Faithful Neighbors

Christian-Muslim Vision and Practice

Robert S. Heaney, Zeyneb Sayilgan, Claire Haymes

• Publisher: Morehouse Publishing
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780819232557
• eBook ISBN: 9780819232564
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Comparative Religion

Faithful Neighbors outlines an introduction to the rationale for interfaith work through both theological and practical viewpoints, using stories from real experiences of interfaith cooperation to offer encouragement, inspiration, and practical steps to do the same. The book has eight chapters in three main sections. Section one provides a Christian and Muslim rationale for engaging with the Other. Section two outlines stories of those involved in interfaith work in a series of contexts: academic research, intercultural, pastoral care, youth work, and peace work. The concluding section details recommendations and resources for best practice. Faithful Neighbors exhorts both Muslims and Christians to be faithful neighbors drawing on their traditions and real life practice for the sake of life-giving community.

Part One

FAITHFUL NEIGHBORS: THEOLOGICAL RATIONALE

1

A CHRISTIAN RATIONALE FOR INTERFAITH ENGAGEMENT

Robert S. Heaney

“Yacht dialogue” is the term coined to describe interfaith conversation that drifts ever peacefully and ever further from the mainland of faith commitment and faith communities. Very nice and polite people from different faith perspectives come on board to meet together, talk together, eat together, and produce beautiful statements of intent together. Like vacationers they enjoy each other’s company, all the while drifting from the moorings of their communities and their faith. The deck sparkles as common understandings and common vision are built on apparently objective and universal principles independent of the faith of the constituencies they purport to represent. This is a caricature, of course, but one that is, unfortunately, not altogether unfamiliar.

The commitment of the staff, both Muslim and Christian, at Virginia Theological Seminary’s Center for Anglican Communion Studies is to engage in interfaith conversation and interfaith vision not on the basis of the lowest common denominator of inoffensive niceness. Our work together is not based on nor does it seek reductionism or demythologization. Rather, we work together in a spirit of respect for our traditions, in good faith (orthodoxy), and toward right practice (orthopraxis) within and between our traditions. To enter into conversation and common vision is not expected to dilute or deny one’s faith. Rather, because we are people of faith we enter into relationship, conversation, and common vision. To speak of the other is not then to define one’s self over against another or to deny the common humanity that we share. Rather, it is to respect differences, for we understand that difference is not simply what separates us but is also what makes us present to each other. To enter into conversation and search for common vision is work that is moored close to faith commitments and faith communities. It is anchored in the tradition.

I would argue, from a Christian perspective, that these conversations and any common vision that emerges will be understood in reference to that theological and practical category seemingly celebrated and shunned in equal measure: mission. This chapter outlines a Christian understanding of mission and then clarifies how a vision and practice of interfaith cooperation can be nourished by an emerging theology of mission.

THE ALMOST COMPREHENSIVE LIST

According to the monotheistic faiths, God is One. Indeed, for followers of Jesus the oneness of God is the greatest commandment. “The first [commandment] is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’ ” (Mark 12:29–30). As Christians we “stand under Moses’ authority, under the teaching of the apostle to the gentiles, under the gracious yoke of Jesus Christ. . . .[We] hearken to this commandment. The Lord our God is One.”¹ Of course, the oneness of God cannot be reduced to the idea of one. That is to say, monotheism recognizes that applying math to God is not straightforward. Miroslav Volf illustrates the problem through an example provided by Denys Turner and that I call “the almost comprehensive list.”² Imagine you had the capacity to count the total number of things that have existed, do exist, and will exist. Imagine presenting this list to your friends. A rather shy companion interrupts the mood, “Excuse me. I see that your list is truly impressive. However, haven’t you forgotten something?”

“Surely not,” you respond.

“Well,” your friend continues, “I’m afraid you’ve left God off your list.”

What an omission! You now realize that your list is neither comprehensive nor complete but is an almost comprehensive list. The very one who made everything on the list and made everything possible on the list is not on the list. But, would simply adding a “+1” to the list redress the problem? It would not.

“God is not one thing among many other things in the universe, not even one supremely important thing without which none of the other things could exist. Instead, God is unique and categorically different from the world.”³ In short, the almost comprehensible list needs to remain so. For applying math to God is not the same as applying math to the vast array of creatures in the world. One God and one tree are not equivalent uses of oneness. Applying math to divinity is a tricky business. Math might, in some parallel universe, comprehend all that exists. But math cannot comprehend God. However, while math cannot comprehend God it can, Volf reminds us, counteract incorrect beliefs about God.⁴

While God cannot be reduced to human counting, certain things can be deduced from human counting. For example, to say that there is one undivided divine essence discounts there being a pantheon of gods. At the same time, this statement also discounts the notion that the one god is in the same category as the gods belonging to the pantheon if these gods did exist. Even equating God with this imaginary oneness where the one could be joined by other ones is a reductionist view of God. It would be, as Volf reminds us, idolatry. ⁵ It might be suspected that even the most ardent monotheist is tempted by such idolatry. Certainly, this is the witness of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian scriptures:

Those who worship vain idols

forsake their true loyalty. (Jon. 2:8)

What use is an idol

once its maker has shaped it—

a cast image, a teacher of lies?

For its maker trusts in what has been made,

though the product is only an idol that cannot speak! (Hab. 2:18)

For all the gods of the peoples are idols,

But the LORD made the heavens. (1 Chron. 16:26; see Ps. 96:5)

I am the LORD, that is my name;

my glory I give to no other,

nor my praise to idols. (Isa. 42:8)

. . . my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols. (1 Cor. 10:14)

You know that when you were pagans, you were

enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak. (1 Cor. 12:2)

For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God. (1 Thess. 1:9)

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. (1 John 5:21)

There is no god but God. (Qur’an 47:19)

Say, “God is one and only.” (Qur’an 112:1)

And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one.” (Qur’an 29:46)

Say: “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.” (Qur’an 3:64)⁶

Whatever oneness means it cannot reduce God to one of a category that others belong to, may belong to, or may be imagined to belong to. For if oneness did mean this then monotheists, of all traditions, would be guilty of idolatry.⁷ Formally we say that God is in a distinct ontological category. In other words, God is the Creator, all else is creation. In short, the oneness of God is a complex matter.

If the oneness of God is difficult to comprehend, then applying threeness to God will also be difficult. As every Christian preacher and teacher knows as Trinity Sunday approaches, this is indeed the case. As has often been said, Trinity Sunday is the high feast of heresy and idolatry for the church. In countless churches throughout the world, the threeness of God is counted as water, steam, and ice; as a three-leafed shamrock; or, as shell, yolk, and white. The creator is reduced to creation and is reduced to human counting. Yet, if the oneness of God is unique then it should also be expected that the threeness of God will be unique in a way that water, shamrocks, and eggs are not. If the oneness of God cannot be reduced to human counting, so too the threeness of God cannot be reduced to human counting. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are in agreement. The divine essence cannot be divided. Indeed, it may be that what the Prophet Muhammad condemned is something that Christian leaders would also want to reject. The Qur’an states: “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word [of blasphemy], verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them” (5:73). Trinitarian monotheists agree with the word of the Qur’an on this point. God is not one of three in a Trinity. For to divide the divine essence into three gods of limited power is polytheism.⁸ Again, Volf is helpful:

There are no individual essences in God. Instead, to say that there are three “Persons” in God means only that there are three eternal, inseparable, and interpenetrating agencies; in each, the other two are present, and in each, the single divine essence is present.⁹

THE MISSION OF GOD

I will not presume to explain the Trinity, any more than I will presume to explain the oneness of God. Rather, in light of the mysterious revelation of the oneness of the one God comes the revelation that this God is the source of life and is at work in and through creation. This divine nature, revelation, and work Christians associate with the missio Dei (the mission of God). Mission is a term in Christian thought that first and foremost refers to the nature of God. We often understand it to refer to activity of the church but it is first and foremost a divine referent. For Christians, God is one. But, God is not an individual.¹⁰ In the very heart of God there is complexity, community, relationship. God is sentness. God is overflowing life and love and grace. God is the boundary-crossing God. This boundary crossing is seen both within the heart of God (the immanent Trinity) and is seen in the first missional act: “let there be light.”

The Edinburgh missionary conference of 1910 brought together 1,200 participants representing 160 mission boards or societies. The goal was to develop strategies for the speedy completion of world evangelization. It could be done. It would be done. Christianity would expand from the so-called civilized centers of Europe and North America out into the so-called pagan and uncivilized corners of the world. It was an anthropocentric or ecclesiocentric time, and this model for mission was soon challenged by the devastating effects of a world war and the devastating potential of another world war. In place of a rationalist optimism, a more circumspect theologizing that faced up to the failings of humanity and Western Christian expansionism was needed. One year before Hitler came to power, Karl Barth called the church back to its Trinitarian source:

Must not even the most faithful missionary, the most convinced friend of missions, have reason to reflect that the term missio was in the ancient Church an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity—namely the expression of the divine sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit?¹¹

A Christian theology of mission does not belong in the chapter “What is the church?” It belongs in the chapter “Who is God?”

Given that mission is first understood to refer to the nature of God, how might this begin to affect how Christians understand, discern, and participate in God’s mission? At least three things are apposite particularly in relation to interfaith conversation. First, mission is who God is. Mission is God’s creative act. If Christians can talk of the mission of believers or of the church it is two steps removed from the divine referent. The Christian vocation is to discern God’s mission and seek to participate in God’s mission. The agent of mission is not, therefore, human; it is divine. The temptation for Christians to displace the sovereignty of God in favor of a bloated sense of human agency is ever with us. It is a temptation to which Christians succumb all too often in religious and mission history. Taking heed of God’s mission may well begin more with contemplation and discernment than it does with strategies, priorities, or budgets. Participation in God’s mission emerges from deeper knowledge and experience of God. Mission begins with the breath of God. Mission is entered into through the breath of prayer. It is entered into by coming together to ask for God’s mercy and God’s guidance.

Second, because of the otherness and sovereignty of God and the ongoing temptation of human pride, Christians are called to listen intently ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword (Ian S. Markham)
• Acknowledgments
• Vision of the Center for Anglican Communion Studies
• Part One: Faithful Neighbors: Theological Rationale
• Part Two: Voices of Faithful Neighbors
• Part Three: Faithful Neighbors: Practices and Principles
• Resources (James Stambaugh)
• About the Authors