Distinctly Welcoming

Responding to the Barnabas Fund

Over the last week or so, a minor spat has been escalating across the internet around the actions and intentions of some of us who have sought to provide slightly different perspectives on how we engage Islam as Christians committed to the gospel: seeking to relate constructively and openly to the reality of diverse Muslims. I would want to reaffirm, as I trust the history of my posts on this site would demonstrate, my concern for the plight of persecuted Christians around the world and want to add my support to the advocacy of the suffering church, particularly in many Muslim-majority contexts and for that aspect of the work of the Barnabas Fund. The post that referenced Ben White's review on the Fulcrum site, and my earlier post about the Barnabas Fund has merely provided a suggested alternative reading of some elements of Islam and the consequent appropriate Christian response to that presented in some Barnabas Fund publications.

A number of statements have had to be published following the circulation of an article by the Barnabas Fund. You can read the statement issued by Global Connections, the network of evangelical mission organisations including Interserve, Arab World Ministries, CMS and Crosslinks among others, here. The open evangelical network, Fulcrum, have been obliged to publish a statement, too, here. And my own mission organisation CMS have a statement here.

I trust this clarifies the position somewhat. Shortly, Global Connections, through the Christian Response to Islam network ("CRIB") will be publishing a set of guidelines on a gracious response to Islam that I hope to be be posting on this site. This should add some specific points for discussion that I hope and pray will sharpen our Christian ethic and witness as we aim to engage Muslims after the manner of Christ. It will be good to have a document with which all of us from across the church can discuss and engage with robustly, conscious that we are all called to account for the manner in which we follow our calling and not merely the ends we are striving for.

Anyway, it's been a messy week for evangelical Christians working with Muslims and I couldn't help but chuckle wrly at this cartoon.

The Barnabas Fund, Taqiyya and Islam

Ben White has just written an excellent review of Patrick Sookdheo's latest book, "Global Jihad". You can see the review on the Fulcrum site here. I've posted before on my quesions about some of the content and tone of Barnabas Fund publications and Ben does an excellent and fair job of assessing potential weaknesses that the Church in the West needs to be aware of. Patrick commands considerable influence and it is good to discuss and debate the use of some of his sources.

Ben assesses Patrick's use of the doctrine of taqiyya (deliberate dissimulation) as a reason for mistrusting any pronouncements and intentions of Muslims. He rightly highlights that it was a doctrine that arose in the shia community consequent upon their persecution by sunni Muslims. I would add, also, from some of my own recent research, that taquiyya was always a last resort when life was under threat; the far better way, in all the early Islamic authorities, was an honest and robust proclamation of Islamic intent.

Another point to add is the suggestion that Patrick may sometimes conflate classical Islamic doctrines of power and the more recent ideas within the al-Qaeda movement. Mainstream analysis of the political theology of the likes of Bin Laden suggest a Marxist/Western overlay of Islam that is influenced as much by secularism as by any traditional notions of Islamic power.

So check out Ben White's review....

Patrick Sookhdeo and the Barnabas Fund - some reflections

I've been out and about for several days, doing teaching for trainee ordinands in St Albans and Bristol and speaking to some postgrad students in Oxford. It's been very stimulating and I've found a great deal of openness to a constructive engagement with Islam in Britain. At the same time, I'm realising that the mental furniture of so many Christians is decked out with threatening shapes of what Islam is and aspires to be through the publications and articles emanating from the Barnabus Fund. I write this post with genuine hesitation, because Patrick Sookhdeo is a fellow Christian and I want to honour and respect his heart for mission and his concern for the persecuted church; the persecution of which is an uncomfortable reality in so many Muslim countries and even within Muslim communities here in the UK. Patrick speaks with some learning and from the hard realities of being a Muslim convert to the Christian faith. But there is a big "but" coming.....

Only the other day, I received a Barnabas Fund email newsletter offering a critique of the "A Common Word" document that had been sent by a number of international Muslim leaders to Christian leaders as a statement of the basis of dialogue at the end of last year. The tone and Christian theology underlying Patrick's conclusions to this effort at dialogue, very typical of his writings, are what I'd like to unpack. Anyway, deep breath, I'll respond to several specific points in the Barnabas Fund newsletter, "A Common Word: a path to progress?":

1.  Patrick begins by highlighting the tale of Hartford Seminary in the US which, so he  says, was originally a missionary training college with "good Calvinist foundations" and now has a student body that is  35% Muslim and a centre for Islamic chaplaincy training, all because it started on a path of understanding Islam and seeking dialogue between Christians and Muslims. The lesson seems to be that any form of dialogue is a slippery slope to syncretism, compromise and the watering down of truth. I take as my model Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected, "full of grace and truth" who "heard us", listened, incarnated amongst us, took on our humanity but also challenged us. Dialogue is the essence of the life that is "God with Us".....and, yes, he's right, it's risky, but it's part of what we should do and be.
2. The Barnabas Fund response does highlight some genuine inadequacies in the "A Common Word" document. There are major omissions (what about Judaism?, what about the doctrine of apostasy? is "love of neighbour a true pillar of Islamic teaching?) but it is not intended to be "the final word": it is a start, a preliminary to some needed and significant discussions. Are we as Christians to be mean-spirited, cynical, arrogantly waiting for "them to get themselves in order" before we engage in relationship? Again, the way of Christ would, surely, say no.
3. Patrick provides a scathing critique of a "Yale Document" response to A Common Word which can be found on the A Common Word site and has been signed by a host of evangelical leaders and theologians. To suggest that some of those signatories are no longer trinitarian because they quote "The New Testament" as opposed to "The Holy Bible" and refer to "the Prophet Muhammad" out of respect to their Muslim audience is more than a little outrageous. The letter does not purport to be a deep and meaningful theological response (read Daniel Madigan's letter if you want to see the best of those) but a statement of intent and goodwill.
4. The practice of "taquiyya" is invoked by Patrick. This is the Arabic principle of dissimulation, of  presenting a false image to those in power in the furtherance of Islam. It is a doctrine that has a basis in Islamic history and is often used by the Barnabas Fund to cloak the efforts of progressive Muslims with a veneer of suspicion and deceit. Whilst recognising the reality that exists within some Muslims, brandishing this term about actually mitigates against the vulnerability that Christians ought to bring to relationships and that Patrick highlights as so different to the Muslim faith. To beat people with doctrinal truths whilst failing to embody them makes us, at best, hypocrites and at worst agents of division.

At the end of the day, the message from Patrick is "here be monsters": back off, don't trust, and until they prove themselves worthy, do not give any ground to Muslims. The Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss, writing in the 1930's was posed with the problem of what being a Jew meant in Nazi Germany. To survive, you had two choices: assimilation or emigration in order to set up a new Zion. The first option meant that you were denying everything you stood for as a Jew. The second option meant that you betrayed all that it was to be a Jew because you could not assert and grab what could only be received as a gift from God. As we reflect on our Christian response to Islam in Britain, taking in controversial issues like the planned public calls to prayer in Oxford, covered by Ruth Gledhill, we face a similar tension. How do we present the Christian faith in the public square, without falling into the trap of losing the very sense of what it means to be a follower of Christ?

Patrick concludes his letter with the suggestion that the naivety of western Christians is actually exacerbating the suffering of Christians in Muslim majority lands. Let's hear the voices of the suffering church, campaign, speak out and pray.....But let's also be vulnerable and loving, without fear or favour to our Muslim neighbours. Any other route is just not of Christ.