The Archbishop Of Canterbury’s Amazing Response To Muslim Student On Converting To Christianity – Huffington Post

by

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby was quizzed on his views on gay marriage and islam during a visit to a school in Birmingham.

Matt Field. Huffington Post. 25 February 2015

Share
Tweet
Share

2 thoughts on “The Archbishop Of Canterbury’s Amazing Response To Muslim Student On Converting To Christianity – Huffington Post”

  1. “When asked by a Muslim pupil [at St Alban’s Academy, Birmingham, where 80% of the pupils are Muslim] whether he would encourage him to convert to Christianity, the Archbishop replied, “I am not going to put pressure on you, and I wouldn’t expect you to put pressure on me.”

    An ABC addressing a mixed-faith assembly in a Church of England school probably should emphasise hospitality. Even catechesis begins with a certain acceptance. But I wonder how the rest of us should respond in our similar moments with those of other faiths.

    Few ask, “are you going to try to convert me?” But it has happened, and when it did, I replied that only the Holy Spirit can do this, and that my part in it, if any, is to explain what I have been shown. The restraint induced some respect; the availability, some curiosity.

    Some insinuate a more pressing, “how can you possibly believe X?” I correct the statement as graciously as I can–- this is nearly always necessary–- and answer the question. Easy.

    But most often, questioners ask me to compare my religious beliefs or experiences to their own, and that takes a bit more thought. In general form: “Our religion teaches Y. Why do you believe instead in Z?” For example: “There is only one pure text of the Quran, whilst all of the manuscripts of the Bible disagree with each other. How can still you believe in a Bible so corrupt?”

    In questions like that, my questioner in effect posits her religion as the basis for my explanation of my religion. Since I do not usually think of my own faith as a variation on someone else’s, let alone as a variation on another religion altogether, this seems an unnatural way to frame things. But it is not unreasonable to someone to think that the beliefs she knows are bridges to understanding beliefs she does not know.

    How should I answer? I could express my personal views about Y with a direct critique. Generally: “Y is false because…” In this case: “The Quran is less reliable than the Bible. First preserved orally, variations of content and expression emerged as one would expect. Uthman tried to purge them– did he choose the right manuscript?– but some survived and modern scholars know and study them. Critical scholarship finds the original Bible better than forcible standardisation preserved the original Quran.” But although that might make me feel better, it would also knock the ladder out from under my questioner. If she has no other way to reach what I know, it seems wiser to work with what she knows as far as I can. A way of doing that is to (a) affirm something analogous to the other’s Y so far as I can, then to (b) show why I personally care about the difference between Y and Z, then to (c) explain Z itself, and finally (d) compare it to Y.

    An answer to that particular question might go something like this–

    (a)“Yes, it is exciting to think the thoughts of pioneering believers after them, isn’t it? The variations among scriptural manuscripts are minor, but occasionally interesting.”

    (b) “But for me, the Bible’s varied forms are signs of God’s love. The Holy Spirit has chosen to use alternate phrasings and even altogether different languages because he is willing to surmount any obstacle between himself and sinners.”

    (c) “I mainly read the Bible to meet God. The Bible is a window on the Holy Spirit showing us the Son revealing the Father. And God can reveal himself to human beings in every language that they understand. Just as the Son took on our limited nature to come near to us, so he accommodates himself to our limited minds in our mother tongues.”

    (d) “So, although the only real Tanakh is a Hebrew Tanakh, and the only real Quran is an Arabic Quran, the Bible is different– all translations of the Bible from the original languages into new languages are real Bibles. Because of the way I believe God comes near us to love us, this makes sense to me.”

    An actual answer would be more conversational. Those with different theological leanings might prefer a different one altogether. But this try at it seems to convey the truth with respect for the inquirer.

    How do other Fulcrum readers answer interfaith queries?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran

    (corrected)

  2. “When asked by a Muslim pupil [at St Alban’s Academy, Birmingham, where 80% of the pupils are Muslim] whether he would encourage him to convert to Christianity, the Archbishop replied, “I am not going to put pressure on you, and I wouldn’t expect you to put pressure on me.”

    An ABC probably should emphasise hospitality to a mixed-faith assembly in a Church of England school. But I wonder how the rest of us respond in similar moments with acquaintances of other faiths.

    If the question is “are you going to try to convert me?”, my own first response is to say that only the Holy Spirit can do that, and that I myself am only permitted to explain my own faith. The obedience can induce some respect; the availability, some curiosity.

    If the question is a more pressing, “how can you possibly believe X?”, I just correct the statement– this is nearly always necessary– and then just answer the question. Easy.

    But, at least for me, a question inviting a comparison of religions takes a bit more thought. In general form: “Our religion teaches Y. Why do you believe instead in Z?” For example: “There is only one pure text of the Qu’ran, whilst all of the manuscripts of the Bible disagree with each other. How can still you believe in a Bible so corrupt?”

    For me, the simplest path is to affirm the other’s Y so far as I can, and then to differentiate my Z from it, showing why I care about the difference. So, ideally, something like this– “Yes, it is exciting to think the thoughts of the first believers after them, isn’t it? A good critical edition helps with that. But mainly, the scriptures are a sign of God’s love for humanity, a window through which the Holy Spirit shows us the Son revealing the Father. And the Holy Spirit is not bound to any one language; he manifests God in every language that human beings understand. So, although the only real Tanakh is a Hebrew Tanakh, and the only real Qu’ran is an Arabic Qu’ran, all translations of the Bible from Greek into other languages are real Bibles. God reveals himself to the ends of the earth in this way because he is willing to surmount any obstacle between himself and sinners.”

    How do others respond to questions like these?

Leave a comment