Miroslav Volf, Professor at Yale, on the dedication page of his new book — Allah: A Christian Response, says this:
To my father, a Pentecostal minister who admired Muslims, and taught me as a boy that they worship the same God as we do.
Volf’s opening to the book is the famous Regensburg University speech of Pope Benedict XVI in which he set the Christian God over against the Muslim God, the former the God of Reason and the latter the God of Will. The speech caused an uproar.
Before we go further I want to quote Volf’s major claim: “Commitment to the properly understood love of God and neighbors makes deeply religious persons, because they are deeply religious, into dedicated social pluralists” [he means everyone becomes neighbors](32).
Do you agree? Does our commitment to love God and neighbor make us even more committed to the neighbor who is unlike us?
This was followed by three responses, two from Muslims and one from a conglomerate of Christians and Muslims. The first response by Muslims was called The Open Letter (focusing on the non-coercion in religion according to the Qu’ran, and that Allah is not capricious, and love of God/neighbor was central to this), and this was followed by The Common Between Us and You — both directed at the Pope — and then Volf was part of a group that drafted the Yale Response. [In my edition of Volf's book these documents are unfortunately not published.]
The issues that arose can be reduced to some simple ideas:
1. These folks believe Christians and Muslims believe in the same God but understand that God differently. No one disputes the profound differences between Christian Trinitarian beliefs and the Allah of Islam.
2. These folks believe the center of the Muslim and Christian faiths are love of God and love of neighbor. We can quibble — and I certainly would — over “center” here and I can’t speak whether or not love of God and love of others is fundamental to Islam. But the point, so it seems to me, remains profoundly valuable: Muslims and Christians can work for peaceful coexistence by learning to love one another. Volf believes this would be ramped up in degree if it is true — which he believes is true — that the two actually do believe in the same God.
3. The principal actors here are Pope Benedict and Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal. Eventually they came to resolution between themselves over the Pope’s earlier statements.
He wants to know if the “object” is the same: Do Christians and Muslims actually believe in and love the same God?
He believes too that if the two are not worshiping the same God the whole “Common Word” project crumbles to the ground. Maybe so, but I suspect there are other ways to work together for peace.
I’d like to register here some of my thoughts:
1. I’m not yet convinced of the Same God theory, but I am convinced that the follower of Jesus, the Christian, is to love God and to love the neighbor as himself. We are both monotheistic religions but that’s not enough for me… but this topic will become more focused as this book develops and we’ll discuss it later.
2. This means whether Muslims agree or not, and I’m encouraged by those who have participated in these concerns, I am called to love Muslims as my neighbor.
3. But I want to press followers of Jesus to see this in a bigger idea: we are called to love our enemy. This is found in Matthew 5:43-48. The “enemy” there was not necessarily a person’s personal enemy, but probably Rome and its representatives in the Land. Jesus told his followers to love them because God, too, showered his love on them as evidenced in natural blessings.
4. Matthew 13 has a parable called the Parable of the Wheat and Weeds, and the best reading of this parable is about peaceful coexistence (not of a mixture of saints and sinners in the Church). Jesus urges his followers not to seek to rip up weeds now but to wait for God’s judgment — but to live peacefully with weeds in the here and now.
Hence, Volf’s overall theory is what I think Jesus calls us to do: we are called to love Muslims and to work together for peace, and we do this best by loving our enemies as our neighbors. All become neighbors in the vision of Jesus.
Scot, the documents you refer to can be found at acommonword.com.
The Regensburg speech did NOT set up the Christian God over against the Muslim God, one of reason, the other of will. Is the claim that it did coming from Volf or from McKnight?
The Regensburg address said that both religions have a tradition of reasoned faith but that both have also had theologians who veered into double-truth, fideism etc. Benedict named examples for each. He leaned over backwards to find supposedly fideistic Christian theologians (Scotus) who really weren’t, just for the sake of trying to be evenhanded.
The point of it all was to appeal to Muslims inclined toward fideistic/violent “fundamentalism” today to return to their faith’s own best lights because only if both sides recognize some common ground in reason can we hope to avoid being at each others’ throats.
If Volf is portraying that speech as described here, he’s distorting it badly.
The speech caused an uproar because it was willfully misrepresented in the press, before those criticizing it on the BBC etc. had even seen the text of the speech. The speed and pattern of the uproar suggested to some observers that it could not have been simply the result of misunderstanding the speech but was deliberately orchestrated in Muslim lands.
Jorge L, I’m summarizing Volf. I would recommend you read Volf before you get too accusatory.
I would say we are called not to agree with but to love our Muslim brothers and sisters. What I gather from the gospels and the epistles is that love is the strongest force in the universe.
We are called to love our neighbor, love the stranger, even love our enemy, regardless of whether we have anything at all in common with them.
“Does our commitment to love God and neighbor make us even more committed to the neighbor who is unlike us?”
My belief is, it depends on a person’s conceptual understanding of God. If we say that a sinner is one who has “missed the mark” and failed to comprehend–let alone faithfully obey–their God, then it is indeed possible for two people even sitting in the same church, or who identify with the same Christian denomination, to have VERY different ideas of: 1) Who is God? 2) Who is neighbor (those like me vs. those not like me), and 3) what is my commitment to each of these groups; what does God expect of me? This reminds me of a reference that Brian McLaren made in one of his books to the movie ‘Talladega Nights’ — which Jesus do you pray to?
If a self-identifying Christian who worships the one true God of Israel and is a believer and follower of Christ is only committed to certain “neighbors” and then only in a very specific way, then has this Christian failed to conceptualize the God of the Bible rightly, and failed in their commitment to neighbor (other, even enemy)? For some, love itself is a strange conception that involves more hurtful speech and action against “neighbor” than healing. Do we Christians even worship the same God? I wonder at times. We have a lot of trouble finding common ground and living peacefully with one another, let alone completely other groups like Muslims. We get it about half-right at any given moment, and that’s a generous assessment I suppose…
A typical Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew is far easier for me to love and see as neighbor than those of the Christian faith whose “love” looks more like hate to me. Of course there are extremist factions (usually the most vocal and active) in each of these religious groups that give love a bad name for the entire group. Each group, though, has its prejudices within its own religious group (i.e., Sunni/Shiite, untouchables, conservative evangelicals vs. liberal mainliners + the world). Fear of the “other” turns potential friendly neighbor into foe.
This — “1. These folks believe Christians and Muslims believe in the same God but understand that God differently.” — isn’t conclusive proof for me that we’re talking the same language (I read and understand the Bible differently) nor will such a condition necessarily result in “loving” relationship with neighbor, whether seen as friend or foe.
That zeal to convert the other to one’s own point of view tends to create tension in trying to live together peacefully, even with others who are different and for whom we care. When both/all experience peace and well-being, the entire society is better off. Ubuntu!
I think the commitment to love the neighbor who is unlike us is essentially the missionary calling. It is more than most people are able to accept, and it is not a fruitful exercise to stand in judgement over those who do not.
Even within the calling there are two ways of being neighbor to someone. One is to allow them to live next to you. You love them on your terms… take them out for a BLT on Friday afternoon. The second, and much more radical way to “prove neighbor” is to meet the person on their own terms. To do so, requires us to accept (at least within the relationship) the conceptual framework of the other person. That means moving into a way of thinking that makes certain assumptions about cosmology and about morality among other things. This is very difficult to do psychologically, not because the other way of thinking is so difficult to understand, but because of how traumatic it is to observe our own religious practice from that vantage point.
The main thing Volf’s discussion of this left me wondering is, how does love of neighbor work out on the individual level vs. the community level? Anti-Muslim feeling in the west often gets provoked by internal victims of Islamic laws and mores, especially women, and indeed some folks like Ayaan Hirsi Ali have kind of made a profession of it. So does the Christian call to love neighbor mean go up against those beliefs somehow, on behalf of those persons? Does it mean (as Volf seems to insinuate) siding with Muslim factions that are more amenable to our own beliefs, against their co-religionists? Or, given that Christian churches have their own injustices and malcontents, do you say you don’t interfere with another religion’s business because you don’t want them interfering with your own?
Apples and oranges are both fruits, they share commonalities. That being said, you can’t bake an apple pie with oranges. Just because two objects satisfy similar criteria in makeup, and in purpose, doesn’t mean they ARE the same.
The Father, Yahweh; and Allah may share commonalities, or even a shared religious linneage; but they are two ‘objects’ entirely.
If you want an apple, you don’t grab an orange (or likewise). To equate the two as essentially the same is destructive to either and ultimately un-helpful.
I am all for working with, and loving Muslims. But, I am not ready to make the leap and say my apple is their orange.
David – I like your analogy. There is objective Truth, whether or not we fully apprehend it (seeing through a glass darkly in this life). It does occur to me, though, that even among subjectively good varieties of apples, there’s no good use for a spoiled apple (or orange, for that matter). How do we wisely discern vs. judge/condemn one who differs from us in the object of our worship and perceived calling?
At a basic level, I think as Nitika said, we must all be willing to at least try to learn about the other and see from their POV, without it being a “conversion project”. Also, accepting the fact that at a societal or community level, living together in peace requires a certain level of tolerance for differences. But, Camassia raises a good point too: at a societal level, if we are serious about our calling in Christ, do we stand by or turn a blind eye when injustice and oppression is occurring, even outside of our own religious group? Fight, or flight, or a Third Way? My pastor preached a few weeks ago on the “turning the other cheek” passage of Scripture; he explained it as a “reframing” of the conflict in the interest of reconciliation and peacemaking…
Jesus Christ gave himself up for us not for the truth of love but rather for the love of truth.
As Pope Benedict XVI puts so well in his new book:
—————–
“Redemption” in the fullest sense can only consist in the truth becoming recognizable. And it becomes recognizable when God becomes recognizable. He becomes recognizable in Jesus Christ. In Christ, God entered the world and set up the criterion of truth in the midst of history.
http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/jesus-of-nazareth/excerpts.htm#pilate
—————–
Love saves for truth.
Scot,
What does the dedication page of Volf’s book say? Is something missing from your opening paragraph?
God is love and His Word is truth. If we ever feel like we have to choose between them, I expect it is probably because we have misunderstood one or the other.
David #10
“The Father, Yahweh; and Allah may share commonalities, or even a shared religious linneage; but they are two ‘objects’ entirely.”
I think understanding God as an ‘object’ is the problem here. If He is ultimate, beyond description, He cannot be object.
Like Scot, I don’t have the expertise to know if love of God and neighbor are really central to Islam. I will say that the narrative of Islam’s founding and founder (and the continued behavior of several Muslim societies) makes me seriously question whether “the non-coercion in religion according to the Qu’ran” has as much sway as we might like.
That said, I totally agree with Scot’s thoughts in the post, and with the many that have said that Christians have ample reason in Jesus’ teachings and example for us to love Muslims of every stripe. Jesus is so strong on this very issue, I don’t think that an acknowledgment of Islam’s God as the same as the Christian’s adds anything, or is helpful to improve relations on the Christians’ side of things anyway.
The strongest critique of Christians who are violent toward Muslims (or others) lies not in the Same God theory, but in the teachings and example of Christ.
I’m not sure the Same God theory matters all that much. The big division between our two faiths is not whether God==Allah. Rather, it comes down to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?” versus the second half of the Shahada (Islamic confession of faith), “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”. The most awkward question a Christian can be asked by a Muslim is, “What do you think of Muhammad?” because it is difficult to give an answer that is both honest and won’t offend them. Conversely, they are happy to tell us that they regard Jesus as a great prophet.
In any case, as you emphasize, we are to love our neighbours and enemies.
rjs, somehow that got clipped … I put it back in the post. Thanks for pointing that out.
Hi Nitika (16), I thoroughly agree with you that we can’t make God an ‘object’ rather I am getting at the concept of ‘essence’ or ‘substance’. Not that we definitively understand what that substance or essence is.
However in the sociological outcomes of the two faiths, we see two very different outcomes via revelation; hence the concept of two objects.
I know many would argue one is seeing one aspect, and another a differing aspect of the same thing.
Susan (11), I think when cultivating relationship we should actively suspend judgment, at least in the sense of ascertaining motive, intent, and calling. We should be listeners first, but always keeping in mind God’s desire to see the other reconciled to him. I do believe that Christ is bigger than the religion that claims his name, but I also believe Christ is the only means of salvation; so it may well be that many that are culturally of another ‘faith’ are disciples of Christ in the truest sense. When it comes to Muslim’s specifically and missions in the context it is only when we adapt the ‘language’ of Christianity into an Arabic frame that many are able to follow Christ, and in that case I don’t dismiss someone who settles on one word over the other.
David @ #20 – thanks for the add’l thoughts. What you have said about “reframing” Christ in the Muslim cultural context reminds me of a missionary biography I read with my children ‘And the Word Came With Power’ about Joanne Shetler (Wycliffe Bible Translators). She lived and witnessed among the Balangao (headhunting) tribe of the Philippines for 15 years! Once, a spirit medium converted to faith in Christ, and not without some supernatural experience w/demonic spirits (but that’s another whole story!). After things settled down, for a long time the spirit medium would ask Joanne to remind her over and over, “What is the name of the God to whom I now pray?” And yet, her desire to worship and follow Christ was real from the first confession of faith. It took a long time for her her faith to go deep to an extent that she could articulate it easily. I think that is what you are saying?
I have also been thinking more on what Nitika has said about not everyone having this deep calling to be missional with those who are very different (i.e., Muslims). I guess I have been partly affirming this truth, in the sense of being equipped with different spiritual gifts. But the other part of me, in light of the realities of American culture with so many religious groups living side by side, as literal neighbors, says that we all (Christians of every branch and denom) would do well to pray for the ability to live out this calling.
David, I like what you have said — listening to learn and understand, building mutual respect, and then speaking of Christ in the “other’s” cultural context. I am listening to all of the discussion on this topic and taking it to heart. Actually, my husband is born and raised Hindu, converted to Christ during our marriage, so it isn’t something that I’m entirely unfamiliar with. That’s not to say that I was always smooth in communicating my faith to my husband! Still learning, by God’s grace…
Daniel S. #18: I believe my answer to the question “What do you think of Muhammad?” would have to be “Tell me about Muhammad!” Then I’m sure that there will be many things in their portrayal of Muhammad that I would like to affirm and maybe some things I will find disturbing. And I’m sure we would have a good discourse based on mutual respect.
I just finished a great little book called, Three Faces of Jesus: How Jews, Christians and Muslims See Him by Josef Imbach.
I don’t agree with Imbach’s conclusion, in part because he works from what everyone’s called the Same God theory. I like what Scot has said because instead of an either/or between religious dialogue on the grounds of the Same God theory or no inter religious dialogue at all, there is another way. We can have a dialogue based upon love of God, love of neighbor.
And to answer Scot’s question, I think it does lead to a pluralism of sorts. Yet I would distinguish it from the dominant view of pluralism where the state is arbiter and tells each faith to go to their room and a pluralism based on the servant model of Jesus. This third option would be an amazing witness to the world. Two faiths respecting each other without giving up their identities to do so.
Islam is a flexible religion in the sense that you can find support for any idea. Love of neighbor? Sure we can do that too. Often in areas of the world where there is Christian/Muslim dialogue you will see discussions of so-called mutual interest. The real question is how do Muslims frame their questions amongst themselves? What are the things they focus on? Unity, submission, justice, God’s mercy, and how God doesn’t love sinners. Love is rarely talked about. One old man told me, “You Christians are always talking about love. We don’t know anything about such things. I’ve been married more than 40 times myself (no joke) but I don’t know about love.”
Also, since God does not love everyone and especially not evil-doers and sinners, it would be wrong to love your neighbor if there was reason to believe God did not love them. Love those whom God loves and hate those whom He hates would be the rule of thumb.
I had another comment that went long, so I posted it here:
http://notfrisco2.com/camassiablog/?p=935
I have met many former Muslims who are now committed Christians. Not one of them ever felt that one must embrace another deity to become a follower of Jesus.
As an illustration: Ask a strident Republican and a committed Democrat to describe any prominent political figure. You will get descriptions that make you doubt they are speaking of the same person. The same can be said of Muslims and Christians as they understand the LORD.
And yet no Christian in the 1st century would say that about Jupiter or Zeus. The same can be said of Hindu worshipers of Brahma/Shiva/Vishnu who become Christians. The guidance of the Holy Spirit just was/is not there.