Following the common consensus, Lewis dates the modern history of the Middle East from 1798. It was then that General Napoleon Bonaparte easily conquered Egypt and temporarily ruled it. Bonaparte told the Egyptians he represented a French Republic based on liberty and equality.

Equality is integral to Islamic belief, though this does not apply to three “inferior” categories of humanity: slaves, unbelievers and women. Islam never developed anything corresponding to the caste system of India or privileged European aristocracies.

But in Arabic “liberty” was not a political but a legal term, not referring to good government. After an Egyptian sheikh al-Tahtawi, spent time in Paris, he equated the French concept of freedom with the Muslim concept of justice.
 

Is Western-Style Freedom Transferable?

There are two main views on this in the US and Europe:

1. Islamic peoples are incapable of civilized government and doomed to be ever ruled by tyrants. Departments of state and foreign offices typically believe the aim of foreign policy should be to make sure they are our well-disposed towards them rather than hostile. Since this expresses ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present and unconcern for the Arab future, it is ironic that this is called the “pro-Arab” view. 
2. Since Arab ways are different from ours they must be allowed to develop their own culturally compatible version of democracy – the often condemned “imperialist” view.

Lewis contends that it is not true that Arab and Islamic society has always been like it is today. Indeed, according to Lewis, the dictatorships of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and of Mubarak in Egypt have absolutely no roots in the Arab or Islamic past. So in 1786 the French ambassador in Istanbul contrasted the French king’s absolute sovereignty expressed in quick decision-making, with the Ottoman sultan’s need to consult with various leaders involving a slow decision-making process. But modern Middle Eastern government is no longer like this.
 

Modernization and Nazi and Soviet Influence

As Middle Eastern rulers became painfully aware that their societies were undeveloped compared with the advanced Western world, it was they, not imperialists who sought to modernize their societies. The consequences were often disastrous:

1. They increased the power of the state and the ruler enormously.
2. They limited or destroyed traditional forces that previously had limited the autocracy of the ruler. Lewis explains: “…there were established orders-the bazaar merchants, the scribes, the guilds, the country gentry, the military establishment, the religious establishment, and so on. These were powerful groups in society, whose heads were not appointed by the ruler but arose from within the groups. And no sultan, however powerful, could do much without maintaining some relationship with these different orders in society. This is not democracy as we currently use that word, but it is certainly limited, responsible government. And the system worked. Modernization ended that.”

Lewis identifies two stages in the destruction of the old order, neither of which had anything to do with the traditional or Islamic past:

1. “A new ruling class emerged, ruling from the center and using the apparatus of the state for its purposes.”
2. After 1940, when the overwhelming majority of colonial French governors sided with Vichy (where the collaborationist government was formed) rather than de Gaulle, the French mandated territory of Syria-Lebanon lay open to the Nazi propaganda and even the temporary setting up of a pro-Nazi, fascist regime in Iraq. During this period political parties were formed that were the nucleus of the later Baath Party, which adapted to communism well, when the Soviets established an extremely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria and Iraq after World War II.

Wahhabism and Oil

Lewis speaks of a series of movements that can be described as an Islamic revival or reawakening and highlights the immense influence of Wahhabi Islam, founded by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab:

1. Arab-Islamic troubles arise from following the ways of the infidel and abandoning pure, original Islam, though one, Lewis argues, that has little connect to the original form of Islam.
2. In the mid-1920s the Wahhabi tribal chiefs of the House of Saud conquered Mecca and Medina, giving them huge prestige and influence in the entire Islamic world, plus control of the pilgrimage, thereby influencing millions of Muslims who flock to the same place at the same time every year.
3. The discovery of oil in the mid-1920s gave this extremist sect immense wealth, making what otherwise would have been a lunatic fringe a major force in the world of Islam. Muslims living in Western cities who want their children to be grounded in Islamic faith and culture send them to evening classes, weekend schools, holiday camps, etc., which are overwhelmingly funded and therefore controlled by the Wahhabis – a major force in Muslim immigrant communities. So, for example, while in Turkey Muslims are taught a relatively modern, moderate Islam, in Germany Turkish Muslims are largely educated in Wahhabism.

The Iranian Revolution and Al-Qaeda

While the word “revolution” is usually misused in the Middle East, being used for virtually every change of government, the Iranian Revolution was as much a real revolution as the French and Russian revolutions, bringing a massive shift of power – socially, economically and ideologically – while also having a tremendous impact in the world of Islam. At the time Lewis was lecturing in religious universities in Indonesia and witnessed the way Indonesian Muslims venerated Khomeini, despite the fact that he was a Shiite and they otherwise had little interest in what was happening in the Middle East.  
Lewis next considers the most recent phase of the Islamic revival, that associated with Al-Qaeda, the organization headed by Osama bin Laden. While Westerners tend to think of the defeat of Russia in Afghanistan as a Western or more particularly American victory in the Cold War, it is viewed otherwise in the Islamic world – as a Muslim victory in a jihad – a very plausible interpretation. Osama bin Laden traces over the centuries a struggle between Christianity and Islam, culminating in a “final phase of the ongoing struggle” in which he saw “the world of the infidels… divided between two superpowers - the United States and the Soviet Union.” Bin Laden declared, “Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two. Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy.” He points to Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia as evidence that when the Americans are hit, they run. While America’s meek response to repeated attacks in the 1990s seemed to justify bin Laden’s comments, the American response to 9/11 was a nasty surprise. However, what Westerners see as free debate is seen by bin Laden and his followers as evidence of weakness, fear and division which justifies their belief in America’s weakness and inspires them to prepare for the final victory and the final jihad. 
 

Conclusion

Lewis considers what Westerners mean by freedom and democracy. Recalling that after the War of Independence American democracy was compatible with slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, Lewis argues there are necessarily different versions of “democracy.” Lewis believes there are elements in Islamic society that may well be conducive to democracy, citing expressions of this in Iraq and urging his readers not to be misled by the media. Lewis also finds pro-American feeling to be strongest in those countries that have anti-American governments, and anti-American feeling strongest in those countries ruled by so-called “friendly governments”. 

Although Lewis finds some hopeful signs that free institutions might develop in Muslim countries, he recognizes that counter-forces are very powerful and well entrenched. He concludes:

And one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail. I think that the effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.

Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com Downloaded 6/11/09
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Sara and Brian Fitzgerald’s daughter, Kate, is dying from a form of acute promyelocytic leukemia so rare that in order to save her they bring into the world a genetically engineered daughter, Anna, who will be the perfect donor her sister needs.

This is a skillfully, cleverly written novel which I enjoyed reading. Picoult certainly got me into the story and elicited strong responses from me. Yet while her novel is strong on emotion it is actually very shallow in dealing with the ethical issues raised by the contrived scenario Picoult creates. Indeed, so contrived is the plot that Picoult extricates herself from the ethical dilemma that seemingly confronts 13-year old Anna by conveniently arranging for her death before the book’s end.

Ever since she has been born Anna has been denied the possibility of ever living a normal life, due to the need for repeated hospitalizations, involving some risky medical procedures to enable her sister to keep living. The plot revolves around Anna suing her parents for medical emancipation, following pressure placed upon her by her mother to donate one of her kidneys for her sister. By the end of the novel the ethical issues have never been properly confronted, but skirted around and one is left with the distinct impression that the now medically emancipated Anna will probably, of her own volition, donate a kidney anyway, even though, the “lightning bolt” secret comes out near the end of the book, that it was in fact Kate herself who persuaded Anna to seek medical emancipation. While Kate fears death she does not want life to continue as it has and feels that life is grossly unfair for her sister. 

Picoult’s way of skillfully reeling the reader in, like a dumb fish, is by looking at the situation through the eyeballs of each of the main characters, Anna, Kate (though this perspective is deliberately left to the end of the novel), Sara, Brian, Anna’s lawyer (Campbell Alexander) and the court-appointed guardian-advisor, Julia. I suspect many readers would feel a lot of sympathy with the ethical perspective adopted by the characters. I didn’t. In my opinion Picoult’s handling of ethical issues is seriously defective.

“By examing each character’s struggle between ethics and emotion”, reviewer Megan Gray thinks Picoult has succeeded in demonstrating that “it is painfully obvious that there is no right and wrong choice, there is no final answer. What results is an extremely thoughtful, delicate, and heartbreaking story that is wrought with emotion and suspense that climaxes with a shocking ending” (my boldfacing).

Christine Scivicque believes the novel:

provides a strong argument for the idea that ethics and morals are not hard and fast rules; rather they can be incredibly adaptive depending on the circumstances, emotions and history of the person or people involved.

Indeed, Picoult’s ethics are evidently relativistic and emotivist. Given modern secularization I am not surprised that there is a complete lack of any religious reflection in this book. Picoult elsewhere has spoken of having a belief in some kind of “God”, a somewhat shapeless concept it would appear. If this book is anything to judge by, it would seem that for Picoult God is a complete irrelevancy when it comes to working out what is right or wrong in ethical situations like this. Indeed, near the end of the book she has Sara, a former lawyer, declaring after her final argument in court that she knows that what she has done is “right”, not because of any well-argued consideration of ethical principles, but simply because she FEELS her actions have been right. The staggering thing about this book is that, aside from its sidelining of God and any religious or spiritual considerations, there is not even any non-religious philosophical reflection of any substance.

The lack of a religious perspective is a major omission given that in the US, as I understand it, it is common for hospital ethics committees to include chaplains.

In making these comments I do not deny the complexity of human character. It would be wrong, for example, to think of Anna’s mother as a cold-hearted bitch with respect to Anna and her son, Jesse. However, her love and concern for Kate is so all-consuming that her relationships with Anna, Jesse and, yes, even with her husband are all very seriously damaged. Jesse has become a pyromaniac, causing a string of mystery arsons eventually uncovered by his father, the captain of the local fire station. Anna’s life has been seriously damaged by her inability to have normal relationships and engage in normal activities, for example, develop her skills and enthusiasm for ice hockey. On the home front, at least, Brian is effectively manipulated by Sara and I personally saw him as a rather pathetic figure, especially illustrated by his capitulation during the trial, when he turns back from his temporary expressions of support for Anna to side again with his wife.

Picoult treats such relational rifts as though they were fairly superficial. Jesse’s problems are easily solved and the book ends with him beginning a successful career in policing. By book’s end Sara and Brian’s marital relations have a new spark and tensions between the parents and Anna seem to be resolved. This all seems highly unrealistic.

So what about the ethical issues?

Is it wrong to have a child who is a means to an end?

Some might argue that giving birth to a child so that her umbilical cord can be used for her sister’s stem cell transplant is little different from families that have had children to help with doing hard work on the farm. As one medical ethicist pointed out, interacting with the book, royal families would often seek to have multiple children so that if the heir died another would be able to become the new heir. But all such examples show is that others too have treated children as means to an end.

It is my view that My Sister’s Keeper powerfully illustrates the veracity of Alasdair Macintyre’s hypothesis, as presented in After Virtue: “that in the actual world which we inhabit the language of morality is in [a] state of grave disorder.” All we now have are “the fragments of a conceptual scheme, parts which now lack those contexts from which their significance derived” (2). We continue to use many key moral expressions but have lost, perhaps entirely, our comprehension of morality, both theoretically and practically.

My Sister’s Keeper belongs to a world in which moral discourse is in a state of great disorder and reflects the emotivism that is the major morality of today. MacIntyre sets himself to confront this emotivism: “the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling, insofar as they are moral or evaluative in character” (11-12).

As Macintyre observes, emotivism appears in a variety of philosophical guises and “to a large degree people now think, talk and act as if emotivism were true, no matter what their avowed theoretical standpoint may be. Emotivism has become embedded in our culture” (22).

Macintyre argues that the key to the social content of emotivism is the obliteration of any genuine distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative social relations. This is in contrast to Kantian ethics and many earlier moral philosophers for whom a human relationship uninformed by morality involves treating the other person as a means to an end, while a human relationship informed by morality involves treating the other person as an end. The latter is expressed in an unwillingness to influence the other except by reasons which that person judges to be good and impersonal criteria adjudged to be valid, while the former is concerned not with the standards of a normative rationality but with those influences or considerations that will effectively persuade the other to do what I want.

This clearly pertains to the ‘disordered’ moral discourse of My Sister’s Keeper, which via the quasi-ethical vehicle of emotivism, justifies treating Anna as a means to an end, at least within the ethically relativistic world of the book. It is patently clear in the book that Sara “is concerned not with the standards of a normative rationality but with those influences or considerations that will effectively persuade [Anna] to do what [she] want[s].”

As Macintyre points out, if evaluative utterance only serves to express my own feelings and change the feelings and attitudes of others then there are no impersonal criteria to appeal to and the distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative social relations is illusory. All moral discourse is manipulative. This is precisely the nature of the moral discourse employed by Picoult.

Post-Enlightenment morality has dislocated itself from classical morality. Classical ethics, as illustrated by Aristotle, involves a fundamental contrast between man-as-he-happens-to-be (an untutored state) and man-as-he-could-be-if-he-realised-his-essential-nature, with ethics being the science which teaches how to get from the one to the other. It is this classical approach to ethics that is also essentially the same in biblical thought, though, of course, the Christian worldview incorporates into ethical teaching that which God has revealed to be his will for human beings. Also, of crucial importance to the Christian worldview – and this is a perspective almost totally absent from My Sister’s Keeper (except in some fairy tale like fantasizing about some kind of afterlife, vaguely dubbed “heaven”, into which can be projected whatever kind of afterlife one wants) – is the understanding that the realisation of the essential nature of human beings as those created in God’s image, does not belong merely to this life, but also to the next. By contrast, My Sister’s Keeper, is a dismal hope-less book, which treats the continuance of Kate’s life in this world as the ultimate end to be achieved. Further, the ethics of My Sister’s Keeper never incorporate any notion of preparing oneself for what will happen after death.

Tragically, as Macintyre observes, Hume and Kant “discerned no essential natures and no teleological features in the objective universe available for study by physics” (54). So both, along with Diderot, Smith and Kierkegaard, “reject any teleological view of human nature, any view of man as having an essence which defines his true end” (54). As Macintyre explains, this is precisely why their project of finding a basis for morality had to fail. For this necessarily involved eliminating the notion of man-as-he-could-be-if-he-realised-its-telos, one of the essential components of classical and, indeed, of biblical morality, in which the whole point of ethics is to enable man to pass from his present state to his true end. By removing this component, as reflected in My Sister’s Keeper, moral discourse is robbed of its teleological content.

The emotivist ethics of My Sister’s Keeper are grossly deficient because they do not involve any serious consideration of what it means to be human nor of what the purpose of life might be. The parents’ moral choices, including the decision to have a genetically engineered daughter, were always deficient in this book because they never seriously factored in such considerations.

In Mark 12:28-31 we read:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

It is these two commands and their complete complementarity that forms the foundation of all Christian ethics. They presuppose what it means to be human and what the purpose of life is – first, to live a life which ends up with an all-consuming love for God and a corresponding love for others that treats them as every bit as important as oneself. Isn’t it wonderful to see how Jesus skillfully steers clear of any idea that an all-consuming love for God makes other relationships unhealthy? Of course, it is right and proper that a married couple love each other deeply and profoundly. But if a man and his wife make their love for each other all-consuming then this is a destructive, not a constructive love which will damage other relationships and profoundly hurt others. If parents have an all-consuming love for their children then this will damage other relationships and profoundly hurt others.

In My Sister’s Keeper Sara has total allegiance, a total commitment to her sick daughter, the daughter who without such a perfect donor will certainly die. It is a tragic story, not least because the mother has made an idol out of her relationship with her daughter, however much we might sympathise with the emotions that drive her to do this. This is her “god.” It is to this god that she pours out all her devotion. And in so doing she alienates not only her son but also the daughter who was brought into the world to be a donor for her sister and who is constantly taught by her mother, even if unintentionally, that this is the only value her life has. 

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

 Muslim modernizers, via reform or revolution, sought to bring Islam out of its 20th century malaise in three main areas:

1. Military: But this brought humiliating defeats.
2. Economic: Exacerbated dependence on external aid or on a single resource – oil, which is doomed to be superseded.
3. Political: Resulted in shabby tyrannies

Reasons of Muslims’ humiliation:

1. Reduced to being followers of the West
2. Behind East Asian nations, e.g. Japan, Korea. “Following is bad enough; limping in the rear is far worse.”

Muslim explanations for the plight of Islam:
A. Blaming what has happened on the outside:

1. For a long time the Mongol invasions of the 13th century were blamed for the destruction of Muslim power and Islamic civilization. But flawed: (a) Some of the greatest cultural achievements of Islam, especially in Iran, came after, not before the Mongol invasions; (b) Mongols overthrew an empire that was already fatally weakened.
2. After the rise of nationalism (a European import): (a) Arabs often blamed the Turks, who had ruled them for many centuries; (b) The Turks “could lay the blame for the stagnation of their civilization on the dead weight of the Arab past”; (c) Persians blamed Arabs, Turks and Mongols.
3. After British and French dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries: (a) Much of the Arab world blamed Western imperialism; (b) Now the US, along with other aspects of Western leadership. Unconvincing: (i) “Anglo-French rule and American influence, like the Mongol invasions, were a consequence, not a cause, of the inner weakeness of Middle Eastern states and societies”; (ii) Post-colonial development of many former British possessions has been impressive, e.g. Singapore, Hong Kong.
4. Anti-Semitism, which Lewis sees as European-style, particularly fanned by Nazi Germany in the Arab world.
5. The Western upsurge resulting from discoveries and scientific, technological, industrial and political revolutions. But why did these emanate from and within the West and not from and within the Islamic world?

B. Blaming what has happened on the inside:

1. Finding fault in Islam itself. But although freedom in the medieval Islamic world was limited, it was often better than alternatives. Lewis reasons, “If Islam is an obstacle to freedom, to science, to economic development, how is it that Muslim society in the past was a pioneer in all three – and this when Muslim were much closer in time to the sources and inspiration of their faith than they are now?”
2. Blaming particular Muslims for damage done to Islam: (a) Islamists/fundamentalists blame Muslims for adopting alien notions and practices; (b)Modernists blame Muslims for retaining the old ways, especially castigating the ubiquitous Islamic clergy for their inflexibility and targeting fanaticism rather than religion as such; (c) Some see the main culprit as a failure to separate religion and State; (d) Others see the main culprit as the relegation of women to an inferior position.

Discarded Solutions:

1. Socialism: this failed.
2. Nationalism: “The overwhelming majority of Muslims now live in independent states, but this has brought no solution to their problems.”

Oppressive, ineffectual Middle Eastern governments deliberately employ the blame game in their propaganda “to explain the poverty that they have failed to alleviate and to justify the tyranny that they have introduced. They seek to deflect the mounting anger of their unhappy subjects toward other, outside targets.”

In the wake of September 11 Lewis comments:

To a Western observer, schooled in the theory and practice of Western freedom, it is precisely the lack of freedom—freedom of the mind from constraint and indoctrination, to question and inquire and speak; freedom of the economy from corrupt and pervasive mismanagement; freedom of women from male oppression; freedom of citizens from tyranny—that underlies so many of the troubles of the Muslim world.

He closes by stating his view that it up to the people of the Middle East to sort out their problems.

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Posted November 6, 2009

1. A blessing: “the advent of the true faith, the end of the age of ignorance and heathenism.”
2. A curse: “a humiliating national defeat, the conquest and subjugation of the country by foreign invaders.”

Lewis points out a significant and “remarkable difference between what happened in Iran and what happened in all the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa that were conquered by the Arabs and incorporated in the Islamic caliphate in the seventh and eighth centuries”:

1. The other countries (Iraq, Syria, Egypt, North Africa): these “were Islamized and Arabized in a remarkably short time”, with their old religions and languages almost evaporating.
2. Iran: it was Islamized but not Arabized. “Persians remained Persians.”

Lewis describes Iran’s distinctive contribution to Islam, including Arabic poetry. It was this Iranian Islam, “a second advent of Islam” (Islam-i Ajam) that was brought to new areas and peoples – the Turks and India. It was a form of Iranian civilization that the Ottoman Turks brought to the walls of Vienna. Indeed, by the 13th century Iranian Islam had become a dominant element within Islam, with the main centres of Islamic power and civilization in countries marked by Iranian civilization, to which even the Egypt-based Mamluk Sultanate gave way.

Arabian Islam under Arab sovereignty survived only in Arabia and in remote outposts like Morocco. The center of the Islamic world was under Turkish and Persian states, both shaped by Iranian culture.

While Arabic remained the language of scripture and law, Persian was the language of poetry and literature.

Lewis considers attempts to account for this Persian difference:
1. Language? There is some force in the argument that it was easier to make the transition from Aramaic (the Semitic language spoken in Iraq, Syria and Palestine) to Arabic than it was from Persian. However, the Arabization of Egypt occurred despite the fact that Coptic was not a Semitic language.

2. A Superior Culture? Is there a parallel here with the famous Latin dictum: “conquered Greece conquers its fierce conquerors”, meaning the Romans adopt Greek culture. However, while the Romans admired and learned Greek the Arabs did not learn Persian. Rather, the Persians learned Arabic. Also, even though most of the conquered peoples in Iraq, Syria and Egypt had higher civilizations than their desert-emanating Arab invaders, they were absorbed, while the Persians were not.

3. Political difference? Although Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and other nations had been conquered repeatedly, Iran, though conquered by Alexander, was only briefly part of the Hellenistic Empire and was never conquered by Rome. Hellenistic influence on Iran was less enduring, with a new empire arising “which was the peer and the rival of the empires of Rome and later of Byzantium.” Consequently, at the time of the Arab conquest, the Persians had a unique “sense of ancient glory, of pride in identity”, expressed clearly in Persian writings of the Islamic period and in the use of distinctive Persian names for their children, along with names from the Qur’an or pagan Arabia (Ali, Muhammad, Ahmad, etc.).
Lewis goes on to observe that for Muslims, who see history as the working out of God’s purpose for history, the only history that matters is Muslim history. Consequently, under the Arab conquest the Persians lost touch with their history. Indeed, our knowledge of ancient Iran is due to the records kept by the Jews and the Greeks. For example, while the Jews and Greeks remembered Cyrus, the Persians didn’t. Greek writing about Persian is largely respectful, even compassionate, as illustrated by Aeschylus’ play The Persians. Similarly, Lewis sees the Bible as adopts a basically positive approach to ancient Iran.

Lewis notes that the Persians invented the stirrup; that they developed the postal system, involving couriers and relay stations; they created various board games, including chess and backgammon; they also introduced the book in the form of the codex. More dubiously Lewis thinks the concept of the Devil emanates from Persian thought. He also erroneously states that in the Old Testament Messianism is a post-exilic development, which he attributes to Jews coming under Persian influence. Of an equally dubious nature is Lewis’ speculation that the concept of the church owes a lot to Zoroastrian influence.

The association of Iran with Islam has now been for over a millennium, especially, in more recent centuries, with Shi’ite Islam. This was brought to Iran by Arabs, deflating Gobineau’s now discredited idea that the triumph of Shi’ism was “the resurgence of the Aryanism of Iran against the Semitism of Islam.” Many centuries later, when Iran was largely a Sunni country, Shi’ism was reintroduced into Iran and imposed by the Safavids who were Turks, commencing a new era of a distinctively Iranian Shi’ite character.

The Safavids created, for the first time in many centuries, a unified dynastic state in Iran, which has persisted down to the present day, notwithstanding Iran’s immense ethnic diversity: Turkish-speaking Azarbaijanis in the north-west; Kurds; Qashqais (Turks); Arabs in Khuzistan; Baluchis in the south-east; and the Turkmen.

Shi’ism also served to differentiate Iran from all its neighbours, which were almost all Sunni states: Ottomans in the west, central Asian states in the north-east and Indian-Muslim states in the south-east.

This was also a time when the notion of Iran emerged, with the current use of the ancient name Iran (= Aryan, “noble”) being a modern phenomenon, influenced by German assurances that they were Iranians (Aryans), superior to all their neighbours.

Another historical turning-point was the Islamic Revolution, resulting in the creation of the Islamic Republic – a true revolution like the French and Russian revolutions and unlike the often dubbed Middle Eastern “revolutions” of modern times which were but coups d’état, palace revolts, assassinations, civil wars and the like: “the Iranian revolution had a tremendous impact in all those countries with which it shares a common universe of discourse, in other words in the Islamic world.”

There are contrasting Iranian interpretations of the Islamic revolution:

1. A regime of bloodthirsty bigots
2. An authentic alternative to longstanding alien and infidel ways

In present days Lewis sees a familiar pattern beginning to reemerge in the Middle East, that is, two major powers – the Turkish Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is reminiscent of the 16th century when, in the same countries, the Ottoman Sultan and the Safavid Shah, representing the Sunni and Shi’ite versions of Islam, contended for primacy in the Islamic world. This in turn recalled the sixth century rivalry, in the same countries, between the Byzantine emperors and the Sasanids of Iran, both of which were conquered and overwhelmed by Islam. 

Lewis concludes by observing:

The struggle continues, within these two countries and elsewhere, between two different versions of what was originally a common civilization. The outcome remains far from certain.

At one point the interviewer, Dr. Neil Mackenzie, suggested that maybe Square Mile had turned Galatians 6:10 upside down. That verse states:

Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Kandiah, former tutor in Mission and Evangelism at Wycliffe Hall, responded by placing this verse in the context of the sweep of biblical thought. He started with the call of Abraham to be a blessing to all nations, referred to God’s command in Jeremiah 29 for the Jews to seek the welfare of the pagan cities in which they were exiled and finished with the Parable of the Good Samaritan, “showing up the religious myopia of the Jewish religious elites who limited love to their own communities.”

Given this he rightly concludes:

Therefore Paul’s injunction in Galatians 6:10 cannot possibly mean that Christians are to restrict their love but allow love for one another to overflow into our communities.

I think that’s a well-worded response. It takes seriously the opening of the verse: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people.” It does not deny the priority of doing good within the Christian community: “but allow their love for one another to OVERFLOW into our communities.”

As I write this I am conscious that in my own denomination, to the best of my knowledge, not much is being done to reach out to refugees, a  significant number of whom are actually from “the family of believers.” This is disturbing, especially in the light of 1 John 3:16-18:

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 

You can read the full inteview in Evangelicals Now (November 2009) 15.

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Posted November 4, 2009 

The Kastam people have some peculiar religious beliefs. For example, they believe that England and Tanna were once the same country, both erupting from a volcano at the time of creation. Many years back Prince Philip visited Tanna aboard his royal yacht. Ever since then the Kastam people have worshiped him as the Son of God. 

During their month in England this Kastam delegation were shown diverse expressions of how life is lived in England, both in urban and rural contexts. On one occasion they were taken to Madame Tussaud’s. Understandably, they did not recognise any of the wax-figure representations of famous celebrities. However, when they came to the wax figure of Prince Philip they became very excited. They hugged ”him” and looked deep into his marble eyes.

How did the Kastam people come to venerate Prince Philip in this way?

It all begins when the gospel was being communicated to the peoples of Vanuatu, with many responding though, unlike the Kastam people, not developing a cargo cult like this.  The Kastam people believe that the god they were worshiping prior to the coming of these missionaries was so angered by the attempt to convert them, that he sent his son, a spirit, to England to try to stop these missionaries.  The Kastam believe that in England this spirit became a man, the very man Prince Philip who visited them in the 1970s.

After his visit the Kastam people sent Prince Philip a club as a gift. They were sent back a framed picture of Prince Philip holding the club. This photo has become a religious icon.

We might be amazed at such thinking on the part of the Kastam. But I reckon they were outplayed by some Westerners who criticised the whole project because of its potential to ”corrupt” their culture. As efforts were made to grant them an audience with Prince Philip fears were expressed that Prince Philip might say something that would cause their religion and culture to be shattered.

Which group do you think are in the sorrier state - the Kastam or those culture-worshiping Westerners?

On this Melbourne Cup day I know what I’d put my money on!

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Posted November 3, 2009 

The next relevant passage is 13:33-37:

33: Is then He who standeth over every soul (and knoweth) all that it doth, (like any others)? And yet they say Allah has partners. Say: “But name them! is it that ye will inform Him of something he knoweth not on earth, or is it (just) a show of words?” Nay! to those who believe not, their pretence seems pleasing, but they are kept back (thereby) from the path. And those whom Allah leaves to stray, no one can guide.

34: For them is a penalty in the life of this world, but harder, truly, is the penalty of the Hereafter: and defender have they none against Allah.

35: The parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised!- beneath it flow rivers: perpetual is the enjoyment thereof and the shade therein: such is the end of the Righteous; and the end of Unbelievers in the Fire.

36: Those to whom We have given the Book rejoice at what hath been revealed unto thee: but there are among the clans those who reject a part thereof. Say: “I am commanded to worship Allah, and not to join partners with Him. Unto Him do I call, and unto Him is my return.

37: Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah.

Here’s my attempted paraphrase:

Is Allah, the one who watches over every soul and knows everything it does, like any other? Yet they ascribe partners to Allah. Say to them, “Name these partners! Do you give Allah such partners to help him know things on earth he would otherwise not know? Or are there names just empty words?” No! Unbelievers such as these, may derive pleasure from such fabrications, but they keep them from the path of Allah (which leads to Paradise). What’s more is that those whom Allah allows to stray from the path cannot be guided.

Such unbelievers will not only suffer in this life, but even more so in the Hereafter. No one can defend them against Allah.

Here is what the Garden (of Paradise), promised to the righteous, looks like: rivers flow beneath it. It is a place where the righteous are supplied with never-ending food, while enjoying its cool shade. This is their destiny, while the destiny of unbelievers is in the Fire.

Those (People of the Book; Jews and Christians) to whom Allah has given the Qur’an rejoice in what he has revealed to Muhammad. But some among the Jews and unbelievers reject part of it. To them say, “I am commanded to worship Allah and not associate partners with him. He’s the one I call on; to him I turn.”

Allah has revealed the Qur’an as an authoritative standard of judgment in the Arabic language. If any Muslim follows such unbelievers, in their vain desires, after receiving this revelation, he will find there is no one to protect or defend him against Allah.

This passage teaches that Paradise is denied to those who do not accept the Qur’anic revelation concerning the absolute oneness of Allah. For Muslims this oneness means that no partners can be associated with him. This is Muhammad’s repudiation of the doctrine of the Trinity, as he distortedly understood it, that is, involving God, Mary and Jesus. The Qur’an teaches here that all who adhere to this doctrine will go to Hell.

This passage is also important for the way it treats the Arabic language as sacred.

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Posted November 2, 2009

• The Establishment Issue: Where did this concept of scientific theory originate and how did it develop?  
• The Epistemological Issue: How do we know things? How do we come to know that which is real?
• The Explanatory Issue: What am I actually explaining when I give a “natural” explanation?

Berg appeals to Thales as “the first recorded natural philosopher”, who “believed that natural events have natural explanations, not divine.” Citing Thales is interesting, but this is not the base from which modern scientific theory has developed. Berg contends that it was the “rejection of explanations invoking gods or spirits” that “led to the need for natural explanations and the development of the scientific method.” Again, as we will see, this simply is not true. Berg pontificates: “Untestable supernatural explanations act as stoppers which prevent or retard further enquiry or research.” Ah, but what does he mean by “supernatural” and how does it differ from “natural”?

It is ironical, as I understand it, that this secularized approach to science is actually grounded in Christian thought and certainly not Thales. Here I find helpful some comments made by the German physicist, C.F. von Weizsäcker, as cited by Lesslie Newbigin in his book Honest Religion for Secular Man:

The realism of modern science is neither a naïve belief in the senses nor is it an aloof spiritual disdain of them.

There is a theological background to this attitude. The world of the senses is the world of nature in the Christian sense of the word… To Christians God has made everything. Hence man, made in his image, can understand all created things, that is, certainly the whole material world. The very idea that the Word has been made flesh, the dogma of Incarnation, shows that the material world is not too low to be accepted by God and hence to be understood by the light of reason given us by God…

Von Weizsäcker goes on to describe how the concept of the laws of nature, that is, mathematical laws, “is a gift of Christianity to the modern mind.” Yet, now “this inherited gift is used against the religion whence it came.” Von Weizsäcker sees “this killing of one’s own parent by the weapon inherited from him” as becoming more and more naïve. He observes:

Kepler was a sincere Christian who adored God in the mathematical order of the world. Galileo, and even more Newton, being a more religious man, were sincere Christians who were interested in God’s work.

Isn’t it ironic to see the twisted and distorted way Galileo is depicted by modern propagandists as though he was victimized because he was a scientific materialist like themselves; as though he too believed that Nature is the only reality? Nothing could be further from the truth! Von Weizsäcker continues:

Galileo had still to defend his right to read God’s greatness in the book of nature, Newton had to defend his idea of nature as a book written by God.

There is immense irony in the way modern scientific theory is grounded in natural explanations that implicitly exclude religious interpretations. Isn’t science itself rooted in the mystical assumption that there is such a thing as “laws of nature”? Yet, according to my understanding, there is no way that it is remotely possible for scientists, using scientific method, to demonstrate the existence of such laws or even to validate them using Karl Popper’s famous method of falsification. What I ask, at the end of the day, is the difference between invoking the laws of nature instead of the hidden workings of a sovereign God? In effect, is this not just the replacement of one “religion” with another?

Isn’t it also fascinating to see how scientific materialists rewrite history or rather create a mythology to support their God-denying approach to science, namely claiming, as Berg does, that natural explanations presuppose the rejection of religious interpretations. The historical reality is very different. Natural explanations presuppose the acceptance of a world in which what is seen and experienced in Nature is the working of God.

Further, many scientists do not seem to understand that in a Christian worldview the whole notion of pitching the natural against the supernatural is absurd. Of course, God, as Creator, precedes nature and is distinct from it. Yet, apart from this foundational consideration, EVERYTHING that happens in the universe is natural. NOTHING is supernatural. This includes miracles, which are but sovereignly determined deviations from God’s regular workings.

What scientists call the laws of nature, a mystical abstraction, is really the regularity of God’s workings as the one who sustains everything that happens in the universe. For example, the “law” of gravity is and has been the almost invariable pattern of God’s workings in one dimension of experienced reality. However, God worked differently when Jesus walked on water and even, for a brief time, God enabled Peter to do so as well. 

Biblical language eloquently expresses one aspect of creation’s total dependence on God:

“In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind” (Job 12:10).

“If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit and breath, all mankind would perish together and man would return to the dust” (Job 34:14-15).

That’s why Christians welcome the “natural” explanations that scientific theory involves, yet are able, simultaneously, to see such natural explanations as giving us profound insight into how God works in this awesome universe he created and sustains, with all its beautiful and, yes, terrifying aspects. God is indeed a faithful Creator (1 Peter 4:19)!

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Posted November 1, 2009

The French sailors who made landfall plainly viewed themselves as conquering this land. After clambering up the islet they took hold of its inhabitants and threw them down its steep sides, making it clear, at least in their own minds, that they were dispossessing them. 

The whole thing seems rather farcical, especially when we realise that these inhabitants were penguins who had no understanding of why they were being treated in such a cruel manner.

After “conquering” this land, the tricoloured French flag was unfurled, they hailed their king and then drank a toast with a bottle of Bordeaux wine. As evidence of their claim to this land the sailors took back to the ship some broken-off pieces of reddish granite rock and a number of understandably reluctant penguins. The ship then reported their discovery of this islet and claim of it to the nearest settlement, namely Hobart.

In the harbour of every land Columbus “discovered” he would choose and elevated spot on which he would have erected a large cross, by way of claiming the land around it for the Spanish king. The Portuguese typically would erect on high ground an inscribed stone pillar (padrao), topped with a cross. Abel Tasman claimed Tasman by getting a sailor to swim ashore with a Dutch flagpole and erect it in a previously chosen conspicuous position.

Any inhabitants in all these lands who witnessed such ceremonies might well have been penguins for all the sense it made to them.

Conquest. It’s the name of the book I’m reading by historian David Day, in which he recounts these and other stories. It got me thinking about divine conquest.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me“, says Jesus (Matthew 28:18). So, he says in effect, go out from here and conquer in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For to ’disciple all peoples’ means to lay claim to the lives of all people on the face of the earth; to seek to persuade them that Jesus is Lord and that their only appropriate response is to accept his complete authority over their lives and seek to learn everything he commands them to do.  

It is fundamental to mainstream Islam to ever seek to extend its territory, to claim more and more land - a way of thinking that many naive Westerners simply do not understand. The building of mosques and Islamic schools in Western lands often has much more profound significance for Muslims, for whom Islam is a total system, than merely providing for limited religious and educational needs. But for Christ’s followers conquest is not effected by the building of churches with crosses on them. It occurs when those who hear the message of Christ’s lordship voluntarily yield their lives in grateful submission to him. It is symbolised by baptism, by which those who are baptised are recognised to be Christ’s disciples and, as such, immersed in a relationship with the Triune God. When we take the Gospel of Christ’s Lordship into ‘uncharted waters’ it does matter what ‘the inhabitants’ understand.

And what a massive difference between the “conquests” effected by the explorers above and that which the Lord himself effects through the power of his Word! At best the prior inhabitants of erroneously called “discovered” lands ended up with an artificial relationship to a king whom they never met and of whom they had miminal and highly confused knowledge. For those “conquered” by Christ become the next wave of discipling disciples to whom Christ promises: “And surely I will be with you to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). What a privilege to be conquered - to be in an intimate, secure relationship with the most important and powerful person in the entire universe!

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Posted October 31, 2009

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God (Colossians 3:1).

This is another way of saying something along the following lines:

When Jesus rose from the dead we Christians, because we are joined to him, received new resurrection life, a life that is inseparable from who Jesus is, namely the Lord, the one who occupies the position of ultimate power and authority. So focus your minds on those things that are tied up with us being inseparably linked to Jesus as Lord.

John Frame has a helpful way of looking at God or Christ’s lordship in the Bible, identifying three dimensions - authority, control and presence. Here’s how I think about it with respect with Jesus’ lordship:

1. Authority: Because Jesus is our Lord we, corporately and individually, accept his authority to tell us how we should live our lives (Matthew 28:18-19).
2. Control: Because Jesus is our Lord we, corporately and individually, expect and ask him to use our lives to fulfil his good purposes in and through us (1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1).
3. Presence: Jesus is with us wherever we (corporately and individually) go (Matthew 28:20) in the person of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-23; 2 Corinthians 3:17) engendering in us the desires we need to live the kind of life that will please him (Romans 8:5-9; Galatians 5:16-17) )and, indeed, producing the godly character that honours him (Gal 5:22-23).

Frame has a way of looking at most things in threes (technically called tri-perspectivalism) and, since a moral or ethical life is all about living under Christ’s lordship, Frame identifies three fundamental ethical perspectives or principles. Here is how I see these in connection with how Christ’s lordship impacts our Christian lives:

1. Corresponding to Authority: Christians, corporately and individually, have a duty, obligation or responsibility to do what our Lord tells us to do. The Greek word for “obligation” is deon, so the technical term for this ethical principle is deontology.
2. Corresponding to Control: The lives of Christians, corporately and individually, are presented to the Lord as “living sacrifices” so that he might accomplish his purposes through us. The Greek word for “purpose” is telos, so the technical term for this ethical principle is teleology.
3. Corresponding to Presence: The Lord indwells his people, both corporately (as church; 1 Corinthians 3:16) and individually (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) and thereby motivates us and shapes us to live out the kind of life that conforms to his ever-excellent moral standards. Frame calls this ethical principle an existential principle, because the philosophy of existentialism is concerned with creating meaning from within, and the Lord’s presence is likewise concerned with our inner life.

For Christians these three principles (deontological, teleological and existential) are illustrated by Paul’s confrontation with Peter, as recorded in Galatians 2:11-21:

1. Paul sees that Peter, by his actions, and those who followed suit, are no longer walking in step “with the truth of the gospel” (verse 14). Paul spells out what is implied by the Gospel and thereby impresses on Peter what duty he has, especially as a leader, given what the gospel has to say about how he should live and relate as a Jew to non-Jewish people. That is, Paul is operating on a deontological ethical principle at this level.
2. Paul is clearly concerned for the unity of the church at Antioch and is concerned about the damage being done to Gentile Christians. He ends up his rebuke of Peter warning him that if this situation persists it implicitly amounts to nullifying God’s grace and would mean “Christ died TO NO PURPOSE” (verse 21). Paul wants to see the purpose of Christ’s death realised in the life of this church community. From this perspective, then, Paul is operating according to a teleological ethical principle.
3. In helping Peter to understand why his conduct has been unethical and what needs to happen for his behaviour to be brought into line with Christ-honouring morality, Paul, elaborating on the implications of the Gospel, makes the point that as one crucified with Christ it is no longer he who lives, but Christ living IN him (Galatians 2:20). The implication is that if the life of Christ is being lived out from within then it is at odds with the way Peter has behaved and, indeed, motivates him to get the train back on the tracks. From this perspective we might say Paul is operating according to an existential ethical principle.

For Christians, then, ethics involves the complementarity of these three perspectives or principles. They are not at odds with each other. If Christians do get themselves into situations where these principles are clashing with each other then it is because, like Peter, they are confused. They have not reached a point of understanding the implications of the Gospel for the situation they are facing. For example, in Peter’s case, after separating himself and other Jewish Christians from eating with Gentile Christians, he was operating according to a deontological principle of sorts, evidently a sense of duty to elevate Jewish values and scruples (verse 14) with this being at loggerheads with the purpose of Christ’s death (teleological principle) and the outworking of Christ’s life from within him (existential principle).

While for Christians these principles fit together well, Frame argues that there is no system of non-Christian ethics which is able to harmonise these three principles.

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Posted October 30, 2009