Counter-cultures
by Teri Ong
London is certainly a place that is at once multi-cultural and cross-cultural. We met a woman from an eastern European country who had learned English from an American teacher. As a shop keeper in London, she was faced with the difficulty of not only translating her thoughts into English– but even further into “English English.”– and even further, of making herself understood with her own particular national accent in a society full of a multiplicity of national accents.
Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom, and more specifically, ambassadors for God’s Kingdom in a foreign land. We learn to speak the language of Ouranos (heaven) so we can be good representatives of our King. But since we were brought up in Cosmos (world), our old accent sometimes distorts the pure tones of Ouranosian, and sometimes we find it difficult to think in the language of our new country. Even with this difficulty, we know that when we became God’s own, we were transferred from our old kingdom and were made full citizens of the new (Colossians 1:13). We understand that we are not Cosmosian-Ouranosians. One cannot have dual citizenship in God’s Kingdom, because to be a friend of the World is to be an enemy of God (James 4:4). We cannot be hyphenated citizens in that sense.
Hyphenated citizenship is a big issue in America. What is a Mexican-American, or an African-American? Is there such a thing as an Irish-American or an Italian-American? What about a Canadian-American or a British-American?
The issue of hyphenation is now creeping into the body of Christ. The question was raised in Joseph Cumming’s article, “Muslim Followers of Jesus,” in the December 2009 issue of Christianity Today. Cumming poses the question; “The evangelical community accepts that Messianic Jews don’t need the label ‘Christian.’ Is the same true for Muslim background believers, or is Islam too radically different?” In other words, is there such a thing as a “Muslim Christian?”
Cumming equivocates somewhat, but I thought that he missed the main point– Why would someone want to be known as a Muslim follower of Jesus? It seems to me that the main reason would be that such a person could answer “yes” to the question, “Are you a Muslim?”, when the issue comes up in an oppressive society where only Muslims have any freedom of movement. But such a person could at the same time cling to the hope of the Gospel as provided by Jesus.
This scenario raises a series of questions in my mind:
1. Is such a person desiring to be a secret believer like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea? Or is this person desiring to be an underground believer? There may be legitimate reasons for flying under the radar of the authorities, but will such a person bear up or recant when faced with discovery? Naaman was given clearance, so to speak, from Elisha to continue to serve his boss, who happened to be the king, when the king went into the pagan Temple of Rimmon. But the passage implies that Naaman wouldn’t have been there is he didn’t pull official guard duty on worship day. It wasn’t a place he would go voluntarily just to keep up appearances. (II Kings 5:18-19)
2. Doesn’t being a Jewish Christian (if one were to use the term) have more similarities with being an American Christian or a Chinese Christian, than with being a Muslim Christian? A Jewish Christian who continues to celebrate national feast and holidays is not necessarily at odds with New Testament belief and practice. If, some day, temple sacrifices were to be resumed, it would be unbiblical, and therefore un-Christian, to participate in such an observance because Christ fulfilled all sacrifice for sin. But when a believer’s national heritage and practice of its traditions don’t violate New Testament teaching, there is nothing wrong with participating in them. The Apostle Paul had this in mind (at least partially, I believe), when he wrote about not judging how people celebrate holidays (Romans 14).
There should be no problem at all when believers want to maintain a connection with their nation, tribe or tongue. It is not wrong for American believers to celebrate Independence Day (which my husband jokes is probably the same day as British “Thanksgiving”). It is not wrong for English believers to celebrate “Boxing Day” (or probably even Guy Fawkes Day!). I think it is an entirely different matter, however, for Muslims who have professed Christ as savior to continue to pray toward Mecca and celebrate Ramadan. Those are not merely cultural or national observances; they are religious practices at odds with New Testament teaching.
This line of thought should raise one more question in the Christian’s mind: what are the limits on national and cultural observances for the Christian? I don’t think we have carefully thought through when it might be necessary for citizens of Ouranos to withdraw from the celebrations of Cosmos. Should German-Christians celebrate the culture of drunkenness during Oktoberfest? Should Brazilian-Christians celebrate moral debauchery during Carnivale? Should American-Christians celebrate the occult during Halloween? Perhaps I should say a word about the overweening culture of materialism associated with almost all holidays in America.
It used to be that “truth, justice, and the American way,” stood for nothing anti-Biblical or anti-Christian. But as we have continued our descent into “pride, greed, and the approbation of wicked lifestyles are the American way,” the day may not be far off that there will not be such a thing as an American Christian, except as it refers to the place of one’s birth.
In ethnically and religiously diverse cultures, blended appellations might sometimes be useful. For example, one might need to describe a member of Indian society as an Indian Hindu, or an Indian Buddhist, or an Indian Christian. But to hyphenate two opposing religious belief systems is not the same thing as hyphenating a nationality with a belief system.
I believe Christ will gather His Bride, as He said He would, from every tongue, and tribe and nation. That is preciously evident to me whenever I visit our Christian friends in London. I have met Belgian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Dutch, South African, Australian, Hungarian (etc., etc.)– Christians, on our numerous visits to the U.K. Sooner or later, I am sure I will run into Saudi Arabian Christians, Iraqi Christians, and even Afghan Christians. But right now I do believe that being the semantic equivalent of a Muslim Christian– a “Muslim follower of Jesus”– seems about as reasonable as being a “Christian follower of Zeus.”
Reference:
Cumming, Joseph. “Muslim Followers of Jesus?” Christianity Today, December 2009, pp. 32-5.
Hey sis,
I have read a few of these in the past and have long thought to comment, but now I can’t resist.
The problem is not with the question “Can there be such a thing as a ‘muslim-Christian’?” The problem is with the assumption of most american evangelicals that there IS such a thing as a “messianic Jew”. Even among Reformed Christians, there is an assumption that the values of dispensational-premillenialism may still be correct (e.g. that the modern state of Israel in some way represents the Old Covenant people of God) when the theology is fatally flawed.
Failure to understand the relation between covenant and kingdom is at the heart of the matter. The parable of the tenants should be instructive (particularly so in light of your use of the vineyard image from Isaiah in your posting about The Shack).
“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance’…”
“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?’
Even the elders and chief priests to whom and about whom he was speaking (see Matthew 21: 23 and 45 – 46) were bright enough to answer correctly. “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
Jesus’ reply sounds the death knell for dispensationalism and at the same time gives perspective to Paul’s comments on “stumbling blocks”. “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you that THE KINGDOM OF GOD WILL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
The idea of a hyphenated Christian of any description is an assault on the gospel and on the finished work of Christ. When Peter attempts to live as a “messianic Jew” in Antioch, Paul opposes him to his face. We should react in similar fashion not only to those who espouse theological syncretism, but also to those who refuse to separate their nationalistic/political allegiance from their faith. The idea of the “Dutch-Christian” or the “English-Christian” or the “American-Christian” ought to be as obsolete as the weapons of war which were once used to impose those unfortunate labels on the people of surrounding nations.