The World Evangelical Alliance has responded to a Muslim overture for interfaith dialogue by saying its members want to “live in peace with Muslims” but disagree with their view of God.
Last fall, more than 100 Islamic clerics and scholars issued their open document, “A Common Word Between Us and You,” to call on Christians to join them in a belief “that we shall worship none but God, and that we will ascribe no partner to him.”
The evangelical alliance, in a four-page response released March 29, said the document’s use of Quranic statements about God having no partner reveal a key difference between Christianity and Islam.
“Even though we are convinced that you misunderstand our doctrine of God being Three in One, when you speak about a `partner’ of God, we are convinced of the truth of Trinity and, therefore, we cannot accept your invitation,” wrote the Rev. Geoff Tunnicliffe, the alliance’s international director.
I’m glad someone was a little more “proactive” on this matter. [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=446]My own response is here[/url].
Conversation must be with respect on both sides. Asking Christians not to “ascribe partners” to God is misunderstanding Christian belief.
vulcanhammer, a good post. Thanks.
Great piece, Vulcanhammer. The money quote in it for this thread is when you say:
I thought the same thing at the time. Which raises an interesting question: why did so many prominent Christians sign it without at least asking the Muslims for a point of clarification? The reason to my mind is that many of them have unconsciously drifted toward Unitarianism. They don’t understand at a deep pastoral and devotional level why the doctrine of the Trinity is so incredibly crucial. That’s why their sermons in pulpits are often filled with a generic reference to “God” but not to the God-Man Jesus.
Thank you, Katherine and Jon, for your kind words.
Jon, I think one reason why so many signed this without such serious consideration is that they didn’t want to appear “intolerant.” What they did not understand is that, when we deal with Muslims, we deal with people who don’t look at things the way we do. It’s really better to state your differences in a clear and rational way. They may not care for your response (and you may not care for theirs either) but they respect you more. It’s too easy to look at the response that some gave them as a sign of weakness, and that’s a major problem, especially in the Middle East.
Then again, there are too many people in this world who are prepared to sign anything, [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/unusual/anything.php]as I found out in business many years ago[/url].
[url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=595]I recently wrote a piece concerning a debate on the veneration of icons, where I brought up the life of John of Damascus. He was employed by a Muslim caliph, but that didn’t stop him from producing one of the first Christian critiques of Islam, and engaging them in forceful discussion.[/url]
Kendall, thanks for posting this. Has anyone got the link to the full 4 page statement by the WEA? I’d like to read it. The summary article provides a quote that I find confusing without reading the document:
[i]”Even though we are convinced that you misunderstand our doctrine of God being Three in One, when you speak about a `partner’ of God, we are convinced of the truth of Trinity and, therefore, we cannot accept your invitation,” wrote the Rev. Geoff Tunnicliffe, the alliance’s international director.[/i]
Declining an invitation to dialogue? What invitation? I don’t recall the exact language of A Common Word, so I’m not sure what this quote is referring to.
How are we to ever win non-Christians if we don’t dialogue with them? How can we expect people (Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc.) to have proper doctrinal beliefs about the Trinity if we don’t spend long hours in conversation and sharing our lives with them and sharing Jesus with them?
I’m finding myself increasingly frustrated by those who are quick to issue blanket condemnations of the “Christian Leaders” who signed the response to A Common Word. Those of you who are calling them “Unitarians,” do you actually KNOW any of them? Have you discussed this matter with any of them?
I know at least 8 of the signers VERY well. Some I’ve worked with for years. I have at least casual acquaintance with approx. 15-20 signatories of the Christian response to A Common Word who have spent a combined 300 – 400 YEARS as missionaries to Muslims, and have seen fruit, have seen fellowships of new believers in Jesus arise from the far eastern part of the Muslim World to the far Western part of the Muslim world.
How many of you who are so quick to criticize the Christian leaders who signed this document and assume you know their motives have spent any time witnessing to a Muslim about Christ or ever had the joy of praying with a Muslim to receive the salvation Christ offers? By God’s grace, I have. And so have many of the signatories of the Christian response to A Common Word.
Don’t assume it is a fear of being considered “intolerant” that led many to sign that response. No, the GREATER compulsion for most was a love for Muslims and a desire to ensure that dialogue COULD happen so that they could hear the good news of the Gospel in Christ.
If you don’t believe my second-hand report as to the beliefs and motives of many who signed the Christian response to A Common Word (I am not a signatory myself), perhaps you will believe Rick Love, formerly the international director of Frontiers, the largest mission agency to Muslims. Here’s the link at John Piper’s blog:
[url=http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1036_rick_love_responds_to_pipers_thoughts_on_a_common_word/]Rick Love discusses the response to A Common Word[/url]
Further debate with John Piper ensued, and Rick Love’s followup response is here.
[url=http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1087_apostolic_practice_in_a_globalized_world_rick_love_responds_to_piper/]Rick Love second response[/url]
I really liked this snippet of what Rick wrote:
[blockquote]My goal (or “end gameâ€) is the same as yours, John—to communicate the good news about the person and work of Jesus through word and deed to Muslims. Thus, I believe that both of us agree on apostolic doctrine—the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
I agree with you on apostolic doctrine, but I am also concerned (as I am sure you must be as well) for apostolic practice. I believe that it was Paul’s apostolic practice to find a point of contact and build bridges in order to share apostolic doctrine. [/blockquote]
I really urge those who may have been concerned about the apparent “compromise” or “politically correct” response of the Christian Leaders, based on the rumors they have heard or the comments made by others, to take the time to fully read these two links to what Rick Love has written. Give him the chance to defend himself and many others who signed the response for the same reasons.
Thanks for listening. I’ll get off my soapbox now, but this is a very personal issue for me!!! It’s late here in West Africa, and I’m about to leave on a one-week vacation with some friends. So, if I don’t get a chance to follow-up comments here in person, I hope folks will private message me (or ask the elves for my e-mail address), and I will look forward to continuing the discussion when I get back to my home here in Africa in about 10 days time.
OK, never mind my query for the link in the comment above.
I found the World Evangelical Alliance document on “A Common Word” (their website was confusing, it wasn’t under the Press Release section.
http://www.worldevangelicals.org/news/view.htm?id=1707
http://www.worldevangelicals.org/We_Too_Want_to_Live_in_Love,_Peace,_Freedom_and_Justice.pdf
It is clear in the WEA document that they are very willing to accept the invitation by Muslim leaders to engage in respectful DIALOG with Muslims. My fears are alleviated! But, the invitation the WEA is rejecting is the [implied] invitation to become Muslims.
Here are a few key quotes:
[i]So be assured, that we support any effort that would promote peace in this troubled world. We are eager to discuss those things that promote unrest and to seek means of peacefully living
together. Let us consider our differences in person and seek to convince each other with good arguments, without violence or the threat of such, transcending differences in politics or the
actions of governments.[/i]
Then there is this which is the context for the quote in the article which Kendall posted:
[blockquote]In your opening summary, you commence with what is obviously a “call to Christians†to become Muslims by worshipping God without ascribing to him a partner. May we, in return, invite you to put your faith in God, who forgives our opposition to him
and sin through what his son Jesus Christ did for us at the cross?
We do this not to stir up strife but because we are as convinced of the truth of our faith as you are. Jesus says in John 17:3 in a prayer directed to God, his Father: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.†Jesus, Himself, said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me†(John 14:6).
By referring several times to Quranic statements that state God has no partner and associate, you rightly draw attention to the deepest difference between Islam and Christianity. Even though we are convinced that you misunderstand our doctrine of God being Three in One, when you speak about a ‘partner’ of God, [b]we are convinced of the truth of Trinity and, therefore, we cannot accept your invitation.[/b] We know that this is a fundamental difference in
our understanding the nature of God; one that will require long and sincere talks, and genuine listening to each other if we are to truly understand each other’s position and to move beyond historical caricatures. We urge you to consider joining us in such discussions.[/blockquote]
Way cool! This is how it’s done folks! Excellent statement. Respect but also honesty and clarity. Wonderful!
Karen B. — I agree with the general sentiment you expressed in comments #5 and #6. We are too quick to dismiss the chance to engage in true conversation with our Muslim brothers — too eager to show them error of their way — too hesitant to walk along the Emmaus road with those who do not fully understand the Truth.
I used to live in N. Africa while working in the same organization that Rick Love is associated with. While I do not know him personally, I know that his (and other signatures) response is not rooted in misunderstanding or Unitarianism, but of a true desire to see our Muslim brothers come to know and love the Word of God.
Conversation and dialogue are so important. In North Africa, it takes many hours in the local coffee house to gain one’s trust – let alone for the Truth to be understood.
Hey Steve,
Nice to hear from you!
[i]Conversation and dialogue are so important. In North Africa, it takes many hours in the local coffee house to gain one’s trust – let alone for the Truth to be understood.[/i]
Or hours sitting under a tent in the middle of the Sahara, drinking mint tea….! 😉
Karen, it’s good to hear from you. You know how to pick challenging places to be a Christian!
I’m not opposed to dialogue; in fact, I call for it in my own statement. (Over coffee, no less!) My dissatisfaction with “official” dialogues in general is based on two things.
The first is that I sense the Evangelical Christianity in this country, beaten up by the culture, is vulnerable. That being the case, it’s not a good idea to start something on a high level. The diffuse nature of the leadership (such as it is) adds to the possibility of confusion.
The second is the [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=91]general problems with Americans negotiating[/url]. We’re too impatient for results when we should be aiming for relationships. And I think we both agree that relationships are the only way we’re going to accomplish what we’re trying to do.
Dialogue with Muslims is one of the most rewarding things I have done as a Christian. I–with a blog for an outlet–felt, however, that I had to produce my own response, rather than to allow others to express my idea. Although it wasn’t an official expression of my church, I have to think about how what I say will be connected to that organisation as well.