Proceeding Beyond Isolation: Bringing Milbank, Habermas and Ockham to the Interfaith Table

Abstract

A minister has been in a new post for less than a year when he arranges for a group from his church to visit the local mosque. The parish has a large Bangladeshi population and the community that regularly attends the Mosque plays an active part in the life of the town. The size of the mosque and the vibrancy of the activity that surrounds it are perceived as a threat by many churchgoers. The visit is intended to counter such hostility and suspicion. During the visit, the Imam attempts to explain key tenets of Islamic faith and bluntly states that Jesus did not die on a cross, in accordance with Sūrah 4:157 of the Qur'ān. At this, one of the visiting party objects and an argument ensues with each side violently positing its own views. It is clear to the minister that such a disagreement, and the ill-feeling it has provoked, can best be engaged with by church and mosque committing to one another in long-term discussion or dialogue. In this case 'dialogue', would seek to combat estrangement and hostility through hospitality and friendship, though because of the minister's particular faith commitment as a Christian, he is also hopeful that through such meetings some of her Muslim neighbours might desire to become Christians, having understood something of the love of God shown in the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Son of God. 1 Hence, the goals of the dialogue he hopes to establish are primarily social but also theological. It is such theological goals of understanding and faith that are problematic. The argument in the mosque showed that theological persuasion of those from another faith and culture could not depend simply upon the internal reasoning of the western Christian tradition. Perhaps participants could attempt to discuss their theologies 'neutrally', perhaps by comparing the historical reliability of the Bible and the Qur'ān? Yet to do so would betray an enormous bias towards western liberal Christianity, which has to a large extent employed historicalcritical methods to the study of its scriptures whilst continuing to understand them as inspired and authoritative whereas the use of such methods has not played a significant role in mainstream Islam. To question the authority and historicity of the Quran is to put an end to open discussion where the majority of orthodox Muslims are concerned. The dialogue the minister hopes to instigate cannot depend upon the reasonings of one faith group, nor can it depend on reasoning from some third party. In their modes of discussing and theological reasoning, the local Mosque and the local Church stand in stark isolation.Alasdair MacIntyre posits the radical nature of the epistemic isolation of cultures and traditions ('cultural rationalities'):'If there is a multiplicity of rival traditions, each with its own characteristic modes of rational justification internal to it, then that very fact entails that no one tradition can offer those outside it good reasons for excluding the theses of its rival.' 2

The ‘Comeback of Christendom’ or a ‘Christian Cosmopolis’?: Dialogical Possibility in the work of John Milbank

“…The attempts at engagement that do occur lack the kind of integrity that comes about through a sustained link between practice and theory (Williams 1991: 140;Williams 1990). While it is perfectly possible to narrate one thing and act in a completely different way, this disruption between internal narration and external practice has been seen to have a profoundly negative effect on the reception of Radical Orthodoxy, having been a central focus of a number of direct and indirect critiques (Doak 2007, Hedges 2012, Sargent 2010. While, generally, the area of inter-religious dialogue or engagement has been an underdeveloped part of the broader conservative post-modem theological scene, and an underdeveloped part of the Radical Orthodoxy project in particular, this is not to say that the area has not been touched on at all.…”