"It's Not Easy to be Christian in the Middle East"

See an interview between Newsmax and Mordechay Lewy, Israel's Ambassador to the Holy See (Vatican). Read it here. Here are two key paragraphs:

If someone wants to be pro-Palestinian, he can find many reasons. When they look at our area they ask: Do we have Christian brothers there? It’s natural that Christians will have solidarity with their brothers in the Middle East. It’s not easy to be Christian in the Middle East. I am not saying Christians don’t have problems in Israel, but they should pray to God to thank Him they are under Israeli and not Muslim rule.
I can understand Catholics’ special affection for each other, but they should not seek to improve the personal security of their brothers in need by being anti-Israeli. This is not a life insurance policy. It is a notion which experience shows has failed. You’re not buying anything with it. The Muslims deeply resent Christians, so they are not impressed by such Christian anti-Israeli statements. That’s the experience in the Middle East.

{image}

UPDATE:

Hamas reinstitutes crucifixion of Christians as "enemies of Islam."

Read it here. I haven't heard much about this in the media.

What Can We Talk About?

I found a great quote today in the Economist, in an article on conversions of Muslims in Kosovo to Christianity. In the reader's comments, someone very perceptively wrote the following:

Discussing large things is now a capital offense, we must only debate
trivialities. You may oppose a man's opinion on transportation policy, but you
must not oppose his view of the world - even if he wishes to see that world burn
in an act of suicidal violence.

Bernard Lewis Interview

What we are facing now is the third major threat to the world. The first was Nazism, the second Bolshevism and now this. There are parallels. Germany is a great nation, and German patriotism is a perfectly legitimate expression of the pride and loyalty Germans have for their country. But Nazism was a monstrous perversion of that and a curse to the Germans, as well as a threat to the rest of the world.

The aspiration for social betterment and social justice is very noble. But Bolshevism was a monstrous perversion of that, as well as a curse to Russia and a threat to the rest of the world.

Now we have a third similar situation. Islam is one of the great religions that sponsored one of the greatest civilizations in human history. But it has fallen into the hands of a group of people who are the equivalent of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. They are a curse to their own people, as well as a threat to the rest of the world.

Here's the link.

British-born Bernard Lewis, renowned Arabist (and Jew!), was professor at Princeton. An interesting interview.

My Final Word on "A Common Word"

Having read over the entire letter, I have just a few final comments. The big problem with the document is not what it says, but what it doesn't say. Sure, there are points of contact between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, and, for that matter, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc.). The document, "A Common Word," attempts to highlight points of unity while leaving completely unaddressed the points of disunity. The points of unity are not what is causing all the problems in the world right now; rather, it is the violent intolerance of a growing segment of Islam.

What if the imams came out with "A Common Word" among themselves that totally renounced violence in the name of God/Islam? What if they totally condemned all terrorism, and specifically Islamic terrorism? What if they embraced religious freedom that included not just the freedom of Christians to leave Christianity and convert to Islam but also the freedom of Muslims to leave Islam and convert to Christianity? Friends of mine who are well-informed about Islam tell me that these are the real issues. Until dialogue on these issues begins, all discussion of what is "common" hides the real problems.

For more discussion, see the Acton Institute.

Part III of "A Common Word"

The third part of this letter from Muslim imams to Christians is entitled "Come to A Common Word Between Us and You." It is essentially an invitation to Christians to embrace Muslims as fellow worshipers of the same god and as fellow believers. This is the application of Parts I and II. The argument seems to be as follows: Christianity and Islam both call believers to love God. Christianity and Islam both call believers to love their neighbours. Therefore, Christianity and Islam should embrace each other as equals and be respectful of each other's religions. (See a discussion with the head of CAIR here.)

Let me quote some portions of the letter and then make some observations and/or ask questions.

Under the first heading in Part III, the writers say:

Whilst Islam and Christianity are obviously different religions - and whilst there is no minimising some of the formal differences - it is clear that the Two Greatest Commandments are an area of common ground adn a link between the Qur'an the Torah and the New Testament.

What are these "formal differences?" The writers have made no reference to these, and I am curious as to what they think of the differences.


Immediately after this, the writers say the following:

What prefaces the Two Commandments in the Torah and the New Testament, and what they arise out of, is the Unity of God - that there is only one God....Thus the Unity of God, love of Him, and love of the neighbour form a common ground upon which Islam and Christianity (and Judaism) are founded (:13).

I am becoming concerned about this phrase "Unity of God," which occurs throughout the letter. What exactly is meant by this? I know Muslims have a very hard time with the concept of the Trinity. Is all this letter a failure to recognize this? Is all this really a call to reject Trinitarianism, a fundamental teaching of Christianity?

On page 14, the writers launch into a most strange invitation. They write:

"Muslims, Christians and Jews should be free to each follow what God commanded them, and not have 'to prostrate before kings and the like'; for God says elsewhere in the Holy Qur'an: Let there be no compulsion in religion....(Al-Baqarah, 2:256)."

This puzzles me. Muslims are inviting Christians not to use compulsion in religion? What is so strange about this is that this is almost the definition of religious practice in America! Does the same practice prevail in Iran? in Pakistan? in Saudi Arabia? Muslim nations all!

The writers also say this:

As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them -- so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes...

I don't understand the issue here. Where in the world are Christians waging war against Muslims? Although there are many Christians in the United States, American is not an official Christian nation. They cannot be referring to the war in Iraq, can they? Even if American were Christian, the war is not being waged against Muslims on account of their religion, but on account of certain terrorist commitments. Clearly this acceptance quoted above is conditional, subject to much interpretation. I suspect the whole statement here is misleading.

Finally, the writers say this:

Together they [Christians and Muslims] make up more than 55% of the world's population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.

I find this curious for a couple of reasons. First, where is the all the war going on? Iraq is a small place, compared to the Islamic world in general, and besides, a secular government is at war with a group of terrorists. It is not Christians at war with Muslims; to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Second, the only place Muslims and Christians are intertwined is predominantly Christian nations. In Muslim nations, Christians find it hard to exist, let alone worship and thrive.

In my opinion, the bottom line is this: if Muslims are not willing to talk about the differences between Christianity and Islam, no dialogue can go forward. To try to smooth over the differences by highlighting some similarities is no way to move forward. This letter does not help the current state of discussion between Christians and Muslims.

Part II of "A Common Word"

Part II is much shorter than Part I, only just over 1 page. The point of Part II is to show that both Islam and Christianity endorse love of neighbour.

"None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself," says Muhammad.

Quotes from Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Leviticus 19 are quoted to prove the point that Christianity is in agreement.

I have no problem with what the letter says, but I do have some questions. Does "love of neighbour" include freedom? Does it include equality? If so, then why doesn't Islam grant these things to Christians and other non-Muslims under Muslim rule?

Part I of "A Common Word"

I've made my way through Part I of the letter from Muslim scholars called "A Common Word." The topic of Part I is "Love of God," and consists of long quotes from and discussion of koranic passages that deal with the duty of loving God with total devotion, then a brief discussion of Biblical passages that echo this sentiment. They make a big deal of the following saying of Muhammad:

"The best that I have said - myself, and the prophets that came before me -
is: 'there is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the
sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all things."

The letter then makes the following points:

1. This "blessed saying" of Muhammad is very similar to several passages from the Bible, as in the Shema' and as in Jesus's discussion with the young lawyer of the greatest commandment.

2. In both the Koran and in the Bible, this statement of ultimate love for God is restated in several ways and in several passages. The letter states:

Moreover, we also do know...that both formulas have another remarkable
parallel: the way they arise in a number of slightly differing versions and
forms in different contexts, all of which, nevertheless, emphasize the primacy
of total love and devotion to God.

Some observations:

1. They spend much more time on the Koranic passages than on the Bible. I guess this is to be expected, since they are Muslims. I began to wonder though if this whole letter is an attempt to expose as many Christians as possible to passages from the Koran that sound very "Biblical." The end result would be that many uninformed Christians will come away from reading the letter thinking that perhaps there is not all that much difference between the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Islamic tradition. I'm no Islamic scholar, but that doesn't sound right to me. I suspect Muhammad said a lot more than "Love God."

2. When they quote from the Bible, their discussion is pretty accurate. They make mention of Hebrew words and Greek words. I did not feel that they had misrepresented what Scripture says.

3. They seem to acknowledge that perhaps Muhammad got a lot of what he said from the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. What they say is this:

That is to say, in other words, that the Prophet Muhammad was perhaps,
through inspiration, restating and alluding to the Bible's First
Commandment.

Some reaction.

1. So far, I don't understand why what they are saying is significant. Is this simply an attempt to downplay the great differences between Muslims and Christians? Is it a surprise to anyone that both Christianity and Islam call on their followers to love God?

2. I'm suspicious. What is the agenda here?

3. I'm much more concerned about what they did NOT say that about what they did say. In other words, I realize there is some surface overlap between what Christianity and Islam teach, but I also know that there are huge differences.

Well, I need to go for now, but I'll keep working on this.

The Letter Itself: Contents

Although it runs 29 pages, the letter itself is much shorter. Here is a description of its contents:

The addressees: page 1

Summary and Abridgement: pages 2-3

"A Common Word Between Us and You": pages 4-16

(I) Love of God (pages 4-10)

Love of God in Islam

Love of God as the First and Greatest Commandment in the Bible

(II) Love of Neighbour (pages 11-12)

Love of Neighbour in Islam

Love of the Neighbour in the Bible

(III) Come to A Common Word Between Us and You

A Common Word

Come to a Common Word!

Between Us and You

Notes (which contain much discussion): pages 17-21

List of Signatories: pages 22-29

Muslim Clerics Call For Peace

This is still a developing story, but apparently an international group of Muslim clerics has written a letter to Christians calling for peace. I haven't yet read the letter, but I've posted below a link to it. In any case, this will be, it seems to me, an important moment in the interaction between Islam and Christianity/The West. Here are links to the article:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416235-details/Muslims+tell+Christians%3A+

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301116,00.html


Here is the link to The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which sponsored the letter:
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/

Here's the link to the letter itself (29 pages!):
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/documents/COMMONWORDFINAL091007_000.pdf

I hope to have some response to this letter soon.

Wright Gets It Wrong

Read this analysis of Bishop N.T. Wright's perspective on global terrorism, especially w/re:to the US led coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. For all his positive contributions to Biblical studies, he stumbles badly, in my opinion, on this issue. Read it here.

I'm Stunned and Confused!

I just finished watching on CNN the installment of "God's Warriors" that I had missed, the one on "God's Islamic Warriors." All I can say is that I am stunned and confused, and even a little upset. I don't feel this way because I feel threatened, although clearly Islamic militancy is a problem; I feel this way because everything I just saw goes 180 degrees against everything I believe about God.

First, I am stunned by just how little I understand - and I don't think I ever can understand - the mindset of a religion that exalts the taking of other people's lives in the name of God. I'm confused and disoriented. I realized, as I watched interview after interview with people so filled with anger and hatred, that I simply have no category for expressing my religious faith and hatred simultaneously. The two are mutally exclusive. As a Christian, I cannot hate.

Perhaps the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam spring from the lives and examples of their founders. At church, I am currently teaching through the New Testament book of 1 Peter. The apostle continuously points to the sacrifice of Jesus as our example for life. Last week I taught on 1 Peter 2:21-25. Peter addresses the slave and tells him to endure injustice and to continue doing good. Then, perhaps knowing that that is a very difficult teaching, he grounds this imperative in the willing sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The willing submission of Jesus to injustice is our example. The contrast between Jesus and Muhammad simply could not be more profound.

I was struck by the weeping Muslims do during that festival honoring the sacrifice of Imam Husein (not sure how to spell his name). As I saw those people crying so freely, I thought of the passion of Christ - and Amanpour even referred to the dramatic presentation of Husein's death as a "passion play" - but even here, Husein died in battle! His sacrifice was not Christ-like. It would be like us crying over the death of Davy Crockett at the Alamo. Not quite the same as Good Friday, is it?

I should also mention how stunned I am at the implication, perhaps unstated but still present, that somehow Amanpour's "Christian warriors" are on the same level as the jihadists. The comparison is simply laughable.

God as "Allah:" An Anonymous Response

I received a response to my post about Christians calling God "Allah," but for certain reasons, this person did not want his/her name attached to it. So, I post it as by "Anonymous." Food for thought:

To the matter of concern: should Christians call God 'Allah'? Another way of looking at it is: should Christians call God 'God'? 'God' is not a biblical word, but of Germanic derivation from 'Gott'. It was adopted and adapted as the term for Christianity's deity as the gospel spread through northern Europe and westward. Just as 1st century Christians accepted 'Theos' and 'Kurios' as designations for the Hebrew God and infused it with new meaning, so did Christians with the word 'Gott' and eventually 'God'.

There were Christians in the Middle East using 'Allah' for their deity before Europeans/Westerners ever heard the gospel. Thus, your statement: "for Christians to begin calling God "allah" would be misleading and would actually confuse the important differences between the two faiths" is problematic. 'Allah' is just as acceptable a term for the Creator as 'God'. What matters is the meaning attached to these words and the lingua franca where people live. Obviously, Arab believers' use of 'Allah' in the Middle East would carry the roughly meaning as our use of the term 'God' in the USA, but the Muslims concept of 'Allah' would be different. However, any informed Christian could use 'Theos', 'Gott', 'God', or 'Deus' (which is Portuguese), and be rightly referring to the true and holy One.

Hence, the matter worthy of debate is not linguistical but lexical, that is, having to do with the meaing of these words.

Can Christians Call God "Allah?"

Recently, a Catholic bishop in the Netherlands suggested that Christians call God "Allah" in order to increase understanding with Muslims. For the article at Fox News, read here.

What is at stake here? Is the term "allah" interchangeable with the word "god?" I think there is a variety of factors to consider. Some are linguistic, some are cultural, some are theological, some are missiological.

In terms of Semitic languages, "allah" is cognate with the Hebrew words "el" (= "god") and "eloah" (= "god"). It is not cognate with the Hebrew personal name for God, "Yahweh," nor is it, of course, cognate with the English word "god."

Culturally, the term "allah" is, in my opinion, very close to a technical term, or proper name, for "the god of Islam," similar to "Yahweh" for ancient Hebrews. However, early Christians used the term "theos" for the Hebrew "elohim," even though "theos" carried many non-Jewish and non-Christian theological elements.

Theologically, I think it is inaccurate to say the Muslim concept of God is equivalent to the Christian concept of God; therefore, for Christians to begin calling God "allah" would be misleading and would actually confuse the important differences between the two faiths. Muslim reaction to the suggestion here in the US appears to be positive. I suppose Christians and Jews living in Islamic countries would welcome the idea that Muslims begin to call God "El," or "God." It would help legitimize their own concepts of God as a minority group. I suspect this is why Islamic response is positive.

Missiologically, I've heard that some converts to Christianity in Muslim countries use the term "allah" for their deity, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. I wonder if Muslim clerics in those countries are happy with that? Since I am not a missiologist, I am unfamiliar with the literature and the debates, but I suspect there is room for this kind of linguistic/theological substitution, if done carefully. But here in the "West," it seems to me that the suggestion concedes too much.

What say my readers?