Yesterday, I read the critique of a conservative Catholic website answering the question, “Can I trust Richard Rohr.” Reading their response is virtually exactly like reading how some Reformed pastors and theologians have skewered Rob Bell and condemned him for being a universalist and a heretic. As much as Protestants and Catholics might hold differences toward each other, they are virtually the same in their attitudes and accusations toward Bell and Rohr.

Sorry that I just find peculiar things like this rather funny, even though this is a very serious matter.

That’s a good sentiment to hold. I appreciate what much of Rohr has to say about spirituality, however I do have a bit of wariness about some of his theology, especially regarding his admiration for some of the Eastern religious principles that he learned from Merton. Nevertheless, the Bible can be used to lead astray as well (not that Rohr and Merton are guilty of this), especially in terms of how some use it to shut down thought processes and discussions on important, modern topics. The truth is, is that our knowledge is extremely limited, therefore we should all view each other with a bit of caution as well as charity, if that makes any sense.

“…this article divides Merton’s life and books into two parts–The Early Period (trustworthy) and The Slip into the East (read with caution): – See more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2015/01/21/muslim-christian-dialogue-taboo-or-necessity/#comment-16361

I think it is wise to read everything with caution. Including (especially) the Bible.

Forests wrote:

“Once upon a time ago I attended at a Buddhist temple. It offers nothing in comparison to Christ. There is very little to be learned from it. I had to undo most of what I learned there. – See more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2015/01/21/muslim-christian-dialogue-taboo-or-necessity/#comment-16361

I sympathize with Forests. Perhaps at some point in the future, I might be interested in learning from eastern religions. But at the moment I’m busy trying to understand my own religion, the gospel of the New Testament and the foundations of Christianity. And my experiences with ubf have really turned me off to eastern religion — especially the Confucianity (hardcore Korean Confucianism covered with a thin veneer of Christianity) that passes for Bible teaching in ubf.

I think that we can learn from anyone, everyone, even other religions. My two favorite quotes from the Dalai Lama, the most prominent Buddhist today, are:

“My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.”

“Learn the rules well, so you can break them properly.”

Sadly, sometimes Christians tend to be rather uncharitable, even toward fellow Christians, sometimes even within the same church!

Also, Christians tend to be rather legalistic and moralistic, tribal and exclusionary, which denies the gospel of God’s mercy and grace extended freely toward everyone without discrimination, even to the liberal and the immoral.

Perhaps Christians have much to learn from Buddhists. btw, or for the record, I’m still very much Christian!

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2015/02/03/happy_birthday_thomas_merton.html

“The second reason that some younger Catholics are wary of Merton is his interest, in the last roughly ten years of his life, in Eastern religions, especially Buddhism. They see this as an indication of a religious relativism or a vague syncretism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Merton was indeed fascinated by the Eastern religions and felt that Christians could benefit from a greater understanding of their theory and practice, but he never for a moment felt that all the religions were the same or that Christians should move to some space “beyond” Christianity.”

Last week was the 100th birthday of Thomas Merton. Later in life, Merton engaged in extensive interfaith dialogue with Zen Buddhists, learning from their religious practices while remaining firmly grounded in his Christian faith.

I recently saw the movie Selma. It has me thinking quite a bit about how interfaith dialogue influenced Dr. King in his advocacy for civil rights. I’m going to write a review on it and post it here soon.

On another note, I watched all eight videos of the dialogue (which was actually a light-hearted debate) between Shabir Ally and Thabiti Anyabwile and though they disagreed strongly on doctrine, especially the nature of sin and salvation, they were still (as far as I could see) able to regard each other as dear friends in a public setting. I’m used to seeing and expecting vehement, knock-down drag out debates between Muslims and Christians because the two systems are so opposed to one another, one contradicting the other. But the aforementioned dialogue shows that there is a place for serious theological discussion against the backdrop of genuine friendship.

http://www.ministrymatters.com/all/entry/5742/interfaith-isnt-an-option

Good quote:

“The Christian tradition has been doing interfaith work, knowingly or unknowingly, since the beginning of the church catholic.”

That’s really a great analogy. I/we/the lot of Christians have yet to really piece everything together and live it out in a fluid and instinctive manner. I’ve been thinking more about Christ and interfaith dialogue. Often, I think of a Christian in a functional way; Christians are to empty themselves of self in order to become these conduits through which Christ’s life and gospel message can flow freely. But I think that this is only part of the picture; for one, this seems to promote uni-directional interaction with others rather than mutual. Perhaps we are to empty ourselves of selfish motives so that we can become truly human and live in the melody of our knowledge of God much like Christ did. I’m thinking that this is how the persons of the trinity seamlessly flow through and around one another in this give and take relationship based on love. So perhaps when we engage others, whether they are believers or not, we are attempting to enter into a relationship where we and the other are striving to grow in our humanity. Still need to think about this more. Thanks for the book recommendation, I’d love to read it when I get some time.

David, this is beside the point. I don’t think it is closed minded to be convinced of the core doctrines of the Christian faith. I think that when Newbigin suggests that we put our own Christianity at risk, he means that we put our certainty about our own witness, or our practice, and our own understanding of the faith at risk. I think it means a willingness to go beyond the proclamation of doctrinal truth to a demonstration of true humility and love toward others by not needing to win doctrinal arguments, or set the bar too high for others from other religions who do not yet see the truth of the gospel. I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I know that you already try hard to do this.

If I may, I wanted to know if you could clarify some of the remarks you made in your conclusion. You said,

“If I want to have an evangelistic meeting with a person of another faith, I need to come down from my staircase to the very bottom, to the base of the cross, where the two of us may stand on equal footing. There must be a self-emptying. ‘Christians do not meet their partners in dialogue as those who possess the truth and holiness of God but as those who bear witness to a truth and holiness that are God’s judgment on them and who are ready to hear the judgment spoken through the lips and life of their partner of another faith’“

I don’t quite understand where Newbigin says that God’s judgment may be spoken through the lips and life of the partner of another faith. One possible way that I can grasp this is that in my dialogues with others from different faiths, when I truly begin to listen to them and hear their concerns and as they detail their worldviews, I begin to realize how I was at one point judgmental and unloving toward these people, that I did not truly take to heart Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 9:19-22. That for, innumerable unreasonable reasons, I did not see them as potential co-heirs of the same grace that I have received.

But I’m not sure if this is what you meant given the context with which you placed the quote in. It almost sounds as if your’re saying that when we meet as equals (which implies that the person of the other faith, apart from an understanding of the crucifixion event, can genuinely empty themselves of their presuppositions), we both have some spiritual truth with which we can teach each other. If I’m only laying claim to “a” truth, which implies that truths from other faiths are valid, then why should I even bother to believe in Christianity and if necessary, even die for it? Perhaps I don’t fully understand the quote and your words, so please correct me if I am misunderstanding these in any way.

Joe, you posted the quote,

“Time and again we have revealed ourselves to be more interested in defending and perpetuating our beliefs on a given issue than in discerning where the truth really lies. Often we have preferred to secure our present beliefs against challenge rather than to embrace the open risk of real dialogue.”

I would like to think that this is not the case with me. In my younger, knee-jerk reaction years this might have been true but not after I’ve studied my faith and the faith of others for some time. I believe the claims of Christianity above that of other religions because it has a text with a cohesive and cogent theme, it is grounded in historical truth and it presents a profound picture of God that is not elucidated in any other faith tradition.

All of the things within Christianity that present an awe-inspiring picture of God (e.g. the incarnation, that a holy God would come down and dwell with his enemies and even die for them, the trinitarian view of God, that people are communal beings who crave love because God is a community of loving persons) is directly undercut by Islam, Mormonism and JW. I have thought about this long and hard and as close-minded as it sounds, my conclusion is that these faith views are simply wrong and in some cases detrimental.

But I also see another side of what you are getting at. That is, we should ask the questions, why do Muslims believe that Jesus is not the Son of God and why was he only made to appear as though he had been crucified? Why do Mormons believe that we can only garner salvation by marrying as many wives as possible and why the church has gone apostate? Why do JW’s believe that Jesus Christ is not divine?

Out of respect for each other as human beings, we should not ascribe some nefarious purpose behind why these religions deny the central tenets of the Christian religion. Rather, we should ask if there is something intrinsic to the cultural makeup of these groups that cause them to bristle at the claims of Christianity. We should dialogue with not only their respective leaders but also the individual adherents of these religions to see why they believe what they believe.

And let me end with asking you, Joe, what have you learned from other faith traditions about 1) God and 2) why the adherents of the those traditions believe what they believe?

Throughout Christian history, this has served as a vital stepping stone to eventually presenting the gospel in explicit but culturally contextual terms. My strong opinion is that we cannot decouple interfaith dialogue from the understanding that Jesus has entrusted Christians with truth claims about the nature of God and salvation. I know that this runs counter to our modern notion that all lay claim to some version of the truth and that each version should be respected and learned from. But given what I know about the Bible and the three specific faith traditions we mentioned, I am not sure that I can gain anything profitable from them and that further they would lead me away from an accurate view of God.

Recently, we had a lively discussion about the Charlie Hebdo situation and I asked my friends if and why they were offended by the illustrations in the magazine. Some of my Muslim friends are liberal and some conservative, so I got a wide range of responses and in turn I shared my own feelings about instances where others denigrated my faith tradition. We each expressed our gratitude to one other in that we were able to freely share about our respective faiths and own personal deeply held ideologies. What I realized from these dialogues is that we’re at a place with one another where we feel safe enough to talk about hot-button issues like these as well as the nuances of our personal beliefs. So far, so good.

The other day, one of my colleagues shared a youtube sermon which was given by a popular Muslim scholar. The scholar spoke eloquently and passionately about things such as the love of God, the prevenient or common grace of God, that he is our provider and so forth and that he accepts us all as his children. My colleague was kind enough to translate this from Arabic into English in real time for my benefit. He felt that I was open-minded enough to appreciate it and that furthermore I would benefit from it because we essentially worship the same God.

I was taken aback and deeply appreciated this. After I had taken some time to process this, I realized the importance of interfaith dialogue. That it helps us to connect on a human level and deeply appreciate one another as those made in the image of God. At the same time, I realized that if the Bible points to Christ, who is the embodiment of truth and God’s clearest revelation, then if I truly love my Muslim or JW neighbor, then I will not stop at interfaith dialogue but that I will earnestly pray for them to know Christ and that I will, at some point, explicitly present the gospel to them. This is what makes sense to me and this is what I see all of the NT witnesses doing.

We should certainly treat others how we want to be treated; if my salvation is at stake then I hope that someone would be loving enough to not only befriend me but to also tell me the truth about who God is.

Imagine I am a Christian living in a majority Muslim country. Everywhere people are saying that Christians have gotten it wrong. In the public square, imams continually dismiss Christian beliefs as wrongheaded, foolish, ignorant, and in rebellion against God’s final revelation in the Koran. Although I am not persecuted in any legal sense, and I am (in theory) able to worship my God, I often feel dehumanized and oppressed, and I feel that my sincerely held faith is mocked. Do I wish those imans would stop talking that way? You bet. Do I wish that they would stop pretending they really know so much about me, that they really understand my faith, and that they would walk a long distance in my shoes before they assume a position of judgment? You bet.

Now suppose an openminded Muslim leader reaches out to me. He invites me into his office to inquire about what I believe and why. He listens carefully to me and admits that what people commonly assume about Christians might be wrong. He isn’t going to give up his own beliefs on the spot (because he realizes he still doesn’t understand Christianity very well) but he treats me with great respect, opening his mind and his heart to me in ways that no Muslim ever has before. Other imams tell him that he’s wasting his time, that interfaith dialogue with Christians isn’t possible, yet he stands firm and continues to talk to me in a serious way. Would I be happy about this? You bet. Would I wish that every other Muslim leader did this? You bet.

Jesus said, “Do unto others…”

Leaving the thought-experiment and coming back to reality.

Do I wish that Muslims would open their minds and hearts to Christians and Christianity, consider our truth-claims with the utmost seriousness, entertaining the possibility that some of it might be true? Of course I do.

But am I truly willing to do the same for them?

All I am saying is this. Disciples of Jesus are supposed to treat others as we would like to be treated. This is the basis for interfaith dialogue.

“We must also point out that the idea of the Bible being corrupt was first promoted by Ibn Khazem (d. 1064 A.D.) as a means of avoiding the obvious contradictions between the Bible and the Quran. Believing that the Quran could not possibly have been corrupted, he then assumed that it was the Bible that underwent textual modifications.” – link

It’s a long read, but good food for thought on the historicity of the subject and what the Quran actually says about the Bible. Btw, there is solid evidence that there are different versions of the Quran, which is in direct opposition to what Mulsims believe about there being one, divinely inspired and inerrant text.

I don’t have the time to pull quotes from each one, but I already spoke about how the Quran corrects our misconception that Jesus was crucified, died and was buried. The founder of the JW’s edited the bible to take out the references or allusions to Christ’s deity because according to him, Christ is actually a created being (the human form of the archangel Michael). Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, said that the angel Gabriel personally spoke to him and told him that the church had gone apostate and that the book of Mormon was given to correct the church (so according them, we are all apostates). And also, according to Mormonism Jesus is the brother of Lucifer or the devil.

Any genuine interfaith dialogue has to address these questions. If they do engage you in a genuine manner, it should not be to trade pleasantries about each others’ views of God, but rather they should be strongly appealing to you to turn from your errant view of God and your errant text for the salvation of your soul.

Joe, this is one of the benefits of interfaith dialogue. In my early years as a Christian I made it a point to also read other religious texts and talk to others of different faith persuasions. This challenged me (and still does) to a great extent to understand the practical implications of my faith as well as the logical cogency of the worldview that it presents, not to mention the internal consistency of my own sacred text. I would like to think that I am an open-minded person, but the more I study my faith and the faith of others, I begin to see especially in regard to Islam and Christianity how they are saying two opposite things about extremely important issues. We are talking about who God is and what salvation entails. These are things that I do not want to get wrong and which the church are founded upon. I would not want to relinquish my understanding of these things for the sake of dialoguing with others. If anything, I would take a page from both Jesus and Paul and point them toward a clear revelation of who God is and how to be adopted into his family.

Rather than affirm the Samaritan woman’s worldview, Jesus says to her –

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Rather than affirm the Athenians worldview, Pauls says to them –

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Also when the Lyconians attempted to make sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, Paul says –

14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them. 16 In the past, he let all nations go their own way. 17 Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” 18 Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

I used the term ecumenism rather than interfaith because the feeling that I get from what is called interfaith dialogue is this idea that all religions are essentially reaching out to the same God. Furthermore each faith persuasion lays hold of some particular or unique truth about God. So the conclusion is that we can each learn something different about God from each others’ respective religions.

I suppose one could make a case for interfaith dialogue, particularly in how the Jews syncretized with Hellenistic thought and thus were able to adopt some philosophical frameworks which in turn helped Christians to craft and utilize some powerful logical arguments in their apologetic of Christianity. Also, the Septuagint came out of syncretism and thus provided the early Gentile church with an understandable bible text. But also, some errant things came through this syncretization such as gnosticism and some misconceptions about God from Epicureanism and Stoicism.

In our present day, I believe that we can learn something from Jews. Personally, I am deeply interested in how the Jews understood the OT text before the advent of Christ. I’ve learned from Peter Enns that the NT writers were deeply influenced by the evolving theological outlook of their Jewish contemporaries.

When it comes to Islam however, as I explained in my post below, I’m just not sure if we could glean anything profitable from their text or practices, especially in regard to understanding salvation or the person of God. I find it very hard to believe that we are worshiping the same God.

Now when it comes to talking to individual Muslims or people from other faiths, I indeed learn many things from their lives. In this sense, because God has provided common grace to everyone we each, on a basic human level, can teach one another from our respective walks of life. This takes humility from both sides. Like I said, I’ve had wonderful and eye-opening dialogues with my Muslim friends. But when it comes to understanding salvation, I do not think that Islam clears anything up for me and if anything it clouds the picture even more.

Here’s a quote from the book.

Even if people have the impression that evangelicals are willing to sacrifice truth for the sake of their beliefs, surely the deeper question is to ask whether this is in fact true. In this book I will argue that it is indeed often true, certainly more so than evangelicals are typically willing to admit. Time and again we have revealed ourselves to be more interested in defending and perpetuating our beliefs on a given issue than in discerning where the truth really lies. Often we have preferred to secure our present beliefs against challenge rather than to embrace the open risk of real dialogue. Even if we would never come out and say that we choose anything, even God, over truth (after all, what would that even mean?), our actions often suggest otherwise. As a result, actions that may have been intended to secure the faith from attack instead undermine our witness to others gathered at the table, leaving them to conclude that we are not that serious about truth after all but are simply pushing an “agenda.”

Despite all the doctrinal differences, people of different faiths still have vast areas of common ground on which to stand. That common ground is not common belief systems but their common humanity. I believe (this comes from Vatican II, but I don’t have the exact quote) that the gospel finds whatever is authentically human in every culture, affirms it, and perfects it. Jesus affirmed our humanity by becoming one of us. If Jesus encountered someone of another faith, would he have put up a wall saying “You believe this, I believe that, never the twain shall meet”? I don’t think so. Jesus approached people not because they believed as he did but because they were all human beings created in his image, and because he was incarnated into theirs. I’m quite certain that Jesus would have had a great deal to talk about with anyone of any faith, and would have even learned a great deal from them, without any compromise of truth. If our sole concern is defending truth as we see it and winning people over to our side, then there is an insurmountable barrier and dialogue won’t happen. But God’s love for humanity present in Jesus breaks down barriers and opens up worlds of possibility for fruitful dialogue.

Suppose that a given doctrine is correct. Suppose I believe that doctrine, and another person rejects it. Where can we go from there without compromising my belief? For starters, I can begin to consider why I believe as I do, and why he believes as he does. It is quite possible (in fact, this happens a lot) that his reasons for rejecting that doctrine are, within his life-experience, more virtuous than my reasons for accepting it. If so, then I have a great deal to learn and profit from the dialogue.

Joe, if I could offer some pushback I would firstly say that your paraphrase of Deut 4:29 is taken out of context; God was speaking to Israel at that time, not Gentiles worshiping according to their respective religions. Isaiah speaks of God accepting Gentiles, but the NT makes it clear that God calls us Gentiles to belong to him through spiritual knowledge based upon the person and work of Jesus Christ. This distinction is very important, in my mind, as I will explain below.

Secondly, I would ask that if, as Christians, we believe that Jesus Christ is the clearest revelation of truth and sole source of salvation from God and that the holy text of Islam, the Quran, denies this then don’t we have a responsibility to earnestly pray for, explain the gospel in clear, explicit terms and last but surely not least, live out the gospel among Muslims?

By all means, I am not saying that their prayer should be restricted, but is it enough to say that if they simply seek God through their religion, then they will find him? For that matter, should we be content to say that if Buddhists and Hindus truly seek God through their respective religions, then they may indeed find him? Perhaps they can and we shouldn’t limit the power of God, but are we called to play some part in this?

What I see Paul doing in Acts 17 is 1) affirming some of the tenets of Stoicism and Epicureanism but 2) ultimately turning the Athenians to an accurate knowledge of God based upon Scripture. That God, for a time, bore with our ignorance of who he is, but upon the advent of Christ, he commands us to turn from said ignorance and accept his truth for the salvation of our souls.

That being said, I wish to think that I have no prejudices toward Muslims, however there is a clear, unbridgeable divide between what Christians and Muslims believe based on what is written in their respective holy texts and what has been said by their preeminent prophets (Jesus and Muhammad). Off the top of my head I can think of five areas that we will never agree on and which are central to both our religions. In contrast to Christians, Muslims do not believe that

1. God is a trinity of persons
2. Jesus is the Son of God
3. Historically, Jesus was crucified on a cross (much less for the forgiveness of sins)
4. Jesus is God’s last spokesman and clearest revalatory agent, but that rather Muhammad is
5. The Bible has been successfully preserved throughout history; that in fact it contains many errors and falsehoods particularly about the person and work of Jesus

Points 1-3 have been solidified and passed down in nearly every major creed of the early church. Point 4 is made explicit in Scripture (Heb 1:2). As for point 5, we can confidently say that the Scriptures we have today are extremely close to what the early church had. Furthermore, Islam’s stance against the preservation of Scripture is a direct attack upon the central truths that Christians believe.

As for the crucifixion event, the Quran says in 4:157,

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. – http://quran.com/4/157

All this being said, I do not believe that the majority of Muslims have an agenda to destroy Christianity. But it is undeniable that the two religions are nearly diametrically opposed. There are some basic truths about God contained in Islam, but as a whole it denies Christianity’s fundamental truths to the point of being altogether something totally different as well as something that cannot point someone toward salvation.

Lastly, I would say if any dialogue needs to be had, it should be that of revealing to Christians that fundamentally, Muslims are not our enemies; they are people who want to live peaceful and productive lives just as we do. And additionally, just like everyone else, they need to hear and receive the explicit gospel as stated in Scripture.

What is interesting is that Muslim’s hold nearly an identical view of Jesus. They believe he is the “spirit of God” and the “word of God”. Furthermore they believe Jesus to be sinless (but they view all prophets in this manner). They believe he was virgin born. The only thing they do not believe is that Jesus was God, because they argue- God would not lower himself to such a state to die. Consequently the God of Islam is not a humble God, yet the word itself “Islam” means submission which is at it’s core the same concept as humility. Muslims believe that submission to God’s word guarantee blessing. Conversations with Muslims can find a lot of ground, but they tend to get stuck over who Jesus is and what he means. Even so as Brian mentioned, under Islam Jews and Christians are both saved because they are ahl al-kitab (people of the book). Their obedience to the commands of Allah (God) gives them rewards in paradise in accordance with their good deeds. It’s straight forward legalism.

The discord between Muslims, Jews and Christians is not because of their sacred texts, not because of Mohamed or Moses or Jesus, but because of the extremism of their followers.

In the Koran, we read this: “Those who believe, those who are Jews, and the Christians and Sabaeans, all who believe in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Surat al-Baqara, 62) source

In the bible, we read this: “all Israel will be saved… As far as the gospel is concerned, they [Israel] are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs,for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” see Romans 11:25-32

And we also read in the Torah about the many promises of a Messiah.

Speaking for myself as a Christian, I realize that my predominant sentiment has sadly and primarily been one of exclusion toward those who are not Christian (or even who are not Christian like ME). Probably even as recently as just a few years ago, I would have been among the objectors, just like the Christians and pastors at Duke. This is such a sad, unloving, ungracious and unhappy, if not un-Christian way to live.

Jesus is all embracing, but we who claim to follow him are often far far more interested in judging and excluding others who are not like us.

This brings to mind the recent events at Duke University in North Carolina. Muslim students wanted to use the university bell tower to sound a call to prayer. At first the University agreed, but many Christians began to protest. Pastors (including ubf leaders in Chicago) denounced the idea, seeing it as godless relativism, faithless compromise, etc. Duke officials gave in to the Christian pressure; they changed their minds and said no. I honestly do not understand this. Why shouldn’t Muslims be encouraged to pray, even if their understanding of God is different from ours? Doesn’t God promise to reveal himself to those who call out to him and seek him from wherever they are?

I wrote an article a while ago that didn’t get much discussion, but it is something I really believe in strongly: A Roadmap for Peace.

If anyone thinks God is not interested in blessing Muslims, read about the Hagar story in the bible, especially Genesis 21:8-21.