Dr. John Azumah has presented to us not only a valuable history of Muslim-Christian relations in Africa but also the different trends of Islam and Muslims in Africa today. An important aspect of his article is the historical and contemporary survey of the various responses of the African church to Islam. The article underscores the global importance of Christian- Muslim relations of sub-Saharan Africa. He rightly points out that in a globalized world, “Africa, in many ways, still serves as a theater for proxy wars and laboratory for theological and ideological theories from other parts of the world.” His Danish cartoonist example says it all! In his conclusion, he advocated for a new way of doing theology if the African church is going to be constructive in dialoguing with Islam and Muslims. My response to his article has to do with this “new hermeneutic and theological framework.” As Dr. Azumah notes, since Africa is at the cutting edge of Christian- Muslim encounters, developing such a theological framework will be of global interest.
It is a fact that the African church’s approach to Islam and Muslims is neither satisfactory nor successful because, as Dr. Azumah observes, the various approaches are based on theological mindsets that do not fit or reflect the African worldview. Dr. Azumah’s proposal is crucial if the African church is to engage with Muslims in a constructive manner. This “theology of Immanuel,” as he calls it, is both feasible and constructive, for it is based on an African relational outlook on life. In fact, the reality of sub-Saharan Africa as a good platform for the constructive engagement of Muslims and Christians has long been recognized, and as I have already noted, the experiences of the church in Africa can therefore contribute to the global interfaith dialogue.
The foundation for such theology of relationship is based on what a Ghanaian theologian, the late Kwame Bediako, has called the “meeting of Christianity and Islam on a common terrain.”1 According to Bediako, in sub-Saharan Africa, for the first time Christianity and Islam are meeting on equal footing as missionary religions. Therefore, both faiths have equal opportunity for a constructive engagement. African society, being pluralistic in nature, provides the basis for constructing a theology of relationship. Pluralism is based on the great value placed on shared family and kinship. Lamin Sanneh, the Gambian professor at Yale, has noted that the family in Black Africa upheld the cultural value that makes relationships preeminent over religious allegiance. He writes: “Within the family a variety of religious confessions existed in an amicable way. Religious differences were overtaken by stronger bonds of mutual tolerance and personal interdependence.”2 He concludes that “this is a precious heritage in a divisive world.” Such a heritage should be guarded and treasured.
So how can this new theological framework work in a pluralistic society where both Christians and Muslims stand on equal terrain and where relationship is preeminent to religious allegiance? I would like to share three concepts or ingredients from my experience that I believe can enhance the formulation of this “theology of relationship” or “theology of Immanuel.”
First, for any theology of relationship to be appropriate and effective it has to be holistic. The church in Africa needs to engage with Muslims holistically. This should encompass engagement in social action together, sharing of life together, participating in theological exchange, and sharing of spiritual experience. These are classically termed dialogue of social action, dialogue of life, dialogue of mind, and dialogue of heart. There should be no separation or compartmentalization of any of these forms of dialogue; they should be seen as one and the same thing. This entails the meeting of whole human persons, not just some aspects of our beings. It should take into account the mandate to bear witness to the salvation message of the cross and at the same time to be agents of peace. Therefore, such engagement should allow both the need to share one’s faith and the need to promote peaceful coexistence, thereby grounding Muslim-Christian dialogue on both “missiological” and “existential” grounds.
The second ingredient necessary for a theology of relationship is that the church must be willing to be vulnerable. Vulnerability is inevitable in a pluralistic society. The church should understand that part of the reason for its existence in a multireligious society is to live a life of “kenosis.” By this I mean to live with such Christlike humility and vulnerability that it provides an opportunity for others to recognize that Jesus is their Lord as well as ours. The church must be willing to expose itself to Islam and Muslims. Vulnerability does not compromise our Christian witness, but rather strengthens it by creating an opportunity to be Christlike in humility. A willingness to be vulnerable means that we should not elevate ourselves to a higher position because of our belief that we possess the truth. This calls for a change in attitude. The church needs to engage with Islam and Muslims as equals in a relationship of reciprocal and mutual understanding and acceptance. As a matter of fact, one cannot engage with the religious other without being humble and allowing one to be questioned by that other.
How does this vulnerability and willingness to be questioned on an equal level combine with our mandate to bear witness to the salvation message of the cross? There is an apparent tension here. On the one hand, you need to accommodate the religious other; on the other hand, you need to hold on to the claim of the truth of your faith. This is a necessary tension that comes with our willingness to be vulnerable.
The third ingredient is that the Church must be willing to be challenged concerning our perception of the religious other. As Dr. Azumah has shown both historically and from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Survey, Christians tend to have more negative perceptions of Muslims than Muslims do of Christians. Our perception of the other, consciously or unconsciously, affects the way we deal with and relate to the other. So if Muslims are seen as violent people, our tendency will be to avoid developing redemptive relationships with them. Through my theological training and life experiences—before becoming a Christian I was brought up as a Muslim and have worked in a predominantly Muslim context—it is my conviction that relationships cannot be built in the absence of trust and respect for both the person and his or her religious tradition. Also, people do not come to faith in Jesus devoid of relationships, and this makes relationship “everything.” The church should try to understand Muslims and Islam in such a way that they can recognize themselves in our perception of them, and to give witness to and share the best of our faith with them.
So let us return to our initial question: is a theology of Immanuel—that is, a theology of relationship in relationships—a possible approach to Muslim-Christian relations in Sub-Saharan Africa? This approach certainly is in line with the African context and worldview—in fact, not only the African worldview, but the worldview of most Muslims worldwide. This congruence suggests that this approach may likely also be effective in places other than Africa. I believe this approach would be most effective when taking into account the three points discussed above. While these are obviously not the only ingredients, these do reflect the character and attitude of our Lord as he lived alongside human beings as Immanuel, God with us. “Therefore, be imitators of God” (Eph 5:1).
