• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Living the Questions

You are here: Home / engaging / a big difference between Christianity and Islam

a big difference between Christianity and Islam

July 14, 2011 by Bo Sanders 18 Comments

I continue to be very excited about the Claremont Lincoln University Project to bring together Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars and practitioners. It is essential for the future that each tradition initiate its young leaders and thinkers in at atmosphere of mutual exchange and understanding.

The reason this is so important is that these three religions are not the same. They are not simply three expressions of a common understanding. They are vastly and distinctly different from each other. Of course there is commonality and overlap – for instance all three are a covenantal people and point to a covenant they have with God. I am interested to hear how each of the three groups reflects on and lives into their particular understanding.

Many Christians seem to think that the big difference between Christianity and both Islam and Judaism is what they believe about Christ. I do not think that views on Jesus is the biggest difference between the three. In fact, I am suspicious that any Christian willingness to revisit a wooden-literal reading of passages like John 14:6 or reexamine the language and meta-physics of the creedal formulations would easily result in an understanding that did not violate the Quranic understanding that God has no children. Vocabularies of ‘how God was present in Christ’ are already being worked out by followers of the prophet Isa (Jesus) in Muslim countries. [Link: an article on c-6 contextualization]

In my mind, there is a much bigger difference between the three religions than an understanding of Jesus’ identity. It has to do with the earth.

Christianity is primarily time based. While the Christian gospel is one of incarnation, ironically, Christianity has become something that is not place-based and especially not land-based. This is easily illustrated by looking at some Muslim practices and noticing their absence or contrast in Christianity.

  • Prayer Direction: When Muslim pray, they face Mecca. This is a directional earth-relative orientation. Christianity lacks this orientation.
  • Pilgrimage: Once in their lives Muslims are expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. This is an intentional journey to a specific location on the surface of the earth that holds special meaning. Christianity has no such thing.
  • Sunset: Certain holy days are marked as beginning at “sundown” or when a specific phase of the moon first appears as observed in a set location. This shows an awareness of the seasons, the sun, and the moon. Christian holy days and holidays are based on a calendar and clock.
  • Language: If you want to read the Quran you need to learn Arabic. The Christian gospel is not only translatable into any language – Christians believe that it should be translated into every language. The Gospel is equally valid in any and every language.

In his book Whose Religion is Christianity?: the Gospel beyond the West, Lamin Sanneh puts it this way:

Being that the original scripture of the Christian movement, the New Testament Gospels are translated versions of the message of Jesus, and that means Christianity is a translated religion without a revealed language. The issue is not whether Christians translated their scriptures well or willingly, but that without translation there would be no Christianity or Christians. Translation is the church’s birthmark … Christianity  seems unique in being the only world religion that is transmitted without the language or originating culture of its founder (p. 97-98)

I have several more examples of difference (including names of God and views of “holy” land) but I simply wanted to illustrate that these are three covenantal religions that all point to Abraham, they are significantly different from each other in practice and understanding. That is why I am excited to hear what they each bring to the table and what we might be able to learn from each other… because we bring such unique, distinct, and particular expressions to the conversation.

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: engaging, latest, news, politics, thinking Tagged With: C6, Claremont Lincoln, Context, Culture, Global, God, gospel, incarnation, Islam, jesus, John 14:6, Judaism, Lamin Sanneh, Logos, Quran, translation
19 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
DeFactos
DeFactos 5pts

Hi Guys, I've found this interesting! Check it out! http://threereligions.blogspot.com/

Bubi
Bubi 5pts

You're the one with the brains here. I'm wcaithng for your posts.

Amy Spreeman
Amy Spreeman 5pts

You are right, there is a big difference between Christianity, Judaism and Islam: Only Christianity believes that Jesus is God. Simple truth is that it doesn't matter how we pray or which direction we face; it is Whom we pray TO. Thoughts?

Deacon Bo
Deacon Bo 5pts

Ummmm... I see what you are going for ... but there are two key points of clarification worth noting: a) As we are all three a 'Covenental People' , it is commonly understood that we are praying to the same God. That God is the God of Abraham. Now Prophet Musa (Moses) and Prophet Isa (Jesus) and Prophet Mohammed - Peace be upon them represent three divergent views - there is not doubt. But the same God? yeah... that is a safe bet. b) Do you think it is important to ask if we pray TO Jesus or THROUGH Jesus? It might sound odd... but we pray to God. NOW - if we say that "Jesus IS God" that is one thing... but worth the clarification I think. So - Christians say Jesus is the revelation of God and that makes him more than a prophet. As a Christian, I believe that. But I was trying to point out that IN PRACTICE there is something MORE essential that differentiates the 3 traditions. -Bo

Natty D
Natty D 5pts

This is fascinating stuff which I have also come across in my studies. It is incredible how much covenant and land are indeed tied together in Judaism and Islam. It is equally incredible how little land meant even to the early Church given the culture they emerged from. What a radical shift for these Jewish people. Early Christians were stripped of even land ownership. In fact we see them selling their land to care for each others needs! Great And interesting post Bo!

Sam
Sam 5pts

This reduction of Islam sucks Peter's unclean meat's ass. Read the translation of the Quran. Spend some time with Muslims. Really time vs. geographic. Is this some pseudo X-Y coordinate analogy borrowed from the Principia. This smells like Process.

Deacon Bo
Deacon Bo 5pts

Actually the insight about ‘time’ orientation comes from Native American theologian Randy Woodley in his entry to the Global Dictionary of Theology (p. 614). He contrast Christianity's time orientation to an earth orientation. I saw parallels here. As far as the other stuff, it wasn’t meant to be a reduction of anything - it was a small snapshot designed to simply highlight one aspect of the many differences. Your reference to Principia and Process lead me to be suspicious that you might be reading too much into a 500 word blog post meant to highlight one difference. This has nothing to do with Process’ concern of substance (ousia) vs. moments (packets of time). I can confidently say that you are confusing two different conversations. I stand by what I said. Christianity has a time orientation not an earth orientation. This is something that I am not a big fan of. But the simple fact is that this orientation stands as a significant distinction between modern Christianity and many other religions of the world.

Brandon Morgan
Brandon Morgan 5pts

Just a passing remark. Christians can be said to pray toward the east (Jerusalem), particularly in light of church architecture, which positioned the high alter toward Jerusalem. This may not be prevalent in the US today, but it has been around longer than not. This distinct "holy location" however, has everything to do with Christ's connection with Jerusalem. Similarly, pilgrimage was a common occurrence in ancient and medieval church practice, which was also centered on Jerusalem. Pilgrimage is not absent from Christianity. But, once again, the distinguishing features of Christian pilgrimage from Islam would have to be viewed through Christological claims in order to be at all coherent. The issue with the translation of the Bible into different languages speaks to the inherent incarnational capacity of a uniquely Christian ontology, which played a huge role in establishing the practice of translation. Basically, these practices have roots in Christian theology perhaps because, and not in spite of, Christological emphases.

Deacon Bo
Deacon Bo 5pts

That is good to note. but like you said ... not after the middle ages and not outside of Europe. So, yeah - someone in a previous incarnation that was some remnant of this, but not now. I mean, just look at the the example: it was EAST. That tells you everything you need to know. Now even that is mostly gone. As far as the Christology & translation goes, I think that you were agreeing with me. Incarnation and translation flow from the same conceptual impulse.

Jeremy
Jeremy 5pts

I'd like to hear more about this question of dualism. This is a common thing one hears from the emergent church folks so I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit more if you have the time. Also, although I'm skeptical that it only takes a couple of tweaks, I look forward to your post.

Kait
Kait 5pts

Hi Deacon, I wanted to make a few remarks about your post because I found it fascinating. I understand the impulse to say that the confession of Jesus' identity is not what offers the most difference or distinction between Christianity and Islam. But as Jeremy pointed out, I think that this assertion has an underlying assumption that doctrine and praxis are not completely interrelated and interdependent. The question becomes how they are since such a conclusion isn't immediately apparent to anyone. I would like to say from the outset that it is impossible to have a belief in Christianity that is not influenced by your views of the Trinity or Christ because the beliefs of the Christian faith are beautifully, mysteriously, organically and systematically interconnected. Whatever you say or confess in one area has an effect on another area. I'd like to offer a few remarks for why I believe doctrine and praxis are directly connected. Through these examples, I hope to shed light in some small way about how Trinitarian and Christological doctrine could not provide more practical value to the life of the Christian. 1. First, it is important to note that the historic and orthodox trinitarian and christological confessions were not postulated for the sake of an intellectual exercise. The ecumenical councils which met in order to respond to the doctrinal crises that arose as Christianity sought to define itself. When decisions were made about the Trinity or Christ, it was *always* from the standpoint of soteriology. What must we confess in order to be saved? That is why in the Nicene Creed, you'll see the line "for us and for our salvation" twice. Everything confessed about the Trinity and Christ had staying power because without the reality of these confessions, there was no hope for salvation. In this fundamental way, the fathers understood that anything which came from Christianity in terms of praxis was directly a result from doctrinal confession. 2. Second, I'd like to flesh out a few ways that Trinitarian or Christological views have a direct bearing upon praxis. A. The question of sanctification or our life with Christ post conversion is directly influenced by one's understanding of the communication between Christ's attributes. Obviously, I am make this a lot more simplistic than it is so please forgive me if these examples are woefully underdeveloped. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, there is the understanding that the humanity and divinity of Christ more fully communicated with each other since they operate from the single-subject Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Because of this, when they talk about "participation in Christ" or "theosis" (meaning becoming more like Christ now that we are Christians), their formulation is one in which the person participates in the divinity of Christ and becomes divinized or "like god." The life of the individual is to continually participate in the divine and partake in the divine energies since Jesus became God in order for men to become god (almost verbatum quote from Athanasius' "On the Incarnation"). In the Reformed tradition, most notably in John Calvin, the natures of Christ are emphasized as much more distinct (thus getting him the controversial label of Nestorian by the Lutherans). They must remain distinct, though not separate, because God is ontologically distinct from humanity and anything less would collapse the Creator/creature distinction. Therefore, when Calvin conceives of our union with Christ, he offers a different understanding from those of his Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters (some argue that Calvin and the EO aren't that far apart in this area but I think that is due to a forced ecumenism rather than a fair reading of Calvin). Calvin believes that humanity only participates in the *human nature* of Jesus Christ thus always ensuring the Creator/creature distinction. The difference between participating in the divinity or the humanity of Christ has a radical influence upon one's devotional practices, worship practices, and a whole host of other issues. B. In terms of trinitarian doctrine, I will offer one example. Karl Barth, following in the western tradition, championed the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. The filioque clause is the three words "and the Son" when speaking about the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the Eastern Church, there is the understanding that the Holy Spirit only proceeded from the Father alone. In the Western Church, there was a need through a recurrent Arianism that surfaced in the Spanish Church to insert the words "and the Son" to confess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son." The implications for believing or rejecting the filioque are vast and I believe it is one of the most important three doctrinal words that a Christian can embrace! Basically, Barth wanted to affirm the filioque because without it, any individual could come directly to the Father through the Holy Spirit without the Son! A lot of people who have a desire for interreligious dialogue are not fond of the filioque because it maintains that any knowledge of Christ is directly dependent upon the Son since in this position, the Spirit bears direct witness to the Son. This is a great post to show why Barth was insistent upon the confession of the filioque in our understanding of trinitarian relations (it also reveals how practical this stuff gets when it is "on the ground" so to speak): http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-i-still-confess-filioque.html C. Kathryn Tanner has done a lot of work to show how the unique Christian confession of the doctrine of the Incarnation (God truly united Himself to human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ) directly influences our sociopolitical realities. In her essay entitled "Barth and the Economy of Grace" in the book "Commanding Grace", in conversation with Karl Barth,Tanner fleshes out economic, and political engagement for Christians is directly dependent upon the understanding of the Incarnation. She states, “Because the gospel takes the form of a law with this kind of comprehensive scope, Christians have a distinctive basis for political and social judgment in the good news of God’s gracious being with and for humanity in Jesus Christ. They have their own place to stand when making judgments of the sort that everyone else must make – judgments about the proper course of action in political, economic, and social spheres. They have a third way that is their own way … the way of the gospel that includes a rule or order for humanity living in correspondence to the history of God’s actions toward us” (180). I’ll just let Tanner speak for herself because she goes on to show why the unique confession of the Incarnation within the Christian faith is the heart for everything else that can be said about our external relations in humanity reality: “If the beginning and end of all God’s ways is Christ, then one can say that in and through the whole history of God’s relations with us, as that history spans creation through redemption, God intends to give us the good of God’s own life, a good that God is and remains even as we are to come to enjoy it. In Christ God comes into quite intimate relationship with us, to take on our very humanity as God’s own, in order to give us what we cannot give ourselves, God’s own very life in all its unaltered goodness in so doing. This is the point and culminating movement of all God’s ways with us. If so – if this is what is achieve I n Christ and it is the key to our entire history with God – then lodged within the whole compass of Christian dogmatic concepts, I’d like to argue, is a very odd account of relations between owning and enjoying by others – an alternative noncompetitive economy of sorts, brought to its completion in Christ. When we are incorporated into this economy of God’s dealings with us in and through Christ, human fellowship as we know it should be thoroughly reworked in the process, in unexpected fashion” (187). Thus, no sphere of human existence is untouched by the dynamic and radical confession that God is truly for and with humanity in the Incarnation. 3. I realize that a lot of Christians do not believe that Trinitarian and Christological doctrines are important and most fail to recognize that such beliefs have necessary and direct bearing upon the “practical realities” within the Christian life. But I would argue that such ignorance does not mean such a separation is correct or even logically coherent. There has been a resurgence of Christocentrism post-Luther that I believe correctly understands that all Christian doctrine flows from Christology. And this is only possible because the Christian confession uniquely identifies Jesus Christ as homoousios with the Father; in person of Jesus Christ, God chose to unite Himself to human flesh. (Sidenote: you say that the Christian confession of Jesus’ ontology is not at odds with the Muslim conception of Jesus. Would you mind providing any primary textual evidence to support that claim? I find that claim to be lacking in historical contextual support) It would be incorrect to believe that the Muslim practice of prayer and spirituality does not directly flow from their doctrine of God and their conception of God’s relation to humanity.

Deacon Bo
Deacon Bo 5pts

Thank you SO much for that amazing response. Well done! I printed it out and look forward to following up a number of things this week. For a response here, let me just point out one point of clarification. You said "I think that this assertion has an underlying assumption that doctrine and praxis are not completely interrelated and interdependent." On this point I just want to say that they clearly are NOT completely interrelated and interdependent. Now you go on to do an excellent job to show why it SHOULD be that "doctrine and praxis are directly connected". And I do not disagree with you that they SHOULD be. But the reality is that they are not - not in practice and not in church history. I wrote my Master Thesis in Contextual Theology and became more than aware of the pervasive and controlling Dualism that governs most of Christian Theology to this day. One of the real issues is the permission to split Belief and Action. That is a construct that goes all the way to the top and continues all the way down. If you want, I could elaborate because that prevailing dualism is one thing that no amount of quoting historic theoretic theologians can combat ;) It's unavoidable. The last thing that I will say here is that I will make sure to account for your concerns regarding Muslim conceptions of Jesus in my post next week (to Jeremy). Obviously it is not accomplished with unquestioned allegiance to ancient formulations (I'm being cheeky) but is doable with a couple simple tweaks. And the Islamic consideration is not that God was present in Jesus but something else all together. (more on that next week) Thanks again for the amazing post!!

Jeremy
Jeremy 5pts

Isn't God's work only universal through the particular? Cone writes: "I realize that my theological limitations and my close identity with the social conditions of black people could blind me to the truth of the gospel. And maybe our white theologians are right when they insist that I have overlooked the universal significance of Jesus’ message. But I contend that there is no universalism that is not particular. Indeed their insistence upon the universal note of the gospel arises out of their own particular political and social interests. As long as they can be sure the gospel is for everybody, ignoring that God liberated a particular people from Egypt, came in a particular man called Jesus, and for the particular purpose of liberating the oppressed, then they can continue to talk in theological abstractions, failing to recognize that such talk is not the gospel unless it is related to the concrete freedom of the little ones. My point is that God came, and continues to come, to those who are poor and helpless, for the purpose of setting them free. And since the people of color are his elected poor in America, any interpretation of God that ignores black oppression cannot be Christian theology. The ‘blackness of Christ,’ therefore, is not simply a statement about skin color, but rather, the transcendent affirmation that God has not ever, no not ever, left the oppressed alone in struggle. He was with them in Pharaoh’s Egypt, is with them in America, Africa, and Latin America, and will come in the end of time to consummate fully their human freedom" (God of the Oppressed, 126)

Deacon Bo
Deacon Bo 5pts

So I went and checked out your blog. Looks good. and I really appreciate your feedback here. I enjoy exchanges like this! Let's make a deal - I will write up a post on Process Christology (as it relates to this conversation specifically) and you type up some thoughts on Liberationist perspectives (maybe even a little contextualization thrown in?) for next week! Let me just throw out an idea about incarnation. Christians believe that Jesus was god incarnate. God moved into the neighborhood (to quote Eugene Peterson), tabernacled, etc. Immanuel - God with us. Now (as it has been said) if the only thing that was required for redemption was that the "just die for the unjust" then Jesus could have "appeared" in Antarctica and froze to death and that would have been a sinless sacrifice! There would have been no need to involve Mary. No need for Jesus to learn Hebrew, to be circumcised, to go to the Temple, to "grow in wisdom" (Luke 2:52) ... none of it. There is something essential about Incarnation that is located in a particular place at a unique time. Incarnation says something extraordinary about time and place. I believe that what it says is that God cares deeply about particular place and the uniqueness of locations and what happens there in given time and why Holy Spirit works when are where and how the Spirit does. God's work is not universal. It is not generic. It is not timeless. It is local, it is particular and it is timely.

Jeremy
Jeremy 5pts

I understand your position as a Protestant and just wanted to clarify the implications for other forms of Christianity. I am really in no position whether or not doctrinal orthodoxy has a direct implication in praxis. It's obviously hard to determine definitely. Maybe you could say about a bit process christology. Despite the fact that I appreciate HC, I've never really big a fan of process ontology/theology. I've always been more convinced by the various liberationist christologies that tends to focus on the historical Jesus and the political nature of his life. What exactly does incarnation add to the practice of Christianity from your perspective?

Deacon Bo
Deacon Bo 5pts

Thankyou for a very thoughtful and reasoned response. I really appreciate it. Just for clarity: I am not speaking for or as a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox - that is not my place. You can not write from everywhere or as everyone. I am a protestant. having said that - I can comment as an outside observer, student of history and visitor to several countries that would fall in each category... and I find the same thing. SO - I would actually affirm that for most I do not see how belief in doctrinal trinitarian formulations or christological understanding does make much a difference in practice. Unfortunately, you got that part right. The part I would be interested in fleshing out (pun intended) is the implication of the incarnation. The only understanding I have found so far (hyperbole) that impacts how a modern believer might participate in a normative way is John Cobb's process christology. To me - it is the best out there (no hyperbole).

Jeremy
Jeremy 5pts

The question about the relation between doctrines and praxis is at the heart of this discussion. This is obviously a very difficult question. You (and I would argue the laity generally) seem to believe that these doctrines have little practical import in the daily lives of Christians. I believe others (mostly theologians) err in having a rather inflated view about the impact that doctrines have on the sociopolitical (e.g. social Trinitarians). We also see the overvaluation of certain practices as having revolutionary impact on the body politic. Look no further than the radical orthodoxy camp which acts as if taking the eucharist will somehow completely overturn global capitalism. I'm a bit confused about what you're talking about regarding christological/Trinitarian beliefs. You started the post saying something about the identity of Jesus. Now, you're speaking about "doctrinal minutia". I can't help but thinking your dismissal of the importance of these doctrines stems from a Protestant mistrust of creedal statements that would likely not resonate with our Orthodox and Catholic sisters and brothers. The question, for me, boils down to the importance of Jesus Christ. The actual commitments of Jesus of Nazareth should serve as normative for the sociopolitical reality for Christians (something liberation theologians affirm). Given this commitment, is anything lost if we discard the divinity of Jesus, which in my mind serves to reinforce just WHY his life and work are normative for Christians?

Deacon Bo
Deacon Bo 5pts

HEY! that is a really good point. I didn't clarify that at all ;) I look at it through the lens of practice and expression. What we as Christians believe about the trinity may or may not impact what model of church government we employ, how we administrate our offices, balance our checkbooks, accumulate credit card debt, or any number of other things... BUT most importantly ... how we relate to the earth. Let's be honest - believing in the incarnation as a doctrine seems to makes little impact on our environmental views or fidelity to one location (and thus reluctance to move from there). Believing in the dual nature Chalcedonian formulation doesn't change domestic violence statistics, or how we treat a waiter or teen pregnancy rates ... you get what I am saying. [I hope I am being clear, because there are folks on multiple sides of any issue that wear robes and don't, pay clergy and don't, use Lectionary and don’t, are organized into Presbyteries, Bishoprics, and Societies.] SO - since believing in the Trinitarian or christological formulations or doctrinal minutia doesn't really make that big of a difference on either A) the practice or B) the expression then I think that things that DO impact those areas can be seen as making a “bigger” difference. Praying 5 times and day and facing Mecca orients you in a way that closing your eyes and praying to ‘God in heaven’ (or Jesus in your heart) just doesn’t do. Making a pilgrimage or thinking that A place has more importance than other... is very different than saying you can do what you do anywhere and that every place is just a connected to God as every other place (which IS what I believe). 1) does that make sense? 2) what do you think? [two different questions ;) ]

Jeremy
Jeremy 5pts

As you point out, there are multiple differences that separate the three religions beyond simply beliefs about Jesus' identity. However, I'm confused how you are able to conclude that the differences you enumerate are "much bigger" that christological and Trinitarian beliefs. Maybe you can say more about how you came to that conclusion.

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in