Sacramental Politics: Religious Worship as Political Action

This is a book that reads like a PhD thesis which has been slightly redacted for more public consumption. As such, it is not a book that many will find easy going: it has a lot of detail; it is extensively end-noted; there is a good amount of presentation of texts and commentary on them. The texts, in this case, are mostly transcripts or the written basis of spoken prayers or of speeches.

I was disappointed that the pdf copy I have had not been properly prepped for reading in this way: the footnotes were not hyperlinked between the main text and the footnote. I hope that this might be fixed in any other e-versions that might be released.

I have to say that one of the effects on me of reading this book was that I became more deeply concerned and at times scared by what I was reading. That may sound a bit dramatic and it would do so particularly to many readers who might be from the USA. And there is a degree of irony in that since we are considering a nation in which the separation of Church and state is highly valued constitutionally enshrined. And yet, this book seems to show that this separation seems to be less in some respects than in Britain where we have, in theory, an established church. My fear at reading the research in this book is for the way that USAmerican influence might be prodded and pushed along by a form of religion which is not good for the global community (let alone for its host nation).

The form of religion which I saw as I read the research presented in this book is one in which the global dominance of the USA is pretty much equated with the will of God. It reminded me so much of how Victorian England seems to have viewed itself (and now we are beginning to understand the history better we can see more readily how much Godly values were betrayed by that empire). I don't think I'd truly grasped the depth of popular USAmerican exceptionalism until I read the way that public prayers in The USA assume and promote that the Kingdom of God is pretty much co-terminous with USAmerican interests. Of course, there is, for many on the political right there, a contradiction -given the vehemence with which liberal values are attacked as ungodly- when a Democratic regime is in power. This contradiction, is in practice resorved by the fact that in foreign policy terms, a Democratic regime is scarcely any different. Just as in the British Empire, it seemed to make little difference whether Whigs or Tories were running the government: military power continued to be used worldwide to asset-strip and terrorise colonies and trading 'partners'.

This poisonous mix of religion (and not just formally Christian, either) and chauvinism is seen expressed and assumed in prayers and rhetoric. And for the rest of us it is deeply scary and gives no real sense of benevolence to the rest of the world; so we have to live with edgy appeasement or fearful opposition. here is Empire and the Constantinian settlement is alive and well. The problem is, we are the barbarians in this way of looking at the world.

There is some let up from the mostly disturbing and grim picture revealed. Some of the confluence of prayer and politics shows those with concern for the marginalised, poor and for respite from violence and militarism enacting their prayers also into public space. But, of course, that happens to fit my own understanding of Godly values. I keep hearing in my mind's ear one of Cromwell's better insights expressed thus: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, to think that you could be wrong". This exposes the biggest problem of all in so much of what the research shows up: the lack of humility to consider that we may have insights and something of the mind of Christ to learn from those we consider or have presented to us as 'enemies'.

I kept longing for the prayers to show some recognition that the prayists might have misunderstood God's will or that some insight into God's purposes might be gleaned from people who take a different view and therefore to pursue some kind of consensus building approaches. Instead so many of the prayers were, in effect, a presentation before God of the dialogue of the close-minded.

Of course, God is not the only audience and on page 46 (electronically. p.35 otherwise) a helpful reminder is given:

"all public prayer contains an important difference from that of private prayer: the addition of a public audience. Even in the case of someone praying/speaking in tongues (that is, speaking in sounds not understandable by the speaker or even other people present), such rhetoric cannot be considered as only for the divine"

I think that this is an important thing to remember and is a matter I am currently reflecting on as I write Hacking the Prayer Meeting (if that's what it ends up being called): noting that we have to pay attention to the social effects and reception of acts of praying within and beyond a prayer meeting. Sacramental Politics is doing us a service by reminding us that such a reception has, necessarily, political effects and even Political heft.

Quibbles

On p.21, we're informed: 'For faithful Catholics, transubstantiation does not occur gradually or as a process; rather, it occurs instantaneously when the priest utters the “Words of Initiation.”' Of course, there's a typo there or a lapse of the keyboard: these are the words of "Institution".

Then, next sentence, we're also told 'The priest speaks into existencethe transformation by saying “this is my body” (for the bread) and “this is ...my blood” for the wine. Without these words spoken, transubstantiation does not occur.' There are two problems with this, and I have chatted with Roman Catholic priests who confirm the points I'm about to make. First, we should be aware that transubstantiation isn't a dogma in the RC doctrinal framework, merely one way to express and defend the assertion of the Real Presence. The other point is that in official RC theology, the words of institution do not constitute transubstantiation or make the Presence of Christ real. The reason for this is that there is an eastern rite church in communion with the Bishop of Rome which has a Eucharistic prayer in which there is no narrative or words of institution. This church's prayer is considered to be Catholic by the Roman Church. But this really is only a quibble in this context, since the main point is unaffected by it.


Link-Love: 
Brian Kaylor's website
Brian on Twitter
Brian on Facebook
Brian- Linkedin
Sacramental Politics - Amazon

#SpeakeasySacramentalPolitics
I should point out that I received an electronic copy of this book via Speakeasy in return for agreeing to post a review within 30 days. The review need not be favourable.

Sacramental Politics: Religious Worship as Political Action (Frontiers in Political Communication): Amazon.co.uk: Brian Kaylor: 9781433126154: Books

New Evangelical Manifesto; neighbouring Muslims

How do New Evangelicals relate to the religiously other? One of the most important test cases in this would be Muslims, and the appositely-name Rick Love takes up the task in this collection of addressing it. The interesting flash-point of departure is the question from a Muslim about why his Christian street-neighbour appeared to love his family less than did the non-Christian street-neighbours -a question intensified by  it being a response to a presentation stating that Christians are to love God and to love their neighbours as themselves. This leads into a reflection on why a Christian might treat a Muslim neighbour less generously than non-believing neighbours might treat them. Rick Love identifies three things that probably contribute to this sad state of affairs. One is terrorism and the ill-treatment of Christian communities in some Muslim-majority societies. A second is a theological bias to Israel and thus against Muslim middle-easterners. The third is negative stereotyping. And so in the face of this 'fear that drives out love' (nice soundbite); how should we seek to replace fear with love. Rick Love writes from a background well-able to remind us of the great diversity of 1.5 bn of the world's population -as against the stereotyping based on worst-cases. He points out that many perhaps 50% of Muslims are from a Sufi background where the love of God is more important than the externals of religion; where the poetry of Rumi is considered an important inspiration. Such an Islam is resistant to terrorism and more favourable to peace-making. It's a form of Islam which often sees Jesus as an inspirational figure. An interesting reflection on probable figures would indicate that there are probably about as many terrorists among the Muslim population as there are KKK members amongst Christians in the USA.

The chapter explores the interesting suggestion that Muslims are the new Samaritans -in terms of the way that Jesus related to them in the context of the NT. And it is followed up with a contemporary parable of the Good Samaritan with a Muslim family playing the role of the good Samaritan.

What I found interesting, because it's something I've become concerned about; is the critique of friendship evangelism because it violates the pure and direct obedience to the command to love neighbour by making serving them and genuinely befriending them instrumental to their conversion. Of course it is possible to love by sharing the most important beliefs we have; but that needs to find its place genuinely as love rather than a duplicitous ruse to propagandise.

The racial dimension of God's mission is the topic Lisa Sharon Harper tackles in chapter 11. "Is America a postracial society" (yeah, I know, the question assumes that the USA is America -Canada? Mexico? Brazil? ...) and reminds us of a series of issues and events of the 1990's when racism was very much an issue and the USA very much not 'postracial'. One of those issues was how the churches responded to the challenges, an example of Promise Keepers trying to address race but without realising that cultural power was (is) an important dimension of the matter. The problem here was/is that the individualism ('personal salvation through an individual decision for Christ') frames racial issues that way, and elide structural and culturally-wide dimensions. In fact dismiss them as distractions from personal (individual) responsibility. For white evangelicals, living self-segregated lives; the experience of encountering structural unrighteousness is rare and so the a-political view of the world is rarely challenged in a meaningful way. I'm reminded of the British evangelicalism that I was introduced to in the 70's and 80's which was heavily formed by public-school and elite university leadership and naturally tended to take the same sort of approach. But here, somehow, a lot of that changed. Perhaps it was the fair-trade and drop-the-debt campaigns combined with growing awareness of needs of our inner cities because these are actually mission fields and encounter bred fuller understanding and broader engagement. (That's not to say British Evangelicalism is hunky-dory on the race front).

Much of the chapter is a telling of USAmerican history of race and racial discrimination. the point being to show how fiscal and political instruments helped to create and solidify white domination and so to remind us that similar instruments are needed to redress matters. The word 'repentance' is chosen for this. Evangelicals were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement -but it turns out that this was something of a high-water mark and since then the movement has tended to quiescently take the segregationist side. But that is to fail to love neighbour.

Hot 'Crescent' buns upset some Christians in RSA

 This is one of theose stories where there is a tem[tation to say, with Marge Simpson; "There are so many things wrong with that, I don't know where to begin."

A retailer in South Africa has had to remove the Muslim food certification symbol of a crescent from the packaging on some of its hot cross buns after conservative Christians complained.

Is it worse that the retailer removed the symbol or that those Christians complained? The latter seems a bit 'precious'. Personally I'd be delighted to know 'my' hot cross buns would be halal and even kosher (unlikely, I suspect) it seems to me it'd represent a step forward in interfaith relations. I'd have been more expectant of seeing something about Muslims objecting that a halal council had approved something with a cross on it and strong associations with the crucifixion which most Muslims have traditionally denied (based on what I believe to be a misreading of the Qur'an). In other circumstances I could see these Christians celebrating that the 'gospel' was being sybolically proclaimed to Muslims. Looks like the 'fan' /'tribally-religious' instinct won out in this case; it's funny how some people seem to look for excuses to be offended. And to interpret it as 'turning their backs on Christians', well, words fail me. Part of me wants to say 'grow up'. And to Woolies, who gave in: if you give in to this now you'll be at it for ever...
Hot Crescent Buns Upset Christians in South Africa | The Jakarta Globe:

Dutch Muslim MP launches anti-fatwa campaign | Radio Netherlands Worldwide

I love the sound of this, but I can't help feeling that it may not turn out to be such a big deal. If it did, then it'd be rather like the Wittenburg Door receiving the 95 theses at the hands of Martin Luther. Though, I gather, that there were perhaps quite a few people proposing similar things (and had been for 150 years or more -witness Lollardy in England in around 1350). So perhaps its not that some Muslims are thinking like this, but whether there is a 'critical mass' of Muslims who think similarly. And of course, that's a question about the historical/cultural moment.
Dutch MP launches anti-fatwa campaign | Radio Netherlands Worldwide: “The Last Fatwa”, aims to “free Muslims from top-down decrees issued by a handful of scholars”. Muslims, the Dutch MP says, “should learn to think independently and make their own choices”.
The intriguing thing, and scary, of course, is that an anticlericalism (that is, anti-ulemaism) is part of the discourse of some at least of those we currently fear -the Islamists. What I'm not sure about but suspect, is that in this case the anti-ulemaic impetus may have something to do with disallowing critiques of their homicidal tendencies using established traditions and authority structures to remind them of uncomfortable and well-established (and often humane evolutions of) thinking based on Islamic sources and consensus. But then, that describes the situation at the Reformation in Europe, and let's not forget that our current religious pluralism is a result at least in part of religious violence and finding ways to get beyond it whilst allowing for freedom of thought and conscience.

So the question remains; is this the right time for this the right time for a reformation and is this the right way in?

What's the French for burqa?

Written the day before the French law regarding facial covering in public (the actual title en Anglais is The Bill Prohibiting Facial Dissimulation in a Public Place) came into force. I'd meant to write about it then but "life got in the way" it'll be interesting to see how it works out.. The article is here: Libert�, �galit�, fraternit� – unless, of course, you would like to wear a burqa | Viv Groskop | Comment is free | The Observer:
Now the way it works is interesting, perhaps even quite clever:
"if they wear a veil over their face in a public place, anyone can ask them to uncover their face – or leave. ... If a woman refuses to co-operate, citizens are advised to call the police. The fine is €150."
I say possibly it is clever because it relies on activist citizens to enforce it. So if people aren't really bothered it come to be a dead letter: though, of course it would remain a bully's charter in those circumstances.
I must confess I'm also wondering whether we will see political opponents monkeying around with this. Now the article seems good at putting the arguments in favour though comes out unhappy at the illiberality of it -a perspective I tend to share. I'd rather they didn't but I'm sure I don't want to criminalise those who do -I can think of some styles of dress I'd far rather criminalise if we were to go down that road and most of them involve more cloth not less!

Anyway one comment would offer a potential test case and, having just been reading up about EHR equality legislation this is very opposite:

Presumably, it's now against the law in France to attend a fancy dress party dressed as Zorro or Catwoman. Because if there's one rule for one set of people who cover their face, that same rule should surely apply to anyone whose face is not immediately visible

.
So political opponents prepared to go into non-violennt resistance mode could do precisely those things and see what the reaction is. I'll leave you to work out the ramifications depending on whether people do or don't react to Zorro, catwoman or Spiderman in the boulevards and rues. Anyway let's see if that happens particularly in the ski season ...

And then there are the reductio ad absurdam cases:

Le Figaro has already expressed distress that it is technically against the law to wear a ski mask in a public place. Bad news for the black run at Val d'Isère. Aren't there some rampant beards that might sprout dangerously in the direction of facial dissimulation? What happens if you make your living as Papa Noel at Nouvelles Galeries' answer to Santa's grotto?

Presumably there will be case law approaches develop; but how they can do so without falling foul of EHRC is an interesting point and one to watch.

When Baghdad was centre of the scientific world

I sometimes point out in lectures on early Islam and Christianity that the Islamic empire seems to have expanded militarily so quickly that it outstripped the ability of the conquerors to supply elites and civil servants to run the societies they now ruled. Result? Christians -among others- were often holders of high office in early Islam. This of course nuances the claim you may sometimes hear Muslims make as to the civilisational credentials of Islam -sometimes it was Christians under Muslim patronage who were doing the 'heavy lifting': "The most famous of all the Baghdad translators, Hunayn ibn Ishāq, was born in the ancient Christian city of Hira and never converted to Islam. He would spend many years travelling around the world in his search for Greek manuscripts. It is the medical work of the physician Galen that is his most important legacy, for not only did it open up the Islamic world to this great treasure, in many cases it is only via these Arabic translations that much of Galen's work reaches us today."
The article (When Baghdad was centre of the scientific world) mentions the philosophical importance of Al Kindi. Interestingly there was another Al Kindi around who was a Christian and whose contribution was to offer apologetic arguments in relation to Islam.

Anyway, worth looking at the article to get a sense of an Islam that was not (is not) obscurantist but rather a progressive partner in human flourishing.

How to become a real Muslim

This article sets out helpfully a basic set of issues around the presence of Islam in Europe: Eurozine - How to become a real Muslim - Kenan Malik:

Among the things that I though helpful was this reminder of how lumping people together under one label can be really misleading:

"If there is no such thing as a set of 'European values' that transcend time, the same is true of 'Islamic values'."

The point being that cultural change means that to keep things the same, you have to change and as change takes place in relation to various changes in life, history, technology etc different responses emphasise different aspects and understandings of the received tradition as the best resources to guide responses. The article before this point notes how 'European' values as we tend now to think of them are actually likely to have been unrecognisable, even shocking, to some of the 'founding fathers' of European Enlightenment who may well have found many 'Islamic values' more familiar and understandable.

And so this applies to Islam:

Islam, like all religions, comprises both a set of beliefs and a complex of social institutions, traditions and cultures that bind people in a special relationship to a particular conception of the sacred. Over the centuries, those institutions and cultures have transformed the reading of the Qur'an and the practice of Islam. Religions, like all social forms, cannot stand still. Islam today can no more be like the Islam of the seventh century than Mecca today can look like the city of Mohammed's time

And by the way, that's a pretty neat definition of religion back there: I like the way that belief and institutions (plural) are held together in it and the idea of binding people in relation to their shared understanding of 'the sacred'. I'm also interested in the way that particular readings of certain texts in the Qur'an have become de rigueur and unchallengeable through dint of historical developments when in fact they do seem tenuous and even unhelpful. For example, the now traditional interpretation of the verse that is taken to deny the crucifixion would, most naturally (as Kenneth Cragg argues, I believe) be interpreted in tandem with similar phrases elsewhere describing, eg, the outcome of the battle of Badr as denying decisive human agency in such events rather than that they happened. But the perceived necessity to differentiate from Christians was more important than historical defensibility and now Islam has a tremendous apologetic hurdle to get over; denying the crucifixion of Jesus is pretty tough to maintain and the Qur'an probably doesn't maintain it.

And so while this is true

"The key question", the French sociologist Olivier Roy points out, "is not what the Koran actually says, but what Muslims say the Qur'an says." Muslims continually disagree on what the Qur'an says, he adds dryly, "while all stressing that the Koran is unambiguous and clear-cut."

The interpretation of the crucifixion seems to be a no-go area for reinterpretation. Even secular Muslims seem reluctant to go there speculatively.

But then the next bit reminded me of RE lessons I used to take on Islam where I would show a Muslim graphic depiction of Muhammed and point out that the supposed prohibition had not always and everywhere been true in Islam.

The prohibition against such depictions only emerged in the 17th century. Even over the past 400 years, a number of Islamic, especially Shiite, traditions have accepted the pictorial representation of Muhammed..

The article then goes on to dig out the context behind the Danish cartoon furore, and it turns out that Muslims of the more radical drift needed some prodding and encouragement to get with the plot of controversy. And this produces a media product: a definition of Islam for western liberal consumption.

In liberal eyes, in other words, to be a real Muslim is to find the cartoons offensive. Once Muslim authenticity is so defined, then only a figure such as Abu Laban can be seen as a true Muslim voice. The Danish cartoons, as Jytte Klausen observed, "have become not just a tool for extremism but also created a soap opera in the West about what Muslims 'do' with respect to pictures'. Or, as Naser Khader has put it, "What I find really offensive is that journalists and politicians see the fundamentalists as the real Muslims."

The liberal west has helped to create and foster the monster it decries. It has given an appearance of legitimacy to the more extreme voices and portrayed them as if they are most authentic. Interestingly, I think, the same may now be happening with Christianity whereas previously less extreme versions tended to be seen as more authentic. I think that a big part of the problem in this respect is the 'need' in popular media to create clear dramatic stories and to do that extreme positions produce conflictual situations or at least the possibility of portraying them and these make for stories that are easy to follow and promote.

Qur’an burning: “an unnecessary, offensive and dangerous gesture”

On this I definitely agree with Patrick Sookhdeo:
"...the biblical and Christ-like way to [protest Muslim injustices] is by speaking the truth in the power of God’s love, and by extending that love to Muslim people even when they are hostile to us. In that context it can never be justified to destroy a book that Muslims regard as sacred, however firmly and profoundly we may disagree with its contents. The effect of the proposed action on Christians in Muslim-majority contexts is likely to be extremely serious. Already Muslim militants in Indonesia have promised to kill Indonesian Christians if Qur’ans are burned in Florida, and the history of anti-Christian violence in the country suggests that this is not an idle threat. Barnabas partners in Iraq have expressed concern at the probable Muslim backlash against an already beleaguered Iraqi Church. And Christians in numerous other places who live in daily fear of potentially deadly attacks will at once be placed in much greater danger. It cannot be right to exercise our freedom to protest in a way that puts at risk the lives of our brothers and sisters, for whom Christ died."
See here for the whole open letter to Dove World Outreach Centre and its supporters. Hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Qur’an burning: “an unnecessary, offensive and dangerous gesture”:

Christianity, the Enlightenment and Islam

I've already noted a while back that this whole thing with "Three Faiths' fora" and Abrahamic religions is not something we, as Christians, should jump at, in fact we should suspect, perhaps, the Islamic theological perspective that they favour. So it's a bit interesting to have a different kind of 'co-belligerency' proposed here: Christianity, the Enlightenment and Islam - ABC Religion & Ethics - Opinion:

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali ... concluded her recent article on the ABC's Religion and Ethics website, 'Seeking God, but finding Allah,' by praising Pope Benedict XVI's stance on Islam and calling for an alliance between atheists and what she calls 'enlightened Christians' in their struggle against a common foe."

It's interesting to see such a proposal from an Atheist camp. However, despite my skepticism about Abrahamic faiths as a way of divvying up the religious universe, I'm not so sure about this one. I'm not sure that 'co-belligerency' is a good way to go. It smacks of Girard's mimetic violence thing and I think that it probably is not the way of Christ.

The article itself -which simply starts with Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a foil- goes on to give a lot of good reasons why we should both look askance at the proposal and also give it some consideration. Perhaps we should expect that from the likes of John Millbank. There's also some good observations about the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam which are the kind of thing that 'beginners' in the endeavour would do well to look over. Altogether a nice, brief and helpful reflection.

 

Konnie Huq 'engaged' to Charlie Brooker - News, People - The Independent

I seem to recall (and the name tends to confirm it) that Konnie is Muslim by background and has even 'owned' that identity pulblicly. So this is interesting: "Konnie Huq has become engaged to Screenwipe host and writer Charlie Brooker."

Watch out for follow up stories with one of two probable lines: one would be that Charlie Brooker is converting to Islam; the other would be that Konnie Huq is being denounced for haram conduct (Sunnah doesn't allow a Muslimah to marry a non Muslim man).

Though there may be something more to be explored by why "engaged" is 'engaged' in the headline and without scare quotes in the text...

Konnie Huq 'engaged' to Charlie Brooker - News, People - The Independent

Ulterior motives?

"To approach the dialogue process without this awareness, as some evangelicals seem to have done, is to run the risk of manipulation by international Islamic interests. We are concerned that some of the Muslim leaders involved in the Common Word project may be manipulating Christian naïveté and feelings of guilt to further the cause of Islamic da‘wa"
- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Given that many Muslims think that this is what western Christians are up to, this smacks of pot calling kettle black. Especially as in some cases it is actually true of some westerners, Evangelicals in particular. It is hard, therefore to be entirely sympathetic with the statement that follows: "To approach the dialogue process... as some evangelicals seem to have done, is to run the risk of manipulation by international Islamic interests. We are concerned that some of the Muslim leaders involved in the Common Word project may be manipulating Christian naïveté and feelings of guilt to further the cause of Islamic da‘wa "

We should recall that part of the mission of Christians is dialogue: it is directly implied by neighbour love, incarnation and the blessing of peacemakers. By all means do it as 'cunning as serpents and innocent as doves', though.

in reference to:

Yes, but that misses the point

I also agree that, of necessity, certain Christian doctrines are likely to offend Muslim sensibilities (and this has always been the case in mission: some gospel stuff cuts across accepted mores or 'politeness' fields). However, that is not the issue named earlier in the paragraph. The statement allegedly being taken issue with says: "Da‘wa and evangelism should focus primarily on a positive presentation of what one believes, not on negative attacks on the other's faith". This is not about the inherent incompatibilities of different world views and the potential thereby for degrees of offence, rather it is saying, in effect "no negative campaigning', don't set out to offend, don't build your communication around denigration; build it round a positive presentation of what you value and believe rather than what you don't believe. Don't be abusive or argumentative ....

in reference to: Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Lest you think that I think it's a bad article:

I agree with the writer here:

"While in certain contexts it might be wise to perform a secret baptism so as to protect the convert, Love seems to go beyond that precautionary attitude and to be willing to subordinate a basic Christian rite and doctrine to Muslim perceptions. He also ignores the context of this special baptism, in which the Pope was responding to complaints by converts from Islam in the West that the Church was ignoring them and their plight and was not willing to offer them protection and refuge."

A robust dialogue with Muslims means that Muslims have to deal with the fact of Muslim-backgrounded people turning to Christ (just as we have to deal with the reverse situation). I don't expect Muslims to change their practices for reception into Islam and I don't expect that they should assume we would change ours. This is part of the point of the statement engineered by Philip Lewis referred to previously, incidently.

in reference to:

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

There's so much wrong with this I hardly know where to begin ...

"it is only through the unique Messiah Jesus that salvation is offered and only in the Church He founded as His body that fellowship is to be practised. The Insider Movement encourages Muslim background believers to distance themselves from traditional Christian forms, but rather than returning to the New Testament paradigm, it at least implicitly endorses Muslim doctrines, rites and traditions, many of which were developed in conscious opposition to Christianity and the Bible"

First: the appeal to the Samaritan woman does not refute the Insider position: if anything it may support it: if salvation is really in the Messiah and worship de-localised, then that is no problem to the C5 Insider; rather the reverse: it is the fetishising of 'Christian' culture, buildings and religiosity that is the problem in a similar way to the fetishising of Temple and Kashrut.

The other major thing is the blind spot this exhibits to the 'compromises' made with culture and religion in the course of western cultural and mission history; it smacks of pulling up the ladder after we've climbed up. Every problematisation of C5 stuff in this paragraph can be paralleled with 'acceptable' things in western Christianity.

This is not to say that there aren't problems with the C5 Insider position, but they aren't quite those presented here. Furthermore, the presentation here is unfair on the actual issues 'in the field' and the ways that those involved wrestle with them.

I still think that there is serious merit in the thought that 'if it doesn't risk syncretism, it isn't mission'.

in reference to:

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Inconsistent scaremongering?

in reference to:

"These notes use the Qur'an to help shed light on the Biblical narrative. The notes suggest (albeit only by implication) that the Qur'an is somehow, and to some extent, authoritative and useful in Bible study, as it sheds new light on God's Word. The Bible is not to be understood only in its own terms, but also in light of the Qur'an."

I'm finding myself increasing irritated by the slurring involved in this kind of argument. In principle, the notes referred to are probably not doing anything different from using, say, the poetry of Tennyson (or Paul's use of Greek poetry or John's use of stoic ideas) as dialogue partners for considering our own scriptures. In fact we all do this all the time: we interpret the scripture through the lens of our own experience, concerns and pre-understandings. This doesn't mean we are elevating such things to the same status as the Word of God; merely that we are seeking to integrate the Word into our thought patterns more thoroughly and to give the space for scripture to help us to view the world around us more insightfully and wisely. In principle this is what we should be doing, cannot avoid doing, in fact.

I therefore take issue with the sly implication that to do this is to subordinate scripture to something else. The implication of this passage is that the Bible should be hermetically sealed off from other areas of experience, thought or nurturance. To take someone else's designation of something as a source of reflection or authority seriously is not necessarily to agree with them. It merely means recognising that it is so for them. Unless we do that, we cannot do the work of trying to make connections between what we believe to be important and what 'they' believe to be important.

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

This is not what the text says

in reference to:

"the document encourages Christian and Muslim preachers to say only things about the other religion that are well received by their neighbours and colleagues from it. This principle appears to suggest that no Christian critique of Islam can ever be legitimate, and might even be seen by some as an implicit acceptance of dhimmi status, which forbids non-Muslims to do anything objectionable to Muslims."

The text referred to actually talks about not saying things that the other would not recognise. It is phrased in such a way as to allow critical comment but to disallow or discourage unfair criticism. So it would allow Muslims to say that Christian religion has been used to justify morally repugnant acts in the Crusades, however, it should discourage them from making the accusation that the doctrine of the Trinity is polytheism. Far from a reproduction of the conditions for a cowed dhimmitude it is actually a call to truth-telling and the discipline of neighbour love: to do to the other what we would have them do to us; in this case to speak fairly and charitably. I fear that this bit of the statement is in danger of failing that test.

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

How many infinite transcendent-yet-immanent Creators of the cosmos can there be?

The article near the beginning says:

""believers in the One God", a phrase that assumes the word "God" to have the same referent in Islam and in Christianity."

This is ridiculous and really ought to be lost from Evangelical discourse. How can the referent be any other than the same? It may be that our understandings of some aspects of 'God' are different but that would be on a par with a dispute about whether one of my friends was, say, opinionated: no one seriously doubts the person in question is my friend; it is the way they act in some situations and how that is to be interpreted that is at issue.in reference to:

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Inclusivism or pluralism?

I'm concerned here that the word 'inclusivism' is used when I think that something else is meant:

 "The liberal tradition of Christianity, which dominates the Christian presence at the interfaith table, has long espoused a theology of ecumenical inclusivism"

What appears to be meant, using the following sentences as a guide, is 'pluralism'. Inclusivism is a position which is not pluralist and is also not exclusivist. I'm concerned that by lumping the label inclusivism with liberal 'pluralism' a theological straw man is being moved into position to only allow exclusivism as the legitimate 'Evangelical' position. Even if I'm being too sensitive at this point, the misuse of the term still needs to be flagged up so as not to mislead readers in other discussions where the terms are used in the more generally accepted ways.
in reference to:

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Dates before Twin Towers fall

So far this article is an interesting account of interfaith and dialogue initiatives between Muslims and Christians. The article started by framing this as an after the Twin Towers thing. These following dates, however, are before that incident. That's not to invalidate what's being written here, but it is important to note that the issues predate the 'crisis'.
in reference to:

"in 1997. He helped set up a joint Christian-Muslim Planning Group in 2000 and a larger Reference Group of Christian and Muslim leaders in 2001"
- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Malaysian court: Christians can worship Allah

This seems to be the obverse of an attitude some of our students come with (and sometimes leave with): that 'Allah' is a Muslim God.
Attacks after Malaysian court rules Christians can worship Allah - Times Online: "many Malaysian Muslims, who make up 60 per cent of the population, say that Allah should be reserved to refer exclusively to the Muslim deity and that use of it in a Biblical context encourages conversion to Christianity, a crime under the country’s Islamic laws."
The attitude by both some Muslims in Malaysia and some Christians in the UK and USA ignores the fact that Arabic-speaking Christians have no other 'ordinary' word for God. We should note that both sides are doing their theology in a language other than the original language concerned and have imported the word into their own languages.

I could say more but I'll leave it for now. It is, however, an interesting study in sociolinguistics as well as theology and interfaith dialogue.