Distinctly Welcoming

Is Evangelism a Sin? 2

On Tuesday 10th June, the Faith to Faith Forum of Global Connections host a day seminar at the CPAS head office in Warwick on ethical evangelism in our pluralist society. Ben Edson of sanctus1 will be reflecting on evangelism amongst new age communities in "Evangelism in the Spiritual Marketplace". Andrew Smith of Scripture Union and the Youth Encounter programme will be looking at the ethical issues of evangelism amongst children and young people. Robin Thomson of South Asian Concern will examine issues that are arising amongst the Hindu community in a talk entitled "Changing your mother?" and a convert from Islam will reflect on the ethical implications of evangelism in Muslim communities. The day will include space for discussion and deeper reflection in smaller groups around the specific topics raised and a final Biblical reflection on ethics and evangelism brought by Rev Dr John Corrie of Trinity College, Bristol.
Ring Ann Bower of Global Connections on 01926 487755 or email faithtofaith@globalconnections.co.uk. The cost of the day is a bargain £15 including lunch!! Tuesday 10th June, 10am-4pm.

Truth in Other Faiths?

I received a comment on some of my previous posts that deserves a specific response and generates an important discussion to do with our relationship to other faiths. Timothy responded to my Patrick Sookhdeo post and made the statement, "I believe that as an evangelical Christian I have nothing to learn from Islam"..."to agree with anything takes away from the proclamation of Jesus as Lord of the universe". Now Timothy raises very genuine concerns for those of us committed to mission, evangelism and the ultimate significance of Jesus. Being able to see what we can learn whilst holding to our Christian identity, I believe, is vital for our relationship with all faiths and none. In fact, it is part and parcel of us staying true to what we believe.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is instructive on this. Coming as it does in Luke after a series of encounters between Jesus and a roll-call of the dodgy and excluded (tax collectors, demonised, the dead, dubious women, Roman centurions, leprosy sufferers), the question from the "expert in the law" is not without its baggage. He asks, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (read that as "be included in the realisation of Israel's redemption by Yahweh in a return to the glory days of King David"). Jesus then responds with a story with the most provocative and outrageous twist in the tail. The cultural and religious outsider, (the Muslim?), as opposed to the priest (the vicar, pastor, missionary) and the Levite (worship leader, Bible teacher), helped the man who was left for dead.

The parable is not the tidy ethic we learn at school, "be nice to people not like you" (good though that sentiment is) but rather, "be careful what boundaries you set up because you will find God's grace demonstrated in some of the most unlikely people and places". Can we get so concerned with "who's in/who's out", so determined to keep our cordon sanitaires that we fail to be what we are called to be in Christ, and miss what God is doing in those we may not believe have access to his grace?

Another account just before this in Luke 9 is helpful. After the disciples have seen Jesus transfigured, with Moses and Elijah at either side of him, revealed in all his glory, they have to go through a Samaritan village. The disciples go on ahead to ask permission to go through across land with their rabbi (relations not cordial: cultural, religious, ethnic and territorial divisions abounded...sound familiar?). The Samaritans give them short shrift and what is the response of James and John: "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"

We might smile at the ignorance and naivety of the disciples: "Let's call the F15's in!" But I wonder how close their reaction is to ours. The thing is, Jesus had been transfigured, Elijah alongside him (that prophet with great kick-butt potential); Jesus had been described as a "type of Elijah". What's more, if you go to 2 Kings 1, Elijah called down "the fire of heaven" on the king of Samaria's soldiers because their king  consults a false god rather than God's prophet. Put it another way, James and John had good biblical, evangelical precedent for their reaction to the Samaritans' rejection of Jesus! Jesus' reply was to rebuke them; take the long way round.

What's the small-print in this brief cameo in the gospels? A suggestion: we can be so determined that we have all the truth, be utterly convinced of our "rightness" that we actually miss the heart of God. The disciples knew the hope of the whole universe; they had a privilege to the truth of what God was doing; that hadn't altered in their wayward suggestion. What had altered was how that truth shaped their engagement with the stranger, the outsider and the excluded.

So, take these two stories together and ask again, "can we learn from other religions?" For the church's sake, I hope so.

And the xyz of this sharia furore

A few days later and I can safely say that the British media, in the words of Bob Dylan, "went along for the ride" and failed to offer any objective analysis of Rowan Williams' comments on sharia law. Bishop Tom Wright has written an open letter to his clergy which is a helpful guide to the truer intentions of the Archbishop and Andrew Goddard has published an insightful piece on the Fulcrum website here, (thanks Jon's Journal for finding these).

There seem to me to be two different motors, both forming a pincer movement, driving the reaction to the sharia debate. The first motor is from a secular perspective that would drive out this awkward business of faith from all public spheres such as law, education and business. In the words of Friday's Guardian lead, "what the Archbishop really wants is a tolerance for the role of religion in public affairs that succeeds only in highlighting why it should be excluded." The second motor is exemplified by these comments in the Daily Telegraph: "If the Church of England is to have any point, it is to stand up for the prevalence of English and Chrsitian values."

Now in both wings there are real fears, both sensible and misguided, about sharia law and extremist Islam in Britain. What there has been precious little of in this debate is the altogether fundamental question of what sort of society we want to live in. In Britain, we have moved from a largely Christian-based legal and social system to an increasingly rights-based secular system. We live in a time of transition where so many of the structures and still many of the legal principles carry echoes of a church-shaped past. Much of our present social, cultural and legal thinking is being driven by individual "rights": the supreme power of the individual in her conscience to decide on the reality of the world for herself. Overlaid on this, the multiculturalism project, as distinct from the "laicite" of France where no public acknowledgement of faith is, in theory, permissible, fostered cultural and religious difference without any corresponding social "glue". In essence, everyone is free to do their own thing so long as they don't harm "me", and I get to choose "my way".

The trouble with this is manifold. What if I don't have the resources to choose what I want? Individual rights and freedoms quickly transform into proprietary rights, demands and consumption. What if the choices I see being made harm creation, harm future generations, and by my judgment, harm "them"? What kind of "choice" do I have about the environment and society I live in and is access to this only possible through money if I have no say in shaping the greater good? Is there no prior claim to "duty" to the other, our neighbour?

...These are the big questions underlying the debate, make no mistake. In the church, we need to begin to at least get a handle on the symbols of this discussion because the two responses I outlined earlier are also played out, sadly, by Christinas. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves advocating for what Lesslie Newbigin called a "naked public square": devoid of the language of faith and thus prey to totalitarianism and naked greed. Alternatively, jostling for prime position on a pedastal of privilege, pushing off the awkward squad of other religions that want to make their presence felt undermines our faith and, in the process, neuters the public square from the rigour of genuine challenge.

A dose of reality and humility is called for: "the past is a different country; they do things differently there." Are we going to fall for the traps of cultural supremacy or Christian dualism? .....Or is there another way forward in Christian faithfulness?

The ABC of Sharia Law

Another day, another controversy around the place of faith in Britain. Oh what a sorry mess we are making of this business of public faith! Sharia law is one of those phrases that conjures up immediate negative images, and because of that, is often a rallying point for polarising opinion. If we like to pride ourselves on our religious sensitivity and savvyness when it comes to world affairs, we might be deeply offended by the thought that you could equate "Muslim" with "terrorist". The word sharia, though, is buttoned up for most people: sharia = stonings for adultery, hands chopped off for stealing and instituionalised misogyny.

Rowan Williams, being a very intelligent man, knows that sharia law is far more complex than this. The vast bulk of Islamic laws that are invoked within Muslim communities (yes, present tense because it is a current reality here in Britain), concern family relationships (divorce and separation), and inheritance matters. The trouble is, the media and our beloved political establishment are either not intelligent enough to know this or, and God forbid this be the case, prefer to play to the simplistic public perception (sharia = stonings etc) for short term electoral expediency.

It helps to have a little bit of wider knowledge, including a little bit of historical knowledge. Did you know that the Jewish community have religious courts ruling on familial and inheritance matters that have credence in our legal system? Did you know that under British colonial rule in India, many Muslim regions operated a parallel sharia system to the English legal system?....And let's come closer to home: did you know that the Church of England has its own valid legal structures for enforcing discipline and disposing of property?

What makes Rowan Williams' comments so incendiary then? ...Fear and ignorance.

Ignorance we can do something about very easily and sadly our politicians don't seem to want to do much about that at the moment. What comes out in the press over the next few days will tell us whether our media wish to remain ignorant.

Fear takes more time to deal with, and fear is not to be minimised or scrubbed under the carpet. The very idea of sharia law in Britain doubtless suggests public floggings in northern towns. The very fact that Rowan Williams has broached the issue ought to be welcome because the conversation to be had is, "what aspects of shariah are incompatible with life in Britain today?" You can't have this conversation if you've not recognised that the reality for many Muslims is to want to adhere to Islamic proscriptions in their public dealings. By shutting off the conversation at source, you are effectively saying, "your faith should be entirely private". Is that what we want? I don't want a society where that is the case for my Christian faith and I should apply that freedom to my neighbour as much as myself. The tough call is the mutual challenge of which laws and practises should be denied in the pursuit of the common good. Thus, respect for the vulnerable, fully equal status for women, illegality of corporal punishment would be among my challenges to some Muslims that would want to bring an unadulterated sharia to Britain.

So, all in all, I'll thank the Lord for our Archbishop....and pray that we will seek truth and move from fear to love.

Reformation - Europe's House Divided

Doing my usual light reading and finding myself enjoying a great history of the Reformation (Diarmaid MacCulloch's "Reformation: Europe's House Divided"), looking for traces of PhD source material. I came across this little observation of his that during the Reformation, there was a shift in people's attitudes so that the Pope came to be seen as the devil's agent and the miracle of the Mass the most evil moment in their earthly experience. He likens it to a technique of German playright Berthold Brecht who would engender alienation ("Verfremdung") in his audience by making the familiar seem unfamiliar: a device to shock the audience into taking control of their perceptions of what was happening in front of them.

It's the classic tool of the revolutionary. What it does, though, is bring division, polarise opinion, and breaks connections where they ought to exist. We see it happening in history and in the church; what do you think of these possible "alienations"?

the reading of this liturgy is lifeless and devoid of faith.....scrap liturgy

daily Bible reading is a legalistic chore.....take or leave the Bible as a reference point for Christian faith

hymns and songs are impersonal, clinical and merely creedal......personalise and consumerise all worship,

local church isn't a real community......find church where I'm comfortable in community,

worship choruses are trite and shallow.......profound worship only happens during a meditation.

I could go on...I don't know whether these "swings" are fair, but it is a human trait and, let's be honest, "gets things changed". But I'm not convinced it's the way it ought to be. Sam Wells' "God's Companions" book talks of the church being a "community of memory and imagination". Our secular liberal worldview (the seeds of which were a motor for the Reformation) endeavours to wipe us free of memory. It's all one giant leap forward into the new and the better. Untrammelled postmodernity would wipe away any sense of the future, and reduce memory to a rosy-tinted heritage product.

I believe it's one of the great challenges for the church in our culture: to embrace a future with imagination whilst having full memories of who we are and where we came from. Those memories contain both the joys and pain, successes and disappointments of who we are. So, with respect to Brecht, let's be restless for change without having to demonise the present or erase the past.

East Oxford Mosque Call to Prayer

A fuss has been rumbling for some time about the proposals for Muslim calls to prayer from the new East Oxford mosque. The Bishop of Oxford seems ok on the issue while many other Christians are concerned about the creeping Islamisation of Britain that this represents. Charlie Cleverly, rector of St Aldate's, Oxford, has been a vocal opponent, interviewed last week on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

It's another of those thorny problems that does require some reflection, some knowledge of Islam and touches on how the church views its role in national public life. In the discussion, comparisons are drawn between the ringing of church bells: custom and practice in many areas and indicative of a certain British cultural understanding of Christian presence. It's a not entirely helpful analogy because church bells, though signalling "church" and very specifically, the Church of England, are not voicing a creed. The Islamic call to prayer, though, is first and foremost an invocation to prayer ("make haste to prayer"), and in that sense can be welcomed by all people of faith, but it also contains the core creed of Islam. The shehadah ("I bear witness that there is no lord except God and Mohammed is his messenger") is one of the five pillars of Islam and is the starting point of Muslim faith. To that end, the call to prayer makes exclusivist and evangelistic claims.

Against this argument, you might say that church bells make such claims implicitly and in a plural society we ought to defend and affirm the freedom of all groups to make their claims in public. Queasiness about  more obvious signs of Muslim presence amidst the dreaming spires of Oxford might rather be suggestive of a certain cultural supremacy or religious nimbyism.

The debate is one containing a number of subtleties because there is no doubt that a Muslim call to prayer contains within it the sense of territorial claim: that the surrounding community are within the purview of Islamic allegiance, Muslim faith being determinedly public and political. Church bells too contain their territoriality drawn around the concept of "parish". Increasingly, we are recognising in the church that territorial claims to Christian allegiance are redundant and inappropriate, but British society is arguably ill-served by airbrushing all the various symbols of that historical presence (whether buildings, church-bell ringing, Christian values underpinning many laws etc etc).

So, what to do in east Oxford, then? I dare suggest to Christians in Oxford that this issue demands a workable compromise. All the above arguments have validity and, for me, a knee-jerk rejection of any call to prayer in Britain or conversely a passive acceptance that all public signs of faith are devoid of negative consequences are both poles that are to be avoided.

Questions that I would prefer being raised between church leaders, mosques and council leaders would seek to put any calls to prayer under the scrutiny of normative public acts of evangelism or marketing: is the city served by amplifying a call to prayer or can this proceed unamplified? It might be appropriate to allow a call to prayer just for the main prayers on a Friday afternoon, acknowledging some parallel with church bells. What do the local neighbourhood think about this? (Part of the anglican tradition is, rightly, a pastoral concern for the entirety of society: that means consideration for the freedom to worship of Muslims as it does for the fear of segregation and divisiveness that may exist among non-Muslims, Christian or otherwise. Do the mosque leaders have an understanding of their obligations to non-Muslim society in working towards constructive compromise?).

So, I do not see the need for a polarised debate but rather genuine dialogue, some uncomfortable and challenging conversations both ways. Interestingly, in my own city of Birmingham, there are very few places where the call to prayer is broadcast in the streets, and there is a far greater Muslim presence here. Muslims will hear the call via their radios, through various local and national Muslim radio stations. There is no evidence of pressure to make it otherwise. Let's use this scenario to build understanding; to work for the common good. My horrible fear is that so much of the impetus behind some of the church's response is a misguided attachment to a vision of middle-England, warm beer and cricket, that obvious signs of Muslim presence are clearly threatening.