An Individual Act of Conscience or a Global Phenomenon?
Since a number of other bloggers have linked to my original post on the whole Allam baptism discussion, I didn't want the essential discussion between Abu Daoud and I to get lost in the comment boxes so I'm moving part of here up here..
Because I have reservations about the wisdom of broadcasting Allams' baptism around the world, people have lept to the conclusion that I'm opposed to his baptism itself.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As I wrote to Abu Daoud:
As I have said already several times: I welcome Allam’s baptism. Really. Truly. As an individual, he should absolutely be welcomed with open arms and he and his family supported generously.
But that could have been done lovingly and well a thousand different ways – none of which required that his face and story blanket the globe within hours of his reception. Being baptized did not require that he become the poster-boy for Muslims considering Christianity and there were a number of obvious reasons why he isn’t a great candidate for poster boydom and may actually be counter-productive.
Apart from the geo-religious-political implications, all this publicity could actually hamper his spiritual growth and that of his family. Being a trophy convert is often not a good thing for one’s actual process of conversion.
Here’s the deal. No one, obscure or famous, gets baptized by the Pope during the Easter Vigil accidentally. And I didn’t notice Vatican spokesman offering comments and clarifications about the other 6 adults baptized in the same liturgy. Someone (and I don’t know who it was) decided to use a globally streamed event watched by hundreds of millions to transform an individual act of conscience into a global phenomenon. It is the wisdom of that decision alone that I question.
By now, we all know the power of the wall-to-wall 24/7 media for good and for bad. I was simply pointing out that there were all kinds of “unintended effects” when you do something like this. They were not intended but many were clearly foreseeable - like the fact that jihadists will use this image to spin their myth of the great “crusade” and that can cause a ton of additional grief for various Christian communities in the Muslim world.
And what is the great good to be achieved that out-weighs these very real possibilities for real people? I don't think that question was thought through carefully enough before hand.
For instance, a law was passed on March 1 in Algeria that few westerners paid any attention to. From the website:
In Defence of Beleivers of a Faith other than Islam in Algeria
This law stipulates:
". . .the punishment is imprisonment from two (2) years to five (5) years and a fine from 500.000 DA to 1.000.000 DA for whomever:
“ incites, constrains or utilizes means of seduction tending to convert a Muslim to another religion, or by using to this end establishments for teaching, for education, for health, of a social or cultural nature, or training institutions, or any other establishment, or any financial means,
“ makes, stores, or distributes printed documents or audiovisual productions or by any other aid or means, which has as its goal to shake the faith of a Muslim."
This new law is part of a specific campaign by the government to head off the spread of the first small group of native Algerian Christians. Muslim governments are often (like ours) driven to appease public opinion. An easy and very popular way to do that is to get tougher on religious dissidents like Christians. And TV/internet/You tube images enflame public opinion with lightening speed.
Now the die is cast. Zenit has come out with an interview with Allam about his conversion. For good and ill, Mallam, who has been a Christian for less than 48 hours has already become the public face of MBB's (Muslim Background Believers) for the global media and apparently for the Catholic media as well.
That alone should give us pause.
I have blogged a number of times about the reality of MBB's here at ID: Here , here, here and especially here: Muslims Who Become Christian and the Price They Pay.
Read them to get more familiar with the realities facing MBB's who aren't famous and don't live in Italy. Many thousands of them. They and their families are just as important in the purposes of God as Allam and his family. When making these decisions, we can no longer simply let the urgency of western debates dictate what we do. Catholicism is truly global. We have to hold together the suffering of those persecuted now and the need to work toward true religious freedom in the future.
Since we aren't actively persecuted, it is easy for us to call for a full frontal assault ( Charge!) and "religious freedom now!" and to talk blithely about the blood of the martyrs being the seed of the Church. Cause the chances of it being our blood or that of our children is very, very small. But as I have said before, "charge!" and spineless cowardice are not the only two options available to us.
Meanwhile, someone really sharp, spiritually and theological mature, and prayerful needs to stay close to Allam and guide him through this tumultuous transition. It's hard enough to become a Catholic at age 56 from a non-Christian background. Doing it in the middle of a media and geo-political circus (Imagine if Princess Diana had become Catholic as was rumored before her death!) is full of potential pitfalls.
Allam and his family need our prayers. As do the many unheralded present and future MBB's around the world who are making their journey under often crushing circumstances.
posted by Sherry W @ 11:38 AM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
(Posted originally at Islam and Christianity.)
Sherry from Intentional Disciples and I have been having an ongoing debate about this topic for all of two days. I think we have established that in many respects we are actually in agreement. So I think the main topic at this point is regarding the prudence of this specific act: was it the wisest and most prudent path for Benedict to baptize this particular Muslim on Easter at St. Petersburg?
I think there that Sherry would answer NO. But my answer is Yes. So let me address this specific topic instead of trading in hypotheticals, which is what we have been doing until now.
1) It was wise because this man has been thinking about converting for years. This is not a sudden decision or something that has not had forethought. He said it himself if you read the articles. This is important.
2) It is right because the man lives in Rome. Benedict is the bishop of Rome and thus the senior or chief pastor of that city--even Protestants and evangelicals must agree with this. It is therefore good and right for him to baptize new Christians.
3) Mr. Allam is already a public figure. He is a journalist and knows how to deal with publicity and questions about his motives and positions. This is very important because it means that he is in an excellent position to be an apologist/evangelist for his new faith. Many MBB's are very sincere and godly, but do not know how to adequately explain their motives and reasons--this man does and has.
4) It is good because it is a claim of solidarity with MBB's by the pope. By taking this action Benedict has decidedly cast his lot--within the context of further dialogue with Muslims--with the converts. He is this carrying on the heritage of JPII and his proclamation that evangelistic mission is and always must be at the heart of the church's ministry (read Missio Redemptoris by JPII if you haven't already). He is also saying quite clearly that he is willing to suffer the odium and persecution of the shari'a with Muslim apostates.
5) It is good and right because it will give hope to Christians throughout MENA. Some might say that the Christians in MENA will be persecuted because of this. Guess what? They are persecuted either way and every day, several times, they hear resounding from the minaret that 'there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet' which means, yes, that the Christian faith is useless and empty. They are used to it. I am used to it. Here is a secret, small glimpse of hope for them. That thought they hear this message called out day after day that someone has said, "NO: Muhammad is not his prophet." And that the most influential Christian in the world has fellowship with this man.
For these reasons, and others, I think that BXVI's act of baptizing brother Allam on Easter in St. Peter's was a good and right thing to do--and more than that, prudent and wise.
The persecution against Christians in MENA is already here--this will give them hope and strength to withstand it.
Sherry:
It's "Allam", not "Mallam".
Mallam himself is pretty adamant about his own baptism being as public a gesture as possible, and I don't think anybody can accuse him of being an armchair neocon. He knows he's taking his life in his hands. He also urging other Muslim converts to come out of the closet (at least in Europe).
I don't know that I can add very much of use to the discussion since it's not my place to go urging other people to put their lives on the line. I simply note that Allam, whose life *is* on the line appears to be far more adamant than the Euro bishops that public gesture like this are a good idea.
thanks Mark.
I am the world's worst speller and am constantly trying to catch the boo-boo but this one was a real whopper - I actually spelled his name both ways in the same piece.
Yikes!
Anyway, I tried to find and make the necessary corrections.
Sherry,
You have no idea about my personal situation, so dismissing my comments about the seeds of the Church as coming from someone not personally willing to suffer from the fallout of this decision is, in my view, an inappropriate judgment.
And in fact even those living in Western countries are coming increasingly at risk of attack when they declare their faith, whether in a work context, through unjust laws, or even just by wearing a habit or clerical attire.
More fundamentally, my point was that you seem to be viewing this decision from a purely natural, secular perspective. I was pointing to the supernatural operation of our Church.
St Paul standing in the Areopagus proclaiming his faith might have made no immediate converts - yet his words ring on down the centuries, and who knows how many they have touched?
Laws like those in Algeria will not be overturned by appeasement. Rather they require vigorous resistance and witness.
Kate
Kate:
I'm sorry. My reference wasn't meant to be personal at all -indeed when I wrote it, I couldn't remember who had written it on my blog. It really was a response to what I was reading in comments all over St. Blogs and was a reference to those of us who live in the freedom of western countries and tend to take our freedoms for granted. I truly did not mean to slight you in any way and I'm sorry that I sounded like I had.
I find it strange that you thought I was responding on a purely natural level when I was in fact, describing the fruit of Holy Spirit-inspired charisms in the lives of some of the most remarkable Christians who have ever lived,
I think it is clear that they were directly inspired by God to recognize some critical gaps that were preventing ordinary Muslims from truly grasping and responding to the gospel and the impact in term of the spread of the Gospel has been nothing short of extraordinary.
If Samuel Zwemer's words were preserved as part of Scripture, I sure that they, too, would have inspired people for centuries like St. Paul. His written words continue to inspire many evangelical missionaries - including myself (when I studied at the *Zwemer* Institute).
But the reason for which Zwemer gave his whole life was not to be honored for his efforts and eloquence but to see Muslims encounter and follow Christ - and he would have been the first one to rejoice at the new circumstances we face.
I admit I'm puzzled by the tone of your response. I was simply reporting what innumerable evangelical missionaries and scholars of missions wrote about one of their most loved and revered leaders without any sense that they were dissing his efforts. Zwemer had an unquenchable thirst to see Muslims become Christians and yet only saw a dozen conversions over 40 years. Everyone in the world of evangelical missions knows that - and no one regards as speaking ill of him to acknowledge it.
But then evangelicals are much likely than we are to continually ask "are we having the impact we should have?" questions.
I was attempting to describe the historical chain of events that led a later generation to ask important new questions that resulted in such wonderful new breakthroughs for the first time in 800 years.
Since I've never advocated appeasement, I'm not certain what your reference is to.
The way that law and culture and custom are changed in MENA is exceedingly complicated. I am encouraged by the fact that thousands of remarkable people are contributing to that very effort right now in very creative ways.
There are many, many ways to resist and to witness (and I have the privilege of knowing people who are doing just that in very cutting edge ways that won't make it into any paper or blog in order to protect their work. Their work is hidden to ensure its fruitfulness.
There is a huge spectrum of ways in which we can each contribute to the support and protection of our Christian brothers and sisters in the Muslim world and to forwarding the development of true religious freedom there. Many of them are so critical that they must take place in complete obscurity.
To do what is important to God, regardless of the obscurity involved, is the heart of witness in the Muslim world.
Marhaba!
I guess it comes down to what one sees as the main priority for the Kingdom of God. The NT clearly teaches that the City of God and the earthly city will often times clash. So I think that this use of the sacrament to encourage other MBB's to "come out of the closet" or for Muslims to consider conversion is good and wise.
The pope is clearly in favor of ongoing discussions with Muslim leaders, and that is in the works right now. But it is wrong to compromise our fundamental beliefs regarding the Gospel and rebirth (which is what baptism signifies) in order to not anger Muslims.
Where does it stop brother? Shall we take the crosses down from our churches? Shall we stop using church bells because it is against the shari'a? Shall we all start writing 'peace be upon him' after we write the name 'Muhammad'?
The Church was founded by Jesus Christ to be the sacrament of the Kingdom of God and to spread the Gospel. Sooner or later we have to decide that strife and opposition and even persecution are not, in themselves, bad things. Because we live in a broken world (and Islam is a profoundly broken civilization) and because we witness to the Gospel which denies all the prerogatives and desires of this world, opposition must come. Jesus knew it and didn't shy away from it. Paul and Peter and John knew it. Raymund Lull knew and was not afraid.
Peace, in the end, is rightly ordered justice. It is not the lack of strife--that is a secular and heretical lie.
Abu Daoud:
I presume that you are responding to Shaw's comment over at your blog. Since he didn't post it here, readers may not understand the context of your comments.
As you and I both know, some of the most effective witnesses *in the Muslim world* have done exactly that: they don't have crosses on their meeting places, and they don't use bells, and women do cover their heads and men and women sit separately and they may use a Koran stand for their Bible, etc. They have adopted local customs that are not essential to the faith in order to more effectively be able to share the Gospel with others.
It is an old and long debate in our circles, as you know - what is simply appropriate adaptation and what is compromise, what is just western culture and what is essential to the faith and there is a legitimately wide spectrum of opinion on the subject.
Abu Daoud, for instance, you use a common Arabic pseudonym and never reveal your Christian name or your location on your blog and have a special high security e-mail address. All very appropriate precautions but intended to give you the anonymity you need to be effective in your mission. You clearly feel that in-your-face candor is not appropriate or effective at all times (and I would heartily agree with you) so that you might be able to be present as a witness.
But some of my readers, who are not familiar with the realities involved, might regard this as "appeasement", knuckling under to unjust laws and customs instead of challenging them directly and boldly Of course, if you do, you don't have access, so there you are.
This is the model of St. Paul declaring that he was a Jew to Jews and a Greek to the Greeks, all things to all men that by any means he might reach some.
This is the model of Francis Xavier, saint and the patron of Catholic missions, leaving behind his very simple garb which was so appropriate when working among poor fishing peoples in south India and dressing in the robes of a Shinto scholar in Japan so that he might win a hearing. He did and left behind him the first Christian communities in Japan.
If the question we are asking is "What has been most effective in actually winning significant numbers of Muslims to Christ?", the evidence is in.
In 800 years of attempts at witness, aggressively, in-your-face challenge has consistently been the *least* effective. The alternatives are not less risky. They are often *more* risky to those who dare to take them but more importantly, they have proven to be much more fruitful.
Even in this country where religious freedom reigns, we know that ordinary friendship and kindness is best way when it comes to our family members and friends whom we hope to win back to the practice of the faith or to the faith in the first place. Because it is a human way,
We start with friendship and build trust and earn the right to speak about deeper things We don't begin the relationships by beating them over the head with a catechism.
But is "what will make us most effective in our attempts to bring Christ to others?" the question that most of us around St. Blog's are really asking? I don't think so,
I think that in this discussion, we have confused two issues: the western concerns about large scale Muslim immigration into Europe, and what to do when a significant part of your population no longer shares your most basic assumptions about law and freedom - the whole Eurabia debate - and the very different situation of those who are, this very moment, taking enormous risks to be present as loving Christian witnesses in the Muslim world.
Because of the globally public nature of Allam's baptism and the power of the internet, these two very different worlds have become one. It is as though Francis Xavier had to judge how best to reaching out to illiterate Indian fishermen *and* highly educated Japanese religious scholars in a single gesture. As challenging as his task was, at least he didn't face that uniquely 21st century dilemma.
Because this is all about gesture, one of the most highly public gestures possible.
NOT AT ALL about whether or not Allam should have been received and baptized - but how best to do so. The most spectacular way that is humanely possible or the way that is the norm for all other converts of any background?
Two days ago, Allam was hardly a household word outside of Italy. Hardly anyone around St. Blog's knew of him. Certainly we didn't talk about him. Today, we are all talking about him.
Someone - probably a group of someones - decided to go out of their way to make *Magdi Allam* with all his history and notoriety (not just anyone and *not just any Muslim becoming a Christian*) a household word and posterboy for MBB's.
And that, and that alone, *not his baptism and conversion*, is the issue. It is the consequences of that choice, not the consequences of his choice to become a Christian, that are at issue here.
so everyone on these blogs can follow the discussion... here's what I left on abu douad's blog:
I am with Sherry, the other discussant on this issue:
“But that could have been done lovingly and well a thousand different ways – none of which required that his face and story blanket the globe within hours of his reception. Being baptized did not require that he become the poster-boy for Muslims considering Christianity and there were a number of obvious reasons why he isn’t a great candidate for poster boydom and may actually be counter-productive.
Apart from the geo-religious-political implications, all this publicity could actually hamper his spiritual growth and that of his family. Being a trophy convert is often not a good thing for one’s actual process of conversion.
Here’s the deal. No one, obscure or famous, gets baptized by the Pope during the Easter Vigil accidentally. And I didn’t notice Vatican spokesman offering comments and clarifications about the other 6 adults baptized in the same liturgy. Someone (and I don’t know who it was) decided to use a globally streamed event watched by hundreds of millions to transform an *individual act of conscience* into a *global phenomena*. It is the wisdom of that decision *alone* that I question.”
--
My chief concern here - one which hasn’t yet been sufficiently addressed on Abu Douad and Sherry’s blog — is the overall effect on Muslim - Christian relations. I believe that this baptism unduly damages that relationship. There has been significant, unprecedented advance in Catholic-Muslim relations - much of it spearheaded by the Vatican itself — in the last year (i.e., A Common Word, the recent delegation to the Vatican, the Nov. 2008 conference,, the New Jersey statement, etc.).
Why then, now, would the Pope revive antagonism in this way? Why such effort to revive relations after a strained several years (i.e., the Pope’s Regensburg comments and the subsequent debacle) if only to flush those efforts away with this public provocation.
Here are the options, as I see them, for why the Pope made this decision to baptize Allam like he did:
1. Bad advisors. Somebody gave him bad advice that this would somehow actually turn out for the advance of the Church in the Muslim world. I’m sorry, I just can’t see that happening. Could this even be related to the rumor of a church in Saudi Arabia? In any case, this sure seems to confirm the notion recently put forward by Osama bin Laden himself that the Pope is on a modern day Crusade against Islam.
2. Ignorance. Somebody wasn’t thinking. What, in sum, has this accomplished for the Kingdom and/or for followers of the King in the MENA and elsewhere? Someone didn’t realize the potentially harmful effects this would have on the Church and its relationship with the Muslim world.
3. A desire to “score points”: It is hard to disagree with Aref Ali Nayed, a key signee of A Common Word, who said the Vatican had turned the baptism of Allam into “a triumphalist tool for scoring points.”
Welcome to the conversation, Shaw!
Abu Daoud:
Another factor in this debate that no one has mentioned so far is the huge charism in mission experience since the 60's between Catholics and evangelical Protestants.
Catholic missionaries, for the most past, jettisoned the proclamation of Christ as the primary focus of mission 40 years while evangelicals revved their engines.
So the two categories that Catholics tend to think of as Catholic are 1) the (understandably) extremely cautious, we-won't-bother-you-by-sharing-Christ-if-you'll-just-leave-us-alone stance of historic Christian minorities in the ME and parts of Asia and
2) the older Christendom model where everyone is assumed to be Catholic and state and cultural norms and church all reinforce one another and the Catholicism fills the public square.
The fearful, quiet minority or the big battalion. Egypt and Italy, if you will. (Allam's life bridges both)
But in my experience, Catholics are hardly ever familiar with the vastly different evangelical experience of the past 40 years in the Muslim world - where a huge number of creative, pro-active, alternatives to categories 1 & 2 above have been tried. Many have proven fruitless but some have born enormous fruit and given rise to the first Muslim background Christian communities in history.
AD, your own ministry would fall into this second category I think?
The most common reaction I get from Catholics when I mention these alternatives is that they aren't legitimate, are somehow deceptive and immoral and imperialistic (which is how these same folks often regard evangelization in this country as well) and are simply unrealistic. Because no *normal* Christian (they must be emotionally and religious unstable freaks) could or would ever do anything like this - could or would do what you are doing, AD.
The whole debate around St. Blog's seems to presume that door number one and door number two are the only two truly Catholic alternatives. And obviously, operating from those assumptions, the recovery of Christendom is the more attractive option.
The reality of tens of thousands of MBB's in the Muslim world is unknown to Catholics or at best, an abstraction, while the situation of a highly westernized Muslim man wanting to become a Catholic in Italy is immediately understandable.
After all, he is choosing Christ and his Church, light and truth, and all that it represents in terms of culture and civilization over a faith and culture that seems diametrically opposed to our way of life and members of whom actively threaten us.
His public reception is a blow for our side in the future-of-the-west wars and it feels good.
Meanwhile, the cost to MBB's and the historic Christians of the Muslim world is not obvious - is hidden from us because we hardly know they exist. Nor is the very real possibility that the promotion of a man with his history as the model of conversion may turn off many seeking Muslims who were already on the journey. Because very few Catholics believe that Muslims can and do become Christian as an act of faith. They think the concept is as new to everyone as it is to them.
The irony is that Allam's public conversion will illuminate western Christians who didn't realize this was possible and will probably hurt the efforts of those who are already in the thick of it
That's why I'm raising the issue. Those of us who do know have to keep pointing out that there is more at stake here than the real and important debates about the Christian identity and future of Europe.
There is also the identity and future of the rest of the world.
Two other views of "why" Allam choose this path -- from Allam and from a reporter in Asia. This is well worth reading.
In Christ
Therese
Full article:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC26Aa01.html
The mustard seed in global strategy
By Spengler
A self-described revolution in world affairs has begun in the heart of one man. He is the Italian journalist and author Magdi Cristiano Allam, whom Pope Benedict XVI baptized during the Easter Vigil at St Peter's. Allam's renunciation of Islam as a religion of violence and his embrace of Christianity denotes the point at which the so-called global "war on terror" becomes a divergence of two irreconcilable modes of life: the Western way of faith supported by reason, against the Muslim world of fatalism and submission.
Originally posted at Islam and Christianity
***
SW: As you and I both know, some of the most effective witnesses *in the Muslim world* [...] don't have crosses on their meeting places, and they don't use bells, and women do cover their heads and men and women sit separately and they may use a Koran stand for their Bible, etc. They have adopted local customs that are not essential to the faith in order to more effectively be able to share the Gospel with others.
AD: Yes, but Italy is not the Muslim world. At least not yet.
SW: Abu Daoud, for instance, you use a common Arabic pseudonym and never reveal your Christian name or your location on your blog and have a special high security e-mail address. All very appropriate precautions but intended to give you the anonymity you need to be effective in your mission. You clearly feel that in-your-face candor is not appropriate or effective at all times (and I would heartily agree with you) so that you might be able to be present as a witness.
AD: This is very true and I want to elaborate on this point. We find in the Bible and church history two approaches to witness. One is antagonistic (think "your father is the devil," in Jn 8 or the sermon of St Stephen) and at other times it is irenic and friendly (think woman caught in adultery or Areopagus). Both are valid, and Raymund Lull (the first missionary to the Muslims) himself said so explicitly. If some classify this baptism of Mr. Allam as antagonistic that DOES NOT mean that it was not wise or good or prudent. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that being nice is a virtue. It is not.
SW: But some of my readers, who are not familiar with the realities involved, might regard this as "appeasement", knuckling under to unjust laws and customs instead of challenging them directly and boldly. Of course, if you do, you don't have access, so there you are.
AD: According to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in each individual moment I leave the question open. Sometimes I am very antagonistic and it has born surprising fruit. Sometimes I am very irenic and that has born fruit as well. Praise be to God. But it is simply wrong to say that one or the other is always right. (But dealing with governments is a whole different matter.)
SW: This is the model of St. Paul declaring that he was a Jew to Jews and a Greek to the Greeks, all things to all men that by any means he might reach some.
AD: And Paul was sometimes harsh and antagonistic. Which is ok. Antagonistic, sharp evangelism can be done in a manner sensitive to culture. So this verse does not rule out either approach to evangelism.
SW: If the question we are asking is "What has been most effective in actually winning significant numbers of Muslims to Christ?", the evidence is in. In 800 years of attempts at witness, aggressively, in-your-face challenge has consistently been the *least* effective. The alternatives are not less risky. They are often *more* risky to those who dare to take them but more importantly, they have proven to be much more fruitful. Even in this country where religious freedom reigns, we know that ordinary friendship and kindness is best way when it comes to our family members and friends whom we hope to win back to the practice of the faith or to the faith in the first place. Because it is a human way: we start with friendship and build trust and earn the right to speak about deeper things We don't begin the relationships by beating them over the head with a catechism.
AD: I want to disagree with this. For example, books like "The Scale of Truth" (Mizaam al haq) which in a straight-forward way reject elements at the heart of Islam, and are thus quite confrontational, have had a great deal of influence and have led to many conversions. Or let us examine the ministry of Abouna Zacarias Boutros, a Coptic priest, who classifies his style as "sharp, short, and shocking." He has spent time in jail. He has baptized hundreds of Muslim converts. He no longer lives in his home country of Egypt. But his satellite ministry has had a profound effect throughout the region. He speaks kindly and with love, but his confrontational style has caught the attention of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people who otherwise would not have paid any attention. One could say the same about what BXVI and Allam have done.
SW: But is "what will make us most effective in our attempts to bring Christ to others?" the question that most of us around St. Blog's are really asking? I don't think so.
AD: I'm not on St. Blog's, alas. That is the question I'm discussing though.
SW: I think that in this discussion, we have confused two issues: the western concerns about large scale Muslim immigration into Europe, and what to do when a significant part of your population no longer shares your most basic assumptions about law and freedom - the whole Eurabia debate - and the very different situation of those who are, this very moment, taking enormous risks to be present as loving Christian witnesses in the Muslim world.
AD: This may well be true of some readers. I can only speak for myself: I want to see Muslims turning to Christ everywhere, both here in MENA and there in the West.
SW: Abu Daoud: Another factor in this debate that no one has mentioned so far is the huge charism in mission experience since the 60's between Catholics and evangelical Protestants. Catholic missionaries, for the most past, jettisoned the proclamation of Christ as the primary focus of mission 40 years while evangelicals revved their engines.
AD: And they (The Catholics) were castigated for this by JPII in his encyclical, missio redemptoris, which is about the permanent validity of the church's evangelistic mission to the nations. Wherein he also says that religious dialogue is nice, but it's not the same as mission. The exact position I hold to.
SW: So the two categories that Catholics tend to think of as Catholic are 1) the (understandably) extremely cautious, we-won't-bother-you-by-sharing-Christ-if-you'll-just-leave-us-alone stance of historic Christian minorities in the ME and parts of Asia and 2) the older Christendom model where everyone is assumed to be Catholic and state and cultural norms and church all reinforce one another and the Catholicism fills the public square. The fearful, quiet minority or the big battalion. Egypt and Italy, if you will. (Allam's life bridges both)
But in my experience, Catholics are hardly ever familiar with [option 3] the vastly different evangelical experience of the past 40 years in the Muslim world - where a huge number of creative, pro-active, alternatives to categories 1 & 2 above have been tried. Many have proven fruitless but some have born enormous fruit and given rise to the first Muslim background Christian communities in history. AD, your own ministry would fall into [option 3] I think?
AD: I don't come from a religious home and I was not raised in any church at all. I knew nothing at all about Christianity up til I was about 11 or 12, and that exposure was in Latin America, not in the West, so my experience of the Gospel, culture, and church are quite different than what other people may have known. So yes, unlike 1) I do want to preach the Gospel, unlike 2) I am not operating out of a Christendom paradigm.
SW: The most common reaction I get from Catholics when I mention these alternatives is that they aren't legitimate, are somehow deceptive and immoral and imperialistic (which is how these same folks often regard evangelization in this country as well) and are simply unrealistic. Because no *normal* Christian (they must be emotionally and religious unstable freaks) could or would ever do anything like this - could or would do what you are doing, AD.
AD: I get that in mainline Protestant churches too. Most people seem to be in awe of my faith, which was very strange to me at first, because I don't consider myself to be more faithful or devout than your average Christian in the pew in the UK or the USA. But they should learn more church history. You share the Good News because it's good news.
SW: The whole debate around St. Blog's seems to presume that door number one and door number two are the only two truly Catholic alternatives. And obviously, operating from those assumptions, the recovery of Christendom is the more attractive option. The reality of tens of thousands of MBB's in the Muslim world is unknown to Catholics or at best, an abstraction, while the situation of a highly westernized Muslim man wanting to become a Catholic in Italy is immediately understandable. [...] His public reception is a blow for our side in the future-of-the-west wars and it feels good.
AD: That may the reason that some people are happy about it. I'm glad because I think it will encourage Christians in MENA and bring more secret MBB's out of the woodwork in the West as well as embolden heretofore fearful clergy. Just because some people rejoice for the wrong reason doesn't mean that there's not a right reason for rejoicing.
SW: Meanwhile, the cost to MBB's and the historic Christians of the Muslim world is not obvious - is hidden from us because we hardly know they exist. Nor is the very real possibility that the promotion of a man with his history as the model of conversion may turn off many seeking Muslims who were already on the journey. Because very few Catholics believe that Muslims can and do become Christian as an act of faith. They think the concept is as new to everyone as it is to them.
AD: And this bold act will help to remedy this bad situation. Catholics now know that some Muslims are attracted to the faith, praise God.
SW: The irony is that Allam's public conversion will illuminate western Christians who didn't realize this was possible and will probably hurt the efforts of those who are already in the thick of it. That's why I'm raising the issue. Those of us who do know have to keep pointing out that there is more at stake here than the real and important debates about the Christian identity and future of Europe. There is also the identity and future of the rest of the world.
AD: Sorry for the bad news but in terms of human rights and freedom of religion the countries of MENA have been going downhill for the last four decades or so (1967 if you want a date). Things were already getting worse here, the Christians have been leaving in droves for decades, Islam is being reformed and is this returning to its more coercive and militant roots. All this was happening before Easter and will not stop any time soon, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, this baptism has the capacity to make real positive changes for MBB's and the churches in the West, especially Europe.
I'm with SW and her supporters on this. I would say that the example of the Coptic priest is wonderful but he is there in the midst of that culture and not using the media and is not being indirect. The problem with both Regensburg and that choice of that quote....and the problem of the baptism as signal...is that they seem indirect as communication and done from safety while a nun in East Africa was killed from the first event and its quote and she had no say in the choice of the quote. The coptic priest is risking his own life and that tends to convert others along with his copious knowledge of the hadiths and the Koran. He is confronting Islam concerning many of its contradictions with cites from their texts. Confronting from afar and by indirection and signaling would not tend to convert as far as I can see and has little in common with the Coptic priest.
Hi Bill, please read the article about the Coptic priest, which I have posted at my blog (Fight Fire with Fire.
He did live in Egypt but now is in the US most of the time.
Will do. Thanks. Fascinating person.
Abu Daoud
I already knew that he was using the media so I wrote too fast above. I meant that the Pope so far is using the media not to directly speak to Islamic errors as the Coptic priest does but as part of a signalling system of indirect commentary. Nor does it seem that he will be directly involved with the meetings with the committee of the 138 now 241 as a rule. Benedict has gotten in trouble when he was direct...in 1985 when he cited "rock" music as form as being antithetical to Christian Redemption and freedom...and in 1997 in a French magazine where he directly exaggerated two tendencies in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Life has taught him that he is not terrific when in direct confrontational mode. The new Benedict seems however to be moving into signaling but once you go there to the realm of indirect signals, you are then sending signals even when you didn't mean to.
Post a Comment
<< Home