Our September 12, 2002, cover story featured Jerald Whitehouse's article entitled "God's Footprints in the Rubble." The article explored areas of convergence between Christianity and Islam, and probed the issue of how Christians in general (and Adventists in particular) might respond redemptively to adherents of Islam in the present context. Here, for the benefit of our readers, we publish a letter received in reaction to our cover story, as well as a follow-up response from the author of the original article. We might note that when he wrote to us, Schantz was not aware that we'd give Whitehouse a chance to respond, nor was Whitehouse aware of the identity of the person to whom he was responding.--Editors.

God's Footprints in the Rubble"-Revisited"

By Borge Schantz

ith interest I read the article entitled "God's Footprints in the Rubble," by Jerald Whitehouse. Whitehouse accurately points out areas in which "Christians" have mistreated Muslims, both past and present.

Although the points are well taken, the article perhaps should be a little more balanced. Reasons for terror attacks on the United States are also to be found internally among the Muslims. Dissatisfactions in Islamic countries with corrupt leaders who are strongly supported by the West are also reasons for the terrible acts. These corrupt leaders are generally so protected in their own palaces that no one gets near them uninvited. So when radical Muslims cannot hit the enemies within, they will strike at the distant supporters of their enemies. And in their eyes, the U.S. is the greatest of these, as it is the patron of the dreaded and corrupt regime at home.

Perhaps the article would also have been better balanced if it had dug a little into Islamic theology, traditional beliefs, and general worldview.

I shall mention only a couple of essential matters that need clarification. The proposal that the Islamic division of the world into dar-al-Islam ("the house of Islam") and dar-al-harb ("the house of war") is an "early" Muslim practice is certainly a doubtful claim. As far as most Muslims are concerned, this division is still valid, and is used in their propaganda.

The attempt almost to equate the "Allah" of Islam with the "Elohim" of the Hebraic/Christian Scriptures would appear to be wishful thinking. Most Muslim scholars would reject it, as indeed would Christian authorities, notwithstanding the Arabic biblical translators' using the pre-Islamic Arabic word for Allah. The orthodox Christian view comprising three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is anathema to Muslims. This mystery, so essential and beautiful for Christians, is strongly denounced by Muslims-even regarded as polytheism.

In the paragraphs dealing with how Adventists should relate to the terror events (p. 12), the author warns us against "toxic" faith, also defined as faith systems that "place more emphasis on control of the member's life than on compassion." No doubt the warning points to "toxic" segments of Christianity, perhaps even some Adventists. However, this definition and the whole trend in these lines fit Islam so extremely well-more than any other world religion. The integrated Shariah law controls every aspect of the life of the Muslim. In Islamic law there is no distinction between the secular and the religious. It has regulation for every detail in the believer's life, be it criminal, civil, religious, or personal. In Islam there is a toxic faith that has control of its members.

Under "Additional Suggestions," Adventists are counseled not to be like "other groups that see the 'kingdom of God' as the 'reigning' of Christianity through earthly governments over other 'nonbelievers.'" Deep in Islamic theology the "kingdom of Allah" begins with the life in this world. This was exemplified with Muhammad's Medina experience, in which the prophet was also mayor, teacher, commander of the army, lawgiver, and judge. Whitehouse's warning again has a better application to Islam than to Christianity.

There is no doubt that in evangelism to people of other religions, genuine respect and love are very significant. And points of agreement in faith and practice should be touched upon. However, erroneous beliefs and fallacies must be pointed out. Such approaches that are needed for successful results demand much tact and humility, but they should never exempt us from a direct and truthful witness.

_________________________
Borge Schantz, onetime head of the Theology Department at Newbold College in England, has served the Adventist Church in a variety of capacities over the years, including that of teacher, pastor, evangelist, missionary, and field president. He was the founding director of the Seventh-day Adventist Global Center for Islamic Studies. He now lives in Denmark.

In Response

By Jerald Whitehouse

basic premise of my mission in approaching another culture or religion is to understand before judging. While being fully aware of my biblical beliefs and of differences of belief with Muslims, I consider it crucial, particularly in the current environment of increasing distrust on both sides, that we first try to understand. This is the only way we will be able to build bridges that will allow us to communicate spiritual truth. For such to occur, it is requisite that we step back and take a good look at ourselves and with humility make certain that we are a clear channel of God's love and healing power.

A fundamental purpose of my article was to attempt an answer to the question "Why do they hate us?" Thus I attempted to illuminate the Muslim's perceptions of the issues feeding into the current tensions between Islam and the (Christian) West. I am pleased that this purpose seems to have been fulfilled, as evidenced by two letters (one in the Letters section of the Review of November 14, 2002, and one to me personally) from Muslim readers (one written by the wife of a Muslim) indicating that they consider the article "fair and accurate" in its analysis. It is a critical objective of our mission to Muslims that Adventists be seen in this light, while treating the historical and other material with integrity.

A second purpose of my article was to suggest that as Adventists we have a unique end-time role that requires us to relate in a healing, reconciling manner after the example of Jesus' ministry.

The review of Christian-Muslim relations is a matter of historical record that can be evaluated by a careful look at the references given at the end of my September 2002 article. Unfortunately, one must filter through considerable Christian bias as one surveys various resource materials. It is worthy of note that most of the references used in my article are by non-Muslim authors, which would minimize-though not eliminate-the Muslim bias. On the issues raised in this area by the writer of the letter, I would still stand with such historians and scholars as Courbage, Fargues, Moffett (cited in my article), and a number of others not mentioned, in their assertion that treatment of the Christians in Muslim-conquered territories was "remarkably generous" (Moffett). (See also "Islam and Christendom," in the Oxford History of Islam [Oxford University Press, 1999].)

Regarding the critique of needing more balance, the writer's point about the dissatisfaction with corrupt leaders in the Muslim world as contributing to the tensions is certainly correct and should have been included. But in respect to his other point about "balance" (for example, that I displayed an unfair bias toward Islam), I do not accept that. When one's objective is that of understanding for the purpose of building relationships of trust (which are foundational to mission), the establishment of relative culpability on any issue is not and cannot be the focus.

My focus was not on creating a list of rights and wrongs on either side and then determining who is better. Rather, it was to help us to be willing to look in all humility at the "beam in our own eye" before trying to take the stick out of the other person's eye. In conversation with Muslims, as I have admitted the mistakes on "our side," I have invariably received a corresponding admission of similar problems in their faith system and an increased trust in the relationship, resulting in opportunities to share more important elements of truth.

The assertion that triumphalism and toxic faith are more characteristic of Islam than Christianity does not diminish the need for us to be certain that they are not a part of Adventist mission in general and Adventist relations with Muslims in particular. I would hope that my article, instead of presenting a defensive posture, would cause the reader from any faith system to step back and listen carefully to the voices from his/her own faith system as well as from the other faith systems. The amount of militant, triumphalistic rhetoric coming from followers of Jesus should be alarming to us. We must avoid the tendency to compare the worst in Islam with the best in Christianity.

The writer asserts that "erroneous beliefs and fallacies must be pointed out." There must be a "direct and truthful witness." While I am not unaware of error, my understanding of my role as an "ambassador of reconciliation," as a "witness," is to represent tactfully and accurately the truth about God according to the evidence provided in Scripture, in the record of the life of Jesus, and in my personal experience. To do this, one must first understand the Muslim mind, build relationships of trust, and form the message in ways that communicate accurately to the Muslim mind (not just to my perception). It is incarnational ministry as exemplified by God Himself in Christ Jesus, "reconciling the world unto Himself." It is my understanding that this process is entirely dependent on the Holy Spirit to "convince the world of its sin" (John 16:8, NLT). I don't see it as my role in this process to move from the witness stand to the prosecutor's bench.

Is Allah the same God as the God of scripture? "Allah" and "Elloh" are linguistic cognates. Both have been used at different times by pagan worshipers, but both were coopted ("Elloh" by Melchizedek, Abraham, and subsequent biblical writers; "Allah" first by Syriac-speaking Eastern Christians, then by Islam) as the name for the "Most High God," the "Creator of the universe," the "God of Abraham," the one true God.

How respective faith systems describe "God" may have some variances. Christians describe the "Godhead" as "three in one Essence." Muslims and Jews would tend to describe God as in Deuteronomy 6:4: "The Lord our God is one Lord" (RSV). The foundational truth is that all three religions are monotheistic, worshiping the one God, the Creator of all (see the opening sura of the Koran al-Fatiha). Descriptions of God's characteristics and how He treats sinners will vary even within Christianity, to the degree that one might rightly ask, "Do we worship the same God?"

The fact that Muslims do not describe God in terms of Trinity and deny the divinity of Christ does not negate the foundational belief in the Creator God. Muslims are more comfortable with the Old Testament picture of God. Christians accept the additional revelation about God as found in the life of Jesus and the New Testament as a clearer revelation of God's character, yet they do not abandon the God of the Old Testament as a different "god" from the "God" of the New Testament.

There are millions of Arabic-speaking Christians whose only word for God is Allah. All Arabic translations of the Bible use the word "Allah."

This is a process of growth in understanding. I can relate to the Muslim on the foundational belief in one God, while seeking ways to move to a greater understanding of God's character, His salvational acts, and His method of ending the sin problem.

_________________________
Jerald Whitehouse has served the church for many years as a missionary and in other capacities. At present he is the director of the Global Center for Adventist-Muslim Relations, located in Loma Linda, California.