A third way for Muslims and Christians to relate

Did your church have someone reading from the Quran yesterday?

That’s what organizers behind "Faith Shared: Uniting in Prayer and Understanding" hoped to see in churches across the United States. Co-sponsored by the Interfaith Alliance and Human Rights First, the movement encouraged Christian pastors to invite Jewish and Muslim clergy to their sanctuaries to read from sacred texts on June 26.

The goal, as Interfaith Alliance president Rev. Welton Gaddy told Religion News Service, was to let people know that “not all Christians promote hate, attack religions different from their own and seek to desecrate the scripture of others."

Hearing about the initiative brought me back to a session I attended at the recent Q Ideas conference. Q founder Gabe Lyons interviewed Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, whose plans to build an Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero caused a stir last year.

Lyons, author of “The Next Christians,” introduced the discussion by talking about the two ways Christians have historically engaged Muslims: with fear and violence, as in the Crusades; and through interfaith dialogue that is either ineffectual or, worse, leads to theological compromises.

Then Lyons proposed a third way. In our relationships with Muslims – and he stressed that an authentic relationship is at the heart of this – we should focus on those beliefs that both faith groups share and which will benefit the common good. Recognizing that we have exclusive theological differences – essentially agreeing to disagree on these points – we should concentrate our relational energy on those things we do agree on: forging peace, fighting injustice, combating hate.

Lyons positioned his discussion with Rauf as an example of this third way – thought that’s not to say their conversation was all hugs and hand-holding. At one point during the interview, when Rauf seemed eager to place Jesus and Muhammad on the same pedestal, Lyons jumped in to point out that at the heart of Christianity was the belief in Jesus’ divinity. No compromising there.

I wonder, then, where this “Faith Shared” movement of inviting other clergy into Christian churches would fit? Is this a third way, one that can lead to relationships that will benefit the common good? Or does it open the door to compromises that Christians shouldn’t make? Can you imagine your church being a part of it?

(Photo of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf courtesy of Q Ideas.)

 

Leave a comment

A login account is required to leave a comment

Comments (32)

An interesting post ... and the call for a way other than violent confrontation or the failure of faithfulness is surely apropro.  Your concluding questions are also interesting.  You ask where this movement of inviting other clergy into Christian churches would fit?  And given that you open the post asking if we had someone reading from the Quran in Church yesterday, the suggestion seems to be that by "church" you intend "a Christian service of corporate worship."  I'm not sure that the best place to _start_ this "third way" is inside the corporate worship events of these religious traditions.   Might not an educational hour, or a community service project, etc., be a better place to nurture this third way?  These activities, too, are expressions of the church--the body of Christ--at work in the world.
While these seem like noble goals, one has to question how a Christian can hold the "common good" in esteem while "agreeing to disagree" on fundamental aspects of his faith. It is wrong to promote hate, and certainly we aren't called to attack other religions, but Jesus himself says he is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). It would be dishonest to claim we are Christians and then say that the Bible is in any way equal to other texts, and that the truths expressed in Christianity are equal to what other people may consider truth. God asks us, "Is not my word like fire, and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29). That's how much different God's Word is from any other word, spoken or written.

These are divisive statements, but I don't see any way to negotiate around them. We can work for social justice, but without the gospel, we're not truly helping anyone. Why bring them physical food if, in our combined efforts with people of other faiths, we cannot also bring them true spiritual food?
While I can support the idea of non-violence and general politeness between Christian and Muslim I cannot support the idea of "inter-faith" prayer. The theological differences are important. If we cannot agree about WHO we are praying to they how can we pray together? Also, both religions agree that their faith is the one true faith (at least they do historically.) The "focus on the beliefs we have in common" seems more a call for Universalism that the call for cooperation. There is integrity in in believing in  that Christianity or Islam is the only way and being unwilling to compromise. If we say that all religions are the same we weaken our own faith and insult our opponents.
This is incorrect: 
"two ways Christians have historically engaged Muslims: with fear and violence, as in the Crusades"
The Crusades were a defensive war, a response to Muslim aggression from the 7th to the 10th centuries. Odd as it may seem to us today, much of the middle east was Christian long before Mohammed was even born.
Are you seriously defending the Crusades?

Further, in what way did the lands the European Christians attempted to retake during the Crusades belong to either Europeans or to Christianity?

Why would those lands be considered "Christian" by right, when the Christians or their antecedents (Romans/Byzantines) also took them over from others (Greeks) who came before, who took them over from yet others (Babylonians/Persians/Assyrians)?

Your post carries some really problematic implications—in terms of your eagerness to portray Islam as singlemindedly aggressive and interested in conquest, in your eagerness to downplay the very real aggressive and conquest-minded aspirations of Christian Crusaders, and in your presumption that the lands over which the Crusades were fought by rights belonged to Christianity. 

I really hope those implications are unintentional rather than actual indications of your views.
I'm not aware of a need to defend the Crusades, any more than today's Muslims should feel obligated to defend the Ottoman empire.  What I was trying to point is stated clearly right in your response: "the lands the European Christians attempted to retake" - _retake_, as in, they were previously under the control of Christians, and were later forcibly conquered by Muslims.

I stated two facts in my short comment, neither of which you have disputed. Whatever "implications" or "eagerness" you read into my comment is entirely on you.
And prior to being controlled by European-dominated empires (whether Christian or pre-Christian), those lands belonged to people whose origins were actually in the Middle East, like Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians... so it could just as fairly be said that the Muslims (who at least could claim to be from the immediate vicinity) retook the land from the Europeans in the centuries before the Crusades.

To suggest that the Crusades were a defensive war against Muslim aggressors is the worst kind of Eurocentrism, because it assumes that European Christians had any kind of claim on the lands of the Middle East. They didn't. 

Europeans—both Greeks and Romans/Byzantines—initially conquered the land from people who were actually from near there, and those people's descendants, who by then had converted to Islam, took it back. 

It was only European greed, European hubris, and European chauvinism that led to the Crusades, which were predicated on the notion that the Holy Land belonged to Christians—a completely false notion. The aggressors were the European Christians.
The residents of Constantinople and other ME Christians "whose origins were actually in the Middle East" certainly characterized it as a defensive war and had a legitimate claim on the land. Christian churches were well-established there hundreds of years before Mohammed was born, especially after Constantine converted to Christianity. Christianity had about a 600 year head start on Islam, and it grew out from Jerusalem, it was not imported in from Europe.

You seem to be conflating the native Christians in those lands with the European Christians who were their allies and came at the Emperor's request after Alexios I had lost about half his territory to Muslims.
If you actually believe that the European Crusaders were conquering the land for the Christians of Middle Eastern descendance, you're fooling yourself. Just look at who ruled over the Kingdom of Jerusalem—it wasn't Palestinian Christians, it was European nobles. I'd think that if they were really conquering it back for the local Christians, they'd have let the local Christians have control of the land after they'd won... don't you?

Most of us have accepted that the Crusades were aggressive wars of European conquest and European greed, and that they are a stain on the legacy of Christianity. Those who seek to engage in revisionist versions of history, presenting the Islamic peoples who had conquered the Holy Land from European empires prior to the Crusades as interlopers and aggressors and the Crusaders as defenders, do history a disservice.
The gospel is good news - a message of love and hope from God to all people everywhere.  It is for Muslims and Jews as it is for everyone. We are called to make disciples. There is of course a place for being "all things to all men so that by all possible means [we] might save some"  but this does not stretch to encouraging deception to be preached in order to gain friends.  The gospel should be, and is being, preached, in love, to Muslims and Jews but remember Jesus came to seek and save the lost, not to appease those who might be offended by Him.  We have an enemy and it is not the Muslims or the Jews.  Let us not be unaware of his schemes.
I'm new to the interfaith conversation, but I've worked for years as a facilitator in intercultural business settings. In working with different cultures the most important ground rule, one that needs to be agreed upon before you can begin any conversation, is that there is no "right way" of doing things. Context is everything.

The second rule is to have respect for those having a different perspective, and to accept that not everyone sees things the way you do. Keeping these two rules in mind, is Christianity "the" religion, superior to all other religions? Yes, of course. For Christians, that is. Just as for Muslims Islam is "the best" and for Jews Judaism, etc. 

I believe that as Christians, we serve God best by understanding that even though not everyone sees it our way, we love them no less for it. It is the act of faith that is important. By respecting that others may believe in other deities and exercise their faith in different ways than ours, we strengthen our own values of tolerance and aspects of understanding. Can a Christian and an Muslim pray together, even though one is praying to God and the other to Allah? Absolutely! And by doing so, each has strengthened his or her own faith by proving that God's love is indeed infinite and forgiving. 

For me the most significant Bible passage is Acts 2:1 - 11, specifically verse 4: "
4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Someone has been quoted as saying that we should be tolerant of people, but intolerant and in fact elitist about our own ideas, for why would we believe something unless we thought it was superior to the alternatives? In the case of our faith, we have new life; regeneration; rebirth; salvation. Christian faith isn't just an idea, if you believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead. It's reality. You might say that other religions profess a similar passion for their own perspectives, but such faith can't allow you to remain neutral if it is of the same kind spoken of in the Bible.

That said, I agree with you that we should be loving of other people. Why does that mean we should be tolerant of their ideas? This doesn't mean we deride them because they're Muslim. It means that we stand firm when they suggest that their ideas have equal weight with our own Christian faith; the fact that we have faith as Christians shows that we don't believe that to be the case.

If we believe what the Bible says, then how much stock should we put in the prayers of a Muslim? As I said before, these are divisive words, but I think they're rooted in Biblical truth. If I'm going to pray with a Muslim, I need to understand that one of us will be praying to the God of the universe, and the other will be casting their prayers into the wind. How does that strength my faith, and why would I want their faith in such things strengthened anyway?
Thank you for your response, Josh. 

I've you've lived for any significant time in a culture other than your own, as I have, you understand that what works for you doesn't necessarily work for someone else. Sometimes what seems to be the "obvious truth" to you and me can be a load of hooey to someone with a different cultural perspective. The first time I encountered this I was astounded, "How can they think that way?!! It's so obvious that it's not right!!" was my reaction. How much I had to learn . . . 

In my opinion the same applies to faith. You interpret the Muslim as "casting his prayers into the wind." This is unfortunate. I respect and value devout persons of all faiths. Just because he isn't praying to MY god in the way that I think is acceptable to ME is immaterial. It's not about me; it's about God. 

Why would you want a Muslim's faith strengthened? I'm surprised you ask this question. God asks us to serve him by loving our fellow man. Unconditionally. The sinners as well as the faithful. God doesn't ask us to only love those who worship Him in a particular way. Or through a particular religion, dogma or doctrine. If you start down the road by judging Muslims or Jews or Buddhists because they don't worship YOUR god, where does this stop? We've seen enough violence in Dublin, as one of many unfortunate examples, that shows me that there is no end to it. It never ends. Even more reason to respect those who love. Unconditionally.
I understand completely what you're saying. I don't live to throw sand in other peoples' faces and stomp around saying my way is the only way. Being a Christian for a relatively short period of time (and also referencing the Bible in such places as Romans 1:18-20) I also understand how other people can believe things that aren't the truth.

It comes down to whether or not you believe in absolute truth. If you do, then you are wrong (factually and morally) to believe anything else. Also, your actions should be consistent with what you believe (i.e., you should not abide in prayer to idols other than the God you know to exist). If you don't believe absolute truth exists, then that's another conversation altogether. I believe it -is- absolute truth, grounded in history and reality, that God spoke to us through prophets and finally through his Son Jesus Christ, who died for us and was resurrected to give us new life. Unfortunately, in the words of Timothy Keller, "it's very popular nowadays to say you're searching, but not so popular to say you've found." Therefore, many people just fade into a gentle, morally relativistic ambivalence concerning faith and other issues.

I agree with you that God asks us to love our fellow man. I try to do this in word and deed. However, can you ever love someone entirely unless you at least attempt to share with them the greatest truth you have ever known, and in fact, is the truth that will save them from eternal damnation? How sad that you would give them physical bread to ease their physical hunger, but withhold spiritual bread to fuel their eternal hunger. This ties in many other beliefs, and maybe you believe that there is some other way to Heaven aside from Jesus Christ (although I might point you to John 14:6). I don't sit in judgment of people who believe differently from me, but I've been told in God's Word, and I am simply proclaiming, that there is a Judge and a Savior. I will do no violence in His name, but instead, follow His commands as He works in me (Philippians 2:13).

Now, I may have misread your original post and assumed you were a Christian. If you are, you may find some help in understanding what I've written as you remember the verses I've included here. If you aren't a Christian, then perhaps at least look up those verses and see if it is honest for a Christian to also be a relativist concerning issues of faith. Maybe you'll recognize that I'm at least holding myself accountable to my text. There is enough in the Bible in quantity and quality to assure me that absolute truth exists and thus is incompatible with other ideas that masquerade as truth.
My Church would not be part of this.  Muslims and Christians cannot pray together.  Even a cursory look at Islam shows that the god they worship is NOT the God of the Bible.  If it is not the God of the Bible, it must be something else.  What would that something else be?  An idol maybe?  We need to, as a Church, stand up and say, "ENOUGH!"  Enough infiltration by false religions and wordly ideas (like all religions are equally valid, that this religion is best for this group, aka relativism).  Wordly ideas in the Church have lead to the abandonment of Gensis as literal history, the abondonment of Christ as the only way to salvation, abandonment of absolute truth, abandonment of the authority of God and His Word, and the abandonment of morality as defined by God.  If this sounds divisive, I don't care.  The truth is divisive.  No, I will not subcomb to wordly idea that the Muslim religion is just as valid as faith in Christ.  It's not.  Muslim religious practices are incompatible with faith in Christ.  For a better understanding of my point, read Colossians.

As an aside, Mussolini had a "third way" too.  So did Stalin.  How about we do Church God's way as written in the Bible?
This article seems quite lopsided.  What about the Muslims who treat Christians with hate, fear, and violence?  This is the common Muslim.

I've been helping out with Christian ministry to Muslims for two years.  While I love them just like I love any other follower of pagan religions. (Yes, the Muslim faith is no more Christianity than any other religion out there, they may claim the same God, but in the end, their faith is based on a human's teaching rather than God's own disqualifying them from actually being able to worship the one true God.)

However, I wonder about the wisdom of bringing this kind of thinking into the common Christian culture.  The Muslim faith can be, at times, difficult to distinguish from the Christian faith.  This is exactly how Satan keeps his deceptions.  

I think the correct method here is to keep a clear line between the falsehood of the Muslim faith and Christianity, and instead, teach Christians to love all, as Christ taught.
A glaringly evident teaching in the bible that has been overlooked in this conversation is that Christians should love the sinner but hate the sin.  When the concept of CHRIST-LIKE LOVE is completely understood the vast rhetoric and religious jargon would begin to dwindle... The answer is simple, so all of the rabit-trail debates and intermingling of religion talks are irrelevant!  When one loves his neighbor truly, he will hate anything that causes him to stumble.  Historically, religion has served as a major stumbling block for all cultures of people.  Christ was the only way, truth, and life! He and His teachings cannot be simplified to a mere religion.  The practice of faith, love, and righteousness are important. Pray for the lost/praying along side them is fruitless because they have no access to the Father except through Christ... "For what relationship should light have with darkness?"
It's amazing how christians are giving room to apostasy. 2nd or 3rd ways are only attempts to mislead honest christian with lack of proper knowledge of the Bible, the only Word of God. Jesus taught that He is THE WAY ....the only way, there is no more to add to his simple and direct words. Interfaith Alliance or interfaith prayers are just Satan actions to deceive christians. What's the use to hold hands with the enemies of our God.
A completely different work is to testify specifically, without ambiguity, of our faith to someone who is, according with the Bible, walking to eternal perdition. Have you noticed how christians are treated in countries under muslim control? Do you believe they invite our missionaries to interfaith prayer meetings or ask the attendants to a mosque to read the Bible ? Do you think that you could give a Bible or a tract to a passerby in a public place in Saudi Arabia or Iran? It's funny to observe how knowledgeable persons, supposable christians invest time and money in activities clearly against to God's command of Jude 3 "...exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints"
So, are you saying that because they would not allow the Bible to be read in their mosque, that we should deny them to read the Koran in church? We are to treat others as we would like to be treated, not as they would treat us.
I think the more pertinent question is, what good can come of having the Koran read in a church? You have God's Word with its boundless, eternal wisdom and truth, so why would you read from another text?

Leave a Comment »

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now