Explaining the Gentile Christian to the Muslim
August 29, 2011
The Gentile Christian is sort of the pure Christian, independently of all cultures. He has no law except the law of love and which he seeks to apply everywhere possible. He is beholden to only one man, and that is Jesus. His conscience is known to his Lord Jesus, and no one else matters in that regard. He is described by Acts 15, and his autonomy is granted through Paul and the Council of Jerusalem. The good that he does as a citizen of some land is derived from his law of love.
He enters Jesus’ band as a free man* and he remains a free man, acting of his own volition for the sake of the law of love. As a member of the band of Jesus, and following his left foot print, the Gentile Christian is seeking to emulate the spirit of his Jesus and identify their two spirits as one.
[* Wesley in his dogmatic might quibble with that and assert that his freedom is limited to include resisting the strength of a call for conversion.]
He is a free man in that what he does now he does not do for reward, for that he already holds in his hand (eternal life now), but rather in order simply to implement the law of love in the current circumstance to the best of his ability and understanding as to what is helpful and hurtful to human beings.
He is a slave to no man, neither to expert nor priest, but must and will decide for himself the truth of any interpretation of an alleged command of God (John 5:1-18 and Romans 13:8-14) and acts in accordance with his understanding to most expediently implementing the love law universally.
If informed (and perhaps even intuitively) he will recognize the origin of the moral law of universal dignity as being in his own rationality, and as a result he possess an imperial negative standard for all interpretations of communications of God, namely it must not violate the law of love as understood by the specific individual. He cannot cite any alleged angelic voice as a justification for neglecting the moral law in any case. But he is thrilled to see that this moral law and this universal law of love are two expression of a common end, dignity and hope. This much independent authentication he has, this correspondance with the moral law.
This same rationality and heart of love will lead the Gentile Christian to unite with others to learn how to love and help mankind, and to seek out the best science and to encourage each other in their zeal for the Kingdom of God.
In terms of his theology he can vary greatly. But for all practical purposes he is as described here, a free man voluntarily making a vow to the Lord Jesus to join his band as one who intends to reflect the love of this Jesus in all the world.
Now to close with a Wesleyan flavor we can also assert of the Christian in general (including the Jewish or Law-abiding Christian) that a dedication to embody the spirit of Christ will, instantaneously or progressively, result in a disposition described by Paul of his own life (and a reflection of the crucifixion and resurrection), of the changes in his own life. And so no matter the reason for originally coming to become a Christian, the fact is that there will be a change associated with dedication, which becomes an authentication of Paul’s writings. The so-called “new birthâ€, and becoming different creatures just as happened to Paul and as Jesus said would happen in the gospels. This leads to joy and spontaneous praise of God.
And so this Wesleyan Gentile Christian is not really concerned about the inaccuracies in the sacred histories, for what the gospel promises is accomplished in the soul of the practicing Christian, and is validated in that way.
I don’t know if there is anything to relate to with the Muslims in this regard, and I suspect they are stuck with their Shari’i law. On the whole Islam seems fear-based and reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that regard. And the Muslim is told that if he does something wrong, he needs to do something right before he dies. It’s hard for me to wrap my Christian mind around that. What is the thinking here? What is this? And when I consider that Moses in Sura 18 is judged smart to have let the little boy be murdered and not stop it. It was best that he did not intervene to stop a moral crime. What kind of lessons are these?
To live without fear is the promise of the gospels. But it seems to me that Islam is predicated on fear, for there is never any certainty except with martyrdom and that has to be just so and not otherwise. And since there is a chance that the number of paradises and hells already exist and are equal in number to all the humans who will ever live, it becomes a fear driven competition to be zealous, based on a grading on the curve. And since every actor is a Slave and the instructions for martyrdom are complex, he has to be led. His consolation is that if he sincerely believes the expert (and is likely not to be able to discuss this so well himself to argue with the expert) that will count as being sincere and deserving of the prize even if the expert is later found to be wrong, e.g., with regard to martyrdom). He just needs to be convinced in his own mind. [This corresponds to Kant's initial take of Islam as being "extortionist".]
And so I say, it seems that Gabriel could have done a much better job if he had wanted to convey to Islam a moral core. It ought to be much clearer, I think, and not require deductions and experts (beyond scholars of meaning). I have been told that Gabriel did not want all people to grasp and heed his recitations, and so made it complex to turn some off, perhaps because there were only this fixed number of paradises and hells, and a match up would be necessary. This I have by hearsay.