“I have never understood why some people look at dialogue and mission in either-or terms.”
Jim Roane in reply:
Dialogue is always subsequent to the purpose of mission, and must remain subservient to the truth of a Biblically based and thus a God ordained mission.
For Paul and the other Biblical authors, Truth to them was always God sourced—an encounter with The Divine. Divinity expressed in human language is, however, only descriptive. Words are just that, words. They stand for something; but mere words, even divinely inspired words, only express truth. The succinct source of all truth is the Triune God—the I AM, who has graciously and definitively expressed Himself through Jesus Christ in intention as both Lord and Savior in and for all creation.
For dialogue to remain meaningful, however, mission must embrace the salvic intention of God, to bring all men to himself through Jesus Christ, as we know him from Scripture in kerygma (κήρυγμ). (Ref: Luke 4:18-19, Romans 10:14, Matthew 3:1; Isa 61; Luke 4:17-21).
Paul, for instance—as I have written elsewhere, gave definition to the Agnostos Theos at Athens to express the intention of the Triune God of Scripture and personal encounter, rather than allow the Athenians provide the meaning of God. Perhaps, I am selfish, or uncompromisingly ignorant, but for me, only God can give definition to God or the essence of His creation.
Jesus was declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:4) In the spirit of this Scripture, I believe, that godly dialogue is confined to the parameters of the succinct revelatory declaratives of the God of Scripture. In simple English, God alone is capable of telling us who he is. Even in what I call the “aha” moments of the intuitive knowledge of God, God’s grace is at work, enabling us to see; albeit, as with Paul, we now see through a glass, darkly. (1 Corinthians 13:12) But, what we do see is clearly truth. Whereas, to the contrary, the carnal minded, know not the things of God, and that in my opinion, would include the supposed revelations of the Prophet of Islam and his disciples.
Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
In my experience, these words belong so much to each other that they should never be divorced. Evangelical Christians (whose theology I share) have shown an unwarranted suspicion of dialogue, simply because some have used it as a substitute for mission. Not only are the two words compatible, but they must shape each other.
Jim Roane in reply:With this I disagree. As stated above, dialogue is subservient to the context and intention of mission. Mission is never shaped by dialogue; as this would suggest compromise. Truth can never subjugate to falsehood, no matter how slight or noble the cause.
The end results has been in far too many cases, what I have called hyphenated Christians. Christians that are neither fish nor fowl. Messianic-Christians; Hindu-Christians; yes, even Muslim-Christians who wish to follow Isa, but otherwise, attend the mosque, and who wish to retain Islamic and cultural practices that are contrary to traditional Christianity and in my opinion the Scripture.
I don’t believe, however, I see Moucarry advocating such a compromise; at least not in this article.
Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
I have always believed in God and Jesus Christ. Growing up in a Muslim-majority society, I knew as a child that I was different, and I gradually realized that this difference implied that I had something precious to share with my Muslim friends.
I was born into a Catholic home and was an altar boy in my early teens. I attended a missionary primary school, which gave me my first opportunity to discuss religion with my Muslim peers. However, my significant conversations about Christianity and Islam started after I moved to a government secondary school, where the majority of pupils were from working-class families. I was surprised to realize that many Muslim schoolmates were very interested to know more about Christianity and Christians. And I wanted to better understand Islam. A unique opportunity presented itself when the teacher of Islamic religious education granted me permission to attend his class. I was the only Christian there. He regularly asked me to give my views as a Christian on certain topics. These discussions extended outside the classroom.
Jim Roane in response:
This is admirable. And, as long as the dialogue is kept open and honest, I see no problem with that.
Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
What is dialogue? Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-26) is paradigmatic.
First, Christians and Muslims meet each other as human beings. They have much in common—physical and emotional needs, human and spiritual aspirations, joys and sorrows, hopes and struggles.
Jim Roane in response:
Absolutely. I am in total agreement here.
Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
Second, they meet as monotheistic believers who share many beliefs (for example, creation, human stewardship, divine guidance, sin, forgiveness, final judgment) and ethical values (for example, moral standards, the sacredness of human life, sexual fidelity, a commitment to the poor), even though the way they think of these is not exactly the same.
Jim Roane in response:
One major caveat is that one must not assumed that Muslims share any of our Christian beliefs. Each of the “shared beliefs” mentioned above suffer modification if shared ipso facto simply because in actuality they are not the same since the Allah of the Koran is not the same God as the God of the Bible, at least not in description. As one who has studied Arabic and taught Islam in classes in World Religions on both University and Seminary levels, I can tell you that the word Allah to a Muslim does not mean the same as the word God means to a Christian, or as depicted in the Bible or as defined by the acceptable creeds.
Chawkat Moucarry continues . . .
We can measure a fruitful dialogue by its outcomes.
It should result in a better understanding of each other's faith and of one's own.
Dialogue should lead to better relationships between the two communities and strengthen their social commitments.
Dialogue is also an excellent school for tolerance. It helps us overcome our ignorance, our prejudice, our self-centeredness, our fanaticism, and our spiritual pride.
Is conversion a legitimate goal in dialogue? Yes. It is perfectly legitimate for believers who take seriously the exclusive claims of their religion to try to persuade others of the truth they proclaim.
Relating to Muslims Christ's way . . . I would like to highlight some implications of the Golden Rule for Christians who want to engage missiologically with Islam and Muslims.
First, as an expression of loving our neighbors, we must show respect to Muslims and to the heart of their identity—their prophet, their religion, and their scriptures.
Second, we should do our best to be fair. Fairness also requires comparing like with like—for instance, not comparing moderate Christians with extremist Muslims, ideal Christianity with popular Islam, beautiful texts in the Bible with problematic passages in the Qur'an, and so on. Some Christians are often tempted to compare Islamic teaching with the New Testament, which is understandable. However, Christians do not disown the Old Testament, and it would be unfair to ignore the Old Testament when looking at issues such as holy war, polygamy, the penal code, prophethood, and theocracy.
Finally, we need to study Islam and befriend Muslims. . . . it is critically important that we adopt a humble attitude. Some approaches tend to Christianize Islam, others to demonize it. Neither does justice to Islamic teaching, which should be considered on its own merits.
Dialogue is indeed the privileged way of "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15) to Muslims and members of other religious communities.
Jim Roane concludes . . .I would agree in essence with the article. He seems to be particularly strong in his relating to Muslims Christ’s way section above. I liked his emphasis on respecting Muslims as human beings, respecting their culture and their religious persuasion.
Chawkat Moucarry is World Vision International's director of interfaith relations. He has written several books and articles, including The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian's Perspective on Islam and Christianity (IVP, 2001); The Search for Forgiveness: Pardon and Punishment in Islam and Christianity (IVP, 2004); and Two Prayers for Today: The Lord's Prayer and the Fatiha (CSS Books, 2007).
I think Mr. Moucarry is being disengenuous. He is playing to the evangelical audience by only addressing the personal aspect of Muslim relations. What he says on that front is fine as far as it goes.
ReplyDeleteWhat he fails to say is far more damaging. Islam cannot be conceived as primarily a religion. Islam is religion, society, and state. And this is an organic whole that to this point in history has never been otherwise.
If anyone thinks that Muslims immigrants to democratic and open societies will not impose sharia law as soon as they are able, or that this is not their direct goal, they fail to grasp Islam.
To fail to deal with the societal and state aspects of Islam is a tremendous failure. Democtratic societies had better have a more realistic view of what they are facing.
Our policy towards Islam should be one of reciprocity. Whatever policy, say Saudi Arabia, which is the most powerful and influential Islamic society, has toward Christianity and Judaism, we will have toward Islam.
A state that treats another state according to the Golden Rule is a state that will soon cease to exist.
This is no game.
Best,
Bill
Bill, Shari’a law is not uniform throughout the Muslim world; some states are more lenient and sympathetic towards western social and religious practices than others. I have spent probably half of my adult life living in Muslim dominated areas of the world, and I have found it varies. Fanaticism is common to all religions. But, yes, you are right, our government does not really understand, or is capable of understanding the threat of Islam as a religious and social system to western civilization, particularly as it relates to us as a country. Islam is more than a philosophical or religious system; it is in essence monolithically intolerant towards non-Muslims.
ReplyDeleteHi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI agree, but from what I understand Wahhabism is not in essence a 'fanatical' interpretation of the Qur'an. It is as legitimate and correct a form as the moderate one.
And as you probably know, the most powerful Islamic nation is Saudi Arabia, which is in fact Wahhabism in a very pure form. From what I understand it is Saudi Arabia that is funding the construction of almost all of the mosques being built in the west and they provide these mosques with their own iman.
And what westerners do not grasp is that a mosque is not a church, it is a place of prayer and politics.
The history of dhimmitude, as Bat Ye'or has shown, is devastating to Christian people. Until Islamic societies can demonstrate a radically different understanding of coexistence with non-Muslims, they should not be allowed to exist in the west under any other conditions than those they impose on us.
The reason Wahhabism is more dangerous, it seems to me, is precisely because it is more aggressive and is being exported powerfully, though subtly and covertly, by the Saudis.
I think we agree, Islam is a profound threat to the principles of freedom that inform western civilization.
Best,
Bill
Bill, Wahhabism, as I understand it, is a mixed bag of snakes, mostly cobras. If you get the analogy.
ReplyDelete