Tag: Common Ground

On Being catholic

No, it’s not a typographical error. The last word in the title is meant to be spelled with a lower case, “c.” It’s a rather respectable adjective, though not so very commonly used. My dictionary defines it as:

1. broad or wide-ranging tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broadminded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church

Of course, spelled with an upper case, “C,” it usually means, according to my dictionary:

1. of or pertaining to a Catholic church, especially the Roman Catholic Church
2. pertaining to the Western Church
3. a member of a Catholic church, especially of the Roman Catholic Church.

A similar ambiguity exists for me when I tell people I’m a New Yorker. By that, I mean to say I was born in New York City. However, I wasn’t born in New York County, one of the five boroughs of New York City, but in the borough of the Bronx. And, when I speak to other residents of New York State, they rightly claim to be New Yorkers, too, but without any connection to the city of the same name.
“American” is just as confusing. People born in the United States of America tend to call themselves “Americans,” but what about people born in North America, Central America and South America? In fact, when most of them say “americano,” they do mean someone from the Western Hemisphere.
Every distinct sense of the same word is equally legitimate. It’s important to realize that my favorite usage of a word isn’t its exclusive meaning, especially a rich, complex and ambiguous word like “catholic.”

I   was raised “Catholic,” meaning I was baptized a Christian according to the rite of the Roman Catholic Church and grew up keeping Roman Catholic practices, receiving Catholic sacraments and following Christian doctrines.
During 26 years working with CNEWA, I came to understand and appreciate that I was a member of one of the Catholic family of churches and had experienced only one of multiple different ways of prayer, sacramental life, piety, customs and discipline.
Over these years, getting to know, respect and love so many “Orthodox” (with an upper case, “O”), the importance of also being “catholic” — that is, part of the whole Christian church — certainly came to the fore.
Of course, we “Catholics” are also “orthodox” (lower case), just as “Orthodox” are also “catholic.” That’s what we all profess when we affirm that we believe in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”
Increasingly, though, my mind and heart are drawn to the consciousness of the greater unity, not only of all followers of Christ — Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical and others — but also of all the believers of the one God of Abraham, of all men and women of good will and of all the human family.
I wouldn’t be me if I wasn’t Roman Catholic. But I also wouldn’t be all that God calls me to be, if I didn’t grow to be more and more Catholic and ultimately more and more catholic.
In the plan of God, we’re not all meant to be Roman Catholic. Perhaps we’re not all meant to be Catholic either. But, come what may and no matter what, we definitely are all meant to be catholic.


(Published in
one, 37:5, September 2011)

Proposals for Discussion

That Pope Benedict XVI change the discipline of the Catholic church regarding the calculation of the date of the celebration of the Resurrection.

There is no common agreement among Christians concerning the date for the celebration of the feast of the Resurrection. Most Orthodox churches calculate the date taking into consideration the date of the Jewish celebration of the Passover; also some follow the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar.
It is impossible for the Orthodox churches to change their calculation, since they have no central authority; on the other hand it is very easy for the Catholic churches to change, since they do.
Further, it would have no practical impact on the life of the Catholic faithful, since the feast of the Resurrection is a movable feast occurring at a different time every year. Accordingly, it would help to promote Christian unity and relieve tension and frustration among the Christian faithful if:

1. The general discipline of the Catholic church would be to celebrate the feast of the Resurrection on the first Sunday after the celebration of the Jewish Passover (which means the first Sunday after the first full moon of the spring equinox, providing it does not occur before the Passover).
2. In countries where the majority of the Orthodox churches follow another calculation, the national conference of Catholic bishops would have the faculty to choose to follow that calculation, providing there is unanimity to do so.


That Pope Benedict XVI remove restrictions on the exercise of their jurisdiction by the patriarchs and major archbishops of the sui iuris Catholic churches

According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the jurisdiction of Eastern patriarchs and major archbishops is limited to their historical homelands. First, this presumes a territorial and geographical model of a sui iuris church, and, further, there is no clear definition of their historical homelands (territorium proprium). If anything, it is no more than a snapshot of their existing exercise of jurisdiction at one or another particular moment of history.
It is more helpful to view a sui iuris church (any sui iuris Catholic church, including the Latin) primarily as a personal network; the definition of geographical boundaries is needed to distinguish the exercise of jurisdiction of ordinaries of the same sui iuris church, one from the other; it is not needed nor are is it appropriate to distinguish the exercise of jurisdiction of ordinaries of different sui iuris churches, one from the other.


That the jurisdiction of Congregation for the Eastern Churches be extended to include shared jurisdiction with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples over the Arabian Peninsula

For the purpose of the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops, the definition of “Middle East” has included the countries of the Arabian Peninsula.  Until now the life of Christians and the presence of the Catholic Church in that region has been left to interventions of the Secretariat of State and to the normal jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.
However the Arabian Peninsula and its countries are the heartland of the Arab world and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam; except for the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East is a region otherwise under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.
Further, the countries of the Arabian Peninsula have an enormous Catholic population, not indigenous, equal in dimension to the Catholic population of the rest of the Middle East and consisting of both Latin and Eastern Catholics.
Provision should be made for a sharing of jurisdiction between the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Congregation for the Eastern Churches to ensure that the Eastern churches and their faithful are not subordinated to the Latin church, nor vice-versa.


That the mission, scope of action, and authority of the dicasteries of the Holy See be better clarified and delineated

There are multiple dimensions to the role of the Holy Father; they include his roles as bishop of Rome, father and head of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, and successor of Peter with a ministry and service of unity to the entire Church of Christ. The Holy Father utilizes a variety of dicasteries and structures to assist him in these multiple responsibilities; however, there are often “grey areas” concerning the scope of action and authority among these dicasteries.
It would be helpful to distinguish those dicasteries concerned exclusively with the governance and life of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church from those concerned with governance and life of the non-Latin Catholic churches, from those concerned with the governance and life of all the sui iuris Catholic churches (both Latin and Eastern), and from those concerned with the entire Church of Christ.
In particular, so that the work of the Catholic Church and its relations among Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical churches and ecclesial communities may be better advanced and coordinated, it is recommended that the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples share competence and jurisdiction with the Congregation for the Eastern Churches not only in the Arabian Peninsula [as above] but also in Ethiopia and India.


That the equal dignity and status of all sui iuris Catholic churches be respected not only in Canon Law but also in administrative structures and practice

Historically, some communities of most Eastern Orthodox churches have sought communion with the church of Rome and the Successor of Peter. Although the joint Orthodox-Catholic Balamand Declaration recognized the historic legitimacy and value of these “uniate” churches, it advocated a different ecclesiological model of unity. However, the Orthodox churches in particular are carefully observing the status and treatment of the Eastern Catholic churches in the Catholic church family, seeing this as a possible paradigm for the future of church unity.
Regrettably, the Eastern Catholic churches are frequently little understood and often undervalued by many sectors of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church. Although very small and substantially more ethnic in comparison to the huge, world-wide Latin Church, they have radically equal status and value. In practice, the Latin Church is frequently favored over the Eastern churches and is often considered as the “default” Catholic church. To put it another way, the Eastern Catholic churches, in many countries, are considered as “exceptions to the rule” of the Latin.
In particular, any sui iuris Catholic church should have the right to fully exercise its own discipline and follow its own customs wherever it is established; some of the restrictions placed on its practice in some parts of the world — e.g., the ordination of married men to the priesthood — although understandable because of historical factors as well as prejudice and misunderstanding, are inappropriate.
Further, any person anywhere seeking to become a member of the Catholic church has the right to affiliate with and to be received by any sui iuris Catholic church anywhere; the work of evangelization and the Catholic Church’s missionary outreach and its support should not be considered as primarily the activity and prerogative of the Latin Church.


That appropriate permanent consultative ecclesial structures be created to assist the Holy Father in his role as Successor of Peter with the special ministry of unity

Occasionally, the Holy Father meets with and consults the patriarchs and major archbishops of the Catholic Eastern churches; some of them are also named cardinals of the Roman church. If a cardinal is perceived as a member of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, this is very awkward; if a cardinal is perceived as a counselor to the Successor of Peter in the exercise of his ministry for the union of the Church of Christ, it is very appropriate.
In this latter sense, it would be good if all the heads of sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches were to be named members of the College of Cardinals, all in the first category of cardinal patriarchs, with precedence over the other ranks. Otherwise, no heads of churches should be cardinals and all should have precedence over cardinals; in this case, it would be good to have a special council of patriarchs and major archbishops that would regularly meet with the Pope.

Suggestions concerning Goals

  • Is the special assembly of synod “pro Medio Oriente” focused exclusively on the geographical area or more broadly on the persons everywhere?  Is it only about Christians in the Middle East or is it about Christians of the Middle East. Perhaps the first stated goal of the synod could be amended to read as follows:

1) to confirm and strengthen Middle East Christians in their Christian identity, through the Word of God and the sacraments;

  • The second stated goal is complex; perhaps it could be divided into two. Regarding  “communion,” it has many degrees: first, communion among Catholics, then communion among Christians, then communion among believers in the one God, then communion among all members of the human family. Perhaps the second stated goal of the synod could be amended to read as follows:

2) to foster communion primarily among the Middle East Catholic churches and in turn among all Middle East Christians, all believers in the one God, and all peoples; and

  • The other part of the second stated goal concerns witness; perhaps it could be considered a third goal. The core of Christian witness is love, and authentic and effective witness is manifest in self-giving or service.  Perhaps a third stated goal of the synod could be as follows;

3) to offer an authentic and effective witness in our lives by generous and loving service to others, both to fellow disciples of Christ Jesus and to all regardless of creed.

Religious Taxonomy

As scientists study the tremendous diversity of living things, they classify them into large families and various smaller groupings based on the similarities and relationships they discover among them. This system of classification is called taxonomy — from the Greek words taxis or arrangement and nomos or law.
With the passing of time and growth in scientific knowledge, the classifications become more sophisticated and less obvious.
For example, once dolphins, along with large fish, were classified as sea creatures based on the obvious similarity of living in the sea. Now, even school children know the difference between sea creatures that breathe with lungs and those that breath with gills. Dolphins are mammals, not fish.
Classifying dolphins — and seals, whales and walruses — as mammals is based on more than how they breathe. They also share a similar internal structure. That’s why bats are mammals and birds are not — even though they both have lungs and both fly.
Recently I took some visitors to the natural history museum. In the halls with enormous, towering skeletons of dinosaurs, an exhibit showing their relationships pointed out that their nearest living relatives are, surprisingly, birds.
Uncovering relationships like those between dinosaurs and birds means going much deeper in the search for similarities and commonalities, even to the level of DNA and genes.
Relationships at the genetic level upset a lot of common notions. For example, human beings are often classified into “races,” based on a superficial difference, the degree of skin coloration. At the deeper level, there are no basic differences among people at all. Also, surprisingly to some, present scholarship suggests East Africa as the likely place for human origins.

It is challenging to apply some of the same types of analysis to the classification of religions.
For example, Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism seem very different. Yet, the crucified Christ who has such a prominent place in Catholic piety and theology can only be fully understood in terms of the various sacrifices — Passover, atonement, sin offering, and thanksgiving — of the law of Moses, or the Torah, the heart of Judaism.
The origins of all forms of Christianity lie in Judaism. Early Christians were devout Jews who recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the hoped-for Messiah — in fact the very name Christian means “Messianist.” As time passed, they accepted non-Jews into their company. For Christians, this was a positive development. For Jews, this was a radical break and an abandonment of critically important values.
In this sense, a commonality among almost all Jews today is that they have not gone the way of the early Messianic Jews and those affiliated with them over the centuries — the Christians.
A solid religious taxonomy classifies Jews and Christians — and Muslims — into one large family, sometimes called the Abrahamic faiths. But often the appearance and behavior of contemporary Jews, Christians, and Muslims make it very hard to see the common roots and similarities.
There is a deep relationship among all believers in spite of their diverse religions. God is one, so all who seek him have much in common, no matter how strange they may seem, one to the other.
Taxonomy can be taxing.


(Published in
one, 34:6, November 2008)

Accentuate the Positive

When I was a kid they told me that “Eskimos” greet each other by rubbing noses. How peculiar, I thought, why don’t they shake hands?
Older, but no wiser, I learned that American “Indians” greet each other by holding up one hand, palm out, saying “How.” How peculiar, I thought, why don’t they shake hands?
Much later, I came to know that Japanese greet each other by bowing one to the other, that French men (and Arabs) kiss one another on both cheeks and that in India hands are joined in front, as though in prayer, with a slight inclination of the head by way of saying hello.
How peculiar, I then thought, that I was taught to clasp right hands and jerkily move them up and down once or twice by way of greeting — an old tradition that showed that I held no weapon!
Naturally, in my youthful, blissful ignorance, I never questioned greeting the Lord in church by genuflecting on one knee — traditional Western court style. But it certainly seemed odd that in Byzantine churches one reverenced the Lord by bowing so low as to touch the floor — traditional Eastern court style.
And, an altar server kissing hats and hands, rings and books was the most normal thing in the world — my world, that is!
The first moral of these little examples is don’t misunderstand and be put off by superficial, cultural differences. There are limitless different ways of expressing the same good intentions and the same good will.
Another, positive moral of the examples is the importance of respect for cultural differences and of recognition and understanding of the good intentions and the good will that underlies them.

I was deeply struck and deeply moved by the 13 October 2007 open letter to the heads and leaders of Christian churches by 138 Muslim scholars, jurists and religious leaders.
Painfully aware of the increasing and increasingly deadly misunderstandings between Muslims and Christians, they explained that the most important words we have from the prophet Muhammad are consonant with those from Moses and Jesus.
Notwithstanding differences among Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Arabic — and in spite of the stylistic differences of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim holy books — there is a substantial core to their teachings that is the same.
Since God is one, it should be so.
If the one God sends different messengers to different people in different times and different places, then the messages cannot contradict each other. If it seems so, the fault lies with us. It must be due to our human failings, prejudices, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings.
Are there real and substantial differences in belief among Jews, Christians, and Muslim? Of a certainty. But as our Muslim brothers and sisters affirm, there are fundamental, real, and substantial commonalities, too.
When Jesus once was asked by a teacher of the law of Moses what was the greatest commandment of the law, he named two: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Jews believe it. Christians believe it. Muslims believe it, too.


(Published as “Hello” in
one, 34:1, January 2008)

Differentiation

Q. What’s the difference between a whiffenbird?
A. One leg’s both the same!

No, it doesn’t make any sense at all — it’s just an old nonsense riddle. On the other hand, maybe it does suggest something very sensible indeed — the absurdity of overemphasizing difference.
We seem to thrive on difference, for better or worse:

“I’m taller”—“He’s shorter”
“She’s fatter”—“I’m thinner”
“We’re richer”—“They’re poorer”
“He’s a slob”—“He’s a snob”
“She’s too pale”—“She’s too dark”
“They’ve got class”—“They have no class”
“He makes more”—“He makes less”
“I’m smarter”—“She’s dumber”
“They live better”—“We live worse”
“I’ve got friends”—“He has no friends”

After all, it’s differences that distinguish us one from the other. When we need to know exactly who someone is, we look for some unique expression of difference.
Fingerprints identify us. There are at least six billion people in the world today. That means there are at least sixty billion fingerprints. None of them is the same.
Modern technology looks for better identifiers inside us. The combination and sequencing of genes on each person’s chromosomes are unique, even though the number of chromosomes and most genes is common to all.
The Psalmist marveled at his uniqueness,

Truly you have formed my inmost being;
you knit me in my mother’s womb.
I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made;
wonderful are all your works.

You are absolutely unique. So am I. But, it’s difficult to live in solitary splendor. That’s why we seek some common ground with others.
Alas, often the common ground we find is superficial. We opt for people who look like us, dress like us, or speak our language. But, common characteristics like these can mask profound differences of values, goals, and beliefs.
Our tendency to identify with superficial characteristics can work against our best interests in still other ways. There may be people with whom we have deep feelings, values, and commitments in common, but we don’t recognize them for who they really are — superficial differences put us off.
I may have more in common with a kind and loving foreigner whose dress and language are strange to me than I do with a scheming and selfish neighbor in my hometown.
I may have more in common with a sincere and profoundly religious Jew, Muslim, or Hindu than I do with a vain and hypocritical Christian who sings beside me in church.
It may turn out that I have more in common with the one I have been taught is my enemy than with the one I presume is my friend.
A good rule of thumb is to find the best and deepest common ground and act accordingly. For starters, we’re all God’s creatures, called to be his children, challenged to live as brothers and sisters and destined for eternal life — together!


(Published in
one, 31:2, March 2005)

Misunderstanding Religious Language

A few weeks ago, I was invited to talk to a group of visiting Middle East Muslim scholars, rabbis, and Christian leaders in the Lady Chapel of New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral about our common religious traditions and devotion to Mary.
It was hard to find the right words to use, because the three traditions have such different religious vocabularies.
What came to mind was the well-known quip of George Bernard Shaw about the British and the Americans being “one people divided by a common language.”
This refers, of course, to the fact that sometimes the British and the Americans use entirely different words for the same thing. And, sometimes they use the same word to refer to entirely different things.
A similar observation could be made about Jews, Christians, and Muslims: one family of believers in the one and the same God divided by religious language.
For example, Allah. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God (with a capital “G”). Prayers in the Arabic language, whether Christian or Muslim, naturally use this word. However, often you hear some Christians speaking erroneously about Allah as though this were the proper name of some kind of pagan divinity.
The Jewish Scriptures do tell of the one God revealing his proper name to Moses. This name is so holy that a devout Jew will never speak it, always substituting some other word, such as Lord.
Another example, Son of God. In the Jewish Scriptures, a holy person is sometimes called a son of God. For the first Christians Jesus was preeminently such a person and more. In the Gospels he is frequently referred to as the Son of God (with a capital “S”). Over the centuries, this has been the subject of much Christian theology and prayerful reflection.

Christians are so familiar with this expression and accustomed to hearing it that they have no idea how outrageous “Son of God” can sound to Muslims, and sometimes to Jews.
The Muslim Scriptures specifically state that God “has taken neither a wife nor a son” and that “God has no female consort, no son.”
Of course, this presumes that the expression “Son of God” means the product of intercourse between God and a human person — a very common idea in many ancient pagan mythologies. If it truly meant that, Christians would indignantly join Muslims in denying it as well.
On the other hand, Muslims always refer to Jesus as “Jesus, son of Mary.” Normally in Arabic the son’s name is followed by the name of his father. The way Muslims speak of Jesus testifies to their belief how special he is and that he has no human father.
Similar misunderstandings arise with Muslims when they hear Christians speak of Mary as the Mother of God, even though Muslims do have a great veneration for and devotion to the Blessed Mother.
The way we use religious words often stretches them far beyond their ordinary meaning. Struggling to speak of the mystery of the nature of God and his love, we lamely use the best words we can think of, even though they hardly can bear the burden of all that we wish to say.
Religious language soars beyond the ordinary. To speak of the things of God, we often need poetry more than prose. And in poetry it is heart that speaks to heart, more than head to head.

(Published
with some slight differences
as “Religious Language” in
one, 31:1, January 2005)

Heart of the Matter

Before my 95-year-old Jewish aunt died a few weeks ago, she asked me to conduct her funeral service. What to say? After all, I’ve had a lot of experience with Catholic funerals, although not much with Jewish.
My aunt was a very good person, a believer in God, but not what you would call an observant Jew. Her family hardly ever attended synagogue. While her Orthodox in-laws were alive, she and my uncle kept a kosher household. After their deaths, they stopped.
What makes a good Jew? The Bible is filled with laws and regulations besides the Ten Commandments. Other Jewish traditions developed over the centuries.
At the time of Jesus, a question put to many of the great rabbis was, “What is the greatest commandment of the Law?” In fact, it was put to Jesus himself — and his answer echoed that of other great rabbis.
Jesus said the greatest and first commandment of the Law was, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” The second, he said, is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
“The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments,” was his conclusion.
How to measure my aunt’s life? She never went to services, she didn’t observe the great Jewish feasts or fasts, she no longer kept a kosher home—but, as I told the few relatives and friends gathered for her funeral, she was a good Jew.

For the heart of the matter is love. She always kept the greatest of the commandments of the Law. She loved God and she loved her neighbor. She was a woman of love.
Had she been a Christian, I could have said the same thing with the same logic. After all, Jesus said to his disciples, “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.”
His disciple John explained, “Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love . . . he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another . . . if we love one another, God remains in us . . .”
In a way my aunt also could have been considered a good Muslim. After all, what is the heart of the matter for Muslims? To seek and submit to the will of the one God — something that both good Jews and Christians do, too.
For example, the Letter to the Hebrews describes the mission of Jesus with, “Behold, I come to do your will, O God.” And, Jesus himself taught, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”
Are there differences among Jews, Christians, and Muslims? Of course. But, since all aspire to stand before the one and same God some day, why not accentuate the positive now—and get to the heart of the matter.


(Published in
CNEWA World, 28:3, May 2002)

Standing in the Other Believer’s Shoes

In 1990, the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies in Rome published an interesting yet unassuming book by Father Robert Caspar and a group of Christians living in Tunisia. Entitled, Trying to Answer Questions, it offered a novel approach to responding to certain questions Muslims raise about aspects of Christian faith and life. The following is based in part upon the very creative work of that book.

Understanding God

In the countries of the Middle East, when Christians make the sign of the cross, before saying “Amen,” they always add the words “one God.” They do this to make clear to the Muslims among whom they live that Christians truly believe in one God.
At the heart of Islam is the frequent and public profession of monotheism, or belief in one God. “There is no god but God” begins almost every Muslim prayer. Most Muslims misunderstand Christian references to God as Father, Son, and Spirit as a profession of polytheism; they seriously question if Christians are really believers.
Muslims are used to using the words “father” and “son” in their primary meaning as describing human relationships flowing from sexual love and procreation – they have no tradition of using them analogously, with spiritual meanings, as Christians do.
Although Muslims prayerfully recite many names and attributes for the one God, “Father” is not one of them. What Christians call “The Lord’s Prayer” is truly that – a distinctive way of talking to and thinking about God that was taught to us by Jesus.
The holy book of Islam, the Qur’an, blames Christians for speaking of three in connection with God and in some places seems to consider the three to be God, Jesus, and Mary. Perhaps this reflects the Muslims’ rejection of some early and obscure Christian heresy.
Christians reassure Muslims of their own monotheism when they recite the Nicean Creed, which begins, “We believe in one God…,” and when they add the words “one God” to the sign of the cross.
When Christians try to explain what they mean by the Trinity, they usually employ the ancient Greek philosophical vocabulary of “person”, “substance”, and “nature” – the words used in the dogmatic definitions of the Trinity. Muslim religious culture, unlike Christian, has not grown historically out of the Greco-Roman world; for Muslims these words have no clear meaning. Another difficulty is that these technical theological terms have radically different ordinary meanings in modern-day usage.
In the past Baghdad’s Christian Arabs searched for metaphors that would explain the Trinity to Muslims. One metaphor often used was “fire”. Fire is one substance, yet at the same time it is heat, flame, and light.
All words and images are inadequate to convey the mystery of God, but we still have to try as best we can.

Understanding Jesus

The first major sanctuary built by Islam, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, has an elaborate, formal inscription in classical Arabic set in mosaic around its inner walls. It says in part “O you People of the Book, overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed into Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from his glory that he should have a son.”
Clearly this is also a charge to the devout Muslim not to accept the distinctive teachings of Christians about God and Jesus. Yet, ironically, it refers to Jesus as the Messiah (the Christ) and as the Word of God.
Islam holds Jesus in high esteem, but does not see Jesus as Christianity does. The Qur’an has many references to Jesus. Many accord with Christian belief – that Jesus was foretold by John the Baptist, was born of a virgin, Mary, worked miracles, was rejected by his own people and will come again at the end of time.
Other references to Jesus in the Qur’an are not accepted by Christians – that Jesus was not killed but miraculously spared by God, that Jesus announced the coming of Muhammad and that Jesus denied that he ever called himself God.
For Muslims, Jesus has an outstanding place among the prophets, second only to that of Muhammad. But, unlike Mary, Jesus does not have a great role to play in the religious and devotional life of Muslims.
Perhaps this is because, from the Muslim point of view, the followers of Jesus have exaggerated his life, committed blasphemy by divinizing him, and done terrible things to Muslims over the centuries under the banner of Jesus’ cross.
Since the absolute transcendence of God is a core belief and teaching of Islam, the Christian assertion that Jesus is both true man and true God is contradictory, unintelligible, and repugnant to Muslims.
Here too, Christians are so used to professing their faith that Jesus is “true God and true man” that they don’t realize how baffling the juxtaposition of these words may sound to those who do not share their faith.
Historically, the followers of Jesus came to this insight of faith with the aid of the Holy Spirit. After Jesus’ resurrection his disciples understood that the Jesus whom they had known and loved was Savior and Lord.
Muslims err if they think that Christians profess faith in the deification of a man, Jesus; Christians believe that God himself became man out of love. This is the mystery of the Incarnation.
Some early Christian Arabs used an analogy to explain Jesus. Muslims believe that the Word of God is eternal in God and was revealed in scripture – the holy Qur’an. Christians believe that the Word of God is eternal in God and was revealed in a human being – Jesus the Christ. The Eternal Word became not a book, but a man.

Understanding the Cross

In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul boldly proclaimed: “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God . . . we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
Of course these words were written about 600 years before the birth of Islam, but they apply to Muslims, for whom Christ crucified is indeed a stumbling block and foolishness.
It is inconceivable for them that God would allow one of his prophets to be killed. All the stories of the prophets, in the Islamic tradition, follow the same pattern: the prophet is sent to a nation and is rejected by it, except for a few; people want to kill the prophet, but he is miraculously saved by God.
The Qur’an itself formally denies that Jesus was really crucified; it states “They [the Jews] did not kill him; they did not crucify him; but they had the impression of doing so.” Muslim tradition is not clear as to how this was achieved, but it firmly holds that God took Jesus up to heaven out of the reach of his enemies and that he will come again at the end of time.
The good Muslim is somewhat like one of the downcast disciples on the road to Emmaus, except that the Muslim is so overwhelmed by the notion of the death of Jesus that he rejects the very fact of it.
The faith of Jesus’ disciples was restored by a recollection of the words of the Hebrew scriptures and the powerful presence of the Lord. The followers of Jesus, strengthened by the resurrection, found rich and varied ways to interpret the meaning of his death on the cross.
The New Testament depicts Jesus as the suffering servant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah; Jesus is the paschal lamb offered in sacrifice for our salvation; Jesus’ blood seals the new covenant between God and the new Israel; Jesus makes the great sin-offering of his life in atonement for his people.
Later Christian theology advanced the notions of Jesus’ paying the penalty of sin to redeem us and Jesus substituting himself in punishment for sinful humankind.
All of this tradition is relatively unknown to devout Muslims. Unless they have the opportunity to learn more about the Jesus not only of the Qur’an but of the Gospels, unless they come to a deep understanding of the dynamics of obedience and love that prompted the Lord to give even his life for his friends, unless they are guided by the Spirit into an understanding of the mystery of the resurrection, their very faith in the power and providence of the one God cannot help but prompt them to recoil from the Christian proclamation of the cross.


(Published in
Catholic Near East, 24:5, September 1998)

Excommunication

There’s a powerful and dramatic scene in the movie, “Becket”, in which Thomas, the Archbishop of Canterbury, surrounded by his monks, solemnly declares his friend and king, Henry, excommunicate.
For most people today this is the kind of image “excommunication” calls to mind. The word seems to have a sort of antique ring to it.
That’s curious since, whether we realize it or not, we ourselves tend rather frequently to excommunicate others.
“Excommunication” means literally “out of communion or union.”
Anytime we leave or break our union with any group of persons we belong to — not just our religious community — we’re excommunicating ourselves.
Anytime we see that another person has chosen to leave or break union with us, we have a right to consider him or her as excommunicate — out of communion by his or her personal choice.
But, anytime we treat or classify another person as lacking any solidarity or union with ourselves through no fault of his or her own — any time we set arbitrary boundaries and place another outside them — we may be excommunicating someone else.
When Pope John Paul II addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York last month, he referred to our fear of difference as we confront one another.
Sometime we’re afraid of others only because they look different from us or speak differently than we do.
Sometimes we fear them because their religion or ways are different from ours.
Sometimes we’re uneasy with them because they are from a different country.

When we’re afraid of someone, we don’t include them within the boundaries of our friends or acquaintances; we don’t feel any solidarity with them; they remain always part of “them” or “those” and never are considered one of “us”.
A lot of people believe this is a good and practical policy to follow.
In a song from the musical, “West Side Story,” one of the young lovers is urged to “stick to your own kind.”
This contradicts the teachings of Jesus.
The entire, evolving Judeo-Christian tradition challenges us to accept every other human person as our sister or brother.
The Gospel urges us to extend our solidarity, concern, and love to include everyone in the whole world.
The mission of Jesus, in which all his disciples share, is to make the whole human race one family.
One way of measuring our maturity and spiritual growth is by how much we expand the boundaries that determine with whom we have relationships and solidarity. When they reach out as far as they can go, there is no one we place outside of communion. There is no one we will excommunicate.
Alas, however, there are people who choose to reject union with God and with others. It’s hard to understand how there still can be people who choose to excommunicate themselves.


(Published in
Catholic Near East, 21:6, November 1995)