Evangelism among Muslims
N TODAY’s Lambeth Journal, Bp Neff Powell comments on an ordinary day:
The Bible study group went very well as we began to discuss the matter of Gene Robinson and homosexuals in the Episcopal Church. The presenting issue for us was how this issue affects our efforts in evangelism. The African bishops said that in Muslim majority countries, openness to homosexuality made evangelism more difficult. I pointed out that in some places in our culture, especially with those under age 35, it was rather the other way around. I think, I think we heard each other.
I’m still not sure how Gene makes evangelism hard for them. I would think the death threats for trying to convert Muslims would be worse. I would think the death sentence for apostasy on the convert would be a bigger problem.
If someone says to you, “Yes, I would convert – death threats mean nothing! But I refuse to go to a party where a gay man might be in the room…” there’s some other issues going on. Seriously.
But, let’s assume for a moment is is about evangelism. Neff has the right counterpoint. No one in this country under the age of 35 – and an increasingly large number of the rest of us – want anything to do with a religion that can’t outgrow its cultural biases. If we can use interest-bearing accounts to run our economy, I think we can A retrograde stance makes it hard for us to evangelise.
By that line of reasoning, one wonders if African Anglican evangelism among Muslim majorities is hampered by the Christian insistence on monogamous marriage instead of polygamy, or the Christian ethic of “turning the other cheek” instead of “an eye for an eye” retribution, or the Christian doctrine of a triune God instead of a strictly monadic divine being, etc.
Yes. I think, for the Bishops, the issue is not a simple case of morality or even culture: the Anglicans in question are of the Sola Scriptura variety – and very simplistic ones at that. They insist that the “simple sense” of the scripture is evident without any interpolation or need for external references. They came to this idea by believing exactly what they were taught by their evangelical Anglican mission-teachers. They have not thought to realise that the filtres through which one reads the text are at least as important as the text itself to the meaning one makes up.
So, claiming sola scriptura, the local population says, “Well, no: there are the gays.” And later, they will say, as you point out, “Trinity?” Etc.
a religion that can’t outgrow its cultural biases
You once made a comment on my weblog in which you said “There’s so many theological claims in those 8 words that you would need something at least as long as the XXXIX Articles to defend them all.” The eight words above deserve the same remark.
Is it that the religion in question can’t outgrow its cultural biases, or is it that it is too slow to adopt the biases of the culture that it now finds itself in? Any religion that seriously claims to have eternal and transcendent truth is going to be in conflict at some level with every culture it encounters; and any religion that doesn’t make some effort to remain the same in the face of cultural change isn’t worth believing in.
No one in this country under the age of 35 – and an increasingly large number of the rest of us – want anything to do with a religion that can’t outgrow its cultural biases.
Oh, if only this were so, Hew! I met many people under the age of 35 in the Orthodox Church that were drawn to it because of its outdated cultural biases. Alas, I was one of them! Kyrie Eleison!
“and any religion that doesn’t make some effort to remain the same in the face of cultural change isn’t worth believing in.”
It depends on what issue we’re talking about, Chris. For instance, I’m glad the church has made some changes to its approach and beliefs about women. I’m also glad that the church is taking a more compassionate approach towards Homosexuals and Lesbians, both conservatives and liberals. Heck, I’m glad the church is taking a more realistic, holistic, healthy and compassionate approach to sex in general than it did in ages past. There are times when the surrounding culture (or the world as we Christians like to call it) is on to something and we should listen. There are times when we need to resist the World. We need to turn our faces from the materialism, greed and militarism of American culture for instance. Pornography and any other attempt to objectify sexuality must also be resisted. But let’s not say that everything coming from the mouth of Modernity and post modernity just because it is modern or post modern. This would be uncritical.
James,
You wrote:
I’m glad the church is taking a more realistic, holistic, healthy and compassionate approach to sex in general than it did in ages past.
I have a couple of questions about this.
First, what is your working definition of “the Church” which enables you to say that “the Church” has changed its “approach to sex”? Clearly some denominations have become more “liberal” (for lack of a better word), but does that mean that the Church as a whole has changed its attitude towards sex?
Secondly, to be able to compare the Church’s current “approach to sex” with its earlier approach to sex, you have to have some standard by which to judge the Church’s attitude. By what standard are you judging the Church to be able to conclude that its new attitude is “more realistic, more holistic, more healthy, and more compassionate”?
FWIW, I think the traditional, orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality is more realistic, holistic, healthy, and compassionate than is the “new attitude” of contemporary culture.
Chris – Thanks for giving me my own crow to eat :-)
“Is it that the religion in question can’t outgrow its cultural biases, or is it that it is too slow to adopt the biases of the culture that it now finds itself in?”
Clearly, I’m assuming that the teachings regarding sex have evolved – in the understanding of the writers of the bible, as well as in our day. And I’m assuming that both of those evolutions were/are God inspired.
As Abraham’s Generation had multiple wives – but later this was determined to be wrong – but both were part of the God-inspired evolution of the people, so I also believe that God is moving us to better understanding today – and that we are writing scripture today, as well.
PS – I don’t think my claim needs to assume an external standard – just that God is always leading us to where we need to be: being stuck in the past is the place least needed.
James:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-10-10-christians-young_N.htm
Huw (not “hew” which is verb…)
This is very encouraging, Huw. Perhaps us mainliners have a future after all!
Chris, I think if you were to glean the writings of the Church Fathers (especially St. Augustine of Hippo) to find their attitudes and beliefs about sex, you’d change your mind about the traditional, Orthodox teaching on sexuality. Unless of course you would agree with them that sexual intercourse is a dirty ordeal that we must nevertheless bare for the sole purpose of procreation. I don’t think you take this view, though, no thanks to the likes of St. Augustine! Let’s face it, the church has had a great deal of anxiety about sex, especially in the west. The Eastern tradition is a little better, but even the likes of a St. Maximus Confessor expressed the silly notion that sex was a result of the fall – that God would’ve devised another method of procreation if it wasn’t for Eve and the forbidden fruit. is this a realistic, holistic, healthy and compassionate attitude to take towards sexualty? I sure hope it’s not!