CHRISTIANITY IS DIFFERENT FROM ISLAM!

One of the most common lies of the day is that all faiths are equally true. Or equally false. Or at least equally valid. It’s something I considered on a previous post and may well return to. However, I’d like to here briefly flag up the specific differences between the two great rival faiths of the day: Christianity and Islam. Differences between Christianity and other religions are easier to flag. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism – Jews simply rejecting the New Testament and the claims of Jesus. Buddhism is essentially atheistic, with no specific god – although still supernaturalistic (reincarnation etc). Hinduism? It gets the best stories and has been essential in giving a nationalistic identity to once disparate tribes; but where, despite the New Atheistic scorn, large numbers of credible scientists, academics and philosophers will argue for the burden of proof favouring Christianity, I’m not aware there is any Hindu equivalent to Professor John Lennox proposing an actual scientific basis for the flying monkeys or elephant headed deities of Hindu scripture. (Sikhism I know very little about so I won’t pretend otherwise).

So then, back to Islam and why it is different. In addressing this I am responding to one of my great heroes – that is my grandfather, who has, at ripe old age of 90, authored a compelling book (currently lost in a minefield of copyright complications) proposing bridges between the three ‘Abrahamic’ faiths. I’ll begin by acknowledging his similarities. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are indeed all looking to the same God – the one who revealed Himself to Abraham. They are all monotheistic and each believe in Heaven, Hell and a similar moral code on Earth.

However, beyond that, I have to disagree that they are at all on the same page (although, let me make clear at the outset, I am very much for ongoing mutual tolerance and respect... just let's not be scared of debate and criticism within that!). Christianity involves following Jesus Christ – hence the title. Christians believe he is the Son of God, and the means by which we can re-enter into relationship with God and become acceptable to Him in our sin. Popular ignorance (and in that I do not include my grandfather!) would have Muhammad as another tribe’s interchangeable Christ figure – their culturally applicable bridge to knowing God. However, if so, they don’t know Muhammad and they don’t know Christ.

Attitudes to Peace: Whatever the conduct of Christians down the years, Jesus was in his lifetime a man of peace. The Jews expected a warrior deliverer to free them from the Romans, but Jesus instead told followers to ‘turn the other cheek’, assuring them that ‘blessed were the peacemakers’. Ultimately, he walked willingly to a sacrificial death, coming ‘not to be served but to serve’. For Muhammad, on the other hand, his revelations quickly put him personally at the head of a conquering army. After he had taken Mecca in 630, his second successor Omar took Egypt, Persia and Palestine. This initial tide was to take Islam right into Europe (and conquest of Spain), only being halted by defeat in France in 732. (The Ottomans would later take up the mantle, conquering the likes of Constantinople and the Balkans until ultimately halted by failure in Vienna, 1683). Now if I point out that Islam lends itself to fighting, I will be quickly directed to the Crusades, in which the Christian Pope launched a ‘holy war’ of his own. However, I’d venture that has little to do with Jesus if we’re here comparing faith founders. The early church was marked and known by peaceful martyrdom right up to the point when Rome got its hands on it and changed absolutely everything. Besides which, as an aside, people often forget that Islam was ultimately successful over Christianity in the Crusades and, in actual fact, it was often Christians who were slaughtered by their own (read about the sacking of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade).

And Muslims? Well I don’t want to misrepresent the many. Thankfully for all, the official policy of Sunni Islam is formed by a Hadith (an official saying of Muhammad outside of the Qu’ran) claiming that military Jihad is secondary to the greater Jihad of winning the personal battle to live a holy life (in fact, Jews and non-conformist Christians living in contested areas welcomed both the first Muslim invaders and the later Ottomans as more tolerant and peaceable governors than either their Byzantine or Catholic rulers). However, there have always been those from inside and outside of Islam willing to question the authenticity of such a proclamation. Some,examining both their holy book and the example of both their founder and the early Caliphs, have periodically returned to a literal interpretation of Jihad. Most pertintently to our world, one such voice was Wahhabi – an 18^th Century figure sponsored by his local Arabic rulers. Their name? The house of Saud – ultimately bound to form Saudi Arabia and strike oil. Calls for Jihad are also more legitimate and commonplace in Shia Islam (15% of the Muslim world) as officially practised in Iran. Again, this is not to implicate the bulk of moderate Muslim – they are in the firing line perhaps more than anyone where extremists are concerned. But the link between Islam and violence is far more legitimate than is any such link in biblical Christianity (George W Bush take note!).

Pharisees: It should be noted that Jesus signed his death warrant when taking on the fussiness of the religious authorities. Much of his anger was directed at the fact their love of legalism had surpassed the principles behind it. We see this throughout the gospels – Jesus is at pains to point out, for example, that Sabbath rest was meant to be a good and beneficial thing. Now he saw the Pharisees wanting to punish those healing on the Sabbath, or even picking up a stick! Similarly, they couldn’t abide or hear those failing to observe their own man-made and elaborate washing rituals. Such rule-checking also gave them great status in the community, something else he criticised.

This has clearly come once more to pass in the ‘Hail Marys’ and candles of Catholicism, but even more so it has come to characterise Islam. Where Muhammad urged only modesty in women (and a lot of the Qu’ran seems to celebrate women), creeping legalism has in some places buried them beneath the burqa. Where he prescribed against worshipping images, presumably concerned that people would end up worshipping depictions of him instead of Allah, we end up with murder over a Danish doodle (and who’s going to worship THAT?!).  It seems that Islam (and some state-sponsored Christianity!) has largely become the very thing Jesus would most rail against. Is this just a man-made error both have wandered into or an integral difference between the two? I believe the latter, because Islam is a meritocracy based on earning salvation through works - thus lending itself to a great fear of rule-breaking. Christians, on the other hand, can do nothing, short of believing, to save themselves. From the start of the Islamic calendar the careful rituals of prayer, eating, fasting and pilgrimage were set in place; whilst in contrast the Christian New Testament fulfils and ends slavery to the minutiae of Jewish law.

And the rest! But ultimately, those are just the two points I wanted to make. Outside of them there are huge numbers of differences between Christianity and Islam. Only the former offers relationship with God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, resurrection, the guarantee of forgiveness and much more besides. Above all, Jesus dropped that bombshell of being the long-prophesied Son of God, where Muhammad never claimed to be any more than a Prophet. The new tendency to lump the two religions together as the same old problem (usually with images of 9/11 playing onscreen) is lazy and counter-productive. On another occasion I’ll take a historical hammer to the idea that rational reason alone is any more inherently peaceful – the Renaissance-sparked ideas and technologies having ultimately led us to the great and godless wars of the 20^th Century (because the problem is people!). Neither can you get far in the wishful thinking of seeing Christianity and Islam as similar enough to ultimately pull in the same direction (sorry Grandpa). I admire a lot of Muslims in that they have more principle and remain more distinctive than many Christians. I enjoy the flavour they give my local community in Tooting. I know Muslims I like very much (generally the ones willing to discuss this stuff!). But, ultimately, I think they’re mistaken, and I don't think their beliefs are particularly similar to mine. 

WHY I CHOOSE TO BE A WEIRDO...

...By which I mean, why do I choose to identify myself as a Christian, let alone one of evangelical persuasion? It’s certainly not credible in the modern age, nor convenient – in terms of the drain on time, money and lifestyle. It’s almost certainly an irritation to my friends... But I happen to believe it’s true and very important. Why? I will attempt to briefly outline the reasoning:

a) I believe we were created. Yunshui once commented on one of my posts saying the choice between an unseen creator or a world grown from nothing out of randomness is a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, there is ultimately either a guiding hand or there isn’t. Neither is ultimately provable, but I look at the existence of the fully formed and functioning DNA code of life emitting from even the first single-cell organism... and I see evidence of intelligence behind it. I look at the knowledge inherent in humanity that there is right, wrong and accountability... and I see external objective morality. I look at the history of cultures, each with the inbuilt urge to worship... and I see an inherent knowledge of something greater than ourselves. I have no beef with evolution, other than that a theory explaining only the drive for survival does not explain to me creativity, musicality, monogamy, altruism or beauty.

Indeed, I feel the real false dichotomy is between those who think and those who sustain faith.  I believe, and I think about it a great deal. I’ve even tried to turn my back on it in the past, but have found the alternative spiritually and logically unsatisfying in the extreme.The fact we’re here does mean something. The fine tuning required to sustain life, or indeed a stable universe, across a wide range of factors is in a probability bracket of a trillion to one and, whilst those odds are theoretically fine within an infinite universe, in no other context would we treat such reasoning as remotely convincing. Dawkins says there is only matter and energy, asking Who made God? To which I reply Who made your matter and energy? In short, I believe in God. 

b) The above remains the majority view globally. Many will stop there. But I’m a Christian, not merely a theist. I think it’s unsatisfactory to believe in God but then assume he wants nothing in return or has no intention of communicating with His creation. Why did he bother? Does he care if we completely ignore Him? Having studied it a fair bit, I find convincing answers in the Bible. I’m not obsessively literal about it all – I’m not going to spend my time arguing for a literal 6-day creation or a literally global flood – but I think the Jews lived up to their special billing; this semi-nomadic Middle Eastern tribe having survived and thrived to the present day despite the targeted persecution of Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Nazis for starters.  I believe we are indeed in a fallen world – people capable of greatness but generally wreaking a storyline of destruction and dissatisfaction repeating.

Above all, I think that the historical figure of Jesus Christ – God pitching up in human history to offer a solution, as repeatedly foretold in the Old Testament, lives up to the hype. His preaching and parables are sheer genius, his credibility was sufficient for 2 years of preaching to spark a worldwide movement, the early church who followed him were willing to travel far and wide for his sake, ultimately embracing martyr deaths and, crucially, those who would have loved to nip all this in the bud were unable to produce Jesus’ corpse or powerfully claim his non-existence following his all-important death in our place and subsequent re-appearance amidst once demoralised followers. He was cited in Roman and Jewish sources, and presented fully in the gospels; accounts written within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses by men of exceptional character, willing to depict their own weaknesses and write things that would get them persecuted. I recognise in his model a way of living that works and in his preaching a true description of my dilemma – that I’m a sinner needing saving but thereafter capable of living a productive and changed life. In short, I follow Jesus.

c) And then there’s the intangible results of faith... I’m not arrogant enough to present my own personal experiences as intellectually compelling to another. Yet it’s what we go through as individuals that ultimately seal the deal. I am intellectually convinced by Christianity – I hope you believe as much, even though the few words above only hint at the arguments contained. However, it is the change in myself and others, the unexplainables I have witnessed, the answered prayers and the fact it works... you could explain away each one and that’s OK – but here, living in my own skin, I choose to trust my senses and, several years in, I wouldn’t want to turn my back on Christianity for all the world. Not even following a year bringing with it a life-altering brain tumour for the person I love most.

Yes I know many Christians are hypocrites or ignorant (as of course are many atheists, Muslims, pagans or agnostics!). Yes I know George W Bush made it hard to be on the side of the Bible-bashers. Yes I know various Kings, Emperors and everymen have used and twisted the Bible to suit their own purposes throughout history. No, I don’t claim to have every answer for everything (and I’m a lot less know-all and intolerant, although no less convinced, than I was a couple of years back – life will that do that to you). Neither am I better than anyone else – true Christianity begins with the admission of rubbishness, although that’s no excuse to carry on that way.

But I am a Christian, and I will remain so. So feel free to ask me more if bemused, angered or fascinated... I reckon it’s worth thinking about – better a Dawkins than an ostrich!

PS I’ll balance this out with a post on football next!

JAN MOIR: THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG

Today saw the announcement that the Press Compaints Commission have ruled against the near 25,000 complaints received over Jan Moir’s infamous Daily Mail ‘Stephen Gately article’, finding nothing punishable in the piece. In it Moir had claimed, among other things, that ‘if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding (‘Gately’s) death are more than a little sleazy.’  (You can read the article here)

Now I’m not here to defend Jan Moir. Her article was ill-timed and showed a real ignorance of the case. Even so, to paraphrase Voltaire, I’d defend to the (metaphorical) death her right to write it. Gay-rights pressure group Stonewall are predictably upset with the decision. I’m sure they felt offended and slighted by the implications made in Moir’s piece. However, no-one has the right to not be offended. I’m not sure who said that, even after googling it... but the fact the search (in quote marks) returned over 5 pages of direct hits seems like some kind of validation!

Truth is there are too many sacred cows. This furore reveals two. Firstly, the gay community wants to be exempt from any disapproval or criticism. I don’t accept that, and I can’t abide the attempt to shut down debate or call disagreement ‘hatred’. It is reasonably out of bounds to contest that which someone is born with, be it the colour of skin or the tendency towards same-sex attraction. However, beyond that, to disagree with or question someone’s relationship or lifestyle choices is a given in a society marked by free speech – in doing so, one should expect a fiery response (just as if you query my choice of wife!), but let’s not automatically call it ‘hatred’ or make it illegal! It is as reasonable to tut at the promiscuity of a gay man as it is to do so at that of Katie Price or Ashley Cole. Furthermore, it’s legitimate to do as 67-year old Pauline Howe did, and write a letter to the council protesting about a loud and exhibitionist Gay Pride parade passing near her home. The council has the right to ignore her views and give them short shrift; but to have her arrested, as they did, for ‘hate crime’? It’s all a bit Orwellian. She is not any more a hate criminal than is Dawkins for loudly rubbishing Christianity; despite the fact that in doing so he’s made the life of Christians far less comfortable. Whoever’s on the receiving end, rejoice that a free country welcomes free debate...  

Secondly, there is the sanctification of dead celebrities. There is of course room for tact. We surely don’t want to badmouth the very recently dead. But, again, to illegalise the practise? The offence is one of foolishness or thoughtlessness – at journalistic and editorial level... but Stephen Gately is not legally beyond criticism because he has tragically passed on. Save us from sickening attempts to turn Jade Goody into a working class hero (her main ‘achievements’ propelling her into the public eye were, after all, feats of stupidity, stripping and racism) or Princess Diana into the world’s greatest mother (she died as she lived, indulging a jet-set lifestyle, accompanied by the latest boyfriend; her children firmly ensconced in boarding school). And let’s not become a society that goes running to the state crying foul if we feel upset by something we read. The state already feel far too justified in interfering with, well, everything! Let argument defeat argument, and let the debate be pursued through an ever-free press. I don’t want our national newspapers to mirror our national politics – a bland consensual landscape where to speak one’s mind without populist spin is to commit career suicide.

So, to conclude, well done the Press Complaints Commission and, to those who complained, cherish your offence and your right to express it!

THIS IS MY TRUTH, TELL ME YOURS

The above was the name of a Manic Street Preachers album. It came to mind when JDS posted on the Comments Board (for the Lynch/Murakami post) the following statement:


‘And there is no truth. No right answer. No absolute understanding (at least in this world)’


I’ll accept the latter – there’s plenty we’ll never understand in this world (by way of example, why the continuing success of Vernon Kay?). But the rest of the quote? Well that I utterly refute. It calls to mind Nietzche’s quote: ‘there are no facts, only interpretations’. All very interesting and post-modern, but clearly nonsense, given that in saying it he presumably believes he’s stating a fact. Just as JDS is presumably stating a perceived truth when saying there is none.


The fact is, 1+1=2. The reality is; the apple is on the table. Applied to a faith position, the reality is; either the world has come into being of its own accord from a starting point of nothing, or it has been created by a being infinitely greater than ourselves. One or the other is true. One or the other is a fact. Either Mohammad was God’s prophet (NOTE: Have altered a mistake here - wanted to acknowledge the fact or else yunshui's comment below looks delusional...) or he wasn’t. More pressingly for a society that has often relegated him to the position of ‘a good teacher’, Jesus Christ, in identifying himself as God’s promised son, was either telling the truth, lying or a madman. Ambivalence is an illegitimate response.


In reality, stating all worldviews to be equally valid is to state them all equally false. After all, they sure as heck can’t all be equally true! Not when they are often making statements in direct opposition to one another. Upon death, we are not going to be herded into separate queues, to be greeted by Mohammad, Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Elvis... each according to our preference. Those who place them neatly side by side are, I suspect, those who in reality expect nothing but ‘The End’ upon expiration. If they’re right, that’ll be the truth. But an absence of truth? That’s surely just a fancy way of saying ‘I don’t know’!


JDS’s view is very much the cultural trend at present. An all-encompassing straddling of the fence chimes neatly with the new, oh-so sensitive societal gospel of tolerance and equality. It doesn’t like exclusive truth statements, equating them increasingly with intolerance or hatred. But have we really given up on finding any kind of firm resolution? Do we really think there’s nothing worth investing our hopes in? I want to look for truth and celebrate when I reckon I’ve found it. I then want to talk about it with openly others. And if they disagree with me? Well I’ll happily tolerate the fact. I most certainly won’t hate them. I’ll just continue to state my case, they’ll state theirs and we’ll call it debate. And, ultimately, someone will be right and someone wrong. That there’s the truth…