Bishop John

Guest blogger Samuel Green has researched and written many articles which have come from his desire to understand Islam and from the many questions that Muslims have raised with him or he has heard Islamic leaders comment on.  His desire is that we all try and work through our differences and agree on God’s will. Here is an extract from his February Newsletter (permission granted).

I would like to talk to you about a new way I have been talking to Christians and Muslims about the Qur’an.

When Christians and Muslims talk it is important to have some similar concepts so that we can appreciate what each other is saying.  I think such a concept is that of the synoptic Qur’ans.  This helps Christians to understand better the nature of the Qur’an and it helps Muslims to understand the nature of the New Testament.

So what do I mean when I talk about the synoptic Qur’ans?

Muhammad never made a collection of the Qur’an; it was his companions who did this and he allowed variation in the way they did it.

Muhammad’s companions made their collections from their own material and a variety of other sources.  These Qur’ans were highly similar yet different.  Some had 111 chapters, others 116.  The chapters were arranged differently and there were differences in the verses themselves.

These different Qur’ans were consistent but each had its own unique character.  In the early history of Islam there were synoptic Qur’ans.

However it was decided that only one of these Qur’ans would be preserved and the others were destroyed and so Islam has one Qur’an today.  It is as if the church got rid of Mark, Luke and John and kept Matthew.

This action of the early Muslims may have made Islam simpler, there is only one Qur’an, but it has made it all the poorer.  Not preserving all these other authentic synoptic Qur’ans removed the testimony of significant companions and how they understood the content and presentation of the Qur’an.  Again, imagine how much poorer Christianity would be if it had only preserved the Gospel according to Matthew?

Also, the more evidence you destroy the less confident you can be.  Removing the testimony of the other authentic synoptic Qur’ans means we have less material to work with and this can only led to less confidence.

Finally, Muslims have said to me, “There were 30 Gospels and Christians only kept four.  What about the others?”   The early Christians had good reasons for keeping the Gospels they did; these were the authentic Gospels, but this question can equally be asked of the Muslims.  There are over a dozen different Qur’ans from which only one was selected; what about the others?  But the situation is actually worse for Islam.  Christians preserved what was authentic, four Gospels, while Muslims destroyed what was authentic and just kept one version of the Qur’an.

Speaking about the Qur’an in these synoptic categories is advantageous because it is an accurate descripts of what happened and it also provides categories to help Christians and Muslims understand better the nature of their scriptures.

A fuller version is available at: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/01/jesus-gospels-and-synoptic-qurans.html

Your brother in Christ, Samuel Green

More information on Samuel’s work is available at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/

The February edition of Tasmanian Anglican is now in circulation.  I encourage you to read some of the articles included in this latest edition.

In this issue

In drafting the Introduction to this study on the Book of Jonah last year, I posted a Facebook update. It was a stream of consciousness, a brainstorm of my early thoughts about the book. I’ve taken the advice of some of my Facebook friends and have kept this stream of consciousness as the Introduction.

I am currently writing an introduction to some studies on the Book of Jonah. “Why do I like the story line?” Well, Jonah is soooo ridiculous (reminds me of me!), God is soooo compassionate, the fish is soooo BIG, the fisherman call on God when Jonah won’t, the Ninevite Baddies repent, the bush and the worm and the worm of a man/disciple – I love it! My imagination runs riot! Just wonderful!

But did Jonah repent of his narrow minded view of the world and see the world as God sees it? Now, that’s a question for me! – Oops! Suddenly the Book has got a little toooo relevant for little ole ridiculously reluctant me/disciple. Shame.

And so to prayer and greater commitment:

Thank you Holy Spirit for inspiring the writing of ‘Jonah’ and for continuing to work wonders in God’s world and among God’s reluctant and often ridiculous people. In Christ’s mercy continue to work (gently!) on me. Amen.

You will find an historical and biblical introduction to the Book of Jonah, from the NIV Study Bible, here.

Lenten Booklet edited by Santaseelan Packianathan : Five Studies on Jonah based on the following devotionals:

Sixteen (16) daily devotionals plus the abovementioned information is at http://imaginarydiocese.org/bishopjohn/studies/jonah/

Dr Toffler’s letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the New Hampshire, USA, Assisted Suicide Bill HB 1325:

Dear Members of the Committee:

I am a doctor in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. As a
professor of Family Medicine and practicing physician in Oregon for
over 30 years, I write to urge you to not make Oregon’s mistake and
vote No on HB 1325.

I understand that there was a question during your recent hearing
regarding the appropriateness of suicide prevention with a terminal
patient. Terminal patients, like other patients, will sometimes
express suicidal desires and ideation. Terminal patients, like other
patients do not necessarily mean it and may even want you to say
“no.” They may also be clinically depressed, i.e., colloquially not
in their “right minds.” With this situation, suicide prevention is
not only appropriate, but necessary to provide good medical care and
to avoid discrimination based on the patient’s quality of life as
perceived by the doctor.

In my practice, I have had well over twenty patients ask me about
participating in their suicides or giving them information about
assisted suicide. In every case I have explored the issues behind
their request, and then assured them that I will provide their
medical care to the best of my ability. At the same time, I also
strive to reflect and convey their inherent worth and my inability to
collude with their request to help end their life. I remember one
case in particular, the man’s response was “Thank you.”

To read more about that case and some of my other cases in Oregon,
please read my statement to the BBC, since re-titled as “What do
People Mean When They Say they Want to  Die?”
<http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/what-people-mean_25.html>http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/what-people-mean_25.html

Please vote No on HB 1325,

Thank you,

William L. Toffler MD
Professor of Family Medicine

See further submission, http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11551523.htm

Guest Blogger Jonathan Hogarth and I first met when training at St Andrew’s Hall before Jonathan and his family left for service through the Church Missionary Society (CMS) in Africa. I always found his theological reflection thorough, challenging and pastoral. I share his recent writing on Borg for your stimulation and as a fine example of critical review.

Borg’s “The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith” [Harper and Collins, 2004]
by Jonathan Hogarth,[Th.Schol, M.A.]

In his book Marcus Borg attempts to explain the doctrinal and ethical bases of a quite recent movement in the churches that in the text is politely referred to as “the emerging paradigm”. However in his dedication it is referred to as “progressive Christianity.” This is a term I have already encountered in various churches and is meant in contrast to conservative evangelical, Bible believing, Christianity. As you read you are left in no doubt he thinks the latter is regressive, though that inference is mine.

My review covers the main topics discussed by Borg, namely, the authority of the Bible, God, Jesus, the death of Christ and the shape of the Christian life today. It is good to have the chance to critique a presentation of one of the latest faces of liberalism, that is already promoted in the Australian church, though Borg eschews that description of his work.

I also take up the important issue of how religious language is used. This is a very important underlying aspect of Borg’s work though he does not dwell on it in the book. I argue that his reliance on metaphor as an overarching description of much of the Bible’s language, and indeed of Jesus as a metaphor of “a life lived for God” involves a fundamental error that I try to elucidate at some length.

Full Review: pdf

Extract:

Marcus Borg’s chief aim in this book is to so present the Christian faith that his conception of “the modern rational man” will be able to understand it. He believes a lot of what currently passes for Christianity is unintelligible to rational people.

Borg primarily uses the tool of metaphor to accomplish this task. Much of what he terms metaphorical is so called to give him the latitude he needs to reinterpret its message. In doing this he makes the fundamental error of divorcing much of his metaphorical reinterpretation from their referents in the narratives of the biblical text. Narrative is the genre of personal identity. God’s narrative tells us about his character. When we come to faith in Christ God’s narrative becomes ours by His grace and His Spirit. Borg thinks metaphor assists him to overcome the intellectual process of believing “facts” in the Bible, a characteristic he associates with “the earlier paradigm” of Christianity that he wishes to supercede. However to have identifiable meaning metaphor has referents. These occur in the associated narratives, primarily the Penteteuch [Genesis to Deuteronomy and the gospels, and Acts]. Loose the metaphors from this context and you can do with them what you like. Borg also uses the concepts “historical” and “sacramental” in other than usual ways to help him relativise the content of Christianity for his rationalising aims.

When discussing traditional views of God he believes traditional doctrines of a transcendent God make Him distant. Following many recent liberals, and New Age spiritualists, he adopts panentheism. This is an advance on many gods [pantheism] to God in everything, the world being the fabric of divinity. This for him brings God nearer. But a God who is in everything rather than an holy ‘other’ does not come personally in love and grace to create, sustain, judge, redeeem and save the world he made. Rather the panentheists god who is thereby present in every phenomenon of every religion in the same way, leads him to believe we are all climbing up the same mountain by different paths.

As Borg removed the divine aspect from the Bible so with Jesus whose divinity in His consciousness and His actions is removed. He becomes almost entirely a figure of his time politically and socially. Borg thinks this makes Him a real person to us again. He also reconfigures the death of Christ away from its traditional redeeeming function, describing such belief as a creation of the faith of the post Easter church. For Borg Jesus presence is not closely related to the Holy Spirit. He is just one of the many metaphors and sacraments of the presence of God, though the best one! The Holy Spirit is not the risen, living presence of Jesus in the church’s life, the second person of the Holy Trinity, that we see in the Acts of the Apostles.

Understandably Borg is at his best when discussing the shape of the Christian life. This is because it is practical. Its not so much about believing as reflecting and acting [conscientisation]. His notion of praxis is closely related to his understandimg of the Kingdom of God, which is the theatre of the political relevance of God’s passion for justice. It tackles injustice in every form. This is for Borg the inspiration and path of growing toward the God with whom he thinks we have always been in relationship since birth.

However as he consistently does, Borg criticises Christians of the earlier paradigm for having ignored praxis for a concentration on bringing people to “believe.” It is only when he gets to discuss worship as an elememt of praxis [a total response to God] that a problem with his approach rears up. For Borg worship is not an “intellectual exercise” not about “thinking of the meaning of words”, and “not propositional but sacramental.” I suggest he needs a both/and approach here. No worship nor sacrament of the Christian church should be entered unthinkingly. Sacramental is not usually used over and against propositional but it has to so be for Borg’s rationale. Borg wants to be freed from the bondage of traditional propositions. In wide applications of his three key words metaphorical, historical (dated), and sacramental he has cut himself so far free that what he ends up with cannot be called or even seen to be based on historic Christianity. I think it closely resembles a description of some liberal approaches in the words of the great theologian Karl Barth, namely, that it represents “flat tyre Christianity.”