'With the Muslims, as soon as you mention Mary, there is a notable change in attitude: there is an atmosphere of piety, of silence, of brotherhood... Some might see this as a kind of syncretism. But in fact, devotion is a phenomenon that is open to all... And if I, as I pray to Our Lady, see a Muslim praying next to me, what's the problem? On the contrary: it is a great comfort because devotion is a far stronger foundation for a relationship and friendship than ideological, political or cultural bonds. Those who think the of Christian faith in an exclusive way, as do some Catholic traditionalists, have yet to fully understand Christianity.'
From: here
It's as I read stuff like that from a Roman Catholic I am reminded of why Evangelicals take great exception to parts of Catholicism; if Muslims are able to hide from the challenge of Jesus as God by their devotion to Mary, and the church is enabling this deception, the Muslims are being short changed by the church. There is 'devotion' but the question is whether they are actually worshipping the true God, or some other god who has dressed himself in the robes of Mary. The question that I would offer is: 'If that were true, how would things look different from what we are presently seeing?'
Thank you for sharing the original article. It was interesting to discover how much Islam respects many of the tenets of traditional Christianity, including devotion to Christian saints, even though I don't share those tenets myself. (Which Christian tenets I do share, I will leave you to guess.) I shouldn't be surprised by these stories of devotion, though, because Islam did not emerge in isolation from Christianity, and has coexisted with it for many centuries in many parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteI'm also interested to see a diversion from your previous style here and in the last post, writing your opinions in the true first person as a confessed Evangelical, rather than placing them in the mouth of God. I think that makes them much more accessible, and invites discussion in a way that your older posts do not.
I drew more positive points from the article than you seem to have done. I suppose it all depends on one's perspective. The Evangelical viewpoint is very different from most others. For the Evangelical, the human problem can be defined as a combination of ignorance, false religion and wrong living that separates the human soul from the true God, both now and for eternity. The solution to this is urgent evangelistic mission. (Given this, I've always found it illuminating that many Evangelicals (with a capital 'E') are actually far from evangelical (lower case) or mission-oriented in their personal lives - as though they privately admit that this viewpoint is implausible.) The Liberal definition of the problem, in contrast, would be that there is much suffering and meaninglessness in the world, which can be relieved by compassionate practical mission and by sharing the invitation to meet a God who welcomes all regardless of religion.
We should not ignore that fact that the article is written in Beirut, and deals with the situation across the Middle East. This is an area of the world where much human suffering is due, directly or indirectly, to conflict between religions or factions within religions. In this setting, the Liberal believer (and indeed non-believer) can be inspired by stories of peaceful coexistence, even syncretism, between religions. To the Liberal, they are seen as part of the solution, rather than as part of the problem.
I don't think it is fair to describe Muslim devotion to Mary as 'hid[ing] from the challenge of Jesus as God'. Can it not be seen as an initial point of contact between Muslims and the church, one which might be built upon? One cannot be involved continually on the periphery of something without eventually gaining some sense of what is at its heart. Even the Evangelical should be able to see this potential - unless he is blinded by his obsession with the falsehood of the periphery. What would you prefer - that the church turn Muslims away from these shrines? (Of course I know that as an Evangelical you would prefer the shrines not exist in the first place, but that is not a factual starting point for the discussion, as the proverbial Irishman on the road should have learnt after all these years of giving directions.)
I'm not sure I understand the question at the end, or at least I think it fails in its rhetorical attempt. Normally the reader would be expected to understand the implied answer to a rhetorical question, but in this case I don't see what answer you have in mind. If I understand the referent of 'that were true' correctly, then your question is: 'How would things look different if (contrary to my view) they are actually worshipping the true God?' But what is the implied answer? I'm not sure; and it's not clear that you are sure either, except that you would have to admit God is very different from the one you believe in - hardly a strong rhetorical point. But maybe I have misunderstood and you do have a definite answer in mind - some form of obvious divine endorsement, perhaps? It would help if you were to spell it out.