Category: Other Religions

You know that K you sometimes see on food products? You may be aware that it is a sign that the food is kosher. But the K doesn’t stand for kosher, it stands for kashrut, the laws governing what is and is not kosher.

Most of us probably have a pretty good understanding of certain aspects of the laws of kashrut–that certain kinds of meat (notably pork) are not kosher, that milk and meat produts cannot be served together, that kosher meat must come from animals killed in a particular way, that more than one set of dishes is used, etc.

Those who have read the Bible all the way through have read the Old Testament treatment of what is and is not kosher, but the modern laws of kashrut have been elaborated and applied in new ways compared to the OT laws they are based on. E.g., the rule against serving milk and meat products together is an elaboration of the OT law against boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). To make sure nobody does that, milk and meat can’t be served together, which is why you can’t get a cheeseburger at McDonalds in Jerusalem (it also poses problems for pizza and having cheese and meatballs with pasta).

(FYI, if you ever go to Israel, don’t bother eating the westernized food they try to serve tourists. It’s lousy–particularly that stuff they serve in “self-service restaurants” . . . {Cough!} cafeterias. Eat the native food instead.)

Most of us probably have never read a detailed overview of the laws of kashrut, but Wikipedia has an excellent article on them that’s worth checking out.

Here is another good article from a Jewish source.

Okay. This is one of those bizarrely weird stories that sends conspiracy theorists into orbit. The fact is: Last March 23rd, Sun Myung Moon has had himself crowned “King of Peace” at the Dirksen Senate Office Bulding in Washington, declaring himself to be “savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent” and asserting: “I am God’s ambassador, sent to earth with his full authority. I am sent to accomplish His command to save the world’s six billion people, restoring them to Heaven with the original goodness in which they were created.”

Where the conspiracy part comes in is that multiple congressmen were in attendance at the event. One (Rep. Danny Davis [D-Ill]) was even the chap who plunked down the crown on Moon’s head. This could be taken as evidence that Moon’s “Unification Church” has numerous covert followers among the nation’s lawmakers.

That’s probably not the case. Moon’s money has bought him disturbing access to the nation’s lawmakers, but they probably aren’t crypto-Moonies. In fact, as repoted in The Hill, multiple lawmakers who were at the event deny that they knew Moon was going to be there or that the bizarre crowning was going to take place (Rep. Davis, who performed the crowning, would be an exception). Other lawmakers claimed by the Moonies to have been there deny that they were in attendance. The event has the earmarks of a Moon-staged event that was sprung on a bunch of surprised and alarmed congressmen.

The story didn’t gain prominence until recently, through videos of the event that appeared on the Web (they have since been taken down). You can read a transcript of one of the videos here. Now that it’s come to the press’s attention, the embarrassed lawmakers who were involved are distancing them from Moon and his “King of Peace” claims faster than the speed of light.

While conspiracy theorists might see the event in overly sinister (rather than simply silly) terms, the fact that the event took place at all is disturbing and reveals the extent to which Moon has been able to spread his influence through Washington. He’ll never become president or king or anything else of the United States, but that hasn’t stopped him from gaining undue influence through his money. Hopefully this event will serve to marginalize him and diminish the influence he has bought.

The U.S. Commission on International religious Freedom has issued its annual report on the state of religion in the world.

This year’s report focuses paritcularly on ensuring religious freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, and notes that there has been more success in promoting it in the former than in the latter (which is not surprising since Iraq has been home to substantial Christian and Jewish minorities for centuries, whereas Afghanistan was the recent home of the Taliban).

The problem areas of the world continue to be–as one would expect–the Muslim and Atheist (i.e., Communistic) regions. In regard to the former, the report notes:

Freedom of religion or belief as an individual, as opposed to a group, right is not well protected in the Middle East or among countries where Islam is the religion of the state. Many constitutions of these states protect religious belief only, rather than both belief and practice, as required by international norms. Moreover, rights are usually expressed in general terms rather than in the form of explicit guarantees of rights for each person. Nevertheless, there are exceptions: Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Malaysia—states where Islam is the state religion—have constitutional guarantees that compare favorably with international standards, as do several other predominately Muslim countries such as Albania, Azerbaijan, Mali, and Senegal.

I’m not sure by what criteria some of these statements are judged. I happen to know that in Malaysia, for example, though you can’t be executed for converting to Christianity from Islam, you can be imprisoned. I wouldn’t call that “compar[ing] favorably with international standards.”

There’s still a lot of work that need to be done to allow the gospel to spread freely in these lands.

The reason I bring up the Salvation Army is that I got the following e-mail from a correspondent:

I was wondering what the form and matter is for Baptism by a Salvationist [i.e., a member of the Salvation Army]. I am working with a young man in prison who wants to learn more about the faith, with the possibility of coming into full communion. He was baptised in his mother’s faith, i.e. Salvationist. Is this a valid baptism? He recieved instructions and claims to have made his first communion (but not Confirmation) in another state prison location (within a different diocese). Before I proceed, I need to know where he stands. He is single and has never been married, so, other than the baptism in question, and pehaps his recieving communion, he has no obvious impediments.

I replied:

I’m afraid that there is a difficulty in answering your question because the Salvation Army does not normally practice the sacraments. See the following links:

http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/en/Library/factSheets/Sacraments.htm

http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/en/Library/factSheets/FAQ-23-Baptism+and+membership.htm

There have been inconsistencies in this area, and sometimes Salvationists have received baptism in another church, but the Salvation Army does not encourage its members to be baptized. As a result of the irregular way in which baptism–when they occur among Salvationsists–are performed, there is no guarantee that any particular form (or matter) was used.

There would seem to be two solutions to the situation of the gentleman you describe: (1) investigate to find out the particulars of how *he* was baptized (e.g., did he do it in a Salvationist church or another church and what was the form and matter in his case). *Probably* he was baptized validly. However, because of the doubt in this area I would probably recommend a conditional baptism for him, just to be sure.

I wish the Salvationist gentleman the best of luck and hope that he soon comes into the Church, but I point this out here because it further underscores the problem with the Salvation Army’s lack of focus on gospel teaching. Even those who do not recognize baptism as means of salvation recognize that it is a scripturally-mandated response to the gospel (e.g., in Acts 2:38), and to simply discontinue its practice is fundamentally inconsistent with the Christian faith.

In fact, the result is that Salvationists who follow the practice of their group in this matter are not Christians because they are not baptized. They are kind of deutero-followers of the Messiah, like the disciples of Apollos that Paul found in Ephesis (Acts 19:1-7, cf. 18:18-28), but they are not Christians because they lack the sacrament that makes one a Christian.

The reason I bring up the Salvation Army is that I got the following e-mail from a correspondent:

I was wondering what the form and matter is for Baptism by a Salvationist [i.e., a member of the Salvation Army]. I am working with a young man in prison who wants to learn more about the faith, with the possibility of coming into full communion. He was baptised in his mother’s faith, i.e. Salvationist. Is this a valid baptism? He recieved instructions and claims to have made his first communion (but not Confirmation) in another state prison location (within a different diocese). Before I proceed, I need to know where he stands. He is single and has never been married, so, other than the baptism in question, and pehaps his recieving communion, he has no obvious impediments.

I replied:

I’m afraid that there is a difficulty in answering your question because the Salvation Army does not normally practice the sacraments. See the following links:

http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/en/Library/factSheets/Sacraments.htm
http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/en/Library/factSheets/FAQ-23-Baptism+and+membership.htm

There have been inconsistencies in this area, and sometimes Salvationists have received baptism in another church, but the Salvation Army does not encourage its members to be baptized. As a result of the irregular way in which baptism–when they occur among Salvationsists–are performed, there is no guarantee that any particular form (or matter) was used.

There would seem to be two solutions to the situation of the gentleman you describe: (1) investigate to find out the particulars of how *he* was baptized (e.g., did he do it in a Salvationist church or another church and what was the form and matter in his case). *Probably* he was baptized validly. However, because of the doubt in this area I would probably recommend a conditional baptism for him, just to be sure.

I wish the Salvationist gentleman the best of luck and hope that he soon comes into the Church, but I point this out here because it further underscores the problem with the Salvation Army’s lack of focus on gospel teaching. Even those who do not recognize baptism as means of salvation recognize that it is a scripturally-mandated response to the gospel (e.g., in Acts 2:38), and to simply discontinue its practice is fundamentally inconsistent with the Christian faith.

In fact, the result is that Salvationists who follow the practice of their group in this matter are not Christians because they are not baptized. They are kind of deutero-followers of the Messiah, like the disciples of Apollos that Paul found in Ephesis (Acts 19:1-7, cf. 18:18-28), but they are not Christians because they lack the sacrament that makes one a Christian.

Quick! If someone comes up to you and says “Salvation Army,” what’s the first think you think of?

Guys on the street corner ringing bells and taking donations at Christmas time, right? Maybe big red trucks coming to cart away furniture and give it to the needy?

That’s the problem.

These things are not what the Salvation Army is about–or at least they shouldn’t be. You see, the Salvation Army is more than a charity.

It’s a church.

But it’s a church that has ruined its witness to Christ by over-emphasis on social teaching. It has allowed itself to become thought of in the public mind as a charity rather than a church, and that’s contrary to what it is to be a church.

People must undertand what we stand for as Christians. When they think of us, they must think of us as followers of Christ first and foremost, not as people who organize charitable events. (Heck, when I was a boy I thought the “Salvation” in their name referred to salvaging furniture that would otherwise be thrown away!)

It’s true that Jesus and his apostles were concerned for the material wellbeing of others and worked to improve it, but this was always subordinate to their concern for people’s spiritual wellbeing, and people knew it. The gospel is about how to get eternal life, not how to keep warm and well fed. While helping someone with the latter is important, it pales in comparison to helping them understand the former.

The Salvation Army has made a fatal mistake by becoming a charity in the mind of the public, which would be a betrayal of what it would be doing if it wants to be a church.

The case of the Salvation Army is a valuable object lesson for those in other churches–including the Catholic Church–to show what can go wrong when a group puts more emphasis on social teaching than on gospel teaching.

I sympathize with the scrupulous impulse of some NYC Jews (who appear to be ultraorthodox rather than orthodox), who worry that the copepods in local tap water render the water non-kosher unless the little critters are filtered out (copepods being crustaceans and crustaceans being non-kosher).

Still, I’m glad that the question wouldn’t arise in Catholicism–not just because our food laws don’t work that way but also because in Catholic legal hermeneutics the law is to be observed in modo humano (i.e., “in a human manner”). If you have to examine your food with a microscope or high-power magnifying glass or other piece of technology to determine what something in your food is then we have been taken out of the realm of observing the law in a human manner and so we don’t need to worry about it.

It’s also probably good that the question doesn’t arise in Catholicism because if it did then people would accuse us of creating the law in order to economically advantage the makers of water purifiers–just as they accuse meatless Fridays of having been created by the pope to benefit Italian fishermen.

On the other hand, given the unflattering Jewish stereotypes floating around, NYC’s Jewish community may be subject to similar accusations.