Pursuing Veritas

While John’s approach provides a robust framework for engaging with Islam, contemporary Christian-Muslim dialogue must also address areas where his methods are outdated or problematic.

In the first place, modern conversations should avoid the eschatological interpretations present in John’s work and in many other Christian treatments of Islam over the centuries. John’s view of Islam as a ‘forerunner of the Antichrist’ reflects a broader tendency in early Christian thought to interpret Islam in apocalyptic terms, such as the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius and numerous interpretations of the Apocalypse of John.[i] Contemporary conversations should avoid framing Islam in such eschatological terms, focusing instead on constructive theological engagement rather than viewing the rise of Islam (or any other religious movement) as a sign of the end.

Likewise, contemporary Christians would do well to move past John’s use of polemical language in describing Islam. Despite his measured approach, John sometimes lapses into polemical language that could hinder productive dialogue today. For example, at one point he notes that, ‘there are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God’ (Peri Haereson §32). As another example, he later notes, ‘as has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title’ (Peri Haereson §95-6). Statements like these do little to further interreligious dialogue and understanding.

Further, while it was acceptable in John’s time to use terms like ‘Ishmaelites’ or ‘Hagarenes’ to refer to Muslims, today we must move beyond this language and use self-designated and respectful names whenever possible (Sahas 1972: 70). Name-calling often results from anxiety, either about boundaries or competing values (Dorroll 2014: 201). We must recognize this reality and adjust the terminology that we use to address those with whom we are dialoging. Thus, contemporary discussions should strive to use respectful and self-designated terms for the other faith, avoiding derogatory names and inflammatory rhetoric.

A final opportunity to develop dialogue beyond John’s approach involves better recognition of complexity. Interreligious and apologetic works often fall prey to monolithic treatments of the other, and John is no exception. John speaks of Islam as a relatively monolith, which fails to capture the diversity and complexity of the Islamic faith, both in John’s era as well as our own. Christian-Muslim dialogue necessarily involves a complex combination of a variety of features and concerns, and not all forms of Islam are as easily summarized as John makes it seem (Mayer 2013: 2-5). We would do well to realize that not all worldviews are easily categorized or adhere to our conceptions. For example, Islam’s holistic approach to theology and politics may strikes many in the West as antithetical to the ‘Christian’ idea of the separation of Church and State. Both sides of that conversation, however, require nuanced explanation. Engaging with the variety of Islamic thought and practice today requires acknowledging this complexity and understanding the nuances within the Muslim community.

[i] On the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, see Garstad 2012. On the Apocalypse of John, see Gregg 2013, especially the sections pertaining to Revelation 9.