Steve Stone from Heartsong Church in Cordova, TN is under fire. You see, he recently invited a local muslim congregation to use their sanctuary as a makeshift mosque during Ramadan while their new Islamic Center was under construction.
Seems that Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Arlington, VA is doing kind of the same thing… inviting a local muslim congregation to use church space for their Friday prayers.
According to Cathy Lynn Grossman, the religion editor for USA today, both pastors say that this is a way of ‘living out the way of life Jesus calls Christians to live.’
Not everyone thinks this is a good idea, including Pat Robertson (who publicly spoke out against it) or Jason Hood, who wrote a column condemning this over at Christianity Today.
From Jason Hood’s article at Christianity Today —
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.
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, whether they are believers or unbelievers. Does facilitation of false worship violate the love command?
This is a tough one.
Of course, some Churches of Christ refuse to open their buildings to anyone else for any purpose. Others make their facilities readily available to organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and most other nonprofit organizations.
If your church makes space available for nonprofit use, should that include Muslims?
Argument for:
* We show the love of Jesus by being open and generous to all people. We hope our generosity opens them to the gospel.
Argument against:
* Would we help a Wiccan congregation in their paganism? Would we invite emperor worshipers to offer incense to the emperor in our spaces? Is it truly loving to facilitate the worship of idols? Our God is a jealous God.
Further considerations —
* How would we react to a Jewish synagogue asking to borrow our space on Saturdays while their building is being repaired? Does the fact they worship the true God change the outcome?
I think there are limits. For me, those limits would be belief in the basic gospel facts about Jesus. (2 John 1:7-11).
Wow, a volatile question. While I recognize how disturbing this would be to many people in the congregation, I would allow it. I acknowledge I'd be a little uncomfortable myself.
But then I think of what Jesus did, while Judas was stealing right under his nose. How did Jesus treat Judas … knowing he was a thief and knowing Judas would betray him?
Individually, we are responsible for our individual behavior, not the behavior of others.
It's a building that has no spiritual significance to God. I don't think it matters who uses it.
Would you give money to someone who was going to use it to buy drugs?
Personally, I look at this and decide which side I'd rather be wrong on. Would I rather stand before God and answer for trying to be generous to those I disagree with? Or would I rather stand before Him and give an answer for why I held back love?
I'd err on the side of over-extending love, personally.
This is a difficult issue for sure. But it is interesting to me that the First Century Church did meet and associate at the Temple (Acts 2.46, 3.1, 4.1, 5.20, more) and in the synagogues (Acts 9.20, 13.5, 13.14, 14.1, 15.21, 17.1, 18.4, 18.7, 19.8, 24.12, more), so it seems there is a type of "blending" of Jewish and Christian "cultures"; what are we to make of this? Or am I to sweep away these situations by an expedience argument? Either way there is association and interaction, I must now process and adapt this information to my modern mindset.
Except for 18.4-11, I am not certain that we have to conclude that early Christians automatically started their own "church". Since, the first Christians were Jewish and continued to follow Jewish cultural norms (as did Jesus), I cannot see any reason why their belief in the Messiah would create an automatic chasm of non-fellowship with their Jewish brethren, as such the Nazarenes were simple considered another Jewish sect (Acts 24.5, 24.14 – sect/heresy come from the same Greek word G139).
When I read the gospels I do not see the American political and cultural landscape, or any other that is to be protected.
What I do see is Jesus eating with tax collectors, and these were not respected government officials. I see him with Samaritans, people who were hated for what many thought were "good reasons". I see him with the masses, many of whom were not orthodox believers to any degree. In fact, the spiritual inclinations of many of the common people of first century Judea, even of those who were of the first century church after their coming to faith in the resurrected Jesus, would shock Evangelical America.
The atmosphere of first century Judea was not one of a Bible movie, which I do enjoy. Nor, did the work of the first century church feel like a gospel or revival meeting in the Bible belt; and I have some good memories of these. The truth is, I believe, that if the church member of today found self in the company of the multitudes being taught by Jesus he or she would feel they just landed right in the middle of the most non-Christian movement they have ever witnessed.
i have to wonder if paul’s words in 1 corinthians 10 have application here? [and to be honest, i'm not sure]
– to flee from idolatry
– that while there is no truth in [the religion of islam], what they are offering in their time together is indeed idolatry
– not sharing a cup and/or table with demons or idols
i think i would view this as being similar to inviting muslims into my home and asking them to pray to allah before we share a meal. i have no problems showing love to muslims and inviting them into my home. but to invite them into my home to worship their god and thank him for the food which i’m sharing seems a little much.
so i lean towards this-is-not-a-good-idea. but i might could be swayed. and i’m interested in hearing the discussion that follows.
at very minimum, though, i think i’m going to stand by paul’s words just after the text i mentioned earlier:
“everything is permissible — but not everything is beneficial. everything is permissible — but not everything is constructive.”
i’m not sure what the benefit is in offering our buildings to muslims. what is God gaining in that? how is he being glorified in a greater way?
Reverse the scenario…
What if a large group of Christians needed a place where they all could meet and the only viable option was a mosque?
FWIW, the Jewish Community Center in a suburb of Wash. D.C was the meeting place for a mosque – at least that was the case about three years ago.
Jesus showed great respect for all individuals with whom he came into contact. Yet, he had no problems publicly criticizing groups, attitudes, belief systems that were contrary to His Father's will.
Showing respect to a Muslim: absolutely.
Aiding groups in their teaching of another gospel: no way.
"How would we react to a Jewish synagogue asking to borrow our space on Saturdays while their building is being repaired? Does the fact they worship the true God change the outcome?"
I am probably opening up an unnecessary can of worms here, but why would there be a difference between allowing Muslims and allowing Jews? Neither believe that Christ is divine so we would just be splitting hairs arguing otherwise.
And to answer the question, I basically agree with David Himes- it's just a building and bridging the cultural divide can be a valuable thing. And to the poster who asked if Muslims would let Christians use their Mosque I would say that that isn't the point. If someone wronged you, would that give you license to wrong them?
Would you loan your Christian car to your Muslem neighbor, to take his dying child to the hospital, unless he promised not to pray in it ?
Off topic:
This did not apply to the whole 1st century church, but only to those from Jewish background. THe examples from the synagogues show furthermore that the Apostle went there to preach the Gospel, but pretty soon they were expelled from the synagogue (as predicvtzed by the Lord). Anyhow the specific church-meetings never took place in the temple or in the synagogues, but in private homes separeated from the Jews (this is true from the very beginning Acts 2:46-47). That#s where they broke the bread, listened to the Apostles teaching and hat times of prayer and fellowship.
So the first church was totally aware that the New Covenant needed new forms (new wine does not belong in okd wineskins); and they new that Christ spoke of His church as somenthing distinct from the synagogue – and the also rememeberd that the temple was to perish very soon.
Alexander
Jay,
Nothing beats the wisdom of experience. Therefore, we should ask churches in Islamic dominated countries what methods they have found to work the best in loving their Islamic neighbors. The answers would be shocking!
It is one thing to be sent out into the wolves (Mt. 10:16), but sadly many are unwise when it comes to the intent of Islam in America. I advocate dialogue and helping the hurting, but loving my Islamic neighbor [I know many] should look the same as how Jesus loved Caesar. Yusuf Estes and Shabir Ally are nice, but they cannot change what the Qur'an really teaches.
Our congregation allows the county government to hold several different parenting classes in our building. We usually provide dinner during the classes to help them. The county government officially does not acknowledge the existence of God.
Muslims acknowledge the existence of and they worship God. They don't acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God and Savior.
Jews acknowledge the existence of and they worship God. They don't acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God and Savior.
Yes, this is a troubling question.
Chris,
I may not have worded my question well but I was actually trying to make the opposite point. I could imagine a person thinking we shouldn't offer our space to Muslims hypocritically thinking it would be okay for a Mosque to offer us space. I have no problem offering a church building for use to muslims. It isn't even a difficult decision for me. But maybe I am missing something…
I don't think I buy into the logic that says if we do something for someone that believes differently, then we are somehow promoting or condoning those beliefs. So what if we loan the use of our building. Similar to what another poster said above, would you give your Muslim neighbor a ride to his mosque if his car broke down and you were the only person who could help? I know I would. But wouldn't that be the same type of thing as lending the building. In both cases you are helping a "heretic" perform his "heretical" worship.
While I would like to arduously argue in affirmation of my proposition, it seems clear that doing so is unneeded. It is simply my intent to reveal that the first believers in the Messiah were in fact Jewish and as Jewish believers they still had associations with the Temple and the synagogues. Even if I am to point out that Paul went into the synagogues to preach Jesus as Messiah, it means he still associated with the Jews who did not yet believe that Jesus was the promised one from the Scriptures. This association had to be or how else would a non-believer become a believer?
This seems to simply indicate that the NT does not necessarily create the same barrier of fellowship/non-fellowship that we currently interpret. It seems reasonable to conclude that for the first Jewish believers that association/non-association with other Jews was driven by those who did not believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah, not the other way around.
Looking at the early church, one advantage that they had that we no longer do is that they didn't have to carry the burden of popular status or reputation. Or real estate. Looking at I Cor. 10 also requires keeping I Cor. 5 in mind: Paul discusses in ch. 5 the need to be present in the world without importing the values of the world into the church – "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons – not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolators, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy , or is an idolator, reviler, drunkard, or robber." Ch. 10 is another warning not to import the values of the world into the church. This is certainly not about bringing anything into a physical structure, we all know that, but about bring evil into the midst of God's temple (see Ch. 3) made up of those sanctified in Christ, called to be saints, together with all who in every place call on the name of the Lord (see Ch. 1).
And it is important to distinguish, as many will not, between Islam on one hand, and what are clearly not Yahweh-referenced religions on one hand, and outright assertions of raw political power on either foot. The one thing that Islam shares with both Christianity and Judaism is a professed faith in the one true God. The most fervent opponents of Islam insist that Islam is a pagan religion. We all deny that only to insult the adherents of Islam, and that denial is no different that insults lobbed as accusations of Christianity that it is polytheistic (in fact, the "polytheistic" insult cuts close to real Christological disagreements within Christianity: just how many of us are that familiar with the theology of our Monophysite/Miaphysite brethren whose churches have endured – and are enduring (just consider the Christians in Iraq) – far more persecution over the ages than we can ever imagine ourselves enduring?).
Even C.S. Lewis didn't have to insult other religions in order to contrast them with the Christian Church. He writes in "Mere Christianity," Book Two ("What Christians Believe), Ch. 1 ("The Rival Conceptions of God"): "People who believe in God can be divided according to the sort of God they believe in. There are two very different ideas on this subject. One of them is the idea that He is beyond good and evil… The other and opposite idea is that God is quite definitely 'good' or 'righteous', a God who takes sides, who loves love and hates hatred, who wants us to behave in one way and not another. The first of these views – the one that thinks God beyond good and evil – is called Pantheism… The other view is held by Jews, Mohammedans, and Christians."
When we meet Moslems on the street, in our businesses, our courts, and our media, we are looking at fellow believers in God if not adherents of the Gospel. There is plenty of immaturity, outright hypocrisy, and violence on both, all sides. The real problem is that they're not Western, as if Christians are supposed to be. After all, we don't seem to have these problems with the Latter Day Saints.
I have had the privilege of walking, shoes off, inside both the Al-Asqa mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. No-one accosted me for being there, and all anyone asked was that I – and my tour group – respect the sanctity of the place for the worshipers there. I've also had the opportunity to respectfully visit the Jerusalem Great Synagogue. The visitor who comes respectfully is invariably treated graciously, and that gracious use perhaps is the best possible use of anything we own individually or congregationally. On the other hand, we know that our meeting places are themselves not sanctified by God; by ourselves for the glory of God, certainly, but not because God has required it so. As such then, they are possessions to be used to God's glory as we humbly see it and as circumstances graciously become manifest.
All of that aside, we may well have already opened our buildings and our meetings to the modern day equivalent of "emperor worship." I have yet to see in our auditoriums what is ubiquitous in many Baptist church buildings: the national flag, but we offer the same prayers offered asking that "our" servicemen and women be protected from harm, when I rarely, if ever, have ever heard a prayer for the residents of the countries in whose way we're asking God to protect from harm. Not that I want anyone harmed, but it cannot be denied that "Our God is A Nonpartisan God; He Reigns from Heaven Above". None of us can imagine a legionary standard propped up in the corner of the room where a group of early Christians would have been, yet many Christians in the United States have decided that we're a Self-Chosen People and have the prayers, sermon, and lessons to back it up. The prayers we offer in our churches for our governments should have the virtue of being "small-c" catholic, not "capital-A" American. We can make – and many have made – God into an idol of own reckoning as surely as the Corinthians could make a clique of the Christ (see I Cor. ch. 1).
Bob Brandon: Well written! and spot on. Kudos Brother.
The correct procedure – in fiollowing Paul's mission – would be to go into a mosque and speak with the Muslims there about Christ. I did it once, since I was invited by a Kebab-cook during Ramadan last fall. This was very interesting. And I talked with him about what was said in German (most of the service was in Arabic, but a summary of the sermon was given in German) and explained the difference betwenn Christ and Mohammed based on this summary. THey celebrated a military victory of Mohammed that day and I explained that Christ makes us love our enemies and teaches non-resistance. He was puzzled … We can do that (and we should not be acfraid of doing so).
But it seems very wrong to me to let Moslems turn our church-building into a Mosque ech Friday. For several reasons:
a) This would mean that we encourage and further a wrong worship of God.
b) Even more so we 'd further reading a book that explicitly denies that Jesus is the son of God (Islam is per definition anti-Christ)
c) The impression we'd give to our neighbours would come close to Lessing's "Parable of the Rings": "See, there is no difference between the monotheitic religions after all!"
Would anyone of us say that either of these three consequences was good or desirable?
Alexander
Just a thought before I have to leave the house for a while.
The early church was blessed by the willingness of the synagogues to open their floors to Paul and others to preach the gospel. We should be forever grateful for the generosity of the rulers of the synagogues for allowing the Messiah to be preached.
Now, for us to have the opportunity to once again preach in the synagogues (and mosques), what kind of people must we be? Can we insist that others open their buildings to us while refusing to do the same?
The history of Christianity is filled with one sect demanding freedom to be heard, getting heard, gaining power, and then refusing to allow others the freedom they once demanded as a right.
I would only say this: what others do makes no difference to how we use our gifts and blessings. There is no quid pro quo in God's grace. After all, did not Paul say in Rom. 12:
"Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…"
This is what agape love is all about: extremely straightforward, and all the more difficult for its simplicity, wretched men and women that we are (see Rom. 7).
Jay: Well said
Paul came as a Jew and respected pharisee; he counted himself as a pharisee even to the end of his life, when among Jews. Those rulers of the synagogue did not know what exactly he was going to teach there when they invited him; but it was a common practice to let travelling teachers give an address to the congregation. Paul made use of this.
But to conclude that the synagogue frely invited CHRISTIANS to speak in their meetings overlooks the fact that at the time when Paul was travelling the Jews already persecuted the Christians and excommunicated them from their synagogues.
When I went to the mosque, my friend invited me – and I did not speak in frot of course, but right there with him about the radical difference between Jesus and Mohammed concerning the use of violence. When we are admitted as visitors, we may follow their invitation. And we may do the same: We may invite Muslims to an evangelistic meeting, to present our Lord to them.
But I cannot admit that we are allow to further Islam or Judaism by offering a room for their false worship. This is like opening our house for prostitutes to work there on weekdays. Sin is sin. Idolatry, disbelief or prostitution … in the end there is no difference. And may we continue to repent from all sorts of sin that entagled us.
Alexander
To use an extreme example, I wonder what response we would have if we were talking about a cultic group that performed sexual acts as part of their worship. Would we allow them to use our buildings? I doubt that most would. So it seems (to me anyway), that the problem is either 1) we don't view Islam as idolatry or 2) we don't consider idolatry to be as sinful as sexual sin.
Does anyone disagree?
NBS, I appreciate the thrust of you question. And no, I would not allow Orgie Community Church to borrow the building. However, Orgie Community Church would be in violation of the law. The muslims presumably wouldn't be.
I assume your main point, or question, is whether or not to loan a building to a group we believe to be practicing sinful worship?! If so, good luck trying to find agreement on what exactly constitutes sinful worship. In the mainline cofC this would rule out everybody but other cofC's and would even get many of them.
Thanks for responding Scott. But what if you remove the "violation of the law" clause from the discussion (because it does not violate the law everywhere)? I think you and everyone else here would object to a group performing sexual sin, as worship, in one of our buildings.
I am not really trying to find agreement on what constitutes sinful worship, at least not complete agreement. However, it seems that we should all be able to agree that for worship to be "right" then it needs to be worship offered to God (the real One).
So my question really is; "Isn't Islam idolatry?"
Let's cut to the chase here. The fear is that by opening our churches to other religions we will loose those in Christianity to the other religions. Our sons and daughters will convert to other religions, or lose their faith entirely.
Our faith is so weak and we are so filled with fear that we refuse to engage those who believe differently than us.
We cannot make decisions based in fear!! We have the power of the almighty – Jesus the Christ!! What fear have we?
I say open our churches up. Send our kids to Muslim institutions. Go on retreats to ashrams. Visit imams. Risk it all to be Christ in those places where Christ is needed most. We have already won. What fear have we?
I went to DLU, and I appreciate my time there, but I hope that my boys are more mature than me – that they engage the world instead of retreating behind fortified walls. If our churches are not for the muslims (or hindus, or atheists, etc), then who are they for?
Will we lose some of our children by doing this? I am not naive – I know that we will – and that is a tragedy beyond description. But it is no more of a tragedy than the Muslim not knowing the one true Christ. It's not about me, my family, or my clan. It is about expanding the God's Kingdom. It will cost. It will hurt. We will have casualties.
It, however, is what we must do to be followers of Christ.
Twistersinbama,
I appreciate the points that you made, but you made a serious miscalculation about the concerns that some of us have. My reluctance over this issue is about idolatry, just like I said.
That is not to say that we shouldn't associate with Muslims, nor love them, nor even spend time with them. However, if we agree that Islam is idolatry, then that should affect the way we interact with them.
Do you disagree?
To put it bluntly, we are all idolators.
I hope that others treat me with grace, love and acceptance in spite of my glaring idolatry instead of treating me different or excluding me.
I would argue the difference between us and the Muslims isn't that one is an idolator and one isn't. The difference is that we Christians acknowledges our idolatry by falling down before Jesus and begging for mercy and forgiveness, knowing that it has already been given. We continue to worship false gods – at least I know that I do.
Maybe by being honest with where we are, viewing our place with humility, grace, and love, we can then extend the invitation to those we encounter to join us on this path. Then, by opening our church to outsiders – the idolators, drunkards, adulterers, gluttons, etc – we can engage and change together in the light of Christ.
Twisters,
What did Paul mean when he said to "flee from idolatry?"
I agree that we are all sinners, but that does not mean that we condone the sins of others. Should we accept idolaters as friends, and loved ones? Of course! Should we help facilitate their idolatry? I can't imagine you will say yes to that question.
Furthermore, it seems that putting an obstacle between a person and them worshipping a false god is actually a loving thing to do.
The only point I am trying to make is that the only difference between the idolatry of Christians – of which we are all guilty – and the idolatry of non-christians is the Christians' dependance on the grace and love of our savior.
I don't think Paul means "flee from idolators". I think he is talking in a spiritual sense. Hence the word idolatry, not idolators.
Paul does speak differently when dealing with sin within the body of Christ. For that we must have much less tolerance. When looking outward, though, we are not to judge, but to love, embrace, and accept.
I would argue one of the best metrics for acceptance is what we are willing to open and share with those with whom we think are wrong – even with our enemy. I think part of that must be opening our homes and churches. Are there limits here? Of course. I would argue, again, that the Muslims are within the boundaries of what is acceptable to open our homes and churches too, even though I think their view of the world is incomplete.
Maybe saying it a little stronger, there are parts of the Muslim lifestyle that we as Christians desperately need to embrace as a fuller representation of what it means to be Christ. Muslims get prayer. They get community. They get sharing. They get bodily worship. We need the Muslim dedication to a life of purity in our church. We need to be open to what they bring to the table that will help us mirror Christ.
Hopefully through that process, the Muslims will see what we bring to the table – the one piece that they are missing. How else can this sharing be done if it isn't done relationally and through community?