Rick Warren: Christians and Muslims worship the same God

I feel like this is Bill Clinton part two as far as the parsing and spinning of terms. It seems there is some deceit going on whether it is intentional or unintentional. There is some clarification that needs to take place.

“We agreed we wouldn’t try to evangelize each other,” said Turk. “We’d witness to each other but it would be out of ‘Love Thy Neighbor,’ not focused on conversion.”

It seems Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at a mosque in Los Angeles, believes there is no risk of evangelism taking place.

“I think that many evangelicals feel a mandate to convert people to Christianity,” Guibord said. Because the Consultative Group was founded to respond to increasing antagonism between the two faiths, “we would not have made headway” if one side was trying to convert the other, she said. Now, she said, it might be possible to include evangelicals in her group’s work.

It seems Mr. Guibord believes Mr Warren is setting aside the “mandate to convert people to Christianity.”

And do we really need to parse “one God”? Please, have we really come to this point.

It seems Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at a mosque in Los Angeles, believes there is no risk of evangelism taking place. … It seems Mr. Guibord believes Mr Warren is setting aside the “mandate to convert people to Christianity.”

I have no desire or compulsion to defend Warren. I think he is severely wrong in some areas. But I am not sure that it is entirely fair to judge him based on what “seems” to be the case based on very limited, out-of-context, quotations of someone else’s words. Warren has said the article “contains multiple errors both factually and theologically.”

Perhaps he should identify those errors; I think he would be well-served to do so, and perhaps he will. But it seems prudent to walk cautiously with our speech.

But he says this that strikes a chord with me: “Christians are obliged to treat everyone with love and respect, regardless of faith.” Is that really debatable? There are many who do not do this, and they violate the explicit instruction of James 3 where it talks about defacing the image of God by blessing God and cursing man made in his image.

It seems to me that there is a view and practice out there, particularly among some fundamentalists, that unless you are blasting away at your opponents with great vehemence, you are compromising and not taking a stand. I reject that. I think we need to give some careful thought about how we speak of others who are made in God’s image.

I think Warren is abysmally weak in many areas, but I think he is right in at least two: (1) We need to treat all humanity with respect, regardless of religious commitments that they may have. (2) We need to listen to people tell us what they believe and interact with them on the basis of what they believe, not what we have been told they believe, and not what we are prepared to argue against.

To this last point, I think roundtable discussions, even public forums, might serve a valid purpose for a knowledgeable apologist and evangelist. It certainly would serve us well in personal relationships.

And do we really need to parse “one God”? Please, have we really come to this point.

Actually, it is a pretty key point. A common break down of world religions leads to three categories: atheists (no God), polytheists (multiple gods), and monotheists (one God). So it is a well-known and commonly used sociological distinction to group the Abrahamic religions together as monotheistic. Once we have done that, we do need to parse “one God” for the precise purpose of defending the truth about the identity of the one God. “One God” is not the same as “same God.” To say that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monotheistic (one God) is not the same as saying they worship the “same God.”

Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims

Too bad he’s burning bridges to Christianity as he goes.

[JobK]…Rick Warren can justifiably claim “It wasn’t a problem for you when Bush said it, so what is the matter when I say it?”

Job,

I think there’s a huge difference. One was president who claimed to be evangelical. The other is a pastor, consider a leader among evangelicals. I don’t think Warren can justify any such claim before men or God.

Questions:
1. Do you believe we should be signing any kind of joint statement on faith with false teachers who have not the doctrine of Christ, in light of II John?

2. Do you believe, if we do think II John gives us room to sign such a statement, that we should let it be known that we’ve signed the statement but not release it publicly?

3. Do you believe, if we do sign such a statement, that we should let the false teachers be the ones to describe it to the world without giving specifics?

4. Do you believe, if the false teachers are saying that we aren’t going to be evangelising, that we should delay in releasing the text of what we’ve signed?

5. Do you believe any of this is consistent with “Let your yea be yea” or a host of other Biblical principles?

I know commenting without reading the facts is dangerous.

But on the surface…coming up with points in common between Christianity and Islam…it’s like coming up with points in common between football and shuffleboard. Can it be done? I suppose. But why bother?

If you have the time, check out The Everlasting Man, in which Chesterton pulls a reductio ad absurdum on the whole concept of ” http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c4.htm comparative religions .” Just slap a variety of entities down in a row and show a gradation of differences and presto! Suddenly, Christianity is just another one of those. But in reality, Christianity is absolutely unique.

As I read the Orange County Register article Sunday night after hearing people in my flock going ballistic about it earlier, I thought there was probably more to it than what was presented. Warren has painted himself into a corner for sure, and I’m no champion of his at all. But I’m not convinced that he’s sold out as much as many think he has. I’d want to read original transcripts and see what Warren might mean about the article mispresenting him.

Could it be that, in Warren’s thinking at least, that the agreement to not evangelize one another refers to when the two groups are doing community service activities together? If that’s the case (and I’m not certain it is), it’s still a very sad capitulation, but it’s not the same as a blanket moratorium on all evangelism to Muslims.

Now, even if Warren believes Muslims and Christians worship the same God, that’s not necessarily the same as affirming that Muslims are TRUE worshippers and knowers of God. One might argue that, sociologically speaking, Muslims worship the God of Abraham, but that theologically speaking they worship One Whom they do not know. The analogy is often made of Jews who, sociologically speaking, worship the God of the OT but deny the trinity and the deity of Messiah and thereby are outside the true knowledge of God.

I’m fully aware of the view that says Islam is monotheistic idolatry, that Allah evolved from the the moon god. I don’t want to argue about that here except to say that not all Christian apologists and evangelists take that approach. There’s a case for a categorical distinction between material idolatry as in, say, Hinduism, and cognitive idolatry (false conceptions of the one true God [ala 1 John 5:21 as I interpret it] ).

Is all of this a bit of parsing? Sure. Of course, theology requires a lot of parsing, and does apologetics, and even evangelism. The bigger question is whether or not it’s good parsing. One can parse the truth so as to obscure it, and I think that’s what Warren has done here, inadvertantly I hope.

Thanks, Jon, for your questions. Let me hit them quickly, and then perhaps follow up later if this is not sufficiently clear. I realize up front that some of my answers my seem like a dodge, and let me assure they are not. So friends, (not John, who I am confident will not be), please don’t be cynical about my answers. I will gladly respond to follow ups as I have time.

1. Do you believe we should be signing any kind of joint statement on faith with false teachers who have not the doctrine of Christ, in light of II John?

“Any” kind? That is pretty broad. My short answer is that it is possible, I think, though it may not be wise. If someone one wants to have a joint statement that all religions should have freedom to practice according to their conscience in a given society, then yes. If someone wants to sign a statement that all religions should treat all humanity with basic human dignity and respect regardless of religious commitments, then yes. Again, I don’t imagine that is controversial, but my imagination is not all that good sometimes.

I think 2 John is talking about something very particular—recognizing a false teacher as a Christian brother. I am not sure that is necessarily inherent in signing such a statement.

2. Do you believe, if we do think II John gives us room to sign such a statement, that we should let it be known that we’ve signed the statement but not release it publicly?

I think as a matter of wisdom, that we should be clear and transparent about what we sign if it is going to be known that we signed it.

3. Do you believe, if we do sign such a statement, that we should let the false teachers be the ones to describe it to the world without giving specifics?

No. I don’t think that would be wise. As I said above, I think Warren should clarify if he thinks this article is factually and theologically wrong.

4. Do you believe, if the false teachers are saying that we aren’t going to be evangelising, that we should delay in releasing the text of what we’ve signed?

No.

5. Do you believe any of this is consistent with “Let your yea be yea” or a host of other Biblical principles?

Any of it? Again, I don’t know exactly how to answer it because I am not sure what “any of it” means. The article didn’t give me enough specifics to feel comfortable passing complete judgment on it. Furthermore, I don’t know what Warren’s schedule is. There may be a good reason he wasn’t available and hasn’t responded yet. I don’t know what the time line of this being made public is. I don’t know what the “host of other Biblical principles” are. So, I am honestly not trying to dodge. I am not sure I know enough to speak about any of it dogmatically.

Does that help clarify at all? I can’t imagine myself signing any joint statement about anything these days. Maybe I would. Who knows. I haven’t faced that issue.

I know commenting without reading the facts is dangerous.

That may be a good reminder :D

But on the surface…coming up with points in common between Christianity and Islam…it’s like coming up with points in common between football and shuffleboard. Can it be done? I suppose. But why bother?

Because it isn’t just you and me. There is a world that participates (whether we like it or not) in sociological groupings. And the reality is that in sociological groupings, Christianity and Islam have much in common that cause them to be grouped together and seen in distinction from things like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. That means that Christianity and Islam share a commonality as over against Hinduism.

But in reality, Christianity is absolutely unique.

Yes and no. I think this is too simplistic for useful conversation. There are some absolutely unique things about Christianity, but there are also some common things that sociologists and philosophers use to make category distinctions. Denying those doesn’t help anything. I don’t think we help the truth by clouding over issues.

There’s no denying points in common in history and sociology and “brute” theological propositions (e.g., “There is one true God.”).

But the theological propositions that actually matter…who God is, what He’s like (what man must believe about God and what God requires of man) are poles apart. If we’re trying to find common ground in theology, it just isn’t there in any meaningful way.

But the theological propositions that actually matter…who God is, what He’s like (what man must believe about God and what God requires of man) are poles apart. If we’re trying to find common ground in theology, it just isn’t there in any meaningful way.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you here. But I think you are having a different conversation. The truth is that, theologically, monotheistic religions have some common ground particularly as over against atheists and polytheists. It’s actually meaningful in a discussion about world religions.

Again, I don’t now what Warren is trying to say or do with this. I have no idea. And as you previously said just before commenting, it is dangerous to comment without reading the facts. So again, while I have no desire to defend Warren, I think there is some stuff I don’t know about this, and perhaps it would be wise to walk cautiously.

I’ll shock you to note that I don’t entirely agree. ;)

Muslims claim to honour Scripture but make truth-claims about Jesus which deny Scripture, as do Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and modalists, as did Gnostics and Marcionites. II John doesn’t say that they are claiming to be Christians, it says they are bringing a false doctrine about Christ.

The best that can be said on this is that Warren has given the impression that Muslims have some things right in the area of doctrine. I’m pretty sure that he has explicitly agreed that they have some things right. That is ok when discussing false teachers when it is directly in the context of saying what they have wrong. Statements emphasising commonalities alone with false teachers is impossilbe, for me at least, to reconcile with II John.

I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to signing a joint statement on a political matter with a lot of different people. I don’t consider that a joint statement on faith. “In matters of faith we disagree at a foundational level, but on the political question of religious freedom we are agreed.” I wouldn’t particularly have a problem with that. That’s not what is happening here.

Thanks for the kind response, Jon. A couple of quick comments in response. Again, these are brief and certainly deserving of more nuance that I am able to give them at this time. And again, for all, please don’t read any defense of Warren here. Just some thoughts on the broader issue, no matter who the name is.

1. It it seems to me that the point of 2 John is not just holding wrong doctrine, or just relationships with people who hold wrong doctrine but specifically with role in the body. To bring him into the house (which I tend to take as the church) and give him a greeting is to recognize him in the church as a Christian brother. It is to extend Christian recognition to someone who is not a Christian. The person “came with a false teaching” (he was a false teacher), and you gave him a greeting (a public recognition in the assembly as a brother, similar to Paul’s greetings at the beginning of his letters). I don’t know that Warren is doing that in this particular case. In fact, I don’t really know exactly what he is doing, and to my knowledge he hasn’t helped by speaking out about it (on which see #3).

2. I agree that we should not, probably even must not, recognize commonalities alone, if at all, in the context of public religious discussion. Affirming a commonality may take an issue off the table and allow more fruitful discussion. But the differences are what matters.

3. Lastly, I would draw a careful distinction between what is required to obey Scripture and what is required to placate people who may not know everything that has transpired. Again, that is not to defend Warren in anyway. I think he has done much wrong, and has been less than clear on some things. But I think sometimes we draw lines that aren’t actually required, such as “X is wrong for not speaking out and clarifying a wrong statement that Y made.” Well, it might be wise to speak out, but is it necessary for obedience. In other words, assuming the article is “factually and theologically wrong” as Warren claims, is Warren required by Scripture to correct it? I don’t know that he is, though I would be willing to entertain an argument for it. I think he should. I think it would be wise. But I don’t know that the Bible requires him to. Might that be a requirement added by others?

Two main thoughts:

1. I understand II John’s reference (along with part of III John), to be to the needs of traveling Christians teachers, especially in a persecuted church context, for hospitality and assistance. Thus, II John has broader reference than simply within the meetings of the church. I should do nothing that assists the evil deeds of those who teach false doctrine, nor say anything that can be construed as aid or endorsement of anything they do related to their “faith.” The teaching of these two letters seems to be that you meet the needs of true brothers who minister to you, but help false teachers not at all.

(FWIW, this exegetical difference, which I didn’t recognise in our previous discussions, clarifies part of our prior conversation elsewhere about ETS, I think. You do not see II John as applying to either of these, and I do.)

2. I agree that wisdom and command are not always the same thing. In these cases, a case can be made for overlap between wisdom and command based on the beginning of II Cor. 4, Christ’s words about letting your yea be yea, and perhaps a few other passages. The argument for overlap is stronger because Warren helped to create this situation. We are not obligated to respond every time someone twists or confuses something we have said or done — but if we let someone speak for us and they do that? Furthermore, Warren’s followup comment on the article borders on charging the reporter with dishonesty, and that should be backed up. If he weren’t going to be really forthcoming, he should have just stayed quiet. So I do think this has gone into a matter of obedience, rather than just wisdom.

Thanks for the discussion, your view on things makes much more sense to me now. I still think it’s mistaken, of course, but I suspect that’s mutual. :)

Has anyone found a link to the actual text of the King’s Way? The original article seems to indicate it might be called something else now, but doesn’t give any indication as to what that might be. I spent at least 45 minutes trying to track down the source with no luck.

Does anyone have the actual text?