Tip gathered from this morning's sermon: If you should ever find yourself writing a sermon on how salvation in Christ cannot be lost, making 2 Peter 2 your main text will be awkward.
"These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity- for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and, 'A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.'"
Presuming that all of us are hellbound before knowing Jesus as Lord, and further presuming that hell is a rather rotten place, it's difficult for me to see how "worse off at the end than they were at the beginning" translates to "still going to heaven, but Jesus might frown a bit." The preacher argued that the folks who "return to their own vomit" were never really saved to begin with, which seems to me to make a mess of what it means to escape "the corruption of the world by knowing" Jesus. I guess you'd have to "know" Jesus in a nonsalvific way, which is all kinds of problematic.
I'm intrigued by the paralleling between being mastered by corruption and knowing the Lord Jesus, though. Last night, I went to an evening service at a Wesleyan church -OMGIWTAWC!*- where the sermon title was "Do Christians And Muslims Worship The Same God?" I won't spoil the fun by giving the answer away too quickly; we need to be gracious to even those heathen Muslims who worship some other God. (Some Allah fellow, or so I hear.)
The Wesleyan preacher started off with similarities between (conservative) Christianity and Islam, such as respecting prophets, devotion to prayer and helping the poor, belief in heaven, hell, and angels, reverencing a holy book, and denouncing sexual immorality, pornography, abortion, provocative dress, and the use of alcohol.** Chief among these similarities, though, is monotheism. Christians and Muslims share the belief in only one God, which unites us.***
However, while Christians believe that God is our Father, personally and intimately involved in our lives, the Koran carries no mention of Allah as Father. In fact, it's considered blasphemous to refer to Allah as a Father, because it insinuates that He had sex with your mother.**** Even though the Koran is clear that Allah is a provider and caretaker of all creation -that's what was said in the sermon, anyway- the missing relational aspect of fatherhood clearly delineates between the two visions of God.*****
The sermon went on in this vein, discussing doctrinal differences between how salvation is gained, understandings of the person and work of Jesus, and the nature of our hope in the next life. Important differences between Islam and (conservative) Christianity were noted in detail, but they only contributed to the argument that (conservative) Christians and Muslims worship different gods if it is assumed that worship works like firing a gun, where a change in the alignment of the muzzle will affect the direction of the bullet.****** No case was made, so far as I heard, that worship of the Christian God can only be obtained by doctrinal purity, and without that case all the carefully noted distinctions between (conservative) Christianity and Islam become irrelevant.
The similarity that I found myself considering this morning, though, is in that idea of mastery. Both Islam and Christianity, at least in some strains, emphasize being in submission under the will of God. As for which God, President Bush seems to think that Christians and Muslims do worship the same God, and Jon Levenson argues that "since monotheism means that there is only one God, no monotheist can ever accuse anyone -- certainly not another monotheist -- of worshiping another god, only (at most) of improperly identifying the one God that both seek to serve."
*Oh My Gracious, I Went To A Wesleyan Church! I'm sure the new net-acronym will catch on eventually.
**And I quote: "We have more in common with Muslims than with some ultra-liberal Christians." Likely true, although I'm not sure that reflects as well on his brand of 'orthodox Christianity' as he thinks.
***Notably, Muslims think that we're polytheists, due to the doctrine of the Trinity. But what do they know?
****What's a deity without a sex scandal, really?
*****And I quote, again: "It just doesn't make logic to say they're the same God." Personally I prefer to make logic out of Play-Doh and shiny pebbles; probably this is why I'm not a Wesleyan.
******I recognize that this is a terrible metaphor for worship. Better versions would be appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
First off, 6 points for the subject title. I am feeling generous. :)
Secondly, Eryn has mentioned several times over the past few years that the distinctive she has noticed most between Muslims and Christians is the ability to refer to God as Father. The idea that we can call ourselves children of God is a radical one to a follower of Islam, at least according to one who has grown up interacting with them. I find this interesting. It sounds like the pastor was getting at this, but may have strayed somewhat from its significance.
Third, 2 points for the use of stars. Don't spend them all in one place ;)
"We have more in common with Muslims than with some ultra-liberal Christians." In another context, I might say, "That Friend speaks my mind." And, as an ultra-liberal Christian, I haven't heard a sermon on 2 Peter 2 lately, but the proposed topic sounds familiar.
By the way, have I mentioned that I like Jon Levenson?
Can I say that theologically we have nothing in common with Muslims? And if one thinks that they have more in common with one than they do a liberal Christian they should examine their faith.
I am joined to those who have received the atoning work of God through the sacrifice of His Son for my sins. I disagree with many Christian sects but not as much as those who are not part of the Body.
On another note. I remembered your post about not dancing when I went to a Oneness Pentacostal church (I did not know that's what it was until I left.) They dance but have similar laws on makeup and dress.
Seems to me that there are some substantial similarities, Carl, or at least intriguing ones. The question, at least for the Wesleyan fellow, wasn't so much about whether such similarities existed but whether or not Muslims were sufficiently similar to Christians to be included in salvation. Salvation being the prerequisite for true worship, a Muslim could only truly worship God if s/he were saved.
A Prius is similar to a tow truck, in that they're both motorized vehicles, but noting their similarities doesn't involve claiming that the Prius could tow your car across town. I think that's the attitude with which the preacher approached the similarities between Christianity and Islam, that the similarities were worth noting but were outweighed by the differences.
One interesting thing that didn't make it into my overlong post is the Koran's teachings on the sinless perfection and imminent return of Jesus. I haven't read all of those references yet, but they're on my to-do list.
So, what was the Oneness church like?
Not sure if you are familiar with the oneness pentecostal church (google can solve that for you). The service itself was not odd. My wife and I were about an hour form our house near where we had seen a large pentecostal church that we had wanted to visit. It happened to be sunday evening and as we were driving by we saw it was the beginning of service. We were dressed pretty casual but we figured for Sunday night it would ok.
About five minutes into it my wife noticed that there was not a woman in pants in the church (other than her). The place was about half full and I guess it could seat ~800.
All the women had long hair and no makeup. There was exuberant worship, which we liked but something was not quite right. We left at the end of worship because it was getting late.
On the way home we read in their literature about how the women obey God by not cutting their hair. That's when I though of the no dancing.
Post a Comment