The Wheaton College incident involving a professor who put on a bourka and professed that Christians and Muslims worship the same God has sparked much controversy, debate and discussion. The College has put her on paid leave and is still trying to decide her fate, having made a statement that seems fundamentally at odds with the evangelical creed to which the College subscribes.
In the United States, where minority rights are championed and “tolerance” is preached, the public consensus seems solidly in favor of the sympathetic professor. A different sentiment prevails in the Middle East, however. “Among Muslims and Christians in the Middle East, the discussion is not over whether we worship the same God,” one Arab Christian said, “but rather Muslims challenging us that we worship one God at all.”[1]
If a similar controversy were to arise in a predominantly Islamic country, the atmosphere would likely be much different. Debate would likely be replaced by one-sided polemics, public spectacle and, perhaps, the death of the “heretic”. But, the differences in cultural response do not address the fundamental question: Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?
it is more intellectually honest to acknowledge the different worldviews and social practices, including the resulting necessity that there is a choice to be made to determine which is more truthful than the others
I began my college career with a World Religions class that exposed me to the major world religions. My professor boasted a Christian upbringing and background, but he was more of a universalist than a Christian in his theology and philosophy. The class focused more on the religions other than Christianity than Christianity, partly, I suppose, because most people sitting in a World Religion class in a small liberal arts college in Iowa already were acclimated to Christianity.
Western Civilization was another class I took. Western civilization, not surprisingly, dominates and colors most of the history of American thought since the United States is predominantly an extension of Greek, Roman and western European philosophy and ideology. My Jewish religion professor put that in context for me one day in a class on the Old Testament when he asserted that Judaism has roots in Eastern religion and civilization. (I was a thesis away from being a religion major.)
I will not repeat the context or expand on the details of that proposition. I have forgotten most of the details anyway. The take away I want to chew on with this piece is that we make assumptions about religion and the world based on how we have been acculturated and “indoctrinated” by our culture. Listening to the perspectives of “others” provides us valuable, different perpectives, even on the things with which we are familiar (like Christianity).
I am going to do something a little different in this blog. I often weave other people’s presentations and thinking into my articles, but, in this one, I am going to lay out another’s person’s presentation in its entirety.
No one topic, perhaps, in all the world today has demanded more of the world’s attention than the happenings involving radical Islamic terrorists. This article is not going to attack Muslims; neither is it going to defend them. Rather, if you will listen to each of the segments, it will help you to understand Islam and Christianity in comparison to each other from the viewpoint of a man raised a devout Muslim of Islamic missionary parents.
We all have a “way”. The way that we traverse in this life is the path that we follow, the road that guides us, an inner compass, a moral code, a worldview. Some us, perhaps most of us, waver in the way that we travel. Some of us have constructed our own ways; others have borrowed from others: friends, family, culture, teachers, philosophers, church, the Bible and other sources.
We all have moral imperatives that guide us. They are so embedded in most of us that we hardly even think about them. When we are faced with decisions, we fall back on them, often without consciously thinking about them. They become habits of thought and action. Continue reading “The Ways of Death and a Way of Life”→
The reconciliation of science and religion may seem unlikely to some. Though the Renaissance period grew alongside the Reformation, and advancements in science during that time were largely pioneered by men of faith, science began to deviate from faith during the Enlightenment period. I suppose that the divergence of science and faith that began in the Enlightenment period is somewhat like the Protestant movement separating from the Catholic Church.
As one grew alongside the other, however, and both having roots in the same soil, it is inevitable that separation cannot be complete or total.
To the chagrin of modern materialists, the connection cannot and will not be severed.
Many atheists would of course embrace the idea that science can falsify religious claims. However, if this is the case, then religion may fall within the purview of science. The claim that religion and science may overlap is a claim that atheists have fought vigorously in the courts to reject. The reason for this is that if science can falsify religious claims, then it is also conceivable that it can give evidence for the truth of religious claims.
It is also maintained that science deals only with the physical world as its subject matter. While this is a methodological statement, many believe that science only deals with the physical world because that is all that exists. However, this is not a statement of science; instead, it is a philosophical statement that can neither be verified through the senses nor falsified through reason. Alvin Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, and several other philosophers of science have written extensively on this understanding of science. The problem with this materialistic criterion is that it fails its own test. That is, definitions are not physical, concepts are not physical, and meaning is not physical, and these things are what the materialist uses to define science. Therefore, if definitions, concepts, and meaning exist, then not everything that exists is physical.
Of course one could believe that non-physical reality exists, but claim that science merely deals with the physical attributes of the world. That is all well and good, but would merely suggest that religion and science do not talk to each other. Yet, as shown above, one could clearly use science to show certain religious beliefs to be false. And, as I also mentioned earlier, if one can used scientific fields to disprove religious claims, science may also be used to justify the beliefs of many religious claims.
Navigating by Faith 