So if it wasn’t God behind creation, what was it? Again, we are in theory, and this idea might be debunked or outdated, but, work with me people! Here’s one theory I found: 
 

“…the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time. These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively..”

Sounds good.... but wait - where did the “branes” in the fifth dimension come from?  A common phrase I kept  reading on the web, was "asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North pole".  It was a common discussion point among atheists. Here's an interview with atheist Richard Dawkins by fundamentalist Hugh Hewitt:

HH: I’m talking about the whole cosmos. Where did that come from, 13 billion years ago?

RD: It came from the big bang, which is not a complex process. It’s a simple process.

HH: And what preceded the big bang?


RD: Well, physicists won’t answer that question. They will say that time itself began in the big bang, and so the question what preceded it is illegitimate.


HH: What do you think?


RD: I’m not enough of a physicist to understand what I’m saying, but I have to say that that’s what physicists say.


HH: So when you consider before the big bang, what does Richard Dawkins think was there?


RD: I don’t consider the question, because I recognize that it’s an intuitively appealing question. I recognize that I, along with everybody else, wants to ask that question. Then I talk to physicists who say you can no more ask what came before the big bang than you can ask what’s north of the North Pole.

Ironically, whether you go with the "God" answer or the "nothing" answer, they each share similarities in that the ultimate answer is of what was before the Big Bang is...well...don't ask, because the question itself can't be asked. When I asked a philosopher (who is a few offices down from me) about what happened before the Big Bang,  he noted that people don't like to hear that this question is basically unanswerable. Even if that really is the case after all.  Still, something bothers me about saying there was nothing (or "branes") that by sheer nature did something. 

It is likely that I am missing something at this point (either from philosophy or cosmology). Maybe the more refined question is to ask why is there something rather than nothing to begin with? 

From my perspective, both of these creation accounts are stories we tell ourselves.  We consume stories in film, television, in novels and in art. We repeat stories told in song and in our sacred books. It's like our brains can't accept anything without a definite start (and end?)  We're the story-telling animal. Personally, one's belief of disbelief shouldn't be centered on one argument alone so I take this whole exercise with a grain of salt. All that being said, at least tonight, I'll sleep a little better about the story I've adopted for my own.  
 

Mohammad and Jesus: A Case Study in Forgiveness

I used to think that underlying all the surface differences between religions (at least those with a belief in a god) was one important similarity. I believed at the core of every successful religion was the belief in a purposeful, loving, creator God. And I found just that depiction of God in two of the major world faiths, Christianity and Hinduism. However, this winter my fears and doubts about Islam were confirmed - it is fundamentally a different kind of faith.

This past holiday break I began a quest to re-edit our course selection of the Qur'an for our Introduction to the Humanities class. This meant I finally put in the time to finish reading the Qur'an, researched various translations, went to pro-Islam sites, anti-Islam sites, academic websites, watched videos, trawled Wikipedia and basically spent a lot of time and thought on Islam and the Qur'an. It was interesting but honestly tough to go through.

Let me begin by stating I respect Muslims. Heck, I lived like a Muslim two years ago for one week (admittedly, it was a mixed bag of success). I find the dedication to prayer and fasting a beautiful thing. The sense of community Muslims have here in the US is impressive - I have visited one of our local mosques a few times and I have always come away enriched by the whole experience. Additionally, I do not think the Qur'an justifies terrorism in any form. Only when the text is taken out of context can the book be used to justify violence toward those who are unbelievers (and even then it wouldn't be a call to kill non-combatants either). This isn't to say there aren't issues with violence in the book or the faith as a whole (as Muslims have used "Islamic law" to promote violence). However, the Qur'an itself creates a well developed "just war" theory. War is to be limited and only allowed in certain situations. 

All that said, the more I have learned about Islam and the Qur'an the more I find the faith troubling in numerous ways. I don't necessarily mean in the ways you might expect (i.e., terrorism) but in the conception of God itself. The Qur'an displays a God that is brutal, heart-hardening, punishing (and ultimately) a hateful God. Humans do not have complete free will once you have "rejected" God, there is little promise for forgiveness, as he will harden your heart:

“Surely, those who disbelieve and did wrong; God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever.” (Qur'an 4:168-169)

Note: All my quotes are double-checked for fairness and accuracy. In this case both this quote above and the one below are not taken out of context and are representative of the Qur'an's discussion on free will and hell.

As an added bonus, once in hell, your punishment will be quite horrifying and torturous beyond your imagination. It's all narrated in the most terrifying detail:

“And you will see the criminals that Day bound together in shackles, their garments of liquid pitch (melted copper) and their faces covered by the Fire.” (Qur'an 14:49-50)

                                            Well, at least they give you shorts in hell.


In my research, I kept a narrow focus to Islam, the Qur'an and a little bit on Mohammad and his family. My translation was a part of the Oxford World's Classics series, translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. The translation itself is quite poetic (especially compared to other English translations) and is quite clear. Haleem's introduction and introductory notes for each sura are indispensable. Haleem puts each sura in a historical context for the readers that is necessary for understanding a difficult text for those of us born outside an Islamic culture. I purposefully steered clear from hadiths to narrow my scope. However, one evening after reading an anti-Islam website, I saw a story about Mohammad and an "adulteress" woman that caught my attention.

For those who aren't familiar with hadiths - hadiths are stories or sayings of Mohammad. They aren't considered scripture (as each hadith may or may not be verified or trustworthy as other hadiths). However, they are extremely important in Islamic life, especially where the Qur'an is vague or silent on an issue. They have had a vast influence on Islamic law.

Anyway, back to the hadith that caught my attention. When I first read this particular hadith, I frankly couldn't and didn't believe it. I am a liberal after all, I believed the stonings that still happen today were a result of culture, not the religion itself.

Absolutely terrifying and horrible.

Besides, this was coming from some anti-Islam extremist. However, after more web research I finally found the hadith number and the reference. The hadith is hosted on a neutral academic site which finally led me to accept the fact that I had already known: Islam is vastly different from Christianity. Grace, forgiveness as understood by Christians is a foreign concept to Muslims. The obvious parallel to this hadith is the story of Jesus and the adulteress that was about to be stoned in the gospel of John. If there was a story to encapsulate the differences between the two faiths, it can be found in these two stories. First, here's the hadith of Mohammad:

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/017-smt.php

Book 017, Number 4207:

"Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: Allah's Apostle, I have done something for which (prescribed punishment) must be imposed upon me, so impose that. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) called her master and said: Treat her well, and when she delivers bring her to me. He did accordingly. Then Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about her and her clothes were tied around her and then he commanded and she was stoned to death. He then prayed over her (dead body). Thereupon Umar said to him: Allah's Apostle, you offer prayer for her, whereas she had committed adultery! Thereupon he said: She has made such a repentance that if it were to be divided among seventy men of Medina, it would be enough. Have you found any repentance better than this that she sacrificed her life for Allah, the Majestic?"



This hadith brings up interesting issues concerning hadiths (especially if I was a believing Muslim). First I want to note that the woman comes to Mohammad asking for punishment. According to the Qur'an (24:2) the prescribed punishment for adultery is 100 lashes on the back (ouch). Maybe she already knew that, maybe she didn't. Maybe, if I'm going to be fair-minded beyond what I need to be- maybe Muhammad hadn't received that "revelation" just yet. Either way, it's clear the woman's intentions are noble and brave as she is seeking forgiveness with the person in her community with the most authority (not to mention he's got the total "in" with God).

Mohammad sends her off to take care of her growing baby only to have her come back and be executed for her sin - this act is accepted without question and believed to be necessary in order for true repentance and forgiveness to take place. Being humiliated in front of the community's leaders is not enough, nor is simply asking for forgiveness to God enough. What the woman thought of the ordeal after her initial confession is left to our imaginations. Physical punishment is the atoning act - there can be no other option.

Maybe, you're a Qur'anist (and if I were Muslim I would be) - you ditch the whole story and call it for what it is (hogwash). Still, the story is indicative of the faith proclaimed in the Qur'an. The story reflects the elements already in the Qur'an - it doesn't have to be true to be "true". The threats of hell that exist on almost every page in the Qur'an show that violence is the prescribed punishment for sin. Forgiveness isn't cheap in the Qur'an.

Some of this can be explained by the Middle Eastern preoccupation with shame and dishonor (themes that if you really squint can see hints of in the gospels). Adultery produces shame and dishonor and the only way it can truly be eradicated is by punishment.


Now let's visit the famous passage from John 8. Like the concept of hadiths, it has it's own problems of verification (as it's not in the earliest manuscripts of the John)...we'll get to that in a little bit...here's the story:

From John 8: 2-11:

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

In this story the woman isn't nobly coming before Jesus asking for forgiveness - she's caught in the act (if we take the men at their word). Making matters worse, she's playing the bait in a game to trap a (possibly) religious nut - she must be just as scared out of her mind as the other woman in the other story was (or will be, as in theory, this happens about six hundred years before the Islamic story does...you get the point, right?).

Jesus (as he often does) answers a question with a challenge - we can sit in judgement only if we have no sin of our own. From a Christian perspective, mercy comes from God and while I am on earth, I can't judge because I am no better than anyone else. I'm screwed up, just as much as they are (See also Matthew 7).

However, there is a similarity that Christianity and Islam share. Traditionally, Christians have believed in a fiery, violent tortuous afterlife as well. Of course, I don't prescribe to that particular poor exegesis but that's a story for another post. The point is, forgiveness isn't cheap in Christianity either. In fact, it's already accomplished by the cross. In order to repent, you don't have to be stoned. 

The fact is this story is a late addition to the gospels and it most likely circulated orally for decades in some form before being written down here in John. Maybe, just maybe it's not even true (although it sure as heck makes a great scene in The Last Temptation)....but it's still "true" in its reflections of the message of Christ. The real miracle is that the God of the New Testament believes in grace - all that is "required" for the woman is to "go...and leave your life of sin".

In some sense, the demand is the same in both stories - your life in exchange for forgiveness. For Jesus, this didn't mean your life in a physical sense (although your faith may cost your physical life). The fact is, if I know I am truly forgiven, it means I act upon that fact and live a life towards Christ-consciousness. I am thankful I can work to bring the Kingdom a little closer to earth. I'm already forgiven.

This post isn't about judging Islam or Muslims. I only wanted to contrast where the two faiths split - these differences are real and do change the way believers of their respective faiths see themselves and others. I see much hope in the Qur'anist movement and in my fellow American Muslims to help reform global Islam.

Postscript: I had three Muslim women speak during two of my intro classes today. During the break I asked two of them about this hadith and it's inconsistency with the Qur'an's teaching on adultery. They saw no inconsistency. She said the hadiths and the Qur'an were "harmonious" and that the woman wanted to be stoned to be forgiven in this life - rather than face punishment in the next. When I asked could she have been forgiven without the stoning - she said yes. Which at this point, begs the question, why get stoned then? She said it "broke Mohammed's heart" to do that, and that he didn't want to do it (which clearly is reading into the text). I said, I could understand if someone wanted to be killed (even if I think this is highly unlikely, let's go with it) - I said I have a big problem with someone taking these stories as "law" and forcing "forgiveness" by murdering the woman - which  seems much more like brutal punishment rather than atonement. At any rate, it goes to show me that people pretty much believe what they want.  They were very nice though and I learned a thing or two myself.

Acting on Faith: The Parable of the Two Sons

In my recent faith journey I have been reflecting on the importance of acting. You know, actually doing something. Unfortunately , like most people I find this hard to do.

I'm busy/tired/being a father/washing the dishes/writing a blog/reading a book/watching television/eating a meal/ grading papers...I think you get the idea.

I grew up in a church that preached a "soterian gospel" as Scot McKnight puts it. The soterian gospel emphasizes that salvation is given by the grace of God in my faith in Jesus Christ. You believe and you're saved, it's all that simple. You see this message often in churches, television and billboards. It's seducing because it feels good to be saved and frankly it is half true, it's just not the full story. 

We are saved by grace but we are judged by our actions. Never once does Jesus judge someone based on the wrong theology. This wasn't due to a lack of opportunity either. In his meeting with a Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) he doesn't correct her theology but her actions ("Go and sin no more"). When Jesus heals the Roman centurion's daughter (Mark 5) he doesn't stop to ask what the Roman believed about God (likely he was one of the "God fearing" Gentiles but how well could he have understood God?) - instead Jesus praises the faith he does have.

We find believers fighting until they are blue in the face about theology, rules, traditions, worship practices, rituals...all the things Jesus spends little to no time preaching about. We have made faith primarily about the way we think about God instead of the way I act in life.  Rather than uniting behind righteous deeds, endeavoring for justice, and good works, we find ourselves judging those who don't believe the same things about God that we do.

I am reading a great book about Jesus' parables by Snodgrass called,  Stories with Intent. A few weeks back I came to the section on the parable of "The Two Sons".  As is often the case with the Bible, it hit me for some reason as if I had never read it before. 

What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
“Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
Matthew 21: 28-32

According to Jesus, judgement always comes to people based upon their actions (or lack thereof). This parable is a double-edge sword. It makes me feel good that God can see through all the b.s. we put up - the divisions of religion, domination, theology, etc. I think Jesus is discussing "the kingdom" here on earth (and not necessarily "Heaven"). As Jesus reveals elsewhere and multiple times, one can't be too sure who will make it to the other side based on our earthy knowledge.

So the last shall be first and the first shall be last... (Matthew 20:16)

At the same time it makes me fear that I am not doing enough. As we wait for our son to get home we're stuck in middle of maybe (possibly) doing something radical. But maybe I am just using this as an excuse - I mean when is it a good time to start all over and do something scary/crazy/life-altering? “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:60

Deep down I'm scared about letting go (this has been a reoccurring theme of this blog). I am plagued by doubt about myself and about God. Maybe this is all a charade I am playing in my head. I question my assumptions and beliefs to the point where I undermine myself. I am learning to let go of it, but the self is a hard thing to defeat (ask anyone trying to be "spiritual').

So it seems the words of Jesus have brought me down, maybe even bummed me out a bit. The truth is that I need to be challenged. Who said life was easy anyway? However, I have also found comfort and encouragement as well. Even my own blemished and fractured faith can be enough to change everything.

If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you. (Luke 17:6)