A Common Word. A Common Faith?
Last week I wrote a brief article about apostasy and heresy and concluded with a portion that dealt with the difference between dialog and controversy. I quoted an article written by David Samuel. He dealt with this same subject and said
I think this explains the ease with which many in recent years have been able to enter into dialogue with Roman Catholics and even Muslims and Hindus. It demands a certain detachment from the truth to be able to do that. You are obliged to put a question mark over it, otherwise you are not genuinely engaging in dialogue, which means, at least in principle, you are prepared to change and qualify your beliefs. I think we must be very careful to distinguish between dialogue and controversy. Dialogue carries with it implicitly this assumption, that you will be prepared to modify and change your position, in the light of the debate, if it so requires you. But controversy, in which all the Reformers engaged, is quite a different thing. You start from what you know and believe to be the truth, and your object is to expose the error and confusion of the opponent’s position and, if possible, persuade him of the truth. It was dialogue in which Satan engaged Eve in the garden. She would have been safe if she had insisted on controversy. When men have not a fervent love of the truth and no sense of abhorrence of error they are in the anteroom of apostasy. It is said that the apostle John fled from the public baths, where Cerinthus the heretic appeared, lest they should fall on him. Today some evangelicals would be glad to stay and engage in friendly dialogue.
He is correct that dialogue carries with it the assumption that there is a question mark hovering over my beliefs. It is consistent with a postmodern mindset, in that I acknowledge that though I believe what I believe quite strongly, it might just be all wrong. Certainty is sin. Those who dialogue enter into their dialogue with that attitude and it is no wonder that they are often persuaded that they are indeed wrong. As Christians we have no need, no right, to dialogue about our faith. We are not on equal footing with others when it comes to the fundamental doctrines.
In October of this year 138 Muslim scholars and clerics sent an open letter to Christian leaders and teachers around the world. “A Common Word between Us and You” was their call for these two faiths, which claim billions of adherents from across the globe, to peacefully co-exist. It was a call to base all future interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims to be built upon what these Muslim clerics believe is the common ground between the faiths. “The basis for this peace and understanding already exists,” they say. “It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity.” And our common ground should lead to this:
Thus in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.
So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill.
Their rationale is based in part on their Scripture and in part on matters perhaps more practical:
Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians is not simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders. Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest religions in the world and in history. Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they make up more than 55% of the world’s population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world’s inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.
And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony.
Four scholars at Yale Divinity School’s Center for Faith and Culture chose to respond to this with a full-page advertisements in the New York Times (that was published on November 18). They titled this response “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You.” It was endorsed by over 100 Christian theologians, pastors and scholars, among whom were Rick Warren, Brian McLaren, Leith Anderson, Timothy George, Richard Mouw, Robert Schuller and John Stott. It has long been an observation that efforts of this kind create strange bedfellows. This is no exception.
The letter was one of penitence and delight—penitence for wrongs committed by Christians against Muslims, and delight for the efforts of the Islamic scholars to find this common ground between the faiths. Some might even see a tone of pandering. “As members of the worldwide Christian community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world.” These Christian leaders agree with the common ground between these two faiths.
What is so extraordinary about A Common Word Between Us and You is not that its signatories recognize the critical character of the present moment in relations between Muslims and Christians. It is rather a deep insight and courage with which they have identified the common ground between the Muslim and Christian religious communities. What is common between us lies not in something marginal nor in something merely important to each. It lies, rather, in something absolutely central to both: love of God and love of neighbor. Surprisingly for many Christians, your letter considers the dual command of love to be the foundational principle not just of the Christian faith, but of Islam as well. That so much common ground exists—common ground in some of the fundamentals of faith—gives hope that undeniable differences and even the very real external pressures that bear down upon us can not overshadow the common ground upon which we stand together. That this common ground consists in love of God and of neighbor gives hope that deep cooperation between us can be a hallmark of the relations between our two communities.
The letter concludes with further agreement that this common ground ought to be the basis for further interfaith dialogue. It concludes with the promise that these leaders will continue to labor towards the goal set by these Muslim clerics.
“Let this common ground”—the dual common ground of love of God and of neighbor—”be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between us,” your courageous letter urges. Indeed, in the generosity with which the letter is written you embody what you call for. We most heartily agree. Abandoning all “hatred and strife,” we must engage in interfaith dialogue as those who seek each other’s good, for the one God unceasingly seeks our good. Indeed, together with you we believe that we need to move beyond “a polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders” and work diligently together to reshape relations between our communities and our nations so that they genuinely reflect our common love for God and for one another.
Given the deep fissures in the relations between Christians and Muslims today, the task before us is daunting. And the stakes are great. The future of the world depends on our ability as Christians and Muslims to live together in peace. If we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony you correctly remind us that “our eternal souls” are at stake as well.
We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another. It is with humility and hope that we receive your generous letter, and we commit ourselves to labor together in heart, soul, mind and strength for the objectives you so appropriately propose.
So here is an example of dialogue. This is not controversy such as the controversy carried on by the Reformers during the time of the Reformation. It is not controversy like the controversy generated by Jesus’ Apostles as they took the gospel to the nations following the Lord’s death. Rather, it is dialogue, the likes of which we saw when Evangelicals and Catholics attempted to get Together. It is dialogue that, by all appearances, places Christians and Muslims on equal footing as they attempt to work together to arrive at some kind of agreement. Perhaps most shockingly, the documents takes for granted that the God of Christianity is the god of Islam. Nowhere in this document would one come to believe that the God of the Bible is different than Allah of Islam.
Nowhere in the Bible do I find Jesus telling us to find common ground with other faiths—with people who chase false gods and who are wholly committed to the downfall of the Christian faith. Nowhere do I see the Apostles, as Christ’s representatives, engaging in dialogue or seeking common ground in which to pursue God together. Rather, I see the promise of division and hatred. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth, “says Jesus.” “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”
Robert Munday read the document and the reply and offers six questions, all of which are worth considering. Essentially he asks, “Do the men and women who signed this document really understand what they have signed?” Do they understand that Islam always has been and always will be fundamentally opposed to the foundational beliefs of Christianity? Do these people not realize that Muslims will and must reject the authority of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the existence of the Trinity, the atoning death and the glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ?
In a follow-up article Munday says, “There is much that is commendable in interfaith dialogue [He and I would feel differently on this point]. But if it is to have any real significance for Christian believers, those who engage in it must start with what Scripture teaches regarding the essential nature of the Gospel. Many of those who claim to represent Christianity in interfaith dialogue have already succumbed to a relativism that lacks such a foundation. And, increasingly, Christian respondents are so eager to find common ground, in light of the terrors that have occurred and fears regarding the future, that they are taking the course of appeasement in the face of Islam, eager to find “Peace for our time”—peace at any cost. It will not serve Christians well if they underestimate the true distinctiveness of the Gospel. And it will not serve anyone well if we underestimate the challenges that the world faces from the religion known as Islam.”
He touches on something important here. As Christians we have the Bible and within its pages we have the gospel. This is something that is distinctive to Christianity and something that has been given to us by God as a sacred trust. This is where we must begin. We cannot downplay or ignore the gospel of Jesus Christ. If we lose the gospel, we lose everything. There is no need, no call, to dialogue about the gospel. And there is no reason to dialogue with people who have and will and must reject it.
If you are interested, here are the documents (in PDF format): A Common Word and the Christian Reply.
What do you think? Do Christians have any business being engaged in dialogue with Muslims? If so, what would we hope to accomplish? What would our goal be? How can we defend this from the Bible?




Comments (40) »
1. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
December 5, 2007
10:40 AM
The only spiritual dialog we should be having with Muslims is a call to repentance from sin and faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Apart from that, there is no common ground…nothing on which to build anything of meaning.
2. Joshua L.
December 5, 2007
10:54 AM
It’s a sad thing to see. I think the main problem is that most Christians don’t know what Biblical love to God or to neighbor is. It makes sense then, that some would think that Muslims who blaspheme our Lord, Jesus Christ, “love” God and neighbor. “Peace, peace, but there is no peace.”
“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God.” 2 Corinthians 6:14-16
3. Bibliomaniac
December 5, 2007
11:19 AM
The one phrase in the document that saddens me most is this: “That so much common ground exists…”
Though the people who signed this document may say they mean well, they do no favors to Muslims when they say, “We have a lot of common ground.” As Christians entrusted with the gospel message of salvation, we are obliged to emphasize the differences between us, not the things we have in common. When we de-emphasize the differences, by default we de-emphasize the Muslims’ need to know the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.
4. JTR Hart
December 5, 2007
11:26 AM
It’s sad. When God refers to worshiping or following other gods, He calls it idolatry. We have toned the word down today and called it religious diversity or I would even go so far as to call it religion. Bringing Christ down to this level by bringing up idolatry as something worthy of discussion and comparison with the one true God is shameful to Him. Tim touched on this in this posting in that “we are not on equal footing with others”.
That being said, I think these types of discussions should take place in our own one on one conversations with our friends and co-workers. We should be willing to listen to their beliefs, not for the purpose of finding common ground, but rather for the purpose of simply sharing the gospel. But for Christian leaders to do this on a broad scale sends a message that there can be multiple truths.
5. Bill
December 5, 2007
11:29 AM
I don’t imagine that the discussion has anything to do with determining who is right in their beliefs; both would answer definitively that they are correct in their beliefs. That of course doesn’t make them right. The message of the Gospel is inherently controversial, but it doesn’t seem to tell me to go rooting out needless controversies.
I have nothing more in common with my unbelieving co-workers than I do to the Muslim community, yet I manage to stay at peace with them. In fact, often it is that peace which allows me to speak and be heard. When I enter into dialog with an unbeliever, it is never with a heart of questioning my beliefs. However, if my flesh is really as weak as I believe it is and I truly rely on God for the grace that I do, I also have to say that at any point it’s possible for me, in the weakness of my flesh, to be wrong about something. Then, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit carefully consider what’s before me. If there’s no element of that attitude, there’s a good chance I’ve got a backup of some kind of pride. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in any way saying, that Muslims might be right; I have met the living God, there is no question about that. However, I might be wrong about how I think I’m supposed to interact with them, or with anyone for that matter. I think that maturing through a walk with Christ one will see God show them their wrong, over and over and over again. Are we supposed to believe a point comes when we’re always perfectly correct in our understanding?
I also think it’s flawed to hold the reformers as an ideal. The Lord did great things through them, but I doubt many of their methods were His ideal. I think we ought to actively seek humility, search the Word and pray and move very carefully foreword according to the amount of faith we’ve been given. If that arises in controversy it will have been led there by God, if it arises in dialog, it also will have been led by God. And let’s remember that unlike the god of Islam, we are carrying around inside of us real power, very real motivating, moving, teaching, defending power. No matter what we do, an equal footing is not possible. Even if we act like it is.
6. Kyle
December 5, 2007
12:19 PM
It seems to me that, though the “Christian Reply” might have crossed the line, there is role for dialog in our conversations with those of other faiths. You said, “dialogue carries with it the assumption that there is a question mark hovering over my beliefs.” That is true, but you seem to be implying a false dichotomy. It is correct that to have a dialogue, some of my beliefs have to be in question, but not all. If I have a dialogue with an atheistic scientist about how a human heart functions, I have my views on that matter in question without questioning anything fundamental to my faith. With a Muslim it comes closer to my faith, but I can still dialogue about plenty of issues I haven’t figured out or settled completely (such as ways to love my neighbor, how God could have created time, the nature of miracles, etc.) without ever backing down or questioning my faith in Jesus, the Bible and the Gospel. We can dialogue about many matters that are related to our similarities while still making clear that our differences are truly central to our beliefs. We in no way need to surrender our beliefs to have meaningful, if not central, dialogues about our faiths.
7. Curtis
December 5, 2007
12:23 PM
I agree with Bill—the “dialogue” that’s being suggested here is a forum in which to disagree peacefully; genuinely, and with serious commitment to our beliefs, but in a spirit of peace and openness. No Biblical Christian should fear or oppose this!
It’s a mistake, Tim, to characterize dialogue in the way that postmodernity does. Does the fact that the Emergent Heresy has appropriated and redefined “dialogue” mean that we need to use it the same way? At its core, the concept of dialogue simply involves conversation, and it just isn’t true that every time we enter into conversation with people who disagree with us we must forego our commitment to the truth. Notice that in their appeal, the Muslim clerics call for PEACE between our respective faiths—NOT agreement or syncretism.
I agree with Brian that we have an obligation to call Muslims (along with all sinners) to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, but surely this can be done in an atmosphere of humility and charity, rather than violence and dismissively bombastic rhetoric!
8. The Cutting Truth
December 5, 2007
1:15 PM
The day we stop dialoguing is the day we become most like those we want to stop dialoguing with.
The day we stop dialoguing with, eating with, conversing with the sinners and tax collectors and prostitutes is the day we beat our chest with self-righteousness and thank God we are not like them.
The day we stop dialoguing is the day the church ceases to be a city on a hill but, rather, an ostrich sticking its head into a molehill.
The day we stop dialoguing is the day we violate the Great Commission.
The day we stop dialoging is the day the church shrinks into a petty existence.
The day we stop stop dialoguing is the day we begin a march (once again) toward spiritual imperialism a la the Crusades.
9. Jeri
December 5, 2007
1:20 PM
Well, for one thing they are basing this call for peace on “love for the One God,” which is wrong out of the gate…their one god is not the living and true God! By the very nature of truth and love for them we are obligated to tell them this, to warn them of their deception and that the wrath of God remains on them. I don’t think that is going to lead to the warm fuzzies between Christians and Muslims. It could, however, lead to deliverance from the snare of Satan for a Muslim!
I am so sorry to see Timothy George’s name on that list. You’re right, this sort of thing makes for some strange bedfellows. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Tim.
10. Larry Geiger
December 5, 2007
1:27 PM
When Bill says that he dialogs with an unbeliever, that’s very different from 100 “Christian” leaders signing a document with unbelievers. That’s why our leaders are subject to a higher calling for the good of the “sheep”. Which would be me.
11. Tim V-B
December 5, 2007
1:28 PM
Hmm. Not at all happy with the Christian reply. Two HUGE problems spring to mind:
The Muslim conception of the unity of God is COMPLETELY different from a Christian one. We believe that there is only one God, sure, but that no more makes us companions with Muslims than saying “There’s only one decent football team” makes all football supporters best of friends! The issue is which god is the only God. Moreover, when Christians say “God is One” we are talking about a relational unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - a unity seen elsewhere in the unity of male and female in marriage (Gen 1) or the unity of believers (John 17). For Muslims, the unity of God excludes Jesus. For Christians, the unity of God is meaningless without Jesus.
What happened to the cross? As I’ve argued in a post on my blog following a lecture about “Challenges to Christians from Muslim / Hindu spirituality”, we need to recapture Luther’s distinction between a Theology of Glory (bad) and a Theology of the Cross (good). A theology of the cross cannot give room to “common ground” because the cross is the fountain of our understanding of God, the world and everything. The cross defines “love” and therefore makes “love of God and of neighbour” a matter of disagreement, not unity, between Christian and Muslim.
“On Christ the Solid Rock I stand, All other (common) ground is sinking sand.”
12. Aaron S
December 5, 2007
1:36 PM
As a couple have mentioned, Muslims do not love the true God but rather an idol. The same can be said of many professing Christians. Maybe this comes of having such a twisted view of God’s love in our day. If all true love is from God then only believers who share in God’s love can truly love God. And only believers can truly love their neighbor (with a Godly love). So to agree that Islam teaches love for God and neighbor just like Christianity is to totally reject the Biblical teaching of God’s love.
13. John K
December 5, 2007
2:00 PM
There is a huge difference in talking ‘common ground; between “loving God” and “loving your neigbour.” As has been pointed out several times, there is no common ground at all in our differing conceptions of God. However, loving our neighbours is something we do need to be discussing together. After all, even if we do not convert them, we still have to coexist in the world with them. Might as well do so peacefully, respecting each other’s right to disagree.
14. Chuck
December 5, 2007
2:01 PM
Tim: If you use the definition of “dialogue” that David Samuel offers, then the answer to your question is NO. By his definition the only possible outcomes will be no change in point of view or conviction, or far worse, a compromised point of view or conviction. Given these results, it would beg the question, why bother? From a Christian perspective, again using the definitions offered by Samuel, controversy seems the far better approach.
The issue swirling around may be the values that contemporary culture assigns to the two words “dialogue” and “controversy.” One sounds “engaging”, the other “repulsive”. But Samuel shed new light on these two words, and it is a light that brings with it great clarity for me. I really appreciate the distinction he and you have drawn.
15. Tim Challies
December 5, 2007
2:06 PM
I agree with Bill—the “dialogue” that’s being suggested here is a forum in which to disagree peacefully; genuinely, and with serious commitment to our beliefs, but in a spirit of peace and openness. No Biblical Christian should fear or oppose this!
I’m not sure what this type of dialogue would accomplish. But I’ll grant that it is not necessarily something to oppose. But it seems quite clear to me that the letter suggests something deeper. When the letter takes for granted that Allah and God are one and the same, it seems obvious that they would hope to bridge the gap between the followers of what they perceive to be one God.
16. don gale
December 5, 2007
2:30 PM
It’s striking that the “common foundational beliefs” listed are loving God and loving neighbor without any mention of the Cornerstone by which the spoken of foundation is built. Would I have ever loved God, indeed COULD I ever love God, without Christ’s intervention? Can anyone really love their neighbor apart from Christ? No. These things are not possible. Before God began to melt our hearts and turn us towards him, there was no genuine love – only a gaping abyss of selfishness and pride.
So, there has to be some sort of action, call it dialogue, conversation, argument, or whatever. Christians must love and pray for and interact with Muslims and seek to win them to Christ. We must also look to make peace wherever we can. However, attempting to do so without Christ will not yield any significant or holy results.
I too was troubled by the parties’ assumption that God is the same as Allah. There are similarities, but the differences are critical. Also, the Muslims stated that we both believe in one, unified God. This is odd considering that Muslims reject the divinity of Christ outright and call all who believe it polytheistic infidels. So, to me, when a Muslim says that we both believe in a united, singular God, he’s assuming that I don’t believe in Christ’s divinity or the Holy Spirit. When the responders acknowledged this supposed similarity, they support the Muslim’s assumption that Christ was not God and that there is no Holy Spirit.
This is troubling.
17. Victoria Stembokas
December 5, 2007
2:52 PM
As a missionary bordering a Muslim country, I think that the spirit behind this desire for dialogue is crucial. We, as believers, do NOT have to concede anything to talk peacefully with Muslims. We don’t even have to concede that God and Allah are the same god (I firmly believe that they are not.) But I have never seen anyone come to a faith in our Lord after first being insulted or told “You are simply wrong.” It is not just religion to them, it is culture, it is their families, it is their education, it is everything. To first point out common ground and identify the little truth that there is in Islam (love of one God and one neighbor) will only allow us to respect them and fill in the blanks with real Truth. To start off with the similarities will only help us gain a hearing; only then can we explain what’s missing in Islam and how Christianity and the Gospel are totally complete. Jesus said that there will be strife and war but we are supposed to be a peaceful people. Just because he prophesied that he was to be betrayed did not give Judas license to betray him. Just because he said that there will be divided homes does not give us license to be unforgiving or encourage division. Muslims will never take the Gospel seriously if we do not approach them with respect and love.
18. Tim V-B
December 5, 2007
3:22 PM
Victoria, great to have someone posting here for whom these issues are very very real. You are right: respect and love are vital. It is because love is defined at the cross that we are able to show genuine love to neighbours, Muslim or otherwise. The cross says we are secure in Christ, so we don’t need to feel threatened by others. The cross also says love can take opposition without seeking revenge - how amazing that is, when you consider the history of violence and retaliation in many Muslim countries (eg Shia vs. Sunni), or even the ridiculous outrage over the British teacher whose class named a teddy bear Muhammed (did that make news in US/Canada?).
I remain unconvinced about starting by building common ground - but I’m completely behind your motivation, and it is far far better than parachuting into Mecca and shouting “Repent you idolaters”! I think we win a hearing through demonstrating grace-filled community (the church) and our love of neighbour. We certainly need to listen because it’s almost certain that we will have misunderstandings about what Muslims believe.
I suppose we can start with ‘similarities’ if we do it 1 Corinthians style: Paul engaged with wisdom-seeking gentiles by saying that Christ is true wisdom, but the wisdom of God turns all other ideas of wisdom on their head.
19. bchallies
December 5, 2007
3:56 PM
20. Bibliomaniac
December 5, 2007
4:00 PM
Responding to some of what has been said above: Yes, Christians should always be ready to dialogue and be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope we have.
But if the purpose of the dialogue is to minimize differences and emphasize commonalities, then the dialogue is moving forward on a path that discourages opportunity for evangelism.
Evidently some have not paid attention to the lessons to be learned from ECT more than a decade ago. Some, if not many, of the evangelicals who signed ECT may have hoped perhaps their “dialogue” could help sway more Catholics toward evangelical Christianity, but that didn’t happen. Official Catholic doctrine has remained rigid as ever since ECT was signed. The commonalities between Catholics and Protestants has not changed one whit. The official Catholic stance has remained unmoved, and it is evangelical Christians who have yielded ground in that particular battle.
I fear we are seeing history repeat itself with this new “dialogue” between Muslims and Christians.
21. Jim Boling
December 5, 2007
5:11 PM
There are so many arguments against this grievous action. I will take one simple one: the true definition of evil/wickedness/unrighteousness itself. There is no way that a Muslim would agree with the Biblical meaning of the term.
22. Jim Boling
December 5, 2007
5:26 PM
Oops. I misread the snippet from the document; they did point out the necessity to differ on the matter of righteousness. My comment (#21) above is not really pertinent.
23. Truth Unites... and Divides
December 5, 2007
5:37 PM
Great Series Tim!
I ask myself: “What would Jesus do with a devout, staunch Muslim?” Answer: I don’t know.
I ask myself: “What does Scripture say about interacting with a devout, staunch Muslim?” Answer: Great Commission. They are our neighbors.
I ask myself: “What would Jesus and His Written Word have me do if my muslim neighbor blasphemes the Triune God and endorses or commits violence against me and my Christian neighbors who are infidels according to the Koran despite my gentle and respectful attempts at evangelism?”
Answer: Respectfully resist the muslims. Pray. Consult other wise Christian counselors. Re-read articles and books on the “Just War” theology, if it comes to that. After all, I’m a loyal servant and warrior for Christ.
24. bchallies
December 5, 2007
5:40 PM
25. bchallies
December 5, 2007
5:42 PM
Uh-oh! I give up!
26. carol
December 5, 2007
8:03 PM
Here are some thoughts from a former Muslim who has a ministry to Muslims. He said the “American leaders” who signed this letter did so out of ignorance of the history and future aspirations of Islam. The majority of Christian leaders in Africa and the Middle East (to whom the letter was, for the most part, addressed) did not respond.
He said that the the language blurring the lines between the god of Islam and the God of the Bible is an insult to the many martyrs throughout history who gave their lives to proclaim the message that the God of the Bible is unique in his attributes.
“Think of it from a stand point of a Muslim who feels
traped in the Islamic system. Who experiences brutality of god of the Quran and is seeking redemption. What hope is there for billions of Muslims if the God of the Bible is as cruel as the god of Quran. We condemn Muslims to a life of worthlessness in relation to God when we promote “Same God” theology. Why become Christian if it is all the same?.”
27. Tim
December 5, 2007
11:40 PM
There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Be it Muslim or Mormon, theirs is not another “faith”. What they have is merely religious superstition and idolatry and so we have no common ground with them.
28. dec
December 6, 2007
2:35 AM
Muslim Religious Leaders on Messengers of God: “…the Messiah Jesus son of Mary is a Messenger of God…” “…Muhammad is the messenger of God.”
Muslim Religious Leaders on Jesus as Messiah: “Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, not in the same way Christians do (but Christians themselves anyway have never all agreed with each other on Jesus Christ’s nature)…”
Christian Religious Leaders on Jesus as Messiah: ” “
Christian Religious Leaders on Jesus as Son of God: ” “
On Jesus as Savior: ” “
On Jesus as Redeemer: ” “
29. Nigel
December 6, 2007
6:16 AM
I was really shocked and saddened to see John Stott’s name there too. I don’t know Timothy George, but none of the other names surprised me - especially Robert Schuller’s. Well done, Tim, for highlighting this for us - especially the fact that Jehovah is spoken of as being the same as Allah - how can ANY true evangelical have anything to do with such “dialogue”?
30. JTR Hart
December 6, 2007
7:14 AM
Apparently this website has jumped on the idea of finding common ground and put the Bible and the Koran side by side for reading; similar to a parallel study Bible. It is not the complete text for either book but rather just the similar stories between each. Each story section has some kind of introduction from the authors attempting to explain how the two texts differ.
From the FAQ on the website: “The IKON and Radio Netherlands Worldwide (RNW) believe it is important to promote dialogue between the world’s two main religions.”
31. Jim Haglund
December 6, 2007
9:36 AM
Thank you for the blog. I am so saddened that the Christian leaders you mentioned are agreeable to this so called dialog. Keep the faith. The Lord bless you.
32. Les Prouty
December 6, 2007
12:26 PM
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This kind of selling out the distinctives of the Christian faith is truly shocking and telling of where the state of evangelicalism is today.
33. don gale
December 6, 2007
1:11 PM
Two other interesting names on the list of Christians that signed the document…
Greg Livingstone - Founder of Frontiers, a Muslim-only missions group George Verwer - Founder of OM
I’d love to hear their reasons for attaching themselves to this, given their long involvement with missions.
34. Brent
December 6, 2007
1:18 PM
In my case, it is dialogue that helps provide a hearing for controversy. My hindu co-worker and I dialogue plenty during lunch: family, kids, schools, world events, etc.. Mutual sharing of heart & feelings prepares the soil for controversy.
35. Randy Hurst
December 6, 2007
1:50 PM
What we have here is a failure of definition. If I understand the love spoken of here to be “mankind’s love”, composed of kindness and respect there can be common ground…but a quicksand kind of . The Law of Love? Even Jesus’ condensation to Love God and Neighbor served the purpose of pointing out the shear impossibility of the task. Instead of admitting that there is no way to truly Love God and people out or own resources, many still miss the point and feign an empty shell of love. I understand God’s Law to be a tutor that leads us to acknowledge our need for Christ’s redemptive, enabling, intervention. Since when does the law bring harmony to anything? It, at best, is a stop gap that should humble us to conviction and utter despair. Without the creation of a new creature in Christ, all people are at a loss to truly love. How can an unregenerate anyone in any faith expression claim the love that has power and changes from the inside out? We all need the Love of Christ, empowered by the Spirit and measurable against the credentials of 1 Corinthians 13. Then, and only then can Love be an authentic catalyst and effective for change and true unity. That kind of unity truly will draw all men to the Christ who creates it. I’m all for peace… but earthly peace will always be built on compromise and restraint, and the presence salt; those who truly Love… those born of Christ.
36. Daryl
December 6, 2007
2:14 PM
What a variety of comments!! The biggest problem I see is this:
For a Christian to say you will engage in dialogue with a false religion is either to lie or to cause the other person be willingly submit to evangelism or become angry and pull out of the “dialogue”.
How can we as Christians say we will dialogue without making it clear that we know God’s word is settled in heaven and than we cannot and will not be convinced to change our mind on anything based on the input of a non-believer? And what Muslim will agree to continue in a dialogue with those ground rules?
This isn’t about peacable conversation, it’s about talking about the common ground with false religion.
As far as listening to the unbeliever, yes we should, but to what end? World peace (as this agreement clearly has in mind). Hardly. We should listen in order to understand the mindset in order to gain an audience for Christ.
Should we not have the courage to say as the apostle said “Except for these chains, I would that you were as I am”
Given Christ’s promises of hatred from the world, should we not be skeptical of the unbeliever who smiles and offers his hand and says “Let’s dialogue about our common belief so we can do something good in the world”
Smells like a rat to me.
37. David F.
December 6, 2007
8:50 PM
I initially had a positive reaction to the letter from the Muslim clerics and that Christians from various seminaries and missionary organizations gave a response. If the purpose of this “dialogue” is to encourage peace and stopping violence in the Middle East, that is a good goal. But as I have thought about it more (and read the responses), two issues stand out to me. First, if the cessation of violence is the goal based on some form of commonality between religions, why did the Muslim clerics not also address their letter to adherents of Judaism? Islam and Judaism have more in common than Islam and Christianity. There are likely two possible reasons why Judaism was left out: (1) the Muslim clerics writing the letter knew they would be killed for stating that Islam and Judaism worship the same god and have many common elements, or (2) perhaps this letter was a subversive attempt on the part of the Muslim clerics to communicate to Israel that American Christians are on the side of Islam and not as strongly in support of Israel. I would bet that the Muslim clerics who wrote this letter did so in the hopes of garnering support from American Christians who historically have given strong support to Israel (at least conservative Evangelicals). I think that the Christians who signed the response letter have unwittingly thrown Judaism and Israel under the bus. My other reaction has been touched on by others in this forum. How can any Christian who believes the Bible to be the inspired and inerrent word of God sign a letter which supports the claim that Alah and the God of the Bible are one and the same? To deny the divinity of Christ and the trinity is to deny God and to worship an idol instead. Ending violence is a good goal, but I am concerned that the response letter results in the denial of Christ and salvation by grace alone.
38. Christianity
December 7, 2007
3:19 AM
This is a amazing post on Christian faith and thanks for telling how the Christian faith is truly shocking and where the state of evangelicalism is today and I like this post.
39. penny west
December 7, 2007
2:55 PM
The Barnabas Fund (A christian organisation that seeks to help christians in the muslim world) has addressed this letter saying that the wording is very clever and does not actually mean what is says at face value. Muslims reading the letter would draw a compleletly different meaning from it by the language used. For a complete breakdown of the phrasing and dual meaning please email info@barnabasfund.org
40. Paul Joens
December 7, 2007
7:17 PM
Wow… Allah (alla Satan) and God… no commonality there that I can think of.
Not too surprised that Rick Warren and Bill Hybells signed - although it is very disturbing none-the-less.
Thanks for that note Penny. Here is the link to the article at Barnabas Fund: http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/article.php?IDnewsitems=342
Isaiah 14:13-14 “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”
It seems that Satan is achieving his goals (as far as men’s recognition of Allah is concerned).
I can understand how that the average pew-warmer could get the two mixed up with a lack of understanding, but surely the signatories of this document know what they are signing…