Introduction
In February 2008 Dr. Miroslav Volf presented four lectures on the Yale Response to A Common Word at my seminary. (Read my notes for each of the lectures.) Then, in May of 2008 I used Volf’s lectures as my topic for two term papers: One paper dealt with Dr. Volf’s methodology from the perspective of epistemology, and the other looked at his methodology from the ethical point of view.
However, after re-reading my previous papers I wasn’t pleased with everything I wrote, especially the ad hominem bits in the epistemology paper. Thus, I seized upon a recent opportunity to re-write the papers for use as PhD application writing samples. Accordingly, I increased the bibliography considerably, provided a more parallel treatment of the epistemological and ethical considerations, and gave a heartier introduction to “A Common Word” and Volf’s Yale response. The result is, I hope, as much improved as it is expanded.
Abstract
A Common Word claims that, despite differences over who Jesus is, Christians and Muslims worship the same God and share the same love ethic. Dr. Volf’s Yale reply basically affirms this assertion. This paper, then, examines this shared assertion from a Christian perspective by asking a methodological question: How ought Christians determine whether Muslims and Christians believe in the same God and share the same love ethic? The answer, in short, is that a Christian reply cannot contradict Christianity’s own basic principles (principia theologiae), else the method ceases to be Christian and ends up in self-defeating abstractions (i.e. arguing for a bare, non-trinitarian monotheism as the basis for common ground between Islam and Christianity).
Insofar as Christianity’s basic principles are trinitarian, covenantal, and fully mediated by Christ, Christianity’s basic epistemological and ethical principles must be very different than Islam’s non-trinitarian and self-mediated prinicples; hence, a methodological antithesis exists at every epistemological and ethical point between the cross and the crescent. This antithesis, however, does not destroy the possibility for common ground; rather, the Triune Lord establishes common ground upon the basis of His general revelation. Therefore, in order to maintain consistency with its principia, a Christian method must (a) account for its own antithesis while (b) utilizing the true point of common ground. Dr. Volf’s methodology is insufficient on both accounts.
Download the paper: “An Uncommon Logos“
- An Uncommon Logos.pdf (43pp; 269 Kb; Portable Document format)
- An Uncommon Logos.odt (43pp; 69 Kb; Open Document format)
Related Resources
In addition to the references listed in the paper’s bibliography section, the following resources may be useful:
- The official A Common Word website
- The official Yale response to A Common Word
Subscribe by e-mail
“A Common Word claims that, despite differences over who Jesus is, Christians and Muslims worship the same God and share the same love ethic.”
Since compromise is the philosophy that reigns our hearts, what we see is only natural. Unless the basic problem of compromise in theology is overcome, no speedy solution need to be expected.
Johnson C. Philip, PhD (Physics)
India
Some positions that religious authorities have taken concerning the gods of other religions: 1) they are actually demons, 2) they don’t actually exist, 3) they are the same god, and 4) they both exist.
I haven’t read your essay, but I take it that 2 is irrelevant because you are merely speaking about what they think they are worshiping. It would be taking on a lot to try to prove they exist.
3 and 4 are both politically correct answers right now and 3 is more popular. To say that both religions worship the same god can still be insulting to the extent that “someone thinks of their god in the wrong way.” I take it that somehow you had to prove that both groups think of their god in similar enough ways to be considered the same god.
To be fully satisfying I would want to know how exactly we can know they both worship a “similar enough god to be the same god” and how you know for sure that two similar gods can’t coexist.
There is some philosophy of language that tries to help us know when two objects are actually the same object. One method is historical. A simplification: If someone points to x and says, “this is water,” then as long as I point to the same kind of stuff, it is also water. In that case whoever pointed to a concept and said “that’s god” would determine that everyone else talking about the same object was also talking about god.
[...] June 9, 2008 by LO Note: this post and the papers referenced below have been superseded. Please see the updated paper: An Uncommon Logos and “A Common Word”: Reformed Reflections on Epistemological and Ethical Norma…. [...]