What exactly is it that draws a person toward anything in life? Regardless of whether we're talking about the company we keep, the music we prefer, or even major positions upon which we stake eternity, and I mean that literally. I'm talking of course about the other subject besides politics that we don't discuss at dinner: religion. I don't even like that word. In the Qur'an, the word deen is the word that has been translated into western languages as "religion," but "deen" in Arabic would be more correctly translated along the lines of "way-of-life." I will explain the significance of this of course.
Bismillah al rahman al rahim
My journey to Islam was definitely one which I thought would be weird by all considerations, but from what I've read, it isn't terribly far off the beaten trail from most people's journey from another religion to Islam.
I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic. My mother continues to attend church services to this day, and my father's opinions on religion are rather unconventional. By that, I mean he's about as hostile on the subject as Nietzsche although much less reasonable. People often have found it hard to believe that I am and always have been a religious person, but I am. Before I finished high school, I had been confirmed as a Catholic, but that was effectively the end of the line for me. I attended services once or twice in college, but that was because of a girl and absolutely for the wrong reason.
Toward the end of an emotionally disastrous relationship, I found myself drawn back toward Christianity, although I had by that point felt that there were too many contradictions and humanly formulated dogmas within Catholicism, all of which seemed to point to temporal control for political gain. I investigated the theological positions of various Orthodox Churches and found them to be even more fraught with what I felt to be idolatry and worship of human tradition and human learning. The significance of this was that I began investigating the Filioque Controversy and the various Ecumenical Councils that were behind the formation of Christian theology and thinking that permeates all of Christianity from the autocephalus Orthodox Churches to the Roman Catholic and various Protestant churches. So much of this theology was born out of political realities of its time and was often cast against a backdrop of controversy and the threat of heretics within society. All too often this institution, founded in the name of a man who brought a message of peace and of compassion, found itself fighting wars against infidels, whether they be "witches" or heretics, or Muslims, and in the process committing some of history's most egregious acts of murder, torture, and barbarism.
I found myself feeling that the message of Jesus (peace be upon him) was being overshadowed by an institution that was bent on social control. At one point in time, I considered that it was some manner of illuminati conspiracy, but ultimately, I came to find that the behavior of these institutions was the product of the civilization in which it existed, although this was a continuously changing and highly mutable system. To put it simply: the institutions reacted to society and imposed rules to protect their interests and consolidate their power. These acts influenced society, which caused the Church to react and make changes and impose rules. This was a political reality that was not initially intended to have an imperial end, although unscrupulous leaders often siezed on opportunities to consolidate their power and control.
By that time, I found myself to be squarely in the Protestant camp. I absolutely repudiated the notions of magisterium and the power of human tradition in the Roman Church. I felt that the key to the whole salvation issue lay in the Protestant doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. As with the methodical and academically rigorous approach taken by Luther, I felt that Scripture had to be the rule of faith. If it couldn't be proven through Scripture, then it had to be regarded as innovation and rejected on that basis.
I also was uneasy with the ideas of vicarious atonement. Or at least, I should say that I was uneasy with the idea of vicarious atonement as being attainable but only through a very formulaic (and in a way soundly under human control) manner. The more I explored these ideas, the more I ran into issues with social justice oriented schools of thought such as liberation theology, which seemed to be consistent with the message of Jesus (pbuh) being branded dangerous heresies. I found within the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church boldly contradictory positions to those of the historical Jesus (pbuh). Among these is the position that "the property of men is not communal" and that this is not justified by Scripture but "rather repugnant to the word of God." A bold position given that the historical Jesus (pbuh)
did teach that we were our brothers' keepers and that we are supposed to share and look out for each other. Once these positions began to come to light, I clung to the notion that the Protestant tradition allows for more latitude in matters of doctrine and practice- the Anglican tradition was more nuanced than most and it was within that tradition that I had begun the process of attending seminary and becoming a priest.
The damage had been done though. Later, I would find myself questioning the doctrines of vicarious atonement and the dangerous contradiction in expecting righteousness from people who were saved by belief in an event. This was too much, and it even forced me into the battle over how much of the narration of that event could be counted upon and eventually to the notion that the only writings that held Jesus (pbuh) up as being anything more than a man were those of Paul, or those attrubuted to him.
Reading further into the matter of Saul of Tarsus, I found a great many issues which would cause great concern and doubt on the possibility of the validity of Christianity, or as I have heard Dr. Bart Ehrmann call it: Churchianity. Among these concerns were the ideas that in the region of Asia Minor that Saul came from (Tarsus), there was a mystery cult religion devoted to Mithra. Among the characteristics of the protagonist of this mystery cult are the following:
1. Incarnation of deity.
2. Death for the redemption of mankind.
3. Burial for three days and resurrection from the dead.
4. A comemorative meal representing the event (also called Eucharist).
5. A male heirarchy with 3 ranks (analagous to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons).
6. The head of the heirarchy was called the "Holy Father."
In addition to these facts, I also found out that Constantine, the Roman emporer who convened the famous council at Nicea, made Christianity the state religion of the empire, but did not convert himself until his time of death, and even this is the subject of debate. Even worse than that, I found that the emperor was a member of a cult called Sol Invictus. This mystery cult was a group devoted to sun worship. This is the reason Christians celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday even though Saturday is the day of the Jewish Sabbath. All of these factors combined to shake my faith in Christianity.
The real nail in the coffin surrounds the Bible itself. The original texts of the Bible however have been lost and changed systematically. So many of these changes are seemingly the result of the triumph of one particular faction over another with the losing faction and all that they represent or the books they revered being suppressed. So many of these books resurfaced when the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up, or the various controversies surrounding the Shroud of Turin. In both cases, one of the biggest voices to suppress truth is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI. The subject of Christian controversy demands a great deal of space and resources for a proper exposition. For the purposes of this writing, these matters will not be delved into in great deal as there already exists a substantial body of scholarship on the subject.
To be Continued...
Read more...
