Muslim Friendly Worship?

The delightfully candid cowardly amoral anti-hero Harry Flashman in the series of novels by George MacDonald Fraser was so despicable, one could not imagine anything being shocking to him. There is a line Flashman would utter once in a great while when he witnessed something so debased that even he had to raise an eyebrow:

"For an instant even I was appalled - but only for an instant."

Caught between the pincers of the world and the church, I find myself so jaded these days as to rarely find the energy to even shrug my shoulders at what I see going on around me. But, in the case of the following published paper by the chairman of the Missions Department of Concordia University, Portland, the Rev. Dr. Herb Hoefer, who is, of course, an ordained minister of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, I have nothing else to do than to quote Sir Harry Flashman.

Now, mind you, the procedures for pressing charges against a fellow member of the Missouri Synod are so convoluted that very few people other than law professors from Boston can understand them, and they are so laden with land-mines that rumor has it that Angelina Jolie is considering bringing the issue before the United Nations. Therefore, my expression of "shock and appall" (even if only for an instant) must not be construed as some kind of charge of theological error. Of course, we don't err in the Missouri Synod. Our president assures us that we are united as never before. And as David Strand says: we're all confessional Lutherans. But of course.

But I'm still appalled.

The paper was published on the Concordia - Portland website here, but it doesn't seem to be there now. (I've attached the paper unedited at the end of my remarks). Whether the outrage among bloggers has anything to do with its disappearance is yet to be seen. Perhaps the paper is simply so popular that Concordia is having technical difficulties with their server (best construction, and all that, eh wot?).

Here are a few lines from this paper that make me "appalled" - if only for an instant:

1) "If we want Muslims to feel comfortable in our Christian worship services..."

First, the Christian faith itself is offensive to Muslim sensibilities. If they want to visit our churches, they should do what we should do when visiting their mosques - be polite. Are Muslims changing their services to make Christians feel more welcome? Heck, it would be nice if Christians were allowed to build even a single church in Saudi Arabia. And double-heck, how about not cutting off our heads. That would be a start. I wonder if Dr. Hoefer addressed the issue of beheading Christians with his Saudi visitors who were there to monitor how we protect freedom of religion here.

2) "They discussed that they could have worshipped with the same words that they heard, for it so happened that the songs they heard only referred to God and not to Jesus."

I would be horrified if worship at my congregation didn't mention Jesus and the hymns could comfortably be sung by people who deny the most basic tenets of the Christian faith. Think of the martyrs! How embarrassing for Concordia - Portland.

3) "This experience caused me to reflect on the Muslim misconception about Christian worship. They think we worship a human being."

If the Muslims believe we worship a human being, they are correct. Our creeds (not to mention the Scriptures) confess this quite openly. The Incarnation is the touchstone of the Christian faith. Those who deny the Incarnation are described in 1 John 4:2-3.

4) Changing the Nicene Creed to say: "I believe in one God, all-knowing, all-loving, and all-saving, The Father almighty…."

All-saving? Who cares how the Koran speaks of the Muslim god? Are we obliged, as Christians, to rewrite our creeds to accommodate Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, Scientology, and Mormonism? The historic creeds were formulated to confess "against" heresies, not make heretics and unbelievers feel more comfortable in our presence.

5) "A fourth area in which we might reconsider our practices of public worship is in the use of lessons from the Epistles of the New Testament."

Why would God speak to us in His holy Word if He wanted us to suppress it?

6) "the term [Son of God] is a biblical metaphor that is used of individuals and even of Israel. It is not a biological description but a theological affirmation using a human metaphor."

I didn't realize that our Church has made it acceptable to teach that Jesus was not the biological Son of God, that His Sonship is only a metaphor. I guess it really isn't "my grandfather's church" after all.

7) Getting rid of wine, images, and music.

Can you have the Lord's Supper without wine? If we abolish images, what are we saying about the Incarnation of our Blessed Most Holy Divine Lord Jesus Christ? And if we discourage music to conform to Muslim sensitivities, how do we "make a joyful noise unto the Lord"?

I really want to know why it seems that so many of our "missional" executives and professors want to pit sound doctrine over and against the Lord's mandate to preach the good news. If we must water down our confession and/or change our doctrine, is it even "mission" work we're doing? What example did the holy apostles and the holy martyrs set for us? Surely, we're not the first generation to come across Islam or other religions. And once again, why is nobody asking these people why they insist on cutting off Christians' heads in Saudi Arabia? Why can't our people in Saudi Arabia have a church, wear a cross, or openly read the Bible?

If we change our creeds, stop worshiping Jesus, tear the epistles out of our bibles, abolish Holy Communion, remove all art and music, and allow imams to make sure we are Koran-friendly will they finally stop chopping off our heads?

Is this what it means to be "missional" from a leading ordained doctor and professor in our Synod?

"For an instant even I was appalled - but only for an instant."

For tomorrow will be another instant, some other shocking news from our church and world. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

Tolle, lege!

Muslim-Friendly Christian Worship by Herb Hoefer Missions Chair, Concordia University, Portland, OR Sept. 12, 2007

***Posted on the Concordia University – Portland website and accesible here:

http://faculty.cu-portland.edu/herbhoefer/MuslimFriendly.html

Outline:
Worshipping Jesus
Affirming God’s Oneness
Revising the Creeds
Using Epistle Readings
Using “Son of God”
Using Wine, Images, Music

We know well how many misconceptions there are among Muslims about Christian teachings. In fact, many of them come from misconceptions in the Qur’an itself (e.g., the sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity, the nature of the Trinity, Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, Return). In order to address these misconceptions effectively, it is important that Christians’ public witness be clear and sensitive in these areas.

The most frequent public statement of the Christian faith comes in public worship. I suggest below several areas in which Christians might discuss to adjust their worship practices to ensure a clear witness in Muslim contexts. If we want Muslims to feel comfortable in our Christian worship services – whether in Muslim countries or in Muslim contexts elsewhere, what issues do we need to consider?

Worshipping Jesus

One area came to my awareness during a visit to our Concordia University, Portland, Oregon, USA, campus by a group of Muslim academics in Oct. 2004. Our university is on the regular itinerary of a State Department-sponsored program to take Muslim educators around to visit a variety of college campuses. We are on the itinerary because Muslims often wonder how a conservative Christian university can responsibly teach about other religions in a respectful and positive manner. Our discussions were scheduled at the conclusion of our chapel, and the venue was in the fellowship hall of the church where daily chapel is held.

The visitors arrived while the worship was going on and were invited to sit and observe. The itinerary leader was a bit apologetic that this Christian worship was presented to them. However, the Muslim academics (from Saudi Arabia) expressed their delight and surprise at what they heard. They discussed that they could have worshipped with the same words that they heard, for it so happened that the songs they heard only referred to God and not to Jesus.

This experience caused me to reflect on the Muslim misconception about Christian worship. They think we worship a human being. They understand that all through history mankind has had the tendency to turn the prophet of God into a divine being after his death. Thereby, people commit the unforgivable sin of worshipping someone other than God Himself.

Subsequently, I’ve reflected and researched our Scriptures on this topic. I’ve asked the question, “Is it proper to worship Jesus?” We understand that the Second Person of the Trinity became a man named Jesus. However, is it still Jesus now Who is on the right hand of the Father? As I’ve searched the New Testament, I find the instance of Paul’s vision on the Damascus Road where the Second Person identifies Himself “I am Jesus Whom you are persecuting.” (Acts 9:5). Prayers and worship are addressed to the Lord (and to the Lamb in Revelation). We are called to pray in Jesus’ Name, but are we called to use that name as our object of worship and prayer?

Even if prayers and worship might justifiably be addressed to the name of Jesus, I would urge that such a practice is unhelpful as Christian witness in a Muslim context. We have strong biblical authority for using the most common term “Lord” when addressing the Resurrected One. That term would not feed Muslim misconceptions, as the term :Jesus” does.

Affirming God’s Oneness

A second area in which there are serious misconceptions is the Muslim understanding that Christians are polytheists. They think we violate the oneness of God by worshipping three deities. During that same visit, for example, the academics expressed shock that Christians believe that God is One. I tried to explain that there is a great Mystery in the oneness of God, for we understand that oneness to be expressed as three Persons.

How can we address this common misconception in our public worship? I propose that we reconsider how our classical Creeds are expressed. This matter was brought to my attention at a conference of missionaries that my Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Board for Missions held in July 2005. One of the participants, Rev. Carlton Riemer, urged that the conference petition our church body’s worship commission, as they were in the process of producing a new hymnal. Rev. Riemer’s proposal was that the grammatical phrasing of the Creeds make the oneness of God clear. The conference affirmed his proposal and petitioned (unsuccsssfully) that the Creeds begin with grammatical phrasing that makes clear our belief in the oneness of God.

The usual way the Creeds are written out joins the belief in God with the First Person:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ…. (Apostles Creed)

I believe in one God, the Father almighty…. (Nicene Creed)

The suggestion was that the witness to our affirmation of the oneness of God would be much clearer in our public worship if the Creeds were written out in this manner:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty…. (Apostles Creed)

I believe in one God,
The Father almighty…. (Nicene Creed)

Especially in public worship in Muslim contexts, this clear grammatical presentation of the witness of the Creeds might be considered.

Revising the Creeds

The ancient Creeds were written to address the heresies of their day. Might we revise the Creeds in Muslim contexts to address their misconceptions? Picking up on the above discussion about Muslims’ typical misconception that we violate the oneness of God, might we add more emphasis to that part of the Creeds? Might we bring in biblical adjectives on the nature of God, expressed in a manner similar to the way Muslims do in their recitations? Our Creedal statement in public worship, then, might add something like this:

I believe in one God, all-knowing, all-loving, and all-saving,
The Father almighty….

With the Qur’anic rejection of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, it is very helpful in our public witness that the Second Article of the Creed the references Pontius Pilate (“crucified under Pontius Pilate”). It grounds these crucial events of the faith in verifiable history. This historical grounding makes the testimony and the basis of our witness clear and open to scrutiny.

However, in the Third Article, I feel we have a problem. The reference to the “Christian…Church” can cause misunderstandings, as can the term “catholic”. Missionaries and Christians in the Muslim world are very aware that these two terms are negatively loaded. The Christian communities in those lands are typically isolated and despised, and the Church is associated in Muslim experience with all the negative connotations of the Crusades, Colonialism, and Western military/political aggressiveness and decadent morality. Rather than raise up all those negative connotations, might this statement in the Creeds be revised?

The point of this statement in the Creeds is that present worshippers are part of the long history of God’s People all over the world. Might we clearly express this conviction without feeding Muslim misconceptions by stating our belief something like this:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The holy, universal fellowship of believers… (Apostles Creed)

And I believe in one holy, universal fellowship and apostolic witness (Nicene Creed)

In addtion, such a clear affirmation would relate meaningfully to the Muslim concept of “umma.” It would testify clearly that Christians also have an “umma,” a trans-national fellowship of faith and support.

Using Epistle Readings

A fourth area in which we might reconsider our practices of public worship is in the use of lessons from the Epistles of the New Testament. Muslims have great respect for Jesus and accept Him as the Christ, the Messiah. They believe that He taught Islam, but His teachings were corrupted and perverted by subsequent followers. Therefore, the gospels have much greater authority for Muslims than the Epistles.

One will often hear knowledgeable Muslims particularly degrade St. Paul. They deride Christianity as “Paulianity.” They attribute the subsequent loss of Jesus’ Islamic teaching to the influence of Paul.

Of course, we affirm the inspiration of the whole Bible, including the letters of Paul. However, in a Muslim context, it may not be judicious to present them as our authority. Indeed, even St. Paul, would understand his writings only to be a witness to Jesus Christ, and that should continue to be the clear focus of our public worship.

Therefore, might we forego the reading of lessons from the Epistles and focus wholly on the gospels? Might we especially make the words and actions of Jesus the basis for our public preaching? Muslims would be much more attentive and receptive.

Using “Son of God”

Another instance of serious misunderstanding among Muslims is in referring to Jesus as “the Son of God.” Muslims understand from the Qur’an that we think Jesus was the product of a physical relationship between God and Mary, and frequently God states to Muhammad that God does not have a son. Of course, that is not the Christian understanding of the term. However, when we use the term, this is what Muslims think we mean, for it is what the Qur’an says we mean.

Whenever we use the term “Son of God,” Muslims immediately think blasphemy. We need to explain to Muslims that the term is a biblical metaphor that is used of individuals and even of Israel. It is not a biological description but a theological affirmation using a human metaphor.
The Second Person of the Trinity is a “chip off the old block.” He participates in the same nature as the Father, just as a son does.

We need to make that explanation, but public worship typically is not the proper venue for that discussion. It would be best simply to avoid the term in our preaching and guide our people also to avoid it in their witnessing.

Using Wine, Images, Music

Finally, there are some issues that can be very sensitive to discuss in our Christian circles. These have to do with theological and traditional matters that are very close to the heritage of some denominations. One will be a big issue for one denomination, while another one will be a matter of identity with another denomination.

For example, the use of wine in our celebration of the Lord’s Supper is very important in liturgical denominations, but it is very problematic for Muslims. Christians typically have a bad reputation for drinking alcohol, which is forbidden in Islam. Besides foregoing the consumption of alcohol in our personal lives, might we also forego it in our public worship? Many Protestant denominations already prefer the use of grape juice for their own historical reasons. It would be prudent for liturgical churches in Muslim contexts to do the same.

Another sensitive issue is the use of images and statues in our worship sanctuaries. In liturgical
denominations, crucifixes and statues of saints and pictures or stained glass windows of biblical events and figures are often integral to their worship atmosphere. However, once again, the presence of such images can be very upsetting to Muslim visitors.

When I was with a group of Muslims in Nagpur, India, in 2007, one of the Muslim leaders brought up the “idolatry” practiced by Christians. She assumed that Christians were worshipping the images that she saw in churches, just as Hindus do. Fortunately, the group leader had enough insight to explain that these statues have a different function for Christians than they do for Hindus in their temples. We Christians understand that these images are just reminders and pointers of spiritual realities and historic examples, but most Muslims will process these images in terms of the way the Qur’an speaks of them.

The third issue is one more problematic for non-liturgical denominations: the use of enthusiastic music in worship. Once when I was conducting a series of Sunday morning classes at a church here in Portland, I had a Muslim come for one of the sessions. He brought along his two sons for the event. As they entered the church for the class, a worship service had started up in the sanctuary with a band, clapping, and waving hands in the air. The two boys were curious about what was going on and walked to the sanctuary door to observe. Their father said, “Please go and see what they are doing. They call that worship!”

Muslim worship is prescribed in detail and is very solemn, reserved, and dignified. They find our
enthusiastic, seemingly chaotic worship quite confusing and strange. If we want Muslims to feel comfortable in our worship contexts, should we have music at all? If so, what kind of music should it be?

In all of these matters, the process of discussing the reasons for the changes would become a great opportunity for educating and training our Christians as well as they try to witness effectively to their Muslim neighbors.

by Herb Hoefer
Missions Chair, Concordia University, Portland, OR
Sept. 12, 2007