Hannah and Papa J

Hannah and Papa J

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

On wudu

Dear Hannah,

The concept of breaking wudu is a singular development of the Muslim religion.  It may be defined as follows.
Wudu, or ablution, is both a traditional ritual and a practical means by which Muslims seek to maintain good physical and spiritual hygiene. Traditionally, Wudu refers to the mental preparation and physical cleanliness of Muslims for the Salat (prayer), one of the Five Pillars of Islam
To the rest of us the idea of approaching God cleanly has been a process of development.  The Jews first of all wouldn't let you approach God, and He was said to reside in the Holiest of Holies, a tiny room inside the tabernacle which contained a table above which sat the real presence.  This seems to imply that God was not everywhere; and that if He was somewhere, He was somewhere more than others.  Moses himself was allowed into the presence of God; and when he approached the burning bush he was told to take off his sandals -- for he was standing on Holy ground.  For the rest of the Jews, entering the presence of God without being a high priest (and then only certain times of the year), without going through cleansings and sacrifices and all kinds of tedious and specific rituals beforehand was considered a grave offense; and the priest who was fortunate enough to get inside the Holiest of Holies in the time of Jesus' birth was chosen by lot.  The rest of the Jews were kept at a distance, and the entrance to the Holiest was kept perpetually shut.

With this in mind the Christians must have come as kind of a shock.  First there was the issue of a common-looking Man, walking about in the filth of poverty and lower-class lack, claiming to be the real presence Himself.  Then came the idea, developed immediately at Pentecost and still averse to the traditional way of Christian thinking*, that Christians were not only indwelt by God, but in a sense were little Christs.  Insofar as you have done to the least of these, you have done it unto me is the language Jesus used here; and Christians have had great difficulty accepting it ever since.  God is everywhere; but He is indwelling Christians.  You are always in His presence, but much more so in the presence of believers.

Then Mohammed came and he struck some kind of a compromise between the Jews and the Christians.  God was everywhere but you had to get ready to address Him.  No longer reduced to worship God at the appointed place (other than once on the hajj), but simultaneously lacking a thorough and transformative salvation, the Muslim goes through a checklist whenever attempting to pray.  You have to be irreligious or very religious to believe it.  That God is all around you and listening to you and watching your thoughts every moment of every day but that passing gas in prayer is an affront to His majesty.  That somehow the God who sees you when you're praying isn't the God who sees you when you're pooping.

In all these things there is an element of the psychological; and we know that when we address our lovers or our parents or our teachers or the president it is best to do it respectfully.  The offense lies in where we are directing our being and how we are doing it; and while the Muslim may be excused for his manners, we wonder what to do with his theology.  Simply put there isn't any way to change who you are before you pray to God.  You can try to get your heart right but that is about it**.  There are parts of you that stink and there is little you can do about them.  There are parts of you that will not change in any permanent sense, and you will go back to being much of whatever you were shortly after you are done praying.  A pious man knows that God knows this and prays anyway.  So does a devil.  Wudu is a joke because people are a joke.  None of us can ever be clean unless Jesus is real and God sees us as Jesus.  The Unio Mystica may be impossible to believe but is the only thing we can believe if we are ever going to pray comfortably.

Your father,
-J

*What has deeply bothered me about Christians is the immense lack of weight so many of them give to their Christianity.  To me I found it unbearable.  The idea that every morning the second you wake up you are responsible for being the ambassador of God; no -- not even the ambassador, but that you are the living, breathing manifestation of God in man, can only lead a thoughtful man to feel he's a fraud.

There is little urgency in the church, and even less sincerity.  The excuse I'm just a sinner saved by grace is an affront to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.  I have known many great Christians, but never a perfect one.  I have personally been a horrible one.  Even in my most zealous moments I was far too human; and the question of whether God Himself would have acted like me was too terrible a question to continue to ask it.  Simply put I am not God, and the only person I would rather not be than a sinner is a person who has every bit the wrongness of a sinner with the addition of impiety.

I am not questioning whether God could ever love a sinner -- if God has made us all sinners then He must.  I am questioning whether God has ever really indwelt them, and whether if He does, anyone has ever really totally realized it.   If they really believed it they would be much more reverential toward each other.
      
**I've probably already mentioned this somewhere but Jonathan Edwards, the greatest theologian I have ever read and probably the most important pastor in American history, lost his church over the question (essentially) of wudu.   In short he refused to give the sacrament to anyone he believed was unworthy.  His parishioners disagreed and they gave him the boot.

If this goes to prove anything, it's that the men supposedly possessed by the Holy Spirit can disagree, and those most possessive of genius and sincerity can do things that are incredibly stupid.  The passage most frequently quoted in the matter is in First Corinthians 11:17-34, and deals specifically with a church that was getting trashed at the Lord's Supper and hogging the bread and cutting in line.  The passage in dispute goes as follows.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves
What this is supposed to mean is that you shouldn't take communion like a jerk.  What it is taken by many to mean is that you shouldn't take communion unless you've considered wudu.  I wouldn't argue for a second that anyone (if the sacrament really is the body and the blood of Christ or even just representative of it) ought to not take it seriously.  But who has ever taken it perfectly?  You pray for your sins before you take it, and then after you take it you sin.  It's good to have a clean heart.  But who has ever had a clean record?  Who except the dead has ever had a clean future?

What is remarkable about Christianity is that the fruit of the Holy Spirit is (supposed to be) love, joy, peace, patience, understanding, kindness, faithfulness, goodness, gentleness and self-control.  It might easily be said that many of these are redundant.  It might more easily be noticed that nowhere is mentioned rightness or agreement.  The Holy Spirit builds your virtues but He lets churches fall apart over a bad reading of First Corinthians.  He makes you a "great person" but He can't help you define what a great person does; and He certainly can't keep you from taking an idiotic interpretation of I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me.  Herein lies the difficulty for your father.  The Bible is said to be the words of God, and The Holy Spirit can't even make you understand the words of the Holy Spirit.

On an interesting side note, know that I have personally been denied communion and from the moment it happened I was supportive of their decision.  I would have refused it but I was specifically not offered it.  And even more importantly I would never have violated any Christian's conscience to get it in front of them.  This issue is an issue in the church today, after two thousand years of Christian learning and the alleged influence of the Holy Spirit.

No comments:

Post a Comment