From God

From God
Originally uploaded by Sbmoot.

Both Christianity and Islam have scriptural documents that they consider to be the Word of God. In some ways, in fact, Christians and Muslims believe the same things about their scriptures: they were revealed by God to prophets or others who recorded the revelation and passed it down to future generations. Each religion says that by looking into the text of the revealed document (the Bible, the Qur'an), a person can learn something of the mind of God, and how humans ought to live their lives - indeed, what it means to be human.

But the similarity can't be extended too far. The Qur'an was revealed to one person - the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and to nobody else. It is the final and supreme self-expression of God to humanity. God, in a sense, is incarnate in the pages of the Qur'an - every word, every letter of the text, especially in the original Arabic, is sacred as a result. It is a terrible blasphemy to disturb or damage the text of the Qur'an (or even, in some interpretations, a text containing text from the Qur'an ... or even the word Qur'an itself!). This is the Book of books. Other religions (Christianity, Judaism) also have revelations from God. Prophets from God have spoken to us before Muhammad (PBUH), and have contributed to scriptural documents (hence the Muslim designation of Christians and Jews as people of the book). But the Holy Qur'an is special.

The Bible is not as important to Christians as the Qur'an is to Muslims. This is for a very good reason: to Christians, Jesus is the final and ultimate expression of God to humanity, and the Bible merely points the way to him. Damaging a Bible might be deeply offensive to Christians. However, it wouldn't affect them the way damaging a Qur'an would affect Muslims. In a Muslim country like Pakistan, you could cause a riot (literally!) by deliberately damaging a Qur'an. Such an act would not just be an attack on the faith, and not merely offensive to believers: it would be an attack God himself. My old Bible is all marked up with pen, marginal notes, words circled etc. I doubt there are many Qur'ans like that.

Christians who take the Bible too seriously, in fact, are sometimes accused of "Biblolatry" - Bible worship - which is a form of idol worship. Don't get me wrong here: the Bible is from God according to Christians. It's just not from God in the same way, for Christians, as the Holy Qur'an is from God according to Muslims.

This is not surprising. The Bible is not the work of one person. It was written by many different people over thousands of years, and gathered together by editors into a single, more or less coherent text. To understand it fully clearly requires a basic knowledge of the various cultural backgrounds of the different peoples whose cultures produced it, and the kinds of literature they employed in their self-expressions. One of these self-expressions is the idea that a Messiah would come to save the people and lead them. The Bible is not from that Messiah, however. It is, in part at least, about him.

So the different religions approach their basic texts differently.

Nevertheless, the use of the text can be similar! Look at the texts in the image here (or look at this bigger image). They both talk, in surprisingly (is it surprising?) similar terms, of the role of the scriptural document in the life of the believer. These religions, in the end, might have more in common than people nowadays tend to believe.

At least, that's what I think.

Jewish Life and symbols - the Mezuzah

Special Mezuzah
Originally uploaded by kf4kco.

Every Jewish home has a "mezuzah" on the door to the house. This is a small box or cylinder containing a text from the Torah, which acts as a blessing on the home and those who enter it. It is a tradition I have always thought was very beautiful. Here in Montreal, there are lots of rental units with mezuzahs on the doors, but no jews living there - they are often painted over and so on... because the jewish tenants left without taking the mezuzah and nobody else thought it should be taken down (or they didn't care).

The photo on the right is an image of a mezuzah scroll.

Below is the text of the scroll inside the Mezuzah. It is from Deuteronomy Chapter 6. The first paragraph is called the "Shema" and was identified by Jesus as the greatest commandment - the summation of God's law.

Hear, O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is one. You shall love the L-rd, your G-d, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources. And these things that I command you today shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you go on the way, when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm and they shall be an ornament between your eyes. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

And it will be that if you hearken to my commandments that I command you today, to love the L-rd, your G-d, and to serve him with all your hearts and all your souls. And I will place rain for your land in its proper time, the early and the
late rains, that you may gather in your grain, your wine, and your oil. And I will provide grass in your field for your cattle, and you will eat and you will be satisfied. Watch yourselves, lest your heart be seduced and you turn astray and serve other gods, and prostrate yourselves to them. And the wrath of G-d will be upon you, and he will restrain the heaven and there will be no rain, and the ground will not yield its produce, and you will be lost quickly from upon the good land that G-d gives you. And you shall place these words of mine on your hearts and on your souls, and you shall bind them as a sign upon your arms and they shall be ornaments between your eyes.

our door
frame
Originally uploaded by ratterrell.

And you shall teach them to your children to discuss them, when you sit in your house and when you go on the way, and when you lie down and when rise up. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates, in order to prolong your days and the days of your children upon the good land that G-d swore to your fathers to give them, like the days of Heaven over earth.

And here is an image of a Mezuzah - kind of a nice one, actually. The scroll is inside this.

Jesus on a dinosaur!

Beginner's Bible Coloring Book!
Originally uploaded by The Searcher.

So yes, the picture on the right is pretty obviously a parody. And a good one.

Why is it so funny, though? Good parody takes something real, adds an implausible twist, and presents it as though serious. This is a case of social criticism (against the scientific illiteracy promoted by some fundamentalist Christians and the debate over whether creationism should be taught to children in science class). I don't think anyone has ever actually taught children that Jesus might have ridden a dinosaur - but there are people who teach children that humans and dinosaurs lived together 6,000 years ago, and perhaps more recently. So all you have to do is tug on the worldview a bit, extend it, and presto! Clever images.

If you understand what it means to have a worldview - what it means to say that you have a worldview - then you can analyze things like this more effectively. How do you know the things you think you know (such as it is silly to think that Jesus might have ridden a dinosaur - the doctrinal dimension of your world view)? Why is it wrong to fail to teach genuine science to children (the ethical dimension)? Do those you are criticizing share your analysis? How can you connect to them, allowing you to engage in dialogue with them as an internal critic, rather than preaching at them from the outside? I have a feeling this image, funny as it is, addresses people who already agree with its message (that creationism is foolish and should not be taught to children), and will just insult those who disagree (by which I mean those whose worldviews tell them that evolution is a pernicious lie).

But now, take a look at the next image, below and on the left, which is from an American peace rally.

This is not parody. It is deadly serious, and very powerful. The question is, why? I would argue that this is a case in which social criticism is being done more from the inside.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
Originally uploaded by digitalgrace.

First, the slogan is obviously a take-off of "What would Jesus do?" - a saying that is so common among American evangelical Christians that there are bumper stickers and lapel pins that say simply "WWJD" and everyone knows what it means. Second, the fellow is dressed as - might actually be - a priest or minister. Third, the protester's sign introduces a kind of cognitive dissonance: Jesus, the "Prince of Peace" who famously blessed the peacemakers and condemned those who live by the sword, versus his followers who make war, all the while claiming to follow in his footsteps.

  Jesus said: but I tell you who hear me:
  Love your enemies,
  do good to those who curse you,
  pray for those who mistreat you.
  ... Do to others 
  as you would have others do to you. 
  (Luke 6:27-28; 31) 

So... let us bomb only those Jesus would bomb. As internal social criticism, I think this is brilliant.

Think worldviews again: here we have the ethical dimension of a Christian's worldview being appealed to by pointing out contradictions in the behaviour of those who hold to a creed (doctrinal dimension) but don't live up to it. Meanwhile, the social dimension of the same worldview makes the message more powerful because the priest's clothing, which is instantly recognized, brings out the contradiction (the parish priest being the counsellor and, in a sense, peacemaker for the Christian community). It is probable that elements of the ritual dimension are also appealed to. Seeing how this (and more) is at work in this image can help us to understand why this social criticism is so powerful.

A Final Note: The artist responsible for the dinosaur picture says he disagrees that his image is an example of external social criticism. It's possible that he is an internal critic - to know for sure, I'd have to know something about what community within the US he is from. If he grew up in a fundamentalist family, or became a fundamentalist at some point in his life, or something like that, he might be considered an internal critic if he still "feels" that community well enough to identify with it or at least "speak its language" (but the tone of the parody tells me he isn't very sympathetic). The other thing I'd need to know is what his intended audience is - I inferred that it was people who already think that Creationism and Biblical literalism are wrong, but perhaps he also means to convince Creationists (and literalists) themselves. I would say that as parody reinforcing a point of view, this image is likely to be very effective, but it's unlikely to convince any actual Creationists. I could be wrong about that, of course, and saying it doesn't in any way detract from the value of it as a contribution to an important social debate in the United States.

On the other hand, the artist had to know some pretty intimate details about the Creationist viewpoint to even think of parodying it in this way.

Remember the definitions of "internal" and "external" social criticism here: the internal critic points out problems from within the community in question (in this case, I'd say the community of conservative Christians) - something I don't see the 'dino' image doing abut which I do see the 'priest' image doing. The external critic (no less legitimately, but from a different angle) points out the problems from outside the community in question. The former criticism is usually more effective (in the sense of convincing people) than the latter, since it speaks more directly to the worldview of the audience. I think the priest image is internal and the 'dino' image is external, but a closer analysis of the work of each artist could prove me wrong. Nevertheless, I chose these two images because I thought they were both excellent examples of the kind of thing social critics do.

What do you think? Leave a comment!

For other comments, click on the pictures.

A non-academic aside.

Brick Kiln Worker near Wagah Pakistan
Originally uploaded by Sbmoot.

I took this photo in December, 2006 while returning from the border ceremony at Wagah, near Lahore. I find myself returning to this face very often - something about the man himself, and the portrait, seems to have become part of me.

He is a worker in one of the brick kilns that dot the landscape in northern Punjab, where they use the red clay to make the bricks used in construction all over Pakistan. I had wanted to have a look inside one of these places for a while, and my driver stopped spontaneously, suggesting we go in. I was only there for about 10 minutes, but it was enough to confirm that I am very glad this is not my lot in life.

Many (some say most or all) of the workers at these kilns are essentially slaves - bonded-debt labourers. I don't know what this young man's status is, but I fear he is in that group. Like most Pakistanis he was very happy about having his picture taken by a Western visitor, and when I showed him his own face on the back of my digital camera, he squealed with delight and ran off laughing. I still think of him often.

So today I went back to Photoshop and revised the portrait with the intent of putting him more in the forefront, somewhat out of context, the way memories become decontextualized sometimes, or acquire new contexts when they become very important. This is the result.

Liberal Arts : Reflection Papers

The Textmarker
Originally uploaded by True_Bavarian.

I had a chance to speak with several of you about the reflection paper, and to see a couple of rough drafts. Drawing on those conversations and rough drafts, here are some tips for writing the reflection paper.

First, the text by Ninian Smart that I handed out was the basis for a lecture at the beginning of the term (second week - you should have notes, which might help you to flesh it out a bit). I'll go into a little more detail in another entry. For now, the point is that this text is not the basis for the paper. It is a touchstone - intended to provide you with some basic ideas that you can use when answering the question. Yes, the question uses Smart's typology of "dimensions" of a world view, and yes, you need to correctly use one of his "dimensions" when writing. Nevertheless, you do not have to refer directly to the text while writing the paper, and you certainly don't need to quote it if you don't want to.

Remember that you are not writing about why one dimension is better than the others, or why one illustrates the others better, or anything like that. Ask yourself something like one of these questions: which of these dimensions is most useful or most powerful or most illuminating or ... whatever (pick one or make up one of your own) ... for understanding a religion or for living a religion or for believing in a religion (or whatever else you think matters) ... and so on.

Second, while you don't have to do research to do this paper, you may do so. However, if you do, you have to be sure to give proper references using MLA format, and a properly formatted bibliography (also MLA). This includes Biblical quotations. (And yes, you may use the Bible or any other scriptural text, such as the Qur'an).

So how do you structure the paper? Here are some tips.

• Once you have chosen the main point you want to defend (for example, "The doctrinal dimension of a religious worldview is the most important dimension"), you must offer an argument to defend that point.

• Remember that an argument must always have two elements: (1) the conclusion you are trying to prove and (2) one or more premises (or 'reasons') in support of that conclusion. If you have forgotten how to structure an argument, you should review your humanities notes from last semester or communicate with me.
  
• Your paper should contain one main argument in favour of the point you're defending (which is, incidentally, your thesis). This argument may consist of any number of premises, but it must be offered systematically. More on that in a moment. Your paper may also include as many sub-arguments as you consider necessary. A sub-argument is an argument used to prove the truth (or reasonableness) of a premise in the main argument.

• Remember that terminology means something. Be sure to know the meanings of words you use. If this seems like a minor point - it's not. I'll read the words you use, not the words I think you probably intended.
• Similar point: Grammar! I have only made grammar, spelling, etc. worth 1/10. However, grammar affects meaning, and meaning affects the overall impact of your paper. If you don't write what you meant because of bad grammar or word choice, this will affect the mark for the analysis.

  Remember the old example of the sentence whose meaning is reversed by the addition of a comma: "A woman lacking a man is nothing" means something offensive to women. "A woman lacking, a man is nothing" means something offensive to men. Grammar (or punctuation, in this case) always matters.

• Finally, don't sweat too much about what point you are defending. You don't have to defend what you actually believe! Produce the argument you think will work best. Be systematic, clear, and concise. Then you should be fine.
• And try to have fun with it. It's actually kind of interesting to think about these things.

LA Religion - New Online form

Just a quick note: all my LA Religion students who haven't yet finished the essay approval process (that's most of you) can use an online form, available in the "my documents" section at the college webpage (obviously, in the section for our class). It's clearly labeled as an online form. You can fill it out and send it to me by email - and depending on when I receive it, I'll either write comments on it and give it to you physically, or I'll fire back an email with comments. Either way, this will hopefully speed up the process, at least for some of you.

Theophany - Epiphany

Ok, so in the references I put up on the Champlain College website for my Liberal Arts religion class, I mentioned several cases of "theophany" - a term I'm using where Karen Armstrong usually says "epiphany" in A History of God. The terms are very closely linked, but not identical.

A "theophany" is a visible manifestation of God or a god. (Etymology: ancient Greek 'theos' - god + 'phainein' - to show).

An "epiphany" is a manifestation of a supernatural or divine being. (Etymology: ancient Greek epiphainein - "to reveal").

(both definitions are from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary).

Now, the word "theophany" is more limited in scope than "epiphany". The latter word also has a more personal, spiritual meaning - a moment of special insight or discovery. So you might say "I was in the shower thinking about my religion class, and I had an epiphany", and you haven't said anything dirty. You have said that something came to you or you had a flash of clarity - something like that. Whereas, if you say you had a theophany in the shower, well, it means that God or a god was showering with you. Ick.

I think Armstrong likes the word "Epiphany" for the old testament theophanies for two reasons: they're not always of God or a god, in which case epiphany is the better word, and (more important) her emphasis as the book develops is on the experience of God in the inner life of the believer and the community of believers. So manifestations of God are more inner than outer. They involve self-exploration more than looking outward to the universe. Or so Armstrong seems to think.