A Word of Hope Between 'Us and Them' (by Brian McLaren)
Last week I wrote about the possibility of waking up to war with Iran. My fear that we are sleeping now, and should be in the streets and taking action, turns all of my anxiety into a feeling of profound nausea.
But at the very moment of nausea, I see a glimmer of hope. A group of 138 Muslim leaders from around the world and across the various denominations of Islam have come together to reach out to Christians through a statement entitled "A Common Word Between Us and You." In this document, they affirm that they share the same commitment to the great commandment of Jesus that we hold dear: the call to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. This command, they make clear, means that they see Christians as their neighbors, and to be faithful to their faith and values, they want to reach out to us in our faith – in love, as neighbors.
They acknowledge the obvious truth: Christianity - with over 30% of the world's population - and Islam - with over 20% - together comprise over 50% of the world's people. In light of those numbers, unless Christians and Muslims learn to get along as neighbors, nobody in the world will be secure. Our world's great religions must either allow themselves to be manipulated by political and corporate interests as agents of fear and distrust that predictably lead to war, or they must be converted into agents of peace, justice, and love.
This is not simply another mushy, gushy, least-common-denominator, "I'd like to teach the world to sing" style of feel-good "can't we all just get along." The Muslim leaders acknowledge, "… Islam and Christianity are obviously different religions—and … there is no minimizing some of their formal differences." But then they go on to say, " ... it is clear that the two greatest commandments are an area of common ground and a link between the Qur'an, the Torah, and the New Testament."
Thankfully, a group of Christians that includes evangelical theologian Miroslav Volf has responded with a beautiful reply. This emerging dialogue represents to me a tremendous opening, a needed alternative to terror and counter-terror, a gesture and counter-gesture of peace - the makers of which, Jesus said, will be blessed indeed (Matthew 5:9). Thank God for these signs of good hope amid spreading fear. Let us throw our prayers and energies behind them.
Brian McLaren(brianmclaren.net), board chair of Sojourners, explores these themes further in his new book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
What a beautiful display of cross-cultural love. We ought to take notice of the example and pass it along! I also appreciated Volf's reply.
Posted by: Kim | October 31, 2007 2:29 PM
This is something that many of us Conservative Evangelicals have been praying for all along. Our desire is peace and I hope to see more church leaders back this movement. We as Christians know that we can live in peace with our Muslim neighbors and friends. Look at the US where Islam is free to practice their faith. I only wish the Mideast Islamic Countries would allow Christianity and Judaism the same right to worship openly and without fear about being attacked. But let us just the start toward peace our support and pray that we have the ability to stop terror before it starts.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | October 31, 2007 2:40 PM
My concern is that the Muslims who produced this letter are ignoring one of the main points of contention between Christianity and Islam, a point that has been at the foundation of all our conflicts throughout the past 1500 years. Christians insist upon the right to proselytize among Muslims, and Muslims violently resist this. So long as we continue in our passion to spread the gospel, Muslims will be hostile to us. While I don't want to belittle this note, for I'm sure that it was written with good intentions, I think that the detente the authors are proposing is too limiting for Christians to accept.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | October 31, 2007 3:03 PM
Amen Brian.
Posted by: Eric | October 31, 2007 3:34 PM
Whatever the approach of Islam in countries where it defines the culture of national life, there will be no possibility of any proselytising whatsoever happening while people who identify themselves as "born-again" or "Christian" make military as well as religious targets of people who happen to be Muslim.
A daisy-cutter or a cruise missile is not an evangelistic tool in case you haven't noticed.
Supposedly all Muslims "violently" resist evangelization. I guess, then, violence must be used to respond to their resistance to the Gospel?
I think Christianity differs on one other point with Islam.
Well, I believe authentic Christianity (those pesky red letters again, I guess) demands not just loving one's neighbor - after all, you can choose your neighbors by moving away, or burning a scottish cross on his lawn to force him to move away, or by making sure only certain kinds of people can move into a neighborhood - any legal loophole, really, for our Pharisaic minds - but what Jesus commanded about loving your enemy. He realised that just had to include all of humanity without any loopholes.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 31, 2007 3:59 PM
N.M. Rod said "Well, I believe authentic Christianity (those pesky red letters again, I guess) demands not just loving one's neighbor - after all, you can choose your neighbors by moving away, or burning a scottish cross on his lawn to force him to move away, or by making sure only certain kinds of people can move into a neighborhood - any legal loophole, really, for our Pharisaic minds - but what Jesus commanded about loving your enemy. He realised that just had to include all of humanity without any loopholes."
Actually, Rod, I'd argue that Jesus doesn't leave any loopholes even in the term "neighbor". The parable of the Good Samaritan pretty clearly argues that the term "neighbor", as Jesus uses it, is not limited by any of those "loopholes" you named. Instead, my "neighbor" is anyone who is in need, regardless of where we live or how we feel about each other. We may well try to create loopholes - and I know your point is that they are not legitimate - but Jesus' discussion of the "neighbor" in Luke 10:25-37 seems explicitly intended to correct the lawyer's attempt to narrowly define who his neighbors were. We shouldn't even need to fall back on Jesus' command to love our "enemy" - after all, the majority of Muslims should not be considered "enemies".
Posted by: Jake | October 31, 2007 4:28 PM
If there's no fallback allowed to "love your enemy" being a commandment - then there can still be a whole class of people beyond the pale that we can treat precisely as enemies and not be loving them, either, as neighbors.
Look at how hot Christians past and present get with their "enemies" even within the purported faith!
Even on here...
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 31, 2007 5:01 PM
In the reply to which Mr McLaren refers, I was impressed by the fairly minimalistic terms it uses: A (not "The" or ("Many") ... and Common Word (singular).
That is gratifyingly realistic, to me at any rate, and that just adds to the hopefulness of it all. Nothing grandiose, nothing watered down -- just those basics, to which the reply refers.
As work to get my own congregation to appreciate -- in this big city neighborhood where Muslims have, or are closely approaching, a plurality of residents -- one doesn't have to water down one's faith, let alone "convert," to learn about (and from) one another ... to appreciate what is good and positive in one another's faith and culture ... and to just get along like neighbors!
Kudos to the document writers.
grace and peace,
bro. steve
Posted by: bro. steve | October 31, 2007 5:22 PM
I am hopeful that this may move us forward.
I'd also agree with Moderatelad that western countries tend to show significantly more religious freedom (for Muslims and Jews and Christians) than some countries in the Middle East.
So it follows that we should encourage those Middle Eastern Countries that do allow such religious freedom, like Iran (sorry, couldn't help myself).
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | October 31, 2007 8:01 PM
I'm a 'red state' born-again...and I'm with you all the way on this issue...thanks Brian..
Posted by: j pierce | October 31, 2007 11:20 PM
Rod,
My point was not that no fallback is allowed to "love your enemies" - its that it shouldn't be necessary in this case because most Muslims should not be considered our "enemies." Likewise, I think your reference to Christians is accurate - but the point is not to argue they should love other Christians because Jesus said to love your enemies, but to argue that other Christians are not your enemies, period.
I hope that makes sense. I'm not saying "love your enemies" is invalid - just that it needs to be applied to actual enemies, and sometimes we need to do a better job recognizing who falls into that category and who does not.
Jake
Posted by: Jake | October 31, 2007 11:21 PM
How do we reconcile the notions between two version of Islam that we see presented. People like
Daniel Shayesteh (http://www.escapefromdarkness.org/about/) who "inspired other good Muslims to hate and kill Americans and Jews." but latter escaped when he was drawn to Christianity and the call for connection and a sense of unity expressed in the "Us and You" letter?
Posted by: The Happy Rock | November 1, 2007 10:13 AM
This is what it's all about! I pray that this is only the beginning of greater reconciliation between Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters.
Posted by: splinterlog | November 1, 2007 10:21 AM
Brian,
thank you for calling our attention to this hopeful development. Let's pray that this mustard seed grows into a magnificent tree.
Posted by: carl copas | November 1, 2007 11:40 AM
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | October 31, 2007 3:03 PM
"Christians insist upon the right to proselytize among Muslims, and Muslims violently resist this. So long as we continue in our passion to spread the gospel, Muslims will be hostile to us."
Ben, so tell me, if you were Muslim, just exactly how would you feel being proselytized by Christians? Can ya see the problems inherent in the fevor to "spread" the so called gospel?
Such a narrow understanding of the scriptures needs to be confronted and exposed for the shallowness and bigotry that it is.
And your statement sounds extremely sweeping. There are many, many Muslims throughout the world who peacefully and patiently put up with and endure the inane evangelistic projects of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 1, 2007 11:43 AM
So what if Muslims have a problem with the Christian Gospel of Jesus? Evangelism is not really about collaring and cornering "unbelievers" to Christianize them into orthodox dogma. In Matthew and Luke both Jesus' operational definition of the presence of the kingdom of God is justice (equity for all), mercy (empowerment for life giving benefit) and righteousness (having relationships based on the first two). The acts themselves are the announcement of the presence of the kingdom. There will be those, both "Christian" and "non-Christian" alike, who will detest those acts because they benefit others they deem beyond the boundaries of acceptability. Our success is not in how many people we win to Christ (I say this as one who has "won" upward of 300 or so persons to a confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior). Our true success is the exact target that Jesus gave us, "Love whomever is in your sphere of contact." If we do this, without looking back and give ourselves to God, no matter the result, we have success. The rest belongs to God. Paul said, "one plants, one waters, but God gives the increase." Planting, in my mind, is producing real acts of justice and mercy on earth as a sign of God's presence. Watering is encouraging and facilitating its growth. Then we leave the results to God.
Posted by: Jim Reid | November 1, 2007 11:50 AM
Jim,
You know as well as I, that no fundamentalists, and very few evangelicals understand evangelism in the same way that you describe it. Their goal is to belittle other's system of beliefs and replace it with Christianity, which they see as better than whatever it is the suspect person currently holds as his or her religious faith.
Let me ask you, are you willing and open minded enough to allow that Mohammend may be the one that plants, that Jesus waters, and that God of all religions gives the increase?
Your answer will be telling.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 1, 2007 12:19 PM
Lonnie, as Tony Campolo said in a post above, "you got us right!" Conservative Christians do indeed think that Christianity ought to become the religion of muslims and everyone else. Muhammed was a false prophet, a charlatan whose influence has led billions of people astray. This is the belief of any orthodox Christian, which is why good Muslims will always be, in a sense, our "enemies." Which is why we ought to love them by sharing the gospel.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 1, 2007 1:01 PM
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 1, 2007 1:01 PM
This is the belief of any orthodox Christian, which is why good Muslims will always be, in a sense, our "enemies."
One becomes an enemy because they believe differently?
You are a frightening individual.
BTW, I fail to find a post by Campolo in this blog. Please tell me where I can find his thoughts on this topic.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 1, 2007 1:37 PM
Lonnie,
It's important to understand what I was trying to get across when I put "enemies" in quotation marks. Most Muslims are not our enemies in the sense that we must avoid them or fight them or not befriend them. What I'm trying to get across is that they believe in a system that is fundamentally opposed to Christianity, and because they adhere to it, they are "enemies."
Campolo's post was on "Red-letter Christians" and had nothing to do with the issue raised by Rev. McLaren. I just lifted the quote off his post because it expressed my thoughts nicely.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 1, 2007 1:46 PM
Whatever!
Posted by: Lonnie | November 1, 2007 2:06 PM
Jake,
Your argument about who constitutes an "enemy" is with Jesus, not with me.
Matthew 5, 6 and 7, those much-despised passages that pastors are loathe to preach on. And too many of those who do, use the opportunity to aver, "I must insist, this is NOT for us."
I like to do a riff on cartoonist Walt Kelly's having Pogo observe, "we have seen the enemy, and he is us."
The shoulder is deluded when it says the hand is its enemy. And humanity, made up of individuals intimately connected to one another across time and space, is also a living organism, which hates itself.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2007 2:46 PM
To Anonymous (was that Rod? It doesn't say),
My argument about who constitutes an "enemy" is with Jesus? In what way, exactly? Please point me to the passage where Jesus says that we should view other Christians who think differently than we do or peaceful Muslims (of the variety that are not out to kill non-Muslims) should be considered our "enemy."
Posted by: Jake | November 1, 2007 4:29 PM
Thanks for sharing this good news, Brian. Though there are certainly serious challenges ahead of us, I feel it is a very hopeful sign.
Posted by: Kieran Conroy | November 1, 2007 11:54 PM
God bless the mediators. Christ, the supreme mediator, provides a bridge between conflict and stability; confusion and clarity. His bridge is always open for the worst of humanity and every sinner on earth to cross. Not to infiltrate and corrupt the other side, but to find safety from the corruption they choose to leave behind. Shouldn't we always keep our bridges up and running as well?
It is obvious that Muslim's and Christian's will never see eye to eye as long as we are Muslim and Christian. Christianity will never see as one as long as we are Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. Same goes for the various nations of the world. But once removed from our title's and predudice, we are all simply naked little children, in need of OUR Father's care.
Cooperation with one another is how we were disigned to behave. It's the will of God that we become one (again). Of course that doesn't mean that the tyrant will meet halfway with the oppressed, nor will Christians and Muslims become Muschristlim's. But to pursue enmity towards each other is to perhaps inadvertently abandon God from the equation and any real chance for peace. For ALL have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. So, which sinner's side-line is God On? Aren't we all on the same team there?
The evil we fight is not "them". As in- they're bad, we're good. It's not about conquering religions. It's not about killing "bad guys". Killing people who act evil has never rid the world of Evil. It never will. Many christians long for the day when Christ will come out of the clouds, wielding a big sharp piece of metal that will rid the world of bad guys. What mockery.
The ignorance and evil we fight is from within. Muslims and Christians alike. The war we fight is spiritual. It's so much beyond matters of flesh and blood. It's not confined to our little blue marble and the tangible. We are so short sighted.
Posted by: Larry W | November 2, 2007 1:55 PM
I first read about this letter on BBC.com about three weeks ago. I saw no mention of it anywhere else. Thank you Brian for your post. I too believe that God has given us a wonderful window of opportunity. Can we live out our faith in ways that are redemptive and Christ-like? I pray that we can!
Posted by: Alan Miller | November 2, 2007 3:17 PM
This is all pretty disturbing to me. The 'peace' spoken of in this proposal is the same peace proclaimed by false prophets throughout the Old Testament. Do you not see that God calls us to come together in Jesus Christ and that there are no other means by which unity can be formed? Do you not see that it is not Jesus who is calling for this absurdity but the false teachings of the Qur’an? How have we strayed this far? How have we so easily slandered God's (Jesus Christ) Word? The commandments only have meaning in the context of the one who commands. We can only find salvation and unity in our allegiance to Jesus. This will not advance the Kingdom of YHWH. I would warn anyone of endorsing 'A Common Word Between Us and You' or repent if you have already done so. Please be faithful to Jesus and look to him for your hope and salvation. Jesus has demonstrated himself faithful to reach those who profess faith in Islam. Let's do this his way and not our way.
Posted by: Jeremy McKim | November 2, 2007 4:23 PM
Jeremy,
What's so disturbing about wanting peace and no war?
p
Posted by: payshun | November 2, 2007 6:12 PM
Ben Wheaton:
"Most Muslims are not our enemies in the sense that we must avoid them or fight them or not befriend them. What I'm trying to get across is that they believe in a system that is fundamentally opposed to Christianity, and because they adhere to it, they are "enemies."
Your clarification offers little. Your assessment of Islam elevates your conception of truth, and what you see as mutually exclusive irreconcilable differences between the two faiths, above love and reconciliation. You cannot befriend people you label as enemy regardless of your attempt to qualify the term. The challenge of interfaith dialog is great: to respect another person, to respect his/her beliefs, and to be faithful to one's own beliefs. I know you think it impossible and unorthodox. I submit that in so doing you devalue the greatest commandment and its couplet. I wonder, aside from Rowan Williams, to whom else would you assign the implied label of unorthodox?
Posted by: Korey Kwilinski | November 2, 2007 10:04 PM
This will not advance the Kingdom of YHWH. I would warn anyone of endorsing 'A Common Word Between Us and You' or repent if you have already done so.
Jeremy, you should read about the encounter between Francis of Assisi and Malik-al-Kamil, the sultan of Egypt.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 3, 2007 9:08 AM
Payshun - I do not want war. The 'peace' that 'A Common Word' strives for is an artificial peace. My desire is for Muslims to know the peace that only comes from and in Jesus. Peace by any other name is not peace.
Don - I am familiar with the encounter. I don't believe Francis was seeking common ground in the way that this proposal does. He was seeking to share the gospel of Jesus Christ and thus he came in peace.
Posted by: Jeremy McKim | November 3, 2007 11:27 AM
He was seeking to share the gospel of Jesus Christ and thus he came in peace.
Very true. But Francis and al-Maliki met regularly to discuss matters for a significant period of time. And Francis eventually left in peace and in brotherhood, even though the encounter didn't result in a conversion. Francis still planted a seed of faith.
The 'Common Word' is only a request by Muslim leaders to meet with Christian leaders on the basis of those elements of the two faiths that are held in common. It's not a 'false peace' because its merely an offer for dialogue. Further, nobody is ignoring the differences between Islam and Christianity. The offer for dialogue is the similarity I see with the Francis encounter.
And why couldn't God likewise use such an encounter to plant seeds?
Salaam alaikum,
Posted by: Don | November 3, 2007 12:38 PM
An error in my post above: the sultan of Egypt that Francis met with was named Malik al-Kamil. My error.
An interesting fact about this "common word" document is the list of Christian leaders to whom it was addressed. In addition to Pope Benedict, Archbishop Williams, Bishop Hanson (pres. of the Lutheran World Federation), and the leaders of Baptist, Methodist, and other Western Christian leaders, the Muslim leaders addressed it to many Eastern Christian patriarchs, most of whom I had never heard of, though many of their communities were familiar names. And almost none of the Muslim signatories were familiar to me. But it is clear that they did their homework.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 3, 2007 2:37 PM
Both the Common Word and the responses of Christians and Muslims to it thus far (http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=comments) deny, ignore, or marginalize Jesus as our source, our aim, our death, our life, our center, our daily bread, our salvation, and our Lord.
As a result of this,
Christians will wander further from Jesus.
And Muslims will continue to deny him as Lord.
Praying for mercy,
Posted by: Jeremy McKim | November 3, 2007 9:45 PM
Has any meaningful peace ever occurred w/o dialogue between the parties at odds? How then can A Common Word be viewed as anything other than encouraging news?
Posted by: canucklehead | November 3, 2007 9:56 PM
Jeremy, when any two groups of people have viewed each other as enemies for 1500 years, for whatever reason, even the fact that some are willing to reach across the table to the other side and say, "let's talk" ought to be taken as positive news.
I understand your concern about upholding the uniqueness of Christ, but I cannot understand your apparent feeling that we simply should not talk to Muslims because they don't uphold it.
You wrote that Jesus is faithful to those who call on him, including Muslims. I fully agree. So instead of figuring out how much fault we can find with this, let's call on him and pray that he would use this opportunity to advance his kingdom and for his glory. Let's take this opportunity for what it is--once again, an offer to meet on common ground (something that there is much more of than you apparently want to admit)--and see what Christ is able to do with it.
Salaam alaikum,
Posted by: Don | November 4, 2007 5:46 AM
I am not opposed to talking with Muslims. I am deeply compelled to talk with anyone who does not profess Jesus as Lord and Savior. My deepest desire is for people to call on the name of Jesus.
And I do believe that God gives us opportunities to do this daily. The gesture of an invitation to dialog is a wonderful opportunity. Our response to this gesture however is crucial. Our hope is Jesus himself and not a common law. The responses from Brian McLaren and the Yale Center for Faith and Culture deny the centrality and supremacy of Jesus. They may not have intended to but they have. If we continue on this path then we will have squandered this opportunity.
My point is not simply to find fault in this - my point is to direct our focus to Jesus. Are we not to test the spirits to see if they are from God? Indeed, we are not to believe every spirit (I John 4). Jesus is the only common ground that we could have with those who do not yet profess him. To confess that we have a common ground that is anything other than Jesus is to deny him as Lord and Savior.
Do I long for peace in the world? Yes. And I know that peace will only come through Jesus. Peace by any other name or any other means will only lead people further astray.
May the peace of Jesus be yours,
Posted by: Jeremy McKim | November 5, 2007 6:23 PM
My point is not simply to find fault in this...
Yes your original point was far more than mere fault-finding:
I would warn anyone of endorsing 'A Common Word Between Us and You' or repent if you have already done so.
Your original point was to tell anyone who thought this was a hopeful development that we were wrong. Your point was to offer a word of judgment to your fellow Christians.
And I know that peace will only come through Jesus. Peace by any other name or any other means will only lead people further astray.
And you are the one to tell Jesus how he will bring peace, and how he is to do his job. And you take the Christian leaders to task for not responding to this invitation the way you think they should have.
I'll let you have the last word, if you wish.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 5, 2007 8:44 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?