Addressing a Sibling Rivalry: In Seeking Effective Christian–Muslim Relations, to What Extent Can Comparative Theology Contribute? An Evangelical Christian Perspective

Abstract

There is a long and complex history of Christian–Muslim engagement, one which is fraught by socio-political tensions and complicated by fear. Theological tensions likewise contribute to the sibling rivalry between these Abrahamic faiths. Accounting for fundamental theological differences between Islam and Christianity, and noting a potential dichotomy between apologetic-style and interfaith engagement, this article contends that effective Christian–Muslim relations must navigate both opposing truth claims and efforts to seek peace. Consequently, comparative theology is critically evaluated, from an evangelical Christian perspective, as a potential mediating approach. In considering the complex relationship between comparative theology and theology of religion, and indeed, between theology and ‘people of faith’, recommendations are formulated with a view to contributing to effective Christian–Muslim relations. The overall aim of this research therefore is to explore approaches to developing more effective Christian–Muslim relations, with a specific focus on comparative theology. While motivated by and accounting for a personal Christian–Muslim sibling relationship, the research method predominantly references academic literature, with sections structured by an amended version of Osmer’s four-task model of practical theology. Findings from this research discern that comparative theology is not quite the mediating approach sought; however, its potential contribution towards a ‘hybrid approach’ is explored. The implications of this article seek to encourage orthodox Muslims and evangelical Christians to engage in comparative exchanges that employ a balanced and in-depth approach to understanding our respective faiths. Finally, this article emerges from within the UK; therefore, discussions presented may be differently received by evangelical Christians operating out of divergent biographical contexts.

1. Introduction

There is a long and complex history of polemical encounters in Christian–Muslim relations, fraught with socio-political tensions and complicated by fear. Recent census data in the UK record continued growth in Muslim communities, amplified by immigration (Ons.gov.uk 2024). Yet, despite an ethnically and socio-economically diverse British landscape, strong anti-immigrant attitudes have created a hostile environment (Platt and Nandi 2020, pp. 842–44; White 2019). Disagreements in the public square are growing increasingly bitter (Love 2021, p. 629). But disagreements continue (or perhaps begin) with theological tensions, not in that God speaks through scripture, but in how God speaks (Whittingham 2022a).

Christian views on other religions, expressed in ‘theology of religion’ (hereafter TOR), employ an ‘exclusivism–inclusivism–pluralism’ typology, navigating between the ‘salvific decisiveness of Christ’ and the ‘universal saving will of God’ (Pachuau 2022, pp. 94–102). Accad and Andrews (2020) claim that how we view religious others influences our attitudes to, and engagement with, them. However, the interplay between attitudes and theology seems much more complex: there are open-minded exclusivists and close-minded pluralists. This article considers this interplay in seeking effective Christian–Muslim relations that navigate both theological content, or the what we exchange, and the how of engagement.

Related to this is the motivation or the why behind the engagement. Many interfaith initiatives are government-funded and predominantly seek to promote peace amid fear and tension (Gov.uk 2022; Interfaith.org.uk 2024). However, Accad (2020, pp. 128–29) suspects that interfaith engagement is frequently theologically lacking, and consequently dialogue replaces mission. In contrast, while Degner (2020, p. 90) considers apologetics as essential in defending objective truth, Hiebert (2019, pp. 55–57) identifies ‘intellectual arrogance’ and a desire to win arguments in much of apologetics. There is therefore a potential dichotomy between peace and truth, which is related to our mission and approaches to engagement. Highlighting the political implications of our mission, McCallum (2020, pp. 19–20) helpfully contends that Christians must strive for a balance between seeking peace while continuing to share the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. This article therefore wrestles with the question, ‘How best can we achieve this?’.

In an attempt to address this imbalance, comparative theology (hereafter CT) is explored as a potential middle ground with critical engagement in its ability to navigate truth claims and peacebuilding. Among varying definitions, there is a consensus that CT is ‘faith seeking understanding’, which seeks to ‘learn from’ another tradition for the sake of gaining fresh theological insights, while also being rooted in one’s normative tradition (Clooney 2010a, p. 10; Avci 2018a; Cornille 2020, p. 3). Branded as a relatively new and en vogue endeavour (Banas 2021), Cornille (2020, pp. 5–15, 44) claims that CT is useful for ‘any religion’, bridges many traditions, and has a direct connection with ‘epistemological preconceptions’ employed in TOR. These relationships are explored, with particular interest in potential benefits for Christian–Muslim relations.

1.1. Research Aims and Objectives

The overall aim of this research, therefore, is to explore approaches to developing more effective Christian–Muslim relations, with a specific focus on CT. The specific objectives are as follows:

• To identify underlying issues within relations and current trends in Christian–Muslim exchanges.
• To critically evaluate CT and its ability to navigate truth claims and peace. Evaluation extends to potential barriers within CT, including the following:
  • ‘Epistemological preconceptions’ within TOR;
  • The extent of ‘learning from’ another tradition as a source of meaning.
• To explore other disciplines that could contribute to understanding aspects associated with ‘people of faith’.
• To formulate recommendations for developing more effective relations and a deeper understanding of each other’s faith.

1.2. Methodology

The motivation in pursuing these aims and objectives has a personal nature, namely, a Christian–Muslim relationship between my Muslim brother and myself, a Christian. While personal experience will occasionally be referred to, the main content of this study references academic literature sourced from pertinent books and journals. The structure of this article employs Osmer’s (2008) four-task method in practical theology (hereafter PT); however, several amendments are made, as discussed below.

Osmer’s (2008) four-task model involves the following steps:

• Descriptive–empirical task;
• Interpretive task;
• Normative task;
• Pragmatic task.

In combining the descriptive–empirical and interpretative tasks, followed by the normative task, a more proactive solution-orientated approach is sought, with prioritisation afforded to theological enquiry. This plays into the larger scholarly debate, recognising tensions in the descriptive and normative tasks within PT. These often involve ‘conservative versus liberal’ positions and are driven by the degree of authority afforded to scripture over experience. While Berg (2017) claims normativity is a contextually sensitive concept, allowing for espoused and operant voices, Weir (2017) claims PT has failed to give enough attention to theology. Such divides and contextual tensions are apparent within Islam (Isgandarova 2014), and indeed in other theologies, as will be encountered in this article. But as Ward (2017) helpfully contends, it is counter-intuitive and potentially theologically deficient to have experience shape theological material.

A further reason is drawn from Root’s (2009, 2016) contention that empirical research, while providing an invaluable perspective, must be regulated under a theology that can accommodate the possibility for divine action and transcendent experience rather than favouring the immanent and flattening reality. Since the heart of PT is theology itself, an altered four-task model reflects my own inherent subjectivity and evangelical Christian perspective. Recognising ‘evangelical’ as a contested term, I adhere somewhat to Bebbington’s (2021) well known definition in emphasising the Bible, the cross, conversion, and activism.

Therefore, the amended four-task model and proceeding sections in this article are as follows:

• Descriptive–interpretative task: by asking ‘what is going on and why?’, factors affecting Christian–Muslim relations are considered.
• Normative task: a critical analysis of CT and if, or how, it might contribute to effective Christian-Muslim relations within theological enquiry regarding the question ‘what should be going on?’.
• Theoretical-contribution task: in asking ‘what could be going on?’, concepts from the social sciences are explored, specifically in relation to attitude, epistemology, and psychology.
• Pragmatic task: recommendations are sought in order to contribute to developing more effective Christian–Muslim relations.

1.3. Significance

This research seeks to add value to Christian–Muslim relations by providing a critical perspective on the relatively new discipline of CT and its ability (or lack thereof) to navigate both truth claims and peace; an evangelical perspective that currently seems lacking. Correspondingly, Goheen (2014, pp. 344–45) highlights how theological neglect has hindered the development of a sound TOR and left the church ill equipped to deal with an increasingly pluralistic context. Exploring the relationship between CT, TOR, and mission could therefore reinvigorate interest and encourage individuals and faith leaders to consider interfaith engagement while navigating the complex and multifaceted aspects of Christian–Muslim relations. While this article emerges from within the UK, the discussions presented may be differently received by evangelical Christians operating out of divergent biographical contexts. Finally, as noted above, there is a personal significance in seeking effective Christian–Muslim relations, given that the religious other is my biological brother.

2. Descriptive–Interpretative Task

The descriptive–interpretative task explores the question ‘what is going on and why?’ in relation to Christian–Muslim relations. The catalyst, in a sense, was a particular apologetic-type exchange between my brother and I, in which he used Biblical verses to ‘prove’ Christians disobey Jesus’ teaching. His accusations followed something akin to the argument style of ‘Jesus-Test (That Christian FAIL)’ (Islam Newsroom 2022), in response to which I employed a David Wood (2022) polemical style, questioning the alleged corruption of the Bible. Reflecting on this rather unproductive confrontation, I then suggested we prepare weekly lessons in which we attempted to teach one another about our faiths. While lessons were generally informative, our overcautious approach lacked criticism and depth, and was somewhat uncharacteristic of our normal robust and boisterous sibling relationship. Exploring more effective options, I then participated in the interfaith practice of ‘Scriptural Reasoning’ at the academic Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies (CMCS 2023). Scriptural Reasoning (hereafter SR) is a dialogical practice that involves people of different faiths coming together to read, listen to, and explore texts from each other’s religion. I reflect on this towards the end of this section.

2.1. Analysing Approaches

In order to analyse such apologetic (polemical) and passive approaches to interfaith exchanges, C. Bennett’s (2008) categories of ‘confrontational versus conciliatory’, specific to Christian–Muslim relations, are explored. Classifications of interreligious dialogue are multifaceted and extremely complex phenomena, in which numerous frameworks can be employed (Melnik 2020, p. 49). However, given spatial restrictions and that C. Bennett (2008) contends that a confrontational approach has and continues to dominate Christian–Muslim relations, his simple categories are applicable heuristic tools. First, potential issues underlying a confrontational approach are first discussed, followed by a discussion of issues underlying a conciliatory approach. In a sense, effective Christian–Muslim relations are explored by considering the ineffective elements of each approach.

2.2. Confrontational Approach

Characterising ‘confrontational’ as polemical or a debate, C. Bennett (2008, pp. 8–12) claims that adherents view the truth as a ‘possession’ while finding it difficult to respect an opponent’s viewpoint. C. Bennett (2008, pp. 8–9, 215) contends that the agenda for the encounter is set by the material both traditions’ scriptures contain and that, fundamentally in discourse, the ‘contention is that when Christianity and Islam differ, they cannot both be true’. While this relates to TOR, McCallum (2024, p. 5) notes, ‘strong evangelical commitment to revealed truth is similar to the conviction of an orthodox Muslim’. It therefore seems prudent to explore underlying theological issues.

2.2.1. Theological Difference

All Christians believe the Bible is God’s Word in human words; likewise, in Orthodox Islam, Muslims believe the Arabic Qur’an is the direct authoritative speech of God (Kärkkäinen 2020, pp. 43–46). M. A. Bennett (2022, pp. 13, 96, 252) highlights how the teaching of the Qur’an is diametrically opposed to central Christian doctrines, in which Islamic teaching challenges the Bible’s authority and claims that ‘the incarnation and substitutionary atonement are both unnecessary and impossible’. Muslims and Christians remain divided over the human condition, crucifixion, and Christology, such that our understanding of Jesus is paramount to understanding the Christian–Muslim theological debate (Ralston 2022, p. 126). Advocating a Christian position, Tennent (2002, pp. 16–22) helpfully defines three non-negotiables as the authority of Jesus Christ (John 14:6); Christ’s historical death and resurrection (Col. 1:20); and salvation through Christ (John 3:16–18). However, Muslims fundamentally disagree about Jesus (Shumack 2020, p. 105). Marshall (2006, pp. 92–94) notes how the Qur’an affirms the ‘ideal Jesus’, the Islamic Jesus as Muhammed’s forerunner, ‘but rejects the Jesus of Christian faith as a distortion of the ideal’. This Qur’anic perspective of a ‘Yes-but’, an ‘affirmation and rejection’ also applies to the Bible. Given ‘Muhammed lived 600 years after Jesus’, Marshall (2006, pp. 89–93) highlights the lack of canonical Christian views of Islam. And despite persistent Muslim arguments that the Bible refers to Muhammed, i.e., the Paraclete in John 14:26, most Christians are unable to accommodate such a view (Accad 2019, pp. 320–21). These seem potential deadlocks.

2.2.2. Approaching Each Other’s Scripture

In addition to the fundamental differences in our respective theologies, further tensions arise in how we approach each other’s scriptures. The history of interactions is plagued by misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and caricatures (Schillinger 2012, p. 373). Western readers have been notorious for their less-than-charitable descriptions of the Qur’an as a text (M. A. Bennett 2022, p. 14), yet historical negative portrayals and the misconception of one side by the other still exist today (Pratt 2021, p. 4). Underlying many of these issues ‘are two very different approaches to scriptural interpretation’ (Accad 2019, pp. 34–35). Whittingham (2022b, pp. 3–7) notes three issues that underpin Muslim views of the Bible: the view that it was abrogated (superseded) by the Qur’an; the belief that text/interpretations are corrupted; and the fact the Bible is used in polemics or tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis) by Muslims. However, Solomon (2010, 2016, p. 19) challenges the doctrines of abrogation and biblical corruption as ‘doctrines of convenience’, aiding Islam in its unswerving confidence and ‘own claimed “truth” and inevitability’. While Muslims claim Christians have perverted monotheism, Christians claim Muslims have undercut the central message of God’s redemptive work through Christ (Baatsen 2017, p. 17). Regarding these disagreements, it seems to me that we need a fair trial, with each side being heard on their own terms. The importance of understanding Biblical hermeneutics and the role of the Ulama (Islamic scholarship) and tafsir seem to be urgent for both Muslims and Christians.

2.2.3. ‘Educating’ Ourselves

Related to our approaches to the other’s scripture, there is the problem of how Muslims and Christians ‘educate’ themselves on the other’s faith. Tracing the history of Christian authors on Muhammed, Tieszen (2020, pp. 148–51) detects a shared knowledge among them, an ‘inward-focused approach’, with many retracing the common ground covered before. Consequently, a Christian author’s text is best understood, not as a window into an understanding of Muhammed, but rather a mirror reflecting the Christian author’s context. This raises the issue of sources and what we read, how we inform ourselves of a faith outside of our own, and if or how we attempt to avoid conformation basis. Learning about Islam via a Christian polemic on the Internet, while it may have its place, is perhaps a window into how I used information as a means of ‘dart–throwing’ at my brother in heated debates. While not excusable, it seems I was not alone. Many scholars note how Christian–Muslim interaction on the Internet is aggressive, polemical, and dogmatic (Schirrmacher 2020, pp. 362–67; Greifenhagen 2010, pp. 25–58). Indeed, Hiebert (2019, pp. 56–59) warns of the self-centred ‘capability of apologetic hubris to alienate’, which breeds arrogance and the desire to win arguments. This practice heightens aggression, inhibits critical thinking, and fails to address our religious biases.

2.2.4. Approaching Each Other

Unfortunately, arrogance and human hubris are too often evidenced in our attitude to one another. As people of faith, it therefore seems paramount to understand the role our claims to truth play. This will be more in focus in Section 4; however, a brief discussion is warranted here. Attitudes, influenced by specific beliefs, are key contributors to Christian–Muslim relations, in which a high degree of certainty in one’s belief is associated with a dogmatic, rigid style of thinking and often accompanied by intolerance (Sabates 2022, pp. 387–92). Crowson (2009, pp. 266–79) defines dogmatism as ‘an unjustified and unchangeable certainty in one’s beliefs’, and Hiebert (2019, pp. 51–52) helpfully contends that certainty undermines faith due to the failure to see one’s finite human position. While uncertainty is often seen as vulnerability or as threatening (Schlabach 2018; Markov 2022), Webster (2022, pp. 374–77) quite forthrightly claims the Bible does not grant access to ‘claims of certainty’ and questions the ‘unmediated’ and ‘anti-hermeneutical’ approach to the Qur’an. It is perhaps unsurprising that Meulenberg (2023, p. 4) claims that evangelicals have a ‘disproportionately negative opinion of Islam and its followers’, which Goddard (2020) suspects is due to evangelicals’ strong truth claims, which are in opposition to truth claims made by Islam. However, it seems essential to understand that we cannot claim to have an ‘objective view’ that supersedes all other ‘subjective’ faith commitments (Newbigin 1995a, p. 162).

To summarise thus far, many of the underlying issues in a confrontational approach to Christian–Muslim relations seem to be both paramount and polemical. It is paramount in that the differences between what we believe to be the Word of God and the concept of objective truth are taken seriously. However, polemical issues persist in how we disrespect each other, misrepresent our respective scriptures, and too often fail to understand that truth is not a ‘commodity we already possess’ (C. Bennett 2008, p. 12). Seeking a more ‘peaceful’ and effective approach to relations, therefore, Bennett’s conciliatory approach is now considered.

2.3. Conciliatory Approach

C. Bennett’s (2008, pp. 8–12) conciliatory approach allows for a more irenic view of Christian–Muslim relations and, by way of ‘dialogue’ adherents use subjective or experiential terms. Furthermore, conciliators regard ‘the truth’ as, ultimately, beyond us all. Owing to the fact SR is seen as a dialogical practice and could be classified as a kind of ‘intergroup–interreligious dialogue’ promoting peaceful coexistence and friendship (Melnik 2020, pp. 65–68), SR is considered a conciliatory approach. However, to better understand the need for peaceful dialogue within Christian–Muslim relations, it is important to first consider some underlying issues.

2.3.1. Historical and Socio-Political Issues

From the Muslim Expansion to the Crusades, the legacy of conflict from the long and tortuous history of Christian–Muslim relationships ‘continues to wield a powerful influence’ (Goddard 2020, p. 15). Noting the ‘brutal history’ of both religions, Baatsen (2017, pp. 35–39, 89) claims that hostility and fear have dominated attitudes towards each other, with practices of evangelism and da’wa (Islamic mission) causing ‘immense tension’ and ‘violent conflicts’. Indeed, the political and social context are axiomatic in interfaith relations and, correspondingly, Muslim perceptions of Christianity as being associated with the West are a ‘crucial element’ (Zebiri 2013, pp. 178–98). Albaghli and Carlucci (2021, pp. 237–44), acknowledging a lack of research on ‘Muslim religious beliefs and attitudes towards the West’, believe that Muslim religiosity and strict Islamic teaching against non-Muslims, still taught in Muslim countries, influences Muslims in the West. Negatively perceiving Western ‘white culture’ as disrespectful of traditional family values and morality, and in avoidance of any assimilation, Muslim youths in Britain often attempt to find identity in radical groups (Sahin 2013, p. 136).

However, tracing the complex historical relationship and the ‘collusion’ of the British state with radical Muslim groups, Lewis and Hamid (2018, pp. 134–77) note how counter-terrorism measures often fuel resentment and even increase support for terrorism. Radicalisation, the 7/7 home-grown Muslim bomber, and sensationalist media coverage have altered the British public’s imagination. The effects of this, namely, fear, the rise of Islamophobia, and ‘othering’, perpetuate cultural hostility towards Muslims. But, as Sahin (2013, p. 136) warns, negative depictions, stereotyping on all sides, and failure to learn from each other or ‘engage in genuine dialogue’ have seen communities themselves creating societies whose ‘members lead segregated parallel lives’. As the West’s involvement in political and military conflicts of the Middle East continues, effective peace-making dialogue, at all levels, seems both essential and urgent. This, then, returns the discussion to conciliatory approaches, and specifically to SR.

2.3.2. Scriptural Reasoning

With a focus on personal involvement and the development of practical wisdom, Moyaert (2017) promotes SR as a transformational praxis, helping to achieve interreligious literacy, which she deems as essential for building meaningful relations. Within SR, there is a strong element of engaging in a non-confrontational way, of promoting friendship and collegiality, and of forming collaborative alliances to serve the common good (Beyers 2018, p. 7; Ford 2013, p. 164). While such engagement is paramount given our socio-political context, reflecting on my participation in SR, two concerns are now noted.

Firstly, in my opinion, praxis is overemphasised at the expense of theory, giving rise to an overly subjective element. SR is ‘competency-oriented’, ‘a practice not theory’, in which a student’s context plays a significant role in how texts are interpreted (Moyaert 2017, pp. 13–19). ‘Participants are not expected to be experts in their own scriptures’ (Ford 2013, p. 155), but as a result, my understanding of Qur’anic passages was informed by individual Muslims and their subjective interpretations. Secondly, and related to the lack of theory, building friendship and openness were emphasised over depth, difference, and problematic topics. Moyaert (2017, p. 14) asserts that SR demands ‘hermeneutical openness’ while Ford (2013, pp. 150–51) promotes a willingness to ‘read beyond the ‘plain sense’ of Scripture’, keeping multiple readings in play. Indeed Beyers (2018, p. 8) notes that ‘a determining of a true or false meaning’ is not the end result, allowing Goodson (2021, p. 187) to deem SR ‘a playful inter-hope practice’. And so, while SR can be ‘mutually enlightening’ and paramount for friendship in Christian–Muslim engagement (Ahmed 2013, pp. 168–72), such openness and playfulness seem rather concerning given the strong commitment to revealed truth held by both orthodox Muslims and evangelical Christians.

2.4. Summary

In an attempt to understand ‘what is going on and why’, aspects of theological, historical, and socio-political complexities have been discussed. By categorising approaches under C. Bennett’s (2008) ‘confrontational versus conciliatory’ paradigm, it seems that a confrontational approach grapples with the concept of truth, but potentially at the expense of relationships and peacebuilding. In a conciliatory approach, the reverse seems to prevail. Effective Christian–Muslim relations need the ability to foster peace and understanding while also navigating truth claims and exploring difficult topics. As a potential mediating position, the next section evaluates comparative theology’s ability to navigate these aspects.

3. Normative Task

In this normative task, theological enquiry as to ‘what should be going on’, is by way of critical engagement with comparative theology. Following a brief overview of CT, signposting is provided for three sections for further investigation under the headings ‘What Truth?’, ‘Where is Meaning?’, and ‘Whose CT?’ On examining how CT might contribute to effective Christian–Muslim relations, it is important to note that CT is predominately Christian, and that most comparative theologians mentioned are Catholic Christians. The implications of this are discussed in this section and further in Section 5.

3.1. Comparative Theology

Established in the academic landscape, CT is ‘faith seeking understanding’ which ventures to learn from other faith traditions, while rooted in one’s own, ‘for the sake of fresh theological insights’ (Clooney 2010a, p. 10). Working through a complex and varied ‘process of learning from and through’ the other, CT is based on the desire to grow in the understanding of theological truth and of other religions (Cornille 2020, pp. 115–47). Rootedness ‘in’ religion rather than being ‘about’ religion characterises confessional CT, providing accountability, enrichment, and even critique within one’s own religious community (Dadosky and Krokus 2022, pp. 71–72; Cornille 2020, p. 24). Employing a micro-level, in-depth, and focused approach, comparative theologians investigate specific cases and seek to overcome generalities, rectify misunderstandings and, therein, avoid distortion (Asghar-Zadeh 2019, p. 71; Nicolson 2010a, p. 59). Given the ‘comparative’ element, Avci (2018a, p. 5) claims that CT has the ability to explore ‘both difference and similarity’. Indeed, Ralston (2022, pp. 118–27) contends that the constructive and ‘irenic posture’ of CT can effectively allow people to engage in the intractable and polemical areas within Christian–Muslim debates, including Christology. At the outset, then, CT offers potential towards openness and learning within Christian–Muslim relations.

However, an ‘irenic posture’ seems due to the increased attention paid to the theological particularity of other religious communities, with a conscious move away from making judgements. For example, Cornille (2020, p. 161) claims that CT does not involve ‘blanket judgements of truth’, and for Clooney (2011), CT is not a matter of evaluation. Indeed, there is consensus that CT is entangled in the rivalry between religious studies and a Christian TOR, as it moves from assessing the truth claims of other religions to embracing a normative personal commitment to faith (Heim 2019, p. 165; Kiblinger 2010, pp. 21–42; Ralston 2020, pp. 27–31). Given the emphasis on truth claims within conservative Islam and Christianity, these shifts and the relationship between CT and TOR are discussed under the heading ‘What Truth?’.

Related to these shifts, the context of religious diversity is often given priority over tradition and scripture within CT. Clooney (2011) claims that CT is a response to twenty-first-century religious diversity and, as Heim (2020, pp. 198–99) observes, a key shift in CT is ‘toward taking the content of other religions as sources for Christian theological reflection’. Unsurprisingly then, CT is branded as a contextual theology with both liberal and postliberal features (Stosch 2012, p. 985; Avci 2018b). This influence, of religious diversity on theological interpretation within CT, is discussed under the heading ‘Where is Meaning?’.

The final section deals with subjectivity in the underlying issues of approaches to CT. CT is at a methodological impasse, and Dadosky and Krokus (2022) observe that comparative theologians are reluctant to confirm the ultimate goal of CT. There is ‘considerable uncertainty’ about ‘how it is to be defined and practised’ (Legenhausen 2023, p. 38), and as a result ‘CT faces an identity challenge’; it is open-ended and ad hoc in its claims, while being hesitant to draw conclusions beneficial for wider theological arguments (Heim 2019, pp. 166–79; 2020, p. 200). For Moreland (2022, p. 130), however, this ‘restlessness of discipline makes it creative’. Clooney (2021, pp. 14–22) promotes his personal contemplative approach, seeing CT more as art than science—an ethos more than a methodology. Owing to the vastness and resultant subjectivity within CT, as Bengard (2021, pp. 13–14) and Papathanasiou (2014, pp. 104–5) note, it seems productive to understand ‘how to do’ CT by way of ‘who is doing’ it. Therefore, under the heading ‘Whose CT?’, several approaches that have potential to contribute to more effective Christian–Muslim relations are discussed.

3.2. What Truth?

Within CT, there is an ongoing and outsized debate regarding whether or how TOR should shape CT (Cornille 2020, pp. 43–45), which hinges on the appropriateness of assessing other religions. The exclusivist–inclusivist–pluralist typology of soteriological categories used in TOR has been increasingly criticised and is deemed to no longer be adequate on account of postmodern epistemology (Tennent 2014, pp. 291–96; Ralston 2020, p. 27). Advocates of particularism and Lindbeck’s postliberal ‘cultural–linguistic model’ have been especially critical of the ‘false premise’ of comparison across religious boundaries (Moyaert 2012; Knitter 2002, p. 177). Dissociating CT from TOR, Clooney (2010b) claims the risk of a priori judgements could inhibit genuine engagement, while Kiblinger (2010, pp. 22–33) contends that such predeterminations are not prohibitive since they actually determine reading strategies within CT.

Considering this general unease, Cornille (2020, pp. 43–78) expands the tripartite (exclusivist–inclusivist–pluralist) structure, advocating the heuristic functions of this classic typology. However, it is important to note the significant change in criteria towards an ‘epistemological position’. The classifications are as follows:

• Exclusivism—denies the presence of relevant truth of other religions;
• Particularism—suspends judgement on another’s epistemological status given the incommensurability of competing claims;
• Closed inclusivism—recognises possible elements of truth in another religion but fullness in one’s own;
• Open inclusivism—discovers new forms and expressions of truth in another religion, when not contradictory to one’s own;
• Pluralism—based on the equivalence of all religions in matters of truth;
• Post-colonialism—deems religious boundaries as hegemonic.

Observations regarding Cornille’s typology and the criteria shift from soteriology to epistemology are now discussed.

Cornille’s terminology of ‘truth’ seems ambiguous and fails to determine what exactly is meant by ‘relevant’ or ‘elements’ of truth, or indeed who decides. Such ‘truth’ could refer to first-principle (self-evident) truths that cannot be denied, or to objective mind-independent truths, or Cornille could be referring to revealed ‘truth’ in which God is the direct source. There is a vast difference within these. For example, Kärkkäinen (2013, p. 260) notes the links between the Bible and the Qur’an in how Jesus was sent into the world via the agency of the Spirit and was born of the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18–23; Q4:171). Whilst perhaps a ‘relevant truth’ in Cornille’s terminology, as Kärkkäinen continues, the same Qur’anic passage also has one of the strongest denials of the divine sonship of Jesus and the Trinity. Given the law of non-contradiction (p cannot be non-p), and from my Christian perspective, the Qur’an cannot be God’s revealed Truth, and therefore seems ‘at best’ a human document. However, Muslims and Christians can agree that Jesus was sent by the Spirit. This highlights that one need not deny that another religion contains true religious beliefs, since to deny any truth in the other religion is naïve and contradicts our own faith (Stenmark 2006, pp. 102–3). Therefore, a salvific exclusivist could be an epistemological inclusivist. Notwithstanding Cornille’s vague terminology and the lack of a ‘unit of measurement’ in relation to truth, there are potential benefits to using epistemological criteria.

Approaching other religions using epistemological categories provides a broader definition of TOR, in which three potential benefits are noted, with further discussion in the subsequent sections. Firstly, the distinct shift potentially allows for greater openness in one’s attitude to other religions. This could have merit owing to criticism, particularly towards ‘exclusivism’ (§4.1). Secondly, epistemological categories could, as Ralston (2022, p. 120) contends, address the classic paradigm based within Christian origins, which fails to ask what salvation consists of in other religions. That said, however, understanding Islamic soteriology seems to be required prior to assuming that soteriological categories are unsuitable (§5.4.1). Thirdly, epistemological categories could encourage a renewed understanding of Missio Dei, since as, Tennent (2014) claims, evangelicals have reduced salvation to justification (§5.4.1). While the Christian mission ‘includes evangelism’ as an ‘essential dimension’, it should not be concerned only with ‘soul-saving’, and thus engagement may necessitate building relationships and ‘this-worldly activities’ (Bosch 2012, pp. 9–11). However, epistemological categories potentially replace soteriological discussions.

Indeed, noting the connection between CT and missiology, Papathanasiou (2021, p. 40) observes how the post-colonial charge of guilt and the greater interest in cultural studies have come at the expense of theology, mission, and apologetics. An influential and underlying driver seems to be the ‘problem with salvation’, or what Cornille (2017) promotes as ‘soteriological agnosticism’ within interreligious engagement. This is effectively a form of particularism based on a measure of incommensurability. Soteriological agnosticism seems to be exactly what Strange (2021) might describe as ‘soteriological demotivation’, in that the nerve of missionary evangelistic urgency is cut and the summons to personal faith in Christ are diminished.

Such soteriological agnosticism within CT seems to be connected to the reluctance to make judgements, deal with difference and negativity towards apologetics. Cornille (2017, p. 169) claims that ‘the goal of CT is certainly not primarily arguing for the truth of one’s own religion’ and thus asserts that there is a tendency to focus on similarities rather than differences. Clooney (2010a, p. 115) presupposes that God is ‘at work in other traditions, even in their theological doctrines’, yet his comparative assessments fail to acknowledge conflict in and difference between religions. As Newbigin (1995a, p. 171) contends, different religions turn on different axes. Indeed, attempts to ignore differences or abstain from judgement seem to be indicative of the relationship of CT with apologetics, in that many comparative theologians share an aversion to apologetics (Hedges 2023; Nicolson 2010b, p. 29), or at least proceed with trepidation (Cornille 2020, pp. 169–72). However, engaging with difference and employing rational defences of truth claims, Christian apologetics can help Christians to share the relevance, reliability, and truth of the Gospel and the Christian faith (Custer 2022; McGrath 2016, pp. 8–11). As Willis (2018, pp. 129–32) helpfully contends, in failing to retain an apologetic role and dogmatic normative core, CT could fade into a generic pluralistic theology and become literally uninhabitable for the faith community it attempts to adhere to.

To summarise discussion on ‘What Truth?’, while there are benefits of using an epistemological criterion within CT, Cornille’s vague concept of truth would require clarification to provide heuristic value. Furthermore, the significant shift from soteriology could adversely affect the Christian mission, which in turn could inhibit apologetics and the ability to deal with difference and opposing truth claims. Indeed, the shift towards particularism and soteriological agnosticism can be linked with matters concerning meaning, since Moyaert (2012, pp. 26–46) claims that ‘hermeneutical openness’ should precede soteriological appreciation. Discussion therefore progresses to ‘Where is Meaning?’.

3.3. Where Is Meaning?

CT is built on various hermeneutical approaches and Cornille (2020, p. 79) claims that most comparative theologians employ a philosophical hermeneutic to navigate the tension between a desire to understand the other on their terms while also acknowledging one’s own normative commitments. This tension in translation for Clooney (2010a, p. 127) is a creative one, and by embracing the ‘unexpected’, he appeals to Gadamer’s ‘Fusion of Horizons’ when interweaving the ‘agony and antagonism’ in his interreligious reading (Papathanasiou 2021, p. 32). Moyaert’s (2017, pp. 8–14) understanding is rooted in Ricoeur’s philosophical anthropology, where one’s ‘identity and alterity’ are ‘inseparably interconnected’, meaning the ‘human’ is the ‘hermeneutical self’—self-critical, creative, and not locked within his/her own perspectives. This demands ‘hermeneutical openness’ (Moyaert 2012). Building on a philosophical approach, Cornille (2020, pp. 81–93) develops a CT hermeneutic as a ‘complex interplay’ between understanding the ‘other through the self’ and ‘the self through the other’ with a ‘basic hermeneutical principle of the indeterminacy of texts…and their openness to ever new interpretation’. Accounting for non-text-based interpretations, Cornille (2020, pp. 97–99) also promotes ‘interreligious borrowing’ with the goal of ‘stretching one’s hermeneutical horizon and opening religions to new possibilities’.

However, such openness and turns to alterity occur at the expense of the actual content of faith and are somewhat self-defeating of the Christian ‘normative’ stance these comparative theologians claim to adopt. What is also rather perplexing within Cornille’s CT hermeneutic is the omission of discussions regarding the internal hermeneutical retrieval of meaning within one’s own tradition, and if or how this might affect CT. In contrast with a Biblical hermeneutic and with a pre-understanding of divine inspiration, the starting point for many evangelicals is to discern God’s message and to ‘focus on the original meanings of the biblical text’ (Klein et al. 2017, p. 239). In Islamic tafsir, there is also the idea of ‘right understanding’ of the Qur’an for many Muslims (Denffer 2011, p. 95). There is, therefore, a significant shift that is both hermeneutical and contextual, with a move from seeking propositional truth and meaning within scriptural texts to external anthropological reasoning that prioritises present context and experience.

An underlying issue, it seems, is the pre-understanding of the authority of scripture. Indeed, Moyaert (2017, p. 23) claims that scripture is marked by ‘plurivocity’, ‘contradictions’, and a ‘superabundance of meaning’, while for Cornille, texts are open and indetermined. The contentious idea of an open hermeneutic logically follows. The ‘indeterminacy of a text’ is also apparent in philosophical hermeneutics, given the shift of meaning from authorial intent to being reader-orientated, such that the original intention of God and the inspired biblical authors are essentially downgraded (Osborne 2006, pp. 465–521). This rise and triumph of the hermeneutical-self places CT at greater risk of relativism, syncretism, and what Bevans (2002, pp. 60–61) calls ‘cultural romanticism’. And while conservative Muslims and Christians would likely reject a CT hermeneutic, the identity challenge and subjectivity within CT provides scope for exploring suitable approaches. Discussion thus progresses to ‘Whose CT?’.

3.4. Whose CT?

Developed in the context of Western and Christian academic theology, CT remains predominately Christian and specifically Catholic, despite claims that CT is useful for any religion (Cornille 2020, p. 5; Moyaert 2017). The academic and sophisticated level of knowledge advocated by many often leads to CT being deemed closed to only a few elite scholars (Muck 2020). And while Muslim scholars, navigating issues peculiar to Catholicism, are developing Islamic CT (Legenhausen 2023, p. 38; Avci 2018b), CT remains largely unknown in current Orthodox Christian thought (Papathanasiou 2021, p. 17). This lack of engagement, it seems, extends to evangelical circles. Stosch (2012, p. 987) notes how CT is regarded suspiciously by mainstream theology in Europe, and interestingly blames Clooney’s (2010a, 96) ‘intuitive leaps…according to instinct’ and the appearance of arbitrariness as reasons. But as Takacs and Kimmel (2023, pp. xxi–xxvi) observe, ‘confessional CT à la Clooney’ has ‘inspired many scholars’, and hence ‘Clooney is considered a founder’. Due to his prominence, Clooney’s approach is noted, followed by discussions of three other approaches.

For Clooney (2011), CT is an elitist enterprise yet an ‘including theology’ that involves back-and-forth learning. Immersing himself in Hinduism, Clooney (2001, p. 181; 2008, p. 209; 2011, p. 146) is ‘unable to submit entirely to either’ tradition, and consequently he is comfortable with a ‘double belonging’ to Jesus as Lord, and ‘Śiva’ as Lord. While Clooney’s approach could be classified as a monastic-style ‘spiritual dialogue’ for personal enrichment (Melnik 2020, p. 64), conflicts with his Christian beliefs are apparent. Therefore, such a highly subjective approach seems more inclined to a hybrid theology and is not considered here further.

Employing a CT ‘methodology’ in a joint creative process, Khorchide (Muslim) and Stosch (Catholic) (2019) co-author The Other Prophet, in which they attempt to show the hermeneutic significance of Christology for understanding the Qur’an, while exploring how this can intensify Christian belief in Jesus. However, a subjective element remains as one questions what communities their CT might appeal to. For example, they persistently claim that much of the Qur’anic criticism towards Christianity is explicitly levelled at specific historical groups rather than Christianity as a whole. Indeed, such ‘modern’ or contextualised techniques are hotly debated within Islamic scholarship, with the more traditional approaches of the Ulama and associated ‘unquestioning nature’, being deemed fossilised, foreclosed, and authoritarian (Piwko et al. 2021, p. 206; Isgandarova 2014, p. 221; Sahin 2013; Lewis and Hamid 2018, pp. 47–90). While obviously interesting from a Christian perspective, it is important to remain mindful that a Muslim might reject such approaches outright. Of course, a turn to the modern is also contentious within Christianity, which links to a further concern, namely, Khorchide and Stosch’s ‘Modern Christology’.

Developing a relational ontological perspective of Christology, in that transcendental philosophy replaces metaphysics, Khorchide and Stosch (2019, pp. 42–52) claim Jesus’ divinity is not due to ‘any supernatural powers’, nor is it sought in his nature or being, but rather it is in his devotion to God and ‘in his relationship with God’. However, appealing to the ‘Extrinsicality Objection’, Vainio (2021, p. 94) helpfully opines that a relational ontology potentially denies the essence, intrinsic properties, and the ‘nature of things’. Therefore, given the primacy of relations over substance, the essence and two natures of Jesus Christ are essentially downgraded, such that his humanity is emphasised, but at the expense of his divinity. This is a problematic imbalance that veers towards a compromising theology rather that a comparative one. Given that the author’s Christology provides impetus for their theological development, their joint endeavour, while extremely interesting, is however of limited use for the more conservative faith adherent.

Indeed, disputing a low Christology and acknowledging serious challenges in the Christian–Muslim dialogue, Kärkkäinen (2020, p. 148) helpfully claims Christians are required to present Jesus in the ‘fullness of both his humanity and his divinity’. ‘Robustly Christian’ (Lutheran–Pentecostal), Kärkkäinen (2020, p. 5; 2013, p. 28) approaches CT via constructive and systematic argumentation, and he embraces difference and comparison for the sake of truth, noting ‘how useless and uninteresting a task’ it is to compare items that are alike. While also employing a contextual approach, Kärkkäinen (2013, pp. 11–21) balances Christian tradition with the surrounding context to helpfully state the ‘ultimate authority’ of canonical scripture and the importance of authorial intent. For Kärkkäinen (2020, pp. 1–12), practising CT involves carefully reading sacred scriptures and engaging in ‘hospitable dialogue’ to build relationships while fostering tolerance, specifically a ‘to bear a burden’ type of tolerance. In recognising the complexities and ‘annoyingness’ of CT, Kärkkäinen (2013, p. 29; 2020, p. 2) claims that the reality of religious pluralism and globalisation show why religious leaders, academics, and lay persons need to be able to engage and compare notes with other religions. Kärkkäinen’s (2013, 2020) approach and his CT resources are encouraging and useful, helping to build a bridge from academia or reading only to a point where lay persons engage in dialogue.

In a similar manner and considering both CT and SR as dialogical interfaith learning practices, Muslim scholar Avci (2018a) uses cross-cultural comparisons and investigations in CT to conduct SR sessions. This seems to be an interesting and productive method that also potentially bridges the gap between academic and lived theology, and between study and discussion. Indeed, with the aim of understanding the ‘other’ while also de-constructing unjust representations, Avci (2018b, 2021) is also particularly critical of how one’s religious tradition is understood based on another. For example, in her exploration of the Islamic and Christian theologies of revelation, Avci (2021) highlights asymmetries between the progressive revelation of Christ and the non-progressive revelation of Muhammed, not as superior, but as the seal of the prophets. Critical of ‘progressivism’ being superimposed upon Islamic tradition, but also of how Muslim polemicists use Muhammad’s ‘superiority’ against Christianity, Avci (2021, pp. 537–60) helpfully notes how such comparisons can de-construct naïve juxtapositions and help to ask more nuanced questions.

3.5. Summary

Having considered the concept of truth, where meaning lies, and the subjective nature of CT, it is perhaps understandable why many (most) evangelicals do not engage with CT. For both conservative Muslims and Christians, CT seems particularly problematic given the emphasis on ‘some’ concept of truth as an epistemological category; on the liberal–postliberal contextual theology, which prioritises context over scripture; and hermeneutical openness, accommodating the religious other. Therefore, rather than acting as a mediating position between confrontational and conciliatory approaches, it seems fair to say CT exemplifies the latter.

Nevertheless, the level of engagement and in-depth focus, as well as CT’s ability to contend with theological difference, as exemplified by Kärkkäinen and Avci, are encouraging. Thus, the use of CT should not simply be dismissed. Of course, a subjective element exists, but any theology necessitates a critical and discerning approach while avoiding overreliance on any one scholar or method. This also highlights the importance of a normative stance, being accountable, and rootedness in one’s own faith community, which, for a Christian, are nourishment within the body of Christ.

CT, as Papathanasiou (2014, p. 104) contends, needs to be a ‘procedure whose roads must cross other theological roads’. In travelling these ‘roads’, one must navigate, not least, TOR, hermeneutics, and systematic theology, but within a pluralist, secular and global context. But what must also be considered is the question of who is travelling. This paves the way for exploring aspects of ‘people of faith’ in Section 4.

4. Theoretical-Contribution Task

As part of the theoretical-contribution task, asking ‘What could be going on?’, this section travels the road of how to engage by considering concepts from other disciplines. By exploring elements of epistemology and psychology, a better understanding of the relationship between theology and people of faith is sought. With specific discussion on exclusivism, absolute certainty, and human attitude, in a sense, this section wrestles with what Bannister (2021, p. 19) aptly quips is the ‘elephant of exclusivity’.

4.1. ‘Exclusivism Is Intolerant’

The general trend within CT rejects an exclusivist position to other religions, promoting a pluralist, or at least an open inclusivist, stance (Avci 2018a, p. 10; Cornille 2020, p. 59; Thatamanil 2020, p. 102). For Cornille (2020), exclusivism inhibits openness while Reitsma (2020, p. 5) claims exclusivism is ‘antithetical’, leaving little room to treat the religious other in a positive way. Atoi (2018, pp. 133–36) includes soteriological and doctrinal exclusivism under the ‘doctrine of religious exclusivism’, and notes the ‘serious scholarly criticism’ towards exclusivism as ‘intolerant’, ‘unjust’ and ‘epistemologically impoverished’, such that exclusivists are naïve, arrogant, imperialistic, and stubborn. Atoi (2018, pp. 135, 145) concludes that to claim one religion as true or the way to salvation is ‘inappropriate’ and ‘morally offensive’, and so he advocates a pluralist philosophy that gives ‘all religious adherents the ability to obtain salvation’. Notwithstanding such ‘exceptionalist’ claims actually taking a monopolistic stance under the guise of ‘pluralism’, therein excluding exclusivists (Webster 2022, p. 370; Meister 2010, pp. 111–15), ethical and philosophical reasoning seem to have replaced theology.

Furthermore, as argumentation and reasoning against exclusivism move away from a theological discussion, anthropological factors, particularly attitude, also become more prominent. For example, Muslim scholar Sejdini (2022, pp. 94–99) claims exclusivism thoroughly influences our attitude to the other and practically excludes the ability to participate in respectful interreligious dialogue, while Cornille (2020) persistently associates ‘exclusivism’ with an ‘attitude of epistemological exclusivism’. However, this highlights the serious failure to distinguish attitude and human hubris from actual theological claims contained within religious scriptures. It appears rather obvious that stubbornness, naivety, and arrogant attitudes are not exclusive to exclusivists but are universal, or as Papathanasiou (2014, p. 110) aptly notes, an ‘anthropological illness’. In Biblical terms, this is ‘sin’ and ‘absolutizing of the self’ (Migliore 2014, pp. 155–59). Therefore, exclusive claims in theology do not simply equate to exclusivist attitudes; their interconnectedness should not be confused with their independence of each other.

4.2. The Certainty Trap

Of course, and to be fair, there is an element of ‘no smoke without fire’. As people of faith, an underlying aspect of faith is our attitude to our respective scriptures and the degree of certainty (or credence) we make to truth contained within scripture. This relates to how we view truth and our relationship to it, viewing ourselves as ‘possessors of truth’ or ‘seekers after truth’ (Newbigin 1990, pp. 11–13), with a similar divide also evident in Islam (Sejdini 2022, p. 31). Indeed, Stenmark (2006) helpfully identifies how ‘absolute exclusivism’ is particularly problematic in interreligious dialogue, in which adherents hold truth claims with complete certainty, ‘beyond a shadow of doubt’. Thus, claims require no further investigation. Hiebert (2019, pp. 42–43) labels such certainty and inflexible thinking as intellectual arrogance and a form of ‘mental materialism’, in which people over-own strengths yet under-own limitations. This ‘certainty trap’ and a full claim of truth ignores one’s own biases and cognitive blind spots (Grierson 2023). Exploring how religious people hold belief that knowledge is certain, Crowson (2009) notes a predictable relationship between dogmatism and religious fundamentalism, which results in defensive attitudes, intolerance, and a greater need to proselytise others.

However, the relationship between belief, knowledge, and certainty is rather more complex. Taking ‘belief’ as a propositional attitude that affirms the truth of the beliefs’ propositional content, and ‘knowledge’ as a ‘factive’ true belief, then the process that turns a belief into knowledge occurs by way of ‘justification’ (DePoe and McNabb 2022, pp. 2–8). Justification works as a ‘tether’ in that it provides a criterion or decisiveness to the probability that a belief is true (Kraft 2012, pp. 16–18). DePoe and McNabb (2022, p. 8) recognise that, for many, justification for many requires ‘certainty’, despite an ‘overwhelming majority’ of beliefs (religious or otherwise) actually lacking an absolute certainty. The relationship between knowledge and belief is further complicated by the relationship between scripture and interpretation.

4.3. The Interpretation Gap

Indeed, Webster (2022, pp. 370–78) observes how several Scottish Protestant fundamentalist groups regard their theology in non-mediated terms, claiming monopoly over theological truth, and as a result ‘refuse to disavow absolute certainty’. Webster (2022, pp. 373–77) distinguishes between truth that comes from God, and His Word, as two sources, claiming that taking these as one source through a monopolistic process of truth claims is anti-hermeneutical; a parallel also evident in Islam via the ‘(un)translatability claim’ of the Qur’an. Brown (2020, p. 265) contends that the Qur’anic doctrine of inimitability and the claim to its pure divine origin have ‘hardened in the modern period’. Failure to grasp the necessity of interpretation therefore increases the risk of dogmatic and absolutist thinking, for both Christians and Muslims.

Highlighting the historical and cultural ‘cannon-like gap’ between the text and our capacity to understand the text, Brown (2020, pp. 257–67) highlights the shared hermeneutical challenges of interpretation for Muslims with the Qur’an and Christians with the Bible. Just as Smith (2012, p. 43) argues that we never have the ‘crisp unadorned voice of God’, Brown (2020, p. 267) helpfully notes ‘the very raison d’etre’ for tafsir or Biblical hermeneutics should remind us that ‘interpretation is a human, fallible enterprise’. The necessity of hermeneutics should signal the necessity for intellectual humility (Hiebert 2019, p. 53). While this highlights the importance of interpretation, it also directly affects our attitudes, a key contributor to the nature of Christian–Muslim relations (Sabates 2022). It therefore seems prudent to understand something about our attitudes.

4.4. Attitudes Are Everything

Attitudes are extremely complex, powerful, and multi-faceted and result from an innumerable variety of stimuli or triggers and give rise to a vast array of responses and behaviours (McCann 2021). While acknowledging that attitudes are not well understood, McCann (2021, sections 1.4–1.10) notes how ‘attitudes are everything’, an integral part of defining who we are, and are particularly significant given their intrinsic link with our behaviour. Exploring the social implications of Christian–Muslim attitudes, Sabates (2022, pp. 387–89) employs an ‘ABC’ theory of attitudes, encompassing ‘affective’, ‘behavioural’, and ‘cognitive’ facets, and contends that ‘attitudes are evaluative tendencies’ rather than ‘fixed personality dispositions’. According to Haidt (2012), human nature is intrinsically moral, critical, and judgemental, and our intuitions come before any strategic reasoning. Randolph (2016, pp. 5, 50–68) describes how ‘emotions and self-esteem respectively inform and govern our behaviour’, such that reason becomes the slave to our emotions during conflict. Indeed, neurological research identifies an ‘amygdala hijack’ with ‘being wrong’ in that the reasoning part of our brain is hijacked to produce a faster physical response (Piretti et al. 2020). As a result, effects on our self-esteem are often felt as physical pain (Randolph 2016, pp. 51–57). As Sabates (2022, p. 396) contends, ‘behaviour is the strongest predicator of attitudes’. Therefore, it seems paramount to explore what, or indeed who, ‘ought to be’ the main stimulus, informing our attitudes and therein our behaviour.

4.5. Diverging ‘Solutions’

However, there is a clear divergence in resources when exploring what ‘ought to be’. For example, secular psychologist Randolph (2016, pp. 1–5), employing an existentialist perspective, believes that absolute objective truth does not exist and claims this actually ‘assists’ delivering vital changes in attitudes. But a ‘human solution’ can only be sought within an imminent framework. Transcendent experience and divine action must be accommodated, or more appropriately be our starting point since, for people of faith, faith is a requisite not an obstacle.

There is further divergence between Muslim and Christian faith, however, given fundamental differences in our theologies. Islamic tradition allows for human createdness but, in order to ‘safeguard the utter transcendence of Allah’ (Q42:11), the ‘image of God’ does not feature (Kärkkäinen 2020, pp. 110–16). Indeed, Islam has a more optimistic view of humanity, and since humans are not innately crooked, the Qur’an and the Hadiths offer guidance rather than the necessity of saving grace (Akhtar 2018, p. 250; Avci 2021; Shumack 2020, p. 121). Christianity has a deeper dislocation and ontological alienation from God, explained by the fall and harmitology. As such, different diagnoses of the human condition lead to different ‘solutions’. Therefore, a Christian perspective of the complexities of human attitude is now discussed. Hitherto, this article argued that attitudes should be understood separately from theology; it is now timely to ‘work backwards’, exploring their interconnectedness. This, in a sense, shifts from the visible out-workings of attitude to understanding internal aspects.

4.6. A Christian Understanding of Attitude

Dissecting humankind’s composition, Christian psychologist McCann (2021) helpfully models the interconnectivity of numerous factors on various levels that contribute to attitude, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. It is not possible to do justice to McCann’s (2021, sections 5.2 and 7.9) model here, but as he helpfully contends that ‘fundamentally humility is an attitude of the mind’ with a particularly strong influence on our attitude, this section focuses on humility.

Taking humankind as a tripartite structure—spirit, soul and body (2 Cor. 4:16)—McCann (2021, sections 3.1–3.7) distinguishes between an outer mortal element from an inner immortal element and contends that everything we do emanates from deep within our being. McCann (2021, sections 3.2–3.3) helpfully claims that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–8) is the ‘umbilical cord’ with a Christian’s spirit and therein advocates spiritual formation to shape the inner self and character. Our consciousness, leveraged by sensitivity to God’s influence, empowers our humility, influences our character, and discernment, and in turn determines our attitude (McCann 2021, sections 5.5–6.1). Of course, factors such as our environment, experiences, maturation, etc., also affect our attitude, but visible attitudes and behaviours result from a myriad of invisible components and factors within our innermost being (McCann 2021, sections 5.1, 7.1–7.9). A Christian’s attempt to understand attitude and humility evidently leads discussion to Jesus Christ.

‘Jesus is the epitome of humility’ (Phil. 2:3–11), and his attitude is the role model for all Christians (McCann 2021, section 5.2), in which humility rooted in scripture recognises our ‘creatureliness’ before our Creator (Osmer 2008, pp. 183–93). Claiming intellectual humility as a Christian virtue, Hiebert (2019, pp. 42–52) notes how the Bible repeatedly and emphatically condemns pride and commends humility, as exemplified in Christ’s kenosis. Of course, as Bauckham (2016, pp. 160–62) highlights, ‘Jesus himself is truth’ (John 14:6), which implies that truth is a holistic concept, found in an encounter we cannot possess, and is ‘particular’ through faith in Jesus yet ‘universally available’ for all people. Faith is a response to a belief and trust in God, with an eternal soteriological consequence, and the effect of this faith is being united with the risen Christ (Simpson 2023). But faith does not require absolute certainty. This is perhaps more aptly phrased in Matthew 9:24, which reads “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”.

Rather than being a matter of indubitable mathematical certainties, Christians should be seekers after truth, since Biblical faith is the personal commitment of fallible humans, putting their trust in a faithful God (Newbigin 1995b). Faith is not merely just cognitive, a form of knowing, nor is it limited to belief; faith is a relationship of trust and loyalty that leaves room for epistemic risk (Hiebert 2019, p. 50). In fact, Newbigin (1995a, 184) grapples with the idea of a vulnerability, a dialogue not safe from risk, and being so open to another worldview that this way of seeing the world actually becomes a real possibility to us. While this requires humble confidence, such risk and vulnerability return the discussion to interfaith dialogue and CT.

4.7. Humble Confidence

Vulnerability and openness are essential components of CT, with many scholars highlighting the importance of epistemological humility, mutual empathy, and intellectual hospitality (Ackermann 2023; Asghar-Zadeh 2019; Cornille 2020). Such vulnerability is ‘genetically connected’ with the possibility of change, in which comparative theologians readily move beyond any ‘self-confinement’ to avoid alienation from other religions (Papathanasiou 2021, p. 32). However, Toren (2023) helpfully identifies how comparative theologians, such as Cornille and Moyaert, take a ‘subject position’ that characterises the typical subject–object divide in late modernity, but consequently, commitment and openness are rooted in the capacity of the subject. Being grounded in human subjectivity, this position has an inadequate understanding of the human relationship with God and fails to acknowledge how the modern–postmodern chasm is bridged by the personal Christian God. A ‘subject position of faith’, however, understands ‘commitment as grounded in confidence’ of the divine salvific event of Christ, and by trusting in Him, confidence and openness are compatible and can strengthen each other (Toren 2023, pp. 9–10).

4.8. Summary

After attempting to clarify the difference between attitude and theology, I then proceeded to work back to understand why theology, from my Christian perspective, ‘ought’ to inform a Christian’s attitude. While I did not and cannot advocate a Muslim perspective of Islamic faith, the next section considers aspects of being ‘people of faith’ in view to making recommendations that are helpful for both Muslims and Christians. It seems fair to conclude, however, that contributions from other disciplines can provide valuable insights to better understand ‘what could be going on?’.

5. Pragmatic Task

The pragmatic task attempts to address some of the issues raised in the descriptive–interpretative task (Section 2) by considering the normative task (Section 3) in conjunction with the theoretical-contribution task (Section 4). A two-dimensional model is generated to navigate the various aspects discussed within these tasks. After an explanation of this model, six recommendations are formulated with a view to contributing to effective Christian–Muslim relations.

5.1. Two-Dimensional

This article has explored different aspects of the complex relationship between theology and ‘people of faith’ or, more specifically, between an exclusivism–inclusivism–pluralism typology within TOR, and what could be deemed a spectrum of attitudes. This section proceeds by taking these somewhat linear categories on separate axes by way of a simple two-dimensional Cartesian system, a mathematical model in which the X-axis and Y-axis split the plane into quadrants (Q), as shown in Figure 2 below. Along the X-axis, attitudes range from intellectual arrogance or claims to ‘possess truth’ to intellectual humility and being ‘seekers of truth’. Parallels can be noted with Stenmark’s (2006, p. 109) idea of ‘full exclusivism’ and claims to complete certainty against ‘tentative exclusivism’ in recognition of one’s finitude. On the Y-axis, the range moves from a pluralist stance, prioritising context over theology, to an exclusivist position prioritising theology. As with any model, there is a degree of generalisation, and with spectrum’s defined by their extremes, the complexity of real life cannot be fully accounted for. Nevertheless, reflecting Bosch’s (2012, p. 494) idea of a TOR characterised by ‘creative tension’, this two-dimensional model potentially helps one to ‘embrace the abiding paradox’ between ‘genuine openness’ to another’s religion (X-axis), and ‘ultimate commitment’ to one’s own (Y-axis).

5.2. Orientation

The recommendations formulated in this section seek to orientate towards Q:I, labelled ‘humble confidence’ (+x,+y). It is, however, important to map our starting points. As discussed in the descriptive–interpretative task (Section 2), a confrontational approach dominates Christian–Muslim relations, in which priority is given to our respective scriptures (+y), but with the inclination to polemical debate and with adherents claiming to possess truth (−x). Hence, Q:II is labelled a ‘confrontational approach’. On the other hand, Section 2 concluded that CT could be deemed a ‘conciliatory approach’, shown in Q:IV, due to its essential components of openness and depth of engagement (+x), but with the prioritisation of meaning from our context and a vague notion of truth (−y).

Consequently, questions arise in relation to CT’s ability to deal with theological difference. As M. A. Bennett (2022, pp. 226–29) notes, the ‘Qur’an is incompatible with the biblical Gospel’ and with the ‘weight of 1400 years of anti-Gospel interpretation’, seeking complimentary texts merely exhibits superficial similarities. Notwithstanding such issues, I contend that a TOR with soteriological criterion is most useful for constructive dialogue for both Muslims and Christians, and thus discussion regarding CT’s ability to accommodate this continues (§5.5.1). Furthermore, since the concept of a complimentary or hybrid theology was rejected (§3.4), what is needed is a hybrid approach that combines effective elements of both CT and confrontational approaches. Therefore, in noting effective elements in CT, there is a ‘yes-but’, after which two longer (1–2) and four shorter (3–6) recommendations follow.

5.3. ‘+x’ of CT

The fact CT is an in-depth and focused approach that embraces rootedness in one’s own faith while seeking to understand the other is certainly commendable. Openness to the other and an ‘attitude of epistemological and theological humility’ (Cornille 2020, p. 105) promote a constructive and irenic posture within CT (‘openness’, however, is further discussed below). As exemplified by comparative theologians Kärkkäinen and Avci (§3.4), serious engagement within religious difference can de-construct misunderstandings and lead to constructive criticism. This corresponds with what Cornille (2020, pp. 121–41) labels ‘rectification’ and ‘reaffirmation’ within the process of learning in CT and could potentially address the problem of how Muslims and Christians approach each other’s scriptures, as noted in Section 2. Rectification can help to restore a proper understanding of another religion through ‘a more open and honest constructive theological engagement’, while reaffirmation is the renewed recognition and appreciation of truth and value in one’s own religion due to exposure with another religious systems (Cornille 2020, p. 124). However, and progressing to ‘but’, reluctance towards apologetics and a vague concept of truth remain evident as Cornille (2020, p. 138) claims reaffirmation ‘seeks to grant as much veracity as possible’ to the ‘distinctive truth’ of the other, rather than being based on ‘a prior denial of truth in the other’, as in much of apologetics.

5.4. ‘−y’ of CT

Indeed, CT’s liberal–postliberal classification seems in keeping with Mair’s (2019, pp. 57–58) observations of our ‘post-truth dominated’ society that seeks to dial down and harmonise difference, accompanied by ‘fear of alienating others’. Since CT and SR are classified as dialogical practices(Avci 2018b), more general concerns within interfaith dialogue are applicable due to the many ‘policies of non-proselytism’ and the resultant ‘violent dichotomy’ between evangelism and dialogue in the search for common ground (Baatsen 2017, pp. 82–83). Distinguishing genuine dialogue from interfaith ‘dialogue’, Khan and Cowan (2018) describe the latter as a false attempt at producing dialogue in a ritualised reaffirmation of liberal pluralistic values and note that, accordingly, conservative Christians, Muslims, and hardliner exclusivists rarely engage with this practice. McCallum (2024, pp. 1–7, 210) also notes this deep suspicion by many evangelicals, but of greater concern is his stark observation that most evangelicals are ‘unengaged’, ‘uninformed’, and ‘fearful’ when it comes to engagement with Muslims. This is directly connected to missiology, and paves the way towards recommendation one.

5.4.1. Recommendation One: CT and Holistic Missiology

Within CT, the fundamental shift to a TOR based on epistemological criteria rather than soteriological values is not only related to missiology, but it relates to ecclesiology and eschatology and potentially highlights a differentiation between evangelical and Catholic theologies. For example, Patterson (2019, pp. 292–94), exploring papal documents within the Catholic Church, notes the progressively ‘enervated missionary activity’ given a ‘diminished eschatological consciousness’ and marked ‘falling off’ regarding matters of spiritual death. It seems reasonable to link this shift, from eternal life to the prioritisation of earthly life, with CT given the Catholic majority within and impetus of CT, as noted in Section 3. In contrast however, Tennent (2014, pp. 295–98) notes how evangelicals have been ‘pushed away from natural theology’ and have lost ‘theological space’ to adequately discuss ‘God’s presence in human culture’ and, therein, have reduced the Gospel to personal justification. This intra-Christian divergence is likely predicated on the emphasis placed on either a creation-centred theology and present social culture, or redemption-centred theology and eschatology. However, seeing ecumenism and different perspectives as strengthening the global church, Tennent (2014, pp. 300–2) helpfully promotes an ‘Evangelical TOR’, within the context of Missio Dei, that is Trinitarian, Christo-centric, and has a holistic vision of the Church as the embodiment of the new creation, demonstrating that salvation is both ‘declared of us’ and ‘something wrought in us’.

Learning from a Catholic approach can certainly highlight blind spots and help us to seek a more holistic evangelism ‘aimed at the whole person’ (Christman 2022, p. 135); however, as Patterson (2019, p. 287) claims, ‘enhancing people’s earthly lives’ and eternal salvation are essential tasks, but not equally so. Indeed, many demand-oriented ecclesiological models seem to moralise and trivialise sin. As Strange (2021, pp. 499–501) highlights, there is a ‘straightforward and stubborn ‘separationism’ in Scripture’, fundamentally between humanity and God, with a universal ‘urgency’ and need of ‘agency’ to share the Gospel. In relation to Islam, ‘eschatology plays an extraordinary role’, with a final destiny of either paradise or hell; however, Jesus’ role in end-times events is ‘vastly different’ from that seen in Christianity (Kärkkäinen 2020, pp. 261–65). These critical differences, to my mind, necessitate soteriological discussions, but also highlight a need to acknowledge the importance of mission in Islam.

Islam is a missionary religion, with a fervent and active missionary community and comprehensive outreach to non-believers based on the Qur’anic mandate (Kärkkäinen 2020, p. 240). Khalil (2012, pp. 6–12) claims the ‘Qur’an allows for a wide variety of soteriological interpretations’ and despite Muslim scholarship having ‘failed to reach a consensus regarding the fate’ of unbelievers, he acknowledges how numerous modern treatments present an exclusivist paradigm. Void of ‘original sin’ in Islam, there is concern for salvation based on ‘human propensity to err’ (Massad 2020, p. 346). And while the classic typology is not fully applicable to Islam, it is certainly debated between a spectrum of pluralism and exclusivism, including salvific exclusivism (Akay-Dağ 2017; Stenmark 2006, pp. 104–5). Therefore, a TOR employing soteriological categories within the exclusivism–inclusivism–pluralism typology is certainly plausible and employable across both religions and is hence advocated in this article.

It also seems fair to surmise that a liberal persuasion or ban on mission is not conducive with orthodox Islam. Khan and Cowan (2018, pp. 41–42) observe how it would be difficult to imagine Muslims, in Muslim-majority societies, enthusiastically pursuing interfaith ‘dialogue’ without an aspect of da’wa and proselytization on some level. Indeed, Kuiper (2021, pp. 197, 250) notes how ‘growing petrodollar wealth’ is funding a renewal of da’wa, and with ‘da’wa actors in the millions’, McCallum (2020, p. 16) contends Christians must consider how Islamic mission seems ‘rather better funded’ than Christian mission. Islam also has its own apologetic discourse, with many Muslims contending Islam is more rational than Christianity (Toren and Tan 2022, p. 25). Effective Christian–Muslim exchange, including within CT, must therefore allow for an element of mission and apologetics.

Christian witness to this ever-changing world and increasing religious diversity requires mission and the discipline of apologetics through a faithful knowledge of God in scripture (Imbert 2023). Indeed Schirrmacher (2020, pp. 359–61), appealing to Acts 17, claims mission and apologetics are so interrelated that mission always has a strongly apologetic component when the Gospel is proclaimed in a culturally relevant manner. Therefore, to deal with fundamental theological differences between Islam and Christianity, and to summarise recommendation one, CT needs to embrace a TOR with soteriological criteria and a holistic mission that accommodates apologetics within the wider scope of a comparative exchange. This is evidently related to contextualisation and the authority afforded to scripture and proceeds to recommendation two.

5.4.2. Recommendation Two: CT, Hermeneutics, Contextualisation and Flexibility

The shifts in CT to a philosophical hermeneutic or hermeneutical ‘openness’, and the prioritisation of context, are significant due to the downgrading of the authority of scripture and tradition; hence, ‘−y’ (§3.3). While related to ‘truth decay’ (Groothuis 2000) and life within the ‘empire of relativism’ (Imbert 2023, p. 106) in our modern–postmodern culture, CT must have the ability and flexibility to accommodate the prioritisation of scripture within a Biblical hermeneutic and Islamic tafsir of the more conservative faith adherents. There is an intra-faith element here also, certainly within Biblical hermeneutics, since many commend the philosophical hermeneutic for its attention to a textual literary meaning that traditional canonical and historical criticism largely ignores (Bartholomew 2015, pp. 282–313; Vanhoozer 2004, pp. 56–59). Understanding difference within religions should encourage hermeneutical humility and drive us to understand the internal interpretative mechanisms underlying one another’s religions. Connected to contextualisation, prioritisation should be given to the exegesis of scripture and then the exegesis of culture. As Goheen (2014, pp. 288–92) observes, the Gospel is not an abstract or disembodied message, and so, while faithful contextualisation recognises ‘God’s common grace in upholding culture’, Christian missionary engagement must ‘primarily’ be ‘committed to the Gospel and the Biblical story’. Therefore, CT needs flexibility to allow for different hermeneutical approaches and for a range of contextualisation models, where both liberal and conservative perspectives, within both Muslim and Christian approaches, are open for discussion and critique. Nevertheless, ‘openness’ is quite literally so, such that it seems crucial to determine what is meant by ‘openness’ and in what dimension. This returns discussion to aspects of ‘people of faith’ and issues within the ‘−x’ of the confrontational approach (Q:II).

5.5. People of Faith

‘Openness’ is one of the traits of the ‘Big-Five Model’ widely employed in personality psychology today, whereby individuals exhibit a high degree of inquisitiveness, creativity, and openness to change (Carducci 2015, pp. 372–73). Comparative theologians certainly promote such openness (+x); however, this must be differentiated from a hermeneutical principle based on an ‘openness’ to ever new theological interpretations (−y). This again highlights the independence, within the interconnectedness, of human factors and theology. Furthermore, openness employs curiosity and inquiry, yet and fundamentally, it does not necessitate agreement or adoption of the other’s opinion or beliefs. One can exhibit openness and willingness to reach out to people who differ, allowing for an ‘honest hearing’, yet remain ‘solid’ in one’s identity and tradition (Hackney 2021, p. 228). Rather than lowering confidence, Benton (2021) also claims one can rationally remain steadfast in one’s belief in disagreement, and even disagreement with an epistemic peer. Understanding faith and belief is a complex matter, in which Dormandy (2020, pp. 392–94) claims belief systems are themselves ‘‘webs’ with numerous elements of graded centrality’ arising from factors such as psychology, social influences, and evidence. Of course, evidence is not contrary to faith, but rather provides justification for one’s belief (DePoe 2022, p. 27), which helpfully reinforces the importance of apologetics as noted above. Therefore, despite disagreements, both openness and steadfastness can coexist; yet, and to venture further, there are benefits because of disagreement.

5.5.1. Recommendation Three: Embracing Healthy Disagreement

Disagreements have a positive implication for interfaith dialogue and, as Khan and Cowan (2018, pp. 33–43) observe, conservatives or exclusivists might actually have the ‘most to offer in furthering interreligious conversations’. Dormandy (2020) helpfully contends that religious disagreement provides an ‘epistemic-potential’ benefit that can promote epistemic goals in the religious domain by way of constructive external criticism and expanding the evidential basis provided by an interlocutor and supplying epistemic alternatives that can help weaken bias and improve one’s differentiated reasoning. Noting how disagreement has a ‘telos’ and defining ‘civility’ as an ‘art of living with our deepest differences’, Love (2021, pp. 632–37) promotes the practice of ‘civil disagreement’ as ‘all-but-indispensable’ in seeking clarity and reconciliation. The epistemic benefit of civil disagreement begins with effective dialogue that pursues clarity in ‘what’ others believe and ‘why’. Through this, ideas can be sharpened and arguments tested. Seeking such clarity can avoid misunderstanding and painful or unjust disagreements, and also can help to bring us closer to our interlocutors (Love 2021, pp. 638–40). Dialogue and disagreement can therefore also coexist, and while this goes against the impetus of interfaith dialogue often shy of mission, it leads to recommendation four, involving a better understanding of why to engage.

5.5.2. Recommendation Four: Improved Classification in Exchange

A more structured approach that helps classify interreligious dialogue and considers the why of exchanging seems beneficial. This should be applicable in every exchange, including across all quadrants (Q:I-IV). For example, Melnik’s (2020) classification considers numerous aspects and angles of engagement, which could also help address the ad hoc nature of CT (§3.4). Based on ‘intention’, or our motivation to engage, Melnik’s (2020) labels of ‘polemical’, ‘cognitive’, ‘peace-making’, and ‘partnership’ are each further broken down using conceptual criteria such as ‘goals’ (aims), ‘principles’ (starting points), and ‘form’ (type of participants), providing a more sophisticated tool for analysing interreligious dialogue. Melnik’s framework can accommodate a variety of approaches, allowing for people of faith at different levels (academics, politicians, lay persons) to determine why and in what mode they engage. And while peace-making, building friendship, and seeking mutual trust seem more necessary among strangers, it does not exclude their necessity among siblings. Returning to my brother and I, seeking peace must be kept in balance with exploring truth claims. Yet, our search for truth need not be polemical and accordingly, engagement could be pursued as ‘Human (I-Thou)’, ‘theological’ or a ‘dialogue of truth’ under Melnik’s (2020, pp. 64–65) ‘kinds of cognitive dialogue’. Of course, engagement involves more than ‘cognitive dialogue’; effective exchange needs practice!

5.5.3. Recommendation Five: Using CT in SR

Employing Avci’s example, as noted in Section 3.4, the use of CT to inform SR sessions is recommended. Not only could this help to bridge the gap between the academic discipline of CT and dialogue or praxis among lay persons, but it could also provide a more structured approach to the competency-oriented, playful, and subjective elements of SR (§2.3.2). For example, comparing hermeneutics and tafsir on an academic level within CT to help guide SR sessions could help mitigate issues of how we currently approach each other’s scriptures (§2.2.2). Pope and Paulus (2023) see SR as a promising conflict resolution method that encourages participants to appreciate and learn through religious diversity. They came to this conclusion by way of ‘Conversational Analysis’, a close examination of dialogue in which they identified how participants effectively eased tension in disagreements by employing mitigation strategies, balancing listening and speaking, and moving beyond active listening to exploration. These ‘people’ skills are essential, not just within religious diversity, but also within our post-truth society, and again across Q:I-IV. Learning how to engage in genuine dialogue, even in conflict, can develop phronesis (practical wisdom) and help cultivate empathic understanding regarding the perspectives of others, while becoming adept at self-reflexivity (Springs 2020). Engaging therefore is not just an intellectual matter; it involves developing phronesis that engages our cognitive, affective, and behavioural domains in which knowledge, arising out of love, ‘informs our judgements and actions’ (Rooms 2012, p. 87). For a Christian, phronesis is a holistic ‘Christ-focused pattern of thinking, feeling and acting’ (Rooms 2012, p. 93), and while we believe Jesus is truth, we must also be mindful of our finitude and the ‘interpretation gap’ (§4.3).

5.5.4. Recommendation Six: ‘Mind the Gap’

While much of CT has a fuzzy idea of truth and is inclined to demote truth to the subjective realm, many adherents of a confrontational approach have promoted themselves as possessors of truth. It seems paramount therefore to understand we are ‘people’ of ‘faith’, and as discussed in Section 4, we must recognise our creatureliness and the necessity of hermeneutics. It is important that we are continually mindful of the gap between God and our theological claims about God (Ralston 2022, p. 128). Therefore, we must separate the objective and propositional ‘nature of truth’ from both the objective and subjective elements of ‘how we know truth’ (Newton 2012, p. 11). Yet, despite our finite minds—from a Christian perspective, God can be ‘truly and adequately’ known—and believing salvation of the world is through Christ, there is therefore the ‘desire to share this precious gift with others’ (Toren and Tan 2022, pp. 20–21).

5.6. Ultimate Motivation

This brings discussion to our ultimate motivation to undertake exchange. Stenmark (2006, p. 105) observes how ‘Muslims and Christians want everyone to become Muslim or Christian’, respectively, based on the fact we believe our religion offers ‘salvific success’ and eternal life in heaven/paradise. I would contend this gets to the heart of the matter, certainly in terms of my relationship with my brother, and that is, discussions motivated by love. Love for another and warning of an eternal life without God understandably takes priority over striving for peace in the here and now. As Parshall (2003, p. 266) aptly and painfully notes, ‘Love does not speak of hell without a broken heart’. The two greatest Biblical commandments are to love God and our neighbour as ourselves (Luke 10:25–27), and so as we profess the faith we believe to be true and just; we must do so as witnesses not judges, and as ambassadors of Jesus not lawyers (Bosch 2012, pp. 500–1; Glaser 2005). But we must also be discerning witnesses, ‘inspecting bridges without burning them’ (M. A. Bennett 2022, pp. 17–18).

In hindsight, it may have been easier to move from Q:II (confrontational) to Q:I rather than take a detour via Q:IV (conciliatory). However, by taking the ‘scenic route’ and CT as a conversation partner, recommendations made strive for humble confidence (Q:I), essential for people of faith within the context of our modern–postmodern society. The tension between genuine openness and ultimate commitment should always be creative, and while the journey may be longer, it must be driven by love.

6. Conclusions

The overall aim of this research was to explore approaches toward more effective Christian–Muslim relations, with a specific focus on CT. Four research objectives were outlined in the Introduction, and this concluding section briefly revisits these objectives and summarises their findings. Owing to the personal Christian–Muslim sibling relationship, implications are provided with a view to providing cyclical closure. This is followed by future directions and acknowledging limitations, with a final reflection to conclude this article.

6.1. Reviewing Objectives

6.1.1. Objective One: Identify Underlying Issues Within Christian–Muslim Relations

While historical and socio-political issues contribute to ineffective Christian–Muslim relations, fundamental differences between Islamic and Christian theologies and how Muslims and Christians approach each other were found to be particularly problematic within the more conservatively inclined adherents. By employing C. Bennett’s (2008) ‘confrontation versus conciliatory’ categories, paralleling ‘polemic versus SR’, respectively, it was contended that the former emphasised claims to truth at the expense of peacebuilding and relationships, while the latter emphasised peace but viewed truth as ultimately subjective. It was concluded that effective Christian–Muslim relations need to navigate both truth claims and peacebuilding, hence the turn to CT as a potential mediating approach.

6.1.2. Objective Two: Critically Evaluate CT

Rather than a mediating approach, it was concluded that CT could be typically classified as a conciliatory approach given the emphasis on hermeneutical openness to accommodate the religious other and a more subjective view of truth, as indicated by the shift from soteriological to epistemological criteria within TOR. Notwithstanding the need to clarify the criteria employed, the tendency to denigrate exclusivism and discourage apologetics likely contributes to a lack of engagement from conservative Muslims and Christians. However, owing to the vast variety and approaches within CT, the depth of engagement promoted, and the normative stance accommodated, the use of CT was not simply dismissed.

6.1.3. Objective Three: Explore Other Disciplines in Relation to ‘People of Faith’

Recognising the interconnectedness of theology and attitude, a distinction was made between each in order to understand the ‘people of faith’ element within Christian–Muslim relations. By acknowledging our finitude, the necessity of theological interpretation, and the difference between knowledge and belief, humility was promoted in terms of being seekers, rather than possessors, of truth. Within Christianity, humility evidently leads to Christ’s example, and by exploring a Christian psychological perspective it was contended that, since our attitudes and behaviour emanate deep from within our being, the nurturing of our relationship with God and confidence in Him, is paramount. Contributions from other disciplines can therefore enhance understanding of our createdness, and our relationship with God and our neighbour.

6.1.4. Objective Four: Formulate Recommendations

Reommending a hybrid approach, rather than a hybrid theology, a distinction between theology and attitude was built into a two-dimensional model to assist in identifying effective elements, both in a confrontational approach and within CT. Six recommendations followed:

• CT needs a holistic missiology, including TOR employing soteriological criteria, and accommodation for apologetics.
• CT needs flexibility in hermeneutics and contextualisation, allowing for prioritisation of the authority of scripture.
• Embracing healthy disagreement.
• Improved classification in exchange.
• Using CT to inform SR.
• ‘Mind the gap’ between God and our theological claims about God.

6.2. Sibling Implications

Recommendation one and two, while helpful in highlighting the importance of understanding mission and hermeneutics/tafsir, relate more to arguing about ‘Truth versus truths’ (Myers 2022, pp. 9–11). Since my brother and I agree ‘Truth’ exists and that God speaks through scripture, divergence begins in how God speaks. Therefore, recommendation three and six are especially helpful as they challenge us to learn through such disagreements, to embrace humility given our creatureliness, and to realise neither of us ‘possess’ truth despite our claims to scripture. Recommendation four and five are also useful, practical, and potentially add a communal element within interfaith engagement. Moving away from polemical approaches that attempt to prove who is right or educating ourselves primarily via polemicists exhibiting ‘dart–throwing’ methods, scope within cognitive approaches would encourage a better understanding of our respective theologies. With a view to discussing difference while also discovering similarities, participation in SR as informed by CT would provide a more structured approach for group discussions on specific topics, while allowing for learning about each other’s faith from each other. Of course, it is no small feat for Christians to allow Muslims to become our teachers on Islam, or for Muslims to allow Christians to teach them about Christianity (Green 2019, p. 213). But, embracing this challenge through layers of relationships and attitudes, while balancing truth claims and differences in terms of seeking peace as well as similarities, methods of interfaith engagement such as SR provide an opportunity to develop phronesis and a more effective Christian–Muslim sibling relationship.

6.3. Future Directions

In ‘crossing other theological roads’, CT needs a holistic missiology and to retain an apologetic role; otherwise, it risks becoming a hybrid theology uninhabitable for many Muslims and Christians. If left to develop as a liberal–postliberal theology, CT will inevitably incline as such. However, the lack of conservative engagement does not mean CT cannot accommodate a conservative impetus; it seems it has not been fully ‘tried and tested’. As Cumming (2008, p. 314) observes, many Muslims want to work with evangelicals as they are viewed as Christians who take their scripture seriously. Therefore, the involvement of orthodox Muslims and evangelical Christians within CT and SR is recommended; indeed, such involvement could contribute a conservative dimension currently lacking in many interfaith engagements. And by taking account of other disciplines and ‘crossing other non-theological roads’, understanding the multifaceted aspect of attitudes could have significant implications for individuals and their faith communities with a view to improving comparative exchanges.

6.4. Limitations

While an understanding of Islam was sought, the limitations of a Christian perspective within this article must be acknowledged. A suggestion to enhance similar research would be to actively involve Muslim perspectives, or, if suitable, joint involvement between a Muslim and Christian. A further limitation is the risk of simplification of the complex relationship between theology and people of faith within a two-dimensional model. While such complexities would ideally be modelled on something akin to our solar system, space did not permit such an adventure. However, the two-dimensional model could incorporate ‘coordinates’ used within social science, such as the ‘DOG Scale’, which measures dogmatism (Crowson 2009), and therein provide scope for further exploration.

6.5. Final Reflection

To end on a personal note, and in acknowledging personal limitations, there is a risk of defining ‘effective’ Christian–Muslim relations in which my Muslim brother comes to know Christ as his Saviour. While this is my prayer, it cannot be my goal, ‘for it is the power of God unto salvation’ (Rom. 1:16). I must therefore recognise my finitude, embrace my role as a discerning witness, and pursue relations that strive for both peace and to know Truth. As a Christian, I find my anchor in the triune God, in Whom I seek humble confidence to engage in dialogue and disagreement, motivated through His love.