Dear Lowe’s: Islamophobia is as equally reprehensible as anti-Semitism

December 16, 2011 By Carl Gregg

Dear Lowe’s: Islamophobia is as equally reprehensible as anti-Semitism. Both are forms of racism and bigotry. Christians must stop confusing Christianity with Christian Supremacy.

I wish I could force both the management of Lowe’s as well as the protesters to read Philip Jenkins’ important new book Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the BIBLE’S Violent Verses:

Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions — all are in the Bible, and all occur with a far greater frequency than in the Qur’an. But fanaticism is no more hard-wired in Christianity than it is in Islam.

Although I have appreciated Jenkins’ books for many year, his latest is both better and more important that I expected from the title alone. The devil is in the details, and he has amassed a stunning number of examples of how the Bible has been misused throughout history to horrifying results. His point: the problem isn’t the text itself of any sacred scripture; it’s how we learn and choose to read these texts that makes all the difference. It’s a crucial read for anyone who is quick to highlight the problematic passages in the Qur’an, while being simultaneously blind to the larger number of problematic passages in the Bible.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Islam Tagged With: , , , ,

BOOK REVIEW: "Who Is My Enemy?: Questions American Christians Must Face about Islam–and Themselves"

September 29, 2011 By Carl Gregg

Lee Camp, Who Is My Enemy? Questions American Christians Must Face about Islam — and Themselves (Brazos Press 2011), 174 pages.

My reading of Lee Camp from this book, from his earlier book Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World, and from listening to his podcast is that he fits within the realm of Christian theology known as postliberalism. As the name implies, postliberalism is “post” — that is, “after” or “a response to” — liberalism. Whereas liberalism was a turn from orthodoxy toward reason and individual human experience as criteria of authority, postliberalism is a turn back toward community and the apostolic tradition.

With these theological divisions in mind, I was intrigued to see that Lee Camp’s latest book is an extended meditation on what it means to take seriously Jesus’ commandment in the Sermon on the Mount to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (to read the larger context, see Matthew 5:43-48). Lee may be a postliberal, but even full-fledged liberals such as the members of the Jesus Seminar consider this teaching to be central to the message of the historical Jesus.

In The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, the members of the Jesus Seminar famously declared that only about twenty percent of the words attributed to Jesus in the four canonical Gospel were spoken by the historical Jesus. Even with their skeptical criteria, the members of the Jesus Seminar rated Jesus’ teaching to “Love your enemies” as “red” saying, which is their highest color-coded rating. Moreover, of all the sayings they attribute to the historical Jesus, the saying to “Love your enemies” is rated as one that is the fifth most likely to have been spoken by the historical Jesus. All that is to say, if both liberals and postliberals agree that a statement is central to the teachings of the historical Jesus, then Lee Camp’s exploration of what this teaching means in regard to Islam is particularly relevant in our culture of Islamophobia in which far too many Christians too often associate the word Islam with the word enemy.

Besides citing Jesus’ teaching to “Love your enemies” as an epigram to his book, Camp also lists the teaching from the Pauline tradition in Ephesians 6:12 that, “Our struggle is not against enemies of flesh and blood, but against the rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers of this present darkness.”* This connection is an important intertextual juxtaposition. First, Camp notes the synchronicity that on the eve of his deadline to turn in the final copy of his manuscript, President Obama announced that a U.S. Navy SEAL team had killed Osama bin Laden. The first biblical quotation alone calls this decision into question: “How can killing [an] enemy be a victory for those who follow the Jesus who taught us to love our enemies?” (xi). Second, when the quotation from the Pauline corpus is thrown into the mix, it becomes increasingly unclear that the Christian tradition is principally concerned with humans as enemies. To quote Ephesians again, “Our enemies are not flesh and blood.” Instead, is the biblical tradition directing our attention toward more systemic, institution evil such as slavery, classism, racism, and heterosexism that mitigate against the movement that Jesus called the kingdom or reign of God and that Martin Luther King, Jr. called the work of building the Beloved Community?

In the course of his short book, Camp surveys the important precedents for Christian nonviolent activism, which was especially prevalent in the centuries before the Emperor Constantine began the process of giving Christianity the official blessing of the Roman Empire, which in turn “baptized” the state’s use of violence. Camp also examines the interplay of violence and nonviolence as well as between church/mosque and state — all of which are critical dimensions of Christian perceptions of Muslims. To take only one of his provocative (but nonetheless generally accurate) conclusions, “The mainstream of Christian tradition, with its Just War tradition, looks more like the Muhammad story than the Jesus story” (140). Camp’s book is an important contribution to Christians’ perception both of their own tradition and that of their Muslim neighbor, whom Jesus calls us to love whether they are our neighbors or enemies. Camp’s book helps us all wrestle with what that call to “Love your enemies” means historically, today, and for our collective future.

The Rev. Carl Gregg is the pastor of Broadview Church in Chesapeake Beach, Maryland. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

This book review is a part of the Roundtable at the Patheos Book Club. Visit the Book Club website for more free resources related to this book.

*I use the term “Pauline tradition” because Ephesians was almost certainly not written by the historical Paul. For more on why that is the case, see any (or all!) of some of the excellent, accessible books on Pauline authorship that have been published recently:

(1) The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan

(2) Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle by Pamela Eisenbaum

(3) Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are by Bart D. Ehrman

Filed Under: Book Reviews, Islam

BOOK REVIEW: "Biography of Abd el-Kader"

September 20, 2011 By Carl Gregg

John W. Kiser, Commander of the Faithful: The Life and Times of Emir Abd el-Kader (Rhinebeck, NY: Monkfish Book, 2008), 365 pages.

In these weeks following the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Patheos has wisely chosen a book club selection that highlights the life of a Muslim held in high-regard on the world stage — in this case the 19th-century world stage.  Too much Christian-Muslim dialogue is characterized by a lack of historical knowledge, and this book seeks to make a contribution toward grounding such discussions not in abstract theory, but in the surprising and often hopeful possibilities that history shows us are possible — that is, possible because they have already happened and hence could happen again. Some scholars call this sort of perspective “biography as theology.” I will confess that I was unfamiliar with Emir Abd el-Kader before reading this book, but I am grateful to John Kiser for bringing this story to the attention of myself and others.

Abd-el-Kader (1808-1883) became famous for heroically and honorably leading the struggle for Algerian Independence from France. The extent to which he was well-known can be seen in that, fascinatingly, there is a town in Iowa named after him: Elkader (1). President Abraham Lincoln also spoke highly of him (2), and De Tocqueville called him “a Muslim Cromwell” (57).

John F. Kennedy, commenting on Algeria’s eventual independence, said, “The most powerful force in the world today is neither capitalism nor communism nor the guided missile, but [humanity’s] eternal desire to be free and independent” (328). So one could argue that the Arab Spring the world has recently witnessed owes much to historical figures such as Abd el-Kader.

Abd el-Kader is a prime example of how tragic it is that the first Muslim that comes to far too many Christian’s minds is Osama bin Laden. A similarly tragic result would be if Muslims thought all Christians were like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. We owe it to ourselves and our children to learn about the best of one another’s traditions. Jesus — who called us to “love our enemies” — spoke of this dynamic as learning to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

The Rev. Carl Gregg is the pastor of Broadview Church in Chesapeake Beach, Maryland. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

This book review is a part of the Roundtable at the Patheos Book Club. Visit the Book Club for more free resources related to this book.

Filed Under: Book Reviews, Islam, JFK

France Caves to Islamophobia; Discourage Veiling, Don’t Discriminate

April 11, 2011 By Carl Gregg

A headline in today’s New York Times reads, “France Enforces Ban on Full-Face Veils in Public.” To clarify definitions — because the various forms of Islamic garb are often conflated and confused in public debate — a niqab is, as the headline indicates, a “full-face veil” and the name comes from the Arabic word for “mask.”  The niqab is a middle-ground between the less-concealing hijab (which only covers the head and derives from the Arabic word for “curtain” or “cover”) and the much-more concealing burqa (which covers the entire body — and which comedian Bill Maher sarcastically refers to as a “bee keeper suit.”)

My personal opinion is that I would discourage women who were my friends or relatives from wearing any of these three coverings because it perpetuates a false perception of woman as a lesser “Second Sex,” to invoke Simone de Beauvoir. Indeed, I remember being incensed last summer when on a sweltering day I passed a Muslim couple: the man was wearing a t-shirt, shorts, sunglasses, and flip-flops — and the woman was wearing a full-length robe covering her entire body and a hijab. That’s sexism. At the same time, France is both wrong, discriminatory, and Islamophobic in the way it has chosen to legislate against the niqab.

To flesh out all the nuanced issues involved, I highly recommend philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s two recent New York Times pieces on this issue. First, her article “Veiled Threats?” and, second, her follow-up response to the many letters she received,  ”Beyond the Veil: A Response.”

As a sample of her perspective, I will offer two quotes. From the original article, she writes about why the opposition to the niqab unduly singles out Muslim and is, therefore, discriminatory and Islamaphobic:

It gets very cold in Chicago – as, indeed, in many parts of Europe. Along the streets we walk, hats pulled down over ears and brows, scarves wound tightly around noses and mouths. No problem of either transparency or security is thought to exist, nor are we forbidden to enter public buildings so insulated. Moreover, many beloved and trusted professionals cover their faces all year round: surgeons, dentists, (American) football players, skiers and skaters. What inspires fear and mistrust in Europe, clearly, is not covering per se, but Muslim covering.

And in the follow-up article, she writes, toward the conclusion that,

[W]e can’t assume that about anyone’s choice of anything — career, romantic partner, politics, etc. What we can do, I think, is to guarantee a threshold level of overall freedom, by making primary and secondary education compulsory, by opening higher education to all who want it and are qualified (through need-blind admissions), and to work on job creation so that all of our citizens have some choice in matters of employment. Moreover, the education that children get should encourage critical thinking, expansion of the imagination, and the other humanistic ideals that I discuss in my recent book, “Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities” (Princeton University Press 2010). If a person gets an education like that (and it is not expensive, I’ve seen it done by women’s groups in India for next to nothing, just a lot of passion), then we can be more confident that a choice is a choice.

Filed Under: Feminist Theology, Islam

Freudian Slips, "Mecca of Prejudice" and "Blood Libel"

January 15, 2011 By Carl Gregg Leave a Comment

Almost every angle of last Saturday’s tragic shooting in Tucson has been parsed to the minutest degree. However, I have heard almost no commentary on Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s use of the word “Mecca” when he described Arizona as “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” I happen to agree with most of the sheriff’s remarks at that press conference, so I am mostly observing that, when speaking extemporaneously about the the recent tragedy, he — perhaps more unconsciously than consciously — used the word “Mecca” instead of one of the many other synonyms he could have chosen to make his point.

He could have called Arizona the “center” of prejudice or the “capital” of bigotry. Instead, he used the word Mecca, which of course, is a transliteration into English of the Arabic word Mecca (sometimes seen as “Makkah”), a large city in Saudia Arabia and the holiest city in Islam. Our lower-case English word “mecca” has come to be synonymous with “capital” or “center” because of Mecca’s role as a pilgrimage site.

Thus, ironically, in the process of castigating Arizona as a center of prejudice and bigotry, Sheriff Dupnik’s — I suspect unconscious — choice of the word “mecca” was another small step in entrenching anti-Islamic prejudice and bigotry in our country.

Similarly, my suspicion is that Sarah Palin was not consciously aware of the anti-Jewish connotations in her recent use of the term “blood libel,” although, as of yet, I also have not heard of her retracting or qualifying her unfortunate and offensive word choice.

As for how we should proceed in order to become a more united and civil society, I can only echo President Obama’s eloquent remarks at Wednesday’s memorial service:

if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

In closing, I will offer another connection I haven’t heard made in the media that perhaps lends insight to the state of affairs in Arizona that led Dupnik to speak so frankly about the vitriolic culture of “prejudice and bigotry.” If you have seen the film Borat, do you remember the scene in a country-western bar in which Borat leads the audience in a sing-along of “In My Country There Is Problem”? If not, perhaps you’ll remember the most famous line from the song: “Throw the Jew Down the Well!” Sacha Baron Cohen (who is Jewish) exposes how easily uncivil discourse can arouse a crowd and reveal the prejudices that lurk below the surface of a presumably civil society.

And of all the country-western bars in the United States that Sacha Baron Cohen could have chosen in which to perform his satirical routine, the country-western bar he chose and that that you see pictured in that infamous scene in Borat — and as you will hear announced from the stage at the beginning of the scene — is located in none other than Tucson, Arizona.

(Click here to listen to the song on You Tube.)

Filed Under: Islam, Judaism Leave a Comment

Affirming Christianity and Islam

October 16, 2010 By Carl Gregg

As a native son of Florence, South Carolina, I was shocked to hear that the Islamic Center in Florence had been desecrated last week, when an unknown person or group used strips of bacon to form the words “pig” and “chump” on the ground outside the Islamic Center. This act was particularly offensive because the Qur’an forbids Muslims from eating pork. According to a local news outlet, the FBI has been asked to investigate this hate crime.

In contrast, I am proud to be a board member of the Alliance of Baptists, a denominational movement of progressive Christians, who released a statement in 2003 on Muslim-Christian Relations which includes commitments to:

  • Renounce interpretations of Scripture which foster religious stereotyping and prejudice against the Muslim people and their faith;
  • Seek genuine dialogue with the broader Islamic community, a dialogue built on mutual respect and the integrity of each others faith;
  • Lift our voices quickly and boldly against all expressions of racism, bigotry and religious bias which target followers of Islam;
  • Educate ourselves and others on the often peaceful and at times tumultuous history of Muslim- Christian relations from the seventh century to the present, so as to understand our present by learning from our past;
  • work for full religious freedom, including the right to practice the faith of ones choice, and for equality of citizenship for all persons in all societies, whether Muslims or Christians or others, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere.

I cite this excerpt as an example of how one can be committed to the way of Jesus and also affirm other ways of being religious or non-religious in our pluralistic world.

Filed Under: Islam, Pluralism