Jesus Christ the Supreme Saviour

Reform, as a grass roots movement, envisages action coming from members who have thought, studied, discussed and agreed. Discussion papers such as this one are written by individual members for the council of Reform and the wider church. The author alone is responsible for the paper.

Jesus Christ the Supreme Saviour

A Biblical approach to the inter-faith debate in Sheffield diocese

Introduction

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge and is press officer for Reform Sheffield. He represents Ecclesfield deanery on Sheffield diocesan synod. He is married to Lisa and they have four sons. Before ordination, he was a reporter for Retail Week, a newspaper for the directors and senior managers of retail companies. He explains why Reform Sheffield is publishing Jesus Christ: The Supreme Saviour.

‘In their participation in such (multi-faith) services, Christians should avoid giving the impression that Jesus Christ is merely one of many saviours. Christian contributors need not be embarrassed by mentioning the Name of Christ. Services in which Christians participate, but in which Christ is not mentioned at all, understandably give offence to many Christians.’

So said the Inter-Faith Consultative Group in its report ‘Multi-Faith Worship’ published for the General Synod’s Board of Mission in 1992 (p54, section 148). The idea of Christians participating in so-called multi-faith worship at all was disturbing to many orthodox Anglicans at the time, but it would now appear that the multi-faith trend has moved even beyond the line drawn in 1992.

Christophobia

Mr Jonathan Redden, a General Synod representative for Sheffield Diocese and a member of the Reform Sheffield steering group, has identified a new phobia – Christophobia. It is a national disease in a post-Christian culture, the symptoms of which are now quite wide-ranging. They include controversies over Christmas cards and nativity plays; a trend towards banishing Christ from historical dating, replacing BC with BCE (Before Common Era) or even BP (Before Present); and a fear sometimes amongst teachers that leading children in a chorus of ‘Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so’ will lead to a barrage of complaints.

There is evidence that this Christophobia in the culture has now begun to infect the Church. Christians are becoming reluctant, when other faith groups are present, to pray through Jesus Christ our Lord. Talk of God may be acceptable at a multi-faith service or civic event but, in an adaptation of Basil Fawlty’s famous line about the War, whatever you do, don’t mention the Lord Jesus Christ. He is apparently a civic embarrassment; his is the Name his servants dare not speak.

Reform Sheffield is publishing Jesus Christ: The Supreme Saviour in response to this apparent ‘Christophobia’, this fear to speak the Name that is above every name in the face of political correctness. As with the first booklet on human sexuality, it is for our diocese of Sheffield and is being offered for consideration by clergy, lay readers and deanery synod representatives amongst others.

Not only unique

We are not arguing merely for the uniqueness of Christ. Those who say they believe Christianity is a ‘unique revelation’ are saying no more than that there are some features to the Christian faith that are not found in other religions. Every religion or world-view is thus unique in that sense.

What we are seeking to argue for is the exclusive supremacy of Christ. Exclusive not in the sense that he excludes those who come to him – he does not, he saves them - but exclusive in the sense that he has no rival; he is the only way to God the Father and to God’s eternal salvation. As the Apostle Peter put it in his speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 4: ‘there is salvation in no-one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4v12 – NRSV).

Combating racism

In upholding the New Testament view of the supremacy of Christ, we want to draw a clear line between the multi-faith question and the issue of race and racism. Racism is a disgusting evil and we applaud faith leaders in Sheffield, including our own diocesan bishop, who have worked hard to combat it. We also applaud the efforts of South Yorkshire Police to combat racially-motivated crime and acts of hatred.

The Gospel of Christ’s supremacy and the salvation that is in him alone is for all people, whatever their ethnicity, language and culture. The strength of the Anglican Church in the two-thirds world demonstrates that the Good News is by no means the preserve of white middle-class Anglicans. We rejoice in that and in the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural diversity of the Church of Jesus Christ.

True canonical position

We contend that such a view of the exclusive supremacy of Christ is in fact the authentic Anglican position according to the Canons of the Church of England. Canon A5, which all clergy are required to uphold, states that

‘the doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal’.

The 39 Articles, which Canon A5 states are one of the foundation stones of the biblical doctrine of the Church of England, directly address the issue of salvation through Christ alone against those who suggest people can be saved by other means. Article 18 is worth quoting in full:

‘They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.’

The Church Society in its English Prayer Book has helpfully provided a modern version of this article, again worth quoting in full:

‘Those who presume to say that every person shall be saved by the rule of life, religion or sect that he professes, provided he makes diligent efforts to live by that rule and the light of nature, must be regarded as accursed. For holy Scripture declares to us that it is only in the name of Jesus Christ that men (people) must be saved.’

When Article 18 uses the word ‘accursed’, it is echoing the Apostle Paul’s words in Galatians 1v5: ‘But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema).’ According to Article 18, those who teach that people can be saved through sincere adherence to their non-Christian religion are preaching a different gospel from the true apostolic Gospel. They are thus anathema. They are leading people astray. The article echoing St Paul is strong in its condemnation of those who lead people away from the Christ by whom and by whom alone they must be saved from God’s wrath on sin.

The Supreme Saviour & the inclusive Gospel

In this booklet, Reform Sheffield founder Jonathan Lockwood sensitively deals with the questions many people in South Yorkshire parishes have about the supremacy of Christ. Is it arrogant for Christians to hold such a position? What about religious tolerance in a multi-faith society? What about the so-called ‘hidden Christ’ who may be at work in men and women of integrity and goodwill in all faiths and none? Such questions are valid and need to be addressed.

Paul German strikes a practical note in his article. He writes of his experience of cross-cultural mission, hospitality and dialogue.

Our thanks go to our consultant editors, the Revd Tim Davies, the Revd Dr Jason Clarke, Mr Jonathan Redden and the Revd Nigel Elliott. Their expertise and insights have proved invaluable in preparing this booklet.

Our prayer as Reform Sheffield is that this publication will help the debate in our diocese to be shaped by a responsible biblical approach. In upholding the exclusiveness of Christ’s supremacy, we want also to uphold the inclusiveness of his saving Gospel for all nations. We rejoice in his grace and mercy towards us and want others, whatever their ethnic background, to enjoy Christ’s wonderful salvation as well. Our prayer is that whatever we do we will mention the great and glorious Name of Jesus Christ, the Supreme Saviour.

Jonathan Lockwood, a founder of Reform Sheffield, is a teacher of religious studies as well as being part-time administrator for national Reform. He is a youth leader at his local Anglican church - Christ Church Fulwood in south-west Sheffield. He has also been involved in Christian outreach in the Ukraine. He is married to Fiona and they have three sons. He addresses the following questions about the supremacy of Christ in our multi-faith society:
Is it not arrogant to claim that Jesus Christ is the Supreme Saviour?
Is it not uncharitable and intolerant to claim that Christ is the Supreme Saviour?
Don’t all religions lead to God? They are just different paths up the same mountain.
What about men and women of sincerity and goodwill in all faiths and none? Are they not in touch with the ‘hidden Christ’?
Is it not insensitive and inappropriate to try to persuade those of other faiths to become Christians?

Before turning directly to the questions, famous words of the Apostle Paul about the supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ in his letter to the Colossians (1v15-20) are worth quoting:

‘He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross’ (English Standard Version).

Is it not arrogant to claim that Jesus Christ is the Supreme Saviour?

False Modesty

The claim certainly has the appearance of being arrogant. In a multi-cultural environment such a claim seems embarrassing not least because the Christian seems to be saying to those of other religions ‘my religion is better than yours’. The religious ‘pluralist’, who holds that there are many expressions of truth about God and several equally valid paths to salvation, by contrast appears to be humble. The pluralist asserts that no one religion has all the answers; all beliefs are provisional and part of an on-going exploration.

To adapt Christian doctrine to fit in with modern pluralist sensibilities (1) is to change the essence of Christian belief. The Christian does not claim that Christ is the supreme saviour out of disrespect for other cultures. He does not make the claim out of a sense of superiority. He makes the claim out of humility before the authority of the Bible. The passage above from Colossians makes massive claims about the nature of Jesus. He is not just my Lord – he is the Lord – he is the supreme creator, he is above everything, he is God. And he has accomplished what no other can – he has reconciled the fractured cosmos. If this is not true, then Biblical Christianity is deluded (and not worth bringing to inter-faith dialogue in the first place).

The religious pluralist appears modest but is arrogant in his sense of superiority over the authority of the Bible (2).

My loyalty to Christ should not involve arrogance. I respect those of other faiths, I wish to be friendly and to extend goodwill to my neighbours, colleagues, and to the members of my community of other faiths. I have more in common with them than with religious pluralists. I must not be understood to think that my religion is better than theirs (more of this later) but I must be loyal to Christ (3). When Jesus asked Peter “Who do you say I am?” they were at Caesarea Philippi surrounded by the Roman Pantheon of gods. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ. The first followers of Jesus would have been innocuous and ineffective if they had allowed that Jesus was one of many gods. The followers of Christ would have remained a small Jewish sect.

Is it not uncharitable and intolerant to claim that Christ is the Supreme Saviour?

False Charity

The religious pluralist appears to be charitable by allowing that salvation can be found in a variety of religions. A sight gag in one of our family’s favourite films, Captain Ron, is the throwing of a life-belt which promptly sinks. Jesus made the exclusive claim ––“I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no-one comes to the father except through me” (John 14:6). If this is not true, then Jesus was deluded (and not worth bringing to the inter-faith dialogue). If it is true, then declaring salvation to be found in other religions is false charity and is like a sinking life-belt.

False tolerance

Tolerance is when a person thinks that they are right but allows others to be wrong. It is not pretending that everyone is right. A tolerance that suggests that all religious truth claims are equally true is not really tolerance so much as indifference (4). It comes from a post-modern suspicion that there is no truth anyway.

Don’t all religions lead to God? They are just different paths up the same mountain.

I confess to not liking John Lennon’s song Imagine. The song asks listeners to imagine what a great place the world could be without certain things, including heaven. He wrote: ‘Imagine there’s no countries … no religion too.’ I am sure many people have sympathy with the sentiment (it was voted the song of the Millennium in 1999!). Religion seems to be part of the world’s problem, not part of the solution. In this, at least, I agree with Lennon.

The religious pluralist thinks that all religions lead to God (5). The follower of Christ believes that no religion leads to God. All religions may have inklings of the truth about God but no religion can overcome the alienation that exists between God and Humanity.

As Paul put it in Colossians 1v21:

‘Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behaviour. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation’…

Religion does not save anybody. Christianity does not save anybody. Salvation is through God’s grace in Jesus Christ. A person is saved through repentance and trust in God’s mercy in Christ. I am a Christian because I am saved. I am not saved because I am a Christian. And religions will often get in the way. The Old Testament prophets were emphatic about how useless and obstructive religion could be. Amos prophesied against Israel ––“I hate, I despise your religious feasts. I cannot stand your assemblies” (Amos 5v21). God saved Israel from Egypt because of his mercy. Their subsequent religion was always meant to be on the basis of responding to the God who saved them and not on the basis of trying to persuade God to save them. Christians meet together in the name of their Lord who has saved them. They do not meet together to gain credit or to undertake any religious activity that will achieve salvation for them.

What about men and women of sincerity and goodwill in all faiths and none? Are they not in touch with the ‘hidden Christ’?

After all, there are ‘heroes of faith’ mentioned in the Bible who could not explicitly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That is because they were born before he was! Hebrews 11 lists these heroes of faith, none of whom knew the name of Jesus and yet responded to God with saving faith - Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham among them. Rahab, the prostitute who assisted the people of God in their conquest of Jericho, was from a pagan background and she is also named in this list. She, a pagan, is a heroine of the faith ––‘by faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies’ (Hebrews 11v31). Surely Rahab and these others were in touch with a hidden Christ potentially available to anyone, of whatever religious background, who exercises faith in a loving and merciful God.

However, it is misleading on this basis to suggest that there are anonymous Abrahams and Enochs and Rahabs living in the world today. All the Old Testament characters listed in Hebrews 11 were given a ‘special revelation’ of God over and above the ‘general revelation’ that is available to mankind outside of the Bible. They received special words and promises from the one true God, even Rahab because she was privileged to come into contact with God’s chosen people as they were occupying the Promised Land. The fact that these characters have a place in the unfolding story of salvation in the Old Testament makes them unique. The example they set to subsequent generations is that of faith in God’s word of promise now fulfilled in Jesus Christ, God’s final Word.

The New Testament story of the conversion of the Roman centurion Cornelius, described in Acts 10, shows the imperative of faith in the One revealed to be God’s promised Christ, namely Jesus of Nazareth. Cornelius is described as a God-fearing, prayerful man and a thoroughly decent caring individual who was unusually generous in his charitable giving (v2). Surely he of all people had earned his ticket to heaven! But the astonishing fact is that he needed to become a Christian. He needed to hear the Good News of Jesus, which the Apostle Peter proclaimed to him. Overcoming the cultural and religious barriers between Jews and Gentiles, Peter gave eye-witness testimony to the saving facts of Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection in front of Cornelius and his household and told them that explicit faith in this Jesus was necessary for the forgiveness of sins ––‘To him (Jesus Christ) all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of their sins through his name’ (Acts 10v43).

If a man as decent and God-fearing as Cornelius needed to become a Christian, then everybody does, of all faiths and none and whether or not, like Cornelius, they are men and women of sincerity and goodwill.

Is it not insensitive and inappropriate to try to persuade those of other faiths to become Christians?

The New Testament is clear that there is no salvation except through Jesus:

‘And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4v12).

Given that salvation is only through the name of Jesus, then the followers of Jesus must share the good news of the forgiveness that he offers to anyone who believes in him. If people do not know about the forgiveness of sins that is essential for salvation, then how can they be saved?

Furthermore, the followers of Christ have received a direct command from Christ himself to persuade men and women of all nationalities also to become Christian disciples. The Great Commission – Jesus’ command to his disciples in Matthew 28v19-20 – could not be clearer: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.'

The problem is not really one of being insensitive by talking to people of other religions about Jesus - the problem is that it may be done in an insensitive and inappropriate way. It is entirely inappropriate, for example, for a Christian RE teacher to try to persuade children of other faiths that they should trust in Jesus in an RE lesson, although there is nothing wrong with explaining clearly what a Christian believes.

Having decided that pluralism is all wrong for a Christian and that the challenge is to invite all people to repentance and faith, it is vital that the Christian community lives out the truth of the gospel with distinctive gospel living. Which brings us on to the next chapter.

Footnotes

These notes have been helpfully provided by the Revd Dr Jason Clarke, associate vicar of Christ Church Fulwood. Jason’s comments shed invaluable light on the philosophical issues underlying the live and current debate about religious pluralism in our society today.

1 It is helpful to differentiate between what Don Carson calls empirical pluralism on the one hand and philosophical pluralism on the other. Empirical pluralism is a recognition of the religious and ethnic diversity that makes up modern societies. Empirical pluralism is simply a social reality and one in which Christians can rejoice because of the many benefits that cultural and ethnic diversity can bring.

Philosophical pluralism, however, is the view that all truth is relative. Philosophical pluralism rejects the idea that any truth claim, particularly (but not exclusively) any religious truth claim, is superior to another. The only absolute is that of pluralism. If modernism believed in the objectivity of truth, then late modernism believes ‘truth’ is subjective; all meaning (not least the meaning of texts) is culturally conditioned. Any universal truth claims are rejected as tools of domination and oppression, the so-called tyranny of meta-narratives! As Simon Blackburn, professor of philosophy at Cambridge University, puts it: ‘We drape our own standards with the stories of divine origin as a way of asserting their authority’ - Blackburn, Simon Being Good (Oxford: OUP, 2001) 18.

Philosophical pluralism is inextricably linked to a deconstructionist view of language, which is particularly significant for Christians. Language and meaning are socially constructed – meaning and truth reside in the reader; there is no objective truth outside the text. So issues to do with truth are dodged because, in the world of radical hermeneutics, that is just not where the debate should be located. In short, it is all a matter of competing interpretations of scriptures - (how often do we hear that in the Church of England!). We are, as one writer put it, ‘incarcerated in a prison house of language’. Philosophical pluralism, then, has resulted in a radical religious pluralism, whereby no religion can advance any claim to superiority and (most significantly) exclusiveness.

So Carson puts it like this:

“For those who espouse radical religious pluralism, there is no longer any heresy, except perhaps the view that there are heresies. Other ages have disagreed over just what constitutes a heresy, but the category itself was inviolate. For the first time in history, large numbers of people deny that theological corruption is possible. For these people, even to ask if there are any theological boundaries, let alone where they lie (in two senses!), is to flirt with sacrilege” - Carson, Don The Gagging of God (Leciester: Apollos, 1996) 30.

2 The issue here relates to how we know what we know (our epistemological foundation): if you reject the full, final and sufficient authority of the Scriptures, then what is your final authority and why? Late modernism has become disillusioned with the arrogant posturing of Enlightenment rationalism. For many, ‘reason’ is no longer people’s final court of appeal. As Nietzsche put it: ‘Rationality is only a tool for power.’ Late modernism tries to reject all final authorities; it is’‘anti-foundational’. Nevertheless, whether people recognise it or not, whether they live consistently with it or not, everyone has a final authority that they appeal to, whether it is feelings, reason, science, experience or an ideology such as political correctness.

It is not only Christians who must defend why they believe that Jesus is the supreme and exclusively sufficient saviour. Others must explain why he is not and who/what is, and CRUCIALLY, how do they know!

3 One of the reasons that the arrogance charge seems to stick is because people deal with a false antithesis when it comes to truth claims. Philosophical pluralism makes a profound agnosticism the only politically-correct stance and therefore assumes that anybody claiming to know the truth (if there is such a thing) is automatically claiming to know the truth EXHAUSTIVELY. So the false antithesis is: you can either know truth exhaustively or you cannot know truth at all; either there is absolute knowledge or complete relativism. Faced with such a choice, it is little wonder that people think Christians are arrogant. The antithesis, though, is patently absurd. It is possible to know some things truly even if you do not know them exhaustively. I know some things that are true about my wife (I know which schools she went to), but I don’t know everything about my wife (I don’t know the names of all her former class-mates). Is it not possible to know some things that are true about God without having to know everything that is true about God, not least if he has chosen to make some true things about himself known? ‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that revealed belong to us and our children forever’ - Deuteronomy 29v29. When it comes to the text of the Bible I can (with the Spirit’s illumination) understand true truth if not exhaustive truth. Even allowing for the fact that it was written in a different historical and cultural setting to my own, it is possible to ‘spiral in’ on the meaning of the author.

4 Why is the attitude that all religious truth claims are equally true the same as indifference? This is best explained by reference to competing truth claims within both religious and secular worldviews.

Thus it becomes clear that all religions are not the same. As Steve Turner puts it in his wonderful satirical poem, ‘Creed’:

We believe that all religions are basically the same
at least the one that we read was
They all believe in love and goodness
They only differ on matters of
Creation sin heaven hell God and salvation

Turner, Steve Up to date (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1983).

Few have put it as well as Dorothy Sayers:

‘In the world it is called tolerance but in hell it is called despair. The sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, enjoys nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing but remains alive because there is nothing which it would die for’ (quoted in Finding God at Harvard ed. Kelly Monroe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing, 1996) 17.

Modern ‘tolerance’ is often an unwillingness to take other people’s convictions seriously. Such indifference is often excused as the keeping of an open mind. But as GK Chesterton once put it: “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

It is important to emphasise here that is perfectly possible to tolerate a person and yet disagree with their ideas. When we confuse the two, people assume (incorrectly) that even a civil discussion (conducted with all the grace and sensitivity that the Scriptures demand cf 1 Peter 3:15) is inevitably a personal attack. However, this is not necessarily the case. As Voltaire famously put it: ‘I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.’

5 The ‘illustration’– many paths up the one mountain - appears so humble and open-minded, but it is actually profoundly arrogant. For the ‘illustration’ to work, it assumes that there is some independent vantage point suspended ABOVE the mountain from which it is possible to see the world’s religious adherents climbing.

This vantage point is granted to the religious sceptic (or inclusivist), but not to the religious follower. The question that needs to be asked is: ‘How do you know that this “many roads up one mountain” is the truth?'– once again it is a question of epistemology.

There is an appearance of humility in the protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp. But if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth, then it is in fact an arrogant claim to a superior kind of knowledge than that which is available to fallible human beings. We have to ask: ‘How do you know that the truth about God is greater than what is revealed to us in Jesus?’ - Newbigin, Lesslie The Gospel in a pluralist Society (London: SPCK, 1989) 170.

Paul German has been finance director of Loxleys Print Ltd, one of Sheffield’s oldest businesses, for the past 14 years; he is also a trustee, and past chairman, of the Datic Trust which runs Galeed House, a meeting place for Christians and Muslims in the Sheffield district of Darnall. He is married to Olive and they have a son and a daughter. He also sits on Tearfund’s International Committee, which he says ‘has been a useful window into Christian development work in the Muslim world and elsewhere’.

‘How can God forgive sinners?’ – that was reportedly one of the questions that came up at the enquirers’ event. Before I heard the end of the story, I knew that the question must have come from the Iranian Muslim attending. A Brit with a bit of residual Christianity in his background would be unlikely to ask such a question; of course God (if he existed) will forgive – that’s his job!

Changing Scenes

As I look out from my office near Abbeydale Road, I see in one direction a Roman Catholic church, previously the Congregational church where my great-grandfather ministered to an exclusively white population in the 1920’s,and through another window the huge new mosque nearing completion on Wolseley Road. My fellow traveller on a flight to Islamabad last June told me proudly of his family’s involvement in the planning and financing of the building, which will cater for the religious needs of many Pakistanis living both nearby and around the city. And whilst I may feel little empathy with Abu Hamza, the radical hook-fisted cleric from Finsbury Park, we as Christians share some important beliefs with most of these ordinary Muslims – a reverence for God and his revealed word, an acceptance of prayer as the natural and proper response to him, and a set of family-centred values.

Whilst we must add some major provisos to each of these, they nevertheless remind us how far our own culture has moved from the beliefs and behaviour prevalent just two or three generations ago. My Afghan friends in Sheffield were delighted, but surprised, to discover that I shared their distaste for the extra-marital antics of Charles and Camilla; they had assumed, in the absence of public protest to the contrary, that British people took such infidelity as normal and acceptable.

A meeting place for Christians and Muslims

Following three years’ work in Kabul in the 1980’s for a Christian development agency, under the watchful eyes of the occupying Russians, I returned to secular employment in the UK with a continuing interest in the unravelling Soviet Central Asian states. In addition to a regular involvement with two British charities providing aid to the region, there were a couple of opportunities to visit and see evidence of Christian compassion and witness in societies oppressed by the same dictators who had previously ruled as communist chiefs. Then, four days after 9/11, a small trust bought a terraced property near where I live and converted it into a meeting place for Christians and Muslims.

In the years since then, many local women and children, and a good number of men, have come in for a variety of activities (including English, sewing and computer classes, and children’s clubs); outings have been organised and homes visited. Generous financial support made it possible in 2004 to refurbish the derelict stable block in the backyard into a further meeting space as demand for the classes and clubs grew. Under the direction of an experienced Centre Co-ordinator, volunteers from a wide range of local churches help run activities and develop genuine friendships through the time spent together.

Uncompromising Friendship

Within this context of friendship with individuals and families, there are very natural opportunities to share, in a non-confrontational manner, the hope we have in Christ Jesus. This is not to exclude the need to refute the error that Christians contend is embedded in Islam – Jay Smith is a courageous example of that at Speakers’ Corner – but the Muslims we meet are rarely advocating hatred even if some fail to condemn the suicide bombers. Rather, they are more likely to be appreciative of genuine friendship which, interestingly, is as rare a commodity in their cultures as in our own.

As in other areas of service, it is often better first to engage prayerfully with real people and see what the issues are than to read the ‘experts’ and then discover the gulf between theory and practice! It was certainly a relief to me, after a two-week Islamics course, to find that virtually no-one in Kabul wanted to challenge my belief in the divinity of Christ or even object every time I looked at or spoke to a woman – so much for the severe warnings received in England! The religious situation certainly did change for the worse after we left, and especially when the Taliban rolled into town, but the concern of most Afghans under both regimes remained survival in the face of poverty and inter-ethnic violence.

At the House also it is life’s vicissitudes that lead into conversations about faith and eternity; sometimes the expression of concern for relatives affected by, for example, the Kashmir earthquake is naturally accompanied by prayer with the individual for the family in their loss or anxiety. Sometimes, but less frequently, a developing relationship will lead to a discussion about the truth of the gospel narrative; are there really 50,000 errors in the New Testament as some imams claim, or do ancient texts actually confirm the reliability of the Biblical revelation? As we see in evangelism elsewhere, it is often a consistent witness in demonstrating Christian ‘Behaving’ and ‘Belonging’ that opens the door to serious consideration of ‘Believing’. Such friendship is costly – it is frequently inconvenient and it requires a willingness to step into a very different culture – but we know of no more Christ-like alternative!

Unfriendly Compromising

At some point of course we need to share God’s wholly reliable word with anyone seeking the truth; initially this may be in easily digestible portions or on a Scripture calendar in their mother tongue. What we must never do is compromise the truth that Peter declared to the Sanhedrin. And my Afghan friend – whilst he may disagree at present – would be puzzled if I said otherwise! As we prayed and planned for the House, we heard of a proposed inter-faith service, to be held at a nearby Anglican church, in which a number of ‘gods’ including Jesus would be worshipped; this of course is as offensive to a Muslim as to any right-minded Christian. Following some protest the service did not proceed, but for the handful of converts from Islam, and for those within it trying to understand what the institutional church stands for (by which standard they are likely to judge the Christian faith as a whole), such incidents are deeply painful and confusing.

Courageous Converts

For many of the Iranian asylum seekers converted to Christ in the UK, their new-found faith is yet another reason to fear the consequences of forced repatriation; for others the label ‘Christian’ is seen as strengthening their claim to remain here. We would all have mixed motives in such a situation and it requires the wisdom of Solomon to discern the genuine from the opportunistic, especially in deciding whether to baptise a ‘convert’.

Given that background, it was particularly striking to hear one young man telling hundreds of other believing Iranians from around our area how at his latest immigration hearing – and against the advice of his solicitor–– he had admitted the lies in his initial asylum application. Despite knowing that this could result in his application being rejected, he testified how Christ had changed him and was able to keep him even if he was sent back to a very uncertain fate in Iran.

There is often a courage amongst our Muslim Background Believer (MBB) brothers that is borne out of counting the cost and sometimes shames us. The family, cultural and community pressures against conversion are huge; whilst we opened the House with a ‘no proselytising’ rule, this was ignored by some of our more strident Muslim visitors. There would therefore be no doubt in anyone’s mind whether the community could be indifferent to conversion.

As I completed this article the postman delivered a reply from my MP over concerns I had expressed on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. As the Government continues to stumble blindly in this area, endangering – in his words – the right to ‘criticise other religions or the religious beliefs of others in strong terms’, it is vital that Christians and their leaders speak out, like the apostles, clearly and publicly ‘the good news that Jesus is the Christ’.