Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly . SCHOLARS SPEAK . Response to the Guidelines for Christian-Muslim Dialogue . May 9, 2003

Read the responses of some religion scholars to the guidelines for Christian-Muslim dialogue proposed on May 7, 2003 in Washington, D.C. at a meeting convened by evangelical leaders of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) and the National Association of Evangelicals:

The guidelines for Christian-Muslim dialogue include several helpful components. These, however, are intermixed with problematic presuppositions and serious inconsistencies. The result is a fundamentally flawed set of guidelines.

The carefully crafted text urges Christians to seek an accurate understanding of Islam and look for ways to cooperate on common concerns in society (free exercise of religion, facilitating refugee resettlement, etc.) It also includes a call to affirm some points of common theological and moral frameworks and to discover what needs are most acute for Muslims in a given setting. These are valuable and important building blocks for interfaith understanding and cooperation.

The problems begin to appear as strict limitations are encouraged on issues of orthodox Christian doctrine and the ultimate aims of dialogue. While strong emphasis is placed on the need to engage "all varieties and stations of Muslims," apparently all varieties and stations of Christians are not welcome at the table, only those with "a firm grasp of an orthodox faith in the mainstream of the Christian tradition." Presumably, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) is prepared to define who can "represent" Christianity. Do Quakers, Coptic Orthodox, Disciples of Christ, Methodists or National Baptists need apply? Directly and indirectly, the document is clearly critical of the many years of intentional dialogue undertaken by various denominational groups -- local, regional and national ecumenical organizations and international bodies such as the World Council of Churches and the Vatican's Pontifical Council.

This insistence on defining who should represent the Christian tradition is tied directly to the clear goal of dialogue for the IRD: evangelistic witness leading to conversion. As a longtime participant in dialogue initiatives at local, national and international levels and as a student of the interfaith dialogue movement, I believe true dialogue between Christians and Muslims can include proclamation and witness. At a deep level, true dialogue will encourage participants to share what is of utmost importance to them, including the invitation for others to embrace a particular perspective. And, there may be conversions -- dramatic changes as well as subtle shifts in understanding and orientation. But, this must be mutual. Christians and Muslims should be invited into the dialogue with mutual respect and openness both to speak and to listen. When in doubt, the Golden Rule remains a very helpful guideline on how to behave toward others.

The various warnings included in this document, the insistence on clear parameters when it comes to who should represent Christianity, and the one-dimensional focus on Muslims converting to Christianity may reduce this process to nothing more than a new kind of missionary trick.

One of the great values of organized dialogue is the opportunity it provides for Christians and Muslims to engage others within their own communities of faith. The guidelines miss this point altogether. The IRD would do well first to encourage serious dialogue within a wide range of views evident among serious, committed Christians.

-- Charles Kimball is professor and chair of the department of religion at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., and the author of WHEN RELIGION BECOMES EVIL (HarperSanFrancisco, 2002). He served as Middle East director for the New York-based National Council of Churches from 1983-90.

These guidelines are as dangerous as they are helpful. They're helpful insofar as they try to curtail some of the extreme, denigrating statements about Islam that we have recently heard from evangelical Christian leaders. But they can be dangerous because they actually camouflage and so still share the same intent behind the extreme statements recently made by the Revs. Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Jerry Vines. All of them -- both the extremists and the evangelicals proposing the guidelines -- seek to convert Islam. All of them seek to replace Islam with Christianity. The difference is that Falwell and company want to do this by being "honest"; the guidelines want to do it by being "nice."

Really, these guidelines for Christian-Muslim dialogue are not talking about dialogue. As clearly stated, they're talking about evangelism. The intent of evangelism is conversion. But the authors of the guidelines realize that if you're going to convert anyone, you have to understand them, and you have to be nice to them.

One might argue that trying to convert or persuade the other is part of dialogue. Dialogue is not just chit-chat. Rather, it's the sharing of information with the intent that all sides might learn from what they hear and possibly be changed by what they learn. So, in real dialogue both sides are trying to persuade or convert the other. Okay. But at the same time, both sides have to be open to being converted. Both sides have to admit that they have something to learn.

One might recommend to the IRD and the authors of the guidelines that they follow an inverted expression of the Golden Rule: Evangelicals should allow others to do unto them what they want to do unto the others. If evangelicals want Muslims to be open to what Christians think is the truth of Jesus and Christianity, then evangelicals should be open to what Muslims think is the truth of the Quran and Islam. And then, let both sides leave the rest to God as far as who might be "converted."

But that's the problem for evangelicals (and most Christians?). They can't leave the rest to God because they believe that God has given them the final, if not the only, truth. They believe that Jesus is the world's only savior. Therefore, to come to salvation and the truth, you have to come to Jesus. For evangelicals, there's not much truth, if any, outside of Jesus.

And so one must ask: Can these evangelicals really be "nice" to Muslims (or to any other religion)? I don't think so. Stated more cautiously, what these guidelines try to grant socially, they cannot grant theologically. Socially or politically, they want to make room for Islam; they want to recognize that Islam has a right to be part of the American community. But theologically, they believe that God wants Christianity ultimately to replace Islam, for in God's intent, there can be only one true religion because there is only one true savior -- Jesus.

But this problem of "I'm better than you" is, if I may say so, also Islam's problem. Both religions believe that God has given them the last word, the trump card for all other religions. Christians believe that they are called by God to fulfill and so replace Judaism. Muslims believe that they are called by God to fulfill and so replace Judaism and Christianity. As Harvey Cox once said, the fundamental problem between Christianity and Islam is sibling rivalry.

If both religions, Islam and Christianity, really want to have a dialogue with each other, they have a lot of theological homework to do.

-- Paul F. Knitter is professor emeritus in the department of theology at Xavier University in Cincinnati and the author of INTRODUCING THEOLOGIES OF RELIGIONS (Orbis, 2002).

We write as Christians (American Baptist and Roman Catholic) who have extensive experience with Christian-Muslim dialogue both in North America and internationally, and who are committed to the best of both academia and activism for peace and justice.

We are pleased to read the guidelines for Christian-Muslim dialogue issued this week by the National Association of Evangelicals and the Institute on Religion and Democracy. They do not simply rehash earlier documents. They reflect a post-September 11, 2001 world and a welcome degree of both honesty and pedagogical realism by dividing the guidelines into two parts: what to promote and what to avoid. The guidelines also bring a major Christian evangelical organization into the practice of Christian-Muslim dialogue as developed over the last three decades by major institutions, on the Christian side, such as the World Council of Churches and the Vatican. The guidelines also frame this dialogue within a clear set of values that include justice, human rights and the promotion of democracy.

The document is written from a Christian perspective for a clearly American Christian audience. While this purpose is enormously important, any document simply entitled "Guidelines for Christian-Muslim Dialogue" should truly reflect both a combined Muslim-Christian authorship and audience. But in places the guidelines betray an unequal relationship between Muslims and Christians, although clear efforts to avoid this imbalance are also apparent throughout the text.

One of the most important signs of imbalance is reflected in the fact that the language of reciprocity is not consistently upheld throughout the document. It appears in some places but not in others, when it ought to have been included throughout. A sentence on this crucial point of reciprocity between Christians and Muslims could have been included in the preamble as a way to insure that, whether or not it was directly mentioned in every paragraph, the concept would suffuse the whole document.

This absence of reciprocity leads to an inconsistency in argumentation. There is a call to insure that Christians who participate in Christian-Muslim dialogue be solid representatives of the main tenets of the Christian faith, yet there is also a call for Christians to enter into dialogue not only with "elite Muslim scholars and religious officials," but also with others on a more "popular" level. Reciprocity would call for Muslims to be involved in dialogue with Christians on a "popular" level, too.

Reciprocity is also absent in the question of responsibility for past actions. There is a clear statement in the guidelines that Muslims must take responsibility for what is happening in their own Muslim majority countries. Yet, the reciprocal point that Christians must also take responsibility for what is happening to minority Muslims (and others) in majority Christian countries is equally important. For example, in the United States today, the decrease in civil liberties due to the Patriot Act disproportionately affects American Muslims. Being able to remove the beam in one's own eye before the shard in someone else's (Matthew 7:5) has always been a challenge in authentic human communication.

We also have concerns about consistency of language in one statement that begins with a reference to "Christian" spheres of influence but concludes with a reference to "western nations." Careful wording could avoid the implication that "Western = Christian," something the document has in other places taken appropriate care to do.

One paragraph of the guidelines mentions the notions of "natural law" or "common grace" that provide a basis for dialogue between Muslims and Christians. Besides being a part of more general revelation, as theologically understood by Christians and Muslims alike, one might add that this "common grace" or inherent knowledge of God and God's ways also stems from a shared religious and historical heritage rooted in the tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures. This affirmation of historically shared roots is significant for both traditions and leads to more inclusive dialogue.

We have found that interfaith dialogue often provokes both Christian and Muslim participants to investigate the history, doctrine and practice of their own faith in more depth. Observing modes of worship and language about God in people of another faith may invite deeper investigation into the historical and contemporary diversity of Christian worship and expression.

Finally, we want to applaud two points in particular, among the many constructive passages of this overall excellent document for Christians involved in Christian-Muslim dialogue. First, the guidelines address the vital point of cooperation in issues of common concerns, and second, they make it clear that this cooperation extends to other religious and non-religious people and groups as well. They clearly frame the Christian-Muslim dialogue within a broader set of bilateral and multilateral relations, both across religious communities and with other groups with whom Christians and Muslims share overlapping moral commitments for justice. It is perhaps these shared commitments that impel us to sustain such a dialogue toward mutual witness and common work for the sake of the whole creation.

-- Lance Laird teaches comparative religion at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, and Patrice Brodeur is dean of religious and spiritual life and assistant professor of religious studies at Connecticut College.

In a time of so much tension and misunderstanding -- even hatred -- between the U.S. and the Muslim world, there is an urgent need for programs that foster a genuine sense of religious pluralism -- that engage the humanity of participants in all faith traditions without ignoring either the commonalities or differences.

The evangelical guidelines for Christian-Muslim dialogue, from their very conception, are doomed to fail in that regard. The goals are clearly elsewhere -- not in dialogue, but in conversion. In what sense would a gathering according to the guidelines constitute a "dialogue"? What practicing Muslim would want to walk into a situation that can only be described as a "faith ambush"? To have a dialogue, one must be willing to listen, to empathize, to engage the humanity of others as our own. The guidelines are no call for "Christian-Muslim dialogue"; they are an outright attempt at evangelical missionary activity. If that is what it is, let's call it that.

What is equally disturbing is that the agenda of the group proposing the guidelines clearly overlaps with the political aims of neoconservatism -- a complicated movement that has managed to make for some strange bedfellows. One does not have to look far to find evidence of this. The board of directors of the Institute on Religion and Democracy includes, for example, journalist Fred Barnes, who with William Kristol edits "The Weekly Standard," a bastion of the neocon movement, and Michael Novak, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, the think tank most closely associated with neoconservatism. And the guidelines pay tribute to Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, the designated Islamicist for neocons who has worked closely with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others, and the author of titles such as "What Went Wrong," "The Crisis of Islam," and "The Roots of Muslim Rage" (adopted by Harvard government professor Samuel Huntington, who wrote "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order"). Lewis's tired rants against Islam and modern Muslims deserve a serious critique, not an unquestioned bow.

Many in the Muslim world are likely to see the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lens of Western colonialism tainted with religious zealotry. Muslims point to President Bush's association with right-wing Christian speakers such as Franklin Graham, who has publicly called Islam an evil and wicked religion. They point to the Southern Baptist Convention being prepared to send some 35,000 missionaries to Iraq. Guidelines like these only serve to support that paranoia about the "crusader" mentality of the U.S., something that I would want to replace by a more humanistic gathering of Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists, etc. who would frankly and non-apologetically deal with the violations of human rights in all faith communities and aim to use religious traditions not to divide humanity, but to uplift all of us to our highest potential. Amen.

-- Omid Safi is an assistant professor of philosophy and religion at Colgate University and the editor of PROGESSIVE MUSLIMS: ON JUSTICE, GENDER AND PLURALISM (Oneworld Publications, 2003).

Did you like this story? How can we improve our program or Web site?