A Dialogue Too Friendly for Focus on the Family (by Brian McLaren)
On January 3, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink sent an email by associate editor Stephen Adams called, "Evangelical Leaders Pledge Common Cause with Islam." Their target once again was the National Association of Evangelicals, echoing an attempt last year to oust Richard Cizik for having common cause with the birds of the air and flowers of the field against global warming.
This time NAE President Leith Anderson and Vice President Rich Cizik are in trouble for signing a cordial reply to a request by 138 Muslim scholars for civil dialogue and increased understanding between Christians and Muslims. I too signed the document, and thought I would reply to the criticism, just as I did to the Muslim's request for dialogue. (Focus on the Family's statements are in italics.)
1. They apologize for the 'sins of Christians'
How can we not apologize for our sins? Should we claim we have no sins? Or should we knowingly refuse to acknowledge them? Isn't the humility to confess sins a Christian virtue?
2. [They] leave the deity of Christ open for discussion.
If we only have discussion with people who acknowledge the deity of Christ as we do, won't that mean we will only be speaking to Christians with whom we already agree? How can we be peacemakers – not to mention bearers of the good news, following Jesus' commands, if we consider it unfaithful to discuss essential matters with people who differ from us? And besides, are you aware of how some Muslims have been misinformed so that they misunderstand our understanding of the Deity of Christ – that they think we believe that the living God, like some Greek deity of antiquity, had physical sex with Mary? Wouldn't it make sense to try to better explain what we mean when we call Jesus Lord and Son of God, so as to correct this misunderstanding? Wouldn't respectful dialogue be required for that kind of communication to take place? And in the meantime, shouldn't religious leaders be reaching out to one another so that we don't leave the field to religious extremists and hawkish politicians who have proved themselves highly willing to resort to terrorism and war?
3. An attempt by leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) to win friends and influence Muslims is alienating another group — evangelical Christians.
I'm sorry when anyone feels alienated by those of us who try to follow Jesus' command to be peacemakers and to treat others as we would be treated, but didn't Jesus, when faced with a choice of reaching out to those considered untouchable outsiders by the Pharisees, side with the excluded? We intend no offense to Focus on the Family or anyone else in this attempt to respond in a God-honoring way to our Muslim neighbors, and hope that by better understanding our motives, you will be less alienated in the future.
4. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary (Southern Baptist), termed it "naiveté that borders on dishonesty."
Did it border on dishonesty for God, who has all power, to be expressed among us as a Word "veiled" in frail human flesh? Was it naive for Jesus to go to Jerusalem, knowing what waited for him there? Would it be naïve or dishonest for us to claim to love our neighbors and even our enemies, as Jesus taught us, and then to reject requests for dialogue? Wouldn't it be more naïve to think that the problems between Christians and Muslims around the world will be resolved by a refusal to dialogue? And when our neighbors come to us, reaching out their hands in friendship, and when our hearts tell us – after sincere prayer and reflection – that we cannot fold our arms in exclusion but must open them in friendship, how can we not respond?
5. Their response — initiated by Yale Divinity School and endorsed by other liberal Christian leaders — apologized for the sins of Christians during the Crusades and for "excesses" of the global war on terror, without mentioning Muslim atrocities.
When you have a conflict with your wife where both you and she have made mistakes, do you only agree to acknowledge your own faults if she will also acknowledge hers? If you say, "Yes, I may have made a small mistake, but you made even bigger ones," do you expect this to lead to a better relationship? If Muslims apologized for their faults, would you then be willing to dialogue with them in a respectful way?
6. It even seemed to acknowledge Allah as the God of the Bible.
Are you not aware that the word "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God, just as in English we say God, and in Spanish people say Dios, and in Greek, theos? Did you know that when millions of Arabic Christians pray, they use this normal Arabic word for God? Don't you know that throughout history, the Christian faith has used the words for God already found in the language and culture into which they came with the good news of Jesus Christ?
7. The very name of the Muslim communiqué — A Common Word between Us and You — is from a verse in the Quran that condemns "people of the Scripture" (Christians) for alleged polytheism (the doctrine of the Trinity).
Are you aware that the trinity is not just a matter of disagreement, it is first a matter of misunderstanding between Christians and Muslims? Do you see that we can only deal with disagreements when we have achieved some basic understanding of what we mean by our key terms? Are you aware that many Muslims believe that our doctrine of the trinity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different gods? Can you suggest a way of clearing up this misunderstanding without respectful dialogue? And are you aware that the apostle Paul respectfully quoted the writings of Greek philosophers and respectfully referred to Greek religion in his dialogue with the Athenian philosophers? With Paul's example in mind, should we never have any interaction with the Quran, one of the most important works of literature in the history of the world and unspeakably precious to about 21 percent of the world's population – except to argue with it? Have you ever actually read the Quran?
8. Mohler said the agreement "sends the wrong signal" and contains basic theological problems, especially in "marginalizing" Jesus Christ. He also condemned the apology for the Crusades. "I just have to wonder how intellectually honest this is," he said. "Are these people suggesting that they wish the military conflict with Islam had ended differently — that Islam had conquered Europe?"
Would it send the right signal if we rebuffed their request for dialogue? Does it marginalize Jesus Christ to try to practice his teaching by loving our neighbor, loving the "other," reaching out to those whom we have offended and who have offended us in a desire to seek reconciliation and make peace? Are you aware of the atrocities associated with the Crusades – the rape, torture, mass slaughter – all by people who were supposed to be in a tradition of "just war theory?" Are you unaware that our behavior fell far below that of our own ideals, and don't you believe we should acknowledge that fact? Are you aware of how your line of thought could be used today to justify torture and other atrocities – that, to achieve a desired outcome in a "military conflict with Islam," we are justified in resorting to any and all means that were used in the Crusades? Do you realize how horrible this sounds – not just to a Muslim, but also to a fellow Christian?
9. Gary Bauer, president of the Campaign for Working Families, told CitizenLink the NAE leaders "have left the (card) table without their pants — that is, they've been taken and may not even realize they've been taken."
Was Jesus more concerned about "being taken" or giving himself to the dangerous work of reconciliation? Was it a mistake for him to allow himself to be stripped naked at the "table" of the cross? Whose politics should we professed followers of Christ follow in situations like this? And how do you know we have been taken? On what do you base your suspicion? Could your suspicion be a matter of religious prejudice, perhaps bordering on racism? How would you know if a group of Muslim scholars were completely sincere in their desire to reach out for peace? How do you defend your suspicion in light of the teaching of Jesus, which invites us to forgive seventy times 7 offenses in the pursuit of reconciliation?
10. Bauer said he already was dismayed by the NAE's recent controversial excursions into questionable areas such as global warming.
Can you see, even though you may disagree with it, the logic of our actions – those of us who are concerned about both the stewardship of the planet and the pursuit of peace with our Muslim neighbors? Can you see that Jesus' love for "outsiders" – the Syrophonecian woman, the Samaritan woman, the Roman centurian, not to mention notorious sinners – motivates us to love our Muslim neighbors; and it motivates us to join God in caring for the birds of the air and flowers of the field? Do you understand how for many of us these "excursions" flow from our understanding of Jesus' message – the good news of the kingdom of God?
11. Sookhdeo called for Christian leaders who signed the letter to withdraw their names, saying the confession of guilt puts Christian communities in Muslim areas of the world at risk.
By this reasoning, would you oppose the invasion of Iraq because it also put Christian communities in Muslim areas of the world at risk? And does it put Christians at risk more when Christians humbly admit their faults, or when they arrogantly remain in denial about them? When they reach out in friendship in response to Muslim scholars, or when they rebuff requests for dialogue?
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) was a pastor for 24 years. Now he serves as board chair for Sojourners. His most recent book is Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, and he launches an eleven city tour at the end of January (deepshift.org). Just before the tour begins, he will be in Davos for the World Economic Forum, participating in Muslim-Christian dialogue.
Add to:
Category: Islam, Religious Right
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Well said, Brian.
Posted by: canucklehead | January 7, 2008 3:27 PM
Thank you for your contributions to that doalogue, Brian. I can't help but think this is symbolic of a rift that is forming in the American Evangelical community between those who believe in engagement with non-Christians and perhaps even hold to the doctrine of common grace, and those who prefer separation. Come to think of it, I think that was the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals before fundamentalists started calling themselves evangelicals. Since FOTF likes "distinctions," perhaps it is time for the non-fundamentalist evangelicals to start distingishing between themselves and their fundamentalist brethren again, using that very word.
Posted by: I and I | January 7, 2008 4:01 PM
Wait a second , you support having a debate with Muslims about the deity of Christ ? That is being a peace maker , maybe I mis understood this .
People have died in many countries because they brought the love of Christwith them but would not deny the deity of Christ . That is a peace maker .
An organization has the ability to ask forgiveness of other people is considered appropriate ? They can speak for themselves , I know Brian or James does not have any ability to ask anyone for forgiveness of my sins Or yours
Posted by: Mick | January 7, 2008 4:10 PM
The "Common Word between Us and You" is a 14-page document (excluding footnotes and signatures).
The few paragraphs Brian has written regarding FOTF’s objections to the statement are hardly a fair representation of its content.
To have a fair discussion about the Muslim scholar’s intentions, I think we really need to read the documents and consider FOTF’s comments as completely peripheral to the issue.
Salaam alaikum.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 7, 2008 4:22 PM
Mick, think before you yell. Nobody is advocating a debate over the deity of Christ. Brian is just suggesting that in dialogue with Muslims who want dialogue, we can give some clarification about some of the principles of our religion and they will no doubt want to give clarification about theirs. This isn't a contest to see who can convert the other side.
Posted by: I and I | January 7, 2008 4:23 PM
Cool, Brian;
With your comment on the implicit opportunity for evangelism in the Muslim Evangelical dialog, you've answered a lingering question in my mind.
It's a formidable notion, dialoging with a group who on the one hand is merely a retread of the old Arian heresy, and on the other has adopted all the worst aspects of 'Christianity the Religion', as 'Holy War', call it pogrom, crusade, or jihad
But what have we got to lose? Let's do it!
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | January 7, 2008 4:30 PM
Thank you Brian, for your patience and work. Dr. Dobson seems to worship a form of Christianity rather than Christ, and he is fixed on a primitive depiction of God rather than the reality of the Loving Divine God that Jesus taught was Truth.
The central problem seems to be that Dobson does not want peace. He wants to feel superior. Conflict calls for an us/them scenario and in an us/them scenario our human mind chooses a "right" and therefore "superior." I'm not saying that to throw stones and be critical. He is too attached to the project of identifying and naming superiority and inferiority. Respectful dialogue CANNOT occur with him because he does not respect those who are inferior to him, which is anyone who thinks differently. There is no such thing as respectful dialogue with one who does not respect others.
I am fine with Dobson doing whatever he wants to do, but I'm not sure why it's able to be called Christianity, because he does not follow the way of Christ. Dobson does many things, and perhaps some very good things (relatively speaking), but he frequently does not follow in the way of Christ. Thank you for raising a respectful voice, but I fear even you are dismissed as being beneath this man--your words are unworthy of his consideration in his mind. At least you work to follow the way of Christ as you work for change. The Way is the Way, even when our human minds want to resort to forceful words.
Keep leading with mind and heart.
Aaron
Posted by: Aaron Boe | January 7, 2008 4:46 PM
Look how long it took Christians and Jews to enter into a dialog, and they have a similar issue with the deity of Christ. The more we learn to love 'the other', the greater the opportunity for shalom.
Posted by: Pikov | January 7, 2008 4:54 PM
The deity of Christ should always be a point of discussion; we must be ready to share and reinforce this absolute truth with a spirit of "gentleness and respect." (I Peter 3:15)
While discussing Christ's deity is important in our dialogue with both fellow Christians and non Christians, it should never be compromised. It is because of His deity that we are Christians.
Posted by: Paula | January 7, 2008 4:58 PM
To have a fair discussion about the Muslim scholar’s intentions, I think we really need to read the documents and consider FOTF’s comments as completely peripheral to the issue.
I scanned both documents, though not reading them carefully, and as an unabashed Christian who believes that Islam is a false religion I did have some problems with the concept. (When I read them more carefully I'll be better able to give specifics.)
That said, FOTF has really gone off the deep end. Its goal has never been doctrinal purity but cultural authority, and this is the kind of fearmongering it has always used to raise funds; folks like that want to determine just what and who "they" are so that they have someone to hate. Well, that won't fly anymore, and there's nothing wrong with "understanding" your neighbor so that you can live together in the same land. After all, didn't God tell ancient Israel to, basically, "bloom where you're planted," which in that case was during the Babylonian captivity?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 7, 2008 5:00 PM
Mick, think before you yell.
"I think that was the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals before fundamentalists started calling themselves evangelicals."
Iand I ,
Likewise , that is why I asked and did not yell , and you made a statement meant to inflict a wound and show a superior understanding on steretypical level ?
Again , no man can apologize for sins of others . McClaren does not know me , I do not know him . From his writings , he has a shallow opinion of me and my views based on my belief system . I wish he showed as much concern for my denomination as he does for the Muslims here . That would be good too .
Also There is an an article on McClaren in the online enclopedia dealing with his non traditional theology , he believes there in no hell for an example . Hence I am not even sure we share the same Faith ? Does he believe Jesus died for our sins ? Does he believe there is a heaven , and we all go to it regardless of Faith , or just no hell ? Does not matter to you I and I . I think its important that someone writing a letter representing Christianity is a Christian . I am not attacking him , he is speaking for me and I don't know him .
I guess being a Fundamentalist I must learn to accept it here . I just wish the dialoge you wished for secualists and other religions , might actually be mutual for Christians that happen to take the Bible a bit more literally then you . The fact I do does not make me smarter , kinder , gentler , more mercifull then you , but on this blog it makes you a target as someone who does not have the capacity for some of the kinder virtues of mercy and such .
I for one have nothing against speaking and sharing with other Faiths . Apologizing for the Crusades appears a bit silly to me actually .
But thats me , not because I am a Fundamentalist .
Its like these religious Muslims apologizing for 9/11 . As if they had anything to do with it .
Is this yelling ?
Posted by: Mick | January 7, 2008 5:01 PM
Muslims have been reading the New Testament for hundreds of years and they don't seem compelled to believe that Jesus is God--why not ask them why? Why do they look at the same evidence we do and come to a different conclusion? A debate could only help us refine our beliefs.
Muslims do believe Jesus is the Word of God, though. It's interesting that they don't see that as proof of deity. Have you ever wondered why? Wouldn't knowing their reasons help with evangelism?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 7, 2008 5:02 PM
Vatican, Muslims plan 'historic' meeting
1/2/2008, 2:25 p.m. CST
By NICOLE WINFIELD
The Associated Press
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Catholic and Muslim representatives plan to meet in Rome in the spring to start a "historic" dialogue between the faiths after relations were soured by Pope Benedict XVI's 2006 comments about Islam and holy war, Vatican officials said.
Benedict proposed the encounter as part of his official response to an open letter sent to him and other Christian leaders in October by 138 Muslim scholars from around the world. The letter urged Christians and Muslims to develop their common ground of belief in one God.
(continues)
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 7, 2008 5:02 PM
I just wish the dialoge you wished for secualists and other religions, might actually be mutual for Christians that happen to take the Bible a bit more literally then you. The fact I do does not make me smarter, kinder, gentler, more mercifull then you, but on this blog it makes you a target as someone who does not have the capacity for some of the kinder virtues of mercy and such.
Be advised that you just sabotaged your own argument. For openers, you basically said that McLaren is less of a Christian than you because he doesn't believe the same things as you. Second, you yourself are apparently lacking in mercy. Third, the Christian faith is far, far more than simply avoiding hell. And lastly, winning someone to Christ is virtually impossible by simply making arguments about the deity of Christ; He is shown to non-believers primarily through our actions. This has the potential to be more of a Christian witness than anything Dobson can ever come up with.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 7, 2008 5:10 PM
Paula, good point, and that is why the potential for this can be so powerful. Muslims believe as strongly in their doctrines as we do, if not more so--there aren't a whole lot of "liberal" Muslim "denominations," for example. In fact, I get the impression that many Muslims relate to conservative Christianity more than nominal or universalist or liberal forms of Christianity because in many ways it mirrors their own religion: literal interpretation of the book, exclusivity, stricter behavioral code, etc. So if the Christians in the group hold fast to their belief in the deity of Christ it will probably build a common bond wherein there can be "agreement to disagree." Remember, the Muslim scholars started their statement with a declaration that there are distinct differences.
Posted by: I and I | January 7, 2008 5:10 PM
Like Rick I have only scanned the "Common Word," but using the search function on Acrobat Reader the only use of 'sin' I found was in reference to God's mercy. I found no instance of the word 'apology' in any form or 'crusade.'
As far as I can see, the insistence on Christians apologizing for our sins comes from FOTF.
I agree with Rick’s assessment of FOTF, but I disagree with his, and many others’, belief that Islam is a ‘false religion.’ My beliefs about Islam coincide with the statements found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council.
My feelings about Islam come from my having spent a significant amount of time in Muslim countries, and by the fact that I refuse to allow myself to be convinced by anyone that Muslims are my enemy or are an enemy of my country or my faith.
I do not fear Muslims or Islam because I do not perceive either to be a threat to me or anything I value. I respect Islam, and I respect Pope Benedict and look forward to the outcome of his meeting with Muslim representatives later this year.
Salaam alaikum.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 7, 2008 5:25 PM
Neuro,
I agree completely.
I have spent some time w/ Muslims as well and they are not a threat to me.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 7, 2008 5:38 PM
Brian,
I admire your charity in trying to communicate with Focus on the Family. But why bother? Focus on the Family is a mean-spirited outfit. Your efforts are bound to meet with knee-jerk repudiation. Dobson and his crowd are becoming increasingly irrelevant as evangelicals and other Christians move on to more positive and productive dialogue and cooperation among ourselves and with others on truly important issues. Why not just let Focus bigot itself into oblivion?
Posted by: Conrad Steinhoff | January 7, 2008 6:02 PM
Neuro_nurse:
Wa alaikum as salaam!
Our son and about 18 other Goshen College students leave for Dar es Salaam tomorrow. It will take them until Friday to get there. I thought you might like to know that he has his guest family assignment, and he will be staying with a Muslim family for the six weeks they will be there for the study portion of the semester. After the six weeks, he will be traveling to the Lake Victoria region for the service project he will participate in.
He's excited but a bit apprehensive.
D
Posted by: Don | January 7, 2008 6:44 PM
Brian, thanks for bringing this up. I have received a great deal of criticism for signing "Loving God and Neighbor." Though some of the criticisms are mean-spirited, I have been able to enter into very irenic conversations with those with whom I disagree--even publicly on our blogs (brentmaher.blogspot.com). Just as we desire to enter into conversation with our Muslim friends we should seek civil conversation with our critics. So no matter how irrelevant Dobson and his crowd become, it does not excuse us of our obligation to love them and fellowship with them as brothers and sisters.
Posted by: Brent D. Maher | January 7, 2008 6:45 PM
Most Christians who loudly proclaim "Jesus is God!" are in fact heretics, specifically Monophysites. They believe that Jesus is essentially God-in-a-mansuit, winking at us behind His human mask. They believe that Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent--which, if true, would mean He is not the same in all things as me, except without sin.
I believe, with Chalcedon, that Jesus is fully human and fully divine. He's not God in a costume--He's a man, like me. The fact that He is also fully God is a mystery--the Incarnation is unfathomable by human reason.
The Muslims correctly stand against the Monophysite heresy. Muslims say, with Jesus, that there is One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and we are to submit our lives to God. For Muslims, God makes Himself present in the Koran--the Word made book. For me, a Christian, God makes Himself present in a fully human life--the Word made flesh. I don't see why the Word which enlightens all men can't be known in different ways by different people. The Word is the Way, the Truth, and the Life for all people, whether it is a book or a human being.
Peter welcomed the Gentiles saying that God shows no favorites but in every nation accepts those who fear Him. Since the Muslims fear and submit to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as Jesus did, then it seems only right we should dialogue with them.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 7, 2008 7:47 PM
I wince at the idea of repenting for the sins of "Christianity". What this essentially means is attempting to do right by apologizing for the sins of another person. That is arrogant, and from the purpose of repentance.
I think the FOTF is being ridiculous, but also that the NAE should consider what they are signing. Is this just an attempt to save face after the Haggard thing?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 7, 2008 7:50 PM
The responses to Brian's post show a fundamental rift in our understanding of how we as Christians should deal with the Islamic world. I stand with Brian McLaren, Rick, Don, Payshun, Neuro and the others who possess the good will to support Brian McLaren's approach.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 7, 2008 11:07 PM
Is this just an attempt to save face after the Haggard thing? Posted by: kevin s.
Could be. Maybe they are just trying to follow Jesus.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 7, 2008 11:08 PM
I wince at the idea of repenting for the sins of "Christianity". What this essentially means is attempting to do right by apologizing for the sins of another person. That is arrogant, and from the purpose of repentance.
Au contraire -- if you look at the Old Testamant you will find prophets and kings repenting for the sins of the entire nationa of Israel even though they may personally not have committed them. Whether we like it or not, all of us live in a "guilt-by-association" world where people who are associated with us and do evil stain us. That's why I jump down the throats of Christians behaving badly and refuse to apologize for doing so.
Besides, we Christians understand and experience some things that Muslims don't -- forgiveness, reconciliation and redemption. That is what we can offer the Muslim that can make a difference in this dialogue. On top of that, the God that Muslims worship in practice cannot be known personally -- another difference with Christianity.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 7, 2008 11:25 PM
The above post is simply misinformed about Islam. Forgiveness is a key part of Islam. Allah is all-merciful, all-compassionate--Muslims pray for and experience forgiveness. Allah is also deeply personal--He is closer to us than our jugular vein, according to Islam. Not only is Allah forgiving, He doesn't require the human sacrifice of His Son to forgive--Allah forgives simply because He wants to forgive. In some ways, God as portrayed in the Koran seems to have more power and compassion than the God of the Bible who appears to be a bloodthirsty tyrant who demands a substitutionary sacrifice.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 7, 2008 11:46 PM
Within Islam are commonalities with western religious practices of a hundred to several hundred years ago. Islam needs to catch up to modernity, but Christianity was once there too. Torture, intolerance, state religious mandates upon pain of death - those were western Christian practices once. And if we want a clash, they will be again - but Christ is thereby forgotten.
I see that Mick accuses McLaren of not being willing to enter into a conversation with him, but instead disrespecting him. This is ironic because Mick posts here voluminously, even though he doesn't want us to dialogue with those from a Muslim background. I suppsoe consistency may be the hobgoblin of minds even more pedestrian than mine.
Posted by: X Con | January 7, 2008 11:57 PM
I have read the response of the NAE signatories and don't find anything wrong with it. Please realise it is not the vehicle for setting out a line in the sand for a religious dispute or for a contention like that of Martin Luther, but as a basis for dialog towards establishing peace. It is carefully written to be open to dialogue, not cut it off, without denying any Christian doctrines (even those held in common with conservative fundamentalists) whatsoever.
I would note, too, that the letter uses Jesus' example and his commands to us as informing our response as Christians. Therefore, while polite and open, it is clear that it is not a letter capitulating the primacy of our Lord and Savior to us, but affirming that.
The Mennonite Church (USA), which is scripturally conservative, has also responded to the Muslim overture. I happen to think it is even better - not to take anything away from the one Brian McLaren has signed - but the MCC letter clarifies even better and leads to no opportunities for misunderstanding it as a response based on syncretism and capitulation, instead of affirmation of the intent to follow Jesus as fully as we can in the Holy Spirit's leadership.
"To the Muslim Religious Leaders who signed the October 13, 2007 letter “A Common Word between Us and You” addressed to Leaders of Christian churches throughout the world:
As one of the historic peace churches, we in Mennonite Church USA heartily thank the signatories of “A Common Word between Us and You” for recognizing that Christians worship one God and take Jesus’ commands to love God and love our neighbors as central to our lives of faith. We appreciate the affirmation that Muslims and Christians hold important theological and ethical foundations in common, and we welcome the call for sincere dialogue between Christians and Muslims wherever we meet around the world.
We also respect “A Common Word” as a courageous expression of goodwill in the midst of less charitable Muslim voices and in the face of recurrent Christian hostility toward Muslims and misunderstanding of Islam. We repent for our role in perpetrating these unchristian actions and ask your patience and forgiveness as we grow in understanding you, our Muslim neighbors, and in practicing Christian love with you.
We understand the character of this love to be shaped by the teaching and personal example of Jesus. In addition to loving God and our neighbors, this means that we aim to love even enemies, and, like Jesus, we choose against using violence as a response to difference and conflict. We believe that Jesus has modeled for us a life of faithful obedience to God based on love, truth, reconciliation and justice. We seek the same, in response to God’s love for all humankind expressed in innumerable acts of salvation, reconciliation, forgiveness and guidance and most fully in Jesus Christ (the Messiah). In sum, “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). In our faltering attempts to love as the Messiah loved, we thank God for the gift of his Spirit, who enables us to live our lives focused on God.
God has given each person the precious gift of choice, even the freedom to believe in God or turn to unbelief. In our Mennonite churches, adult baptism is a sign of the individual’s decision to believe in and follow the Messiah. For that reason we baptize only after a person has made a mature decision to believe and to turn away from the ways of the world.
Our life as a church thereby witnesses to society and government that each person has the responsibility and freedom to choose their faith. We believe that in any society, the love of neighbor that you have so eloquently written about includes respect for that person’s freedom to believe or not to believe, to choose his or her faith and religion. We would indeed welcome opportunity to talk more with Muslim friends and leaders about the implications of religious freedom, for this matter is of profound significance.
With you, we embrace the goal of loving our neighbors, while also recognizing that both Muslims and Christians often fall short of the ideal. We recognize that even today in too many situations Muslims are threatened by Christians, and in other situations, individual Christians or communities of Christians in Muslim regions experience restrictions and sometimes hostility. Let us repent of such actions toward one another and work together to assure the integrity and freedom for both communities, Christian and Muslim.
Many Mennonite Christians have enjoyed friendship with Muslims and cooperated together in a wide range of activities through the years. We in Mennonite Church USA continue to commend such interaction and strongly encourage Christians and Muslims around the world to meet, develop friendships and cooperate in endeavors of mutual concern as we discuss and bear witness to the theological and ethical foundations of our faith and life.
We thank those who have issued “A Common Word” and assure you that we will continue to pray and work for Christian-Muslim understanding, cooperation and peacemaking."
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 8, 2008 12:27 AM
Realistically, the position of Focus On The Family - a political advocacy organization, not a Church, by the way, which has as its mission silencing voices within the Church which don't hew to its own political agenda, which is reflected in the makeup of its multimillionaire, munitions-industry board members - is thus:
"When you Muslims repent of your religion, of opposing us and accept Christ and our domination - surrender to us unilaterally religiously, politically and militarily, then we will talk, and not before. Until you do so repent of your sins in this way, until that time, it's bombs away. And so we will pray."
I don't think that this can be characterized as either realistic or that it is fair to characterize those not holding it as to be heretical and unChristian, worthy of a kind of neocon politically correct purge. This goes beyond the positions of pacifism, non-violence resistance, just war theory right over to pagan and atavistic holy war advocacy.
Posted by: Lincoln Brigadier | January 8, 2008 1:00 AM
Tonight I conducted a memorial service for an evangelical woman who passed away unexpectedly at 56 years. She was married to a Jewish (non-Messianic)rabbi and they had opened their home to scores of university kids of all stripes to come, hang out and yak about life.
Two Muslim girls paid tribute to the deceased by saying that her demonstration of her faith had made their's stronger. As I listened I couldn't help but think of the comparatively few times where the gospels record Jesus getting into a discussion with people about theology versus the numerous times they depict him getting into disputes with the religious elite who had their theology down pat.
Following the service, two members of the local humanist society who had been touched by the deceased's life/love spoke with me about how they were drawn to her because of her love for them and the generous way she listened to them w/o trying to win any theological debates.
Reminded me of the old maxim: people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.
Posted by: canucklehead | January 8, 2008 1:35 AM
By the way, lest we forget, the deity of Christ was a point of debate at some point in the early church. Wasn't that obvious that He could be fully God and fully Man.
On slow days, it still boggles my mind.
God doesn't call for adherence to perfect dogma (if we could even know what it is - well we all do but none of us agree), but to love of neighbor. If we can't achieve that, at least saying 'hi, how are you?' to our Muslim neighbor is not a bad start.
And in the current context, starting by acknowledging recriprocal hurts (even those from people I dissociate myself from but who unfortunately bear the same identifier-Christian- as me) is a good starting place.
Should Muslims also look honestly at how they have dealt with "the other", with minorities, etc.? You bet!
But it's not considered polite to start the conversation with someone by stating THEIR wrong, when we're in the business of reconciliation. We have to sweep our side of the street.
Kudos to Brian for trying to respond to a group, which honestly scares me when it comes to world affairs. Focus on the Family went rather quickly from "it's ok to spank your child" to "it's ok to nuke half of the Middle East and fight the heretics"
Dialogue=good. Inquisition=bad. [Queue in Monty Python's "NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!"]
Posted by: Eric | January 8, 2008 5:22 AM
Thanks Brian,
I've just finished reading "Everything Must Change". Thanks for educating, exploring AND HAVING THE COURAGE TO TRY THINGS, RATHER THAN JUST TALK ABOUT THEM (SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS - FREAKED OUT COMPUTER...)
If anyone knows of some exciting things happening in Australia, and partic. Victoria - please put 'em up here.
Grace and Peace be with you all...
Posted by: Chris from Australia | January 8, 2008 8:22 AM
I think the idea of the exchange of letters is a good thing. Christians and Muslims need more dialogue and less hostility. I don’t quite understand the major objections that Focus on the Family has with the letter (questioning the deity of Christ?). I also think they’re misinterpreting parts of the letter Brian signed. It reads:
“…we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the “war on terror”) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.”
Focus characterizes this as an apology. It’s not an apology. It’s a request that Muslims forgive the sins of Christians in the past. Individual Christians cannot apologize for the sins of other Christians, particularly those that lived centuries ago. One can only apologize for sins that one had some measure of control over. What we can do is ask others to forgive and forget those sins, which appears to be what Brian and the others were doing. If Muslims continuously drag up past grievances over the Crusades and use them as an excuse for Muslim violence today, how can we ever move forward in good relations?
Posted by: Eric (the other one) | January 8, 2008 8:59 AM
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18)
Isn't this effort part of living out this scriptural injunction?
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 8, 2008 9:48 AM
"Au contraire -- if you look at the Old Testamant you will find prophets and kings repenting for the sins of the entire nationa of Israel"
Which verses discuss this? Isaiah repents for having associated with Israel. Sacrifices are offered on behalf of Israel, and David repents before Israel. But I see no Biblical precedent of repenting before Christ for the generic sins of other people.
"That's why I jump down the throats of Christians behaving badly and refuse to apologize for doing so."
Right, and this is an arrogant mentality, akin to what is being expressed by this letter. Brian McLaren is not humbling himself. He is elevating himself by "repenting" on behalf of Christians who have behaved badly.
It's not really a big deal, and I which Focus on the Family would, you know, focus on the family.
"Focus characterizes this as an apology. It’s not an apology. "
An apology is an expression of regret, accompanied by a request for pardon. How could repentance not be construed as such?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 8, 2008 10:22 AM
Thanks for posting the Mennonite statement S T .
After the atrocities done in the name of Islam and Christianity I think apologies are a very natural and helpful way of clearing the air and saying I do not wish you violence and my faith does not make me hate you or fear you or your beliefs. I think the limits of such apologies are obvious to the participants.Such communications take place in many situations where one cannot represent all members of a group but is to a limited degree the tangible and immediate voice for a larger community.
Posted by: jonabark | January 8, 2008 10:23 AM
Allah is all-merciful, all-compassionate--Muslims pray for and experience forgiveness.
On what basis? If we Christians believe truly believe that forgiveness is found only in the cross of Christ, we have the right to say that He is universal, overriding Islam.
Not only is Allah forgiving, He doesn't require the human sacrifice of His Son to forgive -- Allah forgives simply because He wants to forgive.
To do so, however, you have to dismiss the Christian doctrine of sin, which requires blood sacrifice. Jesus took care of that, so now there's no need of any more sacrifices. Also, Islam in practice believes that salvation is earned by good deeds and adherence to its teachings, which directly contradicts the Gospel -- that there is no way you can be "good enough." This is why there can be very limited theological connections between Christianity and Islam.
On the other hand, FOTF has always been a leading proponent of the "culture wars"; in fact, it would probably fall apart without them. Frankly, I don't wan't Christianity to be "culturally dominant" because such dominance always -- always -- leads to theological liberalism.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 10:29 AM
Brian--I like your response. Do you know how to contact Focus on the Family? Does Focus on the Family know how to contact the National Association for Evangelicals? Do the leaders who signed the 'cordial reply' know how to contact Muslim leaders?
If each of these parties both have something they want to say to each other, or want to understand what the other is saying to them--why not pick up the phone?
I think a public call for dialogue can be very useful. More helpful would be a public report/accountability of the dialogue they had entered into; and description of what is coming out of the dialogue.
I would love to read a joint communication from Brian and FOTF rep that they had several meetings to explore a range of issues and affirm each other on points A, B and C while lovingly agreeing to disagree on pointd D, E and F.
It is not acceptable, in my book, to have Evangelical leaders (who in some way claim to represent me) exerting energy issuing public comments at each other (implicitly dragging me, a communications consumer, into the matter) while communicating no accountability/responsibility for seeking the unity of John 17 in relationship with each other. If you ask to pull me into leadership disagreements then to me you ask to be held accountable.
So Brian, is there any direct dialogue going on between FOTF and yourself? Are the signers of the 'Cordial Reply' engaged in dialogue with Muslim leaders?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 8, 2008 10:40 AM
Posted by: Don | January 7, 2008 6:44 PM
I will pray for a safe journey as your son and his friends have a wonderful opprotunity to see parts of the world that many of us will never be able to get to see. (remember - these are prayers from the idolator)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 10:46 AM
Brian
PS--I do recognize and appreciate you sought to make a fair, necessary, direct and respectful response to a public communication from FOTF. I only suggest there is a leadership responsibility that extends beyond that.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 8, 2008 10:51 AM
letjusticerolldown -- Won't happen, ever. That kind talks to no one that disagrees except to point out the disagreements.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 10:55 AM
I see no Biblical precedent of repenting before Christ for the generic sins of other people.
Well, consider Moses, especially when he returned from Mount Sinai. In fact, on a couple of occasions when the LORD wanted to wipe them out he asked mercy for the nation of Israel.
Also consider white Christians who have delivered apologies to black Christians when they learned the injustices their ancestors fostered. Then, white Christians did the same thing in South Africa when it came to addressing apartheid. It's in there -- you just have to look.
Brian McLaren is not humbling himself. He is elevating himself by "repenting" on behalf of Christians who have behaved badly.
Sounds like someone who just doesn't believe that people who disagree may have something to say we need to hear.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 11:14 AM
"I wince at the idea of repenting for the sins of "Christianity". What this essentially means is attempting to do right by apologizing for the sins of another person. That is arrogant, and from the purpose of repentance. "
I think this, and other statements like it, reveals an aspect of Western, particularly, American culture. We are an individualistic society, so the concept that we bear any responsibility for the sins of community is completely foreign to our psyche. If I am correct, the Eastern world doesn't think this way. Sins aren't just against an individual, but against a society, a community. It is why we saw such a huge reaction from the Korean community both here and abroad after the VTech massacre last spring. It was an act that affected that entire community and one they felt deep shame about, even though they had absolutely nothing to do with it. It is why offenses that occurred thousands of years ago still remain the roots of hatred between some tribes today and why the tribal conflicts have plunged Iraq into civil war. We don't have that kind of sense of deep human history here because our nation is young, we are all from different parts of the world, and our nation is founded on a concept of rugged individualism. This is not necessarily bad, but it has robbed us from the deep sense of community and history that cultures in other parts of the world share. So, true, none of us are personally responsible for the Crusades. To us, that happened a long time ago--get over it already--that is our mindset. The Muslim mindset doesn't see it as something that happened a long time ago. And even though it doesnt' seem to make sense to apologize for some atrocity committed by people most of us aren't even genetically related to, it nevertheless makes perfect sense in the Muslim mind to apologize for that atrocity because to them it wasn't a long time ago. I think we can all agree that atrocities committed in Christ's name offend us all. What is so wrong about acknowledging that?
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 11:55 AM
Asking for mercy from God is not the same. At minimum, McLaren is making a Moses-figure of himself, which is my point.
"Sounds like someone who just doesn't believe that people who disagree may have something to say we need to hear."
I don't understand what you mean by this sentence. Are you saying I don't believe that Muslims need to hear people with whom I disagree, or that I don't want to hear disagreement?
If I publicly repented for your sin, or cited your words while repenting for "our" sin, how would you take it?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 8, 2008 11:58 AM
Rick--I have to agree with you. I have, in my journey, moved in the area of spiritual intercession, and one of the foundations of that is praying as Moses prayed--standing in the gap and asking forgiveness for sins of the past that form the root cause of sins of the present. It is definitely a Biblical concept.
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 11:59 AM
Dear Brian,
Wonderful- Thank You!
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 8, 2008 12:06 PM
At minimum, McLaren is making a Moses-figure of himself, which is my point.
By saying that, you are impugning the motives of someone who thinks differently than you because he thinks differently than you, which you and others consistently have falsely accused me of.
If I publicly repented for your sin, or cited your words while repenting for "our" sin, how would you take it?
It all depends. In the process I may myself come under conviction that was I did was wrong.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 12:09 PM
"At minimum, McLaren is making a Moses-figure of himself, which is my point. "
Actually, this is what those in intercessory prayer actually do--they take on Moses' role of inteceding, standing in the gap, for others. They don't consider themselves to be Moses, of course, but they use his and other Biblical figure's actions as an example and model for intercessory prayer. I know you intended to make McLaren seem arrogant in his Moses-like stance, but I see no such arrogance.
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 12:29 PM
Don,
Thanks for the update!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 8, 2008 12:35 PM
You or I personally might not be personally guilty of a lot of things - but, we are certainly guilty of having approved of them or having been unconcerned. That shows that our own mindset, given the circumstances others found themselves in, and with similar influences, would have seen us do just the same things we claim we're not responsible for.
Friends, even if we didn't commit the original sin, by virtue of our being intimately part of humanity, we bear the responsibility for it and the need to repent. In the same way, I have no doubt that many things that have happened in the past, including the Crusades and their atrocities, I have at one time in my own mind justified, although I no longer do. Jesus said that it's not just those who commit adultery who are guilty of it, but those who have contemplated it. Therefore, knowing my own commonality of thinking, I can apologize. It is simply pride and the idea of "I am not my brother's keeper" that keeps one from doing so, when it produces reconciliation - a soft word as scripture says, turning away wrath. There is no doubt that every human being commits and has committed sins, individually and in community - in fact sin is committed both against others, God and self. However, if we have to wait for everyone else to admit fault first, then no one ever will. What is special about our call as Chrsitians, to be servants to others, without being respecters of persons?
Much as the libertarian/conservative cultural philosophy wants it otherwise, no one is at liberty to resign from the human race or avoid responsibility for our common plight. Since those who sin reflect the propensity of us all to do the same, rather than relieving us of responsibility, when we are reconciled to God - saved by Jesus - having been given knowledge, we are more responsible to act to correct evil than any others.
To those who are given great power, with it inevitably comes great responsibility.
Do you understand why the apostle Paul termed himself, "the chief among sinners"?
We can, before God, ask Him to have mercy upon us, mankind, for our sins. The sins of mankind are my sins.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 8, 2008 12:43 PM
Moderatelad:
Thanks for your prayers. I know they are appreciated. But what is the comment about being an idolator all about?
Don
Posted by: Don | January 8, 2008 12:46 PM
Thanks, Sojourner Truth. You definitely speak the truth.
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 12:51 PM
But what is the comment about being an idolator all about?
I can answer that one -- I brought that up. His prayers for victory in Iraq represent in practice a hope for political victory for George W. Bush, which is what I called him on.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 1:00 PM
Posted by: Don | January 8, 2008 12:46 PM
'But what is the comment about being an idolator all about?'
Don - I can speak for myself.
There are some on this site that believe they have the right or appointment to proclaim what it correct and what is not.
I believe that one can petition the Almighty for your requests. (story about the widow and the judge) I have never prayed for a 'political' victory for anyone. I pray for victory so that the Iraqi people can have a country of their own and the right to self determination. I even pray for peace on earth, but that is just me.
Out of respect squeaky - I am droping the 'i' word and taking the 'high-road' as I was told to do.
Blessings - and let us know how his trip goes.
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 1:46 PM
Good news Brian.
If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Brian is part of the solution.
(And the problem could very well lead us to the apocalypse.)
Posted by: Mt_Man | January 8, 2008 2:03 PM
Moderatelad -- Quit hiding behind your theological facade. We all know what you do and why you do it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 2:03 PM
Ouch! I appear to have opened a can of worms. Sorry if my question caused any offense. I didn't read this debate; I only remember Carl Copas' parody of Moderatelad's weekly prayer--and that gave me a smile.
Rick: I haven't agreed with Moderatelad on very many things, and I've always thought that praying for the US troops only is a bit one-sided, but I'm wondering what you are reacting so strongly to.
D
Posted by: Don | January 8, 2008 2:59 PM
Rick--I agree with much of what you have to say and always appreciate your perspective. However, I don't think it is anyone's place to judge the sincerity, motives, or appropriateness of another's prayers. I missed the big "idolatrous prayer" row you guys had, but if Moderatelad did not specifically make this statement
"[my] prayers for victory in Iraq represent in practice a hope for political victory for George W. Bush"
it is not for you to judge what is behind those prayers. I know you and he have gone head to head on some issues, but you don't know each other's heart, and characterizing one's prayers as idolatrous is taking things too far. If you two would be more respectful of each other, you may find you can have a productive conversation from time to time. I wish you both could put your differences behind you and learn to love each other unconditionally--it's too often I have seen you both make personal attacks on each other, and it is very sad to see.
And Moderatelad, don't take the "high road" because you were told to. Take the "high road" because it is the Jesus thing to do.
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 3:03 PM
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 3:03 PM
"[my] prayers for victory in Iraq represent in practice a hope for political victory for George W. Bush"
For the record - I did not pray that!
Those are his words and accessment of me.
If you have noticed - I am not engaging RN any longer. His lack of respect and understanding that other people have their convictions is appaling. RN is a fine intellect - just not interesting in reading his replies and being one of his wipping boys on this site.
I have prayed for our military in general. Safety and victory in the Mideast and Iraq. That the world would live in peace and for the peace of Jerusalem. Ultimately it is God's will and not mine that will prevail and that I desire in my life and in the lifes of others.
So - in the future I will not use the "i" word when I mention that I pray(ed) about something or someone. I will take the high road because it is the correct thing to do. I am not responding to RN and his 'Nowlinization' of issues and events of our time.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 3:19 PM
I don't think it is anyone's place to judge the sincerity, motives, or appropriateness of another's prayers.
Given what he has said in the past in other contexts (and I have no reason to believe they have changed), those actually are very clear in my mind. Maybe most people can't see them, but I sure do.
If you two would be more respectful of each other, you may find you can have a productive conversation from time to time.
Granted, but his actions have belied his words for so long it's only a matter of time before things get nasty once again. It has been my experience over nearly 30 years that conservatives who say they "desire dialogue" actually come come onto sites like this only to set things straight, as if what they believe is true and anyone else needs to "see the light." Look at how many people who consider any criticism of our current president "Bush-bashing," as if conservatism itself is sacrosanct. Look at how they simply trash Jim Wallis and others who write for this blog rather than engaging in discussion about the issue at hand -- Wallis himself wrote one blog entry denouncing the "neo-con war promoters" who frequent it, I assume because he was tired of it (and I don't blame him). Thing is, if the polarity were reversed you'd have far fewer "liberals" attacking the other side; they might get kicked off! In other words, many of them come here because they enjoy picking on people they see as beneath them, bullying, if you will.
The truth is, I have productive conversations with conservatives all the time, but those that know me know to stick to the issue rather than engage in attacking me -- which some used to do -- or misrepresenting the position of their opponents, which also often happens. That deserves a response, and often a strong one. If you can find a way to elicit respect other than the forceful way I write, let's have it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 3:33 PM
Rick and Moderatelad,
Prepare thyself for a lecture.
"Given what he has said in the past in other contexts (and I have no reason to believe they have changed), those actually are very clear in my mind. Maybe most people can't see them, but I sure do."
Nevertheless, you are judging his heart--something you nor I nor anyone else has the authority or right to do.
"Granted, but his actions have belied his words for so long it's only a matter of time before things get nasty once again."
I've seen it come from you, too, though, so to simply say that he is the one at fault is incorrect. I have seen your dialogues and know it isn't just coming from him, or just from you. Both of you are at fault. You both attack each other. I'm really not taking sides--Moderatelad knows I have called him to task many times as well. However, if I were keeping score, my guess is you would come out pretty even with each other.
It always confounds me when I make a plea for respectful dialogue to those who consider themselves Christian, and both parties, instead of saying "oh yeah--you're right, I need to treat my Christian brother with the love that Jesus has for him" they prefer to justify why they are not acting as Christ would have them act. You both do that. I have found a way to engage Moderatelad in discussion, and I know both of you are smart enough to figure out how to engage each other without it always degenerating into all this pointless bickering--maybe you should each remember there is a living, breathing person on the other end of that flame you are about to fire off at each other--my guess is you would never treat each other like this in person. It's unbecoming of your Christian witness, and I wish you would both take that to heart instead of constantly trying to justify your dislike of each other. There simply is no justification for it under Christ.
It's ironic--this blog is about engaging Muslims in order to find common ground and understanding. How daunting that goal seems when brothers in Christ, who worship the same God and share the same salvation in Christ, make no attempt at forgiveness and finding common ground with each other.
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 3:59 PM
Oh, and Moderatelad,
"[my] prayers for victory in Iraq represent in practice a hope for political victory for George W. Bush"
For the record - I did not pray that!
I didn't say you said that. Please reread my post to Rick to understand what I actually did say. Thanks.
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 4:00 PM
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 3:03 PM
I really don't want to talk about this anymore.
I have never told RN or anyone that they were 'wrong' or that I know all about this so 'don't argue with me'.
I have affirmed that he can believe the way he wants to even if I do not agree. RN is the one that has labeled me the "i" word on my prayers and said that my prayers are 'political'.
I will pray when and where and for whom and to what end I feel lead to do and see how God guides and directs.
I don't want to engage him as it is pointless as he does not respect me and others for our convictions. As for 'Bush-bashing' - please, this site excells on it. Just ask him about the former Pres. and how everything (or almost everything) that was printed about him and the White House Women etc was all a lie, caused by the RRW - etc.
Public figures are out there and have learned to take their licks and move on.
I am sure that there are many on this site that will engage RN and that OK. There is just one less. I wish him well - just not going to reply anymore because of the respect issue.
Bet you never wanted this one - so I do not plan on talking about it anymore.
Blessings...to all.
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 4:13 PM
Posted by: squeaky | January 8, 2008 3:59 PM
Prepare thyself for a lecture.
Well stated - taken to heart.
Just better that I just steer clear.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 8, 2008 4:18 PM
It always confounds me when I make a plea for respectful dialogue to those who consider themselves Christian, and both parties, instead of saying "oh yeah -- you're right, I need to treat my Christian brother with the love that Jesus has for him" they prefer to justify why they are not acting as Christ would have them act.
When you come from a position that you're right and the other person is wrong, regardless of any facts you can find that contradict the other person's agenda, there's simply no room for dialogue; that becomes just absolutely intolerable dictation based on ideological delusions, and you best believe that God understands that that too. I'm a journalist by trade and work for a major metropolititan newspaper; as such I've have had to deal with exactly that kind of nonsense from the political right for much of my adult life, so I'm in no mood to "compromise," which really means "capitulate." I'm also African-American and well aware of that history as well.
What I'm getting at is that conservatives have systematically perpetrated a lot of injustice in this country, especially over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that we can just "paper over" that is an affront to the people they have hurt -- many of them fellow Christians -- and it's one reason this blog exists in the first place. As long as they refuse to hear that they will have no credibility.
That gets back to the original topic. FOTF exists basically to promote a certain kind of Christian hegemony masquerading as religious orthodoxy and using the "family" as cover, but because it has consistently ignored other issues of social justice mentioned in the Scripture it now has lost much of its authority. It is now quickly becoming (if it hasn't become that already) a "has-been" in the same way that Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy, tied to a way of doing "ministry" it cannot change for the sake of its organization. The NAE understands that God has "moved on," if you will, and is ready to meet today's spiritual challenges.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 5:00 PM
Rick wrote:
"FOTF exists basically to promote a certain kind of Christian hegemony masquerading as religious orthodoxy and using the "family" as cover, but because it has consistently ignored other issues of social justice mentioned in the Scripture it now has lost much of its authority...The NAE understands that God has "moved on," if you will, and is ready to meet today's spiritual challenges."
I think that succinctly illustrates part of my earlier point (in Brian's other post) about the difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists-who-now-call-themselves-evangelicals. Can't help but beleive that theology undergirds that difference. Let's start using the "F word" again and encouraging those who used to use it to describe themselves to once again take on the mantle.
Posted by: I and I | January 8, 2008 5:36 PM
It's not Rick Nowlin's fault about the controversy of prayers fro the safety of the troops sent to war.
The controversy stems from the fact that despite the prayers for their safety, the troops continue to die each day.
As someone pointed out there are only a limited number of meanings for this.
1. God does not exist, so prayers to him are exercises in futility and delusion.
2. God does not care. (The Kurt Vonnegut Jr. position which he believed ought to cure us of invoking God in our war-making.)
3. God is on the other side. (For this to be true the prayers of those we fight against ought to protect them, and they do not.)
4. God does not approve of taking up the sword, and He has warned us that "whoever lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
I think it is obvious if what we pray for is incompatible with God's will, then He will not answer those prayers in the affirmative.
Someone has pointed out taht since the prayers are not being answered, then we ought to look at whether our actions are incompatihble with what we ask for and are working against that. Certainly God will not take action when our own will and actions could easily correct the situation.
We should not confuse Christianity with pagan cultures whose war religions ask their gods to magically protect their warriors when they go out to slaughter their enemies.
Moreover, a prayer for safety of warriors engaging in killing others they do not even know without taking action oneself towards their safety is like the person who prays for the hungry to be filled and then walks away thinking he has done something, has absolved his conscience - and has left the hungry empty. That is like the sacrifice of patriotic shopping - and buying from China to boot!
Posted by: Lincoln Brigadier | January 8, 2008 8:58 PM
Lincoln -- I offer a fifth reason. We need to understand that "our ways our not His ways" and not to impose our will upon God's will, which is the issue I was trying to bring up in the first place. On Saturday I was attending a singles ministry gathering/coffehouse which was transformed into a football party -- our NFL team was playing a playoff game -- and someone prayed at halftime that our team would win. Afterwards, however, I half-joked that there are Christians in the other city as well.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 10:16 PM
I can't believe that this much discussion can be made over a few prayers. I have never demanded that the Almighty make happen what I petition. I have not threatened to leave the faith if my requests went unanswered.
I prayed - for the safety of some. I have prayed like many did in WWI and WWII.
I have never labeled anyone as an 'I'
I have never told someone to not argue with me.
Now I wonder why I even stay here. It was fun to engage some and 'lol' about issues and even come to a deeper understanding.
It was iron sharpening iron - now I am feeling like I am sliced and diced.
So - all this because of prayer -
I really don't need this.
.
Posted by: moderatelad | January 8, 2008 11:18 PM
To Moderatelad and those who take issues with his prayers.
I believe enough has been said.
There is a time to speak, a time to listen, a time to contemplate, a time to let a conversation go, a time to entrust it all to God.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 9, 2008 2:28 AM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 9, 2008 2:28 AM
OK - I agree.
So I guess that I will not comment about pray in the future. I loose
I will listen, contemplate, let go, entrust. So as long as i stay silent - tollerance will be abserved. I loose.
OK - I am going to entrust and because of the entollerence of some on this site. I will not comment about my prays on Mondays.
I will not use the 'i' word but you have to admit. It achieved its goal of silencing someone.
Are we having fun - I am. Now to figure out what I can comment on in the future that will not PO someone else.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 9:00 AM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 9, 2008 2:28 AM
OK - I agree.
So I guess that I will not comment about pray in the future. I loose
I will listen, contemplate, let go, entrust. So as long as i stay silent - tollerance will be abserved. I loose.
OK - I am going to entrust and because of the entollerence of some on this site. I will not comment about my prays on Mondays.
I will not use the 'i' word but you have to admit. It achieved its goal of silencing someone.
Are we having fun - I am. Now to figure out what I can comment on in the future that will not PO someone else.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 9:00 AM
" I'm in no mood to "compromise," which really means "capitulate." "
Did I ask you to compromise? No. You are telling me there is no way to speak the truth without making personal attacks, and I am saying there is. I do it every single time I write on this blog, and I do not compromise my positions. If I can do it, so can you. That's all I'm saying.
This is for everyone--As for prayer, none of us are capable of praying all our prayers with pure motives and in perfect accordance with God's will. If you think you are capable of that, you are equating yourself with God, for only He knows His perfect will. When you judge other's prayers, you are also equating yourself with God, as again, only He knows His perfect will. So instead of judging the quality of each other's prayers, let's just celebrate the fact that we are praying and that through that we are getting closer to God. If someone's prayer offends you, please remember that God is NOT offended and will use it in whatever way is in accordance with His will, even if it is to teach the pray-er that His will is different from the pray-er's prayers. Don't be deceived--satan loves this bickering and fighting over how we should pray.
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 9:59 AM
Dittos to Squeaky re: prayer. I wished to comment regarding prayer but felt there might not be open ears to receive; hence my request to allow the topic a rest.
Learning to pray is a rich benefit from praying. Do you think God sees our 'silly prayers' as silly? My little girls make silly requests of me all the time. I smile but don't find their 'silliness' to be silly at all. I try to use it as an open door to nurture their minds and hearts.
Why would our "Abba" do any less?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 9, 2008 10:24 AM
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 9:59 AM
Don't be deceived--satan loves this bickering and fighting over how we should pray.
How true - that is why I will not be commenting about prayer(s) anymore. My heart has been broken about the chat on this site over the whole issue that I will just not comment about it anymore.
Blessings to you!
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 10:35 AM
Did I ask you to compromise? No. You are telling me there is no way to speak the truth without making personal attacks, and I am saying there is.
Squeaky -- For the record, I don't make personal attacks on this blog, although I will get in someone's "face" for attacking me, saying stuff I know to be false and calling them on their ungodly attitudes, which is another item altogether. Keep in mind that we're dealing with a mindset that, as I said before, expects everyone to capitulate to its ideology and doesn't respect anyone who even disagrees with it -- and the folks who subscribe to it need to understand that such behavior cannot be tolerated. If more people reacted the way I did we wouldn't have that problem here.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 9, 2008 10:35 AM
Rick,
I don't disagree with your above assessment. That isn't at all the point I am arguing. This is:
Calling someone's prayers idolatrous is a personal attack. I would be deeply offended if you characterized my prayers as such, and so would you if someone did the same to you. It is not for you to make a decision or judgement on the quality or effectiveness or sincerity of another person's prayers. I used to do that when I was a younger Christian and far more bigoted about other Christian faiths than I am now, but I now see the folly in that attitude.
And snide comments to Moderatelad are personal attacks.
In all your defenses of your posts, you have not addressed those points, but rather defended your ideological position. I am not questioning your ideological position, nor do I think you need to. The whole point I have been making all along is that we can discuss these issues with our brothers and sisters in Christ without questioning their faith and commitment to Christ. It seems that a person's political ideology gets in the way of you loving that person in Christ, and I have never seen Christ fail to love someone because of politics.
Moderatelad, this discussion, in my mind, had nothing to do with prayer. I am sorry it has hurt you--I was really just trying to get the both of you to consider each other to be fellow children of God, but the whole thing got out of hand--and I have yet to see evidence to show that you regard each other in that way. I will never apologize for trying to spur both of you on to more loving attitudes towards those you disagree with. I am just sorry I don't seem to have made much progress, and instead inadvertently caused the conversation to drift back to the discussion on the quality of prayer. It saddens me deeply that we as Christians, instead of supporting each other in our prayer life, think we need to point fingers and judge each other. This is a Christian website, but that is definitely not a Christian attitude. Political ideologies should not cause us to withhold Christ's love for one another. Prayer is a topic we should be able to discuss here openly and honestly, and when one person is caused to feel alienated by it, God's Spirit is grieved.
letjusticerolldown--thanks for the dittos. Good to know at least someone understands the points I am making.
I'm done.
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 11:31 AM
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 11:31 AM
'I'm done.'
I thank you for your attempts. I have disagreed with several on this site but have affirmed that they can believe it even if I can not. Hopefully keeping discussion open.
In the future there will not be any Monday comments here about prayer and hopefully that will end any discussion like what we have had on this site over the past few days.
I will (privately) request the Almighty to bless all on this site and that there will continue to be open and respectful discussion in the future.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 12:01 PM
Calling someone's prayers idolatrous is a personal attack.
Sorry, but in this case it isn't because we're talking about a theological issue. When you pray for a specific outcome because it suits your agenda and confuse it with God's, which is precisely what Moderatelad is doing in praying for victory in Iraq (never mind God's "bigger picture"), what else could it be but that? (Because it is at the expense of someone else, and you never pray for that.) That was why I brought up the prayer at the coffeehouse last week; it too was similarly inappropriate. Now, if he were to pray strictly for the safety of the troops regardless of the war's outcome ... well, that's another matter entirely.
Better to pray, "LORD, this is what I desire -- and you know that -- but if You have something better that suits Your purposes, I will rejoice in that." Where is the focus? On God. Where is the other focus? On the outcome.
My comments stand.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 9, 2008 12:35 PM
And where, exactly, did Moderatelad say that was specifically what he was praying for? Unless I missed that specific post, you are reading into his prayers. Regardless, whether or not praying for victory in Iraq is idolatrous is not up to you to decide--didn't the Israelites pray for victory in battle? Let God make that call and lead Moderatelad in the way He will lead him.
And, since you stand by your comments, then explain to me how judging Moderatelad's prayers is Christlike and loving? Did you speak the truth gently in love when you told him his prayers were idolatrous? Is it more important to be right, or is it more important to be like Christ? In what way does this conversation actually advance the Kingdom of God and the beatitude that "Blessed are the Peacemakers?" Can you truthfully tell me you love Moderatelad unconditionally as Christ does? I keep hammering at this issue, and you keep avoiding it.
My hammer stands.
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 12:51 PM
And where, exactly, did Moderatelad say that was specifically what he was praying for? Unless I missed that specific post, you are reading into his prayers.
In at least one place he prayed for victory in Iraq, which in this case means political victory for George W. Bush (and, given the context, couldn't be interpreted any other way). Prayer for victory or defeat for one side is totally unacceptable in my book. (I used to do that myself but repented decades ago.)
And how does that advance the Kingdom of God? Well, we have to understand, first, that He is bigger than any of our partisan political objectives and fickle desires. If we can't take God for Who He is, putting him into a box and suggesting that He is on our side, we risk having non-believers miss what He is about. (Truth be told, at times this blog succumbs to that temptation, but at least it refrains from attacking its opponents personally because they don't agree.)
God is also holy and has no taste for the world's way of thinking and acting. We can and should be kind and warm and all that, but He is highly intolerant of sin, the worst of which is trying to knock Him off His throne (He kicked Satan out of heaven for that) and rightly demands our worship. The sacrifice of Jesus must be understood in that context -- no sin, no need for Him.
Given that, I would be very unloving if I didn't point out these things, which are admittedly not obvious to most people. But because of my understanding and experiences they're crystal-clear to me (and were nearly 30 years ago). I apologize if I come across as offensive, but the Gospel is at stake. Two decades ago there was considerable racial strife in a ministry I was a part of that went unchallenged by anyone else; a searching non-believer I was close to left because of that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 9, 2008 1:28 PM
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 12:51 PM
Please stop - no matter what you say there is no middle ground.
For the record - it is like the widow and the judge. I have always come before the Almighty knowing that it is His will not mine. I do not believe that praying for victory has anything to do with being political.
Appreciate your efforts - really not worth it.
Be blessed my friend.
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 1:51 PM
What the hell happened to the original topic?
Posted by: I and I | January 9, 2008 3:31 PM
I and I -- The usual. Certain people become offended by strong statements or hijack threads and it becomes a tit-for-tat.
That said, the exchange above points out just what the problem is. Some folks are so smug in their relationship with God -- that is to say, they believe that they alone know what the Scripture says regardless of any evidence to the contrary -- that if they are challenged they get all huffy. (I realize in saying this that a few who frequent this blog might say the same about me.)
So let's get back to the topic. James Dobson's demands for other evangelicals to get back on his bandwagon are now being ignored, and that can only be healthy because we are developing a less stilting definition of what we evangelicals are supposed to believe. That said, we do need to remember that there is a gulf between Christians and Muslims that no mere dialogue can paper over.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 9, 2008 3:42 PM
Posted by: I and I | January 9, 2008 3:31 PM
'What the hell happened to the original topic?'
I would gladly go back to origional topic. Some people need to make sure that the others know that they are the arbitor of what the Almighty will accept as proper verbage for prayer(s).
I am shocked that the moderator has not stepped in and said 'something'. But then again - when you are slapping a conservative...that is OK.
There are several on this site that have come along side me and defended me as well as corrected me - respectfully I will say. I truly thank them for that. One just will not let it go and when you are a prophet - you have to keep your place in this world. (sorry - don't think that the Almighty will send fire down on that alter - lol)
I think that I am going to take a break from here and maybe coming back in a few days - this issue will have died and been laid to rest.
My comments on prayer(s) have ended - no tollerance on this site for it. (that is by some)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 4:03 PM
Some people need to make sure that the others know that they are the arbitor of what the Almighty will accept as proper verbage for prayer(s).
Don't even go there -- you pulled it off the topic in the first place.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 9, 2008 9:06 PM
I'd just add a factual addition, that Muslims also usually misunderstand our concept of the Trinity as referring to God the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary- because it explicitly states this in the Qur'an. There is definitely a lot of room for dialouge with Muslims, even if it's simply clarifying what we believe.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | January 10, 2008 3:10 PM
I cannot think of a finer expression of the values of Christianity and of all those who follow the golden rule than this thoughtful essay. Thank you.
Posted by: cranberries | January 10, 2008 5:42 PM
Kudos to you Brian for this excellent post.
I am really appalled at the fact that a guy like James Dobson calls himself a Christian, and, what is much worse, that so many people follow him thinking they are following Christ's teachings. Unbelievable!
Posted by: Ernie | January 11, 2008 12:08 PM
"The central problem seems to be that Dobson does not want peace. He wants to feel superior."
Hence the term "Christianist".
Good to see they can now focus on something other than MY family. Their attacks were getting tiresome.
Posted by: Question Everything | January 11, 2008 12:48 PM
What a profoundly beautiful and loving rebuttal. Thank you my Christian brother!
Posted by: jules | January 11, 2008 2:44 PM
Occasionally the news carries stories of Christian aid workers who've been accused of drinking the blood of infants, or of injecting hospital patients with HIV, or stealing children for organ transplants, etc. I always wonder, “how on earth could the locals possibly believe that?” I guess the answer is: they don’t know any better. They don’t know Christians. They don’t know us. The only thing they know of Christians is what they hear at the local madrassa, which is too often, um… uncomplimentary. And so the cycle of hatred rolls on.
I think having 138 influential Muslim scholars walk away from a dialogue thinking, “you know, most of these Christians are really not such bad guys,” would be a great start toward changing that. It would go a long way toward undermining hate-mongers on both sides (which is no doubt why the signers are getting so much blowback.)
A lot of responders here took issue with the idea that the signers are “apologizing.” I don’t agree that asking the Muslim community to forgive wrongs committed against them is equivalent to apologizing, but that's a debate that can go on forever. Instead, I'd like to take one of Brian McLaren's analogies a step further. When I have a conflict with my wife I have on occasion tendered an apology that I did not think I needed to make. This was not an intent to deceive her, but a recognition that offense is in the eye of the beholder, and if the other party feels an apology is deserved, then maybe that's all the reason I need to extend one.
And the apology costs me nothing.
Of course, by this time in the conflict, my goal is not (okay, perhaps is no longer) to “win,” but instead just to set things right between us.
I guess if one's intent is to convince the Muslims to submit to one's earthly authority, then yeah, you wouldn't want to surrender the high ground by apologizing to them. If instead one's intent is to follow Christ, then having 600+ signatories turn their 600+ other cheeks seems like a pitifully small concession to make in the cause of peace.
Posted by: SE_CR | January 23, 2008 1:51 PM
I am certainly sorry for the sins of my religion...
“Never shall I forget that smoke.
“Never shall I forget the small faces of the children whose bodies I saw transformed into smoke under a silent sky.
“Never shall I forget those flames that consumed my faith forever.
“Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence that deprived me for all eternity of the desire to live.
“Never shall I forget those moments murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to ashes.
“Never shall I forget those things, even if I were condemned to live as long as God Himself.
“Never.” - Elie Wiesel, Night
The “Night” of 1944 should never be forgotten – it was – it was the – it was some of the dogma of the Reformation that helped incite that horrible night – we know it was – what? – we’re to proud even to apologize?
I see only two options, either apologize for the sins of my religion, or deny my religion. I still have a strong hunch that Yeshua was/is the Messiah and that Yahweh was/is/always will be Elohim/Allah/G-d/God . . . because of people who are willing to humble themselves, apologize, and communicate powerless love.
I am for the conversation.
Posted by: sam | January 23, 2008 4:25 PM
Thank you SE_CR for stating so well what I had thought by now most people would have found obvious. An apology can be one of the most healing acts one can do to bring about dialog and possibly reconciliation. Apologizing doesn't mean we have to say that our faith is untrue or somehow inferior. It simply means that our forebearers in faith did some very reprehensible things and that we as Christians are sorry that these "Christians" engaged in behavior that is so at odds with what we are taught by Jesus. We don't want those past actions to define who we are and how we will treat Muslims today.
As Focus on the Family's (FOTF) taking issue that the apology failed to mention Muslim atrocities, well that shows the most immature faith development I have ever heard. It's flat out juvenille to say that we shouldn't apologize until they apologize first. That smacks of little children bickering. If our forebearers of faith were wrong in what they did, they were wrong regardless of what any Muslims did then or since. We as Christians are responsible for our behavior bad or good regardless of the other people's behavior. To tie our apologizing for our wrongs to the group we wronged having to apologize first or at the same time is not really an apology. As it has been said earlier, FOTF seems to want to defend a political or cultural position rather than follow Jesus and his call for love, compassion, and forgiveness. If we can't be good examples of Christ in the world why should others even listen to us.
To paraphrase St. Teresa of Avila:
Christ has no body now but ours.
No hands, no feet, on earth but ours.
Ours are the eyes, through which He looks
compassion on this world.
Ours are the feet
with which He walks to do good.
Ours are the hands
with which He blesses all the world.
Ours are the hands, ours are the feet.
Ours are the eyes, we are His body.
Christ has no body now but ours.
No hands, not feet, on earth but ours.
Ours are the eyes, through which He looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but ours.
May we truly be Christ's eyes, hands, and feet today and every day.
Peace everyone.
Posted by: rule62 | January 23, 2008 4:50 PM
Brian,
I have been involved in active interfaith dialogue with Muslims for several years. I love Muslims. While I agree with several of the criticisms that have been leveled against the signing of the response (I was invited but declined) perhaps my biggest issue was the fact that Muhammad was referred to as "The Prophet". Having discussed this on a forum of which I am part that consists of perhaps a hundred workers among Muslims and many former Muslims, the consensus was clear: "You prophet may have been appropriate but "The Prophet" certainly seems to come across as an endorsement of sorts. Muhammad is clearly the greatest heresiarch that history has yet to produce. This so called "prophet" stands refers to the essential historical doctrines of the Christian faith (The Trinity, the incarnation, the cross) all the greatest forms of blasphemy imaginable. If Mohammed was a prophet, he was clearly speaking for the devil. Wouldn't you agree that while attempting to be gentle as doves we should also attempt to be wise as serpents while standing firm in our commitment not to compromise our most core beliefs?
Sincerely,
Joel Richardson
Posted by: Joel Richardson | February 4, 2008 11:33 PM
typo correction:
"Your Prophet" was intended above. Always getting my merds wixed up.
Joel
Posted by: Joel Richardson | February 4, 2008 11:35 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?