I have been occasionally giving updates and comments on the interfaith dialogue movement known as Evangelicals and Catholics together. It appears something similar is brewing between the Muslim and Evangelical world.
Back in November, 138 Muslim scholars, leaders, and intellectuals produced a letter to the Christian community titled, A Common Word Between Us and You. Shortly after, many in the Evangelical community responded with a letter titled Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to 'A Common Word Between Us and You'. The second letter was signed by over 300 Christian pastors, leaders, and scholars.
Some of the more prominent individuals and institutions that signed the second letter include:
Rick Warren (Southern Baptist, Sr. pastor Saddleback)
Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Association)
Leith Anderson (head of NAE and Wooddale Church)
Northwest University (Washington, AOG)
Fuller Seminary
Biola University
Northwest University
David Yonggi Cho (Korea)
Bethel College
Bethel University
YWAM
Eastern Mennonite Mission
Wheaton College
Emergent Village
Assemblies of God
World Vision
Taylor University
ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America)
Brian McLaren
Christianity Today
The Christian Century
Tyndale Seminary
Vineyard USA
Robert Schuller (Crystal Cathedral)
Regent College (BC)
The Navigators
Jim Wallis (Sojourners)
While I affirm the value of dialogue, I couldn't help but notice one glaring difference between the Muslim document, and the Christian document. At one point early in the Muslim letter, they write the following:
In the Holy Qur’an, God Most High enjoins Muslims to issue the following call to Christians (and Jews—the People of the Scripture):
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)
The words: we shall ascribe no partner unto Him relate to the Unity of God, and the words: worship none but God, relate to being totally devoted to God.
They go on to state:There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.
In the Christian letter, the following sentence can be found:
“…and work diligently together to reshape relations between our communitites and our nations so that they genuinely reflect our common love for God and for one another.”
Notice how the Muslims are quoting (and re-affirming) a passage from the Qur'an that targets the Christian concept of the Trinity ("no partner"). Thus, in their letter, the Muslim authors recognize the differing conceptions and definitions of the Christian vs the Muslim God. Furthermore, the passage they cite is explicitly evangelistic. In other words, it is calling Christians to give up their Trinitarian conception of God and convert to Islam.
In the Christian letter, no such distinctions can be found (nor will one find a trace of evangelistic spirit). In fact, the authors of that letter seem to intentionally avoid anything in their letter that would clarify a distinction between the Islamic and Christian faith. The sentence quoted about actually references our (Christian & Muslim's) "common love for God".
Really? Do we share a "common love". If there God is defined one way (non-Trinitarian), and our God defined another (Trinitarian), in what sense is there a "common love" for God between Muslim and Christian. Certainly we both possess a love for our respective God, and this love may be similar in its expression, intentionality, and intensity.
I am glad to see dialogue take place. However, I am afraid we have compromised before the dialogue has even begun. Once we gave up our concept of God, we lost our voice before we even had a chance to speak.
Perhaps Christians can learn something from the other major religions of the world. They are not afraid to say who they are, what they believe, and why they believe it. The Muslims clearly drew a line in the sand by saying (1) God is not a Trinity, and (2) the Muhammadian conception of God is the only God. They seem to believe that genuine dialogue can take place even in the context of rigidly holding on to their definition of God and fundamentals of the faith. For some reason, many Christians think we can only dialogue when we leave our faith, and apparently our conceptions of the uniqueness of the Christian God, at the door.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that there are 2 Gods in the universe? One that Muslims worship? And a second one that Christians worship? I don't think that's what you mean, but that's sure what it sounds like when you say things like "Certainly we both possess a love for our respective God." If there is only one God in the universe, then your whole argument here breaks down, because what you're really talking about is semantics.
There is only one God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all affirm this. That is the basis of our dialogue. To say that those of us who signed the Yale statement have "compromised before the dialogue has even begun" and that we "gave up our concept of God" is false and overreaching (IMHO). I'm not trying to criticize you personally here, but what are you doing to engage Muslims (and people of other faiths) in dialogue about the issues that are facing all of us in our world? My concern is that this criticism of the Yale document is just a convenient way to justify "opting out" and not engaging the progressive voices from the Muslim world who are seeking to partner with us -- and continue the status quo of doing nothing in terms of interfaith dialogue. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to hear about what you're doing in this area.
Shalom,
Steve K.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for seeking clarification. I am not saying there are two different Gods. My loose language meant to say there are two different conceptions of God.
Furthermore, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all affirm that there is but one God. The problem I have is when groups begin to go down the road saying "we all worship the same God, after all". It is that idea that I oppose.
Meaningful dialogue, which MUST occur in my opinion, is only possible when we clearly define our individual definitions/conceptions of God. I saw the Muslim document as doing just that (in affirming it Unitarian conception of God). I failed to see it in the corresponding Yale document (there was no affirmation of the Trinitarian concept of God).
I would also (humbly) challenge your reading of the documents. If I were a Muslim, I would be proud of (1) their spirit of love and humility towards Christians, and (2) their firm fidelity to the Muhammad conception of God. While I saw #1 in the Christian response (towards Muslims), I failed to see #2.
By all means, the dialogue must go forward, but in the right way.