Category: Blog

The main question in the enquiry presented in the volume Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion: A Religious Approach is how religious exclusivism relates to social inclusion. In the final chapter we highlight some of the theological challenges that arise from this research.

1. What about inclusion?

In the discussion  within society today, inclusion seems to be the norm. People are suspicious of exclusivism; but is that justified? Is it possible for inclusion to exist without some kind of exclusion at all? We can see this tension between exclusion and inclusion in the area of sociology (Is it possible for groups to exist without some kind of exclusion of others outside the group?), in the area of beliefs (When something is believed to be true, does it necessarily exclude the opposite view?), and in the social realm (All kinds of arrangements within societies exclude people who do not want to live in conformity with that arrangement).

A special form of exclusion is how we deal with the reality of evil. Differences in worldview also result in different views on what is good and bad and what should be excluded from society. The exclusion of evil should be right, but the question is who decides what is evil and what is not?

This enquiry into the possibility of being religiously exclusive yet socially inclusive has made clear that social and religious exclusion and inclusion are linked or even completely interdependent. Religious exclusivism can lead to social exclusion, but the opposite can be true too: a certain kind of sociology and psychology can lead to a problematic theology. There is both exclusivism and inclusivism at the religious and the social level. All of this shows that this research needs a wider perspective.

2. The nature of holy texts

A second issue that surfaces from our discussion is the question of the nature of Holy Scripture and its interpretation. The question of exclusive and excluding texts, especially when they are violent, brings up the question of what to do with these texts. What kind of hermeneutics do we use? How do we read inspired texts and how do we bridge the gap between the original context and the present? And what to say about the question of how what is named as the New Testament relates to the Hebrew Scriptures (in the Christian tradition) or how primary and secondary sources of revelation relate to each other (in the Judaic and Islamic tradition)?

3. The nature of God

Following from the discussion concerning our view of Holy Scripture, is the question of how we understand the nature of God. How does God’s exclusiveness relate to his inclusivity? In the Bible God seems to be very exclusive in his ordering of the stoning of idolaters and apostates, yet at the same time very inclusive in his love for the whole world. If there is no God but God (Jewish and Islamic traditions) and there is no Lord but Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6), what then does that mean for those who do not believe in this God? Are they excluded from God’s community? Or is God unconditional in his love? And how to relate this to the concept of ‘eternal judgement’, the final judgement and exclusion of evil and restoration of justice and peace at the end of time? How does the just side of God relate to his creatorship and his love for his creatures?

4. The nature of religious communities

Exclusive texts, like those on the validity of the death penalty on apostasy, raise questions concerning the identity of the religious community. These texts presume more or less clear boundaries around the communities. When these boundaries are crossed, there are consequences. But can we define religious communities by clear boundaries and therefore point out who is in and who is not? Or should we consider boundaries to be more or less fluid, depending on cultural, sociological or religious factors? What about so-called secret believers?

It is helpful to distinguish between bounded and centred set communities. Bounded set communities define a community by clear and strict boundaries. This can be a specific definition of faith, ethical rules and principles or other issues, meant to clearly distinguish between believers and unbelievers. Centred set communities are defined by the direction or movement of the people involved: all who are oriented towards the centre (e.g., Jesus Christ in the Christian tradition) are part of the community.

5. To execute or not

During the research, the question arose whether the religious communities ever strictly applied the principles of exclusive texts like Deuteronomy 17:2–7. In general, it seems that communities have been lenient, at least as far as it concerns the official religious or worldly authorities. However, in different contexts the situation for apostates is quite delicate and apostates experience difficult conditions of social exclusion and loneliness. Here again the question arises if this is mainly a social phenomenon or also a religious one.

6. Living together in a multireligious world

In thinking of living together in a multireligious world, a lot of questions come to the fore. What does the tension between exclusion and inclusion, religiously and socially, mean for the way of living together in a global world? And how do we give account of our history, and the pain and distrust that it has brought? Should we address the issues of apostasy, exclusion and inclusion together in interreligious engagement? Are we justified to critically reflect on the religious sources of the other, and is it possible to address difficult questions within our own faith communities? Is religion somehow offering us ways to cope with differences, while at the same time  contributing to them? A lot of questions, that make us conclude that we need to work more on the question of how to live together as people from different religions or beliefs.

 

Questions

1. How do you see the balance between exclusion and inclusion? Is there a best situation, and what would it look like?
2. Thinking about the nature of holy texts, what kind of authority would you ascribe to the holy texts of your faith tradition?
3. What do you believe about the nature of God? How do you see God’s exclusivity versus God’s inclusivity?
4. When you think of the religious community you belong to, would you define it as a bounded or centred set community? What examples do you see of this? And what are your ideas about it?
5. Living together in a multireligious world can be a challenge. Religion contributes to the differences in society; do you think religion also offers us ways to cope with differences in a constructive way?

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Bernhard Reitsma and Erika van  Nes, which can be found here: Religious Exclusivism, Social Inclusion: Theological Reflections.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

Initiating conversations about religious exclusivism and social inclusion at the level of faith-communities implies conversations about belonging. Conversations on belonging in their turn necessarily ask the “Who are we? Who am I?” and “How am I/we?” questions. In the case of faith-communities, these identity questions can only be answered in a relational way; the unavoidable relationality is the relationality with God. So, questions about God´s identity enter into conversation: “Who is God?” and “How is God?”

The language through which faith communities and their theologians describe, explain, and formulate their beliefs in God´s relationality with the world at large (inhabited planet, universe, cosmos, creation) in, for example, doctrines, symbols, confessions, texts, and narratives has immediate consequences for the practices of a particular faith-community and its members in the lived life (both within and beyond liturgical settings). Within a faith community the question of belonging then translates into further questions such as, “Based on our faith who does and who does not belong and why?” Thus, the question about the other enters the stage: “Who and how is the other?”

The dynamics of relationality

Whether and, if yes, to what extent can a faith community be theologically exclusive yet socially inclusive depends on the answers to the three-fold identity questions introduced above:  what  faith-communities and individual believers think, believe, and confess about God and how  that confession and belief translate into practices of relationality with the whole creation are interrelated matters. In the limited framework of these reflections, the focus lays on relationality with and among God-I/we-fellow human beings/communities and their social organisations (churches, faith communities, other sorts of groupings). Matters of exclusion and inclusion, belonging or not belonging become meaningful and existential when one looks at them within the dynamics of triangulations of these basic categories of agency.

Identity and belonging require an elaborate set of terms based on which particular relationality is settled. One of the central notions through which exclusion and inclusion is being negotiated within and by various Christian communities is the notion of sin. A notion which needs explanation and becomes meaningless in abstraction. Sin when associated with false belief (doctrines) and/or wrong action (ethics) affects relationships. The meaning and implication of sin for practices of exclusion and inclusion needs further attention.

The terms exclusion and inclusion suggest a clear position of power on the part of those who are able to exclude or include. There too, sin, needs to be addressed. This terminology also suggests that there are people and communities who are objects of exclusion and inclusion. Such power-relations unavoidably evoke the notions of violence and aggression. Terminology is never innocent. Language and speech, sooner or later, for better or worse, becomes embodied in actions, lives, and relationality.

Exclusion and inclusion in which context?

The somehow abstract model of triangulation of the basic agencies (God, I/we and fellow human beings and their social organisations) needs further articulation in relation to the contexts (socio-political, religious, cultural, geographic) in which they need to be considered. One of the most explicit contexts in which triangulations result in practices of exclusion and inclusion is the dynamic and fast-changing multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural context of Europe. Within this context I propose two main venues for further exploration. The first one is the venue of theology and people of other faiths/ideologies. The second venue I propose is a theological engagement with social exclusion especially through the phenomenon of loneliness.

1. The question of the religious other has been one of the major definers of identity for and among people in Europe and beyond. There is a complex history of how religious identities shaped relationship with the rest of the world and how encounters with the religious other led to peace or war and to complicity in exclusion throughout history. Therefore, there is a need to revisit histories of identity formation in relation to the religious other and it is important to do so from and within the realities of the histories and dynamics of migration and religious identities. European societies, and faith communities struggling with identity questions, need a new language which comes forth from the encounters with the religious other living next door, the religious other as fellow citizen. Without the experiences of such encounters, questions about religious exclusion and social inclusion cannot be answered and the identity questions remain channeled through essentialisation. “Islam/Christianity/Judaism/ Buddhism/and fill it in/ is such and so”, “Muslims/Christians/fill it in/ are such and so.”
2. The second avenue proposed for further explorations is an approach to exclusion and inclusion through a societal problem: the phenomenon of loneliness. For a long time, social inclusion has been dealt with within societies from the perspective of poverty and deviance. Recent research, however, discloses that numerous societies in Europe struggle with the issue of loneliness. Loneliness thus becomes a major factor in addressing the issue of social inclusion. Loneliness, when perceived as a form of exclusion, invites and urges faith communities to examine the question to what extent is there a link between their theology (beliefs and practice) and the phenomenon of loneliness (exclusion, abandonment, individualism) within a society? To what extent are faith communities complicit in causing loneliness as a societal phenomenon? Three further societal issues may help in exploring practices of exclusion and inclusion related to loneliness: (im)migration, internetisation, and intergenerationally. These three sociological triggers of isolation/exclusion within societies invite faith communities to revisit their theologies of relationality; for example, instead of scapegoating secularisation (personified!) faith communities may ask questions about their own practices of abandonment: whom they abandon and why?

Explorations of practices of exclusion and/or inclusion through the two directions proposed above serve to dismiss any dichotomy between mission and social action, and seek to demonstrate that theology encompasses the whole life, mind, and heart of a community and a believer. It is impossible to love God and hate the fellow human being. It is impossible to turn to God yet turn away from the fellow human being. The question where is your brother/sister/fellow human being remains an identity question; a question of who is missing, who is not there, and why?

Questions

1. To what extent and how has our own faith community been involved in practices of religious exclusivism and social inclusion throughout its history till the present?
2. What does our community say/teach/share/confess about God and how does this speaking about God (theology) relate to how our community practises exclusion or inclusion in relation to individual persons and other communities? (Create mind maps.)
3. What are the conditions through which belonging to our faith community is being acknowledged or denied (e.g., who or what is the authority, what power-relations do we see)?
4. Who are the religious others in the vicinity (village, town, city) of our faith-community and how do we relate to them?
5. Who are the lonely ones in our community and in the socio-political, religious and cultural context our community is part of?

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Dorottya Nagy, which can be found here: Religious Exclusivism, Social Inclusion: Missiological Reflections.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

Inclusive and exclusive practices are part of innovation and changes in religious organisations like churches. This research offers unique insights into these processes. Two cases of change in leadership roles related to gender balance have been analysed and discussed. The empirical research was conducted in large evangelical churches in the Netherlands which have recently opened all church offices for female participation. By conducting interviews, individually as well as in focus groups, the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion are explored. These dynamics are interpreted through the lens of a social identity approach and related to the change in authority. Data shows that the shift in Bible interpretation on female leadership as well as the practice of including women in a previously male domain affected the perception of the church’s social and religious identity. This resulted in some leaders leaving the church due to the authority shift, which can be perceived as a form of apostasy, although this appears to be a complex and fluid concept.

The case study

The research was conducted in two selected churches, which are well-known in the Netherlands and can be seen as representative of the evangelical movement. The results of the empirical research show that to create a change in leadership a safe space is essential in which the current and the desirable situation in the church, as well as the authority of the Bible, can be discussed. The notions ‘biblical’ and ‘unbiblical’ proved to be sensitive in both settings. The churches experimented with the labels of the discussion, essential or non-essential, identity or creed, and with different hermeneutical approaches in interpreting the bible on the topic of female leadership.

Inclusion and exclusion

Feelings of inclusion and exclusion were experienced in a complicated way. Before the transition towards inclusive leadership, women were not only excluded from leadership positions but also from spiritual or sacramental acts. However, not all women felt excluded; according to the interviewees, some felt satisfied in supporting their husbands in their leadership roles. Conversely, after the transition, some elders felt excluded because of their experience of ‘not being heard’ during the process. A minor group left the church because of the change of view on female leadership. They referred to the so-called ‘slippery slope’, describing cultural compromises which lure the church away from biblical truths. However, whether people feel included or excluded is not an objective given but a personal and social evaluation relative to one’s degree of identification with the group and its many practices and activities.

Authority

This process is closely related to how people perceived the authority of the Bible and various identity figures. It is likely that those who did not feel heard and left, did not do so simply because of a difference of opinion, even if some people signalled that their conviction had such value to them that a policy change would result in their leaving. Rather, this change of policy represented to them a crossing of identity boundaries, with an illegitimate interpretation of the Bible and hence a violation of the authority of the Bible. Even the authority of an identity figure was not enough to persuade these people to join the rest across this boundary. Although no one used the term “apostasy” to describe or defend their leaving, implicitly their sense of what counted as apostasy prevented them from crossing this boundary.

Transition in leadership

These social identity processes can be interpreted as long-term leadership processes to create safe spaces that would enable the community to experiment with new insights and emotional attachments while maintaining the value of belonging to the community. These insights are generated by including narratives of personal experiences with female leadership and (new) emotions attached to it in the overall process of deliberation. New insights are also generated in attempts to renew one’s reading and understanding of Scripture by reinterpreting key texts, or by assigning different priorities to various texts on both sides of the debate.

Conclusion

The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion before, during, and after a process of change affect the perception of the church’s socio-religious identity within the leadership, and a (often implicit) sense of apostasy influences feelings and behaviours on both sides of the issue. We may conclude that these dynamics form a complex combination of personal, institutional, and convictional factors. Within this research, leaders and other identification figures play an important role in inclusion and exclusion processes at the institutional level. At the convictional level, leaders attempted to create safe spaces to allow individuals to experiment with new Bible reading strategies and new convictions. In some cases, they were able to use their granted authority to enable people to adapt or change their personal convictions. Positively, these identity figures were able to manoeuvre the group away from turning the debate away from the notion of apostasy. Negatively, a strong identification figure could also be experienced as so dominant that people opted for (self) exclusion. In the cases investigated, this was an exception and not the general response. Although all interviewees insisted on the importance of the Bible as the authority, we can conclude that a more narrative hermeneutical approach changed the way the Bible was experienced as authoritative. This does not mean that convictions changed automatically, but it was a way to move from a propositional approach, in which a bivalent true/false paradigm shaped the discussions and led to polarization, to a more narrative approach where differences could be explored, negotiated, and tolerated.

We discovered that the concept of apostasy in this process of transition is present but complex. It is fluid and can be applied to more than one group. The term ‘unbiblical’ is used by people who left the church, but also in the focus groups with the current leaders to describe the traditional view on female leadership.

 

Questions:

1. Transformation processes are challenging for many people. Think about a recent process of transformation either small or big, in your personal, work or church context. Did you feel included in the process? And what was the impact on the group identity? Please share your findings.
2. Did you notice certain identification figures or markers (like a policy document or a holy book) in the transformation process you described? What was their role, and was this role intentionally used in the transformation process?
3. In the discussion on female leadership the authority of the Holy Scriptures was an important factor. However, the way that authority was understood changed during the discussion process depending on the interpretive principles used (for example, seeing the Bible as normative or as narrative). How do you see how these two perspectives might affect what you think of as the authority of the Bible?
4. When group identity changed and boundaries shifted, some people felt excluded and left the church; these people did not see female leadership as the biblical way forward. However, there is no information on how many people did leave (or not even attend) the church in the years before this transition because of the fact that women were not allowed to serve in leadership positions. Discuss a matter in your own faith community which might prevent people from joining or cause people to leave if it was on the agenda for discussion. How is your faith community managing this matter? Think of a fruitful way forward in discussing or implementing this delicate topic.
5. We framed leaving the faith community as a form of reversed apostasy (the remaining community is seen as ‘apostate’ by the ones who leave). How would you describe apostasy? Do people leave your community for reasons that would fit your description of apostasy? What is or could be a response to these people and to the remaining faith community?

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Laura Dijkhuizen and Jack Barentsen, which can be found here: Gender Related Inclusionary and Exclusionary Practices within Evangelical Churches in the Netherlands.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

 

In his book The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel P. Huntington posited the thesis that cultural and religious identity (Christian West and Islam) are the sources of conflicts. Conflicts which, according to him, are irreconcilable. In the Moluccas, the Pela, an alliance between Christian and Muslim villages, among others, shows the opposite.

The Pela

The strength of the Pela lies in their pre-monotheistic Nunusaku or Ambon religion. Both groups (Muslims and Christians) are aware of their common origin on the invisible mountain Nunusaku. The first Moluccans, their ancestors, lived there. The story goes as follows: when a girl was murdered one day, the gods sent the people away in two groups. Moluccans call this banishment Heka Nunusaku (Heka: to separate). One group was a union of nine (Uli Siwa) and the other a union of five (Uli Lima). From the beginning, there was animosity between the two groups, which often degenerated into bloody fights over scarce goods such as rich fishing waters and fertile land between two villages. After the fighting stopped, the two villages met to make peace and hold a Pela ceremony. In the ceremony, both Rajahs, village chiefs, made a cut in the palm of their hand and let a few drops of blood flow into a bowl of strong drink (sageru = rice wine). After the two Rajahs drank from the bowl, everyone present took a sip from the bowl, and from then on they were brothers and sisters, Pela. At the ceremony, the ancestors were invited to witness the covenant and ensure that the rules and the promises, which had been sworn to, were observed. Violations would be punished. With the conclusion of the Pela, the war was over. The word Pela literally means to stop immediately and later it acquired the meaning of covenant. The Pela is also called Leka Nunusaku (Leka: to bring together, to unite), a vehicle to repair what had gone wrong on the invisible mountain Nunusaku on the island of Ceram.

The Pela rules must be strictly adhered to. The rules are as follows: 1) Pelas help each other for better or for worse. For instance, when building a big project like a church or a mosque, but also  when there are natural disasters. 2) Always keep promises. 3) If a Pela asks for something, for example food or a place to sleep, don’t refuse. 4) In the hard Pela, members are not allowed to marry each other (exogamous), because they have “the same blood” in their veins. It is considered incest.

Moluccan Adat and Christian-Muslim Relations

For centuries, Muslim and Christian Pelas have lived peacefully alongside and with each other. The basis for their common world and human view was anchored in their Nunusaku or Ambon religion. After the advent of monotheistic religions, one Pela village chose Islam and the other chose Christianity. They saw these as just two variables of Nunusaku religion. What prevailed over religious differences was their common origin and interpersonal relationships. The emphasis on the common resulted in a loose form of horizontal syncretism between Christians and Muslims. What role and significance Pela played in the kerusuhan, in the civil war, is illustrated by the case of two nearby Pela villages: the Christian village Buano Utara and the Muslim village Buano Selatan. The former is the larger of the two. In the 1999–2002 fratricidal war, sparked in part by the Central Indonesian Government and the Indonesian military, the old Adat institutions (traditional law) proved unable to withstand regional, national and international influences. After Buano Utara attacked its Pela village, an epidemic later broke out  in Buano Utara. Many members of both villages saw in it an intervention of the ancestors. The young people have a different explanation. The epidemic must be set against the worldwide developments in the field of diseases. In so doing, they push aside their ethnic identity and their loyalty to the Adat institutions. The Buano elders believe that the core of the problem is the fact that young people study outside the region. When they return, they find that the traditional institutions are no longer appropriate to the modern age. Despite the different views, the vast majority of Buano and the other Pela villages in the Moluccas believe that the revaluation and strengthening of the Adat institutions, such as the Pela, can promote cooperation between communities and between different faith groups and reduce tensions and conflicts.

 

Questions

1. What do you see as the strength and weakness of the Pela?
2. Can the Pela serve as a model for inclusive peacebuilding in conflict areas elsewhere in the world (apart from the Moluccans)? In what way?
3. Do you think the Pela model works effectively in conflicts between Abrahamite faiths? How?
4. Might awareness of a common origin of human beings play an important role in conflict resolution? Why / why not, and how?
5. Imagine a specific element of your own worldview / theology that can play a significant role in potentially preventing conflict.
6. How might the biblical-theological concept of covenant (berith / diatheke) broaden and deepen Pela and vice versa? Do you see any relevance of this concept for situations nowadays?

 

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of the late Simon Ririhena, which can be found here: The Pela as Model for Inclusive Peacebuilding.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

 

This article argues that we have much to learn from Native American theologians when finding constructive ways to deal with the topic of exclusion in our faith practices. Native American theologians read the Biblical texts about the conquest of Israel from an existential perspective, since they are all too intimately aware of the disastrous result of the conquest of the Americas. The conquest, settlement and drive towards extinction of Indigenous Peoples was partly fuelled by theological arguments, derived from the conquest by Israel of Canaan. In order to understand the current Biblical interpretations of Native Americans, we need therefore to first take into account the hermeneutical foundation on which the conquest was based.

Canaan and the New World

After the “discovery” of the Americas, Europeans had to grapple with the meaning of the encounter with people who differed in so many ways from what they had previously experienced. The conquest of the Americas was also a theological and hermeneutical endeavour of meaning-making. Through deliberate theologizing, First Nation people became othered as “heathen”. (Within the article I discuss various strategies that aided this identification as “heathen.”) The idea of God’s providence was fundamental in crafting the legitimization for conquest. It was seen as God’s providence, for example, that the English, who lived in cramped cities, had suddenly the possibility to expand to the enormous, vacant land of North America. Obviously, the land was not vacant, but rather densely populated, but the wilderness myth nevertheless became a foundational myth. The religious practices of the indigenous peoples were seen as irredeemably pagan, and they came to be identified with the inhabitants of Canaan, while the settlers identified themselves with the new Israel.

Indigenous Theological Contributions

Indigenous thinkers today still wrestle with the legacy of Biblical interpretation by the colonial settlers. They utilize various strategies to reinterpret the Biblical texts.

• Some thinkers discredit the biblical texts altogether. For them, the damage that has been done is too severe to be able to be repaired. Whether or not the conquests described in the book of Joshua really took place or not, the fact of the matter remains that the ideology of the Bible writers actively condoned and espoused an ideology of conquest. For victims and survivors of genocide, this makes the Bible damaged beyond repair. I suggest that we should take this approach seriously, and not discredit it too easily, because we should give proper attention to the pain that lies behind it. If we can take the losses seriously and not gloss over them too quickly, we can incorporate the practice of lament. Lament grieves for the wrongdoings and confesses the sins of a hegemonic biblical interpretation. We grieve because we have lost brothers and sisters to a hermeneutic of exclusion.
• The second reading approach interprets the Bible in a way that is both Christological and true to indigenous concerns. Many evangelical readings fall in this category, since they stress the primacy of Christ for reading the Bible.
• The third reading approach reinterprets specific biblical passages, while abandoning other passages. The Bible is read with indigenous frameworks in mind. Feminist indigenous readings of the Bible belong in this category.

Where do we go from here?

When reading exclusionary texts like Deuteronomy 17 with indigenous concerns in mind, they acquire a new urgency. I argue that people who read the Bible through the eyes of faith should be serious about reflecting on our hermeneutic. All hermeneutics that aid oppression need to be denounced and are consequently false, since they are not true to the life-affirming message of the gospel. Not all ruptures might be mended, not all wounds can be healed, at least not in the present age. We need to be mindful of the true costs of exclusionary readings of the Bible, since reading the Bible is not just an intellectual pursuit, but has real world consequences. Although the Netherlands and Belgium do not have an indigenous population in the same way as, for example, the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia do, we still have to confront our legacy of colonialism. We still have to reckon in our society with racism and exclusion on the basis of heritage. The voices of Native American theologians are therefore indispensable to enter into a specific hermeneutical dialogue with Dutch Christians from formerly colonized nations to hear about the way they have experienced exclusion and/or inclusion.

Questions

1. Do you recognize that you often chose the perspective of Israel and not the perspective of the conquered peoples when reading the Bible? How would it influence the way you read the Bible if you changed your perspective?
2. One of the authors discussed in the article claims that the texts of conquest in the Bible are not a “bug” but a “feature.” In other words: they are not a lamentable mistake, but are integral to the biblical message. How do you evaluate this statement?
3. How would your Bible reading change if you were to read the Bible “together with all the saints,” including the believers who have great difficulty with certain passages since they have been used to legitimize violence?
4. How would our mission practices change if we radically adopted the perspective of indigenous peoples?
5. Do you think there is a way that we could incorporate lament in our church practices? How?

 

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Eleonora Hof, which can be found here: Canaan and the New World: Native Americans Engage the Legacy of Exclusionary Readings.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

In Muslim-Christian encounter, exclusionary texts both from the Qur’an and the Bible play a role. Often, Christian authors have tried to give their interpretation to Qur’anic texts about religious others. Also, Christian authors try to understand biblical texts about people who do not follow Christ.

The same is true for Muslim authors. How do they interpret their own Scripture, especially the Qur’an, and how do they interpret Christian scriptural texts about religious others, that might be read as exclusionary texts?

A Common Word

In October 2007, an open letter entitled ‘A Common Word Between Us and You’ was sent by 138 Muslim scholars to 27 Christian Church leaders. The sending of this letter was part of a carefully planned media-event. The letter was published on the internet (www.acommonword.com), as were the subsequent reactions by church leaders and others.

The appeal to Christians to enter into dialogue with Muslims in A Common Word is supported by a theological argumentation that uses texts from the Qur’an, Hadith and Bible. The authors of A Common Word stress the common ground between Biblical and Qur’anical texts. They claim, using as their starting point Jesus’s double commandment (love of God and of the neighbour) as their frame, that the core message of the Qur’an and Hadith is not essentially different from the Christian core message. They hope to set up conversations and forms of cooperation between Muslims and Christians worldwide on the basis of the structural similarities between their sacred Scriptures.

Exclusionary texts are common, both in the Bible and in the Qur’an. In both Scriptures, there are many texts distinguishing good people from evil people, and groups of faithful believers from groups of unbelievers. The former are walking with God, whereas the latter are excluded from the community of the faithful. In this sense, many sacred texts offer the opportunity to exclude contemporaries or fellow citizens from the in-group. The presence of such texts is not surprising. It is the use of each text, their interpretation in the present context that is of importance.

How do the writers of A Common Word deal with such exclusionary texts? In order to answer this question, I will look in more detail at one verse quotes from the Qur’an, and then at the way the authors interpret three texts from the Gospels.

The interpretation of Sura 3:64

Building on this assumption of common ground, it is argued on the basis of the Qur’an, that people of the Scripture should come to a common word. This is supported by the quotation of sura 3: 64:

Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Āl ‘Imran 3:64)

This is potentially an exclusionary text, and has often been so explained  in the Islamic tradition. According to many Muslim exegetes, the admonition to come to a ‘common word’ assumes that the Jewish and Christian contemporaries of Muhammad did, in fact, ascribe a partner to God (the Christians) or that they took others for lords besides God (the Christians and the Jews). So, the turning away of Muhammad’s conversation partners in sura 3:64 apparently is the expected outcome of the conversation. The ‘we’ in the clause ‘We are they who have surrendered’ consists, according to the traditional exegesis of this passage, of the group of Muhammad’s followers: they are the true worshippers who have surrendered (aslama) to God and are therefore ‘muslims’ (muslim is  the participal derived from the infinitive of the verb aslama, to surrender). The writers of a Common Word, however, give a slightly different interpretation to this potentially exclusionary text. They connect the clause ‘that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him’ to total devotion to the one and only God, a devotion they also see in Christians.

For the second injunction, ‘that none of us shall take others for lords beside God’, the writers of A Common Word follow the exegesis of the classical scholar Al-Tabari, who says that this part of the text should be read as an injunction ‘that none of us should obey in disobedience to what God has commanded, nor glorify them by prostrating to them in the same way as they prostrate to God’. The writers of A Common Word see this as an appeal for believers to follow the dictates of their own conscience instead of submitting to coercion from religious authority. Jews, Christians and Muslims, they write, ‘should be free to each follow what God commands them, and not have “to prostrate before kings and the like”.’ Political pressure to accommodate the majority belief in a society is out of the question, because that would mean a submission before ‘kings and the like’, instead of an assent out of free will to serve God and God alone. To reinforce the implication that this part of 3:64 is dealing with freedom of conscience, the writers of A Common Word make a connection with a Qur’anic quotation from sura 2:256: ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ And this quotation is in turn linked by them to the second biblical commandment ‘love your neighbour as yourself’. The implicit reasoning that underlies this arrangement of texts is that justice and love of the neighbour are closely connected, and that freedom of religion is an important component of justice. The beginning of the verse ‘Come to a common word between us and you’ can be interpreted, as indeed Tabari does, as meaning to ‘come to a just (ādil) word between us and you’, making the verse into a call by God to cooperate for the sake of justice. Thus, a traditionally more common exclusionary interpretation of sura 3:64 is transformed into a plea for freedom of religion.

The interpretation of Mark 9:40, Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23

The authors of A Common Word also pay attention to possibly exclusionary texts from the New Testament. They quote from three passages from the Gospels and discuss these texts (ACW, p. 15).

Is Christianity necessarily against Muslims? In the Gospel Jesus Christ says:
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters abroad. (Matthew 12:30)
For he who is not against us is on our side. (Mark 9:40)
… for he who is not against us is on our side. (Luke 9:50).

Here the writers of A Common Word put in juxtaposition one possibly exclusionary text (Matthew 12:30) and two possibly inclusionary texts (Mark 9: 40 and Luke 9: 50). How to combine the messages of these texts? Are the Gospels in contradiction with each other? In traditional polemics between Muslims and Christians, Muslims accuse Christians of falsification of their scriptures (tahrīf). Internal contradictions between Gospel texts is an argument that plays a major role in these polemics. The authors of A Common Word do not refer to this background in their analysis. Rather, they assume that there must be an underlying reason for the apparent contradiction, and try to clarify it.

In order to do so, they make use of the Christian commentator Theophylact of Ohrid (1055–1107).  This commentary is very popular in Eastern Orthodox churches. Theophylact reasons that there is no contradiction between the three gospel texts. They only address different contexts: ‘The first statement (in the actual Greek text of the New Testament) refers to demons, whereas the second and third statements refer to people who recognised Jesus, but were not Christians.’ (ACW, p15)

The argument of Theophylact goes as follows. In Matthew 12, Jesus is in discussion with the Pharisees who accuse Jesus of using the power of Satan to drive out demons. The answer of Jesus is referring to the demons themselves (they are not for Jesus, therefore against him) as well as to the Pharisees (they are the ones who scatter abroad, and who sin against the Holy Spirit by assigning Jesus to the realm of Satan). The text excludes not only demons and Satan, but also those who emphatically deny the divine power of Jesus. In Mark and Luke on the other hand, Jesus is in conversation with his disciples who are troubled because another person has driven out demons in the name of Jesus, but refuses to join their company. In these texts, there is an inclusion of outsiders, but under certain conditions. Those outsiders are speaking in the name of Jesus, that means that they do not deny His divine powers but align themselves with them, without becoming fully-fledged members of his movement. The authors of A Common Word are connecting these benevolent outsiders with Muslims. Like the healers in Mark and Luke, Muslims to some extent acknowledge the divine powers of Jesus without becoming part of the Christian community. In this way, an inclusionary text from the Gospels is interpreted as potentially also including Muslims. They write:

Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, not in the same way Christians do (but Christians themselves anyway have never all agreed with each other on Jesus Christ’s nature), but in the following way: ‘…. the Messiah Jesus son of Mary is a Messenger of God and His Word which he cast unto Mary and a Spirit from Him….’ (Al-Nisa’, 4:171). We therefore invite Christians to consider Muslims not against and thus with them, in accordance with Jesus Christ’s words here. (ACW, p. 15)

The writers of A Common Word here open up the inclusion of Muslims in the group of people who are ‘not against and thus with’ Christians, at the same time affirming the enduring differences between Muslims and Christians when it comes to the nature of Christ. A remarkable feature of this passage is that so far, both the terms ‘Muslims’ and ‘Christians’ seem to refer throughout the document to stable and unified entities. Nowhere are there  signs of a recognition of the diversity and lack of consensus on some issues within both communities. But in this passage, there is a reference to Christian internal diversity. This diversity may create a space for Muslims – who generally do not acknowledge the divine nature of Christ – to include unspecified groups within the Christian communities within their religious in-group. It also opens up the possibility that among Christians there may be a movement of convergence with the Muslim viewpoint on the Divine nature of Christ. The religious other is seen as someone who resembles ‘us’.

Questions

1. How do you interpret exclusionary texts in the Gospels? Would they hinder you from opening up to your neighbour who has a different religion or life stance?
2. How would you explain the differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke in the passages above?
3. What we see in A Common Word is a group of Muslim scholars interpreting three Gospel texts. In the movement of Scriptural Reasoning, where Jews, Christians and Muslims read together out of each other’s Scriptures, one of the basic rules is: Feel invited to explore others’ texts. And also invite others to explore your texts. (See: http://www.scripturalreasoning.org/guidelines-for-scriptural-reasoning.html) Would you agree with this rule, or would you argue that the Christian community is the ‘owner’ of the interpretation of the Gospel text, just as much as the Muslim community is the ‘owner’ of the Qur’anic text?
4. Would you agree with the writers of A Common Word that stressing commonalities is a good starting point for Muslim-Christian encounter, or would it be more helpful to start acknowledging and exploring our undeniable differences in tradition?
5. How could a group of Christians and Muslims begin to understand each other’s religious texts? What is needed for that understanding?

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Gé Speelman, which can be found here: Exclusionary Texts in ‘A Common Word’.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

Apostasy in Islam is a sensitive and topical subject. In certain Muslim majority countries, apostasy is a punishable offence, including by the death penalty, even though some of these countries have embraced the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which guarantees freedom of religion. Apostasy in Islam or al-riddah (or al-irtidād) is defined as voluntarily renouncing Islam. A person who renounces Islam is called murtadd. There is no distinction in Islam between leaving, that is, apostasy, and conversion from Islam to another religion. Thus, whether a Muslim converts to Christianity, Judaism, or becomes an atheist, this all boils down to apostasy, and such a person is considered an apostate (murtadd). Nevertheless, in some cases, apostasy is more sensitive than in others. For example, in countries  inhabited by both large numbers of Christians and Muslims or Muslim countries with Christian minorities, the situation is extremely precarious when it comes to apostasy in Islam.

Legal Punishment for Apostasy in Islam

The overwhelming majority of both classical and modern scholars view apostasy as impermissible and consider it mandatory to put an unrepentant apostate to death. Whereas Muslim scholars differ about repentance, it appears that a majority find that the apostate should be given the opportunity to repent.

Although in the Qur’ān apostasy is viewed as a heinous sin, it does not mention any earthly punishment for it. Rather, it is up to God to judge the apostate in the Hereafter.

Although the Qur’ān appears to be quite clear on apostasy, namely, there is no penalty in this world, the Sunna is unequivocal about it. The Sunna, which is the collected teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, is known through the aḥādīth, that is, the reports of the Prophet deemed authentic. The Sunna encompasses his sayings, actions, and tacit approval.

The overwhelming majority of  Muslim scholars rely on the verbal ḥadīth “whoever changes his religion, kill him” (narrated among others by al-Bukhārī, ḥadīth no. 3017 and 6922) with the corollary that the apostate should be executed. This ḥadīth is considered authentic by the vast majority of Muslim scholars.

Another ḥadīth on which the proponents for capital punishment for apostasy in Islam rely and which is also deemed to be authentic by most Muslim scholars is the following:

The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that there is no God but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qiṣāṣ [retaliation] for murder, a married person who commits adultery and the one who reverts from Islam [apostates] and leaves the [Muslim] community. (Narrated among others by al-Bukhārī, ḥadīth no. 6878)

A Special Case: Female Apostates

The overwhelming majority of classical and modern Muslim scholars do not distinguish between a male and a female apostate; both deserve capital punishment. Among these Muslim scholars are the founders of the current Sunni schools of law, Imam Mālik (d. 795), Imam al–Shāfīʿi (d. 820), and Imam ibn ḥanbal (d. 855). However, the founder of the Ḥanafi school of law, Imam Abū Ḥanīfa differentiates between male and female apostates. Although he too holds that a male apostate is to be executed, he argues that a female apostate should be imprisoned and invited back to Islam but never be killed. He argues that a female apostate is not active in combat or capable of warfare.

It seems that the Ḥanafī school of law views apostasy as a political crime. Females, older men, and hermaphrodites are, in their views, incapable of fighting and combating. Therefore, they form no danger to the community, even if they are apostates.

Apostasy as a Political Crime

Also, contemporary scholars who support capital punishment for apostasy conceive the apostate as someone who is disloyal to the Muslim community and forms an imminent threat to this community. The apostate is also viewed as someone who causes disintegration of the Muslim society, which cannot be accepted. In short, apostasy is viewed as a political crime.

Muslim scholars who object against the death penalty for apostasy

Even though the majority of both classical and modern Muslim scholars favour the death penalty for apostasy, some Muslim scholars are against it. The classical scholars Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī (d. 713) and Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 778) believe that the apostate should always be allowed to repent but never be executed.

Modern Muslim scholars who object to capital punishment for apostasy put several arguments forward. First, there are more than two hundred verses in the Qur’ān that emphasise freedom of choice, as the modern Muslim scholar Taha Jabir Alalwani (d. 2016) points out.

The second argument against capital punishment for apostasy is the earlier mentioned ḥadīth “whoever changes his religion, kill him”. This ḥadīth is a so-called solitary or aḥad narration that became prominent after the early period of Islam and was not known during the time of the Prophet. During the early days of Islam, it was a solitary ḥadīth and incompletely transmitted as well. Also, the chain of narrators (isnād) of this ḥadīth contains ʿIkrimah (d. 723), who was the slave of Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 687). From this stage, this ḥadīth got wide circulation. Some Muslims scholars consider ʿIkrimah as reliable, whereas others do not. Thus, the opponents of the death penalty  for apostasy consider this ḥadīth weak, and therefore this narration in their opinion cannot be used as evidence that apostasy merits capital punishment.

The third argument against apostasy that Muslim scholars put forward is that the Prophet never killed anyone for apostasy. Several narrations support this claim. The fourth and final argument against capital punishment is the assumption that apostasy goes hand in hand with hostility or taking up arms against the Muslim community. However, the argument that apostasy is tantamount to high treason, rebellion, or waging war against the Muslim community is in my opinion not valid today because an apostate can merely change their personal beliefs while still accepting the social order of the Muslim society in which they live. Furthermore, killing an apostate for simply the possibility of taking up arms or demonstrating hostility towards the Muslim community is treating this possibility as an actual fact. In Islamic jurisprudence, there has to be definitive proof for capital punishment as a divinely prescribed punishment; a mere possibility is not a sufficient cause for such a severe punishment.

 

Questions

1. Can apostasy in Islam today still be considered a political crime?
2. Should apostasy be considered a private matter?
3. Should a distinction be made between a female and male apostate?
4. Freedom of religion in general: what should be done when freedom of religion (which is a human right) collides with other human rights?
5. Is the issue of apostasy unique in Islam, or does this also apply to other religions?

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Razi Quadir, which can be found here: Apostasy in Islam: An Overview of Sources and Positions.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

The notion of al-walā’ w’ al-barā’ is entrenched in some classical and modern Muslim discourses as one of the tenets of creed that ordains a Muslim’s view and attitude toward ‘disbelievers’. The proponents of a doctrinal position of this notion in Islam utilise a certain reading of scriptural sources maintaining them as explicit and unequivocal enough to justify the coherence of this ‘creed’. Nonetheless, a thorough investigation of these scriptural justifications could reconstruct the credibility of this claim. In modern times, the “doctrine” of al-walā’ and al-barā’ was, and still is, enthusiastically used among militant groups to justify warfare activities, not only against non-Muslims but also against Muslims who are not in line with their “islam”. The question is whether this ‘theory’ can be established on explicit and unequivocal scriptural grounds and whether it can justify hate speech and practices against the “other”. This study is an attempt to find an answer to this question by examining Islamic sources as embodied in the Quran, the Sunnah and some classical and modern exegetic and legal works. It also tackles the issue of apostasy (ridda) and its possible liaison with disloyalty, which historically marked the question of freedom of religion in Islam, and still inspires contemporary writings and debates on Islamic exclusivism.

Definition

According to classical Arabic lexicons (Ibn Manzour, Ibn Faris), the term walā’ linguistically denotes proximity (qurb, from the stem w-l-y, among many other derivations and meanings), whether physically or emotionally, including being content with and following others as if one belongs to them (Q. 5:51; “who among you take them as awliā’ [allies, friends; pl. of walīy] is one of them”), support and help (nuṣra), love (maḥabba/mawadda)  and the derivative muwālā (alliance, friendship) which is to be seen as opposite to enmity (mu‘ādā). Technically walā’ means support, help, love and showing honour and respect to those in proximity or to likeminded people both inwardly and/or outwardly. In this respect, it concerns God, his messenger and the believers. On the other hand, barā’ means, in the context of our discussion, abandoning, severance, distancing oneself from, disavowal and denial of something/someone. Technically it denotes getting rid of and disavowal of, distancing and disassociating oneself from, and showing enmity to something/someone. Again, in this respect, it concerns the enemies of God, his messenger and the believers.

Does it belong to ‘aqīda (creed/doctrine)?

There is an established opinion among several mainstream Muslim scholars that the issue of walā’ towards believers and barā’ towards unbelievers and enemies of Islam belongs to the fundamentals of Islamic creed (‘aqīda). It is distinguished in the relevant literature as “the doctrine of loyalty and disavowal” (‘aqīdat al-walā’ w’al-barā’). The paradox of this take on the issue as part of ‘aqīda lies in the epistemological and methodological justifications and ethical scope of this doctrine. It is established in the legal Islamic theory of uṣūl al–fiqh that its realm of research is strictly related to ‘practical rules’ (aḥkām ‘amaliyya) and does not include issues of ‘aqīda. However, in this case, the supporters of the ‘aqīda nature of the notion start with practical rules for dealing with certain groups and ideas considered to be anti-Islamic and incorporate them to the tenets of Islamic creed legitimised by scriptural texts. The question is whether this is a traditionally justified practice of the prophetic era and the following generations of righteous predecessors (salaf), which these supporters cherish as the pristine and pure source of Islam. Since the establishment of the first Muslim geopolitical entity in 622 C.E. the Medina Charter stated a strong bond of loyalty to the new established ‘state’ under the leadership of the prophet, including Jewish tribes and anyone else who joined the people of this Charter. This constitutional document refers to Jews and other partners as forming one umma with the Muslim believers. The same document stipulated that Muslims have their own religion and Jews have theirs, both parties are committed to defend or contribute to the defence of Medina and should not keep alliance with or help enemies of the people of the document. This meant that ‘loyalty’ can be a trans-religious bond based on values of social coherence, political consolidation and protection of national integrity beyond (non)denominational affiliations. In today’s national-state democratic constitutionalism, where citizenship shapes loyalties and disloyalties, Muslims and non-Muslims stand together in defence of their national integrity regardless of their different religious belongings. It is true that loyalty and disloyalty can entail a core notion in each faith system that distinguishes between belief and unbelief. However, the pluralistic Islamic view draws clear borderlines between credo and tractatio.

Scriptural justifications contextualized

Examining the scriptural texts (Q. 3:28, 118-119; 4:89, 139, 144; 5:51, 57, 8:72-73; 9:23; 58:22 and 60:1, 4, 8-9) and exegetic traditions shows how the relevant verses relate to situations of antagonism and enmity between believers and disbelievers and making right and wrong alliances in exceptional war and conflict contexts, as some Sunnah narrations on the reasons for revelation report. It is prohibited for Muslims in these cases to disclose their strategic confidential plans and/or seek support from disbelievers at the cost of their belief and co-believers thinking they will be protected. The Quranic narrative on the issue of loyalty and disavowal is thus, almost in all cases, related to situations of interreligious conflicts, competing coalitions and menacing amities with enemies where belongings and loyalties cannot be negotiable. The reasons for revelation clarify how hypocrites or in other cases some Muslims, deliberately or unintentionally, put the security of their state and the integrity of their faith at risk. This includes choosing the side of enemies, showing them amity and support and disclosing strategic secrets for the sake of protection, honour or power. The Quranic discourse stresses the obligations a) not to jeopardize public interests in times of wars and conflicts, b) not to take enemies as allies at the cost of religious and political loyalties, c) to stand firm in faith issues, d) to avoid hypocritical attitudes, and e) to be loyal to one’s religious category (Islam) which demands a Muslim deal kindly and justly with every ‘other’ beyond these exceptional cases. In this perspective, independently of faith affiliations, loyalties can converge for a ‘common good’, but disloyalties cannot be tolerated in cases of ‘common risk’.

Ridda (apostasy) as disloyalty

The jurisprudential evidences for apostasy in Islamic theology, unlike that of loyalty and disavowal, are extracted from the Sunnah and its narrated reports; the hadiths. The Quran affirms freedom of belief in more than two hundred verses. Several modern scholars have reconstructed the juristic reasoning on apostasy and have posed serious questions, partly on the authenticity and authority of the hadiths and partly on the ratio legis behind the punishment against it. Through the latter, they reflect on whether apostasy involves mere renunciation of religious belief, or has further implications for the Muslim community and state. In fact, the liaison between apostasy and disloyalty lies in the fact that ridda, in a premodern context, included disengagement from the community, change of allegiance and therefore enmity with the former socio-political context. It is the case, though, that the number of scholars who support the death punishment for every unrepentant apostate remains influential. The burden lies on the official fiqh and collective fatwa-councils to establish a politically binding theological substantiation of these controversial issues, especially when existing modern and classical authoritative reasoning forms a solid ground to build on.

 

Questions

1. How are walā’ and barā’ defined in the Muslim tradition and how do these notions relate to the Muslim view of the ‘other’?
2. To what extent does loyalty and disloyalty in Islamic tradition justify exclusivist attitudes?
3. Which aspects of this view of the ‘other’ are comparable to Christian exclusivism?
4. How is this view to be reconstructed in light of Quran and Hadith hermeneutics?
5. What is the link between the loyalty-disloyalty theory and apostasy?
6. How can the contextualisation of the interpretation of walā’and barā’ as suggested in this article be of help for those who are (considered as) apostates?

 

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Yaser Ellethy, which can be found here: Al-walā’ w’ al-barā’ (Loyalty and Disavowal): Reconstructing a ‘Creed’ in the Muslim Hermeneutics of ‘Otherness’.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

 

This article focuses on the concept of idolatry in online discourses of contemporary rabbis belonging to Israel’s Religious Zionist movement. What part do these tendencies, literary, rhetoric or theological, play in contemporary texts? Idolatry seems an archaic concept for (some) other religions and possible deviant behaviour from ‘insiders’. Considering the modern society and the recent rapid realisation of technological innovations and digital means of communication, one wonders if idolatry is still a relevant theological concept to relate to the religious other? In orthodox Judaism, contemporary texts are shaped by different historical-theological perspectives: the Shoah (retrieving lost traditions as mandatory), modernity and secularism may enforce conservative tendencies. Another important context is the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 – Jews became a majority in a state with citizens of other religions.

Actualities

The concept of idolatry in contemporary discourse seems relevant considering some recent incidents against churches and clergy in Israel. A deeper analysis of these incidents is needed to determine the exact role of religious motives and political-ideological-social aspects. Moreover, in religious media on the internet, a negative attitude can be observed by rabbis on practical issues: for example, on using Christian calendar dating, prohibiting a visit to the Vatican Museum or the Jerusalem Festival of Light where churches and Muslim places are lit up. In fact, these opinions are almost all based on the views of one religious-zionist rabbi, Shlomoh Aviner, but similar statements by other rabbis may be found on orthodox sites as well. That orthodoxy is not always averse to a more lenient perception of the religious other is found in the Talmud bHullin 13b: “Gentiles outside of Land of Israel are not idol worshippers, but they are holding on to a traditional custom of their ancestors…”. In the Middle Ages and Modernity period different pragmatic views and theological concepts were developed for a more lenient attitude.

Contemporary Responsa texts

The rabbinic discourse is highly diverse, comprising amongst others codices, commentaries, sermons, novellae on the Talmud and pietistic-ethical literature. A useful source is the genre of responsa: a question that usually arises from real life addressed to a rabbi, which the rabbi is expected to answer. A helpful tool for analysing discourses is the Responsa Project of the Bar-Ilan University (version 26), digitising amongst others responsa of famous rabbis (not complete). A search for the term ‘idol worship’ in the last five to six centuries yields 1273 texts (the majority seems to be related to authors of the post-Shoah period). One should be cautious – the high frequency does not show the way it is used, whether it is a reference to the tractate on idolatry in Mishnah or Talmud, a side track in a different subject, or a theoretical question. These 1273 texts are too comprehensive for the scope of this article.

Other contemporary media: Internet questions

Kipa.co.il is an important online-portal for Religious-Zionism in Israel with articles on a wide range of topics, from news, romantic relationships, the parent-child relationship, food and culture to strictly religious issues on the ‘Ask-the-Rabbi’ page, where some twenty-five rabbis can be addressed.

The 103 questions on idolatry are mostly answered by rabbis, some by a peer-group ‘Listening Friends’ – some questioners appear to be young adults. The length of the responsa varies from a few lines to a sheet of A4. Fourteen of these responsa deal with Christianity, four with Islam/Druze religion, and seventeen with religions of the Far East. In general, the religions of the Far East are seen as most idolatrous, followed by Christianity which, with some nuances, is seen as idolatrous (‘some branches’ though are not), while Islam is seen as fully monotheistic. Ten questions deal with inner-Jewish issues like superstition, exaggerated veneration of rabbis in some groups, the Shoah and nationalism in relation to idolatry. The majority are of a halachic nature (25) or deal with general halachical concepts (24). Other questions show a strong personal perspective and reflection (9).

Some questions are related to ‘traditional’ aspects of idolatry (e.g., objects of Buddhism, Christian statues, Islamic symbols). Other questions relate to the here-and-now and show an interesting scope of possible applications of idolatry by some religious Jews in Israel. Central is the question of how to relate to the other-one, and to the other-culture, without compromising one’s own religious identity.

Discussion

Questions often refer to situations of being among other religious cultures while being abroad as a tourist or in the State of Israel in relation to minorities – the relation to Islam/Druze religion, Christianity. Some reflect the influence of the Eastern religions, culture and western lifestyles on present day Israeli society and touch on different perspectives on symbols of modern Western culture: jeans, piercings, movies, television, sport, and secular literature. The questions reflect a certain level of doubt, fear, and guilt towards secular symbols of modernity, that are, to a certain degree incorporated into the lifestyle of (many) believers. The answers offer a kind of coping mechanism for the psychological tensions in engaging with these phenomena. The answering rabbi is sometimes more lenient than the religious vision or mindset of the young adult.

Religious-Zionism

The last category of questions deals with the juxtaposition of the believer and adherent of Religious Zionism vis-à-vis other Jewish groups and certain aspects of Religious Zionism (national pride).

A question on nationalism (answered by ‘Listening Friends’) refers to doubts over whether being proud of being religious and part of the chosen people could possibly be idolatrous, given the importance accorded by Religious Zionism to nationhood. The answer differentiates between pride in someone’s own achievements and pride in being chosen by God, which is after all God’s choice, and the importance of remembering the destination and task of the chosen people in the world, as well as a call for developing national pride as reaction to the idea of ‘being as all the nations’. This last question and answer especially, positions the questioner vis-à-vis with secular Zionism (‘being as all the nations’), secular modernity – the non-Jewish world – and ultra-orthodoxy that rejects (religious) Zionism.

Preliminary conclusions

The internet responsa are a valuable addition to the written sources as they present matters from the mundane reality of everyday life, reflecting the easily accessible form of the Internet responsa. The discourse functions as a marker of orthodox religious-zionist Jewish identity of certain groups and presents two perspectives, an internal and external one. The external deals with contemporary western influences, the popularity of religions of the Far East, touristic encounters with the ‘religious other’ and the ‘religious other’ in the Israeli context (Christianity, Islam, Druze, Messianic Jews, Baháʼí). The internal deals with delicate religious queries about the Shoah, or how to deal with other (ultra-) orthodox movements and issues of religious Zionism.

These internet responsa texts make virtually no reference to the Bible – even references to earlier rabbinical sources are relatively rare; the discourse seems to have its own characteristic features. Further analysis of both written responsa and internet responsa is required to sharpen our perspective on these texts and in this respect, the observations offered here  are no more than preliminary reflections.

 

 Questions

1. Does the concept of idolatry play a role in your own religion?
2. Does idolatry play a role in your own personal religious views?
3. Could idolatry be used in a positive way in a religious discourse?
4. Do you think that Internet is the right medium to discuss these kinds of sensitive religious subjects?
5. Could the concept of idolatry be relevant for secular people too?

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of the late Leo Mock, which can be found here: ‘Idolatry’ in Rabbinic Discussion: To Destroy, to Bury or Something Else? Some Observations of the Subject of ‘Idolatry’ in Rabbinic Questions and Answers on the Internet.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.

 

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author of which is unknown, several warnings are found that aim at keeping the believers attentive inside their group. One passage is rather explicit in passing judgement on believers who leave the community of the faithful: Hebr. 10:26-31. The NRSV translates this passage as follows:

For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy “on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know the one who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Hebrews’ warning against apostasy

The author of Hebrews combines several references to Old Testament passages to point out that God is a judging God, who does not know mercy when it comes to fallen believers. In the course of history, the quoted passage has given rise to many discussions. How can any biblical author speak so harshly and pass a judgement this stern about people who fall away from their faith? Can such a judgemental, hard picture of God be combined with the idea that God is love? How is the exclusion of apostates to be matched with other pictures of God in the Bible?

Some receptions of Hebrews

The Epistle to the Hebrews contains quite a few calls and exhortations. On estimate, one third of the epistle consists of this type of admonition. Later ecclesiastical authors have picked up the warnings of Hebrews and interpreted them from within their own contexts. Clement of Alexandria and Origen, for instance, two important authors who wrote at the end of the second and beginning of the third centuries, took this passage literally and suggested a church in which there would be no place anymore for people who had “betrayed” Christ. Later, after Christianity in the fourth century first became a permitted religion and several decades later was even appointed state religion of Rome, authors have gone to great lengths to explain that apostasy is caused by the Devil: it is he who tries to lead people astray and keep them from living with God and Christ.

The exclusion of fallen believers in the Epistle to the Hebrews

From a modern perspective, Heb. 10:26-31 is a harsh text that raises numerous questions. Can believers in the twenty-first century still deal with this image of a judgemental God? Is possible at all to still use a term like “apostasy”? Can the borderlines of a faith community be drawn in the harsh style of Hebrews?

It may be a consolation to realize that this passage has been seen by many authors as problematic throughout the history of the church. Only a few authors have supported a literal interpretation. It is probably best to see these admonitions as a form of concern: concern that nobody may fall away from the community of believers. Yet this concern is phrased in a way that may be called sectarian: emphasizing the hard boundaries between the in-group and out-groups, between believers who stay in and those who leave is a characteristic that divides sects from other groups. This specific exhortation in Hebrews may, for that reason, be seen as sectarian in nature. Even this type of material is found in the Bible.

 

Questions

1. Is the image of a judging God still to be upheld in the twenty-first century?
2. Can we still use a term like “apostasy”?
3. Hebrews warns the believers not to leave the community of faithful and threatens them with permanent exclusion from their salvation. Does it come as a surprise that a threat like this is found in the Bible?
4. Should the Bible be interpreted literally or are their other ways of reading it?

 

About

This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, which can be found here: Hebrews, Deuteronomy, and Exclusion in the Early Church.

Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion.  If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.