If this pastor says “Allah” everyone knows he is a Christian!
Um. . . honestly I’m not so sure. I think you are assuming more familiarity with Eastern Orthodoxy (and Islam) than most of us (e.g., sheltered American evangelicals like me) really have.
I could definitely see how some people would think he could be an imam from Eastern European.
Am I the only one who thinks it may not be so clear cut?
Well, if someone thinks an imam would wear an icon and a cross . . . well I don’t think we need to worry about them!
Joe: given your comments I saw that the image was not high definition enough to make it obvious to you, but in “real life” it would be!
Could be B’hai
I think we should stick with the ’70s model: wooden cross hanging around the neck (four inches long at minimum) and Bible roughly the size of a briefcase.
I can’t fit in it any more, but I also still have my powder-blue polyester suit.
Oh, come on Craig. Be serious. It’s not like he’s singing Amazing Grace to House of the Rising Sun.
I had forgotten about that; however, I do remember very clearly Amazing Grace to the “Pepsi song.”
The fact of Christianity’s existence despite Christians is a testimony to God’s power and mercy.
By the way, if you look at the photo and imagine this guy singing Amazing Grace to House of the Rising Sun–with a guitar–it’s pretty funny.
He is already half way there. He’s unshaven.
I admit openly that I am a little insensitive toward those who thing that somehow only English words like “Jesus” and “God” describe the savior of the whole world as it smacks of KJVO-ism. “Theos” is obviously one way to say “God”, as is “Deus”, etc.
The only caution I’d have in getting defensive or offended by the word “Allah” as the name of God is being specific by what you mean by it. Since it seems to be a shibboleth here, it would seem to me that saying “Allah” and meaning the God described by the Nicene Creed requires more than one necessary clarification — and as long as someone is plainly making it, I say preach it.
And also for the record, I am always in favor of using uniforms and hats in order that good guys and bad guys identify themselves. It’s just polite.
The good guy only has a shield. Is this more passive-aggressive codswallop?
Those using “Allah” in their native language are a completely different issue than those other-language speakers using “Allah” in Christian services, correct? As in, for example, the Netherlands, Great Britain, etc.?
I assume we are united in rejecting the latter usage?
Yeah, in real life I’m sure it would. I was mostly poking fun at evangelicals unfamiliarity with other traditions. I suspect the only reason we recognize Catholic priests is because we see them in movies and on TV shows.
I do not think it is “KJVO-ism” to call for specificity in our language. Since we are English speakers, we use the word Jesus.
When we speak of “God,” in order to avoid any, let us say kindly, “confusion,” about Whom we speak, let’s refer to the persons of the Blessed and Holy Trinity, as in, God the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Sure, it takes a few more words, but it surely is far more concrete and specific. I think Christians should be at the head of the line when it comes to avoiding generic “God” talk.
I’m not sure why English speakers would want to use the word Allah, or even the generic “God,” given our present circumstances.
Christians who speak other languages have, in those languages, words for the Blessed and Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Let them use those words.
Let the Muslims keep the word “Allah.” Since so few of us actually are Christians whose native tongues is Arabic, I don’t think this is much of an issue for the vast majority of Christians, and appealing to Arabic speaking Christians and Churches to try to defend the use of the word “Allah” by Christians doesn’t really hold up under closer scrutiny.
After all, why would we not want to be as specific as possible about Whom we speak since “we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.” 2 Peter 1:19
I don’t understand your response. Of course, nobody but Arabic speakers will use “Allah,” but there are hundreds of thousands of Christians who speak Arabic. Christians were speaking Arabic long before Muslims were.
Why should they give up their own language? What about their history displeases you? As they have been martyred for centuries for their faith by their Islamic overlords, you can be sure no Muslim was confused about their identity or the God they worshipped.
I’m sorry, I must not have been clear enough. I thought I clarified in my response that the use of the Arabic word “Allah” by Arabic speaking Christians is understandable, but unless I’m mistaken, I thought this entire discussion revolved around non-Arabic speaking Christians insisting on their right to use the word Allah too, a “right” that seems rather pointless to assert or claim. And it would be my contention that Arabic speaking Christians do well to be even more specific about the “God” of Whom they are speaking, and no doubt, they surely are.
Now that we have cleared that up, do you agree with my major point though? That “Allah” in Arabic, or “God” in English, is no longer sufficient for avoiding confusion? Since we have even further precision in what we name the One, True God, wouldn’t it be wise to “err” on the side of particularity and specificity so as to remove any and all possible doubt and confusion about Whom we speak when we refer to “God”?
I totally agree if one is non-Arabic or in a non-Arabic culture. Thaks for the clarification, Padre.
So, you think it is sufficient for Arabic speaking Christians to refer only to “Allah” without any greater clarification or specificity than that? I just am curious to know with what, precisely, you agree in my previous comment.
Apparently the Marine in Florida who beat a Greek Orthodox priest with a tire iron thinking he was a Muslim terrorist wasn’t quite bright enough to figure it out.