In "Jesus" the Muslim Allah and the Christian Yahweh Become as One Father

 

 

 

"Go beyond mere tolerance to a passion for Muslims. Nabeel Jabbour explains

how  that can be done in ways that are sensitive to Islamic culture and provides

suggestions on how to build vital relationships with Muslims."

Allah and Yahweh — The Difference Jesus Makes

http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/faculty-blog/96-regular-content/788-allah-and-yahweh-the-difference-jesus-makes

 

by Steve Taylor

Monday, 07 October 2013

 

Are Allah of Muslims and Yahweh the same God? Yes, when the veil is lifted from

their eyes and Muslims see Him as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Fine-tuning

to see Yahweh as He truly is takes place through Christ. Christ is the visible image

of the invisible God.

 

Any Christian pursuing deeper relationships with Muslims eventually has to struggle with this question: Allah and Yahweh—are they the same God? This question became the topic of heated discussion at the annual convention of a notable evangelical denomination this past summer.  Delegates to this gathering were put off by a paragraph in an appendix to a minority report from a study committee working on evangelism in Muslim contexts. (Yes, it was buried that deep!) Here is the offending paragraph:

 

Are Allah of Muslims and Yahweh the same God? Yes, when the veil is lifted from their eyes and Muslims see Him as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Fine-tuning to see Yahweh as He truly is takes place through Christ. Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.

 

Pastors, elders, and theologians weighing in subsequently on denominational discussion boards and affiliated blog sites have accused the author of the statement of peddling a rehash of the old line, classical Liberalism opposed by J. Gresham Machen or of enticing the denomination to the cliff of a “syncretism” in which “Islam remains but Christianity is not needed”. The firestorm has not abated.

 

The author of the minority report, Dr. Nabeel Jabbour, a Syrian Christian by birth, is a veteran of over 40 years of ministry to Muslims in the Middle East. In his minority report and in other writings,* Dr. Jabbour amply evinces a clear commitment to the gospel and to the exclusive supremacy of Christ as the climactic and final revelation of God. The issue Dr. Jabbour raises is, rather, how best to dialogue with people who are still unconvinced: what kind of persons should we be and where should we start?

Context Matters

 

These concerns are evident even in the immediate context of the offending paragraph (repeated below in bold font):

 

There is only one God, and He is Yahweh, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the tendency of all human beings to bring down, as it were, that almighty God and to place Him in our little boxes. Those little gods that we tend to create are not the Almighty God. The Jews at the time of Jeremiah did it, although they gave him the name Yahweh. . . . Yahweh, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be placed into a box.

 

Are Allah of the Arab Christians and Yahweh the same God? Yes, when we do not have a veil over our eyes and when we do not bring Him down to become our servant who is supposed to answer our prayers and do what we think He should do. . . .

 

There is only one Yahweh, yet all people in all religions project their image of what He is like and assume that they are worshipping that Yahweh when in reality they are worshipping their own creations.

 

The Allah or God in Islam has 99 attributes, and we would agree with most of them. But the huge missing names are “Father of the Lord Jesus Christ” and “our heavenly Father.” . . . (Emphasis added; repetitive sentences omitted)

 

Critics insist that it is precisely these missing names (and attending concepts), which are so central to the Christian concept of God, that demand a complete and explicit rejection of any identity between Yahweh and the Allah--as a precondition for any meaningful discussion or evangelism.

 

An Historical Analogue

 

But consider this definition for God taught to Christian children for several centuries in certain sectors of the Church: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth” (Westminster Shorter Catechism [1674]). Most thoughtful Muslims could agree with this statement; there is nothing distinctively Christian in it. Could this definition serve as common ground in a Muslim-Christian discussion?

 

This could be pressed further: Why would Christian theologians intent on instructing future generations of the Church write such a definition? Why not follow the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed with explicitly Christian claims like, “God is the all-mighty, all-knowing Tri-Personal Creator who was active in the story of Israel, and who is ultimately revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and dwells among us in the person of the Holy Spirit . . . ”?

 

The authors of the Shorter Catechism were defining God in a context framed by a long discussion spanning over 1700 years and reaching back to Greek philosophers: the Supreme Being had to be defined first in these “essentialist” terms. The “Westminster Divines” wanted to speak into the long conversation about that particular Referent, not start a new conversation about another. Whatever its other merits and demerits, this definition is, in itself, pre-Christian if not “sub-Christian”; but that is part of the necessary price paid to intelligibly inject new meaning into an old and venerable conversation. And the willingness to join that conversation is itself an act of faith in the God who has already been at work in the great conversations of history.

 

Conceptual Help

 

It might help to borrow some distinctions from linguistic philosophy. Swiss thinker Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) described meaningful communication as the interplay between three factors:

1. The “signifier” – the sound or marks on a page that one recognizes as a sign, in our case, the words “Allah,” “Yahweh” or “God.”
2. The “signified” – the concept, idea, or mental content that a sign (“signifier”) expresses or evokes, in our case the different concepts and theologies that characterize the various Christian and Islamic systems.
3. The “referent” – the actual thingor person, or set of things or persons, to which a sign (or “signifier”) refers, in our case the actual person God is in God’s self.

The critics of the offending paragraph above assume a virtual identity between their set of “signifieds” (concepts, ideas about God) and the “referent” (God). For them the obvious differences between what they mean by God and what the Muslim theologian means is so great that there cannot possibly be a common referent for a Christian and any Muslim. The Christian is thus duty-bound to start with a different “signifier” (a different name for God) or to start with a list of differences about the “signified.”  The proclamation of the absolute antithesis becomes the sine qua non of faithful evangelism.  For them the conceptual cup of shared language and concepts for evangelism is always less than half empty and the contents poisonous.

 

The author of the contested quotation, on the other hand, is acutely aware of how all our concepts and systems of concepts about God fall short of God’s true glory and that there is individual variation; not all Muslims are in precisely the same place. The cup of shared concepts is frequently half full and represents a God-engineered starting place for the mysterious process of making disciples.

 

Pauline Precedent

 

Paul is the first Jewish preacher on record who, upon observing  rank pagan idolatry, did not heap scorn on it (like the Old Testament prophets rightfully did—Isa 44:18-20, Jer 2:27, Hos 4:12) but rather used it as a starting point: “the God you already worship in ignorance is the one I want to tell you about. . . . he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries. His purpose was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him -- though he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and exist. As some of you own poets have said, 'We are his offspring'” (Acts 17:23-28). Paul did not lead with, “Let me tell you about a different God” but rather with “This is what the God you and your poets have been groping after is really like.” Paul was alert to a rather small set of shared “signifieds” and assumed that he could talk about the same “referent”—he could start where his audience was.

 

Of course there are risks, dangers of syncretism. This, however, is the point: there are dangers on both sides. Dealing faithfully with the gospel is always a matter of walking a ridge route; one can fall off the path both to the left and the right. The gospel demands a creative faithfulness by which we avoid sliding down either the slope of syncretism (compromising the faith) or the slope defensiveness and fear (bridling the faith). [And it is] in that spirit we can join with the author of the minority report and issue the Muslim this sincere invitation: come know the Creator God more fully; discover that the one you and your poets have served as “Allah” is the God who through His Son Jesus and by His Spirit wants to be embraced as “Abba.”

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

NOTE:  Dr. Jabbour’s The Crescent through the Eyes of the Cross: Insights from an Arab Christian (Colorado Springs, CO: NAV Press, 2008) is a must read for any Christian serious about befriending Muslims and reaching them with the gospel.

 

Stephen Taylor is fascinated by God’s commitment to work in and through human history and culture—a commitment most clearly displayed in God’s sending of his Son, “born of a woman, born under the law.” Steve specializes, therefore, not only in the Pauline letters as inspired texts but also in the elements which form their historical, cultural and religious context, e.g., Early Judaism, Greco-Roman history and culture, and most radically, the career of Jesus, the Crucified and Risen Messiah.

 

 

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "God's Grace: How Calvin and Wesley Differ"

Grace, and the God of that Grace

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/10/09/grace-and-the-god-of-that-grace/

 

by Scot McKnight

Oct 9, 2013

Comments 



Don Thorson



A rock-solid agreement on which Christians of all stripes — and I mean all stripes — should agree is that God is gracious and that the whole of our redemption comes from God’s grace. So, humans don’t save themselves, they don’t become loving or holy by themselves, and they don’t stand up from the grave by themselves. They can no more rise from the dead by themselves than be born again by themselves. So, we can all  agree that it is all of grace.

 

Yet, we differ. Over grace. In ways that get the bristles raised among some. John Calvin - whose viewpoint was “not within the historic mainstream” and whose view was more in line with Augustine; and John Wesley - whose viewpoint was the historic Christian mainstream and who was “Semi-Augustinian” [not semi-Pelagian], differed in some dramatic way — though they both stood together on firm ground that it was all of grace. All of this is sketched well in Don Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line with Practice.

 

My questions today: What picture of God emerges from Calvin’s view of grace? What picture of God emerges from Wesley’s view of grace?

 

Thorsen’s sketch of the two views of grace can be see in these two ways: for Calvin, grace is effectual. God determines, acts, sustains, and accomplishes salvation and humans are “passive.”

 

For Wesley, grace is prevenient in that God showers grace upon all and that grace is triggered into effectiveness by the gracious granting on God’s part of human freedom (“free grace”).

 

To show what Wesley believes, I quote from Thorsen’s summary:

God is thought to limit voluntarily God’s own power over people (which does not represent a genuine limitation in God’s sovereignty) so that people may act responsibly and not irresistibly. By means of God’s prevenient work of grace, which is universally available through the Holy Spirit in the lives of people, people may genuinely respond without God effectually determining their choices. When people do respond, of course, they are thought to be genuinely responsible for sin and the evil that occurs. Sin and evil do not occur irresistibly, because of God’s sovereignty and irresistible grace, but through people’s active rebellion or passive indifference to God (49).

Calvin’s emphasis is on the sovereign determinations of God. One of the important elements of Calvin’s theology is that it is all of grace, to be sure, and furthermore it is all in the determinations of God, to be sure, and God’s grace is irresistible from beginning to end, but the reprobates (damned, unsaved, etc) are responsible for their sin and their final judgment. All of this shows the sovereignty of God and is therefore to God’s (sovereign) glory.

 

Calvin believed in general grace, which is God’s goodness to all of creation in the normal affairs of life, and a special grace, which is the saving grace of God. But Wesley’s "net" in God's general grace was a bit wider than Calvin’s though he distinguished general grace from prevenient grace — the grace that offers and makes salvation available to all. General grace will later be called “common grace.”  Both also emphasized the “means of grace” (like sacraments, church, preaching, prayer) though their lists do differ on what gets included on the list.

 

They are both grace-theologians, but they differ substantively when it comes to how that grace of God works.

continue to Index of Articles -

 

Index to past articles on Calvinism v. Wesleyanism

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Paul's New Perspective to a Fresh Perspective of Paul

From New Perspective to Fresh Perspective to … what’s next?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/10/08/from-new-perspective-to-fresh-perspective-to-whats-next/

by Scot McKnight

Oct 8, 2013

Comments

 

In N.T. Wright’s earlier work on Paul he advocated a pioneering orientation we now call the New Perspective, in part because Wright himself used that expression but even more because J.D.G. Dunn called the whole movement that. Then less than a decade ago Wright wrote a little book on Paul that added to the new perspective and he himself called it the “fresh” perspective. What Wright added to the NPP was anti-imperial themes: Paul was not only extending Judaism but he was intentionally provoking the idea that confessing Jesus as Lord was consciously saying “Caesar was not.”

 

What happens now in Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God, and I have not worked it all the way through, will yet again advance the new and fresh perspectives. What happens here is a renewal of Paul’s Greek and Roman worlds as more central to the mission and message of Paul. In effect, Paul becomes in part a “philosopher” — of the Greek sort — not your ivory tower university theoretician but an on-the-ground and concerned-with-the-world kind of philosopher. The kind we see in Socrates and Plato perhaps more than in Aristotle, but Wright’s focus here is toward the value of the Stoics — Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. To this mix Wright adds a little bit of the great Roman, Cicero — and a sketch of the Wisdom of Solomon as a Jewish predecessor of just this kind of interactive thinking.

 

So, we get a Paul of two worlds — the Jewish world and the Roman world, now not two worlds but one world, mixed together and not separate as one might have on a library categorization. The days of Hengel’s famous studies of Judaism and Hellenism have come to fruition in a fresh synthesis in this new work by N.T. Wright. The days too of superficial parallelisms are also over: here we find a more robust set of worldview ideas being compared to one another.

 

The Paul of Acts 17; then, the one who could stand on the same dais as the philosophers of Athens, is a thoroughly Jewish and at the same time a Hellenized Jew, a Jew who could do philosophy in the modes of that day, particularly of that day, the Stoics. He was not unlike the Wisdom of Solomon, then. The old-fashioned Jew OR Greek, then, is broken down in this new edition of Tom Wright’s through on Paul. I give now samples of the progress of his chapter on this very topic…and we are just getting started in a book that goes on more than 1500 pages.

So Paul has been studied in ‘departments of religion’, though neither in ancient nor in modern terms do his letters, or the communities which he founded, belong primarily in such a category (203).

Where do we locate Paul’s world, Paul’s audience, and so Paul’s angles? Wright says in Stoicism.

Whereas the default mode of most modern westerners is some kind of Epicureanism, the default mode for many of Paul’s hearers was some kind of Stoicism. Observing the differences between the two, particularly at the level of assumptions, is therefore vital if we are to ‘hear’ Paul as many of his first hearers might have done. If, when someone says the word ‘god’, we think at once of a distant, detached divinity – as most modern westerners, being implicitly Epicureans or at least Deists, are likely to do – we are unlikely to be able imaginatively to inhabit the world of many in Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus and elsewhere for whom the word ‘god’ might reasonably be expected to denote the divinity which indwelt, through its fiery physical presence, all things, all people, the whole cosmos. 

Stoicism, after all, was the classic form of pantheism, the doctrine that sees divinity in everything. Saying this to someone today might appear to suggest that ‘everything’ is therefore in its essence ‘spiritual’, pointing back to some kind of Platonic vision of a ‘real’ world beyond space, time and matter. Stoicism, however, went in the opposite direction: everything, including the divine force or presence indwelling all things and all people, was ‘material’ or ‘corporeal’, not far from what we would normally call ‘physical’ (though all these terms are slippery with age and varied usage) (213).

An example: Paul can sound at times like the Stoic Epictetus.

Epictetus, more than any other whose writings have come down to us, exemplifies the ‘diatribe’ style, which emerges most obviously in the New Testament in some passages in Paul’s letter to the Romans. There are times, indeed, when it sounds as if Epictetus and Paul had grown up in the same street: 

What then? (ti oun) Do I say that man is an animal made for inactivity? Far be it from me! (mē genoito). But how can you say that we philosophers are not active in [public] affairs? For example, to take myself first: as soon as day breaks I call to mind briefly what author I must read over . . . 

What then? Is it we philosophers alone who take things easily and drowse? No, it is you young men far sooner. For, look you, we old men, when we see young men playing, are eager to join in the play ourselves. And much more, if I saw them wide-awake and eager to share in our studies, should I be eager to join, myself, in their serious pursuits. 

The subject-matter is of course different; but nobody who has an ear for Paul’s cadences, especially in letters like Romans and 1 Corinthians, can doubt that he and Epictetus were, to this extent, employing a very similar method of argument, which traced its ancestry back to Socrates and was to be located, within the disciplines of ancient philosophy, as part of ‘logic’. This was a way of ensuring that one was working steadily towards the truth, and not being deceived by faulty impressions or rhetorical trickery (224). 

The result of all this – flying in the face of some recent suggestions to the contrary – is that, for Epictetus, the primary task of the would-be philosopher is in fact theology: 

Now the philosophers say that the first thing we must learn is this: That there is a God, and that He provides for the universe, and that it is impossible for a man to conceal from Him, not merely his actions, but even his purposes and his thoughts. Next we must learn what the gods are like, for whatever their character is discovered to be, the man who is going to please and obey them must endeavour as best he can to resemble them. If the deity is faithful, he also must be faithful; if free, he also must be free; if beneficent, he also must be beneficent; if high-minded, he also must be high-minded, and so forth; therefore, in every- thing he says and does, he must act as an imitator (zēlōtēs) of God. 

Here, for Epictetus, is the heart both of ‘physics’ and of ‘ethics’, and all to be argued out strenuously according to his own practice of ‘logic’. Once one has this knowledge, one is ready for the philosopher’s specific active voca- tion: to be dispatched like a scout or a spy in a time of war, to search out what is really going on, and then to come back and explain to people that they are mistaken in their perceptions of good and evil, and to point out the truth of the situation whether people want to hear it or not.121 Philosophers, to return to our opening image, are to be like owls who see in the dark – and then like heralds who announce the message with which they have been entrusted. Paul had a different message, but might well have agreed with the outline of the vocation as Epictetus articulated it (227).

And Cicero, too:

Cicero, in fact, provides us with evidence of two things which are worth bearing strongly in mind when contemplating the philosophical climate of the world in which Saul of Tarsus grew up and in which Paul the apostle travelled about announcing Jesus as Messiah and lord. First, philosophy was a topic of widespread discussion and debate right across the greco-roman world, particularly among the literary and cultured elite but also – as Epictetus reminds us a century or more later – very much at street level. This was already true before the first century BC, but the events of that highly disturbed period, particularly the terrible convulsions through which the Roman world passed in the middle decades of the century, contributed substantially to a fresh opening of ultimate questions: 

These troubled times, which are reflected in the poems of Virgil and Horace, were a significant influence on the Roman turn to philosophy. As long as the main fabric of the Republic was intact, leading Romans had chiefly defined themselves by reference to family tradition and the renown that civic and military service could promote. With the state in complete disarray and no ethical or emotional support to be derived from official religion,we begin to find a more reflective and ascetic mentality, that would become still more prominent in the Empire. 

That was the world of Paul. 

Second, Cicero’s mixture of the ‘Academic’ position with several significant elements of Stoicism is a reminder that, granted there was no creedal or dogmatic structure or policing of the different schools and opinions, the influence of Plato himself remained massive throughout the period. Much of his thought – for instance, on the immortality of the soul – had passed into Stoicism, just as much of the Socratic method which he made famous had opened the door for the questioning which led some to Scepticism. The explicit revival of the study of both Plato and Aristotle, which we noted earlier, combined with the teachings of both Stoic and Academic thinkers (the Epicureans alone maintaining, as they would, a dignified detachment), to form a general climate of opinion, at least as to the spectrum of possibilities. In particular, when we ask what Paul might have supposed his hearers would be thinking when he spoke or wrote about a being he referred to as theos, about a powerful pneuma through which this ‘god’ might perform new deeds in his people, about the creation and recreation of the cosmos, and many other things besides, we must assume, and we must assume that he assumed, that the default mode for their thinking would be somewhere in the region of the Stoic development of Plato’s thought (231-232).

Here is where we have a sketch of all of this in terms of worldview from 10,000 miles high:

Above all, the worldview-questions give us a sharp insight into the world of the philosophers – and into the possibility of a comparison, when we have studied him in his own right, with Paul. Take them first as addressed to more or less the entire ancient philosophical world. Who are we? We are humans, part of the world but trying to understand it and live wisely within it. Where are we? In the world of space, time and matter, but a world which some think teems with divine life as well. What’s wrong? Most people, even most philosophers, do not see clearly enough in the darkness of the world,do not penetrate its secrets, and so do not live in the best possible way. In particular, they lack ‘happiness’ (eudaimonia), both in the normal sense that their circumstances trouble them and in the philosophical sense that, in seeking for normal happiness in outward circumstances, they are ignoring the real happiness that philosophy can help to produce. What’s the solution? Why, study philosophy, of course, and then you will (gradually) accustom your eyes to the darkness of the world so that you can grasp the truth and live in accordance with it. Part of the result will be that you come at least to resemble the divine, and possibly to be transformed into a divine being yourself. Ironically, whereas ‘religion’ in the ancient world meant submit- ting to someone (a god) other than oneself, philosophy meant that one was autonomous; either because, with the Epicureans, the gods are not concerned with what we do, so that we are only responsible to ourselves, or because, with the Stoics, the divinity is within us, so that responsibility to god and responsibility to self seem to be the same thing viewed from two different angles. Death itself will either be a return to absolute nothingness (Epicurus) or a transformation into a better life (Plato); as we have seen, some highly regarded Stoics kept this question open. What time is it? That’s the sort of question, our philosophers might say, that a Jew might ask . . . (The Stoics might have said that it was time for moral effort; the Academics, that it was time for more thought; the Peripatetics, that it was time for more research; the Epicureans, that it was time for a drink . . .)

And now even more narrowly, the reconstructed “worldview” of the Stoics:

A Stoic would, of course, give sharper answers to the questions. Who are we? We are creatures composed, as is the whole world, of a mixture of the elements, with the physical element of fire indwelling us in the form of the human psychē. We are therefore part of the divine, and the divine is part of us. Where are we? Within the Universe, the Cosmos, Nature, to pan – which is itself composed of the four elements, with fire and air acting upon earth and water to produce manifold forms of life. The same logos is at work in the world as within each of us. What’s wrong? Nothing is wrong with the world itself (the Epicureans would have disagreed strongly at this point). However, most people, deceived either by false impressions or by sloppy thinking or both, do not realize the truth of the matter, and so spend their time in futile pursuit of a mirage they think of as happiness. Even philosophers find it difficult to get it right all the time. What’s the solution? No surprises: study philosophy, start off on the path that might make you a sage, and continue to discipline yourself, to examine your own life and to take yourself in hand. All the virtues are within your grasp through the divine life within you, so co-operate with it and nerve yourself for the moral struggle. This will result in the appropriation (oikeiōsis) of what is in fact natural to ourselves. The end result (surprisingly similar, this, right across the philosophical board): a calm, untroubled life, free, self-sufficient, self- controlled. (The Stoics aimed to achieve this by refusing to regard pleasure and pain as important; the Epicureans, by regarding them as guides, but in a sophisticated fashion which looked for the real, calm, pleasure behind the mask of mere hedonism.) What time is it? For the Stoic, we are somewhere on the cycle between conflagrations; the fiery pneuma, which is the very breath of the divine, of Zeus himself, is at work in the world, and will one day transform everything into its own life of total fire before setting it all in motion yet again (233-235).

Well, this promises to set Paul in a Roman context in a way mostly ignored in the new perspective studies. In fact, ignored by most Pauline scholars today. But I do have to say I’m now wondering (aloud) if Paul would have been seen as a philosopher. So I ask a long-ish question:

 

Let us imagine our way into the elite circles of Ephesus or Corinth or Athens when a report circulates among them about a man named Paul. Would the reports of his activities — synagogue attendance, synagogue teaching, Scripture reading and explaining, division creating, debate ensuing, persistence in his point of views… then add to this that he worked with his own hands at tentmaking, whether of leather or cloth doesn’t matter much, that he was using such places to gospel and continue his debates and was gaining adherents… and add to this that his new groups were called “churches” (ekklesia, not schools, clubs, not associations) and that he and others were “appointing” leaders called “elders” and “deacons” and that they, too, were reading and commenting on Scripture… now add the big one: it all about this Jew named Jesus, whom they called Messiah of Israel, which drew all the attention to the Bible to see if it predicted that story … now I ask, Would such a man be called a “philosopher”? or something more Jewish? Like apostle? Pastor? Gospeler? Teacher? Would the elites have seen him as one of themselves, a philosopher schooled in the right books and ideas and methods of communication, or would they have said, “Not one of us?”

Continue to Index -

 

Index to the "New(er) Perspective(s) of Paul"

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Liter of Light and Hope

 

 

 

Brazilian mechanic creates light bulb using water, bleach and a bottle

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/brazilian-mechanic-creates-light-bulb-water-bleach-bottle-article-1.1427011

 

By Carol Kuruvilla / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Comments

 

Alfredo Moser’s cheap and environmentally friendly invention is picking up steam

in developing nations around the world. The 'Moser lamp' was picked up by the

Liter of Light campaign and is now brightening 140,000 homes in the Philippines.

 

A Liter of Light Tanay Rizal

 

 

Published on Jul 21, 2012

 

Seeding program goes to Tanay Rizal's My Shelter Foundation

in partnership with DSWD's Pang Tawid Pamilya program.

 

For more information email info@aliteroflight.org

 

 

All Photos courtesy of Aljazeera

 

Alfredo Moser was just looking for a way to light his workshop during a blackout. By early next year, the humble mechanic’s invention is expected to brighten about 1 million people’s lives.

 

A Brazilian mechanic is bringing light to the masses.

 

With just a plastic bottle, water, and bleach, Alfredo Moser has found a way to produce a light that is up to 40 or 60 watts — stronger than some light bulbs.

 

"It's a divine light,” the inventor told the BBC. “God gave the sun to everyone, and light is for everyone. Whoever wants it saves money. You can't get an electric shock from it, and it doesn't cost a penny."

 

Here’s his trick. Moser harnesses solar power by refracting sunlight through a clear two-liter plastic bottle that is filled with water.

 

Alfredo Moser lives in Uberaba, Brazil. He came up with the idea for his lamp

during one of his town’s frequent blackouts.

 

"Add two capfuls of bleach to protect the water so it doesn't turn green [with algae]. The cleaner the bottle, the better," he said.

 

He tops the bottle with a black cap, then pushes it through a hole in his roof.

 

"You fix the bottle in with polyester resin,” Moser said. “Even when it rains, the roof never leaks — not one drop."

 

BBC - The clear plastic bottle is filled with water and some capfuls of bleach.

 

In many parts of the developing world, electricity is still unreliable or too expensive for the poor. In rural areas or city slums, millions of families still drill tiny windows into their shacks to let a little bit of light peek in.

 

The idea for the lamp came to Moser in 2002, during one of the requent blackouts in his hometown, Uberaba, Brazil. The handyman needed a way to light his workshop.

 

Once he figured out the magic recipe, he placed the lamps in his neighbor’s homes and his town’s supermarket.

 

The bottle is placed on rooftops. Sunlight is refracted through the water and into the room below.

 

Although he charges a few dollars for installation, the invention was never meant to be a “get rich quick” scheme. Moser still drives a 1974 car and lives with his wife in a simple house. But he’s proud that his lamp has given others a little bit of hope.

 

"There was one man who installed the lights and within a month he had saved enough to pay for the essential things for his child, who was about to be born. Can you imagine?" he said.

 

By next year, the “Moser lamp” is expected to brighten the lives of at least one million people — at their homes, schools, or stores. It’s already made headway in at least 16 countries, including the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Argentina, and Fiji, the BBC reports.

 

The Moser lamp gives out as much light as a 40-to-60-watt bulb.

 

The MyShelter Foundation in the Philippines creates houses using sustainable products. Moser’s invention caught the eye of Illac Angelo Diaz, the organization’s executive director. He started the Isang Litrong Liwanag (A Liter of Light) project, which has already helped install about 140,000 lamps in the Philippines.

 

Some people have used the indoor light to grow hydroponic vegetables. MyShelter also offers training for people who want to earn money by installing the lamps in their neighborhoods.

 

The bulb doesn’t work in the night and can’t store energy. Still, Diaz thinks the light has plenty of potential.

 

"Alfredo Moser has changed the lives of a tremendous number of people, I think forever," Diaz said.

 

ckuruvilla@nydailynews.com

 

 

How To Make a Liter of Light

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussions in Science and Religion - Week 5: "A Theology of Wholeness"

Today's topic brings with it decades-old lectures at university lecterns as I listened to discussions ranging from Behavioral Psychology to Biological Neurosciences, from Sigmund Freud to Carl Jung, from Jean Piaget to Carl Rogers, and their theories of psychoanalysis and development, identity and being, self and conscience. The arguments today continue to explore the many debates put forth from long ago re human vs. animal consciousness; or what might distinguish personality from character, intelligence from habit; or how the developmental stages of life are marked from early childhood to adulthood; or even if there is such as thing as morality or ethical responsibility? These items in themselves are difficult enough to decide let alone to try to discover when adding to its complexity how human development might have occurred along the many pathways of evolutionary biological development of the brain and its consciousness.

Evolutionary Consciousness and the Sense of Being - Is Man Unique?

To begin with, the bible theologian might ask "How unique is man in his consciousness and being? Too often we simply assume that God's image (Imago Dei) in man marks off all other discussions to any similarities between man and the animal kingdom. However, we might then ask just what do we mean by this Imago Dei that resides in man? We know of no beasts as consciously ruthless or deceptive, as knowingly brutal or inhuman, as corrupt or greedy, as man can be... making of man more beast than human. And if this be so, then how is it that we retain the image of God when so little evidence of this divine image seems present in our dispositions with one another: from father to son, from man to woman, clan to clan, tribe to tribe, nation to nation? Are we so sure of our pedantic truisms and knowing identity as to believe it will hold upon any further examinations?

Carl Jung contemplating "Wholeness"

"Assuredly," says the bible scholar, "sin but marks man's being, making of him more animal than human." Which if so, then naturally leads to the discussion of why is man sinful in his acts when the animal that does similar and is not - even in the act of killing? Which then brings us to the idea of human consciousness or conscience, its definitions and capacities, boundaries and limitations, its qualities or complexity. However, upon examining the many examples within the animal kingdom this very same quality of human-like conscience can be found from elephant herds to dolphins, from apes to pets, making our distinctiveness as all the less remarkable than what we first thought.

So then how does one approach this seeming nebulous idea of human uniqueness especially when it is harshly presented through strict evolutionary terms? And yet, quite curiously, it is this very idea of biological, evolutionary, development that can help us towards understanding the similarities and dissimilarities which exist between the human anatomy and that of the animal kingdom. And through the application of biologic neuro-science we might break away from our non-scientific pre-conceptions - however biblically-supported they may seem to be - to better help us ask more well-defined questions than we might fro A purely metaphysical (or philosophical) basis of argument.

Many times the studied scientist might first ask (i) how similar might man be to the animals before then asking (ii) how dis-similar man might be. And if we proceed apace to the first, then we must state flatly that the idea of "culture" is not unique to humans for the animal kingdom likewise has its own "cultures" however they are comported. And if, by our definitions of "culture" we might mean the ability to speak a kind of language, or to use and handle tools for the sustenance of life, we must be willing to comparatively study whether these abilities are likewise found within the larger presence of the animal kingdom. For if they are, then the human animal (man) is not so far off from animals than we have thought ourselves to be - even as one would presuppose based upon the evolutionary charts of mammalian development. Firstly, whether through verbal, or non-verbal communication, the animal kingdom is rife with examples of communicating with itself from mother to infant, from pride to flock. Even as  tool-usage is as pervasive from Chimpanzees to ants, birds to bees. Moreover, there is also a form of social learning and responsiveness within the animal kingdom no less than within humanity's social abilities. As such, all of this has been numerously documented, debated, fretted over, and discussed through the lenses and spectacles of cognitive and social science.

(Original) Elephant Paints Self Portrait

Elephant Painting An Elephant

Nor might we attribute greater brain complexity to the formation of human consciousness - though some would ask whether complex brains produce a qualitative difference between humans and the animals. Not many years ago (say the 18th century and thereabouts) there was the silly notion of the "animality" of the human species. That is, the idea for instance, that the white male was less "animal" than the white female. Or even, the white race was less close to the animals than other non-white races. And because of these ignorant ideas religious oppression and slavery raged on, poverty ran rampant, and people died for lack of compassion, while kings and queens dined upon the fatted calf, safe and warm within their castles of perdition, and the jolly man in the street died for lack of bread and care.

And from these early accounts, if not by our very own accounts today that are as similarly marked off by pestilence and pride, warfare and inhumanity, we must ask "Who is the more naked? Is it man or is it beast?" Modern studies in sociology have shown that the dignified, well manner human becomes too easily a beast when his environment is compressed within shared closeness, tight spaces, and want of resources. How many times have we walked through an eager, pressing, crowd to discover mothers' with baby carriages, or wheelchair-bound loved ones, callously stepped upon, disdainfully pushed away, or cussed aloud for being in the way? Or, in the supreme examples of oppressive governments ruthless killing fellow human beings which they consider as mere animals in acts of hedonistic butchery and genocidal rage? Certainly the thin veneer of civilization is too quickly stripped away from man's shoulders of dignity to leave our species much less godly in its inhuman treatment of one another when thrust into the very modes of survival. One could also cite numerous books about lifeboat ethics, or of a lot of highly civilized, castaway, British boys read of in Lord of the Flies. Or even Elie Wiesel's titled book Night with its resultant horrors from German oppression:

"Night is a work by Elie Wiesel about his experience with his father in the Nazi German concentration camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald in 1944–1945, at the height of the Holocaust and toward the end of the Second World War. In just over 100 pages of sparse and fragmented narrative, Wiesel writes about the death of God and his own increasing disgust with humanity, reflected in the inversion of the father-child relationship as his father declines to a helpless state and Wiesel becomes his resentful teenage caregiver. "If only I could get rid of this dead weight ... Immediately I felt ashamed of myself, ashamed forever." In Night, everything is inverted, every value destroyed. "Here there are no fathers, no brothers, no friends," a Kapo tells him. "Everyone lives and dies for himself alone."^[1] - Wikipedia

From these many apt illustrations we must then ask, "How unique, or how glorious, is man, when he breaks past his civilized veneer and socialization to become more animal-like and less human? Or more madman like than sane?" Even so, biological psychology might observe at man's eating habits or infidelities from a learned, evolutionary, environment where there were few sustaining resources held against the competitive demand of species survival. But then again, we must also add to these pictures the pithy ideas of self-awareness, empathy, bonding, and relationships while always asking ourselves whether we have any level of choice, ability, or human agency (as a subject) in the manner in which we might cognitively decide our future, if at all. Or if all has result from sheer biologic mechanism as determined by brute survival or instinct? And if so, whether we have any responsibility towards one another regarding the megalomanic futures we might envision for ourselves and our planet?

So then, what are the keys to being human? Are they wonderment? Speculation? Dreaming? Is it a capacity for continuing human development through evolutionary evolvement? Hence, Erik Erikson's "Eight Stages of Human Development." Or, Jean Piaget's "Scale of Intelligence" from simple to complex. Or even, Lawrence Kohlberg's "Stages of Moral Development." Each asking questions like what challenges the human capacity for social learning? Why do grooming techniques matter between us? Or that of dress and deportment? Or whether it is possible to create rich environments for growth and development against the devolving scales of warfare (PTSD), tolerated poverty and malnourishment. Which is a good question to ask because from studies of stricken, malnourished children caught in oppressive conditions, or adults enduring the same in poverty or within war zones, psycho-sociological neuro-studies have shown how shock and stress can greatly degrade the human system backwards away from any kind of progressive cognitive development across many, if not most, of the human developmental life stages. Begging the question just what is civilization, or what might we expect in the development of future civilizations, if basic humanitarian needs are not met or exceeded? And what might be expected within the evolutionary progress of the human species given these too frequent, and broad experiences, across mankind?

But say some, technology is what distinguishes man from beast! And yet scientific studies have shown again just how misinformed this reasoning can be, misunderstanding at best, that technology is always neutral to the progress of human development. That technology can as easily de-personalize humanity as it can uplift (or re-personalize) humanity. Consider science's discovery of the atom and how quickly it was used to develop the atomic bomb so much more quickly than it was used to create energy-efficient atomic power plants. The one usage kills and devastates whole biotic ecologies while the other provides warmth and light in the simplest of biomes. And thus, technology as a "tool" can be used either for good, or for ill, and is not a distinguisher of man from beast except in its novelty and complexity.

The Cognitive Science of Neurology

So when we come to Philip Clayton's multi-layered chapter on the neurosciences - neurophysiology, neuroimmunology, neurochemistry, neuropharmacology, or even neuropsychology - he works necessarily through several positions that science has attempted in creating a physical explanation of the human conscience through strict material reductionism (eliminativism), a modified version of it (epiphenomenalism), and a fuller metaphysical explanation of human consciousness (emergent systems perspective).

1 - Eliminativism which reduces all to mere biological signal and gene without any regard to the interconnectedness of the total organism. Hence there is no such thing as thoughts or wishes, yearnings or obligations. Our entire experience deceives us, and all the world "outside" is but illusion... or so say popular philosophers like Daniel Dennett. "There is no self. There is no such thing as listening and conversation. That all is reduced to whatever neurons travel into the head via the optic nerve or auditory canal as mechanistic signal." Strict physiological brain functioning must not be otherwise be explained:

"Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. Its primary claim is that people's common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology) is false and that certain classes of mental states that most people believe in do not exist. Some eliminativists argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. Rather, they argue that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level.^[1] Other versions entail the non-existence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual perceptions.^[2]

"Eliminativism stands in opposition to reductive materialism, which argues that a mental state is well defined, and that further research will result in a more detailed, but not different understanding.^[3] An intermediate position is revisionary materialism, which will often argue that the mental state in question will prove to be somewhat reducible to physical phenomena - with some changes to the common sense concept." - Wikipedia

2 - Epiphenomenalism is the idea that mental experiences and feelings do exist... so long as they don't do anything. Hence, if a quality arises out of a system but does not in turn influence that system, it is known as an epiphenomena (or quasi-phenomena). This cognitive approach would be yet another explanation of the physical processes of consciousness.

"Epiphenomenalism is the theory in philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are caused by physical processes in the brain or that both are effects of a common cause, as opposed to mental phenomena driving the physical mechanics of the brain. The impression that thoughts, feelings, or sensations cause physical effects, is therefore to be understood as illusory to some extent. For example, it is not the feeling of fear that produces an increase in heart beat, both are symptomatic of a common physiological origin, possibly in response to a legitimate external threat."^[1]    - Wikipedia

Making Sense of it All

As can be seen from the too-shortened paragraphs above, the nub of the question is whether we, as humans, are bundles of neurons to the nth degree, or if our sense of our conscious being - our values, hopes, dreams, expectations, and so forth, might have any greater "physicality" beyond the mere wiring in our heads.

Simplistically I think it is just that... the wiring in our heads that God has created through the elongated process of evolution which has provided for a more elaborate, more developed superstructure of the human being so that the whole becomes greater than its parts. As such, our mental network (or wiring, as I called it) and its interconnectedness has created a "non-physical" consciousness giving to us our sense of self beyond mere neurons and signal.

3 - Emergent Systems Perspective. The newest buzzword amongst evolutionary scientists - known as the "emergent systems perspective" has created not only a souped-up version of the connectedness between micro- and mega- evolutionary biospheres, but always has leant deep implications for the explanation of our human brain's self-awareness or consciousness (cf. Clayton, pp 94-96, 109ff). The embedding of systems-within-systems works not only for the evolutionary development of life (cf, the recent article on "Why All the Fuss over Earth's Remarkable Cambrian Explosion?) but is a pattern established within the development of the brain itself within animals and within humans.

And from this developmental pathway comes the idea of human agency as culpable and responsible for making sense of his/her environment as before the Creator God Himself in loving display of grace and provision. Moreover, society itself can detect its own agency collectively, and when done correctly is seen in the outcomes of more people being able to eat, reproduce, and safely survive their environment.  These socially evolved factors are known as "value-blooms" that are either reinforced via success, and may appear through the cultural preferencing of ideology, religion, or the various forms of social organization and activity (what are known as human culture and heritage, family values, and social distinctions).

The greater idea here for the Christian believer is that within the very process of evolution itself, God has worked within the physical wiring of humanity its sense of self, of an awareness of a Being greater than itself - an awareness that is both spiritual and religious. And when we get together in our common social groupings it feels "natural" to us to talk about God and spirituality, even as it feels unnatural to us not do the same. It is all due to the evolutionary wiring within.

Conclusion - A Theology of Wholeness

Hebrew, "Shalom"

And lastly, in the collection or combination of all these things - from emergent systems to religious metaphysics - the image of God has become implanted within us. And more than that, God's very heart and divine passion has become implanted within our breast. Man has not merely been made in the image of God but he was made to enact God's image whereby God's Imago Dei becomes our Missio Dei. That is, God's image becomes our self-same passion, and thus, it becomes our mission. An image that is not simply something we have or possess but something we must enact, or do, in order to fulfill our divine imaging. We must enact goodness and blessing, love and hope, goodwill and cheer, in confidence and trust against a creation broken by sin of God's Imago Dei. And ripped away from God's Missio Dei.

When (evolutionary) human conscience was birthed (however and wherever that came to be in evolutionary history as we have here tried to describe in this article) so became man's awareness of his fallenness and apartness from his God (see my erstwhile theologic article, How God Created by Evolution: A Proposed Theory of Man's Evolutionary Development). Our sense of needing God's re-creation is a shared sense by all of humanity. And it is a thing that this earth requires in itself if we are to live on in our present state of human existence. In essence, even as sin has broken our relationship with God, self, others, and creation (Man's 4 Stages of Brokenness and Healing), even so God's Spirit re-creation brings reclamation and healing to God Himself, even as it brings well-being to ourselves, to our community of neighbors, and to this earth's polluted and dis-connected ecology (sic, the beneficial entanglement of biotic environments). This then becomes a theology of wholeness and completeness, of divine presence and majesty, of necessity and arrangement.

Consequently death doesn't define us even as life itself does define us. We have been invited into God's image to become inseparably identified with His mission as Life-giver. This is where Christian anthropology meets Christian eschatology; and human distinctiveness becomes nested within God's beautiful re-creation of life giving to Christian science the theology and teleology that it seeks. And hence, religion is not uniquely evil, nor faith fundamentally flawed, but are uniquely re-imagined through God's ever-present re-creation and inspiration involving morality, ethics, ecology and religion. We do not live in a valueless, meaningless universe but in a universe requiring our hospital engagement to its atheistic separation from itself. Even as it requires divine contingency and guidance lest we become inseparable to this purposefully decreed divine mandate by God to nature and man. We hear it. We see it. We feel it. Let us now act on it. Letting God's imago dei become our mission dei.

R.E. Slater

October 4, 2013
edited October 5, 2013

Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

Index - Calvinism v. Wesleyanism

Index to Calvinism v. Wesleyanism

Chatbot and I Discuss Whether a Christian "Can Lose Their Salvation?"

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "Their Separate Views & Administration of the Church"

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "Differing Ideas on Justification & Sanctification"

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "Just What Kind of Sovereignty Does Grace and Freedom Bring?"

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "God's Grace: How Calvin and Wesley Differ"

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "Sovereignty v. Freedom"

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "Thinking and Living: Sovereignty v. Grace"

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "How do We Interpret the Bible?"

Why Should the Christian Believe and Live Like John Wesley?

Pushing up DAISY: Arminianism in Brief

Calvinism and TULIP

DAISYs, TULIPs and Open Theism 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"