More coaching about the dialogue

I hope that everyone has already had, or is having, a very nice Christmas Day, with both piety, devotion to the Holy Family and joy in ones own sharing of gifts, sports, and family reunions. I offer my heart-full blessings to those who experience tragedy this time of year, or who are alone in the world at this time, or are under duress of economic situation.

I spend much of my time thinking about the Christian-Muslim dialogue since that has been one of my lifelong desires. So I cannot resist thinking about ways to help, of course, ha, even on Christmas. I’ve been forced to work on holidays by cruel “human” employers, but this working on Christmas is a labor of love.

Remember my analogy of the two who are walking within eye shot of each other, to the same Godly destination, but they walk over different terrain? This is key to understanding another difference that is actually in truth a similarity between Christian and Islamic theology.

When God, or his angels, appear to humans, they always speak in the vernacular, the language of the people they are speaking to, including all the inherent cultural meaning of the words. This is so they can be completely understood in total of the definitions of the words and their meanings. We know this because there are many instances in the Bible where God and his angels have spoken to humans and the humans never once had to ask for a translator, including when John the Apostle Evangelist spoke to angels and understood their heavenly speech during his vision of the final days. John the Baptist understood what God said when Jesus was baptized. Abraham and Sarah understood what the visiting angels said, as did Lot and his family when two of the angels went to destroy that city. So it is clear throughout the Bible that God and the angels speak not only the words in the native language but use the words in the way that the listener would use them among his brethren. Likewise in the Qur’an clearly the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) understood Gabriel and all of the teachings he received in his own language, vernacular, and cultural context. He too did not have to ask for a translator and in fact it is known that Gabriel made him repeat back his understanding so that it would be perfect enough to transit to the people in the Qur’an and his verbal teachings. We also have a third example in the Catholic Church verified apparitions of the Virgin Mary in modern times. In each case she spoke the language specifically of the often peasant (and unlettered) people that she appeared to. So she would speak not only the words of their language but their idiom and understanding in a cultural context. The most remarkable and heart warming of these is when she spoke to native Indian language to Juan Diego, and even appeared in native dress of a lady who is expecting a child. We know this is true because a humble Indian during the time of the conquest would never have run to authorities to make up a story that the Virgin Mary appeared in the “defeated” people’s own language and costume! Anyone making up a story would have had her in her traditional glory. Likewise her apparitions around the world have been accompanied by the vernacular speech or if silent by gestures and images that were well understood of her purpose (for example at Knock where she appeared with Joseph and John in what was like a marriage tableau).

So, looking back at our travelers, as they are on their journey to their shared Godly destination, but on different terrains, when God or his angels appear to them they speak their language. It would not do to give the man on the rough terrain a map written in the language of the man on the smooth but arid terrain. And on that map not only the words must be correct and understood using the right language, but the meaning of each word must match what the native speaker would understand the meaning to be within his cultural reference.

And so we come to the word “Son.” What is God to do if in one culture the word son means not only offspring but “most beloved” while in another culture the word son means not only offspring but “the man who inherits all when his father dies?”

Hmm, yes, it is much clearer now with this example, is it not? What would the man in the second example think of Jesus being described as “the Son of God,” if by that description it means that God must “die” so that the son inherits? In fact, Roman and Greek pagan pantheons are full of such examples. The pious God believing and fearing man would, to use my vernacular, “flip out” at such a description of God and Jesus and in fact – obviously – those are wrong descriptions! So an angel of the Lord who appears to this second traveler, and tells him where to find water and how to travel safely to his Godly destination would be very clear in his terms, saying “his Father is the Holy Spirit” rather than “he is the Son.” Likewise where the first traveler needs to comprehend behavior and relationship, and where heredity implies love and not possessions or title, the word Son would convey the most dearly beloved, just as Isaac was with Abraham.

So to engage in an argument about whether Jesus was “the Son of God” would be to miss what was explained to each traveler separately and accurately by God or his angels. Each traveler is SUPPOSED to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in his own context to AVOID error, not to introduce error. Christians need to understand that in the Islamic faith, the Prophet (PBUH) passed on his theological responsibility through family and appointed heirs. Imams would rise upon the death of their predecessor. This is how the culture and faith is preserved in their society and family structure. Gabriel would never want anyone in the Islamic faith to think that Jesus “takes over” when “God dies!!” Can you now understand the zeal, fervor and disgust that some in Islam have had toward this implied misunderstanding that they perceive among Christians? Ah yes, it is all very easy to see if one “puts oneself in the angel’s shoes” and listens in on their conversation with the travelers with open ears and open minded understanding. God never introduces confusion and error, only humans do that. So God and his angels anticipate misunderstanding and are very clear when they say “not Son” they mean “God is not going to die so that Jesus can take over.”

In contrast of course the Popes do not marry, have children, and pass on the papacy to their sons! It is the same with the priests or any of the consecrated religious of the Catholic faith. In Catholicism we do not “pass on” theological responsibility to biological sons. We do pass it on with the “laying on of the hands” on spiritual sons based on shared love of Jesus Christ and in obedience to God. So there is no danger of the word “Son of God” being misunderstood among the Catholic faithful in the way that a theological inheritance based on biology culture might misunderstand it. Everyone agrees that the Virgin Mary bore Jesus Christ as a result of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her. Everyone agrees that Jesus was empowered by God to speak for Him and was loved as a Son. People do not have to agree, nor should they, to apply human and biological meaning of Son to Jesus where that would introduce error in understanding. A Christian who demands a Muslim use the word Son would actually be introducing error in the Christian faith, rather than preserve its correctness. Likewise a Muslim who is in abhorrence of a Christian saying that Jesus is the Son of God is misunderstanding that this is a relationship of love, not of biology or of spiritual inheritance in a family hierarchy. Each faith has a correct understanding within their cultural understanding of the words used by the angels who transmitted them, and by God. This is why Gabriel was insistent that the Prophet (PBUH) understand that in heaven there is no marriage of God or bearing of children or Son based inheritance because that is a fact, and also because Gabriel knows well the cultural context in which he spoke and represented God.

I hope this helps. I imagine that it will help quite a bit ha. That’s assuming anyone is reading this *wink.* And one must always assume belief.