Three Journeys

The journeys of Jesus, Constantine and Muhammad

Print Article Email to a Friend

Shortly after the 9/11/2001 attacks, I asked Mark Oxbrow, a missions director with the Church Missions Society of the Church of England, “What do you say in churches in the United Kingdom when you are asked to speak on the Christian faith and Islam?”

Mark said, “I speak about three different journeys for peace: Jesus, Constantine and Muhammad. Those different journeys are options for each of us, and each of us needs to choose which one we will take.”

The journey of Jesus to Jerusalem: Jesus was at the height of his popularity in Galilee after feeding the 5,000 men plus women and children by blessing and breaking five loaves of bread and two fish. The Galileans tried to make him their king “by force” (John 6:15). Jesus resisted that invitation and “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51). In the following weeks, Jesus tried to make his disciples aware that in Jerusalem the authorities will arrest the Son of Man and “mock him, insult him, spit on him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again” (Luke 18:32-33).

The disciples could not fathom that an arrest and death were possibilities for the Messiah. Peter rebuked Jesus for such notions, and Jesus responded sharply, “Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things” (Matthew 16:23).

Finally, as Jesus approached Jerusalem, he mounted a colt. Jubilant children sang hosannas, yet as he saw the city before him, he wept because Jerusalem would not receive “the things that make for peace” (Luke 19:42). Then he and the youngsters entered the temple and cleansed it of the merchants who were corrupting the whole system with their exploitative practices.

In that colt ride he was proclaiming the fulfillment of two biblical prophesies in regard to the messianic kingdom.

First, he was fulfilling Zechariah’s prophecy of five centuries earlier. Most frequently we read only the introduction to the prophecy and miss the universal, peacemaking, nonviolent and voluntary messianic rule that Jesus was announcing in riding that colt into Jerusalem (Zechariah 9:9-10).

Second, Jesus was fulfilling Ezekiel’s prophecy that the radiant glory of God would enter Jerusalem from the East, fill the temple with the glory of God, and cleanse the temple of all corruption forever (Ezekiel 43:1-9).

If Jesus came to establish the kingdom of God, how did he do that?

First, he drove those who exploited the poor from the temple precincts. He made it known that the temple of stone was needed no more. He was the new temple; later the apostles proclaimed that the church as the body of Christ was the temple. The place was not necessary in the kingdom Jesus was establishing. The place of the kingdom was wherever Christ was welcomed.

Second, during his last meal with his disciples, Christ washed the feet of his betrayer. The One who is the radiant glory of God who created the 50 billion galaxies in space washes the feet of his betrayer.

Third, as Jesus is dying on the cross, he asks for forgiveness of those who have crucified him. This is God in Christ seeking to embrace the world in his reconciling invitation. In that suffering embrace, we are reconciled to God and to one another and with all of creation; in that embrace the kingdom of God breaks into human experience.

Fourth, after his resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples several times. He showed them the nail prints in his hands and the wound from the spear. Then he said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you. … Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:21-22).

Weeks later the Holy Spirit came upon the gathering of disciples, and from then on the apostolic church believed that the journey of Jesus from Galilee to the cross in Jerusalem is the way of the kingdom of God. These first Christians believed that in the crucified Jesus the God of all creation suffers for us and because of us. He identifies fully with the suffering of all humanity and especially with the outcasts and powerless; he is crucified between two thieves. He suffers a cursed death, hung on a tree (Galatians 3:13) outside the centers of power; he dies in disgrace at Golgotha “outside the camp” (Hebrews 13:13). This one who is crucified with the outcasts, stripped of earthly power, is in fact the presence and revelation of the power of God. Christ crucified and risen is the power center of the universe; he is the Lamb slain who stands in the center of the throne of God (Revelation 5:6). In his sacrifice Christ forgives and redeems people from “every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). Christ crucified—the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

For the apostolic church, all kingdom ethics were grounded in the reality that in Christ crucified God has revealed himself to be our suffering servant. Jesus said, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another” (John 13:34). The Apostle Paul wrote, “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus … who … emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, … he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:5-8).

For the next three centuries, the church insisted that a cross-centered ethic meant that a disciple of Jesus could not take arms. This was costly, for the church was often persecuted for refusing to venerate the emperor. Yet the church confessed Jesus as Lord—therefore disciples of Jesus could not venerate the emperor or participate in practices in variance with the way of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians would not participate in sacrifices to the spirit of the emperor and in the imperial military. Origen insisted that Christians desist from any participation in warfare.

Celsus accused the church of abandoning the responsibilities of patriotic citizenship. Origen responded: “Even more do we fight on behalf of the emperor. And though we do not become fellow-soldiers with him, even if he presses for this, yet we are fighting [for] him and composing a special army of piety through our intercessions to God.”

Remarkably the early church thrived without the benefit of political support. It was a minority movement on the margins; yet the crucified and risen Christ it gave witness to was powerfully attractive.

The journey of Constantine to Rome: The church’s commitment to a cross-centered kingdom commitment underwent a dramatic transformation when Constantine gained the Roman imperial throne. For months Constantine had been engaged in a long march from Britain south to Rome, where he knew he would meet in battle Maxentius, his rival to imperial power and his enemy. Constantine commanded only 40,000 troops. Maxentius had the full force of the garrison in Rome at his command. Constantine turned to the divine sun in worship, a commitment he never fully abandoned.

On the eve of battle, Constantine allegedly saw the sign of the cross in the sky with the words beneath that cross: “In hoc signo vinces” (“under this sign conquer”). He took that as an omen and painted the “chi rho” sign of Christ crucified on his weapons of war. The next day, Constantine won a decisive victory. He went on to become emperor of the Western empire, and Licinius became emperor of the Eastern empire. In his wars in the East, Licinius also reported a message from God.

Within a year, Constantine and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan (A.D. 313), which assured religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire, not only for Christians but for all faiths.
Constantine tilted the Western empire toward favoring the church. The historian Eusebius was ecstatic when Constantine ordered Bibles to be made available for leaders in his seat of government in Constantinople. Eusebius believed a Christian civilization would unite political and ecclesial authority and power.

The Constantinian cross used as a weapon for violence against the enemy is not the cross of the one who proclaimed forgiveness for his enemies as he died absorbing their taunting violence.

With astounding rapidity the church was seated with empire at the centers of power. Nowhere was that more evident than in the Council of Nicea (325), where the unbaptized Constantine presided over a council of bishops to determine Christological and Trinitarian doctrine. Constantine not only presided at the opening sessions but also implemented instruments of force to impose the decisions made at Nicea on recalcitrant churches, as for example the Donatists of North Africa.

Under Constantine, Christianity in the West had become transformed into the religion of Western empire. This legacy provided the paradigm for what became known as the Holy Roman Empire, and later as Western Christendom.

For the church in Persia, developments in the Western church became the sentence of death. The Roman Empire and Persia had engaged in several centuries of conflict. Another war was pending when Constantine wrote to the Shah of Persia, Shapur II: “I rejoice to hear that the fairest provinces of Persia are adorned with … Christians. … Since you are so powerful and pious, I commend them to your care, and leave them in your protection.”

For the Shah, this letter meant Christians were a fifth column representing Rome by sabotaging Zoroastrian Persia from within. Twenty years later Constantine massed his troops for war against Persia, with bishops accompanying his armies.

The rage of the Persians against the Christians knew no boundaries. For more than 20 years the Christians were systematically hunted from one end of the empire to the other, tortured and killed. The Persian Church was nearly eradicated. It has never recovered from that blow. Since Constantine, the church in the East has sought to make it clear that it is not beholden to the church in the West. Constantine and the development of Christendom have made it necessary for churches of the East to become alternatives to the Western church.

The Constantinian transformation in the Western church contributed to the opening for Islam in the East. This is because the persecutions in Persia decimated the church. It also meant that the churches of the East had to distance themselves from the churches of the West. One way they did this was by defining their theology as an alternative to that of the West.

We should ask, Are there themes within the U.S. church today that are similar to those of the Constantinian era? How does the perceived alliance of the U.S. evangelical churches with the U.S. international agenda affect the vulnerable churches in Muslim lands?

These questions confronted me when I engaged in several days of dialogue with a Muslim theologian in Germany, after I had presented the journey of Jesus to the cross as the way of peace. She turned to me and with anger said: “This is the first time I have ever heard that the cross has anything to do with peace. Our Muslim perception is that the cross is a symbol of violence and that the Christian movement is a violent religion.” I wept as I asked her forgiveness for the sins of the church in distorting the cross and the gospel so tragically.

After a break, she took the floor and thanked me for my tears of repentance. Then she said: “I have never before experienced a Christian asking forgiveness for the sins of the church against us Muslims. Your confession has opened my eyes to a Jesus I never knew was there, and I have been transformed.”

We now explore another journey that birthed an alternative vision of religion and territoriality, that of the Muslims.

The journey of Muhammad to Medina: Six centuries after Christ and three centuries after Constantine, the unlettered Muhammad began preaching in Mecca in Arabia, among a people who were on the periphery of civilization and power. For 12 years he proclaimed portions of the Qur’an as they came to him. He warned the Meccans to leave their polytheistic worship and evil practices. He preached a message of hope for the poor and compassion for the dispossessed.

Few Meccans accepted Muhammad’s message, for he challenged the entrenched networks of polytheism that supported the political and economic structures of Arabian society.

However, emissaries from Medina invited him to come to their city and become their prophet and statesman—the same invitation Jesus had received from the Galileans six centuries earlier. Muhammad accepted the invitation, believing that this was a sign of favor from God.

This migration to Medina is the “hijrah,” which took place in 622. This event is the beginning of the Muslim era—not the birth of Muhammad in 570 or the advent of revelations in 610. This event enabled Muhammad to gain political and military control of a region. With those instruments of power he and his followers established the “dar al Islam,” the region under Muslim political control.

In Medina a constitution was developed that in later centuries formed the nucleus for full-fledged Muslim systems of law known as the “Shari’a.” The goal of the Medina constitution was to include all minorities within a covenant of cooperation with the Muslims.

The Muslims were disappointed when some minority communities resisted inclusion in the Muslim-led covenant. Subsequently these dissidents were perceived to be a threat to the Muslim community and were dealt with as traitors. Judgment included banishment or death.
Battles ensued between the Meccans and the Muslim armies; the Muslims were victorious, and within 10 years the defeated Meccans received a triumphant army of 10,000 Muslim soldiers. The Muslims then cleansed the Ka’bah of its idolatries, and Mecca became a Muslim city.

Wherever dar al Islam was established, Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian communities were circumscribed “a dhimmi,” protected communities. They were assured peace, providing they functioned within the parameters established by the Muslim state. This included paying a special tax. Regions outside the dar al Islam were the “dar al harb,” or regions of war not yet brought under the control of Muslim authorities.

Muhammad left the suffering of Mecca for Medina, and later returned to Mecca as victor. This pattern is normative. Defeat for the faithful Muslim ummah is a theological anomaly, for God is all powerful and sovereign. Tactical retreat might be necessary, but in time the dar al Islam of the Muslims must prevail.

Although Muslims are not to initiate aggression, if the ummah is under threat, then defense of the ummah is mandated by any means necessary. This is jihad, a three-dimensional striving in the defense of Islam (1) within one’s soul, (2) with the pen and (3) with the sword when necessary.

The ummah will persuade and even seek to induce non-Muslims to convert but are prohibited from using coercion to convert. The Qur’an says: “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.”

In modern times the dar al Islam vision of Muslim territoriality persists. This is why U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia in the wake of the Gulf War of 1991 became so deliberate, apparently contributing to decisions by militant jihadists to initiate the tragedy of 9/11.
However, at the beginning of the 21st century one-fourth (300 million) of all Muslims live in regions outside the suzerainty of Muslim authority. This is a great transformation. Notions of a monolithic idealized dar al Islam is diluted by the realities of modern mobility and globalization. The vision for a dar al Islam and Muslim diaspora are often in tension.

Christendom and the dar al Islam: In Christendom, the world is divided into two regions—the civilized regions ruled by Christianized governments and the uncivilized regions ruled by other kinds of governments. In the dar al Islam, the world is divided into regions of peace under Muslim rule and regions of war not yet brought under Muslim rule.

Christendom fights just wars; the dar al Islam fights jihads. Christendom seeks to extend territory, extending democracy and free enterprise into regions not yet democratized. The dar al Islam likewise has fought wars to extend the blessings of Islam into non-Islamized societies. Both movements have occasionally merged their missionary impulse with imperialist nationalist goals.

Today the conflict is intensifying in the clash between Islamic theocratic systems and the secular democratic systems of the West.

So what? The confrontation between Islam and the West is not trivial. Both movements are moving to the edge of the precipice. The West is largely incapable of engaging Islam at the spiritual level, for Islam is a profoundly spiritual and scriptural movement. Too often the church is incapable of addressing the conflict at a spiritual and scriptural basis. Yet a New Testament vision of the church as a community committed to the way of the cross Jesus reveals, is healing for the nations and healing for our times. This was my impression when participating in a Muslim Shi’ite-Anabaptist dialogue with Iranian theologians, a dialogue sanctioned by the Guardian Council in Iran.

A significant dimension of these conversations took place in Toronto in 2003 with a follow-up in Qom, Iran, in 2004. Anabaptists have miniscule political power. Yet the Islamic theological establishment in Qom invited the conversation. Still, the journey in dialogue and witness is challenging.

“Do not humiliate us,” a mullah in Qom, Iran, advised me when I asked what his counsel is to North American Christians.

Another said Jesus would also have taken the same path Muhammad took in Medina, if he had an opportunity. His public ministry lasted only three years. Given more time, Jesus would also have commanded an army.

“But thanks be to God,” the mullah exclaimed, “Constantine brought to conclusion what Jesus could not do, for Constantine, like Muhammed, united the political and religious order.”
But the New Testament vision of the kingdom of God is radically different from the understandings of these Shi’a Muslim clerics. Yet they listened. They engaged. We based our dialogue on the Scriptures—supremely for us the New Testament—-a Christ-centered dialogue.

Others commented that never before have they spoken with Christians about faith in serious open dialogue. This is significant.

Even more significant are the hundreds and thousands of friendships that Christians meeting Muslims are developing in neighbor-to-neighbor relationships, whether in North America or regions around the world.

Surely all followers of Jesus are called of God to transcend territorial divisions and in the spirit of Christ serve in ways that enable wider and wider circles of Christians and Muslims to meet one another. Every Christian needs a Muslim friend. I also wish every Muslim had a Christian friend. And friends never kill each other.

David W. Shenk has served in missions in East Africa with a focus on Islam and is global missions consultant with Eastern Mennonite Missions. He is a member of Mountville (Pa.) Mennonite Church.

Related Resources

Discussion Guides:

• Discussion Guide I - June 10
• Discussion Guide II - June 17

Current Stories

Articles

• Three Journeys
• BREAKING NEWS: Pastor Anne Stuckey dies in automobile accident on May 31
• My brother Bashu

News stories, digests and Meno Acontecer

• Lee Eshleman of Ted & Lee duo dies
• Lancaster churches discuss ordination vote
• Some Mennonites join Emergent Village
• Homeschool students study science at Hesston
• On their way to San José
• Goshen to offer master’s degree in nursing
• Preheim named Historical Committee director
• MMA president commissioned

Columns

• What if Jesus had stayed home?
• A safe place

Readers Say

• Health insurance not just for pastors
• Angry about including Kings View
• Polishing the truth

Additional Notes

-Islam began with the prophet Muhammed in Arabia in the sixth and seventh centuries after Christ. However, Muslims believe Islam began with God’s revelation to Adam, who was the first Muslim, and Muhammad clarified the Islam that is the original religion of humanity.

-“Islam” means to “submit” to Allah.

-“Islam” is derived from “salaam,” which is Arabic for “peace.”

-Muhammed preached that there is only one God and that this God cannot be worshiped with idols.

-In about A.D. 610, Muhammed claimed to have received the revelation of the Qur’an from the angel Gabriel. The revelations continued for 22 years, coming in portions.

-Qu’ran is to the Muslim what Jesus is to the Christian, in the sense that the Qu’ran is the defining revelation of truth, as is Jesus in the Christian faith. It enables one to submit to God, to struggle against social injustices, to work for world peace and to achieve ideals for a renewed social order.

-Jihad is of two kinds. The greater jihad is to “struggle” spiritually with oneself. The lesser jihad seeks to avenge wrongs done to Islam. Sept. 11 confirms that one interpretation of jihad and one interpretation of fundamentalism can be violent, even terroristic.

-Some Muslims contend that “evil in the name of Allah blasphemes Allah.”

-The American Muslim Council contends “there is no cause that justifies [the] type of immoral and inhuman act that has affected so many innocent lives.”

From Missio Dei: Understanding Islam by Calvin E. Shenk. Copyright 2002 by Mennonite Mission Network, Elkhart, IN 46515. All rights reserved. Used by permission. For ordering information call 574-294-7523 or email missiodei@mennonitemission.net.