Interfaith services are much in vogue in some quarters — particularly with a more "progressive" type of cleric and with civic authorities, proud of their enlightened and tolerant attitudes. But they leave us feeling decidedly uneasy and indeed angry. But what's our rationale for so reacting?

An interfaith event, held in Glasgow Cathedral in connection with the inaugu­ration of Glasgow's latest University was defended on the basis that "each member of the University community should be able to mark this historic occasion in accor­dance with their own personal belief, faith and values". Reference was made to Glas­gow's "richly diverse soci­ety, underpinned by a complex fabric of different religious beliefs and tenets". Any celebration must reflect this diversity, we are told.

Clerics who support such celebrations would stress not so much these historical or cultural factors, but the alleged theological factor: that all religions are pursu­ing a common goal of seek­ing after the same god and that one religion can there­fore learn from another.

Historical Connections⤒🔗

We cannot deny the historical connections of Christianity with both Juda­ism and Islam.

Christianity is rooted in the salvation-history of the Jewish people. Their holy book is ours too; we feel solidarity with the historical exploits of their fathers and have taken into full-blown Christianity basic ideas, pre­cious to Jewish people of Old Testament times, such as covenant and atonement. We are therefore no longer strangers and pilgrims, but share full rights of citizen­ship with the Old Testament saints; no longer are we wild olive branches but grafted in to partake of the rich stock of Israel. The Christian that doesn't appreciate this historical connection is impoverished indeed.

This historical connection between Christianity and Old Testament Jewish religion is not very different from that which Islam professes to see between itself and Christianity. They claim, as we do, that their religious roots go back to Abraham; they profess acceptance of the prophets which we ourselves receive; they accord to Christ exalted status when he comes again. The Christian who doesn't appreciate that historical viewpoint will fail to under­stand the claims of Islam.

But a recognition of common historical links should not blind us to the differences — differences vital to Christian testimony.

Significant Differences←⤒🔗

We hold the Old and New Testaments to be the com­plete and perfect revelation of God. But both Judaism and Islam deny the New Testament to be the fulfil­ment of God's purpose of revelation. The one refuses to see it as the fulfilment of the Old Testament; the other does not accept it as bring­ing revelation to a comple­tion: the insistence that Mohammed is Allah's prophet dethrones our Lord from his unique dignity as the final and unique prophet of God (Hebrews 1:1-2).

The imagery of the Old Testament sacrifices, which so clearly depict that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, is practically overlooked by both. In Judaism, atone­ment is by personal repen­tance, the Old Testament sacrifices frequently being understood as simply designed to produce a suit­ably penitent heart; in Islam, there is no atonement, no salvation, no substitution. In neither case is there a place for Jesus, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. There is no appreciation of one giving his life as a ransom for many. In fact, in Islam Jesus did not die in the place of others; it was the other way round; someone, they say, literally died in his place.

The concept of Jesus as the Son of God is totally foreign and unacceptable to both Judaism and Islam. To Islam, the concept has been twisted and then rejected as unthinkable. They think that Christians teach that Jesus is the Son of God by some carnal con­tact between himself and Mary. They, not unnatur­ally, reject that concept out of hand, as we ourselves would, but any other explanation runs up against the concept so tenaciously held by Judaism and Islam alike — their understanding of the unity of God. To elevate someone to a status similar to God's is considered blasphemy.

So whatever the real his­torical connections between these three great religions, connections which extend in some instances to the use of a common vocabulary, there are also significant differences.

Not only are these differ­ences significant. They are absolutely vital. Christianity without an authoritative and complete revelation at its heart is not worthy of the name. A religion without the shed­ding of atoning blood, without a saviour that died, without having an object of faith which brings the experience of forgiveness and assurance is one so significantly different from historic Christianity as to be another altogether. Where Christ is considered merely a prophet or teacher or miracle worker, such a substantial element of the Bible's testimony about him has been laid aside as that we have to say: that is not the Christ whom we worship.

These points of differ­ence are vital; they touch the very essence of the Christian faith.

Objection←⤒🔗

Our quarrel in the matter of interfaith celebrations is not with Judaism nor Islam, nor with the Scottish communities which follow these faiths. We want to have the friendliest possible relationships with these communities.

Nor is our attitude one of intolerance as if we thought that other faiths had no right to worship. We believe in freedom of worship and we believe in it not because we view all religions as really the same but because our weapons are not carnal but spiritual.

No, our quarrel with interfaith worship is that it can only be conducted where Christianity is watered down; where points of difference are set aside and the distinctive features of Christianity covered over or denied. In fact, our anger over such events is aroused because, while other religions are given their place, historical Chris­tianity, the form of Chris­tianity which for centuries shaped the life of our com­munities is effectively being denied and that by those who call themselves Christians.

Diluted Christianity is no Christianity! That's why we react negatively to inter­faith celebrations.