Der ÖRK ist eine Gemeinschaft von mittlerweile 349 Kirchen in über 110 Ländern auf allen Kontinenten und aus praktisch allen christlichen Traditionen
How are we to speak truthfully about religions? In interfaith dialogue the accepted answer to this question is that no one can speak for a religion, but that people can speak out of their own religion about their faith. Each person’s statement is true insofar as it expresses his or her personal faith and does not misrepresent any facts about the religious tradition.
A professor teaching a class on the world’s religions accepts a different discipline. In the study of religions speaking truthfully involves stating only facts about a religion and avoiding any personal expression of faith. Unlike the interfaith context, which emphasizes what members of a religious tradition believe to be true, the study of religions seeks to describe what observers of a religious tradition can verify to be true.
For instance, in an interfaith forum an evangelical Protestant may say that becoming a Christian requires being “born again,” and this claim will be understood to mean that this is not only his belief but also a belief held by many Christians. In the context of teaching about Christianity, however, this statement will be contrasted with the faith of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and other Protestants who do not share this belief. Drawing this contrast distinguishes one meaning of truth from another. For the evangelical Protestant, being born again is a theological truth (a belief) that is necessary for Christian faith. In the study of religions, the historical truth (a fact) is that a majority of Christians have not believed the experience of being born again is necessary for salvation.
From the point of view of the evangelical Protestant, theological truth is clearly more important than historical truth. Yet, knowing that not all Christians share this belief might lead us to wonder whether this belief sums up Christian teaching more accurately (truthfully) than an historical summary that includes this belief along with other beliefs affirmed by many Christians.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a Christian and noted historian of religions, once suggested that: “There is more truth in history than in doctrine.” Should we consider religious traditions in a more historical way, rather than affirming (or comparing) their doctrines? Would this approach allow us to speak more truthfully about religions?
Consider, for instance, what this might mean for talking about the support in Christianity and Islam for violence. Al-Afif al-Akhdar, an Arab scholar, suggested in 2006 that two different forms of Islam may be derived from the period of Muhammad. The first arose in Mecca and “is essentially peace-seeking. The use of violence, even for self-defense, was prohibited. In this Islam, jihad was prohibited. This Islam was the basis for the mystical Sufi movement."
The second form of Islam, which Akhdar characterizes as “jihadist,” developed when Muhammad was forced to move from Mecca to Medina; “it is this Islam that the contemporary terrorists have adopted. To justify the passage from the 'conciliatory' peace of Mecca to the militant peace of Medina, Muhammad told the Muslims that jihad is permissible only for self-defense [The Pilgrimage, Surah 22:39]: 'To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight], because they are wronged.' Muhammad was wronged – he was expelled from Mecca, and the purpose of the defensive jihad is to enable his return." (Ehud Ein-Gil, "The Roots of Jihad," Haaretz, 18 March 2006)
Whether or not this is an accurate depiction of Islam, it is factually true that Christianity began as a peaceful religious practice and only affirmed the right of self-defense after the Roman Emperor Constantine was converted and began to use the church to promote support for imperial rule. This rationalization for violence was soon used by church leaders to suppress heretics and in the following centuries was employed to justify killing Jews and crusading against Muslims.
Which Islam, or which Christianity, is the true faith? Both Muslims and Christians are divided as to the theological truth of their traditions, but the historical truth clearly is that both Islam and Christianity include diverse theological claims about violence. History reveals that Muslims and Christians have been warmongers as well as peacemakers.
The contemporary Christian attempt to characterize the Christian tradition as more peaceful than the Islamic tradition is largely self-serving. As Christians, we know too little of Islamic history and have forgotten too much of Christian history, to make any such comparison. Moreover, most Christians in the United States do not realize that the war against terrorism, which is presently being waged by the Bush administration on behalf of US interests, is perceived by many in the world, and especially by Muslims, as a Christian crusade.
Only a minority of Christians and a minority of Muslims believe that the nonviolent imperative initially embraced, it seems, by the founder of each community of faith is the true Christianity or the true Islam. Christian and Muslim communities have generally justified the use of violence in self-defense, and often each community has promoted war as a means of extending its influence.
What, then, are we to conclude about Christianity and Islam? That each religious tradition was once nonviolent, but through the centuries has come to justify and use violence? Period. Or, is the truth that both religious traditions have supported nonviolence in some historical contexts and violence in others, and thus that each religious tradition may be more or less violent?
Al-Afif al-Akhdar embraces the second understanding, and he is committed to an Islam that strengthens its emphasis on nonviolence. To pursue this imperative in the Muslim world Akhdar recommends "a reform of the Islamic discourse, of religious education, the religious media, the sermons in the mosques, and so forth. The plan is to remove from the textbooks all the violent and jihadist verses and leave them only in the source, in the holy writings."
To Christian ears this sounds very unlikely. Yet, he notes that Tunisia has done this since 1999, and in October 2005: "Libya, too, canceled the [public] teaching of jihadist Islam and of the verses that justify violence."
What might a similar approach to the Bible mean for Christians? That we should stop reading, as the word of God, texts in the Old Testament in which God orders the Israelites to exterminate their enemies. (See Deuteronomy 20:17, for example.) A peacemaking approach must also mean not reading on Good Friday the passage from the passion story that has the crowd of Jews say, in reference to the coming crucifixion of Jesus: "His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25) Christians have long used this verse to rationalize violence against Jews.
In addition, Christians should not teach that the battle depicted in the Book of Revelation at the end of time is a prophecy. The interpretation that the end of Revelation is about an actual war to be fought between Christians and all other peoples, is a reading that the church has resisted for much of its history, as this exegesis of the text is contrary to the bulk of the testimony concerning Jesus and his followers in the rest of the New Testament.
Christians and Muslims should also urge their leaders not to identify with Satan those who oppose their understanding of the Bible or the Koran. Both scriptures identify Satan with the force of evil in the world, but leave the notion of Satan shrouded in mystery. Yet, recently some Christians have labeled Osama Bin Laden as Satan, and some Muslims have identified President Bush with Satan. We should reject all such invidious characterizations.
Instead, we should propose that faith in the power of good is at the heart of each of these traditions, for those with ears to hear. To encourage this faith Muslims have, since the 9th century, taught that Jesus said: "Charity does not mean doing good to him who does good to you, for this is to return good for good. Charity means that you should do good to him who does you harm." (Tarif Khalidi, editor and translator, The Muslim Jesus: Savings and Stories in Islamic Literature, Harvard 2001)
As Christians, we may act in solidarity with this Muslim teaching by taking to heart the words of Paul in the New Testament of the Christian Bible: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)
Dr Robert Traer teaches ethics at Dominican University in San Rafael, California and led the International Association for Religious Freedom from 1990-2000. His books include Quest for Truth: Critical Reflections on Interfaith Cooperation (2000), Jerusalem Journal: Finding Hope (2006), and Doing Ethics in a Diverse World (2007).