The uproar (among a vocal few) about President-elect Obama asking Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration has been illuminating. On the one hand conservatives who complain that Warren is somehow “endorsing” what they view as Obama’s more repugnant policies need to chill. (Although note Cal Thomas’ warning that Warren might do well to follow the example of Nathan the prophet – not because of Obama but because of the problems of being too friendly with any government.) On the other hand liberals who demonize Warren because of his opposition to (a) abortion rights and (b) same-sex marriage have perhaps revealed too much of themselves to the rest of the nation.
“Goodness gracious – I thought you guys were like you know liberal and tolerant and inclusive and all that. This is how you treat someone who practices a great deal of what you talk about – and more than you do quite frankly – but does not line up with you on a couple key moral-social issues?”
Amidst the brouhaha is an astonishing comment by Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire whose consecration in 2003 catalyzed the crisis-already-in-progress within the Anglican Communion:
“I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” Bishop Robinson said, “but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”
(From article at New York Times. You do not have to register.)
The part of what Robinson says that is so shocking is this part:
The God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.
Whoa.
The whole issue of “do those people (in that different religion over there) believe in the same God we do?” has generated much discussion the last several years particularly with regard to Islam. Even President Bush (although I cannot confirm this years after the fact with a specific citation) tried to forestall violence toward American Muslims by claiming “we all pray to the same God”.
Do we?
The problem of course is it all depends on what you mean by “same”. I addressed this at length in a post at Baptistlife.com:
There has been some debate/discussion on this board concerning “is Allah the same as God?” (Also expressed exactly as the article does. “Do Muslims pray to/worship the same God (as Christians)?” Some even replied that Jewish people do not – because of the Trinity.
I have always thought this a tough question if only because… well… what does it mean exactly? The “same God“? Haruo and Hal point out correctly that one can find texts which seem to indicate some overlap between what “others” worship and the one true God who has revealed himself and acted most decisively through his son Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul in Athens. “What you worship as unknown…” The quote from James. And also in Acts – God shows no partiality but accepts everyone who…
Hal’s question – are there actually other Gods that can be worshiped? I think the Hebrew and Christian scriptures for the most part would say, “Well yeah. Duh!” There are places where other gods are other deities (real – but they s@ck compared to Yhwh) or “mere idols” (and therefore theoretically… not real – but they are worshiped as gods). I believe there is tension within Scripture on this, although the “only God is even real” seems to be the dominant position (hence Genesis 1 and exilic/post-exilic theology).
When people answer the “do Muslims worship same God?” question with reference to language – that is where they truly mess up. Linguistically Allah is not more a “different God” than is Dios in Spanish. My Arabic Bible quite plainly translates elohim (meaning Yhwh) or theos (meaning the one God who created heavens and earth) as allah(u). Just because Muslims call God “Allah” absolutely does not mean a different (not-same) God. So some critics of Islam need to be careful there. I think most people on this forum have that figured out.
But when we are careful, we might ask, “The same concept of God? same understanding? conceptualization? story of God?” Latter Day Saints use almost the exact same language. Even to Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But the theology is radically different. The “same“? The Islamic concept of God is also different. (Not sure I am prepared to say “radically”.)
How about “the same in terms of a religious idea and its development?” Then one could argue they are indeed the same. Muhammad was trying(?) to follow in the “Abrahamic (Ibrahimic) tradition”. He saw Allah/God as a continuation(?) of Yhwh in the Tawra(tu) and the Injil(u) (Torah and Gospel). He saw himself as a prophet of the same deity/God as that of Moses and Jesus. And if one is talking “history of religion”, yeah probably the same. ….
How about “the same ontologically”? Whether Muslims understand/conceptualize/describe God “correctly” or not – is this the same deity (in terms of the being-that-is-there-getting-worshiped)? I ain’t much of a philosopher (got A’s but hardly remember anything) and would not know how to answer the question. I’m not quite sure I can agree with Jim that Muhammad “fashioned, created, constructed” Allah. I believe Muhammad had a real experience with a real, powerful, spiritual being/force. (Read any biography of the prophet – such as ibn Tabari – and how Muhammad experiences God and/or Jibrail/Gabriel. I don’t think he’s imagining anything.) Just not the same, uh, being that we normally call “God“. (And no I will not elaborate.) I suppose I would agree with Jim if we mean Muhammad mistakenly called this being “Allah (God)”. And especially on the issue of Muhammad borrowing from the Bible (one has to qualify that – he had no Arabic translation, only Syriac, and clearly was borrowing from jumbled second hand oral retellings as well as from non-canonical “pseudo-Christian” writings.)
But the question also leads to “the same in terms of intent?” Ah. Perhaps.
And how about “the same in terms of God‘s point of view?” Does the God who became human in Jesus Christ (the second person of the Trinity to be more precise) accept worship of Allah/God (that is, Muslim worship) as if it is to himself? Christians of good will debate this. I think Scripture actually seems to answer sometimes yes, sometimes no. (I believe there are “tensions” within Scripture. The challenge is what to do with them.)
How about “phenomenologically the same?” The experience of God? The intent to worship the same God (again – whether correct or not, accepted or not)? This is where I tend to be a bit more “liberal”. I would say “Mormonism is not a true Christian religion”. But what if a Mormon sincerely believes in (even a deeply flawed understanding of) Jesus as Lord and Savior? Perhaps the Mormon is subjectively a “Christian”. I still think their theology is whacked. But do I really know what the heck is going on in the deep places of the heart between that person and Christ? Can one be a follower of Christ with a screwed up theology (Christian or Mormon or…)? Subjectively, I mean.
All of which is a long, messy post intended to argue that the question “the same God or not?” is almost unanswerable unless one is careful to specify “the same in terms of what? theology? linguistics/name? experience? ontology? phenomenology? history of religions? how God accepts or not the worshiper? and so on”. Even then – I hardly know how to answer sometimes.
(Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.)
Okay – time to put all this together.
The point is that those of a more “liberal-tolerant-inclusive” presentation often tell us “golly gee whiz we are all God’s children and pray to the same God”. They do this in order to emphasize unity for the sake of getting along peacefully. We should not fight because gosh we are all kinda the same. And conservatives get frowns when they talk about real differences between religions or even real differences within a religion. “We shouldn’t talk about our differences. We should just talk about what we have in common”. (For the record – I believe that is complete and utter rubbish and in fact shows less true respect for othe religions. We can and should talk frankly about our differences as well as our similarities. Otherwise what kind of friendship is that?)
Meanwhile – Anglicanism. And the conflicts within the Episcopal Church.
The leadership of the Episcopal Church tries to emphasize same-ness. Why? So that conservative Anglicans will not leave along with their money and buildings and relatively high attendance. Critics of the Episcopal Church (or more precisely its current leadership and dominant direction) maintain we functionally have two religions which is why we need to separate.
So… in light of all this… in light of:
- the liberal tendency to emphasize commonality and same-ness
- and the Episcopal tendency to minimize theological differences that might generate conflict and departure
It is remarkable and astonishing that Bishop Gene Robinson of all people should state “the God he prays to is not the God I know”. As if there really can be such a thing as “not the same God” or at the very least “functionally not the same religion that I follow”. (And think about the implications. That Robinson prays to the “true” God while Rick Warren does not. Fair enough I suppose.)
Robinson has backed into a powerful truth. (Although – see the long post above – one has to be careful here.) And has accidentally endorsed what more orthodox/conservative Anglicans have been saying for years.
We do not believe in the “same” God. (I do not necessarily mean ontologically.)
So why on earth should we remain in the same church together – hmm?
