Do we have to separate from other faiths over everything?
Do we have to separate from other faiths over everything?
Or is there common ground on which Muslims, Catholics, and biblical fundamentalists can work together?
I know that question sounds like heresy, but consider an article from the Washington Times on July 14 entitled Left’s Gender and Sexuality Agenda Sparks Pushback from Religious Minority Communities.
The article tells of events occurring in Montgomery County, Maryland, where a coalition of immigrants—Ethiopian Orthodox, Muslim, and South American Catholics—have joined together to fight Montgomery County Public Schools’ involuntary sex-ed program. Here are some of the things that they oppose.
Montgomery County Public Schools have been changing the sex-ed curriculum and adding books about homosexuality and gender identity to other parts of the curriculum. One required book is titled Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope. The central message of this book is that a girl can become a boy by identifying as a boy. The premise here is that each person has a gender, which is interior and known only to that person, and that this gender is undetermined by, and more important than, biological sex. . . .
The pre-K material for the current sex-ed curriculum comes from the Human Rights Campaign, a far-left gay and transgender group. Pre-K teachers read Pride Puppy! to the class. The “Search and Find Word List” in the back of the book includes “intersex,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” and “leather.”
These parents rightly believe that such a curriculum is a direct attack upon their faith and their culture. They have formed a non-profit called the Coalition of Virtue that was organized by Muslims but is designed to partner with other faith communities “with the intention of reviving the universally held virtues and morals of our country’s great faith traditions.”
In other words, they want people like us to partner with them. Can we?
Whether it would be wise or not is a question for another day. The question at hand is whether it would be biblically disobedient to partner on a political or social level with people of other faiths in facing our culture’s moral degradation. The biblical mandates for ecclesiastical separation must prove our response.
The gospel is at the heart of biblical separation. We cannot call someone a Christian brother who espouses a gospel different from what scripture portrays. However, in this case, we would not be calling people in these faith groups brothers in Christ. In fact, both we and they would acknowledge the significant theological differences that make worship and joint religious ministry impossible.
However, on limited terms, believers partner with unbelievers—even false teachers—all the time. We do it at work, in government, in the military, and as common citizens. Such secular partnerships are not only allowable but necessary as long as the message of the gospel is not confused and we do not profess eternal hope outside of the gospel to others. We could not exist in the world without such relationships (1 Corinthians 5:9-11). There is a place to find common ground with others who believe differently when our interests align.
But does moral and political reform matter?
The morality of a society matters to God—enough for God to destroy cities like Sodom and Gomorrah. God cares about the morals of culture and He judges cultures for their abandonment of morality and justice. He judged Assyria for its violence, Edom for its treachery, and Babylon for its harshness to Israel. So, there is a place to stand for morality and justice in the culture.
But we also must remain vigilant.
It is possible to have a moral revival in a culture without having a spiritual one. We must never be satisfied with the former or stop pursuing the latter. True spiritual revival and sound theology are inseparable.
It is the tragic reality that two soldiers, who love each other and would sacrifice themselves for each other, can die in the same moment and one enter eternal punishment while the other enters eternal blessing.
Yes, win the cultural battles, but above all things win the soul.
“We cannot call someone a Christian brother who espouses a gospel different from what scripture portrays. However, in this case, we would not be calling people in these faith groups brothers in Christ.”
Solid point. My first thought was “it depends on who ‘we’ is and what we mean by ‘common ground.'”
If ‘we’ is ‘the church as the church,’ I see that kind of work as peripheral at best, and kind of a risky distraction from the fundamentals of the church’s mission in the world/in society. If ‘we’ is ‘the church as individuals/parachurch organizations,’ sure, but we have to ask the next questions: what do we mean by ‘common ground’ and what are we saying about the group(s) we’re working with? If ‘common ground’ is shared values, principles, goals, and methods, and the ‘what are we saying?’ part is not a message of ‘their religion is just as right and good as mine,’ why not work together? It’s really civil society at that point, and the religious elements are kind of coincidental. I mean, if they were atheists but believed in the same social ethics, sexual ethics, family ethics, etc. (and there are some like that), the answer would be the same, seems to me.
“What fellowship has light with darkness?” Well, in this case, it is bits of light that are joining together, and there can be some light in belief systems that are, on the whole, full of darkness.
My only concern in that area is keeping the church the church.
Three questions come to mind:
1. Aren’t there significant moral problems with some Muslim beliefs/practices such that joining anything with them that has “Virtue” in the name is problematic? Of course, there’s a broader question here than the particular example cited, but doesn’t the very name of the group they have formed illustrate some of the pitfalls?
2. Even if the name is not problematic, does joining send a message that we approve of their moral standards generally? Will they take that message from it? Even if we aren’t calling them a Christian brother, if we are calling them a good person (in their minds) are we not undermining the Gospel that all are sinners and need a Savior?
3. Can we work towards the same cause without joining in a group with them, and if so, how much is really gained by joining in the group?
Good questions. On #1, it depends on what sort of Islam is involved. I doubt the Taliban is interested in this sort of project, or lots of other sects. But my guess would be that the group formed to cooperate would have some charter documents that identify where values overlap. After all, the other religions involved would have the same concerns Christians do about points of disagreement. … speaks also to #2.
On #3, two questions there. We always ‘can’ in some way without joining anything, but can it be done as effectively? There might also be other groups that are a better fit. ‘How much is gained’… I often wonder this about lots of groups. But in the case of lobbying/advocating for policy change or policy preservation, you have to be ‘loud’ to influence elected officials to act one way vs. another. So it’s about having a louder voice/more clout.
I’m reading in 2 Chronicles lately. Several Judean kings get into trouble when they form foreign alliances. I wonder if there is a lesson for us in this area from the record of those kings?
Consequently, I am somewhat cautious about pursuing social causes as co-belligerents with unbelievers of any stripe.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thanks, Aaron. Re #1, I wasn’t so much focused on the Taliban as the teachings of all Muslims on marriage and divorce, for instance.
Re #2, Muslims of the kind described here would almost certainly be willing to call moral people of other faiths, “good people.” We, on the other hand, should not call either us or them “good people” because we believe all are sinners. It’s not just that there are “points of disagreement.” But in joining them in a moral cause, we risk by our actions reinforcing their wrong view on this foundational truth.
Re #3, you reiterated my question nicely. :) If we clear the hurdles of the first two questions (which seems to me not very likely with a group involving Muslims), we still have to ask #3. I wasn’t suggesting the answer(s) to #3 would be the same in every case. But I do wonder if being “loud” / having more “clout” is really all that important. It seems to me that the more loud and cloutish we are the more we risk being loutish and losing our effectiveness for the Gospel — and our focus on what really matters. And the more we exalt the importance of clout, the more we risk communicating to others and even our own hearts that alliances are therefore just a really good idea if you can find a way to make them work (which is contrary to Biblical emphases) and also that it is human effort that changes things.
It’s just possible that if Christians spent as much time speaking to their God as they do speaking to real or potential political allies, it might have more effect on the problems….