|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/462
Fulcrum Subjects: Other Faiths / Anglicanism, Church of England Other articles by Richard Sudworth are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 26 comments on this article The Church of England and Islam:
Hospitality and Embassy - Theologies of Religion in Process
2. Lambeth 1988 and 1998By Richard SudworthPart II of IV (see part I, III,IV)
While non-Abrahamic faiths, in contrast to Nostra aetate, are excluded from The Way of Dialogue, the Lambeth Conference seems to continue the pattern of privileging the understanding and consonance of revelations in Judaism and Islam. Nostra aetate famously shuns an assessment of the status of the Qur’an or Muhammad6. Similarly, The Way of Dialogue prefers to hold up the Abrahamic schema as an apologia for the significance of good relations and dialogue between Christians and Muslims without making a judgment on the prophethood of Muhammad, for example. There are ways in which the Anglican proposal goes somewhat further than Vatican II, though. In Nostra aetate, Muslims are described as those who “submit wholeheartedly…just as did Abraham, with whom the Islamic faith is pleased to associate itself.”7 Lumen Gentium admits “the plan of salvation” which “includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these there are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God”.8 Where The Way of Dialogue accedes to a “common relationship to Abraham”, Vatican II merely notes that Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham and are pleased to associate their faith with the submission modelled by Abraham. Following Vatican II, the theological rationale underlying the concept of the Abrahamic faiths has been the subject of extensive discussion that suggests that the premise of the Lambeth Conference document of 1988 may be anachronistic. It seems clear that both Vatican II9 and The Way of Dialogue admit that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. It is rather less clear whether Vatican II goes as far as accepting the Abrahamic theologoumenon as proposed by Massignon, who had such an influence on the conciliar interfaith documents. The “father of the faithful” as described in The Way of Dialogue, need not be merely the literal progenitor of Jews and Muslims, even though there are serious scholarly objections to the assumption of Islamic lineage traced back to Ishmael.10 Taking a Pauline understanding for Christians of Abraham as the model of faith in the one God, Muslims might be seen to relate as heirs of Abraham “by faith”. Thus, Paul, in Romans 9, includes Gentiles in the promises of Yahweh despite their lack of genetic lineage to Abraham. Their qualification is merely that of “faith”; the very qualification of the first Jew, Abraham the patriarch, who was compelled to leave the In this regard, though, the Israeli scholar Alon Goshen-Gottstein has commented on the tendency of the Abrahamic faiths motif to work most effectively for Christians and Muslims, “while the Jews tend to watch from the margins.”11 Abraham as the “man of faith” is a tenable concept in Pauline theology but it works to negate the fullness of covenant obligation in Judaism. For the English context, this is a particularly pertinent observation noting the dangers of an exclusive Christian-Muslim dialogue forum that seems to work at the expense of other religious groups.12 This was highlighted in 2007 with the publication of a document by the Hindu Council UK that criticised the privilege given to Abrahamic faiths within interfaith dicussions. A more accommodating outlook was argued for by the author, Anil Bhanot, that was genuinely “respectful of the other” according to the Hindu principles of Dharma.13 The potential for the Abrahamic fold to be an interfaith clique is evident in Anil Bhanot’s submission but his line of reasoning betrays the essential problematic of finding an all-embracing religious theme that has integrity beyond the source community. Dharma has no more weight as an understanding of right religion to a Christian than Abraham does to a Hindu. It is worth noting from this particular debate that there are implications that go beyond Christian-Muslim relations for this theological rationale that undermine the potential of the Church of England to fulfil its vocation to the whole nation. The Way of Dialogue thus follows the lead of Vatican II in stressing the particular confluences between the Abrahamic faiths but is suggestive of a rather more controversial and questionable synchronicity that is avoided in the conciliar documents.14 It is noteworthy that the considerable controversy generated by The Way of Dialogue15, especially amongst bishops from Asia and Africa, is focussed more on the interpretation of historical precedence, Islamic theology and the practical application to interfaith relations rather than to the underlying theological schema itself. Taking this Abrahamic foundation, three theological principles are then used to inform the content of The Way of Dialogue: understanding, affirmation, and sharing. Michael Ipgrave identifies the influence of Max Warren, a former general secretary of the Anglican Church Mission Society (“CMS”), and his concept of “Christian Presence” in the outworking of interfaith understanding as “affective entry into the world of the other”.16 Max Warren and John V. Taylor, another advocate of “Christian Presence” and former general secretary of CMS, and Bishop of Winchester respectively, brought a missionary sensibility to this incarnational approach to inter-religious encounter. Graham Kings identifies Relations with Islam are set in a historical perspective, noting the historic enmity evinced in the Crusades, but also in the positive cultural contributions from Islamic to Christian civilisations.19 The principle of understanding is embodied by offering correctives to stereotypes of Islam such that the burden is on redressing negative Christian patterns towards Muslims and challenging stereotypes of, for example, sharia law treatment of women20, jihad21 and traditional Islamic understandings of the crucifixion.22 Lucinda Mosher’s analysis of the Conference discussions notes Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s particular dissatisfaction with the emphasis of these correctives.23 Allied to the perceived “glossing” of Islamic theology, concerns were also voiced at the insufficient treatment of the evangelistic mandate of the Church.24 Evangelism, or proclamation in the language of Vatican II and subsequent Roman Catholic encyclicals, is only mentioned incidentally to The Way of Dialogue: “if we are truly to share our faith we must not only affirm what we can but share our own deep convictions, even when these appear irreconcilably opposed to our partner’s faith and practice. In the case of Islam particularly, Christians must first understand Islam if this witness is to be effective.”25 The conditional “if” posits evangelism as an optional practice subservient to the wider thrust of dialogue, even if the respective integrities of traditions are affirmed robustly within The Way of Dialogue. It is notable, though, that issues of human rights in Muslim societies, the doctrine of apostasy as it affects minority Christian communities and the challenge to Muslims to correct distorted images of Christians and Jews provide elements of reciprocal obligation in The Way of Dialogue. The feeling, especially amongst evangelicals, that too much was being given away and presumed positively of Islam can be traced back in some of the preparatory documents to Lambeth 1988. Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue26 was published as a report to the General Synod of the Church of England by the Inter-Faith Consultative Group of the Board for Mission and Unity. This report was circulated as advance reading for Lambeth 1988 and introduces the contemporary experience of British plurality as an opportunity to explore a renewed understanding of the theology of religions, seen through the prism of the “threefold typology” of religions.27 Within TTID, pluralism is regarded as a developing, innovative response to the challenge of religious diversity. It is presented on a par, in terms of theological legitimacy, with inclusivism, while exclusivism is viewed as an inhibition to the affirmation of spiritual truths in other faiths.28 Additionally, the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed is offered as a possible limitation on fruitful resources for a theology of religions. An Orthodox understanding of the Spirit speaking and acting “in other religious cultures”29 flowing from the Father-Creator are tentatively noted as providing a doctrinal foundation that can embrace Trinitarianism, and a corresponding high Christology, and the grace of God beyond the church.30 TTID provoked a response by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, included in the 1986 edition, redolent of his objections to The Way of Dialogue. Paying particular attention to the Christian-Muslim milieu, Nazir-Ali corrects the sense of novelty that he sees in the exploration of interfaith relations in TTID, reminding readers of the longstanding traditions of dialogue, co-existence and mission in non-Western Anglican contexts. Again, Nazir-Ali criticizes the seeming compromise of the “scandal of particularity”31 of the Gospel in the service of dialogue. The ignorance of the global precedents of interfaith relations and the overarching narrative of salvation for Christians in TTID makes, for Nazir-Ali, a “fleeing of history”. This abnegation renders the work of the Holy Spirit (described in TTID as “unpredictable, culturally and historically indeterminate”32) somehow less than biblical.33 The emphasis on the Church’s need to rethink its attitudes, actions and theology in TTID informs Christopher Wright’s robust critique in an Anvil journal edition of 1984. There is an important distinction to be made between the challenge to the individual Christian obtained in the encounter with truth within another tradition and a challenge to Christian revelation itself. For Wright, this distinction is blurred in the text of TTID34 as well as an unbiblical qualifying of the Great Commission in the service of interfaith dialogue.35 It is interesting to note Christopher Lamb, one of the authors of TTID, responding to Wright’s critique by expressing his admission that “Though we wanted to see people moving in a certain direction we had no illusions that we were producing a definitive report”.36 The impression is given of a discussion document that is deliberately tipped toward dialogue as a provisional redress of balance for a Church of England insufficiently open to inter-religious encounter. This impression is supported by the feedback given to TTID by the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in “It is no longer with someone out there, at a distance, that we engage in conversation, but with those with whom we share in a way quite other than any previous generation. Nevertheless, we ought not to minimize the fact that numerically those of other faiths are few compared with the number of practising Christians in Perhaps the “irrelevance” observed by Anglicans outside of Europe is in the language of cultural dominance assigned to the Christian faith and reflected upon from experiences of longstanding diversity or even Islamic cultural dominance. The presumption of both The Way of Dialogue and TTID is that the Church is in a prior position of host to those of other faiths. For TTID, and subsequently The Way of Dialogue, there is a recognition of the importance of dialogue, especially with Muslims, but, for many, an incomprehension of the language of host to guest and a discomfort at the relegation of evangelism. Roger Hooker and Christopher Lamb combined to publish a significant resource for Church of England parishes in 1986, Love the Stranger: Ministry in Multi-Faith Areas.39 Love the Stranger sought to encourage an irenic encounter with other faiths, providing stories and anecdotes and highlighting some of the theological challenges of dialogue and evangelism. It is redolent of the mood of The Way of Dialogue and TTID in its provisional tone. There is a reluctance to define and assess evangelism or dialogue at a time of such rapid cultural and religious diversity: “Are such incidents to be described as dialogue, witness, service, evangelism or what? The answer is that we do not yet know”.40 A picture of transition is conveyed that posits the primary obligation on the Christian “hosts” who “bear the burden of the our collective past. We bear the burden of present misunderstanding.”41 The shadow of colonialism looms over the book’s emphasis on the Church’s need to reach out to the “stranger”, even allowing for the gospel imperative to service. Indeed, it is telling that a Church of England priest who may be regarded as a specialist in interfaith matters is likely to have “served in The extent of the controversy occasioned by Lambeth 1988 was perhaps behind the extensive sharing of stories from around the Communion of encounters with Islam for the Lambeth Conference of 1998, as opposed to the pursuit of any theological investigation.44 Gambia, Northern Nigeria, the Middle East, Pakistan and Bradford were all contexts providing stories of constructive Anglican-Muslim engagements, all notably Muslim-majority in complexion. The “major issues” identified included dialogue, conversion, basic freedoms, working ecumenically and monitoring.45 Pointedly, in “Monitoring”, the Network for Inter-Faith Concerns is sanctioned with resources in “monitoring Christian-Muslim relations as they affect the different provinces of the Anglican Communion”, recognising “both the opportunities for inter-faith encounter and the difficulties”.46 Of additional note for the 1998 Lambeth Conference is the address by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali specifically on inter-faith relations, providing perhaps his preferred approach where TTID and The Way of Dialogue may have failed in his view. Nazir-Ali provides a number of practical illustrations that flesh out the objections expressed to TTID and the apparent concerns over The Way of Dialogue. He does this by way of affirming Kenneth Cragg’s espousal of the missionary values of “embassy” and “hospitality”47. Hospitality may be demonstrated by Christians in the West opening up their homes to people of other faiths who have recently arrive in the country or making church halls available for social functions. However, “The use of church buildings is a classic situation where Western Christians can learn from the history of Christianity elsewhere. In the early days of the expansion of Islam into the Christian countries of the Conclusion
The Way of Dialogue remains the most recent authoritative statement on the theology of interfaith concerns in relation to Islam for the Anglican Communion.51 There is an evident indebtedness to Vatican II and in particular to Nostra aetate in the situating of relations with Islam in the context of the Abrahamic faiths. The Way of Dialogue goes somewhat further than Vatican II in how the relationship between the Abrahamic faiths is framed, though, and one wonders how this may be appropriately applied to the Church of England’s interfaith relations beyond Christianity and Judaism. For critics of The Way of Dialogue, the document is weak in not presenting the full particularity of the Gospel and paying insufficient attention to the vocation of evangelism. It is perhaps ironic that the evident use of resources from a missionary tradition that includes Moving to Lambeth 1998, a clear effort to hear the stories of Christian-Muslim coexistence from beyond Footnotes
1“Jews, Christians and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue”, Appendix 6, The Truth Shall Make You Free: The Lambeth Conference 1988: The Reports, Resolutions and Pastoral Letters from the Bishops (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1988), pp. 299-308, p. 299 2“The Way of Dialogue”, p. 299 3Ipgrave, M. “Understanding, Affirmation, Sharing” 4Hastings, A. A Concise Guide to the Documents of the Second 5Ipgrave. M. “Understanding, Affirmation, Sharing: Nostra Aetate and an Anglican Approach to Inter-Faith Relations”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Volume 43, No. 1, (Winter 2008): 1-16,”, p. 6 6For two summary analyses of Vatican II assessments of Islam see Unsworth, A. “The Vatican, Islam and Christian-Muslim relations.” In, Christian Responses to Islam: Muslim-Christian Relations in the Modern World, edited by O’Mahony, A. and Loosley, E. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008) and “Louis Massignon, The Holy See and the Ecclesial Transition from “Immortale Dei” to “Nostra Aetate”: A Brief History of the Development of Catholic Church Teaching on Muslims and the Religion of Islam from 1883 to 1965”, ARAM Periodical, 20 (2008): 299-316 7“Nostra aetate 3”, The Documents of 8“Lumen Gentium 16”, The Documents of 9Unsworth, A. “The Vatican, Islam and Muslim-Christian Relations”, p.61 10O’Mahony, A., “Catholic Theological Perspectives on Islam at the Second 11Quoted in Valkenberg, P., “Does the Concept of “Abrahamic Religions” have a Future?”, Concilium, Islam and Enlightenment, New Issues 2005/5: 103-111, p. 108 12“In Britain, Christian-Muslim relations cannot be isolated from a context of religious diversity, which encompasses both the oldest religious minority – the Jews – and Sikh and Hindu communities formed since the Second World War, part of that larger flow of migrants from former British colonies invited to fill the labour shortages….Much of the institutionalisation of Christian-Muslim relations is part of this larger reality.” Lewis, P. “Christian-Muslim Relations in 13Bhanot, A., The Advancement of Dharma: A Discussion Paper for Faith Leaders, ( 14See Arnaldez, R., Three Messengers for One God, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) for a Catholic reflection of the Abrahamic faiths motif that shuns the reductionism of a “common core” theology. For an alternative advocacy of a complementary and unitary core Abrahamic theology see Kuschel, K-J. Abraham: A Symbol of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims, (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1995) 15For an annotated commentary of The Way of Dialogue informed by contemporaneous notes of discussions and the records of the principal drafter, Bert Breiner, I am indebted to Lucinda Mosher’s unpublished thesis of 1997 for the General Theological Seminary, New York: “Christ and People of Other Faiths” and “Jews, Christians and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue,” the Statements on Interfaith Relations of The Anglican Communion prepared by The Dogmatic & Pastoral Concerns Section, Lambeth Conference 1988 16Ipgrave, M. “Understanding, Affirmation, Sharing”, p. 7. This “affective” identification with the faith of the author, as Ipgrave points out, was famously described in Max Warren’s introduction to Bishop Kenneth Cragg’s Sandals at the Mosque, (London: SCM, 1959) a part of Warren’s “Christian Presence” series: “Our first task in approaching another people, another culture, another religion, is to take off our shoes, for the place where we are approaching is holy. Else we may find ourselves treading on men’s dreams.”, p. 9 17For an account of 18Kings, G. “ 19The Way of Dialogue §8, pp. 300-1 20The Way of Dialogue §9, p. 301 21The Way of Dialogue §11, p. 302 22The Way of Dialogue §19, p. 303-4 23Mosher, L. Christ and People of Other Faiths, p. 14 24Mosher, L. Christ and People of Other Faiths, p. 15 25The Way of Dialogue §33 & §28 , pp. 305-6 26Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1986 edition), hereafter designated “TTID” 27Exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism. This typology originates with Alan Race in Christians and Religious Pluralism, (London: SCM, 1983) 28Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, pp. 7-10 29Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, pp. 20-21 30See Dupuis S.J., J. Christianity and the Religions: From Confrontation to Dialogue, ( 31Nazir-Ali, M. “That Which is not to be Found but which Finds us”, in Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, p. 47 32Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, p. 20 33Nazir-Ali, M. “That Which is not to be Found but which Finds us”, p. 48 34Wright, C. J. H. “Interfaith Dialogue”, Anvil, Volume 1, No. 3, (1984): 231-258, p. 256 35Wright, C. J. H. “Interfaith Dialogue”, p. 257 36Lamb, C. “Interfaith Dialogue”, Anvil, Volume 1, No. 3, (1984): 259-60, p. 259 37“Extracts from “Bonds of Affection”, Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1986 edition), p. 39 38Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, pp. 5-6 39Hooker, R. & Lamb, C. Love the Stranger: Ministry in Multi-Faith Areas, (London: SPCK, 1986) 40Hooker, R. & Lamb, C. Love the Stranger, p. 47 41Hooker, R. & Lamb, C. Love the Stranger, p. 12 42Hooker, R. & Lamb, C. Love the Stranger, p. 35 43“What is the controlling image of that which is great, and good and desirable, for men and for women and for nations? There is no avoiding religious language and religious issues here” Hooker, R. & Lamb, C. Love the Stranger, p. 117 44Ipgrave, M. “Understanding, Affirmation, Sharing”, p. 4 45The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing, 1999), pp. 268-327 46The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, p. 273 47“Hospitality he describes as “surely the closest of all analogies to the meaning of the Gospel””, Christopher Lamb describing Kenneth Cragg’s Christian vocation to Islam, Lamb, C., The Call to Retrieval: Kenneth Cragg’s Christian Vocation to Islam, (London: Grey Seal, 1997), p. 102. Kenneth Cragg saw the Christian mission to Islam “conceived in terms of residence, hospitality, embassy and retrieval”, p. 114 48Nazir-Ali, M. “Embassy, Hospitality and Dialogue: Christians and People of Other Faiths”, The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, p. 312 49Nazir-Ali, M. “Embassy, Hospitality and Dialogue”, p. 312 50Nazir-Ali, M. “Embassy, Hospitality and Dialogue”, p. 315 51Ipgrave, M. “Understanding, Affirmation, Sharing”, pp. 4-5 Bibliography
Abbott S.J., W. M. (ed.) The Documents of Arnaldez, R., Three Messengers for One God, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) Bhanot, Anil. The Advancement of Dharma: A Discussion Paper for Faith Leaders, ( Cragg, K. Sandals at the Mosque, (London: SCM, 1959) Hooker, R. & Lamb, C. Love the Stranger: Ministry in Multi-Faith Areas, (London: SPCK, 1986) Ipgrave, M. “Anglican Approaches to Christian-Muslim Dialogue”, Journal of Anglican Studies, Volume 3, No. 2, (2005): 219-236 Ipgrave, M. “Understanding, Affirmation, Sharing: Nostra Aetate and an Anglican Approach to Inter-Faith Relations”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Volume 43, No. 1, (Winter 2008): 1-16 Kings, G. “ Kuschel, K-J. Abraham: A Symbol of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims, (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1995) Lamb, C. “Interfaith Dialogue”, Anvil, Volume 1, No. 3, (1984): 259-60 Lamb, C., The Call to Retrieval: Kenneth Cragg’s Christian Vocation to Islam, (London: Grey Seal, 1997) Lamb, C. “Kenneth Cragg’s Understanding of Christian Mission to Islam.” In, A Faithful Presence: essays for Kenneth Cragg, edited by David Thomas with Clare Amos, ( Lewis, P. “Christian-Muslim Relations in Lossky, V. The Vision of God, (London: The Faith Press, 1963) Mosher, L. “Christ and People of Other Faiths” and “Jews, Christians and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue,” the Statements on Interfaith Relations of The Anglican Communion prepared by The Dogmatic & Pastoral Concerns Section, Lambeth Conference 1988, unpublished thesis for the General Theological Seminary, New York, 1997 Nazir-Ali, M. “That Which is not to be Found but which Finds us”. In, Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1986 edition) Nazir-Ali, M. “Embassy, Hospitality and Dialogu O’Mahony, A., “Catholic Theological Perspectives on Islam at the Second Race, A. Christians and Religious Pluralism, (London: SCM, 1983) Unsworth, A. “The Vatican, Islam and Christian-Muslim relations.” In, Christian Responses to Islam: Muslim-Christian Relations in the Modern World, edited by O’Mahony, A. and Loosley, E. ( Unsworth, A. “Louis Massignon, The Holy See and the Ecclesial Transition from “Immortale Dei” to “Nostra Aetate”: A Brief History of the Development of Catholic Church Teaching on Muslims and the Religion of Islam from 1883 to 1965”, ARAM Periodical, 20 (2008): 299-316 Valkenberg, Pim. “Does the Concept of “Abrahamic Religions” have a Future?”, Concilium, Islam and Enlightenment, New Issues 2005/5: 103-111 Wright, C. J. H. “Interfaith Dialogue”, Anvil, Volume 1, No. 3, (1984): 231-258 Reports in Chronological Order:
The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing, 1999) “Jews, Christians and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue”, Appendix 6, The Truth Shall Make You Free: The Lambeth Conference 1988: The Reports, Resolutions and Pastoral Letters from the Bishops (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1988), pp. 299-308 Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1986 edition)
Richard Sudworth is a Church Mission Society mission partner, working for a confident, relational engagement with other faiths. He is also a pioneer ordinand at Queens Foundation, Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Clare Saturday 10 October 2009 - 05:55pm wggrace you are quite right I am using the wrong word as Celinda kindly pointed out to me - I did post a reply acknowledging this but I compunded my error by posting it on the wrong thread! Posted by: wggrace Thursday 8 October 2009 - 09:30am I think Celinda is closer to the mark in her understanding of the term judaisers than Clare. Clare seems to say that the Judaisers, a word invented in the 19C to discuss issues within Pauline theology especially in Romans and Galatians, can be equated with the Jews in John's writings. There are fundamental differences however. In the use in Pauline theology, Judaisers are Christians presumably but not necessarily from a Jewish background, who think that Gentile Christians need to identify with the trappings of Jewish identity. I say not necessarily Jewish as it is possible that Gentiles who have made the full transition to Judaism and only then to Christ, or after making the transition to Christ go onto to embrace Judaism, may have formed an important part of this party within Christianity. The Jews in John are not Christians, Jewish or otherwise. They are Jews of course, which as I said above need not be true of the Judaisers in the Pauline context. What makes them stand out is their apparent determination to thrust Jewish Christians out from the Jewish community and it is this which arouses the opposition of the Evangelist. Thus the debate in Pauline letters concerns debates between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians about the role of the Jewish law, perhaps with Jews and Gentiles on both sides of the debate. But in all cases a debate between Christians. But the debate in John's Gospel is between Jews, some of whom are Christians and some who wish to exclude these Jewish Christians (i.e. who are NOT Christians). This latter group is referred to by the Evangelist as 'The Jews'. There is a book which I have never read by Steve Motyer which tackles the issue of antisemtitism in John's Gospel. Although I have never read it, I am confident that it is most helpful on this issue as Steve is always enlightening. Posted by: Celinda Sunday 4 October 2009 - 03:50pm Thanks, Clare, and I agree with you about how we should treat the Koran. About "Judaizers"--I thought that term referred to those who wanted new Christians to be circumcized and follow the dietary laws of the OT, and wasn't used as so much as a term of opprobrium, but simply as a way of referring those who strongly felt that you had to be fully Jewish before you could be fully Christian. If it was ever used as an excuse to persecute someone, rather than simply a way to set policy as Christianity developed, it was a wrong interpretation. Posted by: Clare Sunday 4 October 2009 - 09:46am Nor do I, Celinda. The word 'the Jews' in John is better translated as 'the judaisiers' and is polemic about a particular group and absolutely not about the Jewish people as we now understand them. (I still think the polemic is a bit OTT at times, but I also love this gospel)The point I was making was that our texts and traditions have been held up to justify all sorts of atrocities so it is not suprising that the same is true of other religions. We would hate it if Muslims told us our religion was anti-semitic on the basis of a particular reading of the fourth gospel which has been used sinfully to justify all sorts evil. We should extend the same courtesy to Muslims as we would like ourselves and always go for the most charitable interpretation of their texts and traditions. rather than the most negative ones. Us Christians have let ourselves off the hook too quickly regarding our previous anti-semitism. Yes we've repented of that - superficially at least - but not addressed the roots cause- our need to derive and identity that comes from being 'better' than other religions rather than founding our identity on Christ. previously we saw ourselves as 'better' than those evil Christ-killers, now we see ourselves as 'better' than those evil terrorists. In so doing, not only do we bear false witness against our sisters and brothers and against the reality of our own sin, but we also stop trusting that in Jesus we have all the justification we need - we do not need to be 'better' because we know ourselves to be loved. I have this real fear that sooner or later some mad Islamists will do something so awful that the whole Muslim people will be scapegoated - the gas chambers or whatever horrific 21st Century equivalent we invent will be full of Muslims rather than Jews this time. Posted by: Celinda Sunday 4 October 2009 - 02:08am What Clare says about the Gospel of John is reflected in one of the resolutions passed at TEC's General Convention this year (readings suggested to accompany the Gospel to warn the listener). An amendment was suggested which said the warnings would be against how the gospel had been taken at times in history, rather than the Gospel itself, but it failed. When I first heard the claim against the Gospel several years ago, I was very surprised because of a growing up experience of my own--it was my mother's favorite gospel, but at the same time my mother was deeply opposed to anti-semitism (she quit a women's group because a prospective member was said to have a name which "sounded Jewish", for instance). It's quite terrible that the gospel was taken to mean what Clare mentions, but I simply do not believe that such an interpretation was the intent of the writer. Posted by: Clare Saturday 3 October 2009 - 10:22pm Dispassionate analysis is far more likely to show that the gospel of john has a good claim to be the father of modern anti-Semitism. Is our memory of the centuries we have perpetrated anti-semitism really that weak or are we projecting our own guilt elsewhere. Muslims are fast becoming the 'new Jews' with rubbish along the lines of the protocols of Zion being published in so called respectable places. Looks like christians are not only colluding with this but actually leading the charge. Wake up and smell the islamophobia! Posted by: Dave Monday 28 September 2009 - 09:52pm The common good is best served by a critical examination of the life and teaching of Mohammed. We need to look in particular at how he treated the Jews in Medina and his relationships with his own people. I fear that a dispassionate analysis with show that he has a good claim to be the father of modern anti-Semitism and terrorism David Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Wednesday 23 September 2009 - 06:09pm It seems that the encounter with Islam is framed by a backward moving rentrenchment into Christianity. I rather would just look at some of the larger theological issues for comparison. For example, Christianity has a self-limiting God expressed through Greek culture, for which those forms have been critical - the Septuagint and therefore the forms of ideology in the New Testament, and subsequent developments up to the creeds and more. And Islam starts as a sort of religious tribal communism, out of which is a God wholly transcendent and without any self-limitation. To me it just demonstrates the relativity of both positions, but more so the Christian one as it is more culturally limited especially if it absolutises some of these concepts. Posted by: Dave Wednesday 23 September 2009 - 11:37am How does this impact on to the churches relationship with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses? David 
Posted by: Jody
Wednesday 23 September 2009 - 09:15am
Dear Friends we have just published the final part of Richard Sudworth's article: The Church of England and Islam: Hospitality and Embassy - Theologies of Religion in Process, 4. Generous Love - 2008 and Beyond. Please use this thread to discuss. blessings, Jody
Posted by: Jody
Tuesday 15 September 2009 - 09:11am
Dear Friends we have just published: The Church of England and Islam: Hospitality and Embassy - Theologies of Religion in Process: Part III Initiatives of the Church of England, by Richard Sudworth as this thread is already begun, please continue to use it to discuss these articles. every blessing, Jody Posted by: jerome106 Saturday 12 September 2009 - 12:12am In E. M. Forster's Passage to India the British headmaster and his Muslim friend discuss their different world-views and approaches to life: The headmaster says: "I travel light!". The Muslim thinks: "So this is why the headmaster and others were so fearless! The had nothing to lose. But he (the headmaster) himself was rooted in society and Islam. He belonged to a tradition which bound him, and he had brought children into the world, the society of the future. Though he lived so vaguely in this flimsy bungalow, nevertheless he was placed, placed". Forster's description of Aziz, the headmaster, captured exactly how the Muslim sense of placement, of being defined by one's social world is still very much alive in every Muslim country. For centuries Islam has covered, encircled, and projected its prophetic vision of the ordering of all human society onto every Muslim who is and will submit to the worship of the one God who has no companion let alone a spirit. Muslims live this singular discipline and marshall their lives and those of millions of people in all the world's continents that once were Christian. An ancient Muslim tradition quotes a dialogue between a Christian monk and a Muslim official who says: "why has God handed you over into our hands". Islam is more than a faith. The Quran reports much more about Moses the lawgiver and warrior than it does Abraham the believer. More must also be done in contemporary discussions with and about Muslims than that envisaged even by the almost 50 year old Nostra Aetate. Posted by: Colin Tuesday 8 September 2009 - 05:16pm First of all, Richard, thanks for the work that's gone into this. Its very helpful and highlights a number of issues. I await the rest of the articles before any further critique. I would suggest this would help Christian in his struggle with obfuscation as so far this has been an historical analysis rather than a way forward Colin Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 8 September 2009 - 03:29pm I don't see any obfuscation at all. I see a refusal to look patiently at all the sources, like the ones Laud initiated and the person who wrote that article in 1829. I see no indication that we are bound to consider Muir's report as more authoritative than the others. Oversimplification (which I think David and Christian are doing) does not help in stating truth or imitating Jesus. We do need to make a vital Christian witness. We don't do it by ignoring something we find difficult to follow. Posted by: Richard Sudworth Tuesday 8 September 2009 - 01:16pm I'm not sure what to make of "Christian's" evident struggle with the articles published so far other than to affirm my agreement with the Colossians passage quoted! But it is one thing to believe in the central tenets of one's own Christian faith and another to be categoric about the entirety of another's religious tradition. One of the difficulties of a Christian engagement with Islam is the nature of some of the similarities which necessitate some sifting of the truths (with a small "t"). I hope, as you read the articles, and David H. do stick with the remaining two pieces also, you will see that the contemporary Church of England is far more able to allow for the existence of the very real differences that do exist, too. My contention is that, contrary to much public perception, the Church of England's current stance on interfaith theology and practice makes it a much more comfortable place for evangelicals to be than it has been for over 30 years. Posted by: Christian Tuesday 8 September 2009 - 11:04am Having waded through parts I and 2; I am at a loss of words for all the obfuscation I have endured, other than to attach the following comment made by Paul (kin of Abraham?) to the Church at Colossaie. COL 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. COL 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. COL 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Posted by: Dave Tuesday 8 September 2009 - 09:54am Celinda, Please do not put words into my mouth. My point was simply that Muir had articulated an understanding of Islam which I understand was the dominant one in 19th Century England and the church at that time. I do not consiser which church he belonged to as a relevant factor in determining the wisdom of his analysis. Thus I thought that Richard's conclusion was at variance with the body of this article but apparently I misunderstood him. The second article states that "Nostra aetate famously shuns an assessment of the status of the Quran or Muhammad". As the article later makes clear this is the basis of much of the criticism of the current Anglican approach to Islam. As I see it this approach puts a low value on Jesus and a low value on truth. As suchg it should be resisted by evangelicals. I hope that makes things clear David Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 8 September 2009 - 02:24am David H--in your opinion, was Muir's the only work on Islam by Anglicans in the mid 17th and 19th centuries that had value? It's the one you cite a couple of posts back, and the most negative one. You make no reference to the other work referred to in the article we are discussing. That, to me, is a pretty big elephant in the room. Posted by: Dave Monday 7 September 2009 - 09:34pm The moral character of Mohammed or rather lack thereof and the inspiration or otherwise of the Koran ore rather big elephants in the room. No wonder the CofE has failed to get to grips with Islam Posted by: Celinda Sunday 6 September 2009 - 04:19pm I agree with wggrace. Also--could the very different attitudes of Archbishop Laud (mid 1600s? --I'm thinking about the Arabic studies chair at Oxford), Forester (1829) and Muir (1858-60 or thereabouts) have something to do with differing relationships between England and Islamic countries during those times? Posted by: wggrace Sunday 6 September 2009 - 09:21am Is part of the problem that Islam is not so uniform that one can really talk sensibly about "Islam is..." Perhaps that is the problem with Muir, although I have never read him and am not likely to having heard what he says. He speaks of an Islam that was perhaps true in some places with some people. But now? In other places? With other people? Equally the Islam of today is extremely variegated. Can we say "Islam is..."? Surely we have to say, "This version of Islam is like this and we can relate to it is this way and this other version of Islam is like that and we need to relate to is in a different way." Posted by: Richard Sudworth Friday 4 September 2009 - 11:03am Thanks for your comments. The "institutional reflection" that I am suggesting is only relatively recent, for me, is constituted by formal Lambeth resolutions and statements by Archbishops. Up until the 1980's, Islam was only ever addressed incidently, as outlined in the first paper (whether in the Book of Common Prayer or to broader statements on mission by Lambeth Conference). The reflections of Muir, initiatives of Pococke and the waves of missionary scholarship from Gairdner, through Cragg, are constitutive of individual passions and concerns not institutional trajectories of the Church of England. The challenge is to arrive at some coherent and specifically "Anglican" assessment of Islam relevant to today that may well draw from and affirm some of these significant forebears. Posted by: Peter Waddell Friday 4 September 2009 - 10:53am No - I don't think the issue is how long the period of institutional reflection has been, but rather in what sense Muir's could possibly be called a substantive assessment of Islam. At least from this article, it appears to judge that Islam is simply false and destructive. You don't have to be an appalling theological liberal to suspect that that isn't quite good enough... Posted by: Celinda Friday 4 September 2009 - 04:41am William Muir's was one of several analyses mentioned in this very interesting article, and probably the longest (four best selling volumes published 1858-61). I was surprised to read that Muir's predominantly negative view of Islam ("inherently destructive to civilization") came a generation after the more positive view in the Charles Forester book (1829); Forester had said "Islam is a spiritual religion," and "distortion and prejudice obscured facts in common understanding of Islam." And I was amazed that almost two centuries before that Archbishop Laud "established a chair in Islamic Studies at Oxford"--that he "had a personal commitment to knowledge of Islam and the Islamic World." I would like to know more about Edward Pococke (1604-1691), the founding lecturer in Arabic at Oxford. About David H's observation about the statement at the end of the article ("the period of institutional reflection is remarkably brief"): we need to know, I guess, what is meant by "the period of institutional reflection." Thanks to Fulcrum for publishing this article, which I am sharing with a cousin who is doing a doctoral dissertation on missionary activity in Turkey in the 19th century. Posted by: Dave Wednesday 2 September 2009 - 10:10pm I am surprised by the conclusion as the article indicates that William Muir gave Anglicanism a coherent and substantive analysis of Islam. David
Posted by: Jody
Wednesday 2 September 2009 - 03:38pm
Dear Friends we have just published part I of a IV part series entitled 'The Church of England and Islam', by Richard Sudworth. Please use this thread to discuss the article. blessings, Jody |
LATEST
|
