changefish

hospitality and sodom and gomorah

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:32:00 +0000

My last post talked about how inhospitality ostracizes both Muslims and Hispanics resulting in an alliance between both groups. What you might not have picked up on was the odd choice of art. It is an old picture of Sodom and Gomorrah going up in flames as lot and his daughters flee (observe his wife straggling from the group). So what does S&G have to do with Muslims or Hospitality? The answer lies behind the real reason that S&G was destroyed. Homosexuality, right? Nope.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.
(Ezekiel 16:49-50 ESV)

The early church fathers agreed with this assessment, and said that Lot was declared righteous (in 2 Pet) because he was hospitable and S&G was destroyed because of inhospitality. One of the requirements for elders is that they are hospitable. Do you make the cut or are you worse than Sodom and Gomorrah?

inhospitality drives urban diaspora peoples to Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:27:00 +0000

My recent studies have focused primarily on Islam, hospitality, and the urban diaspora. In the past decade, immigration has been one of the big political topics, especially in the south. We have stiff-armed Hispanics and when they protested (thousands in the street waving the Mexican flag in Dallas Tx), we have simply retrenched our positions (Tea Party). Since Catholicism in South America was only a thin veneer laid over animism, Hispanics are not well founded in their "faith." In fact, it is not "theirs" at all. Like the Hispanics, in the post 9-11 world, we have also stiff-armed Arabs and Muslims. We do not share a common culture, geography, or religion. We get all of our information about them from the media and Hollywood. Thus, there is little understanding and much fear. I have seen firsthand how these two factors are having, and will have, a huge impact on my city which is around 40% Hispanic. My first brush with this event was through a class mate who worked in customs at the port. He reported that the Saudis were sending in flats full of Islamic Dawa (evangelism) literature in Spanish! The second event happened last week when a woman called me about a new believer from a Muslim background. After running through a matrix of questions about what happened and who this lady was, it turned out that the woman was Hispanic.

Check out this quote I dug up:

"Just as many Latino Muslims believe that Christianity was once an elitist religion that failed to protect their indigenous ancestors, many Latinos today feel that the church does not adequately defend the Latino-American struggle for equality. Alienation from Christian American society, along with poor social and economic conditions, may divert Latinos from Christianity--the religion of the establishment that, they believe, ignores their needs. According to the Omar Foundation's Osman, as a minority, Latinos are not understood or supported by the U.S. church, which, he says, continues to side with the elite."
"In Islam many Latinos find a community more sympathetic to their plight. Muslims, who are also a minority in the U.S., identify more closely with the Latino struggle for justice and equality. Estranged from mainstream Christian America, Latinos can identify with and take pride in the Muslim community and in Islam's past."
Lisa Viscidi in Islam in America (Green Haven Press: Farmington Hills, 2006) pg 74.

the latest addition

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:02:00 +0000

mq: culture: assimilation or separation?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:30:00 +0000

"When responding as exiles in a post-Christendom world, we are used to seeing some respond with despairing grief (fundamentalists) and others with assimilation and the dominant values. What is much more disturbing to us is the example of a God that does neither, but instead answers with a fresh imaginative theological response. Jesus neither sides into compromise and sinfulness, nor fulfills our expectations of a holier-than-thou guru."

Michael Frost, Exiles: Living Missionally in a post Christian Culture, Pg 15.

partisanship

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:23:00 +0000

In the kind of ministry I do (working with diaspora peoples in western urban centers) there is a constant battle of hearts and minds to keep our ministry from simply devolving into a kind of church outreach. It is difficult to multiply myself among existing believer--and inherit years of church ministry philosophy--and at the same time keep them propelled to think like missionaries. Another drive is to make a movement as big as possible as fast as possible. Often times, churches and denominations are willing to sacrifice essential vision and ethos simply to get a bigger crowd. Check out what Seth Godin says about partisanship:

“It’s a criticism when you throw that word at a politician, but all tribes are made up of partisans, the more partisan the better. If you’re a middle-of-the-roader, you don’t bother joining a tribe.

Partisans want to make a difference. Partisans want something to happen (and something not to happen). Leaders lead when they take positions, when they connect with their tribes, and when they help the tribe connect to itself.” Seth Godin, Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us. (Portfolio: New York, 2008) p17.

missional altruism: church growth vs. indigenous church planting

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:19:00 +0000

I work with people from the Middle East and I train people to work with them. My goal is to see a gospel movement. This requires networking with many partners in my city. Needless to say, this is controversial work. Even Christianity Today and Ed Stetzer are weighing in on topics on contextualization (though I promise, they have no business doing it on this issue) relating to this people group (as they understand little about them socially and anthropologically). When I talk with people about partnering with us, many of them "choke" when it comes to the political stuff--as you might imagine. We have trouble loving our enemies and we let fox news and talking heads on the radio dictate our missiology rather than the incarnation. The real place that Missions Pastor or Senior Pastors choke has to do when we talk about making a work indigenous--eg "they aren't going to come to my church?" *shocked head tilt and raised eyebrow.* One would suspect that the politics of the issue are hard. If we are going to reach our "enemies" then we can't grand stand from the pulpit with hysteria against "those people" and receive standing ovations and book deals. That seems like an obvious point. But to balk over where a new convert is going to go to church and only participate if your church is the target location is carnal and selfish. The real issue has to do is that we were all taught in seminary that fulfilling the great commission meant making larger churches (church growth model) and we were successful when there were larger services and budgets and perhaps more campuses.

The kingdom of God is bigger than our personal domains. The only way we will fulfill the great commission is to keep the movement pointed away from us. How about a little altruism?

hipster christianity

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:15:00 +0000

A friend sent me this link today. I took the test and am only halfway hipster. I think the only reason I scored so high is because I am a bit of a cynic and tend to oppose the status quo. I don't really know what to think about the group. On the one hand it seems that they are grouped simply to be smug, on the other hand, I agree with some of their positions--or questions/objections rather. They lose me on the clothes stuff though; I guess I am just never going to be one of the cool kids.

mq: give them law or give them life?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:57:00 +0000

In our dealings with our native converts we habitually appeal to law. We attempt to administer a code which is alien to the thought of the people with whom we have to deal, we appeal to the precedents which are no precedents to them, and we quote the decisions of which our hearers do not understand either the history or the reason. Without satisfying their minds or winning the consent of their consciences, we settle all the questions with a word.

This is unfortunate because it leaves the people unconvinced and uneducated, and teaches them the habit of unreasoning obedience. They learn to expect law and to delight in the exact fulfillment of precise and minute directions. By this method we make it difficult to stir the consciences of our converts, when it is most important that their consciences should be stirred. Bereft of exact directions, they are helpless. They cease to expect to understand the reason of things or to exercise their intelligence. Instead of seeking the illumination of the Holy Ghost they prefer to trust to formal instruction from their foreign guides. The consequence is that then their foreign guide cannot, or will not supply precise commands, they pay little attention to his godly exhortations. Councils which have no precedent behind them see weak. Anything which is not in open disobedience to a law can be tolerated. Appeals to principles appear vague and difficult. They are not accustomed to the labor of thinking them out and applying them. If a missionary explains to his converts that some act is not in harmony wit the mind of Christ his words fall on deaf ears; if he tells them that it was forbidden in a council of such and such a date, they obey him; but that is the way of death not of life; it is Judaism not Christianity; it is Papal not Pauline.

Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1962, 118.

reverse culture shock: churchianity

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:56:00 +0000

I knew before I ever came home that one of the biggest adjustments would be church life. Part of this is that I have not been in traditional church for almost two years but the real reason is that I have been on a trajectory for a long time which is pointing me outwards not inward, and thus I find myself at odds with institutional church life. Part of the shock value for me is just how much money it takes to run a church. This money just goes down the dark hole of institutional trappings. A friend passed me the link below which gives my consternation some reprieve. Check out this interesting post by Andrew Jones (Tall Skinny Kiwi).

the knowers and the know-nots

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:46:00 +0000

I am discovering that there are many people in the Christian evangelism conference circuit who get placed in positions of leadership and instruction based on having read some books. There is much confusion at the lay level as to the extent of "experts" knowledge and ability. One assumes that if they can quote lots of facts that they have lots of face time with losties. One also assumes that if they they are an expert teacher that they are also an expert leader and are able to lead groups of people to fulfill mission in a city or with a people group. What winds up happening--in the event that they are not a gifted leader but a teacher only--is that their strategy focuses primarily on more education and the movement stays within the walls of the church, conference center, or classroom. This fits our fetish for more knowledge and our presumption of laziness and comfort. "Don't bother me lostie, I am busy studying how to reach you...."

Lets look at three kinds of leaders:
The Gnostic Mouthpiece: Knowing about a religion or people group at the intellectual level is not the same as understanding their daily culture. Being able to rattle off the tenets of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism does not mean one knows how to be with those people socially. So what does evangelism advice look like from teachers who know facts but don't know culture and people? It look pointed, polemic, and academic. Most people are not moved by such.

The Bighearted Bum: There are many people, however, who understand the culture, but don't understand the religion or how to lead a movement. These people have big hearts, but beyond the idea of hanging out, they don't know what to do next. They don't know how to lead an individual to the light or how to lead groups to reproduce.

The Whiteboard Missiologist: These people don't know jack about culture or worldview but have a system which they are sure will reach them. They have perceptions about time and speed regarding evangelism and conversion. It is as if they have a big game of dominoes in their head and they are trying to plot the first domino. The reality is that they push people to hard to employ their Amway scheme.

The reality is that Worldview, Culture, and Missiology are all important. We have problems with getting to movements when we extend someone beyond their abilities to teach, hang out, or lead. We need all three, but the reality is that we need people leading who can be combinations of all three. They might not be as big an expert in Religion X or in Culture Y or buy into the latest Christian Pyramid Schemes, but they have the ability be a catalytic leader who finds the right trainers and and puts the where they will help and not hurt. He finds the right guys who can lead others into the culture, and builds a plan based on the local context and the people he has to reach the local context.

We need more leaders and catalyzers rather than knowers.

machismo and methodology

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:55:00 +0000

"I've had a gun to my head." I recently heard that in a meeting talking about methods of evangelizing internationals. The statement bugged me. Part of it is was just the flippant way that he threw it into a list of places he has lived and types of ministry he engaged in. It was meant to impress and silence those who might disagree with him. It was supposed to be the badge of courage which certifies him as legit. Since he didn't tell the whole story we might not want to give him props for courage. The story could have started with "I was robbing a store" or "I was caught with another man's wife" which would make the "there was a gun to my head" appear in context. But there was no story with the claim, and thus we are to assume that this was suffering for Jesus or the product of his ministry. But then again, we might want to take that into consideration. Rather than having a fetish for tough guys and tense situations as the proving grounds for people and methods, perhaps we should consider it as null until the context fleshes out the meaning for us. Perhaps having guns drawn does not legitimize street preaching in the Middle East (for example) but demonstrates that we are allowing our lust for machismo and sermon illustrations to override our practice of the incarnation.

kick off

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:46:00 +0000

The crickets are no longer even chirping up here...

I am about to kick off again on some serious blogging. Here is what you can expect:
I am going to finish the blog series I have started (what happens in Athens), keep the mission quotes coming on fridays, possibly add a new contributor or two and I have a lot of new stuff rolling around in my head relating to starting missions teams, indigenous leadership, vision and purpose, and just some of the usual gripe stuff that I am so famous for.

We are back stateside and are going to be here for a while. An update is coming soon, but if you would like to connect, partner, or support me, let me know.

impromptu exodus from diolkos

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:56:00 +0000

We have recently made an exodus out of Diolkos. For reasons still unknown, I had completely overlooked the wife's due date; it is Jan 28th, just a few days after the anniversary of the revolution. The latest round of violent protests brought this oversight to the forefront of our thinking and discussions. When things get really bad downtown the police close the bridges. This presents a problem for us as the doctor is on the other side of the river from us. We had been planning on having the baby in Country, but since she is having a c-section, and since it is likely that the revolution's anniversary will likely be the day that anyone who is discontent will revive their petition, we discussed the possibility of having the baby outside the country. Our initial presumption was that we would be sent to Jordan or at the farthest Dubai. Since our term is nearly over (we had three months left) the company decided to send us home rather than relocate us twice in three months. We are currently back in the states. It has all happened a little fast, and we are still processing all of the ramifications of the move. We know this is the right decision, but it is certainly bitter sweet in many respects. There are many things that were left undone, but I am optimistic that it will not be my last time in Diolkos.

understanding Egypt for the media-saturated but internationally-challenged

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:59:00 +0000

Here are some links which will help you understand what is happening in Egypt right now.

Myth 1: It will either be the Muslim Brotherhood or democracy.
Many people assume that there are two players in action, the brotherhood and the pro-democracy folks. In reality, the brotherhood are only one small part of the action.

Who are the players and where do they stand in the revolution.

Myth 2: America is always right, knows what is going on in the world, and chooses the right side.
There are perhaps times where US foreign policy makes sense in the real world but is interpreted in vastly different ways than intended by the time it reaches the street.

US Foreign Policy on the Street.

Seriously, USA doesn't make anything anymore. Why on earth is it that the one thing we choose to make is tear gas?!

Made in America: Tear Gas.

Myth 3: Adventure tourism is fun.
It can also get you arrested. Mind your own business and obey local laws when you travel. (For more dumb stuff that tourists do in other countries check out National Geographic's show "Locked Up Abroad").

Three Students Locked Up Abroad.

Also, if you are in the media, "Tahrir" has an "h" sound in the middle. TaHrir not Tarir--earn your keep.

mq: Paul's church governing style: liberty or death

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:17:00 +0000

St Paul cannot have believed that by his appeal to Charity the question would be settled. He must have foreseen strife and division. He must have deliberately proffered strife and division, heart burnings, and distresses, and failures, to laying down a law. He saw that it was better that his converts should win their way to security by many falls than that he should try to make a short cut for them. He valued a single act of willing self-surrender, for the sake of the Gospel, above the external peace of a sullen or unintelligent acceptance of a rule.

Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1962, 118-119.

mq: miracles, the demonstration of the salvific narrative

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:09:00 +0000

Miracles were illustrations of the character of the new religion. They were sermons in act. They set forth in unmistakable terms two of its fundamental doctrines, the doctrine of charity and the doctrine of salvation, of release from the bondage of sin and the power of the devil.

Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1962, 45.

A Special "Thank You"

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:11:00 +0000

jack-o-lantern missiology in a trick-or-treat world

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:42:00 +0000

I have gone though various paradigm shifts over the course of my short life (You should take everything I say with a grain of salt as I am likely to go through more shifts). In an early paradigm I would have completely rejected the notion that Christians should have anything at all to do with Halloween as it is associated with with-craft and believers are to have nothing to do with witch-craft. In the next paradigm I thought believers should set up a parallel event though completely change the meaning (harvest festival). We avoided "worldliness" by entering sacred space--the church--and having sacred rather than pagan rituals--dressing like Bible characters (though now I hardly understand how dressing after "godly" saints such as Rahab, Gomer, David, and Solomon is sacred). The next paradigm sent me on course to include an "invasion clause" in my thinking. Believers should stay home and use this night as a time to engage their lost neighbors. What a waste it was to spend time at church when the community is out. This night was our "chance" to beat them at their own game and be a light. We had a plan (agenda), opportunity, and a target rich environment.

Regarding Christian's participation in Halloween, George Robinson at Between the Times says:

"I would like to propose another alternative – that good Christians should indeed celebrate Halloween. I think that they should stay home from their church’s alternative Fall Festival and celebrate with their pagan neighbors. Most of them wouldn’t have come to your Fall Festival anyway. And those who did would’ve stopped by briefly on their way to “real” trick-or-treating. I’m sure that some of you reading this blog might be more than a little unhappy with my proposal at this point, but stick with me for a moment.: The reason I propose that good Christians celebrate Halloween and stay home from the “Christian alternatives” is that Halloween is the only night of the year in our culture where lost people actually go door-to-door to saved people’s homes . . . and you’re down at the church hanging out with all your other good Christian friends having clean fellowship with the non-pagans." (emphasis original)

This quote lines up with my third paradigm (though he is arguably not as trite as my explanation above). When I read this quote, however, something just didn't fit right. It seems clear that we should be about the gospel and that our participation at the local level is better than avoiding it or celebrating it with the saints. The line that Robinson put in bold and italics happens to be the very problem I have with this paradigm. Rather than nitpick with my old paradigm or with Robinson--as he does not enumerate much beyond that we should be street focused rather than saint focused and I agree with that in as far as it goes--I will simply lay out some pointers:

If Halloween truly is the only event wherein your local community comes together or comes to your house then you have failed at being missional and building community among and practicing hospitality with the lost. I suppose this is my biggest issue with the crowd who wants to stay home. We should participate locally in Halloween but we have truly failed if this is our only opportunity. We have to lead and model community and hospitality for our neighbors.
Don't use trick-or-treat as a bait-and-switch. Since you live there and the people coming to your door also live there this is not your only opportunity. Treating it as such demonstrates a lack of faith in God and a lack of obedience and consistency. Giving someone the whole spiel probably won't accomplish what you want it to, and you will loose the real opportunity that is there: a chance for your neighbors to see you in neutral space and build a relationship.
Use the event to earn a "second date". Put the agenda aside and have fun. We always like to use a big event to put the whole show out there. We should use big community events to meet a lot of people and try to connect again. Remember, the gospel is about God's power to draw people into relationship with him not about our power for mass communication. That neighbor who is always going to the gun range... use this as an opportunity to talk about your common interest and set up a time to go with him. The neighbor with all of the kids... set up a trip to the zoo. Project to your neighbors that if there is going to be community life on the street that you will be part.

thank you uncle sam

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:44:00 +0000

Iran is trying to get the USGOV to clamp down. That gives the Iranian Gov the ability to keep its citizens isolated. They have seen what happens in the Middle-East when the citizenry has too much access to the outside world and they are scared. Way to go USGOV for not seeing beyond the immediate future and creating a hand-to-mouth foreign policy insuring that everything will stay exactly the same.

back in business

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:07:00 +0000

To those who responded to my last post via diverse forms of social media, thanks for the input. I played with a Mac for about three hours in the shop. I loved it. A PC with the same specks is half the price and so I stuck with the PC. Next time around, when I am rich and famous, I will switch to Mac. My blogging schedule will soon return to normal.

mq: who sets the perimeter on the fellowship?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:02:00 +0000

I cannot help thinking that here we find one of the most important elements of his success. By leaving the church to decide who should be admitted, he established firmly the great principle of mutual responsibility. The church was a brotherhood, and the brethren suffered if any improper person was admitted to their society. They knew the candidates intimately. They were in the best possible position to judge who were fit and proper candidates. That they might make mistakes, and that they did make great mistakes, is sufficiently obvious; but if they made mistakes, they made them at their own peril. In this matter of mutual responsibility a little practical experience is worth a great weight of verbal teaching.

In our modern missionary practice we have constantly thrown the whole responsibility for the administration of baptism upon a foreign teacher who, as a stranger, is in the worst possible position to judge the real motives and character of those who offer themselves for baptism, and by so doing we have done much to weaken the sense of mutual responsibility among our converts. We have taught them that the church is a brotherhood, and that they must all work together for the good of the whole, but in practice we have denied their right and their duty to exercise that responsibility, and that at a most vital point.

Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1962, 98.

going dark: PC or MAC?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:08:00 +0000

My computer suffered from massive hard drive failure yesterday. So I will be putting the blog on hold for a few days. As much as I love blogging, I have no intention of doing it from my ipod. While I am in the market for a new laptop, I have just one question for you, PC or Mac?

field entry 101: culture shock, the after shock

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:28:00 +0000

I have been rethinking the culture-shock issue from my last post in this series. I think there is an important nuance I missed before. Most books discuss culture shock in the phases of honeymoon --> rejection --> adjustment and acceptance. These three phases express the initial shock; let's call this the shock from ignorance.

The Shock From Ignorance
This initial shock happens when the honeymoon wears off. Initially the thought of riding the metro may appear quaint and trendy (particilarly for someone from the suburbs.). Soon, the trip is seen for what it is--hot, crowded, invasive, inefficient. The plaintiff in this situation learns to readjust and accept this new form of transportation. The three steps in this first phase are the stereotypical things we think of when we think culture shock. These are the kinds of things we like to laugh about when we watch movies like Outsourced, or Ramen Girl.

The Shock From Knowledge
Once one reestablishes their equilibrium, they begin (or should begin) to educate themselves to the point wherein they will experience an "aftershock." Most of the initial shocking issues in culture deal with externals--the food seems strange, the language sounds like the teacher Charlie Brown, the traffic is unbearable, the neighborhood is loud, there is no personal space, etc. One learns to cope with these issues and assumes that the adjustment is over. Think again. The aftershock simply highlights issues which are deeper and less obvious. For example, one initially experiences shock because the greetings are in a foreign language. Later, one experiences shock because the greetings--now that they understand what is being said and how the greetings function--are categorically different than what they are used to. In the States, greetings are short, to the point, and usually used as an introductory clause to the first order of business. In my country here, greetings are extended, warm, emotional, physical, and are given even when there is no business to be discussed (In fact, sometimes the greeting is given because there is nothing else to be discussed at all! I often get late night (2:30 ish) calls from people wanting nothing other than to know how I am doing and if the family is good). The perceptive cross cultural worker will be able to imitate and even enjoy these differences. The shock comes when there really is business to be discussed and because of having to greet the gazillionth person our business at hand takes longer than we think it should. This highlights the subliminal difference between our culture, which is time and goal driven, and most other cultures, which are relationship driven.

This post is a continuation of the series field entry 101. Read the rest of the series here.

ramadan reading: day 8

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 16:03:00 +0000

Cain and Abel
5:27-31 This passage recounts the first murder. There is a fascinating section which says that God send a blackbird to scratch the ground so that Cain would know how to bury his brother. My local friends tell me the dispute was over the brothers wanting to marry the same sister (The passage indicates it was over sacrifices).

5:32 Because of that (The first murder), We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or to spread mischief in the land--it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.

Much like the Mosaic law the Quran says: 5:45 And We ordained therein for them: life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation.

Jesus and Miracles
5:110 Remember when God will say on the Day of Resurrection: "O Jesus, Son of Mary! Remember My Favor to you and to your mother when I supported you Gabriel (the literal words mean "Holy Spirit, but the translators used Gabriel) so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and when I taught you writing, Al-Hikmah (the power of understanding), the Torah and the Gospels; and when you made out of the clay, a figure like that of a bird, by My Permission, and you breathed into it, and it became a bird by My Permission and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My Permission, and when you brought forth the by My Permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from you (when they resolved to kill you) as you came to them with clear proofs, and the disbelievers among them said: 'this is nothing but evident magic.'" While some of these miracles are from non-canonical sources (I think the story about the bird is from Shepherd of Hermas), they show that the Quran teaches that Jesus operated with the Power of God, by His Spirit, and could create life, and prevent death, and heal the broken.

This post is part of this Ramadan series.

ramadan reading: day 6

noreply@blogger.com (Jacques Hebert) — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:40:00 +0000

Regarding Mary:
3:45: Remember when the angels said: "O Mary! Verily, God gives you the glad tidings of a Word ("Be!"--and he was!) from Him, his name will be the Messiah Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to God"

3:47: She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He Said: "So it will be for God creates what he Wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" -- and it is.

Regarding Jesus:
3:55: And remember when God said: "O Jesus! I will make you sleep and raise you to Myself and clear you of those who disbelieve and I will those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve till the Day of Resurrection. Then you will return to Me and I will judge between you in the matters in which you used to dispute"

4:157-158: And Because of their saying "We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God--but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely, they killed him not. But God raised him up to Himself. And God is Ever All Powerful, All-Wise.

Belief and Rejection:
3:90-91: Verily, those who disbelieved after their Belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief; never will their repentance be accepted. Verily, those who disbelieved, and died while they were disbelievers, the whole earth full of gold will not be accepted from anyone of them even if they offered it as a ransom. For them is painful torment and they will have no helpers.

This post is part of this Ramadan series.