1
“A
COMMON WORD?”
REFLECTIONS ON CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM
DIALOGUE
Larry Poston, Nyack College
Published under “Featured
Article” at www.globalmissiology.org,
April 2008
“A Common Word Between Us and You”—Background
On September 13, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI addressed
an audience at the University of Regensburg
on the topic of “Faith, Reason, and the University.” While his message focused
on the necessity of maintaining a
religious faith based upon and commensurate with Reason, a quotation early in the speech from the Byzantine
Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (1350-1425) produced a highly negative reaction from Muslims around the world. In a
discussion with a Persian scholar on
the subject of Christianity’s relationship to Islam, the emperor had challenged
his Muslim colleague to “show...just
what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The citation was meant
to be nothing more than a preface to a plea for rational discussion regarding religion, but many Muslims
were incensed, considering the quotation to be further evidence of Christianity’s continuing “crusader mentality.”
In late September of 2007, 138 Muslim scholars and
clergymen issued a response to the Regensburg
address. The document was entitled “A Common Word Between Us and You,” and was designed to promote “open intellectual
exchange and mutual understanding” between the world’s Christian and Muslim communities. A website was established for
public review of the document (see http://www.acommonword.com/),
and to this site has been added a variety of responses from Christian individuals and groups. Among the more notable
of these was a letter penned by a panel of scholars at the Yale Divinity
School’s Center for Faith and Culture. This document, entitled “Loving God and Neighbor Together,” was published in
the New York Times along with the
names of 135 Christians who endorsed the sentiments expressed therein. Many of the signatories are Evangelical scholars, pastors,
and missionary statesmen.
Summary and Analysis of “A Common Word”
Essentially, the Muslim document proposes that the
basis for peace and understanding between
Christianity and Islam already exists: “the Unity of God, love of Him, and love
of the Neighbor form a common ground
upon which Islam and Christianity (and Judaism) are founded.” The Muslim shahadah (“There is
no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger”) and one of
Islam’s traditions (“None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself”) are considered to be the Islamic equivalents
of Jesus’ teaching regarding the two
greatest commandments (“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your
mind, and with all your strength”
and “[love] your neighbor
as yourself”).
The authors of “A
Common Word” claim that Muhammad was actually “through inspiration” repeating the Bible’s first and
greatest commandment, and he thus “brought nothing fundamentally or essentially new” to humankind.
Muslims, Christians and Jews should all be “free to follow what God commanded them, and not have to prostrate before
kings and the like.” Christians are
to be assured that neither the authors nor the adherents of Islam in general
are against them, as long as the
Christian community does not wage war against or oppress Muslims.
2
Islam
recognizes Jesus as the Messiah; Muslims are therefore with Christians,
not against them. Concluding the document is an
invitation to recognize and honor this “common ground,” and to “vie
with each other only in righteousness and good works,” respecting each other,
being fair, just, and kind to one another, and living in
“sincere peace, harmony, and mutual goodwill.”
There are several issues that may be raised with
respect to “A Common Word,” five of which
may be viewed as particularly significant:
·
First, does “the unity of God, the necessity of
love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbor” truly comprise an essential “common ground” between
Christianity and Islam? While it may
be true that “the two religions have these three things in common,” are these
the only items that ecumenicity
should be built upon? Are there not other aspects of each faith that should be taken into consideration as well?
·
Was Muhammad actually “through inspiration”
re-stating the Bible’s first commandment?
·
If “God confirms in the Qur’an
that Muhammad brought nothing fundamentally or essentially
new,” why then did Islam arise as a new and competitive world religion?
·
What is to be done about the significant
differences in the areas of theology and praxis that have historically divided the two communities? Are
these to be overlooked, forgotten, or presumed
not to exist?
·
If “finding common ground is not [to be
considered] simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders,”
what, practically speaking, are the Muslim authors asking for?
1. Concerning “Unity, Love of
God, and Love of Neighbor”
When Christians speak of “the unity of God,” do
they mean what Muslims historically have
meant by this phrase? Perhaps even more to the point is the question as to
whether the Muslim authors of “A Common Word” are reflecting the historic Muslim
view of this concept.
The text of the document states that “the words: He
hath no associate, remind Muslims that
they must love God uniquely, without rivals within their souls...”1
These words are from a hadith—a tradition—and consequently carry less weight
for most Muslims than would a Quranic citation.
But further on in the document there is a quotation from Surah 3:64, which
forbids the ascribing of partners to
God. This passage is said by the authors to be indicative of no more than the
need to acknowledge the Oneness of God. But traditionally this passage has been
used to condemn shirk,
arguably the greatest sin in Islam. Shirk is a denial of tawhid—the
absolute Oneness of God, and for 1400
years the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity has been considered to be a form of shirk. In the eyes of a
majority of Muslims, Trinitarianism is a limited polytheism, and as such is condemned by the Qur’an. Surah 5:73
states that “They do blaspheme
who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One
God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous
penalty will befall the blasphemers
among them.”
“A Common Word”
states that “Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, not in the same way Christians do...” A small portion of
Surah 4:171 is then cited in a very accommodating
fashion. But this passage in its entirety is an exhortation to the “People of
the Book” to “commit no excesses
in your religion; nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a
Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary...Say not
“Trinity:” desist; it will be better for you; for Allah is One
3
God...(Far
Exalted is He) above having a son.” Orthodox Christianity can
give no approval whatsoever to this passage,
since it denies the doctrines of the Trinity and the sonship of Jesus directly,
and by implication rejects His deity and incarnation as well.
With respect to “love of God,” the document makes
it clear that Muslims are commanded to
“love God uniquely.” They are forbidden to love any “associate” of God, citing
Surah 2:165: “Yet there are men
who take rivals unto God: they love them as they should love God.” Traditionally this is yet another passage which
has been interpreted to be a rejection of Trinitarianism. The Christian view of Jesus as a member of the Godhead
makes Him an “associate” of God. As such, He is a legitimate object of worship
for Christians, but regarding such a
practice, Surah 5:116 presents the following scenario: “Allah will say, ‘O
Jesus the son of Mary! Didst
thou say unto men, ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?’ He will say: ‘Glory to Thee! Never could I say
what I had no right to say.”
In the New Testament, however, Jesus accepted the
worshipful confession of Peter that He
was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). He accepted
the worship of the women after His
resurrection (Matthew 28:9), of Thomas who called Him “Lord” and “God”
(John 20:28), and of his disciples
on the Mount of Olives prior to His ascension (Matthew 28:17). No orthodox Muslim can give credence to these
accounts or give approval of the actions of these persons—and no Christian can deny them.
The historic Christian view of “the oneness of
God” does not at all conform to what Muslims
believe. To claim that Christians and Muslims share “a common ground” in this
area is patently false—unless, of
course, the authors of “A Common Word” are willing to concede the falsity of the Quranic passages quoted above, or
Christians are willing to deny the historic Christian doctrine of the Triune essence of God.
2. Muhammad’s “Inspiration”
Was the text of the Qur’an received by Muhammad “through
inspiration,” and were his words in actuality “re-stating
the Bible’s first commandment?” Our answer to the second of these
questions would be in the negative, for the reasons that we gave above in
response to Question 1. Since the Muslims in their document
have chosen to stress the absolute Oneness of the God who is to be loved to the
exclusion of all associates, and since they have historically viewed the
Christian belief in the Triune God as “attributing partners” to Him, Christians
who “love the Lord their God” cannot be said to be
worshiping with the same mental constructs of God
as Muslims have.
Christians have historically
denied that Muhammad spoke “under inspiration”—if by this term we mean “inspiration of God.” The
inscripturated revelation of God ended with the letters and Revelation of the Apostle John at the end of
the first century CE. Canonical literature was thus “closed” at that time, and the Bible in its present form was
ratified by the Church at the end of
the fourth century. No additional scriptural revelation has occurred, meaning
that Muhammad’s words may not be seen
as such. Indeed, the historic view of Christians has been that since Muhammad’s
teachings deviate so widely from the canonical writings of both Israel (i.e., the Old Testament) and the Church (i.e.,
the New Testament), his “revelation” must be seen to be included in the genre of teachings about
which the Apostle Paul gave such stern warnings (see Galatians 1:8).
In
addition, the commands to “love God” and “love one’s neighbor” taken by
themselves fall far short of the
full range of New Testament requirements for the salvation of a human being
4
and
the new birth of his/her spiritual aspect. The New Testament requires that one
“confess that Jesus is Lord,”
and that one “believe that God has raised Him from the dead” (Romans
10:9). This passage is in actuality the true “shahadah”
of the New Testament Christian. Muslims deny both
parts of Romans 10:9; for them Jesus is neither Lord nor
has He been raised from the dead. Consequently, they can know
nothing of the salvation that is available in Christ. Furthermore, a person
is unable to truly “love God and his neighbor” apart from the new birth
which is attained through the above confessions. Certainly one can in an
external sense appear to “love God and neighbor,”
in ways that may be culturally sanctioned and even applauded. But Jesus warned
that a person can preach in His name, cast out demons in His
name, and even perform miracles in His name—and
still be unknown to Him from the standpoint of salvation. Such a person is considered
to be an “evildoer” (see Matthew 7:22-23).
3. Nothing New?
If, as the Muslim document claims, “God confirms in the
Qur’an that Muhammad brought nothing fundamentally or
essentially new,” we would ask why Islam ever arose as a new and
competitive world religion. The Muslim signatories cite Surah 46:9 in support
of their contention, in which Muhammad claims that he is “...no
bringer of newjangled doctrine among the
messengers...” But Muslims have always claimed
that both the Old Testament and the New Testament
as they currently appear are corrupt and untrustworthy.2 These books
no longer contain the Tawrah and the Injil that the Qur’an
speaks of; they do not express the words of God as
previously revealed. So while it may be claimed that Muhammad brought nothing
that had not been revealed before, a Muslim must hold that what
Muhammad taught was indeed “new” to the people of his time, since no
one had access to uncorrupted revelation.
“A Common Word” insists that
because they are all considered “People of the Book,” “Muslims,
Christians, and Jews should be free to follow what God commanded them, and not have
to prostrate before kings and the like.” Here the authors cite the command of
Sura 2:256 that “there is to be no compulsion in religion”
and champion the concept of “freedom of
religion.”
However, the statement as it stands is inherently contradictory, in that its
literal application on the part of Christians would undermine the
Muslims’ intent. They cite Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50: “For he who is
not against us is on our side”—and therefore invite Christians to “consider
Muslims not against and thus with them...” But if Christians are
“free to follow what God commanded them,” they must at
some point engage the adherents of Islam evangelistically, fulfilling
the commands of God to “preach the good news to all creation” (Mark
16:15); to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (i.e.,
the Trinity; Matthew 28:19); to call upon people to “confess with their
mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts
that God has raised Him from the dead”—and
thus be “saved” (Romans 10:9); and to acknowledge the truth that “no one who
denies the Son has the Father” (1 John 2:23). If Christians follow what God
has commanded them, they will be seeking to bring about
the new birth of Muslims from out of their state of Islamic unbelief and into
the light of New Testament faith.
4. Obviously Different Religions
“A Common Word” recognizes that “Islam and Christianity
are obviously different religions” and concedes that
“there is no minimizing some of their formal differences.” The
5
document
concludes with a plea to “let our differences not cause hatred and strife
between us; let us vie with each other only in
righteousness and good works.” A significant question, however, is
whether the alleged Muslim and Christian emphasis on “love of God and neighbor”
is sufficient to overcome these “formal differences that
cannot be minimized.” Is it truly possible to
consider religions in a phenomenological fashion, culling out those aspects
judged to be “alike” and bypassing substantial differences?
Does such a procedure promote understanding and
peaceful relations that are rooted in reality, or does this approach actually
do no more than “gut” the religions in question
and promote a unity of hollow facades?
Hendrik Kraemer, the author of The Christian
Message in a Non-Christian World, speaks of the impossibility of dealing with religious systems in piecemeal
fashion:
Every
religion is an indivisible, and not to be divided, unity of existential apprehension.
It is not a series of tenets, dogmas, prescriptions, institutions, and practices
that can be taken one by one as independent items of religious life, conception
or organization, and that can arbitrarily be compared with, and somehow
related to, and grafted upon, the similar item of another religion.3
Christians and Muslims may not simply pull two
items out of their respective religious systems and expect that any true ecumenical unity can result on the
basis of these two items alone.
There are, quite simply, far too many other aspects where the two groups would
stand in complete disagreement;
items concerning which neither side has ever been willing to compromise.
5. More Than Dialogue?
What do the authors of “A Common Word” actually
want from Christians if “polite ecumenical
dialogue between selected religious leaders” is deemed an insufficient goal? Muslim-Christian dialogue, of course, has been
occurring for centuries. Very little substantial progress has been made,
however, due mainly to the religions’ irreconcilable differences alluded to in the previous sections. Are the authors of
“A Common Word,” then, advocating that both sides abandon the theological convictions that have prevented dialogue
from going past a certain point?
What would such an advocacy mean, practically speaking? We suggest that it
would lead at least to the following,
with respect to the single area of Christology:
a)
Muslims would have to abandon
their belief that Jesus is not the “only-begotten Son of
God,” thereby denying those passages of the Qur’an that clearly state that He
was not; and thereby denying the inspiration of their
scriptures. Or...Christians would have to abandon their belief
that Jesus is the “only begotten Son of God,” thereby denying those
passages of the Bible that clearly state that He is, and thereby denying the
inspiration of their Scriptures.
b)
Muslims would have to abandon
their belief that the One True God is not Triune, thereby denying those
passages of the Qur’an that clearly state that He is not; and thereby
denying the inspiration of their scriptures. Or...Christians would have to abandon
their belief that the One True God is Triune, thereby denying those
passages
6
of
the Bible that indicate that He is, and thereby denying the inspiration of
their Scriptures.
c)
Muslims would have to abandon
their belief that Jesus was not crucified and therefore did not
rise from the dead, thereby denying those passages of the Qur’an that clearly state
that He was not; and thereby denying the inspiration of their scriptures. Or...Christians
would have to abandon their belief that Jesus was crucified and did
in fact rise from the dead, thereby denying those passages of the Bible that
indicate that He was and did, and thereby denying the inspiration of their
Scriptures.
d)
Muslims would have to abandon their
belief that Jesus did not atone for the sins of humankind,
thereby denying those passages of the Qur’an that clearly state that He did
not; and thereby denying the inspiration of their scriptures. Or...Christians
would have to abandon their belief that Jesus did atone for the sins of
humankind, thereby denying those passages of the
Bible that indicate that He did, and thereby denying the inspiration
of their Scriptures.
It should be clear that we have reached an impasse here.
It is unimaginable that either side will concede the truth of
its opposite number in any one of the above areas—not to mention the
dozens of others that could be suggested. While it is understandable that many
persons on both sides would want to move beyond the limited
results of “polite ecumenical dialogue,” it is inconceivable
that such a move could actually occur without abandoning the most central doctrines
of one or the other or both of the religions.
The Christian Response to “A
Common Word”
In response to “A Common Word,” scholars at Yale Divinity
School’s Center for Faith and Culture penned a treatise
entitled “Loving God and Neighbor Together.” On the occasion of its publication
in the New York Times, it had been endorsed by nearly 300 Christian
theologians and leaders, including many Evangelicals.
This document begins with the currently obligatory
apology for the Crusades and the “overzealousness of the present
war on terror.” It then proceeds to identify several points of agreement
with the Muslims and mentions no points of disagreement whatsoever—an omission that
has led to a number of criticisms from within the Evangelical community, both
of the Christian document itself and of its signatories.4
The response speaks in vague terms and in a placating
manner about things that will almost certainly prove to be ultimately
impractical, both at the level of the street and in
the halls of academia. Problematic points include the following:
First,
“[t]hat this common ground consists in love of God and of neighbor gives hope
that deep cooperation between us can be a hallmark of the
relations between our two communities.” Deep
cooperation concerning what? Certainly not in the things that matter the most
to Evangelicals, such as “preaching Christ crucified,” an
atonement for the sins of humankind, the resurrected
Lord of the Universe, the only-begotten Son of God, the incarnation of God, the
Messiah whose name includes the term “Mighty God,” and
the like. Muslims and Christians will certainly
not cooperate in the establishment of the Church as the assembly of God’s
called-out, chosen people who have experienced the new birth as the necessary
prerequisite for seeing the Kingdom of Heaven. We will
certainly not be cooperating together in fulfilling Christ’s Great
7
Commission
to make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Triune God,
and teaching them to obey everything that Jesus commanded.
Second, “[w]hen justice is lacking, neither love
of God nor love of the neighbor can be present.
When freedom to worship God according to one’s conscience is curtailed, God is dishonored, the neighbor oppressed, and neither
God nor neighbor is loved.” Christians would agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments, for they express the ethos
of democratic political philosophy
and the essence of Thomas Jefferson’s advocacy of an “open playing field” for
the expression of religious beliefs. But such an open field exists in
relatively few Muslim countries, where
complete freedom to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience
most often does not exist for Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Ahmadi, or
other minorities. The judgmental
legacies of Wahhabi fundamentalism as seen in Saudi Arabia, the extremism of
the Afghani Taliban, the narrowness
of the Iranian Shi’ite regimes—each of these is a far cry from the Quranically-required tolerance of the ahl
al-dhimma – the “protected people” – the monotheistic communities that Muslims are commanded to guard and defend.
Can the signatories of “A Common
Word” promise a future trend of religious tolerance in Muslim countries, or are they expressing no more than a
liberal hope that will be confined to academic circles only?
Third, “...we must engage in interfaith dialogue
as those who seek each other’s good.” These are, once again, positive and
affirming words. When it comes to practical application, however, we must ask for further clarification.
What is the “good” that we as Evangelicals are to seek for Muslims? If our answer does not include
the new birth, the salvation of Muslims from the wrath of God, and the assurance of their entrance into the Kingdom
of Heaven based on their acknowledgment
of Jesus as Lord and belief in His resurrection from the dead (Romans 10:9), then we are sub-Biblical in our definition of
“good.” If by “the good” we mean only an earthly bettering of Muslims’ conditions in the here and now (al-dunya),
ignoring or bypassing our Biblical
responsibilities toward them with respect to the hereafter (al-akhira),
then we have not actually sought
“their good” at all. But if we as Christians take seriously our responsibility
to bring Muslims under the Lordship
of Christ and to an acknowledgment of His crucifixion, atonement, and
resurrection from the dead, we may be sure that Muslims will reject these core tenets of the Christian faith and instead seek to
promote “our good” as Christians by proclaiming to us their own works-based
approach to the spiritual life, centered around a God whose love is purely conditional upon our obedience to His
commands.
Fourth, and most disturbing of all, is the
statement that “if we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together
in harmony you correctly remind us that ‘our eternal souls’ are at stake as
well.” What, practically speaking, could this claim possibly mean? That failure
to make peace and live in harmony
with Muslims will bring about loss of salvation on the part of Christians? That followers of Christ will not be
permitted to enter God’s eternal rest if they do not enter into dialogue and come to a mutual understanding with
Muslims? If such is the intent of the authors, we would again find such a
belief to be completely lacking in Biblical validity. We acknowledge that the Bible commands that “if
it is possible, as far as it depends on [us, we are] to live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). But such efforts should
certainly not be made out of fear
that “our eternal souls” are in any way “at stake” if we do not do so.
Sociological Versus Theological
Pluralism
8
It has been 25 years now since Os Guinness exhorted
Evangelicals to become much more sophisticated in analyzing and
addressing social and cultural contexts.5 One area where we could
begin to make progress is in that of pluralism. The way of Wisdom
requires us to make a distinction between “sociological
pluralism” and “theological pluralism.” Sociological pluralism
may be defined as “the creation and maintenance of an ‘open playing field’ with
respect to the diversity of religious truth-claims that
are extant in any given multi-cultural situation.”
Put more simply, we recognize that there are several religions and philosophies
circulating among various people groups in any and all global contexts, and we
realize the impossibility of legislating politically from “the top downward” a
requirement that all adhere to one specific option. In the
West, we take the Jeffersonian position that “truth will stand out for itself;”
consequently we allow any and all competitors to come out onto “the field” and
make their claims. In creating the first nation in history
with a constitutionally mandated separation of Church
and State, the founding fathers sought to protect religious beliefs by
“walling them off” from governmental interference.
Sociological pluralism in this sense is one of the greatest advances
in human history, and it is an advancement that every adherent of every
religion should hold dear and do all that he or
she can do to protect and defend. Indeed, the Qur’an exhibits this same
impulse in Surah 2:256, which commands “Let there be no compulsion in
religion: Truth stands out clear from Error...”
Theological pluralism, on the other hand, holds
that each and every religious system may be seen as a valid means for
approaching God in whatever form one may see Him/Her/It. Theological pluralism denies that any one
religion has a corner on truth, and disallows the favor of one particular system above all others. This
concept seeks to mitigate or erase conflicting truth claims either by ignoring, denying, or eliminating them
completely.
A Christian characterized by maturity and
sophistication will approach a document such as “A Common Word” on two levels. From the standpoint of sociological
pluralism, one may consider that
such an overture on the part of Muslims carries with it very definite
advantages or benefits. Whenever the
adherents of a competing truth system call for a laying down of hostilities (be they hostilities involving words
or weapons), this should be seen as a positive step. As the old adage says: “If people are talking,
they are not fighting.” If the goal of Christians is to be able to “boldly proclaim the Word of God”
(Acts 4:29), they will need to be in a context
where such
proclamation is possible. If they are invited by members of another faith
system to enter into such an
environment, should they not respond with earnestness and thanksgiving?
Seen from the perspective of sociological pluralism,
then, “A Common Word” sets the stage for discussion and dialogue regarding some
very fundamental concepts of the Christian faith. Who is this God that we are to love? What exactly do we mean by
His Oneness, and where does the historical figure of Jesus as understood by
Christians fit into this definition? Once
we have discussed these issues, we can then proceed to the question of how
we are to love
Him. While we may agree that both Christians and
Muslims are worshiping the One True God, a more fundamental issue is whether our respective worship is acceptable
to Him. The prophet Isaiah makes
it clear that one can be worshiping the “right” God, in the “right” ways, but
this worship may be completely unacceptable
if one’s inner being is not fundamentally changed by an internal and personal conversion experience (see
Isaiah 1:11-17).
Theological
pluralism, however, encounters several problems within any particular religious system. There is first the revelational
problem. Many of the world’s religions are exclusivistic with respect to their truth claims, based upon
inscripturated precepts. If passages such
as “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under
heaven given to men
9
by
which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) have not
been revealed by God, then all other scriptural passages
become suspect as well. It is impossible to consistently hold the position that
one’s canon is divinely inspired and without error if certain
aspects (i.e., exclusivity) are held to be mistaken
and untrue.
Secondly, there is the problem of conflicting
truth claims. Theological pluralism holds that the doctrinal beliefs and ritual practices of all the major
religions are equally valid. But such a
contention is logically impossible. One cannot, for instance, hold that Jesus
was the incarnation of God, the “only
begotten son of God” (John 3:16), and at the same time contend that “it is not befitting to (the majesty of)
Allah that He should beget a son” (Surah 19:35). It cannot be that Jesus “himself bore our sins in
his body on the tree...” (1 Peter 2:24), and at the same time be true that “no bearer of burdens
can bear the burden of another” (Surah 53:38). It cannot be true that “no one who denies the Son
has the Father” (1 John 2:23), and at the same time be true that the adherents of Islam—who deny
the Bible’s claims regarding all that the Son is—are able to bypass “the Son” and yet be considered as having a
relationship with the Father. In each of these cases, it is logically possible
for one to be right and the other wrong, or for both to be wrong, but it is not
possible for both to be right.
Making Distinctions
Many of the Christian signatories of “Loving God
and Neighbor Together” have been criticized
for their alleged naivete in endorsing the document. Some of these criticisms
raise important points which should
be considered. At the same time, it is relatively easy for those who have never had much contact with adherents of
Islam to criticize those who have tried, and who are trying, to develop such contacts for the purpose of sharing the
Gospel message. Those who have
experienced the immense frustration of consistent failure to gain and maintain
contacts are understandably
optimistic and even excited when such opportunities appear to present themselves.
But it would surely have been helpful, and would
have eliminated a great deal of criticism,
if the signatories of the Christian response to the Muslim document had been
able to declare themselves
proponents and advocates of sociological pluralism in contradistinction
to theological pluralism. As sociological pluralists they could
legitimately welcome the Muslims’ invitation
to discuss what the latter see to be “a common word between us and them,” just
as Jesus accepted the invitation of
prominent Jewish leaders to dine in their homes (Luke 11:37, 14:1). They could champion the Muslims’ desire to
come out onto “the open playing field” and declare their beliefs to others. They could agree that since together
Muslims and Christians make up more
than 55% of the world’s population, “if [they] are not at peace, the world
cannot be at peace.” They could
acknowledge that the Muslim authors of “A Common Word” are to be commended for
their desire that the world know and practice the “love of God” and “the love of
neighbor.”
As persons who realize the impossibility of a
consistent theological pluralism, however, the signatories would seek to communicate at every
level the Biblically-based tenets of the historic Christian faith. They may, as the Apostle Paul did so well in
his message to the Epicurean and
Stoic philosophers in Athens, emphasize the apparent “commonalities” between religious systems: “I see that you are very
religious;” “What you are already worshiping as unknown;” “The God who made from one all nations of men;” “He is not
far from any of us;” “In Him
we live and move and have our being;”
“We are also His offspring.”
10
But eventually it became necessary for Paul to move into
areas that are decidedly non-pluralistic: “What you and
people like you have been doing is ignorance;” “Overlooked in the past,
but no longer; now you must repent of that ignorance;” “God
has fixed a day for judgment, through a Man, the authority of
which He has attested by raising that Man from the dead.” These
aspects of the Mars Hill sermon had no ecumenical “softness” or pluralistic
“niceness.” Such phrases certainly made people sit up, take
notice, and make decisions. There is a “sting” to the
Gospel that is unavoidable. And therefore, “[w]hen they heard about the
resurrection, some scoffed...”
So it will be when Christians
speak with Muslims. We may talk about “a common word between
us and them” as a preface, as a means of generating a discussion—but at some
point we will find it necessary to introduce “the sting”—the
unpalatable parts of our Gospel—in order to be
true to the commandment of Jesus to “teach them to obey all that I have
commanded you...” Only in presenting the Gospel in
its fullness will we truly be “loving our [Muslim] neighbors as ourselves.”
1
Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab
Bad’al-Khalq, Bab Sifat Iblis wa Junudihi, Hadith #3329.
2 “Just as the Tawrah is not the Old Testament, or
the Pentateuch, as now received by the Jews and Christians, so the Injil mentioned in the Qur’an is certainly
not the New Testament, and it is not the four Gospels, as now received
by the Christian Church...” Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy
Qur’an, New Edition (Beltsville, MD:
Amana Publications, 1998), p. 291.
3 Hendrik Kraemer, The Christian Message in a
Non-Christian World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1938), p. 135.
4 See, for instance, John Piper’s critique at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTY-9FY13kw
.
5 Os Guinness, The Gravedigger File (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983).