Scott Hahn's Abba or Allah

  • Thread starter Thread starter ExGratia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ExGratia

Guest
I just finished listening to Scott Hahn’s CD (monthly CD from Lighthouse Catholic Media) comparing and contrasting Islam and Christianity.

His main premise seemed to be that we relate to God the Father as a father and we as sons. Muslims relate to God as a master and they as slaves. This has to do with the Abraham-Isaac and the Abraham-Ishmael relationship.

I get what Dr. Hahn is trying to say and I see all the relationships, foreshadowing, et cetera that he highlights. But what about St. Paul? I seem to remember him referring to himself as a slave for Christ and my fuzzy memory doesn’t allow me to recall any saints who’ve also stated that but I believe they have. If anyone could remind me who I might mean, that would be great! I vaguely remember there being some sort of a pious practice that involved a bracelet representing bondage…

I think there are many ways to relate to God as a Christian but I will try not to digress. How might someone reconcile what Hahn said about relating to God and what St. Paul seems to say?
 
I dunno, I didn’t find anything Scott Hahn said on that CD to be at variance to the Catholic faith or the bible. We are indeed sons, friends, and servants. The primary difference is that we believe in God as a Father, and Islam doesn’t. That was the main point made in the CD, and seems to be the main difference in the religion. In our religion God wants us, and loves us. In theirs he owns them, and does with them as he pleases.
 
bmullins said:
I dunno, I didn’t find anything Scott Hahn said on that CD to be at variance to the Catholic faith or the bible. We are indeed sons, friends, and servants. The primary difference is that we believe in God as a Father, and Islam doesn’t. That was the main point made in the CD, and seems to be the main difference in the religion. In our religion God wants us, and loves us. In theirs he owns them, and does with them as he pleases.
Click to expand...
I love Scott Hahn and didn’t find anything at variance either. I guess the person I’d really like to ask is Scott Hahn! Who’s up for a road trip to Steubenville, Ohio?! 😉

Side note: the 2nd speaker on the CD was very interesting, too!
 
I haven’t heard the CD, but I doubt Dr. Hahn meant to reject any sense whatsoever in which we could be called “slaves” of God. (Today the word is often translated “servants” because of how the institution of slavery has been abused over the centuries, giving the word a negative connotation which is not accurate regarding our relationship to God). I imagine he was speaking of the primary paradigm of each of the religions regarding the relationship between us and God.
 
ExGratia said:
I just finished listening to Scott Hahn’s CD (monthly CD from Lighthouse Catholic Media) comparing and contrasting Islam and Christianity.

His main premise seemed to be that we relate to God the Father as a father and we as sons. Muslims relate to God as a master and they as slaves. This has to do with the Abraham-Isaac and the Abraham-Ishmael relationship.

I get what Dr. Hahn is trying to say and I see all the relationships, foreshadowing, et cetera that he highlights. But what about St. Paul? I seem to remember him referring to himself as a slave for Christ and my fuzzy memory doesn’t allow me to recall any saints who’ve also stated that but I believe they have. If anyone could remind me who I might mean, that would be great! I vaguely remember there being some sort of a pious practice that involved a bracelet representing bondage…

I think there are many ways to relate to God as a Christian but I will try not to digress. How might someone reconcile what Hahn said about relating to God and what St. Paul seems to say?
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 13:13. Of the three theological virtues (faith, hope, love), love is the greatest. God loves us and we love God in return. There is no love bewteen God and the Muslim - it is strictly master and slave. God rules the Muslim and the Muslim fears God. Paul was motivated by love. His love of God made him the servant, but it was a voluntary servitude motivated by love. It reflected Jesus’ washing of the Apostle’s feet at the last supper (John 13). Compare this with the woman washing Jesus’ feet with her tears in Luke 7. It is done for love, not fear. And, that is the motivational difference between Christianity and Islam.
 
No longer do I call you servants, * for the servant * does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
Click to expand...
John 15:15
I think servant and slave are equivalent in the Bible
 
“Bond Slave”, willing to serve the master he loves! :bowdown:
 
Aelred_Minor said:
I imagine he was speaking of the primary paradigm of each of the religions regarding the relationship between us and God.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard him mention this topic in the past, and this is pretty much the gist of it. The idea is that there’s the possibility of being a child of God in Judaism / Christianity, while in Islam, there’s only the master/servant relationship. It’s not that, out of respect, we might call ourselves God’s servants; it’s that, when it comes right down to it, the character of our relationship with God is as adopted sons and daughters.
 
Fragile said:
“Bond Slave”, willing to serve the master he loves! :bowdown:
Click to expand...
A bit off-topic, but it is good here to recall that, as Paul was a bond slave of the Lord, so also Mary declared herself to be the bond slave of the Lord. There are further implications in both cases upon Catholic doctrine and discipline.
 
I just noticed the first reading in today’s Office of Readings.
See what love the Father has bestowed on us
in letting us be called children of God!
Yet that is what we are.
The reason the world does not recognize us
is that it never recognized the Son.
Dearly beloved,
we are God’s children now; …
Click to expand...
1 John 3:1-2
 
Re: St Paul

My reflections

We can either be a slave/servant to God or a slave/servant to Satan.

The realtionships/differences mentioned in the OP between Muslins an Christians towards God are correct, IMHO. Is one right and one wrong? I won’t go that far to judgment.
 
I haven’t finished the CD yet (so many interesting points), but what are the implications of either referring to God as a Master / Slave relationship verses Father/Son(Daughter) relationship? That is the main question. I am interested to see where Scott is going with this all, if nothing more than Muslims call themselves slaves and are submissive to their god. It is interesting to think that this occurrence with Abraham and Ishmael (relating through his slave mother) has carried down the Arabic culture and possibly into Islam.

We are slaves of Christ and also slaves of Mary, which is the same as being slaves of Christ, because all things and Mother Mary points us to Christ which is the fulfillment. We often read in Christ through Mary. We should be slaves, friends, brothers/sisters out of love for Jesus as far as i am aware in scripture.

It is interesting that both Christians and Muslims believe they sacrificed either Issac or Ishmael, both claiming obedience of Abraham to God, but Hahn goes on to say it was Issac faith also, since Issac (asked?) to be bound since anytime he could have at anytime ran away our of fear or whatever. He was a willing victim, like Jesus was a willing victim, which i don’t understand what that means, other than willing sacrificial love for the other… but then how is Jesus a true victim as is said I think during the mass and in scripture? as well.
 
57Bill said:
Re: St Paul

My reflections

We can either be a slave/servant to God or a slave/servant to Satan.

The realtionships/differences mentioned in the OP between Muslins an Christians towards God are correct, IMHO. Is one right and one wrong? I won’t go that far to judgment.
Click to expand...
It could be that both are right for it is only through Jesus that we are freed and taken as sons and daughters of God.
 
St. Thomas aquinas I think explains it well
But one should say that there are two kinds of servitude: one is the servitude of fear, which does not befit saints: “You did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15); the other is that of humility and love, which does befit saints: “Say, ‘We are unworthy servants.’” (Lk 17:10). For since a free man is one who exists for his own sake, whereas a servant is one who exists for the sake of another, as moving by reason of another’s moving him; then, if a person acts for the sake of another as though moved by him, the service is one of fear, which forces a man to act in opposition to his own will. But it he acts for the sake of another as an end, then it is the servitude of love; because a friend serves and does good to his friend for the friend’s own sake, as the Philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics [chapter 4].
Click to expand...
 
COPLAND_3 said:
St. Thomas aquinas I think explains it well
Click to expand...
Thank you for the post. Is it LOVE AND HUMILITY or FEAR as being the primary motivations. That determines the type of relationship whether it is one of slave, brother, or servant. Does that sound right?

So what weight does that have when evangelizing my Muslim friend? I have yet to speak with him about the things that I am learning on this CD. Thanks!
 
GodHeals said:
Thank you for the post. Is it LOVE AND HUMILITY or FEAR as being the primary motivations. That determines the type of relationship whether it is one of slave, brother, or servant. Does that sound right?

So what weight does that have when evangelizing my Muslim friend? I have yet to speak with him about the things that I am learning on this CD. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I’m sure that could help with the Muslem friend, but it all has to do with how open he is. I have very little experience dealing with Muslems. When evangelizing, everyone usually has a different place in their openess, which means that you may be only able to plant a seed for others to water, or you may be able to water the seed someone else has planted. Or you may be in a position to help someone cross that point to conversion. Keep it simple and clear.
 
Mohammed said that Allah forbade anyone to adopt anyone. (So that he could marry his adopted son’s wife, of course.)

There’s a fringe custom that women who nurse babies as infants always have a special nursemaid relationship, which was sometimes exploited to allow unrelated people into the household. But in Islam, nobody can ever be adopted as an heir, whereas in most societies, adoption provided social mobility possibilities for both children and adults.

(For example, several Roman emperors just picked out a guy they thought was capable of being emperor, and adopted these full-grown men into their families as their sons and heirs to the throne.)

Meanwhile, in Hebrew law, slaves had a real place in the family, and could even become their master’s heir or be married to one of his kids. A slave had legal protections against being thrown out of the household. This is not to say that it was a great life, but it wasn’t like being a slave in the old South.
 
The idea of subservience that the Christian texts describe as doulos/ancilla is strong in both Judaism and Islam. And the Catechism says that a pagan approaching Christianity needs to understand the Old Testament first - in a way, passing through this viewpoint shared by the other Abrahamic religions.

Then, John 1:12 - “But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name.”

It’s a little like a sailor catching a wind before understanding the land that it sends him towards. He needs the wind to get there. But the point of the journey isn’t the wind.
 
Jewish scholar and author of Sarah the Priestess, Savinah Teubal, said that there were two states of servitude illustrated in Sarah’s relationship with Hagar. First, as her handmaid, Hagar was able to raise up seed, as it is said, to Sarah, who presumed she was sterile and impatient for God to fulfill His promise for a son. As her handmaid’s son, Ishmael had full rights of inheritance and 100% sonship. When bad behavior prompted Sarah to kick Hagar and her son out, she changed her status from “handmaid” to “servant” with no right of inheritance, freeing her to kick Hagar and Ishmael out. This is not the slavery of the Muslim variety but a subset of the family like Native Americans; or at worse a servant who could get “fired.” Jewish law for indentured servants mandated freedom after 7 years and if a servant chose to stay, they had an ear pierced. Indentured servants under the Dutch were so disgruntled by the abuse they chose to run away and be “slaves” of Native Americans. Gotta watch those terms…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top