Below is a copy of my letter (in e-mail and comment at his blog) to Pator John that addresses the claim that the Muslim conception of God is 'utterly transcendent.':

Dear Dr. Wright,

You might be interested in my response to the Pope's recent remarks on Islam as made in comments to a post on same by Roger Alford at Opinio Juris* (a blog on international law and politics). There I note that the Pope's characterization of the role of reason in relation to God within the Islamic tradition was inaccurate and not at all representative of that typically found within its philosophy and theology. I've pasted there several of my entries from a basic glossary guide for Islam that better describe the part played by reason within the Islamic tradition, a role far more generous than that accorded it within the history of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. What is more, while it was Christians who contributed, through their translation of key texts from Greek into Arabic, to the appropriation of Greek philosophy into Islam, it was in fact Islam that later proved decisive in influencing the role reason would come to play in Catholicism, exemplified most eloquently in the work of Aquinas. For Aquinas was heavily in debt to Islamic philosophy and theology, especially the work of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and it is hard to imagine the 'rational' character of his theology without this influence. While I find the Pope's narration of a reconciliation between Greek logos and Christian faith to be of some interest, his manner of juxtaposing this story with a misleading portrait of the role of reason in the determination of God's will and the understanding of the nature of God in Islamic philosophy and theology was undeniably tendentious and mistaken and did nothing whatsoever to further the ends of genuine interreligious dialogue.
* http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1158186156.shtml

While I think some Muslims may have taken parts of this speech out of context and misunderstood what the Pope was attempting to say, the aforementioned sections of the speech contain claims from which one can properly conclude that there is sufficient reason to be disappointed and disturbed by the Pope's understanding and characterization of fundamental notions and practices within Islam.

Best wishes,
Patrick S. O'Donnell

erratum corrected: 'Pastor John'

Thans for your comments Patrick. I appreciate your work, as I know far too little on this important topic.

Benedict is clear in his paper that the mention of the dialogue between the Byzantine emperor and the learned Persian was only a frame to his argument. And indeed, after it is addressed at the beginning of the argument, it does not return in the main thrust, and not even in the final summary of his argument. It only returns in the final three sentences of the lecture, and even then more as a literary device than as a part of the main argument. But this is yet another reminder that the frame of an argument is just as important as the argument itself--especially in the reception of scholarship.

And while I don't deny the validity of this "frame" discussion, and find it germaine, it has completely derailed Benedict's intended discussion: the relation of reason and faith. Diversion is a highly effective rhetorical tactic.

So setting the above aside, what do you think of Benedict's discussion of hellenistic influences being rightly tandem with (and even forming of) God's revelation especially as concerns the Septuagint and the New Testament? Also, what did you think of his recounting of the history of the dehellenisation of the Christian faith?

Mark,
I completely agree that Benedict's mention of that dialogue was intended to merely frame his discussion. The thing that saddens me is that this whole outrage was sadly avoidable. I found much in his speech to be pleased with, but I still found myself scratching my head about the reference to that dialogue. It not only seemed unnecessary, it really didn't seem to fit where he was going with it. Perhaps I'm losing things in translation. This deeply saddens me because rather than taking some steps forward in the direction of respectful, intelligent engagement, we're now sidetracked by hurt feelings, protests, defensiveness, posturing, etc.

As for your questions, I'm not sure I'm really qualified to offer answers. HAHA. But I'll give it a try anyway. As a product of the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, I continue to find the Wesleyan quadrilateral a helpful compass. For those who at my new school who take the time to engage (however critically) me in discussion of my faith, I like to point out that reason is one part of this Wesley's framework. I think we must cautiously consider what hellenistic influences mark Christian history, but I'm certain God is one of reason, and insofar as we are created in God's image, we are gifted with the ability to employ that reason, however limited it might be by the fall. As such, I think we need to hold up reason next to revelation. As a child I was taught that things in the bible like the holiness code, however much we ignore them, were still the inspired, literal word of God. I'm not so sure now. I see it now more as a result of God-ordained working out of reason through the traditional experiences of the Israelites. Honestly, I don't feel I've read Benedict closely enough to see how well my inclinations shape up with what I've said here.

As for his history of the de-Hellenization of Christianity, my take on it is that it's spot on. Separating it into three chunks might be oversimplifying, but I think it fits. While I can see why thinkers like Kant made the moves they did, I find their results terribly regrettable. What seemed like a natural working out of enlightened thought has evolved into an ugly beast, one I confront every day as people of faith and people of reason (or science in my case) feel they must exclude the other. There' s a whole lot more I could say on this, but I feel disorganized in my thoughts already. Hopefully I've answered what you were asking. Those were challenging questions! Thanks!

P.S. The post at Pastor John's blog has engendered some compelling discussion. Be sure to check it out if you haven't yet.

Hey Matt,

Thanks for your reply. You certainly are in a position to experience first hand the brunt of reason-minus-faith. Do you also feel the pressure from Christian sources to exclude reason (read: science, in your case)? As I go to my first orientation seminar for graduate studies today, I expect these issues are going to become far more real for me in the near future.