Evangelicals Now
Christian news worldwide
magnifying glass Search archives
home Home check the archives Archives Subscribe Subscriptions Advertising Information & booking of classifieds Adverts Find a local evangelical Church Find a church for the search engines and extremely curious! About us Contact us Site Map
Printable
Version

A Common Word: drawing the line

Looking at a document from Islamic scholars

In 2006, Benedict XVI, pope of the Roman Catholic Church, made a statement challenging the Islamic world about their militaristic and terrorist practices throughout history and so questioning the frequent claims that it is a peaceful religion. This statement was, not surprisingly, unwelcome to the Islamic religious authorities as it exposed a truth that would hinder their aims and progress towards increasing control of the Western world.

Very quickly a group of scholars representing a range of Islamic thought produced an Open Letter to the Pope and, later, A Common Word Between Us and You. The latter document was written by 138 Islamic scholars to highlight ‘the common ground between Christianity and Islam’. That wording in itself should have been enough to warn evangelicals, and Christians of a wider spectrum! They go on to say that ‘despite their differences, Islam and Christianity not only share the same Divine Origin and the same Abrahamic heritage, but the same two greatest commandments’ (their emphasis). Again that does not require someone to be a theologian to see the flaws.

A response

A response was drafted by scholars at Yale Divinity School’s Center for Faith and Culture and signed by around 300 Christian theologians and leaders. It is called Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You. Perhaps the most surprising thing is to see several respected evangelical leaders amongst the signatories.

Obviously, we encourage a peaceful coexistence of the two faiths (and any others) and many of our readers will seek to be good neighbours to Muslim friends as well as seeking to witness to them.

No promises

The signatories to the Islamic document may come from a broad spectrum of Islam, but they do not have the authority to make promises on its behalf. If they really believed in such peaceful coexistence, there are many ways for them to demonstrate it and until they do so we cannot accept this letter as authoritative.

They could, for example, issue a fatwa against any Muslim who attacks a Christian anywhere in the world. They could require countries ruled by Islam to give Christians freedom of evangelistic rights and permission to build churches, just as applies to them in countries under Christian influence.

Not persuasive

The selective use of the Qu’ran to persuade us that the religion is one of peace is not persuasive when we see the continuing attacks by Muslims, trained by Muslim theologians, on Christians. As Christians, we do not fight and shed blood in order to ‘win’ believers.

Even the British media have been vocal in recent months exposing the behaviour, motives and other unacceptable activities of the Muslim authorities in our own land. Our political leaders have been strangely silent on these matters.

No common God

How can we have common ground with those who treat women as they do? Our women folk are made in the image of God and should be respected as such. Unless and until such time as Islam accepts and recognises the equality of women before the law, it is difficult to see how we can have a common ground. For the inequality of Islam emanates from the so-called revelation given to Muhammad.

There is no commonality in our understanding of God. YHWH is not the same as Allah and it is a blasphemy to imply that the ‘one God’ is the same in the two faiths. Their god is the family idol of Muhammad and they are free to worship it if they wish. Let us not imagine that we pray to the same being. They venerate Muhammad — again as they are free to do Ð but he is not greater than Christ who is the Son of God. They are not identical in status or mission. I object to a comparison (in the Yale response) between our Lord Jesus praying on the Cross, ‘Forgive them’, and Muhammad’s comments when he was stoned. Surely the evangelical signatories do not equate the significance of these words?

Misleading

John Piper points out that the documents use Scripture selectively and so often out of context. Yes, 1 John 4 does talk about Christians loving, but the context is very clearly of God’s love in Christ being sacrificed for our sins. This is not the same concept of a God of love as that held by the Muslims. Any dialogue must not strip away Christian distinctives.

Our understanding of salvation is different. It is not by works that we are saved. It is not by suicide missions that we have assurance of going to heaven. Indeed, our concept of heaven is so obviously different, when the terrorist bombers believe that by their actions they will live in a paradise in which they have free access to a number of virgins!

Explain the gospel

We do believe in man’s freedom to reject Jesus as Lord, but not a freedom to attack Christ’s people. If we are to tolerate Islam in our midst, we have to press these people to respect our faith and Lord. We are willing to sit down with Muslims and commend Christ but only by explaining fully the gospel and not perverting it by omitting uncomfortable truths.

The documents mentioned in this article are all available on the internet. There is also a helpful video clip (nine minutes long) by John Piper responding to the document.

John Peet