Thinking About a New Kind of Christianity. One that is Postmodern. Part 1/3

In the months ahead I hope to rewrite Christendom's Evangelical heritage in terms of Postmodern Christianity whose faith must let go of its many past foundational elements of its narrative constructs and begin updating those older narratives into a more flexible, less mechanised, more dynamically constructed theology that better engages our understanding of who God is, what He is doing, and how He is effecting our world.

To begin with I wish to use Andrew Perriman's theological starting point of God calling a remnant people to Himself in terms of purpose and calling, commitments and labor, expectancies and potentialities. From there I wish to dis-engage from our European heritage of dogmas and traditions, and then re-engage the bible with a fuller language of postmodern and relational theology.

By way of example, this process would be similar to dis-engaging from classical Newtonian physics as an ultimate descriptor of our cosmogony to the alternative, and no less real, re-engagement of physics from a quantum mechanics scientific viewpoint. One mathematical model works with the world of the large, while the other mathematical model works with the world of the small. Lately, through string theory, the discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle, and other similar theories, the gap between the worlds of classical and quantum physics begin to seem more bridgeable. More intertwined. Similarly, the Christian faith stands in a correspondent state of engagement.

However, the 21st century church still is using an older language, concepts and constructs of the past while impossibly trying to relate to the newer discoveries of postmodern Christian theorists, theologians, philosophers, and pragmatists. This newer language of discovery is different. It's foreign. It feels alien. Strange. And at times absurd. It leaves us puzzled, confused, frighten, threaten, defeated, broken and perhaps even willing to throw out all our belief systems as untrue, too biased, too localized, too subjective, or frivolous. But these very human elements and personal knee-jerk reactions are actually the very starting point to positively re-framing, and re-arrangement of, our faith if it is to expand and grow lest it die upon the antiquities of past traditions and dogmas. Antiquities that once were founded upon the hotbeds of a living, dynamic faith, but now are beginning to feel more like dying, irrelevant idols we needlessly cling to, fight for, and refuse to give up.

But just like the older concepts of classical physics which have become "updated" to be more useful in the modern era of engineering projects, so too are the newer concepts of quantum physics giving to us the ability to better engineer God's complex creation that we have more recently discovered through the newer quantumized tools of interaction. Similarly, for some Christians it will be difficult to update their faith so that it can continue to exist in postmodern times of religious plurality and inter-faith dialogue. For others, they will be driven to radically re-express every aspect of Christianity in fundamentally altering terms that may leave little, or no, resemblance to the church's past dogmas. And yet for others like myself that fall in the range of constructive theologians (by nature, if not by trade), we will want to engage both systems and try to build a bridge between both worldviews of the old and the new. While at the same time chiding faith-camps on both sides of the bridge for either not giving up enough, or for giving up too much. For being too rigid and in danger of losing their faith. Or so flexible, as to lose the centrality of what they were initially seeking to recharge, uplift and re-energize. We're looking for balance while retaining substance. Reasonableness while remaining true to the biblical word.

So if you're a Calvinist, expect to speak of God in less deterministic terms - as One who is not in control of all things at all times - and rather think of God as One who partners with His freewill creation (which includes mankind). Who influences rather than coerces. Who suffers with us and despairs of sin and evil (and thus, to some, seems weak and unable to help. Or to others, prohibited to act... something I defer to think of as God self-limiting Himself.) Who may not (or cannot) stop evil and harm because of either self-limitations incurred when creating a freewilled creation or, because by His very act of creation sin entered into what was holy and good. Which thus prohibits His coercive interaction upon a free-willed creation. Who encourages obedience to His will and purposes but does not demand it or force it. Who uses our failures and refusals to His ultimate goals of recreation and renewal. These are only some, of many, many ideas being discussed within postmodern Christianity that we should think through ourselves - sometimes in admonstrative critique (did I just make up a new word? or simply misuse admonish... poets ask that question at times), but mostly, to help enliven our faith, and our faith-walk in this world.

Further, expect to think of God as not the unchanging One, but One who is changeable, just as we (and the world of creation) change from day-to-day. This is part of what it means to be in the Image of God. To think in terms of process and relatedness. That is, to consider all things are in flux and in dynamic adaptability. So too is God in process because He wishes to relate to us and will change Himself with the changes we go through (or will be changed in Himself by the experiences He experiences by/from His creation)... like the example of a parent who changes with their kids as they grow up into maturity through life's experiences, brokenness, harms and delights. Or like the child itself growing up within the world with all of its rich experiences good and bad, fulfilling and desettling, impossibly being able to hold a past stage of life from immortal change and timeless eternity. These aspects describe our humanness - we are relational beings just as God is a relational being in His essence. Moreover, we have no self-identity without having social interaction with each other (or with other things) gained through event and process. Just as the physical concepts of Einstenian time-and-space bear no meaning without interaction with one another through event, so too we bear no meaning within ourselves without interaction with each other that are formed as a series of events. The same can be said of God. Creation gives God meaning just as God gives creation meaning through mutual interactions formed as a series of shaping events. God changes from day-to-day in his immortal, timeless essence. It is a mystery we cannot understand but a seemingly true mystery that we must allow without compartmentalizing His essence, His authority, His deity or the divinity of His fellowship.

But by saying these things doesn't necessarily mean that we, as postmodern Christians, shouldn't remember the church's past creeds and confessions as its gatekeepers of past historical legacies hard won and perilously wrestled away from past withholding auspices of the reigning catholic church and/or powers of the religious state through inquisitions, torture, brutality, death and destruction. However, we are updating those past ideologies into a postmodernistic language of expression. When we do this we're going to say things differently. And, if necessary, even create a new language to speak of God and of His relationship to the world. For without a new language we cannot break the bonds to the antiquated past that has held our present-day language in similar bondage. We need new concepts, new symbols, new words to infill a Christianity that must grow and change and adapt from its older version of itself to this day's more postmodern culture. A culture holding hostage the modern day church in its present day language, paradigms and expressions. And why not?! Does not the bible teach that man's view of the world is finite and that God's is infinite? When God questioned Job did He not tell Job the same thing? It would be the height of human audacity to presume that our knowledge of God is limited to the past and that God is consequently limited  by our past systematic statements (or symbolic representations) of Himself. Or by our simplistic/naive belief systems that have attempted to grasp Him eons ago through the ancient mind when we are just discovering the dynamicy of the bible based upon its fluidity of communication (which is what I think the original writers of the bible would ultimately want us to do even as we we were gauging their words through our own static, inflexible, belief systems). This is the mystery of the Holy Spirit charged with communicating God's eternal word to humanity's future days and ages seeking to behold God's wisdom of revelation which is bound within theology's perception of what a good hermeneutic should, and shouldn't, be.

Inflexible belief systems can ultimately be destructive or harmful to willing, and evolving, postmodern societal interactions should the church chose not to evolve at an organic level. Whether naturally, or by man's intercessory provisioning, or even by the prophetic activity of its inherent counsel resident within its Spirit indwelt visionaries). But to foolishly expect that, (i) mankind (and creation) will no longer evolve with one another, but must ever -and-always remain statically bound to one another through past enriching or conforming paradigms, expressions, practices, and worldviews alone, is unreasonable. Or that, (ii) our relationship with the divine Otherness of the Eternal One has been fully proscribed by the genius of older theologians, bishops, priests, and rabbis, would be beyond the bounds of our practical experience and expectant imaginations. It would place an unrealistic burden upon the church by ascribing to the church of yesteryear  an impolitic expectation of knowing, being, grasping, even managing, timeless truths unbent to modern, or postmodern, or post-postmodern (and beyond), needs, insights, proscriptions, charters, knowledge, worldly experience,  and spiritual provisioning based upon a yet-to-be-realized evolving society of mankind that would prophetically re-envision all aspects of mankind's future orders, sciences, technologies, constitutions and praxis - both theoretical and pragmatic. This would be foolishness. The height of audacity to which today's present orthodox church arranged around its present theologies would pretend admission to while at the same time creating for itself a time-bound community of believers unwilling, and unable, to struggle with society's polypluralisms for effective missional witness. 

However, if this is not the case, than we should both allow - and expect! - more enlightened thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, worship and faith practices to proceed forth from this very reasonable and natural essay between the God of the cosmos and His creation. An essay that may rewrite its experiences of God with a sharpened pen more attune to the needs of today's societies. One that would speak to mankind's search for morality, truth and error, like the relationship between old friends beheld in intimate conversation seeking fuller expression with one another - speaking from the depths of one's heart telling each other what is true, but had become lost in the conventions of words and experiences impossible to envisage, conceive, paint, or portray. That, like friendships, as they grow old and perhaps more intimate (or more apart) with one another, so too will man's corporate relationship with God expand or contract as each discovers, or refuses discovery, or even infuses discovery, with the language of the other. Between God and man. And man to God. This is the language of experience. The language of timeful relationship as it moves and breathes around the life of the other. A language which cannot be held static to the reforms and experiences of past saints and scholars. But a language which must be continually expressed in some manner or way as only time and experience will allow. The Christianity of one's youth must and will change. If it does not it will die becoming traditionalized and solidified by an inanimate, dead faith centered around past memories, ideas, and experiences. The language of faith and life cannot admit this. And never will.

So then, with that said, let us turn our attention to "A new kind of Evangelicalism" - one that is neither conservative nor modern - but one that might better attune towards all things God and man, church and faith, life and breath... mostly because I'm an optimist who believes God is always alive, always present with us, always speaking His word to us, through all things and in every indescribable way to our imaginings and unimaginable hopes and dreams, as befitting His divine council and wisdom, Spirit and grace. Eh verily, O Lord, Amen!

R.E. Slater

April 4, 2012
partial edits: February 28, 2014

The Full Series:

Thinking About a New Kind of Christianity.

One that is Postmodern.
Part 1/3

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/thinking-about-new-kind-of-christianity.html


Thinking About a New Kind of Christianity.

One that is Postmodern.

Part 2/3

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/thinking-about-new-kind-of-christianity_05.html


Thinking About a New Kind of Christianity.

One that is Postmodern.
Part 3/3
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/thinking-about-new-kind-of-christianity_07.html



Related Articles:

What Wikipedia Has to Say About the Emerging/Emergent Church.

An Introduction.
Part 1/2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-wikipedia-has-to-say-about.html


What Wikipedia Has to Say About the Emerging/Emergent Church.

My Personal Observations.
Part 2/2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-wikipedia-has-to-say-about_26.html



* * * * * * * * * * * *


Evangelicalism, A new kind of

http://www.postost.net/lexicon/evangelicalism-new-kind

by Andrew Perriman

29 March 2012

As I would redefine the term from a narrative-historical perspective, an “evangelical” in the broadest sense is someone who finds “good news” in the long and complex story of the historic family of Abraham, descended through Jesus. Or better, the church is “evangelical” insofar as it finds good news in that story.

The evangelical vocation

What Abraham stood for was the remaking of God’s good creation in microcosm, as a world within a world, after humanity had chosen, in defiance of the creator:

1. self-determination (Adam and Eve),
2. a course of violence and injustice (the generation destroyed in the flood) and,
3. the idolatry of empire (the builders of Babel). 

That still encapsulates the broad purpose of the people of God: the church is not an aggregation of redeemed individuals; it is an alternative society, set in opposition to the idolatry, self-interest, injustice, violence, tyranny, oppression, and systemic arrogance of what we glibly call “fallen” humanity. To be evangelical is to embrace the full scope of that opposition.

But this has always been a troubled, painful, and controversial vocation. We still find it extremely difficult and unnatural to live up to the ideal of a just people, reconciled to the creator, as a blessing to the nations. To be evangelical, therefore, is to be unreasonably, absurdly, stubbornly optimistic about the concrete and symbolic potential of this people’s narrated existence; and we are sustained in that optimism by what is now for us, since Jesus, the unfailing grace of God.

The evangelical narrative

As I understand it, the bible tells the story of the people of God from the call of Abraham to the climactic moment when his descendants inherited the pagan world. It is authoritative for the church precisely because it tells this story. This, I think, is the proper starting point for an evangelical hermeneutic: the Bible sets the narrative trajectory for the people of God throughout the coming ages.

The story is told partly “historically” and partly prophetically or apocalyptically. The New Testament deals with a critical period when it appeared that the family of Abraham, in the form of national Israel, was about to lose the right, under devastating circumstances, to represent the creator God amongst the nations. Israel was hell bent on a course that would lead to the destruction of its national and religious existence, but in the fulness of time a young wonder-working prophet from Nazareth entered the charged political arena proclaiming a narrow and difficult path that would lead to life, though he was not confident that many find it.

The good news of Jesus (in historical context)

His death for the sins of his people defined the way forward for faithful Israel. His resurrection from the dead convinced his followers that the creator God, the God of Israel, had not only made him the way, the truth, and the life for his people, but also had given him the authority to judge and rule over the nations. This was the “good news” that was proclaimed first in Jerusalem and then across the Greek-Roman world. The inclusion of Gentiles in the commonwealth of Israel at this juncture was itself a sign to the empire of the transformation to come. This is the evangelical heart of the narrative: the “gospel” is public and political, not private and personal.

The exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of the Father set in train a long historical process. Through the faithful witness of communities of eschatological transformation the pagan world, which had for so many centuries opposed the God of Israel and oppressed his people, would be overthrown, and every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ—and not any other god—was Lord, to the glory of Israel’s God.

Apocalyptic Trinitarianism

So from this point onwards the family of Abraham has had to relate to the one creator God on new terms—as the Father who determines the fate of his people, as the Son who has been given authority to reign, and as the Spirit who is the inspiring, empowering presence of the creator in the midst of his people. A statement of Trinitarian belief that is genuinely biblical—and so genuinely evangelical—has to take account of the apocalyptic narrative of Jesus’ “sonship”: unlike the pagan kings he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but humbled himself to the point of death on a Roman cross; because of this obedience he was exalted, and given authority to rule as Lord and king, to the glory of Israel’s God.

To Christendom and beyond

This is how the family of Abraham, for so long confined to the small beleaguered state of Israel, came to inherit the world. But the story does not stop there, and evangelicals must learn how to make sense of the continuing narrative. European Christendom, as both a political and a theological construct, lasted in one form or other for perhaps 1700 years, to be defeated in the end by the combined forces of secular rationalism and post-imperial pluralism.

The heirs of European Christendom have been mostly exiled from the territory that they once dominated, and in order to survive are having to disengage themselves from many of the habits of thought and practice that characterize a world that no longer exists.

But an evangelical, being an incorrigible optimist, believes that the story is by no means over; that the family of Abraham, descended through Jesus, has a viable future; that there is still “new creation” ahead of us. Moreover, an evangelical has the confidence to invite people into this difficult historical journey of corporate witness.

The whole story (plus actions)

So to be an evangelical community now is to find and proclaim the good news that arises from this whole story. It is good news that God is; that he still calls into existence a servant people for his own possession, to be priests and prophets in the world; that he remains faithful towards those who trust him; that he can still hold his own against the powerful cultural forces that oppose him and oppress his people; that he is still able to effect the renewal of his creation in ways that convince us that he will not finally be defeated but will make all things new.

It is good news that Jesus died for the historical family of Abraham; it is good news that there is no longer the possibility of terminal failure; it is good news that the doors of that community are open; it is good news that in and around this community lives are transformed, the sick are healed, sight is restored to the blind, the poor are comforted, captives are set free, relationships are renewed, divisions are healed, prejudices and fears are overcome.

It is good news that sometimes this is not all just words….

Postmodernity's Challenge and the Radical Nature of Changing Educational Paradigms

Emergent Christianity is focused on postmodernity and beyond. Critical to its organizational behavior and collaborative thinking is its non-linear, creative, diverse, organic characteristics portraying vitality and adaptability to the social conditions and culturally dense environments surrounding the postmodern Church of the 21st Century. And crucial to the process of communicating the gospel of Jesus is how we would communicate this gospel to one another by allowing (i) a diversity of divergent opinion (pluralism); (ii) removing obstructive, out-of-date, utilitarian functions and ideologies that are no longer helpful to today's societies (deconstruction); and, (iii) creating adaptive social structures that can utilize all the differences within humanity without abstracting that same humanity into static cultural modes and inflexible methodologies (re-construction).

Lately educators from around the world have become actively engaged in re-thinking societal educational models which can be helpful not only to our public school systems, but to Emergent Christianity's interest in integrating the Church-at-large within multi-ethnic, socially diverse, local/regional populations with few, if any, integrative cores. To do this the Emergent Church has recognised that not only religious dogmas - but all societal dogmas, belief structures and behaviors - must come under a scrutiny, or critique, that can be at once beneficial, healthy, and distinctly normative to its surrounding populations. Nor should these changes be feared, prevented, assailed nor thrashed by respondents as these changes occur to the greater good of their local societal structures.

For this is the essence of adaptive behavior wherein societies and cultures must adapt together in order to thrive together in the 21st Century. An era that is bringing with it radically new changes of social comportment and diversity. Moreover, this has become a fundamental problem for the traditionally orthodox church refusing to adapt and change - as it can be for any misunderstanding element of society finding itself in similar positions of radically dense, and overwhelming, change. Whether these elements be commercial, industrial, educational, medical, scientific, agrarian or vernacular organisations. All elements of society will be engaged in a fundamentally altering self-examination requiring adaptation, and assimilation, of rapid technological advancements, exponential biologic growth, diminishing earth resources, greater climate changes, massive urbanization, and a hundred other societal concerns and dilemmas. But success in large part must still rest with increased community support towards acquisition of fundamental, postmodern change; supportive revisioning of societal goals; enhanced collaborative engagement; and mass acceptance of greater societal interdependency and integration leading to a relinquishment of individualized goals.

In the videos below creativity educational expert Sir Ken Robinson will ask how this type of beneficial change might happen within education itself, and how it might be sustained.... And we might ask ourselves similar questions when applying these same principles to the postmodern, Emergent Church - both of the communities we live within, as well of those churches and fellowships floundering therein unprepared for (or unwilling to recognize) the resultant postmodern disruption and fundamental organisational re-configuration made necessary to continue to survive against the radical groundswell of change and proportionate needs of its beleaguered community. Most assuredly this will be a time when each segment of society might lend a hand to one another in mutual aide and support. Where differences can be resolved. And supportive engagement and appreciation can be enhanced.

R.E. Slater

February 27, 2012


*For further discussion of Emergent Christianity begin here in Relevancy22's latest installment -
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/02/some-are-good-writers-some-are-good.html

RSA Animate

Changing Educational Paradigms






Sir Ken Robinson

Changing Educational Paradigms

The full 1 hour discussion



Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson will ask how do we make

change happen in education and how do we make it last?

SKR's Blog - http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/

RSA - http://www.thersa.org/

Sir Ken Robinson, PhD is an internationally recognized leader in the development of education, creativity and innovation. He is also one of the world’s leading speakers with a profound impact on audiences everywhere. The videos of his famous 2006 and 2010 talks to the prestigious TED Conference have been seen by an estimated 200 million people in over 150 countries.

He works with governments in Europe, Asia and the USA, with international agencies, Fortune 500 companies and some of the world’s leading cultural organizations. In 1998, he led a national commission on creativity, education and the economy for the UK Government. All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (The Robinson Report) was published to wide acclaim in 1999. He was the central figure in developing a strategy for creative and economic development as part of the Peace Process in Northern Ireland, working with the ministers for training, education enterprise and culture. The resulting blueprint for change, Unlocking Creativity, was adopted by politicians of all parties and by business, education and cultural leaders across the Province. He was one of four international advisors to the Singapore Government for its strategy to become the creative hub of South East Asia.

For twelve years, he was professor of education at the University of Warwick in the UK and is now professor emeritus. He has received honorary degrees from the Rhode Island School of Design, Ringling College of Arts and Design, the Open University and the Central School of Speech and Drama, Birmingham City University and the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts. He was been honored with the Athena Award of the Rhode Island School of Design for services to the arts and education; the Peabody Medal for contributions to the arts and culture in the United States, the LEGO Prize for international achievement in education, and the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the Royal Society of Arts for outstanding contributions to cultural relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. In 2005, he was named as one of Time/Fortune/CNN’s ‘Principal Voices’. In 2003, he received a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II for his services to the arts. He speaks to audiences throughout the world on the creative challenges facing business and education in the new global economies.

His book The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything (Penguin/Viking 2009) is a New York Times^th anniversary edition of his classic work on creativity and innovation, (Capstone/Wiley). Sir Ken was born in Liverpool, UK, as one of seven children. He is married to Therese (Lady) Robinson. They have two children, James and Kate, and now live in Los Angeles, California.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The element is the point at which natural talent meets personal passion. When people arrive at the element, they feel most themselves and most inspired and achieve at their highest levels. The Element draws on the stories of a wide range of people, from ex-Beatle Paul McCartney to Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons; from Meg Ryan to Gillian Lynne, who choreographed the Broadway productions of Cats and The Phantom of the Opera; and from writer Arianna Huffington to renowned physicist Richard Feynman and others, including business leaders and athletes. It explores the components of this new paradigm: The diversity of intelligence, the power of imagination and creativity, and the importance of commitment to our own capabilities.

With a wry sense of humor, Ken Robinson looks at the conditions that enable us to find ourselves in the element and those that stifle that possibility. He shows that age and occupation are no barrier, and that once we have found our path we can help others to do so as well. The Element shows the vital need to enhance creativity and innovation by thinking differently about human resources and imagination. It is also an essential strategy for transforming education, business, and communities to meet the challenges of living and succeeding in the twenty-first century.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is a paradox. As children, most of us think we are highly creative; as adults many of us think we are not. What changes as children grow up? Organizations across the globe are competing in a world that is changing faster than ever. They say they need people who can think creatively, who are flexible and quick to adapt. Too often they say they can't find them. Why not? In this provocative and inspiring book, Ken Robinson addresses three vital questions:

• Why is it essential to promote creativity? Business leaders, politicians and educators emphasize the vital importance of promoting creativity andinnovation. Why does this matter so much?
• What is the problem? Why do so many people think they're not creative? Young children are buzzing with ideas. What happens as we grow up and go through school to make us think we are not creative?
• What can be done about it? What is creativity? What can companies, schools and organizations do to develop creativity and innovation in a deliberate and systematic way?

In this extensively revised and updated version of his bestselling classic, Out of Our Minds, Ken Robinson offers a groundbreaking approach to understanding creativity in education and in business. He argues that people and organizations everywhere are dealing with problems that originate in schools and universities and that many people leave education with no idea at all of their real creative abilities. Out of Our Minds is a passionate and powerful call for radically different approaches to leadership, teaching and professional development to help us all to meet the extraordinary challenges of living and working in the 21st century.

Khurram Dara Shares his Muslim Story for Christians to Hear

Ask a Muslim... (Khurram Responds)

http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-a-muslim-response

by Rachel Held Evans

January 10, 2012
Comments

Today I’m thrilled to share Khurram Dara’s response to your questions about his Islamic faith as part of our ongoing interview series.

Khurram is an American Muslim from Buffalo, New York, and the author of The Crescent Directive: An Essay on Improving the Image of Islam in America. Khurram graduated from Emory University in Atlanta, and is currently studying law at Columbia University in New York. If you frequent CNN’s Belief Blog, you may recognize him for his recent post there defending TLC’s “All American Muslim” against Muslim complaints. You can follow Khurram on Twitter and find the Crescent Directive on Facebook.

From Khurram: Before I answer these great questions I wanted to thank Rachel for inviting me to join this wonderful series and also thank the readers for such intelligent discussion. I’m accustomed to seeing distasteful comments and allegations, so this was a nice change of pace.

I do want to point out that I am NOT a religious scholar or an expert on Islam. I’m by no means a perfect Muslim, and my mother is quick to remind me that I don’t go to mosque enough! My work focuses on Muslim imaging, particularly, how to combat negative perceptions about Islam. My belief is that forums like these are very helpful, but can only go so far, given that most people with negative views towards Islam are unlikely to participate in an open-dialogue such as this.

So I didn’t answer some of the questions about specific teachings, not because I’m trying to dodge the questions, but because I’d prefer not to give you wrong information. I think a great resource is Imam Suhaib Webb’s “Virtual Mosque,” where he has a lot of information to answer some of the questions that were asked. Also, for more on what my views are on the relations between Muslims and other Americans, I’d encourage you to read The Crescent Directive, where I really lay out my positions in full.

1. Justin asked: Can you provide some background about yourself? I'm curious to know for how long you've been a Muslim and what keeps you in the faith today. Is it an inward conviction? Some type of evidence that supports the Quran? Something else?

I was born in Houston, Texas, but with the exception of a short stay in Kentucky, I’ve pretty much spent my whole life in a suburb or Buffalo, New York. My parents, now U.S. citizens, are immigrants from Pakistan. As far as my religious background I was born and raised Muslim, and would certainly consider myself to be a person of faith. I don’t really think about faith in terms of evidence, in fact, faith by definition is belief absent proof. It’s tough to explain why I have faith, it’s just a sort of feeling I get—that I know God’s up there and that there was a reason I was born into this faith.

2. Wesley asked: What Islamic tradition are you a part of? Shi'ite? Sunni? Sufi? (And is this the correct way to ask that question?)

I'm Sunni, and yep that's a fine way to put it.

3. Steve asked: What is it like to live openly as a Muslim in America? How much suspicion/discrimination/fear is directed at ordinary Muslims?

I don’t think there’s any doubt that Muslims live with more freedom in America than we could anywhere else in the world. I’m certainly not oblivious to the fact that there is fear and suspicion, even discrimination of Muslims at times. But a lot of the blame for the fear should go to terrorist groups and radicals who are soiling my faith and crippling the voices of the overwhelming majority of peaceful adherents.

And while it is sad to see some of the suspicion and discrimination, we do have many of our fellow Americans on our side, who stand up to these incidents. More importantly, the discrimination is not systematic or institutionalized; we don’t see restaurants refusing to serve Muslims or businesses refusing to hire Muslims. This gives us American Muslims an incredible opportunity. It is even more critical for American Muslims to build bridges with other Americans while we can, and really positively integrate into American society so that we can ensure this discrimination doesn’t spread.

4. Several readers wanted to know about Islam and women. Katy-Anne asked: I am wondering how you as a man feel about the treatment of Muslim women and the root reasons why Muslim men tend to treat women the way they do? Zeckle asked: In Christianity, we have various views on women and their roles in society and faith--ranging from a very hierarchical, patriarchal view to egalitarian; does Islam have a wide range of views of women as Christianity does? What are those variations in Islam? Do those variations occur along cultural lines---Islamic theocracies versus American Islamic understanding?

I think it’s pretty obvious that many of the countries in the Arab world have cultures and policies that are extremely oppressive to women. My understanding of Islam has always been one that puts everyone on equal footing. I think you’ll find more of that here among American Muslims. It’s important to remember the role culture can play in behavior, and there is a tendency for culture to be confused with religion, which may explain the poor treatment of women in many of the Islamic regimes in the Arab world. In any case, my own belief and my understanding of Islam is that oppression of women should not be tolerated in any circumstances.

5. Zeckle asked: What are some areas where Islam and Christianity have similar values and may be able to work together in our world?

Overall I think a majority of the values are the same. There are many overarching moral themes, such as helping those in need, caring for those in your community, etc. I can’t speak to some of the more specific doctrines, but there is one commonality I find very interesting.

I think most people don’t know the place Jesus has in the Islamic tradition. He is one of the highest regarded messengers and Muslims do, in fact, believe that he will return to Earth to defeat the “false messiah” also known as the anti-Christ. I’m sure there are many more similarities between the faiths, but that is probably one of the least known.

How these similarities will enable us to work together is a different question. I don’t think our ability to work together hinges on similarities in specific teachings. I think it comes from similarities in interaction. As I point out in The Crescent Directive, for most people, their perceptions of a particular group are more of a function of their observations and interactions with individual members of that group, than they are a function of specific teachings of that faith. As a result, I think a Muslim and a Christian, simply by living and engaging in a pluralistic society like the United States, have the opportunity to get to know more about their respective faiths, just through experiencing life in a society that includes members of that faith.

So, in my opinion, the key to working together will really be American Muslims continuing to integrate and invest in American society, and our fellow Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, and others, embracing our efforts to take our place in the mosaic that is America.

6. I asked: What have you found to be the most common assumption people make about you when they find out you are Muslim?

I haven’t found any. I know it’s probably true that some people make assumptions when they find out I’m Muslim, but I’ve never been able to discern what, if anything at all, they had assumed. Sometimes people aren’t sure if I can eat meat—I can, just not pork!

7. From Karl: A common criticism that I have seen leveled at mainstream, moderate and progressive peace-pursuing muslims is that for a group that is said to form the vast majority within their religious community, they [allegedly] haven't done enough to restrain, inhibit and denounce extremists who advocate and commit violence in the name of Islam for religious and political ends. Do you feel like this is a fair criticism? Why or why not?

I hear that often, as well. While I think many members of the American Muslim community do denounce extremism, I think we could all be doing more. One of the things I mention in The Crescent Directive is that American Muslims have a number of organizations dedicated to Muslim advocacy, why not a few dedicated to eradicating extremism? And remember it has to be more than just condemnation because at the end of the day it can only go so far—at some point we have to actually have to take action, get into the trenches and stamp out extremism within our faith. That said, on the whole, I think American Muslims are leading the way on standing up to radicalism.

Note from Rachel – Khurram introduced us to a fantastic resource when he suggested consulting Imam Suhaib Webb’s “Virtual Mosque.” For those who had questions about Sharia Law, you should check out this video in which Osman Umarjee explains Sharia Law. (He starts talking about it at around 3:40.) Those with questions about the meaning of “jihad” might find this video from the Bridges Foundation helpful. I spent quite a bit of time this week searching the site and learning more about Islam (from actual Muslims for a change). Along with Khurram, I highly recommend the site.

Check out the rest of our interviews here.

Can There Be Worldwide Common Cause between Christians & Muslims?

"Revolutionary ideas do not come from books and manifestos,

but from experiences and connections with different peoples."

 Tarak Barkawi, Senior Lecturer in the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge.

The Peace of All Nations found
in Cooperation, Trust and Goodwill

The following opnion-column was submitted to the Muslim newspaper Aljazeera by a Muslim professor of Internation Studies of the University of Cambridge, England. It provides a vision created by the unappreciated and oft-overlooked common men and women of the world - who seek justice amongst the unfortunate; who are willing to seek peace within their own communities; and who wish to remove unjust political contexts from where they must live and work. To the common goal of creating a system of good welfare to all who hope to find life, liberty and justice within the oppression of their own religions, cultures and the mis-founded attitudes of family, relatives, friends and neighbors.

The Ottoman Empire's Symbol of Peace
stylized in calligraphy as an Ostrich

The question must be asked, "Is it possible in this diverse world of ours that Westerners, Asians and Muslims can lay down their attitudes of superiority in a multi-racial, multi-regional, multi-cultural resistance movement? Or will we continue to suffer from repression, regression and from the paucity of words and actions of support to coalition, solidarity and selfless actions of peace amongst one another?"

World Peace Logo

The choice is ours to re-work into our own religious contexts of beliefs and attitudes, and into the peaceable structures of inter-cooperation, protection and asylum to all the world's participants.... More plainly... "Can Christianity learn to become peaceable with Islam and the Middle-Eastern peoples threatening terror to the West? Can Islam learn to become peaceable with Christianity and the West who have responded in kind? And can both Christianity and Islam learn to become peaceable with the Asian religions and attitudes of the Far East?" We are all humanity's brothers and sisters. Surely there can be a way found.

Chinese Symbols of Peace

Moreover, it is this author's opinion that within Christianity this mindset and behavior can be possible through Jesus. But insofar as it is promised in the Bible that the Christian Jesus is mankind's God and Savior, not just our own privately-kept, iconic form of  Jesus. Where is found God's promises of peace in Jesus' personage, ministry and Gospel. And to that same degree I believe Christians must find a way to communicate and live that out with one another, and with those who believe differently from the Christian religion. At the last, it is a heart issue, "Is it not?" For the God of love has come through Christ Jesus His Son commanding us to "Love one another." Love conquers fear. Love conquers strife. It seeks all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

This is the love of Christ Jesus. And it is infectious once caught, no matter what the religion, the culture, the resistance. God's love allows men and women to find Jesus within their own religions, cultures and family structures. To this we must be supportive. But not to our own Westernized or Americanized version of what we think the Christian Gospel must look like. We must adopt the attitude that God is quite capable of allowing His Love and Revelation through Jesus to be assimilated within all the communities of the world, and not just our own ideas of it. To know that Christianity may live and breathe differently from our own versions and inculcations of it, but that its centrality of doctrine and focus will still be substantially the same in Jesus. This will be the work of God and His Spirit. Not our own. Our trust then is in God, not ourselves. He will work it out. But it is our responsibility to LIVE it out.

Japanese paper cranes of Peace

So then, learn to love, to serve, to become peacemakers. To better behave our actions and jingoisms before one another. And to seek the peace of God with all men everywhere. That is the way of God. It is the way of Jesus. It is the way of God's love.

R.E. Slater
November 14, 2011


1 Corinthians 13

The Way of Love

¹If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ²And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ³ If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,^[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

⁴ Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant ⁵or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;^{[b] 6}it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

⁸Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. ¹¹When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. ¹²For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

¹³So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Citizens of Toronto Create the
Universal Symbol of Peace

Many Hands, One World
Free & Interdependent

Can Ron Artest's Name-Change
Bring "Metta World Peace"?

 

********************

<><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><>

A vision of the whole human race http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011115131942562643.html Source: Al Jazeera by Tarak Barkawi Last Modified: 09 Nov 2011 Tarak Barkawi is Senior Lecturer in the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge.

"Revolutionary ideas do not come from books and manifestos, but from experiences and connections with different peoples."

The Arab winter will see a 'counter-revolution', as new forms of repression are imposed [GALLO/GETTY] On February 22, 1803, Colonel Edward Despard was hung and beheaded in London for organising a revolutionary conspiracy to overthrow King George III and establish a republic in Britain. Among the crowd of 20,000 in front of the gallows was Colonel Despard's wife and partner in conspiracy, Catherine, an African American who Despard met during his military service in the Caribbean. She helped him compose the speech he made with the rope around his neck: "... his Majesty's Ministers... avail themselves of a legal pretext to destroy a man, because he has been a friend to truth, to liberty and to justice. Because he has been a friend to the poor and the oppressed. But Citizens, I hope and trust, notwithstanding my fate ... that the principles of freedom, of humanity and of justice will finally triumph over falsehood, tyranny and delusion, and [over] every principle inimical to the interests of the human race." What Despard meant by the "human race" was far in advance of the political theorists of his time. He included in this concept not only white males, but women and men of every colour and every status and class, native peoples, slaves and all the mixtures of white, brown and black that he had encountered during his service in the Americas. How did the son of a family of small, Irish landlords, who became an accomplished professional soldier, develop such an expansive view of humanity? As a boy in Ireland, he watched peasants driven off the land as English-backed landlords enclosed land that had been held in common. As a young officer building fortifications in Jamaica, he was nursed by Afro-Caribbean women. He learned to effectively command multi-racial work parties, and saw firsthand the terror used to enforce discipline among slaves, sailors, soldiers and workers. Along with a young Horatio Nelson, Despard led a harrowing expedition to evict the Spanish from Nicaragua. They successfully captured the main Spanish fort but then their men began to die from starvation and disease. Challenging societal norms Survival was possible only by cooperating with nearby free communities of Mosquito Indians - composed in fact of native Americans, runaway slaves and lower class whites who preferred freedom to backbreaking labour. (Nelson, who became Britain's greatest naval hero, would later unsuccessfully appeal for clemency for Despard and for a pension for Catherine.) Despard then became the Crown's leading official in British Honduras. There he sought to distribute land to indigent men and women of colour. He set aside lands for common use; sought to keep food prices down "for the poorer sort of people"; and worked with Indians who understood the local ecology. The landlords and big merchants were outraged. One railed that Despard had placed the "lowest Mulatto or free Negro" on an equal footing with the wealthy whites. People of different origins can find a common cause, and work together for change [GALLO/GETTY] Not to be trifled with, the landlords and merchants appealed to their networks in London and had Despard removed. Despard and Catherine returned to London and started plotting their conspiracy which ended on the gallows. What does the story of Edward and Catherine Despard offer us today, as we live through another moment of upheaval, revolution and counter-revolution? One thing the Despards teach us is that new political ideas do not generally arise from intellectuals and theorists alone. Rather the cut and thrust of experience and practice throws up new political possibilities. 'Practitioners' like Despard draw on their stock of ideas to develop new and creative responses to the situations that confront them. It is worth remembering that many of those we regard as great thinkers were also practitioners. Karl Marx was a revolutionary not an academic, and his comrade Friedrich Engels managed a factory. Karl von Clausewitz, the philosopher of war, was a Prussian officer with much experience of war. Socrates too was a veteran soldier; Freud a working psychologist; Keynes a civil servant. Gandhi was an activist. Even Rene Descartes, the supreme rationalist philosopher, was a professional soldier who sought to 'gather experiences'. His worry that he might be a brain in a vat, fooled by his senses, was perhaps an early modern case of PTSD. Despard developed his expansive concept of the human race because he had lived and worked in the multi-racial world of the 18th century Atlantic, not because he had read Immanuel Kant. In any case, Kant's cosmopolitanism was profoundly limited by comparison with Despard's. Kant [falsely] believed that "Humanity achieves its greatest perfection with the White race". In Haiti in 1801, revolting slaves managed to produce a constitution that went well beyond the liberal thought of the day. All slaves were freed and everyone made equal before the law. The US Constitution of 1787 regarded slaves as three-fifths of a person so that their white owners could have more representation in Congress. [The Arabian Spring] Counter-revolution And so, when we look upon the Arab Spring, we should not interpret it as a matter of Arabs having finally read John Locke and Thomas Jefferson and applied Western ideas. We should look instead for the new ideas, the new possibilities, the new politics created up by the protesters, activists and ordinary people who have made revolution. We should be cognizant too that the Arab Winter will be a university of counter-revolution, as new forms of repression, of neo-imperialism and of exploitation are developed in response to novel circumstances. The Despards-of-the-world have one last, difficult lesson to teach us. For over two centuries, liberal political theorists have been writing of human rights and democracy. Their well-intentioned acolytes have sought to spread the word around the world. Yet today, despite globalisation and multiculturalism, it is difficult to imagine political activism, cooperation and resistance across lines of race, religion and region that match what the Despards achieved. Think about it: A lordly Irish officer in the 18th century finds common cause, even love, with Indians, Africans and all manner of oppressed folk, and returns to the West as a revolutionary citizen of the world. Catherine, too, of slave origins and "violently in love" with her husband, crossed lines to help organise London's sailors (white and black), longshoremen, and other workers in the failed plot to create a republic. Here and there, in our time, Westerners, Christians and Muslims may find common cause - as in the Palestinian solidarity movement; or whites, blacks and mixed race people, as in the resistance to the apartheid regime in South Africa. But in a jingoistic age, when Westerners, Asians and Muslims are all convinced of their own superiority, a multi-racial, multi-regional, multi-cultural resistance movement on the model the Despards cooked up is almost unthinkable. Despite our own delusions, we have regressed - not progressed - from the Despards' vision of the whole human race. Tarak Barkawi is Senior Lecturer in the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge. Al Jazeera readers can find out more about the Despard conspiracy in Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker’s The Many-Headed Hydra: The Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (London: Verso, 2000) The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. Source: Al Jazeera