(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/)
January 4, 2011
_Christianity Today, January , 2011_
(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/januaryweb-only/)
Theology in the News
Muslims in Evangelical Churches
Does loving your neighbor mean opening your doors to false worship?
Jason B. Hood | posted 1/03/2011 10:05AM
As professional religion reporters looked back on 2010, they _ranked_
(http://www.rna.org/news/54861/2010-Religion-Stories-of-the-Year.htm) the
_debate_ (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/october/1.53.html) over an
Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero—along with a pastor's threat to
burn the Qur'an—as the year's top story. The threat of Qur'an burning has
dropped out of the headlines. But loud opposition to construction of Islamic
centers continues across the country. Outside of Manhattan, metro Nashville
became the most prominent of the local controversies (which were _legion_
(http://features.pewforum.org/muslim/controversies-over-mosque-and-islamic-cen
ters-across-the-us.html) ). Brentwood residents successfully quashed plans
for a mosque in their town as plans to convert a historic theater in
Antioch into an Islamic center continued despite local opposition. But it was
Murfreesboro that got the most attention from national media, the Justice
Department, and local politicians. A court has ruled that construction of an
Islamic center there can continue, but a legal challenge is ongoing.
Meanwhile, some churches have modeled a much more welcoming approach. At
Heartsong Church in Cordova, Tennessee, Steve Stone and his congregants put
out a sign welcoming incoming neighbors at the Memphis Islamic Center. The
church then allowed these Muslim neighbors to use their sanctuary as a
makeshift mosque throughout Ramadan while the Islamic Center was under
construction. Stone and Heartsong received extensive _national_
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/heartsong-church-memphis-islamic-center_n_710053.html)
_media_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lt3n-5h9_4) _coverage_
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-07-cordova06_ST_N.htm) for
their
efforts.
For Stone, allowing Muslims to worship on his church's property was a
matter of "What would Jesus do?"—a matter of his United Methodist congregation
modeling the love of Jesus to strangers, just as Jesus had welcomed them.
Another United Methodist pastor 900 miles away came to a similar
conclusion when a neighboring Islamic congregation asked to use his church's
space
for five months of Friday prayers. Jason Micheli, pastor of Aldersgate
Methodist in Arlington, Virginia, shares part of his theological reasoning in
a
sermon published at _Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog_
(http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2010/10/15/what-would-you-do-2/?utm_source=feedburner
&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PatheosJesusCreed+(Jesus+Creed)) .
While Micheli uses more explicitly evangelical and exclusivist language
than Heartsong and Steve Stone, he similarly defends his decision by
appealing to Jesus and Christian love: "[W]hen we say that Jesus is the only
way to
the Father, we don't just mean our belief in Jesus is the only way to the
Father. We also mean Jesus' way of life is the only way we manifest the
Father's love. That we would welcome Muslim strangers into our sacred space
with no strings attached is not a reduction of what we believe about Jesus
(or a betrayal); it is, I think, the fullest possible expression of what we
believe about Jesus."
Both of the pastors allowing Muslim worship on their property appeal to
the love required of Christians as an authoritative guide for their
decision-making.
But it is not self-evident that this duty requires us to provide property
for false worship. The theological issues at play come down to whether
Jesus' love command also requires leaders to avoid causing undue stumbling;
or,
as Wesley put it, _the command to do good works includes avoiding causing
or leading others to harm_
(http://www.faithexperience.com/2010/10/doing-good-3-things-to-remember/) ,
whether they are believers or unbelievers. Does
facilitation of false worship violate the love command?
Absurd extremes of Qur'an burning and protests over mosque construction
illustrate the fact that the love command requires theological interpretation
in order to be correctly applied. A Terry Jones apologist might argue that
the love command dictates a demonstration. At the other end of the
spectrum, Herman Melville's Moby Dick gives a classic illustration of the
overuse
of the love commandment, as the Presbyterian Ishmael argues himself into
idol worship with Queequeg using "biblical" reasoning:
What is worship?—to do the will of God—THAT is worship. And what is the
will of God?—to do to my fellow man what I would have my fellow man to do to
me—THAT is the will of God. Now, Queequeg is my fellow man. And what do I
wish this Queequeg would do to me? Why, unite with me in my particular
Presbyterian form of worship. Consequently, I must then unite with him in his;
ergo, I must turn idolater. So I kindled the shavings; helpd [sic] prop up
the innocent little idol; offered him burnt biscuit with Queequeg; salaamed
before him twice or thrice; kissed his nose; and that done, we undressed
and went to bed, at peace with our consciences and all the world.
What are the options between (for example) mocking the Qur'an and shared
worship? There are many intermediate steps to take short of facilitating
worship: sharing recreational space and recreational activities, dining
together, evangelism, clarity on the exclusive claims of Christ, and—in our
American context—supporting the right of others to publicly assemble for
worship
are all important facets of the love command.
Significant theological issues and pastoral concerns are at play here, and
they are not limited to the narrow question of sharing worship space.
Similar issues arise as a congregation ends its tenure. As smaller churches
close their doors and larger churches move for more space, the question of
other faiths and church property becomes acute. One PC(USA) congregation put
their property on the market only to receive an offer from a Hindu
congregation, to the consternation of a fair portion of the Christian
congregation.
But even if they decline that offer, there are many ways in which churches
may be unfaithful stewards of the property God has put in their hands, and
it is not clear that other faiths are the worst possible option. What if
the alternative is putting the property into the hands of a drugstore
selling the morning-after pill, or a gas station marketing lottery tickets and
pornography to the poor?
A host of related questions also arise, and the slippery slope turns out
not only to be steep, but wide. Could a Christian architect, plumber, or
lawyer in good conscience work to design, build (or work up closing papers
for) a building for Hindu worship? Given that our Buddhist neighbors often
establish altars in their houses, should we then resist participating in the
construction of their homes? Would we, as a Christian congregation, perhaps
desire someday to purchase property from another faith or a heretical sect?
Does that warrant the use of the Golden Rule? Does the Golden Rule apply
to congregations as it does to people?
Ultimately, as these and other questions confront us, the answers may be a
matter of wisdom rather than obvious application of biblical teaching.
They will also reflect the deployment of broader theological principles such
as the sacramental nature (or lack thereof) of space and place.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
