Evangelical Christian Views and Attitudes Towards Christian– Muslim Dialogue

Introduction

Evangelicals have generally perceived interfaith dialogue as the religious bodies equivalent of the United Nations whose ultimate aim is a ‘United Religions’ through negotiations. Interfaith dialogue meetings were unfavourably viewed as diplomatic forums where compromise is the watchword, and difficult issues smoothen over or simply swept under the carpet. Writing on ‘Evangelicals and Interfaith Dialogue: A New Paradigm’ in the Lausanne World Pulse, Gina Bellofatto rightly observes that in the post-9/11 world, a change in the perception of the outcomes of dialogue has taken place amongst evangelicals. She describes what she calls ‘old’ and ‘new’ or ‘emerging’ paradigms of interfaith dialogue. The old paradigm, which is still ‘alive and thriving in dialogue circles’, according to Bellofatto,

seeks the lowest common denominator between partners – the theological point(s) that partners in dialogue agree upon, even if it means slightly altering one’s beliefs or leaving out other truths to reach a consensus. ¹

The old paradigm seeks harmonization and argues that in order to engage people of other religions in genuine dialogue, ‘particularistic criteria of truth and conviction must be given up in favour of relativistic, universalized faith’. In the old paradigm, liberal Christians championed the cause of interfaith dialogue and tended to be very intolerant of truth claims, and, by extension, conservative and evangelical Christians, who in turn dismissed it and stayed away from dialogue. The new, or emerging, paradigm of dialogue, however, does not seek ‘the lowest common denominator between traditions’, but rather embraces and encourages differences. Bellofatto concludes that the new paradigm of dialogue ‘does not advocate leaving exclusivist claims behind, but rather shifts dialogue into a much more exclusivist-friendly environment’. ² The new paradigm has therefore enabled evangelical Christians to engage in interfaith dialogue.

This new trend can be clearly seen in evangelical responses to the ‘Common Word’ issued in October 2007 by a group of leading Muslims scholars and figures. Amongst the first positive Christian responses to the ‘Common Word’ came what became known as the ‘Yale Letter’, drafted in November 2007 by evangelical Christians at the Yale Center for Faith and Culture and signed by over 300 Christian leaders, including several leading evangelicals. This was followed by a conference held at Yale in July 2008, bringing together Muslim and Christian scholars, on the theme of ‘Loving God and Neighbor in Word and Deed: Implications for Christians and Muslims. ³

Evangelicals are also involved in an initiative of the Libyan government known as ‘Evangelical Christian–Muslim Dialogue’. A meeting held in Tripoli in January 2008 included many evangelical leaders from a variety of evangelical institutions such as Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary, North Park University, the Arab Baptist Seminary in Beirut, Lebanon, as well as national and international evangelical organizations like World Vision International, Venture International, Sojourners, and Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding. These groups of evangelicals can be termed progressive evangelicals.

Evangelical Suspicion and Skepticism of Dialogue

A significant portion of what might be termed conservative evangelicals remain suspicious and scathing about interfaith dialogue in general and dialogue with Muslims in particular. In a recent article entitled ‘Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam’, Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund bemoans the fact that ‘evangelical leaders and missionaries to Muslims are promoting dialogue and accommodation with Muslims and with Islam’. Under the sub-heading, ‘Evangelicals and Interfaith Dialogue’, Sookhdeo, who can be said to be a representative voice of conservative evangelicals, quotes unfavourably from several leading evangelical figures whom he accuses of ‘accommodation with Muslims and Islam’. ⁴

In Sookhdeo’s view, interfaith dialogue, which is dominated by liberal Christians, ‘advocates a value-free approach to other faiths and cultures that accepts them all as valid spiritualities and ways to God’. He points out what, in his view, constitutes ‘defining characteristics’ of interfaith dialogue, which include the following:

Sookhdeo is of the opinion that the view of Islam propounded within interfaith dialogue circles is ‘a pluralist view in which Islam is seen as a redemptive religion, Muhammad as a valid prophet of God and the Qur’an as a revelation from God’. Furthermore, ‘the idea is widespread’ within interfaith dialogue forums ‘that Islam is peaceful and tolerant and cannot be blamed for terrorism committed in its name’. Discussions at dialogue sessions tend to stay clear from ‘the severe plight of Christian minorities in Muslim-majority states and regions and the dangers faced by converts from Islam (apostates)’. Dialogue advocates also ‘discourage a critical engagement with the Muslim source texts, because this might upset Muslim conservatives, and they trace the roots of Islamic violence not to Islamic scripture but to Western foreign policy’. ⁵

From the above, evangelical reservations and concerns about interfaith dialogue can be summarized under the following four main headings.

The Uniqueness of Christ

The traditional Christian teaching, widely characterized as exclusivists, maintains that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between humankind and God and only true way of salvation. The biblical warrant for this Christian witness is found in John 14: 6 and Acts 4:12. Evangelical Christians see these scriptural texts as affirming the uniqueness of Christ which is non-negotiable. Meanwhile, liberal Christian scholars who became the leading proponents of interfaith dialogue take exception of what they regard as exclusivists claims and espouse pluralist views, which argues that Christ is one amongst many ways and many names and that all religions have salfivic value. ⁶

Pluralist theologians see exclusivist claims as threats to inter-religious co-existence and interfaith dialogue. SJ Samartha insists:

Theological clams have political consequences. This is particularly true in contemporary India where the exclusive claims made by any one particular community of faith affect its relationships with members of other communities of faith. Such claims make it difficult, if not impossible, for persons belonging to different religious traditions to live together in harmony and to cooperate for common purposes in society. . . . Thus both historical pressures and theological imperatives demand a re-examination of all exclusivist claims. ⁷

On that basis, pluralist theologians have argued that truth claims in general and the Christian witness of the uniqueness of Christ have no place at the roundtable of interfaith dialogue. Paul Knitter writes:

If Christians think they are in possession of the ‘fullness’ of revelation and the norm for all truth, then no matter how much they might call for a dialogue ‘among equals,’ they retain the position of advantage. It is from their [his italics] vantage point that any conflict of truth claims must be decided . . . Such an attitude seems to me to be opposed to the nature and requirements of dialogue. ⁸

The pluralist point of view, in the eyes of many evangelicals, has become the theology of interfaith dialogue. The argument that Christian truth claims give Christians a sense of superiority over followers of other faiths and the ensuing calls upon Christians to abandon or revise their truth claims so as to attain parity with followers of other religious traditions, is as false as it is incipiently condescending. It is false because other religions have their own truth claims and their own inherited sense of superiority. It is condescending because the argument itself is a tacit acknowledgement that if Christians keep to their truth claims, then, they are, indeed, on ‘higher ground’, hence the need for Christians to condescend to others. In any case, why do pluralists assume that people of other faiths are keen to attain parity with Christians?

The premise that truth claims constitute obstacles to dialogue has undermined rather than enhanced the course of dialogue. This impression has created the perception in the minds of evangelical Christians that one has to sacrifice one’s roots in order to branch out to others. A preposition, one can safely say, all evangelicals reject and resist! At this point, it may be informative to quote from The Lausanne Covenant, the most endearing evangelical theological statements and affirmations in the last 30-plus years:

We affirm that there is only one Saviour and only one gospel, although there is a wide diversity of evangelistic approaches. We recognise that everyone has some knowledge of God through his general revelation in nature. But we deny that this can save, for people suppress the truth by their unrighteousness. We also reject as derogatory to Christ and the gospel every kind of syncretism and dialogue which implies that Christ speaks equally through all religions and ideologies. Jesus Christ, being himself the only God-man, who gave himself as the only ransom for sinners, is the only mediator between God and people. There is no other name by which we must be saved. ⁹

Conservative evangelicals take such declarations to their logical conclusions, clinging to the traditional Christian maxim of extra ecclesium nulla salus or ‘no salvation outside the church’ and the Church as the elect of God. Some of the theological compromises Sookhdeo deduces from the works of some leading evangelical scholars and expresses concern about include ‘the Christian Church as the only people of God in the world today’ (emphasis added). ¹⁰

Fears of Syncretism

Evangelicals have also come to suspect and even believe that the purpose of interfaith dialogue is to seek common ground between the different traditions, and to harmonize them. These suspicions also arise from the readings of pluralist theologians who have consistently argued that ‘Truth’ is too big for one religion to claim monopoly over. Images of blind men holding on to and describing different parts of the elephant have been used to illustrate this point. A well-known African proverb, ‘Truth is like a baobab tree; one person’s arms cannot embrace it’, is often quoted to make the same point. WE Hocking, a proponent voice of the 1938 Mission Conference in Jerusalem, talks about the need for religions to embark upon ‘a common search for truth’. ¹¹ Alan Race, on his part, states that an essential feature of what he calls ‘tolerant pluralism’ is that ‘knowledge of God is partial in all faiths, including the Christian. Religions must acknowledge their need of each other if the full truth (emphasis added) about God is to be available to mankind.’ ¹²

Evangelicals regard the pluralists’ call for all religions to join hands in order to discover the ‘full truth about God’ as a wild goose chase that smells suspiciously syncretistic. Writing under the sub-heading: ‘Syncretism: The Danger of Interreligious Dialogue’, Jason Barker notes that the roots of interfaith dialogue can be traced back to the Ecumenical Movement whose main aim was to seek rapprochement between different Christian traditions. This rapprochement, he argues,

has been carried over into interreligious dialogue. The desire for commonality among Christian groups has been extended into a desire for establishing common ground between religions. Dialogue has thus become, for many in the interfaith and interreligious movements, simply another word for negotiation. The pursuit of common statements between adherents of different religions has frequently resulted in negotiations over doctrines and practice, with religious distinctives being compromised to attain unity. The name for this compromise is syncretism. ¹³

Evangelical Christians have raised the following methodological and theological questions. In the first place, what criteria are believers of the various religions going to use to determine the bits and pieces of the truth scattered in the different religious traditions? On the basis of the theory of John Hick’s ‘Copernican Revolution’, these pieces of truth in the different religions will be the areas of convergence. If this were to happen, what is the guarantee that the end result is not going to be just one large part of the proverbial elephant rather than the whole elephant? The whole idea of desiring to discover and know the totality of everything, including religious phenomena, is part of the postmodernist Western delusion. If I may dare speak on behalf of African believers, irrespective of religious tradition, there is agreement that religious phenomena by their very nature are ultimately inexhaustible. The overwhelming majority of African believers will accept the fact that in matters of religion there are some things that we do not know, cannot know and need not know. ¹⁴

Evangelical Christians regard Muslim demands for Christian recognition of Muhammad’s prophetic role as a classic case of theological negotiations and compromises within interfaith dialogue circles. The Muslim argument goes that since Islam accords Jesus a very special place and Muslims revere him as a prophet of God why, then, can’t Christians reciprocate this gesture by accepting Muhammad as prophet? In fact, not a few have stated very categorically that unless and until there is reciprocity on the Christian side on the status of Muhammad and other truth claims in Islam, there can be no genuine dialogue! ¹⁵

In response to the Muslim demands, Christians have been called upon to recognize Muhammad as prophet in some limited sense. ¹⁶ Some Christian scholars think that Muhammad is a prophet of God and that Christians must acknowledge him as Muslims do. Norman Daniel is of the opinion that ‘it is essential for Christians to see Muhammad as a holy figure; to see him, that is, as Muslims see him . . . if they do not do so, they must cut themselves off from Muslims’. ¹⁷ To the evangelical Christian mind, these are fraught with theological mine fields for both Muslims and Christians. For example, Mahmud Aydin accuses Kenneth Cragg of ‘reductionism’:

From the Muslim point of view Cragg’s generous suggestion that Christians should regard Muhammad as ‘the Prophet of the Qur’an’ is not as generous as he thinks. For, Muslims do not recognize Muhammad only as ‘the Prophet of the Qur’an’ but as Rasul Allah, the Messenger of God. According to this belief, Muhammad is not just a Prophet for the Arabs but a Prophet with a universal Message for all human beings. Hence, Cragg’s recognition of Muhammad as ‘the Prophet of the Qur’an’ is for Muslims nothing less than a betrayal of their faith. ¹⁸

Aydin goes on to state that ‘it is very difficult for a sensible Christian not to use the title ‘Prophet’ for Muhammad’ and that ‘Christians who refuse to use the title ‘Prophet’ for Muhammad offend Muslims and make it difficult to establish better relations with them’. ¹⁹ The difficulty with this position is that it is naïve if not hypocritical to think one can see Muhammad ‘as Muslims see him’ and remain non-Muslim. To see Muhammad as Muslims see him requires responding favourably to his message and so, inevitably, converting to Islam. To put it in perspective, a Muslim demand for Christians to acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet is like a Christian demand for Muslims to accept Jesus as Son of God and God Incarnate. As far as evangelical Christians are concerned, these demands are asking partners of dialogue to commit a confessional suicide, which is, surely, too great a price to pay for interfaith dialogue. ²⁰

Evangelicals are pretty much divided on specific theological questions such as Muhammad’s prophetic role, whether the Qur’an is the Word of God and whether Allah is the same as the Christian God. Progressive evangelicals will have no problem accepting Kenneth Cragg’s view that Muhammad is ‘the prophet of the Qur’an’. Some will prefer to say Muhammad is ‘the prophet of Islam’ and will consistently address him as such. ²¹ Conservative evangelicals on the other hand refuse to accord any prophetic status to Muhammad, continuing to regard him as a false prophet. Similarly on the question of the Qur’an, progressive evangelicals are happy to use it as a stepping-stone in Muslim evangelism. This is known as the ‘Camel Method’. Conservatives reject this method as according the Qur’an some revelatory status at par with the Bible. In the same way on the question of Allah and the Christian God, progressives keep an open mind with caveats whilst conservatives completely reject any suggestion that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

Dialogue, Mission and Evangelism

In line with the pluralist view that all religions are equally true ways of salvation, many have argued that propagation of one’s faith and converting others is not only incompatible with, but detrimental to, interfaith dialogue. At a Christian–Muslim dialogue meeting in the 1970s, a resolution was passed, under strong Muslim pressure, calling for the suspension of Christian missions in Muslim societies in order ‘to cleanse the atmosphere of Christian–Muslim relations’. ²² It is safe to say that evangelicals are united in their views that mission, evangelism and Christian witness are non-negotiables. The Lausanne Covenant makes the following declaration on evangelism:

Our Christian presence in the world is indispensable to evangelism, and so is that kind of dialogue whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand. But evangelism itself is the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Saviour and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God . . . Jesus still calls all who would follow him to deny themselves, take up their cross, and identify themselves with his new community. The results of evangelism include obedience to Christ, incorporation into his Church and responsible service in the world. ²³

Calls for the suspension of evangelism therefore sound like calls for ecclesiastical suicide to evangelical Christians, a price not worth paying for dialogue. Furthermore, evangelicals argue that other religions, especially Islam, do not only propagate and are actively engaged in converting others right across the world, but generally insist on their right to do so. They point to leading Muslim figures and organizations engaged in the aggressive propagation of Islam in many parts of the world and who are also actively involved in interfaith dialogue. Their integrity is not generally called into question, and so the question arises: if there is no conflict of principles between Islamic da՝wā and dialogue, why is there a problem with Christian mission and dialogue? The question of conflict and inconsistency, evangelicals have argued, lies in the fact that traditions like Islam, which enjoin propagation, criminalize the same activity and forbid the conversion of its members. But even more importantly, some have argued, any meaningful and genuine pluralism must include, not exclude, freedom of speech, choice and association. Any denial of any of these is a denial of the very fabric of pluralism.

Kenneth Cragg speaks for the vast majority of, if not all, evangelicals, when he argues that: ‘A true understanding of freedom, as freedom of movement of mind, demands that the option should exist’ and ‘freedom of belief must include freedom of disbelief’. This is so important, Cragg continues, because;

Freedom of conscience has an absolute value that transcends all special pleading. We are not seeking such changes primarily for the benefit of potential converts. Nor should thoughtful Muslims resist them for the sake of deterring such converts. ²⁴

For progressive evangelicals therefore, the understanding of propagation and dialogue is that while the former is primarily concerned with a change in the belief of the other, the latter is primarily concerned with a change in perceptions of and attitude towards the other. The two are closely intertwined. To this extent, interfaith dialogue has been described as ‘opportunistic for many evangelical Christians. Many evangelicals see dialogue as merely the first step in the evangelization process.’ ²⁵ For conservative evangelicals, ‘dialogue’ remains a dirty word, synonymous with compromise and going soft on Islam and Muslims. They insist on, and speak of, ‘confronting’ Islam and Muslims with biblical truth as well as exposing what they consider to be ‘falsehood’ and ‘dangers’ in Islamic teaching.

Lack of a Level Playing Field

In the opinion of many evangelicals, interfaith dialogue is driven by Western guilt complex. What passes off today as Christian–Muslim dialogue, in most cases, are Western–Muslim dialogue in which one party, the West, accepts culpability and is in constant repentance over historical events like the crusades, colonialism and contemporary Western foreign policies; whilst the Muslim parties in the dialogue plays the victim card by simply repeating historical and contemporary grievances. This sense of inherited guilt on the part of liberal Western Christians has led to what Bernard Lewis refers to as ‘voluntary censorship’ on the part of Western scholarship on Islam. ²⁶

This is the tendency of some, perhaps even most, Western scholars on Islam in particular to take a very critical and sometimes hostile view of the Christian past, and, not only to refrain from using the same critical approach in the study of the Muslim past, but in light of post-modern sensibilities, to tend to avoid the critical aspects of that history and focus mainly on the positive. Mainline post-modern Western discourse is now, therefore, facing increasing suspicion and criticism, mainly from within evangelical circles, for having moved from one extreme, i.e. Islamo-phobia (the fear and demonization of Islam), to another extreme, namely, what some have termed Islamo-philia (the love and romanticization of Islam). In other words the accusation is that orientalism has, in the name of dialogue, moved from the medieval demonization to a post-modernist romanticization of the Islamic heritage. ²⁷ Muslims on their part generally resort to idealizing and romanticizing the Islamic past while seeing the Christian past mainly if not solely in terms of the crusades.

Evangelicals accept the excesses, barbarity and vicious nature of the crusades and other historical mischief committed in the name of Christianity. However, they point to a millennium of Muslim conquests in the form of jihad, the brutality and massacres, pogroms, forced deportations, systematic persecution, and genocide of Eastern, Balkan and African Christian communities in Muslim lands over the centuries through the 20th century. Special reference is made Muslim anti-Christian purges aimed against the Armenian and Assyrian Christians. To quote a contemporary renown religion scholar, Philip Jenkins, on the issue,

The modern concept of genocide as a uniquely horrible act demanding international sanctions has its roots in the thoroughly successful movements to eradicate Middle Eastern Christians. ²⁸

Jenkins has no doubt that,

For all the reasons we can suggest for long-term decline, for all the temptations to assimilate, the largest single factor for Christian decline [in Muslim lands] was organized violence, whether in the form of massacre, expulsion, or forced migration. ²⁹

Evangelicals also point to the plight of Christian minorities in Muslim countries who face all sorts of discriminations, persecution and sporadic violence from Muslims in places like Egypt and Indonesia. It is common to hear Christians minorities in Muslim countries in Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Asia complain that Muslim asylum seekers enjoy greater rights in Europe than they do in their own countries. ³⁰

Leonard Swidler, one of the leading proponents of interfaith dialogue, has intimated that ‘Persons entering into interreligious, interideological dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious or ideological traditions’. ³¹ Evangelicals fully endorse the fact that ‘interreligious dialogue goes hand in hand with repentance for the past violence of our tradition’. ³² Christian partners in dialogue have therefore generally taken critical views of their traditions and history. Evangelicals in general and conservative evangelicals in particular, accuse Muslims partners in interfaith dialogue of being in denial of the dark sides of Islamic history and playing the ostrich when it comes to critically engaging Islamic traditions and source books. Evangelicals argue that there can be no dialogue where one party refuses to acknowledge the difficult issues in his/her tradition and resorts to propaganda and futile semantics while the other relishes in self-criticism if not self-repudiation. Interfaith dialogue in general and Christian–Muslim dialogue in particular, in the minds of most evangelicals, has become a passing of courtesies by a few specialists, ‘the fringe activity of a small minority that is itself on the fringes of its own religious tradition’. ³³

In the wake of September 11, one repeated charge against the West in its attitude towards Islam and Muslims is that Westerners are ignorant of Islam. Western media demonises and presents stereotypical images of Islam and Muslims and these have combined to create a general fear of Islam and hatred of Muslims in Western societies. There have been repeated calls for Westerners to change their attitude towards Islam and Muslims. Many Western journalists, politicians, clergy and academics have responded to the calls by making genuine efforts to redress the situation. Some have since become self-appointed public relations officers for Islam. Most of these experts have taken upon themselves the task of presenting a ‘correct’ and ‘objective’ interpretation of Islam to the Western public.

The concerns within certain evangelical circles are that while everyone is talking about educating the non-Muslim world and the West about Islam, very few are talking about educating Muslims about their own religion, let alone educating Muslims about Christianity. Some evangelicals have argued that if all the talk and pronouncements that al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the millions of Muslims who silently and openly sympathise and support are extremist deviants is true, then Muslims need education about their own religion more than anyone else. After all, they argue, it is Muslims and not Westerners who tarnish the image of Islam by carrying out violence in the name of their religion. ³⁴

Some evangelicals have pointed out that while the talk about educating the non-Muslim world about Islam is right, the way it is being done gives the impression that ignorance, stereotypical views, and xenophobia against is a Western monopoly. They say anyone with minimal knowledge of the Muslim, especially the Arab, world will admit that there is just as much, if not more, ignorance, stereotyping, demonizing and what some have called ‘Westophobia’ in the Muslim world about non-Muslims in general and Jews, Christians and Westerners in particular. ³⁵ The Arab League convened a meeting in Cairo in 2002 with the aim of mounting a campaign in the West to ‘educate’ Westerners on Islam and Arab culture and civilisation. The question is whether Muslim governments would welcome and encourage symmetrical initiatives to educate their populations about Christianity and Western culture and civilisation?

It has to be said that while evangelical Christians agree on the fact that while Christians admit their collective guilt, Muslims seldom do so, so that ‘dialogue’ can be very skewed, they differ in their response to the situation. Conservative evangelicals are of the view that repeated Christian sense of remorse and apologies over past historical events like the crusades are uncalled for and damaging to the Christian cause. Progressives query thus: ‘But is it not right for Christians to confess where they have been wrong? Should we refrain from what we believe to be right just because it might be advantageous to us to do so?’ On the whole, progressive evangelicals, driven by biblical imperatives and missionary considerations, would identify with what is called the ‘Grace Approach’, which insist on reaching out to Muslims in love despite the problematic aspects of Islam. Most are critical, especially of US foreign policy and some are openly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause for instance.

The overall message of the conservatives, on the other hand, is that of deep suspicion and fear of Islam, Muslims, governments, liberal Christians and other evangelicals. Driven mainly by political concerns and ideological motivations, to them Islam is deeply flawed and inherently violent. There can be hardly any rapprochement between Muslims and Christians. Conservative evangelicals subscribe to dispensationalism and are strongly pro-Israel in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In its extreme manifestations, they encourage people to see Muslims as the Anti-Christ, they cannot even be converted to Christianity and that those who say they have become Christians are in fact practicing taqiyya or dissimulation. They paint a picture of a western society in which governments, the media, the Church and lots of evangelical leaders are being duped by Islam and Muslim practice of taqiyya.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is safe to say that evangelical Christian attitudes towards interfaith dialogue has gone through a sea change in the post 9/11 world moving away from indifferent and very negative attitudes to an emerging openness and engagement in dialogue with other religions. Evangelical engagement with Islam and Muslims in the post-9/11 world, however, is proving to be just as divisive between the progressives and conservatives as it was in the pre-9/11 world between evangelical and liberal Christians. It is safe to conclude that the conservatives are working themselves into isolation as they now seem to be directing their attacks on the progressives accusing key high profile evangelicals with deep knowledge of Islam and experience in the Muslim world, of selling out to Islam.