Disclaimer: This could be controversial.

Recently, a court in Malaysia ruled that the word “Allah” had to be exclusive to Islam.

Building up to the event, a Catholic newspaper had been using the word “Allah” to refer to the Christian God, as this was a commonplace practice throughout the country (and just in case you didn’t know, “Allah” simply means “God,” and it was used in Arabic-speaking communities long before Islam came around; most Arab Christians around the world still use the word “Allah”). Well, the government banned the newspaper from using “Allah,” the first court sided with the newspaper, the appeals court sided with the government, and now it’s settled, at least for the time being. As an explanation, the chief judge of the appeals court said, “The usage of the word Allah is not an integral part of the faith in Christianity. The usage of the word will cause confusion in the community.”

Muslims in Malaysia now have a monopoly over the word “Allah”, and Christians will now have to resort to another word.

I heard about this story on NPR, which I’ve been listening to a lot lately, and I was pretty disappointed at the situation. How can one group of people claim the sole ownership over a word? I understand the need to claim ownership over land, money, or even religious systems. But words? The usage of words are causing “confusion in the community?”

But then it hit me. The very same thing is happening today in American Christianity.

Many Christians today are trying to claim the word “marriage,” so much so that several states have passed or have tried to pass constitutional amendments that give definitions to marriage. Many Christians do not want for gay couples to be legally married, and they are waging a social war to protect the sanctity of a word. They can have any other word or phrase, from “civil union” to “domestic partnership,” but they can’t have marriage.

They often say, “Marriage for so long has been socially accepted as a union between a man and a woman. And not only do we have history on our side, but we also have God on our side. Random people can’t go around redefining what is defined by God. Just imagine a generation of kids growing up thinking that homosexual relationships are marriages!”

Well, Muslims in Malaysia are using the very same way of reasoning. “‘Allah’ for so long has been socially accepted as the word for the Muslim God. And not only do we have history on our side, but we also have God on our side. Random people can’t go around redefining what is defined by God. Just imagine a generation of kids growing up thinking that the Christian God is the Muslim God!”

It’s amazing how easy it is to be so passionate for these marriage amendments, and then to be so passionate for the rights of these Christians in Malaysia, and to not realize the disconnect. They are flat-out contradictory stances.

So now what? Well, I see three options for the Christian. The first option is to advocate using the word “Allah” among Christians in Malaysia, but to let homosexuals in America have the word marriage, at least for social or political purposes. I do not mean to say that Christians need to personally view homosexuality as an appropriate form of marriage themselves, but that they can no longer use the government to force their definition of marriage upon others, in the same way that Muslims cannot use the government to force their definition of Allah on others.

The second option is to keep fighting for one-man-one-woman marriage amendments, but to allow Muslims in Malaysia to have a monopoly over “Allah,” to force Christians there to find a new word for God. This is to say that one group can use the government to try to force their definition of certain words on others. Just let the popular opinion battle it out and become the law of the land.

The third option would be to say that hypocrisy in this scenario is okay, because the main concern for all governments around the world is to advocate the Christian perspective, regardless of what demographics live in their places of jurisdiction. There is no separation of church and state, because one of the primary purposes of government is to uphold Christian values.

Which option should you choose? I think that will depend on a few things. What do you think the role of government is? Do you think it’s more important to uphold the values of the majority or to protect the rights of the minority? What sorts of advantages should a minority culture have over a majority culture, if any? Should Christians fight for a political system founded on Christian principles? And on and on.

Which option am I choosing?

Well I don’t know actually. Right now I’m leaning toward one of the options, but I’m still developing my thoughts. So I’ll stay quiet for now.

Sometimes, I just like disturbing the status quo and not providing solutions. Sorry.

Larry