Cal Thomas Weighs in on Bush and Universalism...

[Mark]

...here: http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/421531.html

As did (and already noted in another thread) our own BDiddy of BL.Com, an equally fine columnist - maybe even better:
http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2007/10 ... alist.html

[ET]

Yeah, I read Thomas' commentary yesterday. Good read.

[jerryl]

We've been over this before here on this forum. And I don't believe I'm defending GWB, but...

What Thomas, (and Big Daddy) describe as Univeralism isn't what as far as my understanding is univeralism. Univeralism is seeing all religions as equily valid or beliving that ultimatly all people, Christian and non-Christian will ultimatly be reconciled to God. I don't see Bush doing that, unless you're really wanting to streach Bush's words. I think he's been careful in what he's said: 'Islam is a great religion...' take a look at a servey of world religions textbook and Islam gets listed as one of the great world religions. He didn't say it was as good or better than Christianity, just it's 'great'. And can we disagree, 'universaly' that Islam isn't an Abrahamic religion?

And as far as different doctrins, Bush doesn't deny that. And we have significatly different docterines than Judasim, but that doesn't mean we don't worship the same God.

This doesn't mean that Islam doesn't have, IMHO, an extreamly, extreamly flawed view of God.

jerryl

[Haruo]

Islam isn't an Abrahamic faith, it's Ibrahimic. No connection.

Haruo
universalist of sorts

[Timothy Bonney]

Islam isn't an Abrahamic faith, it's Ibrahimic. No connection.

Haruo
universalist of sorts

ROTFL

[Big Daddy Weaver]

The president is the most openly evangelical Christian and faithful churchgoer since Jimmy Carter.

Well, that my friends is not true. Clinton was quite open about his faith and from my understanding was in church on Sunday mornings. I've read that Bush is not a regular churchgoer when in DC. But I know he's not a regular churchgoer when in Crawford.

President Bush is wrong -- dangerously wrong -- in proclaiming that all religions worship the same God.

I didn't realize that all religions actually worship A god? Buddhism comes to mind. Some members of the world's third largest religion - Hinduism - don't worship a god or gods. Perhaps these eastern religions don't fit Cal or Dubya's definition of "religion"

But about the universalism...in my post I put pluralism in quotations next to universalism. Syndicated columnist Terry Mattingly accused Bush of universalism over at GetReligion. I linked to that story and questioned whether universalism was the appropriate word. Bush seems to be a pluralist to me.

As he said during the Charlie Gibson interview a few years ago:

Charlie Gibson: Do we all worship the same God, Christians and Muslims?

President Bush: I think we do. We have different routes of getting to the Almighty.

Charlie Gibson: Do Christians and non-Christians, do Muslims go to heaven in your mind?

President Bush: Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there.

That exchange makes Bush sound like a pluralist but not necessarily a universalist.

As a side note, Terry Mattingly grew up a Texas Baptist (his father was a TB pastor), went to the Church-State Studies program here at Baylor, moved to Charlotte to work as a religion journalist, and eventually left the Baptist church over the universalism position taken by Myers Park Baptist Church in North Carolina where Mattingly was a member. His article, Why I Am No Longer a Southern Baptist, is quite interesting. Mattingly now belongs to a parish of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America located in Maryland - a long long way from his Texas Baptist/Baylor roots.

[Haruo]

President Bush is wrong -- dangerously wrong -- in proclaiming that all religions worship the same God.

All major religions (and most minor ones) have room for people who worship the same God. Which God? The One Whose will is done when true religion is practiced, and widows and orphans are cared for and selves are kept unspotted from the world. James 1:27. All major religions (and most minor ones) also have plenty of people ready to act as their spokesperoffspring* who neither practice nor promote what James in this inspired scripture identifies as true religion.

Haruo

*spokesperoffspring is the inclusive-language, non-sexist, non-ageist transmogrification of "spokesman/spokesmen" (btw)

[Jim]

This is the definition of universalism: a theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved (Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th edition). Bush was not using universalism as a point of reference in what he said. I think he was dead wrong, not because of that, but because he indicated that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God. Allah, the god of Islam, was/is a construct of Mohammed, said to have been a sixth-century illiterate who dictated the Koran to someone who could write, and borrowed freely from biblical writers. He invented Islam, defined as the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet. Until Mohammed can be found in the Bible as a prophet of God, Islam remains a pagan belief system to the Christian. It doesn’t matter what the Muslim or George Bush thinks.

[Hal Eaton]

Musing on the topic: It seems that some of us'ns believe that there is actually another God who can be worshipped.

To some, our Baptist God routinely responds to attempted worship by "others"* by saying, "Go away, kid, you're calling me by the wrong name, or you're using the wrong words, or you picked the wrong prophet, or your parents raised you wrong."

*"Others" -- Islamites, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans -- and Mormons, Roman Catholics, Methodists, and several non-SBC Baptists, including those not in Cal Thomas's purview or who hold membership in the BWA.

IMO

[rickwright01]

WRIGHT'S SECOND LAW OF EPISTEMOLOGY: A well asked question almost answers itself.

This is the definition of universalism: a theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved (Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th edition). Bush was not using universalism as a point of reference in what he said. I think he was dead wrong, not because of that, but because he indicated that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God. Allah, the god of Islam, was/is a construct of Mohammed, said to have been a sixth-century illiterate who dictated the Koran to someone who could write, and borrowed freely from biblical writers. He invented Islam, defined as the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet. Until Mohammed can be found in the Bible as a prophet of God, Islam remains a pagan belief system to the Christian. It doesn’t matter what the Muslim or George Bush thinks.

R: I think Jim has hit the nail on the head - at least in terms of "what is the immediate issue raised by the article (which in turns cites an issue raised by President Bush)?" I also like how he is careful to distinguish universalism from "same?"

There has been some debate/discussion on this board concerning "is Allah the same as God?" (Also expressed exactly as the article does. "Do Muslims pray to/worship the same God (as Christians)?" Some even replied that Jewish people do not - because of the Trinity.

I have always thought this a tough question if only because... well... what does it mean exactly? The "same God"? Haruo and Hal point out correctly that one can find texts which seem to indicate some overlap between what "others" worship and the one true God who has revealed himself and acted most decisively through his son Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul in Athens. "What you worship as unknown..." The quote from James. And also in Acts - God shows no partiality but accepts everyone who...

Hal's question - are there actually other Gods that can be worshiped? I think the Hebrew and Christian scriptures for the most part would say, "Well yeah. Duh!" There are places where other gods are other deities (real - but they suck compared to Yhwh) or "mere idols" (and therefore theoretically... not real - but they are worshiped as gods). I believe there is tension within Scripture on this, although the "only God is even real" seems to be the dominant position (hence Genesis 1 and exilic/post-exilic theology).

When people answer the "do Muslims worship same God?" question with reference to language - that is where they truly mess up. Linguistically Allah is not more a "different God" than is Dios in Spanish. My Arabic Bible quite plainly translates elohim (meaning Yhwh) or theos (meaning the one God who created heavens and earth) as allah(u). Just because Muslims call God "Allah" absolutely does not mean a different (not-same) God. So some critics of Islam need to be careful there. I think most people on this forum have that figured out.

But when we are careful, we might ask, "The same concept of God? same understanding? conceptualization? story of God?" Latter Day Saints use almost the exact same language. Even to Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But the theology is radically different. The "same"? The Islamic concept of God is also different. (Not sure I am prepared to say "radically".)

How about "the same in terms of a religious idea and its development?" Then one could argue they are indeed the same. Muhammad was trying(?) to follow in the "Abrahamic (Ibrahimic) tradition". He saw Allah/God as a continuation(?) of Yhwh in the Tawra(tu) and the Injil(u) (Torah and Gospel). He saw himself as a prophet of the same deity/God as that of Moses and Jesus. And if one is talking "history of religion", yeah probably the same.

{AN ASIDE - When Christians first formulated a reaction to Islam, they did not see it as a "different religion" but as a Christian heresy. No fooling. Okay - that changed pretty quick, but see 9th century John of Damascus.

I would challenge the use of "pagan" to describe Islam. If by "pagan" you simply mean "not true, not Christian" then fine, but that's not a terribly useful definition of pagan. Call it "false" or "different". But I think we need to use "pagan" more precisely and narrowly. Otherwise the word dismisses without describing anything.}

How about "the same ontologically"? Whether Muslims understand/conceptualize/describe God "correctly" or not - is this the same deity (in terms of the being-that-is-there-getting-worshiped)? I ain't much of a philosopher (got A's but hardly remember anything) and would not know how to answer the question. I'm not quite sure I can agree with Jim that Muhammad "fashioned, created, constructed" Allah. I believe Muhammad had a real experience with a real, powerful, spiritual being/force. (Read any biography of the prophet - such as ibn Tabari - and how Muhammad experiences God and/or Jibrail/Gabriel. I don't think he's imagining anything.) Just not the same, uh, being that we normally call "God". (And no I will not elaborate.) I suppose I would agree with Jim if we mean Muhammad mistakenly called this being "Allah (God)". And especially on the issue of Muhammad borrowing from the Bible (one has to qualify that - he had no Arabic translation, only Syriac, and clearly was borrowing from jumbled second hand oral retellings as well as from non-canonical "pseudo-Christian" writings.)

But the question also leads to "the same in terms of intent?" Ah. Perhaps.

And how about "the same in terms of God's point of view?" Does the God who became human in Jesus Christ (the second person of the Trinity to be more precise) accept worship of Allah/God (that is, Muslim worship) as if it is to himself? Christians of good will debate this. I think Scripture actually seems to answer sometimes yes, sometimes no. (I believe there are "tensions" within Scripture. The challenge is what to do with them.)

How about "phenomenologically the same?" The experience of God? The intent to worship the same God (again - whether correct or not, accepted or not)? This is where I tend to be a bit more "liberal". I would say "Mormonism is not a true Christian religion". But what if a Mormon sincerely believes in (even a deeply flawed understanding of) Jesus as Lord and Savior? Perhaps the Mormon is subjectively a "Christian". I still think their theology is wacked. But do I really know what the heck is going on in the deep places of the heart between that person and Christ? Can one be a follower of Christ with a screwed up theology (Christian or Mormon or...)? Subjectively, I mean.

All of which is a long, messy post intended to argue that the question "the same God or not?" is almost unanswerable unless one is careful to specify "the same in terms of what? theology? linguistics/name? experience? ontology? phenomenology? history of religions? how God accepts or not the worshiper? and so on". Even then - I hardly know how to answer sometimes.

[Haruo]

Until Mohammed can be found in the Bible as a prophet of God, Islam remains a pagan belief system to the Christian. It doesn’t matter what the Muslim or George Bush thinks.

Until the place in the Bible is found where it says either that all true prophets are listed by name in the Bible*, and/or (preferably and) the place where it says that there are no more true prophets on the horizon, plus the place where the Bible defines its own canon, I see no reason to use being named in the Bible as the criterion for determining non-paganness. I don't find Mrs. White mentioned in the Bible, but I don't think that makes the Seventh-Day Adventists pagans.

Haruo

*has anybody ever tried the theory that "the Book of Life" in Revelation is the Bible, and that only people named in the Bible will make the final cut?

[Haruo]

{AN ASIDE - When Christians first formulated a reaction to Islam, they did not see it as a "different religion" but as a Christian heresy. No fooling. Okay - that changed pretty quick, but see 9th century John of Damascus.

I think as late as Dante's Inferno (which roasts Muhammad but good) I think it's safe to say the prevailing view was of M as a Christian heretic, rather than as a pagan. Certainly such a view was common through the period of the Crusades.

Haruo

[Ed Pettibone]

Until Mohammed can be found in the Bible as a prophet of God, Islam remains a pagan belief system to the Christian. It doesn’t matter what the Muslim or George Bush thinks.

Until the place in the Bible where it says either that all true prophets are listed by name in the Bible*, and/or (preferably and) the place where it says that there are no more true prophets on the horizon, plus the place where the Bible defines its own canon, I see no reason to use being named in the Bible as the criterion for determining non-paganness. I don't find Mrs. White mentioned in the Bible, but I don't think that makes the Seventh-Day Adventists pagans.


Ed: Haruo I am inclined to agree with your general thesis here but you example is in my opinion a poor one. I have some serious question about the long term destiny of Mrs. Whites followers. Following her does not make one a Christian. And I do have some friends who are Seventh-Day Adventist, and wonderful people.

[Haruo]

Until Mohammed can be found in the Bible as a prophet of God, Islam remains a pagan belief system to the Christian. It doesn’t matter what the Muslim or George Bush thinks.

Until the place in the Bible where it says either that all true prophets are listed by name in the Bible*, and/or (preferably and) the place where it says that there are no more true prophets on the horizon, plus the place where the Bible defines its own canon, I see no reason to use being named in the Bible as the criterion for determining non-paganness. I don't find Mrs. White mentioned in the Bible, but I don't think that makes the Seventh-Day Adventists pagans.


Ed: Haruo I am inclined to agree with your general thesis here but you example is in my opinion a poor one. I have some serious question about the long term destiny of Mrs. Whites followers. Following her does not make one a Christian. And I do have some friends who are Seventh-Day Adventist, and wonderful people.

Ah, but are they Christians? I don't know. I haven't had a lot of hands-on experience with SDAs. Based on their magazines and hymnals I see no reason to doubt that they are Christians, and my limited direct personal experience of them (their youth choir has performed at Fremont concerts several times), regardless of their position on Mrs. White. But then I think most of the Christian Scientists and Mormons I've run into are Christians, and their prophets are a lot more problematic than Ellen ever was. What is it about the SDAs that you think will interfere with their "long-term destiny" (and I assume you don't mean merely that their churches will need hospice care sooner rather than later)?

Also, be it noted I didn't say that following Muhammad made one a Christian, only that it didn't in my book make one a pagan.

Haruo

[Mark]

To RikRite:
Great stuff, as always. U Duh Man!

To Ed and Haruo:
Who's Mrs. White??

[Haruo]

The woman most responsible for turning the Millerite Great Disappointment into a flourishing denomination, the SDAs. Here's the Wikipedia article on her: Ellen G. White.

An interesting quote:

White is the most translated female non-fiction author in the history of literature as well as the most translated American non-fiction author of either gender.

Of course this assumes that either the Yahwist documents are not non-fiction or that J was not a woman. (tip o' the hat to Harold Bloom)

Haruo

[Haruo]

A bit off topic, but some may find reading the 28 Fundamentals of SDA-ism interesting, in light of the SDA's agreement with Baptist tradition in opposing creedal tests for membership. "Descriptors, not prescriptors", they say.

Haruo

[David Flick]

A bit off topic, but some may find reading the 28 Fundamentals of SDA-ism interesting, in light of the SDA's agreement with Baptist tradition in opposing creedal tests for membership. "Descriptors, not prescriptors", they say.

Haruo

Haruo, I believe SDAs are Christian. Their statement on salvation is definitely Christian. It may not be as orthodox as we Baptists would like it to be, but the theology is definitely Christian.

[Mark]

Haruo, I believe SDAs are Christian. Their statement on salvation is definitely Christian. It may not be as orthodox as we Baptists would like it to be, but the theology is definitely Christian...

And their church/state magazine, Liberty, is one of the best. I've received it for several years. Glad to learn now about Mrs. White.

The Seventh-Day Baptists, btw, did vote recently to remain a part of the Baptist Joint Committee. A few weeks ago, in another thread somewhere, BDiddy informed us that decision was pending.

[Jim]

RW: All of which is a long, messy post intended to argue that the question "the same God or not?" is almost unanswerable unless one is careful to specify "the same in terms of what? theology? linguistics/name? experience? ontology? phenomenology? history of religions? how God accepts or not the worshiper? and so on". Even then - I hardly know how to answer sometimes.

J: Theology: Easy. Accept either the Koran or the Holy Bible. They are mutually exclusive for the Christian; Linguistics/name: compare Allah with the Indian’s Great White Father, then compare both with Yahweh and the Savior (Mohammed not crucified or resurrected or worker of miracles or the Indian with any record at all); Experience: n/a, since mostly dependent upon “feelings,” whereas Paul said transformation is of the MIND; Ontology: n/a, since mystery is evident in ALL un-empirical entities, including Christianity; Phenomenology: the study of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness as a preface to or a part of philosophy, therefore n/a since faith is central to perhaps most religious systems; History of Religions: n/a, since available to only a minute sector of population, either by choice or ignorance; How God accepts worshipper: Plainly stated in scripture and Koran and other beliefs, but only in scripture (and history) through the ministry of Christ.

Each individual seeks his own answers, some with great education and erudition, others with little or none. Other than by his self-revelation in scripture – open to interpretation – God is not known. On the Mount of Transfiguration, God (spirit) appeared with Christ (his earthly manifestation) and human beings either from the dead or alive. Mohammed, Allah’s prophet and only definer, was not there, so neither was Allah. Since pagan more often than not refers to some sort of polytheism, it may not apply as specifically to Islam as other systems, but with its further definition of being obsessed with pleasure, it applies in spades, since it espouses martyrdom by suicide/murder-of-innocents as the penultimate means to ecstasy.

[Dave Roberts]

Bush has enough trouble bein commander-in-chief. He always falls in the soup when he tries to "thologian-in-chief."

[Sandy]

Well, that my friends is not true. Clinton was quite open about his faith and from my understanding was in church on Sunday mornings. I've read that Bush is not a regular churchgoer when in DC. But I know he's not a regular churchgoer when in Crawford.

Actually, Bush has never been a regular churchgoer. He made a few appearances at a Methodist church in Austin when he was governor, a gay-friendly church, as I understand. In Dallas, Laura attended Highland Park UMC regularly, but W. didn't make many appearances. And in D.C., when he does go, he attends St. Johns Episcopal, which is right off the corner of Lafayette Park behind the White House, and is a congregation that is both theologically far to the left, and welcoming and affirming of homosexuals.

Most of his evangelical, conservative apologists don't live in enough of a real world to either acknowledge this, or they simply overlook or deny it.

I'm not aware that Bush has ever attended church when he is home in McLennan County.

[Haruo]

Well, that my friends is not true. Clinton was quite open about his faith and from my understanding was in church on Sunday mornings. I've read that Bush is not a regular churchgoer when in DC. But I know he's not a regular churchgoer when in Crawford.

Actually, Bush has never been a regular churchgoer. He made a few appearances at a Methodist church in Austin when he was governor, a gay-friendly church, as I understand. In Dallas, Laura attended Highland Park UMC regularly, but W. didn't make many appearances. And in D.C., when he does go, he attends St. Johns Episcopal, which is right off the corner of Lafayette Park behind the White House, and is a congregation that is both theologically far to the left, and welcoming and affirming of homosexuals.

Most of his evangelical, conservative apologists don't live in enough of a real world to either acknowledge this, or they simply overlook or deny it.

I'm not aware that Bush has ever attended church when he is home in McLennan County.

Too bad the churches he does occasionally attend have had such a limited and superficial effect on his thinking. If thinking is involved with this man.

Haruo

[Mark]

Experience: n/a, since mostly dependent upon “feelings,” whereas Paul said transformation is of the MIND....

Seems as though there's also something in there about "Love the Lord with all thine HEART....", as well as one's "soul, mind, strength...." etc.

Likewise, there's the longstanding evangelical caveat that a person must "invite Jesus into one's heart"; indeed, to go beyond "mere head knowledge" about Jesus....

[Mark]

I'm not aware that Bush has ever attended church when he is home in McLennan County....

Probably not. But I thought W and Laura were supposedly active at First Methodist in Midland during the years they lived there. No?