Living with Muslims

Today's Gospel describing the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness properly directs our Lent self-examination to the temptations that we face as a community and as individuals. We contemplate the false truths, the dubious, fingers-crossed morality, the cul de sac of weak argument with which we are surrounded, and which to our shame we discover have taken root within our own hearts and minds. And, having taken due stock, there is only one appropriate response, and that is the call with which Jesus begin his public ministry - 'repent and believe the Gospel'.

We examine these questions in the light of an extraordinary furore following the lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury to an invited audience of lawyers. The lecture makes very dense reading, and I need to have another look at it; the Archbishop referred to the possibility that some elements of Sha'ria law be incorporated in the English legal system in order to facilitate the needs of Muslims in our land. These comments have touched a raw nerve in the life of the nation. But for the first time a leading public figure, and one of the brightest minds in the nation, has had the courage to raise issues which have long been lingering just beneath the surface. The debate is not first and foremost about the threat of terrorism or the possible domination of our nation by Islam. It is about building an integrated society which affords the best possibility of freedom for everyone within it. It seems sensible to me for the leaders of faith communities to comment on how this might be achieved. We should note that Sha'ria law already operates outside British law in close-knit Muslim communities in inner city Britain. In many respects it is repressive, for example with regard to the status of women. How then can Muslims feel sufficiently secure in their own religious customs that they can monitor excessive influences, and develop intellectual rigour, for the good of their own people and for the common good?

The day before this all broke, I went to visit the mosque in Chapelfield and introduced myself to some of the key people there. I was received with courtesy and respect, mixed with some puzzlement as to just why I was there. We began predictably by describing our various organisations. Each mosque is autonomous, and has little more than nodding acquaintance with any other mosque. The Chapelfield mosque, being the first in the city, is known internationally, having raised up Muslim scholars. The Imam, as the teacher of the faith, has little or no organisational function. That belongs to the director of the mosque. There is, in other words, no equivalent of the vicar. There is little or no understanding of Islam in this country as an institution, as we might regard the Church of England or even the Diocese. Although there is a close community of Muslims who worship at Chapelfield mosque, Islam is not fundamentally a 'community' religion. It is the religious observance of the individual that matters and everything revolves around the prayers which not only form the framework for the day but also underpin a moral view and a personal discipline. We discussed the need for faith communities in the city to be more effective in communicating a personal morality based upon faith to the wider community. This is self-evidently helpful to social cohesion and at a time when the Norwich City Council and other local authorities are planning for expansion under the government's growth agenda. If it can be demonstrated that the faith communities are actively involved on the ground and in the process of community planning, then this will tick a box to release central government funding in the future. I came away hoping that British Islam would grow under the leadership of the sort of people I had just met, highly educated people from within British mainstream society.

So where do the temptations lie? Doubtless the various political road maps in this regard contain traps at every twist and turn: the Archbishop knows that to his cost this weekend. It's not helped by the high level of public alarm about militant Islam and fear of the unknown. But what of us, those of us 'on the ground' so to speak, who meet Muslims and work with them or see them in the streets and at the school gates? I would make two observations.

The first concerns institutions. Part of the difficulty that we face as a church is that we have for centuries been perceived as the moral bedrock of the nation.
Over the past 90 years that perception has been steadily eroding, and the Church, especially the Church of England has been slow to recognise it, and has continued to pretend otherwise. We often fail to acknowledge a subtle distinction between an institution - essentially part of the structure of our nation, a political and social corpus - and the community of faith, the body of Christ, the people of God, all of which are essentially theological definitions arising from scripture. Only now are we realising the need to be more flexible in our organisation and structures, more innovative and adventurous in being faithful to the mandate given by the risen Christ to Peter, 'feed my sheep, feed my lambs.' The devil promised Jesus the kingdoms of the world if only he would fall down and worship him. Jesus resisted this because his vocation was to be obedient to the will of his Father as the servant Messiah. Those who follow Jesus today do so not as part of a hierarchical organisation but as fellow servants who pilgrim their way towards their heavenly home. We do well to observe how Muslims in very different circumstances do something similar. We can learn from British Islam where there is barely any institution at all, and where the faithfulness of the believer is pre-eminent; and this is expressed in the daily prayer. I would like to see less emphasis in the Church on institutions and more on personal conversion to Christ and holiness in following his way.

The second observation concerns the danger of cheap compromise between faiths. In a concluding remark to my Muslims friends I suggested that we should never allow ourselves to fudge our respective beliefs in the interest of forming good relations. It was well received. However and wherever a dialogue develops between Christians and Muslims - and it is essential that it does - it must be on the basis that we do not believe in the same god; and yet there is much to be gained from dialogue. Christians believe that God has revealed himself to us fully in his Son Jesus Christ who is for us the Way, the Truth and the Life. We receive that revelation in the power of his Holy Spirit who gives life to our souls and bodies, and encourages us in our longing for God. This re-assures educated Muslims that Christians not only understand their faith but are prepared to articulate it. Reciting the Creed has always had a central place in Christian liturgy. In these days, particular attention and care needs to be given to the Creed as a statement both of the mind and of the heart. When we recite it together it needs to be done with as much care as we say the Lord's Prayer together, and we need to listen to those around us who are saying the same words. Never allow the words of the Creed to wash over you.

The Church is being tested in our attitudes towards Islam; and today we measure that in relation to the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. In this story there are strong echoes of the testing of the people of Israel in their wilderness wanderings. Their release from Egypt and from the tyranny of Pharaoh had been achieved; they were yet to enter the land that the Lord had prepared for them, and in their wanderings they were being tested and found wanting. Here at the beginning of his ministry Jesus is also tested; he finds himself faced with three clear temptations from the devil. Turn these stones into bread; throw yourself down from the temple roof; and all the kingdoms of the world will be delivered into your hands. He responds to each of the three tests with a quote from the Book of Deuteronomy, a book of Mosaic law. Each reply demonstrates that as the true Son of God Jesus does not fail as Israel centuries before had failed. He refuses to play the political and social Messiah, the hierarchical leader. He does not misuse the privilege of son-ship by claiming God's promise of protection. And he will not practice idolatry even for expediency's sake; instead he reminds us that we are only to worship the one true God. Straight after this, Jesus withdrew into Galilee to begin his ministry. Matthew reminds his readership that the temptations of Jesus had a direct bearing on all that was to follow, and that this was the context in which he was to accomplish the purposes of God in the world.
The followers of Jesus should also expect to come into contact with false gods seeking our homage. And in doing so, the angels will minister to us as they did to Jesus. To anticipate this we seek to understand God's message in scripture and pursue a rule of life based upon it.

The Anglican way, which embraces a wide range of church life, has always been guided by an appeal to scripture, to tradition and to reason. By this means, Anglicans attempt to follow Jesus by living out the Spirit-filled life of complete obedience. Provided that the Church can express this through service-based communities, this seems to me to provide a good basis for developing conversations with British Muslims. We do so not to compromise the faith into which we were baptized. Quite the reverse. It is our way of stating our faith and demonstrating a willingness to listen to Muslims, to understand and to respect their faith and their devotion.

Is this not for us yet another form of servant-hood?

Links:

What did the Archbishop actually say?

More sermons, modern and historical, available in Norwich Cathedral Library

Back to Sermons homepage