Was Jesus trilingual?

So it's Christmas and Jesus is on the minds of many. At my folks' house we were talking about languages and somehow Latin came up. So I posed the question:

"Did Jesus know Latin?" After all, when Pilate spoke to Jesus it would most likely have been in Latin.

My daughter responded: "Of course he did, he's Jesus."

Though the scholar in me cringed, I couldn't help but smile.

A soft spot for Islam?

You may notice if you've read through these posts that Islam takes up a lot of space.  I spend a lot of time defending it in the light of the stereotypes and lack of understanding or willingness to accept any old thing said about it and the unwillingness to investigate any deeper than finding those things that reinforce what we already believe.

But I am not soft on Islam, in general.  In fact, one of my greatest peeves about its missionary work is the ignorance Muslims (intentionally and knowingly or not) spreads about Christianity as viewed through a missionary Muslim's perspective.  The information they often spread is just as bad as the information Christians often spread about Islam. 

Here are some books of this variety.  One is a "Saudi" version of the Qur'an that is given away in mass.  I picked up my copy while contemplating conversion and spending a weekend at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia.  These are what are given out to those interested because they are readily available and they are free.  This is one particular translation into English from a very particular point of view.

Two of them are reviews about such information as put out in books by Christians who have converted to Islam.  These are books that spread a particular kind of information.  It is "rooted" in other things published but it often borders on the fringe, at best, and conspirational at worst.  Granted, I too am coming from a particular point of view so take these reviews as well formed opinion but opinions nonetheless.

However, I would certainly not base one's eternal salvation upon what these authors say.   But I do recommend reading them, though, if only to understand. 

The Qur'an - translation by by Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaliq, translated with commentary by Mahmoud Murad.

The Cross & The Crescent - Jerald Dirks

A Muslim Study of the Origins of the Christian Church - Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood

They are authors, all entitled to their views.

I am simply defending education.

If you want opinions on some good, balanced works, drop me a line. 

Colonialist Christianity...

I belong to this amazing website that sends daily literary emails that tackle a range of subjects, almost always something interesting.

Today's seemed relevant to this blog:

"In today's excerpt - efforts by Christian missionaries in the 1800s to convert the largely rural Chinese to their faith stumbled badly, amid cultural dissonance, social and political maneuvering, and libelous claims and counterclaims. But British economic and military superiority soon made it advantageous to for Chinese to convert:"

Read more here. 

I highly recommend signing up.  It's free of cost and free of spam.

You may not read every email but you'll be glad you have the option to read them when they come.

The Zen Trinity...

Lately I've been on a Zen kick.  The Zen/Dao thing has been a constant in my life.  In many ways I am a Daoist Christian.  My Bible is marked at certain passages (especially in Ecclesiastes) with a 'DDJ' indicating parallels with the Dao De Jing.  It was in the context of the Dao that my spiritual awakening first began. 

Anyhow, there are a series of 'comic' books of Chinese philosophy by illustrator Tsai Chih Chung and translated by Brian Bruya that are brilliant in their simplicity.  They are, ironically enough, very Zen.  One of them, Zen Speaks, was, aside from the Dao De Jing, my first book on Zen/Daoism.  It's a first edition and, though a bit beat up, I still leaf through it on a regular basis. 

I find that Zen provides some penetrating insight into Christian theology without having to compromise.  In fact, in meditating upon this in church today I realized that it is possible to parallel the Trinity in Zen thought.  Granted, there is the "personal" or "relationship" element in Christian theology that is lacking in Zen.  In Zen there is no "person" with Whom to have a relationship as in Christian theology.

However, there is a parallel that can be made.  Instead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in Zen there is the One, the Sage (or, perhaps, Mind) and the idea of 'emptiness' that is the essence of Zen practice.  In this emptiness is everything, the "insight" that comes in a flash causing us to act according to our original nature.  One who has reached this level of understanding is a Sage, persons who, over time, have become mythologized.  In the One is the origin of everything, from which everything flows.

This parallel is obviously sorely lacking in the person of Jesus but as Christians are to be Christ-like and Christ is a 'Sage' in the sense of acting according to his true nature, so too is the person who practices Zen attempting to be Sage-like in his actions, operating not according to self but acccording to 'emptiness' and thus his original nature.  The parallel is that a Christian in surrendering his everything allows the Holy Spirit to act through him, much like emptiness in Zen allows the person to operate in the manner of ziran (tzu jan), self-so or operating according to the way it is.

Again, this is not an exact parallel.  In Zen there is no purpose, no goal to achieve, no concern with accomplishing God's will or such "personal" notions.  These things, if operating in this emptiness, will occur naturally and thus according to the way they are supposed to be.  No higher purpose just the way it is.

I would, however, make the case that when we operate according to God's will we are acting in the way it is supposed to be.  This is the way it is.  All that means is that it is not forced, it is not polluted by the imposition of our will or selfish motive on our part.  It may not have the glory of attributing something to a personal God who we believe cares rather than the more impersonal approach in Zen.

Having walked these two paths in some parallel over the past fifteen years has enabled me in many ways to be open to Christian doctrine, especially when it comes to things (e.g. the Trinity) that don't at first make sense.  But by being open, empty if you will, I have come to a deeper understanding of the Trinity that is theologically correct. 

Zen is a mindset and one that might benefit many a Christian who tries to "force" his or herself to accept propositions that simply do not fit thus leading to a spiritual walk that is less than peaceful.  I wouldn't tag myself a Zen or Daoist Christian as a badge, no matter how much this may (or may not) be true, but I find nothing wrong with investigating other truth claims.

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good..." (1 Thessalonians 5:21, NASB) 

In context this probably applies to truth claims of Christian doctrine but expanding this beyond this particular context it easily extends toward any truth claim.

Burn The Qur'an Day...

...represents fear on every level.

In summation, the terrorists are winning.

What Is Up With Patriotism These Days?

As the most recent "rally" held by Glenn Beck shows, the idea of patriotism has become religious.  I'm not talking about a "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" America.  No, I'm talking about America as a religion.  C. Eric Lincoln called it Americanity and he was prophetic in this regard.

America is the religion being preached; Christianity (in all its varieties) would thus fall under its banner.  Manifest Destiny or whatever its called means that the creation of America was God's purpose and Christiaity the means toward its creation.

It is really beginning to frighten me.  On the surface, "conservative" values are preached but if we are not careful we will contiue to see the emergence of a police state based not on laws but on ethics and "spiritual" values that have been legislated. 

And, just for the record, this stuff we see all over the headlines isn't news.  It is fast becoming (or perhaps it's too late) nothing more than tabloid entertainment.  Come to think of it, the National Inquirer won a prestigious award for busting Jon Edwards.  The line has been crossed.

Just my two cents...

Vladimir Lossky, Henry Corbin and "Eastern" spirituality

Over the past several years, "Western" Christianity has left me a bit hungry, and jaded, seeming to be something of an amalgam of Christianity conflated with the "American" spirit, as if the two are directly connected, that God somehow favors America.  I won't go there but let me just say that God does not play favorites - God isn't interested in nation building.

Anyhow, this, along with the often baffling theology of Christianity, caused me to search out Islam as a viable path.  It's an old story on this blog but it led me to Henry Corbin's writings.  It also led me to the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition.  It was through reading Vladimir Lossky's works, specifically The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, that I began to get a good grasp on the Eastern church's theological perspective.  I find, in many ways, my Christian thought life aligning with this view.

While not radically different than that of the Christian West, specifically the American West, it is different.  More intellectual, more reasoned and less emotionally driven than the Christianity I am familiar with, it provides a solid foundation and helps me to understand more deeply Christianity as it evolved.

Henry Corbin, on the other hand, while not denouncing Christianity, as such, providse a more 'gnostic' view, giving approval to the "docetic" view of Christ (though understanding his definition of docetic is key to understanding what this means).  Yet in reading his writings and those of Vladimir Lossky I have come to realize that there is common ground here, there are similarities, even if certain theological constructs are different.

Though I have only begun to research this, there is a similar approach to God's communication in the world in Lossky's dissection of God's "essence and energies" and Corbin's fascination with the "emanation" and "angelology" present in 'gnostic' Christianity as well as in the Shi'ite/Isma'ili variations within Islam.

This isn't to elevate Corbin or Lossky's writings to authoratative.  Accepting the basic premise of "People of the Book" no one's writings achieve this status.  However, it does reveal to me that there is something similar in Eastern Christianity and that of the Islam that evolved in the lands of the Eastern Church.  To what extent one influenced the other is difficult to say and it's quite possible that "causality" is an oversimplification of a worldview that is inherent in the people who populated this region.

I don't know that Corbin rejected Christianity wholesale or embraced Islam or if he just lived out his own faith that he had carved.  But it's interesting that in trying to present an alternative "Christian" spirituality via Islam, Corbin has stepped writing into the spiritual universe of the Orthodox Church.  It seems, in preliminary thoughts, that the two would find much to talk about were they to have ever met.

Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth and Henry Corbin

I went through a Joseph Campbell stage of my faith walk, an intellectual freeing that enabled me to see something beyond what I thought was just crazy belief.  It was this book that opened my eyes to the power of "myth" (not in the sense of make believe but in the sense of symbol pointing to a deeper reality).

However, there was one sentence I remembered and it only came blazing into my brain after becoming immersed in the world of born-again Christianity and Islam.  Campbell completely, at least in this book, overlooks, ignores, and is even ignorant of, the power of these traditions in the lives of the faithful. 

"MOYERS: Is there something like this common in the experience of our culture? I'm thinking particularly of the born-again experience in our Southern culture.

CAMPBELL: There must be. This is an actual experience of transit through the earth to the realm of mythological imagery, to God, to the seat of power. I don't know what the born-again Christian experience is...."

Now, I'm not sure if he ever discusses the born again Christian experience anywhere else in his writings but this little statement is a powerhouse.  Granted, the man could not be expert on every religion everywhere ever but this little lacunae is significant.

I've noticed also that in all the pleading in Henry Corbin's writing and those who interpret him (e.g. Tom Cheetham), he too seems unaware of the born-again Christian's emphasis on living in the "spirit".  Those things he pleads for are in fact sought by born-again Christians. 

It's an interesting parallel worth looking into.  I am hoping to continue this line of thinking as I finish Tom Cheetham's remarkable Green Man, Earth Angel.

The Spirit bloweth where it listeth...

As much as I am not a fan of interfaithism, that all religions are the same mantra of the post-modern world, in studying "other" religions it can be an astounding thing when a particular piece of Scripture opens the spiritual eyes, awakening the soul from slumber.

"Time and time again My messages were recited to you, but you turned arrogantly on your heels, and spent the evening making fun of [the Qur an]." (S 23:66-67, Haleem trans.)

"Time and again were My messages conveyed unto you, but [every time] you would turn about on your heels [and,] impelled by your arrogance, you would talk senselessly far into the night." (Asad trans.)

One of the things that often troubled me about Islam was its ban on music. I understand the dangers to the faithful as the 'spirit' that drives musicians is often far from edifying to the soul. But to ban it outright? That's silly as it takes away man's freedom to choose.

However, while reading the passage above I realized the "meaning" behind the prohibition. It wasn't something new; it merely reinforced what I already know. I have found that the Qur'an speaks on this level; it points out what is already there.

I do understand context and the historical setting of each revelation. But there is often something universal about particular situations.

In the pursuit of God, music can easily be a distraction, sensual pleasure, though not necessarily "harmful" as such, something that keeps us lulling about from the task of pursuing God. So what is a prohibition in our best interest, when legislated, can become an enslaving tool.

But it hit me as I drove in to work this morning while listening to my tunes that I wasn't necessarily "into" them; they didn't speak to me as they used to. No, my soul was longing for something that wasn't there. So as I drove it became more and more of a distraction, my soul longing for something deeper, my "soulical" nature clinging to the sound of the music.

And again:

"But there is the sort of person who pays for distracting tales, intending, without any knowledge, to lead others from God’s way, and to hold it up to ridicule." (S 31:6, Haleem)

"But among men there is many a one that prefers a mere play with words [to divine guidance], so as to lead [those) without knowledge astray from the path of God, and to turn it to ridicule..." (Asad trans.)

And, of course, to read The Noble Qur'an as promoted by the Saudi Arabian promoted translation:

"And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks (i.e. music, singing, etc.) to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah without knowledge, and takes it (the Path of Allah, or the Verses of the Qur'an) by way of mockery."

And the hadith to justify this translation:

"Narrated Abu 'Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash'ari that he heard the Prophet saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, 'Return to us tomorrow.' Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection." (Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 69, Number 494) 

I'd rather not go into the hadith thing but this is a spirit killer.  It removes personal choice from the matter and becomes a weapon to wield in the eyes of those who uphold the Law.

I'll stick with the Haleem/Asad translation and follow the Traditionalist school of Islam 'cause the "traditional" school of Islam is a death sentence.

Eastern Christianity and Islam

More thoughts on visiting Islam...

I was recently asked to revisit a piece that was submitted in my local newspaper. It was a good opportunity as the original piece was quite sanitized of any attempt at critique. A local newspaper is not the place for such a piece. So I highlighted the positive aspects of my experience, a bit glowing, perhaps, but still true.

In retrospect, my conclusions remain. I have recently been re-reading the Qur'an and am still moved by its power. Yet that critical view returns instantly. I am unable to surrender my Biblical context and thus the Qur'an seems skeletal in light of the Biblical stories and their variants laced throughout the pages of the Qur'an.

The Bible tells stories; the Qur'an makes statements. The Bible gives the characters life; the Qur'an does not. I think it is this that is so troublesome.

The Islam I grew to love was the Islam of Western scholars, usually of a more "gnostic" bent. Scholars such as Henry Corbin and Peter Lamborn Wilson (aka Hakim Bey) dig into the "heretical" stream of Islam and it is here that I find great power and beauty. In fact, I find this one of the strengths of the Islamic current through history.

The power is found in the way the "heretical" strains of Christianity made their way East and would interact with Muslims as they moved out of Arabia and created a very fertile and living tradition that falls outside of the pale of both Christian and Islamic orthodoxy. It's more fun there.

I say this with a caveat: I'm quite "fundamentalist" in what is considered Christian orthodoxy. This isn't in a militant sense as I'm not about to argue with someone about orthodoxy or condemn alternative views.

But I can't embrace what are, from this orthodox perspective, many of the "new age" or "me-centered" Christologies so rampant and popular in today's media. They seem sappy when compared to the deeper things of Christian theology.

As for "my" Islam, it is probably because I maintain an intellectual distance from "actual" Islam that I am able to absorb some of it into my current spiritual path, not as a hybrid or in a syncretist fashion but as an appreciation, a little flavoring, if you will, to my current path. It still provides a viable critique to the excesses of modern day Christendom. Even the "free" worship style of non-denominational churches becomes, after a while, ritualistic.

Four songs, pastor steps out and gives a little "oomph" to worship more, the greeting/guest book, one more song during the offering and the message followed by an altar call and prayer. Same series of events every Sunday. It too is a ritual, safe, comfortable and yet still a ritual. It's the nature of any organized body and is a grounding element in the lives of human beings. Otherwise, you have chaos (and even chaos will, as science has shown, reveal patterns over time).

So Henry Corbin's Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis and Peter Lamborn Wilson's Sacred Drift or even Muhammad Asad's Message of the Qur'an will continue to enlighten in a way that very few Christian books are able to, perhaps because it brings into sharper contrast the Christ of faith, thus making it more clear what is chosen when maintaing a more "orthodox" Christian faith.

Revisiting Islam

I was asked to offer up reflections of my article that was published in my local newspaper, to add more depth and lessons learned of the experience. It has taken me right back to that time, perhaps the last time I can truly recall being spiritually on fire.

This isn't to say that I am not working on developing my faith, deeper and more practically in my life. But I miss the adventure, the excitement, the thrill of discovery and the opening up of my heart, mind and soul. For as confusing as that time of my life was, in hindight it was a time of great learning and growth.

I was talking with a guy I work with who was intrigued with my adventure and he made the comment that he was told that Muhammad was angry. Interesting perspective. I suppose we could easily find verses or traditions, isolated in their context, to support that view. We could just as easily find verses that show Muhammad to be quite passive. Context, baby.

I noticed also the fuss about building a mosque around the site of Ground Zero. We have made an idol out of 9/11. This isn't to dismiss the tragedy. This is to put it in a larger context. Other places around the world have experience tragedies to greater degrees.

But a bunch of militants penetrating right into the heart of America and destroying one of its prominent symbols of power or, if you will, hubris. Considering America's place in the world over the past hundred years or so, no murderous event in recent memory has been as symbolic, on many levels. Even the Oklahoma city bombing, by one of America's own, lacks the significance due not only to power of the imagery but to the religious ideology that has been laid on top of the act.

So a mosque at Ground Zero? Religiously, I have no problem with it. This isn't the controversy. The controversy is the politicized nature of the act. On one hand it is an attempt to heal this rift between Islam and the West; on the other hand, it reveals a certain insensitivity to the symbolic nature of what happened and shows a lack of awareness at the seething rage that lies under the surface of many Americans.

I say move it forward, see what happens. America is a free country. We are free to build a mosque at Ground Zero; we are free to debate it and argue against it. Such is the nature of the freedom granted in the ideals of America. If America is going to become a Muslim nation it is going to become Muslim. Whatever happens is going to happen exactly as it is supposed to happen. If it does become a Muslim nation it is because no other ideology is strong enough to unify the citizens of the United States.

Don't blame Islam; look in the mirror.

Baraka: The Other Soundtrack

This was originally posted at another blog of mine that was recently deleted by Google.

The film Baraka is easily in my top five films. My journey (though a bit longwinded) of discovery with it, if you’re interested, can be found here.

The novelty and naïveté has worn off but this film always take me back to that original burst of spiritual awareness that burst forth that year.

Anyhow, if you’ve watched the film and listened to the soundtrack you’ll notice immediately that the soundtrack is sorely lacking.

These are songs not included on the soundtrack and extended versions of some of the tracks from the soundtrack.

Add these songs to the soundtrack and you’re close to the soundtrack as it’s meant to be. You can find a straight audio rip of the DVD here.

The only thing not included here, and unavailable outside of the tidbits found on the soundtrack, would be the score by Michael Stearns (with an uncredited appearance by Lisa Gerrard during the scoring of one of the film scenes).

The Blu-Ray is available and it is, hands down, one of the best - if not the best - Blu Ray discs I've ever seen.  I've seen this on the big screen (though I can't say it was in its original 70mm format or not...was kind of stoned at the time...) and have seen it on video and DVD.  But the Blu-Ray...don't wait and don't settle for a bootleg from the web.
Part1//Part2

Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI) - Jesus of Nazareth

If you tire of the self-help literature that is found under "Christian Inspiration" at your local chain bookstore, I recommend this book.

It's not an easy read. But it's an essential read.

The deeper I dig into Catholic tradition, the more treasures appear. If you are looking to deepen your faith and tire of the cheerleader Christianity so prevalent among churches today, the direction you need to go is to dig into the past.

Contrary to much popular opinion, the Bible is not a history book. To go back and try and figure out what the early church did simply by reading the New Testament is simply not enough.

The early church's history needs to be balanced out by the writings of the Church Fathers, the Second Temple literature and other pseudepigraphal works of the age along with some historical views of the culture in which Christianity emerged. Only then do we begin to get some semblance of what the early church was like.

The "Acts church" out of context has a tendency to look like an American church.

I consider myself to be fairly well studied when it comes to Christian history/theology (though obviously there is always much, much more to be learned). But within the first 50 pages of the book I've already been enlightened. It flows into a paradigm I already hold but the knowledge enhances this paradigm.

Consider:

"Both Evangelists designate Jesus' preaching with the Greek term evangelion - but what does that actuallymean?

The term has recently been translated as "good news." That sounds attractive, but it falls short of the order of magnitude of what is actually meant by the word evangelion. This term figures in the vocabulary of the Roman emperors, who understood themselves as lords, saviors, and redeemers of the world. The messages issued by the emperor were called in Latin evangelium, regardless of whether or not their content was particularly cheerful and pleasant. The idea was that what comes from the emperor is a saving message, that it is not just a piece of news, but a change of the world for the better.

When the Evangelists adopt this word, and it thereby becomes the generic name for their writings, what they mean to tell us is this: What the emperors, who pretend to be gods, illegitimately claim, really occurs here - a message endowed with plenary authority, a message that is not just talk, but reality. In the vocabulary of contemporary linguistic theory, we would say that the evangelium, the Gospel, is not just informative speech, but performative speech - not just the imparting of information, but action, efficacious power that enters into the world to save and transform." (pp. 46-47)

Adds a bit of power to the term.

Get this book. It is not a papal view nor is it a Catholic doctrinal work. It is the man Joseph Ratzinger's search for the face of the Lord.

Marx, The Bible and Capitalism

I am rereading Jose Miranda's Marx and the Bible for about the third or fourth time.  I discovered this book while working as an outreach worker for the homeless at Catholic Charities.  It was during this time I discovered, and grew to appreciate, Catholic doctrine, not only its significance for the early Church Fathers but for their teaching on social justice, often referred to as liberation theology.

I think what really is most significant about this theology is that it provides a valuable, and vital, critique of modern Christianity, especially the Western variety which is imbued with a spirit of individualism that often leads us astray from the essence, or outcome, of the theology of both the Hebrew Bible (primarily as highlighted in the Prophets) and the New Testament.  What the Bible teaches is not individual salvation, as such, but salvation whose end is community, restoration, reconciliation, love.  It is not a "me" oriented salvation; any "me" is only a means to and end.

Miranda's book scathingly critiques capitalism as the most oppressive and insidious system to have ever been devised, where slaves not only work willingly for their master but strive to participate in the very same system in which they are enslaved.  This argument against capitalism is not new, nor is such a criticism necessarily religious in nature (Michael Moore, anyone?).

It reminded me of a documentary I had watched many years ago PBS about the most dangerous company in America.  It is a shocking documentary and seems to reinforce such criticisms of capitalism.  Yet at the very end of the documentary there was a company that seemed to turn the idea on its head.  And the man behind the company that displays such a positive work environment was a Christian who used his faith to guide how he treats those who work for him.

So the question becomes this: is capitalism inherently bad?  Or is such a business owner simply working within a system which is hopelessly corrupt?  Can such efforts lead to a change in the system as it is or are such efforts individual in nature, driven by faith, and the goal of all religious?

I believe that any system is only as good as the individuals within it, though any system, given enough time, will ultimately serve those who are in charge of the system and they will maintain the status quo to protect what is theirs.  Capitalism.  Socialism.  Communism.  Christianity.  Islam.  No system is free from the devices and greed of men in positions of power.

But Miranda's book is a call to action, a call to rethinking one's faith and a call to rethinking one's community.

I challenge you to watch the documentary.  Here's the link:

A Dangerous Business

 It's only an hour long but it's quite thought provoking.  And I especially challenge you to read Miranda's book.

Marx and the Bible

The story was recently updated:

A Dangerous Business

Just something to ponder, to help us think outside of our little boxes in which we live.

Americanization of Rumi...PartFour

Part Four of the series on Americanization.  Below is a transcript of the April 23, 2009 broadcast of "Speaking of Faith" on NPR radio about Rumi, featuring an interview with Iranian scholar/academic Fatemeh Keshavarz.  Rather than my commentary, I'll let the transcript speak. 

Text highlighted in bold simply reinforces the point of sanitizing Rumi from his Islamic context.  By "freeing" him in this fashion, his words cease to have root and mean what we what them to mean.

Ms. Tippett: Welcome back to Speaking of Faith, public radio's conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas. I'm Krista Tippett. Today, "The Ecstatic Faith of Rumi," the 13th-century Persian poet and mystic.

In recent years, English translations of Rumi's poetry by the American poet Coleman Barks have sold more than half a million copies in the U.S. UNESCO has declared 2007 International Rumi Year to honor the 800th anniversary of his birth. Rumi has been the subject of creative work by contemporary artists from composer Philip Glass to pop icon Madonna.

But such popular renditions of Rumi often give little hint of his Islamic identity. He was the son of a Muslim teacher, born in the center of Persian Islamic civilization. He spent time as the head of a madrassa, religious schools which were centers of great learning, at the same time that Western Europe had fallen into the dark ages.

Rumi's themes of separation and longing come straight from the heart of Islamic theology. There is no idea of original sin, but rather of a human tendency to forget and thus become separated from Allah or God. Islam imagines faith as zikr or remembrance of a knowledge that is embedded in human beings. My guest, Fatemeh Keshavarz, finds resonance in Rumi for the deepest challenges before the world and Islam today.

Ms. Tippett: I'd like to talk about Rumi's Islamic grounding and identity. That gets lost in 21st-century translations.

Ms. Keshavarz: Absolutely.

Ms. Tippett: Coleman Barks' translations are the ones that many people have read, that became popular, I assume. I was reading his introduction to The Essential Rumi. You know, he suggested that with a mystical writer like this, you know, he suggested that placing this person in historical and cultural context is simply not a central task. And he wrote, "My more grandiose project is to free his text into its essence."

Ms. Keshavarz: I think one thing that Coleman Barks has done, he has written Rumi's ideas in the American poetic idiom. He's made it accessible to the broad readership, and that should definitely be valued. And, you know, don't hear me saying anything else on that.

But I don't think you can free people from the context in which they live, and I don't think even if you try to do that, that that serves a useful purpose. I don't see Rumi as detached from the Islamic context at all.

In fact, I see his work as actually and completely immersed in the Islamic tradition. I tell you, it would be hard to read a single ghazal, not even the Masnavi, which is expressly a work with theological and mystical intentions, but even a ghazal, it would be hard to read a ghazal and not find quite a few illusions to Qur'anic verses, to sayings of the prophet, to practices in the Muslim world, so I don't think we need to separate him from his Islamic context.

The way first I visualize this myself is that he goes through the religion, he lives it, absorbs it, and uses it in his way. So in the process, he self-births a lot of things. He changes a lot, reinterprets a lot of things, but he does not step outside of it. He lives in it. Let me give you an example.

Ms. Tippett: Good.

Ms. Keshavarz: You know that in his discourses — I try not to use the word "sermons" because "sermon" brings such a specific connotation that's probably not there. But the discourses are when Rumi is sitting in a local mosque, in the local gathering, talking to people. It's very interactive, it's very informal, and he kind of steps down the pulpit in a way and reaches out to the people and it's very poetic even though it's in prose and he didn't write it down. His students and, you know, people around him took it down.

On one of these occasions, he quotes a Qur'anic verse, if I might quote the Arabic, is (recites Qur'anic verse in Arabic). We — this is the royal "we," God — we stand down the zikr and we will be its protector. Now, the word zikr in Arabic means "remembers" and traditionally the commentators have defined the word zikr as the Qur'an itself, and they have good reason to do so because elsewhere in the Qur'an, the Qur'an refers to itself as zikr and remembrance, in part because humanity is described as forgetful, so the Qur'an is a way of remembering.

Now, he says the commentators have said that this verse refers to the Qur'an itself, that God says we have given you the Qur'an and we are — that I am the protector of it. And he said (foreign language spoken). That's fine. (Foreign language spoken), but there is this interpretation, too, that God says (foreign language spoken). "We have put in you a desire and a quest, and I, God, am the protector of that desire." That's a very different interpretation. First of all, it opens it immediately to all humanity.

Ms. Tippett: I think that there is something in Rumi's writing which is so large, so generous. I don't like the word "universal" because I think in some ways it waters things down. Ms. Keshavarz: I agree with you. "Generous" is a very good…

Ms. Tippett: Yeah. But it's easy to read this and also I think people from many different religious traditions can read this poetry or his discourses, or people who are not people of faith can read it and feel themselves addressed and feel their spiritual lives addressed.

Ms. Keshavarz: Yes. And I think sometimes people feel that if they take away or overlook the Islamic flavor of it, maybe that makes him more accessible, more theirs. I think generosity and openness is a very good way of putting it. If you're not rooted in the specific and in the small, in the local, you can never see the broader vision. You have to love a tradition and to be completely immersed in it before you can subvert it and transcend it. You have to…

Ms. Tippett: Before you can subvert it from the inside.

Ms. Keshavarz: Exactly. And you have to love it for you to think that I want to open it up, I want to make it better, and then go forward with it. And, you know, you can't break laws in an acceptable way unless you know them really well and practice them with tradition. That's the only time. And that's what I think he does. He's so well rooted in the Islamic tradition, so completely aware of the nuances, that he says, you know, 'Hey guys, we can open it up here. Look. Look at this. This is what you always thought, but now look one step beyond.' And he can do that precisely because he's rooted in the tradition.

Ms. Tippett: And I think it's true also that around the same time that Rumi was entering popular imaginations by way of poetry, there were images of Islam suddenly in the news in this post-9/11 world which were so very different from that. I mean — and, you know, you've written that Rumi is a true child of an adventurous and cosmopolitan Islam. And, you know, those are not two words that you would associate with headline Islam that we've had these past years.

Ms. Keshavarz: I'm actually, you know, really glad you bring this up because I think one thing that's desperately needed at this point, to show the adventureness, the surprise, the play, the aspects of his work that now are not normally associated with that part of the world. You kind of think that, you know, people just — it's all religion, and it's religion followed in a fairly institutionalized and stylized and, you know, planned form. Not at all. I mean, he's playing with it all the time. So I think another contribution he could do for us right now, exactly in this post-9/11 environment, is to bring out that side of the Muslim culture, that contribution to the world."

Angry Christian Men

I suppose I could just call the post angry men but for some reason with the "Christian" tag you'd think there would be no anger or, when anger flares up, I know the well from which to draw the water that will quench the fire.

Yet that rage flares up.  Not everything causes the rage.  Rage is the result of the accumulation of judgments, the collection of things that seem unfair, a file cabinet in the brain of things that are wrong, things over which I either lack control or have no control.

When these build to a critical point, seemingly insignificant things are like a pin pricking a balloon.  Sure I blame erratic sleep patterns which is partially true as my ability to "hold it together" is weakend.  I blame the job, I blame other people's bad decisions that affect me, I blame the bills, I blame, blame, blame.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to control.  I am in charge.  The "I AM" isn't in charge; I am. 

In other words, I am unwilling to truly surrender, to truly trust, to truly humble myself before Another.  I say I do; I have the best intentions of doing so:; I may even, under the right conditions, actually do so.  But, by and large, my sense of happiness is dictated by my control over those things I cling to for safety - income, job, bank account, etc.

This may not seem revelatory.  It really isn't supposed to be.  But it is an acknowledgement.  I am afraid to surrender and it is this fear that is the source of the rage.  Rage flares up when fear is highest.  Fear of losing the job, fear of running out of money, fear of someone doing something which I judge to be a violation of some standard I impose.

In this state, there is no grace, there is only judgment, judgment which, if the tables were turned, I too would fail.

"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." (Romans 2:1)

Ouch.

Intellectually, I know this.  Yet there is a blockage of the heart that does not allow this to penetrate deep enough that the smallest provocation causes my (emphasis my) little (emphasis little) world to crumble.

So where is the hope in this?  I've been reading the story of David and Solomon and the decline of the kingdom of Israel.  And have fallen in love with the Bible again.

Don't get me wrong.  I still have a critic's eye.  After all, to read the Samuel/Kings versions and the Chronicles version you'd have to do some fancy gymnastics to deny some discrepancies (e.g. who killed Goliath?). 

But...and a rather large one at that...in reading James Kugel's How To Read The Bible I have come to find that Biblical scholarship, even though it basically dismantles the inerrantist worldview, settles my mind by giving an honest explanation of these discrepancies. 

Kugel is a Jewish (that is, a practicing Jew) scholar.  This work presents the traditional view and the scholars view and leaves the final verdict up to the reader.  But it is one of the more honest works of recent memory and I just can't stomach much of what passes for Biblical scholarship in much of the Christian universe. 

How many books do we really need that does the "quote a Scripture, quote some famous person, quote a Scripture, quote some famous person" dance?

Balance this with Fred Kamer's Doing Faithjustice, a Catholic perspective on social thought, and a re-read of Nate Larkin's Samson and the Pirate Monks, and, once again, the muttness shines through.  A Jewish, Catholic, nondenominational book reading mutt.

And this does not belittle the Sacred in the Bible; if anything, with the mind at ease, it allows the import of the real message to shine through.

And my anger?  Still flares up.  IE crashed (I use Firefox at home...) while posting this and I got angry.  Irony indeed.

But I continue to read the Word and continue to try and pray, trying to swallow the pride that wants to rationalize it away or to make judgment on forms of prayer that seem phony and silly, as if God is Santa Clause.  Judgment.  Anger.  Pride. 

All symptoms of self-absorption and a need for surrender.

So to the Word I return, not as a critic, but as a Seeker.  I acknowledge my sinful, self-centered state of mind and do pray (if only in the heart) for God to move through me unimpeded by the Holy Spirit so it is Jesus, not me, that is displayed. 

Because, in the end, it isn't about me.  Or you.  Or any of us.  It is about Him.

Irony

Every struggle to define irony? Hint: it is perhaps ironic that Alanis Morissette song is not ironic. But that's been played out.

Coincidence is often confused with irony.

As far as I understand it, irony is laced with a historical foundation whether in the context of a story or simply in the sense of history behind a given outcome, as indicated in the images below (though they would probably have more impact without the explanatory notes underneath). 

It is an awareness of the history and its outcome that reveals the irony and in so doing yields a higher truth.

Who says irony has to be tragic?

Is it ironic that clowns are scary?

Picked this t-shirt up at a Goodwill.

Ironic, don't you think?

Invade A Hospital

Don't let the terrorists win.

Don't let the government win.

Don't believe the hype.

Something strange happened...

I've been on a diversion lately, immersing myself in music.  If I had my way I'd have music playing 24 hours a day.  I have two sets of headphones, the in-ear variety for driving (car stereo doesn't work, most stuff on mp3 player anyhow...illegal? so is speeding...) and noise cancelling for every chance I get.

It isn't strange that this is what I've been doing as music has been a vital part of my life since a very young age.  Nor is it strange that I have a 1TB hard drive filling up rapidly.  Nor is it strange that my musical taste varies, from gospel to techno to post-rock to ambient and anything and everything in between.  I appreciate (almost) all forms of musical expression even though I may not enjoy some of them.

I used to listen to harder rock and the obligatory classic rock when younger and grew out of it as I grew older.  This isn't a judgment of the music, just an acknowledgment of how I changed.  I suppose if I listened to classic rock 'til the day I dropped dead I'd wonder if I plateaued and stayed there.

Anyhow, in my travels I stumbled across a box set called "Goodbye Babylon" several years ago issued by Dust To Digital.  I sat on this for years and, at best, dabbled in it.  Lately I've revisited it.  Perhaps it was the timing but I sat mesmerized.

The album is filled with old gospel/church songs.  These aren't the traditional hymns everyone knows.  My wife, who knows every church song ever written, didn't know any of them.  We're talking seriously old and, I'm guessing, obscure.  The static crackle of old 78s resonates.  There are a few "big" names many people known, Mahalia Jackson perhaps the most famous, but this is definitely not a best of compilation.

Though I devour many, many forms of music - dub and dub techno my latest obsession - it does not generally captivate me as it did in my youth.  It doesn't move the soul and it is only occasional when music actually stirs my emotions.  For the most part music is meditative, tranquilizing.  Perhaps I have hardened, perhaps I don't expect as much from music, I'm not sure. 

But I do know that the only music that really grips me and stirs my soul is "religious" music.  I've sat captivated by the recital of the Qur'an and can easily listen to the adhan or Al-Fatihah many times without tire. I've found myself in trancelike stupor listening to Buddhist chanting, been hypnotized by Qawwali music and can listen to Native American spirituals anytime. 

Though I genuinely "feel" the power of the music, I can't help but wonder if I lack proper context to truly appreciate the music.  Perhaps I am self-limiting in this view.  My "context" is Christian.  Not all "Christian" music, mind you.  Much of it is simply not good, just as in other style of music.  Just because it is tagged as Christian doesn't mean I am obligated to somehow think it good.

Much of today's "religious" (especially Christian) music is no different from the "world" music it so (often cheaply) imitates.  It is often just worldly music with a Christian stamp, maybe a Jesus thrown in here and there to authenticate it.

But this box set is basically Jesus straight, no chaser. It is very reminiscent of the music from Searching For The Wrong Eyed Jesus in its uncompromising simplicity, fervency and occasional weirdness. Surprisingly, I found my spirit being lifted as I listened to the entirety of the first disc.

Sure it is a slice of Americana, culturally significant and historically interesting in a Bob Dylan, Neil Young, roots music kind of way.  You can listen to it and be curious and explore it and yet not be touched by its spirit at all. 

But I think it was the simplicity that caught me off guard, not as a novelty, not as one sitting in judgment of the music or the musicians, but as one who understood.  In years past I would have written it off as backwards, made fun of it and moved on.  But there is power in it and I found myself taken aback, amazed at what I heard.