Post 100—Conversion in Islam

Though Muslims, as I explained in Post 99, use the term “reversion” for anyone converting to Islam, call it what they may, others, including myself, consider it “conversion” plain and simple. So, our topic for today is the place of conversion in these two religions, which is not quite the same as defining the term, for they do not quite mean the same thing in the two religions.

Conversion is, of course, usually the result of a mission or evangelistic outreach by a Muslim or Christian, whether individual or organization, to another individual or community, usually with the explicit goal to bring someone or a community to conversion.  I say “usually.” It does not always come about that way. For example, many are the Muslims throughout the world who dream of a person dressed in a white robe who invites them to come to Him, who is often then identified as Jesus. Thousands of Muslims the world over have such dreams and they usually end up in accepting His invitation. There are entire books written about this kind of conversion invitation. These are not the result of any human outreach or other effort and certainly not of any “obsession” that WCC talked about in Post 98.

 There are indeed forms or styles of mission outreach to convert that are objectionable to people who do not adhere to the religion practicing it but that are usually perfectly acceptable to the adherents themselves. Muslims often quote the Qur’an that says there is to be no compulsion in religion, but they employ all kinds of compulsion and force. You ought to read the Christian volumes of my Studies in Christian-Muslim Relations to see how frequently Muslims use force to “revert” people to Islam according to Christian complaints (www.SocialTheology.com/islamica, volumes 3, 5 and 7).                                                 

Allow me one example from Nigeria. A Nigerian pastor friend of mine borrowed money from the government to establish a chicken farm. He was not able to keep up with the payment schedule and ran the risk of losing his business along with his investment. Christians did not offer to help him out with loans. When the Muslim community heard about this, they offered to pay his entire debt provided he become Muslim. Being desperate, my friend accepted and became Muslim. This has been years ago and he has not changed his mind ever since. The moment he does change his mind and returns to Christ, the Muslim community will demand repayment and, failing to come through, he will be hauled to court. (For the full story see our memoirs Every Square Inch, vol. 2, pp. 59-62 on our website < www.SocialTheology.com/boeriana >).  If that is not force, I don’t know what you call it. And if that is not a contradiction to that earlier statement about no force in religion, I don’t know what that is either.

However, you must be careful about accusing a religion not your own of contradiction, for I find that when non-Christians accuse us of contradictions, it is usually due to ignorance or, using more gentle language, misunderstanding. It is easy for us to fall into the same trap with respect to Islam. The above story is typical, not an exception. Muslims use both the stick and the carrot methods to induce “reversions” in all kinds of ways. As I said above, read my series and you’ll find a dizzying range of variations of force and “tricks” on their part. Another clever way is to surround a Christian business with such stiff competition that the owner either becomes a Muslim or closes his business—all perfectly legal!  And on and on and on…. Muslim authorities all over the world are known to create legal demands and restrictions on the Christian community with respect to registration of churches and building permits.  We have arrived at the border here between persecution and a campaign to “revert.” It’s a very thin line and it all smells of compulsion, even if called “reversion.” Word juggling does not change all of reality!

But do understand the Muslim position. If you are convinced that being a Muslim is the greatest gift you can wish for a person, then such tactics may seem minor in comparison to the magnificent gift they turn into. After all, adults punish wayward children in love for their own good.  An adult non-Muslim may not be a child, but she is in a state of jahiliya, an Arabized Hausa word for “ignorance.” She doesn’t really know what she is doing. A little push in the right direction seems a small price to pay for the end result that can only be described as magnificent. My experience in Nigeria as I record it in my series is that Muslims just don’t comprehend why not everyone wants to become a Muslim. What greater good can you possibly imagine for yourself?

So, they really are obsessed by wanting to con—or revert everyone, but that’s a good obsession and not a negative you would ever think about giving up on.  However, when someone is obsessed about trying to convert his neighbor or community to another religion, say Christianity, well, yes, such an obsession is unhealthy and must be let go. And so Muslims signed that declaration in all seriousness and good faith. To adherents of other religions this may seem like duplicity and hypocrisy; to a Muslim it is the only way to go. You have to think yourself into the other’s skin in order to understand correctly and not judge wrongly. 

In other words, to expect Muslims to give up on conversion is to ask them to give up on a core component of their religion.  That is not what the WCC conference that published the declaration expected of any religion.  The religions were not expected to surrender any part of their core; they were to remain true to themselves. Whether the declaration and the expectation can co-exist, is another question. 

Blog 60--Contradictions and Inconsistencies: The Stuff of Life

I’ve been gone for a week, camping with daughter Cynthia and her family and some other friends. The group was great for socialization and the river-side facility was great—and free for us!  But in the latter half of July, you can expect warm weather, not so cold that you shiver and have to put on layer upon layer, especially when there is a camp fire ban due to extreme drought. We broke up camp and returned disappointed to the coast at Kent, near Seattle. But there the heat was so intense that camping was just as uncomfortable. We broke up camp again and returned home in Vancouver, disappointed, not to say disgusted. All of which is to explain the extra long time between posts.  

Blog 59 is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. I know these terms are not exactly synonyms, but I will kind of use them as such in this blog. Notice how imprecise that last sentence is?  When I wrote this post, it was Monday morning and I didn’t feel like forcing too much precision on myself. So our topic for today is just right—for me and, I hope you can live with it. 

It happens quite frequently that my wife (Fran) and I catch each other in contradictions, the term now including inconsistencies as well. We usually acknowledge it, but the conversation often leans toward a negative attitude towards such things. It seems more virtuous to be consistent, even though as years have taken their toll, we are becoming increasingly tolerant of contradiction. Is that natural with age?  Or is it the effect of post-

modernism on us? That we’re veering away from the demands of strict logic?

At any rate, the previous blog was full of it. I agree and disagree with Pete McMartin; same for the VS editorial. And then I reject both of their approaches for not going to the heart of the matter. I was fully aware of it and was good for letting it all stand. Sloppy thinking could be another reason I could add to the above paragraph. Combining “sloppy thinking” with “reason” is surely an example of the very thing I am talking about.

I am a graduate of Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS) in Grand Rapids (MI, USA). It is a good seminary and I am proud of having graduated there (1965). I have given quite a detailed report on my three years there in our memoirs (Every Square Inch: A Missionary Memoir, vol. 1, chapter 12-- <www.Social Theology. com >. Once there,turn to the first entry on the Boeriana page.)

In terms of our subject for today, I wrote about how bored I would occasionally be in Systematic Theology (ST) classes. Systems are usually logically coherent entities. So, in these ST lectures the point was to fit the Bible and theology into neat logically consistent boxes. The result gave a static feeling. Everything stood still. Even God came out as a static being that is fully consistent with Himself, including even that most “illogical” construct of the Trinity. Sometimes I would get so tired of it, I would play hooky for a few days and spend my time reading other theologians. I especially liked the writings of professor Gerrit Berkouwer of the Free University of Amsterdam for the contrast between him and my CTS profs precisely because Berkhouwer did not construct such tight logical boxes; he was more open. 

Neither does God fit into our logical boxes. The profs did  acknowledge that when it came to issues of election/reprobation vs human responsibility. They had inherited that difficult conundrum from childhood and had grown up being comfortable with it. But somehow that mostly static view of God did not cut it for me.  Of course, I am talking the 1960s. I suspect that the atmosphere at CTS has changed like everything else in this world.

The emphasis at that time at least was on a God who tolerates only truth, truth being at least partially defined as logically consistent statements and intolerance for what we might call “gray” statements over against the plain black and white stuff.  I loved and still love the stories in the Bible that challenge that kind of static God in favour of a more fluid one. There is the story of the midwives who lied to Pharaoh in order to save the baby boys of the Israelites, but whom God blessed because of their courage (Exodus 1:15-22). Then there is the story of Samuel’s anointing David to be the next king. Samuel objected to God that Saul, the current king, would kill him for what amounted to a coup. Then God instructed Samuel to give a false reason for his coming to David’s town (I Samuel 16:1-3). God is described as repenting or regretting things He had done (Genesis 6:6-7; Exodus 32:14; Judges 2:18; I Samuel 15:11, etc.). At the same time, we also read in I Samuel 15:29 that God “does not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” So, a very fluid picture of God under certain circumstances, though still faithful and trustworthy with respect to His people. 

So, I do not apologize for the occasional contradiction in my own life, including those in Blog 59.

The French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) coined the famous Latin phrase “Cogito, ergo sum,” meaning, “I think; therefore I am.”  It expressed the idea current among philosophers at that time—and still for some ordinary folk even today—that the essence of a human being lay in his rationality, his mind. If you know something—and that means you are thinking, you have a mind-- well, then you must be a human being. Something like the touristy trend of thought, “It’s three p.m.; hence this must be Victoria.” Taking off from there and following a radically dangerous step into the almost forgotten country of Latin, I would like to suggest, “Contradicio; ergo sum,” hopefully meaning something like “I contradict; therefore I am.” It does not define my essence, but it does make me feel just a bit more comfortable. At least, it gives me a vague permission to contradict myself—of sorts.