Interfaith Encounters

Should the Church Adopt the Chinese Ritual of Ancestor Worship/Veneration?

I have been asked several times about my view on a Tik Tok video which shows a church conducting its Chinese New Year or Spring Festival worship which seems to follow the form of the Chinese ritual of ancestor worship or veneration.

My response to this video is based on how practitioners of this kind of rituals normally justify their adoption of the form of “ancestor worship or veneration. It is also based on my personal experience of similar worship during my younger pagan days.

One may argue that offering incense is in the Bible. OK, I can give some benefit of doubt on this matter. That is, putting three incense joss sticks is debatable and defensible – assuming worship & acknowledgement of the Triune God in heaven with NO images. Context matters.¹

Does the tablet in front of the table contain only Bible verses praising the Triune God without images? If there is no image, then the ritual could be discussed. But I doubt it as bible verses tablets have not become common place in church worship rituals. What is written in the tablet would make a crucial difference to the nature of the ritual as it could be some Chinese characters describing the “sky god” Tian (天), the “earth god” Tudigong (土地公), and the “kitchen god” is known as Zao Shen (灶神). The presence of these references would certainly be problematic. Looks like this video pertains more towards some form of ancestor veneration/worship. Continue reading “Should the Church Adopt the Chinese Ritual of Ancestor Worship/Veneration?”

1
[Additional footnote added on 14/04/2025 as clarification – Context matters. I wont approve putting a joss stick in front of an ancestral tablet, or the earth god tablet etc.- because according to pagan beliefs, the spirits of the ancestors or the spirit of the earth god resides within the tablets. This is idolatry even though there are no images. Conceivably, someone may just put joss sticks in an urn to offer incense to the “heavenly god/God” without a tablet or images – well, we can discuss to find out what exactly the one who puts the joss stick has in mind & decide accordingly. However, in reality (except for a Chinese cult, which existed briefly in the 1970s), 99+ % of the people put the joss sticks in front of some kinds of tablets which are understood to be residences of spirits. This would be idolatry. The case of the tablet in the video is ambiguous because I don’t know what is in the tablet – but if what is written in the tablet encourages or is in line with the customary idea of tablets being places of residence of any spirit(s), then it would be idolatry. The presumption is that the presence of the tablet is likely to become a stumbling block and therefore is best not used at all].

A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ Misreading of Aquinas’ Philosophy in his Book, “Islam and Secularism”

Note: This post was earlier published as an appendix to the post, Link – The Primacy of “Existence” over “Essence” : A Foundational Principle of Christian “Existential” Philosophy.

Our exposition of Aquinas’ thesis on the primacy of existence over essence provides a corrective to Malaysia’s premier philosopher, Naquib al-Attas, who claims that Aquinas’ misguided notion of distinction between existence and essence led to the development of nominalism (or Ockhamism) which denies the ontological reality of universals and asserts that universals are merely names (nomina) or abstract concepts.¹ This denial results not only in doubts about the existence of objects but also the existence of God and ultimately gives birth to Western secularism.² Naquib writes, Continue reading “A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ Misreading of Aquinas’ Philosophy in his Book, “Islam and Secularism””

1
Strictly speaking, Ockham’s view should be described as conceptualism rather than nominalism. Nominalism denies the real existence of universals; universals are merely names or conventional linguistic constructs. Conceptualism also rejects universals as existing independently in the external world. They are mental constructs or representations based on similarities or shared features observed among individual objects. Note that the mind plays an active role in forming universals by abstracting common features. Conceptualism represents the middle ground between realism (which posits independently existing universals) and nominalism (which denies the ontological or epistemological significance of universals entirely). However, the boundary between conceptualism to nominalism is blurr, given the proximity between language and mental concepts. Hence the suggestion that Ockham view be described as “conceptualist nominalism”.
2
Note that Naquib asserts that Aquinas’ distinction of essence or quiddity from existence is based on a misunderstanding of Avicenna’s position since for medieval Islamic philosophers, essence and existence are not radically separated; rather, they are unified in a manner that reflects the interconnectedness of all creation with the Creator. However, the fact remains that existence for Avicenna (as he was read by Western philosophers in the 13th century) is not a constituent of the essence of anything, that is, existence is an accessory accident which must be conferred upon a thing by an external cause in order that it may exist. The validity of historical interpretation of Avicenna may remain an open question, but the logical implications of Avicenna’s view as understood then were correctly drawn out by Aquinas.

Berry Cake House Not Allowed to Write “Merry Christmas” on Cakes?

The prohibition of writing of Merry Christmas or X’mas on cakes looks like a repeat of an earlier prohibition given by Jakim in 2020. Re: text quoted below.

But see conclusion at the end of this article:

Conclusion: The clarification from JAKIM only says that greetings like “Merry Christmas” are not allowed on cakes to be exhibited in premises that have been certified halal or on products marked with the halal logo. This does not prohibit the sale of cakes with “Merry Christmas”to personal orders by customers.

Prohibition of sale of these cakes in response to personal orders by customers would be an outright infringement of the religious rights and freedom of Christians and non-Muslims. Indeed, one may still wonder whether the standing order, notwithstanding the clarification still constitutes an unwarranted restriction of the rights of Christians and non-Muslims freely to buy and sell merchandise among themselves. These incidents give the impression that Christian celebration is on the wrong side of the law – another example of “Salami Islamization”?

[Clarification added on 17 Dec 2023] – I received several friendly suggestions that I could have committed a typo error – it should be “salafi”. But I definitely mean “salami”. You cut salami piece by piece. It was first used as “salami politics” in political discourse. I use the word “salami Islamization” to alert us to JAKIM’s long term strategy of Islamization of Malaysia slice by slice.

Perhaps Berry Cakehouse is going beyond what JAKIM requires. We hope that Berry Cakehouse would resume its sales to customers who order cakes with decorations like “Merry Christmas”.

Latest update added on 17 Dec 2023 in light of clarification by JAKIM.

———————-
Relevant earlier reports.

See the update in The Star 16/12/2023 at the end of the article
No ban on Christmas cakes for halal certificate holders, says Mohd Na’im

Continue reading “Berry Cake House Not Allowed to Write “Merry Christmas” on Cakes?”

A Critique of Ismail Faruqi’s Metareligion and Ethical Analysis of Christianity. Part 3/3

Faruqi sharpens his critique of the Christian doctrine of God by asserting that Christianity,

eternalizes the revelation of Christ not as a system of ideas that may be God’s will, but as the Christ-event. . . Christianity consistently argues that Christ (i.e. his significance) is not the will of God, nor his command, nor His idea, but God Himself, or rather God co-eternal with God. Christianity is driven to this deifying hypostasis because it eternalizes a real person and a real event. A person may be co-eternal with God, but not derivatively eternal without violating the law of identity. But to violate the law of identity in this instance is to lapse into polytheism (CE 228).

Unfortunately for Faruqi, his objection is only hitting at theological strawmen since Christians are not asserting that Christ is identical with God without remainder in his incarnate state. Indeed, Faruqi’s objection is self-defeating. If he accuses Christianity of eternalizing a historical person, his religious philosophy commits the same logical move by eternalizing the Quran which was revealed to its messenger in 7th century Arabia. Continue reading “A Critique of Ismail Faruqi’s Metareligion and Ethical Analysis of Christianity. Part 3/3”

A Critique of Ismail Faruqi’s Metareligion and Ethical Analysis of Christianity. Part 2/3

II. Methodological And Doctrinal Distortions

A. Jesus’ Interiorization of Law
In part 1/3, I highlighted some problems with Faruqi’s methodology as its premises give a distorted reading of Christianity and skew the evidence in favor of Islam. The distortions become evident when Faruqi seeks to rewrite the history of the mission and ministry of Jesus through the lens of his metareligion. Faruqi, like all Muslims, maintains a respectful attitude towards Jesus. At the same time he is persuaded that the “real” Jesus is not that of historic Christianity. For Faruqi, the real Jesus should be based on results of German historical critical method and Quranic sources. One cannot help but notice the irony when Faruqi (and other Muslim apologists) unreservedly appropriates the skeptical results of the historical critical method to critique the bible while at the same time eschewing any application of the same critical method in the study of the Quran.

Faruqi has taken considerable effort to familiarize himself with the works of critics like Joseph Klausner and C. H. Dodd. Unfortunately, his appropriation of historical research is selective and subordinated to an overriding and debatable presupposition that Jesus’ pristine religion was solely aimed at effecting an internal correction of the Jewish legalistic religion. This presupposition allows Faruqi to dismiss any Biblical teaching which he finds personally unpalatable to the corrupting influence of Jewish racialism. Jewish racialism was undeniably a harsh reality in Faruqi’s personal experience. After all, he had to abandon his role as governor of a Palestinian district when the Jews won their War of Independence in 1948. But one wonders if Faruqi has in this matter allowed his unfortunate experience to color his judgment when he analyzes the Bible. Continue reading “A Critique of Ismail Faruqi’s Metareligion and Ethical Analysis of Christianity. Part 2/3”

A Critique of Ismail Faruqi’s Metareligion and Ethical Analysis of Christianity. Part 1/3

I. Methodology

Ismail Faruqi (1921-1986) is regarded as one of the most trenchant scholarly critics of Christianity in recent times. This estimation is attested by his post-doctoral project on Christian Ethics: A Historical and Systematic Analysis of Its Dominant Ideas (1967). Its 333 pages indicate detailed familiarity with Christian thinkers ranging from Augustine to Barth and Reinhold Neibuhr. His later books on Divine Transcendence and Its Expression (1983), Al Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life (1982), Islam and Other Faiths (1998) and Selected Essays (2018) demonstrate that he is well-versed in matters of Western philosophy and they are replete with sharp criticisms of Christianity. Undoubtedly, his sustained engagement with Christianity is a product of his life experiences, as a Palestinian Arab in Lebanon and subsequently as an American scholar in Harvard University and McGill University. Perhaps he also felt compelled to respond to the vigorous intellectual enterprise among Christian missionary scholars in his time. We shall analyze critically Faruqi’s work as it provides a rare opportunity for Christians to respond to Islamic misunderstanding of Christianity at the level of sophisticated scholarship. Continue reading “A Critique of Ismail Faruqi’s Metareligion and Ethical Analysis of Christianity. Part 1/3”

Buddhist (D.T. Suzuki) Critique of the Cross

Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on the cross as evidence of the love of God which engages with the suffering of the world head-on provides a decisive answer to the Buddhist allegation that Christianity is a world-negating religion. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki claims that the cruelty surrounding the crucifixion of Christ negates the simple realities of this life and does not compare well with the Buddhist sense of peaceful transition from this life to the next.

Christian symbolism has much to do with the suffering of man. The crucifixion is the climax of all suffering. Buddhists also speak much about suffering and its climax of all suffering is the Buddha serenely sitting under the Bodhi tree by the river Niranjana. Christ carries his suffering to the end of his earthly life whereas Buddha puts an end to it while living and goes on preaching the gospel of enlightenment until he quietly passes away under the twin Sala tree… when Buddha attained his supreme enlightenment, he was in his sitting posture; he was neither attached to nor detached from the earth; he was one with it, he grew out of it, and yet he was not crushed by it./1/ Continue reading “Buddhist (D.T. Suzuki) Critique of the Cross”

Islamic Rejection of the Crucified Messiah

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ recorded in the four Gospels is supported by impeccable testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses. The historical factuality of the cross is further attested by reports found in authoritative non-Christian historical sources like Josephus and Tacitus. The Christian witness to the crucifixion is plausible since it is inconceivable why Christians should invent the crucifixion which declares that their founder died an accursed death under divine judgment on the Cross. As such, an outright denial of the crucifixion would amount to a willful blindness to historical reality. Some Muslim critics therefore grudgingly acknowledge that historically a crucifixion did occur. However, they suggest that someone other than Jesus was crucified. They argue that Christians have misunderstood the significance of the Cross because they are victims of an illusion. God, they claim, replaced Jesus with someone that bore his likeness.

Muslim scholars bypass the historical record with an appeal to the Quranic revelation: Continue reading “Islamic Rejection of the Crucified Messiah”