A Plea for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims

Some selected quotes from Chawkat Moucarry’s article at the Lausanne Conversation, “A Plea for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims”:

I have never really understood why some people look at dialogue and mission in terms of either/or. Evangelical Christians in particular (whose theology I share) have shown an unwarranted suspicion for dialogue simply because it has been used by some as a substitute for mission. These words should never be divorced: not only are the two words compatible, but they must shape each other…

Is conversion a legitimate outcome to dialogue? Yes: it is perfectly legitimate for believers, who take seriously the exclusive claims of their religion, to try to persuade others. There is nothing wrong with hoping, and even expecting, that some people, having carefully examined these claims, will make a life-changing decision as a result of a transparent and free dialogue. Unless we accept conversion as a possible outcome for dialogue our claim to be tolerant remains unproven.

He also highlights “some implications for us Christians who want to engage missiologically with Islam and Muslims”:

1. Show respect to Muslims and to what is at the heart of their identity, i.e. their Prophet, their religion, and their Scriptures.
2. We should do our best to be fair.
3. We need to study Islam and befriend Muslims.

The conclusion:

A Christian perspective on Islam ought to be incarnational, sympathetic and critical. It should be concerned more with Muslim people than with Islam. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are under a double obligation to love our Muslim neighbours as ourselves and to share the good news with them. Not only do the two commands go hand in hand but the second is best carried out as an expression of the first. Dialogue is indeed the privileged way of ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Ephesians 4:15) to Muslims as well as to other religious communities.

Read the whole thing (3 pages).

Related: Fundamental Difference Between Islam and Biblical Faith (with a link to a PDF of a nice article by Moucarry on Islam)

Contextualization Without Compromise

From Tullian Tchividjian at the Resurgence:

The principle behind Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 9:22 to “become all things to all men” is what Christian thinkers call “contextualization.” Contextualization is the idea that we need to be translating gospel truth into language understood by our culture. Cross-cultural missionaries and Bible translators have been doing this for centuries. They take the unchanging truth of the gospel and put it into language that fits the context they are trying to reach. Contextualization simply means translating the gospel—in both word and deed—into understandable terms appropriate to the audience. It’s gospel translation that is context sensitive.

For some well-meaning Christians, contextualization means the same thing as compromise. They believe it means giving people what they want and telling people what they want to hear. What they misunderstand, however, is that contextualization means giving people God’s answers (which they may not want) to the questions they’re really asking and in ways they can understand.

Why We Can't Ignore Contextualization

This misunderstanding of contextualization has led these people to argue that cultural reflection and cultural exegesis are at best distractions, at worst sinful. They admonish us to abandon these things and focus simply on the Bible. While this sounds righteous, it ends up being foolish for two reasons. First, the Bible itself exhorts us to understand our times so that we can reach our changing world with God’s eternal truth. To not contextualize, therefore, is a sin. And second, we all live inescapably within a particular cultural framework that shapes the way we think about everything. So if we don’t work hard to understand our context, we’ll not only fail in our task to effectively communicate the gospel but we’ll also find it impossible to avoid being negatively shaped by a world we don’t understand.

Contextualization Is Not Just 'Fitting In'

On the other hand, becoming “all things to all people” does not mean fitting in with the fallen patterns of this world so that there is no distinguishable difference between Christians and non-Christians. While rightly living “in the world,” we must avoid the extreme of accommodation—being “of the world.” It happens when Christians, in their attempt to make proper contact with the world, go out of their way to adopt worldly styles, standards, and strategies.

When Christians try to eliminate the counter-cultural, unfashionable features of the biblical message because those features are unpopular in the wider culture—for example, when we reduce sin to a lack of self-esteem, deny the exclusivity of Christ, or downplay the reality of knowable absolute truth—we’ve moved from contextualization to compromise. When we accommodate our culture by jettisoning key themes of the gospel, such as suffering, humility, persecution, service, and self-sacrifice, we actually do our world more harm than good. For love’s sake, compromise is to be avoided at all costs.

Totality and Tension

As the Bible teaches, the Lordship of Christ has a sense of totality: Christ’s truth covers everything, not just “spiritual” or “religious” things. But it also has a sense of tension. As Lord, Jesus not only calls us to himself, he also calls us to break with everything which conflicts with his Lordship.

This is the challenge: If you don’t contextualize enough, no one’s life will be transformed because they won’t understand you. But if you contextualize too much, no one’s life will be transformed because you won’t be challenging their deepest assumptions and calling them to change.

Contextualization without compromise is the goal!

Related:

• The Insider Movement Debate: Which C5?
• Defining Cultural and Religious Identity (including the comments)
• Followers of Jesus in Islamic Mosques

Trinity 101 - Modalism

One of the things I often find myself wanting to say to my Muslim friends when describing the Trinity is this: “Of course God is one!  It’s just that he manifests himself in different ways at different times.  Sometimes we see him as Father, sometimes as Jesus, and sometimes as Holy Spirit.”

Now this would be fine to say IF one were to leave out the “at different times” part.  To argue that God manifests himself in different ways (Father, Son, Spirit) is perfectly fine.  But to say that he does this at different times (as if to say that he can only be one “mode” of himself at a time) is heresy.  What makes Modalism (or most any heretical teaching on the Trinity) so attractive is that it makes sense to the human mind.  It seems logical that God could only be one person in himself, and manifest himself as different “modes” at different times.  But this sounds a lot more like the Hindu god Vishnu than the God of the Bible!  For he was, is, and always will be at one and the same time, three distinct persons.  Indeed he manifests himself in these various ways (as Father, Son, and Spirit) but never does he manifest one person and cease to exist as the other two.  All three persons of the Godhead are continually active at all times - even if we are only focusing

Trinity 101 - A Little Background

As you may already know, the word “trinity” is nowhere found in Scripture.  Instead, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated as the Church fathers, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, diligently digested, discussed, and described the ways that God has revealed himself in the Bible.  Far from being a monolithic, logical, easily understandable yet distant being; what they found was a complex, mysterious, humanly incomprehensible yet personal being.  Who would want to worship a god who was monolithic, fully accessible to human logic, fully understandable, and distant?  Not me.  But a God who is complex, mysterious, beyond human ability to fully comprehend, yet personally knowable?  Now that is a God I want to worship!  If nothing else, the triune nature of God is cause for awestruck worship. 

We often take for granted that God is triune (millennia of theological reflection will do that to you).  But we must not forget that the early church did not have thousands of years of Biblical reflection from “A-list” theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm. Although they did have Athanasius, praise God! (more on him later) Thus, what we take for granted was the very thing that men spent their entire lives trying to describe, define and defend. 

As the early church endeavored to describe God as he revealed himself in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, there were many often well-meaning people (such as Sabellius) who proposed ideas about God and his nature that seemed logical and understandable, but were in direct contradiction to God’s self-revelation in the Bible.  On the other hand, there were other people (such as Athanasius) who proposed ideas about God that did in fact harmonize well with God’s self-revelation in the Bible.  Feeling a strong need to formally accept the Biblical ideas and reject the unbiblical ones, the church fathers formulated the ancient creeds at ecumenical (universal) church councils.  A prime example being the formulation of the Nicene Creed in 325 AD at the council of Nicea.

As was noted in earlier posts, many of the challenges that Islam poses to Christian doctrine are not new.  Instead, these theological issues were dealt with centuries before Islam ever came into existence.  It is my hope that a closer look at some of the theological issues surrounding the Trinity and the Person of Christ will help followers of Christ to better understand their own faith so that they can articulate these crucial issues well to their Muslim friends.  Thus it is to these incredibly relevant theological issues from Church history that we now turn...

We hate this too!

Have a look at this post from His Peace Upon Us.  Dustin, we couldn't have said it any better brother.  Kind of makes you sick to your stomach to think that Western Christians resort to fear tactics and mistakenly read the "Kingdom of America" into the Bible so often.  Jesus didn't have an unhelpful, defensive paranoia about those who didn't follow him, instead he laid down his life to prove his love to them.  Shouldn't his followers follow suit?

"Trinity 101" and "Christology 101" - A Witness to Islam from Church History

Question: What do repudiating heresies and the formulation of historical orthodoxy in church history have to do with Islam?
Answer: A whole lot!

After reading the comments to a post I made on April 5 about the way that Islam is helping us to sharpen our own theology, I have decided to do a short series of posts that will take a look at some ancient heresies and how the church responded to them.  As we have noted, many of the theological challenges that Islam poses have already been dealt with before Islam ever came into existence.  Therefore, in the interest of helping us to contend for the faith with our Muslim friends, I want to explore a bit of church history and the formulation of what we know as historical orthodoxy.  The two areas I will focus on are the two areas where Islam is most at odds with Biblical faith - the Trinity and the Person of Christ.  In the interest of clarity for future reference, I will entitle all posts as part of either “Trinity 101” or “Christology 101” in the categories of Theology, Church History, Trinity, and Christology.

My hope is that these posts will help our readers to be better communicators of the Gospel among Muslims.  I certainly know that writing them will be very helpful for sharpening my own witness!

I hope to roll out one or two each week, so be on the lookout!

Islam is Guidance: A Complete Legal Code for Humankind

I have a rather large stack of books and tracts Muslims have given me in order to convert me to Islam.  I read them from time to time.  Here is the final section in a booklet called “Discover Islam” edited by the staff at Al Jumuah:

Islam is Allah’s final message, and it offers a complete legal code for humankind.  It eliminates and corrects the human errors that found their way into previous religions in the realm of both belief and practice.  Just as any new revised law supersedes and nullifies what came before it, Islam naturally abrogates all earlier religions.

Without doubt, one will find in every religion, especially those of divine origins, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, noble teachings, good moral values, encouragement toward good deeds and warnings against evil.  However, what distinguishes Islam from other faiths is that Islam goes beyond simply urging people to be upright and honest.  Islam diagnoses illnesses and prescribes the treatment.  It gives practical solutions to man’s problems and provides the means of achieving righteousness and eliminating evil from individual and collective lives.  Islam is guidance for mankind from the Creator who knows what is best and most suitable for His creation.  That is why Islam is called the natural religion of man.

An earlier post on Circumpolar tried to answer the question, What is Islam?  Three answers were given.  I think these answers accurately and fairly represent Islam as Muslims see it.  Islam is:

1. Outward Conformity
2. Social Control
3. Worldwide Political Influence

David Shenk in his book Journeys of the Muslim Nation and the Christian Church says it best (pg. 170):

The message of biblical faith is that God in the Messiah enters personally into our sinfulness to redeem us from sin and death. God, in the Messiah, actively and personally and lovingly pursues us so that we might be reconciled to him, to one another, and to creation. The message of qur’anic faith is that God, the merciful and compassionate one, sends his will down to us. In submission to his will we find well-being. Jesus offers redemption; the Qur’an offers guidance.

But I would like to hear your perspective.  How would you define Islam?

Related Posts

• What is Islam?
• Fundamental Difference Between Islam and Biblical Faith

The Contextualization Debate Hits The NY Times?!

Maybe I'm a bit late in noticing this piece about the Camel Method from The New York Times a few weeks ago.  Just in case you don't have time to read it all, I will provide the following excerpt:

On Feb. 3, Ergun Caner, president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, in Lynchburg, Va., focused attention on a Southern Baptist controversy when he called Jerry Rankin, the president of the denomination’s International Mission Board, a liar. Dr. Caner has since apologized for his language, but he still maintains that the “Camel Method,” a strategy Dr. Rankin endorses for preaching Christianity to Muslims, is deceitful. 

In my humble opinion, this kind of name-calling and divisiveness is not helpful.

Christianity Today also ran a similar article in their April edition, also focusing on the supposed controversial Camel Method.  If these guys are getting so worked up about something that virtually all missionaries do (use the Qur'an as a bridge to the Gospel), it's no wonder that the Insider debate gets folks so heated!

One theme I would like to point out is that I have noticed that some of the most vocal opponents of contextualization are either former Muslims like Dr. Caner, or Arab Christians who have had to deal with some of the persecution that comes from bearing the name of Christ in Islamic-majority contexts.  And while I tremendously respect their opinions forged in the fire of persecution, I would like to appeal to them to have a bit more grace on this issue, as not everyone who comes to Christ in these contexts is mandated to follow the exact path that they walked.

Rick Love’s Review of “A Deadly Misunderstanding”

A few readers of Circumpolar have asked me what I think of A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman's Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide by Mark D. Siljander.  I haven’t read the book.  But Rick Love has and he’s way cooler than me (and you).  Here is an excerpt from his review:

A Deadly Misunderstanding chronicles a dramatic account of Mark Siljander’s journey into bridge-building between Christians and Muslims. If you are interested in peacemaking in general or Christian-Muslim relations in particular, this is a book worth reading. It will deepen your hope for meaningful encounters with Muslims. But beware: this book will stir up your theological categories!…

…In another place Siljander actually does seem to affirm a “new ecumenism and syncretism.” According to Siljander, “Islam and Christianity were not simply overlapping ideas. They were not merely compatible. In the most central sense, they were one continuum” (pg 122).

I find this quote theologically confusing. Yes, there is an overlapping of ideas and there is compatibility in many areas. But a continuum? In what way is there a continuum? Muslims would affirm a continuum. They would argue that Islam builds upon Christianity and thus is the final and authoritative revelation to humankind. I can’t imagine that Siljander believes that.

So what does he mean? I am not sure. But it seems to be an unfortunate
overstatement, undermining the supremacy of Christ and the distinctiveness of the Gospel. I hope some of these statements will be deleted from the next edition of this book.

The reader of this review may be asking: “Ok, Rick, is this a good book or a bad book? Do you like it or not?”

When it comes to reading books (listening to sermons or enjoying a conversation with my friends for that matter), I apply what Paul said to the Thessalonians: “Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21 NASB). Please note: there is a lot of good in this book! We need to read books like this that “push the envelope” and think “outside the boundaries,” especially in the area of Christian-Muslim relations.

So read this book with an open heart and discerning mind … and let God change your attitude and refine your approach to blessing Muslims!

Read the entire review (3 pages PDF).

See also http://www.adeadlymisunderstanding.com/

Bearing the Name “Christian”

A post from Biblical Missiology by Steve Morrison (this is a blog that strongly opposes all things related to “Insider”) called Bearing the Name : A survey of the use of the name Christian in the early church:

…1 Peter 4:16 “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” [NIV]

So far I have showed from scripture that we should bear the name Christian. I have documented how early witnesses for Christ bore the name of Christian.  Now I want to answer the objections some Christians have today to following 1 Peter 4:16…

Here is the post in PDF.  I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this one!  Do we have to tell our Muslim friends that we are “Christians?”

Here is what the New Bible Commentary says on this verse: 

Christian occurs on only two other occasions in the NT (Acts 11:26; 26:28). In both cases it is assumed to have been used by detractors as a term of contempt. However, people of the day used the Latin ending -ianus (anglicized as ‘-ian’) in two ways which might shed light on this usage. Herod’s followers were called ‘Herodians’ (Mk. 3:6) and so ‘Christians’ could have indicated ‘supporters of Christ’. It was the Roman custom for a person adopted into a noble family to use as his own the family name with the -ianus ending. So a person adopted into the family of Domitius could call himself Domitianus. Antioch (where the custom began—Acts 11:26) was a Roman city, and so Christians there might well have used the name to show that they had been adopted into the family of Christ (Rom. 8:15–17).

The commentary doesn’t answer the question of whether it is mandated in Scripture for us to identify ourselves as “Christians” by name, but I thought the commentary was interesting nonetheless.

Starting a Bible Study in a Mosque

From the Zwemer Center:

In January Dr. David Cashin visited Nagoya Theological Seminary in Japan to teach a short course on Islam. As part of the course he took 11 students to the local mosque to observe Friday worship and to engage in dialogue. Eight Muslims stayed after the service and engaged in almost two hours of discussion and questions about the Islamic faith. This dialogue culminated with the head of the mosque committee agreeing to have a Bible study in the Mosque! If you would like to know how Dr. Cashin made the invitation to study the Bible click here to watch a narrated power point presentation on “Starting a Bible Study in a Mosque.” You too can begin inviting Muslims to study the Bible with you. If you like this free resource let us know.

The “narrated PowerPoint presentation” is about 12 minutes long.  Uses the Qur’an as a bridge to get Muslims into the Bible.

Orphans and Adoption in the Islamic Context

From Orphans’ Matchbox:

Al-Masyr Al-Youm (an Egyptian news site) today carries a fascinating article on the unique challenges facing orphans born in a Muslim nation.   While highlighting “Orphanage Day” (April 1)—created to remind Egyptians of the orphans in their midst—the article explains that none of Egypt’s estimated 50,000 orphans can expect the permanency of adoption.  The best an Egyptian orphan can hope for is a temporary family, in an arrangement that the child, the family and the broader community all understand will typically not last beyond puberty.  As the article describes, “Even when an orphan is lucky enough to be taken in by a loving family or orphanage, however, the time will come when he or she must inevitably face the world alone.”

The article explains:

In Islam, the concept of child adoption does not exist. Islamic Law does not permit an orphan to take the family name of a non-biological parent. “They should be named after their fathers,” said Al-Azhar University scholar Abdel Mouti Bayoumi.

Foster parents can support the child financially and raise him or her in their home, but, in Egypt, there is nothing called adoption, which is forbidden by both civil and Islamic law– so fostering remains the only option.

Because Islam sets stringent rules governing relationships between males and females, foster parents may not keep an orphan in their home beyond puberty. “Religious rules are such that the mother of an adopted boy or the father of an adopted girl must ask the child to leave the house when they reach puberty,” Sheikh Gamal Qutb, former head of Al-Azhar University’s fatwa committee, told Al-Masry Al-Youm.

The article notes that, under Islamic law, some foster families are able to keep children beyond puberty if the foster mother was able to nurse the child before it reached the age of two.  Even in such circumstances, however, the child can never become a true member of the family.

“It is a world that considers him of a lower category,” said Iman Shalaby, chairperson of an orphanage in Maadi. “This world lacks a system that eases their integration into society. As a result, the adjustment to life outside isn’t always smooth.”

…For example, when a boy grows up and wants to get married, the family of the bride will inevitably inquire about his parents and family, and the fact that he is an orphan–lacking a known lineage–could end up being a deal breaker. As a result, orphans often marry each other, Shalaby told Al-Masry Al-Youm.

“Orphans in this society require shelter, respect and secrecy of their origin,” she said.

Click here to read the full article…

HT: Vitamin Z who remarks “A very interesting contrast between the Christian and Islamic view of adoption.  Speaks volumes as to the differences in worldview.”

Shall we thank Islam for helping us sharpen our theology?

The more time I spend interacting with individual Muslims in particular, and with Islam in general, the more I realize how much Christian theology I have taken for granted!  Interacting with Muslims and Islam as a religious system has forced me to reconsider some of the core components of my faith, such as the Trinity, and the deity of Christ.  In fact, I am somewhat sorry to admit that my focus on the Trinity and on Christology has never been sharper, or more intense than in the past few years as I've contemplated apologetic stances in communicating the Gospel with Muslims.   Indeed, how can we expect to discuss the Trinity with those who deny it when we can't articulate it well ourselves?  Or how can we discuss the person and work of Jesus Christ with those who have such a contorted (docetic at best) view of him?

Yes, thanks to Islam, I have delved back into Church history and been forced to re-examine the creeds and confessions of the Church, and to be able to articulate their nuances not merely for the sake of theological reflection with other Christians, but for the sake of the salvation of many people who need to understand these distinctions!  In fact, to use Philip Jenkins' term in his book, The Lost History of Christianity (2008), one way to see Islam is as a Christian heresy.  Given this angle, some of the exact discussions that were had in the Church over fifteen hundred years ago are perhaps more pertinent now in the growing Christian/Islamic discourse than since the day they were first penned.  To that end, I just read the beginning of former Muslim now Christ follower Thabiti Anyabwile's new book, The Gospel for Muslims (2010).  He once embraced Islam because of the simplicity of the idea of the oneness of God (and perhaps partly because of Christians' inability to explain the Triunity of God?)  He says:

"Today, the Christian's task of proclaiming the gospel and persuading their Muslim neighbors and friends depends, in part, on faithfully embracing the mystery of the Trinity... Many Christians have a slippery grip on this cardinal doctrine of the faith, and it makes for rather uneasy discussions with our Muslim friends."

Thabiti, I couldn't agree more!  This is why I say we should thank Islam for forcing us to reconsider and sharpen our own understanding of foundational Christian doctrines.  One question that arises is this: why did it take Islam to force me to sharpen my theology?  I believe the answer is that if you look at the context of the formulation of historic orthodox theology, you see that none of the creeds or confessions arose in a historical vacuum.  Instead, this intense theological reflection on the Trinity and on Christology all arose in response to challenges to the faith (e.g. Arianism, etc.).  And I believe the renewed Christian engagement with Islam is forcing us back to those same roots.  Anyone else find this to be true?

When should we focus on the cross?

I am reading Carl Medearis’s book Muslims, Christians, and Jesus (2008).  Overall I think it is a nice introductory book on Islam that demonstrates a reasonable and godly approach to sharing Christ with Muslims.  Carl is witty and easy to read.  But one thing I have noticed is that he doesn’t mention the cross a lot in the book.  For example, in “A Story of Faith” he talks about how he and a friend led a Saudi princess into the Kingdom without explicitly talking about the death of Jesus (Chapter 4).  Carl explains (Chapter 5):

Now you may be wondering if I think it’s important for my Muslim friends to know and understand the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Of course it’s vital, but we often forget that Jesus died at the end of his earthly life, not the beginning.  We do present “Christ crucified” but not necessarily on day one.  Let the story be one with a beginning, a middle, and an end.

I often like to say to my friends in the Muslim world, “Let’s talk about Jesus.  Let’s discuss his life, his teachings, his ways.  When we get to that hard part about whether de dies or not, well, we’ll deal with that then.”  In the right time.  In the right way.

Carl references 1 Corinthians 2:2, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”  Commenting on this verse in The Cross and Christian Ministry (2004), D.A. Carson says (pgs. 37-38):

Focus on Christ crucified.  That is what Paul did: “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”  This does not mean that this was a new departure for Paul, still less that Paul was devoted to blissful ignorance of anything and everything other than the cross.  No, what he means is that all he does and teaches is tied to the cross.  He cannot talk long about Christian joy, or Christian ethics, or Christian fellowship, or the Christian doctrine of God, or anything else, without finally tying it to the cross.  Paul is gospel-centered; he is cross-centered.

That is more than a creedal commitment; it sets out Paul’s priorities, his lifestyle, and in this context, his style of ministry.  If he really holds that God has supremely disclosed himself in the cross and that to follow the crucified and risen Savior means dying daily, then it is preposterous to adopt a style of ministry and that is triumphalistic, designed to impress, calculated to win applause.

Because Muslims adamantly deny the crucifixion of Jesus, do you think Carl is correct in his approach with Muslims, or do you think his approach is at odds with 1 Cor. 2:2?  In our desire to keep the glorious Messiah continually visible before Muslims, how and when should we focus on the cross?

John the Baptist Analogy

John the Baptist is to Christians what Jesus is to Muslims.

The next day [John] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’” John 1:29-30

And remember Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah to you confirming the Law before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad (Mohammed).” As Saff 61:6

Imagine if someone approached you with a new faith message and told you he is a follower of John the Baptist. What would you think?

Christian Response to Islam: A Struggle for the Soul of Christianity, Azumah

From the Lausanne World Pulse March 2010 issue:

One of the crucial issues facing Christians around the world today is finding the right balance in our response to the various challenges posed by Islam and engagement with Muslims. The quest for an appropriate Christian response to Islam and engagement with Muslims has sadly polarized Christians along evangelical vs. liberal, truth vs. grace, or confrontational vs. conciliatory lines.

As an African, my own struggle is the way these positions are presented as absolutes in either/or categories. In the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City (9/11), the Iraq war, the Madrid bombings, etc., the division among Christians has deepened. Reflecting on the situation, Joseph Cummings talks of a titanic struggle going on in the heavenly realms—a struggle not between Muslims and Christians or between Islam and the West, but “a struggle within Christianity itself, a struggle for the soul of the Christian faith.”

What Cummings is suggesting, and I couldn’t agree more, is that Islam per se is not necessarily the greatest challenge facing Christians today, but rather how Christians choose to respond to Islam…

The conclusion:

A Ghanaian proverb counsels that if someone deliberately breaks wind into your face and you muster all your muscles to take revenge, you could end up soiling yourself with stool. However we choose as Christians to respond to Islam, the question that should guide us is: What witness are we likely to leave behind in our response, and how will it serve the course of the gospel and our mandate as witnesses to that gospel?

Read the whole thing. (3 pages)

(HOW ABOUT THAT PROVERB !!!!????)

Tokunboh Adeyemo (1944-2010)

Friends, it is with great sadness mixed with joy that I received and now pass along the news that Dr. Tokunboh Adeyemo, giant of the faith in Africa and beyond, has gone home to be with Jesus.  Dr. Adeyemo was born and raised a devout Muslim in Nigeria, and aspired to be president.  The Lord had other plans.  After coming to know Christ in 1966, he became one of the giants of African Christianity in the 20th Century, recently editing and publishing the Africa Bible Commentary, the first Bible commentary ever written exclusively by African theologians.  A top-notch theologian and Bible teacher, his heart always remained for the evangelization of his Muslim brothers throughout his continent and beyond.  Linked below is his plenary speech (his testimony) from Urbana '96, and also a blog eulogy from an African brother.

Urbana Testimony
The Fall of an Iroko Tree

Women in Islam (A couple links)

Some Misconceptions about Women in Islam (Discovering Islam)

Islam gave women rights and privileges at a time when only barbaric manners and values dominated… 

Polygamy in Islam (Discovering Islam)

Islam is criticized for allowing polygamy, for popular culture in the West views polygamy as relatively backward and impoverished.  For many Christians, it is a license to promiscuity, and feminists consider it a violation of women’s rights and demeaning to women.  A crucial point that needs to be understood is that for Muslims, standards of morality are not set by prevalent Western thought, but by divine revelation.  A few simple facts should be borne in mind before any talk of polygamy in Islam…

Related: Polygamy and Discipleship

Where does the Hijab come from? (Islam and Christianity)

What Islamists do not admit is that the custom of the veiling of women in early Islam was not part of the dress code until Muslims conquered Persia and the Byzantine territories in the 7th century. It was only after this assimilation of the conquered cultures that head covering and veiling were viewed as appropriate expressions of Islam practice. Since the veil was impractical attire for working women, a veiled woman was a sign that she belonged to the upper class and that her husband was rich enough to keep her idle.

The Relationship Between Social Action and Evangelism

Three assertions in an article at the Briefing called Social involvement and evangelism (Part II): How they relate:

1. Evangelism and social action are distinct activities;
2. Proclamation is central; and
3. Evangelism and social action are inseparable.

The conclusion:

Jesus sends us out into the world to ‘make disciples’. With this in mind, the two key questions are:

1. How do we make disciples? We make disciples through the prayerful proclamation of the gospel of Christ, in dependence on the Holy Spirit to make the message effective.
2. What does it mean to be a disciple? We teach disciples to obey all that Christ has commanded, including the command to live in kindness, generosity, love and active concern for those around us.

Read the whole thing (2-3 pages) for explanations of the assertions. (HT: JT)

To this I would probably add that I feel free to do the “good works” that God has prepared for me among Muslims without an ulterior motive.  Even though social action makes the gospel attractive (Titus 2:10), my good works are done simply because, in response to the gospel, I want to be a blessing.  Helping people and contributing to the development of the country I live in is a biblical mandate.  Social action is not just a “tactic” to get people to embrace Christ, but rather a holistic way to love people the way Jesus does.

Related posts:

• Church Planting or Development? Word and Deed in Biblical Balance
• ...when necessary, use words?

"I am both Muslim and Christian"

Interesting story in the Seattle Times about an Episcopal priest who is also a Muslim: “The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding is practicing two religions she says are compatible at the most basic level, but many religious scholars insist the two are mutually exclusive.”

HT: KM

Christian Love

From the last paragraph of Paul Hiebert’s final book:

As fallen humans we love ourselves.  When we are with others, we love to talk about ourselves and our experiences, show our pictures, and demonstrate our skills.  When we run out of things to say, we move on to find other audiences.  When conversations turn to others and their stories, we are soon disinterested.  To love is to focus attention on the persons around us.  It is to ask them questions about themselves in order to truly learn to know them.  It is to affirm their personhood and the gifts God has given them.  And it is to invite them to come to know Jesus Christ, too, within their cultural contexts, just as we ourselves, by God’s grace, have done.  Such Christian love is the central element in the work of missions.  Without it, all of our best efforts are in vain.

The Gospel in Human Contexts: Anthropological Explorations for Contemporary Missions pg. 199.

Stories of God's Amazing Love – Short Arabic Videos

http://hikayaat.com/en/home is a website for Muslim seekers in Arabic or English with the Shareef Bible translation and several chronological video stories (in Gulf Arabic) that can be downloaded for iTunes, Windows, and Nokia mobile phones. 
I have watched these videos with several Muslims seekers and I think they are a valuable resource.  I appreciate the contextual approach and also that the OT videos clearly point to the gospel.  The total playing time for the 17 short videos is a little over 1 hour.  Here are a list of the stories available:

1. Story of God’s Love (6 minute overview)
2. Story of the Beginning
3. The Creation
4. The Separation
5. The Flood
6. The Tower of Babel
7. The Sacrifice of Abraham
8. Prophecy of Isa's Coming
9. The Birth of Saidna Isa
10. The New Birth
11. The Life of Isa Al Mesiah
12. The Possessed Man
13. The Trail of Isa
14. The Crucifixion of Isa
15. The Resurrection of Isa
16. The Holy Spirit
17. The Return of Isa Al Mesiah

Related: Imagination and Story in Evangelism

The Insider Movement Debate: Which C5?

There has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the issue of contextualization as it relates to "Insider Movements", or "C5" ministry, in the Islamic context.  One of the primary areas where I believe these misunderstandings have happened centers around the definitions that we are using for C5.  I would argue that C5 might mean one thing to one person, but something else to another.  I feel that this is chiefly why we have seen such unhelpful polarization.  Below I have constructed two tables that seek to rectify this confusion by bringing clarity to the issue.  I would argue that on the one hand, we should not just blindly seek to implement C5 ministry as some sort of magic bullet - because this can and does lead to unbiblical syncretism.  However, I would also argue that we should not just write off C5 as some sort of unbiblical approach to ministry without first considering that a highly contextualized approach to ministry can truly lead to a healthy, contextualized local expression of the Church.  Thus, the tables below are my attempt to delineate what I see as a "syncretistic" or unhealthy view of C5 ministry versus an "appropriate" or healthy view of C5 ministry.

A tip: you might want to click on the tables to enlarge them!

Table 1 represents most of the fears concerning Insider Movements.  If not carefully monitored and guided, many C5 ministries could end up in this model.  Table 2 represents the exciting possibilities of properly guided (both by man and God) Insider Movements.  I sincerely believe that this transitional model will be acceptable to both sides of the current debate on high spectrum contextualization for two reasons.  First of all, it brings further clarity and distinction to the often-ambiguous Insider Movement discussion in such areas as methodology, ecclesiology, ethics and anthropology.  One of the biggest obstacles in the current debate concerns the overall confusion about what exactly is meant by “C5” or “Insider Movements.”  Different authors have used it in different ways, resulting in more confusion than is necessary.  We can converse more intelligently when we are using the same language about this subject.  In future discussions of C5, we should qualify which C5 we are speaking of.  The second reason why I feel this transitional model will satisfy both sides is that it has a more clearly delineated end goal, which is marked by limits on all sides.  The end goal of Table 1 is unclear, and thus leaves open dangerous possibilities such as syncretism or “Churchless Christianity.”  By way of contrast, Table 2 has a clearer set of guidelines that should not be compromised, and a clearer end goal – an indigenous church movement that is well related to the global church.  I welcome your feedback!

*Definitions
*HU Principle - Homogeneous Unit Principle.  Developed by Donald McGavran, it describes the phenomena that peoples of similar backgrounds are more likely to come to faith together, and would naturally prefer to remain in their homogeneous community.
*Ephesians Moment - Andrew Walls uses this term to describe the epiphany believers experience when they come to understand the concepts in Ephesians 2:14-18.  Thus the HU principle, while effective in describing how a people first comes to faith, falls short of the Biblical ideal put forth by Paul in this text.
*Taqiyya - An Islamic doctrine of dissimulation.  More common in the Shi’a tradition, it allows for deception in times of perceived threat.

n.b. These tables originally appeared in my article published in St. Francis Magazine in August, 2009, entitled "Rethinking the Insider Movement Debate: Global Historical Insights Toward and Appropriate Transitional Model of C5."

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?... Lamin Sanneh's Thoughts

Here is an interesting article written by eminent Yale historical Theologian Lamin Sanneh, himself a former Muslim. If anyone is qualified to comment on this topic, it is him! Enjoy...

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

by Lamin Sanneh

If you accept, as Muslims and Christians do, that there is only one God, then it seems theologically imperative to say the God of one religion is none other than the God of the other. Was not the name "Allah" of Arabian Islam the same as the "Allah" of pre-Islamic Arab Christianity? Accordingly, it makes no sense on linguistic or historical grounds to make exclusionary claims for the name "God."

If, on the other hand, Muslims and Christians worship essentially the same God, why do they not call themselves by one common name? Are Muslims and Christians misguided in the nominal distinctions they maintain between themselves with reference to the one God of their faith?
Such tough questions defy a simple dismissal or acceptance of the claim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. It would seem that President Bush’s claim is adequate insofar as there is only one God, but inadequate with respect to God’s character, on which hang matters of commitment and identity, the denial of which would sever our ties to God.

The Five Pillars of Islam, for example, lay down the boundaries of Muslim practice and identity, with the suggestion that conflicting or different things said about God cannot be equally valid. The Qur’an proclaims: "The true religion with God is Islam" (3:17), and "Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed My blessing upon you, and I have approved Islam for your religion" (5:5).

Jesus made a corresponding exclusionary statement: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Islam and Christianity both agree (and are similar here) that truth cannot coexist with its opposite, and is embodied in obedience.
It can be argued that what Christians and Muslims have in common theologically is more important than what divides them. This is Kenneth Cragg’s view, as in his remarks on the prayer tradition in Islam and Christianity (Alive to God: Muslim and Christian Prayers, 1970). Cragg also observes that Muslims and Christians no longer live in an isolated world. People of faith do not have the option of shutting themselves in. Can religious loyalties, he asks. "not be opened in their sympathies and fulfilled, outside their inner shape, in some exterior relationships?" Population, migration, production, development, health and medicine, family life, education -- are not all these in the Muslim and Christian traditions common invitations to worship and prayer rather than secular sanctuaries from which the divine is excluded?

The theological conversation about interfaith relations is important, Cragg accepts, but he thinks there is an equally urgent need to move beyond theological propositions and to be informed by what he calls "a community of reverence," "a converse of soul" in joint prayer and worship. The real test of dialogue is whether people in one faith community can make their own the prayers of another faith tradition, without making faith traditions predatory or obsolescent.
Cragg sees, for example, a bond between Lancelot Andrewes and Shah ‘Abd al-Latif, between Francis of Assisi and al-Ghazali, and between S0ren Kierkegaard and ‘Abd alQadir al-Jilani. Turbaned or not, Muslims are not exempt from a similar challenge. Religion today is all about crossing borders, physical as well as spiritual.

The desire for unity among religions, Cragg thinks, is a holy one. Yet that desire should not make us impatient with what sets us apart. Muslims and Christians agree on the great subject that God exists and that God is one. They disagree, however, about the predicates they use of God. Much of the Christian language about God affirms Jesus as God in self-revelation, and much of the Muslim language about God seeks exception to that Christian claim.

The question, then, is whether their differences condemn Muslims and Christians to estrangement before God as subject. If predicates divide, the subject unites, or should unite. In the things they do and say about God, religious people diverge quite sharply. Yet Muslims and Christians both agree that it is the one God about whom they differ so strongly.
They would not have differences without having in common this one God who inspires them and who lays a fundamental claim on their separate loyalty.

Christians pray "Hallowed be thy name," and Muslims declare "Thee only do we worship." Both ask for God’s guidance, but use different terms for this guidance even though finally it is God who does the guiding. "Guide us in the straight path," the Muslim says in the fatihah, and "Deliver us from evil," the Christian pleads in the Lord’s Prayer. In form and intention there is little to separate the two sides. Their disagreements are family feuds; their mutual jealousies, because of common ancestry; their sibling rivalry, on account of a common parentage.
People fight not just because they are different, but often because they are similar. Monotheist traditions are too close to ignore each other, with the effect that even their mutual compliments raise hackles, as the president’s remark demonstrates.

The bridge for interfaith understanding and peace grows from the principle of respect for the other. This respect offers an approach other than that of simplistic condemnation or approbation. It does not deny truth claims. On the contrary, affirmation of the other is based on truth claims: love of God and of neighbor, for example, is not just a polite suggestion, but the exacting absolute injunction of God who created us "in the image and resemblance of God." It is when God and the neighbor become relative values as matters of individual preference or personal convenience that red flags should start to go up.

This respect for the other, accordingly, is not the preserving of the status quo, which one interpretation of President Bush’s remark might suggest. A Muslim as Muslim cannot be content with mere comparative curiosity about and postponement of Muhammad and his achievements. He or she would commend public commitment to Islam’s truth claims. By the same token, a Christian as Christian may not he content with the view of Jesus as only an ethical example. She would plead personal faith in him as divine truth.

To commend faith in that fashion is to concede that Muslims and Christians are within range of each other, rather than being mutually inaccessible. Their separate or exclusive commendation of faith elicits their proximity to each other, at least enough so that they may engage in mutual scrutiny.

That very process of scrutiny and commendation will likely change previous understandings and attitudes, and will most likely produce commensurate alterations in their faith traditions: conversion causes not just numerical change but mental shifts as well. No faith tradition stands still or alone, except as a relic. Such are the implications of distinction in religious pluralism.

Lamin Sanneh teaches missions and world Christianity and history at Yale Divinity School. He is an editor-at-large of The Christian Century. This article appeared in The Christian Century, May 4, 2004, pp.35-37. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used by permission.

(In late 2003 President Bush said, in response to a reporter’s question, that he believed Muslims and Christians "worship the same God." The remark sparked criticism from some Christians, who thought Bush was being politically correct but theologically inaccurate. For example, Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, said, "The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite." Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? The question raises a fundamental issue in interfaith discussion, especially for monotheists. We asked several scholars to consider the question. Lamin Sanneh’s article is the second in a series.)

From: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3056

Joseph Cumming Papers in Arabic, English, Turkish

Here is a link to three fantastic papers by Joseph Cumming on three critical topics:

1. Did Jesus Die on the Cross? (English, Arabic, Turkish)
2. The Word of God in Islam and Christianity (English, Arabic)
3. The Meaning of the Expression "Son of God" (English, Arabic)

The first is a paper he wrote at Yale. The second and third were originally written in Arabic for Mazhar Mallouhi's Arabic Gospels. I can't recommend them highly enough! Joseph has a knack for communicating with the utmost relevance and sensitivity to a Muslim reader, yet without compromising the kerygma (core) of the Gospel message. All three papers are posted on the Yale Center for Faith and Culture Reconciliation Program website.