To the Muslim Student Association of UM-Dearborn

From: Scott Cherry, The Living Stone Church, Dearborn............................................................................... To: Ram To: To: Rami Al-aref, MSA President and Nasir Bokhari, Banquet Organizer, UM Dearborn

I am a Christian minister living in East Dearborn, and I spend much time on the campus of UM-D (and WSU). I have met Rami, though I'm not sure about Nasir. On March 5th I attended your Unity in Diversity banquet at the Ford Performing Arts and Community Center. Although I have been to several of the WSU banquets sponsored by the MSA, this was my first UM-D event of this nature, and I was truly looking forward to it. (In fact, last year I was invited to speak at the event before it was canceled.) I even invited my friend Art to accompany me. In this email I want to reflect on that event. Allow me to give you a brief summary in this first section. The next section will go into much greater detail.

I. Summary

My friend and I certainly enjoyed this event and we would like to attend next year. But as Christians we also have some heartfelt complaints about some of the content. We hope you will seriously consider them and not dismiss them. The banquet was very classy, with beautiful decorations and music, and the ethnic food was delicious. The program was clearly well-planned and conducted. Most of the speakers, including Rami and the emcees, presented themselves with respect and integrity, and they honored the true spirit of the program. The speeches contained very inspirational elements about the dignity of humanity, etc. Our sincere compliments to Nasir and other MSA members of the planning committee. However, an important stream of the Christian community was denigrated by two of your main speakers, Rev. McQouwn and Mayor O'Reilly. In the name of religious tolerance this should not go unchecked, and I feel that a formal apology is necessary. Please consider the rest of this letter to understand my fuller meaning.

II. Extended Thoughts

Observations and Compliments

I was not surprised to find that most of the guests at your fine event were Muslim people. This makes sense considering it was sponsored by the MSA. I took note that there were at least a few other Christian people there besides my friend and me, though I assume you would like to have had more. After all, it was an interfaith event. I believe that Christians should make a special effort to be involved with things that are meant to be inclusive. Besides, the venue was nice and the food was delicious. And whomever did the decorations deserves a raise. They were beautiful. I loved how each table had its own black and white material to make it attractive, with a very tasteful centerpiece as well.

Now I would like to give you some reflections on the substance of the event. First let me compliment you and your committee on the organization of the program itself. It was very well-structured and had a professional flare; and the program guide was very attractive. The emcees were also good. Further, it was impressive that local government officials such as Mayor O'Reilly were invited and attended, as well as the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the university. This added an air of importance, of course.

Now for the three main speakers themselves. For an interfaith event such as this I thought two of them were good, but one was terrible. Let me first tell first you the ones I thought were good (that will narrow it down). Precious Muhammad and Gail Katz were both appealing selections for the kind of message I think you wanted to communicate; each gave a positive, sincere, heartfelt and tasteful presentation from their respective religious traditions, Islam and Judaism. In a unique and engaging way each of these women gave a good feeling as they painted a picture of how people from different faith backgrounds can work together to improve communities and the world. That was your message, was it not? So it was clear why you invited these two speakers. More pointedly, it was also clear why you invited Precious Muhammad to represent the Muslim community, as she gave a poetic speech which highlighted the virtues of humanity from an Islamic and "Abrahamic" perspective. No doubt her humanitarian idealism resonated much with your audience, those who share such ideals.

Thankfully, Muhammad and Katz both spoke within the boundaries of their respective traditions. By doing so these two speakers focused on themes which they would be expected to address at such an interfaith event, and for which they were most qualified. If they said anything that was not true to Islam or Judaism it got by me, and probably without consequence.

Complaints

But this was not true of your Christian representative, Rev. Daniel McQouwn from Albion College. And because I am a Christian, I think I am qualified to criticize him. From my perspective (and that of my friend) his speech was hardly praiseworthy. As sincere and practicing Christians we were both insulted and had nothing positive to say about it. In his obvious attempt to appeal to the mostly non-Christian audience, his speech was wrong and offensive to all who adhere to biblical Christianity. (The mayor's speech was similarly offensive, which makes our complaint doubly necessary and heartfelt.) Indeed, the shameful bigotry of Rev. McQouwn's words toward fellow Christians could be hypothetically compared to a scenario with a Sunni Muslim saying derogatory things about Shi'ah Muslims (or vice-versa) at a largely Christian event where he thought he could get away with it. I would really hate to think that the MSA/UM-D asked him to speak on this topic. What the main theme of his message was supposed to be, and what his motives were, I do not know. And if it was meant to have an "interfaith" disguise it was a transparent one. The point of McQouwn's talk was clear: to paint all evangelical Christians in a bad light, and to use Jesus to back him up. This is unacceptable for the following reasons.

1. Rev. McQouwn was guilty of pandering to the audience (as was the Mayor). In this case, it was the presumed absence of one whole religious group—at a purportedly "inclusive" religious event—that emboldened him to criticize that group so intolerantly: Christians who are "evangelical".


2. There is significant variety among Christians that are "evangelical". The term is a collective one including Christians from many different kinds of churches, denominations and traditions. It is also a fluid term with porous boundaries and a broad spectrum of diversity. Therefore, some Christians would only be considered "evangelical" because they happen to belong to "evangelical" churches or organizations, and they may not even know they are in that category. Whatever criticisms can be made of some evangelical Christians, they cannot apply to all. So if there are some "evangelical" Christians who seem to behave a certain way, one can easily find others who do not behave that way. Therefore the blanket characterization that Rev. McQouwn (and Mayor O'Reilly) made of evangelical Christians is an untrue and unfair over-generalization.


3. What was stated about evangelical Christians is also true of other kinds of people who represent other belief systems. People who have strong beliefs in almost anything (e.g. American pride, democracy, naturalism, etc.) can be seen trying to convince others of their beliefs and values, especially if they believe there is objective truth substantiating their beliefs. It happens all the time. The primary criticism that Rev. McQouwn (and Mayor O'Reilly) leveled against evangelical Christians is exactly that: they try to convince or "convert" other people to the Christian faith. Certainly some do this. But not only they do it. I have had all kinds of people try to convert me to their belief system—atheists, feminists, Muslims, socialists, arch-conservatives, secular humanists, etc. But I don't think this is "bad". Indeed, Rev. McQouwn was doing the very same thing by arguing that his brand of Christian is right and the others are wrong. But the basis for his doing it was inconsistent and in very poor taste at an interfaith event that prizes tolerance and diversity.


4. Every affinity group has its creeps and jerks. Of Christians who practice "religious persuasion" only some do it offensively. In my understanding of "evangelical" it is true that the definition includes a belief in the teaching and authority of the Scriptures (i.e. the Bible), and a belief that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in Jesus Christ. The resultant behavior among evangelical Christians should be to practice persuasion, or evangelism, if their practice is consistent with the meaning. In reality, some do and some do not (but all Christians should because Jesus said so). Of those who do there are at least two types: those who do it in a friendly and respectful way, and those who are rude, arrogant and disrespectful. To be honest, Christians in the first category find those in the second one offensive too, but only because they treat people poorly.


5. Rev. McQouwn made the blunder of trying to use the Bible to substantiate his argument. I might otherwise be glad that he dared to read from the Bible. After all, it has so much to say at an event like this (e.g. Isaiah 58). But in this case he did so poorly, and he seriously adulterated the text of John chapter 3. This was probably McQouwn's worst offense, and certainly the most annoying. It was wrong on so many levels. He essentially exploited Jesus to prove erroneously that Jesus was not out to convert anybody. Even if his interpretation of this passage were right, there are so many other texts that have to be ignored to make the Bible prove this. Better to reject the Bible out-of-hand than to manipulate it this way. Here's what I mean: In John 3 McQouwn referred to a well-known encounter between Jesus and a priest named Nicodemus that took place at night. It is famous because it's the only place in the Bible where Jesus said, "You must be born again". It's also the occasion for Jesus' even more famous saying, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son..." Here is part of that story for our closer examination:

• John 3:1-5 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The truest point that Rev. McQouwn made about this text is that Nicodemus did not convert at that time. The text gives us no reason to believe that he did. But the false extension made was that Jesus did not expect conversion. This is hardly reasonable. The plain reading of this conversation proves otherwise, for Jesus told him that he must be "born again" or he cannot see (enter) the kingdom of God. That is not ambiguous. Jesus clearly expected Nicodemus to undergo a change. But what kind? That is the key question. He may very well have converted later because we know that many of the religious leaders did. Besides, many average Jewish people converted as a result of encountering Jesus. Later in the chapter (vv.16-18) Jesus told him that...

• "...whoever believes in him [Jesus] should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

The point is this: According to Jesus of the Gospel according to the Apostle John in the Bible, to which Rev. McQouwn appealed, "believing" in Jesus as he alone can define it was, and is, the very criterion for eternal life, i.e. gaining access to the kingdom of God. Therefore, believing in Jesus on his terms was equivalent to being "born again". Here we see Jesus telling Nicodemus this precisely, and that he could not remain the same. It was not an option. Further, there was a consequence for refusing to accept Jesus on his terms. Jesus simply did not allow people to remain neutral about him, or to perceive him as merely a nice man and a good moral teacher.

In McQouwn's presentation it was not hard for him to mask the true meaning of the text because he did not read it all aloud and probably nobody had a Bible handy. But at least two people there knew what the text of John 3 really said and what it was really about. This time-honored and well-known sacred text of the Bible should never be adulterated the way it was. But it was. So here we have a classic case of scripture-twisting on the part of Rev. McQuown. Had he been more honest with it, the text actually teaches what I suspect he would not have wished to communicate at an event such as this. It does not fit well at an interfaith event. I am also writing Rev. McQouwn a personal letter to this effect. All that to say that the next time you host an interfaith event such as this I strongly suggest that you do not invite Rev. Daniel McQouwn or any person who is going to commit the intellectual and religious offenses that he did.

Furthermore, as I have alluded to several times already, the words of Mayor O'Reilly were offensive for many of the same reasons, and we have written him a separate letter of complaint. Indeed, his words were all the more grievous because he is the mayor of Dearborn. As such he represents many upstanding citizens of Dearborn who are evangelical Christians, many of whom would neither practice nor endorse the behaviors of those non-local persons whom the mayor was publicly chastising (Acts 17), nor choose to associate themselves with them (even though we believe firmly in asserting the clear teachings of Jesus in the Bible such as those I articulated above). The Christian citizens of Dearborn, like myself, have done nothing to deserve the insults that the mayor directed toward them. Rather, we deserve to have our biblical views and practices respected alongside the beliefs of Muslims and Jews. I would hope that the MSA would express this emphatically to the mayor. Therefore, as a member of the Christian faith community in Dearborn, I feel strongly that a formal, public apology should be made to those who were present at the Unity in Diversity event, by the MSA and by Mayor O'Reilly. It is both necessary and prudent. It would be very meaningful, and would go a long way toward rectifying the offenses made, especially to biblical Christians.

Sincerely,

Scott Cherry