American Evangelicals and Islam: Their Perspectives,Attitudes and Practices Towards Muslims in the US

Introduction

Over the last approximately 50 years, since the enactment of the United States’ Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that opened immigration to non-European countries, an increasing number of non-European immigrants have been coming to the US. Many of these immigrants are not Christians. By bringing their religions with them they contribute to the religious diversity of the US. Islam is one of these religions, and it has become increasingly visible. Evangelical Christians, who typically encountered Islam on the mission field, are now finding that they have Muslim coworkers and neighbors, and their children study in schools with other children who are Muslim. In the context of this increasing presence of Muslims, Christ exhorts His disciples to be “salt” and “light” (Matt 5:13-16) in order that Jesus may be presented to them in a winsome manner so that they may come to know Him.

But, in a world that is rife with violence and bigotry in the name of religion, this is not an easy task. Events such as the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001 or the Boston Marathon bombings in April 2013, and most recently the terrorist attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo to the cries of, “Allahu Akbar” in February 2015 have great influence on the thinking of Christians. For example, Thomas Kidd asserts that the numerous events related to the 2001 terrorist attacks were perceived by American Christians partly as a clash between Christianity and Islam (Kidd, 2009: 144), and gave rise to a plethora of literature on terrorism and Islam by leading American evangelicals such as John McArthur (2001), Dave Hunt (2005), Randall Price (2001), to name just a few.

The events of September 11 have also given rise to rash comments by a number of influential evangelicals. A few examples from the plethora of comments will help illustrate this. During an October 6, 2002 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Jerry Falwell commented that,

Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and non-Muslims [to know] that he was a violent man, a man of war. In my opinion … Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Muhammad set an opposite example. (Simon, 2002)

Harvey Cox documents Franklin Graham commenting that the God of Islam is “a different God” and that Islam is “a very evil and wicked religion” (Cox, 2001). And Jerry Vines commented that “Muhammad was a ‘demon-possessed pedophile’ and that Islam teaches the destruction of all non-Muslims” (Falwell, 2002).

Then there are the actions of evangelicals that not only fuel more animosity among the Muslim community against Christians and against Americans, but, more importantly, reveal some Christians’ views of Muslims. Take for example the burning of the Qur’an by Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL, or those evangelicals who have labeled Islam a “demonic” and essentially a “violent religion” (Kidd, 2009: front jacket). These actions are reflective of the long history of Christian-Muslim animosity against each other ever since Islam was founded in the early seventh century. On the other hand, there are some evangelicals who have the propensity to diminish problems with Islam, highlighting only the positive elements of Islam. For instance, Miroslav Volf, disavowing that the God of the Qur’an is a “fierce and violent deity in opposition to the God of Jesus Christ, who is sheer love,” claims that Christians and Muslims worship the same God (Volf, 2011: 14), while their understanding of God’s character is “partly” different, “the object of their worship is the same,” that “the one and only God” worshipped by Muslims and Christians commands people to love their neighbors, even though what it means to love one’s neighbor is “partly” different in Islam and Christianity, and that it does not matter whether you are a Muslim or a Christian, but that you love God with all your heart and “trust and obey Jesus Christ, the Word of God and Lamb of God” (Volf, 2011: 15).

The above mentioned beliefs and actions of evangelicals have brought to the forefront that evangelicals have perspectives and attitudes vis-à-vis Muslims which impact how evangelicals act towards them. These perspectives and attitudes, and the resulting practices, are not shaped in a vacuum. In light of Jesus’ exhortation to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 19:19) it is imperative that evangelicals understand these perspectives, attitudes and practices, and how they are shaped, formed and justified. In this article my goal is to elucidate what perspectives, attitudes and practices towards Muslims are found among American evangelical laypeople and pastors.

This discussion will be informed in two ways. First, I discuss information gathered in a qualitative study concluded in 2015 (Bhatia, 2015) that included one-on-one interviews of 40 lay American evangelicals (23 men and 17 women) and four American evangelical pastors (all male) about their experience with Muslims and Islam in the US, as well as a focus group based study of ministry leaders of Christian Outreach Ministry to Muslims ¹ (COMM), a helps-based, incarnational ministry that seeks to meet the needs of the Hindu and Muslim immigrants in the community, located in a major metropolitan city in the US.

Information from the 40 American evangelicals was gathered through the “nonprobability sampling method” (Bernard and Ryan, 2010: 358), adequate for this research because it sought “to study a small subset” of a “larger population” of American evangelicals ² and the members of the subset were easy to identify, whereas studying all American evangelicals “would be nearly impossible” (Babbie, 2007: 184). Four American evangelical congregations located in four different suburbs of Chicago were selected, from which congregants were asked to volunteer to participate in the study. The four congregations, comprised primarily of white-collar workers, are from three different theologically conservative traditional evangelical denominations. The sole criterion for selecting these congregations was that they are “evangelical” in their theological commitment. The 40 respondents that were selected through “purposive sampling” (Bernard and Ryan, 2010: 358) were the first 40 who responded and expressed interest in participating in the study, two of whom I was put in touch with by one of the interviewees. Even though the pool of mostly self-selecting ³ respondents, three-fourths of whom had contacts of some kind with Muslims, with some contacts even overseas, did not comprise “an unbiased sample,” the data that I collected was sufficient (Babbie, 2007: 184; Bernard and Ryan, 2010: 366) to elucidate their perspectives, attitudes and practices towards Muslims in the US because the information came from respondents who had read and dialogued about, as well as reflected on, the issues related to the research topic. The COMM American evangelical leaders, six men and four women, have engaged Muslims in the US from an evangelical perspective for several years, and some have also had the opportunity to do mission work among Muslims in Pakistan.

Second, I interact with literature on religious diversity in the US by Paul Numrich, Diana Eck, Robert Wuthnow, Martin Marty and Terry Muck, which forms the background within which the information drawn from the qualitative interviews and focus group study is discussed and analyzed.

Perspectives

Wuthnow offers an insightful analysis of the history of religious diversity in the US (2007: 34). He sees a common theme weaving through the approximately 500 years of the history of engagements that American Christians had with other religions which included the shaping of Christians’ “perceptions of themselves and of their place in the world.” Regardless of how big the Christian community was during these encounters – in the early period of their encounters as settlers and explorers when they were a “small minority,” or much later during the 19th century when Christianity had become a majority religion – American Christians viewed themselves as the “reigning power” and the prevailing “cultural influence.” This mindset allowed the American Christians to view the adherents of non-Christian religions in a variety of different ways: ignore them and let their presence go unacknowledged, or lump them into broad categories, viewing them as “proto-Christians, potential converts, degenerate heathen,” or view them in some other fashion that did not give full weight to the intricacy of the “beliefs and practices” of these non-Christian religions (Wuthnow, 2007: 35), thus diminishing the significance of their culture and tradition.

The responses by the interviewees show that the American evangelical respondents and the COMM staff in some ways fit well with Wuthnow’s assessment and in other ways do not fit with what Wuthnow says. Far from regarding Muslims as though they were not present or ignoring the presence of Muslims in their midst, they are actually very aware of them, which is also different from what Eck observes in her 2002 work. Most respondents had known and interacted with Muslims in various settings as coworkers or neighbors, and to a certain extent were also aware of what Muslims believe, and how they live and interact with others around them. For example, the respondents were aware that Islam is a monotheistic religion, and that it has several pillars such as praying five times a day. At the same time, most American evangelical respondents did tend to lump Muslims and Islam into broad categories – Muslims are evil, Islam is an evil religion; the COMM staff viewed Islam as evil, but viewed Muslims as caught up in the system of Islam. Most American evangelical respondents also diminished the value of Islamic culture and tradition, which lines up with Wuthnow’s conclusions. For example, their negative perceptions of Islam, especially in regards to Islam’s view of women and the lack of democratic freedom within Islam (which stands out to the American mind in light of the American constitutional right to freely practice religion), overshadowed or completely ignored the good social values that stem from Islam, which were not mentioned by the majority of the respondents. The respondents also viewed Christianity, Christian culture and American culture as superior to Islamic culture. For example, one respondent asserted that the “sense of respect for personal choice … is higher in Christianity than in Islam.”

Furthermore, Muck claims that the growth of non-Christian religions has gone unnoticed by Americans because non-Christian religions are still a minority and lack political and economic clout. While this assertion is accurate for the 1980s timeframe in which Muck (1990) made his observation, the responses of the interviewees show that the American evangelical respondents and the COMM staff, because of the space that the media devotes to reporting on Islam and violence, are quite aware of the political involvement of Muslims and are actually concerned what impact the increasing numbers of Muslims will have on American life, especially in relation to sharia law. The American evangelical respondents were also concerned that with the increase of Islamic influence on American life there will be limitations on religious freedom and American evangelicals may not be able to live out their Christian faith fully, especially vis-à-vis the freedom to evangelize other religious groups.

While Wuthnow (2007), Eck (2002) and Muck (1990) are correct in the conclusions they draw vis-à-vis the responses of American Christians that were made during earlier time periods, the change among the American evangelical respondents, I would argue, has come about for two reasons. First, because of all the attention that the media pays to Islam, especially regarding the violent events associated with Islam, Islam is much more in the forefront in US culture and the American evangelical respondents are “forced” to pay attention to Islam and how Muslims live and practice their faith. Second, judging from the comments made by the American evangelical respondents articulating their interest in learning about Islam and Muslims and the steps they are taking to acquire information, while not fully knowledgeable of the teachings of Islam and in most cases having an inaccurate understanding of Islam, the American evangelical respondents are showing a greater appreciation for religious diversity than what Muck said in 1990, as well as trying to get a deeper and accurate understanding of Islamic beliefs and practices and what they see in the media vis-à-vis the relationship between Islam and the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. For example, numerous American evangelical respondents had studied Islam in a variety of settings including seminars, lectures, college classrooms, many had accessed information through a plethora of avenues on the internet, and some had drawn information through Christian TV. The COMM staff, on the other hand, by virtue of being directly involved in ministry to Muslims, were quite knowledgeable of Islam as a religion, as well as the relationship of Islam and violence. They also had an in-depth understanding of Islamic cultural values and demonstrated an appreciation for relating to Muslims as “people” who had common interests as fellow human beings. For instance, one leader commented that the Muslims he knows are simply people who are trying to go to school, drive a taxi, visit the hospital, etc., and another commented that the Muslims that he meets at COMM, the “average Joes like you and me,” are “human beings” “who have the same problems, same issues, same concerns, … [who] wear a hijab, … have long beards, … are struggling to try and make ends meet, … [have] kids who are a little rebellious [and] miserable and not completely happy because daddy is busy working all day and doesn’t get to see dad, and mom is busy cleaning the house to give them attention, or young kids whose parents don’t get along,” and who “need the same grace, mercy, and love that Christ offers us.” They are “human beings” whose “religion happens to be Islam.”

Attitudes

The American evangelical respondents and the COMM staff are not satisfied by simply practicing their own faith within their own communities without thinking about ways in which Muslims practice their faith, an attitude that is contrary to Wuthnow’s observations, which were accurate for the timeframe – decades prior to 2007, when his book was published – in which he made his observations. This came to the forefront through the comments made by the respondents asserting that they would like to have opportunities to meet and get to know other Muslims, understand their lifestyle, how they practice their faith, become cognizant of their understanding of Jesus, express the love of Christ to them, get rid of evangelicals’ own prejudicial and suspicious attitudes, etc. That is, they wanted to express hospitality towards Muslims and build bridges with the Islamic community. The COMM staff’s desire to understand how Muslims live and practice their faith came to the forefront when one leader explained how they minister to the Muslims in their community. He explained that “One model of church-planting ministry is survey, contact, evangelism, conversion, and discipleship …. So, five steps.” Surveying the community means informally finding out through prayer and through living in the community the kind of people that live in the neighborhood, which includes several generations of immigrants, and the needs that they have. Contact is made with the people through the various services – photocopying, English classes, tutorial classes, etc. – offered at COMM. This kind of contact creates opportunities “for presenting the gospel in a real and living way. And, from that you would hope to have converts and eventually establish churches ….” And this cycle keeps going as contact is made with new people and they keep discovering new things through the informal survey.

The responses of the American evangelical respondents also very clearly show, as Eck (2002) also pointed out, that their attitudes tend to be mistrusting, fearful and suspicious of Muslims, as well as recognize that their interaction with Muslims would be beneficial to themselves as well as to Muslims. For example, respondents expressed views such as Muslims have an agenda to take over America, they are scary, they want to convert the whole world to Islam or kill them, Islam is a violent religion, etc. One respondent, expressing extremely paranoid views, asserted that she would never access information on the internet about Islam because she was afraid that “they [Muslims] will find me and kill me.” She also asserted that she would not be comfortable sitting down for dinner with Muslims because her concern was that “that information would get to radical Muslims and they would kill me, and I’m not sure I care that much.” In his discussion about showing hospitality to “strangers” Marty talks about people showing fear towards others, fear that their values may be subverted or that their members may be proselytized by the stranger, which results in hostility towards the stranger (2005: 13). The fear that the American evangelical respondents have shown has resulted in hostility towards Muslims; the COMM staff, on the other hand, did not show any fear or hostility towards Muslims. Given this, it would be helpful for the American evangelical respondents to engage in healthy introspection, which includes trying to understand the reasons for their underlying fear, mistrust and suspicion of Muslims, so that they can learn about them and better understand them, as Marty asserts.

Eck affirms the significance of moving beyond simply tolerating the presence of religious others to learning about them, which includes the dispelling of stereotypes and images that color our image of the other(s) (Eck, 2002: 69). Wuthnow asserts that engaging religious others includes understanding narrower issues of agreement and disagreement among religions, being a “studier” of other religions, recognizing that we have a viewpoint that is shaped by our culture and which needs to be scrutinized, showing respect for others and their religious beliefs and recognizing that their identity is closely interwoven with their religious beliefs, being willing to engage religious others in settings where religious differences become prominent; etc. (Wuthnow, 2007: 289–292). And Marty speaks of engaging religious others in the context of showing hospitality to them, which is comprised of components such as creating an atmosphere where they can engage religious others, allowing them to speak without suppressing their voices, etc. (Marty, 2005: 128–142). Viewed from this standpoint, the words and actions expressed by the American evangelical respondents towards Muslims indicate that they have greater appreciation for the significance of interreligious understanding and interaction (contra Muck’s observation, which was accurate when he authored his book in 1990). For example, a number of respondents asserted that they would be willing to participate in social events, such as a dinner, with Muslims so that they could get a better understanding of Islam and Muslims. Again, I would argue that the greater visibility of Islam in the media has been the catalyst for this change among the American evangelical respondents, and the involvement in ministry to Muslims has been the catalyst for this change for the COMM staff. Perhaps one of the results of this will be to answer the questions Wuthnow raises (“Would Americans now continue to ignore other religions, even when adherents of these religions were living in their own neighborhoods? … Or would they come to a deeper understanding of their own traditions as they compared it with others?” (Wuthnow, 2007: 36)), that as the American evangelical respondents think about Muslims they will get a deeper understanding of what it means to live out the gospel, especially vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims, as the COMM staff already have. And perhaps, as Eck (2002) suggests should happen but is not as yet happening, the result will be that the American evangelical respondents, like the COMM staff, will take greater initiative to engage Muslims, and to understand them and their beliefs more deeply, so that some of the stereotypes of Muslims and Islam may be eschewed, and that the American evangelical respondents may get a better grasp of the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam and between Christians and Muslims.

Practices

The qualitative data gathered via the interviews demonstrates that the American evangelical respondents partially fit in well with Eck’s definition of pluralism, which includes: as opportunities arise, they do actively engage Muslims, eschewing “valueless relativism,” they are committed to actively engaging the “differences and particularities” of the respective faiths as they emerge in their relationship-building interactions with Muslims, and they recognize that their engagement of Muslims is an ongoing process.

At the same time Eck asserts in her definition of pluralism that American Christians should take initiatives to understand religious others; the responses of the interviewees show that the American evangelical respondents, while wanting to do this vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims, and in some cases indeed doing so, the sources that they access and the kinds of information they look for prohibit them from getting an accurate understanding of Muslims and Islam. A couple of examples will help illustrate this. One respondent asserted that she did not use the computer at all, but had access to numerous Christian TV stations such as TLN, Total Living Network, TBN, Trinity Broadcasting Network, MCTV, My Christian TV, and DayStar. Through these TV stations she had seen John Ankerberg’s show on which he had interviewed two Muslim brothers who had become Christians. She felt that she got a good picture of things pertaining to Islam because she was getting to hear from someone who “knows both sides of the story; it isn’t just somebody’s opinion.” She also had the opportunity to see a program on the 700 Club where a man came on and said, “this is what this says here [in the Qur’an] about the cutting somebody’s head off and being willing to violence part of it.” She had also heard about the ways in which Muslim men “treat their wives.” She recounted a story where a Muslim man in a Muslim country looked out of the window and saw his daughter-in-law “brushing her hair.” The man told his son about this and “so the agenda was to kill this woman for having exposed herself when she really didn’t do it at all and trying to tempt this man who was nothing but a busybody peeking in the window.” She thought that “there’s no love between the man and the woman” because they blame the woman and were ready to kill her “at the least thing.” And she had also heard about how Muslims in Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. strap on bombs, blow themselves up for Allah and kill people quite senselessly, and “every time it’s a group of people it’s a Muslim thing. That’s who it’s attributed to. … It’s really irrational type thinking in most people’s estimation.” Another respondent mentioned reading emails from what he calls “too right-wing” Christians for whom “anybody who looks Arabic is a Muslim terrorist.” But he admitted that he has “gotten to the point where the alarm bells go off because they’re just too quick to point the finger and say things that I don’t think the facts back up.” From the sources that were accessed, PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) and Al Jazeera were viewed by the respondents as presenting information in a fair and non-judgmental manner, although PBS was accessed by only two respondents, Al Jazeera by five and the BBC by three. That is, from the 44 respondents interviewed only seven respondents had accessed sources that were characterized by the respondents as positive news outlets. The COMM staff, on the other hand, fit in well with all the components of Eck’s definition of pluralism.

Furthermore, the responses also show that the American evangelical respondents and the COMM staff are very willing to show hospitality towards Muslims, as Marty defines hospitality (Marty, 2005: 128–142): they express their faith in its fullness and expect Muslims to do the same, are open about their own tradition, as well as expect Muslims to be open about theirs, regard Muslims with civility – welcome diversity of Christian/Muslim beliefs, recognize that dialogue is a continual process and that faith impacts social issues, engage Muslims in open and honest dialogue, engage Muslims on a personal level, and live with the conflict that comes with having starkly different religious beliefs.

That the American evangelical respondents fit in well with Marty’s definition of hospitality is indicated in a number of ways. One, those respondents who had interacted with Muslims did express their faith in its fullness and listened, even when they disagreed, when Muslims articulated their faith. Two, they regarded Muslims with civility, welcoming the diversity of the beliefs of each other’s religions, and recognized that dialogue is an ongoing process and that each other’s religious beliefs significantly impact social issues. Three, from those American evangelical respondents who had discussions with Muslims, most of them engaged Muslims openly and honestly in dialogue. Four, most of the American evangelical respondents engaged Muslims on a personal level in their interactions with them. Five, as long as the American evangelical respondents felt that Muslims recognized that they should live out Islam within the broader umbrella of the American value of freedom of religion, the respondents were willing to live with the conflict that comes from living out faiths that are very different.

At the same time, while most of the American evangelical respondents enthusiastically articulated that they would be willing to get together with Muslims if their church hosted events with their Muslim friends and neighbors, which indicates at least in their mind they are hospitable, all of the American evangelical respondents also articulated negative perceptions of Muslims and Islam along with attitudes characterized by mistrust, fear and suspicion from a variety of perspectives, and some of them even stated outright that they would not want to talk to Muslims and/or get together with them for social events; i.e. in actual fact the respondents do not display perspectives, attitudes and practices that would be characterized as hospitable. This conflicting attitude is indicative of a great deal of inner discord that the American evangelical respondents feel. Some of the American evangelical respondents even articulated that they feel this way even though they know that as Christians who are seeking to live out the teachings of the Bible they should not espouse these kinds of negative perspectives and attitudes.

Based on his research on the plethora of ways in which Christians of various stripes have responded to the presence of Hindus and Muslims in their community, Numrich (2009) put American Christians into two groups: those who respond to religious others keeping in mind Christian truth claims and doctrine, and those for whom other issues, such as freedom of religion, take priority over religious truth claims in their interactions with religious others. This research demonstrates that the American evangelical respondents actually fall into both these groups in that in thinking of Muslims they thought of them in terms of their need for sharing the gospel and Muslims coming to faith in Christ, i.e. Christian truth claims and doctrine were a priority, as well as recognizing that Muslims have the right to practice their faith and build their mosques anywhere in the US, i.e. the basic civil right of the freedom of religion is a priority for the respondents. The COMM staff fit the first group quite well in that their entire reason for being is their desire and goal to present the gospel to Muslims. The COMM staff also fits in well with the second group, which emerges from the focus of their helps-based incarnational ministry to meet the physical needs of Muslims in their community. Furthermore, Numrich, drawing from teachings of the New Testament (2009: 164) as well as from Terry C Muck’s How to Study Religion, advises that relationships with religious others must be characterized by respect, reverence for God that leads them to live reverent lives among the religious others, humility and meekness (Numrich, 2009: 164–65), characteristics which describe both the American evangelical respondents as well as the COMM staff quite well.

Wuthnow, through information gathered via qualitative interviews of over 50 pastors across the US who talked in detail about what their churches have done in order to respond to religious diversity (Wuthnow, 2007: 235), asserts that evangelical Protestant churches have been involved in, or sponsored, some kind of interfaith program in order to encourage more understanding among the various religions. For example, some churches are involved in interfaith activities to develop mutual understanding, which include hosting “Middle Eastern dinners” where Jews and Muslims are invited to join in and speak, inviting international students, including Hindus and Muslims, to share meals with members of the church, participating with Muslims in an organization to promote social justice, and inviting Jewish and Muslim leaders to speak in their church. Eck’s 2002 work pointed out that engaging in interfaith dialogues and providing appropriate education would be an important response to the increase in religious diversity. This research project demonstrated that some of the congregations had created a forum for interfaith dialogue or specifically set up a conference to educate the congregants about ministry to Muslims. That is, the fact that not all congregations had created some kind of forum for discussing issues related to Islam and Muslim highlights the need for education, as Eck points out. The reason that not all congregations had created programs for interfaith dialogue and understanding, I would argue, is that evangelicals put a great deal of emphasis on individuals sharing the gospel with individual Muslims, and put more emphasis on sharing the gospel rather than establishing forums for interfaith dialogue and interaction. Another reason for this is that American evangelicalism is very inconsistent and conflicted about hosting these kinds of programs in their local congregations, as indicated through the comments of one pastor who said that he was not sure how well his congregation would receive the hosting of such an event, as well as the comments of one respondent who said that she would not be open to hosting such an event in her church because it would communicate the wrong message to other Christians and they may think that her church was liberal in its theological convictions.

Wuthnow asserts that the churches’ response to religious diversity is characterized by a failure to teach congregants how to relate to religious others or a failure to organize activities that would bring them into contact with adherents of other religions, a response which Wuthnow calls “strategies of avoidance” (Wuthnow, 2007: 244). My research seems to indicate that the congregations fall into these strategies of avoidance in that only one of the congregations had organized a program where the congregants could hear from a Muslim speaker in the context of broader teaching about the Middle East, Islam and war. The other three pastors would all be open to this within certain limitations: two said that it should not be anything more than a social event for the purpose of building relationships, one of whom said that there should be no form of worship, and another that there should be no proselytism; the fourth pastor spoke about this in terms of encouraging his congregants to express their friendship towards their Muslim neighbors. However, these three pastors had not done anything concrete in their congregations as the first pastor had to facilitate deeper understanding of Muslims, Islam and issues related to Muslims and Islam, highlighting the inconsistent and conflicted nature of organizing these kinds of programs in their congregations. This perspective, and the resulting practices, also seemed to emerge through some of the comments made by the American evangelical respondents: they did not want mosques in their neighborhoods, one respondent was completely unwilling to dialogue with Muslims, and some of the American evangelical respondents expressed discomfort at the idea of sitting down for dinner with Muslims.

This research also demonstrates that the American evangelical respondents and the COMM staff in some respects engage in the six salient characteristics of what Wuthnow calls “reflective pluralism” (Wuthnow, 2007: 289–292): the American evangelical respondents recognize that Muslims are different and why they are different, and have good reasons for engaging Muslims – to understand them better, they are interested in the specifics of Islam, they are, or are in the process of becoming, “studiers” of Islam (however, in this case it would be important for the American evangelical respondents to draw information about Islam and Muslims from sources that are more balanced and that provide a biblical frame of reference to interpret Islam and Muslims, and violent events related to Islam, and not just news media), they recognize that their viewpoint, or that of Muslims, is not arrived at arbitrarily or disconnected from the truth of Christianity, and they respect Muslims. Furthermore, the sixth characteristic of reflective pluralism, which Wuthnow calls “willingness to compromise,” talks about individuals making the decision to interact with religious others at a level where the differences come to the fore and become important, instead of thinking that religious beliefs and values are insignificant. This research demonstrates that those American evangelical respondents who did engage Muslims displayed a clear willingness to compromise in that they were willing to interact with them at a level where Christian and Muslim differences would become prominent. This was true of the COMM staff as well.

Terry Muck’s approach towards American religious pluralism is theological in nature (Muck, 1990: 55). His response to a “religiously diverse, legally endorsed pluralism,” attempting to draw from the “unchangeable, unique” message of the gospel and applying it to the continually changing religious landscape, is threefold: first, we should “love our neighbors unconditionally,” second, we should glorify God through our institutions, where the institution may be a tribe, temple, monarchy or the church, and third, we should preach the gospel. The responses by the COMM staff align very well with Muck’s approach to the response of American evangelicals to religious pluralism. One, COMM staff love their Muslim neighbors unconditionally – sharing with the Muslims the common courtesies of life, loving those Muslims who regard the COMM staff as “enemies,” not judging them, recognizing that Christians and Muslims are equally sinful, and removing cultural barriers that would impede the development of relationships. All of this stems from COMM staff’s love for Christ.

Two, glorifying God through their institution – a bookstore – that offers a variety of services to the community, all of which is done in the name of Christ and to honor Christ. This is fulfilled to the extent that they glorify God through their ministry, but does not include cooperation with institutions of other religions.

Three, recognizing that the presence of Muslims in their community is an opportunity to preach the truth to them, the COMM staff is unashamedly involved in the activity of the verbal proclamation of the gospel. Furthermore, Muck’s third component of proclaiming the truth of the gospel in our cultural context where religious pluralism is affirmed and the idea of “one truth” is considered passé is comprised of nine principles (Muck, 1990: 100–104), all of which characterize COMM staff’s proclamation of the truth to Muslims: COMM staff are intimate with their faith so that they can articulate it well to Muslims, they expect conflict in dialogue with Muslims, they recognize that Muslims believe and proclaim absolute truth, but do so with only a partial understanding of the truth, they make sure that their motives are right – wrong motives could include, gaining converts, manipulating others to believe or arrogantly believing that they are better than Muslims, the goal of their discussion with the Muslims they encounter is to clearly communicate the gospel to them and to understand them, not creating their own ideas, but rather sticking with God’s theology – knowing their faith, being firmly established in the love of their faith, and committed to transforming this world, rather than trying to disprove Islam (although by definition, the COMM staff apologist engages in disproving Islam), they focus on proving Christianity, and they adopt an attitude of humility towards Muslims.

At the same time, all of the COMM staff members strongly emphasized Islam as an evil religion. No one mentioned if there were any “good” or “true” aspects within Islam. Their perspective was developed through their interactions with Muslims in the US, many of whom opposed COMM staff members strongly, as well as their interactions with Muslims in various ministry contexts outside of the US, and a biblical understanding of religions that “deny” Christ. Their perspective was reinforced by what they see in the media. At the same time, they also recognized that not all Muslims are radical and/or violent, that many of them are like “us” who are simply seeking to live out their lives as ordinary citizens, and that they are in bondage to the system of Islam. While there probably are certain aspects of Islam that are “good” or “true,” and it would be significant for them recognize that, I maintain that for the most part their perspective, shaped both by what they have seen and experienced in their culture vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims, as well as Christian theology, is balanced. At the same time, the clear evidence of both positive and negative perspectives and attitudes espoused by COMM staff is indicative of the conflicted perspectives and attitudes espoused by them, just as it was with the American evangelical respondents. Furthermore, the fact that COMM staff espouse negative perspectives and attitudes, and at the same time are able to minister to Muslims, indicates that it is possible to have negative perspectives and attitudes and still be able to do ministry effectively.

Conclusion

American Evangelical respondents’ perspectives are characterized by an awareness of the presence of Islam and how Muslims in their midst live and practice their faith. They also espouse a perspective characterized by a greater appreciation for religious diversity in the US, and while their understanding of Islam and Islamic culture is deficient, they are trying to get a deeper understanding of Islam and how Muslims practice Islam in the US, as well as the impact that the practice of Islam may have on American political life. Correspondingly, the respondents also demonstrated a greater appreciation for the significance of interreligious understanding and interaction.

The American Evangelical respondents’ mindset is characterized by an attitude of hospitality towards Muslims, as well as recognizing that social interactions with Muslims would be beneficial to both themselves and Muslims. At the same time, because they tend to associate Islam with violence, they are suspicious, mistrusting and fearful of Muslims, which actually resulted in hostility and a lack of hospitality towards Muslims. That is, the respondents’ attitudes are characterized by a great deal of inner discord vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims. Their conflicted attitudes became even more evident when a few respondents stated that they know that although as Christians they are supposed to love Muslims, they actually feel a lot of animosity towards them. Most respondents did not question whether their fear of Islam and hostility towards Muslims were justified. These attitudes elucidate the need for deep self-examination and repentance.

The respondents’ mindsets were also characterized by an attitude of concern about the US as a country and American cultural life: they care deeply about what influence Islam will have on American civic life, are concerned about the behavior of the “violent” Muslims, realize that the Muslim community does not denounce the violence that is perpetrated in the US, as well as in other countries, and rightly complain about the absence of this voice.

The American Evangelical respondents engaged Muslims in meaningful ways when they had the opportunity to do so, treating them with civility, as well as sought to learn more about Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, given all the negative comments about Islam and Muslim made by the 44 respondents, it is remarkable that only six respondents had strong physical reactions and emotions in relation to the information shared during the course of the interviews: one expressed anger when talking about Muslims being able to be good citizens of the US, one got defensive when I pointed out that her perspective about Muslims is negative, and quickly asserted that she was not negative, which shows that she was not aware that her view of Islam was actually negative, one wept over the conflicted feelings of hatred that he harbored towards Muslims, quite aware that based on the teachings of Jesus he was supposed to love them, one gestured strongly while asserting that she would not want to dialogue with Muslims because they may be secretly radical and kill her, one wept when recalling the events of 9/11, and one, gesturing strongly, asserted in relation to the events of 9/11 that Americans should nuke the Muslim nations, and “when we do that once, they will not mess with us again.” (The other respondents answered quite matter-of-factly, giving the impression that their perspectives, attitudes and practices are neither unwarranted nor unusual, which is not the ideal frame of mind for American evangelical respondents to be in.)

It is noteworthy and encouraging that the COMM leaders are aware of their own negative perspectives and attitudes towards Muslims that have resulted from their experiences, and acknowledge their need for asking God’s help on a daily basis to repent of this so that they could engage Muslims in a Christ-like manner. It is also encouraging that in spite of the vitriol experienced by the COMM leaders by Muslims they engage, they are able to have a compassionate perspective and attitude towards Muslims, and the practices that they engage in are shaped by this compassion as well as a deep sense of hospitality. That is, in spite of the vitriol experienced, it is indeed possible for some American evangelicals to live Christ-like lives in their relationships with Muslims. While it is imperative that both the COMM leaders and the respondents eschew their negative perspectives and attitudes, the respondents can learn some important lessons from the COMM leaders: be aware of their own negative perspectives and attitudes towards Islam and Muslims, and seek God’s help in repenting of this negativity. This will go a long way in helping them espouse perspectives and attitudes that are characterized by compassion and hospitality, and in engaging Muslims in a Christ-like manner.