The BBC News website brings out a concrete question, of wide-significance, on how we communicate the gospel. It reports that:
The interception by Malaysian authorities of thousands of Bibles bound for Christians in the country has produced the latest flashpoint.
The reason - the Bibles use the word "Allah" to described God, and that's been banned by the government...
Muslim groups claim that Christian use of a word so closely associated with Islam in Bibles and children's books could be aimed at winning converts.
That sparks off lots of connexions in my head. Firstly it reminds me of a quote from Lesslie Newbigin I read yesterday about his time in India:
When I preach in a village where Christianity is not known, and where the name of Jesus is not known ... I have to begin by using the word Kadavul. But of course when I use the word Kadavul they're thinking of Vishnu or Shiva or some other Hindu God. I know that, but I can't help it. It's only when I begin to tell the stories of what God has done that they begin to say, 'Kadavul is not what we had thought.'
Secondly, it reminds me of the Old Testament use of the word 'El' to describe God.
God's name is important to him. But I don't know quite when contextualization becomes accommodation. A difficult question I think, but I suspect we may be too cautious.
i think this is a wonderful opportunity to say God/El/Al'lah is not a name.
ReplyDelete"who is God?"
"God is the almighty, the all knowing, the benificent"
"who is?"
"God is"
"what do you mean God?"
"God is the almighty, the all knowing, the benificent"
"you might as well replace God with blip"