RTS Papers / Systematic Theology I / Fall 2016
In 2007 A Common Word was written as an open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars around the world. It was addressed to the world’s Christian denominations. We should note that the phrase “common word” descends from the Muslim tradition. This ought to immediately raise questions about the presuppositions behind it. The crucial words are that “we shall ascribe no partner unto Him” (Aal ‘Imran 3:64).
We might also be interested to know that in Islam there is an unforgivable sin called shirk. That means ascribing partners to God. Notice what this means. The preamble to the document wastes no time calling on us to abandon the doctrine of the Trinity: to consider our doctrine of God an unforgivable sin!
Although some may choose to deny this, or to minimize it, one would have to be either a newcomer to Islam, or else a bit misguided, to ignore such an early unilateral surrender. The same could be said about several of the historical tragedies listed: e. g. preventing “another Iraq” (12). In what sense? The terms are already loaded.
This opening should not be misunderstood. Working toward peace is always a good thing. And the biblical doctrine of common grace instructs us that the unbeliever may often excel us in relevant virtues. However there is also something profoundly supernatural at the root of major religious differences about which the Christian must not be naive. Now there is an alternative approach to such beginnings. It may be reasoned, “Why be troubled by ambiguous words? Our doctrine of the Trinity does not ‘assign partners’ at all, as if the three divine Persons were separate beings.” But try explaining that to a devout Muslim! And, incidentally, we should try. While the motive behind this Christian nuance may be commendable as a means of opening up conversation with Muslims, we can hardly proceed very far in the dialogue if we are going to concede such a basic misunderstanding. It may also be objected, to use the authors’ language,
The words: He hath no associate, remind Muslims that they must love God uniquely, without rivals within their souls (58).
In other words, we are told that this refers to the unity of God, as such, and then the unity of the hearts of his worshipers. Taken in that way, it would seem that a Christian can agree to this. So goes the argument. That may be true if that were really the meaning, but we are begging the whole question.
We are assured that Islamic authorities have struck at the root of violent jihad by eliminating its basis in fatwas. They may no longer be used to justify violence. Those are merely legal declarations by Muslim scholars at any rate. We are further encouraged in dialogue in being told that takfir (declaration of apostasy) is equally delegitimized. And the Shiites and Sunnis have led the way by recognizing each other’s legal authorities (20). In order to attain the peace claimed by the document, what is needed, it says, is knowledge. Very well, what is this common word between us?
There is first an extended commentary on passages such as Al-Taghabun 64:1 concerning the attributes and appropriate praise rendered unto Allah. To what end? When the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are brought in it becomes clear. The Hebrew Shema and the Greatest Commandment of Jesus Christ are being held up as counterparts to this parallel teaching in Islam. It is this primal devotion that we ought to have for God that is our common word (62-63). The highest point of our religions is argued to be the same. Never mind the subtle potshot that the “original Aramaic” of Jesus and “the actual transmitted Greek of the New Testament” are at variance (64). As in the Law of the Moses and in Jesus’ teaching of the Greatest Commandment, so in Islam: love of God necessitates love of our fellow human beings.
The third section is headed “Come to a Common Word Between Us and You,” so that having established what the common word is, an invitation follows. What sort of invitation is it? Note the rationale given by the authors themselves. The Qur’an commands them as Muslims,
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to A Common Word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran, 3:64).
The authors then assure the reader again that this refers to the basic unity of God that all three faiths affirm at their root. But two things need to be said in reply. First, this is patently false. The notion that this “root” is the same in Christianity depends upon the premise of a corrupt Bible. We do not mean the same thing by the unity of God. We mean tri-unity. Second, the context of this text is a Muslim command to convert the Jew and Christian to Islam — i. e. to correct our allegedly false forms of worship and doctrine. In short, this “common word” is nothing less than Muslim proselytizing.
Finally with respect to the goal of tolerance and peace, it is said, “As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them—so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes” (70). Indeed we should never wage war against anyone on account of religion — but this also begs a question as to the conditions of just war. What if one’s religion commits itself to an unjust war such that this very action elicits the response of a just war? In other words, what if the assurances given by these Muslim groups concerning jihad are simply untrue? Would it be right to defend one’s country in case of an invasion? And if so, what if the invasion in question was precipitated by Islamic teaching? Would that not constitute waging war “on account of their religion”? It would, by resistless logic.
So we have moved from academic unilateral disarmament to physical unilateral disarmament on the stage of history. Clearly we are forbidden from taking up the sword as if the kingdom of Christ could advance by it. But I am unwilling to concede the modernist narrative concerning much of the era of the Crusades, and I have not yet been convinced that jihad is not necessitated by the cumulative teachings of Islam.
Aside from Roman Catholic responses, there was also that of the Yale theologians, which apologizes for past violence, including excesses in the “war on terror.” An odd apology, coming from theologians who typically interpret the "two kingdoms" as implying that the church has hardly any business speaking truth to the state, let alone commanding it. Such things were undoubtedly intertwined in the Middle Ages. I will not play dumb.
It is clear that some contemporary theologians use words like "Constantinianism" to refer to a continuation of the church-state complex. But even for such more, shall we say, left-leaning theologians, why not make this very distinction to Muslims? Why not clarify and say, "Well, the church and the state are not the same anyway, no matter what those conservatives say." This would be a fine time to make that point.
But just when we thought that the line between these “two kingdoms" precluded the Bush (or Trump) Administration from representing Christ, perhaps such clarity was not the point to begin with, leaving the rest of us to ask which of these two faces should we take at face value?
As it is, the original document acknowledges that “there is no minimizing some of [the] formal differences” (70) between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. But we have a duty to ask whether this is precisely what is going on: a minimization. It is academically irresponsible for the representatives of Yale to entertain a document which glosses over the very matters that they ought to know determine the questions of peace.
A year later the dissenting view by John Piper was basically this: The uniqueness of the Son of God and finality of his revelation are both utterly incompatible with Islam and yet utterly necessary for salvation. A gospel such as we have does not prevent humane conversation. Piper was right to say that it is not the same God, and therefore not the same love. Why is the burden of proof on the Christian to lay down our word?
This would not be the first time that Christians were propositioned to build a unity on earth upon a false unity in heaven. We might think of how, in the modern era, Unitarianism was so often the theology of “enlightened” religion and social gospels.
Paradoxically it will take clarification in dialogue to know whether or not we can accept the terms of their invitation to dialogue. But that is no difficulty from the Christian perspective. We already have a Word commanding us to love our neighbor, and even our enemies, and so the task of speaking the truth in love to Muslims does not necessitate that we agree with anyone else’s common word. In my judgment this commits the same error as ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together).
Are we against peace? Not at all. But why not chart a course for the same end of peace without pretending that we agree where we do not. Just as Rome and the Reformation do not agree on faith alone, so Islam and Christianity do not agree on Christ and his kingdom, nor the nature of God and the way of salvation. If one is really for peace, then such peace would be good enough without the smuggled syncretism. There can be no peace without truth.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Common Word Between Us and You
Piper, John, “A Common Word Between Us?”
Volf, Miroslav, “Loving God and Neighbor Together,”
Comments