Islam, Protestantism and Divergence from Catholicism

Faith Magazine ^ | January-February 2007 | Francis Lynch

[Titanites]

Protestantism and Islam: Points of Contact

Protestantism may well have begun as a genuine movement of reform. Accepting the teachings of the Church, its adherents wanted to bring the practice of the Church into line with its teachings. This is the object of all Christian movements. However, it very soon developed into something far more radical, jettisoning basic Christian teachings, bringing in doctrines entirely new to Christianity, and having to meld the results into a coherent whole. This involved developing doctrinal and practical solutions to new problems in the field of Christian faith and morals.

Most of Protestant teaching was conventional Christianity, with some being revived from St Augustine and the early fathers. Where there is novelty there is also often a strong similarity with Islamic doctrine. Perhaps there is an interestingly similar dynamic involved in the rejection of traditional Christianity that both these belief systems, to varying extents, share. Whilst the very title of “Protestantism” depicts its genesis as a reactive movement, it is the case that strong protests against the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation form part of the Koran and so of Islamic faith. It is also noteworthy that Luther issued his own translation of the Koran in 1542, along with a confutation of its soteriology—the key point of Islamic and protestant divergence.

Islam was not a distant or peripheral force in the Europe of the 1520s. The Ottoman Empire had taken Constantinople in 1454. Many scholars had fled to the west, especially to Rome, bringing with them first-hand knowledge of Islam and its practices. Some of these may well still have been alive when Luther visited Rome in 1510. A resurgent Ottoman Empire took Belgrade in 1520 and Hungary in 1526, coming to the very heart of Europe.

Scriptural Fundamentalism

Protestantism was a move closer to the Islamic view of Scriptural authority. The traditional Christian view is that Christ founded the Church which wrote the Scriptures, ratified them and gains constant nourishment from them. Their definitive meaning derives from the same Church which produced them. Luther’s view that Scripture is the only guide to faith and practice is similar to the Islamic view of the Koran. As Muslims are gradually discovering, this view is too optimistic: all Bible believing Protestants from Luther to the present-day have required a huge substructure of unacknowledged assumptions and beliefs by which they interpret the Bible, and which don’t come from it.

One of the most popular Islamic criticisms of “Christianity” is to show that the divergence in interpretation of the Bible is far greater than that concerning the Koran. Seeing such divergence as evidence against Christianity is based upon the Protestant-Islamic view of scripture (and in any case the gap is gradually closing). The Koran had described Jews and Christians as ‘people of the book’, which can be misleading. All literate religions have sacred books, but to suggest |24| JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2007 faith that the Scriptures of the Christians and Jews are the key element of these religions is mistaken. The Protestant emphasis did give an added impetus to the wider distribution of the Scriptures in translation. Again, this echoes the Koran, which was written in the language to be understood by the people.

Anti-sacramentalism

The Reformation was also a move in the direction of Islamic belief on the question of the sacraments, and related ideas about the priesthood. Sacraments, by which grace is given to the people, are a crucial part of Christianity. One of the key sacraments is Holy Orders since only the priest says Mass, hears confessions, confirms, ordains and annoints. Islam has no priesthood, no sacraments, no sacrifice, no temple, and no altar. These things are not unrelated. The priest is one who (in any religion) offers sacrifice and the altar is the place of sacrifice. A religion without sacrifice does not have priests or altars. Luther’s denial that Holy Orders is a sacrament changed the nature of the priesthood.

The priest tended to become a minister or a functionary with duties more akin to a schoolmaster than a sacred person. He no longer wore symbolic vestments, but rather, like everybody else, he wore the uniform of his trade. The vessels (if any) were not sacred and could be handled by anyone. The altar became a table, to be moved as required. The church itself commonly became a meeting place, with no sacred character, and needed no special reverence when not in use for services. The services themselves tended to concentrate on the readings from the Scriptures (in the vernacular) and the sermon became a central part of the service.

Protestantism is then a convergence with the Islamic understanding of ministry and religious services. Luther, and most Protestants, retained two sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. Both of these soon lost their sacramental character. When baptism became “believers’ baptism”, the decisive step became faith in Christ (and the Scriptures) and baptism became not an infusion of faith and grace, but only the public acknowledgement of faith. This comes very close to Islamic practice; one becomes a Moslem by acknowledging ones faith in Islam in front of witnesses. This is all a shadow of the Judaeo- Catholic sense of God’s abiding, sanctifying, sacrificial, ritualistic presence amongst his people.

Radical Individualism

Two other points relating to the priesthood are relevant here. Firstly, the Christian priest is a Pontifex, a bridge, a constant channel of grace between God and man and is often a channel of prayer from man to God. He prays for the dead. None of these occur in Islam, or in Protestantism. Islam in fact explicitly denies that the living can help the dead in any way, as do most branches of Protestantism. Secondly we have issues of priestly celibacy, monasticism and religious vows. Christianity has always admired and looked up to monks and hermits, seeing in them a real attempt to forsake this world for the Kingdom of God. It has always admired and usually demanded celibacy from its priests. The Koran itself praised Christian monks for their charity and benevolence, but there was no place in Islam for monasticism. Celibacy was despised. Protestants deprecated both celibacy and monasticism and both virtually disappeared from Protestant countries. Luther had been a monk and had taken solemn vows, but readily forsook those vows to get married. Generally, Christians take vows very seriously but in Islam they are easily dispensed if they become inconvenient. In the play A Man for All Seasons St Thomas More says that when we take a vow we hold our very selves in our hands. You don’t get this in Islam, or in Luther.

We turn now to the destruction of images. Luther allowed and other reformers encouraged or even enforced a widespread and devastating iconoclasm. The fury of this destruction may be traced to the sacred or sometimes miraculous reputations of some images, or to their association with prayers for the dead, or perhaps to social causes. A similar iconoclasm had occurred in the Byzantine Empire in the eighth century under the influence of Islam. Islam and Protestantism rejected both images, and the intercession of saints often associated with them.

Marriage and the Position of Women Undermined

Turning to morals, it has often been noticed that the ethics of most religious systems are very similar to each other. Those of Islam and Catholicism differ most in the areas of marriage and the position of women and of the relation between religion and state.

A Muslim is expected to marry. But marriage is a contract with the possibility of divorce is built into it, not a lifelong commitment. Polygamy is also allowed. Less well-known is the fact that a man may also, in certain cases, keep concubines. Traditional Christianity forbids these things but the early Protestants allowed all of these arrangements. One of the scandals of the Reformation was the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse, conducted by Luther himself. Luther was not keen on it; he suggested concubinage as a compromise.

One of the greatest and most far reaching of the changes in the social life of Europe caused by the Reformation concerned the position of women. Outside |25| faith the domestic circles, the main channel for education and advancement for women was the church. They were educated at convent schools, could rise to become prioresses or abbesses of great houses and were numbered amongst the scholars, Saints, mystics and martyrs of the church. Many achieved fame for their letters or spiritual writings, women like Juliana of Norwich, Catherine of Siena. and Theresa of Avila.

Furthermore, they could find constant visual aids and role models in Our Lady and the female saints depicted in churches and books. All these were swept away in Protestant countries. This doesn’t seem to have been an oversight. Many of the reformers had a deep distrust of women in any positions of power. The domestic position of women could have become grim as well were it not that that the early Protestant experiments in this area were effectively abandoned. Polygamy never caught on. The official recognition of concubinage was short lived, and divorce became very rare to be indulged in only by the rich.

State Theocracy

What about the relations between church and state? The Ottoman Sultan claimed to be the successor of Muhammad and the spiritual leader of all the Muslims. He was of course still bound by the Koran and Islamic practices, but there was no conflict between church and state. This appealed to many reformers. It became a model for Protestant states, where generally the prince, rather than a priest, was head of the church, and at the highest level directed its affairs. Finally, Luther believed that reason was so corrupted by sin that it could not be relied upon. The radical transcendence of Allah produces a similar downplaying of the harmony of faith and reason.

I have tried to suggest that many of the major Protestant innovations have a relationship with Islam. Perhaps there are sociological similarities. One might even think that some of the Protestant ‘innovations’ were not really novelties at all. I would certainly not suggest that Protestantism imported every idea from Islam, clearly most of the key Protestant ideas are Christian. Nor do I think that all the innovations came from Islam. Outstanding exceptions are justification by faith alone, and possibly the Protestant distaste shown towards pilgrimages and honouring the saints. There may be something to learn from all this about the way in which pious men rebel against the idea of divine, incarnational authority and activity living on down the centuries in the Church.

[Enosh]

Why isn't this article nonsense and the Catholic/Muslim article is?

At least one Catholic FReeper has already called this article worse things.

[Quix]

OFFENSE . . .

'Tis easy to be offended when we have thin skins or chips on our shoulders or are generally just hyper sensitive and/or insecure.

But if God is our High Tower . . .

our Defense

the need for OFFENSE is far less.

An open forum is for an open excahnge of ideas.

For many years hereon, RC's were able to stomp around rather bombastically and shred all and sundry for not being smart enough or righteous enough or traditional enough or whatever enough to be super holy, super righteous RC's.

I don't know if it was because of some well connected RC's or just because they tended to throw absolute hissy fits when things didn't go their ways or when they were

sufficiently OFFENDED as to be outraged to the point of ranting and raving against some hapless bloke of a different perspective.

They seemed to have one after another RM cowed to their tantrums.

Thankfully, now, we have a gracious but firm RM who has some perspective and balance. He expects the RC's to have as thick a hide as others and to deal with their own chips on their own shoulders in a more or less mature way.

Sadly, he can't even expect that very consistently because the RC's are soooooooooooooooo adept, automatically knee-jerky and skillful at throwing hissy fits over every remotely possible slight to their edifice,traditions, icons, the list is endless of things they are instantly ready to take offense over.

I used to think that one of the major doctrines of the RC faith was TO TAKE INSTANT OFFENSE at any and everything less than lauditory about the RC edifice etc.

I think the most apt exhortation in the face of such lop-sided bias is:

GROW UP.

If we have to, y'all have to. Goes with the territory of the heavy exchanges on an open forum. Don't like the heat--get out of the kitchen. At least stop the whining as though it were a cardinal sin to disagree and crucified y'all bodily at every point of disagreement.

Maybe it's the . . . padded comforts of the structure; the thousand and one confirmations that one's getting all the required rubber stamps on one's spiritual passport which the RC edifice so liberally provides. I don't know. But this chronic whine is not historically accurate vis a vis my observations on FR. For years, RC's bloodied most everyone else with RELATIVE impunity. And if a hint of the favor was returned, it was the OTHER folks who got banned.

Now things are much more equitable and balanced. And the RC's have to tote their own bale and carry their own water and avoid whining--behaving like grow-ups--like the rest of us. Oh darn.

Most of us OTHERS are not that impressed with the whining. We haven't found whining amongst the list of fruits of the Spirit.

We realize that the RC edifice has no end of authorities to go running to with a whining complaint. But that's not really the structure FR was set up on. Thankfully.

We have a tireless moderator who graciously donates endless hours trying to heard a bunch of rabid cats with a few rabid dogs thrown in for interest.

He does an absolutely remarkably admirable job that Solomon would--likely does--admire. And still RC's whine seemingly endlessly.

In an open forum, it's likely that hyperbole, satire, ridicule, . . . a host of things will be used for emphasis, venting, carelessness, indigestion, gas, insecurity, hurt pride, spite, whatever. Goes with the territory. RC's have used and continue to use plenty of the same in the other direction. BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT. Rahhhhhhght.

IF the RC edifice is so flawed OR FRAGILE that it cannot well take whatever kind of human assaults and insults . . . then it's a lot less substantial than I thought it was.

If the best that the RC folks can do in response is to whine to the authority about how poorly they've been treated when they have demonstrated plenty frequent habits to behave at least as badly as those they are whining about . . . . then they and their position is more pitiable than enviable.

NO! This is not about to become AGAIN, more of an RC private pond where all others are to be routinely intimidated into at least more or less submissive silence.

Some of us have strong theological hostilities at JW and LDS doctrines but we are still able to treat such FREEPERS with some measure of civility and respect. We may shred the doctrines with vigor and intensity and still cherish the fellow conservatives.

It's not impossible to do.

I've often wanted to use this or that phrase because I felt it would starkly, vividly, awakeningly POTENTIALLY wake some RC folks up about this or that excess. But it's either been deleted or I self-censored. And that's not because it was inaccurate or a personal attack . . . it was largely to merely because it jangled RC tender sensibilities too much to put up with the fallout from. Score one for tantrums and intimidation.

Anyway--I applaud the RM for an excellent job well done in the face of many impossible pressures and forces. I wish him a long life and a long tour of duty.

From my perspective, if any group on here had any LESS justification for whining than the RC's, I can't imagine which group it would be.

No other group throws a hissy fit if all forum members don't treat their super elevated, extrapolated, pontificated, embellished Mother with God-like reverence.

No other group throws a hissy fit if their pet icons and traditions are not treated with adoration and awe by all other forum members.

No other group throws a hissy fit if their ORGANIZATION is not treated by all other forum members with kowtowing and obsessive genuflecting.

The list could go on.

This is a rough and tumble forum. It cannot be otherwise with such emotionally laden eternal issues topics and principles, truths. Most of us have grown not only accustomed to the RM's standards but have learned to enjoy them and support them. They are a breath of fresh air.

His objectivity and equanimity are awesome--truly Spirit-led and humble. Yes, I know he has his own sensibilities and biases--but that he is so able so consistently ALL THE TIME to lead so overwhelmingly in such a Christ-like fashion in such an evan-handed way is a sure testimony of what God has done in his life and by graciousness--through his model of leading and his repeatedly patient exhortations--what God may be achieving more and more in OUR lives. What a miracle that is.

[HarleyD]

Pope Benedict remarks to our Muslims friends:

Dear Cardinal Poupard,
Your Excellencies,

Dear Muslim Friends,

I am pleased to welcome you to this gathering that I wanted to arrange in order to strengthen the bonds of friendship and solidarity between the Holy See and Muslim communities throughout the world. I thank Cardinal Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, for the words that he has just addressed to me, and I thank all of you for responding to my invitation.

The circumstances which have given rise to our gathering are well known. I have already had occasion to dwell upon them in the course of the past week. In this particular context, I should like to reiterate today all the esteem and the profound respect that I have for Muslim believers, calling to mind the words of the Second Vatican Council which for the Catholic Church are the Magna Carta of Muslim-Christian dialogue: "The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God" (Declaration Nostra Aetate, 3). Placing myself firmly within this perspective, I have had occasion, since the very beginning of my pontificate, to express my wish to continue establishing bridges of friendship with the adherents of all religions, showing particular appreciation for the growth of dialogue between Muslims and Christians (cf. Address to the Delegates of Other Churches and Ecclesial Communities and of Other Religious Traditions, 25 April 2005).

...

Frankly, most of us Protestants would prefer to see our Muslims friends come to Christ.

[HarleyD]

At least one Catholic FReeper has already called this article worse things.

Well, that's one.

[William Terrell]

Actually, the substance of Islam and that of Catholicism is in line, whereas some implementations of Protestantism are similar to Islam.

The similarity is that Islam has no central authority and neither do Protestants, except for various denominations, but all united under the Protestant rejection of that central authority. One must be sympathetic to this because central authorities have not served the people very well over the centuries.

And, Islam shares this, generally. But, these similarities are only implementations of structure, not a basic approach or substance.

The substance of Islam is that Islam is the only way to God and all the rest are condemned to Hell. The way to God is precisely described as specific acts that must be performed under penalty of the death of the body.

The Catholic church is the only way to God and all the rest are condemned to Hell. The way to God is precisely described as specific acts that must be performed under penalty of excommunication, death of the soul.

Unfortunately, some Protestant denominations believe the same, but very few.

[Gumdrop]

An interesting read, but I wonder what the expected audience was for this article. To whom was he writing?

It seems irrational to begin the article by comparing Protestantism with Islam, since Protestants claim to be Christians. At least most Protestans are Christians, but with so many sects and branches out there, it begins to become fuzzy. When I was a child, there was no reason to question whether a Protestant was a Christian, although a better description of a Protestant now might be a Christian belonging to neither the Catholic Churches or the Orthodox churches.

Actually the author was describing some similar characteristis between Islam and many Protestant practices; although even here they are general similarities and certainly do nothing to clarify the most important difference - being that Protestants (good Protestants) accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and Muslims think Jesus was only a prophet, and a lesser one than Mohammed.

The article misses the mark because Islam is so anti-Christian and Anti-Semitic, that it appears to be almost a caricature of the anti-Christ. Which renders the article to be both irrational and irrelevant.

[Enosh]

some Protestant denominations believe the same

Name one.

(Don't even dare think "Westboro.")

[William Terrell]

Church of Christ, I've heard. Some forms of Baptist, from my experience.

[Enosh]

Dunkers do not kick everyone else out of heaven, from my experience.

[P-Marlowe]

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

[walden]

I was raised in the Episcopal church, but have been attending a Catholic church for the last several months, and am (and have been for a year or so) slowly becoming Catholic. I'll take the formal classes later this year.

So, I think I have a perspective that most don't have. When it comes to women, the Catholics seem to have a much greater respect for women AS women, while Protestants seem to respect women only when, and to the extent that, they are like men. For example, women can become Episcopal priests, but the only mention of Mary in the service is in the Nicene creed. I can't tell you what a shock it was to me the first time I showed up early for mass, and they were praying the rosary, and there were as many, if not more, men kneeling as women. Mary is revered for her role as a MOTHER, which is what most women want to be, to do, and to see men honoring that just amazed me. (For the record, I have never heard a women preach in the Episcopal church who didn't remind me of a kindergarten teacher-- I don't know why that is, but I really don't like it.)

The other striking difference in my experience of Catholicism is my view of heaven. As an Episcopalian, I always got the idea that heaven was kind of a lonely place-- God was there, and Jesus, but I just didn't have a much bigger picture of it than that. But with the Catholics, heaven is lively! God, and Jesus, and Mary, and all of the many, many saints, and all of the dead we pray for, all of the good Christians down through the centuries, and our own loved ones who have died. Heck, that's where the party is! It's where you want to go.

Just my $.02. ;)

[William Terrell]

Neither from mine.

From my experience, one of the major failings of mankind is his desire to be going the right way, while it is required that there be others going the wrong way.

Pretty stinky, but then, pretty human.

[Enosh]

That was an excellent summation of a Philosophy Dissertation, Dr. Terrell.

Hehee...

[SoCal Pubbie]

"I was just in Rome last week, btw, enjoying all those beautiful ancient churches with their glorious Byzantine decoration"

Were those the decorations that were stolen in the sack of Constantinople by any chance?

I have to ask, what kind of insanity does it take to start driving a wedge between Catholics and Protestants when the Islamic fascists want to cut both our heads off? Get a grip, literally, for God's sake!

[livius]

I agree that the "god" of Islam is not the Judeo-Christian God. Islam was a syncretist heresy, and its opportunistic founder took some bits from all of the religions circulating in his environment: Judaism, Christianity (but one beset by various heresies such as Arianism and Nestorianism) and paganism.

I don't think Luther was aiming for the Islamic concept of God and I don't think he was attracted by it. However, because Islam is a syncretist religion, based to some extent on earlier Christian heresies along with other beliefs, I think some of the Christian heretical elements of it may appear in Luther's teachings. They would be explicable the way the beliefs of everybody from the Docetists to the Cathars to the Jansenists are explicable, as vast oversimplifications and selective readings of certain doctrines.

What I am trying to say is that the novelty with Luther was the obsession on sacred writ as the sole source of understanding. I don't think anybody before him had done that. Of course, Luther came along after the development of printing, so probably it would not have even been possible for anybody before him to have come up with this.

[livius]

Well, leaving aside the jokes about Protestants who thought that Jesus spoke English...

I don't think that Protestants shared Muslim ideas about the book, but they, like Muslims, seemed to think that their scriptures had dropped down from Heaven and were revealed in themselves and to Protestants in particular. The Church, of course, developed the canon and threw out many competing scriptures that were not in accordance with doctrine as it had developed in the first centuries, but this is totally ignored by Protestants, or perhaps not even known by them.

But one of the things that is probably important in the development of Protestantism, as I mentioned above, is the development of printing. Muslims had to keep their text in its original language because of the "information science" limitations of their time.

However, once you had a system that could produce a standard, easily distributed and easily translatable text, you would then approach that text in a different way, and the way Protestants approached it was to enshrine it, as though it existed in isolation from the Church and the centuries of experience of the faithful and the Faith.

[livius]

Catholics seem to have a much greater respect for women AS women, while Protestants seem to respect women only when, and to the extent that, they are like men.

That's a very interesting observation! And I think it's true.

One of the worst things the Anglicans did was to destroy the many shrines in England dedicated to Our Lady. The only thing I will say is that it was actually an Anglican clergyman (Anglo-Catholic, that is - an Anglican who couldn't quite bring himself to join the smelly flock who were Catholics in England) who rebuilt Walsingham. So I think some good Protestants probably realize that there is something missing in their view of women, and that missing something is Our Lady.

[livius]

No, the decorations were there from the earliest centuries of Christianity, long before there was any division between East and West. The buildings in Rome were built from the time Christianity became legal to now. Other places were sacred places to Christians even before Christianity became legal.

I assume you do know that if you go to the top of the dome of St. Peter's and drop a stone, that stone would fall on the burial place of Peter himself. The place was regarded as sacred by Christians in the earliest centuries but revealed only to those Romans who were known to be Christians, and when you visit the site, you will see the scratchings on the walls made by early pilgrims who visited the burial place of Peter.

If you go to Rome, make sure you write early to the place that handles tickets for the Scavi, that is, the excavations under St. Peter's. They take you through on a guided tour with a group of people from your language group. It's very hard to get in during the summer, but if you have time in the winter or early spring, it's not too difficult to get on a tour if you speak English. The guide who took us around was a Ukrainian seminarian whose English was charmingly correct!

Go to St Paul's Outside the Walls sometime if you want to see a glorious church - where the bodies of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles to the Slavs, are buried. There was a Slavic Pilgrimage in the last century, and the church - even into the 21st century - is filled with things sent by the Eastern churches to honor Cyril and Methodius.

The wonderful thing about being Catholic or Orthodox is that you are in on it from the beginning, unlike people who have to declare that the "true church" went underground for nearly 1500 years and emerged in the person of a dyspeptic not-very-good monk in Germany.

[livius]

Actually, I didn't think it was a hit piece, but I thought it raised a couple of interesting questions (although I do not think that Protestantism is descended from Islam). Hit pieces are the things with the inflammatory titles practically saying Whore of Babylon that some Protestants have been posting here lately.

That said, however, I do have some questions about Mormonism. To me, it is very similar to Islam in that it is derived from Christianity and Judaism but is an individual's private "revelation." It is quite syncretic and includes bits of Christianity, bits of what Joseph Smith or his followers believed to be OT law, and bits of 19th century spiritualism. How do Mormons explain this?

[Enosh]

scriptures had dropped down from Heaven

*Oow*

Judaism is a perfectly respectable religion.

Why not?

You know...

"In the name of the Father..."

(Stop)