[Propertalk] 2 Easter c

[Robert P Morrison]

On Sunday evening, when I should have known better, I put this together. Then on Monday I was given a book "The Message of the Qur'an" from which I append a paragraph from the preface as a footnote. I don't know if I'll use that quote, but it does tie in and is interesting.

Anyway, for reflection and revision here's what I have.

Happy Easter Week!


	“Don’t take MY word for it!”
	If there’s one thing that seems to split denominations, and religions, I think it’s the approach to questioning. To flirt with over-simplification and generalisation, what causes more people more anguish, I think, is whether or not we can know anything for certain, or whether or not we SHOULD believe that there ARE absolute certainties.
	Last night I went to bed, reasonably sure that the sun would be there at - when was it? - 6:15 this morning. If I drove my car through the red light at Queen and Elm on the way to this service this morning, and there had been a law enforcement office sitting in the Dairy Mart parking lot, I’m almost positive I’d have been pulled over. But what about, for instance, the statements we make in the Nicene Creed? What do I think about the Creator of the universe? What about the Third Person in the Trinity - the Holy Spirit - what do I feel about her? And Jesus - is it really pushing it to suggest that there might be questions about Jesus within such a short time from the repetition of our baptismal vows and our affirmation of support for Maya?
	Some in Christian society, some in Muslim society, some in religious communities of different backgrounds and systems argue quite fiercely that once one makes a commitment of the mind or the heart then there is no need to worry about questions. One simply accepts what one is told, or what one reads. The founder of the first Sharia-compliant bank in Britain, Junaid Bhatti, talked last week about those who began their religious education by reciting the word without absorbing the message.   He was describing how he began to absorb what was going on among his own classmates as he grew up in a faithful, observant Islamic family. That’s when HE began to question. What was the purpose behind reading or listening to the Qur’an if it was merely memorised and its implications weren’t explored? 
	And here we’re back to the issue of questioning. Not only do we have to wrestle with what a certain reading or speech might mean, how it might impact us tomorrow, or next week, or five years from now; not only do we have to deal with this, but we also have to consider whether or not we can question the person who wrote the text, or spoke it.
	I was listening to that interview with Junaid Bhatti, so I’ll bring up his opinion again, but it applies to ALL religious traditions, in ALL periods of time. When asked about terrorism, especially by those who claim religious authority for their actions and die with the name of God on their lips, Bhatti asked whether the issue is being tackled in the wrong way. He insisted that the only way to tackle terrorism is to quote back the same scripture and show that God CANNOT be seen as fickle, or violent, or destructive.
	I don’t want to make it seem that I’m talking only of Islamic behaviour and understanding. Behind Bhatti’s talk it was quite obvious to me that he felt that EVERY religious tradition had to address terrorism in the same way, and he also implied that there are many forms of such attacks. They can be social or economic - keeping those neighbours in their places; putting down certain people because they don’t meet our economic expectations when it comes to being a Christian. They can be emotional and psychological - raising a child to believe she or her cannot follow a certain vocation; suggesting that someone’s opinion or judgement isn’t valuable or of any worth.
	Terrorism takes many forms, and we can learn it at an early age, if we don’t ask questions.
	I find it somewhat amusing - and here I’m putting on my own judgemental mantle, albeit knowingly - I find it somewhat amusing to think that there are Christian congregations within every denomination, and whole Christian denominations, which say that if we express any idea about whether or not what someone said in a sermon is a load of codswallop, or what the B.A.C. voted to do is subject to investigation, that the questioner’s faith is weak or absent, and that person has to be treated with extreme suspicion; I find it somewhat amusing that there ARE congregations and denominations which act that way, yet still talk about Thomas. But then, HOW do they talk about Thomas?
	The usual approach is to say, “Poor old Doubting Thomas”, and to be scornful and snotty, rather than heaving  a sigh of relief when we read, in the verses describing the events of Jesus’ first and second appearance in that Upper Room, that Jesus didn’t destroy Thomas with a lightning bolt of some sort. To the contrary, Jesus spoke directly to Thomas’ question. “You said you wanted to see My wounds? O.K., look, touch, satisfy your curiosity.”
	Jesus wasn’t humouring Thomas. Jesus was making a personal appearance, to address a specific problem, at a particular period of time. This is PRECISELY why the resurrection matters. Jesus’ compassionate exemplification and presentation of the Love of God didn’t vanish with the hideous execution - which in itself may be seen as an horrendously violent reaction to Someone who asked questions and who brought troubling doubt about their own behaviour and the things they held to be sacred cows. To be fair, the average Roman soldier, maybe even the average Roman Governor, HAD to swear that he would accept the word of the Senate and the Emperor without question. Otherwise not only would his job and livelihood be in jeopardy, his life would be in jeopardy. It’s quite possible that banishment would be too mild a response to such insubordination. And this raises the issue of blind loyalty to anything.
	But Jesus’ death was NOT the END to questions. It was the BEGINNING.
	Yes, orthodox Christian Doctrine has formulated the Nicene Creed. Yes, we DO say it, practically every time we celebrate Eucharist. And, NO, I DON’T cross my fingers - as the old joke has it - whenever I say the Creed. I believe that WE believe what we say. But I believe also, very firmly, that we also reserve the right to cross examine Jesus, to cross examine the Holy Writings we call the Bible. And I believe, as firmly as I can possibly say to anyone, that God will bring me to whatever and whomever it takes for me to be comfortable - or UN-comfortable - with how I understand who Jesus is and what He’s accomplished for me.
	Thomas has a lot for which to answer. But then, so do you and I. We’re ALL commissioned as witnesses to the Love and Power of God to bring us to fulfillment as members of the family of God.


	So, please - DON’T take my word for it. Ask yourself if what I’m saying makes sense - and why. Ask yourself how what the Bible says came to be considered so valuable - what sort of a problem or what sort of a celebration prompted thinking and rethinking about humans’ relationship with the Creator down through history.
	And we needn’t worry if we think people will be offended, and disturbed, and maybe even frightened by the questions and challenges we present, even to the members of our own family. When Jesus and Thomas got together by themselves in that corner of the Upper Room, Jesus was saying, “Look! Whatever the world can throw at Me, it CAN’T stop Me talking to you, or encouraging you, or challenging you, as you deal with absolutely everything in life. Believe Me, I KNOW life can be a pain! But ask for whatever help, for whatever encouragement, for whatever proof you like. And God WILL provide. Maybe not the first time you ask. But God WILL provide.
	There is an incredible piece of music written in the 1970s by the British composer Gavin Bryars. He called it, “Jesus’ Blood Never Failed Me Yet”. Why did he give it that title? Because one day, when the composer was wandering around London, tape-recording songs and sounds as background for a film on which he was working, he heard this man who looked and sounded as if he’d experienced such an incredible amount of pain and ostracisation by society that he’d been compelled to live on the streets. And what did he hear from that man? He repeated, over and over again, to the same simple set of notes, the words, “Jesus’ Blood Never Failed Me Yet.” 
	And from that song, Bryars brought out his lengthy composition, in which the recording of that street person plays over, and over, and over again.
	Now THAT man seemed to have discovered a certainty. So maybe we can trust that HIS experience may be ours too.
	Let’s hear it for Thomas, then! Thank God for Thomas! Who wasn’t afraid to question anyone, especially someone who said, “Trust me, I’m here to help you!”

FOOTNOTE: 

1 	Belief: Part 2. Tuesday 30th March, 2009. BBC Radio 3  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rpw9x

Quote:
	“It is axiomatic from the Islamic perspective that the Qur’an cannot be translated, because the form of God’s revelation, that is the Arabic itself, is note merely incidental to its meaning, but essential to it. The Arabic of the Qur’an does not, however, limit the Qur’an to one ‘literal’ interpretation, but by virtue of the power of its vocabulary allows for a depth of meaning that would be lost in any translation. A rendering into another language, therefore, is not and never can be the Qur’an as such but merely an interpretation of it.” 2

2	Hasan Gai Eaton: Prologue to “The Message of the Qur’an: The full account of the revealed Arabic text accompanied by parallel transliteration”. Translated and explained by Muhammad Asad. © 2003 The Book Foundation, Bristol, England. 

--
Robert P. Morrison
Interim Vicar
The Episcopal Church of St Alban,
P.O. Box 1556,
Albany, Oregon, 97321

541-921-1076 (cell)
541-967-7051 (church)