Christian Mimicry (Part 2)

(Continued from Part 1)

Image result for animal mimicry

Earlier I was looking at Passive Mimicry (to avoid being targeted or, positively, to demonstrate or promote belongingness).

But sometimes mimicry has a more Active Role. Rather than to help the person remain hidden, mimicry can be done to be seen.

1. Trying to Make Lightning Strike Twice.  In my previous post, I spoke of a worship leader I knew who “religiously” copied the style and movements of the Hillsong worship leaders, when leading church music. While I would never recommend this, I understand the logic. If the folks at Hillsong made it work and became successes… if I do the exact same thing, I should be successful as well. Right? Many people have complained that music that comes out of the Christian Music industry is so alike. While the similarities may not be overpowering, there is some truth to that. Industry produces what sells… and the presumption is that what sold yesterday is what will sell tomorrow.

We learn through modeling, so we do utilize models or examples of who we want to be. (I will simply not address whether Hillsong is a worthy model. They have been successful, and the fact that I find it generally uninteresting says little about them as a “worship industry.”) But mimicking is taking it further. Suppose someone wrote an Amish Romance Novel, and it made good money. That same author might produce another. If that is successful, it is likely that those books will become part of a series. It is also likely that other writers will suddenly be inspired by the potentials or writing a romance in an Amish community. Simply using an author as a model means you gain insight from them in the writing process. Mimicry, on the other hand, is taking their themes, settings, and style and putting one’s own name on it.

One of the big problems with mimicry is the next issue.

2.  It is an act of Creative Laziness. I suppose one could put this one under passive or active. Conformity (a passive form of mimicry) can be an act of laziness. However, the more interesting one is the active form.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it is also the most subtle form of laziness.  Laziness is more easily identifiable in people who do not do much. It is harder to spot in those who do things that simply repeat what others have already done.

This has led, among other things, to Christianizing secular stuff. South Park has humorously spoken of this in Christian music— taking secular songs and replacing words such as “Baby” with them with other words such as “Jesus.”

Mike Warnke joked decades ago about preachers who mimic the styles of other preachers. Some do more than this, with taking sermons online and reading them in church. I have known many pastors who take such sermons, use them as guides but with study and reflection, make the sermons their own. I reckon that is not so bad. But I have heard preachers who read those sermons they got online… sentence for sentence… word for word. Perhaps some can hide it better than others… but generally you start to figure it out.  Simple terms, this is lazy and may be doing a disservice to God. But most definitely, one is doing a disservice to those that person is serving.

3.  Riding the Coattails. While mimicking can be a defensive move to remain hidden, it can be done deliberately in the hopes of future success. Sycophants commonly don’t just compliment or do favors for leaders. They are not just “Yes Men” and defenders of the indefensible (It is becoming harder and harder calling oneself an American Evangelical as the quest for power, or not losing power, has led many to defend that which seems indefensible). They will often also mimic the style, dress, manner of speech and so forth of their leaders. From a distance, this sort of mimicry may be one of the first two listed (lightning striking twice or creative laziness). But when the person is “close to the throne,” however, it is a form of flattery to get special blessings from the one in power.

4.  Ulterior Motive. This is always a tricky one. Why do we do what we do… and why the why?  Josh Keefe on Youtube (Why Christian Movies are BAD | The Problem with Christian Media – Part 2) has some interesting thoughts on this as it applies to Christian Movies. He notes that Christian filmmakers tend to not really be filmmakers (except in the technical sense of “making films”). That is, their calling tends to be as preachers— pushing a message to a specific audience. So what does this mean? Essentially, a person takes on a role of (mimic) a filmmaker. Filmmakers generally seeks to create a work of art for broad audience consumption. But when a preacher mimics that role, the motive is different. This person is  but is really seeking to preach to Christians. (If you don’t think they are commonly written to preach to Christians, watch a few of them and ask yourself, what images are Christians and non-Christians portrayed. Are atheists or agnostics portrayed as good people or bad caricatures?)

Is ulterior motive wrong? Personally, I think it is… if by that you define ulterior motive as “the REAL motive” as opposed to non-real or fake motives. I used to be involved with medical missions in the Philippines and even did my doctoral dissertation on them (and wrote a book based on the dissertation). I found that most Christians who did medical missions said that the REAL reason for doing medical missions is to evangelize.  Free medical care is just the lure– lure with a hook in it. But all too often, the real motive leaks out becoming very visible. In medical missions, it can show itself with inadequate or expired medicines, with utilizing inadequate (numerically or qualitatively) medical personnel, and generally playing hardball with the evangelizing and softball with the medical care. People notice it. The REAL motive thing can show itself in “friendship evangelism” where friendship goes bye-bye when the non-Christian does not respond the way the Christian seeks.

Ulterior Motive is a form of mimicry because it mimics a non-religious (not anti-religious… just non-religious) activity but with clandestine “Christian” purpose. It may be a problem because it is disingenuous… but equally because it is more obvious than people think. When you truly “Love your neighbor as yourself,” it looks a lot different than when you “Act in loving ways to people so that you can market your message.”

Critique

Of the reasons for Christian mimicry I listed over the last two posts, I think #2 and #4 concern me the most. Creative Laziness really should be seen as a sin… or at least a vice. Pushing the SHARE button on FB for some clickbait-y, feel good, “inspirational”… something or other is— well it’s lazy. Does that mean one should never do it? Not necessarily. Maybe a vice is a better description. Shopping for stuff you don’t need is a vice– wasteful a bit, but only truly a problem as it expands into a self-destructive behavior. Buying one lottery ticket a week is not the same as burning through one’s family savings to get the “BIG WIN” in online gambling. Creative laziness is so common in Christian circles that almost any originality is either praised as AMAZING, or shot down as something BAD (often more different than actually bad).

Ulterior Motive is also deeply problematic not only because non-Christians commonly see right through it… but also because many Christians think that is the way we are supposed to be.

Advertisements

Christian Mimicry (Part 1)

Mimicry: the ability an organism develops to imitate one or more traits from another organism (with which it’s unrelated) so that it can obtain some benefit.  (https://allyouneedisbiology.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/animal-mimicry/)

Let me give an example:  We haveImage result for animal mimicry been a part of several churches in the Philippines. Most Philippine churches assign music ministry to the youth in the church— a massive mistake often. I remember at one church, they had a young lady who led music with a group of youth playing guitar and drums and keyboard. This group really liked Hillsong. Hillsong doesn’t do much for me, but music has never been part of my worship language anyway. The worship leader mimicked Hillsong videos— right down to the style of singing, and the gestures and jumps. She was mimicking the look, style, and movements of the lead singer of those Hillsong videos.

But why mimic? What benefit is there in doing it? In the Animal World, mimicry done for reasons of predation as well as for defense. But why do Christians do mimicry? Some reasons don’t line up directly with those for the Animal World. Mimicking the looks of a poisonous animal in hopes of not being eaten by predators, does not correspond fully with human culture— but there are parallelisms.

Passive Benefits for Mimicry

1.  Avoid being targeted. This is where mimicry and camouflage overlap a bit. Let me give a story that typifies this:

Years ago I was working at a place that has “Christian Conferences.” One time I was acting as a server for a TD Jakes conference. When he got up to speak, he started out okay I suppose. However, about 15 or 20 minutes in he started leaving behind the main message and began complimenting the women in the front and center of the tent who were jumping up and down and acting all excited when Jakes spoke. He also began to deride those in the far corners who were just sitting there ‘doing nothing.’ I find that sort of pandering pretty despicable. It was clear manipulation. It made me wonder whether his claim that God had told him to minister to women was, cynically, actually an excuse to target a group that he felt he could manipulate more easily. The curious thing was that when I went to the corners of the tent I found out he was absolutely correct. Both back corners had around 20 or 30 women who were just sitting there. Some were even knitting. It made me wonder if they were actually asked or paid to do that. After all, people don’t like to be targeted by an abusive person. Most people want to fit into a crowd and be complimented for it.

Not everyone will do this of course. Years ago there was a tendency of some worship leaders to say things like, “Clap if you love Jesus!!” That would invariably make me put my hands in my pockets. Now it seems more common to say something like, “Let’s all give a clap offering to the Lord.” I will sometimes go along with that. The second is an invitation to join in an activity while the first tries shaming to control behavior. People will often mimic others in a group to avoid being targeted/shamed.

2.  To demonstrate belongingness. Churches and denominations develop a certain DNA, a certain culture. One of the purposes of culture is to help define who are US and who are THEM. The pressure for belongingness can be strong. Churches can be like Junior High Lunch Hall. There are different tables and some who fit into the culture of that table are welcomed, and while others are encouraged to look elsewhere. Some want to be with the cool kids, or the jocks, or some other esteemed group, and they will mimic the table’s group behavior in hopes of being found to belong. Even non-conformist tables still pressure people to conform to their brand of non-conformity. Churches can be like that as well. I am reminded of a song by Grady Tolands. If you haven’t heard of him it is because he was a missionary to South America, who wrote songs mostly for fun.  The chorus to one of his songs says,

“‘Cuz we love to be loved and we hate to be hated,

We like to be liked—- at least tolerated.

And everyone that I know feels that way too.

Yes, we love to be loved, and we hate to be hated,

We like to be liked— at least tolerated.

And that affects the things we say and do.”

In the next post, I will look at more agressive, or at least less passive forms of Christian mimicry.

Chapter 5. Models of IRD (part 2)

<Continued from previous post>

Poles” of Interreligious Dialogue

Harvie Cox has noted that interreligious dialogue must address two elements that exist between two different religions or faiths. These are the universalistic elements and the particularistic elements. Religions address universal human concerns and questions. Not only do they address common concerns, often they come up with many common answers. That being said, there are considerable differences between various religions. Ignoring these differences does a disservice to both religions.5

This author recalls having a long discussion with a member of the Baha’i faith. It was interesting in many ways, but was also rather frustrating. The individual would like to say that all religions in essence agree with each other– that all religions give the same answers. He would say that, and I would point out distinct differences between what his religion taught and my religion… to say nothing of the differences between other faiths. He would acknowledge the differences and then say that “No,” all religions agree. This conversation occurred over several weeks over 25 years ago. Perhaps today I would be able to follow the dance of words and concepts better. But it felt like he was embracing universalism to the point of self-contradiction. It all felt rather disrespecting. He honored one pole (universalistic pole) while dishonoring the other (particularistic pole). While I suppose he was seeking to give me comfort that “we all really agree,” I felt like my faith and beliefs were being disrespected.

Our differences were ignored, and feelings matter.

Meaningful and respectful dialogue must address and honor both the particularistic and universalistic elements of the two religions. When comparing this to the three models before:

Focusing on the particularistic elements or “pole” emphasizes the differences, and leads to a dialogue of argument. It disrespects the commonality of humanity that leads to common themes of religious inquiry and answers.

Focusing on the universalistic elements or “pole” emphasizes the commonalities and leads to a dialogue of relativization. It disrespects the unique foci and answers of different faiths.

Centering on either pole is disrespectful of the faiths and participants in one manner or another. However, one can embrace “creative tension” where the commonalities provide context to the particularities, and the particularities provide nuances to the commonalities. A clarification form of dialogue seeks understanding by not deemphasizing either pole. It respects the participants and the religions without underplaying or overplaying differences.

But Why Do Dialogue Anyway?

Perhaps it is a bit late to bring this up, but perhaps now that the major perspectives of dialogue have been presented, it is a good time to consider why one may choose to participate in IRD, particularly from a Clarification Approach perspective. This is not a complete list. But here is a start.

First, some familiarity of other faiths helps to identify the nature of that faith. Distant observation and second-hand information does not inform, it tends to misinform and confuse. Many religions utilize similar terms but with very different meanings. Some religions utilize very different terms but with very similar meanings. Both of these are difficult to recognize without practice and conversation.

Second, knowing other religions helps one to understand one’s own faith better. We learn to a great extent through comparison and contrast. For example, when Jesus shared, in the Sermon on the Mount, how the Kingdom of God “operates,” He did it by providing a series of contrasts to how the world tends to operate. Perhaps Jesus could have explained it without contrasts. He could have said that the Kingdom of God is loving, kind, forgiving, content, worshipful, and so forth. It would be quite easy to read all of that and feel pretty good about being part of the Kingdom of God. But by utilizing contrast, we discover how far we truly are from God’s ideal.

Third, knowing other religions helps one gain a sense of what are key differences and what are not. Key differences between Christianity and other religions are commonly in areas of Christology (the nature and work of Christ) and Soteriology (what is the nature and process of salvation). But some things that we might think are key characteristics of Christianity are also shared by most other faiths. Consider the Fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self-control). While these may be qualities that can be identified in a growing Christian, most of these qualities are also promoted by other religions. They may evidence a growing Christian, but they may not identify Christian dogma versus non-Christian dogma. This, in fact, should hardly be surprising since Paul notes that against these, there is no law— in other words most everyone thinks these are good, or at least not bad.

Fourth, through contrast with other religions we can gain a clearer understanding of the broadness of our faith. Often when our understanding of religion is limited to our own faith, we end up majoring on minor issues. By learning about other faiths, one may understand that variety within valid expressions of Christianity.

Recently there was Twitter post circulating that stated to the effect that after 100 years of mission work only 12% of the Philippines is Christian. There are some obvious problems with these stats:

  • Christianity and Christian missions arrived in the Philippines nearly 500 years ago, not 100 years ago.

  • Over 90% of Filipinos describe themselves as Christians.

So how could he come up with the statistics shared? There are several assumptions made to arrive at these statistics:

  • Roman Catholic Christianity is absolutely classed as non-Christian,

  • Real Christian missions only started with the arrival of Protestant missionaries to the Philippines close to 1900 AD.

  • 0% of Roman Catholics in the Philippines are Real Christians

  • 100% of Protestants in the Philippines are Real Christians

Every one of those assumptions is highly suspect, but this is not the forum to discuss this. What is important is that these assumptions are the assumptions made through non-interaction. Christianity is understood only in terms of Protestantism. Thus Protestants are Christians and other traditions of Christianity are non-Christian. But is this true?

By knowing other religions better, we can also understand that we as Christians often share far more in common than we hold different. This is not to say that differences don’t matter, but at least be open to what Brian McLaren describes as a “Generous Orthodoxy.”6

From Book:  “Dialogue in Diversity: Christians in Conversation with a Multi-faith World

Chapter 5. Models of IRD (part 1)

Chapter 5 from “Dialogue in Diversity: Christians in Conversation with a Multi-faith World.”

Views of Salvation

There are many views regarding Interreligious dialogue. Not only are there many views, there are many labels and many classifications for IRD. In this book, we will use a spectrum based on the people’s understanding with regards the the prime function of dialogue. Figure 5 shows the range that is loosely divided into three general approaches. However, before we get to that, we can start with a different, but very much related, spectrum— perspectives on salvation. This is based generally on Alan Race’s three basic groups: Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism.1 These three groups are pretty well agreed upon. Two more groups are added in Figure 4– Particularism and Universalism. Some people use the terms Particularist and Exclusivist interchangeably. Here, they will each have a different emphasis.

figure 4

Figure 4. Salvation Spectrum

An Exclusivist for a Christian means that only those who are Christian, embracing Jesus as their Savior will be saved. The term Particularist is often used to describe a narrower version of Exclusivist. Such a person may believe that salvation is mediated through their own faith group or denomination. As such, one is saved by Jesus, but it is only available to those within their own specific sect, or those who embrace a certain unique doctrine, or have participated in a special denominational ritual.

At the other extreme, on the far right are the Universalists. Universalists believe that God immediately or ultimately saves everyone. Jesus’ salvation is available to all, and effective for all.

In between the Exclusivists and the Universalists are two groups that overlap somewhat. These are the Inclusivists and the Pluralists. An Inclusivist would typically say something like, “Jesus is the means to salvation, but there may be some people who are saved by Jesus who do not necessarily know Jesus.” Some may believe that Jews can be saved through the faithfulness to the Mosaic Law even if they reject Jesus. Others may say that Muslims can be saved by Christ even though they reject His role as Savior and Lord because they worship the same God (God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Even those who would normally describe themselves as Exclusivist, may have some Inclusivist views. For example they may believe that infants who die are saved by Jesus even though they don’t know Him. Or they may see the same with those who are too mentally disabled to understand the Gospel message and respond to it. Others may go further and say that those who have never heard the message of Christ may still be saved by Christ based on their response to the truth that they know.

Pluralists take this progression further. Some may say that Jesus is still Savior, but that pretty much anyone can be saved if they express Christlike love in their hearts regardless of their religion. Some continue further and take Jesus out of the picture and simply say that ‘There are many roads to Heaven.” For these Pluralists, along with Universalists, may consider themselves to be Christian, but would reject the uniqueness of Christianity.

Evangelicals traditionally are considered to be Exclusivists, although most would have believe at least a limited form of Inclusivism. However, the truth is that one can come across self-described Evangelicals (to say nothing of other Christians) who fit into all of the above categories.

Knowing where one fits into the above categories can be useful because the views regarding IRD correlate often with these categories. Looking at Figure 5, the spectrum is divided into three general approaches. Again, the key is not so much the fact that there are categories, but that it is on a spectrum. There is a wide range of views on dialogue that fit on to different places of this spectrum.

Apologetic Approach/Strategy. In this view, the purpose of IRD is to convert those of other faiths to one’s own faith. Therefore, argument is the most valid form of conversation. Typically, people who like this approach emphasize the differences and deemphasize similarities. This is because the goal is to correct the wrong beliefs of the other. Christians who are more Particularist or Exclusivist in terms of salvation often gravitate to this approach. This may also be described as the “confessional approach.” On the positive side, it could be said this method “gets to the point,” and “calls it like it sees it.” It is unapologetic in its faith commitment. On the other had, perhaps it can be a blurred view. To emphasize differences may also mean ignoring valuable similarities so one is actually seeing a distorted version of the other religion. Such a distorted view of the religion may hamper attempts influence the other person. Additionally, the method of argument, can lead to pushback or backfire as discussed in an earlier chapter.

figure 5

Figure 5. Dialogue Approaches/Strategies

Relativistic Approach/Strategy. Another name for this is the “Common-Ground Approach.” This view, at one extreme of the spectrum, seeks to be truth-seeking, as described by John Hick, rather than confessional when one approaches IRD. That is, one brackets one’s own beliefs or even tosses them aside so that one is better prepared to learn from those of other faiths. This approach tends to emphasize the similarities with other faiths. Those who are more Pluralistic or Universalistic Christians tend to find this approach to make more sense.2

Martin Buber has questioned that Hick’s view that this is actually “truth seeking.” He noted that if dialogue is seen as a quest for truth-seeking, why should it be presumed that a person who relativizes truth is more committed to truth than one who does not. Buber argues that what is needed in good inter-religious dialogue is not relativization of truth, but mutual respect.3

Karkkainaen quotes Moltmann in expressing a similar idea to Buber, that truth-seeking does not imply relativization of beliefs.

Dialogue has to be about the question of truth, even if no agreement about the truth can be reached. For consensus is not the goal of the dialogue. …If two people say the same thing, one of them is superfluous. In the interfaith dialogue which has to do with what is of vital and absolute concern to men and women—with the things in which they place the whole trust of their hearts—the way is already part of the goal.” Moltmann rightly says that only those people are capable of dialogue—“merit dialogue,” as he puts it—who “have arrived at a firm standpoint in their own religion, and who enter into dialogue with the resulting self-confidence.” Thus, Moltmann continues, “it is only if we are at home in our own religion that we shall be able to encounter the religion of someone else. The person who falls victim to the relativism of the multicultural society may be capable of dialogue, but that person does not merit dialogue.”4

Clarification Approach/Strategy. With this approach, one does not embrace confession/argument, but also does not relativize one’s beliefs either. In this approach, the focus is on mutual understanding. One may anticipate that if one extreme (Exclusivists and Particularists) gravitate toward Apologetic Approaches, and the other extreme (Pluralists and Universalists) gravitate toward Relativistic Approaches, then Clarification Approaches should be most attractive to Inclusivists. To some extent this is true. However, other groups can tend toward some form of Clarification Approach as well. Exclusivists, for example, often like the Clarification Approach.

Why is this? Exclusivists are often Evangelistic, meaning that they seek to share their faith with others with hopes that the others will convert to their own faith. However, not all agree as to how best this is done. Most would presumably agree that relativizing one’s beliefs would not be conducive to conversion. However, there is not so much unanimity as to whether argument (or straight up proclamation) or seeking understanding is more effective. Seeking understanding does tend to reduce misunderstanding and such a reduction is likely to reduce barriers to conversion.

<Continued in the next blogpost>

Book Finally Complete– “Dialogue in Diversity”

It is finished. The battle is over. Yesterday, January 12, 2019 I put my book “Dialogue in Diversity— Christians in Conversation with a Multi-faith World” out into the world. It has been a slow process, and am thoroughly glad it is over.

That being said, I now feel trepidation at putting it out for all to see. I suppose that is strange since many parts of the book I have put on my blog. I suppose it is because I take a topic that is quite divisive, “interreligious dialogue,” and take a moderate view. While in many cases, taking a position that is inclusive is a good idea, in religion, that is often quite risky.

One side often sees interreligious dialogue (IRD) as problematic. What they may see as IRD, is really proclamation and argument. For these people I argue strenuousl that not only are the goals of proclamation and argument not supposed to be goals of IRD, but the goals that these people do have are commonly not achieved well with the methods of proclamation and argument.

On the other side, there is a tendence to relativize truth in interreligious dialogue, looking for “common ground.” For these people I argue strenuously that those who practice their faith as true can and should desire people to share a similar commitment. Therefore, even if they hold dialogue for mutual understanding, this mutual understanding is foundational to breaking down barriers that prevent conversion.

In other words, the book is pretty much written to make no one all that happy. But I am not so sure that books are supposed to make people happy— at least generally. Generally, books should make people think. Hopefully, my book achieves that.

As of 13 January 2011 only the Kindle version is available online HERE. Hopefully, in a few hours the paperback version will be available.

Clericalism and Languages Worthy of Praising God

It ihas been common to assume that worship or praise of God must come through sacred languages. This may for some be Arabic or Sanskrit, or a myriad of other languages deemed sacred.

One might think that Christianity would be immune to this. In Revelation 7:9

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

That people of every language are there in

Image result for cyril and methodius slavic alphabet
St. Cyril and St. Methodius. Apostles to the Slavs

heaven praising God might make one question a single sacred language. Still one could argue that in heaven these people from every language are now only praising with one language… a sacred language.

 

However, the Bible was written in more than one language (three languages to be exact: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), with subtle variations of language associated with the fact that the Bible was written over a long period of time. That should give people pause as well. But again, it may not convince everyone.

For me, the strongest point is that the defining act of God for evidencing the start of the church age was the gift at Pentecost given to the 120 to praise God and proclaim Jesus in different languages. I am aware that some groups see these “languages: not as languages at all but merely as ecstatic utterances. But even then, if ecstatics can be used to praise God then presumably various languages could as well.

For some people, this is a strawman issue… an issue for Muslims perhaps, and some other religions. But I live in a country that until about 120 years ago, it was not possible to worship God as a Christian, or read God’s word in any of the over 100 languages spoken here. 300 years of Christinity here, with worship and Scripture that was only spoken by a selected few. This sounds ridiculous… and yet it is true.

Why is this? Why would Christianity, which is at its very foundation multilingual have developed religious cultures that disconnect the language of worship from the language of the common people? I have to guess that it is clericalism.

I am using the Merriam-Webster definition for clericalism:

a policy of maintaining or increasing the power of a religious hierarchy

Keeping the language of religion in the hands of the clergy (either because of language or because of jargon) keeps ecclesiastical power in the hands of the few. This is not unusual. The medical and legal subcultures are well-known for esoteric language. And they are not alone.

Of course, it may not start out that way. Religious language/jargon changes more slowly than surrounding language, so it may start out as the language of the people, but as the language around changes, the language of religion becomes the language of the few and the trained. One sees this in most of the ancient denominations of Christianity. However, at some point in time, there comes a time where the clergy make a choice— will their faith be expressed in the language of the people or the language of clergy. Most commonly, historically speaking, it is the language of the clergy.

But every now and then… there is a shocking transition. These can include Jerome translating the Bible into (vulgar) Latin… and Martin Luther translating the Bible into German and developing songs of worship in the same language.

One of those times was when Cyril (Constantine) translated Scripture for the Slavic People. A great quote on this is available in a blogpost “Language Worthy of Praising God.”

St. Francis and the Sultan

St. Francis of Assisi and his trip to Cairo to meet with Sultan al Kamil is a very interesting chapter in a very ugly story (the Crusades). Part of what I like about it is that it involves dialogue between two people who were passionate about what they believed, while still being able to respect each other, speaking and listening.

A nice article on this is located at http://www.sufiways.com.   The article is:

St. Francis of Assisi and Sultan al-Kamil: A Bold Christian-Muslim Encounter