On Easter Sunday, the Pope baptized Magdi Allam, who before was Italy’s most famous Muslim, and now Italy’s most famous Muslim convert to Christianity. Obviously, this was a highly symbolic act, as well as, perhaps, spiritual.
There’s a very interesting discussion going on between my blogging friend Abu Douad and Sherry over at International Disciples.
Abu Douad’s main argument is as follows:
1) It was wise because this man has been thinking about converting for years. This is not a sudden decision or something that has not had forethought. He said it himself if you read the articles. This is important.
2) It is right because the man lives in Rome. Benedict is the bishop of Rome and thus the senior or chief pastor of that city–even Protestants and evangelicals must agree with this. It is therefore good and right for him to baptize new Christians.
3) Mr. Allam is already a public figure. He is a journalist and knows how to deal with publicity and questions about his motives and positions. This is very important because it means that he is in an excellent position to be an apologist/evangelist for his new faith. Many MBB’s are very sincere and godly, but do not know how to adequately explain their motives and reasons–this man does and has.
4) It is good because it is a claim of solidarity with MBB’s by the pope. By taking this action Benedict has decidedly cast his lot–within the context of further dialogue with Muslims–with the converts.
5) It is good and right because it will give hope to Christians throughout MENA.
For these reasons, and others, I think that BXVI’s act of baptizing brother Allam on Easter in St. Peter’s was a good and right thing to do–and more than that, prudent and wise.
I have deep respect for Abu Douad, for his work and his mind. But on this issue I’m hesitant with his position.
I am with Sherry, the other discussant on this issue:
“But that could have been done lovingly and well a thousand different ways – none of which required that his face and story blanket the globe within hours of his reception. Being baptized did not require that he become the poster-boy for Muslims considering Christianity and there were a number of obvious reasons why he isn’t a great candidate for poster boydom and may actually be counter-productive.
Apart from the geo-religious-political implications, all this publicity could actually hamper his spiritual growth and that of his family. Being a trophy convert is often not a good thing for one’s actual process of conversion.
Here’s the deal. No one, obscure or famous, gets baptized by the Pope during the Easter Vigil accidentally. And I didn’t notice Vatican spokesman offering comments and clarifications about the other 6 adults baptized in the same liturgy. Someone (and I don’t know who it was) decided to use a globally streamed event watched by hundreds of millions to transform an *individual act of conscience* into a *global phenomena*. It is the wisdom of that decision *alone* that I question.”
My chief concern here – one which hasn’t yet been sufficiently addressed on Abu Douad and Sherry’s blog — is the overall effect on Muslim – Christian relations. I believe that this baptism unduly damages that relationship. There has been significant, unprecedented advance in Catholic-Muslim relations – much of it spearheaded by the Vatican itself — in the last year (i.e., A Common Word, the recent delegation to the Vatican, the Nov. 2008 conference,, the New Jersey statement, etc.).
Why then, now, would the Pope revive antagonism in this way? Why such effort to revive relations after a strained several years (i.e., the Pope’s Regensburg comments and the subsequent debacle) if only to flush those efforts away with this public provocation.
Here are the options, as I see them, for why the Pope made this decision to baptize Allam like he did:
1. Bad advisors. Somebody gave him bad advice that this would somehow actually turn out for the advance of the Church in the Muslim world. I’m sorry, I just can’t see that happening. Could this even be related to the rumor of a church in Saudi Arabia? In any case, this sure seems to confirm the notion recently put forward by Osama bin Laden himself that the Pope is on a modern day Crusade against Islam.
2. Ignorance. Somebody wasn’t thinking. What, in sum, has this accomplished for the Kingdom and/or for followers of the King in the MENA and elsewhere? Someone didn’t realize the potentially harmful effects this would have on the Church and its relationship with the Muslim world.
3. A desire to “score points”: It is hard to disagree with Aref Ali Nayed, a key signee of A Common Word, who said the Vatican had turned the baptism of Allam into “a triumphalist tool for scoring points.”
4 responses so far ↓
abu daoud // March 25, 2008 at 12:43 am |
Marhaba!
I guess it comes down to what one sees as the main priority for the Kingdom of God. The NT clearly teaches that the City of God and the earthly city will often times clash. So I think that this use of the sacrament to encourage other MBB’s to “come out of the closet” or for Muslims to consider conversion is good and wise.
The pope is clearly in favor of ongoing discussions with Muslim leaders, and that is in the works right now. But it is wrong to compromise our fundamental beliefs regarding the Gospel and rebirth (which is what baptism signifies) in order to not anger Muslims.
Where does it stop brother? Shall we take the crosses down from our churches? Shall we stop using church bells because it is against the shari’a? Shall we all start writing ‘peace be upon him’ after we write the name ‘Muhammad’?
The Church was founded by Jesus Christ to be the sacrament of the Kingdom of God and to spread the Gospel. Sooner or later we have to decide that strife and opposition and even persecution are not, in themselves, bad things. Because we live in a broken world (and Islam is a profoundly broken civilization) and because we witness to the Gospel which denies all the prerogatives and desires of this world, opposition must come. Jesus knew it and didn’t shy away from it. Paul and Peter and John knew it. Raymund Lull knew and was not afraid.
Peace, in the end, is rightly ordered justice. It is not the lack of strife–that is a secular and heretical lie.
Sherry Weddell // March 25, 2008 at 8:44 am |
AD:
As you and I both know, some of the most effective witnesses *in the Muslim world* have done exactly that: they don’t have crosses on their meeting places, and they don’t use bells, and women do cover their heads and men and women sit separately and they may use a Koran stand for their Bible, etc. They have adopted local customs that are not essential to the faith in order to more effectively be able to share the Gospel with others.
It is an old and long debate in our circles, as you know – what is simply appropriate adaptation and what is compromise, what is just western culture and what is essential to the faith and there is a legitimately wide spectrum of opinion on the subject.
Abu Daoud, for instance, you use a common Arabic pseudonym and never reveal your Christian name or your location on your blog and have a special high security e-mail address. All very appropriate precautions but intended to give you the anonymity you need to be effective in your mission. You clearly feel that in-your-face candor is not appropriate or necessary at all times (and I would heartily agree with you) so that you might be able to be present as a witness.
But some of my readers, who are not familiar with the realities involved, might regard this as “appeasement”, knuckling under to unjust laws and customs instead of challenging them directly and boldly Of course, if you do, you don’t have access, so there you are.
This is the model of St. Paul declaring that he was a Jew to Jews and a Greek to the Greeks, all things to all men that by any means he might reach some.
This is the model of Francis Xavier, saint and the patron of Catholic missions, leaving behind his very simple garb which was so appropriate when working among poor fishing peoples in south India and dressing in the robes of a Shinto scholar in Japan so that he might win a hearing. He did and left behind him the first Christian communities in Japan.
If the question we are asking is “What has been most effective in actually winning significant numbers of Muslims to Christ?”, the evidence is in.
In 800 years of attempts at witness, aggressively, in-your-face challenge has consistently been the *least* effective. The alternatives are not less risky. They are often *more* risky to those who dare to take them but more importantly, they have proven to be much more fruitful.
Even in this country where religious freedom reigns, we know that ordinary friendship and kindness is best way when it comes to our family members and friends whom we hope to win back to the practice of the faith or to the faith in the first place. Because it is a human way,
We start with friendship and build trust and earn the right to speak about deeper things We don’t begin the relationships by beating them over the head with a catechism.
But is “what will make us most effective in our attempts to bring Christ to others?” the question that most of us around St. Blog’s are really asking? I don’t think so,
I think that in this discussion, we have confused two issues: the western concerns about large scale Muslim immigration into Europe, and what to do when a significant part of your population no longer shares your most basic assumptions about law and freedom – the whole Eurabia debate – and the very different situation of those who are, this very moment, taking enormous risks to be present as loving Christian witnesses in the Muslim world.
Because of the globally public nature of Allam’s baptism and the power of the internet, these two very different worlds have become one. It is as though Francis Xavier had to judge how best to reaching out to illiterate Indian fishermen *and* highly educated Japanese religious scholars in a single gesture. As challenging as his task was, at least he didn’t face that uniquely 21st century dilemma.
Because this is all about gesture, one of the most highly public gestures possible.
NOT AT ALL about whether or not Allam should have been received and baptized – but how best to do so. The most spectacular way that is humanely possible or the way that is the norm for all other converts of any background?
Two days ago, Allam was hardly a household word outside of Italy. Hardly anyone around St. Blog’s knew of him. Certainly we didn’t talk about him. Today, we are all talking about him.
Someone – probably a group of someones – decided to go out of their way to make *Magdi Allam* with all his history and notoriety (not just anyone and *not just any Muslim becoming a Christian*) a household word and posterboy for MBB’s.
And that, and that alone, *not his baptism and conversion*, is the issue. It is the consequences of that choice, not the consequences of his choice to become a Christian, that are at issue here.
Arrabumaakum!
Sherry Weddell // March 25, 2008 at 8:49 am |
Another factor in this debate that no one has mentioned so far is the huge charism in mission experience since the 60’s between Catholics and evangelical Protestants.
Catholic missionaries, for the most past, jettisoned the proclamation of Christ as the primary focus of mission 40 years while evangelicals revved their engines.
So the two categories that Catholics tend to think of as Catholic are 1) the (understandably) extremely cautious, we-won’t-bother-you-by-sharing-Christ-if-you’ll-just-leave-us-alone stance of historic Christian minorities in the ME and parts of Asia and
2) the older Christendom model where everyone is assumed to be Catholic and state and cultural norms and church all reinforce one another and the Catholicism fills the public square.
The fearful, quiet minority or the big battalion. Egypt and Italy, if you will. (Allam’s life bridges both)
But in my experience, Catholics are hardly ever familiar with the vastly different evangelical experience of the past 40 years in the Muslim world – where a huge number of creative, pro-active, alternatives to categories 1 & 2 above have been tried. Many have proven fruitless but some have born enormous fruit and given rise to the first Muslim background Christian communities in history.
AD, your own ministry would fall into this second category I think?
The most common reaction I get from Catholics when I mention these alternatives is that they aren’t legitimate, are somehow deceptive and immoral and imperialistic (which is how these same folks often regard evangelization in this country as well) and are simply unrealistic. Because no *normal* Christian (they must be emotionally and religious unstable freaks) could or would ever do anything like this – could or would do what you are doing, AD.
The whole debate around St. Blog’s seems to presume that door number one and door number two are the only two truly Catholic alternatives. And obviously, operating from those assumptions, the recovery of Christendom is the more attractive option.
The reality of tens of thousands of MBB’s in the Muslim world is unknown to Catholics or at best, an abstraction, while the situation of a highly westernized Muslim man wanting to become a Catholic in Italy is immediately understandable.
After all, he is choosing Christ and his Church, light and truth, and all that it represents in terms of culture and civilization over a faith and culture that seems diametrically opposed to our way of life and members of whom actively threaten us.
His public reception is a blow for our side in the future-of-the-west wars and it feels good.
Meanwhile, the cost to MBB’s and the historic Christians of the Muslim world is not obvious – is hidden from us because we hardly know they exist. Nor is the very real possibility that the promotion of a man with his history as the model of conversion may turn off many seeking Muslims who were already on the journey. Because very few Catholics believe that Muslims can and do become Christian as an act of faith. They think the concept is as new to everyone as it is to them.
The irony is that Allam’s public conversion will illuminate western Christians who didn’t realize this was possible and will probably hurt the efforts of those who are already in the thick of it
That’s why I’m raising the issue. Those of us who do know have to keep pointing out that there is more at stake here than the real and important debates about the Christian identity and future of Europe.
There is also the identity and future of the rest of the world.
abu daoud // March 26, 2008 at 6:35 am |
Shaw:
I think that this baptism goes WITH the Muslim-Christian dialogue. The pope is saying, quite rightly, I will dialogue with you in a respectful and serious way, but I also want to make it clear that we will not compromise our foundational beliefs or commitment to religious freedom and tolerance.
What good does it do? I answered that and answer it agian here. I think this public act does a lot of good, for Christians in MENA, secret MBB’s in Europe, and Catholics world over. It will also challenge some Muslims to consider the Gospel.
Here is my rather lengthy response to Sherry’s questions too, for those interested in that part of the debate:
Originally posted at Islam and Christianity
***
SW: As you and I both know, some of the most effective witnesses *in the Muslim world* [...] don’t have crosses on their meeting places, and they don’t use bells, and women do cover their heads and men and women sit separately and they may use a Koran stand for their Bible, etc. They have adopted local customs that are not essential to the faith in order to more effectively be able to share the Gospel with others.
AD: Yes, but Italy is not the Muslim world. At least not yet.
SW: Abu Daoud, for instance, you use a common Arabic pseudonym and never reveal your Christian name or your location on your blog and have a special high security e-mail address. All very appropriate precautions but intended to give you the anonymity you need to be effective in your mission. You clearly feel that in-your-face candor is not appropriate or effective at all times (and I would heartily agree with you) so that you might be able to be present as a witness.
AD: This is very true and I want to elaborate on this point. We find in the Bible and church history two approaches to witness. One is antagonistic (think “your father is the devil,” in Jn 8 or the sermon of St Stephen) and at other times it is irenic and friendly (think woman caught in adultery or Areopagus). Both are valid, and Raymund Lull (the first missionary to the Muslims) himself said so explicitly. If some classify this baptism of Mr. Allam as antagonistic that DOES NOT mean that it was not wise or good or prudent. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that being nice is a virtue. It is not.
SW: But some of my readers, who are not familiar with the realities involved, might regard this as “appeasement”, knuckling under to unjust laws and customs instead of challenging them directly and boldly. Of course, if you do, you don’t have access, so there you are.
AD: According to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in each individual moment I leave the question open. Sometimes I am very antagonistic and it has born surprising fruit. Sometimes I am very irenic and that has born fruit as well. Praise be to God. But it is simply wrong to say that one or the other is always right. (But dealing with governments is a whole different matter.)
SW: This is the model of St. Paul declaring that he was a Jew to Jews and a Greek to the Greeks, all things to all men that by any means he might reach some.
AD: And Paul was sometimes harsh and antagonistic. Which is ok. Antagonistic, sharp evangelism can be done in a manner sensitive to culture. So this verse does not rule out either approach to evangelism.
SW: If the question we are asking is “What has been most effective in actually winning significant numbers of Muslims to Christ?”, the evidence is in. In 800 years of attempts at witness, aggressively, in-your-face challenge has consistently been the *least* effective. The alternatives are not less risky. They are often *more* risky to those who dare to take them but more importantly, they have proven to be much more fruitful. Even in this country where religious freedom reigns, we know that ordinary friendship and kindness is best way when it comes to our family members and friends whom we hope to win back to the practice of the faith or to the faith in the first place. Because it is a human way: we start with friendship and build trust and earn the right to speak about deeper things We don’t begin the relationships by beating them over the head with a catechism.
AD: I want to disagree with this. For example, books like “The Scale of Truth” (Mizaam al haq) which in a straight-forward way reject elements at the heart of Islam, and are thus quite confrontational, have had a great deal of influence and have led to many conversions. Or let us examine the ministry of Abouna Zacarias Boutros, a Coptic priest, who classifies his style as “sharp, short, and shocking.” He has spent time in jail. He has baptized hundreds of Muslim converts. He no longer lives in his home country of Egypt. But his satellite ministry has had a profound effect throughout the region. He speaks kindly and with love, but his confrontational style has caught the attention of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people who otherwise would not have paid any attention. One could say the same about what BXVI and Allam have done.
SW: But is “what will make us most effective in our attempts to bring Christ to others?” the question that most of us around St. Blog’s are really asking? I don’t think so.
AD: I’m not on St. Blog’s, alas. That is the question I’m discussing though.
SW: I think that in this discussion, we have confused two issues: the western concerns about large scale Muslim immigration into Europe, and what to do when a significant part of your population no longer shares your most basic assumptions about law and freedom – the whole Eurabia debate – and the very different situation of those who are, this very moment, taking enormous risks to be present as loving Christian witnesses in the Muslim world.
AD: This may well be true of some readers. I can only speak for myself: I want to see Muslims turning to Christ everywhere, both here in MENA and there in the West.
SW: Abu Daoud: Another factor in this debate that no one has mentioned so far is the huge charism in mission experience since the 60’s between Catholics and evangelical Protestants. Catholic missionaries, for the most past, jettisoned the proclamation of Christ as the primary focus of mission 40 years while evangelicals revved their engines.
AD: And they (The Catholics) were castigated for this by JPII in his encyclical, missio redemptoris, which is about the permanent validity of the church’s evangelistic mission to the nations. Wherein he also says that religious dialogue is nice, but it’s not the same as mission. The exact position I hold to.
SW: So the two categories that Catholics tend to think of as Catholic are 1) the (understandably) extremely cautious, we-won’t-bother-you-by-sharing-Christ-if-you’ll-just-leave-us-alone stance of historic Christian minorities in the ME and parts of Asia and 2) the older Christendom model where everyone is assumed to be Catholic and state and cultural norms and church all reinforce one another and the Catholicism fills the public square. The fearful, quiet minority or the big battalion. Egypt and Italy, if you will. (Allam’s life bridges both)
But in my experience, Catholics are hardly ever familiar with [option 3] the vastly different evangelical experience of the past 40 years in the Muslim world – where a huge number of creative, pro-active, alternatives to categories 1 & 2 above have been tried. Many have proven fruitless but some have born enormous fruit and given rise to the first Muslim background Christian communities in history. AD, your own ministry would fall into [option 3] I think?
AD: I don’t come from a religious home and I was not raised in any church at all. I knew nothing at all about Christianity up til I was about 11 or 12, and that exposure was in Latin America, not in the West, so my experience of the Gospel, culture, and church are quite different than what other people may have known. So yes, unlike 1) I do want to preach the Gospel, unlike 2) I am not operating out of a Christendom paradigm.
SW: The most common reaction I get from Catholics when I mention these alternatives is that they aren’t legitimate, are somehow deceptive and immoral and imperialistic (which is how these same folks often regard evangelization in this country as well) and are simply unrealistic. Because no *normal* Christian (they must be emotionally and religious unstable freaks) could or would ever do anything like this – could or would do what you are doing, AD.
AD: I get that in mainline Protestant churches too. Most people seem to be in awe of my faith, which was very strange to me at first, because I don’t consider myself to be more faithful or devout than your average Christian in the pew in the UK or the USA. But they should learn more church history. You share the Good News because it’s good news.
SW: The whole debate around St. Blog’s seems to presume that door number one and door number two are the only two truly Catholic alternatives. And obviously, operating from those assumptions, the recovery of Christendom is the more attractive option. The reality of tens of thousands of MBB’s in the Muslim world is unknown to Catholics or at best, an abstraction, while the situation of a highly westernized Muslim man wanting to become a Catholic in Italy is immediately understandable. [...] His public reception is a blow for our side in the future-of-the-west wars and it feels good.
AD: That may the reason that some people are happy about it. I’m glad because I think it will encourage Christians in MENA and bring more secret MBB’s out of the woodwork in the West as well as embolden heretofore fearful clergy. Just because some people rejoice for the wrong reason doesn’t mean that there’s not a right reason for rejoicing.
SW: Meanwhile, the cost to MBB’s and the historic Christians of the Muslim world is not obvious – is hidden from us because we hardly know they exist. Nor is the very real possibility that the promotion of a man with his history as the model of conversion may turn off many seeking Muslims who were already on the journey. Because very few Catholics believe that Muslims can and do become Christian as an act of faith. They think the concept is as new to everyone as it is to them.
AD: And this bold act will help to remedy this bad situation. Catholics now know that some Muslims are attracted to the faith, praise God.
SW: The irony is that Allam’s public conversion will illuminate western Christians who didn’t realize this was possible and will probably hurt the efforts of those who are already in the thick of it. That’s why I’m raising the issue. Those of us who do know have to keep pointing out that there is more at stake here than the real and important debates about the Christian identity and future of Europe. There is also the identity and future of the rest of the world.
AD: Sorry for the bad news but in terms of human rights and freedom of religion the countries of MENA have been going downhill for the last four decades or so (1967 if you want a date). Things were already getting worse here, the Christians have been leaving in droves for decades, Islam is being reformed and is this returning to its more coercive and militant roots. All this was happening before Easter and will not stop any time soon, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, this baptism has the capacity to make real positive changes for MBB’s and the churches in the West, especially Europe.