Religion & Law

In the New York Times, Robert Wright complains that Christian missionaries are at least partially responsible for Christian-Muslim tension when they try to establish common ground with Muslims in order to bring them to Jesus.  Some of the missionaries even call themselves "Muslims" because it means "one who surrenders to God."  Then Wright asks:

Let?s put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose you were a Christian parent in America and you heard that someone who called himself a Christian had bonded with your son via genial Bible talk and then tried to convert him to Islam. That would be annoying, right? Might even lead to some blowback?

Would I find it annoying?  Maybe, depending on how old my son is and the context of the conversation.  Blowback?  Hmm . . like seeking to restrict non-Christians from using the word "God," rioting and killing Muslims?  Probably not.  I won't defend every tactic employed by Christian missionaries, but if we cannot draw any meaningful distinction between the efforts by some Muslims to impose a set of truth claims through law and/or violence and the efforts by some Christians to persuade non-Christians to embrace a set of truth claims through personal evangelism, we have a problem.