John Hayward Posted: 23 April 2008
Keywords: Christianity & Religion, Worldviews & Culture,
"Christians should be willing to support those Muslims who challenge the harsher Islamist interpretations of the Qur'an. Instead of suggesting that 'the Qur'an is essentially violent', Christians should listen to the internal debate between moderate and extremist Muslims and add whatever weight they can to support Muslims who challenge the more violent interpretations of the Qur'an, and who do so from within Islam."
So suggested Colin Chapman in our 2007 Cambridge Paper, Christian responses to Islam, Islamism and 'Islamic terrorism'. We should therefore welcome yesterday's launch of the Quilliam Foundation, a "counter extremism think tank" founded by ex-Islamists Ed Husain and Maajad Nawaz. We should also welcome their open challenge to Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Islamist groups to engage in public debate with moderate Muslims such as themselves.
And yet, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the belief they express that "Western Muslims should revive Western Islam ... free from the cultural baggage of the Indian subcontinent, or the political burdens of the Arab world" - "to help foster a genuine British Islam, native to these islands, free from the bitter politics of the Arab and Muslim world." The reason for my unease is not simply that a revival of Western Islam would differ little from the individualism of secularists, merely offering an alternative pursuit of salvation by works that equally misses the grace and love uniquely derived from the Trinity†. Rather, the source of my discomfort comes in their assertion that "Islam, like other world faiths, is a religion, not a political ideology."
In this they appear to be making a similar mistake to the one Chapman warned Christians against when he wrote, "Christians also need to recognise the importance of the political issues that need to be addressed alongside the theological issues." For, orthodox Islam does make claims to be a system encompassing every area of national, community and personal life in a way that Christianity and other religions do not. Furthermore, clear tensions seem to exist between internationally accepted standards of human rights and traditional Islamic values, for instance over freedom of religion and the status of women. Such political questions cannot simply be swept aside. If moderate Muslims are to challenge Islamists with any success then, like Christians, they too will need "to recognise that political issues have been highly significant in the development of Islamism and need to be taken seriously in trying to understand the anger that lies at the heart of the violence in the name of Islam."
First thought, reaction to some, is let us hear it from Islam first. On that we start a dialog, a plan, to counter the haters, murderers, insanity at war with the West and Christianity specifically. Isn't this turning the other cheek hopefully?
Thomas Biddle 26 April 2008
"Christians should be willing to support those Muslims who challenge the harsher Islamist interpretations of the Qur'an."
What an adventure in missing the point! What Christians should be willing to do is declare boldly that Islam, whether extremist or moderate, is a lie, an anti-christ religion inspired by Satan to lead millions to hell.
It is so foolish to get drawn into the interfaith debate. The Christian response, when coming into contact with anything that denies the Lordship of Jesus, is to sound the call to repentance and proclaim the truth. It is not to legitimise, in the eyes of the world, an evil religion, by coming alongside it and supporting its more moderate adherents in their views against the hardliners. Moderate or hardliner they are all blinded by the god of this world and will spend eternity in a literal torment.
How dare Christians, who have been entrusted with the duty of sharing the good news to lost souls, compromise on the message of 'repent and believe', by failing to clearly and publicly renounce all Islam as Satanic?
"What about the repurcussions?" I hear you say. And thats the difference between Christians now and the Christians of the early church. Christians then would rather be stoned to death than compromise their message of repentance which angered the religious authorities.
The early church turned the world upside down with their non-compromising preaching about turning from false gods to the True God. They didn't go into the local den of iniquity or temple of idol worship and ask if there was anyway they could be of support to the less extreme idol worshipers, against those who took idolatry a bit more seriously.
Christians today are not exactly turning the Muslim world upside down with the truth of the gospel. Maybe because they are disobedient to the call to preach the gospel of repentance unto the True God. Maybe because they compromise through fear of man in the current climate of 'interfaith dialogue'.
Theres only one god who wants to see Christians cooperating with and legitimising Islam in any of its forms, instead of calling its adherents to repentance. And thats the god of this world who blinds people so they cannot see the light of the gospel.
Oliver 26 April 2008
Without making any decision as to whether the approach of ‘Oliver’ is an appropriate Christian response or not, it certainly won’t attract any Muslims to even consider the Christian faith as an alternative to their own. This abrasive and abrupt evangelism seems nothing like that of Jesus and the early church who appear to have approached those of other faiths with friendship and understanding. Yes, the fullness of the Gospel was shared, but often by beginning with where their understanding was. So we see Jesus building much of his teaching on the OT (the Hebrew Scriptures) and on Jewish culture and social practice. Look also at Paul in Athens and elsewhere when he talks to pagans: people who were every bit as violent towards the Christian faith as militant Islam is today. Indeed, most of the ‘hard line’ teaching in the New Testament is reserved for Jewish religious leaders and Christians.
Oliver’s aggressive approach is an especially unfortunate one for moderate Muslims because, whilst agreeing with John Hayward that there are fundamental differences, especially politically, there are many points of common ground with moderate Islam. For example, all Christians could subscribe to the five pillars of Islam: believing in God, praying, fasting, giving alms, and pilgrimage. There are also many passages in the Qur'an, which are positive about Jesus and Christians. If we are unable to develop relationships and understanding here, the more difficult issues are going to be impossible. Yet even with these, Trinity, resurrection etc, some of the differences can be resolved by alternative Qur'anic interpretations to the traditional Muslim ones.
There is never any need to travel with a watered down Gospel in opening a constructive and open dialogue with our Muslim neighbours. Best thing of all, Muslims need to be able to see that Jesus is living in Christians.
Chris C 27 April 2008
If I understand correctly what Oliver is saying, then I think I can understand where he is coming from - the belief that we should relate to Muslims on the basis of 'common ground' as found in their 'Holy Koran' is a troubling prospect to many Christians.
Chris' point that Jesus built up much of his teaching on the OT, and thereby implying that Christians should do the same by relating to Muslims by seeking out similarities of religious practice in the Koran, is frighteningly misguided. The reason Jesus used the OT is because it is the divine inspired Word of God. It was used because it is Truth and the Sword of the Spirit, and thereby had the ability to cut men's hearts. The Koran is not a book in which Truth is to be found.
As for Chris' point of "Muslims need to be able to see that Jesus is living in Christians" I couldn't agree more. I suspect Jesus would love Muslim's enough to warn them of the error of their ways, rather than indirectly hint that they are recipients of divinely inspired scripture.
As many missionaries to Islamic countries discover, it is almost impossible, having related to a Muslim on the basis of the idea that their Koran holds some sort of divine inspiration, to then expect a true conversion which intrinsically entails the renunciation of a 'false religion'.
David Rutherford 1 May 2008
Colin Chapman has written something very disturbing:
"Christian Zionism, therefore, needs to be challenged publicly by Christians who can both point out the negative effects of one-sided support for Israel and present an alternative and more convincing way of interpreting the Bible in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Do we need to find or create an alternative interpretation of the Bible because of so-called negative effects? What a strange anddnagerous call to make! The correct way to do things, is to find out what the Bible actually says, and then apply it.
May I suggest that Mr Chapman reads "Defending Christian Zionism" by D. Pawson before committing himself to the ranks of Sizer et al....
What needs to be challenged publicly by Christians is the impossible situation that Islamic groups create in the region. Palestinian Islamic groups have vowed to destroy Israel, they do not understand the concept of truth-telling, their word cannot be trusted, they are driven by a false belief system... what hope can there be for peace or justice in such a situation?
Surely it would be more appropriate for Christians to publicly acknowledge the DEEPER SPIRITUAL ISSUES AT STAKE: The God of the Old Testament and New Testament is the same. Nations that bow to worship false gods can never expect to walk in God's blessing of peace and security. And Satan will continue to use Islam as a tool to attempt to destroy God's chosen people...
Matthew P 2 May 2008
One further thought.
What reason have we for considering extreme Islam to be more dangerous that moderate Islam?
After all it is the antiChrist religion, for it denies the Father and the Son. So from an eternal perspective moderate Islam is just as, if not more, dangerous than extreme Islam, for its moderation subtly hides its true dangers to the soul...
Perhaps Christians should be willing to support anyone in renouncing all Islam?
David R 2 May 2008
In response to both Colin Chapman and Matthew, the only convincing way of viewing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and issues of justice/oppression that arise is to realise that the Biblical model is that the Jewish ownership of the land is unconditional, but their right occupation is a conditional one, which depends on their just treatment of aliens and strangers in the land.
Christian Zionism which advocates both these 'sides of the coin' is surely the "alternative and more convincing way of interpreting the Bible in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" that Chapman seeks?
Jamie 3 May 2008
If I were a moderate Muslim seeking to engaged in dialogue with my extreemist brethren, I think the last person I would like to have standing at my shoulder would be an evangelical Christian. Or maybe a government minister. In order to convince the extreemists they need to be able to convince from classical Islam, unalloyed by syncretism or secular support, both of which are red rags to a very touchy bull.
Oliver would be very quickly branded as a modern day crusader and understandably so. Muslims form just 3% of the UK population; why pick on them? Perhaps he could direct his hellfire message to the vast majority of the population who make no effort to engage with God at all.
Alternatively we could find ways of extending the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, a message of immessurable grace and love from God. It applies equally to Muslims as to all others; at least Muslims start from a belief in God.
Uncle Tom 7 May 2008
As a convert to Christianity from Islam, I am tempted to ask how Evangelical Christians would react if UK Muslims suddenly approached nominal "Christians" and offered them support in challenging those Evangelicals who took their Bibles literally.
At least "fundamentalist" Muslims obey their Qur'an literally. It is ironic that Chapman is espousing the idea that, in order for Christians to obey God fully, they should challenge Muslims to stop obeying Allah fully.
From a personal point of view, the kindest thing anyone ever did for me, a radical Muslim, was bravely stop me in the street and explain clearly that Jesus is the Son of God and that salvation from sin and eternal torment are found in no one else. My eyes were opened to the truth of the gospel. The foundational problem of all Islam, extremist or otherwise, lies in the deception of men's hearts and will only be solved by multiple heavenly heart transplants.
Hamid Khan 7 May 2008
Evangelical Christians need to understand that there are many parts of the Bible, such as hellfire and repentance, that have been discredited and left behind long ago. More enlightened modern Christians understand that God is a God of unconditional love and that we need to be sharing the good news that God loves Muslims just as they are, especially because they have a belief in a God. Maybe they do believe in a slightly different Allah but God doesn't mind does he, just as long as they have some belief, and its only in the OT when God was jealous for his name to be honoured. The God of the NT is one who accepts everybody no matter what they believe, and Christians shouldn't go round using the preaching methods of John the Baptist, or the disciples or Jesus himself, because we know they are out of date and we have a better method now.
For example, the other day I overheard a Christian saying that in order for the good news to be understood the bad news had to be preached first about Gods wrath. How ridiculous is that!?
Anonymous 8 May 2008
Matthew recommends Colin read David Pawson's new book, "Defending Christian Zionism".
I am glad that David has felt able to commend my own book, Zion’s Christian Soldiers. “my fellow Zionists… will be disturbed by my agreement with much of Sizer’s criticism of this position.” (p. 19). “I am grateful to Stephen Sizer for drawing attention to the legitimate criticisms of dispensational Zionism. He has rendered a service to the cause of Zionism which was needed.” (p. 39)
I have to say, however, that David’s book is a disappointment. I don’t think that is simply because David has put my name on the cover and admits on page 17, “Sizer is my main ‘target’” The book appears to have been written in haste and without much attention to detail. This might explain some of the factual errors it contains, besides the sweeping generalisations and occasional inflammatory language. I am disappointed most of all because David does not engage with my arguments from Scripture but rather restates his own views while taking swipes at what he thinks I believe.
This suggests that while his book was written as a defence of Christian Zionism and to refute the position I have taken in my two books, Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon? (IVP, 2004) and Zion’s Christian Soldiers? The Bible, Israel and the Church (IVP, 2007), he does not actually engage with either. And yes, in places, it does get a little personal.
Although David’s book has 160 pages, the font is larger than usual and the spacing wider than necessary so the book appears more substantial than it is. Also, I am sure it is embarrassing to David that on the front cover his name is unusually printed in a larger font than even the book title. Sadly, the book has no footnotes, no references and no bibliography so there is no way to check the occasional sources quoted. It is therefore a book to read but not particularly useful for Bible study.
The book has five main chapters besides and introduction and conclusion: Two Zionisms, Five Covenants, Two Peoples, The Promised Land and the Second Coming. The book concludes with an appendix critiquing a sermon by John Stott on the ‘Place of Israel’ which is included in my second book.
The saddest aspect of the book is the tone with which David occasionally writes. There is an impatience with positions he disagrees with and sometimes barely concealed anger. Sometimes David implies Divine judgement on those who challenge his position.
For example, in his conclusions he refers to an international conferences held in 2004 and sponsored by Sabeel in Jerusalem, entitled ‘Challenging Christian Zionism’. The participants included evangelicals, liberal and Catholic Christians together with Jewish and Muslim speakers and participants, who were deeply troubled by the failure of the international community to bring about justice for the Palestinians, peace for Israel and reconciliation between Jews and Arabs. Nevertheless, David, who was not a participant, writes,
“Now a rising tide of anti-Zionism is added to the mix. The Archbishop of Canterbury consents to speak at a conference in Jerusalem… specifically denouncing Christian Zionism… The most belligerent speaker died shortly after returning home. Stephen Sizer was a delegate. Some preachers deliberately attack Israel… How does the Holy One of Israel feel about all this?” (p. 154)
In the Appendix, David summarises, despite very few actual quotes, an unpublished sermon by John Stott, which he graciously allowed me to include in Zion’s Christian Soldiers. In my opinion, the book is worth buying just for this sermon. David begs to differ however.
“It is unlike such a careful scholar to build so much on so flimsy a foundation… when it comes to expounding particular texts Stott gets into difficulties, coming up with some unusual, even bizarre explanations… For Stott ‘Jerusalem’ does not refer to the Jewish capital at all but to “the whole present world order” which will be brought to an end before Jesus returns. This extraordinary claim…” (pp. 159-160).
David seems unaware that this is how the Apostle Paul associates Jerusalem with the opponents of Christ (Galatians 4:21-27) as does the Apostle John (Revelation 11:8). The writer to Hebrews calls us to look to another Jerusalem as our true home (Hebrews 12:22-23).
He concludes with the regrettable comment, “it is a great pity that this sermon had not remained unpublished.” Perhaps it would be charitable to suggest it would have been better if David’s comment had remained unsaid.
My question to David is this. Was the coming of Jesus the fulfillment or the postponement of the promises God made to Abraham?
David’s case for Christian Zionism requires him to show that unconditional promises concerning the land were made by God exclusively with a racial group descended from Abraham, and apply in perpetuity to their physical Jewish descendents, apart from faith in Jesus Christ. This he cannot and does not prove from Scripture.
This is why I continue to regard Christian Zionism as an oxymoron, a basic contradiction in terms. Nothing in David’s book leads me to think otherwise.
To read the full review see http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/defendingchristianzionism.htm
stephen sizer 24 May 2008
Without righteousness there is no peace. Peace is a result of God's rule and reign in the human heart and over nations.
Perhaps Christians should obey the New Testament without looking to the right or to the left. Maybe instead of wasting time agonising over dialogue with Muslims, they should invest their time more wisely by learning how to preach the gospel, heal the sick and deliver the oppressed. Perhaps they should fast and pray for the compassion of Jesus and a passion for lost souls that will take them to the nations. I wonder how many of the commentators on this blog have ever crossed the road to witness to a Muslim? I wonder how many have followed our missionary God, laid down their lives, and given their all to share the gospel in foreign Islamic lands.
I suspect very few. Because its cheap to just talk and theorize. To obey is costly.
Rachael Higgins 25 August 2008
Anonymous(?) said: For example, the other day I overheard a Christian saying that in order for the good news to be understood the bad news had to be preached first about Gods wrath. How ridiculous is that!?"
Your whole contribution sadly misses the point and is summed up by your poor "example". Surely it is a logical proposal to expound bad news, because if you don't know what the bad news is, surely the good news will be not really that good. Isn't that how Paul begins his account of the Gospel in the book of Romans. Bad News chapters 1-3 then comes the good news 4-16!
Furthermore, your views on God not minding as long as someone believes something is utterly unbiblical, as was almost all your ideas. Paul talks of "guarding the gospel" and not being taken in be "every wind of doctrine" and such like! False teachers leading new Christians away were strongly condemned by Paul and plagued the early church. Your comments reminded me of what those teachers may sound like to day I'm sad to say. Anything does not go! Not to use preaching methods of Jesus? Whatever next? Tipex out all the nasty bits in the Bible? Please!
Richard 2 September 2008