Islam and evangelical Christianity are deeply divided by precisely what they have in common—certainty about the singular truth of their own religion and zeal in their efforts to convert others, said featured speaker Lamin Sanneh of Yale University at the May 29 Center seminar "Evangelicals, Islam, and Humanitarian Aid." The similarity of their global ambition has "complicated relations between Islam and the West." Muslims are uncomprehending, moreover, about Christian support for the separation of religion and the state. They fail to see how people who are religiously serious can conceive of religion "as a differentiated, private option."
Despite such fundamental barriers, these two civilizations are now inextricably intertwined, and dialogue between them is imperative, Sanneh argued. He suggested that a conversation about "contrasting views of revelation and the public good" would be a useful place to start. "There are sound religious and theological reasons for tolerance as a political good," Sanneh said, pointing to the persuasive case made by some of America’s founders. James Madison, for instance, "affirmed that the establishment of religion as an engine of civil policy would destroy the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience. . . . Religion exists from the free, unfettered response of faith; a liberal democracy flourishes by the same principle of freedom." It is this logic—that "the imposition of religion is really as bad as the suppression of religion" because it constitutes "a violation of conscience"—that might convince "our Muslim friends of the perils of joining church and state, religion and politics." The Qu’ran clearly states, Sanneh added, that there should be "no compulsion in religion."
Moderated by Center vice president Michael Cromartie, an extensive exchange followed among participants who represented the journalistic, evangelical, and humanitarian aid communities interested in the difficulties arising from Christian-Muslim friction. In response to Sanneh’s remarks, Paul Marshall of Freedom House expressed concern that excessive emphasis on religion-state separation would leave unaddressed the pressing question of how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate "religious influences on a state structure." Most of the discussion focused on the wider matter of mutual understanding, however, and revealed a great range of opinion. Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action sought advice about what would be "most truthful and right and helpful" for the U.S. evangelical leadership "to do and say" in the wake of the controversy over their humanitarian efforts in Muslim countries, while Michael Woodruff of the Charles Malik Foundation criticized Muslims who demand respect for their cultural values but do not reciprocate with respect for Western values. Uwe Siemon-Netto of UPI asked about the number of Muslims who were actually "prepared to discuss reforming Islam." David Van Biema of Time elicited numerous comments when he sought clarification of evangelical views of Islam.
Others joining the debate included Joel Belz of World, Deborah Caldwell of Beliefnet.com, Galen Carey of World Relief, Alan Cooperman of the Washington Post, Serge Duss of World Vision, Marc Erickson of Eastbrook Church, Os Guinness of Trinity Forum, Joe Loconte of the Heritage Foundation, Gerald McDermott of Roanoke College, Steve McFarland of Prison Fellowship International, Mike Magan of USAID’s Office of Faith-based Initiatives, Nneka Ofulue of the University of Gerogia, Mark O’Keefe of Newhouse News Service, Ted Olsen of Christianity Today, Jason Trimiew of Food for the Hungry, and Robin Wainwright of the Holy Land Trust.
