Given that the United Nations does not use the Bible to guide policy, it seems only sensible to weigh the suggestions they give against the truth we have in Christ (Colossians 2:8). It would be wrong to accept their message and deliver it in a church setting if the message does not agree with the Bible, and even if it does agree – yet it may be that it needs to be properly explained through the Bible.
In order to do this, I’ll ask three questions to start the discussion of ‘the interfaith question’. I’ll first ask whether the Bible supports an interfaith category; then what the Bible sets out as normal in terms of interfaith harmony, and finally the ways in which the Bible teaches us to approach the interfaith challenge.
Treat this as my thoughts on the matter – it is for you to review the scriptures yourself and see if you agree with the conclusions I have reached.

The Interfaith Category

If we are to discuss interfaith issues, we must first establish to what extent there is a category for interfaith issues. Interfaith issues are defined as those relations which one religion has with persons or institutions of other religions. In the Christian context, it becomes the relationship between Christianity and persons or institutions of religions other than Christianity.

This is where we encounter the first problem: the Bible does not differentiate between persons of other religions, or indeed of no religion. In terms of categories, a given person is either Christian – or he is not. A person is either ‘in the light’, or remains ‘in darkness’ (Ephesians 5:8). All those who deny the truth of God are under the wrath of God (Romans 1:18,22-23,28; Ephesians 2:3). The whole world, Paul writes, is accountable to God (Romans 3:19).

If there is no Biblical category for those of ‘other religions’, then it is important that in our discussion of the issues we remember to equally include those of no religion. In Biblical terms therefore the ‘interfaith question’ should be treated as the question of ‘the church and the world’. The way in which the Christian relates to those of other religions should not differ as a matter of policy or philosophy from the way in which the Christian relates to those of no religion at all – and so our questions must be likewise rephrased to talk not of those of other religions, but of all those who are not Christian – that is, the world.

Interfaith Harmony

Having seen that there is no Biblical category for ‘interfaith’ relations, and that in terms of doctrine it differs nothing from relations with the world – let us review the scripture and determine what it is that the Bible teaches about harmony between the church and the world. What should we expect, if we hold true to Christ?

First, it is worth noting that the division between the church and the world is more than mere membership; but is one of power and dominion. The world is described as under the power of Satan, whereas the church is under the power of God (Acts 26:18, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 5:16).

As such, the world cannot but hate the church. If a man in the world were to receive the truth, then he would no longer be of the world, but of the church. To this point I bring the very promise of Christ, who declares “because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19), and goes on to say that “they will also persecute you” (John 15:20).

Much scripture attests to this persecution, suffering and tribulation, by which we are assured that it is only through many tribulations that we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), and directly told that “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (II Timothy 3:12). So, “do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you” (I John 3:13).

As an example of a Christian life, one surely cannot better Christ himself. It is in Christ that we see persecution even to death, and teachings which were the occasion of great anger amongst those of other beliefs. Far from ensuring interfaith harmony, Jesus even caused a religious riot – such that the governor saw fit to put him to death to avoid further problems (Matthew 27:24). Was Christ wrong in proclaiming the kingdom of God – as he certainly foreknew that it would lead to religious confrontation?

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, did little better. He, carrying out his mission from Christ, encountered not religious harmony but was lead right into confrontation after confrontation. In Acts 17:5-8 we read of one such event in which there was not only rioting by those of other beliefs such that the whole city was said to be ‘in an uproar’, but also a mob attacking the house at which they stayed and dragging those they could find out. When Paul is later held before the governor Felix, the charge against him is nothing less than “one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world”!

Was Paul wrong in obeying God despite the fact that it would predictably cause a loss of religious harmony? Is it right to obey God, or to obey man (Acts 4:19)? We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

When we consider interfaith harmony then, we need to bear in mind that the Bible promises us persecution and hatred from the world. We are promised that if we are indeed of Christ and not of the world then we will be persecuted, rejected and hated. If we are able to set about a course of action which can remove this persecution, rejection and hatred then either we make the word of God a lie, or we are no longer Christian, nor are we living a godly life.

Thus, the second thing to conclude is that it is not possible for Christians to achieve interfaith harmony. Whilst Christians may not persecute or mistreat the world, yet the very promise of God guarantees that the world will persecute and mistreat Christians. This is a very significant thing to bear in mind – for it means that the UN message is promoting something we know is possible to achieve only if we abandon our Christian faith so that the world might love us.

The Interfaith Challenge

Notably, the Christian is not told to withdraw and remove himself from the world which certainly hates him. Rather, he is sent into the world, and with a purpose. When Christ offers up his prayer of John 17, although he knows the world has hated Christians for being not of the world (John 17:14), he does not ask the Father take Christians “out of the world” but that they be protected from falling into the hands of Satan (John 17:15). Christ has sent Christians into the world, just as he himself was sent into the world by the Father (John 17:18).

This sending out into the world is for a stated purpose, which is to proclaim the Gospel – and to do so to all creation. It will not be received by all, but yet it is to be proclaimed to all that those who believe will be saved (Mark 16:15-16).

The Christian is told not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewal of his mind. He is to present his body as a living sacrifice to God, even though he is in the world (Romans 12:1-2). It is not an easy mission of worldly blessings that the Christian is sent upon, but one with adversaries, opposition, and suffering – sufferings which are experienced by Christians throughout the world (I Peter 5:9). The Christian indeed hopes for a future of peace and harmony, but is only promised that future with the return of Christ – the eternal glory to which we have been called (I Peter 5:9).

Meanwhile, the Christian is told not to be a friend of the world, indeed to do so is to be guilty of adultery towards God. As James teaches, “whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4). We’re taught not to love the world or the things of the world – for as John reminds us, “if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15).

Thus, there is a great danger that this quest for interfaith harmony in itself is an attack upon Christianity. If it is designed to promote friendship with the world (of which other religions are but a part), then it does wage war against the prohibition of scripture.

I suggest then that Christians focus not on ‘interfaith harmony’, but on that work to which we are all called by our Father in heaven, and upon which we are sent out by Christ himself – to proclaim the Gospel to all creation. To do so is the very highest form of love of God, and also the very greatest love of neighbour.

To refuse to bring the Gospel to your neighbours because it would disturb interfaith harmony is not to love your neighbours; as Paul asks – how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Romans 10:14) As for whether it is a case of waiting for a harmonious time – there may be merit in that in worldly terms – but our Lord teaches us that “no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world” (John 7:4), and again Paul exhorts Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season” (II Timothy 4:2). And yet, as we do go out, we do so in the full knowledge that to obey God means to be hated and persecuted by the world, going out knowing that we are as sheep to be slaughtered – to be killed all the day long (Acts 8:36).

What can we do for “interfaith harmony” in good conscience? Well, we are taught to live our lives in the world in order to proclaim the truth – to proclaim the Gospel – speaking it in love (Ephesians 4:15). When we are persecuted, we are even to bless our persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), loving our enemies (Matthew 5:44), and again, doing good to them who hate us (Luke 6:27). All these and more I freely grant are absolutely required of us, and our Biblical contribution to the concept of “interfaith harmony”.

However, we must insist that no man can ever ask or require of us is to refrain from preaching the Gospel to all creation. We cannot even consider keeping the Gospel of the the death of Jesus Christ for our sins (I Corinthians 15:1-3) silent, or decide that in the name of interfaith harmony we will not proclaim it boldly to those of any given religion – or indeed to those of no religion. It is true that it is precisely this Gospel for which the world hates us, persecutes us and rejects us – but on this point it seems to me that we cannot compromise.

It seems to me that to remove the preaching of the Gospel to all creation, to all peoples of every nation, is to remove Christ and his work from our Christianity, and to choose for ourselves the world instead of the Kingdom of God.

Her argument, if I may summarise it yet further, is as follows:

• Islam is not a threat but a challenge
• The challenge is to our own identity
• The response is a firmer foundation in Christianity
• Cohesion then can be built around reflection on Judeo-Christian tradition

Angela Merkel

It is true to say that unless you know what values you hold you are unable to influence others with those values or reject and oppose contrary values. It’s also true to say that a nation which refuses to pin down its values will have great difficulty being able to know what they are. Yet, for all the merit her suggestion has, it is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

As part of this theme, she spoke at her party conference in Karlsruhe about the Christian view of mankind. The Christian view of mankind is certainly important, but I wonder quite what her speechwriters thought they were implying by the phrase.

Just what is the Christian view of mankind?

Well, St. Paul summarises it brilliantly in his letter to the Romans, a short extract of which is below:

Romans 3:10-13
None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.
Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.

Again, we read even as early as Genesis 6:5-6:

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

The Christian view of mankind is that we are all desperately wicked sinners, each one of us under the sentence of death, judgment and eternal condemnation.

As Ephesians puts it:

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

As regards those who deny Christianity, the Bible declares they are without excuse for their disbelief and hence subject to God’s wrath. It really puts a different perspective on the Christian view of mankind to realise that every single one of those of other religions and those of no religion are under God’s judgment and destined for eternal condemnation.

Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Now, I agree entirely with Angela Merkel if she really means what she said – if she means that we need to start using the Christian view of mankind: the view of man as lost, dead, wicked, unable to repent or turn back to God, and destined for hell.

However, I doubt this is what she has in mind. I doubt it because of the response she calls for. She calls for a return to promoting “Judeo-Christian values” in society. Such an act will not in any way solve the terrible problem of the mankind. You can cultivate and promote as many “Judeo-Christian values” as you like, but you will still remain a depraved sinful person, falling short of the Glory of God and subject to his wrath. The message Christianity has for the world is not the promotion of “Judeo-Christian values”. The work of a Christian is not to change the value system of the living dead.

The real message of Christianity

The message Christianity has for the world is entirely different. It is a message not of what we need to do but a message of what God has already done. It is the gospel message of the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to die on the cross for our sins – sent as a sacrifice to turn away the wrath of God, bearing our sins and redeeming mankind from slavery to sin and death.
Notice how St. Paul describes the matter of first importance – what that message is which he preached, and the power of that message to save:

1 Corinthians 1:1-5
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Without this message of the bloody cross on which Jesus died for us there is no Christianity. The death of Christ for our sins is not an optional extra – it is the only message which actually addresses the Christian view of mankind. If the cross is missing, it is not Christian but merely Biblically-inspired moralism.

I suspect Angela Merkel knows better than this, and I am inclined to think it the work of a speechwriter. I suspect she does know that the solution to the growth of Islam and indeed secularism is the Gospel, the Gospel, and the Gospel. It is only through the Gospel that man can be saved – and the real ‘problem’ of Islam is not the values that Islam brings but the fact that so many Muslims are perishing having never even heard the Gospel of the saving work of Christ on the cross.

As it is written:

1 Corinthians 1:17-18
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The danger of ‘forgetting’ the cross

There is another thing about which I need to warn. What is being done here in pushing ‘Christian values’ apart from the cross of Christ is actually very dangerous and deeply harmful. It’s not a neutral activity which helps in a vague way even if it leaves the main message of Christianity untouched. What happens when Christians promote ‘Christian values’ without the cross of Christ is that it leads many to believe themselves in good standing before God by keeping to a set of values and rules, when they are actually no closer to salvation than the devil himself. In so much as one encourages and condones the reduction of Christianity to a cross-less moral law, one implicitly denies the saving work of Christ by showing the world that to be a Christian is not to be saved by faith in Christ, but merely to live in a certain way. It doesn’t matter whether you have “Christian values” , “secular values” or “Muslim values” if you remain dead in your trespasses and sins and are destined for hell!

It should be clear by now that pushing “Christian values” in a society which is here today and gone tomorrow isn’t somehow more important than saving people from hell for all eternity. To do so in the name of Christ is akin to giving a child a snake when he asks for an egg: not just neutral but dangerous, deceptive and a gross abuse of trust.

It should also be clear by now that the message of Christianity is not at all palatable to Muslims or secularists. It is not even partly compatible. It is not a basis upon which they can build a society together. It is not something they can integrate into. True Christianity is enormously and intolerably offensive to Muslims and secularists – and if it isn’t – then what’s being taught or practiced is not Christianity.

1 Corinthians 1:22-24
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1. First year from home

The first year of most degrees is basically knowledge acquisition. It can be feasibly completed using downloadable videos of lectures and through the study of textbooks, as distance education degrees demonstrate.

The cost of the first year of a degree can thus be drastically cut if the government commission best-in-class lectures to be used across the country in each field. Instead of tens of thousands of students paying for hundreds of lectures on Engineering Mathematics 101, one single lecturer can be paid once to record a series to be used by students of every university Engineering course in the nation.

A single common examination for students of all universities can be supervised in the evenings, or during term breaks, at local comprehensive colleges and forwarded to their respective universities for marking. Thus, the university with which the student is registered is responsible only for answering questions (via an internet interface/forum) and marking examination papers.

Costs saved:
All lecture hall facilities and lecturer costs for all first year students; additionally, students themselves save on accommodation and transport costs
Release of academic staff now not needed for first year teaching
Additional benefits:
The greater portability of modules completed
Better teaching for all, because the very best lecturer in the country can be used (even third-rate university students can listen to first-rate lectures)

2. Pooled laboratory facilities

Undergraduate laboratory and related practical facilities are an essential part of many degree programs, however the facilities required are very expensive. These high costs can be offset by pooled regional facilities. A regional center can be designed for almost 100% utilisation by scheduling students from different universities at different times of the year, as well as allowing students to live at home whilst attending a center near them. Universities routinely use research assistants and tutors to supervise laboratories, only rarely using teaching staff anyway – so the outsourcing of this should not be a problem at all.

Costs saved:
Universities no longer need to build or maintain undergraduate laboratory facilities which are empty or end up being used by postgraduate/research staff much of the year
Regional centers can compete against each other on price as each offers the same agreed service
Students are able to stay at home during laboratory periods, saving accomodation costs
Additional benefits:
Bulk purchase power is greater at regional centers
Release of buildings and land in universities for sale or redevelopment

3. Honest grading and portability

One of the biggest barriers to the portability of modules between universities is the large difference in quality that exists between establishments, e.g. 82/100 should mean the same everywhere. If modules were all marked against a common scale shared by all universities then it would allow much greater portability. This can be achieved by benchmarking, moderation or the use of a common examination – or a mix of these three. The great cost benefit comes with this greater level of interchangeability.

Honest grading means universities can be asked to open up the module market to competitive offerings. A university, college of further education, or commercial enterprise might develop modules and market them individually. Thus, a student might mix-and-match modules, such that he is able to take advantage of cheaper offerings, and distance education modules, where they exist. It should be possible for a student to complete two years via distance education and local commercial offerings, then transfer to a traditional university for his final year on exactly the same footing as those who have been at the university throughout. Similarly, a student should be able to choose to pay for a module from a local, commercial or distance option in place of one offered by his university, receiving a proportional discount of university fee for that module.

Costs saved:
Universities no longer need to offer all the modules of a course, but can concentrate on the core offerings – students can go elsewhere or use distance learning to add in topics not offered
Commercial competition means that there will be pressure on a module-by-module basis to keep down costs, forcing innovative teaching methods such as digital delivery and e-texts
Students are able to opt out of their university for courses they think to be well taught elsewhere at lower cost
Additional benefits:
The proper benchmarking and honest grading of modules will benefit employers massively because it means they will be able to compare candidates according to the grades obtained without having to guess at current relative grading standards of one university over another
Schools and local colleges will be able to offer individual university level modules where they have sufficient expertise, saving accommodation costs for nearby students and bringing in additional funds to those organisations

4. Remote Students

Is it actually necessary for students to attend lectures in person? Most laptops (and many mobile phones) are able to provide video streaming and conferencing without difficulty. This means that it is entirely feasible for students to stay at home and attend lectures via the internet. The cost saving here is twofold; first, it cuts down the required size of lecture theaters (if all students are remote, lectures can even be given from staff offices or even homes), and second, it means students do not have to pay for expensive accommodation at a university. Coupled with pooled laboratory facilities (item 2), and the remotely administered examinations (from item 1), this idea could mean that many students never actually need to spend time at their university.

Costs saved:
Removes the necessity of providing lecture theater seats for all students
Removes the requirement for university accommodation in many cases
Additional benefits:
The recording of streamed lectures means automatic flexibility for students who have clashing modules or are fitting their university studies around paid employment

5. Final Examination

Much of what has already been suggested has a tenancy to reduce the difference between universities, and this should be a good thing provided the standard that is converged upon is the top-end standard and not the average. However, to preserve university variation and allow for verification of the overall competency of a student, it is suggested that finals are reintroduced.

At the end of a degree, all students could be asked to sit for a single day-long examination covering the entire degree course, and making up a substantial portion of the final grade (e.g. 40%). This examination might combine multiple papers, and could include verbal examination. Thus, the integrity of a degree comprised of modules from different providers would be verified, and the university able to confidently grant the final degree based upon an overall assessment rather than a mechanical addition of module marks.

Cost saved:
Permits the more effective implementation of former ideas, which save costs
Additional benefits:
Employers will know that the student has retained the entire degree course, and has not just learned each module in turn and forgotten it once examined

Let’s ask a searching question about EU membership by comparing two past applicants. One of them was accepted, the other was not.

	Applicant A	Applicant B
Distance to Maastricht treaty member	19km	210km
Inflation rate	2.32%	7.71%
Unemployment rate	2.1%	3.6%
Median age	24.7	37.3
Population density	71	93.1
Free market reform since	1976	1989
Democracy since	1956	1989
Religious freedom since	1912	1960
Colour of people	???	???

Which would you have chosen, given those statistics? Naturally, B, the one with rampant inflation, an aging population, high unemployment, relative overcrowding and which is a long way from any core EU country?

Foreground: Spain (EU); Background: Morocco (denied membership)

What does that really mean? To me, that is pure racial discrimination. Remember that Turkey and large parts of southern Spain have far closer cultural ties with Morocco than they have with Germany.

Is there a real reason other than disguised racism for denying Morocco entry whilst allowing Serbia, Romania and Turkey?

Could it really be that the racist leaders of EU member states are unwilling to allow Moroccans to benefit from the EU purely because they are not white? Could the EU which is happy to admit people from so many states really not want to allow this country with mostly non-white people in it to gain the freedom to live, move and work in EU member states?

Do you agree and feel that the EU is institutionally racist? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Comments particularly welcome!

Let us first quote a couple of dictionary definitions:

Race

The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed

Citizen

1. One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.
2. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Shak.
3. A person, native or naturalized, of either sex, who owes allegiance to a government, and is entitled to reciprocal protection from it.
4. One who is domiciled in a country, and who is a citizen, though neither native nor naturalized, in such a sense that he takes his legal status from such country.

Both terms are applicable to a group of people; citizens or members of a given race. Race is based upon a presumption of some form of genetic similarity; whilst citizenship is a state which depends upon one’s current relationship to a given country or state. From this it might appear that the key difference is that one is a characteristic of a people whilst the other a temporal assignment of chiefly administrative benefit, however I believe that to do so is to misunderstand citizenship.

Passports: An instrument of racism?

When it comes down to it, citizenship is almost always obtained by means of inheritance. The citizenship of one or both parents is inherited by the child, passed down as if it were a part of the DNA – just as is the case with race. Many children born outside of the country of their parents go on to successfully claim citizenship based not upon the country they were born in and live in, but the citizenship of their parents. In just the same way; the children of white parents who are born in Nigeria are still considered white.

Citizenship, if not inherited, may sometimes be gained through a long process of naturalisation. This requires a long period of residence and usually other conditions to be met before an application will be processed. There is rarely an absolute right to citizenship after this period of time; rather it is granted at the pleasure of the awarding state. Thus, naturalisation cannot be considered a route to citizenship but rather a selective privilege.

Now, why do these distinctions matter? Usually, these are just terms which are used to label people; however, they are increasingly used as tools of discrimination. Xenophobia is on the rise in many countries, and even where an awareness of the wrongs of racism has taken root, discrimination on grounds of citizenship or nationality is being progressively strengthened.

Given that citizenship is usually a sign of descent from the country in question, being passed down from generation to generation, is it not almost interchangeable with race? If one limits a certain right to citizens of a given country, it means that the entitlement is just to those who are descendants of that nation (e.g. the same race) and those whom that nation has favoured (selective exemption). Is that not racism by another name, perhaps even worse than racism?

Racism is based upon crude genetic concepts; whereas citizenship can be tampered with by selectively granting it where it seems advantageous. It is difficult for a racist policy to make exemptions (only white people, and non-white people with a certificate of whiteness?), a trait which helps expose the inequality and unfairness of racism. Citizenship is far more cunning a tool because it allows a government to pick and choose, blurring the edges just enough to hide the divisions and discrimination it is perpetrating.

At the bottom of my concern over this issue is a realisation that entitlements which result from birth are fundamentally unfair. Whilst there is a case to be made for entitlements which are earned during one’s lifetime through merit, there is no fairness in picking and choosing between newborn babies.

Why is it that two babies, born at the same hour of the same day, should receive entirely different rights and privileges? One may be destined to a life of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa whilst the other is given the right to live and work in any country of his choice across Europe. I do not believe anyone has the right to tell the first child that because he doesn’t have ‘citizenship’ he cannot make his home and raise a family where it is best for him… it is nothing but disguised racism and xenophobia.

I would love to see an end to discrimination on the basis of citizenship; however before that can happen more people need to realise that it is in fact a wrong that needs to be corrected.